[Joe Perches]

It sounds like their idea is to just add length for the sake of length.  They obviously haven't analyzed the play on those holes.

Agree.  I know there was disappointment that the SCGA measured < 7K after the last round of changes which created a new back #5 tee and lengthened #11 tee.  If the new tee at #14 is ever opened, I think the SCGA could remeasure again and RC would get the magic starting number 7 for overall yardage.

Extending the 9th hole would cost some real money as the tee box is built up a lot.  Even if you did build a new tee you can't go very far back because you run into the back to the 7th green.  It would be pointless just to add 10 - 20 yds.

Not really, you could go across the wash again south-west of where the tee is today, closer to the fairway of #7.  Maybe even up the hill to the south west.  People love those elevated tees and vistas.  I've heard many complaints from various people with sticks in their hands and balls lost around the course about how Rustic is terrible architecture because only 1 of the tees was elevated, and there were no trees or lakes...  Oh well.

The 10th hole could be extended back as far as they want but because the ground is sloping away from the green it would cost a lot to bring in enough dirt to build up the tee.  As it is now most players have their hands full on the hole as is.

But that doesn't seem to be the point.

[R_Paulis]

Wow - the reasons for lengthening still escape me - increase in rating/difficulty?

#2 - you gotta be kidding me. Extending this hole makes a tough second hole beyond difficult. And when considering the relative ease of #1 and short #3, it would really feel out of place.

[Matt_Cohn]

Wow - the reasons for lengthening still escape me - increase in rating/difficulty?

#2 - you gotta be kidding me. Extending this hole makes a tough second hole beyond difficult. And when considering the relative ease of #1 and short #3, it would really feel out of place.

Isn't there a general rule that length is best added to long holes, not short ones?

And, I don't follow the logic that if #1 and #3 are easy, #2 should be nice and gentle as well. That doesn't really make any sense.

It's not like #2 is ridiculous, anyway. It's 457, downhill, with a fairway that's almost impossible to miss. I forget if I hit 7- or 8-iron into that green. I held the green from a bad angle. Isn't that a clear indication that the hole actually needs additional length, at least as an occasional option?

[R_Paulis]

Wow - the reasons for lengthening still escape me - increase in rating/difficulty?

#2 - you gotta be kidding me. Extending this hole makes a tough second hole beyond difficult. And when considering the relative ease of #1 and short #3, it would really feel out of place.

Isn't there a general rule that length is best added to long holes, not short ones?

And, I don't follow the logic that if #1 and #3 are easy, #2 should be nice and gentle as well. That doesn't really make any sense.

It's not like #2 is ridiculous, anyway. It's 457, downhill, with a fairway that's almost impossible to miss. I forget if I hit 7- or 8-iron into that green. I held the green from a bad angle. Isn't that a clear indication that the hole actually needs additional length, at least as an occasional option?

As the 1 handicap hole, I find hole two amongst the hardest on the course. My index is only an 11 so I usually play from the blues.  Assuming I drive it 250, and stay to the left, that leaves a longish iron into a green that is difficult to hold and most challenging to putt. I guess I could see a new black tee for those that have a mid iron approach.

[David Kelly]

I forget if I hit 7- or 8-iron into that green. I held the green from a bad angle. Isn't that a clear indication that the hole actually needs additional length, at least as an occasional option?

So the hole should be extended just because you hit the green with a 7 or 8?  How many times have you played the hole?  I've hit everything from a SW to a hybrid on my second shot there.  And as I said above I've seen very few birdies and it is rare to see someone even have a manageable birdie putt on that hole.

The only way to add length would be to go back and to the right and that changes the angle of the tee shot which is changing the architect's intent on that hole.

And all on a hole that most people can't handle from the blues as it is.

[Matt_Ward]

Thanks for the different replies to my question -- be interested to know if Rustic Canyon is itching to host a major event -- say a US Pub Links or other such event and that one way to do that is to provide a bit more length in certain spots.

For top notch players the generally firm conditions would allow sufficient roll out to give them even shorter second shots. Adding a bit more length can try to deal with that situation.

One final comment on back tees -- having the elasticity is not really an issue for 98%+ of the people playing there. No doubt many would find the mid tees to be sufficiently challenging now.

[Joe Perches]

The course isn't doing the work on 4,5 and 6.  It is the flood control district.

I played yesterday and looked at the channelization and regrading work done on the lowest part of the course.

Perhaps even a 10 year rain could still bring significant runoff debris down the channel, overflow the channel banks and cause problems for the houses below the course.

I don't understand why what appears to be the channel spoils placed between 3 and 5 and the channel banks itself are irrigated.

It looks to me as if the project wasn't thought through.

This may explain a part of it:
http://www.moorparkacorn.com/news/2006/1229/front_page/002.html

The project will mostly be funded by the Natural Resource Conservation Service, which is a federal agency. If the board had not approved the project, funds would have been lost

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()