Sandbelt - a lost 18?

[Matthew Delahunty]

I was reading through a few old threads re the sandbelt courses and it seems that Commonwealth GC cops the most flak for holes that it has lost. I got to play there for the first time the other day so I got some idea as to locations, topography, etc, of the lost holes. I keep reading about how good some of the old holes were. I was wondering how many great holes in Melbourne have been lost and thought it might be an idea to compile a list (say the top 18) of the greatest lost holes on the sandbelt. The list could include descriptions, photos, reasons for the changes, comparisions of old vs new and what factors made the old/new good and bad.

I think criteria for listing should that the character of the hole has been changed significantly by the alteration (ie, adding a new tee which adds 10m does not automatically make the hole eligible).

On the basis of past threads you'd probably include:
Commonwealth - 1,7, 12
Yarra Yarra - 4, 8 (before the green changes), 12
Huntingdale - 15
Keysborough - 16
Victoria - 17
Metro - several holes of the old back 9 would make the list
Someone was talking about changes to RM East - was it the 15th?

I'm thinking 17 at Huntingdale is also a candidate for the list (maybe not 5 but people may disagree).

I suppose you might include 11 at KH but that could be fixed with one truckload of soil.

I'm not up with what holes were lost recently at Kingswood but one or two of those might make it into the list. Also with Southern pre the water board buyup - is there anyone that ancient who played them?. Spring Valley lost its 10th and had it's 5th altered.

Thoughts?

(PS - the other common theme re Commonwealth is the trees issue - fortunately I stayed on the straight and narrow for the most part but if at any time in the future the club decides to cut down the gum to the left of the 15th green could one of the GCA Cth members please retrieve my ball from its foliage/gumnuts. I think this is the first time I've ever lost a ball on non-water par 3.)

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Dela,
Being that I have never had the opportunity to experience the charm and gusto of down under, I can only surmize on situations like that of Commonwealth.

I believe Commonwealth was a Dr. MacKenzie course correct? And while be a self-admitted Mac-Head, nothing upsets me more when an original design like that could be taken for granted, razed and then rebuilt a modern wonder of prototypical proportions--a golf course that can only be described as typical in the modern scheme of things. No, I haven't seen the course, therefore, it may be wrong for me to so quickly judge, But I have heard of complaints of many down under, what has happened there and in truth, count me as one of the many that just don't care to see it because it leaves a pit in my big fat stomach.

[NAF]

Commonwealth was never touched by the Good Dr.  It was done by Sloan Morpeth.

[Mike_Clayton]

Dela

Sad tale this one - There were a few that couldn't be saved like all of the back at Metro.They say 14 was the best of those holes.Also they abandoned the old uphill par 3 6th played from behind the 5th green up to a green near the present 6th tee.

13 and 14 Kingswood - the new 13th is a good replacement however but 14 was a great hole lost
1,6,7, 12 Commonwealth
4,8,12   Yarra Yarra
I assume you mean 17 at Keysborough - 16 is still intact I hope- 17 was a fantastic long four replaced by a terrible par 5 - blind second with water in play.
17 at  Vic was a boundary problem but the new greens were never satisfactory - better now with the mounds gone and new bunkers.
17 at Southern - a fantastic short four. It occupied the first half of the hole that  now plays down the Springvale Rd.
The original par 3 15th at Huntingdale - not the one they played from 1976 until the recent changes.
5 at Huntingdale - although it was much better than the new hole it was not one of the best short fours in the city.
10 at Spring Valley was a good hole we changed because of the new entrance road.I think the new hole is pretty good - certainly as good as the old one.
We also altered the 5th and did a poor job. The old hole was good but the only way to fix the terrible 16th was to move the tee back onto the old 5th tee.
The club had so much affection for the old hole we tried to keep all the old bunkers but never really got the green orientated properly.We should have just built a  completly new hole and it could have been as good as the old one.
It will also help when the trees grow up and close out the ugly boundary.
10 at Commonwealth - the old straight hole.
4 at Huntingdale - the old straight hole down to the road.
4 and 5 at Long Island. Those changes probably were the most daming example of taking fine holes and replacing them with a terrible hole -5- and a very average one -4.

The question is - what have we learnt and how do we ensure such ignorance and contempt for great holes is not allowed to ruin anything more? And can we restore what we have lost?
A chainsaw would help a lot also but those who need it most will be the ones to reject it the longest.

[Mark_Rowlinson]

Those last three lines - the conclusion of Mike Clayton's detailed analysis - sum up so much of what this site is about.  Thank you for putting it so succinctly!

[Mike_Clayton]

NAF

As I understand it Commonwealth was done by Charles Lane.
Sloan Morpeth was the manager there and he died in the early seventies - in his early seventies as well,I think-  which would have made him awfully young to have done the job

[Chris Kane]

NAF, Tommy,
Wrong!

Commonwealth was designed by Sam Bennett and Charles Lane, with Bennett essentially responsible for the routing, and Lane for the greens complexes and bunkering.  Lane was Club Captain from the time he started work.  I believe Sloan Morpeth was Secretary/Manager for thirty years, and designed new 10th and 11th holes in time for the 1967 Australian Open, following acquitistion of land by the government, requiring the new holes to be doglegs.

Tommy, I think yours is a huge over-reaction.  There are still 13 holes left from the original course, most not having been touched at all.  I have no idea where you got the idea that they "built a modern wonder of prototypical proportions", but thats just wrong.  It is DEFINITELY worth seeing, if only for superb holes like 2, 4, 9, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 (all of which are the same holes that were there when the course was built).  As a biased club member, I think CGC still has much to offer!

Mike,
Your post reads like a summary of the sandbelt chapter in your book!  Do you know if Mick Morcom had any actual involvementbin the construction of CGC?

[Shane Gurnett]

I think the key issue that comes out in all of this is RESPECT, or more accurately the lack thereof. Any process of change should always begin with an appreciation of what is already there, and how and why it contributes to the existing course. There are very, very few examples of redesign work on the Sandbelt which have improved on the existing design.

So many of the negative changes are simply as a result of ill conceived or ignorant design work, poorly executed, with the end result being far less than satisfactory. What some people need to understand is that even a minor alteration to a single bunker can dramatically affect the look and feel of a hole, and how that hole fits into the routing and overall feel of the course. It has been too easy for some architects to waltz in, promise the earth and under-deliver, and simply walk away with a pocket full of cash. I dont know how some of these guys can look at themselves in the mirror every day.

The other amazing part of this process is the complete lack of research that some committees do when hiring an architect. Its seems to be so much easier to believe the rhetoric that comes out of the mouths of some of these guys, when a more appropriate course of action would be to walk the properties where they have worked before and see it first hand. If the committees at some of these clubs really understood their responsibilites and fully accepted their custodial roles, then the sandbelt courses as a whole would be in much better shape.

For very obvious reasons you dont build brick veneer extensions onto classic Victorian houses, and the sooner some people realise this the better.

Chris, I think you have overstated the number of intact holes at Commonwealth. Its 11 not 13, now that 14 and 5 have also been tampered with.

Shane

[Matthew Delahunty]

Shane/Chris,

What's currently going on at Commonwealth? I noticed they've made the changes on the left of 5. It didn't look like they've made a good fist of that front trap. I noticed the plans in the clubhouse for minimal changes to the fairway bunkering on 6. I would've thought clearing out the trees which conceal them might have been the better/cheaper idea. 14 wasn't too bad - having not played there before but seeing the old aerial I assume they'd just altered that second left fairway trap - it looks a bit odd. What's happening with the resodding of the 4th fairway - it appears that 11 and 14 had also recently been done - is that a move to a one grass policy or has the poa just not overtaken the couch yet? Chris, I'd add 8 to the list of holes worth seeing - if they could sort out the landing area/bunkering of the tee (and clear some trees down the right) it would be right up there with the rest.

Mike,

I did mean 17 at Keysborough.

As a SV member I was pretty sad to lose the old tenth. It was a beautiful hole. The new one is pretty good but just doesn't seem to have the same charm - but it may just need some time. Most members I speak to don't like it - I don't know if that's just a reaction to change or they find it too hard. It certainly needs a bit more time to bed in and they have to get the sand in the bunkers right. The main concern for a lot of the members is that the pin position is forward 70% of the time. That part green is probably a bit too narrow for the average golfer and if they get in the back left trap where everything slopes away they've got no hope of getting it on the green. I like the hole, especially when the pin is back. You've definitely got to think a bit more from the tee. I tend to think of it as a good player's hole.

As for 5, I've always wondered whether they should've just moved the tee foward and played it as a 130m hole with a reconstructed green. One of the  biggest problems though at the moment is the infestation of poa. The convex nature of the green doesn't combine well with the poa patches and you don't get much of a true roll. The payoff for the course was the improvement to 16. The same will happen for 11 if they ever move the tee back. I know the plan was to move the 13th tee back but there's not much room to go there. The other changes to the course have been positive.

I played Kingswood once about 12 years ago. The 13th I played then was a pretty good par three. Was that the old or the new?

Are there any plans for Southern now that they have their new clubhouse? I'm assuming the hole order has changed.

[Mark_F]

Chris,

I've only walked C/Wealth taking photographs, but I thought 4 and 14 were possibly the two weakest/worst holes on the course.  

Why are they superb? (And i'm not being facetious, merely curious).

[Chris Kane]

Mark,
14 is an outstanding hole.  Requires an accurate drive down the LHS to get a good angle into the green which is angled DIAGNONALLY, with the green contouring and surrounds "shouldering" away an approach from the wrong portion of the fairway.  Downwind with modern technology it offers the prospect of driving close to the green for the big hitters.

4 might be even better.  Perfect embodiment of what Commonwealth is about.  You need to place the drive on the RHS to get a good angle in, and hit a perfect approach to hold the green which sweeps errant shots away.  It would be an even better hole with the trees on the RHS gone!

Holes 1, 6, 7, 10 and 12 are the weakest holes on the course.  

[Shane Gurnett]

Mark, both 4 and 14 are excellent holes marred by very poor tree management and fairway line management.

4 is overgrown on the left off the tee, which only results in mid and high handicappers losing the balls and slowing up play, whilst the tree line beyond the RHS bunker is wildly overgrown so that a ball in the bunker has no direct line to the green, and a ball hit to the perfect place in the fairway (RHS as the green favous a shot from that side) does not have a direct route due to trees. In addition, the safe side of the fairway long is now grown in as rough so that there is no safe bail out.

14 is a much poorer hole with that redesigned fairway bunker, but worse still, for a short hole that favour a drive up the LHS near the trap, the rough line on the RHS now encroaches so far into the fairway that there is only about 10m of fairway to hit to at the 230-250m mark. When I joined there in 1990, the fairway was much wider on the RHS (non preferred side from the tee) so that you at least had the option of a safer tee shot right with a tougher angle to the green. Its now a case of an optionless tee shot where straight is the only option.

I often wonder what the clubs design visionary Charles Lane would think of his masterpiece now that it has been:

a) completely overgrown with non native trees and bushes,
b) narrowed up with rough which destroys the design intent of many of the dogleg holes, and
c) constantly fiddled with by a succession of architects who simply have not respected what they are dealing with.

Tommy, whilst MacKenzie is believed to have never set foot on the property, I feel there is more of a Mac influence at Commonwealth than at some of the courses in Melbourne who claim him as a design contributor. Charles Lane really understood what the Mac design principles were and clearly implemented them as well as anyone else out here. The sad thing is that Lane appears not to have contributed similar work anywhere else, which is a bit of a mystery.

I have some photo's which I will try to post later tonight to better illustrate these points.

[Brian Walshe]

A common theme with most of the changes to the Sandbelt courses has been the complete disregard for the design intent and style of the original architect or designer.  Wander around Commonwealth and 1 and 7 stand out like sore thumbs.  1 is so different you wonder if it was a deliberate policy to make the hole look out of place.  Same at Kingswood, no attempt was made to fit the latest set of changes in with the exisiting holes.  My reaction on standing on the 1st tee and looking across to the new 9th was to burst out laughing.

Perhaps the root of the problem is that the people given the re-design work either think their style is "better" and want to leave their mark on the course or they have no ability to see, understand and recreate the style and intent of what is already in the ground.  The first group is driven by ego and the second by their limitations.

[Mike_Clayton]

Dela

I understand the members at Spring Valley dislike the new 10th but it is 130 meters downhill and it takes a good shot to hit the green. The bunkers are no where near as severe as 7 West,15 Kingston Heath,9 Commonwealth,11 or 15 Yarra and several more but they are difficult and  they will sort out who can play a decent bunker shot and who cannot.
I will,however defend the hole because it is a good one and if they built the 15th at Kingston Heath - or any of those other holes -  now the hackers would be complaining they were unplayable.
With one good swing a 20 marker can make 2 and one bad one a pro makes 4.

[Shane Gurnett]

Mike, it comes as no surprise that that the hackers dont like that new hole; they have ruined many a good hole on the sandbelt by claiming the hole as being "too difficult". Conversely, what do the low markers think?

Brian, the new work at Kingswood is a joke, everyone in golf in Melbourne knows that. Why else would their members be leaving to join Southern?

[Matthew Delahunty]

Mike,

Re the 10th, I agree. Imagine if they built the 11th at Yarra now - there'd be complaints today - what must the complaints have been like when Russell built it?. The 10th at the Valley is a hole you should par 8 times out of 10 - and the other two times you can easily walk off with 5 or 6 if you play the wrong shot. By the statistics it really found out a few of the pros last year at the Aus Open and Heineken qualifying. There were some problems with sand (or lack of it) in the right back trap but I think they've fixed that now. All those heathery bushes between the tee and green have now grown in and it creates good effect late in the day with the sun low. The 11th hole will improve dramatically when they move the tee back to the old 10th green site - but last I heard there were no immediate plans to do that. I think a few people are keen to hold onto the old green despite the fact that the new practice green is about to be opened.

Shane,

I haven't heard too many complaints from the low markers - except that I don't think too many want to start their day on the back 9 (especially if the prevailing breeze is up). I think the quality/consistency of the greens is likely to be a bigger complaint (10 old soft poa greens, 6 new bent being rapidly infested with poa - renovations on greens and bunkers ground to a halt during the clubhouse construction).

Mark,

I thought 14 at Commonwealth was a real sleeper. You probably have to play it once to see its real quality. The first fairway trap is out of play for longer hitters now and the second one isn't that good (would a cluster small deep pots have been better?) but the green's defences are excellent. I can't think of too many holes like it on the sandbelt. Most of the top short par fours are about 30-60m shorter with a touch more gamble. I agree with the RHS trees - there's no need for them as you're going to have one tough approach anyway. I wondering whether in the original design there were no trees down the left (in the spot between the 15th green and the 14th fairway), creating an "ideal target" zone between the fairway traps. Can anyone enlighten me as to this? We had to play the 4th as a par three from the left hand side which made for a tough approach. The green defends itself with help of one single bunker. It proves that quality is better than quantity. An approach from anywhere left on the fairway requires a fantastic shot to find the green.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Guys, I'll apologize if I'm wrong, but this is the main reason why I have to increase my Oz vocabulary--Wasn't Commonwealth the one where Jack Nicklaus razed the course?

[Mike_Clayton]

Tommy

That would have been The Australian in Sydney - a once fantastic Mackenzie course where the members now enjoy the best of Florida.

[Mike_Clayton]

Dela

The eleventh is nearly a good hole - it's a fine piece of land- but the only way to fix it is to put the tee back onto the left side of the old 10th green -  then the bunker on top of the hill is right in play and you don't have to worry about driving straight through the fairway -  which was the most negative characteristic of Morcom's design. eg.2 before the change,4,11,13 and 16 before the tee went back.
 At every course Morcom ever built that was a 'feature'- Grange,Trafalgar,Leongatha,Rosanna and he incorporated that trait into the 11th at Kingston Heath by moving the tee forward and right when he was the superintendant there.
It was and is very odd because it never happened at any of the holes Mackenzie influenced here and it was not an equipment thing because Morcom was designing 40 years after Mackenzie left.

Shane

All the low markers I know like it - but that doesn't always make it good

[Chris Kane]

Shane, Mike,
How ironic that so many members complain how short par-3's being too difficult, when many short par-4's on the sandbelt have been ruined because the membership believes them to be too easy!  

If members can't play a basic bunker shot - keeping the ball on the green - they have no business being on a sandbelt course, let alone having the right to complain about bunkers being too deep or difficult.  Imagine what would become of bunkers like 2-RHS or 8-RHS at Commonwealth if these fools were to have their way.  These people should either learn to play a bunker shot, or shut up.

[Mark_F]

Chris,

Since when was the ability to play golf the determining factor in membership of a desirable, excellent golf club?

Shane and Chris,

Thanks for the info re 4 and 14.  regarding the tree issues, sounds like you two need to do what is mentioned in Joseph Johnson's The Royal Melbourne Golf Club - A Centenary History.  Apparently a member so disliked a tree on one of the holes, he ground a sand wedge into a razor edge and took a subtle swipe at the offending specimen whenever he passed, thus bypassing the green commitee...

[Matthew Delahunty]

They'd go through a few sand wedges at Commonwealth.

Mike,

The bunkers on 11 were not quite as bad as those on 2, 13, 16 because at least they're on the corner of the dogleg. Problem is that you can carry them with a fairway wood and still run through the dogleg (also the design of the hole should necessitate the approach from the tee side of the crest of the hill). The 3 original Morcom bunkers on 13 have never been in play. I don't know how you fix that - the ideal tee site for them to be in play is somewhere in the middle of Heatherton Road. I don't think the left fairway trap adds anything to the hole either (except to stop balls running through the fairway). There's probably enough land there to straighten the hole with a tee to the left of the lake and construct a drive-and-pitch par 4 but the topography and green site doesn't really lend itself to that sort of hole.

While I think of it - can I ask the Commonwealth boys - would the old 1st have been as good if it wasn't the 1st (for example it was the 12th hole)?

[Shane Gurnett]

Dela, I think if the old first at Commonwealth had been any other hole number it would be every bit as good, and of course even better, it would still have survived to this day. One of the great losses to Australian golf, especially when you see the quailty of the hole that has replaced it.

Shane

[Andrew_P]

Dela - one of the appeals of the "old" Commonwealth I think was the eveness in quality of all the holes on the layout.

I may be biased being a member but I never felt like CGC had any "weak" holes like you see at Yarra Yarra or Metropolitan for example. They were a quality set of 18 holes - with each hole having its own unique charm and appeal (with the possible exception of 10 but I was never old enough to see the original).

On this basis I don't think it matters whether the 1st was the 8th or the 8th the 1st.

The critcism of the old 1st amongst some was that it was seen to be "too easy" as a par 4. My solution: fine make it a Par 3! Who cares what the Par is anyway? To my mind you should never use the concept of par alone as the basis for tearing up any hole.  

[Shane Gurnett]

The attached link desrcibes some of the reasoning behind the changes to Commonwealth in the early 1990's.

http://www.golfvic.org.au/dir127/vgasite.nsf/pages/featureclub-commonwealth