Lost Canyon

[Sandy Smith]

Are the Dye courses at Lost Canyon worth playing ? The photos look great and I am a big PD fan .

[Peter Ferlicca]

If you are a Pete Dye fan like me you will like them.  I am used to pretty flat Pete Dye courses from Indiana and the desert, and when I first played these it was like a shock.  Some of the holes go straight uphill.  They say the shadow course is the better land, but IMO I feel that the Sky course is better.  The sky course has some great holes, while the shadow course has a lot of really weird holes that feel out of place.  Both are pretty much unwalkable, especially since last time we where there it was over 100 degrees and they had no water on the course.

[Tommy Williamsen]

We have had other threads on Lost Canyon.  Both courses have some good holes.  I just thought that the course was built on land ill suited for golf.  If you like mountain goat golf you will enjoy the course.

[R_Paulis]

Penal.

[Matt_Ward]

Sandy:

I have mixed feelings on LC -- for me Sky is the better of the two courses. No doubt those who favor a more classical design will run over to Moorpark and play Rustic Canyon.

Shadow is extremely penal and really favors the player who can hit consistently straight. The holes on Shadow are also not as versatile as you see with Sky.

My only downside to Sky is the similiarity of the 1st and 10th holes -- I really liked the par-3 2nd and the 9th is one of the toughest driving holes on the layout.

The back nine is an up and down treat but some have opined how they really hated the 18th hole -- you tee it up on a perch of a tee and literally PLUNGE downhill.

No doubt the course doesn't have middle-of-the-road feelings and likely Dye wanted it to be controversial. I would return to play Sky but likely opt out of a return play at Shadow.

[Tom Naccarato]

Yes Matt, PERRY Dye wanted and was controversial!

Yes, we had the guys from Landmark on here, trying to tell us that this was a sole creation of Pete's and that he really found the best holes on the property. Yada, yada, yada. If Pete wants to take full credit for Shadow, then Lost Canyons-Shadow is without doubt the worst golf course Pete has ever designed.Matt, you and I have talked about how bad the 18th really is. (Ridiculous would be a better word)

As far as the Sky Course, well.....Hmmmmmmm....Ed Getka, where are you? James Bennett?

We took a group out there to show James the rolling hills of Lost Canyons. Ed Getka felt it maybe the worst golf course he had ever seen. Me, I don't mind it. Beautiful country, just some stupid golf holes.

[Craig Van Egmond]

Wasn't Freddie "I will put my name on any course" Couples also part of this?

Are there still 2 courses?  I thought they closed one.  I don't remember which course RJ and I played but it was brutal for the higher handicappers.  I thought Dick was going to blow a gasket.

[ed_getka]

Sandy,
    Bring a LOT of golf balls and don't plan on having fun. Most definitely forget about walking. I'm sure a few sherpas could manage it, but not mere mortals. I think for $30 or $40 it is probably worth a look, but for my money Rustic Canyon, just down the road, is a WAY better golf course.
     When we toured the course (via cart) there were some interesting holes out there, but there are just too many that looked like they just had to be jammed in because of the severe terrain.
      They do serve a tasty tri-tip sandwich in the clubhouse.
     

[Patrick Kiser]

I'll second Ed's comments.

Yes, bring LOTS of balls is correct.

I believe there's a reason they call it ... Lost Canyon... 

Some cool trivia though ... MASH was filmed in them hills.

Sandy,
    Bring a LOT of golf balls and don't plan on having fun. Most definitely forget about walking. I'm sure a few sherpas could manage it, but not mere mortals. I think for $30 or $40 it is probably worth a look, but for my money Rustic Canyon, just down the road, is a WAY better golf course.
     When we toured the course (via cart) there were some interesting holes out there, but there are just too many that looked like they just had to be jammed in because of the severe terrain.
      They do serve a tasty tri-tip sandwich in the clubhouse.
     

[Matt_Ward]

Here's the deal on LC --

If you are a classic school designer person -- the kind of guy who favors steak and potato type meals -- then avoid LC. Simple as that.

However ...

If you have a more flexible sense for adventure golf -- no doubt the Indiana Jones style of movie will not appeal to those who only want Citizen Kane alternatives -- then LC is really like hot and spicey Thai food. If you go there with that understanding then you're likely not going to be disappointed.

I understand the nature of severe terrain changes -- plenty of other courses I like have this element and for those who find that upsetting -- seek other courses, simple as that. Some movie nuts don't want car chases or other action oriented elements - they prefer the staid eloquent crackling dialogue that other movies provide. That's fine.

Of course, for those with their NOSES high up in the air who see golf as being a very narrow band of acceptable layouts then yes, by all means, avoid going there.

I never said I liked all 36 holes -- I said the Sky layout offers more of what is good when at LC and I did mention a number of holes that are both fun and less so.

Whether Pete did anything there is irrelevant -- save for the marketing hype that went with the place. However, I caution those who throw bricks at LC - the marketing hype is often nothing more than words scratched on paper from some high priced PR firm looking to make noise on that front. Plenty of courses do it and LC is really no different in that regard. The Dyes clearly pushed envelopes here and no doubt there are both high and lows when playing there.

[Alan Gard]

I played horribly the day I played Lost Canyon-Sky.  I didn't know what to expect going in and almost ran out of balls in my bag. 

The thing I enjoyed best about it was the walk.  The cart boys looked at me like I was crazy when I asked if walking was allowed.  I certainly felt a sense of accomplishment after I was done.

The course just isn't consistently good.  There are some interesting holes and some interesting shots, though. 

On the whole, I enjoyed my experience there.  I played by myself on a relatively empty course.  After having spent a couple days in Los Angeles I was ready for a little tranquility, and this offered that.

Not on my list of can't wait to play again, but I don't regret my afternoon there.

[Tom Naccarato]

Here's the deal on LC --

If you are a classic school designer person -- the kind of guy who favors steak and potato type meals -- then avoid LC. Simple as that.

However ...

If you have a more flexible sense for adventure golf -- no doubt the Indiana Jones style of movie will not appeal to those who only want Citizen Kane alternatives -- then LC is really like hot and spicey Thai food. If you go there with that understanding then you're likely not going to be disappointed.

I understand the nature of severe terrain changes -- plenty of other courses I like have this element and for those who find that upsetting -- seek other courses, simple as that. Some movie nuts don't want car chases or other action oriented elements - they prefer the staid eloquent crackling dialogue that other movies provide. That's fine.

Of course, for those with their NOSES high up in the air who see golf as being a very narrow band of acceptable layouts then yes, by all means, avoid going there.

I never said I liked all 36 holes -- I said the Sky layout offers more of what is good when at LC and I did mention a number of holes that are both fun and less so.

Whether Pete did anything there is irrelevant -- save for the marketing hype that went with the place. However, I caution those who throw bricks at LC - the marketing hype is often nothing more than words scratched on paper from some high priced PR firm looking to make noise on that front. Plenty of courses do it and LC is really no different in that regard. The Dyes clearly pushed envelopes here and no doubt there are both high and lows when playing there.

Matt, I agree with your steak and potatoes comment. There are a few good holes, but the bad clearly outweigh the good in many cases--more specifically Shadow. Sky is an O.K. layout. Yes, you can lose yourself there and forget all of the problems of the day. Only you better be well stocked in golf balls while doing it.

[astavrides]

When did lost 'canyon' lose the 's'?  11 posts and none of them as anal as me about the correct name of the courses?

[Wade Whitehead]

I thought the Sky Course was fantastic.  It's certainly not a classic layout, and I didn't expect it to be, and didn't hold it to a design standard any of us would expect from our Top 10s.  As a modern, mountainside, necessarily penal golf course, it offered a range of shots, including several that stick out for me.  I thought the mix of holes was generally good and conditioning was excellent.

As stated, don't plan to walk.

WW

[James Bennett]

Thanks Tommy and Ed - it was worth a visit late afternoon to see it.  And, there were people in the clubhouse who had genuinely enjoyed playing it.

Good aspects.

The clubhouse (perhaps the road in as well - it did cost a lot to build).

Some of the holes are spectacular, eg #17 Sky

The holes at the bottom of the hill at Sky were ok.

The endeavour to build a golf course on that land is amazing - it is land not suited to golf.

Bad aspects.

Cart golf.  Alan Gard, do you do triathalons!  I can't imagine walking that course.

Severe hills with dry countryside - mishit balls are going to be challenging to find.

Distances between green and tee, and the clubhouse.  MPCC Shore finishes quite close to the clubhouse in comparison to 18 Sky.  Still, you have a cart at Sky.

I opined at one point at Sky that I expected to see a monorail and the transformation to Disney would just about be complete.

The worst aspect.

#18 at Shadow.  That must be the worst golf hole I have ever seen.  Uphill tee shot into a narrow gulch.  A 'traditionalist' says the next shot (blind) should be in this direction, to a punchbowl receptive-style green.  NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!  Go left young man, blindly and further uphill, with a sidehill fairway wood to an elevated green surrounded by hazards.  Penal?  Shot values?  Your game will be tested.  The hole is definitely not flowing with what the land offered up.

However, as I said in my opening point, we spoke to people in the clubhouse who genuinely enjoyed playing Lost Canyons.  Given the proximity to Ojai, Soule Park and Rustic Canyon, I know where my recommendations would be.

Lost Canyons and Rustic Canyon in one day is an education, not of yin and yan, nor of black and white, but certainly contrasting styles and contrasting ground.

James B

Sky #17 - a skyline (or is that valleyline?) par 3, perchaed at the top edge of the canyons.  Breathtaking.  I would want to play it on a calm day!



Sky #18 - a roller-coaster of a hole that plays back down the side of a canyon AWAY from the clubhouse.



I have no photos of Shadow #18 - my camera said NOOOOOOOO!

[Jeff Tang]

I'm from the Chicago area and played both courses on a January trip, so I hadn't picked up a club in months and these are not the two courses to play after a long lay off.  I liked the courses and agree that they are very difficult.  The one aspect for some reason I found to be the hardest was putting.  The greens seemed to have a lot of subtle breaks and I don't remember making any putts there.  Don't know if the surrounding valleys and hills had anything to do with this or if there is some local putting knowledge that I didn't know about but I couldn't make a putt for 36 holes.

[Chris_Blakely]

Here's the deal on LC --

If you are a classic school designer person -- the kind of guy who favors steak and potato type meals -- then avoid LC. Simple as that.

However ...

If you have a more flexible sense for adventure golf -- no doubt the Indiana Jones style of movie will not appeal to those who only want Citizen Kane alternatives -- then LC is really like hot and spicey Thai food. If you go there with that understanding then you're likely not going to be disappointed.

I understand the nature of severe terrain changes -- plenty of other courses I like have this element and for those who find that upsetting -- seek other courses, simple as that. Some movie nuts don't want car chases or other action oriented elements - they prefer the staid eloquent crackling dialogue that other movies provide. That's fine.

Of course, for those with their NOSES high up in the air who see golf as being a very narrow band of acceptable layouts then yes, by all means, avoid going there.

I never said I liked all 36 holes -- I said the Sky layout offers more of what is good when at LC and I did mention a number of holes that are both fun and less so.

Whether Pete did anything there is irrelevant -- save for the marketing hype that went with the place. However, I caution those who throw bricks at LC - the marketing hype is often nothing more than words scratched on paper from some high priced PR firm looking to make noise on that front. Plenty of courses do it and LC is really no different in that regard. The Dyes clearly pushed envelopes here and no doubt there are both high and lows when playing there.

Great description of the courses - after reading this, I would love to play them.

[Matt_Ward]

James B:

Spot on w your description / analysis on the 18th at Shadow. Truly hideous -- looks like they ran out of ideas and land and simply said, "let's finish the course no matter what." And that's what they got -- no matter what.


Gents:

The best thing about LC and RC is that THEY are different. If people simply want to play one particular style of course then don't venture to the other. Really it's about being a bit more elastic in terms of what you want to experience as I mentioned previously.

Glad to hear about the turf conditions at LC -- I did have some concerns when I played there last on a few of the fairways.

Anyone heading there should avoid Shadow and seek to play -- no doubt the extremes -- good and less so -- are there for people to see for themselves. Hey, like I said before -- good Thai food is not for everyone !

[Tim Leahy]

I thought they were overpriced and the use of a forced forecaddy was extreme on the Sky course. I don't know if they still do that.
I think for the price you can find better similar canyon type courses nearby for alot less like Moorpark CC, Tierra Rejada, Malibu CC and Robinson Ranch.

[C. Sturges]

These are my least favorite/enjoyable Dye courses I have ever played.  I had problems staying focused on some of the green to tees and would have rather had a 4x4.  The best part for me was racing out the entrance.  At the time they were very proud of the fact they were in the top 100, which I have never understood.  Play Rustic Canyon!

[Peter Ferlicca]

These are my least favorite/enjoyable Dye courses I have ever played.  I had problems staying focused on some of the green to tees and would have rather had a 4x4.  The best part for me was racing out the entrance.  At the time they were very proud of the fact they were in the top 100, which I have never understood.  Play Rustic Canyon!

I will agree if I am in the area I would play Rustic Canyon and tell everyone else the same.  I am a huge Pete Dye fan, and Rustic Canyon is a better course than both of them at Lost Canyons. 

[Tom Naccarato]

I like you guys....Your my kind of people......

Seriously, maybe once every four, five years, I'd look forward to going back to see what I missed the first time, and the second time, and the third and fourth. I've shown people the courses three other times, so it fits the Matt Ward criteria of multiple plays to have an opinion factor.

Every time I come away with the same feeling. Beautiful place for a horseback ride. Maybe even a camping expedition. Just not my idea of an enjoyable round of golf. Expect to get your ass kicked and enjoy the scenery while doing it. It's a nice clubhouse to sit and enjoy some suds with friends. The only problem is that, I don't ride horses. I don't camp or take expeditions and unfortunately I don't drink beer anymore..... Well maybe once in a while, but that's only when I'm trying to drown my sorrows for spending a wasted day on the links.

I'd rather be lost in space....

[C. Sturges]

Tom,

I never thought about it when there, but drinking would have helped kill the the pain.  It also might have caused lots of damage to cart and body, but thinking about it.  I would not want to give them any more money.

[James Bennett]

Tommy

whilst we talk about Lost Canyon(s) vs Rustic Canyon in this thread, they really are incomparable.  Rustic Canyon has a relativelt flat (constant slight incline/decline) layout whilst Lost Canyons more closely resembles the movements of the stock market index over the last year.

I had the privilege of seeing Rustic and Lost Canyons on one day, then Valley Club, Ojai and Soule Park the next day.  The interesting comparison for me was seeing how George Thomas dealt with a challenging countryside at Ojai versus the Lost Canyons.  Thomas used short par 3's (and shorter holes) to get from one elevation to another, or to straddle some difficult country.  And an elevated downhill tee-shot to traverse to the floor of the course.  Yes, Ojai has flatter ground than Lost Canyons, but the routing on what was the back nine (now the front nine) at Ojai is worthy of a study in itself.

James B

[Tom Huckaby]

Will most participants from this forum hate Lost Canyons?

Certainly.

Is it worth playing?

I think Matt Ward assesses it correctly.  I'd say Rustic Canyon is a far superior golf course, and if the question is which one course to go to in this area, the answer is absolutely Rustic Canyon.

But if the question is simply is LC worth playing, I'd say yes, assuming you don't pay an arm and a leg for the privilege.  But note I speak just for Sky - I never played Shadow.  But I enjoyed Sky well enough - it certainly is different - but I also don't mind cart golf, have played courses far more severe than Sky, and enjoy what Matt calls "adventure golf."

But Tommy we've covered this too many times over the years.... I almost didn't post for that reason, and for the reason that by stating this I guess I'm not your kinda people.  But maybe that was pre-determined anyway.  I am a USC fan after all (and you have to give me props for NOT mentioning certain events to you).

 

Just a counterpoint, I guess, as this thread seems to be dominated by the CON side and I think in fairness to Sandy Smith the other side ought to be represented.  The time I played there I took three other guys (non-GCAers for sure) and each loved it.  I'd certainly expect if one took Ed Getka there (the very definition of a GCAer, plus a guy who rarely ventures out of the Top 100 for his golf) if he didn't hate it I'd keel over in shock.

TH