News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Paul Richards

  • Karma: +0/-0
Butler National
« on: April 08, 2003, 12:58:54 PM »
I just received my issue of Golf Digest so I haven't had much of chance to be a part of these discussions.

However, at quick glance, I noticed that Butler National actually moved up 16 spots from number 58 to number 42.

Based on some of the other posts here on GCA (re:Kingsley) that mention the disconnect between the various publications, Butler is a great example as well.  

Golf Digest - Butler - #42 in US, 2003
Golf Week - Butler  -  unrated
                       (last ranking in 2001 - #92)

How can Golf Digest say it's in the top 50 in the US and Golf Week doesn't even think it belongs in the top 100 of the Modern courses? ??? :-[
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
"Something has to change, otherwise the never-ending arms race that benefits only a few manufacturers will continue to lead to longer courses, narrower fairways, smaller greens, more rough, more expensive rounds, and other mechanisms that will leave golf's future in doubt." -  TFOG

Matt_Ward

Re: Butler National
« Reply #1 on: April 08, 2003, 02:11:40 PM »
Paul:

I've played Butler National a few times and always liked the course although I can understand (but not necessarily totally agree) the comments from some who believe the difficulty meter is out of whack when compared to the character issue of the course.

Paul, I can't speak for those on the GW panel who think less of the course, but you have to question (at least I do) how people can elevate Shoreacres to near sainthood with a top 50 position and then leave off Paul Butler's fine contribution as well as develop amnesia regarding how Skokie gets lost in
the sauce and is not rated by either panel.

P.S. For what it's worth -- I do like Medinah #3 but nowhere near as much as GD which placed it 13th!

Like I said -- I enjoyed Butler National when the Western was played there and I believe the 18th is sadly missed as a closing hole for television audiences to see. I can still remember vividly when Tom Weiskopf claimed the Western through his play on that hole and I can also remember quite a few others who sang faster than an anvil by heaving their guts all over the place. ;)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Paul Richards

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Butler National
« Reply #2 on: April 09, 2003, 03:52:05 AM »
Matt:

Glad to see we agree on Butler. ;)

You also mentioned Skokie.  I, too, agree that it should be in the top 100 from Golf Digest and in the Top 100 Classic course for Golfweek.

If you remember, in the '90's, Skokie cracked the Golf Digest 100 list.  Now, after extensive restoration and an AMAZING improvement, it actually FELL in the GD rankings from #8 in the state to #9!  How can that happen?

To add to this, of course I am biased about My Home Course, Beverly CC, but it too fell from #9 in the state to #10.  We are in the midst of the restoration of our course, which, I believe, when it is finished, should put us at or near the level where it should be included in both GD and the GW top 100 lists.  

I'm sorry, but Knollwood is a very nice course, but it shouldn't leapfrog over Skokie and Beverly.  Not even close. :'(
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
"Something has to change, otherwise the never-ending arms race that benefits only a few manufacturers will continue to lead to longer courses, narrower fairways, smaller greens, more rough, more expensive rounds, and other mechanisms that will leave golf's future in doubt." -  TFOG

Paul Richards

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Butler National
« Reply #3 on: April 09, 2003, 03:54:29 AM »
In fact, I'll go one further.  Here's my list of top Illinois courses.  What's yours?

1. Chicago
2. Medinah #3
3. Olympia - North
4. Butler National
5. Cog Hill #4
6. Shoreacres
7. Beverly
8. Skokie
9. Black Sheep
10 Rich Harvest

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
"Something has to change, otherwise the never-ending arms race that benefits only a few manufacturers will continue to lead to longer courses, narrower fairways, smaller greens, more rough, more expensive rounds, and other mechanisms that will leave golf's future in doubt." -  TFOG

JakaB

Re: Butler National
« Reply #4 on: April 09, 2003, 05:52:13 AM »
Illinois...of what I have played

Beverly
Orchard Valley
Northmoor
Deerfield Park District
Pine Meadow
Kemper Lakes
North Chicago
Bonnie Brook
etc..
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Ken_Boltz

Re: Butler National
« Reply #5 on: April 09, 2003, 07:29:16 AM »
As a former caddie at Butler National, I have some fond memories of that course really tearing some guys up. There are only a few holes, such as 2, 12, 16(?) where you can actually attack. The are far more holes, like 3, 5, 7-10, 14, 17-18 where you pray to take a par and run. Nonetheless, it is a fun course to play if you approach it right. And for what its worth, heres my list of best Chicago area courses:

1. Chicago GC (simply THE BEST course I've ever played)
2. Medinah #3
3. Olympia Fields North
4. Butler National
5. Skokie
6. Beverly
7. Pine Meadow
8. Cog Hill #4
9. Rich Harvest
10. Heritage Bluffs
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

JakaB

Re: Butler National
« Reply #6 on: April 09, 2003, 07:34:18 AM »
As a lifetime resident of Illinois that has never played Bob'O'Link....I've got to ask...as would most other average people like me...why is the course not appreciated by the type of people who frequent this site.   My guess is that it would make everymans top ten out in the streets.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Matt_Ward

Re: Butler National
« Reply #7 on: April 09, 2003, 09:14:01 AM »
redanman:

Me thinks there is another form of disease besides the SARS outbreak -- it's called Raynor-itis. When I went to play Shoreacres the first time in 2001 I was hoping for so much more. Yes, there are holes of quality -- the interplay of the serpentine creek is well done, but there are way too many mundane holes (try the first three for starts!) and I also believe the Raynor fan club sometimes skips over the fact that repetition of holes can be a bit much -- clearly, if an architect did this without the "Raynor brand name" they would likely be crucified for a lack of imagination.

Paul R:

I agree with others that have said that Butler is a man-sized course. There is little character to the course IMHO, but it's a fair minded muscle type course that I enjoyed playing. If you're looking for cute-sie / cute-sie type holes then go elsewhere. I also believe if one looks at the roster of champions that have been produced at Butler v Cog you will find a much more deeper roster of talent at the former.

In looking at the assessments of some of the people who've weighed in on what they believe is the best in Chi town I wonder how Rich Harvest Links drew such high marks and joined GD's listing but basically just finishes within the top ten of those who've posted thus far. I've played RHL and enjoyed the course -- they do need to trim the overhanging limbs on a few tees though. But, I have not played the sheer depth of other courses in Chi town to make a definitive statement on its overall standing when compared to others.

P.S. To the group -- Skokie is a superb layout and how it got left out when others from Chi town are included amazes me. Ditto -- how Medinah #3 garners the #13 position.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Jeff Goldman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Butler National
« Reply #8 on: April 09, 2003, 09:45:30 AM »
What's the land like at Butler?  Is it flat like its neighbor Oak Brook?  If so, isn't uninteresting land a reason the course isn't rated higher?  My recollection is that Tom Doak valued Shoreacres so much in the Confidential Guide, and downgraded others, is that the land and ravines there were so interesting and the Raynor holes worked well there.  Aside from its difficulty, how is Butler any different from the usual Chicago flatland (Dubs does have interesting features, especially on the back 9)?

Jeff Goldman
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
That was one hellacious beaver.

SPDB

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Butler National
« Reply #9 on: April 09, 2003, 10:03:55 AM »

Quote

Me thinks there is another form of disease besides the SARS outbreak -- it's called Raynor-itis.
 

I'm no pathologist, but it seems like that disease may be  related to the acute Length-itis, or Difficult-itis that you suffer from? Perhaps a cure can be found!   ;D
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Matt_Ward

Re: Butler National
« Reply #10 on: April 09, 2003, 10:12:13 AM »
SPDB:

There is no known antidote for the disease you believe I have or for those who have "Raynor-itis."

Seriously, I only said that to prompt all of those "brand" name raters who have limited tunnel vision on course quality. I know that would not include you -- right? ;)

I do favor a mixed bag of courses and my championing of Skokie, IMHO, does show that I'm not in the ICU for difficulty-itis. If so -- please have the priest say a few prayers for me! ;D
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Paul Richards

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Butler National
« Reply #11 on: April 09, 2003, 04:22:37 PM »
Shivas:

I agree with you completely when you said about Bob O'Link:
>it's been tinkered to death and you just don't get the feel of much if any Ross left there, IMO.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
"Something has to change, otherwise the never-ending arms race that benefits only a few manufacturers will continue to lead to longer courses, narrower fairways, smaller greens, more rough, more expensive rounds, and other mechanisms that will leave golf's future in doubt." -  TFOG

T_MacWood

Re: Butler National
« Reply #12 on: April 09, 2003, 06:30:38 PM »
Paul
As of 1925 the course was totally redesigned by Alison, there hasn't been any Ross at Bob O'Link for almost eighty years. The club secured additional land in 1923. Nugent and Killian added the ponds in the 70's.

Skokie is another that is often mistakenly called a Ross design.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Paul Richards

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Butler National
« Reply #13 on: April 10, 2003, 04:24:46 AM »
Tom:

You are correct.  Maybe that's one of the worst problems about Bob O'Link - there is no Ross.  Also, there is no continuity of architecture - it's just a mish-mash of different thoughts, ideas and executions.  This used to be the problem with Skokie as well.  Rees Jones hills behind a par 3, some Ross features, other features, etc.  Now that it is one cohesive plan, Skokie is SO much better.  Bob O'Link could use some of the same, IMHO.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
"Something has to change, otherwise the never-ending arms race that benefits only a few manufacturers will continue to lead to longer courses, narrower fairways, smaller greens, more rough, more expensive rounds, and other mechanisms that will leave golf's future in doubt." -  TFOG

T_MacWood

Re: Butler National
« Reply #14 on: April 10, 2003, 05:37:23 AM »
Paul
I don't believe the problem with Bob O'Link is there is no Ross, there was plenty of Alison and that is just as good (not that it is necessarily an accurate guage of architectural credentials, but both Ross and Alison have five courses among the Golf's top 100 in the World). The Ross course lasted aproximately 7 years and was jammed into a very small parcel, the club secured additional land and chose to build a new golf course designed by Alison. By all acounts it was considered one of Chicago's finest.

Bob O'Link suffers from the same malady that most old Chicago golf course suffer from, namely the redesign movement that occured in the 60's and 70's by a group of local golf architects (that and massive tree encroachement). The Chicago golf scene could be transformed by a small army of restorationists and de-renovators (and lumbermen) -- although it might take years.

The last I checked Skokie was one of William Langford's greatest designs. I'm still not clear if Ross or Langford was restored at Skokie. Do you know? This was another club that secured new land necessitating a redesign.

Have you been able to track down who was involved in the early years of Beverly?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

T_MacWood

Re: Butler National
« Reply #15 on: April 10, 2003, 09:45:20 AM »
Langford designed 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13 and 16; redesigned 2, 9, 10, 14, 17 and 18. When he completed his work in 1938 Skokie was considered a Langford design.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Paul Richards

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Butler National
« Reply #16 on: April 10, 2003, 04:54:29 PM »
Tom:

To answer your question about Beverly's original design, it seems that either Tom Bendelow in collaboration with George O'Neil, or just George O'Neil designed it.  I have found two articles, both say different things.

George O'Neil was involved in some way.  He was the first Golf Professional at Beverly and went on to design other courses, including South Bend CC and the Greenbrier.

However, we do know that Donald Ross came to Beverly some time in the mid-teens and redesigned the golf course.  Over the subsequent years the course was renovated and rebuilt as a Ross course.  The course we play today is Ross' routing and, after the Ron Prichard restoration which we are in the midst of, will look and play much like what Ross had in mind when he originally redesigned Beverly CC.
 :)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
"Something has to change, otherwise the never-ending arms race that benefits only a few manufacturers will continue to lead to longer courses, narrower fairways, smaller greens, more rough, more expensive rounds, and other mechanisms that will leave golf's future in doubt." -  TFOG

T_MacWood

Re: Butler National
« Reply #17 on: April 10, 2003, 05:55:51 PM »
Paul
When you say you will restore the course much like Ross had in mind, are you referring to removing trees and improving the width? What exactly is planned?

How much of the original course did Ross retain?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Paul Richards

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Butler National
« Reply #18 on: April 11, 2003, 04:01:07 AM »
Tom:

check through the search because i have posted the entire material that we distributed to the membership at Beverly in regards to the vote for the master plan.

yes, the course will undergo deforestation (most of which is now done).  greens will be expanded to the original size (most of which  is now done).  fairways recontoured and all bunkering to be redone, from an easy-maintainence-somewhat-modern style to a more Ross- like look.

the work is proceeding well.  when are you coming? ;)

ps just email me or instant message me if you want me to send you a copy of the plan. ;) :)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
"Something has to change, otherwise the never-ending arms race that benefits only a few manufacturers will continue to lead to longer courses, narrower fairways, smaller greens, more rough, more expensive rounds, and other mechanisms that will leave golf's future in doubt." -  TFOG

Paul Richards

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Butler National
« Reply #19 on: April 11, 2003, 06:16:43 PM »
Tom:

Just decided to post it here (again) for your perusal:

 :) :) :)


BEVERLY COUNTRY CLUB
GOLF COURSE
LONG RANGE MASTER PLAN

 
The Beverly Country Club membership is blessed with a wonderful, well-maintained Donald Ross golf course!  We are proud of our national tournament history and our own Club tournaments and traditions.  We are recognized as having one of the best tests of golf in the Midwest.  And most important of all, every one of us is fully challenged each time we “tee it up”.
 

So why make changes?

Even though most members are satisfied with the course and the conditions, there are a number of “not so obvious” playability (shot strategy, fairness and challenge), maintenance and design issues that should be addressed.  The Long Range Master Plan Committee has spent the past three years studying these issues and projecting the effect these issues would have on the future of the course and the future of the Club if not addressed.
We do not claim to be experts but we care deeply about the golf course.  We believe in its current form, it falls short of its “real potential” and we have sought the advice and counsel of men who are the experts.  
      Both Ron Whitten, Architectural Editor of Golf Digest and Bradley Klein, Architectural Editor of Golfweek and Editor of Superintendent News were invited to tour the course and provided their observations and recommendations.  Their inputs mirrored our list of issues.
In 1999, the Committee invited more than 20 architects to discuss a Master Plan and at least six architects toured the course with the Committee.  Surprisingly, every architect identified the same basic issues at Beverly…squaring of tees, re-establishment of green pads, poor bunkering and weak turf conditions due to too many trees.  After much discussion and many meetings, the Committee felt Ron Prichard was the best architect for our course.  In the summer of 2000, Mr. Prichard was retained to analyze the issues and the state of the golf course and to make his professional recommendations.
Later in 2000, a comprehensive Golf Course Maintenance Research Study was mailed to the entire Beverly golfing membership.  The survey results confirmed that most of the same course issues were also of concern to the majority of responding members.
In the summer of 2001, after many visits and hundreds of hours on the course, in meetings and in research, Mr. Prichard submitted a comprehensive series of design and improvement recommendations.  In examining Mr. Prichard’s solutions to our issues, we were led to consider and more deeply appreciate the very design foundation of the course.
Rather than addressing problems on an individual basis, we have decided to pursue an overall design concept that will properly unify all the necessary work and re-establish a consistent, classic look and feel to the entire course.  The plan will also eliminate the “stops and starts” and “knee-jerk” course modifications by future, well- meaning Grounds Committee and Board of Governor members as the plan will be incorporated into the by-laws of the Club.
This Long Range Master Plan concept has received the unanimous support of the Board of Governors and will be submitted for the approval of the membership in the summer of 2002.
As Mr. Prichard outlined in the preface to his plan… “The purpose of this Long Range Master Plan is to record the steps and methods which can be adopted and implemented to improve the agronomic quality (health) of the golf course, and to
illustrate and explain the work required to re-establish the classical playing character the master golf architect, Donald Ross, intended.”
We hope you will give careful consideration to this plan.  It creates a pathway of care for our golf course that will ensure its viability and its unique pedigree for decades to come and will re-establish the
Beverly Country Club golf course as one of
the truly great classic courses in the country.
All interested members should read Mr. Prichard’s plan in its entirety (more than 100 pages).  Copies of the complete plan are available in the Club office as are documents containing detailed descriptions of the work to be done on each hole.
We have also developed the following questions and answers, which cover the rationale and many of the details and specifics of the plan.
 
Why do our teeing surfaces need attention?

1.   Most of our tees have lost their
shape over the years due to varying
maintenance practices and in many cases, the settling of the ground.  They were originally square and should be returned to that state.
2.      Many of our tees are too small
and/or too narrow to “spread the wear” and to change the “personality” of the hole from time to time as Donald Ross intended.
3.      Many need to be realigned
properly and a good number require re-
grading and leveling.
4.      Our forward tees do not properly
serve the people who use them.  The lack of space and their poor condition contribute to the reluctance to play from there.  In general, they are entirely too small, poorly positioned and on some holes, non-existent.
 

Why should we do anything to our great greens except keep ‘em fast?
 
1.      Over the years, due primarily to
mowing practices, our putting surfaces have shrunk in size.  Priority must be placed on reclaiming the lost putting areas and the lost pin positions originally created by Donald Ross.
2.      The green expansion program will
enhance shot-making demands, reduce wear
and tear on the green surfaces, and improve the visibility of putting surfaces which currently require “blind” shots from many fairways (#5 for example).
3.      Expansion of our green surfaces
began in the fall of 2001 on holes #5, #9 and #17, with excellent results and very positive membership response.
 

Why are we considering changes to the fairways?
 
1.      Donald Ross believed in providing
generous fairways so that golfers of all skill levels have a chance to set up the proper angle for the approach shot to the green (depending upon the pin position).
2.      To a very large degree, we have
lost many of these strategic and shot-making options at Beverly because players are forced to follow a fairly narrow, straight path from tee to green.
3.      Mr. Prichard’s plan will “give us
back” many of the options and shot choices we currently lack.  Although many of the fairways will be expanded and appear wider, they will not necessarily “play wider”.  With the addition of other strategic elements and slight fairway routing changes, we will gain multiple routes to a hole.  However, each day, depending upon the pin position, there will be but one optimum route.  “Straight down the middle” will no longer be the best way to play every hole at Beverly.


Why has reforestation created the need for a tree management plan?
 
Aggressive tree planting by well- meaning individuals over the past 60 years has significantly impacted the agronomic health of our playing grounds and has eliminated many strategic elements of play.
1.      Our trees will continue to grow
and spread, further restricting the width of our fairways and “closing off” more and more strategic lines of play.
2.      The density of the tree canopy in
certain areas is also seriously jeopardizing the health of the underlying and surrounding turfgrass areas.  Insufficient sunlight and inadequate air circulation will continue to create stress on the golf course turf and in many cases, these deficiencies will promote the spread of turfgrass diseases.
3.      The tree management plan will
provide for healthier turfgrass, the elimination of double-hazard situations (which bring both trees and bunkers into play on some shots), the recapturing of lost playing corridors, and a reduction in the competition for water, nutrients and space which now endanger our most important specimen trees.  Mr. Prichard’s tree management plan calls for the ultimate removal of 193 of our more than 2,200 trees.  
 

Why are all our “new” bunkers part of the plan?
 
1.      Our green-side bunkers were re-
done seven years ago and will require
significant work (sand replacement, drainage replacements, re-facing, etc.) in the next few years.  The fairway bunkers were re-done less than three years ago.
2.      The Golf Course Maintenance
Research Study indicated that the
membership was less satisfied with the bunkers than any other part of  the course. The majority of the responding members were not satisfied with the bunkers’ playability and the consistency of the sand.
3.      Mr. Prichard’s plan calls for the
modification and minor repositioning of most of the sand bunkers on the golf course.  In conjunction with the putting surface expansions, the green-side bunkers will be restored in a manner which will situate these hazards closer to the green surfaces.  Average players will no longer be forced to carry many yards of bluegrass rough between bunker edges and the green collars.  Additionally, skilled players will find pin positions which will be cut closer to the bunkers than before.  This restoration work will call for greater skill when playing to our greens and will place a new premium on bunker play.  Some original Donald Ross bunkers and a few other new bunkers will be added and some bunkers will be eliminated, as reflected in the overall plan.  
4.      The Committee believes the
bunker plan will resolve most, if not all of the current membership criticisms and complaints and will help re-establish the original beauty of our classic Donald Ross golf course.
 

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
"Something has to change, otherwise the never-ending arms race that benefits only a few manufacturers will continue to lead to longer courses, narrower fairways, smaller greens, more rough, more expensive rounds, and other mechanisms that will leave golf's future in doubt." -  TFOG

Paul Richards

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Butler National
« Reply #20 on: April 11, 2003, 06:17:01 PM »
Are the changes just for “better” players and will the course be more difficult?
 
1.      As Mr. Prichard states in his plan,
“The work recommended is not intended to favor the low handicap player or members of any other specific playing capacity.”  
2.      Mr. Prichard also believes that
there will be no significant impact on
our course ratings or slope ratings and that the course will reflect a significant increase in “classic character” and strategic options rather than an increase in difficulty.
 


What if we like most of the plan but disagree with some of the details?
 
1.      The plan should be considered in
its entirety.  Mr. Prichard is one of the
acknowledged experts in classic course restoration as attested by his studies of Donald Ross and his restoration/ improvement work at such highly respected and highly rated Donald Ross clubs as Aronimink, Wannamoisett, Minikahda, Skokie, Highlands, Mountain Ridge, Irondequoit, Longmeadow, Charles River, Concord, and Worcester.
2.      The Committee has therefore
placed full confidence in Mr. Prichard’s
overall plan and his ability to apply the appropriate solutions to each of our issues.  This is not to say that modifications will not take place from Mr. Prichard’s plan before and during construction.  For example, some of the recommended changes to holes #5, #13 and #15 are and will continue to be analyzed, discussed and tested as the project proceeds.    

Why do we have to begin the process now?
 
1.      Aside from the necessity to correct
the numerous issues, the goal of the plan is to make our great course more appealing to the membership as well as to prospective members.
2.      The golf course quality “bar”
continues to be raised in the Chicago
private club market, witness the major improvements at Olympia Fields and Skokie and new entries like The Glen Club.  The Board of Governors and the Committee firmly believe the plan must go forward to ensure Beverly remains at the top, now and well into the future.    
 

What is it going to cost and how will it be paid for?
 
The Board of Governors has approved a “not to exceed” budget for the restoration and improvements at $1,500,000.  The Club has built a reserve fund of more than $1,000,000 and we will fund the plan via $500,000 from the reserve fund and the balance from bank financing.  The principal and interest on the note will be budgeted and paid for out of the Club’s capital budget, annually.
 

Will there be a dues increase or an assessment because of the restoration and improvements?
 
No.  The entire plan will be funded as described above.  Future operational costs of the Club and membership levels will continue to dictate dues levels.  
 

What is the time line for the project and will the course be closed?
 
1.      If the plan is approved by the
membership, some preliminary work can begin in the late fall of 2002 and proceed as far into winter as the weather permits.  The majority of the construction work, however, will begin in the fall of 2003 and should be (weather permitting) largely complete by the spring of 2004.

2.      The course will remain playable
during construction although there will be some ground-under-repair and some unplayable areas.  There will also be periods of time when certain greens and certain fairways may not be available for play.  The duration of these periods, however, should not be more than a few days for a green and a week or so for a fairway.

When can we get our questions answered and when is the “vote”?
 
June, 2002 – A presentation of the
master plan and a question and answer period will be conducted for the membership by Ron Prichard, the Committee and the Board of Governors.  This will be followed by a course tour for those interested.  Sign-up sheets for this and other course walks with the Committee in June and July will be posted in the men’s locker room.

July, 2002 – A special meeting of the membership will be convened and after discussion, the members will be asked to vote for or against the Long Range Master Plan and the funding of the plan.
Per our by-laws, each Regular and Perpetual member will have one vote.  Notification of the meeting and a ballot will be mailed to all Regular and Perpetual members in early July.
 

How do we find out more information?      
In addition to reading the Long Range Master Plan and the hole-by-hole descriptions, you may direct your questions
to the members of the Long Range Master Plan Committee or to The Board of Governors.

 
The Long Range Master Plan Committee
 
Tom Allison, Tom Boyd, Duane Brann, Tom Bridgeman, Peter Carey (Vice-Chairman), Tim Finerty, Bill Fitzgerald, Allen Flagler, Mike Floodstrand (Chairman), Rick Holland, Terry Lavin, Tom McCleary, Craig McDonnell, Al Pandola, Larry Riccio, Paul Richards (Vice-Chairman), Rick Ten Broeck

The Board of Governors
 
Tom Boyd, Peter Carey (Vice- President), John Curtin, Mike Floodstrand, Michael McGrail, Joseph Nolan, Neil Roney (President), Brad Telander, Greg Zawaski


The Beverly Country Club
8700 South Western Avenue
Chicago, Illinois   60620
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:04 PM by -1 »
"Something has to change, otherwise the never-ending arms race that benefits only a few manufacturers will continue to lead to longer courses, narrower fairways, smaller greens, more rough, more expensive rounds, and other mechanisms that will leave golf's future in doubt." -  TFOG

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back