Rustic Canyon v. Wild Horse ???

[Matt_Ward]

In all travels throughout 2002 I have to say the thrill in playing quality public courses that provide reasonably priced fun is most comforting and utterly rewarding to the max. Two come to mind -- Wild Horse and Rustic Canyon.

I previously posted a match-up between Rustic Canyon and Barona Creek and there were a few interesting posts. As much as I do like Barona I personally believe RC has a slight edge because of the complexity of the putting surfaces.

I wonder how people see the qualities of RC v WH? Both are superbly crafted and "must sees" for any golfer who has an absolute love for quality design. Is one better than another?

If forced to choose I'd have to say Wild Horse is the better overall test because the demanding wind conditions NEVER cease to influence play. In addition, WH has, I believe, the better combination of holes and a slightly more ideal routing formula that requires a deft touch from the tee as well as a steady hand on nearly all of the putting surfaces. Again, I have to emphasize it's very, very close -- no more apart than the distance that Affirmed had over Alydar.

In my listing of quality public courses I'd opt to have all three (RC, WH and BC) within my personal top 50.

How do others see the comparison / contrast between RC & WH?

[THuckaby2]

Matt:  can't we do some comparison that doesn't involve Rustic Canyon?  

I'd also put all three - Rustic, Barona, Wild Horse - in my top 50 of quality public courses, without a doubt.

But ok, in terms of comparison between RC and WH, I guess I'll have a bit more bravery this time, and hopefully no offense will be taken when I say:

1. WH is the far better overall "test", for all the reasons you state plus the fact it truly is firm and fast and RC only "should be".  One has to create shots at WH that don't exist at many other places in this country, including at its more famous neighbor up the road.  WH is the poster course for firm and fast.  Should conditions matter?  Well, on the extremes when they affect strategy, they should... and damn right they affect one's thinking on EVERY SHOT at WH!  In any case as I've said several times before, I understand the realities at RC and just dolefully wish it could be kept as firm and fast as WH is... THEN we'd have a real horse-race!

2. The above being said, the "overall test" is just one of several factors that I find important in a golf course.  I know you feel the same, Matt - just wanted to set this out with certainty.  To this end, I favor RC overall for greens and greensites... for the many reasons we've stated before about RC.  WH has more demand and interest on the tee shots, however...

3. RC overall has better par 3's than WH.

That's all I can think of for now... In the end, these are both wonderful courses, and Dan Kelly told me in the Barona v. RC thread that one can compare without saying one or the other is "better".  So I'm sticking with Dan's advice.  

TH

[Matt_Ward]

Tom H:

When you have courses of quality (RC, WH and BC, to name just three) you will always have fascinating debates / discussions!

Life is about comparisons -- if people want to shrink from that so be it for those courageous types.

I concede the par-3's to RC ... I believe the par-5's rate the slighest of edges to WH. The difference goes to WH on the quality and diversity of the par-4's. The routing of these holes at WH makes for a greater range of shotmaking and requirements. The differences between them are very tight but when you get a traditional 20-30 mph wind at Wild Horse you best make sure your tee game is ready to go because if you LOSE it there you will indeed face a long day.

I don't see the differences between the greens at RC and WH being as much as the tee game element you find with WH coming out a good bit ahead in that area.

[THuckaby2]

Matt:

Shell-shocked as I am from long-ago discussions regarding Rustic, I'm gonna screw up my courage and say:

I agree with every single word you say there and have nothing to add.

TH

[sheeesh]

TH,

I agree with every single word you say there and have nothing to add.

Isn't that your motto on here?

[THuckaby2]

Mr. Sheesh:

I suppose today it is!  But go read Slag Bandoon's thread on twists and turns... not much agreement there yesterday.

Those who've met me would likely attest that I'm a pretty "agreeable" fellow.  There are worse things to be, I can live with it.

In the end I call them as I see them.  If I agree, I have no problem saying so.


TH

[RJ_Daley]

Matt, I have no credibility in making the comparison because I did not play RC, only walked it! :-/  I have played Barona a few times.  But, I think I am on safe ground to say that due to the locations and the unique sand-soil with constant wind acting almost as a self topdressing, Barona and RC will never fully match the ground game conditions of WH.  I think it is fair to say that the greens at WH due to their ever firm and very fast nature will also not be matched.  RC has some interesting greens/surrounds on generally natural terrain, but I think WH has it slightly beat for variety of shots to play from the approaches and surrounds, with a big edge to the turf conditions again going to WH.  But in all honesty, I prefer the WH greens and surrounds to even SH, (what heresy!)  SH wins overall however in routing, fairway variety and tee to green excitement. And of course unique location at SH is unmatched in the world.

But, to me there are other aspects about WH that are just too unique and a precious rare comodity that I think stands out and unfortunately can't be matched by the two CA courses.  You can't get the homespun, down to earth, hospitality and welcoming feeling that the folks at Gothenburg and the staff at WH offers.  It is not a slam at RC staff per se(not that I know them or have dealt with them directly) nor the staff at Barona.  But, they simply operate in two different worlds.  They cater to maybe 23-25K rounds at WH in the year from March through Nov. While they get the intrepid golf travellers like us and treat them great, they also have the locals that are a group of folks like you don't generally find on a SoCal course. They have a different pace of life and different manner relationship with the golfer there at WH that suits me perfectly.  

Would I love to afford a lot similarly situated at RC or Barona like I have at WH; sure!   For one thing, it would be worth about 10X or more than what I paid at WH.  And, I could see myself content to play RC or BC everyday if I lived there.  

But, when and if the homes are built on all the lots at WH there will be a big negative that will sway the local charm.  I don't intend to build on mine and at that price can afford not to.  Perhaps Barona and RC will remain more 'rustic' without homes encroaching from all sides and that will lend to a favorable location aesthetically perhaps over WH.  Although the backdrop of the big casino-hotel is already a distraction looking south on BC.

But, the only way to match WH in overall golf design features, terrain utilization, and turf management conditions is to build another course out there in the same area using minimalist minded/golf intelligent course designers.   I'd love to see what Hanse and company would come up with in that region, as I would about a dozen other course designers.  

[Matt_Ward]

RJ:

Well said!

I have to say that the folks at RC and BC are also first rate and offer a warm welcome and hospitality few places can match. I have to add that spending time after my round(s) at WH was most enjoyable -- except when I mentioned about Husker football and then the faces went blank!

Wild Horse puts pressure on the tee game and its complicated by the winds that can come gushing through the site. You just have to adjust to the mental and physical aspects that take place. If you can't keep the ball down you will be facing a very long day.

I don't doubt the wind can blow at RC and BC, however, at Wild Horse you have some demanding holes where the wind just really puts you under the gun. A good example being the dynamic long par-4 8th. Ditto the qualities of the 10th, 16th and 18th holes. I played each of these holes into the wind and you just had to really "up the ante" when playing them. In simple parlance -- you had to step on the gas! Even when holes played downwind you had to calculate the final resting place because so much can and does happen.

I still believe the complexity of the greens at RC is first rate stuff and rates a smidgeon ahead of WH -- you just really must zone in with the approaches at RC because you won't be draining too many putts beyond 20 feet.

I also believe Barona Creek is extremely competitive to the other two but WH still rates the edge here as well. At Barona the tee game challenges are clearly beyond that of RC and many, but not all, of the greens at BC are also well done -- how about the par-3 7th, to name just one!

All in all, you have three superb courses and I would like to add Twisted Dune in the mix as well from the Atlantic City area as another good example of high quality public golf that doesn't cost you two credit cards to play.

RJ -- I think it's a stretch to put WH over SH and I can understand where you're going with your arguments but let's not get carried away, OK?

As far as houses is concerned I just hope WH doesn't go the route of so many other courses. The placement of the course next to the corn fields clearly reminds me of "Field of Dreams." They built it and anybody with determination and grit needs to go see all of these courses. You will not be disappointed!

[brad_miller]

How many have played both, Mike Cirba, Geoff Childs, MW, and TH and yes myself. Have had this talk with the 2 lefties in the car traveling back to Denver, think we all had RC winning by a nose, better greens and greensites, much better par 3's and we aren't the golfer that Matt is, so stress on the tee ain't a big deal

When we played RC it had just opened and played quite F&F, but yes NOTHING like WH. If the par 3's where better at WH I might flip my vote. They both are wonderful treats to play, and the greens a WH are very good, just think those at RC are ever so better.

[DMoriarty]

Would love to play Wild Horse.  Hope I get there someday soon.  I appreciate the descriptions and discussion.

The 1/2 par holes are a real strength at Rustic.  They are diverse and many.  (1,3,5,12,13,14, and 7,9,10 for the really big hitters.)  How are the half par holes at WH?  

[jaybrdy18]

Matt,
A year ago or so I made a wish on GCA that maybe someday we'd all be able to talk about the great courses of Nebraska and the subject of Husker Football wouldn't come up.  
Well, I TAKE IT ALL BACK!  
Thanks for mentioning.  
GO BIG RED

[Matt_Ward]

jaybrdy18:

Just to let you know I really do enjoy Husker football -- keep in mind how many Jersey guys have played for Big Red over the years! Does the name Mike Rozier come to mind, among others?

Brad M:

I hear what you're saying, but I believe the green complexes are very close to each other at all three courses. I do give the edge to RC, yet I think you can't just dismiss the tee game challenges so quickly. At RC you CAN relax on a number of tee shots and still be able to get around the layout. That's not likely to be the case at Barona and most certainly that's not the case with WH. You have to assess the totality of the experiences and clearly the putting surfaces and their immediate areas deserve primary attention, but the tee game requirements are no less important in terms of both required distance and placement of the drive.

It's a very rare day when the midwest winds DOES NOT come up at Wild Horse. As a result if you start to lose your ability to hit the ball crisply and in position the possibility for mental and physical anguish will clearly rise. When win is beating on you and you're just not delivering the goods it can make for a very looooooooooooooooooooooooooong day.

Like I said before it's all very close, however, I have WH coming out on top with RC taking the "place" position and BC nipping at the heels of RC in the "show" spot. I will also mention the qualities of Twisted Dune which is also in the league of the other courses, but is looking more from the outside right now. We shall see if TD can rise to the level of the other three in '03.

Before running to weekend chores ...

Ask the following -- does RC or BC have a long par-4 of the quality of WH's 8th hole? I would also say that WH probably has the better overall depth of par-4 type holes, but again the margin is a narrow one over the other two. I only wish RC didn't have nearly all of the long par-4 going in the same direction. Routing and change of pace in direction is no less important a factor.

Does either RC or BC have a short par-4 of the qualities of WH's 15th hole? If RC could modify the challenges of a few of the short par-4's to put pressure on the longer hitter than I think you could make the case but not now.

Which course has the better closing stretch of holes. I'd have to say from #15 through #18 the vote goes to WH in a photo-finish over the other two.

Yes, I do concede that RC has the better par-3's, but only by the tiniest of margins over BC. In fact -- I can see an argument made it's a flat draw. I still want to see someone who can stop a ball on the 16th at BC when the wind is behind them and the pin is flush right! Also, the par-3 3rd at BC is a superb long par-3 that call for sheer skill in getting the ball near the target!

On the par-5 side I don't believe either of three has a superb collection. I believe RC's 1st, 9th and 10th are just so-so although the 5th and 13th are high octane types. At BC the 1st is OK but the 6th(?) is first rate stuff. On the back side I really enjoyed the uphill 13th and the creek that cuts in front is something to ponder about if you're thinking in giving it go with the second. I found the par-5 17th to be another so-so type hole that's helped more in its reputation by the usual headwind when playing.

At WH you have the same problem of so-so holes with the par-5's on the back nine as they both go in the same direction. The only edge I give is the par-5 17th has that very strategically placed center bunker that can give the longer hitters fits! Why RC does not copy such a feature for the 9th and 10th is something I've previously mentioned.

The par-5's on the front nine at WH are also good because they make you shape shots starting right at the tee.

Boy, I'm exhausted just thinking about these three courses. They each have such wonderful aspects but I'm still sticking with WH -- by a slim margin over the other two.

Anyone who really wants to see high quality public courses that are easy on your wallet had better make plans to visit -- you will not be disappointed.

[George Pazin]

How much of RC's lack of firmness is due to its age? Don't you have to be a little more cautious due to grow-in? I don't know much about agronomy. I'd also think the tremendous volume they are supporting would make it necessary to error on the side of slightly (& I do mean slightly) softer conditions.

Looking forward to playing any of the courses mentioned someday. Maybe one of the archies could do me a huge favor & come build something in western PA. I promise I'd play it every weekend.

[Craig Van Egmond]

George,

       I don't think that RC really plays soft at all, its just that WH plays really really firm. Its amazing really. I got pretty good run at RC, but the firmness at WH really dictates how you play.