Ceasefire on Medinah

« **on:** August 22, 2006, 04:06:55 PM »

I demand a ceasefire!

« **Reply #1 on:** August 22, 2006, 08:28:10 PM »

I wonder how Rees is feeling today...

« **Reply #2 on:** August 22, 2006, 08:57:39 PM »

I'll bet he is feeling great. Red's assault on the leaderboard had nothing to do with Rees - it had everything to do with overly soft greens.

And what happened to the ceasefire?

« **Reply #3 on:** August 23, 2006, 01:19:52 AM »

Quote from: Ryan Potts on August 22, 2006, 08:57:39 PM

And what happened to the ceasefire?

Can't be unilateral.

« **Reply #4 on:** August 23, 2006, 06:46:55 AM »

Ryan,

How interesting are the Rees greens? Under firm and fast conditions, how much do they dictate favorable angles of play and strategic decision making? Certainly under the maintenance practices they were held to they were completely benign. Given the apparent lack of contours and a lack of interplays of slope they fall short of world-class greens. I say this knowing that observing them on TV is not enough. That is why I ask, how would you describe the new greens?

« **Reply #5 on:** August 23, 2006, 09:21:32 AM »

First, the greens are not world-class. Second, they are not as interesting as greens designed by the great architects, e.g.. my favoirte, Donald Ross. However, they are not much different than the old greens at Medinah. In fact, most of them have the same contours and same slopes....that is why I have had such a hard time digesting a lot of the criticism of Rees.

Although not great, the greens are very good however. However, they need to be played at 12+ and hard to get the real benefit of the contours. For instance, the first green is an awesome green that is one of the hardest to putt. The green, juxtoposed with the run-off usually requires players to play back and get a full iron in their hands in order to hold the heavily sloping back to front green. Under ideal conditions, it is virtually impossible to attack the pin when it is tucked on the right....for the PGA, those guys made it look easy.

As I said, all of the greens slope from back to front. The greens on 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17 and 18 have some significant internal contouring. The rest are relatively straight forward back to front greens. However, since the Rees renovation, every putt breaks a little....just enough to miss a putt. (At least for an amateur).

Finally, the firmness of the greens mean everything when playing that course. Given the back to front nature of the greens, it impacts your club selection off the tee to your line of attack as you want to make sure you are playing from below the hole. Last week, no one worried about hitting 6 iron vs. 8 iron or 4 iron vs. 6 iron into the green because they knew it was going to hold. As such, you saw a lot of guys playing conservative from the tee and totally taking the rough and trees out of play. Moreover, they were able to play over the bunkers into the narrow parts of the green instead of playing into the fat of the green and having a long/challenging breaking putt as they knew the ball was not going to release over the green. (Most of the internal green contouring is through the middle of the green). When the greens are hard, any shot over the green is considered to be an impossible up and down. However, if you leave it below the hole, you are rewarded with a realistic birdie opportunity.

I will also say that the slopes of the greens were not used at the PGA. In fact, it is my understanding that the PGA intentionally stayed away from the slopes as they thought it would be unfair to put the pins on the slopes.

That is all I have time for now. I'll be more than happy to answer other questions later.

CEASEFIRE!

« **Reply #6 on:** August 23, 2006, 09:24:40 AM »

Ryan,

May be you need to get Condi involved.

« **Reply #7 on:** August 23, 2006, 09:30:22 AM »

Quote from: Phil Benedict on August 23, 2006, 09:24:40 AM

Ryan,

May be you need to get Condi involved.

With that last name, I'm certainly not inviting you into my foxhole.

« **Reply #8 on:** August 23, 2006, 09:37:13 AM »

Ryan, Do you really prefer the new first green to the old? The bowl in the short of middle left, on the old green, looked like a pretty cool feature?

« **Reply #9 on:** August 23, 2006, 09:44:38 AM »

Quote from: Adam Clayman on August 23, 2006, 09:37:13 AM

Ryan, Do you really prefer the new first green to the old? The bowl in the short of middle left, on the old green, looked like a pretty cool feature?

I think it is now a more challenging green. I do miss the old green because of the history of it though (That is where Irwin made the putt on the 19th hole to win the 1990 Open).

The new green has a lot of pin placements. The old one had maybe 3. I haven't commented on this yet, but a big concern for the club was building greens that had a lot more pin placements. Medinah Course #3 gets 300 rounds a day during the summer. It was imperative the the pin could be moved around in order to spare the greens.

« **Reply #10 on:** August 23, 2006, 10:24:27 AM »

Quote from: Ryan Potts on August 23, 2006, 09:21:32 AM

First, the greens are not world-class. Second, they are not as interesting as greens designed by the great architects, e.g.. my favoirte, Donald Ross. However, they are not much different than the old greens at Medinah. In fact, most of them have the same contours and same slopes....that is why I have had such a hard time digesting a lot of the criticism of Rees.

Although not great, the greens are very good however. However, they need to be played at 12+ and hard to get the real benefit of the contours. For instance, the first green is an awesome green that is one of the hardest to putt. The green, juxtoposed with the run-off usually requires players to play back and get a full iron in their hands in order to hold the heavily sloping back to front green. Under ideal conditions, it is virtually impossible to attack the pin when it is tucked on the right....for the PGA, those guys made it look easy.

As I said, all of the greens slope from back to front. The greens on 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17 and 18 have some significant internal contouring. The rest are relatively straight forward back to front greens. However, since the Rees renovation, every putt breaks a little....just enough to miss a putt. (At least for an amateur).

Finally, the firmness of the greens mean everything when playing that course. Given the back to front nature of the greens, it impacts your club selection off the tee to your line of attack as you want to make sure you are playing from below the hole. Last week, no one worried about hitting 6 iron vs. 8 iron or 4 iron vs. 6 iron into the green because they knew it was going to hold. As such, you saw a lot of guys playing conservative from the tee and totally taking the rough and trees out of play. Moreover, they were able to play over the bunkers into the narrow parts of the green instead of playing into the fat of the green and having a long/challenging breaking putt as they knew the ball was not going to release over the green. (Most of the internal green contouring is through the middle of the green). When the greens are hard, any shot over the green is considered to be an impossible up and down. However, if you leave it below the hole, you are rewarded with a realistic birdie opportunity.

I will also say that the slopes of the greens were not used at the PGA. In fact, it is my understanding that the PGA intentionally stayed away from the slopes as they thought it would be unfair to put the pins on the slopes.

That is all I have time for now. I'll be more than happy to answer other questions later.

CEASEFIRE!

Ryan -

I played the course on Monday with the Sunday set up of tees and pins. Most of the greens had very little interior movement, and the stock phrase was play half of the break that you see on anything outside of ten feet. I agree with you that they are not world class as only #15 stands out in my mind as two tiered.

It wasn't Rees fault that the rain came on Friday and that Kerry Haigh didn't want to leave the members with browned out/overstressed greens. The average roll out was no more than four feet on anything stronger than a 6 iron.

Wayne, the greens were watered some on Sunday evening as our 9:30 tee time felt some sponginess under the 1st green, but even at 2:00pm, we had no fear in running the ball 2-3 feet by the hole.

-10 was the winning score if #5 & #10 were converted to par 4's. Put some Doak greens with wild interior contours in, and level par might have won. But who wants to watch another U.S. Open?

Saturday was as exciting 3rd round of a major that I have seen in 38 years.

JWK

« **Reply #11 on:** August 23, 2006, 10:36:18 AM »

Ryan,

300 rounds per day in season? That's incredible. If they started at 7:00 and used 10 minute intervals, that would require 12 1/2 hours of starting times, if each group had 4 players. Assuming a 4 1/2 hour round, that would have the last group finishing at midnight. Assuming a 5 month season and 6 days of starting times, this equates to 36,000 rounds during those 5 months alone (which would suggest that #3 has more than 45,000 rounds if there is reasonable play in the other months). That's unheard of for a private club. I'm surprised there is any grass left on the greens if your numbers are correct. How do the members stand for that kind of play policy?

TS

« **Reply #12 on:** August 23, 2006, 11:07:35 AM »

Two points. First, the amount of play is incredible. Medinah has a large active membership and #3 is something of a trophy so that every available tee time is filled every day, usually with a member and guests. Tom Lively, the greenkeeper, does an amazing job keeping it in shape given the number of rounds. Second, the comment that the greens need to be rolling at around 12 or faster to create interest shows a weakness in the design. Weather conditions often make it impossible to achieve those speeds particularly if you want the greens to survive. In an effort to obtain more hole locations, the interest was removed from several greens. When the rains came, after a relatively wet and humid summer, there was no way to get the greens firm and fast enough. Greater internal contours or even heavily sloped greens requiring precise placement of approach shots would have worked better.

Having made my 2 points, I would suggest that the criticism of the course based on this tournament is overblown and I have been a long term critic. Given the current equipment which assists in creating length and reducing ball curvature it is almost impossible to defend par (if that is one's objective) via length. While the course could be narrowed, it was relatively tight. I was with Steve Stricker on Monday and he attributed the relatively low scores to lack of wind and soft yet smooth greens. He thought the course was pretty tough but given the conditions it would have been very hard to limit scoring. Medinah remains a stern test. It has real limits architecturally but we should not overreact because the best in the world exploited perfect conditions to shoot low scores. The members also know how to assist the governing bodies in putting on a really well run tourney.

« **Reply #13 on:** August 23, 2006, 11:12:38 AM »

Medinah Course #3 gets 300 rounds a day during the summer.

I'm sure that's hyperbole, but I have no problem believing it gets 20,000 plus rounds per year, which is a real beating.

But the issue here is not member/guest play and it's probably not the superintendent and it's probably only marginally the relative flatness of the new greens. The issue is that the course was soft and vulnerable and there was no wind and the pros could fire at the flag with impunity. As has been mentioned by me and others numerous times, if 5 and 10 were par 4's, only Tiger would have been double digits under par and the spin would be a lot kinder.

Let's move on, gentlemen.

« **Reply #14 on:** August 23, 2006, 06:50:04 PM »

I continure to read Tim Cronin's excellent club history a bit each night.

I didn't know until last night that the 12th green (former 16th) is a Langford green dating to 1957. He moved it right and added the small pond, which does not come into play. Its the only green w/o a bunker, but how does it compare with the other old greens? (That was one I happened to skip on my route around Medinah last week.)

Also, in his tournament history section he had lots of pros quoted as saying it was a great strategic test during Western and US opens from 1949-1990.

« **Reply #15 on:** August 23, 2006, 06:57:23 PM »

Quote from: Jeff_Brauer on August 23, 2006, 06:50:04 PM

I continure to read Tim Cronin's excellent club history a bit each night.

I didn't know until last night that the 12th green (former 16th) is a Langford green dating to 1957. He moved it right and added the small pond, which does not come into play. Its the only green w/o a bunker, but how does it compare with the other old greens? (That was one I happened to skip on my route around Medinah last week.)

Also, in his tournament history section he had lots of pros quoted as saying it was a great strategic test during Western and US opens from 1949-1990.

I did not know it was a Langford green either. That being said, the 12th green is the best green on the course.

« **Reply #16 on:** August 23, 2006, 10:48:53 PM »

Jeff,
I'm blushing. Thanks for the kind words.
The 12th (originally 16th) was a straightaway par 4 until Langford shifted it. There was a bunker on the right at first, but P.J. Boatwright, on an early 1970s visit in advance of the 1975 U.S. Open, advocated taking it out, because it grabbed some balls that would carom toward the water. He said the removal would make it "an All-American hole."
Then-superintendent Jerry Dearie helped Langford in the redesign. The lake is named Lake Dearie.
The redesign and shift (of about 15 yards) also allowed a reangleing of the tee boxes on the 13th (originally 17th).
About all the 18-under / 10-under talk: Either way, the winning score was 270. That's the sixth-lowest aggregate in PGA Championship history, the low being 265 by David Toms at Atlanta AC. All the sub-270 scores have come with Kerry Haigh setups. Maybe we should credit (or disparage) Kerry for his formula. It does lend itself to some excitement, whether or not the wind blows.

« **Reply #17 on:** August 23, 2006, 10:59:19 PM »

Your book beats the heck outta the DaVinci Code! Only problem for you is, I am really trying to post it all, a little bit at a time over about 2000 Medinah posts, and then that should probably hurt sales........

I recall 16/12 having a bunker right and then it being gone, so your tale explains that. I also recall a club ashtray with the course routing that my friends had, that showed no Dearie Pond, and being surprised to see it when I first played. Obviously an older ash tray.

A few questions - When working for Killian and Nugent, I recall seeing a plan from their early days, and before my time for the sixth green (although I recall all the four bunkers were positioned the same as they always have been) the fw bunkers on 10 (which I think were KN additions) and a few other items. Did you come across any of that in your research, or were they never implemented?

Also, you mention one of the 60's tournaments being played at over 7100 yards - do you have any chronicle of course lengthenings over the years?

I recall George Fazio being credited in the original World Atlas of Golf for doing some renovations prior to the '75 Open, which I believe is false. Know anything about that?

Thanks in advance. Inquiring minds want to know.

« **Reply #18 on:** August 23, 2006, 11:24:41 PM »

Jeff,
All my Medinah info is boxed away at the moment, so I'm not sure about the KN bunkering on 6 or 10. There's no record of George Fazio doing anything on No. 3 (same for Harry Collis, whom was credited with Bendelow's redesign in some circles for years).
Here's how Medinah's grown over the years, based on tournament yardages (see page 318 for scoring):
Original Bendelow layout (1928-32):
1930 Medinah Open, 6,261 yards, par 70
Revised Bendelow layout (1933-85):
1935 Medinah Open, 6,768 yards, par 71
1937 Chicago Open, 6,778 yards, par 71
1939 Western Open, 6,869 yards, par 71
1946 Chicago Victory National Championship, 6,650 yards, par 71
1949 U.S. Open, 6,936 yards, par 71
1962 Western Open, 7,110 yards, par 71
1966 Western Open, 7,014 yards, par 71 (course unchanged from 1962, but remeasured with more accurate equipment)
1975 U.S. Open, 7,032 yards, par 71
Bendelow-Packard layout, with Jones refurbishing (1987-present):
1988 U.S. Senior Open, 6,881 yards, par 72
1990 U.S. Open, 7,195 yards, par 72
1999 PGA Championship, 7,401 yards, par 72 (Rulewich 17th green on hill)
2006 PGA Championship, 7,561 yards, par 72 (Jones 17th green by water in Packard's spot)

And is it just me, or are there more threads on Medinah and the PGA than for any other recent tournament and course?

« **Reply #19 on:** August 24, 2006, 12:58:31 AM »

Its not just you! However, I might be singlehandedly keeping them alive with my interest. I will have to go back to your book again to see if I can figure out where the yardage jumps came from. Until recently, I don't think any greens moved (other than old 16) so they must have pushed some tees back.

Thanks for the info!

« **Reply #20 on:** August 24, 2006, 08:50:33 AM »

Quote from: Tim_Cronin on August 23, 2006, 11:24:41 PM

Jeff,
All my Medinah info is boxed away at the moment, so I'm not sure about the KN bunkering on 6 or 10. There's no record of George Fazio doing anything on No. 3 (same for Harry Collis, whom was credited with Bendelow's redesign in some circles for years).
Here's how Medinah's grown over the years, based on tournament yardages (see page 318 for scoring):
Original Bendelow layout (1928-32):
1930 Medinah Open, 6,261 yards, par 70
Revised Bendelow layout (1933-85):
1935 Medinah Open, 6,768 yards, par 71
1937 Chicago Open, 6,778 yards, par 71
1939 Western Open, 6,869 yards, par 71
1946 Chicago Victory National Championship, 6,650 yards, par 71
1949 U.S. Open, 6,936 yards, par 71
1962 Western Open, 7,110 yards, par 71
1966 Western Open, 7,014 yards, par 71 (course unchanged from 1962, but remeasured with more accurate equipment)
1975 U.S. Open, 7,032 yards, par 71
Bendelow-Packard layout, with Jones refurbishing (1987-present):
1988 U.S. Senior Open, 6,881 yards, par 72
1990 U.S. Open, 7,195 yards, par 72
1999 PGA Championship, 7,401 yards, par 72 (Rulewich 17th green on hill)
2006 PGA Championship, 7,561 yards, par 72 (Jones 17th green by water in Packard's spot)

And is it just me, or are there more threads on Medinah and the PGA than for any other recent tournament and course?

Tim:

You may want to amend that. I am relatively sure that Jones did not touch the course until 2002.

« **Reply #21 on:** August 24, 2006, 09:20:28 AM »

Different Jones?

« **Reply #22 on:** August 24, 2006, 09:42:15 AM »

Quote from: Shivas on August 24, 2006, 09:32:58 AM

Tiger's 270 and that kid that shot 60 got me thinking....(uh, oh, here he goes again )...

Screw this notion of defending par! It has already become an anachronism, a buggy whip.

Today, with the hot, striaght ball and Kryptonite clubs, what we are really defending is BIRDIE.

Medinah's course rating is 78.1, 24 shots over par over 4 rounds. Tiger shot -18. Guys, that's 42 under the course rating over 72 holes!!

If you take the better half (65 and 68), the guy played to a +12 (13.2 if you add 10%) and even if you take all 4 rounds, the guy played to a +10.5 (11.5 if you add 10%)!!

How the hell do you defend par against a Plus +11 or +12?

Simple answer -- you don't because you can't.

Defending par today is like the way the French defended Paris against Hitler.

Today, realize it or not, against the top player(s) in the world, defense is at the birdie level. Architects may want to consider just bagging the entire RTJ notion of "hard par/easy bogey" and start adding "hard birdie/easy par" to their respective repitoires.

what about Winged Foot? plus 5, and there didn't seem to be any/many howls about it being "unfair"

« **Reply #23 on:** August 24, 2006, 09:46:48 AM »

Bogey was once the desire, people got better, so we moved to par. When par was the goal people and equiptment got better, birdies became the desire. Now Birdie is the want of every revenue seeking tour pro. No doubt equiptment got better, but so did, understanding of the swing, physical education etc. Now the focus is on eagle.

Sounds like a natural progression one wouldn't want to fool around with. Unless you want to make it look like you know more than everybody else, who ever lived.

« **Reply #24 on:** August 24, 2006, 10:17:06 AM »

Paul T - WF didn't have ultra soft greens, period. I am sure Medinah could be set up and maintained to get a similar score, but they didn't.

As to how much better players are now, I return you to a passage in Tim Cronin's "Spirit of Medinah" regarding the 1963 Western Open (returning to Medinah after a long abscence) and the battle between Casper and Jackie Cupit, who eventually won. According to Casper, the deciding hole was the old 15th, a 323 par 4. (Now its a 600 yard par 5, and Rees left the green bunkering in the same positions with a bit more reshaping.)

Casper relates that he hit 4 iron and wedge to 40 feet. Cupit hit similar clubs to 30 feet but was able to hole his putt. Can you imagine the top five players in a tournament today hitting wedge that far from the hole? Whether because of Dave Pelz, better equipment or whatever, Johnny Miller would be throwing up at those two shots, not to mention the three putt on what is a tiny green. Players are that much better, IMHO.

BTW, he relates Nicklaus hitting a 4 iron 220 yards on old 17 (now 13). I recall Tiger hitting 3 irons 250 out there last week. Assuming Jack would hit the 3 230 or so, and that today's 3 iron is probably the loft of an old 2 iron, Tiger might hit Jack's 4 iron about 240 or so. Even with new balls, etc., it makes me think that maybe Tiger isn't that much longer than Jack in his prime. The ball doesn't know what's hitting it - just that something is hitting it at 120 or whatever MPH.

Ryan,

I took Tim's heading to mean that the layout changed to par 72 in 87, and others have remodeled that basic routing since, not in that particular year.

News:

JR Potts

Dan Herrmann

JR Potts

Jim Nugent

wsmorrison

JR Potts

Phil Benedict

JR Potts

Adam Clayman

JR Potts

Kenny Lee Puckett

T.J. Sturges

SL_Solow

tlavin

Jeff_Brauer

JR Potts

Tim_Cronin

Jeff_Brauer

Tim_Cronin

Jeff_Brauer

JR Potts

Adam Clayman

PThomas

Adam Clayman

Jeff_Brauer