[Matthew Lloyd]

After living in LA for 6 years finally played Rustic Canyon for the first time. Great course, really enjoyed it. Loved how fast it played, the conditioning was great for a public course with that amount of play, and thought the play around the greens was a lot of fun. The price also has to make this one of the best quality per dollar rounds I've ever played.  Will definitely be going back many times. 

[Matthew Lloyd]

[Lou_Duran]

RC demonstrates that a smart routing and design even on a relatively flat, un-dramatic piece of land can yield compelling golf.  If it was located in Orange County it could command a much higher gf.  Great variety and subtlety.  I regret that in my nearly three years living in Costa Mesa I only made the drive a couple of times.  The course merited a much greater effort on my part, even considering the horrific SoCal traffic.

[Mike Schott]

One of the best public courses I've played. So many options and strategies. I played it in January of 2013 and it was firm and fast and in great shape. Unfortunately my job no longer takes me to LA so I may never again get the chance.

[Chris DeToro]

What a fabulous golf course.  I've not seen many non-seaside courses play as firm and fast as this one.  The greens are sneaky fast which brings out the subleties in the movement and tilt of the complexes.  Lots of fun to play especially in the perfect SoCal weather

[Paul Gray]

$43 maximum fee. Awesome. And I was led to believe that firm and fast was only possible in America at high end clubs. 

[Jason Thurman]

Paul, Rustic Canyon is located just north of Los Angeles on sandy soil in a very favorable climate for golf. It's not a clay course in the Midwest. I don't think anyone has ever suggested that it's hard to keep a course firm and fast on sandy soil in the SoCal climate.

[Paul Gray]

Jason,

Just having a bit of fun. I concede that I started it but let's not hijack the tour.

[Jason Thurman]

Paul, it's hardly hijacking to talk about the natural advantages that Rustic Canyon enjoys over the huge majority of courses in the US considering that Matthew's initial impression of the course focused almost entirely on its playing conditions, especially in light of so much recent ignorant lambasting of courses that don't enjoy those same advantages, notably perpetuated by your recent magnum opus thread that has somehow combined incredible smugness with brainless vapidity in a way that hasn't happened since Blur released "Parklife."*

From photos, what would you think of the course if the sandy areas in Matthew's photos (and Ran's in his profile) were not sandy scrub, but instead water hazards? Would that change your perspective of the course? If so, why?

By the way, the maximum fee is actually $66.



* Just having a bit of fun, of course. I figured you could appreciate the Blur reference, and Parklife is actually a great album despite its pretentiousness (just as your "Proper Golf" thread has also been great if pretentious). That isn't the point though.

[Chris DeToro]

I think I paid less than $50 with a small bucket of balls. 

The breakfast burrito is can't miss too

[Paul Gray]

Jason,

I don't know how many more ways I can possibly say "not all sites are equal." The whole 'proper golf' thread was about nothing more than broader mindsets and could easily have featured Ran's own words found on the homepage of this very site. No one suggested that wishful thinking was going to see brownish fescue suddenly start popping up naturally over the Nevada desert. You can't have firm and fast on the moon. EVERYBODY gets that. The fact that certain members were determined to protest so strongly pretty much said it all. I wonder if you get so enraged everytime someone tells you a golf course has to be green. It's all about where the default position sits and certainly not about replacing one homogenised product with another.

Rustic looks great because it embraces what it has. To remove a popular GCA myth, even the firmest of British links courses aren't very firm and fast for most of the year but they remain both challenging and fun because they continually cause the player to engage with the environment. Proper, it would seem to me, would be a fair description. That, surely, is reasonable.

And Parklife was mediocre at best and not so good as some of their earlier work. 

[B.Ross]

lived in la for 2011. played hear 3-5 times. as great as the course is, the place of play was regularly so bad it made it unenjoyable, and that was even as a walker. you couldn't get around here in less than 5 hours on a weekend, and while im sure some of you will assume thats the case throuhgout the greater LA area, simply not true. either course at robinson ranch won't take you more than 4:15 and the valley course there is awesome.

anyways, doesn't take away from the actual course which is cool plays firm and fast yet long from the tips, but the pace of play was borderline nauseating.

[Chris DeToro]

A 5-hour round was my experience as well, but it didn't take away from the enjoyment and quality of the golf course

[Jason Thurman]

A 5-hour round was my experience as well, but it didn't take away from the enjoyment and quality of the golf course

Why not? Plenty of other courses get panned on GCA for having long round times, as the slow play detracts from enjoyment regardless of the quality of the course. Pebble Beach, Arcadia Bluffs, Erin Hills, and Whistling Straits, to name just a few. Why is the promise of a long round time suddenly not a bad thing when we're talking about Rustic Canyon?

[Chris DeToro]

Don't get me wrong, I was not pleased about the duration of the round.  I think golf should be enjoyed in less than 4 hours.  And typically less than 3.5 hours.  I didn't necessarily say I had a good experience.  Merely I didn't let the negative experience influence my judgment of the golf course and its features.

I certainly wasn't expecting a 5 hour round either.  It just sort of happened.  That part sucked

[Alex Miller]

A 5-hour round was my experience as well, but it didn't take away from the enjoyment and quality of the golf course

Why not? Plenty of other courses get panned on GCA for having long round times, as the slow play detracts from enjoyment regardless of the quality of the course. Pebble Beach, Arcadia Bluffs, Erin Hills, and Whistling Straits, to name just a few. Why is the promise of a long round time suddenly not a bad thing when we're talking about Rustic Canyon?

5 hrs is still "short" for L.A. (sad, right?)
You're not breaking the bank for the round like you are with PB or WS


I've played Rustic on weekends many times and had a couple 5 hr rounds, but the norm is 4:30 or so and sometimes shorter. I think they've gotten better at marshaling the pace of play in recent years.

[Chris DeToro]

Even if you are breaking the bank, 5 hours is tooooooo long for a round of golf.  I'd say it's one of, if not, the main reason rounds are down. 

There was no marshal at RC when I played.  The first issue was the foursome in front of us that turned into a playing lesson.  The second was the threesome that was somehow caught by said foursome.  Both groups were in a cart.  2, including myself, in our foursome were walking and we still were on them all morning

[DMoriarty]

Pace of play can be a bit of a crap shoot at Rustic, especially if one plays during the busiest times. I've played many quick rounds in the early morning and late afternoon, but during the busy times it can get slow.  That is in part a function of it being an extremely busy course.

Not sure Robinson Ranch is an apt comparison on any level, as it is mediocre golf at a premium price. But if anyone prefers the courses and/or the pace of play at Robinson Ranch, then by all means enjoy yourself.

[B.Ross]

i never played robinson ranch for a premium price. if my recollection serves me correctly, i always paid between 55 and 70 to play there, whereas at rustic i think i used to pay anywhere from 40 to 60. this is back in 2011. i also found nothing mediocre about the valley course at RR, 74.6 146 on a par 72 from the back tees of 6903, yet it played shorter.  i loved that back 9, especially from what i believe was the 12th hole onwards. is the course unwalkable? no doubt. is it a modern target golf styled mountain design? sure. but all things considered, i drove home from RR satisfied or content every time i played it where as leaving rustic i just couldn't get over how long it took to play and to then get back to west la. i suppose we all value different things in our golf at different ages in life, coupled with ability to play the game.

[DMoriarty]

As for the quality of Robinson Ranch, not sure what you think the rating and slope are supposed to tell me, but I've played the Valley course multiple times (a few times in over 5 hours) and it is not my cup of tea.  As for the price, weekend rack rate at Robinson Ranch is $117.  Not quite twice as much as Rustic ($66), but close.  If the prices were reversed, I'd still play Rustic over RR.  In fact, if the Robinson Ranch courses were free, I'd still pay to play Rustic every time. 

I'm glad you enjoy Robinson Ranch, though.  If more people were like you, then Rustic wouldn't be so damn crowded and the pace during busy times might improve. If you want to give Rustic another try, I'd suggest early morning or late in the day,  You might find your 3-5 round sample size isn't entirely representative.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()