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] 2   Go Down

Tom_Doak

Trial run -- Discussion of a golf course
« on: August 06, 2005, 11:08:52 PM »
I have proposed elsewhere that we try a discussion of a golf course, limited to those who have played the course, and promised to give it a try.

I would propose that we pick a course not reviewed extensively by Ran on this site.

Whatever course gets five votes first, we'll try first.

My nomination:  Chicago Golf Club.
Logged

Geoffrey_Walsh

Re:Trial run -- Discussion of a golf course
« Reply #1 on: August 06, 2005, 11:12:55 PM »
Merion GC

(changed my vote from Sankaty Head after I realized Merion was not already profiled in Ran's reviews)
« Last Edit: August 06, 2005, 11:30:57 PM by Geoffrey_Walsh »
Logged

Bill_McBride

Re:Trial run -- Discussion of a golf course
« Reply #2 on: August 06, 2005, 11:14:34 PM »
I vote also for Chicago Golf Club, looking forward to seeing it next weekend at the Walker Cup matches.
Logged

T_MacWood

Re:Trial run -- Discussion of a golf course
« Reply #3 on: August 06, 2005, 11:24:32 PM »
Like many Raynor efforts some say Chicago is another of his  manufactured and unnatural golf course. The naturalism of Chicage GC is what stood out to me. You look out over the property and the golf course is subordinate....you see a gently undulating prarie in all directions...punctuated by a relatively small number of mature trees. The golf course is hardly noticable.

Ironic that when you stand nf the tee of a given hole the clarity of Raynor's manufactured features stands out, and the strategic design of each hole is quite clear. Great bones. A great example of the Macdonald/Raynor paradox.
« Last Edit: August 06, 2005, 11:25:27 PM by Tom MacWood »
Logged

TEPaul

Re:Trial run -- Discussion of a golf course
« Reply #4 on: August 06, 2005, 11:47:40 PM »
"A great example of the Macdonald/Raynor paradox."

Tom MacWood:

WHAT, in your mind IS the Macdonald/Raynor paradox?
Logged

T_MacWood

Re:Trial run -- Discussion of a golf course
« Reply #5 on: August 06, 2005, 11:59:03 PM »
TE
That obviously manufactured features and architecture can be aesthetically pleasing and subordinate to a sites natural blessings.
Logged

cary lichtenstein

Re:Trial run -- Discussion of a golf course
« Reply #6 on: August 07, 2005, 12:06:23 AM »
Tom:

Bad Choice...Chicago Golf...too tough to get on...too tough for multiple plays

Pick something public like Doral, Cog Hill, Whistling Straits that a lot of us have access to.
Logged
Live Jupiter, Fl, was  4 handicap, played top 100 US, top 75 World. Great memories, no longer play, 4 back surgeries. I don't miss a lot of things about golf, life is simpler with out it. I miss my 60 degree wedge shots, don't miss nasty weather, icing, back spasms. Last course I played was Augusta

Scott_Burroughs

Re:Trial run -- Discussion of a golf course
« Reply #7 on: August 07, 2005, 12:28:50 AM »
Just an FYI, in case some may consider this course profile linked here as "reviewed extensively".

Since I would say "yes", I nominate San Francisco GC, although I suppose I should nominate Baltusrol (L), with the PGA coming up soon.
« Last Edit: August 07, 2005, 12:29:34 AM by Scott_Burroughs »
Logged

Jeff_Brauer

Re:Trial run -- Discussion of a golf course
« Reply #8 on: August 07, 2005, 01:03:26 AM »
Tom,

I'll vote for Chicago GC, with SF not being a bad choice either, if CGC doesn't get your five votes.  It has been a while since I played either, but I think I am qualified to discuss both.
Logged
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Brad Klein

Re:Trial run -- Discussion of a golf course
« Reply #9 on: August 07, 2005, 04:59:49 AM »
Chicago GC is fine by me. I think Tom Macwood has nailed it wtih that paradox thing. Pete Dye gets away with that a lot, too, though sometimes he'll have one hole that stands out badly. Not Macdonald/Raynor. Totally manufactured is Chicago, yet also seemingly appropriate. The grasses help, by the way. But anything but naturalistic in structure. More like a sculpture that's been sitting out in the garden long enough to the point where the plants have adapted to it.
« Last Edit: August 07, 2005, 05:00:52 AM by Brad Klein »
Logged

TEPaul

Re:Trial run -- Discussion of a golf course
« Reply #10 on: August 07, 2005, 08:06:06 AM »
I've never seen Chicago G.C. so I can't discuss it (we were going to go to the Walker Cup but decided not to at the last minute). I would like to see a Raynor of Macdonald/Raynor course discussed though also because of this "paradox" thing. The Creek Club's a good alternative---doesn't look like Ran reviewed it although I find it hard to believe he hasn't. I think quite a few on here have been to The Creek.
Logged

Andrew Cunningham

Re:Trial run -- Discussion of a golf course
« Reply #11 on: August 07, 2005, 10:39:29 AM »
My vote: SFGC.  Played there last year.  Haven't played Chicago.
Logged

paul cowley

Re:Trial run -- Discussion of a golf course
« Reply #12 on: August 07, 2005, 11:44:15 AM »
 ...the trail run seems to be off to a good start, I'm enjoying the nomination discussion  ;).

 my nominees;
 Yeamans Hall, east coast
 Monterrey CC [Stranz], west coast
« Last Edit: August 07, 2005, 11:51:36 AM by paul cowley »
Logged
paul cowley...golf course architect/asgca

Jeff Goldman

Re:Trial run -- Discussion of a golf course
« Reply #13 on: August 07, 2005, 11:49:20 AM »
Chicaco. That's five by my count. There has been preliminary discussion, but Tom, Brad, do you want to lead us off?
Logged
That was one hellacious beaver.

Mike_Cirba

Re:Trial run -- Discussion of a golf course
« Reply #14 on: August 07, 2005, 12:36:14 PM »
Unfortunately, the biggest gaping hole in my golf course resume is the Chicago area.  

So, I can't participate but would enjoy hearing others opinions and don't want to be a spoilsport.

Personally, I'd rather have us discuss 'new' courses, or those that have opened in the past ten years.  So many of the classics have been written to death that unless there has been a major renovation or restoration effort, most of the discussion will be reiterative and derivative.

I mean, how many ways can people point out that although Raynor/Mac courses are artificial, they seem to blend ok with nature?  Could it simply be that after being on the ground for 80+ years things have grown/eroded/maintained in a way where the surounding land has simply become interwoven with the surroundings, the way I'd imagine a polyester leisure suit would eventually fuse with skin left out in the hot sun for eons?  Sort of like a fossil...  ;D
« Last Edit: August 07, 2005, 03:41:22 PM by Mike Cirba »
Logged

Joel_Stewart

Re:Trial run -- Discussion of a golf course
« Reply #15 on: August 07, 2005, 12:49:32 PM »
I vote for either Chicago or SFGC.

Chicago GC will be interesting for the Walker Cup.   I understand the tall grass hasn't grown very well recently because of the heat and you can actually get in it and hit your ball.
Logged

paul cowley

Re:Trial run -- Discussion of a golf course
« Reply #16 on: August 07, 2005, 01:28:18 PM »
OK...based on Mr Cirba's post, I will withdraw Yeamans as being too old and much discussed.....leaving Monterrey CC [Stranz] as my only nomination.
« Last Edit: August 07, 2005, 04:22:47 PM by paul cowley »
Logged
paul cowley...golf course architect/asgca

les_claytor

Re:Trial run -- Discussion of a golf course
« Reply #17 on: August 07, 2005, 03:57:28 PM »
SFGC..................haven't seen it since the restoration, but one of my Favorites by far
Logged

Scott_Burroughs

Re:Trial run -- Discussion of a golf course
« Reply #18 on: August 07, 2005, 08:00:39 PM »
In case you guys didn't figure it out, my post above linked Ran's course profile of Chicago GC, so it doesn't technically qualify for this thread.  However, I have nothing against (others) discussing CGC anyways.  Re-read Ran's (or John's) write-up and add anything you feel he left out.
« Last Edit: August 07, 2005, 08:01:12 PM by Scott_Burroughs »
Logged

Phil_the_Author

Re:Trial run -- Discussion of a golf course
« Reply #19 on: August 07, 2005, 10:14:36 PM »
Since many have a difficult time getting on some of the great private clubs, how about a course very little discussed and that most have played - Bethpage RED?
Logged

Gerry B

Re:Trial run -- Discussion of a golf course
« Reply #20 on: August 07, 2005, 11:05:42 PM »
chicago or sfgc - both good choices - and will add a third - myopia hunt club
Logged

Tom Dunne

Re:Trial run -- Discussion of a golf course
« Reply #21 on: August 08, 2005, 12:04:38 AM »
I've played BP Red half a dozen times this year alone--including today! I'd enjoy a good discussion of that course at some point, too, so I'll second Philip Young's nomination.
Logged

Scott_Burroughs

Re:Trial run -- Discussion of a golf course
« Reply #22 on: August 08, 2005, 09:59:26 AM »
Quote from: Gerry B on August 07, 2005, 11:05:42 PM
chicago or sfgc - both good choices - and will add a third - myopia hunt club

I hate to break it to you, too, but Myopia's already been done, just like Chicago GC has above:  link
Logged

JESII

Re:Trial run -- Discussion of a golf course
« Reply #23 on: August 08, 2005, 10:05:55 AM »
It appears Chicago Golf Club received its requisite 5 votes.

For those that have not played Chicago Golf Club there is no reason not to start a thread on San Fran or whatever. Tom is simply trying to organize the discussions a little better and I think this is a good vehicle (so long as it works ;))

Have at it boys!
Logged

Scott_Burroughs

Re:Trial run -- Discussion of a golf course
« Reply #24 on: August 08, 2005, 10:42:33 AM »
Why do I even bother?   ::)

Tom Doak,

"I would propose that we pick a course not reviewed extensively by Ran on this site."

Since it seems that they still want to review Chigago GC despite the fact that Ran has done a course profile on it, will this be just a suggestion for courses to discuss?

Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
Tags: