I'd prefer to see the local golfers that play these courses often that are being sorted out and ranked in a manner such as 3-5 in Australia and the like, give more learned comment. Let's face it, some people have a facility to play a course once and are skilled golfers and can come away with "some" specific comments of how good this or that is in some detail. But, on the old 'hit and run' scale of ranking, I wouldn't put too much credibility in such a proclamation of where great courses of similar style and design philosophy rank in such a narrow band.
Now I am told and can see that Mark Saltzman is a good golfer, and a golfing machine in sheer stamina. But, if you don't play a group of courses like we are speaking of in terms of RME, RMW, KH, or add other locals like Met, Commonwealth, and the like, on some sort of long term regular basis, there is just no way you can truly say down to such specificity which is in a conversation of top 5-10 in OZ or whatever and comment on specific merits.
I just played KH and RME within a span of a few days, and frankly, without photos to jog my memory, they are one breathtaking set of what we have come to call MacKenzie style bunkering arrays through the FW and around greens, and funky cleaver greens that are a blurry dream in my mind. I couldn't just have that conversation with anyone and say: well this hole plays definitively like this or that. All I can say is that the work of the array and apparent optional ways to play a particular hole were present or notable as I played them. Yet, I couldn't tell you without the yardage graphic card, and photos that it was say 12, or 14th hole on which course Now that may be some form of GCA.com heresy to admit, but I simply have a hard time believing proclamations that something ranks in such a way in such a narrow field of courses to be considered. When you play a great hole, and if you are good enough or lucky enough to hit the shot you thought was the best option off the tee- and made the shot, then on that and hit one approach (in some of these cases an approach, an approach and yet a long putt or sand bunker blast) can you really say you now know how that hole plays in all its potential cleverly designed glory? All you get is one snapshot in time in one set of conditions.
So, let's hear from the locals who have played the courses multiple times, before we start assigning 3-5 range sort of rankings.
For the record, RME left me with 'an impression' that the course is harder and more varied in playing demanding shots and skills simply because there is more elevation changes than KH; felt longer, and the greens seemed more contoured. But the style was one big combined celebration of what is in my mind, the MacKenzie-Australian look and maintenance meld. I'd probably be more suited to playing on KH on a regular basis just pairing my age with the more comfortable walk and feeling I would score better there if I got more knowledgeable on its breaks and distances and angles. Perhaps if I was younger, and a better player, RM would be more in my wheel house.
