[Scott Warren]

Playing a handful of the Melbourne Sandbelt gems earlier this month was a fantastic experience.

Having spent a couple of years sampling the London Heathlands, I had always wondered how Melbourne would compare, as many people say the two areas are similar.

I find myself completely torn: I love heather as a hazard - not to mention the aesthetics and the way it is used to tie a lot of Heathland bunkering into the native areas, but the Sandbelt has far superior greens, which are more fun to recover to and putt on.

I couldn't help fantasising about Peninsula (North) within an 800-acre field of purple like Hankley Common...

I was also struck by some stunning similarities between Kingston Heath and Walton Heath - similar terrain, bunkering dictating the play in a similar way, small undulations used well at the front of greens, long and open vistas across the course... I was amazed.

My sample size on the Sandbelt is small, but I suspect perhaps that London has the depth and Melbourne has the greater offerings at the top end.

I'm interested in the opinions and perspectives of those who have played in both locales. On the above points and anything else that is of interest to you.

[John Mayhugh]

My sample size on the Sandbelt is small, but I suspect perhaps that London has the depth and Melbourne has the greater offerings at the top end.

I have not played enough of either group of courses, but this feels right to me as well. 

The heathland courses possess a bit more charm and quirk.  Some of the charm factor has to come from the clubs in London being older and a bit further isolated from the city than the sandbelt courses.  Aesthetically, I think i like heather a bit better as well.

I agree that in general the sandbelt greens seem to be superior, but the green complexes on the heathland courses are just as interesting with the use of slopes to challenge along with bunkers. 

Both types of courses use bunkers so well, though the sharp bunker edges on the sandbelt courses make those bunkers more of an intimidating hazard. 

Let me play the sandbelt half of the time and London the other half, and I would be one happy guy.

[Ian Andrew]

I'm having great trouble answering what you have asked which is probably a sign of an excellent question/thread.

I have assumed that the Sandbelt was built using the concepts and philosophy of the Heathlands, but I look forward to other opinions that may see a difference of opinion. A admire both for the lack of long rough, the extensive use of short grass, the aggressive green contouring and most importantly the incorporation of native vegetation in the architecture. I consider both areas to be among the best the game has.

I look forward to learning from some more concise opinions on the differences.

[Patrick Kiser]

I'd like to hear your take on the bunkers and how they affect play...

[Scott Warren]

I'd like to hear your take on the bunkers and how they affect play...

This was probably directed to Ian, but it's something I've thought a lot about since I got home, so I thought I would also have a got at answering it.

When I think about a lot of the Heathland bunker placement, I recall the fairway bunkering being placed predominantly in such a way that you are driving close to it, unable to fly it. It's a matter of inching close to it as the ball rolls out.

On the Sandbelt, I felt a lot of the time like the bunkering was often more placed to allow you to attempt a carry to earn the best angles to the greens.

Of course there are exceptions in both regions.

Kingston Heath seemed more like a case of the ball rolling out in the zone where the bunkers were placed, which might be why - coupled with the other factors I mentioned - it reminded me so much of Walton Heath.

Likewise, West Sussex (aka Pulborough) featured a lot of carry bunkers on tee shots, and though I wasn't able to give a meaningful answer at the time as I hadn't visited the Sandbelt, quite a lot of people asked me when I was in London: "I hear West Sussex is what Royal Melbourne is like - is that true?". I know now that in bunker placement and shaping as well as the grand, sweeping nature of the land there are some great similarities.

[JNC Lyon]

Are there any Sandbelt courses with greens on the level of Woking?

[George Pazin]

Are there any Sandbelt courses with greens on the level of Woking?

Of course not, Australia is in the southern hemisphere...

Sorry about the poor joke bump, just thought this thread deserved more from those who might know more.

Regarding the depth of the Heathlands courses, it kinda seems like we got off track with parkland courses - shouldn't the average course be better, building on the lessons of the links and the heathlands?

[Philip Gawith]

Scott, I think the reason that West Sussex is likened to Royal Melbourne is because of the look - rather than necessarily the location of the bunkers. I think the bunkering at West Sussex/Pulborough is visually quite similar to the sandbelt look, and makes it stand out from any other UK course that i  have played.

I am surprised btw that you compared Walton Heath and Kingston Heath, simply because the latter is a very small property - albeit it does not feel small - with lots of eucalyptus trees, while Walton Heath is a much larger, more open feeling property. I can't remember either course well enough to comment well enough on the other points you make!

As for your more general point - I think it is a case of comparing apples and oranges. Heathland courses have a distinctive aesthetic, but it is very different from the Sandbelt where the most striking features is the appearance of the bunkers which is unlike anything you see anywhere else. Maybe you can say the same about heather, but I just don't feel it makes quite as dramatic a statement as you feel when playing the Sandbelt.

I don't have a good enough memory to respond to your point about the Sandbelt greens/recover shots being higher standard. As for your point about Sandbelt maybe shading the high end vs higher average in heathland.....it is hard to generalise. I loved my round at Kingston Heath, but  I also think Swinley Forest is a magical course. Royal Melbourne is a great 36 hole venue, but so is Sunningdale, and I am not sure the Berkshire is far behind either.

Not a very sophisticated answer! I suppose overall I don't really accept the premise that they are that similar - I think they are relatively distinct categories and lucky is the person who has played a fair bit of both because not many courses match the best in either place! For non-links golf, they take some beating - and you don't really need the non-links caveat either!

Philip

[Adam Lawrence]

I think the new bunkers at Pulborough have clearly been built with a sandbelt look in mind. There are three new-ish bunkers on the inside of the dogleg on the tenth hole, and the first one in particular cuts right into the fairway and has a sharp, clean edge that is irresistably reminiscent of some of the Melbourne bunkers. Donald Steel did them a couple of years ago (post his split with Tom Mackenzie and Martin Ebert). They are very well done, I'm just not sure that they are the right look for a heathland golf course.

[Tom_Doak]

To me, the Sandbelt and the Heathlands are two very different families of golf courses.

Most of the Sandbelt courses are defined by the bunkering style of Alister MacKenzie, who planned the bunkers for many of them, and then left Alex Russell in charge of overseeing the Morcoms in charge of building them all.  MacKenzie was a big proponent of carry bunkers, and as Scott W. notes, these are all over the Sandbelt.

The bunkering on the heathland courses may be different, because they were trying their best to preserve the heathery terrain on the back faces of those bunkers, which mitigated against having the bunkers in a carry position.  They also focused less on carry bunkers, because in the days before 1914, most golfers did not have the ability to make consistent carries of any length, due to the equipment of the day.  Nearly all of the best courses in the heathlands were built half a generation before MacKenzie, by Willie Park and Herbert Fowler and Harry Colt and J.F. Abercromby, and a couple by Tom Simpson also, and their styles were different than MacKenzie's, particularly in regard to bold greens contouring.  Woking is really the only one of the heathlands courses to have a wild set of greens, as opposed to one or two single examples.

Not many Sandbelt courses have MacKenzie's greens, though ... not only because he was only there for six weeks, but because several of his commissions were renovations of existing courses [including Kingston Heath and a portion of Royal Melbourne], and those clubs wouldn't go for tearing up all the greens and taking them out of play.  Most of the cool greens contours at Kingston Heath [except at the 15th hole] are the work of Graeme Grant when he was the greenkeeper there, not MacKenzie.  Yarra Yarra probably has [or had ] the wildest greens contours of any of the other Sandbelt courses, which is why I always thought it was MacKenzie's design, but the records seem to indicate it was all Alex Russell's work.

I would agree with Scott's overall conclusion that the London Heathlands courses win out in a match against the Sandbelt, due to greater depth and more variety of design styles.  But none of them individually are a match for Royal Melbourne, and probably not for Kingston Heath, either.

[Scott Warren]

Philip, Adam, Tom: Thank you all for your thought-provoking replies.

Adam: The other big change to caught my eye at Pulborough was a similar style of bunkering appearing at the 13th, with the sod face bunkers fronting the green replaced by a similar style of bunker to those you mentioned at the 10th.

Tom: The half-generation difference was something I felt was significant. Of course many of the Heathland courses were built or in development by the first decade of the 20th century when the Haskell ball was invented and became popular, while the Sandbelt courses emerged post-1920 when that technology as commonplace.

[Kevin Pallier]

...I suspect perhaps that London has the depth and Melbourne has the greater offerings at the top end.

Scott

Based on my experiences I pretty much concur with that statement though after RM & KH - I think it's a step down to the next Tier 1 Sandbelt courses. The Heathlands are pretty consistent thoughout with a much smaller margin at the top of the tree for mine.

Both regions are great though for learning different things about archittecture - Melbourne for the bunkers and the Heathlands primarily for the hazard placements and routings particularly given the different climates.

[Steve Lapper]

...I suspect perhaps that London has the depth and Melbourne has the greater offerings at the top end.

Scott

Based on my experiences I pretty much concur with that statement though after RM & KH - I think it's a step down to the next Tier 1 Sandbelt courses. The Heathlands are pretty consistent thoughout with a much smaller margin at the top of the tree for mine.

Both regions are great though for learning different things about archittecture - Melbourne for the bunkers and the Heathlands primarily for the hazard placements and routings particularly given the different climates.

I think Kevin does a very good job above of succinctly summing up the differences. The bunkers and greensites all around the Sandbelt remain of interest, with many of the lesser courses still retaining such interest and character. Of course , the same could be said for the hazard placements and routings of the Heathlands. What is a common fact is that beside the Metro NY area (inc. Eastern LI), nowhere else in our world does such plentiful quality golf lie so close to a major urban area.

The only thing I'd add would be the proximity to the center(s) of town, favoring Melbourne over London.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()