Changing of the Guard in Australian Golf Course Rankings?

[Matthew Mollica]

Probably not Mark. You'll want some time to do and see other things in Sydney. Climb the bridge, see the Opera House, visit Taronga Zoo, ride a ferry on the harbour, go to the beach, and wander the city. You're seeing enough golf while you're there too.

MM

[Scott Warren]

Mark, yes - with an early start at that time of year we can easily do Newcastle & the new holes at BD in a day.

Newcastle is about 2h15 from downtown Sydney.

The course is definitely worth playing.

[Mike_Clayton]

Scott - you are not going across the road at Bonnie Doon? - I'm shocked:)
It is worth seeing only if someone is coming back - the difference hopefully will be pretty stark once those holes are finished.
BTW 39 for BD is too high given only 7 holes are finished and in play.
Courses half way through major rebuilds like BD and Sun City shouldn't really be ranked - even if the new rankings show members what they are going through is worth the aggravation.

[Greg Gilson]

Mark C & Mark F (on the points about the inclusion or not of Ellerston) ,

I probably am displaying my ignorance but I didn't think it was up to the courses/clubs/owners to decide if they get rated/ranked or not. Maybe naively, I thought that each publication had its own rules about a minimum number of raters having visited each course for it to be included in each list. I didn't think it was ever up to RM to opt out of being rated in those drought years when conditions were down. They have 2 courses...they got rated....they came in behind KH. Following my logic, I assumed The Capital was not in the latest list because insufficient raters had played it during the rating period....or it came in somewhere after Sun City.

Mark C (on the private art collection question),

....if I was a rater of fine art collections and that was clear when you invited me to dinner....yes. (I know that's probably it for my dinner invites).

[Brett_Morrissy]

The issue for me with Ellerston, and those that have played it may shed some light - but my understanding is the brief to GN was to build a really difficult course for 4 hcps and below, with 200yd carries on all tees.

It was not designed for use by members or general populace, but just family and their guests. I am not talking about access here, but rather design intent.

I would have thought that the reason golf mags do rankings, particularly the Aussie ones, is to sell mags on the basis of "here is a list of the great courses in the country to go and play if you can..."

It doesn't say - only suitable for markers 4 and under who have a 180m carry tee shot.

GN was the perfect company to design this of course.

[Mark_F]

I probably am displaying my ignorance but I didn't think it was up to the courses/clubs/owners to decide if they get rated/ranked or not.  Following my logic, I assumed The Capital was not in the latest list because insufficient raters had played it during the rating period....

Greg,

It is definitely up to the owners.  I used to work at Capital, and every couple of years the manager would field phone calls from people wondering if Capital was interested in being on the list this time.  The answer was always no.

The story I was told was that a Melbourne golf pro/journalist played the course once when the club was perhaps amenable to being ranked and had a conversation afterwards with Lloydy during which it became apparent that Capital would be ranked about 7-8, at which point permission was withdrawn, because if the course wasn't going to be ranked Number One, it wasn't going to be ranked.

Maybe naively, I thought that each publication had its own rules about a minimum number of raters having visited each course for it to be included in each list.

So say next time Ellerston decide they don't want a group of raters playing the course, and only two will be allowed.  Does the course still get ranked?

Say Ellerston ask not to be ranked again, and make some changes to the course.  Does it still get ranked?  After all, it's a golf course in Australia.  
The lists also help people decide what they might want to play.  At Ellerston, that is impossible, unless you are prepared to drop $10 grand on a charity outing. Which you can also do at Capital, but which you still can't rank.  

[Scott Warren]

Brett,

The brief was to make it really hard, but there's only one really tough carry  off the tee - at the 7th.

[Greg Gilson]

Hi Mark, thanks for this. You're probably right. However, I just emailed the Editor at GAM to see if he can outline their "rules". Lets see what that turns up. I couldn't find them easily on the website (or on the Golf Magazine website for the World Top 100 list).

Under the scenario you tabled (Ellerston decide they don't want a group of raters playing the course, and only two will be allowed.  Does the course still get ranked? ), ...if more than 2 raters per period are required according to "the rules", then I would not have included Ellerston on the list. These things are very subjective beauty contests, I know. However, As I said, I just would want the lists to include as many of the golf courses in relevant geography as possible as long as a reasonable (whatever that is) number of objective raters get a chance to review it. Ideally I would not exclude a course because it has no members, few members, is too difficult etc. If its a course I would like it to be included...if humanly possible!

[Mark_F]

Brett,

The brief was to make it really hard, but there's only one really tough carry  off the tee - at the 7th.

So what makes it hard then Scott?

[Michael Goldstein]

Looking at the list, Ogilvy Clayton must be very happy.

[David_Elvins]

Hi Mark, thanks for this. You're probably right. However, I just emailed the Editor at GAM to see if he can outline their "rules".

There is a lengthy discussion in the accompanying article about the inclusion of Ellerston (and non inclusion of Capital).  

[Scott Warren]

Brett,

The brief was to make it really hard, but there's only one really tough carry  off the tee - at the 7th.

So what makes it hard then Scott?

Length, lots of bunkers and greens on the edge of creeks and  steep drop-offs.

Dave shot 82 in the afternoon, so it can't be THAT hard

[Mark Chaplin]

Here at Royal Cinque Ports we get rated, in fact anyone can book a tee time and we don't know they are coming. I'm sure the same happens at Kingston Heath and Royal Melbourne.

Rating at Ellerston is a totally manufactured and controlled environment, I saw a nice picture from one of the raters at a road junction several km from the course, no photos allowed, so now opportunity to record and compare. The editor of GAM probably believes in the freedom of the press and that's why it shouldn't be rated.

[David_Elvins]

Mark,

I think you are overstating the degree to which courses such as ellerston can control the experience and how much of a factor it is compared to all the other imperfections in the rating system.  Eg. If a rater has been a member at 4 of the top 10 courses, is this more likely to affect voting than a controlled experience at ellerston?  There are so many compromised postions that can (but often dont) affect the ratings.  

Scott,

It was an 84, not an 82.  Despite its reputed toughness, ellerston generally offered plenty of width off the tee.  Around the green it can be a little penal though with a lot of forced carries onto greens

[Brett_Morrissy]

Scott,

It was an 84, not an 82.  Despite its reputed toughness, ellerston generally offered plenty of width off the tee.  Around the green it can be a little penal though with a lot of forced carries onto greens

Dave,
So do these penal features and these carry type design attributes affect yours or others (that you know of) assessment of the course as whole in a negative or positive fashion? How do you compare it to St.AB? Challenging (but I wouldn't say penal) green design and surrounds with lots of width?? Are the penal approaches to greens like Brookwater?

[Brett_Morrissy]

I have daylight between RM & BD, but it is an interesting dilemma for many of the clubs in the top 25-30 - every time a reno'd course or new one comes in they drop a spot, then another... as they slide, pressure mounts from many areas on this 'slide' what are they to do - if it involves spending more money on presentation, then I think the system needs review.

If a course was #13 2 years and have not changed and maintained standards, but have dropped to #15, what should they do? The course hasn't 'become worse', perplexing for many I would think.

What has moved Commonwealth up ?

..and how far will the National let Ocean fall before putting some kind of action into place?

[Matthew Mollica]

Mark,

... If a rater has been a member at 4 of the top 10 courses, is this more likely to affect voting than a controlled experience at ellerston?

Impossible. Noone is that lucky.

[Matthew Mollica]

... it is an interesting dilemma for many of the clubs in the top 25-30 - every time a reno'd course or new one comes in they drop a spot, then another... as they slide, pressure mounts from many areas on this 'slide' what are they to do - if it involves spending more money on presentation, then I think the system needs review.

If a course was #13 2 years and have not changed and maintained standards, but have dropped to #15, what should they do? The course hasn't 'become worse', perplexing for many I would think.

What has moved Commonwealth up ?

..and how far will the National let Ocean fall before putting some kind of action into place?

Brett, hopefully green committees have a clear vision for their own course, survey the membership for contentment levels, and are not swayed unduly by rankings, or the arrival of newer and better courses. If a club is doing the best with what they have in terms of managing their own course, the rest surely takes care of itself ? I think Commonwealth shows this. They have adopted a measured, considered and patient approach to subtly yet continually improving their course with attention to presentation, tree clearing, and some minor course works.

And FWIW, I doubt The National will do much with Ocean. They'd be better off building course #4.

MM

[Mark Chaplin]

Are you allowed to vote for clubs where you are a member? It gets worse........

[Matthew Mollica]

Mark, as Sandy Tatum once noted, if you haven't got at least three conflicts of interest in this game, you're nobody.

[jonathan_becker]

Kingston Heath and Barnbougle dunes battling it out for second behind RMW is a good fight and i'd have no problem with either coming out on top.

That's about right, but I have it like Scott going RMW, BD, KH, LF, then NSWGC

[Mark_F]

Rating at Ellerston is a totally manufactured and controlled environment, I saw a nice picture from one of the raters at a road junction several km from the course, no photos allowed, so no opportunity to record and compare.

Exactly.  It's no different to a critic from the Michelin guide booking a table in their own name at a restaurant and then informing the Maitre 'D upon arrival what they were there for.

There is a lengthy discussion in the accompanying article about the inclusion of Ellerston (and non inclusion of Capital).  

"We have, however, continued to accept the ongoing request from the management of Capital Golf Club in Melbourne for that course not to be ranked."

"It will stir controversy - it already has - but our decision to include the ultra-private" -  so it's not just private, but ultra-private - "Ellerston course has merit."

... "In fact we did so only once, in 2008, when it came in seventh. That decision was largely based on the course's sheer inaccessibility as generally only connections to the Packers can play there. Back then, we felt it wrong to publish a bucket list of sorts for Australian golfers to play and include a course that was anything but accessible.

... A few more golfers buy their way to Ellerston through high-end charity auctions."

So despite the fact that previously Ellerston was a golf course in Australia, it wasn't ranked because of accessibility issues, yet now ten grand somehow makes the course more accessible?

And this from Judge Mollica: "It's likely Bob Harrison's finest work, in a portfolio of many high-calibre designs. It's a shame so few will experience it."

It's interesting to note that despite Judge Mollica's long-held fervent desire to play the course, he didn't buy his way onto the course as he advocates we all do, but instead waited for the course to be rated.  

I think you are overstating the degree to which courses such as Ellerston can control the experience and how much of a factor it is compared to all the other imperfections in the rating system.  

So where are the negative comments?

A high-roller from Crown once lost a truckload at the casino.  He was flown to Ellerston for a round to soothe the hurt, as a game at Capital just wasn't exclusive enough.  It will be interesting to see if the whales consider this a special treat anymore since so many people can now see the place.

[Chris Kane]

If a course was #13 2 years and have not changed and maintained standards, but have dropped to #15, what should they do? The course hasn't 'become worse', perplexing for many I would think.

What has moved Commonwealth up ?

Brett, I wouldn't place any significance on small movements. The panel always changes between rankings, so small movements can be as much about the personal preferences of a few incoming or outgoing panelists as the quality of particular courses.

[David_Elvins]

Dave,
So do these penal features and these carry type design attributes affect yours or others (that you know of) assessment of the course as whole in a negative or positive fashion? How do you compare it to St.AB? Challenging (but I wouldn't say penal) green design and surrounds with lots of width?? Are the penal approaches to greens like Brookwater?

Brett,

My personal opinion is that the features make the course more about execution than options.  Which is a negative but not a big negative.  Just enough to stop it being compared to Royal Melbourne, St Andrews, Barnbougle Dunes etc.  There are a lot of fun and challenging shots on the course.  Just not enough shots that tempt one to bite off more than they can chew.  And not enough holes that reward clever play.  Of course it comes down to personal preference to a degree and  if you think a great course needs to be difficult, you will probably disagree with me, and no doubt the client probably did.

[Brett_Morrissy]

Dave, I feel like on many Norman courses, I am always deciding how much to bite off (as there is little choice to do otherwise or layup), so much emphasis on driving distance and accuracy, it wears thin after a while. For me it i a big negative. Perhaps it is in the vein of the architect dictating the shots all the time. I know a couple of holes that cop their designer a pasting because of this trait.