If Royal Melbourne was in the United States

[David Kelly]

However, watching two days of the PC reinforces my belief that without the extreme course conditioning, preparation, and set-up, combined with the huge winds, RM-Composite, like many other Classics, does not test all facets of the game and is not of championship caliber.  It would likely eat my lunch with 10' greens and 10 mph winds, but that's not saying much.  A great club course it seems, and to that extent it might not fare as well if it was located in Dallas.

Wow, if you can pick up that much from just watching on TV then a trip to Melbourne to actually see and play the course would be superfluous.

If Royal Melbourne was located in Dallas it would be the best course in Texas by an order of magnitude.

Who am I to argue with a globe trotter such as you.  And thanks for your travel advice.  I'll be sure to scratch RM from my intinerary.

Regarding your assertion that RM if being "located in Dallas it would be the best course in Texas by an order of magnitude", I'll inform the local paper to dump their rating panel and defer to your judgement.  Since you seem to dismiss my ability to pick things up on TV, may I ask what courses have you played in Texas?  (Sorry, I am being rhetorical; I really have no interest).  But even assuming that you're spot-on, according to most on this site, Texas is devoid of quality golf, making your endorsement of RM little more than benign praise.

Despite your post dripping with contempt for whatever reason you were the one who said Royal Melbourne's reputation would suffer if it was located in Dallas.  Are your proclamations beyond challenge?

[Sean_A]

Lou

Its sounds like you have an idea of what pros should shoot on a championship course. In fact, a championship course is, as it always has been, one which hosts championships.  The winning score is not at issue.  If your logic were applied, TOC would be removed from the Open rota and that would be nothing short of tragic. 

Ciao 

[Sven Nilsen]

Lou:

My interpretation of your comments is that RM would not present a championship test without being presented with what you call "extreme course conditioning."  The only extreme conditioning I've seen over the last couple of days that is any different from how the course was presented last spring is that the greens are faster.  The width looks the same, the rough does not appear to have been grown to extreme lengths (and one could argue the crowds might make playing from off the fairway a bit easier).  The bunkers are probably in better shape and present easier recovery shots than you'd find during a normal weekend of member play.  The holes do not appear to be playing significantly longer than the course I played in March.

I, for one, am enjoying watching these guys think their way around the course.  There's little bomb and gouge going on.  There is a lot of contemplation of approach angles and distance.  Any time I get to watch these guys negotiate a series of choices, I find it to be a treat.  Does this mean Royal Melbourne is a Championship Quality Course?  In my mind, I'm watching a golf course test these guys in more ways than I saw the fields being challenged in all of the majors this year combined.  

As for Els, I bet if you went and tracked his round of 60, you'd be presented with a master-class in how to set up your approaches from the proper angles and distances.  The fact that one of the best players in the world went around in a very low score speaks to his brilliance, not to any weakness of the course.  

With respect to the comment that the course presents little difficulty off of the tee, despite its width, these guys seem to be finding some pretty interesting spots on the course (whether with the high winds or not).  And when a drive is off line, it seems like the result is usually a concession.

That's my take, but maybe I'm wrong.

[James Bennett]

What did Els shoot the day after his 60?

By the way, this is one week when there is an enormous difference betweeneach of these: being on fairway,
being in the first cut and
being in the light rough.

and there is a strong difference between a clean strike from the fairway with any club through to your wedges, and a shot hit a fraction thin or fat. 

If you end up in the bracken or the tea-tree, well that is just the same as being in a water hazard on a more typical pga tour course, except you might find your ball.

Oh, and there is a water hazard on the course - the low area between 2 east, 5 west and 6 west has some red pegs and a red line.  It has been dry for a few years during the drought, but now that the water table has risen a bit, there is a little water under the tea-tree in that area.  It is more of a low-lying bog though and is definitely not a pristine water hazard.

James B

[Mark Chaplin]

Wade I believe members play the composite course 4 or 5 times a year, I'm not sure if charity days etc use the course as it involves closing both East and West. RM is still a members club so closing both courses to members must be pretty rare.

I travelled from the UK in March to get to play the Composite course in a competitive format. I was doubly honoured to play that day with Warwick who is one of golf's gentlemen, followed by Kingston Heath the next day with Rich Macafee and a couple of days later with Warwick and Shane Gurnett at RM.......a fest of GCA Melbournites!

[Mike McGuire]

the super would be canned because the greens don't suck up a rescue club from 160.

Nice Todd.

I would add .... the super would grow rough from the green side bunker toward the pin as fast as possible.

[Jim Nugent]

RM is #1 on my bucket list and I've yet to play many of the eastern US courses (PV, Merion, Oakmont).  Learning the game on a Dr. MacK. routed course, I am a huge fan.  However, watching two days of the PC reinforces my belief that without the extreme course conditioning, preparation, and set-up, combined with the huge winds, RM-Composite, like many other Classics, does not test all facets of the game and is not of championship caliber.  It would likely eat my lunch with 10' greens and 10 mph winds, but that's not saying much.  A great club course it seems, and to that extent it might not fare as well if it was located in Dallas.

Lou, years ago Jack Nicklaus also said Royal Melbourne was a great members' course. 

But as you said, a number of the highest-ranking courses play easy for top golfers, without extreme weather and/or setup.  TOC, CPC, NGLA, Merion, Pacific Dunes are some examples, and there probably are quite a few more.  Would these courses also fare less well if they were in Dallas?   

[Lou_Duran]

David K,

Contempt?  I hardly know you for such strong feelings.  A bit dismissive or thin-skinned perhaps.  But being ridiculed for forming opinions on a famous golf course without a visit to the site then slamming those opinion by making one of like-kind is a bit much, don't you think?  Or maybe I am wrong again and your breadth and depth in Texas is such that you can make that claim (RM is magnitudes better than anything here) with a straight face.

Sven,

Though I haven't played RM, I have many of the books and have talked to many people over the years who have played the course.  Perhaps my impressions aren't entirely accurate or nearly complete, but I am told that the greens run often around 10', with some visitors reporting much slower speeds.  At this speed and with more normal winds, I suspect that the contemplation (and six hour rounds) you cite would be considerably less in frequency and duration.

Regarding width, I never suggested that the course was altered by rough.  My comments are on the firmness and speed of the greens, and course set-up, particularly in light of the extreme winds.  Merion, another course I admire but have never played or seen in person, at least appears tight (not as wide), and, I am hoping will not be set-up in a way that even the best players have an impossible time getting the ball close to the hole with a short iron.

Sean,

Of course, you are right.  It all depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is.  Yours is a fair one (using another controversial adjective).  I was trying to differentiate between world-class courses- RM no doubt amoung the top ones- which are what I consider "club" courses (Cypress Point being my personal favorite where even a hack like me can shoot a decent score) and championship courses that only the pros can shoot around par (my son and I shot in the high 80s at Carnoustie a few years back when we could both play a little from mostly the back tees on a moderately calm day).  BTW, TOC that I got to play bears no resemblance to what the pros play at the Open, by some 1,000 yards.  I suspect that from back there, they don't have to do too much to make par somewhat relevant to the pros under normal weather conditions.

Jim N,

I was not aware of Jack's comment.  Thanks.  Being a Buckeye, he has always beeng a hero.  Like minds?

As Joel Zuckerman told me at the Dixie Cup, he doesn't like Texas (hopefully he didn't mean Texans as well) and he knows a lot of people who feel the same way.  I know that he was being funny and provocative, but many true feelings are expressed in jest.  Reference David Kelly's comments.  There are a number of Texas golf courses that I think could easily compete in the top 100, but only one or two make the lists.

Assuming that you can't import the ocean to Texas, yeah, I doubt that CPC would have the same reputation.  TOC has unmatched tradition and the topography is not too dissimilar, so perhaps not be hurt as much.

  

[Bill Brightly]

I have never played golf in Texas. Are there any courses on the Gulf of Mexico?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Bill,

Newport Dunes in Port Aransas is on the coast.  Pretty neat A Palmer course.

Lou,

I have had the pleasure of playing RM 3 times.  I would rank it in the top ten precisely because of what it is - a great course that you could play every day, plus, with a little work, suitable for top tourneys, even if it does depend on wind for high scores.

RM and SFGC are probably my two favorite courses, and both similar in many ways.

One thing that intrigued me about RM was that I shot 80, my wife shot 130, and we played behind a ladies league two days out of three, and I doubt we lost a ball, AND we never played in more that 2H:45M.  I spent some time trying to figure out how or why.

To answer the main question, I still see it as a World top 6 (sorry to hear about the conditioning issues) and see no reason it would go higher or lower if in the US.  What course to drop from the top 10?  I agree Oakmont (too hard, really) Merion (good and similar, but RM is better) or even TOC.  I understand TOC's greatness but it could drop to second ten since most of its ranking derives from its historic position.  I guess you could even drop NGLA to second ten by the "history" standard, even though I like it a lot.

Of course, no need to really consider that much further, since RM is NOT in the US, and there is really not that much to differentiate any of those courses overall.  They are all great, so what's the big whup on being second ten, first ten, whatever?  Enjoy, don't rank.

[Bill Brightly]

Jeff,

From the website, Newport Dunes looks really nice and linksy. Does it play that way? Located on a barrier island, I assume it is pretty windy.

[Matthew Rose]

If Royal Melbourne was in the US?

I like to think it would have hosted several US Opens, perhaps a couple of PGAs, and some other marquee championships (US Women, US Senior, US Am, etc.)

It's that good.

[Sven Nilsen]

Sven,

Though I haven't played RM, I have many of the books and have talked to many people over the years who have played the course.  Perhaps my impressions aren't entirely accurate or nearly complete, but I am told that the greens run often around 10', with some visitors reporting much slower speeds.  At this speed and with more normal winds, I suspect that the contemplation (and six hour rounds) you cite would be considerably less in frequency and duration.

I'd recommend that anyone who plays RM, whether with greens speeds at 10 or 20, take a bit of time to contemplate how they want to navigate the course.  You're guaranteed a long day if you don't.

Regarding width, I never suggested that the course was altered by rough.  My comments are on the firmness and speed of the greens, and course set-up, particularly in light of the extreme winds.  Merion, another course I admire but have never played or seen in person, at least appears tight (not as wide), and, I am hoping will not be set-up in a way that even the best players have an impossible time getting the ball close to the hole with a short iron.

My statement regarding the rough (and the other factors I mentioned) was to point out that other than firming up the course and greens, they're weren't many changes made to the normal conditioning of the course.  Contrast this with most tour stops and even the "member clubs" that have hosted majors of late.  As for getting the ball close to the hole, I can't name a single hole at RM that looked impossible, even with the extreme winds and fast greens.  If you were watching Robert Allenby all week, it might have looked that way.  But the bulk of the rest of the guys had their fair share of moments.

  

[Sean_A]

David K,

Contempt?  I hardly know you for such strong feelings.  A bit dismissive or thin-skinned perhaps.  But being ridiculed for forming opinions on a famous golf course without a visit to the site then slamming those opinion by making one of like-kind is a bit much, don't you think?  Or maybe I am wrong again and your breadth and depth in Texas is such that you can make that claim (RM is magnitudes better than anything here) with a straight face.

Sven,

Though I haven't played RM, I have many of the books and have talked to many people over the years who have played the course.  Perhaps my impressions aren't entirely accurate or nearly complete, but I am told that the greens run often around 10', with some visitors reporting much slower speeds.  At this speed and with more normal winds, I suspect that the contemplation (and six hour rounds) you cite would be considerably less in frequency and duration.

Regarding width, I never suggested that the course was altered by rough.  My comments are on the firmness and speed of the greens, and course set-up, particularly in light of the extreme winds.  Merion, another course I admire but have never played or seen in person, at least appears tight (not as wide), and, I am hoping will not be set-up in a way that even the best players have an impossible time getting the ball close to the hole with a short iron.

Sean,

Of course, you are right.  It all depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is.  Yours is a fair one (using another controversial adjective).  I was trying to differentiate between world-class courses- RM no doubt amoung the top ones- which are what I consider "club" courses (Cypress Point being my personal favorite where even a hack like me can shoot a decent score) and championship courses that only the pros can shoot around par (my son and I shot in the high 80s at Carnoustie a few years back when we could both play a little from mostly the back tees on a moderately calm day).  BTW, TOC that I got to play bears no resemblance to what the pros play at the Open, by some 1,000 yards.  I suspect that from back there, they don't have to do too much to make par somewhat relevant to the pros under normal weather conditions.

Jim N,

I was not aware of Jack's comment.  Thanks.  Being a Buckeye, he has always beeng a hero.  Like minds?

As Joel Zuckerman told me at the Dixie Cup, he doesn't like Texas (hopefully he didn't mean Texans as well) and he knows a lot of people who feel the same way.  I know that he was being funny and provocative, but many true feelings are expressed in jest.  Reference David Kelly's comments.  There are a number of Texas golf courses that I think could easily compete in the top 100, but only one or two make the lists.

Assuming that you can't import the ocean to Texas, yeah, I doubt that CPC would have the same reputation.  TOC has unmatched tradition and the topography is not too dissimilar, so perhaps not be hurt as much.

  

Sweet Lou

TOC is never going to be as difficult as Carnasty.  The primary reasons are rough (Carnoustie is tighter) and bunker placment (Carnoustiie has more bunkers set to challenge top players).  The reason TOC has lost its edge in championship play is pros are unbelievably good with wedges.  IMO, this is a huge difference because the wedge goes a long way to eliminating TOC's trump card of superior greens.  To compare, TOC would need to tuck their flags on all four days.  Not only would that be frustrating to for the players, but also for the fans.  Which is the more interesting course - TOC by a mile.  Of all the Open rota courses, Carnoustie reminds me most of the American parkland US Open course.  That isn't exactly an insult, but it isn't a compliment either.

Ciao

[Jim Franklin]

the super would be canned because the greens don't suck up a rescue club from 160.

Who hits a rescue from 160?

I have never played Royal Melbourne and probably never will, but it looked fantastic on TV. Maybe in another 10 years I can do Michael Whitaker tour when I turn 60.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Composite courses shouldn't be eligible for ratings.

TCC's, Ridgewood's, Congressional's and RM's composits are:  mogrels and/or hybrids and were never designed as 18 hole golf courses, and as such, shouldn't be eligible to be compared to other 18 hole golf courses.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

[Sean Leary]

Composite courses shouldn't be eligible for ratings.

TCC's, Ridgewood's, Congressional's and RM's composits are:  mogrels and/or hybrids and were never designed as 18 hole golf courses, and as such, shouldn't be eligible to be compared to other 18 hole golf courses.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

+1