[THuckaby2]

DK - that green is set an an angle so my version of back might not be what you're thinking of... It was a longer shot from the tee, but the pin was closer to the fringe by the tee than away from the tee, if that helps.  It was pretty nasty and several putts didn't stay by the hole...

GREAT hole in any case.  Love it.

TH

[Craig Van Egmond]

I must admit to a certain fondness for #8.  I thought it was a fabulous hole even before I aced it.  

[Craig Van Egmond]

Lookout Tom I'm catching up to you, I'm only 1771 posts behind ya.  

[THuckaby2]

Craig - oh yes, your ace on #8 at Rustic is one for the ages most definitely.  Forgive me if I act like an envious prick, as I do when anyone announces an ace, as I've played probaly 5000 par 3's in my life and never had this occur.  I am jealous as hell and no amount of doyenship ever soothes that.  

Good news is I'll have another try this Sunday morning... yep, I'm playing Rustic early Sun am, after celebrating a Trojan victory from the day before.  I may be a little "foggy" but that course will shake out the hangover.

TH

[David Wigler]

Tom,

Given your recent affinity for Vegas, I have an interesting prop bet for you.  We all know that Rustic Canyon is fairly easy to go low at and we all know that they do not play defense in the Pac 10.  What would be the over/under on your score at Rustic + the combined score of the game.

I figure you for a 73 (70 if not for the hangover) and a typical Pac 10 45 - 35 shootout.  Therefore, my bet is 153.

[THuckaby2]

Ha!  Love it, Dave.  OK, so the over/under is 153... my score could easily shoot that out of the water even if they do decide to play defense in the big SoCal battle - hey, USC's defense is pretty damn good anyway - but that does seem like a fair number.  Well assessed.  

BTW, given my ps message to Lynn I just cursed myself to 3-jack at least 8 times.  So that too might throw it out of whack.

Just in the interest of full disclosure also, we tee off at 6:15am.  It's likely DARK then.  I was thinking that might cost a few shots but hmmmm... maybe that will help....  

In a any case, in the spirit of defending my game and the defenses of the Pac10, I shall take the under nevertheless.  You name the stakes.

TH

[Curious George]

I'm going to be interested to read Matt Ward's assessment after he plays it, however.

WHY?

[THuckaby2]

CG:

I respect Matt's assessment of golf courses absolutely - it seems to me that of the courses I've seen that he's discussed in here, he is always dead spot-on and I learn a lot from what he says.

To that end though, Matt does like to see "pressure" on the tee shot and does require his courses to have a certain challenge in all aspects to be truly "great."  Matt, if and when you read this, please do correct me if I'm wrong.

This being the case, I will indeed be curious to read what Matt says about Rustic after seeing it.  Given the current conditions, it seems to be there is very little "pressure" on the tee shot, and this is particularly true for the long hitter.

It's also possible that I am completely off my rocker re this - thus I want to see what Matt says!  

TH

[Matt_Ward]

Tom:

I've heard a great deal about Rustic Canyon from a variety of people who I respect. Many of the comments have been quite positive and I plan on playing the course during a writing story I'm doing for a few publications. I will be in the immediate LA area starting this weekend.

When I hear that Ed Getka places Rustic Canyon just two spots behind The Kingsley Club that says a lot.

Regarding my overall review of any course I do place an emphasis on the tee game. I want to see how the architect has crafted a consistent strategy / vision on combining the aspects of length and positioning. I also try to see how the architect has added a variety of ways in order to play the holes.

Last thing -- there are very few courses that I have played that I would bestow the word "great." I agree with Lee Trevino when I interviewed him a few years ago that the word "great" is used much too loosely. I will say this -- the people who said I would thoroughly enjoy Wild Horse were right on target and these same people feel no less about Rustic Canyon. I'm itching to play it and see firsthand.

It's getting a bit chilly now in the Northeast and it's time to head W-E-S-T!!!

Tom, if you and / or any other GCA poster happens to be free during the last week in November maybe we can hook up together!

[THuckaby2]

Would love to meet up with you, Matt.  Please do keep me apprised of your plans.  I'm going to SoCal for a quick up and back this weekend, then after that no more trips... but if you get up this way maybe we can work something out.

Re Rustic, we are simpatico.  I am still looking forward to your assessment...

TH

[ed_getka]

Tommy,
 I never said I thought #8 would be unplayable, just a tough, intimidating hole. Like Tom H. I wish the left side of the green was mowed fairway height, but I could see how that would slow the pace of play.

[TEPaul]

Since I can't stand the magazine rating and ranking stuff anyway I really do hate to give them any valid criteria to use to judge the weaknesses of Rustic Canyon but what the hell, in the spirit of full disclosure, I'll give them Rustic's one real weakness!

The last time I heard Rustic's snapper soup was nowhere near up to par!

[Craig_Rokke]

The snapper soup may, indeed, not be up to par, but they have a pretty good energy bar! Does anyone else feel that they could have done better with the look of the clubhouse?
You know--something a little RUSTIC?

[Mike_Cirba]

Craig;

You're not getting off that easy!  I was excited in speaking to Tommy N. the other evening when he told me you were out there, so now I'm going to put you on the spot and ask you to give us your impressions!  

[Craig_Rokke]

Mike-
I'll get back to you on the impressions. I may have to brainstorm a while to come up with some weaknesses.
I have a pretty good list going in my mind of the positives.

[Gib_Papazian]

I'm going to have to agree with Golf's Most Beloved Figure on this one. Playing Rustic Canyon was one of the great joys of my golfing life and the perfect course for anyone interested in how to design a golf course everyone can enjoy from childhood to their dotage.

The great Michael M. Thomas posted something a few weeks back on the subject of "resistance to fun." There was not a single shot on the entire golf course where I was not stimulated in some way to try a different kind of shot . . . I recall being 100 yards from the green on #9 with the pin set behind an abrupt swale and the sheer thrill of watching an 8-iron bump shot wander up to the green and totter next to the flag.

Like Garden city, Rustic is appealling because so many of the fairways simply blend seamlessly into the putting surfaces. The greens are an appropriate speed for the superb contouring - proof of the sheer stupidity of trying to stimp at 12 or 13.

The only complaint I have is that the front side seemed a bit of a shoehorn job and that several of the holes lacked a visual clue from the tee on the eventual direction of the hole. The tee shot on #2 looked oriented to the green on the right side, which I found confusing. The par-5 over the wash also seemd to orient the player to the 2nd (?) green.

Trees are by nature a poor crutch, but one or two well placed plantings might eliminate this routing confusion.

My favorite feature on the course? I think it was the waste area nibbling into the fairway on the 16th hole from the right side. I was 190 out and had to lob a 6-iron just past it to run the ball onto the fall-away green.

The 18th is really awful with that hideous driving range as the target, but Neal suggested a line of trees and i agree.

Besides that, I love it and could play it every day and never ever get bored.

[TEPaul]

Gib:

Didn't you know that dialing down on 'visual clues' is the new/old coming thing in really cool golf courses?

Hanse & Co is really starting to latch onto this new/old concept!

They're removing "road mapping" entirely from their designs. They've even got this mad genius, Bill Kittleman, who's just about perfected a new wrinkle in architecture called the "confusion factor".

Whole groups of golfers have been known to leap up from their post round drinks, hollering--"We've figured it out!" and run back out on the course to try one of Hanse/Bill's high confusion factor holes again!

What could be better than that? Golf at Hanse courses is becoming one big merry egg-hunt--as in--"Hey, Gib, you're ball is over here, can you believe it?"

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

Tom

Have you ever played with Gib?

He (and you!) would save huge amounts of energy and time if you just spurned actually hitting tee shots, walked out to a position down the middle 250-260 forwards, placed your ball on the ground and said to all and sundry:  "This is where I would have hit it, had I deigned to hit it!"

Rich

[TEPaul]

That doesn't matter anymore Rich! And it's boring anyway being straight!

I'm really into this new/old Hanse/Kittleman "confusion factor" concept. I look forward to the day when two separate groups arrive simultaneously at the same spot on a fairway only to realize neither one of them should be there but that group way over on another fairway should be!!

Roadmapping in architecture is out! I was just reading a description of C.B. MacDonald's in his book "Scotland's Gift Golf" (a gift from that unbelievably kind man--Pat Mucci) about his memorable years at the old St. Andrew's that the group to arrive second on a green would stand aside for the group that arrived first!

How great is that! Only today I'd add to design a third group whose balls are also on the green but who shouldn't even be there!

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

Tom

You are going to have to go back to JakaB's previous posts on courses with 2 greens and 11 tees and/or some highly complicated theoretical mathematical works on topology to think of a green complex that could (within reason) have balls from players playing 3 different holes on their surface.  I know that Kittleman probably has this conundrum locked up in his brain, even since he did a Vulcan mind meld on me at Applebrook, but it's beyond my current imaginative capabilities.......

[TEPaul]

Rich:

These greens would not need to be designed for three separate groups since two of those groups shouldn't even be on them at the same time!

I'm just thinking out of the box to a maximum of all the new "confusion factor" could do.

But clearly it would never work because it would slow up play and probably create a number of fist fights (the latter not being necessarily a bad thing in and of itself).

There's an interesting section in the back of Cornish and Whitten's book listing some of the interesting and novel ideas that have been tried or at least thought of throughout the evolution of golf architecture that for one reason or another had to be relegated to the dust bin of architecture!

But it's always fun to drag them out of that dust bin if only to consider other ramifications that may not have been considered that might make them actually work somehow.

Clearly the most fascinating of all those ideas would be Thomas "courses within a course"!

I really believe that could work and if it was done really well would be absolutely landmark!!

The only problem with it is it would require a rather unusual site (very few trees) and also a ton of width! And of course routing, concept and design would get immensely complex and a ton of work.

But the ideal would not just be a course with many permutations or routing progressions but one that although all open and visible a golfer would not really even see or be aware of the other permutations when he was playing any single one!

To me that would be the ultimate in design!

[Matt_Ward]

I had the pleasure in playing Rustic Canyon during the Thanksgiving holiday period and have just returned. I always enjoy taking a red-eye flight back home because it gives me time to analyze what this thread originally mentioned: Does Rustic Canyon have any weaknesses?

First, let me say flat-out that I was most impressed with the quality of the design details -- particularly with the putting surfaces. My compliments to all involved starting at the top with architect Gil Hanse.

Given the absolute dearth of quality golf available to the public throughout Sothern California the qualities of Rustic Canyon are clearly there for all to see. The nature of the greens presents a wide variety of shot options throughout the round and there certainly is a maximum "fun" element when playing similar to the feelings I had when playing Wild Horse in Gothenburg, NE. Rustic Canyon excites the senses because it DOES have the twin aspects of the ground and aerial games.

Given all the pleasures of playing the course I have a few "weaknesses" to offer.

First, the driving demands at Rustic Canyon are, with just a few exceptions, quite tame. Let me hasten to add that I am not suggesting that poor driving is acceptable. However, the absolute need for a complete marriage between power and accuracy is not of the highest order. You do have room to spray the ball and as long as you can play towards the green and in some cases whether you're on the left or right side of the fairways can often mean little difference. There are preferred driving positions but they are not required ones in order to score low.

Let me highlight a few examples during my round. The 2nd hole is a good long par-4 of 457 yards, however, the "bathtub" bunker needs to be placed more in the middle of the fairway so that the golfer must negotiate his way either around or over. The existing bunker position favors too much towards the right side and therefore becomes less of an issue than it otherwise might have been.

I drove the par-4 319 yard 3rd hole. The fairway bunker that guards the center point between tee and green should have been placed a bit further closer to the green in order to make the "carry" a bit more of a challenge. Expanding and angling the right hand bunker is also something that would keep the player in check from simply bombing away at the green with impunity.

I was about one foot off the green on my tee shot at the 340 yard par-4 12th which features a unique putting surface, however, the need for some sort of "thinking man's bunker" in or around the green would make for even more careful thinking at the tee. I was told by Tommy N that there has been some discussion on adding some sort of solitary bunker near the entrance to the mouth of the green so that tee shots would have to skillfully avoid it if the attempt to drive the green is made.

The par-4 11th at 435 yards is a good hole, but here the player can miss far right and HAVE an even better angle to the hole than if you skirt the left hand side and take on the lateral hazard. This is especially so when the pin is placed in the more demanding left rear position which is where it was when I played. I'm still scratching my head on that one. If ever a hole cried out for a fairway bunker that pinches in the right hand side of the fairway this hole certainly does. A bunker that starts at 270-300 yards in that general location would keep players from simply bailing out without any worrry.

The same can be said for the final hole -- 460 yards. Here the golfer is given a complete reprieve if you simply "miss" it to the left. Might a fairway bunker on that side "force" players to play towards the center and right side of the hole and thereby elevate the risk if you faily to execute properly?

Two of the weaker driving holes are the 9th and 10th. Both holes are rather similar in length -- 560 & 572 yards. Both play in the same direction. And both suffer from no real strategic aspects on the tee shot and second shot. It's simply lacking. I would have loved to have seen a bunker placed in the middle of the fairway on at least one of the holes to spice things up in the same manner as you find at the par-5 3rd hole at Pac Dunes. Also, challenging the player on the second shot would be helpful. At the 10th you can play away from the lateral hazard on the right without any consequence. Might a small bunker on the left side about 90-100 yards have worked?

What's a good example of a great driving hole? The par-5 535-yard 5th hole is of the highest order indeed. I hit a good tee shot that ended up on the favored line and left me about 200 yards. I hit a seven-iron a hair thin and ended up short. The hole says at the tee to play down the right side because it gives you the better angle to the green with your second. There is a diagonal hazard / wash that runs from left to right and creeps in quite closely on the right side for those trying to position their tee shot on that side. The more you play right the greater the risk in reaching it. The golfer can avoid that by simply driving down the left side to avoid it but here is where Rustic Canyon shines -- even if you should bomb a tee shot down that side you must then contend with a green that is protected by an elevated "wall" that also runs on a diagonal. What an addition to the hole! Fail to carry it and your ball will slide further left and leave you with an even more daunting 3rd shot. A superb par-5 because the thinking / options are tied so well together.

The other weak aspect I found with Rustic Canyon is that with the exception of the 11th -- all of the long par-4's at the course run in the same direction. The 2nd, 14th, 16th and 18th all go the same way. It would have been nice to se at least one more long par-4 go in a different direction.

I also think having five par-5' and five par-3's is one too many in each category given how the hole stack up in a collective sense. Having either the 9th or 10th as a long par-4 would add in this regard. I also believe that the 4th hole is the weakest of the par-3's even though the horseshoe shaped green is well done

During my round David Moriarty said it best. Rustic Canyon provides a sense of "fun" for all types of players. Clearly, the course is well beyond the qualities of golf in the SoCal area but that isn't really saying much since so little of high order golf is available although I believe the nearby Sky Course at Lost Canyons is a special place of a completely different character and presentation.

In re-reading this thread I agree with Gib when he said you would really never be bored with the course. Too many of the courses in SoCal and even those in nearby Nevada and Arizona are utterly pedestrian in their strategic consequences and are nothing more than the pro forma Happy Meal Design 101 presented time after time after time. It's more of the same eye-candy and downhill par-3 type holes with fronting water hazard and out-of-play flanking bunkers.

I really enjoyed Rustic Canyon and the vision it presents is clearly needed so that the golfing public can better understand what golf can be. Kudos as well to the superintendent and staff for the fine conditions given the young age of the course. I was told by those I played with that the turf was not nearly as firm as it has been. I would love to see such turf situations in a future visit.

Public golf needs more Wild Horses and Rustic Canyons. I don't know if future "tweakings" will be done, but Rustic Canyon can certainly add some elements that would only enhance the pedigree it cleary has.

P.S. One last note -- given the high price structure it costs to play golf in the Southland -- Rustic Canyon is a major league bargain at $35 and $45 on weekdays and weekends respectively! Carts are $10 extra but the course cries out to you to walk. I can't wait to return because it's a course that has "fun" written all over it.

 

[Tim Weiman]

Matt Ward:

Despite Tommy N's urging, I haven't made it to Rustic Canyon and so I can't respond to your detailed comments about the course. But, I was interested in your comment about the course lacking the need for a "complete marriage between power and accuracy".

A while back someone criticized Pine Valley for the penal nature of its many forced carries, pointing out that asking golfers to clear 180-200 yard hazards is too much for a very large percentage of golfers. The writer compared PV unfavorably to the Old Course, where no such requirement is present.

At the time, I had trouble with the notion that Pine Valley's forced carries were a weakness. Sure, it may not be an ideal course such as St. Andrews, but PV was never meant to be for everyone, I don't think.

I wonder if the same concept applies to Rustic Canyon. Only a small percentage of golfers can consistently hit drives more than 200 yards. Even more difficult, it seems to me, is hitting fairways. I'm guessing the bottom 50% of the golfing public doesn't hit more than a couple fairways a round.

Perhaps Geoff or Gil might comment, but I understand Rustic Canyon was conceived with these realities in mind, just like George Crump went in the completely opposite direction with the PV design.

If so, I wonder if describing the wide fairways as a "weakness" makes sense. So few golfers combine power and accuracy that I'm inclined to think challenging such players should be a secondary consideration at best.

The temptation is to argue that a golf course should be all things to all classes of golfers, from the beginner to the most skilled. But, I wonder about this notion. Perhaps it is better to discourage this ideal, to candidly acknowledge that not all courses can fit for all players.

Going this route would mean the absence of a need to marry power and accuracy is a virtue rather than a weakness.

[Matt_Ward]

Tim Weiman:

Let me further clarify the statement you mentioned. I fully understand and "get" the essence of Rustic Canyon. It is to provide wide playing angles from the tee.

As you get nearer the target / putting green the course puts high emphasis on the type of shot you will be able to hit DEPENDING upon your position from the fairway. I personally don't believe you can give endless bail-out options to the player. I'm not advocating single lane highway fairways by any means but a tweaking of the holes I indicated.

Rustic Canyon is a first rate layout that personifies rich detail and completely runs 180 degree direction away from the blah SoCal layouts you generally find. Nearly all of the putting surfaces are well crafted. And, just like Wild Horse, proves there are different ways to "test" players of varying ability levels without going into overkill with emphasis on the penal thrust of design that is often favored on many upscale daily fee designs I have played.

Tim, let me state that I believe driving the ball should be elevated and combining the two aspects (power and accuracy) I mentioned is a point of emphasis I try to assess when playing. I provided specific examples where that can be done at Rustic Canyon and such "tweaking" would not compromise the thrust of what makes the course so much fun. I personally believe it would enhance it.

[Tommy Naccarato]

Matt,
The reason why I like Rustic Canyon so much from the tee is because how important it is for all certain types of players to set their drives up in relation to how they are going to play the rest of the golf hole.

In the wide perspective of things, you had a pretty wide fairway there on #1, and look how you played the hole!:)

While making a great recovery, you placed yourself in-line for an easy bird. However, you still ended up with par and I sense, that for an easy opening that had to be of somewhat disappointment for you. You had your chance to score--and yes, the greens did there best to provide you with the challenge. Ironically so did #9 fairway!:)

The same would have to go with #3. With Matt's incredible length off of the tee, he was on the short and quirky 3rd, with a legitimate chance, putting for eagle.

He walked off with par.

And while that hole may have some weakness because of the width of the green, or even better, as David Moriarty has mentioned, the back-side being a tad bit too much sloped to allow the big-hitting Tiger's to roll-off into the magnificent back blind sand hazards, the hole can and does claim its vicitims.

In his feature interview, here on GCA, Robert Price said, "It is the micro forms - frequent changes of slope direction (i.e. frequent minor undulations) which provide the challenge to the golfer both on the fairways and the greens.  Smooth (flat) horizontal surfaces should not be the dominant characteristic of a modern golf course! So is the characteristics of Rustic Canyon. So fine of detail in its shaping--or lack of it, yet, so different when compared to so many modern designs where it is all graded-away and renewed with undulating drifts and curls that not only look man-made and constructed but, even worse, engineered for the set-up of only one paticular shot.

The fact is, I want to be challenged no matter if I hit a great drive or not, and I can only hope that each and every challenge may be different from the next to enhance the experience. This is where the memories come from, as well as the ability to dictate GREAT golf. And wherever that drvie may come to rest. I know what is up-ahead as far as where I have to precisely place the ball on the green to achieve my goal--getting the ball into the hole in the least amount of strokes possible.

On #10 for example, as many times as I have had trouble driving on that hole, I still have hit some great shots throughout the width and area of where my length takes me. It truth, it doesn't matter where the ball is on the fairway, I just have to think of one thing--making sure I don't end up caught in the corner where I would be forced to deal with the sand hazards that lie between me and the green, as well as decided where the hole is at on the putting surface. The green is that deceptive! However, I can put my mind at ease if I don't have those hazards to carry, and only have to concentrate on the placement of the hole by not getting the ball caught in the corner and placing it 100 yards to 150 yards away from the pin. (There is actually no difference in the shot, only the skill to get the ball to run to the hole and not to try to fly it which can bring on further trouble with the right side.

Matt, it certainly was an entertaining day and hope you find the same enthusiasm on return visits as I do when I know I'm going to go out there to play the course weekend and week out.

Also, for the most part, every course I love has weaknesses, and I love each and everyone of them because they me how the game is not perfect to every shot in one's bag. I also know that those weaknesses can and do have their way with me at every chance, no matter the handicap or strength of golfer I might be.

Hopefully that is the same allure that keeps us of coming back.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()