[Matt_Ward]

Dave:

It's hard to swallow the fact you'e trying to float a layout like Medinah No 3 which is akin to the Titanic. Dave, I'll be sure to throw you a life-saver because you know you've got a turkey of a layout to defend.

ANGC was a very good course when it came into existence -- the changes after WWII only pushed it into the upper realm of total greatness as the epitome of strategic architecture. Only the Hootie inclusions have pushed ANGC downward in my mind.

Medinah No 3 has really never been anything more than a slog -- a long one with trees enveloping the property and a repetitive nature of par-3 holes. The USGA only went to the course because of the tie to Chicago -- arguably the USA's best sports town.  After Boatwright layed it straightforward to the club after the '75 Open (the 18th was a silly closing hole then) the club has gone on a blitz resembling the Keystone Cops -- one step forward -- two backward and then one step sideways and on and on it goes. If the Marx brothers were alive today -- instead of "A Night at the Opera" -- they could rename it "A Day at Medinah No 3."

Now we have the driveable par-4 option -- likely the braintrust there believed such an inclusion would be better than what they had. It might be. But then again the threshold to do that would not take much.

Dave, you then throw ANGC into the mix to provide some cover for Medinah No 3. Nice try buddy -- but Medinah No 3 has fumbled so many past situations that almost anything has to be better than what's been done previously.

Geeze, I wonder -- how come the club is not fiddling yet again with the par-3 17th ?

Dave, it's too bad BN cannot be brought back into the picture -- then you'd have a layout with something to shout about.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I saw it in construction and the bigger benefit than the driveable par 4 is that they eliminated the snap dogleg on the sixteenth hole by putting the tee where the 15th green was and, I think, removing a few trees on 16.

I didn't think the lake looked like anything Medinah ever had (Lake Kadija is so much larger in scale) the new lake sort of just sits there in all its glory, but it should be a fun hole among all the brutes.  Not to mention they fixed 18 and its snap slice years ago and it was about time to fix the snap hook hole on 16.

Time simply eroded the logic of its dogleg placement.

[Brad Klein]

It must be nice to get paid every three years to fix up your own work. Wish I had an annuity like that.

[Phil_the_Author]

Matt,

There must be a misunderstanding here and I'll take the blame for it. I originally wrote, "Have you seen the course since it was redone? I'd be surprised if you had since it isn't scheduled to reopen for three more weeks, though you might have gotten an early peek. The reason for asking is I have a hard time understanding how you can be critical of the redesign "the nnnnnnnnth job Medinah No 3 is doing..." if you haven't even seen it."

When you responded you never stated that you weren't being critical of it when you used the phrase "the nnnnnnnnth job Medinah No 3 is doing..." which is obviously what I took it to be. In fact, you responded by stating that:

"I've been going to Medinah No 3 since the '75 US Open -- I have not seen the Rees Jones version under discussion now -- whatever number that is now. But, I have played the course when in town for the major events. No problem in disclosing that but my original comments still stand -- the place has botched it with every "new" and so-called "improvement."

That certainly appeared to me, and I believe some others got the same impression as well, that you were criticizing the current Rees Jones renovation.

It was for that I challenged your professionalism and open-mind on the issue. If you weren't being critical of it, I apologize for the misunderstanding and take back what I said...

[Jeff_Brauer]

Phil,

I see no need to apologize.  I think you are right.  How can we percieve that he is not being critical when he calls it "botched" etc.?  Matt - who takes others to task for not getting out and seeing courses we discuss here as much as he has, apparently feels its okay for him to declare Medinah a disaster area without actually having seen it.

As to Brad's comments, I have heard presentations on the last remodel, and I believe Rees had decided to redo all the greens, but for reasons I can't recall, the club vetoed that and had him do only the worst ones. It was probably money, if they are anything like other clubs......Now, they want consistency, but new USGA greens won't react quite like five year old USGA greens, at least for a while.  

[Phil_the_Author]

Jeff,

I appreciate your sentiments, but Matt, at least with me, has always been a straight-shooter in his comkments and beliefs regardless of how stupid the idea he has of turning the 18th on bethpage Black into a driveable par-4.

Because of that, I take him at his word when he stated, "I never panned the Rees change in question because I have not played it -- yet..."

Therefor an apology was in order.

[Jeff_Brauer]

No problem, Phil, but I still wonder how the newest one could be a botch job if all the others were disasters.  If they were wrong, how could the new changes be anything other than an improvement?

Personally, while I agree with the idea that the three water par 3's are to similar, I think getting rid of the ho hum short par 3 14th and 330 yard 15th made a lot of sense, as well as changing 18 in the Roger Packard remodel.  With the renumbering, Rees new short par 4 at the new 15th is an improvement over both the hole as it existed and the short par 4 that once was on the back nine, while the old short 4 corridor works well as a par 5.

[Matt_Ward]

Jeff:

Let me help you out here OK -- my usage of the word "botched" is tied to the cumulative nature of what's been attempted in improving the course since I first played it just prior to the '75 US Open. Jeff -- let me further help your errors - I have played all the different versions -- minus the most recent -- and I see from the standpoint of time that the sheer efforts in making the course better is akin to Michael Jackson improving what was done with the 6th, 7th, et al plastic surgery attempts.

I never made a claim that I have played the Rees Jones latest version -- I simply said, since you likely missed it, that based on the batting averages of the times I have been to the course I have little reason to believe they might be able to get it right. Of course, a personal visit will be my only way to know for sure.

Jeff, if you believe Medinah No 3 is a bonafide top 100 course in the USA than you are in need of playing a few more layouts when time permits.

Just my opinion good buddy.


Phil:

Thanks for your comments and in re-reading what I originallly posted. I still love the finale at BB though.
 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Matt,

Let me help you out...well I would, but my comments would get me dismissed from the site, post haste.


but you manage to put words in my mouth to make your worthless argument.  All I said is you are one who professes to do the "heavy lifting" to analyze a course and yet you are making a judgement (even if only going so far as to say 99% sure) on changes that aren't even open yet.

There are certainly some legit issues to discuss, but I don't need you to stuff them down my throat, please. 

[Matt_Ward]

Jeff:

"Worthless argument" -- that's quite hilarious.

Rewind the tape -- I only commented on what I have played at Medinah No 3 going back to the '75 time frame. I have played the other "versions" and frankly they didn't improve the layout in my mind. That feeling was echoed by others -- if I recall correctly, I believe even Ron Whitten panned them. There were others who felt the same way. I guess each of them would be branded with the same drivel of "worthless argument" too.

I have done the heavy lifting - far more than many on this site. I never commented on what Rees did with the latest version of what's been done there -- I simply said that based on my visits the batting average for what Medinah No 3 has attempted over the years has not been productive. That's not a huge leap by any means.

In regards to words being put in one's mouth -- try to gaze in the mirror and see where the first volleys were fired.

End of story ...

[Jeff_Brauer]

What's really funny is that you make Tom MacWood sound like the Prince of Peace and the Voice of Reason......

[Tim Nugent]

Q:  How was the 15th hole before the renovation? Was it a fun hole?  Just another hole?  A bad hole?  A hole worthy of total replacement?

It was a real snoozer, sort of jammed in the corner of the property, with a good view of the Shell station, back in the day.  I'm excited about this renovation for several reasons.  First, I hope that they will have fixed the greens, because they were flattened out too much the last time Jones had a whack at the course.  The greens lost a lot of interest to me.  Hopefully the internal contouring will be much improved.  Second, the new 15th hole has the chance to put at least a dose of fun into a golf course that can tend to be a hard slog if you're not a scratch golfer.  Finally, I'm hoping that they cut down enough trees to make a difference, but I'm not holding my breath.

Medinah gets its fair share of criticism and a lot of it is warranted, because it seems like the poster child of committees falling prey to the fad of the moment and changing the golf course on a whim.  I have some reason to believe that this time will be different, because it seems like the leadership of the club has recognized the errors of past regimes and I'm told that they've largely gotten out of the way of the architect, the construction crew and the superintendent.  That would be a good thing, IMHO.

Terry, when I last played Medina a few yrs ago - after the Rees redo, I thought the new greens were generally much easier to putt as the cross-slopes had been removed.  The older greens required both speed AND line lest you end up with  long come back putt.  Now that these are getting the USGA treatment, I would think they too will be akin to the other 'new' greens.  Pity.

RE: the trees.  At the Midwest Mashie, Ken Dye put me right on the 2nd shot on #10 - with a number of trees between me and the green. I pulled my 1-iron to punch a low burner.  He asked why I still carried a 1, I said it was my Medina Club aka the 40 yds punch threw a toothpick factory just to get back to the fairway.  Ergo, I think one could take every other tree down at Medina and it would be hard to tell.

[Brad Klein]

Some years ago I characterized playing Medinah No. 3 as a "joyless slog." So now they are going to revise the character of the layout by introducing a hole that is totally out of character with the rest of the course? Next thing you know they'll call it their signature hole. More like the idea of a drivable par-4 jumping the shark.

[JR Potts]

Some years ago I characterized playing Medinah No. 3 as a "joyless slog." So now they are going to revise the character of the layout by introducing a hole that is totally out of character with the rest of the course? Next thing you know they'll call it their signature hole. More like the idea of a drivable par-4 jumping the shark.

Brad, you're supposedly the all-knowing golf course rater.  What I would love to hear - and what nobody has been able to state on this site - is how is Medinah any worse than it was in 1974?  What has made the former course worse?  While I agree there have been several botch jobs....nothing has been done has made the golf course worse [And like Tim, I've studied and reviewed every single change and proposed change to this golf course].

And I stand by my statement, there are some courses that cater to a guy shooting 100+  (right Brad) and there are others that don't.  The latter intent doesn't make a course bad...it just makes it something that crappy golfers shouldn't play.  And I think Medinah clearly falls within that category.  In my idea of golf course  architecture, there are different intents for a course that need to to be weighed....especially when said course is a private course.

And 15 "out of character"?  Have you been out there yet?  My bet is no and that you're basing your comments off preconceived notions....which says a lot about the quality of your journalism on the subject.  That said, the former 15 was the one hole on the course that didn't fit...I think the new version is a vastly improved rendition (and yes, I've been out there).

I'll finish by saying - what has "journalism" come to when a golf course rater and journalist for a major golf course publication comes out and pans a redesign before visiting the course or playing it.  PATHETIC BRAD......really.  I would say I would cancel my GolfWeek subscription but they send it to me for free....so guess not.

I have to call the Hon. Terry Lavin now and discuss the opinion and decision he is writing for the case he has yet to read a brief on or hear oral argument on...it should be a good one.

[JR Potts]

And Mike, send me your email and I'll forward a copy of the drawing on.

[Matt_Ward]

Ryan:

Here's what Medinah offers for a US Open site ...

1). Being located in Chicago -- a first tier sports town of large enough size

2). Provides a venue with plenty of room for all the logistical demands such an event needs

3). A brawny type course where mega length is possible.

here's the flipside ...

1). The course is enveloped by trrees -- albeit many have been cut down over the years.

2). There are no holes that really stand above and beyond the rest. The old "13th" is probably one of them.

3). The putting surfaces have never really distinguished themselves in a notable way.

let me point out that I have not played the new 15th hole. who knows it's possible that on the upteeeeenth time the inclusion of such a hole may be an asset. Candidly, I have never heard a convincing argument on why Medinah No 3 is rated among the top 100 courses in the USA. Please share one if you can -- be very interested in reading it.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Matt,

Its funny, but Medinah was always ranked top 10 or so until the '75 Open when JN criticized the old 13th (current 16)with its too short snap dogleg. After that, it dropped to the mid 40's or so, from memory. Yes, it has trees, but with some of the removals, is this course really much different than most US Open venues in its makeup?  The current putting surfaces have been softened, but the old ones were quite nasty and fast by nearly any standard.  That said, these probably fit the green speeds better for tournament and every day play.

As I mentioned earlier, the project this year lengthens the distance to the dogleg by putting the tee where the old 15th was, and I think they may have taken down a few trees, but the new placement also reduces the dogleg naturally. In reality, I think that was the crux of the project, and the driveable par 4 15th was simply a by product.

I pulled out Tim Cronin's "Spirit of Medinah" when thinking about the changes.  While granting the course now looks more like Rees than a traditional course, I can't say the changes - like angling the green on 2 and most others don't "make sense" from a playability standpoint.

As to the routing changes, over the years, Roger Packard and Rees have bascially taken out the worst holes -

Packard removed the old 14 and 15, a mundane par 3 and par 4 and replaced them with another water par 3 (which I agree is too similar to the other two, but still a better hole than the one it replaced). As noted, the old 323 yard par 4 with its "Elanor's Peals" bunker scheme works just as well on a long par 5, which did require some fw cut and can still be blind for short hitters.  It is still tight as a par 5 to boot.

Packard also removed the snap slice 18th and made it a longer, straighter hole.  The 18th is one Palmer complained about, and I think the USGA said it had to be changed to host another event.

And, lastly, Rees took out the snap hook on 16 (old 13) and as a result, reintroduced a short par 4 to the back nine, with more strategy than existed on the old 15 which wasn't driveable.

You may not like the course, but as a former Chicagoan, I think it holds up just fine to other NE courses that have held the Open.  I am not quite sure why others of similar width don't come in for equal criticisms as No. 3, to be honest.  As to no holes really standing out, I have to ask what holes stand out at courses like Brookline, WF, and Baltusrol?  They all strike me as solid all the way around with few stand out holes (with WF having the most IMHO) For that matter, all of those plus Oakmont are slogs under US Open conditions to about the same degree.

[Brad Klein]

Ryan,

GCA is not journalism, it's opinion. I save my detailed reporting for Golfweek and here just render my best judgments based upon what I have seen and know. I've played the course 3x, walked it twice more. The photos I have seen of the new 15th hole show a pond unlike anything else out there. The short, drivable hole is unlike anything out there. That's the basis of the question I raised and the comment. There's nothing preconceived about it. 

The course demands a style of golf that is extremely demanding in terms of length and aerial play, through tree corridors on the longer holes that seem to blend into one another as virtually indistinguishable. All manner of iterations since the mid-1970s have not been able to change that. In the 1970s that style might have been admired. Now it's just exposed as dull and repetitive. Yes, the conditioning is far better; the bunkers and greens in much better shape and the overall turf quality amazing for such a heavy soil, parkland course. But of all styles of golf and course architecture, that's the least compelling and the least attractive to a diverse range of golfers. Maybe it does what it tries to do well, but what's it's trying to do is just so confined and unimaginative.

[JR Potts]

Ryan,

GCA is not journalism, it's opinion. I save my detailed reporting for Golfweek and here just render my best judgments based upon what I have seen and know. I've played the course 3x, walked it twice more. The photos I have seen of the new 15th hole show a pond unlike anything else out there. The short, drivable hole is unlike anything out there. That's the basis of the question I raised and the comment. There's nothing preconceived about it. 

While maybe that is true, I expected better from you.  While you may have seen pictures of 15 (probably those I posted on this site days after it was seeded), what is out there today is a far cry from what was posted.  I would have expected that you, of all people, would have known that and would know better.  Guess not.

I supposed I'm just more let down than anything.  I can accept that Medinah has become a favorite punching bag for most on here, however, with respect comes responsibility.  I opine that you have forsaken yours in this instance.  Everything you write about it from now on will be tainted by your comments.

And Jeff - your posts are well stated.  See, nobody can point to one single improvement of the 1950,1960, 1970, 1980 version of Medinah over what is out there today....yet, these same people are so quick to state that what is out there today has been "botched" "butchered" and "ruined".

The truth of the matter is, what is out there today is 100x better than what was out there 40 years ago....it took a while to get there, but it is better.   In fact, what was out there 15 years ago is better than what was out there in the 70s.  For one to opine that Medinah was once great as is not now due to the changes is ignoring the facts.  If one states that they don't like it now and never did.....fine....but any other argument that it worse due to the changes is just not reliable and not supported by the facts. 

[Brad Klein]

No Ryan, I did not see your photos. I got mine directly through the club's publicist, and they are of that golf hole fully grown in. So it turns out that I'm working with far fresher data than you are you. Your assumptions about my sources and the basis of my judgment there are inaccurate.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Brad,

In your two last posts, you pan Medinah both for all the holes blending together and being indistinguishable and for adding a new hole unlike any of the others......Seems like a contradiction to me.

[Brad Klein]

Sorry Jeff, the inconsistency isn't mine. It's inherent in Medinah. My point is that you can't suddenly break with the character of a golf course by sneaking in one anomalous hole. It smacks of desperation to try to do so.

[JR Potts]

So it turns out that I'm working with far fresher data than you are you.

Considering the fact that walked on the green, stood on the tee and touched the grass two days ago - I would say the the above statement is another presupposition.

And again, outside of adding water on the right side (to aid with drainage and adding a front tee, there is absolutely no "change in character" - the hole is located in the exact same spot, the green is generally located in the exact same spot, the old tee remains and most of the trees are still there).

In my estimation - it's going to be a great 15th hole in the Ryder Cup.  I'll let you know how it plays in 18 days.

[Terry Lavin]

I suppose it's just a rhetorical argument, but I don't agree that the change to the 15th hole is "totally out of character" merely because it might be a bit of a "breather" from the rest of the very difficult par 4's at Medinah #3.  If the hole is properly designed, it seems to me, it should offer risk and reward, so there's a chance for a double or a birdie and maybe even an eagle.  If this is the way it works out, I think it will be a good addition.  And we can't forget that it is replacing a dud of a hole.  It's not like they took the 12th hole and turned it into a tough but fun shortie.  Nobody will miss the old 15th hole.

For me, I really don't care if it's a great hole for the Ryder Cup in '12.  The Ryder Cup will come and go.  I hope this (and the other changes) are great for the members and their guests and I hope the changes stand the test of time and are not just another fad alteration.

As for the bashing of Medinah, at the risk of offending my friend Mr. Potts, I'll say again that much of the criticism is well-earned as a result of meddlesome committees and uninspired architects who have seemingly botched numerous opportunities to dramatically improve the golf course over the years.  Just making it tougher isn't enough, to me.  That doesn't mean that it won't be much better this time around.  I just hope it works and we're playing the 15th in ten years in the form that is being unveiled in a few weeks.

For my final moment on the soapbox, I'll say that the biggest change that could and should come to Medinah is the wholesale elimination of trees.  They could start with all of the pines on the #3 course.  There might be 200 of them.  To that, they could add the silver maple, the green ash and the locust trees.  Then they could really bite the bullet and start removing some of the massive oaks in critical areas, especially around the greens.  

I know that they've started along this road.  And I know that it's a difficult road. When I was greens chairman at Olympia, I led the charge to cut down several hundred trees on the North Course, even after we had cut down hundreds a few years earlier during our Mungeam renovation.  We cut down 10 or so on the signature hole, the 14th, and boy did the members howl.  But it looks fabulous now.  I also remember the removal around the fourth green.  We cut down 30 or so mature oaks because grass wouldn't grow on the green.  One member said I could have left one to hang myself on.  But my favorite of all was the removal of two hideous beech trees behind the sixteenth hole.  We found old photos from the 1928 US Open which showed the hole without the beech trees.  Beautiful.  I came into the bar on the afternoon after the trees were cut down.  A member (a house painter) loudly accosted me from across the room.  "Who the #$#@ do you think you are.  Doc Schmidt planted those trees in 1975."  I told him that the experts told me that the trees should be cut down but if we had needed his opinion on what color to paint them he would have heard from us.

At the end of the day, I think most everybody agrees that the North Course is still a treelined parkland course.  The tree removal restored different angles of attack.  It allowed us to recut fairways.  It opened up the course and allowed a lot of vistas.  It brought more wind into play.  And, most of all, it allowed the turfgrass to grow.  The lesson here is that you don't have to go all Oakmont on a treelined course like Medinah (although it would be an unbelievable sight) to make it much prettier and much more fun to play.  You just have to get out those chainsaws.  There's a great golf course out there right now.  It would be many measures better if they cut down a thousand trees or so.

[JR Potts]

Terry, et. al.:  there is very little that offends me.  The only thing that does are baseless opinions.

T - while we've discussed the facts behind your post numerous times - I'm just waiting for one person to tell me how the course is any worse than it was in 1975.  That's all I'm looking for.

And if someone mentions the greens, they need to get their facts straight as only 6 of them have been changed...and thank god they were as they would have been totally unplayable at today's green speeds.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()