The Chicago Sun-Times' Len Ziehm took criticism by Brad Klein (read here) and yours truly (someone actually listened to the Golfdom podcast!), and called on one of the game's heavyweights to defend Medinah.
''That's crap,'' Ian Poulter said. ''It's a great golf course. It has a lot of definition. It sets up quite well to my eye.''
Ah yes, the man who dresses in ways only Marty Hackel could love, wheels out the most self-important of architectural evaluations: it sets up quite well to my eye.
And if it didn't set up well to his eye, would that make it less of a course?
Seriously, it's time to talk about this definition nonsense, which was also touted by Rees Jones.
ANYONE can design a course with definition that "fits the eye" of PGA Tour players. That is not a huge compliment.
The trick is to create something that seems to fit their eye, but actually has becomes a little less defined the more one gets to know the course.
You know, like the Old Course, Augusta (well, before Fazio and Hootie did their thing), Riviera, Royal Melbourne, etc...
Creating definition is nothing more than a dumbing down process that eliminates uncertainty. However, elite tests of golf present more grey and less certainty, which is why they often have a way of separating the merely great from the elite.
Medinah is too black and white to be considered with the elite designs of the world. That doesn't mean the membership is bad, the conditioning is poor or Chicago is a bad town, or that Tiger Woods will not be rewarded for hitting great shots.
It just means that the No. 3 course could be more interesting.