News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Gib_Papazian

How would you improve Rustic?
« on: March 29, 2004, 05:19:02 PM »
KP III:
As usual, the social event of the season. Thanks to Jeff Fortson for demonstrating the difference between a Pro and a Prophylactic. . . . and to Bernhardt for not gloating too badly . . . . and Mike Golden for letting me off the hook with a draw.

Now, onto business:

I remain convinced that Rustic Canyon is one of the very best architecturally "low profile" golf courses in existence. I have issue with some of the rough lines (#1 on the left comes to mind), but having a 2nd 3rd and 4th look, I've decided there are elements to the green complexes at Rustic reminiscent of Garden City.

I can't think of much higher praise than that.

The 9th green is my favorite on the golf course and I was shocked when Lynn told me that Geoff and Gil did little more than formalize the natural contours into putting surface. C.B. was correct, there is no improving on nature.

With the construction of a "Hell's Half Acre" on #10, I wonder if it might not be a good idea to extend the right hand fairway bunker on #9 to give the 2nd shot an interesting twist.

It seems just a tweak here and there, and Rustic could go from excellent to otherworldy. If Geoff and Gil made it a special project over a few years, I envision Rustic becoming a shrine of sorts, a mandatory visit on the resume of any aspiring architect.

That's not hyperbole. Just close your eyes, think about what is there . . . . . and then what could be with a little money and the undivided attention of a couple geniuses.

For instance, Lynn and I were discussing the third hole. We had some odd Santa Ana winds blowing off the hills, but the prevailing breeze is in the opposite direction.

What happens is the left fairway is reoriented a bit and a Leven hole bunker/mounding feature is installed to block a clear view 25 yards in front of the green on the right side?

Maybe a bit artificial looking unless you move a lot of dirt to tie everything together, but strategically it would be astounding.

If you were going to improve Rustic, what would you do?  
« Last Edit: March 30, 2004, 11:23:17 AM by Gib_Papazian »

Pete Lavallee

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:How would you improve Rustic?
« Reply #1 on: March 29, 2004, 05:35:35 PM »
I would certainly echo your praise of Rustic Canyon Gib, but since you've asked:

I think the collars of rough around the fairway bunkers are too wide and to thick; they lessen the severity and impact of their nature as a hazard. I spoke briefly with Geoff and he indicated that Gil would be trying to redefine their borders this week. Although I would prefer them eliminated, making them narrower would at least allow some shots to hop or skip in, and they would then be more effective at dictating strategy.

I've always wondered why the practice greens do not have the extended bent grass collars found on the course. Players have no chance to refine their techniques or warm up before the round.

I do agree that a continued effort to refine the strategy would only improve an already outstanding example of how good public golf can be. Bravo, Gil, Jim and Geoff!
"...one inoculated with the virus must swing a golf-club or perish."  Robert Hunter

Mike Benham

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:How would you improve Rustic?
« Reply #2 on: March 29, 2004, 06:01:47 PM »
I think the collars of rough around the fairway bunkers are too wide and to thick; they lessen the severity and impact of their nature as a hazard.

I have much to comment on from this weekend but this work thing is getting in the way ...

Although I will quickly comment on Pete's comment about the collars of rough.  I agree they were beastly long and difficult to extract from.  David noted that regular maintenance on the rough and fairways had just restarted that week as the maintenance focus was on the damage from the flood.  

That being said, I visited the GCA write-up on Rustic this morning and I was shocked at the photos then compared to what we saw this past weekend.  The photos show a more manicured course then what we saw.  In fact, I loved the bunkers on #8 as we saw them (thankfully I wasn't in them), very natural looking, while the photos in the write-up were a tad  too neat ...

Cheers ... and more later ...

Mike

Ps:  I saw Gib get the ball airborne, downwind even ...
"... and I liked the guy ..."

A_Clay_Man

Re:How would you improve Rustic?
« Reply #3 on: March 29, 2004, 06:24:12 PM »
Gentlemen, Could you tell us what the pace of play was like? How long did it take for the "raters" to get around?

Chris_Hunt

Re:How would you improve Rustic?
« Reply #4 on: March 29, 2004, 06:41:09 PM »
I know the reasons why they aren't, and it doesn't fundamentally change the course, but I would switch the nines.

Gib_Papazian

Re:How would you improve Rustic?
« Reply #5 on: March 29, 2004, 07:36:19 PM »
I've got to agree about the deep rough in front of the bunkers. Maybe Gil can get things back on track this week. I can understand the desire to give the top line of the hazards some texture (County Down-ish), but rough along the line of play in front of a hazard seems absurd.

BTW, posting this subject is not meant to be a criticism of the golf course. Anyone with taste and an understanding of great architecture would be proud to call Rustic their creation. I know I would.

Even NGLA was constantly tweaked by Macdonald, and we all know the evolution of Pinehurst #2 by Ross. I guess it is okay to *change* a golf course as long as surgery is performed by the original creator, eh? . . . . . . Atlas Shrugged and all that . . . . .

So, in that spirit, the only putting surface on the golf course that puzzles me is #15. I managed to go 3-2 on it, but the tiers do not present the level of creativity and unconventional contouring (crossways movement for instance) found on the other 17 holes.

The landing area on #12 also seems odd. I meant to ask Geoff if they thought about jazzing up the right side a bit. Building a minefield of bunkers (think #8 or #14 at Bandon Dunes) feels right in my mind's eye.

If there is one thing that still sticks out in my mind it is the tee shot on #2. To the unitiated, the green looks to be on the right side of the wide expanse. Of course, it is actually to the left, which is awkward. The simplest fix would be to plant a stand of trees in the wash in front of the tee on the right side to draw the eye to the left side of the fairway.

I do not mind some ambiguity on the line of play, but in this case the orientation of the hole is quite confusing. Either that, or place a hillocky bunker down the fairway on the right side to block the view of the 7th green.  

Pete Lavallee

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:How would you improve Rustic?
« Reply #6 on: March 29, 2004, 08:54:27 PM »
The idea of something to block the line of sight to the 5th green from the 2cnd tee has great merit. Not more than a few minutes before Gib made this obervation I found myself scouting the 5th for the days pin, after over a dozen rounds under my belt. Although I  soon realized my error, a small copse of trees would also help emphasize the stategy of the tee shot on 2, how close to the out of bounds on the left do I dare place my tee shot to gain the angle that defeats the tendency of the 2cnd green to shrug off shots fom the direct line to the back left of the green.

My understanding of the rough around the bunkers is to improve their visibiliy, since there aren't many natural mounds to cut them into in the first place. However a good compromise would be to implement the eyebrow effect, leaving the collar on the exit side but by cutting the entrance at fairway height to help them to gather more victims.
"...one inoculated with the virus must swing a golf-club or perish."  Robert Hunter

JakaB

Re:How would you improve Rustic?
« Reply #7 on: March 29, 2004, 09:08:46 PM »
My understanding of the rough around the bunkers is to improve their visibiliy, since there aren't many natural mounds to cut them into in the first place.

How many of the problems with Rustic are associated with its public status.  If this is to be considered a great course why should comprimises be accepted because of one time players.  Why should the good people who play the course multiple times and consider it home be punished by inferior techinalities of poor architecture...as mentioned above when fixes are simplistic in nature.

TEPaul

Re:How would you improve Rustic?
« Reply #8 on: March 29, 2004, 09:24:17 PM »
You got it Barney! Why don't we just get a group together from Golfclubatlas.com and say we're the super elite private membership of exclusive Rustic Canyon? That way the perception of the place would change dramatically and we could even let these one-time know-nothings in to play any time we wanted. That way the perception of the place would change dramatically, we could do whatever needed to be done to it architecturally and maintenance-wise.

Do you think that would take it into the top ten in the world?

;)

JakaB

Re:How would you improve Rustic?
« Reply #9 on: March 29, 2004, 09:40:31 PM »
Tom,

I remember once Rustic being called top ten from 60 yds in...of course by then even the first time player can see the flag and surrounding bunkers...overgrown hair or not.  From 60 yds out I doubt a modern public course can ever be top ten in the world due to a lack of quirk because of the needs of the one time visitor.   That is fine and dandy and pays the bills....but blind bunkers, landing areas and greens should not be only for the privilaged just to pacify the publics.
« Last Edit: March 29, 2004, 09:41:04 PM by John B. Kavanaugh »

Tommy_Naccarato

Re:How would you improve Rustic?
« Reply #10 on: March 29, 2004, 09:59:24 PM »
All,
I just got off the phone reading our guys comments to Jim and Gil, and many of them are going to be looked at and considered in the scheme and time of things.

To answer some questions for them: (If I might be so bold)

Quote
The 9th green is my favorite on the golf course and I was shocked when Lynn told me that Geoff and Gil did little more than formalize the natural contours into putting surface. C.B. was correct, there is no improving on nature.

Gib, Jim was disappointed that you gave Geoff credit for this one, because it was pretty much Jim Wagner hisself that managed to preserve that contour. (It was actually all three of them and the response was made it jest ;D)

They also are asking exactly which fairway bunker on #9 you are talking about the extreme semi-blind right one called "Serge" or "Coffin" which lies blind over the other side of the rise?

Re:
Quote
It seems just a tweak here and there, and Rustic could go from excellent to otherworldy. If Geoff and Gil made it a special project over a few years, I envision Rustic becoming a shrine of sorts, a mandatory visit on the resume of any aspiring architect. That's not hyperbole. Just close your eyes, think about what is there . . . . . and then what could be with a little money and the undivided attention of a couple geniuses.

They were very flattered and thanked you for such a high compliment.

Re:
Quote
For instance, Lynn and I were discussing the third hole. We had some odd Santa Ana winds blowing off the hills, but the prevailing breeze is in the opposite direction. What happens is the left fairway is reoriented a bit and a Leven hole bunker/mounding feature is installed to block a clear view 25 yards in front of the green on the right side?

Maybe a bit artificial looking unless you move a lot of dirt to tie everything together, but strategically it would be astounding.

This one, personally I believe and so do they, (Jim and Gil) that your going to have to play this one a few more times to really see how unique it really is, especially in the prevailing wind vs. the Santa Ana conditions we have been experiencing a lot of in the last year.  I constantly remind myself of a famed scribe whose opinion I greatly admire, who saw little need for the left side, and thats a common mis-conception about the hole which warrants not just another look but several different looks on how to play it. Its also perfectly situated in the round  and (Chris, this is just one of the many reasons why the nines should NEVER be reversed! :)) I have played successfully more times from over there then I have from the right side, which features my shot of shots--the bump and run, and also, I always remind myself of certain long players seem to think they can play the hole and reach the green or close-cropped approach everytime, yet walk away with a three-putt after not properly reading the green, which is that gentle, subtle nature running back up the hill.

It has also been my experience to see many a very fine golfer claim dominance over this hole and many others at RC, yet, I have yet to see them score well on it. They know they can birdie or eagle it, but they just haven't done it yet! ;)

Re: #12 From the moment it was laid out, the talk of putting one solitary bunker right of the 12th green has been much discussed and debated. There were days out there where Geoff and I talked about pulling a fast one on Jim and digging out the bunker, getting it all shaped-out and then acting like, "who did that?!?!?"  Even after debating it with David Moriarty for several hours, (and we all know how long David likes to debate!:)) he finally convinced me that the subtle nature of the hole without the bunker is pretty good, although I still conould be 50-50 on it!  It doesn't matter really, because if you don't understand that the everything breaks on that green like M.C Hammer, then you'll know for sure where the charm lies. Its subtle, maybe too subtle, still.....

Pete,

Re:
Quote
I think the collars of rough around the fairway bunkers are too wide and to thick; they lessen the severity and impact of their nature as a hazard. I spoke briefly with Geoff and he indicated that Gil would be trying to redefine their borders this week. Although I would prefer them eliminated, making them narrower would at least allow some shots to hop or skip in, and they would then be more effective at dictating strategy.

Both Gil and Jim have taken note and are going to look at it tomorrow.

Re:
Quote
I've always wondered why the practice greens do not have the extended bent grass collars found on the course. Players have no chance to refine their techniques or warm up before the round.

Probably a really valid critique, but that could occur later. Jeff Hicks was the one who built the practice greens and maybe he can comment or I'll ask him about it later.

Re:
Quote
The idea of something to block the line of sight to the 5th green from the 2cnd tee has great merit. Not more than a few minutes before Gib made this obervation I found myself scouting the 5th for the days pin, after over a dozen rounds under my belt. Although I  soon realized my error, a small copse of trees would also help emphasize the stategy of the tee shot on 2, how close to the out of bounds on the left do I dare place my tee shot to gain the angle that defeats the tendency of the 2cnd green to shrug off shots fom the direct line to the back left of the green.

We part on this one Pete. Haven't you ever heard of the deceptive value of the 2nd shot at Hole O' The Cross on the Old Course, where your visually impared by the 5th green?  Plant one conifer on my golf course and I'm loading up a van full of fertilizer and nitromethane and parking it in front of a Arts & Crafts house in Old Town! :)

Margarita Benham,
Quote
That being said, I visited the GCA write-up on Rustic this morning and I was shocked at the photos then compared to what we saw this past weekend.  The photos show a more manicured course then what we saw.  In fact, I loved the bunkers on #8 as we saw them (thankfully I wasn't in them), very natural looking, while the photos in the write-up were a tad  too neat ...

You bring up a great point about Rustic Canyon. Since its such a natural golf course, we get very different clothes for it to dress up in during the year. This weekend you saw Fuzzy Green Foxtails, which in about two to three weeks are going to be gold in color and the entire landscape of Rustic will go into its prime spring and summer mode. When those pictures were taken, it was the first weekend in May of 2001, so you'll can get a good idea how it will look in just over a month. At the same time, the foxtails tend to break down a bit, exposing some of the really good-looking bunker work that is situated in front of the tee up to the turf that starts up to the hole. This is something you may or may not have noticed when you were there, but it looks eerily similar to me to bunker work I have found in the sticks at Pine Valley, and it does all kinds of twists and turns below you while yor on the tee, not really coming into play, unless your like me who has chilly-dipped a few of them in there a couple of times!

Late tomorrow or Wednesday, that green will be slightly extended right to allow for more pinnable space, as the right back contour is just a bit too bold for the green-speeds to keep it consistent with the others. If it was a private club, the size of the green is more then enough, but for a 80,000 round a year golf course, they need a bit more.

Another thing is that when the pictures were taken Rustic Canyon had the same glimmer as a new car being picked up from the dealer. Things do evolve, and at RC, despite all of the elements of Mother Nature that have wreeked havoc, each and everyone of them has also uniquely have had a postive effect too!  Why else would Gil and Jim be there this week to repair a few things, yet make the few tweaks hey feel are needed to make it that much more of a better golf course.

Adam,

It took about 4:15 minutes tops to play Saturday, and this was a golf course that was carts on paths only.  there are a few harmonious walks there, and that was just the nature of the place because of the eco-friendly wash.

JakaB

Re:How would you improve Rustic?
« Reply #11 on: March 29, 2004, 10:35:47 PM »

Late tomorrow or Wednesday, that green will be slightly extended right to allow for more pinnable space, as the right back contour is just a bit too bold for the green-speeds to keep it consistent with the others. If it was a private club, the size of the green is more then enough, but for a 80,000 round a year golf course, they need a bit more.


Tommy,

What other comprimises are forced on the architecture by the play of either first time visitors or too many visitors...could the course be improved by limiting play either through incresed fees or a membership stucture.   Are cheap fees and unlimited access an architectural feature that reflects on the greatness of a course much like the walk in the park test.   Is Rustic limited in how great it can be by the current structure....what are the real world implications of the improvements mentioned...

Neal_Meagher

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:How would you improve Rustic?
« Reply #12 on: March 29, 2004, 10:50:41 PM »
Having now played the course a second and a third time, not nearly enough to really comment intelligently, I will anyway. But I want to stress my complete respect for Gil, Jim and Geoff's work there.  The love and attention to detail is so apparent that it makes so many other courses look like so much D-9 drivel.

What really is sparking in my mind right now is the ongoing discussion of Rustic and it's bunkers, maintenance, design, etc.  There is a point in each course's evolution where a perfect balance is achieved between play, maintenance and aesthetics.  Our esteemed friend Mr. Paul's maintenace meld.  Rustic is close to being there right now, being somewhat green and edged upon it's opening.  Thus the rub: how to keep it there?

You look at The Maidstone with it's wildly de-volved bunkering and it is easy to imagine how, if unchecked, Rustic's bunker edges will become equally as devolved.  Don't misunderstand me, Willie Park would probably love what that course has become, but it is, without doubt, a far cry from 80 years or so ago.  To keep a course at it's optimum place requires work and a persistent approach to maintenance that is rare.

In Rustic's case I believe consideration should be given to installing a series of small soaker-style irrigation heads on the leading edge of the bunkers spraying toward the back lips that are so prone to drying out and degrading. These heads would be incorporated into the computerized irrigation system so that they would only go on about once a week; anymore would make everything too "green" and take away from the cheeky randomness that is present right now. THAT IS IT, KEEPING A BEGUILING SENSE OF RANDOMNESS WHILE NOT ALLOWING FURTHER DEGRADATION!

We will begin to see more and more of this type of issue as there are so many similarly designed "natural" bunker complexes:  Sand Hills comes readily to mind, as does the Sutton Bay course that is now featured in a thread on GCA.   Natural is one thing, downright ruddy is another.  All that this shows is how hard it is to come to equilibrium with the continuing maintenace of a living, growing and breathing entity coursing over a couple of hundred acres.

Overall, though, a kick in the pants to play and that, to me, is the real judge of the quality and demeanor of any golf course.
« Last Edit: March 30, 2004, 01:39:41 PM by Neal_Meagher »
The purpose of art is to delight us; certain men and women (no smarter than you or I) whose art can delight us have been given dispensation from going out and fetching water and carrying wood. It's no more elaborate than that. - David Mamet

www.nealmeaghergolf.com

Tommy_Naccarato

Re:How would you improve Rustic?
« Reply #13 on: March 29, 2004, 10:54:08 PM »
John, I'm literally out the door, but I'll try to answer quickly, and if it isn't good enough, when I get back.

-What other comprimises are forced on the architecture by the play of either first time visitors or too many visitors

John, Its definitely a golf course that requires more then one play before you really get used to it. Maybe about ten plays or more, and I can tell you in all honesty, I see something, sometimes many things there I haven't seen before on each return visit. This Saturday it was the rise from the tee to the fairway on #11.

-could the course be improved by limiting play either through incresed fees or a membership stucture.  

Unfortunately or fortunately, whatever your stance on public or private, it will always be public because of the agreement with the county. Its their land.

-Are cheap fees and unlimited access an architectural feature that reflects on the greatness of a course much like the walk in the park test.  Well, its all what you can afford. Personally, I don't think since the building of the NLE Billy Bell classic Sunset Hills, which could have been considered a rival to Bethpage as far as quality Classic Golden Age golf (minus the BB-Black) This golf course is about the most unqiue I have ever seen for a public course. I also think Goose Creek in Mira Loma is special too because of the cost and pretty good golf it has to offer. As far as a Walk n the Park, well, for me I'm quite obviosuly biased, especially when I have been out there in the middle of January on an evening close to sunset. I don't think Golf in California could get much better for me--the average Joe who belongs on a public course, yet who loves the setting as well as the golf.

Is Rustic limited in how great it can be by the current structure....what are the real world implications of the improvements mentioned.

Yes and No  Rustic is hampered by many elements of ownership but many who do care about the future of the course.

That being, I'll still go out of my way to play it over anywhere else. So I guess he has got me!

Thomas_Brown

Re:How would you improve Rustic?
« Reply #14 on: March 30, 2004, 12:20:36 AM »
I too love the course.

#7 - Now is a good chance to make it a split fairway - Extend the fairway down the left parallel to green bringing the hills on the left more into play.  (I'm still against driver off the tee to the right 2nd fairway).

#14 - Move the 480 yard tee back another 15 yards back towards #13 green alongside that riverbed.

#16 - Do something w/ that tee shot sight line.

#18 - Extend the bent fringe area back up the fairway another 20 yards.  In downwind conditions, the pitch from the fairway is impossible because of the difference in length of grass between fairway and fringe.

Turn off the 30 mph winds.  ::)

Gib_Papazian

Re:How would you improve Rustic?
« Reply #15 on: March 30, 2004, 12:36:14 AM »
Gentlemen,

I stick by my initial impression. EVERY golf course has flaws. Rustic included. The one salient observation that sticks in my mind is that Rustic can be drasically improved for a miniscule cost. Not to become good, but to become legitimately great.

Let us face reality, oh pedantic Treehouse dwellers; if we are to reduce our evaluation to simple terms, the fastest way to endear a golf course to our hearts is for it to be fairly described as AN INTELLECTUAL EXAMINATION RATHER THAN A PHYSCIAL ONE.

Don't believe it? Think for a second which tracks you find endearing.

Ginger or Mary Ann? It is all about depth, isn't it?????

Pete Lavallee

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:How would you improve Rustic?
« Reply #16 on: March 30, 2004, 12:37:48 AM »
For a minute Tommy you had me looking outside my house for a suspicous van; then I remembered that I live in a Greek Revival in North Park, so you must be going after one of Gib's friends, remember he recommended the improvement to #2. I'm all for the nondescript visual nature that Rustic presents, but causing someone to aim at the wrong green is unwarranted on a hole this good. There is plenty of distraction with the large bunker 50 yards short of the green to make any golfer a little uneasy on the tee. Although a conifer would be nice around X-mas time, I would select something native to the ripparian area's of So. Cal., there's a nice little jog to the wash about 100 yards off the tee that would be a good place to locate it.
« Last Edit: March 30, 2004, 12:42:20 AM by Pete Lavallee »
"...one inoculated with the virus must swing a golf-club or perish."  Robert Hunter

Gib_Papazian

Re:How would you improve Rustic?
« Reply #17 on: March 30, 2004, 12:38:24 AM »
P.S.

Half of my observations are derived from Neal and me studying the golf course together a couple years ago. Sometimes his thoughts get so ingrained in my head that I can no longer differentiate where they came from in the beginning.  ;)

Mike Benham

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:How would you improve Rustic?
« Reply #18 on: March 30, 2004, 01:33:54 AM »
More thoughts:

After playing Rustic 3-times in 2 days, there is one factor that clouds my ability to render an answer to Gib's question ... the wind.

We played the same wind both days and to make recommendations for improvements based on such a limited and not varied sample, would be unfair ... no doubt that the front side plays easier in the down canyon wind ... that being said ...

#7 - Even though we did not play it as a par-4, I would like to see it lengthened and the left side so that you could hit your drive pin-high (or farther).  This would obviously increase the angle choices to the green and would increase "tweener" approaches (1/2 wedges, 3/4 wedges).

#9 and #10 - Although they are both par-5's, I don't see the similarities in the two ... on #9, you don't want to miss (hook it) to the left, on #10 you don't want to miss on the right; the green complexes are completely different, #9 wide and relatively shallow (the hole locations on both days were very difficult to get the ball close with my Sunday approach landing a few long and left of the hole and spinning down and left to the front of the green ...) and # 10 skinny and tucked tight to the right.

#12 - I could do without the tree 50-yards off the tee and the road on the left.  Without both of those, I would see more golfers going for the green (still needing to hit a draw) and bringing the bunkers more into play (it is unfortunate that the flood damaged those bunkers, the photos on the write-up look more ominous).

#13 - love this hole - turn off the wind machine and invite me back ...

#14 - it is a long carry and from the black tees you go right.  But even from a 220 yard approach, you have a shot a running up a shot close to the green (Brian Noser hit a toe-hook driver 15-yards short of the green).

#15 - Like Gib stated, this green seems forced into the landscape.  Although the bunkering is nicely done, the hole seems confined and the triple tiered green is not consistant with the other greens.  Most of the other green complexes had closely mown chipping areas around most of the green and only a few had the bunkers come to the edge of green, 15 was one of them.  The fact that I butchered this hole 3-times in a row does not cloud my judgement (the back bunkers are not a good spot to be)  ;D

#18 - Seemed short downwind but that doesn't mean it was an easy par ... I would like to play it with the opposite wind and a bit firmer around the greens.
"... and I liked the guy ..."

A_Clay_Man

Re:How would you improve Rustic?
« Reply #19 on: March 30, 2004, 07:45:13 AM »
The reason I asked about pace was that on this same fateful Saturday, I golfed with a gentleman who knows RC and he made the comment that there is a real slow down at some point in the routing. Back to back Short 2 shotter and short three shotter causes the said back-up. Is that true?

THuckaby2

Re:How would you improve Rustic?
« Reply #20 on: March 30, 2004, 09:59:30 AM »
What would improve Rustic?

Shit, it's pretty freakin' great as it is.  I'd say it's fine to leave well enough alone.  But the comments from you students of architecture all seem fine to me.

It's funny though, the first things I thought of were these:

1 GET SOME MORE GOD-DAMN BENCHES!  Hell I'll buy them fr the place.  It was amazing how few tees had somewhere to sit down... and given glacial pace of play during the windy rounds (to be expected, it just takes a long time to play in winds like that), well... sitting on the ground got kinda old.

2. Water fountains!  I have no idea what's involved to put such in place, but a few would be helpful.

Of course neither of these things have anything to do with the design of the golf course.  You just did ask what would improve it... and do those two things and you have happier golfers, which has to be a good thing.

As for pace of play and potential backups, well... such occurred on 3 and 12 tees at different times, as people waited for greens to clear on these short par 4's.  We seemed to back up on 14 also, for some reason.    Anyway Adam the gent must have been referring to 12-13... I can see backups occurring there in a round with no wind.  As it was for us, 13 was into the wind so reaching in 2 became impossible... thus there was sometimes a backup on 12, but never on 13.

TH

TH

Mike Benham

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:How would you improve Rustic?
« Reply #21 on: March 30, 2004, 10:01:57 AM »
The reason I asked about pace was that on this same fateful Saturday, I golfed with a gentleman who knows RC and he made the comment that there is a real slow down at some point in the routing. Back to back Short 2 shotter and short three shotter causes the said back-up. Is that true?

In a down canyon wind, some groups may wait for the green to clear on the par-4 3rd and with the wash-out of the 7th fairway, you then basically have a par-3, shortish par-5, converted par-3 and short par-3.  I could see some congestion caused by that routing.

I was in the first time (of our group each day) and we played as quickly as we could, keeping up with the group in front of us.  I believe the rounds were 4.15, 4.30 on Saturday and 5.00 on Sunday in the gale ...
"... and I liked the guy ..."

JakaB

Re:How would you improve Rustic?
« Reply #22 on: March 30, 2004, 10:09:39 AM »


1 GET SOME MORE GOD-DAMN BENCHES!  Hell I'll buy them fr the place.  It was amazing how few tees had somewhere to sit down... and given glacial pace of play during the windy rounds (to be expected, it just takes a long time to play in winds like that), well... sitting on the ground got kinda old.




Huck...In the true spirit of the BBGE..

THuckaby2

Re:How would you improve Rustic?
« Reply #23 on: March 30, 2004, 10:13:50 AM »
John, the beautiful bag tag for such was PROUDLY displayed all weekend.  It is never leaving my bag.

I'm also just REALLY tired right now... got home at 11pm, in at work at 6.  This after so much golf that it's worn even an addict like me out.  So this is the surly Huckaby talking this morning.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re:How would you improve Rustic?
« Reply #24 on: March 30, 2004, 10:26:31 AM »
Don't you guys think it's just a bit bold of you to suggest changes to improve what is already supposed to be a great course?

Isn't this how committees screw up great courses and cause the need for restoration?

Maybe when Ran builds The Carthage Club he can let each of the 1,000 posters who remain members of the DG build one bunker each ... or take one out that someone else has added.  I wonder how many would be left at the end??