News:

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


Mark_F

An Analysis of TWPs Moonah Links
« on: November 25, 2002, 07:52:42 PM »
Responding to the unbridled challenge thrown down by Rick Hart, who appears to perceive a palpable bias against TWPs work on this site, I, a GCA "newbie", will humbly attempt to dissect the course fondly referred to as "The Leviathan" by its creator, in the hope that not only will I be reassuring Mr Hart that we are all fair-minded people on this side of the equator, but learn something from others who have played the course and comment on my observations, as well as those who haven't and comment on my conclusions.

First, though, some context.  Sites like ML, one of gloriously rolling sand dunes, are few and far between.  More so, if they do become golf courses, then they are rarely the type of developments where Joe Public can swagger onto the first tee after stumbling from his ute after a hard day's work.

The excitement, then, when it was announced that Peter Thomson, surely one of the most cerebral golfers of all time, would apply his talents to this stretch of land for the benefit of the great unwashed, was intense.  

Yet in designing a course to test the modern day champions, clever old Pete seems to have fallen into the trap in believing that length is all that is required, and has given birth, after a short labour and no anesthetic, to a 6822 METRE monster.  Presumably, then, when Adam Scott reached the 558 metre 9th at Victoria with a drive and 2-iron last week, it was purely due to the ingestion of substances formerly widely used by East German female olympians.  Ditto Charles Howell and Rich Beem, who also eagled the hole on the same day.  Meanwhile, the 292 metre 15th, surely a hole only Rambo could defend, averaged right on its par.

So Thommo's first mistake, surely, was to build a course with four par fives?  It follows, then, that his second was making three of them, 491 down then up metres, 517 flat metres, 557 sharply downhill metres, easily reachable.  I know this is the type of location that would have Burt Reynolds and Ted Danson scurrying for the cap stand seconds after arrival, but I bet they still average under par the whole tournament.  I'm even willing to bet that the 582 metre 18th will be hit in two, or someone will be pin high, during the tournament.  When you watch Aaron Baddeley casually bludgeon a 320 metre drive on Kingston Heath's tight 11th hole, even my hopeless maths screams "reachable".

Thommo's third mistake was to construct three of those par fives with a similar green complex: a shelf green guarded by a solitary bunker, although Greg Norman, if he is in a generous mood, may donate the services of his Aust. bodyguard.  

His fourth mistake was to have exactly the same type of tee-to-green conundrum on all four par fives.  Bunkers guarding the ideal line, bunkers guarding the not ideal line, a minefield that would no doubt have Princess Diana, Lord save her soul, popping up on TV campaigning for their removal, guarding the ideal and not so ideal second shot, and the aforementioned green sites.  Hopefully, you can detect a distinct whiff of lack of variety by now.  

Mistake number five was to build three par threes of similar length, 167, 174 and 185 metres, with the other one 200.  

Mistake number six was to build bunkers, that, from the back tees, are hardly going to stretch the pros.  253 metres on the 517 M par 5 2nd, 283 downhill metres on the par 5 4th, 253 again on the 428 M 8th, 253 again on the 355 M 14th, and, just for variety's sake, 250 on the 411M 16th.  Some of the others are a little longer, some a lot, but this is supposed to be a course to sort the men from the boys, the hoods from the boy scouts.  I'm putting in a tender for the toilet paper concession on the 2nd tee, because I know I'll sell enough to buy my own piece of Mornington Peninsula dunesland.  

On an aesthetic level, with but a handful of exceptions, the bunkering is awful.  Most of them look to have been gouged from the earth with a gigantic ice cream scoop.  Many have no relationship with the surrounding terrain.  On the par 3 17th, a wide but shallow green has two skinny finger-shaped bunkers pointing lengthways towards the tee.  They belong there as much as Madonna belongs on a movie set.

There are some nice holes, though.  The 3rd, 8th, 12th and 16th seem to work better, but on a piece of land like this, there should be more.  There's none of the craft or guile one would expect.  Whether this is Thommo's statement on the intellect of the modern professional is, of course, a matter for debate.   (As is whether it will stay in good condition, given the only people who can afford to play it wear purple shirts and white trousers.  And no,  I don't mean Aaron Baddeley).


« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Brian Walshe

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: An Analysis of TWPs Moonah Links
« Reply #1 on: November 26, 2002, 05:04:22 AM »
Mark,

Interesting analysis.

I'd rather explain it this way.  If I play Royal Melbourne West I can spend 30 mins wandering around the 3rd green admiring how cunning the defence of such a short hole has been constructed by the use of a bunker or two on one side only.  Slope, swale and sand in perfect harmony.  Likewise I stand on the 5th tee and look at what I think is one of the most beautiful and simple par 3's built.  You can continue to admire holes like 4, 6, 10, 11, 12, 16 and 18 for hours.  Every time I stand on the 17th tee I am just amazed at how it offers you so many places to hit the ball but yet the closer you get to that second bunker on the left, the one you can't quite see, how much easier the second shot is.  Then there is the green with the magnificent bunkering on the right that seamlessly melds into the scrub.

Likewise a walk around New South Wales, Kingston Heath, Victoria, Royal Adelaide, the much under rated Woodlands or any one of another 6 or 7 other courses in this country is just such a joy for everyone from the hacker to the pro.  Unfortunately I don't think you can add Moonah Links to that company.  It's a dour, serious, extremely long and difficult course without any of the small subtleties, the grand adventures in a couple of tiny square metres that separate the great from the rest.  It's not a bad course, it's just not a great one.

Brian
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Justin_Ryan

Re: An Analysis of TWPs Moonah Links
« Reply #2 on: November 26, 2002, 06:25:59 PM »
I think a greater part of the criticism levelled against TWP on this site is a result of their effort on the Ocean course at The National, especially as a reasonable proportion of Australian posters on this site are members or play there regularly.  Given the terrific site and the resources they had to work with, this is quite possibly the most disappointing course ever built in Australia.  Most members I know refuse to play it, except when forced to in major events such as club championships, and only then through gritted teeth.

The routing is uninteresting, the bunkering generally of the unnatural looking TWP genre, with a few oddly natural looking exceptions and the greens are problematic at best, with the slope necessitating they be maintained at slower speeds than the adjacent two courses.  There were such problems with the greens that a number had to be modified with months of the opening of the course.  It is apparent though that they learnt something from these errors and made some appropriate changes at Moonah Links before opening it.  It also fails completely as a strategic test, with the bunkering either random or purely penal.  To top off this sorry effort they also managed to make a major mess of the practice fairway as well.  This all adds up to a course on a site where the general expectation was a course amongst the top 10 was expected, but instead, somewhat amazingly, a course lucky to be in the top 50 was delivered.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Mark_F

Re: An Analysis of TWPs Moonah Links
« Reply #3 on: November 26, 2002, 07:08:14 PM »
Eloquently, poetically, perfectly put, Brian.  (as opposed to my demonic rantings)
The mystery is why someone as erudite and cerebral as Peter Thomson fell into such a simple trap?  
Quote
Mark,

Interesting analysis.

I'd rather explain it this way.  If I play Royal Melbourne West I can spend 30 mins wandering around the 3rd green admiring how cunning the defence of such a short hole has been constructed by the use of a bunker or two on one side only.  Slope, swale and sand in perfect harmony.  Likewise I stand on the 5th tee and look at what I think is one of the most beautiful and simple par 3's built.  You can continue to admire holes like 4, 6, 10, 11, 12, 16 and 18 for hours.  Every time I stand on the 17th tee I am just amazed at how it offers you so many places to hit the ball but yet the closer you get to that second bunker on the left, the one you can't quite see, how much easier the second shot is.  Then there is the green with the magnificent bunkering on the right that seamlessly melds into the scrub.

Likewise a walk around New South Wales, Kingston Heath, Victoria, Royal Adelaide, the much under rated Woodlands or any one of another 6 or 7 other courses in this country is just such a joy for everyone from the hacker to the pro.  Unfortunately I don't think you can add Moonah Links to that company.  It's a dour, serious, extremely long and difficult course without any of the small subtleties, the grand adventures in a couple of tiny square metres that separate the great from the rest.  It's not a bad course, it's just not a great one.

Brian

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Mark_F

Re: An Analysis of TWPs Moonah Links
« Reply #4 on: November 26, 2002, 07:12:24 PM »
Just tell the members to keep the Ocean Course for Misters Molloy and Sitch and their guests.  :)
But everything you said applies equally as well to ML, doesn't it?  I thought it was intelligent men that learnt from their mistakes?
It's a raging crime that, for the purposes the course was constructed for, all of the great minds available couldn't have some sort of input.  Just imagine how much better the bunkers would look, at least, if Graeme Grant was able to put his two cents worth in.
Quote
I think a greater part of the criticism levelled against TWP on this site is a result of their effort on the Ocean course at The National, especially as a reasonable proportion of Australian posters on this site are members or play there regularly.  Given the terrific site and the resources they had to work with, this is quite possibly the most disappointing course ever built in Australia.  Most members I know refuse to play it, except when forced to in major events such as club championships, and only then through gritted teeth.

The routing is uninteresting, the bunkering generally of the unnatural looking TWP genre, with a few oddly natural looking exceptions and the greens are problematic at best, with the slope necessitating they be maintained at slower speeds than the adjacent two courses.  There were such problems with the greens that a number had to be modified with months of the opening of the course.  It is apparent though that they learnt something from these errors and made some appropriate changes at Moonah Links before opening it.  It also fails completely as a strategic test, with the bunkering either random or purely penal.  To top off this sorry effort they also managed to make a major mess of the practice fairway as well.  This all adds up to a course on a site where the general expectation was a course amongst the top 10 was expected, but instead, somewhat amazingly, a course lucky to be in the top 50 was delivered.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Shane Gurnett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: An Analysis of TWPs Moonah Links
« Reply #5 on: November 27, 2002, 04:15:14 AM »
Mark.

I approached ML with low expectations, particularly after having played the Ocean National course (also TWP) and walking away somewhat disappointed.  

I actually thought ML wasn't all that bad, and in parts offers some points of interest. ML is clearly designed for tournament play, but at the same time it needs a steady throughput of hackers to pay the bills. I can therefore understand the reasoning behind the length issue, and why it differs from what is on offer from say 13th Beach, Ranfurlie or (the new) Portsea for example, which are certainly more fun.

The problem I have with the set up down there is that I struggle to see how they will generate repeat business with their pricing structure. I know a lot of people who have played their once (many were gratis so the club got nothing out of them) but almost all have not returned. Maybe its an issue with opening the course without the clubhouse being completed. Time will tell.

On balance I think the course will achieve most of what it set out to do (long, solid test for tournament golf) if it survives the financial difficulties which many think will apply. Bringing the open to ML may be its saviour, but its hard to see how it adds to the overall quality of courses in Victoria, where admittedly the standard is very high. Could they have gotten more out of the land? Probably. I'll be interested to see how it looks in 5 years time when the housing closes in. Not very "linksy", I'd imagine.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Greg Ramsay

Re: An Analysis of TWPs Moonah Links
« Reply #6 on: November 27, 2002, 04:59:05 AM »
Brian, Mark, Justin

I am not really commenting about ML directly, b/c i haven't played it myself, nor the Ocean course at the National.  But the following desciption sounds to me like Britain's no.1 course (which i have played and studied several times)
"It's a dour, serious, extremely long and difficult course without any of the small subtleties, the grand adventures in a couple of tiny square metres that separate the great from the rest.  It's not a bad course, it's just not a great one."
If ML reaches the lofty heights of Muirfield's No.1 ranking in Britain ahead of so many other gems- then perhaps it is us who are missing the point.

I hope ML proves to be a wonderful championship venue, but perhaps with so much difference now between professional and club golf, we need separate rankings&considerations.  Perhaps even in the US they need a new category of 'Championship' ranking.  Perhaps the extended Bethpage is a better challenge to the pros than Merion is, but Merion is a better test to all.  Perhaps ML is a better test to the pros than Woodlands is, but Woodlands is a better test to all.  Having said all this.  

I really wish the experiment at Vic GC had worked, b/c hard and fast really is a better way to test both pros and all golfers than length is.  I think we really need to re-tune our perceptions as to what golf is.  Seve Ballesteros would never have been a household name if the current attitude to tournament golf had existed in the 70's&80's

Greg
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tom Doak

Re: An Analysis of TWPs Moonah Links
« Reply #7 on: November 27, 2002, 05:10:52 AM »
Greg,

That's the first and last time Moonah Links will be compared with Muirfield -- quite a stretch since you've never seen ML!

Sad to say I have never seen it either, despite its being right across the street from our future project at St. Andrews Beach.  No one has said anything about it yet to make me want to go!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Peter Goss

Re: An Analysis of TWPs Moonah Links
« Reply #8 on: November 27, 2002, 05:31:53 AM »
I have  a game planned at both Moonah Links (TWP) and Moonah National (Norman) this weekend. I've played ML once - it has strengths and weaknesses - balls funneling to common positions off the drive and lack of a short par 3 included. But I did not find it long despite not being a long hitter; I found plenty of strategic challenges; I was not offended by the grassed faced bunkers (not my first preference but uniformity of bunkering styles would be boring) and I thoroughly enjoyed my round. It will make a very good spectator venue for a championship because of the topography - no doubts about being able to watch Tiger unimpeded if he does come!
Where will you spend your spare time on your trip Tom Doak - playing an old favourite or exploring a new course? You are always very welcome at Royal Sale  ;D- could always add Royal Warragul in on the way home (Danny?) ;)
I'll post of my experiences on the two courses next week.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

corey miller

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: An Analysis of TWPs Moonah Links
« Reply #9 on: November 27, 2002, 07:40:40 AM »
I played the open course last year and thought it was okay, about a 5 on the Doak scale.  If I remember correctly some said it was a 0-1 and even said this was Tom D evaluation.  I guess they were wrong as Tom has not seen the course(perhaps it says something he hasn't)

Anyway, guys in Australia should be happy with open courses rather than the disfiguring of the classics.  I wouldd support the same thing here in the us. Nothing is more absurd than the championship course designation.  I think i know what it means. :o  Yesterday, I had a conversation on a course about how some holes were not "championship holes"  What does that mean ???
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Mark_F

Re: An Analysis of TWPs Moonah Links
« Reply #10 on: November 27, 2002, 09:19:33 PM »
Peter,

Yes, that's the other strange thing about ML, it doesn't "seem" as long as it is, but some of the carries from the white tees require a perfect centre hit to clear for us mere mortals, yet from the back, I don't know that a lot of the carries will really figure in the minds of the pros.


Quote
I have  a game planned at both Moonah Links (TWP) and Moonah National (Norman) this weekend. I've played ML once - it has strengths and weaknesses - balls funneling to common positions off the drive and lack of a short par 3 included. But I did not find it long despite not being a long hitter; I found plenty of strategic challenges; I was not offended by the grassed faced bunkers (not my first preference but uniformity of bunkering styles would be boring) and I thoroughly enjoyed my round. It will make a very good spectator venue for a championship because of the topography - no doubts about being able to watch Tiger unimpeded if he does come!
Where will you spend your spare time on your trip Tom Doak - playing an old favourite or exploring a new course? You are always very welcome at Royal Sale  ;D- could always add Royal Warragul in on the way home (Danny?) ;)
I'll post of my experiences on the two courses next week.

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Greg Ramsay

Re: An Analysis of TWPs Moonah Links
« Reply #11 on: November 27, 2002, 09:23:20 PM »
Tom, i'm sure you understand the comparison- I was comparing the description of ML by Mark as being dour and serious. To me Muirfield is not as interesting as many of the other links courses of GB&I, it is not very stimulating, strategically thought provoking, or entertaining.  It is a good, fair, challenging test of golf.  It just happens to be ranked no.1 in GB&I, and who knows, perhaps if ML hosts some memorable Australian Opens, then it too will gain acclaim as a marvellous championship golf course.  But, it may never have the intrinsic inspiration and strategy that Woodlands can provide to the club golfer.  

Greg Ramsay
www.barnbougledunes.com

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Mark_F

Re: An Analysis of TWPs Moonah Links
« Reply #12 on: November 27, 2002, 09:27:47 PM »
Shane,
I believe they are putting all their faith in the old reliable corporate sector.  Same as you, I know quite a few people who have sampled it once, with no plans to return.  They all feel that it is inferior to The Dunes, which of course is half the price and two minutes' drive away.  

And the price is supposed to be $100 a round when the clubhouse is finished, I believe.

It does have its interesting points.  I quite liked five holes, but I guess the whole "debate" about ML is that it isn't as good as it "should" be, and it still seems strange to me that such a clever, thoughtful golfer as PT has resorted to a John Daly design, and not a mensa one.

Quote
Mark.

I approached ML with low expectations, particularly after having played the Ocean National course (also TWP) and walking away somewhat disappointed.  

I actually thought ML wasn't all that bad, and in parts offers some points of interest. ML is clearly designed for tournament play, but at the same time it needs a steady throughput of hackers to pay the bills. I can therefore understand the reasoning behind the length issue, and why it differs from what is on offer from say 13th Beach, Ranfurlie or (the new) Portsea for example, which are certainly more fun.

The problem I have with the set up down there is that I struggle to see how they will generate repeat business with their pricing structure. I know a lot of people who have played their once (many were gratis so the club got nothing out of them) but almost all have not returned. Maybe its an issue with opening the course without the clubhouse being completed. Time will tell.

On balance I think the course will achieve most of what it set out to do (long, solid test for tournament golf) if it survives the financial difficulties which many think will apply. Bringing the open to ML may be its saviour, but its hard to see how it adds to the overall quality of courses in Victoria, where admittedly the standard is very high. Could they have gotten more out of the land? Probably. I'll be interested to see how it looks in 5 years time when the housing closes in. Not very "linksy", I'd imagine.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Shane Gurnett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: An Analysis of TWPs Moonah Links
« Reply #13 on: November 28, 2002, 12:01:07 AM »
Mark. Mornignton Peninsula courses relying on the corporate trade is fraught with danger simply becasue of the distance and inconvenience factor. Corporate golf down there is a full days play, rather than a half day on any of the sandbelt courses, where one can work all morning and then be hitting of half an hour later just after midday. No such luxury at ML, or for that matter the National/Dunes. It also means that a lot of people will commit to a corporate day at the National/Dunes/ML, but the full day means a lot of late cancellations, which mucks up the filed. I know of two companies who had such days at the National last year, and this year will be returning to the Sandbelt where a) the cost is about the same, maybe less, b) the travel time and distance is about a third of that to get to the Mornington Peninsula, and c) the client strike rate of attending is much, much higher.

If ML goes down the corporate route, in my view the National and the Dunes will be their biggest competitiors, which means they would have to sacrifice their pricing to get appropriate throughput. The market just aint that big at present And if cost cutting is what it takes, then they should be doing it for all their green fee players as well. Why would you pay $100 to play ML once, when its gets you two games at the Dunes?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

B. Mogg

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: An Analysis of TWPs Moonah Links
« Reply #14 on: November 28, 2002, 12:44:36 AM »
Tom,

That throwaway comment is not like you - or is it?  ;). I think the course is certainly worth a look, it's certainly not as bad as made out here, Melbournites are spoilt for choice. The course was set up to serve as an Australian open venue first and daily fee course second....difficult to make those 2 work at the same time (although not impossible).

I like the look of the new Legends course planned there, it is on more interesting terrain with some very un-TWP bunkering.

Brett
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

shuggie

Re: An Analysis of TWPs Moonah Links
« Reply #15 on: November 28, 2002, 04:47:08 AM »
I think you will find that the Legends course is quite a change from the standard TWP offering. This time it's P's turn and from what I have seen it is looking very good.
My view is that it will be the best of the TWP's on offer in this part of the world. ;D
I know a lot of people are harsh on the Ocean :-/, but it does have some great holes and for me some of the best 3's you will play :D, sure it's hard when it blows, but then so is Royal Troon, Turnberry and Prestwick. :'(
I have played the Moonah and then jumped to the Ocean quite a few times on the same day, when you do that you get a great perspective on both and a wonderful comparison in the same conditions.  8)
I think a lot of the criticism of the Ocean is harsh, sure if it's your only game for the week and you get there and it's blowing and you may not have played the course for 6 weeks, you are going to struggle. But it is almost links golf and with that you get a few bounces, some good and some bad. Some of the greens have false fronts, so there is a lot more strategy required on the ocean to play it well, and you have got to know the greens  :-X
As you said we are spoiled for choice. ???
I might shout Tom a game there and see what he thinks. ;)
 
Quote
Tom,

That throwaway comment is not like you - or is it?  ;). I think the course is certainly worth a look, it's certainly not as bad as made out here, Melbournites are spoilt for choice. The course was set up to serve as an Australian open venue first and daily fee course second....difficult to make those 2 work at the same time (although not impossible).

I like the look of the new Legends course planned there, it is on more interesting terrain with some very un-TWP bunkering.

Brett
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Brian Walshe

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: An Analysis of TWPs Moonah Links
« Reply #16 on: November 28, 2002, 06:06:26 AM »
Arch,

I don't think the fly even need hit the water on that one.  I'll take the hook and ask the question.  Which par 3's on the Ocean are "some of the best you'll play"?

Brian

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

shuggie

Re: An Analysis of TWPs Moonah Links
« Reply #17 on: November 28, 2002, 06:10:40 PM »
Brian,
I am talking about the 3rd this is one of the best par 3's you will play anywhere in the world, there are many ways to play it. As you come off the 2nd green and look right you see the green and the horizon with another flag perched in the distance, you can bail out left, or feed it in from the left, but don't hit it right.  ;D
The 9th is hard, but again a great test especially when you get above the hole.  :-[
The 11th is an outstanding hole, elevated tee position to a 2 club green sitting slightly across you with the wind coming over your left shoulder - just wants to make you hit a little draw and feed it up to the flag, and 14 where again you have to hit a great shot and pick the right club.
For me the Par 3's on the Ocean are outstanding and are way ahead of the 3's on the Moonah. :o
But again I make the point that we are spoiled by choice and quality at the National. :-/
just my opinion.... ???
Arch
Quote
Arch,

I don't think the fly even need hit the water on that one.  I'll take the hook and ask the question.  Which par 3's on the Ocean are "some of the best you'll play"?

Brian


« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Justin_Ryan

Re: An Analysis of TWPs Moonah Links
« Reply #18 on: November 29, 2002, 04:05:04 AM »
Arch
The 3rd hole on the Ocean course is OK, which makes it amongst the best three holes on the entire course for mine.  But any designer can design one green behind the other so you can see two pins.  What would be impressive would be if he could make the bunkering on separate holes join up like a jigsaw.  The 11th is my pick, with an unusually good green.  If they could just fill in the first of the two bunkers down the left hand side it would be improved further, offering an interesting bump and run option to the front pin positions.  You are the first person I have heard of that doesn't hate the 9th hole with a passion, it is an absolute shocker.  An uphill 200 metre par three with no option to run the ball up and a green that won't take a long iron.  Sure it is tough, that is a factor of its dreadful design.  14 is an average hole with a below average green.  Indeed, since opening they have modified the front of the green, building what could only be described as a catch basin at the front to stop balls from rolling off.  I can't say I have ever seen anything like it.

Sure it can be a tough course, but I think you are overstating it a bit.  I have always found it the easiest of the three courses in difficult conditions as the greens are cut higher than the other two and there is much more fairway.  And I'm not sure how the repetitive use of false fronts passes for strategy, especially when they are so obvious.

I too have heard that P's Legends is looking like it will be a better course than T&W's efforts, but speaking today to an informed source who has seen them all, he said that it wasn't that good either, so I guess it's all relative.

And I'm not sure it is really valid comparing Ocean with Royal Troon, Turnberry and Prestwick either.  From what I've heard, those are good courses.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:11 PM by -1 »

Brian Walshe

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: An Analysis of TWPs Moonah Links
« Reply #19 on: November 29, 2002, 05:07:08 AM »
Arch,

You are obviously a big fan of the Ocean.  I like 11, in fact I think it's the best hole on the course and without doubt the best green.

3 I'm less convinced about.  If it was 130-140m I'd be a fan but at 180m I don't think the green works that well. My major issue is that hitting and holding the right hand side of the green is near impossible with a 3 or 4 iron yet would be possible with an 8 or 9 iron opening up lots more possibilites in how you played the hole.  

14 I'm ambivalent about.  As you point out you need the right club but a concern I have is that there is no where to miss it that gives you a chance to scramble a par, in the same way as you talk about with being short and left on the 3rd.  I think a great par 3 needs a little more than "hit a great shot and pick the right club."

9 I have a major problem with.  Uphill, 200m and no way of running the ball up.  If you carry the front bunkers you invariably can't hold the green and end up thru the back, which as you point out, is not good.  Tough is OK, impossible is a bit silly.  If the front left bunker was filled in allowing you to run the ball up it would be a far better hole.  If you ran stats on the percentage of players who hit the green in reg on this hole I'm betting that off the blacks you 'd see a figure in the low single figures at best.

Brian

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tom Doak

Re: An Analysis of TWPs Moonah Links
« Reply #20 on: November 29, 2002, 03:19:40 PM »
I'm only going to be in Melbourne two days on this trip, and although I appreciate the offers for golf, I think I will stick to the business of flagging bunkers placements at St. Andrews Beach.  (Perhaps with some clubs on my shoulder.)

Brett, glad to hear you think Moonah Links has some positives.  Maybe I'll get over there to walk it.  Are you going to be around Melbourne anytime soon?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Peter Goss

Re: An Analysis of TWPs Moonah Links
« Reply #21 on: December 02, 2002, 06:46:40 AM »
Well, I have just completed a three day weekend featuring the National Moonah , Eagle Ridge and Moonah Links.
First the Norman course - loved the bunkers - rugged, great ambiance. Greens sometimes too severe to be receptive to a good shot with the degree of wind about. Some very narrow fairways and more common landing areas than Moonah Links. Has imposed himself on a few areas with tops cut off hills for tees etc. Great finishing holes though again pretty severe on the green slopes. Most disappointing aspect - the attempt to become more rugged than natural with some very unnatural looking excavator holes on the rear of some holes such as 3rd and a repeating shot of playing to an eleatved green over a defending bunker with the bottom of the pin not visible. Doak rating 6. Had a great time and scored well.
Eagle Ridge - why has not someone gone to town on this disaster? A tiny cramped block of land, flowers everywhere, lakes, lamp-posts, even a waterfall! Strategic value zero, eclectic bunker styles currently under "renovation " to make it worse. Could not be worse than Hidden Valley. Wish I'd taken the camera. Doak scale 0. Beer was cold at the end of the day at least. Who is the architect responsible?
Moonak Links - total disagreement on most of the stuff published on this site. 2nd time around the course for me and the better for it. Some not so interesting holes, many very good holes and a day of plotting my way around (a similar feeling at the Old Course). Plenty of Valley of Sins, plenty of bunkers right where you want to land (?McKenzie quote), very good green complexes, some fairways 100m wide, much shorter rough than National. I played from the whites and length was not a question. I played every club in the bag and a great variety of shots (chip, pitch lob, knock down etc). A great course and the potential for great championships. I'd go back again at the drop of a hat. Scored worse than National Moonah because my short game was poorer and I was found out. Nonetheless, thoroughly enjoyed it and I have great trouble understanding some comments made about the course. For me Doak scale 8
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Chris Kane

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: An Analysis of TWPs Moonah Links
« Reply #22 on: December 02, 2002, 01:45:02 PM »
Peter,

I'm not going to argue with you (my feelings about Moonah Links are already known here), but I have trouble with your Doak Scale rating of 8.  

To put it into perspective:
8 would put it on par with courses such as Kingston Heath, Royal Adelaide, the (old) Commonwealth etc., and ahead of courses like RM East, Victoria and Metropolitan.

8 is a very, very high score: Do you really think it is that good?    

For the sake of comparison, what is the Ocean course at the National on your Doak Scale?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:12 PM by -1 »

Richard Chamberlain

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: An Analysis of TWPs Moonah Links
« Reply #23 on: December 02, 2002, 04:02:48 PM »
Peter

Not sure if the question regarding the Eagle Ridge designer is a bait, as it was wrapped in the same sentence as Hidden Valley, but I think you'll find it was the same team at Pacific Coast Design.
Is popeye involved in the renovation ?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Danny Goss

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: An Analysis of TWPs Moonah Links
« Reply #24 on: December 02, 2002, 05:46:58 PM »
Peter,

I tend to agree with Chris  ;D  Surely its not an 8?

You are about the only one that visits this site who really rates the place. Do you think there is a bias here towards TWP?

Having not played the place its hard to comment. However surely there must be more to a great course than  length and pot bunkers. As it was designed to be a "Championship" course (whatever that is) maybe the ordinary punters were overlooked and it may be OK for an Open.

Looking at the prospectus for St Andrews Beach today there is going to be a lot of competition down there on the Peninsula.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:12 PM by -1 »

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back