[Jason Topp]

Lynn:

I echo the thoughts on the membership.  I played alone behind about 4 four balls and it took under four hours.  After I finished one of the members apologized for not letting me play through.  When he found out I was a guest, he invited me in for lunch with his family, insisted on paying and we had a lively discussion about a variety of issues.  It was great fun and made me feel most welcome.

[James_Livingston]

Philip.
I'm on your side.I think it is an amazing course - especially considering how small it is.It never feels crowded or cramped and there are so many fun shots to hit.

It is amazing just how many people in Melbourne criticize the course.
The most common complaints are:
Too many blind tee shots - 2,6,8,16 and second to 17.

Not enough sand in the bunkers (every bad bunker player complains about that in Melbourne)

Not enough long par fours.

Pulled out too many trees. There is a British Open runner-up who lives in Melbourne who insists they 'ruined the course' when they pulled out the trees.Needless to say,he hits short and very straight

Too many aeroplanes flying overhead.

No long par three. (130,170 and 190 yards)

Par fives all go the same way.

Philip

I couldn't agree more - the criticism always leaves me shaking my head.
All it really does is expose the ignorance of those making it.

Well, I hope this doesn't give you whiplash Mike, but I just dont reckon it is that great.  Personally I reckon it has plenty of flaws.  The blind shots and and par fives all heading the same way you mentioned are the product of perhaps the worst routing on the sandbelt.  To take the only significant movement in the entire property and run 5 holes running parallel creating blind shots across it wasn't smart.  

It is also overbunkered, especially the par threes.  They all demand an aerial approach over bunkering short.  Not favoured by the good Doctor at all from memory.  10 and 15 especially are prime candidates for improvement via restoration if the photos in the club history from 1931 are anything to go by.  The fairway bunkering on 2, 6, 7 and 18 also doesn't work for mine.

The poor routing has also resulted in a poorly balanced course.  Perhaps I'm showing my age, but I always thought it was heavily overweight long par fours, with 7 greater than 380 metres, although technology seems to have taken care of this problem for everyone but me.  

KH is good, and I do like the management of the vegetation, but the use of superlatives such as "amazing"and "magical" is over the top.  It results in the misleading impression that it and RMW are at the pinnacle of the sandbelt then its daylight.  For the quality of the architecture I rate it well behind RMW and Woodlands, probably Commonwealth and alongside Yarra Yarra and Victoria.  

And in the context of the sandbelt its not really that small a site is it.  It would have to be bigger than Yarra and Commonwealth?

[Philip Gawith]

James - you obviously know the Melbourne courses better than I do, but you do seem to be marking this course against a very formulaic view of what constitutes a great golf course, elsewhere in this thread described as "box-ticking".

So:

- what is wrong with the blind shots? And what is wrong with them that is also not wrong with the numerous blind shots at RMW?
- "ALL the par fives run the same way" is a bit misleading Last I counted there were only two, one being straight and the other a noticeable dog-leg left?
- you grumble about the length of the par fours, but this is  a course with 351, 269, 357, 330, 324m par fours on the card - none of those could be called long holes.
- it is true that the course is heavily bunkered. To me that it is its great glory - the reason I would send anyone to go and look at it so that could see magnificent bunkering. Maybe the short hole bunkering does not favour the ground game - but in other respects the course clearly does so I don't see it as a big issue.
- inasmuch as you think it overbunkered, and Mackenzied did the bunkering, what happened? Were bunkers subsequently added?

I am completely unrepentant - just a great course!

[James_Livingston]

Kingston Heath is either our 2nd or 3rd best course but it's arguably got only one world-class hole - the 15th.
That it is such a fine course is testement to the fantastic overall quality of the work and the holes.

Mike starts off by saying that anyone who disagrees with him is ignorant then you follow up by derisively dismissing any criticism as box ticking.  Probably doesn't augur well, but I'll press on.

The blind drives on 8 and 16 are poor, with unsighted bunkers on the other side.  If Tony Cashmore or Thommo had routed that today we'd be rightly bashing him around the ears.  Contrast with a hole like RMW18, where you drive over or around the hazard in the hill.  The other difference is you were always going to get some blind shots routing around the more undulating terrain at RM, whereas at KH Soutar has clearly gone out of his way to create as many blind shot as possible, quite a feat given the flatness of the property.  15 was originally a par 4, so he clearly had a fetish for them, which thankfully MacKenzie didn't share.

The 3 par fives do all run the same way.  It is unfortunate the routing has evolved this way, but I happen to like looking at routings and a skilful one will have directional change.  Sorry for the box ticking, just something I like.

I don't know what has happened with the bunkering over the years, and the club history isn't a lot of help but the bunkering on 10 and 15 has been dramatically expanded (imo excessively so) since the photos in 1931.

Like you, I think most of the bunkering looks great, and the management of the vegetation has given the course a great atmosphere, but I just don't think the architecture is that great.  Compared to Woodlands it is a dumb blonde. And as Mike points out, where are the great holes?  15 is OK, but there are plenty of better par threes on the sandbelt.  In terms of architecture I just don't think you wouldn't have missed anything if you had played Commonwealth or Yarra Yarra instead.  Probably just means I think those other mentioned courses are significantly underrated when compared to KH.

[Mark_F]

Philip,

I wouldn't classify myself as anything near a box ticker - quite the opposite, in fact - but I'm with James L.

KH gets its kudos because it's bunkers and vgetation are so wonderful, and it is shoehorned into such a small place.

And because no one wants to show their ignorance by questioning its credentials.

It has four par fours that play the same way with a blind drive over a ridge running across the fairway - and this is the course's much vaunted variety? - 8 and 16 are basically mirror image holes, 4 and 13 may be architecturally sound but are flat and boring, although not as ugly as Barnbougle's 2nd

Most of it's long and medium par fours, at least to me, have horribly boring tee shots, and only then come alive with the seconds - a new definition of half par holes, to be sure.

Mike himself has damned the course by saying that it has three or four holes that are so tight that they are normally irons, and one has a bunker so fearsome you need a 3 wood and not driver  - and then has the impudence to suggest anyone disagreeing with him is ignorant, thus making sure that he doesn't have to put up a coherent argument, because he is only talking to unintelligent filth.

[Philip Gawith]

Mark - there is no such thing as a self-classified "box-ticker" - it is always the other guy who is in the throes of PC!  
But I agree - you are exonerated.

Notwithstanding the tone of my post, I found your and James' posts interesting. Those criticisms had not occurred to me. But I am mostly unmoved!

James - FYI - I did play Commonwealth but once round each course does not leave me feeling qualified to seriously argue the relative architectural merits of the two courses. I know which I enjoyed more though and I know which leaves the stronger impression.

Since we are talking about Melbourne courses, let me make one slightly unrelated point. Of the courses I played:

Royal Melbourne - suffering terrible problems on the greens.
Victoria - greens in terrible condition.
Kingston Heath - 14 green and 15th hole out of play.
Commonwealth - about four fairways out of play, being replanted.

In four days of golf, I encountered more course "issues" than in the previous I don't know how many years of playing golf in various countries. Do you think I just had bad luck, or do the good brethren of Melbourne spend a lot of time/too much time messing around with their courses?

[Mike_Duffy]

You've hit the nail on the head. On my infrequent visits to my home town, I can hardly find one course in the Melbourne area that is fully playable.

During my Christmas visitation, I found the courses that I played (9 of them), either had fairways roped off, temporary greens, bunkers out of play, or numerous fairways out of play due to spraying.

There is a game played in Melbourne by the golf course superintendents called "Follow The Leader". The leader is generally Royal Melbourne, and at the present time that esteemed layout is a mess.

Other times it is Kingston Heath, or Victoria or any number of other courses. The fact is that at any given time the majority of Melbourne's courses are undergoing "renovations".

The courses are now in worse condition that when I first laid my eyes on them 50 years ago, despite the evolution of turf technology and all the "toys" that the GCS's get to play with on a regular basis.

I think it is a sad commentary when an ardent fan of the Melbourne Sand Belt such as myself no longer looks forward with eager anticipation to revisiting these once majestic courses.

[Tyler Kearns]

Jason,

What work was being completed at Kingston Heath?  

TK

[Jason Topp]

Tyler

I played a few days after Phillip and there was not any work going on there.  Phillip had the misfortune of being there on a day 15 was taken out of play, replaced by what looks to be a terrific 19th hole behind 1 green.  Nonetheless, 15 is not the hole you want to miss.  KH was in the best condition of the courses I played.

[Tyler Kearns]

Jason,

That's a relief!! Playing Kingston Heath and having to skip #15 would be quite the tragedy.

TK

[Mike_Clayton]

James L

I actually did not say anyone who disagrees with me is ignorant.
I said the people who criticize Kingston Heath for the reasons I stated are ignorant - IMO.
Splitting hairs perhaps but not the same thing.

And the bunkers at 16 were never designed top be in play - they were miles off the tee in 1930.
For long hitters it's a 3 wood off 8 if the hole is downwind and the bunkers at 16 are hardly in play.I have never seen anybody in them off the back tees.
It's true they are not great drives but you have to imagine the dilemma of the architect - to play those holes from the top of the hill would render than very short - and not very good.
I think the second shots into those two holes - especially 16 are two of the best on the course.
It's a brilliant routing on a small piece of land and inevitably there are going to be a few shots like the tee shots of 8 and 16.
However I think the course is strong enough overall to cope with the imperfections.
Having played  many tournaments there - won a couple and lost more - I can tell you that when you are choking the uncertainty of the tee shot off 16 is not a comfortable feeling.
Does that make it a great shot?
No - but it really tests golfers who are not certain of what they are doing and the 16th hole is a pretty good place to ask that question.
Many have failed the test including me in the final of the Australian Matchpay in 199? when Ronan Rafferty and I were all square.

When they laid out the course 17 was a par five going in the opposite direction to 7,12 and 14.
I'm not sure Souter and MacKenzie could have been expected to understand the extent the modern ball would render holes like 17 simply long fours.
And, are there 2 better par fives in Melbourne than 12 and 14?
There are a few that are as good - 15 at Woodlands for one - but very few that are better or more thought provoking.
They get lots of points for that even if they both run to the south.

15 is ok and there are many better par threes on the sandbelt.
I am not sure you will find anyone who agrees with that.

The 5th is not a short hole where you have to come over bunkers - you can easily play a running approach there and at 15 you can play a shot that lands at the front and feeds all the way back to the back of the green.
And surely at 10 - a 130 yard hole - it's not unreasonable to ask for an aerial approach?

Mark.

I'm not sure I damn the course by saying four par fours are irons.You can hit drivers or 3 woods if you are game.
Norman usually plays 3 with a wood and when I played with Gary Player there in 1978 he drove it there both days.
If 9 was a 440 metre par four would try and drive it down there every time.It's a short par 4 - and an excellent one IMO - that asks for a very straight tee shot but not a long one.

Mike,

There has been a lot of work on the sandbelt but for lots of different reasons.
Royal Melbourne - grass on the greens
KH grass on greens but other than a few small alterations - 12 bunkers moved and new bunkers left of 17 - there has been very little architectural alteration for a while now.
Victoria - nothing for 3 years but the greens are poor at the moment.
Metro - new 12 and 13 and revised 14 because of a boundary issue that forced the change.
Peninsula - lots of work but it needed it.
Huntingdale - new course.
Yarra Yarra - solving bondary issues - 3 and 12.

I'm not sure you are right when you say the courses were better conditioned 50 years ago.I didn't see them until 35 years ago and you cannot tell from photos.
What the photos will show is that quite a few holes were better 50 years ago that they are now.

[James_Livingston]

And the bunkers at 16 were never designed top be in play - they were miles off the tee in 1930.
For long hitters it's a 3 wood off 8 if the hole is downwind and the bunkers at 16 are hardly in play.I have never seen anybody in them off the back tees.
It's true they are not great drives but you have to imagine the dilemma of the architect - to play those holes from the top of the hill would render than very short - and not very good.
I think the second shots into those two holes - especially 16 are two of the best on the course.
It's a brilliant routing on a small piece of land and inevitably there are going to be a few shots like the tee shots of 8 and 16.

Mike, the conventional wisdom that KH is a brilliant routing is a nonsense that needs to be put to sleep.  Soutar had no idea.  The description of the process in the club history is illustrative. "Carrying the surveyor's plan he walked over the area without comment, each time returning to a picturesque avenue of gum trees which stood out amongst the dense tree scrub near the centre of the property.  At last he stopped at that avenue of trees and said, 'here is where we start, an ideal ready made short hole for the 10th', and around that feature he planned the course."   And later he reversed it to avoid the afternoon sun.   If he knew anything about routing he wouldn't have faced the dilemma of the blind shots from the bottom of the hill, he could have gone along them, to the top of them.  Anything would have been better than criss crossing as often as possible.  The club really should have asked for its 25 guineas back.

And I don't understand the small site argument.  Nearly equal distance across the other side of Moorabbin airport, on similar terrain, with roughly 16 fewer acres to work with, the designers of Woodlands came up with a routing of rare brilliance.  It is a dream for the box tickers - par threes of differing length, par fours of all shapes and sizes, 2 superb 4.5's and 2 three shotters that run in opposite directions.  This clearly superior routing, providing a great balance, also means that you will be more likely to workover every club in the bag.  Woodlands is also a greater test of short game skill.  And individually, holes like 2,3,4,5,6,7,10,13,15,17 and 18 are more than a match for anything dished up at KH.  James Bennett wrote well about it at http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=18168;start=msg322017#msg322017, but was unable to garner a reply.  I'd surmise this is because visitors are constantly told to go to RM and KH no matter what when the reality is that an architecture buff should be heading to Woodlands long before KH.

15 is ok and there are many better par threes on the sandbelt.
I am not sure you will find anyone who agrees with that.

The 5th is not a short hole where you have to come over bunkers - you can easily play a running approach there and at 15 you can play a shot that lands at the front and feeds all the way back to the back of the green.
And surely at 10 - a 130 yard hole - it's not unreasonable to ask for an aerial approach?

Again it is a case of the conventional wisdom prevailing, and I know a couple of guys that agree with me.  If enough people constantly bang on about 15 at KH then it becomes a case of people uncritically accepting it.  People are clearly afraid of being chastised for their ignorance.  Par threes I think are better on the sandbelt include RMW7, Commonwealth 9 and Yarra Yarra 11.  Hard to separate would be RMW5, RME 16 and YY15 to name a few.  You just have to look at the pictures from 1931 of 10 and 15 to see that whatever MacKenzie link the club may have displayed is long gone.  You just need to read MacKenzie's commentary on the 11th at St Andrews and the 15th at Cypress Point in The Spirit of St Andrews to realise how wouldn't be too thrilled by all the extra bunkering on those holes.  Of course, he also would have loathed the blind shots and the failure to return to the clubhouse after nine.  

[Jason Topp]

James L

Because I have only played both courses once, I am not really in a position to decide whether Woodlands or Kingston Heath is a better course.  I really enjoyed them both and Woodlands was an especially delicious experience for me because I had not heard much about the course.  I fully endorse Woodlands as a place any architecture buff should see.  Here is my thread commenting on the course.  

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=21294;start=msg385559#msg385559

Ironically, however, the reason I decided to check out the course was because of Micheal Clayton's recent book in which he sings its praises.  Paul Daley does the same in his Sandbelt book.

While I understand, but do not agree with many of your criticisms of Kingston Heath, I do not understand the criticism of over-bunkering.  On 10 and 15 the bunkers really look great, add to the intimidation of the tee shot, but do not really come into play.

I also am not sure I follow your criticisms of the routing of Kingston Heath.  What would you have done differently?

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Wondeful photographs, that only make it's position on my wish list justified.

[Mike_Clayton]

James,

You won't get any aguments from me about Woodlands.It is a fantastic course.

I will take your word for the 16 acres less bit but it has never seemed smaller than KH - not bigger but not any smaller.

To say Soutar had no idea is a little far-fetched surely.He came up with a lot of terrific holes,a couple of blind tee shots - I don't count 1,6 and 9 as really blind but others might - and MacKenzie would not have worried about 9 not coming back to the clubhouse.
'I wish I had never written that' was his comment on his 1920 returning nines principle.

Soutar did come up with an apparant dog hole at 15 which MacKenzie called a 'blot on the course' and it was replaced by the new 15th.
It's very easy to criticise the routing and easy to say he could have gone along the top but would the whole jigsaw of 18 holes worked?

Conventional wisdom is fine to challenge but too many people sing the praises of 15 for them all to be deluded as to its greatness.
9 at Commonwealth,7 at RM and 11 at Yarra Yarra are also world-class holes - but better?

Nor am I sure about the 'extra bunkering' at 15.
It was one hole he personally supervised the construction.
The old map and pictures in the clubhouse have those bunkers Graeme Grant restored clearly shown.
If it was over- bunkered it was at his instigation.
Personaly it's a much imrpoved hole from the 1975 version pictured in Tom Ramsay's book - which shows over-grown tea-tree and all the bunkers filled in.
 

[James_Livingston]

Mike, as a golf course architecture forum I get annoyed when people use superlatives like "magical" and "amazing" to describe KH when the actual architecture there I'd rate significantly inferior to Woodlands and no better than Yarra Yarra or Commonwealth for example.  As mentioned earlier the factors that seem to get people excited relate more to the visual statement of the bunkering and the ambience, not the quality of the architecture.  Imagine the bunkers have grass faces and concentrate on the architecture and I suspect everyone would be raving about the 3 abovementioned a lot more.

I'm not really sure Soutar came up with any terrific holes.  Any terrific holes only came about later with the addition of the bunkering.  I think you could easily have had the whole jigsaw of 18 working with a different approach to the rise, especially given the flatness of the rest of the site.  If you want to see high quality routing you would have to go to Woodlands ahead of KH wouldn't you?  And the site isn't that small, YY must be a lot smaller again.  I did the calculations roughly from Google Earth, and the extra hole and new practice facility weren't included (I think).  If anyone wants to have crack, please do.

I nominated 9CGC, 7 RMW and 11YY as better because I feel they demand a little more and offer more in terms of options.  I put 15 on a par with RME16 because it is more a matter of selecting a club and avoiding the bunkers.  Sure there is an intimidation factor with the bunkering and they look great, but it lacks the cleverness of an RMW7, where time after time you see players going at that right side pin when the smart play is to aim left and still have a makeable putt.

Also on 15, I was looking at the 1931 picture on p82 of the club history.  Do you know what year it was "restored" to. And I saw the MacKenzie comment on returning 9s in the Spirit of St Andrews.  That was 1934 wasn't it?

Jason
I was talking of overbunkering on 10 and 15 is in the context that it wasn't always bunkered across the front and removes options.  Most un-MacKenzie like for a club that promotes itself heavily on its MacKenzie connection.  The fairway bunkering on 2 and 18 also looks overdone for mine and what did you think of the tee shot on 6?  I think it is easy for any course that has been a regular tournament venue over the past couple of decades to overdo the bunkering in order to "challenge" the pro's.  I got the same feeling at Metro, bunkers everywhere, many probably not that old and consequently little strategy.

Glad to hear you got to Woodlands.  Just a shame you were there when the greens were the so soft.  There is a struggle against Poa in the greens across much of the sandbelt at the moment, at as Mike Duffy points out, it hasn't been pretty.  Probably not a fight worth fighting, it was covered recently to an extent at http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=20799;start=0

[Mike_Clayton]

James.

We are going to agree to disagree here.
I don't see how you can say the architecture is 'significantly inferior' to Woodlands.
On a par is fine with me but there isn't a significant difference between the two - IMO.

I described Commonwealth as having the second best course in Melbourne in 1992 - but Commonwealth of 2006 is not the same course as it was.Some think it imporved and others do not.
I favoured the old version.
Likewise the architecture at Yarra Yarra was unquestionably fantastic but they have altered much  -3,4,8,12 - and I don't know of anybody who thinks the architecture is the equal of KH.Certainly the vegetation is far superior at KH.

At every hole at KH there are intersting questions asked - the true line to the flag is rarely the middle of the fairway and there are endlessly fascinating shots around the greens.

I'm not convinced Woodlands is a superior routing - both are very good and the only criticism is the blind shots at 8 and 16 and the 3 par fives going the same way- which was not always the case when 17 was a par five.
Personally the tee shot off 16 is much more interesting than the tee shots off the flat holes at Woodlands - 14,15,16. 18 is infinitly more interesting but it's blind.

Nor do I agree 15 has a lack of options - as much as you can build options into a 155 yard hole.
You can decide to go over the bunker to the back left pin or play safe to the right - exactly the same choice you make at RM 7th except the tough pin is on the right at RM
There is a brutally difficult pin in the front neck and the green  has some of the best internal contours in Melbourne.
11 at Yarra is obviously great but the green at 15 is at least as good as 9 at Commonwealth and 7 at RM.
At 9 at Commonwealth there are no options as far as I can see.130 yards,small green surrounded by beautiful bunkers and a demand for a great shot - but no options.
It's a great hole though.

15 at KH was built by MacKenzie in 1926 - it was previously a blind short par four down to the 16th tee - and was restored by Graeme Grant in the early 80's.

MacKenzie wrote about returning nines twice.
In 1920 he thought it was important enough to support.
In 1934 he wrote in The Spirit of St Andrews that he wished he had never propounded it.

Kingston Heath would look terrible with grass faces but the course would be no less intersting strategically.

[Tyler Kearns]

It's very easy to criticise the routing and easy to say he could have gone along the top but would the whole jigsaw of 18 holes worked?

James,

I think Mike is right on cue here. It is very easy to criticize a hole or two on a golf course, and propose solutions that would yield a better golf holes. However, routing can be a  complicated matter, and once one piece of the puzzle is adjusted, the dominos begin to fall. Would the quality of the overall design be improved by the renovations you suggest, or simply the holes in question?

TK

[Mike_Duffy]

In response to Mike Clayton:

Michael, I say that the courses were better in the late 1950s and early 1960s because they were not buggered around with in the manner that all of them have been subjected to over the past 10 years or so.

The genius from Warrnambool always had RM in immaculate condition, even during the fierciest of summers. Yes - the fairways would be brown, but good lies were always a given. He used to say that the summer heat and lack of watering took the sh*t out of the top of the turf and it was nature's way of looking after a golf course.

Now that everything has to be green, that rule no longer applies, or at least to my visitational eye, it doesn't appear to be the case.

Admittedly, the courses in the 1950s did not take the pounding in the traffic that they do today, but looking back somewhat whimsically, I'm of the belief that they could have handled the numbers that now flock onto the sandbelt courses every day in week.

Turf management was then a lot less scientific than it is today, but the really good GCS's (greenkeepers they were called in that era) acted on observation and instinct and experience.

I have found it totally frustrating to revisit Melbourne on an annual basis and find these beloved courses of mine to be in a continual state of "renovation".

The country I now live and work in is Third World, but at least the courses are an enjoyment to play, with seldom a hole, a green or a fairway out of play.

I wish I could say the same for Melbourne.

As for Huntingdale and its changes, well the least said the better.

[Mike_Clayton]

Mike,

It is unquestionably true that there has been a lot of work done on the sandbelt.
Some has been for agronomic reasons - RM and KH greens for example - and others have made architectural alterations.
Some have been well received and others  are not so well liked.

It's a bit easy to generalize here I think.
I do think that from the evidence of the old photographs - and the quality of the largely untouched work - that many of the courses were better than they are now.
I would not put Kingston Heath is that caregory.

[James_Livingston]

I think Mike is right on cue here. It is very easy to criticize a hole or two on a golf course, and propose solutions that would yield a better golf holes. However, routing can be a  complicated matter, and once one piece of the puzzle is adjusted, the dominos begin to fall. Would the quality of the overall design be improved by the renovations you suggest, or simply the holes in question?
TK

Tyler, I'm not suggesting they make any changes.  They are stuck with the current routing.  It just makes me groan when I hear people talking about how great it is, and excuse its flaws because it is a small property.  I just don't think it is that flash and in the context of the sandbelt, it is not an especially small property.  I don't have any emotional attachment to the place and I just don't think it is deserving of superlatives like "magical" and "amazing" when the main impact is not the quality of the architecture but more the visual statement made by the bunkering and the surrounding vegetation.  Plus after a run of hot days the house is too hot to sleep, so what better way to kill some time than arguing about golf courses.

Michael, I say that the courses were better in the late 1950s and early 1960s because they were not buggered around with in the manner that all of them have been subjected to over the past 10 years or so.

I have found it totally frustrating to revisit Melbourne on an annual basis and find these beloved courses of mine to be in a continual state of "renovation".

Mike, imagine how you'd feel if you were a member of one them.  Actually, don't, it is too depressing.  At least Huntingdale was never terribly beloved, was it?

James.

We are going to agree to disagree here.
I don't see how you can say the architecture is 'significantly inferior' to Woodlands.
On a par is fine with me but there isn't a significant difference between the two - IMO.

I'm not convinced Woodlands is a superior routing - both are very good and the only criticism is the blind shots at 8 and 16 and the 3 par fives going the same way- which was not always the case when 17 was a par five.
Personally the tee shot off 16 is much more interesting than the tee shots off the flat holes at Woodlands - 14,15,16. 18 is infinitly more interesting but it's blind.

Woodlands has significantly greater variety because it has imo the vastly superior routing.  Par 3's of 139, 154, 168 and 197 metres which run in three different directions.  Three sub 300 metre par fours, again, play in different directions.  A couple of very good mid length par fours in 7 and 14.  Unsurprisingly moving opposite.  Three 400+ par fours that basically triangulate.  Two 4.5s in 2 and 18, playing in different directions and two strong 3 shot holes in 6 and 15, which, you guessed it, oppose one another.  This is what I'd imagine textbook stuff to look like.  And into the mix the gentle(ish) opening, providing opportunity for early birdies before settling into the tougher holes and it just strikes me as a Golden Age classic.  Of course that would be pointless box ticking if the holes were no good, but in this case they are, with super holes at every length.  Just looking at the short fours 3,4 and 13, are all holes where it is possible to write pretty much any number on your card.  4, at 251 metres with no greenside bunkers begs to be taken on and provides infinite short game options.  For mine it is clearly superior to the much vaunted 3rd at KH, which is pretty much 4 iron, SW, two putts = par four each time.

I just don't see anything remotely approaching the same variety or balance at KH.  The kindest word I can think for the routing is pedestrian.  I think the example in the history illustrates why Soutar had no idea.  To walk into the middle of the property, say this is the ideal spot for the short 10th hole (what is the thought process there?), do the plans and then have to reverse the hole due to the setting sun provides some indication that he may not have been on top of the basics of routing.  And into the mix all the completely unnecessary blind holes and little effort to mix up the directions on a property that was largely flat, practically presenting a blank canvas, would have me giving him a resubmit.  It certainly doesn't conform terribly closely to the principles of the period expounded by MacKenzie, or judging from James Bennett's earlier thread, Robert Hunter.  Soutar is actually one of the earliest Australian examples of the perils of hiring an architect based on their public profile and playing deeds.  

I do agree with you on the tee shots on 14 and 16 at Woodlands, but at least they are largely inoffensive, unlike 6 at KH, which I just don't get.  Woodlands 15 I don't mind so much, questions are certainly asked of your second if you stray to the right side of the fairway.  It is a tough green to hit if forced to lay up.

15 at KH was built by MacKenzie in 1926 - it was previously a blind short par four down to the 16th tee - and was restored by Graeme Grant in the early 80's.

What period was it restored to?  It certainly looks nothing like what was there in 1931 if the picture on page 83 of the club history is anything to go by.

MacKenzie wrote about returning nines twice.
In 1920 he thought it was important enough to support.
In 1934 he wrote in The Spirit of St Andrews that he wished he had never propounded it.

He also wrote that "If land for a golf course lends itself readily to two loops, well and good, but it is a great mistake to sacrifice excellent natural features for the purposes of obtaining it."  I would have thought the shape and topography of the site would have been perfect for returning nines.

[Mike_Clayton]

James.
You won't get any argument from me about Woodlands.It's wonderful.

We are going round in circles here.
KH has exactly the same easy beginning, tough finish as Woodlands - both finish with excellent holes 14 KH V 15 Woodlands,15 KH V 17 Woodlands,17 kh v 18 Woodlands and 16 v 16.
I would give the edge to KH - just and it's arguable.
You can do the same with the start although the 1st at Woodlands is the poorest hole on both courses.

My take on the Souter routing is just a guess.
He had a long narrow property - narrow from west to east and long from north to south.
Rather than going up and down as Yarra,Huntingdale and Commonwealth do he went east to west or west to east as much as possible for variety the others lack - especially on the front nine where he obeyed Hunter - 'Do not lay out holes toward the west especially one shot holes and those coming on the last nine'.
Maybe that is why he reversed 10!
He knew he had a small piece of ground - 125 acres as opposed to about 160 at Victoria and Metro - and to have a tiny hole that took up no space gave him more room to move with he other 17.
How many other architects could have built a wonderful hole with so many holes - 3,4,7,8,9,11 and 14 - going around it?
It is a superior hole to 11 at Woodlands which is close to its equivalent.

Nor was the property 'largely flat' - if it was there wouldn't be so many blind shots !!.
1,6,8,14,15,16 and 17 have significant undulation which would indicate the land was not 'largely flat'
I don't think you can divorce so easily the quality of the architecture from the quality of the bunkering - especially as it is some of the very best in the world - IMO and the opinion of almost everybody who sees it.
To say 3 at KH is just a  4 iron, SW, 2 putts par is a silly as saying 13 at Woodlands is the same.
They are both holes where you can do that or try to drive it on the green or hit 2,3,4,5,6 iron or 3 wood - so many choices at both holes.
If you are a decent wedge player you can have 8 feet for birdie all day at both holes.
4 at Woodlands is a different hole altogther - unique,fun and quirky.

I'm not sure what there is to 'get' at 6 at KH.
I am assuming you are saying it's 'offensive' but it's just a tee shot up and over a small rise that sets up a really good looking second shot.When the pin is right you need to drive left by the left fairway bunker and when it's back right you need to drive right over by the shared bunkers with the 1st - strategically interesting and hardly offensive.It's a fun shot for me at least - I'm sorry you don't feel the same way.

Graeme Grant restored the lost bunkers between tee and green at 15 in the early 80's.
I don't have the history book - but the front lip of the left bunker is higher now that it was in 1930 - I assume because of the sand build-up over the years.We lowered it a little recently and altered slightly the percentage of fall in the back right corner so they can get a pin there when the greens are quick.

If you are having a shot at me with the Soutar reference to hiring architects with a playing record and a profile it's a cheap shot - if not I have no sense of humour.

[Mark_F]

Mike,

How is the 1st at Woodlands poorer than either 4 or 13 at Kingston Heath?

[James_Livingston]

If you are having a shot at me with the Soutar reference to hiring architects with a playing record and a profile it's a cheap shot - if not I have no sense of humour.

It occurred to me reading Soutar's brief - "design a championship course that will stand the test of time".  For some reason Moonah Links Open Course came to mind.  

Nor was the property 'largely flat' - if it was there wouldn't be so many blind shots !!.  1,6,8,14,15,16 and 17 have significant undulation which would indicate the land was not 'largely flat'

I've never really thought of 1 and 6 as blind, and 14 and 17 I could live with, but I struggle with 8, the original 15th and 16 when considering Soutar's original routing.  You don't think he may have had at least a small fetish for blind holes?  I would contend that with a better routing you wouldn't really notice that main ridge.  He certainly used it for maximum impact.

How many other architects could have built a wonderful hole with so many holes - 3,4,7,8,9,11 and 14 - going around it?
It is a superior hole to 11 at Woodlands which is close to its equivalent.

It not equivalent though because Woodlands has the returning nines.  I like 10, but I don't really see that being jammed in between a lot of other holes makes much of a statement about the skill of the architect.  It may well have been a brilliant hole before Morcom got to it - but I doubt it.  11 at Woodlands is a club or two longer and I think works pretty well.  Miss it right and you'll struggle, but the inferior player who can't carry the sand and hold the green is able to lay up shortish left and have a relatively simple chip.  I reckon MacKenzie would say 11 at Woodlands is a better hole, shall we agree to disagree in advance.

To say 3 at KH is just a 4 iron, SW, 2 putts par is a silly as saying 13 at Woodlands is the same.
They are both holes where you can do that or try to drive it on the green or hit 2,3,4,5,6 iron or 3 wood - so many choices at both holes.
If you are a decent wedge player you can have 8 feet for birdie all day at both holes.
4 at Woodlands is a different hole altogther - unique,fun and quirky.

Like all these things, it is a matter of perspective and how you play the game.  As a golfer I hit driver absolutely everywhere.  I hit in on 3, 4 (unless straight downwind) and 13 at Woodlands everytime I play them.  3 is good use of flat ground, but I quickly learnt never to hit driver here as they simply wasn't sufficient payoff.  It is a much simpler pitch from the layup on KH3 than 13W, where the green is very narrow and sweeps off to the left.  I also mark down RMW10 for the same reason - I reckon you would have to be a lunatic to take driver.  Give me 13 Portsea, RME1 or the short fours at Woodlands anyday.  

Another differing perspective is decent wedge players.  As a club golfer I hardly ever see anyone who can wedge it to 8 feet on a regular basis from outside perhaps 30 metres.  Stick a bunker in between and they are even worse, often flipping the right wrist in an attempt to lift it.  I can think of only one club golfer who regularly sticks it close.  I know there are plenty around, but they're pretty rare.

I don't think you can divorce so easily the quality of the architecture from the quality of the bunkering - especially as it is some of the very best in the world - IMO and the opinion of almost everybody who sees it.

I was divorcing the quality of the routing from the quality of the bunkering.  I think KH is a good example of how great bunkering (and vegetation management) can at least distract from flaws in the routing.  Bad bunkering can clearly be detrimental to the architecture, but whether it is good or great probably doesn't make a great deal of difference.  When I look at a bunker my first thought it is to wonder what it is meant to achieve.  At  KH a lot of it seems aesthetic, which may work there but it is generally a disaster.  You can't help but wonder that modern construction equipment has made it too easy for golf course architects to build bunkers, and some have gone a little silly imo (and that is not a cheap shot, I know you have filled in plenty at Metro).  Again, it all comes down to personal preference, but I prefer the simplicity of the one bunker greens and angles involved on many of the greens at Commonwealth to a lot of the stuff at KH.  Less is often much more.

You can do the same with the start although the 1st at Woodlands is the poorest hole on both courses.

I quite like it, and really like the green complex, with the strategy in some ways an example of the Pete Dye's reversing the reward essay (as I remember it).  Layup short and right and have a nice angle to the green or take on the trees and potentially have to take on the LH greenside traps.  Hard to object to an opening hole though which gives an advantage to the guy who hits it right, doesn't hurt when getting the field away.  You don't think 12 is now worse?  And plenty would say that 17 at KH is the worst on both tracks (but lets not go there)

I'm not sure what there is to 'get' at 6 at KH.
I am assuming you are saying it's 'offensive' but it's just a tee shot up and over a small rise that sets up a really good looking second shot.When the pin is right you need to drive left by the left fairway bunker and when it's back right you need to drive right over by the shared bunkers with the 1st - strategically interesting and hardly offensive.It's a fun shot for me at least - I'm sorry you don't feel the same way.

No need to feel sorry, I was just curious what your take on it was.  Looking at it more from the perspective of an ordinary golfer, I looked at it and saw it pretty much always setting up for an approach from the left.  Hence the bunkering down the left.  The bunkering down the right I thought was unneccessary as most choppers hitting it down there would otherwise have been a big chance of hitting a gay fade or worse out right for their second and being faced with a very difficult 3rd.  I just thought it seemed unneccessary to stick such extensive fairway bunkering where they would already be confronted with a very difficult fairway wood or long iron anyhow.  My totally uninformed guess was that it came much later and done for for largely aesthetic purposes, perhaps taking the sandbelt moniker a little to seriously.

Graeme Grant restored the lost bunkers between tee and green at 15 in the early 80's.
I don't have the history book - but the front lip of the left bunker is higher now that it was in 1930 - I assume because of the sand build-up over the years.We lowered it a little recently and altered slightly the percentage of fall in the back right corner so they can get a pin there when the greens are quick.

There was a large amount of short grass at the front of the green in the 1931 picture, hence my query as to the period is was meant to have been restored to.  Based on that albeit small and grainy picture you would be hard pressed to call it a restoration.  You are quite welcome to borrow it, I don't think I'll be looking at it for a while after this thread.

He knew he had a small piece of ground - 125 acres as opposed to about 160 at Victoria and Metro - and to have a tiny hole that took up no space gave him more room to move with he other 17.

That is like arguing the glass is half empty.  Compared to YY, Woodlands and I suspect Commonwealth it would have been half full.  I spoke to a member of your staff on Friday and asked him to use Google Earth to measure all the key sandbelt properties.  

[Brian Walshe]

Mike,

I have to agree with James on Kingston Heath.  Of all the Sandbelt courses it was the one that left me wondering what all the fuss was about.  Aside from 15 there are no other extraordinary holes, just a collection of very good and good holes.  Its strengths to me are the bunkering and its eveness.  17 good solid golf holes and one extraordinary one.

When people compare it to RMW I struggle to understand why.  Where are the holes even close to 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10 and 17 at RMW?  I can't help thinking that as James said it gets a free ride because of the bunkering.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()