News:

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


Chris Kane

  • Karma: +0/-0
The National Moonah: one year on
« on: March 25, 2003, 01:59:47 AM »
The National GC, Australia (Moonah and Ocean)

It's been a year since Shane_g posed the question about just how good the Moonah course at The National is?  Responses ranged from "Royal Melbourne West isn't necessarily better" to "boring and over-rated".

Shane asked another interesting question: will the Moonah "be another that has stormed onto the scene in a wave of glory, only to steadily fall from favour with the passage of time?"

Last year, at the time of that thread, the hype machine was in full swing.  People were talking of the course being the best in the country.  But how is the course viewed now?  It's only been a year, but is this course another Hope Island (bursting onto the scene and disappearing after a few years)?  I don't know about that, but I'd be interesting to see where you consider it among the upper echelon of Australian courses.

Is it worthy of being spoken of next to the likes of RMW, RME, Kingston Heath, New South Wales and Royal Adelaide?  Is it just below that level?  Miles below that level?  Or does it compare favourably against those famous courses?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Matthew Mollica

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The National Moonah: one year on
« Reply #1 on: March 25, 2003, 08:17:54 PM »

Chris,

I was a little hesitant to post my thoughts here given the potential for it to be seen as a biased view. I really donít think I provide a colored point of view on the course, and Iím qualified to give an experienced playerís perspective Ė so here goes. Many of you will know that Iíve posted a lengthy review of The National Moonah here at GCA under the ďMy Home CourseĒ section of the site.  Iíve been playing the course, at least once a month since Opening day, several years ago. As a member, I was happy to see it rated highly, and to see so much positive press about the course.

It is a really good exercise to review all that now. Indeed, Iíve had great pleasure reading over Shaneís original post, to which Chris refers. Iíd joined GCA after Shaneís original post, so it has been nice to review all that information. Anyway Ė to the course. Firstly, I must say, that mention of Royal Melbourne in the same discussion is just not right. The courses are both big in scale, but thatís about it. Royal Melbourne West is one of the greatest courses on earth, with East also being a genuine national asset. Some may argue that Moonah is probably a bit over-rated in the nationís top ten. I think itís pretty close to where it should be with regard to standing / reputation in this country.

The collection of par 3ís at Moonah leaves some flat Ė a sentiment I can understand. I personally like most of them, and canít see how people donít rave about #5. Positioned at the high point of the property, and usually requiring a lofted club, itís played in a prevailing crosswind. One must either elect to hit a low punch that grips the green, or skips to the hole, or play a lofted shot, and hold their nerve when starting the ball over trouble. The hole features good bunkering, and a good green boasting some subtle and not-so-subtle movement. Plenty of options around the green for the up and down play too. The vista is great from the green, with several neighboring holes, and Bass Straight all visible. It is not as visually striking from the tee as #8, but I donít perceive that as a weakness.

Many are critical of the long slog home, from 14 on. I appreciate this perspective. All play pretty much into a prevailing southerly, or with such a wind from a hurting quarter. They are predominantly long par fours, and a 510m par five, which often make one happy to survive with bogey, and move to the next tee. This little black duck has come through that stretch 2 better than par (with a hícap of 10 at the time), when the north wind was blowing. Interestingly, that day saw the front nine play really hard. So, the course is elastic. One must post a score on the front side with a southerly blowing. Intended strategy or design weakness? I can think of lots of great courses where routing dictates such an approach to scoring.

I think Norman and Harrison design good par fives on the whole. The only really weak shot on any of them is the second on #12, as Brian Walshe said a while back.  Part of that is due to the Clubís loss of an appeal to local council to have the maintenance facility located elsewhere on the property.

The absence of a short, tempting par four is disappointing. There is no denying that. A trip around the sandbelt leaves one craving such a hole at Moonah.  Bunkering is very good, as are many green settings. There are two or more choices off the tee at every par four and five.

As Justin Ryan typed last year, the third is a great hole, with a very interesting diagonal feature in the landing area, and a bunker-less green, boasting great natural movement, and wonderful surrounds. The third is one of around a dozen holes I would be proud to have designed.  In particular, I think holes 2,3,5,6,8,10,11,15 are all very strong, and very enjoyable. As I wrote in my review a while back, the conditioning of the course is great, which makes for year-round enjoyable play.  Moonah is a course, again as Brian noted, which reveals itself in stages, and one needs a few trips around, (in different winds especially), in order to make an informed assessment. Like most courses I suppose.

Moonah is a very, very good course. The hype was probably more than the course deserved. I suspect that the course will stay close to itís subjective magazine rating of top ten, whenever the next tranch of publications is on the news stands. It will continue to draw me to play on a regular basis, despite the three hour round trip by car...

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

Chris Kane

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The National Moonah: one year on
« Reply #2 on: March 25, 2003, 08:52:51 PM »
Matt,

When judging particular holes and sets of holes, we need to bear in mind what we're comparing them too.  Moonah was acclaimed as one of Australia's great courses, hence I'll compare what is at the Moonah with some of the better-known sandbelt courses.

I agree with you that the par-3's as a group aren't particularly weak, but when compared with either Royal Melbourne course, Kingston Heath, Victoria or Yarra Yarra, they aren't as satisfying.  All four one-shotters are good holes, but aren't world-class.

There are some very strong par-4's, with 3, 4, 10 and 11 coming to mind.  But the lack of a great short par-4 really hurts the course as a whole.  As Mike Clayton wrote last year, "the little holes are the soul of the course, every great one has them".  Unfortunately, the Moonah doesn't have anything approaching a sporty little hole, with #9 being a satisfactory effort, but nothing more.

The par-5's are superb, and possibly as strong as any course on the sandbelt.  #2 is Brian Walshe's favorite hole at the club, and I have trouble mounting an argument to disagree with him.  Likewise, #'s 7, 12 and 15 are great holes to play.  

Bearing all this in mind, I think the Moonah is a very strong course.  There are few weak holes, with only 13 and 14 being nominated on occasion.  But as a whole, I don't think it works as well as RM, KH and co., which is why to me it isn't a top 5 contender.  

It's good, but I'm hesitant to label it as world-class, which is what so many people didn't amongst all the hype after it opened.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Chris Kane

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The National Moonah: one year on
« Reply #3 on: March 25, 2003, 08:53:08 PM »
Don't worry about bias Matt: we're all biased.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:03 PM by -1 »

Mike_Clayton

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The National Moonah: one year on
« Reply #4 on: March 25, 2003, 10:06:12 PM »
Chris
Interesting question because Australia has been littered with courses that have been rated highly early on then fallen out of favour.
The Moonah course is the best course built in Australia since the Second World War.It was also the best piece of land anyone has had to work with since Royal Melbourne.
There were ,however ,several built prior that are superior. Some ,like Kingston Heath were built on infinitly inferior land.
Kingston Heath has holes like 15 that is world class and Moonah does not have anything close to that. Or a hole as good as the short 3rd.Nor are the fives as good as either 12 or 14.
The question will be answered more fully when the courses at St Andrews Beach are built because only then will the
Moonah course have something to be really judged against.
It is a big hard golf course - probably more capable of defending itself against pros than anything else in the country but is that necessarily a positive thing.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

tonyt

Re: The National Moonah: one year on
« Reply #5 on: March 26, 2003, 02:23:01 AM »
Given that the premium daily fee course and the members as shareholders club concepts are quite recent in Australia, we have seen 15-20 years of amazing growth at the premium and attempted premium end of golf course construction. Thus part of the reasoning for some courses to debut in Australia's rankings quite high, and then falling away over the following few years. We are a nation with a larger percentage than many other developed countries of newer courses taking places in the nation's top 50.

Moonah is incredible. I love Mike Clayton's comment on it being the best post WWII course in Australia. It has few holes that would demand a place in everyone's "best 18", but the standard of all holes is high, and there are many that just look sensational and are a delight to play over and over again. Greens and green surrounds are strong and strategic. Tee shots are able to avoid being overly daunting on a windy site and yet offer challenges and varying degrees of decision making and reward. Bunkering I agree is excellent.

No, it won't stay in the top 10. Not because it isn't worthy of it's current status, but with the potential new stars, logic deems it will gradually have to jossle for space with some of them, Tom and Mike's nearby St Andrews Beach being among them.

I believe it will take some mighty impressive new courses to drop it out of the top 15-20 in the long term, because I think it has the potential to remain very highly respected for a very long time.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Shane Gurnett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The National Moonah: one year on
« Reply #6 on: March 26, 2003, 02:48:41 AM »
Chris

I haven't been down there in a long while (more than 6 months) but I suspect with this course that it will hold its place in the rankings if for no other reason than that there has been nothing built since which will push it down. Nothing that I can think of anyway.

I think Mike is correct in saying it is the best course built here since WWII, but again that in itself is not such a great wrap. The period between 1945 and 1999 does inspire me at all in terms of golf architecture in this country, in every way it was a destructive period where many courses were altered by ignorant or uninformed committees, and no new courses built of any great standing.

Moonah is a fine course, which for me offers few real highlights, but equally few lowlights. Its just a good solid test, with a very difficult finish. It lacks a couple of "teaser" holes where you can take a chance and score well, but if you fail, you will make a big number. Thats to me is its biggest detraction.

Moonah will hold its place provided the custodians of the course understand why it was afforded such an initial high ranking, and keep it that way. ie they dont just take it for granted. Realistically, the only way it can fall is if one or more of the traditional past high ranking courses can see the errors of their ways and restore their masterpieces to their former glory. Thats alone could push Moonah down a few notches.

Will be interesting to see how much 13th Beach moves up in the rankings one year on as well, and where Ranfurlie debuts in the rankings.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:03 PM by -1 »

Chris Kane

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The National Moonah: one year on
« Reply #7 on: March 26, 2003, 03:34:46 AM »
Some good points you make Shane about Moonah featuring few real "highlights", while having no real "lowlights".  There is nothing there approaching the quality of 3-7 and 10 at Royal Melbourne West, but at the same time, there isn't really anything weak.

Tonyt, I agree that the bunkering is excellent, but to me, it doesn't have as much of an influence over strategy as it could.  That it, the bunkers don't seem to dictate shot shape and decisions to the same extent as other courses.  At courses like Commonwealth and Kingston Heath, one is constantly "teased" by the temptation to hit close to the bunkers in order to gain an advantage.

I'm remember MatthewM commenting to me that he hadn't played a bunker shot in weeks.  That characterises the Moonah to some extent.  I'll have to play there more to fully evaluate this "weakness".

I'm fascinated as to how Ranfurlie will fare first time in the rankings: I wonder how many people will "get it".  It strikes me as a course that will appeal strongly to people with an interest in architecture, but might leave the average guy a little flat, maybe because it isn't particularly "pretty".
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Matthew Mollica

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The National Moonah: one year on
« Reply #8 on: March 26, 2003, 04:10:07 AM »

Great points Chris and Shane,

Moonah's position will be determined to some extent, by the emergence of new courses, and not just it's own ability to look good under th microscope in the long-term.

13th Beach, Ranfurlie, and hopefully, Barnbougle Dunes, as well as 2 courses at St. Andrews Beach, will all have a bearing on the shape of the top 20, one would imagine.

I think it's high time some of you boys made a return trip to see Moonah in it's current guise. I'd be most happy to take a group or two down there. I'm sure Brian W. would love a day out there with you guys too...

Matthew

P.S. Mike - how are things progressing at St. A Beach ?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
"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: The National Moonah: one year on
« Reply #9 on: March 26, 2003, 05:35:03 PM »
Matthew

The Ocean course has copped a bagging on this site many times. In your opinion, how do the majority of members feel about it compared to the Moonah and the Old?

I like Chris' point about the fairway bunkering at the Moonah. Is there really a temptation to hit it close to the f/w bunkers in order to get the best line in to the greens, ala RM, Vic, Commonwealth etc.

Does anyone know when the next rankings come out from Golf Australia (or anyone else for that matter)?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Mike_Clayton

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The National Moonah: one year on
« Reply #10 on: March 27, 2003, 12:39:32 AM »
Matthew

Things are going slowly at St Andrews Beach.
I guess it's tough to sell when there is something built next door selling the same thing - to most people that is.
I am sure the two courses will be fantastic and not just because the land is great but because the holes we have routed are terrific.

Shane
The new rankings come out in Golf Australia in Janurary.
Being a writer for the magazine I am on the panel but the hardest thing is to put together ten people in the country who get around and see everything and who have a good understanding of architecture.
I am sure the Australians who post here would do a great job - better than any panel of names people have heard of- but thats just the way it is.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Matthew Mollica

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The National Moonah: one year on
« Reply #11 on: March 27, 2003, 12:44:11 AM »
Shane -

You're suspicions are correct, in that flirting with both fairway and greenside traps to gain advantage is not a frequently encountered task. Especially in comparison to courses on the sandbelt. It does happen on many holes, but not as many as it could.

re: Ocean. I think some elderly members prefer the course, due to the relative absence of enforced carries. There is lots of room off the tee, and I think some higer markers, and some of the female club members enjoy this facet of Ocean.

The Club keeps rounds played per course stats, and says that it's relatively even between the three. I'd suspect that most members would rate Ocean a clear third preference. I also suspect that the rounds played on Ocean would largely constitute guest play. There's also many playing it for curiosity, given that it's relatively new. Interesting to see how the count changes over time...

Members mostly love the Old, and love Moonah. Many go down and play Moonah ever week, and rarely play either Old or Ocean.

Don't know for sure when the next magazine rankings come out. They're biannual ? They must come out in roughly 12-14 months time, because my memory has the club surfing the top ten wave for almost a year now....

Matthew
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:03 PM by -1 »
"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."

Chris Kane

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The National Moonah: one year on
« Reply #12 on: March 27, 2003, 12:48:50 AM »
Mike,
I guess its difficult to get a panel together who don't have a conflict of interest, perceived or actual. †The guys who design are often the best qualified, but the credibility of the list is then in question. †I can remember a long thread after the last rankings where a number of panellists were accused of impropriety.

Have you managed to get a few of the panellists out to Ranfurlie?

MattM,
When listening to what I say, bear in mind that the second time I played the Moonah, it was from the blacks, at the insistance of Mike. †I might have coped if I'd been playing well...seriously difficult course from back there! (Yes, Brian Walshe, I know, those tees are designed for low-handicappers).
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:03 PM by -1 »

Brian Walshe

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The National Moonah: one year on
« Reply #13 on: March 27, 2003, 05:38:42 AM »
Chris,

I played the Moonah the day it opened and I guess I've played it at least 50 times since, probably more.  It is much better today than the day it opened.  The rough for one is much more sensible and they are getting the balance just about right.  It was way too long when it opened and 12 months ago was probably too short in places but it's close to where it needs to be now.  Just remember also that at the end of summer it's pretty thin yet by spring it will be very thick and lush again.

One thing that I have found is that the sheer scale of the place tends to over power you when they first play it to the extent that a lot of the really good work from Bob Harrison can be missed.  The way you can feed the ball in from the left side of one using the slope short of the green, the gentle slope that pushes any second that lands short of the par 5 7th green into the left trap and so on.  The subtlety is easy to miss which is perhaps what makes it so good :-)

The only holes I'm not fussed about are 12, 13 and 14.  12 because the drive and second shots are totally bland and the hole only gets interesting from your third onwards.  13 because the green has just too much happening for a blind shot in and it becomes just a raffle and 14 because the double green doesn't work.

I love 1.  It is a great starting hole in that their is a heap of room off the tee but it requires a lot of thinking about where you put the ball off the tee depending on which way the wind is blowing and where the pin is located.  Downwind you have to be left.  Into the wind I find the right side better.  2 is the best hole out of all 54.  You want one hole to play continuously for the rest of your days then that's it.  Everytime I play it I learn something new.  3 and 4 are strong and 4 in particular isn't as obvious as it looks.  Down wind everyone tries to go right from where 90% of people end up either in the back trap or through the green.  Way left and you can use the bank on the right.  5 is very different but very good.  Watching Norman hit it to a foot or so on opening day is etched into my brain.  The second on 6 is the toughest second shot on the course and where you discover how good people really are.  8 is fun, 9 under rated by most but a hole that I think would benefit from some fairway bunkering.  10 has the best green on the course, 11 is stunning.

The last 4 are all long and tough but good holes just the same.  Coming at the end and playing into the wind half the time makes life interesting but I've never found them impossible.

I do disagree with Matt on the bunkering.  There aren't a lot of fairway bunkers but those there are certainly come into play and I've been in most of them.  The tee shots on 2 and 7 both tempt you to take the bunkers on and both punish you if you get it wrong.  The green side traps are always in play.  I'll drop a ball 140m out from 1 when its into the wind and tell me they aren't in play.  Likewise anyone that goes at 2 or 7 or 15 in two knows those traps are there for a reason.

Lastly it will fall in the rankings if for no other reason than the grass is always greener on the newer courses.

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

Mike_Clayton

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The National Moonah: one year on
« Reply #14 on: March 27, 2003, 11:41:07 AM »
Brian

It won't fall in the rankings if it truly deserves to stay where it is.
The courses above it - RMW,KH,NSW,RA and RME have remained there for years.
On the next level - Vic,Moonah and maybe Metro and Woodlands are clearly better than those next on the lists.
It's a big drop from the middle of the top 10 to 10,11 or 12.
It is easier to stay there since The Australian and Commonwealth voluntarily punched themselves on the nose.
The originals there would never have been out of the top 7.
Not until Barnbougle anyway!

Chris
Only Paul Daley has seen Ranfurlie . Nigel Wall is coming down soon.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Ran Morrissett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The National Moonah: one year on
« Reply #15 on: March 27, 2003, 02:02:34 PM »
If a course is to be considered 'great', it MUST have two things going for it: a) be inspiring to play and b) possess great holes. If it strikes out on either criteria, then it has no business being labeled 'great', or so it seems to me.

In the case of Moonah, it is clearly an inspiring place to find oneself for a game of golf. How many other modern courses that opened in the past five years can make the same claim?
A handful but that's it.

Does Moonah have a great golf  holes? Yes. Does it have any world class holes, the kind that one might include on a world eclectic 18? Probably not. Meanwhile, RM West has as many as eight (3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 17, and 18), so I wouldn't understand the rationale of anyone arguing that the two courses are in the same class.

And as is well pointed out above, without a great short two shotter and a stand out one shotter either, I wouldn't put it in the same class as a PacDunes either. The wonderful little holes like the 6th, 11th and 16th at PacDunes highlight a greater variety of shots to be played/invented there than at Moonah. There is no greater fan of such tricky little holes than Bob Harrison and I am sure that he wished that the land gave him the opportunity to find such a hole, especially somewhere in the stretch from 12-18. But in the end, I think that he is comfortable that he found the best series of holes.

I would put Moonah in the next class of courses, which is more or less to say an 8 on the Doak scale and I can't believe there are 10 courses in Australia more engaging to play.

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

Brian Walshe

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The National Moonah: one year on
« Reply #16 on: March 27, 2003, 04:19:49 PM »
Mike,

If the rankings actually reflected the relative quality of the courses I'd agree with you but they don't.  Regardless of reality somehow you have to find room for at least 3 probably 4 courses from NSW.  No one argues with La Perouse being in the top 4 or so but the Moonah will struggle because politically you have to squeeze the Australian, RS and perhaps the Lakes in there or have the populace of Sydney screaming.

So you have RMW, RME, KH, RA, NSW locked.  That leaves 5 spots.  Vic and Metro leaves 3.  If the changes at RS are seen as positive then you get RS in and the Australian will be there as balance for Sydney vs Melbourne.  That leaves one spot for Woodlands, Kennedy Bay, the Lakes, the Moonah etc.  

Be interesting to get 5 or 6 of the esteemed members of GCA from around the world to visit Oz and rate the courses.  I'm tipping that at least 6 thru 20 would look very different from the magazines.

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

Richard Chamberlain

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The National Moonah: one year on
« Reply #17 on: March 27, 2003, 05:58:51 PM »

Quote

I'm fascinated as to how Ranfurlie will fare first time in the rankings: I wonder how many people will "get it". †It strikes me as a course that will appeal strongly to people with an interest in architecture, but might leave the average guy a little flat, maybe because it isn't particularly "pretty".

Chris,
What sort of percentages do you think we are talking here with golfers that "get it".
I'm guessing 99% dont, 1% do.
Maybe the 99 is a little light on (not that there's anything wrong with that).
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Danny Goss

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The National Moonah: one year on
« Reply #18 on: March 27, 2003, 06:38:41 PM »

Quote
Mike,

If the rankings actually reflected the relative quality of the courses I'd agree with you but they don't. †Regardless of reality somehow you have to find room for at least 3 probably 4 courses from NSW. †No one argues with La Perouse being in the top 4 or so but the Moonah will struggle because politically you have to squeeze the Australian, RS and perhaps the Lakes in there or have the populace of Sydney screaming.

So you have RMW, RME, KH, RA, NSW locked. †That leaves 5 spots. †Vic and Metro leaves 3. †If the changes at RS are seen as positive then you get RS in and the Australian will be there as balance for Sydney vs Melbourne. †That leaves one spot for Woodlands, Kennedy Bay, the Lakes, the Moonah etc. †

Be interesting to get 5 or 6 of the esteemed members of GCA from around the world to visit Oz and rate the courses. †I'm tipping that at least 6 thru 20 would look very different from the magazines.

Brian

I agree Brian. The ratings probably are manipulated in this way.
But isnt this the problem with any sort of ratings/rankings? It really depends on who is rating and therefore the whole thing is very subjective. Our American friends are discussing all this now in relation to their ratings.
It just comes down to an opinion. I know people who have played RM and have felt that it "..wasn't that great". God only knows how they would come up with that idea but they were looking at things like conditioning etc.
To the rest of us they are obviously wrong - but everybody is entitled to an opinion. I am sure (as Chris says) that many will not like Ranfurlie - but on what grounds? Lack of trees?
So to me ratings really dont amount to much.
Do the guys who rate for the Oz magazines really reflect the wider population? Or guys like us who have an interest in architecture? Or anybody?
They give their opinion and it is recorded. But it is just an opinion. Look how many opinions there are about the war †;)
Should any of us take any notice of ratings at all?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tommy_Naccarato

Re: The National Moonah: one year on
« Reply #19 on: March 27, 2003, 07:49:14 PM »
So what is a misplaced Californian doing on a thread about a golf course in the magical land of Oz?

I guess a guy can only take so much in his own country! (Or maybe its the people that would rather talk about Michele Wie and not Golf Architecture?)

Ran has it right about the thing about what makes a Great golf course. I think a perfect example of this, and this is probably where you could somewhat compare--maybe Neil or Mothman could agree since I know they have played there, is The Valley Club at Montecito. There really isn't a knock em' dead-drag em' out world class hole on the course. It is a collection of 18 very good golf holes that made the best use of the features on the given terrain, and it classic fashion the sum is the equal of the parts, thus where the Greatness occurs.

I remember when Ran first posted the pictures of Bob's Moonah course, and it really looked cool. Enough to make me want to see it if I ever get there.

Now on to the hype thing:

I know you brothers down unda, probably tire of me constantly saying Rustic Canyon, Rustic Canyon, Rustic Canyon...Yak, Yak, Yak.... But I do know of the hype you speak of, and it does have an affect once the newness wares off. But the thing about it is, no matter what....THAT's OK! because this allows a golf course to not only get the rest it needs, but for the Greatness to further evolve. Eventually, no matter what the people say, and what all the magazines say, or even the fat guy in Southern California. The Greatness of the course does take over and there is nothing that can stop it. Enjoy it, and be thankful when there are others that do understand the greatness which is furthered by Word of Mouth--the greatest form of flattery of all.

This is the part where you have to realize just how Great a course can be for you. Think about Bernard Darwin, on e of the Greatest scribes on Golf, describing the excitement of returning to his much beloved home course of Aberdovey, in Wales. The two had a bond--Golf Course and Man. It can't get any better then that. I feel the same everytime I enter the mediocre gates of Rustic Canyon--this little public course, so perfect in MY world. I can only hope that the Moonah Course is just as perfect in yours.

To me that is GREAT, and no over-hype can harm it.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Chris Kane

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The National Moonah: one year on
« Reply #20 on: March 28, 2003, 03:15:03 PM »
Tommy,
That expressed it better than I ever could myself.  When you are going to come and see our courses for yourself?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tommy_Naccarato

Re: The National Moonah: one year on
« Reply #21 on: March 29, 2003, 05:08:20 PM »
Chris,
I have got so many other places to be, including Oz, I can only hope a winning lottery ticket will help me see them!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

tonyt

Re: The National Moonah: one year on
« Reply #22 on: March 29, 2003, 05:54:39 PM »
Matthew, Chris aren't we so lucky?

Within a 20 minute drive of each other, there are the following, of which some you'll love and other's not, but all of them make somebody's list of good courses (either architecturally, premium conditioning or both) to play.

National Moonah, National Old, National Ocean, The Dunes, Portsea, Sorrento, Moonah Links Open, Moonah Links Legends (November), Eagle Ridge, Flinders and Rosebud CC. With Doak x2 and Pete Dye still to come!

And most of them cost between $US15-30 to play.

Of course, that's not considering that for me, the one hour drive down to this zone passes the entire Melbourne sandbelt collection as well!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Chris Kane

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The National Moonah: one year on
« Reply #23 on: March 29, 2003, 09:42:30 PM »
Tonyt, we are lucky, but we'll always find something to whinge about!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

B. Mogg

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The National Moonah: one year on
« Reply #24 on: March 29, 2003, 11:00:05 PM »
Pete Dye doing a course in Australia - I don't think so! Maybe Perry but doubt if Pete would travel that distance. And if its Perry you can look forward to some of the aesthetics but none of the innovation.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back