[Matt_Ward]

Mr. Spaulding:

You can assemble a preferred listing through any means you decide. The listing only gives me an idea on what you see as layouts worthy of YOUR time and attention. Clearly, you see RC and BC as being miles beyond all the others. I don't completely share your feelings that the space between those two and a few others of note is that far apart.

I don't disagree with you on the sad state of affairs concerning overall public golf development in SoCal. One does have to travel quite far between locations to assemble a really good grouping of courses.

Look forward to your comments when your 2-year-old permits.

[Jon Spaulding]

Matt, please call me Jon...The 2 year old got the attention yesterday....now we're onto the older crowd at work .

[Matt_Ward]

Jon:

As an FYI -- I'd be curious to your take, assuming you have played them, on the following courses ...

1). Lost Canyons (especially Sky)

2). Pelican Hills (either of the two 18's)

3). Sandpiper

4). Industry Hills (Ike)

5). Trump's latest creation

T h a n k s   . . .

[rjsimper]

Matt,

I am curious as to your take on one thing regarding La Purisima and one thing only - the par 5 we discussed earlier...what is it, 15?

Mr. Paulis thinks it's one of the most strategic holes out there and I think it's a catastrophe - what say you? 

[Joe Perches]

I am curious as to your take on one thing regarding La Purisima and one thing only - the par 5 we discussed earlier...what is it, 15?  Mr. Paulis thinks it's one of the most strategic holes out there and I think it's a catastrophe - what say you? 

I think it's one of those Martin Glynn Bonnar "La" holes. 
http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,29565.msg571956.html

Meaningless, pointless, of little value. Plopped in there solely to scan, to rhyme, to fill.

I like 16 quite a bit. I think 15 is just a way to get to 16 tee.

I think 14 could have been better if the green were moved to the 15 tee site and 15 were an uphill par 4 from closer to the fairway tree as a teeing area.

[R_Paulis]

Does a par 4/5 always require a long drive off the tee? The La Purisima commentary got me thinking about the design of the non par 3 holes.

"Everyone's" favorite, RC, has two on the front where a long drive is not required, but both have/had the option of using a driver of the tee. You can also get away with not using a driver on #12. I think that leaves eleven holes where a long drive is needed/helpful.

LaP has two par 4's on the front where a long drive is not required. Nos. 2 and 4 can get you in trouble with long drives and neither provides much reward for a long drive. The back has two (#14, #15), maybe three (#10), where a long drive puts you in trouble . That leaves ten or eleven par 4/5's where a long drive is useful.

Is this standard for design or does the site dictate how much a driver is used?

[Matt_Ward]

R Paulis:

The issue for any significant course of consequence -- is that it provide options when standing on any tee. No doubt pulling the driver out is part and parcel of those options but the player must then weigh the benefit / downside should execution not occur.

La Purisima does provide that as you mentioned.

Ryan S:

I don't see #15 as a great strategic hole but I'm not ready to throw the hole into a garbage dump either. I will say this -- the green is nicely done and should you err to the far left side the likelihood in scoring well will be greatly diminished.

Let me point out that I can make a good case against a few holes at RC and BC as well in terms of them not all being bulletproof from a design perspective.

[rjsimper]

Ryan S:

I don't see #15 as a great strategic hole but I'm not ready to throw the hole into a garbage dump either. I will say this -- the green is nicely done and should you err to the far left side the likelihood in scoring well will be greatly diminished.

Let me point out that I can make a good case against a few holes at RC and BC as well in terms of them not all being bulletproof from a design perspective.

Never EVER said RC was bulletproof, nor was I comparing the two courses, but I will say with confidence that every single hole at Rustic Canyon is better than the 15th hole at La Purisima. 

[Matt_Ward]

Ryan:

Check out RC's weak par-3 3rd - it's no better than the 15th at La Purisima and in IMHO is really a major step-down when compared to the other par-3 holes encountered when playing there.

Since your preceding post was said with "confidence" I'd be more than happy to debate further.

[rjsimper]

Is your "par 3 3rd" statement inadvertently mistaking the par 4 3rd with the Par 3 4th, or are you calling the par 4 3rd a par 3 in jest because it's short?

[Matt_Ward]

Ryan:

Mea culpa on my part -- the par-3 4th is a lame home when compared to the others you find at RC. I am also not a fan of the near similar aspects of the back-to-back par-5's at the 9th and 10th. I also see the par-3 17th as being a good bit less in overall qualities when compared to other par-3's like the 6th, 8th and 15th holes.

[Joe Perches]

I am also not a fan of the near similar aspects of the back-to-back par-5's at the 9th and 10th.

I guess you haven't played at Rustic Canyon since 2004.  That was a reasonable description prior to then, but i believe not reasonable today.  The HHA/cross bunker added a bit of visual appeal and the bunkering up the right side towards the green is more in play today than the earlier version.

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,12796.0.html

I also see the par-3 17th as being a good bit less in overall qualities when compared to other par-3's like the 6th, 8th and 15th holes.

I think 17 is a good hole and 15 a weak one.  15 green is too out of character for the rest of the course.  Triple tiered greens aren't a particular favorite in a naturalistic/minimalist setting.

[Matt_Ward]

Joe:

Thanks -- my last visit was prior to the changes you mentioned.

However, I still see #17 as the weakest of the back nine par-3 holes. At least at the 15th you are going uphill and gauging the proper club can be a bit more challenging. If memory serves, I also see the putting surface at 15 to be more challenging than 17.

[Pete Lavallee]

If memory serves, I also see the putting surface at 15 to be more challenging than 17.

The one time player might form this conclusion. In the end I think the 17th is much more subtle with its down canyon green and could be more difficult once you have more than a few plays under your belt. RC is very hard to judge from just one or two plays, IMHO.

[David Stamm]

If memory serves, I also see the putting surface at 15 to be more challenging than 17.

The one time player might form this conclusion. In the end I think the 17th is much more subtle with its down canyon green and could be more difficult once you have more than a few plays under your belt. RC is very hard to judge from just one or two plays, IMHO.

Pete, well said. IMO, 17 is a better hole than 15. I don't think 15 is a bad hole as I've heard some have said in the past, but 17 is more interesting. I think the 4th was improved with the addtion of the cross bunker seen below. I've grown to love the simplicity of the 9th and it's intricate green.

[rjsimper]

Matt,

I don't want this to evolve into a discussion of Rustic Canyon, as that we can ALL agree has been done to death, but what I will say is this:

Your criticism of the similarities of the 9th and 10th is irrelevant here - we're talking about single hole merits and my statement was simply that every hole at RC is better than 15 at La Purisima.  The 9th and 10th could be carbon copies of one another, but individually, each is still a better hole than 15 at LaP.  9 because of the green and 10 because as Joe pointed out, the new bunkering has made it a much better hole...plus the long narrow green with the shaved faux-green to the left makes it good.

The 15th is a much harder green to hit than 17, but Pete Lavallee is correct that 17 is more difficult to putt with the subtleties and the reverse-canyon tilt in play.  15 to many is the weakest green/link on the course and I'd probably not argue to heavily on that.

On the contrary, I think the par 3 4th is one of the best holes on the course.  If you've not played since the HHA was put in on 10, then you've not played since the bunkering and recontouring of the green on 4...the new green is a marvel of design as far as the ground game is concerned and works amazingly well for a running right to left shot to a back left pin.  It's no longer just an "upper tier/lower tier" hole, and the bunkering obscures the formerly simple-appearing tee shot.   Again, I'd agree with you that in the past the hole was a weak link, but it's been changed for the better, probably to a greater degree than any other hole on the course.

(as an aside, 17 is a great complement to 4, as it rewards the exact opposite shot...often with a similar club)

I'm not saying Rustic Canyon is without fault, but even it's weakest hole (the new 7th, IMO) is still better than 15 at LaP, which I believe to be one of the "worst golf holes on a good course" in So. Cal. 

[Matt_Ward]

Ryan:

Keep this in mind -- assuming your opinion on #15 at La Purisima is so -- the overall golf course is still rated high -- if I'm not mistaken I believe you have the course among the top ten even with that impediment on its layout.

I'll hold my comments on RC since my last visit there was a few years back. No doubt "improvements" at the various holes I mentioned were carried out which indicates that someone else, besides me, thought they could stand for some tinkering here and there.

One last thing -- you've forgotten to highlight the nature of the 15th green in Lompoc. It's very well done and serves to keep players from getting comfortable with any approach shot.

[rjsimper]

Matt:

I haven't not kept that in mind - if you'll read my last post, I haven't cited the 15th as an indictment of the golf course as a whole, rather as a very sore thumb sticking out as part of the reason why I do not believe La Purisima is world class, or even competing for best in So Cal public. 

Regarding the green on 15, I agree with you that it's the best part of the hole, but nobody talks about how good the green is on 18 at CPC...the damage done in the journey to get there is damage enough.

How this differs from 9 at Rustic, another hole whose green is it's best part, is that damage isn't done on the way to the green...sure, it's a boring drive, but the second shot isn't entirely absent of strategy...and if the worst one can say about such a hole is that it lacks character, then that still registers as a ringing endorsement when compared with what I'd say about the first two shots on La Purisima's 15th.

As I think Jon said, the fact that it's rated highly to me is more of a report on the state of public golf in Southern California (not a secret) rather than an endorsement of the quality of the course.  There are many good things about La Purisima...there are also many bad things.

It's top 10 of those I've played in So. Cal, but I think all of us who have played most of the courses the region has to offer realize that we're grading on a curve.

[Matt_Ward]

Your last post is a bit confusing ...

You constantly harp on one hole and as a result you see the course being severly wounded in its overall standing. I don't see the hole being so bad and frankly when you add up the cumulative other elements of what's there it does well -- irrespective of the tag you attempt to make with SoCal's overall weak standing publicly.

Candidly, if you placed La Purisima in my home state of NJ or in surrounding neighbors such as NY or Pennsy -- it would easily finish in the top three in either situation. And, Jersey public golf is not shabby by any means.

One other thing -- Ryan you threw into your commentary the statement of La Purisima being looked upon in some sort of "world class" connection. I never said it belongs at the elite level but I also see the total product of what is there as being beyond its remote location and the fact that its turf is usually in tip top shape or that its fees are very user-friendly when compared to other over priced / over hyped options.

As I said before -- the green at #15 was something you ignored until I pressed you on it. I don't see the tee-to-green dimensions being that hideous to signify a complete demotion for the entire course.

In fairness, I mentioned my time at RC is dated and needs to be updated. I still think #9 and #10 are not that dramatically different but as I stated I respect what others have added on that front.

You say La Purisima has "many bad things" about it. Beyond the noise on #15 I'd like to know where's the real beef to back that up?

Clearly, you can grade anyway you like but I am no novice when it comes to seeing all many of the top candidates on the public side in SoCal. La Purisima has more than enough overall juice to be thought of highly and would be seen as such if it was located in other states where the public offerings are quite competitive.

[rjsimper]

I harp on this hole because that's the topic we got on - that every one of the 18 holes at RC is better than the 15th at LaP, in my opinion the worst hole there.

It is not the only bad hole there, which I've noted earlier.  In general I think the par 5s are weak and the 14th hole is terrible too.

Please don't confuse tangents (the discussion of the 15th hole) with the initial discussion - the fact that I believe La Purisima is generally a good but not as great as some people think golf course...simple as that. 

I only regret that the KPVI didn't come together with the Santa Barbara plan and some others could have played it to share thoughts, as it appears that you, me, R_Paulis, Jon Spaulding, and Joe Perches are the only ones that have played it.

[Tom Huckaby]

Ryan - I've played La Purisima - I found it to be very tough but other than that pretty much just as you say in terms of quality.  But it's been a few years and I don't remember nearly enough about it to take the stand in this trial.

As for the location of TKP, well... all I will say is that putting where we did made it happen.  And to me that's a good thing.

TH

[Chris Ord]

i'm a little late to the conversation, but here we go...

first off, i find rustic canyon to be so far above everything else in the l.a. area, that it's hard to even rank courses beneath it (although i haven't played barona, or some of the other courses others have mentioned).

second, does anyone besides me have an affinity for rancho park?  i know it takes way too long to play, and it's a little overgrown and poorly maintained, but i think it's got great bones and some of the toughest par 3's in the southland. 

cbo

[Tom Huckaby]

Chris:

I lived in LA for the first 18 years of my life, and never played Rancho Park until I had moved away and come back.  I played damn well everywhere else there was to play though, through junior tournaments, high school, and just a lot of adventure.  Rancho was just such a pain in the ass to get on, and took so long to play (or so I heard) that we never bothered even trying to play it.

So when I did play it, well... someone else got the tee time so who knows about that part... but it did take 6 hours.  That was enough for me to not look back on it very fondly.

TH

[Matt_Ward]

Ryan:

Nuff of La Purisima -- we both remain unchanged. So be it.

Be interested in your take on the following ...

1). Lost Canyons (especially Sky)

2). Pelican Hills (either of the two 18's)

3). Sandpiper

4). Industry Hills (Ike)

5). Trump's latest creation

Huck:

You need refresher round at La Purisima to see what you missed the first time.

Robert Muir Graves gets little attention on this site but his work there in Lompoc still holds up very well.

Chris O:

I've played Rancho a few times and while it has some holes of note I would not place it among the better public courses of recent note. Go back 20 years ago and my thoughts would likely have been different. Much has happened since then.

[David Stamm]

What's the take on Goose Creek by those that have played it? I hear Schimdt and Curley did a solid job.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()