Did Golf's Most Beloved err at Hope Island?

[Scott Warren]

I was around the Gold Coast for work recently, and was convinced to prioritise playing Hope Island one evening by the Courses by Country review on this here website: http://golfclubatlas.com/courses-by-country/australia/hopeisland1/


Within it, Ran enthuses:


"The architects have created one of the dozen most strategic courses built in the past 60 years" (written in 2004)

"The shaping is so well done that there is no reason to suspect man's hand"

"Once on the greens at Hope Island, the golfer has a reasonable chance for a two-putt" (a kind way of noting they resemble billiard tables?)


Was this some kind of Foulpointe-style punking? Did Ran just get it wrong? Or has modern golf architecture come so far in the past 15 years that what was once cause for purple prose is now just a reasonable example of a golf course?

[Peter Pallotta]

He wasn't yet golf's Most Beloved back then. He was liked, and on his way to being well liked -- but only with his beloved status firmly established came the more measured, confident and nuanced tones that we now so much appreciate in his writings. I'm a bit surprised that this early (not to say adolescent) example of his work is still so freely available. But I suppose that when you're golf's Most Beloved, you realize that others are keenly interested in knowing -- and sharing -- your whole journey and intellectual narrative, and so you give generously of yourself, warts & all. Please don't hate him, Scott, for humbly showing us that he is human after all.

[Colin Macqueen]

Scott,

Surely it is all in the eye of the beholder!

I think it is more than a “… reasonable example of a golf course.” I suspect that a lucky few have been thoroughly spoiled in golfing visitations to wonderful, first class offerings such as Fisher’s Island, N.G.L.A. etc. as you have.

Understandably, if you come from such a fine example of a golf course as Bonnie Doon and then play Hope Island and one’s expectations are dashed, particularly after, apparently, being misled by “Our Most Beloved”’s musings,  it would come as a cruel blow to have to putt on gentle, supportive greens. Bear in mind Ran did describe the green surrounds as being of great interest (and they are as I miss greens a lot and know this for a fact!) with the requirement of being able to play a bewildering array of approach shots which is surely some compensation for the tedium of having to putt on greens which “… resemble billiard tables”. Non!

I think Ran's writings in regards to Hope Island were/are realistic and that to think of it as "..purple prose.." indicates how fortunate you have been in your golfing endeavours. I think the vast majority of golfers would, quite easily, identify with Ran's words.

Cheers Colin

[Scott Warren]

Colin,


I have undoubtedly been very fortunate to get to play some of the courses that I have. No question.


In part that has, I suppose, provided the basis for why I felt so disappointed by Hope Island — because it’s certainly a pleasant, well-presented golf course with some interesting and memorable holes.


But there must be a thousand or more courses in the world that the above description could be applied to.


Its the very definition of a Doak 5, IMO. An above-average course that’s worth playing if you’re in the area, but not worth another day on its own.


All good things, and no insult on the course.


But also not really consistent with Ran’s enthusiastic description, either. 2004 was early in the second golden age, but there was still a reasonably strong group of courses designed in the period Ran refers to, among which he says Hope Island is one of the 12 most strategic.


To say a course is a Doak 5 and probably in the 60-75 range of an Aussie Top 100 is no insult. But it is far enough removed from the type of course I’d have thought Ran’s review was touting that I thought it worthy of noting and, hopefully, discussing a bit.

[Ran Morrissett]

Interesting having a re-read!


To put the profile in context, the last time I played the course was either in 1997 or 1998. I think I had played Sand Hills but the next wave of great architecture married to great sites including PacDunes, Barnbougle, St. Andrews Beach, etc. had yet to arrive.


The two things I remember most were the 1) amount of fairway grass, including around the greens and 2) the central hazards. The shaping ran through the fairways as opposed to being mounds merely on the sides of holes. Wind was always present the three times I played there. Twenty years ago, I recall homes on several holes on the back and one long awful cart ride but it was a pretty place otherwise.


Move the design clock forward 20+ years and a lot of superlative work has unfolded on sites 100x better.


Nonetheless, I thought it was strategic and a really fine example of building something from nothing. I checked volume 5 to see if I gave it a 6 or a 7 and I gave it a 7. I am glad I did as too few architects then (and now!) build central hazards. Put another way, there was an Arnold Palmer design somewhat nearby up there and I would opt to play Hope Island over it 8 to 2 out of 10 rounds, at least back then.


I don't know how the course has evolved but it did ask pose more interesting questions that many other 1990s designs. At the time, everyone in Oz was praising The Australian, and Hope Island was a breath of fresh air, comparatively.



Best,

[Scott Warren]

Thanks for the response, Ran. Really interesting context — especially your frame of reference being late 90s rather than 2004.



As it happens, I am checking that Arnold Palmer course out today — will be even more interesting to see it based on the above.


One of the big shames of Hope Island as you mentioned is the minutes-long cart ride through several tunnels under suburban streets and the main road to arrive at two holes sandwiched between homes (15 & 16). [size=78%]Especially as the stretch right before it was one of the best on the course. [/size]

[James Bennett]

Scott

I haven't played Hope island in over 20 years, perhaps 25 years ago.
The course had bent grass greens when I played.
I recall the long drive late on the back nine, and felt that 17 stood outa bit bluntly in style to other holes, with the penal strategy of a long forced water carry to an elevated mound of a green.

I don't recall how much housing was about then.

I'm sure it is different now, especially with Bermuda greens and housing.

The other new courses of that era were courses like National Old, McCracken (near Victor Harbor), Terrey Hills and the Japanese-financed golf tourism developments along the Queensland coast.  Some of these haven't aged well (some have).

[David_Elvins]

Interesting having a re-read!

I don't know how the course has evolved but it did ask pose more interesting questions that many other 1990s designs. At the time, everyone in Oz was praising The Australian, and Hope Island was a breath of fresh air, comparatively.

When I played there a few years ago there was a hole called 'Principles Nose", the 8th i think, where if you hit it into the narrow fairway right of the fairway bunkers you ended up stuck behind a massive group of trees.  It could have been poor evolution but it could also have been another example of twp copying a classic feature but not really having any ability to implement the design principles behind the feature. 


I thought Hope Island had some strategic interest in the way that all golf courses have some strategic interest but to me the flat surfaces of the repetitive  green complexes and the vegetation didn't make it a particularly interesting strategy to me.  It's probably still one of the better courses in QLD but that is damning with faint praise. 


I would respectfully suggest, Ran, that if you went back now you would not rate it similar to Lost farm and RM East, or higher than Barwon Heads, Victoria, or Portsea.