Lou
That is a great question, but I am not going to answer, at least not yet.
First, I have played Barona 5 times under a variety of conditions, but have only played Rustic once. Any comparison would be premature. This is especially true because my one round at Rustic left many more questions than answers.
Second, I don't find ranking courses as productive as some on this site. Don't get me wrong, I love to read the comparisons, but I just don't get much out of the "which is better" question. I like both of these courses quite a lot. I would rather play either one rather than any other public-access course south of Ventura. If they were both close to my house I would play one or the other every weekend.
I will say this, they are very different. A few of the differences:
The Sites. Rustic is unlike many of the canyon courses in California in that it plays mostly on the canyon floor (like Riviera.) The movement in the land is definitely there, but it is very subtle. Barona, in comparison, has lots of ups and downs. The movement is more obvious.
Tee shots. With the exception of a few holes at Barona, you really see what you get. And, as the photos demonstrate, Barona a beautiful course to look at from the tees. At Rustic, it is not so simple. Most of the tees are low profile and the absence of the usual bunkering makes perception off the tee difficult. The shots aren't blind, just not obvious. There aren't any targets. And the greens are, for the most part, extremely low profile. No green complex, just an interesting area that it mowed slightly shorter than the surrounds. For example the green on the three shot 10th is a long and narrow rectangular green that runs along the side of the wash. No bunkers, no built up base, plenty of room to miss to the right, no way to distinguish the green area except for the slight difference in the grass. I thought I hit a very good pitching wedge from about 125 -- thought I had 10 feet -- but was left with what seemed like a 90 foot putt. Very deceptive.
Bunkering. Both course have beautiful bunkering, but very different. Barona's bunkers are big, flashy, bright, white, and jagged, and contrast against both the green fairways and the stark surrounds. Many of the holes are defined by the big beautiful Barona bunkers. Rustic's are much more subtle (again). Slightly darker, earthy sand, in places where one could imagine a bunker or waste area forming naturally. Blended. And some are tiny, concave, ominous. Barona has many bunkers, but a few at Rustic are really scary.
Strategy. The fairways at Rustic are extremely wide and thus offer an multitude of angles from which to approach the green. The greens offer interesting contours which help dictate the desired attack. It will take me many rounds before I feel like I will be able to figure out the best angles, if I ever do. Barona certainly offers choices, and even I can usually figure out what they are.
Conditions. At this point, Barona plays harder and faster, especially around the greens (even with the overseeded Rye). I have a feeling that over time Rustic will catch up. At both courses, hard and fast will be a necessity if they want to keep the interesting options alive. This may even be more true at Rustic, which is really relying in the countours around the green to define the strategy of the holes.
Scoring. I am not a very good golfer, and certainly felt challenged by Barona. When I got a rare good score I felt like I really earned it. The course seems difficult. At Rustic, it is the opposite. The course seems like it should be easy -- wide open fairways, short par threes, greens not guarded by bunkers. A number of short, wide par 4s. I hit the ball well Saturday (after a miserable start), yet, it was difficult for me to score. The challenges were apparently there, just less obvious. I am curious to hear from some of the more accomplished golfers whether you have a similar experience at Rustic.
Playability. As I said above, Rustic will be playable for all levels of golfer. I am of the Mackenzie school on this one, and believe that this is should be a goal of most (if not all) designs. Barona may be less playable to the hack, like me, but is still very playable and enjoyable.
Appeal to the Public. Barona has already shown that it can be successful. This is potentially good for S.C. public golf, in that it may help convince more developers to step outside the box and build better, more interesting courses. At Rustic, winning over the public might be more of a challenge. The course is SO DIFFERENT than anything most in Ventura and LA counties have seen. If you thought Barona was different, just wait until you see Rustic. I hope the public loves it (but not so much that I can't get out.) I have a feeling that, at $40 dollars on the weekend, Rustic will get all the play it can handle.
In sum: Barona is more of a "you get what you see" experience, and a thrilling one at that. Rustic is much less defined, more esoteric. The thrill will be in trying to figure it out. I would play either any day.
How is that for a long-winded non-answer?