[Sean_A]

Indeed.  I’ve more interest in the converse question.  Why do you or I prefer x to y, when y is the “better” course?

For me it really comes down to bunkers and terrain. For someone that believes TOC has the best terrain for golf, Muirfield falls well short.  I am not a huge fan of bunkers as the main man-made design feature and this is the case for Muirfield.  Even though the bunkers are beautiful, there are so many the penalty for a miss is a bit one-dimensional.  Heaven forbid one is wide of the bunkers because the rough is harsh.  I think the bottom line is Muirfield is about championship golf and Dunbar is not. There is room for all sorts of design purposes without having to worry about "best".

Ciao 

[Tim Gallant]

Hi Bernie,

Your question is a good one in that it brings in a number of other considerations to separate Muirfield from other courses. I.e. having trajectory and spin control are also valuable skills at Dunbar, but perhaps once you consider the routing, unified theme, history, length, par etc, at Muirfield it distances itself from other courses – particularly for hosting major tournaments. This reality does not detract from the interest at Dunbar – a very fine links with some testing holes and seaside views – but does separate it.

Scott

Hence it is easy to acknowledge Muirfield as the better course, but prefer Dunbar.

Greatness is over - rated.

Ciao

Sean,


Greatness is overrated? I'm going to need you to explain that one.


Reading through some of the responses, it seems like most acknowledge that Muirfield is a better course, yet, some prefer Dunbar. And fair enough, to each his own. I am reminded by this Hunter quote, which I believe is relevant in this conversation:


“It is not the love of something easy which has drawn men like a magnet for hundreds of years to this royal and ancient pastime; on the contrary, it is the maddening difficulty of it.”

[Bernie Bell]

Tim, do you play Muirfield from the 7250 tees?

[Tony_Muldoon]

Surprised no one has stated what seems to me the most obvious.


No holes at Muirfield come close to being as ordinary as 1,2 and 18 at Dunbar. If 1/6th of your course is 'inferior', its hard to keep up.




Love Dunbar, but...

[Scott Macpherson]

Indeed.  I’ve more interest in the converse question.  Why do you or I prefer x to y, when y is the “better” course?

For me it really comes down to bunkers and terrain. For someone that believes TOC has the best terrain for golf, Muirfield falls well short.  I am not a huge fan of bunkers as the main man-made design feature and this is the case for Muirfield.  Even though the bunkers are beautiful, there are so many the penalty for a miss is a bit one-dimensional.  Heaven forbid one is wide of the bunkers because the rough is harsh.  I think the bottom line is Muirfield is about championship golf and Dunbar is not. There is room for all sorts of design purposes without having to worry about "best".

Ciao

Hi Sean,


While the bunkers are tormenting at Muirfield, for me the course's main design attribute is 'tilt'. i.e. the subtle (and not so subtle) slopes of key areas (e.g. the slope down into the 1st green, right to left fairway on the second hole, left to right tilt on the 14th hole's landing area. Bunkers border these areas, but as a golfer I actually feel like I am fighting the wind and the tilt of the land (to avoid the bunkers).


Scott

[Simon Holt]

I'll bite.

Muirfield has superior routing; better set of par 3s, 4s and 5s; and much wider off the tee than seems to be so regularly referenced on GCA.


I think it's a very good piece of land and I'm not sure why it's seen by so many as featureless.  We're not talking about the first 3 and last 5 holes at Hoylake, here.  Muirfield has plenty going on in terms of subtle elevation changes, rumpled fairways, some semi blind tee shots for the quirk we all seem to crave - and a completely blind tee shot on 11.  The greens are exceptional with some being tilted (1,2,4,7,9,10,11,12,13,16) and others being a little wilder (5,14,15,18)



There are a lot of bunkers, yes, but plenty of room on the fairway to navigate them.  The course is visually intimidating off the tee and I think this is where the notion of it being narrow comes from.  Once you get down there its much wider than you think but if you've found the rough with driver, it's not often you'll glance over to see how generous the fairways as you'll be head down in some pretty nasty stuff. 


Perhaps not so much room for error around the greens but by and large there is always a place to leave your shot.


1. left hand side approach
2. as above
3. as above
4. tough shot, granted
5. chase in from the right
6. short left is still a bunker but better than right, just a tough hole!
7. wedge to 8-iron on a standard day to a par 3
8. bunkers well short of green so a fun carry for a second shot - green very wide
9. chase in down the left
10. very wide entrance to green
11. tight but it is a short 4
12. tough approach but short left the miss
13. great par 3, tough shot
14. wide open left side on approach
15. very wide but granted, very testing green
16. tough shot
17. I don't think I've ever been in the greenside bunkers because if you can't make it in two, they're out of range, if you can then it funnels onto the green nicely.
18. very tough approach


For the most part Muirfield gives you an option to bailout - hardly any true "do or dies" other than the par 3s and 18, really.


Dunbar is a lovely walk, with some real highlights and underrated by many as a course - but there is not one hole I would switch out for one at Muirfield.

[Sean_A]

Hi Bernie,

Your question is a good one in that it brings in a number of other considerations to separate Muirfield from other courses. I.e. having trajectory and spin control are also valuable skills at Dunbar, but perhaps once you consider the routing, unified theme, history, length, par etc, at Muirfield it distances itself from other courses – particularly for hosting major tournaments. This reality does not detract from the interest at Dunbar – a very fine links with some testing holes and seaside views – but does separate it.

Scott

Hence it is easy to acknowledge Muirfield as the better course, but prefer Dunbar.

Greatness is over - rated.

Ciao

Sean,

Greatness is overrated? I'm going to need you to explain that one.

Reading through some of the responses, it seems like most acknowledge that Muirfield is a better course, yet, some prefer Dunbar. And fair enough, to each his own. I am reminded by this Hunter quote, which I believe is relevant in this conversation:

“It is not the love of something easy which has drawn men like a magnet for hundreds of years to this royal and ancient pastime; on the contrary, it is the maddening difficulty of it.”

Tim

1. I believe the term "great" is thrown around here and in life generally far too liberally.

2. For golf, "great" is often associated with championship golf. I often don't find this to be an impressive calling card. 

3. I am more interested in compelling design which is fun and interesting even if weather conditions are less than optimal. 

4. I don't need great design and am therefore not willing to pay a premium simply because of greatness. 

5. Difficulty and greatness are not automatic partners.

Scott

Thanks  Your take is unusual, but do you find Muirfield's gravity golf any more compelling than any number of courses, especially those courses which have far more elevation change than Muirfield?

I cannot find a better answer to the question than the routing.

Ciao   

[Tim Gallant]

Hi Bernie,

Your question is a good one in that it brings in a number of other considerations to separate Muirfield from other courses. I.e. having trajectory and spin control are also valuable skills at Dunbar, but perhaps once you consider the routing, unified theme, history, length, par etc, at Muirfield it distances itself from other courses – particularly for hosting major tournaments. This reality does not detract from the interest at Dunbar – a very fine links with some testing holes and seaside views – but does separate it.

Scott

Hence it is easy to acknowledge Muirfield as the better course, but prefer Dunbar.

Greatness is over - rated.

Ciao

Sean,

Greatness is overrated? I'm going to need you to explain that one.

Reading through some of the responses, it seems like most acknowledge that Muirfield is a better course, yet, some prefer Dunbar. And fair enough, to each his own. I am reminded by this Hunter quote, which I believe is relevant in this conversation:

“It is not the love of something easy which has drawn men like a magnet for hundreds of years to this royal and ancient pastime; on the contrary, it is the maddening difficulty of it.”

Tim

1. I believe the term "great" is thrown around here and in life generally far too liberally.

2. For golf, "great" is often associated with championship golf. I often don't find this to be an impressive calling card. 

3. I am more interested in compelling design which is fun and interesting even if weather conditions are less than optimal. 

4. I don't need great design and am therefore not willing to pay a premium simply because of greatness. 

5. Difficulty and greatness are not automatic partners.

Scott

Thanks  Your take is unusual, but do you find Muirfield's gravity golf any more compelling than any number of courses, especially those courses which have far more elevation change than Muirfield?

I cannot find a better answer to the question than the routing.

Ciao

Morning Sean,


Points 1 & 2 - it seems like there could be more clarity on what 'great' means as it relates to golf courses, but appreciate that is a subjective debate!


On point 3, I'd argue that any course that is fun and interesting would certainly be great in most books. I believe Muirfield is both great AND fun & interesting.


Point 4 - fair enough - I take your point that if you are unwilling to pay for greatness (ie - you'd have just as good of a time on a good course) than I can see how that could mean great courses are overrated. It doesn't necessarily add to your enjoyment of the round.


Bernie,


I play from the member/visitor tees that they set up that day - I believe most holes have a couple tees for normal play, and then one way back for the pros. I find the genius of the course is that I find it maddeningly difficult, and so enjoyable from those tees, that I don't feel the need to go back further.

That said, your point made me think of something I hadn't thought of before as it relates to the course. Tom Doak has (I believe!) said that if you're adding length to a course, you should add length to the longest holes, not the shorter ones. That way there is still a variety instead of homogenisation. In this respect, Muirfield once again shines. Holes 2, 3, 11 & 12 are all short-ish par-4s for the members, and I believe there are no extra tees for the pros on these holes (or if there is, they aren't far behind the medal tees). So even off 7250, I believe the course would still have a fantastic variety that few courses have.

[Sean_A]

Tim

Perhaps my idea of great falls inline with the popular opinion, but I mainly think of Muifield as great because others in the know say it is.  While I would be happy to play Muirfield if invited, it doesn't inspire me to get off my ass nearly to the degree TOC or Sandwich do.  Maybe there are levels of greatness and for me Muirfield hangs around the botton of that ladder.  I don't know. I can recall feeling the same about Yeamans Hall and the link between the two is what I think of as over-bunkered courses. 

Ciao 

[Jason Topp]

Muirfield struck me as one of the most honest examinations of a golf game that I have encountered.  The challenge of each hole is relatively easy to understand and punishment is meted out if you err in either execution or tactics.  The course is entirely playable for all levels of player.  By any criteria I can come up with for a great course, it ticks every box.


I also found the course far more interesting than I expected based on television.  There are a wide variety of holes, far more elevation change than I expected and all kinds of interesting slopes and contours with which one needed to contend. 


If invited to go back to Dunbar or Muirfield I would no doubt choose Muirfield because of the great experience of playing there and the difficulty of securing a time. 


If you set all that aside, I might choose Dunbar.  After playing golf for over 40 years, I don't need to be punished for every mistake.  I am perfectly capable of punishing myself.

[Sean_A]

It's not as if Dunbar is as easy as a walk in the park. There is more than enough challenge for most golfers and plenty of interest for me anyway. Sure, if invited I would take Muirfield, but sans an invite its Dunbar for me.

I wonder what the preference rate is between North Berwick and Muirfield? Folks generally say Muirfield is the better course, though I am not convinced.

Ciao

[Kalen Braley]

I have no experience with either course.  But it sounds like Muirfield is a bit of a one trick pony where its all about the bunkers?  Or is it more than that?

[Bernie Bell]

I played Muirfield on a typical visitor day, so twice around.  I don't think it is a one-trick pony at all.  Even this dim-witted GCA 101 student could see why it's a great test of championship golf.  But I'm not a great golfer.  It may technically be true that Muirfield is playable for all levels, and I bunted my own ball around OK in the morning, but I think most of the strategic elements or choices are lost on a player who can't hit a well above average tee ball and confidently work the ball both high and low and especially both left and right.  Isn't that the vast majority of golfers?  With the help of a great caddy, who happened to be a member at Dunbar, there was usually one way that made sense for me to play a hole with my skill set, if I could execute it.  But if you miss, on that day anyway, a ball in the rough may as well have been in water, except that with players and caddies looking we still had a 50/50 chance of finding it and saving a few $$. 


To me, great is overrated means that a "not as great" course may be "better" if the meld between playability and challenge isn't so different for the strong and the not-as-strong player.  I was thrilled to play Muirfield and grateful for the day.  Can't have that experience at the equivalent muckety US clubs.  That said, when I walked off 18 the second time, I wasn't itching to come back, I was talking to my caddy about playing Dunbar, which I still haven't gotten to. 

[Kalen Braley]

Bernie, that's sort of my point.

Courses like TPS and BPB may be great tests of championship golf, but does that mean the courses themselves are great?

As for the one trick pony stuff, I guess I should clarify.  It was mentioned earlier it has 150 bunkers or so, which seems like a massive number.  Can't help but wonder if it has so many bunkers because its trying to compensate for lack of other features?  We criticize other courses all the time for overuse of penal features like rough, narrow fairways, water, etc.  Is Murifield immune to same for overuse of bunkers?

[Jason Topp]

Bernie, that's sort of my point.

Courses like TPS and BPB may be great tests of championship golf, but does that mean the courses themselves are great?

As for the one trick pony stuff, I guess I should clarify.  It was mentioned earlier it has 150 bunkers or so, which seems like a massive number.  Can't help but wonder if it has so many bunkers because its trying to compensate for lack of other features?

Kalen - Muirfield lacks nothing.  Great topography, interesting greens, very playable for all, interesting temptations presented for aggressive play. 

[Mark Pearce]

Scott, Simon and Jason are spot on.  Not least in that the terrain at Muirfield is far, far more interesting than Sean's memory suggests.

[Jon Wiggett]

Mark,


you make a good point. I think when you play Muirfield it does feel as though you are playing on links land but when looking at the entirety of the course from the clubhouse it is not the typical 'view over the links'.


Jon

[Kalen Braley]

I think Jon may be on to something.

As I've said before, never been there, but perhaps its just lost in translation thru pictures or TV...which I've seen plenty of over the years.  Unlike other top end "championship tests" I've never been to like Pine Valley, Oakmont, Kiawah Island, ANGC, etc that come across as epic...

[Bill Brightly]

Greatness is over - rated.

Now THERE is a line to think about!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()