[RJ_Daley]

Mike Clayton, maybe I'm not understanding this right.  You are doing a ranking... only you?  Or, are you one of a number of people on a panel that will visit and play that course?  

How can you have anything more than the narrow view of one man's opinion, or a handful of opinions if not enough panelists are able to play it and come to some sort of qualitative sampling of multiple opinions?

I don't care for the ranking game to begin with.  I'd much rather you or others describe the courses weaknesses and strengths in a narrative to share with the public... even if the public won't ever get a crack at it.  I really won't get anything out of you ranking it 12th in OZ, or first among all exclusives, etc.  I'd want to know why you feel that way, what you saw and how it played.  

[Mike_Clayton]

R.J

I am one of eleven panelists doing the rankings for one of the three magazines down here.

Six of the eleven are architects - Bob Harrison,Neil Crafter,James Wilcher,Ross Watson,Ross Perrett and me.
And its seven if you include Craig Parry who puts his name on a few.
If you cared little for the rankings before this, all those conflicts would have you taking them less seriously than ever.

I think the interesting debate about Elleston is that its not really walkable and its simply unbelievably difficult - which was the brief as I understand it.

The question I ponder is whether it would have been a better course if the brief had been MacKenzie like 'fun' and it had to be walkable.
Its much easier to route a course if when you come across a difficult piece of ground you simply drive over it to get to a more suitable place for a hole.

Its a pity more don't see it because the great question is what MacKenzie would have come up with had he see the site in 1926.
I suspect it would have been a much different course.

[Tim Pitner]

If a tree falls in a forest, and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound?

Does a bear shit in the woods?

[G Jones]

depends if you are ranking "best golf courses" or "best golf courses that you can easily play". it's a fairly straightforward distinction, with the former not related in any way to how many people get to play it.

[Mike Nuzzo]

I think it should get an extra Doak point just for the exclusivity...  

[Jerry Kluger]

I really think that you should consider the perspective and wishes of the owner of the course. You are being given the opportunity to play a golf course that few will have the opportunity to play.  Now if the owner of that course does not want it to be rated should you not respect his wishes.  I know that members of ANGC and CP probably don't care about the ranking of the courses but that is far from not wanting them ranked or barring access to all non-members.  Let's say that the owner learns about what you've done and decides that no outsider will ever play the course - what then?  

[RJ_Daley]

Jerry, your post makes me ask if the owner actually wants it to be evaluated or ranked.  If so, and it is strictly kept to his private circle of friends, then all the ranking does is stroke one man's powerful ego.  What does it say for a fellow that wants to have his pet thing rated and ranked, but not to offer it to anyone but his chosen few?  What does it imply for the raters if they pan the course under those circumstances of the owner wanting it ranked (and by implication wanting it to be well received).  Will he use his power to decry or denounce the raters and their organization?

It just seems to me that this sort of situation is fraught with trapdoors for the raters.  Already we hear it is terribly hard, unwalkable, and probably a collection of hard, perhaps some good holes at best.  To be that hard, I'm imagining some goofy golf in there by most people's standards.  So, what is there to be gained by rating it for the rater, his organization, or the public to consider the rating?  It seems just about everybody possibly looses.

[Mark_F]

Mike,

Maybe you need to get the editor to introduce a "walkability" criteria.

That way your conundrum will disappear.

Interesting that amongst all of Darius Oliver's gushing about the place, especially in his recent tome, there is no mention of walkability.

But since Darius appears to be the acknowledged expert on the course, I offder these quotes from Planet Golf concerning Ellerston, which should offer no doubt it doesn't deserve to be ranked.  Reviewed, maybe, but not ranked.

"Locked away in the secluded high country... a veritable Shangri-La preserved for the exclusive enjoyment of Australia's wealthiest family."

"They created shots and sequences that simply would not be possible on a more accessible course."

"This buffalo grass does not wear particularly well, and is unsuitable for courses with even moderate traffic levels."

[Andrew Summerell]

I thought Kerry Packer had requested previously that Ellerston not be considered for ranking in the same list that Bob Harrison still chose to name his design in the top 5.

[Mike_Clayton]

Andrew,

That is right.Last time there was a request not to rank the course but I assume that changed after he died.
Bob did rank it which I though was funny.

[Andrew Summerell]

Bob did rank it which I though was funny.

We are all proud of our children.

[Mark_F]

That is right.Last time there was a request not to rank the course but I assume that changed after he died.
Bob did rank it which I though was funny.

Harrison, like everyone else, probably just assumed Kerry would buy someone else's body.

Packer sold his soul years ago, so another body would be a minor delay, no more.

[Tom_Doak]

Mike:  What's the mystery?  I have heard of courses where the owner or members preferred it not be ranked, but never one where a living architect preferred it not be ranked.

Where do you think the course belongs?  Darius' rating is very high, but Darius' rating of several Norman courses is higher than anyone else [except Norman and Bob Harrison] would put them.

[Mark_F]

Darius' rating is very high, but Darius' rating of several Norman courses is higher than anyone else [except Norman and Bob Harrison] would put them.

Yes, indeed.

Who would have thought National Moonah had the sixth best set of par fours in the world outside of the USA?

[Ben Cowan-Dewar]

Mike,
Didn't most of the people who rate in Australia gain access because originally they were invited as raters? Was the desire to no longer be ranked based on the fact that it had achieved recognition, or that its recognition was not high enough?

Andrew's point is a good one in that those who really desire can get on the Aussie privates, but to the average public player in Melbourne, is Royal Melbourne really that much more accessible than Ellerston?

If you rate one private club, I do not see why you would not rank them all.

[Mike_Clayton]

Tom,
Mr Packer did not want it ranked - Bob went along but ranked it himself - at 5.I assume he would like it to be ranked now.
I think its on the edge of the top 10.
I think if the brief had been to make it walkable and make it fun it could have been 3 or 4 - which is where Bob ranks in  now!!
 The country up in that part of New South Wales is spectacular and there are some very good holes but a couple of stinkers as well - 9 is a par five with a blind landing area for the second shot that is smothered in trees with no logical way to avoid them and 16, a really odd dogleg where ,from memory,you have to hit about 200 yards to see the green but 230 is too far and you are behind another bunch of trees.It is one of the strangest holes I have ever seen.

It is not really walkable and the brief was to make it hard- its so hard that an average ten handicap 85 shooter would have very little chance to shoot within fifteen of that.

 Ben,

All the raters were invited this year to play - it might even be this week.It has never been rated before and that they want it rated now may or may not have something to do with Mr Packer's death last year.

Royal Melbourne is one of the most accessible private courses in the top 20 in the world.Its not that hard to play there occasionally.And they have tournaments there regularly so anybody who is interested can at least walk the course and study it.

Almost no one can see Elleston  - no one lives anywhere near it - and there are very few pictures of it.The only ones I have seen are the ones in Daruis' book.
There are private clubs like RM and there are private courses and there is a big difference.

[Ben Cowan-Dewar]

Mike,
Ellerston made the Golf Australia list in 2004 and Golf Digest list in 2006, didn't it? Maybe you are on a different panel, but I seem to recall a group of panelists going to Ellerston, I believe when Kerry Packer was alive. That would make sense given it made two separate lists of rankings.

I met several golfers who told me that RM was off limit to them, because they were residents of Victoria. That sounds private to me. Because it is easier to get on than Pine Valley or Merion does not make it all that accessible to the average public golfer, which is probably why so many are alienated by rankings of any private courses.

Trying to judge the level of exclusivity of individual clubs seems silly, when they are both private. Therefore as a comparison of the art, I can't see why one needs to be included over another.

There is a course in Canada that is the equivalent of Ellerston, but it has never allowed raters on the property. Since Ellerston has, it seems fair game to me?

[Kevin Pallier]

Mike

Will be interesting to see what courses you put before it and after after it inside your Top20....

I presume by what you're saying you're allowed again to rank courses you designed ? Will also be interested to see where some of the other architects rate their own again this time after their last efforts

To answer your original question - yes - I believe all golf courses should be rated and ranked.

[Chris Kane]

Ben, RM is open to the public a number of times a year on charity days.  Anyone who wants to play there can do so, provided they have an official handicap.

RM is also a huge club (1500 members?), I don't think its a stretch to say that most Victorian golfers (the only ones who can't play there as a manager's guest) either know a member or know someone who knows a member.  It isn't one of these small clubs with a national membership like the elites in North America.

I agree with Mike's distinction between a private course and a private club.

[Mike_Clayton]

Ben,

As Chris says Royal Melbourne is quite accessible - and everyone goes to watch tournaments there.
If nothing else there can be an informed and unbiased debate about its architectural merits.
That can never be the case with Elleston - and I still argue there is a massive difference between a private club and a private golf course.


I would be surprised if Golf Australia ranked it in 2005 (not 2004) We were asked not to rank it although I did go up there with a few guys on the panel.
Golf Digest may have ranked it.

Kevin,

We have always been able to vote for our own courses - which is obviously difficult but if seven of the eleven panelists are architects then it would be a bigger mess if we could not vote for our own courses or courses where we consult.

There were so real beauties last time around - but at least they publish each individual list so the conflicts are there for all to see!!

[Jason McNamara]

Wasn't there another Aussie course (in Melbourne - The Capitol?) that asked not to be ranked?  Was that because the club was new?  What is happening there?

Jason

ps.  For the Steely Dan fans in the States, how far is Ellerston from Muswellbrook?

[Mike_Clayton]

Jason,
The Capital is in Melbourne - just across the back fence from Kingston Heath.
The opposite of Elleston it's built an a dead flat market garden - as opposed to one of the most beautiful and spectacular sites in the world - and the gates are closed to everyone except those willing to lose an awful lot of money at the local casino (plus local sports stars) which I think is part or fully owned by James Packer.
It is a Peter Thomson design on the model of Shadow Creek.They spend fortunes to create a private sanctuary but I would think there are eight better better courses within ten miles.
It is probably ten or twelve years old now.

The owner requested the course was not to be ranked.

[Jason McNamara]

Mike, thanks for the info.  Sounds like the Capital should indeed be ranked.  As for Ellerston, sounds like it's more of a Porcupine Creek kind of deal.  PC apparently was rated by Golf Digest on year, fwiw.

[Chris Kane]

Mike, I think the main reason they the Capital doesn't want to be ranked is because an objective ranking would expose just how over hyped a course it is!  It would never make the top 30, but the marketing (and what they tell their clients) suggests that its one of the best in Australia.

Somehow, I doubt it would have the cache it does if it was ranked 47 in a magazine list: the Mahogany Room gamblers might not be so interested in playing there!

[Ben Cowan-Dewar]

I still argue there is a massive difference between a private club and a private golf course.

I would be surprised if Golf Australia ranked it in 2005 (not 2004) We were asked not to rank it although I did go up there with a few guys on the panel.
Golf Digest may have ranked it.

http://ausgolf.com.au/australias-top-50-golf-courses-2004-golf-australia

That is where I got the date from, with Ellerston at 6th.

If they really did not want you to rank it, why would they allow you out? I know lots of courses that say they do not want to rated, because they feel that will make raters think more it...

Agree to disagree on the private thing. Do you think Seminole and Pine Valley should be ranked?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()