[Tim Weiman]

Tom Huckaby:

I'm a huge fan of "pressure on the tee shot".......at the US Open where I love the idea of narrow fairways (26-28 yards) and very thick, penal rough.

For everyday play, however, pressure on the tee shot does more to take away enjoyment for the vast majority, so much so that a course that avoids it should be given extra points.

It sounds to me like Rustic Canyon got the tradeoff correct.

Remember, not many people can hit a golf ball 200 yards. Even fewer people can hit a golf ball 200 yards and straight. Emphasizing pressure on the tee shot, will just make the game more frustrating for most people.

My advice for anyone who feels unchallenged by a course like RC would be to get out their old persimmon drivers and see how much more fun the game would be.

Sure, twenty years ago I could hit my Powerbilt 300 yards without too much difficulty. But, hitting it 300 yards and straight was much tougher.

It sounds like Matt is just playing with the wrong clubs.

[THuckaby2]

Tim:

I am with you on this, for the most part.  Note above where I conjecture as to how much "pressure on the tee shot" matters... I understand completely how irrelevant this is for the VAST majority of golfers...

Rustic Canyon is FUN, FUN, FUN.  It fills a niche most definitely of affordable golf that makes one think.  To that end it succeeds tremendously as a great golf course.

BUT... Matt's requirement for pressure on the tee shot is a valid one and does matter - to what extent is what's debatable.

People aren't going back to persimmon, nor does one need to do so to enjoy Rustic Canyon.  Read all of Matt's praise for the course....

The point here is, I think, that in a consideration of whether Rustic deserves to be "world class", this is a definite negative.  That's all, no more, no less.

And for a course that really doesn't TRY to be anything other than it is - low key, no frills, fun, strategic affordable golf - does this conversation even need to happen?

TH

[Geoff_Shackelford]

Great discussion, so many points to respond to that I'll try to keep it brief.

The short par-4 issue with 12 and 3 has been discussed before here, and I'll say again that I love the idea that people think about whaling away without consideration for any other option on #12. God bless 'em if they can hit a 330 yard draw and avoid the trouble left and negotiate the green. There are plenty of hard holes to come and this was definitely meant to be a par 3-1/2. I can't speak for Gil or Jim, but this swing away with driver concept was not my hope for #3. It was intended to ask for a little more deliberation on the tee depending on the hole location. This green looked superb in the mix stage but for some reason with grass on it, just came out tilted more to the fairway, and about 100 sq. feet larger than I had hoped. I think if it were a long, "thinner" looking green without the high collar rough on the back side, that the flip wedge shot would intimidate more as it was intended. Firm ground would help too. The OB/road and front greenside bunker aborb a lot of hooks when the ground is firm.

As for #11, I don't think a 270-300 bunker would add much in the way of positive thought, but instead, just more "don't go there" obedience golf which wasn't what we were after off that tee. Instead, I think the bail out drive would be at a severe disadvantage if the course played more firm, as the green slopes, again assuming firmness, would reward drives in the fairway and make approaches from way right much more difficult.

In fact, I would be hesitant to change anything because many of the places where the architecture seems off kilter may be directly related to the ground and the fact it is playing soft. I know there was one week where the greens sped up and the summer heat had things firm, and rounds played much longer. So there is a balance that should be met that would make it easier to evaluate places to tweak.

Finally, you can imagine the humor I find in all of the good players who've let me know it's a nice course, but a little on the easy side, and yet, they haven't seem to have broken 70 yet! Or even broken par, and that's with five par-5's and soft conditions. Ah...scratch golfers...

Geoff

[THuckaby2]

VERY well said, Geoff.  I'm far from a scratch myself, played what was a great round for me, and came away with a score that had me thinking the whole drive home "why wasn't that lower?"  Rustic is gonna do that to people for sure - it's all in the ingenious greens!

Don't know that I'd advocate any changes also - really firm and fast and that course is gonna tear people up as you say and make rounds take forever.  Sure would be fun that way though with no one else around...

Particularly re #11 - great thoughts - interesting to me how the debate goes re that.  I must say I was really fooled, and I'm still up in the air as to which is the better way to go.  Right SEEMS to be better, going up the green... but left is shorter... I kinda think one could play this forever and never come to any conclusion.  To me that means a great golf hole.

Same goes for 12.  Oh hell yeah, bang away.  I can't hit a 330 yard draw - nor a 300 yard draw as is needed from a block up - but still, bashing it out as far as you can just seems to be a natural play there.  Why not?  Ahhhh... but there's the rub.... that green is such a killer it really doesn't matter where you put the tee shot, you're gonna have an interesting and tough second no matter what!  So keep that just as is, thank you...

And re #3, as I told you off line my group of 4 players played that 4 completely different ways.  Yes, for the really strong player it is just bash away, but again he has a tough green to deal with... the genious there is how much thought is required for everyone else... it was very cool how our group did - I bashed over (and barely made it, just short of green); my dad went short and right; lefty brother took left route; bro-in-law went long and right... all four had interesting seconds... the only one who made birdie was my Dad, who hit 4iron, 6iron... classic!

TH

[Tim Weiman]

Tom Huckaby:

I enjoyed your response, especially your suggestion that the debate may be something we shouldn't even waste time on.

But, why not go back to persimmon? If the course really is too easy because of the lack of pressure off the tee, wouldn't using more appropriate technology be the best solution? Isn't that the lesson Simpson was teaching us years ago?

FYI, I did recently get out my old driver and had difficulty hitting much more than 250 yards in wet conditions. Man, you wouldn't believe how much more fun that is. It makes the standard 300 yard drives with steel heads and graphite drivers seem pretty boring. Gosh, how much we have lost!

Geoff:

You guys got it right from all I hear.

[THuckaby2]

Tim:

Just to clarify:  discussion of the merits of the course is very worthwhile.  Debating whether it should be considered among the world's greats is what seems pointless to me.

And no, the titanium driver is not going back in the bottle, not for guys like Matt, not for anyone. It's fun to do and sure, I've done it also - but then again I don't hit it all that far with the rocket launcher I carry these days!

In any case, I doubt Geoff and Gil want this to be a museum piece and force people to use old technology - the point is one doesn't HAVE TO to enjoy the course and be challenged!  Nevertheless it can be overpowered, and remember this course was built in 2001, with full knowledge of today's technology.  For some this lack of pressure on the tee shot is a negative, for others it doesn't matter... thus the debate.

TH

[Matt_Ward]

Tim Weiman:

You really have to help me out here. How do you weigh in with an opinion on a golf course you HAVE NEVER played?

I have an issue with this because I've always believed that actual field work (i.e. going to the site in question) is the only real way to fully understand what is present.

You are surmising things from the comments of others -- not from any personal experience with Rustic Canyon. How credible is that? I want to also emphasize something you overlooked, but Tom H did not. I really do love Rustic Canyon. The course is affordable and the level of detail for the green complexes is something many architects should emulate.

All I spoke about is the lack of tee shot strategies on a number of the holes. Not all of them. All of a sudden you start to segway into some inane linkage to what is done at the US Open / re: driving skill. Hello Tim -- that's not my point at all.

Geoff S:

I played the course one time and look forward to returning. I salute you, Gil and all the others who developed such a fine course. However, I believe there are weaknesses at the course and I would hope those who designed the course take those comments for what they are meant to be.

The 3rd green is much too big for the type of hole it is intended to be. How does not having a strategically placed bunker just short of the green take away from the hole. Ditto the placement of a bunker on the right side of #11? You also did not mention the idea of having some sort of middle fairway located bunker in the driving zone for either #9 or #10. Both of which are similar length par-5's that run in the same direction.

What about the bulk of the long par-4's running in the same direction?

Geoff, I would hope that those who built the course do not fall in love with all the legitimate praise so that they develop deaf ears to counter points when raised. To give you a comparable example -- I am a big fan of Bethpage Black but I am also quite aware of the shortcomings of that marvelous course.

Again, I love Rustic Canyon and believe it's something any person who treks to the SoCal area MUST play.

[David Kelly]

Even though I think a bunker on #11 would work if I were in charge of Rustic Canyon I probably wouldn't do anything- if only because I wouldn't want to start a precedent for making changes to the course.

However what I would do is to try to get the the tall grasses and weeds to grow again in areas like the hazards on #1 & #3, the right side of #10 from about 150yds out, the left sides of #11 and #12, and around a lot of the bunkers. Maybe they will grow out again in the spring but I know a lot of it was cut down.

And I would have seriously rethought the plans for the clubhouse.

[Tim Weiman]

Matt Ward:

You are in danger of suggesting that people who haven't played a particular course can't meaningfully participate in a discussion about it. I've done enough "field work" in my day to know that isn't true.

Go back and you will see I did not question your assessment that the marriage of power and accuracy was not tested throughout the entire course. Having not seen the course, it would be pretty silly for me to do so.

Rather, I questioned your assumption that this feature should be considered a "weakness". Big difference.

[Matt_Ward]

Tim Weiman:

I don't mind differences of opinion when people have actually been to a course in question. Actual field work trumps comments from the peanut gallery everytime in my book. This includes gleaning things from aerials and all such related aspects. When you or anyone else throws in comments about a course you have NEVER played the issue of credibility clearly arises.

If you played the course you would better able know the "context" by which I made my statement concerning how the course is weak in the areas of tee game strategy -- particularly when you look at the details carried out with nearly all the green sites.

Look Tim, I'm not going to get a tennis match in volleying back and forth on this subject. It's been covered before many times and I know my position and I don't need you to lecture me about how you believe you can do otherwise. Suffice to say we agree to disagree.

[Tim Weiman]

Matt Ward:

When a person begins by acknowledging they haven't played a particular golf course, it hardly seems their credibility is in question.

Credibility is more in question if a person suggests that only those who have played a course can meaningfully comment, as you did with your comment "field work trumps comments from the peanut gallery".

Consider the statement "one weakness Pine Valley has is forced carries". Does one really need to have played the golf course to take issue with this statement?

[Mike_Cirba]

Matt;

Thanks for the lively discussion.  

I have a lot of thoughts, but little time at present.  I would like to weigh in quickly on the 11th hole, however, because I do believe that hugging the left side and challenging the hazard has considerable benefits.  They include;

1) Shortening a lengthy par four that plays even longer "up-canyon".

2) An approach that doesn't require a carry over the right-front bunker.

3) An angle of approach that works "into" the slope, and may be the only place to get to a right side hole location on THAT green for most players. (for those who haven't been there, RC's 11th green is almost two greens, bisected down the middle by a ridge.

4) The left side features sort of a natural turbo boost feature that can propel properly placed drives even further.

The following photos illlustrate my points.  

The tee shot, showing lots of room to the right and a risky angle left;



The long approach if one bails right, showing the turbo boost and preferred position to the left, and the right front bunker.  Incidentally the hole location in the pic is on the left side, but imagine it behind the bunker on the right.



The approach angle from the left from closer to the green than one can drive, but still showing the angle as well as the fact that one is working the second shot "into" the prevailing slope.



The green itself, looking rightside to left from behind.



Thanks again, Matt, for your fine and thoughtful report!

[THuckaby2]

Pictures speak many words.  Thanks, Mike!

See, in my newbie inexperience the one time there, I didn't focus on where the pin was... which was back left.  To that pin, I can't see ANY advantage of going left on the drive.  Yeah, I might get the turbo boost and shorten the hole... but my angle into the back left pin is so much better from the right side, I'll take 50 yards back and coming from there.

So the lesson here is check the pin position!

This remains a wonderful golf hole.

TH

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom Huckaby;

To a back left pin from the left side of the fairway, couldn't you just hit your patented draw and work the ball of the center feature on the green and use the existing slope to get it scurrying back there??

Ok..except for the "patented draw", doesn't that seem to be a reasonable play looking at the pic again?  

[Matt_Ward]

Mike C:

Appreciate your thoughts and well done pictures!

Mike, my point is a simple one -- if you have a bunker ont he right side about 270-300 yards you actually force back into play the left side and all its inherent dangers. In other words, a right bunker actually pinches in the better player. You cannot simply blast away and go from there.

It's no less than the thinking that went into the placement of fairway bunkers on the 18th hole at ANGC. As you well know Jack Nicklaus, among others, had made a habit of driving far left to avoid any possibility of hitting the tight tree line up the right side. Even though the angle from far left was not the most desirable it did allow the player to play a second shot without risk of being impeded. The fairway bunkers changed that thinking and in doing so made for a better hole, in my opinion.

Keep in mind that although hitting it "dead" right on #11 at RC may not produce an optimum angle to all pin placements it does in effect take out the possibility of making a six on the hole. If you snipe it left and either lose your ball or get a very bad lie then all bets are off regarding score.

I would also add that even if you hug the left side you do not get a free pass to all pin placements. When the pin is set dead left you still have a demanding second shot EVEN after you've challenged that side. I believe it's a bit better coming from from the right.

My larger point is that the details of the green complexes is clear -- what's needed on a few holes at RC is a tee game strategy that works hand and glove together. At some holes you have it as I previously mentioned (i.e. 5th, 16th, to name just two) while at others you don't or its considerably less so.

Again, just for the record, I love the course, but if anyone is suggesting that RC is perfect or beyond slight modifications I think they being far too protective.

[David Kelly]

Mike,
You are right that it is advantageous to play down the left side on 11 as better approach angles open up on your second shot.  It is just that the disadvantages of coming in from the right are not enough to dissuade me from trying to drive the ball to that side to keep away from the problems along the left.

[Mike_Cirba]

Matt;

Please read my reply to Tom Huckaby re: approaching 11 to a back left pin, only this time...I'm SERIOUS about the "patented draw"!  (Tom's got the Bob Murphy fade going )  I KNOW you could sling one back there, using the center green feature and contour to work one back there easily!

Your larger points are well-noted, and they are certainly food for thought.  I particularly think the 3rd hole might not be quite working as well as intended, even according to Geoff Shack's earlier post.  

9 & 10 are two back to back drives without a lot of demand from the tee and one of them might be an interesting candidate for some cross-bunkering.  

As far as 18, it doesn't sound as though you played the hole like a mere mortal, but most of us have to consider that the corner is an awfully penal and deadly feature.  The hole plays VERY long for those of us who chickened out left.  

[THuckaby2]

Unfortunately Mr. Cirba has played enough golf with me to know my rightist limitations.  Me and draw go together like Notre Dame and getting a first down against USC.  

So yes, maybe this is again MY personal limitations talking... but still, even if I could hit a comfortable draw, I still don't see going left side being worth the risk, with a back left pin.  The angle from the right just seems so much easier... it would be pretty simple to hit a straight shot over the green spine from the right.  Like DanK says, is risking the crap on the left worth it at that point?

Pin on right side, heck yeah, it's worth it.  Left - I just don't see it, even with your wonderful pics and having been there!

TH

[Gil Hanse]

Just a short note, I have enjoyed the discussions, it is great to know that we have built something that inspires thought.  I think that inspiring thought is indeed the true role of the architect.  The other aspect that I love is that the word FUN keeps coming up, it was definitely our intention to build a course that was fun to play.
As for the specific points:  Hole 3 : lots of internal discussion on this hole , and some merit should be given to the thoughts of adding a bunker, or certainly changing the grass type on the back slope that would feed more balls into the left hand bunkers.   Hole 9:  We absolutely fell head over heels in love with the natural contours in the ground and felt that the vagary of the lies, and bounces would serve to provide enough interest to the tee shot and subsequent shots.  Hole 10:  After our visit in May, Geoff, Jim, and I submitted a plan to add bunkering to the right and center of the hole off the tee, to add more character to the shot, and distinguish it from the 9th hole.  The owner has not decided to let us implement it yet, we are hopeful to get a shot at it this winter.   Hole 11:  Mike Cirba hit it on the head with his description of the different approaches depending on the hole location, and Geoff's comments about adding a negative aspect to the hole were also part of the equation.  Hole 18:  Even after throwing an architectural hissy fit we could not overturn the owners decision to put up the fence and the artificial turf in the range.  Large scale plantings are on the plan to help to hide these disappointing aspects of the facility.
Thanks for all of the thoughts,
Gil

[brad miller]

Gil, thanks, stop being such a stranger

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Matt,
I think it would be best to allow you explaination when it comes to disagreeing with Tim Weiman.

You see, Tim and I talk about 10-12 times a week (No fooling) and during the construction of Rustic Canyon, I more or less told him everything I saw and learned in the days I got to visit the site. While he may have this intimate view of the course while never actually having been there in person, he was also invited to the grand opening and unfortunately had to cancel at the last minute due to other personal agenda. I personally emailed him many pictures from the events of the day.

Knowing Tim VERY well, and realizing his views as a TRUE student of the art, I would think it be in the best interest for all of us to allow him some levity and freedom to speak. Like yourself he is very well traveled; an excellent person and a discerning voice to any discussion.

[Tim Weiman]

Tommy:

Thanks.

As we discussed, this site has seen excesses in the form of people expressing strong opinions about an architect without seeing much of his work or about one particular golf course without ever seeing it.

So, understandably, people (myself included) have cautioned against that sort of thing.

But, I worry as much about a form of elitism developing at GCA whereby one's resume of golf course experiences substitutes for careful thinking about golf archecture principles. When a person suggests someone who hasn't seen a course is part of a "peanut gallery", a warning flag about that elitism problem should go up.

"Field work", as some here have called it, is most useful if the goal is to provide course descriptions. But, hopefully we go beyond simply providing descriptions and advance to the point of discussing golf architecture concepts. Clearly, a guy like Simpson, writing before modern means of transportation were available, didn't expect his readers had seen or played the courses he described. That's part of what makes Simpson so good: he valued the importance of explaining architecture concepts far more than just filing a travel report.

I regret missing the Rustic Canyon get together you mentioned, but after seeing hundereds of golf courses and a large portion of the world's best, you realize that you actually don't need to see a course to understand the design concept. Indeed, there are many golf architecture concepts one could discuss without having to go see every example one might find. Do you really need to see every blind shot in the world to discuss this concept? Do you need to fall into every pot bunker to have an opinion about this form of defense? Do you need to putt on every green to discuss matters like green contour and speed?

Obviously, one doesn't need to see any particular golf course to question whether the failure to test "power and accuracy" off the tee really constitutes a "weakness". A better case could probably be made that such features are a strength: why design a course to test something that 99% of the golfers can't do?

I'm glad courses like Rustic Canyon and Pacific Dunes were designed by serious students of golf architecture, people smart, strong and wise enough not to worry about golfers with the most extraordinary skills.

I was very fortunate during my oil industry days to travel widely and see lots of great golf courses, but these days I think I learn more down at the local muni where people who can hit a golf ball 200 yards and straight are few and far between.

[THuckaby2]

David:

Thanks for all the thoughts here.  Let me clarify a few things re my take - remember I've just played there once, also, so take this with an ocean of salt:

Re #11 - What I meant to say is that it's such a tougher shot to a left pin from the left side, why bother trying to keep in left when the pin's there?  You say to me:  

"I still think that challenging the left hazard on No. 11 (435) really opens up the green, and makes birdie possible for a left pin placement.  I haven't seen birdies from the right to convince me otherwise.  Tom Huckaby, if you can carry the ridge that bisects the green (which, as you may recall, is bigger than it looks in the picture) and still hold the green from the right side, more power to you."

I honestly don't see how being left helps to a left pin.  I was there and I was staring at a long shot, all carry over the left bunker, really wishing I was over the right where I wouldn't have to carry that bunker and could just bounce the ball in, up the length of the green.  How is this shot somehow easier from the left?  That I am completely missing... but please do explain.  As for coming from the right, again I only watched shots from there but they all ended up better than me coming from the left, thus my impression.  None of them carried the ridge, but two of them bounced up and over it with little problem...

Re #2:  your impression is true IF the course is kept firm and fast.  It was pretty soft when I was there and in soft conditions, the strategy is lost.  I lost a drive way right, had 210 in, and rifled a 2iron that hit on the green and HELD, about 2 feet from its pitchmark.  Firm and fast and I would have been screwed from the right for sure...

TH

[Geoff_Shackelford]

This is neat to read discussion of #11 tee shot strategy and approach because eons ago when we had just routed the course, I posted a question about the need to be able to see a pin placement on holes that required some decision about being on a preferred side off the tee. It was a rather hotly debated subject to my surprise. This was the hole in question.

Ultimately, placement based on the hole location became a little less black and white for #11, but I don't think to the detriment of the hole because the green Gil crafted exceeded anything I could have seen for that greensite. The array of views expressed here suggests that even in soft conditions, the hole is more of a preferential choice for the approach angle. Though I stll believe that drives bailing out right (well not the 300 yarders) are penalized by lengthening the hole significantly, and by having a much less inviting target.

Personally, I hate hitting a shot from the right across to the left with a hazard to catch the pull. So I think there is a great reward for hitting down the left side, to be setup to hit away from the hazard and to the left pin.

We all have our preferences and the hole evolved into this type of "preferential strategy," which is just fine by me since it works for several holes at the Old Course, and definitely is more conducive to faster, more forgiving play, a big key for a public course. I always thought this subjective strategy was the beauty of #11 at Augusta pre rough, hearing how everyone had a different view on which side of the fairway was best (some wanted to hit directly into the green from the right, some would much rather hit over and away from the water). It's a bit like field goal kicking and setting up which hash marks your kicker wants to kick from (well, that's in college football anyway). To each his own, but you still have to pull off the shot.
Geoff

[THuckaby2]

Damn that was well said, Geoff.  As an inveterate fader of the golf ball, you can understand my bias re coming from the left... but you really nailed this one, my friend.  Well done.

I was just bummed when on 11 tee, I pulled off a miracle shot for me - a DRAW of all things - and then saw what I was faced with, as opposed to my playing partners all of whom went way right.  I wanted more of a reward for pulling off the tee shot, that's all!  

But damn, I've said a few times on this thread and I'll say it again:  any hole that elicits this much discussion and this much disagreement is all right by me.  I love holes that need to be figured out.  Sounds like #11 never will!

It is helpful for us faders if we can see the pin placement, true.  But hell, we'll live.  With a little effort we can figure it out!

TH

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()