Sorry, as sometimes happens I lost my
th
read for a while.
I am one of the ones - maybe the only one - who wished for Rustic to be VERY firm and fast, as Wild Horse was when I played it. I just think it would be very fun that way. Where do you see it as being unplayable? I'm not doubting that it could be such, just prevailing upon your wisdom and knowledge of the course, to help me understand it better.
Three main reasons why I dont think RC should be maintained extremely firm/fast:
1.
The slope. While the grade looks pretty flat, from the 13th green to the 4th green the course drops 250+ feet in elevation. To give you a real world idea of the drop, 20 story buildings are around 250 ft. high (I think.) I've seen how the down canyon holes play when Rustic is somewhat firm, and I am not sure how one would control their ball at all if it was concrete-like firm and fast.
2.
The greens. Many of the down canyon greens (or green portions) slope with the canyon and away from the line of play. If the course were too firm and fast virtually every ball would run right through them. (Remember the USOpen?) Also, the greens have some fairly large undulations and there are virtually no flat spots; if they were too fast then golfers would be putting all day.
3.
The options. In order for RC's strategy to be effective, the various options must be more than just illusory. Take our much discussed No. 2. If the golfer goes right on the drive, then with a good shot and a little luck it is still possible for the golfer to get their ball onto to the green. So the golfer has a real choice, risk the OB on the drive and get a good angle, or play it safe and face a very difficult but possible shot.
In contrast, if the hole played with concrete-like firmness, even short approaches from the right would almost always end up in the weeds long, or in the bunkers well short. So the only realistic way to get on the green in two would be to play left, along the OB, then bank it into the green from the better angle.
___________________
TEPaul: Tom accurately described the dilemna we face at Rustic. We do what we can, but have little influence over how things are done. The only thing that may have helped is when play dropped slightly this summer when the the aprons were so wet.
____________________
Mike Benham said
I suspect that everything is green in the owner/operator's eyes, and the shortfall of revenue and additional expense incurred has affected his financial well being and therefore not as green as he would like. Therefore, he may choose to cut back on the maintenance staff, equipment budget, etc.
This is a viable theory, but I dont think applicable here. Rather, from my perspective it seems that the management has been slow in comprehending the concept and quality of their course. Further, they seem to favor a
lean approach to resource allocation, especially when it comes to maintenance.
Mike and George Williams:
As strange as it may seem, Mike is correct on this one. There are already dual heads in place-- one was supposed to be for the green and the other for the approach. But for whatever reason, they were not equipped with 180 degree sprinklers.
____________________
An aside. Tom Doak recently explained an approach to me which might avoid this dilemna: Build the approaches with the same base as your greens. This way the greens and approaches will drain at a similar rate so only one head is needed for both. Also, there will be less annoying heads directly in the line of play. If I recall correctly, Tom said he did this at the Rawls Course, and commented that it was virtually impossible to get those fringes soggy.
I believe this is precisely what the designers planned to do at RC-- Use the native sand for both the greens and approaches in order to create this uniformity of condition. But they were apparently overruled.
Hopefully Tom D. or someone will correct me if I garbled what he told me.