What is Bob Charles like as an architect?

[J Westcott]

I've heard he has some pretty good courses. Particularly Millbrook in N.Z.

Anyone played any of his work? Good/bad points?

cheers,
John

[Ran Morrissett]

I have played Millbrook and it was OK, maybe a 4 on the Doak scale. Lots of mounds and no strategy with no standout hole save for maybe the 18th.

The scenery and the resort itself are FAR better than the course.

I understand this was Charles' best work when it opened, but maybe he has gotten better in the past 5 years but I doubt it.

[Mark_Huxford]

...and you'd be right Ran. This is his last course he did - Formosa in Auckland.

It's a shame no one has shown him how to design as due to his reputation in New Zealand he gets some spectacular sites.

Mark,

[Mark_Huxford]

Sorry, just thought I'd ask. What do some of you real architects think when you consider how hard you fight to do a design over an old landfill or industrial zone, and then see a hole that poor on a site so beautiful?  

[Ran Morrissett]

Wow! That hole is indeed fascinatingly bad. In 20-30 years, an NZ architect will be able to make a living by going around and gutting Charles courses.

[BarnyF]

Would somebody please say what is wrong with the hole rather than just make blanket off the wall statements.  I know the bunker shapes are distasteful to the american eye but the split fairway may have stategic merit.  It looks as if the hole may have an advantage for the left handed player...about time in a right handed world.  Ran I find it as juvinile for you to say you "doubt" Bob Charles will ever improve as when you said Fazio has built nothing interesting past 1995.  Such blanket statements only reduce the credibility of this site.

[Dick Stanley]

Forget Tom Fazio.

Is Bob Charles utilizing Rees Jones Inc. to actually design his courses?

[Ran Morrissett]

BarneyF,

I could care less what you think given your gutless nature not to post under your own name - that's what hurts the site.

It is hard to make specific comments without knowing the topo, the length of the hole,  and without knowing if the course is a resort or not.

Given where the cart path swerves into the fairway and the long bunker left of the green, I would hope the hole is a par five but the bunker on the inside of the dogleg suggests that it may be a par four.

Regardless, the tree planting is pointless and a waste of money. The bunkering is a joke given its artificial and detached nature and the bunkers on the outside of the hole are pointless. Also, there is no split fairway so whatever strategic merit you may be hoping for does not in fact seem to exist.

Unless there is a severe front right to back left tilt in the green, the angle of the green itself (which appears to point into the bunker) is wrong.

Perhaps the teeing area is flat however.

Cheers,

[John_Conley]

Like his golf swing, the courses he designs look nearly perfect in a mirror.

[Ken_Cotner]

Ran,

A couple questions for my education:

What do you mean by the angle of the green being wrong, and it points into the bunker?  As the last part of the hole looks to dogleg left, the angle seems OK to me. Do you mean it points back left to front right into the front right bunker?

The apparent look of the bunkers does appear jarringly artificial and the trees are unnecessary, but which is the "outside" of the hole?  Looks like it may be a double dogleg to me.

Also looks like there is a second fairway on the left, although there appears to be zero reason to go there.

Thanks,
Ken

[T_MacWood]

Ken
If you look at the orientation of the green the best approach would be from the right hand fairway bunker on the inside of the dogleg, actually right of the cart path would create the optimum angle.

BarneyF/John/Spooon
You shouldn't take out your frustration with Golf's failure to rank VN on Ran. You need look back at the date of the quote you are referencing; even a huge Fazio supporter like yourself would have to admit his slump, even Ron Whitten made mention of his work during that period.

[Ran Morrissett]

Ken,

The fairway and green are not connected i.e. the ideal angle into the green seems to be to from the right of the fairway, as opposed to being in the fairway itself. This is especially true if the hole is a par 4.

I say this in part by assuming that the prevalent wind direction is from left to right, based on the leaning of the tree in the distance behind the green.

By "outside", I was referring to the three bunkers at the bottom right of the photo. Having a hole bunkering on both sides (especially in a windy location) epitomizes overbunkering. Wouldn't the hole be more interesting if there were no bunkers there? The player is lured into thinking that left is OK but then the architect's trap is sprung as the player wants to play this hole down the right hand side.

If I'm the architect, I would want to lure the player who has missed the fairway to the left to try a herioc recovery shot and go for the green. By putting such small bunkers there (and the trees), I suggest that the chance for such a gallant recovery is minimal.

MacKenzie's work at Royal Melbourne is so brilliant in part because he gives the poorer player miles of room to play but the further he strays away from hazards that protect the ideal angle into the green, the worse his angle gets. With such a shining example as RM a few hours away, I am amazed that an architect would still bunker the outside of the dogleg. The bunkering above is the polar opposite to RM, and it is a pity that Charles never learned anything from the greatest course within 14,000 kms of NZ.

My impression is that area of grass to the left of the fairway is not a prepared surface and has nothing to do with the hole. If it is a 2nd fairway, then the hole is even worse than I imagine as it makes no sense as you.

Further points to add:  perhaps the shrubs etc. behind the green are a) protected and/or b) need to protect the green from sea spray but wouldn't it be lovely to have a horizon green as opposed to framing behind the green?

What are those dots in the left hand green side bunker? Trees? Clumps of beach grass? Hmmmm....nice touch whatever they are.

Also, seeing any high side of a green's entrance bunkered (as appears in this case on the right) takes away the option of slinging a running hook down off the bank and down the length of the green. To take away such a fun low running shot in a windy location is a CRIME and exemplifies poor modern architecture where the aerial game dominates.

Cheers,

[Note: This message has been edited by David]

[ForkaB]

Ran

As Pine Valley and Pebble Beach and all points on the globe are less than 14,000 miles from any point in New Zealand (or any other point on the globe), does this mean that RM is the greatest course in the world?  If so, why?

PS--I'd hate to think what you would say of an aerial photo of The Old Course if you had never played it and had no previous knowledge of it!

[Ken Cotne]

Got it, Ran, thanks.  Depending on the distance, an approach from the middle of the fairway looks semi-Redanish, except for the bunkers on the right and lack of bunkers behind.  Green slope is unknown of course.

Regarding the 3 small bunkers left of the fairway, maybe the sheep in NZ burrow symmetrically?  

If they planted the shrubs/trees behind the green, they must have gone to a LOT of effort.  My guess it it's natural, but who knows.

As I won't judge without actually seeing the course, I think I need a trip!  When is hiking season there?

KC

[Paul_Daley]

Rich: Many knowledgable, well-travelled golfers consider the West Course at Royal Melbourne to be the finest golf course on the planet.

Sadly, modern technology can make a nonsense of that statement, but then again, that's not the fault of RMGC.

[Paul_Daley]

Rich: Many knowledgable, well-travelled golfers consider the West Course at Royal Melbourne to be the finest golf course on the planet.

Sadly, modern technology can make a nonsense of that statement, but then again, that's not the fault of RMGC.

[richard]

Guys,

This is what I log into GCA for ?
Not for rantings about terrorists, or inane lists, but to bung a photo of a golf hole (good or bad) and critique it.

I really enjoy the differing opinions of how a green/ bunker should be positioned etc etc..
I an primarily here to learn something.

Lets keep this theme of posting at the top of the list.

[richard]

Oh, and another thing...

This looks like the site Mark got the photo from. http://www.formosa.co.nz/golf.html

There look to be a few more.."interesting" pics there.
Could someone please explain to me what those things are in the bunker on the 8th hole.

[ForkaB]

Paul

I very much hope to play RM some day.  It is certainly in my top-5 not yet played courses.

A couple of questoins, even though it's getting off the Bob Charles topic:

1.  Given that the RM that is played in tournaments is a composite course, does that make any difference in how one might rate it, regadless of what system you do (or do not) use?  Can one play the composite course if they visit?
2.  Do you really think that the fact that today's pros might be able to hit driver-wedge around the course in the right conditions makes "nonsense" of your statement about RM?  I don't.

Cheers

Rich

[T_MacWood]

 

They appear to be tomb stones - perhaps for the unlucky golfer who attempts to play around them.

[Ran Morrissett]

Tom, Thanks for sharing that one. Forget my posts above - they were far too kind!

[richard]

I worked it out.

The guy in the foto (looking remarkably like Frank Nobilo) was hitting a few putts on the newly constructed green (while the course was still in the construction phase).

A truck driving thru the site accidentally dropped a couple of tree stumps (that incidentally were painted white) as he drove thru the bunker, and amazingly landed on their ends, thus creating the "totem pole" theme.

If you other design guys don't jump on the "totem pole" bandwagon in your bunker designs, you will be left behind in this exciting new and innovative design trend.

All jokes aside...what was he thinking ?

[ForkaB]

Whatever he was thinking, he was thinking it consistently.  The blown up picture of the 8th hole (the one that Ran originally posted) shows those mysterious forms in that long left bunker too.

Let's not rush to judgement on this.  It could be that the sand is very firm and people have just forgotten to rake the bunkers....

[Jason_Henham]

Rich,

I'll jump in. The composite course at Royal Melbourne can't be officially played by a visitor. In fact, only one competition is held on the composite course for members each year!

In terms of rankings, the East course is considered the weaker of the two courses, although consistently remains in Australia's top 5 or 6 courses. It contains 6 of the composite course's holes, although this may be more as a result of location rather than hole design (there are road crosses when playing both courses, the East course having more holes across the road than on the main area of land).

I can't remember a time when Royal Melbourne West wasn't ranked #1 in Australia, and justifiably so.

In relation to the statement that modern technology impacts the place RM has amongst the world's best, I disagree (sorry Paul. Are we still on for Tuesday night?   ). If modern technology only impacted on RM, then that would be the case. However, it has affected all courses. In fact, I would suggest that with Royal's green complexes being one of it's major defences, it may well have withstood the technology onslaught better than most.

Jason.

[Ran Morrissett]

Technology has affected RM less than any inland, parkland course because RM is near a body of water and the wind can play a huge factor (though it never blew during the Presidents Cup).

Rich, I easily vote for the West Course of RM in the world top 10 for GOLF and there is NO better ten hole stretch in the world than 3-12 on the West course. I reckon that the day to day course should be voted on/ranked as opposed to Composite courses. In RM's case, the difference is relatively small compared to what I perceive to be the difference at The Country Club with their "two" courses.