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.


Shane Gurnett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Par 3's at Peninsula North
« on: January 16, 2004, 02:22:46 AM »
Peninsula North, located approx 30 kilometres south of Melbourne, Victoria, is in the process of being renovated by Michael Clayton Golf Design. With the exception of 2 or 3 of the longer holes the work is essentially completed. Peninsula North has always occupied a terrific piece of land, on which existed an acceptable but hardly inspiring golf course. The following photo's were taken about a week ago, and show the four par 3's.

It is interesting to see how these "new" holes fit into the landscape, and importantly the transition of each hole from green to bunkers to natural vegetation. Also of note is the recent Golf Australia Top 50 Courses, which saw Peninsula North "debut" at 16, after previously languishing under the old design outside the top 50, and missing out on many top 100 lists.

Peninsula North represents an outstanding example of how an architect can work in harmony with an existing routing, and build bunkers in the sandbelt style, which look like they have been there for 50 years. I think the set of par threes at Peninsula North as a set, are some of the finest golf holes you will play anywhere, and are a great addition to the Melbourne Sandbelt. The par 4's and 5's aren't bad either.

2nd hole - 161 metres, modelled on the 5th at Royal Melbourne (West)


7th hole - 163 metres


14th hole - 154 metres


16th hole - 148 metres
« Last Edit: January 16, 2004, 03:08:24 AM by Shane Gurnett »

Brian Walshe

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Par 3's at Peninsula North
« Reply #1 on: January 16, 2004, 03:56:25 AM »
Shane,

Thanks for posting the photos.  Pity for most people that look at them is that they won't have before and after shots to compare.  To say that Mike Clayton has made a massive difference at Peninsula North is an understatement.

Brian

spooky

Re:Par 3's at Peninsula North
« Reply #2 on: January 16, 2004, 04:35:02 AM »
I haven't played the north course for more than 4 years and was amazed at it being ranked ahead of the south course in the latest rankings.  Mike must have done some pretty special work for such a severe turnaround.  The pics show a great improvement, and thanks for posting them.. ;)

Marty Bonnar

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Par 3's at Peninsula North
« Reply #3 on: January 16, 2004, 04:38:11 AM »
Shane,
That 2nd Hole appears to play over a Pet Cemetery! :) What is going on there?????

FBD
The White River runs dark through the heart of the Town,
Washed the people coal-black from the hole in the ground.

Andrew Summerell

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Par 3's at Peninsula North
« Reply #4 on: January 16, 2004, 04:46:51 AM »
Great set of par 3's. One angled to the right, one to the left, one straight on & the other wide & shallow.

Shane,

Was there much consideration given to varying the length of 1 or 2 of them, as they are all of similar length ?

Chris Kane

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Par 3's at Peninsula North
« Reply #5 on: January 16, 2004, 05:05:16 AM »
Andrew,
From memory, Mike moved the tee on the 2nd, so it is now almost 180m from the back.  Ideally one of the holes would be a little shorter - say 135m - but individually all four holes are terrific.\

fatbaldydrummer,
What might appear to you to be gravestones (I'd never thought of it that way before!) are actually a plastic tubing which encase some of the heathy plants in their early days, to protect them from the weather.  Once they've matured, the tubing is removed.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2004, 05:09:32 AM by Chris Kane »

Big Pete

Re:Par 3's at Peninsula North
« Reply #6 on: January 16, 2004, 05:52:47 AM »
I got to play Peninsula Nth again a couple of weeks ago , and at times it felt very Royal Melbournish . I would think this makeover will do Mike Clayton's reputation no end of good , and it deserves the move up the ratings . Can't wait to see what Mike does to the South course which always had some majesty about it .

Mike is also doing wonders at Royal Rosanna but that hasn't been nominated for the top twenty....yet!!!

Shane Gurnett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Par 3's at Peninsula North
« Reply #7 on: January 16, 2004, 03:34:32 PM »
Spooky,

Its a totally different course now, and is arguably harshly ranked at number 18 (there are a few ahead of it that I wouldn't have there). You really should go and have a look at how well it has come up. Well worth the effort.

Andrew,

As they all play in different directions, and as the wind is generally somewhat of a factor, they dont play the say length even though the metreages may be similar.

tonyt

Re:Par 3's at Peninsula North
« Reply #8 on: January 16, 2004, 04:42:41 PM »
I walked the North in October, and I've been delighted with the improvement on a course which was always an enigma. Such better land than the South, and yet until now, a significantly lesser course. It has been astonishing to see such a ranking move achieved by a renovation. I thought prior to the work that it could be raised to almost match the South, but not surpass it without a complete re-routing.

The reasonably similar lengths of the par 3s is not a negative issue with me. I loved the look of all of them, especially remembering the old set. I've always bemoaned my buddies who arrive at a course, check out the card and throw their hands in the air when all or most of the 3s don't vary greatly in length. I suggest to them that they might actually want to see and play them a couple of times before they pass judgement.

Mike_Clayton

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Par 3's at Peninsula North
« Reply #9 on: January 16, 2004, 06:14:47 PM »
tonyt

I, like almost everybody else thought the South was a pretty good course.I first saw it in 1970 when everybody was raving about what was back them an almost new course.
That was until I really started to look at it critically with a view to altering - and hopefully improving - it.
There is so much ordinary constructioin out there - often post dating the construction of the original course.

There are also a couple of very poor holes most notably the semi-circular 12th which is always going to be a blotch on the course until it is altered.
The land however is very good - probably not as good as the North but better than most of the sandbelt - and the routing is also good.
I think there is a chance to really surprise people because what needs to be done seems to be reasonably clear - as it was on the North.

Pete

I was out at Rosanna a couple of days ago and the 9th is almost looking like a reasonable hole !
For those who don't remember the original it was not the worst hole in Melbourne but it was definitly in the finals.
I don't know that Alister Mackenzie could have got Rosanna into the top 20 but it has the potential to be much better than it currently is.

It seems to me some of the members like what has gone on there so far and some - not surprisingly - hate it.
How much do you think those who oppose the changes base their discontent around the removal of trees and how many object to the architecture being altered ?

Personally I don't think there is any doubt 9 and 18 are significant improvements and apart from some minor bunker work not too much has been done aside from tree removal which has made a big difference to 1,4,8,9 and 12.

David_Elvins

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Par 3's at Peninsula North
« Reply #10 on: January 16, 2004, 11:01:02 PM »
Thanks for the photos Shane,  although they dont come close to demonstrating what a great "look" the 2nd and 14th have.  Plenty of people have been raving on about the great pair of mid length Par 3s at 13th Beach  (7 and 12) but as good as they are, they are not a shade on 2 and 14 at Penninsula in my opinion.  

I haven't played a massive number of courses but I thought the real thing that set Penninsula apart was the great variety of mid length Par 4s.  Off the top of my head there must be 6 Par 4 between 310 and 350 metres and they have great variety and interest.   Anyone care to agree/disagree?
Ask not what GolfClubAtlas can do for you; ask what you can do for GolfClubAtlas.

Matthew Delahunty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Par 3's at Peninsula North
« Reply #11 on: January 17, 2004, 06:04:20 AM »
I was going to start a new thread on the following but it probably fits in well here with the talk of length of par threes. The sandbelt has some great par three but most are short or mid length. When you ask the question about great long par threes in Australia (greater than 200yds, 182m) then it becomes difficult to find many standouts. Why is this? Does it have anything to do with design trends on the time, or topography of many of the layouts, or just that it's difficult to design a good long three? Or have increases in distance in the last 30 years made some long threes just not as good with modern equipment?

What are the standout long threes in Australian design? The standouts which come to my mind are 16 RM West and 4 East. There are a few other good ones around the sandbelt but nothing out of the box.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2004, 06:05:29 AM by Dela »

Matthew Mollica

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Par 3's at Peninsula North
« Reply #12 on: January 17, 2004, 09:43:15 AM »
Dela -

Good qeustion re: Longer par 3's.
I agree with #4 RM East as a fantastic hole.

Also -

#5 at Kingston Heath (173m)
#16 at Victoria (178m)

The majority of the great one shotters in that part of the world are mid-length or short-length by today's standards.

I don't know why that it. Maybe is was a more pleasureable and less arduous task to hit the ball 135m rather than 170m plus, with the equipment of yester year.

I like the fact that on many of the holes we think of as great, we need to hit shorter, more lofted clubs, and therefore, bring the wind into play more, as the ball climbs higher.  

Matthew
"The truth about golf courses has a slightly different expression for every golfer. Which of them, one might ask, is without the most definitive convictions concerning the merits or deficiencies of the links he plays over? Freedom of criticism is one of the last privileges he is likely to forgo."

Mike_Clayton

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Par 3's at Peninsula North
« Reply #13 on: January 17, 2004, 04:03:15 PM »
Dela

All of the best par threes in Melbourne are characterised by small greens and severe bunkering.
There are way to many to mention but obviously making them more than a short of middle iron would have rendered tham unplayable for the members.
Imagine the best of them with a 2 iron in your hand - e.g 15 at Kingston Heath or 9 at Commonwealth !!

Having said that the best long three in the country is inquestionably 16 West and it has the smallest green of the lot and some very severe bunkering down its left side.

Woodlands had a wonderful 244 yard hole - the 8th - but it was shortened because it was so unpopular. The replacement is nowhere near as good. It was shortened by thirty yards so it's still a long three.

Few of the members like the 7th at Metro but it has a big green and it's well bunkered. They rarely play it from the back but to move froward 30 yards makes the scale of the green and bunkers look really out of scale - everything looks too close.
Peninsula have the third which they shortened and built a new green which is dull in the extreme.
The plan is to go back to the old tee, rebuild the green and model it somewhat on the 16th west simply because it is a very similar peice of ground.
It will be an interesting test for us to come up with a fine long three that the members enjoy.

The 14th at Spring Valley is Vern Morcom's best short hole and a fantastic and really underrated par three.It plays into the wind from the south and is never less than a two iron.
Again, it has a very small green with difficult surrounding bunkers.
Like all difficult par three's no matter what the length you have to hit an excellent shot to fnd the green. Marginal usually misses.

And very few of the modern long three's built in the last decade have been very good.
The best clearly is 17 on The Moonah course at The National.
 I think the 3rd at Ranfurlie turned out pretty well for a 200 yard hole


MattM

I have never thought of 5 at Kingston Heath as a long three. Rarely is it more than a five iron and it plays to the east which is such an uncommon wind in Melbourne.
Maybe it just never plays its yardage.

Matthew Mollica

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Par 3's at Peninsula North
« Reply #14 on: January 18, 2004, 07:19:11 AM »
Maybe it just never plays its yardage.

Mike, I'm a short hitter. I just need two clubs more than you!  ;D

MM
"The truth about golf courses has a slightly different expression for every golfer. Which of them, one might ask, is without the most definitive convictions concerning the merits or deficiencies of the links he plays over? Freedom of criticism is one of the last privileges he is likely to forgo."

Matthew Delahunty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Par 3's at Peninsula North
« Reply #15 on: January 18, 2004, 09:19:09 AM »
Matt,

KH 5 and Victoria 16 didn't come into my criteria because they're under 200 yards but they do fit into a very good group of Australian threes in the 160-180m range (eg, Vic 7/16, KH 5, NSW 2/6, Yarra Yarra 11, RM West 5) which would have all been designed in their day (and for many members today still require) the longest irons in the bag. Some of those holes in the early days would've been nightmarish assignments - YY11. I suppose when the wind blows they become long threes.

Above 180m then it's a case of a great iron shot or, more likely a wood, for your average amateur. RM East 4 just makes the yardage category, but being uphill plays a bit longer.

I tend to think that the long par three for many architects was a bit of an afterthought. Put in where there's a bit of flattish land that's too short for a four but not interesting enough for a short three. And so was produced a long tee shot but fairly uninspiring holes which the average golfers don't like much. Maybe it's because the average golfer knows he's probably not going to hit the green with his tee shot but the second shot is unlikely to be stimulating - in other words, a slog from the tee to a poor green complex.

Mike,

I haven't been to Metro for a long time but I seem to recall that 7 is a bit in that long, flat mould (although I think it is definitely better than most). Newcastle has two long threes which I think fit into that category a bit (although 3 could be reworked into a very good hole). 1 at Yarra Yarra - again, challenging due to it's length but it's not inspriing. There are lots of country courses I can think of with uninspring long threes. I haven't played National Moonah or Ranfurlie so I can't really comment on them but I think the long three is going to become a feature of good modern courses. From all reports, Ellerston has one or two good ones. 11 at Moonah Links isn't too bad either.

I think 14 at Spring Valley is a fantastic long three. I always liked it more than the old fifth, even though most people ranked them the other way around. You rarely see it but a back left pin position makes it one of the toughest threes in Melbourne.

RM East 4, West 16 and Spring Valley 14 all require long but accurate shots to fairly narrow targets which are sit at an angle. They all allow for a some run in the approach. All are well bunkered and the penalty for missing the green can be severe. Each have a no-go zones, but each also have a "bail-out" spot where you can miss the green and still get up and down. In short, they are good holes because, although the average golfer is faced with a challenging tee shot on which he knows the probability of him hitting the green is low, he's forced to think his way around the hole and the incentive is as much about not making 6 than the fact that he's got a slog for a certain 4. And when you make three it gives you enormous satisfaction.

« Last Edit: January 18, 2004, 09:31:46 AM by Dela »

tonyt

Re:Par 3's at Peninsula North
« Reply #16 on: January 18, 2004, 05:20:03 PM »
Mike,

I'm waiting 'til long enough in the future so that Vern get's the credit for Spring Valley's new #10  :)  #14 is great. What about old #5?

The Dunes #17 from the tips has fair length. Do you guys rate it? My own thoughts are below those of Tom Watson's reputed statements, but still I like it.

This is a good question that's been posed. If I had to hypothetically own an 18 hole par 3 course made up of the sandbelt's better holes, there'd be a domination of short to medium length holes on it, and a lot of similar clubs hit, and yet the variety and enjoyment would make it incredible.

Chris Kane

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Par 3's at Peninsula North
« Reply #17 on: January 18, 2004, 05:37:19 PM »
Dela,
I don't know that the 2nd at NSW could be described as a very good hole - a ridiculously severe green which makes the chance of par almost impossible for the average member.  What it really needs is a bail-out area - 183m from the tips into the breeze means that its a 3-wood for most members.  The penalty for overshooting the green, or missing to the right, is outrageous.  In short, the green should be blown up!

MatthewM,
I've always thought of the 5th at KH as an uninspiring filler hole - nothing more and nothing less.  Its not necessarily a bad hole, but it fails in any comparison with great long holes - 16W, Victoria 16, Metro 7, Spring Valley 14.  Maybe the bland terrain has something to do with it.

As for its distance, the 5th at KH does play significantly shorter than its 173m distance would suggest.  I've never hit more than a 4-iron, even into the wind, whereas I've hit 2 or 3-iron on countless occasions into the 16th at Victoria.  

Surely the 2nd at Peninsula North, now that it plays at close to 180m, can take its place as one of the best long 3's in Melbourne, if not Australia?

Mike_Clayton

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Par 3's at Peninsula North
« Reply #18 on: January 18, 2004, 07:06:05 PM »
tonyt

17 at The Dunes is very good - much better than the dubious 6th.
Dela
2 at NSW used to be a really good hole with a simple green that reflected the difficulty of the shot. The new green would be difficult with a 9 iron in your hand let alone the 3 iron that it often is.
And it is so out of character with the rest of the greens on the course.
tonyt - again!
The old 5th at Spring Valley was a better hole than the new one but the only way to fix the horrible 16th was to move the tee back onto the old 5th tee.
The mistake we made was to agree to keep as much of the old bunkering as was possible. We should have simply built a new hole.
Having said that the new one isn't so bad and the trees growing quickly up the left side are adding something to the feel of the hole.

Andrew Summerell

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Par 3's at Peninsula North
« Reply #19 on: January 18, 2004, 11:55:22 PM »
That little depression at the front left of the green at NSW 2nd is damn annoying as well. Hit a reasonable shot centre left at the front half of the green & watch it feed back into that little depression. I can't believe how many times I've been chipping from there.

Maybe something more like the new work at the 17th would work better at the 2nd.

Matthew Delahunty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Par 3's at Peninsula North
« Reply #20 on: January 19, 2004, 01:43:20 AM »
I'm not sure what I was thinking when I put No.2 at NSW in that group. It's not in the same class as those others but I think with a better green it could be, and could definintely be better than 11 and 17.

Robert Mercer Deruntz

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Par 3's at Peninsula North
« Reply #21 on: January 19, 2004, 04:11:13 AM »
This breaking the direction the thread has taken, but I've been off line for several days and saw this post today.  I am absolutely impressed by the par 3's.  I played the South in a tournament in 2002 and thought it was much better than several top 100 US courses.  I hated 12 South, but thought there were so many great holes to make up for that weakness.  I think it should be lengthened--especially since there is room on several holes--1,2,6,10, 13, 17.  I would love to play there again next time I make that short LAX to Mel. flight!  

Matthew Mollica

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Par 3's at Peninsula North
« Reply #22 on: January 19, 2004, 07:45:05 AM »
17 at The Dunes is very good - much better than the dubious 6th.


I hear that the hole is earmarked for serious change Mike.
The tee is going to be moved forward around 50m, and the green is going to be moved onto the other side of the water, which is to be tidied up and retained.

I've always thought that the hole was a little strange in that the water looked so fake, and it was situated behind a green of relatively little depth, for a downhill 200m hole, where the best play is to run the ball in.

Tony - I like #17 at The Dunes. I think it's a really testing shot from the blacks on a windy day. Great bunkering too.

Chris - #7 at Metro has always been a hole that I've not really given much cudos. It's not too dissimilar to #12 Huntingdale for me. I'm surprised to see that you rate the hole as highly as you do, yet look down on KH #5.

RMD - Did you play the Australia Day Challenge ?

Matthew
"The truth about golf courses has a slightly different expression for every golfer. Which of them, one might ask, is without the most definitive convictions concerning the merits or deficiencies of the links he plays over? Freedom of criticism is one of the last privileges he is likely to forgo."

Shane Gurnett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Par 3's at Peninsula North
« Reply #23 on: January 20, 2004, 02:38:24 AM »
Mike, is there sufficient land on any of these par 3's to stretch them out to 190-200m in future, if need be? Say for example if they did hold a major pro event over a composite course incorporating both the South and North.


Mike_Clayton

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Par 3's at Peninsula North
« Reply #24 on: January 20, 2004, 02:53:03 AM »
Shane

The club have expressed some interest in holding an Open in the future.
The composite course which includes more holes from the South than the North would include the current 3rd South which will play around 220 yards and the 9th South which is about 200 yards with the tiny green.
The other 2 short holes would be 14 and 16 North.
That would leave a pretty good balance of shots.
There isn't much scope to lengthen the short holes on the North unless we rebuilt the 7th green and took it back 20 yards.

The routing would be
1N,18S,11S,12S,13S,9S, 10S,1S,2S,3S,4S,14N,15N,10N,9N,16N,17N and 18N