The Easiest Great Course in the World

[Darren_Kilfara]

Chris,

a) Reread my first post in this thread. I did not "start this thread with a clear contention, that Royal Melbourne is the easiest great course in the world."

b) The advice I'm referring to that you gave me on the third hole was from the fairway, after I'd played two shots, not from the tee. Perhaps my memory is faulty, but my recollection is that you warned me about the difficulty of holding the green from that angle in that situation.

c) I'm not blaming you for giving me such advice, anyway - it seemed reasonable enough at the time.

d) You're probably correct that I jumped the gun in declaring that RM a course that can be defined after one playing. However, in all of the research I'd done and exposure I'd had to RM prior to coming to Australia, not once did I hear anything to the effect of "it's a course you have to play multiple times to get to know well," at least as far as I can tell.

e) Saying that I "lack lateral thinking skills"...that's a bit harsh, isn't it? Is that what I get for touching a raw nerve in daring to suggest that RM may not be a Doak 10 golf course? (In any event, as I said multiple times to you while in Australia, I've never claimed to be the most architecture-savvy member of this board...I'm just calling it like I saw it.)

f) Couldn't you say that ANY course (except perhaps an 7,000-meter track with wide fairways and huge greens) is more difficult when it plays firm and fast rather than soft and slow? And in evaluating the difficulty of any given course, should you always talk about how it is maintained for tournaments or its ideal "maintenance meld", or should you not take a wider view?

g) The logical endgame of this discussion is that one should never make comments about any course you've only played once. Patrick Mucci might agree with that viewpoint, but I daresay that this discussion group wouldn't be the vibrant place it is if such a ban were in effect, to say nothing about whether such a contention is true...

Brian,

a) I'm not an idiot, even though you seem to have formed that impression of me.

b) So I yanked my drive at the third into the trees, and I failed to get down in two from short of the green. What does that have to do with anything? I could three-putt from 20 feet on a flat green, and that would make no statement about the difficulty of the course I was playing; ditto missing the wide third fairway off the tee, and playing such a approach putt from short of the green.

c) The third green at RM - which I'm guessing you haven't seen, so why exactly are you so involved in this discussion? - is visually deceptive, and much longer from front to back than it appears. I'd thought it was nearer 25 yards deep than 40 yards deep when I made my shot selection.

d) It's not like I don't normally know how to approach greens like the third at RM-West - having played the 13th at Machrihanish a hundred times, I know damn well that I'd rather be over the green than short of it, especially to a back pin. However, this only became apparent to me after playing the hole once and seeing the green from the side and behind.

Cheers,
Darren

[Chris Kane]

b) My advice to you was along the lines of "downwind, this is a very difficult green to hold".  As we were playing the hole into a headwind, you were never going to have that problem.

d) I wasn't saying that RM necessarily requires multiple rounds for thoughtful analysis - I'm saying that you can only make that judgement when you have a thorough knowledge of the place.

e) No Darren, its got nothing to do with any "raw nerve", its to do with you sticking to an opinion which is fundamentally flawed, even when that is pointed out to you.

Instead of attributing the problem to others, a la the "common courtesy" thread, look within for the answers.

RM is Doak 10 course - one look at the Confidential Guide will tell you that.  Whether its a Kilfara 10 or not, I couldn't care less.  You need to play a golf course with your eyes open, thinking about the architecture, instead of your golf swing, to fairly evaluate the place.

f) RM is very rarely in the state you saw it in - as I've said a number of times on this thread, there was a heavy storm in the area the day before.  I'm sure if you played there tomorrow, it would be a completely different golf course, and much closer to median conditions.  It is impossible to properly evaluate the architecture there with "basket of wet washing" greens, unless you think laterally and IMAGINE what it would be like in normal conditions.

g) It is ok to make comments about a course you've played once, but you need to bear in mind that what you see on one day (in particular your day at RM, with atypical conditions) might not be representative of the course generally.

[Darren_Kilfara]

This discussion is getting a bit tedious (to me, anyway), but let me make a few final points:

--I must have misunderstood your advice on the third, Chris. I apologize for the confusion.

--Let me restate/revise my "fundamentally flawed" opinion slightly, and see if you think it's still flawed: if all courses in the world were played in similar soft and slow conditions, RM-West would be among the the easiest of the great courses. How does that one hold up?

--My use of the phrase "not a Doak 10" was meant to suggest that I might not give it a 10 on the Doak Scale, not that Doak didn't give it a 10. You're welcome to agree with or disagree with my opinion (although to say you "couldn't care less" is a bit tactless, in my opinion).

--My imagination isn't so barren as to not be able to visualise at least in part what RM would play like in firmer conditions. Also, while my swing difficulties did take up much more of my brainpower on the day than I would have wished, it's not like I completely ignored the architecture, which seems to be your contention and assumption.

--Finally, all I think I've done in this thread is pose questions and make suggestions, trying to stir up some discussion. I've always been open to persuasion that my first-glance opinion of RM's difficulty was incorrect; upon reflection, I've been persuaded. I don't think I deserve to have been tarred and feathered as much as I have from certain quarters herein - or am I being a tad oversensitive?

Cheers,
Darren

[Brian Phillips]

Brian,

a) I'm not an idiot, even though you seem to have formed that impression of me.

b) So I yanked my drive at the third into the trees, and I failed to get down in two from short of the green. What does that have to do with anything? I could three-putt from 20 feet on a flat green, and that would make no statement about the difficulty of the course I was playing; ditto missing the wide third fairway off the tee, and playing such a approach putt from short of the green.

c) The third green at RM - which I'm guessing you haven't seen, so why exactly are you so involved in this discussion? - is visually deceptive, and much longer from front to back than it appears. I'd thought it was nearer 25 yards deep than 40 yards deep when I made my shot selection.

d) It's not like I don't normally know how to approach greens like the third at RM-West - having played the 13th at Machrihanish a hundred times, I know damn well that I'd rather be over the green than short of it, especially to a back pin. However, this only became apparent to me after playing the hole once and seeing the green from the side and behind.

Darren,

a) I don't think you are an idiot at all.  In fact I really like you and like your opinions.

b) What does your yanked drive have to do with anything...? Look it was YOU that blamed someone else for your crap double bogey not me.  I just analysed the two posts and felt you were blaming somone else for your judgement.  You just stated the obvious...that your play that day as your yanked drive or that you could three putt a flat green had no bearing on how the course plays...but I find it amazing that you after ONE visit can state that it is an easy great course...going against all others that I know on here that do not agree with you.

c) Why am I involved in the discussion?  Didn't know I wasn't allowed to give opinions now...Chris doesn't seem to mind..
You had a yardage book in your hand...tell me how you didn't know that the green was NOT frigging forty yards deep.  If you are using your visual intution throw away the book.  Even if you had 15 yards of green into the wind with a short iron you should have gone for the green. What are you playing for the Open?  You laid up short of a green that slopes away from you...(that is the most important info you were given...that it slopes away from you) that does not make sense to me...

d) You had a yardage book...and didn't use it. Yardage books are not just about yardages...they tell you other things as well...probably the fall of the green...oh yeah Chris told you about that...

Look Darren, you came on here stating something and then people challenge you.  You shot 80...that is 7 shots more than your handicap. You say it doesn't matter about your score but you still blame your playing partner (in public) for two of those shots...and you want sympathy...just be glad you are not English..

Still friends?

Brian

[Darren_Kilfara]

Brian - still friends, of course. I'm happy to be challenged; I try to view threads like this as intellectual exercises, although I get a bit put out when things start (or seem to start) getting personal.

I had a yardage book, but I'm not the sort of person who looks at it on every shot. I had the yardage to the middle (or was it the front? Doesn't matter) of the green, and some advice - so I thought - about how to play the shot. That was enough for me.

In the end, it was a double bogey - but BIG DEAL. I only mentioned that hole, and the way I played it, to highlight that the hole was easier than I'd been led to believe. I could have hit my drive in the fairway, left my approach short of the green and gotten up-and-down for par, and my opinion of the third green (which I do think is very, very good, albeit lacking any real bite or challenge in the soft conditions I faced) would still be the same.

Cheers,
Darren

[Chris Kane]

if all courses in the world were played in similar soft and slow conditions, RM-West would be among the the easiest of the great courses

It probably holds up fine, but its like saying that Augusta would be easy with greens rolling at 6 - it would be - but that isn't really a true barometer of the difficulty of a course.  It's about "median conditions", which I see you've finally understood.

I'll make one last comment before I retire from this thread - because you played badly at RM (80), you really can't judge whether its an easy course.  Had you played really well and shot 69, that might be cause for you to dismiss the course as too easy.  However, until you've played well at that course, you don't have a true idea of how difficult it is.  Maybe the subtlety might get you!

[Darren_Kilfara]

Maybe the subtlety might get you!

I will certainly concede that point to you, Chris, and the line of reasoning which led to it. Well argued...

Cheers,
Darren