Not Enough Challenge For Skilled Golfer

[Tim_Weiman]

Guys:

First, a couple points to get out of the way: I understand David Wigler's comments were in reference to the Modern top courses and not a comprehensive list of all courses. Let me also add that my questions or comments are not personal. I simply felt that David expressed a view that was hard to understand given my experience as a student of golf architecture and certainly worthy of exploring.

If someone says a golf course "sixty yards and in" is among the Top Ten - modern or otherwise - I must conclude he is talking about an extraordinary golf course. For such a course not to be considered in the Top 100 certainly raises questions about how much weight we put on various features of a course.

Can anyone here think of a golf course that would be among the Top Ten "sixty yards and in" and NOT be among the Top 100?

I simply find that to be a combination of circumstances hard to believe. But, maybe I'm wrong. A more learned student than I, perhaps Tom Doak, can point to a few examples.

As I could not come up with such an example, I turned to the comments of Bob Lewis about Pine Valley. While we're at it, I might also point out that some professional golfer was also quoted saying "what's the big deal about #13 at Pine Valley? .......Isn't it just a simple driver and short iron?"

I'm also inclined to think that Pinehurst #2 is an example. Does any even semi skilled golfer find that much challenge off the tee?

Yet in both cases, we would hardly say something like David did about Rustic Canyon, that these courses while quite strong around the greens, don't really challenge skilled golfers off the tee? Well, maybe we would say it - Bob Lewis did - but we wouldn't look at this as any shortcoming.

What is exactly is so important about challenging skilled golfers off the tee? Should this feature receive more than minor consideration in evaluating a course? If so, why?

Would the world of golf architecture be better if Tom Doak placed more emphasis on that consideration in building Pacific Dunes? In other words, if Tom had committed the same sin Robert Trent Jones did in certain places on Ballybunion's Cashen course?

I think not.

Placing emphasis on testing skilled golfers off the tee only serves to undermine the golfing experience for the vast majority. Isn't that part of Mackenzie's genius?

David Wigler asks about hitting nine irons into greens and makes the argument that this negates the importance of tee shot placement that Rustic Canyon lovers talk about. But, I'm wondering what percentage of golfers playing Rustic Canyon face this situation. Is it a majority? If not, how large is the minority? And why should we care if it is a small majority? How many par fours at Pine Valley do "skilled golfers" approach with more than a short iron?

Our friend Tommy Naccarato has encouraged me to jump on a plane many times to come and have a look for myself. Sooner or later I'll do so. But, in the meantime I'm going to wonder if some people just don't understand or accept the design intent of Rustic Canyon or any other course that has considerable width.

The notion that failing to challenge skilled golfers off the tee should be given much weight in evaluating a course design doesn't make a great deal of sense to me. As I see it, the vast majority of golfers aren't really "skilled" and we shouldn't worry so much about those that are.

[THuckaby2]

Tim:

Well said.

As I've said many time, it is a tiny drop of sea water in an ocean of positives.  Hell yes it only effects a very small minority of players - we've all agreed on that.

Thus it only comes up in the very fine hair-splitting that occurs when you try to say this course is #2, this is #12, etc.  Given the differences between these courses are so small, these tiny negatives do matter - BUT ONLY IN THIS CONTEXT.

Maybe Rich Goodale has it correct.  We should just call this course a "two star" or whatever and leave it at that.  I know it would have saved a lot of acrimony....

But that designation is never enough, not for most people anyway.

TH

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom Huckaby:

Are you saying that most golfers do not hit into the par 4's at Rustic Canyon with nine irons, typically?

[David Wigler]

  Tim - That is a cop out.  Tom Huckaby already correctly redefined "Challenge" as "Interest".  I more eloquently used the term "Interest" many times.  There is no interest in blasting driver off every hole and having no concern about where it ends up because of the excessive width.  You and I both know that this is not the case in either Pine Valley or Pinehurst #2.  The toughest tee box decision was whether to drive the green with Driver or 3-Wood off 3 and 12 (Driver on 12, 3-Wood on 3).  This is not strictly a 3-hole criticism.  Only two of the non-par threes presented any reason to not blast away with a driver.  That written, go see the greens.  They are fantastic.  The course is what it is.  My opinion is mine.  Play the golf course and then debate it with me.  Like I said to Mike, it gets very tiresome to debate when the person you are debating has not seen the course.  I understand how this may be necessary at a Merion (Where access is an issue) but anyone with $40 can goes see Rustic Canyon.  I will continue this discussion once you have played it and therefore earned the right to agree with me or think I am crazy.  

One last thing, Cuscowilla is nothing like RC off the tee.  It is a different world.  #1 requires a flirt with the left trap to have any chance at a back pin.  Two is a very demanding tee shot.  Four requires an aggressive line to hold the green in two.  Five is a true risk/reward short par four (Try to make par if you do not clear the bunker).  #'s 6, 9, 10, 14, 15, and 18 all had demands off the tee in my opinion.  

JakaB - I lack the courage to write what you write but I certainly feel that way sometimes when I defend Rees or Tom F. or dare to criticize a GCA preferred.  

[THuckaby2]

Tom Huckaby:

Are you saying that most golfers do not hit into the par 4's at Rustic Canyon with nine irons, typically?

Hell Tim, "most" golfers likely don't get within 150 yards on a 350 yard hole...

So yes, most golfers do not hit 9irons and wedges into the par 4's at Rustic Canyon.

Remember the "weakness" David W. and I are describing pertains to skilled golfers, and skilled golfers only.

TH

[Tim_Weiman]

David Wigler:

Are you saying that the skilled golfer faces "challenge" off the tee at Pine Valley? And, if so, on how many holes?

I'm usually not fond of the idea of quoting someone else to make an argument, but I do think a guy like Bob Lewis certainly qualifies as a "skilled" golfer and one who knows Pine Valley very well.

The "excessive width" simply doesn't challenge such a player, does it?

I'm not in the same universe as Bob as a player, but my own experience there confirmed what many people have observed for years: Pine Valley's fairways are quite wide and hitting them isn't that difficult for even the semi skilled golfer.

So, given that this feature is never held against Pine Valley - a course designed for better players - why would we hold this feature against Rustic Canyon - a course for the masses?

This is really what I think hasn't been explained. Imagine if we changed Pine Valley to create challenge off the tee for skilled players. How many people would think we made it a better course?

[THuckaby2]

Tim:

I believe David is gone, so I shall try to take this up in his place.

And to that end, I think I explained this before.  I believe David would agree with my explanations.

But once again, to try and set this straight:

This "weakness" we are describing is just one aspect in the assessment of the golf course.  If it exists at Pine Valley, it is overwhelmingly dwarfed by all the other positives, to the extent that it is irrelevant.  It is also relatively insignificant at Rustic Canyon, but it is not made irrelevant there, not to the extent it is at Pine Valley, because while Rustic has many incredible positive attributes, they are not of the caliber of those at a course like Pine Valley.  It's also possible the weakness may be greater at Rustic than it is at Pine Valley - I don't know, I have only seen pictures of the latter.

And in any case, disscussion of this tiny "weakness" ONLY matters when splitting hairs, I have had said several times...

This is getting silly.  I doubt even the most ardent supporters of Rustic Canyon feel it is in the class of Pine Valley, generally listed at the #1 golf course on the planet.

I've discussed all this with David W. several times, I believe he'd agree with this assessment.  If you are waiting to hear such from him, that's fine.

Another bottom line here is that this discussion sort of fails speaking in a vacuum... as I am re Pine Valley, you are re Rustic... attempts at absolute quantifications don't always work for golf courses.

TH

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom Huckaby:

My point here is obviously not to argue that Rustic Canyon is in the same class as Pine Valley. The point is to examine the notion of whether or not the failure to challenge skilled golfers off the tee should make a significant difference in evaluating a golf course.

I've offered the Pine Valley example only to point out that we have not significantly altered our view of this course simply because the width of fairways is beyond what challenges skilled or even semi skilled golfers.

When David said that Rustic Canyon was in the Top Ten Modern courses "sixty yards and in", it sure seemed to me that he was referring to an extraordinary course, one that couldn't possibly fall outside the Top 100 Modern courses simply because it - like Pine Valley - doesn't challenge skill golfers off the tee.

That's why I asked if anyone could cite an example of where a course was top ten "sixty yards and in" and yet the course wasn't also top 100 material.

"Sixty yards and in" constitutes a huge part of any course course. If David is right that Rustic Canyon is in the rare air in this category, wow, it sure seems odd to fall such a long way because of tee shots for a small elite group of players.

Mostly what I'm challenging here is the idea that the failure to build penal holes (or jst penal tee shots) is any shortcoming at all. I just don't see where that case has been made.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom Huckaby;

While one may say that this issue is a "tiny drop of sea water in an ocean of positives", it doesn't appear to be so from David's perspective if he thinks the green complexes are Top 10 world class for ALL players but then degrades the course enough to drop it out of the Top 100 Best designs built since 1960 due to this issue for some small-percentage of highly SKILLED players.  

Tom, you've played with me so you know my game.  I'm trying to recall any tee shot at Rustic that I felt that I could mindlessly blast away, save for perhaps 9 & 10.  There are "cape" style drives on at least four holes, center bunkering on others, carry choices on some, proximity of OB on 3 & 12, and definite preferred angles on others.  

Would he prefer that everyone's slightly misplaced shot at 280 yards finds either deep rough, pinching bunkers, or a pond??  

David must not only smoke the ball, but hit it pretty straight as well.  I only wish I found RC that easy from the tee in the two times i played there.  

[THuckaby2]

Tim:

Understood.  However, if you don't see the argument having been made yet, then you never will see it.  It's been stated over and over and over again, in many, many, many ways....

Penal golf shots are not required; rather, boring golf shots should be prohibited.  That goes for ALL players.  The effects are just magnified for the highly skilled.

Maybe that helps, likely not.  In any case, I give up.  Maybe David will return tomorrow and resurrect this.

TH

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom;

Before you throw your hands up, can you see my point?

Unfortunately, I have meetings all afternoon so I won't be able to respond quickly.  Guess that's why I get paid.  

[THuckaby2]

Mike:

This has gone far enough.  Re-read David's post at how strange and unfair this argument is for us... For me particularly, I would REALLY prefer to focus on the positives of Rustic, of which there are many.

Interesting tee shots just wouldn't be the first place I'd start, that's all.  And you know my game as well.

TH

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom Huckaby:

The notion that a golf course should challenge all classes of golfers is thrown around and I understand that some of the best minds in the history of golf architecture have made this argument.

Do I have more insight than an Alister Mackenzie? Of course not.

But, I see the debate about Rustic Canyon taking the argument one step further and, perhaps, beyond the point of logic. That is to say that we now seem to be arguing that each and every shot should be challenging for all classes of golfers.

Again, I can only repeat that even Pine Valley doesn't achieve this standard. The skilled player doesn't get intimidated by the pyschological features of the course. He doesn't worry about the forced carries. He doesn't worry about the thick forest on both sides of the fairway.

I don't know if I would say he is "bored", but he knows that what lies ahead - his approach shot and play on and around the greens - is really what makes the course challenging.

I'm very skeptical about establishing a standard that says every shot must challenge every class of golfer. Can this really be done? Can it be done without taking away pleasure from the vast majority, maybe 90 percent of the people playing golf?

From all I've heard, Rustic Canyon succeeds precisely because its designers - like Tom Doak at Pacific Dunes - understood this.

Tom, let me just add one thing. I doubt anyone at this website has offered more support to the way the USGA sets up its courses for the US Open, i.e, the very penal way it treats wayward tee shots or missed approach shots. But, that is one event for an elite class of golfers that is hardly worth appealing to for day to day play.

Do we really want to encourage the golf architecture community to worry so much about challenging skilled players off the tee? I can't see why we would. The tradeoffs would probably just undermine great architecture, in my opinion.

[THuckaby2]

Tim - you are taking this to extremes now that to me are bordering on the absurd.  Yes, I understand your points, clearly.  But just where did I ever say that every golf course must challenge every class of golfer all the time?  That is absolutely, definitely, clearly, for sure, no doubt about it, fundamentally, I'm running out of synonyms NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT my point.

Just remember there are no absolutes, never, anywhere, nor should there be.  Not on golf courses anyway.

A lack of interest is just never going to be a good thing, not for a golf course trying to be "great".  And Rustic Canyon is in many ways a "great" golf course.  If it has one perceived weakness, then to me it's fine, to others it keeps it out of some ranking.  I honestly don't care.

In any case, I see you are trying to extend this to an overall discussion of what should and shouldn't be for golf courses and fantastic, great, good luck in that endeavor.

Me, I like interesting tee shots.  I like to be made to think.  If I'm not made to think off the tee, the course better make me think or make me have fun in other ways or I'm not going to like the course.

I liked Rustic Canyon - a LOT.

Isn't that enough?

TH

ps - giving up is one thing - having my position horrifically misconstrued, that I can't stand for.

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike,

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.

David;

I was not being disingenuous.  You made the statement that Cascata has some of the most interesting holes from the tee and best lines of charm you'd ever seen and I was asking, as was Tom MacWood, what you meant.

Line of charm requires that the line of instinct be interrupted.

What does elevation change have to do with that...it can clearly be seen on any two-dimensional image.

After looking at the aerial and mentally drawing straight lines from tee to green (line of instinct), both of us were confused by your use of the term because in only one or two cases did it appear that the direct route was interrupted, and that was more often by a turn of a dogleg into desert beyond than anything that existed "within the playing areas".

What is disingenous about asking that?

A simple example of interrupting the line of "instinct" (i.e. the impulse to go straight at the target)

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom Huckaby:

I don't know if anyone's position has been misconstrued. It seems clear that we have a case of a course that has been described as:

a) being Top Ten sixty yards and in
b) having tee shots that fail to challenge the skilled player

I'm simply questioning the idea that "b" is a significant negative, one that would move a course ranking down significantly.

More specifically, I've tried to highlight the following points:

a) some of the world's most esteemed courses include width that goes well beyond what is necessary to test "skilled" golfers

b) "skilled" golfers are small part of the golfing world

c) the disparity between "skilled" golfers and the rest of the golfing world is so great that placing much, if any, emphasis on testing the former on every shot may be counterproductive

Tom, I see that you said you would prefer to focus on the "positives". Okay. Tell me, if a course is Top Ten "sixty yard and in" but doesn't challenge an elite group of golfers off the tee, would it make sense to significantly downplay its ranking? Isn't that "focusing on the negative"? Or shall I say a perceived "negative"?

Why do we not elevate the course's ranking due to the absence of penal shots off the tee? Isn't that a "positive"?

[Dan Grossman]

Removed.

[THuckaby2]

Tim:

You ought to be a lawyer, or a politician, if you're not already one or the other or both.

PLEASE understand the "emotional" difficulties involved in discussing this issue, given it's been tied to Rustic Canyon.  PLEASE allow me to focus on the positives, so I don't have to go through the pain of arguing with friends who are quite devoted to the course AGAIN.

Unfortunately, to answer your questions using the Rustic Canyon example requires me to focus on the perceived "negatives" of this golf course, and I just don't want to do that any more.  Hopefully you can understand this.  Friendship is far more important to me than any course or any issue about this game.

This has been beaten to death.  I can only say so many ways that the positives far outweigh the negatives.  How about you answering one question for me:  why isn't that enough?

And you continually miss the extremely key difference between challenge and interest.  PLEASE go re-read that, I can't state it any better than I have above.  It has nothing to do with a shot being PENAL, it has to do with a shot being BORING.  You can't understand that?

Boring tee shots are a negative - FOR ALL GOLFERS.

Maybe shouting will help you hear, and understand:

I COULD GIVE A CRAP WHERE RUSTIC CANYON IS RANKED - AND THE ONLY DISCUSSION IN WHICH THIS LACK OF INTEREST OFF THE TEE BECOMES AN ISSUE AT ALL IS A DISCUSSION OF HOW IT FALLS AMONG OTHER GREAT GOLF COURSES.

This goes for all golf courses.  Tim, I see and understand your points - believe me I do....  Why can't you see that this is just one part of a great overall whole?

I guess the problem here is in statement (a) in your first listing.  PLEASE don't make me refute that.  

TH

[THuckaby2]

Dan:

Tim W. used Rustic as an example.  I sure as hell don't want to focus anything on it, and I too find a hell of a lot of good there.  And please re-read the entire thread.  Lack of interest off the tee can be outweighed, as it is at many courses, generally is at Rustic, just perhaps not enough to get it to the exalted ranked status some would ask for it.

Tim, see the problem with your questions?  Here we go battling over Rustic again....

TH

[THuckaby2]

JakaB:

Leave it to you to cut to the chase.  

Obviously I don't want to answer the question you pose in caps.  

The greens and green surrounds are fabulous.

Some of the tee shots don't hold much interest.

Overall it's one hell of a fun golf course, a great achievement, sorely needed and a fantastic step in the right direction.

I never quantified it as "top" anything... Tim seems to be basing his whole argument on this quantification, one I could give a rat's ass about.  That's David Wigler's battle and while I agree in principle with his assessment of the course, he can fight it out on his own over those quantifications.  I guess I ought to have made that clearer from the start.

My feelings for the course are the above, that's it.

TH

[Dan Grossman]

Tom - you are right.  I will go back and delete my post.  I guess the only point I was trying to make that I think some courses with wide fairways exact a 1/2 stroke penalty for putting it in the wrong place.  As someone who is always trying to shoot a low score, it frustrates me when I incur one of these 1/2 stroke penalties and therefore place high demands on my tee shots if the fairway is wide.  

I guess I should improve my iron play.  

[THuckaby2]

Aw heck Dan, your post was a good one and I didn't meant for you to remove it... my apologies for using you as a convenient example.  

And you're right - lots of courses DO extract that 1/2 stroke penalty for being on the wrong side.  I didn't see this much either tour I took of Rustic, but as I say above I shall punt and trust the judgment of those who've played it a lot in agreeing that this must occur.  I sure as heck have been able to see this on other courses, without a doubt.. that would fall under both interest and challenge off the tee:  interest in trying to figure out the correct side, challenge in hitting it.  When that exists it's a heck of a positive without a doubt.

TH

[Tim_Weiman]

JakaB:

Thanks for your response. I was hoping someone else would come forward and question how a course could be Top 10 within sixty yards and yet not be top 100 material.

So, I agree with you. If Rustic Canyon is Top 10 within sixty yards - an incredible architectural accomplishment - than the entire rest of the course must suck for it to fall outside the Top 100.

So far I haven't heard anyone say that. I've only heard that a small minority of "skilled" golfers won't find "challenge" or "interest" off the tee. Apparently, that and that alone moves a course with the very highest quality green complexes out of Top 100 consideration.

Has Rustic Canyon tried too hard to be all things to all people? Not from what I've heard. Not from what David Wigler appears to be saying. To the contrary, it sounds like the course proudly stands up and says "screw the elite players.....who cares if they don't find tee shots challenging".

How refreshing!

And who ever said Rustic Canyon takes the big stick out of the "hands of the powerful"? Is that what anyone here argued? In fact, I thought I heard at least one contributor - David Wigler - suggest that he COULD bomb away with his driver.

In the final analysis, it comes down to how much we want to emphasize the ability to hit long, accurate tee shots. There is a seductive argument that could be made for this - hitting long, straight tee shots IS one of the greatest challenges in golf. But, it just isn't that much fun for very many people. That's the problem. That's what sounds so refreshing about Rustic Canyon.

[Tim_Weiman]

JakaB:

Do those who hit long and straight tee shots have some "unquestionable envy" of those who can putt well?

[George Pazin]

Been down this road before...

Couple of questions/thoughts:

1) I'd be curious to David & Huckster's own personal lists - my instinct is that, similar to Tom D's recent thread where one is asked to only remove a course if you can state an alternative, there might be other courses that possess similar "lack of interest/challenge" off the tee, or at least close enough to not offset the better green complexes.

2) Huckster - You don't care where RC ranks? Aren't you a rater? You better not let the powers that be see that statement.  

I think Tim's points are more than valid topics of discussion - I personally agree with him, but I can certainly see where someone else might not. Golf is a big game...

Expecting someone to defend his position is a large part of what this site is all about, IMO. I don't quite understand why people get upset when their opinions are questioned or when someone attempts to further flesh out said opinion.

At least we finally got some more meat about Cascata.