[Greg Tallman]

Rumor has that their lying scumbag of a football coach might enjoy those fairways on ocassion.

Oh well.... so long as he or some booster coughs up the $4 million we are better off these days

[Jim Thompson]

Sean,

Given the verbal abuse laid upon me by my partner, my game off the tee, and the fact that it was the first walk of the year (only second round), I thought I was pretty positive during the round.  Craig had me in the flask by the third hole so I figured it was pretty good.  Now, like I said at the course, I'd love to train the guy who sets and cuts the cups, he needs a good training session and I could go on.  But the green speed relative to their slopes was perfect as well as the health of the turf stand, especially for May.  Gotta give credit where due, even if it is at the UM.

JT

[Sean_A]

Sean,

Given the verbal abuse laid upon me by my partner, my game off the tee, and the fact that it was the first walk of the year (only second round), I thought I was pretty positive during the round.  Craig had me in the flask by the third hole so I figured it was pretty good.  Now, like I said at the course, I'd love to train the guy who sets and cuts the cups, he needs a good training session and I could go on.  But the green speed relative to their slopes was perfect as well as the health of the turf stand, especially for May.  Gotta give credit where due, even if it is at the UM.

JT

Jim

Craig is a light hearted soul who likes to mess it up.  Never pay attention to his verbal abuse.  The guy talks a load of shite and he will be the first to admit it.  If you must, pop em one, just not in the face.

Hopefully you will make a trip across the pond.

Ciao

[Doug Ralston]

Listen: I know these particular GCAs are popular here, so I do not wanna make my question sound like an attack. It is really a more general question, where this course serves as a great example.

Does every single green on a golf course HAVE TO BE raised above the approach? I seems true here, but also on most courses. Is there a geological reason [water?] or an architectural one? I have seen some good courses where it was not so, but admittedly most times it is.

Doug

[Sean_A]

Listen: I know these particular GCAs are popular here, so I do not wanna make my question sound like an attack. It is really a more general question, where this course serves as a great example.

Does every single green on a golf course HAVE TO BE raised above the approach? I seems true here, but also on most courses. Is there a geological reason [water?] or an architectural one? I have seen some good courses where it was not so, but admittedly most times it is.

Doug

Doug

Thats an interesting question and I am constantly harping on about grade level greens and tees.  I do think that many of the greens at UofM are grade level which happen to be raised.  That seems to have been a popular trait of Maxwell.  Grade level stuff is much more common in England and I rarely see it in the States.  I suspect drainage is an issue in the States.  It is too in England, but it didn't seem to stop a lot of grade level stuff.  I also think that most people don't care for grade level stuff because it looks uninteresting - very little opportunity for wow factor unless the site is spectacular.  It took me some time to get used to the English look and now when it is done well its my favourite style of golf.  This is one reason why I am against yardage guns - they kill the subtlety of grade level stuff and I think archies will be even less inclined to go with this minimalist look.  All I can say is visit a Fowler course or get out to Huntercombe.  Most people come to appreciate this style of architecture if they pay attention.  I am always interested in this look when I see it in the States because its so rare.  One of the courses whose pix blew me away was Myopia - it looks to be a grade level dream - oh how I would like to see the place.

Ciao

[JC Jones]

Fantastic stuff.  I do regret not being able to make it that day.  I still have yet to play UMGC but am greatly looking forward to the opportunity once it presents itself. 

I am in ann arbor today, but alas, it is raining

[Chuck Brown]

Doug - I understand your point, but UMGC is not at all a poster child for "raised greens".  Quite the opposite.  I can think of only a couple of holes where earth was moved to purposely raise the green above grade.  The U-M layout simply has the greens placed on higher ground.

I think of the plethora of Donald Ross courses in the area; Detroit Golf Club, Essex (Canada), Franklin Hills, etc., and the Colt/Allison courses; CCD, Plum Hollow, etc., and they are all avatars of the raised green complex look.  U of M is at the opposite end of that spectrum, really.

[Sean_A]

Doug - I understand your point, but UMGC is not at all a poster child for "raised greens".  Quite the opposite.  I can think of only a couple of holes where earth was moved to purposely raise the green above grade.  The U-M layout simply has the greens placed on higher ground.

I think of the plethora of Donald Ross courses in the area; Detroit Golf Club, Essex (Canada), Franklin Hills, etc., and the Colt/Allison courses; CCD, Plum Hollow, etc., and they are all avatars of the raised green complex look.  U of M is at the opposite end of that spectrum, really.

Chuck

I agree with you.  I think the 16th is artificially raised and it does look out of place with most of the other greens. 

Its also true that the other clubs you mention jack the greens up, but they tend to be on flatter land than UofM so it was probably more necessary for drainage.

Ciao

[Ari Techner]

Sean,

Another great thread.  Attending school at U of M I loved getting out and playing the course.  I always thought it was extremely underrated and never understood why I didnt hear more about it.  The greens are especially good imo. 

[Chuck Brown]

Ari, welcome to GCA!  I'm glad you're here!  Congratulations on all your recent success and best wishes to you!

[Ari Techner]

Ari, welcome to GCA!  I'm glad you're here!  Congratulations on all your recent success and best wishes to you!

Thank you very much Chuck!  While I do spend more time on some of the golf equipment sites due to my job my heart is always here on GCA.

Great post earlier in the thread btw.  I dont believe for a second that Jack does not remember the course.  When I was in school it was the same exact thing, "Jack used to reach #3 in two from the 4th fwy", "Jack used to carry that huge tree", "Jack used to do this", "Jack used to do that".  I still remember how sad I was when I realized that Jack went to OSU. 

Next time I am in MI maybe we can get together for a round.   

[Will E]

16 is one of my favorite holes on the course, the green is lower than the landing area although I understand how the cut in front of the green raises it.
And Chuck, come on, the place really is a parking lot on football Saturdays.
And Chuck PLEASE, defending what Hills did on this course is crazy. The work he did is technically sound but is in no way restorative. From what I know you're right that it's better now than before his work (mainly from tree removal), though to think of what the course should (could be) if restored (think Pasa) it really is a shame.
That said it still is a wonderful place to spend a day, it's a wonderful walk and the time spent on the greens is magical.

[Sean_A]

16 is one of my favorite holes on the course, the green is lower than the landing area although I understand how the cut in front of the green raises it.
And Chuck, come on, the place really is a parking lot on football Saturdays.
And Chuck PLEASE, defending what Hills did on this course is crazy. The work he did is technically sound but is in no way restorative. From what I know you're right that it's better now than before his work (mainly from tree removal), though to think of what the course should (could be) if restored (think Pasa) it really is a shame.
That said it still is a wonderful place to spend a day, it's a wonderful walk and the time spent on the greens is magical.

W

I have to agree with Chuck.  I don't see the work Hills did as that bad.  It was only a cosmetic job dealing with trees and bunkers. I spose folks complain about the bunkering, but they were vastly improved if not made to look like Mac's.  I have never seen old pics of UofM depicting Mac style bunkers so I am not sure there was a call to "recreate" them.  Having said all this, I do wonder where all the money went.  It was expensive for a cosmetic job though I spose the clubhouse chewed up a significant part of the budget. 

I don't think the course would be seen as any better with or without more tree removal and added bunker work.  Much of the bunkering already looks Mac-like (which I suspect has been ongoing work because they seem to be changing everytime I go back). I can't see spending money on the course in these harsh economic times for very little gain.  I will agree that the uni brought in the wrong guy to work on the course, but I don't think the course would play much different whoever else was hired.  Its all down to a matter of opinion concerning aesthetics.  Unfortunately, I think UofM restored just before the craze of proper restoration hit the headlines and they got what they got.

Ciao

[Doug Ralston]

Just wanted to add a fun picture from my friend Moe on his trip. I am certain the GCA crowd will appreciate pix of 'their hero'.

http://www.golfkentuckylinks.com/Pages/Golf%20Packages.html

UM course looks good, but MSU has Eagle Eye! 

Doug

[Chuck Brown]

wellender -

I tried to be as descriptive as possible about the football-Saturday parking.  What did I miss?  The only place "on" the golf course that cars drive is in a single line across the 1st fairway, to the old, now-unused driving range.  Nowhere else is there a car anywhere within play on the course.  (There is a line of cars up the paved cartpath alongside 18 that might technically be in bounds, but they are well out of play.)  Where else do any cars touch any golf course turf?

As for the comparison to the Pasatiempo project, I won't make any claims at all; my last view of Pasa was pre-restoration.  I don't think I claimed any particular genius in what Hills did in Ann Arbor; all I said was that his work was as minor as it was badly-needed.  Sounds like you think more should be done, and that's okay.  All I was pointing out was that the course may not have been well-maintained over the years with respect to the MacKenzie-Maxwell original; but at least the course had not been badly tampered with, either.

But back to the parking situation.  I cannot understand what you are talking about.  Are you mistaking the U of M Golf Course with the nine-hole Ann Arbor Golf & Outing Club which is directly adjacent, and which is literally turned into a parking lot?

[Will E]

Chuck-
I've spent many football Saturdays on the 9th fairway tailgating, tossing bean bags, etc.. I'm sure your post is accurate regarding parking spaces, I just don't want anyone to think that there's not a circus atmosphere there. There are literally thousands of people tailgating on the course. The course is CLOSED for play. I'm lucky that I can walk to the games so I really haven't paid much attention to where the cars are parked. But there are a lot of cars on the course, in places where balls do get hit.
With the dollars spent on the Hills work, I wouldn't call it a minor project.
So all said, yes this is a cool place, although it could be so much better. Same goes for Radrick.
Hopefully the recent work at Barton and Franklin Hills will spark some interest.

[J Sadowsky]

The real environmental problem with the golf course is not the parking - the course is in fine shape in the falls - but the Pioneer PA system.  It's not as fun as you'd think hearing the scores of Pee Wee football games in the middle of your swing 50 times a round.

[Chuck Brown]

Wellender - Sure, people are walking all over the course, and it is closed for play.  But it is NOT a "parking lot."  In fact, if you were Cal Peete or Mike Reid, you could very easily play around during the middle of a football game and never come close to a parked car.  Again, no cars - zero - are parked anywhere on the course that is in play, with the exception of the now-unused old practice range, and a few barely-in-bounds locations on the fringes of the course.  Except as I have noted, no car tires so much as touch any closely-mown area of the course.

Justin, I just drove by the course a half-hour ago, and the Ann Arbor Pioneer H.S. golf team was playing a match on the course.  Honestly, I've never heard the PA system from Pioneer's football field at U-M, but I don't doubt that you can...

[J Sadowsky]

Oh, trust me, you can 

[Mike_DeVries]

The work he did is technically sound but is in no way restorative. From what I know you're right that it's better now than before his work (mainly from tree removal), though to think of what the course should (could be) if restored (think Pasa) it really is a shame.
That said it still is a wonderful place to spend a day, it's a wonderful walk and the time spent on the greens is magical.

W

I have to agree with Chuck.  I don't see the work Hills did as bad at all.  It was only a cosmetic job dealing with trees and bunkers.  I spose folks complain about the bunkering, but they were vastly improved if not made to look like Mac's.  I have never seen old pics of UofM depicting Mac style bunkers so I am not sure there was a call to "recreate" them.  Having said all this, I do wonder where all the money went.  It was expensive for a cosmetic job though I spose the clubhouse chewed up a significant part of the budget. 

I don't think the course would be seen as any better with or without more tree removal and added bunker work.  Much of the bunkering already looks Mac-like (which I suspect has been ongoing work because they seem to be changing everytime I go back).  I can't see spending money on the course in these harsh economic times for very little gain.  I will agree that the uni brought in the wrong guy to work on the course, but I don't think the course would play much different whoever else was hired.  Its all down to a matter of opinion concerning aesthetics.  Unfortunately, I think UofM restored just before the craze of proper restoration hit the headlines and they got what they got.

Ciao

Hi All -- it's been a long time.

Let's clarify some things -- the $3M renovation was $1M for each of the following: golf course work, maintenance endowment, and clubhouse renovation. 

Next, the Hills "restoration" was anything but that.  About 400 trees were removed (a lot more need to be taken out still -- poor species, poor locations, infringement on playing options, etc.) and all the bunkers were "restored" with the use of some 1930's aerials -- not comprehensive but a significant number.  Still the bunkers were not restored as faithfully as they should have been and many were expanded into areas that were not part of the bunkers originally or into zones that affect other aspects of the course.

The greens in their existing state were not touched, as dictated by the University, BUT the greens were not restored out to their original HUGE sizes as they should have been.  If you think the greens are fun now, think about what some other pin locations that are tucked further around the corner would be like!  What about lag putts of 30+ yards?!?!?  Now, here is the kicker -- although they didn't touch the greens, when they redid bunkers and reworked around the exterior of the greens, they impacted and changed grade in many instances in original green surface!!!!!!!!  That makes me cringe every time I think about it. 

This is not an uninformed opinion -- information is gathered by seeing the photographs from the 1930's, talking with a friend (excellent player shooting his age in his 70's at the time) who grew up across the street and caddied and played the course from its beginning, and spending time on the course playing and studying the features while at school and during the renovation for about a month (actually leveled tees for the construction team, as I knew some of the guys and they needed an extra hand during the actual renovation period -- I was just a fill-in and the bunker work was done by the mini-hoe operator with some very basic and simplistic ground work by Art on infrequent occasions).

All said, the course is in much better shape and being treated much better than it was for many years, but it should be so much more.

Best,
Mike

[Sean_A]

The work he did is technically sound but is in no way restorative. From what I know you're right that it's better now than before his work (mainly from tree removal), though to think of what the course should (could be) if restored (think Pasa) it really is a shame.
That said it still is a wonderful place to spend a day, it's a wonderful walk and the time spent on the greens is magical.

W

I have to agree with Chuck.  I don't see the work Hills did as bad at all.  It was only a cosmetic job dealing with trees and bunkers.  I spose folks complain about the bunkering, but they were vastly improved if not made to look like Mac's.  I have never seen old pics of UofM depicting Mac style bunkers so I am not sure there was a call to "recreate" them.  Having said all this, I do wonder where all the money went.  It was expensive for a cosmetic job though I spose the clubhouse chewed up a significant part of the budget. 

I don't think the course would be seen as any better with or without more tree removal and added bunker work.  Much of the bunkering already looks Mac-like (which I suspect has been ongoing work because they seem to be changing everytime I go back).  I can't see spending money on the course in these harsh economic times for very little gain.  I will agree that the uni brought in the wrong guy to work on the course, but I don't think the course would play much different whoever else was hired.  Its all down to a matter of opinion concerning aesthetics.  Unfortunately, I think UofM restored just before the craze of proper restoration hit the headlines and they got what they got.

Ciao

Next, the Hills "restoration" was anything but that.  About 400 trees were removed (a lot more need to be taken out still -- poor species, poor locations, infringement on playing options, etc.) and all the bunkers were "restored" with the use of some 1930's aerials -- not comprehensive but a significant number.  Still the bunkers were not restored as faithfully as they should have been and many were expanded into areas that were not part of the bunkers originally or into zones that affect other aspects of the course.

Mike

I believe the bunkers are doing some wierd stuff out there.  Could you expand on the bunker expansion and give a few examples?

Ciao

[Chuck Brown]

As someone who knows the course and who very much likes it, I really have no disagreement with Mike.  One thing in particular that he said bears more discussion; like so many golf courses, UMGC was victimized by careless mowing patterns that reduced the expansive original green dimensions.

Yes they took down a lot of the most-awful trees and yest there are more that should go.  I truly agree.

But I'm having a hard time picturing where greenside bunker work changed the grade of any putting surfaces.  Mike do you have any specifics on that?

I should add, as I mentioned above;  Hills' bunker work made the bunkering "better."  Could it be better still?  Sure.  I don't know if U of M's bunkers ever looked like Cypress Point's (I don't think so) but if that is the goal, I'm all for it.  Maybe another $1m gift would do it.

Mike mentioned, quite rightly, the course/clubhouse/maintenance split.  The one thing that makes me envious of our poor cousins up the road in East Lansing is their superb turfgrass management program.  MSU's Forest Akers Golf Course (a 36-hole complex now) is a decidedly lesser layout on much more average land, and yet they do an infinitely better job of maintaining it.

[Mike_DeVries]

Sean,

I have not been on the course in 10-12 years, so not familiar with any recent changes, but the "restoration" of the bunker shapes was too broad of a sweep and amorphous instead of really following what the ground was hinting at with the existing contours, which I believe to have been original and unchanged, except for the grass to have changed, grown over, or been benevolently denied attention for many of the previous 60 years.  There was not enough (or any) attention given to what was on the ground and really analyzing what was there versus just looking at an old photograph (maybe fuzzy or at a small scale) and just simply going after it.  Real attention should have been given to what was on the ground to reclaim original green surface and bunker intricacies.

Best,
Mike

[Mike_DeVries]

As someone who knows the course and who very much likes it, I really have no disagreement with Mike.  One thing in particular that he said bears more discussion; like so many golf courses, UMGC was victimized by careless mowing patterns that reduced the expansive original green dimensions.

Yes they took down a lot of the most-awful trees and yest there are more that should go.  I truly agree.

But I'm having a hard time picturing where greenside bunker work changed the grade of any putting surfaces.  Mike do you have any specifics on that?

I should add, as I mentioned above;  Hills' bunker work made the bunkering "better."  Could it be better still?  Sure.  I don't know if U of M's bunkers ever looked like Cypress Point's (I don't think so) but if that is the goal, I'm all for it.  Maybe another $1m gift would do it.

Mike mentioned, quite rightly, the course/clubhouse/maintenance split.  The one thing that makes me envious of our poor cousins up the road in East Lansing is their superb turfgrass management program.  MSU's Forest Akers Golf Course (a 36-hole complex now) is a decidedly lesser layout on much more average land, and yet they do an infinitely better job of maintaining it.

Chuck,

Let's take the 6th green -- a great, fun hole with a really cool green.  They "fixed" drainage in the back left fringe and off the green to keep water from running across the green -- by doing so they took away the back left flagstick location that used to be there by significantly altering the grades.  There is a 6-7% slope on the back section of green that will be too radical if the green speed gets up at all, but with the added space that used to be there, the greens could run fast and still provide options and fun (for the record, I don't think the course's greens should ever run faster than 10 and if they were 9, firm, and rolling true, then you could pin many areas that are unavailable today -- that is basically a general statement/philosophy about green speed).

Hope that helps.

Mike

[Bill_McBride]

As someone who knows the course and who very much likes it, I really have no disagreement with Mike.  One thing in particular that he said bears more discussion; like so many golf courses, UMGC was victimized by careless mowing patterns that reduced the expansive original green dimensions.

Yes they took down a lot of the most-awful trees and yest there are more that should go.  I truly agree.

But I'm having a hard time picturing where greenside bunker work changed the grade of any putting surfaces.  Mike do you have any specifics on that?

I should add, as I mentioned above;  Hills' bunker work made the bunkering "better."  Could it be better still?  Sure.  I don't know if U of M's bunkers ever looked like Cypress Point's (I don't think so) but if that is the goal, I'm all for it.  Maybe another $1m gift would do it.

Mike mentioned, quite rightly, the course/clubhouse/maintenance split.  The one thing that makes me envious of our poor cousins up the road in East Lansing is their superb turfgrass management program.  MSU's Forest Akers Golf Course (a 36-hole complex now) is a decidedly lesser layout on much more average land, and yet they do an infinitely better job of maintaining it.

Chuck,

Let's take the 6th green -- a great, fun hole with a really cool green.  They "fixed" drainage in the back left fringe and off the green to keep water from running across the green -- by doing so they took away the back left flagstick location that used to be there by significantly altering the grades.  There is a 6-7% slope on the back section of green that will be too radical if the green speed gets up at all, but with the added space that used to be there, the greens could run fast and still provide options and fun (for the record, I don't think the course's greens should ever run faster than 10 and if they were 9, firm, and rolling true, then you could pin many areas that are unavailable today -- that is basically a general statement/philosophy about green speed).

Hope that helps.

Mike

Mike, that could be a comment about Pasatiempo and Meadow Club too, right?    At the right speeds, those MacKenzie greens can be so much fun.  Too fast and they are just impossible.  Crystal Downs last summer was borderline.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()