No.17 at Muirfield Village altered

[Mike_Cirba]

McCloskey;

I've never seen or played MV in person, but have always found it an intriguing golf course from television, and as architecture nuts here, I'm confused at the contentious tone you are taking with Tom MacWood for reporting on changes there.

Tom seems to know a great deal about the course, as is evidenced by his replies, and he's seen it from the conceptual stage.

The fact that he thinks some of the changes are questionable seems reasonable to me.  Your own mention of lowering the green 10' to accommodate more gallery room doesn't seem on the face of it to be an improvement to the golf course, even if more people can watch the action there.

I think Tom has answered all of your somewhat inflammatory questions with patience and aplomb, so would you please enlighten the rest of us on why you think his views of the course are so "wrong" and "skewed"?

Thank you.

[McCloskey]

Cirba
I did not intend to be contentious with Mac.  It just seemed to be that he was expressing an opinion that the bunkering on the course had changed in a negative way and was not consistent.  It seemed to me that the comments he made about changes were stated to back his preconceived opinion.  I just pointed out that his knowledge of the changes were not accurate.  He asked for an example, I gave him one on the 15th hole.  He said he hasn't been there for 11 years, and a lot of changes have taken place over that time, so that would explain why he is unaware of what has transpired.  As far a whether lowering the green at 15 has improved the hole, is not for you or me to give opinion.  Mr. Nicklaus did it and I'm quite sure he did it for a reason.  I have played it and I do believe it is better, but that is just my opinion.  I certainly acknowdeged Mac's right to his opinion.  Skewed just mean off base, and that is what I believe his comments were.  No personal offense intended and shouldn't be taken as such.

[Mike_Cirba]

McCloskey;

Thanks for your explanation.  I understand better where you are coming from and I agree that all any of us can offer on any course is any facts we know as well as our own individual subjective opinions.

However, I would question your statement that;

"As far a whether lowering the green at 15 has improved the hole, is not for you or me to give opinion.  Mr. Nicklaus did it and I'm quite sure he did it for a reason."

I'd have to disagree completely with you there.  While I'm sure Mr. Nicklaus (for whom I also have the utmost respect) did it for a reason, ultimately we golfers are the ones who decide whether or not something an architect does works well or not.  Yes, it's subjective, but it's also valid and worthwhile because constructive criticism is necessary for the continued growth and elevation of any art form, even a utilitarian one.  

Are you suggesting that golf course architects should be immune from criticism from their "consumers"?  If that were the case, then what is the purpose of this website and other venues where such critical discussion can take place?  

Just some food for thought.  Thanks again.  

[McCloskey]

Cirba
My point was not that we shouldn't have an opinion of changes an architect might make.  I think we all have them.  However, I think we should give an architect the benefit of the doubt when changes are made.  THe reason I believe this is because we are no aware usually of all the reasons why a change was contemplated in the first place.  I don't think any architect wants to change an original design.  However, things change that make change necessary, like shade causing poor grass conditions, or drainage problems, etc.
So, being a fan of Nicklaus' work, especially over the past 15 years, I choose to believe he did what was best for the hole and secondarily, for the tournament.  I don't think he would modify a hole simply to improve tournament viewing.  The change he has made at 17 will be a tremendous improvement to the course and tournament.  It was, as Mac implied, the one hole that didn't seem to relate to the others on the course.  
I wonder if we critique the old masters of design that are so revered on the changes they made to their courses.  Have you ever voiced an opinion on the changes that Ross made at Pinehurst 2, for instance.  We don't, because we are generally unaware of what they are.  In the future, golfers will be unaware of the changes made at MV.  I guess that is just something today's architects just have to live with.  LOL

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

McCloskey
Now that you mention it, I do recall changes to the 15th. Perhaps I should have reworded my 'relatively unchanged' statement. But that particular change really doesn't relate to or effect my view that numerous changes have altered the cohesiveness of the design. Obviously not every change has effected the courses continuity - in fact most probably have not.

I have no doubt that Jack believes every change will improve the course. Just as Cliff Roberts and Hootie believe they are constantly improving ANGC. And those involved at Inverness, Scioto, Bel-Air and Garden City thought they were improving their courses. But even Nicklaus would admit it doesn't always work out, illustrated by the changes he has made to the changes.

I'm not sure I'd agree with your Pinehurst comparison. That course was originally laid out in 1903 and was very crude. If ever a course needed alterations it was that one. If I'm not mistaken MV was hailed the day it opened, not that it was without weakness or not in need of tweeking, but MV has undergone much more than tweeking.

[Stephen Lang]

McCloskey,

I'm the one that hasn't seen it in 11 years, not Tom MacWood