[Justin_Ryan]

Buttinsky
This is a forum for the discussion of golf course architecture.  If these matters can't be discussed here, and Commonwealth still has several outstanding architectural features intact, then where can they be discussed.  Nobody is stopping Mr Cashmore or supporters of the proposed changes from defending their position on this site.  I for one would love to hear the rationale behind the planned changes.  We also wouldn't bite your head off if you posted under your own name.  You are probably also overestimating the impact of this site.  CGC has been a popular topic of discussion here in the past, and I have seen no evidence that any comments made here have had any influence on the direction of the club, in fact they always seem to do the direct opposite.  

NicP is right about your house analogy being a poor one in this case as well, we are not talking about a 1950s weatherboard building here but a 19th century cathedral.  It was for this reason I suggested seeking heritage listing for the remaining intact green complexes may be appropriate in an earlier thread.

Your contention that all non-members (I am not a member) should butt out also poses a couple of problems.  Firstly, if you have to be a member of a club to post on it, you will not see very much objective comment.  Secondly, when changes like these are proposed, many members are afraid to speak out for fear of retribution.  I applaud Shane and Chris for having the courage to speak out publicly using their own names, and you have to support your friends.

[Chris Kane]

If a home owner decides to paint his house purple with pink spots, its irrelivant what the neighbours think, even though it could bring the street property price down.

Not only is this theory illogical, but it isn't true in suburban Melbourne: why do most building works require permits?  Because when buildings are altered, it doesn't just affect the people occupying that building/property, but those in the street, from a neighbourhood character as well as pricing perspective.  Have a look at the stringent planning requirements in place in northern Camberwell to see what I mean.

Why is it best to leave your name out of it?  

If you don't like what they're saying, or that fact that they're saying anything, you don't have to read their posts!

[Mike Clayton]

Personally I think it is off beam to suggest those who are not members ought to stay out of the discussion.
We have so few world class courses in this country -fewer than most would like to think- and all of the significant ones were done in the 20's and 30's.
Commonwealth was one of those courses and it was an important part of the culture of the game in this country.
Sadly that is not entirely true now and although there is still much great work there great work alone doesn't guarantee a great course.
One of the problems is that if you have no idea why something is great you are liable to mess it up because you cannot understand the important intricies that tie the whole thing together.
One thing Commonwealth did as well as anywhere was tie together 18 beautiful holes into a fantastic course and that isn't the case anymore because the continuity is gone.

One thing almost all the Australians who post here do is use their own name -I think it is much better that way.

[Danny Goss]

Buttinsky,

Firstly, it's generally a weak person or one without argument who will not stand behind his comments and come out with his true name.

Secondly, I am not a member of CGC but am a great believer in the heritage value of any great architecture ( and even some not so great) whether or not it applies to golf courses or other sites.

Following your logic, as I am not an "owner" of the MCG or St Patricks Cathederal or the Botanical Gardens then I should be denied a voice of protest if people want to destroy their architectural value. What a stupid notion. So I think what is happening at CGC is, in a very small way, my business.

There is a difference between protesting and being annoyed and then having the people in charge actually listen. I don't kid myself that the CGC Committee are lurkers on GCA.

Why should I butt out?
    

[Buttinsky]

Chris,

Firstly, I don't live at Camberwell and am pretty sure I can paint my adequate fibro house any colour I like.

All,

Ok Ok maybe 'butt out" was the wrong term. But really aren't we just a bunch of blokes sitting at a bar having a few beers (or shandies in your case Kaney) giving each other our opinions about stuff that won't matter a damn to the decision makers.
With the exception of the CGC members that should be crying blue murder as to why major works are being done without members consent.

Who's shout ?

Oh and forget the name thing, it really dosn't matter.

[Chris Kane]

Buttinsky,

Whether what is being said here is making any difference doesn't make this place an invalid forum to express ideas: to provide an analogy, thousands of sports fans talk about their teams tactics, and what should be done differently

[Andrew Presnell]

I think it's taken me this long to get over my sadness with what's happening at my beloved course to actually pen some thoughts (I thought I'd had a bad year when Wayne Carey left the Kangaroos). At times this seems like a bad dream.

As Mike and others have said it's almost incomprehensible that they could make the same mistake again. Shane_g and I joined soon before the last major act of grafitti took place and it seems we have been swimming against the tide ever since.

For those non-CGC members on this site it's interesting to note that Shane_g, Chris K and myself are all under the age of 35. Those deciding the fate of our course are all over 45. Amazing that the youngsters are the ones advocating restoration (whilst still being relatively new to the place)whilst the supposed "old heads" are seemingly all for tearing the joint apart.

I cannot understand how those in power can be so precious about the chopping down of single trees yet apparently think nothing of constantly bulldozing the treasures that lie below.

Thanks to all you guys for your words of concern. We'll continue to fight hard and do what we can. I think Nic_P is spot on when he said that they can't throw you out. I'm starting to believe in my heart that there's nothing wrong with being branded a "troublemaker" by the Board.

Tom Ramsay once described CGC as a "golfing Mona Lisa". We live in hope that the urge to inflict further vandalism will one day cease from the minds of those in positions of power.

[Mike_Duffy]

Just a couple of points guys.

Chris: I'd bet you Chris that if Tom Ramsay had a pecuniary interest in Commonwealth it would rate in his top 25 (a la his interest in the course at Turtle Point near Prosperine).

Secondly, I find it encouraging that such young people should be defending the status quo, rather than immersing themselves in the culture of "modernisation" of golf courses.

Sadly, it has been my generation who have, for the most part, been the vandals in destroying the concepts of some of our most notable courses.

For many years I felt like a lone voice in the wilderness when  the issue of protecting what we have arose in discussion. There appeared to be  an almost complete lack of understanding amongst Melbourne golf club memberships of  what great courses the golfers of Melbourne had on their doorsteps and the architectural merits thereto.

In the early 1960s one of the truly great holes in Australian golf was lost to compulsory land acquisition by the Bolte Government at The Metropolitan Golf Club.

Very few voices were raised in protest at the time, apart from the membership at Metro.

The Chief Secretary of the Government at the time, the late Sir Arthur Rylah said: "Its only a golf course, they are the prime targets of land acquisition. Its cheap (the land acquisition), its effective and has minimal impact on the surrounding neighbourhood."

The primary school that was built on the acquired land was pulled down by the Kennett Government in 1995 or thereabouts.

I believe that no State Government would try and pull that one off today, so I find it particularly disturbing when once again I find members of MY generation attemting to arrange a makeover of one of the great courses of Melbourne and Australian golf.

Hands off, leave well enough alone.

As for Mr Buttinsky, you wouldn't be a descendant of Sir Arthur Rylah, would you? One his favourite retorts was: "If you're not involved - stay out of it".

[Mike Clayton]

Mike
You are exactly right when you talk about 'your generation' and what has happened to our courses.
It is open to debate as to whether the members at Metro actually fought that hard to keep the origional course.Some around at the time suggest they didn't.
Ironically it was a Labour politican -Jack Galbally I think-who forced through a law that made the Metro type land aquisition impossible.

[Chris Kane]

Mike C,
If they didn't fight, might it have been because they didn't realise how good their course actually was: similar to what has happened at many clubs subjected to ill-advised modernisation?

[Mike_Duffy]

Mike,

Thanks for coming up with the name. When I was typing that post earlier today, I could see the face and couldn't recall the name.

Percy Beames, who was then sports editor of "The Age" told me some  years later that Jack Galbally was approached by members of the Government to put the Bill forward in the Upper House.

The Government, and particularly Rylah, thought it had no chance of getting passed, and consequencly got the shock of their political lives when enough members crossed the floor to support Galbally's bill.

It should not have come as surprise though, as Lindsay Thompson and Jack Rossiter amongst others were very keen golfers, and were reportedly disturbed at the government's actions in the land grab.

As for the membership at Metro at the time. many had good connections with the government and were therefore confident of dissuasion through private negotiations.

As they were to find out, the deal had already been done before they were even informed of the fact, and despite protestations, which for a very conservative club were quite extraordinary at the time, the vandalism by the government took its due course.

Now it is not politicians that we have to worry about, it is the age-old urge of man to leave his imprimatur on the world.

It would seem that almost every era has had the urge to build a monument to itself, be it a new clubhouse, new green contours, new holes, new tees, trees planted/cut down, bunkers dug/bunkers filled in et al. Some of the work would have been commendable and necessary, but much of it has been ego-driven.

Most of Melbourne's sandbelt courses require nothing more than custodial prudence, something that is lamentedly  deficient in a number of golf clubs in the present era.

[Brian Walshe]

Shane and Chris,

A couple of questions;

- Do you know what the motivation for the changes are?  Is it as stupid as a desire to get a tournament there (never mind the traffic) or to "improve it's ranking" and someone has convinced them that in order to do that changes are required?

- What is the view of the powers that be at CGC on the Hartley changes?  Is a corporate "they are a major improvement" line used or does anyone admit that perhaps they got it wrong?

- What was the process used (was there one?) in selecting the architect?

Brian

[Shane Gurnett]

Brian

No reasons have been given thus far. Some comment along the lines of "more championship pin postions", however no tournaments identified as yet. We all know the place is too small. This was the argument that led to the Hartley changes, which many still think is acceptable. An often used line is "there is no original design at Commonwealth, so ongoing changes should be regarded as ongoing improvements. We are moving with the times, reflecting technology changes, etc etc."

[Shane Gurnett]

One aspect of whats going on at CGC is that if this goes ahead there will probably be  three distinct styles on architecture on the golf course. There will be the Charles Lane style which dates from the 1930's to the 1990's (13 holes remain, although you could argue that the Hartley bunkering on the 8th fairway LHS, and bunker short right of the 13th green do comprise these holes to some degree), Hartley on holes 1, 6,7,10 (part) and 12, and what Cashmore proposes to do to 3,4,5, and 15.

Certainly the Hartley work is easy to pick, and the danger is that if Cashmore doesn't blend his work to match either style, and hopefully more of the orginal Lane work than Hartley, the place will be further tainted.

My question therefore is, which sandbelt course that has been under the knife comes out best in terms of seamlessly matching old holes with new. And further, if this can be achieved, which aspects are the most important (bunkers, greens etc) to match, therefore making it hardest to pick.

If holes must be altered, which aspects must be done perfectley? Any which course on the sandbelt has done it best and why? Examples which come to mind are Metroplitan and Victoria, maybe the Heath? Anyone?

[Chris Kane]

Shane,

Your examples of Metropolitan and Victoria are probably the only two that in my mind successfully blend different periods of construction: that is, the modern work has been properly integrated into the original layout, so that it is indistinguishable from the original work.

Huntingdale, the opposite is true: the recent work stands out like a sore thumb.  At Huntingdale, I think it is the result of trying "too hard" to build bunkers that look authentic, with the result being that the subtlety is lost from their look.

[Shane Gurnett]

Chirs

Huntingdale is an interesting case study. All the holes, with the exception of the 5th are unchanged from the orginal routing, however much of the bunkering,if not all, and the corrugations in the fairways give it a totally different feel. The bunkers are certainly very diiferent to what they were, and at this stage feel very artificial. I hope for the members sake that the changes "grow in" over time. Very little of the original course is however left untouched.

I think if you are talking about a partial redesign, then the bunkers are the most important aspect to get right. Visually, nothing sticks out more than poor, or misplaced bunkering.

Metro is also a little strange in places. The fairway bunkers on 6 and the corner bunkers on 16 (still a good hole) are over-worked and look out of place, but the quality of construction carries them through. The overall conditioning and balance of the design outweighs the weak holes.

[Justin_Ryan]

Shane
It would appear that in the eyes of the board, CGC has just one style, that of the botanical garden variety.  The course is the most over planted and overgrown course I have ever seen, yet the website boasts of the ongoing tree planting program.  The issue of differing styles within the golf course is obviously secondary or not relevant to the primary consideration of preserving the heavily wooded parkland feel.

As an aside, I was fortunate enough to have a game there recently, and there is some stuff, including bunkering on 6, 10 and 12, where you just stand there and either shake your head or laugh.  How it is possible for a professional architect to ignore this obviously dreadful work and instead propose unnecessary but no doubt very expensive green modifications is beyond me.  And why they were accepted is even more perplexing.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()