Medinah Course Design became one of the central design stories of the Presidents Cup held on September 24-27, 2026, because Course No. 3 did not play as a simple restoration of a familiar championship venue. It was a recently rebuilt match-play stage, reshaped by OCM and then tested under softer-than-planned conditions. The result was a week in which width, out-of-bounds pressure, rerouted lake holes, green expansion, and fairway framing all carried weight.
The course had gone through a large-scale renovation by OCM, the firm led by Geoff Ogilvy, Mike Cocking, and Ashley Mead, beginning in April 2023 and completed in July 2024, according to GCM’s report on Medinah. The Presidents Cup was later staged on the renovated No. 3 Course from September 24-27, 2026, with PGA of America coverage describing how several signature holes were meant to be played at the new venue in its Medinah course feature.
Medinah Course Design And The 2026 Test
Medinah Course Design Changes That Set The Baseline
The renovation changed the strategic baseline before a single match began. The research record identifies lower tree density, much wider fairways, reshaped and enlarged greens, dozens of strategically placed bunkers, and a rerouting of the final six holes, especially near Lake Kadijah. Those details matter because they changed the way elite players were asked to choose targets. Rather than forcing a narrow corridor on every tee shot, the new version often presented more width but asked players to find the correct side of that width.
That is an important distinction. Wide fairways can look forgiving from the tee, but they do not automatically make a course easy in match play. If a player has room to drive the ball but loses the best approach angle, the design can still defend itself through pin position, green contour, bunkering, and water placement. At Medinah, that question showed up early and often: was the better play to take the safe side, or to challenge the angle that opened the next shot?
Weather And Width Changed The Intended Question
The week’s weather complicated the design intent. Rain in the days before the matches left Course No. 3 softer than intended. United States Captain Brandt Snedeker was reported as saying the fairways were not running well, which limited the bounce and roll he had expected. That mattered because a redesign built partly around width and angles often depends on firm ground to make drives chase into preferred or poor positions.
Soft turf changes the equation. A tee shot that might have bounded toward a bunker, rolled through a shoulder, or reached a downslope could instead stop close to its landing point. That can make wider holes play more target-oriented and reduce some ground-game options. For players, Medinah Course Design still asked for decisions, but the rain likely shifted some holes toward carry, aerial control, and wedge access rather than firm-running placement.
Opening Fence Holes And Match-Play Angles
Why The Left-Side Fence Mattered
The opening stretch became one of the clearest examples of how a small architectural feature can shape elite behavior. Holes 1, 2, and 3 were described as “fence holes,” with a 3-foot split-rail fence running along the left side just inside the intermediate cut. Beyond the fence was out of bounds. The same research notes list those holes at about 505, 476, and 582 yards, so the penalty edge was not attached to short, throwaway holes. It was part of a demanding opening sequence.
On Thursday, September 24, 2026, during the first round, three balls were reported out of bounds in that stretch, with a fourth nearly joining them. That is not only a scoring detail. It shows how the fence affected player decision-making. A left miss carried a full penalty, yet bailing too far right could damage the angle into the green. Match play often rewards pressure applied through risk, and the fence created that pressure without needing a water hazard or a deep bunker complex.
Approach Angles Beat Simple Width
The first hole supplied a useful case study. Only two birdies were made there in the fourballs, according to the research notes, because tee shots favoring the right side left a poor angle to a back-right pin. That point cuts through a common misconception about the renovation. Wider fairways did not necessarily remove strategy; they changed where the strategy lived.
A player could choose the safer right side and keep the ball in play, but that decision could make the next shot less inviting. A player could challenge the left side and improve the angle, but the out-of-bounds fence made the penalty severe. That tradeoff is central to modern tournament architecture. It also reflects strategic considerations similar to those in other sports, as discussed on NBA Playbook.
Rerouting Lake Kadijah Into The Middle Stretch
Earlier Drama, Fewer Unused Closing Holes
One of the more consequential choices was the competition routing. The matches began on what had formerly been the fifth hole so that the dramatic lakeside closing holes appeared as holes 12 and 13 during the competition. The logic was practical: in match play, not every match reaches the 18th hole. By shifting Lake Kadijah holes earlier, the organizers increased the chance that more matches would face those decisions before being decided.
This was a design and presentation challenge, not just a routing edit. A great closing hole can be lost in match play if the match ends before players arrive. Moving water-influenced holes into the middle of the back half made them more relevant to the competitive rhythm. For a companion hole-by-hole reading of those choices, our Medinah No. 3 strategy review covers how water, bunkers, and angles worked across the card.
Bunkers, Rough Collars, And Elite Decisions
The widened fairway corridors also needed definition. The research notes describe many landing areas as 50 to 60 yards wide, but paired with steep fairway bunkers in driving zones and more defined rough framing. They also note that Snedeker had input into an intermediate rough collar: 1.5-inch rough, with a 4-inch heavier cut beyond it. That setup created gradations of penalty rather than a single fairway-or-rough binary.
From a design perspective, that is a subtle but meaningful challenge. Elite players can overpower width if there is no cost for imprecision. Medinah’s renovated No. 3 tried to balance visual openness with positional demands. A ball in the intermediate cut might still be playable, while a ball in heavier rough or a steep fairway bunker could make controlling spin and trajectory more difficult. The design question was whether those penalties were strong enough under soft conditions to offset the benefits of width.
Medinah Course Design Takeaways From The Cup
What The Week Confirmed
The 2026 Presidents Cup confirmed that the renovated No. 3 Course was not judged by one feature alone. The fence holes, the Lake Kadijah routing, the larger greens, and the softened fairways all interacted. Medinah Course Design placed players in a set of repeated choices: protect against a penalty, seek a better angle, challenge bunkers, or accept a longer and less direct approach. That is a credible match-play test, even when weather reduced some of the intended ground movement.
The week also showed that visual change can affect competitive behavior. Reported player reaction described the course as feeling like a completely new venue compared with prior versions, with wider fairways, major tree removal, and altered hole visuals. Those are not cosmetic points for tournament golf. Players build decisions from what they see, what they can carry, and what they fear. The redesigned sightlines changed that calculation.
What Remains Hard To Separate
The harder analytical question is how much of the scoring and shot pattern belonged to the architecture, and how much belonged to weather. Soft conditions can increase birdie chances by holding approaches, but they can also lengthen holes if tee shots receive less roll. Without separating those effects, broad claims about the course being too easy or too severe would be premature.
What can be said with confidence is narrower and more useful: Medinah Course Design faced a demanding tournament stress test less than three months after the event window in which it was judged. The renovated Course No. 3 asked clearer strategic questions than a simple tree-lined corridor test, but the rain-muted fairways meant some intended firmness did not fully appear. For future evaluations of Medinah as a championship venue, the strongest evidence will come from comparing how the same features perform under firmer conditions, similar hole locations, and comparable match-play pressure.