The new work at Commonwealth

« **on:** October 30, 2003, 04:34:28 PM »

Here it is, the new bunker work on the 5th hole. The architect responsible for the design and implementation of the new work is Tony Cashmore.

It makes an interest contrast with the original bunkering from the Charles Lane era of the 1930's shown below.

Commonwealth was chosen by Tom Doak as one of his 31 Gourmet Choices in the Confidential Guide, and was rated a Doak "8". That was 10 years ago. Its worth seeing for all the original design features that remain from the 1930's (down to 11 holes and counting). Be quick.

Shane Gurnett

« **Reply #1 on:** October 30, 2003, 05:26:33 PM »

Shane,

Exactly how much of CGC has to be mangled, and how many people have to publically talk about the mess being made, before the powers that be finally understand that the golf course is going backwards?

Apart from applauding some tree removal, I have not seen one positive comment about any of the changes at Commonwealth over the last ten years. Surely the members must be getting concerned at what is happening and the people responsible must be starting to wonder if in the club history in 20 years time their tenure will be referred to as the "dark ages" for the club.

Perhaps when CGC starts being openly referred to as being in the 3rd tier of the SandBelt the light might come on.

Brian

« **Reply #2 on:** October 30, 2003, 08:25:45 PM »

To quote a rather hot-headed tennis player from a few years ago, "You cannot be serious".

Brian

I doubt that they would mind being on the third tier. At least they won't be on the tenth tier like Woodlands.

« **Reply #3 on:** October 30, 2003, 08:26:58 PM »

Shane,

Just as a matter of interest, have you tried to become a member of the Greens commitee?

« **Reply #4 on:** October 30, 2003, 09:05:53 PM »

Shane,

As painful as the new bunkers are, i'm sure they won't be as painful as the pontificating that Cashmore and his employers will spout in regard to how necessary the work is and how much of an improvement it is over the old.

« **Reply #5 on:** October 30, 2003, 10:02:02 PM »

Shane,

Thanks for the photos. I saw the fairway bunker in person 4-5 months ago and thought that was pretty bad. It looks the same as the bunkers that Cashmore has done at Kew, and I could only assume that everyone at Commonwealth would be excited to have some genuine 'claybelt' style bunkers on the course, wouldn't they?

But these new greenside bunkers are another story altogeter. I can't laugh them off with a flippant remark. I can understand why so many members are so genuinely upset, I don't believe that calling them "vandalism of a great course" is too strong a phrase. There is enough evidence there to immediately terminate whatever agreement the club has with Tony Cashmore. Both the committee and Tony Cashmore produce a lot of competent work but they should be ashamed to be associated with such poor quality work.

It is such a pity that the club is going down this path. How can any reasonable person think that these bunkers either fit in with the existing bunkers or even look good in their own right? I hope that the committee is big enough to one day make the neccesary decisions to return this course back to the great course that it once was and easily could be.

Good Luck!

« **Reply #6 on:** October 31, 2003, 01:00:54 AM »

Brian, the initial tree clearing works were positive, and long overdue, however there is a long, long way to go. The most disappointing aspect is that the focus has now shifted away from continued tree clearing to bunker redesign, which is rather pointless (and no doubt expensive), especially when the results are like these pictures of 5. There is more bunker redesign work underway on the 6th hole at the moment. Beyond that, no-one really knows what will follow.

Mark, no I am not on greens committee and have no plans to do so in the foreseeable future.

David, that redesigned front bunker in an interesting story in itself. The only plans that were on display showed that front bunker being "restored" to a mound (no mention of a new bunker), and yet what is now there is clearly a bunker which looks nothing like anything else on the course. So a plan gets put up showing a mound, and you end up with a new redesigned bunker. Amazing.

« **Reply #7 on:** October 31, 2003, 03:58:15 AM »

I'm looking at these pictures and saying to myself, "What on the earth are they doing?" This doesn't look like Sand Belt, it looks like Sand Box!

Now, I know I probably should disqualify myself on the simple grounds alone that I haven't seen the bunkers in person, and only in pictures, but I do have to ask, who is constructing these bunkers, and have they built bunkers before? If they have, where at so I know where not to waste my time!

First, the finish work looks terrible in the pictures posted. You have these really angled faces until you get to the deep bays, and then the faces get even steeper. There is no flow of nature which Dr. MacKenzie taught many of your ancestors how to build when they built your great courses. This looks as if someone had no experience what-so-ever in building a bunker at all.

Second, not on is the tongue of the pronouced cape and bay so flat and characterless, it looks like it belongs on one of the many boring municipal courses here in California built by Ted Robinson. The tongue is supposed to take a natural twist or turn if you will, and in unison with its each and every line. As that line goes up, or "tilt's-up", the face below should be smoothed and angled. Why just not build this tongue out of concrete if they needed a walkway?

Third, He got that orb (tongue) in the bunker right, but failed to get the steep bays built on both sides in direction of the hole. Once again, it needs that really nice sloped face, but fails miserably.

Fourth, It looks like a concrete wall. WAY too much slope, as well as lack of interesting shape or form. On the low side, they have the root zone or thatched area of turf showing, but it's completely covered in sand on the steep face--once again, lack of knowledge to what they are doing in construction and in finish work. Is that high-faced side aimed at the green or ? ? ? ?

Five, This looks like a really nice evovled bunker that could still use a bit of TLC, but it has all of the shape and form, as well as angle of facce I'm talking about above. It would be really intereesting to see how ragged edged these bunkers were at one time. I bet they were impressive. This one still is, but it's going fast, you can tell. I can hear the bulldozer all the way here in California. It is also quite obvious that they didn't use the right equipment when they did this either.

« **Reply #8 on:** October 31, 2003, 04:37:53 AM »

I was all signed-out, took a quick hot shower and ready for bed, but what happens? The lure of this damn computer and this damn website!

To add, Some of you are probably asking, where does this guy get off telling us about shape of bunkers or being critical of them some, (how many miles is it from Los Angeles to Melbourne?) _______miles away!

Personally, I'm looking at the others and in comparison to the one photograph of the Chas Lane bunker, you can just see the new ones just don't have any of the same style or grace, and never will.

I hope to one day visit your great land, but I really do, but I fear when I do get there the country will be changed in the wrong direction after seeing so many failures such as this, here in California. We are the land of failure. I fear this because we are a trendsetter for the inane. We didn't know how to protect 23 different MacKenzie deisgns or remodels, and we certainly didn't do Captain George C. Thomas any favors either. So, if someone should be reading this, and your wanting to tear my ears off for castigating your golf course, please do understand that it is all with the best intentions to make you realize that golf arcitecture is more then drawing pictures and digging holes in the ground and putting sand in them.

There is a certain greatness why your Sandbelt courses are so revered. They were carefully thought out and built by those who had experience with golf in it's most natural state. They knew how to embellish that same look as if the bunker had been there for ages--a victim of wind, rain, wildlife and foe. These bunkers in Australia are works of art--these new bunkers at the Commonwelath are far from that look that made your land famous for golf.

I can only hope you drag Tom Doak, Mike Clayton, Neil Crafter, Bob Harrison or whomever that understands the Sandbelt and studies it with the passion neccessary to produce the best quality, to the Commonwealth andlet them tell you what is wrong. If you can put any sensitivities aside and let them do their job, because they are the best at what they do. The dollar value will only pay dividends with the end product. You can have your Chas Lewis-like bunkers back. It just takes a bit more knowledge and understanding that what you do have isn't even close.

Please don't make the mistake that a hole in the ground and sand with a mediocre rounded shape is all you need. Golf and nature do not exist in those terms.

Cheers

« **Reply #9 on:** October 31, 2003, 05:42:24 AM »

Being from Sydney, and only having played at Commonwealth once in my life (about a year ago) the thing that struck me on my visit there was the photo hanging outside the proshop on the way to the locker room. It looked like it was taken about 20 years ago, and showed a course that retained all the original holes, and had far fewer trees than were there the day I played. That photo just looked sensational, and just shows how much has gone wrong at Commonwealth since it was taken.

I also had the pleasure of playing Kingston Heath and Victoria, amongst others, during my stay in Melbourne and the differences between the attitudes of the clubs couldn't be clearer. On one hand you have Victoria and Kingston Heath who have cherished their history and original designs, restoring the lost features over the last ten year rather than try to impose a new modern style, whilst Commonwealth has headed in exactly the opposite direction, opting for new holes and bunkers to replace what was already wonderfully there. The end result is that Victoria and Kingston Heath are firmly entrenched in the top half dozen courses in the country, whilst Commonwealth has slipped from the same lofty heights to current rankings in the mid 20's and beyond.

Commonwealth is a rare gem which just doesn't seem to be appreciated by the members for what it is, once was, and could easily be again. That old photo on the wall should be the catalist for any new work at the club - not new bunkers that just look ridiculous.

« **Reply #10 on:** October 31, 2003, 06:31:38 AM »

Quote from: Cameron Swinton on October 31, 2003, 05:42:24 AM

Commonwealth is a rare gem which just doesn't seem to be appreciated by the members for what it is, once was, and could easily be again.

Cameron, many of the members do realise the gem of a course on which they play. They have seen it systematically dismantled by committee members who care not for how great the course once was. Sympathetic, and architecturally intelligent members have seen Commonwealth defaced by several architects, over many years, each of whom have irreversibly and negatively altered what once was one of this country's best courses. These folk obviously believe they can do it better these days. They are, as we can see, sadly mistaken. The really sad thing is that the effects of their stupidity is not limited to themselves, but that it hurts so many others who remember what Commonwealth was.

How past and present committees, and the list of consulting architects fail to respect the wonderful old course Commonwealth once was, is beyond me. As Shane typed, the original holes are down to 11. Get in fast to see it while it lasts. A great shame. It makes me think back to Doak's plans to guard against major works on great courses, with some form of conservation classification system.

Matthew

« **Reply #11 on:** November 01, 2003, 04:00:57 PM »

The 5th hole during the Kevin Hartley era (~1992-2002)

The RHS on 14 is a great example of Charles Lane's greenside bunkering

Charles Lane's greenside bunkers (the ones that remain) have the high lips facing the green. As the photo on 14 illustrates, this gives the appearance of the bunker "falling away" from the green surface. Any tonges or bulkheads usually come from the high side. They so effectively complement the superlative green complexes which Lane left us - which is what makes the remaining original holes so great.

« **Reply #12 on:** November 02, 2003, 12:30:36 AM »

Tommy,
To answer your question about the fourth picture, the photo was taken facing toward the green. So the lip pointing toward the camera is the one adjacent to the green surface.

The work depicted in the photos Shane has posted is in one sense a restoration - until the 1990's there were two bunkers on the LHS of 5 (I refer to an old aerial of CGC in the hallway leading to the locker room), reduced to one by Kevin Hartley. However, the bunkers built recently clearly do not resemble what was originally there.

« **Reply #13 on:** November 02, 2003, 01:22:28 AM »

Chris, these new bunkers are in no way a restoration of what was originally there. This is a blatant redesign of one bunker into two, replicating the architects style (refer Kingswood, Kew etc) rather than either an attempt to restore the original two bunker complex, or anything resembling an original Commonwealth bunker.

Its like building a brick veneer extension on a classic Victorian era building. It is disgraceful in every sense of the word.

« **Reply #14 on:** November 02, 2003, 01:50:17 AM »

Chris,
Thanks for the clarification, but I have to go with Shane here regarding what these bunkers actually look like and whether you would call them restored. (I think this has become a horrible term--restoration)

Personally, this is the same type malpractice I scream of when it happens on great American courses like Merion, Yale and Riviera.

In fact, I would consider it maybe even worse. (with the excpetion of Riviera which is manslaughter)(this could be considered manslaughter too.)

« **Reply #15 on:** November 02, 2003, 10:16:43 PM »

Matthew, I understand what you are saying, and please dont interpret my comments as being critical of all Commonwealth members. It seems in this case that the only ones who continue to be ignorant about the underlying quality of the original golf course are those that are positions of power! What I cannot understand is how an architect such as Tony Cashmore can attach his name and reputation to work which is so clearly of a very poor standard. It has to be harmful to his reputation aorund town.

The bit I really struggle to understand is why the committee at Commonwealth would choose to continually deface their golf course with new work, when the powers to be at Kingston Heath and Victoria have paved the way forward with their restorations off the old plans. As I understand, both these clubs have made the tough decisions, and have come out the other side with golf courses which are ranked inside the top 6 in the country, whilst Commonwealth by all accounts was once on the same level, and is now heading for a ranking somewhere in 30's?

How can something so obvious be ignored for so long? It really could be one hell of a great golf course again if those original feautures were put back wherever possible.

« **Reply #16 on:** November 03, 2003, 05:55:43 AM »

What a shame. I suppose we did not have to be too clever to predict that something like this would happen. But now the problem is that once Committees get themselves into this type of position its hard for them to backtrack - they need to save face.

I have been on many golf committees and Boards ( and still am) and it never ceases to amaze me how ignorant some committee members are in respect of their golf courses. I have always wondered how come teachers, policemen, lawyers etc. become instant experts once they are elected to committee.

I have always found it wise to recognise that it is better and cheaper to pay for the right expert advice when one is not qualified to make a decision. Unfortunately too many poeple on committees dont have the capacity to recognise this fact -and if it does dawn on them they invariable choose the wrong "expert".

But I know that one thing does worry committee members everywhere. And that is getting voted off. They are mostly like politicians - scared as hell of elections. The members of Commonwealth should carefully peruse the constitution and see what is required to call a special extraordinary meeting of members. They would need to plan it carefully but it would surely bring it to the attention of those in power just what everybody is saying.

That they could let this course slip from the top twenty - through poorly thought out "restoration" - is a disgrace.

« **Reply #17 on:** November 03, 2003, 07:49:51 AM »

Cameron, I don't read yourcomments as being critical of all Commonwealth members. Don't worry; you and I both know there are many there, who know their stuff.

Quote from: Cameron Swinton on November 02, 2003, 10:16:43 PM

The bit I really struggle to understand is why the committee at Commonwealth would choose to continually deface their golf course with new work, when the powers to be at Kingston Heath and Victoria have paved the way forward with their restorations off the old plans. As I understand, both these clubs have made the tough decisions, and have come out the other side with golf courses which are ranked inside the top 6 in the country, whilst Commonwealth by all accounts was once on the same level, and is now heading for a ranking somewhere in 30's?

Amen. It's as plain as the nose on one's face.....

« **Reply #18 on:** November 03, 2003, 10:25:06 AM »

When I visited Commonwealth a year ago I really loved the layout despite some tedious bunker work that had been done and has now made me feel worse after seeing Shane's new pictures.

Working on my green's committee and seeing how hard it is to have a restoration plan go through that is authentic I really think that someone with a historical bent is going to have to stand up there and try to do something to restore the course. That being said, the more Cashmore does the longer it will take until a future greens committee does anything. People don't like to be embarrassed and committees are no different and it is sad that C-wealth will be saddled with this for years to come.

When I played the course I really thought it was the third best on the sandbelt despite the horrible bunker work in spots. Sure it needed tree pruning as well but that can always be done. With holes like #9, #16, #17 that are just great holes (#16 being allworld) it won't take much to get Commonwealth back in the future to a top 10 Aussie ranking, that is if someone wakes up.

« **Reply #19 on:** November 03, 2003, 05:37:29 PM »

Quoting from the Commonwealth website. “Charles Lane, Captain of the Club from 1923-1933, traveled abroad studying golf course architecture, returning to put the finishing touches on greens and bunker design. Much of this work literally was carried out by Charles Lane himself, often being found stripped to the waist digging the bunkers we know today we know today.”

Contrast this with current events, where it is clear that the current greens committee has neither travelled nor made any effort to learn about golf course architecture. If they had learnt about GCA, they would be fixing holes like the abominable 1st to start with. And if they had done even the tiniest bit of travel, they would have discovered two approaches being taken on the sandbelt to course changes, a right way and a wrong way. The right way can be seen at Victoria, which we all know about. The wrong is the type of work that was done at Kingswood, by one Tony Cashmore. Whereas Charles Lane travelled overseas by boat to acquire sufficient knowledge, the current committee couldn’t even take the time to drive a few minutes around the sandbelt to see work recently undertaken by Cashmore and others. It just demonstrates sheer laziness and a total lack of respect for the great work done by Lane and co.

The end result is that Commonwealth, which in 1979 was rated above both Kingston Heath and Victoria, is now continuing its slide down the slippery slope to oblivion. The example set by the course management and restoration practices at KH and Victoria is clearly a superior way forward. And if the CGC committee is concerned about denuding the course, next time you play have a look at the amount of wonderful native trees currently obscured by scrub and exotic rubbish.

NAF
I’m assuming you didn’t play Woodlands when you visited? It is a significantly better course than Commonwealth. However, if CGC was the third best course on the sandbelt you played in its current state, how good would it be if it was PROPERLY restored? I also agree that all is not lost yet and enough of the good stuff still remains for it to regain much of its former glory. However, the further they go down the current path the harder it will be to return.

« **Reply #20 on:** November 03, 2003, 09:56:30 PM »

OK, I've been a reader here for a while and I think it's time I said something.

The bunkers on 5 are very very ordinary, and in no way a reflection of the original bunkering. Then again the back right bunker which has been there for 5 or 6 years is also very poor, and we don't seem to discuss it much. As a general rule C'wealth bunkers protect the fronts of greens, to add that bunker at the back right for no real reason was the first step in the destruction of the feel of this green complex. The new bunkers are poor and reflect a simplistic approach to architecture with far too great emphasis on the visual aspect of hazards. (and in the end they look poor anyway) That said the problem with creating a spectacular sand belt bunker complex on the left of 5 (where it should be for strategic effect on the hole) is that the left of 5 is the lowest point on the course, and at times in the past (although not now according to committee - something to do with the drought perhaps?) has had drainage issues. This limits the ability to build a massive falling away from the surface bunker like Chris has advocated.

On the photos above, it's interesting to note that the bunker on 8 was built in ~1996, when the moved the 8th green back in extending the hole....perhaps some good work has been done in the last decade?? You wouldn't think so according to the some. (not you Shane, just some that haven't seen the course through thick and thin over that period...)

And we're back to the first....the real issue that so many have here. The old first is gone. It is not coming back. At 238m it was too short for modern equipment. Instead of the longing for the old first when discussing the very bland new first perhaps we need to look at the "vibe" of the old first. I would rebuild the green on the new first to be significantly smaller and demanding of the wedge approach. At 300 (less in a straight line) it is still reachable by the good golfers, so with an interesting green complex (say small, sloping r->l, one spectacular bunker around the front and right, difficult run off chipping area left), you could create a hole that maintained the key factors of the old first and still was able to play as a regular par 4 with 8 minutes between tee times for members golf. (as well as getting the benefit of making the 2nd a reasonable length.)

Anyway, I guess that's nothing to do with this topic.

In general I feel that the opinions expressed here are really interesting and worthwhile, and I feel that the general consensus of cutting out some trees would do wonders for the course (and using the mower a bit more freely as well, might I add....playing the 4th as a par 3 from the left rough shows that if the golfer was giving a landing area out there he might be drawn into leaving himself a very difficult approach). I guess time will tell whether anything changes or not.

« **Reply #21 on:** November 03, 2003, 10:33:05 PM »

Anthony H

You make some valid points, however a couple of things I would like to clarify.

The bunker on the 8th is all original, the green was never moved, only the rear of the green was extended back to create a larger putting surface. The bunker itself was only extended a little at the front, and the bunker edges were shaprened up at the same time.

Secondly, the left hand side of 5 always used to have a very deep bunker, which I do not ever recall being underwater. When Hartley rebuilt it in the 1990's, the bunker lip was lowered and the bunker floor rasied to reduce the impact of the bunker. I dont buy the drainage theory at all, especially now that underground drainage has been installed in that area.

You may be right in relation to the old first, however there has to be a strong argument that when they built the new hole they could have done a lot better with the green, and also filled in all those bunkers on the outside of the dogleg. What is there right now stinks. Why didn't Cashmore start with the first if he wanted to experiment?

« **Reply #22 on:** November 04, 2003, 02:16:39 AM »

Anthony
The 1st would be significantly improved if they would just carve out all the scrub down the right. Another impact of the excess tree and scrub problem I have observed whilst sipping an ale on the clubhouse balcony is that it destroys what ought to be great vistas across the course. Contrast the view from the front of the clubhouse at Commonwealth with that across Kingston Heath.

And without wanting to threadjack, I have to disagree that 238 metres is too short for modern equipment. The lack of holes in the 210-260 metre range is a common lament of mine, and I don't really think it matters where they fall on the course. Do Victoria and Yarra Yarra have trouble getting the fields away? And I'm sure there would be plenty of members happy to get the old 1st back.

« **Reply #23 on:** November 04, 2003, 05:12:36 PM »

Anthony,
Shane has a photo of the old 5th hole (pre-1990) which shows a "falling away" bunker exactly like what I'm advocating. Perhaps Shane could post that photo to show how the green appeared originally. Obviously if there are still drainage problems they will need to be resolved in order to restore that bunker.

I too disagree with you that 238m is too short for modern equipment - with a well-designed green complex you'll see a much wider variation in scores than you would on an iron-wedge hole like the current first. Would it be possible to "re-create" the old first hole, but with the green complex situated where the current exit is to the first green? Using estimates from the CGC strokesaver guide, that would make a hole of about 265m. It would require some extensive tree removal on the RHS however!

James,
I think the current first would be greatly improved with the tee situated where the flagpoles currently stand - adjacent to the brickwork which separates the flowerbeds from the path to the pro-shop and putting green. However, it will never happen, as it requires demolition of the starters hut, and would bring the putting green into play for the low hook!

« **Reply #24 on:** November 05, 2003, 04:44:09 AM »

Chris,

Anything would be better than the mish mash first hole that CGC have today. The bunkering on that hole is horrendous compared to the rest of the "original" course. I hope the people reponsible for allowing Commonwealth to fall so far backwards are asked to explain their actions to the members one day soon.

News:

Shane Gurnett

Brian Walshe

Mark_F

Mark_F

Mark_F

David_Elvins

Shane Gurnett

Tommy_Naccarato

Tommy_Naccarato

sandbelter

Matthew Mollica

Chris Kane

Chris Kane

Shane Gurnett

Tommy_Naccarato

sandbelter

Danny Goss

Matthew Mollica

NAF

James_Livingston

Anthony_H

Shane Gurnett

James_Livingston

Chris Kane

Brian Walshe

An Error Has Occurred!