[Mac Plumart]

I've never played it, but I'm watching it on t.v.

Anyone have any comments on the course design, how its playing, how it is being maintained.

[Brian Laurent]

Mac...I've played it a few times. In my opinion, it's a great track on a nice piece of property for central Ohio. From what I recall, it required a variety of shots...shot shape, different length approaches and variety on the par 3's.

It's very well conditioned. Paul and his crew do a great job. Seemed to be playing fast when I was out earlier in the week...incoming rain will be changing that shortly!

[BHoover]

Unfortunately, MV always seems to play soft during the Memorial. The tournament has had some terrible luck with weather over the years, but that's the way it is with spring in Ohio. The course is always in superb condition.

What will be really interesting is how different it will play during the President's Cup this fall. September and October are typically dry in Ohio (watch, it will rain), so the course should play firmer and faster than it does in May and June. I played it a couple years ago in October and it was scary fast.

It's a great tournament course, and has some excellent viewing spots. But I'm not sure that I'd want to play it as my home course. It's can be brutal if you're struggling, and there are plenty of forced carries. But it's definitely fun to watch the pros play.

[David Whitmer]

Mac,

I've played MVGC four or five times, the last time three years ago. I love the golf course. It's a fair test; long enough in spots that you have to test your driver, wide enough that you don't have to be super-precise, and tough enough at the greens that your iron game must be working as well as your short game.

If I may be brazen enough to point out what I don't like...I wish the greens accepted more run-up shots. By my count, if you want a GIR you must fly the ball onto every green except perhaps #2, #4, #13, and #16 on the far-right side. I also wish the greens weren't surrounded by so much choking rough, although I acknowledge not many courses in Ohio have short grass around the greens.

It has a nice mix of short and long par threes, fours, and fives; you'll hit every club in your bag. Most shots are level or downhill, though the tee shots on #10 and #15 are uphill. It's always in outstanding shape. If the greens had bolder movements, it would be very, very difficult with their green speeds.

You are always treated great there; it's a fun golf experience.

[BHoover]

I think that 15 is a great hole, both in the tournament and to play. Uphill, relatively short par 5. The fairway is fairly wide, but if you miss wide left or right, you face a tricky lay-up. Miss the fairway with your lay-up and it's tough to hit the green. The green slopes back to front (from what I recall) and balls tend to funnel to the middle and front. Eagles are possible but so are doubles.

Come to think of it, 11 isn't a bad par 5 either.

[Emile Bonfiglio]

Jack said today on the telecast that it will play much different (shorter/firmer) for the presidents cup in the fall. I think it will be a great match play venue.

[Kenny Baer]

I've played it once. The par 5's are special. 5,11 and 15 are great. I remember the greens are mundane as far as contour but speed keeps them interesting. I think every tee shot except maybe 6 maybe, 7 maybe, 13 maybe, and 17 maybe play down hill, including 10 which some said played uphill. It is a downhill tee shot into an upward sloping fway. It is a fun golf course that you really need to think your way around, it is tough but fair.

[Matt Kardash]

I find the new 16th and 17th holes out of character with the rest of the course.

[BHoover]

I find the new 16th and 17th holes out of character with the rest of the course.

I can see why you'd say that about 16, even though I think it's a better hole for the tournament than the old version. But I'm not sure how 17 is out of character.

[Matthew Petersen]

Mac,

I've played MVGC four or five times, the last time three years ago. I love the golf course. It's a fair test; long enough in spots that you have to test your driver, wide enough that you don't have to be super-precise, and tough enough at the greens that your iron game must be working as well as your short game.

If I may be brazen enough to point out what I don't like...I wish the greens accepted more run-up shots. By my count, if you want a GIR you must fly the ball onto every green except perhaps #2, #4, #13, and #16 on the far-right side. I also wish the greens weren't surrounded by so much choking rough, although I acknowledge not many courses in Ohio have short grass around the greens.

It has a nice mix of short and long par threes, fours, and fives; you'll hit every club in your bag. Most shots are level or downhill, though the tee shots on #10 and #15 are uphill. It's always in outstanding shape. If the greens had bolder movements, it would be very, very difficult with their green speeds.

You are always treated great there; it's a fun golf experience.

On today's telecast, Jack said they basically feel like they have to get the greens lightning fast for them to have any interest at all, since they have so little slope. Would it be a more interesting course if the greens had more movement and they could slow them down accordingly? or is it enough of a tee-to-green challenge that the relative lack of movement in the greens works?

[Matthew Rose]

New 16 looks way out of place.... maybe it's the lack of trees or other framing that makes it so. It looks like an isolated practice hole built in a wide open area.

The old 16 was pretty mundane so I'm not adverse to them having changed it... but even for a water hole it's pretty bland looking. The lake looks like the crater from a meteor that dropped from outer space.

[David Whitmer]

On today's telecast, Jack said they basically feel like they have to get the greens lightning fast for them to have any interest at all, since they have so little slope. Would it be a more interesting course if the greens had more movement and they could slow them down accordingly? or is it enough of a tee-to-green challenge that the relative lack of movement in the greens works?

Yes, I think it would be more interesting if the greens had more movement. It would be more difficult for everyday play (and that place is a factory), but it sure would test the pros more. There are very few spots on the greens where you say "Don't miss above the hole location." if you find the green you will have a very smooth and fast putt with not a whole lot of movement.

I think a challenge on the greens due to slope is always better than flattish and mundane greens.

[Josh Tarble]

New 16 looks way out of place.... maybe it's the lack of trees or other framing that makes it so. It looks like an isolated practice hole built in a wide open area.

The old 16 was pretty mundane so I'm not adverse to them having changed it... but even for a water hole it's pretty bland looking. The lake looks like the crater from a meteor that dropped from outer space.

I agree...and I feel like Jack took 12 and 16 at Augusta and just duplicated them with extra yardage.  Not necessarily a bad thing because they're great holes though...they just seem very very similar.

[Kevin Stark]

I loved it when I played there years ago. You certainly hit every club in your bag and it presents one challenge after another. The conditioning was immaculate and the practice facilities are the best in the world.

16 is on a very bland part of the property. The desire to get spectators in and out of the green area, especially with the new back tee on 17, makes it an even more awkward fit. I always thought a Redan would be a good hole for the amount of land they have there. That artificial pond they have now...yuck. Aside from 16, my only knocks on the place are that it's not a place where kids can learn the game and they need to find their chainsaws in a couple of spots.

[Dean Stokes]

Playing soft? Wow. I was watching yesterday with some lads who played there in a two day invitational late September last year and we thought it was playing rock hard!!!!
It is a different course this week than we saw and although I am not Keegan Bradley long I hit the ball ok...one of the guys in our group is long. Without going through every hole, we couldnt get close to number 7 in two, we hit 5/6 into 8 and they are hitting 8/9. Number 9 was driver 3 iron, they are hitting 3 wood wedge. Number 12 we hit 4 and 5 irons...they were hitting 8/9 and wedge. Tiger hit 8 iron into number 16 which is a lot different to a 4 iron - especially as rock hard as that green is.
I thought it was a very good golf course, holes dog legging both ways, uphill and downhill holes, good green complexes where positioning your ball is important due to green speeds.
I would agree that number 16 doesn't fit the eye like the rest of the holes and would not be surprised if Jack made further changes...it is very much on an open piece of land and IMHO needs some framing of sorts. I hope to go back one day and play it in the sunshine with firmer fairways as we got tough, cold conditions.

[Joel_Stewart]

I agree...and I feel like Jack took 12 and 16 at Augusta and just duplicated them with extra yardage.  Not necessarily a bad thing because they're great holes though...they just seem very very similar.

The entire golf course, the conditioning, practice facility and now the new clubhouse and media center are a complete copy of Augusta. 

[jonathan_becker]

I don't get the "#15 is a great hole" comments. 

Maybe I need to see this hole again because based on my last experience....I laid up with a 7 iron from the left rough, my ball landed on the right edge of the fw, and it fed all the way down the hill left into the creek.  WTF is that? 

I don't mean to generalize an entire hole on one swing that I made some time ago, but if it happened to me, I'm sure it's happened to a lot of members and most of them aren't ever going to hit this green in two shots, so that's the lay up they have to deal with when trying to play this hole?

[David Royer]

I played the course on the last day it was open for play.  The greens were very fast. Probably in the 12 range. The greens are not difficult from 10-12 feet in.  It's when you're lagging that they are incredibly difficult. There is more pitch to the greens than TV indicates.  Get it in the wrong place and you have real challenge on your hands. This time of year in central Ohio the rough is tough.  Its very thick and sticky.  You can get some very tough lies.  Jack's comment about 2 1/2 inch rough being optimal is right.  Thats why Tiger's shot on 16 last year was so great. 15 is the most demanding driving hole on the course.  However it is also forgiving in the landing area for the third shot approach. 14 is without a doubt the best hole on the course. The green is so tough.  12 is also a great hole. You have to be spot on your yardage. From the members tees it is a very fair test of ability.

[Michael George]

JB - I think #15 is a good hole that could be great, but suffers as you pointed out.  The biggest problem is the houses on the right being overly intrusive, especially the one just to the right of tee.  The 2nd biggest problem is as you stated - the fairway width.  It is a narrow fairway from tee to green.  On the tee, if you miss left or right, you really have little to no recovery shot.  On your lay-up shot, you have an unnecessary row of 20 yard long rough to carry and then a narrow fairway.  This makes for great tournament golf, but difficult member golf.  On the positive side, it does provide great risk/reward in terms of getting home in 2 and has a cool raised green with a false front down to the creek.  It is also very picturesque.

In general, I love Muirfield Village - would love to play it again if the unaccompanied rate wasn't so high.  Just an unbelievable property and some incredibly good golf holes - especially 3, 5, 9, 10, 11, 14 and 18.  Its detractions lie with the housing development that surrounds many of the holes - it really hurts the feel of the place (you never get the sense that you are walking with nature as a result).  In addition, while I usually hate trees on a golf course, 16 and 17 need some trees along the outsides of the holes to provide definition (as they feel like prairie holes at the end of a parkland course).

While I see the comparisons with Augusta in terms of #12 and #16, I really don't think it applies otherwise.  Both are great places, but the similarities are not much greater than those 2 par 3's.

  
  

[Doug Ralston]

Just heard Jack comment to suggestions about 'strengthening' MV. He said if changes were made "we would think a couple years before doing it". "I think the course is great".

Thank you Jack! I so mistrust people who suggest 'little' fixes to really good courses. I always suspect that once the idea catches on, several others will want their 'little' fixes. If it ain't broke ..........

Doug

[BHoover]

I've noticed that MV has circular/oval, rather than square, tee boxes. Is Jack opposed to using traditional square tee boxes?

[Terry Lavin]

It's the Ohio version of Bay Hill: difficult, well manicured and a nice destination for an overnight with some friends. A Doak 6 maybe?

[Jim Nugent]

Did Doak give it a score in the CG? 

The various mag ratings disagree with that 6.  GW ranks it 11 among U.S. moderns, with a score of 8.09.  GD ranks it 19th in the U.S.  GM ranks it 52nd in the world. 

[Matthew Rose]

I've noticed that MV has circular/oval, rather than square, tee boxes. Is Jack opposed to using traditional square tee boxes?

I don't think I've ever seen a Nicklaus course anywhere with square tees. But I haven't seen that many.

[Chris_Hufnagel]

Did Doak give it a score in the CG? 

8

Tom actually has a fairly long (and really good) write-up about it and a pretty thorough review of what he likes and doesn't like about it...

Here are just a few sections from the review:

PROS
-The "reputation (of the course) is based on the golf course, rather than on hype and expensive maintenance"
-Great site for a golf course
-"Perfect sight lines from fairway landing areas to the target areas and to all the hazards around the greens"

CONS
-"The curse of Jack's approach is that he puts perfect sight lines and perfect turf ahead of any considerations of natural character, which to me is the most important part of golf architecture."
-"I have always felt, too, that Nicklaus' courses often didn't give me a realistic shot to approach the hole."

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()