[NicP]

Thought some of the Melbourne guys could be interested in the fact that when I last played at Vic - a couple of saturdays ago - I noticed that a new bunker had been "staked" out in the right rough approx 230 to 250 from the tee. As you may be aware the tee is now about 20 or so meters right of the old tee making the hole play straight rather than a slight dog leg as before. Also a new bunker has been added on the 18th. It is on the RHS of the fairway behind the existing bunker however it encroahces on the fairway by 5 or so meters more than the existing. The last bunker on the LHS has also been extended out a couple of meters. This has brought back the slope of the fairway on the drive as a driver needs to be hit with a great deal of accuracy to avoid running in to either of the traps.

Unfortunatley it looks like they are going to play the 1st as a Par 3 from a new tee about 60 meters short and right of the normal tee. I stood on it last night and it did nothing for me. I would be interested to know if Mike Clayton was involved with that tee (and the 10th). I would be surprised if he was, it had PT written all over it sadly.

It will be interesting to see the internationals at RM next week. Let's hope it blows !

[Ran Morrissett]

What is the story of the 1st green at Victoria?

The 1st green as I saw it in 1997-1999 was elevated and seemed out of character with the rest of the course. It made for an exacting shot but ....  I doubt it's the original one?  It seemed too contrived.

How come Australia HAD so many neat 300 yard openers? Royal Sydney, Victoria, Commonwealth, RM East, etc.

The first three have been ruined - I guess there became some kind of reluctance to starting off with such a hole?

[NicP]

Ran,

       From what I can gather from some of the older members is that the original 1st green was indeed more in keeping with the natural terrain and alot more interesting than the "pimple" we now have. I beleive that "Thommo" redesigned it and the 17th. green in the mid to late 1980's. - I think he had a couple of go's at each and still couldn't get it right The real crime was in fact 17 which was once rated one of the best par 5's in Aus. but due to houses behind the green, the green was pushed right so the angle of approach was away from the houses. From what I can gather it was a great green that really made the hole.

The plan for the upcomming Aus. Open is to play the 1st as the 5th as a 170 - 185 par 3. In my opinion the setup of the hole looks even more contrived than it does from the "normal" tee but as we have become to expect governing bodies have little regard for original routings and feel that as long as the winner dosen't have 20 under they have presented the course as it should be. I say leave the course as it is.

As for the opening holes I'm not sure of the origin but they are certainly fun to play. Most of then give you a great chance to get of to a good start or a bad one ! I never played the old 1st at Commenwealth but have heard it was the best of the lot. One could possibly argue that the sandbelt has the best collection of short par 4's in the world.

A note to Mike Clayton - keep up the good work at Vic and I would be more than happy to give up a few Pennant functions so that the ground staff could buy a few more chainshaws.

[Shane Gurnett]

Nic

Well said on all accounts. The demise of the first at Commonwealth has been well documented on these pages. The replacement is a shocker, devoid of any strategy, unlike most of the rest of the course. We still cling to some hope that we may re-instate the old hole someday.

The first at Vic as a par 3 will be awful, beacuse unless it plays into a gale, the pros wont be able to hold the green. Which means they'll run through the back on to the second tee, which means play will slow to a standstill. Hardly rivetting stuff. Chalk this one down to TWP.

Shane

[Chris Kane]

I read that the original first at Victoria was considered too easy: you could bump it up onto the green and this allowed too many eagles for the club's liking (I'm not making a value judgement about this).  So they got Peter Thomson to raise the green, and the result is an out-of-character short par 4 without a real strategic component.  You can either hit a 3-wood onto the green and stop it, or you can't.  There are no in-betweens on this hole.

Nic is right when he says "leave the course as it is".  Our sandbelt courses have stood the test of time, and I didn't see any problems when the first played as normal during the 1999 PGA.  Now it is a medium length par 3 to a green surrounded by sand.  How original.

[NicP]

Shane,

          Your spot on regarding 1 at VGC. Hitting a long iron from the right hand side of the green ? Add in that the greens will be hard and fast and you are well on the way to destroying the course. When will the AGU realise that TWP are doing nothing for our "Open" courses ?

Is there any good news to come out of Comm. in the last 12 months (havn't played since Pennant was there last year.)? I assume that the plight of Comm has been well documented here but I have to add my public voice to the push for the restoration of Commenwealth. What that place could be or was.

Also I think they are planning to play the 8th. as a par 4 for the Open so Vic wull play a tough par 70.

[Chris Kane]

Nic,

I can't see the AGU giving TWP the chop.  Many clubs and organisations wouldn't dream of telling him where to go, becuase he has the reputation.  Your average laymen golfer thinks he is fantastic: "he won five British Opens, so he must know what he is doing".  

He is also good at promotion.  He says all the right things, about giving players of all abilities a chance to enjoy themselves, about natural-appearances of hazards, and his preferences for the bump-and-run links style rather than the aerial game we see in America.  And then he goes and contradicts himself with the courses he designs.

I wouldn't call the par 3 1st they will have at Vic an extension of his stated philosophies.  It has no strategic merit to think of, with only one type of approach possible.  Shane is right to talk of the slow-play impications too.

From what I can gather, he prefers length over anything else.  Look at the new Moonah Links.

[Mike Clayton]

We built the new tees for 1 and 10 at the request of the AGU and TWP.

I personally hate the 1st as a par 3 from the new tee and will be doing all I can to convince them not to use it.I'm also making sure all know what I think so I dont get the blame for it

 The origional hole was changed for the 81 Open but with an even worse green than the present one.Slow play was a problem because everyone 3 putted and the AGU still remember the problem The new green is quicker to play and there has never been a problem at subsequent events and the par 3 may even slow up play even more because many balls will bounce onto the 2nd tee

The new drive bunker at 6 is done -AGU request- and is decent but the hole looks a little narrow to me.We are thinking of filling in the 1st drive bunker on the left because its a bad angle from there anyway and with it gone it may encourage them to shy to far from the right bunker and lose the best angle.
Any thoughts anyone?

[Chris Kane]

Mike,

Any idea what the yardage will be at the first?  I know that it is 60yards short to the right, but am unsure about how far that is to the green from that angle.  Was it a TWP or AGU idea: did the AGU want a par 3 and TWP gave them solution, or did TWP suggest that the first would play better as a par 3?  Either way, IMHO they have got it wrong big time.

I agree with you regarding 6.  A hole with inside-inside bunkering often doesn't work...no incentive to take on the bunker.  What do the AGU thing of your idea to take out the bunker on the left?

They seem intent on holding the Open on a different golf course don't they!

[MIke Duffy]

Just a few points on this topic:

1. The first at Commonwealth is about as acerbic as Hartley's personality. I know that is a rather nasty comment, however, the new  first at Commonwealth is also a nasty piece of work.

2. The original first at Victoria was a fun opener. Subsequent changes have resulted in sequential worsening of this hole.

3. The 18th at Vic will probably play as a par four? Even in 1981, when I was standing to the left of the green, Norman's drive finished about 45 metres from the hole, albeit behind a small willow tree. Bill Rodger's hit a drive and three wood from the top of the hill. Norman, as we were to discover in later years, contrived a new way to lose an Open by taking five shots to get down from 45 metres, while Rodger's two-putted for a birdie. Alas for Bill Rodgers it was his last encore in the golfing limelight.

4. The AGU would appear to have taken a leaf out of the USGA's Open setup folder. That is, bugger around with the course until it only slightly resembles the layout the members play during the week and weekends. If there happen to be any really nice short fours or short par fives, truncate them until they become boring par threes or another long par four. Clause 2 of this confidential folder roughtly states: "Protect par at all costs".

5. I am dismayed to learn that the demanding sixth hole with its slight dogleg to the left is now a straight-away shot. Does this change really improve the hole? The bunker on the right is OK, the one on the left an annnoyance. A better hole, I think not.

6. The 17th at Vic was a truly memorable par five. Insurance problems resulted in the club having no alternative but to move it to the right. The new hole is not a patch on the old one. But there again, how often does a replacement configuration better the original?

[Chris Kane]

Mike Duffy,

In agree that the first at Vic has been getting sequentially worse (based on old photos and hearsay), but surely it would have been better to play it as a par 4!  Players during the 99 PGA didn't tear it up by any accounts, and it offered some chance of an exciting start to the round.

Playing as a par 3 will be as boring as anything I've seen in Australian golf.  All the players will be hoping for is a par.  This hole will not be anything close to the other short holes on the course: 4,7,14,16.  

Perhaps the AGU were encouraged to play it as a 3 becuase of the extra room they'd have where the members tee is.  As many will know, Victoria does not have an abundance of space, which is a necessity to host the Australian Open.  Sixty metres of spare fairway will be exactly what they wanted.

On the subject of AGU course renovations, I was interested to hear that Kingston Heath are thinking of removing that shocking TWP-installed bunker on 11.  

If the AGU think a course is worthy of the national championship, I don't see how they think it is reasonable to then vandalise it in their own style.  Either a course fits their plans or it doesn't.  Don't destroy our sandbelt courses just for one event!  They can builkt their own monster courses ie.Moonah Links.  When a course has stood the test of time, it doesn't need surgery to provide a stern test.

[Mike Clayton]

Chris
I dont care what the AGU think about the left bunker -its simply between us and the club.
The 1st is now about 260 yards and the par 3 will be at least 220. The tee isnt 60 yds forward-probably 40.

Mike
The origional 6th tee was way over in a shute 50 yds right of where it is now so clearly the intent was to see the left bunkers from the tee.That view was lost when the tee went way left and personally I think the restored view is better but I can see the other point of view.
The origional 5th was a par 5  with the green by the 12th which explains the origional 6th tee.

Ran
Just simple ignorance,arrogance and lack of respect for the origional architect ruined all 3 and you can add the 1st at Karrinyup to the list.Check the TV today.

Boys
There seems to be a little TWP bashing here.They and the AGU certainly have some power over committees as they insist clubs keep up with the 'modern game'.
VERY DANGEROUS ROAD TO GO DOWN.

[Bob Brook]

Mike,
Not sure what you mean. Are you saying it is dangerous for committees to follow the TWP advice about keeping up with the "modern game" or that it is dangerous for you to criticise TWP because they are powerful or are you saying the others on GCA should not critiicise them?

[Mike Clayton]

Bob

The great thing about GCA is the freedom to be critical.I value the comments of all the aussies on here and its refreshing to know there are a few out there who both care and understand.Too few unfortunatly.

The answers to the first two questions are 'absolutly yes' and 'yes'
I have almost no environment to be publically critical because I get accused of conflict,sour grapes and simply being negative.Unethical as well apparantly.
There,however,is a desperate need for informed debate before all of what Mackenzie and co.left us is ALTERED.

[Chris Kane]

Bob,

Don't know about you, but I support Mike all the way.  

Whether people agree with him is one thing, but some people have dismissed him only becuase they either don't know the issues, or disagree, which is ok, but arrogant and complacent.  

He is outspoken and prepared to say the things that must be said.  He should be applauded by the golfing heirarchy rather than pushed underfoot.

With the situation as it currently stands, there will be none of our sandbelt left by the time people realise Mike is right.

[Mike Duffy]

Chris,

One other thing that I failed to mention was the mind-boggling concept of Commonwealth GC hosting an Oz Open.

The club's property has neither the access nor egress to host such an event.

Even as far back as 1972 when Commonwealth hosted the Victorian Open of that year, the residents of Glennie Avenue complained bitterly, and not without justification, of the traffic snarls in their neighborhood.

The Cheltenham Police asked Police Command to approach the Government and get an assurance that a large golf event not be held there again, as Warrigal Road was a virtual traffic jam from 9 am through to 6.30 pm daily.

So for the club to use the alterations to the course as a pretext for holding a future Oz Open is, at best, incredulous.

It will not happen, believe me Chris.

Mike Clayton:
I applaud your courage in speaking out the way you have here on GCA. I believe this to be a widely-read forum, and I would surmise that your thoughts have not gone unnoticed  amongst various clubs and also amongst your peers.

It is relatively easy for us nonentities to speak our minds in a forthright fashion, but much more difficult, and potentially commercially dangerous for a well-known golf personality to do so, so hence my admiration for your honesty and courage.

I will always have a reservoir of hope and faith in regard to our Sandbelt Courses whilst there are a handful of people around who know the history and significance of the famous courses, and who respect the heritage that has been bestowed by previous generations over the past 75 years.

Unfortunately, at the moment, there appears to be a freneticism amongst the local clubs to "modernise" often under the guise of "we won't get an Austrialian Open if we don't change."

The Melbourne Sandbelt clubs are unique amongst not only Australian golf clubs, but I daresay, amongst the world's golf clubs.

As I said in an earlier discussion, I support renovation and refurbishment, not redesign. Classics are classics and should remain as such.

[Chris Kane]

Mike,

I can't see Commonwealth hosting an Australian Open in its current format, for two reasons:

1. The traffic issues you talk about - imagine what it would be like today.
2. The course doesn't have enough room for spectators at many holes.  However, if they removed some trees as so many of us want them too, then I don't think they would have a problem.
Note: the present conditioning issues will be overcome medium-term.

You may or may not be aware that the club bought approx. 40ha along the eastern boundary 18months ago.  At the moment this is a quarry, and has been leased to a landfill business for that purpose.  However, when the quarry is filled in, there will be an abundance of space.  Spectators could access the course via a number of gates, not just the one on Glennie Avenue.  We still don't know what will be done with the land: some have talked about a nine-hole course with practice facilities, there are a plethora of options.

You've put into words the support I have for Mike perfectly.  If only some people with influence would jump in an support him too.  He's been left to champion the sandbelt cause on his own, while others are gutless.

[Shane Gurnett]

Mike Duffy

Wise comments regarding the changes to Commonwealth and the ludicrous notion that the AGU would ever be tempted to hold a major tournament there. It was never going to happen, however that didn't stop the AGU from hinting (very strongly) to the Club that "if it ever wanted to be considered again for the Aust Open" changes (length) would be required. Hartley's mandate was to "squeeze every yard out of the layout that he could". The new first and seventh are testimony to this thoery.

The new first is a woeful hole. It yields more birdies and fewer double bogeys than the old hole did and therefore plays much easier and without any serious challenge. For all the destruction carried out on the seventh, the course gained 13 metres, and lost a priceless gem. I'm not joking.

The quarry next door, which would solve the parking /traffic issue does give some small hope for the few in the club who desire a tournament for whatever reasons. I'm certainly not one of those members.  I just urge members at other clubs who are facing similar "redesign" challenges to stand up and fight hard. You'll only get one chance, for once the wheel turns it never turns back.

As we keep saying, its all about restoration, restoration, restoration. The guys from the 1920's really knew what they were doing.

[Paul Daley]

Mike Duffy:

A hole-in-one. Beautifully said!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()