Clearwater - South Island - New Zealand

Something I have not seen before anywhere in the world is the way Clearwater adapts the competition course with the changing conditions. Wind is a big factor and with the course quite challenging at times, and so much water in play, it is important that the tees and pins are placed appropriately for the conditions of the day. They have different cards for the different wind directions, fully utilising the different length tees to make each hole playable on the day.

There is also the 30/30 course devised by Bob Charles which offers a combination of short par 4 and par 3's adapted from the full course to play as a short and sporty par 60 course for members after a bit of fun – but without taking too long.

Clearwater is a parkland course somewhat reminiscent of the popular resort courses in the USA. Water is the dominant hazard, and a majority of the holes are framed by water, or require water carries.

The front nine is more open, and only really fires up on holes 8 & 9 when suddenly the proliferation of h2o requires your full attention.

The back nine is a much stronger nine in my opinion and includes a number of memorable holes. The closing stretch – 16,17 & 18 is indeed a championship finish.

Clearwater has a pedigree for hosting championships. You need to be on your game to bring home a score here!

Peter Wood is the founder of The Travelling Golfer – click the link to read his full review.

I had the chance to play Clearwater just a few days before the NZ Open so the course was beautifully set up with pristine fairways and greens as well as long and vicious rough. The whole place oozes quality with great practice facilities and a superb clubhouse.Like above reviews, however, the opening six or seven holes are dissapointing - bland, open holes. Despite plenty of water around the course, it is almost hidden early on in the round - more annoying than nerve wracking!The round finally comes to life with the excellent 8th (index 1) requiring two accurate shots to avoid the water all along the right. Unfortunately, after the fun par 3 9th requiring a 140yd carry over water, there are yet more easily forgettable holes. Its not until the wonderful final three holes that the pulse gets racing again - the 16th a great par 3 over water, the short par 4 17th which has a devil of a bunker short right, and the 18th being a particularly fun par 4 with water closing in from the left, finishing infront of the clubhouse with more water just long!Essentially, Clearwater is a well set up course with some memorable holes. For me, though, there are just too many average ones. I think the course will mature well as the hundreds of young trees impose themselves and, on a nice day (with no wind), I would come back, but there are more enjoyable courses out there, most, with half the green fee too. F

I’d heard some pretty diverse opinion on Clearwater before I came. A lot of pros seem to like it, but if you read the discussion group on a certain high-brow architectural website (if you’ve been there, you know the one), it seems that taking pot shots at Bob Charles' design prowess is all part of the fun.

But you never know until you actually smack a ball round what you’re going to think of a place. Sure, it is pretty flat – it doesn't feel like it had a good canvas to paint a picture on, if you know what I mean. Early on, I know I won’t be able to love it – even with all the lakes, there’s not enough drama. But the question remains - is this is really such an architectural travesty? There’s no doubt you can pick holes in it, if you’ll excuse the pun – e.g. the back 9 has water to the left hand side on every drive (rather unfair on the pullers and hookers, is it not?). Also, I really don’t get why some of the bunkers are where they are. Case in point - there’s 3 new bunkers on the par 5 5th. From the tournament tees, Google Earth tells me they’re at 440-470 yards, from the medal tees it’s 370-400 yards. In other words, they’re not going to catch anyone’s tee shot, or anyone’s second shot, unless they can’t clear 400 yards with their second shot. We’re not supposed to be penalizing these people. I could continue with the nit-picking without breaking too much sweat. But a travesty? – I think that’s way too harsh.

But I have other questions – would a visionary architect have really done so much better with such unpromising land? They were never going to make a World Top 100 golf course here. And is it a decent test? I thought it was, and I can see why professionals like it – it’s rational, it’s fair, and you need to hit clean golf shots. And although water is a little overused, it will at least get your adrenaline going a few times.

Apparently there had been a recent decision to cut back the rough and shave the run-offs round the green. Although I had not played the course before, I can only imagine that this has produced a quantum leap forward, introducing much more strategic options, and creating more of a 'second shot' golf course. What also gets surprisingly revealed is that there is some quite decent shaping on those green complexes, which now gets brought into play.

Shirley, I can’t make that call yet, but I certainly favour it over Terrace Downs and Russley.

A very important PS – Clearwater has not been affected by the recent earthquakes, and is fully operational. Matt Richardson

Clearwater golf course is a nice course and particularly the last 11 holes have plenty of water in play. The beginning of the round can be charecterised as 'below average', and it seems like they did not have enough land to build the first nine on. But the quality of the holes improves through the round and the last nine is good golf. The condition of the course was not good the day we played, however, it was weeks after a big tournament so I am sure that can be bettered.