GolfClubAtlas.com > Golf Course Architecture

Wild Horse compared to Rustic Canyon

(1/5) > >>

ed_getka:
I am curious to know how those who have played both would compare them. What are the strengths and weaknesses of each in your mind? Also, how would you compare the front 9 of Bayside to either?

Tommy_Naccarato:
Ed,
While it is an examination of +'s and -'s, and I haven't played Wildhorse, I shouldn't really be particapting in this thread. However, knowing Dan & Dave, and knowing Hanse, Shackelford & Wagner, I know the effort these two groups put into anything they do in life in general, so I'll be bold and comment in that regard.

Plus, Dick Daley, one of the most passionate about Wildhorse would kill me if I didn't!:) It's his home course, and he lives what, some 1000 + miles away? Dick is truely to Wildhorse, what I am to Rustic Canyon--its biggest fan who has a intimate knowledge of how the course is run and how it was built.

So, on to me......

I have become a bit persnickety in my tastes in my later years. I know some of you might not think so:) but really, I have. I'm starting to hate to try to putting a numerical analysis on what I think is a GREAT course. Don't get me wrong, I like trying to make a difference for Golfweek and their rankings, but in the main scheme of things, tryingto chose which is a better course between Merion and Pine Valley is starting to become taxing on the ideals. Both are great, and why should one be greater then the other? I view them more as celebrations for their acheivements in design, and maybe Rich is right, by trying to establish a Michelin-like rating, it wouldn't make one better then the other-but it would acknowledge them for their architectural merits.

So, why shouldn't this be true for modern courses too. Lets face it, l totally love the fact that an obscure little public course in the middle of Nowhere, Nebraska is marching through the rankings of the Rank & File, and attracting the attention it deserves in the Modern Golf Movement. In fact, I hope it never stops.

And on the same page, Rustic Canyon, which for all intensive purposes, is behind enemy lines; fighting the good fight in a land that acknowledges "anything new is good, no matter if the course is unplayable or is on the side of a steep mountain." Rustic Canyon to me is a miracle. It breezed through all of the environmental impact studies. They found no endangered species; no cement rivers, etc. all on the most perfect canvas--a sandy soil, in a beautiful canyon that while playing in the early evening, is the perfect cocktail to avoid the urban sprawl.

So you see, trying to compare which course is more fast & firm; which has better greens or which course has better shot values and provides better resistence to scoring does get a bit ridiculous. I, try to see where these courses stack up against a Friars Head, Sand Hills, or Pacific Dunes, because do they compare in regards to experience then to design?  Absolutely! But if you were able, as a member of Friars Head or Sand Hills, or a employee of Bandon Dunes where you could play the course regularly and get to know them even more in depth, it would truely be a GREAT gift. But, that is a dream world.

Yet, Dick can if he wants, (if would ever move out of that frozen tundra!) experience Wildhorse everyday he wanted to play, or myself, where 98% of my rounds which are now are at Rustic Canyon seek our greatness in our own elements.

I can only view these elements as character builders that are to be celebrated at every moment. Thus the need for no ranking or comparison, more of an analysis of what it takes or in this case doesn't take, to make a course truely special.

I hope I'm making sense.

ed_getka:
I'm not trying to rate them Tommy.  BTW, how is your back? We still have yet to play a round together.

On my latest trip I was more impressed by the front 9 at Bayside, than I was by Wild Horse. Dan and Dave do absolutely stunning bunker work which was in evidence at Bayside, WH, and Sand Hills. They do some really good greens here and there, but then some don't seem to tie in very well. I was most suprised by the back 9 at Bayside which is horrible in comparison to the front. 240 yd forced carries to a blind fairway, the width of a large par 3, with convex landing areas. This was on a few of the par 4's and 5's. There was a lovely punchbowl green on one hole with a shelf in the back which was pretty cool. #17 is a par 3 with a green along the lines of #13 at Kingsley Club, with a bunker in the middle to add to the drama.

Just a few random thoughts, more to follow.

The biggest suprise was Denver CC which Doug Wright hosted me at. It is really quite good with some very interesting Maxwell greens and a couple of Bill Coore par 3's incorporated over the past 10 years. For the number of archies that have had a hand in there over the past 100 years, it is amazingly cohesive, other than #16 which is a stock 60's dogleg around a lake that is totally out of place on the course. Also, the best club I have seen for families since Plainfield CC.

DMoriarty:
For what it is worth and with all due respect for my good friend Tommy, I'd be interested in hearing about how these two courses compare and contrast.  They seem to be often mentioned together, so not having played Wildhorse, I'd like to hear about their similarities and differences.  

Plus, I have to turn down an invitation to play Wildhorse and a certain other Nebraska course said to have pretty bunkers, so I hopefully can live vicariously through the descriptions on this board.  

Matt_Ward:
I don't know how many people have played both -- I have -- and they are both fun and thrilling courses to play. I'll return later for a hole-by-hole match and some general comments.

Just one for now -- WH puts a greater premium on driving the ball for both distance and accuracy than RC although the green contours at RC do narrow that edge considerably.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page