St Andrews Beach

« **on:** January 28, 2007, 10:08:29 PM »

I played the Gunnamatta course at St Andrews Beach recently and was struck by the amount of well struck shots that went unrewarded. This is unusual in the Victorian context, and I don't remember this type of 'quirk' being a feature at Barnbougle either. There has also been a lot of local discussion about the number of blind and semi-blind shots on the course and the small, often heavily sloping greens, further polarising opinion.

So as someone who has never played OS, my question is - do you need to have experience of the great British links to fully appreciate the course and the intent of the designer? Or has the inspiration come from somewhere else (tiny greens to force more consideration of short game options?)?

And please no arcane discussions of the position of George Blunt's shoulder on the 13th tee.

« **Reply #1 on:** January 28, 2007, 10:44:38 PM »

Quote from: James_L on January 28, 2007, 10:08:29 PM

I played the Gunnamatta course at St Andrews Beach recently and was struck by the amount of well struck shots that went unrewarded.

James_L

I don't quite follow your logic here. I have played twice at St Andrews Beach and was adeqautely rewarded for my well struck shots. I think it is an excellent course. Perhaps you were not rewarded because you didnt actually strike them that well?

« **Reply #2 on:** January 29, 2007, 12:15:47 AM »

James, can you be more specific? How/why did your well-struck shots not turn out well? Thanks...

« **Reply #3 on:** January 29, 2007, 12:46:27 AM »

James,
What happened to the well-executed shots? I presume the endresult wasn't commensurate with quality of the shot. How difficult were the recoveries in this situation? In hindsight, were there better places to have tried to play the ball to?

« **Reply #4 on:** January 29, 2007, 01:13:02 AM »

Ed/Jim, they don't tend to end up in too much trouble, with the possible exceptions of 10 and 16. It is usually chip or putt across short grass to the green. I didn't really want to list examples as it would likely end up in a highly technical and dull 'it does/it doesn't' argument (and the kids are running amok and I don't have time). What I had assumed as a given was that it is by far the 'quirkiest' highly ranked course in Australia. It is certainly like nothing else I have played down here. I'm not intending this thread to be critical, but from my perspective the course is extremely unique in Aust, polarising opinion. I am running into a lot of people that really don't like it at all, and I'm not sure what to make of a lot of things - hence the question about whether experience on the British links would help people get it. I know Mark Ferguson is well versed in this field, so would be interested to hear his opinion.

Of course, I could just be the world's unluckiest golfer. More for you to look forward to on your trip Ed.

« **Reply #5 on:** January 29, 2007, 01:38:45 AM »

Was it a local knowledge thing? Would you have played a different shot if you had it to do again?

« **Reply #6 on:** January 29, 2007, 01:40:35 AM »

« **Reply #7 on:** January 29, 2007, 01:44:08 AM »

James, did your shots take crazy bounces out of the fairway and into the rough? Did you not know where to aim on blind shots? Did you have trouble clubbing yourself? Did the greens not hold well-hit approach shots? Did the contours of the greens send some well-struck shots curving and twisting off the green, or leave you with impossible putts?

You said you don't want to get specific, but without some more details I can't get much sense for what really happened out there.

« **Reply #8 on:** January 29, 2007, 02:33:42 AM »

Quote from: James_L on January 28, 2007, 10:08:29 PM

the small, often heavily sloping greens,

That's another furphy, James.

Only six greens could be considered small - the 1st, 4th, 8th, 9th, 10th and 16th.

13 is situated within a vast bowl that beautifully funnels the ball onto the green, so could hardly be considered small.

The 2nd, 3rd, 12th, 15th, 17th and 18th are large, or at least will be until the club can't afford to pay its water bill and they shrink in size, whilst the rest are average size.

That would therefore appear to mean that the number of small and large greens are balanced equally.

I've played with more than a few people who had heard how small the greens apparently are, but wondered where they were once they had finished.

And (some) might be heavily contoured, but only a handful - 3, 5, 11 and 16 - could be considered heavily sloping.

« **Reply #9 on:** January 29, 2007, 03:27:07 AM »

James L,

Maybe the course you are a member of in beautiful Melbourne, where children can freely roam beaches without fear of riot & life membership are merely taken with a grain of salt, is too flat & you have forgotten what a few hills on a golf course feels like.

Do you need to have played British Links golf to appreciate St.A's ? No

« **Reply #10 on:** January 29, 2007, 06:37:44 AM »

James L

George Blunt's shoulder on #13 tee? Please explain. (by the way, is George well? It is 10 months ago that we saw him)

I found St Andrew's Beach greens to be very challenging for a first (and only) time player. I have played some other native soil greens since, and have found them equally challenging. Whether it be determining where to try and land my approach, or trying to pick the line on a 4 foot putt (does it break left, or right). I found it harder than trying to read bermuda greens. I llook forward to trying again, and seeing what I learn the second time around.

James L, perhaps you could compare your experience to playing some other challenging approach shots, for example to Woodlands #7, or perhaps #13 from the lhs of fairway. Is the problem you had at St Andrews similar to these challenges? Or is it local knowledge? Or something else.

I'm looking forward to seeing the threads from our US friends who have played St Andrews Beach, as I think they experience some quite wild and undulating greens over there more frequently than we do. I think many Australian clubs would have a member-induced revolt if they proposed some of the more interesting greens that are on the US (and GB&I) courses.

James B

« **Reply #11 on:** January 29, 2007, 07:03:22 AM »

Quote from: James Bennett on January 29, 2007, 06:37:44 AM

Is the problem you had at St Andrews similar to these challenges? Or is it local knowledge? Or something else.

I'm looking forward to seeing the threads from our US friends who have played St Andrews Beach, as I think they experience some quite wild and undulating greens over there more frequently than we do. I think many Australian clubs would have a member-induced revolt if they proposed some of the more interesting greens that are on the US (and GB&I) courses.

James B

JB, I didn't have a problem at StA and much prefer the apparent design philosphy that shorter and more interesting is a better way to deal with the distance issue than the longer and duller approach employed at many other modern courses. Although there are a surprising amount of blind and semi-blind shots, which are arguably overdone (not that I'm in the mood for an argument)

Quote from: Jim Nugent on January 29, 2007, 01:44:08 AM

James, did your shots take crazy bounces out of the fairway and into the rough? Did you not know where to aim on blind shots? Did you have trouble clubbing yourself? Did the greens not hold well-hit approach shots? Did the contours of the greens send some well-struck shots curving and twisting off the green, or leave you with impossible putts?

You said you don't want to get specific, but without some more details I can't get much sense for what really happened out there.

Jim, I wouldn't get too worried about making sense of my travails. I guess at the heart of my clearly poorly articulated post was the germ of a thought that StAB may be a little too quirky and unusual for the general Australian golfing populace. Although from what Mark says, it would seem we're all just too stupid.

Quote from: Andrew Summerell on January 29, 2007, 03:27:07 AM

James L,

Maybe the course you are a member of in beautiful Melbourne, where children can freely roam beaches without fear of riot & life membership are merely taken with a grain of salt, is too flat & you have forgotten what a few hills on a golf course feels like.

Do you need to have played British Links golf to appreciate St.A's ? No

Is StA remotely like any other course you have played in Aust? Just curious, as it is unlike anything else I've played in my poorly travelled life, and I was curious how much inspiration the designer may have derived from the GB&I links..

Quote from: Mark Ferguson on January 29, 2007, 01:40:35 AM

Your game must certainly have slipped a lot James - you had no trouble on your previous visit. In fact, I seem to remember that you shot better than your handicap, one of the few to have done so, especially on your first visit, and were apparently justly rewarded back then.

If you place the ball properly, hit the ball properly, and then, here's the clincher - THINK - you will find you are amply rewarded.

I don't believe experience on any of the great British links is a prerequisite - however, an open mind definitely is, which is why Brian, the poor love, can't get his head around it - that accountant's logic just doesn't allow much in the way of lateral thinking. Or any thought at all, really. The tone of your post defintely suggests you have been corrupted by the great man recently. First Chris, now you.

Clearly, he is a man afraid of new concepts, because he has, alas, refused to take me up on my more than generous offer to patiently explain it all to him. I will even provide the crayons and butcher's paper.

I actually get a reasonable mixture of opinion from people that I take around. Some unreservedly love it. Some hate it.
Some also love it, but hate the greens. 3, 9,10 and 16 are generally the bane of these sad people's existence, but I have seen 10 hit and held with everything from a 3 wood to a hybrid, to, last week, a 140 metre sand wedge, by players of all standards, in all conditions. The array of shot options that can be used to the various pins on such a small green is truly stupendous.

Your question behoves another, though. On most of the classic tracks, the mysteries on how to play the various holes are reasonably well known - a new course like Gunnamatta keeps its mysteries shrouded until you have played a few rounds.

And have a brain.

Clearly, Shane, myself and David are the only intelligent people left in Melbourne.

Mark, it is an indication of the paucity of you position that you instantly resort to the personal attack. I'm not sure it bodes well for the place if you require superior intellect to appreciate its apparent (to the brilliant) greatness. They must love having you as their internet defender of the faith.

And if the 2nd is a larger green then they must range in size from tiny to medium. 5 isn't terribly large either and there is room for about 4 pin positions on 7.

« **Reply #12 on:** January 29, 2007, 07:03:38 AM »

Mark, there are more than David, Shane and yourself who love the place.

I feel I'm familiar with what James_L is talking about. On my last visit, a playing partner of mine frequently played smart, well-struck approaches and was left with his ball in positions where he thought - "Geez, I thought I might have had a better outcome than that".

Surely lots of people here have had that feeling on the course.

Matthew

« **Reply #13 on:** January 29, 2007, 07:13:16 AM »

I played 34 holes at The Old Course (my only visit) before I was 'rewarded' for a well executed shot. When there are undulations in the landing areas, and the ground game is in play - sometimes it just isn't your day(s).

« **Reply #14 on:** January 29, 2007, 08:41:06 AM »

....by the amount of well struck shots that went unrewarded....

That's the difference between real golf and the ''americanised golf'' (sorry, I don't have any politically correct word to say it)

Real golf - links golf mostly that is, the game is not about ball striking (hitting the ball in the middle of the clubface), it is about positionning your ball for the next shot, it's about learning a course, strategy and thinking.

When you play some non-championship scottish links (Elie, North Berwick, Crail etc) there are some holes where ideas like hitting the green in regulation is a non sense (even on a 350 yards par 4) because the slope of the green + the downwind is too important... so you play over the green on purpose and try to up and down your way for a 4.

modern golf is about striking the ball the proper distance and not caring about it after that... Hitting greens in regulation, weak bunkers etc...

a shot is only a good one depending on the result of it, not the swing and the impact on the clubface

« **Reply #15 on:** January 29, 2007, 09:10:54 AM »

I am planning on playing this course next year, the photo's look great.

I am starting to see some of Nicklaus' courses have the feature you are talking about, notably Dismal River and North Palm Beach.

« **Reply #16 on:** January 29, 2007, 05:49:39 PM »

Matt:

You have a degree in Applied Science. That of course automatically qualifies you as intelligent.

James L:

You appear to have an overly sensitive disposition. I did not
resort to personal attacks, although your position is perhaps understandable in someone who can't articulate their thoughts properly.

I stated that you seemed to have no problem with the rub of the green last time. This time, you did. Clearly, something has gone awry, and since the course is the same, that means it must have been you.

And "defender of the faith?" My oh my, I seem to have heard that phrase used before by someone else. Kind of cements my other opinions above, doesn't it?

James Bennett:

I believe James is referring to the barmy that took place after the GCA day last year.

It was Andrew Thomson's learned opinion that George's shoulder represented the ideal line to play along, and only required a modest carry commensurate with one's humility about their limitations, and all would be well.

Needless to say, the unintelligent swill who were there that day - and ones that weren't - disagreed vehemently with him.

Even though they had no idea what the conditions that hole played in that day.

« **Reply #17 on:** January 29, 2007, 08:51:38 PM »

James L:

It sounds like you are over thinking St. Andrews Beach. The place is all about having fun. Sure a "well struck shot" may not turn out as well as you would like. But, no worries. There are plenty of shots where the golfer trying to have fun will enjoy playing them over and over again.

I wish St. Andrews Beach was close to Nashville, Tennessee so I could play it more often.

« **Reply #18 on:** January 30, 2007, 01:13:58 AM »

I think it is very difficult to judge the "fairness" of a hole, green or course for that matter based on a limited number of games. My home course hosted the 2006 Canadian Senior Championship, and I watched many players walk off our 16th green, cursing and labelling it unfair. As someone who has played the holes hundreds of times, it surely must rank as one of Stanley Thompson's best and is eminently "fair" and plenty of fun when the approach has been played to the proper side of the hole and the pin position has been careful considered. If not, trying to eke out a par can result in doubles or worse, but having the brains to accept a bogey a skill unto itself. Is it demanding? Absolutely. Can it embarass you? Positively. More importantly, it is fun, and a great example of why match play would evoke a more acceptable response among visiting players, because it can spoil a medal round.

TK

« **Reply #19 on:** January 30, 2007, 01:28:49 AM »

I think St. Andrews Beach asks players to play shots they are not generally accustomed to make. For example, the third, ninth & tenth greens seem to demand an approach to the back portion of the green. This gives a uphill putt replete with backstop to a mid-left pin at #3, and a reasonable chance to two-putt a front pin at #9. At #10, the back edge of the green will pull the ball back towards the middle of the green.

Further, some of the greens play larger than their actual dimensions, namely the fifth green which is situated in a punchbowl and the short cropped grass surrounding the putting surface makes it play much larger, the same scenario as #13. Finally, while much of the right portion of #6 is concealed from the tee, the back left corner will funnel balls towards the centre of the green.

Remember, contour is the heart and soul of golf.

TK

« **Reply #20 on:** January 30, 2007, 02:16:12 AM »

Quote from: Tyler Kearns on January 30, 2007, 01:28:49 AM

I think St. Andrews Beach asks players to play shots they are not generally accustomed to make.
TK

Exactly, Tyler.

What is vastly amusing to me, is that it is almost overwhelmingly the better players- 10 h/cap and below - who universally dislike the course and the apparent unfairness of various features.

And who possess the ability to hit those sorts of shots.

« **Reply #21 on:** January 30, 2007, 02:24:45 AM »

Quote from: Mark Ferguson on January 30, 2007, 02:16:12 AM

What is vastly amusing to me, is that it is almost overwhelmingly the better players- 10 h/cap and below - who universally dislike the course and the apparent unfairness of various features.

And who possess the ability to hit those sorts of shots.

Mark, that surprises me a lot. But then again I like the course a lot. Go figure?

Shane

« **Reply #22 on:** January 30, 2007, 04:59:07 AM »

Shane,

I did say almost overwhelmingly...

I have of course come across a few complete choppers - Chris -

- who dislike it, but it has tended to be the better players, who, for the most part, complain, mostly about the greens.

Bit rich coming from people that hit 140 metre sand wedges, or 6 iron over the back of 4.

« **Reply #23 on:** January 30, 2007, 05:19:40 AM »

I dislike it Mark?

« **Reply #24 on:** February 06, 2007, 06:04:52 PM »

Quote from: Tim_Weiman on January 29, 2007, 08:51:38 PM

It sounds like you are over thinking St. Andrews Beach. The place is all about having fun. Sure a "well struck shot" may not turn out as well as you would like. But, no worries. There are plenty of shots where the golfer trying to have fun will enjoy playing them over and over again.

Tim, I prefer your explanation that I'm overthinking to Marks that I'm not. One of the nagging doubts I had following my first visit was that when the ball inevitably misses the green, you are playing the same shot over again. Whilst all the short grass around the greens allows multiple shot options, it seems that most people automatically go to their default shot, usually the putter (6 iron for me). There just isn't enough small movement or undulation around many of the greens to force players to seriously consider multiple options. I haven't played so many 6 irons around the greens since I last played on sand scrapes.

Quote from: Mark Ferguson on January 29, 2007, 05:49:39 PM

I stated that you seemed to have no problem with the rub of the green last time. This time, you did. Clearly, something has gone awry, and since the course is the same, that means it must have been you.

Mark, you certainly get a different perspective on the course when playing it in foul conditions with Brian as opposed to perfect conditions with the course evangelist. Whilst I think the approach of a shorter course with smaller greens is the best way to address the distance issue, I'm not sure that it is quite right here.

News:

James_Livingston

Shane Gurnett

Jim Nugent

ed_getka

James_Livingston

Matt_Cohn

Mark_F

Jim Nugent

Mark_F

Andrew Summerell

James Bennett

James_Livingston

Matthew Mollica

Lloyd_Cole

Philippe Binette

cary lichtenstein

Mark_F

Tim_Weiman

Tyler Kearns

Tyler Kearns

Mark_F

Shane Gurnett

Mark_F

Chris Kane

James_Livingston