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).