Royal Adelaide Golf Club, Seaton, Australia - A Photo Tour - Hole 18 Up!

[Mark Saltzman]

The Royal Adelaide Golf Club moved to its current location and opened The Seaton Links in 1906 with the following routing:




The course remained largely unchanged, and with some half of the original routing still existing today, until Dr Alister MacKenzie visited the club and proposed the following routing in 1926.  While The Seaton Links mostly played around the series of dunes and depressions in the western half of the property, MacKenize suggested changes that would make these features integral to the new golf holes.  Many of MacKenzie's amendments were adopted, though the now 1st hole stayed east of the railway line, and the renowned 'Crater Hole,' which was to become a sweeping dogleg of a par-4, was left untouched.






Though many of the proposed changes were never completed, for completeness, the Ogilvy Clayton Design proposed master plan is below.  Even on first glance, it is clear that MacKenzie's 1926 routing was taken to heart.

[Mark Saltzman]

Hole 1: Par 4, 348 Meters [Note: All pictures and meterages will be from the championship tees]

I heard a fair number of people call the first hole uninteresting and certainly among the worst holes on the course.  While I think Mac/MacK's proposed renovations to the first would be an improvement, I think the hole as it sits is a very good opener, allowing the golfer to ease into the round, while still requiring him to think his way around the hole.

This reverse dogleg asks the golfer to play away from the Line of Instinct towards the bunkers guarding the ideal line.  At one point the land to the left of the fairway was utterly flat, thus allowing the unthinking golfer to mistakenly take on the direct line to the green, leaving a terrible angle of approach over the bunkers.  It is these types of features that Doak has quietly been eliminating, and I would not be surprised to see Doak widen the first fairway the left.




The first green is slightly raised, angled from front-right to back-left, and protected by a fronting bunker.  As seen from the left edge of the fairway, only tee shots on the right have a clear view up the length of the green.




Not an easy green to approach; not an easy green to read.  The front-right portion of the green tilts back to the tee, the back-right portion tilts away from the tee and the entire left half of the green falls off on the left side.

[Mark Saltzman]

Royal Adelaide is separated east (holes 1, 14-18) and west (holes 2-13) by a railway line.  Is it still operational? Well, yeah, regularly!






Hole 2: Par 5, 498 Metres

The championship tee for the second is well back and to the left (other side of the railway tracks) of the daily member's tee.  The advantage is a slightly angled tee shot over the railway tracks, the disadvantage is that the strategically placed fairway bunker is no longer a consideration for all but the longest of hitters (for many, reaching the fairway is the primary concern!)




The green, out of reach in two for most, is best approached from the right.  Predictably, this angle is well-protected by a single bunker 110m from the green and a nest of bunkers 10-50m from the green.  The tee played may well dictate which bunkers must be navigated on the lay-up.




A rare positive Thompson change, the land short of the second green has been converted from level ground to contoured terrain.  While this may encourage more golfers to play an aerial approach, the running shot is still very much an option, but not unlike Royal Melbourne West's 3rd hole, it must be done with purpose.  The green itself is another subtly challenging one, with a lower front portion and a pair of shoulder-blade mounds left and right making access to back pin positions far more difficult.

[Mark_F]

A rare positive Thompson change, the land short of the second green has been converted from level ground to contoured terrain. 

He probably meant to build a big mound there, but someone had the plans upside down.

I gather you are quite taken with the course, Mark?  It's nice to see a comprehensive tour of RA. 

[Mark Saltzman]

Hole 3: Par 4, 269 Metres

Alister MacKenzie's world famous third hole once had a completely blind tee shot, but a recently installed oversize flag gives the golfer a better sense of direction from the tee.  Even still, without the benefit of a member host, the first-time golfer will have no idea that he should be trying to place his tee shot as far right as possible.




Especially into the wind, golfers may see little benefit in smashing away with driver and instead will try to position their tee shot at the crest of the hill some 175 metres from the tee.




The leftward cant of the hill will have any tee shot that is centre or left move farther left, leaving a pitch over this berm.  Few golfers are comfortable with a pitch off of tight turf, and the narrowness of the green only serves to accentuate the demand for precision.

[Mark Saltzman]

A blind tee shot through a tall set of pines and carrying over a deep sand-filled hollow is required at the 413m par-4 4th.  For mine, the stretch of holes from the 4th through the 6th is both the hardest and least interesting stretch of holes on the golf course.  Interestingly, looking at both MacK and Mac's proposals for the 4th, neither looks particularly interesting, but I suppose they both rely on the rolling fairway and length of the hole to create interest.  An understated and uninteresting hole will always be preferred to an overdone and similarly uninteresting hole.






As the green sits today, approaches from the right are preferred.  In an attempt to return the hole to the understated nature depicted by MacK, and to allow the unthinking golfer to hang himself, Tom Doak has removed the first of a series of bunkers along the left.  If from the left side of the fairway the golfer can find the green, successfully navigating the green side bunker, that is a feat well-earned.

[Mark Saltzman]

Thanks, Brian.

I think RMW and BD separate themselves as the two best courses in Australia (10s)

After that, I think there are a handful of courses that are world 100 courses, though probably all well off the highest level, even perhaps in the bottom half of the top-100.  Royal Adelaide fits in this group.

Maybe I shouldn't say it, but I'm disappointed RA didn't give Mac more time and a greater opportunity to continue with his work.  Reading through his master plan, it is clear that his intention was to bring the MacKenzie design principles back to RA and, having seen his great work at Bonnie Doon, Peninsula, Grange and The Lakes, I am sure his completed renovation would have been a home run.  That being said, the scope of work that would have been required was so significant that I can see how people familiar with RA would say the completed renovation might be closer to a new course than a restored RA.  Then again, the same might have been said with LACC-N.

It will be fascinating to see what scope of work Renaissance undertakes at RA and, if significant, how the work is received by the membership.

[Tom_Doak]

It will be fascinating to see what scope of work Renaissance undertakes at RA and, if significant, how the work is received by the membership.

Mark:

You say that as if we could do a lot of work out there which the membership didn't approve of.  Have you ever seen a renovation where an architect was allowed to run free like that?  Royal Adelaide wouldn't even let Dr. MacKenzie run free ... they only used a part of what he had suggested.  That's why we haven't done a Master Plan at all.  We feel we'll be more effective building trust by demonstrating what we can do.

There were a lot of good ideas in Michael Clayton's plan [I'm not sure why you keep referring to him as Mac?], but there was still a lot of resistance to the scope of it within the club, so when the 17th hole was not well accepted the momentum stalled very quickly.  If you want to employ a baseball analogy, how about this:  don't swing for the fences until you've put some runners on base.

P.S.  We have not done much work there to date ... nothing on #1 yet for example.  Half the reason for filling the bunker on #4 was as you suggest, but the other half was to give players more room to aim left so they would be less likely to hit players around #2 green.  There are some pretty tight spots at Royal Adelaide and the tree planting has not mitigated any of the problems.

[Mark Saltzman]

Tom:

The first answer is easy, Michael Clayton posts as Mac on Australian based forum similar to GolfClubAtlas.

You're right, I should have phrased it as: It will be fascinating to see what scope of work Renaissance hopes to undertake at RA, and if significant, if permission is granted to complete the work and how the work is received by the membership.

Mac is extremely well-respected in Australia, and with good reason.  You're right, maybe he should've started with smaller works to build trust... but I have no idea what his marching orders were. 

I presume, and you don't need to confirm, that once trust has been built RGD hopes to perform some more significant work.  I wonder, once two great architects have suggested significant work, if the membership will be more willing to accept a departure from the current iteration of RA.

PS: If I had a say, I'd say to start with the 5th 

[James Bennett]

PS: If I had a say, I'd say to start with the 5th 

Yes - my 'least best hole' at RAGC.  Fingers crossed.

[Scott Warren]

It will be fascinating to see what scope of work Renaissance undertakes at RA and, if significant, how the work is received by the membership.

Mark:

You say that as if we could do a lot of work out there which the membership didn't approve of.  Have you ever seen a renovation where an architect was allowed to run free like that?

Work can be mandated by a club board/management but still prove unpopular after it's carried out. There's a great example of that just to the left as you drive in to RAGC!

[Tyler Kearns]

It will be fascinating to see what scope of work Renaissance undertakes at RA and, if significant, how the work is received by the membership.

Mark:

There were a lot of good ideas in Michael Clayton's plan [I'm not sure why you keep referring to him as Mac?], but there was still a lot of resistance to the scope of it within the club, so when the 17th hole was not well accepted the momentum stalled very quickly.  If you want to employ a baseball analogy, how about this:  don't swing for the fences until you've put some runners on base.

Tom,

I asked Michael about this in another thread, and his response was as follows;

"It was a great lesson for us and in retrospect we should have resisted the club's wish to do the 17th hole first. It was one of 4 or 5 greens they hadn't rebuilt and we thought the new hole would be a real improvement on what was there.
It wasn't sold as a test but obviously is we had our time over we would have done some of the smaller work that would have made a difference without scaring the hell out of the members.
Our plan spoke about the 'spirit' of MacKenzie's drawings and bunkers and it was about recapturing some of the feel of the plan - which we thought had been completely lost in the 80s and 90s - when the club did a lot of work.
Either way the new 17th will be a much better hole than the original hole - the one we replaced."

TK

[Mike_Clayton]

Tom
I couldn't agree more with your analogy. It is a pity they insisted on doing 17 first and I told the captain at the time it was an risky strategy.
There was so much other small work they could have dome to improve the course - like filling in those silly bunkers on the 4th hole.
No doubt your version will be a good hole - not that I envy the task of 'fixing it'

We certainly won't fall for the trap again.

[Neil_Crafter]

Just in regards to the 3rd hole, while the general concept for it certainly belongs to Mackenzie the execution certainly doesn't. Mackenzie's plan for this hole shows a triangular shaped green with a pair of bunkers, while the green as built is quite elongated and somewhat of a leg of mutton shape, with no bunkers at all. Resisting the temptation to put any bunkers into this hole was, in hindsight, the making of this hole. And I guess we have the RAGC committee of the day to thank for that.

As Tom mentioned the club picked the eyes out of what Mackenzie proposed and only implemented selected parts of it. 

[Mark Saltzman]

Continuing in the same direction as the 4th, the 422m par-4 5th is another brute of a hole and one that could do with some fine tuning.  The pair of fairway bunkers are 240m and 270m from the championship tee, and the golfer will be rewarded with the preferred angle by playing as far away from them as possible.  While MacKenzie's plan and Clayton's plan differ in the complexity and quantity of fairway bunkering, both reward the golfer that plays near fairway bunkering on the right.  This sound strategy is achievable with the removal of the green side bunker and a re-orientation of the green.

[Mark Saltzman]

Hole 6: Par 4, 418 Metres

Reversing course at the 6th we play back alongside the 4th and 5th in this series of tightly routed holes (can you imagine if the 1st was on this side of the tracks too, as recommended by MacKenzie!).  Already a short fairway bunker left and long fairway bunker right have been filled in.  The hole strikes me as one that would be well-suited without any fairway bunkers... and maybe that's where Doak will take it eventually. 




This depression 100m short of the green seems a natural place for a bunker (and is shaped like one may have been here at one time).  Though out of play from the tee, it would protect the ideal line if the golfer is forced to lay-up.




To me, this bunker short-left of the green should be the hole's dominant feature.  As it sits today, the bunker is the deepest on the course and is avoided at all costs.  As MacKenzie depicted, I would love to see the front of the bunker extended into the fairway across the middle go the green.  This would impact decision-making all the way back to the tee, especially since most golfers will be playing an approach (both downwind and into a headwind) that runs on to the putting surface.

[Mark Saltzman]

Hole 7: Par 3, 164 Metres

The first par-3 of the round is a good one.  The hole is a remnant from the Seaton Links with the only square green at Royal Adelaide.  There were always bunkers beyond the green and now there are a series of bunkers short of the green as well.  It seems the only continuous change is the location of the teeing ground, which shifts from left of the 6th green to right of the 6th green, and back again.




The not particularly long on paper, the third is a very demanding par-3.  Yes, the green is large, but the uphill nature of the hole hides the green's depth.  Add to that a severely back-to-front tilted front portion of the green, the requirement for an all-carry tee shot, and disaster behind the green, and a par is a well-earned score.

[Tom_Doak]

That 7th hole is an extremely difficult hole for higher-handicap players and women.  It's all carry over the bunkers in front, the green is not that deep or that tilted, and then it drops off ten feet at the back of the green.

[jeffwarne]

That green on #3 is so great.
Just don't see that kind've variety very often.
Thanks Mark

[James Bennett]

That 7th hole is an extremely difficult hole for higher-handicap players and women.  It's all carry over the bunkers in front, the green is not that deep or that tilted, and then it drops off ten feet at the back of the green.

Tom Doak

I know I am not telling you anything you don't know, but there are a number of really difficult holes and/or shots for the higher-handicapped players at RAGC.  Sometimes forward tees (red and green) help, sometimes not.

You mention the 7th here.  The tee shot on 4 is daunting, as is the tee-shot on 15.  The crater hole on 11 is daunting - fortunately the rough on the right of the crater is less thick than it was.  Even the approach to the 14th green is fearsome.  Other holes are extremely challenging for the less gifted - recovering around 16 green from the left, from the wrong side of the berm on three or even around 8 green requires a significant amount of skill, with limited opportunities for novice shots.

As a newcomer to that club, I can only wonder how and thank the exisiting membership that such fearsome features have been able to be retained.  Perhaps I am a little selfish here.

James B

[Mark_F]

The 7th hole is proof that,like women, golf holes are better judged by personality than looks.

[Mark Saltzman]

That 7th hole is an extremely difficult hole for higher-handicap players and women.  It's all carry over the bunkers in front, the green is not that deep or that tilted, and then it drops off ten feet at the back of the green.

Tom,

OK, maybe it's not THAT deep or tilted, but it is some 30m deep and a couple more metres available to land the ball over the fronting bunkers.  I would argue that the front portion of the green is very tilted, at least enough so that a putt from the centre of the green to a front pin carries the risk of putting off the green.  The whole green tilts back to front and, as I recall, there are a couple of small raised spots at the back of the green that will contain a shot that may be slightly long.

That all being said, yeah, it's probably really hard to hit that green for women and high handicappers.

[Terry Thornton]

Mark,

At some point, approximately mid way back, the gradient does indeed flatten out. I agree, the front portion is very tilted. I think only #6 has as much.

The green is a large target but as noted can be hard to hit. For golfers with a shot on the hole (index the only short grass area lay up is to the right and that leaves a difficult 2nd over or between bunkers.

[Mark Bourgeois]

It's all carry over the bunkers in front, the green is not that deep or that tilted, and then it drops off ten feet at the back of the green.

Evokes another antipodean 7th.

[John Mayhugh]

Just in regards to the 3rd hole, while the general concept for it certainly belongs to Mackenzie the execution certainly doesn't. Mackenzie's plan for this hole shows a triangular shaped green with a pair of bunkers, while the green as built is quite elongated and somewhat of a leg of mutton shape, with no bunkers at all. Resisting the temptation to put any bunkers into this hole was, in hindsight, the making of this hole. And I guess we have the RAGC committee of the day to thank for that.

I really like the look of the hole, but not something I would have expected. Thanks for explaining why.

Really enjoying the tour and commentary, Mark.