[jonathan_becker]

I just had a long post typed up about why the tree on the inside of the dogleg on #3 needs to go, but then I erased it all because let's get real here.  This is Royal Melbourne.  It's not Harbourtown.  Trees here frame holes and don't take away from lines of play like this tree does.  It's horrible looking.  Get rid of it!

[James Bennett]

I am trying to think if there is another tree on the course which impacts directly on play?

There is the tee shot on 2 East (just discussed), although that doesn't impact as directly.
Is there any other hole on the 36 holes at RM with such a hazard as 3 East?

PS  David Elvins - I find the second shot into 3 East from 180 yards off a down-hill and side-hill lie to be very challenging.  One day, I hope to be able to find the tee-shot (or the set of tees) which will enable me to find that 'less desirable' shot from 120 yards.  .

It is not easy hitting hybrid or 4-iron into greens that you have only ever seen wedges and 9-irons played on TV.

[George Blunt]

I am curious to know if the removal of this tree has been discussed with Tom Doak?  It seems at odds with rest of the course, and indeed the entire property.

[Mark Saltzman]

I am curious to know if the removal of this tree has been discussed with Tom Doak?  It seems at odds with rest of the course, and indeed the entire property.

Would have liked to have heard Tom's opinion as well..

[Mark Saltzman]

Hole 4: Par 3, 184 Metres

The 4th is located in the south-east corner of the main paddock, and along with 16 East, has been used interchangeably in the Composite routing.  Both the 4th and 16th are excellent par-3s and it seems remarkable that either hole could be passed-up, but such is the extremely high quality of golf offered at Royal Melbourne.

Playing some 6m uphill from tee to green, and with a green depth of over 30m, the hole can play much longer than the scorecard yardage of 184m.  Some may be tempted to call the hole a redan, with the kicker short of the green and the front-right to back-left angle of the green, but the green contouring and bunker locations do not fit well with the template.  Redan or not, an very good and difficult hole.

[James Bennett]

One of the tighter, more congested places on the course.

The bunker shot from the right is very challenging, as it is all downhill. A shot played safely to the right leaves a difficult approach.

[jonathan_becker]

The bunker shot from the right is very challenging, as it is all downhill.

You can say that again.  I was left with this shot for my second and it's definitely not ideal.

Look at the varied grass transitions though in a matter of a couple paces.  Putting surface, fringe, a touch of rough, then the wispy stuff cutting through the bunkers.  Spots are like this throughout the property and I think it's great.  Any number of lies can occur in such a small area

[Mark Saltzman]

Hole 5: Par 4, 317 Metres

While many would say the stretch of world-class holes ends at the 4th, the 5th is nonetheless a very good golf hole.  Though the pin is in view from the tee, the tee shot is played over a rise to a completely blind fairway.  The Line of Instinct will draw the golfer on line with the pin, but he must fight this instinct and play to the right to find the fairway.  As seen from the crest of the hill, the fairway tilts from right to left and any tee shot played toward the pin will likely find a sandy/rough area on the left.




The approach to the 5th green must be carefully considered as the green falls with the land, sloping from front-right to back-left and seemingly well-played approaches landing in the centre of the green will often trickle off the back.  Adding to the intrigue is a short-left bunker that must be carried on the approach.




The front-to-back tilt of the green and steep run-offs long are easily seen from behind:

[Ben Jarvis]

The 5th hole is one of my favourites on RME - very underrated.

The ideal positioning off the tee is down the left half, however you must avoid lost ball territory not far off the fairway. There is plenty of room down the right, however the approach becomes increasingly difficult to a green sloping from front right to back left, particularly when firm.

[Mark Saltzman]

Ben, I remembered both you and Terry telling me to try to play down the left (even if Terry's line was a touch too far left  ), but as I look at my pictures I sort of wonder why that's the case.  I understand from the left vs the right you're playing a bit more more into the slope of the green instead of down the slope of the green, but from the left you have to carry the fronting bunker.  If you're on the right don't you have an easier time bouncing the ball onto the green since you don't have to play over the bunker?

[Ben Jarvis]

Ben, I remembered both you and Terry telling me to try to play down the left (even if Terry's line was a touch too far left  ), but as I look at my pictures I sort of wonder why that's the case.  I understand from the left vs the right you're playing a bit more more into the slope of the green instead of down the slope of the green, but from the left you have to carry the fronting bunker.  If you're on the right don't you have an easier time bouncing the ball onto the green since you don't have to play over the bunker?

Mark, that front left bunker is well short of the green and as such, you should never have to flirt with it.

No matter where the pin is, coming in from the left is the easier approach (for me, anyway).

[Terry Thornton]

Mark,

My rubbish drive and my even crappier approach shot probably made the hole seem a lot more difficult from that left hand side

[Matthew Mollica]

Light bulb moment for me on Saturday. I have long planned to approach the 5th East green from the left quarter of the fairway, hitting into the slope, and even hitting into the upslope between the bunker and the green. My tee shot ended up 100 out, slightly right of centre on a flattish lie on Saturday. I looked right at the gap between the left and right front traps, and ended up with a 12 foot putt. I think aiming slightly right of centre will be my preferred mode of approach in future.

MM

[David_Elvins]

Is the opening 5 holes at RME of the most under-rated 5 hole stretches in the world? 

Maybe some of the tee shots don't conform with what is know as great architecture, but the holes are very high quality. 

[Mark Saltzman]

Hole 6: Par 3, 160 Metres

The second of three holes on the middle paddock (5, 6 and 15), the sixth hole has seen significant changes in recent years.  Most significantly, the green was shifted left in the early 2000's, I presume a safety/boundary issue with Morey Road only some 30m from the centre of the old green.  I believe Martin Hawtree was the man hired to build the new sixth hole, though I've heard some strong criticism of the quality of his work -- most notably, the two-tiered bunker guarding the right side of the green.  Such work is not acceptable at one of the world's great golf clubs and more recently Renaissance Golf Design have re-worked the bunker right of the green and re-graded the area short of the green.

The sixth is sometimes criticized as a hole that does not fit well with the land, but I don't think it's a bad hole.  There is little room to miss: left finds treacherous green side bunkers; right finds a bunker or, worse, a tight fairway lie leaving a pitch to a green sloping away.  The green is not large, only 27m deep and 22m wide, and has more internal contour than is the norm at Royal Melbourne, whose greens more often have long, broad, slopes.

[David_Elvins]

The sixth is sometimes criticized as a hole that does not fit well with the land, but I don't think it's a bad hole.  

I don't think it is a bad hole either but when the other 7 par 3s on the property are excellent or better it is bound to suffer horribly in comparison.

I think it is also the most generic hole on the property.  Take away the vegetation and the hole could be on any one of a thousand courses around the world, IMO, designed by any number of designers.  

[Mark Saltzman]

The sixth is sometimes criticized as a hole that does not fit well with the land, but I don't think it's a bad hole. 

I don't think it is a bad hole either but when the other 7 par 3s on the prperty are excellent or better it is bound to suffer horribly in comparison.

I think it is also the most generic hole on the property.  Take away the vegetation and the hole could be on anyone of a thousand courses around the world, IMO, designed by any number of designers. 

Agreed. Did I get me history of the 6th right?

[Matthew Mollica]

Pretty right Mark although I think RGD made more change there than you may think. I have an aerial I'll try to dig up showing a very large % area of 6E as sand prior to being re-worked.

[Mark Saltzman]

Pretty right Mark although I think RGD made more change there than you may think. I have an aerial I'll try to dig up showing a very large % area of 6E as sand prior to being re-worked.

Thanks, MM!

[Tom_Doak]

Did I get me history of the 6th right?

As Matthew says, we did a bit more than you thought.  We recontoured the green based on a topographic map of the original green done years ago by the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology.  We also redid the bunkering and re-graded the approach significantly.  The long-time member John Green was invaluable to us in trying to get the playing details right ... he has a great memory for the nuances of the course going back 40-50 years.  In this case, his memory that he tried to miss long to back hole locations, because chipping from front to back over a ridge was so slippery, was a great help in getting the attitude of the hole right.

It was impossible to reproduce the original green exactly because there was no drop-off to the right ... it was all a gentle slope up to the road originally, so that shots along the right kicked in toward the green instead of away to the bunkers, but we did the best we could to encourage a running approach for as far to the right as we could.

I've stayed out of this thread so far because I don't want to answer questions about holes we haven't worked on, and what we may or may not have advised the club that they have not acted on yet.  Now that we've crossed the road, these are holes where our work is complete and there is a bit more I can talk about.

[Matthew Mollica]

Nearmap says this was Jan 16, 2012.

[Mark Saltzman]

Hole 7: Par 5, 475 Metres

As we cross Morey Road to play 8 holes on the third paddock, we reach what I think many would say is the stretch of holes that is the weakest on the course.  The land on the third paddock, and even moreso on holes 7, 8 and 9, is very flat, and even with the changes to these holes in recent years, they stand out as the least interesting on the property.  Like I said of the 6th, these are not bad holes by any means, but at this facility they are clearly the worst.

Until 2005, the right hand drive bunkers were some 210m to carry and frighteningly sat only 10m from a home on the property's southern edge.  This boundary issue necessitated a change, and the tees were shifted right, the fairway shifted left and the bunkers extended, all in an attempt to pull the aiming point away from the out-of-bounds.  At the same time, trees lining the left side of the hole were removed and replaced with rough, partially opening up the views across this portion of the property.  In 2013, this rough was converted to fairway creating a shared fairway between the 7th and 8th holes.

Somehow I feel the placement of the right-side bunkering doesn't work well.  Unlike the similar bunkering on the 2nd on Royal Melbourne West, I didn't feel the strong desire to challenge the trouble.  Even my hosts advised that the wise play was to play away from the trouble, perhaps with less than driver, and play the hole as a simple three-shorter.  Oddly, the green is angled such that an approach from the outside of the dogleg has the preferred angle... not that there is anything wrong with a reverse-dogleg, but if that's the goal, I'm not sure the inside of the dogleg should be bunkered.

[Matthew Mollica]

Mark that is a pretty good description of 7. I think the right side bunkering on the drive, and indeed much of the hole geometry, is really about boundary protection, whilst not differing too greatly in appearance from the original hole. I always try and bank a fade drive off the left bunker, and depending upon wind, tee shot quality, pin and other factors, either have a go at the green, or play as you said, a three shotter with approach from the left half of the fairway.

I'd be interested to hear from Tom Doak on a small knoll several dozen yards short of the green. It is only small, but can influence a long second landing short of the green. Or a short approach to a front pin, played along the ground with a long iron. I can't remember seeing it under the Russell and Hawtree iterations of the hole. It is a very small thing, but a really nice feature, and probably only detected by some after it has deflected their ball on the way to the hole.

Matthew

[Tom_Doak]

We did not have carte blanche to make wholesale changes on these next holes, as the club preferred to leave well enough alone after expending considerable energy to move holes away from the boundaries in recent years.  We gained a little more latitude as we went, especially on the holes where the boundary was not so close.

As Matthew says, the bunkering on the right of #7 is there strictly to force play further away from the boundary ... there was some discussion of changes there, but if we rewarded players for hugging the right side, it would be bringing the boundary back into play.  They are happier encouraging players to go left off the tee, even if it makes the hole less strategic.

The knoll Matthew is describing is a little feature added by Brian Slawnik while re-finishing the hole.  We also worked a bit on the back of the green, to let it slide away from the line of play a bit more so that it's harder to get a third shot close to the hole.

[Mark Saltzman]

Hole 8: Par 4, 396 Metres

The 8th is another hole that has seen a few changes over the past decade.  Along with the tree removal on the hole's left side came the addition of a carry bunker that jutted well towards the centre of the fairway and required a carry of 220m.  At the same time, a bunker short-right of the green and an expanse of fairway beyond the green were added.  From what I understand, the changes made by Renaissance Golf to the 8th are minimal, pulling the left side drive bunkers slightly away from the centre of the fairway and re-shaping them to look 'less busy'.

I must admit that I am puzzled by the strategy of the 8th.  Is the golfer best served by skirting/carrying the drive bunkers? But what do we then make of the front-right to back-left angled green.  Surely the best angle of approach is from the right side of the fairway.  But from the right the golfer must now carry his approach over a bunker some 15m from the front-edge of the putting surface.

An old aerial shows the hole without the left side drive bunkers and without the bunker short-right of the green, creating a classic reverse-dogleg.  Would the original be better than the current iteration?  I'll defer to those that know the hole well.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()