Jump to content


 

Photo

Sandbelt ranking


  • Please log in to reply
78 replies to this topic

#16 Percy

Percy

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 96 posts

Posted 20 December 2002 - 12:42 AM

Henry,
I must concur. Compared to Cheltenham, most courses on the Sandbelt are a disappointment. How could you compare 10W at RMGC with a great hole such as the 1st at Cheltenham. Every fairway should have a molested tree in the middle of it!.

With regards to Commonwealth, I still love the challenge of playing a knock-down wedge from a packed-mud lie. It must simply bring members to tears when they think of what could (and has) been.



#17 golfer69

golfer69

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5258 posts

Posted 20 December 2002 - 01:26 AM

Wow, this thread is really turning out to be a Sarcasmathon !



#18 Matt

Matt

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1115 posts

Posted 20 December 2002 - 02:11 AM

Hey golfer69, if no one agrees with your opinion you can always create someone who does. Seems like it happens a lot in this forum!



#19 the_unreal_jeffrey

the_unreal_jeffrey

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1928 posts

Posted 20 December 2002 - 02:44 AM

percy,

Welcome to the board. Great to have your contributions.

Matt,

I am fairly sure that you are wrong in your assertion.



#20 henry

henry

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3562 posts

Posted 20 December 2002 - 08:48 AM

Matt,
I can assure you that myself and Percy are not one and same...I actually find it offensive that you continue to accuse anyone with anything controversial to say of being dishonest. How about you confine your contributions to musings about golf?

Anyway, who would bother to create multiple identities to agree with their views? Its not like there is anything to gain from doing so! The people here are set in their ways anyway (me included), so you can't influence their thinking.

Golfer69,
How did you pick that my posts were sarcastic? Jeffrey didn't seem to be able to.

Percy,
Good to see you post...although I'm sure the tree on that first hole at Cheltenham doesn't come into play considering your strategic snap-hook driver, followed by 3-iron over the trees . Being such a short hitter really does affect your game.



#21 Matt

Matt

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1115 posts

Posted 20 December 2002 - 05:18 PM

Henry, it seems you have some identity theories of your own.

Jimmy,

You're very quick to change your opinion to match that of the fictional John J Jones aren't you!

.

Are you sure you don't know James? You even use some of the same phrases he used such as "hack track" when referring to Huntingdale, describing Gold Coast courses as "blah resort courses" and using terms such as "green complexes".



#22 Ben

Ben

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3715 posts

Posted 20 December 2002 - 06:41 PM

Hey don't forget sandringham wink.gif

ben



#23 henry

henry

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3562 posts

Posted 20 December 2002 - 07:16 PM

Matt,

I think that you'll find all three terms I've used on occasion
"hack track"
"blah resort course"
"green complex"
are used by many people, not just the now-departed James or myself. In particular, the third term is one of the most common used when talking about golf course architecture.

In response to your first allegation, I think you'll find that the thread concerned had disintegrated into pure sarcasm. I was merely following that trend.

I understand you're concerned for the integrity of these forums (like it really matters?), but on all accounts, you're barking up the wrong tree.



#24 Jim

Jim

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1073 posts

Posted 20 December 2002 - 09:35 PM

Henry James
If you are going to change identities you really ought to make some effort to sound different, or else what is the point. Another giveaway was your rant against Bebox in the "paranoia by Bebox" thread.

Matt
Green complex is a term used by Tom Doak in his book "The anatomy of a golf course", and is a useful term to describe a green and its surrounds. I would recommend that anyone who is looking to learn more about the different elements of a golf course and what separates the great from the ordinary start with it. As for terms such as "hack track" and "blah resort courses', well I don't think they have entered the common lexicon yet and are something of a giveaway.

And back to the topic, I'm not entirely sure that Royal Melbourne East shouldn't be ranked above Kingston Heath. RME seems to suffer from the fact that it only accounts for six of the 18 composite holes and you have to cross two roads, so perhaps it suffers from an exposure problem, certainly in comparison to Kingston Heath, which most people (and reviewers) know well due to it being a regular tournament venue.



#25 henry

henry

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3562 posts

Posted 21 December 2002 - 01:53 AM

Jimmy it might be best to calm down a little. Whatever my style of expressing opinions is, it doesn't make me someone else.

I've always liked to think I was a unique person: maybe I'm wrong. How about we quit the witch-hunt, and return to topics like golf (seeing as this is a golf site). I'll even drop the allegation about your multiple identities, if thats what makes you happy.

I completely agree with you about Royal Melbourne East: each of its 7 holes on the main paddock are great holes, and there are several sensational ones outside it too. For example, 8 and 10 are wonderful par 5's, as are some of the fun little shorter 4's such as 9, 11 and 15. A really good course, and upon reflection, I've changed my mind.

Royal Melbourne (East) replaces Kingston Heath as no.2 on the sandbelt (and hence the country) in my opinion.



#26 the_unreal_jeffrey

the_unreal_jeffrey

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1928 posts

Posted 21 December 2002 - 02:00 AM

Jim,

I think you owe Henry an apology. He is obviously not James as James would never be swayed in his opinion on anything.



#27 chevychase

chevychase

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1168 posts

Posted 24 December 2002 - 09:43 PM

Jeffrey,
I'd like to hear your reasons for leaving Metropolitan out of your top 12 sandbelt courses. I played Royal Melbourne Composite and Metro when I was in Melbourne in November. I think enough has been said about RM - simply an amazing golf course. Metro was also superb; the greens were almost as good as RM and the condition was flawless. I think the great thing about RM is that each hole is so unique. In terms of how the golf course is presented, Metro has few equals.
Chevy



#28 joe

joe

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1291 posts

Posted 27 December 2002 - 08:36 PM

Hi Guys,

I've played most of the Melbourne sandbelt courses over the years, even though I'm from Sydney, (some quite a few times ) & I've got to say that Metropolitan is my favourite, although they are all pretty good. I've played a few **** Wilson designed courses throughout the U.S. & Canada & I think the changes he made to Metro all those years ago are a great testiment to his ability.

I actually prefer Metro over RM East & West as well as Kingston Heath, & I'm a little concerned about some of the changes at Commonwealth. I first played it 20 years ago & I thought it was a better course back then.

My list ( maybe controversial ) is this:
1. Metropolitan
2. Kingston Heath
3. Royal Melbourne (West)
4. Royal Melbourne (East)
5. Victoria
6. Woodlands
7. Huntingdale
8. Peninsula (North)
9. Yarra Yarra
10. Commonwealth



#29 henry

henry

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3562 posts

Posted 27 December 2002 - 10:56 PM

ereusu,

Reasons why Royal Melbourne is clearly the best course on the sandbelt:

*RM is routed on spectacular land, with a variety of holes that test all aspects of a player's ability. By contrast, Metropolitan is essentially flat, with most holes being difficult primarily due to length.

*The holes at Royal Melbourne are exciting, subtle, and you discover something new every time you play them. The holes at Metropolitan are relatively benign, without the subtleties that distinguish a good course from a great one.

*Metropolitan does not have the two best par 3's on the sandbelt, 5 and 7W.

*Where does Metropolitan have a five-hole stretch as good as 3-7W at Royal Melbourne?

In truth, Metropolitan is a boring golf course that has perfectly conditioned fairways, terrible greens and nothing else. Compare with the thrilling design of Royal Melbourne, probably equal to anything in the world.

Please list your counter-arguments as to why Metropolitan is better than Royal Melbourne, as you claim!



#30 Colonel

Colonel

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 47 posts

Posted 28 December 2002 - 04:33 AM

Tutt tutt young Mr Henry, I think you've got this one all wrong.

Royal Melbourne has for too long been untouchable in these foolish rankings, when we all know deep down that the field has caught up, and in Metropolitans' case gone fare beyond it as a quality tournament venue. Do you not recall the educated ramblings from the likes of Appleby, Lehman, Els etc at the Matchplay a few years back. "better than Augusta" I seem to recall was their unanimous appraisal of this fine layout.

Metropolitan has not one weak hole. RM has many poor holes, far too open and forgiving for my liking, not a strategic test at all. Precision my boy is what this game is all about. And conditioning. Thats what sets a course like Metropolitan apart from the overrated "pack".

If Royal Melbourne did not have the "Royal" it would not even be a contest. Metropolitan wins hands down for me and is unquestionably the finest course in this country of ours (and I've played all of the good ones I might add).

The Colonel






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users