I was first approached to contribute an architectural column for AUSTRALIAN GOLF DIGESTmagazine six years ago, following the publication of my first book, Australia’s Finest Golf Courses. An opinionated and often outspoken member of the Top 100 ranking panel, my passion for golf design and the fact I had seen around 90 of the courses on the Top 100 list had convinced a former editor that my commentary on the subject would be worthwhile. The column never eventuated, however, because at the time I was preparing to embark on a global odyssey to research and write Planet Golf, which was released in 2007. I then spent the next two years producing a follow up book, Planet Golf USA. While compiling these two volumes I visited in excess of 800 golf courses worldwide, from a total of 43 countries. Needless to say, the breadth of my architectural knowledge has increased significantly since we first discussed this column, and so too has my understanding of the foibles with golf ranking lists.
The object of both editions of Planet Golf was to review the best golf courses in the world, not just those that are the most famous. As there are more than 30,000 in total I had to rely, in large part, on ranking lists, as well as friend’s recommendations, to put together my regional shortlists. In the USA I managed to get onto 99 of the tracks ranked in the Top 100 by Golf Digest Magazine (more on the one I missed in a later issue). I was equally successful in other regions, visiting each of the Top 50 courses in the UK & Ireland according to Golf World magazine, as well as 49 from the same magazine’s Top 50 list of courses on the European mainland. There were also visits to all the Top 30 courses in South Africa and Canada together with a host of highly rated championship venues across Asia and South/Central America.
While it sounds like an incredible experience, what people often struggle to appreciate is just how discouraging poor design can be for someone with such a keen appetite for great golf. The disappointing days far outweighed the buoyant ones, and most of the time the frustration stemmed from a visit to a rather dull or characterless layout that had, in fact, been ranked highly by a golf magazine. Much of the time the course in question had achieved its celebrity, and subsequent high ranking, by hosting prominent events. Readers will probably be surprised to hear just how ordinary some of the famous tournament venues overseas really are. Note: we plan to run a feature on over-rated courses in a future issue of this magazine.
I should add at this point that, despite its faults, the AUSTRALIAN GOLF DIGEST Top 100 list is one of the better ranking efforts, my primary frustration with the process has always been the time taken for new or redesigned layouts to be accurately presented in the final list. Often a few shuffles are required before courses reach their appropriate ranking standard. We can fix this, and one of the main aims of this column is to bring readers regular updates on changes and improvements from leading clubs across the country. I’ll also be working to ensure that our panellists are accurately rating courses in their most current guise and will be keeping in regular contact with all the candidate golf clubs to ensure the panel is aware of any major works that may have taken place.
When our next Top 100 list is published in March 2010 you can expect a few changes. The splitting of Royal Melbourne from one Composite listing to include both East and West courses is long overdue, and should create renewed interest in the Top 10. I would expect the West Course to remain at the top of the list but the East could feasibly slot anywhere from 4 to 10 or even lower. Also look for rejuvenated layouts like Royal Queensland, The Lakes, Barwon Heads and Lake Karrinyup to head north, while changes to the conditioning criteria may result in further shuffling, particularly through the middle of the list where well groomed resorts have enjoyed an edge over those older, more traditional layouts that aren’t as focussed on high maintenance standards.
From my own perspective, now is the perfect time to join the AUSTRALIAN GOLF DIGEST editorial team and help to steer its architectural coverage moving forward. There is plenty to cover, aside from Top 100 updates and articles on various architectural issues and trends we will be keeping a close eye on new developments and any major upgrades or renovations. One of my own key concerns is the recent trend with suburban clubs selling their established courses and moving into urban fringes to build newer, more expansive facilities. The loss of golfing ground in growing metropolitan areas is a worry, but equally disturbing is the fact these relocations have often failed to fully secure the future of the club in question. Committees can make the move look great on paper, but unless aware of the pitfalls of modern design and the role great golf holes play in creating great golf clubs things can easily turn sour. As metropolitan property prices have risen so too has the value of existing golf land, but it’s important for all clubs considering a move to remember that large budgets alone only guarantee expensive golf courses, they provide no assurance at all of quality.
When advising clients or discussing design I like to keep my analysis very simple, and the focus is always on the golf course itself, and more specifically how good its individual holes are. The biggest misconception I’ve found in our game is the belief that the harder the golf course the better it must be. This is plainly untrue yet it’s an almost universally held view from those unable to distinguish between a challenging course and a difficult one. Challenging tracks offer multiple routes of attack and dare the golfer to take on hazards in order to set-up better angles. They give players a range of options, the freedom to choose their own path and then the rope required to metaphorically hang themselves. Difficult courses, on the other hand, demand pinpoint shots from start to finish, the severity of each individual test often disproportionate to the ability of the golfer or how well the previous stroke was played. Typically the best way to tackle the hole is dictated by the nature of design and the punishment for any miss, however small, is absolute. Professionals tend to love hard courses because the person able to repeatedly execute the prescribed stroke usually comes out on top, but as Dr Alister MacKenzie pointed out back in 1926, for the rest of us this type of golf is tiresome and dull and should be avoided at all costs.
In my view, the distinction between challenging and difficult golf is best made through the study of two key Australian holes, the 6th on the West Course at Royal Melbourne and the 10th on the Pines Course at Sanctuary Cove. To make par on either hole requires a quality shot from the tee and another with precision into the green. The difference is that if you miss your drive at Sanctuary Cove you are left staring at a double bogey or worse, whereas at Royal Melbourne leaking your tee shot safely away from the fairway bunkers reduces your chances at par but does not cost you a ball and still leaves you with the choice of either trying an heroic approach over trouble or the conservative play for a comfortable five.
While I clearly have a preference for challenging golf courses, I recognise that some of the best in the world, and indeed some of my personal favourites, are quite brutal. Royal County Down in Northern Ireland is my favourite place to play and though I dispute the long-held notion that it is a penal links, I do acknowledge it is treacherous in high winds. Royal Dornoch, Rye, Carnoustie and Royal Portrush are other fine links that are pretty unforgiving, while in America Shinnecock Hills, Crystal Downs and Oakmont are all fierce tests that I really admire, principally because they have remarkable green complexes and a number of world-class holes. Pine Valley is the other obvious brute worthy of mention here; long regarded as the best course on the planet it’s also one of the hardest, and basically unplayable for anyone with a handicap above 15. Strangely the holes aren’t overly long, nor are the playing corridors narrow, indeed many of the fairways are as broad as those at Royal Melbourne. Pine Valley’s terror really stems from the fact that a miss with your driver is severely punished in the wastelands, yet for a reasonable shot into the terrifying green sites you really need to be aggressive from the tee. Although I don’t subscribe to the notion that Pine Valley should be viewed as the ideal golf course, it does have more great holes than anywhere else on earth and some of the most incredible putting contours imaginable.
Fortunately for Australian golfers, the best courses on our humble continent can hold their own against any of these famous tracks, and after five years on the road it’s been wonderful to return home and be able to golf regularly again on such naturally strategic and unpretentious layouts.
It’s going to be fun bringing you fresh architectural commentary in this column. Some of the planned features for the months ahead include a series of new ranking lists, such as the Top 100 courses outside Australia and the Top 100 golf holes, as well as articles on specific areas of golf design. Next month, though, I’ll be looking at the venue for this year’s Australian Masters, Kingston Heath, and comparing it to some of the other greats of world golf and also asking what aspiring course designer Tiger Woods might be able to glean from his brief sojourn back on the Melbourne Sandbelt.
Darius Oliver, Architecture Editor Australian Golf Digest
