[Tim Gallant]

Sean,


I'll bite


I'll take TOC and Muirfield over Pinehurst No. 2 and Merion (Pinehurst being the only of the 4 I haven't played). State what level Pinehurst and Merion are on, and I'll make the argument that TOC and Muirfield are better courses based on those stated 'levels'.


David,


As has been mentioned, I think it all depends on your qualification of what constitutes 'world-class'. If I was talking to a friend who was going to come visit Scotland for golf, I would probably describe the courses you mentioned as world-class. However, if I am using the description of the 'best of the best', and I put personal preferences aside (Which is tough because I adore Prestwick), then courses like Cruden & Prestwick could be in the conversation, but fall just shy IMHO. On reflection, the three courses that I am convinced are truly world class in Scotland are: Dornoch, TOC and Muirfield. The rest have an argument depending on definition, but these three are the best of the best. And I feel comfortable that with my limited knowledge of course design, I could hold an argument against anyone that these three belong, irrespective of definition.

[Niall C]

On reflection, the three courses that I am convinced are truly world class in Scotland are: Dornoch, TOC and Muirfield. The rest have an argument depending on definition, but these three are the best of the best. And I feel comfortable that with my limited knowledge of course design, I could hold an argument against anyone that these three belong, irrespective of definition.

OK, let's here it then 


Niall

[Sean_A]

Sean,


I'll bite


I'll take TOC and Muirfield over Pinehurst No. 2 and Merion (Pinehurst being the only of the 4 I haven't played). State what level Pinehurst and Merion are on, and I'll make the argument that TOC and Muirfield are better courses based on those stated 'levels'.

Tim

I will give you TOC because despite the many flaws it remains one of the most distinctive, unusual and fun courses in the world and to me these are attributes which outweigh head to feature comparison. TOC doesn't hold up very well against the touring pros, but that is a level of challenge I never thought necessary to be considered among the best.  Muirfield on the other hand....It is hard for me to grasp that anybody could think it is better than #2.  For argument sake lets say the terrain, turf and soil of each course is a wash...I do think they are similar for comparative purposes.  The greens...#2 wins in a landslide.  Tee shots are a wash as both rely heavily on sand of some sort to provide the interest and both do a fair job in creating angles using sand.  Challenge is a wash as either course can be more than a handful for any level of player.  Playability must go #2 because it is darn difficult to lose a ball, the same cannot be said for Muirfield.  So to me if there is strict standard for "world class" #2 would make the cut before Muirfield.

Ciao   

[Tim Gallant]

On reflection, the three courses that I am convinced are truly world class in Scotland are: Dornoch, TOC and Muirfield. The rest have an argument depending on definition, but these three are the best of the best. And I feel comfortable that with my limited knowledge of course design, I could hold an argument against anyone that these three belong, irrespective of definition.

OK, let's here it then 


Niall

Fair enough! Give me the weekend to prepare my defence your honour.

[Tim Gallant]

Sean,


I'll bite


I'll take TOC and Muirfield over Pinehurst No. 2 and Merion (Pinehurst being the only of the 4 I haven't played). State what level Pinehurst and Merion are on, and I'll make the argument that TOC and Muirfield are better courses based on those stated 'levels'.

Tim

I will give you TOC because despite the many flaws it remains one of the most distinctive, unusual and fun courses in the world and to me these are attributes which outweigh head to feature comparison. TOC doesn't hold up very well against the touring pros, but that is a level of challenge I never thought necessary to be considered among the best.  Muirfield on the other hand....It is hard for me to grasp that anybody could think it is better than #2.  For argument sake lets say the terrain, turf and soil of each course is a wash...I do think they are similar for comparative purposes.  The greens...#2 wins in a landslide.  Tee shots are a wash as both rely heavily on sand of some sort to provide the interest and both do a fair job in creating angles using sand.  Challenge is a wash as either course can be more than a handful for any level of player.  Playability must go #2 because it is darn difficult to lose a ball, the same cannot be said for Muirfield.  So to me if there is strict standard for "world class" #2 would make the cut before Muirfield.

Ciao

Sean,


Thanks for the run down - I think you make really strong points, and although I haven't played Pinehurst, I can imagine the greens will be the magical component for that particular course, which elevates it to 'world class'.


I also agree that I think you can categorise world class in two senses: the first being on the more 'distinctive, fun, unique' measure that you mention, which I think is a very worthy way to judge a course. The other is on the more strict standard that you mention - playability, strategic variety, terrain, turf, etc, which I think can also be useful in judging world class.


Responding to Niall's post, I will attempt to demonstrate how Muirfield, TOC and Dornoch are all world-class regardless of the categorisation one might use to set the definition.

[Sean_A]

Tim

All that said about #2 V Muirfield...I would still say Muirfield is world class because enough people who ought to know say it is. Muirfield doesn't inspire me because it lacks a whimsical element, but maybe that isn't important in terms of world class...I don't honestly know.  What I would say is that if Muirfield is study of the test as provided by the man-made architecture (because the terrain isn't special nor is the use of natural features), it should have a great deal of world class holes to be considered world class. The shape of the routing is a good start! As I said above, until I know better, I trust the folks that ought to know if Muirfield does have its share of world class holes. Regardless, Muirfield is not a course which makes me want to play the game.

Ciao

[Tim Gallant]

Niall,


I haven't forgotten about this - just trying to find time between moving house to pull together a response!


As a side note, I was fortunate to play Muirfield again yesterday, and can confirm that the fairways are wider across the board than at North Berwick, which we hail as being incredibly playable (Paced both myself). Further, the rough had been cut back, and in a 15mph, both myself (10hcp) and the member (7 hcp) failed to lose a ball. 

[Niall C]

Tim


I don't know what is more unbelievable, that the fairways are wider at Muirfield than NB, or that you're claiming a 10 handicap 


Niall

[JJShanley]

Niall -


A bit OT, but last night I read a Darwin piece on Silloth. He raved about it, in a way he reserved for only a few courses. Silloth has not been on my radar. It is now.


Bob

Build another wall!  They're on the move!  Goswick is next!  They won't stop until they capture Rye!

[Tom_Doak]

Sean,


I'll bite


I'll take TOC and Muirfield over Pinehurst No. 2 and Merion (Pinehurst being the only of the 4 I haven't played). State what level Pinehurst and Merion are on, and I'll make the argument that TOC and Muirfield are better courses based on those stated 'levels'.

Tim

I will give you TOC because despite the many flaws it remains one of the most distinctive, unusual and fun courses in the world and to me these are attributes which outweigh head to feature comparison. TOC doesn't hold up very well against the touring pros, but that is a level of challenge I never thought necessary to be considered among the best.  Muirfield on the other hand....It is hard for me to grasp that anybody could think it is better than #2.  For argument sake lets say the terrain, turf and soil of each course is a wash...I do think they are similar for comparative purposes.  The greens...#2 wins in a landslide.  Tee shots are a wash as both rely heavily on sand of some sort to provide the interest and both do a fair job in creating angles using sand.  Challenge is a wash as either course can be more than a handful for any level of player.  Playability must go #2 because it is darn difficult to lose a ball, the same cannot be said for Muirfield.  So to me if there is strict standard for "world class" #2 would make the cut before Muirfield.

Ciao

You left out bunkering, I guess because you feel it is overemphasized.  But bunkering, alongside routing, is why Muirfield is world class.

[Sean_A]

Sean,


I'll bite


I'll take TOC and Muirfield over Pinehurst No. 2 and Merion (Pinehurst being the only of the 4 I haven't played). State what level Pinehurst and Merion are on, and I'll make the argument that TOC and Muirfield are better courses based on those stated 'levels'.

Tim

I will give you TOC because despite the many flaws it remains one of the most distinctive, unusual and fun courses in the world and to me these are attributes which outweigh head to feature comparison. TOC doesn't hold up very well against the touring pros, but that is a level of challenge I never thought necessary to be considered among the best.  Muirfield on the other hand....It is hard for me to grasp that anybody could think it is better than #2.  For argument sake lets say the terrain, turf and soil of each course is a wash...I do think they are similar for comparative purposes.  The greens...#2 wins in a landslide.  Tee shots are a wash as both rely heavily on sand of some sort to provide the interest and both do a fair job in creating angles using sand.  Challenge is a wash as either course can be more than a handful for any level of player.  Playability must go #2 because it is darn difficult to lose a ball, the same cannot be said for Muirfield.  So to me if there is strict standard for "world class" #2 would make the cut before Muirfield.

Ciao

You left out bunkering, I guess because you feel it is overemphasized.  But bunkering, alongside routing, is why Muirfield is world class.

Tom

I did mention fairway bunkering.  But to be honest, I find it difficult to praise the bunkering scheme when there are 150 of them.  Any idiot can cover the bases employing that many pits.  It would be an amusing exercise to run through how many bunkers could be removed with little or no impact on the playing strategies of the holes.  Mind you, #2 is essentially lined with bunkers.  It is how the fairways turn within the sand boundaries which is so interesting.  In any case, I don't think either course trumps the other in this regard.

All this said, I would like to play Muirfield again....it has been some time since my last go.

Ciao

[Tim Gallant]

Tim


I don't know what is more unbelievable, that the fairways are wider at Muirfield than NB, or that you're claiming a 10 handicap 


Niall

 

[Jack Carney]

What happened to Western Gailes again? Not second tier in my book.....

[Tim Gallant]

On reflection, the three courses that I am convinced are truly world class in Scotland are: Dornoch, TOC and Muirfield. The rest have an argument depending on definition, but these three are the best of the best. And I feel comfortable that with my limited knowledge of course design, I could hold an argument against anyone that these three belong, irrespective of definition.

OK, let's here it then 


Niall

Fair enough! Give me the weekend to prepare my defence your honour.

Part 1
The weekend, or a year and a half - what's the difference. Here's my reply that I've been working on for a few weeks now:

Muirfield is world class

It has taken me over a year to write my response, but in that time, I have mulled this question over quite a bit. Having played each course in question (Dornoch, Old Course, Muirfield) on several more occasions, my hypothesis has not changed, and I still believe that each of these courses in genuinely world-class.

While I believe most on here would agree the Old Course and Dornoch are world-class, there is more of a split on Muirfield. Therefore, I will focus my post on demonstrating why Muirfield is world-class.

My argument will follow the below structure:

Defining world class

Translating what world-class means for golf courses

Proof Points - Why Muirfield is world-class

So away we go!

Defining World-Class
Before we look at the definition as it relates to golf courses, it is important to see if there is anything that we can learn as it relates to other areas of life. Accordingly to Webster’s dictionary, world-class is ‘being of the highest caliber in the world’. This seems quite obvious, and the Cambridge backs up this definition by saying that world-class is ‘something that is one of the best there are of that type in the world’.

So we know that world-class must be seen in the highest regard as it relates to its own category, namely, golf courses. It’s interesting that in the second definition, the meaning of world-class is derived from its merits relative to other ‘types’ in the category, not against any set benchmark.

There is a small hint in the Cambridge dictionary that may help us as we progress further. The word ‘type’ may refer to golf courses in general, or it could be interpreted to mean a specific sub-section of a given category. By this measure, would it not be more appropriate to rank a course against the sub-group that it sits within? For example, should Muirfield be compared against all courses, or all links courses? Should it be compared against all courses, or strategic courses?

By reducing the potential pool of candidates that we are judging against, we can hopefully create a more objective definition of what courses are truly world-class.

Translating what world class means for golf courses
So we now have a general understanding for the definition of world-class. Because it is open for interpretation and subjective, it can be challenging to put specific parameters around its definition relative to golf courses.

Paraphrasing Sean Arble above, I believe a lot of us assume something is world class because others who know (or should know) say so. While it is never a wise idea to follow blindly, it can offer us a path forward if we take the ‘experts’ judgment criteria and apply it across the board.

For example, many on here have adopted the Doak scale as a go-to scoring system for how courses are assessed and thought-of, as it does as good of a job as any to split hairs between the good courses and the very good courses in a way that is easy to understand and comprehend.

However, as Doak states at the start of every CG book, there is still a subjective nature to the scoring criteria. Some might love a specific type of course more than others, and therefore, what lengths they’re willing to go to for a game at that particular course may well contradict conventional thinking.

Therefore, I thought it might be wise to fall-back on the only two criteria that I have personally read that attempt to define what makes an ideal, world-class golf course. The first criteria that I will use are the parameters that CB Macdonald wrote about in ‘Scotland’s Gift Golf’ some 100 years ago.

I can hear the chuckles already, but in my mind, CB understood better than almost anyone then, or now, what a golf course must include to be considered truly world-class. He used the phrase ‘first-class’, and in my mind, that was the fashionable term at the time for what we now refer to as ‘world-class’. For those that haven’t read the book, it is an essential.

First, Macdonald opens his chapter entitled ‘Inception of Ideal Golf Course’ by referring to an article he wrote in 1897. He states:

‘The ideal first-class golf links has yet to be selected and the course laid out in America. No course can be called first-class with less than eighteen holes. A sandy soil sufficiently rich to make turf is the best…A first-class course can only be made in time. It must develop. The proper distance between the holes, the shrewd placing of bunkers and other hazards, the perfecting of putting greens, all must be evolved by a process of growth and it requires study and patience.’

Now, Macdonlad was clearly trying to outline to those in America the very basics of what constitutes a first-class course, but his aims are not far off what we would consider important today were we to build a course anywhere in the world.

He then proceeds,
‘In discussing and comparing the merits of the various courses (the best in Britain), one is struck immediately with the futility of argument unless some basis of excellence is agreed upon, premises on which to anchor. In view of this, I have tried to enumerate all the essential features of a perfect golf course in accordance with the enlightened criticism of today, and to give each of these essential characteristics a value, the sum total of which would be 100, or perfection. Following is the result:

Course
   a. Nature of the soil 23 points
   b. Perfection in undulation and hillocks 22 points

Putting Greens
   a. Quality of turf - 10 points
   b. Nature of undulation well placed - 5 points
   c. Variety - 3 points

Bunkers and other hazards
   a. Nature, size and variety - 4 points
   b. Proper placing - 9 points

Length of hole
   a. Best length of holes - 8 points
   b. Variety and arrangement of length - 5 points

Quality of turf of fair green - 6 points
Width of fair green of the course - 45 to 60 yards - 3 points
Nature of teeing grounds and proximity to putting greens - 2 points

Total 100

In the next section, I will use this criteria to judge (and score) the merits of Muirfield as a first or world-class golf course.

The second criteria, which I believe can compliment the above scoring methods are the General Principles articulated by Alister Mackenzie in The Spirit of St Andrews. Mackenzie himself notes that golf is all about variety, so it is not wise to follow these guidelines strictly, but again, it can give us a strong view on what will make an ideal golf course.

The general principles are:

• The course where possible, should be arranged in two loops of nine holes.
• There should be a large proportion of good two-shot holes, and at least four one-shot holes.
• There should be little walking between the greens and tees, and the course should be arranged so that in the first instance there is always a slight walk forwards from the green to the next tee; then the holes are sufficiently elastic to be lengthened in the future if necessary.
• The greens and fairways should be sufficiently undulating, but there should be no hill climbing.
• Every hole should be different in character.
• There should be a minimum of blindness for the approach shots.
• The course should have beautiful surroundings, and all artificial features should have so natural an appearance that a stranger is unable to distinguish them from nature itself.
• There should be a sufficient number of heroic carries for the tee, but the course should be arranged so that the weaker player with the loss of a stroke, or portion of a stroke, shall always have an alternate route open to him.
• There should be an infinite variety in the strokes required to play various holes - that is, interesting brassie shots, iron shots, pitch and run-up shots
• There should be a complete absence of the annoyance and irritation caused by the necessity of searching for lost balls.
• The course should be so interesting that even the scratch man is constantly stimulated to improve his game in attempting shots he has hitherto been unable to play.
• The course should be so arranged that the long handicap player or even the absolute beginner should be able to enjoy his round in spite of the fact that he is piling up a big score. In other words, the beginner should not be continually harassed by losing strokes from playing out of sand bunkers. The layout should be so arranged that he loses strokes because he is making wide detours to avoid hazards.
• The course should be equally good during winter and summer, the texture of the greens and fairways should be perfect and the approaches should have the same consistency as the greens.

We now have two sets of criteria for how we can judge a first-rate or ideal golf course, but there remains the question of what the cut-off should be within these two criteria. For example, if a course was to score 80 out of 100 on the CB Macdonald scale, would it be considered world-class?

Well, doing a bit more research, I looked into a few articles on scoring world-class. According to an article published in the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, one expert noted that there was a difference in all sectors between world-class and best-in-class. World-class generally refers to a balanced approach to excellence, whereas best-in-class may talk about a superlative performance in a single category (think cars).

Taking this on-board, I can say that as it relates to Macdonald’s scoring criteria, a world-class course should not have less than 75% in any one particular overall category, thus, putting it in the first quartile of any bell-shaped curve for that particular criteria. This would mean that the points should add up to more than 75% as it relates to the Course, Putting Greens, Bunkers and other hazards, and Length of Holes.

Additionally, if we go back to the dictionary definitions, we understand that a world-class course must be superior to it’s ‘types’. Taking this on-board, I believe that a course must rank within the top .1% as it relates to at least one, if not more of the merits laid out by Macdonald. That means that out of 35,000 courses globally, in one particular category, the course should rank in the top 35 as it relates to one merit. Therefore, a world-class course must score a perfect number in at least one category, where it is superlative, and superior to other courses relative to that particular merit.

This will be highly contentious, but I believe this goes a long way in helping to bring perspective to our claims of world-class, but I appreciate that it is all subjective to some nature.

I will now work through the Macdonald criteria as it relates to Muirfield, and give scores accordingly. For Mackenzie’s guiding principles, I will pick those that I think would warrant debate, and highlight certain features that I believe gives Muirfield a compelling argument in winning favour among even those most staunchly against considering it a world-class golf course (Hello Ran!).

Now it is down to the fun part!

[Tim Gallant]

  Proof Points - Why Muirfield is world-class


Merit one: The course


Nature of the soil - This is quite an easy one that I believe we will all agree warrants high marks for Muirfield. I have played the course during all four seasons, and have spoken with those who have played it much more than I! The ground is universally firm, and the sand profile means that no matter the season, the course plays well in all conditions. I can’t remember hearing of the course going onto temp greens, and even in the coldest days of winter, the ground remains true and solid under foot.


I am by no means an expert and couldn’t tell you the direct profile of the ground, but it surely has to be some of the best suited soil for golf.


Points: 23


Perfection in undulation and hillocks


From the easiest category to the most challenging - the undulation and hillocks! Ran and others are always quick to point out that the name gives it away…for it is Muir…FIELD! But oh how deceptive the land can be. I don’t buy the argument that Muirfield is flat, and there is plenty of undulation to ensure a variety of shots are undertaken.


The second fairway has a big slope down and to the left, that often means players are hitting an approach from a side-hill lie. There are downhill shots at 4, 5 tee, 8 tee, 12 and 14 tee; uphill shots at 2 approach (potentially), 5, 6 tee, 7, 11 tee, and 13 tee.


But more than that, there are very interesting and subtle undulations in the fairways that give players uphill and downhill lies. 8 is a perfect example, where playing safely away from the bunkers brings into play these lovely mounds that often means players are left with sidehill lies. Side hill lies are so challenging to have on a true links as any larger undulations often means collection areas at the bottom of the mounds. Those at Muirfield can often be the perfect level to ensure you have to play your ball a foot below your stance!


Another example of great undulation can be found at 9 and 17 at just the point your second shot wants to land. At the 9th, there is a cavity along the right for those who play too safely away from the wall out of bounds that will ensure a funny lie or stance!


The principle feature is the high-point of the property where 5 & 11 green can be seen, and where 13 and 7 play up to, while 8 and 14 play down from. It creates the undulation you need and want from a links course on the sea.


All this being said, there is a concession that Muirfield does not possess the same type of undulation that can be found at North Berwick on holes like 2, 14, 16 and 17. The fairways are much more subtle in their rolls, but I believe it is not the weak spot that some claim it to be! While they may not have the wow factor that other courses have, the undulations at Muirfield, in my opinion, influence play much more than the bolder contours that we see elsewhere. It is in the small ripples and micro-undulations that players will find the challenging side hill / up & down hill lies that makes links golf so captivating.


Points: 18


Putting Greens

 Quality of turf:
This was likely more of an issue back in Macdonald’s day, but one can hardly argue that it isn’t still important today! I, like most on here, don’t equate turf quality on putting greens to speed. Rather, I am more concerned about pace relative to the slope, and ensuring a good, true, consistent roll on each green.


By this measure, Muirfield can hold its head very high indeed. The greens are continually fantastic throughout the year, and often putt just as good in the winter as in the summer. It is true that Luffness has the best turf quality on greens of any East Lothian course. However, Muirfield is not far behind, and Luffness might have the best greens in relation to turf quality of any course in Scotland!


At the level that Muirfield and other courses maintain their greens, it just depends on when players roll through town on what they will consider to be the best. You can realistically make an argument for a half-dozen courses in the UK&I, but I would put Muirfield right up there in that 6-10 range.


Points: 9


Nature of undulation well-placed & Variety:
I used to think that Muirfield greens were less interesting than others in the area, but after several plays, I believe that they have some of the better sets of greens of any Open Championship golf course. It is more in the variety than anything, and also because the undulation never looks man-made, unlike some newer links courses in Scotland.


I love the nature of the tilting greens at 2, 4, 7, and 9 on the front side. 9 in particular is almost perfect in relation to the strategy of the hole. There are treacherous bunkers and hollows up the right side, which is precisely the angle you want to come in from for the approach. Anything from the left is so fast down the slope. It was incredible to sit behind this green during the 2013 Open and watch players routinely pitch it short and let it trickle back to the pin.


On the back, the tilt continues on holes like 10, 13, and 16. But more than the tilt is the variety of the tilt. While 9 goes from L to R, 2 and 10 go from R to L, while several greens tilt from back to front in a severe fashion.


In addition to the tilting greens, there is more severe undulation than initially meets the eye!  Greens at 5, 11 and 15 in particular have more pronounced spines or hollows that alter the strategy depending on the pin location. 5 in particular is a wonderful green, as is the 11th with it’s small bowl off to the right.


18 is a unique undulating surface that seems to have a bit of a hump right in the middle of the green that impacts putts from all places! And 8 has a bit of a punchbowl element to it that again can impact the strategy of the shot execution.


It is no Deal, Machrihanish or Sandwich, but I would say the greens are very very good.


Nature of undulation well-placed Points: 4


Variety: 2


Bunkers and other hazards


Nature, size and variety:
I think most would agree that Muirfield has some of the best bunkering in the world, so I won’t dwell on this too long, but I will say that for a links course, the size and variety of the bunkers are second to none. There are donut bunkers, coffin bunkers, pot bunkers, L-shaped bunkers and almost every size and shape imaginable. It’s a breathe of fresh air really! They may be revetted, but I don’t know many other courses that have the variety that is shown at Muirfield.


Points: 4


Proper Placing:
Some might argue that it’s difficult to get placement wrong when you have so many bunkers. My counter would be to look at Lytham & St Annes. Not many people say that St Annes has the best bunkering in the UK, despite the fact that it has over 200! No, at Muirfield, every bunker has a purpose. Some are much more obvious than others, and like the Old Course, there are bunkers for prevailing winds, and bunkers for East winds. They are glorious in their placement, and together, they form the foundation for the strategic puzzle that is constantly being questioned and probed.


My favourite example of bunkering at Muirfield is the 12th. That one lone bunker in the fairway is enough to really make players think about their strategic attack. And that’s not just for scratch players. Even as a 10 handicap, I realise that playing a shot away from that bunker will likely leave my partner with the scariest short iron on the golf course. Genius!


Points: 9


Length of Holes


Best Length of holes:
Muirfield has a wonderful variety in length that is often missing in ‘Championship’ style courses. The par-3s vary in distance (13 and 7 playing shorter; 4 and 16 being stout). With the 4s, I love that there are tough, long, good two-shotters (1, 6, 8, 10, 14, 15 and 18), but I love how these are lovingly balanced with shorter par-4s at 2, 3, 11, and 12.


The par-5s will always be reachable one way, and not the other. If the wind is prevailing then 5 and 17 will play significantly easier, while 9 will play difficult, and vice versa if the wind switches. Always a true 3-shotter and a reachable 5!


Points: 7


Variety and arrangement of length:
I wrote this for a blog and I don’t know if anyone has thought of this before, but think about this: whether you start on the front or back, the challenge is almost identical: Tough 4, short 4, tricky 4, par 3, half par hole, tough 4, par 3, half par hole, great closer.


I’d say that has a great ebb and flow, and for a course that is still predominately a match-play course, it has a wonderful amount of variety in the arrangement of length


Points: 5


The other scores are as follows:


Quality of turf of fair green (assuming he means fairway): 6


Width of fair green: Now THIS is where the fight begins…over these lousy 3 points. I will concede that Muirfield is not the widest golf course off the tee. That said, they are not as bad as everyone says (at least now). I can back this up by saying that I have PERSONALLY paced fairways at Muirfield and North Berwick, and on the whole, Muirfield has wider fairways. What makes it seem worse is that at North Berwick, you generally then have 5 yards on either side of ‘1st-cut’ so very very light, and then pretty wispy stuff before 15 yards off the fairway you have heavier, but findable rough.


At Muirfield, there is no such luxury afforded. The rough is not as bad as some say on the whole, but it does eliminate the risk/reward element somewhat. Usually players grab a wedge just to get it back in play.


This one is tough to score, because I don’t think it’s as bad as many think it is, but there’s no denying that the fairways could do with a bit of widening.


Points: 1


Nature of teeing ground in proximity to the green:
Colt was the best, and this routing was his masterpiece. While it isn’t quite as convenient as the Old Course, it is masterfully routed, and from the boxes, the proximity is almost always directly off the green. Specifically at 2 to 3, 5 to 6, 7 to 8, 8 to 9, 10 to 11, 11 to 12, and 14 to 15, the tees are directly off the green. For the rest, it’s no longer than a 20 yard walk, often just because the path is cut around a hillock as oppose to over it!


Points: 2


So there you have it! My assessment on why I think Muirfield should and is a world-class golf course as it relates to Macdonald’s criteria.


Out of 100 points, Muirfield on my scale has scored 90 out of 100. Further, it passes the test as being in the .1% of courses as it relates to the category of bunkers and hazards and has not scored less than 75% in any one particular category.


Honestly, it feels good to put this down, but I know I have left a lot out (probably out of fatigue!). Before I start on using Mackenzie’s criteria, I’d love to get some debate going to see what others think. Maybe those who have played the course many times can help me out with pointing out elements I may have missed or forgotten.


For me, I wanted to write this as I believe Muirfield is one of the Top golf courses in the world. It isn’t an ‘in vogue’ course in that it isn’t quirky and short, and it doesn’t have frilly and or blow-out bunkers. But it is in my mind, the ultimate golf course that carries a balance that is so refined and perfect that it makes me think ‘wow’. As much as I love North Berwick, Prestwick and others like them, I love Muirfield more as a shining testament to what golf course architecture can be when done perfectly.

[Bob Montle]

I have strong opinions about what makes a course great, although they probably won't be shared by many here, except perhaps Pietro.

First off, I don't give an equine's rear end for conditioning, green speed or size, how many national championships have been played there or where it ranked by raters.   I have my criteria for what I want to see when I play.  My world class list is defined by MY criteria.   Golf Digest raters have their idea of world class.  GCA members have varying ideas but would agree on a short list of courses and argue until doomsday about others.  It all depends on personal preference.

In my younger years my idea of great courses were the ones I read about and saw on television.  After fifty years of golfing and having seen a larger variety of courses I have finally decided that I want to play on the type of courses I like.

And I don't mind a bit if you disagree with my criteria because THAT is what makes golf wonderful!  Each of us gets something different out of the game.  Each course is great for some golfers and terrible for others.  THAT IS GOLF!

My list, in no particular order:

Change of direction of holes is pleasurable.
Back and forth in straight lines is not.

Surprise factor.  Sometimes called quirkiness.  Unexpected challenges or rewards that bring a smile.

Fun factor.  How much did I enjoy the round.  Was it a slog or did each hole bring back a happy memory>

Repeat play attractiveness.  Some courses are wonderful you think, but you don't necessarily want to re-visit right away.

Setting.  Yes, this makes a difference to me.  I like lake or Oceanside courses.  Or courses nestled in dunes, or with expansive views like at Dismal.   TOC and North Berwick get bonus points from me for the town setting.

Aura or mood.  Machrihanish, North Berwick, TOC, and Fraserburgh have a special feeling to me.  The concept of time disappeared.  I could have been anywhere in any era. I think of it as the Brigadoon effect. I played with a smile on my face for the entire rounds. 

Greens a)   I like them medium to small in size and with undulations.  And as fast as the undulations allow.   My favorite greens thus far ar Doak's course at Dismal and Machrahanish.
Greens -b)   I want to be able to roll the ball onto the green, assuming I have put the ball on the right side of the fairway to do so.  I detest courses which require me to carry the ball 150 to 170 yds over sand or water and then try to stop it on the green.

Tactics.  I like to discover that there are multiple routes to the green.  Multiple comparable routes, where the best one varies each time you play depending on the wind or season.  TOC has this more than any other course I have played. I detest narrow fairways cut out of forests with zero options.

Undulations and change of elevations.  I detest absolutely flat courses with straight holes.

Curves and doglegs.   Same as above.  They add to most of the above listed criteria.

Trees.   I do not mind trees per-se.   I didn't miss them at TOC.   I hated them at Ladybank.    If they were Bubba-proof at Augusta then 13 would be a good example of dogleg with tree.    Even a tree near the middle of a fairway adds to some holes.  Do you go right?  left?  Over?

Give me a course which satisfies MY criteria and I'll give you what I call a World Class Course.    Since I am paying the green fees, I want to make myself happy.  It may not be your idea of world class, but it works for me!

[Tim Gallant]

Great write-up Bob and I think we share similar views on golf courses.

[Tom_Doak]

First of all, Tim, that's a great deep dive on Muirfield.  I don't know if I agree 100% with all of your points, but one I will loudly second is that I think the course has one of the best sets of green contours in the U.K.


However, I wanted to respond to Bob's post.  I don't disagree with much of what he has to say, other than the fact I am very skeptical when people make rules about what is or isn't a Great Golf Course, because to me some of the best courses are those that break the rules and succeed.  So, to that point, I wanted to show Bob some of the exceptions that make his Rules moot for me.  In honor of Patrick Mucci, I will use green ink below:

I have strong opinions about what makes a course great, although they probably won't be shared by many here, except perhaps Pietro.

First off, I don't give an equine's rear end for conditioning, green speed or size, how many national championships have been played there or where it ranked by raters.   I have my criteria for what I want to see when I play.  My world class list is defined by MY criteria.   Golf Digest raters have their idea of world class.  GCA members have varying ideas but would agree on a short list of courses and argue until doomsday about others.  It all depends on personal preference.  I totally agree with this, but would point out that the top 100 lists are populated with multiple courses that are only there because they host big tournaments.

In my younger years my idea of great courses were the ones I read about and saw on television.  After fifty years of golfing and having seen a larger variety of courses I have finally decided that I want to play on the type of courses I like.

And I don't mind a bit if you disagree with my criteria because THAT is what makes golf wonderful!  Each of us gets something different out of the game.  Each course is great for some golfers and terrible for others.  THAT IS GOLF!

My list, in no particular order:

Change of direction of holes is pleasurable.
Back and forth in straight lines is not.  Inverness is a great course because it manages to get so much variety out of a back and forth routing.  Oakmont, Merion, Kingston Heath, and SFGC have mostly parallel holes.

Surprise factor.  Sometimes called quirkiness.  Unexpected challenges or rewards that bring a smile.  Just among the 10's on the Doak Scale, Murifield and Pinehurst #2 have not that much quirk, and you could argue that Royal Melbourne doesn't.

Fun factor.  How much did I enjoy the round.  Was it a slog or did each hole bring back a happy memory>  Too dependent on how you played that day, as is the case for most raters, honestly.

Repeat play attractiveness.  Some courses are wonderful you think, but you don't necessarily want to re-visit right away.  I'm really curious if the last half of that statement meant that's a good thing, or disqualifying?  I agree that a great course should make you want to play again, but not always right away.

Setting.  Yes, this makes a difference to me.  I like lake or Oceanside courses.  Or courses nestled in dunes, or with expansive views like at Dismal.   TOC and North Berwick get bonus points from me for the town setting.  So, you've disqualified Oakmont for sure, and then maybe Pinehurst #2 (and Kingston Heath and Oakland Hills and The Loop and many others).

Aura or mood.  Machrihanish, North Berwick, TOC, and Fraserburgh have a special feeling to me.  The concept of time disappeared.  I could have been anywhere in any era. I think of it as the Brigadoon effect. I played with a smile on my face for the entire rounds.  I don't know how to quantify the Brigadoon effect.  Aura is in the eye of the beholder.

Greens a)   I like them medium to small in size and with undulations.  And as fast as the undulations allow.   My favorite greens thus far ar Doak's course at Dismal and Machrahanish.  Really, my course at Dismal River?  There are more natural greens there [without edits] than at most of my courses, but I think you are the first to pick them out as being my best greens.
Greens -b)   I want to be able to roll the ball onto the green, assuming I have put the ball on the right side of the fairway to do so.  I detest courses which require me to carry the ball 150 to 170 yds over sand or water and then try to stop it on the green.  Agreed, but this is a straw man:  not many courses actually require even one approach shot to carry 150-170 yards over sand or water to the green.

Tactics.  I like to discover that there are multiple routes to the green.  Multiple comparable routes, where the best one varies each time you play depending on the wind or season.  TOC has this more than any other course I have played. I detest narrow fairways cut out of forests with zero options.  So you would not like Club Zur Vahr in Bremen, Germany, for its narrow clearings.  To me, if you're going to build a golf course through a forest, it's important to make the forest the main part of the challenge, instead of clearing 80-yard-wide fairways.  There are not many great courses that were cut out of forests, though.

Undulations and change of elevations.  I detest absolutely flat courses with straight holes.  I agree, although Anthony Nysse will beg to differ.

Curves and doglegs.   Same as above.  They add to most of the above listed criteria.  There are lots of great golf courses with [mostly] straight holes.  San Francisco Golf Club is a great example:  the bunkers give life to fairway movement, but you are still usually aiming at the green from the tee.

Trees.   I do not mind trees per-se.   I didn't miss them at TOC.   I hated them at Ladybank.    If they were Bubba-proof at Augusta then 13 would be a good example of dogleg with tree.    Even a tree near the middle of a fairway adds to some holes.  Do you go right?  left?  Over?  So you have no rule about trees?  Good, you are starting to get the hang of this! 

Give me a course which satisfies MY criteria and I'll give you what I call a World Class Course.    Since I am paying the green fees, I want to make myself happy.  It may not be your idea of world class, but it works for me!

[Tim Gallant]

Thanks Tom!


Any green in particular at Muirfield that inspires you? The more I play 15, the more I love that green. The ridge through the middle is quite special.

[Clyde Johnson]

Nice post Tim. I tend to think of Muirfield as the second most architecturally interesting course in GB&I...in spite of only having played it once with frozen greens, and being escorted off the last time I exercised my 'right to roam'.


I'm not sure they are quite in the class of St Andrews, Muirfield or Dornoch, but I would also add North Berwick and Prestwick to the list of must sees when advising on golf in Scotland.

[jeffwarne]

Any thoughts ?


Niall

Thankfully, most of the world believes it's 5-8,
which tends to contain and concentrate the beltnotchers etc.
Freeing up the other hundreds of gems for the rest of us to enjoy.
I always get a kick when someone tells me they "DID" Scotland last year.....

[Jim Nugent]

Pine Valley... is a great course and was a fabulous experience to play there. My two rounds will be something that I will always remember but it is not a course I would ever have considered taking my Dad to (22 was his best handicap) as it would have been unplayable for him on many of the holes. I cannot find a way to of calling a course world class which has such a flaw in its design.

Jon

What is the cutoff point for world class?  Must a 22-handicapper be able to finish all holes?  If not all, how many?  Must the course be able to accommodate a 30 handicapper who carries his/her drives 150 yards? 

[Sean_A]

Sorry Tim, I missed this very thoughtful and helpful analysis. I can't say I disagree with much though I would be very interested in reading a breakdown of why all 150 bunkers are necessary or at least meaningful enough to be necessary. That said, I appreciate the aesthetic qualities of the bunkering in so much as they are attractive in the way a hot librarian might be 😕. I know it's unthinkable in the same way Pinehurst's greens are, but do you think the site could have afforded more visually dynamic bunkers rather than the button down style which currently exists? I ask because it seems to me the course could actually be better for the variety, much in the same way Pinehurst could be better with greens more akin to the Ross originals.

Ciao

The issue you raise which is most interesting are the greens. I never had the impression Muirfield's greens were anything to point out as special. I play a ton of courses where tilt is well used that never get a mention. This is one reason why I cite Beau Desert as a far better course than is generally acknowledged.

[Thomas Dai]

Muirfield - a question - when did 'the hay' become a feature?
The photo below, from the 1930's, doesn't seem to show that much.
How about Muirfield with closely mown grass everywhere, given the number of bunkers that might be interesting from the width and options perspective!
atb

[Sean_A]

ATB

That is where I was going. Muirfield is a good size site which seems ideal for more let it all hangout design, especially with the cool routing...which BTW Old Tom Morris deserves at least as much credit for as does Colt. Muirfield's design strikes me as tight lipped and bit anal when compared to a place like Sandwich or TOC. I think Muirfield and I have a personality clash 😎

Ciao

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()