[Kevin Pallier]

Kevin,

Thanks, glad you liked it.  No doubt you saw quite a few beauties last year?

Mark

Yes I was fortunate to see a lot of very good short P4’s throughout the US last year. I’d suggest some you mention here are as good as any over there. Off hand - I struggle to think of a truly great course that doesn’t have a least one very good short P4.

You must have played them all?  What are your two or three favourites?

Indeed - I have played all those you’ve listed. As far as my favourites: KH 3 / C’Wealth 17 / Woodlands 4 spring to mind.

[Mark_F]

Mark,

I think you picked an excellent set of holes to discuss.

Do you like the 3rd at Woodlands?

Would the original 1st at Commonwealth have made your list?

There are so many good short fours in Australia. It seems to be something that Australian golf has over all other lands.

Thank you Ian. I hope you gleaned lots of inspiration from your trip last year.

I really like the 3rd at Woodlands - and I would have been able to get a better image of it than the 4th - but I had to draw the line somewhere, and it is too hard to pass up Woodlands 4, especially as Mike copies it so much. 

Alas, I never saw the old 1st at Commonwealth - nor the old 15th at RM East - but the pictures and descriptions I have seen and read on both of them saw something really special and interesting lost.  I would have loved the opportunity to photograph and write about either. They may have been the best two of all.

Indeed - I have played all those you’ve listed. As far as my favourites: KH 3 / C’Wealth 17 / Woodlands 4 spring to mind.

Aside from the first one mentioned, we aren't that far apart Kevin.

[Scott Warren]

Warwick Loton:

one thing that dawned on me was just how many Sandbelt courses open with a short par-4

Which reminds me that NSW, Royal Sydney and Concord also do. The Lakes' opener isn't much more than a short four from the middle tees either.

[Shane Gurnett]

Mark, in assessing these holes, how much importance do you place upon the ability of (perhaps the better) golfer being tempted into trying to drive the green (and the risk reward consequences that come with it) in evaluating the overall quality of the hole?

[Mark_F]

Mark, in assessing these holes, how much importance do you place upon the ability of (perhaps the better) golfer being tempted into trying to drive the green (and the risk reward consequences that come with it) in evaluating the overall quality of the hole?

Shane,

Not that much. 

I am more interested in the subtle qualities rather than the more overt, like the slightly crowned and sloping nature of the fairway landing zone, or the temptation to try and cut the corner, on Commonwealth's 17th hole.  I rate it the best short four in Melbourne, and notwithstanding the impressive feat of Brett Morrissy's mate,  it isn't really driveable, is it? 

A few months ago I played a couple of rounds at KH and Commo with three friends - two of them drove the 9th at Kingston Heath, and the other was twenty yards short.  None of them tried it at Commonwealth.  All three have also driven Peninsula North 8, but only one tried it on South 7.

The indirect nature of the penalty for a misplaced drive on RM West 3 or Woodlands 4 also appeals more to me, as does the clever depth perception nature of the approaches into Woodlands 7 or RM East 5, or the vexatious conundrum presented by the fallaway greens at RM West 3 and East 5.

[Warwick Loton]

I was awestruck by the swale in front of the 3rd at Royal Melbourne and that hole has stuck with me longer than any other hole on the course.

Ian,

The weird thing about the 3rd is that it used to be much better than it is now.  
Its fairway is quite wide, but used to be about 50% wider. All of the extra width was on the right.
In addition, a diagonal sand hazard covered the right half of the fairway: the further right you drove, the further you had to hit to clear the sand.
If you succeeded in smashing a long drive down the right side of the fairway, you opened up the green and had the option of hitting a running approach shot through the swale (ie you could approach from an angle perpendicular to the swale).
Today that option doesn't exist, and the swale only serves to deflect/capture imperfectly struck approach shots.

[David_Elvins]

A few months ago I played a couple of rounds at KH and Commo with three friends - two of them drove the 9th at Kingston Heath, and the other was twenty yards short. 

oh oh.  can of worms. 

[Mark_F]

A few months ago I played a couple of rounds at KH and Commo with three friends - two of them drove the 9th at Kingston Heath, and the other was twenty yards short. 

oh oh.  can of worms. 

I don't know why, David.  All three are MUCH better players than the ones advocating it couldn't or shouldn't be done. Clearly, ability has a lot to do with it.

The weird thing about the 3rd is that it used to be much better than it is now. 
Its fairway is quite wide, but used to be about 50% wider. All of the extra width was on the right.
In addition, a diagonal sand hazard covered the right half of the fairway: the further right you drove, the further you had to hit to clear the sand.
If you succeeded in smashing a long drive down the right side of the fairway, you opened up the green and had the option of hitting a running approach shot through the swale (ie you could approach from an angle perpendicular to the swale).
Today that option doesn't exist, and the swale only serves to deflect/capture imperfectly struck approach shots.

When did the hole exist like that, Warwick?

And thanks for your insights in RM.  They are a treasure.

[David_Elvins]

I don't know why, David.  All three are MUCH better players than the ones advocating it couldn't or shouldn't be done. Clearly, ability has a lot to do with it.

The 140 odd players in last years Australian Open? 

[Warwick Loton]

The weird thing about the 3rd is that it used to be much better than it is now.  
Its fairway is quite wide, but used to be about 50% wider. All of the extra width was on the right.
In addition, a diagonal sand hazard covered the right half of the fairway: the further right you drove, the further you had to hit to clear the sand.
If you succeeded in smashing a long drive down the right side of the fairway, you opened up the green and had the option of hitting a running approach shot through the swale (ie you could approach from an angle perpendicular to the swale).
Today that option doesn't exist, and the swale only serves to deflect/capture imperfectly struck approach shots.

When did the hole exist like that, Warwick?

And thanks for your insights in RM.  They are a treasure.
[/quote]

Mark,

Feedback appreciated.

The 3rd (West) was originally constructed the way I've described. Not sure exactly when it changed. In general, a lot of teatree encroachment occurred during WWII, when the grounds staff was heavily cut back (as occurred across the Sandbelt) but both the fairway & fairway bunkers of the 3rd were still intact after WWII. It probably happened during the 1950s; unsure whether it was a deliberate change or whether it just happened gradually.

The design of the hole post-dates MacKenzie's visit. The pre-construction plans show the 3rd as a long par-4, playing in roughly the same direction as the current hole, and playing from roughly the same teeing area. When extra land was acquired and the decision was made to build a second championship course, the proposed 3rd hole was shortened to make room for the fairway of 17 East. The shortened hole plays over the undulations of the land substantially as Mac had planned, but it's unclear the extent to which the green complex had to be varied from what MacKenzie had envisioned (ie to make it work as a shorter hole). To my mind, the green complex certainly has the feeling of being touched by Russell's hand.

Another planned hole that was altered in response to the decision to go ahead with the East course was the par-3 4th of the East. Originally this was to play as the 4th hole of a 9-hole second course (this course was planned by MacKenzie at the same time he designed the West). To make it part of the East, this hole had to be reduced from a short par-4 into a par-3. I mention this because it might have been another cracker of a short par-4. It would have played up the hill like the current 3rd, but would have extended further up the rise. It would have been 20yds shorter than 10-West, but with its elevated green I suspect it would have played to a similar length for those attempting to drive the green. It appears on the plans that it would have been a hole with strong similarities to 10-West - a driveable, short dogleg left, played over feature bunkers, and offering players the options of going for the green; laying up with driver/3w at the same elevation as the hole; laying up with an iron to a point well below the hole etc.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()