Why are there so few good golf courses in Queensland?

[Webster]

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]

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]

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]

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]

The knobs that do the list are mexicans ...

[3oneday]

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

[Webster]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 Doon

The 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Who ?

[Andrew]

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]

[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]

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]

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]

The less good courses up here, the less Mexicans that come to play them. Not complaints from me either.

[markTHEblake]

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