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.


Ran Morrissett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Australian Golf Digest Top 100
« Reply #25 on: March 02, 2002, 01:58:43 PM »
Paul, I am watching the Women's Open at Yarra Yarra at the moment and all seems well with the course. About 1/3 of the holes aren't the world's most exciting (1, 6, 8, 14, 16)  but they're not bad by any stretch and its class holes (4, 5, 11, 13, 14) would do any sandbelt course proud - its rapid demise down the AGD list seems curious.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Chris Kane

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Australian Golf Digest Top 100
« Reply #26 on: March 02, 2002, 02:21:50 PM »
While I don't think YY is top-10 standard, I agree with Paul that the issue is where in the top-20 should it be?  They had solved that issue in 1998 by having it 13th, but it seems to have fallen from favour very heavily.

Are Sanctuary Cove, Secret Harbour, Joondalup and Lakelands really better courses that Yarra Yarra?  The pannelists seem to have high regard for modern courses, unlike people here.

The top 20 has 13 traditional (pre-1970) and 7 moderns.

What also surprised me was the relatively low ranking of Long Island - although the routing doesn't take full advantage of the great property, surely it's better than 59?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Justin_Ryan

Re: Australian Golf Digest Top 100
« Reply #27 on: March 02, 2002, 03:05:51 PM »
Chris
I wondered as well what has happened at Long Island to see it fall from 39 to 59 since the last rankings.  Last time around it was actually ranked above Peninsula South, which pleased the LI members greatly, but now the boot is well and truly on the other foot.

Has anyone played the number 81, Millicent?  This course is the best inland traditional style country course that I have played, and that list includes the no 45, Horsham.  Like Horsham it has a sandy base, but it is more undulating, challenging and picturesque.  And they do it all on a shoestring.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Chris Kane

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Australian Golf Digest Top 100
« Reply #28 on: March 02, 2002, 11:26:14 PM »
Justin,

After I played LI I remember thinking "how good could this place be".  The front nine, besides the two par 5's is excellent.  I particularly enjoyed the 8th, which is the short par 4 with a tiny green and the par-3 Lookout hole (no.9).  The 7th is good as well.

"Lookout" - Hole 9 - Par 3 - Long Island

The back nine design is blah!  The only ones with any remote interest for me were 15 and 17.  If they could somehow get the back nine to the standard of holes 1-3 and 6-9, it would lose nothing to some of the more highly regarded courses in the area.

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:03 PM by -1 »

Shane Gurnett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Australian Golf Digest Top 100
« Reply #29 on: March 03, 2002, 02:26:04 AM »
Chris

Wasn't the back nine the subject of some re-design work not so long ago. Who did it, do you know?

Shane
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

MikeClayton

Re: Australian Golf Digest Top 100
« Reply #30 on: March 03, 2002, 04:26:46 AM »
Just back from a tournament at Tamworth - Bob Harrison's first design or redesign . The back 9 which was all his was lots of fun.

I saw that list in the newsagent and like most lists its a complete joke.Its just full of holes.I wouldnt know even where to begin except to say ranking 100 courses is silly because its hard enough to find 50 really decent ones.

Lake Karrinyup and Royal Canberra are unbelievably high and Woodlands way too low
Royal Hobart better than Yarra Yarra? I guess when stuff like that happens the list loses a deal of credibility.

Ran
I will attempt to get some photos of Victoria.
The origional is the most amazing thing and the 1974 ariel is a real credit to those worried about the 27 handicappers.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Chris Kane

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Australian Golf Digest Top 100
« Reply #31 on: March 03, 2002, 09:45:09 PM »
Mike,

Have you got any comment on The Lakes at 6?

I agree with you that 100 courses is too many - as someone said earlier, it thins out very quickly.

Had another look at the article today, and found the list of pannelists.  It included some names which make it clear that this list is a joke.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Shane Gurnett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Australian Golf Digest Top 100
« Reply #32 on: March 05, 2002, 02:01:54 AM »
Anyone have any views on Murray Downs at Swan Hill, which at no. 53 is clearly the higest rated Murray course. I've played there many times and thinks its quite good helped by being always in top condition. I think it's a Ted Parslow design from around 1988.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Ran Morrissett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Australian Golf Digest Top 100
« Reply #33 on: March 05, 2002, 06:49:48 PM »
Mike,

That would be EXCELLENT if we could see your handiwork at Victoria GC! I have a luke warm opinion of the course and would very much like to be shown something to show how off I am.

Suppose you got your claws into a bunker project at Newcastle GC? How cool would that place look if a hole like the 5th had (instead of that sad little bunker right of the green) a big sandy area that bleed into the surrounding native bush? With that course's topography, the sky's the limit, it seems to me, if only those bunkers had more scale to them. Given that the course is set through sand dunes, it seems a great pity   :'( that its bunkers are so non-descript, though at least they're tough to recover from.

Cheers,
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Chris Kane

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Australian Golf Digest Top 100
« Reply #34 on: March 05, 2002, 11:53:17 PM »
Ran,

How would you rank the sandbelt, including both RM courses?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

MikeClayton

Re: Australian Golf Digest Top 100
« Reply #35 on: March 06, 2002, 12:29:08 AM »
Ran

I have played Newcastle twice only and youre right it would be terrific with some sandbelt style bunkers -it really lends itself to that style of work
Victoria is better but I know exactly what you see -the same things frustrate me there and they are tough to change -eg the poor first hole, trees on 8 and 11 but I suspect you would be pleasanty suprised by the course.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Brian Walshe

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Australian Golf Digest Top 100
« Reply #36 on: March 06, 2002, 12:35:42 AM »
Mike,

I hear you are going to do some work at Lonsdale.  Sounds like a couple of holes are going and you are adding a few.  What changes will there be to the routing?

Brian
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

MikeClayton

Re: Australian Golf Digest Top 100
« Reply #37 on: March 06, 2002, 02:12:32 AM »
Brian
I dont know how much is public infomation but they are talking about some major changes.They need to because like most of the clubs down there they need to secure their financial future.
Ansett proved nothing is forever.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Chris Kane

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Australian Golf Digest Top 100
« Reply #38 on: March 06, 2002, 03:26:15 AM »
Mike,

If you had everything your way, what trees would you get rid of at 11?  Is there a particular group, or is the hole just overgrown like so many on the sandbelt?

IMHO it's one of the best holes on the course, and it would be good if they could get it just right for the Open.

Are they giving you free reign with tree removal, or are there tree huggers trying to mount a case with every single tree?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Mike Clayton

Re: Australian Golf Digest Top 100
« Reply #39 on: March 06, 2002, 03:49:38 AM »
Chris
Just the trees to the right of the drive to restore the view through to the green from the tee.There are two magnificent gums behind them no one sees that are not on the line of play. They would be a perfect border to the right side of the hole.
As for the rest of the course the trees are under control except for the right of 8
The problem is its an easy par 5 and they think they need to 'protect' it somehow.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »