[Tom_Doak]

David:

It's all of the above -- the contours and the sand type and the depth.

You can also (barely) see in this photo by the color (slightly darker in the top left of the green as pictured) that the upper terrace of the green (player's back right) is really small and hard to hold since there is never really a good angle into it ... you're always coming in over the front right bunker, and if you've blocked the tee shot to the right, you're coming in to a very shallow tier with a fall-off if you land more than ten feet past the bunker.  The same is true for any bunker shot from the right front bunker.  And from the left bunkers, you've got to skip one up to that tier in the green.

[RJ_Daley]

Hi Mark, yes I reckon my post was the age old rating debate; if a proper assessment of a golf course and the detail of its architecture can be gleaned from one or a two plays.  I didn't mean to junk up your thread, but the fine point of saying where a course ranks among a universe of very good courses, and within a narrow band of 3-5, etc. just struck me as a little too fine point to make.   No one enjoys your travelogues any more than I do.  And, I still think you are one in a million as to being able to play 700odd holes in a short time frame and have a conversation on any one of them.  Tom Doak and very few others seem to have such a photographic memory to look  at a land form or array of golf features and remember such detail.  But, there seems to be participants on this forum who do have those skills, and probably why they do gravitate to this discussion group.  So, without further distraction and observation... have at it.  

For what it is worth, I got the feeling that the approach to this RME 1 was a bit like Riviera 10 or Wild Horse 15 the way the green is set up favoring greatly the wide approach from the left up the green.  I seem to have good luck with 15 Wild Horse, so I felt this #1 was a welcome opening feel.  As I remember, my second shot came up short, and it may have been one of those bumped 4woods towards the pin and a two putt bogey.  I think the tongues and how they are oriented both in the FW bunkers and greenside, in conjunction with the backdrop slopes and green positions have a far greater impact on the depth deceptions than one might comprehend at first sight.  You have captured this illusion in spades it seems to me with this photo:

The tongue and waves of the back lips of the sculpted bunker FW bunker, orient your eye from this photo position or tee view, right into the hidden right side bunker and the conundrum that Tom is talking about with the small humped terrace at back right of the green and over the hidden bunker.  And, you have no idea from the tee how deep this FW bunker is.  All the room right and left is somewhat discounted, with the slope taking you right and not the better approach angle.  It seems to me that if you are a long hitter and good player, left is the only real birdie chance.  

[Bryan Izatt]

Dick,

Looks like a really nice pic, but you need to add "width=800" in the first img [] so that it is easily viewable on the site.  Full size it looks like a really wide angle lens. 

[RJ_Daley]

Got it.  It is Mark's photo, and it is a good one.

[Mark Bourgeois]

The effect seems to heightened when bunker asymmetry is employed (bunkering on just one side of the green); I think it's because bunkers "bookending" the green also serve to define the green. By leaving one side of the green open or "unfinished," the human brain is unable to "gist" the concept of the green -- it can't fill in or complete the picture. The negative space presents an open void. As a result, the green's lack of definition makes it appear smaller when the only frame of comparison is a bunker larger than the mind's eye is conditioned to see.

In addition to the RM courses I think a few holes at Palmetto do a good job illustrating this form of deception.

I feel this is another form of visual deception used to perceptually shrink the green.

Mark:

I've been designing holes for years with asymmetrical bunkering at the greens, but I've never thought of it as visually shrinking the green.

My feeling has always been that in addition to offering a "bail-out" option for weaker golfers, which it does, that visually such an arrangement causes even the better golfers to feel there is more room to miss to one side, consciously or subconsciously, thus causing them to favor one side instead of focusing on the hole location itself.

All of this goes back to something Pete Dye said to me long ago, in frustration -- that the best players on average hit their approaches within 15 feet of the hole, and you can't really put hazards within 15 feet of the hole.  So, the trick is to get inside the players' heads, and try to get them to aim away from the flag.  Pete does it with intimidation [water close to one side].  I do it by arranging the bunkers to offer them an "out", thinking I can get them to take an "out" they don't need ... and by putting enough tilt in the green that they'd rather be twenty feet below the hole than ten feet above it.  In other words, I do it by imitating Royal Melbourne.

Tom, oh yes to everything you write. But what I was getting at wasn't the asymmetry alone, or I should say the specific tactics / choices such an arrangement presents, but rather how it seems to magnify the perceptive effect when it's paired (heh) with bunker(s) disproportionate in size to the green. The bigness of the bunker relative to the green makes the bunkerless side seem larger (at least to me). I think it's primarily this spatial relationship between the bunker and the green (when the bunker is outsized) that makes the green seem smaller. The lack of a bunker on the far side contributes insofar as it reduces the definition of the green, of the green's edge, on that side.

I suppose from a practical perspective the impact is to increase the attractiveness of the bunkerless side as a bailout relative to an asymmetrical green where the bunker(s)'s size relative to the green's size is "normal."

Wait, now I recall a sketch in Patric Dickinson's book where he draws a bunker to "mind's eye scale" relative to the green it guards. Does anyone remember this? In mind's eye the bunker is enormous; the green is a little pea.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Wait, now I recall a sketch in Patric Dickinson's book where he draws a bunker to "mind's eye scale" relative to the green it guards. Does anyone remember this? In mind's eye the bunker is enormous; the green is a little pea.

Oh, of course. The Road Bunker.

[Mark Bourgeois]

RJ, that's a nice observation.

Something to add about the bunker difficulty is the firmness and speed of the greens. Bunker shots get away from you so easily that it starts to get in your head, you think you have little margin for error and of course that tends to produce one of two results: skull, chunk. 

Here's another POV of 1 green that hopefully conveys what I'm trying to express:


And here's an example at Palmetto -- perhaps not an ideal example, owing to the difference in green-rough coloration somewhat the result of the POV


I dunno, maybe all this is a Golden Ratio thing. More likely, though, I'm just off my meds. Again. 

[RJ_Daley]

Before we go any further, I wonder if Tom or any of the historical documentation mavens can give us a general overview of the understanding and communication of design ideas that Dr. MacKenzie either left specifically for Russell and Morcom, or if the design ideas (as we see in the opening hole for instance) are strictly Russell's with advice of Morcom, where the two Australian's just channeled the philosophy and techniques and sometimes matched or exceeded MacKenzie in clever land form deception on distance and direction?  While it might just be subjective analysis, or guess work, I wonder if there are documents that shed light.

[Sven Nilsen]

RJ -

Since you asked (taken from the Oct. 26, 1926 edition of The Age):

[RJ_Daley]

Unfortunately, an insight into being in the company of 'The Good Dr.' and his witticisms, but no indication of his instruction or impact on Russell and Morcom's followup design.  

But, what a showman!  No trite modern scene of the archie with plans rolled up and pointing in a vague direction of a hole corridor with a bull dozer in the background.  No, this is the road show of an actor on his stage;  an exhibition of imaginary club swinging down a proposed fairway, and a gathering on the lawn and waxing eloquent with his:

"looking for 'a' golf ball in the rough is conducive to the unseemly [giterrence?] of puerile imbecilities".

 With that vocabulary, Sir Boab must channel Dr. MacKenzie.  I'm still trying to work out the mystery word - giterance.  Does that mean the process of becoming a git?

[Sven Nilsen]

Utterance, RJ, utterance.

[RJ_Daley]

Well, I'm sticking with the newly coined word, "giterrance", the process of becoming a silly old git.  I got first hand experience.  I'll check with wordsmith Kelly to see if this can be done! 

[Jason Topp]

I played the West and did not have the time to play the East.  I remember this hole vividly, however, because my drive on the adjoining hole of the West wound up fairly close to this green.  It turned out to be a good angle for my shot.  For whatever reason, the view of my second with this green in the foreground is a vivid memory.

[Tom_Doak]

RJ,

I'm away from my Royal Melbourne history books for a couple of days, but the 1st is one of the few holes on the East course that Dr MacKenzie actually routed, so he may have offered some details for this hole to Russell and Morcom.  But at the time it was only part of a crammed-in extra nine; the club did not purchase the paddocks over the road until a year or more after MacKenzie left, so much of the East's design is by Russell and Morcom themselves.

[Tim_Weiman]

Dick Daley,

Royal Melbourne clearly has the better property, but Kingston Health left me with the impression that it could be the finest course in the world to grow old on.

Also, KH left me wondering why we haven't seen more course like it. The quality seems to far exceed the land or should I say topography?

[Bryan Izatt]

An aerial view of the 1st at RME for context.  I love the wide open look.  Very inviting for a first hole, although I imagine you can get yourself way out of position and still have a nice lie in some fairway.

[Tyler Kearns]

RJ,

I'm away from my Royal Melbourne history books for a couple of days, but the 1st is one of the few holes on the East course that Dr MacKenzie actually routed, so he may have offered some details for this hole to Russell and Morcom.  But at the time it was only part of a crammed-in extra nine; the club did not purchase the paddocks over the road until a year or more after MacKenzie left, so much of the East's design is by Russell and Morcom themselves.

Tom,

Comparing the current configuration of the East course against the 27-hole plan Mackenzie prepared for the club, the first 3 holes are consistent with Mackenzie's routing.

TK

[RJ_Daley]

Dick Daley,

Royal Melbourne clearly has the better property, but Kingston Health left me with the impression that it could be the finest course in the world to grow old on.

Also, KH left me wondering why we haven't seen more course like it. The quality seems to far exceed the land or should I say topography?

Tim, that makes me wonder what the land was like that Dr. MacKenzie found upon first inspection at Kingston Heath or RM for that matter.  As we know, in his book he talked about emulating or utilizing the special features that are unique to true sand ripple-dunes effect and how unique the manner of sand drift was and conducive to his use of the ridges, troughs and plateaus that the wind and water leaves behind in the sand and dunes. 





Were there such features on the flatish KH and RM present to work with in the land he was given?  Perhaps the local GCA contingent have historical descriptions of the undeveloped land as it was found in the area, so close to the beaches of Port Phillip Bay.

[Mark Saltzman]

Hole 2: Par 4, 402 Metres

The most difficult hole on either course, the second hole on the East also offers the greatest likelihood of a lost ball.  With a tee only steps off the back of the first green -- there is a local rule that forbids golfers to approach the first green while golfers are on the second tee -- the intimidating second tee shot plays over the corner of the first green to a fairway only 27m wide.  Shorter hitters may elect to play the hole as a three-shorter by playing their tee shot out to the left, but most golfers will want to carry the corner of the dogleg for a shorter approach and an angle that will allow the golfer to run the ball onto this green.  The corner requires a carry from 190m to 230m, depending on the line chosen, but keep in mind that it is the miss too far right that carries with it the possibility of a lost ball.




A better view of the second hole is seen from the first fairway:




The uphill approach to the long, skyline green should be played from right of centre.  There are probably no easy pin positions on the second green, but there are some remarkably difficult ones -- front-right (close to a swale right of the green), front-left (over a green side bunker), back-right (on a small plateau with any miss long, left or right being an impossible recovery), back-left (deep swale long with recovery to a green that runs away).

[Mark Chaplin]

Sorry to go back to the 1st is/has it ever been set up playing to the green of RMW8? Always think it would be a cool hole.

[Tom_Doak]

Sorry to go back to the 1st is/has it ever been set up playing to the green of RMW8? Always think it would be a cool hole.

They thought (briefly) about using 8 West for the President's Cup instead of 1 East due to gallery issues, but the green on 8 West is no match for 1 East so this was quickly dismissed.

2 East is a terrific hole but it, too, has suffered a bit from boundary issues ... the "lost ball" possibility mentioned by Mark has been cultivated in recent years to push play more out to the left so that fewer sliced tee shots and especially sliced second shots from the right side will go o.b.  However, as noted the angle from the right side is much preferred for the approach, so longer hitters are still aiming right no matter how awkward they make it look.

[Mark Bourgeois]

RME2's best qualities reveal themselves only to quality tee balls. If this were a video game such second shots would present one of the course's best Easter eggs. A privilege hard earned.

[Mark Saltzman]

Hole 3: Par 4, 350 Metres

Walking off the back of the second green, the player is treated to one of the great vantage points in the world of golf.  From this high point the golfer can look back down 2 East, look up 3 East, back down 4 West, up 5 West and across 6 West!

Similar to the tee shot at the second, the tee shot at the third bends to the right to a blind driving zone blind.




The tilt of the fairway, from left to right, will help to collect balls toward the hole, but a lone tree on the inside of the dogleg emphasizes the importance of landing a tee shot in the high side of the fairway.  Though there has been some tree clearing on the left, the fairway narrows from 50m wide at 140m from the green to 20m wide at 100m from the green and as a result, less than driver is generally the play from the third tee.






At approximately 750 sq. m. (8000 sq. ft.), I believe the third green is the largest at Royal Melbourne... and it provides a remarkable challenge.  The entire green tilts from the left and a large thumbprint depression on the right makes accessing any front, left, or back pin very difficult.  Add swales right, left and long and, like the second green, there is no obvious good miss.

[Mark Chaplin]

When 3E is dry it is virtually impossible to stay on the green from the left green side bunker.

[David_Elvins]

Tree "removal" on holes 2 and 3 has dramatically decreased the difficulty of the tee shot.

3 is a great green,  the only unfortunate aspect is that the approach is usually from around 120-140 yards which is the most uninteresting distance to approach the green from.  Would be really interesting seeing approaches from 220 yards or 60 yards, imo.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()