[ian]

I find what you think of Rustic Canyon depends upon what you are looking for out of golf.

As a believer in the importance of public golf, this is a fantastic development worthy of high praise. One of the best models ever put together, simple cost effective, and a sure long term success.

As a player, I sure as hell enjoyed playing it and look forward to going back again to trying some of the alternative routes to the pins. I feel the inspiration of St. Andrews in the design process. The green contours are spectacular!

Visually, I find Rustic does very little for me; and I know I will get criticized for that opinion, but it is my honest opinion. Its nice, but hardly memorable (I remind you that I am talking visually).

This is the first time I have ever posted about this course, mainly because the people who adore the course get very upset if you don't see things the exact way they do. I find that to be the tough issue with any discussion on this course.

[Matt_Ward]

Ian:

Your points on the "visual" aspect is well said. RC has plenty of "internal" elements that the average golfer will likely look around or past.

If someone treasures playing the game through a marriage between air and ground then RC will not disappoint. The only caveat I can say to this is the issue on how the course plays -- it is critical for RC to be as firm and fast as turf and calendar conditions will allow. If RC becomes slow and heavy then the true meaning of the design will be turned on its head.

Regarding your feelings on course critiques I say the folks at RC can at times have thin skins but it hasn't prevented me from both saluting the worthwhile aspects of RC -- there are plenty -- while at the same time pointing out some of the shortcomings it has.

[Mike Hendren]

P.S. Please assess for me the standing of RC versus the likes of Talking Stick / North and Black Creek if you have played all of them. Look forward to your answer.

Matt,

A fair question that begged to be asked.  Thank you for doing so.  Sorry not to respond sooner but I actually PLAYED golf yesterday for the first time in a few weeks and am still reeling from my 51 on the front side at Belle Meade CC.  Rees Jones has sure toughtened the joint up.

I cannot "assess a golf course's standing."  I can assign it a highly subjective score based upon consistent criteria.  

In a nutshell, TSN and RC have width as a fundamental characteristic with seamless transition between fairway and green.  Either the line of charm is more obvious at TSN, or it doess't really exist at RC, IMHO.  In other words, angles seem important for scoring at TSN, but not necessarily at RC.  I also give a slight deduct for the shaved green surrounds at RC.  I like their camouflaging effect on the greens, but from a playability standpoint find them to be gimmicky.  

By comparison, Black Creek's architecture is extremely high profile with Raynor's concepts adapted faithfully and successfully from a playability standpoint, save the drop-shot redan 11th, which is a good hole nonethless.  I supposed one could make a deduction for the impact of housing on a "walk in the park" test, but as a real estate lender, I fully appreciate a man's need to make a little return on investment. (By comparison, I'm not bothered at all by the houses well away from the 4th at RC, nor am I bothered by the range.  I do not, however, like the proximity of the clubhouse / pavement left of the 18th green.)

That said, in reviewing my notes, I have TSN, BC and RC in the same ballpark.  Given ten rounds, I'd go 3/5/2 among the three.    That's the best method of factoring in subjectivity in my book, which is very much a part of any rating system IMHO.

As for Wild Horse, it's a notch above the other three.  Or is is a scosh, a wee bit, a tad, a dab, a hair etc.?  I like its routing with holes draped over the landscape.  There's enough width, not just for width's sake and its occasional center-line bunkering is a legitimate strategic element, not merely a gimmick of window dressing.  It blows the other three away from a walk in the park standpoint and I must admit I'm BIASED in that regard.  

I don't know that I'd rank it 19th, but I'm not about to argue that it doesn't belong there.

Mike

[Matt_Ward]

Mike:

Let me just say this about the 19th position for Wild Horse. I have played a good sampling of courses throughout the USA and I am a big fan of the Gothenburg layout, but I can't see iit being thaaaaaaaaaaaat high when I see other more deserving courses (I mentioned just three for starters like The Kingsley Club, Arcadia Bluffs and Karsten Creek) finishing below it.

Mike -- with all due respect what does the clubhouse and pavement left of the 18th green at RC have to do with the actual course? It's not in the line-of-play and I don't see how that or the emphasis some put on the driving range has to do with the actual 18 holes you encounter when playing Rustic Canyon. I've heard a rather similar type argument when people come to Bethpage and play and some bark on and on about the hideous driving range the facility has!

Mike -- when I say "assess a golf course's standing" I am asking point blank where a course 'rates' against others you have played. Simple. Nothing more -- nothing less.

Mike -- I really liked Black Creek -- it's sort of Raynor-ish with a modern bent -- that means the strategic aspects that Silva included have a high likelihood they will influence the play of the lower handicap player. Sadly, many of the past "great" courses have had their 'architecture" reduced to more of a spectator capacity and rarely make the player have to really think about club selection and consequences.

I don't see what all the hype is about Talking Stick / North. It's certainly better than much of what exists in the surrounding area but I don't see the level of detail that other C&C courses I have played. In direct comparison to RC if I played 10 rounds of golf I'd be at RC no less than seven (7) times.

Last item - Wild Horse lacks having a solid array of different length par-4's -- too many of them err on the short side and while that isn't bad necessarily -- the course simply has too many which are at best adequate and nothing more for me -- e.g. 1st, 5th, 7th -- too bad they could not have more like the 15th!  I have also mention that both par-5's on the back side play in the same direction and I personally believe having one going the other direction would have added something to that nine. The par-3's on the front side are also Ok but nothing more for me.

Mike -- Shivas raised a good point that Wild Horse's location is part of what excites people when going there. Clearly, many of the raters who visit the vicinity also play at Sand Hills and I think Wild Horse does gain from being "in the neighborhood" to such a masterpiece of a layout -- there are a few courses on Long Island which gain from being nearby to Shinnecock and National. I'm a big fan of Axland & Proctor and I see Wild Horse reflecting a "style" of what golf can be --I don't view the totality of the golf at Wild Horse being so great but the spirit of what it represents being so unique and special. A top 100 modern? No doubt! A top 20-25 in the USA -- not from the travels and places I have played.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Ian,
Your always safe with me, especially because your view of the visual is not unlike that of many that don't care for Rustic Canyon. Its that rustic, non-green, unkept/unmanaged look which many have trouble acclimating themselves to because they don't understand a lot about the nature of what Southern California, nor care to.

I have hills right near my house that have that same scrub and look as Rustic Canyon, and this is the difference between what many architects would do differently iof building on the same kind of site. It has take sometime who understands that look, and that it is native to the surrounds and conducive to golf just as parkland, heathland or moorland is to their respective elements. Another aspect is when your out there at night and the holes are literally are electrified. I will celebrate that type of golf everytime, and I don't care whose name and ego is on the scorecard as designer of the golf course!

There are just too many architects out there working today who would no sooner keep that rustic aspect of the course and start planting trees, introducing scrub that wasn't native, as well as introduce shaping that didn't look natural or tie-in with the surrounds. And that is what Gil and GEOFF did so well there--they emulated the nature, identified strategies with-in the exisiting contours of where they could and couldn't go, and introduced others in a manner that was consistent with the site itself. I'll also have you know there are no replications of famous holes at Rustic Canyon either. No Redan, Eden or #10 at Riviera, etc. All of them are original holes inspired by classic strategies and principles. And I would imagine that this is the part of Rustic Canyon you really did like.

It's like the architect that suggested that Rustic Canyon would be a better golf course if it had a more "permanent" river (cement) running thru with dam controlling the amount of water that came through--adding to the cost and making that beautiful canyon (Well at least to me its beautiful) unaturally ugly because it has had the natural miracle of all miracles--shaped and formed concrete added to the mix!!

Many don't realize that at one time, Riviera, Bel Air, LACC, El Cabalerro and all of the others are looked much the same as Rustic Canyon does today--its just 80 years of tree cultivation, hillside transformation, and residential & commercial development have changed those courses to a shade of green that makes them passable for the crowd that has never understood the climate of Southern California until it was transformed to look much more hospitable to their own palete.

And make no biases about it, I'm set in my ways IF the work is GREAT. This is why I give Fazio his due at Shadow Creek #5 or many of the holes at Shady Canyon; or Tom Doak at Apache Stronghold; or Bill Coore and his crew at Friar's Head, etc. Its not hard for a layman to see this stuff, especially when your not looking at it from the aspect of how one plays there own game. This isn't about me, its about what exists in the ground and what it took to get there. I would have thought Tom Doak would have known this!  

[ian]

Tommy,

I appreciate your comments, and am quite willing to accept the idea that I don't understand the SoCal enviornment for golf. Four courses in four days is not enough to know jack about SoCal golf. I'll honestly say that I perfered the tree lined canyon at Riviera as a setting over the stark valley at Rustic. Sorry, but I do.

Tommy, I agree that Gil and Geoff shouldn't do anything change the enviornment because the site is what it is. I have wondered if my timing may have been poor and I didn't get to enjoy the full beauty of the surroundings. I don't know, but I can only go on what I saw that day.

Nobody would dispute the quality of the golf, the multiple options and green contours are brilliant. I wish I built those greens. BUT The bunkers are the least interesting bunkers I have seen Gil build. It may be for maintenance reasons or for playability, but they are what they are. The back nine has some nice views, except the overbearing net; but the front nine has a couple of terrible views into housing. I am willing to imagine that after a couple of playings you likely ignore them and enjoy the golf instead.

BUT I just can't give some of these negatives a free pass because I too like Gil's work, or because this is one of the most inteligent public facilities that I have seen built. Tommy, I mean this when I say it, I hope that there are more Rustic Canyons built than any other style of golf course. The future participation in golf depends on them.

[Mike Hendren]

Matt,

I assure you that the pavement is in play on 18 at RC. You'll just have to trust me on this  It's no big whoop, however.  

With regards to WH's famous neighbor, I would take the opposite tact and suggest Sand Hills has a negative impact on WH's ranking.  Most of the cognoscenti heading to that area will make a quick stop at WH before heading up to Mullen for multiple rounds, which inherently yield greater memories of details and offer more varied playing conditions. WH suffers slightly by comparison when it otherwise could have been a one-of-a-kind marvel.  

Since you insist, albeit politely, on a ranking out of me, I'd lump Black Creek, TSN and RC between 100 and 150 among the moderns in that order.  By comparison, Wild Horse might fall between 25 and 50.  Bear in mind that while you et al have PHD's I'm still early in my sophomore year.  But like the Big Bopper, I know what I like.

One last thing, I am impressed by folks like you who bring an analytical aproach to rating.  That's just not my style.  At the end of the day what elevates Wild Horse is the fact that it made the hairs on my arms stand up, while the others failed to do so.  

Kindest regards,

Mike

[Matt_Ward]

Mike H:

While I can appreciate the touchy feely aspect of the "hair on your arms standing up", the reality is that courses can be analyzed in what they do provide. Many times people just need to take off the rose-colored glasses that too often most favored layouts and architects are sometimes wont to get here on GCA.

P.S. I disagree with you point on Sand Hills & Wild Horse. Having two courses that are rather unique and close to each other really validates the nature of what Wild Horse is all about. If Wild Horse were located in the middle of nowhere with nothing at all near it I believe it's overall impact would not be as great as what you see and hear from people who have played it when visiting that section of Nebraska.

[Mike Hendren]

If Wild Horse were located in the middle of nowhere with nothing at all near it I believe it's overall impact would not be as great as what you see and hear from people who have played it when visiting that section of Nebraska.

Dadgummit Matt, you baited me into rating Wild Horse and switched me to its "impact."  At a minimum, without Sand Hills, Wild Horse would be ranked 18th

I firmly agree that there is much about architecture that can be objectively analyzed, but remain convinced that there's room in the game for us touchy-feely types.  A broad and diverse rating panel should include both.

Come to think of it I'll be out in Sonoma County later this week and rather defer to a handful of experts employed by Wine Spectator,  I'll just drink what I like.  

BTW, I believe this thread has validated my point that the real issue regarding RC is which side of no. 100 it falls on.   I'm still waiting for the first poster to opine that it's no good.  

Mike

[ed_getka]

Ian,
  You bring up a good point regarding the visual aspect of RC. It had never occurred to me before to even think about it in that way. Visual impact is probably the last thing I think about when golfing and evaluating a course, because it has nothing to do with how the golf course plays.
    However, I can relate to what you are talking about in a non-golf setting. One of the few things I enjoy even more than golf is the outdoors. I grew up in the northeast in the Adirondacks. I lived in SoCal for 10 years and never learned to embrace the chapparal(?sp). I could enjoy myself out in that terrain, but it doesn't have the visual appeal of the Adirondacks where I grew up or the Sierras where I now go tromping with my boys. So I can appreciate what you are saying, but for me it is a minimal factor when it comes to golf.
    The other day I was visiting with someone who has been golfing for 5 years, and is not an architecture nut like us. I was interested in hearing her impression of Sand Hills given her background. She liked the course, but she greatly preferred the courses she played that had greater visuals, such as Bandon Dunes, Coeur d'Alene, etc...
     So, perhaps that is the part of the explanation of Wild Horse being ranked so much higher than RC. I would certainly give the edge to WH if that were a factor in rating the courses.

[THuckaby2]

Ed, you had me nodding in agreement with all of that, that is until:

    So, perhaps that is the part of the explanation of Wild Horse being ranked so much higher than RC. I would certainly give the edge to WH if that were a factor in rating the courses.

You have been to Wild Horse, right?

Man I doubt even Dick Daley, the Wizard of Wild Horse, would expound on its great visuals.  I guess there is a certain beauty to farmland, but man you've got to REALLY stretch things to say WH's visuals are superior to RC's.

If anything the two golf courses look pretty similar inside.  The visuals looking outward, well... I can't see how WH wins that one.

TH

[ed_getka]

Other than some ugly houses that are going up near the entrance to WH, I find WH more attractive to look at than RC. However, you need to keep this in perspective. If Sam Snead thought TOC looked like a cow pasture, I shudder to think what he would have thought of WH and RC. We are talking shades of unattractive here.

[Matt_Ward]

Mike H:

You need to re-read what I said about RC after I played it. I did mention a number of points on what I believe are its shortcomings. Clearly the folks who play there all the time did not "embrace" all of what I said which is fine.

Mike -- the issue with RC is not "either or." I thoroughly enjoy the originality of what RC provides and I can still highlight a number of points (the plethora of down canyon long par-4's to name just one example.

My issue with Wild Horse is that the "design concept" is indeed a refreshing one -- the wide fairways -- the stylish bunkering models and the rolling large greens. However, the totality of the finished product is not thaaaaaaaaaaat solid from a shot value perspective to me. So, with that said -- I can salute the design concept but still mark the course "down" a bit because the ultimate product (the holes and routing) are simply not up to what was conceptually envisioned. Yes, WH is a top 100 modern for me -- it's just not at the nose bleed level of 19th from the others I have personally played.

Hope this helps -- now enjoy the wine and rub some elbows with all those other touchy feely types in the Sonoma area.

[THuckaby2]

Other than some ugly houses that are going up near the entrance to WH, I find WH more attractive to look at than RC. However, you need to keep this in perspective. If Sam Snead thought TOC looked like a cow pasture, I shudder to think what he would have thought of WH and RC. We are talking shades of unattractive here.

OK, cool, I can understand that.

The point is thought that I doubt anyone, rater or non-rater, is unduly influenced by "visuals" at WH.  Certainly not enough for that to be a reason it gets a higher rating (or review, or positive feeling) than RC, anyway.

TH

[A_Clay_Man]

Ed- WH and SH prove that a cow pasture is a good thing.

Mike Hendren- I'm concerned about your statement that RC's green surrounds are gimicky. Could you elaborate?

[THuckaby2]

Visual impact is probably the last thing I think about when golfing and evaluating a course, because it has nothing to do with how the golf course plays.

If this isn't the defining proof positive of the difference between the Treehouse and the rest of the hard-core golfing world, then nothing is!

The ROTW loves visuals.  They need them.  To them, visuals are one of the key defining characteristics of greatness.  Whether it's vistas of an ocean or a large lake, beautiful dunes, TOC's lovely "in town" setting, or just a bunch of big towering trees, the ROTW will not think a course is great unless it has appealing visuals.  That's just a fact.

All I'm pointing out is that they ability to separate out visuals because they dont' affect play is rare indeed.  Oh, and BTW, I don't buy it for a second.  I think visuals impact EVERYONE, even the Doaks, Wards, Kleins etc. of the world.  Maybe not as much as Joe Sixpack's cousin, Joe 16 Hdcp., but certainly not ZERO impact.  I just can't buy that.  

Again absolute concurrence.  I just posted on the rater all-stars thread how important visuals are to real-world golfers.  Great minds, my friend.  

[ed_getka]

Tom,
  I agree visuals are not going to make a huge difference in choosing RC vs. WH. I was just postulating.

[THuckaby2]

Ed - well you're a good egg, and one of the very few here who can postulate and then admit that such postulation might be incorrect!  

To me, it's possible people might prefer WH to RC because people have different ways of looking at golf courses, and not all agree with Matt Ward or me or you or David Moriarty or Dick Daley or anyone here.  They are both great courses, and preferring one to the other, well... I'd guess if you asked 100 golfers, the results might go 51-49.

And that 51-49 is also enough statistically to make one course #19, and the other #101, the way this all goes....

TH

[THuckaby2]

I'm just wondering if the results wouldn't be EXACTLY 51-49.  I mean, seriously, how many people in the world do you think have played BOTH WH and RC?

I'd be willing to bet that this board has probably somewhere around 1/3 of them.    

Good point.  It's doubtful that 100 people have played both courses... and if so, very reasonable to think that 33 would have been participants on this board.

TH

[DMoriarty]

As one of the "Rustic fans" I've been watching this thread and the other recent Rustic threads with interest.  

A few comments:

-- I dont consider Rustic's fans to be some sort of 'golf bumpkins' who are too provincial to adequately opine on Rustic:  To name just some, Rustic's fans include Ran (who wrote that the course is world class), Ben Dewar, Pete Lavalle, Dan King, Tommy, David K, and Lynn, and they have all traveled outside of Southern California to play.  'Contrary to popular belief, even I have played outside of Moorpark.  

-- I can only speak for myself, but I dont post out of bitterness stemming from a two year old ratings snub, and I dont think other fans do so either.  Sure Gil got jobbed, but that doesnt have much to do with my opinions or experiences regarding the course.  If anything, I sense more animosity from the Rustic's detractors than I do from Rustic's supporters.  

-- In my observation, Rustic's fan base extends quite a lot further than the eggheads who visit this site.  

--  While I have been involved in some heated discussions, I dont have any animosity toward anyone for how they feel about the course.  I wish we could keep in mind that there is a big difference between disagreement and animosity.

So why do I post on the course?  Who knows, but here are some possible reasons:

--  Doing so often leads to what I consider to be lively and enjoyable debate.  

--  Courses like Rustic expose shortcomings in the manner in which many view golf.  In this regard, discussing Rustic often leads to contemplation of some of the more interesting questions and contradictions facing golf today.

--  Many of us have played Rustic, and it is accessible to those who havent.  So discussing Rustic is potentially an inclusive conversation.

--  Contrary to popular opinion, it is very often Rustic's detracters who bring up Rustic (whether they have played it or not.)   Since many of their comments are in my opinion unsupportable, innacurate, and/or premature, I disagree in the same forum in which the views are presented.  I wish others who disagree with me would do the same.  

[HamiltonBHearst]

Mr. Moriarty-You have every right to be proud of Rustic Canyon, it is your home course, and you know it better than most.  Would your spirited defense be considered any different if it were a private club?  Would some be less verbal about criticisms if RC were "very private" and they needed to "suck up" to play rather than ponying up $35?

I have never heard criticisms on this site of Sand Hills or Friars Head yet have heard plenty of Pacific Dunes.  Is there a brown nose factor at work in the rankings?

[George Pazin]

And I thought C & C were supposed to be the ANTI-poster children of the Medinah "you have one shot, and one shot only off the tee" school of design.

I don't think any architect has ever said that every hole must present endless array of options. Most, as I recall, seem to feel the important thing is that the golf course have a good balance of holes - some with many options, some with fewer, some with none.

The more specific your criticisms, Dave, the more insight you allow the rest of us to have into that scary mind that is Shivas.

[DMoriarty]

George, that's gobbledygook.  We praise and praise and praise certain guys for providing options.  We INSIST on options, and lots of 'em.  I have never heard the most vocal option lovers say that courses should have holes with only one.  Never.  What I usually hear is them LAMBASTING courses without them.  Then the favored sons build a hole with none, and we rationalize.  Suffice it to say, there is a slight inconsistency here.

Yes Shivas, there is more than a slight inconsistency in your position.  On the hypothetical continuum of infinite options to no options, the debate is most accurately viewed relatively, as more or less.  I am in the camp of more options, you of less.  Your absolutes are nonsense.  

We have a slight overlap in agreement.  I for one dont think that relatively optionless holes are a necessity on an excellent golf course.  In fact I have still yet to see a great golf hole without options, so why would I want to require them on a great course?   As for entirely relatively optionless courses, they are not my cup of tee.  

Mr. Hearst,

No doubt that punches are often pulled regarding courses where access is an issue.  [Raters wont he take shots at courses while trying to garner access.] Yet some had plenty to say about Rustic's excessive width and lack of real options long before ever seeing even the front nine, once.  

Raters certainly aren't immune to treating public courses differently, even if inadvertently.    An anecdote . . . One rater adamantly wrote that when visiting a course to rate (comped) he always sends a 'thank you' to the professional and to his host (if any), and never leaves before purchasing a substantial amount of merchandise.  While this may be true when this rater visits exclusive courses, it certainly wasn't the case when this particular rater visited Rustic, comped.

To be fair though, it is a very awkward situation to criticize a course when someone associated with that course has gone out of their way to gain you access.   It is a matter of politeness to one's host, and not just access.  

That being said, I don't doubt that Rustic would have fared much better as an ultra private, or even an expensive public.  It is hard for many to believe that there is very little correlation between cost and quality.  

note: while the points remain the same a few changes have made to take out inaccurate and misleading information of an inflammatory nature.  Consistency was never my strong suit. Sorry

[George Pazin]

As a relatively optionless hole on a relatively option filled course, I give you...........Sawgrass's 17th.

Sure there are options in terms of where on the green you can try to hit it, but, under that definition, every hole on the face of the earth has infinite options (whoops, starting to sound like Rich G).

The only question left is whether or not it's a great hole. It's certainly a highly entertaining tournament hole.

[SL_Solow]

My position on Rustic vs Kemper has been made and I think it is relatively clear.  I rather enjoy watching my friends Shivas and David have at it, each taking positions that I suspect may be more extreme than they might otherwise take in an effort to win their ongoing periodic debate.  I would never stand in the way.  However one point I will clarify as it goes to a point that many of us think is important; the access issue and the integrity of those playing courses as visitors.  Shivas did not seek access to Friar's Head.  I am fortunate enough to have a good friend (who shall remain anonymous) who is a member.  When he asked me to come out and play this spring, he asked me to bring a friend to fill out the foursome and Shivas was the friend.  No request from Shivas, just a couple of GCA friends who like to play golf and talk about architecture. Dave, thats just about the way we played together in LA last winter  and how I hope we'll do it when I host later this month.  Its one of my favorite parts of this board.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()