Can Canyon Golf be great golf?

[Matt_Ward]

I played a relatively new course called Moorpark CC just outside of LA the other day and given the massive ups and downs you experience when playing I wonder how people react to "canyon golf" -- that's golf where holes are fitted into the landscape and you get the impression that a few holes are really special but there are others that are simply "filler" to take you to the next visual element.

I'd be curious because Moorpark (which has 18 now but will open a third nine sometime in '04) does have a few holes of note but there are quite a few that are pro forma (downhill par-3's with clanking bunkers, etc, etc) "filler" holes that lack any meaning or substance.

P.S. I'm also not a fan of places where the cart ride becomes the dominant feature. Can canyon golf really be assessed as golf of importance?

P.S. Plus -- For those opting to visit the area I would thoroughly recommend Rustic Canyon over Moorpark -- the differences between them are so self evident and clear IMHO. The only real plus for Moorpark is the outstanding conditioning of the putting greens -- they are like pool tables even though they lack any real contour or design element that blends into shot values of substance.

P.S. Plus II -- I had the same feeling when playing Jim Engh's layout in Sedalia, CO -- Sanctuary.

[TEPaul]

"Can canyon golf be called great golf?"

Matt:

I guess like anywhere else it depends on what any architect does within a canyon. But I can tell you this---I went all the way to LA from Oregon just to see the 10th hole at Riviera and was not disappointed but found that the most interesting thing I took from the visit to Riviera was the truly amazing way that golf course uses an obviously confined space within the surrounding canyon walls of real proximity to the holes and somehow manages while you're on the course and frankly on any hole to somehow make it not feel confined. Thomas's use of limited space without the feeling or appearance of it is something to behold. The canyon enclosed Riviera is certainly a great golf course.

[Andy_Lipschultz]

There are canyons (Riviera) and then there are canyons like, what I think Matt is alluding to. Sort of like Eastern skiers who upon making their first visit to the Rockies of Sierras, think, "Ah, now this is a mountain."

Matt, don't you think Lost Canyons (and many other new courses in SoCal) is canyon golf as you describe it? Filler holes, dominated by a cart paths? Remember, on these courses, the flattest area on the property is needed for the clubhouse, parking, maintance buildings. Therefore, you are left with a short uphill par 4's for the first (and usually the 10th) and a downhill 18th---like Lost Canyons.

[Doug Wright]

P.S. I'm also not a fan of places where the cart ride becomes the dominant feature. Can canyon golf really be assessed as golf of importance?

Matt,

I thought you were a fan of Wolf Creek. Isn't that a course where the cart ride is a dominant feature?

Best,

[Matt_Ward]

Let me be a bit more clear -- canyon golf is one of those situations where you must take each site and assess it for what it's worth. Some do work -- many fail.

Doug -- Wolf Creek in Mesquite, NV works quite well in my mind. There are few holes there that are blatantly bad from the sense of location / routing. The only ones I don't like are the 10th and 11th and they are really just average holes and have nothing to do with their location in the canyon where the bulk of the holes are situated. Although, I must add, there will be people who will completely frown and may even revolt at the thought in playing there -- especially when they make the trek to the back tee at #2 and see what they have to do!

I don't doubt purists may find the cart ride at Wolf Creek to be excessive but given my experiences with such sites the ride there wasn't that much of trek between holes. The issue with WC is when you must go downhill on the paths there. They could actually film the next Bond chase scene on those suckers!

My issue with Moorpark is that soooooooo little was thought of regarding how to avoid the UPS AND DOWNS in routing the course. Here you have exhausting rides -- the trek from the 5th green to the 6th on the Creek side nine is truly amazing. I actually thought that no course could exceed Santa Luz (located just outside of SD) for ride time between holes but Moorpark does have its share of such things and maybe even a bit more.

What amazes me is that the design of Moorpark is relatively devoid of any serious effort to contour greens appropriately. The putting surfaces are in tip top shape from a conditioning perspective, however, they have little to mandate your attention when playing approaches. As long as you can handle their speed they have little in terms of real design attributes. Clearly, neighboring Rustic Canyon is light years beyond when one sizes up green complexities.

The issue I have with canyon golf is how designers must handle the inevitable "trade-offs" that seem to happen with so many of these sites. One of biggest pet peeves is how architects routinely design the pro forma downhill par-3 with flanking bunkers. Is this type of hole a mandated item for such sites?

You also have the issue with knowing how to rout the course in order to move uphill without developing holes that go beyond logic or reason.

The broader issue is really in maintaining some consistency in terms of shot values. When you have such abruptness in the land you do have some elements that can get toooooo wild for nearly all players save the ones with the lowest of handicaps. It would be interesting to list canyon golf sites that are well done from a design perspective and may even be somewhat walkable.

TEPaul:

Riviera is not an example of what I am referring to. Many of today's newest courses -- especially in the west -- are on sites that have houses high above in flanking positions with holes set in and through some rolling (and at times outrageous terrain). Riviera was blessed with being situated within one continuous canyon.

Andy L:

I think the Dyes did a better job at Lost Canyons (Sky) although Shadow is simply target golf gone wild. I see
your point about the 18th hole -- David M also loves that hole -- but Sky seems to avoid the blatantly piss poor holes that can dominate the 19th hole conversations. I liked it but I can understand how others can find such a layout exasperating.

Andy -- I'll give you a better example -- trek over to Norco and play Hidden Valley. I mean there is some serious wild rides and holes there! I played it once and that will likely be my final time there. Ditto the Payne Stewart design that's in Yorba Linda -- Coyote something I recall.

[TEPaul]

"Let me be a bit more clear -- canyon golf is one of those situations where you must take each site and assess it for what it's worth. Some do work -- many fail."

It just occured to me reading that statement that perhaps any site should be assessed for what it's worth. Thank you Matt, after studying this stuff for a number of years I believe that's a true and fundamental revelation!

[THuckaby2]

Can canyon golf be great golf?

Depends on the beholder.

For the aficionado of architecture, it's a tough sell.  He's always going to be put off by the long cart rides, what he finds to be formulaic in design, and what he sees as inherent routing problems.

For the golfer who likes flash, specactular views, wild ego-building down-hill shots, wildly tough carries over arroyos and the like?  Heck yeah it's gonna be great...

Here's an example of how this might work.  I play 2-3 times a year with what I call my "family group."  It's me, my Dad, my brother, and my brother in law... The latter three are average to poor golfers skill-wise, but they do love the game...

We played Rustic Canyon and Moorpark within a few months of each other earlier this year.

They all liked Rustic Canyon, a lot.  They didn't lose many golf balls, they all had great scores, they loved the greens and the cool surrounds where they could putt from 50 yards off.  They had a fun day of golf, as did I playing with them.

They were jumping out of the cart RAVING about how cool, fun, and yes, GREAT, Moorpark was... saying up and down how much more they liked it than Rustic.

Are they idiots?  Likely so.. I tell them so to their faces all the time.    For me, Moorpark had a lot of fun shots, but was a bit "much" and yes, the horridly long cart rides bugged me.  But I rated Moorpark pretty high... for a lot of reasons... Likely far higher than you did... but still substantially below Rustic.  In any case, I'm not the issue... I just find it tough to say the other members of my family group are inherently "wrong" about this.

If they loved it, they called it great, why can't it be great?

TH

[TEPaul]

"If they loved it, they called it great, why can't it be great?"

TomH:

Right you are. Indeed they can and should call great whatever they think is great. As far as I'm concerned all this just fits in neat as a glove to my "Big World" theory of golf and golf architecture.

And yet you say;

"Are they idiots?  Likely so.. I tell them so to their faces all the time."

Do me a favor would you TomH? Next time you see them and next time you call them idiots to their faces would you mind calling them idiots for me too?      

[THuckaby2]

 

Oh man, I haven't had a laugh like that in a long time.  Well done, TEP.  I'm gonna use you as support the next time for sure!

TH

[Matt_Ward]

Huck:

Moorpark fails because it cannot consistently reach the level of a number of holes there that are indeed good. I mean the par-4 4th on Creekside (419 yards) is likely the best overall hole I played there.

The hole plays uphill all the way to the green -- it's somewhat similar to the 11th at Pasatiempo (minus the superbly contoured green there) and the second shot is equally demanding. Too bad the putting surface did not feature any real contour or movement.

Then after you play such an exciting hole you get the most nondescript two holes in a row -- the downhill par-4 5th at 296 yards and the equally inept downhill par-3 6th at 193 yards. Throw in the fact that you have an Interstate highway ride from the 5th green to the 6th tee.

Huck -- the boys you played with are into the scenery and all of the wide views that Moorpark can provide. Rustic Canyon is by FAR the better course. The sense of detail is there and although the greens were in tip top shape at Moorpark I only wished they could have been designed with enough contour or slope to keep you honest all the way aorund.

P.S. That's why I believe Wolf Creek works so well -- it's set in canyon lands but you do have a routing that works quite well.

[THuckaby2]

Matt:

I absolutely understand your opinion re these two courses, and you know what?  I agree with you.

But my family group would wholly disagree.

Why are we "right" and they "wrong"?

TH

[Andy_Lipschultz]

Andy -- I'll give you a better example -- trek over to Norco and play Hidden Valley.

Drive to Norco? Does the term Fat F--king Chance ring a bell? It sounds like a course out that way called Eagle Glen. Some nice holes; though I remember a par 3 which was literally carved into the side of a mountain. Ground was leveled for a teeing ground and leveled for a green across a chasm, and presto: instant hole. The climbs and distances between some holes were insane.

For some (Tom's group) these sort of holes provide dramatic views and that's enough.

BTW; what's Moorpark spelled backwards?

[Matt_Ward]

Huck:

For the same reason why some people swear by McDonald's and don't know any better.

Many of the folks who play golf are there for the good times with buddies and if you give them a 64 ounce drink with a Hooter's girl bringing by the supplies and then toss in a course with plenty of "visual stimuli" you'll likely get rave comments from them.

Rustic Canyon is quite attractive in its own right and the design ingredients have been carefully chosen -- just check out the nature of the putting greens for the proof of the pudding. At Moorpark -- they look like they were done in an office far from the course and simply built from preconceived notion.

Most people who play golf don't notice the "small details" -- they want to be impressed with all the bells and whistles. Moorpark has little of the former and much for the latter.

[THuckaby2]

Again, I agree with your assessments of the two courses.  You don't have to keep repeating such.  

But you've yet to give me a really good reason why we're right and they're wrong.  Why are the bells and whistles worth less than the small details?

I truly believe in the Paulian Dogma - it is a big beautiful world of golf, with room for one and all.  If my family group says Moorpark is way better than Rustic, than it is so, for them.  And my experience is they tend to represent how the masses feel far better than we do...

Of course the majority can be, and has been, very wrong about quite a few things, depending on one's viewpoint.

But on a matter so personal as this - I just continue to fail to see one right and one wrong.  I am very open to someone proving this to me, though... George Pazin was going to try last week, then left me hanging... Matt, if you can do so, I'd truly appreciate it.  See, I want to tell my family group WHY they are idiots... and no offense, but "you're missing the small details" isn't going to sway them.

BTW, I've played Hidden Valley in Norco... talk about bells and whistles... that is a rollercoaster right there!

TH

[Matt_Ward]

Huck:

Some people will "get it" and others won't. Look, if your buddies are having fun in their OWN MIND what do they care what the guy from Tony Soprano land has to say!

Best of all -- that's one less foursome either one of us will see when playing the desired course of our choosing.

P.S. Tom -- many people who "play golf" are there because of the good times with friends -- if you give them a few more "extras" such as visual stimuli and major cart rides they actually believe they've played something of quality. Look, it's their dime and if that floats their boat more power to them. Ask yourself this -- how did you break away from such a simplistic notion of golf? Clearly, you were influenced by someone or something (course). I play with friends who could care less whether they are playing Pine Valley or Pine Tar GC.

[TEPaul]

"Why are we "right" and they "wrong"?"

TomH:

That question MUST always be followed by another question;
"Why are we "wrong" and they "right"?"

The self-same answer to both those existential questions is quite spare and immaculately simple! It is simply because;

"Golf and its architecture is a great big thing and there really is room in it for everyone!"

[DMoriarty]

Matt, with regards to Moorpark vs. Lost Canyons Sky, I agree that Sky is the much superior course, architecturally.

But the real issue for me boils down to the quality of the site or lack thereof, and whether many canyon sites are suitable for golf courses at all.  In my opinion the site at Sky is just too severe for high quality, enjoyable golf.  The architects may have done a good job for what they had to work with, but they didnt have much.  That being said, the Moorpark site may not even be as severe as LC Sky, but still pales in comparison.

Further downhill still is a course like Tierra Rejada, which is nothing but a waste of money with views of a smoggy valley.  

Unfortunately, occasional players (including Tom's family) and many raters (apparently like Tom H, who rated Moorpark highly) must be impressed by majestic elevation changes, big drop shots, and views views views.  So we have golf architects passing on subtle but quality sites and building on absurd and expensive sites like TC Sky and Shadows, Moorpark, and Tierrable Rejada.  I cringe everytime I recall the rumor that Cupp passed on RC's site in favor of Tierrable Rejada.  

[THuckaby2]

Matt:

You said the wrong thing, for me anyway.  I don't think there is anything to "get" re any of this and to me, its offensive to say so.  The way that gets bandied about in here:  ie he gets it, he doesn't, they surely don't... I'm not kidding when I say I find it offensive.  Talk about elitist... jeez....

But I get what you are TRYING to say, even if you happened upon the worst way to say it in my world.  

As for me, what makes you think that I in any way "get it"?
I enjoyed Moorpark and gave it pretty high ratings.  The most fun for me is always going to be in the playing of the game, and that can occur on a parking lot and be great.  That's a very simplistic notion of the game that I really hope I never lose.

But yes, I do value some courses more than others.  I just don't have the arrogance to say I'm right and so many others are wrong.

TH

[THuckaby2]

David M.:

Hello my friend, long time no hear!  I figured if any thread would draw you out, this might be it.

Re this issue, yes I did rate Moorpark sort of high - just please also realize that as I say above, I rated it substantially below the ratings I gave to Rustic Canyon.  In any case, my job in the ratings game is not to wonder why - it is to assess what's there.  And I did find more to like at Moorpark than Matt did... I found it in general to be a pretty darn fun course, with a lot of fun shots to play...  If that makes me a contributor to the "problem" you see, then my apologies.  I guess I should have lied and rated it extremely low, in the hopes my one vote out of hundreds would cause its downfall.

Re all the rest, I agree with you.  Oh would that sites such as Rustic's be more favored....

TH

[THuckaby2]

"Why are we "right" and they "wrong"?"

TomH:

That question MUST always be followed by another question;
"Why are we "wrong" and they "right"?"

The self-same answer to both those existential questions is quite spare and immaculately simple! It is simply because;

"Golf and its architecture is a great big thing and there really is room in it for everyone!"

Amen, brother.  Couldn't agree more.

TH

[Andy_Lipschultz]

Outside of the few guys on this DG I've played with, I'm a minority of one when it comes to my thoughts on Lost Canyons and Tierra Rejada.

I can understand why my friends like Lost Canyons. The views, dramatic holes, et al. It's just not my cup of tea. My waxing on about the virtues of RC is lost on them.

We're both right even though I think they are wrong. I can look at De Kooning's paintings all day long and others will pass right by it thinking, "what a mess that is."

The question I always ask myself, is how do I convince my friends otherwise; that RC not Lost Canyons is the way to go.? If Bob Cupp-- a professional-- choose Tierra Rejada over RC, it seems like a severe uphill battle to change minds.

[THuckaby2]

Andy:

You and I seem to have identical experience re this... that's why I am really asking the same question as you are... perhaps my cup of tea is larger than yours (I tend to find something to like in just about any golf course, and in most conversations I focus on the positive), but still, I liked Rustic Canyon a lot better than any of the courses near it mentioned here... but no amout of waxing can convince my family and friends either!

And I concur it's a very uphill battle...

The difference betwen us, and the difference between me and guys like Dave and Tommy, is that I just tend to give up and live by the Paulian Dogma.  RC is certainly the better way to go... but it's not worth my time or effort to fight to try and make the others see this and I never have understood why it should be.

TH

[George Pazin]

Routing wise I have a hard time distinguishing any of the canyon golf courses I've played. They've all just been a bunch of roller coaster rides that seem totally disconnected. If I never play another one of these types of canyon courses (as opposed to Rustic or Riviera), I won't feel like I've missed anything.

Check that - if I don't play Wolf Creek in Mesquite again, I will have missed the incessant squeal of carts braking on ridiculous paths. And numerous speed bumps - yep, speed bumps - on cart paths. Guess I can live without that.

Seems to me the essential thing that these types of canyon course lack is width, offering instead containment. Yuck.

Golf's a big enough world that I don't need to play canyon courses anymore.

[THuckaby2]

Fair enough, George.  That's a very logical, very fair opinion about canyon golf in general.

Care to tackle the bigger issues here again? If not, I will surely understand.  You've just come closer than anybody ever has in getting me to see another side to this...  

TH

[George Pazin]

Huck -

I wonder how your friends and family would feel if they had the opportunity to play each many times. Would they learn the charm of RC while growing bored of the "spectacular" nature of Moorpark/ Lost Canyons?

"Spectacular" is a major negative buzzword for me when it comes to identifying courses to try out.