PDA

View Full Version : Why are there so few good golf courses in Queensland?



Webster
14th December 2007, 10:04 AM
The Gold Australia 2007 golf course rankings are out:

1. RM west
2. Kingston Heath
3. NSW
4. Barny
5. Royal Adelaide
6. RM East
7. Ellerston
8. National Moonah
9. Metropolitan
10. Victoria
11. Newcastle
12. St Andrews Beach
13. Kooyonga
14. Kennedy Bay
15. Woodlands
16. Commonwealth
17. 13th Beach
18. Magenta Shores
19. The Dunes
20. Barwon Heads
21. Bookwater
22. Royal Sydney
23. Yarra Yarra
24. National Old
25. Peninsula North
26. The Australian
27. Moonah Legends
28. Portsea
29. Peninsula Sth
30. The Lakes
31. Joondalup Quarry/Dunes
32. Laguna Quays
33. Lake Karrinyup
34. National Ocean
35. The Grand
36. The Cut
37. Moonah Open
38. The Glades
39. Royal Canberra
40. Pacific Harbour
41. The Vintage
42. Port Fairy
43 The Vines
44. Club Pelican
45. The Grange
46. Concord
47. Bonville
48. Royal QLD
49. Hope Island
50. Ranfurlie

The best QLD can do is number 21, then 32 and 35. NSW, TAS and Vic seems to be able to produce courses that debut and hold their position quite high on the list, yet QLD cannot produce anything at a level to maintain a spot in the Top 20?

Why is QLD the odd state out when it comes to the best Australian golf courses?

Fishman Dan
14th December 2007, 10:17 AM
It's not all about the course, perhaps something to do with surrounds?

Hope Island deserves better than 49. Used to be mid-teens?

Webster
14th December 2007, 10:23 AM
I dont think the surrounds have much to do with it, seeing as though Magenta is in the top 20 and courses like Moonah Legends gets good reviews.

miro
14th December 2007, 10:26 AM
Here's my view.

All the so called "experts" value a links style course enormously more highly than parkland style courses. Check the list -this is entirely apparent. Qld does not lend itslef to Links style tracks -hence its courses get little recognition. For example to rate Barwon Heads at number 20 above the Australian at 26 smacks of personal bias not professional rating.

PeteyD
14th December 2007, 10:28 AM
The knobs that do the list are mexicans ... ;)

3oneday
14th December 2007, 10:29 AM
If there are supposedly 25 courses rated better than the Aussie, why is the Open there ?

Webster
14th December 2007, 10:36 AM
Here's my view.

All the so called "experts" value a links style course enormously more highly than parkland style courses. Check the list -this is entirely apparent. Qld does not lend itslef to Links style tracks -hence its courses get little recognition. For example to rate Barwon Heads at number 20 above the Australian at 26 smacks of personal bias not professional rating.

But there are a number of parkland style courses in the top 10 anyway (RM's, KH, Ellerston etc are not links courses). Why cant you build a links style course in QLD?

How can there be a bias when there are so many different raters from different backgrounds? I have never been to the Australian but rarely hear good things said about it other than its conditioning (which is of course important).

The Australian is a good venue for the Aussie Open, but the quality of the course is but one factor in the selection criteria. The Aussie Open has only been played in Melbourne twice in the last 16 years as an example.

PeteyD
14th December 2007, 10:43 AM
How arbitrary is the list? How much does it rely on reputation. Considering royal QLD has just had 7 holes removed and new ones put in thanks to the bridge, should it still be included on the list.

I have never heard anything good about The Grand, and it is in there ...

What are the criteria anyway, and does it really matter when most of us will not get a sniff at most of the courses in the list?

TS
14th December 2007, 10:52 AM
How arbitrary is the list? How much does it rely on reputation. Considering royal QLD has just had 7 holes removed and new ones put in thanks to the bridge, should it still be included on the list.

I have never heard anything good about The Grand, and it is in there ...

What are the criteria anyway, and does it really matter when most of us will not get a sniff at most of the courses in the list?

Pete. As an interstate visitor, you should be able to get on most of the course on that list.

PeteyD
14th December 2007, 10:55 AM
Yes but you need to get there and have the green fees as well.

Mind you I think Jack has a point with the QLD courses dropping down the list rather quickly. Seems odd.

kpac
14th December 2007, 10:57 AM
I'd suggest it's just a pretty accurate reflection of QLD course, obviously i've not played them all so i can't judge - and thus have to take the word of those who have...

Fishman Dan
14th December 2007, 11:02 AM
Here's my view.

All the so called "experts" value a links style course enormously more highly than parkland style courses. Check the list -this is entirely apparent. Qld does not lend itslef to Links style tracks -hence its courses get little recognition. For example to rate Barwon Heads at number 20 above the Australian at 26 smacks of personal bias not professional rating.

Miro - I agree with what you're saying in part, but The Australian is a vastly unpopular course for those study these things.

Queensland may favour parkland-style courses, but surely there are sand-based areas that could be developed differently, they just aren't! It doesn't seem to be the trend north of the border?


If there are supposedly 25 courses rated better than the Aussie, why is the Open there ?

Because a lot of advertising and revenue was pumped into it to raise the profile of the sport, which is sorely needed. Besides Top 100 lists, it's a good venue to watch the game.

3oneday
14th December 2007, 11:11 AM
Because a lot of advertising and revenue was pumped into it to raise the profile of the sport, which is sorely needed. Besides Top 100 lists, it's a good venue to watch the game.
that could have been done anywhere.

Opinions are like....... ;)

Grunt
14th December 2007, 11:15 AM
Got the list in front of me. Another list is it is those that got votes but did not make the top 50.

Huntingdale
Hyatt Regency Coolum
Sanctuary Cove (Pines)
Terry Hills
The Heritage (St Johns)
Sanctuary Lakes
Sandhurst (North)
Elanora
Glenelg
Lakelands
Sea Temple Links
The Heritage (Henley)
St Michaels
North Lakes
Pacific Dunes
The Sands, Torquay
Kooindah Waters
Twin Creeks
Twin Waters
Bonnie DoonThe article also states that they may have to increase the size of the list to 60, 70 or even 80 courses. RQ was mentioned that it will get higher as the work was only completed a month before the list was created. 13 people were used to compile the list.

miro
14th December 2007, 11:35 AM
Miro - I agree with what you're saying in part, but The Australian is a vastly unpopular course for those study these things.

For the life of me I don't udnerstand the criticism other than "it was designed by a yank" and it used to be better which makes whatever it is today worse.

And I say again to put Barwon Heads ahead of the Aussie is rubbish and shows the huge bias to both Vic tracks and links tracks that is evident in these lists.

Fishman Dan
14th December 2007, 11:37 AM
Having never played there I can't comment. Being a member at Gordon gives me the right to give The Australian undivided loyalty.

From all reports the course lacks imagination. There's a good thread on another golf forum, but I wouldn't want to post a link for fear of a serious breach of etiquette.

As for Barwon Heads, I think it's location gives it that 'X Factor' if the weather plays up. I think in that regard The Australian is quite sheltered. The one time I walked the course it was a dead still 40* day (final day of the Aust Open 2 years ago?). The wind wasn't the enemy, the baking heat slowly took out competitor after competitor. I recall Paul Gow having a fierce blow-up with his caddy walking off 10.

miro
14th December 2007, 11:40 AM
But there are a number of parkland style courses in the top 10 anyway (RM's, KH, Ellerston etc are not links courses). Why cant you build a links style course in QLD?

How can there be a bias when there are so many different raters from different backgrounds? I have never been to the Australian but rarely hear good things said about it other than its conditioning (which is of course important).

The Australian is a good venue for the Aussie Open, but the quality of the course is but one factor in the selection criteria. The Aussie Open has only been played in Melbourne twice in the last 16 years as an example.

Many questions, here are some answers.

I actually put RM as more links style than parkland style -much of the sandbelt is like this.

No idea why links courses aren't built in Qld -you really need G69 to comment maybe on soil type/land type etc etc.

Bias in the ratings easy -a cosy group of people who share common views rating courses in a common way. This is almost always what happens when people with strong views (raters) get together. If they weren't afficiandos (i.e. old courses -hence Melbourne, links style -where golf began) then they wouldn't care enough to bother.

I have played the Aussie numerous times, it is a very good golf course but I am not an "expert".

Fishman Dan
14th December 2007, 11:44 AM
that could have been done anywhere.

Opinions are like....... ;)

If Mr Fox is signing the cheques, then let's have it where he wants! ;)

3oneday
14th December 2007, 11:55 AM
Who ?

Andrew
14th December 2007, 12:10 PM
Here's my view.

All the so called "experts" value a links style course enormously more highly than parkland style courses. Check the list -this is entirely apparent. Qld does not lend itslef to Links style tracks -hence its courses get little recognition. For example to rate Barwon Heads at number 20 above the Australian at 26 smacks of personal bias not professional rating.

Miro,

There is only one links course ahead of The Australian on that list.

I'm not going to repeat what I said on the other forum about The Australian, but remember Paul, these lists are only opinions. You can love The Australian, or any course for that matter, as much as you want.

As for Queensland, basically the climate between the Tropic of Cancer & the Tropic of Capricorn and the ensuing land forms that have been created over thousands of years are not as conducive to golf. This is clear from the World Top 100 lists. Obviously, in this day & age, golf courses can be built anywhere, in any style given enough money, (Whistling Straits) but if you can start with the best land possible, it makes everything after that easier & less expensive.

miro
14th December 2007, 01:38 PM
[QUOTE=Andrew;198709]Miro,

There is only one links course ahead of The Australian on that list.
QUOTE]

Andrew,

Lets start with the facts -you know more about the technical archie stuff than me by a long shot. ;)

Now for the arguments. Being a typical archie buff your definition of links course clearly differs from normal humans BECAUSE you are an archie buff and probably a RATER of courses in the past and the future.

You don't like the Aussie because "design" is everything for you and like Art Critics you have your personal style opinions, and the Aussie is not to your style liking.

I am also sure that if I read your reivew of the Aussie elsewhere you would make some very good rational points about why the Aussie is not the best course in the land, however, you will not convince me that Barwon Heads for instance exceeds it.

At least one positive note for the ratings list that is the overblown pitch and putt that is Portsea is slowly sliding down the ratings.

markTHEblake
14th December 2007, 01:59 PM
Its pretty obvious why.

If you take out all the courses that were built more than say 10 years ago, you would find that qld has a fair number of courses in the list.

Otherwise the list is heavily weighed down by the old classics in Melb in Sydney, built over 50-80 years ago. If the first fleet had settled in Brisbane first it might have been different, but I aint crying over it :-)

Andrew
14th December 2007, 02:02 PM
Miro,

I’m not trying to convince you that Barwon Heads is better than The Australian. What I said was you can love any course you want to & I mean that. The lists are merely opinions of a group of people.

The term ‘Links’ is not a golf term, but a geographical term referring to a particular type of naturally reclaimed landscape. I’m just referring to the true meaning, but I do understand what you are referring to. I wasn’t having a go at you.

Regarding ranking panels. I hate these lists. I really do, but you are correct, I was on a ranking panel for an American magazine for a couple of years. When I was asked to be involved, I thought it was a great opportunity to see how things work on the inside. At the beginning of this year I resigned due to various issues, some of which confirmed my thought on the subject of lists.

As for The Australian, I’ll ask you to think about a few things. I don’t want you to respond, just consider a few things.
1) How many par 4’ & 5’s favour an approach from the outside of the fairway. Let the 6th be an example.
2) How many greens have tiers in them, but are relatively flat around the pin positions.
3) How many holes have a feature that might deceive a golfer visually.
4) When playing full approach shots, how many different ball flights are you asked to hit, or can you get away with whatever you stock shot is.

poidda
14th December 2007, 02:03 PM
The less good courses up here, the less Mexicans that come to play them. Not complaints from me either. ;)

markTHEblake
14th December 2007, 02:07 PM
When playing full approach shots, how many different ball flights are you asked to hit, or can you get away with whatever you stock shot is.

Great point. I sometimes get cranky with Swampy Marsh (or g69) for some dinky green setups at my course. But when you put it in that context, that is exactly what he has done. I just dont like it when i cant play that shot :neutral:

Webster
14th December 2007, 04:45 PM
Miro,

I like the fact that you view things differently to many others and that you are prepared to voice your opinion quite strongly. But I don't buy the bias argument at all. This list reprsents the average views of 13 very different golf people who vary wildly in their views on the individual courses. I personally dont know how good the Australian is as I have never been there, but having played Barwon Heads many times I agree that it is overrated at position 20 on the list.

For the record, of the 13 panelists, 9 rated Barwon Heads higher on their lists than The Australian.

Blake, why would you want to take out the courses built in the last 10 years when many of them are terrific courses. Why aren't they building courses to that standard in Queensland?

Portsea at 28 might be a touch high as well. I quite like it, but understand why others dont.

Surely in a state the size of Queensland you blokes can build a golf course that is worthy of the Australian top 20. I just wonder why it hasn't happened thus far?

Courty
14th December 2007, 04:47 PM
The less good courses up here, the less Mexicans that come to play them. Not complaints from me either. ;)

:smt023

goughy
14th December 2007, 05:26 PM
We may not have the great courses, but how many capitol cities (or regions, say most of SE Qld) can you get on a golf course on an open day for $10 to $15. I have never played anywhere but SE Qld, so I can't comment on the quality of the courses. But if I was paying $1000+ a year membership and/or $50+ per round then I wouldn't be golfing.

We may not have the 'quality' of courses (I had a ball playing Chinchilla, so my opinion ain't worth much) but does elsewhere in Australia have the access to a plethora of course for a handfull of bucks pretty much whenever you want? If not, I'll take my low quality Qld golf courses! ;)

goughy
14th December 2007, 05:27 PM
Of course, the low cost of golf up here may contribute to the general quality of the courses; less money to spend!

markTHEblake
14th December 2007, 05:31 PM
Blake, why would you want to take out the courses built in the last 10 years when many of them are terrific courses. Why aren't they building courses to that standard in Queensland?

pretty sure i said the opposite. Take the courses off the list that were built more than 10 years ago.

actually, more than sure.

take the nudey pictures off your desktop, they are clouding your vision.

Webster
14th December 2007, 05:38 PM
sorry, my mistake (no nudies either).

But I still ask the question - Why aren't they building great courses in Queensland?

markTHEblake
14th December 2007, 05:42 PM
sorry, my mistake (no nudies either).

But I still ask the question - Why aren't they building great courses in Queensland?

do i have to repeat myself.

take all the old courses off the list - as I said, say more than 10 years roughly
Now count how many qld courses are there.

i get 7 out of 20 (but it was a rough count)

therefore it shows there are good golf courses in qld. Prior to the modern era there was stuff all golf courses been built in qld period.

Webster
14th December 2007, 05:56 PM
i heard you the first time - buts its not relevant anyway. The best QLD can do is Brookville at 21. No Barnbougle, no Dunes or Thirteenth Beach, no Magenta etc etc. You dont have any great old courses and you aren't bulding any great new ones. Why?

AndyP
14th December 2007, 06:13 PM
Too many good (not great) courses in the populated areas, particularly Gold and Sunshine Coasts already? Is there a need to build more courses in SE Qld?

Any potential for the two new courses up at Laguna Quays?

markTHEblake
14th December 2007, 06:54 PM
i heard you the first time - buts its not relevant anyway.

Of course its relevant. There was minimal quality golf course construction in the old days becuase there was simply not enough money and demand in qld.

If Brisbane had the same population as Melbourne did mr Mckenzie et al may well have done a lot of work up here.


The best QLD can do is Brookville at 21.

your obviously have been on the :smt030 this afternoon.

so now your definition of great courses is top 20. :roll: Yet you posted a top 50 of great courses in your first post. make up your mind.

The qld golf course market caters to the happy hacker from Japan. Nice resort courses with fat wide fairways. Make them look tough but plays easy (Lakelinks and Royal Island are classic examples of this). Golf courses like this will never rate highly

Barnbougle Shores is an exception, you really cant use that as an example. It's a personal project, as is Ellerslakes.

All the courses at Moonah are resulted from corporate investments as far as i know. There is a lot more money in melb and sydney than up here. I doubt they were looking at the Japanese/Korean tourist market when they worked on the concept, seems that they wanted some modern tournament class golf courses instead. Of course they had to, given that they already had the best courses on teh sand belt, obviously they couldnt go backwards, given the money being spent.

Webster
14th December 2007, 07:06 PM
Blake that is the greatest load of shit I have ever seen posted on this website.

markTHEblake
14th December 2007, 07:10 PM
Hey, i wasnt the one who said Brookville is a great course.

Webster
14th December 2007, 07:12 PM
its the best of a sorry bunch...................................

markTHEblake
14th December 2007, 07:35 PM
Let us know the reason then when you have had some time to sober up.

Webster
14th December 2007, 07:44 PM
I never said it was great

Dr Turf
14th December 2007, 07:46 PM
Hello all....my first post after reading for a few weeks.
My take on this is the climate for a couple of reasons. Firstly we have to rely on couchgrass or an equivalent for almost the entire golf course. The "classic" courses are almost invariably located in temperate to cold climatic zones and have the advantage of using slow growing cool season grasses that give off wonderful colours and contrasts that make the aesthetics very appealing. Yes Melbourne courses have Couchgrass but it basically does not grow in comparison to what happens here. I havent seen the new work at RQ but if they are trying to implement the "shaggy lip" bunkers then I think they may be in trouble due to the prolific grass growth.
The other major climatic influence is rainfall. If 25 mm falls in an hour in Melbourne there is a Royal Commission whereas in Qld, courses are constructed to cope with 3 or 4 times that amount on a regular basis and be playable the next day.
Location has a bearing as well as there are very few Qld coastal courses due to our love of the beach with most courses built on swamp, tip land or about half the required area due to demand for housing. My course is coastal but falls into the category of "gods waiting room" and the retirees who make up the bulk of the membership aren't keen on parting with a dollar and therefore course development and conditioning suffers.
One interesting note from the list is Port Fairy, which I can assure you is in a COLD climatic area would have a total course maintenance bill less than the Superintendents salary of any other course in the top 50. Before Michael Clayton played it somehow no one had ever heard of it which perhaps points to how courses appear on the list sometimes. Another classic course in Victoria that is closer to Pebble Beache's 3 or 4 good holes is Peterborough which is not far from Port Fairy and shares similar if not better ocean vistas and has an honesty system for green fees! Few golfers or raters would have ever played it and it remains a 9 hole gem.
Which presents another issue and that is number of players. I have played most of the courses in the top 50 and very few would ever see the number of players that Qld courses put through. Qld courses generally cater for large numbers of players and due to the climate the vast majority ride in carts and the courses are designed to accomodate carts. Very very few of the top 50 courses would have facilities provided for carts to the extent that Qld courses have to.
I haven't looked at the US top 50 but I am fairly certain that with the exception of Seminole, that there are precious few Florida courses in the top 50 over there.
Well thats my 50 cents worth on the subject anyway and I might think of more !!

Courty
14th December 2007, 07:50 PM
Nice first post, Dr Turf.

Why don't you post in the Welcome forum and tell us some more about yourself. 8)

markTHEblake
14th December 2007, 08:10 PM
My take on this is the climate for a couple of reasons. Firstly we have to rely on couchgrass or an equivalent for almost the entire golf course.

I wouldnt think that the type of grass has anything to do with whether a course is great or not.

a good greenkeeper can make blue couch greens look pretty good :-)

Its more to do with the amount of money available to build a course. Your not going to get much of a golf course with members doing working bees on sundays to build it, with the greenkeeper, and president doing the design work.

Courty
14th December 2007, 08:13 PM
Your not going to get much of a golf course with members doing working bees on sundays to build it, with the greenkeeper, and president doing the design work.

Although it's the exception not the rule, Mareeba GC does exactly that, and is in pretty good nick every time I have been there. Their greens are better than Cairns GC.

Dr Turf
14th December 2007, 08:18 PM
The rate of grass gowth and the type has a lot to do with it imo as well as the other climate factors mentioned. Very few Couch or "warm season" golf courses allow for the chip and run of cool season courses which make them more like the dreaded target courses on the US pga tour.

Dr Turf
14th December 2007, 08:20 PM
Sorry Mr Blake but can you show me any blue couch greens (or 328) that are anything like a bentgrass green?

Webster
14th December 2007, 08:43 PM
grassing selection is a very poor excuse for poor architecture Dr Turf.

markTHEblake
14th December 2007, 08:45 PM
Sorry Mr Blake but can you show me any blue couch greens (or 328) that are anything like a bentgrass green?

Obviously not - most of the golf courses in qld that were blue couch have been converted to Bermuda during the 80s and 90s.

Prior to that the clubs with lots of money had Tiff Dwarf greens, and off the top of my head there was only a handful. I am almost sure none were Bent.

Probably 28 out of the first 30 golf courses that I played were plain old blue couch greens. And some of them were bloody fantastic.

besides I never made any comparison to bentgrass greens.

Dr Turf
14th December 2007, 09:06 PM
Jack ...its not just grass selection but the whole gammut of warm season courses construction requirements that lead to "resort" type construction that we have to endure up here. Hence my ref to Florida, and if you like SE Asia where lots of money is spent on building golf courses but not many in the top "world 500" even.
Architecture in Qld is very much climate/golfer/revenue/ reqs orientated, as in Florida/ SE Asia.
Mr Blake I know you didnt mention Bent greens but I can guarantee you that there is no finer surface than a Bentgrass putting green and I have never seen a Couch/bermuda green come close. Couch greens are a necessary evil given our climate and never come close to a Bentgrass putting surface.

markTHEblake
14th December 2007, 09:21 PM
[COLOR=black]Mr Blake I know you didnt mention Bent greens but I can guarantee you

thank you but everyone knows this.

Grass doesnt build great golf courses in Australia, money does.

Andrew
14th December 2007, 09:44 PM
You just can't biuld what is not there in the ground

Dr Turf
14th December 2007, 09:48 PM
Grass doesnt build great golf courses in Australia, money does.

Well I dont think that is true as there has been lots of money spent on golf courses for not much result. Most people on golf forums and in the media bag courses like the Grand and Hope Island yet they are considered to be up there in Qld for course quality. A lot of people also rate Metropolitan in Melbourne as a "turf farm" yet it only rates No. 9 in Aus.
Read the history of the leading Melbourne clubs and most were established on volunteer labour and then embellished by expert staff, ( read morcom, williams, grant, davis, freeman, sawyer, morpeth and 100 different members or more. They had the landform and the climate and the COMMITTMENT.

markTHEblake
14th December 2007, 10:11 PM
Read the history of the leading Melbourne clubs

I wasnt thinking that the great golf courses of melbourne built pre-ww2 were resorts and housing developments funded by japanese investors.


and most were established on volunteer labour

as was every other golf course in the country up until the resort-era

The difference is Melbourne was and still is one of two main population centres and the members of the likes of RM were affluent enough to build and support a great golf course.

If Melbourne wasnt a major population centre then the best golf courses would be somewhere else, until the time comes that distances are not a problem ie Barnbougle Dunes.

AndyP
14th December 2007, 10:39 PM
Even the top WA courses are rated better than Queensland's. They're pretty new and not in a "population centre".

markTHEblake
14th December 2007, 10:58 PM
Even the top WA courses are rated better than Queensland's.

Andy, the thread topic is "why are the so few good golf courses in qld" not "why is there not any qld courses in the top 20"

I am not familiar with all the names, but i have a sneaking suspicion that there are more Qld golf courses in that top 50 than WA ones.

And i bet there would have been hardly any in WA prior to 1980.


They're pretty new and not in a "population centre".

Of course. remoteness doesnt mean anything anymore, look at Barnbougle Dunes - it seems more convenient for Ozgolfers to go there, than to the Sunshine coast.

Its obvious that the original great golf courses were built in close proximity to major population centres - which wasnt Qld.

goughy
15th December 2007, 07:11 AM
I'd still like to know what the average cost is to play golf in sydney/melbourne as a social and as a member of a club? I'm guessing the revenue stream is much higher than up here. As far as I am concerned there are plenty of good golf courses up here that are really very cheap to play, especially on open days. I'm sure that I've read some prices the nsw'ers pay to play ozgolf days being in the vicinity of $50.

Personally, put 18 holes in a sheep paddock and I'll play golf on it. Last year I played my first game on a 'top' designed course, Pelican Waters. As a $150rr course I wouldn't go near it. I'd rather pay $30 for caloundra. I got on for $35 so that was ok. This year it's costing $50 for me to play it, and that's getting close to my top dollar. It will infact be the dearest game of golf I've ever played.

I don't feel I have missed out on anything by not playing some of these top courses. There is only one course I never enjoyed playing much, and that is Jindalee. Any course with a par 4 where I go for the green with a 3 wood off the tee is just wrong! I'm not that long ;). When I used to live near it I used to sneak on after hours and still felt it wasn't good value :o :)

I'm sorry, but all this which is the best course, why aren't there any good courses seems odd. Qld may not have the prestige courses, but our ever day courses are quite good, and I don't think anyone would feel ripped off after playing them, especially with their price brackets.

I don't know if I've made any sense (it's too early on a saturday to make sense, heck even dora is looking pretty good right now :o).

Andrew
15th December 2007, 07:11 AM
All this talk about money & population centres is great, but show me a piece of land in Queensland that is as good as Royal Melbourne.

goughy
15th December 2007, 07:26 AM
I can understand where your coming from, Andrew, when you are talking about the quality of the land. Isn't that the deal with the quality of barny in tas. Didn't some guy just see this plot of land that he felt would make a great course and buy it. Then use the quality of the land as the selling point to get a course designer.

I've played kooralbyn and Pelican Waters, and can't see how someone would have stood on that empty land and said 'man, this would make a great golf course'. The routes and land don't seem to indicate that. So I can see 100% the point you are making with regards to that andrew.

I would think that more money in membership fees, more cost in social fees, would result in more revenue hence more money to maintain the course. Surely that is a factor in a great course too. But I haven't played too many courses up here I would call crappy. Usually I find two things in qld which affect my opinion on the quality of the course. Firstly, the bunkers. Many are shite. My home course has about 20 variety's of sand, if they do have sand in them. Second is the greens. Obviously they are one of the first things to go on a course if not properly looked after. But, as is often the case at my home course, unrepaired pitch marks are a bitch. Social groups just kill them, as do plenty of members who just don't care.

Webster
15th December 2007, 07:30 AM
Andrew, is there a piece of land in Queensland as good as Metropolitan (flat swamp)?

goughy, you miss the point. Money has nothing to do with this. How much did it cost to build all those Gold Coast resort courses in the 1980's? I bet it was squillions, yet none of them are worthy of the top 20 courses in the land. Why are there no QLD private members courses in the top 20?

Fishman Dan
15th December 2007, 07:35 AM
All this talk about money & population centres is great, but show me a piece of land in Queensland that is as good as Royal Melbourne.

Cooloongatta. A PW over the Tweed river and you're back in NSW.

goughy
15th December 2007, 07:36 AM
OK, this topic is really over my head. I guess I look at the view that I can play tons and tons of courses in se qld for like $10 on a sunday. And I think they are all pretty good. Whether they're top 100 means little to me. I think we are overly blessed here with what we get for our money.

As to my experience with top 100 courses, I think I may have played 2 of them tops.

And I have missed your point. That's no surprise as I miss plenty of points :) And now I have a headache! ;)

Andrew
15th December 2007, 07:55 AM
Goughy, no one seems to be answering your question, but yes, you do have more reasonable courses up there for less money.

Sydney is quite expensive & extremely busy. Everyone talks about the exclusivity of The Australian, but everytime I've played there (except comp days, which are reasonably busy as well) the course has been full. This is the same with all the tier one courses in Sydney. Now, I know they have quite days as well, but this quantity of players happens at least once a week. Then add mens comps & ladies comps, plus trade days. Of the better private courses in America that I've played, there was no group behind for 5 holes & no group in front.

I would think social golf in Sydney on an average Sydney course is about twice as much as in Queensland.

Andrew
15th December 2007, 08:01 AM
One interesting note from the list is Port Fairy, which I can assure you is in a COLD climatic area would have a total course maintenance bill less than the Superintendents salary of any other course in the top 50. Before Michael Clayton played it somehow no one had ever heard of it which perhaps points to how courses appear on the list sometimes. Another classic course in Victoria that is closer to Pebble Beache's 3 or 4 good holes is Peterborough which is not far from Port Fairy and shares similar if not better ocean vistas and has an honesty system for green fees! Few golfers or raters would have ever played it and it remains a 9 hole gem.


Comparing Peterborough to Port Fairy is an extreme stretch, but comparing it to Pebble Beach is ridiculous. I may think Pebble Beach is one of the most overrated courses I have ever played, but I’m not going to start comparing it to Peterborough.

BTW, I don’t think Clayts made Port Fairy famous. It’s been well known in the right circles for ages.

goughy
15th December 2007, 08:23 AM
If you want to include fun into the list, which is a great idea for me, then you could say every course I play. I think people get a bit sick of how much fun I have regardless of what's happening.

Every time I've played caloundra I've had a ball. It's always been in a twosome with my BIL, and I don't know why but it's been some of my most fun golf.

Andrew
15th December 2007, 08:40 AM
I haven't seen the word "fun" get mentioned yet...and its right up there on my list when rating a good course....but still its part of the criteria with all those other factors.

Nice post, Rich.

Fun may not have been mentioned due to the premise of the original post, but it is the most important factor. And fun can mean different thing for different people.

Even though I'm into the architecture of the course, I still consider that in regards to fun. Fun is why I prefer Garden City to Bethpage Black, even though Bethpage Black is a much tougher course. Fun is why I'm disappointed they are stuffing around with Merion for the U.S. Open, because it was super fun as far as I was concerned. Fun is why courses like North Berwick (West), Swinley Forest, Machrihanish, Cruden Bay, Elie & Royal Dornoch are my favourite British courses, yet none of them will ever hold a British Open. (Don't worry, TOC is in that list as well)

In the end, fun is why we play golf.

Grunt
15th December 2007, 08:57 AM
Got it in one Andrew. Fun!!

Webster
15th December 2007, 08:59 AM
Andrew, fun means different things to different people. Some people would have the most fun if they were chained to a barbed wire fence and whipped with a prickly tree branch (ie. Moonah Links). The criteria for the Golf Australia list is:

Design - 40 points
Condition - 20 points
Playability - 20 points
Wow factor - 20 points

Andrew
15th December 2007, 10:10 AM
Andrew, fun means different things to different people. Some people would have the most fun if they were chained to a barbed wire fence and whipped with a prickly tree branch (ie. Moonah Links). The criteria for the Golf Australia list is:

Design - 40 points
Condition - 20 points
Playability - 20 points
Wow factor - 20 points

Yes, I know all that, but you need to read my post properly. I said fun probably wasn't mentioned due to the premise of the original post. I also said fun can mean different things to different people. Now, if you are going to re-hash all my posts to elevate your post count, then I'll email my thoughts through to you & you can post them yourself.;)

I'm also aware of the points system, but I've answered your original question. They don't have enough good land, the climate is not as suitable (although, Dr Turf seemed to want to steal that one from me as well :D ) & one thing I'll add is the market over the years has been geared more to the tourist industry, especially directed at Japan, hence the need for resort style courses.

How many 'resort' courses are in the World Top 100? Can you build a resort course with a subtlety that will sustain interest over many years & be considered the equal of many of the classics? (Rhetorical question – I believe the answer is no) Of course, along with being strapped to a barb wire fence & being whipped with Rosanne Barr’s panties, if some golfers prefer resort golf, then good on them!

markTHEblake
15th December 2007, 10:24 AM
I'll add is the market over the years has been geared more to the tourist industry, especially directed at Japan, hence the need for resort style courses.


No, he wont accept that one either. Bullshit i think was the response when i said exactly the same thing.

Andrew
15th December 2007, 10:26 AM
No, he wont accept that one either. Bullshit i think was the response when i said exactly the same thing.

He may not accept it, but the difference is, he'll steal it from me & use it as his own. :lol:

Webster
15th December 2007, 10:29 AM
I know there are a tonne of resort courses up there to cater to the Asian market. Thats obvious. But surely they could have built one course in the past 100 years that is worthy of being Top 20 material? Is Brookwater the best you could possibly hope for?

Ask Miro what his definition of "fun" would be? I bet its not a short little tapper track like Portsea, more like a long tough course like the Australian.

Andrew
15th December 2007, 10:30 AM
Ask Miro what his definition of "fun" would be? I bet its not a short little tapper track like Portsea, more like a long tough course like the Australian.

Yeah, & that's fine.

markTHEblake
15th December 2007, 01:21 PM
But surely they could have built one course in the past 100 years that is worthy of being Top 20 material?

Why are you so sure? The last 10-20 years is a different market and prior to this its demographics.

The most notable new courses in Australia are Bdunes, Moonah and Ellerston. All three are very unique instances and largely philanthropic - none were tainted by the need to make a buck.

Why are you not asking why there has been no new courses in the top 10 in the last 50 years or so, with only the exception of the 3 above which were extraordinary circumstances and extremely recent.

Surely the top 10 should be getting totally replaced every generation or so.

Webster
15th December 2007, 01:30 PM
Mark thats rubbish. Of the three courses you mentioned, one is 100% publiuc, one is 100% private and the last one is 100% hidden away and never played. One is in Tas, one in Vic and one in NSW? Why isnt any of this sort of thing happening in QLD?

markTHEblake
15th December 2007, 01:36 PM
Mark thats rubbish. Of the three courses you mentioned, one is 100% publiuc, one is 100% private and the last one is 100% hidden away and never played.

no relevance to my point.


One is in Tas, one in Vic and one in NSW? Why isnt any of this sort of thing happening in QLD?

none of those instances are possible in qld.

And all built recently, why were there no top 10 courses built 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago.

Webster
15th December 2007, 01:39 PM
You stated that the courses were unique and had no desire to make money, yet one is public and the other has to support a membership in part of over 1000. Its not just there to look pretty (although many say it does).

I dont disagree that there were no top ten courses built between 20-50 years ago, but in the last 10 years there have been 3. Why hasn't Queensland built one in the last 10 years? You seem to build plenty of golf courses up there, just no really good quality ones.

Fishman Dan
15th December 2007, 08:11 PM
I haven't seen the word "fun" get mentioned yet...and its right up there on my list when rating a good course....but still its part of the criteria with all those other factors.

I didn't find playing NSW much fun.

Not many QLD'ers at the top of the Aust Open Leaderboard either. Must be because they have limited to exposure to quality courses ;)

3oneday
16th December 2007, 06:04 AM
Not many QLD'ers at the top of the Aust Open Leaderboard either. Must be because they have limited to exposure to quality courses ;)or they dont know how to have fun in Qld ??? ;)

OK, back to the gibber :p

markTHEblake
16th December 2007, 05:40 PM
but in the last 10 years there have been 3.

gee your a wally. How could Bdunes, Ellerston and Moonah be considered a trend in golf course construction. They are all so one off its not funny.

and Ellerston shouldnt even be part of the discussion, its not even a private course, its someones backyard.


You seem to build plenty of golf courses up there, just no really good quality ones.

For a bloke that keeps disagreeing with everyones answers and having no clue yourself its pretty obvious you dont want one.

Webster
16th December 2007, 05:41 PM
you are a dill Blake...

markTHEblake
16th December 2007, 06:23 PM
your inability to make a constructive comment is obvious

Webster
16th December 2007, 06:27 PM
i disagree. but you are still a dill.

PeteyD
16th December 2007, 07:04 PM
Wankers

markTHEblake
16th December 2007, 07:26 PM
i disagree.

My apology then. I must have missed the reason you gave for this anomoly.

goughy
16th December 2007, 07:28 PM
Simple answer - we enjoy playing golf more than building the courses! Heck, for $10 or $20 a game and our great weather would you rather be digging bunkers or hitting out of them!

Eag's
16th December 2007, 07:54 PM
Wankers

Well said mate ;)

just
16th December 2007, 08:06 PM
kennedy bay is sand

Fishman Dan
16th December 2007, 08:21 PM
I think we need a new Top 100 for courses built on clay.

just
16th December 2007, 08:40 PM
Jack
Lets turn it around a little. Do you think the the number of quality tracks in Victoria (more specifically Melbourne and surrounds) and the subsequent prices they attract and restrictions on visitors hamper efforts to get regular and large internet (ozgolf type events for example) groupings happening.

I've seen the prices bandied about on ISG and the porn forum for "what club should I join" threads and even the b grade tracks in Melbourne seem to attract a decent price premium - no criticism but if I was paying that kind of cash I would hesitate to play elsewhere(i.e. away from my home course) on any regular basis.

How does Melbourne cater for golfers, like the majority on here, who are committed but don't want to pay the price premium to join, say, the likes of your club (even if they could) but still want to play regularly?

mike
16th December 2007, 11:36 PM
I think we need a new Top 100 for courses built on clay.
I think Mareeba might sneak in here.

Fishman Dan
17th December 2007, 07:36 AM
How does Melbourne cater for golfers, like the majority on here, who are committed but don't want to pay the price premium to join, say, the likes of your club (even if they could) but still want to play regularly?

Just - I was invited to play at Spring Valley, one of the lesser lights of the Melbourne sandbelt, and it still shat on anything I can get access to here in Sydney - and was remarkably different to a resort-style course of the Goldy. Cost was $50.

The better courses in Melbourne don't need public access and social groups such as OzGolf to survive. There again, there are dozens of courses where that can happen. The Mornington Peninsula has around 15 public access courses of good quality, and that's within an hour of the CBD on a good motorway.

Sandringham is a public access course, and it's literally over the road from Royal Melbourne. Even in its limited capacity, I think you'll be amazed with the quality. Apparently a couple of the holes were once RM holes.

pom
17th December 2007, 06:18 PM
Any potential for the two new courses up at Laguna Quays?
From what I have heard lately Laguna Quays is in poor condition & getting Worse. Quite a few of our members played there fairly regularly but are losing interest due to the condition of the course.
Word has it that a new course is to be constructed at Cannonvale , near Airlie Beach & this could be the death nell for Laguna.

Moe Norman
23rd December 2007, 12:15 AM
We are overpopulated with courses built on reclaimed swamps on the Gold Coast that would generate far more revenue that any quality 'new' course built in another state.

As a result, when people want to build a new course up here - they go to the same blokes and have the same goals. RQ got it right using Clayts to do the work, but there is only so much a boke can do with a bit of swampy clay under a bridge. Brisbane & Indooroopilly both have decent blocks of dirt, but the cost would be prohibitive to actually get the best out of either of them.

If a genuine golf course tragic wants to build a new course, and revenue isn't the main goal (a mythical creature perhaps?) then where are they going to build it? On the sandy dunes of Tassie or the Peninsula? The coastal sites in WA, or on reclaimed swamps in sub tropical heat in QLD?

There are some nice dunes at Straddie that would make a great spot for a course, but apart from that I can't think of any great spots for a qualit course up here. Even if you did build one there, you couldn't run bent greens, so even god architecture wouldn't play like it should.

So in conclusion. People up here build courses to make money. They go to names like Palmer (Sanctuary Cove), Nicklaus (Lakelands), Thomson (Hope Island) and Norman (Brooky, Pelican) and even Ross Watson because he is local and probably half the price.

Apart from Norman, none of these blokes have built anything much good, and none have worked with anything resembling a decent site in QLD.

Then you have Doak knocking up Andy Beach which debuts in the Top 10 but is about to go broke, while dumps like Lakelands and Hope Island are rolling in cash and charging $160 a round. So if you were building a course up here, would you build one that makes money, or rates highly?

damoocow
27th December 2007, 04:48 PM
Sandringham is a public access course, and it's literally over the road from Royal Melbourne. Even in its limited capacity, I think you'll be amazed with the quality. Apparently a couple of the holes were once RM holes.

must agree fishfinger - played at "Royal" Sandringham in the early 80's when I lived in Melbourne for a bit - it really was a great course as I remember - and from what I recall the closest we got to Royal Melbourne was looking through the [chain wire ?] fence - obviously designed to keep the rabble out


damoocow