What's the fuss about Muirfield?

[Ronan_Branigan]

Honestly folks, I'm in the dark with respect to Muirfields status at No.1. I played it yesterday with a couple of friends and left the place scratching my head. What's all the fuss about? I'm a 4 handicapper and have, in my own humble opinion, a fair idea of what constitutes a good, all round golf course. Muirfield, for me, falls short of that. O.K, some may say its the ultimate test of golf; if you hit it straight you are rewarded blah, blah, blah. But who hits it straight the whole time? The fairways are on average, and I am being generous, 30 yards wide. Fair enough I hear you say but then after the 1.5 metre semi cut and the same secondary cut awaits three foot high rye grass which is thick enough to lose a small child in, never mind your new Pro V1! To me its a US Open styled links and never the twain should meet. Is it ranked in that position due to the whole exclusivity and all that goes hand in hand with that?

Please reply and let me know what I was missing!

[Mike_Clayton]

Ronan

I played The open there in 1992 so maybe we saw the course at its best but it struck me that 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,and 18 were fantastic holes.
I am not trying to be smart here - it just struck me as a course made up of 3 terrific par fives requiring a deal of nerve and thought ,4 great par threes and a bunch of par fours that exhibited wonderful variety.
And there have been a seriously impressive group of winners there. Hagen,Cotton,Player,Nicklaus,Trevino,Watson,Faldo,Faldo and Els.
I doubt any course ever has done such a fine job of identifying the best players in the world

[ForkaB]

Ronan

When I first played golf in Scotland, 25 years ago, I considered Muirfield to be in the top 3 courses over here, and I still do.  It is not like any of the other links courses in Scotland or Ireland (perhaps because it is laid over marginal linksland) so you should not expect the same conditions, challenges and outcomes.  Whereas Dornoch, Carnoustie (except in 1999....) and St. Andrews are at least partially about being able to whack your ball anywhere, find it and then find that you are in deep trouble because you have put it in the wrong place (but with the chance, at least, of a recovery), Muirfield is all about hitting perfect golf shots, particularly off the tee, time after time after time.  In this regard, it is very much like Shinnecock Hills, which I believe to be the finest course in the States (haven't played PV).  Sure, if you whack it wildly at either venue you're gonna lose those ProV1x's in the hay, but THAT'S THE POINT!  DON''T DO IT!  Once you figure this out, and you learn to keep the ball in play, then you can start to really appreciate the quality of the approach shots--how there are so many ways of getting the ball on the green or close to the pin; how effective is the bunkering; how appropriately subtle are the green contours.  And, as Mike has well and knowledgeably said, what great balance in the routing, and what great champions the course has identified when it has periodically brought the greatest players in the world together to play our amazingly complex and enjoyable game!

[Jonathan Cummings]

The circular routing where the wind vector is constantly being varied has to be one of the 'great' things about Muirfield.  Also, it is my opinion that the bunkering at Muirfield may be the most inspired in the British Isles.  JC

[John_Conley]

Ronan:

While I don't have Mike's experience in an Open, I did play there in 1989.  I felt like you did.  Bland and not scenic, it lacks some of the interest of other great links courses like County Down and Dornoch.

What they are saying is correct.  It is a wonderful tournament venue.  The simple routing affords for correct introduction of wind as a challenge.  Most of the holes are elegant in their design's simplicity and yield low scores only when played properly.

I think part of the mystique also may come from the club's exclusivity.  Marry that with a spot on the Open rota and you get the lofty reputation.

[JakaB]

redanman,

A civil question...how often are you able to hit driver at Muirfield as opposed to Pebble..

[Darren_Kilfara]

Ronan, I'm largely with you. Sometimes people (over)use the word "solid" to describe a golf course, and Muirfield is as solid as they come. There's nothing wrong with any single hole out there, and much to praise about almost all of them. And yet, and yet...where's the fun? There's nothing quirky or particularly exciting about the course. The terrain is subtle to the point of being barely interesting. Sure, by one definition Muirfield is a great golf course...but I tend to think people who use such a definition first and foremost are thinking too much about the integrity of one's scorecard. (Or the exclusivity of the surroundings, but I think most people here will agree that anyone ranking Muirfield as the best course in the world because it's in great shape and serves lunches to die for doesn't know or care much about golf course architecture.) Don't put so much stock in the height of the deep rough, though - I'd suggest that's as much to do with the natural weather conditions as anything super-sinister about the groundskeeping.

(By the way, are you and Brian and the gang still thinking about coming to Machrihanish before your course is done? Send me an e-mail...)

Mike, I've said it before, but I feel as though I should say it again - the whole "identifying the best players in the world" thing should not be used to extol the virtues or criticise the vices of amy golf course in the world, simply because you're talking about such small sample sizes as to be meaningless. In between Hagen and Cotton you forgot Alfred Perry (who?) in 1935 - but even if you discount him, there's just too much chance involved in determining who wins in any given week (more so in regular tour weeks, but even with regards to majors) to give the golf course much credit. Ability and luck in a given week have much more to do with who wins than golf course architecture...wouldn't you agree? (Sure, some golf courses favor guys who draw or fade the ball, but very rarely so much as to be deterministic, I'd have thought.)

Cheers,
Darren

[BCrosby]

Muirfield is a wonderful course, but a wonderful course in the manner of a Shinnecock or Firestone or other big, hard US courses.

Among the 11 or 12 Scottish courses I've played, it is the clear outlier.

My first day in Scotland last summer, I played North Berwick in the afternoon. The next morning I played Muirfield. I can't imagine two courses that are so close together and have so little in common.


Bob

[Brian Phillips]

I didn't play together with Ronan that day but did walk the course a few weeks ago and I too was not all that impressed with the place.

The routing is good because of the wind changes and the yardages vary enough for it to be interesting.  

However, for a course to be classed as good because you must hit it straight, or that it has produced great champions is going a bit far don't you think Mike and Rich?

The first hole looks like a farmers field and there is no definition to anything as you stand on the tee.  That basically sums up much of the course.  It is probably the least linksy course on the rota and that includes Lytham.

There isn't much variety in height change either the rough is of Rye grass which is not particular nice to look or play out of.

Mike,

I am curious to your snetence about the variety in the course.  If you must hit it straight everytime then where is the variety?  Is it the wind or difference in yardage or is it something else?

I am surprised that yourself and Rich point towards the 'it has produced great champions' line.  Is that what makes a course good that it tests the best golfers in the world and if others who are crap like myself the tough luck!!

I am not trying to create an arguement for the sake of arguement but really would like to learn why it is so good.  I still struggle understanding TOC and now Muirfield and to some people that is sacrilege!!

Brian

[Darren_Kilfara]

By the way, Rich, to my mind Shinnecock has all the virtues that Muirfield does AND is much more fun to play (in terms of unique and exciting holes and strategies to explore) AND is much more photogenic (and downright beautiful), which is why it's a far greater and more interesting golf course to my mind. To use redanman's analogy, I'll take a play ratio of 9:1 between Shinnecock:Muirfield, please.

I've also written before that to my mind Gullane No. 1 runs Muirfield pretty close - Muirfield's execution of the same basic strategic concepts as Gullane is more perfect, but Gullane has the Hill and therefore (to me) a much more varied and interesting topography. There's something...I don't want to say "monotonous" about Muirfield, but it's very much a purist's golf course. If saying I enjoyed Gullane as much as Muirfield means I've got more simplistic tastes in GCA than some on this site and need more "entertainment" from my golf courses than Muirfield gives me, so be it, but I knows what I likes.

Cheers,
Darren

[Brian Phillips]

Darren,

I agree with you about Gullane 1.

What is the definition of a good golf course?  Not only should test the good golfer but it should also give a good golfing 'experience' to the normal golfer.  

Should it not also be appealing to the eye?  Muirfield is not appealing to the eye when compared to any other golf course.  I haven't played Shinnecock but from photographs it looks more inviting to play than Muirfield.

If looks are not part of the equation then fair enough, then hey Carnoustie must be up there..oh yeah so it is!! Another overated course in my books.

I can see why Ronan doesn't like it he is spoilt with true dunesland golf with dramatic height changes and backdrop...does Muirfield have any backdrops?

Brian

[JakaB]

The first hole looks like a farmers field and there is no definition to anything as you stand on the tee.  That basically sums up much of the course.  

Brian

Brian...it surprises me that you...a well recognized student of the game...would find definition off of the tee to be so important.  Does the broadside exist without the barn...or is the greatest challenge lie in hitting what is not there...Your description of Muirfield sounds like a perfect example of optical dilusion though simplicity of sight line...a truly beautiful thing that due to its complexity is most often only discovered over time and the tradition of great championships.

[Kelly_Blake_Moran]

Ronan,

I believe it was Muirfield where the last Open was played? Watching on TV it seemed awfully boring from a strategic standpoint.  Not at all like the courses I played when we met at Dornoch.  However, I have formed opinions about other courses before playing them and was pleasently surprised after playing them.  As far as Shinnecock, I assumed it to be a great course, but after playing it found the greens very disappointing.  Regardless, I tend to favor your opinion and Brian's opinion as well, although I would like to see for myself someday.  

I do take exception to one comment you made, not to question your credentials but to question what some may just assume is true.  You said:

"I'm a 4 handicapper and have, in my own humble opinion, a fair idea of what constitutes a good, all round golf course."

I never assume because someone is a low handicapper, or because they have built golf courses all their lives they know what they are talking about.  Again, I am not questioning you, I am questioning your contention that we should listen to you because of your handicap.  There are plenty of 4 handicappers in the US that should stick to playing and not be allowed on committees or put in charge of "overseeing" the architect for a friend/developer.  Furthermore, there are plenty of experienced golfers and people whom have been a part of a new course construction whose background and philosophy are of another world from mine, therefore, despite their credentials, I would not give them the credit of being experts.  I try hard to form my own thoughts about design, and I try hard to have a porous exterior so other thoughts and ideas can flow in and have a place for me to ponder them, but at the end of the day, if that persons philosophy or ideas are contrary to your own world of design that you have carefully prepared over the years, then that disqualifies that person from being an expert.  So many great golfers quickly climb the ladder within their club's committees because others assume they are knowledgeable because of their handicap, yet that person's philosophy is polluted, and it can be ruinous to a club.

Looking at the other side of that, if an architect says they rarely play, I would be equally suspicious of their credentials.  In any event, it is the depth, and quality of their ideas, the force that fuels their creative process, and the generosity of their feelings for the game that should be more important to know about an architect rather than the handicap.

Fpr me, i would be more inclined to listenly more closely to your opinions if you would have said:

"I'm Irish, having played golf all my life within that environment, and come from a family with a deep golfing tradition, and have, in my own humble opinion, a fair idea of what constitutes a good, all round golf course."

[Brian Phillips]

Brian...it surprises me that you...a well recognized student of the game...would find definition off of the tee to be so important.  Does the broadside exist without the barn...or is the greatest challenge lie in hitting what is not there...Your description of Muirfield sounds like a perfect example of optical dilusion though simplicity of sight line...a truly beautiful thing that due to its complexity is most often only discovered over time and the tradition of great championships.

Barney,

I still feel you can create a good golf hole without going to the extent of Fazio and creating a picture perfect golf hole.  This is why I like Dornoch and Turnberry so much.  You stand on the tee and it says here you are, this is what you have in front of you now make some decisions.

Now, if you take Muirfield (and I repeat I have only walked the course) you stand on the first tee which is my example and it looks like a farmers field.  Now that is ok a couple of times but many times is taking it too far IMHO.

I enjoy blind holes as much as anyone but not many times in a round.  I think there has to be a balance.

Ronan's point is yes it is a good course but No.1 in Britain and Ireland...c'mon...

Thank you for your comment as a recognised student of the game...I am not sure if it was scarcasm though..

Brian.

ps. Peter Nordwall a Swedish architect how taught David Kidd in his younger days has a novel way of rating courses and t goes like this:

Nature Experience: Marks out of 5 for the natural experience ie. landscape and nature
Golf Experience: Marks out of 5 for the golfing experience the course gives you. Fun, challenge etc.
Turf Quality: Marks out of 5 for the quality of the turf ie. greens, fairways etc
Safety: Marks out of 5. The safety of the course.  Did you feel threatened at all while playing.

Now those that have played the course could go ahead rate the course according to this marking scheme and we can start comparing to other courses over the next week.

[Bob_Huntley]

I have one criterium for being able to call a course 'Great.'

Does it stir the soul? North Berwick, Cruden Bay, TOC, Royal Dornoch, Royal County Down, Ballybunnion, Shinnecock, Pine Valley, Cypress Point, Pebble Beach...... I could add more. Muirfield does not.

[Paul_Turner]

Gullane isn't anywhere near Muirfield in quality.  The hazard placement is much less interesting. At Muirfield, it's worth challenging the bunkers, and there's just too many straight holes at Gullane.

[ForkaB]

Bob

This just goes to show that souls are unique to the individual!  Muirfield does stir mine.  Why?  The whole course is spread out in front of you, and yet every hole has separation and character.  There is tremendous variety in the holes, and not only due to the well-kent double-circle routing.  1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 11 and 18 are as individualistic as any 4's I can think of.  There is very interesting use of the central dune line with holes that go over it, across it and into it, from all different directions.  It is, in fact, very playable by all classes of golfers, as Tom Doak mentioned recently on another thread.  Finally, it does have the je ne sais quois "packaging" as discussed on another thread, just as do all the courses you list.

Brian

Outside of #1, no hole at Muirfield looks at all like a "farmer's field" (or auld water meadie, as Audra Kirkcaldy was reputed to have said).  Also, I did not mean to say that there was only one line needed of the tee at most holes.  The first, which is probably the narrowest, does have the bail-out option of hitting iron off the tee towards the left hand bunker.  The rest of the holes have a fair amount of width, and alternative strategies except for the 9th, whose wasp-waist makes it one of the great par 4 1/2 holes in the world.

Darren

I see very little similarity between Gullane and Muirfield other than GPS coordinates.  Nor do I think that Gullane #1 is anything more than a good, solid course (you like that phrase, don't you?) with some great views.  I demand more of my favo(u)rite golf courses, but to each his or her own.

All

I think Muirfield gets dissed because it cannot be characterized, as well as the fact that lots of people like to take a crack at #1, even if they don't believe in rankings!  It's not a links and not a parkland course and it doesn't have the stylistic unity of TOC or CPC.   All I'll say is that after my first trip to Scotland in 1978, there were only 2 courses that I played on each of my next 15-20 vacations on the auld sod.  Muirfield was one of them.

[Darren_Kilfara]

I see very little similarity between Gullane and Muirfield other than GPS coordinates.  Nor do I think that Gullane #1 is anything more than a good, solid course (you like that phrase, don't you?) with some great views.  I demand more of my favo(u)rite golf courses, but to each his or her own.

Rich, sometimes I get the feeling that you're the Pat Mucci to my Tom Paul! I don't see how you can see no similarities between Gullane and Muirfield - both have reasonably flat, tramline fairways with very little internal movement, both have relatively small greens that demand precise placement, both have the same style of bunkers, both are maintained in roughly the same manner (so that someone uninitiated in GCA could walk around both courses, then be blindfolded and placed in the middle of one of them and not know which was which but for Gullane Hill), and so on.

I'm not a big fan of the word "solid", actually, but your description of Gullane is apt enough - I never said that Gullane no. 1 was one of my favorite golf courses. (I do like it a lot, but one of my 20 or 30 favorites? No.)

Bob, in his inimitable style, put most of what I wanted to say in a very short post. Of course souls are unique to each individual, but I'd suggest that if Muirfield stirs your soul, you're very much a Bauhaus sort of guy (i.e. form follows function). Perfect strategic architecture, which I'm granting Muirfield may well have, is NEVER enough to move me in and of itself - there has to be something more.

I also disagree with everything in the first two sentences in your final paragraph except "not a parkland course", but that's neither here nor there.

Cheers,
Darren

[ian]

Its still the best designed course I have played in the UK.

The better you are, the more stern the test. Many holes like the 8th are easy for a player lacking length, but squeeze the strong player who often gets too greedy trying to shorten the hole. The joy of the course is, the more you try take the harder the course punishes you for wanting too much (or executing to little).

Did you play in a strong wind? It makes a huge difference to your feeling about the routing.

The 3's and fives are all excellent, how often can you say that.

The perceived weakness comes more from the flat terrain and the distance from the sea than the architecture. The architecture (I didn't say golf course) is nearly flawless. That's why its so highly regarded. Greatness on an average sight is worthy of high praise.

Just my opinion.

[ForkaB]

I'm not singling you out, Darren, I just disagree with what you say.  Putting Gullnae in the same class as Muirfield is like saying that NGLA is as good as Shinnecock, or CPC as good as Pebble Beach, just because they are propinquitous.  All IMHO, of corse.........

[Ronan_Branigan]

To one and all

I have spent the day thinking about Muirfield and have gone through it hole by hole. I agree that the routing is one of the finest and takes account of wind direction etc. I can't particularly knock any of the holes really bar the first which i feel is a very difficult opening hole. But still it didn't appeal to me. to touch on a previous post by Brian, I feel that, for me, it falls down with regard to its setting, as does Carnoustie while I'm on the point. Rich, I'm not having a go at it because it's #1, that's not my agenda. I genuinely didn't feel that it hit the mark.

I agree that its a true test of golf and there are holes such as #6 and #8, for example, that tempt you into making errors if you decide to chew too much off. Maybe, I should accept that that is the way Muirfield is and that there is a need for such exacting courses but it's not a fun course to play. I played in a fourball with three other friends and we barely spoke for the round because the course ground us down. It goes back to the old chestnut- what is the purpose of golf, what do you as a person expect to get out of playing the game?

[Ronan_Branigan]

Kelly

The only reason why I mentioned my handicap was to show that I wasn't knocking Muirfield because I couldn't hit the ball out of my way.  

[Kelly_Blake_Moran]

Ronan,

I understand, and I did not want to export any disrepect to you by my post.  Remember, though, there has been some great analysis of golf courses by writers that could barely hit it out of their shadow.  And, again, based on what little I know about your background, there are some virtues you have going for you that could be used to make you more authoritative than your handicap.  Of course it does not hurt that you hit the ball the way you do.  However, look how Brian hits the ball and he is making it as a designer despite it!!

[Geoff_Nourse]

I have to agree with Ronan. I thought the course was awfully bland visually and ultimately too penal for enjoyment by the average golfer, unless they have a fetish for golf ball hunting.

The routing may be excellent, the holes may all be challenging with no weak holes letting the course down but, it never gets you excited the way some of the North Berwick and Turnberry holes do.

I can appreciate the better golfers and top tour pros enjoying the experience due to the lack of links-like playing vaguaries on the flat topography but, unless you hit all the fairways on the par 4,s and 5,s along with your playing partners you will spend as much time exploring the rough as you do walking the fairways. Looking around the course at one point I saw four other groups of golfers doing exactly the same thing so you will never be alone in doing this.

Ultimately, for me, golf has to be enjoyable and playing Muirfield did not qualify on this count. It seems to me that all the higher ranked courses that I have played seem this way(Turnberry excepted). I agree with Brian Phillips about TOC. Am i missing something there as well?

It is interesting to note that a lot of the locals would not give two figs for Muirfield. Does this tell us something? THey are obviously less impressionable about the history and exclusivity than a lot of us golfing anoraks. It seems the St Andrews residents seem of a similar position as well with most of the local golfers I met preferring the New Course.

After living in Edinburgh for a year now I have to say for enjoyment that North Berwick takes the trophy for enjoyment. If you are impressed by the Muirfield name and all the pomp that goes with it, play it and try and convince the locals! I am sure you will get some interesting replies.

[Bob_Huntley]

Rich.

Muirfield....pretentious.