[Ran Morrissett]

After identifying that Tiger can't play golf in last year's Open  , Muirfield made a spectacular jump from #9 to #3 in GOLF's world rankings, fighting past some very tough company. Meanwhile GCGC hovers in the mid-50s where it has essentially been for the past decade.

Thus, there appears to be a fair difference of opinion regarding the quality of the two courses. Can someone help explain Muirfiled's attributes over GCGC? Or perhaps it is GCGC weaknesses that I don't appreciate?

This isn't a case of comparing wildly different properties either. Both enjoy sandy loam.  Both are on plains/fields with no abrupt/dramatic topography but whose properties still enjoy subtle 5-15 foot folds throughout.

Here's what I glean in comparing the two:

Set of one shotters: Muirfield 4,7,13, and 16 vs. GCGC 2,12, and 18. Far and away the worst of the bunch is the 12th at GCGC, through no fault of the original architects. However, 2 and 18 rival 13 at Muirfield as being the best of the rest. VERDICT: TIE

Set of shorter two shotters: Muirfield 2,3,11,12 vs GCGC 1,5,9,14  Isn't the 1st at GCGC the class of these eight holes? It is the only option-filled hole ala the standard-bearers of 10 at Riviera and 12 at St. Andrews. Otherwise, I would say the remaining seven holes are balanced. Thus, the edge remains with GCGC. VERDICT: GCGC 1 up

Set of longer two shotters: Muirfield 1,6,8,10,14,15,18 vs. GCGC 6,8,10,11,15,16  Nobody will deny that this grouping from Muirfield is rock solid but don't the ones at GCGC have (lots) more flair and variety, highlighted by the fallaway 10th green? VERDICT: GCGC 2 up

Set of three shotters: Muirfield 5,9, and 17 vs. GCGC 4, 7, 13, 17 My two favorites would be 17 (!) and 9 at Muirfield and 17 at GCGC is the weakest (Travis sometimes termed it a par 4). VERDICT: Muirfield wins making GCGC 1 up

Intangibles: Muirfield is one of about ten courses/clubs in the world that might beat GCGC in terms of history. Also, the perimeter of GCGC is surrounded by trees while Muirfield enjoys the close proximity to the water/more uninterrupted wind. Plus, the longest par fours at GCGC run in but two directions and the ones at Muirfield box the compass. VERDICT: Muirfield and MATCH HALVED.

Thus, if Muirfield is #3 in the world, seems to me GCGC should be world top 20 as well. What am I missing?

Cheers,

[THuckaby2]

It's easy, Ran.

Muirfield has hosted countless Opens, Amateurs, international cups, etc.  It literally OOZES tradition, more than any club over there really.

Now GCGC ain't no slouch when it comes to tradition either, obviously.

It's just not Muirfield.

So what does this have to do with the "architecture" of each golf course?  Nothing.  But if you believe ratings are done based purely on architecture, then I have some fine Florida swampland I want to sell you...  

TH

[ChipOat]

Ran:

I'll be forever on Pat Mucci's black list for this post, but here goes.

First, although I've played HCEG/Muirfield but once, I've played GCGC many times - mostly in competition or in practice rounds for same.  The caveat is that I have not played there in 3+ years - or since the combination of Pro V1 + titanium was do-able.  I've also not seen the "new" greens on #'s 5 and 14 since then.

Second, like NGLA, GCGC is one of my favorite golf experiences - there are few days I enjoy more than at "the men's club".  Jackets in the clubhouse, wonderful course, Walter Travis, etc. I also like Garden City's halfway house best of any - there is none.  Finally, anyplace where you are "on the clock" for a 3 1/2 hour round is my kind of place.

Having said that, I think the golf course is a touch over-rated because of all the atmosphere and, to the credit of many, it just LOOKS so neat - especially from most tee boxes.  Top 50 sounds about right to me, though.  I'm not sure where Muirfield ought to be in the world, but I rate it in my Top 3 in Scotland based on 1 round (along with Dornoch and Turnberry).

Here's my take on Garden City in terms of what's "on the ground".

In general, there's too many flat greens at ground level - also my major gripe about Baltusrol (Lower).

#1 Long hitter has an architectural advantage due to the wider landing area if you can carry the grunch on the right - not my idea of a good "strategic" hole, at all.  Green is pretty flat.

#2 What's the big deal about this hole?  The green's pretty big and not especially contoured.  So it has a sand pit instead of a bunker - big deal.  It's a nice medium length par 3.

#3 Boring from tee to (a flat) green.

#4 One of my favorites.  The second shot used to have options depending on how you drove it.  New equipment may render that moot.  Pin position on the back shelf tough to get close.

#5 The "new" green was built around 1970, I think.  As of 3 years ago, it was still not in good shape.  This hole "looks" harder than it plays, IMO.

#6 Excellent tough, long par 4 - especially with the new tee.  Green is flat but elevated.

#7 Boring, flat ground-level green complex.

#8 Excellent hole although it plays much shorter than it used to (what doesn't?).

#9 Green is too big for the length of the hole and the front bunker (more like a waste area) has no depth.  Front pin is tough to get close, but otherwise....

#'s 10 and 11 Flat greens at ground level.  The fairway bunkers on #10 look kind of cool but....

#12 Not representative - discussed ad nauseum.

#13 Interesting strategic play off the tee (down the right near bushes/OB) but another flat, ground level green complex.

#14 "New" green built circa 1975-77; an improvement from the original but C&C could probably make it look more like it's been there forever.

#15 Green has some decent L/R slope.  Right behind #6 as a good long par 4.

#16 I've touched on this in previous threads.  The long hitter has an architectural advantage here as the green opens up at the 250+ yard mark.  Looks neat but the green ought to open from the LEFT side IMO.

#17 Looks neat to aim at the clock tower, but the green is pretty flat.  There is some bunkering in front but it wasn't too challenging at last look.  No clear strategic advantage to playing down the "dangerous" right side that I remember.

#18 What a wonderful par 3.  Possibly as good a par 3 as #6 is a par 4.

Garden City has too few really excellent holes and the green complexes simply don't stack up to the "greats" IMO - #'s 4 and 18 being the 2 exceptions that come to mind.  Perhaps #5 is better than I remember.

Charm, atmosphere, visual appeal - Garden City's got it all in spades.  But up there with Muirfield, Cypress or Pebble from an architectural perspective?  I don't see it.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Chipoat,

# 6 may be a relatively flat green, but most of the greens are sloped fairly well, including # 10 and # 13 which slope away from the golfer.

For an easy golf course, you should know, that in competition, over 104 years, 70 has only been broken four (4) times.

I do agree with you that equipment will make the course easier
I don't want to diminish Al Falussy's round two years ago, but, I do see where players are hitting the ball today, and it has to take its toll on the course's ability to resist scoring.

# 6 and # 8 should be lengthened by extending the tee straight back, not by creating a combination tee up on the hill.
This will help a little.  # 3 could be lengthened a little as could
# 4 and # 5.  # 7 could benefit from restoring the second fairway to the right, next to the abandoned trench bunker.  # 11 could be lengthened a little to bring the cross bunkers back in play.  # 12, well, we know what should be done at
# 12, the question is, will it get done.  The cross bunkers on # 15 eliminate the need to lengthen the hole.  # 17 might be lengthened, but not much land is there, perhaps 5-10 yards.

Just keep in mind, if the rain ever stops, and the golf course gets back to fast and firm, few golfers will better 70 when the tournament flag is up.

With respect to # 1 and # 2, I've seen more rounds end on those two little holes, and # 2 can be treacherous.
I do think that high tech drives combined with L-Wedges have taken the bite out of # 1.

I played there with Terry McBride and Ran the other day,
Terry is an excellent player, but he told Ran that he's always had a difficult time scoring at GCGC, despite its wide fairways.
The blind to semi blind nature of a lot of the set-ups creates uncertainty, which results in swings without conviction, and scores other than pars and birdies.

I respect your opinion,

I just can't figure out why only four golfers have managed to break 70 over the last 104 years ?  

[ChipOat]

I never said GCGC was easy.  If my comments inferred that, let me be more accurate.

What I MEANT was that Garden City isn't at Muirfield's degree of "greatness" (whatever that means) mostly because IMO the green complexes just aren't quite as complex/difficult/interesting/NGLA-like/Maxwell-like/etc. as they could/should/might be.

Perhaps GC's greens just aren't big enough to be that way.  It might not work at all to have NGLA-like greens overlaid on the current GCGC "footprints".  I'll defer to your judgement on that one.

As to historical scoring below 70, a) the course isn't easy and b) par is, after all, 73.  All the par 5's are, in fact, either legitimate 3 shotters or, if they're downwind, still too long to be valid par 4's.  At least they used to be.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()