News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Tim Pitner

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Let's talk Gil Hanse
« Reply #100 on: March 16, 2012, 09:03:18 AM »
Having been away from my computer for sometime, I do find it interesting how RC can bring out the negativetity in the site.  Folks may want listen to David Kelly and David Moriarity as they have played a Gil Hanse course more often than many have played ANY course.
If RC was private and had a maintenance budget, it would be top 30 modern in my opinion.  It's not close. 


Dan,

How, specifically, does the fact that Rustic is public and apparently lacks a maintenance budget hold it back?  How does it affect play?

Thanks.

David Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Let's talk Gil Hanse
« Reply #101 on: March 16, 2012, 12:27:16 PM »
I must say, from pix and discussion, Rustic looks to be a very fine course and more importantly (for me anyway - tee hee) the sort of course I would admire.  The folks living nearby are quite fortunate to have this place at their doorstep and at reasonable costs.  Is there a club attached to the course?

Yes but it isn't very active or social and most people just join it for handicapping purposes.
"Whatever in creation exists without my knowledge exists without my consent." - Judge Holden, Blood Meridian.

Lynn_Shackelford

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Let's talk Gil Hanse
« Reply #102 on: March 16, 2012, 12:52:07 PM »
Actually in the initial plans an elevated tee across and above the road was discussed on #13.  I think it better that it is not there.

When Geoff showed the course at opening to some "modern architects" they too asked why the flatland and not the hillsides were used.

For me elevated tees are fun the first time, but soon after the visual benefit dies, and the hike up and down becomes just that.

Dan G.    Bucknell has the most fun BB team I have seen this year.  They remind me of Butler.
It must be kept in mind that the elusive charm of the game suffers as soon as any successful method of standardization is allowed to creep in.  A golf course should never pretend to be, nor is intended to be, an infallible tribunal.
               Tom Simpson

Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Let's talk Gil Hanse
« Reply #103 on: March 16, 2012, 01:40:56 PM »
David M

"Subtle Contours dictating angle of approach" - an example of that might be the 16th on Gullane 3. Slight pimple, not even a mound, on the front edge of green and slightly to the left. Depending where the pin is in relation to the mound tells you where best to be for your approach shot. Elsewhere at Gullane, several of the greens have slopes coming in from the edges that the preferred angle of approach depends where the pin is located relative to those slopes. These are not huge steep slopes either, they don't have to be when the course is running.

Niall

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Let's talk Gil Hanse
« Reply #104 on: March 16, 2012, 02:03:52 PM »
David M

"Subtle Contours dictating angle of approach" - an example of that might be the 16th on Gullane 3. Slight pimple, not even a mound, on the front edge of green and slightly to the left. Depending where the pin is in relation to the mound tells you where best to be for your approach shot. Elsewhere at Gullane, several of the greens have slopes coming in from the edges that the preferred angle of approach depends where the pin is located relative to those slopes. These are not huge steep slopes either, they don't have to be when the course is running.

Niall

What if it is a mixed bag?  What if the same feature/relationship tells some golfers one thing, and another golfer another?   
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Let's talk Gil Hanse
« Reply #105 on: March 16, 2012, 02:15:46 PM »
David

Fair point, I suspect it would depend on your game. However, the contour should make you do something, or rather there should be a contour to make you do something. Its entirely possible mind you that the hole positions on the days I played them were fairly non-determining in terms of approach angle, I don't know, but the holes with the bland drives tend to go with the wide open blander greens. The odd bunker or hollow in the landing areas or around about the green would give them something to go on but quite a few of the holes are missing that IMO.

Niall

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Let's talk Gil Hanse
« Reply #106 on: March 16, 2012, 02:35:55 PM »
However, the contour should make you do something, or rather there should be a contour to make you do something.

I agree with this, but would add that sometimes contours are so subtle that they don't "make" the golfers do anything.  Many golfers just try to hit it at the pin or at the middle of the green, and when they end up in an difficult situation they figure it was dumb luck, unfairness, or quirkiness.  

How much toll must a feature take for it be actually be considered a quality and functional strategic feature?  I don't know the answer, but Rustic probably pushes the envelope in this regard about as far as any course I know.  From your descriptions I suspect this may he happening at CS as well, but perhaps in your mind it just doesn't quite happen as it should there.
« Last Edit: March 16, 2012, 02:37:45 PM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Let's talk Gil Hanse
« Reply #107 on: March 16, 2012, 03:03:15 PM »
David

I'm not sure its a toll as such, just throw the ball off line a bit, not necessarily much, but if its firm and fast then thats enough to make 3 or 4 yards of a difference say, then thats worth coming in at the right angle to avoid.

One thing you said in one of your earlier posts about good golfers not shooting the lights out at Rustic Canyon even though they thought it easy made me think of a conversation I had with Jon Wiggett when playing at Old Moray recently. We were playing probably my least favourite hole on the course that has a nice drive but the approach isn't up to much and pretty uninspiring. After I had my usual bogey or double bogey on the hole I suggested to Jon that I though I played it badly because the hole simply doesn't inspire me. The hole before, and the hole after are much harder and much better holes (not because they are harder) and yet I usually play them well. I think thats the problem with some of the holes at CS in that they don't inspire or challenge and instead invite humdrum golf if that makes sense.

Niall

Anthony Gray

Re: Let's talk Gil Hanse
« Reply #108 on: March 16, 2012, 03:44:43 PM »

  At CS the thing that stood out to me is that the fairways are relitively flat but closer to the green there are alot of contours.

  Anthony


Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Let's talk Gil Hanse
« Reply #109 on: March 16, 2012, 03:54:19 PM »
Anthony

I think you're right but still not sure there those contours really "did something" if you know what I mean.
One other thing and I don't know if you noticed it, but I expected there to be more borrow on a lot of the shots when rolling out. Maybe something to do with the newness of the course ?

Niall

Dan Grossman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Let's talk Gil Hanse
« Reply #110 on: March 17, 2012, 12:17:48 AM »

Dan G.    Bucknell has the most fun BB team I have seen this year.  They remind me of Butler.


Lynn - you have a great memory. We were bummed to lose to Lehigh in the championship game and lose the automatic birth. However, it was great to see Lehigh win today and Bucknell win in the 1st round of the NIT. God bless student-athletes.

Dan Grossman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Let's talk Gil Hanse
« Reply #111 on: March 17, 2012, 12:30:41 AM »
Actually in the initial plans an elevated tee across and above the road was discussed on #13.  I think it better that it is not there.

When Geoff showed the course at opening to some "modern architects" they too asked why the flatland and not the hillsides were used.

For me elevated tees are fun the first time, but soon after the visual benefit dies, and the hike up and down becomes just that.



I think this is an important point. As a walker, I find it annoying to be scrambling up and down hills. I personally dislike elevated tee shots. The one at RC #16 frustrates me as well as Bandon Trails #14. I'm not a big fan of Old Mac #8 as well. We (on this website) often talk about routings and walkability. On a site like RC, it sacrifices both of the above with limited benefits to put tees on the hillsides.

Tim - the course is usually in a condition which doesn't emphasize it's best assets. During the summer, the course overwaters the green and aprons, which makes it difficult to play the ground game. The ball sits down in the fairway grass and the bunkers aren't maintained to gather balls. In short, maintenance undoes some of the architectural intent.

Ross Waldorf

Re: Let's talk Gil Hanse
« Reply #112 on: March 17, 2012, 12:39:54 AM »
I remember playing with somebody at Moorpark Country Club and mentioning that Rustic was the best course in the area. He responded that he'd never played it, but had driven up the entrance road and thought it "just looked pretty flat." Said comment coming on the ridiculous downhill 5th hole on the Ridgeline nine, an absolutely absurd hole designed to get you off a mountain and down to some flatter areas, with a second shot landing area that plays about 8 feet wide.

To me this describes why Rustic Canyon is truly a treasure. First of all, the course drops about 300 feet from the high point (16 tee) to the low (4th green), so it sure as hell isn't flat. But the fact that this guy thought it "looked flat" is what I love so much about it. Rustic Canyon is the epitome of a golf course that will not reveal itself without multiple plays. For the architecture enthusiast, a single play will definitely be rewarding. For the "average Joe" (as we often call them here) the course may at first seem a bit dull, because the subtlety of so many of its features isn't obvious the way it is on a typical modern eye candy design.

Take the 12th hole -- one of my favorites. I've heard the green called "unfair" a few times, because the slopes to the right and behind the green can be severe. On days where the green speeds are quick, you can definitely putt off the green, and if you do your ball might go thirty yards before it stops. We tend to love that stuff here, but lots of people don't. But what makes the hole so great has much to do with the prevailing slope of the ("flat") canyon, and that it's quite difficult to perceive the slope. If you play the course often, you know it's there and to respect it. If you don't, you can wind up with this scenario: Your putt from the front of the 12th green toward a back hole location has to go what looks like uphill to a small shelf in the back. And the hill looks pretty steep. You hit it up the hill, the ball doesn't slow as much as you were thinking and then takes off after it crests the hill, goes happily through the green and winds up really far away down a swale. So now you're short-sided. And pissed. Now THAT's a cool green. What's even better is that you may not be aware that, most of the time, being pretty far right in the fairway makes for a much more manageable approach. But from the tee you basically see nothing but a (really) wide fairway with no distinguishing features at all, just space with nothing in particular to aim at. And the two things you do see are that the green is tantalizingly close and far to the left, and that there's one tree (pretty much the only one that's in play -- sort of -- on the entire course) between you and the green. Well, you just want to hook one around the tree and go for the green, for sure! So you do! And it's usually the worst possible shot you could make. You should have hit it out into that ridiculously wide, featureless flat(ish) fairway area to the right, idiot! Because trying to hit the aforementioned green from the left is really fricken difficult since all those scary slopes we were just discussing are now going to nab your slightly pushed, or strong approach and then you'll be short sided! Oh, and did I mention that making a 2 is a distinct possibility here? I mean, you'd have to hit a fantastic tee shot, probably, to do it, but how easy should an eagle on a par 4 be, right? 300 yards of utter architectural genius! Thanks Gil, Jim, and Geoff for that. I certainly appreciate what you did every time I get near the place.

By the way -- I do agree with Dan that sometimes the conditioning these days (especially in the summer) can undermine the architectural intent. It's a bummer when the approach areas get too wet and the ball doesn't run through them the way it should. But given the cost to play ( it can be as low as maybe $35 during the week!), you just can't complain too harshly. And especially not me, because although I've been playing there regularly since about two months after it opened in 2002, these days I play about three times a year. Just want to hang with the wife and kids, I guess.

Fun post to write. Cheers, guys.
R

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Let's talk Gil Hanse
« Reply #113 on: March 17, 2012, 09:16:41 PM »
Ross,

Fun post to read as well.  I think you captured the place beautifully.

It also provides a good example of the value of actually discussing the architecture when dealing with critical comment about a golf course, whether the comment is fair or unfair. 
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

David Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Let's talk Gil Hanse
« Reply #114 on: March 17, 2012, 10:51:26 PM »
Ross,

Its fun to stand on the 18th tee box and watch people play their approach shots into #12 - especially the people who are unaware of the effect of the slope on the green.  You see and hear some puzzled reactions as players react to their approach shots not stopping on the greens despite hitting a W or PW.
"Whatever in creation exists without my knowledge exists without my consent." - Judge Holden, Blood Meridian.

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Let's talk Gil Hanse
« Reply #115 on: March 18, 2012, 08:48:54 AM »
Take the 12th hole -- one of my favorites. I've heard the green called "unfair" a few times, because the slopes to the right and behind the green can be severe. On days where the green speeds are quick, you can definitely putt off the green, and if you do your ball might go thirty yards before it stops. We tend to love that stuff here, but lots of people don't. But what makes the hole so great has much to do with the prevailing slope of the ("flat") canyon, and that it's quite difficult to perceive the slope. If you play the course often, you know it's there and to respect it. If you don't, you can wind up with this scenario: Your putt from the front of the 12th green toward a back hole location has to go what looks like uphill to a small shelf in the back. And the hill looks pretty steep. You hit it up the hill, the ball doesn't slow as much as you were thinking and then takes off after it crests the hill, goes happily through the green and winds up really far away down a swale. So now you're short-sided. And pissed. Now THAT's a cool green. What's even better is that you may not be aware that, most of the time, being pretty far right in the fairway makes for a much more manageable approach. But from the tee you basically see nothing but a (really) wide fairway with no distinguishing features at all, just space with nothing in particular to aim at. And the two things you do see are that the green is tantalizingly close and far to the left, and that there's one tree (pretty much the only one that's in play -- sort of -- on the entire course) between you and the green. Well, you just want to hook one around the tree and go for the green, for sure! So you do! And it's usually the worst possible shot you could make. You should have hit it out into that ridiculously wide, featureless flat(ish) fairway area to the right, idiot! Because trying to hit the aforementioned green from the left is really fricken difficult since all those scary slopes we were just discussing are now going to nab your slightly pushed, or strong approach and then you'll be short sided! Oh, and did I mention that making a 2 is a distinct possibility here? I mean, you'd have to hit a fantastic tee shot, probably, to do it, but how easy should an eagle on a par 4 be, right? 300 yards of utter architectural genius! Thanks Gil, Jim, and Geoff for that. I certainly appreciate what you did every time I get near the place.

Best description of the architectural features of a hole I've read in a long time, nicely done. I remember many long discussions of the 12th on here, I'm sure others do as well, but this post really fleshed things out.
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Dan Herrmann

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Let's talk Gil Hanse
« Reply #116 on: March 18, 2012, 10:49:09 AM »
Shoot - I have GOT to get out to Rustic Canyon.  

French Creek has an annual "Hanse Cup" with Applebrook (we always lose :) )  Maybe we need to start something like the Flynn boys have, where an event is held annually at a Flynn course and guys from other Flynn courses form teams to compete.  IIRC, each club has one team.  Details:  http://myphillygolf.com/detail.asp?id=1709&pid=11

Ross Waldorf

Re: Let's talk Gil Hanse
« Reply #117 on: March 19, 2012, 03:16:02 AM »
Glad you guys enjoyed the description. There's just something about Rustic that makes me want to wax poetic. A lot of it has to do with the fact that I grew up playing munis (some pretty decent ones, some not so much), and having a reasonably-priced public golf course nearby of this quality just gets me going. There's no doubt that it's the finest golf course (easily) that I've played in my life on a regular basis. And it rewards lots of play. It's one of those "the more you know, the less you understand" kinds of situations.

It's a great golf course. And a particularly great one for someone of my ability and mindset, I think. As a mid-capper (14ish when I play with some regularity -- the kind of player who might manage to get it into high single digits if I really worked at it, but not the kind of player who could ever get really good because of too much inconsistency) -- but where was I? Oh, right -- anyway . . . I like a golf course that keeps you on your toes, but not one that's going to kick your ass. Now, Rustic can kick your ass in places, especially around the greens, but it isn't the type of course that has a lot of scary tee shots into tight driving areas. Being out of position usually means you can find your ball, and that your next shot will be trickier than if you're in position. But the penalties for being out of position might not be so obvious all the time.

Sometimes being out of position just means you can't see things as well as you might. Or that you're going to have to live with an angle that makes things harder. But it won't necessarily mean you have no shot. Usually you do, but you can be unwittingly coaxed into doing things that could slowly snowball on you. I like that. David, I think mentioned the gully that runs through the 2nd fairway from short left to long right. This is a very cool feature. It isn't that deep, but it has subtle and interesting effects on how the hole plays. A ball headed for the preferred left side that doesn't quite go far enough might be pushed more to the right, also as I think David noted. And the farther right you get, the tricker your shot tends to be. But there's plenty of room still, from a right-side position, to execute a fine second. You just have some disadvantages. The green sets up better from the left, in large part because it's open on that side, but also because you can see things better from there so you tend to be more confident. From the right you have to contend with a bunker short of the green. It's far enough short that you can usually land a shot past it and still roll the ball onto the green, even wind up in good position. But you can't see the green well (or at all) from that side, so you're at a mental disadvantage. The course has quite a lot of these kinds of features, you won't be killed by your mistake, but you're often forced into doing something that creates more uncertainty and is harder to execute. So as noted in another earlier post (David again?), you often get this feeling that the course wasn't really that difficult, but you just had an off day. Lots of little things didn't quite go your way. That's a very common feeling you get out there. But not usually a feeling of "jeez, that place just kicked my ass!" I like that.

And then, the greens as a set of 18 are just amazing. One of the best sets of greens I've ever played. Pasatiempo is the only place I can think of (that I've played) that gives me that feeling. Just a great set of greens. For example, Pacific Dunes is my favorite golf course, hands down. I absolutely worship that course, and I think it's about the most artistic golf course from 1 to 18 that I know. But I might like the greens as a set at Rustic better. Have to think more about that . . .

Anyway, hope all of you guys who'd like to play it have a chance. But that's the cool thing about Rustic -- just drive out to Moorpark when you're in LA and plunk down your $35 or $60 or whatever, and step out on the first tee. You'll have a very nice day.

Cheers,
R

Joe Bausch

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Let's talk Gil Hanse
« Reply #118 on: March 25, 2012, 11:05:21 AM »
Joe Juliano of the Philadelphia Inquirer wrote an article on Hanse for today's issue:

http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/golf/20120325_Malvern_golf-course_architect_thrust_into_the_spotlight.html
@jwbausch (for new photo albums)
The site for the Cobb's Creek project:  https://cobbscreek.org/
Nearly all Delaware Valley golf courses in photo albums: Bausch Collection

Joe Bausch

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Let's talk Gil Hanse
« Reply #119 on: March 28, 2012, 03:35:27 AM »
It's the biggest golf course design announcement in history and this week on State of the Game co-hosts Geoff Shackelford and Rod Morri catch up with Gil Hanse to discuss his winning design for the 2016 Olympic Games golf course.

Listen to the wonderful interview here:

http://stateofthegame.libsyn.com/webpage
@jwbausch (for new photo albums)
The site for the Cobb's Creek project:  https://cobbscreek.org/
Nearly all Delaware Valley golf courses in photo albums: Bausch Collection

Dan Herrmann

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Let's talk Gil Hanse
« Reply #120 on: September 21, 2014, 05:17:04 PM »
I just scanned Gil's French Creek drawings from our old yardage book that Eric Peveto put together 10 years ago.

Here's #9


I can upload them all if there's interest.

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Let's talk Gil Hanse
« Reply #121 on: September 21, 2014, 09:27:56 PM »
Actually in the initial plans an elevated tee across and above the road was discussed on #13.  I think it better that it is not there.

When Geoff showed the course at opening to some "modern architects" they too asked why the flatland and not the hillsides were used.

For me elevated tees are fun the first time, but soon after the visual benefit dies, and the hike up and down becomes just that.



I think this is an important point. As a walker, I find it annoying to be scrambling up and down hills. I personally dislike elevated tee shots. The one at RC #16 frustrates me as well as Bandon Trails #14. I'm not a big fan of Old Mac #8 as well. We (on this website) often talk about routings and walkability. On a site like RC, it sacrifices both of the above with limited benefits to put tees on the hillsides.

Tim - the course is usually in a condition which doesn't emphasize it's best assets. During the summer, the course overwaters the green and aprons, which makes it difficult to play the ground game. The ball sits down in the fairway grass and the bunkers aren't maintained to gather balls. In short, maintenance undoes some of the architectural intent.

What's objectionable about the elevated tee at #8 Old Mac?    You climb the hill to the 7th green, not the 8th tee.  No extra climbing required.