The Lakes GC (Australia)

[Kevin Pallier]

I have had the good fortune of playing The "New" Lakes (NSW) layout a couple of times recently. I had been anticipating this renovation some time as it represented Mike Clayton's (MC) first significant work in NSW. Mike has basically been the backbone of many classical Sandbelt course alterations of recent times and was also tasked to do revised layouts in WA (Karrinyup), SA (Grange), Qld (Royal Queensland – see Michael Taylor’s recent review) to name but a few.

The "Old" Lakes layout had a pretty uninspiring F9 particularly after many architects have worked on it over the years.

If I have my history right:
-   Eric Apperley (of Newcastle & NSWGC fame) and Tom Howard laid the original layout back in 1928
-   Bruce Devlin & Robert von Hagge made alterations in the late 60’s when the government put a highway through parts of the course
-   Newton, Grant and Spencer did some work on the tees / greens in the 90’s
-   Thomson, Wolveridge and Perret did some more work in early 2000
-   The club recently appointed Michael Clayton to do a master plan and rework the layout

The F9’s driving lines were overgrown with ti-tree and other than the 1st and the 8th there were no real strategic decisions to be made – hit the ball straight and that was about it.

The landscape has now changed dramatically and instead of a parkland feel it has more of a dunes feel with some wonderful driving areas and vistas. The greens have all been redone with some significant movements and shelves placed in them.

The F9 also had some poor holes – most notably the 4th with its huge "ramp" on the outside of the dogleg. If ever an artificial mound needed removing this was it and the revised 4th works so much better now with a forced lay-up off the tee.

The B9 was all about the challenge of “the lakes” and how one negotiated their way around them. The essence of the B9 has remained virtually unchanged though certainly the greens have all been redone and some significant new challenges await the golfer now.

Mike “chainsaw” Clayton has lived up to his reputation and hopefully I can give you a pictorial of his changes with the 2010 Australian Open to be played over the revised layout later this year.

1st P4 (New 365m / Old 336m)

The drive has always been a challenge but you get a taste for what's in store for you as there are now no trees whatsoever to contend with instead you have only "sand" right + "water" left.

New:


Old:


There used to be a few trees left near the water and right on the dune. They have all been removed and the fairway has been widened. A new teeing area has been inserted and the green redone – it has also been widened significantly with a T-like shape.




2nd P4 (New 400m P4 / Old 470m P5)

This is a completely new hole.

The old was a P5 that was bunkered both sides and significantly narrow driving area with deep ti-tree. It then narrowed to a small green.

It is now a long P4 and a very good hole. It still plays uphill to a lovely offset green. The drive is still bunkered on both sides but there is much more width left. The ti-tree has been completely removed.




If you get up far enough you can see the green and there is a deep swale short of it. The green has some depth but is also quite long.



The 2nd now has a wonderful vista and the great thing about the F9 now is that you can see so many holes and pins before you play the holes - unlike before.



The ti-tree has been replaced by sandy waste areas with "pig face" (similar to that found in throughout the Monterey Peninsula). Note the deep swale in front of the green.



3rd P4 (New 444m / Old 420m)

This hole has always been difficult and invariably plays into the prevailing breeze. Being on kikuyu it's a tough ask for the "regular" golfer to hit the green in two and as such it's certainly a 4.5 par hole for the majority of golfers.



The drive is pinched at a small rise but again this hole has had significant tree removal both left and right.

The fairway then moves slightly to the right and there is a large cross bunker left and 30m short of the green. This has to be taken into consideration when considering your second shot.



The green has been enlarged and is T shaped back to front and best accessed from the left with some nice fallaways off the sides.

[Michael Taylor]

Good stuff so far Kevin.

I'd just like to add, that for the 2nd hole, to be left with a clear shot one must have hit a drive upwards of 260m. I believe the play to be far left almost down near the 8th, to be left with a blind shot, but to have a great angle for the uniquely shaped green. What do you think of that Kevin?

1st is a solid hole. The 2nd is one of my favorites on the course. And the 3rd is just a brute of a hole. It's quite a tough drive, and even if you smash one, you are left with a helluva long 2nd shot.

I am not a fan of the drive on the 4th hole however, because of the forced layup. But the greensite is superb and it's very difficult to be left with a birdie chance.

Pup

[Ash Towe]

Kevin,

Great to see a Sydney course featured in one of your course reviews.

A couple of questions- How long did the work take and how has it been recieved?

[Pat Burke]

Played The Lakes in 2000 (I think) and before that around '94
What a difference!   WTG Clayts

[Kevin Pallier]

I'd just like to add, that for the 2nd hole, to be left with a clear shot one must have hit a drive upwards of 260m. I believe the play to be far left almost down near the 8th, to be left with a blind shot, but to have a great angle for the uniquely shaped green. What do you think of that Kevin?

Michael

The 2nd invariably plays downwind so a big drive wouldn't be uncommon. If one takes the route you mention they also take the risk of hitting people coming down the 8th ?

A couple of questions- How long did the work take and how has it been recieved?

Ash

I believe it took around a year - and you would be better asking MC for the details. Personally - I think it's much better than what was there - I've heard a few grumblings eg: 13th which I will get to - but you cant please everyone ?

Played The Lakes in 2000 (I think) and before that around '94
What a difference!   WTG Clayts

Pat

I think you would be hard pressed to recognise the F9 now. It used to play as a P73 but now it's a Par72. They reduced the P5 11th to a P4 in the past - was it that way the time you played it ?

[Pat Burke]

[/quote]

Pat

I think you would be hard pressed to recognise the F9 now. It used to play as a P73 but now it's a Par72. They reduced the P5 11th to a P4 in the past - was it that way the time you played it ?
[/quote]

I remember it as a par five.  I always seemed to hit a bad 2nd shot on    Wasn't 12 a pretty good par 4?

[Mike_Clayton]

A couple of things.

11 was never played as a par four - it's about 560 yards and has always been a longish five.
17 was played as a 4 in the 1980 Australian Open - but not since.14 was a 4 in the 1992 Open - then reverted back to a five in all subsequent events.
2 was originally a 4 but the tee and green were moved backwards after the 1980 Open and it remained a five until the redesign.

Mike,

4 is like it is - the fairway running out at 230 yards - because there was a significant boundary problem with the tee shot and the best way to solve that problem was to take the club most likely to offend - the driver - out of golfer's hands. Now it plays ina quite similar fashion to the 11th at Royal Adelaide.

Pat,

12 was a strong par four - uphill with a big drop-off down the dune on the right.We moved the green back a little to create more of a skyline green.

[Andy Gray]

A couple of things.

11 was never played as a par four - it's about 560 yards and has always been a longish five.
17 was played as a 4 in the 1980 Australian Open - but not since.14 was a 4 in the 1992 Open - then reverted back to a five in all subsequent events.
2 was originally a 4 but the tee and green were moved backwards after the 1980 Open and it remained a five until the redesign.

Mike,

4 is like it is - the fairway running out at 230 yards - because there was a significant boundary problem with the tee shot and the best way to solve that problem was to take the club most likely to offend - the driver - out of golfer's hands. Now it plays ina quite similar fashion to the 11th at Royal Adelaide.

Pat,

12 was a strong par four - uphill with a big drop-off down the dune on the right.We moved the green back a little to create more of a skyline green.

Mike,

I remember 12 from the walk you took us on around the time of the Australian Open last year, and it was one of my favorite greens. From the fairway there isn't much to define the distance, and the profile of the green also reminded me of photos of Mackenzie's greens at Royal Melbourne (I have not seen them in real life). I seem to remember a Mark B thread on RM, and I think he described the profile line of the greens as sinusoidal. Were the RM greens in the back of your mind when shaping the greens at the Lakes?

Cheers,

Andy

[Michael Taylor]

A couple of things.

11 was never played as a par four - it's about 560 yards and has always been a longish five.
17 was played as a 4 in the 1980 Australian Open - but not since.14 was a 4 in the 1992 Open - then reverted back to a five in all subsequent events.
2 was originally a 4 but the tee and green were moved backwards after the 1980 Open and it remained a five until the redesign.

Mike,

4 is like it is - the fairway running out at 230 yards - because there was a significant boundary problem with the tee shot and the best way to solve that problem was to take the club most likely to offend - the driver - out of golfer's hands. Now it plays ina quite similar fashion to the 11th at Royal Adelaide.

Pat,

12 was a strong par four - uphill with a big drop-off down the dune on the right.We moved the green back a little to create more of a skyline green.

Yes I am aware of that Mike.

Did you consider any other ways of re-doing the 4th, other than the forced layup? I can see why you did it (and it's obviously worked as planned), but to me architecture is about giving the player options, of which the 4th doesn't do on the tee shot.

Pup

[Kevin Pallier]

A couple of things.

11 was never played as a par four - it's about 560 yards and has always been a longish five.
17 was played as a 4 in the 1980 Australian Open - but not since.14 was a 4 in the 1992 Open - then reverted back to a five in all subsequent events.

Mike

Apologies - I thought it was the 11th they coverted to a P4 for the 1992 Aust Open won by Elkington

[Kevin Pallier]

4th P4 (New 339m / Old 377m)

As explained in my outline this hole has changed the most of any on the F9 and is so much better now. The club was constantly dealing with balls going OOB into the neighbouring houses off the drive.

The old attempted "solution" re: same was to place a significant mound on the outside of the dogleg and still keep a large bunker on the inside. Not surprisingly - it didn't work.

The Clayton model is much simpler in its approach. Shorten the hole - place a sandy waste area in the "driving zone" off the tee at 200m and continue it for 70-80m+.



Instead of driver one is somewhat "forced" into taking a lay-up club and I would suggest it works well once people get used to the yardage. The tees were forward and the wind with me the times I played it and it was a 5I-6I off the tee - normally it would play longer than that.



The green has been altered and isn't as steep back to front as the old one used to be. It remains unbunkered and allows a run-up approach for the shorter hitters.



Given the issues described above - I think it works well and is a much better hole than its predecessor.

5th P4 (New 363m / Old 341m)

A new tee has been constructed almost behind the 4th green and I like it – as it asks for a shaped shot off the tee. I believe with the boundary issues though it won't be in play as much but all the same - it adds a new dimension to the hole.



The old tee area remains tucked into the boundary fence and the hole is still bunkered in the fairway right with a large landing area left.



The fairway moves then slightly to the right and my only criticism here is that if one is bold enough to take the fairway bunkers on they are still fronted with a green that is bunkered on an angle front right ?



To be fair though - one that executes such a shot then they have a much shorter shot into the green. The green has some significant wings to it – back left and right.



6th P4 (New 312m / Old 307m)

The tee shot sets up for a long draw uphill and around the corner for the best angle into the green



A cape style hole which now asks one to takes on as much as they dare as MC has extended the bunkers left at a diagonal all the way to the green.



The green itself is a classic T shape with some interesting pinnable areas – it was at the very front the first time I saw it.




Interestingly – the course now starts with six P4's – but they have differing lengths and strategies and they contain wonderful variety that you almost don't notice that aspect.

You also get some wonderful vistas attached is the 6th and 5th.

[Mike_Clayton]

Mike,

I think there are enough tee shot options at the Lakes to get away with a hole that does not offer but a single option - a lay-up.
It is narrow to there was little opportunity to really reward one side over the other and we had to stop the option of playing down three and that dictated where the tee was -i.e behind the left gum trees.

[Michael Taylor]

Fair enough.

Kevin,

Which hole out of the first 6 would be your favorite?

And I agree with you, the first time I played it, I didn't even realise the first 6 holes were of consecutive par. That just says how diverse and interesting they are.

I must add that the 4th green slopes from front to back, so a shot that goes close to the end of the layup zone is rewarded.

Pup

[Josh Stevens]

How is all that sandy waste going to survive - the Lakes is Kikuyu and that grass is rampant in Sydney, surely a warm summer and it will be into those waste areas in a flash??

[Andrew Bertram]

Thanks Kevin

I played the 92 open and i cannot believe how good the holes look now.

I have recieved mixed feedback from Members of our club who have played there so i am looking forward to seeing in it May.


The lakes never grabbed me as a great course, my two main memories are of one tee were jumbos buzzed us overhead, and also getting a yardage very wrong on the same hole the two days i played. got the sprinkler wrong and came up 40 feet short on both Thursday and Friday. 5 looks simply pure!

 

[Matthew Mollica]

Andrew,

I feel very comfortable in stating the course has improved so much it's not funny.
I'd not pay that much attention to those who aren't fond of the changes.

No doubt Kevin's remaining analysis will demonstrate this, if the 1st 6 holes haven't already!

Matthew

[Anthony Butler]

How is all that sandy waste going to survive - the Lakes is Kikuyu and that grass is rampant in Sydney, surely a warm summer and it will be into those waste areas in a flash??

They look much improved. The holes on the other side of the freeway had always been uninspiring to say the least. Can't wait to see the rest of the course... A copy of these photos should go straight the management of St. Michaels.

P.S. I hope the maintenance staff at the Lakes also gets a copy of these pictures, because they will have to be vigilant on sand replacement and grass removal in the waste areas. Not sure why, but Kikuyu creep has never been much of an issue at NSW. Can soil get too sandy to support kikuyu growth or is just consistent removal?

[Josh Stevens]

From my experience, consistent removal is the only way - that stuff will grow on a brick. 

Can't be the sand, the Lakes and its neighbours (East Lake and Bonnie Doon)  are pure sand.  NSW is actually rock mostly with a thin layer of crappy topsoil - maybe the salt holds the Kik back?

My club has a very firm policy - members are asked to look out for even the tiniest sprig, poke a stick in the ground to show where it is and the ground staff will come out and destroy it - no quarter is given.

[Brett_Morrissy]

Josh may have answered my question to Kevin or MC,

is the sand already existing, just able to scrape the surface to create these beautiful hazards?

Can the master plan be described - what are the instructions for maintenance of the the sandy hazards?

Clayts - it looks like a magnificent job you have done with the Lakes - congratulations.

KP - once again, you photo essays are outstanding - thank you. Looks like a trip to Sydney is required soon.

thanks
Brett

[Scott Warren]

Brett,

I aksed Mike elsewhere how much of the sand was brought in and how much was simply "uncovered".

He said there wasn't a grain brought in - all of it was there waiting to be uncovered.

[Kevin Pallier]

Fair enough.

Kevin,

Which hole out of the first 6 would be your favorite?

Michael

I dont mind the first - calls for a decent shot first up to a reasonably short hole and a pretty wide green. You ?

Can the master plan be described - what are the instructions for maintenance of the the sandy hazards?

Brett

I've only had a brief look at the master plan - Mike would be the best person to answer this - afterall he wrote it 

[Mike_Clayton]

There really we no instructions for the maintenance of the waste areas. There is pig face (ice-plant) planted in the out of play areas and coastal banksia trees have been planted in other sections.
Largely they can be left to the wind to smoorth them over - and without water it wont't be hard to keep the kikuyu out of them.

[Michael Taylor]

Fair enough.

Kevin,

Which hole out of the first 6 would be your favorite?

Michael

I dont mind the first - calls for a decent shot first up to a reasonably short hole and a pretty wide green. You ?

The first is a solid hole, but my favorite would have to be the 2nd. Playing off the forward tees on 2 gives you a number of options.

However I'm also a fan of 6, with that awesome "T" shaped green.

Pup

[Kevin Pallier]

7th P3 (New 160m / Old 140m)

I like this uphill P3 to the highest point of the course on the F9.

This hole has some amazing elasticity and plays good short as well as long to a semi-blind green with a swale front left.

Tee shot (at around 120m)



Tee shot (at around 160m)



I actually prefer the front tees on this particular hole and there would be some tricky putts from back right tier to a middle or front pin location.



8th P5 (New 503m / Old 501m)

There is so much more width left off the tee now on this hole. The water is still there off the drive right but you also have to contend with two bunkers on the drive as well.



The hole then progressively narrows to the green but you also have to deal with cross bunkers on the 2nd shot which are quite deep.



The green again has been remodelled and is much larger than its predecessor.



I've always liked this hole - now with the tree clearing and width - I think it's even better

9th P3 (New 138m / Old 166m)

This used to be a pretty boring P3 for mine – but now it has a lot more going for it particularly the elasticity with regard to teeing areas. The waste area in the picture looks as though it continues to the green but it finishes about 20m short of it.



The green is much more exposed and a deep bunker at the front and is an ever present threat off the tee. There are bail out areas right and left but the green has a strong slope back to front.

[Chris Kane]

Great pictures Kevin.

When we reached the 7th, Emil Weber and I both commented that it was very similar in style to photos we've seen of Friar's Head.  Is that a fair call?