[Andrew Summerell]

Scott

The green complex jars my eye because its shape, elevation and surrounding bunkers do not sit comfortably with the strong shapes and orientations of the rocky coastline.  There is a very strong horizontal/diagonal rock strata in the foreground and I would seek to shape in a green complex that complements this dominant feature.

I would also extend the design area further to the right of the approach, to draw the eye towards the target.

The present target looks small and insignificant in a grand setting.  It deserves more, albeit in a fashion that sits well within the overall style of the layout.

Is it more an aesthetic issue with the green complex or would you change the general lines & playability of the hole?

Would you keep the 'Redan style' internal movement of the green?

[Kevin Pallier]

The present target looks small and insignificant in a grand setting.  It deserves more, albeit in a fashion that sits well within the overall style of the layout.

Robin

I beg to differ. It keeps to the contours of the land in which it sits and in has a steep fall off on the front for the weak shots in. You can also sling a ball in there from the right as well.

For those that don't know it's 185m from the plates with a green that's about 30m long by 20m (at it's widest).

[Robin_Hiseman]

Andrew:
I think in improving the aesthetics of the hole that the general lines would likely be revised.  Regrettably, we didn't play from this tee, but the one on the mainland, so with any alteration, one would have to give due recognition to the widely differing angles of attack. 

The general slope towards the sea would, naturally, be retained, for aesthetic and functional reasons, but I would enjoy boosting the penalty for playing too cautious to the right of the green.  I'm minded of the green design for the 5th at Mid Ocean, which is brutal to the overly cautious shot, but extremely helpful to the canny shot that uses the strong slopes between the green and the topside bunkers.

Mid Ocean Green 5



I suspect there are good agronomic reasons why the green isn't closer to the surf in elevation, so I would probably work with roughly the same green height.

Kevin:   Fair enough, but I feel that the 'gun turret' nature of the steep, front embankment is the main thing that singles this out as a man made structure.  It looks ugly to me.

[Mike_Clayton]

Andrew.

At the 1st at Victoria we tried to create a hole that emphasised the requirement to shape the ball one way or the other - in this case. left to right - and a hole that also emphasised the need to miss the green in the right place.
It is no good missing in the back left bunker if the pin is left - or right when the pin is right.
For shorter hitters the question is whether to play short of the left fairway bunker, try to carry it - or to play to the right. The further right they play the more difficult the pitch over the greenside bunkers.
The hole is about 260 yards so for member, Geoff Ogilvy, it is rarely little more than a 3 iron -but he still has to shape it a little - and make sure he does not miss it on the wrong side

[Andrew Summerell]

Andrew:
I think in improving the aesthetics of the hole that the general lines would likely be revised.  Regrettably, we didn't play from this tee, but the one on the mainland, so with any alteration, one would have to give due recognition to the widely differing angles of attack.  

The general slope towards the sea would, naturally, be retained, for aesthetic and functional reasons, but I would enjoy boosting the penalty for playing too cautious to the right of the green.  I'm minded of the green design for the 5th at Mid Ocean, which is brutal to the overly cautious shot, but extremely helpful to the canny shot that uses the strong slopes between the green and the topside bunkers.

I suspect there are good agronomic reasons why the green isn't closer to the surf in elevation, so I would probably work with roughly the same green height.

Thanks for that, Robin. I didn't realise you didn't play from the island tee. It is a hugely different hole from that tee.

Playing safe from this tee is quite difficult, with most people who miss the green to the right ending up to the right of the bunkers or so far short they require a pitch shot. I have rarely seen par made from either of these positions, mostly due to the slope of the green. I didn't find the slope of the green at Mid Ocean anywhere near as severe as the 6th at NSW, but I've only played Mid Ocean once, so I may have missed something.

[Terry Thornton]

The general slope towards the sea would, naturally, be retained, for aesthetic and functional reasons, but I would enjoy boosting the penalty for playing too cautious to the right of the green.  I'm minded of the green design for the 5th at Mid Ocean, which is brutal to the overly cautious shot, but extremely helpful to the canny shot that uses the strong slopes between the green and the topside bunkers.

I suspect there are good agronomic reasons why the green isn't closer to the surf in elevation, so I would probably work with roughly the same green height.

Kevin:   Fair enough, but I feel that the 'gun turret' nature of the steep, front embankment is the main thing that singles this out as a man made structure.  It looks ugly to me.

Robin,
As Andrew says the penalty for missing right is usually bogey or worse, this is a very difficult shot (unless you mean short and right which is basically the bail-out location for this hole). Something like your photo would undoubtedly be even more challenging, bear in mind that the prevailing wind for almost half the year is right to left, very strong (approx 20tks+) in summer. Having to hit over raised ground on the right would necessitate raising the left hand level of the green.
I believe there has been recent discussion on moving the green closer to the rock edge, don't know how advanced or favoured the proposal is. As the course occupies a National Park (leased from a Federal Govt department) desireable changes to the course are not always an easy or swift process
As you note the steep front embankment is not a thing of beauty.

[Forrest Richardson]

Phillips comments: "New South Wales is probably one of the most overrated golf courses I have ever played in my entire life.  If you took away the views (which I know you can't) it would not get the ratings it gets.  I think the course gets such high ratings just because of the views and where it is located.

Disagree...NSW had some very formidable holes. I found it interesting, not-all-the-same, entertaining and fun. As Brian admits, it was also breathtaking.

I especially liked the fact that, in our group, there were those who really liked a particular hole — and some who hated it at the same time. Not a lot more you can ask of a golf course?

According to Brian's wife he plays very little golf, so his comment does not surprise me at all.  

[Robin_Hiseman]

Andrew/Terry:

Then it is pretty much an aesthetic thing with the 6th.  The basic strategy is fine.  It's a clumsy looking hole.

I rated NSW 5th out of the 6 courses I played and if I was to include Kingston Heath in the list, it would be 6 out of 7.  But, I don't want to give it too bad a rap.  We saw a stellar list of courses and NSW is a very good track.  There were really just a handful of shots, rather than holes, which I thought brought it down.  The blind tee shot on 3 is a bit loopy.  Nobody had a clue what was going on.  The narrow chute through the trees was a very misleading alignment, which led many to blaze their tee shots miles through the dogleg.  A sharp hook is the shot, which my playing partner, Mike Benkusky achieved...twice!  Both shots he thought were destined for the jungle, but both were sitting pretty in the middle of the fairway.  It would be much less of a problem on the second play and perhaps quite a lot of fun, but it is still a mediocre tee location.

Hole 3 aerial



The other weak tee shot was on 15, where the sharply uphill fairway is just choked by scrub on both sides.  It is just a very unappealing view from the tee, especially into the wind.  Amazingly, all of my group managed to find the middle of the fairway, but we all stood there on the tee and went "Yuck!"

Hole 15 aerial.  What's the story with the spare green behind Green 16?

[James Bennett]

Robin

that green behind 16 NSW is the 19th hole I believe.  Played from near the 15th tee - a short one, perhaps 100 metres.  Haven't played it or seen it though.

James B

[Jon Wiggett]

Excuse my ignorance, but I have noticed that at both Victoria and Royal Melbourne they only appear to rake the bases of the bunker (I presume the flatter parts) leaving the faces untouched. Is this because the faces are therefor hard packed and the ball will roll back down oor is there another reason? I don't recall this when I played Melbourne myself.

[Andrew Summerell]

Robin

that green behind 16 NSW is the 19th hole I believe.  Played from near the 15th tee - a short one, perhaps 100 metres.  Haven't played it or seen it though.

James B

The 19th is a fun little hole. I once had a 15 foot birdie putt, which I hit a little boldly & saw it run away down the large tier leaving me with about a 30 foot return putt. I laugh as I think about it now, but ....

[Tom_Doak]

Robin:

One fact about the sixth at New South Wales which you didn't mention (and may not know) is that it was NOT part of Dr. MacKenzie's routing for the golf course.  It was added a few years later by Eric Apperly, who designed Newcastle GC and redesigned several holes at NSW.  (In fact, if I recall correctly, NONE of the par-3 holes at NSW are Dr. MacKenzie's.)

In MacKenzie's routing you went right from #5 to #7.

One is tempted to say that the green on #6 being uninteresting is the result of MacKenzie not being involved, but of course, he was not around to see any of the other greens built, either.  He left the construction there to the club secretary of NSW who, let us say, was not as talented in construction as Mick Morcom and Alex Russell.  MacKenzie was only in Sydney for a few days, and the site at La Perouse wasn't even cleared at that point.

P.S.  I think it's a better course than Brian Phillips does, but I agree with you about the tee shot on #15.  But, that's the trade-off for getting to play #14 in its present form.

[Norbert P]

  Interesting thread and opinions.   

 What was the roster and rota?

[Brian Phillips]

P.S.  I think it's a better course than Brian Phillips does, but I agree with you about the tee shot on #15.  But, that's the trade-off for getting to play #14 in its present form.

Tom,

I find it funny how people are quoting me as saying that I did not rate the course highly.  All I have said is that it is the most overated course I have ever played in my life.  It is ranked at present at 38th on the rankings at golf.com of which you are a rater.

I would probably give the course a ranking of about Doak 6  (or maybe a 7 if I played the course a couple of times) but no more.  

You gave the course yourself a 7 in 1988.  Has your opinion of it changed?  To sum up what you class as a 7

An excellent course, worth checking out if you get anywhere withing a 100 miles.   ...........and a pretty setting, if not necessarily anything unique to the world of golf.

It is a good course but ridiculously overated in relation to the world rankings and I would only just rate it in the top 100 but only just.

[Kevin Pallier]

Brian

I may be wrong - but didn't Tom revise his rating to at least an 8 ?

[Tom_Doak]

Brian:

I am not trying to start an argument with you.  But, I don't know how you can call a course "ridiculously overrated" and THEN say it still belongs somewhere (anywhere) in the top 100 courses in the world.  I'm not sure if there are any courses in the top 100 which I rated a 6 ... if there are, it's because I think they don't belong.

I might have rated the course a 7 after my first visit, and then bumped it up to an 8 later.  If you'd asked me to rate it off the top of my head, I would have said one or the other.  I have not seen some of the latest work done there, but the work they did +/- 5 years ago was a marked improvement.

[Ian Andrew]

I think what is being debated indirectly with New South Wales is the difference between the two schools of thought on architecture.

The most common belief is that the golf course should be visible and the complications be made clear. The predominant feeling is that each shot should have some form of test and some clear goal to achieve. Any blind shot is met with disappointment.

The other less common belief is that golf is an adventure. Not everything has to be clear and not all shots need to be contested. A blind shot is considered sporting particularly if the green site beyond justifies it.

[Tim Liddy]

IMHO New South Wales contains 4 world class golf holes (#5, #,6 #14 and #17)  and a world class site. The problems are it has a few very bad golf holes (#1, #3!!, #15, and #18). The aesthetics are of a municipal golf course. Front nine has a view of some goofy rescue building, ugly scrubs encroaching on many of the fairways and ugly bunkering. Currently it is a bad golf course with a few great golf holes and inconsistent strategy. A good architect could fix all the problems (add a needed aesthetic and strategy to the bunkering, landscape and screen the rescue building) and make it great, but today it is average at best.

[Brian Phillips]

Tom,

The reason I said it could be still in the Top 100 is primarily because I felt NSW is better than Royal Porthcawl which is ranked 100 at the moment.  However, that would be a drop of OVER 60 places and also a drop of about 37 points in the ratings sum.  That to me is a HUGE difference backing my statement "ridiculously overated".

Ian,

I do not agree with your analysis.  I have nothing, absolutely nothing against courses with blind holes.  I come from Britain where blind holes abound and you grow up with it.  I used to live in Lancashire and many of the public courses there are full of blind holes.  I also lived a year in Scotland so I pretty mellow about blind holes.

Where the blindness on NSW is wrong is that the blindness is not backed up by good enough width or length in the landing area that cannot be seen.

I think Tim Liddy has hit the nail on the head and I hate him for being able to formulate exactly what I have been feeling but I am too crap to explain. I would not exactly agree with him on his choices of world class holes and I do not class hole 1 as a bad hole but his explanation about everything else is spot on and that is where my thoughts are. Damn you are good Liddy...

Now if the Australian architects had some balls and told NSW what they really thought they could be onto a great contract on a course that could be dramatically improved before Tim gets in there as he is in my opinion 100% correct.  Without improvements this course is going drop like a stone in water in the rankings over the next ten years.

[Neil_Crafter]

Brian and Tim
Brian - greetings to you in Norwegia!

Interesting assessments of NSW.

It is not a course I am overly familiar with as I have only probably played it a handful of times. It does however have quite a status in Australian golf and whether that is due to its setting, its Mackenzie heritage (what little there is of that) or something else entirely I'm not sure. It has for a long time been considered the best course in Sydney and has had a top five ranking in Australia for a long long time. The bunkering was converted to revetted ones by the superintendent, and whether that particular style best suits the grandness and scale of the property is certainly in question.

As you noted Brian there is a proliferation of bunkering on the 1st hole (interesting that they are ALL on the right side of the hole, something I don't think I have ever seen before, and also the new 18th that Bob Harrison redesigned for them. I agree that the tea tree scrub is well overgrown in a lot of holes and would benefit from a severe horizontal pruning in many places to pull back the scrub line. As for the routing, all I can say is that it evolved into its current form over its first  25 years or so, and it could be argued that it could have been done differently and better. Plenty of courses you could say that about. Some like RMW and Kingston Heath you would not say that though.

Very interesting to see the course through the eyes of other knowledgeable observers. Thanks for your honesty, despite some fiery opposition from some.

As for Australian architects having balls, one of our SAGCA members, our new vice-president in fact, is the club's architect. I do not see it as my place to offer the club my opinion on its course.

I do not think though that the course will "drop like a stone" as you put it so vividly. it might slide a few places but any downhill trend for NSW in the rankings would be very slow in my opinion.

Neil

[Brian Phillips]

Neil,

Great to hear from you again mate. Thanks for your efforts and listening to my ramblings during my time in Aussie.  Great place, great people, crap location....although you guys are probably happy with the location...

Only time will tell about NSW staying so high in the rankings and maybe (God Forbid) Royal Sydney would pass them on the way up....

Good to hear that Graham is the consulting architect, he could be on to a winner.

[Matthew Mollica]

Brian and others who have contributed to the thread - many thanks. Especially to you Brian, as it takes courage to espouse an unpopular view. I think you (with a little aid from Tim's eloquence) have highlighted a little of the weakness of NSW. I'm still not sure that RS is as good as you think, but anyway...

I have often wondered what an intelligent group would make of Australian courses on a first visit.

Several people with whom I've spoken over the years have suggested we do our Australian rankings by getting Ran, Tom Doak, and 3 other architects from overseas, to play all our courses and then judge them. This would take out local biases, which often colour such exercises.

What you've engaged in Brian, Ian, Tim and others, is a small-scale version of what I describe above. It has been enjoyable and educational to see what others make of some of our layouts, NSW RS and others. Thank you for making the effort to convey your views.

Matthew

[Brian Phillips]

Matt,

Cheers mate and I will also post a routing, pictures and opinion of RS as well around xmas time.  I am so jealous of the guys that can write so beautifully as Tim and Tom as they do get their opinion across more eloquently than I do!

Tim is great and it was good to meet him after all these years of admiring his work at the Dukes course.....he even told me to polish my golf shoes and shook his head at my lack of shaving on the tour!

One thing that is difficult to get across to people that do not know me on here is how often I smile while giving strong opinions.  It is not that I don't believe in my opinions but I do not take myself as serious as maybe others take me.  Just ask people like Ian Andrew, Robin Hiseman, Mr. Magoo or Crafty Crafter whom all had to put up with me for a whole week not just one evening like you did!

[Andrew Summerell]

One thing that is difficult to get across to people that do not know me on here is how often I smile while giving strong opinions.  It is not that I don't believe in my opinions but I do not take myself as serious as maybe others take me.  Just ask people like Ian Andrew, Robin Hiseman, Mr. Magoo or Crafty Crafter whom all had to put up with me for a whole week not just one evening like you did!

Don't worry Brian. This is only golf that we are talking about.

I find I get taken a little too seriously myself. A little 'stoush' is good for the blood pressure.

[Brian Walshe]

Brian,

If it wasn't for the weird love of Royal Sydney I think I'd almost join your fan club.  Keep up the opinions.  By the way, you are only upsetting the Sydneysiders who have grown up clinging to the hope that at least they had one world class course in New South Wales.  It would appear that they didn't realise it was in Rose Bay rather than La Perouse.

Brian

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()