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.


DMoriarty

Rustic Canyon in Golfweek.
« on: January 31, 2003, 07:59:21 PM »
In the Feb 1 edition of Golfweek, Brad Klein wrote a brief review of Rustic Canyon.  He was quite complimentary of almost all aspects of the actual course, and quite critical of the non-course structures (clubhouse, cart barn, driving range, cart paths, and parking lot.)  I think most would agree with his assessment.  

His comments got me thinking about just how much these non-essential structures influence golfers' (and raters') perception of the quality of any course.  I know that some Golfweek raters visited the course before the clubhouse complex was very far along.  It would be interesting to compare their "Rater'sNotebooks" to those that visited the course after the completion of the buildings.  Not a large enough sample to be scientific, but it might be interesting nonetheless.

Also, having played the course more than a few times, I smiled at a few of Mr. Klein's less than positive comments.  For example, while his rating of the one shot holes was high (8 ) he commented that the "only real letdown is a dull fourth hole (161 yards) to a wide open target."  This sentiment is shared by many golfers (including Matt Ward) the first few times they play the course.  However, to some of the regulars (including me) it is one of Rustic's most challenging and interesting holes.  Four is that unique par 3 that offers multiple options off the tee, forces the golfer to consider angle of attack, provides multiple short game challenges, and does not unduly penalize the high-handicap player.  Those that have repeatedly played it know that there is more challenge than first appears.  I have seen less birdies on number 4 than on any other hole on the course (although 14 is a close second.)  

Why go through all this? Just to point out that sometimes appearances deceive, and that sometimes deceptive appearances can be at the core of a golf hole's charm.

Having said that, I very much enjoyed Mr. Klein's review, and thought he captured the essence of Rustic.  And, it was nice to see Mr. Klein telling the golf industry that if they built more courses like Rustic they would not be in the economic mess they are in.  Any chance the industry will take heed?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: Rustic Canyon in Golfweek.
« Reply #1 on: February 01, 2003, 04:17:03 AM »
"Why go through all this? Just to point out that sometimes appearances deceive, and that sometimes deceptive appearances can be at the core of a golf hole's charm."

David:

Unbelievably interesting point! "....appearances deceive, and that sometimes deceptive appearances can be the core of a golf hole's charm."

It should be distilled even further to the use of "deception" in golf architecture. Historically deception (visual deception) was such an integral part of early architecture. Obviously much of that had to do with the quirks of nature and the natural landforms used for golf. Matter of fact, visual deception such as blindness was considered a prized architectural commodity in early European golf.

Curiously, that concept in architecture was turned on its head and became an apparently unacceptable thing in golf and frankly almost every architect, even those considered the best in the business seemed to buy into that unacceptability but even more curiously much more in word than in deed!!

The concept appears to have gone from the prized to the controversial to the downright unacceptable today.

But it seems to be sneaking back in again (deceptively!?). Frankly, Gil Hanse seems to me to be one of the best at it today but mostly in some very subtle ways (however, he has to be aware of the nuances of what he's doing!). Certainly I would have to think that Geoff Shackelford's huge contributions to Rustic Canyon must also be responsible for this as I'd stake my life on the fact that this very thing is one that Geoff might enjoy, advocate and understand so well!

I just love this kind of thing in architecture although recognizing that it may be more useful in the more private sector courses rather than public. But even that I find to be a poor argument as public operators should rise above the fear of criticism and put their faith in the inherent "experience" factor that's at the root of deception that should bring thoughtful and curious golfers (such as yourself) back for more to attempt to unravel whatever mysteries are possessed in (visual) deception.

But to do that certainly they will have to suck it up with the criticism this kind of thing so often generates from "one time play reviewers", even very good ones like Brad Klein and Matt Ward.

Just yesterday I was reading some Tillinghast (just a fascinating and voluminous writer on all things golf and architecture) and he very much warned against what he called 'trickery and cunning' in architecture as he explained how much more sophisticated, modern and almost scientific American golf architecture was becoming. Too bad we can't ask him if he felt ALL forms of "deception" in architecture was resorting to trickery and cunning.

You should start a new thread entitled "Deception--it's use and validity in architecture?!"

I think a thread may be on here way in the back pages (probably started by me) but the subject should be up for discussion again.

Examples of really interesting deception in golf holes around the world would be fascinating and probably generate a long and interesting list and despite the apparent unpopularity and unacceptability today (of deception) are still probably considered some of the most interesting in the world.

An even more curious and interesting sidenote: I've heard it said that Tom Fazio, although completely opposed to any kind of blindness in architecture could be one of the most skilled in producing holes that possess visual deception particularly as it affects a golfer's judgement of distance.



« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:02 PM by -1 »

Lynn Shackelford

Re: Rustic Canyon in Golfweek.
« Reply #2 on: February 01, 2003, 12:13:00 PM »
Yes, I too enjoyed Brad's accurate article on Rustic.  I disagree with some of the rating numbers on the Rater's Notebook.  But in all he grasped the charm of the course, we are definitly on the same page on golf design.
Except.........
My first reaction to the 4th was the same at Ward's and Brad's.  Decent hole nothing special.  However like David M., it grows on you.  First it is the one hole where the wind is almost always a factor and when it isn't, it becomes a different hole.  Secondly at first site the green doesn't seem that unique, but after you keep making 4 your attitude and respect for the tee shot placement increases.  It certainly passes Tom Paul's green within a green test.  The charm for me is I love playing it even though there is no dazzling feature.  I watched a movie last night with Rene Zellweger.  She isn't a knockout at the start, but sure is a charmer after watching her for 90 minutes.  The charm just grows.  And lastly it sure passes Mackenzie's test, "brings the greatest pleasure to the greatest number."  I have learned from this not to make judgments now until I have played a hole more than 4 or 5 times.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: Rustic Canyon in Golfweek.
« Reply #3 on: February 01, 2003, 12:27:30 PM »
Lynn:

Good stuff! And so now Rustic's 4th has a name and a very applicable one at that. Forevermore it will be known as the "Rene Zellwegger" hole.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Matt_Ward

Re: Rustic Canyon in Golfweek.
« Reply #4 on: February 01, 2003, 01:00:37 PM »
Dave M:

I also enjoyed reading Brad Klein's review of RC. Let me mention that it's very possible that a hole like the 4th can "grow" on you after playing it a few times. I do agree that sometimes initial impressions can be overplayed in some respects and in others can be viewed less so. My main frame arguments to certain key aspects of RC go simply beyond the 4th hole.

In reading Brad's comments I didn't think the discussion on "off-course" aspects is really central to the discussion of the course. I rate the course and all 18 holes -- first and foremost. How well the clubhouse / driving range meshes with the course is really irrelevant to me and I'm sure to many others who have had the pleasure in playing RC.

No doubt the clubhouse at RC is purely functional and truth be told -- I'm glad the focus is the golf course because that's why I decided to trek there from Clifton, NJ. If I want an elaborate clubhouse there are plenty of courses in New Jersey and throughout the Northeast that fulfill this dimension.

The aspect of Brad's comments looked at RC from a slightly different perspective than the one I gained after playing the course. Brad didn't highlight the "lite" quality on the tee game needed when playing the course and he also didn't focus on how some of the short par-4's (i.e. 3rd and 12th, to name just two) can be improved. I thought his comment on the 7th was somewhat misplaced but that's really being a bit prickly on my part. He also glanced over the sameness on holes such as the 9th and 10th.

When Brad gives a final 6.5 rating and says the course might just crack into the top 100 modern designs for GolfWeek I have to say he's being a bit cautious on the impact the course generates. I see RC as being a very unique and creative influence on WHAT MODERN COURSES SHOULD BE ABOUT.

Yes, there are a few dimensions I would have liked to see a bit differently at RC, however, the overall impact of the course when analyzed collectively shows a layout with a different presentation / style that is clearly needed. Upscale public courses have simply priced themselves out of the market in most locales and in others like the LA market the quality of public golf is quite depressing -- just ask Dave M, Dave Kelly and Tommy N. For most players and that is one of the main attractions in going to RC -- it gives a super value to an experience that is so clearly different and uplifting when compared to so many other SoCal public course options. All one needs to do is just visit nearby Lost Canyons and you will see a contrast of Grand Canyon like proportions between the two designs.

RC has supreme "elasticity." You can have a wide range of players playing the course and each can enjoy the challenges that are provided. Some sophisticated designs today provide that reality. Dave M mentioned this to me when I was there and upon reflection I believe it's one of the greatest strengths of the course.

I had the pleasure in 2002 in playing Rustic Canyon, Wild Horse and Twisted Dune. Each of these three (you can also include Barona Creek) provide an experience on what imaginary design can be for public course players. It's a situation that bears repeating in some many other locales throughout our country.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

ed_getka

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Rustic Canyon in Golfweek.
« Reply #5 on: February 01, 2003, 01:09:03 PM »
Tom,
  I have only seen one of Mike DeVries courses(Kingsley Club), but he did a masterful job of presenting semi-blind shots that get you to thinking. He introduces the element of doubt into your mind and that in turn makes it hard to commit to the shot at hand. The other interesting feature of some of his holes are some bowls like you find at NGLA, where if you take the less aggressive line off the tee you can end up down in one of these depressions without a view of the green. Great stuff in my book.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
"Perimeter-weighted fairways", The best euphemism for containment mounding I've ever heard.

DMoriarty

Re: Rustic Canyon in Golfweek.
« Reply #6 on: February 01, 2003, 03:21:17 PM »
Matt and Lynn, I also wondered about some of the scores given by Mr. Klein, but I am not familiar enough with the Golfweek rating system to intelligently comment.  

I especially like Matt's point about Rustic's potential "creative influence on WHAT MODERN COURSES SHOULD BE ABOUT."   Influencing the way things are done across an entire medium is often what separates great art from good art, and Rustic certainly provides a novel and workable blueprint for where public golf course design should be heading.  

Lynn, funny you would bring up a movie analogy, I was thinking of one also, albeit a slightly different one.

When 'Oh Brother Where Art Thou?' came out, I read a review that said something like:  "Like many Cohen Bros. films, 'Oh Brother' may not be considered one of the best movies of this year, but it will certainly be considered one of the best movies of next year."  The reviewer's point was that Cohen Bros' movies grow on you as time goes by and on repeated viewings.  I think the same can be said of Rustic, and of other quality courses that have subtle attributes, instead of obvious ones.

To take the metaphor further, most Hollywood filmmakers make their movies to immediately grab the audience and say all that they have to say in a single viewing.   I wonder if modern golf course architects are also adopting this approach to golf course architecture/ golf entertainment-- especially at resort courses and other expensive 'once-in-a-lifetime' vacation courses.  If they are, this is unfortunate and counter to the history of golf.  When golfers played the vast majority of their lifetime of rounds on one local course, cheap one-time thrills would not suffice as quality architecture.

Matt,

I realize that you meant your comments regarding Number 4 as an aside to the main thrust of your comments regarding Rustic's perceived vulnerability to the long, wild tee ball.  However, I suggest that upon repeated play you might find more subtle challenges off the tee shots that you first perceived, as you would upon repeated plays of the 4th hole.

In fact, as a fun wager, I suggest that next time you are in town we play a strange game devised to uncover the importance of accuracy and angle of attack at Rustic.  On all the par 4's and 5's you let me place both of our tee shots as follows: I will place your tee shots 280-340 yards from the black tee anywhere in the fairway I want (the large variance in distance will take into account changes in elevation and wind conditions-- but I will always place your ball at a distance where only the really big hitters can hit it.)  I will place my tee shots 30-50 yards shorter than yours, but on the line to the green that I prefer.  Let me do this and, even though you are probably 8-12 strokes better than me, I would be willing to play all the par 4s and 5s against you even.   I may not win this wager, but it might be closer than you might think.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:02 PM by -1 »

TEPaul

Re: Rustic Canyon in Golfweek.
« Reply #7 on: February 01, 2003, 03:55:48 PM »
"In fact, as a fun wager, I suggest that next time you are in town we play a strange game devised to uncover the importance of accuracy and angle of attack at Rustic.  On all the par 4's and 5's you let me place both of our tee shots as follows: I will place your tee shots 280-340 yards from the black tee anywhere in the fairway I want (the large variance in distance will take into account changes in elevation and wind conditions-- but I will always place your ball at a distance where only the really big hitters can hit it.)  I will place my tee shots 30-50 yards shorter than yours, but on the line to the green that I prefer.  Let me do this and, even though you are probably 8-12 strokes better than me, I would be willing to play all the par 4s and 5s against you even.   I may not win this wager, but it might be closer than you might think."

Now that's great! No more of this subjective architectural opinion and banter on here that's putting your architectural opinion not only where your mouth is--it's more--a real wager based on real architectural opinon.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

David_Tepper

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Rustic Canyon in Golfweek.
« Reply #8 on: February 01, 2003, 03:56:56 PM »
A question for all of you who have read the Brad Klein article on Rustic Canyon: did you get the hard copy of GolfWeek or did you find the article on the GolfWeek website? I have looked for the article on the website, but have not been able to find it yet. Please advise. Thanks.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

DMoriarty

Re: Rustic Canyon in Golfweek.
« Reply #9 on: February 01, 2003, 07:33:15 PM »
David Tepper:

I got the hard copy.  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

scott_wood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Rustic Canyon in Golfweek.
« Reply #10 on: February 01, 2003, 08:22:38 PM »
after walking 36 at rustic tuesday, ( and getting solid playing tips from dave after the first 18) I nominate Rustic as "THE BEST GOLF VALUE IN AMERICA"!! A grand total of $55 , yes $55 for two rounds!
Yes, the clubhouse  (and especially the practice area) does detract form the "walk in the park" , but RC is really loads of pure FUN, that really does grow on you,even without the wind blowing. It plays the gca preferreed "firm & fast", which when combined with the subtle elevation changes, makes clubbing ( be short) especially important. Matt, Dave and Brad have captured teh unique nature of RC. It's exactly what GOLF needs more of. Don't miss it!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tommy_Naccarato

Re: Rustic Canyon in Golfweek.
« Reply #11 on: February 01, 2003, 09:58:06 PM »
Some really good words there Matt.

I'm going to give you a pass on the 4th though since you were on about your 12th round in four days--at least it seemed like it. (Note* While Matt was in town, everyday I talked to him he was either on the road to San Diego, Las Vegas; Scottsdale, and Palm Desert.) You deserve to see this hole again and see for yourself how well that green plays in one's mind when trying to get to a paticular pin-position.

Usually, everytime I step on to this tee, especially when Lynn and the David's have played, I mutter to myself--and to my playing partners, "This is how you play this shot!" Which of course is a really low rolling 4 iron that usually has know problem making the back left or center pin-positions. In truth, and in some regards, the hole plays so much like the original Eden #12 on the Old Course. Maybe not in strategy, but surely in the sense of getting the ball to play low enough into the usual dead-in-the-face wind. There may not be a lot of trouble in front, but in a Pine Valley-like fashion, your exposed to another whole different game on the putting-green. It is a very fun, maddening, playful, deceptive, challenging and even cantankerous, putting surface.

You then in very Eden-like fashion have the backside to deal with which is a very pitched back that slopes into the hazard. I would say that if you had to relate any green at Rustic Canyon--to the Old Course of St. Andrews, it would have to be the greens at #2, 4, 9, 12 & 13.

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Matt_Ward

Re: Rustic Canyon in Golfweek.
« Reply #12 on: February 02, 2003, 02:19:21 PM »
Dave M:

I tip my hat to you for the creative juice in coming forward with such an idea -- I'm game for it! ;) I'll be visiting the SoCal area again during the week of February 17. Can you play RC sometime later that week -- either Friday or Saturday? I'm likely looking to play Friday so if you get free from whatever you're doing that would be great. I would also love to have the Emperor in tow along with David K. Let me know what can be done.

Getting back to RC -- the course is clearly a must play for any real golfer who enjoys the interplay of air and ground games. My comments about RC are really a splitting of small hairs but it's something I do with all courses I play because when you examine the merits (and lack thereof) of any course it's important to put everything under the microscope. In that way you can really understand how such a course plays up against the best in other parts of the country.

Dave, I don't doubt that if you put balls in different positions even with one that has a 30-40 yardage gain it may still put increased pressure on the longer hitter. I hear what you're saying but from my initial visit I'd have to say a few things for you to consider. The short par-4's I've mentioned at RC are still weak on the demands of the longer hitter (i.e. 3rd & 12th and to a lesser degree the 7th). You know that -- you even agreed with me and I believe the Emperor himself and Dave K would also agree. The similarity of the par-5's (9th & 10th) also needs to be altered or changed to present different challenges since both holes are comparable length and go in the same direction. A pity the par-5's as a whole do not have the qualities of the 5th and 13th.

I truly believe that with just a few minor tweaks the overall qualities of RC can only be better than what one plays today. I just hope people realize that when you combine the cost to play along with the architectural dynamics that have been provided you have a prototype of a course that needs to be duplicated in so many other geographic spots in the USA. If the LA area can have a course that doesn't require two credit cards to play then you clearly have something of tour de force quality.

P.S. When you judge the merits of the five par-3's you have to admit the 4th does take up the rear spot. I'd say the best in order are:

6th
8th
15th
17th (I think there will be debate here because the 17th is somewhat weak as well!)
4th
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

David_Tepper

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Rustic Canyon in Golfweek.
« Reply #13 on: February 02, 2003, 02:21:19 PM »
I would appreciate it very much it someone would be kind enough to fax me a copy of Brad Klein's article on Rustic Canyon. I have not be able to find it on the Golfweek website. My fax # in San Francisco is 415-956-5661.
Many thanks!!!
  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

DMoriarty

Re: Rustic Canyon in Golfweek.
« Reply #14 on: February 02, 2003, 06:56:21 PM »
Matt.  Glad to hear you are coming out this way again.  I would love to play.  Friday will probably be pretty tough, but I will try to make myself available for Saturday.  Since you are playing Rustic again, I think we might as well we put aside our discussion regarding the Par 4s until after that date. (You're not really going to pass up that opportunity to fire away full bore off the tees, are you?)

-As for the merits of the Par 3s, if forced to rank them, no question I would place Number 6 first.    
-I'd rank Number 4 second.  May sound strange to you, but No. 4 is always interesting, challenging, and fun.  It provides by far the most options off the tee, and it is the most difficult to birdie if the pin is anywhere other than the far front.  No. 4 is also a great hole because it is very non-threatening to the high handicapper, while still very challenging for the low handicapper.  Personally, I think No. 4 gets a bad rap because of all that mowed grass between the tee and the green.  While this shouldn't even be an issue for low handicappers, it is a nice feature for the high handicappers.  Do raters have a bias against holes that are playable to high handicappers?  
-No. 4 would edge out No. 8 because No. 8 depends on wind to supply some of its interest, while No. 4 as interesting whether or not there is wind.  
-Next I'd place No. 15 and 17, in a tie.  No 15 is a very good uphill par 3, but the green is my least favorite on the course (it is the only one that seems at all manufactured.) Certainly a challenge to play, though, especially in a strong crosswind.  No. 17 is a fun hole, but just doesn't measure up to 6, 4, or 8.  
-Overall a very strong group of Par 3s, with plenty of variety.

Hopefully, we can discuss this more when we play again.  

Always good to read your opinions.  I will be in touch soon.  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Brad Klein

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Rustic Canyon in Golfweek.
« Reply #15 on: February 02, 2003, 10:01:47 PM »
All you can do when you write these reviews is to try and be fair based upon a one-time visit. There isn't time or money in anybody's travel budget to keep us there as long as would be ideal, and I've learned to make basic observations that are designed to provoke while being fair. The review article in Golfweek was also a memo to our raters, that this is a course they need to take seriously. More importantly, it was a note to the entire golf industry that this is the kind of course they ought to be building - as are Wild Horse in Gothenburg, Neb. and Hawktree in Bismarck, ND.

I spent the next day of my two day visit to S. Cal. with Tommy Naccarato visiting and seeing some things that are at the wrong end of the maklet. Rustic Canyon is at the correct end, but that doesn't excuse an awful clubhouse and range. I defer judgment on the enduring intrigue of the 4th green, and I look forward to playing the course again soon to find out what people like so much about that sleepy looking par-3. Maybe it was the setting that threw me off, right in front of those little houses.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:02 PM by -1 »

Gary Danielson

Re: Rustic Canyon in Golfweek.
« Reply #16 on: February 02, 2003, 10:18:50 PM »
Mr. Klein,

Do clubhouse and range, if not up to your standards, undermine the course architecture?  And if the building or range is of a great standard in your view, does this enhance the course design?

Gary

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: Rustic Canyon in Golfweek.
« Reply #17 on: February 03, 2003, 02:56:14 AM »
"Maybe it was the setting that threw me off, right in front of those little houses"

There's no question a "setting" can distract raters of any hole but my advice would be if they notice things like that to then attempt to place it out of their mind, to discount it if that "setting" really does not affect the architecture of the hole or how it plays.

There's a wonderful "short" at Westhampton with houses directly behind it that if removed would immensely benefically affect the "setting" and there's a similar situation on #14 at Royal County Down.

But do either visual "settings" affect the architecture of those holes? Not in the slightest. So if it's strictly the architecture that's being analyzed those houses and that "setting" should be completely discounted by raters, in my opinion.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

corey miller

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Rustic Canyon in Golfweek.
« Reply #18 on: February 03, 2003, 08:20:35 AM »
I do not think that "setting" can be divroced from the architecture of the course.  The difference here also is that on many courses the "setting" has changed through outside development over the years.  This hole I believe was built with that "setting" in mind.  If this had been a particularly fantastic view at the end of the property looking down the canyon we would be extolling the wonderful vista.

On one of the other threads their was talk that perhaps Rees Jones builds some mounds to block outside view and is this preferable to trees or nothing.  If mounds and trees are introduced to block something that does not matter to architecture then perhaps the mounds themselves do not matter?

16 Sleepy hollow is a short across a ravine with the Hudson in the background.  I am sure it is not the best "architecture"short hole MAC ever did but with the setting it is darn good at a wonderful angle to the riverpointing almost to the end of the palisades.  Maybe there was a better spot or angle for this short but the setting trumped the other factors thus it is part of the architecture.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

THuckaby2

Re: Rustic Canyon in Golfweek.
« Reply #19 on: February 03, 2003, 08:26:53 AM »

Quote
So if it's strictly the architecture that's being analyzed those houses and that "setting" should be completely discounted by raters, in my opinion.

But TEP, unless one is the "I'm blind, but I have a handicap" guy featured on the endlessly-run USGA commercial, doesn't setting matter, to the golfer anyway?  We don't play with our eyes closed...

I've never seen the worth in analyzing architecture in a vacuum like this.  I know I've said this many times before, but I've never gotten a good rebuttal... Architecture matters to architects and developers, to decide who's doing the best job.  EVERYTHING matters to golfers.

TH
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tom MacWood (Guest)

Re: Rustic Canyon in Golfweek.
« Reply #20 on: February 03, 2003, 09:06:50 AM »
This debate reminds me of Tom Fazio's comments in his book about the colorful trailers in the distance at Portrush. I believe he implied that it reflected poorly on the architecture, it might have been OK for Colt in his day (of course the trailers undoubtably arrived later), but it was not acceptable today. Might an over emphasis on framing lead to golf courses that may look good, but aren't necessarily interesting/stimulating.

Is there a picture of this hole?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

THuckaby2

Re: Rustic Canyon in Golfweek.
« Reply #21 on: February 03, 2003, 09:08:21 AM »
Guest, trying to be as polite as possible, rather than attack me, care to take a stab at answering my query to Mr. Paul?

I really think this is a valid question and gets to the essence of how evaluation of golf courses is done.  I have nothing against evaluating "pure architecture" and discounting things like setting - doing so just doesn't mean much to me personally, nor do I see why it should to golfers who are not actively in the golf course architecture business.

Care to tell me why this is wrong?  I come here for education, no matter what you think.

TH

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Bob (Guest)

Re: Rustic Canyon in Golfweek.
« Reply #22 on: February 03, 2003, 09:26:31 AM »
To get away from the personal attacks, what does Rustic Canyon use as its logo?  Does it simply have the name or is their a symbol attached to it?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

THuckaby2

Re: Rustic Canyon in Golfweek.
« Reply #23 on: February 03, 2003, 09:31:38 AM »
Bob - I have the scorecard right here, and there really is no logo... just the words Rustic Canyon Golf Course with certain letters underscored and a suitably "rustic" looking font.

As I recall the shirts and hats just had lettering also...

But perhaps Dave M. or one of the other local regulars will check in and update this.

TH
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

A_Clay_Man

Re: Rustic Canyon in Golfweek.
« Reply #24 on: February 03, 2003, 09:42:27 AM »
How about a contest for a logo design. Maybe the winner could get a free gangsome once a year for life or for something worth doing a good job.

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »