[THuckaby2]

Jeff:

GREAT STUFF!  I too love to talk "strategy", or how best to play a given course.  You and I might have a lot to talk about next weekend... I also love talking to truly good players about this, because you're mindset is always a learning experience for me.

So I gotta say... wow... I hadn't thought of the fact the ball would go even farther as part of the firm and fast equation!  OK, remember, this is me just trying to THINK like a long hitter / great player... so it's not coming from experience... but... having played Wildhorse in NE where firm and fast were taken to extremes I had never seen outside of the UK, the thought I have is when it's like that, if you have the wrong angle, it doesn't matter HOW close you get... if the green is rock enough, even the highest, most perfectly nipped LW is gonna bound past the hole if it's headed downhill, in this kind of firm and fast.  There are certain holes at Wildhorse that exhibit this with amazing clarity.... My thought for Rustic is just that if it were brought up to that kind of firm and fast, the same thing would happen.

And then the proper angle in would be PARAMOUNT, as it is on many holes at Wildhorse....

Does this explain more what I'm trying to get at?

TH

[Jeff Fortson]

Tom,

Yes, it does.  But let me pose a question to you.

Do you think that the kind of firm conditions you are describing are fair from any angle of attack?  In your example of Wildhorse you claimed that lob wedge shots from all angles were bouncing over greens or at least well past their intened target.  I look at the slope of the green complex to be its most fair and important defense.  To just harden the greens to a point where a shot of great skill and execution bounces over the green, even when hit from the proper angle of attack, seems to be unfair and silly.  However, a green complex that protects certain angles through hazards or slopes that will bounce shots away from their target seem to be more of what is proper for a truly good test of shot making.  

Don't get me wrong, I like fast conditions a lot.  I think a good natural firmness in the ground is good for challenging better players and making shot making more difficult.  But, I don't think that firm and fast should be a course's main line of defense.

Jeff F.

[THuckaby2]

Jeff:

Not that fairness is a requirement for me, but then again I don't play for a living nor care all that much about competitive results... the kind of player we're talking about DOES though, for very valid reasons... so it's a fair question.

And my answer is, heck yeah, it's fair.  There's always a "correct" angle from which you can get close, even under the extreme conditions as at Wildhorse.  The same would exist at Rustic.  If you miss this angle, then birdie's going to mean a long putt - remember, the greens are pretty large, as they have to be.

Now if missing the angle meant making holding the green at all impossible, that might stretch fairness to the breaking point.  Still, the correct angle is there so I have little sympathy for missing it!  Remember, these guys are good...

TH

[D._Kilfara]

FWIW, I used to be a diehard proponent of firm-and-fast conditions...but that was before I played Rye a couple of times - on both occasions it was as dry, hard and fast as a well-greased bowling alley - and Royal Dornoch this past summer with it playing very firm (although nothing compares to those conditions at Rye!). Now, I'm a diehard proponent of firmer-and-faster-than-average-but-not-excessively-so, at least for everyday play. It's not that Rye was unfair, but rather that the amount of skill required to keep from embarrassing yourself, never mind find a fair proportion of fairways and greens, was so far beyond me as to be laughable. It was like playing Winged Foot with U.S. Open rough and the fairways narrowed to 15 yards across - perfectly fair, I guess, but beyond the skill set of most golfers. For the pros, such a setup is eminently fair - in contrast with Jeff's recent post, I think it fine and often necessary for firm-and-fast to be a course's first line of defense.

I'm not sure what any of the above has to do with the original gist of this thread, mind you...

Cheers,
Darren

[THuckaby2]

That's not at all off track, Darren.

I'd just say that firm and fast works some places, but not everywhere.  Isn't this the idea behind Tom Paul's famous "maintenance meld"?  Proper maintenance tied to the architecture....

There are many courses where it wouldn't work, not at the extremes we're talking.

TH

[Chris Kane]

Darren,

So the extreme "firm and fast" setup at Victoria GC for last years Australian Open was over the top?

[ForkaB]

I think what is missing so far in this discussion is the effect of angles and "bottles" to make the risk/reward component for the long hitter, particularly in firm and fast conditions, problematical.  The 14th at Dornoch is classic in this regard (even though I doubt if any of the "designers" ever thought about todays technology).  There is a lovely "wide" looking fairway out there to the center/right which accomodates about 95% of all players drives, with a dune at 300 or so ahead of them.  It is slightly better to hit it to the narrow left corridor, but even if you do get it out there about 280, you are still looking at 170 to one of the worlds greatest and most difficult greens.  So, under "normal" (i.e. pre 2000) conditions, you try to hit it fairly straight and avoid the left rough, but not go so far to the right as to be completely blind.  Now, however, the big hitter CAN get a significant advantage by hitting down the left chute far enough (310+) to get past the main dune and have a pitch and run to the hole.  However........if he pulls that drive he's in the rough and probably trying to hit 3-4 iron out of a dodgy lie, or if he blocks it a bit he's reached the dune at 300 and is hitting a blind shot off a severely uphill and also dodgy lie to a very hard green.

That's how firm and fast can make the game ineresting these days.  Give an Elysian Field for the accurate long shot to run out to, but penalize the shot that tries this strategy but misses.  When Dornoch is wet, and you can't reach the dune at 300, 14 is a doddle....Not!  But it is easier, and less "strategic."

[THuckaby2]

Excellent post, Rich.  Yes, at least I have been focusing solely on the greens so far.  Golf does need more FOXYs that create risk and reward off the tee, even in the firmest and fastest conditions, and not just due to the angle into the green.

This is what's missing at Rustic Canyon, by the way... in case we've muddled that so far!  But that's again no huge negative - there really aren't very many courses where this is present throughout.

TH

[T_MacWood]

Rich
If you like bottles you would love Trent Jones's Oakland Hills. A twelve pack!

[Matt_Ward]

I enjoyed Mike Cirba's insertion of TOC, Pinehurst #2 and Augusta National into the equation of firm and fast with open fairways that encourage a multi-strategic design when playing either by long or short hitters. It's something that really adds to the qualities of a course.

However, let's examine that a bit.

There's one assumption in this mixture and its the equation of RC in that company. That cannot be so -- and I say that in being a huge fan of RC. Keep in mind this -- RC is firm for SoCal purposes -- it is not as firm as the other courses mentioned -- at least from the time I've been on the grounds.

TOC is clearly a testament to a course being timeless. The angles you face as Rich correctly states (he mentions Dornoch) is at the heart of links golf and clearly avoiding the bunkers also plays a huge roll. But remember this -- TOC is almost always like concrete during the summer months. You have to respect ball positioning because even with incredible length the ball will likely release and head into some unique territory if you're not really smart / careful. I have some reservations whether or not TOC can still remain as competitive as it needs to be in indentifying major champions. I'd like to see another BO there before saying anything conclusive because Tiger's win was so sweeping and powerful. Given it was Tiger I believe it only added to the mystique of the Open. I want to see what the boys shoot next time after a few of the changes are examined under competitive circumstances, but I'm still not bailing out the ole gal!

I have not played Augusta National (yet) but was fortunate to see it many times in person during the Masters as a college student at Carolina for a good number of years PRIOR to all the bastardization that has taken place recently.

Augusta was, and still is, mega, mega fast in and around the greens. Witness Davis Love's hole-out at #16 with the ball rolling BACKWARDS into the hole a few years ago, as just one example. Adding all the BS trees and "second cut" was really a smart call.

Pinehurst #2 is also quite quick and the demands on positioning shots is still something I marvel at even after playing the course no less than two dozen times.

The real issue is how can facilities have such firm and fast conditions on a steady basis without undertaking major investments for turf to handle the stress and wear? The daily fee ones that are quite good (i.e. Wild Horse, Twisted Dune, Rustic Canyon and Barona Creek) are worthy of a visit to enjoy what they offer. Clearly the good news is that more and more courses are using less and less H20 with each passing year because a number of these clubs are coming to the realization (albeit late) that the bounce of the ball is a big part of what makes golf so much fun and challenging. However, given the nature of turf in certain locales in the USA one has to be realistic in thinking that a "firm and fast" as seen on the great links of Scotland can easily be replicated in the USA.

[T_MacWood]

Comparing strategic similarites of golf courses is not claiming that RC is as the equal of St.Andrews or Pinehurst #2. These courses all have generous fairways, they also possess perplexing green complexes which require thoughtful approaches. The approach is set up by the tee shot, postion is very important, there is more emphasis placed on position off the tee than avoiding hazards or threading the needle.

The strategic interest of a golf course is largely due to the undualtions of the greens and through the greens. The Old course would be interesting strategic test without a single hazard, but if you take away the contours and leave the bunkers I suspect it would not hold up.

Firmness it seems to me is a maintenance issue not a design issue.

[Matt_Ward]

Tom MacWood:

"Firmness it seems to me is a maintenance issue not a design issue."

How a course is prepared ultimately impacts on so many critical little details tied to the architecture and in achieving maximum desired effect -- although I'm confident many architects fret over this because in so many ways there hands are tied after they receive their last paycheck for that particular job.

Just look at the disaster that Pinehurst experienced when Diamondhead ran the place before ClubCorp came onto the scene -- when they insisted on altering the Ross style they ultimately aborted the inherent greatness of the design.

If I'm not mistaken that's one of the reasons why Jack Nicklaus mandates some sort of maintenance agreement with the designs he does.

[Doug Siebert]

--For the big bombers, who can realistically threaten to reach green in one shot (and TOC #18 can certainly be reached from certain teeing positions and/or given certain wind/turf conditions), I think it's obvious that to drive the green, you need to skirt the fenceline on the right. Many big hitters will probably choose a line at the left edge of the green and say, if the ball fades onto the green, great, but if not I'll still be pin-high and have a good angle for my second shot. Which is fair enough, but that's not the way to make a two or an easy three. To give yourself a realistic chance at an eagle or two-putt birdie, you have to challenge the OB right - and, in certain circumstances, the OB behind the green. (This is reason number three why TOC #18 works - the hole is short enough for some golfers in some conditions that the option of gambling to reach the green is there. Many a golfer who gets within 30 yards of the green will wish that he'd left himself a full wedge instead.)

I'd love to hear you talk more about the strategy for the 18th for longer hitters.  My caddy and I discussed this for several minutes on the 18th tee in August 2001, as our group waited for the group ahead to take the obligatory pictures on the bridge, etc. and make their way to the green.  As I'd driven it about 340 on the Long Hole (not to mention driven 9, 10, and 12 already) it wasn't so much a question of "could I?" but where to aim.  He was quite insistent that I needed to aim right center of the green if I was to get any benefit from driving it, while I was opting for the strategy you discounted, aim left and figure I'm OK chipping it from pin high but take OB out of play.  Since I'd just pushed one OB on 16 I was a bit shy about taking his advice, and as I missed it just slightly it ended up a bit short of even with the front edge, which left me with a delicate chip along the top ridge of the Valley of Sin.  As he warned me could happen!

I can see his reasoning, where I ended up was definitely bad.  Aiming dead at the flag is no good because if you have enough steam to roll up and through the Valley of Sin, you may have enough steam to go OB behind the green (not something I was particularly worried about that day, but next time I visit with the equipment advances or if there's a helping wind...)  Since I had the "roll almost up to the top of the depression and then back down again" thing happen to me on 12 for a disappointing three put par, I didn't want to do that either.

I tend to think that 18 at TOC is more interesting to those of us who are thinking about driving the green than for those playing it as two shotter.  There's a lot more going on, even if has become a half par hole due to technology.  Its one of the tougher par 3 1/2 holes around, that's for sure

[DMoriarty]

Tom,
If I understand you correctly,  your main contention seems to be that big drivers arent sufficiently punished for wild drives or rewarded for accurate drives.  You dismiss the lack of low scores on the course by saying that everything else is so hard that the lack of low scores is not related to the drive.  So I assume you think you can hit it anywhere and score the same. This quote seems to summarize your position regarding Rustic (and maybe Shivas' general position):

the greens alone and some very tough pin positions take care of keeping scores higher than they might be.   And no, the good player isn't having his score kept down because he misses strategy or angles - such are insignificant for him, as we say.  Those greens are just so tough that getting it close FROM ANY ANGLE, NO MATTER HOW SHORT THE SHOT is enough to make this "no one's scored 66" very believable.

An interesting argument but I disagree.

First, you greatly underestimate the value of angles.  If you play the angles successfully, there are lots of easy putts at Rustic.  Play the angles wrong, and then "the greens" will keep you from scoring.  Obviously you are not convinced and not going to be.  But think of your comments regarding my "personal attachment to the course."  Sure, I may be just a homer who doesnt know better.  But the trend seems to be that people like the course better and better with each consecutive play.  And we are not all lost Montanans in the big city.  Take Pete L. or Ben Dewar, they have seen a course or two between them, havent they?  How about Tony Ristola, who has designed some nice looking courses in Europe -- he is a former Professional and a scratch who went something like 78, 88, 78, 80 at Rustic, and enjoyed every minute of it.  David Kelly? Played a lot of courses, I think.  We'll leave Tommy out of this discussion, despite his extensive knowledge.  Even Lynn-- sure Geoff is his son, but I have a feeling that, if anything, that would make a guy like Lynn even more critical.  

Why is it that those with more experience at Rustic attest to its challenge and options, while some of those that have played once don't see it?  Has our experience blinded us?  Isnt it possible that your lack of experience and preconceived notions have blinded you?

Second, your disconnect of scoring from the tee game is unconvincing.  I think you may need to explain scoring to me, because I must be missing something.  It seems to me that to score, a great player will take advantage of birdie opportunities (with an occasional eagle), not make stupid mistakes on the easy par/ hard birdie holes, and avoid disaster on the difficult scoring holes.  At Rustic there are potentially eight two-putt birdie holes for the big bomber (1,3,5,7,9,10,12, 13), so I dont think we can use difficult putts as an excuse.  Their are also 2 short par 3s (3,8 ) which should be good birdie opp, because good golfers can stick their short irons.  That's ten great scoring chances, and we havent even mentioned the par 4s where the big bomber can wail away with impunity.  The way Matt describes them,  2 and 11 are scoring opps -- easy drive, easy short iron.  Really the only difficult scoring opps are 14,16,18.  Wait a minute . . . the big bomber will have a short iron in so I may be wrong about their difficulty.  Damn this game is easy when you dont actually have to play it!

As far as the putting, I think we've got to assume that Mr. Big will at least two-putt, so he should at least birdie some of the holes.  Plus, there are plenty of 8 ft uphill putts on every hole. Heck, even I've birdied every hole but 9 and 14, and I cant putt or hit it long.   Big Blaster should just follow his drive with a stuck short iron shot to these places.

So Tom, with all these birdie and eagle opportunities, explain to me why no big bomber has torn the course to shreds in the 10 months it has been open?  By the way, not everyone on the course plays like Tommy and me.  I'm told by the guys in the clubhouse that the course draws quite a few quality players, a few PGA Tour pros, lots of mini-tour and European pros.  There is a skins game that takes place every other week, and I've heard rumors of  holes being worth near $1000.  Definitely enough to draw the local golf bum crowd to the course.

Dont get me wrong, I think the scores will sometimes go low at Rustic because the birdies are there for the taking.  But Rustic will be taken by golfers who do more than blast away off every tee.

Seriously Tom, while I havent seen any proof of it at Rustic, I guess it is possible that you, Matt, and Shivas are correct and that any non-concrete course with generous landing areas can be brought to its knees by a blasted driver and a wedge from anywhere.  And if this is true and what critics are focusing on, then architects hoping to build critically acclaimed courses will take the driver/wedge strategy into consideration in their designs, thus eliminating horizontal strategic options from golf, and effectively banishing the spirit of St. Andrews from the game.  In my opinion, this would be a less than positive thing.  

[DMoriarty]

Matt, sorry for the length of my post, I had many comments to address.  My verbosity is probably responsible for your misunderstanding a few things from my previous posts.  

1.  You suggest "you take my drives . . . you will have a much easier second shot than you might think possible."  Matt, I don't know how else to explain it-- I have hit these approaches, from the distances to which you refer.  I've played about 1/2 my rounds from the blues and half from the black.  The blues are closer than the blacks, and I have gotten lucky and hit way down into 'Zeus' territory more than a few times.  Not only that, but I have seen many golfers play from Zeus territory.  So I have a pretty good idea of the benefits of distance vs. angle.   I guess you dont have to believe me on this, but I dont know what else to say.  By the way, I didnt ignore your previous comments about this, it is right in my post.  Am I missing something?

2.  I dont question that Wild Horse is firmer and faster than Rustic.  But I do believe that if Rustic was much firmer or faster than it currently is, it would become absolutely impossible, especially in the wind.  

3.  You said: Part of the issue I have with all the defenders of RC is that there is not one concession on the main argument that the tee game element is really less detailed than what you find with the green complexes. Hello -- anybody home on this point!" I assume the reason I and others dont concede is that we just dont agree.  Less detail? No.  Less of the kind of same old details we are all used to seeing, yes.  If by "less detail" you mean less obvious routes or less in-your-face challenges, then I do concede your point, but wouldnt make some of your changes.

4. You said " David, you won't even concede one aspect needs to be changed when clearly holes like the 3rd, 9th, 10th, 11th and 12th, to name just a few, can be tweaked (nothing more than that) and then the challenge for the tee game will improve."  This just isnt a true statement, not true about me and not true about others.  The defenders of Rustic that I know have all pretty much admitted that a tweak here pr there might be in order.  Even Geoff himself came on board and said exactly this (although hopefully he has come back to his senses regarding 12.)  As for me, I think the bunkers on 10 are a good idea so people stop thinking of 9, but the ones off the tee will be more aesthetic than strategic. As for 9, it could use to have the cart path removed, but I don't think the flow of the land needs any window dressing.  However, I wouldnt lay down on the tracks to stop the addition of the bunker.  A fairway bunker on 12?  I would lay down on the tracks, or chain myself to the breadbox, if they try to touch it. I agree that 3 could and should be improved with some tweaking, I just disagree that the way to go about it is to add yet another bunker. (Arent there 6 or 7 already?)  I've conceded this repeatedly. So what are you talking about?   Do I have to agree with everything you suggest for you not to have an "issue" with me?  

Remember, this thread began after a comment was made seriously criticizing the requirements from the tee at Rustic, and citing it as the main reason that Rustic should not be rated highly (I realize you havent signed on to the rating part of it, but you've endorsed the rest.)   Your "suggestions" and "tweaks" are negligible when it comes to the course's quality, and would do virtually nothing to improve the strategy or challenge of the holes in question.  Except for 12, which someday might be considered the best and most influential hole if it survives-- your suggestions would ruin 12, and this would be a loss for golf.  

5.  I wasnt really that concerned with your score, I played with you so I can guess what it was.  Nor was I trying to discount your Death March of a trip or your playing ability.   I was just trying to point out that, before you and others declare the tee game at Rustic to be a push over, it might be prudent to wait until after one of you of someone else has actually been successful bullying their way around the course.  

[DMoriarty]

Shivas said.

As to Dave M's post, I tend to agree with the concepts, but Dave, you're changing the concept -- I was referring to average distance.  From the 4's you mentioned, not knowing anything else, I'd have to say that 4 of them are in the bag as to having a PW in if a long hitter hits a solid drive, and depending on fairway conditions or whether the 460 and 457 holes are downwind or not, those look like candidates also, so that bet looks like a fair bet, probably a push.  Add the par 5's, though,  and you're looking at 9-10 holes with PWs or less in.  And that seems to be pretty much standard these days, even on long courses.

Shivas, I changed the concept on purpose to point out that your "average distance" calculations can prove to be worthless on an actual course with half-par holes both above and below par.  

As to you hitting at the greens with 9 or 10 PWs approaches, I think not.  On all of the par 5's and the three short par 4's you will be going for the green with a wood.  While some have said that two of the three of these driveable par 4's  are pushovers, going at a green with a driver is definitely harder than going at it with a PW.  On the 431 yd hole (which plays slightly up hill) the concensus amoungst the big hitters on this board is to bail out way right to avoid the trouble that runs all the way up the left side.  Follow this strategy and the hole will play quite a bit longer than 431.  Play down the left side and, if you really really blast it and catch the power shute, you might have a PW for your second shot.  But you might also have another driver from the tee.  The longer par 4s all play down canyon, but the prevailing wind hurts on at least two and sometimes all three.   If we play in Santa Ana winds you will reach a few of these with a PW, but those winds are a little unusual.  

Seriously, come out and play.  We will play multiple rounds and see if I can convince you to rethink your 'horizontal strategy is dead' theory.  Or, you and your big stick can prove me wrong.

[D._Kilfara]

Chris Kane,

"So the extreme 'firm and fast' setup at Victoria GC for last years Australian Open was over the top?"

I would say no - it was close, but not over the top as far as I'm concerned. If "those guys are good", as we keep being reminded, they ought to be able to shine in extreme conditions. I'd much rather see borderline-impossible firm-and-fast conditions and a winning score near par than the same ol' humdrum procession of birdies every week, wouldn't you?

-----------------

Tom Macwood:

"Firmness it seems to me is a maintenance issue not a design issue."

I don't think I buy that statement. For example, I keep hearing that High Pointe (Doak) is so soft (indeed, the opposite of firm and fast) that it doesn't play the way the designer intended. If one can make that statement (about any course), then one can assume that the designer created the course under a set of assumptions regarding future maintenance practices. I don't see how one could intelligently design a course without taking the degree of planned future firmness into account in some way...and if I'm right, that means firmness is both a maintenance issue and a design issue, doesn't it? Ideally both sides should work hand-in-hand on this subject...

-----------------

Doug, I think you've largely figured out the driving strategy for #18 at the Old Course yourself. I'd like to stress that my points about strategy for the "big bombers" is largely theoretical - I know the terrain very well, but I sure wish I could borrow 50 or 60 yards from you off the tee from time to time! (Only once or twice have I ever driven it past Granny Clark's Wynd, let alone threatened the green...)

It sounds to me like you wound up in the one place you can't afford to wind up when you chicken out to the left. If you're going to try and drive the green and err left when the pin is close to the Valley of Sin, I believe that you need to either a) get to pin high or past it, or b) leave yourself a chip or putt straight up the face of the VoS, which to my mind is infinitely easier than any putt across the face of it. The advantage of trying to drive the green (aiming right-center, as your caddy suggested) is that if you do come up short, you're much less likely to face that tricky chip across the face of the VoS - you might leave yourself a putt up the hill with a fair bit of right-to-left swing, but again, that's rather easier to my mind than some of the alternatives.

If the pin is away from the edge of the VoS, then the hole does become appreciably easier (although the green is so large, rather like the ninth green at TOC - which has a similar driving hazard when the pin is tucked on the left side of the green - that getting close to the pin can be rather tricky). But with the pin close to the front, the strategic dimensions of the hole are fascinating - both off the tee and after anything less than a perfect drive, at which point one must decide how fine one wants to get with his second. Truly the safest play (and often the best) in any situation, which we haven't even discussed yet, is to lay back to your comfortable LW/SW range, where you can fly the ball slightly past the hole and stop it. In my time watching the Dunhill Cup and the Open at St. Andrews, this seemed to be the pros favorite ploy - going left off the tee also slightly increases the "backboard" effect for your wedge shot, making it easier to stop - rather than anything riskier...

Cheers,
Darren

[TEPaul]

This thread looks to be one of the best discussions of the various ramifications of something such as strategy Golfclubatlas has seen! I know that's what you wanted it to be David Moriarty and you've done a fine job of posing the question in the context of Rustic Canyon and its tee shot design---I guess one should say tee shot "meanning" or its progressive "effect".

However, I think a better title to the thread in the context of Rustic Canyon tee shots may have been " Can LACK of challenge off the tee and strategy coexist?"

I've never played Rustic but I think I have some idea about what's it's basic strategy was intended to be on its tee shot design--at least on the few holes I came to know best.

Some of the contributors such as Matt Ward, Tom Huckaby, perhaps David Wigler say that the tee shots in a strategic context are generally very wide open at Rustic, do not offer much challenge (in and of the tee shots themselves) or even have much strategic meaning for the shots that follow the tee shots (Matt Ward's point about having continuous short iron approaches makes any approach today generally far less strategic (meaningful!?).

Tom Huckaby has offered a further point to this that he believes the green designs are so complex that even an ideally placed drive EVEN on very large unchallenging fairways MAY not offer much in the way of reward anyway--simply because the greens ARE so complex anyway AND from possibly any angle (to make birdie?!). TomH is basically saying EVEN IF there ARE some IDEAL strategic areas out there on those big wide open fairways the green complexity sort of makes those ideal strategic fairway spots meaningless anyway!!

This is an interesting thing to say and if true should be considered somewhat of a strategic failing on the part of Rustic's design. Any kind of risk/reward factor in a strategic context has to have MEANING and that meaning almost always has to result in any player gaining or losing strokes somehow. The wider that divergence (in strokes) in a strategic context theoretically the better the holes should be. That to me is nothing more than the actual strategic consequence of any golf course and ultimately that IS the strategic factor in fact--in reality. There really isn't much way to get around that fact.

I guess one might say somehow that it can be neat to see the golf ball do all kinds of things depending on different strategies, placements, shot selections, whatever, but nevertheless the results must necessarily produce different results in strokes lost or gained to have meaning. If any golf course isn't producing that ultimate result, something is probably wrong somewhere--at least strategically!

But I think I can tell you what Rustic Canyon was intended to be (at least on the holes I know best) in the context of width of fairway and what might be seen as the lack of challenge on that tee shot! Nevertheless was it supposed to be strategic? definitely.

Some of those fairways, particularly #12 was supposed to APPEAR to be non-challenging on the tee shot and in fact the tee shot ALONE (in and of the tee shot itself) was intended to be non-challenging but only in the context of that single shot ALONE. It's really important to understand that and what the distinction is in a OVERALL strategic context (compared to fairways and tee shots that have a lot of risk/reward meaning on that single shot).

Although that tee shot is completely non-penal in the context of that one shot alone actually there was supposed to very much be an IDEAL area to place the drive on any particular day depending upon what followed that day. Obviously what followed was the complexity of the approach depending on the day's pin postion relating to the green's overall complexity.

Was there supposed to be real meaning on where you placed your tee shot on some of those huge non-penal fairways such as #12? Absolutely there was!

The point of all this was to encourage golfers to begin to understand better things such WHOLE hole strategy on their own with little or no shot direction or dictation from the architect on some shots (obviously on some drives). It was supposed to be (in a theoretical sense anyway) a design to force players to make something out of situations when it might appear nothing important was there. It was an attempt to get players to think less in individual shot increments and more in shot progressions. The best way to do that in this case was to remove almost all apparent challenge on some individual shots!

Part of the thinking of the architects was that many modern golfers tend to think ONLY in single and individual shot increments and on each one they demand specific visible and actual challenges and risks and rewards. Ultimately that can become architectural shot dictation and direction.

Certainly it doesn't always have to be architectural shot dictation or direction--at least not in a one clear best shot choice. The general way to overcome that is simply to give the golfer on the tee (of a hole such as #12) a series of actual very visible shot choices such as Riviera's #10. Riv's #10 is so interesting that way as there are at least 3-4 very good and very visible and very distinct and different choices on the tee shot alone (that are regularly utilized).

Shackelford didn't want to bunker up Rustic's #10 fairway and make it a similar visible offering on the tee shot to Riviera's #10. But the architects wanted to create the same strategic effect basically as Riv's #10 fairway! Just imagine Riviera's #10 if all the fairway bunkering was removed and the hole had a big 80 yard wide open fairway. Would the hole work as well strategically without that fairway bunkering as it does with its fairway bunkering? I personally believe it would. Why? Because the green basically can hold all the strategic meaning in the placement of the tee shot anyway!

That's one example of how in some cases huge unchallenging tee shot width can have strategic meaning anyway--at least theoretically and hopefully.

Does Rustic Canyon pull off that strategic concept the way it way intended to? I don't know since I've never played it. Obviously some think it does and others don't.

Darren Kilfara:

Your analysis of TOC's #18 strategies for any level and in its entirety is perhaps the best single hole strategic analysis I've ever seen!

[Mike_Cirba]

I don't think John V and Don Mahaffey (both LONG knockers) would mind me mentioning that when we played the 12th hole at Rustic (from the "regular" tee), one drove over the green, another alongside it, and I drove down the right, about 75 yards from the hole.  

Our total score was 15, with a single par as the best score.  

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

DMoriarty,

The 8th hole at NGLA is the perfect blend of the two.

I am surprised that the hole hasn't been copied more often.

[TEPaul]

"I don't think John V and Don Mahaffey (both LONG knockers) would mind me mentioning that when we played the 12th hole at Rustic (from the "regular" tee), one drove over the green, another alongside it, and I drove down the right, about 75 yards from the hole.  

Our total score was 15, with a single par as the best score."

Mike Cirba:

That is precisely what that hole was intended (strategically) to do from time to time compared to what it may look like to various golfers.

To Geoff Shackelford the interest (and probably strength and quality) of any golf hole is that a number of extremely varied options are both available and also constantly used! The latter is really important!

And of course the results in score of those various options and strategies is the proof of the pudding of the hole.

A golfer such a Matt Ward (or Tom Huckaby or Dave Wigler) may be challenging that the results really are meaningful between the various strategies and at this point they may be saying that playing the course a single time like that really isn't indicative.

Of course, Tom Huckaby is basically saying that the reason for all this is only in the greens themselves and that there might not be much strategic chance for birdie, for instance, regardless of where a golfer puts his ball in Rustic's fairways. That thought should be followed!

Of course David Moriarty has challenged golfers such as Matt Ward to prove their thought true. Obviously David Moriarty believes otherwise. And I know that people such as Geoff Shackelford, Jim Wagner, Gil Hanse, and even myself hope that David Moriarty ultimately wins his challenge and his bet about Rustic Canyon.  

[Matt_Ward]

David M:

I appeciate your Tom Paul type retort to my comments. Let me add a few others for you to ponder.

A few other "weaknesses" of RC:

*All but the 1st hole feature par-5's that play in the same direction.

*All but the 11th hole feature long par-4's that play in the same direction.

David, when you mention the aspect of having a "St. Andrews" type layout where width of fairways is part of the strategic mix I completely concur -- I just don't believe that RC has the same complexity that you will find with TOC using that particular type of strategic design.

I will say this again for those who may not believe me -- I truly love RC and believe it is a model for so many other communities to consider -- I also believe, Brad Klein notwithstanding, that what a clubhouse and / or driving range looks like is completely irrelevant. However, with that said, there are aspects of ANY course that can stand a gentle tweaking here and there.

David you absolutely love the course, of that there is no doubt, but like the proud parent you unfortunately cannot see that your child may have a small imperfection here and there. Sometimes, it takes someone with a little experience to point out some of these elements.

Let's talk about how RC was not rated by GW. I can't believe that not enough panelists voted on the course given it's close proximity to LA.

Regarding Pete Dye -- you clearly have no affinity for Lost Canyons but can you please tell me what, if any, Pete Dye designs you do like. Can you also please tell me how Pete's "in your face" style is OK with another course (I'm assuming you like at least one of his designs) and not so with Sky.

I also think it's important for you to realize that "firm and fast" for RC may truly be that when compared "to other SoCal" courses but I would like to withold judgement on RC until I make a return visit during the late summer and see if things can truly get to "concrete" form. If that should happen then clearly the argument about angles becomes more valid. Just realize that the defenders of RC do not even concede the point that if the course is not concrete the issue of angles becomes less so because the ability to control one's approaches will be less of an issue.

David, I look forward to another game at RC and obviously with you in tow. The ability to hit the ball a long ways off the tee is a totally different enterprise than many other golfers can imagine simply because the shot pattern (control and spin) is something many other players may not have in their bags -- but other plays do.

RC is a gem of layout but no gem is completely flawless. Todays' game of power can simply overwhelm a great many courses because without including some aspect of reining in this type of attack the attributes that have been applied by the design team may not fully realize what type of game is played by a narrow range of golfers.

The detailing of RC and its green complexes is indeed a marvel but the tee game detail is something that's just not present. I'll give you one example that should have been repeated a few times at RC -- how about adding a "bath tub type" bunker like the one you find on #2 and throwing in on the line of play on such holes as #11 on the right side. On many true links you will find the inclusion of bunkers on the line of attack and they are there for one reason -- to give the longer hitter some pause on what they may do. Wild Horse does this so well on a few holes and one of the more noteworthy is the 17th hole -- a reachable par-5 that has a center line bunker that will snare those who are quite foolish. It is a marvelous addition simply because it's there to grab the longer hitter while still protecting the ability of the shorter players.

That's what makes this whole discussion funny -- as someone who hits the ball a decent ways I have taken up the cause of those who hit the ball straighter and shorter. How ironic is that?

[DMoriarty]

Matt,

I'm about ready to opt out of this conversation.  I enjoy your company and am trying to respect your opinion, but frankly, I find it rude and arrogant that you continue to respond to me without even reading my posts.  But, I guess I shouldnt be too surprised.  After all, you are the guy who, after one play, is arrogant enough to act as if he knows all there is to know about the challenges of the tee game at Rustic, and how they relate to the strategic demands of the course.   You said to me that you were "amazed" that I would "belittle the challenges" of Sky "so quickly and contemptuously" after only having played the course once (turns out I had played the course at least 8 times.)  Are you equally amazed at your own willingness to belittle the challenges of Rustic so quickly and contempuously after only one play?

One thing I havent covered, that I will.  You like to say that it is quite ironic and funny that you, one of the few and proud with such stellar distance and a shot pattern (control and spin) that it is simply unimaginable to those that are not likewise blessed, would selflessly devote yourself to taking up the cause of the less fortunate who hit the ball shorter and straighter.

"How ironic is that?"  Well . . . I find it ironic that you actually believe this.

Did it ever occur to you that the reason the short-hitters (straight or crooked) arent complaining about Rustic is that those of us who have played it a few times know that we have a much better chance against players like you at Rustic than we do at, say, Sky up the road.   The course entices guys like you to try to overpower it, and guys like you often take the bait.   Fortunately for those short hitters who are forced to play with their heads, Rustic is set up to prey on this type of arrogance.  But maybe the course is too effective, it seems that some of the big hitters never realize that they have been duped, even after they have bashed their way well into the 80's.

[Matt_Ward]

David M:

When you talk about reading someone's posts -- I ask you this: did you read the part where I salute RC as being a "model" for other courses to follow and that I also COMMEND the facility in being so much fun because it does offer challenge at such a reasonable rates?

David, please do me a favor -- before you bark at me about being rude and arrogant, how about paying a little lip service to the fact that people can like a course a lot (even though they play it just one time ), but still see some elements that you are so blind to even admit may have "some element" of truth. I guess you are right -- people like me and David Wigler are utterly misguided and have little clue on the merits of a solid course. I mean you're absolutely right because someone like me is a complete novice in analyzing courses because I play so few of them since writing on the subject for 20 plus years.

David, I urge you to read this month's GD because Ron Whitten writes up about how the 5th hole at ANGC has been modified to reflect what is happening in today's game. Here the previous hole of 435 yards had disintegrated into being nothing more than a 9-iron / wedge approach because the fairway bunkers on left were meaningless given today's technology. No matter how strong the green contours (see anything similar to the argument put forward about RC!) the players were still able to get near the pin locations because they were simple bombing away from the tee with little thought for any penalty.

I have not seen the hole firsthand to say for sure, but given what Whitten describes the result seems logical because it restores the "balance" between the tee and what the green is.

If you recall from some of my previous posts about RC that has been my point all along. You try to add an element where the power player is challenged beyond just allowing them to rip it with impunity. The 5th at ANGC now has balanced itself to still provide a window of opportunity for the power player, but not at the expense of a wild tee shot as the hole was wont to do in previos years.

This is the same argument I've made for a "few" holes at RC --nothing more and nothing less. Now, I can understand if the design team didn't want to clutter up or choke the course in
the same exact manner as ANGC has decided to do -- but I personally believe having this added to a "few" holes at RC would only ADD to the qualities needed from the tee perspective that one sees so patently clear with the unique green complexes you find at so many of the holes.

David, you make it a point to constantly cite instances of people shooting in the 80's at RC. That may be the case given who you've played with. I will say this -- I look forward to returning to RC and we can add'em up. In fact, I'll say this -- you can put me on RC ten times and Lost Canyons / Sky ten times and my scoring average at Sky will be noticeably lower because the tee game aspect is much more demanding there. I truly enjoy the differences that the two courses present and I believe over the course of time will add to the reputation of both layouts. If you don't believe that -- so be it. JUST REALIZE THIS DAVID -- I TRULY LOVE RC AND I JUST WISH YOU WOULD ACKNOWLEDGE THIS BEFORE BASHING ME AS SOMEONE YOU CLAIM IS TAKING CHEAP SHOTS AT RC.

Just because a person presents a valid thought(s) on what can be done to improve the course in certain defined and particular instances, it does not mean that I believe the entire layout is not a superior design to what you normally find in so many places in America -- most notably SoCal.
Let me also mention that you've taken my statement about ability level and somehow twisted it to mean I believe my game is flawless. It's far from it, however, I've played my share with superior players who can certainly hit the ball a long ways and can properly spin / control it when necessary.

Regarding Lost Canyons -- In your original post on this subject you didn't specify how many times you actually played the course -- only on subsequent posts have you mentioned you've been there eight times. Being the gentleman I am (I guess you figure I'm really from the cave!) I offer a mea culpa for any sort of misinterpretation on my part.

Let me also mention that when you critique my comments on changing the 18th hole at Sky I did agree with you about how the hole is wedged in to provide some sort of  tight finish because of the nature of the topography. Such a situation of tight land and forced finales happens at a number of courses I''ve played but I would not go so far as you say that no course should have been built on the land that Lost Canyons occupies. I have mentioned in specific instances how Shadow and Sky are so different and how the good shot / bad shot reward and penalty system is turned on its head on a number of holes at Shadow but not at Sky.

You mention that my only recommendation for change at the 18th is to add distance -- that's one option. The other may be even simpler. Take the right fairway bunker -- I believe the carry from tip tees is 260 yards. Given the downhill nature of the hole I see no reason why the bunker could not be moved to say 300 yards to provide some balance between the shorter straighter hitter and those who want to risk a longer tee shot, but at the risk of landing in a bunker that is truly in play for them. This small change, I believe, would add greatly to the characteristics of the hole. A hole, I might also add as I have previously, that the 18th at Sky is not all-world but could be a better conclusion than it is today.

Please do not cherry pick off what you disagree with and then develop amnesia and simply fail to acknowledge the other parts I also mention.

Getting back to RC -- I am a big fan of the place. Just because someone mentions small aspects to tweak the layout does not mean I don't like the course. What's really amazing is that RC, which seems to be the kind of course that GW panelists would love, is not even voted in among the 100 modern best designs in the USA. I guess the course is located in a difficult area to get to -- although it's no more than 45 minutes from downtown LA.

When you talk to me about Lost Canyons and mention specific weaknesses I don't hear any response from you on specific elements that have been repeated over and over at RC. For example -- all the par-5's, with the exception of #1, go in the same direction. All the long par-4's, with the exception of #11, also go in the same direction -- I believe down canyon. Would it not have been advantageous to have a long par-4 that plays up canyon besides #11? I might also add that the finsihing par-3 on the back side -- #17, is a decent hole and in no way comparable to the qualities of the others you play at RC. I believe, although I could be wrong, that even you and David Kelly feel somewhat the same.

You seem to like the 3rd and 12th as they are. So be it. I disagree. I believe having some sort of bunker (i.e. like th ebath tub one on #2) to the right would rein in players from simply grabbing the long stick and hitting away with impunity. Including some additional thinking on the tee game aspect would make players "pause" and ponder what the outcomes will be BEFORE deciding on that course of action. To me -- that's strategic golf at its best.

David, you believe very strongly about what you say. Please realize that others may feel just as strongly and can back up their answers no less than you do. Just because people may disagree doesn't mean they are by nature disagreeable personally. I look forward to my return to RC and enjoying one of the very finest public courses in America even if not rated by GW! Adios partner ...

[Mark_Fine]

Let's face it guys, RC was designed to be fun.  The fairways are wide so the golfer has room to play golf!  You tighten up those fairways and you clearly will make the course harder but in my opinion you won't make it any better!  

At the same time, on a number of the holes at RC, placement of the tee shot is critical to being able to get your approach shot close to the pin.  The more one plays this course, the more I feel you'll appreciate the complex nature of it.  

Having said that, the second shots and play on and around the greens is what makes this golf course so inspiring to me.  I found it to have all the attributes that are often missing from many modern designs - wide fairways, strategically contoured greens "and approaches", chipping areas, alternate fairways that are meaningful, bunkers that are hazards,... It kept my interest throughout and I can't wait to play it again.  

To answer the original question, "can challenge off the tee and strategy coexist", sure they can, but not necessarily on every golf hole!

Mark

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()