News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Brian Phillips

  • Karma: +0/-0
Just played Royal Sydney with the Architects from ASGCA, EIGCA and SAGCA and many of us were really impressed with the work Ross Watson has done on the course.  The bunkering is outstanding in places possibly on steroids in a few places but overall an outstanding piece of work.

The greens are superb strategically and the angles they have created to attack the greens is very demanding, maybe too demanding for the club golfer.

Seeing many of us are meeting up tonight, lets start a discussion.

Why is this course not ranked higher on the Golf Magazine rankings?

If you don't like it, why?

If you do like it, why?

I look forward to your opinions and seeing a number of you tonight.
Bunkers, if they be good bunkers, and bunkers of strong character, refuse to be disregarded, and insist on asserting themselves; they do not mind being avoided, but they decline to be ignored - John Low Concerning Golf

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: How come Royal Sydney is not in the Top 100 of the world rankings?
« Reply #1 on: November 10, 2009, 10:50:22 PM »
Because there are at least 200 courses I've seen that are better?

Seriously, Brian, there is no "reason" a course DOESN'T make the top 100 lists ... it has to have bulletproof reasons why it SHOULD be there.  What would be Royal Sydney's?  I haven't seen it since the last redesign, but it had a lot of parallel holes and a good but not great set of greens, the last time I saw it.

It's surely a nice neighborhood.  But you obviously haven't got to the Sand Belt yet.

Bob_Huntley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How come Royal Sydney is not in the Top 100 of the world rankings?
« Reply #2 on: November 10, 2009, 11:08:02 PM »
Ryan,

I played the course but once, back in very early January 1972, so I know not changes that have been made since. However, if I remember correctly, the first hole was quite short and although I was in the low single figures at the time thought the course was a bit of a walkover. I think I shot  close to  par for the course.

It was as nothing compared to Melbourne.

Bob

David_Elvins

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How come Royal Sydney is not in the Top 100 of the world rankings?
« Reply #3 on: November 11, 2009, 01:03:26 AM »
Oh dear,

dont sit next to Brian Walshe tonight. 
Ask not what GolfClubAtlas can do for you; ask what you can do for GolfClubAtlas.

Kevin Pallier

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How come Royal Sydney is not in the Top 100 of the world rankings?
« Reply #4 on: November 11, 2009, 01:39:26 AM »
Brian

I can't think of any truly outstanding holes at Royal Sydney that would assist in elevating it into the discussion of "all world golf courses" ? That alone for mine inhibits it.

It's finishing stretch of holes from 16-18 are probably it's best and outside them I struggle to find anything that really stands out.


Josh Stevens

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How come Royal Sydney is not in the Top 100 of the world rankings?
« Reply #5 on: November 11, 2009, 01:59:19 AM »
Slightly unfair perhaps - it is a nice track but not bad when considered it is shoehorned into a tiny peice of land - because they also have a little par 3 course on the property, i would hazard a guess they have less land for the main course than say Kingston Heath. 

That Par 3 course is the killer - because of where it is located, they reduce the rest of the property to a long narrow stretch meaning the course is something of a links-linke out and back arangement with lots of parallel holes.

It is nice land - nice and sandy with some good movement and near the water so gets quite windy - and of course smack dab in the middle of Sydneys most expensive suburbs.  If they trashed the short course and expanded the main they could do a better job, but with about 6000 members one course just isnt enough.

Brian Phillips

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How come Royal Sydney is not in the Top 100 of the world rankings?
« Reply #6 on: November 11, 2009, 03:07:54 AM »
Because there are at least 200 courses I've seen that are better?

Seriously, Brian, there is no "reason" a course DOESN'T make the top 100 lists ... it has to have bulletproof reasons why it SHOULD be there.  What would be Royal Sydney's?  I haven't seen it since the last redesign, but it had a lot of parallel holes and a good but not great set of greens, the last time I saw it.

It's surely a nice neighborhood.  But you obviously haven't got to the Sand Belt yet.
No I haven't got to the Sand Belt yet but I have played NSW and that is ranked very, very high. 

We played a composite course and it never ever felt like there were any parallel holes.

Has anyone else on here played it since the redesign?
Bunkers, if they be good bunkers, and bunkers of strong character, refuse to be disregarded, and insist on asserting themselves; they do not mind being avoided, but they decline to be ignored - John Low Concerning Golf

David_Elvins

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How come Royal Sydney is not in the Top 100 of the world rankings?
« Reply #7 on: November 11, 2009, 03:31:08 AM »

No I haven't got to the Sand Belt yet but I have played NSW and that is ranked very, very high. 
It could be that on a world level, NSW is ranked too high.  There is a reasonable argument to be made for that. 
Ask not what GolfClubAtlas can do for you; ask what you can do for GolfClubAtlas.

Matthew Mollica

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How come Royal Sydney is not in the Top 100 of the world rankings?
« Reply #8 on: August 17, 2011, 08:34:37 AM »
Just bumping this thread after playing RSGC recently. For the second time in three years.

I'm not sure there's a single hole of real quality there. Their best hole might be worse than the worst hole at The Lakes.

Lots of pararrel holes, with trees defining the holes.
Several greens angled to favor approaches from the unguarded outside of the dogleg,
with the less favorable inside line bunkered, often heavily.

The greens have a lot going on within them at times, while sitting on a site largely devoid of such movement.
The greens tie-ins don't seem to me to have been done with any sense of place.

The course feels over-bunkered, has lots of parallel holes, and to me feels poorly routed.
The attention paid to plantigs of native Australian flora is impressive - there's some wonderful specimens there.

The course is a nice walk - lots of birds, and nice grass, and it's in a great neighbourhood.

I wonder where it would rank if it sat in a non-descript outer suburb, devoid of the Royal insignia, with a humble clubhouse.

The Royal Sydney Golf Club itself is a glorious place, and a wondorous Club - make no mistake.
Their golf course however is just a course and nothing more IMHO.

MM
"The truth about golf courses has a slightly different expression for every golfer. Which of them, one might ask, is without the most definitive convictions concerning the merits or deficiencies of the links he plays over? Freedom of criticism is one of the last privileges he is likely to forgo."

Mark Chaplin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How come Royal Sydney is not in the Top 100 of the world rankings?
« Reply #9 on: August 17, 2011, 09:00:51 AM »
Royal Sydney is Australia's equivalent of Royal Blackheath, wonderful club but not a wonderful course.

As for NSW I am a fan but is is impossible not to be seduced by the views, sadly one of the best is let down by the hole (6th) and there are a couple of holes that are impossibly tight.
Cave Nil Vino

Patrick Kiser

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How come Royal Sydney is not in the Top 100 of the world rankings?
« Reply #10 on: August 17, 2011, 10:54:30 AM »
I thought the par 3s were pretty good ... as most were in Australia.

I don't remember seeing any "great holes", but the short par 4 8th was a mean little hole and is still in the memory bank.  Trouble all around, but options for recovery.  The swale short and right of the green is very effective.  The hole feels a little rather different and perhaps a little out of place relative to anything else on the course, but I liked it.

Very nice clubhouse and some sweet grass tennis courts.  Lawn bowling too.












“One natural hazard, however, which is more
or less of a nuisance, is water. Water hazards
absolutely prohibit the recovery shot, perhaps
the best shot in the game.” —William Flynn, golf
course architect

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How come Royal Sydney is not in the Top 100 of the world rankings?
« Reply #11 on: August 17, 2011, 02:13:40 PM »
Patrick,

Thanks for the pics...the course looks to be a bunker sluts dream based on that aerial.

I thought most raters were bunker whores?  ;D

Andrew Summerell

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How come Royal Sydney is not in the Top 100 of the world rankings?
« Reply #12 on: August 18, 2011, 06:14:05 AM »
Patrick,

I have always felt the 8th has its bunkers on the wrong side of the fairway for the green's angle. On the few times I have played it I have preferred to approach from the left, away from the fairway bunkers.

Scott Warren

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How come Royal Sydney is not in the Top 100 of the world rankings?
« Reply #13 on: August 18, 2011, 07:57:23 AM »
I agree completely, Andrew.

If you're not going for the green, the ideal spot is - IMO - on the hard left of the fairway, as far away from the fairway bunkers as possible.

Matt: I agree with everything you said. It really isn't a particularly good golf course. I'm shocked anyone could view it as a World Top 100 contender.

Patrick Kiser

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How come Royal Sydney is not in the Top 100 of the world rankings?
« Reply #14 on: August 18, 2011, 02:18:50 PM »
Yes, the 8th is best approached from the left, if you're planning to go on in two.  So aiming away from the green.

But from the tee for a first timer who can drive it 300+ ... it's tempting to go at it as a long driveable par 3.  A Vijay power fade would be ideal here.  Those fairway bunkers can get into your head in this case.

“One natural hazard, however, which is more
or less of a nuisance, is water. Water hazards
absolutely prohibit the recovery shot, perhaps
the best shot in the game.” —William Flynn, golf
course architect

Andrew Summerell

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How come Royal Sydney is not in the Top 100 of the world rankings?
« Reply #15 on: August 20, 2011, 02:22:39 AM »

I wonder where it would rank if it sat in a non-descript outer suburb, devoid of the Royal insignia, with a humble clubhouse.


I’ve been thinking about this question for the last few days, Matt. It got me thinking about Concord Golf Club. It’s one of the more exclusive clubs in Sydney that has also been redesigned by Ross Watson in the last decade. It has a little more movement in the land than Royal Sydney & has a similar, although slightly less developed bunkering style. Strategically it is similar & although it’s not in a ‘non-descript’ outer suburb, it is in a ‘less descript’ suburb. Royal Sydney is probably a little more difficult, but not by much. The only major difference between the two courses is that Concord has Kikuyu fairways & Royal Sydney has Couch.

With all that considered, Concord ranks 43 & 50 in the two major magazine ranking lists in Australia. I would suggest that if Royal Sydney was in Sydney’s inner west without a royal insignia it would rank somewhere around 40 in Australia. If the two courses were swapped they would rank in roughly the same positions as their CLUBS rank now.

Mike_Clayton

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How come Royal Sydney is not in the Top 100 of the world rankings?
« Reply #16 on: August 20, 2011, 02:38:31 AM »
Andrew,

I have not seen the new holes at Concord but Royal Sydney is a much better course surely.

The issue with both is that there are a number of holes that make little strategic sense. Possibly the two hardest holes on both courses - 18 at Concord and 11 at RS - both have greens that set to advantage the player who has driven as far from the fairway bunkers as possible.
4 at RS is another and that could be one of the best holes in the country - certainly the best hole on the course.

Andrew Summerell

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How come Royal Sydney is not in the Top 100 of the world rankings?
« Reply #17 on: August 21, 2011, 06:35:00 AM »
Andrew,

I have not seen the new holes at Concord but Royal Sydney is a much better course surely.



It is, but not by that much.

Mike,

If Royal Sydney were in Melbourne, competing for notoriety with the sandbelt courses, would it make the top 30 in Victoria?

Matthew Mollica

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How come Royal Sydney is not in the Top 100 of the world rankings?
« Reply #18 on: August 21, 2011, 07:04:01 AM »
Off the top of my head,

RMW
RME
KH
Vic
Woodlands
Commonwealth
Metro
YY
Peninsula Sth
Peninsula Nth
Portsea
St Andrews Beach
National Moonah
National Old
The Dunes

Are all clearly better. That's 15 courses I can think of inside a minute.

MM
"The truth about golf courses has a slightly different expression for every golfer. Which of them, one might ask, is without the most definitive convictions concerning the merits or deficiencies of the links he plays over? Freedom of criticism is one of the last privileges he is likely to forgo."

Ben Jarvis

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How come Royal Sydney is not in the Top 100 of the world rankings?
« Reply #19 on: August 21, 2011, 07:08:48 PM »
Matthew,

You can add Thirteenth Beach (Beach Course) and Barwon Heads to that list.

I think Royal Sydney might scrape into Victoria's top-30. While not great holes, I enjoyed 1,3,4,6,7,8,12,16 and 18.

Unlike the Sandbelt, not once do you feel isolated on any of the holes. My eye seemed distracted by others around it.
Twitter: @BennyJarvis
Instagram: @bennyj08

Kevin Pallier

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How come Royal Sydney is not in the Top 100 of the world rankings?
« Reply #20 on: August 21, 2011, 09:32:37 PM »
Andrew,

I have not seen the new holes at Concord but Royal Sydney is a much better course surely.



It is, but not by that much.

Mike,

If Royal Sydney were in Melbourne, competing for notoriety with the sandbelt courses, would it make the top 30 in Victoria?

Andrew

Interesting comparison - of two of Sydney's private courses - I prefer Royal Sydney but the gap isn't that significant for mine.

Off the top of my head - is there a flat hole at Concord ?

I do think RS would sit within a combined Top30 Vic / NSW - though not at the pointy end.

Scott Warren

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How come Royal Sydney is not in the Top 100 of the world rankings?
« Reply #21 on: August 21, 2011, 10:45:50 PM »
Ben, you really like the 12th?! (350-ish par four, slightly to the right through a narrow gap in the trees)?

Ben Jarvis

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How come Royal Sydney is not in the Top 100 of the world rankings?
« Reply #22 on: August 22, 2011, 04:03:31 AM »
Ben, you really like the 12th?! (350-ish par four, slightly to the right through a narrow gap in the trees)?
Scott,

I didn't say 12 was a great hole, I just enjoyed it. Yes, they could do with some tree clearing down the right, but from memory, it was a nice little green site.
Twitter: @BennyJarvis
Instagram: @bennyj08

Andrew Summerell

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How come Royal Sydney is not in the Top 100 of the world rankings?
« Reply #23 on: August 25, 2011, 06:17:41 AM »

Off the top of my head - is there a flat hole at Concord ?


The holes at the back of the property get as close to flat as anything on the course.



I do think RS would sit within a combined Top30 Vic / NSW - though not at the pointy end.


RMW
RME
KH
Vic
Woodlands
Commonwealth
Metro
YY
Peninsula Sth
Peninsula Nth
Portsea
St Andrews Beach
National Moonah
National Old
The Dunes
13th Beach (Beach)
Barwon Heads

Kevin, we have 17 courses listed & haven't gotten out of Victoria yet. In NSW, NSW, The Lakes & Newcastle are obviously ahead of Royal Sydney. Sad as it makes me to say this, I would place The Australian in front of Royal Sydney & I might even place Magenta Shores ahead as well.

We are now up to 23 courses before RS finds a spot.

Here a question for you Kevin. I think you have played Twin Creeks. With regards to over-bunkered courses, can you tell me why Royal Sydney should be considered better than Twin Creeks? They are both superficial & frightfully over bunkered courses, yet Twin Creeks may be more interesting.