Mike Clayton and conflict of interest.

By now you can tell that I don’t think much of many of the changes Mike Clayton made at Peninsula Country Golf Club. A great number of the changes seem rather pointless to me other than serving as change for change’s sake.

It would be really nice to think that the changes Mike Clayton made were truly for the benefit of the club, and that my disagreeing with them is simply a case of an inferior golfing knowledge on my part (or at least a different point of view). However, the sad thing is that a purely self-interest motivation on Mike Clayton’s part cannot be ruled out.

Mike Clayton, through his Golf Design company was acting as both consultant and contractor to the club. This is a clear conflict of interest.

If you want convincing, consider 4^th and 5^th South as just one example. If Mike Clayton had nothing to gain by changing a short par 5 followed by a long par 4 into a long par 4 followed by a short par 5, then his recommendation to make such a change would be above reproach. However, Mike Clayton the consultant, making this suggestion and convincing the club to proceed resulted in Mike Clayton the contractor making a motza on the actual construction work. Nice work if you can get it!

I find it distressing that the Committee either didn’t see this as a conflict of interest, or chose to ignore it. And from what I’ve seen of how the club runs, I’d bet my own motza that their actions in so doing were overwhelmingly influenced by Gary Richardson, Mike Clayton’s good mate.

Mike Clayton - Conclusion

I will finish up my views on Mike Clayton’s changes with a bit of an overall summary. There’s three points I’d like to make.

First of all, there are too many (one would be too many) cases of tees being too close to the preceding green. Examples of this are 6, 7, 12 South and 3, 8, 9, 14, 17 North.

Sooner or later someone standing on a tee is going to get bonked on the head by someone playing to the adjacent green. I hope the club has good insurance.

Secondly, golf is after all a game, and the purpose of a game is to be enjoyed. After Mike Clayton’s handiwork, there are far too many instances of the course handing the player bad breaks, thereby diminishing the enjoyment of the game. I’m thinking of all the times a well-hit shot can catch a slope and run into trouble.

For example, the tee shot and approach shot on 1 South, the domed shaped green on 2 South with slopes into the bunkers on either side, the runoffs into bunkers on either side of 3 South, and so on. You get my drift.

I’ll finish with a couple quotes from Dr Alister MacKenzie (who designed Augusta National and Royal Melbourne golf courses, just to name two).

“Remember that golf is a game and no player ever gets any fun in searching for lost balls.”

- the thick rough very close to the fairways on both our courses leads to far too much searching for balls.

“Most courses have too many bunkers. They should be constructed from a strategic and not from a penal point of view.”

- way too many penal bunkers, ones that catch good hits.

Finally, I want to discuss what I believe constitutes a conflict of interest for Mike Clayton – stay tuned!

Mike Clayton (11)

15 North.

A very poorly designed hole. With the tee shot, the player needs to avoid the bunker on the LHS of the fairway while avoiding the water hazard on the RHS. The tee shot landing area for the average golfer slopes steeply from left to right into the water hazard. Many a well-struck drive will end up in the hazard if they are just a couple of degrees right of where they are aimed.

This is bad enough, but there is an additional problem. The rise in the fairway prevents the golfer from observing the final resting place of the drive. A tee shot that is well-struck but heading towards the RHS of the fairway will therefore not be observable towards the end of its journey.

I have seen many players who have not found their ball, make the assumption that it must be in the water hazard and take a drop near the hazard. This is incorrect procedure. The Rules of Golf state that in order to take such relief, “it must be known or virtually certain that the ball is in the hazard”.

There is a Decision on what constitutes “known or virtually certain” which you can read for yourself, but it basically says that you need to either have physically seen the ball go into the hazard, or alternatively, there is no place the ball could physically be other than in the hazard.

Neither of these applies to this hole. You can’t see the ball go into the hazard, and it is always possible for the ball to be hidden in the long grass and bushes adjacent to the hazard. Therefore, if you’re a stickler for the rules, the correct procedure is to treat the ball as lost and take a stroke and distance penalty.

This is far too great a penalty for a good drive that was hit only slightly to the right of the required line.

18 North.

Yet another badly designed fairway. I have seen a number of strong drivers hit drives well to the right of the fairway bunker, only to have the ball catch the slope and dribble back down as much as 15m into the bunker. Once again, a good shot is punished by the course.

Mike Clayton (10)

13 North.

Of course, a par 4 as short as this one needs to have some protection and generally speaking, a small tough green is a valid option. However, I have heard it said that even Mike Clayton reckons he made this green too small (when you consider the edges of the green cannot be held with an approach shot). Again, I’ve often seen people putt off the green.

What I’ve heard is that Mike Clayton says if he had his time again, he would have enlarged the green by about a metre or so around the edges. Well, if he reckons he got it wrong, then if he had any integrity at all, he would fix the problem at this own expense. Or at least, not take the fee he was paid for this hole. After all, the club is paying him as a consultant to get these things right, not to stuff things up.

14 North.

Yet another hole which is as much a test of luck as it is a test of golf. Particularly if the pin is located in the RH half of the green, in order for the tee shot to hold the green, it must be hit within a metre of two of the correct distance. Otherwise, if short it will roll down the false front, or if slightly too long, roll down the slope at the back and off the green.

Course Maintenance (3)

Anybody playing at Peninsula in recent weeks will not have failed to notice the disgraceful condition of the greens and bunkers. Is this really the best we can do? Yes, we have had adverse weather conditions recently, but other nearby courses present themselves in much better condition.

The condition of the greens and bunkers would not be up to local public course standard, let alone one of the “leading private golf Clubs in Australia” (I quote from the President’s September letter). To add insult to injury, a number of greens show signs of machinery damage. Workmen on their machines are damaging the greens! Fantastic.

In that letter, Doug Provis, El Presidente of Peninsula asks how we can increase membership. Well, improving the condition of the courses would be a darn good place to start, Doug!

And who takes responsibility for the poor condition of the course? We have a number of people making excuses, but no one taking actual responsibility. Where does the buck stop? The superintendent, the general manager, the committee? It’s got to stop somewhere. All I’ve seen so far is people ducking responsibility.

Mike Clayton (9)

I was very pleased to read that 9 South green shape and surrounds are to be modified in conjunction with its resurfacing. It remains to be seen how good the changes will be, but damn good idea, in this blogger’s view!

Yet again, this shows that Mike Clayton’s opinion is not the be-all and end-all of golf course design, and begs the question about how well our considerable money was spent in his employment.

The story goes (if I’m wrong, please speak up) that at the time of the course “modernisation”, the committee requested Mike Clayton to modify this hole, but he said he thought it was a good design and “refused” to change it. Really! He refused to change it. Any half self-respecting committee would have said change it Mike, or we’ll get someone else. I mean, who’s paying who?

But of course, that didn’t happen. Weak committee at the time, controlled by Gary Richardson, whose friendship with Mike Clayton is a clear conflict of interest. But, has anything changed nowadays?

Mike Clayton (8)

OK, it’s time to start talking about Mike Clayton’s golf course design at Peninsula Country Golf Club again – the North course.

1 North.

My only comment is regarding the pin location board at the first tee. What’s the point of having such a thing if it’s wrong half the time?

3 North.

A very large proportion of second (or third) shots on this hole will find the collection area on the RHS of the fairway about 100m out. Doesn’t matter if you hit a good solid shot straight down the middle or a topped shot down the left or right. Chances are it will end up amongst the diviots in the collection area and you have to have a fair bit of luck to get a clean lie.

Any hole that has such a collection area is badly designed in my view. Again, it means that luck comes into the outcome far too much (with respect to the lie), as well as the fact that the fairway in that area sustains much more than the normal amount of wear and tear.

6 North.

The uphill, flat green makes a difficult approach shot with anything other than a pretty short iron (particularly if the pin is tucked behind the greenside bunker). This means you have to be fairly aggressive with the tee shot if you decide to play to the right of the fairway bunkers, or extremely accurate/lucky if you play to the left.

The landing area to the left of the fairway bunkers is quite small and slopes steeply down into the bunkers. If you drive to the right, the shot must avoid or clear the first fairway bunker and the tree overhang just to the right of the women’s tee. If you achieve both of these then you run the risk of going too far and being stymied by the large tree on the right of the fairway.

Whenever I play this hole, I always feel I need a fair amount of luck as well as hitting good shots to achieve par. I think the hole would be greatly improved if one of the following were done:

- the landing area to the left of the fairway bunkers increased in size and flattened

- the tree overhang near the women’s tee removed

- the first fairway bunker removed

- the large tree on the RH side of the fairway removed.

This would make this hole, again, more a test of golf than a test of luck.

9 North.

I’ve no problem with this hole as such, just worth commenting that the recent changes made to the hole once again support my view that Mike Clayton is not the golf master of the Universe at Peninsula that a number of committee and Gary Richardson would have us believe.

12 North.

In my view, the most difficult hole at the club. The severe ridgeback fairway will severely punish any tee shot or second shot that is even slightly off-line. I have no problem whatsoever with difficult holes, provided they are fair. That is, they reward a good shot and don’t unduly punish shots that are ever so slightly off. I don’t know of anyone who likes this hole and what’s the point of that? It might give Mike Clayton a devious sense of gratification to know that all golfers at the club struggle with this hole, but I would have thought building a good, fair, albeit tough hole would be more in line with good golf course design than a ridiculously unfair one.

Course Maintenance (2)

The recent heavy downpours have lead to problems with the condition of the course that are unavoidable. However, I make the following points.

We have too many bunkers located at the bottom of steeply sloped fairways. Just a couple of examples – fairway bunker on 10 South, fairway bunker on 18 North. These bunkers not only catch too many shots, but get excessively flooded and damaged by water flowing down the slope of the fairway. Nice course design Mike!

Access to the fairway from the tee on 9 North has become impossible without having to walk through ankle deep mud. It is literally impossible to get to the fairway without getting mud in your shoes. If it was me in charge, I would put a priority on putting something in place so members could avoid mud foot. Even just a couple of planks temporarily across the mud would do the trick.

I see they have replaced much of the fairway grass harvested from the left hand side of 18 South. However, they have filled in the area close to the tee and left the far area bare. I mean, fair suck of the sauce bottle, who the hell is in charge? Wouldn’t plain common sense say that it would be better to replace the area where balls actually finish than the area where balls never go?

Bunkers

I have mentioned previously my view of those selfish, inconsiderate members (and guests) who do not rake bunkers. Another bunker problem is the habit of many golfers to leave rakes near the edge of the bunker where, if the rake catches the ball, it leaves an impossible shot stymied by the bunker lip. Both these actions (not raking, leaving rakes near edges) occur all too frequently despite repeated requests from the committee to treat bunkers properly. On any given day, when playing a round I have observed at least 50% of bunkers on the course have either unraked footprints or badly placed rakes or both.

What to do? Well, there is one obvious action that would immediately improve the situation dramatically. Have a policy where rakes are left out of (on a designated spot), rather than in, bunkers. Such a policy would have a number of benefits.

First of all, many golfers who do not rake bunkers do so (I believe) because their ball in the bunker is some considerable distance from the nearest rake in the bunker. This can be as much as 10 or 15 metres. Having to walk this distance to the rake and then rake that 10-15m in addition to raking where you played from is too much of a disincentive for many golfers. This problem would be alleviated if rakes were located to the side of the bunker and players could easily take the rake into the bunker where they enter.

The problem of badly placed rakes in bunkers would also be immediately solved if rakes were placed to the side of the bunker.

I know this has been suggested to the committee, and presumably they’ve considered it. So why don’t we do it?

Well, first of all, the paragon of all things golf at Peninsula Country Golf Club, Mike Clayton, once stated that it was against the rules of golf to leave rakes outside bunkers. This is wrong.

Miscellaneous Decision 2 from the RoG refers to the question “Should rakes be placed in or outside bunkers?”. You can read the decision in full if you want, but in summary it states :

Therefore, after considering all these aspects, it is recommended that rakes should be left outside bunkers in areas where they are least likely to affect the movement of the ball.

Although it does state that ultimately this is a decision for the committee. In any case, leaving rakes outside bunkers is not against the rules as Mike Clayton asserts, or at least used to assert.

Perhaps his error was pointed out to him, as Mike Clayton’s position is now that bunkers are hazards which are meant to be avoided, therefore if a players encounter difficulties with rakes in bunkers it is only just. He also advocates that bunkers should not be raked at all, as they are hazards to be avoided, after all.

Well, yes, hazards are to be avoided, but bunkers are different to water hazards. The game of golf expects players to generally take a drop out of water hazards, but play the ball out of bunkers. Having an impossible lie in a bunker is therefore not in the spirit of golf, in this humble blogger’s view. Also, I’d like to see what Mike Clayton thought of unraked bunkers, or being stymied by badly placed rakes, when he was playing in professional tournaments. I bet he’d be writing a scathing article on the running of that tournament if it was him being affected.

Another reason given for keeping rakes in bunkers, this time by the committee, is that we don’t have enough ground staff to adopt this practice. In other words, this would increase the workload on ground staff undertaking mowing by more than we can afford. Really? What analysis has been done in support of this view, or is it just an excuse to keep the ground staff happily in their seats. (Ground Staff management is an entire topic for discussion another day).

Well, I have done some analysis, and here it is.

There is a total of approximately 127 bunkers on the two courses. (I might be one or two out, but that’s about right). Virtually all bunkers have one or two rakes in them – let’s say an average of 1½ rakes per bunker. That’s a total of about 190 rakes.

Now, I estimate it would take about 20 seconds for a groundsman to get off his mower seat, pick up the rake, mow the area, and then return the rake and remark the painted guide if required. So, for the whole course, that’s an extra 190 x 20 seconds work. That is, about one man-hour per day.

And this assumes that every single rake would be placed in a position that requires daily mowing and that no two bunkers could share a single rake – both of which are not the case.

So, according to club management, we can’t afford less than one additional man-hour of work per day to achieve this substantial benefit to the club and players.

Of course, that’s rubbish. The real reason is that club management (ie. Gary Richardson) wants to stay sweet with the groundstaff who don’t want to trouble themselves with having to get off the seat of their machine.

Grimwade Trophy / Bunkers

It was the first round of the Grimwade Trophy last Saturday. It's a Board Event, so normal practise is to put the tees right back and the pins in ridiculously difficult positions. However, with the forecast of heavy rain and strong winds, might common sense have prevailed with tee and pin positions eased up somewhat?


Doesn't look like it judging from the scores recorded.


On a different topic, there is someone in charge at the club who really has no idea. Recently we have seen a number of bunkers with evidence of being "machine raked" with a raking mechanism towed behind a tractor of some sort. While we all agree that bunkers need to be maintained, this machine raking is actually leaving the bunkers in worse condition. The tyre ruts left in bunkers after raking are worse than no raking at all. The workers doing this obviously think their job is to "rake the bunkers" irrespective of the end result. Actually, their job is to IMPROVE the condition of the bunkers, not make them worse.


I know the work involved does not require great intellectual capacity, but surely the workers should understand the objective of the work they do. And if they don't, then whoever supervises them certainly should. Unfortunately this doesn't seem to be the case.

Fairways

I must say, the condition of our fairways at the moment is excellent. I must also say that I believe this is to a large degree due to the fact that the grass is not being mowed as short as it has been in the past. I really hope this is a long-term policy rather than just a short-term anomaly. Time will tell, I guess.

Australian Open

I watched the Australian Open at The Lakes last night. I cannot believe how many times they mentioned Mike Clayton. Mike Clayton this, Mike Clayton that, Mike Clayton the other. Boy, has that bloke got his PR machine humming or what?


Among the mentions were comments about how Mike Clayton has so greatly improved the Lakes course. All I could see were great expanses of sandy wastelands - a great improvement and very beautiful (not!).

Course Maintenance (1)

For the love of Mike Clayton, who is managing the course maintenance crews?


Last night, there was a deluge at the course. Today, what do we see the course maintenance crews doing - mowing the fairways! While the bunkers are unplayable and in desperate need of attention, they're mowing the fairways. Great work boys!


While I'm on the subject, how stupid are they? They mow the fairways in hole number order. Hole 1 followed by Hole 2, and so on. This means that if you're unlucky, you cop the mower for multiple holes in a row. Brilliant. Has no one pointed out to them if they were to mow in reverse hole order, then they would only affect any one group at most once.


But seriously, who is in charge? I presume it is the course superintendent who directs the maintenance staff. Clearly this guy is not up to the job. And who is meant to manage the superintendent - the Club Captain? Ditto.

Financial Management

Financial management at Peninsual Country Golf Club is a big topic with lots to discuss, going together with general (mis)managment of the club by the committee. As previously indicated, I intend to cover this topic in some depth in the near future.


For now, I just want to point out the latest example of this. It was absolutely terrific to learn that the club has been ripped off to the tune of what, $100k?, by the previous head chef.


Absolutely great!  Where on earth was the due diligence and financial oversight that ought to have been there? Nowhere to be seen. Gary Richardson, job well done. Really Gary, you're well and truly past your use-by date at the club and it's time to move on.

Accommodation

I read the letter from our Club Captain the other day. He says the club is not making any money on accommodation. That's absolutely great! So that bucket of money we spent renovating and extending the accommodation was wasted.


Just one of numerous examples of gross waste and financial mismanagment at the club. More on this topic at a later time.


However, I guess at least the committee is encouraging debate on the topic of administration and management of the club.

Green Coring

I further interrupt my analysis of Mike Clayton’s changes at Peninsula Country Golf Club for another topical issue. Green coring is a necessary evil in order to maintain the best possible standard of green. I think everybody accepts that.

However, it would be really good if Golf Operations at the club ensured that, as far as possible, scheduled competition rounds are played on the non-cored course. I know we have a custom of rotating the course week by week for regular competitions, but surely it would be sensible to slightly modify this to enable members to play comps on the best available course at the time.

Of course, this comment is made on the assumption that Golf Operations at PCGC hold members interests foremost. I certainly hope it’s not the case that Golf Operations give course access priority to fee paying guests who would otherwise refuse to play on cored greens.

Committee Election

Well, goodness me!  We have four candidates for the three available general committee positions, which means we have to have an actual election - for the first time in many years.

What happened?  Is Gary Richardson a bit off his game?  Very careless Gary – I’m sure you’re used to having full control over the committee. More on that topic another time.

Mike Clayton (7)

18 South.

The new tee area offers a magnificent panorama and setting for the first shot. In fact I think this would have been an outstanding Mike Clayton designed hole if it weren’t for the major flaw of the landing area for the drive. The average mid-handicap player will land the drive just short of the fairway slope that runs from the RH bunker across the fairway to the LH bunker. This means that a well-hit drive with a bit of run on it is almost certain to catch the slope and kick off-line into the LH bunker. There is maybe a 5m gap just to the left of the RH bunker in which to hit the drive so that it doesn’t end up in the LH bunker. Again, way too punitive for an otherwise well struck shot. I think any hole should provide a decent (at least 30m) landing area for a well hit, mostly straight drive.

Mike Clayton (6)

16 South.

There is much debate at the club on the pros and cons of the changes made by Mike Clayton on 16, 17 and 18. Previously, these were a strong par 3, a very strong par 4 and shortish par 5. The strong 16^th and 17^th have effectively been sacrificed in order to have the elevated tee on 18, thereby reducing it to a par 4.

Rather than discussing the merits or otherwise of the changes to these 3 holes as a whole, I’m going to stick to discussing each hole individually. I have no problems with 16; I think it is a good, strong par 5 that generally rewards good shots and punishes bad shots.

17 South.

In its original form, Mike Clayton’s 17^th had a number of flaws. A ridiculous 2-tiered green and insufficient landing area in the back part of the green combined with punitive rough close to the back of the green being the most obvious.

I think any green should offer the chance of being able to putt the ball close to the hole from any part of the green. If you are on the green, it should not be physically impossible to get the ball close to the hole. Very difficult is fine, but impossible is stupid. That goes for 8 South as well.

The recent changes made by the club have not only improved the hole, but demonstrate that Mike Clayton is not the paragon of all things golf at the club that some people seem to think.

Mike Clayton (5)

14 South.

I’ve seen well-struck shots land on the green short and left and then run back down into the deep bunker. I think if you can make good contact and hit a shot that lands on the green, you probably deserve to stay on the green. You certainly don’t deserve to end up in a bunker. That’s a design flaw with this hole.

15 South.

The green on this hole is another design flaw. All but the very longest hitters will be playing a blind 3^rd shot to this green. Wouldn’t be a problem if the green was small, but this very long (from front to back) green gives no depth perception for the approach shot. This means that how close your approach shot is to the pin is again more a test of luck than a test of good golf.

Course Care

I interrupt the discussion on Mike Clayton to comment on the course care video that has been recently uploaded onto the club’s web site. I think the vast majority of members know what the process is to repair divots, pitch marks and bunkers, it’s just that a very large proportion of them choose not to do so. It’s not an ignorance thing, it’s an attitude thing – they don’t give a stuff about maintaining the course for other members. In other words, they don’t give a stuff about other members.

So in order to make these selfish members change their ways, the club needs to change their attitude. Not very easy, I suspect. At least the club is making a start with the video on the website.

While I’m on the subject, perhaps the committee could encourage the ground staff to take a look at the video. On a number of occasions I have seen the footprints of large workman’s boots in bunkers. Some of the ground staff are entering bunkers and not raking up afterwards. In my view, even worse than members not raking up. These guys are paid to maintain the course in the best possible condition.

Mike Clayton (4)

9 South.

Another lost opportunity. An extraordinarily unfair green. For most golfers (who can’t fade a 7-iron 180m), the green offers about a 3m gap to hit your shot in order to hold the green. Hit left of the gap and you run 3-5 metres off the green. Hit right of the gap and you end up in the greenside bunker. The bunker is quite deep but narrow, resulting in the sand forming in a V-shape at the bottom, making an explosion shot onto the (away sloping) green almost impossible.


To make the situation worse, just to the left of the green, where the vast majority of tee shots end up, there are seven (count them - seven!) watering system covers to get in between the next shot and the hole.

If Mike Clayton had removed the bunker altogether, the hole would have been greatly improved. You would have had a slightly bigger gap to aim for, and an ever so slightly misdirected shot would not be so severely punished.

I don’t know of anyone who likes this hole, other than Mike Clayton.

So, both par 3s on this nine are holes where the vast majority of mid to high handicappers cannot hope to hit their tee shots onto the green. Oh what fun!

Mike Clayton (3)

7 South.

This used to be a severe dogleg right with the dogleg protected by a substantial stand of mature trees. These trees have been replaced by the sandy wasteland, and the hole in general and view from the green have been opened up significantly.

Many people bemoan the loss of the beautiful, mature trees, but I think this hole has been improved. The view from the tee is more appealing and the hole offers a good risk/reward choice.

8 South.

What a lost opportunity!  And what a stupid green!

For the first 400m or so of this par 5, the fairway is a ridgeback with slopes running off to the rough on either side, particularly the left. This is another hole where an oh-so-slightly misdirected shot off the tee or second stroke will be unduly punished by ending up in a difficult lie in the rough (if you can find it at all!). What an opportunity we had to greatly improved the hole by taking that ridgeback out, thereby making the landing areas for first and second shots much fairer, and providing a magnificent view all the way to the green from the tee.

The green is the most ridiculous one I think I’ve ever come across. Effectively, it is a tiny green, just that the ground staff have a choice of 3 tiny greens on which to place the hole. If you miss the tiny green with your approach shot, you can pretty much kiss goodbye to any chance of holing out with two more strokes. I’ve seen good approach shots land within 3m of the pin, only to roll right off the green and down the slope at the front, finishing more than 40m away. It’s a green that is much more a test of luck than a test of golf.

Mike Clayton (2)

3 South.

This has always been a long par 3, but the green was rather flat and the bunkers rather shallow. Mike Clayton has lengthened the hole to 200+ metres from the back tees and made the green very steep and the bunkers very punitive.

Although the green is huge, there are precious few flat spots on the green to place the hole. If you hit your tee shot into one of the bunkers, then you’re probably facing a very difficult explosion shot just to get back somewhere on the green. These two factors would be fair enough on a 120m hole, but are, again, way too punishing for a 200+ metre hole.

4 & 5 South.

The 4^th and 5^th used to be a shortish par 5 followed by a long par 4. Mike Clayton changed these to a long par 4 followed by a shortish par 5. Why?  How is this better than the previous layout?  In fact, the long par 4 is now into the prevailing westerly wind. I have a theory about what motivates Mike Clayton to make some of these changes, but that’s a topic for another day.

Mike Clayton (1)

Perhaps the best subject to kick off the discussion is Mike Clayton. Mike Clayton played the Australian tour from 1981 and the European tour from 1982 to 1996. He won the Australian amateur title in 1978, the Australian Match Play in 1992, and the Coolum Classic and the Heineken Classic, both in 1994. He is vice-president of the Golf Society of Australia, and is a director of Michael Clayton Golf Design, a golf-course design company. He writes about golf for several publications, including The Age and Golf Australia magazine.

A few years ago, PCGC hired Michael Clayton Golf Design to redesign and “modernise” the two 18-hole courses at the club. It also just so happens that Mike Clayton is good friends with Gary Richardson, the General Manager of the club, but more on conflicts of interest at a later time.

Let me just say up front that I’m not a huge Mike Clayton fan. Many of the changes he made and opportunities for change he didn’t make leave a lot to be desired, in my opinion. Opinion at the club seems quite diverse regarding Mike Clayton’s changes, but I’ve heard anecdotally that his work at other clubs is also not hugely admired by all.

So why am I not a fan of his work? Well, let’s go through the major changes, starting with :

1 South.

I think the water hazard Mike Clayton introduced near the green is way too punitive. For the average golfer, a decently hit 5 or 3-wood will generally run down the steep slope into the hazard. Mike Clayton would no doubt say that one should either layup with the tee shot or ensure it is hit to the right half of the fairway, preferably with a bit of slice (for the RH golfer). That’s fair enough, but I think a water hazard (which will generally cost you a stroke if you enter) should mostly only punish poor shots, not good shots hit out of the middle of the club, but a few degrees left of where you intended. If the hazard only caught big duck hooks, then no problem.

Also, the hazard virtually abuts the green on the right hand side. Way too close. Again, too punishing for a slightly badly hit approach shot. I’ve seen good looking approach shots land on the left hand side of the green, then sling off the ridge in the middle of the green into the hazard. Hardly a fair reward for a pretty decently hit shot.  And I’ve seen people putt into the hazard from the green! And they're not such bad golfers.

Introduction

Well Hello! Welcome to my blog on a subject I hold dear – golf at Peninsula Country Golf Club in Frankston, Victoria, Australia.

My intention is not to promote or recommend PCGC, rather, to provide a commentary on what’s good and bad at the club. I have chosen to remain anonymous for a couple of reasons. I won’t be holding any punches back and I expect that my (sincerely felt) views will offend, or at least displease some of the officials and employees of the club.  Also, to introduce a bit of intrigue!

So, if you’re reading this blog for any reason other than you inadvertently stumbled across it by accident and don’t intend to return, then I’d love to hear from you. Please feel free to make comments.


If you want, you can e-mail me at my Google account, name is the same as my blogger name with a dot in the middle. (I'm being cryptic to avoid spam engines).