[JR Potts]

Like I predicted, Shackelford slams Medinah.

http://www.geoffshackelford.com/homepage/2006/8/10/pre-medinah-podcast.html

Shivas - are you Chitown Defender?

[Mike_Cirba]

"I think the players will notice a different golf course from 1999 when they come here," said Jones. "When players return here, they're going to really see a different golf course, a golf course that really has more definition."

"We have classic old-style sculptured bunkers, which are like A.W. Tillinghast or [Alister] Mackenzie bunkers," said Jones. [As if they are the same thing!? italics mine] "So it has much more character. The bunkers are deeper, the green contours and sizes of the seven greens that we did are complimentary to the greens that were originally here. I'm very pleased with the results."


God, I love Rees.  Like our noble leader in Washington, you just can't make this stuff up.  

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Well said Mike well said.

[Mike_Sweeney]

God, I love Rees.  Like our noble leader in Washington, you just can't make this stuff up.  

Mike,

I have at times tried to be the Rees defender on this board, including Atlantic, Olde Kinderhook and his work at BB. However, I saw one yesterday where I was jumping on the Cirba bandwagon. The ultimate in round pegs and square holes (literally round bunkers on a square bunker course) on a classic course.   The good news it is being fixed, and I predict the end result will be a good one in a year.

[BCrosby]

As Geoff asks, is there any other ranked course that has undegone so many major changes every eight or nine years? These aren't restorations. They are changes.

The related question is what are they trying to fix that takes six or seven cracks at it? And if it requires so much fixing, how does Medinah get rated so high?

Bob

[Bryce Mueller]

I was fortunate enough to play medinah with my team a couple of years ago after the redesign, and I was very impressed. i thought it was a fabulous course, and the head pro explained where many of the changes were, and I agreed with almost all of them. 17 now is going to be a terrific hole, especially on sunday with that back right pin, and I thought that the variety of par 4's were exceptional. also, i thought the bunkering did a great job of creating excellent pin locations. I am not knowledgable enough to know if that  should be a purpose of bunkering on a course, but I thought that it was terrific. I think the course will be extremely well received by almost everybody next week.

[JR Potts]

I'm starting to think that Medinah is a great place (maybe one of the best places) to play as long as you are not sophisiticated.  It's kind of like being a Republican.

[Bryce Mueller]

ouch... well i guess since tiger loves it, ill just have to stick with simple people like him for the rest of my life and see how it works out ha ha ...

no, in all seriousness, i really think most traditionalists will enjoy the changes, and love the golf course. To me, the yardage is hidden in par 5's and par 3's out there, i really didn't feel like the 4's were that long at all, and I don't feel like it was changed like augusta where the course itself has a different feel now as far as the length of the course. I still felt like the green complexes defined the golf course...

[Geoff_Shackelford]

I think slam is a bit excessive Ryan. I just don't find it to be nearly as interesting as say, a Skokie or Shoreacres or Chicago or Beverly.

If Medinah went on an Oakmont-like tree removal program, would it reveal a more thought-provoking, option-filled, intriguing design?  

[Bryce Mueller]

Geoff,
in your opinion, where would you like trees removed? I could see them done in a couple of spots , for instance 9, and possibly even 16, but I think overall the trees to a great job of framing holes without interfering with how the holes should be played.

[Jim Nugent]

As Geoff asks, is there any other ranked course that has undegone so many major changes every eight or nine years? These aren't restorations. They are changes.

ANGC?  Except lately it's been even more often there.  

[JR Potts]

I think slam is a bit excessive Ryan. I just don't find it to be nearly as interesting as say, a Skokie or Shoreacres or Chicago or Beverly.

If Medinah went on an Oakmont-like tree removal program, would it reveal a more thought-provoking, option-filled, intriguing design?  

Geoff:  I respect your position.  In fact, it is a position with a lot greater educational basis than most anyone.  However, I felt and still feel justified in using the term "slam."  You did not say one complimentary thing about the place.  Your words were restrained and gave the impression that you wanted to say a lot more but didn’t.  

My main hang-up with your opinions and those of similarly situated naturalists is you often get lost behind the study of the intricacies of the design and lose perspective of the intent of the course and design.  There is no escaping that Medinah has undergone a litany of changes over the years.  And there is no escaping that Medinah is no longer a Bendelow design.  In fact, if we are going to get picky, Course #3 was designed as the ladies course and underwent its first change only a couple of years after it was originally designed.  And there is no escaping that Medinah is long and hard.

However, Medinah was renovated with the intent to host major championships.  It was designed to test the best players in the world under the toughest conditions.  I don't think anyone in the world can argue that it does not do a great job in presenting a fair and balanced challenge.  In my opinion, the course flows well and the greens are challenging and fair (meaning the course will continue to be playable under tournament conditions and requirements - unlike many of the esteemed sites).  You criticized the course for not having quirks.  I don't think that is a  valid concern as quirks only interfere with the goal of attempting to determine the best player in the world during a given week.

Now, why 20 handicappers go out there every day and kill themselves, I don't know.  But for good players, there is not a better place to test your game.  And as far as tree-lined Midwest courses go, I haven't met an equal in both beauty and difficulty.

And one last thing, how can you praise Beverly (often called "Mini-Medinah) and dislike Medinah so much?  They seemed like very similar courses to me.  

To each their own I guess.  I do appreciate the time you have taken to explain your opinions.

[Adam Clayman]

Ryan, I know better than to speak for Geoff, but, how does Medinah present a balanced test?

Balanced to me would cause a player to think his way around. The penal architecture at Medinah asks the player repeatedly to hit it down the middle. To me this is not balanced, nor is it the direction the decision makers should take on choosing venues.

[Dan Moore]

Ryan, correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it, shortly after the course was torched to the tune of 20 or more under par by Harry "Lighthorse" Cooper in a tournament held around 1930, the Club had Bendelow come in to redesign much of the course and he created several new holes in the process.   Then in a tournament after Bendelow's changes Cooper won again, but this time at or near par for the tournament.  

The intention seems to have been from very early on the make #3 a "championship test," not a members course or resort course.  The very aspects of the course that get criticised seem to be what makes it what it is; that is a supreme test of shotmaking and character under pressure on a "long, difficult and relentless course" (to borrow Geoff's words).  

If at least one of the criteria of a championship test is to identify the best golfer then the history of Medinah looks pretty darn good.  Following Bendelow's first set of changes here are the winners of various tournaments held at Medinah:  Tiger Woods, Cary Middlecoff, Lou Graham, Hale Irwin, Gary Player, Billy Casper, Jacky Cupit, Gene Sarazen and Byron Nelson.  

For better or worse, in addition to being the "Johnny Appleseed of golf in America"  perhaps being the first "Open Doctor" and the creator of the long, difficult and relentless "Championship Test" is also part of Bendelow's legacy to GCA.

[BCrosby]

As Geoff asks, is there any other ranked course that has undegone so many major changes every eight or nine years? These aren't restorations. They are changes.

ANGC?  Except lately it's been even more often there.  

Exactly. And both should be dropping like stones to lower rankings.

The major difference being that there would be much more to recover at ANGC by way of a restoration. But that's not happening any time soon.

Bob

[JR Potts]

Ryan, I know better than to speak for Geoff, but, how does Medinah present a balanced test?

Balanced to me would cause a player to think his way around. The penal architecture at Medinah asks the player repeatedly to hit it down the middle. To me this is not balanced, nor is it the direction the decision makers should take on choosing venues.

Adam, there are several ways to play 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 and 18.  

Please explain to me what is wrong with requiring the players to hit it in the fairway?  Moreover, what penal architecture are you talking about.  You can play to the green from every bunker and the water only comes into play on the three of the par 3s.   Length alone will do nothing to help ones chances.  The guy who puts a premium on hitting fairways will win the tournament.

Why is that type of strategy refreshing when it is in England but boring when it is in Chicago?

FWIW - My best round out at #3 is a 70....and I didn't play with my driver.  My best driver round is 72.  

[Geoff_Shackelford]

Ryan,
I think where we don't agree is that I believe to be the major championship test it could potentially be, Medinah needs a little quirkiness and a few more tricky decisions injected into the round to be more complete. In other words, one or two really thought-provoking risk-reward holes that make the players uncomfortable mentally (Jones does a great job making the tee shots uncomfortable, but in a contrived way in spots).

While I have no doubt that No. 3 will ask a lot of the players and force them to play a lot of grueling shots under pressure, I just wish more of the test came from being allowed to be aggressive (and then get in more trouble for missed shots), or from having to hit some finesse shots. The fairway bunkering on too many holes seems designed to discourage risk taking instead of encouraging it. That's what Rees Jones does very well, but I don't think it's interesting.

I get into this more in my Golfobserver column that will be posted soon hopefully.
Geoff

[Jeff_Brauer]

Not sure if this thread is about Geoff S or Medinah!  I like Medinah, because it was the first place I played golf, and will be going next week to see the changes, expecting to be dissapointed to see my memories tarnished or changed, even if I think it is probably a better course.

My question to Geoff (symbolically postulated to everyone here) is why does every course in the world have to fit your narrow definition of greatness (Odd choice of words in that you champion width)  Its not that I don't generally agree with your premise, because I do.

However, if you were the czar of golf you clearly think you deserve to be and could decree all courses have more width and more options, we would never see a certain type of golf, there would be a certain sameness to golf courses, and pretty soon, someone would wonder why we couldn't build a narrow course just to see how it plays, no?  And the Larry Nelsons and Hale Irwins (shorter but accurate) would not have accumulated three majors each, while the long hitter would have more.  Is that good?  With different types of architecture, you give up something for some players and get something for others.

Its clear to me that courses are built for different reasons, and No. 3 is built as a championship test, as described by others here.  The other two courses at that club have other purposes, and are built accordingly.  Beyond that, its a good thing that there are different types of championship tests.

Short version:  Read TePaul's Big World Theory.  
Thanks in advance for your attention and possible response.

[Tim_Cronin]

The original changes to Medinah No. 3 were not made because of Harry Cooper's 63. They were already planned prior to that, but had not been implemented because of a lack of finances.
Bendelow's original design was routed around land which the club's four founders kept to themselves, financing the purchase by skimming membership fees.
Once the membership found out, they sued the founders, who eventually got to keep the money (they made a killing), but handed the land back and were drummed out of the club. Bendelow, by August 1929, had drawn up, presented to the board and had approved the plans for the No. 3 that we eventually came to know through the mid-1980s. (The club has the blueprint for Medinah Forest, complete with the homesites and roads like Tripoli Drive, in its archives.)
Additionally, No. 3 really wasn't intended to be the ladies course. The original master plan for Medinah was for two 18-hole courses and a 9-hole ladies course on south of the clubhouse and north of Lake Kadijah and Medinah Creek.
Bendelow, seeing the memberships pour in as he designed No. 1 and No. 3, convinced the founders that a third 18-hole course was necessary, and while some early stories refer to that course as the ladies course (appending the concept of the 9 to the 18), Bendelow went about it as a third full-size course, working around the land the club didn't own. Even the original version, at 6,261 yards for the 1930 Medinah Open, was as long or longer than No. 2, which was designated the ladies course.

[tlavin]

As Geoff asks, is there any other ranked course that has undegone so many major changes every eight or nine years? These aren't restorations. They are changes.

The related question is what are they trying to fix that takes six or seven cracks at it? And if it requires so much fixing, how does Medinah get rated so high?

It has been done, re-done, rehabbed and re-re-done, but that doesn't mean that it's a bad golf course.  In fact, I've played pretty much every course in Chicago and I think it is the best.  You have to remember that this course was the third one built at Medinah and I'm pretty sure it was laid out as a ladies course.  Since it had room to expand, they kept making it bigger.  Over the years, there is no question that the course suffered as a result of Grounds Committee Malpractice.  I'm sure many of us remember the abortion of the upper green on 17, meant to correct the overstated criticism that three of the par 3's look identical.

Medinah is the 600 pound gorilla in Chicago and it's fun and fashionable to poke holes at it.  Is it the design masterpiece like Shoreacres or Chicago Golf?  Nope.  Is it a restored gem like Skokie or Beverly?  Nope.  Is it the modern beast with the most impossible shots into the green like Butler?  Nope.  It is what they want it to be: a beautiful, brawny, demanding golf course that is now designed to be a great test of professional golf.

Another item on my hit list this morning is the constant chirping about Rees Jones.  I'll readily agree that he has some wacky designs out there, but his work at Medinah was quite good, whether he was creating his vision of Mackenzie bunkers or somebody else's.  The bunkers fit the golf course and they fit the eye of the player on virtually every hole.

In my mind, the Greens Committee at Medinah finally got smart and hit their mute button and let a professional architect fix a course that needed fixing.  It's going to be a great site for next week's PGA.

[Jerry Kluger]

Guys: Am I wrong in my feeling that what they have done to Medinah is similar to what they did to Winged Foot and Baltusrol - make it tougher and tougher in order to avoid lower scores? Force them to hit driver and miss fairways making for tough recovery shots without much thought to strategy. If not, what did they do differently at Medinah versus the other two?

[PThomas]

My question to Geoff (symbolically postulated to everyone here) is why does every course in the world have to fit your narrow definition of greatness (Odd choice of words in that you champion width)  Its not that I don't generally agree with your premise, because I do.

However, if you were the czar of golf you clearly think you deserve to be and could decree all courses have more width and more options, we would never see a certain type of golf, there would be a certain sameness to golf courses, and pretty soon, someone would wonder why we couldn't build a narrow course just to see how it plays, no?  And the Larry Nelsons and Hale Irwins (shorter but accurate) would not have accumulated three majors each, while the long hitter would have more.  Is that good?  With different types of architecture, you give up something for some players and get something for others.

very thought-provoking words Jeff

[tlavin]

Guys: Am I wrong in my feeling that what they have done to Medinah is similar to what they did to Winged Foot and Baltusrol - make it tougher and tougher in order to avoid lower scores? Force them to hit driver and miss fairways making for tough recovery shots without much thought to strategy. If not, what did they do differently at Medinah versus the other two?

I think most of the work was focused on the fairway bunkers.  They were rebuilt into a consistent design and placed at more appropriate distances.  They also put the 17th green back down by the water.  A number of holes also have new back tees (gee, what a shocker!).  The one thing that I didn't see when I played there a couple weeks ago was crazy fairway shrinkage like they had at Winged Foot.  I think there's still plenty of room in the landing areas, as long as they avoid the bunkers.  They also cut down hundreds of trees for agronomic reasons and re-grassed the greens with one of the new bent grass strains (A4???).

In the final analysis, I think the course will play tough, but it will play tough because of high, lush rough and lightning quick greens.  It won't play tough merely because it is so long, because length without a bunch of doglegs makes no difference to these guys.  It won't play tough because they killed the grass on the entire course, like Hoylake, and it won't play tough because they put a girdle on the fairways in the landing areas like they did at Winged Foot.

[George Pazin]

However, if you were the czar of golf you clearly think you deserve to be and could decree all courses have more width and more options, we would never see a certain type of golf, there would be a certain sameness to golf courses, and pretty soon, someone would wonder why we couldn't build a narrow course just to see how it plays, no?

So TOC, Sandwich, Oakmont, Merion, Oakland Hills, Pine Valley, they're all the same?

Didn't think so....

 

[Jeff_Brauer]

George,

Last time I looked, Oakland Hills and Oakmont were not famous for their wide fairways and tee shot options.

It is a serious question though - the "mantra" on golf club atlas is width, options, ground game.  I guess if the wishes of the few here got adopted wholesale, then wouldn't we have a tiring formula for design that many object to concerning both USGA setup and modern mainstream design?  There are different courses for different horses, no?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()