[Ian Andrew]

Brian,

Point taken – my comment had more to do with general comments made on the bus on the way back. Most of the guys thought there were far too many blind shots for the course to be good.

Tim,

The 15th used to have far less scrub right and left and in fact the right side was quite open and could be taken on. If this was all cleared out, would you still feel the same way about the hole?

[Matthew Mollica]

Ian, I think I agree with you, in that a little clearing of 15 would be desirable.
Into the wind, the drive is brutal, even when attempting to lay up.

A little clearing could also help the 3rd, blindness aside, given the appearance from the tee (below), with the desired line shown.



The difficult thing about clearing the NSW site, as Terry Thornton pointed out, is that the entire course sits within a National Park area, owned by the government. It is a sensitive flora site (Eastern Coastal banksia?) and as such, the Club must seek approval from at least one external body prior to engaging in any vegetation reduction.

MM

[Norbert P]

 
 Ian Andrew's blog about selected Australian Golf courses and holes. 

 http://www.weirgolfdesign.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=8&Itemid=20

[Mark_F]

Ian Andrew's blog about selected Australian Golf courses and holes. 
http://www.weirgolfdesign.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=8&Itemid=20

Excellent stuff.

It's particularly interesting that Ian considers the front portion of the 9th green at St Andrews Beach to be an unrealistic target, but that the 7th is a great hole and one of his favourites, when the top tier on the 7th green is less than half the width of the front portion of 9.

[Tyler Kearns]

Ian Andrew's blog about selected Australian Golf courses and holes. 
http://www.weirgolfdesign.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=8&Itemid=20

Excellent stuff.

It's particularly interesting that Ian considers the front portion of the 9th green at St Andrews Beach to be an unrealistic target, but that the 7th is a great hole and one of his favourites, when the top tier on the 7th green is less than half the width of the front portion of 9.

Mark,

I seem to recall it being the DEPTH of that front shelf on the 9th at St. Andrews Beach as making it borderline too difficult to access.

TK

[Mark_F]

Tyler,

Yes, you are quite right, I got my depth and widths mixed up, which is obviously why the cupboards and shelving I build never fit together properly either.

The top tier of the 7th green has less than half the depth of the front portion of the 9th green.

Brian or Robin like the 7th hole too - do you?

[Neil_Crafter]

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.

Brian
It was my pleasure to listen to your ramblings! Just wish we could have had a hit together, but perhaps in Scotland next March. Glad you liked Australia, but a bit far away from Norwegia perhaps. We are happy where it is, if it was any closer we'd be even more overrun by poms!

Graham Papworth is our new Pres, not Vice pres, and he is not the consulting architect at NSW. Our incoming VP is Bob Harrison, former No1 man for Greg Norman in Australia and Asia, and he is the consulting architect there. Just clarifying that as I know how you Norwegians get easily confused.......

[Kari Haug]

Great discussion! 
I’m glad to see the focus on NSW and hope we can have similar discussions for the other courses on our tour as this thread continues.  Here are my thoughts on NSW:

In my opinion, a yardage book (or a good caddie) is a must for those who have never played here before– This is also often said of the Old Course.  I played with Aussie Ross Perrett who had good course knowledge and bought the very good yardage book and both were very helpful.

There was discussion in the back of the bus on the way back to the hotel about blind holes and vegetation encroaching on fairways, but I think this was just optical off of the tee (3rd and 15th come to mind.)  With the proper line off the tee and course knowledge, I think most holes are sufficiently open in the landing area for the mid to low handicapper, except for hole 15 which was uphill, into the wind, and didn’t seem to widen until about 270 off the tee (oh and did I say it was uphill? ).  Clearing would make this particular hole more enjoyable for everyone.  For the high handicapper, a mis-hit would easily end up in the brush because of the proximity, forced carries, and/or narrowness for the first 100-150 yards on a few of the holes.

There were many blind tee shots, but I think it was McKenzie who said they are only blind once.  I really would have liked to have played this course a second time.  I don’t recall any blind approach shots.

I found myself looking forward with anticipation to what every “next” hole would offer up and I thought the routing was exceptional. 
I think this course plays much better for the golfer with a slight draw (right-to-left doglegs on holes #3, 13, 14, and 16 and more trouble on the low side of left-to-right slopes).   On this particular day, I was hitting a draw and played the entire round with the same ball.  Those with a fade did not fare so well.

I don’t think the 6th green and surrounds took advantage of the location, but the 5th, 13th, and 14th were spectacular!

Great to have met posters Ian Andrew, Tim Liddy, and Brian Phillips!  You each added in your own way to my wonderful memories of this trip!  Please stay in touch.

[Neil_Crafter]

Welcome to GCA Kari !
It was great to meet you and trust you had an enjoyable trip down under.
cheers
Neil

[Anthony Butler]

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....

NSWGC /RS have reciprocal tee times on Wednesdays, so I've played RS under all weather conditions. It never comes close to the challenge or visual majesty that NSWGC offers. In fact the above statement causes me to doubt your sanity...  

While I agree with some of your points about NSWGC (the redesign of 18 was probably not worth the bother given the end result) it's hard to take your comments about the par 3's and par 5's seriously. For starters, you haven't even mentioned the fact each 3 & 5 faces a different part of the compass thus providing maximum playability and variation. A crucial fact, given the enormous impact wind direction plays at NSW.

By factoring this into his design updates both pre and post-WW II, Eric Apperly made a substantial contribution to the course. As far as the club historians can tell he also left all the great Mackenzie holes (5, 7, 13, 14, 16)  more or less untouched. The weird Mackenzie snobbery about NSW is something that belongs exclusively to architecture geeks who visit the course once every ten years. The members are fully cognizant–and appreciative–of Apperly's contributions to the course we have today.

Tom Doak's comment on how RM is a reflection of Mick Morcom's construction and maintenance talents is the most sensible opinion I've heard about Mackenzie's work in Australia. NSW was also a much more challenging site for building a golf course than anything else Mackenzie worked on in Australia, so some compromises in Mackenzie's plans were inevitable. Some of the individual changes suggested on this thread would have most likely been made given modern course construction capabilities. The fact the course adapts to the land as it was made available adds to the wild and unique nature of NSW.

In terms of your comment about location. That reveals the fact that you are looking at NSWGC from the architectural point of view exclusively–and not at the total experience of playing the course.  Cypress Point was lucky enough to have Mackenzie's attention during the entire design and construction phase... but anyone who thinks CPC's seaside location doesn't play a significant role in it being rated one of the best 3-4 courses of the planet is being disingenuous at best.

A more local example: The Sydney Opera House would hardly rank as one of the 20th century's most notable buildings if it was located next to the Post Office on Martin Place.

[Brian Phillips]

NSWGC /RS have reciprocal tee times on Wednesdays, so I've played RS under all weather conditions. It never comes close to the challenge or visual majesty that NSWGC offers. In fact the above statement causes me to doubt your sanity... 

I disagree with you regards your opinion about RS compared to NSWGC.  NSWGC is just hard, RS is a challenge by strategic bunkering.  There seems to be a huge bias towards NSWGC over RS, is this due to the poor state of RS before Ross Watson transformed the course and this feeling is still ingrained in the local Sydney (even Australian) golfers?  There seems to be a campaign that hell will freeze over before anyone in Australia will allow RS to be even considered for the Top 100 of the world.

While I agree with some of your points about NSWGC (the redesign of 18 was probably not worth the bother given the end result) it's hard to take your comments about the par 3's and par 5's seriously. For starters, you haven't even mentioned the fact each 3 & 5 faces a different part of the compass thus providing maximum playability and variation. A crucial fact, given the enormous impact wind direction plays at NSW.

Just because holes are lined up perfectly according to wind and/or the compass does not necessarily make them good holes. It can help, dramatically in the case of NSWGC but not enough in my opinion.

Tom Doak's comment on how RM is a reflection of Mick Morcom's construction and maintenance talents is the most sensible opinion I've heard about Mackenzie's work in Australia. NSW was also a much more challenging site for building a golf course than anything else Mackenzie worked on in Australia, so some compromises in Mackenzie's plans were inevitable. Some of the individual changes suggested on this thread would have most likely been made given modern course construction capabilities. The fact the course adapts to the land as it was made available adds to the wild and unique nature of NSW.

Andrew, people like Neil Crafter and Paul Daley have know this for years and I think Paul summed it up perfectly for me in Melbourne this year when I starting ranting about how MacKenzie had got too much credit everything in Australia. Paraphrasing: "Brian, we should not diminish the impact and influence MacKenzie had on Australian golf but instead elevate the stature that Morcom and Russell deserve." 

RMGC also realise the impact all of them made.

In terms of your comment about location. That reveals the fact that you are looking at NSWGC from the architectural point of view exclusively–and not at the total experience of playing the course.  Cypress Point was lucky enough to have Mackenzie's attention during the entire design and construction phase... but anyone who thinks CPC's seaside location doesn't play a significant role in it being rated one of the best 3-4 courses of the planet is being disingenuous at best.

I agree but the big difference between NSWGC and Cypress Point is the internal aesthetics.  NSWGC does not have any!  As Tim Liddy pointed out, it felt like playing a municipal course, not because of the maintenance (that was superb) but because of the internal aesthetics. Cypress Point from Hole 2 to Hole 17 is a superb golf course, strategically, aesthetically in and out.  NSWGC is not.  There have been many arguments on this thread defending NSWGC but not one has pointed out anything strategic about the golf course or holes. The only person to really have made any strategic opinion about the holes is Kari Haug which even pointed out one of its flaws in that it best to be played with a draw. A number have pointed out that the routing is superb but apart from that no real concrete arguments have been posted, only feelings.

A more local example: The Sydney Opera House would hardly rank as one of the 20th century's most notable buildings if it was located next to the Post Office on Martin Place.

I disagree, I think you could put the Sydney Opera House anywhere in the world and it would be classed the TPC Sawgrass of architectural design.  It might not be so special now (it is in my eyes) but it was decades ahead of itself in design and construction techniques when built and is an icon because of that, not it's location.

[Scott Warren]

Brian, in the list of people who have yet to make any compelling argument about the relative merits of the golf holes is one B. Phillips.

You've constantly mentioned aesthetics, both within the course and outside the boundaries, but given your pretty outspoken opinions about the quality of the course, I think it is on you first and foremost to give a thorough explanation of why before anyone else need jump in and argue the counterpoint.

[Brian Phillips]

I have started to do that on the other thread Scott. I have already done three holes with no real comment from yourself.

[Andrew Summerell]

Brian, do you believe strategy needs to be ordained by carefully designed paths? And should each strategic path be guarded in a penal manner?

Or can strategy be infinite allowing the golfer to choose to what degree they want to take risk?

[Brian Phillips]

Brian, in the list of people who have yet to make any compelling argument about the relative merits of the golf holes is one B. Phillips.

You've constantly mentioned aesthetics, both within the course and outside the boundaries, but given your pretty outspoken opinions about the quality of the course, I think it is on you first and foremost to give a thorough explanation of why before anyone else need jump in and argue the counterpoint.

Scott,

Please also see Tim Liddy's description.

[Brian Phillips]

Brian, do you believe strategy needs to be ordained by carefully designed paths? And should each strategic path be guarded in a penal manner?

Or can strategy be infinite allowing the golfer to choose to what degree they want to take risk?

Andrew,  good questions.  I will try to answer them one by one:

Do I believe strategy needs to be ordained by carefully designed paths?
One big challenge we have as modern architects is to try and create a golf course that is strategic for all golfers, a challenge for the low handicap player yet still playable for anyone.  If we design based solely on the strategy of the course, the design can become numerical and bunkers will be placed at certain distances from tees and greens.  This is where many modern designers have gone wrong and the "copy and paste" design era kicked in.  Harry Colt to me was a genius with his bunkering, he not only had strategic bunkering but also seemed to place many of his bunkers in areas where they just seemed to look right even when they are were out of play of the good golfer, they just looked right.

The other challenge we have is trying to design this magical golf course with strategy but without being monotonous. Even a perfectly technically strategic golf course can be boring.  The highest ranked course in Norway is I feel monotonous, however, technically you cannot fault the strategy on the holes.  There is a fine balance that has to be found and that is the hardest part of all.

And should each strategic path be guarded in a penal manner?
When you say penal you mean bunkers I presume? No, strategy can be created by falloffs around greens, a kick here and there on the fairway with internal mounding.  No, I am not a great fan of bunkering for the sake of bunkering and that is one of my criticisms of Royal Sydney and say The Castle course in Scotland.  I love both courses but both are on steroids in areas of their design that make the course interesting.  In the case of The Castle course the Don Kings are a great design feature but they were overdone and I felt that 10%-20% of them could be taken out without diminishing the strategy or design of the course, the same can be said of Ross Watson's bunkers. He has designed wonderful bunkers that look superb, play well but there are too many and 10-20% of them could be taken out without anyone noticing a difference in the strategy of the course.  There is a fine line between just getting it right and getting it wrong. Hurdzan talks about that in his book in Chapter 7 The Beautiful and the Ugly.

Or can strategy be infinite allowing the golfer to choose to what degree they want to take risk?
This was one of our biggest discussions on my Masters course in Edinburgh.  Who the hell has given the designers the right to decide what the strategy of the hole is?  We try our best to get you started on the tee with a thought of strategy but in the end I cannot read your mind how you will play the hole.  Tom Doak has written somewhere that even after he has finished building a hole he does not always know himself the best way to play it. That is absolutely true.

That is why width is probably one of the most important aspects in the designing of a golf course.  The more width you can give a golfer the greater the strategy a golf hole will have because ultimately the strategy of the hole is decided by the golfer playing the hole not the architect.

[Tyler Kearns]

Tyler,

Yes, you are quite right, I got my depth and widths mixed up, which is obviously why the cupboards and shelving I build never fit together properly either.

The top tier of the 7th green has less than half the depth of the front portion of the 9th green.

Brian or Robin like the 7th hole too - do you?

Mark,

I found the 7th hole to be a good, solid hole, but nothing truly stands out in my opinion. However, the green complex at the 9th is quite stunning. Similar to the 3rd, I found it a novel concept to be playing my approach shot to the back of the green in order to score my best. Certainly the front shelf could be bigger, but it seems like a sucker hole location. With a short-iron in hand, it would be tempting to knock it close, but any miss but long could bring some big numbers into play. The percentage play to that pin seems to be middle of the green and then a weight testing putt back to the shelf.

TK

[Ian Andrew]

Brian, myself and Robin from the Architects tour.

[Bill_McBride]

Brian, myself and Robin from the Architects tour.

Where are the wine glasses?

[Brian Phillips]

I am the good looking one on the left...

[Anthony Butler]

There seems to be a huge bias towards NSWGC over RS, is this due to the poor state of RS before Ross Watson transformed the course and this feeling is still ingrained in the local Sydney (even Australian) golfers?  There seems to be a campaign that hell will freeze over before anyone in Australia will allow RS to be even considered for the Top 100 of the world.

A bias? Well if you call every golf publication and ratings group that has seen both courses in the last 25 years–and unanimously preferred NSWGC over RS by a wide margin–a huge bias, OK.

In terms of bunkering, there was about 140 of them on RS before Ross Watson ever clapped eyes on the course. I think his major contribution beyond the redesign of the first hole was to make the bunkering throughout the course make a bit more sense. From that standpoint, I would be happy to see RS rise the rankings, at least in Australia. Post redo, I would put it in the company of Woodlands and Commonwealth. i.e. just outside the top 10.

People like Neil Crafter and Paul Daley have know this for years and I think Paul summed it up perfectly for me in Melbourne this year when I starting ranting about how MacKenzie had got too much credit everything in Australia. Paraphrasing: "Brian, we should not diminish the impact and influence MacKenzie had on Australian golf but instead elevate the stature that Morcom and Russell deserve."  

In a similar sense, I am giving Apperly credit for what is currently rated the 38th best course in the world. His contribution from a routing and architectural sense is even more pronounced than Russell and Morcom at RMGC. I believe the presentation of the course is huge factor in why NSWGC has risen to that lofty perch. Gary Dempsey does an incredible job as the current super at NSWGC.

I agree but the big difference between NSWGC and Cypress Point is the internal aesthetics.  NSWGC does not have any!  As Tim Liddy pointed out, it felt like playing a municipal course, not because of the maintenance (that was superb) but because of the internal aesthetics. Cypress Point from Hole 2 to Hole 17 is a superb golf course, strategically, aesthetically in and out.  NSWGC is not.  There have been many arguments on this thread defending NSWGC but not one has pointed out anything strategic about the golf course or holes. The only person to really have made any strategic opinion about the holes is Kari Haug which even pointed out one of its flaws in that it best to be played with a draw. A number have pointed out that the routing is superb but apart from that no real concrete arguments have been posted, only feelings.

As mentioned previously, the internal aesthetics at CPC are a factor of Mackenzie's involvement in the entire project and the ongoing contributions of Robert Hunter and Marion Hollins after his death. When the course is presented as the architect intended for a prolonged period after it is opened, it becomes part of the culture of the club and thus is easier to justify when setting the annual maintenance budget. NSWGC was completely turned over to the government in WW II and returned to a golf course by the membership in 1946 when the Army released the land back to the club. My grandfather and two of his brothers spent the last 6 months of 1946 on weekend working bees clearing the site of military debris and prepping the land for regular course maintenance. At that stage all of Mackenzie's blow out areas had been lost, and the budget did not exist to re-establish them. His original bunkering plans were not put into place for a number of reasons, and when attempts were made in the 50s and 60s to do so, the wind simply removed all the sand. Revetted the bunkers are not as appealing as the sandy waste areas and elaborate bunker shaping at CPC, but they are simply not possible on this scale in the prevailing weather conditions at NSWGC. Believe me, the issue has been discussed many times by the Greens committee. As you may have noticed sandy waste areas are now being maintained and expanded on a number of holes. To state that NSW has no internal aesthetics is simply untrue and minimizes many of the design and natural elements that are not simply seaside postcard shots. i.e.  skyline green on 3, playing corridor on 7, siting of the green on 8, unique cape hole on 14.

I'm not sure if you're getting to this Brian, but the major complaint less skilled golfers have with NSW is that playing options are taken away in certain weather conditions. Unless the wind is favoring you on some holes you only have one option for playing the hole. i.e. 16 in anything other than NE wind. You have to hit the ball at least 250 on the correct line to have a hope of reaching the green in two.

... you could put the Sydney Opera House anywhere in the world and it would be classed the TPC Sawgrass of architectural design.  It might not be so special now (it is in my eyes) but it was decades ahead of itself in design and construction techniques when built and is an icon because of that, not it's location.

You've completely lost me here, Brian. The construction techniques on the Opera House, while certainly forward thinking are perhaps the weakest part of the building. It is only in the last decade that building technology has advanced to the point where some of Utzon's more 'advanced' building ideas haven't cost the NSW Govt. several million a year in maintenance costs. Exterior tiles falling off, entire concert halls having to be reconfigured to improve the sound. Dozens of obstructed view seats in the Opera Hall. I could go on, but do I have to...? To just about everyone else who has looked at the building and understands the concepts of architecture, the appeal of the Opera House is the location and how the design concept (SAILS!) mirrors and integrates into its harborside setting. Perhaps the last great act of Eero Saarinen's career was picking that design. All the things you like about the Opera House were mostly f___ed up from that point onward... if the design and construction was so great why did Joern Utzon leave the project 4 years into it, never to return to Australia again?

[Brian Phillips]

Anthony,

1.  The Opera House was actually inspired by the pealing of an orange, not sails. If you combine the 14 shells they become a complete sphere.
2.  Jřrn Utzon never came back because he was practically kicked off the project before it was even finished. He was not paid by the newly appointed public works minister and had to leave the project.
3.  At the time of leaving the project the shells were pretty much done and apparently it had only cost about $23 million.
4.  By the time it was finished it rose to $103 million.
5.  Many argue this was not Utzon's fault but that of false pricing by contractors.
6.  Utzon was not even invited back to the opening (let alone mentioned) or when the building received the honour of being listed on the World Heritage site list.  Apparently he is the only 2nd architect to have had a building on this list while still alive.
7.  As for the seating that would not have been Utzon's fault either as he left the project before any of that started.
8.  Utzon's seating designs were scrapped completely so again not his fault.
9.  The tiles although requiring maintenance are self cleaning, pretty radical for that day an age.

In 2003 the building received the Pritzker Prize, possibly Architecture's highest honour.  To quote the board of judges:

"There is no doubt that the Sydney Opera House is his masterpiece. It is one of the great iconic buildings of the 20th century, an image of great beauty that has become known throughout the world – a symbol for not only a city, but a whole country and continent."

Yep, it's a crap building...

If the maintenance has cost NSW millions a year this cannot solely be blamed on Utzon but possibly on Hughes the minister who took over the project and managed to get rid of Utzon pretty quickly when he came into power.  We will never know how good would have been if Utzon had been left to get on with it.

How much money through tourism and visitors has Utzon's design generated over the last 30 odd years since it opened in 1973? More than the maintenance has cost, that is for sure.

Possibly the greatest modern building ever designed. In my humble opinion.  But I am biased, he is from Scandinavia of course.

[Brian Phillips]

A bias? Well if you call every golf publication and ratings group that has seen both courses in the last 25 years–and unanimously preferred NSWGC over RS by a wide margin–a huge bias, OK.

In terms of bunkering, there was about 140 of them on RS before Ross Watson ever clapped eyes on the course. I think his major contribution beyond the redesign of the first hole was to make the bunkering throughout the course make a bit more sense. From that standpoint, I would be happy to see RS rise the rankings, at least in Australia. Post redo, I would put it in the company of Woodlands and Commonwealth. i.e. just outside the top 10.

Anthony,

How many of the raters do you think are Australians that can give a rating?  It would be interesting to find out. 

Royal Sydney has only been redesigned since 2004 or 2005.  I have seen the photos of RS before Watson worked there and it was bland even with the 140 bunkers.  If you think that the only thing Watson has done is to make the bunkering make a bit more sense I think you are mistaken.  I will scan some photos I have of the old RS with the new bunkering and it will show that he has transformed the bunkering from mediocre bunkering to world class bunkering.

[Brian Phillips]

To state that NSW has no internal aesthetics is simply untrue and minimizes many of the design and natural elements that are not simply seaside postcard shots. i.e.  skyline green on 3, playing corridor on 7, siting of the green on 8, unique cape hole on 14.

I'm not sure if you're getting to this Brian, but the major complaint less skilled golfers have with NSW is that playing options are taken away in certain weather conditions. Unless the wind is favoring you on some holes you only have one option for playing the hole. i.e. 16 in anything other than NE wind. You have to hit the ball at least 250 on the correct line to have a hope of reaching the green in two.

That is true, to state that there are no internal aesthetics is unfair.  There is not much though.  Skyline green on 3 is nice, nothing aesthetically pleasing about the corridor on 7 IMHO, the siting of green 8 is very good and hole 14 is beautifully located (although it could be discussed if it is a cape hole or not)

Your last paragarph seems to add another chink in the armour of the design or am I reading it wrong?

[Brian Phillips]

Anthony,

I forgot to say thank you for the history of the course.  It was a fascinating read, I really appreciate your efforts.

Now just to add a little salt in with my questions.  With all your attachment to the course do you not admit at least a little bias for the course?  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()