[Tim_Weiman]

Dick Daley:

Like you seem to have done, I really enjoyed my two trips to Melbourne and opportunity to meet some of the GCA guys I had enjoyed reading for several years.

On my second trip, I was asked to give a speech at a dinner following a team competition - Australia vs Rest of World. Though a bit awed by the request, honestly, I knew right away what I wanted to say - "don't be afraid to stay proudly Aussie" - because much as I loved the Australian golf scene, I saw , felt and worried about a creeping American influence.

Mind you, I once said something similar to friends in Ballybunion.

The whole point of traveling is to experience different things. I'm proud to be American and, of course, we have lots of good golf here, but I want Australia to be Australia, Ireland to be Ireland, Scotland to be Scotland, etc.

[Matthew Rose]

I love the sandbelt, but my impressions of it these days from those who know it well are that the reputation of most of the courses is somewhat diminished these days, in part because many courses have made significant changes to some holes using different architects and the result is something of a mish-mash of styles.

Some of these changes were forced by logistical and safety issues, like the aforementioned 13th at Metro. Others were simply efforts to "Americanize", like some of the water holes at Huntingdale.

Australia appears to have more strict rules and regulations about these kinds of issues... weren't some holes at Metropolitan moved so they could build a public school?

I also think that years of sustained drought and water restrictions have created some bad publicity for private golf clubs there.

[Mike_Clayton]

Matthew

Metropolitan lost 7 holes in 1960 to a compulsory acquisition by the government in order to build a school By all accounts the lost holes were the equal of those on the front nine- and the market garden on which they made the extra holes was land of almost no interest and nor was it blessed with any great levels of sand.

It's almost impossible to generalise about the state of the sandbelt because every course/club has gone down a different path to arrive at where they are now. They were much more alike in the 1930s because they all went down the same - or very similar - paths.
Tree management and planting schemes varied wildly resulting in much different environments and looks. Kingston Heath and Victoria are quite different from Commonwealth and Yarra Yarra. Royal Melbourne is different again as is Metropolitan. Peninsula North is the only course using primarily indigenous plants - and in many ways has the purest look of them all.
Royal Melbourne stuck with its Morcom/MacKenzie bunkers but across the street Victoria changed theirs to a significant degree. Metro lost 8 holes. Every course - except RM West has had to compromise holes because of boundary problems.
Huntingdale held the Masters for almost 30 years and after some low scores set about making the course more difficult in relation to par.

I think Royal Melbourne was really the only course to suffer noticeably because of the drought - 1997 - 2007 about - and it was because they were the only club to have stayed with the two-grass policy.

[Chris Kane]

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?

Dick, you would think so but it isn't the case at all. RM is acknowledged as the best course but I don't think many actually understand why. You would be utterly gobsmacked at some of the views forcefully expressed on a typical Saturday.
  

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?

Absolutely yes! But it's also true that a number of the sandbelt clubs (their members as much as the boards) need a massive kick up the arse. Well-informed constructive criticism by experts is very welcome!

[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.

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?

I would not suggest we are immune to crassness, it is alive and well ,just go the Capital Golf Club near Kingston Heath.  In fact it is commerce now that rules golf clubs.  Most are not as financially buoyant as they were, and so are making decisions on clubhouses, courses, membership numbers, outside play, functions etc with more of an eye on revenue and costs than on architecture.  Certainly prestige no longer plays any part other than the top 8-10 clubs in the country.  Golf is very cheap here, and there is no market for the sorts of bells and whistles you see in he US, but j having said that, most members would still prefer a lovely clubhouse to a lovely golf hole - so we are no different to TROTW there.

[Scott Warren]

Josh,

most members would still prefer a lovely clubhouse to a lovely golf hole

This may be true, and if it is, it just makes me more happy to belong to a club where this is not the case.

[RJ_Daley]

Well then gents, we certainly must keep discussing all this and keep persuasive posture. 

[Matthew Rose]

I'm really pleased to hear about these efforts.

It really is a fascinating landscape, so unique to only that one tiny corner of the world. I'm glad to see people interested in preserving it for what it is. The friends I made there generally took it for granted that they have world class golf there, but those guys weren't really golfers. But I lived on the wrong side of town when I was there. I always found it amusing when I, the Yank interloper would have to tell locals just how good their golf was!

There definitely are subtle differences between them all and that becomes apparent the more you see them. That's part of the appeal.... Slight variations on that theme. I hope I can see some of the others one day.

[David Kelly]

I love the Sandbelt but I think the fact that many of the courses there have an "extra" hole has allowed them to mess with the courses without having to have less than 18 holes available to their members.  This may contribute to their willingness to change things.

[Luke Eipper]

David, While I can see a spare hole might allow a committee to "mess" with their course, I can't think of an example where any of these changes have been detrimental. For the clubs with a spare hole, each now has the opportunity to undertake intensive maintenance on any hole on the course e.g Tree management, green coring,  or even just resting a hole so that its turf can recover fromwear  and tear. In age where course conditioning  is regarded as a key differentiator between competing golf clubs, I think a spare hole adds to a club's competitivenes. 

[John Mayhugh]

Wow. Yes, that's a real name, Tom. That's the author's name. Holy crap, how offensive do you want to be? I suspect from your comments that you have not read the original piece as there's a disconnect between the thrust of your little rant and the points the author raises. Out of interest, how many of these courses have you actually played? Did you just walk most of them?

The weird thing is with you: if you were even half way normal, people would love you. But nearly everyone I know who's met you hates you. 

Holy crap, Brian. How offensive do YOU want to be. Your little rant is tackier than anything Tom posted.

For what it's worth, I've met Tom a couple of times, and he's been gracious and pleasant. I'm sure he's not perfect, but I'm not buying the "everyone who's met you hates you" assessment. Do you realize how petulant that sounds?

You seem to have implied that your friend's assessment of the courses in question may have been better informed than Tom's. Please tell me I misunderstood.

[David_Elvins]

Wow, Golfclubatlas normally takes  at least another month into the northern winter to go a bit bananas.

[Tim_Weiman]

Brian Sheehy,

To say the least, your comments to TD are entirely inappropriate. Such personal attacks should not be part of our discussion.

[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].

Wow. Yes, that's a real name, Tom. That's the author's name. Holy crap, how offensive do you want to be? I suspect from your comments that you have not read the original piece as there's a disconnect between the thrust of your little rant and the points the author raises. Out of interest, how many of these courses have you actually played? Did you just walk most of them?

I feel comfortable in guessing that I've played more courses in the Melbourne Sand Belt than you and/or Fergal O'Leary.  Some of them, quite a few times over the course of 25 years.  Others, not as much.

I didn't disagree with the premise that Royal Melbourne (East) and Yarra Yarra and others are perhaps not one of the top 100 courses in the world.  And I didn't read the whole original piece, because I didn't feel the need.  

I only took exception to the underlying implication that Mr. O'Leary is treating every course as if they are supposed to be blowing things up in order to make some top 100 list.  If I misunderstood that, I apologize, but that's certainly how it came off based on the excerpts posted here.  I think it was when he criticized Royal Melbourne (East) for crossing the road and breaking the flow of the course, that he lost me.  I guess they could have left it at six holes ...

[RJ_Daley]

I'd have to chalk this nasty bit of misspeaking to someone who hasn't lived much in the real world.  Perhaps a very young and thoughtlessly immature sort of lad.  When Mr. Sheehy adds one new thing to the world of golf course architecture, let alone what Tom has done for decades now-breaks historic ground in everything from writing, evaluating, and categorizing world wide golf courses of interest and significance, let alone DESIGN AND BUILD THEM, I'll give Mr. Sheehy a scintilla of my interest.  But, Tom was young and bold as well in the day he burst on the scene with rumpling a few feathers of GCA conventional wisdom.  

I have always thought of TD in the realm of Peters and Waterman in their description of people that move the needle in quality and innvovaton within organizations, or in TD's case - a profession and craft industry.  Here is a link summarizing a phenomenon of unconventional people and their characteristics of brilliance that leads to breakthrough progress for you Mr. Sheehy to give some thought to and perhaps you'll recognize a few traits inn TD you have misspoken of....  or maybe you are the bold and brash young turk and champ...  

http://www.economist.com/node/12677035

[Tom_Doak]

I have always thought of TD in the realm of Peters and Waterman in their description of people that move the needle in quality and innvovaton within organizations, or in TD's case - a profession and craft industry.  Here is a link summarizing a phenomenon of unconventional people and their characteristics of brilliance that leads to breakthrough progress for you Mr. Sheehy to give some thought to and perhaps you'll recognize a few traits inn TD you have misspoken of....  or maybe you are the bold and brash young turk and champ...  

RJ:

I've had more people speculate publicly on my personality type and what makes me tick, than most posters here typically do.  I don't love it, but I've accepted that it goes with the territory, and learned to ignore it.  What other people think of me is none of my business.

Some have mused about the similarity to Asperger's syndrome or other types of savant, though it is really none of THEIR business, but for a while I wondered if there was something to that.  Instead, I have come to discover in the past 3-4 years that there is another, much simpler diagnosis that apparently many people ignore because they don't want to look at their lives clearly.  If anybody would like to know more, privately, I'd be happy to point them in the right direction.

I do appreciate your post, and the few others that preceded it.  Part of my personality type is to be uncomfortable with praise, and to not know how to respond appropriately, but I'm trying to work on that. 

[David_Elvins]

Tim, Dick,

It does the discussion group no favours IMO to criticize Brian whilst excusing Tom's unneccessary personal attack.  

There is plenty of 'substance' in Fergal's article to attack.  Lets get back to that.

[Mark_F]

There is plenty of 'substance' in Fergal's article to attack.  Lets get back to that.

Attack is quite a harsh verb, David.

Fergal seems to be quite fond of the courses and just slightly disappointed that committees have let too many numerous untalented architects wreak havoc on them, and are apparently in no hurry to correct their mistakes.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Tom,
Sometimes people like you and myself are quite comfortable being simply'ourselves' and not really that interested in conforming to what the general public may consider to be"normal.
Aspergers OCD,ADD whatever you want to call it.
Me, it is just me take it or leave it,I am comfortable with that as is my lovely wife, so I am happy.

[Tim_Weiman]

Tim, Dick,

It does the discussion group no favours IMO to criticize Brian whilst excusing Tom's unneccessary personal attack.  

There is plenty of 'substance' in Fergal's article to attack.  Lets get back to that.

David,

I share your view that it is best to stay on topic, but, in fairness, I think there is a big difference between Tom's comment and those of Brian.

Anyway, I am not familiar with Fergal O'Leary. Is he a respected observer of the Sandbelt courses or, more broadly, Australian courses as a whole?

[Brad Tufts]

I count Fergal as a friend and fine playing companion.  He is a native Dubliner now residing in the Boston area where he lets me try to win a few dollars/euros/ciders off him every now and again.  I'm not sure if I have all the stats right, but I think he is the youngest (he was about 27, now 30ish) to play one of the US T100 lists, and is one away from the world list (Durban CC).

While none of these things mean he's the perfect rater or panelist, he is very well-traveled golf-wise both in the US and Internationally.  He is also a good writer and I think his enthusiasm for golf courses shines through.

I have never been to OZ/NZ, so I cannot comment on courses themselves, but I think Fergal was writing from a position of enjoying all the courses and the opportunities to play them, but taking the reviews to the next level, and adding a bit of info or two on why one might differ from another in the rankings.  T100 lists are a dime a dozen these days...but I have enjoyed these reviews that go one step further!

[Chris Kane]

Fergal is clearly a passionate writer and I quite enjoyed the piece although I disagreed with many of his opinions. However if you're going to write a hard hitting piece you have an obligation to get all your facts right (opinions can be debated, facts cannot) - the piece has a lot of errors. You also get the sense that at certain clubs he was hosted by members with a strong agenda.

But none of this is any excuse to attack him personally. Good on him for generating some debate, unlike the usual puff pieces from flacks who refuse to risk offending anyone.

[Tim_Weiman]

Fergal is clearly a passionate writer and I quite enjoyed the piece although I disagreed with many of his opinions. However if you're going to write a hard hitting piece you have an obligation to get all your facts right (opinions can be debated, facts cannot) - the piece has a lot of errors. You also get the sense that at certain clubs he was hosted by members with a strong agenda.

But none of this is any excuse to attack him personally. Good on him for generating some debate, unlike the usual puff pieces from flacks who refuse to risk offending anyone.

Chris,

I wonder how easy it is for non Aussies to get all the facts right on golf courses in Australia or even just the Sandbelt area alone.

One of the nice things about GCA is that we have had fairly good Aussie representation for a while now. For me at least, those are the folks - yourself included - we here in the States have learned to trust. By contrast, I don't think many here are familiar with Fergal.

[Scott Warren]

Tim,

Definitely, small facts here and there might be poorly explained to, or misunderstood by, an overseas visitor who is seeing something new everywhere he looks.

But what I stumbled over and can't really accept from Fergal's article is this about the 11th at Kingston Heath:

"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."

Given this was his first visit to Melbourne, he can't make that claim with any credibility. By the time he touched down at Tullamarine, all there was left of that bunker was memories.

You've got to limit your commentary to what you know, because lines like that, in an attempt to be sound more authoritative than you are, ruin your credibility.

I believe there may also be some comedy in the criticism and praise levelled at the 12th and 14th hole bunkering at Victoria, but can't speak first-hand, so will take my own advice and leave it to someone else to confirm or deny that.

[David Davis]

But what I stumbled over and can't really accept from Fergal's article is this about the 11th at Kingston Heath:

"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."

Given this was his first visit to Melbourne, he can't make that claim with any credibility. By the time he touched down at Tullamarine, all there was left of that bunker was memories.

You've got to limit your commentary to what you know, because lines like that, in an attempt to be sound more authoritative than you are, ruin your credibility.

Scott,

I'm not sure I understand why you believe this ruins your credibility for stating something like this. Basically then you are saying if you never played a course before and it's been changed (even ruined) by renovation in your opinion it's not appropriate to say so. That to me makes no sense.

Imagine you are playing with the original architect, manager or new head of the course committee. They explain and show you were this was. Are you trying to say that it's not within someone's capacity if they want to remain credible to have an opinion whether or not a change was an improvement or not?

I strongly disagree with this statement and can give you off hand several examples of holes that have been ruined during renovation that I've never seen prior to renovation and neither have you but I know I could send you through the course and at the end ask you which holes don't fit for example and you could tell me beyond a shadow of a doubt. I guess that while more extreme than a single bunker missing is basically the same.

I have no problem with this and definitely not in this case. Whether I believe in that opinion or not remains to be seen.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()