Changes at Royal Melbourne?

[Mark_F]

2nd West played as a difficult four in the Heineken, justifying the decision to change its par, but wandering around the course, I wondered why the other weak link, 4th West, can't be lengthened?

After all, there would appear to be at least 30, possibly 50 metres behind the current tee with some prudent tree removal, and wouldn't that additional yardage make it a better, more testing, more interesting hole?  

Anyone know if the club have ever contemplated such ignominy?

It's also a pity, alas, that the drop dead gorgeous 16th E couldn't be lengthened a tad to replace 4th E.  Or could it?  

[Matthew Mollica]

Mark,

I think they could lengthen 4W by a little, but not that much, as it would impinge upon 2W if it were to get much longer, with the tee being taken back on a straight line, thereby preserving the current geometry of the hole. Is there an argument to be made for keeping the hole as it is, given that a pro-length drive that is played along a "too safe" line runs out of fairway, thereby placing a premium on hugging the right half / right third of the fairway for the favourable second shot?

Could 16E be lengthened that much? Maybe 20m? That would still only see it at 170m at full stretch. It would seem to impinge upon the right greenside traps of 4E even if it were to have the tee moved back that far. Speak with Paul Daley about that 16E ! He loves it. I feel that the difficulty of getting it close on 4E, different club selection and it's differences to any other hole on the course is the reason for it's inclusion, apart from the better gallery accommodation around it, as opposed to 16E. The extra length 4E puts on the Composite card never goes astray in the minds of some too, as the course might be thought by some to be too short already, and substituting 16E for 4E would shorten the course again... Not my personal view but no doubt a position held by some.

I'd much prefer to see attention devoted to the routing change to something that is more suited to shot-swinging late in the day (4E as #16, 17E as #17 and 18E as the final hole), as opposed to the collection of 400yard consecutive par fours that currently occupy the last 6 holes on the routing presently in vogue.

Interesting to note that the composite course played to a par of 70 in the 1959 Canada Cup, and that the lowest individual score was 5 under (9 under with par 71 assigned, or 13 under with par 72). Dunno which holes were reverting back to par 4 from usual member play par 5 but I'd suspect it was 2W, 4W and 12W. Thommo tied for the lead, with balls and clubs eons behind what was used last weekend. He and the field apparently played a hard-baked course, with Claude Crockford overseeing the quick greens. The north wind blew too by all accounts. The last week gave us the course at perhaps it's most benign and the professional ProV1 posse couldn't get past 15 under.

Seems like the old girl isn't so obsolete after all!!!

Matthew

[peter_p]

Caught just a part of a broacast and they were mentioning an internal OB, I think on 18. New, why?

[Mike_Clayton]

Peter

They put the internal OOB in there - right of wrong - because guys used to play 18 straignt down the hole that was 17 in the tournament (1 west). Years ago they planted trees just off the tee to stop that but now they can carry the tee tree on the corner as well and get it onto the other fairway.
They want the players to play the hole the way it was designed.
It worked.

The interesting question for next year is whether they replace the 5th (1 east) with the 8th west which is right alongside.
There were big holdups there becuase it is now driveable and there has always been a problem with the next tee being so close.

[peter_p]

Michael,
Thanks for the info. The IOOB certainly makes sense, especially with the Sunday hole location. It would be nice if the telecast visuals would include the actual hole designation alongside the composite number.
I shudder to think what will happen if Deane Beman is correct in predicting another fifty yards for the longest hitters in the next ten years. You'll only be able to have 18-20 groupings in a wave without gridlock. Smaller fields, fewer professionals, more incentive to cut back on technology.

[Mark_F]

Matttew,

I guess not.

The one thing that is obvious, if not entirely quantifiable by visual means, is when you see pictures of the greens from bygone years, i.e. early 1970s.  They have more brown in them than the, dare I say it, lusher surfaces of today.  

Imagine if today's greens were like yesterdays...

[Chris Kane]

MatthewM, the winning score of -14 equates to -18 using last years setup.  Therefore the score was pretty similar to previous Heineken Classics.

Mike, is replacing 1E with 8W just your own speculation, or is it something being discussed by tournament administrators?  Although I think 1E is a superior hole, the change would work better - 1E is also a terrible hole for spectators who don't have the benefit of the "Media" armband!

Mark Ferguson, I don't think 4W is a "weak link" - its now the only "easy" birdie 4 on the composite course.  It works well because players feel they must attack it in order to get some birdies under their belt early, as the course only gets more difficult later.

I'd also leave 4E in the composite routing.  As a group, I think 5W-7W-4E works better than 5W-7W-16E.

Should 18E be lengthened by 20-25m, as spare space permits?  It would certainly make the positioning of the driver more crucial when playing to that magnificent Sunday hole location.

[Mike_Clayton]

Chris

the possible change has been discussed by some who are in a position to make the alteration.

4W a weak link?
It might be the best hole on the whole property.
I don't care what they call it - it's an amazing hole.

[Matthew Delahunty]

Re 4W, I remember in the late 80s or early 90s when they played around with the teeing grounds. The original tee had the hole at 433m and they moved it back for the pros to play it at 456m. One year the southerly blew and the pros couldn't drive over the traps on the rise, so the following year they put them back on the forward tee and played the hole as a par 4. Never mind that the hole was designed for the traps on the hill to catch the drive and force the player to either attempt to go over or play around them to the left.

Nowadays, I don't suppose it matters because even the short hitting pros clear them easily. Anyway, I say leave it as it is.

I think replacing 1E with 8W is a probably a good idea. 1E is a superior hole for the amatuer golfer but for the spectator in a pro event it's not great viewing and with the length the pros hit I think it's lost a bit of its lustre. I can't recall to many bogeys or double bogeys this year. Replacing it with 8W works on two counts as it alleviates the problem of waiting on the tee and waiting on the approach as the group in front clears the next tee.

[David_Elvins]

Mike,

What would you think of 1E being dropped from the composite course?  How does it compare to 8W?

From a playing point of view, do you think 1E is a better hole now that it is more driveable?  If the greens were hard you would really want to make sure you didnt miss the green in the wrong place, wouldn't you?

Also,and this is totally out of left field, if you did replace 1E could you make a "composite hole" over the ground that 1E, 8W and 9W sits on that would be better than 8W from its current tee?  You could build a tournament tee site anywhere between the green on 6 west and the tee on 10 west.

[Mike_Clayton]

Dave

I East is a terrific hole - great green demanding you drive it into the right place.
8 West is obviously longer and a really good drive and pitch hole - where the bunkers right of 1E are in play if you hook.It is a really difficult shot out of there.
It is also a really deceptive pitch into 8 although 1E has a more interesting green.
I think it's a good change simply because of the functionality of it.
You could play the hole from 1E tee and it's not bad but playing from the right tee is best if they decide to do it.
I'm not sure you would want to build a tee anywhere else.

[George Blunt]

Mike,

Any inside scoop on playing 17E from 16E ladies tee?  I know it was discussed after last year's HC.

It would be a pretty simple change to make, and would possibly introduce a genuine par 5 into the game.

George

[Chris Kane]

George, would that mean a blind drive over the trees?  It would be a seriously difficult hole from back there, but there will come a day when its reached with a driver and an iron.  Then we'll be calling for them to use the 4E tee instead!!!

[Mike_Clayton]

George

I played from there once - seriously long hole.Maybe its 650 yards.
I suspect it's too dangerous for spectators on 4w.

[George Blunt]

Mike,

Pretty simple part of the course to rope off though, and not much for the spectators to see around there anyway?

Chris,
It would be a blind tee shot, and a few small trees would have to make way.

I think it is do-able and I would love to see the professionals tested on a par 5 once again.

George

[Mark_F]

Chris Kane,

Only 'easy' birdie chance left on the course?  I guess it must have been the weather, then, that had Monty, Appleby and Norman shaking in their footjoys on 1 and 17 East...

Mike Clayton,

Best hole on the whole property?  I assume your tongue was in the same place in your cheek when you made the outrageous statement that the 15 best courses in Aus are only equal to the 30 or so best British ones?

[Mike_Clayton]

Mark

You don't think the all-world second shot at 4W at least stakes a claim for that hole to be the best at RM?
It's one of the best shots in golf and the tee shot whilst blind needs to be perfectly flighted.
And there is no doubt in my mind the 60th best course in Britain would be the equal of the 15th best course in Australia.
It's amazing how much great stuff there is over there.
Our best are really good but we are surely short of a number of really great courses?

[Mark_F]

Mike,

Second shot yes.  Maybe it's because I have trouble perfectly flighting my tee shots...

I'm always kind of partial to 6W, which I know is a cliche, and 17W, and I guess you couldn't say the second to 3W is all world, but it's just so neat...

Agreed, there's tons of great stuff in the UK, and I can't wait for my next trip to check out even more. People underestimate how much seriously fun, and beautiful, golf there is over there, especially amongst the not so well known courses.  

Rankings are obviously highly subjective, but two recent Brit magazines I've seen have rated Royal St David's, for instance, between 30-40, with others such as Nairn, Formby, Hillside and Burnham and Berrow in that bracket, and I can't see any of them as being superior to Woodlands (can't remember exactly, but outside top 15 last time?), nor even the Michael Jackson of golf courses, Commonwealth, let alone Yarra and 13th Beach.  

Nairn has some fantastic greens, but only a couple of really good holes, and whilst Formby is terrific fun and possesses that elusive charm in abundance, you'd be hard pressed to say it's really terrific, wouldn't you?  

The less said about Royal St David's the better, and whilst Burnham has a fabulously inspiring start and some classic stuff a bit past the turn, as well as the great par 3 ninth, there's also a fair bit of chaff in there.

Maybe it's just because their magazines seem to be even more wildly divergent than ours...

Golf magazine: Cruden Bay top 70 in world;
Golf World UK: Cruden Bay 88 in the UK.

They even have the K Club number 74...

[tonyt]

Interesting to note that the composite course played to a par of 70 in the 1959 Canada Cup, and that the lowest individual score was 5 under (9 under with par 71 assigned, or 13 under with par 72). Dunno which holes were reverting back to par 4 from usual member play par 5 but I'd suspect it was 2W, 4W and 12W.

Yes, #4W (#14 Composite or #2 current crap composite) was commonly played at 470 yards as a par 4. Some time during the Aus PGAs of the late 70s I think, it got changed. I know it played as a par 5 by the '84 and '85 Aus Opens.

As much as it would be sad to see the change, I agree that #8W would do a better functional job at tournaments in terms of spacing and the general flow of play. Also ends the one sided gallery situation on #1E, where you either head to the green and then have a long walk back down the RHS of the fairway before catching up with the play on the next hole, or viewing from the bottom of the hill to the left with no chance to see any putting from over 100 yards away. I've always had a good spectator view, but that's with a bib on and a golf bag on my back.