[Scott Warren]

I hear that while visiting Australia this month, Tom Doak will be at Royal Melbourne (where Renaissance Golf Design is consulting) to look at changes to the 6th green on the West course that might create additional pin positions.

Can Tom or anyone else familiar with the situation confirm whether that is taking place and perhaps share a little more of what is planned during the visit?

The 6th hole:

[Pat Burke]

Scott,
I have no idea, but my senior addled memory (1987?) says that was one SEVERE green!

[Mark_F]

So Tom Doak was outraged at the changes made to the Old Course, but is now planning on destroying 6 West?

My, my.

[Michael Taylor]

I've heard from people in authority at the club that Renaissance is taking the green back to the contours of the 80's IIRC. They believe the green has changed since then and "this is the first green we are looking at, maybe with more to come in the future." I was told the membership has approved these works, but none of the members I know were consulted. So it seems highly likely it is just the club council that gave it the go ahead without membership approval.

[Mark_F]

I've heard from people in authority at the club that Renaissance is taking the green back to the contours of the 80's IIRC.

I realise the 80s are back in a big way, but couldn't the committee just listen to MTV Classics and leave the green alone?

[Matthew Essig]

So Tom Doak was outraged at the changes made to the Old Course, but is now planning on destroying 6 West?

My, my.

It doesn't say that he is planning on it! It only says that he will be looking at possible changes. I guarantee that he wants to make the smallest changes possible, if he even does make changes.

[jonathan_becker]

What was different about the green in the 80s compared to what's there now?

[Scott Warren]

Not sure, JB. Unsure if it was deliberate change or just the passage of time, sand splash from bunkers, etc (or maybe there has been no marked change at all).

[jeffwarne]

What was different about the green in the 80s compared to what's there now?

Probably didn't run 13'8" then

Perhaps the committee could just take it back to the SPEED of the 80's

[Frank Pont]

So Tom Doak was outraged at the changes made to the Old Course, but is now planning on destroying 6 West?

My, my.

It all depends if the green is an original.
If not then he can do with it what he likes as far as I am concerned.
If yes he should NOT touch it.

All TOC greens before DrH should be considered originals, that is the difference.....

[Mark_F]

It doesn't say that he is planning on it! It only says that he will be looking at possible changes. I guarantee that he wants to make the smallest changes possible, if he even does make changes.

Did you ever write for Yes Minister Matthew?

They believe the green has changed since then and "this is the first green we are looking at, maybe with more to come in the future."  

So they believe the green has changed and as a result of these changes there are now less pin positions?  On what basis do they believe this?  On what basis does Tom Doak believe this?  

It all depends if the green is an original.
If not then he can do with it what he likes as far as I am concerned.

So Tom is also going to be removing those non-original bunkers on the inside of the dogleg and restoring the ones on the outside?  Abandoning the newly constructed back tee on 4? Putting the 12th West green back to its original location?

All TOC greens before DrH should be considered originals, that is the difference.....

Original to whom?

[jonathan_becker]

A couple additional shots of the green in question

From short right



From right of the green

[Mike_Clayton]

Jeff
Concerning the speed of the green in the 80s- and prior - it was at least as fast in the 80s.

I never played a tournament there in the 70s but I watched them all. A member asked Hubert Green in 1976 what he thought of the greens.
'They would be great - if they had any grass on then.' said Hubert
They were scary fast - always above 13 feet.

The ball seemingly comes off the front left - off that edge just to the right of the bunker - much more than it used to. I'm not sure if the contours have changed of the fescue fringes are contributing to every ball that comes off feeding to the tiny area at the bottom of the hill. The same thing has always happened at the previous hole.

[jeffwarne]

Jeff
Concerning the speed of the green in the 80s- and prior - it was at least as fast in the 80s.

I never played a tournament there in the 70s but I watched them all. A member asked Hubert Green in 1976 what he thought of the greens.
'They would be great - if they had any grass on then.' said Hubert
They were scary fast - always above 13 feet.

The ball seemingly comes off the front left - off that edge just to the right of the bunker - much more than it used to. I'm not sure if the contours have changed of the fescue fringes are contributing to every ball that comes off feeding to the tiny area at the bottom of the hill. The same thing has always happened at the previous hole.

Mike for years I've said the same thing about Augusta-they were always fast.
That said, in the last few years they've taken some slope out and built a few more shelves-which tells me they are even faster now as a stimp reading-but the the downhill putts play the same -i.e.as fast as is playable to have a ball eventually stop rolling.

It's hard for me to believe the general stimp readings are as fast as the 80's-and I ONLY say that because if it were true, why'd they wait until NOW to discuss changing the 6th green.
My uneducated guess is there was so much slope that the greens seemed crazy fast then, and that individual putts were off the charts fast.

But from all I've read-they WERE fast then, and I'll take your word for it if you say so.

[Tom_Doak]

I have not commented so far because

(a)  It's the club's business
(b)  Nothing has been decided -- I haven't been there to look at it since they called, and obviously I can't make a recommendation from 8,000 miles away, and
(c)  I did not want to reward Scott Warren, who has now made a habit of posting rumors without having the courtesy to call me and ask if I will comment on the record, beforehand.  He is now on my permanent blacklist, which is a pretty short list, so I guess he should be honored.

I appreciate the background information from Mike Clayton, who has actually played the hole for long enough to have some idea whether anything has changed over time.  Nothing else that's been shared on this thread is of ANY use or value.  I don't know why Mark Ferguson is calling my character into question, but I will return the favor, here.  My track record of "destroying" classic greens is pretty clean to date, and I don't have any intention of throwing that away.  But I do have a client, so I've got to go and see what they are asking about, and watch over the work if it is determined that something should be done.


Even if the greens were really that fast 20-30 years ago (which is hard for me to believe), I think the issue is more acute now because the speed is faster on an everyday basis for member play.  The call about taking a look at the green did not come as the result of the recent tournaments; it came two or three months before that.  13+ speeds on a 4% slope may be borderline playable for professionals, but once the speeds got above 10 for everyday play, it's pretty difficult for the members.  

In MacKenzie's day, they certainly could have used the 4.5% slope between the left and right hole locations for member play, but no more.  I don't know when that went away, but making that work for today's speeds would require softening the entire back half of the green, which I prefer to avoid.  I'm also curious about what Mike mentions about the area in front of the green ... in the old days, could the members play just short of the green and have the ball stay there?  That's what makes the green so difficult, the fact that it's almost impossible to stay below the hole, without your ball retreating forty or fifty yards off the green.

I'm told that their mapping shows small changes in the green that they want to put right -- and that is possible, because they control thatch by stripping the sod off the greens and removing the topdressing and thatch layer every few years.  Very small changes (1/2 inch here or there) almost inevitably occur during that process.  However, one would expect that they would have been extra careful not to make this particular green even MORE severe during the course of that work ... the tendency would be the opposite, for someone to try to "fix" it in-house by building something up just a smidgen.  But sometimes that sort of work backfires, too.

It will certainly make for an interesting discussion this weekend.  Pray for me that I am able to find a proper resolution to the situation, and note that this is EXACTLY why I usually decline to consult at clubs that host big tournaments.

[Andrew Bertram]

In the early 90's I was asked to appear in a video of the 6th west playing shots from the back left trap

The green was set up at tournament speed with the pin in the left hand "sunday" spot

I hit about 15 shots, holed 2 of them, and although the rest were pretty reasonable shots they all finished off the green, they had also cut the surrounds short at close to green height, not all made it to the bottom some got caught up in the fringe

The biggest difference I recall is the greens are much firmer now than 20 years. The greens certainly used to be quicker day to day for Member play in the late 80's, early 90's than 10 years ago.
I do not play there more than twice a year now compared to nearly every day during the 90's
    

[David_Elvins]

Clayts, Tom,

What do you think of this back left pin on 5W (1981).  Am I right in saying that the pin hasn't been there for a while?  Or is the pin position still used?  

I had a brief look at the area where I thought the pin was last time I was there and it seemed that the area was maybe unpinnable even at slower speeds and the green contours may have changed.  

Do you remember this pin?  Have the green contours changed? Would it be worth trying to reclaim it?  




Here's a picture from a similar spot. Obviously photos can be deceiving but it looks like the left side of the green might be different.  

[Scott Warren]

Tom:

(c)  I did not want to reward Scott Warren, who has now made a habit of posting rumors without having the courtesy to call me and ask if I will comment on the record, beforehand.  He is now on my permanent blacklist, which is a pretty short list, so I guess he should be honored.

That's disappointingly thin-skinned, but not entirely surprising.

I'm comfortable with my OP, which asked a dispassionate question and sought information. No rumour or innuendo.

I ask questions regularly on this site of supers, architects, journalists and just regular golfers like me who put their hand in their pocket to travel around and play golf and help contribute to blokes like you having work to do. No one else seems to expect a private phone call to see if they want to be asked an innocent question.

Can you fill me on how being on Tom Doak's blacklist will change my life? I'm intrigued!

[Chris Kane]

Can you fill me on how being on Tom Doak's blacklist will change my life? I'm intrigued!

Well for a start you won't be able to call him for comment on the record next time you want to post on one of his projects.  

[Mike_Clayton]

Dave,

I have never seen that back left pin used on the 5th. I wouldn't have believed it unless I had seen the photo
I don't think that slope has changed - and well remember a bunker shot Greg Norman hit from the left bunker in,maybe, the 1985 Open. He played it up toward the 6th tee (almost) landed it in the fringe. It turned and ran down that slope almost into the middle of the green.

The biggest difference in the greens from the 70s and 80s is they were incredibly fast during tournaments - where they gained the fearsome reputation - but significantly slower and less firm (I don't want to say soft because they weren't) for the members.

They are now firmer and faster all year round - at least in my experience. I'm playing tomorrow so it will be some test of the theory.

Arguably the 6th West green situation - if indeed the green has changed - is an added defence for a hole that used to be driver - 6-7 iron but is now 3 wood - 9 iron/wedge. No matter the club it asks for an incredibly precise shot.

[jeffwarne]

The biggest difference in the greens from the 70s and 80s is they were incredibly fast during tournaments - where they gained the fearsome reputation - but significantly slower and less firm (I don't want to say soft because they weren't) for the members.

They are now firmer and faster all year round - at least in my experience. I'm playing tomorrow so it will be some test of the theory.

.

and therein lies the problem.
One thing that made super fast greens years ago seem well--super fast, is precisely what you just stated-they were amped up JUST for events so they seemed even faster and required a lot of adjustment

[Mark Chaplin]

The first time I played 6W in a competition, best 2 scores from 4, our team all hit good drives and had 8/9 irons in. Our team captain Peter Sutherland a much respected past club captain "ordered us" to ignore the tempting left pin and go for the middle of the green and go for the two putt. Well all 4 of us were pin high and 10 to 15 paces right of the stick. Needless to say 5s were the best score!

Tom I'm not going to ask you about 6W as you haven't studied it closely in this context yet, but do greens need dialling back for member play? Amateurs don't troop back to the stones as courses are usually too difficult but short game is actually the harder part of the game and playing daily on hard and extremely fast greens is way more exacting than hitting a 5 iron rather than a 7 or 8 iron to the green.

[Tom_Doak]

do greens need dialling back for member play? Amateurs don't troop back to the stones as courses are usually too difficult but short game is actually the harder part of the game and playing daily on hard and extremely fast greens is way more exacting than hitting a 5 iron rather than a 7 or 8 iron to the green.

Mark:

I am not sure I understand your question, but if I'm understanding it correctly, my answer is the same as Jeff Warne's just above your question.  In my opinion, it's stupid for clubs to maintain greens at tournament speeds (or anything close) for everyday play.  The members can't really handle it, it slows the game, and it injures the turf.  It is entirely ego-driven, and unfortunately there are many clubs where there are plenty of egos demanding it.

[Mark Bourgeois]

During one of my visits two members directed me to the fringe just off the green back left. Instructing me to aim for front-right they said to putt it like a 6-incher. Degreened. In the green's and my defense, I think I putted it more like a 16-incher.  

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom Doak:

For some reason this thread brought to mind the 5th hole at Pine Valley. If I am not mistaken, didn't Fazio & Co make some alterations to this green (and a couple others at Pine Valley) due to the increase in everyday green speeds? Didn't that come at the club's request and not as a result of any response to a professional tournament?

Generally, I don't like the idea of softening green contours just to accommodate green speeds that average golfers really can't handle.

But, just wondered if you might compare and contrast the issues for RM #6 with PV #5. Obviously, the length of these holes is quite different, but really I wonder about the area short of each green. Seems like at Pine Valley one could be short and not have one's ball run backwards a long way whereas the reverse seems to be true at Royal Melbourne.

Does either situation make a stronger case for (a) not letting green speeds get out of control for normal play or (b) actually making contour changes?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()