[Ben Cowan-Dewar]

DM,
I think your analysis is well thought out and on point with my beliefs of Rustic.

You also mentioned that it was firmer than average the day we played it, which puts the conditions in context for me. I have only played the course twice, five days apart, following a rainy week.

I played a lot of golf that week and no course was firmer including four courses in the same region.

Tom H.,
It is the above conditioning I refer to when I described the angles, and since you are discussing a soft course, that is the disconnect. I will accept your opinions on the ability to stop the ball with a two-iron on the second hole. I played from the back tees and had to land a five-iron 30 feet short to get near the front pin. While not overestimating my own ability, I spin the ball well and there were few holes I would put the ball up in the air near a pin.

Lastly, I do not accept that the green complexes alone could defend the score, if in fact the shots were short. Great players hitting wedges put the ball close anywhere. So therefore, I believe that there are advantages to angles that the bombers have been missing. You argue "LESS INTERESTING, LESS FUN", but if you accept that bombers are not scoring because they miss the angles (I am not saying you have), then to me, it is even more interesting. Sure the visuals may lack the clear definition, but if you cannot go low playing short irons, perhaps you scratch your head about your approach.
__

St. Andrews is a good comparison on many levels, because most do not fully understand the course having played it once. Since Matt W. (David W. and Tom H. I do not know how many times you have played it) has only played Rustic once, is it possible Matt could simply not understand all the intricacies? This is not a statement on Matt Ward's ability to judge a course. Matt himself uses his experience of playing Pinehurst No. 2 "no less than two dozen times" to qualify his opinion.

Matt, did you understand the greatness of No. 2 or the Old Course after your first visit?

I ask this seriously, because it goes to heart of my belief that Rustic needs the same examination as No. 2 and the Old Course.

As for quantifying Rustic Canyon's firmness, I have been to the Old Course, Pinehurst and Rustic in the past six months (in the case of the latter two, with folks from the GCA) and Rustic has been as firm as either course was. If anyone thinks I am biased, simply ask the fellow folks I played with, they are here.

[DMoriarty]

Matt, I wasnt calling your opinion of Rustic rude, I was calling your unwillingness to read my posts rude.  I do appreciate your apology regarding my experience at Sky.   But Matt, realize that this was just one of many of my comments (mostly raised as questions by you) that you completely ignored, including:  
--What Dye courses I liked, and my general opinion of Dye;
--Why I dont like one particular Dye course;
--My feeling that Rustic shouldnt be too much firmer or faster;
--My statements that I have already hit plenty of shots from where you hit your drives;
--My agreement that Rustic could use some tweaking.

I covered all this and more, yet you continued to belittle me about not addressing these points and continued to misstate my position. The last one is in bold because it particularly annoyed me that you repeatedly assert that I am unwilling to concede any flaws, or admit the possibility that your position has merit.  This is just not true.  It has never been true.  We've even discussed this in the past.  Had you read my posts with any modicum of care you would know this.  

Yet, even in this last post, after I twice accused you of not reading my posts, you say: "You seem to like the 3rd and 12th as they are."  True of 12, but not true of 3.  I discuss this above, Matt:

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.

The "arrogance" comment is more complicated.  No offense Matt, but in my opinion it is arrogant to:
--  Refuse to listen to or read the opinions of others;
--  Condesend the opinions of others by [repeatedly] saying and implying that golfers of lesser skill cannot possibly understand the architectural needs of the your type of golfer, or golfers with whom you play.
--  Think that you can possibly understand the intricacies of a course like Rustic after one play.  
--  Refuse to recognize or acknowledge that the tee game at Rustic might present challenges that you did not discover or consider in your first play of the course.
--  Constantly discount my opinion on the basis that (you think) I have no understanding how really good, long players play the game, and on the basis that you have seen and critiqued more courses than me.
--  Refuse to acknowledge the possible validity of the opinions of those other qualified commentators who have seen the course and disagree with your opinion.  (I am not talking about my opinion--  you have repeatedly said or implied that I am not qualified.  I am talking about the opinions of many others who have played the course.)
--  Boast about what you claim you have done (supposed numerous "flip wedges" to long par 4s) and what you claim you will do ("I will say this -- I look forward to returning to RC and we can add'em up.")
--  Refuse to acknowledge that, in my dozens and dozens of plays at Rustic, that I just might have picked up a few things that you missed in your one play.

That's my opinion.  Take it or leave it.

Matt, I never questioned your "love for Rustic Canyon" or accused you of taking "cheap shots at the course."  On these issues your posts speak for themselves. Why do you think I owe you a pat on the back for liking the course?

I am sorry if my post comes across as a personal attack.  I do have respect for your opinions, and enjoy your company.  I just put a lot of time and thoughts in my posts, after I have read and tried to understand others' posts and viewpoints.  While I am sure that not even my friends are reading my posts [one called me the TEPaul of the West], I'd like to think that at least the person with whom I am conversing would do me the courtesy of taking them seriously.  

That being said, please dont take any of this too personally.  I have had a smile on my face throughout this discourse.  I am quite amused that you think you could know so much about about a course you've seen so little.

By the way Matt.  I don't want to leave you with the impression that think that Rustic is a hard course.  I am as surprised as anyone that no one has gone really low, yet.  There are plenty of great birdie opportunities for the taking.  I just think it is quite a lot easier from a thoughtful angle.  But, dont listen if you dont want to.  Bang away.  Maybe your desire for challenge will be met by the approaches your drives leave you, or at least the subsequent putts.

Hope to see you soon . . .

[Jeff Fortson]

Is the PGA Tour scheduled to play Rustic Canyon soon?

If not, why all the fuss about protecting this course from the LONG BALL hitter?  

I bet 95% of the people that play Rustic can't carry a ball over 250 yards.  Sounds like the small amount of trouble off the tee was probably placed in the right spot for those that patronize this course.

Jeff F.

[TEPaul]

I love all this commentary and the vast divergence of opinion about Rustic Canyon. It means to me the course is becoming  enigmatic if looked at as a spectrum of opinion. The course may build up a certain mystery if this continues and that can only be a good thing.

As for those very wide fairways and where anyone puts the ball on them, I can't wait to see what time will really tell about that.

I have no idea whose right about their strategic meaning but I'll say this--if those big wide apparently unchallenging fairways really do have meaning in relation to the approach shots then in my opinion a very clever and very sophisticated design has been accomplished.

To me there can't be a design much more clever than one that really does make a golfer find meaning on a big wide blank canvas fairway. Of course that certainly does presuppose that there REALLY is meaning in where you put it on that big wide blank canvas. The neat thing is that meaning has in effect been shifted somewhere else.

You can't do better than that to get most any golfer to start to recognize what real whole hole strategy is--that strategic problems and solutions don't have to be architecturally visible on every single shot. Most golfers have become accustomed to being given visible keys on most every shot by visible challenges on every shot. Remove those visible challenges altogether on some shots (some tee shots in this case) but keep the meaning of those tee shots by putting it somewhere else and you've really done something interesting in design.

I hope that's the way Rustic Canyon is--on some of the holes that was the intention.

In some ways this was the effect of many of Donald Ross's courses--not much demand on some of the tee shots but meaning elsewhere in relation to those fairways nonetheless. It's the best example of the "looks easy plays harder" concept.

What can happen and does is you have players hitting quality shots and making imperfect choices--shooting some bad scores on holes with what appear to them to be good shots and wondering what went wrong.

That's close to as good as design can get to me. Again, very sophisticated--but again, there REALLY does have to be strategic meaning out there somewhere even though it may not look like it.

[T_MacWood]

Through my very limited 'field experience' severe greens are never just simple wedge approaches. Depending on where the pin might be, the only way to get near the hole would be through some kind of lower running shot, obviously the ability to use that option would depend upon your position off the tee (in relationship to the green and its features) and the game of the individual. I think the automatic choice of the wedge from 120 yards is a common reflex with many American golfers.

[Mark_Fine]

When those greens are firm which I understand they most often are, there are no simple wedge shots to those greens.  Depending on the pin positions, many of them must be attacked on the ground.  That was one of the aspects I enjoyed the most.  You need to be creative in your shot selection to score out there.  

I think the wide fairways will help offset what some golfers will unfortunately consider "unfair" greens and hazards!  Sad but true.  

[THuckaby2]

OK, having been out of this since Friday, I missed a lot of back and forth.  And given the tone this has taken, it's likely for the best I stay out now... but... I don't like to leave questions directed at me unanswered, so, to Ben Dewar:

1.  I patently suck with irons, particularly low irons.  Yet, my 2iron from 210 on #2 came from the right, over the bunker, hit and stayed within 3 feet of its pitch mark.  If the course is playing as it should that ball should have bounded over the green... this isn't me hitting it high or soft or anything, it was a softer than it should be green.  And I'm telling you, the course LOOKED firm and fast... I guess we're gonna have to leave this as a disconnect if you hit a 5iron 30 feet short and bounced it up.  The day I was there that would have stayed 27 feet short of the green.  In any case, the point is that the course truly needs to be screaming, "wildhorse" firm and fast to "work", in terms of what its intended to be... Oh, it's always gonna be fun, and as I've said 5 times now, I absolutely understand why they can't/won't bring it up to this speed - the general public would die and rounds would take forever, and the same general public loves GREEN.  No hassles.  But it would be a much better course if it had its proper maintenance meld, that's all!

2. My take on the teeshots for the big hitters remains what it is and I've explained it several times now.  If they have nothng to think about, it's less fun, and this has nothing to do with their score.  They truly do not have much to think about off the tee at Rustic.

Now Dave M. makes a great point in his back and forth with Matt, one that I must concede to and deeply apologize for missing before:  hey, I've rode around and looked at this course once and played it once.  I sure as hell don't know the tip of the iceberg re what goes on there really, and definitely need to defer to those who play it all the time.  Thus my apologies to Dave if I have offended you... I'm just giving my take, which please remember is 95% positive and 5% "less than that."

TH

[THuckaby2]

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.  

To Dave M.:  I just went back and re-read your lengthy post directed to me (sorry, I hadn't gotten to that before).  The above quote from Mr. Cirba proves my point, I believe, and ilustrates what I feel is the tiny "less than positive" aspect of Rustic.  It truly didn't matter where drives were hit - the green is so severe that IT determined the scores.  That's what happens with very good players / long hitters... without severe rough, the greens and pin positions determine 95% of their score - I really believe this.

And 12 isn't even the best example... I find that to be a fun shot, as should anyone, just BECAUSE it's a drivable par 4 and that just has a "fun" in and of itself!

My point was more toward what Tom Paul explained for me... for the big hitter, with wide fairways, tee shots aren't going to matter much, and this is illustrated at Rustic .  That's it.  It's a tiny matter effecting a tiny percentage of golfers, so thus no big deal.  I've said that before.  And hey, the course is always going to be fun, just for the greens... and for many big hitters, well, just being able to slam away and still be faced by challenging greens might be a welcome respite!

So Dave, remember I never said Rustic was going to be anything less than a very fun golf course to play, for one and all.  A lot goes into this... with the primary part being the incredible greens and green surrounds, I think.

Bottom line is this:  I believe way too big a deal is being made of the point I'm making.  It's a tiny thing... and really, look at it this way, hole by hole, in terms of tee shots for the big hitters;

1 - slam away
2 - slam away
3 - fun, can drive the green
5 - slam away (maybe even lay up short of hazard)
7 - fun, great choices
9 - slam away
10 - slam away
11 - slam away (once you've figured out that left doesn't help!)
12 - fun, can drive green
13 - slam away
14 - fun, bite off as much as can chew
16 - slam away
18 - slam away (arguably)

So hey, out of 13 driving holes, you have 7, maybe 8 where this point even arguably holds true.  It's not that big of a deal and the course remains very fun...

TH

[Tommy_Naccarato]

I've stayed out of this one way too long, hoping that common sense would prevail. Now it's my turn.

TOM HUCKABY-(Notice the upper case letters as if I'm yelling)

If you can stick a two iron with-in three feet of your pitch mark, from the right side of the fairway on #2, it is obvious to me that you caught that paticular area of the course on a weird day. Last Thursday, while trying to foolishly get some activity after spending many weeks on the D.L. I tried to play a three-iron over the bunkers, and of course came way short.

My next shot?

Out of the first of the fairway bunkers, I was at least 45 yards out from the pin, and not with a pitching wedge, my usual club of choice in that paticular situation, I chose a full sand wedge. My goal was to simply GET OUT of the bunker. I  took a normal soft-swing and then watched the ball, with lots of spin, pop straight-up out of the bunker, carry shorter then 20 yards and hit short of the cropped approached. It then took-off as if it was in Fife. It came to rest six feet of the hole.

On previous tries on that hole, I have found that from 210+ yards out, I'm using either a very soft-swinging five wood, enough to try to get some height and spin on it, in hopes it will bite. It usually doesn't, and I end-up off the back left of the green--in the rough. In truth, I haven't found a happy medium for myself on that hole because I usually walk away with a bogie everytime, just because I miss the putt--barely! I now am fiding that a three-iron is the club of choice as I can hit the club this distance because of the run. I normally hit a three-iron around 170 yards.

The one time I have seen it wet out there, where running the ball would have been a problem was when Jeff was watering the grass early in the mornings during the last part of summer, and onthat paticular day I happened to tee-off earlier then usual. I'm sure if instead of getting an earlier tee-time then you and your family are accustomed to getting when you are down here, you too will experience the same FIRM and FAST conditions an hour or so later. Sure, they may not be as fast as Wildhorse. I'll give you that since I haven't been to Wildhorse. But I will say that it is just as fast as Barona Creek which wasn't being watered when as much because of water issues.

And if you don't believe me, ask Dan King who has said to me that he can't golf in NoCal anymore because he is so spoiled with the conditioning and the design of Rustic Canyon.

I seem to remember having a whole slew of emails from you excitedly telling how great the course was after you ACTUALLY played it for the first time. Never once did you mention a thing about challenge from the tee or sticking irons next to the pin. Or was it all just BS? I asked you if you had any negative comments, and you said NONE! Do you remember? If not, I can surely bring them back-up for you.

ON the subject of width, what are your problems with Pacific Dunes #3? Does that hole offer any challenge for you? Don't ever bother with going to Australia, because Royal Melbourne, probably the least altered MacKenzie course in the world, looks to have much width also. Heaven forbid that there be options out there for all golfers. And Pine Valley? Well, youbetter forget thqat one too, because for all of its penal nature, Pine Valley may have the most options of all strictly because of its width. This is where its playability lies. Even I, a short knocker, now that I'm accustomed to the place, even  after one-round, know where the trouble is to avoid it and not take unneccessary chances--OPTIONS! Matt, being a resident of the state of New Jersey, I'm ashamed to you would have understood this. I'm not comparing Rustic Canyon to Pine Valley off of the tee either. One is a monument to golf. The other is a public golf course in war-torn Southern California.

However, I will compare that INSPIRED from courses like Pine Valley, Rustic Canyon offers a "game-with-in-a game." One where it is the golfer's quest to negotiate his way around the course and to get on to the green in the proper postion and putt* in the least amount of strokes, thus eliminating any of the challenges that the green may offer.

*The point at which the game with-in-the-game starts.

Personally, I think you ALL have been containment-mounded to death, that you have accepted this as the norm. It's all subliminal, and anything that elevates the purpose of the driver as being the most important club in the bag is not only ridiculous, it's wreeks of a score-card mentality.

[THuckaby2]

Easy there Tommy.  I too have been expecting - and dreading - your reponse.  Just be careful:  you are putting some serious words in my mouth here that I don't mean and you're taking this to wild extremes that are very inappropriate.

To wit:

1.  That 2iron from 210 on #2 happened and I thoiught I told you about it in the slew of emails right after I played.  Even then I pondered the "strategy" on 2 and only guessed that it would play better if that didn't happen.  Perhaps I didn't do this in the emails with you, but I sure did with others...To me this wasn't a "negative", it was just "strange"... at least as I was thinking about it then.  And if I said I didn't have any negative comments, well... That was true!  But let's just say I was a little gunshy talking to you after the pasting I took from you after my ride-through.  I also did so love the course, I was very excited it turned out to play so well!  So ok, maybe I did catch some weird soft patch that early-morning round... however, the rest of the round wasn't much different... and in any case, the point here THEN, and NOW,  isn't ME, it's the really big hitters for whom this matters.  I am absolutely not such, anyone can tell you that.  I was just using my own occurrence on 2 as an example for this discussion.

2. Ok, I'm gonna shout now:  PLEASE READ WHAT I SAY!  I've only said about 15 times now that I love the course, it is very fun, this whole "issue" is a very tiny thing effecting a very tiny percentage of golfers.  Dan King has taken this to a strange end, but hey, that's Dan, and he's not that far off - I wish we had a Rustic up here also.

You have taken this to a very strange, very wild extreme, reading into my words way more than I ever intended.  What's sad is this is happening AGAIN, Tommy - just like the last time I dared say anything not 100% without question positive about beloved Rustic Canyon, after my ride-through.

So as not to have the strange somewhat hard feelings we had then, Tommy, please read the below before you go off on me again:

I REALLY LIKE RUSTIC CANYON!!!!  I HAD A BLAST THERE BOTH TIMES I WAS THERE - YES, EVEN LOOKING AT IT WAS FUN.  IT IS A MUCH-NEEDED ADDITION TO GOLF IN SOCAL, BRINGING A GREAT COURSE AT A GREAT PRICE.  JUST TRYING TO SURMISE WHY IT DIDN'T GET THE RATINGS BANG I THOUGHT IT MIGHT, ONE ANSWER MIGHT BE FOR THIS LACK OF INTEREST OFF THE TEE FOR THE BIG HITTER, AS EXPRESSED BY SOME PRETTY KNOWLEDGEABLE FOLKS HERE (WIGLER/WARD).

That's it.

I understand your passion.  It's a great thing.  Just be careful with the personal attacks and threats, will ya?

TH

ps - many thanks, again, for getting the time for me and my family that day when I played.  I really did appreciate it, as I told you then.  The nice folks there also got me another time out of the normal process last fall, which I unfortunately had to cancel due to injury.  I guess the learning here is gratitude means holding one's tongue.  Lesson learned.

[Matt_Ward]

David M:

To be clear -- I did read your posts and I simply disagree with your unbounded love affair with RC. Like I said before David -- it's no different than the parent who thinks their son / daughter is without fault or error. And, I certainly do believe the design philosophy of RC should be used in a great many other places in the USA. That's more than what you see with GW which failed to have RC among the top 100 modern courses. How about that omission and the fact that a distinguished rater holds the issue of the clubhouse and practice range as an item of concern?

David, I never said you were not qaulified to issue an opinion. Please post such a statement if indeed I made it and I will quickly apologize. However, if you fail to produce same please do likewise. I have respect for you and the gentlemen I played with in late November and I would hope the respect works both ways in your book.

David, I can see different viewpoints but I believe the zealot defenders of RC take umbrage that anyone (me, Huckaby, or whoever) may have some element which may likely improve the character of such a fine course. I get really tired of people who take such high ground and proclaim any others who see it less so as being uninformed or worse yet ignorant.

David, I know my game quite well and if you don't like the reference of "flip wedge" so be it. I know what I can and cannot do on the golf course and eagerly look forward to returning to RC, and as I said previously, to "add'em up."

David, I enjoy hearing your spirited comments on RC and those who are fans of the course will know there is no one who can better defend the honor of that fine layout.

All I have ever said is that a gentle tweaking on a "few" holes regarding the tee game aspect of RC would go a long ways to strengthening an area that I believe is a bit underutilized that is far from the kind of detail you see with the putting surfaces.

Look David -- you see it differently -- no problem. But please do give some credit to people who can see a facility one time and have a detailed counterpoint to what others may see. I do "get" what RC is about even though you believe I am out in LAAAA-LAAA land (no pun intended) .

Ben:

I didn't "fully" get the experience of Pinehurst #2 the first time around but I did get a very good awareness of what Ross was intending to do with his philosophy of wide fairways and demanding greens. Just keep in mind that #2 has a number of strategic elements the player must decide on a  number of holes "at the tee." It's not just go anywhere and then you have some sort of second shot.

Ben, when you say RC "needs the same examination as No. 2 and the Old Course" can you further explain that to me? Are you saying that RC is on the same level as the two classic courses you list?

Just to let you and everyone know I don't just show up at a course and then make up idiotic analysis on how specific holes or the course in general plays. I also don't just look at my game alone -- but I do monitor and watch intently how others play as well. I also review each and every hole and try to encapsulate the comments of others I've been with and see how those arguments stand up or fall. Clearly, playing more "may" add more insight but it may also mean either additional points that raise or lessen the original assessment.

When people hold up this idea about a one time visit it's important to realize that there can be a difference of opinion and I believe this discussion has proven there are varied arguments on what constitutes an appropriate interplay between "challenge off the tee" and "strategy."

One last point -- I grow weary of the dogma spouted by a few souls that golf design must mimick one particular style in order to be of the highest order. If there's one thing I've learned in playing the game for over 30 years is keeping an open mind to different design styles and architects. As long as the good shot is rewarded and the bad shot is penalized proportionally to what you've executed I believe anything goes.

[DMoriarty]

Tom,  Interesting analysis.  I appreciate that you actually go through the course.  The big hitter certainly can "slam away" on all the holes mentioned.  However, in so doing he might just have left himself all the challenge he can handle on the approach.  Straining to put myself into the mindset of the big hitter, and without giving away all my hard earned course knowledge,  let me guess some of the things that a thoughtful things big hitter might consider off the tee.  

1.  This hole has eagle chance written all over it.  If you slam away right (along the hazard) you shorten the hole, which you will need because the ditch in front catches all run up attempts on the approach.  From this angle you are hitting straight down canyon so long second had better be very, very, very soft.  I have trouble holding this green with a wedge if I dont have the correct angle.  Slam away left toward the out of bounds, and there is a spot short and left of the green that will allow you to bounce it short and roll it on.  Miss long and left (the bail out) and you will have a very difficult time getting your next one close to any left pin placement, because of a tricky mound/ridge along the left side of the fairway.  

2.  Slam away left, along the out of bounds, and you have an open shot at the green and can run it up or fly it into the right slope, making most pin placements relatively accessible.  Slam it right toward the pot bunkers, and you have a downhill blind shot to a green, most of which runs away.  I have no reason to doubt you when you tell me stuck a 2 iron from here (there is a small mound in the middle of the green that sometimes backstops balls and sometimes doesnt.). But I can tell you that it would be foolish to count on doing this very often with any club.  Most likely, anything from this side will produce a very difficult two putt or chip from just off.  

5.  Plenty of fairway to slam away left and you can get relatively close to the green (230-200).  But from left you had better carry the green with lots of spin on your ball.  One inch short and you will be bounce off the tall, mowed bank in front left of the green, and your next shot will be up this bank to a pin you cant see.  Ask Pete's friend Sam (a good golfer) the prudence of leaving your ball short and left on this hole.  Carry the green from this angle a little hot or long and your ball is in a collection bunker, and you will be hitting your next sand shot down green with the slope behind.  The longest hitter cant slam away right off the tee, but if he places a three wood at the corner of the hazard area at the end of the fairway and the hazard area right of the fairway, he has a better angle to go in two. By the way, this hole is supposed to have an additional tee box, quite a bit back.  I like this potential change.  

9.  Slam away left along the hazard and you might find your next shot to be a little closer to the green.  Lots of contours small contours in this fairway, with beneficial places to hit and not so beneficial places to hit.  You must get everthing out of you drive to go in two, so a little kick ahead counts for a lot.  

10.  Plays very long, a little up hill.  I am not even sure Matt Ward can get home in two without challenging the hazard that runs all the way up the right side.  This brings trouble into play for the length of the hole.

11.  Already discussed. All else I can say is that I have seen very few, if any birdies on the left half of the green from the right bail out.  I've birdie and seen the left pin birdied plenty from the left middle.  

13.   Slam away right on an angle between the out of bounds and trap and get a great power kick off the hard ground and slant and have a good chance at getting home.  Slam away over and left of the bunker and your ball will feed hard left toward the second side traps and you will have a much longer shot and a very difficult angle to go at a right pin.  

16. Slam away. Leave it left and you have a very difficult side hill lie.  Hit it too far and you have a very downhill lie.  The trouble left comes into play more than you would think because of the angle of the tee box and the way the hole meanders.  But other than that, grip it and rip it.  

18. Very awkward tee shot.  Slam away to far left and bring ob into play, and make the hole long.  Cut the corner and get it close, but you had better carry it around 280-300 or you will be dropping 100 yds off the tee.  Perfect would be to hit it around the corner with a left to right ball that would take advantage of the slope to the green.

Just my opinion, could be all wrong because I am not a long hitter.  

[THuckaby2]

This is very cool - muchas gracias for the detailed analysis, David!  And hey, we certainly wouldn't want you to give away your hard-earned course knowledge... you've earned the right to have that as an advantage!

I understand everything you say, and have very few quibbles, in fact none worth mentioning.  I still think the greens are what make the course and what keep the scores high, no matter where one places one's drive, but as you so perfectly detail, there are hard ways and easy ways.  Very cool.

I'm still pissed that I had such an awful angle in on 11, though, after what I thought was such an artfully crafted draw hugging the left.  Man, I need to play with you there some day so you can show me the advantage from that side... I sure didn't see it!  But then again, I had a back left pin... which we couldn't see very well from the tee, nor did we know was going to matter so much.  But heck, we've discussed 11 already and in fact beaten it to death... To me this is actually a very cool "positive" - the preferred angle is very hard to discern.  

In any case, your well-reasoned, cheerful analysis is a welcome respite from other posts directed to me here.  

TH

[TEPaul]

"My point was more toward what Tom Paul explained for me... for the big hitter, with wide fairways, tee shots aren't going to matter much, and this is illustrated at Rustic .  That's it"

TomH:

That's not what I said. Not even close. I've never played the course so all I know is what the architects were trying to do on a couple of holes with big wide open fairways with no particular challenge on them. But I never said the tee shots weren't suppose to matter much. It definitely was supposed to matter where you put the ball on them. But they weren't supposed to directly penalize you depending on where you drove the ball. The penalty or problem was more indirect--like how your next shot was influenced by where you drove the ball on the big wide unencumbered fairway.

[THuckaby2]

TEP - poor writing there on my fault, my apologies.  You explained my take that the greens meant everything, right?  I'm not saying you agreed with it, just that you explained it, likely better than I did.

I also never meant to indicate you agreed with anything I said and again, my apologies for that.  So many questions directed to me, so many things said about me, well... it was hard to keep everything straight.

To that end, as I just explained in an email to one of the participants here, no golf course is worth losing friendships over.

Thus I am out of this thread.  Anyone who wants to discuss this any more with me, well, you have my email.

TH
tom.huckaby@clorox.com

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()