Sandbelt - a lost 18?

[Brian Walshe]

I was lucky enough to play the old first at Commonwealth a couple of times.  What a great hole    I'm not sure about it being "too easy" but it is the only hole I've played where it was just as simple to make 6 or 7 as it was to make 3.    

[Mark_F]

Shane,

An illuminating link, although the tepid standard of journalism is a worry, especially from someone of Mr Mansfield's experience.  

Surely 20,000 trees and shrubs can't be right?  There isn't enough horseshit in Parliament to fertilise that many plants.

Perhaps self-evidently, the powers that be (or who were) at Commonwealth have/had a complex about the course being the easiest on the Sand belt and think that rough and trees, not subtle green complexes and bunkering, create the "man-sized" test they are looking for.  

Hopefully they've stopped watching the US Open telecasts?

[Shane Gurnett]

Mark, I'd say at one stage it was at least 20,000, probably more. Bushes and shrubs planted everywhere to the detriment of the existing tree stands and the turf growing beneath them.

The clincher for me was the planting of the flower beds around all the tees in an attempt to make the course look something like Augusta. Thankfully, that period was shortlived but the cost to the members must have been enormous. All the flower beds are gone now, but a fair percentage of those 20,000 shrubs and bushes are still there.

Commonwealth has some magnificent native trees on the property that are never seen, simply because they are smothered away behind layers of crappy scrub. A shame really, because there are some fine examples well away from the lines of play that could really be showcased.

Brian, I saw Bob Castles beat Paul Maloney in pennant at Commonwealth in 1990, at the 19th (1st hole). Castles won it with a 5, after Maloney hit his tee shot long and to the right and took four shots to get onto the green. It was the ultimate sudden death hole in those circumstances.

[skivail]

Mike,

I am a member at RM and there is currently changes taking place on the 15th on the east course and in the future the 6th on the east will be changed. The green is going to be moved to the left. These changes are to ensure that balls don't go on the road.

[Matthew Delahunty]

Thanks to those people for their comments on the first at Commonwealth. I was thinking about starting another thread re opening holes, but for now I'll put some thoughts down here. The sandbelt has such a diverse array of opening holes. Some are almost like "warmup" holes while others call for precision and placement on the very first drive. I don't think #1 at RM West works well as a 17th in pro tournaments. CGC members think the old 1st would work well anywhere on the course - I was wondering whether the temptation to have a go at the green was greater because it was the first or whether more players settled for the layup as it was at the start of the round. It obviously had the ability to set the tone for a player - either they get off to a great start or take six and the day is ruined early. I imagine 5 at the old 1st probably tasted a lot worse than a 5 at Kingston Heath's opening hole, where you half expect a 5 unless you've sufficiently warmed up. The new 1st at Commonwealth doesn't present the same shotmaking dilemmas as the old one used to. #1 at KH could slot in anywhere. #1 at RM West probably can't but I still think it's a good opening hole because it gives you a more than reasonable chance to post 4 before the real fun begins. Contrast these with Yarra Yarra where you've got to be really on your game to make a good start. I'm guessing Thomson was somehow trying to achieve with #1 at Victoria what Commonwealth and RM East already had, but failed. These days the hole gets slaughtered by the good (long) players who can lob a 3-iron on the green (it played as a par 3 at the Aus Open didn't it?).

[Mike_Clayton]

Mot

I am really struggling to understand how you are playing 17 East with the road so close and all the trees gone and no one ,seemingly,worried about all the balls that must be going over onto what is a busy road. Mind you I think it's great you still are playing the hole.
Contrast that to the concern over a 6 iron par three with a tiny suburban street to the right and trees - no huge I agree - to protect.
I would hate to see them change that hole because it's really underrated - a better hole than # 2 at Metro for example - and it seems a few think it is just a matter of moving the green left.It would be really difficult to replicate the quality of that hole.
Pity they had to alter 15 but I suppose something had to be seen to be done with the road.I don't know how effective ground hazards are a eliminating a big high chunk slice that a player is going to hit no matter what incentive you provide for him not to.

Dela

You are right about the 13 tee going over the road. Taking it as far back as possible would help though because it is a very ordinary tee shot currently - and a positivly terrible green.With decent greens and bunkers at 11,12,13 and 16 that nine would be improved beyond recognition. 10,14,15,17 and 18 are in glaring contrast.8 and 6 are not too good either.
The first at Victoria was very ordinary attempt but the plan is to build a new green and bunkers incorporating all of the strategies that made the old 1st at Commonwealth work so well.
There is somewhat of a common thread running through most of that.

[Chris Kane]

Mot,
I played the new 15E a couple of months back, and can't see how it will stop the majority of balls that go over the fence.  Sure, it pushes the intended direction of the tee shot to the left, but that won't stop the high-slices which most club golfers hit!  Regardless of what you do to the hole, there are still going to be lots of shots heading out that way.

I'm puzzled about 6E: it didn't seem to be that much of a problem when I saw it last, and it would take a horrifically bad shot to lose your ball over the fence!  Can you guess how far the fence is (in metres) from a RHS hole location?

Dela,
I never saw the old first at Commonwealth - I was seven years old when it was bulldozed - but just by looking at old areial photos and shots of the green you can sense that it was a great hole.  As Brian Walshe said: as easy to make 6-7 as it was to make 3.  Thats the hallmark of a great short par-4.  It was clearly very effective as an opening hole, in terms of the golfing content that it provided, but I've been told that the Club was concerned about "getting the field away", which was apparantly a problem with a hole of this type.  While I don't necessarily agree with this argument (is it really that much of a problem at Victoria?), I do understand it.

Shane,
Lets give credit where credit is due.  The current tree management program, commenced in 2002, has removed a lot of these small shrubs and bushes.  While there is still a very long way to go, I'm encouraged that the onus has shifted from planting trees to removing them.  As you say, we have so many outstanding native trees on the course - lets remove the bushes so these trees can be admired!  Two examples of how our trees should be presented are the grey gum on the RHS of the 3rd tee, and the magnificent gum behind the 18th green.

There is a comment in the Mansfield article about "deterioration of the rough".  What specifically are they referring to?  

[Shane Gurnett]

Chris, 20,000 trees and shrubs take a hell of a lot of management. And dont forget that you need planning approval to remove any tree with a circumfrence of 110cms (or diameter of 35 cms). Those 20,000 will grow up a lot quicker than some people think.

Whilst the early signs of this change of attitude to tree management are positive, there is an awfully long way to go. A good start would be to cut down every pine tree on the property to at least reveal how many decent gums there are. The removal of the pine between 3 & 17 is a good start, but its only the beginning of what needs to be done.

[George Blunt]

Shane, Chris,

I have only played CGC once, so I do not feel qualified to make serious architectural criticism.  

If I was allowed one comment, I would suggest a tree clearing program that started with the removal of EVERY tree that fitted into the criteria that Shane mentioned.  

As per the punchline for the joke  "What do you call a thousand lawyers drowning in Sydney Harbour?" it would be "a good start".

I have rarely had such a disproportionate sense of anticipation versus participation as after my round at CGC.  I cannot articulate the disappointment, I simply cannot recall the course for the trees.  A real shame for a past Doak #8.

Regards,

George

[Chris Kane]

George,
My guess is that were all trees with a diameter of under 35cms gone, the job would almost the done!  We'd be left with some outstanding native trees, but none of the bushes and non-indigenous rubbish that detracts from the enjoyment of those trees.  Thats to say nothing of the positive effect on fairway and green conditions, vistas and the course architecture!

The path forward is clear when you stand on holes like 3 and 16 (routed around each side of the lake), which are not impacted in any way by tree encroachment.  Not only are the fairway conditions magnificent (an issue which is very important to the membership), but the vista is outstanding, and the holes "feel" great.

Hopefully one day such a "feel" will be replicated throughout the entire course.  I'm more than happy to put up with the sweet sound of chainsaws (is there a nicer sound?!?) until this dream is realised.

[Shane Gurnett]

Chris, the only thing wrong with 3 & 16 is that clump of really shitty lookings shrubs and trees between the tees and the lake. I find it amazing that when you stand on either of those tees you are in the presence of that magnificent 100 foot tall ghost gum (which should be the benchmark for how all trees on the property are presented), yet you cannot see the full vista of the lake because of all the crap that has been planted there in the last 15 years. When you look at obvious areas that could be improved in the space of an afternoon (pine trees yet again) its hard to understand what the priorities are.

But then again, seeing what has transpired with the 5th hole bunkering over the last year, you really have to wonder what direction the club is taking with the golf course.

Shane

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Mike Clayton,
Thanks for the correction. Also, sorry for the mistake to all on this post.

[skivail]

Mike

The pine trees still run down most of the length of the 17E on the right hand side. They stop at about 120-130 out from the green.

Chris

The fence/OOB on the right hand side of the 6E is probably about 30 metres from a right hand pin possy.

[Brian Walshe]

Shane and Chris,

I managed to get a look at the new work on 5.  I said earlier that I laughed when I saw the new 9th at Kingswood, well I almost cried when I saw what has been done to the 5th at Commonwealth.  How in the hell can ANYONE sanction what are no more than pointless eye candy bunkers on the one of the most purely strategic golf courses every built.

The new bunkers could not be further from the style and intent of the existing bunkers if they'd set out to make them so.  High lips set at 90 degrees to the green with flashed faces so that it looks "pretty" from the tee.  Where anywhere on the course are bunkers like that!!!!!  Are the people responsible actually trying to destroy the course or have they so little understanding of what they have that they don't comprehend what the original design intent was?

I think it is absolutely tragic that a golf course once considered one of the top 100 in the world could be so desecrated.  At the rate it is going CGC will be lucky to make the top 100 in Australia.

Surely the members must be up in arms?

Brian

[Shane Gurnett]

Brian, my personal opinion is that the new greenside bunkers on the 5th hole at Commonwealth are disgusting. The work is completely out of character with the remainder of the course, and those bunkers bear no resemblance to any sandbelt bunkering I have ever seen. I could not be more upset about the whole thing.

I'll try to post some pictures up later today so everyone can see what is going on there. Maybe a separate thread might be the way to go.

[Matthew Delahunty]

Brian/Shane,

I'm in agreement with 5. I thought the front trap in particular was useless and ugly. If I can recall you don't even step down into it. It doesn't pose a great challenge to the player. The only good thing is the ride on bunker sweeper with be able to drive right in - another curse sandbelt clubs have brought on themselves - get rid of them. The bunkers on 5 are not totally out of character with ALL the bunkers on the course - the fairway trap down the right on 12 is a bit grating if you ask me.



Mike,

How can you not like the 13th green? If you think it's bad now it was worse in the late 80s when it had very little grass on it and used to bake hard in summer. It's a bad green to go with the bad tee shot but it can also be fun if you keep the right frame of mind. (For those who don't know the hole, the green has a wicked left to right slope. To get near the pin on the approach you have to hit the shot about 12 feet left of the hole. Any putt from above the hole just races.) It sounds as if something is going to happen with 16 quite soon - what is planned there? Would I also be right in thinking some of those trees down the left of 15 will come down soon. 12 has suddenly been exposed to most members as a hole sadly lacking, since they removed the Thomson mounds which quite cleverly masked it's inadequacies but only visually improved it. Are there any par-5 greens in Melbourne as big as this one?

[Mike_Clayton]

Dela

16 was another lesson - never do half of an alteration.
That was the worst hole on the course especially when all the trees were through the fairway and there was nowhere to drive.
What the green needs to do is place some sort of premiun on where you drive and the current one clearly does not do that.You can drive anywhere and access the pin.
The 6th at Royal Melbourne has the same structure - dogleg right over bunkers with miles of fairway left - but when the pin is in the hardest spot - back left - the perfect drive is a high fade that just drops over the bunkers and does not run all the way across the fairway and leave that almost impossible shot across the bunker.If the same principles could be incorporated into 16 it would be a better hole.

I'm not sure the mounds at 12 added anything and the green is terrible. The hole is on such a dull piece of ground it needs as good green complex to add some interest.I don't think the size of the green is necessarily a problem although it is reasonably big

[Chris Kane]

Mot,
Are the pine trees on the RHS of 17E effective in stopping balls from going onto the road?  I'd have thought that the high-slices would fly straight over the top of them!

Has the club experienced boundary problems on 11W?  I guess the same could be said for 7E too.  Maybe the only way to solve the problem is to progressively buy the houses.

[Matthew Delahunty]

Chris,

Real estate isn't exactly cheap in that part of the world. If you asked most members of a golf course (even the affluent RM ones) to choose between course alteration or buying up houses, unfortunately I know which way they'd vote.

Mike,
I bet you wish you had RM's 20 feet of elevation to work with. The other thing about RM is the size of the green. There's a fair bit of room out to the left of the Valley's 16th green if you wanted to expand but I'm not sure that big greens are in keeping with the course design. Would a green/bunker formation similar to some of he long flattish fours at Kingston Heath (1, 4, 6, 18 but as mirror images) be a good model or would you consider something more penal over the traps (6 RM, 8 & 16 KH). The latter would be difficult to get the design right on that low, flat stretch of land. I'm actually finding it hard to come up with a comparison on the sandbelt - maybe one needs to look to the Scottish links courses for inspiration on this one). In any event, toughening up the left side is logical. Right now on 16 you can drive into the storm water drain and still get at the pin.
The mounds on 12 added nothing from a playing point of view, but with them gone the view along 12 on the drive in is far from inspiring. I wish someone would at least drain and grass that area while they decide on what's to be done to the hole.

[Chris Kane]

Dela,
You're right, land in Cheltenham/Black Rock isn't cheap, and as a result there is a tragedy waiting to happen - the desecration of Royal Melbourne's East Course.  Buying the houses is the only way to solve the problem, but unfortunately, I can't see it happening.

[Mike_Clayton]

Dela

Sure,the elevation would help !
The greens you mention are all,obviously, better approached from the left but I agree,that sort of work would be perfect.It would be no surprise Vern Morcom was the curator at Kinsgton Heath and the architect at Spring Valley.As a generalization he built wonderful bunkers but poor holes if he had to turn them around corners.
The left of 12 is a mess and we can make that a reasonable hole - certainly much better than it currently is. I guess the club will be directing funds toward clubhouse payments for a while but the course  does need some money spent on it

[Chris Kane]

Dela,
I'm not sure that Commonwealth use those ride-on bunker sweepers (I've never seen one in use there), and therefore I'd be absolutely astonished if that issue was even considered in the decision on what style to adopt for the new bunkers.

Shane,
I completely agree on the trees between 3/16 near the tee, what an impressive vista we'd have with them gone!  It does seem that trees are being slowly removed in that area - hopefully that will continue until only the ghost gum remains.

[David_Elvins]

Excellent thread guys.  Looking forward to seeing those bunker photos from Commnwealth.


Mike,

I love the new tenth at Spring Valley.  When you are hitting a pitching wedge off the tee, there is nothing wrong with a small target and a few nasty bunkers, is there?  It should improve the 11th immeasurably too.  

As for the 5th hole.  Did you ever consider putting the tee block at the front of the 16th tee block so that the holes effectively overlapped for the first 20 or so metres?  Would this harm traffic flow much?   I would assume that the field would be reasonably spaced out by the fifteenth and players on the fifth could either call on the group on the tee, or not, depending on whether there was anyone on the 16th.  Practical or not?

[Matthew Delahunty]

Chris,

I suspect you're right. The sand at Commonwealth didn't look as if it's been subject to those machines. I've recently seen them around my home course - they used them to churn up the sand where it had compacted in some of the bunkers. Problem is that it churned up the base. When we got the recent rains the silt all washed up and then the sand/silt mix packed down and we got black mush (which goes hard as soon as it dries out) - which then means they'll bring out the machines again and the problem gets progressively worse. The other thing those things do is ruin the edges of the bunker where they drive in.

David,

Good to see some input on the 10th at the Valley. It's a good hole. I didn't mean to give the impression that it wasn't. This thread started out talking about good lost holes. The old tenth was a good hole which has been lost, but the new one is a good replacement (unlike many examples on the sandbelt when a good hole has been replaced by a mediocre one). Having said that, a lot of the members don't like it. I don't know whether this is a reaction to change (and having lost one of their favourites) or whether they find it more difficult. I can't see how it's more difficult for the majority who find the front two traps - the recovery from any of the traps on the old hole were just as challenging. The back traps, however, are a challenge to the less-skilled bunker players. I would be interested to know Mike's view on the front right trap re it's narrowness and high back.

I don't think your suggested tee placement for 5/16 would work. A shared tee area, maybe, but I don't think having one hole playing across the line of another should be encouraged. The old tees were almost side by side. Now the new 16th tee occupies a spot where the old 5th teeing ground was, but about 15m forward of the medal tee.  Even though it wouldn't be ideal. I've wondered if you could solve some of the 5th's problems by moving the tee, say 3-5m right and 1m lower, thereby partially restoring the original design. I don't think it would impact terribly on the speed of play as, at present, players on one tee usually wait for the others to play. I suspect, however, that if they ever make changes it'll be at the green end. As the hole currently plays, the green sits a bit awkward to the line of play. Also, the right bunker has become more of a rear bunker. When the pin is right it's upon on a ridge when there is very little spot to land the ball. The biggest problem from a short term point of view, though, is the quality of the putting surface.