News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Tim_Weiman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Sandbelt Courses - Ranking by Quality of Property
« on: January 22, 2015, 10:15:40 PM »
We spend most of our time talking about the performance of architects designing and building courses, as we should.

However, I was wondering if our Aussie friends and others familiar enough could rank the Melbourne Sandbelt courses based on the quality of the property, the raw material the architect had to work with.

Would really appreciate hearing peoples views. Maybe a Doak Scale for property value, not design.

Thanks. Look forward to your response.

P.S. Wouldn't hurt to throw in courses on the Mornington Peninsula too!
Tim Weiman

Benjamin Litman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sandbelt Courses - Ranking by Quality of Property
« Reply #1 on: January 22, 2015, 10:23:49 PM »
Tim, as you'll see in more detail in my Victoria post from earlier today, I would rank that land behind only the land on which the main paddock at Royal Melbourne sits. Kingston Heath and Metropolitan would follow, in that order. I didn't play any other course on the Sandbelt, so I can't speak to the others.
"One will perform in large part according to the circumstances."
-Director of Recruitment at Agahozo-Shalom Youth Village in Rwanda on why it selects orphaned children without regard to past academic performance. Refreshing situationism in a country where strict dispositionism might be expected.

Tim_Weiman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sandbelt Courses - Ranking by Quality of Property
« Reply #2 on: January 22, 2015, 10:34:56 PM »
Tim, as you'll see in more detail in my Victoria post from earlier today, I would rank that land behind only the land on which the main paddock at Royal Melbourne sits. Kingston Heath and Metropolitan would follow, in that order. I didn't play any other course on the Sandbelt, so I can't speak to the others.

Ben,

I loved Kingston Heath during my only visit, but don't recall thinking it was that great a property. How good do you really think the property is?

Tim Weiman

Benjamin Litman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sandbelt Courses - Ranking by Quality of Property
« Reply #3 on: January 22, 2015, 10:47:18 PM »
I didn't say it was a great property. All I said is that it's (slightly) better property than Metropolitan. Again, my property ranking (of the courses I played) is Royal Melbourne (main paddock--i.e., the paddock on which all the Composite Course holes lie), Victoria, Kingston Heath, Metropolitan. Although the Kingston Heath land does have some nice movement, it's limited to a few holes (8-9, 15-17, all five of which are on the same area of the course). That is why people laud the design so much--because the land is relatively plain.
"One will perform in large part according to the circumstances."
-Director of Recruitment at Agahozo-Shalom Youth Village in Rwanda on why it selects orphaned children without regard to past academic performance. Refreshing situationism in a country where strict dispositionism might be expected.

Mark_F

Re: Sandbelt Courses - Ranking by Quality of Property
« Reply #4 on: January 22, 2015, 11:04:10 PM »
RM West
Peninsula North
Victoria
Peninsula South
Yarra
Commonwealth
Kingston Heath
Huntingdale
RM East
Woodlands
Metropolitan


National Ocean
St Andrews Beach
St Andrews Beach Fingal
National Moonah
Moonah Open
Moonah Legends
National Old
« Last Edit: January 22, 2015, 11:10:06 PM by Mark Ferguson »

Ben Jarvis

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sandbelt Courses - Ranking by Quality of Property
« Reply #5 on: January 22, 2015, 11:50:11 PM »
RM West
Peninsula North
Victoria
Peninsula South
Yarra
Commonwealth
Kingston Heath
Huntingdale
RM East
Woodlands
Metropolitan


Mark,

Are these listed in order of quality? If so, would you care to elaborate why you think Huntingdale's property is superior to that of RM East and Metropolitan?

Others,

Are we talking about ground movement only, or vegetation and soil also?
Twitter: @BennyJarvis
Instagram: @bennyj08

Josh Stevens

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sandbelt Courses - Ranking by Quality of Property
« Reply #6 on: January 23, 2015, 12:05:17 AM »
What criteria are you using.  The size, movement, soil type, boundaries etc?

Also need to consider that most of them were built back when the area was not and the developed and the boundary issues came later.  I bet all of them wish they had taken bigger plots at the time


Tim_Weiman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sandbelt Courses - Ranking by Quality of Property
« Reply #7 on: January 23, 2015, 01:44:46 AM »
Mark,

Thanks for the reply.. Looks like I should have seen Peninsula.
Tim Weiman

Tim_Weiman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sandbelt Courses - Ranking by Quality of Property
« Reply #8 on: January 23, 2015, 11:51:03 PM »
What criteria are you using.  The size, movement, soil type, boundaries etc?

Also need to consider that most of them were built back when the area was not and the developed and the boundary issues came later.  I bet all of them wish they had taken bigger plots at the time



Josh,

I was assuming the soil type was fairly consistent and attractive, hence the reference to "Sandbelt". Really wondering about movement, topography, etc.
Tim Weiman

Mark_F

Re: Sandbelt Courses - Ranking by Quality of Property
« Reply #9 on: January 24, 2015, 12:41:39 AM »
Mark,

Are these listed in order of quality? If so, would you care to elaborate why you think Huntingdale's property is superior to that of RM East and Metropolitan?

Ben,

Yes, they are. I would have thought having Metro last would be fairly unanimous.  Only some very modest movement on a couple of holes.

Huntingdale doesn't have the great movement of 1-3 of East, but I reckon the land of 4 and 16-18 isn't that great, and there is only the sole ridge that 10/11 play to and off, plus the gentle incline of 12. Huntingdale has a fair bit of movement on 1,2-5 and 7, along with some more gentle slopes through 9-11 and 13. I have no idea what the soil composition is, but purely on movement, Huntingdale is surely better than Woodlands and Metro? 

Thanks for the reply.. Looks like I should have seen Peninsula.

No problems Tim.  Mark Saltzmann did a nice photo tour that highlights some of the property of the North course - -it's not quite up to Jon cavalier standard, but I guess we'll just have to wait for that.  :)

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,58043.0.html

Josh Stevens

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sandbelt Courses - Ranking by Quality of Property
« Reply #10 on: January 24, 2015, 03:24:39 AM »
What criteria are you using.  The size, movement, soil type, boundaries etc?

Also need to consider that most of them were built back when the area was not and the developed and the boundary issues came later.  I bet all of them wish they had taken bigger plots at the time



Josh,

I was assuming the soil type was fairly consistent and attractive, hence the reference to "Sandbelt". Really wondering about movement, topography, etc.

Soil types are very different.  Huntingdale and half of metro are not really that sandy at all and would struggle to be called part of the sandbelt if that were the criteria.  The others are sandy to varying degrees with RM, Vic and KH having the most sand content.  In general I guess the closer you get the shore of Port Phillip Bay, the more sand there is and the larger the residual dune structures.  They flatten out as you head east away from the coast, thus why RM has a lot more movement, it is the closest course to the shoreline by quite some margin.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: Sandbelt Courses - Ranking by Quality of Property
« Reply #11 on: January 24, 2015, 09:18:21 AM »
RM West
Peninsula North
Victoria
Peninsula South
Yarra
Commonwealth
Kingston Heath
Huntingdale
RM East
Woodlands
Metropolitan


National Ocean
St Andrews Beach
St Andrews Beach Fingal
National Moonah
Moonah Open
Moonah Legends
National Old


Mark:

That's a good list and pretty close to how I would rank them.  [I haven't seen Peninsula yet, either.]

Interesting though that you chose not to cross-compare the two groups of courses ... that would certainly have been more controversial.

jonathan_becker

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sandbelt Courses - Ranking by Quality of Property
« Reply #12 on: January 24, 2015, 10:38:05 AM »
Peninsula North has some excellent land movement on the entire front 9 then (off the top of my head) holes 12,13,17, and 18 on the back add to the total.  Aside from RMW, no course I played in the Sandbelt offered as much varied terrain as PN.  Victoria is close but the tamer land on holes #1-7 keep it behind PN in that regard.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back