Nicklaus to completely renovate Muirfield Village

[Jeff_Brauer]

The next round of renovations at MV will probably be carried out by one of his many current (or former) associates, who would be trusted to understand what JN was trying to accomplish, I think.


The counter argument to "that's your opinion" (or for restoration of any course to it's architects original intent) is that they experience changes of heart and philosophy over decades. 


Jack has had on many design issues over his long career as a gca.  We tend to think of Ross and his philosophy, but I believe it changed from the 1910's to the 1940's, when he did his last course.


Here, the most instructive thing Jack could do was pen an article (or have it ghost written) about how his philosophies have changed from 1969 and Harbor Town until today.  I presume he would consider today's views as his highest and best.  Otherwise, he would go back to some previous version of his design philosophy.


BTW, I would love to hear what Jack thinks is a good slope for a tucked pin position to make it more receptive to pros.  I have had this discussion with other pros, and they think a certain amount is good, but too steep, and it is problematic, since they tend to hit higher spin shots to the back of the green when clearing a bunker and a steep slope might make it check back too far.

[jeffwarne]

 I have had this discussion with other pros, and they think a certain amount is good, but too steep, and it is problematic, since they tend to hit higher spin shots to the back of the green when clearing a bunker and a steep slope might make it check back too far.

Like asking the fox what is the best way to protect the hen house

[Greg Tallman]

Jeff,


As someone who has been involved in a couple of tweaks to one of Jack’s more notable works and understanding his obsession with MVGC I believe your assertion of an associate doing the work is way off base. In fact I would go as far to say there would be very little, if any, input from his associates. I know most current and former pretty well and have never heard a word of their serious involvement with MVGC.

[Anthony_Nysse]

Jeff,


As someone who has been involved in a couple of tweaks to one of Jack’s more notable works and understanding his obsession with MVGC I believe your assertion of an associate doing the work is way off base. In fact I would go as far to say there would be very little, if any, input from his associates. I know most current and former pretty well and have never heard a word of their serious involvement with MVGC.

+1


Jacks not trusting his most prized piece of architecture, a property he has tweaked for 45 years in the hands of one of his associates. No offense to them.

[Matt_Cohn]

Jeff,


As someone who has been involved in a couple of tweaks to one of Jack’s more notable works and understanding his obsession with MVGC I believe your assertion of an associate doing the work is way off base. In fact I would go as far to say there would be very little, if any, input from his associates. I know most current and former pretty well and have never heard a word of their serious involvement with MVGC.

+1


Jacks not trusting his most prized piece of architecture, a property he has tweaked for 45 years in the hands of one of his associates. No offense to them.

I think he was talking about the next renovations after these—i.e., after Jack passes, most likely.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Matt,


Thanks for clearing my intent up for me!  All these years, I am certain that I write crystal clear sentences, and yet, a good reminder that internet communication, without facial and voice expressions can lead to some unintended interpretations by others.  I vow to do better.

[Jeff_Brauer]

 I have had this discussion with other pros, and they think a certain amount is good, but too steep, and it is problematic, since they tend to hit higher spin shots to the back of the green when clearing a bunker and a steep slope might make it check back too far.

Like asking the fox what is the best way to protect the hen house

Or like listening to superintendents plead for flatter front of greens (because so many more am shots land there) and cause ball marks, and the very back of tucked pins where good ams hit extra spin and also cause deep ball marks.These are the kinds of things you tend to think about as a gca.  Most of you could conceptualize a nice hole, few of you could do the math and convert that to acceptable slopes, etc. to really make the concept work.  And, there is a philosophical difference between intentionally trying to hurt pros, and designing something that suggests a perfect shot type and then trying to implement a solution that allows a good shot to be differentiated from a bad one, to the degree possible.  In the example we are discussing, that might come down to the difference between a 2.5% and 5% slope, and maybe (although in the free form world of green shapes and sizes, probably not) 2.25% slope and a 2.5% slope.

[Tom_Doak]

Most of you could conceptualize a nice hole, few of you could do the math and convert that to acceptable slopes, etc. to really make the concept work. 

Did you mean "few of you" or "a few of you" there?  Just trying to help you out.  The math is really not that hard.

[Matthew Rose]

Seems like the course is playing plenty difficult right now.

The Sunday pin sheet looks like superintendent's revenge.

[Wayne_Kozun]

Seems like the course is playing plenty difficult right now.

The Sunday pin sheet looks like superintendent's revenge.

And you don’t have to worry about taking a course to an inch of its death. You can take it right into death this afternoon.

[Kalen Braley]

I noticed Tony Finau do the same thing yesterday, and then John Rahm again today right before his chip in on 16.

Grounded the club behind the ball in the rough, pushing down the rough, and the ball clearly moved.  Did they change the rule on this? It was pretty clear with the zoomed in camera shot. 

[Matthew Rose]

So they were tearing greens up while the event was still ongoing?

Gee they don't waste any time, do they.

[Carl Rogers]

Will the new re-work facilitate a re-assement by the Confidential Guide?

[jeffwarne]

I noticed Tony Finau do the same thing yesterday, and then John Rahm again today right before his chip in on 16.

Grounded the club behind the ball in the rough, pushing down the rough, and the ball clearly moved.  Did they change the rule on this? It was pretty clear with the zoomed in camera shot. 

Rahm's initial soleing was a tad "aggressive", followed by a very light hovering, leading me to believe "perhaps" he became nervous it might move(again?)....

[Thomas Dai]

So things need to change at MV. Interesting. I wonder who was responsible for the previous changes, eg the 16th? And if things still need changing what does that say about the design credibility of the person behind the previous changes?


As to Rahm etc and lies in the rough, if there is ‘iffy’ behaviour occurring with the flattening of grass behind the ball etc in the longer manicured ‘rough’ then maybe the rough shouldn’t be there but much, much shorter grass should be (and it doesn’t need to be of the hand-mown variety either)? It’s a lot harder to ‘pat down’ short grass. And with shorter grass the ball will run away from the greens or fairway more than with longer grass, which ought to make for less one dimensional recovery shots.

Atb

[Kalen Braley]

I noticed Tony Finau do the same thing yesterday, and then John Rahm again today right before his chip in on 16.

Grounded the club behind the ball in the rough, pushing down the rough, and the ball clearly moved.  Did they change the rule on this? It was pretty clear with the zoomed in camera shot. 

Rahm's initial soleing was a tad "aggressive", followed by a very light hovering, leading me to believe "perhaps" he became nervous it might move(again?)....

He said in an interview afterwards, he was looking at the hole/line while tamping down with his wedge, so he didn't see it move.  But he also admitted that it clearly moved and was a penalty.

[jeffwarne]

I noticed Tony Finau do the same thing yesterday, and then John Rahm again today right before his chip in on 16.

Grounded the club behind the ball in the rough, pushing down the rough, and the ball clearly moved.  Did they change the rule on this? It was pretty clear with the zoomed in camera shot. 

Rahm's initial soleing was a tad "aggressive", followed by a very light hovering, leading me to believe "perhaps" he became nervous it might move(again?)....

He said in an interview afterwards, he was looking at the hole/line while tamping down with his wedge, so he didn't see it move.  But he also admitted that it clearly moved and was a penalty.

I have no idea whether he saw it move.(I'm really not convinced it did move but his second "solings' were suspiciously more gentle than his "tampings" )
But I AM suggesting NO ONE is looking at the target as they initially sole their club in the rough that close to the ball in such a precarious lie(or any lie for that matter)
They might be focusing on the clubface, but they are NOT looking solely at the target as they initially sole and aim their club. Of course the target is an integral and crucial part of the process, but you would look at the ball if you were going to put your club down less than a quarter of an inch from the ball.

[Kalen Braley]

I noticed Tony Finau do the same thing yesterday, and then John Rahm again today right before his chip in on 16.

Grounded the club behind the ball in the rough, pushing down the rough, and the ball clearly moved.  Did they change the rule on this? It was pretty clear with the zoomed in camera shot. 

Rahm's initial soleing was a tad "aggressive", followed by a very light hovering, leading me to believe "perhaps" he became nervous it might move(again?)....

He said in an interview afterwards, he was looking at the hole/line while tamping down with his wedge, so he didn't see it move.  But he also admitted that it clearly moved and was a penalty.

I have no idea whether he saw it move.(I'm really not convinced it did move but his second "solings' were suspiciously more gentle than his "tampings" )
But I AM suggesting NO ONE is looking at the target as they initially sole their club in the rough that close to the ball in such a precarious lie(or any lie for that matter)
They might be focusing on the clubface, but they are NOT looking solely at the target as they initially sole and aim their club. Of course the target is an integral and crucial part of the process, but you would look at the ball if you were going to put your club down less than a quarter of an inch from the ball.

Jeff,

I would agree with your assessment, only relaying what he said on Golf Channel afterwards.  If I had to guess, he didn't want to get lumped in with the Pat Reeds of the Tour, so was trying to explain it.  He also emphasized he takes pride in being an honest player, but it once again brings up the issue of self-policing with so much money on the line.

[Peter Flory]

I wonder how many times during this tournament other players did this exact same thing and didn't notice.  It appeared routine, unintentional, and barely perceptible with a zoomed in camera in slow motion.

I'd be very annoyed if I were Palmer.  He was within striking distance of the leader on the last 2 holes and nobody told him that.  Maybe he would have played them differently. 

[Rob Marshall]

I noticed Tony Finau do the same thing yesterday, and then John Rahm again today right before his chip in on 16.

Grounded the club behind the ball in the rough, pushing down the rough, and the ball clearly moved.  Did they change the rule on this? It was pretty clear with the zoomed in camera shot. 

Rahm's initial soleing was a tad "aggressive", followed by a very light hovering, leading me to believe "perhaps" he became nervous it might move(again?)....

He said in an interview afterwards, he was looking at the hole/line while tamping down with his wedge, so he didn't see it move.  But he also admitted that it clearly moved and was a penalty.

I have no idea whether he saw it move.(I'm really not convinced it did move but his second "solings' were suspiciously more gentle than his "tampings" )
But I AM suggesting NO ONE is looking at the target as they initially sole their club in the rough that close to the ball in such a precarious lie(or any lie for that matter)
They might be focusing on the clubface, but they are NOT looking solely at the target as they initially sole and aim their club. Of course the target is an integral and crucial part of the process, but you would look at the ball if you were going to put your club down less than a quarter of an inch from the ball.

Jeff, I agree. I can't imagine grounding your club behind the ball while looking at the target. I would be willing to bet when the club comes up he looks at the target. I'm also not convinced it did move. If you think about it. The ball is probably not resting on the ground. Any touch of the grass could possibly cause the ball to sink a fraction lower towards the ground. How are you ever supposed to tell if it did?

[Kalen Braley]

A few seconds into the 2nd video on this page, you can watch him ground the club and the ball rolls left.  Very noticeable if you watch the logo on the ball.


https://www.pgatour.com/news/2020/07/19/jon-rahm-two-shot-penalty-final-round-the-memorial-tournament-presented-by-nationwide.html

[Rob Marshall]

A few seconds into the 2nd video on this page, you can watch him ground the club and the ball rolls left.  Very noticeable if you watch the logo on the ball.


https://www.pgatour.com/news/2020/07/19/jon-rahm-two-shot-penalty-final-round-the-memorial-tournament-presented-by-nationwide.html

Touching the grass isn't grounding the club but I agree you can see the logo move a dimple.




This looks worse.....


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueXaH1wfawA

[Mike_Trenham]

Having experienced this first hand in a playoff for a two day member-guest (third extra hole), I knew my ball had moved (it was on beat-up fescue).  In fact my ball changed positions exactly like Rahm's. 


What I did not know was how to put the ball back in its original condition, so I did my best and took my (our) penalty.


I felt like the USGA and R&A should have eliminated this penalty as it just punishes the innocent / accidental.

[Tom_Doak]

I have no idea whether he saw it move.(I'm really not convinced it did move but his second "solings' were suspiciously more gentle than his "tampings" )
But I AM suggesting NO ONE is looking at the target as they initially sole their club in the rough that close to the ball in such a precarious lie(or any lie for that matter)
They might be focusing on the clubface, but they are NOT looking solely at the target as they initially sole and aim their club. Of course the target is an integral and crucial part of the process, but you would look at the ball if you were going to put your club down less than a quarter of an inch from the ball.

I agree with you on this, but if a player could actually learn to do it, that would be a neat trick:  plausible deniability for any such incident.  "I did not see that."

[Tom_Doak]

Will the new re-work facilitate a re-assement by the Confidential Guide?

They have probably already changed it five times since the last time I was there.


I like the course, but it's not someplace I go back to often.  And the only work I've ever done in Ohio is consulting at Camargo, which is not that close to Columbus.  When I do go back to Ohio this fall, Moraine [which I have never seen] is first on my list for side trips.