News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.

Pages: [1]   Go Down

Mark Chaplin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Did CBM do a better job at Chicago than National?
« on: September 17, 2011, 05:00:16 PM »

NGLA is truly a wonderful golf course on a stunning piece of land. There can barely be a better piece of land for golf on the planet, National has everything water, rolling land, good drainage and marvellous vistas. I am sure the land played a great part in the design of the links.

Wheaton however gave CBM an oblong, flat and pretty uninteresting piece of land yet a classic course was fashioned.  What little slope there is is used to good effect creating a subtle test of golf.

Given the land did CBM perform a miracle at Chicago Golf Club?
Logged
Cave Nil Vino

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Did CBM do a better job at Chicago than National?
« Reply #1 on: September 17, 2011, 05:16:26 PM »
Quote from: Mark Chaplin on September 17, 2011, 05:00:16 PM

NGLA is truly a wonderful golf course on a stunning piece of land. There can barely be a better piece of land for golf on the planet, National has everything water, rolling land, good drainage and marvellous vistas. I am sure the land played a great part in the design of the links.

Wheaton however gave CBM an oblong, flat and pretty uninteresting piece of land yet a classic course was fashioned.  What little slope there is is used to good effect creating a subtle test of golf.

Given the land did CBM perform a miracle at Chicago Golf Club?

No, but Raynor did.   CBM designed the original, Raynor the current version. 
Logged

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Did CBM do a better job at Chicago than National?
« Reply #2 on: September 17, 2011, 05:34:24 PM »
What Bill said.  The first CGC wasn't nearly as good as the Raynor version is now.
Logged
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Jim Nugent

Re: Did CBM do a better job at Chicago than National?
« Reply #3 on: September 17, 2011, 05:37:22 PM »
Mark's question still holds.  Given the land, is Chicago a more impressive design than National? 
Logged

Anthony Gray

Re: Did CBM do a better job at Chicago than National?
« Reply #4 on: September 17, 2011, 08:08:28 PM »
Back to the original question please
Logged

J_ Crisham

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Did CBM do a better job at Chicago than National?
« Reply #5 on: September 17, 2011, 09:15:02 PM »
Yes- the National is on a tremendous piece of ground and obviously the routing is quite special. CGC is unfortunately laid out on  very typical Chicago  topography. Other than Olympia Fields, Beverly, and the ravines at Shoreacres, we have very little movement to our ground. Hard to criticize a specific hole at CGC. They are all pretty well designed and more importantly preserved.
                                                                                                                   Jack 
Logged

Jud_T

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Did CBM do a better job at Chicago than National?
« Reply #6 on: September 18, 2011, 09:05:05 AM »
Quantifying this type of exercise always strikes me as a bit murky.  Yes a Doak 8 on a Doak 5 piece of property is a better improvement on mother nature than a Doak 10 on Doak 9 land, but which would you rather play?  And how much better could National have been anyway? (My course goes to 11... ;))  If someone builds a Doak 3 out of the toughest piece of property on the planet that noone else thought was even possible are we supposed to pull our beards in approval and move heaven and earth to get on?
Logged
Golf is a game. We play it. Somewhere along the way we took the fun out of it and charged a premium to be punished.- - Ron Sirak
Pages: [1]   Go Up
Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back