[harley_kruse]

Mark

Great post and loving the reviws discussion. I just got back from Melbourne yesterday and it kills me that I didn't play RM when there. Next month hopefully.

Neil.

You mention earlier in the post about the bunkers evolving and the capes & tongies  being different to the early days. I had the fortunate opportunity to meet Claude Crockford one afternoon when asked to re shoot some of his photos of RM for his book. We talked at length about the bunkers and how they have evolved and changed over time. I recall that I had with me that day a 1930's photo of 11W, 12W ,17W,  This old photo triggered discussion about removal of pine trees and old prostrate tea tree in favour of promoting heath. It also triggered an insightful RM  bunker discussion

Firstly Crocky talked about how many  of the bunker tongues/walk-ins were not present when the courses were first built but added over the years by him and his staff to make it easier for members to extricate themselves. They also had an additonal benefit of reducing  the effects of wind blow. These were  practical solutions  carried out with great artistic merit.

Secondly he also discussed the addition of islands of heath in the middle of bunkers. Neil you might be able to fill in more information here,  but my understanding is that there were only a very few  bunkers with islands when the course were first built.  Crocky talked about how he added more of these to certain  erosion prone bunkers.  This being a  practical solution to trap sand in the large bunkers which were prone to sand blow, particulalrly in the hot dry northerly winds of summer. At that time too the courses were were open and exposed to the wind

Harley

[Neil_Crafter]

Mark
Again a great discussion of the 14thC, you have a real talent for these descriptions I must say.

As for the outside bunkering on 6W, I think it got filled in because it was 'in the way' when it came time to build 2E. A later addition was the inside corner fairway bunkers that we know and love. Until the 9th hole of the 9 hole course was abandoned, a shortcut to 6G by way of that fairway would have been most tempting.

Harley
Nice to hear from you on this subject and happy new year to you!
You were indeed fortunate to have the chance to discuss with Crocky these subjects. And your illumination of his comments re bunker tongues and islands is certainly supported by the photographic evidence. If you look at the B&W oblique aerial of the 18E green and 18W green from 1941, you will see that by this time the 18E bunkers had islands in them. At some time this bunker was reconfigured and the islands became an elongated double sided peninsula of very gnarly rough known as 'Dunk's Island' after Australian pro Billy Dunk who famously visited this rough in a tournament (can't remember what one and when). I've made a Google Earth aerial of what it looks like today by way of comparison. I think a good deal of the visual impact of what we today think of as Mackenzie/Russell/Morcom can be attributed to later modifications by Crockford.

[Matthew Mollica]

Neil, interesting to see how those bunkers have changed over time.
The large trap short right of the 18W green for one.

Harley, did Crocky speak much of the original bunker forms in light of their construction with the horse drawn scoop?



This is one of the best threads I've read on GCA. Thanks Mark and all who are contributing.

RMC is certainly my fav all time course, and is like a mix tape of your fav 18 songs of all time.
Tunes of which you never tire, and always eagerly anticipate. The right amount of challenge, and fun.
It never lets up, and it never overpowers you, only promotes a sense of enjoyment with the hole you're playing,
and a sense of anticipation for the next hole.

If there are courses better than Royal Melbourne Composite, I hope I get to play them one day.

MM

[Mark Bourgeois]

Harley

That is fantastic oral history.  By any chance did he discuss his maintenance practices for the greens or the changes he made to their slopes?

Matthew, one gains an appreciation for all the people who contributed to this course's (these courses') greatness, yes?  It's like a bunch of tumblers miraculously falling just right so that the lock opens!  In that regard the course's architecture really does seem to be Superman to ANGC's Bizarro.  Does anyone know whether Cypress has had the same parade?  Shack's book doesn't get into it, does it?

Mark

[Mark Bourgeois]

What are we to make of the (downhill) 383-yard 15th (RME3), which in all probability is not only the easiest hole but one which perhaps falls the shortest of the Composite's philosophy of "summing-up loss-cutting"?

Like any great work of literature, more than one interpretation is possible.

Interpretation 1: Too Easy
As much as all of us wish we were better golfers, and if you are a golfer you will have wished or worked for improvement, we should spare a thought for the golfer who has gotten too good to enjoy a course or even a hole.

Alexander wept and Mike Weir drove the 15th at Rye and the 15th on the Composite is no more than a layup even for chops.

Which is not to say the tee shot is without drama or bereft of drama. Just that for once on this thinking gorilla you are not demanded to think too hard or cave-man your tee shot, that if the gestalt of the Composite's tee shots is controlled aggression, then the 15th's accent falls perhaps a little too hard on "controlled" when compared to its peers.

Like the 3rd (RME1), an unbroken field of bracken separates tee from fairway. Note: the green is not visible from the member's nor championship tees.

A dogleg to the right demands the golfer place his tee shot short of the trees outside the corner (duh!) yet the fairway slopes towards the wood so that on the tee the dominant refrain is "Whoa, ball, whoa! Whoaa....!"

In fact, if I were king I should name this hole "Whoa!" Accent on "controlled"....

So it's a hybrid or iron of some sort, certainly for most a driver and possibly even a 3-wood will strike far too aggressive a note.

Despite a layup off the tee, the second shot very likely will not be overly long, reducing the premium on careful placement in the fairway.



The saving grace of the hole is a beautiful green, with a wonderful bunker right and another Chippendale Back.




So one plays a hole that's limned in regret, perhaps. If we are not good enough to make child's play of the hole (thank heavens!), then some of the pleasure is dimmed that we may conquer it more often than the others. It's a puzzle solved a tad more easily.

Looking back up the fairway -- yet another multi-hole vista, with the 16th green behind the bracken right-center


If this what it means to be a really good golfer, to have your way with the Ryes of the world, I might just quit the game, not out of principle or out of resignation or even out of spite, but out of simple boredom. Another childish thing to put away when we become men.

Interpretation 2: A Part Necessary to a Great Sum
Wethered and Simpson, writing of the ideal course in "The Architectural Side of Golf," condemn making such a course out of 18 "greatest hits" holes.

Such a course would lack rhythm and balance and it would be unrelenting, one challenging hole after another.  An ideal course should be one you actually looked forward to playing day after day.

A great "sum" of a course needs to have "parts" no one would call great.  Breather holes, in a sense, but maybe also like Tolstoy's observation that beautiful women often are more beautiful for their small defects (not despite them).

Wethered and Simpson went on to name Woking as the ideal course, in the sense that being condemned to play it and it alone was less "condemnatory" than any other course they knew.

By naming Woking the ideal, clearly they knew something!

Does the Composite deserve this interpretation, particularly given its primary function as a "championship" test? By what criteria should we judge the course, and the 15th: by the sum of its parts, or simply by the overall sum?

Because you the reader own the meaning, not the designer(s), not the world's best players, not other architects, not commentators, not the media, not the stars, you will have to decide for yourself.

Mark

[harley_kruse]

Neil

great to see the comparison photos

Note the large bunker short left of the 18E green broken into 2 bunkers. I woul d assume Crocky did this to get players in and out more easily and speed up play.

Mark

In regards to greens we did briefly touch on the Suttons mix- a shot gun mix of imported grass seeds. The aim that the stronger ones would survive and the weaker ones would fade away.  Crocky was famous of course for his preparations of these famously true and fast greens for tournaments such as the Canada Cup that Neil referred to in 1959.  One of his managment tools  he referred to was the occasional dose of lead arsenate which was common in the day but now of course prohibited.

On another matter,  for the majority of Crocky's 45 years as green keeper  there was no irrigation system for the fairways and hand watering of greens was common.  Fairways were brown, firm and fast in summer. Golf was a winter sport for a lot of members. Crocky and indeed Peter Thomson beleives the fairways were at their best then.  The drying out of the fairways meant Crocky had a more natural way of keeping  the Poa population  in check.  ( RM 2 grass policy in the fairways - couch/bermuda in summer and Poa surface in winter



Harley

[Mark Bourgeois]

Or is the 16th the weak link of the Composite?

A long, tough 201-yard par 3, it fails Wethered and Simpson's test. This hole isn't a breather, it knocks the wind out of you.  Though it offers an added-difficulty sort of "variety" to the par 3s, I will plant my flag next to Ben Crenshaw's.

He couldn't believe they played this hole but walked past - repeat, walked past - what might get my vote as the most beautiful inland par 3 in my personal experience: the East's 16th, which suffers the dubious criticism of being "too easy," dubious in Wethered and Simpson's sense but also in that there are plenty of alarming possibilities for hole locations.

Right, the 16th. Be aware, she's no ugly step child, and there's plenty to recommend her, not just as a "championship" hole.  Banked into a hillside, it offers the shadow of a Redanish shape:



Now, were this green a putting clock you would not unhappily consign yourself to 30 minutes or an hour going around and around.  Maybe 30 minutes:



And if you fall victim to the traps - let's not call them bunkers - or long, you might well spend an hour or two going up down around and around....

So there's more than a little to recommend the hole.

But honestly and in the immortal lyrics of Spinal Tap, how can we leave the behind:



The reader may treat that as a rhetorical question. Or, like the author, as not: if you get the chance, be sure to play the Composite as a 19-hole course.

Mark

[Peter Pallotta]

Mark (and Neil et al) - wonderful posts; just a marvelous thread, thanks. 

Apropos of nothing, I'll just say (type out):

The quality of mercy is not strained
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath

Also: Wethered and Simpson knew their stuff alright. But Mark, I'd take exception to one of your comments (even though I think we're in agreement). You wrote: "A great sum of a course needs to have parts no one would call great." But I'd say instead that "A great golf course doesn't NEED to have anything at all, i.e. no one part specifically is required such that the sum is greater than the parts."

The "golfer" who commits to participating fully in his round of golf will out of necessity (and happily) take and experience the golf course as it comes to him: one vista, one shot, one trial or moment of grace at a time. It is the "critic" who, after the fact -- or even before the fact -- sits in his club chair and weighs and calculates and speculates on the value or nature of that experience. 

Peter

[Mike_Clayton]

Mark,

Ian Baker-Finch and I played with Mike Bodney (PGATour's on the ground man for 2 years before the 1998 President's Cup) a year or more before the event and tried to convince him to play 16 East instead of 4 East.
They are both very good holes and for me the shot up the hill  - trying to hit the swinging draw back to the flag especially when it is in the back left corner - is more interesting and fun. 16 East looks great but it is much more of a standard short iron shot.

The other thing was that with only three short holes - 5West, 7 West and 16 East - they would have had a conspicuously short set of par threes. Balance is not everything but they work well with 5 as a straight 6 or 7 iron shot hole, 7 as a faded 8 or 9 iron hole and 4 east as a drawn 3 or 4 iron.

[Mark Bourgeois]

I certainly can attest to the "fun" of hitting one's tee shot long, Mike. The draw aspect is a valid point, and better to stick with 4 East than muck around with 16 East, I suppose.  Still...this line is 193 yards by Google Earth:


There certainly would not be any draws hit from a tee installed right of the bunker on 4, where the path now goes.

One last question regarding 4 East (RMC16), for Mike, Neil, or anyone who wishes to chime in: does this hole feel (look) somehow different than the other holes in the main paddock?  Neil, do you know the origins of this hole and any work that may have been done on it?

Peter: it's an odd statement alright, and I don't know if I agree with it.  Nevertheless, it seems a fair interpretation of what W&S wrote!

Mark

[Mark Bourgeois]

As much enjoyment as the 17th provides -- we will get to the use of bunkers en echelon in a minute -- personally it stands for a moment that embodies the membership's successful navigation of honoring and continuing its narrative of professional tournaments yet without soiling its architectural lineage and excellence.

Standing on the 17th tee, having just made a meal of the 16th, the hole that day having been located in a distinctly not-easy spot, a member remarked the 17th might be lengthened not by changing the hole but simply by having the pros tee up back on the unused 16th tee.

"Why not," he mused. "It beats ruining a great hole 51 weeks a year." (Note: Mike C and I discussed this one a while back; can't find the thread...)

Let it be noted this is a course whose membership not only welcomes professional tournaments but worships its tournament history. The members maintain a strong oral tradition out there. This is the bunker Allenby got lost in, this is the green Els putted off, this is the hole where Trevino lost his mind, here's the hole the Argentine nearly drove in '59...

Thomas Jefferson wrote the test of a first-rate mind was the ability to hold two diametrically-opposed ideas in one's head at the same time. Does that not describe the ability of a club's membership to welcome the best golfers yet not succumb to them?

(Sadly, it seems as though the day is coming soon when those twin objectives will be impossible to square. Here's pulling for the tournament side to lose.)

The tee shot on 17, a 558-yard par 5, is perhaps even less inspiring than that of the 15th (RME3).  There's not much to look at, with trees blocking the view to the green down the right (too bad) and a line of scrub off in the distance.



Ah, but only a fool relaxes his concentration, for here he once again must be boldly aggressive to unlock his shot of privilege.

The fairway angles off to the right, yet he must ask not how much angle he is willing to cut, and not simply because of rough and scrub down the right, which would be the primary issue were this a course of lesser, even standard quality, but because the right side is the wrong side.  It's a reverse dogleg, and interestingly earns this distinction via the use of bunkers en echelon.

Down the right gives him a shorter if still long second to the green, but he must carry a bunker just short of the green.

So his better angle is from the left side of the fairway, but as this position is farther from the tee it will give him a longer second and now he's got a difficult decision.

The bunkers appear first on the left side of the fairway about 80 yards shy of the green and thence run all the way to and along the right side of the green.

So let's suppose the golfer, playing from the member tees, stripes a drive 270 yards right down the left side of the fairway.  Here are the numbers on his next decision: 200 to carry the bunker, 250 to the front, bunkers just off the direct line all the way down to the green.  (If he carries the bunker he will get a lot of run out of the flat, dry turf -- but of course that calls for a low, running shot that must nevertheless carry 200 yards.)

The second-shot angle from the "ideal" left; POV is closer than landing spot of drive


The view from a bit farther back: note the subtlety of the hill into which the bunkers and green alike are nestled; many golfers will not realize their second shots are uphill.


See the snare? A drive down the right brings a shorter shot, a drive down the left a longer shot, but the bunker challenge remains the same.  Suppose our golfer, again playing from the member tees, manages a true power fade: 295 yards, but a yard or two right of the fairway.  From that angle, despite his booming drive, he still must manage a carry of 190 yards -- and from that point he has zero margin for error to the right of his line to the green.

View from the right; POV is closer than likely landing spot of drive


A closer view yet of the beautiful problem, this time from an angle down the extreme right (i.e., the shortest line from tee to green).  A sublime green, like the 1st nearby built up ever so gently above grade.



No, that's not quite right. From the left the carry is a little easier, not simply because it is a little shorter but because a runway of apron is available past the bunkers and up to the green. There's more room.

Adding to the fascination of this privilege shot - pay attention, this is really neat - left of the green is wide open, just as we saw on (right side of) the 11th (RMW12).  Look at the previous picture, left of the green: a flat and flat-calm slick of grass.  The golfer down there in two, even as far left as the 14th tee (RMW4), should walk off the green a few minutes later with no worse than par.

In fact, getting up and down for birdie from most areas on the left seems a reasonable proposition. And so we are back to the monkey hand trap: grip hard for eagle or a little lighter (bail out or lay up) for birdie? Of course, eagle risks sand, long bunker shots -- possibly even bogey or at best a demoralizing par. A lighter grip means loss-cutting in favor of somewhat-assured par (there are no guarantees out there, not with these greens), possible birdie.

And of course this assumes one has striped his drive...

So what is the risk reward math?  Easy par (left) versus eagle (right)? Slim birdie (left) versus easy birdie (right)?  Easy par (left) versus - my head hurts and I'm not a very good thinker and next time maybe I should make things easier on my brain and off the tree just aim right.

Fascinatingly, we have just shared a fairway with the 14th (RMW4) -- but owing to the scrub, the angles, and the "obverse" to the bunkered side of the hill on 14, do not realize it until we are well down the hole.



Mark

[Mike_Clayton]

Mark,,
You could put in a tee back there is there was a wish to make 16E longer. It would be a lot more difficult with a 4 iron but my suspicion is that the cypress on the right would have a negaitve impact on the look of the shot - and they protect the boundary.
4 East has never felt any different to me from the rest of the Composite holes.
Again, Neil will know better but Russell had the hole (4E) drawn in as a short dogleg left par four - not unlike the look of 10 West (8 Composite). I think that was when there were only contemplating doing the East as a 9 holer.
Neil will have a copy of that plan and may be able to put it up.

 I saw Seve make an amazing par at 17 in the 1978 PGA.
He drove right into the cypress and any normal player would have taken the easy pitch out to the side - but been unable to reach in three from there.
Seve found a gap in the branches and played a really dangerous pitch through the gap that gained him 50 yards over any other player in the world.
From there he blew a 3 wood into the right bunkers about 50 yards from the pin.
That is a really difficult shot from over there but he blasted it out to a couple of feet for an easy 5!
Thirty years later I can still see it and that was what made him the greatest to watch - he always left a memory for a lifetime and it showed why great holes like this are important to interesting pro golf.

[Mark Bourgeois]

We need some kind of "Seve Board" to build a record of his architecturally-inspired shots. 1978, he was, what, 21???

[Neil_Crafter]

Mike
Nice Seve story - I have a recollection of seeing Seve, probably on TV, make an incredible up and down from the left greenside bunker at the 15th Composite with the pin over to the left side, his bunker shot only just got over the edge of the bunker and trickled down to the hole. Don't know when that was. Also remember seeing Seve play at Metro - Australian Open?

You are also correct about the original hole Russell planned for the 9 hole course being a short par 4 dogleg left like 10W. I think to make the East course's various paddocks work for him he had to shorten this hole back to a par 3 so he could get across the road to the next paddock for the 5th and back out again after the 15th. Whichever way you dice it they are two of the best par 3's going round in this country. But it is a weird experience playing the Composite and walking past this hole and going wow! Russell's green plan for 16E did not show the bunker that eats into the centre front of this green - he showed the 'bite', but with no sand, presumably he originally wanted a hollow but guess he changed his mind, thankfully! The green shape is certainly heavily influenced by a number of Mackenzie's green plans that show similar characteristics.

Mark
The diagonal bunkers on 17C second shot were not originally there but were added in 1949 under Russell's direction.

[Shane Gurnett]

There have been some recent changes to the composite holes at RM (these pitcures aren't mine, they came from another golf forum)


Bunkering on 4W modified



17E showing the new fairway lines and changed cross bunkering


6W getting some new fairway turf

[Neil_Crafter]

Shane
Do you know why the bunkers on 4W and 17E were modified? Surely there can be no viable reason why this work was done. Its disappointing to me. Also seems 6W is getting a new green surface in the process.
Neil

[Chris Kane]

Shane
Do you know why the bunkers on 4W and 17E were modified? Surely there can be no viable reason why this work was done. Its disappointing to me.

The safety issues associated with the 4W tee shot (going onto 17E fairway) and 17E second shot (towards 2W tee) are well documented.

[Neil_Crafter]

Well documented Chris? Where?
If they have, they have been doing so for 80 years. Why change the fairway bunkers on 17E?
These seem fairly poor excuses for meddling with the bunkering. If the old timers can't get over those bunkers on 4W then make them play from a (very) forward tee rather than change the bunkering to suit their inability. I'm OK with widening the fairway at right of these bunkers but the bunkers are an icon and should not have been touched IMO.

[Kevin Pallier]

Mark,

Ian Baker-Finch and I played with Mike Bodney (PGATour's on the ground man for 2 years before the 1998 President's Cup) a year or more before the event and tried to convince him to play 16 East instead of 4 East.
They are both very good holes and for me the shot up the hill  - trying to hit the swinging draw back to the flag especially when it is in the back left corner - is more interesting and fun. 16 East looks great but it is much more of a standard short iron shot.

Mike

Whilst I love 16E - I also adore the draw shot into 4E as the 16th on the Composite (considering no wind). Particularly so - after playing 3E which normally is the reverse - a fade into the green.

Mark / Neil / Mike etc

Have really enjoyed reading the thread. Great stuff - look forward to the review of one of the best finishing holes in golf - particularly for it's green and surrounds. It's also forms a great match-play hole !!

I've particularly enjoyed all your contributions as I'm a novice compared to you all.....one of the best reads in ages 
 

[Neil_Crafter]

Thanks Kevin
Full credit to Mark B for his dedication on this thread and really insightful hole descriptions.
Mike C and I have just hung on to Mark's coat-tails.
Neil

[David_Elvins]

Neil,

There has been a fair bit of discussion over the last year or two about the changes at Australia's finest Golf Architecture discussion board.  The following was posted there.

[Chris Kane]

Well documented Chris? Where?

The club newsletter, for a start. 

If they have, they have been doing so for 80 years. Why change the fairway bunkers on 17E?  These seem fairly poor excuses for meddling with the bunkering. If the old timers can't get over those bunkers on 4W then make them play from a (very) forward tee rather than change the bunkering to suit their inability. I'm OK with widening the fairway at right of these bunkers but the bunkers are an icon and should not have been touched IMO.

Initially I agreed with you, on closer examination of the issue, they are doing what they have to do.  Making the old-timers play from a forward tee is not a viable solution.  Competition golf in Melbourne requires that all players play from the same tees, regardless of how far they can carry the ball. 

Moving the bunkers was the only option, however iconic they are.  That is a shame, but a modern reality.

[Ian Andrew]

Mark,

Thank you for leading one of my favourite threads of all time. I've always been facinated by Royal Melbourne and I hope I get a chance to see the course this November.

Thank you to everyone else who has slowly added some wonderful insight - this is a great example of why I still come here even after 10 years time.

I only wish I could add to the discussion - but we all know the Mucci rule.

Regards,

Ian

[Neil_Crafter]

David
What you posted doesn't come up I'm afraid

Chris
I understand what you are saying, but this is Royal Melbourne for goodness sake, not some second tier track. I do not think it is good caretaking of the course. I have made changes for safety on a number of courses, but a special course like RM deserves better than the standard approach.

[Chris Kane]

I understand what you are saying, but this is Royal Melbourne for goodness sake, not some second tier track. I do not think it is good caretaking of the course. I have made changes for safety on a number of courses, but a special course like RM deserves better than the standard approach.

Neil, you weren't aware of their stated reasons for making the changes, so how on earth can you say that they have used the "standard approach"?

You need to be in full possession of the factual circumstances of the matter to make your claim.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()