I'm caddying at the Womens Australian Open at Kingston Heath this week.

It struck me during the practice round today just how much better the course plays for women than for men.  On almost every hole the fairway bunkers were in perfect position; the second shots on par-fives were well tested; and because they're hitting longer clubs into greens they must use a larger variety of shots.

As Mark Ferguson will remind everyone, I'm far from a good player, but I'd say the course is more relevant for a professional women from this week's tees than myself from the medal tees.

Anyone who thinks the game is better with 320 yard drives should watch them play this week, it tells a story.

I showed a girl who is playing in the Open around the course last week Chris, and could not help but think the exact same thing all the way around.

The tees ( a mixture of back men's/front men's/ladies) have been positioned so that the hazards come into play as they were designed. It was very interesting to see how a smart pro woman golfer approached each shot.

Also, the greens need to be approached completely differently when you can't get huge carry and height on the iron shots - course management and distance/spin control are so important.

It made me want to lose 20 metres of distance and gain 30% accuracy

It would be great to see a top womens event played around RM (once it recovers). The different would be even more pronounced, as the doglegs could not be destroyed like they are by the top men.

Jack Nicklaus copped a fair bit of criticism for saying that RM was 'a great members course' - but it was a very well intentioned and thought out statement IMO, and a great compliment (which was not how it was taken).

Mike,

In my opinion the course set up this week is definitely not too long. The scores will obviously tell a story, but I would be very surprised if players struggle with the length. The girl I played with was 5ft3" and not a long hitter, and it is definitely not too long for her.

As for the 10th/19th debate - I don't mind 19 being in play this week, I think the reasoning is sound. However, if it were a men's open I would have strongly argued for the course to be played from 1-18 in it's normal order. Double standards? maybe

The problem with the 19th hole is that it is too bloody good!! I have often mentioned this at committee meetings, but get little agreement. If the hole was just an average temp job, there would be no temptation to 'rest' holes in club comps or sustitute holes in tournaments.

In many ways I hate the idea of any tournament being played at KH without the 10th in play. I hate the idea of a monthly medal being played without it actually.

It would have been much easier if you had done an ordinary job on that hole

Mark, you took the bait again.  You're like shooting fish in a barrel.

Shane, caddying for Stefanie Michl.

Mike, I really don't know what constitutes a short, average or long hitter on the women's tour.  It definitely played long for the three I watched today: driver off most tees and fairway woods or rescue clubs into (normal hole order) 1, 5, 6, 8, 16 and 18.  All the fives were layups with fairway woods to wedge distance.

They all said it was the longest course they'd ever played, but they liked the course.  They were impressed with 19 as well.

Apologies Rich, 17 was a 19* rescue onto the green!

Rich,

The normal finish - 14- 18 is much better for the men but for the women 2-6 is a good length and there is a lot of variety there. 3 playing as 15 comes at a really good time in a tournament - like 15 at Victoria.

As an aside - have you ever played from the 2nd tee to the 3rd green? I was looking at it again yesterday.It is one of the best par 5s in Melbourne.

I agree it works for the women, and 5 is a very good 17th hole in a tournament also, especially when hitting 5-iron/rescue in.

I have played 2 tee to 3 green a few times - we used to do that a bit in the early pennant days. It's great fun.

I agree it would be a great hole, but it would be at the expense of one of Melbourne's best par 4's unfortunately. It's a pity it's not a combination of 2&4 or I would be all over it!

On many older courses, yes.  But on newer ones, I think most of the bunkers are correctly positioned if the player plays the correct set of tees.  Other than the VERY longest players, I don't see most of the pros in our state events airmailing most of the hazards on the recent designs.

I also think the opposite is true - most players play too long a course and are better moving up so they can also experience the course as it was meant to play.  Driver, 3-wood, wedge gets awful boring on par-4s.

Chris, you just highlighted why I often prefer to watch the LPGA. Bomb and gouge is just so boring.

Of course, it doesn't hurt that many of the younger women are pretty, too. We can't all live in Australia, where beautiful women are commonplace.

 

I couldn't agree more!  The clsoest regular LPGA tour stop to me is the Jamie Farr event at Highland Meadows just outside of Toledo.  The ladies fit that course beautifully.  (Highland Meadows is one of the most vastly underrated golf courses in the Toledo-Detroit area.)  I compare it to Warwick Hills, another golf course of roughly the same vintage and general quality (certainly these courses are not in the same league as Oakland Hills and Inverness, but they are very credible courses otherwise), and seeing the ladies play at HIghland Meadows makes me want to get out there and play that course myself.  Seeing how the PGA guys' distances overwhelm Warwick is just disheartening and dispiriting.  Other than an annual opportunity to watch Mr. Woods in person, I get more pleasure out of a day in Sylvania with the LPGA than a day in Grand Blanc with the PGA Tour.

I agree completely that the interface, if you want to call it that, between the players' skill and the architecture is much more interesting in woman's golf.  Approach clubs are still consistent with architectural intent, for example.

In the big tournaments the woman are playing the tees the men would have played 40 years ago (or maybe a little shorter).  Annika probably hits the ball as far with modern technology as someone like Trevino did with old technology, so she is playing the course the same way he used to, or close to it.  

I think you hit the nail on the head. Everyone has just moved up a notch with technology and the PGA guys are just at a level that almost no amateur golfer can even remotely relate with anymore. The Seniors and the Women are now playing the golf courses the way the PGA guys did 20 years ago.

The women on the 6910 Augusta course from the 80's would be about 2-3 under, don't you think? Maybe 5 over for the tournament is closer, but it is really similar.

Unfortunately in an effort to protect par or "test" the players, those setting up women's tournaments can go to a tee that is too far back to meet the designer's intentions.

In 1999 and 2000, the Futures Tour played a tournament at the Tradition course at Cypresswood outside Houston.  The 17th hole there is a good short par 4 that offers lots of options off the tee.  See Tradition Course to get a rough idea of the hole.

There are 4 sets of tees: 318, 291, 265 and 215.  The three longer sets require a carry over the lake, while the short one just has water all up the right side.

In 1999, the people running the tour insisted on playing the hole from the back tee because they thought it was too short otherwise.  From what I heard, everyone laid up short of the cross bunkers.

In 2000, I convinced the other officials that the intent of the hole was to give the players an option of going for the green if they wanted and that the 318 tee was for the men pros, not the ladies.  We played it at 265 yards all 3 days.  I was on that hole the entire final round as the players tried about 4 different ways to play the hole.  The hole was just behind the front left bunker.  Some laid up short of the cross bunkers, some carried them and left a pitch into the green, some hit a fairway wood just short of the green while others tried to drive it.  The ones that tried to drive it usually ended up left of the green in trouble, but a couple did hit the green.

The winner laid up with a 5 wood just short and right of the green (she was one of the longest hitters on tour), chipped up, made birdie and eventually won by one shot.

Glenn, do you think today's seniors are as good as the top PGA stars 20 years ago?  Almost all of them are a lot longer now than they were then.  

I wonder what the answer to the question, "Can you relate to an LPGA player," would be?

For the other thread about the PGA my answer is I can't relate.  For the LPGA player I would have to say yes I can.

I grew up with a girl who played 2-3 years on the LPGA.  We would play at our home course when she was visiting and it was always a lot of fun.  Our distance off the tee and irons into greens were the same.  It was not so close around the greens.  Her short game was much better than mine, but the ball still didn't do the things the PGA guys can do with it.  

She was very good around the greens, but I wasn't saying, "how the hell did you do that."