Royal Melbourne

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Everytime I see this course I wonder if this might not be the best golf course in the world. Those serpenitne fairways, wild bunkering and greens and the integration of the surrounds. At Heinekin it seems the cream is rising to the top and the course seems to favor those who can use their nogin - even though golf isn't chess or stratego as shivas likes to point out. It is clearly superior to ANGC in my mind - at least as the two courses are currently presented - how does it compare with PVGC, Shinnecock, Pebble Beach, Cypress Point, NGLA, the Old course, Co.Down etc.?

How has it influenced contemporary Australian architecture, has RM or American architecture been the most dominant force on contemporary Australian architecure?

On this side it seems like Smyers has been greatly influenced, any other American designers? Dick Wilson?

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

There is no question that Steve Smyers has been influenced.  His Blue Heron Pines East course is more than enough evidence of that.  Sadly, too few other modern designers have seen the benefits of following Dr. Mackenzie's example.

One notable tip of the cap I saw this past year is the 13th hole of Archie Struthers's Twisted Dune GC in south Jersey.  It's a par three that is very clever, and the leftside bunkering is a clear effort to emulate the good doc's Melbourne style.

I'm not sure if it's the best course in the world. but the design characteristics seem to be easily transplantable to most any flattish site with good drainage.  It's a mystery to me why we don't see more of this design style, because it would seem to be ideal from the standpoint of integration with natural surrounds, playability, and even issues of speed of play, since I don't see too many people losing balls out there.

[Chris Kane]

Don't know about American courses, but RM has clearly influenced Australian architecture.  Every sandbelt course not designed by Mackenzie and Co. is bunkered in a style similar to RM.

RM is considered the benchmark for courses in Australia, and will remain so forever, whatever anyone else says.  I've been there the last week, and can't get over how good it is!

[Paul Daley]

Royal Melbourne (particulalry the West course) - though generally thought of as God's Country, is in one way a victim.

For many years the big international ratings have only considered the Composite Course, and so THAT rating tends to get downngraded on account of it being an amalgam of two courses. This is entirely fair. The downside of this scenario is that the fabled West Course (Aussie ratings aside) has never really received its international due.

It would hardly surprise me if in the next 5 years, the West Course is deemed to be the world's No. 1. However, not having played Cypress Point and Shinnecock, I am in no position to declare it as such, and won't.

From afar with "telly" as the only guide - Pebble and Augusta National appear totally outclassed by the West Course.

My golfing heart lies buried deep within the ancient rabbit warrens of Britain: Portrush, RCDGC, TOC, Ballybunion Old and co, and yet I'd rather play the West Course over any of these.    
 

[Chris Kane]

For those who've played the top American courses + RM West:

How would you rank them?  I know many of you find the concept of ranking courses philosophically stupid, but is there any course that you see as significantly better?

Ranking the composite course is silly: it isn't a golf course, it is a collection of golf holes used for a tournament.  The West is a golf course designed with precision and thought by Mackenzie, the composite is just a routing designed to get back to the clubhouse after eighteen holes.

[TEPaul]

With all the talk recently about "no good threads" this one has the potential to be a really good study of archtecture and the comparison of architecture.

But it won't if you only mention MacKenzie's brilliant sandbelt style of architecture and how it may have had influence in Australia or an architect such as Steve Smyers.

You've got to explain why and obviously in architectural detail. I'm sorry I didn't see more of the tournament on TV but even if I did I hardly think I could really pick up all the whys of statements like those made here.

The little I did see I noticed more about certain maintenance practices that would make the course play a certain way than just the architecture. Once again the manner in which the greens transition into the bunkering is significant! Greens transition easily into chipping areas too and apparently so does the ball.

But what about these scores and the well argued problems with the advanced technology of the clubs and the balls? I hate to tell you boys, I realize you love these courses and they look great to me too but I hardly think you can discount the analysis of the likes of Nicklaus, Els and Campbell. Daly is an interesting exception who can certainly hit the ball as well as those others but apparently hasn't remotely discovered how to manage his game as well in Australia.

It's one thing to be an architectural analyst but I hardly think you should discount some thoughtful remarks by the best players in the world who aren't exactly oblivious to the details of courses and their architecture!

So I'd love to hear about the details of MacKenzie's particular style of architecture and what he did or did differently in Australia! How it's different from some of the other courses you've been comparing it to and what you think that means in the context of a golf test and challenge--and in scoring--the net basis of the game and its playing fields!

And Chris: I realize that the so-called composite course they're playing might not be the West course or the normal course but when a course is set up into 18 holes and competition rounds are played on it, even if it is called a composite, it very much is considered a golf course! A routing is nothing more than a particular progression of 18 holes--less good, the same, or better than something else, for any reason.

[David_Elvins]

Paul and Chris:
Do you really think that the west is a better course than the composite?  One thing that has always stuck out in my mind is that the ACR for the East is 71, West 72 and Composite 75.5.  I am sure that if you compared the 6 holes on the east with the six missing on the west that the east wins hands down.  1E is one of my favorites, 4E and 18E are also excellent, and 3E and 4E are very solid.

Tom:
I enjoyed your post.  Here is my summary of the course after watching the Heineken.  I love the course.  Having grown up in Melbourne, played it and watched many tournaments there, it is my favorite course in the world.  Having watched the tournament I would have to agree with those saying that the extra length of balls and drivers has taken A LOT  away from the course.  THe fairway bunkers just don't come into play.  I am sure that Mackenzie didn't design them all for good looks.  I would love for the Pro's to be able to stand on the tee at 4W and know if they didnt catch their drive 100% into a stiff southerly that the ball would end up in one of the fairway bunkers.  The softness of the course didnt help either.  It seemed that birdies were well protected against (if you count the Par 5s as Par 4s) but there were not many places that introduced double bogey or worse to the scorecard.

I often also wonder if too much credit for the course goes to Mackenzie.  The quality of the course owes alot to the work of Russell, Morcom and Crockford in the supervision, construction and maintanance of the course.  How much? I do not know.  Perhaps someone who knows more can fill me in.  Having said that, I recall reading Mackenzies "Golf Architecture" and more specifically his "Rules" for such, and thinking how well they are exemplified at Royal Melbourne.  I don't think it would be a stretch to say that Royal Melbourne preserves Mackenzies architectual values more than any other course.  I don't have the book here so rather than continue to crap on in vague generalities, I will leave it at that and leave it to someone else to take up if they want to.

[Peter Goss]

Tom,
I'm not sure whether you are arguing against the defence of "Par."
Els was simply the best player who thought his way around the course and executed his shots better than anyone. A worthy winner.
I thought the course architecture was the remarkable winner DESPITE the advances in ball and club technology and greens truer than most on earth. Players had to position appropriately, whether it be with an iron or lesser wood off the tee. Sure it is not a matter of whether they can make the distance with such technology but whether they can hit a certain distance with a certain carry. Ask Faldo who was bunkered on 4 (West 6) and others who played through the same fairway. Fairway bunkers, rough and trees were encountered by all of the leading players. Position on the green was important for degree of difficulty of the put.
If defence of par was the measure of success, then Mike Clayton's suggestion of making at least 2 of the par 5s into par 4s would produce better looking numbers. If 3 par 5s were called 4s, then only one player would have finished "under par". But the same shots would have been produced and the same winner would have emerged. RMGC was great, even without the help of the wind.
And MacKenzie was never interested in "par".

[TEPaul]

PeterG:

Very apropos point about "par". I'm not arguing in defense of "par", although I do recognize that others will--and I think we must all accept that as probably an ongoing reality!! That context is truly the context in which the likes of Nicklaus, Els and Campbell speak! And some of those men do have a point if you care to keep the "playing fields" of the world level but really only in a comparison of the eras and the meaning of "championship" but always in relation to par!

The examples of an Els compared to a Daly are very telling regarding RM, in my opinion! Here you have two very good players on one golf course, and one seems able to crack the mysteries and riddles of MacKenzie's architecture and the way it was setup so much better than the other! And that says a lot about the course to me! And Daly is not even saying he was playing poorly--he's really admitting he can't figure out how to score well on that course--that's an interesting thing indeed and obviously says a great deal about the strength, character and quality of the course and its architecture!

But par is a reality and we can't make that fact go away with argument, even extremely logical argument! It certainly isn't going away at the likes of Augusta National.

A guy like Geoff Shackelford has definitely got it right in his communications with the USGA. You CANNOT continue to NOT defend against this quickly developing distance problem and at the same time CONTINUE TO defend this relative measure called PAR. You just can't have it both ways!

You have to either defend the game against these excessive distances or else just let par go, or at least reanalyze it somehow--you just have to do one or the other---there is no other way possible. There is only so much you can do with these courses' setups before you start to corrupt and destroy their meaning and the intent of their architecture!

[Chris Kane]

The composite is probably the better golf course, but in my opinion it doesn't feel as seamless as the West.  The composite is clearly more difficult, but that is only becuase of the holes they chose.  

There are 21 holes on the main paddock.  Holes that miss out are 8W 9W and 16E.  16E is a screamer in its own right.  The other two are also very good.

The composite would rank higher than the West, but I think the West should be the one to be ranked.  Ranking a course used for club championships and a tournament every few years is silly.  Ranking the West also gives the magazine a chance to provide a comparison between the two courses at RM.

[Mike Duffy]

Els 12 under par for the tournament on the par fives!

Of course technology has had an impact on the course. I've watched tournament golf at RM since 1968. In far earlier days the longer par fives were seldeom reached in two shots. Now they are nothing less than a stupendous drive followed by either a long iron, or in Els' case, a mid iron.

There is little anyone can do when players hit driver/four iron to a 510 metre par five.

Take Els' 12-under on the par fives away, and his score for the remainder is quite modest.

Haing said that, I don't wish to see any tinkering with RM in relation to increasing distance or relocating the tees.

Clubs that start to fret about par being smashed usually finish up with a course that is universally despised.

[Chris Kane]

12 under par for the fives suggests that RM is far from obsolete.  When you consider than 4W played as a par 4 for a number of years, Els was 8 under for the two fives, and 13 under for the tournament, a figure that was predicted on GCA before the week even began.

I heard a radio program focussed on golf Sunday morning, where they wre discussing how RM should go about reworking their course.  They had decided that it had to be done.  They suggested that the fairway bunkers had to be moved.  They spoke of it as though it was the only option.

I'm thinking of writing to the Minister responsible to campaign for a heritage order to be placed on the Royal Melbourne courses.  Although I highly doubt RM would consider any significant changes, there needs to be a back-up in case they can't stop themselves.  This course is a national treasure, something of Australia's which is admired throughout the world.  To damage it would be criminal.

[RJ_Daley]

Chris,  regarding a petition or campaign to declare RM a national landmark I say, good on'ya mate.  

Perhaps you can start some sort of electronic petition through GCA.  Although the vast majority of those who participate on GCA will never get the chance to play RM, I imagine there is little or no doubt by all that it is one of the really special places in golf anywhere in the world and must be protected from techno-modernistic acts of remodelling vandalism to achieve the false panacea of length.

[Donald Meers]

I think that everyone just has to accept that Royal Melbourne needs to be updated to the modern game if it is going to be a still regarded as a truely great course.  It is going to be hard to make it longer so the best option is to trick it up a bit.  For example: Narrow the fairways, increase the height of the rough and put in more bunkering.  Also the Par 5s desperatly need some water hazards.  17E should have an island green to make the pros think about if they really want to hit a three iron in there.  Also a pond in front of 2W would help make the hole alot more interesting.  THe only problem with this is that from what I understand, Royal Melbourne is built on a "Sandbelt".  Hardly ideal terrain for a golf course, the water drains straight through it meaning it is hard to build water hazards and the greens don't hold there water very well meaning that they would have to be excessively watered to get that soft landing area needed for island greens.  ( I suppose we could say that Mackenzie did well to have a course still rated so highly built on such unsuitable ground.  All credit to him but this is the 21st century.)

Still, the cost of importing some clay and using a bit of water is the price that Royal Melbourne is going to have to pay to be considered in the worlds top 10 for years to come.

[Dwaine Pype]

Hear hear Donnie boy. At last someone that knows what's what.

Don't forget the carts, GPS and of course, a couple of cart girls that look like Britney, Pammy Lee or Kylie...

[Chris Kane]

For a second I was horrified.  Then I realised that Donald Meers is simply trying to get people like myself started.  Just like the guy who made a pathetic criticism of Geoff Shackleford under the safety of anonymity a couple of weeks ago.  It isn't going to work, Mr.Meers.  

Royal Melbourne will remain supremely relevant as far as the world's best courses are concerned as long as they maintain their course the way it was designed.  This means firm and fast, short grass rather than the long stuff as a hazard.

[Barney Grum]

Hey Chris,

It was meant to be funny......its called comedy. I thought it was clever and his way of saying dont mess with RM. I think you took it literally which was not the way it was meant.

[Chris Kane]

Barney,

Maybe.

[Donald Meers]

Chris,

Definetly

[David_Elvins]

Chris,

Maybe this Meers bloke has a point.  Instead of forming a group to protect Royal Melbourne, form a lobby group to turn RM into an American Water and rough course.  Then people would see how stupid it would be to make changes.

[Dwayne Pype]

So, you mean the cart girl thing won't happen ?
Absolutely no vision at all down there !