[Kevin Pallier]

Kevin, the Golf Australia ranking may not be perfect, but for mine its the only one with any credibility because the individual rankings of each panellist are printed.  That is the only way for each member to be accountable for what they submit

Chris - your point has a lot of merit and I always rank any list that I produce for such publications for that very point. Whether they get published or not is not entirely in my control though I wish they were.

KP

[James_Livingston]

Rich Macafee
Rich, thanks God you've arrived.  Until now the quality of the responses have basically been "well it's Kingston Heath, so it must be better", "look at the rankings" or the old furphy about the great routing for a small site.  Although my favorite was when totally unable to articulate an intelligent response, a completely different question is then asked of the assorted halfwits and drongos on ISG, with the expected reply then used as validation of the undefended position.  I'm purely referring to the architecture, I'm not saying that KH doesn't deserve its higher magazine ranking.

Nice to see a stout defence, whilst also conceding a couple of points.  I didn't mention being "dead left" on so many greens at Woodlands because I had assumed someone would pick it up, and you are spot on.  I don't think 1 & 9 are so bad, but you can add 2 & 18 to your list.   Good to see a passionate defence of the green complexes, I'm a fan of 3 and 13 (I rate it one of the most interesting ones there, I'm sort of surprised you didn't).  Equally there is a lot to like about most of the Woodlands greens, I don't think there is that much between them, and they certainly help provide a stern test given the shorter length.  The quirk of 4 and the angle of 13 are certainly different from KH.  And I never said KH 6 was a shocker (or 4&13 were the same).

Does anybody want to take a crack at the relative routings, balance and directional change between holes?  Given Soutar never did anything else of note that I'm aware of (ttitheridge would have alerted us if Mudgee was a hidden gem), I'm not sure why people so easily dismiss the supported proposition that Woodlands has the superior routing.  

I would love to meet you on the 3rd tee at KH tomorrow with 10 balls and watch you hit 10 4-irons and 10 sand wedges, and have 10 easy 2-putts. I'll take $10 for every time you don't do it and be taking $50 - $80 straight to the bar .

I can't do it tomorrow, but it sounds like a fair challenge.

P.S. I love Woodlands, why do all KH threads have to refer to Woodlands??

I often wonder why KH bashing is such a sport, especially by those who either play it poorly, or have played it infrequently.

Its the great Aussie tradition of going in for the underdog.  And given they are on similar terrain practically adjacent to one another, it makes sense.

[Kevin Pallier]

Although my favorite was when totally unable to articulate an intelligent response, a completely different question is then asked of the assorted halfwits and drongos on ISG, with the expected reply then used as validation of the undefended position.  I'm purely referring to the architecture

James_L: 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 believe Soutar did create some other relatively decent tracks in his time Elanora, Concord, Pymble to name a few. Granted they aren't in the class of KH or Woodlands but they're not that bad either. And even if they aren't - to have designed KH with input of Dr A Mackenzie is something a lot of great architects would have liked to have done.

[Mark_F]

Rich,

Nice try.

Instead of just coming out with a blanket statement wondering how anyone can call 6 KH a shocker, tell us why it is so good.

I elucidated exactly why I thought it was rubbish.

To say that none of Woodlands' green complexes are as good as KH is utter nonsense.

2 at woodlands, which you neglected and which James picked you up on, is about as fine a green complex as you would want on a 466 metre par five.

It may slope left to right, but missing short right when the pin is front right is hardly a piece of cake.  Nor is missing on the right when the pin is right, either.

Architecturally pure is nonsense. 4 is a boring hole with some truly appalling ridges far left, and some not very well done mounds right side of the fairway.

And 4 and 13 share the same driving strategy.  Sure, the greens are different, but why not mix up the driving strategies a bit?  

[RichMacafee]

Mark, thanks for the encouragement!

1. I didn't suggest that none of Woodlands greens are as good as KH. I mentioned about 9 or 10 at KH which I believe are better than Woodlands best.

2. I didn't mention the 2nd at Woodlands because I think it is an excellent green and not one dimensional like the others that run left to right. I think you are arguing yourself on that one, I agree with your assessment of it.

4 and 13 are not even remotely the same drive strategy. On 4 you can bomb away with driver and if you miss 30 yards right you can still hit the green with sand iron. Right on 13 is completely dead, sometimes even if you are only a foot or 2 off the fairway. Right side of the fairway is not very nice with a front right pin either.

Left bunker on 4 is not a bad miss. It opens up the green and is a firm good lie 95% of the time with a 9 iron in hand. Left bunker on 13 (which attracts plenty of very good players I promise you) is a sand iron or lob wedge out. This bunker must be taken on to some extent if you are to have the best angle in for your approach, and also gets plenty of people avoiding the miss right.

The widest part of the fairway on 4 is about 220m off the tee, the widest part of the fairway on 13 is 260m off the tee. Sure, if you bomb driver long and straight and ignore the hazards the holes play somewhat similar, but what holes don't!

There really is no deterrent to hitting driver on 4, but there is a huge risk with hitting driver on 13. If you hit an iron off the 13th tee, the approach is very difficult to get close to most pins when you are hitting anything longer than a 9-iron.

You might also be surprised at the direction 4 and 13 run in. Look at an overhead shot and you will see what I mean. As someone mentioned, there is a big difference between running in the same direction, and running in almost the same direction! Both holes could do with an extra 30 yards, but I think 13 is a very good and underated hole.

IMO KH6 is a great green because it challenges the player to be creative and precise, no matter what club is in their hand. It not only puts a premium on line but also requires perfect distance and trajectory control. Just because you hit the ball straight doesn't mean you deserve a 15" straight uphill every time. When the pin is back left you must decide whether to attack the top tier or not, then decide whether to bounce it up there or fly it back. When the pin is back right, height becomes the main factor - your approach must be high enough to hold the green after landing on a downslope. Or you can shape the ball left to right (towards the hazard) if you choose also. To me, it is all about variety and challenging the player differently each time they play the hole, something that makes Kingston Heath stand above most other courses.

[Shane Gurnett]

2 at woodlands, which you neglected and which James picked you up on, is about as fine a green complex as you would want on a 466 metre par five.

Mark, the second green at Commonwealth is better than 2 at Woodlands - similar length par 5.

For a man with a fetish for groovy funky greens, I am amazed you have no love for the 6th at the Heath. For hole of its length, I think the green is excellent and presents both the chopper and the good player with a serious challenge in getting the ball into the right part of the green, and if not, where best to miss it. It is a really good hole mate.

[Paul_Daley]

The 2nd greens at both Woodlands and Commonwealth are tippy-top shelf, but C'wealth's 2nd may be the best in Melbourne for its intracacy, amazing shape, feeding nature and sheer penalties doled-out for shabby approach play. The combined elements also keep many well-played second shots from staying on this par-5s, whereas many "so-so" seconds find par-5s these days.

No cake-walk, the green has two rivals close by: C'wealth's 17th and 15th greens. If you like "billowy" old-fashioned greens, these three will keep you content. The 7th at Royal Melbourne West, too, is pretty hard to beat, for all the same reasons.

Why not mention C'wealth's 9th and 11th greens? Well ... they are magnificent, too, but the borrow while putting - extreme in some spots - is far easier for visitors to predict. Nevertheless one hardly ever aims "high" enough; it's child's play to assess the overall direction, another thing to guess how much. I still three-putt my lounge room.

It is great news to hear on the grapevine that C'wealth's greens are speeding up of late.    

[Mark_F]

I often wonder why KH bashing is such a sport, especially by those who either play it poorly, or have played it infrequently.

Matt,

Because of the sentence "Golf Club Atlas is presented to promote frank discussion on the world's finest courses" on the very first page?  

I don't think I came away vowing revenge because of poor play.    I birdied 10, parred 15, and would have had several more if I didn't casually backhand putts toward the hole.

[Mark_F]

Shane,

Because I just don't quite understand having a blind green from the tee with those contours.

If you take the tiger line from the tee, and the flag is cut behind the love bite, how do you get it close?  If the right hand part of the green slopes away, how do you - and I mean most players, not MFFM  - hold it on the green from that side of the fairway?

Nothing wrong with those strategies if you can see the green from the tee - but blind?

Rich,

Thanks for the concise and succint explanation.  Now, that's more like it.

[Andrew Summerell]

It’s been interesting reading over the last 4 pages.

As I said in my first post, I have a real soft spot for both Commonwealth & Woodlands, but I can’t say they are better courses than Kingston Heath. The bunkering at KH is something that most first time players are impressed by, yet detractors tend to ignore. Hazards of various forms are very much a part of golf & can’t be dismissed when considering the quality of a course.

I don’t believe the routing is that bad at KH, and it’s always difficult to criticise routing when we don’t know what limitations where involved & none of the Australian contributors, except Mike Clayton have actually routed a course from scratch. With all the influence that MacKenzie had when in Australia, would he not have suggested a greater amount of re-routing, or a full re-routing of the course if he thought it was necessary. Whether he was hired for that purpose or not, he would have definitely made suggestions. Apart from the length of the course at that time, I would be interested to know whether he had any other reservations about the course, especially the routing.

[David_Elvins]

Shane,

Because I just don't quite understand having a blind green from the tee with those contours.

If you take the tiger line from the tee, and the flag is cut behind the love bite, how do you get it close?  If the right hand part of the green slopes away, how do you - and I mean most players, not MFFM  - hold it on the green from that side of the fairway?

Nothing wrong with those strategies if you can see the green from the tee - but blind?

Considering you can see the pin position on the 6th from the clubhouse, the pro shop, the practice putting green and the first tee, why do you need to see it again from the 6th tee. Surely you are not suggesting that every strategic par 4 should have a green visible from the tee?  

[James_Livingston]

Paul, I'd also like to mention 4, 8 and 16 at CGC.  14 also sets up especially well.  The 2nd would be a whole lot better if they cleared out that scubby mess short right of the green and actually gave people the chance who hit it there to play the heroic lob over the bunker.

At the end of the day though assessing green complexes is largely subjective.  Just as Rich finds many of the greens similar at Woodlands, a lot at KH seem to play and look the same to me, especially the way many are stepped up at the front.  I still haven't met anyone who says the changes made to the 7th green are any good.  Obviously I think there is more variety in the Woodlands greens, with 2,3,5,10,14,15,17 and 18 all very good.  4,7 and 13 are even better.  4 offers a huge array of short game options, 13 is deliciously tilted to punish anything that slides right (like CGC2 it would be improved if the tree short right came out) and the front right pin on 7 is perhaps the best sucker pin in Melbourne.

But all that is largely subjective.  I think one of the reasons Kingston Heath keeps coming up in comparison to Woodlands on here is simply that this is an architecture forum and there are plenty of compelling reasons why the architecture at Woodlands is better than KH.  And in areas which can be measured a little more objectively, KH's defences appear very weak.

As I said in my first post, I have a real soft spot for both Commonwealth & Woodlands, but I can’t say they are better courses than Kingston Heath. The bunkering at KH is something that most first time players are impressed by, yet detractors tend to ignore. Hazards of various forms are very much a part of golf & can’t be dismissed when considering the quality of a course.

Andrew, I don't dismiss the bunkering, a lot of it looks great, but it does look like they went overboard in some areas during the 'restoration'.  It's not that much better than much of the bunkering at Woodlands anyhow.  There's a lot of good and some poor at both of them.

Considering you can see the pin position on the 6th from the clubhouse, the pro shop, the practice putting green and the first tee, why do you need to see it again from the 6th tee.

The same thought crossed my mind when Tyler mentioned the anticipation of what was on the other side of the ridge.

I don’t believe the routing is that bad at KH, and it’s always difficult to criticise routing when we don’t know what limitations where involved & none of the Australian contributors, except Mike Clayton have actually routed a course from scratch. With all the influence that MacKenzie had when in Australia, would he not have suggested a greater amount of re-routing, or a full re-routing of the course if he thought it was necessary. Whether he was hired for that purpose or not, he would have definitely made suggestions. Apart from the length of the course at that time, I would be interested to know whether he had any other reservations about the course, especially the routing.

If confronted with a poor routing is it normal to start speculating about possible reasons for why it may be the case?  Or is it just KH that gets people looking for excuses?  I've certainly never heard any of the people who walked off the Ocean course at the National seek to cut any slack to TWP over that routing.  The reality is that you can only assess what is there.  If it was like any other golf club then there is probably a good chance Soutar had an interfering committee getting in the way, but that doesn't change the outcome.

[James_L: 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 ?

I'm sorry to hear that.  Well at least you can't say you haven't been warned.

[Brian Walshe]

Mark,

I understand Shane has knocked it to a foot on KH 6 and made birdie.  Therefore it must be fair and a very good hole or am I missing something?    It seems to be that you are arguing that a blind green from the tee should be basically flat?  Or is your issue just with blind greens?

James,

I agree that Woodlands doesn't get the kudos it deserves but it also has suffered in recent years by a few bunker changes that even you agreed were perhaps not required.

[James Bennett]

If there are any overseas readers viewing this thread, you will probably get an insight into the competitive culture of Melbourne from the debate herein.  Remember, there are 16 teams in the National Aussie (Ozzie?) Rules Football League, and Melbourne still has 10 of them, whilst two other teams are co-linked with Melbourne (an existing team merged into another capital city).  Heated debates on sporting topics in particular are a part of life in Melbourne.

James B (not from Melbourne)

by the way, I think its pronounced Mel-bun.

[Andrew Thomson]

James B - it would seem only one person has declared their bias in this thread though.

You'll find in most football discussions everyone knows who everyone barracks for....

[Tyler Kearns]

The same thought crossed my mind when Tyler mentioned the anticipation of what was on the other side of the ridge.

James,

Agreed had I played the course 1-18, however, in my defense I played #6 before #1. The utilize a funny hole sequence in order to have an 8 and 10 hole loop at Kingston Heath, and we started on the back (#7).

Regardless, I've seen pictures of many natural wonders, famous art etc., but it is still much more exhilirating to see them in person, or in this case, from the top of the ridge where the expansive view is best. I had a good idea of what was on the other side, but I hadn't captured the view from where the architect intended.

TK

[Matthew Mollica]

I often wonder why KH bashing is such a sport, especially by those who either play it poorly, or have played it infrequently.

Matt,

Because of the sentence "Golf Club Atlas is presented to promote frank discussion on the world's finest courses" on the very first page?  

I don't think I came away vowing revenge because of poor play.    I birdied 10, parred 15, and would have had several more if I didn't casually backhand putts toward the hole.

Mark,

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.

Also, I fear you may have misinterpreted me. I never suggested you played KH poorly. Even if I were to do so, I wouldn't do it publically. For someone such as myself to rib a mate for a high golf score would make be a very big black pot indeed.  

MM

[Paul_Daley]

James: You're right to mention the 4th, 8th and 16th
greens at Commonwealth - they are beauties, and so are several others.

[James_Livingston]

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.  

[Paul_Daley]

James:

I'm mystified why you suggest the supporters of KH have made a very poor fist of the case. It is obvious: they love virtually everything about the layout! Especially the routing. Golfers fall under the spell of the majestic Morcom bunkering; the green complexes; the sheer playability of the course; the property's free-draining nature; KH's ability to test the shotmaking of contemporary golfers; its walkability and surprising roominess, given it is purported to be on a smallish acreage. In regard to fairway-widths, KH is ideal: narrow enough to starve off tee-shot complacency; wide enough not to induce bouts of claustrophobia. I usually avoid aligning myself to a course's world rating to bolster an argument, but in this instance, do those with negative KH vibes forget that it is rated 20/21 in the world, and has been in the top-30 for perhaps 50 years. Just think of all the incoming entrants to the top-100 over the past 50 years placing pressure on the "golden oldies". For a pre-WW11 course to maintain its position (and actually improve), makes a nonsense of all the adverse KH mail. I just don't get it.  

It is easy, circa 2006, to slam Dan Soutar for materialising
holes which commence at the bottom of a hill, then
rise to an apex, before falling away. He did so on the 1st, 6th, slightly on the 8th, ever so slightly on the 9th, marginally on  the 11th, the 15th prior to Alister Mackenzie's handiwork, and the 16th. The 17th is a different presentation all together - stretching away on level ground for a decent length. With the exception of the 15th, they were all bogey 5s. One must remember that holes such as these were "in vogue", and you only have to travel 15 minutes to see evidence of what Mackenzie conjured from RM's property.

The following holes at RMGC West start low and rise: 2nd marginally; 3rd moderately; 4th substantially; 9th substantially; 10th substantially; 12th appreciably; 17th substantially. And the 18th features a dramatic driving "up and over" spectre. Now I cannot ever recall RMGC getting slammed for this routing tendency of having 8 holes appear in this form. And you can add the famous par-3 7th, too. Rather, the West Course is justifiably praised for Alsiter Mackenzie's super hole-configuration. Why should Soutar be made out to be a dill? I count myself as a fan of the old Scot.
 

[James_Livingston]

I'm mystified why you suggest the supporters of KH have made a very poor fist of the case. It is obvious: they love virtually everything about the layout! Especially the routing. Golfers fall under the spell of the majestic Morcom bunkering; the green complexes; the sheer playability of the course; the property's free-draining nature; KH's ability to test the shotmaking of contemporary golfers; its walkability and surprising roominess, given it is purported to be on a smallish acreage. In regard to fairway-widths, KH is ideal: narrow enough to starve off tee-shot complacency; wide enough not to induce bouts of claustrophobia. I usually avoid aligning myself to a course's world rating to bolster an argument, but in this instance, do those with negative KH vibes forget that it is rated 20/21 in the world, and has been in the top-30 for perhaps 50 years. Just think of all the incoming entrants to the top-100 over the past 50 years placing pressure on the "golden oldies". For a pre-WW11 course to maintain its position (and actually improve), makes a nonsense of all the adverse KH mail. I just don't get it.  

Paul, my inference was the KH supporters of made a poor fist of their case in relation to the comparison with Woodlands, especially in relation to the routing.  And for me the key element is the routing, as it determines the balance and variety in the holes and the directional changes.  None of which was done nearly as well at KH as occurred Woodlands.  I'm not sure why this should be a terribly shocking argument, after doing his nine at Woodlands Sam Bennett then went across to work on Commonwealth.  Soutar never did another course of note, and I'd argue (uncontroversially I'd guess) what elevated KH was the visit of MacKenzie.

It is interesting that you refer to the world ranking position.  It is my sense that the high ranking and the distinctiveness of the maintenance create an expectation that it is what a great course looks like.  The typical ranker (especially from overseas) is likely to look at the conditioning and the visually exciting bunkering and go 'wow'.  They are also less likely to mark it down as they don't want to look the odd one out.  I'm not saying it isn't a fine course, just the architecture on the other side of the airport on similar terrain is better, in particular the routing.  Most rankers probably won't even bother going to Woodlands as they are more interested in telling their mates they've been to RM, KH and Metro.  "Magazine Ranker" is a particularly apt piece of rhyming slang in many instances.

It is easy, circa 2006, to slam Dan Soutar for materialising
holes which commence at the bottom of a hill, then
rise to an apex, before falling away. He did so on the 1st, 6th, slightly on the 8th, ever so slightly on the 9th, marginally on  the 11th, the 15th prior to Alister Mackenzie's handiwork, and the 16th. The 17th is a different presentation all together - stretching away on level ground for a decent length. With the exception of the 15th, they were all bogey 5s. One must remember that holes such as these were "in vogue", and you only have to travel 15 minutes to see evidence of what Mackenzie conjured from RM's property.

The following holes at RMGC West start low and rise: 2nd marginally; 3rd moderately; 4th substantially; 9th substantially; 10th substantially; 12th appreciably; 17th substantially. And the 18th features a dramatic driving "up and over" spectre. Now I cannot ever recall RMGC getting slammed for this routing tendency of having 8 holes appear in this form. And you can add the famous par-3 7th, too. Rather, the West Course is justifiably praised for Alsiter Mackenzie's super hole-configuration. Why should Soutar be made out to be a dill? I count myself as a fan of the old Scot.

I think he was copping stick for it in the 20s as well.  The tee shots on RMW generally provide the option of the heroic carry, 2,4, 10, and 18.  If Mackenzie had routed KH I'd speculate he'd would have found holes that had heroic carries over bunkering cut into the main ridge.  Instead holes like 8 and 16 have short carries to unsighted bunkering on the other side.  There is nothing directly comparable (or that ordinary) on RMW.

[Mike_Clayton]

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.
From the clubhouse ( I am assuming the position was fixed) there were only two possible ways to go - the way he did up the 1st or backwards down 18 - leaving the opening hole with OB on the right on the 1st shot of the day - and perhaps we should give him credit for taking in the potential of future housing on that side not making that mistake - as Russell constantly did at Yarra Yarra and Royal Melbourne and left the significant headaches of today.

It would have been simple to come back to the clubhouse with the 6th as the 2nd but he didn't make that mistake and leave them with only one starting point. (7 works well now and always had and we should give him credit for not being a slave of returning nines)
Instead he walks past 6 tee and fits four pretty good opening holes in to effectively use that pocket of land without using too much so he couldn't really begin to stretch out the course toward a difficult finish where you had to hit some terrific long shots.
I agree his 15 was by all accounts a dog - which was the only hole even close to being poor on the whole course.
10 also takes up no space and is a wonderful little pitch with 3,4,7,8,9,11 and 14 going around it.
It is a small site and he shoehorned it all in damn well and 10 was an important part of the puzzle because it gave him more room for the rest of the big holes.

You can go on forever about the tee shots at 8 and 16 but the second shots they set up are two of the best on the course - especially 16 and when the pin is left at 8 you really have to hit it as far right as you can - an interesting strategy that is not at all obvious.

Perhaps we should do a list of odd blind tee shots up and over hills that set up great second shots.
7 Sunningdale - horrible tee shot and one of the best seconds in the world.
11 Muirfield.
4 RM west.
16 KH.
9 Woodlands !!!
13 St Andrews Beach
5 NSW.
8 Pebble Beach - the worst and the best in one.
 2 and 18  Lake Karrinyup
17 St Andrews (granted its not a hill but something worse - a building)
5 Portsea.

And,I am with Rich on the 4,13 thing.
You play those two shots completely differently.
4 is a free hit with a driver but 13 is far from that and often its 3 wood or an iron because the bunkers are in play for medium to long hitters - as opposed to 4 where the first lots are in play only for a really short hitter and the one further down in only in play for or a long driver.
It is too simplistic to say bunker left,angled left to right green,bunker right.
And perhaps we should give him credit for making 4 the easier shot and 13 the more difficult one because it was later in the round which fits in with the easy start tough finish deal.

Its also very easy to be critical without coming up with an alternative.
And there are some brilliant greens there  - 2,3,8,9,11,15,16-
that match anything in Melbourne.I don't know any architect who wouldn't be happy to have them - or KH - on his CV.

[Tom_Doak]

Mike didn't mention the sixth green at Kingston Heath, but I've always liked it.  I didn't realize until after I played it the first time that it was built by Graeme Grant.  Dr. MacKenzie only did one green at KH (the fifteenth); most of the greens predate his involvement, although I believe that Graeme rebuilt a couple of others while he was curator there.

P.S. to Mark:  When I wrote the "gossip" in The Confidential Guide, I hadn't seen Woodlands, and my comments reflected what people told me at the time.  I have since played it twice, and I would give it a 6-7 on the Doak scale, putting it above Yarra Yarra and maybe Metropolitan for architectural interest.  It's an excellent golf course and should not be skipped, as I've advised several people on this board in more recent times.

P.S. to Mike:  Coore and Crenshaw have built a lot of those "up and over" holes that could be added to your list.  I've built them less often, but 13 and 16 at Stonewall (and 3 at Stonewall North) qualify.

[Anthony Butler]

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 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.

BTW-Whoever made the point about Melbourne being parochial to a fault was 100% on the money... Australian Rules is the perfect example of that. Melbourne has been obsessed with it for a century, but no-one in the rest of Australia gave a rat's ass about the competition until it became the AFL about 15 years ago.  Of course no one cares about Rugby League either-including anyone with something better to do in Sydney. (Russell Crowe-still polishing his working class credentials from the lounge room of his $12m apartment-being the exception)

11 Muirfield.

17 Old Course

The only two of five on this list where I recall standing on the tee unsure as to the appropriate line. #17 on the Old Course would be completely baffling if you were dropped off with your clubs by a spaceship on the 1st tee without a caddy. Anyone who has taken the trouble to travel to Scotland has undoubtedly watched the Open on TV and knows the line is straight over the "O" in Old Course unless adjusting for a left to right wind. Holes 2-6 on TOC seemed like bigger head scratchers on the tee. And what about this completely blind tee shot, #10 at Pasatiempo? the hill is so  close to the tee you have no idea which way the hole might bend. The map on the card doesn't indicate the right hand side is better both for the r-l slope in the fairway and the angle at the green.

***Most of your initial rounds on the courses Mike mentioned are also played in the company of members-except Muirfield where the club secretary finds it amusing to pair you with Americans who lied about their handicaps to get on the course, resulting in a group of caddies who have lapsed into a sullen sillence by the end of the first nine. By the time you reach 16th tee on most courses your playing partners know your game and give you the appropropriate line... just like the advice I received on the other 17 tees at Kingston Heath...***  

[Mike_Clayton]

Tom,

Graeme changed the 6th,10th (at the back mainly)13th and 18th greens.

I only saw Stonewall when Don was building it.They were clearing the trees of the top of the hilll on the 3rd and I know you had 4 West in mind.
I would love to see the course one day just to see how it turned out and 3 is the hole I have wanted to see more than any other.It looked like it could have been great.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()