[Rich Goodale]

Paul

"Crunch, crunch, crunch."  As you know I've not yet played RM, but that sound resonates with me as one of the sensations of playing a great golf course at peak condition.  Thanks.

rich

[Paul_Daley]

Rich: I'm delighted that you've chimed-in here, for precious few in this day and age get to experience greens 'upon the brink'. You'll have seen it throughout the UK, but perhaps less today than previously. One man's "peak" conditions is another one's "disaster zone" ... but we know which side of the ledger we fall on. If ever you make the trip Down Under, just holler and we'll tee it up at RM. Sadly, with golf shoes fit for dancing, and greenish greens ... the "crunch" won't be present.   

[Sean_A]

Paul

"Crunch, crunch, crunch."  As you know I've not yet played RM, but that sound resonates with me as one of the sensations of playing a great golf course at peak condition.  Thanks.

rich

Rich

I had forgotten about the crunch of the green.  I think the last time encountered it was many years ago at Brora - still the fastest greens I have ever experienced.  I remember a very good mate playing his first ever links game at this time and he was blown away by how the conditions could make wee Brora a tough SOB.  I can still vividly recall upon my first visit to the UK back some 20 years ago how some courses had the crunch and others did not.  On subsequent visits the crunch has slowly died away from nearly all the top tier clubs.  All is not lost though, the crunch can still be had on irrigationless links, sadly though, it would seem only on the clubs which don't depend on visitor cash can we really experience the crunch.  

Ciao

[Brian Walshe]

Paul,

I played the Composite the day after the President's Cup and even after the showers on the Sunday there were sections of a few greens that gave that crunching sound.  Sadly, in the last few years you have been more likely to hear a squelch.

Brian

[Rich Goodale]

OK, let's forget about "fast and firm"--from now on it's "crunch, crunch, crunch!!!" (or "CCC!!!" for short).

Has anybody in America ever experienced CCC!!!, in America?  If not, how can you call courses like Pine Valley, Merion, Cypress Point or Shinnecock "great"?

[Paul_Daley]

Sean: Thanks for adding your experiences of the "crunch" factor at Brora and other links.
You've touched on the heart of the matter; namely, that UK clubs relying on revenue from visitors progressively became hyper-sensitive to the growing chorus from ill-informed golfers, who, collectively, whined about "keen" greens. With livelihoods at stake; it made a significant impact. 

Brian:
That's a great flashback right there ... the 1998 Presidents Cup, and it will be back soon enough. You'll retain the vividness of those few remaining "crunchy" greens from that period for all-time. Somewhere inter-related in all this, is how golfers tear apart Royal Melbourne, even in rounds where they drive all day to the "wrong" side of the fairways. The combination of soft greens and approaching with mid- and steep-faced irons has removed the premium—make that, strict necessity—of having to be pin-point accurate off the tees to score low. Sure RM West is a relatively wide open, but only in terms of seeking bogey golf, with a few pars thrown in. Seeking birdies, the driving lines become as tight as you like, or dare.

[Paul_Daley]

Rich: mate ... I see you're an old rocker from way back, almost making Credence Clearwater Revival out of CCC. Not quite, but maybe the "R" in CCR could stand for "reviving" the crunch factor. 

[Mark Bourgeois]

These posts are fantastic.  Plenty to feast on here over the holidays!  Let's start with Neil's.  Neil I was working off the color plan in your post, a copy of which also appears in the GA piece you wrote with Dr. Green.  A few questions:

1. Does anyone have any old aerials they could post?  I've seen snippets of aerials from the 1930s (1936? RMW11?) in I think a GA article or two, possibly the club history as well.  But nothing of a complete nature.

2. The color plan Neil posted shows 4-5 RME holes on the map and Neil thinks Mac commented on those holes. For Neil, Paul, and anyone who wants to chime in, if Mac had a hand in designing most of the East holes used for the Composite, and those holes are positioned at least in some sort of "relationship" to the West, does provide a fig leaf of philosophical support for the Composite?

2b. For me the issue isn't so much the Brigadoon nature of the course but design intent: a real course needs to have been routed as such by the designer(s).  Is that the issue, or is it the Brigadoon quality?

3. Bunker capes -- can't remember if it was the club president or the asst super, or a member, but someone told me many of the capes are not original but were subsequently built (Morcom?) to increase ease of entry / exit.  Is this true?  What do the old aerials show? The color map above doesn't show bunker capes, does it? Is that significant?

4. Neil in his writing has noted the "triangular" green shape as a sort of Mackenzie signature in some of these old maps.  It reminds me of a thread started by, I think it was Mike Hendren, about the "green tongues" seen in old pictures of Augusta National.  These tongues were narrow sections of the green that protruded out towards the fairway.  Is there a connection between these two observations?

5. In the color map, Composite 1 (RMW1) -- the unshaded hole upper right, just below the "practice ground" -- there's a bunker on the *left* as well as in the center of the fairway, which does not appear as wide.  What happened?

Gotta go -- will pick up with more thoughts on these excellent comments later.

Rich -- Yale in the drought summer of '95!

Many thanks again to all for the comments,
Mark

[Mark Bourgeois]

How do you card a 7 on the 451-yard, par 4 6th hole?  Make a three-footer!

En route to victory in the final round of the 2004 Heineken, Ernie Els dumped his approach into the deadly clamshell bunker fronting the left side of the green that belongs to RM West, where it plays as the 6th.  (Not to confuse things further, but in the Composite routing used in the tournament it served as the fourth hole.)

His third shot skidded past the pin, located on the deadly front portion of the green, off the green and down the hill.  His chip didn't summit -- or summited Mt. Everest style, which is to say all too briefly -- and when it finally stopped Els found himself even farther away than where he started.

Warming to the task, and perhaps gaining an appreciation of Peter Thomson's "loss-cutting" insight, Els's fifth shot brought him to eight feet.  His first putt, for a six, got him to three feet, from where he took his seventh and final stroke.

This is not to disagree the course has gotten too short for the pros, but it's funny how everyone remembers the course-record Els shot 60 the day before.  Nobody seems to recall Els shot a 74 the next day.

A better point about Els's Jeckyll-and-Hyde back-to-back rounds (than concluding the course has gotten too short / easy) is one that used to be made about the old, now NLE Augusta National: low scores are out there for the heroic, but so is disaster.

The 6th offers two clues to how Royal Melbourne achieves that:
1) A dogleg that rewards drives both well struck and well positioned
2) A green that Ran Morrissett has written "features some of the boldest contours in championship golf"

It's true the course makes brilliant and frequent use of doglegs, and aren't doglegs a tried-and-true method for girding a design against whatever monsters may lie over the technology horizon?

After holing out on the 5th, the golfer takes a short walk to 6 tee, which, as it lies on the same ground as 5 green, provides an elevated look at the fairway below.  The decision: how much does he challenge the cluster of bunkers, not to mention scrub, in the crook?  It's a crucial question, for the farther left one bails out the closer his chances of scoring a 5.

One other point to make using the picture below taken from the tee: the cant of the fairway from left to right.  One aspect of RM's doglegs that could use more attention is the relationship of the dogleg to the tilt of the fairway.  It's like that game where one must guide a steel ball down a slope between two rods; how far down the slope do you think you can go?

Here the slope offers help in proportion to the risk the golfer chooses, which is good if we're taking the risk because we need all we can get on a hole of this length. (If the golfer bails out left, the slope gives him little -- the upslope provides a bit of a "brake" to keep him from going too far and thus losing the angle for his next shot, which will be a layup.)

A good example of how slope is used to a different effect in relation to the dogleg is the short 8th (RMW10).  That hole sees the fairway cant hurting the golfer.  These cants, in their relationship to the doglegs, introduce an entirely new calculation into the risk-reward "summing up" that Thomson's quote so wonderfully captures.

One question I do have about optimal position: Mike Clayton in WAOG writes that the best position is just over the sand in the dogleg, that the farther across the fairway one carries the ball the farther one diverts from the ideal line of approach.  Is this reference to the back-left pin position or is it Position A no matter the flag?

6 Tee: one minor observation to note is the view through to 4th fairway (RME2).  There are many, many such vistas made available by the profusion of doglegs. These vistas not only provide an "economy" in views or sightseeing, they contribute to the challenge by making depth perception tricky on the bailout route.


The golfer who takes the bold route and succeeds finds that his well-struck drive merely privileges him to consider a shot that, for a complete absence of water, chasms, cliffs, arroyos and any other golf pornography, might be one of the most-frightening in golf.  We have both Neil C's and Ernie Els's experiences to help us understand why.  The golfer who of free will chooses to bring 3 into play also chooses to bring 5...6...7 into play.

6 Green, with hole in difficult front-right location: members now sometimes refer to the front-left bunker as the "Els Bunker." Of course, it's a moveable feast of sorts: Sam Snead in the 1959 Canada Cup putted off the green into this bunker.



Final word: Golf Magazine named the 6th hole one of the world's 18-greatest holes -- and named the 5th the greatest 5th hole in the world (and one of the world's 100-greatest).  Back-to-back architectural excellence!

Mark

[Mark Bourgeois]

The 7th hole (RMW7) is a 148-yard terror and an inspired piece in the routing puzzle.

Isn't this an amazing confluence of holes and tees? (7th is circled in red.)  The Whitton 7th enabled the lengthening of the 3rd (RME1).  3 tee is shown by number "3".


From Neil's post above:

The first version of this hole was essentially a modified version of the old Sandringham course's 9th hole, known as Mount Misery. A new green was built to the east of the old one and the hole still played considerably uphill, hence the name. By all accounts the green was rather severe with a number of plateaus and became known as Russell's Folly. In 1937 Ivo Whitton designed a new 7th hole located on the site where the clubhouse was intended to be built originally, but this idea had been abandoned so this land was spare. There is now a water storage where the old hole used to be.

Claude Crockford built it, an interesting link showing how the course might have gone off the rails had its designers not been gifted teachers as well, for Morcom mentored "Crocky."

Every golfer finds each course holds a special bęte noire hole tailor-made, in reverse that is, for his game, and on a personal note, this is the one.  Having played the hole five or so times, I haven't figured out which is the best play: aim directly for the front bunker, pull it into the right bunker, or write a letter on the card (X) and walk directly from 6 green to 8 tee.

For many hole locations, being anywhere off the green is a surefire bogey, bunkers an invitation to a 5.  Achieving the green, then, is where the fun really begins.

An excellent match-play hole on a great match-play course.

7 Tee


A picture from the club's website that shows the green a little better:


Mark

[Andrew Mitchell]

Mark, Paul, Neil et al

Great stuff, the photos and the commentary you are all providing makes this one of the great GCA threads.

What I am reading and seeing here is making me determined to get to Royal Melbourne should/when I make it Down Under.

[Mike_Clayton]

Mark,

The other scary thing about John Carroll's quote is that neither - RM or The Opera House - were designed by Australians!

He did note that the Melbourne Botanical Gardens could be included.

I will disagree with Paul here. I think it is fit for ranking.
It makes more sense to play than either the West or the East for the exact reason it was created - no roads to cross. When you play the course there is no sense of crossing from one to another and t is a legitimate course in its own right.

[Neil_Crafter]

Mike
I have to agree with you, and disagree with my good friend Paul Daley, I think it is a legitimate course to rate, especially given that one of the West course's joint architects designed the East course in his own right. Russell can definitely be awarded joint architect status on the West (if not a little more) and so I would disagree that RM was not designed by Australians. And it was certainly built by Australians.

Andrew
While the conditioning at RM has been very problematical over the last few years its a must see if you can get to Australia for the property, its architecture and a very special 'sense of place' that only a select few courses have.

Mark
I have a partial aerial of RM from 1931 that was taken while the East was still under construction. It is instructive on a few points and I will post it a bit later when I have some more time.
In your write up on the 6th you caption the photo noting the "difficult front right pin position". The word "difficult" is applicable to all pin positions on that green!
Neil

[Mark Bourgeois]

Mike

My favorite travel list in the world is UNESCO's World Heritage Sites. It features both manmade and environmental sites and the criteria is something vague (I think) like "significant."

Everything from cave paintings to buildings to reefs.

The idea of RM being added to that list is a nice daydream.

Interesting to contrast the design and building processes for the Opera House and RM. The former was a disaster that left the building ill suited for its functional purpose, the exact opposite of the RM process.

It was nice then to see the reconciliation of the authorities with Jorn Utzon prior to his passing just last month.

I tell the story of the contrast in support of Neil's point that Australians very much were involved in the design and construction. Not to mention the secret reconstruction of the greens by Crockford.

One additional point in support of the Composite is the probability that Mac had a hand in the redesign of 4 holes of the East located in the main paddock.

I'm still on the fence as to whether it counts as a real course, but it has got me thinking about what a "course" really is, which is pretty interesting - and not just in an academic sense.

Is the old Old Course, which is in a rough sense reborn Brigadoon style every April First as the Reverse Course, a real golf course?

Neil, that aerial would be great, as is the drawing posted earlier. Hey, what happened to the original RMW 1?

Mark

[Chris Kane]

Chris, you're winding them up, aren't you?

Not at all, I'm completely serious!

I spoke to a member this morning: the Composite is available to them four times a year (including Christmas Day and Good Friday when the clubhouse is closed and the gates locked).  The only opportunity that non-members have to play the course is to pay massively over the odds at the annual charity day.  As one who is too poor (and cheap) to spend $400+ at a club where I normally pay $60 as a member's guest, I doubt I'll ever play the Composite.

My guess is that the majority of "raters" who put the Composite at number 1 have never played it.  That isn't to say they aren't qualified to consider its virtues (provided they've played both East and West),  but that they're rating a course which for 360 days per year is a fictitious entity.

We shouldn't forget the "opportunity cost" which flows from ranking the Composite instead of the East and West courses.  Those are courses which are played by thousands of golfers every year.  In addition, because the Composite is primarily the West course + the best of the East, it relegates proper discussion of the East course.  I think that placing the West and East within the top 10 is a much more interesting debate than putting the Composite number 1 every time.

Neil, I don't understand why design attribution of the East and West courses has any relevance to whether the Composite should be rated.  They may have been designed at the same time, and the East course holes on the main paddock routed by Mackenzie, but I'm yet to see published evidence that a Composite course was contemplated at that time.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Legitimate comments, Chris. Remember, you're arguing with two guys who have played professional tournaments there, so for them the Composite IS the course!

In my opinion you could switch out the East holes on the Composite with those left out from the West and the strength of the layout would not weaken significantly.

Trying to keep this apples-to-apples in terms of par / length (another mind-bending exercise!), I have:
RME1 > RMW8
RME2 > RMW15
RME3 > RMW14
RME4 < RMW16
RME18 < RMW9
with RME17 not comparable to RMW13.

Scoring at home, a slim one-hole margin for the East holes. These are preferences not some measure of "greatest" or best...

One additional point is that the discussion is in terms of the global stage, where there's more competition obviously.  The number-one / static issue doesn't really enter that discussion.

All IMHO.

Mark

[Neil_Crafter]

Chris
Yes, some good points there but I think it quite relevant to the argument re rating/not rating the Composite that the East course holes were designed by Russell. If the club went to JDA Scott or GB Oliver or someone else to design the East course then I think there would be serious problems with trying to cogently insert another architect's holes into the fabric of the West course to make a Composite. Like mixing up Kidd's holes at Bandon with Doak's on Pacific to make a Composite - it would lack continuity. Fortunately as Russell was intimately involved in the design and construction of the West course, his (slightly) later East course holes blend in seamlessly. Personally, I have probably played just as many times on the Composite course as I have on the west course. I am aware that others have not been so lucky, but as they have played Australian Opens etc there it IS a legitimate course that exists and can be played and hence rated. That is not to say that the West and East should not be rated separately - perhaps there is a case to rank all three!

Mark
Here goes:

A couple of points of interest. The Mount Misery old 7th can be clearly seen at middle left. You will also see a big 'scar' of open sand as a carry - this can also be seen in the coloured plan.

When the West was being built they started building the 9 hole course as well, and it wasn't until a little while later that the decision to acquire more land and build another 18 hole course was made. So in this photo you see a hole sandwiched between 6W and 3W that was removed when it became clear that it could be replaced in the newly purchased paddocks and give both these holes some room to breath.

The holes Russell built on the main paddock as part of the East Course do not in my view have any real Mackenzie heritage. When Mac was there in late 1926 the East was not envisaged and the land available at the eastern end of the main property different as Bumford's block had not yet been acquired. The nine holes shown on the coloured plan are really very different from the East course holes that Russell designed, and in my view there is no credit there for Mackenzie (interesting coming from me! Wearing my Russell hat now). The coloured plan has never been effectively dated but it is certainly post Mackenzie as Bumford's block is included (top right hand corner). It was not drawn by Mackenzie.

[Andrew Mitchell]

Andrew
While the conditioning at RM has been very problematical over the last few years its a must see if you can get to Australia for the property, its architecture and a very special 'sense of place' that only a select few courses have.

Neil
Australia was always one place I've always wanted to visit but thought I never would.  However my daugther and her partner are moving there next year so I will no doubt be out there in the next few years, hopefully with clubs in hand!

[Mark Bourgeois]

Neil

Regarding those holes on the East: doesn't the timing of the map, approvals, etc support the possibility the map was sent to Mac for review?

Great aerial.  For comparison purposes, I have tried to capture a Google Earth aerial of the same scale:



Not much time right now, but a few questions:
1) The bunker capes do not appear nearly as frequently as today. Were they part of Mac's original plan? By both the plan and the aerial, it looks like the answer is no.
2) What is up with RMW1 green in the aerial?  What's the design evolution of RMW1?

Andrew, looks like you'll have to update your "in my dreams" list!

Gotta go...

Mark

[Mark Bourgeois]

The 305-yard 8th hole (RMW10) is like a monkey hand trap: you've got to be willing to let go of 3 if you seek a 3.  For the tighter you grip a birdie dream after your first shot has failed to find its hoped-for spot, the higher the score you likely will pile up. Or, if playing a match, another hole lost...

The best way to understand why is to study the hole backwards: "think forward and reason back."  It helps to think about where you'd like to be (on the green) -- and where, if you can't be where you'd like to be, where you really don't want to be.

There are a lot of places you really don't want to be.

First, you really don't want to be long of the green.  Long is a long way down, and where the green turns her back to you and falls away:


Second, you really don't want to be right of the green:


Third, you really don't want to be a little short of the green (big dip to pitch across or putt through):


Fourth, you really don't want to be a little short and left of the green -- throw a few bricks in there and literally it would look like an abandoned construction site:


And then there's the matter of the roly-poly green itself.  In sum, what we are dealing with is a target that's like a plate piled with lumpy mashed potatoes and spinning on a stick:


Fifth, you really really don't want to be a lot short, for there sits a Sand Pit of Vast Dimensions.  Most recently, this is known among members as the bunker where Robert Allenby climbed in and tore up a large paycheck.  The details are best not recounted...


The Sand Pit of Vast Dimensions (SPVD) dominates the strategy of the hole from the tee, and this is why we reason backwards.  First, avoid the SPVD at all costs, which is easy to do -- if you decide not to have a go at the green, which from the tee appears tucked directly behind it.  A Siren's Song. POV of picture is short and left of the tee:


Here then is what gives this hole its endless fascination: which line off the tee gives the best chance for a 3, or the best chance for a 4...balanced against the chances of a 5, 6 or 7?  How tightly are you willing to grip, and can you see the trap in gripping too hard, or in failing to let go?

And there literally is no one right answer but it varies not only from golfer to golfer but from day to day for the same golfer.  It comes down to the strength of his game, in the moment.  Strong if wild driver with a good chipping game? Fear not going long and aim right over the bunker.  A master of the 3-wood and the delicate pitch?  Have a go over the right edge of the SPVD.  Most comfortable with a full wedge?  Steer clear of the bunker.

A few complications:

• The wind, always a factor, may blow either in your face or downwind and must be factored at all times.
  
• Playing a match? Too bad it comes too early in a round, for as a 10th hole on the West it is perfectly positioned, but if your competitor has the honor -- a more dubious honor you will not find in golf, unless you are of Tiger Woods's mental strength -- you must take heed of his drive and recalculate accordingly. (This is one of the few items to recommend the President's Cup routing, where the hole plays as the 12th.)
• A dogleg left if you choose to lay up, the fairway cants to the right, forcing one under firm-and-fast conditions to challenge the bunker more than is wished.
• It's also uphill and partially blind, adding yet another variable to what seems like a five-dimensional math problem.

In sum, then, this is a hole where the golfer's chosen line may vary by 80 yards, and where he must make myriad calculations just to work out his own personal risks.

It may surprise no one to hear a story about Seve Ballesteros in the 1978 Australian PGA Championship.  As told in the latest edition of the WAOG, Seve's playing partners, Graham Marsh and Hale Irwin, played the hole each time by laying up to the top of the hill and wedging on the green.

Seve "promised those who watched that he would leave them with at least one shot so extraordinary that it would live forever in their minds."

Every day his drives flew straight and true over the bunker but fell short of the green, into the "construction-site" scrub.

And every day he blasted out with his sand wedge onto the green.

And every day he made birdie.

Mark

[Mike_Clayton]

Neil,

In the black and white aerial above it is interesting to see what looks like the original 5th green at Victoria when it was down near the 12th green. That corner of the course is right above the Weatherall Rd note

Mark

10 west, 8 on the old composite and 12 on the Presidents Cup course is a great short four.
It cost Ernie Els a big tournament a few years ago and demonstrated once again why it can be such a trap.
The greens are no where near as feared as they were in the 70s and 80s and Ernie had made three birdies when the pin was in the front or middle of the green. From memory at least once he flew just past the flag and drew it back - something no one ever managed in the Crockford days.
The last day the pin was in the back and your first photo shows how dead it is over the back.
Going long is always the great fear and Ernie hit a simple 60 yard pitch 30 feet short and 3 putted.
To make 3 when the pin is in the back you have to be prepared to make 5 - or more.

[Neil_Crafter]

Mark
Excellent review of the CC8th. Liked the idea of going backwards too.

It is quite possible that Russell sent plans to Mackenzie for review and comments. We just don't know for certain. However, I think it is drawing a fairly long bow to suggest Mackenzie had much involvement on routing the East course holes that lay on the main block, Russell had to balance these with what he could fit on the other East course paddocks and could not plan the holes on the main block in isolation. Land for the East course was optioned in late 1929 and work on the course was underway by mid July 1931. I think Australia and Russell were well off Mackenzie's radar by this time.

As for RMW1 I'll do some further digging and let you know.

As for bunker capes, I don't think the early evidence supports that the bunkering had quite the tongues that they have today. Here's 11W green and 12W fairway bunkers from 1936 and today. I think these answer the question satisfactorily! I've also added that same area of the course from 1936 for a further comparison, its rather blurry though.

Neil

[Neil_Crafter]

Mike
I have to admit I don't know too much about Victoria's early iterations, thanks for pointing that out.
Yes, totally agree, getting your pitch to the hole on CC8 with the pin in the back shows you either have a very brave streak or you misjudged the distance!
Neil

[Chris Kane]

I remember George Blunt saying that 10W (8C) is the longest 305 yard hole you could ever play, I agree completely.  If you elect to play conservatively, its relatively straight forward, but there is so much that can go wrong.

Mark, that collections of photos is the nastiest depiction of the hole I've ever seen! 

[Mark Bourgeois]

Chris,  thank you for not asking how I've managed to get pics from all the wrong places!

Great stuff, Neil and Mike.  That Graeme Grant piece in the Daley book really does give one food for thought on Crockford's design role, specifically, how many capes he added and his apparent recontouring of the greens.

His methods for maintaining the greens are equally fascinating.  Did other supers employ his root-mat clearing technique?

A few other observations.  What do you make of the bunkering scheme on RMW11 green?  It almost looks like a new green was built farther back, with the original bunkering, or bunker locations, left in. Perhaps a vestigial green from pre-Mac design?

Second, Jeff Brauer's thread about mounding has me looking at the Composite 8th green (RMW10) complex's "skyline" in a new light.  Following the top line of the bunkers on the right over to the left, the flashing of the bunkers plus the "Chippendale" green (skyline) provide a lovely "definition" or "framing," without requiring so much as a single mound.

That could be another example of an "economy" of design, yes?  It's just a beautiful, naturalistic curve.

Last, the size of the aerial I posted along with the 1931 is of similar scale, so that if you downloaded both, they would overlay each other very, very closely.  Toggling back and forth between the two shows the remarkable preservation of the design.

So nice they haven't succumbed to "Augusta Syndrome."

I do have additional questions off the aerial as there have been a few changes but those will have to wait.

Mark

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()