Michael:
But what do you find to be wrong with those holes you mentioned (4,8,12,14 and 15)? I think 4 is a very good hole, because you have to keep it down the middle to right hand side of the fairway, and hit a solid 2nd over a massive bunker to a nice greensite. It's a brute of a hole and is well needed after the 3 easy holes to start.
As with a few holes at R. Syd , there are significant portions of the fairway where an approach is bloked out by trees. And as with a few holes at R. Syd, the greensite is entirely out of sync with the shot you're likely to be playing. It's grotesquely over-bunkered and the shapes around the green are unnaturally similar in shape.
8 is a nice drivable par 4. At 269m you need to be absolutely precise with the distance because of the dropoffs, and if you want to layup off the tee you need to steer clear of the bunkers on the right.
Hang on, it's a good hole because if you lay up off the tee, the best angle in is from the left, 30m away from the bunkers, which are placed down the right? That sums up Ross Watson to a tee. The bunkers look great but they serve no purpose whatsoever.
12 is by far the worst hole on the course. It desperately needs some tree clearing on the right hand side of the fairway.
Agreed, it's a pig of a hole.
What's wrong with 14? I know you'll say the par 3's are repetitive, which they are, but as individual holes I really like them all.
They are a repetitive set and the drop shot, bunker overload par three with a speed hump through the green isn't such a great hole that we need three of them in the space of 12 holes.
15 is just a straighaway par 4 bunkered both sides of the green, but I do like the internal contours.
Narrow corridor choked by trees, meaning it's a case of hitting the green or pitching out sideways. Then the green is bunkered both sides and the choice line in is from the dead centre of the fairway.
17!? Are you serious? The green has 3 distinct sections and deep bunkering that really make you think about your tee shot. Coupled with a bailout area to the left I think it is a fantastic hole.
The green has about seven distinct sections, there's a deep bunker right and a steep drop away to the left. And even a good player has a long iron or hybrid in their hand.
This is a prime example of Royal Sydney's greens being designed with seemingly no regard for the shot/club likely to be used for the approach and as with the back nine at Bonnie Doon and his work at Concord, Watson has built a heap of greens with bunkering on one side and shaping on the other that funnels the ball away from the green. It's formulaic and boring.
And the internal shaping goes to show that all wild greens aren't created equal. The individual segments are IMO too small for there to be a reasonable shot at hitting the same segment as the pin - more disconnect between the hole at large and the green design.
Finally, the routing is lacking, with all the good land used in the first nine holes, with minimal changes of direction and a flat, narrow up-and-back deathmarch from there on in.