[Paul_Daley]

James:

You raise an interesting question about how Mackenzie would have performed if routing Kingston Heath. We'll never know that for sure, but we do know one thing: Mackenzie called a spade a "bloody shovel" and did not go in for sparing the sensitivities of local committees, nor the architect of record. His bunkering plan for Kingston Heath, aside, the fact that his only major structural change was changing the 15th from a "blind" par-4 to a par-3, demonstrates that he was probably most impressed with Soutar's routing.

During his 1926/27 visit to Australia/New Zealand, Royal Melbourne underwrote his consultancy by sub-contracting him out to many clubs. There was pressure and expectation for him to make suggestions/changes, along with training the local ground crews if time permitted. At Flinders Golf Club, for instance, he made many suggestions, most famously, to rid the club of the two beachfront holes - Niagara and Spion Kop. The club rejected this plan (and other suggestions), but eventually carried most out some 26 years after Mackenzie left Australia.

 

[James_Livingston]

I think that bad routing thing is complete rubbish - the defenders of it went over all the arguments a few months ago on another thread.
No one has mentioned the relatively easy start - considering 1 was designed as a par five (so much for all the par 5's going in the same direction and 17 was as well) but 3 is a fantastic hole on a 'nothing'piece of land.

I'm not sure the first was designed as a par 5.  It was a bogey 5 on the scorecard, but so were 2,4,6,7,8,11,12,14,16,17,18.  I reckon it was a par four for the better players.  Perhaps Chris can pipe up with his link to the bogey system.  I had thought it was a par 74 with 17 the other par 5.

During his 1926/27 visit to Australia/New Zealand, Royal Melbourne underwrote his consultancy by sub-contracting him out to many clubs. There was pressure and expectation for him to make suggestions/changes, along with training the local ground crews if time permitted. At Flinders Golf Club, for instance, he made many suggestions, most famously, to rid the club of the two beachfront holes - Niagara and Spion Kop. The club rejected this plan (and other suggestions), but eventually carried most out some 26 years after Mackenzie left Australia.

I guess that makes it a MacKenzie course.

You raise an interesting question about how Mackenzie would have performed if routing Kingston Heath. We'll never know that for sure, but we do know one thing: Mackenzie called a spade a "bloody shovel" and did not go in for sparing the sensitivities of local committees, nor the architect of record. His bunkering plan for Kingston Heath, aside, the fact that his only major structural change was changing the 15th from a "blind" par-4 to a par-3, demonstrates that he was probably most impressed with Soutar's routing.

Perhaps, perhaps not.  I'd speculate MaKenzie would have cut Soutar plenty of slack given the nature of the brief  - to "design a course to championship standards with a length that would stand the test of time".  Not exactly the type of brief that would impress MacKenzie.  

I'm not sure why people are negative about KH's routing, perhaps it is the only point of weakness they see in KH. If they attack it, they can advance their own horse in this particular race. The mostly falacious reasoning advanced by critics of KH in this thread has only convinced me of one thing. Woodlands or Commonwealth will never be rated above KH on any course list either in Australia or worldwide.

Anthony, that post is typical of the malaise this board seems to slipped into.  Rather than respond to any of the points raised, instead make a mildly derogatory post dismissing the points raised.  You then compound it by referring to ratings.  The routing may in fact be the only point of weakness at KH, but I'd suggest there are few who would argue it isn't at the heart of great architecture.  The fact the routing is relatively unbalanced is a very large weakness from my perspective.  And I struggle to understand why this should be so shocking, Soutar's brief was almost the antithesis of good architecture (except for those who equate difficulty with quality ).

[Mike_Clayton]

James,

I am almost certain 1 played as a par five well into the sixties - for at least 40 years.
I'm not sure why you argue the routing is unbalanced.
There is a great variety of par fours - from 3 to 9 to 1 and 17 with everything inbetween.
The five par fives went in 3 directions with what would have been a mix of long two-shotters (1 and 17) and a true 3 shotter (14) and then 7 and 12 which were and are very good holes.
12 with the bunker in the middle would have been a wonderful hole in the 30's and 40's and arguably is again now with the tee and the bunker moved.
I would argue its the most strategic par five in the country now - certainly the equal of 15 at Woodlands.

[Andrew Thomson]

James,

is you problem with the routing the direction of the holes or the order in which they are played?

[Tom_Doak]

James:

Why on earth do you care if the routing is "balanced"?  What difference does that make?  Is Merion at fault because both par fives are in the first four holes?

[Chris Kane]

Tom Doak, I think James is referring to "balance" in the length of holes and direction in which they play, not necessarily the order of the holes.  

I think he's right about Woodlands - the routing is simply outstanding.  It strikes a perfect balance (I can't think of a better word) between short but tricky holes, and brutally difficult ones like 10.  The good player has to press early to build a score (I spoke at length about Woodlands last with a friend who played the Vic Open, he pushes to get to 3-4 under after 6, then hold his game together through some very tough holes)  However, there are still birdie opportunities at 13, 15 and 18.

In spite of this, KH is the better course - there are more outstanding holes there and the bunkering and green complexes are clearly superior IMO.

[Kevin Pallier]

James_L

I am still awaiting your response in reference to my last post to you in which you said:
 

the assorted halfwits and drongos on ISG...

James: are you referring to architecture when you judge people ? I post on ISG so does that make me a "half-wit" or "drongo" as you so put it ?

BTW - I also said that "I believe Soutar did create some other relatively decent tracks in his time Elanora, Concord, Pymble to name a few" which whilst they aren't in the class of the premier Sandbelt layouts aren't bad by Sydney's standards (which are poor by comparison). They were also built on relatively poor terrain and relatively poor soil conditions. Have you anything to say on these Soutar layouts ?

Whilst we are speaking about quality - I would be interested as to what you think are Australia's "best" 20 courses and where you rank Woodlands in that list ?

[Chris Kane]

Kevin, he'll probably answer your questions when you address his.

[Kevin Pallier]

Kevin, he'll probably answer your questions when you address his

Chris,

I've been back through the posts I can't recall any Q's directed by James to me that I haven't tried to answer ?

[Paul_Daley]

Something needs to be cleared up: the first hole at KH was always a bogey-five, and the club became a going concern with a bogey-82 layout. The opening hole at KH became a par-4 relatively late in its evolution.

To put this in context, as recently as the mid-1970s, the big par-4s at Huntingdale (17th and 18th) were played as par-5s. The course routing at that time saw them as the 15th and 16th holes, with the 18th green snuggling up against the car-park.

Back to KH. It started as an 82 and today is a par-72. What hapened to the 10 shots? Easy: the 15th was reduced from a par-4 to a par-3, and nine holes were reduced over a period of approx 49 years to par-4s. Naturally, in response to technological advances, the reduction happened in stages. It became a bogey-80; bogey-78; bogey-77; par-76; par-75; par-74. I cannot recall if it jumped from a par-74 to a par-72 in "one fell swoop". It matters little.

 

 

[Anthony Butler]

I'm not sure why people are negative about KH's routing, perhaps it is the only point of weakness they see in KH. If they attack it, they can advance their own horse in this particular race. The mostly falacious reasoning advanced by critics of KH in this thread has only convinced me of one thing. Woodlands or Commonwealth will never be rated above KH on any course list either in Australia or worldwide.

Anthony, that post is typical of the malaise this board seems to slipped into.  Rather than respond to any of the points raised, instead make a mildly derogatory post dismissing the points raised.  You then compound it by referring to ratings.  The routing may in fact be the only point of weakness at KH, but I'd suggest there are few who would argue it isn't at the heart of great architecture.  The fact the routing is relatively unbalanced is a very large weakness from my perspective.  And I struggle to understand why this should be so shocking, Soutar's brief was almost the antithesis of good architecture (except for those who equate difficulty with quality ).

James-I hate to break the news to you, but you have yet to convince very many people here of your own argument.... Only one in 10 people who have actually played the courses you mention in this thread agree with you. Most of the other respondents have given you very solid reasons why your argument stinks. More important, the two people who design courses for a living have said (in a very nice way) that the points you attempt to make against KH have very little value.

As a fan of Commonwealth and Woodlands, you should be more outraged by the fact The Australian and Laguna Keys often outrank these courses.... but in typical Melbourne fashion you choose to rip into a course that has been consistently ranked in the world's top 30 over the last 20 years. And the only reason I can see so far is because it happens to also be in the (03) area code.

[James_Livingston]

James:

Why on earth do you care if the routing is "balanced"?  What difference does that make?  Is Merion at fault because both par fives are in the first four holes?

Not me, I haven't referred to balance in the manner you cite anywhere on this thread.

Chris sums up part of my position well with his reply.  For mine Woodlands is pretty much unique on the sandbelt in that it has excellent holes at every length (with allowance for some quibbling over the 197 metre par 3 8th) and great directional change.  This variety works over every club in the bag.  And the extra short fours are great fun.  I have to admit being surprised at the opinion that it has one too many.  They return some advantage to the shorter hitters (most golfers)and provide plenty of options from the tee.  I suspect there are plenty of much longer par fours that don't yield as many triples as that trio.

I'm also surprised it is so controversial to argue in favor of the architecture of Woodlands over KH.  Bennett later went on to Commonwealth and Mick Morcom was heavily involved at both.  I would have though a reasonable position would be the Woodlands shades KH in architecture, vice versa on presentation, prestige, facilites, etc.

Something needs to be cleared up: the first hole at KH was always a bogey-five, and the club became a going concern with a bogey-82 layout. The opening hole at KH became a par-4 relatively late in its evolution.

To put this in context, as recently as the mid-1970s, the big par-4s at Huntingdale (17th and 18th) were played as par-5s. The course routing at that time saw them as the 15th and 16th holes, with the 18th green snuggling up against the car-park.

Back to KH. It started as an 82 and today is a par-72. What hapened to the 10 shots? Easy: the 15th was reduced from a par-4 to a par-3, and nine holes were reduced over a period of approx 49 years to par-4s. Naturally, in response to technological advances, the reduction happened in stages. It became a bogey-80; bogey-78; bogey-77; par-76; par-75; par-74. I cannot recall if it jumped from a par-74 to a par-72 in "one fell swoop". It matters little.

According to Colonel Bogey - http://www.colonelbogey.com/cbogey.shtml - bogey only applied to non-single digit golfers.  Better golfers played against par.  The example on that site shows a card with a par of 72 and a bogey of 84.

James_L

I am still awaiting your response in reference to my last post to you in which you said:
 

the assorted halfwits and drongos on ISG...

James: are you referring to architecture when you judge people ? I post on ISG so does that make me a "half-wit" or "drongo" as you so put it ?

BTW - I also said that "I believe Soutar did create some other relatively decent tracks in his time Elanora, Concord, Pymble to name a few" which whilst they aren't in the class of the premier Sandbelt layouts aren't bad by Sydney's standards (which are poor by comparison). They were also built on relatively poor terrain and relatively poor soil conditions. Have you anything to say on these Soutar layouts ?

Whilst we are speaking about quality - I would be interested as to what you think are Australia's "best" 20 courses and where you rank Woodlands in that list ?

Jeez Kevin, it was in my next post #86, replete with a smiley face.  The halfwits and drongos post crack was a dig at Thommo labelling either Mark or myself a "turdburger" on ISG.  I threw drongo in to give our international friends a taste of the Australian vernacular.

I have nothing to say on those Soutar layouts.  I haven't seen them.  Please feel free to enlighten me if Soutar has in fact done other courses of note and some reasons why it is the case.

Having coined "Magazine Ranker" as a new piece of rhyming slang, I'm hardly going to start listing courses now.

[Chris Kane]

James-I hate to break the news to you, but you have yet to convince very many people here of your own argument.... Only one in 10 people who have actually played the courses you mention in this thread agree with you. Most of the other respondents have given you very solid reasons why your argument stinks. More important, the two people who design courses for a living have said (in a very nice way) that the points you attempt to make against KH have very little value.

Anthony, since when did the majority rule?  This is a discussion group, but most don't seem content to actually discuss the points that Mark and James raised.  Instead, they cite course rankings and conventional wisdom without bothering to back up their argument objectively.  Those who did (Mike Clayton and Rich Macafee) presented a pretty solid case, I think.

As a fan of Commonwealth and Woodlands, you should be more outraged by the fact The Australian and Laguna Keys often outrank these courses.... but in typical Melbourne fashion you choose to rip into a course that has been consistently ranked in the world's top 30 over the last 20 years. And the only reason I can see so far is because it happens to also be in the (03) area code.

Have you actually read any of what James has said?  While you may not agree with what he says, at least he's attempting to be objective (and he's held those views long before he could be accused of bias).

[Andrew Thomson]

James - it was in reference to you  

Mark swears he doesn't read ISG, though there are a couple of aliases there who share remarkably similar opinions!

This talk of balance doesn't interest me.  Surely the holes and the relative lengths of them are dictated by the original site.  I don't believe holes should be in specific orders or greatly vary in length.  As long as they play differently from those around them of similar length I'm not concerned.  Sure there ae things that could be considered 'ideal' from a formulaic sense, but I see it differently.

[James_Livingston]

James-I hate to break the news to you, but you have yet to convince very many people here of your own argument.... Only one in 10 people who have actually played the courses you mention in this thread agree with you. Most of the other respondents have given you very solid reasons why your argument stinks. More important, the two people who design courses for a living have said (in a very nice way) that the points you attempt to make against KH have very little value.

Perhaps you would care to provide an evaluation of why my argument stinks?  The fact that the defence has been replete with references to magazine ratings suggests it doesn't stink as much as you might think.

The two people that design courses for a living have provided very little detail as to why my argument has little value.  Neither have made anything more than general statements about the architectural merit of Woodlands, preferring instead to disect KH.  Nobody has actually given a coherent rebuttal as to why the architecture at KH is better than Woodlands.  Which is a sad indication of just how far standards have slipped on what is supposedly an architecture discussion board.

As a fan of Commonwealth and Woodlands, you should be more outraged by the fact The Australian and Laguna Keys often outrank these courses.... but in typical Melbourne fashion you choose to rip into a course that has been consistently ranked in the world's top 30 over the last 20 years. And the only reason I can see so far is because it happens to also be in the (03) area code.

If you had actually bothered to read the thread you would see plenty of reasons for the basis of comparison have been given.  Starting with the title.

[Mike_Clayton]

James.

I am sure you will have noted that I have almost always rated Woodlands higher than probably every other rater in the country. In print the course has had no greater supporter.
(see the soon to published  Australian Golf Course Architects magazine)


For me I have defended Kingston Heath here because Mark's initial post was a serious slagging of what I think is a wonderful course that gets almost everything right as well as a lot out of a small gently undulating site.
It is a wonderful routing.The greens are fantastic and the bunkering some of the best in the world.

Woodlands is also a excellent course - but IMO not quite as good as KH.
There are a lot of holes where iron off the tee is the right shot - 3,4,7,12,13 - and if that was the case at KH I suspect some would be pointing to that as a weakness.
It is an oddity of a driving course in the sense that it's tight but rarely have I found it easy to hit fairways.
Either the holes are so narrow that you hit iron of they are not difficult to hit from the tee - 1,2,6,9,10,14,15 are easy fairways to hit and 16 and 18 are not that difficult either.
KH is a surperior examination of the driver - at least that is what I have found over years of playing it in tournaments
 8 is not the hole it used to be and that is a detraction form the course.
If you want to be critical of the 6th green at KH you have to put 8 at Woodlands in the same basket.
Personally I think 6 at KH is a terrific green that rewards a well played shot run back to the flag in either the back right or back left.

Is 7 at KH a better hole than 18 at Woodlands?
Is KH 12 better than W 15th? As good?
Is KH 15 better than the 5th - the best 3 at Woodlands?
Is 16 better than 9 ( both blind tee shots on holes turning right down to greens with middle irons?
Is 10 better than 11?
Is 3 the equal of 3?
Is 14 better than 6?
Is 2 better than 13?
Is 5 as good as 17 at Woodlands?
Are 9 and 7 equal ?- They are both terrific holes

For me KH is marginally better when you compare equivalent holes

The reality is we are lucky to have them both in the same city.

[Kevin Pallier]

James - appreciate you clearing up one point for me re: the ISGism.

The reason I asked about your favourite 'other' courses was because I was trying to understand how you view Woodlands in reference to other courses design and routing in Australia -besides KH ?

I would have though a reasonable position would be the Woodlands shades KH in architecture, vice versa on presentation, prestige, facilites, etc.

You prefer Woodlands over KH - I prefer it the other way round and I don't think any amount of posting here on GCA is going to convince either of us (or anyone else who has differing opinions) otherwise.

PS: FYI - whilst I am a "Magazine Ranker" I certainly don't take "prestige, facilites etc" into consideration when I rank golf courses

[Mark_F]

Re: all this stuff about KH being in the top 20-25 in the world and Woodlands isn't.  

Wasn't KH rated somewhere in the 70s-80's before Graeme Grant's tenure?

If it was, doesn't that mean it's rise is due to having fancy new knickers instead of the same rusty old bogcatchers?

After all,

The routing is the same
The greens, aside from 4, I think, are the same.
The holes are therefore basically the same.

What's changed is that the bunkering has been restored, trees cleared out, and a general improvement in conditioning?

Sure, it adds a lot, but that much?

Thommo:

I have never said I don't read ISG.  I have said I don't post there.  And that is 100% correct, despite numerous opinion to the contrary.

I don't considider I have played enough golf in this country to qualify commenting on too may Aus courses.  I have played far more OS.

The fact that several people have the same opinion as me could be due to various reasons:

I tend to be a leader, not a follower,

People rip off my opinions all the time and claim them as their own - prime case in point being R Sheehy's Gunnamatta review in which he said the 7th green appeared a little out of place - almost my exact words, never mind thoughts,

There are a lot of right-wing middle-aged good looking men around

[Mark_F]

convinced me of one thing. Woodlands or Commonwealth will never be rated above KH on any course list either in Australia or worldwide.

Anthony,

You might want to check out the Confidential Guide.  Both KH and Commonwealth are 8s.

KH may be as good as it is going to get now.  Coomonwealth, in 15-18 has four fantastic holes one after the other.

I never saw or played the old Commonwealth, but if 1,6 and 7 were as good as everyone says, then you have 1,2,3, then 6,7,8,9 as well as 11 to add to the mix.  

More than a match for KH in my eye.  Especially as it's limited topography is used to much better effect.

[Matthew Mollica]

Frank discussion is fair enough - I take your point. I think the criticism of KH is beyond this, on some occasions. Rich's comments spell out many of the course's strengths and one could continue in this vein. To make comments to the contrary may not be viewed by some as frank discussion.

Matt, are you saying you can't disagree?  Most of the criticism of KH hasn't even been responded to.  Why don't you continue in that vein and point out some more of the KH's strengths?  Because the supporters of the course have made a very poor fist of it so far, especially with regards to the routing.  I'm open to persausion, and think it is a fine course despite its architectural limitations, but the fact that people are having difficulty identifying what it is in the architecture that makes KH great suggests perhaps they are influenced more by magazine rankings, tournaments held, prestige, not wanting to stand out from the crowd, exclusivity, et al than perhaps they would like to admit.  

James,

You can disagree - certainly. But, just as Clayts wrote, I too feel some comments passed on KH are a serious slagging, not giving the course it's due respect.

You have given Woodlands praise, but not necessarily been even handed in the view of KH. Same with Mark and his views of Commonwealth. Fair enough, they are your opinions and I respect them. Clayts, Paul Daley, Rich and others have sung KH's praises.

I hesitate to reply to your post as many have defended KH (some very well). My words may be superfluous.

I think KH's routing is not as 'complete' or 'thoughtful' at Woodlands, but for mine the Heath boasts many wonderful holes, which I look forward to playing with great eagerness. It boasts more holes of this type than Commonweaht and Woodlands for me.

The green complexes at KH are a sensational set - arguably the highest quality in the nation. Their contours, shape and usual presentation can be used to provide great scope in hole difficulty, depending on where the pin is cut. They allow great variety with different conditions, and different shots with different pins. Different lines from the tee, and interesting approaches too. Commonwealth and Woodlands do this, but I feel KH does to a greater degree. The Heath also possesses the most visually striking bunkering on the Sandbelt, positioned largely with great strategic merit. KH's vegetation management and conditioning shades Woodlands too for mine. It's way ahead of Commonwealth's but I understand CGC is improving every day. Woodlands tests most if not all clubs in the bag, but KH can too. KH tests the pro's as does Woodlands. I'm interested to see how a pro would play Comm these days. Shane or Chris may be able to help us out there.

KH doesn't have a weak hole. The 4 / 13, as well as the 8 / 16 line is not right in my opinion. I agree with Clayts and Paul D's comments on fairway width and driver tests at KH. The first cut has been thoughtfully managed at KH, a lesson most clubs could heed.

The work done at KH in the last few years is of better quality than works done at most nearby courses too, Woodlands included, and Commonwealth undeniably. T

hese are just some of my thoughts on the Heath. Mind you, I could sing the praises of Woodlands quite as easily. I also love playing Commonwealth. As it's been said before, thank the lord these are easily accessible, and in our own home town!

MM

[Paul_Daley]

Nearly everyone who frequents GCA who has played Woodlands loves the course, including the staunch KH supporters. Because of the adversarial nature of the posts, it has somehow ended up KH vs Woodlands. And that is pretty silly, because they are both great layouts for different reasons. Some arguments are bound for quagmire, and this thread has long since reached that point.

The routings are different and the green complexes are too, as is the vegetation. Heaps of people have Woodlands languishing in nowhere land, but I've always held it as an Australian top-10 course, probably 7-8. Indeed I was chuffed recently be given the task of writing the Woodlands centenary coming out in 2013. A tough gig: not used to so much time.  

[Mark_F]

Matt,

Sorry I misinterpreted your post.  I know you are too good a bloke to bag someone's poor play publicly, unlike other National members.

I love your replies.  

Why is 3 at KH such a great hole?  A 271 metre hole has driveability all over it to me.  Yet to take a driver there would be pretty foolish - so the hole is forcing you into taking an iron?

Ditto 9.

[Mike_Clayton]

Paul,

I agree.

Mark.

In 1982 when Graeme Grant took over at KH is was in poor shape.
The 1st and 4th greens were drainage nightmares and they played temporary greens more than once.
He rebuild the 1st green and solved the problems but didn't change the design much from memory.
He significantly altered 6,13 and 18 greens.
12 was transformd by uncovering the old bunkers in the middle of the tea-tree down the left side of the hole.
15 also was returned to what it once was in a fantastic example of restoration.
He rebuilt most of the tees,removed a lot of poor trees and instigated the heathland restoration.
The two grass policy was abandoned in favour of santa-ana which went a long way to creating the rave reviews the course got from all the pros who palyed in summer when the tournaments were on.
Those compliments were obviously helpful in the courses rise in world wide popularity.

The problem is the ratings can be argued any way you want.We all know how they work.
What Graeme did made a significant difference - small and subtle but significant and enough to move it from somewhere between 60 and 90 to somewhere between 20 and 40.

As for 3 it far from forces you to hit an iron.
Norman and Allenby usually try and drive it into the greenside bunker and get it up and down from there.
I played with Gary Payer and David Good in the 1979 Vic.Open.
Into the wind they both hit driver and ripped them 30 yards off the green.I was too embarrassed to hit an iron and took the driver and wipped it into the bush and made 6.
Never hit driver again.
It is all but impossible to drive the green - I have never seen it done - so its reachable but not drivable - a subtle difference.
With and iron you can play short of the bunker with a middle iron or perhaps a 4 - or alongside it with a 2 or a 3 or past it with a 2 iron or a 3 wood.
Each club involves a different level of risk and reward.
It is a brilliant green - a perfect model well worth replicating the principles of at any similar length hole.

[RichMacafee]

Mike,

I agree with your comments on Graeme Grants work, it was an unbelievable contribution to the course we have today (except for the 11th bunker obviously).

When Peter Senior won the Open at KH he hit driver on #3 all 4 days into the left bunker (deliberately) and played the hole in -5 for the week. Holed one bunker shot and got up-and-down the other 3 days.

James and MattM,

I'm not so sure that Woodlands works over every club in the bag, especially the par.4's. I played the Vic Open there this year and of the 20 par 4's I played, I hit 1 5-iron and 1 6-iron into greens, everything else was 7-LW.

The 5-iron was on 16 after hitting a rescue off the tee. I am not long off the tee at all, but still hit 9-iron into 10 both days, SW and PW into 14, 6 and 7-iron into 9 and when I hit driver on 16 in the second round had 8-iron in.

To me the par 4's at KH work over all your irons a lot more than Woodlands does. Also the green complexes are better designed for longer club approaches, which is very important down the line if tees are to be pushed back.

I've promised myself this is the last time I'll mention Woodlands, as I do absolutely love the course and look forward to playing it again soon.

[Anthony Butler]

Anthony,

You might want to check out the Confidential Guide.  Both KH and Commonwealth are 8s.

KH may be as good as it is going to get now.  Coomonwealth, in 15-18 has four fantastic holes one after the other.

While I am sure that Tom Doak has forgotten more than I will know about golf course design, I don't agree with everything he writes. Also, I think grading courses from one to 10 is not exactly a 'ranking' it's more of a 'guide' to what you can expect. Which is probably why his book is not called the "Confidential Ranking".  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()