The Golf Courses of Vern Morcom

[Bill Shamleffer]

I received this book for Christmas.  I did not even know about this book, yet my non-golfing spouse found it.  (Book #403 in my golf book library.)


https://www.amazon.com/Golf-Courses-Vern-Morcom/dp/1876498366

[Tom_Doak]

Well, is it a GOOD book?

[Bill Shamleffer]

A good amount of photos & course/hole diagrams, but still primarily a book to read, not just “ look at”.  Good bibliography, index, and chart of all of Morcom’s courses.


A short intro into his life & influences.  Then onto his courses and the regions where he worked.
Give me a few weeks to delve into the book and give some further feedback into the meat of the writing and history as presented by the author.


Mike Clayton wrote a forward.  Perhaps he can give some further feedback into this book.

[Mike_Clayton]

A good amount of photos & course/hole diagrams, but still primarily a book to read, not just “ look at”.  Good bibliography, index, and chart of all of Morcom’s courses.


A short intro into his life & influences.  Then onto his courses and the regions where he worked.
Give me a few weeks to delve into the book and give some further feedback into the meat of the writing and history as presented by the author.


Mike Clayton wrote a forward.  Perhaps he can give some further feedback into this book.

It's a detailed history of all the work Vern did in Victoria as well as South Australia and New South Wales.
He certainly was prolific and the book is likely most interesting to those who know his courses well.
I've been lucky enough to work on quite a few of them and as rule, he was very good at building short holes and straight holes, but so many of his doglegs are problematic.  Tom referred to this his review of Spring Valley (probably his best course and just up the road from Kingston Heath) in the Confidential Guide.

[Matt_Cohn]

so many of his doglegs are problematic

I'll bite, how so?

[Niall C]

I'm interested also. I wonder if the design issues are similar to some of  MacKenzie's ?


Niall

[David_Elvins]

so many of his doglegs are problematic

I'll bite, how so?

Turn too sharply too close to the tee.

[Mike_Clayton]

so many of his doglegs are problematic

I'll bite, how so?

As Dave Elvins says further along they consistently turn too close to the tee so you're always hitting irons to the corners to stop from running though or drives over the trees on the corner.
Vern moved the 11th tee at Kingston Heath forward and right of where Soutar and MacKenzie had it, making for a much poorer shot either with a 3 wood or a long iron.
Graeme Grant moved it back and after we filled in the bunker Graeme made in the middle of the fairway (Tiger was hitting 4 iron off the tee in the Aust Masters) it became the best left to right sliding tee shot on the sandbelt. A Trevino special.
The doglegs can't have just been coincidental - it was a consistent trait/fault on all his courses. Some have suggested the equipment has changed how they play but how is it his father and MacKenzie got them all right at Royal Melbourne?

[Matthew Delahunty]

Mike,


I'd argue that the reason that RM got it right has more to do with Russell than anything to do with Mackenzie. 


Many of the fairway bunkers at Kingston Heath also suffered from being too close to the tee, where most of the carries were no more than about 150m-160m.  Holes 2, 6 (rhs), 12 (from the original tee), the original bunkers on 13, rhs 17 and the original traps on 18 were all short carries.  Although it appears Mackenzie did not specify bunker distances on his sketch plans, the original layout put down by Vern at KH appears to have faithfully followed McKenzie's bunkering scheme.


At RM, there were considerable revisions and amendments to Mackenzie's layout.  The acquisition of Bumpford's block and the decision to build the East course meant that holes 1 and 2 were moved northwards and 3W was shortened from the holes which MacKenzie laid out.  The 4th tee could then move back making a longer carry over the bunkers built into the crest.  MacKenzie's 6W had no fairway traps and a green which was to be angled to favour an approach from the left.  Holes 10, 11, 17 and 18 were Russell/Morcom holes.  Accordingly, the only fairway traps which MacKenzie included on his sketch plan that are relevant to any argument as to correct bunker positioning are 8W and 12W.


In his course designs, Vern appears to have remained loyal to Mackenzie's bunkering principles employed at KH which, by the mid 30s, were outdated.  By contrast, Russell appears to have had more foresight (perhaps due to his experience as one of the leading amateur golfers) in designing doglegs and placing bunkers which were relevant many years after he laid down his courses.

[Mike_Clayton]

Mike,


I'd argue that the reason that RM got it right has more to do with Russell than anything to do with Mackenzie. 


Many of the fairway bunkers at Kingston Heath also suffered from being too close to the tee, where most of the carries were no more than about 150m-160m.  Holes 2, 6 (rhs), 12 (from the original tee), the original bunkers on 13, rhs 17 and the original traps on 18 were all short carries.  Although it appears Mackenzie did not specify bunker distances on his sketch plans, the original layout put down by Vern at KH appears to have faithfully followed McKenzie's bunkering scheme.


At RM, there were considerable revisions and amendments to Mackenzie's layout.  The acquisition of Bumpford's block and the decision to build the East course meant that holes 1 and 2 were moved northwards and 3W was shortened from the holes which MacKenzie laid out.  The 4th tee could then move back making a longer carry over the bunkers built into the crest.  MacKenzie's 6W had no fairway traps and a green which was to be angled to favour an approach from the left.  Holes 10, 11, 17 and 18 were Russell/Morcom holes.  Accordingly, the only fairway traps which MacKenzie included on his sketch plan that are relevant to any argument as to correct bunker positioning are 8W and 12W.


In his course designs, Vern appears to have remained loyal to Mackenzie's bunkering principles employed at KH which, by the mid 30s, were outdated.  By contrast, Russell appears to have had more foresight (perhaps due to his experience as one of the leading amateur golfers) in designing doglegs and placing bunkers which were relevant many years after he laid down his courses.

Matthew - all of that is true excepting the original carry over the centre-bunkers at 12 was about 230 yards. Graeme Grant moved the bunkers up at 11 (we subsequently moved the far lip a few more yards) and 18 and added bunkers at 2nd and, I think the 4th.
Either way, none of it is relevant to the question of Vern's doglegs and why so few of them were good holes. The 9th at Rosanna was probably the worst hole on a good course in Melbourne and it's a wonder because it was easily fixable as the essay in Toby's book explains.

[Matthew Delahunty]

Re 12 - I hadn't realised the centreline bunkers had been moved back when the tee went back.


The bunkering doesn't explain why Vern couldn't get his doglegs far enough from the tee but my point is that if he used KH as a template, I could understand why he had the design flaw.


The original 13th at Spring Valley is very similar in design to the original 13th at Kingston Heath.  Both play in the same direction.  The dogleg at SV is sharper but the carry over the trio of bunkers was about the same - 160 yards.  By the time Spring Valley was built, the 13th at KH had been changed with the fairway bunkers moved to the left hand side and the green remodelled.  It's surprising that Vern would have then designed the 13th at Spring Valley in a similar way to KH's original 13th when he would have known of the deficiencies in the original hole at Kingston Heath.


KH 13th - 1931:



SV 13th - 1956:

[Mike_Clayton]

Matthew,


Interesting to see Spring Valley 13 pre the trees growing up. It'd have been better then than now but the 16th green looks like it'd come in for some bombing off 13 tee.
16 was one of his absolute worst doglegs - 4 iron, 8 iron with the tee 40 yards forward of where it is now and the 'drain' through the fairway a thick copse of trees.

[Matthew Delahunty]

Agreed re 16.  As a kid playing there in the early 90s, it was a faded three wood flirting with the tall trees on the corner.  If you hit it too straight you were through the corner into the trees on the other side.  The safe play was an iron to the corner and a mid to long iron to the green.


It would be interesting to know Vern's rationale for 13 and 16.  At a guess, I'd imagine it revolved around his siting of the 14th hole which is one of the best long par 3s in the country, but it came at the expense of 13 and 16 which were flawed dogleg holes (although the problems could have been greatly diminished by a shorter 14th, relocating the 13th green further back and towards the 15th fairway and straightening the 16th.)


Original 16th here (bottom right),



Today's hole as improved by you:

[Mike_Clayton]

Agreed re 16.  As a kid playing there in the early 90s, it was a faded three wood flirting with the tall trees on the corner.  If you hit it too straight you were through the corner into the trees on the other side.  The safe play was an iron to the corner and a mid to long iron to the green.


It would be interesting to know Vern's rationale for 13 and 16.  At a guess, I'd imagine it revolved around his siting of the 14th hole which is one of the best long par 3s in the country, but it came at the expense of 13 and 16 which were flawed dogleg holes (although the problems could have been greatly diminished by a shorter 14th, relocating the 13th green further back and towards the 15th fairway and straightening the 16th.)




Original 16th here (bottom right),



Today's hole as improved by you:

You'd do everything you could to avoid building 13 and 16. 12 could have played longer with the green back and right of where it was pre- TW moving it and building the dam.Then 13 could have been a straight, short 4 something like 15 at Victoria.  They could still do that. We did try to move the 13th tee back a bit but it never happened. That would have helped.
16 would have been a decent short 4 with the green on the 17th tee and 17 could have been a really good long 4. But either way, you just don't built those 2 holes. Moving the tees at 2 and 4 made those holes so much better.