David, again you put words in my mouth that I didn't say. Please refresh my memory on where I said that RC was "easy or boring."
Actually you affirmed the words out of my mouth. What you said:
". . . I believe David has pointed out quite correctly what are some of its deficiencies from the tee (although he believes otherwise).
What I had said about the supposed deficiencies from the tee, immediately prior:
"Rather, some of Rustic's detractors repeatedly made the following assertions:
1. Rustic would be boring for a quality long hitter, because it fails to provide for sufficient challenge off the tee.
2. Rustic would be too easy for the quality long hitter, because the quality long hitter can too often blast away then successfully approach the greens with a short iron with utter disregard for finding a proper playing angle.
What am I missing?
To be totally frank -- what I shoot or what someone else shoots is irrelevant.
I completely agree, with respect to any particular round.
That being said, I would think that if your general assessment was correct, we'd see a
pattern of quality long hitters:
(1) Going really low on a course which offers 8 legit eagle chances and a bunch of wide open par 4s; and
(2) Quality long hitters not enjoying themselves and not coming back.
Instead, we see a pattern of:
(1) quality long hitters scoring higher than they expect (sometimes by 10 shots or more); and
(2) quality long hitters returning to the course because they had a great time.
Assuming my description is accurate, how do you explain this? Do you think that this is consistent with your assessment?
David, I would like to know specifically what "tweaks" you would make to RC.
First, let me say that it isnt your specific tweaks that I so oppose. Rather, it is your general assessment that without tweaks much of the course is uninteresting and defenseless against long hitters. More importantly, I think our differences reflect a more fundamental difference in how we view architecture.
Second, while we've covered this at least three times, I'll again list some of my suggested tweaks:
1. Hole 3: I agree that the hole doesnt quite work, but dont want to see more bunkers. Instead, I'd like to see them try shaving the rough between the green and the greenside bunkers, and possibly even lowering the back left hump of the green so it is much easier to hit into the back bunkers from the tee and right side. I also wouldnt mind seeing more ground movement just right of the green or even on the right side of the green.
2. Hole 5. Definitely build the missing back tee as was originally planned, to further entice big hitters to hit drive down the middle/left.
3. Hole 8. While I like the hole, I have concerns that the green doesnt have enough pin placements for the amount of play, and think they may eventually have to expand it. If they go right with the green (the simplest solution) I sure hope they keep the right to left slope as it is integral to the way the hole plays.
4. Hole 10. I agree that the course should make the changes that Gil suggested: Continue the sand drift from the right side hill (about 300 off back tee) out onto the fairway; and add bunkers extending more into the corner of the dogleg.
P.S. You need to see Black Mesa becaue like you, I've seen my fair share of Dye / Finger / Spann designs and this one, Black Mesa, is indeed worthy of a special look -- no less than the deserved acclaim that many pay to RC, Wild Horse and a few others of this ilk.
I hope to get out there soon.
David, forward me an address at mattwardgolf@hotmail.com and I'll forward you the magazine. It might just surprise you.
Thanks Matt, email on the way.
By the way, Matt, I have played Bethpage once and walked it several times. I think it an excellent course, but too difficult for most golfers. Perhaps as a result of this, when I played the pace was miserable.