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.


brad_miller

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What are Rustic Canyon's weaknesses?
« Reply #50 on: November 30, 2002, 02:59:10 PM »
Matt, your travels are amazing to us mere mortals :) Can't help but think you are commenting on Hidden Creek again. Is there any hole besides #5 that you wouldn't tweak at RC? How low did you go?  The greens that you drove(#'s3 & 12) were the architects successful in defending par or birdie at the greensite?

Most importantly, thank you for your time, energy and honesty in making such detailed posts of your golf travels. I don't have to agree with (all or most of) your comments, but do respect you for pulling no punches.

Some bunkering on #'s 9,10 and 12 "might" work and enhance the experience but those fine and very reasonable comments get lost in the total redesign of RC that is the context of your thread. We all might benifit from what your think the greatest strenghts of this course are.


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

A_Clay_Man

Re: What are Rustic Canyon's weaknesses?
« Reply #51 on: November 30, 2002, 02:59:57 PM »
Matt- I couldn't help but notice that your "power and accuracy" line sounds a bit like Hootie and why they grew the rough at ANGC.

P.s. I can't say I have read all your critiques, but this one really shines as it seems much more detail oriented than others I have read in the past. Keep it up.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tim Weiman

Re: What are Rustic Canyon's weaknesses?
« Reply #52 on: November 30, 2002, 03:01:30 PM »
Matt Ward:

Unfortunately, I can't respond to your specific suggestions. I hope someone like Tommy N who is well familiar with the course will do so.

Let me add that I didn't read your post to mean that you didn't "get" the essence of the design. Instead, I'm just becoming more convinced that far too often we forget what the game is like for the bottom 50-60%. We forget that hitting 200 yard drives is very, very hard. Hitting fairways - or trying to place one's tee shot to one side or another of a fairway hazard is also very hard.

I appreciate that Ran began the thread by asking about RC "weaknesses". Further, I understand that the course might not challenge the most talented 10% from the tee box. But, I cringe when this feature is described as a weakness.

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

Tim Weiman

Re: What are Rustic Canyon's weaknesses?
« Reply #53 on: November 30, 2002, 03:04:48 PM »
Matt Ward:

I second those who appreciate the detailed comments you provided. That's far more important than whether or not we share the same view.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

ed_getka

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What are Rustic Canyon's weaknesses?
« Reply #54 on: November 30, 2002, 03:53:21 PM »
Matt,
 Thanks for sharing your thoughts about Rustic. I agree there are some areas that could be improved upon. I appreciated your detailed post and will keep it in mind the next time I play there in a few weeks.    
                                                                                                                                              
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:11 PM by -1 »
"Perimeter-weighted fairways", The best euphemism for containment mounding I've ever heard.

Tim Weiman

Re: What are Rustic Canyon's weaknesses?
« Reply #55 on: November 30, 2002, 04:04:21 PM »
Ed Getka:

Who "attacked" Matt?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Matt_Ward

Re: What are Rustic Canyon's weaknesses?
« Reply #56 on: November 30, 2002, 04:24:11 PM »
Tommy N:

Your majesty -- please realize that in visiting the metro areas of SD, LV, Scottsdale and LA all within one week I was running a bit low on unleaded fuel when I arrived at Rustic Canyon! ;)

You also need to mention how RC presents a practice putting green that mimicked what you find at Oakmont and that the actual putting surfaces were a bit less in speed. Nice trick indeed! Anyway, given my Roberto Duran (no mas) stroke that day I did not capitalize on some scoring opportunities. I look forward to my next go round together. By the way -- I did do a fun up'n down at the 9th! Remember your keen advice?

Nonetheless, I still hold to what I said previously. I thoroughly enjoy Rustic Canyon because it DOES have a vision and it's one that allows all types of golfers the opportunity to enjoy the course.

My only narrow focus was the idea that you can't permit long hitters to simply overpower the course with impunity. There must be some sort of "penalty" that can come forward in the fairway areas. Even you, the almighty Emperor, conceded this point after I reached the fringe of the 12th with my tee shot.

Again, just examine the specific holes I pointed out and a simple tweak will only serve to elevate the overall presentation.

Brad M:

Given the dearth of quality golf in SoCal, a point the Emperor clearly acknowledges, I salute the concept of what Rustic Canyon is -- ditto Wild Horse, etc, etc.

Brad -- who said anything about a total wholesale redesign? I said the word TWEAK. A TWEAK IS NOT A REDESIGN. If you can explain to me how missing a drive DEAD RIGHT on #11 allows you to have a better angle to the green then someone who drives it down the left side and challanges the hazard please enlighten me.

As someone who relishes the long straight tee shot I also know what it takes to keep people like me from simply getting away with murder whenever the opportunity arises. That's what I stated there must be some sort of balancing between absolute raw length and laser like accuracy. Brad, go through the specific examples I mentioned in my post. Even the Emperor himself admitted no less to me about a number of points I raised.

Brad, the strength of the course is the ABSOLUTE DETAIL you find with the putting surfaces and the manner by which the aprons are cut so F-I-N-E to encourage the ground option. At many of LA's top clubs (Riviera, Bel-Air, LACC) the ground game is rather limited if not practical because of the kikuyu.

You have to bring together the flight of the ball and plan for the appropriate run with your approach after the ball lands. That takes a great degree of VINTAGE SHOTMAKING and is something rarely found at so many courses -- not just in SoCal from my experiences. It's not point-to-point stop type golf. I especially liked the boomerang par-5 13th hole, to name just one example. Thanks to David Moriarty I was able to take his advice and "feed" the ball to the hole with my 3rd shot which was a few yards off the green.

RC is about t-h-i-n-k-i-n-g! When you have such rich detail in the manner by which the greens are crafted it is clearly a winning effort from all those who collaborated.  

I'll say this again -- I LOVE THE COURSE. But, fine-tuning and analyzing under a microscope is what this thread is about. I went to the course, played it from the tips, and provided some concrete examples that, I believe, answer what Ran initially wanted to get responses on.

Tim W:

My statements of weakness at RC are clear. Why are the 9th and 10th nearly copies of the same hole?

Why are all of the long par-4's, with the exception of the 11th go in the same direction?

My statements on the merits of driving the ball (i.e. marrying distance and accuracy). Why the endless bailout areas that are sometimes as wide as Kansas?

Tim, it's difficult to respond to any of the things I just mentioned because you have not played the course. Just realize this -- I concur with the feelings and comments of many who thoroughly enjoy RC. Count me as one of those people. Any person treking to SoCal who doesn't stop by and play the course will be sadly lacking in their golf portfolio. However, RC does have specific weaknesses (I use the word with the smallest of "w's") that I mentioned and if those who have played the course would like to respond specifically to the holes I mentioned I'd be happy to hear the counter point rationale. My mind's open -- just convince me. ;)

Adam:

Don't confuse me with the gang that could not shoot straight at ANGC. I'm not advocating the growing of rough (second cut is the PC term, right?) and other such bastardizations. All I suggested was a few tweaks. Heck, if nothing is changed I would still rate RC no less than a 7 to 7.5 on the Doak scale. I just think it could be "world class" as Ran stated in the very beginning. I believe a few of the suggestions I made might be a direction worth exploring. Even if nothing is done the layout has oodles of character far beyond nearly all of what you find in the SoCal area. Although I have to add, much to the chagrin of The Emperor, I still have a fondness in my heart for the Sky Course at Lost Canyons! That would certainly make for an exciting day of golf -- 18 at RC and 18 at Sky! What a total difference in philosophies and styles!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

David Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What are Rustic Canyon's weaknesses?
« Reply #57 on: November 30, 2002, 04:57:59 PM »
I played with Matt yesterday at Rustic Canyon and I would like to point out something to those of you who haven't played with him - he hits the ball a ton.  He reaches places in the fairway that are not reached by 95% of golfers.

So my question to you Matt, does your extreme length color some of what you see as weaknesses at RC?  

« 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.

brad miller

Re: What are Rustic Canyon's weaknesses?
« Reply #58 on: November 30, 2002, 05:02:00 PM »
Matt, thanks for your additional comments that deal with some of the wonderful subtle features of RC.

From memory, leaving the ball out right on #11 might lengthen the hole by as much as 25-50 yards, vs the same drive taken down the left side, I much prefer hitting a 7-8 iron to a 3-4 iron equivalent. (for you it only might be the difference between 7 and 9 iron) That being said there could be pins that on certain days might better be attacked from the right. I will gladly defer to Tommy, David... or GS. But I don't think a bunker right in the 270-300 yard range makes much sense.

As to the issue of all the long par 4's going the same direction, I don't think that is true, the shots that best fit each of these are somewhat different in a subtle sense, but then again I could be wrong, a ariel view of the routing might better answer this question, please remember this is a somewhat narrow property.

In your follow up posts you have begun IMO to hit on what is so special about RC, those subtle features and the integration of the fairways to green, the choice on almost every shot of a different way to play it, thats right almost every shot, your option AIR or GROUND. How many coures can one make this claim of, not enough that is for sure.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tim Weiman

Re: What are Rustic Canyon's weaknesses?
« Reply #59 on: November 30, 2002, 05:11:10 PM »
David Kelly:

Your question to Matt is what I'm trying to get at.

A while back I reported on a study Dusty Murdock told me about. It took place down in Florida where 800 tee shots were measured and the average length was 140 yards.

That's right 140 yards.

Today 300 yard drives have become so common (for a small elite) that we have completely lost sight of how hard it is to hit 200 yard drives. It's beyond the ability of a very large percentage of golfers.

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

DMoriarty

Re: What are Rustic Canyon's weaknesses?
« Reply #60 on: November 30, 2002, 09:13:17 PM »
I was glad to get out and play with Matt because I had yet to play the course with someone who really bombs the ball (although I should note that DavidKelly, who likes to take my money at Rustic, was close to him on more than a few drives).  We had a very enjoyable round, and a really appreciated his comments and observations.  Likewise, I appreciate his written summary of the course.  As always, he is detailed and fair, and all of the comments, both positive and negative, have some merit.   At the very least, Matt has given us something to talk about regarding Rustic, other than the the unabashed praise that many of us offer.  

On the 5th hole, I mentioned in jest to Matt that I don't think anyone should be allowed to comment on a course until they have played it at least 10 times.  This has some merit at Rustic, which is very subtle, especially with regard to the wide fairways and the advantages and disadvantages of the different angles of approach to the greens.  While I lack Matt's skill and experience as both a golfer and as a golf course analyst/critique/reviewer, I will try to address some of his comments from the persective of a hacker who has played Rustic more than a few times.

Quote
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 like the bathtub bunker where it is.  
--First, as David Kelly has mentioned, it serves a practical purpose of encouraging the golfer on the second tee to play away from the 5th green, which is in-play from the 2nd tee (ask Gib.)  
--Second, the bunker threatens the golfer who chooses to ignore the best angle of approach and tries to shorten the hole by hitting directly at the green (most pin placements favor a far left tee shot, which lengthens the hole and brings o.b. into play.)  Incedently, Matt's tee-ball on the 2nd miraculously ended up just right of the bathtub and just left of the companion "cut" bunker (which is about 10-15 yrds right of the bathtub), leaving him a short approach (150 yds) from a less than ideal angle.
--Third, and perhaps most importantly, the bathtub and its companion both come into play on the 5th hole -- thus completing the picture that Matt paints of this fantastic par five.  After a few times hitting "the wall" many golfers play away from the left and left-front of the green (which is protected by the wall) and toward the right and right-back of the green. This brings both the cut and bathtub bunkers into play, and adds yet another dimension to what Matt calls a "superb par-5."  

The 3rd and 12th holes.  I am inclined to agree that these two holes do not present much risk to those that go for the green from the tee.  Both holes invite the golfer to go for the green and both offer very little downside, especially for the golfer who works the ball from right to left.  While both holes offer plenty of trouble left and long (3: nasty bunkers, 12: a tightly mown slope), I have seen very few drives miss left or long (more on 3 than 12). This is perhaps because of the ample landing and approach area just right of each green.  (The bunker well right of the third green is more likely to catch an errant "safe lay-up to the right" than an drive intended for the green.)  That being said, these holes are great fun the way they are.  And, as Tommy noted, a drive on or just off these greens certainly does not guarantee an eagle or even a birdie.   If Gil et al. were to tinker with these holes I would encourage them to do so in a manner which added risk only to the most aggressive tee shots, without disturbing the wide open feel of the right routes.

Holes 9 and 10.  I agree that the drives are very similar and and somewhat uneventful (this is also noted by Lynn, above), but I strongly disagree that the challenge is lacking on the second shot.  Take 9.  Depending on the flag, positioning is everything.  For example, Matt's second shot was well right of the green, and Matt hit a very nice and creative third shot to get close to the right side pin.  While Matt's shot was not easy, he was in the perfect position from which to approach that right-middle pin.  If that pin were were anywhere else, the difficulty of his shot would have increased exponentially. (Gib had a similar experience, running it close from about 100 yds. to a very difficult back-left pin -- I recall that Gib was on the left side of the fairway, which is the ideal angle for a run-up to that pin.)

Hole 11.  There is a big bailout right, but I disagree that going way right actually helps the golfer, especially on a left pin.  First, as noted above, sticking close to the trouble shortens the hole.  Second, I think the ideal approach to a left pin is from the LEFT side of the fairway, not the RIGHT, as Matt states.  This is because of the spine that bisects the green from front to back.  Approaches landing on the right side of the spine are likely to stay on the right side of the spine, leaving a very difficult putt. (I may be wrong-- I was distracted by my own troubles-- but I believe Matt's shot from the right side of the fairway stayed on the right side of the spine, leaving a very difficult putt.)  Shots that carry the spine are likely to hit its downslope, may not hold the green, and may kick into no-man's-land.  

In fact, while it is counter-intuitive to want to approach a green from the same side as the pin placement, this is often the ideal angle of approach at Rustic, because of the vertical features that exist in the middle of many of the greens  (See, particularly, 9, 11, 13, and 18.)

The 4th hole. If this is the worst of the par 3's, this is great praise indeed for the other one-shot holes.  At first glance, the hole doesn't appear to be much-- short, wide open in front, grassed all the way, ample green-- a hole my mother (a permanent 36 index) would love.  But the 4th has proven to be one of the more interesting holes on an interesting course.  The trouble seems to be caused by the hump in the middle of the green, which kicks short shots to the front and/or left, and often kicks shots to hit to the middle-back over the back of the green.  I have seen more variety of shots and clubs on this tee than any other at Rustic.  (I try to hit the ball low and well short of the green, hoping to kick off the downslope of a shallow swale and roll onto the green and over the hump.)  I have rarely seen this hole birdied, except on extreme front pin placements. The 4th exemplies that difficult balance in golf architecture-- building a non-threatening and playable hole for the hacker, while challenging the accomplished golfer.  

Long par 4's.   Except for 11, they all play down-canyon.  I've never thought this was a problem, since I tend to lump long par 4s with par 5s.  By my count, five of the long holes play up canyon and five play down canyon.  

Tommy and Brad M:  I have no idea what Matt shot, but I have no doubt that Matt could shoot a much lower score with a few more laps around the track, especially once he got used to the subtle tilt of the land reeking havoc on almost every putt.   But, it is worth summarizing what I have heard many accomplished golfers say after playing the course:  They really like it, think it is great fun to play, but feel that it lacks challenge for the skilled golfer.  They also feel that they could have gone much lower than they actually scored.  It is a testament to the subtleties of the course that very few of these golfers shoot the scores that they think should have.  

Thanks for your comments and company, Matt.  Hope to play with you again soon.  And keep up your detailed reviews, they provide a great service to the sight.

-David
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:12 PM by -1 »

Matt_Ward

Re: What are Rustic Canyon's weaknesses?
« Reply #61 on: November 30, 2002, 09:27:09 PM »
Before answering some of the additional comments I want to say that I was mistaken in stating LACC had isues with kikuyu. That is not the case and I thank those who communicated that to me. Mea culpa!

David Kelly:

When I play a course I observe all types of players. I was even noticing how the players in front and behind us were playing the different holes.

I've said this many times before and it has been independently backed up by others here on GCA -- I don't rate courses simply in terms of my game. I rate on what a course provides and although the low handicap players as a percentage of the total are small, it's important to see how a course can deal with this type of shotmaking.

I ask you this -- does length off the tee expose RC in some of the way I mentioned? I believe so and the gentle tweakings I'm talking about are just that. I believe I understand the psyche of the better player who hits the ball long. If you don't provide some defense in terms of course design you can be sure such a player will continue a frontal assault with impunity. Is that fair to the player of modest or shorter length? Clearly, that puts a good deal of pressure on the designer because you must anticipate the nature of som many different skill levels. "World class" golf courses do that very thing time after time no matter who is playing.

When I hear the phrase "world class golf" I expect such a course to be capable in testing the better player. When the phrase "world class golf" is used I set the bar very high because you're saying plenty when that phrase is mentioned.

I still have to question how the better player is penalized on a few of the short par-4's if they decide to go with the big stick? All I suggested is that adding an additional bunker -- possibly like the "bathtub" one on #2 fairway to the front portion of holes like #3 and #12 would give the longer player something in addition to think about. Just the added element of having "something else" to think about can raise doubt when standing over the ball and getting ready to "pull the trigger." I'll give you an example of one of the best short par-4's I've played -- the 16th at Pac Dunes. At 338-yards or thereabouts the hole is simply awesome. The green can be driven with the right wind but it must be struck with utter precision. Dire straits await those who fail to properly execute. The same holds true for the 15th at Wild Horse. Compare these holes to the short par-4's at RC and I believe the argument I've made is self-evident.

On the two par-5's -- the 9th and 10th, why not add a bunker or bunkers in the manner that was done at Pac Dune's 3rd hole? Placing a hazard a good ways off the tee directly in the middle of such a large fairway would give the longer player some pause -- otherwise you simply have blast away. If I'm not mistaken the 17th at Wild Horse follows this strategy and it works quite well for those who fall asleep on the tee.

One of the odd characteristics of RC is the desire to have 5 par-5's and an equal amnount of par-3's. Was this by design? Was there no way to say have a traditional balance of four each? If anyone knows the answer to this I'd like to hear more on this subject.

Tim Weiman:

I've been around the game a little bit of time to understand the capabilities or lack thereof of the average player. When I was in high school I and in my early days in college I caddied at a private club in Jersey and saw more average golfers in most summers than many others will ever see.

However, when someone uses the phrase "world class" as Ran did in his initial post in describing RC I have to assess ANY course on the totality by which it faces ALL levels of play. And -- that does include top players and those who can hit the ball a good distance -- even though they represent such a small overall percentage. In my opinion -- you have to factor those type of players into the mix. You may feel otherwise. So be it.

I think you have this notion in your head that I am somewhat ignorant on the realities that Joe Sixpack faces when playing. I am not. When I normally play with my "gang" they include different handicap levels and each of us is able to carry the ball in the air much different yardages. I observe very carefully how a course reacts to each circumstance. A world class golf course is one that can test thoroughly the varied ability levels of players. To simply say a course is a solid layout ONLY for the high handicap player is not bad at all -- it's just not complete in my opinion and therefore a bit lacking to qualify for such a lofty distinction as "world class."

Brad M:

Again, I say this -- how does playing down the left side of #11 help with your playing angle to the green -- even if the distance is shorter? The approach from the right gives you an easier angle to nearly all of the pin placements. Sometimes having a bit more distance is not nearly as important as in having the better angle. One last point on the same hole -- let's say a bunker was placed on the right about 270-300 yards. Who is going to be influenced by that? It's not the average guy or gal -- that's for sure.

Brad, I'm not suggesting or hinting that a host of bunkers be added just for the sake of clutter. Far from it. But strategic considerations can be enhanced all the same.

The issue of long par-4's should have featured more than one hole (i.e. 11th) going in that direction. The 2nd, 14th, 16th and 18th all go in the same general direction. A great routing provides some attempt at design balance to ensure that you will be tested accordingly. Give you an example -- at Pac Dunes you have the long 7th and the long 13th. You cannot play both holes with the same wind direction unless you get the freak day and the wind turns suddenly.

Brad -- I agree with your final sentence. It would be really nice if more courses took the design approach of RC. I don't know how many people in SoCal really understand what RC is about because of all the junk food golf that exists in the region. Too many have cookie-cuttered greens with boring traps that flank so far away from the green to be downright laughable as a functional hazard.

The issue isn't how good RC is -- it's about rising to the level of being "world class." As I said before -- a few minor tweakings and then a discussion can take place regarding its claim to such an elite level.

P.S. I just wanted to add that the 6th hole -- par-3 of roughly 217 yards is one of the finest you can play. An absolute jewel of a hole. Ditto the 14th hole -- a cape hole without the water. I didn't have any wind and hit drive 9-iron from the tips, but I'd love to play that beast when the wind is coming at you big time. Wow!!! I might also add another superb putting surface as nearly all are at RC. If aspiring architects want to know how to put detail into green complexes visit RC ASAP.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tim Weiman

Re: What are Rustic Canyon's weaknesses?
« Reply #62 on: November 30, 2002, 10:19:00 PM »
Matt Ward:

I don't know what Ran meant by the term "world class", but I'm inclined to think that a course that is fun for the vast majority but doesn't test the ability of a small elite to hit tee shots both long and straight might still meet that standard.

Very few people can hit the ball long. A smaller percent can hit the ball straight. I doubt one percent can do both. So, why present this as something that would disqualify a course from being world class?


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

Tommy_Naccarato

Re: What are Rustic Canyon's weaknesses?
« Reply #63 on: November 30, 2002, 10:40:07 PM »
Matt,
I hope our playing partners will confirm how I told them you were on about your 50th round of the week!:)  There is little doubt of your abilities here as well as the miles you put in for the week. In conversations with Matt during the week he was here, he flew into LAX; drove directly to the far end of La Quinta; drove down to Rancho Sante Fe; then back to La Quinta, drove to Las Vegas; then drove down to Scottsdale; back to La Quinta; drove to Temecula; back to La Quinta; drove to Rustic Canyon then finished out the day driving to Pasadena, and then LAX.)(and I thought Ran had energy!)

As far as the 11th, I can speak ions about that hole as it has also been a nemisis of mine to some degree. I have doubled it over and over and over, only acheiving par about once; and then about three rounds ago; actually birdied the SOB by taking on the left trap off of the tee, which actually opens up more then I had ever known!

To my surprize, it was in good shape, with an open shot to the green about 225 yards out. I then hit the best three-wood I have hit in some time with a good draw on it and it hit the front of the approach and scrambled right to the middle left pin, where I properly sunk the putt.

Amazed? I was totally in shock! But of course it was short lived after doubling the 12th!

I have played all over the 11th, and I can say no matter what that if you are not able to carry that short of the green fairway bunker then you best lay-up, and do it short of the hazard taking the left out of play. Why? Because the greenside waste bunker that you saw me in yesterday is similar to the Road Hole bunker in regards to a certain "magnetism" that just pulls about any shot that comes close to it, in.

If one has the gotchies and can get to what looks like the extreme left from the tee or even in the center of the fairway, you can hit a draw into the left pin placement. But as far as the right side of the green.........I still have to learn a thing or two hundred about that one!


David M,
I think it my be also intersting to note that the right green side bunker at the 5th is a sort of large Road Hole-effect hazard as anyone near it sort of just folows the drop-off into it.

I love the fact that I can play Rustic Canyon with a half-mediocre driving game and have the same ball at the end of the day. That is unlike a course, say like Lost Canyons--Shadow where it is a given that you will lose the majority of your drives with the same type of play. Who wants to spend all day looking for lost golf balls that really weren't that far off line?


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

Andy Lipschultz

Re: What are Rustic Canyon's weaknesses?
« Reply #64 on: November 30, 2002, 10:49:26 PM »
Well, if one played RC over the Thansgiving holiday, holes 3 and 12 would seem a wee bit tame. A buddy played on Tuesday morning and I played Thursday morning; both days in with wind gusts that hit 40. My friend hit the 3rd green and my tee ball ended up on the 4th tee box. My 68 year old father hit his tee shot 285 yards on #3.

That said, 12 is too much like 3, but less so. Therefore, I suppose that would be a weakness of RC.

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

DMoriarty

Re: What are Rustic Canyon's weaknesses?
« Reply #65 on: November 30, 2002, 11:01:25 PM »
Tim

While I am glad that Rustic was built taking the mid- and high-handicappers into consideration,  I don't think we need to eliminate the upper echelon when critiquing the course.  Matt should certainly question Rustic's ability to stand up against the longest and the straightest hitters. (The fact that Matt is one of these rare golfers is beside the point.)  I think the course holds up just fine against these golfers.    

By the way, many of the golfers that regularly play Rustic can and do challenge the 12th and 3rd greens (both are down canyon and play substantially shorter than their yardage), especially when they play the appropriate tees.  Many also challenge the longest holes on the course, including the uphill par fives.  

As I said to Matt, Rustic is a course I could play with a scratch golfer and my mother and we could all have fun.  If we had to eliminate the scratch golfer from the above statement, my opinion of the course would suffer.  Fortunately, I think the course holds up just fine, against a the good, the bad, and the ugly.    

That being said, 18 is a hole where we may want to take Matt's view with a grain of salt:  He hit is drive on 18 well right of the corner, over all of the trouble and left himself a wedge to the green.  The area he refers to as the right bail-out area, is, unfortunately for me, the preferred line for those of us who cannot clear all the trouble.  Had he missed his huge drive to the left of the fairway bunkers he would probably have cleared the "bail-out" and been o.b.    
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

David Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What are Rustic Canyon's weaknesses?
« Reply #66 on: November 30, 2002, 11:04:47 PM »
Matt,
I wonder if Hanse & Co. realized just how much shorter the holes going down the canyon would play because of the slope.  Maybe Geoff could fill us in.  I say that because at 319yds and 340yds (312yds and 335yds from the blues) holes 3 & 12 play much shorter than they look on the card.

The only thing I would do to #12 would be to allow the grasses and weeds down the left side and around the left bunkers to grow back so that they pose more of a threat to the golfer standing on the tee.  If it looked as if recovery would be very hard from that area it would make golfers play farther out to the right and away from the green. Even with a sand wedge in your hand it is very hard to get the ball close to just about any pin position on the 12th green.

The one suggestion you made that I agree with you on the more I think about it is putting in a bunker on the right side of the 11th fairway about 270-300 yds out.  As it is now I almost always aim for that area and blast away and I am often hitting my second from in front of the teeing area of #12.  While I don't think this gives me a better angle to the green it does eliminate problems down the left side.  Just something small like in the dead grass area we were looking at would change my approach off the tee.

As for adding fairway bunkers in the middle of #9 and/or #10, how far out would you put them?  I say that because I think the Principal's Nose bunker on #13 is in a perfect spot even though you and I do not have much difficulty going over it even from the back tees.  However that bunker presents a problem and requires a decision on the tee from most golfers who play the hole.
« 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.

Tim Weiman

Re: What are Rustic Canyon's weaknesses?
« Reply #67 on: November 30, 2002, 11:23:28 PM »
David Moriarty:

It's tempting to argue that a course should play for "all types of players", including the top one percent. But, I think in building golf courses, like many other things in life, we tend to err in one direction or another.

It's far better to err in the direction of not worrying about a small elite, than to make the opposite mistake. From what I've heard, the designers of RC had their priorities straight.

Anyway, I'm curious how often people are shooting in the mid sixites at Rustic Canyon. Is this happening very often? Can you just bomb away without also having a good short game?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

DMoriarty

Re: What are Rustic Canyon's weaknesses?
« Reply #68 on: November 30, 2002, 11:34:30 PM »
Tim,

I believe the course record is 67, which has not been matched.  I have also heard that only a few (including Freddy Couples with a 69) have gone under 70.

I have also heard that Steve Pate plays Rustic with some regularity, as well as a few other pros and a many more aspiring pros.  Also, a very large skins game amongst better players takes place once a week.  

I heard from one of the assistants that Steve Pate and another pro played 18 in the high winds last week, and came into the clubhouse laughing and asking to play another 9 holes.

Giving up on building for all types of players is giving up some of the beautiful things about golf, such as average people being able to play and enjoy the same courses as the golfing gods, as well as people of differing abilities enjoying the game together.  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

David Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What are Rustic Canyon's weaknesses?
« Reply #69 on: November 30, 2002, 11:36:10 PM »
Quote
Anyway, I'm curious how often people are shooting in the mid sixites at Rustic Canyon.
As far as I know they're not.  I believe the course record is 66 or 67 and players such as Fred Couples,  David Berganio and Steve Pate have had a crack at the course.

Quote
Can you just bomb away without also having a good short game?
Yes you can bomb away but a good and imaginative short game is required to score well.  I can bomb away with most but DO NOT have a good and imaginative short game and hence I do not score well. Or at least as well as I think I should.
« 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.

corey miller

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What are Rustic Canyon's weaknesses?
« Reply #70 on: December 01, 2002, 08:56:07 AM »
More than most people I have played with Matt is very concerned with and solicitious of the opinions of people of all levels.  However, i do believe we are going down a slippery slope here with the use of the term "world class". It means different things to different people just as i am sure Ran and Matts rankings differ.

Perhaps the reason i am a little sensitive to this is that most non-architecture junkies would equate "world class" with "championship" with "difficult".  This process has led to the disfigurement of many classic courses.  the natural progression is a recent conversation I had with someone about my classic course where they said "some of the holes are not championship holes???? I guess the twelve handicap is putting for par a little to often.

Is anything wrong with "world class" meaning a top modern design?


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

Tim Weiman

Re: What are Rustic Canyon's weaknesses?
« Reply #71 on: December 01, 2002, 11:04:04 AM »
DMoriarty:

My understanding is that 99% of the golfers can enjoy RC together. That last 1% is so insigificant that we shouldn't worry so much about them.

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

Matt_Ward

Re: What are Rustic Canyon's weaknesses?
« Reply #72 on: December 01, 2002, 01:02:10 PM »
Gentlemen:

I agree that the use of the two world phrase -- world class, can mean different things to different people. In my mind -- a course that attains such a lofty standing is one fully capable in getting and maintaining the interest of all types of players -- including those who are low handicap players and those fully capable in hitting the ball a 'decent' ways of the tee. I use as an example the final sentence used by Tom Doak in his decription of Shinnecock Hills -- "A great course to play every day, as well as a proven championship venue, not many courses can claim both." That sentence describes for me what the term "world class" means. It obviously means other things for others. It is for that reason why Shinnecock is to me the finest golf course I've played in the States.

To set the record straight I played Rustic Canyon with three fine gentlemen who know the course as well as they know their own families and I'm glad I had them in tow when I was there. To simply tee it up without such company would have required more visits to understand the "base" complexities of RC.

Second, the wind the day I was there, was clearly not at Santa Ana force -- thank heavens for that. But, I often find discussions about courses can be distorted when the conversations invariably start with either how 'demanding' or 'easy' the hole / course played because of such wind conditions. There was enough of a win to effect certain holes but the conditions were quite stable.

The detailing of the green complexes at RC is clearly world class when compared to what is available for the non-affiliated golfer to sample if that is how the term is applied to some. I only wish Bethpage Black could have such complex and facinating green complexes instead of the circular cookie-cutter types you find there for the most part.

Corey M:

You are dead on target. The average golfer and even those I break bread with in golf media person only understand "world class" golf in terms of naked difficulty. Nothing could be further from the truth. I may come across as a person who is viewed as just advocating difficulty for the sake of difficulty but, I believe, is not accurate.

RC is a superb course and one with gentle tweakings could rise even further. I am fully aware that such a statement can be viewed in the answer you gave in your most recent post --to wit, that would mean to a disfigurement of what the course superb from the get-go.

RC is a top modern design -- no doubt. I just define "world class" in a different manner. I've played a number of superb courses that are breathing down your neck with difficulty crammed into every nook and corner. But remember this -- adding strategic questions to a golf course is not necessarily adding sheer difficulty. It's a small distinction but one I believe people here on GCA can understand.

Corey, you are right -- too often the "12 handicap" players you speak about (there are also others) who value difficulty for the sake of difficulty. I don't believe that's been my point on how RC can become a much more fascinating course with additional shotmaking options.  

Tommy N:

I hear you loud and clear about Lost Canyons Shadow partner. I'm not a proponent about that 18-hole course, but I do like Sky which also has its fair share of detractors.

Tommy, all I was saying is that Sky gives you the Dye feeling of intimidation when you step on the tee. I said this to you before that I believe the Sky could certainly use a few "tweaks" itself starting with the lame finishing hole. I indicated to you previously that management could easily extend the back tee at the 18th a good 30-40 yards and with the downhill nature of the hole you could really have a superb closer for those capable in handling the hole from that position. The guy who sits in the bleachers at Dodger Stadium should NEVER even go beyond the middle tees at the course!

The Sky and RC are as different as night and day. RC is not about intimidating you with forced carries and tough angles and a host of fairway bunkers that will grab you as quick as zombie on a dark night. If you are not hitting the tee ball with a good share of distance and control LC / Sky will eat your lunch and you / me at the same time. I have a fond preference for both styles, however, I can clearly see how people (yourself and others) can easily view RC as being light years beyond that of LC and a host of the upscale daily fee courses that feature the bombardment of obstacles as their sine qua non.

That is why I really like Pete Dye and those associates of his who have followed in the way he has designed courses. However, I also have a preference for those styles that call upon the golfer in a much different way. What Gil Hanse and his talented collaborators have done at RC is truly special and I'll say this again -- if you trek to SoCal and don't get over to Moorpark and play there your golf portfolio is indeed much emptier than it should be.

David K:

We agree on a few things -- why not just move / extend the frontal bunker in the fairway at #3 back at best 10-15 yards. This would make the carry a bit longer and prevent anything but your Sunday best from taking that aggressive line. I also think adding either one or two pot bunker types on the line at #12 would likewise do the same thing.

What's ironic is that someone like me, who does hit the ball a decent ways off the tee, is suggesting strategies to ensure some sort of balance / fairness for all levels of players -- especially those who can't or won't take that type of aggressive play off the tee. I referenced other short par-4's on daily fee facilities that do the vey thing I just mentioned. A simple tweak or two at #3 and #12 will do the same.

As far as yardage is concerned I don't know how much shorter the holes are down canyon, but as you know the course was a bit "softer" than it normally is as you, David M and Tommy N mentioned to me during our time together.

Regarding the par-5's 9th and 10th. There needs to be some sort of thinking man's obstacle off the tee and in challenging the second shot. You cannot have similiar type holes where the thinking ONLY occurs as you settle in for your third shot. Regarding some sort of middle placed fairway bunker -- I say follow the example of what Doak did at #3 at Pac Dunes, as just one example, or the 13th at RC -- although I believe that bunker could have been moved a bit further back, however, that's just a trivial concern of mine.

The fairways at #9 and #10 are extremely wide enough to accomplish this. Again, what I am suggesting is that par-5's need to have strategic implications when you step on the tee -- look at #5 at RC as a great example.

Also, when you have two par-5's that go in the same direction and are roughly the same yardage -- there needs to be some sort of differentiation between them.

I'm glad we see "eye-to-eye" on the fairway bunker on the right side of #11. Drop in a bunker about 270-300 yards on that side and all of sudden the better player has to THINK doubly about where to put one's tee shot. Just the added THINKING element only serves to add to the qualities the hole already possesses and now brings the left side danger back into some sort of meaning / implications.

But, that's been my point about RC. The tee game strategies are no less important than what was clearly accomplished with the green complexes. The world class golf courses engage thinking the minute you set foot on the tee box and continue the mind game through to the last putt. There are a number of holes where the tee game strategy is well done. I happened to notice how you and I played the 480-yard 16th hole. You choose a three-metal, I believe, in order to stay short of where the hole begins to turn and somewhat bottle-necks. A very smart play since you would still have nothing more than a mid-iron to the green that sits below the fairway. I, on the other hand, hit driver and finished about 150 yars out. In retrospect, your decision makes far better sense because you eliminate the trouble that creeps in from the left. That is the type of tee game thinking I am speaking about.

Tim Weiman:

If you don't have a sound short game you WILL have LITTLE success at RC. See my remarks above for the point I am making for the total incorporation of all types of shots.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Lynn Shackelford

Re: What are Rustic Canyon's weaknesses?
« Reply #73 on: December 01, 2002, 01:54:50 PM »
Thannks guys for a lively and thoughtful discussion.  Being a regular player there, I have enjoyed it.

I believe the course records from the back tees are still--
67--Alex Galvan, golf coach at Loyola Marymount U. and class "A" pro.  Good local player for many years.
67--J.T. Kohut, former UCLA player.  He missed by one shot from advancing to the second stage of Tour qualifying.
I believe Couples shot 68 in his visit.  I believe John Pate shot 68.  Fine amateur, brother of Steve.

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

THuckaby2

Re: What are Rustic Canyon's weaknesses?
« Reply #74 on: December 02, 2002, 08:20:22 AM »
Fantastic reading - thanks, guys!  Although I have played this course but once, it is near and dear to my heart, so I really enjoyed all this talk.  I am very glad Matt's assessment came out as it did though - if ever there is a course that can seemingly be overpowered by the long hitter, Rustic is it.  I personally don't mark the course "down" much for that, as the people who can do this are such a tiny percentage of the golf world, but Matt am I very glad you are consistent in your assessments!  That's what I meant when I said WAY up above that I wanted to read what Matt said about it... both because I do find Matt to be so often right on, and because several others have mentioned to me off-line this facet of Rustic, and Matt has often said how he likes to see "pressure on the tee shot" and all too often it's not there at Rustic.  Matt is spot on re all of this.

That being said, how much this "matters" is open to debate for sure as the greens sure do "protect" the course and prohibit truly low scoring by anyone....

I too am curious re #11, btw.  In my one time there, I looked at it and figured hmmm... tempting the left MUST be rewarded... but I'm with Matt - it really doesn't seem to be... I hit a freakin' great drive (for me), actually producing a draw that was as far left as one could be, and still be on the fairway... I was faced with a full 165 yards all carry all over the bunker... I would have been way better off 40 yards right - could have gone right up the length of the green.  Tricky hole... and I read all the other assessments of this... but I remain unconvinced that just blindly blasting the ball out to the right isn't the best play.  Why NOT do this?  Why risk the crap on the left at all?

I kinda like this hole in any case, just because it produces all this disagreement.  If the right-thinking people here can't agree on the best way to play a hole, that speaks volumes.  I'd venture to say there are a few others on Rustic that could elicit this....

Best bang for your buck in golf:  Rustic Canyon.  Weaknesses?  Hell, maybe there are some... but the debate on that even continues!

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

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back