Not Enough Challenge For Skilled Golfer

[Tim_Weiman]

On another thread David Wigler offered the following comment to explain why he would not rank a course (Rustic Canyon) Modern Top 100. The course, David wrote “simply does not present enough challenge to the skilled golfer off the tee”.

Interesting, I thought.

It reminded me of a conversation I once had with Bob Lewis about Pine Valley. Essentially Bob described Pine Valley as being all about the approach shots and play on the greens. Tee shots weren’t especially challenging at his level, I recall Bob saying. That made sense to me because the last time I played Pine Valley, other than the infamous par 3 fifth hole, only #9 tee shot really scared me. In short, the course had plenty of width so that even playing at about an 8 handicap (at the time), I found the course much like Bob: most of my trouble came on the greens.

So with that in mind I’m wondering whether anyone applies the logic David used to assess Rustic Canyon to assess Pine Valley. Would anyone move Pine Valley down in the rankings simply because it doesn’t really challenge skilled golfers off the tee? Does it make sense to assess the merits of a course based on how tough it is for skilled golfers off the tee?


P.S. For those who don’t recognize Bob’s name, he is the competitive course record holder at Pine Valley and a former runner up in the US Amateur. Bob also has more Walker Cup wins than all but three people in history, I believe. As such, he clearly qualifies as a “skilled golfer”.


 

[A_Clay_Man]

You've caught me before with sarcasim haven't you Tim?

 My take would be that maybe Rc should move up in stature being compared to PV and what came to my mind, the design intent with no rough at ANGC.

 Hit it anywhere, and have fun on your approach.

[Tim_Weiman]

Adam,

Actually, what was even more striking was David's comment that RC was Top Ten within sixty yards but nonetheless not Top 100 due to the failure to challenge skilled golfers off the tee.

Having not seen Rustic Canyon I can't really comment about either statement. However, the combination of those two statements seems odd - with all due respect to David.

I cited the Pine Valley/Bob Lewis example because it clearly serves to illustrate a very highly rated course that really doesn't challenge players of Bob's quality off the tee.

Another example one might cite is Pinehurst #2. Does the 15 handicapper step up to any of those tee shots and feel intimidated?

Truthfully, I can understand someone arguing that to be say Top 10 or 20, the course must place serious demands on tee shots. But, again, if a course is really Top 10 from sixty yards in, how could it fall all the way outside the Top 100?

Personally, I'm skeptical about placing too much emphasis on accuracy off the tee. Experience tells me that only a small elite have this skill and I'd hate to encourage this standard to be considered a top rated course.

But, again it really is the combination David described that just doesn't quite add up for me.

[THuckaby2]

Tim:

My thinking here is that "challenge for the skilled golfer off the tee" is just one of many factors that would go into assessing a golf course, and really would only be noted on the extremes; that is, if it is VERY difficult or VERY easy.  And even then, it's a very minor point... one that perhaps makes a difference only in the type of quibbling and fine detailed nit-picking that goes on in ranking golf courses.

To that end, I'm most definitely on record here as agreeing with David W. in his assessment of Rustic Canyon, with the only difference being that I'd say it lacks "interest" for the highly skilled golfer off the tee rather than "challenge".  That's a key difference.  At RC, it has been stated time and again by David M. and the other diligent supporters of the course that angles in do matter, and thus the "challenge" would be there off the tee as advantages are gained by being on the proper side for approach.  David W. might disagree with this; I've come to punt on it and just trust those who have played the course many times, such as David M.  So I'd say the challenge is there, but the interest still is on the low side... the skilled player just doesn't need to think as much as he might on other courses on his tee shots, and so thus might be a little less interesting.  One way or the other, the challenge at RC remains in the greens primarily - just as Bob Lewis seems to have assessed Pine Valley - simply because the greens and green surrounds are SO ingenious and SO great that it trumps big time the challenge found off the tee, whether or not one believes such exists at all.  And the greens are so great that we can forgive the course for the tee shots, if such forgiveness is necessary, as David M. and the other supporters would vehemently argue against.  In the end, it just doesn't matter that much, except when one is really splitting hairs.

I've never seen Pine Valley, so I can't assess how all this applies there.  I can only trust Bob Lewis' assessment, which does seem to make sense... But in any case, given the incredible sea of positives about PVGC by all accounts, this would definitely be one drop of salt water in the overall assessment.  By that I mean, yes, it might not present a huge challenge for Bob Lewis off the tee, but who cares?  The good so overwhelming outweighs this one tiny bad.

The same assessment can be made at Rustic Canyon, perhaps to a little less extreme extents... the good there absolutely outweighs this one little bad, maybe not to the point of irrelevance as at PVGC, but still enough to make the overall assessment a very, very positive one.

But Adam's right in any event - just being in the same paragraph as PVGC is lofty praise indeed for the humble little public course in Moorpark, CA....

TH

[A_Clay_Man]

Shiv- Thats why we pay lawyers. There are those whose opinions are trustworthy, and since I haven't seen RC I trust the info I've received here thru discussion.

What comes to my mind is that even tour players don't know where they are gonna hit it, day to day. So what skilled players are we talking about? Also, with the greensites that have been described at RC, the pin positions, day to day, would dictate the placement of drives. Assuming of course that the skilled player knows what shot he is going to hit next, without fail. Now that's challenging.

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom Huckaby:

I'm not sure exactly what you meant by saying you agree with David Wigler. Are you saying that Rustic Canyon is Top Ten material 60 yards and in, but because the golf course lacks "interest" off the tee for skilled players it fails to achieve Top 100 status?

My problem is two fold:

a) saying a golf course is Top Ten sixty yards and in puts it in such lofty territory that unless we put a very strong emphasis on challenging skilled players off the tee, it's hard to imagine how the course would not be Top 100

b) clearly, there are some very prominent designs which also feature width (e.g., Pine Valley, Pinehurst, Royal Melbourne, etc) where nobody has ever suggested this disqualifies them from Top 100 consideration

I cited the example of Bob Lewis and Pine Valley because it shows that historically we have avoided devaluing a course simply because of width or the failure to "challenge" or "interest" skilled golfers off the tee.

What's interesting is that Pine Valley was conceived as being a test for skilled players while Rustic Canyon - I'm told - was built more with the masses in mind. Yet both feature width.

I'm also at a loss to understand why anyone would place so much value on testing skilled golfers off the tee. The ability to hit long and straight tee shots is something that only a small, elite minority of golfers possess, indeed a minority so small that it hardly seems worth much, if any, emphasis at all.

Now, if we were trying to decide between Top Ten and Top Twenty perhaps this business of testing skilled golfers off the tee might come into consideration. But, only to split hairs, I would think. For the most part, isn't it better to emphasize a balance of challenge and fun that just might forego challenging skilled golfers off the tee a la Pine Valley?

[Mike_Cirba]

Tim;

And let's not forget that we're talking Top 100 "modern" classification here for RC...not Top 100 comprehensive.

If a course has green complexes that would put it in the Top 10 modern, I find it somewhat perplexing that it could be so boring from the tee to move it completely out of Top 100 consideration.

Having played RC, I can assure you that in my opinion, it's hardly boring from tee to green....just not always obvious and blatantly self-evident.    

For instance, David brings up the fact that there are 3 short par fours he can attempt to reach with his drive and I understand he hits it a long way so I'm sure that's true.  

However, I played there with 2 other long hitters and we all took driver on the 12th.  These fellows are some good players all around (John V & Don Mahaffey) and after all hitting driver, we ended up with two bogeys and a double.  

Probably not the smartest play in retrospect.  

On many holes, the location of the cup dictates the preferred angle and driving position.  On others, such as the 5th, 7th, 11th, 14th, and 18th, a big driver can dare to bite off as much as they can chew for preferred position.  Other holes feature center bunkering which must be considered and negotiated.  

I'm not the longest driver in the world...perhaps about 260-270 or so, and there were only a few holes where I felt I could just blast away mindlessly from the tee, but when I did and got out to my ball, I would often feel that I'd been somewhat deceived when I considered my position.  

[David Kelly]

Does "challenging" or "testing" skilled players off of the tee HAVE to mean that if you don't hit a certain area with your drive then you are dead or punching out or looking for your ball?  Because if that is the criteria then Rustic Canyon fails the test.

However I think the only point that those that defend RC's width are making is that if you do not put the ball in certain areas of the fairway it makes it HARDER to score well but still not impossible.  There are certain areas in each fairway that one has to hit in order to have the best chance to score, however the beauty of RC is that if you miss these areas you can still give yourself a chance at birdie/par with a well executed shot. Better drivers of the ball are still rewarded but scramblers and short game specialists are still in the game.

I think the only hole on the course where it does not matter where your tee shot ends up in the fairway is #9.  I think a very good case can be made on every other hole that there is an optimal place to position your drive. Optimal but not imperative.

On Memorial Day at Rustic Canyon my foursome shot scores of 71, 79, 94 and 130 with two players playing the blacks, 1 playing the blues and 1 playing the whites and we finished in under 4 hours with the 130 holing out on every single hole.  We spent very little time looking for golf balls and finished 2 holes in front of the group behind us.  There are very few public golf courses in the country that will host 75,000+ rounds this year on which we could have done that.  That to me is great golf course architecture.

[Mike_Cirba]

David;

You're correct.

It's unlikely that RC will ever host the US Open.

Sitting here tonight looking at the hole by hole layouts of Olympia Fields (which I haven't played, but sit here perplexed at trying to determine why the USGA picked it over Merion...those were the two courses under consideration for the 2003 Open), to that I say, THANK GOD!!!

If I see one more "pinched in" bunkered area 280 from the tee on both sides of the fairway, I think I'll hurl!!!  

[DMoriarty]

Danm You, David Kelly!  You promised you wouldnt tell anyone about my Memorial Day 130.  

I've said plenty on this in the past, and will refrain from saying more for now, except to ask a question, the same as David's.

What do you all mean by "challenge off the tee" and "interest off the tee?"

[Tom_Doak]

Tim:  Remember when I expressed the fear that some people would say just this about Pacific Dunes?

Luckily they haven't, thanks to the wind and the beauty of the Oregon coast.  But most of my other courses have been criticized by good players for being too open off the tee.  The management at Stonewall still doesn't believe me when I tell them it's the narrowest driving course I've ever built.

Shot values are about balance.  My courses are generally testing enough from the fairway in that they don't need to be super-tough off the tee.  Sounds like the same goes for Rustic Canyon ... I wonder if that's a coincidence, or something Gil learned from me?  At any rate, it shows confidence in the rest of his design.

[Jonathan Cummings]

I'll probably get drawn and quartered for this but a rater called me up recently and asked what all the todo was about Rustic (I haven't played it).  He said much of what David said - it is too easy.  He also said it is not top 100 in his book.....

[David Wigler]

Jonathan and Tom,

Thanks for helping.

Tim,

Understand how unfair this thread is.  Maybe more than any other course I have gone to, I wanted to love Rustic Canyon.  For all of his weirdness, Tommy is a dear friend and I would do anything for him.  The one time I met Lynn, I found him engaging and charming.  Geoff has corresponded with me several times and I respect him immensely.  I enjoy reading Gil's stuff and think he has real talent.  This was not a course built by people I do not know and will never meet (Rees or Tom Fazio).  This was the GCA course built by friends and acquaintances.  Maybe it would have been smarter for me to keep my mouth shut and just skip all of the threads on it.  Believe me, you would be amazed at how many people send me stuff offline when I express my honest opinion (Tom too, I am sure).  If you want to understand why people do not post, it is because you are required to love GCA preferred stuff and risk very personal threads if you support a non GCA architect (Rees or Tom) or criticize a GCA one.

RC is not Pine Valley or Royal Melbourne.  When you are hitting no more than 9-Iron or Wedge into greens, it hardly matters if you are in the right spot on the fairway.  When you are hitting putter for your second shot on two par fours and your third shot on two par fives it hardly matters if you are in the preferred position.  

Not that this makes any difference at all but to answer Mikes question, I played the three drivable's: birdie, birdie, par.  I made five birdies, two double bogeys, two bogeys and nine pars.  You can absolutely blast away at the course.  

Someone correctly pointed out that I am talking about top Modern's.  I am not comparing the greens at RC to CPC or Prairie Dunes.  I absolutely stand by my statement that from 60 yards in, this course is a top 10 modern.  From the tee to 60 yards, this course is a top 500 modern.  That combination puts it in the second 100 IMO.  For what it is worth, GW and GD's ranking panels agreed with me.  All that written, for what they spent, the course is a marvel and given the dearth of good public golf in So Cal, it is a fantastic option and should do extremely well.  My suggestion to you Tim is to go play it and then decide if my opinion requires a personal thread to critique it.  

[Ben Cowan-Dewar]

Mike,
I fully agree with you.

I was not trying to call Dave out in the other thread when I asked:

“What are your other top 10 from inside 60 yards?

Was Rustic soft when you played it?”

I played Rustic twice in February, with firm ground, and the second time I laid up on all three, after going for them in round one. I scored better on three and seven and equalled my score on 12.

Likewise on 3, if that pin is back, I cannot imagine having to play a greenside bunker shot to a back pin. Conversely with that back pin, I firmly believe the left side is ideal place to play the pitch from. I know others had misgivings about how that work, but there were lots of other GCAers out that day, who can attest to that shot.

The seventh is another that makes getting to the back pin from the right side, impossible! We saw numerous plays from the right that could not get down in two. I hit the best chip of a long trip and had to make an 8-footer. This seems foolish when a 5-iron might left me an easy sand wedge.

If a long hitter goes for 12 and is long, I would bet on a wedge shot from 80 yards every day of the week.

To me, that is great interest on each of those short par fours.

[David Wigler]

Ben,

Why would you not try to drive 12.  There is nothing right of the hole but fairway.  It is a reward/reward shot.  Who cares if the slice misses.  I played RC when the course was mostly firm and fast.  As for my other favorite modern green complexes (Off the top of my head and in no specific order), the list would include Kingsley Club, Cuscowilla, Double Eagle, PGA West, Talking Stick North (Ironically, another course that I was not in love with off the tee), Bandon Dunes, and The Golf Club.  

[Mike_Cirba]

David;

Please understand that this is not "personal".  It's just golf course debate, some of it tongue-in-cheek and I apologize if I've offended you.

I'm just trying to get you to fully detail your thoughts.  For instance, in the Cascata thread, you talked about the great use of "line of charm" from the tee, but I swear I studied that aerial top to bottom and haven't the slightest idea what you're referring to.

I recognize pictures don't tell the "hole" story, so I was hoping you (or Lou, or Jonathan) could share your experiences, referring to that overhead photo for clarification.

As far as great green complexes, have you played Pacific Dunes yet?  Frankly I thought the ones at Bandon Dunes were fairly unimaginative and rote by contrast.

Thanks.

[THuckaby2]

Thank YOU, David Wigler, for explaining the very difficult, and very strange, position we find ourselves in when discussing Rustic Canyon.

Tim, I can say it no better than David just did, and I agree with every word he says, with again perhaps the only difference I have is that while I agree completely with David that on the shorter holes, it is just blast away - for exactly the reason he says - on the longer holes, I am prepared to accept the word of those who play it often that the correct angle in does matter, so perhaps the challenge is there off the tee even though upon my two times around I didn't see it.

The bottom line is once again that I do love this golf course.  

And just as David says, I consider those who love and defend it (David M., Tommy) to be friends, and if you read my post on Geoff's book you ought to know how I feel about him - he's my #1 golf hero these days.  His dad Lynn has been a hero of mine for years, due to hoops, and meeting him, playing with him, seeing what a genuine great guy he is in person (confirming what I always thought and hoped watching from afar) has been a huge thrill for me over the last few years.

So yes, I do love this golf course, I'd enjoy playing there all the time and just wish I lived closer to facilitate that.

It just does have this one weakness, which as I say is a drop of water in an ocean of positives.  It is very disheartening when mention of this tiny weakness causes such discord... Oh yes, as David says, I have been blasted on and off line for this, and likely will be again.   But hey, isn't this part of the frank and honest discussion that is supposed to be encouraged here?

Oh well... Does this tiny weakness keep the course from any ranking status?  Hell if I know.  I know I rated RC pretty damn high for GD.  It did get Best New Affordable - pretty damn lofty praise.  

To me that ought to be enough.... it is what it is....

In any case, to answer David M's question:  

"challenge off the tee" - is the player significantly challenged on his tee shots.  Is there a reward for getting it in the right place and a significant penalty for missing such.

"interest off the tee" - are the tee shots fun to play... this can come from challenge, risk/reward, strategic choices required, several other things.  Lack of these would be uninteresting, the "blast away" mentality that we've mentioned before.

I find RC to have enough challenge, at least on most holes - you and David K. and others have convinced me to accept that; and while the course has enough interest of me (I am a relative hack), for the very skilled player it is just so much blast away, on too many holes, that at least compared to the very high echelon of golf courses you seem to wish to compare it to, the tee shots hold less interest.

TH

[THuckaby2]

As far as great green complexes, have you played Pacific Dunes yet?  Frankly I thought the ones at Bandon Dunes were fairly unimaginative and rote by contrast.

Thanks.

Ok, the last thing I want is another argument with guys I consider friends, but this is the 2nd time I've read this (Moriarty said this also) and I gotta wonder what you guys saw and I didn't.  I played each course a bunch of times and I sure as hell didn't come away with this impression... "unimaginative and rote" greens at Bandon Dunes?  My god if those are such the ones at nearly every course I play here in CA must have been done by steamroller.

I don't get this.  Please tell me this is just hyperbole to make a point.

TH

[David Wigler]

Mike,

When I was at Bandon, Pacific had not yet opened.  I walked the property with Gib but did not get to play the course.  It looked magical.

As for Cascata, frankly I think you are being disingenuous and that is why I dropped the discussion.  Jonathan, Lou and I gave very detailed descriptions of what we liked.  The site has 425' of fricking elevation.  You cannot tell crap from an aerial when it turns 425' of elevation into flat land and you are smart enough to know that.  This is not a flat piece of property in Philadelphia where aerials can show the course.  There is a definitive "Line of charm" up the left side and then right on 18.  Another down the left side of three.  The aerial turns these invisible and makes the course look routine.

Someone else who has never played the course commented on cart paths.  Funny, but I never noticed one from the field of play.  I will bet the aerial of Victoria National show paths as well.  Rees hid them masterfully on this course.  

Mike - You do not have to like the golf course and you are certainly free to dismiss it without being there (For the record, that is exactly what i did until I played it).  You also  certainly do not have to believe Jonathan, Lou or I.  Honestly though, you are not trying to learn, you are trying to discredit.  Play the course!  If you dislike it, then we disagree.  I will not argue with you any more about it until you see it.  

[T_MacWood]

Double Eagle? In my opinion DE's greens are mundane and a weakness of the course. Lost Dunes green complexes aren't among the best modern? No Sand Hills...I would certainly cite this course.

I was under the impression 'line of charm' dealt with internal hazards and features.

[David Wigler]

Tom,

Never played Sand Hills.  Scheduled to play Lost Dunes for the first time in a couple of weeks.  If they are that good, they will be added.

[Andy_Lipschultz]

I've played RC 20 or so times. I have made most of my birdies on 3, 9 and 12. So what. Courses have easy holes and difficult holes. Would I toughen these holes up off the tee? Sure, for my game, but I hit pretty long.

I think 7 is one of the great, short, par 4s anywhere and if you can drive it, or get close, good on ya for taking the risk.

I can't seperate the green fee factor when I judge courses, though, I suppose I should. All I know is that everytime I play, I;m astounded that I paid only $35 (in SoCal) to play this great course and if I have to put up with 3 holes that I deem less "challenging" or "interesting" off the tee, so be it.

P.S. I assume the word "challenging" refers to the fact that the wayward tee shot does not find OB, or some kind of hazzard.  

[THuckaby2]

Andy:

Hell yes, throw in the bang for buck factor and Rustic is WAY up there in the rankings... throw in the "importance to golf" factor and it rises even higher (for showing that fun courses can be built, and be successful, without moving huge amounts of earth, even in SoCal)...

Unfortunately these things don't "count", not how the magazines do things anyway - although it sorta does for GD, given the "best new affordable" status RC achieved.

In my mind those things SHOULD count, but that's a very separate question....

The standard m.o. here when discussing courses does seem to be to leave those factors out, anyway.

BTW, I am with ya re #7 - absolutely, good on ya if you can make that carry straight at the green.  Mucho choices off the tee.... That is most definitely NOT one the holes mentioned when describing the tiny weakness of the course...

#6 is one of my favorite par 3's on this planet, also....

TH

[JakaB]

Quail Crossing should be top 100...

it has some of Tom Doaks' personal favorite greens
it has width off of the tee
it has a crappy clubhouse
the driving range is shit
from 1 yard in its top 2 modern
David Wigler doesn't appreciate its nuances
Tom Doak is a great guy
it only costs $35 to play

Don Mattingly lives nearby and is a great guy...

[Ben Cowan-Dewar]

Dave,
As I said the worry on 12 is long. If your long drive can reach the front of the green, fine, but if you can hit it to the back, I would not hit driver. With a back pin, getting up and down from over the green is difficult.

Going for it and missing, would leave a 40 yards into that green, which is a curse worthy of laying up.

Interesting that you mention PGA West. With the rough that surrounds so much of those greens, and sharp bunkering, there is not much use for the ground game.

Where does Cuscowilla fit in for you? I agree with the great greens, but with the width in the fairway, does that not subtract from the interest?  What holes there present interest there off the tee, in your opinion?