[Philip Gawith]

Ed - did you see the earlier thread back in January when I posted pictures? That was when the whole KH issue was rehearsed in much detail. There is way more analysis in that thread and this one than my one canter round the course can provide - save to say that it was one of the most memorable and enjoyable rounds of golf I have had. You would be mad not to play it, even to think not playing it. A beautiful course with memorable bunkering.

[Kevin Pallier]

Kingston Heath is generally the second ranked course in Australia, but for the life of me, I can't figure out why.   Compared to the other two, its routing is horrible - the holes mostly attack the only significant rise in the land exactly the same way.  It's much flatter than I had thought,and therefore about as dramatic as watching last week's lotto results, and a great many holes are all played the same way - left hand side fairway bunker, green bunkered short right, or short right and back left.

Neither Woodlands nor Commonwealth have a hole/green as bad as the 6th at The Heath, either.

For limited sites, Commonwealth and Woodlands do far more with them than KH.

Mark,

I will agree with you in that I feel both Woodlands and Commonwealth are generally somewhat underrated golf courses - but in the class of KH ? I will disagree with you there.

Recently Aust. Golf Digest (to which I was a panelist) ranked them #26 & #23 respectively. For mine they are easy Top20 venues and I go so far as to rate C'wealth just out side my Top10 but to say they are in the class of Kingston Heath ? I certainly disagree.

Yes - KH is 'relatively' flat per se but so is Woodlands (even moreso) and C'wealth isn't overly 'rugged' in terms of topography either !

I would suggest that the routing of KH's three P5's in relatively the same direction is a downside but they certainly are different in feel and character. Woodlands P5's are good and are up there with the best on the Sandbelt and for mine are also better than C'Wealths set of P5's.

Aside from Royal Melbourne West, the two best multi-hole sequences in Melbourne golf are at those two clubs - 15-18 at Commonwealth, and 2-5 at Woodlands - and there's bags more variety in those four holes each than the entire 18 at The Heath.

I will beg to differ with you here as well. As far as I'm concerned, the last 5 holes at KH are certainly some of the best I've played in Australia with the variety of shots contained in them #14 is a great P5 #15 is arguably the best P3 in the country #16 is a dogleg right & #17 a blind dogleg left and #18 is a brute of a hole to finish. What better complement of '5' holes do either of those courses you mentioned have ?

KH's P3's are all good/great holes including #15 above and #10 and # 5 isn't bad either. C'wealths #9 is good and so is Woodlands # 5 but the others ? certainly not is the class of KH.

As far as quality short P4's go - I'm glad you feel that #3 at KH is exceptional and for mine #9 isn't bad either ? Woodlands has some good short P4's as well #3 and #13 spring to mind but there's too many of them ie: 4 holes under 340m and another just on 350m. C'wealths 1st - has had more operations on it than Michael Jackson and have they got it right yet ?

As far as bunkering goes - KH is certainly in RM's class and whilst Woodlands and C'wealths are OK - they aren't in the same league.

To Anthony Butler:

For my money, the only hole on KH that needs a major renovation is 17.

I think 17 is a great blind hole and is part of one the toughest finishes to championship golf in Australia. If I can recall it has an Index of around 3 ? so it's certainly no pushover.

There are some great blind 2nd shot holes # 17 at Prestwick # 13 at Rye # 15 at Royal St David's # 14 at Nth Berwick to name a few and personally I prefer those that are bunkerless which 17 at KH is. Mike Clayton has done an excellent job on the bunkering off the drive + you can see where the pin is when you walk off #7. I wish there were more holes like it in this day and age - unfortunately they don't seem to be built anymore ?

Mark - as I say - I agree that both Woodlands and C'Wealth are underrated but for mine not to the extent that they are better than KH.

PS: Mike also did an excellent job on the spare P3 #19 - you would have sworn it was part of the original course....

[Anthony Butler]

To Anthony Butler:

For my money, the only hole on KH that needs a major renovation is 17.

I think 17 is a great blind hole and is part of one the toughest finishes to championship golf in Australia. If I can recall it has an Index of around 3 ? so it's certainly no pushover.

There are some great blind 2nd shot holes # 17 at Prestwick # 13 at Rye # 15 at Royal St David's # 14 at Nth Berwick to name a few and personally I prefer those that are bunkerless which 17 at KH is. Mike Clayton has done an excellent job on the bunkering off the drive + you can see where the pin is when you walk off #7. I wish there were more holes like it in this day and age - unfortunately they don't seem to be built anymore ?

Last time I played KH was in Jan '04. Maybe Mike finished his fairway bunkering work after that.  As far as the green side bunkering goes, the 17th green seems out of character with the rest of the course. Also without the bunker lips to frame the slopes on this green, they look characterless. At the same time, I don't agree with greenside bunkering unless you can at least see the lip of the bunker/s from the f'way, hence my thought about lifting the landing area approx 6-10'. The second shot could be a mirror image of the 15th, with the same style of bunkering on the left..

PS: Mike also did an excellent job on the spare P3 #19 - you would have sworn it was part of the original course....

The tee needs a little formalizing... The 10th is also a good short par 3. Very tough when you put the pin in the back third of the green. With all that sand facing you, it's hard to swing hard enough to get the back all the way back to the pin.  

[Kevin Pallier]

Last time I played KH was in Jan '04. Maybe Mike finished his fairway bunkering work after that.  As far as the green side bunkering goes, the 17th green seems out of character with the rest of the course. Also without the bunker lips to frame the slopes on this green, they look characterless

Anthony - KH # 17's greensite is bunkerless and the green relatively flat ? but the hole doesn't need a greenside bunker to have character

[Paul_Daley]

My two-bob's worth:

(1) KH pitch and rolls far more than people give it credit for; it is far from flat. We see that straight off the bat on the opening hole - a delightful gentle incline, apex, then, a not insignificantly downhill 2nd shot. Holes 2-4 are certainly flat, as are 12-13, and this 5-hole group are the ones that tend to promote sweeping, misconceived statements about the overall layout. On the surface 18 looks flat, but it moves "all over the joint" and ripples something fierce like a bodybuilder's stomach. Even the 11th which appears flattish to the naked eye, serves up all manner of 2nd shot movement around the green on all sides. The undulation on major sections of 14 (2nd half), 15, 16, 17 would qualify as very pronounced, at least it did a few weeks ago.    

(2) KH is the 2nd best course in Australia.

(3) Poor routing? Hello ... Planet Earth to Mars. Its routing cannot be faulted! Actually KH's routing is a relatively
greater acheivement than RM West's, because that property truly is vast. KH is much smaller, yet somehow the golfer's journey seems totally non-claustrophobic and relaxed. We can only hope in future that all courses are routed as "poorly" as KH.

(4) The 6th hole is among the best holes at KH, and really demands the golfer to do something from the tee; not just bomb away. In a northerly wind the left-side jumps up and grabs your ball. From the top of this undulating hole, many rate the view to the green and clubhouse - in all its splendour - as one of the visual highlights of the round.  

(5) KH's crime:
it's only crime is being in the same city as Royal Melbourne West.

[Mark_F]

[quote author=Kevin Pallier l
Yes - KH is 'relatively' flat per se but so is Woodlands (even moreso) and C'wealth isn't overly 'rugged' in terms of topography either !

Kevin,

You are misunderstanding the gist of my argument.
There are two points I made.  One of them is not that Woodlands and Commonwealth are flatter than KH - which they are - but that they have made better use of their limited topography - which they do.

So far, I don't notice anyone, including you, coming up with a concise argument to counteract my thesis.

KH's significant undulation is a ridge/spine that runs across the 1st and 6th fairways - and both holes attack it in almost exactly the same way.

Another significant undulation is the hill that 8 and 16 run over - in almost exactly the same way, with blind bunkers on the right hand side.  

4 and 13 are pancake flat holes that run in the same direction, have the same driving strategy, and basically the same green complex, although the greens are different.

[James_Livingston]

Always good to read a discussion of two of my favorite courses, and Kingston Heath.  

As far as quality short P4's go - I'm glad you feel that #3 at KH is exceptional and for mine #9 isn't bad either ? Woodlands has some good short P4's as well #3 and #13 spring to mind but there's too many of them ie: 4 holes under 340m and another just on 350m.

This is where I see Woodlands strength, it has many more shorter holes than KH.  And 4 shortest fours are only a quickstep from a birdie to a triple, demanding fairly precise execution, particularly with the approaches.  The extra shorter holes bring the length back to the 6100 metre mark, making it a much more pleasant walk.  I know plenty of people who rate it amongst the most difficult on the sandbelt, yet at that length it is still playable for Mackenzie's seemingly forgotten "inferior" golfer, ie, most golfers.  This is the type of course we should be building, not 6500 metre+ slogs.

A good way to look at it is that C'wealth etc... probably have some holes that are as good + more spectacular than KH. But each of these courses have some significant shortcomings that KH does not.

Anthony, could you please elaborate what shortcomings Woodlands has in an architectural sense that KH doesn't.

IMHO RM, KH and National Moonah are the 3 must plays in Victoria.

If you are coming for quality architecture then you would only play National Moonah to see how it shouldn't be done, badly routed and an exhausting walk.  From my perspective it represents a lot of what is wrong with much of the current thinking.  At about 6600 metres its length makes bugger all difference to the pros this is supposed to address but is exponentially more difficult as handicaps rise, turning what should be fun into an often arduous grind.  A terrible waste of a great site.

But the architectural edge should go to KH over WL because of the two KH has the best par 3 (15th) the best short par 4 (3rd) and the best par 5 (14) -- even though WL is strong in all these areas. And KH has a better opener and and a better finish (I even like 16 and 17 -- particularly 16)

I'm not sure that a methodology for assessing the architecture based on three holes is best, but what the heck.  I've never figured out the fuss about 15 KH, but I'll pay that one because everyone says so.  I prefer 4 and 13 at Woodlands to 3 at KH because the greens are a much more tempting target than 3 at KH.  You would have to be Robert Allenby or a nutcase (or is that one and the same?) to take driver on 3 at KH.  And it is an exercise in splitting hairs with between 14 at KH and 15 at Woodlands.  Woodlands also has the better mid length par 4 in 7 (340ish metres) and the better shorter par 5 with 2 (460ish metres) and the better longer par 3 in 5 (170ish metres).

(3) Poor routing? Hello ... Planet Earth to Mars. Its routing cannot be faulted! Actually KH's routing is a relatively
greater acheivement than RM West's, because that property truly is vast. KH is much smaller, yet somehow the golfer's journey seems totally non-claustrophobic and relaxed. We can only hope in future that all courses are routed as "poorly" as KH.

We have been over this a hundred times by why is the routing 'bad'

Well I guess I'm a Martian.  Personally, I think that Soutar was delivered the worst possible brief, to deliver a course that would "stand the test of time" (or a monster).  This resulted in a n unbalanced routing and a lack of variety.  It is the management of vegetation, the stunning (though often overdone) bunkering and conditioning that gets people excited, not the quality of the architecture.  And a lot of you guys should know better.

On the routing, this is some of what I wrote on it last time, in comparison with Woodlands.  "Woodlands has significantly greater variety because it has imo the vastly superior routing.  Par 3's of 139, 154, 168 and 197 metres which run in three different directions.  Three sub 300 metre par fours, again, play in different directions.  A couple of very good mid length par fours in 7 and 14.  Unsurprisingly moving opposite.  Three 400+ par fours that basically triangulate.  Two 4.5s in 2 and 18, playing in different directions and two strong 3 shot holes in 6 and 15, which, you guessed it, oppose one another.  This is what I'd imagine textbook stuff to look like.  And into the mix the gentle(ish) opening, providing opportunity for early birdies before settling into the tougher holes and it just strikes me as a Golden Age classic.  Of course that would be pointless box ticking if the holes were no good, but in this case they are, with super holes at every length.  Just looking at the short fours 3,4 and 13, are all holes where it is possible to write pretty much any number on your card.  4, at 251 metres with no greenside bunkers begs to be taken on and provides infinite short game options.  For mine it is clearly superior to the much vaunted 3rd at KH, which is pretty much 4 iron, SW, two putts = par four each time.

I just don't see anything remotely approaching the same variety or balance at KH.  The kindest word I can think for the routing is pedestrian.  I think the example in the history illustrates why Soutar had no idea.  To walk into the middle of the property, say this is the ideal spot for the short 10th hole (what is the thought process there?), do the plans and then have to reverse the hole due to the setting sun provides some indication that he may not have been on top of the basics of routing.  And into the mix all the completely unnecessary blind holes and little effort to mix up the directions on a property that was largely flat, practically presenting a blank canvas, would have me giving him a resubmit.  It certainly doesn't conform terribly closely to the principles of the period expounded by MacKenzie, or judging from James Bennett's earlier thread, Robert Hunter.  Soutar is actually one of the earliest Australian examples of the perils of hiring an architect based on their public profile and playing deeds."  It is all in here, so we don't need to rehash it again  - http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?action=display;board=1;threadid=21505;start=25#msg392093

[James Bennett]

Re the acreage of the Sandbelt courses.

From the hindsight of my fleeting trip through parts of the US, (Philly in particular) - all Australian courses are on comparatively flat land and on small parcels of land.  Anyone travelling from the US (eg Ed G and Dave K) will find the courses on smaller parcels of land, without the amazing undulating ground that some of the US courses have the use of.

There are few courses with small acreage (Lulu has less than a 100 acres, as does Wannamoisset, but they are exceptions.  Merion was surprising, especially how close to the boundary some holes play.  Originally, some holes played over Ardmore Ave, but it is a public car road now, not a horse and cart track).

These comments are not meant to detract from the quality of the sand-belt - the sand-belt is exceptional.  The comments are meant to comment on how many of the US courses occupy a much larger footprint than the sandbelt courses discussed above.

James B

[Kevin Pallier]

Kevin,

You are misunderstanding the gist of my argument.
There are two points I made.  One of them is not that Woodlands and Commonwealth are flatter than KH - which they are - but that they have made better use of their limited topography - which they do.

So far, I don't notice anyone, including you, coming up with a concise argument to counteract my thesis.

Mark

"Better" is a subjective term - yes both Woodlands and Commonwealth make good use of their limited topography but "better" than KH and it's limited acreage and subtle changes in undulation taking into consideration characteristics such as each holes design, routing, bunkering etc. - IMO no?

KH's significant undulation is a ridge/spine that runs across the 1st and 6th fairways - and both holes attack it in almost exactly the same way.

Another significant undulation is the hill that 8 and 16 run over - in almost exactly the same way, with blind bunkers on the right hand side.  

4 and 13 are pancake flat holes that run in the same direction, have the same driving strategy, and basically the same green complex, although the greens are different.

I also like how you have used the term 'almost' in describing some of the holes above....

#1 & #6 play somewhat differently esp: in a crossbreeze and have completely different green complexes and run in opposite directions....whilst yes they share the same ridge...
#1 = is bunkered down the RHT side both in the fway / green which is not raised and is bunkered RHT
#6 = is bunkered down both the the RHT / LFT sides of the fway + green and the later is raised and much more undulating

#8 & #16 also play differently than most people think. Yes they are blind drives but #16 turns much more shaply at a greater angle to the right and is bunkered greenside on different sides to #8.  

I certainly agree with you to a degree about #4 & #13 - for mine the least impressive holes at KH.

James:

From the hindsight of my fleeting trip through parts of the US, (Philly in particular) - all Australian courses are on comparatively flat land and on small parcels of land

"all" is a very generalistic term - yes the Sandbelt with the exception of RMW is on relatively flat land but have you not played golf on the Mornington Peninsula ? The National's courses certainly aren't flat...St. A's Beach isn't...neither is Moonah Links / Legends...Portsea etc.

Elsewhere in Australia...NSW isn't flat nor say Joondalup in WA to give some eg's. Personally - I haven't had the opportunity to play courses outside of Florida so -it's difficult for me to compare terrains and most of these course are walked not carted.

[Andrew Thomson]

Commonwealth, too, uses its limited land even better than KH - the left-to-right side sloping fairway on 3, a down then up great par four at 11, a great second shot slightly uphill to a biggish, for Commonwealth, green, surrounded by sand at the 8th.

Most people bag it because it has too many trees, and because the old 1st, 6th and 7th were better than what is there now.  But 15 through 18 are four of the best holes you will play in Melbourne.

Of all the Sandbelt clubs I'd suggest I;ve played Commonwealth more than any other besides Metropolitan and perhaps RM's two courses combined, but in the past 12 months I would suggest I'ved played Commonwealth as much as 8 times.  I love the place, the problem I think I have is that I look at the bad things because I'm past the point of appreciating the good, which is of course to my detriment.

The 1st and 10th are the two worst holes on the course, perhaps not the best way to start each 9.  I may be a little harsh on 10, but it's certainly a contender.  However, thats a glass half full mentality.  The 11th is a wonderful hole, one of my favourites on the sandbelt.  

Besides 1 there isn't a hole I dislike, but perhaps its fair to say 6 and 10 are holes I like less than the others.  There a few 'interesting' bunkers scattered about the place, particularly the mystery bunker between the 2nd and 17th green.  Other than that I find the rest of the course superb with a few too many trees

I like 3,8,9,11,13,14,15,16,17,18 which is a substantial amount of holes.  Hell I even saw one Chris Kane make an Eagle on 13 after lipping out for albatross right in the middle of a stableford score in the teens!  

I haven't actually played Woodlands for about 3 years but I think it has an excellent set of 5's.  I think 2 short 4's is enough, despite my liking for this style of hole and I don't feel the routing at Woodlands is in the same class as Commonwealth or KH.

I'd agree that Woodlands is an underrated course, but I feel that both C'Wealth and KH are substantially better courses.  Let Mike loose at C'Wealth for a few years and I'd agree that it would perhaps be amongst the Top 5 courses in Australia.  Having said all that, for mine RME is one of the more underrated courses out there.  Before some recent butchering of 3 holes I'd have RME up there with KH in a canter.

[ed_getka]

Nice to see you guys opening up.

Philip,
   I saw all your posts and they have been helpful, as has the huge amount of input from all the locals who have been trying to guide me. Much appreciated all around.

[James Bennett]

Kevin Pallier

yes NSW, Portsea and some of the holes at St Andrews Beach have changes in elevation.  Much of Portsea and NSW in particular (I haven't seen National Moonah or Old yet).

But the movement and elevation changes at courses such as Plainfield, Rolling Green, Huntingdon Valley, parts of Merion - well the impact can be just jaw-dropping from the tee and in playing to the green.  

I agree my comment is a generalisation.  However, Ed Getka was asking a question and he has seen some of the American courses with such great movement and elevation change (and availability of land).  The sand-belt experience is high quality, but different.  It also emphasises the quality of the routings to fit such great holes into more compact parcels of land.

Course acreage is an issue that has caught my attention - what acreage do the great courses of the US vs the UK vs Australia take up?  How did this variation occur?

In my opinion, some of the great classic holes I have been priviliged to see are on land that I would have previously frowned upon as being too excessively sloped and too severe in change in slope for good golf.    However, the extreme ground occurs at so many courses that I saw that it is not questioned in the same way that members at my club would question such holes.  I guess I am beginning to realise that my golfing outlook has been sanitised over the last 20 odd years.

Hope this clarifies my intent of the earlier post.

James B

[Anthony Butler]

Kevin Pallier

yes NSW, Portsea and some of the holes at St Andrews Beach have changes in elevation.  Much of Portsea and NSW in particular (I haven't seen National Moonah or Old yet).

But the movement and elevation changes at courses such as Plainfield, Rolling Green, Huntingdon Valley, parts of Merion - well the impact can be just jaw-dropping from the tee and in playing to the green.  

Course acreage is an issue that has caught my attention - what acreage do the great courses of the US vs the UK vs Australia take up?  How did this variation occur?

In my opinion, some of the great classic holes I have been priviliged to see are on land that I would have previously frowned upon as being too excessively sloped and too severe in change in slope for good golf.    However, the extreme ground occurs at so many courses that I saw that it is not questioned in the same way that members at my club would question such holes.  I guess I am beginning to realise that my golfing outlook has been sanitised over the last 20 odd years.

Many of the prominent golf courses in Australia were constructed close to center of major cities. That would include most of the Sandbelt courses. Until recently, we didn't have the acreage, population or money to sustain the creation of places like Moonah Links, National Moonah or Barnbougle. i.e. courses in relatively remote locations with more dramatic, undulating land and major vistas.

America has been utilizing places like Monterey Peninsular and the eastern part of Long Island for over 100 years to build golf courses. The quest then was to find the most spectacular piece of land possible-and build a golf course on it. Based on the known history, only Royal Melbourne and NSW followed that brief.

Once you move away from the coast, even in Sydney, most of the land is relatively flat. The true opportunity missed to build a course with spectacular elevation changes in Sydney similar to those you see here in the north east of the US was in the northern beaches of Sydney. There are two private courses, Monash and Elanora, that are practically right next to one another. If Mackenzie had been given one of these sites, something along the lines of Pasatiempo would have at least been possible.

If Monash brought in someone like Mike Clayton to redo about 5-6 holes of its weakest holes it would probably get into the top 20 in Australia. I think even Mike would agree this land has far more potential than the land he is currently working on at Royal Queensland.

Anthony, could you please elaborate what shortcomings Woodlands has in an architectural sense that KH doesn't.

Haven't played the Woodlands, but have heard it is somewhat overlooked in terms of Sandbelt courses. Have also heard word that some of it's members believe it a class-based thing. I can only comment that KH seems to me to be a more pure & consistent golfing experience than any sandbelt course other than RM. For many holes at Victoria, C/W, Yarra Yarra etc. you feel there is more in the land than the golf course shows. C/W for instance, I think only 9, 15-18 live up to the potential of the site. Victoria, I think has a great routing but too many holes that are either mediocre or not consistent in character with the rest of the course. Also, that great mess of vegetation on the far side of the property. Not sure what the club's rights are, but it should be removed to bring those holes back in line with the look of the rest of the course.

If you are coming for quality architecture then you would only play National Moonah to see how it shouldn't be done, badly routed and an exhausting walk.  From my perspective it represents a lot of what is wrong with much of the current thinking.  At about 6600 metres its length makes bugger all difference to the pros this is supposed to address but is exponentially more difficult as handicaps rise,

I don't know about that. I liked a lot of things about the course, and I am no huge Norman fan. I might not be able to represent the views of higher markers, but my two playing partners who were 15 h'cappers seemed to be enjoying themselves. There's always the next set of tees forward BTW.

[James Bennett]

Anthony Butler, you said

'The true opportunity missed to build a course with spectacular elevation changes in Sydney similar to those you see here in the north east of the US was in the northern beaches of Sydney. There are two private courses, Monash and Elanora, that are practically right next to one another. If Mackenzie had been given one of these sites, something along the lines of Pasatiempo would have at least been possible.'

I found that a really interesting quote.  

My 'favourite course' on the north shore of Sydney (as a members course) is Avondale.  Holes like 8, 9 and 10 (the chasm hole) and 16 thru 18, as well as the back-to-back par 3's of 11 (short) and 12 (long puchbowl) set in the sub-tropical rainforest (yes, trees I know, but very picturesque, and totally removed from the surrounding Sydney metropolis) is spectacular.  I hadn't linked the similarity of terrain to Pasa till your post, but I can see the potential.  I wonder what the good doctor would have seen at such a site.  I don't know what Elanora or Monash or like apart from a coupe of 25 yar old photos.

Of course, from what I have seen, the good doctor seemed to be happy to be frugal with the land requirements for a course.  In an earlier post, the partial congestion at some Mackenzie courses (and concequent frugality of land use) is due to his desire to maximise the utilisation of any key featues available from the land (Tom Doak pointed this out on that thread).

Regarding the acreage used on the sandbelt - were the sandbelt courses part of suburbia when they were built, or were they farmland?  I don't know the development history of these areas.

James B

[Anthony Butler]

'The true opportunity missed to build a course with spectacular elevation changes in Sydney similar to those you see here in the north east of the US was in the northern beaches of Sydney. There are two private courses, Monash and Elanora, that are practically right next to one another. If Mackenzie had been given one of these sites, something along the lines of Pasatiempo would have at least been possible.'

I found that a really interesting quote.  

More of a thought–one that only became apparent to me after reading this thread.

My 'favourite course' on the north shore of Sydney (as a members course) is Avondale.  I hadn't linked the similarity of terrain to Pasa till your post, but I can see the potential.  I wonder what the good doctor would have seen at such a site.  I don't know what Elanora or Monash or like apart from a coupe of 25 year old photos. Of course, from what I have seen, the good doctor seemed to be happy to be frugal with the land requirements for a course.  In an earlier post, the partial congestion at some Mackenzie courses (and concequent frugality of land use) is due to his desire to maximise the utilisation of any key featues available from the land (Tom Doak pointed this out on that thread).

Avondale... haven't thought about that place in a while. Speaking of limited acreage, that is a tight little course. My dad used to play up there with a business associate often. That course is more in line with Pymble and Killara though. The land around Elanora has I think more potential. It enjoys a distant vista of the ocean from its hillside location similar to Pasa, the ground is usually fast and firm. The wind is always a factor. And the routing is quite good as I recall.  The members, however, seem quite happy running their limited co-op there and don't have a lot of interest in becoming a golf destination.

Regarding the acreage used on the sandbelt - were the sandbelt courses part of suburbia when they were built, or were they farmland?  I don't know the development history of these areas.

From what I understand, the areas around Oakleigh, Bentleigh and Huntingdale (where most of the Sandbelt courses are located) were established suburbs back in the 20s when most of these courses were built. Royal Melbourne is in Black Rock, out beyond Sandringham & Cheltenham, I believe there were very few houses south of the big 'paddock' when Mackenzie visited the property in 1926. Suburban development was tied to the tram system in Melbourne pre WWII and I believe Sandringham was the last stop on that line.

[Tyler Kearns]

If you are coming for quality architecture then you would only play National Moonah to see how it shouldn't be done, badly routed and an exhausting walk.  From my perspective it represents a lot of what is wrong with much of the current thinking.  At about 6600 metres its length makes bugger all difference to the pros this is supposed to address but is exponentially more difficult as handicaps rise, turning what should be fun into an often arduous grind.  A terrible waste of a great site.

James,

I did not find National Moonah to be an exhausting walk, but perhaps it was the incredible views in every direction that numbed my pain receptors. I can imagine the course being much more arduous when a gale howls through the peninsula, but what golf course wouldn't under those circumstances. Given what I saw, stating the golf course is a "terrible waste of a great site" is over the top. What about the routing did not appeal to you?

Overall, I had a lot of fun playing at the National, and found the contours surrounding the greens enhanced the game by providing more options to get the ball near the flag. It seems that the Norman/Harrison team always leave a portion of the green surrounds available as a back(side)stop, allowing balls to funnel back onto the green. Given the angle and pin position, sometimes this helped create a dramatic and heroic shot, other times, it simply provided a prudent option at getting down in three.

Further, the rolling fairways tested the ability to hit shots from many different stances, and the means in which the diagonal ridge bisects the third fairway was brilliant - pushing aside the efforts that just weren't good enough and leaving the golfer with a longer more obscured approach.

TK

[tonyt]

Nobody who disputes this seems to be able to estimate correctly the small number of acres it actually has.

As you are presumably in possession of this crucial information Tony, would you please care to share it with us.  For the purposes of comparison could you also please provide the acreage of its sandbelt peers.  When I calculated it from Google Earth KH was on 16 acres more than Woodlands (not counting the land acquired later at KH).  I'm tipping it is also on a bigger plot than Commonwealth and much more than Yarra Yarra.

You've misinterpreted me. When posts mention they have two practice fairways and a 19th hole, it implies the site is huge or that the space has been used poorly. I posted to correct the likely assumption then made by friends abroad who read that. Don't read more into my post than that. All the sandbelt courses, even those with more land than KH don't have massive sites.

[Chris Kane]

From what I understand, the areas around Oakleigh, Bentleigh and Huntingdale (where most of the Sandbelt courses are located) were established suburbs back in the 20s when most of these courses were built. Royal Melbourne is in Black Rock, out beyond Sandringham & Cheltenham, I believe there were very few houses south of the big 'paddock' when Mackenzie visited the property in 1926. Suburban development was tied to the tram system in Melbourne pre WWII and I believe Sandringham was the last stop on that line.

I don't think thats true Anthony - while there may have been more development than at Black Rock and Cheltenham, Oakleigh was still pretty remote.  Look at the early aerials, the area does look rather empty.

[Anthony Butler]

From what I understand, the areas around Oakleigh, Bentleigh and Huntingdale (where most of the Sandbelt courses are located) were established suburbs back in the 20s when most of these courses were built. Royal Melbourne is in Black Rock, out beyond Sandringham & Cheltenham, I believe there were very few houses south of the big 'paddock' when Mackenzie visited the property in 1926. Suburban development was tied to the tram system in Melbourne pre WWII and I believe Sandringham was the last stop on that line.

I don't think that's true Anthony - while there may have been more development than at Black Rock and Cheltenham, Oakleigh was still pretty remote.  Look at the early aerials, the area does look rather empty.

I don't have access to those photos, but you are correct about Kingston Heath. It is a ways from the tram lines... not a lot of buildings in the archival course aerials they have in the clubhouse. When you consider the area surrounding KH features a lot of ugly looking light industrial buildings on unremarkable land, it's amazing that the course turned out as good as it did.

The tram goes as far as Oakleigh and the train line to Sandringham. Not entirely sure the time line on this and how it affected the population spread from inner-city suburbs, but Huntingdale & Metropolitan are closer to Oakleigh and public transport and that area was built up prior to WWII .

Royal Melbourne and Victoria were obviously a little further away from trains and trams–the suburbs around them were established after WWII. If any group of golfers had cars (+ chauffeurs) to reach their club in the 20s, you can be sure it was the members of RM & Victoria. They are both upper & crusty!

Whoever was land grabbing for golf clubs in Melbourne back in the early 20s showed an incredible amount of foresight. Don't forget Woodlands, Yarra Yarra, Spring Valley and Sandringham are also in this area. It really is an extraordinary concentration on world-class golf courses and is only matched in the US by the private clubs around New York (Winged Ft, Quaker Ridge, Plainfeld, Garden City, Somerset..) and Philadelphia (Merion, PV, Aronimink, PCC)  

[James_Livingston]

did you not notice that KH has room for about 15 holes, it's an outstanding effort on a small site.

I haven't actually played Woodlands for about 3 years but I think it has an excellent set of 5's.  I think 2 short 4's is enough, despite my liking for this style of hole and I don't feel the routing at Woodlands is in the same class as Commonwealth or KH.

Andrew, rather than quoting oft made and factually incorrect generalisations, could you actually list some reasons why you believe the KH routing is so outstanding and why the Woodlands routing is inferior to CGC and KH?

I'm also interested in the comment that 2 short fours are enough.  More of them has the effect of bringing the shorter hitters back into the game and they usually ask more questions off the tee.  Personally I'd like to see more of them not less.  KH has one short par four and 7 over 380.  Woodlands has 3 shorter ones and three (four if you include 14) over 380.  I doubt there is much in the overall difficulty between the two courses for the better player, but Woodlands is much kinder to the seemingly forgotten figure of golf course architecture, the average duffer.

I don't know about that. I liked a lot of things about the course, and I am no huge Norman fan. I might not be able to represent the views of higher markers, but my two playing partners who were 15 h'cappers seemed to be enjoying themselves. There's always the next set of tees forward BTW.

I did not find National Moonah to be an exhausting walk, but perhaps it was the incredible views in every direction that numbed my pain receptors. I can imagine the course being much more arduous when a gale howls through the peninsula, but what golf course wouldn't under those circumstances. Given what I saw, stating the golf course is a "terrible waste of a great site" is over the top. What about the routing did not appeal to you?

Overall, I had a lot of fun playing at the National, and found the contours surrounding the greens enhanced the game by providing more options to get the ball near the flag. It seems that the Norman/Harrison team always leave a portion of the green surrounds available as a back(side)stop, allowing balls to funnel back onto the green. Given the angle and pin position, sometimes this helped create a dramatic and heroic shot, other times, it simply provided a prudent option at getting down in three.

Further, the rolling fairways tested the ability to hit shots from many different stances, and the means in which the diagonal ridge bisects the third fairway was brilliant - pushing aside the efforts that just weren't good enough and leaving the golfer with a longer more obscured approach.

Tyler, as a strapping 2 marker in his mid 20's, I didn't really have you in mind when I made the comment. More the short fat bloke who can't hit it over a jamtin.  You don't have the option to move to a forward set of tees playing competition and Norman seems to love making you walk to the top of a hill to the next tee.  Then you have an hour to drive home.  Not a good course given the skill levels of the target market I'd suggest.

And if you take a pair of typical 15 markers for a day out on a course with perfectly conditioned fairways and greens that is rated Top 5 then they will love it.  Guaranteed.  Doesn't mean it is a shining example of architecture though.

I do agree though there are a lot of things to like about it, but once you start stretching courses to that length it upsets the balance, and reduces the opportunity for the tempting driveable(ish) par four (you may have guessed these are a favorite of mine) and quirk.  I've seen data which shows that for the 'A' grade golfer, par fives rate relatively easily and par threes rate relatively more difficult.  The reverse is true for 'C' grade golfers, which basically says the longer you make courses, the more you play into the hands of the better golfers who are more likely to be able to string two or three decent shots together.  I'd bet Mackenzie would be much more favourably inclined to Portsea than National Moonah.

You're correct, its not a "terrible waste" of a good site.  You can see that in the course next to it.  But I do think it is something of a missed opportunity.

You've misinterpreted me.

Well make yourself clearer son.

[Anthony Butler]

I don't know about that. I liked a lot of things about the course, and I am no huge Norman fan. I might not be able to represent the views of higher markers, but my two playing partners who were 15 h'cappers seemed to be enjoying themselves. There's always the next set of tees forward BTW.

Tyler, as a strapping 2 marker in his mid 20's, I didn't really have you in mind when I made the comment. More the short fat bloke who can't hit it over a jamtin.  You don't have the option to move to a forward set of tees playing competition and Norman seems to love making you walk to the top of a hill to the next tee... I'd bet Mackenzie would be more favourably inclined to Portsea than National Moonah

No question there are easier courses and easier walks than any course on the National. Then again, I wouldn't recommend joining if you were a short fat bloke who couldn't hit over a jam tin.

My impression of Norman is that he would be disinclined to design a course as a tribute to Mackenzie or any other designer-living or dead. That said, he claims the Medalist greens + surrounds were built to play like Royal Melbourne. I recently received a permission slip from The Shark to play the Medalist when in Jupiter next month, so I'll soon e in a better position to judge the accuracy of that statement. The Intracoastal Waterway does seem a strange place to imitate the best green complexes on the Sandbelt though.

[Tyler Kearns]

KH has one short par four and 7 over 380.  

James,

I do believe the beloved Kingston Heath has 3 short par-fours, namely No. 3, 9 and 13 (269, 330 and 324 metres repectively), of which, I think the former is the best (and not because I curled in a birdie there).

However, in defense of Woodlands, none of them are as good as No. 13, which I thought was a smashing hole, a great example of requiring players to challenge the left hand side bunkers in order to have a decent chance at holding the leftward sloping green. Unfortunately, the lenghty walk back into the line of play towards the fourteenth tee is a detriment to the routing at Woodlands, so it's not bulletproof. But, this is comparible (although not as bad, or dangerous) to the walk back to the sixteenth tee at Kingston Heath.

TK

[Tyler Kearns]

Tyler, as a strapping 2 marker in his mid 20's, I didn't really have you in mind when I made the comment.

James,

I am not sure how you guessed my handicap correctly, but after my first few rounds in Australia I vowed not to disclose it for I played more like a 10-12 marker throughout my trip. Must be the reverse coriolis effect . But you make a good point, we all see courses differently, and it is difficult to see it through the eyes of other players. Some of the tighter corridors at Kingston Heath probably seemed comfortably wide to my playing partner Mike Clayton.

TK

[Chris Kane]

Some of the tighter corridors at Kingston Heath probably seemed comfortably wide to my playing partner Mike Clayton.

Tyler, Carnoustie at the 99 Open would have seemed comfortably wide for Mike.  When playing well he is incapable of hitting the ball offline, except for the first tee shot, which is without fail a 3-wood which goes low and left!  

[Tyler Kearns]

 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()