[Anthony_H]

OK..

Yes the Green on the 8th was extended back, not the hole lengthened.  I'm pushing my memory but I'd say everything to the right of the tongue extending down into the bunker is new.  Someone find me a picture, as I'd like to check if I've lost the plot.

On the 5th bunkers.  The old bunkers were not that deep.  They were barely deeper than those there now, however the extension of the ridge across the middle of the green into the walkway would have made them look deeper in photos I reckon.  I'd say they were deeper at the lip at the front of the green though, and they definitely looked far more like they belonged.

Also the drainage wasn't used as an excuse my anyone I've spoken to when these bunkers were brought up, but I remember in ~95 there was definitely some probs in this part of the course.  It's probably been fixed now as part of all the work though (and we have that lovely metal grid to prove it!).

Onto the first.  Forgetting about the debate about whether 238m is too short (and the first at Vic is 233 so I guess it's not necessarily the case, however in this case a 238m par 4 followed by a 442m par 5 was a particularly short opening pair of holes), I completely agree that the first is not much of a hole.  The bunkers (in some cases remnants from the old first) don't suit the flow of the hole, and the green is too big for the length of the hole (even if I can't hit it with a wedge!).  The first thing I'd do though is take out the first right hand bunker, which is uninspiring and serves no real purpose (decent golfers would see it as a chance to spin their approach a little more).  Turn that all into fairway.  It'd be the easiest place to drive but the most difficult approach.  This would leave a number of options off the tee.  Iron down to the right.  More dificult iron up near the bunkers on the left, or even more difficult wood past the punkers on the right.  The more difficult shots would leave the simplest approaches but also have the biggest risk if you 'missed' the shot.

To go back to the topic of this thread.  The bunkers on 5 are poor, the plans for them were not an indication of the final outcome, and they do not look like they fit with the rest of the course.  That is the situation.  Is anything going to change in the short term?  I doubt it, but I also think there is a pretty classy golf course hidden underneath some issues that can be rectified fairly easily.  Hopefully in time they will be.

[Shane Gurnett]

Anthony,

Here is the link to a past aerial of the day for Commonwealth:

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=388;start=msg8612#msg8612

I think this was taken in about 1990 ( this is the same photo that hangs on the Pro Shop wall), still showing the old holes and the original bunlers on 8 and 5. Note that 8 now has an extra Hartley bunker on the LHS of the green. The large greenside trap on 8 may have been slightly extended to the right, but not much change really. The bunker face, lips and tongues are all pretty much the same.

It seems the everyone agrees just how poor those new bunkers are on 5, which is no surprise really when you consider the track record of the architect who designed/built them (exclduing his work on "greenfield" sites such as The Dunes and 13th Beach, both of which are fine courses). Working on established courses is clearly not his forte. Its hard to believe that those who made the decision to appoint him did their homework thoroughly, especially considering what happened at Kingswood.

Shane

[Chris Kane]

Here is the aerial in question which shows the old first green and the current first green.  I've placed a blue dot in the area where I think the original first green could be replicated, and  with some tree removal and earthworks, leaving a hole identical to the old first but of ~260m rather than the 238m original.

[Shane Gurnett]

Chris, while your "blue dotted" example would certainly work (and with the correct angled green would be much better than what is there now), there is plenty of room to rebuild the original straight hole to where the current green is now. All it would take would be some minor earthworks, a new tilted green (just like the old one) and a lot of tree clearing down the right hand side of the current fairway. I've never really understodd why the junk on the right is retained, when all it does it present a wall of very average looking rubbish  that only slows down play. It could easily be cleared out to allow more width on the current first, and a fantastic view down the 8th. So simple.

[Anthony_H]

Shane, thanks for that..it appears I was losing it.

Interesting to see how dry the course looks.  Probably was in good shape.

Mike, you'll notice I wasn't an advocate of the first as it is, just that I think after 15 years that there is a slight case of rose coloured glasses re the old first.  Yes it was a good short hole, but there is no reason a 280m good short hole couldn't have been built to somewhere near the new first green which would have been fun to play, interesting, unique and looked good.  Without having known the thinking behind the change in the first place (I suspect there were a few other factors as well..eg...safety of 2nd tee... the ability at 7 min tee times to get 40% more players through the course on a corporate day and the extra cash that involved when compared to 11 min tee times...who knows....) I can't say for sure that it was change for changes sake.  What I can say is that I don't think it would work to try and recreate it now.  (and this is just my opinion).  To shorten the 2nd to a 4 would then require some consideration to completely redesigning that green, which I think (back left bunker excepted, and I'd fill that in myself, except that having never seen anyone in it it would be a waste of my energy) is not a bad green, but one that is very much suited to being a relatively short 5.  It's a bit of the domino effect, and risks replacing one dodgy hole with another (and perhaps not getting the first right).  Much better to go with getting the first right but angled towards the current green position.

Interesting that you choose to comment on 7.  I feel that is the real loss.  7 I think was a great par 3, and at 164m was sufficiently long (compared to the 135m 9th and 145m 15th).  The new 7th is very wrong.  The green is significantly larger than those on the rest of the course, the lake (forgetting it can't hold water) serves no purpose with respect to the hole, the back right bunker adds nothing and the bail out area short and right is uninteresting.   The bunker left is OK, but the rest of the hole does not look like it belongs at Commonwealth.  I understand the reasoning for creating a longer 3, and the idea that 9 and 15 were 'faders' 3s (this was a Trent Jones coment I believe), but I feel the hole is uninspiring.

Anyway, perhaps the conversation would have gone like that or perhaps not...perhaps Greg would have said "sort out those damn poa greens first"....who knows, it's history now.  We must look to the future, and hopefully for Victorian and Australian golfers that will involve Commonwealth managing to get it right.

[Chris Kane]

Shane,
While rebuilding the old first to its exact original location would be a great improvement, isn't the possibility of another 20 metres tempting?  Provided that the original contours of the hole could be fairly closely reproduced, I'd prefer to see a hole of 260m rather than 238m.  

Mike,
While changing the second to a par-four might sound good in theory, it would do nothing to improve the pace of play - which was Anthony's concern.  For 98% of club members it is a three-shot hole, whether its played from 425m or 466m.  I also cannot think of a green complex less suited to approach shots.  It would be the most difficult par-four on the sandbelt.

The second is just fine as it is.  Besides tree removal and shifting of fairway lines, don't touch it!

[Mike_Clayton]

Chris

I wouldn't consider changing it to a four but if some were to argue the start was too easy they could remane it '4' and the silly argument would go away.The green is far from suitable for a long iron and I would never change it.
However Geoff Ogilvy would be knocking it on with an eight  iron - maybe a little more.
And never should the argument be propounded that the 2nd tee was a problem from the old first - it wasn't.
For 90% of sandbelt members a hole over 420 is a 3 shot hole.

They ought to cut all that rough down the left all the way to the back of the 17th green to encourage players to hit that way and open the hole up. You have to think that was Lane's intent.

[Shane Gurnett]

I thought it may useful to post these pictures which were taken at Kingswood earlier this year. Much of Kingswood was remodelled by Tony Cashmore to alleviate some boundary issues.

I think it is interesting to look at Cashmores bunker work at Kingswood, and contrast/compare it with his work thus far at Commonwealth. To me, the similarities are striking, particularly when you compare the second photo above to the work on the left of the 5th green.

[Mark_F]

Chris/Shane/Mike

In the aerial of the course, the old sixth has bunkers on the opposite side of the fairway to what is there now.  What is different about the green to cause such a fundamental change?

Also, there are bunkers on the tenth now that aren't in the above shot, do they enhance or detract from the hole?

[Tommy_Naccarato]

so what do you guys think of those bunkers in these pictures?

[Richard Chamberlain]

Shane

Whether or not we love or hate the bunkering , what if the Commonwealth committee gave Cashmore the design brief to build new bunkers similar to Kingswood.
For all we know Cashmore may have built exactly what was in the design brief.

Do you know what he was asked to build ?

[Shane Gurnett]

Dr K

You may well be right. As there is no master plan, we'll never know. All we get to see is a design drawing (overhead only), then a new hole in the ground. I would like to believe that those making these sorts of decisions could at least demonstrate the respect for the original design that it fully deserves. It wasn't ranked in the top 3 in the country for nothing. Likewise, the slide down the rankings over the past 20 years didn't happen without justifiable foundation either.

Tommy

These bunkers certainly have style all of their own, and the similarity between what Cashmore built at Kingswood and Commonwealth cannot be ignored. Any visitor to Kingswood will be able to clearly differentiate the original work from the new, there was obviously no attempt to blend the new work with the old. The danger now is that Commonwealth is headed down the same path.

What we have at the club now is three styles of bunkering;

1. The original Charles Lane bunkers,
2. The Hartley bunkers from the early 1990's and now
3. The Cashmore bunkers.

Each style, if kept apart from each other would probably look ok, although I'm obviously most impressed with the Lane bunkers. The thing I have a real problem with is the new work not even attempting to fit in with the old stuff, especially when the results are poor. These dont look like sandbelt bunkers to me.

What do you think Tommy?

[Brian Walshe]

Shane and Tommy,

I played Kingswood recently and as I have said elsewhere, burst out laughing on the 1st tee when I looked to the left and saw the new 9th.  The style of bunkering on the new holes is absolutley nothing like the old bunkers there.  It's so far over the top, massive flashed faces always pointing towards the fairway, that you can only presume that the major design consideration was visual impact. I'm not sure what the intent was, to start a different style of bunkering with the view to changing all the bunkers on the course at a later date, or whether it's a poor attempt to blend in.  Perhaps there were no instructions at all.  

With regard to CGC, the committee at Commonwealth owed a duty of care to the members to ensure that any changes melded into the existing course and didn't represent a change in style.  Potentially the people involved simply don't know and can't pick the difference between a Lane bunker and a Cashmore bunker.  Perhaps we are dealing with nothing more than people ill equipped to carry out the task they have been assigned by the members.

[James_Livingston]

It always makes me laugh when threads about Commonwealth end up talking about restoring the old 1st, 7th, et al.  Anthony is right, they are never coming back, at least with the current leadership group.  These holes have been done, and they must now get on with the job of wrecking the rest of the course.  I think Brian is right, they mustn't be able to tell the bunkers don't fit with the Lane originals.  If they knew and proceeded further, it would simply be reckless.  Perhaps someone should make them aware of GCA, it might give them some food for thought (or at least an alternative viewpoint to that provided by the architect).

The reality is that Commonwealth became a great club not because of the members or the fancy name, but the awesome course, superb bunkering and greens and great strategy (and not the trees).  One can see that it would have been a much better course than Kingston Heath once, but if they keep moving in the current direction it will soon start losing members to Spring Valley and Southern (if it isn't happening already).

Shane
I'm playing Kingswood for the first time in a couple of weeks, and purposely didn't want to know what holes Cashmore touched to see if I'd recognise the work and if it was as bad as many are saying.  Looks like I won't have any trouble.

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 had me worried for a moment.  If that was Hartley it is his best work by far.

[Shane Gurnett]

It always makes me laugh when threads about Commonwealth end up talking about restoring the old 1st, 7th, et al.  Anthony is right, they are never coming back,

James, whilst restoring the 1st would be a brave decision, restoring the 7th would be quite simple. All that is required is to bulldoze the current 7th green into the scum filled pond (which incidently is the worst eyesore on the sandbelt) and rebuild the old green from the photo's in the clubhouse. Of course you would need to be VERY CAREFUL who was overseeing the work, but with the right people involved, it could done in about a week. It would also need to linked back into the 12 th green area to be done properly.

Good luck at Kingswood. I'll be interested in what you think..

[Matthew Mollica]

Shane,

All of this discussion has got me thinking about several things, apart from the course and the changes.

How long has the course been suffering at the hands of committees?

What sort of consultation process has taken place over the years?

Why is there seemingly a lack of new committee nominations with an aim to correct the errors of the past?

What advice do you have for members of other clubs, so they can possibly see the warning igns, long before their cherished courses go under the knife?

What has happenned at CGC is terrible, and I feel great sympathy for the passionate members there, like yourself, who have had their great course defaced.

Matthew

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Would do I think? Well,I think these bunkers look nothing like the the Chas Lane bunkers in the photos above. I think they look like the same horrible potato chip-like bunkers that the architecture firm here in the US, Schmidt & Curley produce as examples of Riviera's magnificent bunkering. It is nether good or practical, and totally out of tune.

But in the end, it leaves me thinking of one thing--Somebody please pass me the onion dip! (US version of a party snack that is the mixture of dried onion soup mix and sour cream that one dips his potato chips into!)

It is however, quite obvious that they are losing the course a a very excellerated rate.

[Chris Kane]

Tommy,
To correct a possible misunderstanding, the latest set of photos Shane posted are from Kingswood.  The bunkers are the product of Tony Cashmore, the same architect who is doing the current work at Commonwealth.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Chris, Sorry for the mis-understanding, but it is obvious that Tony Cashmore hasn't a clue.

[David_Elvins]

Shane,

Thanks for the photos from Kingswood.  It is fairly obvious from  my recent visits to Kew, Kingswood and Commonwealth that this guy (or gal) who is constructing these bunkers has 3 templates that he uses over and over again, no matter what the surrounds.  It is so dissappointing that Commonwealth is losing its uniquness and turning into a "cookie cutter" course. Lets all pray that none of this work affects the great green complexes on the course.   I think I stated earlier that, form the photos, the two greenside bunkers were two of the worst bunkers I had seen.  Well, after seeing them in person I would have to nominate that first greenside bunker as Australia's worst bunker.  The crinkle cut on the flat side is truly horrendous.  And the new fairway bunker on 6 isn't far above it either.  Thankfully, the fact that it doesn't really come into play makes it a lot easier to ignore.

[Shane Gurnett]

Chris/Shane/Mike

In the aerial of the course, the old sixth has bunkers on the opposite side of the fairway to what is there now.  What is different about the green to cause such a fundamental change?

Also, there are bunkers on the tenth now that aren't in the above shot, do they enhance or detract from the hole?

Mark, sorry didn't see this question the first time around.

The fairway bunker on the 6 was always on the LHS, nothing on the RHS. The new one on the RHS went in as part of the Hartley redesign of the hole 10 years ago. The green now favours more strongly an approach from the right than it used to. Interestingly, the LHS bunker you can see in the aerial has just been redesigned into another pit style bunker by Tony Cashmore. From the back tee it is about 320m, uphill into the prevailing southerly, so it is irrelevant in the context of the holes strategy for 99% of players. Yet is has just been redone. Pretty pointless really.

The bunker changes to 10 are the second shot bunkers RHS about 140m from the green, and a completely superflous bunker some 10 metres from the greens edge on the RHS. The 10th is a so-so hole in the context of the course, the real problem is that the tee has had to be moved 50m forward and right due to balls going over the fence from the back tee. From the back tee the hole is much stronger, and a true 3 shotter, with the bunkering being much more relevant on the first and second shots. The green could also use a bit of work, as it is probably too large and lacking in tilt from one side to the other.

Shane

[NicP]

So here we are again eh? On the 18th. of August 2002 I posted this regarding the discussion of CGC:

Boards and Committee's can no longer take the approach that whatever happens inside there cylone fences is soley their business. They have a responsability to the game and it's traditions. They are merely transitional custodians of the course. We as golfers, and lovers of the game and it's magnificant traditions, must act as auditors of the Boards, Committes and ruling bodies that are there not for their own cause but for the betterment of the game and the courses that we play on.

So I call on all golfers, memebrs of CGC or not, to stand up and make their feelings known, so that we are not the last generation to be intrigued and seduced by classical architecture at its best

Shortly after this, the CGC boys were some what more upbeat about the possibility of finally being on a track for improvement / restoration....... 12 months on and after some intial tree clearing we are back at the same place yet again. I agree with the majority of the comments re the 1st, 5th. and 7th.

It's starting to get to the desperate stage.... I just hope that something can be done to save CGC or else it might just provide a perfect oprning chapter for an Australian version of "The Missing Links"......

[Matthew Delahunty]

I'm just wanting to piece together the history of Commonwealth's bunkering and am hoping someone can answer this. I have a few books from the late 80s/early 90s which show many of the course's bunkers with partially grassed faces, which are now all gone. When was the switch made (a) to the grass faces, (b) back to the traditional style, and what difference did the changes make to the look and playability of the course?

[Chris Kane]

Dela,

I assume that this is the kind of thing you're talking about? This is the 15th green in the mid 80's -



The bunker edges were progressively sharpened from around that time, resulting in this sort of appearance -

[Matthew Delahunty]

yes, that's what I'm talking about. Was the previous style in existence from the club's early days or was it developed some time later?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()