[Alex Miller]

Ah inspiration, who knows when it will strike? 

First and foremost- this is for fun and I expect the nature of this thread to reflect that. I also expect Pinehurst #2 to win (whoops!  ).

But that's not really the point of these kinds of threads, which I believe have merit. An examination of two courses in contrast to each other really allows for good discussions on the positive and negative qualities of each. By choosing two prominently and oft discussed courses I'm hoping that more people will be able to participate and offer their views. Maybe we'll all learn a thing or two...

Please keep score at home, post your own scorecard, and share your thoughts on the holes as we go through them. Pictures are welcome, although both courses are easily found in Ran's reviews and elsewhere.


My personal experience as it relates to these courses:
I've played Rustic ~50 times and think the place is fantastic, as does everyone I've met who's played there >5 times. I've played #2 twice post renovation, which pales in comparison to my on-site experience at Rustic. HOWEVER Pinehurst #2 is accessible in many many other ways. I've experienced numerous photo tours, rounds of television coverage, rounds in video games, etc... There is nothing like playing a golf course, but these things matter too and in many ways the diversity in my consumption of all things Pinehurst #2 provides a more complete look at the course than just playing it. I wish Rustic would make its way into a video game  .


HOLE 1

Rustic: Could this be the best opening par 5 in the state of California? I'd say it beats out LACC, Riv, Cal Club, Spyglass, et all. The angle of the tee shot may make right handers uncomfortable, but that seems fair given the 80 yard wide fairway. The length of the hole (500-540) and the downhill nature make this reachable for more than just the long hitters, however deciding to go for the green is another choice entirely. The wide layup area on the right  slopes down canyon with the rest of the hole and makes a wedge approach more complicated than one would like as the trench bunker must be carried. The green is subtle, gentle, and a mind-melter as you try to fully understand the canyon effect on the first hole. The left to right slope plays into the strategy of the hole greatly as bailouts from players going for the green in two leave difficult up and downs. Many birdies and bogeys to be had on this one. Eagles too!


Pinehurst #2: I think I love the way this green sits more than any other on the course. It's a "gentle" opener, but only gentle because #2 is truly a championship test. A wide fairway which narrows considerably as golfers drive to a wedge approach difference offers the golfer a number of options in playing the angles of the hole. Ran's write up cannot be topped so I will offer an extract of it in an effort to not do a disservice to what was the most underrated hole on #2 in my experience.

"First hole, 405/375 yards; The first hole perfectly captures the essence of No. 2 as a wide fairway meanders through a broad corridor of pine trees and ends at a sophisticated green complex. What may not be readily evident are the intriguing angles of play. While the first green is forty yards long, it is only half as wide. Its axis runs from front right to back left and points to the right side of the fairway. For the good player, the target area in the fifty yard wide fairway is shrunk by half as he dearly wants to play his approach down the green’s spine. The less ambitious golfer is just pleased to hit the broad fairway. If the approach doesn’t hold the green, one is likely left with a recovery from short grass and ends up with no worse than a bogey. Most first time visitors will fall under the charm of such a course that tests the best while allowing them to muddle through the round with only one ball."


The Verdict: Ross's opener on #2 is about as fine a mid-length opener as I can imagine, and it could be built just about anywhere. I mention that not to take away from it but because I think it is strategically sound and gives the golfer a gentle opening drive but firm handshake at the green. It could be built anywhere, but it wasn't. It's a fantastic introductory note to Pinehurst #2. Rustic's opener could not have been built just anywhere, but I believe Hanse hit a homerun right off the bat with a unique, forgiving, and exacting par 5 that shares many of the same virtues as #2's start. But the use of the trench, particularly on the downhill approach, creates tremendous strategy and is a feature that is very unique in my golf experiences. A wonderfully close start we're off to as Rustic goes 1 up.

[astavrides]

Gib wrote yesterday in the Hanse thread about how bad the tee shot at Rustic #1 is and I have to agree with him. The rest of the hole is very good though.

[DMoriarty]

Here is what Gib wrote about the first hole at Rustic: "The opening tee shot on #1 is horrible - with an incomprehensibly bad geometry, horrible sight lines (for an opener) and needlessly hidden hazards."

Bad geometry?  Horrible sight lines?  Hidden hazards?  I don't get it.   IMO the geometry and site lines are what make the drive interesting.  No idea what he means by "hidden hazards."
 
On the rare occasions when I get to play RC #1 in the daylight, it is one of my favorite drives on the course.  

[Bill Seitz]

Bad geometry?  Horrible sight lines?  Hidden hazards?  I don't get it.   IMO the geometry and site lines are what make the drive interesting.  No idea what he means by "hidden hazards."
 
On the rare occasions when I get to play RC #1 in the daylight, it is one of my favorite drives on the course. 

For a fairway that's 70 yards wide, I find the tee shot wonderfully disorienting.  There's plenty of room to play away from the brush on the right, but then you find yourself staring right at the OB on the left.  For a whole where you feel there is absolutely no reason to miss the fairway, it sure messes with my head.

[Mark Bourgeois]

The design of both separates the good tee shot from the indifferent but #2's does so far more effectively -- while remaining generous for the wayward and for the low of talent. OB way left, little trouble on the right (whereas both sides of RC can get you into lost ball country) off the tee, #2's green is a devil from any angle, but it is St Lucifer himself from anywhere but right center. Missed approachers pay dearly with their third shot...and too frequently their fourth...

RC's green complex is more forgiving and draws more of a dashed line to separate the great from nearly great shot. #2's line is electrified.

Hole: #2

[David Stamm]

Here is what Gib wrote about the first hole at Rustic: "The opening tee shot on #1 is horrible - with an incomprehensibly bad geometry, horrible sight lines (for an opener) and needlessly hidden hazards."

Bad geometry?  Horrible sight lines?  Hidden hazards?  I don't get it.   IMO the geometry and site lines are what make the drive interesting.  No idea what he means by "hidden hazards."
 
On the rare occasions when I get to play RC #1 in the daylight, it is one of my favorite drives on the course.  

Playing a late afternoon 9 showcases the greatness of the hole all the more.

Part of the reason the hole is so good off the tee is that there are no defined "sightlines". It's not a hard hole, but it can be uncomfortable on the tee.

Seeing where the pin is for the day when arriving on the course is critical in how one plays that hole.

I think the hole is just brilliant and it's merits often gets overlooked because of the great collection of par 5's the course has.

I agree quite a bit with Gib's observations, but I'm not sure what his beef is with the hole.

[JC Jones]

At first I thought the funniest thing about this thread was the thread itself, now I think the funniest thing is Mark B participating.

I guess we want the same thing but maybe I'm asking too much of this thread. You will disagree but I interpret threads like this, where a GCA.com favorite is put up in a "competition" against a more-known opponent, not so much as discussion but as triumphalism beneath a thin veneer of "discussion"  for faux objectivity.

Edited to include a relevant quote from Mark B. on an actual, legitimate attempt at a thread vs his participation on an extrapolation of John Kavanaugh's trolling.

[Alex Miller]

At first I thought the funniest thing about this thread was the thread itself, now I think the funniest thing is Mark B participating.

Mark is often the funniest thing in whatever he participates in. I thank you for the compliment and hope he does too! 


Interesting that the debate over Rustic's tee shot may be the deciding factor for which hole a person prefers. For me, uncomfortable =/= bad, especially when there is forgiveness to be had. Trying to think of another example of this which I enjoy led me to thoughts of Hole #2 at NBW. Similarly angled and awkward, I really enjoyed that tee shot. In large part because of how uneasy it made me feel. I think that element can enhance and elevate a good golf hole and serve to increase memorability too. But I guess it's not for everyone...

[Michael Moore]

Pinehurst #2 - first tee - put your tee into the same dirt that Payne Stewart, Phil Mickelson, Tiger Woods, Vijay Singh, David Duval and Steve Stricker did when they scrapped in one of the greatest tournament rounds in history.

[Jason Thurman]

Rustic Canyon couldn't beat Pinehurst No. 2 if Pete Carroll was doling out improper benefits to Canyon's holes while simultaneously coaching No. 2's goal line offense.

[Josh Tarble]

Rustic Canyon couldn't beat Pinehurst No. 2 if Pete Carroll was doling out improper benefits to Canyon's holes while simultaneously coaching No. 2's goal line offense.

What if all of RC's holes took Adderal?

[Alex Miller]

For fuck's sake.

Seems pretty clear that I was actually interested in discussing the architecture... adios.

[Mark Bourgeois]

At first I thought the funniest thing about this thread was the thread itself, now I think the funniest thing is Mark B participating.

I guess we want the same thing but maybe I'm asking too much of this thread. You will disagree but I interpret threads like this, where a GCA.com favorite is put up in a "competition" against a more-known opponent, not so much as discussion but as triumphalism beneath a thin veneer of "discussion"  for faux objectivity.

Edited to include a relevant quote from Mark B. on an actual, legitimate attempt at a thread vs his participation on an extrapolation of John Kavanaugh's trolling.

Hahaha nice try!! 

Alex said up front #2 wins, freeing us up to talk architecture rather than engage in subtle promotion.

[Matthew Sander]

Come on back Alex. I think there are some thoughtful replies so far, and Jason may have missed your admission that #2 should win.

Obviously these hole by hole matchups are flawed, but where they ultimately succeed is in generating detailed discussion of individual holes. In fact, they may be more successful in that regard than most individual course tours.

I have not played Rustic, so I have no comment about its 1st. However, I really enjoyed how Pinehurst #2's first eases you into the round while offering a glimpse of the themes that you'll encounter throughout the day. It offers width as an accommodation, but also as a poison pill for those (skilled enough to be able to do so) that fail to use it to their advantage.

[JC Jones]

At first I thought the funniest thing about this thread was the thread itself, now I think the funniest thing is Mark B participating.

I guess we want the same thing but maybe I'm asking too much of this thread. You will disagree but I interpret threads like this, where a GCA.com favorite is put up in a "competition" against a more-known opponent, not so much as discussion but as triumphalism beneath a thin veneer of "discussion"  for faux objectivity.

Edited to include a relevant quote from Mark B. on an actual, legitimate attempt at a thread vs his participation on an extrapolation of John Kavanaugh's trolling.

Hahaha nice try!! 

Alex said up front #2 wins, freeing us up to talk architecture rather than engage in subtle promotion.

As I told the bartender in Pinehurst saturday night, this is a distinction without a difference.   

[Mark Bourgeois]

...we're on to the 2nd.

[Gib_Papazian]

David,

I have played #1 at Rustic with you more than once. Sorry, it is a terrible opener. The tee points you directly at the trees and entrance road - and that anemic arroyo cuts too close to the boundary so there is really no room to sneak a 2nd shot onto such a narrow ribbon of fairway (ideally opening up an approach that does not have to traverse the other part of the ditch). The sight lines from the tee are an example not of MacKenzian camouflage, but ham-handed ineptness.

It is like one of those poorly conceived par-4s where players have to lay up a mid-iron off the tee, followed by a rescue club or fairway wood to reach the green. The whole thing just comes off as a disjointed, ill-conceived mess masquerading as clever strategy. If that was the intention, then Gil and Geoff got a bit too sexy for their cat.

Now, most everything beyond that (aside from the right side of #12, the trek to the 13th tee and the #15 putting surface) makes my heart sing. #6 is one of my favorite par-3s in the world and #11 and #13 are essays in strategic content. #18 is a perfect finishing hole. Perfect - as you grit your teeth and squeeze your butt cheeks watching the ball scamper along the ground towards the putting surface.

The trouble with my friend Professor Moriarty is he cannot see the warts on his own nose. The (modern) 12th tee at NGLA is a complete abortion, the 10th hole at Shinnecock is hopelessly awkward and Lauren Hutton's front teeth look like Bugs Bunny. Just because something great has a flaw or two does not invalidate its value. Even perfect leather has scars - that is what makes it look authentic. Having the temerity to point out that Barbara Streisand has an enormous Jewish honk does not make me a heretic, just observant. I never said she couldn't sing.  

Incidentally, trying to compare Pinehurst #2 against Rustic Canyon is like squabbling over whether Gone With The Wind is better or worse than Interstellar. Or whether Kate Hepburn was hotter than Nicole Kidman. Silly, out of context and absolutely pointless.        

[Mac Plumart]

Hole #1---

Two very good golf holes.  Rustic's is a par 5, while Pinehurst's is a 4.  Right from the start both courses have you thinking.  Where to hit your tee shot, what 's the best angle, where's the flag, how do I want to play my second shot (or third)?

There is a lot of good detail above on the hole specifics, so I won't bore you with more.  I'll simply say, for me, Pinehurst is a "better" hole.  It is a good par 4.  IF I COULD HIT THE BALL FURTHER, then maybe Rustic would get a bump.  But it is a tee ball, a lay up, then a pitch up for me...given my game.  That trench in front of the green at Rustic makes anything else too risky.  While Pinehurst's opener gives me options and chances for a variety of different types of tactics.

MRP Scorecard...Pinehurst +1

[DMoriarty]

Gib,  

So if I disagree with you about one hole then I am unable to view the course with any sort of objectivity?  And it just happens to be your opinion that sets the standard of objectivity?   Interesting take, but a more reasonable one is that we just happen to disagree about the merits of this one particular hole.

The truth is, I see plenty of "warts" at Rustic Canyon (probably many more than most here,) but the shot from first tee is not one of them.  Regulars have something to complain about on about every hole, but I know of no regular who feels close to the same way you do about the first drive.  It could be that after your few plays, you know better than everyone else.  Or it could be that you don't.

As for your specific comments, are you really complaining that the tee doesn't line you up toward position A? That is pretty common (and I think intentional) at RC.  I don't recall you being the type to need someone to hold your hand and guide you around when you play, but maybe in your old age you need help when you cross the street, too. As for as the "site lines" I assume you mean sight lines, but otherwise I have no idea what you are talking about. Again it sounds like you are looking for guideposts on a course designed to be absent of such.

Some people like their courses full of guideposts with everything spelled out. While that is fair enough, Rustic is not the course for them.  What I don't understand are people who claim to love the idea of a course like Rustic who then can't make it off the first tee before they start complaining that the tee alignment and sight lines on a hole with everything in front of you and a 70 yard wide fairway.

You are correct, though, that on the second shot that the area left of the ditch isn't really wide enough for a lay up, nor would anyone in their right mind want to lay up over there because the angle from over there is terrible for almost all of the pin placements.  The area works well, though, for golfers who are going for the green with a long shot and looking to bounce it in.  That was the idea, I think.

Anyway we may have more to agree on later, but we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.  

[Mac Plumart]

Alex...

I'm interested in doing this exercise.  I hope you'll lead it, since this is your thread. 

As for the disagreement, I could care less.  I hope we all don't totally agree on everything...that'd be a boring thread.  But I like how David M. put it...it could be we disagree on this one hole.  If so, great!  We will have discussion.  No one persons opinion is "right"...just their opinion.

Any interest in hole #2?

[Mark Bourgeois]

...we're on to the 2nd.

[John Kavanaugh]

The 2nd at Rustic is such a no contest winner why not go straight to the 3rd?  Rustic +2.

[Bruce Wellmon]

On the rare occasions when I get to play RC #1 in the daylight

In the daylight?  Please explain.

[DMoriarty]

In the daylight?  Please explain.

We tend to tee off a bit before the sun comes up.  But on the rare occasion when we play 36 or even when we start on the back (bc of frost delay) I always look forward to the tee shot on the first in the sunlight, when I am warmed up. It is a fun tee shot --plenty wide to let it out, but still visually intimidating and interesting. Definitely one of my favorites on the course.

[Rich Goodale]

Interesting thread, Alex, but I must say that having played both courses I was underwhelmed by both.  Neither is in my top-100 GCA bucket list.  Both fail the Mucci test of "After playing 18, do you want to go back to the 1st tee."  Comparing and contrasting the two is like comparing and contrasting the works of Barbara Cartland and Jackie Collins.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()