[James_Livingston]

I am not sure how you guessed my handicap correctly, but after my first few rounds in Australia I vowed not to disclose it for I played more like a 10-12 marker throughout my trip. Must be the reverse coriolis effect . But you make a good point, we all see courses differently, and it is difficult to see it through the eyes of other players. Some of the tighter corridors at Kingston Heath probably seemed comfortably wide to my playing partner Mike Clayton.

Tyler, Melbourne is a small town.  The best courses are the ones that give everyone a chance.  The longer they get the exponentially disadvantaged the smaller less skilled golfer gets.  I just look at Woodlands and think it, at 6100 metres or so, with a great mix of hole lengths and directional change and well defended greens, is a better model for addressing technology than blindly and expensively making courses longer.  You might have guessed its a hobby horse of mine.

I do believe the beloved Kingston Heath has 3 short par-fours, namely No. 3, 9 and 13 (269, 330 and 324 metres repectively), of which, I think the former is the best (and not because I curled in a birdie there).
However, in defense of Woodlands, none of them are as good as No. 13, which I thought was a smashing hole, a great example of requiring players to challenge the left hand side bunkers in order to have a decent chance at holding the leftward sloping green. Unfortunately, the lenghty walk back into the line of play towards the fourteenth tee is a detriment to the routing at Woodlands, so it's not bulletproof. But, this is comparible (although not as bad, or dangerous) to the walk back to the sixteenth tee at Kingston Heath.

TK

In the earlier thread I defined the short par four as 300 or less, ie a lot of people can get it pretty close in normal conditions if tempted.  320+ I'd put at the lower end of the mid length par four, not really driveable unless conditions are very favourable for pretty much everyone.  I have heard it argued that 320 metres is a driveable par 4 now, but I'm not terribly convinced.

You certainly paid attention when you were here though.  Neither of those walks between holes are ideal, although generally you don't do a lot of walking from tee to green on either course.  I imagine 16 tee would have been roughly adjacent to 15 green at KH when laid out, although it was likely a shocking hole.

No question there are easier courses and easier walks than any course on the National. Then again, I wouldn't recommend joining if you were a short fat bloke who couldn't hit over a jam tin.

My impression of Norman is that he would be disinclined to design a course as a tribute to Mackenzie or any other designer-living or dead. That said, he claims the Medalist greens + surrounds were built to play like Royal Melbourne. I recently received a permission slip from The Shark to play the Medalist when in Jupiter next month, so I'll soon e in a better position to judge the accuracy of that statement. The Intracoastal Waterway does seem a strange place to imitate the best green complexes on the Sandbelt though.

The reality is that despite what they may believe, most guys cannot hit it over a jamtin.  National Moonah, despite its length, is not a terribly difficult course for low markers.  It can get brutally difficult for 18 markers though, and my reference to Mackenzie wasn't to suggest that Norman should pay homage to him, but to take account of his inferior golfer who has to play these courses week-in week-out.  It may not have been his fault totally, no doubt he was delivered a brief to produce a "championship" course.  The National has been smart enough though to create enough "wank" factor to get people joining even if the courses will eat them alive.

[Anthony Butler]

The National has been smart enough though to create enough "wank" factor to get people joining even if the courses will eat them alive.

I know a lot of tough courses are going to hurt me when the wind starts blowing over 20mph, but I can't imagine joining a club where every round starts with knowing I won't break 95.... Then again, people buy 400hp cars and they can't drive these near their potential so your theory has some credibility, James.

[Mark_F]

James,

Or if one of them is utter dirge.

[Mark_F]

[quote author=Kevin Pallier
"Better" is a subjective term - yes both Woodlands and Commonwealth make good use of their limited topography but "better" than KH and it's limited acreage and subtle changes in undulation taking into consideration characteristics such as each holes design, routing, bunkering etc. - IMO no?

Kevin,

What are the subtle changes in elevation at KH?

There are two bloody great ridges that run straight across the fairways.

I haven't played either Commonwealth or Woodlands for a while, but, aside from the 12 and 13 at Woodlands - and 12 only as the result of some bastard reconstruction I believe? - I don't recall any hole at either club resembling another.

The same cannot be said for Kingston Heath.

[Paul_Daley]

RE: Sandbelt development/housing/farming 1900-1930:

Huge tracts of heathland stretched out from the city to Frankston in a south-easterly direction. Land usage was mainly farmland and market gardens. Take a look at the classic Metropolitan and Yarra Yarra aerials from Kitty McEwans 1934 book, and one sees just how under-developed the whole area (for many miles) was.

Mention was made of trams and trains. The fore-runner to Royal Melbourne, The Melbourne Golf Club (1891), was listed as being located in Caulfield. Of course everyone knows it was really located in Malvern, but as Caulfield was the nearest train station, that address took precedence. Sorry for the useless tidbits.

 

[Kevin Pallier]

Mark

What are the subtle changes in elevation at KH?

There are two bloody great ridges that run straight across the fairways

Either you're too short or I am too tall ? but the small "ridge" across #1 & #6 is just that...a small rise. The rest of the "great ridges" as you refer to them across KH ain't exactly huge hills either so my statement of small changes in elevation stand !

Mark, just because a course has some holes that are run back to back per se or has some holes that have a degree of similarity IMO doesn't make it a bad course. As a point of comparison, #13 & #16 at NSW resemble one another and I don't hear too many critisicisms of them ? Look, I have already tried to explain the differences between those that you thought resembled one another at KH but you don't seem to acknowledge my points. That's fine.

Also, you challenged fellow GCA's with the statement "there's bags more variety in those four holes (at Woodlands and G'Wealth) each than the entire 18 at The Heath" I countered with the wonderfull variety of the 5 finishing holes 14-18 that KH presents and should I presume anything by your silence ? Or should I place any faith in one of your earlier posts that KH's finishing holes are "ordinary" ?

Mark - you can continue to sing the praises till the cows come home about Woodlands and that's fine - as I have already stated it is certainly an underrated layout. But just don't complain when they continue to fall on deaf ears when you try and compare it to KH because I for one disagree with you.

BTW - has Woodlands ever appeared in Golf Magazines's World Top100 venues in the last 15 years (C'Wealth did in the '90's) ? Not that such lists are gospel but better judges than me have consistently put KH in the World's Top30 courses and having seen 50 odd venues that make up the lists over the years - IMO they are darn well about right.

[James_Livingston]

Mark - you can continue to sing the praises till the cows come home about Woodlands and that's fine - as I have already stated it is certainly an underrated layout. But just don't complain when they continue to fall on deaf ears when you try and compare it to KH because I for one disagree with you.

BTW - has Woodlands ever appeared in Golf Magazines's World Top100 venues in the last 15 years (C'Wealth did in the '90's) ? Not that such lists are gospel but better judges than me have consistently put KH in the World's Top30 courses and having seen 50 odd venues that make up the lists over the years - IMO they are darn well about right.

Being a golf course architecture forum, my focus tends to be on exactly that.  I tend to judge a course by the quality of its architecture, not the conditioning, clubhouse, ambience, practice facilities etc.  Probably means I've been looking at this site for way too long.  There aren't too many people who would argue that KH doesn't have the better, clubhouse, practice facilities or vegetation management, although I'm reliably informed the fairways and greens are better at Woodlands at the moment.  Its also quieter.  There is no doubt KH is a must see destination.  If Uncle Buck and Cousin Benny were coming out from the US I would tell them to play there, RM, Metro and Huntingdale.  But when it comes to the architecture, especially in terms of the routing, the mix of holes, directional changes and the use of the movement in the property, I think Woodlands has it in spades over KH.  And I've explained in some detail why I think it is the case, whereas most of the responses just unquestioningly spout the conventional KH wisdom (its ranked higher so it must be better, its a great routing for a small site nonsense) or offer no justification.  So for Ed and other guys looking to learn about fantastic architecture, my advice would be RMW, Woodlands, Commonwealth and KH.  

And magazine rankings are meaningless for the architecture buff.  A complete waste of time.  I still remember the guy a few years back who dropped RM to 2 because he felt the fairways had slipped in condition.  

[Kevin Pallier]

James_L

I tend to judge a course by the quality of its architecture, not the conditioning, clubhouse, ambience, practice facilities etc.

For the record James - so do I

But, you've certainly lost me when you say "If Uncle Buck and Cousin Benny were coming out from the US I would tell them to play there, RM, Metro and Huntingdale."

"Huntingdale" ?? Why pray tell ?

If I was advising Uncle Buck etc - I would tell him to stear well clear of the place....and play instead the following VIC courses in order:
 
Royal Melbourne (West)
Kingston Heath
Royal Melbourne (East)
Metropolitan or Victoria
The National (Moonah)
Commonwealth
St. Andrews Beach (Gunnamatta)
Woodlands
The National (Old)
Portsea

[James_Livingston]

James_L
But, you've certainly lost me when you say "If Uncle Buck and Cousin Benny were coming out from the US I would tell them to play there, RM, Metro and Huntingdale."

"Huntingdale" ?? Why pray tell ?

I was sticking to the sandbelt.  Great condition, close to town, was once ranked in the world's top 100 and it holds a tournament every year they can watch back home on the golf channel.  I'm told Huntingdale is also big draw for the international visitors, although more so from Asia.  Trust me, Joe Public isn't going to log on here to find courses of sufficient architectual purity.  Extending to the Mornington Peninsula I'd recommend National's Old and Moonah, largely for wow factor and ticking off the box.  Benny and Buck would hate StAB as they would think it is too unfair.

[Sean Walsh]

James,

I can't understand why Benny and Buck would hate the unfairness of the Gunnamatta but enjoy the penal nature of National Old

I do agree with the watch back home factor.  It's part of the reason I played a few Open venues while in the UK despite the budgetary stretch required.

[Anthony Butler]

RE: Sandbelt development/housing/farming 1900-1930:

Huge tracts of heathland stretched out from the city to Frankston in a south-easterly direction. Land usage was mainly farmland and market gardens. Take a look at the classic Metropolitan and Yarra Yarra aerials from Kitty McEwans 1934 book, and one sees just how under-developed the whole area (for many miles) was.

Mention was made of trams and trains. The fore-runner to Royal Melbourne, The Melbourne Golf Club (1891), was listed as being located in Caulfield. Of course everyone knows it was really located in Malvern, but as Caulfield was the nearest train station, that address took precedence. Sorry for the useless tidbits.

Thanks for that info. I was going to post that RM ended up at Black Rock as a result of the club moving in the 20s. I do believe they made some kind of deal where they sold off a piece of land smaller than Kingston Heath in Caulfield and got the piece of land at Black Rock. It seems the club made a stopover in Sandringham before constructing the West Course in 1926.

The rest of the club's history... and movements can be found here.

http://www.royalmelbourne.com.au/history/index.php

Even in the 20s, the encroachment of the suburbs was a factor in locating and designing the course.

[James_Livingston]

I can't understand why Benny and Buck would hate the unfairness of the Gunnamatta but enjoy the penal nature of National Old

That's why you post on here.  National Old has enough WOW factor that they will love it, even as they lose a dozen balls.  I remember when I first played it in the early 90s, a playing partner lost at least a dozen balls on a perfectly still autumn day, then went in and practically joined on the spot.  As any real estate agent will attest, Australians love their water.

[Chris Kane]

Kevin, Metro?  Say it ain't so!

The more I see of Metro, the more in falls in my estimation.  Where are the good holes?  Metro demonstrates that with good fairway conditions and an old-money membership, people will assume that the club also has a great golf course.  I struggle to see how anyone who is evaluating based on architecture could have it in Australia's top 15.  

[Mark_F]

Mark

What are the subtle changes in elevation at KH?

There are two bloody great ridges that run straight across the fairways

Either you're too short or I am too tall ? but the small "ridge" across #1 & #6 is just that...a small rise. The rest of the "great ridges" as you refer to them across KH ain't exactly huge hills either so my statement of small changes in elevation stand !

Mark, just because a course has some holes that are run back to back per se or has some holes that have a degree of similarity IMO doesn't make it a bad course. As a point of comparison, #13 & #16 at NSW resemble one another and I don't hear too many critisicisms of them ? Look, I have already tried to explain the differences between those that you thought resembled one another at KH but you don't seem to acknowledge my points. That's fine.

Also, you challenged fellow GCA's with the statement "there's bags more variety in those four holes (at Woodlands and G'Wealth) each than the entire 18 at The Heath" I countered with the wonderfull variety of the 5 finishing holes 14-18 that KH presents and should I presume anything by your silence ? Or should I place any faith in one of your earlier posts that KH's finishing holes are "ordinary" ?

Mark - you can continue to sing the praises till the cows come home about Woodlands and that's fine - as I have already stated it is certainly an underrated layout. But just don't complain when they continue to fall on deaf ears when you try and compare it to KH because I for one disagree with you.

BTW - has Woodlands ever appeared in Golf Magazines's World Top100 venues in the last 15 years (C'Wealth did in the '90's) ? Not that such lists are gospel but better judges than me have consistently put KH in the World's Top30 courses and having seen 50 odd venues that make up the lists over the years - IMO they are darn well about right.

Kevin,

Then we must beg to differ.  I think it's quite an elevation change from the top of the rise on 6 and 16 down to the green.  Neither Commonwealth nor Woodlands have the benefit of such undulation.

You need to re-read the posts more carefully.  I explained on the very first page about the greater variety at the two courses I mentioned.

Didn't the magazine you rank for rate Woodlands 69 a few years ago?  Was that darn right?  They also list Cruden Bay as the 78th, I think, best course in the world.  British magazines reate it about 78th best in the UK?  Who's right and wrong there?

Even the maestro himself, Tom Doak, wrote in the Confidential Guide about the Sandbelt that he doubted a round at Woodlands - and a couple of other courses he mentioned - would be worth missing out on another round at the courses he wrote about.

[Chris Kane]

Even the maestro himself, Tom Doak, wrote in the Confidential Guide about the Sandbelt that he doubted a round at Woodlands - and a couple of other courses he mentioned - would be worth missing out on another round at the courses he wrote about.

Mark, that could be because he didn't get to play Woodlands, and relied upon the word of others (probably the same people who ranked it 69).  I'm sure he'd say something different now.

[Tyler Kearns]

Mark & Chris,

Just read Tom's comments in the Confidential Guide, and like Chris said, it appears like he never saw it at the time of writing (the other course was Peninsula South). Woodlands was probably the best surprise of my recent trip, along with the incredible quality of Royal Melbourne East. After my round, I commented to Mike Clayton how anybody could find 68 courses in Australia better than Woodlands. We chuckled heartily. Sometimes ratings are off the mark... and sometimes they are ass-backwards.

TK

[Kevin Pallier]

Mark

You need to re-read the posts more carefully

I think that you had better take some of your own advice - I said I was a panellist for Aust. Golf Digest not Golf Magazine Australia who absurdly rated Woodlands at 69 in 2003.

I posted on Darious Oliver's website (ausgolf) at the time:
"Woodlands down at #69 !!! - well after I read that - I lost all respect for the article. I think Darius summed it up superbly when he said this rank 'will hurt the panel's credibility'"

I also said in my early post that such lists certainly aren't "gospel" - please read my posts more carefully. I use such lists as a guide to form my own opinions on my travels as much as Tom's book is also used a "guide" (with much more consistency and credibility IMO) to once again form my own opinion.

In summary Mark...

Then we must beg to differ

At least we finally have something that we agree on

[Mark_F]

Chris,

Sorry, that's exactly what I meant.

Tom probably didn't play Woodlands because no one really mentions it. That's why it never ranks in overseas polls - the raters all take the same line.

Kevin,

I did read the line about gospel.  I just assumed that because you started a sentence 'has Woodlands ever appeared in Golf Magazine's World Top 100" it is because you do think they have some veracity.

Otherwise, why mention it?

I know you said you were a panelist for AGD - I, obviously incorectly, assumed it was them that rated Woodlands at 69, since I have better things to do with my time than read Golf Magazine.

Presumably you are one of the panelists responsible for Metropolitan being top six or seven inthe country?

Still, it could be worse.  You could be Ross Perret, and think that all three courses at The National are top 15 in Australia.

[James_Livingston]

Then we must beg to differ.  I think it's quite an elevation change from the top of the rise on 6 and 16 down to the green.

I assume you meant 8 and 16.  That is the major movement through the property and I reckon Soutar used it in a simply dreadful way in routing the course.  It is a struggle to imagine that the major movement through the property could have been used any worse. 8 is a blind tee shot over the hill with bunkers on the other side.  16 is basically the same.  9 is also a blind tee shot across it and 15 was also before Mackenzie pointed out it was ridiculous and dragged the green forward (I'm not convinced he had it bunkered it to the extent it has been 'restored' to today either).  No heroic carries or anything terribly interesting, just stick the tee on the underside of the hill and hit over it.  The mind boggles at how good KH would have been with even a semi-decent routing. If TWP came up with something this bad people would be baying for blood, but like so many things there, because it is KH it gets a free pass.

[RichMacafee]

James and Mark,

To me it is hard to believe that you can both write so much about Kingston Heath and completely ignore the one thing that makes it stand apart from so many other courses - the green complexes!!

For starters 1,2,3,6,7,10,11,12,15 have better green complexes than the best green at Woodlands (which I do not want to put down at all because I think it is a fantastic golf course). Woodlands have 6 greens that have a single slope from left to right, with no flat areas or 'opposing contours', 1,5,6,9,10,16. On every one of these holes left of the green is dead, right of it is OK - irrespective of where the pin is positioned.

All the greens I mentioned above at KH have many, many different pin positions which then determine where is the good or bad miss. One day left is dead, the next day left is a good miss - to me the sign of a truly interesting and brilliant green complex.

There is not a lot of drive strategy on 1 and 6 at KH, but you still have to hit a long and straight shot. But the greens on these 2 holes is why KH is such a fantastic golf course. To suggest that the green at KH6 is a shocker is beyond comprehension to me.

Also I think saying that 4 and 13 at KH are the same hole is just plain wrong. 13 is a very underated hole IMO, and one that troubles a lot of good players off the tee. Clearly KH4 is the victim of technology, but as Mike has mentioned before, it is architecturally pure and if that is the worst hole on the course you are doing OK!

-10 has won the last 2 Australian Opens held at KH, both held in good weather, with some, but not a lot of wind. It stands up to the pros and top amateurs better than ANY course on the sandbelt, without question. The major reason for this is the brilliance of the green complexes and the variety of decisions they present to the golfer, and which change each day with new pin settings.

I would love to meet you on the 3rd tee at KH tomorrow with 10 balls and watch you hit 10 4-irons and 10 sand wedges, and have 10 easy 2-putts. I'll take $10 for every time you don't do it and be taking $50 - $80 straight to the bar .

P.S. I love Woodlands, why do all KH threads have to refer to Woodlands??

[Andrew Thomson]

But Rich, thats what EVERYONE says  

[Matthew Mollica]

Fascinating discussion.

James-L does a good job of extolling the virtues of Woodlands. Anyone would think he played there regularly.

Thanks for the good post on KH Rich. Glad you could contribute. Brings a little sense to the discussion.

I often wonder why KH bashing is such a sport, especially by those who either play it poorly, or have played it infrequently.


Correct with your earlier post Kevin.

Golf Magazine (a few years back) was the one to give Woodlands a ranking high in the 60's. I think that was the last edition of their publication I ever bought. To add the recent views of other mags -

Golf Australia Magazine (2004)
Kingston Heath #2
Woodlands #21
Commonwealth #16

Golf Australia Magazine (2006)
Kingston Heath #2
Woodlands #18
Commonwealth #14

Aust Golf Digest (2004)
Kingston Heath #2
Woodlands #31
Commonwealth #27

Aust Golf Digest (2006)
Kingston Heath #3
Woodlands #26
Commonwealth #23

FWIW, my rankings (for both GA & AGD) for 2006 -

Kingston Heath #3
Woodlands #10
Commonwealth #17

MM

[Kevin Pallier]

MM

Golf Magazine (Australia) is the sister publication of Golf Magazine (US) - what is the inaccuracy of my post ?

Golf Australia to which you are a panelist - IMO produced a pretty reasonable picture of our 'best' courses this year as I have discussed with you. My concern was with architects rating their own courses as evidenced by a certain architect rating 3 courses that he's worked on: Moonah Links (Legend) + (Open) / The National (Ocean) in his own Top10

[Chris Kane]

Kevin, the Golf Australia ranking may not be perfect, but for mine its the only one with any credibility because the individual rankings of each panellist are printed.  That is the only way for each member to be accountable for what they submit.

[Matthew Mollica]

Sorry Kevin - I misread what you wrote. Post amended.

MM

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()