Tom Doak, Muirfield and Crystal Downs

[Ran Morrissett]

Through both his writings and his work, Tom Doak's thoughts on architecture are well known. In particular, he holds both Crystal Downs and Muirfield in extremely high regard (i.e. world top 10).

As for Crystal Downs, I totally get it. Many of its design tenets beam through Tom’s work: wild interior green contours, irregular shaped bunkers, holes draped over the land in a distinctive manner. You see things at Crystal that you can only find at Crystal - and that observation holds true at Tom's best works. Also, several greens at CD will make you pull your hair out, another attribute of Tom’s work. If CD was a modern course, I would think that Tom had built it.

In regards to Muirfield, which like Merion just staged a 10 out of 10 Open with no gimmicks required, I struggle to understand Tom's affinity for it. The word that I would use to describe the architecture at Muirfield is 'restrained.' Everything is subdued; flawlessly so to many. Peering out the clubhouse window, Muirfield appears streamlined to the eye. No extraneous mounds or humps – any disturbed dirt went into the construction of bunker walls or green pads, which is great. Yet, I don't see a similarity in Tom's body of work around and in the greens, which are the ultimate target. I have never seen his nearby Renaissance Club but two people say that it doesn't remind them of Muirfield. If Muirfield was a modern course, I would assume that Tom had not build it. Tom doesn't stay that restrained hole after hole ... after hole. His natural tendency is to do something thought-provoking or original.

To pursue my premise, examine Streamsong’s 11th hole. Tee to green, the architecture is muted with the fairway perfectly draped over the crest of a hill. A beautiful hole, it is one of my favorites among the 36. Yet greenside, the surrounds become busier with (unneeded) humps and bumps. Less could have been done and the hole would have been better. I cite this hole as an example because they cleared a wide open area there and it has a 'field feel’ à la Muir-field.

Anyway, the point is: does Muirfield's influence creep into Tom's work? Most pros call Muirfield 'the fairest Open test'. I personally doubt that this comment holds much weight/merit with Tom. It certainly doesn't with me. The set of greens Tom built at Ballyneal and Streamsong aren't meant to elicit the adjective 'fair' or 'just' - which is probably why I like them so much! Thus, I remain confused.

The sameness that comes from revetted bunkers, tamped down green surrounds and calm interior contours at Muirfield seem largely absent from Tom's work. To me, the best example of tamped down architecture within Doak's work is Cape Kidnappers. I look at the photos of its tenth fairway and green complex in its profile on this site and it reaffirms in my own mind why I place it #1 among his courses. I call it “marvelously suppressed architecture" (Yes, that makes me the first person in history to compare Muirfield and Cape Kidnappers!).

All I ask: why not a few more such examples from a man who extolls the virtues of Muirfield better than anyone? Mind you, I am NOT talking about directly copying Muirfield; Tom’s sites generally have far greater topographic interest than MuirFIELD. Still, as an architect, how can you love Muirfield to the degree that Tom does and not emulate it when appropriate? Maybe the answer lies at CommonGround (which I haven't seen)??

I realize I am setting myself up for a beating as I type this!    Still, if you don't ask, you don't learn.

I once asked Pete Dye why he didn't build more low profile courses like The Golf Club and Casa de Campo.  His response was 'Thought I had.'  Why doesn't Tom build courses more in the vein of Muirfield's sublime low profile simplicity? I suspect that his answer is 'Thought I had'.

As always, I stand prepared to be corrected!

Best,

[Nigel Islam]

After attending the practice round at Muirfield, I was struck that the greens are much more interesting in person than on tv. 

[Tom_Doak]

I should let this one go for a day or two before I chime in.  So I will.

[Greg Tallman]

Would such restraint on 11 at Streamsong have resulted in a hole that was out of character with the rest of the course? - A weak example perhaps but at Golden Ocala the course flows nicely, replica hole and all, until one arrives at theholes intedned to replicate 1 and 17 at St Andrews (yeah, in Forida, I know) which stand out, and please pardon my french, like dogs balls.

Perhaps Tom's success is at fault? He has developed a brand image that people are after and he delivers?

Perhaps it is his reverence for Muirfield at work? His marveling at a course so counter to his general beliefs and principles that he dare not take a stab at such a design for fear it be lumped in with a million other unDoaklike courses?

Or just hasn't found the right piece of land? (Tom you may not use this answer)  

[Howard Riefs]

To aid in the discussion with Ran's reference to Blue #11 at Streamsong, below are photos/commentary from two photo tours.  Just based on the diverging comments from Mark and Bryan, you can see that it's a somewhat polarizing hole.  

Personally, I like the hole from tee to green. The issue is with the green, specifically the buried elephant on the middle-right portion. If only it was smoothed to a more manageable level, which I believe would still enable it to maintain its "Doak-qualities."  During one round, we had a treacherous pin placement on top of that very spot that elicited more than one "Doak (expletive)" as we played ping pong back and forth.

Hole #11






Even after some time for reflection I'm not sure what I think or have to say about #11.  From the scorecard I think my initial impression was that it was too long (at 454 yards, uphill a bit) for a par 4 for my tastes.  Probably would be a 1 in a 100 chance of getting a green in reg for me.  I have a hard time getting my head around a half par hole on the upper side, it's hard to accept that playing for bogey is OK sometimes.  Maybe it's that long par 4's remind me of my advancing age in an unpleasant way.  

Anyway, the hole is long, plays up and over a gentle ridge and the fairway is canted right.  There is a bunker short right that seems to be out of play for all but provides an aiming point if you want to bypass the second centreline bunker about 200 - 230 yards out that does impact the drive.  Sadly, I smothered a hook about 180 yards, so far left it was almost onto the forward tee on #9, which didn't help my assessment of the hole.  On most courses this would be a lost ball drive.  Here, it was a nice fairway lie, albeit it was hard to determine which fairway I was on.




From way way left, my second was blind.  Even walking up on the bunker I couldn't get a line, but at least the location of the fairway was clear.




Where most people will drive the ball the green will still be hard to discern because it is low profile and just sort of lays on the ground.  (A momentary thought, have I wandered onto a minimalist C&C hole by mistake)  From closer in (my third shot) the green is more evident although judging distance is still problematic.




From the left side of the green you can see the green is not without contour or runoff to the back and sides.  The green is devoid of bunkers though.




The end result - an easy bogey off a horrific drive.  Could this be a hard par, easy bogey hole.  Was the length necessary as a linking hole?  Was Tom trying to add some yardage to get past the magic 7,000 yard mark?  For me, this was a stout par 4 hole, but probably the least appealing hole on the course.

I think the 11th hole is tremendous.  It is hard to describe, but the blindness of the tee shot, the pair of small centreline bunkers on an expansive fairway, the sunken and wild green and especially the gentle rolls in the fairway (which reminded me of waves in an ocean) they all combined to make a subtle elegance.  I know that dirt/sand was moved everywhere, but this hole had a tremendous sense of place.  It felt like a hole that was meant to be there.  This 450-yard par-4 plays into the wind and is the definition of a half-par hole.

[Josh Tarble]

Would such restraint on 11 at Streamsong have resulted in a hole that was out of character with the rest of the course?

I think Greg hits on this pretty well.  The rest of the course is about as wild as they come.  To me 9, 10 and 11 kind of represent a nice "calming" period in the middle of the round to allow you to catch your breath.  And then 12 steps on the gas pedal again. 

I would say 11 is quite subdued for the site (along with 10).  But then the green kind of eases you back into the wild before number 12.

However, I don't think the thread should be totally about #11 at Streamsong, or any one course in particular.  I haven't played Muirfield, but to me, it looks like the ideal course in that it challenges every player to truly think about how they want to play a hole, from the green backwards.  At many of Doak's courses (and CD), it seems like this concept is due to the green contours and with some strategic bunkers sprinkled in.  But at Muirfield, it seems like it is the numerous and very strategically placed bunkers that are cause for concern, with some subtle but strategic green contouring.

[Nigel Islam]

I might get killed for this one too, but I see a lot of Muirfield in Jack Nicklaus's design work. The greens, the bunkering placement, native grasses, etc. Of course the excessive use of manufactured water hazzards in a lot of Jack's courses is not seen at Muirfield.

[Ben Sims]

Ran,

There's solid evidence to suggest that Tom might be becoming more restrained.   Age, wisdom, discipline, these could all be factors.  I think you'd see as restrained greens and surrounds as you've ever seen from Renaissance if you go to see the Dismal River Red Course. 

[Keith OHalloran]

Ben,
Are the greens at Dismal evidence of Tom becoming more restrained? Or a result of direction from the client? Or maybe a hybrid?

[Mark Steffey]

maybe it boils down to an analogy that Winston Churchill explained...

“Show me a young Conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains.”
― Winston Churchill

 

[Garland Bayley]

...
In regards to Muirfield, which like Merion just staged a 10 out of 10 Open with no gimmicks required, I struggle to understand Tom's affinity for it. The word that I would use to describe the architecture at Muirfield is 'restrained.' Everything is subdued; flawlessly so to many. Peering out the clubhouse window, Muirfield appears streamlined to the eye. No extraneous mounds or humps – any disturbed dirt went into the construction of bunker walls or green pads, which is great. Yet, I don't see a similarity in Tom's body of work around and in the greens, which are the ultimate target. I have never seen his nearby Renaissance Club but two people say that it doesn't remind them of Muirfield. If Muirfield was a modern course, I would assume that Tom had not build it. Tom doesn't stay that restrained hole after hole ... after hole. His natural tendency is to do something thought-provoking or original.
...

There usually is no one correct way to do something great. In my profession, there are different paradigms for accomplishing the task at hand. Just because I employ one paradigm does not mean I cannot recognize great work in another paradigm. I think Tom recognized the greatness of the accomplishment at Muirfield in the "restrained" paradigm, as well as he recognizes the greatness of the accomplishment at Crystal Downs in the "MacKenzie" paradigm.

[Jon Wiggett]

Ran,

have you ever considered that Muirfield's reserved nature reflects its membership. Scots do not do Bombastic very well nor does it fit very well here in Scotland.

Jon

[Niall C]

Ran

I've only played one Doak course which is the one over the wall from Muirfield. While Ran might not see too many similarities to me there is a certain similarity in style of the bunkering but the main thing is that both courses look as though they were laid over the land, and ultimately I think that is more relevant than some similarities in superficial matters like style of bunkering.

But is this thread not really about you trying to excuse your disdain for Muirfield by suggesting/implying Tom D wouldn't have built it and therefore can't be that good. Interesting idea, but not one that holds much water IMHO.

Niall

[Tom_Doak]

Ben,
Are the greens at Dismal evidence of Tom becoming more restrained? Or a result of direction from the client? Or maybe a hybrid?

Keith:

That wasn't really based on input from Chris, as far as I can recall.  The idea to keep the greens restrained was based on trying to be different than the original course at Dismal, where the greens are really severe, and different than the greens at Ballyneal, to which the course would most likely be compared.  I didn't want to be accused of doing the same thing again, in the same setting.

But, it's also that generally speaking, I've gotten a little more restrained over time, as I see my clients maintain my older, wilder greens faster than we'd discussed.  And we had to use bentgrass on the greens at Dismal, rather than fescue, because that's what the White course at Dismal already had, so that meant the greens were likely to be faster than at Ballyneal.

[Dan Moore]

18th Green at Sebonack "based" on 5th green at Muirfield.

[Tom_Doak]

18th Green at Sebonack "based" on 5th green at Muirfield.

Well, for that matter, the 18th at Stonewall (Old) is based on the 9th at Muirfield.  And the 17th at Charlotte Golf Links was based on the 8th at Muirfield, though it hardly deserves the comparison.

[Nigel Islam]

Tom,

    Do you and other architects often consciously "base" greens or golf holes on historical holes? Obviously I know you did at Old MacDonald, but I was just somewhat surprised by your last post that perhaps you may do it more than I had thought.

[Mac Plumart]

But is this thread not really about you trying to excuse your disdain for Muirfield by suggesting/implying Tom D wouldn't have built it and therefore can't be that good. Interesting idea, but not one that holds much water IMHO.

Agreed.  That is like musicians only being allowed to like a song, or type of music, that is the same as theirs.  You could insert author, painter, director, etc.  Variety...reference CBM.


Side note...I thought 11 at Streamsong was a really good hole.  It doesn't have the busy-ness in terms of number of bunkers and obvious visual attractions as some of other approach shots, but the humps and lumps provide excellent obstacles/hazards and that green is excellent.

[Steve Lang]

Ran,

have you ever considered that Muirfield's reserved nature reflects its membership. Scots do not do Bombastic very well nor does it fit very well here in Scotland.

Jon

Jon,  Don't like TRUMP much then do you?

[David Royer]

I'm sitting at DIA on my way home from a three day trip to Ballyneal reading this post.  I was discussing Streamsong 11 with one of my playing partners.  While I haven't played Muirfield, I have come to appreciate 11 at Streamsong. The first times I played it I was little bewildered by it viewing it only as connector hole to something more dynamic.  While its a bit long I find some attractive simplicity in the crumpled fairway tilting to the right.  After several plays its a hole I find enjoyable and a pleasant walk.  

[Peter Pallotta]

Why does anyone do anything in any particular way anyway?

It's a bit of mystery and, at its best, a bit of magic.

I think at some point in the process, a great song or painting or short story or golf course takes on a life of its own, and tells you what it wants/intends to be. You have to get out of the way and just watch/listen/react.

As Stravinsky said: I don't know if creativity comes from subconsciousness or supra-consciousness, but I know for sure it doesn't come from self-consciousness.

Tom - you certainly don't need my advice, but I'd forget this thread and its questions as soon as possible. The last thing anyone needs is more self consciousness!!

Peter

[Jon Wiggett]

Ran,

have you ever considered that Muirfield's reserved nature reflects its membership. Scots do not do Bombastic very well nor does it fit very well here in Scotland.

Jon

Jon,  Don't like TRUMP much then do you?

Steve, 

I think it is well known that I do not think the course should have been built on part of the site. It is a prime example of what happens when politicians meddle in something, a BOTCH!!!!

The site is impressive and would have allowed for a world beating course but what has been built is good but well short of the potential. This is compounded by over hyped advertising, poor decision making with the grow in (IMO) and desperately poor presentation. The course is good but that is the same as saying 100m in 11 seconds is fast for Mr. Bolt.

I find it difficult to find any real positives with the whole deal from start to present day.

Jon

[Thomas Dai]

I'm trying to recall the name of the (non-British) writer who said something along the lines of 'the British character is usually one of understatement and great modesty'. Same with golf courses I imagine, well perhaps until some, but fortunately not all, recent ones.
All the best

[John Chilver-Stainer]

Having visited the Open last week  on  3 days and been a daily visitor in 1992 and 2002 as well as having playing it, I find Muirfield rich in the “unusual” and find it difficult to agree with the description “streamlined or restrained”.

Just standing next to the 4th Green and seeing the massive “fall off” to the left of the green, struck fear into me, let alone the players. When Phil Mickelson’s tee shot rolled off the green down the “fall off” on his final round it looked certain that he would play his famous flop. But no, her putted it up the 10 foot face, just making the lip and allowing the ball to roll near the pin. Definitely not tampered down features.

How often does one see large dunes blocking entrances to greens or approaches, such as the 3rd and 17th. These are bold unrestrained features.

The rollicking fairway at the 6th with bunkers down the left leaving little space for a falling fairway to receive the ball and a stone wall on top of a ridge, just after the landing area. Definitely not a stream lined appearance.

The 9th Hole has been featured in the book World of Golf for years as one of the best holes on the planet and is 2 times champion at Muirfield, Nick Faldo’s favourite hole.

All the Par 3’s are sensational. I’ve mentioned the 4th  , but what about the tee shots played slightly short of the 13th and 16th which rocket down the false front, sending balls dishearteningly back down the fairway.

It’s true there are not massive internal contours at Muirfield, however there are plenty of strong inclines, side slopes and some smaller but obvious internal contours which foxed the players last weekend. The very fact Phil Mickelson was complaining about the pin position in the middle of the 18th on the first day, illustrates how the internal movement was influencing the putting.

When at Muirfield I’ve never got the impression it’s a golf course in a field.
The large elevated area in the centre of the course, which provides the blindness at the 11th, the uphill 5th  ,the downhill 12th, and the elevated Tee at the 14th  provide for a diverse topographical feel to the course. 

Having only played one of Tom Doak’s courses, Old MacDonald, it’s fair to say his greens’ complexes and bunkers are certainly less restrained than Muirfields.

When accosted by 2 representatives of the Bandon Resort who ambushed me at the 14th Tee  of Old MacDonald and asked me what I thought of the course, I replied.

“It’s like a Scottish links course on steroids.”

[Tom_Doak]

Having only played one of Tom Doak’s courses, Old MacDonald, it’s fair to say his greens’ complexes and bunkers are certainly less restrained than Muirfields.

When accosted by 2 representatives of the Bandon Resort who ambushed me at the 14th Tee  of Old MacDonald and asked me what I thought of the course, I replied.

“It’s like a Scottish links course on steroids.”

John:

Most architects would be pleased with that assessment; not me so much.  For one, I am tired of the constant comparisons in advertising to steroids, which are not a thing to praise.  Also, don't forget that Old Macdonald was a collaboration, and most of the other parties wanted to make the course ever bigger and bolder.