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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.