St Andrews Beach

[James Bennett]

Hi James L

regarding the repetition of the ground-game options around the greens (putters, 6-iron run shots versus aerial pitch shots), have you been to Dornoch?  Dornoch also has short grass in spades around the green, but it is not universally short.  IIRC the rhs of 6 (par 3) is kept longer, and the rear of some greens (back nine, can't remember which holes) had small sporadic areas of long grass perhaps 600mm in diameter.  The effect was to cause some thought in the recovery shot.  If the ground game option was taken, you may have had to play away from the pin because of this longer grass.  Obviously on #6 you had to pitch back up to the green (or take two extra shots to get back to the green).

Sorry, I don't have any photos that show this 'feature'.

James B

[James_Livingston]

have you been to Dornoch?

James, sadly I haven't been to Dornoch.  In fact I haven't really been anywhere, so you should take any of my musings with a grain of salt.  Someone must have some pictures of this 'feature' though.

Do you agree there is often less thought involved in the recovery shots at StAB.  Given the transition from green to the often vast short grass surrounds is regularly level and any movement around the greens usually fairly constant, was the construction perhaps too minimalist?

[Mark_F]

Whilst all the short grass around the greens allows multiple shot options, it seems that most people automatically go to their default shot, usually the putter (6 iron for me).

And this is the fault of the course, not the player?  

Mark, you certainly get a different perspective on the course when playing it in foul conditions with Brian as opposed to perfect conditions with the course evangelist.  

I played it in reasonably miserable conditions with Philip Gawith, who merely heroically shrugged his shoulders and got on with the task at hand.

[Mark_F]

D

[James_Livingston]

And this is the fault of the course, not the player?  

Mark, I hypothesised that it was the fault of the designer.  The choice is regularly too easy and the same shot.  

This includes holes like 3 and 8 which you mentioned.  Miss the green and most guys will be reaching straight for the putter.

[Mark_F]

James,

That is more of an indictment upon them and their sad lack of ingenuity and imagination, not too mention skill and intelligence.

If you miss the first green, depending upon the flag location, you have numerous options - a bump and run into the bank, a pitch, or you could try pitching into the side of the hill and letting the ball roll across, but that requires all of the above qualities, which are clearly sadly lacking in the populace of Melbourne, apart from one or two enlightened individuals of course.

Ditto with three.  A miss short can be a putt, a chip or a pitch into the side of the hill.  A miss long can be a putt or a chip around the banks.

A miss long at eight can be a putt certainly - but a chip and run is a perfectly reasonable proposition, and so to is the pitch.  I don't see why a putter is the choice if you miss short on eight, but then I have clearly been gifted with qualities others lack, so such mundane options aren't attractive.

Same with nine - a miss short can be a pitch or a bump into the bank.  I fail to see how the putter could be an option for anyone other than a zombie, or a US Presidential candidate.   Miss left, and the putter is a more attractive option - but a chip into the bank or a little pitch, or even a flop could also be used.

[Tom_Doak]

I am amazed that such a simple golf course has generated such controversy.  Amazed and pleased.

Regarding the options around the greens, it is only natural for most people to fall back on their most comfortable shot, whether it is putter or 6-iron or lob wedge.  But, that's far different than saying that the same option always yields the best result.

Regarding the difficulty of some of the approach shots, that is the heart of the golf course.  On any given day there are going to be a couple of approach shots that require a good shot from Geoff or Michael, and which are beyond the powers of most 3-handicaps, who should be thinking about where is the best place from which to get up and down.  Any course where a 3-handicap can hit all 18 greens is a waste of time for the best players.

[James Bennett]

Do you agree there is often less thought involved in the recovery shots at StAB.  Given the transition from green to the often vast short grass surrounds is regularly level and any movement around the greens usually fairly constant, was the construction perhaps too minimalist?

James L

not sure if you posed this question to me specifically, but I will try to answer it, albeit obtusely.  Firstly, I have only played St A B once so I won't comment on my personal experience with such shots.  I can't remember whether I bumped and ran, putted, pitched or hit greens in regulation (I don't think it was the latter).  I do recall having a hell of a time trying to tell whether 5 foot putts broke left, right or were straight.  Those putts were probably for par following an ineffectivegreenside recovery.

You said you chose to use a six-iron every time, whilst others might go with a putter every time.  How often did you get up and down using this approach?  Could you have done better by playing a different shot - perhaps a pitch on some occasions?  

Perhaps this range of greenside recovery options and choices should be viewed as similar to a 'strategic' golf hole whereby an easier route can be taken that avoids the bunkers, but makes a par more difficult.  And perhaps the addition of longer-grass at random spots at Dornoch adds a 'penal' aspect where such a hazard has to be avoided (by an aerial shot).  The Dornoch approach reduces the recovery options occasionally, the US Open approach (excluding Pinehurst #2 of course) specifies a single recovery shot (a lob), and the St Andrews Beach allows the player to choose what they wish, even if it isn't necessarily the best approach.

So, the US Open approach requires the least thought (lob every time) and the St Andrews Beach approach requires the most thought.  The other dimension is that Dornoch limits the options on occasion, forcing a player to vary his method.  Whereas St Andrews Beach does not force this limitation as often.

James B

[Jim Nugent]

Jack Nicklaus said he used sand wedge for 95% of all shots around the green.  An indictment of the courses he played?  

[ed_getka]

Jim,
  An indictment of his short game. Easily the weakest part of Jack's game. Of course just think how many majors he would have won with a short game.

[ed_getka]

It is hard to imagine a course that Tom Doak had a hand in, not requiring some short game imagination. I look forward to seeing it in a few months.

[Jim Nugent]

Jim,
  An indictment of his short game. Easily the weakest part of Jack's game. Of course just think how many majors he would have won with a short game.

I agree, Ed, about his game.  That was my point, actually.  That mostly using one club for short-game shots may say more about the player than the course.

I also think Jack could have won 30 majors, if he had a great short game, instead of an average one.  

[James Bennett]

It is hard to imagine a course that Tom Doak had a hand in, not requiring some short game imagination. I look forward to seeing it in a few months.

Ed

I don't think it is a matter of 'requiring' some short game imagination, it is more one of 'rewarding' some short game imagination.

Oh, and I think the reason Jack used his sand wedge for chipping so often is that the lob wedge hadn't been invented.  

Although I'd like to check some vision of his Australian and British Open wins to see what he was chipping with then.

James B

[Mark_F]

Amazing how much heated discussion this place generates.

Why is it that Americans who have never seen the place - as well as those who have, of course - appear to understand it better than those who have played it?

[Shane Gurnett]

Mark, it generates a lot of heated discussion because it is so different to what the locals are accustomed to. And it is also easily a better course than any of the three National courses, which I suspect has upset some of the members down there, not to mention the effect it has had on their share price as well.

I know a lot more people who like it than those who do not. In fact, I know few who have played there that did not like the course.  I think much of the critcism of the small greens and wide fairways is complete rubbish.

When does the second course open?

Shane.

[Kevin Pallier]

Do you agree there is often less thought involved in the recovery shots at StAB.  Given the transition from green to the often vast short grass surrounds is regularly level and any movement around the greens usually fairly constant, was the construction perhaps too minimalist?

James

This may be the case for some but I found it quite the opposite. I was constantly tossing up between bump and run / putter / wedge options.

[Mark_F]

Shane,

Interesting that you know of a lot more people who like it than don't. Excluding members, of course, I find the balance to be slightly on the side of dislike with people of my acquaintance...

And that includes people who play it reasonably well.  Funny how people who can hit 140 metre sand irons think the 10th green is too hard...

As to the Fingal... as per a previous PM regarding, err, finance arrangements, I understand that they have the money in place to build the hotel, but, since they are buggerising around with the design (of both the clubhouse and hotel), they have to go back to VCAT to get planning approval for the changes.

I would imagine that they must also have finance in place to construct the Fingal, since they surely couldn't be attempting to pull yet another swift one and have hotel guests play a course reserved "exclusively for members and their guests", could they? That would be a real piss slap to the face.

Especially given that there is currently no prospectus to sell shares in the blasted place. I hope to find out for sure next week.

[Andrew Thomson]

Much like James L I also found myself falling back on the same recovery shot (or club) around the greens on most holes.

However, this is more due to the fact that I lack the ability to hit some of the subtle shots demanded of me when I missed the green, not an inherent design flaw in the green complexes themselves.

Greens like 2,3,5,7,8,10,14,15 and 17 all seemed to me to have many options in mode of recovery, depending on where you missed and how adept you are at executing a certain shot type.

I will also agree that it is a unique course as far as Australia goes, but no more so than than National Old.  They are both fantastic golf courses, and both unique in their own ways.

In my experience, National Old is like nothing I've ever played before.  The gunnamatta does have more of a 'familiar' feel to it if you have played much golf in the UK.

[David_Elvins]

I think that one reason that a lot of players go back to their default recovery shot is that the recovery shots are so hard.  The good player will vary his recovery shots to get within 3-6 feet of the pin.  THe slightly less confident player will always use his most trusted club to make sure he gets on the green or within 10 feet of the pin.

There are many "risk/reward" possibilities in the recovery play at St Andrews Beach.  And often no right answer.  

[Mark_F]

David,

Many holes also have one side that recovery shots are, or can be, quite difficult, but the other side of the green they are merely trickily precise.

Front, back and left side of two, right side of four, right side of 12 and 14 are the best examples.

[Mark Bourgeois]

What's up with Fingal? Any pics hiding on someone's hard drive?

[Ryan Farrow]

^thats a cart path.

[Mark_F]

What's up with Fingal? Any pics hiding on someone's hard drive?

Mark,

The Fingal is years away.

The only possible way to finance its construction -apart from selling the bodyparts of the directors to rich Americans  - is selling property, and that isn't going very well.

Given that the place is now effectively a public golf course, there is no way they are going to sell shares to anyone.

Pity, as there looks to be some pretty good holes there - 3,5,6,7,8,11,16,17and 18 at least.

I have some black and white photos I took of the raw land a couple of years ago.A search may dig them up, or I can maybe post them again.

[Shane Gurnett]

Mark, what does this all mean for the members who forked out the dollars for lifetime memberships in the early days?

[Mark_F]

Mark, what does this all mean for the members who forked out the dollars for lifetime memberships in the early days?

Shane,

It means we are being royally f%#@!* with a barbed wire inplement in places I would rather prefer not to be acquainted with.

I am against it for any number of reasons, not least that by allowing the public to play and get some easy money, the directors don't have to be accountable for their abysmal performance and their abject failure to bring even the slightest hint of ability or knowledge to their job.

The business model clearly isn't working, and hasn't for at least the past two years, yet this decision allows them to continue on unscathed.

If they need extra money, I would have thought the first step would be to stop paying yourselves $420,000 each a year.

I offered the job to a bag lady at Boronia station last night, and she slurred through her two front teeth that she would be willing to do it for a packet of fags and a new sleeping bag, and she could hardly do worse.

If my right arm wasn't currently in a cast, I would have smashed half my place up yesterday.

What's your opinion of the decision?