Australia's Finest Golf Courses by Darius Oliver

[James_Livingston]

Paul
I don't think Woodlands suffers for a lack of exposure, it has been a regular tournament venue over the years.    It does lack a direct connection to MacKenzie though, although Sam Bennett and Mick Morcom played an important role in its development.  If I had to guess, I'd say that as probably the most demanding course on the sandbelt, especially for approach shots and around the greens, it may have left more than a few a little too battered and bruised over the years.  This may also go part of the way to answering George's question about the production of world class golfers, as you won't get far on a firm and fast sandbelt track without having a complete game.

[Paul_Daley]

George B: Welcome back, it sounds as though you are enjoying Melbourne's golfing treats after your time in Sydney; golf wise, like moving from the Okay Chorale to a veritable Golf Fest.

The most obvious answer to your question is SAND SAND SAND. But that is not entirely correct, for some sand-based golf sites do exit in Sydney, but these house either humdrum courses, or ones where its geology or routing was not utilised to its fullest. It just seems as though in the formative years of Sydney golf, a lower standard was acheived and adopted. Perhaps there is an argument that some Sydney clubs could institute a "Start-Over" situation; that is, forget about restoration or renovation, just start again. But who would cast the first stone and risk Eggs Bennedict on their dial?

Chris K: You're right about Woodlands slipping upder the radar, it must have a lot to do with Mackenzie not being asociated with the course. Thankfully, the widespread trumpeting of Mick Morcom's contribution to the Melbourne Sandbelt began a few years ago, and is still gathering pace. When people finally understand just how much Morcom accomplished at Woodlands, I sense the club's day (in a marketing sense) may arrive.  

Mark H: One never tires of seeing that quote.

Mike C: While on the subject of Victoria's 11th, how about clearing out the comedic spindly trees that divide the 15th and 11th? Bringing more into play double-duty bunkers for both holes would be visually stunning and stratgically sound. This could be acheived in daylight hours; for an encore, come back in the wee hours and clear the backstop collection behind the par-3 4th.  

Dela: thanks for your thoughts on the Melb S/belt.

Tim W: No shortage of beds down here mate, welcome any time.

[Mike_Clayton]

Paul

Agree with those trees on the left but how about the trees down the right that are the real disaster - the view through to the green from the tee would be sensational if it was unobstructed.
Waht you can tell from the old photo is that the original designers didn't intent for there to be any trees between 11 and 15.

[Matthew Delahunty]

Mike,

I know what you mean in relation to Grant's task on the 15th at Kingston Heath. I've got a copy of Tom Ramsey's World of Golf which was published in 1977 (a bit before my golfing time and almost before my lifetime). There's a photo of the 15th - it's totally enclosed up the right hand side by ti-tree and other bush. In front of the tee it was grassed where a bunker now exists. (I might try to scan and post it)

On the bunkers/lip issue - perhaps the greatest change comes from changes in depth through wind erosion, lack of maintenance, or "over maintenance" (too much sand or wrong sand or porr trimming), etc, which also affects their playability over time. I read something from Peter Thomson not too far back criticising the increasing size of Melbourne's bunkers (although I think now he's advocating removing them). Thanks for the comments.

George,

I think there's a bit of a cultural difference in Sydney as opposed to Melbourne. Melbourne's sporting culture means that it's people generally don't accept second best and that's reflected in the standard of courses. I'm not sure about the top golfers thing. When I spent some time in Sydney golf didn't seem to be something people lived for like they do in Melbourne. I got the idea that Sydney had "leisure" options on a weekend while the Melbourne people have "spoting options" (footy, racing, golf). I think the course quality probably also has a bit to do with the getting quality land with the right type of soil. I don't think it's any surprise that the two courses you mentioned are two of only a few Sydney courses with sandy base and couch fairways and good architects. I think the Hunter Valley may take off over the next decade as a place good golf courses are born.  

[Paul_Daley]

James L: With the inter-hole variety, and variety between the hole lengths and styles, I agree that Woodlands is the most demanding course on the S/belt. That is: demanding in a positive way - not a gruelling, tedious sense.

I hear what you say about Woodlands not lacking exposure, but I really think it does, due to its tourney's being
spaced at lengthy intervals over the years.

[Matthew Delahunty]

Paul,

I think this sort of discussion on sandbelt courses is the best way to preserve and improve them. I recently went on a trip to Scotland and played some golf there (inspired to a degree after reading your book). It was great to experience a different style of golf course. It's when you come back that you realise how much you take aspects of our local courses for granted.  

[Paul_Daley]

Mike C: If the restoration process is on track and faithful, then it would seem that the trees down the right should 'mysteriously' vanish as depicted in Mike Murphy's recent 3.30 am photo of Oakmont. The tee-to-green vista would be amazing, and in another sense, this scenario would add another dimension to the hole. Today, for anyone of moderate length, the tee-shot is a mandatory fade; to introduce a right-hander's 'drawing' option for those inclined, via tree clearance, would be a bonus. Even so, the sensible shot would still be a fade; the basic hole shape wouldn't alter.

[Chris Kane]

Dela,
Was the Thomson piece in "Golf Architecture" a few years back, focussing on the sharpening of bunkers edges which over time increases their size?

Mike,
Are the trees between 11/15 something which the membership is clinging onto, or is it more the case that you havn't gotten around to cutting them down yet?  There's always the "Lightning" option if you can't get permission!

Would you cut down trees on the RHS of 8 all the way to the green?

James,
Compared to most of the other sandbelt courses, Woodlands has had very little tournament exposure, which probably contributes to a lack of awareness amongst Melbourne golfers.  I'd be interested to know if the membership realises what a gem they have.

[Matthew Delahunty]

Chris, I think so (http://www.sagca.org.au/journal2000/bunker.html) but I seem to remember seeing it somewhere else as well - maybe in one of his Age articles. I know he recently wrote that piece in the Melbourne Age about getting rid of many bunkers to appease members, keep down maintenance costs, etc.

[T_MacWood]

Who designed Woodlands?

[James_Livingston]

Tom
Here's a link to the clubs website which details the background of the course http://www.woodlandsgolf.com.au/course/default.htm
It shares a common link with much of the sandbelt in that Mick Morcom was heavily involved in its construction.  It is also a beautifully routed course, and is probably the best balanced course on the sandbelt.

Chris
I think the membership knows what it has, but just don't feel the need to blow their own trumpet.  One thing is for sure, its length (6600 yards) gives it an extremely low ACR relative to its difficulty, you want to be very careful playing any of their members for money.

[Mike_Clayton]

Paul -Chris

It is hard to believe they are still hanging onto the trees between 11 and 15 but I can live with them if the compromise is to get rid of the ridiculous trees on the right that really hurt the hole.
They will go one day - whether it is in the near future or when Geoff Ogilvy and his generation are in control of the club.
On the 8th I think it would look perfect if they took out all the trees and restored the view  from the tee through to the right hand greenside bunkers.
Peter Thomson said to the Captain just before the Australian Open last year ' you know when I first played here you could see all of those greenside bunkers from here'
Clearly the hole should be a par four with the left hand bunker moving up to form a common bunker with the right hand greenside bunker at the 6th.
It would then be the best par four - two shot hole - on the course.

[Chris Kane]

Mike,
Once the trees between 8 and 11 are gone, you can get to work on the RHS of 12!  12 could be a fantastic hole if opened up a little.

James,
Do you really think that Woodlands plays more difficult than its par of 72, with an ACR of 72?  I'd argue that Woodlands is a double-edged sword: when your wedge game is 'on', its possible to play well under your handicap, but if you're slightly short of confidence, it tears you to shreds.

Dela,
The article in The Age was about his work at The Lakes, where he's apparantly built some pot bunkers.

[James_Livingston]

Chris
It's not enough to only have your wedge game on to score well at Woodlands, you need your whole game 'on'.  I  haven't played a course where there are so many triples lurking for only slightly offline shots.  There is no real let-up.  It is true though that it is possible to go really low if it all goes right, but that is the same anywhere.  Contrast Woodlands though with another course of about the same length and the same ACR, Northern, which is dead flat with wide fairways and enormous greens.  You couldn't get me to bet quick enough against a Northern member.  For the same reasons I'd also expect them to get clobbered next year in division One pennant.

Mike
Has work started on Peninsula South?  And will it be as big a job as the North course, which is another course I'd recommend our international visitors head to before Yarra Yarra, Huntingdale and possibly a couple of others I dare not mention.

[George Blunt]

James L,

I would have to concur re Peninsula North.  I have not played or seen Woodlands so I cannot comment on it, but certainly Pen. North is worthy of comparison to all but a handful of the top tier Sandbelt courses that I have played. (17th hole excepted)

I am sure that when all the new work grows in it will shoot up the rankings, so long as enough of the raters get out to see it.

(Speaking of ratings, are there any Australian ratings on-line?)

Agree that a visitor to Melbourne must include a trip there.

Regards,

George

[Chris Kane]

James,
I'll have to agree with your comments about Woodlands: really difficult relative to its length.  Amazing how many holes there are where you can hit good drives and approach shots, yet still have four feet left for bogey!  Holes like 3, 7 and 13 come immediately to mind.  And the 4th is the best hole of 250m or less in Melbourne, though I never saw the old 1st at Commonwealth.

Peninsula North has come a very long way in the past three years.  As Paul Daley described in his Sandbelt book, "a hidden gem it is not" - which was the case until Mike got there and rebuilt the greens, put in new bunkers and re-routed some of the holes.  Now, even the most conservative estimate would have it among Australia's top 25, and the better course at Peninsula.

Can't wait to see an Australian Open on a Peninsula composite course.

George,
Woodlands is a must - we'll have to arrange a game there when you're fit to play again.

[Matthew Delahunty]

Chris,

Thanks for the info re the Thomson article. If I can recall he was talking about a particular example at "local" course and I couldn't think of which one (and having not heard about any local cries of heresy) - so I assume the article was probably a SMH article that also got printed in the Age without the editors picking up the problem.

George,
see here for ratings - http://www.ausgolf.com.au/ratings.htm


One quick question re Oliver's best holes ratings. He seems to have confined the best holes to the courses he's got in his book. There are lots of great holes on courses not in the books. Should any of these have rated a mention? What holes on some of our lesser courses are special and make a course worth playing?

[Mike_Clayton]

James

We have done two holes on the south - the 5th and the 7th.
Seven is back to a par five - which it was twenty years ago before the tee came forward - with a creek all the way along the hole and cutting out into the edge of the fairway at 290 yards.There are a couple of new fairway bunkers down the left about 30 yards short of the green so the close you drive to the creek the better the line past those bunkers.
At the seventh we took all the trees off the corner and replaced them with a big sand hazard.Now you can fly at the green all the way across the sand or play as far left as you want.
I think it is a better hole.
The South is not as easy a job as the North because the members actually think it is a good course.On the other hand they never took the North seriously.
I think it is very overrated with a lot of ordinary -at best- holes- e.g 3,4,6,12,14 and 18 and holes that are decent but a long way from their potential e.g  1,2,8,11,13,15,16.
I guess that only leaves 9 - which the members hate - 10 and 17.

[Shane Gurnett]

GolfClubAtlas.com is posting a Feature Interview with Darius re: this very book in the first week of October.

Cheers,

Ran, what happened to the interview with Darius?