[Scott Warren]

Top 100 Golf Courses contributor Fergal O'Leary recently visited the Melbourne Sandbelt and has penned a lengthy review of the places he visited: http://www.top100golfcourses.co.uk/htmlsite/story.asp?id=534

It makes for an interesting read as he hasn't offered the universal praise that follows many visits, but the nature of some criticism may surprise those familiar with the courses in question.

Some examples...

Kingston Heath:
My minimal criticism of the layout is limited to the relatively tame and uninspiring approach shots into the par fours 11th and 17th holes. As you get within 100 yards of the green, especially the 17th, the large flat aprons and lack of noticeable bunkering is somewhat anticlimactic and unexpected. Additionally on the 11th hole, there used to be an excellent bunker in the middle of the fairway which was unfortunately removed, and has diminished the quality of the tee shot.

Metropolitan:
Weaker (and condemned) aspects of the course are driven by recent disappointing alterations and re-routing, noticeably the lack of accessibility to the par three 13th hole (third effort at this hole in recent years!) and the vast non-descript par five 14th fairway... my favourite hole was the par five 6th hole which moves uphill from left to right and possibly has the most interesting green on the Sandbelt.

Royal Melbourne (East):
I felt that crossing the road broke the flow and you lose the sense of continuity... Aggregate this with 7 or 8 pedestrian holes in the middle of the round laid out on flat land leaves you a bit underwhelmed.  To be a Top 100 golf course in the world, more than just a half dozen holes are needed with superior challenging architecture... I would not be surprised if this course drops (permanently) out of World Top 100 lists.

Victoria:
The 12th plays downhill and moves from left to right, however, my only criticism of the 12th hole is the greenside bunker recently created. It’s outrageously uncharacteristic with Sandbelt bunkering with its cookie-cutter shocking edges. Thankfully this moment of disgust is short-lived... The par three 14th hole plays uphill displaying the best of MacKenzie expertise with sand traps.

Woodlands:
Not too many memorable holes throughout the property as they all begin to blend together design-wise. Having played all of the other Sandbelt gems, the lack of rolling terrain and unique looking holes really keeps Woodlands from rising up the rankings.

[Josh Stevens]

Bashing the sandbelt seems a popular sport these days.  Although I cant say that's entirely a bad thing, it was perhaps a little too revered there for a few years.

However I am not sure he is going to have his assessment accepted without dissent.  Suggesting the approach to KH 17th is pedestrian is on one.  I confess it isn't my favourite hole or green, but I don't think pedestrian is the word I would have chosen.

He gave commonwealth a bit of a serve as well.  Valid comments about the trees, but seemed unable to see beyond those to the bones of the course.

[Chris Kane]

An interesting read although I struggled to take it seriously once he praised holes 1-14 at Huntingdale - its the least impressive course on the sandbelt by a wide margin in my view.

[Tim_Weiman]

Josh,

Why are people bashing the Sandbelt?

[Chris Kane]

Tim, besides RMW, KH and to a lesser extent Victoria, none are remotely close to their potential.

[Tim_Weiman]

Tim, besides RMW, KH and to a lesser extent Victoria, none are remotely close to their potential.

Chris,

Can you elaborate a bit?

[Josh Stevens]

Bashing is perhaps too harsh a term.  But rather than fawning over it, as has been the case for the last 50 years, critics are being more.... well , critical.  And that is a good thing

Started a few years back when there began to be comments that the sandbelt was not quite as sandy as the name suggested, and had in fact become quite overgrown and as a result had lost much of the original design intent.

The result is positive.  Victoria GC is the poster child for the result, as trees were removed and the land opened back up to what it was like at the time the courses were built.  As Fergus points out, Commonwealth is next to face the chop, and he is spot on the money there.

Boundary issues however are just a sad fact of life in face of the technology onslaught. An undeniable problem associated with all of these courses being hemmed in by urban sprawl.  These courses are now rather tiny in face of the fit modern pro as there simply isn't the space to add length and attempts over the years to fix this issue maybe havnet been that great in an architectural sense.

Having said all that, Fergus does strike me as a slightly glass half empty sort of guy

[Mark_F]

However I am not sure he is going to have his assessment accepted without dissent.  Suggesting the approach to KH 17th is pedestrian is on one.  I confess it isn't my favourite hole or green, but I don't think pedestrian is the word I would have chosen.

He didn't say it was pedestrian, he said it was "somewhat anti-climatic and unexpected", which is a reasonable description.

Many of his points are spot on - 12th fairway bunker at Vic, pedestrian holes in the middle of RM East (although 7 or 8 is being a bit harsh, there are definitely 5 or 6), the mess that Yarra have made.  A lot of Woodlands does feel similar in a way that the other Sandbelt tracks don't, but it also has a unique feel to it at the same time (although it is obviously a mistake including Woodlands in a discussion of the Sandbelt).

Aside from the fact that he tries too hard to be poetic, it does contain a lot of honest criticism.  

[Josh Stevens]

Blame Darius for starting the bashing
http://www.planetgolf.com/index.php?id=1594

[Pat Burke]

Funny, to me, coming to #17 at Kingston Heath in a tournament always made be uncomfortable.
A blindish approach that I felt had to land perfectly to feed on to the green, to leave a putt that was reasonable.

What I remember of the green, was that at tournament speeds, it was a tough green to read, especially getting speed
correct.

Surprised the bunker on 11 is gone

[Chris Kane]

Tim, without going through the specifics (which is pointless if you're not familiar with each course), almost all suffer from ill-conceived alterations and have far too many trees. Only the West Course at Royal Melbourne and Kingston Heath are truly at the top of their game.

This might be controversial to some, but since the 1950's Melburnians have been extremely poor custodians of our most of our best courses.

[Josh Stevens]

Maybe Melburnians only get a 7/10 for preserving their courses, but every other city in Australia gets a 2!!  Yes the sandbelt may have lost its way, but did not wander too far off piste that it could not be clawed back.



Having that number of similar courses in the same area with that Mackenzie link, helped at least to provide some inertia to over tinkering that Sydney for example did not have.

[Mark_F]

Yes the sandbelt may have lost its way, but did not wander too far off piste that it could not be clawed back.

Yes it has - Yarra could never be the place it was even 20 years ago.  Commonwealth have been sitting on a Masterplan for a number of years and petrol will be too expensive to chop down all the trees they need to given their inertia. Can you imagine them removing the Legend from the green surrounds and replacing it?  Huntingdale have already spent millions redoing the course, they aren't going to spend the same amount to take it back and improve it.  Metro is the worst example - they don't know what they want the course to look like. 

Even RM wanted to rebuild the 6th green East at its original height when they moved it across, instead of building a hole more suited to the terrain.

Maybe once the North and South at Peninsula are finished in two years it might provide an impetus for the others to get off their arse and get their courses in order, but I doubt it.

[Tim_Weiman]

Tim, without going through the specifics (which is pointless if you're not familiar with each course), almost all suffer from ill-conceived alterations and have far too many trees. Only the West Course at Royal Melbourne and Kingston Heath are truly at the top of their game.

This might be controversial to some, but since the 1950's Melburnians have been extremely poor custodians of our most of our best courses.

Chris,

Thanks for your comments. I figured there would be some sensitivity around answering my question.

As for not being good custodians, I'll never forget Tommy Naccarato essentially saying the same thing to some big shooters at Yale. Don't think it hurt in the long run.

[Josh Stevens]

But isn't legend something of a trade-off.  Courses play shorter and so lose the design intent.  Cant add more length due to lack of space and so only option is to reduce roll. Not great but its the least bad option.

When they were putting the legend in, did they really appreciate how course the leaf was and how that would play around the greens or is that more a recent acknowledgment now that RM has put in fescue surrounds.  Hind sight is a marvellous thing.

I think perhaps we are too critical of club committees for not doing things the way we think they should.  We are not the ones having to deal with whining members with a zillion different opinions, most of them crap.

What we need is a government agency to oversee all golf course renos.  That will solve the problem.

Huntingdale I agree is a mess, but YY I quite like as it has a certain intimacy about it, or at least it used to, as its been a while. Its just a course that the modern game has outgrown - give everyone balata and persimmon and it would be perfectly fine.

[Mark Saltzman]

there are definitely 5 or 6)

Mark, I'd have the count at 4, though could see it at 3.  How do you get to 6?

[Mark_F]

Some of the Sandbelt clubs like Metro, Huntingdale, Yarra and Woodlands have spent millions in the past few years building fancy new palaces, instead of looking at whether their courses are as good as they can be.  Maybe, however, it's a sad indictment on what the average Sandbelt member prefers.

Yarra would need to go to Doak or Clayton and ask them to give them a new course that suits the land with its restrictions as it is now.  Only proviso is that the 11th hole has to remain.  Maybe that would mean the unpalatable prospect of a course with 5 or 6 par threes and none or 1 par five - I can't imagine any Sandbelt committee having the brass ones for that.

It will be interesting to see what Peninsula South turns out like in a year - I disagree with some elements of the Masterplan, but I imagine most of the members are happy the 8th and 17th greens are going. I don't mind that they are going, just not for the reasons stated.

[Mark_F]

Mark, I'd have the count at 4, though could see it at 3.  How do you get to 6?

Mark,

6,7,8,9 and 15 at least. I can also see a case for 14 being described as pedestrian;

[Josh Stevens]

As I am sure Doak and Clayts will attest, the average member doesn't give a rats bum about architecture.  As long as it looks pretty, they don't lose too many balls, the club house is flash and the golf  magazine rate them above that bloody club next door, they are happy.

Democracies are a bit like that - they encourage shallowness, mediocrity and timidity

[Mark_F]

Democracies are a bit like that - they encourage shallowness, mediocrity and timidity

Only when right-wing Governments are in charge, Josh.

[Tom_Doak]

I have no idea who Fergal O'Leary is [is that even a real name?], but it is not the point of golf architecture to build 18 holes like Pine Valley every time out so that raters like Fergal can drool over them. 

In fact, it is not the point of architecture to build top 100 golf courses.  Generally, you work with the property you've got.  Some of the Sandbelt courses have stretches of very flat property ... that does not make the clubs poor custodians of the land.

Unfortunately, the proximity of golf holes to boundaries and the zero tolerance for liability issues in Australia HAS been a factor.  Royal Melbourne (East) has had to take a step backwards because of those issues, and Yarra Yarra took two or three steps back from what it was when I first saw it [1988].

[RJ_Daley]

As I am sure Doak and Clayts will attest, the average member doesn't give a rats bum about architecture.  As long as it looks pretty, they don't lose too many balls, the club house is flash and the golf  magazine rate them above that bloody club next door, they are happy.

Thus it seems that OZ club member mentality really is little different from TROTW which is driven in taste and culture by all the negative elements of crass commercialism and branding/marketing.  

Isn't it generally the pattern that the force that moves the needle is group think conventional wisdom of peer pressur and "keeping up with the Jones's" down the road?  Of course , when much of that social life social putting on of aires involves display of trappings of nuveau riche, more resources are bound to be voted on by social status priorities dedicated to showy clubhouse and landscape flash, than golf architecture centric maintenance-infrastructure priorities, it seems to me.  

On the question of sandbelt criticism by Fergal,  I say leave it to the prominent and dedicated voices of golf architecture in OZ to hash it out, with strong support and approval of the worldwide fans of the unique genre that is understood as only in OZ.  We should always give plenty of kudos and support to the keepers of the Australian sandbelt conception by the original masters, MacKenzie, Russell and Morcam.  From what my one visit I was able to understand, the social pressure of seeking the prestige that new clubhouse upgrades requires with an elite membership must be balanced with the kind of stewardship that RM has been shepperded by what must be a well informed board and executive leadership.  Thus, they upgrade clubhouse facilities AND bring in an expert in MacKenzie to make the necessary TV reso/reno of the course design that serves to shine as a beacon to the rest of the sandbelt clubs as the way to " keep up with the Jones's".  

When reading typical Australian town and country golf and social club websites, I see no difference in the member attitudes and priorities of what one sees at the typical run of the mill clubs and courses here in U.S.  Some courses just begin with mediocre design and social club trappings priorities.  So they race to stay mediocre among peers as that reinforces the conventional but popular trendy fashion.  But, that will never mesh with the value of unique and faithful to the priority of quality golf design for its own sake, with few exceptions that I can think of.

With Clayton and Ogilvy leading the modern day Aussie national GCA, and the voices from OZ, as those that weigh in here frequently on GCA.COM, I'd say they will continue the process of slow but positive progress to keep the flame burning. Hasn't RM led the way, and forces at other clubs at least have been taking notes?  

Finally, isn't it quite a statement that the newest projects throughout OZ including ren/resto indicative that overall OZ gets it?  Barnbougle/LF, King Island, the concepts at Arm End and Seven Mile, and reworks at Bonny Doon and Port Fairy: Are those enough to say all is not lost to mediocrity and misplaced priorities?

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

I am still excited about my trip

[jonathan_becker]

Kingston Heath:
My minimal criticism of the layout is limited to the relatively tame and uninspiring approach shots into the par fours 11th and 17th holes. As you get within 100 yards of the green, especially the 17th, the large flat aprons and lack of noticeable bunkering is somewhat anticlimactic and unexpected. Additionally on the 11th hole, there used to be an excellent bunker in the middle of the fairway which was unfortunately removed, and has diminished the quality of the tee shot.

The approach on #11 has the bump/rise on the left side of the green that kicks balls down into the short grass.  That area definitely plays like a bunker of sorts.  The approach on #17 is blind and being up/over the ridge everything falls away and towards the 18th tee.  Tame?....Uninspiring?....it sure adds to the variety of the course though as both examples only show up once in the round.

Personally, I thought the central fairway bunker on 11 was far from great and I'm glad it's gone given it's location.  All it did was force any player with a head on his shoulder to turn down a 3 iron and play out to the left.  Good riddance! 

[Mark Saltzman]

Mark, I'd have the count at 4, though could see it at 3.  How do you get to 6?

Mark,

6,7,8,9 and 15 at least. I can also see a case for 14 being described as pedestrian;

While I agree with Tom that one can't simply look at the weakest holes to determine a course's quality, if we're calling holes like 6 and 9 and 14 among the weakest on the course, I'd argue that is strong support for the course's inclusion in a world top-100.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()