[Benjamin Litman]

Before I get to the course, it’s hard to talk about Metropolitan without mentioning fellow GCA’er Ben Jarvis, the club’s inestimable guest manager. From my first email requesting a tee time to the present, Ben has exemplified everything that we love about the game's communal sensibilities. I could go on at length, so I’ll say simply that Ben’s hospitality—which included making the long walk from the clubhouse to the first tee as we made the turn just to ask how our round was going—was a big reason our time at Metropolitan was so memorable. Thank you, Ben.

A few general words about the course. Almost everyone will tell you that Metropolitan is “the best conditioned course on the Sandbelt.” While it is that, it is much, much more. I frankly find the characterization to be somewhat of a slight—akin to when the pros deem courses “interesting.” My memory of Metropolitan is of a deeply peaceful, isolated experience on an eminently fair, yet challenging, world-class golf course. That I shot my best Sandbelt round at Metropolitan is no coincidence.

Although Metropolitan isn’t blessed with the same natural topographical features of Royal Melbourne, it makes great use of a relatively flat piece of land. (Some complain about the out-of-placeness of the pond to the right of the tenth fairway, but, because it doesn't really come into play, it factors little into the experience.) Many of the holes have gentle rolls and undulations in the fairways, which provide an unparalleled surface to walk and play from. And almost all of the par-4s and par-5s offer excellent playing "corridors," which give the mostly straight tee shots some added value and foster the calming isolation you often feel at Metropolitan. The green complexes, with bunkers that feel bigger and deeper than any others on the Sandbelt and certainly cut sharper than any others into the putting surface, allow for an incredible array of recovery shots, with gentle and steep slopes galore. What Metropolitan lacks are a number of great golf holes. That’s not to say it has none—the sixth gives Royal Melbourne West’s fourth a run for its money as the best par-5 on the entire Sandbelt, and the first rivals the first at Kingston Heath for the Sandbelt's best opener. But perhaps because so much focus appears to have been put into the other-worldly green complexes, I would argue that most of the holes get better the closer you get to the green—and generally, with a few exceptions (e.g., the tee shots on the sixth and twelfth holes), lack interest before then. None of the par-3s is particularly memorable, mostly because none of the tee shots have a wow factor (further proof that my argument as to all of the holes also applies to the par-3s). Interestingly, the most memorable (and only elevation-changing) par-3 is the 19th hole, which is sandwiched between the course's two best consecutive holes, the par-4 fifth and the par-5 sixth. At bottom, it’s a very fair golf course, a proper test of golf as the Brits would say. In some ways, it’s the Muirfield of the Sandbelt—a superb championship test, but one with (at least relatively) uninteresting land and minimal wow factor. I’m guessing the pros loved it for precisely those reasons when they played the Australian Masters there a few months ago.

(N.B.: As the lighting in my pictures makes plain, we played the back nine first. I therefore have fewer pictures from the front nine, which we finished as the sun was setting. If you want more, Metropolitan’s website has the best collection of (accessible) pictures of any of the Sandbelt clubs.)

Hole 1 (Tee)

Hole 1 (Fairway)

Hole 1 (Fairway/Green)

Hole 1 (Right Greenside Bunker)

Hole 2 (Tee)

Hole 4 (Right Fairway Bunkers)

Hole 5 (Tee)

Hole 5 (Fairway) (N.B.: note the large mound in the center of the fairway that obscures the green, if not the flag, from view on the approach)

Hole 5 (Left Fairway/Greenside Bunker Complex)

Hole 5 (Left Greenside Bunker) (N.B.: the bunkers at Metropolitan “cut” into the green more sharply than at any other Sandbelt course)

Hole 6 (Tee)

Hole 6 (Fairway)

Hole 6 (Fairway)

Hole 8 (Green)

Hole 10 (Fairway)

Hole 11 (Green)

Hole 12 (Fairway) (N.B.: note the two large cross bunkers in the middle of the fairway; carrying them on the left leaves the shorter and more down-the-green approach, while carrying them on the right leaves the longer and more across-the-green approach)

Hole 13 (Tee)

Hole 15 (Fairway/Green)

Hole 15 (Green)

Hole 18 (Fairway)

Hole 18 (Fairway/Green)

Hole 18 (Green)

Metropolitan Golf Club, Clubhouse at Sunset

[Alan Ritchie]

I agree with the feeling of tranquility that you describe and I was just majorly impressed about how they could get such a good course from a benign piece of land. obviously the bunkers and greens were the stars but I thought there was a lot of quality all over. I particularly enjoyed the par 3s at 11 and thought 13 was incredible with it's surrounding bunkers.

I'd agree 5/6 were the best holes in my view ( even managed my only birdie at 6). wasn't a big fan of 17/18 but I though it was an interesting use of those trees to block out the more conservative line on 17.
talking about trees I also liked the sprinkling of them on the 18th on the national moonah

[Benjamin Litman]

Thanks, Alan. I think 11 is a good-looking par-3, but 13 both looks and plays better--and I say that even though I found the front-left bunker and had an adventure from there.

We're also in agreement on 17 and 18, although the green complex at 18 might be the best of any par-4 on the course--and the new clubhouse, even though well recessed, frames the hole well.

I didn't make it to National during our trip--I figured Barnbougle, Melbourne's Sandbelt, and NSW in Sydney was more than enough. How good are the courses at National?

[Alan Ritchie]

ben, I only played the moonah course so can't comment on the other two. in contrast to metro there are great undulations all over the place, the land is well suited for golf. I enjoyed it nearly as much as metro , very different style with rugged bunkering and larger open spaces. the greens are great there as well. doak 7/8.

I'm sure you have been to the number 1 spots, and although it's about a 90 min drive from Melbourne definitely worth a visit.

[Mike_Clayton]

Ben,Alan

You will be pleased then to know the members on the whole hate 13 and it's on death row. Too hard apparently - yet 9 and 15 at Commonwealth (and many other 80 year old holes on the sandbelt including 4 at Victoria and 10 at Kingston Heath) ask the identical question. Golfers with hickory shafts were a lot more resilient than they are now.
They can complain about how it looks - but not how it plays.

[Alan Ritchie]

mike, Very sad to hear that. can they not just move the tee up for those who can't fly it there! is the plan to make it open at the front, or a total change?

[Mike_Clayton]

Alan

Not sure - but there is plenty of teeing space - and it's only 135 yard carry from the very back.
And on a course where you can duff the ball onto every one of the other 17 greens. Asking someone to do something else once a round is surely hardly unreasonable?

[RJ_Daley]

While we have discussed this topic many times over the years here on GCA.com,  the unique detailing and presentation of the sandbelt and beyond Australian Bunker construction and maintenance never fails to mesmerize me.  I don't want to sidetrack Benjamin's thread, yet as a specific topic and directly refering to this photo of Ben's, I began to wonder if there is any video or You Tube resource and reference demonstrating just exactly what the techniques are to maintain and present them in their iconic style.



So I did some Googling and unfortunately didn't find a specific instructional video to demonstrate the "trick-of-the-trade".  Their are videos from KH and NSW on how they want their golfers to rake them and how to replace the rake, but not how the crew maintains and shapes them.  The closest is a blog by a Western Territory super at Capel Golf Club, Which seems to follow the pattern of bunker care in a mini version of the big boy courses of the sandbelt.

http://capelgcmaintenance.blogspot.com/2011/12/insight-into-bunker-maintenance.html

Does anyone know if such a video or blog exists on the construction and maintenance of the iconic style, or are the Archies keeping it trade secrets and Supers sworn to silence copy cats with extreme prejudice?  

[Benjamin Litman]

RJ, no apologies about derailing. A very pertinent observation in light of my pictures and comments. As I understand the Sandbelt bunkering, the sand itself accounts for most of the uniqueness (which is why NSW's bunkers are totally different, both in size/shape and consistency). The Sandbelt sand is hard and dense, which allows for the sharp edges to be cut directly into the greens--i.e., the density ensures that the edges won't collapse. That same quality of the sand ensures that almost all balls settle in the middle of the bunker--you almost never get a plugged-in-the-face lie in a Sandbelt bunker. That's why the bunkers are raked only in the center/flat--the walls are so hard that no one ever has to play off of them. Minimal bounce is key in playing well out of the Sandbelt bunkers.

[RJ_Daley]

Ben, I generally get the angular sand particle characteristics and the jute-like nature of couch root zone weave that allows for the exacto cutting of the crisp edges.  I have a rudimentary knowledge of bunker construction in more typical North American clay to loamy soils.  I even understand installation of drainage in more typical parkland settings and soils we see here in U.S. along with use of Bunkerwol.  I have watched construction and somewhat know how sand hill bunkers are generally constructed as well.

 What I don't get so much is the way these Aussie bunkers are/were first scooped out, edges prepared with undulation elevations varied and firmed for the curvilinear wave overs, tongues and cape and bays, and then sprigged or seeded and grown- in until the can be exacto-cut, and fine tuned.  Due to all the sand at KH, VIC RM, etc., I don't think there are CPPVC lines packed in peagravel in the bottoms.  But, I wonder if there isn't some sort of drain line under and backing the curvilinear lips and edges and if so, how water collection in the line is diverted away from play.  Or, does it rapidly perk into the sand right there?  There are courses in OZ not so blessed with the sand and particle characteristics of these sandbelt courses that still present similar "the look".

The only place in U.S. somewhat similar,  as noted often, is Riviera.

[RJ_Daley]

So, a big question I would ask is:  What would happen to the iconic reputation and placement in the world top 100 of theses sandbelt courses if the bunker iconic styles were replaced with say Wilson flashed up style like what I think are at Seminole, or Bayhill-Pat  (generally same turf species characteristics) or Mac-Raynor grassslopes leading to flatish bottom sand?  Apart from the other factor of cutting edges of bunkers into bowels of greens and runaway slopes and fall-ins; would the courses still play well if different bunker style were employed?  Or, is the iconic visual impact that Pat Burke noted kicked in for him an inseparable factor of architecture?  Although I think Pat also means the shape of the hole corridors and ground contours playing on his visual.  But, the placement of the bunkers, no matter what style seems like that might be the key intuitive indicator to a keen player like Pat or Mike, perhaps more so, than the iconic style.

[Benjamin Litman]

RJ, you clearly know far more about this subject than I, so I won't pretend and offer anything further. I will say, however, that the "visual impact" of a course is certainly "an inseparable factor of architecture." Think about regular architecture--people evaluate both form and function. Not everyone gets to experience the function (by working in a given building, for example), but its form influences everyone. Similar principles apply to golf-course architecture. That is why the "walking v. playing" debate was, to me, a red herring. You certainly can appreciate the architecture of a course by merely walking it--mostly its form, less so its function, but form still counts for a great deal.

[Pat Burke]

So, a big question I would ask is:  What would happen to the iconic reputation and placement in the world top 100 of theses sandbelt courses if the bunker iconic styles were replaced with say Wilson flashed up style like what I think are at Seminole, or Bayhill-Pat  (generally same turf species characteristics) or Mac-Raynor grassslopes leading to flatish bottom sand?  Apart from the other factor of cutting edges of bunkers into bowels of greens and runaway slopes and fall-ins; would the courses still play well if different bunker style were employed?  Or, is the iconic visual impact that Pat Burke noted kicked in for him an inseparable factor of architecture?  Although I think Pat also means the shape of the hole corridors and ground contours playing on his visual.  But, the placement of the bunkers, no matter what style seems like that might be the key intuitive indicator to a keen player like Pat or Mike, perhaps more so, than the iconic style.

RJ
You know, I've looked at these "dissecting" threads, countless times now.  I look at the bunkers and have asked, "why not here?", so many times, that I get rolling eyes from friends. 
it isn't just the bunkers though.  It is the whole picture I believe.  When I look at the photos, I can visualize the shots I would attempt.  When I look at the greens, I can see areas where I could use the contours to feed balls to spots, and I can remember the feeling under foot of the tightly mowed turf, and feel the always present wind.  As good as the bunkers are, I KNOW I cannot short side myself in one, but I also know that most times, I can use the contours to help move a shot to a good spot to play.
What it all boils down to, is so many shots look fun.  At Victoria, I remember trying to figure out where to land my 2nd on 18, so as not to run screaming over into the gnarly stuff off the back.  I'd hit the shot, and feel like I had to chase it to watch the ball react short of the green.  Just so much anticipation in so many shots.  And I still never have played in better conditions for golf, than my times in Australia.  The firmness and speed just present the options so well.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

wonderful pictures and I secong the comments about Mr Jarvis my experience is equally as wonddrful in communications with him.
Tuesday March 31st at 1.30, my tee time at Metro, mt first day in Melbourne, getting closer

[JMEvensky]

wonderful pictures and I secong the comments about Mr Jarvis my experience is equally as wonddrful in communications with him.
Tuesday March 31st at 1.30, my tee time at Metro, mt first day in Melbourne, getting closer

Have you checked if Oz will allow someone holding an Arkansas passport to enter the country?

Have a great trip.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Must make sure I have had all my shots...
Not for what I may get but what I am taking in!!!!!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()