News:

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


tonyt

Re: The National Moonah: one year on
« Reply #25 on: March 30, 2003, 12:00:48 AM »
Is there anyone who can update on the Dye course, and who's doing it? I'm sure it isn't Perry's company. If Pete won't travel, then it would have to be a non-signature course I suppose.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Matthew Mollica

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The National Moonah: one year on
« Reply #26 on: March 30, 2003, 05:33:27 AM »
Tony - you're not confusing this with the St. Andrew's Beach project on which Tom Doak is working ?

I'd not heard of any of the Dye's coming to Oz. What have you heard ? Where is the project you've got in mind...

You were right in your recent post re: our luck on the Mornington Peninsula too... Heavenly down there...

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."

Scott_T

Re: The National Moonah: one year on
« Reply #27 on: April 01, 2003, 06:35:29 PM »
The Moonah course looks fantastic and is fun to play, but is largely devoid of strategic interest, with the exception of the par fives.  This is largely because the bunkers are largely out of play, generally short of the greens.  A feature of the best Australian courses is the brilliantly placed bunkering, and Moonah falls down badly in this area.  They look fantastic, but they are largely decorative.  It would also be more fun to play if there were a couple of good, tempting shorter par fours, another real weakness.

I also disagree with Mike Clayton that it is probably more capable of defending itself against the pros than any course in the whole country.  The longer you can hit it on this course, the easier it is.  The sole strategy off the tee is to bomb it.  Contrast this with Royal Melbourne, Kingston Heath and Woodlands, probably the best four courses on the Sandbelt.  The pros, without bunkers to worry about and very large, generous greens, would eat Moonah alive.

But does it deserve its ranking?  Maybe, probably somewhere in the 10-20 position.  As Mike pointed out, it doesn't hurt when other clubs keep punching themselves in the face.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Brian Walshe

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The National Moonah: one year on
« Reply #28 on: April 02, 2003, 04:02:08 AM »
Scott,

Deja vu, I was having this argument with Mike Clayton last night, when he made an identical remark about the bunkers.  He made the point that unlike a number of the better sandbelt courses where the bunkers almost crowd your shots into greens, the Moonah felt like the bunkers were further removed.

I actually think the bunkers are very much in play on most holes but that Harrison has left one side of the green as a bail out in most cases.  It would be interesting to ask him why the bunkering isn't as aggressive as the sandbelt.  My guess is that given that Cape Schanck gets a lot more and stronger wind than Black Rock that very agressive bunkering would leave the course unplayable a couple of days a week.  

The bunkering on the Old Course is much more aggressive but then the greens there tend to be much bigger and there is far more use of slopes around the greens to allow you to feed the ball back in.

Be interesting to ask Mike if the designs that he and Tom Doak did for the same land actually had to allow for how windy it can get.  Mike?

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

tonyt

Re: The National Moonah: one year on
« Reply #29 on: April 02, 2003, 04:56:07 AM »
Guys, I can assure you of STRONG talk of a Dye 18 on the Moprnington Peninsula. Unlike the Doak/Clayton St Andrews Beach, I don't know the proposed site.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Scott_T

Re: The National Moonah: one year on
« Reply #30 on: April 02, 2003, 05:47:25 AM »
TonyT
I presume the mooted Pete Dye course is the second Medallist course on the land next to the Moonah.  When put to the National members last year, GND was to do the first course and the nominated names for the second course were Doak, Pete Dye and C&C.  It would have gone to Doak, but now won't due to St Andrews Beach around the corner.  I presume this is where the Dye talk is coming from, although I can't imagine him coming out either.  With the market for these types of course developments seemingly reaching saturation in Melbourne and surrounds at the present time, I can't see Medallist getting anything done for several years on that site anyhow, by which stage PD will be how old?  The only hope of getting it done in the short/medium term would seem to be having another crack at doing it with the National.

Brian
I'm not sure I understand why more aggressive bunkering is inappropriate for windy sites.  It is only a problem if you can't play bunker shots, and in my experience, they are not really that much more difficult in the wind.  Sanctuary Lakes, another Norman design, is a consistently windier course than Moonah, and features what you would probably term much more aggressive bunkering.  I think it is probably a little harsh to say that the sandbelt bunkering crowds your approach into greens, it generally demands an approach from a preferred side of the fairway.  This is a rarity on Moonah.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back