[Chris Kane]

Dela,
Interesting question.  At the moment I have no idea - hopefully we'll be able to dig up some old photos to provide the answer.  I'll go on record now however, to say that I prefer the splashed-sand face look rather than the grassed faces evident in the 1980's photo.

What the photos show is that bunkers in particular go through phases, whether it be through a process of evolution or at the hands of committees/greenskeepers who prefer a particular style.  Royal Melbourne is a case in point - there have been subtle changes over the years, while maintaining the central theme of the bunkering there.  

[Brian Walshe]

Shane,

I understand that a bunker on 6 has been altered as well, is anymore work planned?

Brian

[Shane Gurnett]

Brian, yes there is work going on on the 6th hole where a completely irrelevant bunker in terms of the strategy of the hole is being prettied up, if you could call it that. Again, it doesn't look anything like the rest of the bunkers either on that hole or on the rest of the course (except for maybe the new one on the 14th)

As for future works, no one apart from those in the inner sanctum of the committee really knows. As I have indicated before there is no master plan therefore the scope and scale of future work is unknown to the broader membership.

The works to date have been based around the "Course Values Statement", which is a loose set of guidelines which describes "the course, its features and management", and "is to guide the Committee in its planning, enhancement and managment of the golf course". It doesn't go into the specific features of any individual holes or what makes them special or worth saving.

Shane

[James_Livingston]

I wouldn't have thought it possible, but those earlier pictures of the 9th at Kingswood is actually the best of his work there.  His efforts on 4,6 & 7 is just jaw droppingly bad.  It is fair to say I have never seen anything quite like them.  The new bunkering is so over the top it would look out of place in a theme park, and is thoroughly inappropriate for a 66 year old sandbelt layout.  In contrast to the surreal and overdone bunkering, the green contours are relatively benign and uninteresting.  Has anyone got any photos of these holes they can post?

It is obvious that the decision makers at Commonwealth never took the 15 minutes to drive down and have a look, because if they had there is simply no way anyone in their right mind could conclude based on this work that Mr Cashmore is the best man to be entrusted with the job of restoring Commonwealth to its former glory.  It is simply a gross dereliction of duty, especially as he is building in the same style at CGC.  If they continue to progress in the current direction, it will just become another totally ruined mish mash and the best outcome will be a land swap with Lloyd Williams for Capital.

Also of some interest on the Kingswood website was this potted history of the course "Leading golf course architects of the day M.A. & V. Morcom designed a golf course that was then the second longest course in Australia at 6,707 yards. A number of changes have taken place over the ensuing years with architectural "contributions" made by Thompson and Wolveridge, Grant and Spencer, Kevin Hartley, E & G Parslow, and most recently, 4 magnificent new holes designed by Tony Cashmore. Three of the new holes are now in play, and the fourth will come into play late in 2002."  Looks like they've had just about everyone through there.

[sandbelter]

I've just finished re-reading all of the posts on this thread, and I still cannot understand the rationale behind what has happended at Commonwealth.

So to sum up:

1. Prior to an unfortunate program of ongoing redesign works, the course was ranked in the top half dozen or so courses in Australia 20 years ago (and top 100 in the world) and is now languishing in the mid 20's at best. Conditioning doesn't appear to be the reason why the course has slipped.
2. The committee appointed an architect who was unproven on the sandbelt and is responsible for some very questionable work at Kingswood.
3. Its not clear whether or not the Commonwealth committee actually did their homework and looked at Cashmore's past efforts before giving him the job.
4. Cashmore is redesigning bunkers at Commonwealth at will without any master plan and the results look nothing like the other original bunkers on the course.
5. There has been no consideration to restoring the original bunkering at Commonwealth which made it a classic golden era course. Instead, the committee (and presumably the architect) believes the way forward is by further redesign.

Am I missing something here, or is this the classic recipe for disaster and sending the course into irretrievable oblivion?

[Chris Kane]

The new bunker on the 6th hole, located on the left hand side of the fairway around 300m from the tee (replacing a small bunker that was there previously).

[Brian Walshe]

There are a lot things at Commonwealth that need fixing, all of which are more important than that bunker on 6.  Perhaps the thought process is to mangle all the holes so that the 1st and 7th don't stand out???

[NicP]

This is the description of the 1st on the CGC website:

A widely acclaimed classic starting hole. It is seen to preview perfectly the style, quality and beauty of the course, and at only 303m it provides a comfortable start to the round. Its key strategic feature is the decision required for the first shot of the day. Whether it be short and safe, or to fly as much sand as possible for the simpler approach. From the Clubhouse at days end, enjoy the view of perhaps Melbourne's finest golfing landscape, and either confirm or revise your earlier tee shot decision.


I think the words "widely acclaimed" may be used with a touch of poetic liscence. What is really scary is that the powers that be actually think that this stuff is good......

There is no "blurb" for the 7th...... maybe their trying to dream up the next colourful description for their handy work.

[Shane Gurnett]

Brian, the photo's that Chris has put of that new bunker work on 6 is without doubt the greatest waste of time, money and resources we have seen down there yet. Completely pointless in every respect and again poor quality work which is not consistent with the original bunkers on the course.

That bunker is unreachable (320 metres uphill) from the back tees and is on the wrong side of the fairway given the way the green is sited. Worse, the hole now has enhanced fairway bunkering on BOTH sides, unlike any other holes at Commonwealth, except for 12 and 1 both of which are butchered jobs anyway? Just totally bizzare stuff which demonstrates once again the total lack of understanding and appreciation of the original design.

The club promotes the course as being Mackenzie influenced, despite the great man never setting foot on the property, and to my knowledge Mackenzie didn't do a whole lot of "both sides of the fairway" bunkering in his plans on the other sandbelt courses.

Charles Lane clearly understood the Mackenzie principles and implemented with such success, unlike the others who have been allowed to mess with the course since then. Its a pity these simple, yet effective design philosophies cannot be comprehended clearly by those making the decisions.

[James_Livingston]

Cameron
You have summed it up very well, with the exception of point 2.  There is no question about the work at Kingswood, it is terrible.  Although it is possible that I have been unfair on Mr Cashmore.  It is conceiveable his instructions were to create the most surreal, garish and overdone bunkering in the country.  If this is case, then his work is a roaring success, and I unreservedly apologise.

There is also no doubt that conditioning could explain part of its fall from grace.  It is without doubt the worst conditioned sandbelt course, with both poor fairways and bumpy poa infested greens.  These problems make it even more extraordinary that they have embarked on a ruinous and pointless bunker destruction program when they have such basic problems demanding attention.

From the Clubhouse at days end, enjoy the view of perhaps Melbourne's finest golfing landscape, and either confirm or revise your earlier tee shot decision.  What is really scary is that the powers that be actually think that this stuff is good......

Nic, spot on, it is scary that they think it is good.  When I've sat in the clubhouse at days end, I've always noticed a plethora of ugly scrub in the way of what ought to be great vista across the course, down the 8th and across the 2nd.  My attention is always drawn to the horrible, low hanging scrubby tree between the clubhouse and the 18th green, replete with long grass growing up through the branches.  It looks terrible, and it is constantly repeated around the course.  I'm fairly certain Charles Lane would be mortified to see low hanging trees with long rough underneath intruding on the lines of play, a la the shot from in front of the right hand greenside trap on 2, which ought to be a scary and challenging pitch, but is instead a chip out, IF you manage to find your ball.

[Shane Gurnett]

James

I think your assessment of course conditioning is a little harsh.

After many years of average playing conditions, which I might add doesn't phase me one bit, the club has taken the decison to progressively regrass the fairways with Legend Couch which is a postive step and we hope will be successful. In the winter months there will be poa in the fairways as well, so there will be an ongoign two grass policy, ala Royal Melbourne. The greens for the most part have been quite good most of the year, the diffuclty this time of year is that the poa goes to seed and you do get a few bumpy rides. A small price to pay.

The other option would be to follow Yarra, Metro, Huntingdale and Vic etc and go all santa anna couch. I think the club made the right decision in relations to the grass choices, but it really needs a lot more trees, scrub and undergrowth taken out to give it a fighting chance.

[Matthew Delahunty]

I played at Commonwealth a month back and thought the course was in pretty good condition. Sure, the fairways were still poa and there's going to be a transition period around this time of year when they're not going to be good. I had no problem with the greens. There aren't too many places in Melbourne at the moment which don't have an infestation of poa. I know we've got a few problems with the surfaces at our club. I played at Victoria last week and there was a lot more poa there than the last time I played. And I was at Royal Melbourne earlier in the week and there's even a few poa spots sneaking into their beautiful new Sutton's mix.

[James_Livingston]

Shane
My comment about conditioning was made in the context of its fall down the rankings.  I've met a lot of people who have been disappointed with the condition of the course in the past few years.  The comment was not favourable amongst the players at last years Port Phillip.  On the selection of Legend over Santa Ana, well hopefully the experts are right and it grows better in the shade.  I'd love to have a discussion about fairway grass choices, but these issues would be better discussed in another thread.

It gets to the heart of where the priorities should lie.  It would seem obvious to anyone who has done the merest hint of research that a rapid tree removal program would be the fastest way both improve the quality of the turf and restore much of the strategy lost over the years, delivering fast and easy improvements.  These are decisions largely out of the hands of the superintendent.  The poor condition would further be explained if it is true that the grounds staff are responsible for building the bunkers for Cashmore.  The diversion of attention to such pointless tasks would hardly help if this is the case.  If only someone could take the board members to Kingswood.  

[Chris Kane]

James L,
I object to your blanket assertion that Commonwealth has "poor fairways".  Anyone who spends time on the sandbelt would know that Commonwealth has superior fairways during the winter months, when the winter grass (poa annua) provides superb coverage.  When compared to the "white" appearance of Victoria, Yarra and others, the two-grass policy is clearly the way to go - CGC and RMGC (which has a similar policy) are the only courses which look good throughout the year.

Sparse, divot-infested santa ana will never compare to lush winter grass during the cooler months.  

It is true that Commonwealth has suffered condition-wise during the summer, but I have faith that the legend couch program will pay dividends in time.  Continued tree removal will only enhance its success.

[RJ_Daley]

I find it interesting that so far none of the contributing architects to GolfClubAtlas have weighed in on the bunker construction techniques and results of Mr. Cashmore.  Is that just professional courtesy or do they feel that to commit to definitive statements that they could restore the look is so interpretive and technique dependent, and maintenance meld dependent, that they wouldn't want to be stood up by saying definitively that it could be done or they would undertake it?  

Who has built or restored some of the best of the sand belt bunkers faithfully?  And, do they rely on the superintendents to faithfully maintain them as prescribed?  I was particularly interested in the transition from the grass faced bunker to the spaded sharp edged style in pictures above.  I had mentioned on another thread that I heard that a number of the Australian courses do not keep the sharp edges all year, and only cut them and sand flash-rake them up during tournament season.  Is that correct?  

Tommy's description of the potato chip style seen predominently at Kingswood is so well characterized, (although I wonder if he needs to substitute the dip for vegimite)  Isn't that a matter that seems to be an interpretive exageration by Mr. Cashmore.  Perhaps in his mind, he thinks he is constructing the quintessential essence of the Australian style, when infact he is by most folks account building a grotesque exagerations.  I don't think anyone gets to build the real artistry of Capt George Thomas, nor the artistic tongues and bays we see in the sandbelt unless it is done by hand as one described the architect above, shirtless and sweating it out with the Tennessee backhoe.  Aren't the styling misdeeds that were done to Marion and Riviera by Fazio to a large extent construction technique driven by use of machinery?  Modern machinery is probably just never going to permit the constructor the right control.

[Matthew Delahunty]

RJ,

The sand flashed faces and sharp edges are usually kept all year, not just sharpened in tournaments (although there is generally some manicure work done when the courses have to be presented).

I'm partially in agreement with you on the modern construction of bunkers. I'm not sure whether it's due to the machinery, or the amount of time and care spent on construction or just because they're new and need time to settle but I do think that you can usually tell the difference between old and new bunkers on the sandbelt courses. Some architects/superintendants do a better job than others. I tend to think the best jobs are done when a bit of time and labour is spent in building the bunker rather than someone jumping in an earthmover and getting the job done in a few hours.

[Chris Kane]

RJ,
There has been some terrific "sandbelt" bunkering created with machinery - one only has to venture to Victoria, Peninsula, Ranfurlie or Thirteenth Beach to see it.  I'd argue that a good result is dependant on labour and an understanding of the style, rather than the equipment used.  It is still possible to build great-looking bunkers if machine operators of uncommon skill are used.

Don't substitute vegemite for the potato dip - I can't think of anything worse  

[James_Livingston]

I don't think the method of construction limits the ability to create sandbelt bunkering.  What was constructed in the 1920s in most cases probably bears little resemblance to what is there now, as the bunkering and upkeep has changed and evolved over the years.  This can be seen in the earlier photos of CGC with the grass faces, and at Royal Melbourne, where the style of presentation changed in the late 70s with Claude Crockford's replacement.  And as Chris points out, plenty of good sandbelt style bunkering has been built in recent years, most of it done by the Grant's, who learnt their craft under Crockford.  So RJ, I don't think we can blame modern equipment for those "grotesque exagerations".

Some evidence of recent work can be found at Claytongolf.com.au .  Of interest is the 19th hole at Kingston Heath, just look under project updates, where the sympathetic style with the rest of the course is clearly evident despite the fact the work isn't even complete at that stage.  And I'm pretty sure they didn't drag out the horse and scoop to build them.  I'm also looking forward to seeing the new 2nd on Peninsula North, which looks greatly improved in the photos.  The contrast with Commonwealth is stark, and there could be little doubt in the minds of sensibly minded folk which club has taken the best approach.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()