[Sean_A]

Cheers in advance!

Ciao

[Joe Bausch]

A few years old, I believe:

http://golfarchitecturepictures.com/Web%20Galleries/USA/California/Rustic%20Canyon/index.html

[Lynn_Shackelford]

There is a very bright young man named Geoff Shackelford who has a website under his name.  He has extensive photos of the course when it opened.  That will be the best photos.
Opening day:
"Gil, this course is in fine shape."
Gil,
"Enjoy it because it will never look this good again."

[Anthony Butler]

There is a very bright young man named Geoff Shackelford who has a website under his name.  He has extensive photos of the course when it opened.  That will be the best photos.
Opening day:
"Gil, this course is in fine shape."
Gil,
"Enjoy it because it will never look this good again."

Lynn... I thought it looked in pretty good shape when I stunk it up with you a year ago.... although that dry Santa Ana wind certainly made the greens a challenge on the back nine... on the other hand, I concur with your assessment of your son.

[John Mayhugh]

I thought that surely there was at least one Rustic photo tour, but I had no luck finding one.  I would offer to do one, but I'm plenty of courses behind already.

Geoff's site does have some good info & photos.

[David_Tepper]

Link to photos of Rustic on Geoff Shackelford's website. It does not look like there is a full photo tour of the course.

http://www.geoffshackelford.com/rustic-canyon-photos/

[DMoriarty]

A few years old, I believe:

http://golfarchitecturepictures.com/Web%20Galleries/USA/California/Rustic%20Canyon/index.html

The photos are from pretty early on, and predate fires, floods, and pestilence.

The photographer apparently got in a cart and whipped around the course taking pictures from the cart paths, only getting out to take pictures from some of the tees.   Definitely some nice pictures and it is nice to see the course in its fairly early state.   But the tour may also be testament as to how much the golfer misses when confined to cart and path.  

[Wayne Wiggins, Jr.]

A few years old, I believe:

http://golfarchitecturepictures.com/Web%20Galleries/USA/California/Rustic%20Canyon/index.html

The photos are from pretty early on, and predate fires, floods, and pestilence.

The photographer apparently got in a cart and whipped around the course taking pictures from the cart paths, only getting out to take pictures from some of the tees.   Definitely some nice pictures and it is nice to see the course in its fairly early state.   But the tour may also be testament as to how much the golfer misses when confined to cart and path.  

So, is Rustic not in good condition?  It's been a year since i've played it, but it's always been more than playable.

WW

[Tim Leahy]

Here's one for you:

http://www.courseiq.net/golf-course.aspx?gcid=157

[Bill Seitz]

So, is Rustic not in good condition?  It's been a year since i've played it, but it's always been more than playable.

WW

I played there about a week ago with Alex Miller and David Moriarty, and I thought it was in fine shape.  It was playing more or less exactly how I'd like it to play.  Fairways were really rolling out, and the rough, while not particularly thick, did kill a lot of roll, so it was a definite advantage to hit the ball in the fairway.  The greens were pretty fast and very true.  I played it last June as well, and I thought it was in every bit as good of shape last week as it was over the summer.  

And while I'm at it, I played Angeles National on this trip as well, and it too was in excellent shape.  The greens there were faster than Rustic, and the fairways were playing pretty firm.  

[Wayne Wiggins, Jr.]

So, is Rustic not in good condition?  It's been a year since i've played it, but it's always been more than playable.

WW

I played there about a week ago with Alex Miller and David Moriarty, and I thought it was in fine shape.  It was playing more or less exactly how I'd like it to play.  Fairways were really rolling out, and the rough, while not particularly thick, did kill a lot of role, so it was a definite advantage to hit the ball in the fairway.  The greens were pretty fast and very true.  I played it last June as well, and I thought it was in every bit as good of shape last week as it was over the summer. 

And while I'm at it, I played Angeles National on this trip as well, and it too was in excellent shape.  The greens there were faster than Rustic, and the fairways were playing pretty firm. 

Not to threadjack, but...

If you were to split Rustic vs. Angeles National how many times, out of ten, would you play each?  I'd say 7 Rustic... 3 Angeles.

[Bill Seitz]

Not to threadjack, but...

If you were to split Rustic vs. Angeles National how many times, out of ten, would you play each?  I'd say 7 Rustic... 3 Angeles.

If money is no object, I'd say 7-3 Rustic.  Maybe 6-4.  If we take fees into account, it's probably 8-2 or 9-1 Rustic.  I played Angeles once about four or five years ago and didn't like it much.  I came away liking it better this time, but I can get 2.5 rounds at Rustic for one at Angeles.  I'd keep a round or two there out of ten purely for the sake of variety.  But Rustic is a better course, and it's cheaper.  Unfortunately, it's also about 35 minutes further away from my parents' house in Temple City (Arcadia). 

[Alex Miller]

I'd give it a 9-1 split, and would not feel bad about 10-0 between Rustic and Angeles.

[DMoriarty]

A few years old, I believe:

http://golfarchitecturepictures.com/Web%20Galleries/USA/California/Rustic%20Canyon/index.html

The photos are from pretty early on, and predate fires, floods, and pestilence.

The photographer apparently got in a cart and whipped around the course taking pictures from the cart paths, only getting out to take pictures from some of the tees.   Definitely some nice pictures and it is nice to see the course in its fairly early state.   But the tour may also be testament as to how much the golfer misses when confined to cart and path.  

So, is Rustic not in good condition?  It's been a year since i've played it, but it's always been more than playable.

WW

It's a blast to play right now.  Dry and fairly fast.  Some of us who play the course regularly have some concerns with certain aspects of the long term maintenance, but generally the conditions now make for some fun golf.

[Dan Grossman]

There are a bunch of photos of the course on this guy's website.  No hole details though, so it can be a bit difficult if you don't know the course.  Beautiful black and white photos of the course.

http://www.robertmatre.com/albums2010/rustic-canyon-moorpark-ca/

Addressing maintenance, the course looks fine if you play it once.  The greens roll reasonably well and it seems to be in decent shape.  Longer term, I worry about the lack of green and fairway aeration.  There is also moss / fungus on a number of the greens and they have had issues with burrowing animals, including on the left side of the 8th green.  These are things you start to notice if you play the course often.

Interesting on splitting rounds between Angeles National and Rustic, I'd never really thought about it.  I've played Angeles National once and Rustic about 75 times.  So, I guess I am 75 - 1 on that count.  When I last played the course (back in 2004), Angeles National was very tight, the defintion of target golf and not all that much fun. 

Maybe I missed something.

[David Kelly]

Not to threadjack, but...

If you were to split Rustic vs. Angeles National how many times, out of ten, would you play each?  I'd say 7 Rustic... 3 Angeles.

I'm probably about 450 to 1 in plays between Rustic and Angeles National.

When I went to Angeles National I asked the guy in the proshop whether the course was walkable and he said, "Sure."  I said ok then I'll walk and he said, "We don't allow walking."

[Stewart Abramson]

A few photos of the back 9 here. The day these photos were taken the wind was so strong it was blowing balls backward and knocking stand bags to the ground. I was wind burned after the round.

http://sports.webshots.com/album/558126168OGfGhq?start=36

[DMoriarty]

Nice pics in that Matre gallery, except for the golfers, and nice photos by Steward as well.

DK's ratio really says something. He drives right by Angeles National and then another 35 miles to get to Rustic.

My ratio is probably more in line with David Kelly's although I think maybe I played Angeles one and a half rounds instead of one.  And I went over the course while it was growing in. Don't plan on playing it again anytime soon unless someone with whom I am golfing really wants to play it.  If the prices were the same, my ratio would probably be about the same as now.   Likewise if the prices were reversed.

It is not a horrible course, but not one worth seeking out in my book, and not one justifying missing a round at a very good and always enjoyable course.

[John Mayhugh]

I'm probably about 450 to 1 in plays between Rustic and Angeles National.

[/quote]

At least you're willing to mix it up!

[Jason Topp]

10-0 Rustic Canyon.  I can't remember Angeles National that well but I remember disliking the ESA's and a blind pond on the last hole we played (either 9 or 18).

[Bill Seitz]

Not to threadjack, but...

If you were to split Rustic vs. Angeles National how many times, out of ten, would you play each?  I'd say 7 Rustic... 3 Angeles.

I'm probably about 450 to 1 in plays between Rustic and Angeles National.

When I went to Angeles National I asked the guy in the proshop whether the course was walkable and he said, "Sure."  I said ok then I'll walk and he said, "We don't allow walking."

This is a good point, as I generally prefer to walk, and that's a big drawback for Angeles, which is kind of too bad, because I don't think it would be a particularly difficult walk.  The routing isn't perfect for walking, but it would certainly be doable.  The driving range is a bit out of the way I guess.  We played it the day after Christmas, and considering they were booked solid, the pace of play was better than I would have expected, about 4:20, which is pretty good for a packed public course.  And as noted above, the conditions were excellent.  Those aren't characteristics that it has over Rustic, of course.  I still prefer a bit of variety, which is why I'd still say 8-2 or 9-1. 

[Tim Leahy]

I don't walk so my ratio's are a little more realistic. 5-5, love both courses and they are by far the best publics in the LA area. Angeles is tougher in my opinion and Rustic has more character, but both are very good courses.

[Ross Waldorf]

I've played exactly two rounds since last July (tells you something about my golfing life at the moment . . .), both last week. One was at Rustic and one at Angeles National. Not counting the walking factor or the price, but based solely on architectural merit, fun factor, and the variety-is-never-a-bad-thing factor, I'd go 7-3. Price pushes it to 8-2 or 9-1.

They've added quite a bit of playability to Angeles National in the last year or two. It needed it -- the tightness of the barrancas and the lost-ball factor were very high when it first opened. Now it's better, although you're still going to lose a few (or a bunch if you're at all wild). But -- for a "southwest style" course (not my favorite kind), it has quite a bit of interest, with some really cool greens. And they do keep those greens in very, very nice condition. Makes putting on them really fun. That's quite a bit of what drives the price there, for sure -- the CCFAD green maintenance.

It's no match for Rustic architecturally or fun-factor wise (especially for this crowd). But when compared to that style of course (Phoenix comes to mind), it's relatively nice. I've seen plenty of those kinds of tracks that were way, way below Angeles National. I'd probably give it a Doak scale 5 (I'd call it a very nice 5). For comparison, to me Rustic is an 8 (I'm biased -- I LOVE the place and have been a regular since it opened). I think most people would call it a 7.

Here's a funny story about Angeles National, though, particularly for GCA types. I'm looking at the first. tenth and eighteenth fairways when I got there last week and (wait for it) -- they're PAINTED green. The grass is dormant and makes for a nice playing surface right now, but the CCFAD crowd don't wanna see no brown fairways for sure. For $100, I guess they need to have some green. The color is absolutely horrific. Reminded me of watching classic movies when they'd ben colorized. Well, whatever.

Cheers,
R

[Matthew Mollica]

An updated Rustic photo tour sounds like an assignment for the fearless Kyle Henderson & his trusty camera!

[Joe Bausch]

An updated Rustic photo tour sounds like an assignment for the fearless Kyle Henderson & his trusty camera!

+1

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()