Rustic Canyon in Golfweek.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Very descriptive images David. I know you more then likely made a special trip out there to get them--Thanks!

Adam, Rustic Canyon is owned by Craig Price and his company Highlands Golf. Craig is the son-in-law of David Price, the former owner of American Golf. (They just happen to have the same last name) This is Craig Price's frist venture in actually owning a golf course.

In closing, I try to play a low running shot everytime at #4 simply because it is the most fun and usually most successful shot played into it. I have seen way too many times, players trying to hit a high shot into the green, and either push, pull or come-up way too short of the pin. I feel my Game actually happened upon this hole because my strength is the low-runner. This doesn't mean I haven't had my share of failures on the hole, because I too have pushed-it into the most impressive natural bunker that is right of the green, which Matt Ward can even tell all about!:)

It is my opinion if you are left on the hole, even in one of the sand hazards, par is still attainable as the putt to a central or right pin position is better to be attacked from the left side of the green because you are actually going up-hill. You can take a shot at it. Unlike Sunday where I hit a really good shot and ended up 10 feet past the hole and ceremoniously three-putted.  All's fair in Love and War I guess!

[David_Tepper]

Unless I am mistaken, Craig Price was CEO of National Golf Properties, the 200+ golf course REIT (symbol TEE) that was spun-off from American Golf  and run into the ground. TEE is now being bought out by Goldman Sachs/Starwood. Having run TEE deep into trouble, it appears Craig Price is giving the golf business another go. It would be interesting to know who the financial backers of Highland Golf are. Does Highland Golf actually own the golf course and the land under it or is the land leased from Ventura County?

[Observer]

Do sacred cows get defferential treatment ?

[Tony Ristola]

Was just out to Rustic and had a blast.  It is unique, beautiful and immense fun.

It's got shot opportunities around and into the greens which remind me of Scotland...firm, fast, undulating (and true) without being contrived in the least.  The greens and surrounds have you judging (trying to figure out) the bounce and release on approaches and around the greens. There are options to either chip, pitch or putt...it's immense fun.  The wind was blowing a fair bit, which added to the interest.

I love the bunker work.

The 4th?  Much has been made of the houses, but I didn't see them, and I'd been given a heads-up by this post and additionally by Tommy N. when driving into the site!  They just didn't register.  In fact I'd have forgotten about this aspect totally had Tommy not asked me about them after the round!  

As for the 4th hole itself...that green may not be draped by glaring hazards...Joe Public may be able to bounce it in, but it surely didn't strike me as a weak link.  It’s a nice looking hole…not stunning, but it fits into its surrounds seamlessly.  I like the little scrapes (bunkers) around the green.  Once on the green, if you’re on the wrong section you're working to make 3...miss the green and you've got the same challenges...plus a little.  It may be more a psychological factor during the round…coming off the green early in the round, good players just may be pissed for getting beat by a hole which looks at first glance somewhat tame.

I do think the short par-4’s could use a bunker on each to strengthen them a little for the strong player…on the 12th I think a small pot bunker like that on the 9th at St.Andrews…right around the area where a good player would land his drive would add interest just as their Principal’s Nose bunker does on the next hole (but would it be repetitive?). Such a bunker on the 12th would give pause, even indecision with club selection and line selection on the drive…it’d make the hole play more like the 10th at Riviera...which I understand was the intent.  

On the 3rd I’d place a bunker out to the right-front of the green about 15-20 yards away to catch tee shots that bail.  It would be a miserable distance for a bunker shot, and the ensuing shot back to the green with the surrounding bunkers and wash behind the green would be hairy.  Then again both these observations and ideas are based on first impressions, and the next time out, in different conditions, these holes could just kick my ass.  In any case...as they stand now, they are fun holes.

The clubhouse and cart barn are just too close to 18 for my liking.

My hat’s off to the crew involved with its creation…to repeat Matt Ward's line…it is ”what modern courses should be about.”  To think another architect passed up this opportunity!

[Geoff_Shackelford]

Tony,

Thanks for the kind words, and for pulling this thread up so I could again see David's photos of the Craftsman-turned-Colonial-gone bad clubhouse and also the artful new logo. Looks like a reverse ode to the Mae West hole at Bel-Air.

I agree with you on the short 4's. Maybe something minor to add some hesitation to those who are driving near the greens. Gil and Jim and I agreed that the little pots on 2 and 13 came out better than we thought and perhaps a few more of them would add some fun without slowing down play or detracting from the existing features.

I'm not clear on what you were suggesting for 3? An extension of the existing right bunker or something beyond that? We definitely wanted to have more penalty for the drive that bails out than currently exists. I would vote for a minor reduction of the rightside green boundary, particularly in back for starters. Visually it might make someone a little more aggressive from the right (since so few hit run-ups!).

Geoff

[Matt Ward]

Geoff S:

While you're on the subject of course improvement it might behoove the powers-that-be to look over the 9th and 10th because the holes are quite similar in the manner of their presentation.

Throwing in some sort of diversity in these two holes will add greatly to the holes and to already fun and unique experience.

P.S. I agree with your take on the 3rd and 12th holes -- what prevents the addition of another bunker to keep the long boys in check?

[Geoff_Shackelford]

Matt,

Agreed. I think Gil has expressed somewhere here what we'd like to do on 10 (additional fwy bunker with current complex to liven up the second shot, restoring some of the waste area at 1/2 way point, get the irrigation squared away and maybe something off the tee). This would break 9 and 10 up and correct some of the features lost in the seeding process while making the strategy on 10 more interesting.  I'd leave 9 alone and see if the initial work on 10 differentiates the two a bit better because it was definitely not our intention to have them looking/playing similarly. 9 was meant to be very vague, 10 to have great emphasis on the second shot layup to get a better view for the hard-gauge 3rd shot.

As for doing the work, that's up to the management. Considering that many things are still not finished from the construction as the course approaches its one-year anniversary (native revegetation, extensive landscaping, cart path tinting, irrigation head adjustments, etc...) I think our desire to enhance the holes is probably low on the list.
Geoff

[Tony Ristola]

Geoff:  I'm going out there again, so I'll bring this thread back up so you can enjoy the photo's, and comment on No.3 with clarity.

One other aspect I totally blanked on but wanted to bring up were the crusty areas of sand with grass clumps in the roughs.  I like this a lot. This reminded me of the right side of the 3rd at Pinehurst No.2. and with the amount of fairway, these areas couldn't be condemned as accelerators for the balls to a worse fate.  The more of this the merrier in my eyes, and it may be a way to help camouflage at least some of the cart paths.

[archnemesis fan]

Dmoriarty,

You're correct, Tom Paul is echoing what Mr Mucci said, even though Tom Paul disagreed with him when he said it.
But, he is not alone, many others disagreed with Mr Mucci.
It's interesting, the way the rules of engagement and evaluation are bent when the names of the players change.

Why should Rustic Canyon, the golf course, be judged by the club house, range and food ?  It shouldn't.  The golf course should be judged strictly on its own merits ?

Mr Mucci also indicated that evaluative standards should be applied fairly, equitably and universally not selectively.  If the clubhouse and range are to be ignored in evaluating the golf course at Rustic Canyon, other courses should be judged strictly on their merit, excluding non-golf course features and structures.

MacKenzie's nature is a far cry from what he would find today.
His sites were unencombered by environmental and political restrictions, they were multitudenous and cheap.  

If Mackenzie were here today, would he walk away, frustrated by the constraints, or modify his thinking ?

You can't compare the architectural works completed between
1900 and 1930 to the architectural works completed between
1973 and 2003 without understanding and adjusting for the many changes that occured in those intervening 73 years.

[TEPaul]

archnemesis fan:

I'm doing what? Agreeing with Pat Mucci? That's virtually impossible (that possibilty could never more that 2% in the most ideal of worlds). Either you're wrong or whatever you think I'm agreeing with him on I taught him at some point and neither of you are willing to admit it at this point.

Agree with Pat Mucci!? NEVER!

That would be close to positively unthinkable!

[THuckaby2]

Hey guys... you had to notice that Golf Magazine gave Rustic "only" an honorable mention in the "Best Places You Can Play" list in the March issue... did Golf Magazine blow it here or what?  Are all of these courses that did make the list significantly better than Rustic?  I haven't played or seen any of them, and the only one I've heard about is The Falls (Lake Las Vegas), which Wigler played and liked...

Strange....

TH

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom Huckaby;

Yes, I saw that "list" last night.  I particularly liked the pic of the Art Hills course (in Illinois?) with the bulkheaded island green.  

Even better was the "Top 10" inclusion of ShoreGate in NJ, which was discussed in here some months ago.  I played there last year with redanman, Matt Ward, and another fellow and if people think that Stone Harbor by Muirhead was "over the top", this might set a new standard.  If people want to see man-made architecture, this is a great place to visit, because there sure is enough of it there, on every single hole.  They left no stone unturned, if you catch my drift.  

[THuckaby2]

Mike - let's just remember all this the next time Golf Magazine is exalted for its great rankings, whilst the magazine for which I am a panelist, which gave the ever-beloved Rustic the title of "Best New Affordable", is once again vilified.

I know, I know.  GolfWeek is the bees knees re all this anyway.  I just had to say SOMETHING.... oh yeah, seeing the much-maligned Shoregate in there did make me smile.... and all this in the same issue where they call Sand Hills over-rated...

TH

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom Huckaby;

I understand your lament.  However, I'm really curious how the "Top 10 You Can Play" in Golf Magazine are determined.  Are their regular panelists used, or is this some offshoot?  Or, is it all Brian Macallen's opinion?

They called Sand Hills overrated??  In what context?? Has madness set in??  

[THuckaby2]

Mike - I have no idea.  Perhaps someone can clarify this.

In fairness also, I wonder how Rustic would have fared in Golf Digest if they made one overall list, instead of the classifications including "affordable"?  Perhaps it would have been up very high, perhaps not.  Of course we will be able to ascertain that when the Best Courses in the US list comes out later this year - the same numerical values are used.  If Rustic makes that list, we'll know.

TH

[Tom Doak]

The GOLF Magazine list is basically chosen by Brian McCallen, with outside input from whomever he feels like listening to.

As a panelist for their top 100 list, I am not solicited for input.  (However, this does make some sense, considering the courses are brand new and I probably haven't seen more than one or two of them, so my vote would be fairly meaningless.)

Many architects are asked at the beginning of each year what might be the best candidates for next year's list, of the projects they have just finished.

Basically, though, the list means little except general recognition and a potential tag line for advertising by the courses and their architects.

[THuckaby2]

Cool - thanks for the clarification, Tom D.  I kinda figured it must be this way... It won't stop me from giving shit the next time the "this magazine's rankings suck/ these are great" thread comes out, but the truth is still a good thing to have!  

TH

[Mike_Cirba]

Thanks for the info that it's basically one-man's opinion, Tom.  I suspected as much.  

So, it seems that blaming the Golf Magazine raters for "Top 10 You can Play" is roughly equivalent to blaming Golf Digest raters for "Places to Play".