Course Maintenance (5)

I note with some despair the condition of bunkers and pathways at Peninsula Country Golf Club. Generally speaking, fairway bunkers have lots of soft sand in them and greenside bunkers are hard, sometimes rock-hard. Also, many of the paths around the courses have an excess of very loose fine sand on them, making them very difficult to push through. Surely, this is all the wrong way around. Paths and fairway bunkers should be hard/firm, and greenside bunkers soft.

Perhaps groundstaff could spend a day moving sand from the paths into greenside bunkers? Of course, I’m being facetious, but it’s yet another example of poor course maintenance at the club. In some places the paths have become almost impassable. Here’s another suggestion. Many players have their umbrellas erected on their buggies, to protect from either rain or sun as the case may be. However, the foliage overhang on some paths make them very difficult to negotiate with umbrella extended. It would only take a couple of hours per month for groundstaff to cut back these overhangs.

President Doug Provis, are you there? Still looking to make Peninsula Country Golf Club one of the “leading private golf Clubs in Australia” and trying to attract new members? Making the courses a bit more pleasant to play would be a good place to start!

The reason for the hard surface in greenside bunkers, but not fairway bunkers is obvious. Unbelievably, we water greenside bunkers! Anyone at the club towards the end of the day will notice that the sprinklers watering both 18^th greens also water the greenside bunkers. Also, you can’t fail to notice puddles in other greenside bunkers even after days on end without rain.

Surely in this day and age, technology exists to enable greenside sprinklers to only water a controllable portion of their 360° arc, thereby avoiding water getting into the bunkers. Either such equipment doesn’t exist (a business opportunity for one of our more entrepreneurial members?), or more likely, a general level of incompetence or indifference exists in the grounds management.

Peninsula rated in Australia’s Top Courses.

Golf Australia released it’s 2012 course ratings in January and our North course was rated number 17 in Australia and the South course 28. I find this somewhat amazing. Do the people making the rating actually visit the courses? Do they not take course condition into account? If they did visit our club, they would have seen greens and bunkers in a disgraceful state, out of control rough, paths that are almost impassable and areas that almost rattle your buggy to bits and are liable to sprain your ankle.

So what exactly is it that, in their view, makes our North course top 20? The layout alone? That’s not what they say.

By contrast, Australian Golf Digest, which claims the high moral ground by not making the “preposterous mistake of allowing its judging panel to be infiltrated, even dominated, by course architects – the very people whose work we’re appraising”, has the North course rated at 30 and the South at 41.

It’s interesting to note their comment about Royal Adelaide having a priority of “fixing” Mike Clayton’s contentious 17^th hole. Hey Mike, I suppose it’s just another example of the “subtlety” of your brilliant design work being “beyond” them.

Anyhow, I have been a great critic of Mike Clayton’s work, but I guess one of the main benefits in paying him a truck load of money is the influence he peddles in these course rating matters.

Membership

A while back I played with a new member who was pretty ignorant of basic golf rules and etiquette. I’m all for people taking up golf, and everyone is a beginner at some time, but surely members should have a basic knowledge of rules and etiquette. I suggest it’s the nominator’s responsibility to ensure the new member has these.

And what is the purpose of the test round that proposed new members go through if it’s not to see that, among other things, they have a basic knowledge of rules and etiquette. I guess that’s not really of interest to the club – the main (only?) qualification that really counts is having a ready ten grand or so to spare.

Course Maintenance (4)

The changes made to 9 South over the New Year period have greatly improved this hole, in my view. If it was me, I would have gone further and reshaped the green somewhat, but that’s just my personal view, and I applaud the changes that were made.

However, where the hell is the forethought and planning at the club? No sooner have the green and surrounds recovered from the work and put back into play, than they decide to re-lay the area in front of the tee! While I again applaud the sentiment of re-laying this area, the timing is appalling. Doesn’t anyone in charge there think it would have been a good idea to do all of this work at the same time? And why only do half the job? Why didn’t they do the area between the men’s tee and the women’s tee?


The inescapable conclusion is that this club is run by morons!

Ground Staff

I have yet to talk to anyone at Peninsula Country Golf Club who thinks the groundstaff do a good job and an honest day’s work. On the rare occasions you see the groundstaff on course, there’s a pretty good chance they will be standing around having a chat and not doing anything of much use.

Without exaggeration, I estimate that at least 20% of the time I see groundstaff they are standing (or sitting) around not doing anything. No one begrudges staff a smoko every now and then, but our guys have taken the smoko to the extreme. I have heard (OK, this is hearsay only, but I can believe it’s true) that amongst other clubs, the level of work done by our staff is considered a joke.

We constantly hear from club management that for an 36 hole course, we have to make do with a relatively small number of groundstaff. Maybe, but if they all did something approaching a fair day’s work, it would be like recruiting an extra 20% of workers.

When they do grace the club with a bit of work, as often as not they stuff it up.

I have mentioned before the regular appearance of workman’s boot prints in bunkers, and tyre tracks left in bunkers. We have also had quite clear machinery damage on a number of greens. On some days, early in the morning, it’s clear from the dew marks on some greens, that mowing staff can’t be bothered mowing the greens right to the edges. And we’ve all seen those painted markings on some fairways saying “do not mow” that are constantly being mowed over.

Again, where’s the supervision, where’s the management, who is taking responsibility, where does the buck stop?

Mike Clayton (Again!)

A little off-topic but nevertheless revealing. I read Mike Clayton’s article “Open is the real business” in Golf Victoria’s December/January magazine.

A good portion of the article is a justification for the changes Mike Clayton made to the 13^th hole at The Lakes course in Sydney. First thing to say is that I find it amazing that Golf Victoria so readily provides Mike Clayton with a forum to make self-serving rationalisations of his own work. The guy’s influence reaches far and wide, it seems.

Mike Clayton admits that the new hole is “despised by more than a few of the members.” His retort is that the hole’s “subtlety” is “beyond” many of the members. Yes, stupid members for not immediately recognising and appreciating the brilliant “subtleties” of design that Mike Clayton has bestowed on your club.

Actually, it’s Mike Clayton who fails to recognise and appreciate the fact that it is the members who are paying his (not inexpensive, I’m sure) fees. There aren’t many areas of business where you can provide something that displeases the people who are paying, yet still receive considerable remuneration. Not to mention the disrespect Mike Clayton has for the members (his employees) by bagging them in a magazine.

Mike, if you owned the course, and payed the fees, then you would be entitled to do whatever you like in your design work. However, as it is, a bit of respect for the members, their wishes and opinions (even if you don’t agree) is the least you could do.