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.


JakaB

I have to profess that I don't get it....I don't get what Cusco has thas Rusto doesn't to make at the very least a two point differencial on most ballots.....It is my undertanding that the bunkers at RC are beautiful, it is my understanding that the ground game is alive at RC, it is my understanding that the green contours are outstanding at RC,  despite the net at RC the practice facilities are comparable.....Orange bunkers and a nice clubhouse with a picture of the architect crying like a baby hanging on the wall = at least 2 points....what's up with that.

Come on people....what is the truth about Rustic cause from everything that has found the light of day on this board...it ain't no better or no worse than Cuscowilla...
« Last Edit: November 12, 2004, 07:50:47 AM by John B. Kavanaugh »

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re:Cuscowilla vs Rustic Canyon....What does Cusco have that Rusto doesn't..
« Reply #1 on: November 12, 2004, 09:24:52 AM »
John:  Here's where I think Cuscowilla noses in front, both architecturally and in the popular view:

a)  a gate to make it private impresses most people
b)  so does a bit better conditioning
c)  no visual distractions such as driving-range fences
d)  a bit more demand on some of the tee shots
e)  smaller greens so Cuscowilla is less about lag putting and more about other short-game abilities

Still, both courses come up with a 7 on the Doak scale for me, so your basic point is close to the mark.  But most everyone in the treehouse loves Rustic Canyon, too.  It's only the GOLF DIGEST and GOLFWEEK raters who rate Cuscowilla much higher.
« Last Edit: November 12, 2004, 09:26:53 AM by Tom_Doak »

Scott_Burroughs

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Cuscowilla vs Rustic Canyon....What does Cusco have that Rusto doesn't..
« Reply #2 on: November 12, 2004, 09:47:52 AM »
Tom,

Golf Digest does not rank Cuscowilla high.  They have it as 9th best in the state, while GW would probably be 2nd, if you used average score across the lists.

Also, Cusco may have a gate, but it's not private.

Thanks for sharing your ratings.

Pete Lavallee

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Cuscowilla vs Rustic Canyon....What does Cusco have that Rusto doesn't..
« Reply #3 on: November 12, 2004, 10:08:22 AM »
Cuscowilla does have a nice place to spend the night, on site.
"...one inoculated with the virus must swing a golf-club or perish."  Robert Hunter

Lou_Duran

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Cuscowilla vs Rustic Canyon....What does Cusco have that Rusto doesn't..
« Reply #4 on: November 12, 2004, 10:10:13 AM »
Cuscowilla has more interesting topography.  The routing uses more points in the compass and has a better flow of holes.  Cuscowilla has more variety/not as repetitive (though holes 4 and 10 have a similar look).  With the lake close buy, greater attention to detail/superior finish-out on and around the greens, and more dramatic bunkering, Cuscowilla makes an immediate impression.

RC is a fantastic course, and, most likely, a better value.  There are a few holes at RC where one can relax.  That is not the case at Cuscowilla where getting on the green is but one half of the problem.    

Mike Nuzzo

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Cuscowilla vs Rustic Canyon....What does Cusco have that Rusto doesn't..
« Reply #5 on: November 12, 2004, 10:10:57 AM »
In this order
Cuscowilla - better better holes
Barona - pretty steady
Rustic - worse worst holes
As Huckaby would say ... all great

Thinking of Bob, Rihc, Bill, George, Neil, Dr. Childs, & Tiger.

Brian_Gracely

Re:Cuscowilla vs Rustic Canyon....What does Cusco have that Rusto doesn't..
« Reply #6 on: November 12, 2004, 10:35:28 AM »
The two areas that make Rustic slightly lower for me are the repetitive look and feel of many of the greens, and the uphill slog from 5 through 13.  

But let's not fool anyone....the setting at Cuscowilla does add to the total experience.  

Joe Perches

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Cuscowilla vs Rustic Canyon....What does Cusco have that Rusto doesn't..
« Reply #7 on: November 12, 2004, 10:48:45 AM »
At Cuscowilla getting on the green is but one half of the problem.    

Hi Lou.

I completely agree completely with you about topography and routing.  I enjoy a hole or two per round that has both some decline and incline.  Cuscowilla definitely has an advantage there.  Under slightly breezy or gusty conditions, I believe that it would be more enjoyable to play at the C&C course.  I'm not too sure about your flow statement though.  Do you believe that because of the rather continuous uphill routing on holes 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13 at RC that flow is worse there?  I think Hanse et al, did a great job of fitting the course to site at RC.  I believe the details around the course are about equal though it seems Cuscowilla perhaps has a greater maintenance budget.  It might be that Cuscowilla isn't as likely to suffer plagues like the fires and floods at RC though.

The visuals at both courses can be spectacular.

I believe we might have hit Cuscowilla at the peak time for weather and plantings.  The course looked great and the weather was perfect.
I've played at RC in similar conditions.  I look forward to those days.

Overall green comparisons between these 2 courses are I believe very equal.  I don't see one course as better than another in degree of difficulty or level of interest.

At RC, greens 3 and 10 are probably the least interesting surfaces.
At Cuscowilla, 12 and 17 are my least interesting choices.

All the rest of the surfaces at both courses are very very good.

I really do not like the plastic rings around the greens at Cuscowilla though.  These rings do have an occasional impact on play and they are unsightly.
« Last Edit: November 12, 2004, 01:01:05 PM by JoePerches »

RJ_Daley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Cuscowilla vs Rustic Canyon....What does Cusco have that Rusto doesn't..
« Reply #8 on: November 12, 2004, 10:53:08 AM »
I agree with most everything above.  Lou says it best with the added nod towards more craftsmanship in the construction details.  However, that is slightly unfair to say in that there were much more construction details to attend to at Cusco.  Rustic is much easier at the tee.  I'm not sure I agree with TD that Cusco doesn't have as high a premium on lag putting however.  Of course anything outside 10 ft for me is a lag... ::) :-[ ;D

RC=7
Cusco=7.5
« Last Edit: November 12, 2004, 10:54:17 AM by RJ_Daley »
No actual golf rounds were ruined or delayed, nor golf rules broken, in the taking of any photographs that may be displayed by the above forum user.

THuckaby2

Re:Cuscowilla vs Rustic Canyon....What does Cusco have that Rusto doesn't..
« Reply #9 on: November 12, 2004, 11:25:06 AM »
These astute fellows all have it right.  My only addition is I kinda compare it to the city in which I work v. the city across the bay... As the great Gertrude Stein said, there's no there there in Oakland.  Well, there is a lot of there at Rustic Canyon, just not as much as at Cuscowilla.

And Mike has me nailed, they are both great.

I'd say Rustic 7.7, Cuscowilla 8.  Likely a big advantage in setting for Cusco accounts for that .3 - I don't deny it.  I have travelled far to play both, will hopefully do so again.  There is a lot unique at each.

TH

Lou_Duran

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Cuscowilla vs Rustic Canyon....What does Cusco have that Rusto doesn't..
« Reply #10 on: November 12, 2004, 11:45:22 AM »
JP,

By flow I mean the relationship of the individual holes to each other, primarily in close sequence.  For me a course is superior where the holes have different looks and require a variety of shots.

Depending on whether the wind is blowing down canyon (from the N, NE as it was when we were at RC this spring) or up, RC has two or three stretches of holes which can play very similarly.  I suspect that day-in and day-out, the wind at RC is a much bigger factor than at Cusco.  With firmer ground and long stretches of holes going in the same direction, raw yardages and par don't really mean all that much there.  I suspect that this is part of RC's charm.

The front side in particular seemed to play very short.  And even if you take into consideration that the short par 4 (#7 or so) was being played as a par 3 because of the flood damage, it is still normally played with a middle iron of the tee followed by a short iron to the green.

I thought that the two short fours (south orientation) and the two fives going north (9 & 10?) are overly repetitive, though very good holes in their own right.  On a particularly windy site, it would have been better to orient these similar holes in opposite directions (though I understand that perhaps the land or the green sites didn't lend themselves to what might be considered a formulaic idea).

For the most part, Cusco has the golfer reaching for all types of clubs throughout the round.  The one exception that I see is the very demanding, long par three #8 with a reverse-redan type green, followed by the very difficult par 4 #9.  Here, I think that a back tee adding another 50 - 100 yards would provide more interest and balance to the course, but apparently Coore doesn't like to follow a hard par three with what he would consider to be an easy par five.  Personally, I think that the way it is, the powerful hitter has a huge advantage on both holes, whereas adding some yardage would make the 4 more elusive to that guy without doing the same for the shorter player to get his 5.

In any regards, both Cusco and RC are very high on my list.  Perhaps I just like the pines, lakes, and greener, rolling terrain of GA a bit better.  Both courses do an excellent job of exposing one's weaknesses, particularly with the short game.  Cusco #5 clearly showed the schizophrenic nature of my game as I made 6 from a perfect lie 40 yards from the pin the first day, and 2 on Sunday when I chipped in from 40' or so.          

Jeff Goldman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Cuscowilla vs Rustic Canyon....What does Cusco have that Rusto doesn't..
« Reply #11 on: November 12, 2004, 12:56:12 PM »
Ok, here's a slight dissent from the crummy golfer perspective.  I thought both courses were terrific, but that RC was a little more fun to play, and required a little more thought.  At Cuscowilla, the choices for me were pretty obvious, and I think that would be true even if I would have played half-decent.  Cuscowilla also seemed to be a more penal design.  At RC, there were a bunch of times where I considered where to put tee shots, whether to get the ball bouncing short on approaches (and how short), and where, and even on flyer shots, where to fly it to.  I even had chances to attack, rather than play defensive "testing" golf that some folks here favor.  Around the green, again, not as many choices for me at Cuscowilla, possibly because of the grass and maintenance meld.  At RC, the phrase "every club in the bag" applies to shots within 30 yards of the green.

Also, why do people refer to birdie-able holes negatively as "breathers" (this means you Lou!)  If it is a lousy hole, it is a lousy hole regardless of how difficult it is.  If it is a "breather", birdie hole, and you don't birdie it you failed the test, just as failing to par a more difficult hole.  I understand complaints by folks like shivas about hitting pw/sw/lw on every approach, but that is quite a different thing from a hole that allows you, if you play your cards right, to have a decent shot at getting it close.

Jeff Goldman
That was one hellacious beaver.

Lou_Duran

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Cuscowilla vs Rustic Canyon....What does Cusco have that Rusto doesn't..
« Reply #12 on: November 12, 2004, 08:05:16 PM »
Grown men who beat-up on young boys and play with beaver puppets should have no voice on this site.  Mr. Goldman, at least you could get the attribution right.  Who said anything about "breathers"?  A hole which allows one to relax a bit can be a good thing.  We don't need to grind on each of 80+ shots over 18 holes.

But that's okay if you like RC better.  I always thought that deep inside you are really a SoCal lefty.    

Eric_Dorsey

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Cuscowilla vs Rustic Canyon....What does Cusco have that Rusto doesn't..
« Reply #13 on: November 12, 2004, 11:15:24 PM »
Along the lines of this topic, I have a nice panoramic of Rustic if anyone wants to host it for me.  


RJ_Daley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Cuscowilla vs Rustic Canyon....What does Cusco have that Rusto doesn't..
« Reply #14 on: November 13, 2004, 09:54:37 AM »
Eric, I received your topo-aerial overlay examples.  They are neat.  Send me the panoramic and I'll see if I can use Mystic to put it up.
No actual golf rounds were ruined or delayed, nor golf rules broken, in the taking of any photographs that may be displayed by the above forum user.

Jeff Goldman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Cuscowilla vs Rustic Canyon....What does Cusco have that Rusto doesn't..
« Reply #15 on: November 13, 2004, 04:25:49 PM »
Hey, that was one hellacious beaver.
That was one hellacious beaver.

blasbe1

Re:Cuscowilla vs Rustic Canyon....What does Cusco have that Rusto doesn't..
« Reply #16 on: November 15, 2004, 12:24:33 AM »
I haven't yet played RC but hope to in the next few months.  I will say in response to C'willa's penality, it got less so for me after playing it two weekends in a row.  In fact, I had nine hole scores of 37, 38, 39, 41 and 42 (middle tees all matches) I didn't break 42 during the GCA outing.  I still backed the ball off a few greens and hit a few putts 20 feet past but I scored a lot better because I managed my way around the course much better and my lag putting improved exponentially.  The course was equally enjoyable the last round.  I imagine RC will be much the same.