Pegasus - South Island - New Zealand

I came here nine years ago, not soon after it opened, and only got to play the back nine for reasons too dull to repeat here. Finally got to return and see the full 18, and funnily enough, left with exactly the same impression that I had before. Back then, I thought this was a course competently designed to have a wide appeal, to cater well to the casual golfer, not beat them up, but still provide interest along the way. Maybe leave the architecture buffs feeling like it was a little formulaic, but maybe they weren’t the target audience. My review from that visit was posted here, on 15/7/12, the first on this website for this course, and I’m happy with it.

So playing the front nine, I learned nothing new. Every hole was decent, no duds on the whole course in fact. Some strategy to an extent – a few well angled greens, a little bit of risk reward. Decent enough variety. Par 5’s all point in different directions (ie on the compass). I could come up with a blithe line about all the ingredients being there, but that doesn’t make a cake. But the cake is perfectly sweet actually.

Golf is meant to be fun, and (in my book) anyone who thinks that’s a superficial way to look at architecture may have lost sight of something fundamental. Pegasus may not stir your golfing soul in any great sense, but you will definitely have fun – what else do you need?

I really enjoyed this. A little imposing on a windy day - especially that last hole - but a really nice course. Take a cart - she's a long walk!

Pegasus is the name of a new satellite city north of Christchurch in New Zealand. It is also the name of the golf course that was part of the master planning process. The full name of the course is Pegasus Golf & Sports Club, and it opened for play late in 2009.

The course was designed by Kristine Kerr from Kura Designs, and has already hosted tournaments such as the Women's NZ Open to critical acclaim. Kerr is experienced in master planning for golf and residential communities and has created a good course from uninspiring land. The course is well bunkered throughout with generous fairways and good use of low-lying marshland and water hazards.

The bunkering is a highlight of the design, and frames the wide fairways nicely. The green complexes are relatively simple but some pins positions will require thoughtful approaches from the right areas of those broad fairways to take advantage.

Pegasus was designed very much with the average golfer in mind. The fairways are wide, and most will be able to keep their ball in play and play at a reasonable clip. However Kerr has done a good job of also making the game interesting for the better player, with pins more accessible from certain angles, rewarding the thinking golfer. It is also an attractive course, and just a nice place to play!

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

I played this course in October 16 and really enjoyed the occasion. It was a course that I had been looking forward to playing for some time. I had played Terrace Downs a couple of days earlier and rate Pegusas the better of the two. Pegasus strength is the protection that the greens have and for this reason it is important to hit your drive in the right place on the generous fairways. Yes there are different options to be considered off some tees.

There is plenty of variety of holes and the long par 5 18th is a killer at the end of the round especially if played into the wind and not to mention the near island two tier green which slopes towards the water!!

I cannot fully comment on the course as I only got to play the back nine (and take a peak at a further three of the front nine). I was trying to squeeze in 36 holes at two different courses before 3pm, but a sharp morning frost put paid to that idea….

Anyway, it feels safe to assume that Pegasus seems squarely aimed at having a wide appeal, particularly seeking to please the casual golfer (i.e. it is not too difficult, and there is plenty of room if you are not attempting to break 75). And I think the architect has made a decent fist of that, if that was indeed her intention.

The course has been billed as being from the strategic school, and I would agree that there are different ways to play many of the holes, depending on your handicap. I particularly liked the 15th and 16th holes, as both allowed a top player to be staring down a birdie from an aggressive well-hit drive, a more conservative par for the 10ish handicappers, and attainable bogey for those more accustomed to the good ol’ bogey train. The 15th is a highly original little number, a short to medium par 4 with two fairways that straddle some sunken wetlands. Crossing the fairway with your drive is definitely bold, and will leave an unencumbered wedge in. Play it safe off the tee, and you’ve still got those reeds to hurdle, with the green front sloping towards you, sucking those mis-hits back into the swamp. 16 is a par 5 that snakes back through those wetlands – again, a powerful (semi-blind) drive will leave the green there for the taking, but the water cuts across the fairway 20m short of the green, meaning that two pure hits will be essential.

I don’t think it could be seen as a national Top 10 course, for three main reasons. One – the land’s too flat. Two – putting surfaces, and the surrounding green complexes, do not hold enough interest, and are without idiosyncrasy. Three – it is perhaps only strategic in the sense that it can be played by all different skill levels. Hazards look ominous, and will certainly often catch any wild play, but only occasionally force any dilemmas, and can usually be avoided by any half-decent golfer looking to play it safe. The 10th is a good example of this – water all the way down the left, but acres of room to the right hand side off the tee. Perhaps a bunker front-right of the green would create some decisions – there is one, but it’s 12-15m short of the putting surface. Left me feeling that the challenge was a little diluted, and I’ll happily aim for the right semi-rough off the tee next time.

Overall, a proficient piece of work, an enjoyable round, in great condition, and flashes of true originality. However, like many forms of art that try to appeal to a wide base, it can leave the enthusiast a smidgen underwhelmed, and the top player preferring the sterner test at Clearwater. Nevertheless, it seems up there with the best in the area, and as with Clearwater, I’ll go for a kind 5-ball rating. Matt Richardson