No.17 at Muirfield Village altered

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

The 17th at MVGC has been completely redesigned. The hole has been lengthened to 478 yards. The large waste bunker is gone, replaced by four smaller but deeper bunkers that define and pinch a relatively small pregnant landing area severely - 3 on the left and 1 on the right. The new green is in the same approximate spot, but looks smaller/shallower and oriented drastically to the left. A new stream has been created in the valley in front of the green and it works its way along the left of the green. The green is guarded on the right front by two bunkers and back left by one - defining the orientation to the far left. It looks like a very hard hole - especially for the members.

[TEPaul]

Interesting and good documentation! And, by the way, I don't see a single trace of "bias" in that post--but that's just me!

So what does that mean for those that play the hole? It sure sounds like it will be harder for the members but we all know that Muirfield Village is not just for the members--it's a serious championship venue and it's for the tour pros too! So I hope the members are OK with the changes!

But is that kind of comprehensive redesign and (toughening) a good message to send to the world of golf and architecture, despite the fact MV is a championship venue also?

Not to me it isn't but what do I know?

[JakaB]

Why can't a member of a championship course like MVGC have the opportunity to hit a heroic shot near the end of a round.  Most average golfers or should I say all average golfers I know have already screwed up a round to such a huge degree after the first 16 holes on a championship course that the when they even muster a short par putt on this type of hole they feel good after a tough day.   We may be bad but we are not pussies...and I want a chance to grab a little glory hole by hole.   Now I agree that the position of a redesigned hard hole would have some merit...give us a chance to at least start the round thinking we might play 18 good ones...but a case of making a 17th hole harder being bad for members that know exactly what the joined when the joined it reminds me of a liberal politician trying to protect me from myself.   If your handicap is over 18 please go practice a little before you offer your opinion on this subject because I doubt if you could make a bogey on the previous design.

[JakaB]

The more I think about this the more pissed I get....TEP...do you really think that if someone comes to the 17th hole 25 over they are scared of some new deeper bunkers or a repositioned stream..my god man...you need to play a year left handed to get in touch.

[JakaB]

I might be wrong...I just realized that if you are 25 over after 16 holes and you go bogey, bogey you can break a hundred...hell make em easier cause everybody has the devine right to break a hundred on a championship venue.

[Doug Sobieski]

Interestingly enough, the Columbus Dispatch in an article yesterday documenting this change said that the club had recently polled the members asking them to name their favorite hole on the golf course. Apparently, there were 14 different holes mentioned, and #17 was not among those. This seemed to confirm for Jack that he had a somewhat boring hole at a very important place in the round for tournament play.

The first bunker that Mr. MacWood described is 260 to carry, with the others largely in the 300+ range (per the Dispatch article). Between them the fairway is VERY wide.

The story also indicated that in order to complete the change, they took sod from other holes on the golf course, effectively narrowing several other fairways.

Regards,

Doug

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

The old hole was 437 yards with a pretty generous fairway and a large green the sloped toward the approach. It was no more than a drive and pitch for many professionals. The new more difficult hole creates a very challenging finish - par will be a very good score on 17 and 18.

The other effect is another golf hole that must be in Nicklaus's most current style. The green complex almost looks to be in style reminisant of Ross or Tillinghast. I'm not sure how to describe the fairway bunkering scheme - it is unique. The fairway is extremely narrow from tee to green, except for a buldge that is defined by these smallish bunkers

The redesign of several holes over the years, has created a hodge podge of Nicklaus styles. The course lacks continuity and is more or less a collection of golf holes than a single golf course - albeit some very good golf holes.

[JakaB]

TommyMac,

Don't the member of MVGC take more pride in how their course defends par than what they may score themselves....with all the great courses in Columbus wouldn't MVGC become obsolete if the pros quit coming to town...do any of the members really play all that much there considering the demands of the tournament...Am I wrong but does this course fit an interesting niche in the world of architecture that requires constant updating.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

John
I think you reading a lot into my original post. I was simply making an obervation about the difficulty of the new hole for all concerned. I am not in the least upset or disappointed, the one constant at MVGC is change.

The course was very rough (the winning score near par) the first five or six years of the Memorial. Almost US Open like. Every years since the course has played easier - I guess equipment? As a long time patron of the tournament - I preffered it when it played harder. Not only was interesting to watch the pros make difficult decisions, but the original course had a consistant style.

In what architectural niche would you place MVGC?

[JakaB]

TommyMac,

A niche I love which may be called "Pop Traditional" Instant classics that are created for the modern game and feed off of events to support a Tradition that was created instantly which pulls against the very definition of Tradition.  These courses require constant updating to not lose a classic illusion that pop culture eats up like the very same Wendys' classic created in the same Dublin, Ohio that MVGC is found.  I think its great if you are not afraid to understand why you like it.

[Dan Grossman]

Tom,

I am interested to know what other holes at MVCC have been changed in the last couple of years.  The last times I played it were in 1993 and 1994 when I was able to play there for US Junior Am qualifying.

I always really liked MV.  It is by far the best Jack N. course that I have played (although I haven't played a ton).  

I thought that the stretch from 6 - 9 was pretty good.  I really liked #8 with the raised green that was deep, but very narrow.  The bunkers all around made it a difficult up and down if you missed.  #9 (if I remember correctly) had a semi-blind tee shot and then an approach over a stream.  

On the back nine, I liked 13 - 15 a great deal.  You could actually use the ground game on 13 to put the ball on the green, if I remember correctly.  The fairway sloped right to left along w/ the green.  14 is target golf, but not a bad short par 4.  15 is one of my favorite holes on the course.  Reachable in two with two long straight shots, but not a pushover.  I seem to remember the green being very sloped and difficult.

[Stephen Lang]

Having walked aound MVGC many times during several years of watching the Memorial tourney in the late 80's, I seem to remember pros using both drivers and 3-woods off the 17th tee, and one time watched Norman not use a tee, just throwing the ball down to hit off the grass with his 3-wood..  like the 17th was a very small "breather" hole before the 18th with its travails..  I'm usre it was no breather hole for the members in the past and even less so now.

JakaB,,, I can't agree that MVGC would be classified "pop traditional", which is an interesting concept in its own right,..  I think the course that Jack built will always be a work in progress.  The topography and routing provide some great spectator views, let alone a challenging test of golf for the pros and members.  

I also can't understand anyone saying that there's no continuity, what-ever that really means, because of the recent changes.  The course has variety, and the fact that Watson won there a few years ago is testimony to the need to be able to use all your clubs.  

[Jim_H]

I played Muirfield Village 3 times (on one trip) this past Spring for the first time.  The course exceeded my expectations (which, sadly, it seems few well-publized ones do.)  I thought it was clearly--as advertised--the best job that Nicklaus has done.
However, I thought that the 17th hole was by far the weakest hole--and clearly out of place with the other 17 holes. The bunkering on the left looked like a poor attempt to suggest a links course--except that it was an Amnerican-style bunker.  Visually, it was totally wrong.
I heard talk at that time about a redo of the hole.  I haven't seen the completed product, but I'm glad for the effort.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Dan
There have been so many changes over the years that it is difficult to keep the chronology straight. Prior to this major redesign, I believe they relocated the 18th tee and also brought the course of the stream of the 18th to the right to further pinch the fairway. I believe they moved and rebuilt the fairway bunker on 13. Before that they converted the stream on 5 to very wide moat near the green. They also altered the 7th and 11th. The bunkering on the 8th has been changed. And just about every green has been changed.

Steve
The lack of continiuty is a result of a multitude of bunker styles. The original bunker style intermingled/followed by a number of differing styles from years of changes. The fairway bunker on 18 and the greenside bunkering on 14 from one Nicklaus period featuring grass depressions. The very deep and steep grass faced bunker on 16 from another era. The current bunkering on 8th from another era. The 3rd reiteration of bunkers on the 12th another era. And now the 17th.

The course is also disjointed from the natural site, highlighted by the multitude of streams, some totally artificial, others moved from their original course. The oddest feature being the part stream/part pond hybrid on 5, 9 and 14 - a strond.  :)Some very strong holes - the 15th is my favorite - but there is something off, especaily when compared to the continuity of the original course.

[McCloskey]

Tom
I'm sorry to report to this board, but you really don't have any idea what you are talking about regarding the changes made at MVGC.   There really are to many corrections to your post to even begin, so I'll just leave it alone.
As a side note, the architects from old that are so revered on this board would hardly recognize the famous courses they designed, but which are called masterpieces today.  I wonder if they would say the changes are disjointed.  LOL

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

McCloskey
Go ahead and correct me.

I only mentioned a few changes off the top of my head to illustrate my point - if I'm wrong please correct me. I admited it is difficult to keep them all straight.  My point is the course today - after more than hundred changes over three decades - is not as good as the original coherent golf course. It is still a very good golf course, just not as good.

Is the fact those architects wouldn't recognize their courses a good thing?

[ChipOat]

Tom MacWood:

This may be fodder for its own separate thread but here goes.

Until I'd been to Scotland a couple times, MVGC was in my personal Top 5 and still is in my U.S. Top 5 although it's been years since I've played it.  I think it's a WONDERFUL golf course - especially the par 3's.  To be the best course in Columbus (IMO) is some serious stuff, right?  And I love Dye and MacKenzie big time.

It doesn't even get a sniff for Top 20 in recent years.  And other new courses have opened to much better reviews (it sounds like Pac Dunes and Sand Hills might deserve them).

Am I holding on to a relative ranking from my early days that's no longer deserved?  Or is MVGC the most underrated course in the US of A?

[JakaB]

Chipoat,

I thought MVGC had some Stupid Trees in a bunker that would effect the line of play....I think we need to delve into when exactly you had a Newtonian experiance with a Stupid Tree and came out of the shade to see the light.

[ChipOat]

JakaB:

Having only played MVGC twice, I must not have been in that bunker.  Also, I'm so old that tree might have been but a mere sapling when I last was there.  Whatever, I hope it dies.

The presence of Stupid Trees doesn't preclude other brilliance - it just dilutes it.  Pebble and Cypress are also in my Top 5 despite the presence of INTENTIONAL STUPID TREES LOCATED IN THE FAIRWAY (the worst kind).

I hope they die, too.

What do you know about copper nails?

Also, as to my original question that anyone may address (not just Tom M.), what's your take on MVGC?  Do I need a reality check?

[TEPaul]

JakaB:

Regarding your post about what the higher handicap members think of the redesigned #17 makes sense to me! If so, you're right in what you say and I'm certainly willing to agree about that.

If they like tougher that's just fine by me. I really don't care much what the high handicap members think about it as long as they're happy with it. Offering an heroic challenge to them at that stage of the round to pull off and go home feeling good makes perfect logical sense to me! So I agree with you, I'll change my tune on that!

Although I really know very little about MVGC, I look at it as Jack Nicklaus's baby, his creation (although I am aware of what's been said about Muirhead's contribution). So I really don't much care what Jack wants to do to the course in the way of redesign! The man has spent years with that golf course and who am I to question what he does architecturally with it?

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

I’m not sure about its ranking, but in Columbus I do prefer The Golf Club. I understand MV isn’t that hospitable to panelist, which might have an effect.

MVGC is no doubt visually stunning, but to my tastes in a very contrived and artificial manner. Perhaps part of the problem is I have followed its evolution from its very beginning – actually prior to its opening. And since I saw the raw site, the original design and have witnessed the numerous changes, perhaps I have a different, more critical, perspective.

The individual holes are all good to very good to great. But the whole doesn’t inspire me; part of the problem as I said is the differing styles. The original bunkering scheme was really very interesting and consistant. The par-3s are good, but as an example of changing bunkers, I don’t care for the current bunkering on the 8th and 12th. Those orginal holes were very striking and the current bunkering is not nearly as interesting. The current 16th seems out of character.

The course is not the best of walks and might be more enjoyable from a cart. There is also not a lot of interest off the tee – the 9th, 15th and perhaps the 18th being the exceptions. The 14th is one of the great strategic short par-4s, but is marred in my view by the artificiality of the stream and the constant tinkering, over the years, with the bunkering. The 15th is a fantastic natural golf hole and has remained relatively unchanged. I also believe the design relies too heavily on water. A very good golf course, but I preferred the more coherent slightly less artificial original version.

[ChipOat]

Tom:

Interesting that you prefer the original.  One of my pet observations is that many great courses got even more that way when the original architect and/or founder had lots of years to make changes based on observation, rumination and (sometimes) the opinions of others.  Examples include Pinehurst #2 + Ross's RI home club, Teeth of the Dog, ANGC and National.

Would have thought Jack is leveraging the same opportunity at MVGC.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Muirfield Village was designed and built for instant maturity. There was obviously a great deal of thought put into its design, it was an expression of Jack's greatest influences. His architectural memorial - spacious fairways and gallery mounding not unlike the Masters.

The obvious ANGC influence is seen in the 12th (similar to ANGC-12) the, 11th and 14th (both influenced by ANGC-13), the large bunker on 17 (simlar to the bunker at PB-13), the 14th (a tribute the 11th at Merion), the 8th (similar to the 10th at PV), bunkering on the 1st (similar to the 8th at Muirfield), and the 5th (similar to the old 8th at Scioto). It was a conglomeration of ideas and influences, on an excellent rolling site blessed with natural streams. And it was all tied together with a pretty interesting irregular bunkering style and undualting greens. No modern course has undergound more changes and experimentation, and the purity of the original ideas have been hurt in my view.

Some courses improve, some courses don't. Each case is different and should be judged individually. For every Pinehurst #2 there is a Crooked Stick. I would characterize ANGC as going strongly the wrong way - a tremendous amount of MacKenzie's genius has been destroyed. I'm confused about the Teeth of the Dog also, the old eighth may have been the most specatular hole on the golf course and I was disapointed by the tree encroachment on the 13th.

[McCloskey]

Tom
OK, just one example since you just referred to it.  You said the 15th is a nice hole and has remained virtually unchanged.  
Last year's tournament was the first year that they played the 15th after lowering the green surface over 10', creating much more spectator slope behind the green.  I would think that you would agree that is a substantial change.
I just disagree with you on your comments on the bunkering changes.  You seem to like the course however, and you have a right to your opinion, no matter how skewed it may be.

[Stephen Lang]

 

McCloskey.. I appreaciate or am interested in your counter opinion on Jack's course, because I haven't been there in 11 years, but per the "gca protocol" thread thats been burning,.. did you have to type those last 7 words?

"You seem to like the course however, and you have a right to your opinion, no matter how skewed it may be."