[Andrew Summerell]

I think the 3rd should be played as a short 4 and the 4th as a mid/long 4 with some bunker modifications.

The 4th green and approach isn't good for a par.5. IMO, there is no lay up area that adds any strategic merit to the hole and the green site is much better suited to a par 4 approach.

A touch more length on 3 and it would be an excellent short 4.

There’s no real reason to lay up at the 4th. Most golfers are better to fire at the green with their 2nd & live with the consequences if they miss the green. That’s what most of the members (who can fly the ball at least 200m) do. Yet the greens committee want it to remain a par 5.

[Mike_Clayton]

Andrew,

How can anyone in this age possible call a 414 metre hole a par 5? It is uphill with the second shot but nowhere near enough to have it play 30 meters longer than its yardage.
For a strong player it is the equivalent of a 380 m hole of 1970 - assuming we agree the ball is going 35 meters further over 2 shots.
Of course, the par doesn't matter until they put silly bunkers in to make it harder in order to justify a "par 5"

[Scott Warren]

Received this message from a former member who lurks on GCA and thought it was worth adding to the discussion:

For the discussion on 4th at Newcastle, I was a member there for 10 years with a handicap ranging from 0 to 4 during my time there. I believe I would have averaged twice as many 6's as I did 4's on the 4th and certainly 5 times more 7's than 3's. A point that hasn't been made is the difficulty of the 3rd shot for any miss or layup right (on top of the ridge) as shots that roll over the top of the ridge (right of the green) inevitably end up in sandy, stringy rough or crap! The green is also the steepest on the course. Definitely not a long par 4 green. A pox on anybody who changes that green!!!!

[Mike_Clayton]

No one has mentioned changing the green - just that in this age 414m is not a par five. To call it what it is and remove the silly bunkers designed only to make the hole harder and justify calling it a 5 would be an improvement IMO.

[RichMacafee]

Do you agree that the 3rd would be really good short 4 with a touch more length Mike?

Standing on the tee gave me a similar feel to the 1st tee at Karrinyup, and the left short bunker is very similar in strategy to the 1st at Vic. I think it would be a really good hole, and work well with what you suggested on 4th making it a par.4. and ditching the right fairway bunkers.

[Mike_Clayton]

Rich,

Given they have another big, long three on the back nine (15?) it would not be a loss from that perspective.
I don't really know it well enough to know how far beck the tee can go but there are any number of examples of short 4s in Australia with principles worth replicating. 1 at Karrinyup is a good one as is the very simple 3rd at Kingston Heath which is made by the fairway bunkers on the left and the green.
The Karrinyup hole is on quite similar land - playing from high and going down quite a way - and that would work well.I think that hole turned out well.

[Andrew Summerell]

It drops off quite sharply at the back of the 4th tee, so it would take a lot of work to extend the hole. If the land could be built up it could be stretched out to about 250m.

It would work well as a short par 4 if you could get 250m out of it & it seems to be what Apperly may have had in mind with the original design. The bunker short left would require a carry of about 210m & there is plenty of room out to the right of the hole to allow the easy ‘bail out’ tee shot resulting in the difficult pitch for the second shot across a very thin green.

Interestingly, the other long par 3 (the 16th) will be shortened to 160m if the masterplan ever goes ahead.

[Mike_Clayton]

Andrew,

Strange to shorten 16 - i guess it is easier to build a medium length hole that is popular than a long one that few members can reach.
7 at Metropolitan suffers from that. - It is a good hole but one, like 16, that is built on quite flat land
Wouldn't the principles of 16 West at Royal Melbourne work really well at 16? It seems a pity to lose that hole and it makes turning 3 into a short 4 more problematic.

[Dustin Knight]

I am also passionate about the future of Newcastle, unfortunately I feel that regardless of the masterplan being activated or not... The wrong person may be about to get their hands on such a natural rolling piece of property. . I must stress that this only my personal opinion.

Clayts,

If only we could get you to do some work there. I know of several regular players who know about and are well aware of great architecture, in particular a masterpiece by Mr Crump.

[Scott Warren]

You've got two or three PVGC members at Newcastle, don't you Dusty?

By the way mate, this thread is all set up for you to give us a shameless plug... Don't disappoint!

[Mark Saltzman]

No one has mentioned changing the green - just that in this age 414m is not a par five. To call it what it is and remove the silly bunkers designed only to make the hole harder and justify calling it a 5 would be an improvement IMO.

If the wind direction I played yesterday is indicative of the norm, it's a par-5.  When the club hosts events, let them call it a par-4.

There is so much focus in this thread on the 8 bunkers on the right side of the fourth.  Certainly this nest of bunkers is unattractive, but aesthetics must follow function.  These bunkers, whether it be 8 ugly ones or 3 attractive ones (as Ross Watson has planned), are well positioned and should be challenged for a hope to reach the green in two.

Regarding the 3rd: changing anything would be a mistake.  It is perfectly suited as a 215m hole that plays downhill and into the wind.  I do wonder if the green has shrunk or if the bunkers were always so far from the green's edge.  Either way, nothing needs to be done.  Indeed, nothing at all should be done.

Looking through Scott's pictures from 3 years ago, it seems the only thing the club has done is install paved cart paths.

[Mike_Clayton]

Mark

Maybe it was a three shot hole yesterday but that doesn't make it a par 5. Like 12 West at Royal Melbourne (435m) it's a drive and a short iron for longer hitters much of the time - and a three shot hole for many all year. The RM hole has never been changed in order to make it harder - and it is a fine hole for it.
I don't care what they call it but don't built (or plant) silly stuff to make it 'hard' so it can stay a 'par 5'

[Mark Saltzman]

Mark

Maybe it was a three shot hole yesterday but that doesn't make it a par 5. Like 12 West at Royal Melbourne (435m) it's a drive and a short iron for longer hitters much of the time - and a three shot hole for many all year. The RM hole has never been changed in order to make it harder - and it is a fine hole for it.
I don't care what they call it but don't built (or plant) silly stuff to make it 'hard' so it can stay a 'par 5'

Mike, I agree with everything you wrote.

Is the silly stuff you're referring to the nest of bunkers down the right? I agree they look bad, but even in the 1936 drawing of the hole there were bunkers down that side. Like I said, I think they serve their purpose and I don't know that the hole is much changed otherwise.

[Mike_Clayton]

Mark
I haven't seen the hole for a few years but my memory is a couple of better looking bunkers would help. How would it be if there were none and it was renamed a par four? The greenside bunkers on the left really advantage the drive down the right. Wouldn't that be enough if it for a par four with such a difficult second?
It is hardly 13 at St Andrews Beach or 8 at Barnbougle - probably the two hardest 4s in the country. Both are around 455m.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()