Topic: Golf Architecture / 150 markers

ysenrab

Re 150 metre posts. The purist view is that any marking of distances into the greem (posts at 150 metres, 100 metres, ‘yardages’ on sprinkler heads) simply should not be. In reality, with speed of play a major problem, with increasing numbers of ‘visitors’ playing club courses, on which golfers are often forced to remain, there is value in allowing players to have a strong guide to distances and therefore club selection.

I personally prefer distances marked to front of green. And note that with any course intended for tournament play, all distance markings should be obliterated or removed for the tournament itself.

As to colouring of posts: doesn’t matter in my view providing it is easily identified for what it is – not OOB or hazards. Some courses use a standard plant or bush.

Cheers Tony

Topic: Golf Architecture / Cashmore designed 4th @ Kingswood

Thanks GetIn – your idea of a back tee has in fact been formally raised at Club level, even making for a 180m+ golf hole, and yes, this would need to have the left front bunker filled in to allow players of lesser strength a diagonal run-in avenue: shaping of the filled-in bunker could well produce a ‘banked’ approach.

Pin positions right side just over the front bunker would be tougher than at present, but still available to fine high approaches. But the essence of the hole lie in the ‘compartment’ character of the green with its soft spur left central and the intersecting swell down the green: it suits a shorter approach set by the present tee system, but the difficulty of finding back pin positions would be severe if Club players of ordinary skills were hitting long irons or hybrids to them. The situation would of course be exacerbated if the bank down to the water behind the green were to be mown all the way down – this would in fact defeat some of the strategic interest of the hole, in that good brave players presently play to back positions knowing that going just too far means about a half-stroke penalty in playing back from th bank, but an inevitable watery grave and the required drop zone situation would force such players to abandon bravery and play short. I really don’t want that.

The other factor is that the Club originally asked for a par-3 hole which ‘balanced’ in rating amongst the other 1-shot examinations through the course – it was not to be the stand-out long par-3 in the Club’s golf journey. Of course the advances in golf equipment may now make such niceties in judgement obsolete, and there may be value therefore in adopting in some guise the thinking you express.

Cheers GetIn Tony

Topic: Golf Architecture / Croydon's new track

Sorry mate – misread Eastwood for Eastern (getting my glasses back tomorrow!).

I have no strong memory of Eastwood – it’s not a very difficult course, and my inspections some years back suggested the turf quality was good. Some very good short 4’s, and one uphill par-3 of fine quality, but really I’m not the one to ask about it. My gut feel is that the new Croydon venue will be significantly better.

Tony

Topic: Golf Architecture / Croydon's new track

Thanks Gripnrip

Croydon’s new (27 hole) course has a fine architect in charge and a top rate construction team. The land forms suggest a nicely undulating and excellent golf journey will be there; and a modern club house specifically tailored to flexible membership and visitor requirements has been planned. And with the extended freeway, access to the venue will be quite ok. Yes, it will certainly be challenging from the back tees, but modern design standards will ensure all players can be examined and stimulated no matter what their skill and strength levels are.

I’m wondering what the hesitation is with having a course ‘so open to the elements…’ isn’t that one of the greatest qualities of a ‘traditional’ golf experience? So, if tree copses take some time to develop (and knowing the architect as I do, this will not be a strategic concern into the future), waiting for their maturity is not a disadvantage.

Eastern has a fine ‘membership’ golf course set in established trees. It has some problems with boundaries. It has an excellent course superintendent and staff who work like mad to keep the turf in good condition no matter what the season. But the course can be wet in a long winter. The club atmosphere is genial and warm. There are several fine strategic golf holes, and a few which might be improved and made safer.

Both couches are good, and it really depends on the soil characteristics and maintenance regimes as to how any couch satisfies cold winter conditions. The alternative of course is the use of cool season grasses.

Cheers Tony

Topic: Golf Architecture / Cashmore 18

Rightfoot Sloth

1. I’ve replied to some of Craness 75’s questions. The problem for me with Yarrambat’s drawings is that I don’t have access to them at present, and really need them to present to you all. But……

Yarrambat’s routing

The layout stemmed from the following key factors:

a) The ‘Clubhouse’ location and its access was determined by others (existing services etc).

The land immediately to the north of this was suitable for a practice fairway, but was too short east to west to allow decent opening or closing holes (the dense untouchable treestand).

Directly

north play was not allowed because of existing archery club and other fixed activities.

c) Therefore the routing out and in to the clubhouse precinct needed to be south side. Four holes were required, essentially parallel, with the creek midway down, treestands up on the far side out some 380 – 400 metres away, and further treestands defining the west side of this wide paddock. Road east side. That 4-hole arrangement worked well.

d) From there, one loop could examine play to the west and thence north, behind the treestands, returning downhill at Hole 7 to a green setting on the creek mentioned, Hole 8 as a shortish par-3 through a gap in the trees, and Hole 9 playing back uphill to the clubhouse. Hole 2 was finally designed necessarily to suit the loop, before decisions on Hole 8 were finalized. Hole 7 was actually a natural piece of land – uphill drive to a broad crown, then strongly down to a (tight) green setting at the low node, with trees not allowed to be interfered with. The hill right side of the green approach is shale rock base, and budgets did not allow removing part of it. The hole works, but just….

e) The other 9–hole loop then had to head south west after its opening (east-side) hole, and exploit the more open land, undulating land, with a strange triangular ‘site’ of neighboring property conditioning some of the routing. Hole 15 is not as convincing as it would be fashioned now that the neighbors’ land take is included into the golf course site. Hole 16 was a natural par-3, although the property line has been brought in some 12 metres from the original alignment, making the green setting more compromised than I wanted.

Hole 17 is strong, but perhaps too narrow. Hole 18 has been truncated, green end, as previously reported – no reference to me when they rebuilt the clubhouse in a somewhat changed location.

f) The point I made in another posting was that early routing analysis had to decide whether Hole 2 played

north

of the treestand (where Hole 8 now is, in reverse), or south of it, with a different context obviously for the entire loop, whichever way was decided.

The ‘

order of design’

for the course, from memory, went something like this, although you must understand the analytic thinking brought to bear on course routing alternatives is a fluid thing – not carried out in steps.

• Holes 1, 18, 10, 9 somewhat in that order to satisfy the starting point, fixed for me, the ‘creek’ being another consideration. Hole 18 and Hole 1 seen as very fine par-4’s particularly.

• Hole 2 / Hole 8, with Hole 7 being a logical interrupter, if Hole 2 was to proceed north of the trees. This matter fixed the ultimate loop arrangement when decided.

• Hole 5 and Hole 17: Hole 5 was a natural, Hole 17 had to work with the tees to Hole 18, and the hill up was steepish; Hole 16 was a natural, from the top of the hill, and fixed where Hole 17’s tees could be, in the context of the ‘natural’ downhill Hole 12. (See how fluid it is?)

• Thus Hole 11, aligned where it would be, in Hole 17’s context, and Hole 6, on side-sloping land, from a good tee place back in the trees – I had to get logically from the 5th Green to the Hole 7 platform tees behind the tree copse. Hole 6’s green (narrow, in shade) is perhaps not convincing.

• Hole 13, 14, 15 were fill-in holes out at the end of the course, conditioned by the boundary considerations, but enjoying good, undulating land: Hole 15 was especially good in its uphill approach to a ‘crown’ green setting. Many trees were planted here.

• Holes 3 and 4 were fill-in holes too, made to fit the loop needs fixed by other matters as noted. I worked hard to make them interesting.

Hope this explains things a bit. I will post drawings if I can ever get them.

The drawings for The Dunes proposals are still being collated. Sorry.

Tony.

Topic: Golf Architecture / Cashmore 18

Mrdenn1s

Hole 7 Kingswood

1.Some may be surprised that this short par-4 receives much praise from members and visitors in its own right, and also as a comparison to the hole it replaced. Particularly.

2. It pleases me in the fact that the base site conditions were extremely difficult, and although its present format is less than the original design envisaged (hidden matters in the site prevented the full design to be constructed) the golf hole examines players of all skill levels very well. Strong players attempting to overpower the hole are often thwarted, and in my view, this is a good thing – a view not shared by those strong players, let it be noted!

Tony.

Topic: Golf Architecture / Succession planning for retiring architects

Horatio

,

Succession in any design business is a complex thing to manage. Hopefully, intelligent and design-conscious people in the firm gain experience not only in general design problem solving but learn perhaps much of the philosophy of the original ‘name’ designer, and can carry through that thinking, so there is some continuity of ‘style’ into the future. Two things might well be remembered: firstly, the ‘

great name

’ designers usually rely significantly on trained and clever people in their organizations to actually design course layouts and general strategic/visual values in the firm’s golf courses, with the ‘name’ often only peripherally involved; secondly, any competent, experienced designer taking over the reins would inevitably bring his/her individual thinking to bear on different sites.

It is indeed rare that a golf architect is strongly involved with most if not all of his/her individual firm’s work. With Cashmore Design, I am very confident in the ability of my son and the experienced confreres here to carry on the work of the firm when/if I retire.

Good question – made us all think!

Tony

Topic: Golf Architecture / Cashmore 18

Serge:

Goonawarra

You know, in Goonawarra's early years, after the turf was all grown in, and course maintenance was correct, I was broadly happy with what was there, given the reactive clay soils, many rocks and floaters, truncated budgets, and the pressing in of some residential boundaries even in those early times. The layout was fine, there were a host of honest strategic golf holes, and players of diverse skill and strength levels all seemed to enjoy it. (That's No. 1. objective for me).

No, I haven't been asked to advise on any 'improvements'. (Hard to work now within utterly fixed and unsatisfactory residential boundaries anyway).

But yes, given a reasonable budget, the

standard

of tees, greens, and bunkers would be better if I was working on them now, 28 years later (!), but not a lot of change in the character or flow of the course, I think. Must get out there...

Cheers
Tony

Topic: Golf Architecture / Cashmore 18

craness75

Great questions. Mate, I'll leave the Yarrambat situation for the moment and deal with it in depth when I have time - late next week hopefully.

Goonawarra

It was a virtually flat cattle property - squelching mud up to the tops of gumboots when I first walked on it. The instruction to me was to design an integrated golf/residential estate for the then Housing Commission. I established safe boundaries to the entire course, using time-honoured buffer requirement of minimum 75 metres between centre of play of any golf hole and any relevant boundary. The course was constructed on that basis. Town planners engaged to work through the roads and residential infrastructure decided my buffers were too generous. Despite several formal written objections I made to clients, planners, and eventually the Premier, the result was that some boundaries were pushed further towards the course in final planning determinations, in the 'interests' of increasing the residential yield.

The course came first. The residential then proceeded over several years.

Cheers
Tony

Topic: Golf Architecture / Cashmore 18

Guys, Girls,

Top 18’s

This is becoming a fascinating thread, leading to all sorts of digressive but important matters, and the very thing I always wanted this forum to pursue. Here goes:

1. I’m going to post The Dunes (main course) plan, with notes of what I’m inclined now to recommend to the owners, in the interests of bringing back much of its strategic joy, in the face of required cart traffic and other impedimenta. I hope this exercise may excite your curiosity and comments, and will look forward to an exchange of ideas, whether you agree with me or not. Is that O.K.? Next week, hopefully.

2. Certainly Hole 4 Dunes drawing will be posted. Yarrambat golf holes’ drawings are harder to locate – the fire out there took 3 rolls of drawings (this was before computer drafting note), and I’ll have to work out where the original tracings are.

Cheers

Tony.

Topic: Golf Architecture / Cashmore 18

Gents, (I like that word!) and Ladies:

1.

18th Yarrambat

Yes, the hole originally had a strong visible waterbody which double-curved to allow a range of playlines either short of it or over. The green was 38 metres further on, and the setting was quite different, short-mown hollows and two bunkers. And yes, because the new clubhouse (original Cashmore-designed building was allegedly burnt down by 3 kids celebrating HSC results) was positioned much closer to the green, Council repositioned and redid the green setting without telling me. The agonies of being an architect...sometimes..

16th Yarrambat

A good hole which never entirely satisfied me, mainly because the intended bail out zone right side was truncated by a new boundary line to the property, and the statement of the creek never quite gelled in my mind - I got it slightly wrong - wish I'd had Barry Hudson doing the course shaping...

14th Yarrambat

Absolutely needed (needs) the bunker set-up to satisfy me, strategically and visually. By the way, do you enjoy Hole 2, which I also feel is OK - it was a difficult piece of land, somewhat because of the 8th green setup. Existing trees established constraints.

2.

4th Dunes

This, as originally designed and shaped/mown was nearly my most loved child. There were 4 drive possibilities depending on your skill, strength, and the conditions of the day, all of which were geared to how best to approach a mere sliver of an elevated green (somewhat modelled on The Old Course St Andrews' Hole 12):

• drive short of the bunkers, leaving a full wedge -8 iron (wind);
• drive left, to catch the downslope and get a big kick forward into the bowl, leaving a flick lob wedge, but probably over the deep bunker;
• drive over the bunkers (248 metres) to reach the second bowl and the possibility of the ball feeding onto the green (open to this approach line);
• drive down Hoe 7 to a spot opposite the long axis of the green - this appears the best for good golfers, but the original land contours out here probably mean a peeing-dog lie for the elevated pitch onto a narrow target, big fall-off both sides. The contours have been removed..

The green is 20 metres deep left side, behind the bunker, and average 16 metres across the right half. Big fall behind the green used to be close mown! As was the entire left side fairway/bowl. Ordinary golfers found the pitch task too difficult, resulting in ping pong. The owners have therefore pulled the teeth out of the hole by mowing all the left side and behind the green as ball-holding rough. (I never had worse than par on this hole in its original status! Lucky!)

I will probably be asked to re-do this green and its approaches...

3. Yes, Melton Valley, west of Melbourne. This site was as flat as a table, with magnificent redgums along the meandering creek. The course was constructed to

very

low budgets, and has never been completed - at least 12 greens and 13 tees are merely 'pushed up', waiting for final construction. Still waiting..

4. I didn't put down a first 18 and a second 18 - both lists are intended to be equal. Thus Hole 16 Beach Course is still 'the best' Hole 16 I can think of, equal to Creek 16 (and maybe a couple of other Hole 16's...

5. Kingston Links. Since I only did a layout plan for this course, plus detailed stragetic plans for each hole and some greens' plans, but was not involved with the course construction, I didn't feel inclined to claim responsibility for golf holes there.

Cheers,
Tony

Topic: Golf Architecture / Cashmore 18

Hi guys

I was interested in seeing what others said before I coloured the stream. Well, here goes: (and some of these holes may not be in good 'presentation'/condition now, but represent my satisfaction at the time of their making): I've only used Australian courses many of you know.

Two lists

(is that OK?)

1. 13th Beach - Beach
2. 13th Beach - Beach
3. 13th Beach - Creek
4. Dunes
5. Henley
6. Forest Resort, Creswick (just shaped)
7. 13th Beach - Beach
8. Melton
9. Henley
10. Henley
11. 13th Beach - Beach
12. Dunes
13. Henley
14. 13th Beach - Creek
15. Bright
16. 13th Beach - Creek
17. Henley
18. Yarrambat (original)

2nd 18

1. Melton
2. Dunes
3. Dunes
4. Kew
5. Dunes
6. Metropolitan (revisions)
7. Kingswood
8. Goonawarra
9. 13th Beach - Creek
10. Bright
11. Henley
12. Henley
13. Dunes
14. Dunes
15. Forest Resort, Creswick (just finished shaping)
16. 13th Beach - Beach
17. Dunes
18. 13th Beach - Beach

Bloody hard question, Horato: lots got left out!

Tony

Topic: Golf Architecture / The role of rough...

Vman

Rough at Barnbougle Dunes

Trust this is not a loaded question! Look, with my comments on penal rough established (ie. non-ball-loseable anywhere reasonably close into fairway lines) let me say this:

Barnbougle Dunes is a very special, important golf course in fabulous golf country. Part of the joy is its vision, part of the essential character of the golf journey there RELIES on the crumpled fairway thrusts (usually pretty generous) being scribed through a wildland of long, light-coloured waving grasses. We will all lose balls in this sometimes, but I believe there is room for a singular course like BD in the lexicon of Australian great golf courses. Sure, you need to be a reasonable quality player to tackle its challenges (the penal rough included) with some success and satisfaction, but every golfer can play it and succumb to its innate quality and visual beauty.

And I have to say this: to lose 10 balls over 4 rounds at BD is unfortunate; to lose 50 is perhaps a little careless……. Surely the group can look carefully at where the ball disappears in the rough, and go straight to it???

Tony

Topic: Golf Architecture / Best Bunkerless Hole

Best Bunkerless Hole

• For me, 14th Royal Dornoch – one of the best 10 holes I’ve ever played. North Berwick’s Hole 18 – a beauty. Barnbougle Dunes Hole 6 – excellent and exciting.

• ttitheridge, tongue in cheek, Melton Valley has bunkers on 10 holes.

• Fredd k, Bright has bunkers on 5 holes, the course design showed more

• Not the best, but interesting: One day perhaps Hole 8 on the new Henley Course, only 120 metres long maximum, the green set between 3 wetlands, but with pretty generous surrounds. I used a small concealing hill to split vision of the green from the tee – this somehow makes clubbing a tad testing. The hill has strong (non-ball-loseable) tough on its tee side, smooth as a spur down into the smallish green.

• The original 14th at The Dunes had no ‘bunkers’, and was a favourite of mine.

Tony

Topic: Golf Architecture / Kingston Links 6th

Jarrod

Hole 6 Kingston Links

I rang them. The pro-shop says: “that’s absolute bollocks – hit driver if you want to.†Can’t for the life of me see why not anyway.

Cheers,

Tony

Topic: Golf Architecture / The role of rough...

trysil

Nice to hear from you. You haven't said whether the landing zones for drives, and fairways at your course generally are very generous. This obviously affects one's attitude to the status of the rough. But your comment that wind is a factor probably means that most handicap players are going to be off-line often enough to be in penal rough.

In my opinion, the rough zones perform several functions on a golf course. Firstly, a primary rough zone defines the fairway edge, and that's important. I'm told that studies in England indicate drives on public courses are significantly straighter if the alignments of the fairways are clearly defined by a belt of primary rough, rather than the entire vision down a golf hole being a nebulous one colour, one texture statement. This applies also to the clear definition of the START of the fairway - if golfers see that they apparently tend to set up to it more easily. Some architects exploit this by using grass types for primary rough which have a significantly different colour (seasonally) to the fairway turf.

However, there is nothing inherently wrong in having some wildness between tees and the start of the fairway, providing topped balls might be located quickly, (isolated bushes etc.) and the actual start of the fairway is still strongly evident, and not so far away to cause panic!

Primary rough zones ought to exact some penalty for good golfers, in terms perhaps of a potential 'flyer' lie - not knowing how the flight of a ball will be from different lies in short rough exercises their golfing minds, especially to well-defended greens. But play their best approach shots when the ball is sitting up in such short rough.

Penal rough in my view ought to be well away from fairways for all play except championships perhaps, and should be 'non-ball-loseable'. We all hate to lose golf balls, especially when quite close to a fairway's edge. Looking for balls in serious rough is the bane of golfers and course operators alike. Secondary rough therefore ought to always allow quick finding of a ball, whilst making a recovery shot difficult. Not impossible, mind, but probably forcing a ball flight less than required. Depending on the type of grass(es) used to fix such rough, a monitored, slashed height of 3-4 inches may be sufficient for everyday play on a members course. It

must

be such that balls are not easily lost.

Tony Cashmore

Topic: Golf Architecture / John Hoy

Hux, sorry about my writing back then, and let me correct/complete Mackenzie's words as I transcribed them:

"There are fundamental laws of proportion and balance which decide the success of every created thing..."

"...we will do well to ensure that even an uneducated man... "

Hux, Miss Eva Tame (she never married) was a difficult very old lady in later years, but had been my family's 'second mother', living with us through my entire childhood, through to adulthood, and dearly loved. I put this context down so you can understand I chased her elderly brother for any effects left to him, and also my sister, who was very close to Eve at the end. No luck. Which is sad for many reasons: there were 2 of my watercolours e.g. I'd given to Eve which I would have liked back. We all believe all paper things and much else were just thrown out or burnt in Benalla.

fredd k,

Perhaps. First. I couldn't find the bloody notes I'd taken, in a long period of moving house and exciting overseas work and travel, and to have posted something (even saying that) would have brought the wrath of thunder down on my neck. But also...

Understand please, mate, I had become totally disillusioned with the Forum and the often irrelevant, often ridiculous, trite, callous, and ill-motivated squandering of forum space by a host of vacuous bruisers who chased their petty dream exultantly, without the decency of honesty or recognition, without knowing or understanding background vicissitudes which sometimes cause an architect huge anxiety and difficulty. I am my own strongest critic, (all designers are, or should be, 'though a couple certainly are not), and I have posted at several times criticism of work I've done which does not please me at all. And that's not easy. Criticism by one's peers and interested people might, however, sometimes be tempered with positive suggestions, or an occasional tick, rather than a flat, rude denigration and dismissal of everything a designer has been involved with. Examples? Well, to label the Creek Course at Thirteenth Beach as crap and just awful is senseless and plain wrong: MANY good and not so good golfers love it, prefer it to the Beach Course, ( and some of the forum talkers think the Beach Course is bad too, simply, I guess because Cashmore did it!) The fact that both courses are (somehow!) nearly universally highly regarded by the golf world means nothing to them, such are their unworthy motives. And I KNOW they are fine golf courses. The new necessary and agonizingly-difficult work on Holes 7 and 8 at Royal Melbourne? Highly thought of by most golfers, both Members and visitors, including international very fine golfers, and yet totally rejected and reviled by some forum contributors! Do they not understand that I and the Club receive broad strong commendation for such work, and when all grows in we believe the new holes will retain the RM character with greater safety and hopefully strategic values? Of course they don't! And that I feel like putting the forum far on the back burner? Oh yeah.

So it will be with the Henley Course. A new Cashmore course? Let's get together and knock the crap out of it, huh? A short par-3 without a bunker? A long par-4 where the big boys really can't drive more than 250 meters, forcing a long approach to a well-protected green? A par-5 which plays much better as a 3-shotter than trying to overwhelm the terrain in 2? Boy! Can the antagonists get stuck into all that and more! Guys, girls, I'd really like to do a piece on Henley explaining an architect's original thinking and long birth pains in bringing into the world what I and others think is a fine golf course, but such writing will only be rejected out of hand and ridiculed by the forum mafia, so I have to think, what's the use?

Am I being a tad sensitive? You bet I am: any creator is. OK, I opened myself up to fulsome criticism by starting this arm of the forum, but it's a bit rich to become a mere patsy for some idiots to constantly throw rotten tomatoes at without them ever wiping my face in a spirit of generosity.

That's my piece and it's now off my mind...

Tony Cashmore.

Topic: Golf Architecture / John Hoy

Firstly, my apologies to all fair-minded contributors for my long absence(s) from this noble forum. To be quite candid, I became wearied by the insistent diatribes and sometimes false commentaries made by a select few persons who obviously have little respect for anyone.

Hux, (and others)

Mackenzie - John Hoy - New Zealand

This is what I know, and the trail is somewhat unsatisfactory because of time and deaths.

A long-time very close friend of my entire family, Eva Tame, now deceased, was a friend of a John Hoy (or Jack, or Big Jack as she and others called him). Hoy had lived in Gippsland, near Eva's family, but went to live in NZ, outside Rotorua, until his death in the early 1950's I think. Hoy was a farmer, but also a stonemason, and an amateur artist in oils, Eva told me. Some of Hoy's effects went to Eva Tame on his death, including 2 letters from Mackenzie to Hoy, and several letters from a Geoffrey Townshend, a NZ artist who went to live in Sydney and acquired some fame.

I read Mackenzie's letters with Eva Tame in July 1988, in Benalla, and took notes of 3 passages in one of the letters, and quotations from Townshend too, because Eva would not release the documents to me. (AT that time I was painting seriously for exhibitions, and the various things I noted from the letters were really more
relevant to art rather than golf courses).

Both of Mackenzie's letters used language and incidents which indicated John Hoy was more than an acquaintance although the time-frame for their contact, if only in NZ, would have to have been brief: we know Hoy travelled quite a lot, so they may have met elsewhere too. I have no idea what their relationship initially involved, or whether any letters from Hoy to AM exist?

I have scanned the notes I took back in 1988 and will post them here for you: perhaps other things Mackenzie noted are interesting to us all: I wish now that I had copied the full letter contents, but at that time Mackenzie was not as strong an element in my life as subsequently.

Can someone take this further? I'd like to know, but the little quotation I used seems to me anyway to reflect what Mackenzie said in other ways in his book: see e.g. the section on Blind Holes, starting at 'I haven't the smallest hesitation...', or the section on Giving the Player Thrills, 'A good golf course is
like good music...', or even the section on The Course for the Beginner, starting at 'The expert in golf architecture...'

Tony Cashmore.

John_Hoy_Notes___Tony_Cashmore.pdf

Topic: Golf Architecture / The Dunes

As an addition to James' comments:

Upanddown23, Moe, thanks for your comments. Here's the problem: The Dunes was deliberately NOT designed for golf carts initially - it was to be a 'pure' course. But money talks and many carts now traverse the turf. The course superintendent has therefore grown out into harder wearing rough portions of some original fairways - Holes 4 (the entire LHS fairway), 5, 7 (and the 6th approach, right side, which is a tragedy, in my view), and 15, where constant cart traffic through narrow zones was causing bad wear.

The mowing patterns now have nothing to do with strategic design of these holes. Your question is a good one - the designer ultimately has no control over how the course is set up.

Tony

Topic: Golf Architecture / 13B Creek #13

Hello ttitheridge, from deepest China!

Hole 13 at the Creek Course with its two trees was set into the routing party for a not so obvious reason. You see, the budget for the course construction was small, and flattish farmland over which the course was to be planned had so little character that I seized upon any feature which might give the course some distinction in its early years. This piece of land where Hole 13 is was one of the few places where some undulation occurred naturally - a ridge near the road where tees could be successfully placed, a soft shallow valley for the drive, out of which the land rose gently up to a perfect green site set in ole pines. Now the two trees out at 240 metres, and separated by about 30 metres were THERE. Was I going to cut either one of them, or both of them down? ‘Bogey Bus’ and other ‘purists’ would say “yes!”. But I saw the potential (as others have subsequently) for a ‘fun’ strategic golf hole here, and I designed for THREE distinct driveline options,

not

two – originally there was 60 metre wide fairway defined to the right side if the right hand tree, terminating in a built ridge at 235 metres to stop any drive at that distance. The idea was that anyone would drive out right, unencumbered by the trees at all, but the drive length would be truncated, and the longer approach into the diagonal green would be strongly examined by the deep greenside bunkers.

The right side fairway was jettisoned for budget reasons, but the entire fairway width was intended to be 130 metres, with two linear soft spurs aimed at the two trees dividing that vast expanse into three. The green was then designed to reward approaches from the left-side ‘leg’, which is the most dangerous because of the out-of-bounds fence (but there’s actually about 35 metres out there, please note), and progressively more difficult for the middle option, and then as noted the (original) wide right one.

The other thing to note is that the

length

of the drive needs to be thought about: you need to decide at the tee whether you can drive

past

the two trees, to allow a clear shot into th green, or to lay up well short of them to have space to play over them if your aim was a bit away.

So it’s a fascinating strategic hole, this little 13th, and gives the lie to those who think everything must be laid out clearly, unimpeded visually – the ‘ordinary’, the banal. Yes, two bunkers would have achieved much of what’s there, but why not use the canvas given to you?

Cheers

Tony

Topic: Golf Architecture / New Bunker construction

QUOTE: Rightfoot_sloth @ Feb 28 2006, 10:35 AM

In light with discussion of the work done at Mornington. I am interested to find it how much costs for a club to put in a new bunker ? I know it would most likely cost more on clay belt course due extra drainage work required. Also how does the price vary between fairway and green side bunkers ? Is there any additional cost for green side bunkers ? Or is it purely based on sizes ? Any info would be great.

Thanks,
RFS

Good question Rightfoot Sloth!

I dont think there is any simple answer because as you have already observed there are so many variables that come into play. Here are just a few; what is the nature of the ground conditions? do we need to import material to build up the bunker to assist with drainage? Is drainage required at all? and of course what is the size, shape and complexity of the bunker proposed?.

It would be a rare occasion indeed that we would ever suggest a Club start adding green side bunkers without also adjusting at least part of the green and its surrounds (as we did with the 6th at Metro for example) because usually they look just like that - added on and awful. We often recommend new fairway bunkering but always ensure that the bunker 'grows out of its surrounds' and is not just stuck on the ground. Usually a new fairway bunker is associated with some fairway recontouring so it all blends in as 'naturally' as possible.

In terms of cost a general figure of perhaps $15-20K for a new medium sized fairway bunker on clay soils including all sands, drainage and assocaited works could be used. But if Clubs utilise their own staffing resources this figure can be reduced significantly.

Cheers, Tony

Topic: Golf Architecture / Hole 6 at Henley

Hi Guys,
Just returned back to the office, sorry for the absence but I see Wilksie has been looking after things!! Im heading out to Heritage later today and thought it was a good time to get your comments on our new 6th hole out there which was completed a couple of months back and is now in the 'grow-in' stage. Below is a plan of the hole and attached are a couple of photographs of Todd (our competition winner) hitting shots from the back tee (good position at the top Todd!).

Look forward to your comments and questions.

Cheers,

Tony

Topic: Golf Architecture / Small Greens

Well summarised Matthew M.

Of course there is a place for smaller greens on modern golf courses but perhaps 350-400 sq. m is about a small as we would ever go on a busy public layout. On a private layout that receives less daily use, perhaps 300. As a comparison, the 8th green at RM East (very small by RM standards) which we recently rebuilt was about 300 but was enlarged to its former size of about 380. Obviously smaller greens limit the number of different pin positions which in turn reduces the flexibility of the golf hole. The only construction cost savings are in materials – the cost of building the green and its surrounds (which may encompass a further 1000 sq.m.) are essentially the same. If the green is being built to USGA specifications then savings in gravel and sands are negligible in the scheme of things.

Cheers
Tony

Topic: Golf Architecture / Short Par 4's under 300 metres

Sorry for the late response guys. I too love the short par 4 and believe it is an essential element of the golf course. These are the holes that don’t need lengthening and we must resist the temptation to do so. Melbourne has some truly remarkable short par-4’s – the 3rd and 9th at Kingston Heath and the old 1st at Commonwealth are two that haven’t yet been mentioned. I always try to incorporate at least two short par-4’s into my designs. The favourites that I have designed? The 4th at The Dunes and 5th at 13th Beach ‘Beach’ course come to mind and the new 11th at Heritage (constructed but not yet in play) will be talked about as well. The best short par-4 that I have designed that has not (yet?) been built is the 3rd at ‘The Cliffs’ at San Remo. This will be a truly remarkable golf hole with a potential to drive across 280 metres of roaring ocean to a green site perched on a cliff edge. Of course there is alternate route with 50 metres of fairway to aim at to its right.

Thanks
Tony

Topic: Golf Architecture / Possible Golf Hole - Your thoughts?

Guys, girls - thanks for the excellent thoughts on my sketch for the par-5 possible in Greece. I guess the girls' tee needs to allow all reasonable drives to reach the plateau's furthest extent, and yes, there would be value in then extending the right side fairway a bit back more towards the tee to allow short-hitters to tack up that way - but with some defences at the start of the 'reentry'.

Bunker front left of the green, and other shaping matters for the green and surrounds would accentuate the risk/reward impact.

I'll keep you all in the loop.

Cheers
Tony