Jump to content


 

Photo

Woodlands changes


  • Please log in to reply
136 replies to this topic

#106 golfguy33

golfguy33

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3915 posts

Posted 28 October 2006 - 02:12 AM

QUOTE: Jack @ Oct 27 2006, 06:48 AM


Jon,

I'm assuming they would just change the scorecard and play 2 and 18 as par 4's? Surely no harm done in that (ala Victoria)


Jack, they say push the tee's at 2 & 18 forward 10 yards, 2 x par 4's= 70.
Move tee's back at 6 & 7 ?
Hard & fast greens, abit of rough & bingo, good golf ?
Jon...



#107 Tinsworth

Tinsworth

    If it's on the internet then it must be right.....

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5673 posts

Posted 28 October 2006 - 02:14 AM

QUOTE: hookedongolf @ Oct 26 2006, 12:04 PM


"The Course Master Plan will be shelved" ... I believe that was the comment in the new Captain had in his proposal speech ...

"Shelved" or "Binned" ?

Have they been canned for good or simply on the backburner for another crack at a later date?



#108 drgolf

drgolf

    Suspect

  • Members
  • 5 posts

Posted 29 October 2006 - 01:39 AM

QUOTE: ttitheridge @ Jun 29 2005, 10:08 AM


The 3rd is a great green. From a good position just inside 90-100m, it is not a difficult shot. It is the knowledge of what happens to you if you don't execute it correctly that intimidates and causes errors, resulting in some fun third shots. At the end of summer at its firmest, don't miss the green. At this time of year, there is a little more margin for recovery.


disagree
3rd green is bloody difficult to hold and way too small, even from inside
100m
I keep hitting green and still roll over the back too often, even with Titleist ProV


QUOTE: mac @ Jun 25 2005, 05:46 AM


TT,JJJ

What heppened at 3 and 12 ought to convince enough people not to go ahead with the rest of what would be a disaster.


disagree
bunkers on 12 look great, and stop balls that previously ended up unplayable or lost
in bushes

QUOTE: Jack @ Jul 30 2006, 07:05 PM


Has anyone been able to work out how or why Woodlands is broken and needs this sort of "fixing"?


I've been member at Woodlands 7yrs.
Yes it's a great course, BUT - modern technology rendering what used to be tough holes
obsolete. 6097m is way too short for a major tournament, something all sandbelts clubs
aspire too. Remember this course was built in 1913 and last changed many many years
ago when clubs/ balls were totally different.
Plus there is ever increasing competition for members, what with all the new courses being
built eg Sandhurst etc
I don't see anything wrong with improving the course as long as not outlandish



#109 Strike

Strike

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 128 posts

Posted 29 October 2006 - 02:50 AM

In my opinion, instead of changing both holes 2 and 18 to par 4's, they should:

Move 18's tee forward by about 20 metres (say at the ladies tee) to make a bit more distance between the 17th green and the 18th tee, and also to make it <u>more</u> of a blind shot, so that you can't even see the green. Would also be ideal to make the bunkers there in play, but i don't know if anyone would be able to hit <u>that</u> far.

Move 4's tee far enough forward to be able to call it a par three, only a minimum though to maximise it's length, and have the final day with a front pin. That would be just about the toughest par 3 I could imaginge.

And play the 2nd as a par 5, with a tee a bit further back, if there was space, don't think there is though. Would be great if they could put a temporary tee area there just for a tournament.

They should try out a par 70 in a Vic open and see how it goes.



#110 Alphonse

Alphonse

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 275 posts

Posted 29 October 2006 - 08:38 AM

QUOTE: carlosc @ Oct 28 2006, 03:39 PM


Yes it's a great course, BUT - modern technology rendering what used to be tough holes
obsolete. 6097m is way too short for a major tournament, something all sandbelts clubs
aspire too. Remember this course was built in 1913 and last changed many many years
ago when clubs/ balls were totally different.
Plus there is ever increasing competition for members, what with all the new courses being
built eg Sandhurst etc
I don't see anything wrong with improving the course as long as not outlandish

They can shoot 18 under+ regularly on 6700 metre courses. Added length makes little difference to touring pros, but has a disproportionate impact on the members who account for practically all the rounds. Play Woodlands as a par 70 for the Aus Open and what do you think they would shoot? I doubt they would get to -10.

I do agree though there is nothing wrong with improving the course. The problem with the hopefully now shelved masterplan was that in relation to hole changes (ignoring the vegetation management elements), there was abolutely

nothing

that would improve the course. And it sounds like the members saw through it and voted accordingly.



#111 John J Jones

John J Jones

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2765 posts

Posted 29 October 2006 - 08:54 AM

Carlosc,

6097m is way too short for a major tournament

Moonah Links Open is 6800+ yet that didn't stop Allenby shooting 63. As Alphonse has said - distance is irrelevant in pro golf today. Just because it makes it harder for you doesn't mean it makes it any harder for pros. By all means try and stretch Woodlands to 6500m or similar. Stuff one of the great courses in this country up for the sake of 4 rounds of golf and watch the pros rip it apart anyway.

JJ



#112 _Andrew_

_Andrew_

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2337 posts

Posted 29 October 2006 - 05:06 PM

Pro golf has to be the most overrated aspect of all golf. Clubs chase prestige through tournaments & wreck their course in the process, disregarding the people who play the course 360 days a year. With all the technology advancements over the last 30 years, surveys show the average handicap has barely improved.

In regards to tournament golf, who cares what they shoot. The aim is the find the best golfer over the 4 days. I don’t believe par matters. In a stroke event, they only need to refer to how many shots were taken e.g. Peter Lonard 272, Gavin Coles 274, Robert Allenby WD.

A course the quality of Woodlands needs to be careful of the changes it makes, as it is easier to make changes that diminish the quality instead of augment the quality. Some courses will get to the point of being unable to improve their course due to the constriction of their property. Committees should understand that and be content.



#113 ttitheridge

ttitheridge

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5492 posts

Posted 29 October 2006 - 06:18 PM

carlosc,

You may be a mid to long term member, but you know little of quality.


QUOTE: carlosc @ Oct 28 2006, 04:39 PM


3rd green is bloody difficult to hold and way too small, even from inside
100m
I keep hitting green and still roll over the back too often, even with Titleist ProV

From the optimum approach zone, the green is not difficult to hold with an old two piece rock. I have been playing Woodlands for more than 20 years, worked at at least six tournaments there (including two where i was working for the tour bodies with the groundstaff on the course prep), have never played it as a single figure handicapper, and yet with all manner of outdated implements, have NEVER found the green difficult to hold with a good shot from the right approach area.



bunkers on 12 look great, and stop balls that previously ended up unplayable or lost
in bushes

They use the device utilised by lesser and lower quality courses of "pinching" drive zones. Many of the great courses don't use compulsory corridors of play. They offer width and enticement and it is up to the player to avoid folly by unthinkingly hitting to a lesser zone. Courses that pinch are a dime a dozen, and there are hundreds in this country that will never be in this nation's top 100. It is NOT something to aspire to.

Woodlands FIRST BECAME a great course because of its use of these devices and angles to accentuate the contrasting approaches into green complexes. The members of today have a choice. Allow it to continue to be a great golf course (it has been wonderful for nearly 100 years), or be the first to mess it up. Read this next bit carefully, and you'll learn why the recent vote went the way it did.

A couple of hundred metres and a nip and tuck would achieve nothing to seriously improve what has been a great course for generations before you came along. It is a great course because those decades before you ALSO resisted such short sightedness.



Yes it's a great course, BUT - modern technology rendering what used to be tough holes
obsolete. 6097m is way too short for a major tournament, something all sandbelts clubs
aspire too. Remember this course was built in 1913 and last changed many many years
ago when clubs/ balls were totally different.
Plus there is ever increasing competition for members, what with all the new courses being
built eg Sandhurst etc

With this above quote, you have revealed your complete ignorance about course architecture.

Woodlands is a good club because it HASN'T greatly tinkered foolishly with the course. To meddle with it now gives your Sandhursts a boost and a free pass. Clubs and balls may have been totally different my friend, but the average handicap

hasn't changed

. That's right, it ISN'T easier. You want to fight off the competition for members? Keep the course great by leaving it and you will.

I have worked at professional tournaments (both men and women) here many a time, a LOT longer than you've been there.

I've seen more pro tournament play at Woodlands than you have, and been involved in the preparation. You cannot tell me ONE SINGLE way the course has suffered at the hands of proficient modern players because it HASN'T. The PGA at Medinah was played on a course nearly 7km long, and yet the winning score there was just as low as the average has been at Woodlands!!! laugh.gif


I don't see anything wrong with improving the course as long as not outlandish

I agree. And RARELY do any course changes do anything except

LOWER

the quality of the course. So therefore, they are NOT improvements.

Go away and come back when you learn something, or get over being bitter about the meddling minority having their carnage halted.



#114 MatthewM

MatthewM

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1857 posts

Posted 29 October 2006 - 08:52 PM

QUOTE: carlosc @ Oct 28 2006, 04:39 PM


6097m is way too short for a major tournament, something all sandbelts clubs aspire too.

Far from it. I think you'll find there are a number of sandbelt clubs which are very happy to have others host tournaments. Not too many would aspire to host them at all.

MM



#115 Moe

Moe

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 7146 posts

Posted 30 October 2006 - 03:10 AM

In a stroke event, they only need to refer to how many shots were taken e.g. Peter Lonard 272, Gavin Coles 274, Robert Allenby WD.

*clap* *clap* laugh.gif

Play them all at Metro, the pro's will be none the wiser that its not that good, the grass will be nice and the members will feel even more prestigious about being members at the turf farm.



#116 Uncle_Leo

Uncle_Leo

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 7928 posts

Posted 30 October 2006 - 03:50 AM

QUOTE: Moe @ Oct 29 2006, 05:10 PM


*clap* *clap* laugh.gif

Play them all at Metro, the pro's will be none the wiser that its not that good, the grass will be nice and the members will feel even more prestigious about being members at the turf farm.

Good idea. Metro has plenty of space for the big events, although they havent had a strokeplay event there since 1997. When the matchplay was there in 20o0, there were some huge sub-par scores, so it would be interesting to see how the course would stand up to the modern game now. I can just imagine how the members would take it if the winning score there was -20



#117 Moe

Moe

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 7146 posts

Posted 30 October 2006 - 04:18 AM

narrow the turf strips a bit i'd imagine.

IPB Image something like this?



#118 AndyA

AndyA

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1609 posts

Posted 01 November 2006 - 02:37 PM

QUOTE: MatthewM @ Oct 29 2006, 01:52 AM


Far from it. I think you'll find there are a number of sandbelt clubs which are very happy to have others host tournaments. Not too many would aspire to host them at all.

Name the sandbelt clubs who don't aspire to host tournaments.



#119 _Andrew_

_Andrew_

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2337 posts

Posted 01 November 2006 - 05:02 PM

QUOTE: AndyA @ Nov 1 2006, 04:37 AM


Name the sandbelt clubs who don't aspire to host tournaments.


Huntingdale



#120 MatthewM

MatthewM

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1857 posts

Posted 02 November 2006 - 08:29 AM

QUOTE: AndyA @ Nov 1 2006, 04:37 AM


Name the sandbelt clubs who don't aspire to host tournaments.

Andy, in my opinion, Royal Melbourne, Yarra Yarra, Commonwealth, Spring Valley and maybe one or two others would be more than happy without the disruption, the course works, the unwashed masses trampling their courses, and the headaches leading upto and following any major tournament. Do you see it differently?

MM






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users