[Joe_Tucholski]

Back in November I went out for an afternoon round after not playing for awhile and found they had modified the hole extending the fairway on the green side of the creek bed about 30 yards towards the tee.  I kind of figured someone with more knowledge and experience regarding Rustic might post something about the small modification but they haven't so I figure I'll post something on it.

Prior to the change the 7th was one of my least favorite holes on the course.  The diagonal creek bed was such that I could only carry it if I was playing from the blue tees and they were up a bit or the white tees...even then if I was slightly offline I'd find myself in trouble.  Playing short of the creek left a tough shot to the green regardless of the line (further right did provide a slightly better angle)  I get that the favorable line to the green should have risk in order to obtain the advantage but the risk seemed too high in my eyes.  Further my usual golf buddy is significantly longer off the tee than I am and he rarely attempted to carry the creek bed because of the small fairway and the likelihood of ending up in one of the bunkers short of the green.  

Below is a sequence of photos of the hole on the left side taken from Google earth.


Above is the 2004 Google earth image.


Above is the late 2005 Google earth image.  I learned from David Kelly and David Moriarty that the green was moved after the flood to a higher location.  Also you can see that the fairway does not extend as far back towards the tee (looking at the relationship to the 6th tee) but not sure why.


Above is a 2009 Google earth image.


Above is a 2009 Google earth image with my rough addition of the extra fairway.


Above as an image from the green looking back at the extended fairway.  The dark green line is roughly where the fairway used to transition to scrub.

In my eyes this small change has dramatically improved the hole.  I now have the additional and attractive option of carrying the creek and improving my angle to the green.   There is still risk but the odds of success are far more attractive.

Is there anyone who looks at this change and sees a fault with it?  Anyone care to speculate (or know) why they decreased the size of the fairway over the creek after the flooding and why it took so long to extend it again?

For reference based on Google Earth
The shortest carry from the black tee was roughly 275 yards it's now about 245 yards
The shortest carry from the blue tee was roughly 240 yards it's now about 210 yards.

[Greg Chambers]

I think it's great...I think the entire course should be mowed at fairway height...very perplexing hole, no doubt...

[Greg Chambers]

It's very interesting how the course presents itself...with the down-canyon holes being typically "easier to see" where to hit the ball...yet the challenge remains at the green, as the putts just break down the canyon and that's hard to see...as opposed to the holes that play up the canyon (7 included, of course) where it's difficult to see where to hit the ball...given the uphill nature of most of the holes...but once around the green, they break where they look like they might...very cool yin and yang of course architecture...

[David Kelly]

In my eyes this small change has dramatically improved the hole.  I now have the additional and attractive option of carrying the creek and improving my angle to the green.   There is still risk but the odds of success are far more attractive.

Is there anyone who looks at this change and sees a fault with it?  Anyone care to speculate (or know) why they decreased the size of the fairway over the creek after the flooding and why it took so long to extend it again?

For reference based on Google Earth
The shortest carry from the black tee was roughly 275 yards it's now about 245 yards
The shortest carry from the blue tee was roughly 240 yards it's now about 210 yards.

Joe,

Good post.  

The reason that the fairway addition was not restored immediately after the flood was that much of that land was washed away in the flood. If you look at the difference between the first and second photos you'll notice that the dry creek bed that ran from top left to bottom right has been re-routed, widened and cleared out.  But those pictures don't tell the whole story because in between those two versions of the hole all of the green grass on hole #7 (both green and fairway) in the first picture was completely wiped out and covered by sand and silt.  The ENTIRE  7th hole was rebuilt by Hanse and Wagner.  

I know that funds were in short supply for the rebuild so that may be why they didn't rebuild the fairway, it could be that they thought the new hole didn't need an alternate fairway because the left fairway was now extended or there could be some technical issue  that I am unaware of.  

I like the new fairway addition but I don't think it is the best option with at least half of the pin positions (every pin on the left side of the green).  The original right hand fairway was harder to reach but the way the green was constructed gave you a great look and much easier shot if you made it to that fairway so it was worth the risk.

I greatly miss the original #7 especially the green which was one of the subtlest but hardest to putt on the course.  However, having seen the wasteland that was left in the wake of the flood I thought Gil did a good job with the new hole.

[Dan Grossman]

I like the new fairway addition but I don't think it is the best option with at least half of the pin positions (every pin on the left side of the green).  The original right hand fairway was harder to reach but the way the green was constructed gave you a great look and much easier shot if you made it to that fairway so it was worth the risk.

I'm not even sure you gain all that much when the pin is in the trough. You have a better look at the hole position, but the ball funnels there anyway.

What would be cool (contours don't really allow for this) is if they could extend the fairway over toward #2 fairway. Then, to get to the front left pin, you could go long and right and have a pretty good look and angle to do so.  Currently, there just isn't a play to the left pin from the right fairway.

[Greg Chambers]

like I said, just mow the whole thing fairway...

[David Kelly]

like I said, just mow the whole thing fairway...

Mow what fairway?

[Greg Chambers]

all of the turf...mow all of the turf at fairway height...

[Dan Grossman]

all of the turf...mow all of the turf at fairway height...

By turf, do you mean the scrub bushes, sand and rabbits?

[Greg Chambers]

mustard...and rabbits...at fairway height...

[Anthony Gray]

  A right handed golfer with a slice such as I am had a difficult time playing the hole. I could not cross the hazard in one and my second shot was well back of my playing partners. Nice thread.

  Anthony

[Lynn_Shackelford]

I don't know all the obstacles in play in reconstructing the 7th.  However the original was a very fun hole, the current one is no fun.  Weird tee shot, weird second shot, recovery from missing the green is most difficult.  Slows play of the course as there is now an 80 yard walk to the 8th tee.  For cart ballers two long walks, to the green and then back to the cart.
I can probably think up some more dislikes but that is probably enough for this Saturday morning.

The original was overlooked because of so many other good holes, but it would have been the best hole on most courses in Ventura County.  For example there is no hole at Olivas Links even close to the original 7th at Rustic.

[DMoriarty]

Thanks for the thread on the 7th, Joe.  I've added the missing snapshot to the sequence of events.  The middle aerial is from January 11, 2005.



The wash shifted substantially, and the sediment significantly altered the surrounding elevations.  Here is the same sequence with the original green and fairways highlighted:

[Scott Weersing]

There use to be a risk and reward to the 7th hole with a driver to the fairway to the right. But then it disappeared with the flood. Now it seems that it is back in play.

I think another preferred angle is far left because you are up higher and can see more of the green from the left.

I am not sure it is worth the risk to drive right into the new fairway because you could end up in the dry creek bed.

To birdie this hole, it depends where the pin is. If the hole is in the front you might have a chance. The middle of the green is unusual because it is a big dip, almost a biarittz. The back hole locations are hard to hit because you have to bounce it up or have a lot of spin.

This is the weakest of the short par 4s at Rustic Canyon (no 3, 7, and 12) but it is still a good, short par 4 because you don't have to have a 440 yard hole to have a good par 4. Most courses don't have one good short par 4 and Rustic has two. I wish this hole was driveable and perhaps it is now with the new fairway.

[DMoriarty]

Scott,

I'd be surprised it the green is reachable for many.   The carry to the green from the back tee is about 350 uphill, and the angle and elevation are such that I don't think a running it up is realistic.  Maybe with the next version of the Pro V1.

I think the carry will make sense for some depending upon the tee position.  I always thought the old carry didn't really make sense for all of the pin placements, which was something I really liked about the original.  So it doesn't bother me that the carry may still be a fools play for some of the pins.
___________________________________________________________________

Here are a few photos post-destruction of the original hole.  The flag is still standing in the last pic.

[Kalen Braley]

This thread reminds of one about Sharp Park that was around a few years ago.

It was suggested in that thread that MacKenzie didn't do his best work, mentally, because he easily could have guessed the beach side holes would be washed out in a storm, and done something different.  Given the relative young age of this course and it already having a few different versions of this hole based on being located near a big wash...is that same issue true of this course?

Its pretty common knowledge that the ground within the 1st 100 miles of the coastline is fairly unstable and the entire state is constantly plagued by landslides and other massive amounts of dirt that move easily with a bit of rain.

[Lynn_Shackelford]

This thread reminds of one about Sharp Park that was around a few years ago.

It was suggested in that thread that MacKenzie didn't do his best work, mentally, because he easily could have guessed the beach side holes would be washed out in a storm, and done something different.  Given the relative young age of this course and it already having a few different versions of this hole based on being located near a big wash...is that same issue true of this course?

Its pretty common knowledge that the ground within the 1st 100 miles of the coastline is fairly unstable and the entire state is constantly plagued by landslides and other massive amounts of dirt that move easily with a bit of rain.

This has previously been discussed ad nauseum.  Here goes one more time.  I walked the site many times a year before any dirt was moved.  There was evidence that at some point in time there are a wash or creek going down the middle of the canyon.  This could have been 300 years ago or 50 years ago, I don't know.  "Old timers" familiar with the canyon, they were local farmers and ranchers, said they could not remember any water, repeat any water flowing there for the past 25 years.  The landowner, Ventura County, was not concerned about preserving any wash site, but was concerned about protecting some "native" plants in certain areas.  Yes, California has some unstable areas that get washed out in unusually heavy rain winters, most a result of man made fires.  Prior to the washout of the 7th hole, someone started a fire over in Fillmore and with the dry season and winds it blew in one day over to "Happy Camp" canyon a 4,000 acre park where Rustic Canyon was built.  One day the following winter a storm stalled over Rustic Canyon and dumped about 4 inches in rain in one day.  No problem normally, but with the previous fire, mud, and debris from two miles away had nothing to hold it back and it washed down onto the golf course.
Poor planning, I will let you decide.

[DMoriarty]

I agree with Lynn, except I think he may be downplaying the events leading up to the course damage.  In October of 2003 the "Simi Valley Fire" burned over 100,000 acres including the entire watershed above Rustic Canyon.  The fire burned the vegetation down to the dirt.  The 16th tee looking north.


Another from the 14th fairway looking northeast.


And one from the fifteenth tee.


The next winter, beginning December 26, 2004 and ending about January 11, 2005 two horrendous storms ravaged Southern California. The rain totals varied drastically, but the heaviest rain fell in the coastal mountains, with some areas reportedly receiving over four feet of rain during this period.   The watershed above Rustic goes back about eight or nine miles and roughly 8000+ acres, and there was no established vegetation to slowdown the water or to stop the erosion.   What had been a tiny wash - you could jump across it in many spots - became a raging river, and with it came tons of mud, silt, uprooted trees, bridges, and anything else in its path.
_____________________________________________


Kalen,

Could the architects at Rustic Canyon "easily have guessed" that 100,000 acres would burn immediately above the Canyon and then the next winter record storms would drop between two and four feet of rain in the same area over a period of a few weeks?  Could they have guessed that the city and county's drainage plan would fail, and that the neighborhood below the course would essentially act as a dam, causing the water to back up over the course?

If they could "easily have guessed" these things, then what should they have done differently?  Laid some drain pipe as some have ridiculously suggested?  At what increased cost? And what good is drain pipe against a river powerful enough to uproot full grown trees?Don't build the course? That'd be a shame from my perspective.  Propose moving 100,000 of cubic yards of dirt in a regional park designated and managed by a nature conservancy?  The result would be no course.  

While we are pretending that the damage was reasonably foreseeable (as far as I am concerned this definitely takes some heavy duty pretending,) we might as well set aside zoning and environmental concerns.  What would the cost of have been to prevent the damage? How does that compare to the cost of building the course as it was, then repairing the damage once done? If we figure in the extremely low probability of such damage occurring, which approach do you think would have made  the most sense economically?

It is easy to second guess unforeseen disasters, but even with hindsight I have trouble understanding the logic behind second guessing what was originally done at Rustic.  Anyone?

[Greg Chambers]

Kalen,

You'll have to remind us all how many courses you've helped develop, and/or design, and/or engineer, and/or grown in, and/or maintained, and/or operated, and/or etc etc etc...

David and Lynn, great insight, thank you both!

[DMoriarty]

Greg,  In fairness I haven't done those things either, although Lynn has.   I understand why Kalen might wonder about what happened at Rustic.  Just recently I saw a snide remark about how Hanse courses were poorly engineered, and even one designer has been known to arrogantly suggest (and repeatedly so) the project was seriously flawed. Given such commentary I guess I can see why why Kalen might wonder whether what happened was reasonably foreseeable.

That said, I don't understand the following comment . . . Its pretty common knowledge that the ground within the 1st 100 miles of the coastline is fairly unstable and the entire state is constantly plagued by landslides and other massive amounts of dirt that move easily with a bit of rain. . . .

Kalen? What does this mean exactly?  If the 1st 100 miles of coastline is this fragile then the problems at Rustic would pale in comparison to the disasters awaiting the rest of California.  And is the "entire state" really "constantly plagued by landslides?" Is it possible your view of California is a bit off?



 

[David Kelly]

That said, I don't understand the following comment . . . Its pretty common knowledge that the ground within the 1st 100 miles of the coastline is fairly unstable and the entire state is constantly plagued by landslides and other massive amounts of dirt that move easily with a bit of rain. . . .

Kalen? What does this mean exactly?  If the 1st 100 miles of coastline is this fragile then the problems at Rustic would pale in comparison to the disasters awaiting the rest of California.  And is the "entire state" really "constantly plagued by landslides?" Is it possible your view of California is a bit off?

That's why I've been buying land in Hemet, Banning and Tehachapi.  I'm just going to sit back and let the beach come to me.



 

[Joe_Tucholski]

I know that funds were in short supply for the rebuild so that may be why they didn't rebuild the fairway, it could be that they thought the new hole didn't need an alternate fairway because the left fairway was now extended or there could be some technical issue  that I am unaware of.  

I like the new fairway addition but I don't think it is the best option with at least half of the pin positions (every pin on the left side of the green).  The original right hand fairway was harder to reach but the way the green was constructed gave you a great look and much easier shot if you made it to that fairway so it was worth the risk.

Thanks for the response I was assuming it was cost or a concern with folks swinging a little too hard and slicing their tee shot into the 6th tee.

As far as the left fairway for left pin placements looking at the aerials from 2007 you're definitely right...unfortunately I haven't been smart enough to put my ball there...not sure I can either.  Here are the views from my two tee shots last week where I played one ball to the left fairway and one ball over the creek bed.  I hope the pin is on the left tomorrow so I can give it a real go for the long left play.






David M thanks for all the additional images I like the overlay of the old fairway and should have made something similar but my editing skills are minimal.  The rest of the photos are crazy.

edited while reviewing the posted and noticed the images were no longer showing

[Sean_A]

David

Rustic has long interested me not least because of the divided opinion on its quality - that is often the sort of course which impresses me the most.

Is the section of Happy Camp Park where Rustic Canyon GC is located a flood plain?  Does water just cascade down the hills/mountains or are there many barrancas?  Looking at a map of the area it seems like an obvious place for water to flow, but there are no rivers - suggesting flash floods could occur very infrequently.  What feeds the pond at the south end of the park?  It seems like the course had very bad luck in the short term, but wouldn't it be expected that at some point in time, water will flow heavily toward the course?  

Ciao

[Lynn_Shackelford]

Sean
I cannot say if it is in a flood plain or not.

Today, with vegetation returning, once again there is no water flow through the golf course during or after a heavy rain.  I have hiked about a mile up the canyon and there is a creek there which can be crossed by foot in several places.  So not much flow from up the canyon as again vegetation has returned.  That creek ends about 1/4 to 1/2 a mile before reaching the course.  I don't know if it goes underground or just don't have enough water to continue.  It is very sandy.  The canyon is sand based so there are seldom any wet spots on or around the course even during rain storms.  Hope that helps.
As for the catch basin at the end of the course, a city councilperson lives adjacent to it, and had the influence to demand that some work be done there to protect her house and the neighborhood.  This after the flood.  This work was done by the Ventura County Flood Control District I believe, not sure.  They did a little channeling through the course but nothing that you would notice today.

[Dan Grossman]

The 7th is not my favorite hole on the course these days and I do long for the days of the old #7.  However, for me, there is a bit more interest off the tee on the hole in its current incarnation. 

In an old thread, we went back and forth about this, but I would not ever try to drive the wash on the original hole.  I didn't like the 3/4 nature of the shot and felt like I had a better chance for birdie by hitting left and having a full SW into the green.  Others felt differently, but I had a lot of success with this strategy.  I was always in play on the hole and typically had a very reasonable putt for birdie. 

Currently, the play off the tee is really dictated by the pin position as others have noted.  If the pin is left, going long left is the best play.  You get a good look at the green and have a SW to a pretty small target.  Its a bit difficult nailing the distance, but it is the easiest spot, in my opinion.  If the pin is in the right half of the green, the shot from the left fairway is doable, but becomes even more difficult.  With a SW, you are more likely than not going to end up in the trough.  However, if you challenge the wash and hit it over, you have a much more straightforward shot and it is easier to get it close.  I think it is still a difficult shot and the ball will still want to end up in the trough, but there is a much better chance to make birdie from over the wash. 

All in all, I think it is still a good hole.  I miss the original, although I do think the current version is more difficult than the original. 

David M - thanks for doing the overlay.  I had never been quite able to put my finger on how the current version (geographically) had compared to the original.  In that photo which shows the pin on both #7 and #8, really highlights how much lower the original green was.  The current version is probably more similar to #8.

Addressing the floods, it was a bit of a fluke.  The fire season that we had in 2004 was terrible for Ventura County.  When fire denudes the hillside, the following winter you will see the type of flooding and mudslides that occured at Rustic and have been occuring in the San Gabriel foothills following the big Station fire two years back.  Angeles National also sustained significant damage to the golf course during the same storm that damaged Rustic.  I believe the rains in 2005 were classified as a "100 year event" and it would seem silly, to me, to engineer beyond that.  Despite all the massive damage, the course design remains intact with the only significant hole changes being to #7 and #4.  There are some other changes, but none which, in my opinion, change the strategic intent of the original design.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()