[Mark_F]

By contrast, I don't think many here are familiar with Fergal.

What a safe and sanitised world you like to inhabit Tim.  You have played at least two of the courses Fergal writes about, you can't form an opinion on whether he might be worth listening to based on that?  Why is his opinion any less valid than Scott's, who has played a mere handful of Sandbelt courses just the once? (apologies in advance if that isn't correct Scott).

Being unfamiliar with him is his strong suit; it means he's unencumbered by the group wank mentality that permeates discussion groups.  

But none of this is any excuse to attack him personally.

Priceless, hysterical and hypocritical in a mere eleven words. Fabulous stuff.

[Adam Lawrence]

But what I stumbled over and can't really accept from Fergal's article is this about the 11th at Kingston Heath:

"Additionally, on the 11th hole there used to be an excellent bunker in the middle of the fairway which was unfortunately removed, and has diminished the quality of the tee shot."

Given this was his first visit to Melbourne, he can't make that claim with any credibility. By the time he touched down at Tullamarine, all there was left of that bunker was memories.

You've got to limit your commentary to what you know, because lines like that, in an attempt to be sound more authoritative than you are, ruin your credibility.

Scott,

I'm not sure I understand why you believe this ruins your credibility for stating something like this. Basically then you are saying if you never played a course before and it's been changed (even ruined) by renovation in your opinion it's not appropriate to say so. That to me makes no sense.

Imagine you are playing with the original architect, manager or new head of the course committee. They explain and show you were this was. Are you trying to say that it's not within someone's capacity if they want to remain credible to have an opinion whether or not a change was an improvement or not?

I strongly disagree with this statement and can give you off hand several examples of holes that have been ruined during renovation that I've never seen prior to renovation and neither have you but I know I could send you through the course and at the end ask you which holes don't fit for example and you could tell me beyond a shadow of a doubt. I guess that while more extreme than a single bunker missing is basically the same.

I have no problem with this and definitely not in this case. Whether I believe in that opinion or not remains to be seen.

I think Scott is saying that he is in no position to say that the removal of the bunker diminished the quality of the tee shot. Which, if he never saw the hole with the bunker in place, seems a pretty reasonable argument to me.

[David Davis]

Fergal is a good friend of mine as well. He sees things through the eyes of an extremely strong golfer. He's a +1 hcp and hits the ball a mile. Unlike most the +1 hcp'ers I've played with he actually plays it consistently when traveling. I think he has an excellent eye for architecture and shares all of our passions for it. He's dedicated nearly all his free time to this passion, has read and studied everything and is as knowledgeable as any of us give or take some truly exceptional students of GCA (and perhaps some architects) most likely. He's opinionated and takes a stance which is something I can appreciate. I don't always agree with his assessments which is fine, I don't agree with the parts about Kingston Heath which was by a margin my favorite course in OZ. Though I should add that Royal Melbourne was a dirt patch in 2006 when I played the courses because it didn't have it's own water supply and were severely restricted.

Tom Doak: while I have a lot of respect for you and your work, I'd even go as far as to state you are my favorite living architect, I don't like the way in which you started your criticism of Fergal either. I wouldn't of appreciated it if it were me or anyone else for that matter. Whether or not that was your intention you start by diminishing his opinion and position by making fun of his name and the fact that you've never heard of him, so therefore he must not be anyone. (this is most certainly implied.) Even if he's just dead wrong and his opinion is way off, I just see that as unnecessary and inappropriate. I imagine that's not how it was intended but it is how it comes across.  

[David Davis]

I think Scott is saying that he is in no position to say that the removal of the bunker diminished the quality of the tee shot. Which, if he never saw the hole with the bunker in place, seems a pretty reasonable argument to me.

Adam, you are not telling me that you haven't seen enough courses and studied enough GCA to know, whether or not a single bunker would make a tee shot more interesting for you or not? That you would not be in a position to have an opinion on this if you played the hole?

I think in your position this would be the kind of insight you have to have all the time?

[Adam Lawrence]

We all make judgements, that is true. I think it's good practice not to be too definitive about situations where you lack experience, but then I know that hedging makes for less interesting copy. It's a dilemma for sure.

[Scott Warren]

But what I stumbled over and can't really accept from Fergal's article is this about the 11th at Kingston Heath:

"Additionally, on the 11th hole there used to be an excellent bunker in the middle of the fairway which was unfortunately removed, and has diminished the quality of the tee shot."

Given this was his first visit to Melbourne, he can't make that claim with any credibility. By the time he touched down at Tullamarine, all there was left of that bunker was memories.

You've got to limit your commentary to what you know, because lines like that, in an attempt to be sound more authoritative than you are, ruin your credibility.

Scott,

I'm not sure I understand why you believe this ruins your credibility for stating something like this. Basically then you are saying if you never played a course before and it's been changed (even ruined) by renovation in your opinion it's not appropriate to say so. That to me makes no sense.

Imagine you are playing with the original architect, manager or new head of the course committee. They explain and show you were this was. Are you trying to say that it's not within someone's capacity if they want to remain credible to have an opinion whether or not a change was an improvement or not?

I strongly disagree with this statement and can give you off hand several examples of holes that have been ruined during renovation that I've never seen prior to renovation and neither have you but I know I could send you through the course and at the end ask you which holes don't fit for example and you could tell me beyond a shadow of a doubt. I guess that while more extreme than a single bunker missing is basically the same.

I have no problem with this and definitely not in this case. Whether I believe in that opinion or not remains to be seen.

David,

It's true. I have no interest in hearing yours, Fergus' or anyone else's opinion about golf holes you've never played.

I am similarly disinterested in your reviews of films you've never seen, songs you've never heard, books you've never read or the sexual performance of women you've never slept with. It means nothing.

[David Davis]

We all make judgements, that is true. I think it's good practice not to be too definitive about situations where you lack experience, but then I know that hedging makes for less interesting copy. It's a dilemma for sure.

Ok but in this case how do qualify and quantify "lack experience"? If you mean Fergal lacks experience then I would debate that point. How many courses does one need to see, how many books does one need to read, how much time and effort does one need to put into something before he can be definitive about a subject? They say 10,000 hours makes you an expert. Is that true for golf and GCA? If so I promise you that Fergal has well exceeded those numbers.

[Sean_A]

I think Scott is saying that he is in no position to say that the removal of the bunker diminished the quality of the tee shot. Which, if he never saw the hole with the bunker in place, seems a pretty reasonable argument to me.

Yes, I agree, but its small beer between what he wrote and something like "many considered".  In other words, no reason to say he lost credibility...

Ciao

[David Davis]

David,

It's true. I have no interest in hearing yours, Fergus' or anyone else's opinion about golf holes you've never played.

I am similarly disinterested in your reviews of films you've never seen, songs you've never heard, books you've never read or the sexual performance of women you've never slept with. It means nothing.

Scott,

That's funny, it's opinionated and with the exception of the parts about me it's most likely not true. Did you receive your copy of the Confidential Guide?

In this case, the comments are about holes that have been played and you point out the comment about a single bunker and how this discredits the author. Being a journalist how often have you injected your opinion into a piece about a subject you were not an authority on, let alone one which was your passion and you actually knew something about? Sorry rhetorical question.

As for my opinion of the sexual performances of women I've not slept with, I assure you, you are missing out here but this is the wrong forum for that one.

[Adam Lawrence]

We all make judgements, that is true. I think it's good practice not to be too definitive about situations where you lack experience, but then I know that hedging makes for less interesting copy. It's a dilemma for sure.

Ok but in this case how do qualify and quantify "lack experience"? If you mean Fergal lacks experience then I would debate that point. How many courses does one need to see, how many books does one need to read, how much time and effort does one need to put into something before he can be definitive about a subject? They say 10,000 hours makes you an expert. Is that true for golf and GCA? If so I promise you that Fergal has well exceeded those numbers.

He lacks experience of that course. It was his first visit.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom Doak: while I have a lot of respect for you and your work, I'd even go as far as to state you are my favorite living architect, I don't like the way in which you started your criticism of Fergal either. I wouldn't of appreciated it if it were me or anyone else for that matter. Whether or not that was your intention you start by diminishing his opinion and position by making fun of his name and the fact that you've never heard of him, so therefore he must not be anyone. (this is most certainly implied.) Even if he's just dead wrong and his opinion is way off, I just see that as unnecessary and inappropriate. I imagine that's not how it was intended but it is how it comes across.  

David:

Thanks for your note.  I did not intend to make fun of the man's name; I honestly didn't know if he was a real person or not.  [We've had a few instances of that on this board.]  I apologize for that.  I also made the mistake of taking the nit-picky quotes in the original post as summarizing his general views of the courses he saw, when in fact that might just reflect what the original poster wanted us to think.

By the same token, it seems odd that we should all be expected to take his opinion as an expert without him ever having participated here, or with few of us even recognizing his name.  I'm also not sure how I diminished his "position" when I am not sure what position he has. 

I am always just a bit suspicious of the guys whose main credential is having had the money and the time to play every course on a top 100 list, as if that automatically makes one an expert on golf architecture.  That's the sort of thing that could make you think that every course should be striving to be in the top 100 ... and be dismissive of so many fun courses that exist to provide fun golf for their members and visitors.  [Again, I may be projecting unfair things onto that assessment because I don't know the man, so I'm mixing him in with some other people I do know.]  Other than that, nothing Fergal wrote offended me, but I hope that the quotes used here were not indicative of his entire opinion ... i.e., that he had some appreciation for the several great holes at Woodlands instead of just dismissing it for not having more of them.

[John Mayhugh]

Tom Doak: while I have a lot of respect for you and your work, I'd even go as far as to state you are my favorite living architect, I don't like the way in which you started your criticism of Fergal either. I wouldn't of appreciated it if it were me or anyone else for that matter. Whether or not that was your intention you start by diminishing his opinion and position by making fun of his name and the fact that you've never heard of him, so therefore he must not be anyone. (this is most certainly implied.) Even if he's just dead wrong and his opinion is way off, I just see that as unnecessary and inappropriate. I imagine that's not how it was intended but it is how it comes across.  

David,
Does this mean you hate Doak like pretty much every other person who has met him? 

I understand that you're friends with Fergal, but cannot see how you give Sheehy's bizarre comments a pass while chastising Tom.  I think Tom was critical of a group of people (raters) more so than Fergal as an individual.  His at least seemed to be inadvertent rudeness, which cannot be said for Brian.


Scott,
I think we have to be able to discuss and criticize changes in courses even when we have not seen and played both versions.  I'm sure you agree with that.  Fergal's point could have been worded less authoritatively and it probably would have been better.  But keep in mind that the entire piece that he wrote is opinion (not fact), so IMO he doesn't need to continually add reminders of that. 

I enjoyed reading his writeup, but found plenty of places to disagree.  I certainly thought more of RME than he did!

[Keith OHalloran]

Scott,
How does your black and white position on people's opinions relate to the real world situation of course renovations? When Garden City asked Tom Doak about his thoughts of restoring the 12th green, do you think they were right in listening when he (presumably) said that the original green was better? I suspect Tom never played the original.

[David Davis]

David,
Does this mean you hate Doak like pretty much every other person who has met him? 

I understand that you're friends with Fergal, but cannot see how you give Sheehy's bizarre comments a pass while chastising Tom.  I think Tom was critical of a group of people (raters) more so than Fergal as an individual.  His at least seemed to be inadvertent rudeness, which cannot be said for Brian.

John,

I've not had the pleasure of meeting Tom so that is certainly not the case. I don't hate or even dislike a single person I have had the pleasure of meeting from GCA, that's quite a few now so I'd access the odds of dislike or hatred towards any here on my part at being extremely small. Though I can only speak for myself which has nothing to say about what you or anyone else thinks of me. I try to treat everyone with the same respect.

I don't believe I was chastising Tom, that's far too severe a word. I already stated my point and accept Tom's answer and appreciate the fact that he bothered to write it. I don't feel the need to address it further.

As for Brian's comments where did you read that I gave them a pass? He's already been (to use your words) heavily chastised by you and RJ. Perhaps the issue here is that Tom to me is one of the few real experts here and thus I access more accountability and more expectation on his opinion and what he writes than I do most of the rest of us. After all most of us are merely students, hobbyists etc.

[John Mayhugh]

David,
When I said that you gave Brian's comments "a pass," I meant that you had the opportunity to challenge or criticize them and did not. That's the way I've seen that particular idiom most commonly used.  I did not say you specifically endorsed Brian's rant.  I just found it odd that you thought Tom's remarks warranted criticism when Brian's did not.  Qui tacet consentire videtur.

I don't see why an expert like Tom should be held to a higher standard of behavior than you would hold a hobbyist like Brian or me.  Shouldn't it be the opposite? 

[Mike_Clayton]

I'm not sure how anyone could possibly comment on the merits or not of the bunker in the middle of Kingston Heath's 11th hole if they never saw it. My assumption is he played with a member who liked the bunker.
Alister MacKenzie saw no need for building a bunker in the middle of the fairway.
The hole has been through so many incarnations over the years. Vern Morcom moved the tee to the right long after Dan Soutar had positioned it closer to the 3rd green.
 If was a poor tee shot in the fashion of so many tee shots Morcom made at dogleg holes - i.e too short to the corner forcing players to take irons to avoid running into the trees through the dogelg. See Spring Valley pre repositioning of tees and almost every other Morcom course.Some argue it was a product of 1950s equipment but it never happens at Royal Melbourne which was done 30 years earlier than SV.
Graeme Grant moved the tee back closer to the original place. He also moved the short right bunkers further along and Bob Simmons (the 2IC) did a beautiful job shaping them and  no doubt it was an improvement. Graeme then added the extra bunker in the middle and it survived for about 15 years.
We filled it in and Bob reshaped the right bunker to make the carry just a little longer - maybe 5 yards.
It is a beautiful driving hole now - arguably the best of the 4 incarnations of the tee shot -  and it's arguably more difficult. Previously I took a short enough club not to reach the bunker and aimed at it. Tiger Woods did the same with a 4 iron all four days of the 2009 Masters.
Now its a driver but far from an easy one with the bunker on the right and the threat of unplayable lies in the tea-tree through the fairway to catch a pull.

[Tim_Weiman]

Mike Clayton,

You should be ashamed of yourself. Are you actually suggesting an old Doctor knew anything about golf architecture?

[Chris Kane]

I wonder how easy it is for non Aussies to get all the facts right on golf courses in Australia or even just the Sandbelt area alone.

It shouldn't be too difficult if you fact-check (for example by calling each club or greenkeeper) before publication as most writers/journalists do. When it is your credibility at stake it is essential.

Just an example from his comments on Victoria: Having described the "recently created" greenside bunker on 12 as "outrageously uncharacteristic with Sandbelt bunkering with its cookie-cutter shocking edges", he then praises the 14th as "displaying the best of MacKenzie expertise with sand traps".

The facts: the greenside bunker on 12 has not been touched for at least twenty years, and on 14 three of the five bunkers were built last three years, two of them last year (they are entirely new bunkers created by Ogilvy Clayton Cocking Mead, not based on an old photo).

[Mike_Clayton]

Tim

I not sure the old Doctor would have much enjoyed watching Tiger bump 4 irons off the tee:) The bunker made hitting a driver so demanding and it was judged not to be worth the risk by the vast majority of players in the tournaments there between 2000 and 2011.
I've always found centre bunkers work best when driver is the club and the choice is short,right,left or over. When so many pull irons and play short they don't work so well as a hole like 4 at Woking or 2 at St Andrews Beach.

[Tim_Weiman]

Tim

I not sure the old Doctor would have much enjoyed watching Tiger bump 4 irons off the tee:) The bunker made hitting a driver so demanding and it was judged not to be worth the risk by the vast majority of players in the tournaments there between 2000 and 2011.
I've always found centre bunkers work best when driver is the club and the choice is short,right,left or over. When so many pull irons and play short they don't work so well as a hole like 4 at Woking or 2 at St Andrews Beach.

Mike,

If the old Doctor said anything bad about 2 at St Andrews Beach, I would just have to sue him for malpractice.

[Niall C]

With regards to the great bunker debate, if he knew where the bunker had been (which is possible on dry courses since they generally dry out at a different rate than the surrounding ground) or its position was pointed out to him then I think it entirely possible to judge the strategic effect of the bunker and therefore perfectly acceptable to form an opinion even if he hadn't seen it when it existed.

After all, isn't this what we all do except in reverse when we state an opinion that a hole could be improved by placing of hazards in a certain position ?

Niall

[jeffwarne]

With regards to the great bunker debate, if he knew where the bunker had been (which is possible on dry courses since they generally dry out at a different rate than the surrounding ground) or its position was pointed out to him then I think it entirely possible to judge the strategic effect of the bunker and therefore perfectly acceptable to form an opinion even if he hadn't seen it when it existed.

After all, isn't this what we all do except in reverse when we state an opinion that a hole could be improved by placing of hazards in a certain position ?

Niall

If one cannot judge a hole in a past form that he never played, how on earth could one state that ANGC was better in its original design?
For that matter, how can we ever say a course was ruined by tree planting, green shrinkage, bunker and green flattening, if we never played it in its older ,presumably better form?

[jeffwarne]

Well here's another thread I killed last winter


So completely forgetting access issues,
 if one had a week+ in Melbourne and was going to play 6-10 courses in and around the sandbelt and peninsula, other than the obvious ones RM, Kingston Heath, etc.
what would be the must plays (4-6 of them) and what would be the gems (2-4 of them)that are unique or fun, or low key, or neglected with decent bones that might not be on any fancy list

[James Bennett]

Jeff

I have included the sandbelt, near sandbelt, Mornington and Bellarine Peninsula.  You will enjoy all of these.  You don't have to play every one to have fun though.

RM West
RM East
Kingston Heath
Victoria
Metropolitan
Woodlands
Commonwealth

Peninsula North
Peninsula South

National Moonah
National Old
St Andrews Beach

Barwon Heads
13th Beach (Beach)

Not on the list
Yarra Yarra
Huntingdale
National Ocean
Moonah Links Open
Moonah Links Legends (not so terrible)

Unknown to me
The Dunes

[Mike_Clayton]

Jeff


Aside from the obvious I'd try places like:



St Andrews Beach
The Moonah Course at The National
Woodlands
Peninsula x 2 North and South
Portsea
Spring Valley (3 holes away from being ranked much higher and much improved from Tom Doak's mid-1980s 3 by addressing the failures he pointed out)
Long Island - also 3 holes away from being much higher. 6-9 alone make it worth seeing.
Healesville (5500 yard par' 68' but really 66- we rebuilt it about 8 years ago) It's an hour north of the city so completely opposite direction from the rest.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()