Medinah #3

[Anthony_Nysse]

Slightly suprised not to hear anything about the work that weill be done at medinah this fall. Here is an article posted on www.gcm.typepad.com

MEDINAH TO SPEND $3 MILLION-PLUS ON PRE-RYDER CUP RENOVATIONS
Chicago-Area Club Bucks National Cutback Trend

MEDINAH, Illinois (June 15, 2009) — At a time when many of the nation’s recession-weary country clubs are cutting back, Medinah Country Club is stepping up with a view toward the 2012 Ryder Cup.

By a margin of more than 4-1, Medinah’s membership voted Saturday (June 13) to spend upwards of $3 million on a multi-faceted renovation that would see the club’s famed No. 3 Course close August 15 and re-open next June.

“What this overwhelming vote means is that we now will be able to bring our crown jewel up to the world class level where we want it to be,” said club president John Potts. “It will be ready for the 2012 Ryder Cup for the whole world to see. The membership is happy.”

Below is a brief outline of each aspect of the renovation project:

Reconstruction of the 11 remaining original soil-based push-up greens on the club’s No. 3 course, site of five major championships and of the 2012 Ryder Cup. These surfaces and the Putting Clock in front of the clubhouse would be replaced by state-of-the-art sand-based greens set to specifications of the U.S. Golf Association. The greens to be replaced are on holes 3, 4, 5, and 6. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 14. A select number of these greens also will be re-contoured. The seven other greens on No. 3 were rebuilt to USGA standards during a 2003 course renovation directed by noted golf course architect Rees Jones. Jones also will oversee this phase of improvements.
Re-grassing of all 18 greens and the Putting Clock in front of the clubhouse to bring about all pure bentgrass greens upon reopening in June 2010.
Re-grassing of all 18 fairways and intermediate rough areas to eliminate poa annua and other types of undesirable grasses.
With Course 3 closed for the renovation, the club will undertake a Cart Path and Hardscape improvement program aimed at upgrading the aesthetics and functionality of cart paths, the halfway house complex, and the area surrounding the No. 6 green and No. 7 and 10 tees.
Renovation and expansion of the golf course maintenance facility.
Club leaders determined this was the membership’s last opportunity to undertake the projects prior to the 2012 Ryder Cup. Moreover, the club in is good financial shape, has a full membership, and a waiting list.

The vote is just the latest in a series of improvements made since the arrival of general manager Dan Miles in 2007 and, shortly thereafter, golf course superintendent Curtis Tyrrell, who oversees all three layouts.

The club has built a new 12-acre state-of-the-art short game practice area adjacent to its newly configured and improved driving range. Last fall, Medinah replaced all 88,000 square feet of tan-colored sand in all 74 bunkers on its No. 3 course with white Tour Signature Sand in order to make the bunkers more playable and more aesthetically appealing.

Medinah Country Club is the Chicago area’s best known and most frequent major championship venue. Course No. 3 has hosted three U.S. Opens (1949, ’75, and ’90), two PGA Championships (1999, 2006), three Western Opens (1946, ’62, and ’66), and other prestigious events in the pre-PGA Tour era. Medinah’s champions include such historic figures as Harry “Lighthorse” Cooper, Gene Sarazen, Byron Nelson, Billy Casper, Gary Player, Hale Irwin, and Tiger Woods.

Founded in the 1920s by a group of Shriners, Medinah features three golf courses, all designed by highly respected Scotsman Tom Bendelow. The massive and highly creative 120,000-square foot clubhouse designed by Richard Schmid is an architectural blend of styles including Byzantine, Oriental, and Louis XIV. It is the focal point of club activities.

[Jim Colton]

Maybe Potts Jr. can chime in with some insights.

[PCCraig]

From what I here, very few members ever play #3 on a personal and regular basis, most will head out and play #1. The majority of times members play #3, it's with guests.

[John Foley]

Didn't they just go thru a renovation / rehaul prior to the most recent PGA?

And now they do it again?

[JR Potts]

Potts Jr. can chime in.

On Saturday the membership voted almost 4-1 to finally, and for once, spend the amount of money necessary to bring the course up to everyone's expectations.  Medinah's membership composition has changed a lot over the last 5 years and the membership has been willing to invest heavily in its staff and its infrastructure and is not keen on band-aiding projects as was done in the past.

We have a new general manager and a new superintendent who most believe to be world class in the skill set and experience.  In the last few years under their management, we've seen some pretty great things happen. 

The vote to undertake these expenditures was just as much about the membership's confidence in the staff and future of the club as it was about anything else. 

RE: the renovation of #3, which is what most on here care about.  There is no doubt that Medinah has sold itself to the devil of architectural preservation.  We've piece-mealed past projects, allowed greens chairmen and past presidents to perform pet projects on the course and allowed the USGA to dictate course architecture.  Those days are over.

In the last renovation '03ish, the club gave Rees Jones a laughable budget and only authorized the renovation of 7 greens as they were the ones deemed (by a select group of members) to be in need of restoration back to the original style (a job that I don't think was done very well).  So, that left 11 soil based greens.  (Budgetary concerns and limitations were the main reason for only doing 7 greens)

Over the last two years, our new super has performed extensive testing (testing that was likely never done in the past) and has shown that the 11 soil based greens have horrendous percolation rates and excessive thatching that combined to cause horrific green conditions in hot and humid conditions.  His suggestion to the membership was to bring all of our greens up to USGA standards.  The membership agreed.

The vote also comes with a mandate to Rees Jones.  In 03ish, A1-A4 was a newish grass and was suspected to run at near unmanageable speeds.  The greens were designed with those speeds in mind.  Given the substantial guest play and the susceptibility of the soil based greens to burn out and die in high heat and humidity, the greens were unable to be maintained at those speeds and thus, became quite boring.  The members want interest and they want contour.  Rees knows that and hopefully will deliver.  We want it done right and we want it done for the last time. 

The membership asked our super, Rees and GM "what do you want and need to do this once and for all."  They made their list.  And they voted in favor of everything.  It's a testament to the care and love that the members have for Medinah that they voted everything through in such an overwhelming fashion - especially in this economy.  [It doesn't hurt to have the Ryder Cup as a financial "backstop."].

So, there will be some rebunkering (mostly just moving a trap or two that didn't come into play for the pros), a new grass blend will be used (during the range and short game renovation of last year, our super was able to test 7 different grass blends on the 7 new greens), all grass will be gassed and reseeded, some greens will be recontoured, trees will be removed (I am pushing for more rather than less) some new tees will likely be added and there a couple of other likely changes that I can't say much about right now as there are some regulatory things that need to be sorted out and/or approved  (but think, a hole a lot like 14 at Murfield as Medinah's new 15th hole - but 295-315 yards). 

I will provide as much information as possible as things move forward if anyone wishes.   I'm going to try to photo-document it.  And I'll answer any questions if anyone has any.

Take care,

Ryan

EDIT - As an aside, I found Shackelford's comment that "it still won't be any good" disappointing, small-minded and quite frankly, it undermined any credibility he had in my eyes.  It's perplexing to me how a a so-called expert can make such a statement without any details of the project.

[PThomas]

some good news Ryan

[Mike_Cirba]

There is no doubt that Medinah has sold itself to the devil of architectural preservation.

Ryan,

I wish you all the best of luck but as an outsider observing the changes that have taken place at Medinah from the early 70s til today I found this statement a bit incongruous.

I'm not sure I've seen any evidence that anything architectural at Medinah was deemed sacrosanct and worthy of preservation except perhaps the trees.

I also think if there is anything left of Bendelow or the early designers at Medinah that it is unlikely to survive this latest "renovation" which seems to have been the modus operandi about every 3 years or so at the club.   At least to this observer, it seems to me that Medinah might be the only classic course that makes Augusta National look like a preservationists preserve.

Frankly, I'm not sure what was built at Medinah originally was all that worthy of the reputation or even some type of preservation, but certainly some historians seem to have thought so.  

I also do sincerely hope that this isn't all motivated by some effort to stay in the running with Cog Hill (the renovation pics there look just gawdawful) in the race for the USGA's midwestern favor.

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike, first a question:  have you ever been there?

Second, how many changes have taken place at Cobb's Creek over the years?  

Dave,

1) No.   The changes I've witnessed have all been via television, magazines, and other print media.

2) Very few.   In fact, today every greensite that existed in 1928 is still in place, although the routing has changed and impacted 6 holes, which nevertheless had the net effect of significantly diminishing the former greatness of the course.

On the other hand, I've seen enough Rees Jones "restorations" on the east coast and elsewhere in person to feel comfortable making the cautionary comments that I did.

[JR Potts]

Mike:

Medinah and the USGA have long ago parted ways so you're latter concern is not an issue.  Regarding the former comments, most of what you've written is true.  That's what is so frustrating about reading the comments from the so called experts on this board and others.  I grew up at Medinah so I've seen every single change since the 80s.  If Medinah is disliked for being a brute monster with long boring tree-lined holes today (a slog as Klein writes), what about the old set-up made it "interesting" or less "sluggish" to those who criticize it today.  I suspect, most never played it before and are merely critiquing the fact that there is SOME change, not the SPECIFIC changes.  

I would love to hear one thing about the old set-up that made it "better" than what's there today.  Because, in my opinion, what we have there today, even in its current form, is light years better than what it was.  Better routing, better conditioning, more challenging, more player friendly, more interesting/challenging par 3s, more interesting/challenging par 4s and more interesting/challenging par 5s.  So, to the Shackelfords of the world who don't like Medinah - that's fine.  I can respect that as I thought Pinehurst #2 was pedestrian at best and thought that Riveria was fun but not great.  We can agree to disagree.  But let's at least get all the facts and take Medinah #3 for what it is and always was - a big golf course that is designed and maintained to test the modern day professional in major championships.

But like you said, let's not get up in arms about the membership destroying anything of historical architectural value.  And I would argue that there was likely not much there and what was there, still is there and will always be there.

The renovation is being undertaken to make it a harder, more interesting and better conditioned golf course - for the Ryder Cup but more importantly for the people who pay each month to keep the club functioning.

[JR Potts]

Since Dave's reply was posted, I'll add this.

Medinah has changed the following holes:
The current #14 was converted into a Par 5 from a nothing Par 4.
The current #17 was added and then dicked around with.
The current #18 was added.

Besides rebunkering and redoing some of the greens (because the old greens were totally unplayable at modern speeds), that's it.

[Mike_Cirba]

Ryan,

Although Dave is trying to somehow compare Medinah and Cobb's Creek, which I'm not sure is in the least analogous, I do hear what you are saying.

I do hope all goes well with your renovation, and I agree philosophically that it's generally better to choose one path or another.

There aren't many courses that have achieved greatness over the years trying to straddle some imaginary fence between what they were and obviously lost to time, and what they are, yet somehow try to cling to another vision.

I think Shivas would agree, as well.  

Thanks..

[Ed Oden]

I have never really understood the bashing Medinah #3 takes on this board.  Is it overrated in the rankings?  Probably.  But just because a course is maybe the 50th or 75th or even the 100th best course in America rather than the 20th doesn't mean it sucks or doesn't have any architectural merit.  #3 is a fine course by any standard, better in my opinion than any number of other places that are praised here.  Difficult?  Absolutely.  Fun?  Interesting?  I thought so.  I'd go back in a heartbeat and suspect that virtually everyone on this board would as well. 

Ed

[Jim Nugent]

Ryan, can you tell me more about the greens at #3?   Strictly from watching the last PGA there on TV, two things seemed to stand out.  One, they didn't appear to have many contours.  Two, the pros were making a lot of longish putts. 

Was I off base about those two points?  If not, was that their original design, or the result of renovations?  I see Reese is supposed to add contours in places, so seems like there might be something to it.   

[JR Potts]

Jim:

You are correct that the guys made a ton of long putts (these guys are so good) and the greens appearing to have little contour. 

The appearance of little contour is a result of two things:

1. Some of the greens as a whole do, in fact, have little lateral and internal contour.  (3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15 - original back to front sloping greens - but, when fast, become treacherous)
2. Kerry Hague, when setting up the event, was so afraid of the length, that he emasculated the greens with the pin positions.  (Did not have it in the front of 12 or the left side of 12 all week, not in the middle left of 10, not in the middle or front left of 4, not in the front right of 6) This turned out of be quite a mistake from a resistance to scoring perspective as Medinah, despite it's score card length, doesn't play that long as far as I'm concerned.

And I guess finally, the green speeds were not that quick and with the limited contour and very good ball roll conditioning, it made for favorable putting conditions.

That said, as someone who spent all week out there and served as Tiger's marshal on Sunday, his putting display was absolutely amazing.

[tlavin]

My real hope is that the Board and Committee will really, truly get out of the architect/superintendent's way and let them make Medinah a much better golf course.  It has the raw materials to be a lot better than it is currently.

IMHO, they need to cut down 1000 more trees as a starter.  This will aid the turfgrass on the greens, which is absolutely mandatory.  More than that, the golf course is overrun with several very undesirable species of trees, principally pine, willow, silver maple, locust and hawthorne.  On the fifth hole, for example, there are four or five spruce trees behind the green as a "frame", which is absolutely atrocious.  On the sixth hole alone, I stopped count at 30 austrian pines which were inexplicably planted amidst native groves of oak.  The golf course would still be a tree-lined beauty if the bad species were removed.  This would result in the showcasing of the hundreds of oak, hickory and "good" maple trees out there.  This would be an amazing visual improvement.

The work on the greens is regrettably necessary.  It seems impossible that they'd have to be redone, but I can tell you that the members are very dissatisfied with the agronomic condition of the greens and the lack of internal contour on the greens that came about as a result of the most recent re-do.  At the time, the mistaken thinking was that the A1/A4 grass on the greens would be kept at such a high speed that the internal contours would be over the top.  It developed that the greens were never able to be kept at those speeds for any great period of time and thus, the members were playing greens at slower speeds that had been flattened out considerably.  As Potts mentioned, the greens were also regularly wet because of the drainage problems.

There are also a couple demonstrably weak holes that ought to be improved.  The fifth and tenth holes could be reworked to become terrific par 4's for the pros and great amateur players.  Medinah as a par 70 would be a much more representative challenge for great golfers and would be more consistent with the best courses in the country in that regard.  The fifteenth hole is a bit of an orphan, jammed in a corner of the property.  It could be greatly improved.  It should be, because it is in a very important stretch of the golf course.  The last hole that is sort of uninspiring is the par-3 eighth hole, but I really can't see that much can be done there.

Medinah gets a fair share of criticism for the fact that three of its par three holes are very similar.  That's probably fair, but each of those holes is great on its individual merits.  Medinah is also rightly criticized for back-and-forth changes to the golf course (including a nutty change to #17, one of the great one-shotters in the country).  It seems like it's been re-done as often as Joan Rivers' face, for Chrissakes.  But does that mean that the current leadership should turn a blind eye and just live with the agronomic and design flaws?  Methinks not.  I know a few of the more influential members and I have every confidence that they will get out of the way of the experts and let them execute a master plan for a final major renovation of the golf course.

I should also echo some earlier comments about the architectural bona fides of the golf course itself.  There is no particular reason to think that the original Bendelow routing and design should be restored.  The architect should be free to renovate the golf course to make it the best it can be without constantly worrying about the "classic" Bendelow look.  Those days are long over.  It's time for the real Medinah to assert itself.  If they leave Jones alone, I think the golf course would definitely earn/keep its spot in the upper echelon of American golf.  They have a lot to work with.

[Matt_Ward]

Maybe someone can explain to me and the other Medinah doubters (FYI -- I have played the course and attended the most recent PGA Championships and the last US Open in 1990) what credence should one give to the club that THIS time all will be better.

Much better.

Frankly, Medinah has gone through more plastic surgeries than Michael Jackson with little real gains to show for it.

I do sincerely wish the club well because clearly the club membership has a keen interest in hosting big time events.

I do agree with Terry L -- no need to be slavish to some old time version from the Bendelow school of design. That's long since been uprooted with all the past modifications -- the goal should be to get the best course possible. One other thing -- I also agree -- time to get the trees taken care of in plenty of areas.

[JR Potts]

Maybe someone can explain to me and the other Medinah doubters (FYI -- I have played the course and attended the most recent PGA Championships and the last US Open in 1990) what credence should one give to the club that THIS time all will be better.

There is no guarantee.  And not to sound brash, but the club doesn't owe anything to you or the Medinah doubters.  If you don't like it, don't play it.  It's pretty simple.  Medinah owes everything to the Members.

Frankly, Medinah has gone through more plastic surgeries than Michael Jackson with little real gains to show for it.

While the former statement is witty with a bit of truth, the latter makes no sense and goes to the heart of my critique of the Medinah naysayers.  Little real gains?  The old Medinah routing/design couldn't hold a candle to what is there now.  "No real gains"...that's not true....and again, I ask for an analysis of the changes and how the course hasn't been improved from just one person.

That's long since been uprooted with all the past modifications -- the goal should be to get the best course possible.

I agree with this but will bet dollars to doughnuts that the Medinah doubters will still be Medinah doubters.  It's just not the type of course that some on here will ever like...just like Pinehurst, Tobacco Road, Chicago Golf and Pine Needles are courses that I will never love.  Different strokes for different folks I guess.

[Matt_Ward]

Ryan:

Don't presume what I may like or may not like until the work is done. I am Medinah doubter because all the pomp and circumstance from the previous "improvements" have done little to really register for the long term. Medinah measures long term with each series of several years because plenty of people have seen the "improvements" as really lacking -- hence the constant need to keep changing and changing.

Clearly, you are entitled to your opinions on the various courses you mentioned -- but I'll be happy to weigh the merits of Pinehurst #2 versus Medinah # anytime. Pinehurst #2 has not gone through the sheer range and start / stop process that Medinah # 3 has undergone.

Ryan, c'mon let's stop with the silly rubbish -- about not owing things to others save for the members. Clearly, the very members themselves have seen fit to change things -- again, again and yet again. Clearly, the club has paid attention to the demands of outsiders -- need I remind you of the late P.J. Boatwright's demand that the old 18th be changed should the club ever wish to hold a future US Open.

I can provide one quick area where no real gains have been made -- the constant back and forth nature of the par-3 17th. I mean what decision number are we now working on now. The 2nd? The 3rd? The 4th?

Ryan, I salute Medinah for the desire by the club to stay a prime player for big time events. You presume that all naysayers are stuck i mud with their opinions. I'm not and will be most interested to see personally what this "new" effort will bring forth. To borrow a Truman expressions ... show me.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Matt,

Are we sure P2 had undergone fewer changes than M3?  Let's see - conversion to grass greens, over top dressing greens to dome shapes, taking out of wire grass roughs, restoration of wiregrass roughs, conversion of greens to bent, bermuda and then bent (JN, Rees and maybe others in the process).  And, that doesn't include earlier re-routings Ross did.

On par, I say the changes are about the same, not that it makes any difference to your or anyone else's opinions on the merits of the course.  Frankly, on the day you play the course, does it really matter to you if you are playing version 1, 2, 3 or 4 of ANY hole? (Well for some here, i know they like version 1 if at all possible, but M3-17 was an entirely new hole)

[JWinick]

Ryan,

If the desire of the membership is to be sensitive to restoration, than why hire an architect like Rees Jones?   Obviously, the membership was not happy with the 2003 renovation.   Why did Rees take the project on if the budget wasn't adequate then?   And, why not look at other architects who are better at managing restoration?  Steve Smyers completed a renovation of Olympia Fields South and showed tremendous interest in bringing back some of Bendelow's original style.   He is now doing something similar at Butterfield.   

Finally, is the membership viewing these changes as necessary for the Ryder Cup and future tournaments, or is more for the long-term use of the course?   I would suspect that, after the Ryder Cup, the membership may be exhausted from hosting tournaments.

Jon

[tlavin]

Ryan,

If the desire of the membership is to be sensitive to restoration, than why hire an architect like Rees Jones?   Obviously, the membership was not happy with the 2003 renovation.   Why did Rees take the project on if the budget wasn't adequate then?   And, why not look at other architects who are better at managing restoration?  Steve Smyers completed a renovation of Olympia Fields South and showed tremendous interest in bringing back some of Bendelow's original style.   He is now doing something similar at Butterfield.   

Finally, is the membership viewing these changes as necessary for the Ryder Cup and future tournaments, or is more for the long-term use of the course?   I would suspect that, after the Ryder Cup, the membership may be exhausted from hosting tournaments.

Jon

Jon,

If I may presume to read Ryan's mind, I think two factors are in play here.  First, the members have already put in their bylaws that Rees Jones has to be the consulting architect.  Second, the leaders within the club hold the members themselves responsible for much of the decision-making that contributed to the dissatisfaction with the most recent changes.  In other words, they believe (and those who voted yes for yet more work) that if they just give Jones and the superintendent enough money and stay out of their way, they will get the golf course they want.  They think they may have underspent and over-micro-managed the last time around.

[Carl Nichols]

First, the members have already put in their bylaws that Rees Jones has to be the consulting architect. 

Seriously? Why in the world did they do that? 

[Matt_Ward]

Jeff:

Be serious -- changing grass types is a bit different than changing holes and their placements.  Let me point out that when the Tufts sold Pinehurst the changes made by Diamondhead or whatever the exact name of the company was -- was truly stupid and when Club Corporation came in afterwards those inane "changes" were tossed aside for the right reasonss. Medinah 3 has changed from what it was prior to the '90 US Open because of a decree from the USGA that at minimum the previous 18th hole had to be changed for a future US Open - hence the '90 US Open.

Let's start with the fact -- that the core routing and holes at #2 are the same ones from years agp. Medinah #3 has gone thorugh changes to its core hole and their location on the actual routing. Pinehurst #2 since entering the major championship scene in '99 is still using nearly all of those elements for the '05 US Open and likely the Open being planned for '14.

Also, check out the range of changes made and the constant need to overhaul -- not just tweak a few things here and there at Medinah 3. Jeff, I don't see the changes the two have faced as being on par with one another. The Medinah changes have been close to comical because with each version we have been told that the final work will be the real Medinah 3 that needs to emerge. Clearly, the "emergent" course has been changed at-will -- again and again and again. 


Dave:

Was waiting for you to respond to the Michael Jackson comment -- ah, leave the bait on the table and they shall bite !

[JR Potts]

Jeff:

Medinah #3 has gone thorugh changes to its core hole and their location on the actual routing. Pinehurst #2 since entering the major championship scene in '99 is still using nearly all of those elements for the '05 US Open and likely the Open being planned for '14.

I was going to be done with this thread as I thought it had run its course.  However, you need to get called out on this.  It is absolutely incorrect, deceiving and your argument that the course hasn't been improved because of the changes to 17 that you point to does little, if anything, to support your prior statements.

First, the ONLY changes to the core routing that existed prior to the 90 Open and what is there today was to the 17th and 18th holes.  That's it.  Yes, Medinah switched its 18th hole from a 375 yards 3-iron, 6-iron hole to what is there today.  And yes, it did so upon suggestion of the USGA?  So what?  It was a terrible finishing hole for major championship golf.

And yes, Medinah got rid of a nothing par 3 hole (formerly 14) and turned a nothing par 4 (formerly 15) into a par 5 by doing nothing else but adding length.  But how is that a substanial overhaul of the course?  Again, you still haven't answered the question and nobody has - how has the course NOT been improved?

Second, there is no real defense to what occurred at 17.  It's pathetic.   But that said, if you look at the original 17 after the re-do, what you see there today is a similar but better version of that hole - no doubt about that.  And, the 4th par 3 (current 17) on the course is light-years better than the 4th par 3 (formerly 14) prior to any renovation.

And I guess finally, what changes are done to course over time has little to no impact over the quality of a golf course as it plays today.  While it great to study and appreciate the history of course, the way the course looked or was routed in 1940 vs. today has little to no impact on my assessment and enjoyment of course that I am actually playing.

Medinah #3s history is deep, but the history that was made on the course when Hal Irwin ran around the green, Sergio hit the ball off the tree, Tiger won his second ever major...and then won again is still there.  All of the crucial holes are there in almost their exact form.

What isn't there is the former 18th hole, the hole that Nicklaus called one of the worst finishing holes in all of Major golf.  And I, for one, am not upset that it is gone.

Terry - it is not in the bylaws.

Jeff - I'm not so sure that Medinah is done with hosting Championships.  In this horrible economy, Medinah still has a two year wait list.  More every other club in the area has seen its wait list eviscerated.  I think a lot of that has to do with it hosting events.  I could be wrong though.

[JWinick]

If Medinah went 20 years without hosting a major championship, it wouldn't change the prestige of the club one iota.   A major every 5-7 years has got to be a royal pain for the membership.   It does more for a club that has fallen off the radar or is a newer club that is looking for the prestige associated with one.