I've played a # of rounds at Medinah and always played poorly there. I don't know if the trees intimidated me and I started steering or each time I was just off, but I'd rather play Cog Hill and Chicago Golf anyday.

I think the trees are very redundant, and so is punching out of them.

Brad's piece sums it up very well.

The good thing about these threads is now I know who not to listen to when selecting courses.  "Cog Hill"  You've got to be kidding me!  Come on now, you are taking the piling-on a little too far.

It is difficult trying to justify these comments with the thousands of people who were out there today with the jaws open in awe of the course.  But then again, like I stated earlier, maybe only "the sophisitcated" can find that many things wrong with such a great place and great course.  So much for enlightenment.

I'm confused. The review states that there is no more boring example of architecture in America than this long parkland layout in suburban Chicago and then concludes with the fact that the course is just marginally overrated as the #57 best classic course in America. Either its not the most boring example of architecture in America or its more than marginally overrrated at #57.

Dave
Its not mediocre architecture is the most boring example of architecture in America. What course is just OK despite great architecture?

I'm just saying this because I've never been there, but would Firestone fit into this category? It too certainly looks--hurrrumph, hurrrumph--interesting. (picture me rolling my eyes with the look of whatever floats your cork)

I do not believe a course can be just OK with great architecture...either the architecture is not great or the course is better than OK.

Quote from: Tom MacWood on August 14, 2006, 11:12:11 PM

I'm confused. The review states that there is no more boring example of architecture in America than this long parkland layout in suburban Chicago and then concludes with the fact that the course is just marginally overrated as the #57 best classic course in America. Either its not the most boring example of architecture in America or its more than marginally overrrated at #57.

Tom,

Brad's 6.50 rating would drop Medinah out of the top 100 classic courses in America.  Perhaps "marginal" but significant.

This begs the question:  Is Medinah a candidate for the worse course ever to host a major?

Note:  I'm not qualified to opine.

Mike

That question is so stupid you must be a Hillbilly...You are hereby reinstated.

All I'm saying is that apparently Brad doesn't rank Medinah in the top 100 classic courses and it's likely been a while since either the PGA or U. S. Open was hosted by a course outside the top 100 modern or classic Golfweek list.

All I know is what I read in the papers.
- Will Rogers

Mike

Quote

I'm qualified to opine about that one: that's a load of garbage.  Medinah is ranked in the Top Twenty of Golf Digest and the Top Sixty of Golfweek (despite anti-parkland and anti-Rees Jones bias of huge proportions).  It's a great golf course and it will be a good and fair test for the PGA.

This gets to the issue I have been wondering about for a while.  Medinah #3 has been ranked among the top 25 courses or so for a long time.  Can anyone think of another top 25 course where almost anything should be changed, let alone 7 new greens, several redone holes, new fairway contouring and new bunkering?   Anyone think it would be a good idea to put in 7 new greens at Pasatiempo, Plainfield, Yale or the Creek, or ....

If Medinah was a top 25 course prior to the latest changes, it must have had terrific greens and surrounds, etc., and many of those are now gone forever.  Terry, can you imagine what would happen at Olympia Fields if we wanted to put in 7 new greens on either course?  I'd be bugging you and Holland to get me into Beverly.    I still regret the modest redoing of the two greens that were changed for the Open.  

Dave,

Did the courses you mention need changing?  Did any of the changes improve the courses?  Your examples lend credence to my point that if Medinah WAS that good, a lot of greatness was destroyed by the changes, which is quite regrettable.  If the changes did significantly improve the course, could it have been that good?

Jeff  

Architectural considerations clearly took a back seat.  

This would seem to support Brad's article and 6.50 rating.

Mike

Bottom line is that you have to change your golf course in order to keep the PGA or the USGA happy.  Changing seven greens might seem like an indictment, but the truth is that they changed most of them in order to make the course more demanding for the professional tour.  Architectural considerations clearly took a back seat.  We're talking about a multi-million dollar enterprise here, not an architecture museum.  The other thing you have to remember is that it took Medinah a long time to recognize that its own members were ruining their franchise golf course with their amateur ideas.

Is this really true?

The piece I saw said some blindness (undulations) was removed, and the greens made flatter.

Is this really pushing the "experts" to the max?

Thank you Ryan for that indepth analysis.

While it's no shock that Terry would stick up for one of his fellow journalist, It's been my experience to seekout specialists for their insight. I'd certanly call Geoff Shackelford and Brad Klein two such specialists. Both have experience that extends beyond Cook County and have ZERO axe to grind when it came to their reviews.

My memoory is that Medinah was always a top 20 course until the 1975 Open.  Jack was pretty open that he didn't like it much - esp. the old 13th snap dogleg and his opinion seemed to hold some water for some reason.

I was there today and came away much more impressed with the course and Rees work than I thought I might.  They used traditional tan sand in bunkers (the course renderings on the website use white, which doesn't look right) and overall the work was pretty good.  The whole place feels very much like a major championship venue.

I think Tom Doak mentioned that it is not as nuanced a design as Winged Foot or Baltusrol.  I think WF is probably better all around, but I would say I was more impressed with Medinah than the Roll.  Generally, I think tee to green, Medinah is better.  Baltusrol definitely has more contour in the greens, almost too much in some areas, but the green contours there affected the approach play, whereas I saw pretty straightforward greens at Medinah.

I have a few quibbles, natuarlly.  the second is a better hole than before, but doesn't look like the others.  The ninth green was retained, and it sits low to the ground, so the three bunkers there are barely visible.

I spent some of the day doing some archaelogy. I found what I think was an old bunker behind and left of the 8th green.  I also saw what looked to me to be a tee that has 8 originally as a par 4, but that doesn't jive with the Whitten article.  I also saw a fairway fill pad on 4 (look at Dan Moores aerial and you can see the open area just short of the green under the chevron) that has now been planted over.  The site was all oaks and hickorys, but most plantings were maples and ash, so it was easy to tell where someone decided to narrow the fairways even in the heavily wooded areas.

I picked up Tim's Club history and am pouring through it.  It looks like one of the best of its kind, and of course, I am very interested in the club.

I spent some more time with Tim Cronin's excellent club history last night.  For those who want histories to have more about the course, this one is for you.  It really shows through maps and old pictures at various dates how a club transforms over time.  The housing tract map and original routing are especially interesting.  Thanks, Tim for giving me a few hours of really interesting study, and mor in the future.

BTW, the landform I thought was a bunker was actually the cut for an old road that once traversed the property.  That road may have had utilities, perhaps explaining the location of the halfway house there.

The fw fill on 4 clearly shows up in one oblique photo and shows how much tree planting really occurred after the fact on what was a narrow course.

The bunker plan for the new number three - a year after the course opened - shows some of the thought process of Bendelow, since it has new bunker positions depicted in red (much like the Ross plan for Oakland Hills prior to his death)  They believed in random bunkering, with fw bunkers proposed anywhere from 120 to 350 off the tee (those distances are marked on the plan) TB also liked center bunkers, having proposed them on a few holes.

That leads me to wonder - assuming the 120 yarders were in play for the average Joe, and that the 260 ones were in play for pros, maybe the distance spread isn't getting any greater than it always was.

It is also interesting to see what bunkers survived a long time, and which ones were moved.  Haven't figured out the ryhme or reason, but of course, that would have been at the hands of innumerous greens chairmen.

An example might be the bunkering on the 14th green, which was not originally the "Eleanor's Teeth" as I remember and they are now.  Given there is a 1939 photo without those, I guess Elanor didn't get Hillary Clinton unpopular until WWII had started?  Or perhaps Mediah had a Democratic president until that time, when the Country Club republicans regained power?

You can sure learn a lot from old photos, but some things will always remain a mystery!