[David_Elvins]

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

Hopefully fixed.  Let me know if that doesn't work.

I believe the solution was debated for atleast 2-3 years before implemented.

[Danny Goss]

This is an outstanding topic - thanks to all involved.

I know MacKenzie basically did the routing plan and left the construction to Russell. But looking at those early photos of Grimwades surely Russell (who is attributed as co-designer - but not too often) deserves more credit than he gets.

RMW 6 is rightly acclaimed as a brilliant hole. But looking at that photo from Grimwade in 1931 it doesnt look much the same hole as today. It certainly plays over the rough at the corner but the outside bunkers are prominent. When Mac drew up his plans did they show no bunkers on the inside and bunkers on the outside?

If so I think Alex Russell (who altered the hole) can take a lot more credit for it. I also understand it was MacKenzie's MO to draw up plans and leave the construction to trusted associates. This cannot be clearer when it comes to Royal Melbourne.

Alex Russell must be close to the best golf course architect Australia has produced to date.

[Neil_Crafter]

Thanks David
They come up now, but slowly!
I have seen these recently as someone kindly sent them to me.

Chris
What's your axe to grind in all of this? You seem pretty aggressive in your comments.
I am aware of their stated reasons before I posted my recent comments as it happens, as I saw the memo and plan a couple of days ago. I still think its a standard approach and this course, along with Mackenzie, Russell and Morcom's legacy, deserves far better than this. So thanks for your statement of being "in full possession of the factual circumstances" before commenting, but I believe I have some understanding of the situation. And as one who has undertaken a number of safety audits of existing courses and dealt with a number of committees on remediation of these problems, I would think I am entitled to have an opinion on the matter - even if it is not one that you share. Do you think its a good solution?

Danny
Interesting thoughts.
I am of the view that you don't have to demote Mackenzie in order to promote Russell. Its pretty obvious that Russell and Morcom put the course on the ground, with the exception of 5W which was built under Mac's instruction before he left Melbourne at the start of December 1926. Nearly 5 years elapsed until the course was finally open, shortly followed the next year by the East course. I personally agree with you and have been researching Russell's work and life for quite a few years now for a book that I hope might see the light of day in the next couple of years. He deserves it I think.

Neil

[Stephen Britton]

First of all I also want to thank Mark for his work on this thread.

Well I'm just a newbie so I want to tread carefully but I worked on the maintenance crew at RM from 1995 - 2003. Since then I have relocated to the States where I'm now a Superintendent in the DC area. In my opinion in the last 10-15 years Australia has become a little Occupational Health and Safety crazy. Don't get me wrong OH&S is important but I think it's gone a little too far in some cases. I was the OH&S rep for the maintenance crew at RM for 3 years and lets just say the rules and regs that the Sup has to abide by can become frustrating and impractical. I have worked on maintenance crews in Aus, UK and the States and have never experienced the kind of strict OH&S rules that are in place in Aus.

Neil I totally agree with you "it's Royal Melbourne for god sake". When I saw the photo of the Excavator up on the hill by 4w my heart skipped a beat.  It's a shame to think the place sat untouched for so long...

[Mark Bourgeois]

Hi Stephen!

David and Shane, thanks for posting the information on 4W and 17E. I wasn't aware of these changes.

In the name of lawyers, the East and now the West I fear are becoming disfigured.  Within bounds, players -- fellow club members -- should be well aware of when and where to look and when to call a warning.  Out of bounds, well, as lawyers themselves like to say, that's what insurance is for.  (One can come by fully-grown trees as well if one desires that solution.)

Very well, then, as neither lawyer nor designer I am qualified only to ask questions.

Here is my first: who is certain they will do better than Mackenzie and Russell -- and for that matter, Morcom and Crockford?  Who among us wishes to match wits with Alister Mackenzie or Alex Russell, for doesn't anyone who will make changes engage these two giants in a game of one-upsmanship?  Doesn't anyone who agrees to make changes agree they can do better?

More questions:

• Does the question above carry significance if the course in question is regarded by a number of experts as the world's greatest?  For example, as the only course in the entire world the architect Tom Doak has scored above a 10 -- on a scale of 1 to 10?
  
• Do the changes to 4W and 17E affect both aesthetics and playing characteristics?
• If the answer is yes, how do the changes to 17E correspond to Mackenzie's principles and the core philosophy of the design, Peter Thomson's "summing up and loss cutting"?
• For example, are players' options narrowed?  Do multiple lines of play offer real benefits as well as real costs, or has the calculus of some of these lines been changed?  Is the line of play being dictated?
• Looking at the mounding work that has already been done on the East and comparing it to Russell's, would a layman be able to see the differences, and whose work would a layman prefer?

Lastly, if the differences in mounding are apparent to a layman, and the layman finds Russell's vastly superior to the recent, does that provide an answer to the first question in this post?

Mark

[Stephen Britton]

Hey Mark, Thanks again.

[Stephen Britton]

[Neil_Crafter]

Well argued Mark (as always). And thanks for the photos and other information Stephen.
Chris, any comments to argue your case?

[Stephen Britton]

Neil,

I noticed you mentioned you have been involved in safety audits at other clubs. I think these safety audits are getting out of control in Australia. I realize it's a sign of the times and usually the club is under pressure from outside factors to carry out changes like this. I remember having the west course safety audited one year and the report told us that we had to reconsider mowing the back green surround on 10w?.

I know there has been a problem with balls flying over to 17e tees & f/way from 4w but I don't ever remember it being sooo bad that it warranted this kind of major construction, I also realize these changes are for the old timers regarding the carry of 4w f/way bunkers. We re-built 17e tees back in the late 90's and moved them over to the right, closer to the Cypress trees to steer balls down the left of the f/way to avoid flying over the Cypress tress and onto Reserve Rd. However, the new design looks like the tees are going back to their original position? Surely this doesn't solve the Reserve Rd issue? Especailly once the Cypress trees are removed and the new tees are closer to 4w? Also the fairway seems to be very close to 2w tees?

If they are concerned about this situation then I guess they need to address the following also:

1w tee shot can be snap hooked into workers or golfers in the bunkers front left on 18e.
2w tee shot can be snap hooked into golfers on 3w green.
2nd shot from 2w f/way can be pulled left to hit golfers on 3w tee.
3w tee shot can be pulled left down 2w f/way into oncoming golfers.
4w we have discussed.
5w if I over club and pull it left I could hit ladies teeing off on the associate tees on 6w.
8w tee shot WOW anyone on 1e f/way or 9w f/way is fair game.
9w tee shot can be snap hooked at 11w tee or blocked right out onto 8w f/way.
I also remeber on the odd occasion I would take driver on 3e if I pulled it left it went onto 4e green.

Do I need to continue?... Sounds like this could get expensive. Thank goodness safety audits weren't around in the 20's because the course would never have been built.

When is enough enough?

[Matthew Mollica]

Very interesting points Stephen. Thanks for contributing. Good to get your perspective.

Following on from Danny Goss' comments on MacKenzie routing and planning a course, only to leave the construction to others (apart from 5W) -

What does one guess were his instructions to Russell and the Morcoms?

Whatever MacKenzie said to those men must have been concise, and it sure as hell stuck. The conversations he had with them, and the instruction he provided would have been some of the best lessons ever handed down in golf course construction.

MM

[Andrew Summerell]

What does one guess were his instructions to Russell and the Morcoms?

Whatever MacKenzie said to those men must have been concise, and it sure as hell stuck. The conversations he had with them, and the instruction he provided would have been some of the best lessons ever handed down in golf course construction.

Matty,

I believe Russell & Morcom need to be held in the highest regard because their work greatly surpassed anything that was constructed at other courses MacKenzie routed or consulted on, like The Australian & NSW. So I'm not sure the instruction he gave them was any better than they would have received from any of the greats of the era, it was their ability to carry it out that has elevated Royal Melbourne.

[Andrew Summerell]

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.

Neil,

What do you believe would be the best approach in this circumstance?

[Terry Thornton]

I believe Russell & Morcom need to be held in the highest regard

agree

because their work greatly surpassed anything that was constructed at other courses MacKenzie routed or consulted on, like The Australian & NSW. So I'm not sure the instruction he gave them was any better than they would have received from any of the greats of the era, it was their ability to carry it out that has elevated Royal Melbourne.

Did MacKenzie spend nearly as much time at any other course as he did at RM? Given RM was his primary employer and Russell et al were able to spend (comparably) extensive time with him I'm not surprised that the end result there far surpassed his other inputs. That's even without taking into consideration what a superb site they had to work with

[Stephen Britton]

No question Alister Mackenzie did an excellent job relaying his design/construction philosophies onto Mick Morcom and Alex Russell.

How much of the subtle swales and hollows around the green surrounds do you think were created simply out of necessity for the greens construction. Back in the 20's they weren't buying truckloads of sand, heaven knows they have enough on-site. Although they also didn't have trucksters to haul loads of sand around quickly on-site. If I'm building 3w green and I need more sand to raise the front of the green and I don’t have any sand available, do I start taking sand out from the front surround and push it up onto the green? Now I have a swale infront of the green surround where I dug my sand from that I need to shape? Or the bunkers being so deep really came about because through digging bunkers and throwing sand out infront to build the green? Are the bunkers on the right side of 17w that deep because they simply needed more sand up on the green?

I realize probably a lot more thought went into it than that, but is it a possibility that a lot of the movement around the greens more evolved through necessity of sand for shaping the greens? And if this is the case shouldn’t the guys on-site everyday during construction (Morcom & Russell) instructing equipment operators on what to do and where to take sand from receive the credit for the greens complex? Do you think back then Mackenzie had specs on bunker depth, surround hollow depths and slope percentages for around the greens?

[Mark Bourgeois]

Stephen, although I don't know about 3W green specifically, your comment about creating a swale by taking sand away then using that sand to build the ridge is exactly what Mackenzie preached.

In his early lectures on economy in golf course construction he wrote of this very tactic.

Mark

[Andrew Summerell]

I agree that MacKenzie’s teaching would have been priceless & I’m sure he would have passed it on extremely well, but after he left our shores a lot of wrong decisions could have been made. This is where Russell & Morcom did so well. They made so many right decisions.

This is not meant to take credit away from MacKenzie, but that I am fascinated that 2 guys of such high calibre where present for him to teach.

[Neil_Crafter]

Andrew
Two simple rules for being the "consulting architect" at RM
1. Do not do anything
2. When thinking about doing anything, stop, and apply rule 1.
That's my take on it. Lots of other courses I would change the course fabric, but not RM.

Stephen
You are spot on, this is exactly what happened, and you can see this feature in front of a lot of West course greens. Except it was done by horse and scoop.

Terry
RM West did not go into construction until around 2 to 3 years AFTER Mackenzie left Australia. It didn't open for play until 1931. And the land parcels had been added to in early 1927 and so the plans that Mackenzie would have left on his departure from Melbourne at the end of November 1926 needed to be modified. Its quite possible that Mackenzie and Russell had discussed the possibility of this extra land being acquired and had developed some "contingency" plans for this event, but we don't know for sure. And Russell may have sent plans to Mac in Leeds for comments and suggestions, again we don't know for sure.

RM was his primary employer but that didn't stop him from racing off for money making opportunities elsewhere. After a week in Melbourne he had dashed back to Adelaide for 4 days to work on RA's plan, and this was a deal where 50% of the fee did NOT go to RM, so don't imagine they were too pleased. And early on in his month in Melbourne he had been to see Metro and Kingston Heath. So his time working on RM was a lot less than people imagine. But I'm sure it was still greater than any other course he worked on during this trip.

[Danny Goss]

In respect of my earlier point that Russell (as co-designer) deserves more credit........
RMW is continually referred to as MacKenzies RM etc. He did the routing, supervised the building of RMW5 and may have been consulted via mail later.
Russell built it and modified it. I know we all agree on this but I would like to see Alex Russell always noted as co designer and notj ust occasionally.

Good point Matty on the "instructions". They would make a decent book in itself.

Thanks for the insights Stephen. I would think most of those swales, dips etc were created by shifting the sand as you mentioned. Arent there photos somewhere of the bunkers being created by a scoop on the back of draught horses?

[Stephen Britton]

In respect of my earlier point that Russell (as co-designer) deserves more credit........
RMW is continually referred to as MacKenzies RM etc. He did the routing, supervised the building of RMW5 and may have been consulted via mail later.
Russell built it and modified it. I know we all agree on this but I would like to see Alex Russell always noted as co designer and notj ust occasionally.

Good point Matty on the "instructions". They would make a decent book in itself.

Thanks for the insights Stephen. I would think most of those swales, dips etc were created by shifting the sand as you mentioned. Arent there photos somewhere of the bunkers being created by a scoop on the back of draught horses?

The original scoop was located on one of the clubhouse lawns if I remember correctly. Although it seems these days the horse and scoop has been replaced by a Cat 330 Excavator up on 4 west hill...

[David_Elvins]

Andrew
Two simple rules for being the "consulting architect" at RM
1. Do not do anything
2. When thinking about doing anything, stop, and apply rule 1.
That's my take on it. Lots of other courses I would change the course fabric, but not RM.

Neil,

would you restore features that have already been changed?

[Neil_Crafter]

David
That is a different question, but an interesting one for sure. In building architecture there are specialist Conservation Architects who restore and conserve old historic buildings. Perhaps something like that is what is needed at RM. What changed features would you restore? Take the bunkering back to before Crockford modified a number with islands and lengthened and new tongues? To me this is part of the evolution of the course and so it would be very hard to pick a time period to restore altered features to. I really think it's best left alone. As per my two rules in my post above.

I do feel that the safety driven changes of recent times are changing the fabric of the course in a way that I don't agree with. Now I know that won't mean anything to the club and will not change their mind one iota, but that's the way it is.
Neil

[Matthew Mollica]

The original scoop was located on one of the clubhouse lawns if I remember correctly. Although it seems these days the horse and scoop has been replaced by a Cat 330 Excavator up on 4 west hill...

Perhaps sadly, exactly right Stephen.



The plough and scoop (described below). Seen on the drive into RMGC.




Modern day changes to RMW #3 & #4 (September 2008)






MM

[Stephen Britton]

I do feel that the safety driven changes of recent times are changing the fabric of the course in a way that I don't agree with. Now I know that won't mean anything to the club and will not change their mind one iota, but that's the way it is.
Neil

Neil
Your right as much as we love the place and it is a part of Australian golf history, at the end of the day its owned by the members and its their club, they can do whatever they want with it.

Still, I would rather have seen an 80 foot high driving range style net up the right side of 15e before I saw what happened to that hole... But what's done is done.

Mathew thanks for the pic of the old scoop! It's now my new screen saver!

[Jason Topp]

Is the Composite better than the West? 

I've played the West once but never the East. 

Of the holes removed from the West, I think 16 is a fantastic par 3 and I found 8 a very memorable short par four.  The other removed holes did not make any lasting impressions on me. 

[Mark_F]

Matt,

Have they reshaped the bunker on 4W, or is that just your dodgy camerawork?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()