Muirfield or Royal St George's?

[Philip Gawith]

These two courses are often compared not least because of their social similarities , but because they are probably, the Old Course aside, the two current Open venues with the most history (only Hoylake could possibly compare I think?).

From a GCA perspective, it is often said that the pro's like Muirfield while the purists prefer RSG. I wonder if this past week has caused anyone to revise these views?

I have attempted the Ran exercise of playing the courses against each other based as much on my own impressions and sentiments as any rigorous GCS analysis. As such, I would score the courses as follows:

1 - RSG -  a more memorable start with the huts, those lovely slinky look eyebrow bunkers staring at your towards the green. Muirfield a tough but visually forgettable hole without particular definition.
2 - the wall gives Muirfield character but i give to  RSG because of fabulously wild fairway and blind approach.
3 - Muirfield - none of RSG one-shotters very special and the approach to three at Muirfield/amphitheatre style green is fun.
4 - Must go to RSG - one of best holes on the course, famous bunker ahead of the tee, wild fairway, hugely challenging and distinctive green.
5 - I think this goes to  Muirfield - such a defining hole on the course - albeit also quite a memorable hole at RSG.
6 - Maybe the wildest fairway at Muirfield, tough semi-blind drive, wall adds character - beats a one-shotter at RSG albeit this hole has a memorable setting at base of a dune (and famous history!).
7 - not sure either is among the strongest holes, but i think i give it to RSG with the blind drive, shape of hole over not the best one-shotter at Muirfield.
8 - tough choice but i think i give this one to Muirfield - excellent drive and that semi-blind green.
9 -  personally I prefer RSG because I think the green is magical, but i know Muirfield 9 gets a lot of love.
10 - got to be RSG with the fantastic and daunting sky-line green.
11 - Muirfield - the blind drive has a character that trumps the long one shotter at RSG.
12 -  I go for RSG with the great saddleback mound lending character to the drive and difficult green to hold.
13 - must go to Muirfield's fantastic short hole with the wonderful, long green.
14 - maybe RSG? Famous and tough hole, albeit the newish green not so great. dont have strong recall for Muirfield 14.
15 - I go for RSG because this is such a daunting and distinctive green to hit - hardest hole on the course.
16 - both one shotters, i think Muirfield is tougher and therefore possibly better at this point in the round?
17 - i think this has to be Muirfield - tough drive, memorable cross bunkers and green - but not many 17's beat RSG with its wild fairway and tough green to hit.
18 - easily Muirfield, returning to the clubhouse.

Overall I think RSG has better two-shotters while Muirfield wins one and three shotters, albeit at Muirfield the one-shotters maybe lack directional variety. Muirfield has the more distinctive routing but  at RSG no two holes go successively in the same direction whereas at Muirfield 12,14, 15 all head the same way. While RSG is a much more distinctive piece of land and has much more movement in its fairways, you play very few elevated shots (approach to 10 is an exception) whereas at Muirfield it feels there is more elevation change (4, 5,7,8, 12, 13,16). Feels like the style of the greens is quite similar (lack of exaggerated internal movement) but the "misses" at some Muirfield greens are maybe more calamitous than at RSG. Both feel well bunkered - i don't have especially strong view. Muirfield has some more memorable shapes (coffin on 17, doghnut on 18) but i think too much soft sand?

Anyway - both lovely courses to play. I am a bit biased but i think RSG speaks a bit more to my golfing soul on account of the fantastic scale of the land.

What do others think?

Philip

[Brent Hutto]

I have been to Sandwich and plan on playing there again in a few weeks time. It is one of my two favorite courses to play and my favorite course other than Augusta on which to watch elite players play. With the dunes and the scale of the property, the glimpse you catch at various points during the round of the St. Georges Cross flying near the clubhouse, I find the setting just breathtaking.

Unfortunately I have not visited Muirfield so maybe I don't know what I'm missing. But even after the amazing Championship they just put on there, if I had a chance to play at Muirfield instead of Royal St. Georges there's no way I could do it. I just think Royal St. George's is everything a golf course ought to be.

Philip,

Do you find there to be as much semi-blindness at Muirfield as there are at various points during a round at Sandwich? Maybe it was just my spectator's vantage point during the Amateur and the positions I drove the ball during my round there but quite a few places have those ideal semi-obscured views or angles off the tee where you can see enough of the fairway but don't really feel you're getting the whole picture.

Judging from television I'd say maybe Muirfield is similar in that regard.

I do think bunker play is a bigger part of the game at Muirfield than RSG while perhaps angles bring the rough more into play at Royal St. George's.

[Philip Gawith]

Brent, that is a good point about blindness that I had not considered. A rough tally would suggest that as many as 11 of the 14 holes ex one shotters have elements of blindness. The number is also high at Muirfield, nut maybe not as extensive.

[David_Tepper]

Legend has it Jack Nicklaus does not care for RSG (too many blind shots) whereas he named his club in Ohio in honor of Muirfield ("it is all out in front of you") .

In fact, another legend has that the R&A was originally planning to hold the Open at RSG in the year Nicklaus was 65, the last year he was able to play in the Open exempt as a past champion. Nicklaus told the R&A that, if the Open was held at RSG, he would not come over to play in it because he did not care for the course. The R&A, in order to encourage Nicklaus to make one final appearance in the Open, decided to hold it that year at St. Andrews to insure his participation.

(Any and all of the above may be total nonsense!)

[Brent Hutto]

I'm not a fan of totally blind "shot in the dark" arrangements. One or two of those in a round are gracious plenty. But I love peering around a partial visual obstruction or having an obscured view so that the correct shot will disappear for some portion of its journey. Is it the fifth (or sixth?) hole at RSG where there's almost no blindness at all from "Position A" in the fairway but that position is ridiculously small. In reality depending on how accurately you drive it you'll have various degrees of partial blindness to contend with. What a brilliant hole.

From television there seemed to be more partially obscured fairways (from the tee) than partially obscured greens (from the fairway) at Muirfield. And as far as I could tell they were quite nicely done. Neither course strikes me as lacking in subtlety and refinement. I wonder how much of these elements have evolved through the long history of the courses versus how much was in place early on. In particular I'd be interested to know if either course had more out-and-out blindness in the early days, whittled down to a more subtle challenge over the decades...

[Bill_McBride]

I loved them both and am 50/50.   

Given the choice I would rather play North Berwick or Deal than either.   

[Philip Gawith]

Brent you are thinking about the 5th at RSG (6th is a short) where the green sits about 80-100 yards behind a narrow gap in the dunes.

There used to be even more blindness at RSG, well before my time, and minimising that was a condition of the Open returning to the course after a long gap (when Bill Rogers won in ? 82). The most famous change was to the Maiden hole (6th) which was I think previously a completely blind par 3 over one of the huge dunes that sit on the left of the current 5th.I think Ran's course profile may have some detail.

Philip

[Mark Pearce]

Philip,

I have only played RSG a couple of times so don't have a strong enough recall to perform the same exercise.  That said, from what I do recall, your analysis seems pretty fair.  The only decision I would really quibble with would be 9.  I do recall that hole at RSG quite well, for the same reason you give, a truly wonderful (and terrifying, with a pin perched almost on the right hand side) green.  That said, the 9th at Muirfield is one of the great par 5s, perfectly combining reachability with threat.  I would (as an admitted homer) just give that to Muirfield.

[Tony_Muldoon]

I loved them both and am 50/50.   

Given the choice I would rather play North Berwick or Deal than either.   

 




Haven’t played Muirfield enough to offer a valid hole by hole comparison but at the end of the day the land at RSG lifts my spirits and adds an excitement that very few courses can match.  Is it a better course than Muirfield? Possibly not, but I know which I’m keenest to play again next.


Watching the Open  the course that Muirfield most reminded me of was Royal Lytham, in that both are defined above all else by their bunkers.  On both they are so prevalent that missing the green means playing out of, or over one.  The ground game is somewhat diminished.  Strange to have these two as back to back Opens.

[Mark Pearce]

The ground game is somewhat diminished. 

An extraordinary thing to say after an Open in which the ground game was more prevalent than any championship since Hoylake.  Plenty of ground game options at Muirfield, frequently even when bunkers interfere (many greenside bunkers have slopes around them which, while they can attract approach shots can also be used to shape running chips towards the hole).

[Tony_Muldoon]

The ground game is somewhat diminished.  

An extraordinary thing to say after an Open in which the ground game was more prevalent than any championship since Hoylake.  Plenty of ground game options at Muirfield, frequently even when bunkers interfere (many greenside bunkers have slopes around them which, while they can attract approach shots can also be used to shape running chips towards the hole).

Mark I didn't' se as much as I planned because I have a Sony hard disk and they ALL failed in the UK this weekend due to a Freeview update. That's extraordinary.

However as noted on another thread I was not the only person who saw lots of pitches but very few bump and runs and the only time the Texas wedge was favoured was when the ball came up short in front of the green. Not far outside the bunkers the rough started; where were the run off areas that make the ground game?  Both courses are shot makers paradises.

It is as if we were watching two different tournaments.

[Mark Pearce]

where were the run off areas that make the ground game? 

You can start with the areas around the par 3s (with the exception of 13, where only short is short grass).  1 is surrounded by run-off areas, with a significant one long right.  2 has a run off area all down the left hand side between green and wall, several players putted from there.  6 is surrounded by run-off areas, as is 8.  Lots of short game options around 9.  I didn't really get a good look at how 10 green was set up.  12 and 14 both had run off areas, as did 15.

By run off areas I am referring to areas where the ball runs off and comes to rest in a lie where the player is faced with options including a running shot.  That can include short rough as a place where the ball comes to rest.  In many cases the prevalance of high pitches was a result of player choice rather than set up or design.  I saw Tiger play an exquisite flop shot having missed 14 back right, where I wouldn't have even considered any shot but a running chip.  That's because he has shots I don't.

[Philip Gawith]

Your comments on 9 at Muirfield Mark make an interesting point.

I know that greater GCA types than me rave about the three shotters at Muirfield. But of the three holes, I am sure anyone who plays the course once or twice will remember 5 and 17 long before they remember 9. Which is not to say that you are not right in what you say - just a reminder i suppose of how distinctive visual features (high part of the course + proximity to sea in case of  5; green complex at 17) can make a stronger impression than GCA merits.

[Brent Hutto]

Watching the Open on television, Muirfield's ninth green sure was exciting when the hole was cut on the right.

[Tony_Muldoon]

By run off areas I am referring to areas where the ball runs off and comes to rest in a lie where the player is faced with options including a running shot.  That can include short rough as a place where the ball comes to rest.  In many cases the prevalance of high pitches was a result of player choice rather than set up or design.  I saw Tiger play an exquisite flop shot having missed 14 back right, where I wouldn't have even considered any shot but a running chip.  That's because he has shots I don't.

This is where we differ.  Short rough the other side of a bunker leaves an easy recovery for most golfers and my observation that the rough was rarely far from them.   If a ball is 20' outside a bunker on short grass that's a much tougher prospect.    When balls ran through greens they also seem to run into the semi very quickly.  Before the Open several bunkers were pulled nearer in but it seems to me the rough follows them.  

I do agree that these guys favour their wedge game whenever possible and that affects how one view's the course.  I’m not saying it’s a bad course it’s just that kind of course and Links and bunkers have always gone together.


It would be interesting to know the no of greenside bunkers on the Open Championship courses, no doubt Lytham would top the list but my guess is Muirfield would be second.  I don't think RSG would be that close?

This might be one of the things that defines a “Championship Links”.  Sometimes it’s hard to say if a bunker is green side but Deal has approx. 26 (with 8 on the 8th) and North Berwick 32.  I think of these as ground game links courses.


EDIT - from a quick look at their online Scoresavers.  I counted anything hard by a green or close to if in a direct line of play.


Lytham        78
Muirfield      70
RSG            43

Hope to add to this list.

[Rich Goodale]

I've always considered Muirfield and RSG to be amongst the 20-30 or so courses that stand out amongst the other 20,000 or so and deserve 3*** on the Rhicelin Scale.  The past weekend only solidified that belief vis a vis Muirfield.  Overall I think that RSG is a more demanding and varied test of golf, but Muirfield is a more delightful experience.