News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.

Pages: [1] 2

Jason Topp

  • Karma: +0/-0
Australian Open
« on: November 27, 2014, 12:07:19 AM »
This course looks like a US PGA Tour course.  Is it as mediocre as it looks?
Logged

RJ_Daley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Australian Open
« Reply #1 on: November 27, 2014, 12:41:18 AM »
According to Aussie commentator Wayne Grady, the Nicklaus course is a real beauty!  It defends par good enough, it seems, but sure doesn't get my Aussie archetype golf course presentation fancy tickled. 

IBF isn't exactly taking a contrary line of commentary about the course either.   I suppose no matter what these fellows in the booth think, they aren't going to criticize anything done by Jack.  I guess they just like the challenge all laid out there in front of them, straight forward, nothing to vague or quirky.  The maintenance meld, mowing patterns, bunker maintenance, greens surrounds and bunker placement relative to putting surface scream of Florida. 
Logged
No actual golf rounds were ruined or delayed, nor golf rules broken, in the taking of any photographs that may be displayed by the above forum user.

Matthew Rose

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Australian Open
« Reply #2 on: November 27, 2014, 12:49:15 AM »
Is Jack the original archie or did he bulldoze an existing layout?

Whatever they did looks very 1980s.
Logged
American-Australian. Trackman Course Guy. Fatalistic sports fan. Drummer. Bass player. Father. Cat lover.

Steve_ Shaffer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Australian Open
« Reply #3 on: November 27, 2014, 12:55:42 AM »
Logged
"Some of us worship in churches, some in synagogues, some on golf courses ... "  Adlai Stevenson
Hyman Roth to Michael Corleone: "We're bigger than US Steel."
Ben Hogan “The most important shot in golf is the next one”

Scott Warren

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Australian Open
« Reply #4 on: November 27, 2014, 03:35:07 AM »
Quote from: Jason Topp on November 27, 2014, 12:07:19 AM
Is it as mediocre as it looks?

And some.
Logged

Josh Stevens

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Australian Open
« Reply #5 on: November 27, 2014, 05:14:00 AM »
Very much the dozer alas.  The old was an treeless sandy inland links, that was dozed by Jack for this gem.  I never saw the old, but my dad though it was great

Most of Sydney is clay or rock and so not great golf country.  There is one patch of lovely undulating sand in the entire city and this is it, with The Lakes and Bonnie Doon, The Australian and maybe Royal Sydney making up in theory, Sydney's little sandbelt.  It does then seem a waste of that terrain to actually see so little exposed sand, but instead trees, wall to wall turf and ponds.

But as I commented elsewhere here, I am told the new version plays better than it looks, as while it may look American, it will probably be hard and fast, so it will be tough if the southerly gets up

But it is a pity that you tune in to see Australian golf and instead see this?  Money talks
Logged

Jon Wiggett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Australian Open
« Reply #6 on: November 27, 2014, 05:45:23 AM »
Quote from: Brian_S on November 27, 2014, 05:15:27 AM
There should be a rule against holding premium Australian pro events at courses not held in the Sand Belt or NSW. I'd love to see Rory tackling a rock hard Kingston Heath or Royal Melbourne in hot temps - I don't think he gets tested in those conditions nearly enough. The Australian should  suit him nicely.

So Barnbougle not worthy then Brian ??? Pro golf events will always follow the money which is why the RC is played at such poor venues right next to such great ones.

Jon
Logged

Josh Stevens

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Australian Open
« Reply #7 on: November 27, 2014, 05:55:36 AM »
Mike Clayton once wrote a nice hypothetical piece where he got into a detailed architectural discussion with a pine tree on the 9th hole of the Australian.  Not quite sure what he was smoking to think that one up, but it was excellent

Buggered if I can find it out on the web anymore.  Perhaps Clayts could put it back up
Logged

Thomas Dai

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Australian Open
« Reply #8 on: November 27, 2014, 06:12:24 AM »
Always enjoy watching Aussie events from the Melbourne sandbelt and one or two other courses courses. Alas not this week.
No Steve on Adam Scotts bag?
atb
Logged

Mark_F

Re: Australian Open
« Reply #9 on: November 27, 2014, 06:17:47 AM »
Quote from: Jon Wiggett on November 27, 2014, 05:45:23 AM
So Barnbougle not worthy then Brian ??? Pro golf events will always follow the money which is why the RC is played at such poor venues right next to such great ones.

Tasmania is quite a it cooler than Melbourne.  Playing a Sandbelt course in Summer with a hot northerly blowing is a completely different experience, which is what I guess Brian was getting at. 
Logged

Ronald Montesano

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Australian Open
« Reply #10 on: November 27, 2014, 06:38:20 AM »
Logged
Coming in August 2023
~Manakiki
~OSU Scarlet
~OSU Grey
~NCR South
~Springfield
~Columbus
~Lake Forest (OH)
~Sleepy Hollow (OH)

Josh Stevens

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Australian Open
« Reply #11 on: November 27, 2014, 06:55:17 AM »
Logged

Thomas Dai

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Australian Open
« Reply #12 on: November 27, 2014, 07:20:21 AM »
Logged

Tom Fagerli

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Australian Open
« Reply #13 on: November 27, 2014, 08:13:34 AM »
Logged

Josh Stevens

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Australian Open
« Reply #14 on: November 27, 2014, 08:34:54 AM »
I am told the tree did not survive Jacks recent redo.  I am sure Clayts laid a little wreath this week at the spot of his dear departed friend
Logged

Matthew Rose

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Australian Open
« Reply #15 on: November 27, 2014, 01:05:15 PM »
For whatever reason, they only hold the Open in Sydney now, which is quite a disappointing move.

I appreciate that they've started moving the Masters around to various sandbelt hosts now, but it's not the same. It's not a national open.

I'm just lucky I got to attend the Open a couple of times when they still played it in Victoria.


Logged
American-Australian. Trackman Course Guy. Fatalistic sports fan. Drummer. Bass player. Father. Cat lover.

Josh Stevens

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Australian Open
« Reply #16 on: November 27, 2014, 02:31:02 PM »
Ironically it was the Australian that was the original cause of it becoming a Sydney centric event

The open always  roamed around the country historically, but following the 1974 event at Lake Karrinyup, it was captured by the commercial interests of Kerry Packer and played at the Australian four years running.  The AGU managed to wrest control back, but as a sop to his TV rights, it was shared between Sydney and Melbourne up until the 98 event at Royal Adelaide, and then there were a few silly years like the event at The Grand, and Moonah before heading to Sydney and staying there

It simply lacks the commercial backing to go where it pleases and will always be beholden to who pays the most and that for the moment is Sydney.

Its a bit of a rivalry thing.  Melbourne boasts of being the sporting capital of the country as it holds the Open Tennis, AFL, F1 Grand Prix and of course held the Olympics years before Sydney did.  So it seems the golf open is the one event they feel they can take.

Its a bit pathetic but money talks.  There is a constant push to get it back on the road, but the economics don't stack up.
Even the Perth International had to bow to commercial reality and play the weekend according to the east coast time zone so that the event wrapped up before the 6pm Sydney news.
Logged

Mike_Clayton

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Australian Open
« Reply #17 on: November 27, 2014, 03:06:21 PM »
I did have a few friendly arguments with one particular member about the trees at 9 (and 5 which also went) and he was a staunch defender of them and the double hazard created by the combination of trees and bunker.
I have not seen him this week but I'm sure he would be less inclined to be so stringent in his views if he was arguing with Jack who - obviously agreed with the point I had made.
Logged

Josh Stevens

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Australian Open
« Reply #18 on: November 27, 2014, 04:12:34 PM »
No wreath then?

So does it play better than it looks?
Logged

Mike_Clayton

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Australian Open
« Reply #19 on: November 27, 2014, 06:27:35 PM »
Yes.
Logged

Joe Sponcia

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Australian Open
« Reply #20 on: November 27, 2014, 07:12:26 PM »
Mike,

Great piece of writing. 

"...A clear shot from a poor angle" and the quote from Geoff Ogilvy was priceless.

Thanks
Logged
Joe

https://pillarsofgolf.wordpress.com

"If the hole is well designed, a fairway can't be too wide". - Mike Nuzzo

Matthew Essig

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Australian Open
« Reply #21 on: November 27, 2014, 07:28:23 PM »
Sometimes, threads like this make me sad about our idealist view of golf course architecture on this site. Fairly narrow-minded... Just because this course isn't a links or links-style course on a sand belt, the course is instantly labeled mediocre.

Sure, if it was a links or links-style course, it would be a better use of the land, and would most likely be a better course, but it isn't. So can we review the work that is there?

ANGC and Cypress Point are probably both tens in everybody's book, and Bethpage is up there, too, yet they are green, with pure white bunkers and are built on a hill. How does the course compare to those?

I don't mean harm. I would prefer if it was a links or links-style course, too. Just would like a meaningful discussion then just straight bashing.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2014, 07:30:31 PM by Matthew Essig »
Logged
"Good GCA should offer an interesting golfing challenge to the golfer not a difficult golfing challenge." Jon Wiggett

BHoover

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Australian Open
« Reply #22 on: November 27, 2014, 08:37:46 PM »
Completely agree, Matthew. I don't necessarily dislike this course. It looks like lots of US-style courses, but it also appears to be playing fairly firm and fast, which is not the case week-in and week-out on the PGA Tour. It's also producing a good leaderboard, so there's definitely something to be said for that.
Logged

Jason Topp

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Australian Open
« Reply #23 on: November 27, 2014, 10:58:40 PM »
Quote from: Matthew Essig on November 27, 2014, 07:28:23 PM
Sometimes, threads like this make me sad about our idealist view of golf course architecture on this site. Fairly narrow-minded... Just because this course isn't a links or links-style course on a sand belt, the course is instantly labeled mediocre.

Sure, if it was a links or links-style course, it would be a better use of the land, and would most likely be a better course, but it isn't. So can we review the work that is there?



OK.  I started the thread and did not want to express opinions based solely on television but I am happy to enumerate my impressions based on a day and a half of viewing.  Others who have seen the place should correct me if my impressions are wrong.

1.  This course appears to rely primarily on small perched greens with extreme undulation for its defense.  The greens seem similar to a million us courses from Nicklaus' nasty design period which are nearly impossible for most amateurs to play and pretty comfortable for top professionals to play.  That is the opposite of the design ideal espoused by Mackenzie and others.

2.  The use of water as a significant hazard in the form of ponds is to my mind a lazy way to defend a golf course.  It also does not look like a natural approach on this site.  Ponds force the average player to play extraordinarily safely if he wants to minimize score.  If these have been artificially based I see it as a shortcoming.

3.  The course looks like a US course.  I prefer a course to reflect its location.

4.  The fairways appear narrowed beyond the original design idea.  Many bunkers appear hidden in the rough.  At least the rough looks light.

5.  The course stands in sharp contrast to the other Sydney venue that hosted the Australian Open last year in terms of looks, playability and interest. 
Logged

David_Elvins

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Australian Open
« Reply #24 on: November 27, 2014, 11:54:07 PM »

Jason,

The course is very playable.  Whilst there is a lot of water on the course, all of it is green side.  With the light rough, lack of dense vegetation, and no forced caries, it is really easy for anyone to to keep there ball in play until they approach the green.  Even then, moderate control of your golf ball and conservative play should keep your ball dry.  From what I have heard and observed, the older members and lady members do not get beat up. 

I also wouldn't say that the contours in the greens are over done.  In fact they make the golf course interesting in a way that Jack's previous incarnation of the course did not. 

The American style of the course is a double edged sword. With so few of the top Australian courses having an American style it offers a great point of difference for the members and their guests.  However the course is unlikely to offer anything of interest for the touring American as they have likely seen it all before. 

I enjoy the course but it doesn't inspire me, there are interesting shots but no great holes. I can understand that those who like a more prescriptive style of architecture where the course tells them what shot to play would enjoy the course more than me. 

Oh and visually,  think it is pretty average to my eye.  Some irony that Nicklaus lobbied to update the style of the course because the 70s style was outdated and ended up giving them an 80s style instead. 
Logged
Ask not what GolfClubAtlas can do for you; ask what you can do for GolfClubAtlas.
Pages: [1] 2
Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back