[Matthew Mollica]

The holes are indeed on NSW GC Neil C (and others who had not yet guessed).

The first picture is the sandy expanse on the right of 4, which neighbours the 8th fairway.

The second image is the sandy waste on the left of 5, around 110m short of the green.

The third picture is the sandy waste between 9 and 10, about the length of a drive on 9, on a direct line from tee to green.

I'm not sure ALL are defined as sandy waste.

I'm sad that this sort of thing is being done to NSW. Especvially at 4 and 9. No need for it.
All it will do is increase the length of time taken to play 18, with searches for lost balls.

I'm interested to hear you talk about the worst feature of the course as wide expanses of couch rough David.
Can you expand on that please?

MM

[David_Elvins]

I'm interested to hear you talk about the worst feature of the course as wide expanses of couch rough David.
Can you expand on that please?

Matt,

There are two big open areas in the middle of the course as shown on the following photo. 
Basically think of the 8th hole.  The first 2/3 of the hole, and everything left and right of it is one area.  Then the last thirds of the 8th hole and everything left and right of it is the second area. 



As can be seen in the aerial photo, both these areas contain a lot of rough.  The rough is basically couch grass with a few lone trees here and there.  IMO it looks terrible, almost “muni” like.  The turf farm that can be seen to the right of 3 and 8 is a particular eyesore. 

IMO, the course would be a lot better if these areas were either planted with ti tree, opened up as sandy areas, or grassed with a more attractive grass.  In some places it should be cut at fairway height. 

I have no specific photos of the vistas, but the following photos give a clue. 
To the right of 4


Left (and right) of 12.
 

Left of 15
 

Conversely, the right of 15 ties into the ti-tree well.


Right and left of 16. 

[Andrew Summerell]

As can be seen in the aerial photo, both these areas contain a lot of rough.  The rough is basically couch grass with a few lone trees here and there.  IMO it looks terrible, almost “muni” like.  The turf farm that can be seen to the right of 3 and 8 is a particular eyesore. 

So, we are talking aesthetics.

Don't forget the shed to the left of the 5th tee & the 6th holes bunkering is so poor they only ever take photos of the 6th tee.   

[Matthew Mollica]

Many thanks for a great, considered and helpful reply Dave.
I wasn't 100% sure where you were going, but now get what you mean.

As an aside, the shot of the 12th landing zone shows the exposed sandy soil to the left,
which is encountered after driving over the big trap on the left.


(Thanks for the image Pup!)

The sandy stretch of land is now quite densly vegetated.
Wish I had taken a picture of that to compare.
Another natural looking stretch were growth has rendered playability hopeless,
and the initial intent of that area now lay under thick grasses and scrub - along with dozens of balls.

MM

[David_Elvins]

As can be seen in the aerial photo, both these areas contain a lot of rough.  The rough is basically couch grass with a few lone trees here and there.  IMO it looks terrible, almost “muni” like.  The turf farm that can be seen to the right of 3 and 8 is a particular eyesore. 

So, we are talking aesthetics.

yes, aesthetic vegetation is an important part of al lthe world's top courses. 

[Andrew Summerell]

yes, aesthetic vegetation is an important part of al lthe world's top courses. 

So, you would have been dissappointed with Garden City around the 5th, across the 6th & 7th & over to the 11th?

[Terry Thornton]

Terry,

As far as I know, the area to the left of the 5th has always been there, it's just that it was covered with grass for many years. In other words, they just had to clear the vegetation to get it to where it is now. Is that true?

True, when it was cleared there may have been a small amount of 'shaping' or scooping done as the area was de-vegetated. As one of the first places that this latter-day sandy waste look was implemented I'm unsure if the original impetus was about aesthetic or function. This area works well for both imo, irregular players (and lefties whose slice sometimes defeats them) often hit too far left if playing their second shot blind. This area helps in allowing recovery inasmuch as you're more likely to find your ball. The other areas mostly improved when maintained as sandy waste are front of #17 and longer RHS on #4

As far as I am aware, the other two have been built/manufactured/dug out. If this is true, maybe it gives us a good guide to what should & shouldn't be waste areas.

Certainly worthy of a post implementation review, the size of the one RHS of #8 always strikes me as 'underscale' also.

The other question is, what bunps & hollows have been left over after original construction & subsequent renovations?

Don't know

[David_Elvins]

yes, aesthetic vegetation is an important part of al lthe world's top courses. 

So, you would have been dissappointed with Garden City around the 5th, across the 6th & 7th & over to the 11th?

I t wasn't Couch grass when I was there. 

It also was early in the season.  Ran's photos show some marvelous rough at garden City.  A lot more textured an aestheitcly pleasing than inch high bermuda. 

[Andrew Summerell]

O.K. I’m getting a feel for where we are at in this discussion.

If NSW spray painted the couch rough different colours, would that help? Maybe a nice tartan to represent the origins of the game.

[Andrew Summerell]

David,

What are the native grasses of the area that you would prefer to see there?

[Michael Dugger]

I think all three look just fine...

Sometimes maintenance considerations need thrown out the window.  

Vegetation or flora in bunkers is integral to tie ins.  It often serves to lessen the transition between the green golf grass, as Tom Doak calls it, and the native terrain.  Use it as much as possible

Hazards should be hazardous.  Sometimes your lie is playable, sometimes it is not.  You shouldn't have gone in there in the first place....tempting fate did you....and now you must live with "the rub of the green" so to speak.

Obviously these sorts of hazards require special maintenance practices.  The less is more philosophy...

[David_Elvins]

David,

What are the native grasses of the area that you would prefer to see there?

No idea,  I don't know what is native to the area.  I just reckon that large expanses ofcouch with random trees looks crap.

[Andrew Summerell]

David,

My questioning is not to prove you wrong, but to highlight that in many cases there are not always better options in situations like this. The flat, grassed paddocks my not be ideal to some, but I haven’t come across a perfect golf course yet.

One of the mistakes many clubs make is to try & make their course something that it is not. If there is a simple option that works, then it is, more often than not, the right option.

[Chris Cupit]

I like flora in bunkers and here is why.  I actually had a member ask a pretty good question.  He asked if the flora in my bunkers was not a sign that the bunkers could not stand alone as hazards.  He felt that if they were proper hazards, they wouldn't need the "crap" in them.

I was a little struck by the question/statement because it was a good one and most of the stuff I hear doesn't qualify as well thought out

I took a moment and said that I truly felt bunkers were meant to play as hazards, not as the pristine, "consistent" things that players, especially good players, expect to be easy places to recover from.  If I made the bunkers so deep as to make them challenging for a better player to get out of, they would be impossible for most everyone else.  I thought about the un-raked bunker approach but people hate that and unless you are pine valley the un-raked look can look like you are being cheap.

The flora in the bunkers provides a degree of uncertainty and fear.  When you hit a ball toward a hazard I think you should be worried about what you may have.  Maybe its playable, maybe it's a perfect lie, maybe it's "dead".  I love uncertainty in golf.  It makes the game more interesting and fun and it really screws with "good" players who think penalties should always be "proportional" or "fair".

Nonsense.  Here is a sampling of flora in my bunkers:  (I think its pretty, it is not more expensive to maintain and it heightens the fear factor when a player's ball is headed in that direction.  Oh, and this fear does protect certain lines of play the way flora-less hazards couldn't without being so deep they are unplayable for most.




The flora in that bunker is hiding a catch basin   And yes, it is a bunker about a yard off the back tee!

[David_Elvins]

One of the mistakes many clubs make is to try & make their course something that it is not. If there is a simple option that works, then it is, more often than not, the right option.

i agree with you that many courses over do it.  But NSW is one of the best courses in Australia, and the world. 

One of the things that I notice about the best courses isthat they have an outstanding attention to detail.  This is not the simple option, this is going the extra yards to take a course from 95% perfect to 99% perfect.  It is celar that courses like Royal Melbourne West and Kingston Heath go that extra yard.  The vegetation and off fairway areas are beautifully presented.

A course like NSW should have the budget to match KH and RM, and should do so if it wants to be considered one of the world's best courses.  What's right for Wagga Wagga Country Club is not the same as what is right for NSW or Kingston Heath. 

[Andrew Summerell]

One of the mistakes many clubs make is to try & make their course something that it is not. If there is a simple option that works, then it is, more often than not, the right option.

i agree with you that many courses over do it.  But NSW is one of the best courses in Australia, and the world. 

One of the things that I notice about the best courses isthat they have an outstanding attention to detail.  This is not the simple option, this is going the extra yards to take a course from 95% perfect to 99% perfect.  It is celar that courses like Royal Melbourne West and Kingston Heath go that extra yard.  The vegetation and off fairway areas are beautifully presented.

A course like NSW should have the budget to match KH and RM, and should do so if it wants to be considered one of the world's best courses.  What's right for Wagga Wagga Country Club is not the same as what is right for NSW or Kingston Heath. 

NSW may be one of the better courses in Australia, but as Australians I have believed for many years that we have far too high of an opinion of our courses.

But at what point does a course like NSW reach it peak where nothing more should be done? Maybe it doesn't have that extra 5% in it.

There are no 'pretty' locally native grasses in that area of Sydney. If anything was done, I would prefer to see suitable fairway bunkering added similar to what many British links courses have. Although, I wouldn't want to see too many bunkers like what has been added to the 18th Fairway.

[Matthew Mollica]

David, what did ytou think of the native grass and rough areas at TOC?

Andrew, the simple is more approach is better isn't it...
Scratch the surface at TOC and there's sand beneath.
Yet, the R&A don't go uncovering sandy waste expanses do they...

MM

[Patrick_Mucci]

Matt,

I'm generally against it for a number of reasons, primarily the propensity for "rule" dilemas and inadvertant infractions.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()