Golf Australia: 25 Best Courses 2002

[Chris Kane]

The January issue of Golf Australia contains the latest Australian course rankings, from a panel of nine including Mike Clayton and Paul Daley, both contributors to this DG.  Other panellists were Ian Baker-Finch, Jack Newton, Warren Smith, Tom Ramsay, Craig Parry, and the magazine editors.

Following each course I have listed its ranking in 1992, which makes for interesting reading.  (*) denotes that the course was not built in 1992. (-) denotes a course not present in the 1992 top 25

1. Royal Melbourne West (1)
2. Kingston Heath (2)
3. Royal Adelaide (3)
4. Metropolitan (12)
5. Royal Melbourne East (4)
6. New South Wales (6)
7. Victoria (9)
8. The Australian (5)
9. Royal Sydney (16)
10. The National Moonah (*)
11. Kooyonga (7)
12. The Lakes (14)
13. Newcastle (-)
14. The Glades (*)
15. Yarra Yarra (17)
16. The Vines (15)
17. Kennedy Bay (*)
18. Royal Canberra (
19. Woodlands (-)
20. Laguna Quays (-)
t21. Lake Karrinyup (13)
t21. Thirteenth Beach (*)
t21. The Dunes (*)
t21. Commonwealth (10)
25. Portsea (-)

Whether or not you agree with the notion of ranking courses, is this list close to the mark?  What can be noted about clubs who have risen or fallen in the last decade?  In the case of a course such as Woodlands, has it really improved in the last decade, or are people looking for different things nowadays?

Mike Clayton and Paul Daley: your rankings were spot on!  More than could be said for some of the pannelists, who I won't name here.  Needless to say, I thought that some of the lists were interesting...!  

[Richard Chamberlain]

Interesting to note Kennedy Bay @ 17.

I walked some of the site around 18 months ago, and I reckon I lost half a dozen balls just doing that.

I actually got hold of some pretty good photos of the course, in particular its bunkering. I have the images scanned in jpeg format but need help in posting them.

If someone could assist, I can email you these pictures to get them up.

[Shane Gurnett]

Chris

We could type/chat about this topic for days. All I'll say is this:

- vested interests abound on the top 25 (IBF, Newton, Ramsay)

- the novelty of some past newcomers (National Old, Hope Island ) has quickly faded, so I'll be interested to see how Moonah National, Glades, Kennedy Bay, 13th Beach hold up over time.

- Conditioning seems to be more highly regarded than routing/ quality of design.

- the sandbelt will always reign supreme and stand the test of time (where others will surely fail)

- Claytons list for mine is the most accurate reflection of the "best 25".

[Brian Walshe]

Yep, this could go on for a while  

Shane makes a pretty good point about vested interests in a couple of places.  I was also surprised that a couple of the raters obviously haven't played all the courses.  Perhaps Paul or Mike might be able to explain how the overall results were balanced out to account for that.

Other than a suspicion that aside from New South Wales a couple of the Sydney clubs get rated a little higher than they perhaps deserve (perhaps I'm just allergic to kikuyu  ) it's about what you'd expect.  Top 6 pick themselves, the best of the new courses get a go and everyone can argue over how the last 19 get positioned.

One thing I'd be really interested to know and that's what Paul Daley see's in the Ocean Course that he rates it higher than the Moonah.

One other thing, 13th Beach and Moonah Links opened on the same day and only one made it into the Top 25.  It'll be an interesting Open in 2003.

[Justin_Ryan]

These lists sure are a great way to generate a bit of publicity and sell some magazines.

Shane G, like you, the first thing I noticed was the vested interests, especially Newton again taking the opportunity to rate Huntingdale highly where no one else mentioned it.  You could well be wrong about the sandbelt always reigning supreme however, for if Barnbougle turns out half as good as Greg Ramsay expects, it will probably blow them all away bar RMW.  This is a very exciting project, and although I know it is on another thread, Greg, please stick with the name.

It is also interesting that Thomson Wolveridge Perrett couldn't get at least one in the top 25, everyone either hates their pot bunkers or they couldn't get any of their people on the panel.

I believe that Paul Daley may have been copping some flak for rating National Ocean higher than National Moonah, arguing that the Ocean is more strategic.  He is correct, as usual, if you play it off the blue tees, but stretched out to the back tees, many of the strategic features are well out of reach of your ordinary golfer.  Paul, I do agree with you on Portsea though, I would rather play there than the bulk of the sandbelt any day.  If only they could claim some sort of McKenzie link.

[Greg Ramsay]

Talking about vested interests, I was shocked to see Jack Newton's comments that certain clubs have realised that they have to move forward- "The Lakes, Huntingdale and Kooyonga in particular stand out as courses that have kept pace with the changing nature of the game".  I am surprised the editors let such a biased comment through, Jack Newton's design firm has re-done 2 of them (Lakes, H'dale)- and they have probably remodelled Kooyonga as well, I know someone has.  

I think at first bite that the TWP courses would appeal more strategic than say the Norman course at the National.  I have not played the TWP course, but have played many of theirs and what I think they lack is subtlety.  Great golf courses get more interesting as you play them b/c you start to notice all the little touches, you'll notice that alot of TWP courses have slipped out of the rankings over the years, perhaps as people got to know them better?  The same happens with Fazio, and perhaps even Nicklaus designs, they are great on first look, but perhaps lack the ongoing interest.  Having said that, I think TWP courses are far more strategic than most.  

You have got to love Portsea, its a shame that Sorrento is not afforded the same love and effort that Bruce Grant has put into Portsea.  Sorrento possibly is on better terrain.

Looking forward to playing the new 13th beach, the bunkering looks great.  I wonder if the housing development around it will encroach on the atmosphere.

And Justin, where have I ever boasted about how good Barnbougle/tasmania Dunes is going to be?  I unashamedly say the dunes are fantastic, and that we have a very talented designer, but I can't recall making any loud predictions about the golf course (not on this site anyway!)

Greg Ramsay
www.barnbougledunes.com

[Tim_Weiman]

Greg Ramsay:

I think you are wise to stay away from bold predictions for Barnbougle.

For me, at least, something really special doesn't need that.  I've probably been turned off to Norman's Doonbeg as much by the marketing babble than by the property and architecture itself.

Barnbougle already has a fair amount of publicity, at least amongst us nuts!  Just let it unfold.........and don't change the name.

[Neil Crafter]

Greg,
Hi mate! Newton Grant and Spencer have also "redone"   Kooyonga, so this explains Jack's higher than average rating of the course. They have remodelled a number of holes and the course currently looks very scizophrenic between old and new, with the new implying NGS squiggly bunkers and very undulating greens which Kooyonga never had, even in the old photos the bunkers were quite regular in shape. Their Master Plan which wanted to convert Kooyonga from a 37/35 to a 36/36 par 72 for the sake of numerical balance was a dismal failure and was rejected by the members (of which I am one).How they are still ensconced as the club's "architects" (I use that word advisedly) after that rejection is a minor miracle. So it appears that self interest is still strongly at play in that list. Unless the raters are independent (there are relative levels of that) such lists are always going to be open to such accusations. Anyway the list will be forgotten by next year.

As an example, we have done some significant remodelling to Glenelg Golf Club here in Adelaide and we are around 60% through this work. To our knowledge only Mike Clayton has seen any of the new work done to the course since 1998, so if none of the other raters have seen it since say 1985, what chance has it got of even holding its position in the ratings let alone improving? Not much I'd say.

I must say I'm shocked to see Laguna Quays in the top 25 at all. I have played it a few times and while it is a decent resort course I can think of at least 40 courses better than it. The other new courses that enter so high in the rankings will go the way of Hope island and gradually be forgotten unless they have some timeless qualities that will keep them there.

Greg, stick with Barnbougle I'd say, but as I suggested to you, drop the Dunes part. There is no Lahinch Dunes or Cruden Bay Dunes, so simplify it further. People will associate that it is a links course by your imagery anyway.

Will send you a private email about a few other things so catch you soon.
cheers
Neil

[Chris Kane]

Neil,

Interested at your comments regarding Laguna Quays.  While I agree with you, you'll have trouble convincing Tom Ramsay!  He had it tied 5th (ahhhhhh) with Metropolitan.  But I didn't realise how nuts he was until I read further down his list.

Some of the course ranked below Laguna Quays by Tom Ramsay
t7.  New South Wales
10. Victoria
11.  The National Moonah
t15. The Dunes
t15. Yarra Yarra

Mr.Ramsay seems to enjoy modern layouts: he has done his best to place new courses as high as possible.  But for him to argue that Laguna Quays is a better course than NSW will take a long time.  Can anyone expand on what interests he might have in such a bold assessment?  He also distinguished himself in being only one of two pannelists to rate Moonah Links.  If he considers Moonah Links top 25, that gives the game away!

It is interesting to read each pannelists top 25, as it reveals alot.  To have course architects ranking their own courses is a major problem.

If Mike Clayton were of similar ilk to some of the other pannelists, I'd expect Portsea to be top 10, Victoria top 5, and the new Ranfurlie to make an appearance at number 3 long before it opens.  Spring Valley might find its way onto the list as well.  Good for you Mike, you havn't succumbed to the cynicism of others.

It will be interesting to see the Golf Digest list when it comes out next yr.  They use a very different formula for compilation.

[Mike Duffy]

Neil and Chris,

In respect to Tom Ramsay, and Laguna Quays, I refer you to an episode of "Media Watch", aired by the ABC, in 1997.

Following that programme, Ramsay was dismissed as "The Australian's" golf writer and as a commentator on ABC Radio.

He promoted Laguna Quays in an article in "The Australian", without declaring his pecuniary interest in resort.

He paid the ultimate price, which was unfortunate, as Ramsay was one of Australia's best golf writers, with impeccable contacts into the sport and elsewhere.

He continues to have a vested interest in Laguna Quays, therefore it comes as no surprise to find that he has rated the course and complex so highly.

I agree with Neil, that Laguna is a pleasant place to play a round of golf (providing it is not the wet season), but it certainly would not rate in the top 40 in most compilative listings, indeed if that is of any paramount importance.

Jack Newton has always been a loveable rascal and his support of his consortium's past works comes as no surprise either.

[Justin_Ryan]

Greg,

You are right, you have not made any loud predictions on this site, but over a couple of drinks, well perhaps.  I think it is fair to extrapolate from comments made on the site however that it certainly has the potential to be amongst the most highly rated courses in the country.  Tom Doak did his bit in his feature interview, describing the land as exciting as Pacific Dunes.  Now given the PD is ranked higher than all courses in Australia bar Royal Melbourne, I think this gets it off to a good start.  Tim, I understand why you are cautioning Greg against making bold predictions, but the fact is, that living in Melbourne and being a member of a club with three fairly highly rated courses, I would not be interested in spending a fairly significant amount of money on a golf course project in Tasmania if I didn't think that it had the potential to be truly outstanding.  With the combination of the land, designer and the vision being shown, I think the building blocks are certainly in place for this to happen.  And Greg, you did say that the land and routing will cause "an awful lot of excitement in your trousers!

[Shane Gurnett]

Mike Duffy

Thanks for the confirmation of Mr Ramsays disgraceful rankings. I knew something was fishy, but this is an absolute stinker.

I'm compelled to write to Golf Australia to point out the absurdity of it all (certainly no disrespect intended to Mr's Clayton and Daley) due to the slanted, self serving views of Newton, Ramsay and IBF. Of course, my 2 bobs worth will never see the light of day in the magazine, however I'l feel a lot better having pointed out the obvious. The public deserves better than this crap.

[Chris Kane]

Tom Ramsay at ausgolf.com with his thoughts on the Golf Magazine 2002 World Top 100:

"If I had my way, several of the courses voted onto the current list of 100 would be eliminated and replaced with such layouts as Laguna Quays and The Glades in Queensland, Metropolitan and Moonah Links in Melbourne and Kennedy Bay in Western Australia".

"I do not have much argument with the top 20 except that I prefer Cypress Point to Pine Valley and Royal County Down to any other. Royal Dornoch is, in my opinion, vastly over-rated. It is there because voices like Tom Watson and Ben Crenshaw consider it a Holy Grail of the game. But it is not on the same grand scale as courses like County Down, Turnberry or Portrush".

I wonder if Mr.Ramsay (I won't call him Tom, becuase I don't see him as deserved of being on first name terms with anyone respectable, following his Laguna Quays conduct) has played Cypress Point and Pine Valley?  Then he rips down the high ranking of Dornoch, saying that people who voted highly for it were not genuine.  Amazing.

Moonah Links in the world top 100?  He must have a vested interest somewhere.  Or is he trying to curry favour with Peter Thomson?

I won't get started on his recommendation for Laguna Quays; it just confirms how disgraceful he is.  What a fall from grace for Australia's best known golf writer.  

[Mike Duffy]

Shane

Best of luck with your letter to Oz Golf. I wrote a similar condemnatory missive the last time the rankings appeared about two years ago. I think the correspondence was probably filed in the rubbish bin.

Tom Ramsay forfeited considerable creditability after his error in judgment was aired on the "Media Watch" programme.

However, it hasn't stopped him blatantly promoting Laguna Quays. Many people would not remember the incident referred to the "Media Watch" programme, but I have cause to remember it very well.

[Paul Daley]

Thank heavens for Ran's (16 faces) they convey ever so more than I could ever hope to acheive.

This topic brings them all into play.
  :-/

Ratings, well ... how long do we have?

Woops, I just remembered that I'm a panelist, better not say too much. But the gang has failed to pick up something that may raise a few eyebrows. Consider this:

In the 2000 ratings, Royal Sydney weighed in at No.9.

For the 2002 ratings, 6 of the 8 panelists rated it between 13 and 15. Notwithstanding, it maintained its No. 9 rating in 2002.

Ratings - a bit of fun - not to be taken too seriously (although this is easy to say when its not your course being dumped on) - and like Justin Ryan said, really an avenue for magazines to sell copies.

Golf Clubs, like Politicians, never look at polls or ratings uhh ...  

When Barnbougle Dunes is finally a reality, and should Greg Ramsay go down the path of selling bonds, I will disqualify myself from rating it on account of collecting a wee commission - hopefully not "too" wee Greg?

[Chris Kane]

Paul,

You make a fair point in saying that ratings are a bit of fun and not to be taken too seriously, just a way to sell magazines however the golfing public tend to take these ratings on their face value.  

How many readers would be aware that Jack Newton was involved in modifications to three courses he made a particular point of praising?  Would they know that IBF was a co-designer of Kennedy Bay?  I'm sure most wouldn't realise that Mr.Ramsay has an interest in Laguna Quays.

What Ramsay, Newton and to a lesser extent IBF have done could almost come under the banner of advertising.  I have no doubt that some readers who visit the Gold Coast will make an effort to play Laguna Quays because they've seen that well-known golf writer Tom Ramsay considers it one of the best in the nation, and with reference to my previous post, worthy of world top 100 status.

I agree with you that we shouldn't take this magazine article too seriously (and judging by some of the pannelists, its hard to take them seriously!), but when there are such blatant conflicts of interest, which readers are not told about, something must be said.  Australians will remember the John Laws 2UE saga in 1999.  I consider this to be an equivalent in the case of Mr.Ramsay.

One more example of Mr.Ramsay:
Golf Digest Australia's Top 20 Modern Golf Courses (post 1970)
1. Laguna Quays
2. Sanctuary Cove (Pines)  
3. The Grand  
4. Hope Island
5. Joondalup
6. The Vines
7. Terrey Hills
8. Coolum
9. Capricorn New
10. Lakelands
11. Twin Waters
12. Meadow Springs
13. The National
14. The Dunes
15. Camden Lakeside
16. Paradise Palms
17. Ocean Shores
18. Tasmania
19. Horizons
20. Bonville

He's been exposed by Media Watch but obviously he doesn't care.  I look forward to his character being publicly blighted once again.  I don't care if he attended 120 straight majors: he can be the King of England for all I care.  It doesn't give him the right to advertise under the guise of being editorial opinion.

How did they compile the individual pannelists rankings into one list?  Was it via an average or points system?  Or did the editors or someone else reserve the right to have the final say.  I'm interested in what the process was here.

Also, interesting point regard Royal Sydney.  A flick through the pages reveals that only one pannelists ranked it top 10.  Can't understand who is pulling strings here.

[Brian Walshe]

Paul,

How would you compare the 4 new Victorian "links" courses, The National's Moonah and Ocean, 13th Beach and Moonah Links.  What differences do you see in the designs and which of them are closest in feel to the links courses of Scotland and Ireland.

[Mike Clayton]

In my eyes every list on that panel had some obvious anomolies . 4 or even 5 didnt rank RMW No. 1 prefering instead KH or RA -simply bizzarre

 The final list is , however , not bad -close in fact
I put in Port Fairy for example which probably isnt architectually in the top 25 but its easily in the top 25 to play if you are in Australia
Conflicts are everywhere in Autralian golf but there was some strange stuff in there.

[Paul Daley]

Chris:

You make a valid point about "Joe Public" not being aware of the various panelists outside interests; no way could they know.

Brian:

All four new Victorian golf courses are completely different: four separate design firms have seen to that! That can only be a good thing.

Thirteenth Beach, in particular is different to the other three on account of stretching deep into sand dunes country. Prior to this, 4-5 holes meander through low-lying farming pasture land. In my opinion, this course raises the bar, on what constitutes great par threes - all 4 of them.

The National (Robert Trent Jones) is on the highest parcel of land of all the three National Courses, and by common consent, confers the best views. Its fairway are generous. One feature about the National, is that RTJ has made it easy to hit the greens. But due to dead elephants, wicked swales, and so on, to hit the green is not sufficient to score well. Golfers are better off to miss th green - but be on the same level - than having an ego-boosting round (14-16 greens) but shoot 85. It happens all the time! Frequently, 3 putting can be a source of bragging rights, and that is not a positive thing. The older members prefer the course because it is the one that accepts carts.

The Ocean Course strikes me as more stategic than the other 2 National courses, and provides more options. Two of its par 3s are among the best on the Peninsula. But disregard my comments about the Ocean, I'm in the minority.

The Moonah is a grand course and I like it very much, but not as much as the Ocean. To me, it is more penal in nature, and on many tees, one can almost feel the hot steamy breath of G. Norman bearing down and saying - "Now don't miss the fairway young laddie". On account of being the longest straight driver in 20 years, you expect a little bit of that in Norman's courses.

The Moonah Links course is probably the hardest of all four new courses. I have only played it once, and the day was one of those gale peninsula days: impossible to judge it on account of it being impossibly difficult. As saddists, we played from the back tees. If the weather 'turns' just a little
bit, 2-5 over par could win the Australian Open next year - maybe higher. I look forward to playing it it differing winds to better assess it.

Re your question about which course best mimicks the conditions of Scotland and Ireland - none of them - the firm tight knit poverty species grasses are absent - they are all distinctly Australian coastal style. That said, in my opinion, the Ocean Course comes closest to the UK ideal.

[Brian Walshe]

Paul,

Interesting comments    I agree with you on 13th Beach.  When I played it we just stood on the 7th tee and stared.  The 3's are just awesome.  I have a suspicion that a couple of holes (8 for example) might be a little tight in a breeze.

You are correct about the Old Course at the National and hitting the greens in the wrong spot.  There was a thread recently about greens within greens and the Old Course is very much like that.  You have to be on the right deck or life with the putter is ugly.  One great thing about the Old Course is the option of feeding the ball to the hole (or putting it close) by using the slopes around the greens.  A little imagination goes a long way.

As for the Ocean, well I belong to the majority.  A couple of holes just don't work well and I find it a little like 15 rounds with Mike Tyson.  Even if I've scored well I feel exhausted at the end.  I'm surprised you find it more strategic than the Moonah.  I see it almost opposite.  The Ocean to me is very penal off the tee.  A number of holes require you to play over or around fairway bunkers and in some cases reduce your options off the tee.  It almost screams at you "don't hit the ball here".  The Moonah is the opposite where the "no go" areas tend to be natural features that are far more subtle.  The spine on 3, anywhere left on 4 etc that tend to trap the unwary and leave far more difficult 2nd shots.

Interesting you thoughts on Mr Norman's breath on your neck.  I have the same thing on the Ocean.  I can see Mr Thomson hitting very precise 3 woods to all the right places and death and destruction to those that don't  

As for playing Moonah Links off the blacks I'm in awe that you do it, I'm not that much of a masochist.  It was better than I thought it would be with bigger greens and a lot less slope (but more movement) in them than the Ocean.  I still think it's a little over bunkered in the fairway and my lasting impressions was having to hit it over a fairway bunker somewhere between 200 and 250m out on most holes. I hope it blows like hell one day of the Open.  No one breaking 80 might cause a few ripples

  

[Ran Morrissett]

Pity The Australian is even considered amongst the country's finer courses. Heck, I'd rather play Terry Hills anyday of the week.

Why is Lake Karrinyup slumping?

I guess not enough of the panelist's have seen Kerry Packer's new course at his horse farm in northern NSW?

Seeing Metro behind NSWGC makes me cringe  :-/

I wish one of the two mags would include NZ courses in their rankings - be interesting to see where Par. Beach might pop in.

The tinkering at Kooyanga is sad news. Conversely, Glenelg is a true gem and glad to hear things are on track there.

Overall, I've always liked the way Golf Australia do their rankings - small-ish number of people on the panel PLUS they are held accountable by having many of their individual lists published.

Cheers,

[Chris Kane]

Ran,

I agree with you that Golf Australia are doing to right thing by having their pannelists held accountable, however, there can be some undesirable effects of this, such as an opportunity for certain pannelists to influence the public unduly, when the influence of their high vote for a mediocre course would normally be negated by the rest of the panel.  In the overall ranking it is ok, but pannelists still have the opportunity to attract their own little controversies.

Every time one of these lists come out there is the usual banter from some Melbournians, such as myself, that the reasons for high rankings of Sydney courses besides NSW are political.  I read one world golf travel guide where the author claimed that the only reason Sydney courses were highly rated was to appease the right people.  I happen to agree with him.  Remember that magazines are a form of media, and media owners aren't always able to separate themselves from politics!

I'm pretty sure that Australian Golf Digest (not responsible for the ranking discussed here) is owned by Fairfax, which is controlled by Kerry Packer.  Packer is a member at The Australian, and was responsible for the Nicklaus redesign.  He has put millions of dollars into his club, and would not be happy if he saw it being undersold in one of his publications.  Perhaps this explains the very high ranking for The Australian in the March 2000 issue of AGD: No.5 I believe.

[Justin_Ryan]

Chris,

The Australian was ranked at number 6 in the March 2000 rankings in Australian Golf Digest.  I believe that it is published by IPMG, which appears to be owned jointly by the Hannan and J.B. & T.V. Fairfax families.  I wouldn't be surprised if the Hannan's or the Fairfaxes are members though, although I have heard that it an excellent course.  They do not appear to have any relationship to the publicly listed Fairfax group of companies you mentioned.  Kerry Packer is banned under current media laws from owning Fairfax as it stands anyhow, and now seems to prefer casino investments.  However, if you see Capital Golf Club, or the course that Packer has built on his farm appear in the rankings, then you might deduce that ownership has changed hands.

[Tom Doak]

I've known Tom Ramsey for many years.  I got to know him when I was doing the GOLF Magazine rankings and discovered that he was the only guy on the committee who had seen and played more of the courses on the ballot than I had.

So, Mr. Kane, he has indeed played Pine Valley and Cypress Point and all the rest.

Tom has always been partial to courses which have supported his work:  Sanctuary Cove years ago, then Hope Island, now Laguna Quays.  That's regrettable, but it was also obvious, and we always took it with a grain of salt.  However, when you get down to a vote with only NINE panelists, those things carry much more weight.

I think you're taking the rankings a bit too seriously if this is the subject of investigation.

P.S.  Before anybody says anything out of context, please remember, in the GOLF Magazine system [which I set up], architects including me do not get to vote for their own courses.  Still, I would estimate that 25% to 50% of the other panelists place some course well out of position for their own reasons.

[Chris Kane]

Tom Doak,

Good to hear Tom Ramsay has actually played Cypress Point and PV.  Despite my concerns about his attitude, I agree that he does have reason to be considered an authority on courses worldwide.

Having been at the club a number of times when a corporate day is being held (I'm a member), its interesting to hear the head professional say "Tom Doak, a noted American course architect, considers this course one of the best in Australia".  Have you recieved any corrospondence from the club regarding course changes?  If not, I can't believe that they'd gloat about your assessment, and then change it without telling you.  If I had my way, the course changes would be a full restoration to be handled by yourself and Mike Clayton.