How can an old classic compete with the new mega$$ projects coming every yr?

[Scott Coan]

Let’s imagine for a moment that Julian Robertson has decided to make Paraparaumu Beach the third jewel in his New Zealand string of pearls.   Where could it rank ?  

It’s been described by many touring pros as the greatest links course in the Southern hemisphere, but it’s dangerously close to falling off the Top100 list (1999 #79, 2001 #95, 2003 #99).  

My question to the forum is where could it rank with the proper direction / investment ?

We’ve had Greg Turner in recently to give some much needed direction and advice and the near future should see us really get the course firmed up and rough trimmed back to allow for the lay of the land to provide the test as opposed to long grass.  He’s told me that we are operating the course at just 30% of it’s potential.  

The new 18th tee should return to it’s original position and Greg has suggested a new black tee be put in beside the 11th green which would make for a crossover but would provide the added length and maintain the proper dogleg that Russell envisioned.

He’s also recommended some new bunkering.  One at the front left of 7 green, one at the dogleg on 8, two fairway bunkers down the left of 12, and two at the dogleg on 18.

I am all in favor of the new bunkers but my problem is that we can’t seem to maintain the bunkers we currently have on the course.  The sand that we use is just dune sand and has the consistency of talcum powder.  A bit of wind and the stuff just piles up on edge.

We recently had some Top100 panelists in New Zealand for the Renaissance Cup at Cape Kidnappers and a few came to play Paraparaumu.  They were greatly impressed,  could not understand why it was not ranked higher, and planned to rank it much higher in the next survey.

The management of the club is currently reviewing all it's options.  In a perfect world, what would you do?

[Kevin_Reilly]

We’ve had Greg Turner in recently to give some much needed direction and advice and the near future should see us really get the course firmed up and rough trimmed back to allow for the lay of the land to provide the test as opposed to long grass.  He’s told me that we are operating the course at just 30% of it’s potential.  

Do you think the course needs changes/improvements aside from length (do you agree with the 30% figure cited above) or is this question more focused on the rankings aspect?

[Mark_Guiniven]

When Scott says "the management of the club is currently reviewing all its options" believe him for he sits on the committee at Paraparam and has, apparently, joined this group of his own volition. Here's your chance, golfclubatlas, to help one of your own.

[RJ_Daley]

Scott, you did say "in a perfect world" so...

I'd try to find a way to take the modern length effect away.  Firm and fast fairways and roughs mowed low to run the ball further off line and into the hay where longer players are now hitting it.  Allow the premium reward for a well struck shot to the garden spot in the FWs if it is played precisely to the right angle and distance, even if the modern player can now smoke it longer than the garden spot.  

I'm looking at the 2 tiered FW at 17 and thinking that you would like to keep the real option of selecting the lower FW or long deeper drive with more risk to go long.  I imagine that now, getting to the longer spot is not as difficult or risky, taking the original consideration out of it for those top modern players.  I don't think one can have a top ranked course (not that I personally give a rip about the rankings) if you don't keep the original intent options a real consideration, rather than always loosing out to the "grip it and rip it" mentality.

Are you sure those newly added FW bunkers are oriented to the correct side?  What if at least half of them go against conventional wisdom and are placed on the side that really challenges the line of charm idea rather than contain the doglegs?  Let the firm and fast run out to rough be the challenge deep in the dogleg, and since your course is known for smallish pot bunkers, place those to be challenged and risky to open up the best line into the green.  

I wish I really might actually see your course, rather than pure speculation and looking at the World Atlas of Golf and trying to rely on seeing the course on TV.  It also seems that you have an abundance of smallish crowned or turtle back greens, with big fall off slopes, as I remember.  I dont believe those are conducive to the modern game.  But, that is a good thing in my humble opinion.  Yet, I don't think that gets a consensus of postive reviews of course raters, if that is what you are after.

And finally, in the spirit of true "perfect world" and think outside the box solutions:  Buy thousands of specified balls that are dialed back 15 years in distance/performance technology, put the Paraparaumu logo on them, and only allow them to be played on your course!   You can get away with that in New Zealand, can't you?  

[Joel_Stewart]

My question to the forum is where could it rank with the proper direction / investment ?

This a very dangerous question and the word "proper" is in whos eyes?

There have been clubs in the US that have made many changes and moved way up in the rankings (Oak Hill as an example) and then courses that have made changes and dropped (Medalist as an extreme example).

I've been a panelist many years and have never been able to predict where a course will rank.  I can tell you older clubs in general have trouble with getting panelists to play which your comments seem to verify.

In your case I'm not even sure what the point is?  Are the members not happy with the course or are you not able to sell new memberships.

Why does the club worry about rankings?  I'll post more later.

[Chris Kane]

I suspect that Greg Turner's comment about Paraparam operating at 30% relates to soft greens and excessive rough; not a desire to make architectural changes.

[Mark_Guiniven]

Right Chris. Greg's one of the good guys.

What does Brian Hinton want to do Scott?

Is the club serious about developing land on the CH side of the stream? Can you imagine Merion doing that or another similar-sized great course?

[Scott_Burroughs]

I was asked to post this aerial of Paraparaumu Beach.

I didn't know the course was surrounded by housing.  From
the little bit of the NZ Open I caught a few years back (the
one with the "Tiger fiasco"), I don't remember seeing any housing.



The aerial above is actually shrunken considerably for the dial-up folks.
The larger, actual size version of this aerial can be seen here

[Scott Coan]

Thanks to all who have posted to this thread as I have found this website to be a tremendous resource.  By way of introduction, I came across GCA by “googling” around the internet researching various golfing subjects and have found the topics and information fascinating.  I emailed Ran and mentioned that I was a member at Paraparaumu Beach and he welcomed me aboard.  My formative golfing years were spent in SE Massachusetts so it’s great to be able to read about the new developments there (Old Sandwich & Boston Golf).  I have relocated to NZ where I have lived for the past 4 years and I now sit on the Paraparaumu Beach Men’s committee and happily play these wonderful links at least once per week and I pinch myself after every round.

My initial post went in a bunch of directions so I’ll attempt to answer some of the questions/replies posed:

Paraparaumu Beach wants to stay in the Top100 list.  There are many who say, “Who gives a stuff about rankings?” and they are correct because at the end of the day it’s a completely subjective survey that does not impact my weekly game of golf one bit.  Having said that there is a prestige factor that cannot be denied.  Golfers want to play Top100 courses and members like to remind themselves that they are a member at a Top100 course.  Green fee income adds to our bottom line.  I would think that the ability to call our course a Top100 track significantly contributes to tourist’s decision to play Paraparaumu Beach.

We have been steadily dropping, from #79 in 1999 to #99 in 2003.  Part of this decline is natural as incredible new courses are coming online every year.  Another part of the decline is self-inflicted as many have commented that the course has not been set up for it’s ultimate play.

What can we do to maximize what has been passed on to us by Alex Russell on this small piece of New Zealand dunescape?  

If we had unlimited resources, what would be the first thing you would do?  Re-do every green.  Re-lay every bunker?  Tear down the clubhouse and reposition in order to construct a new 18th green?  Some say the course is simply too short to compete with the modern day wonders.  Do we grab some extra length?  (Despite the tightness there are some spots for added length on 2, 7, 8, 9).  We did add some length for the “Tiger” Open in 2001.  The 3rd was extended to good reviews and the 18th was extended but the changed angle has not been very well received.

Of course in the real world we have limited resources.  What’s the first thing you would do in this sense?  Add new fairway bunkers?  Trim the rough and where?  Grow the rough and where?  Get the greens sorted out?  There have been endless complaints about the state of our greens.  (I’m sure every course has them, too soft, too slow, too bumpy…)  The NZ Turf Institute has us on a program to maximize the Poa Annua.  I have seen completely opposed opinions that say we should go all Bent.

Thank you in advance for any and all input you can provide!

[Joel_Stewart]

Scott:

I spoke with someone who has played there quite a bit.  He mentioned 2 things that I thought was telling.

First, its his understanding that the grounds crew only consists of 4 people.  I'm not sure if that is true but I would say the decline of the condition of the course could be directly related to the number of people on the ground staff.

Second.  The club for some reason is broke and can't afford to spend any money on anything.  Perhaps you might know why the club has virtually no money.

Lastly, and Scott provided the photo, the cheap housing on #13 is an eyesore.  Why hasn't the club tried to place some bushes or trees to block the view?

[Mark_Guiniven]

In recent times I suppose a few people could be accused of having champagne tastes on a beer budget Joel, for putting the money into bricks and mortar at the expense of the golf course, but to be honest the club has never really been able to build up considerable wealth over its history. Always slightly detached from the city, it just hasn't attracted the wealthy benefactors Miramar and Royal Wellington have, even though PB is streets ahead architecturally. But if you then have to fall back on the average golfer more because of that, why would you systematically narrow the course and grow the rough and then be pompous enough to tell him he doesn't understand links golf when it is in fact you who do not understand it?

Mike Clayton summed it up best at the last Open here.

"If they widened the fairways, got themselves some decent, firm bent greens and cut all the long mess around the greens it might play the way Mackenzie would hope and his partner Russell envisaged."

I have copies of Alex Russell's notes and plans and there is an extensive tree-planting screen at several points along the perimeter; particularly the Marton Rd boundary (13, 14). He actually writes about the 13th "trees should be planted along fence to hide cottages". The trees went in as per the instructions, but were cut down ten years ago as part of a plan to return the course to more of a true links. Hence the off-site eyesores.

[Mike_Clayton]

Scott

I played Paraparaumu last month on my way up to Kidnappers.
The course was almost exactly as it was for the Open Tiger played in.
The greens were poor especially for a course so dependent on firm seaside greens reminissent of the greens one would find on the great links of Britain.
As I have said to Mark many times,Portsea is a perfect model for Paraparaumu because it is set up the in a manner which is perfect for PB.
The greens - once miserable, soft, bumpy poa were transformed into beautiful surfaces by Bruce Grant (without rebuilding them) and long grass plays no part in the strategy of the course.

It has always seemed to me the course sets up with narrow fairways that are unbelievably difficult to hit if they are firm and the wind is blowing and soft greens.
The narrowness is the only defence simply because the greens provide none because you can stop a ball on them even though it is played from the wrong side of the hole e.g right of #4 and #8.
Widen the course out and let the ball run to where the ground  and gravity takes it naturally,firm up the greens and PB would be even more fun than it is now.
Making it harder is not about length and if you think it is an insufficient challenge for the pros ( who are largely irrelevant anyway) just rename the 18th a par 4. That finish (17 and 18) will get their attention.

Nor do I go along with the line about not being able to maintain the bunkers you have.
Every time I have been there they have been perfect hazards that looked like they needed no maintenance.The wind does that.They have  a lot of bunkers at Portsea and they are rarely tendered.With only 6 on the staff they have more important things to do!!

Mark also spoke about Russell's alternative plan for the 12th and that sounded really interesting.
We also played 15 from the old green site at 14 as a crossover and it worked really well.
It seemed to me the biggest long term issues regarding the design are the problems with the houses down the left of 10 and 11.
If those holes were on any course in Australia they would have been altered - or eliminated - 20 years ago.

And, like many courses in Australia the fees are too low (I suspect) for the world class golf course the members play every week.
It is fine if people truly cannot afford more but you can never be held back by miserable people who simply don't want to pay more.
Would I be right in saying the fees are less than $500 US a year?



Call Bruce Grant!! Dermot has his number.

[Mark_Guiniven]

Hey Mike,
Glad you found this thread mate. It sure was fun to make those mad detours the last time you were here. To take you up that dune on 12 where you just know Russell would have stood all those years ago to look at that channel hole he wanted to do. And 15 of course from the corner. God you can still flush it can't you? The other one I didn't get to show you is the 8th across the little hell's half acre behind 7 green from the dunes down the left of 7, on the fence. There are two pure tees up there. The one beside the norfolk is 387m and the other is 333m against the current length of 343m. Would free up the 5th to occasionally play off the plateau tee Norman Von Nida really liked (above the bunker on 7). At the moment the current 8th ch tee blocks it and it really crowds out a lot of the view from the lower tee too. Whyte built it sometime after the '67 Open here.

You know, it doesn't have to be all doom and gloom. They just need to get the thinking right. Mackenzie is key because Russell didn't write his own book. Putting some proper drainage in down 18 to lower the water table. Gutting all that clumsy stuff from three years ago with the exception of the new 3rd tee. Converting the greens... "take it no one from the New Zealand Turf Institute plays golf"... reducing that dependancy on the irrigation system. You know I would invite Bruce here for a full turf assessment tomorrow if it were up to me. Get them firm and just widen out the course from there. Merged fairways. Irregular curves and islands. There's your playabilty, strategic interest, design intent, approach play variety and shortgame interest. Screen off the perimeter, unclutter the interior and create some habitats and you've got yourself a golf course again.

My initial post went in a bunch of directions so I'll attempt to answer some of the questions/replies posed:

Paraparaumu Beach wants to stay in the Top100 list.  There are many who say, "Who gives a stuff about rankings?" and they are correct because at the end of the day it's a completely subjective survey that does not impact my weekly game of golf one bit.  Having said that there is a prestige factor that cannot be denied.  Golfers want to play Top100 courses and members like to remind themselves that they are a member at a Top100 course.  Green fee income adds to our bottom line.  I would think that the ability to call our course a Top100 track significantly contributes to tourist's decision to play Paraparaumu Beach.

Reading between the lines Scott I'm sure you were just trying to gain an understanding of where people feel this course fits into the scheme of things and its relevance to golf today. But that's something quite different from asking for the number where it could rank. It makes it sound like you would fix the course if the reply came back top 50, but not if the reply came back 101. IMO you don't fix the course because of a number. You fix it so the club can prosper and so current and future generations have the opportunity to enjoy the game on a higher plane. It also happens to be the right thing to do when you consider the efforts of the early enthusiasts.

What can we do to maximize what has been passed on to us by Alex Russell on this small piece of New Zealand dunescape?  If we had unlimited resources, what would be the first thing you would do? Re-do every green. Re-lay every bunker? Tear down the clubhouse and reposition in order to construct a new 18th green?

The club can not afford to rebuild every green and if they would just change their cultural practices they wouldn't have to. The native areas between holes like 12 and 17 are like a window into the way the course used to be and the way it could be again. You find the most beautiful browntop and fine fescues all over the property but as soon as you get within shouting distance of an irrigation point the turf changes and all you see is poa. Dave Wilber once wrote something very poignant about Cape Kidnappers that I think could apply equally well to Paraparam. He wrote: "it was clear from the very moment we reached the site that it is a paradise for growing grass. One need only look at the grasses already grown for animal forage to see how well this site is set up. However, we should also keep in mind that Nature has been the only irrigation system on the site and our efforts to irrigate will dramatically change how grass grows. The wispy grasses are the way they are due to grazing and seasonal irrigation from local rain patterns."

Mike is of course right about the bunkers. Take that back left bunker on four they redid as an example. You knew the wind made the sand go like that and that the back lip was undercut, and you knew if you tried to hit it too far into that green there was a chance that was where the ball would go. So it influenced your strategy playing the hole which is what a bunker is supposed to do. You're not supposed to be able to eat your dinner out of them. Alex Russell wrote to Lake Karrinyup, which was his major course in WA, "formation work is best done with a scoop and hazards formed in this way and left rough and unfinished always look more natural." Yet the guys still spade the edges and try and make them look 'tidy'. The 'worse' they look the better IMO. They should all look like the front one on the 10th.

Some say the course is simply too short to compete with the modern day wonders.  Do we grab some extra length?  (Despite the tightness there are some spots for added length on 2, 7, 8, 9).  We did add some length for the "Tiger" Open in 2001.  The 3rd was extended to good reviews and the 18th was extended but the changed angle has not been very well received.

Those that say the course is too short are often the same people signing for an 81 the first time any kind of pressure goes on. The only place the beach is short is on the scorecard, because it doesn't have four boring 200yd par 3s like Clearwater, or a fourth par 5. Numbers 1, 3, 4, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 17 and 18 are all pretty stout two-shotters. Three of them just happen to be called par-fives so the total par doesn't drop below 70, but no one who's any good walks off any of them happy with more than a four.

Of course in the real world we have limited resources.  What's the first thing you would do in this sense?  Add new fairway bunkers?  Trim the rough and where?  Grow the rough and where?  Get the greens sorted out?  There have been endless complaints about the state of our greens.  (I'm sure every course has them, too soft, too slow, too bumpy…)  The NZ Turf Institute has us on a program to maximize the Poa Annua.  I have seen completely opposed opinions that say we should go all Bent.

I don't think the NZTI needed much encourgement to throw in the towel when it came to bent grass, but Joe Vargas, Tom Cook and David Huff certainly accelerated that trend when they started coming out here ten years ago. The NZTI pander to golfers who want to play on receptive colour that putts okay just like they see on television from America. That means water and fertility and any excess in those two areas mean ruined turf. As Mike's other agronomist John Sloan wrote: "When I see lush green grass I think the golf course is overwatered, overfertilised and must cost a lot of money to maintain. Let us go back to playing golf on tough grass, not on green colour masquerading as a quality surface, for it takes little skill and foresight to overfertilise and overwater weeds, stripe cut them and pretend it is a quality surface."

As Mike said: call Bruce Grant.


Mathew Mollica,
You played Paraparam last year. What were your thoughts?

[Mike_Clayton]

Mark

Done well it would be an incredible hole - a lot more interesting than the current one. It may be the least good hole on the course.

[Mark_Guiniven]

Agreed Mike. At least #9 and #14 have an excuse.

By the way, the 17th hole called and thanks you for the upgrade. I couldn't help but notice somewhere between the tee box, your three-iron to ten feet, your birdie putt, and the club newsletter the following week, it had gone from simply the best hole in Australasia to the best in the southern hemisphere. Talk about super-sizing!

[Tags:]

Tags: