Matt, seems like I hit a nerve with this Sky thing. Dont take it personally, I just don't consider it a very good course.
David, you've played Sky so many times (once) that it amazes me you can belittle the challenges so quickly and contemptuously.
What gave you that idea? I said "I've played the course only once since Rustic opened." I also said "I've played the hole from the tips and the next two tee boxes, a couple times each." I have, on occasion, dropped a second ball, but 6? Two on each tee? Not me. Fortunately you golf and write better than you read!
Seriously, I've played Sky at least 8 times, maybe more. I have a few friends who view courses more like you than me. Does eight plays exempt me from your criticism that I "belittle the challenges so quickly and contemptuously." Remind me again how many times you have played Rustic?
Are there any Pete Dye courses you like and I have to ask why?
I like PGA West stadium and La Quinta Mountain. I also like Oak Valley which was billed as a Pete Dye course when it first opened. (It was later properly attributed to his underlings Curley and Schmidt-- perhaps the same fate awaits Sky down the road.)I dont have a grudge against Dye's style, I just dont like a few particular courses. I do think that they did the best they possibly could have with the piece of land for the Sky. But, in my opinion, Sky and Stadium should have never been built. The ground is just not suited to golf. The result is an excessively severe course that has a number of bad and repetitious holes, and a few absurd ones.
with flip wedge into any numebr of the so-called long par-4's at RC
Did you really have flip wedge into any number of the so called so called long par-4's? On your second shot? On your first ball? You must have one hell of a flip wedge, because I can remember exactly where you were on 2, 11, and 14, and they must have been massive flip wedges. You did knock it along ways on 18 over the corner, but you cant seriously contend that line had no challenge or interest. How far do you hit your flip wedge? 130? I dont remember where you were on 16.
Matt, my criticisms arent at you or your game. (I am certainly in no position to critique your game.) They are about the course, and your general perception of what is quality about architecture. You might not want to take it so personally.
How about the fact that your par-3 length at RC (minus the 6th) is roughly the same -- take the 4th and 15th -- basically the same type of club!
Yes, 4 and 15 are almost identical, except that 4 plays slightly downhill, straight into the wind to a giant green with no traps close in play,and with a run-up a possible and good play, while 15 plays uphill in a different direction with a cross-wind to a small green surrounded on 3 sides by bunkers. Other than that, I couldnt tell them apart. And you are correct that both usually require the same type of club -- an iron.
You also correctly point out that there is no real variety amongst the par 3s, except that their distances are 161, 217, 127, 150, and 189, all play in different directions, to greens that are different in size, shape and orientation, and they all have different elevation changes, wind directions, and shot options/requirements.
By the way let me know if the club selections you cite for the "short" par'4s you mention are for you or Fred Couples?
Does it matter? What if it is four repetitious 8 irons to a blind green straight up a mountain? Does this somehow make them better holes or less repetitious?
Matt, the reason I harp on your apology and cure for 18, is that I think it is somehow indicative of the differences in how we view architecture. To me, 18 is an awkward, forced, manufactured, hokie hole that was probably built as the only option back to the clubhouse, absent a hang glider It relies on the gimmick of a crows nest tee shot to establish what little merit it claims. But as a golf hole it is awful, and as a finishing hole at a course you deem worthy of the US Open, it is worse. If it werent for its sister hole at the Shadows, I'd think it the silliest 18th hole I have played or seen in SoCal.
Never mind that you defend this abomination, you actually think the hole can be easily cured. Your cure? More length and an even a more spectacular crows nest drive. Sure this might make the hole slightly tougher, but tougher isnt necessarily better. Sometimes holes are just bad, sometimes they are good, and sometimes the difficulty or apparent ease of the tee shot cant change this.