News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Matthew Mollica

  • Karma: +0/-0
St Andrew's Beach Gunnamatta Course
« on: April 12, 2005, 09:18:03 AM »
Through the last few years, Tom Doak has worked with Mike Clayton to build several courses in Australia (Barnbougle Dunes and St. Andrew’s Beach), and one in New Zealand (Cape Kidnappers).  The Gunnamatta course at St. Andrew’s Beach looks like it has been on the ground for some time, and work is no doubt hoped to start on the St. Andrew’s Beach Fingal course in the coming months.  Gunnamatta has seen limited members play for around half a year now.  I was fortunate enough to play the course for the first time, last Sunday.

As we know, Tom has been the recipient of widespread acclaim following the opening of Barnbougle Dunes and Cape Kidnappers.  Reviews of the Gunnamatta course will only enhance his standing in golf architecture circles.  He was given an awesome piece of land on which to create a course, and he has exploited it to the fullest possible extent.  Undulating, windswept sandy soil, within a drive and a wedge of the beach.  The plot’s natural features have all been integrated; dunes, sand blowouts, ridges and other natural features are cleverly and artistically incorporated within the route plan.  The natural, almost untouched appearance yet strong functionality of Doak’s bunkering has to be seen to be believed.  His greens and immediate surrounds are creative, imaginative and individual, with good variety seen throughout the eighteen holes.  Doak doesn’t stick to convention either, with the 452m par four thirteenth hole boasting a tiny green, and the short par four second featuring a large putting surface.

The course boasts one of the best starting stretches one could ever enjoy.  It opens with a genuine three shot par five, as is the case at Barnbougle Dunes.  The hole plays from an elevated tee across a broad valley, to a beautifully situated green, over fearsome looking sand traps.  The second, a short / driveable par four is a hole of high quality, and the long par four third, with its stunning green site, is perhaps the best hole on the course.  The first one shotter of the day, the fourth hole, is a searching examination of long iron play.  Playing into the prevailing wind, it is a daunting yet manageable hole of great natural beauty.  Doak was faced with a myriad of sand dunes and small valleys in which par three holes might have been constructed.  Assessment of the fourth hole and the other par threes on the course affirms that Doak chose correctly.  

The sixth is yet another wonderfully situated one-shotter.  The green sits just beyond striking bunkering, and is far more generous and forgiving than appearances from the tee suggest.  It is located within a string of holes that wind around and through the main (yet sparse) copse of trees on the property.  Indeed, the sixth hole is wonderfully nestled within a small natural amphitheatre among the trees.  A host of tees and green sites for holes seven through eleven are intelligently positioned in close proximity to the stand of trees.  One ventures away and then back again, without a hint of confinement.  One may draw parallels between Doak’s use of this natural feature, and the method in which Alister Mackenzie employed a lone hill on the Royal Melbourne property to add excitement, challenge, beauty and drama to the string of holes 3 – 6 on the RM West Course.

The middle stretch of holes of the Gunnamatta course is characterised by a number of wonderful design features such as a front to back sloping green, a punchbowl green, beautifully constructed false fronts, great fairway bunkering and greenside shaping, and superb strategic elements.  The twelfth hole typifies that this course is ‘one with the lot’.  When standing at the tee and surveying the green site in the distance, one is naturally drawn to the direct line at the flag.  Ample fairway exists to the left of the ‘line of charm’, and the prudent decision to aim left, away from the instinctive target, is rewarded with an easier approach.  Those playing at the flag appreciably shorten their approach, yet must negotiate fearsome greenside traps and a green surface which slopes away from them.

The round builds nicely in rhythm, as the second nine draws to a close.  The driveable par four fourteenth is a dramatic hole, which could see any score from 2 to 8.  The fifteenth is a subtle hole, which gently bends around a stately hill, to a beautifully uncomplicated green.  The hole will be a birdie chance with a southerly, yet a tough, blind mid-iron / long iron approach into the hot summer northerly winds. Played from the pegs, the closing four holes prove a searching examination, both of shot execution and decision making.  The chance to make up a shot or two on an opponent lies in wait, especially at the devilishly guarded and tilted green of the par three sixteenth.  The delightful diagonal fairway bunkering on the home hole provides the final hurdle to posting a good score.

Gunnamatta’s routing changes direction many times and features the great mix of short and long holes, as well as a mix of holes of varying difficulty levels.  All use the natural terrain and prevailing winds extremely well.  The par three holes are oriented to four distinctly different compass points.  As is the case with Barnbougle Dunes, Doak’s love of the short par four is evident, with several such holes of great quality sprinkled throughout the round.  

Doak has intelligently provided a number of bunkerless green sites, building challenges into the short game in a myriad of other ways.  Doak’s philosophy on the use of short grass as an extremely effective ‘hazard’ of deceptively benign appearance is well recognised.  This theme is evident at many green complexes throughout the Gunnamatta course, perhaps most noticeably the ninth, tenth and seventeenth holes.  Doak has smartly surveyed the magnitude of winds on the Mornington Peninsula, their predominant directions and also their changeability.  The course is eminently playable, offering enough width for the windiest of days, and the most erratic of swings.  

Course conditions currently are very sound, with greens, fringes and tees all looking very good.  Fairway grasses are gradually developing, and the two-grass policy boasting legend and fescue will no doubt prove fantastic with full fairway maturity.

Doak’s portfolio of course design now includes (among others) Apache Stronghold, High Pointe, Stonewall, Lost Dunes, Pacific Dunes, Texas Tech, Cape Kidnappers, Barnbougle Dunes, and St. Andrew’s Beach Gunnamatta course.  He’s consulted to Pasatiempo and a host of others.  The best of these courses certainly deserve their positions within the upper echelons courses in world golf.  I suspect St. Andrew’s Beach is not far off Doak’s best work.  Indeed, of his three recent creations in the southern hemisphere, Doak nominates the Gunnamatta course as the one he would prefer to play every day.  Ranking lists will no doubt feature Doak’s Gunnamatta course within the top half dozen in Australia.  While there will be disgruntled members of nearby clubs, and some clubs within the sandbelt, who have their own courses knocked down a ranking peg or two, such a result is more than justified.

Doak has created another wonderful eighteen hole layout with no weaknesses, and stunning crescendos. It was a wonderful pleasure to play, and I hope I get another look soon. Thanks to Mark Ferguson for the kind invitation, and to Chris Kane for the wonderful company around the course too!

Matthew
« Last Edit: April 12, 2005, 09:24:26 AM by Matthew Mollica »
"The truth about golf courses has a slightly different expression for every golfer. Which of them, one might ask, is without the most definitive convictions concerning the merits or deficiencies of the links he plays over? Freedom of criticism is one of the last privileges he is likely to forgo."

Chris Kane

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:St Andrew's Beach Gunnamatta Course
« Reply #1 on: April 12, 2005, 07:07:48 PM »
Nice post Matt - I too was very impressed with how the Gunnamatta has turned out.  Always fun to play a course you've seen from the "ground-up", I can remember walking around the property with Mike and Tom in July 2002, while they finalised the routing.  They did a fantastic job.

The decision to build two courses of around 6100 metres (Gunnamatta is 6060) has proven to be a good one.  Most competant players will be able to handle the back tees, yet this doesn't mean they'll be able to score well.  This is a course which could rarely be overpowered, as the emphasis on precision and placement is too great to be successful bombing a driver anywhere.

I'll nominate the 8th as an outstanding hole, one which won't get so much attention because it isn't particularly photogenic and is unconventional.  Played from an elevated tee, you drive towards a rise some 290m away, with the bunkerless green situated about 40m over the other side of the hill.  The approach is blind unless you position your drive perfectly next to or past the bunker on the right side of fairway.  With strong winds a normal part of golf on the Peninsula, judging the strength of your pitch is difficult.  The green is subtle (unlike some of the others!), but has enough contour to provide interest in recovery shots and when putting.

As I commented to Mark and yourself Matt, the 3rd hole is probably the best designed hole on the course, with the green complex being truly world-class.  However, the 3ft high rough that grows on the inside of the dogleg destroys the tee shot.  Obviously the tee-shot is of the heroic variety, but the penalty for missing is enormous.  Having hit in there, one would prefer it to be a water hazard or out of bounds, as that ensures one's score won't be horrifically high.  At the moment, it could take five or six shots to hack it back onto the fairway.  Hence, no good player in their right mind would consider taking on the dogleg, unless they can easily make the carry, as the penalty for a poor shot could be a snowman or worse.

I hope someone from the club is reading this, and considers burning off that section of rough, and replacing it with something less penal.  Ideally, I'd like to see tee shots which fail to carry the hill to either bound through onto the fairway, or be caught in lightish rough which leaves no chance of hitting the green.  That would encourage average length hitters to take a chance off the tee - they might get lucky and be left with a short-iron approach, but there's an equal chance of having to scramble for bogey.  Get it right, and this hole is one of the best long fours in Australia.

The Gunnamatta is definitely top 6 in my eyes.  Whether it is ranked that way in the list which come out at the start of next year is another question.

From the moment I walked off the course, I've been looking forward to my next game there.  This in itself makes it the best course on the Peninsula, and arguably one of Australia's finest.  The good news is that the Fingal course could be just as good, if not better.  Thanks to Mark Ferguson for the invitation to play.  
« Last Edit: April 12, 2005, 07:12:05 PM by Chris Kane »

Ben Cowan-Dewar

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:St Andrew's Beach Gunnamatta Course
« Reply #2 on: April 12, 2005, 07:11:36 PM »
Chris,
Why do you think it is better than National Moonah?

Chris Kane

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:St Andrew's Beach Gunnamatta Course
« Reply #3 on: April 12, 2005, 07:50:18 PM »
Ben, the short answer is that the Gunnamatta is better routed, has more interesting green complexes, and has a number of short par-4 holes - something sorely lacking on the Moonah.  There is better variety in the type of challenges presented.  I think it would be much more fun to play on a regular basis.
« Last Edit: April 12, 2005, 07:51:15 PM by Chris Kane »

Tim_Weiman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:St Andrew's Beach Gunnamatta Course
« Reply #4 on: April 12, 2005, 08:15:43 PM »
Matthew:

We didn't get to see St. Andrew's Beach at its best while visiting in December, but the quality of the green complexes, the bunkering, the variety of the holes and the overall quality of the site came across loud and clear.

I envy the members. The Gunnamatta will prove lots of fun to play over and over again.
Tim Weiman

harley_kruse

Re:St Andrew's Beach Gunnamatta Course
« Reply #5 on: April 12, 2005, 09:04:03 PM »
Matthew

a  well detailed  reveiw,  although a little over the top on the Doak PR stuff about other courses etc..........  I assume you are not working for him .....just yet...........but  your skill with the pen is most worthy.

One little observation  which I found quite intriguing was "the use of short grass as an extremely effective ‘hazard’ of deceptively benign appearance is well recognised"

In my opinion mowing the grass tight around greens (5-8mm) keeping them firm , and mowing well out (a feature I also try to employ) is not to create an "effective 'hazard'  of benign appearance. Yes it may be deceptive in its actual lack of a hazard as you suggest, and yes it is a subtle and unpredictable design feature that can make a hole actually harder than if a hazard was there,  but a hazard in itself it is not.  

The  primary aim of tight surrounds of course is to promote ball bounce and ball roll leading to or away from the target. For many players too a very tight lie around the greens poses the qustion to chip or putt? This subtle feature which is combined with intimate greenside bunkering is a characteristic that I love at  Royal Melbourne.


harley_kruse

Re:St Andrew's Beach Gunnamatta Course
« Reply #6 on: April 12, 2005, 09:15:22 PM »
I look forward to playing the Gunammatta Course sometime soon.

I'm glad to hear in this day and age when too many put a premium on length that this course is no monster. Courses that are  short, wide, and fun to play suit my game.  I have played Barbougle 2 times and found its width very appropriate for the conditions.

As someone who now lives in relatively quality golf deprived Sydney i do miss playing on the Sandbelt, but also the last few years has now made the Mornington Peninsula a very real golf destination

Mark_F

Re:St Andrew's Beach Gunnamatta Course
« Reply #7 on: April 13, 2005, 03:45:29 AM »
Matt:

Nice post.  Always interesting to get someone else's thoughts to help me learn a little bit more, or see things differently.  

It was a great round.  Thanks for coming.  

Chris:

I too reckon the 8th is one of the best on the course.  especially when played downwind like it has the last couple of weeks.  :D

Can't wait to get your +3 mate out there.  Will be interesting to see how someone of that calibre plays the course.

I'm pretty sure the 3rd will come up as you suggest.  The course super is pretty tuned into the Doak way, and, if not, Alistair has somewhat magical powers.  He thought the rough to the left of 16 needed to be trimmed a bit, and, lo and behold, two weeks later, it was.  

One burnoff of the sandhill coming up, I would say.  ;)

The Fingal will be no less terrific, I think. Different land, which will allow great variety, yet similarities,  between the two.  Already looks to be some fantastic holes mown out there.  Certainly better than Moonah Links, anyhow.  :)

Thanks for making it down there. A great round.

Harley:

You'll have to excuse Matt's effusiveness. Living in Sydney, you might not understand how aggrieved us Melbournites have been at the wealth of great land stuffed up on the MP in the last few years, so when matt saw what Tom, Mike and team had come up with, there were tears of joy in his eyes.  

He probably just couldn't see all the 'Tom's' he wrote, that's all.






Ben Cowan-Dewar

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:St Andrew's Beach Gunnamatta Course
« Reply #8 on: April 13, 2005, 08:37:32 AM »
Ben, the short answer is that the Gunnamatta is better routed, has more interesting green complexes, and has a number of short par-4 holes - something sorely lacking on the Moonah.  There is better variety in the type of challenges presented.  I think it would be much more fun to play on a regular basis.
Chris,
You believe it is routed better, why do you think this? What routing would you have taken at Moonah and why do you think Doak/Clayton's job was so superior at SAB?

More interesting green complexes? While Moonah does not have a green as small as the eighth, it possesses wonderful green complexes. The first, third, sixth, eighth, 10th, 11th, etc. were some of the best greens I have seen on modern courses.

To you last point, do you mean drivable par fours, because there are three or four that are under 400 yards, which has to be considered a short par four today.

I think Moonah has an element of challenge that is far greater than St. Andrew's Beach, which may not appeal day in day out, but I do not see St. Andrew's Beach as a mile ahead of Moonah either.

I know it would be like asking to compare your children to others for Mark and Matt, but I would be interested in your thoughts too.

Matthew Mollica

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:St Andrew's Beach Gunnamatta Course
« Reply #9 on: April 13, 2005, 09:34:45 AM »
Ben,

I know you asked Chris the question, but I'd like to answer too. As a member at The National, and playing the Moonah regularly, I found the Gunnamatta course superior to the Moonah in the variety, creativity and imagination of green complexes. There is a bit of a monotonous out and back quality to Moonah's routing, and for much of the year, the finishing five holes are into a southerly wind of considerable strength, and the course can be a grind. On several occasions, Moonah almost prescribes a certain tee shot on most holes, while Gunnamatta allowed many different tee shots, and didn't rob the poor driver of their ball. The Gunnamatta routing veers here and there, and the par threes play in all directions. The one shot holes at Gunnamatta are better than those on Moonah in my opinion. The bunkers at Gunnamatta are more functional (their collection points / floors allow an unimpeded swing), while also possessing rugged beauty. The Moonah course at The National is a real 'players' course, loved by those who hit it straight and far. I believe that Gunnamatta will also appeal to these golfers, and not lose the dub men among us as well. Perhaps most importantly, Moonah doesn't possess a high quality short par four with loads of options, whereas Gunnamatta features several.

Don't get me wrong, I love the Moonah course, as the 'My Home Course' review here on GCA will attest. I think Gunnamatta shades it.

Harley,

Thanks for the reply. Great to exchange with you. When next down in Vic, please let me know, as I'd love a game with you.

I don't work for Tom, but I am a fan. If there's a job going with GWS enterprises, I'll certainly top up the ink well for that one and get the pen working overtime!

I agree with your comment on my nomenclature, in that short grass is not a 'hazard' in it's own right. It does make things tough, in that it can whisk a ball away from the green, perhaps tens of metres away at times. It also begs the question of whay kind of recovery shot to hit, as you pointed out. Long iron bump? Chip? Lob? Putt? The undulating ground also is far more appealing to the eye at times too. Imagine a bunker in front of the RMW #3 green, rather than the beautiful little depression?

Matthew
"The truth about golf courses has a slightly different expression for every golfer. Which of them, one might ask, is without the most definitive convictions concerning the merits or deficiencies of the links he plays over? Freedom of criticism is one of the last privileges he is likely to forgo."

Chris Kane

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:St Andrew's Beach Gunnamatta Course
« Reply #10 on: April 13, 2005, 06:50:35 PM »
Chris,
You believe it is routed better, why do you think this? What routing would you have taken at Moonah and why do you think Doak/Clayton's job was so superior at SAB?

Ben, in routing the Moonah course, the Norman group made the fatal mistake of going 11 out/7 back.  This meant that to return to the clubhouse, the 7 holes would need to be long.  And thats what they did.  The golf course literally plays in two parts - a fantastic first 11, and a hard boring slog back home from there.  Those last seven, played back into the prevailing wind, are no fun at all.  The fun finishes when you hole out on 11.  Not so at St Andrews Beach.

The double green on 6 and 14 is a disaster, as is the location of the tee on 6 right behind the 5th green.  Both have resulted in safety problems, and will both need to be rectified.  On a site of 300(?) acres, such mistakes are inexcusable.

How would I have routed it differently?  I wouldn't go 11/7 for a start.  And I've have some shorter holes.


More interesting green complexes? While Moonah does not have a green as small as the eighth, it possesses wonderful green complexes. The first, third, sixth, eighth, 10th, 11th, etc. were some of the best greens I have seen on modern courses.

This is a subjective area, but I found a number of the Moonah greens relatively bland, particularly on the long fours.  This was considered necessary because the holes were so long and therefore needed to accept a long-iron approach.

Obviously there are exceptions - 3 and 10 in particular are very good, as are the others you listed


To you last point, do you mean drivable par fours, because there are three or four that are under 400 yards, which has to be considered a short par four today.

You've lost me there.  Moonah suffers because there is only one short four, that 9th hole being an afterthought (and it shows).  There is one hole (from the members tees) under 330m.    To call any hole under 400 yards a short four begs the question: short for who?  Matt Ward might be able to drive a hole of 380 yards, but the average player is still hitting a driver and nine-iron.  The short holes at StAB are short enough to do more than ask for a driver and wedge - there are so many ways to play them.  

I think Moonah has an element of challenge that is far greater than St. Andrew's Beach, which may not appeal day in day out, but I do not see St. Andrew's Beach as a mile ahead of Moonah either.

I agree that Moonah is more difficult, which on occasion might be a virtue, but I see St Andrews Beach as being miles ahead in most other aspects

Brian Walshe

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:St Andrew's Beach Gunnamatta Course
« Reply #11 on: April 14, 2005, 06:37:53 AM »
Chris,

To describe Moonah as 11 out and 7 back is nonsense.  Out and back routings are exactly that.  Moonah has 3 holes in the first 11 that play back towards the clubhouse - 3, 5 and 9.  Yes the 11th green is the furtherest point from the clubhouse but it is not straight out and back by any means.  

The 7 holes coming back include 2 par 3's and 2 par 5's so I would have thought even you would find a bit of fun from 12 in.  Out of the last 7 holes only 12, 16, 17 and 18 play into the prevailing wind, with 13, 14 and 15 all playing with the wind from the right.

I take it that you believe a tough finish into the prevailing wind is not fun and therefore not something you like.  Therefore 15 thru 18 at Barnbougle which also plays into the prevailing wind (and a stronger one can I add) and that has two long par 4's to finish is similarly "not fun".

The Moonah is having alterations made to the 5th green, 6th tee as well as the 6th/14th green next month which will hopefully resolve some of the issues.

Which greens did you find "bland"?

Brian

Ben Cowan-Dewar

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:St Andrew's Beach Gunnamatta Course
« Reply #12 on: April 14, 2005, 08:31:55 AM »
Chris,
I agree with Brian, everyone had told me how after 11 the course was boring and straight back into the wind, but that is just not true. As Brian outlines, 4 holes play into the wind, the others into a crosswind. I particularly like the comparison of Barnbougle, which I did not see on its windiest days, yet you have said there will be no chance of going for the fourth when it is windy. This must make 17 and 18 equal bears.

Furthermore, with all of the celebration of half-par holes, 14, 16, 17 and 18 perhaps fit that bill. Also, all of those holes mention have openings to run the ball in and that turf is certainly designed to accommodate the play. Nobody complains about Scottish courses that play into the wind and require the golfer to play low running shots and the option is given at National.

The 6/14th safety issues have little to do with the course to me. National Golf Links has greater proximity, look at this picture from Ran's profile:


When talking about the greens I just want to make sure we are talking about Bob Harrison's Moonah at National and not Moonah Links!  ;) I do not see which greens are bland, and I mention six great greens off the top of my head.

Cutting your limit for a short par four is clever, seeing as Moonah had three between 330m and 350m. The following are the yardages I was referring to from the member tees:
1 - 374 yards
3 - 401
6 - 383
9 - 318
10 - 392
11 - 369

All with the exception of nine have downhill tee shots, or fairways that will propel the ball forward. Short for who? One, six and 10 play downwind, with incredibly firm turf. I would assume any reasonable 15 handicap would be left with a short iron in.

I guess if by definition the course cannot be great without a drivable par four, than that is where with disagree. NGLA does not have one, in fact it has no hole that is more than 10 yards shorter than nine at Moonah. To me, it is the best course in the world and the only one I would put ahead of Royal Melbourne West. I like the short fours at St. Andrews and I am by no means slogging the course, I just cannot see how it is light years ahead of Moonah, which is literally littered with great greens, lots of options, great driving, excellent strategy, etc.

I do not put a heavy weight on difficulty in ranking great golf courses, which is obvious with my love of National. However, there is a need for challenge and Moonah provides that.


Chris Kane

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:St Andrew's Beach Gunnamatta Course
« Reply #13 on: April 14, 2005, 06:15:46 PM »

The 7 holes coming back include 2 par 3's and 2 par 5's so I would have thought even you would find a bit of fun from 12 in.  Out of the last 7 holes only 12, 16, 17 and 18 play into the prevailing wind, with 13, 14 and 15 all playing with the wind from the right.

Brian, the last seven at Moonah are 510, 159, 420, 495, 422, 170 and 387.  Thats six LONG holes without any respite.  I'll concede that 13 is less taxing from a distance perspective, but the other six on the way home play LONG.  Your Barnbougle comparison is ridiculous - 15 is 320m and 16 150m.  The last two are very long and very difficult, but thats a TWO hole stretch, rather than 7-1.

Which greens did you find "bland"?

Thanks for the selective quotation.  The term I used was "relatively bland", which is a comparison to those on the Gunnamatta.  There are many great greens on the Moonah, but IMHO not as many as at St Andrews Beach.

Ben, don't get me wrong, Moonah is a good course - top 10 in Australia. It is a wonderful challenge.  But IMO, the challenge part of the equation is there at the expense of the fun you'll have at a course like St Andrews Beach.  This kind of thing is all subjective of course, but at Moonah the moment I tee up on 12 it feels like a slog back home.  It might be different for Brian (who is a member there) and yourself.

We'll have to agree to disagree about what constitutes a short four today - I wouldn't consider 3, 6, 10 or 11 in particular to be short at all.  

Ben Cowan-Dewar

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:St Andrew's Beach Gunnamatta Course
« Reply #14 on: April 14, 2005, 10:45:54 PM »
Chris,
I agree that 3 and 10 are not particularly short, especially if the pin is back on the excellent 10th green :>

However, when the long-hitting Dave Scaletti and I played there in November, the 6th was a wedge and the 11th should have been for me and was for Dave. I am not that long off the tee and if I hit wedge in, I consider it short.

I would be interested on where in the top ten, I am not sure if Bob thinks Ellerston is better, which leaves me to wonder where Moonah really is. Is Lake K really that good?

Mark_F

Re:St Andrew's Beach Gunnamatta Course
« Reply #15 on: April 15, 2005, 12:16:04 AM »
Ben,

I've not yet played Moonah, so I will give you chapter and verse when I do.

However.

I don't see how you can describe any of those par fours at Moonah, aside from the 318 one, as short.  Maybe downwind.  The short fours at Gunnamatta, with the exception of 9, are all potentially driveable, but also generally only a wedge or pitch if you choose another club.  

Even into a 2-3 club wind, they are all terrific holes, and still only require a short iron in.  I don't think even Matt Ward would count a 392 hole as short into a 2-3 club wind.

Further, Tom and Mike have mixed up the challenge beautifully.  At least 2 of the par threes are very difficult, and three of the long fours, 3, 10 and 13, as well as 18 to a degree, are also quite difficult holes, but for varying reasons -the drive and second the the 3rd, the 2nd to 10, drive on 13.

The drive from the back tee on 15 also requires a solid hit, yet the weaker player isn't out of it if they can't/don't.  

Total yardage for the Moonah is over 6500 metres.  Gunnamatta 6060.  Maybe you need to spend more time down here in the Peninsula winds if you think 6500 plus metres would be regular fun.

Barnbougle might be even windier, but it too is only 6100.


Brian Walshe

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:St Andrew's Beach Gunnamatta Course
« Reply #16 on: April 15, 2005, 05:29:27 AM »
Chris,

My apologies for the selective quote.  Very bad manners.  The correct quote is;

"I found a number of the Moonah greens relatively bland, particularly on the long fours"

So which of the long fours were relatively bland?  I ask because if anything people complain they have too much movement.

We have to agree to disagree on the run in.  13 is not long and seldom more than a 5 iron and often far less.  17 playing into a fair breeze today was 4 iron.  I really don't find 4 and 5 irons a long slog so perhaps I'm missing something.  14 and 16 both play long and are certainly tough but apart from those two I'm not sure I'd call the others a "slog".

Brian
« Last Edit: April 15, 2005, 08:57:56 AM by Brian_Walshe »

Ben Cowan-Dewar

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:St Andrew's Beach Gunnamatta Course
« Reply #17 on: April 15, 2005, 08:47:04 AM »
Ben,

I've not yet played Moonah, so I will give you chapter and verse when I do.

Total yardage for the Moonah is over 6500 metres.  Gunnamatta 6060.  Maybe you need to spend more time down here in the Peninsula winds if you think 6500 plus metres would be regular fun.

Barnbougle might be even windier, but it too is only 6100.

Mark,
I live in Toronto, Canada, so spending more time on the Peninsula is probably  unlikely. However, I have played both of the courses we are talking about and Moonah is 6192 from the member tees. I have played in windy locales than yours and I would enjoy teeing it up at Moonah for the rest of my life and I would probably be playing from the member tees.

As for 383 and 392 yards (not meters) being short, both play downhill and downwind (and we have already established that I do not know how hard the wind blows down there), six also has a kicker slope. Again, I described them as short - not drivable - and if you have 100 yards into a par four and are not a bomber, I think it is short.

Matthew Mollica

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:St Andrew's Beach Gunnamatta Course
« Reply #18 on: April 15, 2005, 06:25:22 PM »
Ben,

I really wish I had the chance to meet up with you when you were here. Looking at your words on these courses, it's clear you didn't miss much on the way through, and you have developed a great love for our courses.

I would define a 'short' par four 'as one which is potentially driveable, by members, on occasions'. I see 9 on Moonah as fitting that bill, and no other par 4 hole on the course, for any player, from either blues or blacks. I agree that a look at the yardages sees 6 and 10 and 11 as fitting the bill, but NEVER is the play to attempt to get onto the green, for anyone. With that option not even in mind, I don't think they fit with the definition Chris or I might employ for 'short'.

St. Andrews Beach has several such holes, including three wonderful examples in 2,8 and 14. I rate Barnbougle Dunes 'short' 4's as 4 and 12, with 3,6, and 15 being just too long to be in that realm. They are a short club in, but they're not driveable.

Lake K is certainly not top 10 material in any credible list of courses in Australia. Between 25 and 35 would be more like it. I bracket the courses in groups of 5 when rating, and with the exception of Laguna Quays, Newcastle and Ellerston, I've played everything before, it in the last three years.

Where Moonah should be in the top 10 is open to personal opinion. Using the bracket of 5 system, I don't discriminate between 5-10 nor 1-5. National Moonah is in 5 to 10 with St. Andrews Beach, Woodlands and two others.

Matthew
"The truth about golf courses has a slightly different expression for every golfer. Which of them, one might ask, is without the most definitive convictions concerning the merits or deficiencies of the links he plays over? Freedom of criticism is one of the last privileges he is likely to forgo."

Mark_F

Re:St Andrew's Beach Gunnamatta Course
« Reply #19 on: April 15, 2005, 06:36:29 PM »
Ben Dewar:

If you live in Toronto, you should definitely try our skilled migration program and make it down to the Peninsula. :)

Brian Walshe:

As I understand it, you are a fairly big hitter?  If you have a 4 or 5 iron into two long holes, then those of us less endowed are certainly going to have 3/4 woods?  That would make four long slogs in the last six or so, would it not?

Brian Walshe

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:St Andrew's Beach Gunnamatta Course
« Reply #20 on: April 15, 2005, 07:30:23 PM »
Mark,

Alas I am not long.  If you compare me with Mr Mollica you'd find he blows it way past me downwind with his ICBM like ball flight and I might get him by a yard or two into it.   13 and 17 aren't woods for 95% of players.  17 actually plays much shorter than the card indicates with an elevated tee and the green designed to take a running shot. Chris may disagree here as there is a tree affectionately known as the "Kane Tree" that guards the front left that he seemed to struggle with.

Perhaps we can arrange a cultural exchange day and Matty and I could have you and Chris over to play Moonah and we swap and play St Andrews Beach in the afternoon.  You'd get to witness Moonah first hand and Chris would get a refresher as it's obvious from his posts on the subjest that he has no idea of how the course plays.  That way I'd get to see St Andrew's Beach and perhaps be able to contribute to discussion on it rather than just correct the errors posted about Moonah.

Brian
« Last Edit: April 15, 2005, 08:25:10 PM by Brian_Walshe »

Mark_F

Re:St Andrew's Beach Gunnamatta Course
« Reply #21 on: April 16, 2005, 07:55:21 AM »
Brian

Sure.

But by saying Matt has an ICBM like ball flight, I know you're a kidder.

Although I dearly wish I had his game.  

Chris Kane

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:St Andrew's Beach Gunnamatta Course
« Reply #22 on: April 18, 2005, 09:23:24 PM »
Brian, after two phone calls from you in the last few days, I've taken the extraordinary step of logging into GCA at uni so that we can resume hostilities!

Whether we call the routing 11/7 or 8/10 or whatever, surely you'll concede that a problem lies in the 12th tee being at the furthest point from the clubhouse.  This means that you play seven long holes either across or into the PREVAILING wind without respite.  It isn't such a problem on the first eleven when the wind is going the other way because you have 3, 5 and 9 as a break from the headwind.

Brian, I maintain that the greens are bland when compared to those on St Andrews Beach.  We'll resume this discussion once you've played there.  We could even play the Moonah and St Andrews together in one day, and thrash out our differences in the Qantas Club afterwards!

Brian Walshe

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:St Andrew's Beach Gunnamatta Course
« Reply #23 on: April 19, 2005, 04:53:07 AM »
Chris,

Chris the 12th tee where it is isn't an issue.  You take 8 holes to get there (excluding 3, 5 and 9 that play back to the clubhouse) and 7 to get back.  I'm sure if we dug around there would be other courses with similar "unbalanced" routings.  It is an unconventional but that doesn't make it a bad.

Yes 14 and 16 are long holes but yesterday 14 was driver wedge and 16 driver 8 iron.  Careful when you talk about "prevailing wind" as there are two and they blow in opposite directions.  


Stuart Donald

Re:St Andrew's Beach Gunnamatta Course
« Reply #24 on: April 19, 2005, 09:14:50 AM »
Guys -

Having spent 18 months involved with the new National courses and Moonah Links, I can tell you that it blew all but 6 of those days - from every direction! If you have a chance to ask Bob on the routing do so as I believe that GNGCD was given the L shaped piece of land the Moonah course is built on and did not have the options that were available on the Ocean side. Bob spent a very considerable amount of time on the site and finally rested with the current layout, which I think does very well in such a restricted shape and topographical land form.

Great line of discussion that shows the variation in opinion created through differing levels of player ability and perspective.