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.


David Wigler

  • Total Karma: 0
Re: The Case for Ignoring Skilled Golfer’s Tee Sho
« Reply #125 on: June 05, 2003, 10:00:33 AM »
Tom,

My bad - I did not realize that a comment this morning saying how his innocent thread was highjacked meant that it had been taken offline.  As you have noticed, I have stayed out of this but that was just too precious to resist.

As for #12, my personal ban on discussing RC is in place.  Rich nailed my opinion of the discussion.

I will not discuss any issue involving RC because I clearly am not free to be honest and do not want to be disingenuous.  After seeing the course in a couple of weeks, I will certainly give yourself, Tommy and Dave my off line honest opinions but it is to near and dear to too many people to be even slightly critiqued in a public forum.

For the record, the more I think about it, the less that bothers me.  I remember Gib getting really upset and basically losing a friendship over criticisms of Olympic.  I remember TomP gettiing genuinely angry of a Guelph Mills slight.  Tom MacWood and my disagreements all started with my critique of Scarlet and I certainly would get very defensive over criticisms of Plum.  Maybe a worthwhile thread is if any of us can objectively discuss our home course.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:06 PM by -1 »
And I took full blame then, and retain such now.  My utter ignorance in not trumpeting a course I have never seen remains inexcusable.
Tom Huckaby 2/24/04

DMoriarty

Re: The Case for Ignoring Skilled Golfer’s Tee Sho
« Reply #126 on: June 05, 2003, 10:02:36 AM »
Guys lets stop the bullsh!t and talk about architecture.  

Stop rehashing what you think the discussion should or should not be about or what is appropriate or inappropriate, stop worrying about others reputations and integrity, stop criticizing others methodology, stop explaining why those criticisms arent appropriate.  Stop trying to turn this into a passive aggressive personal attack in any direction.  

At this point it is like a fukcing Mexican standoff anyways.  Either holster your weapons or fire away and get it over with.  But either way just stop the bullsh!t.    

And please dont bother to concur with this post, or disagree with it, dont thank me or condemn me, because I am not paying any attention to your bullshit anymore.  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

THuckaby2

Re: The Case for Ignoring Skilled Golfer’s Tee Sho
« Reply #127 on: June 05, 2003, 10:02:52 AM »
David M:

WOW!  I really appreciate the effort there and the EUREKA continues.  I wish the list of smileys had a lightbulb - my understanding is really growing re this golf hole.  That is great stuff - thanks again.

So ok, the margin for error out at 80, or 100, yards is greater, because it is a shorter shot to get to... so it's not really a rectangle... can we call it a trapezoid?  I still don't think slice of pie is correct, because the preferred angle spot isn't that TINY right next to the green, but I do see how it's bigger farther away from the green... is that fair?  Not that it matters at all, I just do so like getting terms correct.   ;)

In any case, the key is that one either hits the alley/slice of pie/rectangle/trapezoid or one is truly screwed.  And while the tee shot is never going to be an truly easy to pull off, it is way easier the shorter and farther right one goes off the tee.  Of course one pays for this in that it's going to be a harder shot than reaching the alley (good enough!) closer to the green, but that ain't easy to do and one picks one's poison.

In any case, barely missing the alley farther out is WAY better than missing it close to the green, because the penalties are far more severe closer to the green (ie in bunker, in gunch, over the green - all very severe penalties).  Missing it out farther just means fairway or light rough.

And one thing or another, would you agree with my initial premise, way back, that there really are NO easy shots into that incredible green?  Oh, there are some that are better than others - as we've set out - but even the preferred ones ain't gonna be easy.  That is one hell of a green.

Am I getting there?

TH

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:06 PM by -1 »

THuckaby2

Re: The Case for Ignoring Skilled Golfer’s Tee Sho
« Reply #128 on: June 05, 2003, 10:05:01 AM »
David W:

I didn't say anywhere that I had taken this off-line until this recent post.  I just wanted to alert you to this before it got out of hand again.  Understood re all the rest.

David M:

It is bullshit without a doubt.  This will be the last post I initiate on the subject.  Do read my last post re #12, though - I really think we have some great stuff going there.

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

ForkaB

Re: The Case for Ignoring Skilled Golfer’s Tee Sho
« Reply #129 on: June 05, 2003, 10:17:33 AM »
It would be interesting to have a Gil Hanse sketch of the hole so that those of us who have not been there could put the discussions and the photographs in some sort of perspective.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

THuckaby2

Re: The Case for Ignoring Skilled Golfer’s Tee Sho
« Reply #130 on: June 05, 2003, 10:27:05 AM »
Damn that would be helpful, Rich.  Alas such doesn't exist, not in Geoff's book, anyway.  Picture a golf hole kike the "thought blurb" coming out from a cartoon character's head.

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

Tim_Weiman

  • Total Karma: 0
Re: The Case for Ignoring Skilled Golfer’s Tee Sho
« Reply #131 on: June 05, 2003, 10:50:02 AM »
David Wigler:

I don't consider quoting someone's statement about a golf architecture matter a personal attack. It is now clear to me, however, that you are very uncomfortable with the practice. Thus, I have no intention of doing so with you again.

But, you should recognize that other people don't have this concern and I don't believe it should be established as a standard for the entire discussion group.

If John Doe says "trees don't belong on a golf course", I'm going to assume he doesn't mind being quoted. If he later says "trees don't belong on some golf courses", that's fine by me too and nothing to be embarrassed about.

All this personal stuff is way out of control. If a person doesn't want to be quoted, they shouldn't make the statement. If they do make a statement, they should expect that it is perfectly reasonable for people to quote and examine that statement.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Tim Weiman

Pete Lavallee

  • Total Karma: 0
Re: The Case for Ignoring Skilled Golfer’s Tee Sho
« Reply #132 on: June 05, 2003, 12:08:33 PM »
Tom;

I think the impressions of a first time visitor to Rustic are both valid and enlightening, look at the wonderful debate it's spawned. Some of the strategy out there is very subtle; like 11 for instance. Just like you, I couldn't see why anyone would risk the carry over the left hand bunker when bailing right provides access to both left and right pins. When Geoff explained that it was meant to duplicate the visual comfort of shooting  away from the trouble like 11 at Augusta my eyes were opened. Not many architectects have the balls to try this sort of sublty, because frankly how do you enlighten the masses short of providing an instruction sheet for each hole. Some of this stuff works really well and is obvious, like 12. Other holes may not play out quite as well; for instance I don't think 3 works quite as planned. I still can't see why anyone would play left off the tee, maybe someday I will if I play it enough, or maybe someone will explain how it works for them here on GCA. Either way there are enough riddles out there to keep us busy for years to come.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
"...one inoculated with the virus must swing a golf-club or perish."  Robert Hunter

David Wigler

  • Total Karma: 0
Re: The Case for Ignoring Skilled Golfer’s Tee Sho
« Reply #133 on: June 05, 2003, 12:17:52 PM »

Quote
Now, this point has been argued back and forth many times. David apparently still thinks his statement makes sense, though he seems to want to substitute the word “interest” for “challenge” as if this would have great significance. But, I still believe what David said makes absolutely no sense.


Tim,

Just once, read before posting.  I have no issue with being quoted (Except when you make up the quote and put it in quotations - like you did on the other thread or refuse to print the idea behind the quote like you did more than ten times in regard to Interest and Every Golfer).  Either on line or off, please explain to me how the sentence above (From your original post) is not a personal attack.  Obviously I am too dumb to figure it out.  Eliminate any reference to me and change the title to "Relevance of the Tee Ball" and this thread never takes the ugly turn and you are educated enough to know that.  This thread turned into exactly what you wanted it to be and then you tried to bail out and blame it on others highjacking.  You are smarter than that.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
And I took full blame then, and retain such now.  My utter ignorance in not trumpeting a course I have never seen remains inexcusable.
Tom Huckaby 2/24/04

THuckaby2

Re: The Case for Ignoring Skilled Golfer’s Tee Sho
« Reply #134 on: June 05, 2003, 12:47:28 PM »
Pete - great stuff.  Re the impressions of first time visitors, oh yes, it wouldn't be a very worthwhile golf course if one knew all one needed to know in one visit, would it?  Nevertheless we are faced with the quandary I mentioned above.  If giving one's impressions after one visit does lead to better discussion - as it seems to have recently re #12 - then that's great.  If it leads to "you need to put more effort into it and study it more" and the like type of put-downs (and believe me, I received far worse the first time this came up), then that's not good.

In any case, your takes re the holes listed are illuminating.  Let me tackle these one at a time, because they are each great topics.

#12 - if the strategy there is really obvious, then I must be REALLY dense given all the discussion!   ;)  I don't think that's what you meant to say, just couldn't resist.

#11 - I have been itching to discuss this hole again.  Hmmm...Geoff's explanation has me more confused.  OK, I get the idea of visual comfort of shooting away from trouble - that just adds to the reasons to go right off the tee, by the way, as going right means going away from the trouble for that shot... But I'm sure we're talking about the second shot.  On that, I just don't see one hitting away from the troble even if you find the VERY far left of the fairway!  You still have to go over a pretty hellacious bunker, and the slightest pull still means hazard.  Move that green 10 yards to the right and we have something.  Where it sits now, I just don't get it.  Yes, you are going along side the trouble, as opposed to sort of going at it coming in from the right... but to me a pull left is way more likely than a shot that goes long, so I don't get the "comfort" one feels coming in from the left - if anything I think the shot is more comfortable coming in from the right!  I don't get it re #11 Augusta and I don't get it re this golf hole.  So this being the case, I still don't get why anyone would ever bother going left.  What advantage is to be gained by flirting with the trouble?  

Note also - I am talking about a pin in the middle or on the left.  Move the pin to the right and then it makes more sense, although I'm still not sure it's worth the risk to go left off the tee.  At least with a right pin I can see it as an option, in any case... But that's the same thing as me saying move the green 10 yards to the right...

So is it really as simple as left pin, go right; right pin, go left?  That ain't very subtle.  I thought there was more to it than that.

Please help me to see what I am missing.  Again I ask hoping for education from you regulars, with no further agenda.  And remember the less I can figure out a golf hole, the more I like it.  I think #11's a freakin' great hole as it is, although a pin sheet so one knows where the pin is would be helpful.


#3 - I'll tell you who goes left - a left-hander with a slice!  I mentioned to Tommy and Geoff after my round there that my family group played it four different ways, one of which was my lefty brother aiming at the gunk and just letting his slice take it to the left side.  For him, he could see the angle from there for his second would be better... Oh yes, this is a very limited sample, and I can see how you'd say 3 not working as planned - they surely wanted more people to consider it a viable option - I just wanted you to know that the option did exist.   ;)

One thing's for sure, when you say "there are enough riddles out there to keep us busy for years to come" I say amen brother.  Though I feel like I've "figured out" #12 thanks to David, I'm not sure that I have it exactly right even now... #11 remains a mystery... #7 I have no good idea where to hit the tee shot... I'm not certain of the line on 14... it goes on and on.

Holes that hold no mystery, or really much interest, off the tee for all golfers, as I see it, are:

2 - doesn't work if it's not playing firm and fast - as David M. himself says - firm it up and then the interest returns (you'd need to stay left, challenge the ob);

5 - bash away, why not?  All the interest comes on the 2nd shot, the fairway is massive, and there's really no advantage where the tee shot goes as long as it goes far;

9 - ditto

10 - ditto.

On each of these holes, the 2nd shot is damn good, and the approach to the green is always gonna be brilliant.  Still, the tee shots are blah.

Whoops!  I let slip what I've been saying for days I wouldn't do, utter something that one can construe as negative about this golf course.  OK, let this be a test.  Will I get personal attacks for this, or can we discuss the architecture?

This is obviously not directed at you, Pete, but rather at a participant of imperial status.

TH
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:06 PM by -1 »

George Pazin

  • Total Karma: 0
Re: The Case for Ignoring Skilled Golfer’s Tee Sho
« Reply #135 on: June 05, 2003, 01:28:56 PM »
5 - bash away, why not?  All the interest comes on the 2nd shot, the fairway is massive, and there's really no advantage where the tee shot goes as long as it goes far;

9 - ditto

10 - ditto.

On each of these holes, the 2nd shot is damn good, and the approach to the green is always gonna be brilliant.  Still, the tee shots are blah.


As I see it, this is the crux of the disagreement, which unfortunately got sidetracked from the beginning. Is there an advantage that Tom & David did not see (I'm not saying anything bad here - we can't all notice everything in one trip around) by playing to different parts of the fairway? It's a little hard for me to believe that good green complexes wouldn't favor approaches from one angle versus another.

One problem is determining how much something is favored. If it takes a rather precise well struck high spinning wedge to achieve a desired outcome from an unfavorable angle & someone manages to achieve this, then the reward for hitting it to the preferred landing area might be overlooked by the golfer. In other words, he executed a more difficult shot, while another landing area might have allowed for a little more error.

I say, good for him - well played. However, this could lead him to think the tee shot is uninteresting unless he plays it a few more times & comes to appreciate the benefit of playing to another area.

To me, that's the difficulty in ascertaining the value of an indirect tax.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

THuckaby2

Re: The Case for Ignoring Skilled Golfer’s Tee Sho
« Reply #136 on: June 05, 2003, 01:40:15 PM »
George:

Well, this is the crux of one of the many disagreements we've had lately, and I appreciate you keeping this on the up and up.  You also were never my worry, though.   ;)

Let's take #2 out of the equation:  that doesn't work because of the current maintenance practices and it's hard to fault the architect too much for that, although the wisdom of creating holes that depend on being firm and fast to work at a low-price, heavily trafficked public course is a separate question... But anyway, get that in the right conditions and there is interest galore off the tee.

On each of the other three, there are definite places you want to have your THIRD shot come in from, with definite advantages/penalties to each - Gil Hanse lays it out well in the diagram he gives of #9, for example (page 244 of Geoff's book).  But even in that diagram, there is just one spot for the tee shot to go (marked "A"), it's right in the middle of the fairway, long and far. No mystery there!  Then for the 2nd shot, Gil lays out perfectly that spot "B", past the "trench" bunker, is the preferred angle in for an upper shelf pin, while spot "C", left of the trench, is the preferred angle in for a lower left pin.  All well and good, as I say the 2nd and the approch are brilliant.  What I don't see is any reason not to bash away on the tee shot.  Yes, there is a hazard left, so one needs to sort of guard against that... but the fairway is very, very wide, so it really ought not to be an issue.  There's no advantage to be gained in accessing either spot B or spot C from either side of the fairway - length is all that's required.  Shorter-hitting players aren't gonna reach the Trench in two anyway, so spots B and C are irrelevant for them....

So we have a golf hole that achieves something quite difficult to do - it gives interest to the 2nd shot on a long par 5.  But does it do so at the expense of giving interest on the tee shot?

Not that this is a horribly bad thing - it's a fun golf hole to play regardless of how the tee shot works or not.  I just don't see what interest exists on the tee shot... A very fair response to that might be "none, it doesn't need it."  Fair enough.

Perhaps the regulars can enlighten me on this, that would be cool.

The others kinda work the same, but this is enough for now.

TH
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:06 PM by -1 »

Andy_Lipschultz

Re: The Case for Ignoring Skilled Golfer’s Tee Sho
« Reply #137 on: June 05, 2003, 03:48:44 PM »

Quote
I think #11's a freakin' great hole as it is, although a pin sheet so one knows where the pin is would be helpful.

#7 I have no good idea where to hit the tee shot... I'm not certain of the line on 14... it goes on and on.

2 - doesn't work if it's not playing firm and fast - as David M. himself says - firm it up and then the interest returns (you'd need to stay left, challenge the ob);

5 - bash away, why not?  All the interest comes on the 2nd shot, the fairway is massive, and there's really no advantage where the tee shot goes as long as it goes far;

Tom: on 11 I always aim over the bunker had hope for the middle for the fairway. For me, trying to hug the left if I knew the pin was on the right, is too dangerous for my limited golf game. If I'm in the middle I can reasonably deal with a pin left, or right.

#7: If the wind is coming down canyon, I lay up. Obviously it depends on how far you can crank it, but if I go for it, I try to hit a draw to the right of the dead tree.

#2: Even in wet conditions, are people really making par when they have to negotiate the greenside bunker after driving to the right? Or, better yet, are they hitting the green on their approach?

#5: I only hit driver if the wind in coming down canyon. There is a very narrow area on the left side of the fairway, which can accommodate driver.  The baranca runs on a diagonal from left to right. My 4-wood to the right side of the fairway comes within 20  yards of the baranca.

#14: You need a few playings to figure out where you can regularly take aim.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tim_Weiman

  • Total Karma: 0
Re: The Case for Ignoring Skilled Golfer’s Tee Sho
« Reply #138 on: June 05, 2003, 04:12:28 PM »
David Wigler:

Let's play a thought experiment. Imagine if you were to express the following in a post:

"Tim Weiman has stated his case for why tee shots for skilled golfers should not merit more than about one percent of our evaluation of a golf course. I don't think Tim's analysis makes any sense and here is why:................".

Should I assume that is a personal attack? Isn't it just a reasonable response? After all, I'd still like to see a credible, coherent argument for why the point I made isn't valid.

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

Dan Kelly

  • Total Karma: 0
Re: The Case for Ignoring Skilled Golfer?s Tee Sho
« Reply #139 on: June 05, 2003, 05:00:06 PM »

Quote
I wish the list of smileys had a lightbulb - my understanding is really growing re this golf hole.

Tom IV --

Check that "message icon"!

Just what the doctor ordered.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
"There's no money in doing less." -- Joe Hancock, 11/25/2010
"Rankings are silly and subjective..." -- Tom Doak, 3/12/2016

DMoriarty

Re: The Case for Ignoring Skilled Golfer’s Tee Sho
« Reply #140 on: June 05, 2003, 11:50:25 PM »
Tom,

Please pardon me for this quick aside.  I dont understand why you repeatedly rehash how you've been unfairly maligned regarding this topic in the past.  I've enjoyed our discussion, but I am starting to wonder if just maybe I am being played the fool, and if you just might be more interested in baiting the usual suspects.  I think dropping the martyr talk would likely go far in keeping us all on the right track, and will also leave no doubt that this is really about your genuine curiosity regarding the course.

In response to your comments regarding specific holes.

2:  Tom you keep using my name to support you view that the hole doesnt work when it is soft, and that it often is soft.  I think you must have missed my response to your earlier post, where you attributed this view to me, then asked me whether your summary of my position was 'close.'  
Quote
Tom, I am afraid you are not very close at all.  In fact, I am having trouble getting how you could come to these conclusions based on what I said.  RC 2 has "worked" just fine every time I have played it or seen it played.    As for the line from the right "ceasing to exact any penalty whatsoever"  where on earth did I say that?  

 The line on the right is always a much more difficult shot than the line on the left.  I have never seen it so soft that one need not worry about the possibility of the ball releasing through the green.  In fact, I cannot imagine a situation where trying to carry onto the green and stop the ball from the right would be a percentage play, just about from any distance, at any time of day.  When I say that it is sometimes wet and overwatered, I am not saying that the ball will stick or plug (I've never seen a ball plug at RC); it just might not run every time like we would like it to.  And, except on rare occasions, it dries up pretty early in the day.  This, by the way, presents its own set of problems on this particular shot, because if you play it to run alot and it doesnt, you aren't left with the easiest shot.

I also think that I said that, as to my comments regarding the watering, I usually play around 6 a.m. this time of year so I see the course when it is wet as it will get.   Yet even at this hour the ground always has that bouncy feel.  

12:  I guess playing twelve to the right is a little easier because the tee shot is shorter, but the real advantage is that the tee shot to the right has a much greater margin of error.   As for whether there are any easy approaches, I guess not if you are looking for a big soft flat green with the pin in the middle, but this is a hole that can be played 4 Iron, sand wedge.  Shouldnt the sand wedge have some challenge?  Further, while I butcher it regularly,  I just dont think the hole is that hard.  The shot from the far right can be played with any trajectory, from high and spinning to on the ground the whole way, and is just not that difficult for most pin placements once you've hit it a few times.  

3:  Tom and Pete: I think going to the left on 3 may make sense when the pin is back right, and some like it for more than that, but I havent yet discovered much of a clear advantage of going left with any other particular pin.  I think the problem with 3 is that from the right there is perhaps too much lee way to bounce the ball in.  I'd be curious to see how the hole played if (a) they cut the grass short on the bank left of the green so those nasty bunkers were more in play off the tee and from the right, (b) if they lowered the back left portion of the green, so the back portion of the green didnt slope away from the trouble.; and/or (c) if they put some movement in the ground on the back right side of the green/ back left side of approach.  When I say "they" I of course mean the original design team, and no one else.

5:  Tom, the advantage of the tee shot on RC 5 can best be viewed from the green. Next time, look at the green complex then look back over the trouble to the driving fairway, and you will notice that one side might have definite advantages over the other, especially if the golfer is going for the green in two.  Of course the other side might have different advantages.  
  As for the golfer who is definitely laying up, it is a much shorter, easier, and potentially more precise lay-up from the right side of the fairway as opposed to the left.  

9: This is a very wide fairway with great natural undulation.  There is more on right than the left, so you are more likely to get a very difficult lie on the right.  Since I am laying up anyway I dont think it is worth it for me to try to play close to either edge.  

10:  One can shorten the hole significantly by playing down the right side then cutting the dogleg on the second shot. This route also leaves you with the best angle to approach the green.  But cutting this corner is no easy task and is very visually intimidating.  Left and middle are safer, but are substantially longer and not as favorable angle for those going in two.  

11:  This is definitely a hole where people differ as to the correct angles.  In my experience, it is much easier to get it close to a left pin from the middle-left (no further right than the long swale that often funnels drives hit over the bunker.)  Yes, there is danger short and left, but it is a shorter shot and one does not have to navigate over the hump and diagonally over the front slope.  Even it is a safer approach from the far right, I think it is much more lead to a potential three putt on this difficult green.  
  Keep in mind that I am talking about getting it close or at least avoiding potential 3-putts.
By the way, just to prove I am completely nuts:  While I dont mind going at the right side of the green from the left, I prefer to go at the right side of the green from the right.  

Tom, perhaps you can answer these questions to help me understand why you refer to these tee shots as lacking "interest."  
  --Do you find "interest" in straight, flat, narrow fairways surrounded by thick rough?  If so, why so?    
  --Is a great course required to have nothing but "interesting" tee shots.
  --So I know what you mean, can you give me some examples of  some great par 5's that present an "interesting" tee shot for golfers who know they are going to lay up.  For example, we were both definitely laying up at SFGC 9; was that an interesting shot, or was it just hitting down the middle?  How about the par 5s at Cypress for those planning to lay up?  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

David Kelly

  • Total Karma: 1
Re: The Case for Ignoring Skilled Golfer’s Tee Sho
« Reply #141 on: June 06, 2003, 12:23:57 AM »
Andy_Lipschultz,
I agree with your comments on the strategy off of the tee for holes 11, 7, 2, and 14.  I do think, however, that on 5 at least from the black tees, more than 90% of golfers can take a full driver and not worry about it going through the fairway if they take the line from the right center of the fairway to the left.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
"Whatever in creation exists without my knowledge exists without my consent." - Judge Holden, Blood Meridian.

DMoriarty

Re: The Case for Ignoring Skilled Golfer’s Tee Sho
« Reply #142 on: June 06, 2003, 12:35:44 AM »
Quote
.One problem is determining how much something is favored. If it takes a rather precise well struck high spinning wedge to achieve a desired outcome from an unfavorable angle & someone manages to achieve this, then the reward for hitting it to the preferred landing area might be overlooked by the golfer. In other words, he executed a more difficult shot, while another landing area might have allowed for a little more error.

George you have definitely hit on the essense of Rustic here. There is rarely a situation where if you miss the preferred angle that you have no chance of recovering.   It just may be that your percentages would be better somewhere else.  

Along the same lines, figuring out the "preferred" plays is not easy either.  They do exist, but are rarely clear cut, especially as they change with the conditions.  A single or a few successes stemming from a certain play might not provide enough data to fully understand the possibilities of that certain play, much less the other potential options.

I think this might be what sets Rustic apart, but it does create a dilemna for those who must draw a conclusion after only one play.  

Quote
Let's take #2 out of the equation:  that doesn't work because of the current maintenance practices and it's hard to fault the architect too much for that, although the wisdom of creating holes that depend on being firm and fast to work at a low-price, heavily trafficked public course is a separate question... But anyway, get that in the right conditions and there is interest galore off the tee. ?

Tom, I missed this the first time through, but want to clear this up once and for all.  

The current "maintenance practices" make it so RC 2 doesnt work?  I sure hope you are not relying on anything I've written or said to support this conclusion.  If so, please review my posts on this issue on the other thread.  

The current maintenance practices work quite well for RC 2 and the rest of the course.  The course is maintained plenty firm, so that bounce and roll are definitely considerations on all down-canyon shots and most up canyon shots.  I've clarified this more than a few times.

Perhaps you are reading too much into my observation that the course is not kept at its cutting edge for regular play.  Of course it isnt, and I doubt many courses, public or private, are.  But to describe it as anything but firm and fast is a mis-characterization.

To give you something to compare to, RC regularly plays at least as firm as fast as Pacific and Bandon played when I was there this spring; it plays firmer and faster than Cypress did both times I was there; and it plays firmer and faster than SFGC the day we played (except the new greens at SFGC were harder); and it plays much firmer and faster than Stevenson Ranch the one time I played it (although it sounds like I caught SR on a very slow day.)  

I know you often wish it played as firm and fast as Wildhorse.  I've never been there, but I am familiar with concrete hard, wind blown, sunbaked Midwest/West turf.  Rustic would not be playable for anyone if it was kept rock hard.  The whole place is slanted, and not just a little.  Balls roll down hill.  

The only reasons I brought up the maintenance practices are (1) because if it is 6-8 in the morning and the grass is wet from irrigation or dew, you obviously should not expect it to play as firm and fast as normal; and (2) if one ever wanted to really make the course a torture chamber for exceptional golfers, it could be done with very minimal effort, without altering the nature of the course.  

So Tom, if you want to draw your conclusion based on your two visits and/or someone else's opinion, by all means do so, but please dont base your conclusion on my opinion of the playing conditions.  

As far as the course design being incompatible with a "low-price, heavily trafficked public course," what a leap!  For the reasons above, you are again mistaken.      
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:06 PM by -1 »

THuckaby2

Re: The Case for Ignoring Skilled Golfer’s Tee Sho
« Reply #143 on: June 09, 2003, 06:13:14 AM »
David M.   This has gone on way too far and being away for three days made me see the silliness of discussions like these, or at least their place in life's priorities (or mine, anyway).  In any case, I don't disagree with anything you say here, not one bit.  Thanks for taking the time to reply in any case...

I do enjoy trying to figure out this golf course, and I have deferred to you constantly throughout this for clarification.  I continue to appreciate you showing me the error of my ways.

Re #12, well... I really thought you did say it didn't work the way things are kept now (softer than they might be).  My apologies for misunderstanding that.

As for all the rest, check your instant message.

TH
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:06 PM by -1 »

George Pazin

  • Total Karma: 0
Re: The Case for Ignoring Skilled Golfer’s Tee Shots
« Reply #144 on: September 11, 2008, 05:07:34 PM »
This was a fun one...

 :)
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04