[Matthew Mollica]

Reading a contribution in the thread on golf visits to Australia, I read this -

Concentrate on Melbourne, make sure to include Barnbougle and New South Wales which is an easy one-day stopover in Sydney.  Royal Adelaide IS a great course, but unless you are notching top 100 courses on your belt, you'd have just as much fun seeing another Melbourne course (Woodlands or Commonwealth or Portsea or St. Andrews Beach).

When reflecting on Royal Adelaide, I think of some sensational holes, and some that are not so good. In particular, their set of par threes are quite ordinary. Maybe the worst of all top 20 courses in Australia.

So, just how good is Royal Adelaide?

Matthew

[James Bennett]

Matthew

In my opinion, some of the holes or parts of holes at Royal Adelaide are of a lower quality than the best.  My 'least best' would probably include (in playing order) holes 1, 5, plus the tee shots on 10, 11 and 17.  Note that these are 'least best'.  

I have less 'least best' at NSW though.Perhaps #18 only.

The three par 3'a at RA are so good to play.  Number 12 (220 yards downhill into the prevailing wind with a small green and a small sand splash that looks as big as a house) and number 16 (170 yards to a plateau green with a swale right, and deep bunkers left with a Pinehurst style rejection of any marginal shot) are very difficult with the small greens, generally requiring a reasonable tee shot followed by a great chip.  To hit these greens is memorable.  By contrast, #7 (160 yards to a large, exposed green surrrounded by small pot bunkers.  New undulations just added to the green) looks like an easy hole, until you play into the prevailing south-wester.

The test against other Australian course par 3's is a difficult one because the par 3's are one of our strengths down under.  Off the top of my head, is Metropolitan in your top 20?  Are its par 3's better than RA?  I accept you have played more of these than I have Matt.

James B

[Jim Nugent]

How do the least-best at RA compare to the least-best at Pebble Beach?

[tonyt]

Matty,

I know you were a little underwhelmed at Royal Adelaide. Over a number of years, I've learnt to treasure the place and the course, and find less worrying the possibly overstated lows and celebrate the obviously top level highs. The past threads on here where people aren't sure what's the deal with Maidstone reminds me very much of what this thread could become.

Specifically, and I've always found this of RA watchers, I think that Royal Adelaide's better holes are more easily appreciated in the first couple of playings, and that the alleged lesser half is far better thought of after multiple playings. And I'm not using the cop out of familiarity in this summation, just drawing on the collective experiences of the players from the days of the SA Open being there a few years running who's view changed rapidly from their first visit there until after their first 6-8 rounds.

I will back James Bennett in saying that at least until this week's (?) grand opening, RA has better one shotters than Metro. #7 excites and exacts, and watching a few groups of pros play it is testament to that. #12 is a strong long par 3 that cleverly intimidates a lot more than it needs to, and #16 is an excellent hole that requires nerve and alertness late in the round, and looks both far more inviting and yet more dangerous than it need be. An incorrect miss though is deadly here.

I remember also you were not so charmed by #3. Is it that being an archie fan, you have been a part of a "hype" that the regular golfer wouldn't hear about? I think it is a truly great short 4, and have seen it play never less than great over many years.

[Brian Walshe]

Tithers,

When was the last time that you played RA?  The reason I ask is that they have made, and are continuing to make, changes.  Some of the changes aren't too bad and some are just dreadful, so bad in fact that they have stuck in my mind and are the first things I think of when RA comes up.  The fairway bunkers on 8 for example, would be laughed at on a cheap public track, but to inflict them on somewhere that had the pedigree of RA is little short of criminal.

RA is heading down the path that Commonwealth went down 15 years ago.  

[Andrew Summerell]

I played RA last October (2005) & I found it extremely eclectic architecturally. Maybe a little to eclectic for me. There are 5 or 6 courses in Australia that I would place above it.

[Ben Cowan-Dewar]

I like the comparison to Maidstone, because I would put them in a similar league and the great holes at each standout among the best, however I am unsure what everyone feels are RA's weak holes.

I think Royal Adelaide was the greatest surprise of my entire trip, which probably elevated it a 0.5 point in my mind, but I still think it was great.

In reading Tom's comment, I feel that he implies RA is not fun, of which it is, incredibly so. The walk is a great one, the holes of the dune are great and the chance to play holes like three, six, seven, 14, etc. would make the round.

[James Bennett]

Brian Walshe

I agree with your comments re the fairway bunkering on #8.  The green (fortunately) is still in place untouched.  What a magnificent green to play a nine-iron or wedge too.  Very small (perhaps 3000 sq feet) with a deceiving mound at front right blocking the view, especially from the right.  nd a guick front-to-back cant on the left side that takes any shot played left through the green.  An exacting green, which may be missed by those confronting that bunker complex.

The architecture of the three par 3's is also interesting.  

The 7th was originally routed for play from 0730 on the clock, from down where the 4th fairway is.  The bunkering could well be the remnants of style from pre-MacKenzie, although recently some of these have been filled in and others reshaped.  The hole always had a quite different appearance to any other hole on the course, although the bunkers do seem to be multiplying.

On my Adelaide aerials thread, Bill V (Redanman) commented on the judicious use of bunkers.  Generally in Adelaide that would be correct but some recent developments at these courses have involved the 'use three bunkers in lieu of one' concept.  RA #8, #15 and Kooyonga #18 are examples of bunkers multiplying quickly.

Hole #12 is so simple.  I bekieve it is from the Doctor's routing and invovles a small (3000 sq feet), flat green slightly elevated abobe the local ground.  The single bunker is so tiny and shallow, but looks so large and imposing from the aerial tee.  It is perfectly placed to make it look much more imposing than it is.  If you have played at Moortown in Leeds and seen some of the small, simple sand splashs around that course, you will understand the bunker style.

Hole #16 again is a very small green (about 3000 sq feet) guarded by two bunkers left (gathering bunkers!) and a swale right (gathering swale).  Slightly uphill of abot 175 yards, with the prevailing wind from the right.  Hit a draw at your peril, the target becomes very small.  Not sure if this was a Doctor Mac hole (it may have been a par 4 planned).

The latter two (#12 and #16) par 3's have escaped any amendment over the last 30 years to my knowledge, and epitomise Bill V's comment of judicious bunkering.

James B

[Tom_Doak]

Ben:  I didn't mean to imply that Royal Adelaide was not fun.  I just meant that you could have equal fun at many other courses in Melbourne, without spending time flying to Adelaide.

I rated Royal Adelaide an 8 in The Confidential Guide.  It has been 18 years since I saw it, but I still have great respect for it.  But is an 8 worth the flight instead of staying in one place and playing two more 7's which you haven't seen?  To me, it isn't anymore, and it bothers me that there are so many belt-notchers out there who ignore places like Portsea or Woodlands or St. Andrews Beach so they can play another "top 100" course.  

[Ben Cowan-Dewar]

Tom,
I know what you are saying, but I would make two contentions. You listed eight courses in North America that were public, which were Doak 8 or higher. That means that there are very few courses in the world you held in such high esteem that were public. Couple that with the fact that the course played nearly perfect in November 04 when I was there.

When you ask is it worth it and state that it is not to you, I understand where you are coming from and you have the advantage of having first seen it. I would feel that anybody who was travelling to Australia in what might be there only trip, would be well advised not to skip it.

In a similar vein, we are planning a South Africa trip and the most awkward portion of the trip is to include Durban. However, I know of few true golfers who would travel that far and miss Durban. I don't think belt notching has to be attributed as the motivation. You had only one course you thought was better in Australia and two that were its equal (one being Commonwealth, which I think may have changed since you gave it an , which means in seeking out RA, you are essentially seeking out one of the three best courses in Australia (pre-Barnbougle days). I disagree with your assessment of NSW, but I comfortably put RA in my top 5.

If seeking out the greatest courses in Australia was your goal, I would say RA is a must.

[Matthew Mollica]

Tithers,

Brian echoes my sentiments well.
8 has suffered from poor alteration.
Thank goodness the green remains untouched.

The highpoints of the course including 3,4,9,10,11 are great.
I love three. Never said a bad word about it I don't think.

I just think that there is some work going on at RA which will detract from the quality of the course. Needless bunkering of very poor quality to boot. Add to that some questionable mowing practices in bottlenecking the 4th fairway and some other areas around the course, and I was left scratching my head.

Add to that the lowly opinion I have of 7 and I start to question how much longetr RA will remain in the nation's top ten.

Three par threes on the course. Two play in the same direction, from the same rise. I find the seventh green and it's bunkering perhaps the ugliest and most unimaginative piece of design I've seen on a premier golf course. 16 goes some way to redeeming the course, but it can't undo the let down of 7 and 12.

Ben,

Some may consider St. Andrews Beach, Barnbougle, NSW, RMW, RME, Woodlands and National Moonah all superior to RA.

Did you play Kooyonga when you were here?

Matthew

[James Bennett]

Matthew M

what do you think of the tee-shot on #11, in particular the new bunker set in the hill on the right.  There are now three fairway bunkers, with two of them having a gathering aspect.

The rebuild of the green on #11 since last year has been good, IMO.  The nature area short of the green has been restored (the old pathway thru the middle has been removed to the rhs) whilst the fairway short of the green has been reduced in size.  And extensive pine removal around this green, expecially lefy and back left.

James B

[Matthew Mollica]

what do you think of the tee-shot on #11, in particular the new bunker set in the hill on the right.  There are now three fairway bunkers, with two of them having a gathering aspect.

Certainly tightens up the drive. Didn't mind it that much, although I would like the area to be a little less bunker and a little more lawn.

I love the greensite and the work that appears to have gone into 'naturalising' the site looks good.

James, what are your fav 4 holes there?

MM

[Ben Cowan-Dewar]

Ben,

Some may consider St. Andrews Beach, Barnbougle, NSW, RMW, RME, Woodlands and National Moonah all superior to RA.

Did you play Kooyonga when you were here?

Matthew

Dear Matthew,
I did not see Woodlands, of the courses you listed above. However, I would say that I believe RA is superior to SAB, RME and NM. I think NSW, RMW and Barnbougle are all superior to RA.

[tonyt]

Ben:  I didn't mean to imply that Royal Adelaide was not fun.  I just meant that you could have equal fun at many other courses in Melbourne, without spending time flying to Adelaide.

I rated Royal Adelaide an 8 in The Confidential Guide.  It has been 18 years since I saw it, but I still have great respect for it.  But is an 8 worth the flight instead of staying in one place and playing two more 7's which you haven't seen?  To me, it isn't anymore, and it bothers me that there are so many belt-notchers out there who ignore places like Portsea or Woodlands or St. Andrews Beach so they can play another "top 100" course.  

This comment is spot on.

Forget the pure rankings of courses (even if they were perfectly correct) for a moment.

If you were based in Melbourne for a golf holiday, you could justify flying to play NSW and flying to play Barny, but a depth of wonderful quality within an hour or so of each other in and around Melbourne embarrasses any other precinct I can imagine and makes further air travel superfluous and for potentially the smallest of gains.

Matty,

I played RA twice about five years ago. I can't comment on the most recent work, but note yours and Walshy's comments. The JC on TV last year didn't really expose much of the latest bunkering admittedly. But there would have to be much frivolity taking place before I could entertain NM or Woodlands being superior. One thing I do know about RA from experience is that as I stated above, I'd rather you play her a few more times before asserting otherwise.

It is more convention than exception that the long awaited game at the course one has always known one must play that isn't followed up with numerous others can leave it being underwhelmingly compared if any of the initial impressions don't live up to their likely expectations.

[David_Elvins]

I disagree with a few on here.  I think it is worth travelling for ($120 return and 1 hour from Melbourne is not an outlandish day trip) becasue it has a lot of unique stuff that you won't see done as well anywhere else in Australia.  The vegetation, the off fairway areas, the intimacy of the routing, the 3rd and 11th and 14th holes are all excellently done and relatively unique.  Much can also be learnt from some of the strategically subtleties on holes like 2 and 8.

Some of the more recent bunkers and tees do not fit in with the rest of the course and I don't think the course will reach it's potential until these are fixed but there is a lot more good classic stuff there than maybe any Australian course other than RM, KH, Barnbougle and NSW.

[Ben Cowan-Dewar]

David,
I agree and couple it with a dinner at Magill Estate and a wine tasting at the Grange (or a tour up to Barossa) and you are talking about an all-world day in Adelaide.

BCD

[James Bennett]

James, what are your fav 4 holes there?

MM

Matt

I think I would rather answer this question with a much longer response later tonight.  There is so much of RA that I love.  I have seen it change over the last 35 years but so much of it is unchanged.  It passes MacKenzie's 'foozler' test whilst testing the better player.  It has always palyed year-round firm and fast, the most so of all Adelaide Courses for my 35 years (Kooyonga can get realy frim for an event, but not as firm year-round).  There have been changes over the last 35 years that IMO have improved the course (eg #17 green) whilst others leave me scratching my head (some but not all of the bunker amendments).  There have been some errors over the last 35 years that have been reversed (eg 2-tier green on #6, a long green on #10 incorporating the approach from the fairway cut-off - how boring was the play to that green when the convex 4000 sq feet were well beyond the pin ).  And RA is a poster child for not, I repeat not planting trees, and over the last decade for dealing with the intrusion of shrubbery and pines to allow the course to return to the way it previously played.

I really enjoy so many of the greensites, and the proliferation of front-to-back slopes on parts of these accentuated by the firmness of the greens.

Favourite holes (where I like the total hole, not just parts of it) include in numerical order 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 12, 13 (from a rear tee), 14 (not from a rear tee!), 15, 16.  There are other parts of holes in between that I also like eg green at #10 and #11.

I think what I really like is the green-sites which I will elaborate on more tonight.

That said, I prefer NSW to RA (I haven't played RM).  But it is comparing two very different courses of high quality.

I love Woodlands in Melbourne, but I would rate RA as superior.  Why?  Because the RA course tests good players whilst allowing the foozler and beginner to learn to play the game.  I expect beginners would find navigating their way around Woodlands to be a daunting challenge because of the quality of aerial shot to firm, fast greens required.  That said, some of the rough that the beginner has to face at RA is equally daunting.  Waist high grasses and reeds are possibly more of an issue than deep bunkers!

Till tonight.

James B

[Mark_F]

David,

What exactly is the intimacy of the routing, and why does that win brownie points?

[David_Elvins]

Mark,

I am not sure what the technical definintion of "intimacy of the routing" is and I am not sure if it automatically deserves browny points.  But to expand upon my comments on Royal Adelaide: A quite unique feature of the course is the fact that you are never more than 600 metres from the clubhouse at any place on the golf course.  Added to this is the number of loops in the routing: 1-2, 4-7, 2-8, 8-12, 14-18, 15-17 and probably plenty more that I have missed.  When combined with the feeling of spaciousness that alot of the course has, these two features give the place a wonderful feel, they are of  great benefit for golfers like you and me who like to go out for a few holes in the evening and they make the course an excellent tournament venue for spectators.  

[James Bennett]

Matt M

I regard RA highly.  There are so many things to like.  There are other things that are certainly 'least best', and some developments over the years that IMO clash with some of the course.  But they have left so many things as is for so long.

The Club custodians have done a fine job over the years and avoided many of the pitfalls so many other clubs haven't.  

1 RA was the last of the Adelaide sandbelt to irrigate the fairways.  The old two-grass couch/poa is still evident in parts, with the newer hybrid couches taking hold in others.  However, the lush look is not and has never been 'in' at Royal Adelaide.  Look at the Adelaide aerials from my earlier posts and compare the colours of RA in February with the other courses.  Fairways are firm and fast
2 RA always has had firm greens, and a reasonable pace (not Augusta-ish, but they can be if they want.  Members pace).  And the fairways/surrounds have always been firm - they don't over-water in summer so they stay drier in winter (they also receive a little less rain at Seaton than the courses a couple of miles down the road, and a lot less than my hills Club further south.)  I recall playing competitive golf in the early 80's.  We generally played top-flite XL's then (even YELLOW ones  ), but always had to lash out and buy a white Titeleist balata at RA.  You couldn't play there with a top flite XL.  I expect Royal Melbourne has been similar, although I expect quicker paced.
3.  The greens, bunkering and angles of play fit so well.  Play the course from the members tees, and a nine-iron from the right angle is so easy.  Go back 20 yards and the crossing of a bunker plus the change in  angle reducing the effective slope to hold the ball, and any shot not perfectly struck will fail.
4.  The Club (to my knowledge) has not bad the tree planting programs that have plagued others.  It has always been the most open, exposed of the Adelaide courses.  There are pines around the sandhills, and a few trees interspersed here and there but no tree rows (except perimyter boundaries)
5.  Many of the green rebuilds have made better holes.  #17 used to be a simple green, but the two-tier built perhaps 25 years ago with a gathering pot bunker at middle left (Road hole position) has been an improvement.  Other green rebuilds have retained a simple design - subtle slopes  and angles that reward positional play, penalising off-line shots.
I think local sand is used for the bunkers, with a pale orange/fawn tinge in it.

The sandhills at the centre of the course are lovely, but the surrounding areas are quite flat.  Obviously based on sand.  Mounding has been progressively added to 1,2,5,6,8,9,13,15 and 18 over the years and the results are mixed.  Some of the new associated bunkering is repetitive IMO - 3 hazards in new mounds where one would do the job.  However, many holes do not have this, and have retained their older character.  I expect the custodians of the Club have had to balance some issues of difficulty with history.

David Elvins commented on the closness of the Clubhouse to the course.  Quite right.  Located in the centre of the property by the trainline (which used to transport members from the other side of town) with holes and the practice fairway surrounding it. Looking back over the city towards the Adelaide hills behind.  The library and historic photo/map collection inside is well worth alook.

Are there better courses in Australia - yes.  Are some courses presented better in Adelaide  - well it depoends what you want.  If you want a golf course, RA is it.  If you want a green garden with lush fairways, then there are other courses.

James B

[Neil_Crafter]

As someone who, like James Bennett, has been playing Royal Adelaide for 35 years I'd just like to voice my opposition to Matthew Mollica's assertion that RA's par threes are weak. This assertion is unsupportable IMO.

7 is a wonderful test of length with your iron as anything past pin high risks a likely three putt, and although the hole is old fashioned in many respects it is a fine hole.

12 is long and the green small - on some days into a westerly gale the green is unreachable. A great contrast to the shot needed to the other par threes.

And the last of the trio is a real gem, the 16th. I believe this is a most underrated hole and I'd put it in the top half dozen par threes in the country. It is not spectacular, far from it, at first glance it appears most ordinary. But it requires fine shotmaking and the margin for error is slim, especially when the pin is in the front as the ground at either side of the approach repels  an ever so slightly errant approach to the left into the bunkers (reovery from these is nver simple) or off to the riht into the grassy hollow from where many a bogey (or worse) has been scored. How these three holes can be considered weak beggars belief and Matthew has perhaps only played them a couple of times. Enough for me.

[James Bennett]

Neil Crafter

thanks for the comment.  I am surprised when I play at Royal Adelaide to see their stroke index (for stableford and par games) for a course which has so many tough, long par 4's.  As a 7 or 8 handicapper, I think I get a stroke on both #12 and #16.  A storke on a par 3 of only 170 yards?  And on a long par 3 with a bunker so small that you could only fit 5 englishmen in it on a sunny autumn day?   Play these holes 5 times, and count your scores.  You will understand why these two holes are rated as they are.

The 7th is (to me) a legacy of the routing change from the 1920's, great tee site and great green site, and the result might be quirky (because the ground is shaped for play from a different angle).  If I am right here, imagine playing to a large 'short' type green with slope, easy to hit but easy to three-putt (or worse) if you are lax with the shot.  Relocate the tee about 50 degrees to the right, and play over a sand dune gully full of waist high grasses and reeds. Into the prevailing wind.  The hole was about 150 yards but often played as a 5-iron.  Any weak shot was affected by the breeze.  The new tiger tees have rotated the hole a further 10 or 15 degrees, and increased the length by another 20 yards.  Not sure how much of an improvement this is, but it is certainly tougher and longer for the better players.

James B

[David_Elvins]

The new tiger tees have rotated the hole a further 10 or 15 degrees, and increased the length by another 20 yards.  Not sure how much of an improvement this is, but it is certainly tougher and longer for the better players.

James B

What do people think of the Tiger tees at RA?  I must admit to not being a fan of some of them at all.  7 is a worse hole from the Tiger tee (taking away some cool pins on the right edge of the green, the change of angle on 6 looks terrible and the tee on 8 has been extended into a runway that makes a nice looking elevated tee shot into a blind tee shot. The staggering of the tees on the back of the hill on 4 also llooks odd IMO.

I think it is going to be a real problem at a lot of courses when the committee and architect go searching for extra length, jamming tees into wherever they will fit, with no regard for playing angles or elevation changes.

[James Bennett]

David

I agree 100% on your take on these.  

I guess it is related to one of the reasons why I dislike the new fairway bunker on the right of #11.  Such a marvellous view into the crater, but the frequency with which you can actually play the shot seeing the green is now very low.  Why create a lay-up to a blind position when such a magnificent view goes begging.  Increased difficulty gained at the expense of architectural emmories.  

That new right hand fairway bunker on #11 was the ideal location before - you had to carry the bunker shorter and set into the hill, and play right of the leftside fairway bunker.  It was a good testing shot to get there.  If you played too far right, you were in a sand dune hollow.  If you played too long you were in the crater.  Now, I just feel like laying up (if I can) to a blind spot 20 metres shorter than I used to.

James B

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()