News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Brian Walshe

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Is Royal Melbourne the world's least bad course?
« Reply #25 on: February 09, 2004, 08:25:03 PM »
Mike,

I wonder what the R&A would say and do if someone shoots 59 or 60 on a still day at the Old Course.  A seemingly impossible thought 10 years ago but perhaps not too far away these days.

Augusta is an interesting study of how a golf course used for tournament play has been changed almost every year to attempt to keep technology at bay.  RM is the example of what happens if the course remains unchanged in the face of the technical onslaught.

Brian

Chris Kane

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Is Royal Melbourne the world's least bad course?
« Reply #26 on: February 09, 2004, 10:27:30 PM »
Graeme - terrific to have your input here.  For those who don't know, Graeme is perhaps best known for his restoration of Kingston Heath.

Back in the 1960's, what irons were the best players hitting into the par-4's at Royal Melbourne.  This week we saw Els and Scott hitting wedges into the 18th - was it a driver 4-iron hole back in the 60's?

I was bemused by Norman's comment that RM is no longer a top 150 course in the world - right after Ernie Els put it in his top 5!  I guess the most relevant point is that RM still provides adequate challenge for its members - I doubt they need more than 6400m on their Composite course.

The other point worth emphasising is that no matter how low the scoring is at RM, the best players continue to rise to the top.  It does a sterling job of identifying the great champions.

Robert Mercer Deruntz

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Is Royal Melbourne the world's least bad course?
« Reply #27 on: February 10, 2004, 01:57:49 AM »
I think Chris Kane has inadvertantly joined two threads and shown why Norman Courses are usually far from being great. If Norman has declared RM not even among the top 150 courses, then is it any surprise that he created a course in La Quinta best known for its exceptional grass and has methodically de-Dyed Medalist into a so-so course at best!  RM is the most awesome course I have ever played from a purely architectural point of view.  

RichMacafee

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Is Royal Melbourne the world's least bad course?
« Reply #28 on: February 10, 2004, 05:44:07 PM »
The other point worth emphasising is that no matter how low the scoring is at RM, the best players continue to rise to the top.  It does a sterling job of identifying the great champions.
Quote

Chris,

This is so true, and a very important point when referring to tournaments on great courses.

I had a chat to Nick Faldo at the opening of his course at 13th Beach on Monday, and he still loves the course and made the exact point you make, that it still identifies the best players. He was, however, pretty unimpressed with the way the course was set up on Thursday. Thought the pins were too easy and the greens too soft.

Rich.
"The uglier a man's legs are, the better he plays golf. It's almost law" H.G.Wells.

Lester_Bernham

Re:Is Royal Melbourne the world's least bad course?
« Reply #29 on: February 11, 2004, 11:55:28 PM »
Royal Melbourne caught short by technology
By Martin Blake
February 11, 2004

Twenty-six years ago Nick Faldo first set eyes upon Royal Melbourne's famous composite course and all these years later he remembers the shock of it.

"The very first day I got the northerly at 40 (knots)," he said after Sunday's Heineken Classic. "I remember thinking, 'How do you cope?' I just thought it was a brute. We've all learned to drink more water, though."

It goes to show how times can change. Faldo was in his early 20s then and about to tally six major championships. He would become a renowned player in the type of conditions you get at RM - that is, in wind.

As for the course, it has just taken its biggest beating in more than 100 years, with Ernie Els shooting a course-record 60 in the opening round of the Heineken Classic, and Greg Norman describing it as "obsolete" as a championship course.

Faldo these days engages in course design himself, having just opened a new one at 13th Beach called The Creek, but he doesn't necessarily agree with Norman. He thinks the officials from the European tour, which co-sanctioned the Classic with the Australasian tour, got it wrong with the set-up of the course on the first three days.

"I don't know why they waited until Sunday to get it right," he said. "It should have been set up that way from Tuesday so that everyone needed to play it in the style that makes you think about it. I saw it on Sunday, and that was how you picture Royal Melbourne being set up.

"The pins were cut to the limit, the greens were firm, and you could see the true charm of the course. Had they done that on Thursday, even in dead calm, (scoring) 60 was never on."

RM no longer plays as it was intended by the designer, Alister MacKenzie. Fairway bunkers are out of play, and it was evident on many holes last week that with no wind, this was a doddle for the top players. Els hit only four drivers in his round of 60, needing only two irons off the tee to get close enough.

At the longest hole, the par-five ninth, the old challenge of flying the row of bunkers in front of the green and reaching the cut surface in two was no longer there. Players hit driver-wedge into the 18th when, a few years ago, they were hitting middle irons in.

Technology, and in particular the improvements in ball-manufacture, combined with the tendency of the modern professional to work on his strength, have rendered many old courses largely defenceless against the top players. In the case of St Andrews and Royal Melbourne for instance, they need strong winds to make it a contest.

Peter Thomson has said RM realistically is a par 69 nowadays, with its three par-five holes all comfortably reachable in two shots. Technology is one of the major reasons why Thomson's course at Moonah Links is so long - the longest championship course in the world.

Els and Adam Scott both broke the RM tournament scoring record of 17-under at the weekend, but for perspective it is worth remembering that both are at the top of their games, and that only on Sunday did the wind blow with any impact.

And RM would be relieved to know that regardless of the scoring, the composite course brought the cream to the top. Els was the best player in the field, and Scott possibly is the second-best.

What can be done? The authorities - the Royal and Ancient in Scotland and the US Golf Association - have moved at glacial pace on the ball technology, to the point where the players don't believe they will take on the makers.

Disturbingly, Els and Faldo believe it is impractical to turn back. "It's too late. The horse has bolted, he's won the derby, and he's out to stud," said Faldo yesterday.

Seven years ago, RM's general manager, Bill Richardson, went to the R and A with a plea for sanity on technological advances in golf, telling the game's governors that older courses would have more and more difficulty presenting professionals with a challenge. But very little has happened since.

Now, short of compromising Alister MacKenzie's original design, there is nothing that RM, still ranked in the top 10 golf courses in the world, can do.

"It's a fabulous design, but let's face it, it's out of the golden era," said Faldo. "You could tinker with it without using that "L" (length) word. You might put some bunkers in front so that there's a risk and a fear-factor with some of the carries.

"You might put some bumps on the fairways to slow down the drives a little. You need your rough and hard greens to make it hard for players to spin it out of there. But to get it to length for today's players, you'd have to put 1000 yards on it," Faldo added.

Mike_Clayton

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Is Royal Melbourne the world's least bad course?
« Reply #30 on: February 12, 2004, 12:05:33 AM »
It is perhaps worth pointing out Royal Melbourne plays at its shortest during tournament time in Australia - always in the middle of the summer.
It would be interesting to see the reaction if the tournament came back in the middle of winter when there is almost no run on the fairways, the cold winds conspire to make 300 yard drives real feats instead of a commonplace hits and the course plays at least half of Faldo's '1000 yards' longer.
The middle of the winter here is never too bad - kind of like The British Open really !

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Is Royal Melbourne the world's least bad course?
« Reply #31 on: February 12, 2004, 11:42:44 AM »
Quote
"It's a fabulous design, but let's face it, it's out of the golden era," said Faldo. "You could tinker with it without using that "L" (length) word. You might put some bunkers in front so that there's a risk and a fear-factor with some of the carries.

"You might put some bumps on the fairways to slow down the drives a little. You need your rough and hard greens to make it hard for players to spin it out of there. But to get it to length for today's players, you'd have to put 1000 yards on it," Faldo added.

I hope the members of RM don't pay any attention to this. I'd rather see them all shoot 20 under if the alternative is disfiguring the course like Augusta.
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Steve Lapper

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Is Royal Melbourne the world's least bad course?
« Reply #32 on: February 12, 2004, 01:11:47 PM »
I've just spoke to two of my RM member friends and they all remarked about little they, and their brethren, want to see the couse turned into any slave to the pro's or their distance.

This, obviously, is a welcome relief to the trend to react to the pro's length and their propensity for posting sub-par rounds.....something we all could learn a little from our friend's down-under.
The conventional view serves to protect us from the painful job of thinking."--John Kenneth Galbraith

Jimmy Muratt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Is Royal Melbourne the world's least bad course?
« Reply #33 on: February 12, 2004, 01:52:01 PM »
Slapper,

That is definitely good to hear the thoughts from the Royal Melbourne members.  They're smart enough to realize that there is absolutely nothing wrong with their golf course.  Let's see the USGA regulate the golf ball rather than have all of our classic golf courses redesigned.

I've been reading Geoff Shackelford's new book a lot lately, and he goes into great detail regarding the golf ball.  His book should become manual reading for the USGA, PGA of America, and R&A.

harley_kruse

Re:Is Royal Melbourne the world's least bad course?
« Reply #34 on: February 12, 2004, 07:04:48 PM »
Quote:

""Disturbingly, Els and Faldo believe it is impractical to turn back. "It's too late. The horse has bolted, he's won the derby, and he's out to stud," said Faldo yesterday.""

I dont get this comment at all. It is so easy to wind back technology with the golf ball......

Formula One motor racing checks technolgy all the time to make the sport safe, exciting, and relavant.  Here is a controlling body who are constantly pro-active in hearding the cats and technology in a clear direction.    Surely the R&A, PGA can get off their butts and do the same withTitliest Maxfli and co

Ran
And finally coming back to your original topic “least bad”.  It could be argued  that the Old Course which is effectively the origanl 18 hole blueprint from which the game and all other courses are based on would have to be the least bad.  

There is no doubt however that the ingredients and pedigree of RM Composite make for very few if any flaws.  In 80 years there has only been the careful hands of  3 superintendents. The first 40 years saw on green keeper in Claude Crockford nurturing  and setting RM's  courses to what they are.  Imagine that today, building a course and then having a superintendent with a full understanding of turf and environs to  nurture it for 40years.....

The only  minor blemish that comes to mind on RM composite  is the amatuerish mounding and bunkering added to the left of hole 12W sometime in the 70’s I think. The shapes and bunkers here are so out of character with the rest of the course. I think there are moves afoot to do something about this area if not already done.     Is it a flaw that RMs layout didn't allow  enough room for future lengthening?  Probably not.  No one could have wildly  imagined on the Sandbelt in 1920’s  that drives would be 300yards plus in 2004.

Matthew Delahunty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Is Royal Melbourne the world's least bad course?
« Reply #35 on: February 13, 2004, 09:11:00 AM »
Fellow Aussies,

Just a question I get asked by golf buddies but can not accurately answer;

Does any of Sandringham's back nine resemble fairly any original holes from the club? Whilst I have been able to slap down any insistance that Russell and Mack stuff is there, I haven't been able to further note what bits remain from the pre Mackenzie design.

Tony,

I was interested in this question so I thought I'd do a bit of research. I found the RM centenary history in the local library. I'm going on memory of what I read 6 hours ago but I hope this is correct.

The answer to your question is that no part of the Sandringham municipal golf links as it currently exists was ever part of the original RM course.

Royal Melbourne GC originally owned land which can was in four "blocks" - (a) that consisting of most of what is now the main paddock, (b) what is now the northwest paddock which features holes 13 to 16 of the West course, (c) land immediately to the northwest of this which would today be bordered by Fern Rd, Bluff Road, and Spring St, and (d) land further to the northwest bordered by Bluff Road, Royal Avenue, Victoria Street and Fernhill Road. The original clubhouse was situated near the corner of Fernhill Road and Victoria Street. The first three holes played in a southeasterly direction before getting to the fourth which plays over the same land as the current 15W.

Blocks (a) and (b) were sold off when housing encroached and the club decided to buy up more land to the south east and move its base to the main paddock.

Sandringham Golf Links did not exist on the present site until after WWII. The original course was in the area to the west of its present site and bordering on Bluff Road. The Sandringham Council actually looked at compulsorily acquiring RM's northwest paddock for its new public course, which led RM to acquire the land to the immediate north of 18 East in the event that it needed to build extra holes.

A 1936(?) aerial of Royal Melbourne shows vacant paddocks to the north on the site which now accomodates Sandringham's layout. That aerial shot shows the old green at 12W which was subsequently lengthened by about 40m to turn it into a par 5 (still a par 4 in pro events) as well as some other interesting bits and pieces.
« Last Edit: February 13, 2004, 09:19:22 AM by Dela »

scratch

Re:Is Royal Melbourne the world's least bad course?
« Reply #36 on: February 25, 2004, 01:57:58 AM »
For those complaining about the flies at RM..........


AEROGUARD!!!!!!!!!!!!!

$5.50 at the supermarket!!!!!!

11 on the Doak scale - I think so!!!!!

Paul_Daley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Is Royal Melbourne the world's least bad course?
« Reply #37 on: February 25, 2004, 06:24:08 AM »
Lyn Shack: you've made an astute observation. The 1st West when played as the 17th on the RM Composite Course just does not work.

jonathan_becker

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is Royal Melbourne the world's least bad course?
« Reply #38 on: December 29, 2012, 05:33:09 PM »
Apart from Cypress and NGLA, I can think of something bad to say about every course, from the importation of sand/cleaning of bunker edges/now regular raking/overabundance of 1000s of trees at Pine Valley to a single blemish like the overbuilt 4th tee at Oakmont.

Still, having watched Royal Melbourne on TV for several days now and thinking back on numerous rounds there, I just can't help but think that this is a perfect course (or least bad as Colt might put it).

Brilliant playing surfaces, completely natural, highly strategic, dramatically changing day to day in the wind and according to hole locations, fun for all, as many world class holes as any course can rightfully have - what more can you want ???

It makes the maintenance practices at Augusta National look down right stupid and its bunkers are true art forms, much more so than those at a first class courses like Shinnecock Hills or Priaire Dunes.

What is the worst thing you can say about RM? Lack of distance for the top 1% of 1% of players? While that is true, so what? The same is true for every other course normally considered in the world top dozen or so.

RM - be it the Composite course or the West Course - seems flawless. Doak needs to add an 11 to his scale - and I know three candidates for it.

Cheers,

I was looking for a few things in the search engine this afternoon and I came across this thread.  It's almost been nine years since the original post. What say you?  Any new opinions?

Jonathan Mallard

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is Royal Melbourne the world's least bad course?
« Reply #39 on: December 29, 2012, 05:51:11 PM »

I was looking for a few things in the search engine this afternoon and I came across this thread.  It's almost been nine years since the original post. What say you?  Any new opinions?

I've said elsewhere that I would find the first major more interesting if it was here the first full week in April and called it the Alister MacKenzie Memorial Invitational.

Mike_Clayton

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is Royal Melbourne the world's least bad course?
« Reply #40 on: December 29, 2012, 06:27:46 PM »
Geoff Ogilvy and I played the West in July (mid-winter) this year with a wooden driver and 1998 Tour Balata 100. It played really well for him - driver 2 iron into 2w when six months prior in the Presidents Cup it was driver 9 iron and driver 6 iron into 6 (drive wedge in PC) - and was both more fun and interesting.

I played this week and in summer with the modern ball it's just short for the best players - still great but MacKenzie would be shocked at how it plays. It still plays quite differently from winter to summer.

Mark Bourgeois

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is Royal Melbourne the world's least bad course?
« Reply #41 on: December 29, 2012, 07:09:49 PM »
It's funny, Ran writing Doak needed an 11 for his scale. A few years back Doak I believe called the Composite "slightly better" than a perfect 10.

It's also funny, Mike C, how the "failings" of the course just melt away with the change of one club and a different ball. So simple, really...

Jonathan, I guess there's still the Hawtree work to undo? The ti trees could be cut back in paces?

RMW 14 is a little weak? Maybe the 11th and 12th are a little too similar? There's not much.

On the Composite I used to think RME 3 was a little weak but I don't think that any more. I've heard some say RME 2 is the weak link but not me. I like that hole a lot. And the "meeting place" up around that green is really cool.

I dare you to take on the West with persimmon. I dare you.
Charlotte. Daniel. Olivia. Josephine. Ana. Dylan. Madeleine. Catherine. Chase. Jesse. James. Grace. Emilie. Jack. Noah. Caroline. Jessica. Benjamin. Avielle. Allison.

Mike_Clayton

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is Royal Melbourne the world's least bad course?
« Reply #42 on: December 29, 2012, 09:44:45 PM »
Mark

It's disappointing when one of the best players in the world walks off and says 'how much more fun was that'

Clubs the world over obsess/worry about their relevance to good players and it can so easily be solved with a proper ball that respects the great architects intent.

Mark Bourgeois

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is Royal Melbourne the world's least bad course?
« Reply #43 on: December 29, 2012, 10:22:00 PM »
Mike

And it would reskill the pro game. It would make it so much more fun and interesting to watch. The shot of the year was Bubba's megaslice at Augusta; the golfing public loved that. More shotmaking, please.
Charlotte. Daniel. Olivia. Josephine. Ana. Dylan. Madeleine. Catherine. Chase. Jesse. James. Grace. Emilie. Jack. Noah. Caroline. Jessica. Benjamin. Avielle. Allison.

Greg Holland

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is Royal Melbourne the world's least bad course?
« Reply #44 on: December 30, 2012, 09:57:39 AM »
Geoff Ogilvy and I played the West in July (mid-winter) this year with a wooden driver and 1998 Tour Balata 100. It played really well for him - driver 2 iron into 2w when six months prior in the Presidents Cup it was driver 9 iron and driver 6 iron into 6 (drive wedge in PC) - and was both more fun and interesting.

I watched the Shell's Wonderful World of Golf match at Pine Valley from the early 60s last night.  I believe Byron Nelson and Gene Littler hit Driver, 3 wood, 6 iron on the par 5 15th hole (playing at 603 yards).  I believe they both hit 4 irons into 16 on 2d shot, and had driver, 8 iron on 17 (344 yards).

When the top players hit their drives 235-250 yards back then, how far did a 12 hdcp golfer drive the ball?

Chip Gaskins

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is Royal Melbourne the world's least bad course?
« Reply #45 on: December 30, 2012, 10:26:02 AM »
I haven't played Dornoch or Seminole, but Royal Melbourne is the best course I have every played.  West or Composite, both are simply brilliant.

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is Royal Melbourne the world's least bad course?
« Reply #46 on: December 30, 2012, 12:14:00 PM »
Can someone explain to me how a composite course can be discussed as though it were a single course? Especially considering the apparent re-routing of the manufactured composite...it simply doesn't hold water to me.

This isn't a knock at Royal Melbourne because plenty of people list the West as their favorite in the world so i assume it's one of the few very top...more a question of the critics.

Michael Blake

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is Royal Melbourne the world's least bad course?
« Reply #47 on: December 30, 2012, 12:22:18 PM »
Can someone explain to me how a composite course can be discussed as though it were a single course? Especially considering the apparent re-routing of the manufactured composite...it simply doesn't hold water to me.

Thanks for this post Jim.
I don't quite understand it either.

Ken Moum

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is Royal Melbourne the world's least bad course?
« Reply #48 on: December 30, 2012, 01:19:28 PM »
Geoff Ogilvy and I played the West in July (mid-winter) this year with a wooden driver and 1998 Tour Balata 100. It played really well for him - driver 2 iron into 2w when six months prior in the Presidents Cup it was driver 9 iron and driver 6 iron into 6 (drive wedge in PC) - and was both more fun and interesting.

I watched the Shell's Wonderful World of Golf match at Pine Valley from the early 60s last night.  I believe Byron Nelson and Gene Littler hit Driver, 3 wood, 6 iron on the par 5 15th hole (playing at 603 yards).  I believe they both hit 4 irons into 16 on 2d shot, and had driver, 8 iron on 17 (344 yards).
When the top players hit their drives 235-250 yards back then, how far did a 12 hdcp golfer drive the ball?

As a 12 with persimmon in the 70s, and currently a 12 at age 65, I would say that back then I was no more than 30 yards shorter than the best players I knew. And some of my friends were able to almost hang with them for distance, but were still 10-12 handicaps.

Now, I know guys who are nearly 100 yards longer than me, and the pros are all 80 yards longer than me.

The difference, IMHO, is that with balata, the ball was enough harder to control that no one could score trying to hit it maximum distance. Nicklaus always had the ability to hit it 300 yards, but rarely used it.

Today, guys like Gary Woodland are using much more of their potential power, thanks to a ball/club combo that is WAY easier to hit straight.

I watched Woodland matters, and even played club match against him when he was 15. He virtually never played with old-tech balls...at 15 he was hitting the Maxfli Revolution.

K
Over time, the guy in the ideal position derives an advantage, and delivering him further  advantage is not worth making the rest of the players suffer at the expense of fun, variety, and ultimately cost -- Jeff Warne, 12-08-2010

David_Elvins

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is Royal Melbourne the world's least bad course?
« Reply #49 on: December 30, 2012, 01:40:51 PM »
Can someone explain to me how a composite course can be discussed as though it were a single course? Especially considering the apparent re-routing of the manufactured composite...it simply doesn't hold water to me.

This isn't a knock at Royal Melbourne because plenty of people list the West as their favorite in the world so i assume it's one of the few very top...more a question of the critics.

It's a collection of  18 golf holes that people that people play as a round of golf. So surely that is a course? 

There are less access issues with playing the composite course than playing several top American courses.
Ask not what GolfClubAtlas can do for you; ask what you can do for GolfClubAtlas.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back