Golf course update

[Hoosier71]

they flat out ruined Oakmont when they clear cut it imo. what a disaster.

there's a reason you don't see many other great courses following that complete boondoggle.

the greens at IU did fine.

thick rough and sand slow down play way more than trees.

the reason most new courses in Indiana don't have trees as a major design component, is because they are being built on former farm land.

as for green fees, 12 mil would more than renovate the current course quite nicely thank you, and sand adds more expense than trees.

saying starting from scratch rather than renovating is cheaper, or significantly less expensive to maintain, i don't believe for a second.

your greens fee argument is total BS.

all that said, if renovating the current IU course, as i've stated before, i would definitely thin out some of the trees lining the fairways.

architects would much rather build their own course and sign their own name to it, and have another notch on their resume', than renovate an existing course and not have it be their design, no matter how great it could be, for the same reason an artist would much rather hang their own painting in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, than renovate a master.

the new course will be very nice no doubt.. but it will be just another formula course like all the other very nice new formula courses all over central Indiana and everywhere else, and not something truly great, which the carved out of a forest current course if renovated correctly would be.

no need to drive down from Indy or Carmel or up from Louisville to play the new IU course, when you can have that same experience at a dozen or more other courses much closer. whereas renovating the current course correctly would have offered something really great and far more unique, that you won't find elsewhere anywhere close.

If you think that maintaining bunkers is more costly to a golf course than maintaining turfgrass, I really can't help you. If you don't think there's not a correlation between green fees and maintenance budgets, I also can't help you there.

$12 million is for the renovation, but not towards ongoing maintenance.

The greens at IU are a complete mess. The turf, generally, is a mess.

The USGA and most people that understand golf course architecture and turfgrass maintenance, even on a basic level, agree that too many trees are detrimental to the development of healthy grasses. It's not opinion, it's fact.

You can say that the courses in central Indiana are formula courses, and maybe that is correct to an extent. It's a formula that works and that people want and enjoy. People like having some room to hit drivers and have options while playing. They also enjoy playing on well maintained grass.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

If you think that maintaining bunkers is more costly to a golf course than maintaining turfgrass, I really can't help you. If you don't think there's not a correlation between green fees and maintenance budgets, I also can't help you there.

$12 million is for the renovation, but not towards ongoing maintenance.

The greens at IU are a complete mess. The turf, generally, is a mess.

The USGA and most people that understand golf course architecture and turfgrass maintenance, even on a basic level, agree that too many trees are detrimental to the development of healthy grasses. It's not opinion, it's fact.

You can say that the courses in central Indiana are formula courses, and maybe that is correct to an extent. It's a formula that works and that people want and enjoy. People like having some room to hit drivers and have options while playing. They also enjoy playing on well maintained grass.

i never said that, so don't lie that i did. i said traps are more expensive to maintain than trees.

and other wooded courses manage to maintain turf.

turf was nice the last few times i played IU. i have seen it bad, but let's not pretend that that's how it has to be, and i've said all along that i would thin out the trees in spots. (McNutt would tell you non wooded courses can have turf issues as well). bwg

the greens at IU aren't a complete mess, or even close, so that's a total lie as well, and i can remember when they were great for decades with all the trees that are there now.

nice try though. keep the spin coming.

 

[twenty02]

If you think that maintaining bunkers is more costly to a golf course than maintaining turfgrass, I really can't help you. If you don't think there's not a correlation between green fees and maintenance budgets, I also can't help you there.

$12 million is for the renovation, but not towards ongoing maintenance.

The greens at IU are a complete mess. The turf, generally, is a mess.

The USGA and most people that understand golf course architecture and turfgrass maintenance, even on a basic level, agree that too many trees are detrimental to the development of healthy grasses. It's not opinion, it's fact.

You can say that the courses in central Indiana are formula courses, and maybe that is correct to an extent. It's a formula that works and that people want and enjoy. People like having some room to hit drivers and have options while playing. They also enjoy playing on well maintained grass.

Don't bother. That poster is functionally brain dead. His comments on Oakmont being "ruined" tells you all you need to know.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

18th hole at Oakmont,

before,

after,

probably a good reason Augusta National, Firestone, and Pinehurst, aren't rushing out there with chainsaws to copy Oakmont's beyond insane clusterfk.

 

[RBB89]

i never said that, so don't lie that i did. i said traps are more expensive to maintain than trees.

and other wooded courses manage to maintain turf.

turf was nice the last few times i played IU. i have seen it bad, but let's not pretend that that's how it has to be, and i've said all along that i would thin out the trees in spots. (McNutt would tell you non wooded courses can have turf issues as well). bwg

the greens at IU aren't a complete mess, or even close, so that's a total lie as well, and i can remember when they were great for decades with all the trees that are there now.

nice try though. keep the spin coming.

Who exactly are you trying to convince here? There is no one that agrees with you on this. Our golf course is by far the worst in the Big Ten. The grass has multiple diseases. Trees are dead. The greens are horrible. You're spitting into the wind.

 

[RBB89]

If you think that maintaining bunkers is more costly to a golf course than maintaining turfgrass, I really can't help you. If you don't think there's not a correlation between green fees and maintenance budgets, I also can't help you there.

$12 million is for the renovation, but not towards ongoing maintenance.

The greens at IU are a complete mess. The turf, generally, is a mess.

The USGA and most people that understand golf course architecture and turfgrass maintenance, even on a basic level, agree that too many trees are detrimental to the development of healthy grasses. It's not opinion, it's fact.

You can say that the courses in central Indiana are formula courses, and maybe that is correct to an extent. It's a formula that works and that people want and enjoy. People like having some room to hit drivers and have options while playing. They also enjoy playing on well maintained grass.

I truly applaud you for your constant patience with him, but you're going to drive yourself crazy. It's one thing to have a contrarian opinion, but he picks these bizarre, completely out of left field topics to rant about, and then calls everyone else stupid for not agreeing with how obvious and simple it is. He continues to rant on the water cooler about how simple it would be to take out Kim Jung Un. He's been going on and on for close to 8 years now about how disastrous the north end zone addition was and how we should've kept the rusty south end zone bleachers. Not to mention comparing the IU golf course to Augusta freaking National.

 

[twenty02]

I truly applaud you for your constant patience with him, but you're going to drive yourself crazy. It's one thing to have a contrarian opinion, but he picks these bizarre, completely out of left field topics to rant about, and then calls everyone else stupid for not agreeing with how obvious and simple it is. He continues to rant on the water cooler about how simple it would be to take out Kim Jung Un. He's been going on and on for close to 8 years now about how disastrous the north end zone addition was and how we should've kept the rusty south end zone bleachers. Not to mention comparing the IU golf course to Augusta freaking National.

Some people are contrarians. Others are just crazy.

 

[Daydreamer]

18th hole at Oakmont,

before,

after,

probably a good reason Augusta National, Firestone, and Pinehurst, aren't rushing out there with chainsaws to copy Oakmont's beyond insane clusterfk.

You do realize that your before shot is a painting, right? Not an actual photo.

 

[Hoosier71]

i never said that, so don't lie that i did. i said traps are more expensive to maintain than trees.

and other wooded courses manage to maintain turf.

turf was nice the last few times i played IU. i have seen it bad, but let's not pretend that that's how it has to be, and i've said all along that i would thin out the trees in spots. (McNutt would tell you non wooded courses can have turf issues as well). bwg

the greens at IU aren't a complete mess, or even close, so that's a total lie as well, and i can remember when they were great for decades with all the trees that are there now.

nice try though. keep the spin coming.

Nobody is lying here. When you say that bunkers are more expensive than trees to maintain, that is technically true. I'll give you that. With that said, if you are going to have a heavily wooded course, an increase in your turf management budget is necessary if you are going to maintain consistently excellent turf conditioning. So, as far as "defenses" or "hazards", bunkers ultimately are a less expensive form of defense than trees.

The greens at the IU course are a mess for a number of reasons. There are a variety of grasses on each green, from creep from the surrounding areas and less than optimal growing conditions. The makeup of the greens does not meet USGA guidelines, as far as the soil makeup, etc. This is why the greens are consistently rock hard or pillow soft. The soil causes issues with that, as well as the different strains of grass. Beyond that, there is little to no subtlety to the design of the greens, as they are mainly tilted, without actual undulation.

Your example of Oakmont and the tree clearing program "ruining" that course fails because the removal of trees was done to bring the course back to the original design, as intended by Fownes.

I would be interested to hear your examples of heavily wooded courses that don't have turfgrass issues.

I'm not trying to attack you here. I'm trying to have a reasonable discussion. I really enjoy discussing golf course architecture and there is room at the table for all kinds of discussion and viewpoints. I don't happen to agree with your viewpoint, but it's all good.

 

[Hoosier71]

I truly applaud you for your constant patience with him, but you're going to drive yourself crazy. It's one thing to have a contrarian opinion, but he picks these bizarre, completely out of left field topics to rant about, and then calls everyone else stupid for not agreeing with how obvious and simple it is. He continues to rant on the water cooler about how simple it would be to take out Kim Jung Un. He's been going on and on for close to 8 years now about how disastrous the north end zone addition was and how we should've kept the rusty south end zone bleachers. Not to mention comparing the IU golf course to Augusta freaking National.

It's all good. Plenty of conversation to be had. That said, it's not really a good conversation if there isn't some give and take. It's all good...

 

[RBB89]

You do realize that your before shot is a painting, right? Not an actual photo.

LOL

 

[i'vegotwinners]

You do realize that your before shot is a painting, right? Not an actual photo.

actually, i'm guessing it's a digital rendering from a picture.

do you believe it's not an accurate depiction? i think not.

if you like the 18th at Oakmont after they cut down the trees, that's your prerogative.

 

[twenty02]

If you think that maintaining bunkers is more costly to a golf course than maintaining turfgrass, I really can't help you. If you don't think there's not a correlation between green fees and maintenance budgets, I also can't help you there.

$12 million is for the renovation, but not towards ongoing maintenance.

The greens at IU are a complete mess. The turf, generally, is a mess.

The USGA and most people that understand golf course architecture and turfgrass maintenance, even on a basic level, agree that too many trees are detrimental to the development of healthy grasses. It's not opinion, it's fact.

You can say that the courses in central Indiana are formula courses, and maybe that is correct to an extent. It's a formula that works and that people want and enjoy. People like having some room to hit drivers and have options while playing. They also enjoy playing on well maintained grass.

I'm not sure what a "formula" course even means. I guess if you are talking about taking an Indiana cornfield and building a course?

Anyone that's played anything Smyers has designed knows there is nothing formula based in his work, whatsoever. Anyone that's played Wolf Run knows he lays courses out that utilize the existing land as well as anyone. And I fully expect him to do it again here. WR is one of the most unique golf courses you'll play anywhere in the nation.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

Nobody is lying here. When you say that bunkers are more expensive than trees to maintain, that is technically true. I'll give you that. With that said, if you are going to have a heavily wooded course, an increase in your turf management budget is necessary if you are going to maintain consistently excellent turf conditioning. So, as far as "defenses" or "hazards", bunkers ultimately are a less expensive form of defense than trees.

The greens at the IU course are a mess for a number of reasons. There are a variety of grasses on each green, from creep from the surrounding areas and less than optimal growing conditions. The makeup of the greens does not meet USGA guidelines, as far as the soil makeup, etc. This is why the greens are consistently rock hard or pillow soft. The soil causes issues with that, as well as the different strains of grass. Beyond that, there is little to no subtlety to the design of the greens, as they are mainly tilted, without actual undulation.

Your example of Oakmont and the tree clearing program "ruining" that course fails because the removal of trees was done to bring the course back to the original design, as intended by Fownes.

I would be interested to hear your examples of heavily wooded courses that don't have turfgrass issues.

I'm not trying to attack you here. I'm trying to have a reasonable discussion. I really enjoy discussing golf course architecture and there is room at the table for all kinds of discussion and viewpoints. I don't happen to agree with your viewpoint, but it's all good.

any issues you have with the green would be addressed in the renovation.

renovation, by definition, implies not leaving everything as it is.

that said, the greens at IU are not bad at all.

all courses can and do have turf issues at times.

this absurd pretext that you can't have a wooded course with nice fairways and greens, or that if they don't, it's only because they are wooded, is pure BS, and you know it.

and again, i've always stated i would thin out the trees in spots.

no doubt if IU tore down the old Student Bldg with the clock/bell tower on the crescent, and put up a new steel and glass structure in it's place, you would think that was great, and cite some maintenance efficiencies as ample reasoning for the change.

the new design will never be what the current course could be if lengthened and renovated.

it will be just another of what we already have many of in central Indiana, and everywhere else. (and they all have their turf and green issues as well, and get a lot more maintenance than IU).

if you like treeless courses, go play the new Dye course at French Lick. everybody hates it, for obvious reasons, but hey, i'll bet it has great turf and greens.

 

[Hoosier71]

I'm not sure what a "formula" course even means. I guess if you are talking about taking an Indiana cornfield and building a course?

Anyone that's played anything Smyers has designed knows there is nothing formula based in his work, whatsoever. Anyone that's played Wolf Run knows he lays courses out that utilize the existing land as well as anyone. And I fully expect him to do it again here. WR is one of the most unique golf courses you'll play anywhere in the nation.

When I say a "formula" course, it's obviously not a term of art. I guess I was thinking of most of the higher-end public courses in central Indiana. Prairie View, Trophy Club, The Fort, Heartland Crossing, etc., and some of the private courses, like Chatham Hills, and whatnot. Open, with lots of prairie grass, deep bunkers, not a ton of water or trees, etc. The "formula" here is really what central Indiana terrain offers.

Smyers does a good job with his courses and doesn't force anything on the land, which is nice.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

I'm not sure what a "formula" course even means. I guess if you are talking about taking an Indiana cornfield and building a course?

Anyone that's played anything Smyers has designed knows there is nothing formula based in his work, whatsoever. Anyone that's played Wolf Run knows he lays courses out that utilize the existing land as well as anyone. And I fully expect him to do it again here. WR is one of the most unique golf courses you'll play anywhere in the nation.

never played WR. those i know who have weren't crazy about it. (i'm sure many people love it as well).

that said, you're comparing a course with all premium grass, (bent i'll presume), with water and more sand on one hole than IU has on it's entire course, and a budget that probably dwarfs IU's.

and what percent of south central Indiana residents can afford WR.

i have walked Hartland Crossing some, and wasn't impressed.

like i said, i'm sure he's good, but pretty much all the guys designing newer style courses have pretty much figured things out.

this isn't about Smyers or Dye or anyone else.

Dye is brilliant and groundbreaking in what he does, and forged the template that Smyers and everybody else now emulates. and do well at that.

while i never said IU was Augusta, i did say it could be closer to it than anything else around here, and that that should be the model we aim for.. not The Point, or Wolf Run, or Otter Creek, or Heartland Crossing, The Fort, or the new French Lick Dye course.

those type courses are everywhere now.

virtually no one else has the ability to shoot for an Augusta vibe, but we do and should.

give the current IU course the premium grass, sand, and water, bling and budget of WR, and it would be amassing.

whatever IU does, 99% of the play will be the general public, not IU hosting college event after event.

take all the B10 schools put together, and how many collegiate events were hosted by B10 schools on their campus courses last yr? or the yr before?

this course will technically be home to the team, but as i said and unlike other sports venues, 99% of use will be the general public, students, faculty, staff, visitors.

 

[Daydreamer]

actually, i'm guessing it's a digital rendering from a picture.

do you believe it's not an accurate depiction? i think not.

if you like the 18th at Oakmont after they cut down the trees, that's your prerogative.

It has the artist’s name at the bottom right. It’s a painting. No, it’s clearly not an accurate depiction. Show me an actual picture of the 18th at Oakmont and I’ll tell you which I like better. I suppose I trust the people who’s job it is to manage golf courses to make decisions about whether the trees should have stayed or not.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

It has the artist’s name at the bottom right. It’s a painting. No, it’s clearly not an accurate depiction. Show me an actual picture of the 18th at Oakmont and I’ll tell you which I like better. I suppose I trust the people who’s job it is to manage golf courses to make decisions about whether the trees should have stayed or not.

you are correct. pretty impressive the detail. thought it was a rendering.

i used those 2 images, because they were both taken off pics taken from virtually the exact same spot on 18 tee, thus gave the best before and after comparison i could find.



that said, here's one of her's of Augusta. do you think it not an accurate depiction? do you think the actual scene isn't just as beautiful? or even more so, (i do), and do you really think the one of the 18th at Oakmont, (obviously done from a photo i don't have access to), isn't just as accurate a depiction of what the hole looked like before they chopped down all the trees.

the fact that you're now trying to discredit the comparison as inaccurate, (even though you realize it is), only tells me you fully realize the 18th at Oakmont looks like total and complete sht after they cut down all the trees, compared to how it looked with all the mature trees.


if you like your courses bald, that your prerogative.

 

[twenty02]

When I say a "formula" course, it's obviously not a term of art. I guess I was thinking of most of the higher-end public courses in central Indiana. Prairie View, Trophy Club, The Fort, Heartland Crossing, etc., and some of the private courses, like Chatham Hills, and whatnot. Open, with lots of prairie grass, deep bunkers, not a ton of water or trees, etc. The "formula" here is really what central Indiana terrain offers.

Smyers does a good job with his courses and doesn't force anything on the land, which is nice.

The current LAYOUT at IU sucks. Not just the turf...not just the garbage greens and overgrown trees. But the LAYOUT and playing corridors makes horrible use of great topography. There are so many total throw-away holes it's sad. A few extremely steep holes....to take you to a bunch of flat, boring holes on ridges, in flat valleys, etc. There are only a few holes that properly use the grade of the land.

Smyers layout appears to use the natural topography much better....crossing over the ridges, etc, from what I can see from the rendering.

And Heartland Crossing is a joke. Again, farm land turned into a course....and then no upkeep whatsoever.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

The current LAYOUT at IU sucks. Not just the turf...not just the garbage greens and overgrown trees. But the LAYOUT and playing corridors makes horrible use of great topography. There are so many total throw-away holes it's sad. A few extremely steep holes....to take you to a bunch of flat, boring holes on ridges, in flat valleys, etc. There are only a few holes that properly use the grade of the land.

Smyers layout appears to use the natural topography much better....crossing over the ridges, etc, from what I can see from the rendering.

And Heartland Crossing is a joke. Again, farm land turned into a course....and then no upkeep whatsoever.

apparently like 89, who by his own admission has never even seen the IU course and doesn't play golf, (but deems himself an expert on both), you and your 4th flight game and 10th flight knowledge haven't played it either.

your LMAO post about how much better Oakmont is after they cut down all the trees, belongs in the insanity hall of fame.

IU has 1 steep hole, no holes on ridges, and none in flat valleys.

you've clearly never even played the course.

now i question if you even play well enough to make the 4th best flight in your club tourney. (as you claim).

nice try though.

 

[twenty02]

apparently like 89, who by his own admission has never even seen the IU course and doesn't play golf, (but deems himself an expert on both), you and your 4th flight game and 10th flight knowledge haven't played it either.

your LMAO post about how much better Oakmont is after they cut down all the trees, belongs in the insanity hall of fame.

IU has 1 steep hole, no holes on ridges, and none in flat valleys.

you've clearly never even played the course.

now i question if you even play well enough to make the 4th best flight in your club tourney. (as you claim).

nice try though.

Says the dipshit who doesn't even keep score or play by the rules? I'd destroy your pathetic ass before we even got started.

I've played IU dozens of times both before and during my years in school there. But it was a such a shit track we basically started playing anywhere else. The layout flat SUCKS. I've played about 20-25 of the top GD top 100 tracks...I actually have studied GCA, as at one time was going to look into a career in it.....I've forgotten more about golf course architecture while writing this post than you've ever known (zero).

I was as low as about a 3-4 HDCP in my HS years (played HS and Junior Tour events)....but quit playing for most of a decade after college. That's supposed to be an insult from a life long loser like you, that I was in 3rd flight at a club packed with great players? I'm sure your golf skills are up there with your grasp of the English language.


And yes, Oakmont is much better now. How do I know? I have been there, ****wad. Didn't need a ****ing painting.

Or you could ask anyone basically in the game of golf how much better it is, not that they would do anything but laugh in your face once you opened your mouth. As Oakmont is totally irrelevant to this discussion.

Nobody is scalping IU...or Augusta...or any other natural woodland course. Tree removals are for parkland courses that had members haphazardly plant trees in the 50s/60s....in places they had no business being....and were detrimental to the original design and playability.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

Says the dipshit who doesn't even keep score or play by the rules? I'd destroy your pathetic ass before we even got started.

I've played IU dozens of times both before and during my years in school there. But it was a such a shit track we basically started playing anywhere else. The layout flat SUCKS. I've played about 20-25 of the top GD top 100 tracks...I actually have studied GCA, as at one time was going to look into a career in it.....I've forgotten more about golf course architecture while writing this post than you've ever known (zero).

I was as low as about a 3-4 HDCP in my HS years (played HS and Junior Tour events)....but quit playing for most of a decade after college. That's supposed to be an insult from a life long loser like you, that I was in 3rd flight at a club packed with great players? I'm sure your golf skills are up there with your grasp of the English language.


And yes, Oakmont is much better now. How do I know? I have been there, ****wad. Didn't need a ****ing painting.

Or you could ask anyone basically in the game of golf how much better it is, not that they would do anything but laugh in your face once you opened your mouth. As Oakmont is totally irrelevant to this discussion.

Nobody is scalping IU...or Augusta...or any other natural woodland course. Tree removals are for parkland courses that had members haphazardly plant trees in the 50s/60s....in places they had no business being....and were detrimental to the original design and playability.

your nothing but a troll.

you made a description of Rolling Meadows that informed anyone who's ever played RM that you've never been there, then described IU in a manner that shows you've never played it either.

your take on Oakmont is a complete joke. (good reason no one is following that lead).

on a side note, while old and arthritic now, in my day you would have had no chance.

that said, i question if you even play.

you obviously lied about playing IU or Rolling Meadows, and anyone who's played either knows that from your having absolutely no idea the topography of either.

 

[RBB89]

your nothing but a troll.

you made a description of Rolling Meadows that informed anyone who's ever played RM that you've never been there, then described IU in a manner that shows you've never played it either.

your take on Oakmont is a complete joke. (good reason no one is following that lead).

on a side note, while old and arthritic now, in my day you would have had no chance.

that said, i question if you even play.

you obviously lied about playing IU or Rolling Meadows, and anyone who's played either knows that from your having absolutely no idea the topography of either.

I’m not going to continue this. I am just going to say that I’m sorry you have to deal with arthritis: because I know that sucks.

 

[Daydreamer]

you are correct. pretty impressive the detail. thought it was a rendering.

i used those 2 images, because they were both taken off pics taken from virtually the exact same spot on 18 tee, thus gave the best before and after comparison i could find.



that said, here's one of her's of Augusta. do you think it not an accurate depiction? do you think the actual scene isn't just as beautiful? or even more so, (i do), and do you really think the one of the 18th at Oakmont, (obviously done from a photo i don't have access to), isn't just as accurate a depiction of what the hole looked like before they chopped down all the trees.

the fact that you're now trying to discredit the comparison as inaccurate, (even though you realize it is), only tells me you fully realize the 18th at Oakmont looks like total and complete sht after they cut down all the trees, compared to how it looked with all the mature trees.


if you like your courses bald, that your prerogative.

It, like any painting of a golf course that you're going to find, is too perfect. Reasonably accurate view of 11 and 12 but no painter is going to paint bad turf. Having been there more than once, I can promise that's that's a dreamscape and not an pinpoint accurate depiction.
Besides, there aren't any trees in play on or 11 or 12, or most of the rest of the course for that matter, and Augusta National has a basically unlimited budget for turf maintenance.
It's not a matter of "bald", it's a matter of quality turf, which has already been explained to you multiple times.

 

[Fro]

while i never said IU was Augusta, i did say it could be closer to it than anything else around here, and that that should be the model we aim for.. not The Point, or Wolf Run, or Otter Creek, or Heartland Crossing, The Fort, or the new French Lick Dye course.

those type courses are everywhere now.

virtually no one else has the ability to shoot for an Augusta vibe, but we do and should.

give the current IU course the premium grass, sand, and water, bling and budget of WR, and it would be amassing.

whatever IU does, 99% of the play will be the general public, not IU hosting college event after event.

take all the B10 schools put together, and how many collegiate events were hosted by B10 schools on their campus courses last yr? or the yr before?

this course will technically be home to the team, but as i said and unlike other sports venues, 99% of use will be the general public, students, faculty, staff, visitors.

I can tell you that Coach Mayer has thought about this for over 20 years (IIRC, he privately preferred the renovation option over the Jack Nicklaus Griffey Lake course proposal) and he's happy and very excited with the project. He's well-aware that most of the use will be for the general public (remember, he started out managing courses, not in coaching) and this course took that into account. He also doesn't do things in a second-rate fashion.

I'm fully confident this will be a gem once the renovation is done.

 

[twenty02]

your nothing but a troll.

you made a description of Rolling Meadows that informed anyone who's ever played RM that you've never been there, then described IU in a manner that shows you've never played it either.

your take on Oakmont is a complete joke. (good reason no one is following that lead).

on a side note, while old and arthritic now, in my day you would have had no chance.

that said, i question if you even play.

you obviously lied about playing IU or Rolling Meadows, and anyone who's played either knows that from your having absolutely no idea the topography of either.

Yes, I care so much about the IU golf course, which I haven't played in over a decade (because 1..it's a dump, and 2... I live 90 mins away) that I just make crap up about golf to troll your sorry, weak ass. Do you realize how batshit insane you sound?

Nobody in golf agrees with you on Oakmont, just as nobody agrees with you whatsoever on IU. You are just a crazy, old man talking to himself in the corner. I should have followed my normal instinct and not interacted with you....talking to crazy people like yourself is a fool's errand.

 

[Hoosier71]

any issues you have with the green would be addressed in the renovation.

renovation, by definition, implies not leaving everything as it is.

that said, the greens at IU are not bad at all.

all courses can and do have turf issues at times.

this absurd pretext that you can't have a wooded course with nice fairways and greens, or that if they don't, it's only because they are wooded, is pure BS, and you know it.

and again, i've always stated i would thin out the trees in spots.

no doubt if IU tore down the old Student Bldg with the clock/bell tower on the crescent, and put up a new steel and glass structure in it's place, you would think that was great, and cite some maintenance efficiencies as ample reasoning for the change.

the new design will never be what the current course could be if lengthened and renovated.

it will be just another of what we already have many of in central Indiana, and everywhere else. (and they all have their turf and green issues as well, and get a lot more maintenance than IU).

if you like treeless courses, go play the new Dye course at French Lick. everybody hates it, for obvious reasons, but hey, i'll bet it has great turf and greens.

I never said that you can't have a well-conditioned course that is heavily wooded. I did say that, in order to maintain great grass, that the maintenance budget has to be there to do it. That means higher green fees for the public, in the absence of a monied membership.

To compare the current IU course and the Student Building is absurd. One is an icon for the university and one is a course that was what, designed by the golf coach at the time and the greenskeeper? As I mentioned in a previous post, if the IU course was like Yale (designed by MacDonald and Raynor) or Stanford (designed by MacKenzie), with architectural significance, I think that preservation would be appropriate. The IU course doesn't have any of that, so the architect should be given free reign to make the best design possible that best uses the land and its features. Part of that should be to allow for the best possible playing conditions for the most number of golfers and the most accessible fee level.

It's funny that you mention the Dye course. I've played it a few times and love it. If you play from the right set of tees, it's a blast. Obviously, that's the underlying issue here, that we have different preferences in courses, and that's cool.

 

[Hoosier71]

It, like any painting of a golf course that you're going to find, is too perfect. Reasonably accurate view of 11 and 12 but no painter is going to paint bad turf. Having been there more than once, I can promise that's that's a dreamscape and not an pinpoint accurate depiction.
Besides, there aren't any trees in play on or 11 or 12, or most of the rest of the course for that matter, and Augusta National has a basically unlimited budget for turf maintenance.
It's not a matter of "bald", it's a matter of quality turf, which has already been explained to you multiple times.

I'll take a bit of an issue with your assessment of Augusta. There are trees in play on 11 and 15 that were added in the past 15-20 years, really since Tiger started playing there. The addition of the second cut has made it seem like they are not in play. The new trees are on the right of 11 and 15, which used to allow you to bomb it down the right side and take advantage of slopes. Usually brought wedges or short irons into play on those holes for second shots.

I will give it to Augusta, though, they have added those trees and the second cut and made it appear as if they've been there forever. To your point, though, with this work done, the trees aren't in the new line of play, which is ultimately the point.

 

[Hoosier71]

Yes, I care so much about the IU golf course, which I haven't played in over a decade (because 1..it's a dump, and 2... I live 90 mins away) that I just make crap up about golf to troll your sorry, weak ass. Do you realize how batshit insane you sound?

Nobody in golf agrees with you on Oakmont, just as nobody agrees with you whatsoever on IU. You are just a crazy, old man talking to himself in the corner. I should have followed my normal instinct and not interacted with you....talking to crazy people like yourself is a fool's errand.

Totally agree on playing the IU course. The last time I played there was my bachelor party weekend eight years ago. I've had no desire to play there, but for the convenience factor, the lack of nearby options, and nostalgia. After this renovation, I will absolutely make it a point to play there when in town, and I live in Chicago.

 

[Hoosier71]

your nothing but a troll.

you made a description of Rolling Meadows that informed anyone who's ever played RM that you've never been there, then described IU in a manner that shows you've never played it either.

your take on Oakmont is a complete joke. (good reason no one is following that lead).

on a side note, while old and arthritic now, in my day you would have had no chance.

that said, i question if you even play.

you obviously lied about playing IU or Rolling Meadows, and anyone who's played either knows that from your having absolutely no idea the topography of either.

I think that there is absolutely a tree removal movement and many, many courses, for the fact that it helps make it easier to maintain the grass. Courses are squeezed for funds and anything to help the budget is looked at. A good friend of mine owns a course and they are removing trees like crazy.

Oakmont didn't remove the trees for budgetary purposes, but the make the course play as it was originally intended and designed. Pinehurst #2, as part of their recent Coore/Crenshaw renovation removed a lot of trees and maintained turfgrass, in favor of native areas, as Donald Ross had designed the course to play. With many early 20th century courses, the designers came from Britain/Scotland and built courses in a style with which they were familiar). Most modern courses that are removing trees, as I mentioned, are doing so because it makes it more difficult and expensive to grow and maintain grass. That is just a fact. You can certainly have an opinion as to whether it would be your preference, though.

 

[IUclover]

As a Btown local who works on campus and loves to golf, we need the new course. I rarely played the current course and my friends refused to play it - we refer to it as the Par 4 course. The closest decent course is 45-60 minutes ago. Salt Creek, Cascades, and the Pointe are all pretty average and nothing I'm excited to play. Rolling Meadows is very meh but just meh for $15-20. Unfortunately my 15 year run in Btown may come to an end around the same time the new course is finished. Not having the driving range and Par 3 course is the last month has been a downer. Used to make a trip over there at lunch and after work.

 

[twenty02]

As a Btown local who works on campus and loves to golf, we need the new course. I rarely played the current course and my friends refused to play it - we refer to it as the Par 4 course. The closest decent course is 45-60 minutes ago. Salt Creek, Cascades, and the Pointe are all pretty average and nothing I'm excited to play. Rolling Meadows is very meh but just meh for $15-20. Unfortunately my 15 year run in Btown may come to an end around the same time the new course is finished. Not having the driving range and Par 3 course is the last month has been a downer. Used to make a trip over there at lunch and after work.

Yes. The dearth of quality golf down there is sad. Martinsville was probably the closest course that was fun, and in good shape. It wasn't great....but has some fun holes. Haven't been there in 6-7 years, though.

 

[IU40IU]

Yes. The dearth of quality golf down there is sad. Martinsville was probably the closest course that was fun, and in good shape. It wasn't great....but has some fun holes. Haven't been there in 6-7 years, though.

Just played Martinsville about a month ago and it was in good shape. the greens were fantastic and the bunkers had really nice sand in them (ask me how i know). Love that track. Would play there well before the IU course, Salt Creek (which I hate) and Cascades.

Have you heard what, if anything, is going to happen to Martinsville once the 69 project rolls through?

 

[twenty02]

Just played Martinsville about a month ago and it was in good shape. the greens were fantastic and the bunkers had really nice sand in them (ask me how i know). Love that track. Would play there well before the IU course, Salt Creek (which I hate) and Cascades.

Have you heard what, if anything, is going to happen to Martinsville once the 69 project rolls through?

No idea.....I believe they are losing their driving range and entrance road. Carmichael was concerned the lack of access might kill the place. Hopefully they can find a solution. Great place....I should make a trip back.

 

[Hoosier71]

No idea.....I believe they are losing their driving range and entrance road. Carmichael was concerned the lack of access might kill the place. Hopefully they can find a solution. Great place....I should make a trip back.

I think I remember reading something similar in an article in the Star or something within the past several months. There is so concern that they may not be able to survive with more difficult access caused by the interstate.

Martinsville is a fun little course. Need more, not less, of those.

 

[IU40IU]

No idea.....I believe they are losing their driving range and entrance road. Carmichael was concerned the lack of access might kill the place. Hopefully they can find a solution. Great place....I should make a trip back.

yea i knew he was concerned about it all. hope it works out as well because it would be a sad day to see a course like that go under. Those types of courses are becoming fewer and farther between.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

As a Btown local who works on campus and loves to golf, we need the new course. I rarely played the current course and my friends refused to play it - we refer to it as the Par 4 course. The closest decent course is 45-60 minutes ago. Salt Creek, Cascades, and the Pointe are all pretty average and nothing I'm excited to play. Rolling Meadows is very meh but just meh for $15-20. Unfortunately my 15 year run in Btown may come to an end around the same time the new course is finished. Not having the driving range and Par 3 course is the last month has been a downer. Used to make a trip over there at lunch and after work.

please elaborate what courses do it for you, that are 40-60 mins away.

if you and your friends liked playing the par 3, i can see why you didn't like the champ course.

short easy courses are generally more popular and get heavier play.

haven't played Rolling Meadows in over a decade, but it did have a very nice front 9. back wasn't nearly as nice a piece of land for a course, but still was more than decent for the price. (was very nice for $15-$20, so no idea where you think you're doing better for that).

 

[i'vegotwinners]

yea i knew he was concerned about it all. hope it works out as well because it would be a sad day to see a course like that go under. Those types of courses are becoming fewer and farther between.

would be terrible to lose that course. i first played it when it was just 9 holes. fun course.

obviously would need an access road get there once that goes interstate, and that would eat up some of the range land.

that said, MCC isn't even in the same league as a course as IU for better players.

on a side note, i originally thought the 37 route for I 69 was the way to go. no longer think so.

works ok for Btown to Mville, but will be a disaster from the north side of Mville to 465.

if we thought Btown to Mville was a disaster, that's nothing compared to the disaster that the north side of Mville to 465 will be. (especially 144 to 465).

 

[i'vegotwinners]

Yes. The dearth of quality golf down there is sad. Martinsville was probably the closest course that was fun, and in good shape. It wasn't great....but has some fun holes. Haven't been there in 6-7 years, though.

if MCC is what you like in a course, you probably wouldn't like IU, (which i don't believe for a second you've ever played).

you overplayed your hand when you tried to describe it, and had absolutely no idea what the layout was. (you literally described the 180 degree opposite of the layout, so obviously you've never even seen it).

doubt you've played Rolling Meadows either, since you couldn't describe it either.

do you even play golf? i doubt it.

and btw, 4-5 handicaps don't play in the 3rd flight of club championships. (nice try there too).

at least 89 admits he doesn't play, and has never even seen the IU course.

your comments that everyone loves what they did to Oakmont is beyond laughable.


like i said, you're just a troll in this thread.

 

[twenty02]

if MCC is what you like in a course, you probably wouldn't like IU, (which i don't believe for a second you've ever played).

you overplayed your hand when you tried to describe it, and had absolutely no idea what the layout was. (you literally described the 180 degree opposite of the layout, so obviously you've never even seen it).

doubt you've played Rolling Meadows either, since you couldn't describe it either.

do you even play golf? i doubt it.

and btw, 4-5 handicaps don't play in the 3rd flight of club championships. (nice try there too).

at least 89 admits he doesn't play, and has never even seen the IU course.

your comments that everyone loves what they did to Oakmont is beyond laughable.


like i said, you're just a troll in this thread.

There is only one jackass in this thread...And everyone knows who it is.