[JC Urbina]

Joel,


Jack's ability to tinker with Muirfield is no different then Pete tinkering with Crooked Stick.  No different than C.B Macdonald  adjusting a few things at The National Golf Links of America, no different than Donald Ross adjusting the greens and  grasses at Pinehurst #2.
You get my point.


Let's rewind that tape even farther back, several people adding bunkers at The Old Course.




Nothing new here.


 

[Kalen Braley]

JC,


He already has been tinkering with the course for decades now, (including the new 16, which may even push the tinker definition) but these new changes sound closer to wholesale changes.


Which other already top rated golf course has done that, if that's whats actually happens?

[Joel_Stewart]

Joel,


Jack's ability to tinker with Muirfield is no different then Pete tinkering with Crooked Stick.  No different than C.B Macdonald  adjusting a few things at The National Golf Links of America, no different than Donald Ross adjusting the greens and  grasses at Pinehurst #2.
You get my point.


Let's rewind that tape even farther back, several people adding bunkers at The Old Course.




Nothing new here.

We won't know until we see the new course but in his Twitter and Facebook posts, it says "these guys will have an entirely new course next year".  That doesn't sound like tinkering.




https://twitter.com/jacknicklaus/status/1283210732805468161?s=20

[John Kavanaugh]

So many on this thread are raters who have been enabling Jack by keeping MV at the top of the charts. His tinkering is as much your fault as his.

[Lou_Duran]

Joel,


Jack's ability to tinker with Muirfield is no different then Pete tinkering with Crooked Stick.  No different than C.B Macdonald  adjusting a few things at The National Golf Links of America, no different than Donald Ross adjusting the greens and  grasses at Pinehurst #2.
You get my point.


Let's rewind that tape even farther back, several people adding bunkers at The Old Course.




Nothing new here.

Jim,


Thanks for noting what should be obvious.  You worked on one of the relatively few exceptions to the rule in SC.  Most courses are not curated as museum pieces. 


JN has never made any bones about what MV is about.  I understand that there are some members who, understandably, are not pleased with the recurring changes and the attendant assessments.  I know of a prospective member, a very successful accountant,  who declined the offer at the last minute because of the astronomical cost of belonging.  Sounds like he made the right decision.


I did notice that there is some fencing separating the housing from the course.  Dublin, reportedly, had a no-fence ordinance which JN through his attorneys fought aggressively for awhile without success.  Does anyone know what happened?


JK,


JN does not think highly of the ratings and MV is not rater friendly.  The course, IMO, is underrated.  For club golfers, the bag should contain at least a dozen balls.  That the pros can go -20 for four rounds is a clear indication of how far the game has been bifurcated.  It certainly is no walk in the park.  The scariest greens I've ever played.

[John Kavanaugh]

Underrated? That is not mathematically possible.

[Lou_Duran]

JK,


Please forgive me as I am a victim of a land grant university and my math skills may not be suitable for rendering opinions on this site.  Golf Digest has MV at #16 in the US.  Golf has it in the mid-80s in the world list.  I did not contribute to these ratings.  It does seem to me that it is possible for MV to be rated higher, though I am nearly 100% sure that this has nothing to do with JN's "tinkering".  Perhaps it is just human nature to tinker.  We have several neighbors with fabulous homes (in comparison to mine) who seem to have perpetual remodeling jobs going on or in planning.  I don't get it- MV was fantastic in 1978 when I played it- but hey, is their vision and money.

[John Kavanaugh]

It’s less than a 5 hr drive from my home and I’ve never played there. Between that and your love of The Ohio State neither of us probably should be commenting.


1978...Really.

[Michael Wolf]

We won't know until we see the new course but in his Twitter and Facebook posts, it says "these guys will have an entirely new course next year".  That doesn't sound like tinkering.




https://twitter.com/jacknicklaus/status/1283210732805468161?s=20





First green is being moved back twenty yards.
Third green is being lowered and moved right against the water. Tee is being moved down the hill.
Fourth green moved back.
Fifth hole being changed substantially - will be a par 4. Creek in FW is being covered over and trees on corner of landing zone being removed.
New bunkering in 6 fairway
New green shape on 7, but in same location.
Fifteenth hole being changed substantially. FW being lowered and flattened with creek on left side in play.
Sixteen (incredibly imo) will remain unchanged.
Every green will be resurfaced. "most" bunkers redone.


The $ estimate I heard for the work is more than what I'd think a new parkland course could be built for.


Michael

[Mark Pritchett]

Muirfield Village is better than most people here would care to admit. 

[Michael Wolf]

Joel,


Jack's ability to tinker with Muirfield is no different then Pete tinkering with Crooked Stick.  No different than C.B Macdonald  adjusting a few things at The National Golf Links of America, no different than Donald Ross adjusting the greens and  grasses at Pinehurst #2.
You get my point.


Let's rewind that tape even farther back, several people adding bunkers at The Old Course.




Nothing new here.

I would guess that something that is different than the other names you mentioned is the amount of time JN spends annually at MV. If Nicklaus lived and played at the course, then I'd think the constant tinkering would have a better chance of achieving the desired results. But spending a couple of days a year trying to overcome an issue as complex as the exploding distances at the games highest level seems pretty ambitious.


Re the halo effect of hosting a PGA Tour event - has this ever really worked in the long run for a golf club? Not for the developer or real estate salesman, but for the club itself? I'll concede there's a huge boost for the first year or two, and I'd agree that if a newer club could maneuver itself into something as prestigious as the Open or US Open rotas, that would be of lasting benefit. But a regular Tour stop? Doesn't the tent fold as soon as Nicklaus is gone and the really top players don't feel obligated to play? The Hope, the Nelson, increasingly Bay Hill...the Tour has a long history of moving on to whatever's next


Michael

[jeffwarne]

I thought 5 was a  cool hole-covering a creek?....was a very strategic hole IMHO for us mortals


I thought the most awkward /unattractive holes were 1,6, 7, 10,17 and 18.
I rather liked 2,3,4,5,8, 9 and 11-14
It's a very good course, especially for Touring pros, but there are dozens in the US I'd prefer to play.
great staff-friendly place

[Mark Jackson]

I did notice that there is some fencing separating the housing from the course.  Dublin, reportedly, had a no-fence ordinance which JN through his attorneys fought aggressively for awhile without success.  Does anyone know what happened?

Lou,


The fencing between the course and the homes that you can see while watching the tournament on tv is only temporary. There are permanent holes along the property line of the golf course at about 5-foot intervals. About a month before the tournament each year, the fencing goes up and it is quickly taken down within a couple of weeks after the tournament concludes. With the course holding the tournament every year, the preparation and setup for the infrastructure is pretty routine/efficient.


I also agree with Jeff regarding Hole 5 - I think its one of the more compelling holes on the course currently with a pretty strategic use of a creek. It uses the natural flow and features of the land well. For normal play, it definitely makes you think on your second shot (if you want to try to go for the green in two, or where you should position a layup). Rarely do par 5s make you think much about second shot positioning, but the 5th at MVGC does. I'm surprised with it being one of the more interesting holes on the course that many of these characteristics are going to change when it will be converted to a par 4. I understand it is getting overpowered by the pros currently as they hit 3-woods to the bottom of the hill and have no problem getting on (or near) the green in 2. However, as it currently exists, it is one of the more highlights of the course to me (as are most of the par 5s).


Interestingly, when the tournament was delayed from its original slot in the tour schedule and moved to July, the club decided it had time to do a bit of renovation work by reconstructing some of the fairway bunkering. The work began in May and was completed well before last week's tournament.

[Jim_Coleman]

   Renovating this course 50 years after it was built will totally destroy the architect’s original intent.  They should denude the course of all trees, put all the bunkers exactly where they were 50 years ago, and pat themselves on their backs for how loyal they were to restoring Mr. Nicklaus’ vision.

[JC Urbina]

Response forthcoming


                     

[Matthew Rose]

I'd hate to see #5 changed to a par four; right now it is one of the more interesting ones to watch, although the second fairway doesn't seem to provide much advantage.

[Carl Rogers]

I know this is a minority perspective, but I have had a less enamored opinion of the tee shot at MV # 14, because it takes the driver out the pro's hand.
Will there be any alterations at MV # 14?


(I think #3 at ANGC is great)

[Tommy Williamsen]

I know this is a minority perspective, but I have had a less enamored opinion of the tee shot at MV # 14, because it takes the driver out the pro's hand.
Will there be any alterations at MV # 14?


(I think #3 at ANGC is great)

I don't know Carl, there have been many who have hit driver this week and last week. I think it is the best hole on the course.

[Joel_Stewart]

   Renovating this course 50 years after it was built will totally destroy the architect’s original intent.  They should denude the course of all trees, put all the bunkers exactly where they were 50 years ago, and pat themselves on their backs for how loyal they were to restoring Mr. Nicklaus’ vision.

The original co-architect was Desmond Muirhead. Jack has been on record for years about "getting rid of Desmond".  Sounds like he's finally going to finish the job.

[Matt_Cohn]

Sixteen (incredibly imo) will remain unchanged.

Jack said on the telecast today that they will add more back-to-front and right-to-left slope to that green to help contain balls. But yeah, it doesn't seem like it's been a successful hole so far.

[Alex Miller]

We won't know until we see the new course but in his Twitter and Facebook posts, it says "these guys will have an entirely new course next year".  That doesn't sound like tinkering.




https://twitter.com/jacknicklaus/status/1283210732805468161?s=20





First green is being moved back twenty yards.
Third green is being lowered and moved right against the water. Tee is being moved down the hill.
Fourth green moved back.
Fifth hole being changed substantially - will be a par 4. Creek in FW is being covered over and trees on corner of landing zone being removed.
New bunkering in 6 fairway
New green shape on 7, but in same location.
Fifteenth hole being changed substantially. FW being lowered and flattened with creek on left side in play.
Sixteen (incredibly imo) will remain unchanged.
Every green will be resurfaced. "most" bunkers redone.


The $ estimate I heard for the work is more than what I'd think a new parkland course could be built for.


Michael

Well this is weird... I don't disagree with every idea Jack has.


#1 could be an opportunity for improvement if executed well, although Bryson still gonna Bryson unless the fairway/bunkers are changed
#3 could be better if done right, although I don't know why a back tee on 4 couldn't be added instead of moving the green.
I don't like #4's green moving, it'd be much better to have a new back tee on #5 rather than making it a par 4. 5 and 11 should not change.
#6 fairway bunkering should be improved
#7 I would not hate a spicier green either
#15 Jack's idea is on the right track IMO. Could create some more interesting approaches if the angle of the green is emphasized with some changes.
#16 needs a change. Bad hole.
#17 could use an update too IMO. Perhaps the fairway jogs left in order to reward an aggressive drive with an angle up the green?

[JC Urbina]

Joel,


Tinkering is in the eye of the beholder.  Better Muirfield be reimagined by Jack than by someone who does not share the passion for this course and the game and its participants.   I first went to Muirfield on a suggestion by Jack himself while we were building Sebonack together.  He greeted me on the tenth tee and we discussed the golf course and my visit.


I returned several years later to see the course while no one was around.  It is a marvel of perfection when it comes to agronomy, I didn't get to play the course but that is no matter because I was interested in the golf design and not looking for my ball.  The design speaks for itself.


Every Architect/Designer wishes they could have the luxury to study their design and see how players react to the layout. Jack is making a few adjustments that he deems important, nothing wrong with that.


The Old Course added bunkers to adjust to the game that was changing even in its infancy, as I said before nothing new here.

[Jim_Coleman]

Jim:  couldn’t agree with you more. Nothing wrong with Jack trying to make his masterpiece better.  And, when Jack is no longer able to do so, there will be nothing wrong with another great architect trying to make it better then. And, when that time comes, trying to recapture Jack’s original intent by returning it to how it once was should not be the the motivation.  Just making it better should be the goal.

[Jim Hoak]

If I understand correctly what I heard him say on the telecast yesterday, he is planning to make the course "more playable, more fun" for the members.  If that is truly his intent, I applaud him.  While I like MV, it is too hard to be a great course for the average member day-in and day-out.   And any movement of courses toward playing more fun is the right move for members in my book.  I don't know, and I don't really care, what that means for the pros.

[Tom_Doak]

Jim:  couldn’t agree with you more. Nothing wrong with Jack trying to make his masterpiece better.  And, when Jack is no longer able to do so, there will be nothing wrong with another great architect trying to make it better then. And, when that time comes, trying to recapture Jack’s original intent by returning it to how it once was should not be the the motivation.  Just making it better should be the goal.

But, of course, "making it better" is all entirely a matter of opinion, and that's just your opinion.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()