Moorpark CC vs. Rustic Canyon

[CliffBourland]

I played Moorpark CC last week and Rustic Canyon the week before.  2 different courses, but I'll go against conventional wisdom here and will criticize Rustic Canyon in some ways.

Moorpark -
1) I enjoyed the ridges of Moorpark and some of the small targets to hit off of the tees and into the greens.
2) I loved the integration of the creek into the golf holes.  Really natural.  Rustic Canyon has something like it, but Moorpark's integration seems more natural.
2) I really liked the greens - Smooth contours.
3) I don't like the par 3's

Rustic Canyon
1) Fairly flat golf course
2) Too wide off of almost all of the tees
3) I really love the greens and the surrouding bump&run areas, but I think the golf course is too short for a course that runs that fast.
4) I like the par 3's.  Good variety.  Particularly the 14th.

[David Kelly]

Cliff,
To each his own and if you prefer Moorpark CC to Rustic Canyon more power to you - I'm sure Moorpark could use the business.

Rustic Canyon has been talked about extensively on this site so I don't want to cover that well-trodden path again but I do have a couple of comments:

I loved the integration of the creek into the golf holes.  Really natural.  Rustic Canyon has something like it, but Moorpark's integration seems more natural.

Rustic Canyon was built around and through a natural wash that was left the way it was found.  Was the creek at Moorpark CC always on that property the way we see it now? Was the waterfall to the left of #9 there before the course was built? Were those lakes there?

Fairly flat golf course

Maybe it looks that way while driving past #3 and #2 but the course falls over 300 feet from the back of the property to the front and you can certainly notice the effect it has on approach shots and putts when you play the course.  It would certainly not occur to me to call Rustic fairly flat but I guess it would seem that way to some after hitting tee shots off the edge of the earth all day at Moorpark.

I like the par 3's.  Good variety.  Particularly the 14th.

I agree that there is a good variety of par 3s at Rustic especially compared to Moorpark where except for #9 they all seem alike.  I think you are thinking of the 15th hole at RC however as #14 is the long par 4 with the forced carry off the tee.  15 is the uphill par 3 to the three-tiered green.  I happen to think it is the weakest par 3 at Rustic myself.

Too wide off of almost all of the tees

Why?

[Daniel_Wexler]

Too wide for what?

[Dan King]

Did you walk or ride?

Dan King

By all means screw their women and drink their booze but never write one word about their bloody awful golf course.
  --Henry Longhurst (advise to a fellow journalist being pressed to make a trip to a new expensive golf development)

[Tim_Weiman]

CliffBourland:

Like others, I'm curious about your comment that Rustic Canyon is "too wide".

What does this mean?

[Andy_Lipschultz]

In  a previous RC thread, a couple of posters addressed the "too wide" issue under the guise of "not challenging enough off the tee."  Or, not penal enough for the wayward tee shot.

At first glance, "too wide" is any easy conclusion, though, I think it is wrong. Even if it is, so what. This course is about the approach shot.

No.1: Ive seen guys hit OB on the left and in the junk on the right. It may be a wide fairway, but that dry creek running on a diagonal to the front right of the green makes things rather festive.
No. 2: Sure a wide fairway, though hit it on the right side of the fairway and you're going to have a problem making par. Knowing that, you go left, but, oops, you still have OB to contend with.
No. 3: Great risk/reward. It tempts you to go for it (but if not, you have a generous lay-up area to the right and a tighter lay-up left (though with an easier 2nd shot).
No. 5 It's a wide fairway if you hit fairway wood. Hit driver and you have a small area on the left to keep it the fairway, otherwise the baranca comes into play if you drive it down the middle and over to the right.
No. 7: I assume we're not referring to this great hole.
No.9 and 10: I'll agree they're wide.
No. 12: Again a wide fairway, but who cares. Everything is the 2nd shot to this great, tiny green.
No. 13: Looks wide. Is not. The pot bunker in the middle of the fairway, as penal as can be, creates 2 narrow landing areas.
No. 14 and 16: I believe these holes are 460-480 par 4s. For this length a narrow landing area would not be appropriate.
No. 18: Anything right is lost in the baranca, so there's a generous area left, though the hole gently bends to the right, so it's a long 2nd from the left.

If you want penal off the tee, head 5 miles east to Lost Canyons.

[Tommy Williamsen]

First of all, I have two confessions to make.  I am a panelist (rater) for GOLF DIGEST and I don't quite understand the fierce loyalty and love of Rustic Canyon.  I think it was indeed worthy of winning the best new affordable award, however, felt it was uninteresting off the tee, and pedestrian on the green.  The Green comp[lexes were wonderful, and give the course most off its character.  It goes to show that you don't have to move the land beyond recognition to make a good golf course.  Incidentally, I thought that The Kingsley Club, once it is found, was the best private course I played in many years.  It was fun and good off the tee and the green complexes were the best I have played sisnce Sand HIlls!  Other panelists must have rocks in their heads or the course didn't have enough panelists to qualify for the BEST NEW.  It is almost impossible to find.  I have A GPS AND STILL haad to ask directions many many times.  Incidentally I played the 36 hole copmlex mentioned in the last post and found it to be unplayable.  It was built on land more suited to skiing than golf.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Pretty laughable really.

First off, I'm tiring of trying to defend something that doesn't need defending, especially since not one of the complaints is backed with facts, whether they be personal preference or actually knowledgable.

Simply put, if you don't understand width, then you don't/won't understand Pine Valley, pretty much all of the Old Course, in fact almost all of the great Scottish links, as well as 90% of the old classics which are or were just as wide before tree planting.

Tommy, (I resent you using that name!:)) You put that you don't understand all of the fierce loyalty of Rustic Canyon, yet, don't offer one critique of why there shouldn't be such a loyalty considering that there isn't anything like Rustic Canyon around until you get to the state of Nebraska, or happen on a side trip to Apache Stronghold if they can over-look condtioning.

But, I totally agree with you on Lost Canyons, not because it was a certain person who did it, but because there is little thought to actualy taking that land and creating something really special with it. Especially when it is a 36-hole opportunity.

While I have not played Moorpark CC yet, I have driven around and looked at it with the same horror I usually feel when looking at other new courses here in SoCal that are situated in a canyon or hilly setting. I don't seem to remember hearing anything about Peter Jacobsen or Laurel & Hardy being there everyday making sure that the work being done was not only a personal thing, but one of perfection. Some how I saw a lot of unatural looking earthmovement, that on that fact alone makes Rustic Canyon worth all of the praise, as well as the attention to detail.

Yes, the loyalty is probably well defined on this website about Rustic Canyon, because the people like myself who are defending it are actually quite smitten with what we have--a superbly designed and built golf course that challenges us everyday we get to play it. It doesn't present us with some man-made gimmick that only adds to the cost, and if you don't like it, simply keep driving the extra couple of miles over to Moorpark CC and play it to your hearts content. That will leave plenty of more tee times open for us that need them.

[Tommy Williamsen]

tommy n,  sorry to use the name but  I've beem used to it for 56 years.

[Andy_Lipschultz]

Question for the more knowing of this board:

In theory, can a course be "too wide"? If there is no payoff on the approach shot or the green complex, I guess what you're left with are the LA city courses we have in the Sepulveda dam basin.

Taking that further, would RC be considered "too wide" if the green complexes where not of top flight caliber?

Waiting for illumination....

[Tommy Williamsen]

Andy, that's a good question.  I grew up on a course with 25-30 yard wide fairways.  Now fifty yard wide fairways are not unusual.  Some courses like Pine Valley have large landing areas because of the severity of the shots to the green.  Others, especially Tom Faqzio coursed have large landing areas for no discernable reason.  Accuracy off the tee is no longer appreciated.  A course like Rustic Canyon at least makes the second shot more important by where the tee shot is placed.

[tonyt]

As has been covered before, the "too wide" argument gets aired over and over again at Royal Melbourne. It wasn't until I was there with a critical friend, that I showed him by getting him to drop a pair of balls on each side of the fairway on about half a dozen of the holes. He concurred and has shut up ever since.

The better and more interesting the green complexes, the more one yearns to be able to play to them from a precisely chosen point. Being public, RC obviously doesn't intend to execute any player hitting it to the less preferred areas. It still gives them a full swing from a good lie, and keeps them moving. But doesn't reward them like the golfer in A1 position.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Tony, It took a mate down under to explain it exactly right!

[Michael Dugger]

Rustic Canyon
1) Fairly flat golf course
Huh?  St. Andrew's is pretty flat, or so I hear.

2) Too wide off of almost all of the tees
Width is bad?

3) I really love the greens and the surrouding bump&run areas, but I think the golf course is too short for a course that runs that fast.

Running fast is twice as interesting as target golf.  Everytime I play in the winter, here in Oregon, my ball plugs about 6 inches from where it comes to rest on EVERY SINGLE shot.  Is this better than a course that runs fast?  

Also, length arguments are stupid.  Does Pac Dunes need more length?

[CliffBourland]

Hi again.
1) The width factor:  When I played St. Andrews, some of the tee shots were nerve racking(9, 14, 16, 17) because of what bunkers you end up in if you're offline.  Compared to Riv or Torrey which are considered open by tour players, Rustic Canyon is much more open.
I'm not a very straight driver, but at Rustic Canyon I didn't really feel nervous on any drives.  #11 I did lose it in the hazard left however.  I'm a 3 handicap right now. #13 I carried the pot bunker(it was downwind).  Also, I thought #16 played really short due to the downhill.

2) Cart factor: favor Rustic Canyon here big.

3) #15 at Rustic reminds me of #7 at Muirfield.
It was my fav. par 3.

4) I prefer fast courses too, but I reached all par 5's in 2 and reached #3 on my drive.  I really like Rustic Canyon, but 7600 yards of kikuyu at Torrey is at least 8000 yards of Rustic Canyon turf. #4-8 irons aren't used much by me at a course like Rustic Canyon.  Moorpark they were because I laid up for safety off of some tees.

Maybe an idealist, but at lot of Jake's work at Moorpark looked fairly natural.  A golf course on a ridge.  Much of the cliffs are too rugged for a designer to manufacture.

[George Pazin]

I prefer fast courses too, but I reached all par 5's in 2 and reached #3 on my drive.  I really like Rustic Canyon, but 7600 yards of kikuyu at Torrey is at least 8000 yards of Rustic Canyon turf. #4-8 irons aren't used much by me at a course like Rustic Canyon.  Moorpark they were because I laid up for safety off of some tees.

Didn't you find this fun? Are you aware that Augusta was designed originally to have all 4 par 5s reachable? Do you not like driveable par 4s? Do you enjoy laying up for safety?

What did you shoot at Rustic? Did you shoot your handicap?

[Michael Dugger]

Cliff,

What we need here, IMHO, is for you to give us your ideal golf course.  For the sake of clarity, I'll give you mine and you can use it as a template for your own.  

I prefer strategic golf courses.  Those courses that have hazards placed in a way in which I am constantly presented with OPTIONS.  Do I crush a drive over that sand bunker or do I leave it alone?  Of course, provided the golf course is truly strategic in nature, when I choose to take a RISK I will be REWARDED if I pull the shot off.  

I'd like to think this is something that can be "Set Up" by the designer on every/most shots.  Approaches, drives, etc...

IMHO, width gives players options.  Sometimes, in the case of St. Andrews, such width allows for more than TWO options, as cited above.  In the case of St. Andrews, the golfer may sometimes be presented with as many as four or five routes to the hole, each fraught with their own set of hazards to negotiate.  As Dr. Mackenzie pointed out, what does it matter if a player can putt the ball all the way to the green provided he has to take ten strokes to do so?

IMHO, fast and firm give players options.  As I cited in an earlier post, here in Oregon the turf gets wet.  Soggy, mushy, choose your parlance.  It borders on ridiculous when you find that even your driver and two iron fail to illicit one iota of roll.  It's strict target golf.  I'm reminded of what some of the tour players said after Pete Dye opened TPC Sawgrass for the first time.  The course is a piece of cake if you can stop a five iron on the hood of a car.  The sad truth is some professionals CAN.  Target golf reduces the game to something akin to throwing darts.  It's mindless.....no options.   I guess you can choose whether or not you want to hit a big nine or an easy eight.....but you are still going to fly-it-in all the way.

The ground game offers infinitely more variety and challenge to golf.  Target golf requires little creativity....the ground game demands it.  Target golf makes many hazards unnecessary, as they are rarely in play except in the case of a mis-hit.  Thus, when it comes to target golf, hazards are PENAL in nature....they offer ZERO strategic value.  You aren't choosing to confront them for an advantage, you meet them when you make an error.  You are PENALized.  

I like to think of Ross' early Pinehurst #2 when it comes to understanding the ground game.  It is said that in the beginning, when this course played fast and firm, the difficulty in scoring well was found in holding the greens.  Ross placed his hazards in such a way that only the most PURE shots would have enough umph to clear the bunker, but enough English to still hold the green.  The same concept is behind the redan.  This type of golf requires the player to gauge his trajectory.  This type of golf requires the player to develop "feel".  This type of golf requires the golfer to temper the "action" he puts on the ball.  All of this, IMHO, is infinitely more interesting than target golf.

Now, Mr. Bourland, I ask you....what is your ideal golf course?  Penal in nature?  Strategic in nature?  You have made many strong statements regarding the course at Rustic Canyon.  What I'd like to know, first and foremost, is:  Can we say that Moorpark and Rustic are even comparable?  Is Moorpark a strategic golf course or is it target golf?  Can you play the ground game at Moorpark?  Does Moorpark afford the golfer OPTIONS...off the tee, from the fairway?  

I can sort of understand some of your criticisms of Rustic, as we GCA students are fickle folk, but are we comparing apples to oranges here?  Even if your "knocks" on Rustic do hold water, it is possible for them to be valid points and Rustic to still blow doors on Moorpark.  That's sort of how I see it, but, as I mentioned, we need you, Mr. Bourland, to describe to us your IDEAL GOLF COURSE, first.    

[Lynn_Shackelford]

Update.  I have been informed by the shop staff that the new course record at Rustic Canyon is 66-Steve Pate.

Is this about right for a public course after 13 months of play?  It gets some pretty good players out there daily.  Yesterday David Berganio was playing.  It would seem to me that a 6,800 yard course would be taken apart frequently after 13 months.  This is of course if you consider a course good by its ability to defend par and not provide recreational fun to the golfer.

[Dan King]

CliffBourland writes:
2) Cart factor: favor Rustic Canyon here big.

I have no idea what this means.

I asked if you walked or ride these courses you were critiquing. Your opinion is meaningless to me if you rode while appraising the course.

Lynn_Shackelford writes:
Update.  I have been informed by the shop staff that the new course record at Rustic Canyon is 66-Steve Pate.

You'd think the way all these good golfers talk about the course the record would be a lot closer to 50 than 70.

Dan King

I hasten to say to snobs from the Surrey pine-and-sand country that no invention since the corn plaster or the electric toothbrush has brought greater balm to the extremities of the senior golfer than the golfmobile, a word that will have to do for want of a better.
 --Alister Cooke

[tonyt]

Cliff,

You say you didn't really feel nervous on any drives at RC. Is this because you were content with simply hitting the fairway?

The world's better courses with a lot of width are deceptive, because unlike most others, hitting the fairway is not the same end result as it is at a more penal course. It is positioing the ball on the PORTION of fairway that the designer challenges you to try and discover. Huge difference, but one not noticed by the player until they have played from the more optimal position.

[DMoriarty]

Lynn and Dan,

I don't know about that 66 number as a record.  That is only 6 under par.  Even Cliff here had six chances at eagle and who knows how many other birdie chances on the wide open par fours and the short 16th.  And come on, Steve Pate?  I hear he isnt even the best Pate.  

Cliff must have neglected to mention his score to the pro shop.  

[David Kelly]

Lynn,
I wonder if Pate carded his 66 in the first few weeks after the greens were aerated because they were really holding then.

Cliff wrote:

Much of the cliffs are too rugged for a designer to manufacture.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that Jacobsen imported the mountain to build the Moorpark CC course on. I can assure you that the hills have been there for millions of years before Jake arrived.  No, it is Jacobsen shoehorning a golf course onto that property that I don't like.

[CliffBourland]

1) My ideal course is one w/ lots of variety too.
I snoop on GCA and have never posted.
I agree w/ most opinions on the courses.
My favorite golf is in Scotland/Ireland where the ground is bouncy.  RCD is probably my fav. golf course if I have to select an ideal one.  The variety off of the tee there is fantastic. I do like driveable par 4's too.

Lost Canyons, Wood Ranch and the entire target category I don't enjoy and am not very good at.

2) I shot 77.  I think that's over my 3 handicap.  I posted but forget what the rating was.

3) I carted at Moorpark and walked at Rustic.
I enjoy walking and concede this point to Rustic.

4) I'm surprised by the 66 course record to be honest.
I would have expected -8 or around there.

5) I'll think Moorpark is strategic not target.
And I really like the flow of holes.
The ground there is bouncy like Rustic.

Several of the holes at Rustic did remind me of Scotland.

6) I'll admit I like golf courses to penal in terms of the clubs I approach the greens with.

[Pete Lavallee]

Cliff;

You reached all the par 5's and #3, so you played a par 67 golf course and still shot 10 over, 77. Now maybe you understand why the course record is just 66. By the way when I inquired at the Pro Shop two weeks ago, they said Tom Stankowski had just shot 66.

[Lynn_Shackelford]

Another Rustic Canyon course record update.
Yesterday a graduating golfer from Cal Lutheran University, a small nearby school, shot a new course record 65.  He plays the course often.
I played there today with former tour player Dennis Watson.  He said something that I thought was interesting.  After about 17 holes, he said, "I think this is a pretty easy course to shoot par, but it would really be hard to shoot much under par on a regular basis."  It is impressive to watch a smart player read distances and putts so well their first time on a course.  He loved the course, thought it was great fun.