Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Tim_Weiman on May 31, 2003, 03:47:33 PM
-
The Case for Ignoring Skilled Golfer’s Tee Shots
We have several threads going on the subject of “skilled” golfers playing a course like Rustic Canyon. Essentially, they started based on a comment made by David Wigler. David described Rustic Canyon as being in the Top Ten of all modern courses “sixty yards and in” but went on to say that the course couldn’t be considered Top 100 material based on the fact that Rustic Canyon “failed to challenge the skilled golfer off the tee”.
Now, this point has been argued back and forth many times. David apparently still thinks his statement makes sense, though he seems to want to substitute the word “interest” for “challenge” as if this would have great significance. But, I still believe what David said makes absolutely no sense. Moreover, I believe it has nothing to do with whether one has seen the course. The simple fact is that any course that is really Top Ten “sixty yards and in” would have to be considered a serious candidate for Top 100 material overall.
Geoffrey Childs, getting a bit tired of my insistence on this point, asked if there was a “quantitative” case that could be made to support my view and refute David Wigler’s original assertion. Actually, I think the case might be fairly simple to make. The key elements are:
How many tee shots are there?
One might be quickly tempted to say 18, of course. But, I’ll argue the 14 is a better number. Most golf courses have about 4 par 3s and regardless of how long the hole actually is, the essence of any par 3 is the entire green complex or “sixty yards and in”.
How many shots to play all 18 holes?
I’m actually not aware of any evidence that the average score for 18 holes of golf is much less than 100. But, being in a good mood, I’ll be generous and assume it takes 84 shots to play 18 holes, exactly the mid point between the scratch man shooting 72 and the 24 handicapper shooting 96.
What percent are tee shots?
This is simple math: 14 tee shots divided by 84 total shots equals 17 percent.
What percent of golfers are “skilled”?
We could debate this question at length. When I asked a few people who have been around the game, the consensus seemed to be that about 1 to 3 percent of all golfers could be considered “skilled”. But, why be so harsh? Let’s just be more agreeable and assume that 10 percent of all golfers could be considered “skilled”.
Skilled Golfers Tee Shots As Percent of All Golf Shots:
Here again we have simple math. The percent of all golf shots that are tee shots by skilled golfers is (17 percent times 10 percent): 1.7 percent.
Why Worry About Skilled Golfer’s Tee Shots?
When an architect builds a golf course, he can expect less than 2 percent of all shots played to be tee shots by skilled players. That figure is dwarfed by the percentage of shots within sixty yards by skilled and unskilled players alike.
So, maybe there’s a reason for strong “interest” – haven’t we heard that word before? – for tee times at Rustic Canyon. Maybe the project team figured out that testing skilled players off the tee was of such minor importance that it wasn’t worth worrying about.
-
Tim,
Lumping all shots into the same category weakens your argument, field shots are different than putts.
The scratch golfer is looking at 28 field shots per your 14 hole example and the bogey golfer about 35. This is 50% for the scratch player and 40% for the bogey player.
The percentage of players at various handicap levels is known but cannot be applied throughout the world of golf, i.e. a place like Bloomingdale in Valrico, fla. has an inordinate amount of single digit players. A course like RC that demands less(if true) from the tee is aimed at a different market. If a course wants to attract the better player than it will accomodate him with, at least, superior positioning resulting in prime angles in or eventually the place will lose this market.
How much does the new car smell and the low fees add to the demand for tee times?
-
Tim Weiman,
Try making birdie when your tee shot sails out of bounds.
If the green complex demands an approach from a given angle or position, then, offensively, the golfer is dependent upon the tee shot to get him to that position/angle, and, defensively, to avoid the pitfalls that can confront an errant tee shot.
A golf course cannot be considered top 100, no matter how good it is from 60 yards in, if there is no challenge to the tee shot.
A tee shot without challenge means the tee shot doesn't require thought, especially strategic thought. A tee shot that doesn't require strategic thought is an indication that the design of the hole is flawed.
If there is no challenge from the tee, no requirement for strategic thought, the merits of the holes and the course must be questioned, and the attainment of top 100 status is impossible.
But, that's just my opinion.
-
A tee shot is one of the few conditions in life when you are told — not asked — to stand here and do this. You cannot stand over there, nor there, nor face that way — no — you must do as we say and stand exactly between these two points — which will vary — and on this day and this time and this place you must execute this problem.
The other problems beyond the tee shot are sel-induced.
I would submit, Tim, that more weight might be placed on tee shots than your formula allows. However, I share your "14" shot number. The average golfer uses the driving club more often than he/she should. I like very much to see, of these 14 shots, decisions: a few lay-ups, a few "gee, maybe I need to hit the more accurate 3-metal", and then a few bust-it-long type hits.
-
Try making birdie when your tee shot sails out of bounds.
If your tee shot sails out of bounds, doesn't the hole pose exactly the same stragetic problems for the 3rd shot as they did for the 1st?
-
Tom Simpson was an advocate of not providing the tiger many visual clues. His believe was that by framing (for lack of a better word) greens and landing areas with bunkers, you actually provided beacons to help the better player. I suspect tee shots like those at RC make some players very uncomfortable...they need some clues. They need the architect to do their thinking for them.
-
John McMillan,
I'm afraid that you missed the point.
Tim's exercise diminished the value of the tee shot.
My example was to cite its value.
-
Tim Weiman said "Tom Paul and Tommy Naccarato are asses and should be banned from GCA."
-
Two of the greatest minds golf has ever known are Bobby Jones and Alister MacKenzie. When they opened Augusta National there were six holes without a single hazard off the tee and very generous landing areas. Would those six holes - 7, 9, 10, 15, 17 and 18 - have been more interesting if they were effected by hazards?
-
The Case for Ignoring Skilled Golfer’s Tee Shots
We have several threads going on the subject of “skilled” golfers playing a course like Rustic Canyon. Essentially, they started based on a comment made by David Wigler. David described Rustic Canyon as being in the Top Ten of all modern courses “sixty yards and in” but went on to say that the course couldn’t be considered Top 100 material based on the fact that Rustic Canyon “failed to challenge the skilled golfer off the tee”.
The above post stinks doesn't it Tim? It really sucks to have quotes made up and then attributed to you. Would you care to find where I said RC "Failed to challenge the skilled golfer off the tee.”? I cannot find it but it sure suits your point well.
What I did say was "...Rustic Canyon (IMO - George) is a top ten modern from 60 yards in. It simply does not present enough challenge to the skilled golfer off the tee." The difference between "Failed to" and "Enough" is pretty drastic. One says it doesn’t the other that it needs more. In addition, an IMO was added. This was ignored in almost every response, as it was inconvenient. In addition, I have practically begged to have the word changed from challenge to interest but that does not suit your purposes either. Perhaps you should retake remedial English if you do not understand the difference between the two words. I stand by the thought behind my original quote, "Rustic Canyon, IMO, is a top ten modern from 60 yards in. It simply does not present enough interest off the tee to get into the top 100." I truly hope that my next visit changes my mind. It would be much easier to agree with you. I also truly hope that you stop chickening out of going there due to one bad experience with a Pennsylvania course and play the damn thing.
-
Jim Kennedy:
All shots ARE in the same category. You have to count everyone you take regardless of the kind of shot it was.
Shivas:
See above. Any analysis of a golf course that excludes putting doesn't make any sense.
Regarding your point about "dumbing down", I think you should consider the context of David Wigler's statements, specifically suggestions we've heard about "excessive width". The width necessary to challenge "skilled" players will always be substantially less than what is practical for all golfers. Just walk around a course set up for the US Open and this point is made clear.
Pat Mucci:
You may not have noticed David Wigler's original statement. He said Rustic Canyon fails to challenge the "skilled" golfer off the tee. He made no representation about tee shots for all golfers. Any value of tee shots for "skilled" golfers must be given the appropriate weighting. Note that I used 10 percent when 3 percent would probably be more fair. Anywhere in that range will still leave us in the same place: tee shots played by "skilled" golfers are a very small part of the game, i.e., at most 2 percent and probably closer to .5 percent.
Forrest Richardson:
Within reason, no matter how much weight you give to tee shots, the appropriate adjustment for the small number of "skilled" golfers still takes us back to less than 2 percent. For example, let's say we went to the extreme of saying tee shots are 50 percent of golf, a case I doubt anyone here would accept. Still, we would only get to a maximum of 5 percent for tees shots by "skilled" golfers as a percent of all shots.
-
Pat,
I totally disagree with that conclusion, and in a little over two weeks, I probably be able to disagree with it even more!:)
Actually, I'm going to point to two different holes, both, extremes of the other off of the tee, one with width, one a certain set boundry that Bernard Darwin called a "Spit and a kick" or a "Kick and a spit." Lets use Pacific Dunes #3 as the hole with the example of the extreme width. It one of my 18 favorite holes at Pacific Dunes, and nothing on Bandon Dunes comes close to it in style or substance (That is MY opinion)
The hole with the extreme framing is, as if there was any question, as aptly named by Darwin, "Death or Glory" in Northwood, England, Darwin said, (but I'm not quoting) that if ever there was a hole where the drive was just a sort of knock it out there anywhere, because all the mattered was not ending up in the very deep and penal traps that proceeded it on the approach (the 2nd shot) which had from my study of the hole seems to have a Road Hole-like effect with any shot that comes near them, swallowing the ball into a pit of firey Hell. (I had to come back and add this) The hole is a mere 310 yards in length, and if one had to ask if it was drivable while standing no the tee, knowing the length, he would be one brave individual!) While most of the skilled players here would undoubtedly be hitting 7-iron or more off of the tee, if they didn't realize the true verocity of the hole, with it's demanding second shot, then they simply really don't understand anything about the game. It is both visual and mental.
(I wish I had pictures to show you, but SOMEONE IN SURREY, ENGLAND HASN'T BEEN DOING HIS JOB IN GETTING ME THE INFORMATION I NEED, AND HAVE BEEN ASKING FOR FOR THE BETTER PART OF FOUR YEARS!:))
Death or Glory is one of the GREAT holes in Golf, as far as Bernard Darwin was concerned, and I have to tell you Pat, the man had a much better eye then all of us combined!
Now the 3rd at Pacific, which in your words, has one of the best greens on the course witht hat back right pin placement, and that huge, much more huge then anything at Rustic Canyon in terms of width, and it is totally awesome! and it too has sort of the same affect ass Death or Glory, You can hit it anywhere out there on the drive, while on the second, you are setting yourself-up for your approach, it is the third that DEMANDS accuracy in placing the shot on the plateau-like green and avoiding the deep pit of bunker that awaits the weak, or in your case) misguided ;D
The point is that a mid to high handicap player, has the chance to play the hole and beat you in regards to strengths and weaknesses as you can beat him to his. The wide fairways aid in this cause, and as Max Behr said about width, Golf is a game that has no set boundry's therefore, why not give him the chance to play the Game and experience the golf hole as nature-layed it out. And just like Tom Doak or Gil Hanse or Bill Coore, or Mike DeVries, and even TOm Fazio, (Shadow Creek for example, only he is still coloring between the lines and not outside them like all of my friends who are making an effort for all who Golf to understand and realize that the Game is larger then the player, no matter how skilled.
That is my opinion.
-
Observation:
Courses that are "top 100" material sixty yards and in would only qualify for "top 100" executive courses in my book. I've never played the course so don't have an opinion on RC itself.
I feel it takes flow and synergy throughout the entirety of the golf corridor to make a great course, not just the green complexes and approaches. I would bet David, who, in the spirit of full disclosure, has a bunker named after him at my course, didn't feel that the green complexes significantly affected or led to decisions regarding the placement of the tee shot else they would have impacted and tied out the entire hole. So if a trained eye can’t put it all together, how can it be truly great?
Cheers!
JT
-
here here!
Not to mention that there is really no such thing as an in course out of bounds, is there?
-
David Wigler:
Let's first dispose of the nonsense. Who says I have chickened out of going to Rustic Canyon due to a bad experience in Pennsylvania? In fact, I've been invited to Rustic Canyon on numerous occasions and declined mostly for personal reasons, specifically the desire to avoid spending time away from my daughter.
I'll get there eventually. But, whether I do or I don't is no reason one can't participate in a theoretical discussion of golf architecture.
In case you missed I never challenged your statement that Rustic Canyon was Top Ten within sixty yards. I also never challenged your assertion that Rustic Canyon "does not present enough challenge to the skilled golfer off the tee".
My apologies for substituting "failed to" for "enough", but you should at least acknowledge my willingness to accept these two statements. That's signficant.
The debate here has NOT been about whether Rustic Canyon is Top Ten within sixty yards. Nor Have I argued whether the course presents enough challenge to the skilled golfer off the tee.
Without seeing the course I couldn't address either assessment, could I?
The debate HAS been about whether a course that meets these two conditions should not be considered Top 100 material.
The key issue here has been about how much weight to give to whether a course sufficiently challenges or interests the SKILLED golfer off the tee.
You DID make reference to the SKILLED golfer in your original remarks. That's what got the whole discussion going!
If you now want to delete reference to the SKILLED golfer, that's fine. But, at least admit it's a non trivial change, carrying far more importance than the difference between "challenge" or "interest".
My energy was around your original statement, that which did include the word SKILLED. If you withdraw that - a sensible position - than the discussion is probably over, at least between you and I.
-
Tommy Naccarato,
You can't just hit it anywhere on # 3 at Pacific Dunes, which by the way, is a course that places great demand on a risk/reward tee shot hole after hole after hole after hole.
On each hole you are challenged, and forced to think strategically with respect to your drive in relation to your angles of attack into the green or the next LZ.
If the pin is right on # 3 green at Pacific Dunes, to attack the pin in three, you need to go up the far right side, to give you the best angle of attack into the neck area of the green or short of the green.
If you plan on attacking the green in two, a demanding tee shot up the left side awaits you.
Have you forgotten the center line bunkers, mounds and other bunkers ?
You need to get back to Pacific Dunes.
The width of the fairway is an illusion to the untrained eye. ;D
-
I touched on this in another thread, I'll expand on that here. Tee shots matter not because they are x% of the game but because without any penalty enforced by the architecture for misses there is very little penalty. If I heel or hook one, leaving myself 40 yards more than I might have if I hit a pretty nice drive, if there's no penalty for that other than the distance or possibly a bit harder shot from rough, it is not much of an issue to me. So I have to hit a 6 iron instead of a 9 iron, big deal.
Compare that to what happens if I miss a 6 iron or 9 iron approach. Even on a completely unpenal green complex, i.e., the giant greens at TOC, I'm not much better off hitting a very long putt than I would be hitting a bunker shot (on a normal course, not out of TOC style bunkers of course!) or flopping one from the rough. Missing an approach is its own penalty, and of course the closer you get to the hole the bigger the impact a screwed up shot will have.
But driving separates the men from the boys game-wise, someone who hits it solid, long and straight off the tee on a consistent basis is almost guaranteed to play to scratch because the remaining game is so easy. Its us wild and inconsistent 5s who have all the fun playing from crazy places the plus handicaps hardly ever see (except when they are helping us look for our balls ;D)
-
The debate HAS been about whether a course that meets these two conditions should not be considered Top 100 material.
If that is the debate, than we do not have one. Of course RC should be "CONSIDERED" for top 100 status. I feel it just misses and others feel it belongs.
-
Tim,
You are asking: "how much weight to give give to whether a course sufficiently challenges or interests the SKILLED golfer off the tee" and trying to prove mathematically that short shrift should be given to this segment of golfer. Correct?
There are numerous ways to spin the % of number of shots vs. number of players but there are only three segments, leaving out recovery shots for the moment, and they are the drive, the approach and the putt. Each of these areas now represent 1/3 of the total importance for every level of player, spinning them this way.
Posts of Tommy N and Tom Mac illustrated that great holes can be perceived as easy drives but can still challenge or interest the better player.
Conversely, great holes can have demanding drives where choice from the tee is limited or where choices abound but are hard to reach.
All you can achieve mathematically is to show that a course might have an easier chance of satisfying a larger portion of the market but if a course consistently ignores the drive, or either one of the other segments, it will never rise to the top.
-
Aren't all golfers "skilled" — that is, all golfers have the ability to hit that one skilled shot...whether they hit it less than 1% of the time does not mean a course should lay without such charm. A way around is in order, to be sure.
-
Jim Kennedy:
Actually, it was Geoffrey Childs who asked if a quantitative case could be made for putting relatively little emphasis on whether a golf course presents enough challenge to skilled golfers off the tee.
Truthfully, I don't usually decide whether I like or dislike a golf course based on X times Y. To the contrary, I'm quite fond of what an Irish friend once said of Dooks - one of my favorite places in golf: "Dooks is really cool.....it doesn't deserve to be.....it just is".
Nonetheless, I think Geoffrey asked a fair question and he deserved an answer.
Thus, I tried to lay out my assumptions, to make them as transparent as possible. In turns out that only a very small percentage of golf shots played are tee shots by skilled golfers. I think at best you can get to around 2 percent; the real number is probably less than .5 percent.
You'll note I don't leave out putts. I don't leave out recovery shots. I simply added up the strokes, gave equal value to each and calculated the percentage of tee shots played by skilled golfers.
It's a very small number.
That's the quantitative case for placing relatively little emphasis on how well a golf course tests skilled golfers off the tee.
-
Tim
I asked that question somewhat in jest as you can't seem to respect David's Wigler's opinion about Rustic Canyon. He clearly articulated the reasons why he thinks RC could be a top 10 within 60 yards and still not satisfy HIS criteria for believing RC belongs on such a list. You used my question to start another thread to rehash the same point again. I've played Rustic Canyon twice and very luckily once with Geoff S. I don't happen to agree with David's conclusion as I would place RC firmly within Golfweek's Top 100 Modern list. However, I can understand and respect his opinion once I understand it from his posts.
There seems to be too many cases where someone makes a controversial statement or holds an opinion that does not fit the "politically correct" GCA position and that person is ground over the coals. David's opinion is one example as is Mike Cirba, Matt Ward and Bill Vostinak's lack of raving praise equal to Ran's review of Hidden Creek. Say something nice about Atlantic GC and you are an outcast with no sense taste for golf course architecture. If we are all here to pat each other on the back for our identical positions then we stubbornly will not learn anything or appreciate that there are different sides to an argument and different tastes.
-
Tim Weiman,
I'm not prepared to agree with your thesis and contention that a 6 " putt equals a drive.
While the strokes count equally, the consequences of a missed 6" putt usually don't have the dramatic ripple effect of a missed drive.
Hence, they must be weighted differently in your formula.
-
Actually, until I see what else is in David Wigler's modern top 100, I won't agree that he has satisfactorily explained himself.:)
HOWEVER -
I don't think the case can necessarily be made for ignoring skilled golfer's tee shots. While my gut tells me that Mark Fine's simple insight on the other thread strikes me as wise & likely correct (I'll paraphrase it as any course providing interest within 60 yards by definition provides interest off the tee), I can certainly understand why some golfers would have other preferences.
I think a better question would be, should skilled golfer's preferences be given any sort of priority over the less skilled. Anyone who's played with me would probably stunned to learn that I actually think the skilled golfer does deserve preferential treatment (I am the worst golfer on this site). Lousy golfers like me struggle with virtually everything in the game. Sadly, it doesn't really matter that much to me if the tee shot offers much challenge/interest/whatever, 'cause I'm struggling no matter what. Heck, the occasional good tee shot when required thankfully is usually enough to bring me back. Because everything is a challenge, I think the only thing that should really be done to accomodate lessers like myself is to not penalize us unnecessarily with silly carries that any good golfer would laugh at or ridiculously thick rough on narrow fairways, etc. (And yes, I'm fully aware this means we can't play courses like Pine Valley - tough luck for me, but truth be told, I wouldn't want to go there right now & embarass myself anyway.) So I think some preferential treatment is in order.
As it pertains to RC specifically, my understanding is that the course is designed to use the width to provide plenty of options off the tee while utilizing preferred landing areas to allow the thinking golfer to maximize his experience. Anyone who wants to learn more about the thought process behind the course should get Geoff's new book.
As I read David & Tom H & Matt Ward's criticisms, none of them has suggested anything drastic need be done. Matt has suggested a few relatively minor tweaks & no one has said anything about severely narrowing fairways or anything like that. Matt's suggestions might have merit - I won't be in SoCal anytime soon so I'll have a long wait to see for myself. I'd be surprised if any architect on this board felt his courses were above criticism once completed - given the oportunity, I'd guess many would love to be able to tweak their courses ala DR at #2.
Lastly, things are getting a bit testy online, but I don't really understand why. If you do not want your views challenged or questioned, why are you participating in a discussion board? I don't think Tim's questions are going overboard - he simply doesn't feel they have been answered. I may or may not agree, but I can certainly understand why he feels the question of top 10 inside, not top 100 overall has not been adequately explained.
P.S. David, while I appreciate the mention, I'll remind that it was I who said that we don't need the qualifiers - it goes without saying that everyone should know that your views are indeed your opinion. I don't think we need to go overboard with qualifiers. Similarly, the many defenders of RC should understand that your view is indeed your opinion & you are entitled to it.
-
George- Not adequately answered? What is it about the argument that a long hitter can bang away with impunity still in the fairway with a sand wedge or pitching wedge that is so hard to understand? What's so hard to understand that someone has the opinion that with those clubs in their hand from the fairway that scoring is easier then a situation where they can get into enough trouble to almost certainly cost shots? What's so hard to understand that someone thinks a shot from 20 yards with no bunkers in between him and the hole that in fact can be putted is easier percentage wise then an 80 yard wedge? What's so hard to understand that this individual thinks that because of this he thinks there are at least 100 modern courses that are better? Those ideas were made very clear. You can disagree with the argument but if that criteria places a course lower on a ranking relative to another why can't it be respected? I'm sure we'll hear some academic argument about how we're only trying to pose questions and discuss a topic of interest about golf course architecture but I think that's just a bunch of bunk.
-
Geoffrey -
I think David did a good job explaining himself, but it did take awhile for me to fully understand his opinion - I don't think I really realized what he was saying until he responded to Dan King's question of what if they called #12 a par 3.
The question I don't really feel was fully addressed was to top 10 inside, not top 100 outside - as I said half jokingly before, I don't think I'd be totally satisfied until I saw the rest of David's top 100 (to see if there are any other courses that could be considered less than exacting driving courses).
I don't think Tim's PV analogy was all that far off, especially when one considers the two respective goals (a private club designed to really test top golfers versus a public course designed to provide fun, interesting golf) & the fact that PV is usually considered the number 1 course in the world - that's not exactly an easy comparison for any course to live up to. Ditto comparing it to #2.
Contention on the site is almost always a two way street. I'd like to think my points above do an adequate job of answering your questions to me, but should you disagree, just ask more questions & I'll try to answer them - I won't get offended - to me, that's what a discussion board is all about.
For the record, I've never had the pleasure of meeting either David or Tim, but I'd bet that if they were sitting at the 19th, they'd be able to have this discussion without anyone getting personally offended. It'd be nice if that could happen more on the board & I think the best way to accomplish that is to not react personally when someone asks one to further explain himself. That's all I'm trying to say.
-
Geoff Childs,
One of the things that impressed me about Pacific Dunes was the challenge off the tee on every par 4 and par 5.
The risk/reward alternatives, the tactical signals to the eye are quite clear on every hole, with the possible exception of the 1st & 8th hole, the first time you play them.
Assume for a second that a golf course had identical green sites as Pacific Dunes, but virtually no challenge off the tee, no need for thought, decisions or tactical execution with regard to the lines of play and your driver.
How could anyone equate those two golf courses and place them in the same league ?
The absence of any challenge from the tee would seem to disqualify any course from a lofty ranking.
Ruthless objectivity is sometimes hard to come by, especially on this site. ;D
-
Patrick's last post is actually a good example of how things sometimes go awry on this site.
He transposed the challenge/interest thing & then asked how anyone could equate the courses objectively.
I don't think anyone on this site is trying to equate Pac Dunes & RC.
As I read his post, even with the smiley, it is pretty easy to infer that he thinks anyone who defended RC on the other thead is not capable of being objective.
One can react in two ways - answer his question or not. Too many posters choose to not answer the question, but rather become petulant over having their views questioned. I'd rather see people accept questions at face value & answer them.
But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong. :)
-
Patrick- That's a good example. RC is (and I repeat) one of the best modern courses built in a while and a prime example of what public (or private) golf can and should aspire to be. PD, however, raises the pulse a bit more.
Another example would be to try to take the risk reward features of tee shots on a flat property like Garden City where the penalties are real and terrifying and equate them to another flat site also with width, Hidden Creek, where the risk/reward features are so subtle as to be almost meaningless. One get your attention while the other is almost "golf-lite".
George- you say "I don't think anyone on this site is trying to equate Pac Dunes & RC." Of course they are. What do you think all this talk of Top 100 modern lists is about? Its the basis of this thread which started with "We have several threads going on the subject of “skilled” golfers playing a course like Rustic Canyon. Essentially, they started based on a comment made by David Wigler. David described Rustic Canyon as being in the Top Ten of all modern courses “sixty yards and in” but went on to say that the course couldn’t be considered Top 100 material based on the fact that Rustic Canyon “failed to challenge the skilled golfer off the tee”."
-
George - I am going to try and back into answering your question. I just checked the 2003 GW top 100. I have been to 31 of them: Pacific, Whistling, Bandon, PDGC, Shadow, TGC, Cuscow, Ocean, BlackWolf, World PB, Harbor, Double, Arcadia, Mayacama, Cog, Victoria, Kapalua, Kingsley, Valhala, Flint Hills, Mauna K, SouthShore, Manele, Old Mem, PGA West, Belliere, Firestone, Troon, Barona, Quarry, World RM. The only one that I would remove for RC is Firestone but before RC got the spot, I would give it to several others like The Palms, Sand Ridge, Cascata or National Golf Club of Kansas City. For what it is worth, RC is in the best 100 modern that I have played but I have not played so many of the top 100 that I rate it against where I believe it should fall.
-
George Pazin,
I wasn't referencing Rustic Canyon.
I was providing an example of Pacific Dunes with another hypothetical golf course as an identical twin at the green sites and surrounds.
I thought the hypothetical example clearly presented the vast difference in two golf courses, identical in all aspects, except the area of the drive, thus highlighting the need for challenge(tactical signals, thought, decisions and execution) off the tee
I thought the hypothetical example reinforced the falaciousness of the opinion that challenge off the tee is not necessary in order to achieve greatness.
Can you think of a top 100 golf course that doesn't provide challenge off the tee ?
Can you think of a golden age golf course that doesn't provide challenge off the tee ?
Are ruthless objectivity and intellectual honesty the same thing ? ;D
-
George Pazin:
Thanks for your kind comments. While Geoffrey Childs apparently believes all the questions have been answered, I still believe it doesn't make sense for a golf course to be considered Top Ten within sixty yards but out of the Top 100 based on the fact it doesn't provide enough challenge to skilled golfers off the tee.
A big part of the problem is that people still haven't come to grips with the numbers. The fact is that tee shots by skilled golfers are such a small percent of all golf shots played that it is almost embarrassing that we, collectively, would give such shots much, if any, weight in our assessment of golf courses. Most telling is Pat Mucci’s recent post where he asks you to identify a Top 100 golf course “that doesn’t provide challenge off the tee”. What was Pat thinking when he deleted reference to “skilled” golfers? Why do so when that has been central to the entire debate? Then, too, I am surprised that Pat asked me to compare six inch putts to tee shots. What was the point of that? Did Pat mean to suggest that six inch putts are representative of what it is like to play golf shots “within sixty yards”?
Thanks also for seeing some sense in my reference to Pine Valley. Honestly, I don’t think I made the point very clearly, but believe Pine Valley does speak to the architect’s dilemma when trying to create tee shots that are interesting and challenging. At the heart of this problem is the wide range of playing ability between skilled and non skilled golfers. The differences in playing ability manifest themselves in many ways, but for the purpose of this discussion let’s just focus on accuracy. Pine Valley was once described by Dan Jenkins as the “science fiction monster” of golf courses, but Jenkins also went on to say “despite the legend……there is lots of room in the fairways”. That’s for good reason. Eliminating such room in order to seriously challenge the ability of skilled golfers to control tee shot dispersion would make the course unplayable for everyone else. Such a formula will never work. We should be very skeptical about the notion of "excessive width".
That’s the point I think the Rustic Canyon project team understood and why I believe relatively little weight should be given to challenging skilled players off the tee. Pine Valley as a private club might be able to discourage people without a certain level of ability from playing the course, but Rustic Canyon can’t. More to the point, the entire golf industry can’t. So, why give much weight challenging tee shots of skilled golfers?
-
Tim Weiman , I disagree with you on this post. First and foremost, if golfers are interested in minimizing their score, then tee shots are very important at Rustic and every other course. Tee shots put you where you want to be, or where you dont.
Think of it as playing architect and routing your own course --creating your own par 3 for the next shot. So no matter what your calculations say, I don't think it right to minimize the importance of tee shots.
Also, by the same logic, the tee shots are important, interesting, and challenging at Rustic. At least if the golfer is trying to maximize his chances of scoring well. Not all approaches are created equal.
Geoffrey,
You are correct that David W.'s opinion is certainly worthy of respect. He has made his case, and expressed a view shared by many. Especially those without much experience at the course.
However, while I understand how David could get the impression he did from Rustic, his opinion does raise at least two issues, one specific to his review of RC, and the other applicable to understanding strategic golf architecture. Starting with the latter:
1. When someone says a course has "great greens," "terrific green complexes," etc. I assume that they are talking about more than just how the greens putt, or how easy/hard/interesting is to get up and down around them. I assume that great greens provide the road map for all the different possible routes the hole can/should be played. If a course lacks interest/challenge off the tee, then the greens are not doing there job, and therefore arent that great after all.
So I wouldnt ask, "How can RC not be top 100 if it is top 10 from 60 yds in?"
Instead, I would ask, "How can a course be top 10 from 60 yards in if there is no challenge/interest off the tee?
2. David's position is also questionable because his recollection of RC is very different than those who have played it quite a few more times than he. Mainly, he greatly overestimates the ease of the driving game on RC 12. He describes 12 as requiring a 265 yds shot from the back tees to clear all the trouble, and thinks that at worst if he misses right he will end up in a collection area to the right of the hole. He has no recollection of the large tree that sits directly in line between the black tee and the hole. He guesses that in ten drives from the back tees he could hold the green four times, put it on the fringe 4 times and miss 20yds right.
This is just not an accurate description of the hole or how it plays.
I would give more credence to David W.'s opinion about the ease of the driving game at RC if he had said, "The driving game on RC 12 lacks interest because I can aim right of the trouble and green, then if I kill one I can get even or past the green in one, and then get up and down for my birdie."
inexplicably I had called Tim Weiman Tom MacWood so I changed this.
-
DaveM,
Interestingly enough, I said earlier that you have played it far more than I and certainly know it better. Correct me then. You admit that you suspect I will fly the green quite often. How far is the carry if not 265? I cannot be that far off, if I can fly the green. I hit a high fade. Is it impossible that the tree simply is not a factor for a high fade hitter? Beyond that, we are back in the same circle again. Tim returns my argument to "Challenge" and "Skilled golfer" while my point is that the tee shots are not interesting and anyone can bomb away. Secondly, you put number 12 in a vacuum when I am referring to 12 of the 14 tee shots. Even if I were wrong on 12 (Which I still do not believe I am) it would make 11 uninteresting tee balls and not change my point.
I agree with your first point about how a magical green sets up. Unfortunately, a course that is so accessible from the tee does not allow these greens to perform their functions. I suspect your wording of questioning my understanding of golf architecture is just poorly chosen. If you truly believe what you wrote, then I think the question is reversed. How could you understand golf architecture if you cannot separate good from bad? I have seen horrible golf holes with phenomenal bunkers. I have seen great driving holes with mediocre greens. I have seen great courses with weak holes and weak courses with great holes. How can someone who understands golf architecture not be able to separate good from bad. How can someone who understands golf architecture not be able to look at a magical green complex like #1 at RC and not be able to say "Wow, if they put some framing and reference in the fairway and placed some demand off the tee, to require thought, this green would turn this into one of the best opening holes in California." That is what a student of golf architecture does. We have written posts ad nauseum about this exact point and how we analyze all facets of a course while we play.
-
Thanks David W - that helped clarify your points, to me at least.
The other point I forgot to make last night was that, much like the contentious Barona v. Apache Stronghold thread of a while back, I feel like I learned a lot on the recent skilled golfer/RC threads. I feel like a learned a lot about RC #12 & a lot about how David W views courses.
Thanks everyone - have a beer on me tonight.
Patrick -
I'd say the string of inference is pretty clear, but, if that's not what you intended, then that even better serves my point about not getting offended at other's questions & opinions.
As far as your other questions,
Can you think of a top 100 golf course that doesn't provide challenge off the tee ?
Can you think of a golden age golf course that doesn't provide challenge off the tee ?
You're asking the wrong guy - limited experience & even more limited skill.
It's a little hard for me to imagine a course that would be excellent from 60 yards in that wouldn't provide preferred landing areas off the tee, meaning that there is interest off the tee, but I look forward to seeing for myself someday (hopefully sooner rather than later).
Geoffrey -
I'm not real big on the ratings game - I'm a charter subscriber to Rich G's michelin golf course ratings guide - so I guess I don't really see that as equating the two golf courses. I'd say rather that it's simply a discussion analyzing how width may or may not provide sufficient interest to skilled golfers.
Regardless of how someone feels about David W or David M's points, I think it's good to see what people are thinking.
-
Dave Moriarty:
I’m not sure we do disagree.
Part of our challenge is to discuss golf courses in such a way that accommodates people who have played a specific course AND those that haven’t. People who have played a course MAY be qualified to discuss its specific features. Likewise, people who haven’t played the course MAY also be able to offer valuable perspective based on their broad exposure to golf or golf architecture.
Imagine we have two people discussing ABC golf course:
Joe is a long hitting, 2 handicap who plays many courses thanks to his job as a traveling salesman. Lenny is a 62 year, old teaching professional who never really did travel very much or see many of the world’s great courses, but he has been teaching golf for forty years.
Our friend Joe visits a course and concludes it isn’t very good. When asked why, he responds by saying the tee shots on too many holes are too easy. He cites #4 as an example. The hole he complains is only 320 yards and all the hazards can be cleared with a tee shot over 290 yards. “It was an easy birdie”, Joe says, “If I played it ten times, I’d make birdie almost every time”.
However, our friend Lenny comes to a completely different conclusion without even seeing the hole. His impression is that Joe may be a good golfer but not necessarily knowledgeable about golf or golf architecture. He points out that he has taught hundreds of students and that only a tiny percentage can clear hazards 290 yards off the tee. Lenny argues that if we want to judge the quality of this golf hole, we shouldn’t waste time talking about ten of Joe’s tee shots. Rather, we should take ten of his students – ten that are broadly representative of people playing the game – and see how the hole plays for them.
What Joe and Lenny demonstrate is that it is possible for two people to discuss a golf hole when only one has actually seen it. Moreover, the story demonstrates that the person who has seen the hole being discussed isn’t necessarily more qualified to discuss it. That person may be nothing more than a skilled golfer and not anything resembling a serious student of golf architecture.
Dave, in this entire discussion, you will notice I have never even attempted to discuss whether the holes at Rustic Canyon provide interest or challenge off the tee for either skilled or non skilled golfers. RC sounds like the kind of course that until you have played it many times, you probably aren’t qualified to say. It’s my hunch – just a hunch – that it is the kind of course that may fail to make the best first impression, but then steadily grows on a person the more times he plays it – perhaps the antithesis of so much modern design. We all know the story about Bobby Jones’ initial reaction to the Old Course. But, maybe we don’t all understand it.
So, I won’t judge whether Rustic Canyon “does not provide enough challenge to skilled golfers off the tee” as David Wigler wrote. I will simply argue that even if this is true, so what? So, what if our friend Joe can make birdie nearly every time on #4 at ABC golf course? If ABC golf course really is “Top Ten within sixty yards”, it must be a golf course of such extraordinary character that it probably does belong within the Top 100 overall. I don’t know any other course that is Top Ten within sixty yards and not Top 100 material. I doubt Rustic Canyon is the first.
While tee shots by “skilled golfers” are a very small part of golf, “sixty yards and in” covers a lot of ground for all golfers: any shot that lands in, comes to rest in or is played from this zone. Thus, the importance of designing this part of golf course well is paramount. It far exceeds the importance of providing “enough challenge for skilled golfers off the tee”. Anyone who argues this point simply isn’t a very knowledgeable or serious student of golf architecture. More likely, it is a person like our friend Joe – a person who thinks about how HE plays the game and thinks THAT is golf.
-
Tim:
You're making a lot of implications in that post. Forgive me if I am reading too much into it, but you really seem to imply that David Wigler - and maybe me - don't know jack about golf course architecture and only see how a course plays for our own games.
That cannot be farther from the truth.
I know David Wigler and I know that you will not find many more serious students of golf course architecture. Just because he uses himself as an example is meaningless... the man can hit the ball a long way, so he is a good example for the VERY narrow critique he has for Rustic Canyon. But it's a LONG leap to say that's all he knows, cares about, sees when he assesses a golf course... an EXTREMELY long leap indeed, and one that's just plain not true.
As for myself, I've said many times I'm just imagining how the long hitters play - I'm sure as hell not one - so maybe this doesn't apply to me, but your Joe and Lenny example is hitting quite close to home. I don't care as much about how you characterize me though, as I've said many times on here that I DON'T consider myself a student of golf course architecture - in fact I consider it a badge of honor that the playing of the game will always come first.
But you won't get away that easily characterizing my friend Mr. Wigler that way!
In any case, David and I have each said about 100 times now that CHALLENGE off the tee isn't the issue, but rather INTEREST is. And we've also said it isn't just skilled golfers that this applies to, but ALL golfers. Yet you still keep coming back to to your same tired point... can you PLEASE get over this?
I said it in another thread. Challenge off the tee isn't necessary, although if it doesn't exist, other factors better make up for it. INTEREST off the tee is required, or a course simply cannot be called "great." This goes for all golfers, not just the "skilled."
Asked and answered... about 100 times now....
TH
-
Well Tim that post beats them all. So David WIgler -Oh sorry I mean JOE is among the group of "Anyone who argues this/YOUR point simply isn’t a very knowledgeable or serious student of golf architecture. More likely, it is a person like our friend Joe – a person who thinks about how HE plays the game and thinks THAT is golf."
Tim- There are 17,000 courses that have been built since 1960. To be included within the top 100 modern list you are among the best 0.58% ! Do the math. That's highly elite company. As I said previously I DO PUT RC WITHIN THAT ELITE GROUP. Howver, why can't you, someone who has not placed any emphasis on lists in the past, simply respect someone elses opinion rather then creating some silly analogy of your choosing to insult his knowledge of GCA?
-
Thank you, GC. We seem to have come to the same conclusion about Tim's post!
TH
-
Guys,
I gave up. Tim continues to revert back to an old asked and answered argument because it helps make his point and refuses to remotely accept that any counterpoint could possibly have credibility (Without seeing the course). We are not going to change his mind, so what is the point.
It is amazing how I am a brilliant student of architecture from 60 yards and my opinion is acceptable and taken at its word but clueless about architecture outside of 60 yards and basing my opinion solely on personal agenda. It also amazed me that my opinion (This course falls just out of the top 100 due to lack of interest in the tee shots - but still falls within the top 1% of all courses in the US) is now characterized, as "It isn't very good." Maybe the problem is that the course isn't very good from 60 yards in and I am truly unqualified to judge green complexes.
;)
-
Geoffrey Childs:
I respect your .58%. But, remember, to achieve Top Ten within sixty yards, one has to add another decimal point and get to .058% for an awfully large part of the golf course. My contention is that this part is so large, that the golf course couldn't possibly achieve that status and then not fall with the .58% overall.
In my opinion, thus far nobody has laid out a case to the contrary. Nobody else has laid out in a transparent manner how much emphasis SHOULD be given to whether a golf course presents "enough challenge to skilled golfers off the tee".
I have argued that it should receive no more than about one percent weighting. The key factors are a) how few golfers are "skilled" and b) the small percentage of tee shots.
This X times Y gets me to the one percent range on a weighted average basis for all golfers.
This isn't personal. There are plenty of guys like Joe out there.
Why not simply focus on what weight SHOULD be given to the tee shots of the very limited population of "skilled" golfers?
If my one percent number is wrong, what IS the right number? And how do you calculate it?
Tom Huckaby:
You obviously don't like my story about Joe and Lenny. But, I think it is telling when a person judges a golf course by his own experience.
Why suggest what the results would be if you played a shot ten times? If you are making an assessment of course or hole or shot overall, isn't it better to think like Lenny? Wouldn't you be more inclined to listen to Lenny over Joe? Don't golf architects really have to think more like Lenny than Joe?
Anyway, I'm happy to see you think David Wigler, like our friend Joe, is a good example to provide a "very narrow critique".
I'm just waiting for you to explain how "narrow? Is my assertion that providing challenge - or interest - for skilled golfers off the tee worthy of more than about one percent of our assessment of golf course wrong? If so, can you lay out such a case? Can you tell me your numbers and how you get there?
-
David Wigler:
Be fair. I accepted your assessment that Rustic Canyon is both Top Ten within sixty yards and that it simply doesn't provide enough challenge to skilled golfers off the tee.
I just can't see how you or anyone else can give much weight to the latter.
Is providing enough challenge to skilled golfers off the tee worth more than about one percent when doing an overall assesment of a golf course?
-
Tim- If the course were among the top 2% in interest off the tee (pretty damn good wouldn't you say?) and you gave them equal weight then it falls outside the top 100 by a good margin.
However, that's hardly the point. To me the point is that you are simply too stubborn or bigoted to simply respect another person's opinion.
-
Tim:
David Wigler can hit the ball a ton. He is a useful example for being a player who can hit the ball a long way. That's it.
I NEVER made any assessments based on playing a shot ten times. You have me confused with others.
I also never judged any golf course purely based on my own experience - hell I've only said about another hundred times here that I am only speculating on how the very skilled or very long off the tee would play Rustic!
This is all getting pretty insulting, Tim. That's ok. Just pick the right targets with your insults, will you? You have me all wrong.
At least you are FINALLY getting the difference between challenge and interest, or so it seems, given that you did challenge me to state my case re one or the other. I choose the latter.
Interest off the tee remains very important. I can't quantify exactly how important, sorry, numbers really aren't my thing. But anyway, if the tee shots are BORING - now read that closely, I didn't say too easy or lacking in challenge - then the course better have a LOT in other areas to make up for this deficiency or it will never achieve greatness. Tee shots are just a big part of the game - people tend to practice the driver a hell of a lot more than any other club - so tee shots are always going to be very important. Make them just slam away boring affairs with no choices to be made, no penalties or rewards to be given, and that's just not as much fun as when these things are present. I can't put it any simpler than that.
Rustic Canyon is a great golf course. There, I said it. It's not in the top 0.58%, but what the hell that isn't the bottom line for "great" in my book. Its deficiencies off the tee - which really are very, very minor - that's what makes these discussions so silly - are made up for elsewhere in spades, mainly by the ingenious greens and green surrounds.
Re that course, that ought to be good enough.
That's my case. You can choose to accept it or not. It's really very, very simple.
TH
-
Tim,
Do you read anyone elses post but your own? The question is not "Challenge for the Skilled...", it is "Interest for any golfer". Tom and I have redefined it as such 20+ times on four different threads. I am sorry that change is inconvienient for you. Yes, I consider interest off the tee way more than 1%. A course that does not require thought off the tee cannot be in my top 100, no matter how good the green are (Exageration, I love CPC's greens so much that it could be a putt putt course and probably make my top 100). It seems like most the treehouse agrees that having interesting tee shots is more than 1% important in evaluating golf courses. I amazed you think differently.
-
Interesting discussion, but a question has popped into my head that I don't think has been asked yet, so...
Tim Weiman,
I'd be interested in your answer to this question:
In your opinion, if a course was top 10 material from 60 yards and in, what deficiencies would it have to have to take it out of the overall top 100? Or is it a lock, so that all a course really needs is to be world-class from 60 and in?
-
David Wigler:
If you want to use the word "interest" in place of "challenge", go right ahead.
I'm still waiting for you to explain how much weight you would give to providing interest off the tee to "skilled" golfers". As such golfers represent such a small percent of the golfing population, I can't see how it would receive much weight.
What is you X times Y?
Geoffrey Childs:
Could you please explain how the following factors should be given equal weight:
a) Sixty yards and in for all golfers
b) Interesting tee shots for skilled golfers
If you are going to accuse me of being "stubborn", then I might just as well be so.
-
Tim Weiman,
I'm not prepared to agree with your thesis and contention that a 6 " putt equals a drive.
While the strokes count equally, the consequences of a missed 6" putt usually don't have the dramatic ripple effect of a missed drive.
Hence, they must be weighted differently in your formula.
Oh, man, I have to try and tweak Pat! I contend the missed short putt has MORE consequence than the missed drive. Why? Well, a missed 6" (or 2-3 feet or whatever) ALWAYS costs the player one full stroke or more. A missed drive, on average, likely costs less than a full stroke. Sure, it can cost more than one, but I suspect the average is less. Depends on the hole, obviously.
I don't think Tim's quantitative point holds water, though, precisely because the drive does affect the remaining shots.
KC, giving in to minutia (sic). This has been a really good series of threads; both in content and tone.
-
I played a course the "other" day. It was simply the best course I ever played (top .000058%) in all aspects of playability. Demanding tee shots, shot values, test every club, green sites, putting surfaces and conditioning. The only problem ... it was not walkable. Therefore it's not in my top 100.
The above was hypothetical.
If a course is missing something (in someones opinion) it can't be a top "x" course in their opinion. Not mediocre, but missing.
-
Tim:
The issue here isn't interest off the tee ONLY for skilled golfers, the issue is interest off the tee for ALL golfers. A course that lacks this must make up for such in other areas to achieve greatness.
It is absolutely astounding that you keep missing this and keep re-asking the old tired question that everyone else gave up on days ago.
Mike Nuzzo's post is illuminating, also. I suggest you read it and take it to heart. Some things just can't be quantified numerically.
TH
-
ChrisB:
Thanks for approaching the topic as a discussion about golf architecture.
You have asked a good question and I'd probably have to think about it for awhile.
But, off the top of my head I would say the following:
If a course was truly Top Ten within sixty yards for ALL golfers, it would have to have MULTIPLE deficiencies for ALL golfers on other parts of the golf course for it to fall outside of the Top 100 overall.
-
Tom Huckaby:
If you want to start a thread about how Rustic Canyon lacks interest off the tee for ALL golfers, go right ahead. That is a separate discussion, in my view, but is one that could be very interesting.
Ken Cotner:
I recognize a drive effects other shots. So do many other types of shots. You can't mark down your score until you put the ball into the hole.
Mike Nuzzo:
I'm with you. We should ban all courses that aren't walkable from Top 100 consideration. Do you know of any such courses?
-
Tim:
Glad to see you can answer a question when it appeals to you. I guess mine didn't.
But by your post, it seems to me we have come to some agreement. If you care to, go re-read mine and it should be simple to see how. We said the exact same thing, coming from two different angles. Deficiences can be overcome just as superlatives can be downgraded....
TH
-
Tom Huckaby:
I think it would be far better if you would just go ahead and start a thread on how Rustic Canyon lacks interest for ALL golfers off the tee.
Wouldn't that be more interesting? Hell, I might even just sit back and enjoy it!
-
Tom Huckaby:
If you want to start a thread about how Rustic Canyon lacks interest off the tee for ALL golfers, go right ahead. That is a separate discussion, in my view, but is one that could be very interesting.
Tim, you really are a piece of work. Good lord, David's right in asking: do you even read any posts but your own? You are very astute, hey I refer to you all the time as the Ireland golf expert and trust your judgment very much. But you mind-boggling narrowness about this question is really difficult to believe.
Sorry my friend, I'm not gonna start any post focusing on the negatives of a course I like, one that friends are very attached to. I'll leave that to critics like yourself. Have at it. I've only explained too many times to count now how this is a very narrow critique of an otherwise wonderful golf course - a drop of water in a sea of positives. Remember that?
TH
-
Tom Huckaby:
I think it would be far better if you would just go ahead and start a thread on how Rustic Canyon lacks interest for ALL golfers off the tee.
Wouldn't that be more interesting? Hell, I might even just sit back and enjoy it!
Amazing. OK, that's the end of this. Enjoy yourself, Tim.
-
Tom Huckaby:
I remember that drop of water, but I just can't see how discussing a negative is a bad thing. How else do we advance golf architecture? Is there really anyone associated with the Rustic Canyon project that can't comfortably participate in such a discussion?
-
Tim:
You obviously weren't a part of previous discussions regarding this golf course.
I sent you an email politely requesting that you drop this - I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you hadn't seen that before you posted the above. Thus I'll now make a public request: please drop this. Too many hard feelings have been generated already.
It's like this: what if I posted in a public place a query about your wife's faults? No matter how many great qualities she had, that would be a very insulting conversation. Now start a post querying about which of your wife's many virtues are the best ones, and everyone is very happy.
Golf courses are taken far more seriously than are wives.
One learns that through experience.
After you see Rustic Canyon, you feel free to start this discussion, and I'll be the one to sit back and NOT enjoy it as further hard feelings are the result.
TH
ps - maintaining friendships is of SO much more value than "advancing golf course architecture" it's to me stupid to make the comparison. But if you see it differently, more power to you - the golf world appreciates your quest.
-
Shivas:
I'm happy to be held to either "ignore" or "relatively little".
The bottom line is that tee shots by skilled golfers are such a small percent of all golf shots that when assessing a golf course, you can either "ignore" them or place "relatively little" weight. Either way, you'll be doing just fine.
-
Tim, this thread is starting to take on the feel of the old, boring "one most play and know every fact and detail about a course before forming an opinion about it" threads. Only this time it seems it is you who is arguing for some kind of limiting evaluation criteria.
I think that David W. may not have grasped some of the intricacies of Rustic during his single play, and some of that may have been based on his own game that day. I think that would be true of any evaluator. It was true of me after one (and 10 and 20 . . .) plays, and I have said in the past that I think it true of TH and Matt Ward.
That being said, I have no doubt that all of these people tried to take players of varying skills into consideration when viewing the course.
As for interest vs. challenge. I dont mind using whichever one they want, because I think my points hold up well against either criteria. I don't understand why you refuse to acknowledge their tweaked definition.
This whole direction seems to be bogging down an argument that I have found quite interesting and informative up to this point.
-
Correct me then. You admit that you suspect I will fly the green quite often. How far is the carry if not 265? I cannot be that far off, if I can fly the green. I hit a high fade. Is it impossible that the tree simply is not a factor for a high fade hitter?
I have no basis for either admitting or denying that you will fly the green quite often. I am merely going on the fact that you said you can aim right at it and clear all the trouble almost every time. If you aim right at it and clear the trouble almost every time, you will end up well over the green quite often. (If I said 'fly' it was my mistake.
The carry from the black tee to the green is somewhere around 310 yds, as the crow flies, using GPS to measure. I am not sure whether this is the front edge or middle, but as the actual green is quite shallow, I am not sure this makes a difference. So to aim at the middle of the green and clear all the trouble every time, you'd have to be able to consistently carry the ball 290-300 yards.
It is possible that the tree is simply not a factor for your high fade, if you never mishit it or hit it low. But it is right there staring you in the face.
Also Tim, I really dont know what you mean by collection area right of the green.
Secondly, you put number 12 in a vacuum when I am referring to 12 of the 14 tee shots. Even if I were wrong on 12 (Which I still do not believe I am) it would make 11 uninteresting tee balls and not change my point.
I think I've gone through each hole in the past. The only holes you've explained your thoughts in detail are 12 and 3. And I've agreed with you, to a degree, regarding 3. You've also discussed 7 a little, and I have also addressed that. But if you want to talk about more, that is fine with me. Oh yeah, I've also discussed No 2.
I suspect your wording of questioning my understanding of golf architecture is just poorly chosen. If you truly believe what you wrote, then I think the question is reversed. How could you understand golf architecture if you cannot separate good from bad? I have seen horrible golf holes with phenomenal bunkers. I have seen great driving holes with mediocre greens. I have seen great courses with weak holes and weak courses with great holes. How can someone who understands golf architecture not be able to separate good from bad. How can someone who understands golf architecture not be able to look at a magical green complex like #1 at RC and not be able to say "Wow, if they put some framing and reference in the fairway and placed some demand off the tee, to require thought, this green would turn this into one of the best opening holes in California." That is what a student of golf architecture does. We have written posts ad nauseum about this exact point and how we analyze all facets of a course while we play.
I view golf to be a chain of events, with each shot to serve the next. I also think the examination of individual links is overrated and overdone. One cannot truly examine a green complex in "a vacuum."
As for the need for framing and reference and [perceived] challenge off the tee on RC 1, it sounds to me like you want to turn RC into just another course with the usual framing and reference and perceived challenge of the tee. If you did, hole number one would not be one of the best openers in California and we would have nothing to talk about, because RC would have been stripped of the very thing that makes it great.
Why cant the lack of framing and reference be part of the challenge off the tee?
-
Mike Nuzzo,
I read, with interest, your comment about a course that was by all accounts terrrific — but not walkable. I consider this a shame, but am not convinced it should affect the rating as much as you profess. Let me ask you this question: It used to be that feature-length movies had intermissions. Writers and film directors purposefully planned where these breaks would occur. In modern times we have virtually no films with intermissions — does the change in format affect the quality of the film or how it might be reviewed by critics? Should it?
-
Dave,
I hope you can join me since Tommy cannot. Maybe seeing it through your eyes will help (Or seeing it through mine will help you see the other point). Talk to Tommy, he is trying to set it up. I am done discussing RC until then. I agree with Huckaby completely. This has turned into a very personal argument. Tim seems intent on refusing to allow the counterpoint to be "All golfers" and "Interest" and it has turned into nothing more than boring repetition.
I completely agree that you know it better than me, and as I said, I really like the people involved in the project and hope that I find what on missed on my second visit. I am done discussing RC in any capacity until then.
-
I still maintain that a skilled tee shot may be played by virtually any level of golfer — that the "once-in-a-lifetime" execution of a club hitting a ball is, in and of itself, enough to make even the worst player feel he or she can overcome a hazard or obstacle — at least in mind. To suggest that the problem presented at the tee is reserved for any single category of golfer is nonsense.
Golf within the mind — that which we might not be able to muster physically — but can always be had in our dreams is the gift of the game that you cannot take away from any visitor to the links. To "talk down" to the golfer at the tee, no matter how awful his game, is a terrible mistake in design judgement.
-
Forrest Richardson:
I don't recall anyone suggesting that the problem presented at the tee is reserved for any single category of golfer.
What are you referring to?
-
Tim,
I thought you wrote, "Here again we have simple math. The percent of all golf shots that are tee shots by skilled golfers is (17 percent times 10 percent): 1.7 percent..."
...Wait, you did write that!
My point is rather simple: A skilled golfer is not so much about physical ability, which is the focus of your hocus-pocus math. This — the ability to execute — is only a portion of the definition. A skilled golfer can also be one who professes to have skill — a mindset that is at the essence of golf — in its heart. Thinking one has skill is the joy of the psychology of golf and all its design. It is this charm — the ideal shot — that makes us want to return and makes the route to the hole so damn troubling at times.
As golf architects our role needs to be to present the appearance (and reality) of the requirement to be skilled, regardless of whether the patrons of a course will actually have any skill.
At Rustic Canyon I do believe the openness of some tee shots is repeated, perhaps, too often. And, the subtle positioning of tee shots may be lost to those who do not seek the details and play there very often. Whether this is cause to downgrade the beautiful work is probably not justified at all. I find the openness there charming.
To repeat: The term "skilled golfer" is at the root of your thread. I submit that you, and others, may have assumed that to be a "skilled golfer" one must actually hold a valid "Skilled Golfer's License", and this is not the case. We all drive. And we are all skilled — some just more often than others.
Your percentages and math are bunk. Why? Because you are dealing with golf, and in golf the possibilities are infinate and varied. ("Bunk" might be a bit harsh. I am sorry.)
-
Forrest:
You are getting spiritual on me and that's okay. These days all I need is about one good tee shot to convince myself that I still have some skill to play the game. Maybe that's why I spend more time these days watching other people play and taking in what it all means.
For the guy struggling to just hit a golf ball 150 yards, that rare solid drive in the fairway does bring joy. Just those few seconds are worth it.
But, at the end of the day I'm skeptical about any definition that would put more than ten percent of the golfers in the category of being "skilled". Actually, the figure is probably more like two or three percent.
Anyway, let's focus on where we might agree. From all I've heard, the details of Rustic Canyon may be lost on people who just play it a couple times. Moreover, the openness may be a "breakout", something so different that less astute observers of golf architecture just may not get it.
-
Anyway, let's focus on where we might agree. From all I've heard, the details of Rustic Canyon may be lost on people who just play it a couple times. Moreover, the openness may be a "breakout", something so different that less astute observers of golf architecture just may not get it.
Tim:
That is one possibility. Having seen and played the course, and heard many things from many people myself about the course said outside of this forum, there are other viewpoints. Very astute observers of golf course architecture may well look at this quite differently, and get things that are beyond what you are thinking here.
It is quite arrogant to think that one viewpoint means "astute", another means "ignorant."
TH
-
Tom Huckaby:
There will always be "less astute" observers of golf architecture. I'd put myself in that category. For example, not long ago I was walking a hole with an architect and member of his design team. From about 150 yards out I focused on the area about 30 yards short of the green trying to assess wether it was designed to allow for a run up kind of shot.
Not really I was told. The design was more related to drainage. Way over my head. I never think about those things.
Did I think they were "arrogant" because I was obviously a "less astute" observer of golf architecture than they were?
Of course not.
It is common for people to miss all kinds of details. That doesn't make them "ignorant", just "less astute". Join the crowd!
-
Fully agreed, Tim.
Go read the second part of the second sentence of your quote I put in the box. The first part of that sentence I fully agree with - oh yes, no one can see all details of a fine course in one or two visits - if one can, it's not a great course. But I only included the first part of that sentence to be fair to you, to give the second part context... That is where I find your arrogance. It seemed to be you said astute observers see a breakout there that less astute observers miss. My take on that is that astute observers just plain disagree on how much of a breakout might exists.
TH
-
Tim,
Agreed. My feelings about Rustic Canyon are based on seeing the course under construction, and then once since, although I did not play. So, they are not complete feelings. The openness is by design, but the repetitive nature of this design calls perhaps too much attention to this trait. Do I like the openness off the tee? Yes. And it would fair to say that not every tee shot is "open". The positives outweigh, by far, any negatives.
-
I'm having a hard time believing we're having this discussion about a 295 yard carry over junk? Who the hell tries that? I don't try that (and I've tried just about every stupid shot there is!) What's the real deal? Is it 260 to carry, with the rest being roll you can reasonably expect to get?
The real deal is that it is about 310 yds from the black tee to the green, almost all of it carry, unless the their green sensor is in the wrong place or the Global Positioning System is out of order.
Some people do hit it out right and try to draw it to the front or at least near or to the apron. But this angle is fraught with peril Left at all and they are in bunkers or gunk. Short and they have a terrible angle downhill. Long and up and down is quite an accomplishment.
A few pics, poor quality, some taken different days:
Tee shot from black tees, green is directly behind tree:
(http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid63/p1322d140ec83215bd133e57a574a10ef/fc05a989.jpg)
Plenty of fairway short and right of green:
(http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid64/peb7602dcb459af65ad0807b2018647ba/fc0122d1.jpg)
From left/short of green, showing distance between end of left gunk and front of apron and green:
(http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid64/p5b9d198e31c1dac4ade23833c5fd1dd9/fc012316.jpg)
From left fairway, bunkers short of green:
(http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid64/p7369809c107704f7698d78ae76fe616b/fc0122d7.jpg)
The danger of being just short, in furthest bunker:
(http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid64/pbfd814b017ae6bf5b70a6102a8d70b4b/fc00fbdf.jpg)
Proximity of OB left to green:
(http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid64/pd81078fb7d695ed2f93f766126cba871/fc01230e.jpg)
From left of green, showing slope of back of green area/apron:
(http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid63/p87ff33a8c51f997b94fca45116b188aa/fc05988a.jpg)
Green complex from well right of fairway:
(http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid50/pe2ff1ec065ed24b1524329aac8e716ea/fcae86af.jpg)
-
David,
Those are the most unbiased pics I have ever seen...thanks.
-
Thanks for the pics. Not at all what I was imagining.
-
Great pics - thanks, Dave!
OK, tees must have been up the day I played, because I most definitely made the carry - and you know how draws and I go together like oil and water - I hit it as straight as I could (meaning only 10 yards worth of left to right, as opposed to my standard 25!), and I ended up about 10 yards right of the bunker, still short of the green. The pin was on the right back, sort of on top of the knob. My best - and really only - shot (given my sometimes Cirbanian chipping game these days, particularly off tight lies) was a putt. I did pretty well to get it to 15 feet.
You tell me how someone 80 yards back was better off than I was, to that pin. Hell, to any pin. I still don't see it... but again, I have only seen the hole twice, and looking at these pictures, well... I'm gonna live up to my promises elsewhere and defer to your expertise - you have seen the hole many many many times and you do know your shit, as they say. I just still am having a hard time understanding how 80 yards back is better.
I look forward to the explanation!
TH
-
One minor quibble, Huckster.
I don't think the person 80 yards out should be clearly better off - it's doubt that makes any short par 4 work. If that person is clearly better off, the hole becomes more boring - something akin to the alternate fairway on the 8th at Riviera, for the big boys, anyway.
How big is that tree? Is it more of a visual impediment than an actual one?
Note: clearly is my wording, not yours. I think you guys are just padding your posting stats. :)
-
Gotcha, George. That is actually a damn fine distinction. If one was clearly better 80 yards back, then the choice would be very obvious and the hole would be quite boring... good point.
Let me make one thing clear - I like this golf hole a lot and would LOVE to play it on a daily basis! It's a fun tee shot and a fun 2nd regardless of one's result. My only take here is that the green is so severe, I don't understand the benefit of laying back... thus for those who can make the carry, I don't understand why they wouldn't try. Likely David M. or David K. or Tommy could explain this, and I know they have tried, I just must be sorta thick on this one. I don't get it yet.
And even if I don't ever understand it, hell I'll chalk it up like I do #11 - a hole I can't figure out the best line on, and love it just for that fact!
TH
-
Great pics - thanks, Dave!
My best - and really only - shot (given my sometimes Cirbanian chipping game these days, particularly off tight lies) was a putt. I did pretty well to get it to 15 feet.
TH
Huckaby...I've been BUSY at work, but don't think you were going to slip this insult past me. It may be TRUE, and irrefutable, and cast in stone, but it's still insulting. ;) ;D
Actually, I'm kind of hoping it becomes an addition to the lexicon of the game...however ingominous. :-/ ;D
-
Mike - I was SO hoping you would see that. Hey, I've never seen you screw up chips any worse than any of the rest of us... I just refer back to your own description of the round at Pine Valley, a shot on #7 at Pacific Dunes, etc.
You did need a word coined for you, in any case. You deserve this honor, one that Dan Kelly bestowed on me with "Huckabite" awhile back... ;D ;D ;D
TH
-
Tom;
Somewhat amazingly, at least until I now publicly pronounce this and jinx myself, my chipping and short game has been reasonable and even decent over the past year or so. But, it's all built on a house of cards of confidence that could crumble with the next gust of wind, or stubbed turf, or bladed cut shot, or lovely lateral.
Just ask Matt Ward, GeoffreyC, and Patrick Mucci, who witnessed my Cirbanian short game catastrophe one hot summer afternoon at Garden City. I caught Tom Paul looking away in disdain as I chipped. Redanman is encouraging, and while he has the soft hands of a surgeon, he calls me Roberto Duran (Hands of Stone). Patrick wanted to bring my wedge to St. Patrick's Cathedral and have an exorcism performed.
"Chip Yips" only begins to describe it.
Forget double hitting...I was in danger of triple hittting the ball due to my "smmooootthh" move.
On the 16th at Pine Valley, from about 20 yards short of the green, Rocky hands me my putter and says, "Here you go pro...I've seen your chipping motion."
Guilty, as charged. ;D
-
Great stuff, Mike - and good to hear things have turned in the proper direction. I'm tempted to point a certain other regular here to this post as a lesson in self-deprecating humor, but that is way beneath my dignity. ;) ;)
TH
-
George: The pepper tree in front of the tee on RC12 is about 40 feet.
Dave: Your last picture starts to give everyone an idea what the green is like, though, does not truly show what a difficult shot the approach is.
Aside from the merits (or lack) of the tee shot on 3,9,10 and 12, there are still some unquestionably tougher tee shots: 7,11,13 (the pot bunker in the middle takes away the width) 14, 16, 18.
And lastly, how many of you have made par on #2 when driving to the right side of the fairway? Actually, a better question would be, how many hold the green with their approach from the right?
-
It's funny how the memory plays tricks... I didn't even remember that tree existing! I either went to the right of it or over it, I don't recall, and I don't remember it much from my first-time cart tour either... Playing the hole, I just don't remember it being a factor whatsoever in the tee shot... is it? It's likely I have this completely wrong.
BTW, 16 is one HELL of a tough tee shot from the back tee.. long carry, bite off as much as you can chew, definite benefit to taking the risk and going far left... and what's even cooler is the middle tee is across the ravine, giving a totally different angle, making a straight shortish hole out of it for those who play that tee, which is appropriate given most who would play that tee can't make the carry or at least shouldn't try... this seems simple, but also creates a very fun shot from that tee for the low 'capper if he chooses to move up, given he can play a slinging draw off the right side and get a lot of yardage out of it, leaving an uphill pitch for his second into yet another genius green.... but don't go too far left or the gunch catches it....
TH
-
Let me make one thing clear - I like this golf hole a lot and would LOVE to play it on a daily basis! It's a fun tee shot and a fun 2nd regardless of one's result. My only take here is that the green is so severe, I don't understand the benefit of laying back... thus for those who can make the carry, I don't understand why they wouldn't try.
Never doubted the first part of this for a second.
As to the latter part, it reminds me of a comment I recall Tom D making on this site that was very telling. He stated that most alternate fairways don't work because the choice is so clear cut for most golfers that there's not much thought involved. Similarly, diagonal hazards don't generally pose as much interest to a better golfer because he gives it a wide berth to allow for error.
Kinda makes me respect architects all that much more...not quite as easy as we armchair geniuses make it out to be!
-
Excellent stuff, George - more food for thought most definitely. Hell yes this stuff ain't easy... Tom Doak's comments are telling without a doubt. Jeez, the more I think about it, the more holes like 11 and 12 at Rustic exhibit this.
Here's another thought: imagine how guys like Doak, Hanse, etc. both laugh at our "critiques" and cringe as we misapply them. One would have to have a thick skin to be a golf course architect, something that seems so simple to the unitiated but really must be so hard once you actually do it.
So ok, brass tacks re #12 at Rustic: does one figure out more upon repeat playings, or is it ALWAYS going to be a mystery? Same question goes for #11, really.
To me a hole that can never be completely figured out has got to be at the absolute topmost echelon of golf holes on the planet. Do these two belong in such? I sure as heck didn't coming away thinking that upon my two tours, but I am ready to be convinced now.
TH
-
So ok, brass tacks re #12 at Rustic: does one figure out more upon repeat playings, or is it ALWAYS going to be a mystery? Same question goes for #11, really.
For me 12 is not a mystery. What is a mystery is if I'm going to execute the shot. Fromthe blue tees; I hit a 4-metal to the right of the bunker. If I pull it off, I make no worse than par. Playing from the black screws me, since I hit a low driver and couldn't hit the green unless the flagstick slowed it down.
If my approach on 11 is to the wrong side of the green, I know I'll be lucky to not 3-putt the hole.
-
Tom, Your saving yourself.....But, I think you owe it to yourself, and everyone here to really say what you mean without fear of being attacked or belittled.
It's only discussion group, and its about discussing golf architecture, and even I will admit a bit of sensitivity of taking things a bit too serious, but some time away always helps clear things a bit. No matter if it is four days or forty.
It helps clear all of your perspective.
Like David M. and Tim Weiman, I think that this discussion is good for all, because it makes you analyze the topic of discussion even more.
Long ago, I came to conclusions of the 12th, and that it's going to continue to make any golfer that plays it, humble time after time he plays it. The simple The more you play it the more you come to respect it sentence applies to this hole. The hole was designed to be subtle. It is more different then anything anyone has seen in all of Golf, not just in California, and until you really get into it and study it a bit more then one round and drive-by, you will still maintain that it isn't really that hard of a golf hole.
It is however painfully obvious you didn't play the very back tees--where most "SKILLED" golfers play
I can't begin to tell you how many times I have hit huge drives to the right, and then was "forced" to see my favorite shot--the bump & running 8 iron; end-up turning hard right and roll of the side of the green, continuing running until it was in the very back of the close-cropped approach area. I have even hit the same flopped wedges and nine-irons and have witnessed the same result. I have chanced it from the tee to the left, and have had every form of shot fro that side too, and while I think it is a much better angle to come in at in relation to the green, it is, for me, a much harder shot to any placment on the green. Depending on how I feel that day, I'll decide on the tee which way I'm going, because I'm always searching for the best possible attack. I have seen more shots from every caliber of player, just off of the green, or in the middle of the close-cropped approach laying directly with-in reach of Eagle Two, and the player has walked off the green with a four or even a five. I have seen easy par's become even easier double bogies. The hole doesn't let-up one ounce, because it succeeds in making seemingly easy shots hard, and the hard shots even harder, and this is on a hole that is a mere 310 yards in length--downhill, with all the subtle contours, but into the prevailing wind. (What a refreshing thought that all of this "skilled golfer" talk ends-up with Nature's Elements being the ultimate aid in defense! It's as some of you have no humility to the game what-so-ever.)
The 12th hole defends itself beautifully in the truest sense of the word "GOLF", simply because of the mystery and the controversy that goes with it, and until you get more round under your belt on that hole, or at least make an honest effort to give the hole some study by taking more then the time to play it--this should only add interest into what your NOT seeing, considering how your opinion has changed since you last played it. (In October)
Another thing is that for an honest, really eye-opening view of the 12th, I can only suggest a trip up to the top of the hill, looking down upon the entire hole, and seeing people of all calibers of skill and handicap play the hole. Dick Daley has been up there, so has Tony Ristola. It will not only completely awaken you to the mysteries of the 12th by allowing you to see all of the subtle contour and live 3-D/High Definition/Orthagraphic view of why the hole is subtle genius.
So Tom, that is my honest take. And trust me, it isn't picking on you or your character. Tell us what you really think. No patronizing for the sake of harmony is needed. Let er' rip! I promise you that you won't be altering or affecting any internet friendship.
-
Interesting, Andy. Your approach on each makes great sense to me. I wonder what the take will be from other regulars there...
Re #11, I had a long discussion with Dave Moriarty a long time ago where I was pissed I wasn't rewarded for pulling off for me a very tough shot - a draw hugging the left side - the angle in was no better from that side, or so I thought. Dave tried to explain things to me but dense me I never got it... To me this difficulty to ascertain the proper angle in is a positive... Or am I making way too much out of #11 also?
TH
-
Huck,
I agree with Tommy....you are too stupid and have not studied enough great courses...specifically Rustic Canyon...to ever know if an architectural feature...."is more different than anything anyone has ever seen in golf"...please restrict all future opinions until you learn what the hell you are talking about....nothing personal.
I might erase this post after I pull Tommy's hyperbole out of my ass....How can anyone that takes themselves seriously play this course after reading such a load of crap as gospel...I honestly believe this over the top glorification is only hurting the course and its architects....and really pissing me off.
-
JakaB, I tried to be fair with the pictures, but they definitely dont do justice to the feel of the hole, which is dominated by the expansive fairway, seemingly as wide as a football field is long. I dont have any pictures that capture that. The pictures I posted focused more on the going for the green option. From the tee much of the trouble I've pictured is dwarfed by the huge fairway and hidden by the tree.
-
Tommy:
I respect your take. Just bear with me a bit: you guys tore me a new ass pretty bad the last time we "discussed" Rustic and you can't deny there were some pretty bad feelings. In time I shall get over it, but that time hasn't arrived yet.
What astounds me is that you guys care about my lame-ass opinion this much... how many times do I have to say I'd rather not discuss something before you let me go?
Friendship remains way more important to me than discussing golf course architecture. Why this is difficult for you guys to understand remains very curious to me... can you not just respect my take here and leave it be? Just do let me clarify also that my concern is not what you think of me - I surely cannot control that - my concern is what I think of you. More crap like the last time, and it makes it difficult for me to continue to fine feeling we seem to have right now. That's the last I'm going to say on this issue - it should be obvious, but somehow it isn't - so I suppose this needs to be made clear. My apologies for what might seem like hypersensitivity, and yes, after all this is just a discussion group, but the people I meet through it and the relationships I have developed remain a very positive thing, one I'd like to keep.
One thing in any case, to sorta clear my name: I did play the back-most tees that were set out on #12. I don't think it was 340, but what the hell the next set up is 335... I don't think I played it any shorter than 335. Not that such matters, but since you questioned me I would like the world to know I know which tees to play. My recollection is I got my tee shot to 10-20 yards short and right. I did putt from there. You can choose to believe this, or call me a liar.
I also would have you note I have "studied" that golf hole more than any other in recent memory, through conversations here and due to the fact Rustic is the ONE SINGLE ONLY course I have toured without playing that I can remember, ever. That is not my standard thing, playing is what I do. So if I haven't studied it enough for your liking, well... it's the most I'm ever going to do for any golf hole.
Beyond all this, I absolutely respect your opinion on #12 and you know what? I agree with every word you say. If you had read all these threads, this would not surprise you - but that's cool, I don't expect you to wade through all the crap.
I love #12. I'd like to play it every day, learn it more and more. I don't think I ever gave a take any different from this... I did say the green remains so brutal in my mind that it really doesn't matter WHERE the second comes in from, it's always gonna be so tough that closer is just gonna mean better no matter what... but that doesn't at all imply that I don't think it's a great golf hole - it is! And one thing's for sure, I NEVER said it's not that hard of a golf hole... maybe I did a year ago when we talked about this the first time, I don't know, but I sure as hell didn't now. It's a little bitch and that's my entire point!
The bottom line is we remain simpatico, as I told you on the phone recently. I kinda wish you would have addressed this with me on the phone as I gather you did with Mr. Wigler recently, but that's ok, I'm sure you have your reasons for posting this here. Thus I respond here. Again, apologies to all whom are offended by this kind of personal give and take.
Your amigo,
TH
-
Does Dr. Katz do group therapy? :-*
-
Do let me know if so, Dan. I know some guys who need it. ;) ;) ;)
TH
-
My only take here is that the green is so severe, I don't understand the benefit of laying back... thus for those who can make the carry, I don't understand why they wouldn't try.
It doesnt sound like there would be any benefit to laying back (or rather laying right), compared to where you hit your drive. Just hit it there every time and you will make your share of birdies. The trick is getting it there without going left, short, or long.
I'm probably saying more about my eating habits than I am the course, but I tend break the strategy down on this hole into pieces of pie, with the points of the pieces at the left side of the green, and with some providing more forgiveness to certain pins. The closer you are to the green, the less margin you have for error.
It sounds to me that you ended up in the ideal piece, or maybe just short of it. But a little shorter or longer or left, and you may have had a much more difficult shot. It is much easier to get in the right piece of pie eighty yards out than ten.
More low quality pictures.
This guy's drive (from the up tee) hit just short of green and rolled quickly on a line about 2 ft. above the pin, and down the back to the edge of the fringe. He eventually sunk a 6 footer for par:
(http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid50/p396c460a4b84239f60f7cb2b19624f1c/fcae85b5.jpg)
This guy laid back short and left, leaving himself with a very difficult angle, with bunkers front and the green running directly away:
(http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid50/p67174a560e031e80f9a6508ae80dd3fc/fcae85e8.jpg)
These guys are coming in from the right, about even with the green, probably about 80-100 yds out. The apron short of the green (these golfers' left) provides sort of an bank, which releases the ball to these golfers' right. From this angle one can hit tit short right and have it kick up and right onto the front right portion of the green, or longer right and have it run up and right onto the back portion of he green. If you try to hit it from here at the center of the green, your ball may end up going straight right, down the bank:
(http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid50/pbe0b3b1b99b2eae89871d31c104bea18/fcae868e.jpg)
-
FANTASTIC STUFF - thanks, David!
Now this is educational. I am "getting" this a bit more and more...
So a key element we hadn't address is that the place I got to is hard to reach, while 80 yards back is easy, right? I get that. I don't get many chances to get close to a green on a par 4, so it was damn the torpedos for me, I was never gonna go right (same goes for 3 and 7)... but I can see that in competition - or if one REALLY is focusing on score - that would be the smart play. Left is not a happy place.
My only issue here is that damn, I still had a very tough shot from where I was. That's what's making me think there is NO good way to enter that green... so yes, a conservative safe play remains going into the right slice of the pie, leaving the 80-100 yard pitch in... I get that....
I'm still stuck on the thought though that given there is really NO good way in, why not just go for it, assuming one wants to take a little risk - with the thought being that because of that, closer is always gonna be better?
Maybe this makes no sense, I am likely explaining this very poorly.
And again, please do realize the less I can figure out the golf hole, the greater it is in my book (like #11)!
TH
-
I'm probably saying more about my eating habits than I am the course, but I tend break the strategy down on this hole into pieces of pie, with the points of the pieces at the left side of the green, and with some providing more forgiveness to certain pins. The closer you are to the green, the less margin you have for error.
It sounds to me that you ended up in the ideal piece, or maybe just short of it. But a little shorter or longer or left, and you may have had a much more difficult shot. It is much easier to get in the right piece of pie eighty yards out than ten
David - just to clarify - these are the parts I still don't "get." And it's likely just my confusion more than anything else... I've never hit the shit from 80 yards, just watched my Dad (whilst playing) and a couple other guys (my cart tour day) butcher it, and given the severity of the green I'm still having a hard time grasping why the shot has more margin for error from back there then from right up close. I'm sure you have it correct... just help me understand this a bit better. Thanks.
TH
-
John, I love pissing you off! Its at that point your at your most creative at making both you and I look like total asses.
I know the answer for redemption though. I'm going to make it a point to play Victoria National and see all of the Ken Kavanaugh courses I can. I'll take a ton of pictures, spout my usual drivel, even take a few images from a cart and even from the inside of a car, post them so everyone can see how classy the bunkering is.
Only then will I be able to get on your good side.....
I'll do it!
-
I'm still having a hard time grasping why the shot has more margin for error from back there then from right up close. .
As I said above, it is much better to be 10 yds right of the green than 80 yds right of the green. I am sure your putt onto the green was much easier than a lob wedge or run up from 80 yds. I'd hit it there every time, if I could.
Your ball must have stopped on a downslope in just about the perfect place. That being said, I think you may be overestimating the ease of consistently driving that ball to that exact spot. A slightly different wind, bounce, swing, or turf condition, and you could have been well past (once it gets on the apron it really rolls) or short enough to take the putt away, and replace it with a very delicate pitch.
That is why it seems safer to me to challenge the bunkers, gunk, and slope from 80 yds sideways, rather than 310 yds straight downhill. [Plus, I think you have a better chance of getting to certain pins.]
Tom, imagine if you had played the back tee and your ball had stopped 30-40 yds short on the same line. Would you rather be there than 80 yds right of the green. If so, why?
-
Tom didnt see your comment to Tommy that you played as far back as they had them. I thought you had said you played the blues. My mistake. So suppose you missed it slightly and it ended 40 yds back on the same line.
I also didnt see the first post of your two in a row:
TH said:
My only issue here is that damn, I still had a very tough shot from where I was. That's what's making me think there is NO good way to enter that green
Okay, now I understand that you weren't next to the green but maybe 20 yrds short. You must have been just far enough right to take the bunker out of your putting line (the value of going right). Had you hit it 20-25 yds further, so you werent putting down canyon but across or barely up canyon, it becomes a much easier to putt to the top part of the green, with experience. Just feed it up the left side (putters' left) and let it feed down canyon. As for the portion of the green long right (from the tee) you are dead if you leave your ball where you left your tee shot.
-
David:
Muchas gracias. My understanding continues to grow.
So it is a matter of where one can get to, and making the proper choices. NOW we are getting somewhere. Risk/reward, more or less. It's not worth it to try to get to where I got, because the shot is no easier. That I get. Yes, 80 yards back in the fairway is a hell of a lot better than 40 yards in the gunk.
My problem still remains the severity of the green. Ok, I guess I did play a bit up - just do realize I did play the back-most markers that were available that day, it it sure as hell wasn't that far up from the back of the tee "pad" by my recollection - in any case it did seem to me to be a fairly comfortable tee shot.. I wasn't trembling that I'd hit the tree, or hit it in the gunk, because a) the carry didn't look that far; and b) the miss was SO EASY on the right - that area is gigantic - that if one just guarded against a hook, it was a pretty high percentage shot. Again, easy for me to say as a left to righter... but still, a player who can easily draw the ball just starts it way out in the fairway and draws it back, so that's not that big of a deal either.
Whew. That's a lot of words.
But back to my point: I still see the tee shot here as "lose/lose". That is, hit it out the right, damn hard shot in. Take the risk and get it to where I got it - damn hard shot in. The smarter player in this scenario might play the percentages, ie just punt, hit the easiest shot given there is so little reward to be gained... The what the heck player in that scenario just says damn the torpedoes and goes for it, because it seemingly doesn't matter where the ball ends up.
Of course the scenarios are different for the really big hittters who can actually reach the green, but that is a tiny minority and while they do matter, that's not what I'm talking about here. I gather you're going to get another demonstration of that on June 16 anyway. ;)
No, I'm talking about is everyone else. What is really there to make the rest of us NOT just take the most aggressive line we can comfortably take?
Again, these are all just questions. It should be taken as a given by now, but I just want to make sure you know I am ASKING, not trying to put forth some agenda. You guys know the hole way way way better than I do, that's for sure.
TH
ps - our posts crossed. No hassles re tees - I did play generally blues - blacks weren't out that day and I didn't want to make waves. Where I could I played black. Blues are plenty long for me anyway - remember I do NOT consider myself the "skilled golfer" discussed in other threads. You've seen me play enough to know that!
pss - yes, the bunker was not an issue or else I sure wouldnt; have putted. I really think we had a back right pin. I aimed at it, just punted and let the slope of the knob take it left, figuring I could sit there all day and never get it close to that pin.
-
TH and Tommy: I am not really following either side of your lover's spat, but maybe it is time you guys got a room and make up, or at least play a round together, to clear the air.
And please leave me out of it. If I have unfairly maligned anyone other than Matt Ward regarding their opinion regarding RC, I apologize. (Just kidding Matt.) JakaB is correct that we do neither the course nor the architects any favors by too overzealously defending the course.
I just enjoy discussing the course. For me it makes a great case study, and helps me understand architecture. It's nothing personal.
-
Understood, David. As you can see the air is getting clearer and clearer. And would that I could actually play golf with the Emperor, given I never have! Our paths in life just don't seem to allow that.
Some day.
In any case, do realize, as I'm sure you do, that when we are together in person, or talking on the phone, all crap is gone. The veil of impersonality this forum provides emboldens us all and we all say things we wouldn't otherwise. Nevertheless, words do matter.
Our discussion right now re 12 is very cool in any case. Previous times it was not this way... Here's to coming to greater understandings! ;D
TH
-
Tom, shouldnt the 80 yd shot from the right be challenging, given that those golfers have played safe off the tee, and they only have 80 yds in? Otherwise everyone would always go right!
You definitely have to execute to get it on the green from anywhere, but it is not as if it is impossible to get it on the green from far right. In fact, I don't think it is all that difficult, once you start to understand the down canyon. You can hit a bump and run or hit it high, and the ball reacts consistently from day to day. For most pins, I'd much rather be 80 yds right than in the fairway short left, or over/by the green.
Take another look at the last picture above. The prevailing slope runs straight left of the line between the golfers and the green, so they can use the slope to their benefit, and are aiming at a relatively large portion of the green/apron with very little undulation.
As for the really big hitters, more power to 'em if they can fly it to the green and hold it. I think the odds of them being able to accomplish this are quite long.
-
David:
Yes, the 80 yard shot in should be challenging, without a doubt. I'm just saying that perhaps there ought to be more of a reward for making an aggressive play. I didn't see the reward, still don't.
But maybe that's because it isn't meant to exist?
Cue the twilight zone music, and hopefully the lightbulbs....
If I am getting this right, the golfer actually IS rewarded for finding the right slice of the pie, the right angle, far more than he is getting it closer to the green, even though generally closer is always going to be better.... right?
Bear with me if that sounds simple to you, it remains a difficult concept to grasp just because it is counter to most other golf holes.
Do I have this correct?
Man, this just makes the golf hole grow even greater in my mind. Ok, rip at it if you can - getting it close to the green still is gonna be a good thing, but finding the correct angle remains paramount even at that. The risk is big.
And that correct angle is going to change based on pin position, one's preferred shot, how one is playing....
This is great stuff. What a damn great golf hole. Of course, I believe I always said that. We truly have no argument there... I'm just trying to understand better everything that's going on.
I gotta go today. Perhaps tomorrow I might be braver and discuss holes where I didn't find nearly this much going on on the tee shot. In my mind, they do exist. But perhaps not... I am still kinda shell-shocked from the last time I tried that.
This is great stuff in any case and I continue to appreciate you taking the time to help me understand it better.
TH
-
TommyN,
I never had any credibility from day one to lose...don't fight a battle with me over something you have earned and cherish. Before you decide to hurt people you may think I respect and love consider the fact that you love golf architecture and the role it plays in your life...You better take it down a notch bud...cause you ain't seen every architectural feature created by man or the random acts of nature....I would rather give up every friendship and or passing relationship I have in the world of golf and man than sit by and be party to unadulterated bullshit...tone it down man before you lose everything you have earned and so richly deserve....you may reach a point of regret where you become just another cartoon character....and baby thats right where I started.
-
Tom you've said repeatedly that the driver just right of the green didnt feel like that dangerous of a shot. It isn't, so long as one doesnt miss left. In fact, I think it looks so easy that it begs golfers (long and short alike) to hit it down that alley. But even if the golfer misses the gunk and bunkers, the drive must be precisely placed to make this play work, for most pins.
Yes, angle does matter even within 10 yds of the green, as it does on the green itself (we all know there are better places worse places, on interesting greens.)
And yes there should be a reward for the properly executed aggressive play. And there is here. It is just that properly executing requires more than just hitting a straight drive. You also have to hit it the exact right distance down a slippery slope.
-
you may reach a point of regret where you become just another cartoon character....and baby thats right where I started.
And here I thought you were the other Barney.
-
Nice to see David and Tom Huckaby reaching a higher mutual understanding after all of this discussion.
I know that the architects hoped that this hole would be a mind-bender, and it seems from all of the detailed debate that they've succeeded, perhaps beyond anything they ever imagined.
As far as Tommy N. and JakaB, they seem to be a bit further apart still.
I'm just hoping that they are speaking to each other offline and using much less contentious tones.
-
John, Quite obviously you took my post too seriously. It was done in the same vane as your posts--seemingly attacking, but really joking to the point that it attacks all aspects of each others characters in the most provocative of manners. If I'm wrong, I apologize, but have to say, that I'm just following your lead.
You the man!
T
-
It is more different then anything anyone has seen in all of Golf, not just in California, and until you really get into it and study it a bit more then one round and drive-by, you will still maintain that it isn't really that hard of a golf hole.
It is however painfully obvious you didn't play the very back tees--where most "SKILLED" golfers play
The 12th hole defends itself beautifully in the truest sense of the word "GOLF", simply because of the mystery and the controversy that goes with it, and until you get more round under your belt on that hole, or at least make an honest effort to give the hole some study by taking more then the time to play it--this should only add interest into what your NOT seeing, considering how your opinion has changed since you last played it. (In October)
These statements to Huck are what upset me....for them to go unchallenged makes me embarrassed to have my name associated with this site. Anyone can play any hole a hundred times and come away with so called insight into the mysteries of its design....but that same anyone does not have the right to then go to other courses...play them once..and then make determinations on their worth. As a lover of a given course you are well within your rights....as a guru and course rater you have crossed the line of ethitical rationality when posting on a public forum. In all seriousness how can anyone take anything you say about any new course seriously when you speak out of both sides of your mouth....I honestly believe the majority of people on this board can form an accurate opinion of what is good and what they appreciate in one or two visits...you used to too...until you were comprimised by this little beauty...thats fine and thats good...but don't lose your ethical rationalism behind the blanky of a new parent.
Now go back to your same old tire routine of insulting my brother..or take it a step further and slam my three children or dead sister....but never..never insult Huckaby or question his "honest effort"..
-
Can you imagine a middle aged Englishman at home in Surrey (or someone in Middle America) looking in on GCA for the first time....being intrigued by the dilemma of the tee shot and the skilled golfer...and then reading that last post. Yikes. Perhaps it would be best to lurk.
I sometimes think I may go over-board in my strong views and opinions.....nah.....now those are some strong views and opinions...they put anything I've said to shame. Good to see Barney turn it up a notch or two.
-
Ok, I swore to myself I was gonna just let this go today and focus purely on the architectural merits of this golf hole and this course in general... but my name is mentioned and well... JakaB, as he is wont to do, has hit upon the essence of what bothered me before, and continues to bother me about these discussions.
You see, people chide me about taking this too personally or making this too personal, but JakaB nailed it - how else am I supposed to take Tommy's post, the salient parts of which JakaB put in the box above?
I am very willing to move beyond this, I am just glad someone noticed this besides me. Maybe Tim W. can now better understand my reticence to do a hole-by-hole critique of Rustic... When one's opinion is met with critiques on one's effort, well.... If anything this was the mildest personal critique I received - it was far worse before, both on and off-line.
In any case, this kinda stuff shouldn't appear in this forum - sometimes it happens though, and to me that's ok. On this thread, for the most part in the last few pages there is very worthwhile discussion of a very worthwhile golf hole, so to me, the end justifies the means.
I just do appreciate JakaB doing this, in any case.
The funny thing about all of this is, I NEVER said #12 was an easy golf hole. If anything, my constant argument has been that the green is so brutal that where one leaves the tee shot doesn't matter - it's a lose/lose tee shot. I am coming to see - thanks to David M. - that such is not completely true. Nevertheless I have more questions and I will post about those separately. It's just interesting that Tommy seemingly berates me for an opinion I never had! #12 is a stone bitch of a little golf hole - maybe the very long hitters can overpower it - that is a separate issue that David W. has taken up, and I do believe it has merit - but for us mortals, it is never going to be easy.
TH
-
I think it is great that there has been built a course that is (apparently--never seen it) as interesting as Rustic Canyon, and also is accessible to so many articulate and passionate members of this site. However, for those of us who sit on the sidelines, the hyperbole and defensiveness which seem to follow from any honest attempt to anlayse the course and point out where it might be imperfect or improved makes these threads (and by implication, the course) increasingly uninteresting. Let's all try to be rational for a change, and admit it honestly when others with opposing points of view might just have a case, regardless of how much you love the place and hate to admit that it might just be just a little bit imperfect, like all golf courses in the world........
-
OK, now back to #12.
I am very, very close to understanding Dave's take on this golf hole... I just have a few more questions. I will say this, Dave - you have intrigued me so much re this, that you got me to do something I nearly NEVER do - research, rather than just talking out my ass. I pulled out Geoff's book. In the chapter discussing Rustic, there is a great picture of number 12 taken from above the left side, looking back at the fairway... this to me illustrates perfectly what's going on near the green. Damn I wish I had a way to post it here... but in any case, you know the hole, it doesn't matter. Geoff's caption to the pic reads:
"View from the rear of the 330-yard twelfth at Rustic Canyon. The small elevated green is best approached from the middle of the fairway, where the player has a more forgiving shot. Drives close to the green and near the bunkers will be facing a crowned surface sloping slightly away from them."
EUREKA! I get it completely now - or at least I think I do. I just don't think it's a "slice of pie" one needs to hit into, but more like a long rectangle. That is, the key is that one achieves the proper angle in - remembering that the internal "knob" has a flat part extending out to the right - such that shots from the right, going up the knob - are indeed more forgiving. Thus yes, too close to the green AND TOO FAR TO THE LEFT will be more difficult than those way out there to the right, along the "rectangle" extending out from the knob. THIS was my disconnect - you see, my shot wasn't too close to the green, it was too close to the bunkers - ie too far left! Had it gone 10 yards farther (on a line from the tee), I would have achieved the rectangle, had a less difficult putt in (I'm never gonna say an easy shot, damn no shot is ever going to be easy trying to get it to go up and stay on that knob). Still, the key wasn't being too close to the green, the key was that I didn't reach the rectangle.
I guess I can see an argument that farther back on the rectangle might be better than close to the green in the rectangle also... but I don't agree with it. if the green is firm - like it damn nearly always should be - than being 80 yards back means a LOT less margin for error than being able to putt the ball, or bump it up the slope... Even if you can spin the ball more, that's still a lot tougher shot than being close and either putting or hitting a running chip.
In any case, one picks one's poison then off the tee... Try to bash it close to the green, remembering that missing the rectangle means a damn hard shot, no matter if you get it very close to the green (ie you better stay far enough right)... if you feel you can do it, bash away and try to reach the green, keeping in mind the severe penalties (left and long) if you fail... hit something out to the right, keeping in mind that if you miss the rectangle you're gonna have a VERY tough shot, and even if you achieve it it's gonna be tougher than if you get closer in on the rectangle... Multiple choices, much "confusion", much "temptation" - all the makings of a damn great golf hole.
TH
-
I think it is great that there has been built a course that is (apparently--never seen it) as interesting as Rustic Canyon, and also is accessible to so many articulate and passionate members of this site. However, for those of us who sit on the sidelines, the hyperbole and defensiveness which seem to follow from any honest attempt to anlayse the course and point out where it might be imperfect or improved makes these threads (and by implication, the course) increasingly uninteresting. Let's all try to be rational for a change, and admit it honestly when others with opposing points of view might just have a case, regardless of how much you love the place and hate to admit that it might just be just a little bit imperfect, like all golf courses in the world........
Rich - you also grasp the issue, and I appreciate the comment. I know I am far from blameless in the acrimony that occurs re all this, but still, I have been and remain on the defensive... In any case, I do believe we are moving beyond, as the rational conversation yesterday - and hopefully continuing today - between me and David M. should show.
There is one thing for sure: Rustic does remain a very valid "laboratory" for all the topics we hold dear here (as is Dornoch, btw!). It would be very nice if we could discuss it more dispassionately... here's hoping!
TH
-
Tom MacWood:
Regarding your Englishman in Surrey checking in for the first time, I've been saying for some time now that one of our shortcomings at GCA is the failure to attract significant European participation. That's a shame given the wealth of great architecture on that side of the pond.
I'm afraid this thread is a text book example of why our discussion is probably not appealing to many Europeans and possibly many others.
I started out wanting to discuss how important it was for a golf course to provide challenging tee shots for skilled golfers. In so doing, I laid out my assumptions for why such shots should really be given very little emphasis in evaluating a golf course. The logic was simple. Determine how many tee shots are played by skilled golfers and go with something in that range in any rating or evaluation system.
Essentially, the thread was hijacked. Instead of focusing on how much weight we should give to the small class of skilled golfers, we wasted all kinds of time on personal issues that have nothing with the original question.
One person even went to far as to suggest that my understanding of a particular golf course - Rustic Canyon - was wrong, that the problem was not tee shots for skilled golfers, but rather tee shots for all golfers. Then when asked to provide the appropriate details, he declined saying the entire issue was too personal and that friendships would be lost if we even discussed such a thing.
I would have preferred just sticking to the topic: how much weight should be given to challenging skilled golfers?
One thing I apreciate about your past criticisms of Sand Ridge is that they demonstrate an ability to focus on golf architecture and delete all this other junk. All the questions you raised, e.g., strategic use of the wetlands, green to next tee distance, impact of tree clearing on fairway contour, etc., were entirely legitimate. I saw no problem with the discussion and hope it demonstrated that it is possible to just stick to golf architecture and delete all the personal stuff.
Hopefully, we'll get back on track. But, clearly this thread was hijacked and, in my opinion ruined. Keep that up and we'll never get that gentleman from Surrey to even lurk.
-
Tim:
Our threads crossed in cyberspace. Please read what I wrote today, and then comment if you would care to.
Yes, your thread got hijacked, but hey, that happens all the time.. what thread ever stays exactly on it's assigned topic?
So now it's moved to a discussion of the merits of one golf hole, one that has been used as an example for your thesis. Is this so bad?
Regarding your comments about the "one gentleman." He is trying to move beyond this, and it seems to me clear that you should as well. I do urge you to read the comments of JakaB, Rich Goodale, as well as Tommy N. for some illumination as to that gentleman's reasons there. I would also urge you not to further over-state that gentleman's case re Rustic, as his "critique" applies really to only very few tee shots, as he has stated repeatedly before. But moving past this would certainly seem to be in your interest as well as that gentleman's. Can you both live up to the term and let this go? That gentleman is certainly willing to do so.
As for the gentleman in Surrey, he has many other threads he can explore. Some will interest him, some might disgust him. If he's ever heard of Rustic Canyon, or read Geoff's new book, I'd like to think the discussion between David and myself would pique his interest.
Disagree?
TH
-
Tim et. al.
That is not the problem. The problem is that the gentlemen from Surrey, St, Andrews, Hoylake, Dornoch, et. al. do not give a toss about all the esoteric things we talk about on this site. To them a golf course is a golf course, and bringing up such a subject as "The Redan" in the 19th hole would be considered a horribly gauche Americanism.
Sorry, but as the late, great Howard C used to say, "And that's the way it is!"
-
Rich;
Those disinterested Europeans sure seem to spend a lot of time tinkering with those boring golf courses over the years.
Why, those Liverpudlians even changed Hoylake just recently, because I guess a course is a course just didn't seem to be enough course (coarse?) for them.
Must be the gauche American influence. ;)
-
Mike
You are completely right, They change their tracks all the time. The difference (and it is a BIG one) is that they do not have a bunch of Monday morning quarterbacks sitting in front of computer screens and decrying the changes sight unseen or driving down country lanes to take furtive snapshots of the changes from the windows of their cars. Most "European" golfers are about as interested in the arcana of GCA as American commuters are interested in the subtleties of "train spotting." That is why there is so little participation on this sitre from this side of the pond. At least IMHO.....
-
JakaB;
I think there is a difference between analyzing Rustic Canyon and other courses. One can determine quite easily from one visit the strategy on the 4th at Barona Creek for instance: make the carry over the left side bunker and the green opens up, you can access the back pin by either flying it in or running it off the bankin the middle of the green. If you play out to the right off the tee you can only get to the front pin locations with a very hard long shot.
At Rustic I believe the idea was to allow the inticacies of the green sites to determine the optimum strategy for that day. How someone can comprehend the myriad of options in one or two visits is incomprehensible to me.
-
Pete:
Well said. The problem here is that most of us only get one crack at each of these apples, including Rustic Canyon. Thus we assess as best we can, and if we're wise, we defer to those who have played it multiple times for the type of insight that Dave M. is expressing re #12, for example.
Would you suggest that we say NOTHING until we have played the course as much as Dave M. has?
That would make for a pretty silent discussion group....
I believe I've always shown the proper deference and if I haven't, well I must have been in a bad mood. Remember it was I on another thread recently suggesting that this type of deference is mandatory for proper assessment... that is, discuss with the regulars before spouting off... others might disagree with it, but I believe it.
Oh yes, Rustic is one of those great courses that will reveal herself over time, without a doubt. That much I believe we can all agree on. Dammit, I wish I lived close to that I could have these revelations first-hand!
TH
-
The Case for Ignoring Skilled Golfer’s Tee Shots
We have several threads going on the subject of “skilled” golfers playing a course like Rustic Canyon. Essentially, they started based on a comment made by David Wigler. David described Rustic Canyon as being in the Top Ten of all modern courses “sixty yards and in” but went on to say that the course couldn’t be considered Top 100 material based on the fact that Rustic Canyon “failed to challenge the skilled golfer off the tee”.
Now, this point has been argued back and forth many times. David apparently still thinks his statement makes sense, though he seems to want to substitute the word “interest” for “challenge” as if this would have great significance. But, I still believe what David said makes absolutely no sense. Moreover, I believe it has nothing to do with whether one has seen the course. The simple fact is that any course that is really Top Ten “sixty yards and in” would have to be considered a serious candidate for Top 100 material overall.
Tim - Who are you kidding with your last post. Read above! This thread was started as a personal attack on my opinion and specific to Rustic Canyon. After reading above, reread the premise of your last post. I will quote it for you.
"I started out wanting to discuss how important it was for a golf course to provide challenging tee shots for skilled golfers. In so doing, I laid out my assumptions for why such shots should really be given very little emphasis in evaluating a golf course. The logic was simple. Determine how many tee shots are played by skilled golfers and go with something in that range in any rating or evaluation system.
Essentially, the thread was hijacked. Instead of focusing on how much weight we should give to the small class of skilled golfers, we wasted all kinds of time on personal issues that have nothing with the original question."
Whom are you kidding? You highjacked the thread with your own premise. This was not about the importance of tee shots! This was about proving that RC cannot be a top 10 from 60 yards in and not a top 100. In refusing to acknowledge the change from "Skilled" to "All" and the change from "Challenge" to "Interest" you were the primary cause of the acrimony and then you offhand blame it on Huckaby and myself and funniest of all, get offended when Huckaby has the gall to modify one of your quotes (Like you did to both of us on multiple occasions). If I am the golfer in Surrey, my thought is that this Tim W. guy is way out of line and does just not read others writing, he doesn't even bother to read his own!
-
Bruthah Wigler:
Whilst I of all people sure as heck acknowledge your sentiments, as well as the necessity to meet a public "comment" with a public response, please note that I have taken my part of this off-line with Tim W., and he has continued such off-line as well, finally. It also seems that we have come to some understanding about all this...
I'd urge Tim, when he sees this, to take the high road and resist the temptation to start this all over again in here, since we have seemed to arrive at a certain peace. Enough is enough. Bear with David, he didn't know the truce was brokered. ;)
Dave - read my stuff above re #12 if you haven't already - does that make sense to you? As I say it really doesn't apply to the big hitter - his issues are different - but I'd love your take.. does that make sense re how the average hitter sees/plays the hole?
TH
-
EUREKA! I get it completely now - or at least I think I do. I just don't think it's a "slice of pie" one needs to hit into, but more like a long rectangle. That is, the key is that one achieves the proper angle in - remembering that the internal "knob" has a flat part extending out to the right - such that shots from the right, going up the knob - are indeed more forgiving. Thus yes, too close to the green AND TOO FAR TO THE LEFT will be more difficult than those way out there to the right, along the "rectangle" extending out from the knob. THIS was my disconnect - you see, my shot wasn't too close to the green, it was too close to the bunkers - ie too far left! Had it gone 10 yards farther (on a line from the tee), I would have achieved the rectangle, had a less difficult putt in (I'm never gonna say an easy shot, damn no shot is ever going to be easy trying to get it to go up and stay on that knob). Still, the key wasn't being too close to the green, the key was that I didn't reach the rectangle.
I guess I can see an argument that farther back on the rectangle might be better than close to the green in the rectangle also... but I don't agree with it. if the green is firm - like it damn nearly always should be - than being 80 yards back means a LOT less margin for error than being able to putt the ball, or bump it up the slope... Even if you can spin the ball more, that's still a lot tougher shot than being close and either putting or hitting a running chip.
Tom, you may be right about the rectangle shape around the green, but as you get out into the fairway, the rectangle shape grows wider and wider. Yes, putting from the preferred alley would be easier than an 80 yard shot, but getting into the preferred alley is much easier 80 yds out. You have a much larger margin of error when playing to 80 yds out than to a small square in front of the green.
(By the way, when I lay up I try to play to 100 yds out.)
I hesitate to do the following, bc these things are very fluid at Rustic, but let me offer the following doctored picture, showing an approximation of what I perceive to be the preferred alley for certain pin positions (this will change slightly from play to play.) For comparison, I've also tried to extend a rectangle out into this alley (using approx two cart lengths as my short sides.)
(http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid64/p27b767944d3464b45cc715e5ac164357/fbfeb700.jpg)
And from another flat angle which somewhat mirrors the line off the tee.
(http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid64/p8a7362308a400226f2994f08e69a04fb/fbfeb56b.jpg)
As you can see, it is much easier to hit my perceived preferred alley 80 yds out than it is 10 yds out.
Also and perhaps as importantly, the consequences of slightly missing the preferred alley are less severe from 80 yds out.
-
Tom,
My bad - I did not realize that a comment this morning saying how his innocent thread was highjacked meant that it had been taken offline. As you have noticed, I have stayed out of this but that was just too precious to resist.
As for #12, my personal ban on discussing RC is in place. Rich nailed my opinion of the discussion.
I will not discuss any issue involving RC because I clearly am not free to be honest and do not want to be disingenuous. After seeing the course in a couple of weeks, I will certainly give yourself, Tommy and Dave my off line honest opinions but it is to near and dear to too many people to be even slightly critiqued in a public forum.
For the record, the more I think about it, the less that bothers me. I remember Gib getting really upset and basically losing a friendship over criticisms of Olympic. I remember TomP gettiing genuinely angry of a Guelph Mills slight. Tom MacWood and my disagreements all started with my critique of Scarlet and I certainly would get very defensive over criticisms of Plum. Maybe a worthwhile thread is if any of us can objectively discuss our home course.
-
Guys lets stop the bullsh!t and talk about architecture.
Stop rehashing what you think the discussion should or should not be about or what is appropriate or inappropriate, stop worrying about others reputations and integrity, stop criticizing others methodology, stop explaining why those criticisms arent appropriate. Stop trying to turn this into a passive aggressive personal attack in any direction.
At this point it is like a fukcing Mexican standoff anyways. Either holster your weapons or fire away and get it over with. But either way just stop the bullsh!t.
And please dont bother to concur with this post, or disagree with it, dont thank me or condemn me, because I am not paying any attention to your bullshit anymore.
-
David M:
WOW! I really appreciate the effort there and the EUREKA continues. I wish the list of smileys had a lightbulb - my understanding is really growing re this golf hole. That is great stuff - thanks again.
So ok, the margin for error out at 80, or 100, yards is greater, because it is a shorter shot to get to... so it's not really a rectangle... can we call it a trapezoid? I still don't think slice of pie is correct, because the preferred angle spot isn't that TINY right next to the green, but I do see how it's bigger farther away from the green... is that fair? Not that it matters at all, I just do so like getting terms correct. ;)
In any case, the key is that one either hits the alley/slice of pie/rectangle/trapezoid or one is truly screwed. And while the tee shot is never going to be an truly easy to pull off, it is way easier the shorter and farther right one goes off the tee. Of course one pays for this in that it's going to be a harder shot than reaching the alley (good enough!) closer to the green, but that ain't easy to do and one picks one's poison.
In any case, barely missing the alley farther out is WAY better than missing it close to the green, because the penalties are far more severe closer to the green (ie in bunker, in gunch, over the green - all very severe penalties). Missing it out farther just means fairway or light rough.
And one thing or another, would you agree with my initial premise, way back, that there really are NO easy shots into that incredible green? Oh, there are some that are better than others - as we've set out - but even the preferred ones ain't gonna be easy. That is one hell of a green.
Am I getting there?
TH
-
David W:
I didn't say anywhere that I had taken this off-line until this recent post. I just wanted to alert you to this before it got out of hand again. Understood re all the rest.
David M:
It is bullshit without a doubt. This will be the last post I initiate on the subject. Do read my last post re #12, though - I really think we have some great stuff going there.
TH
-
It would be interesting to have a Gil Hanse sketch of the hole so that those of us who have not been there could put the discussions and the photographs in some sort of perspective.
-
Damn that would be helpful, Rich. Alas such doesn't exist, not in Geoff's book, anyway. Picture a golf hole kike the "thought blurb" coming out from a cartoon character's head.
TH
-
David Wigler:
I don't consider quoting someone's statement about a golf architecture matter a personal attack. It is now clear to me, however, that you are very uncomfortable with the practice. Thus, I have no intention of doing so with you again.
But, you should recognize that other people don't have this concern and I don't believe it should be established as a standard for the entire discussion group.
If John Doe says "trees don't belong on a golf course", I'm going to assume he doesn't mind being quoted. If he later says "trees don't belong on some golf courses", that's fine by me too and nothing to be embarrassed about.
All this personal stuff is way out of control. If a person doesn't want to be quoted, they shouldn't make the statement. If they do make a statement, they should expect that it is perfectly reasonable for people to quote and examine that statement.
-
Tom;
I think the impressions of a first time visitor to Rustic are both valid and enlightening, look at the wonderful debate it's spawned. Some of the strategy out there is very subtle; like 11 for instance. Just like you, I couldn't see why anyone would risk the carry over the left hand bunker when bailing right provides access to both left and right pins. When Geoff explained that it was meant to duplicate the visual comfort of shooting away from the trouble like 11 at Augusta my eyes were opened. Not many architectects have the balls to try this sort of sublty, because frankly how do you enlighten the masses short of providing an instruction sheet for each hole. Some of this stuff works really well and is obvious, like 12. Other holes may not play out quite as well; for instance I don't think 3 works quite as planned. I still can't see why anyone would play left off the tee, maybe someday I will if I play it enough, or maybe someone will explain how it works for them here on GCA. Either way there are enough riddles out there to keep us busy for years to come.
-
Now, this point has been argued back and forth many times. David apparently still thinks his statement makes sense, though he seems to want to substitute the word “interest” for “challenge” as if this would have great significance. But, I still believe what David said makes absolutely no sense.
Tim,
Just once, read before posting. I have no issue with being quoted (Except when you make up the quote and put it in quotations - like you did on the other thread or refuse to print the idea behind the quote like you did more than ten times in regard to Interest and Every Golfer). Either on line or off, please explain to me how the sentence above (From your original post) is not a personal attack. Obviously I am too dumb to figure it out. Eliminate any reference to me and change the title to "Relevance of the Tee Ball" and this thread never takes the ugly turn and you are educated enough to know that. This thread turned into exactly what you wanted it to be and then you tried to bail out and blame it on others highjacking. You are smarter than that.
-
Pete - great stuff. Re the impressions of first time visitors, oh yes, it wouldn't be a very worthwhile golf course if one knew all one needed to know in one visit, would it? Nevertheless we are faced with the quandary I mentioned above. If giving one's impressions after one visit does lead to better discussion - as it seems to have recently re #12 - then that's great. If it leads to "you need to put more effort into it and study it more" and the like type of put-downs (and believe me, I received far worse the first time this came up), then that's not good.
In any case, your takes re the holes listed are illuminating. Let me tackle these one at a time, because they are each great topics.
#12 - if the strategy there is really obvious, then I must be REALLY dense given all the discussion! ;) I don't think that's what you meant to say, just couldn't resist.
#11 - I have been itching to discuss this hole again. Hmmm...Geoff's explanation has me more confused. OK, I get the idea of visual comfort of shooting away from trouble - that just adds to the reasons to go right off the tee, by the way, as going right means going away from the trouble for that shot... But I'm sure we're talking about the second shot. On that, I just don't see one hitting away from the troble even if you find the VERY far left of the fairway! You still have to go over a pretty hellacious bunker, and the slightest pull still means hazard. Move that green 10 yards to the right and we have something. Where it sits now, I just don't get it. Yes, you are going along side the trouble, as opposed to sort of going at it coming in from the right... but to me a pull left is way more likely than a shot that goes long, so I don't get the "comfort" one feels coming in from the left - if anything I think the shot is more comfortable coming in from the right! I don't get it re #11 Augusta and I don't get it re this golf hole. So this being the case, I still don't get why anyone would ever bother going left. What advantage is to be gained by flirting with the trouble?
Note also - I am talking about a pin in the middle or on the left. Move the pin to the right and then it makes more sense, although I'm still not sure it's worth the risk to go left off the tee. At least with a right pin I can see it as an option, in any case... But that's the same thing as me saying move the green 10 yards to the right...
So is it really as simple as left pin, go right; right pin, go left? That ain't very subtle. I thought there was more to it than that.
Please help me to see what I am missing. Again I ask hoping for education from you regulars, with no further agenda. And remember the less I can figure out a golf hole, the more I like it. I think #11's a freakin' great hole as it is, although a pin sheet so one knows where the pin is would be helpful.
#3 - I'll tell you who goes left - a left-hander with a slice! I mentioned to Tommy and Geoff after my round there that my family group played it four different ways, one of which was my lefty brother aiming at the gunk and just letting his slice take it to the left side. For him, he could see the angle from there for his second would be better... Oh yes, this is a very limited sample, and I can see how you'd say 3 not working as planned - they surely wanted more people to consider it a viable option - I just wanted you to know that the option did exist. ;)
One thing's for sure, when you say "there are enough riddles out there to keep us busy for years to come" I say amen brother. Though I feel like I've "figured out" #12 thanks to David, I'm not sure that I have it exactly right even now... #11 remains a mystery... #7 I have no good idea where to hit the tee shot... I'm not certain of the line on 14... it goes on and on.
Holes that hold no mystery, or really much interest, off the tee for all golfers, as I see it, are:
2 - doesn't work if it's not playing firm and fast - as David M. himself says - firm it up and then the interest returns (you'd need to stay left, challenge the ob);
5 - bash away, why not? All the interest comes on the 2nd shot, the fairway is massive, and there's really no advantage where the tee shot goes as long as it goes far;
9 - ditto
10 - ditto.
On each of these holes, the 2nd shot is damn good, and the approach to the green is always gonna be brilliant. Still, the tee shots are blah.
Whoops! I let slip what I've been saying for days I wouldn't do, utter something that one can construe as negative about this golf course. OK, let this be a test. Will I get personal attacks for this, or can we discuss the architecture?
This is obviously not directed at you, Pete, but rather at a participant of imperial status.
TH
-
5 - bash away, why not? All the interest comes on the 2nd shot, the fairway is massive, and there's really no advantage where the tee shot goes as long as it goes far;
9 - ditto
10 - ditto.
On each of these holes, the 2nd shot is damn good, and the approach to the green is always gonna be brilliant. Still, the tee shots are blah.
As I see it, this is the crux of the disagreement, which unfortunately got sidetracked from the beginning. Is there an advantage that Tom & David did not see (I'm not saying anything bad here - we can't all notice everything in one trip around) by playing to different parts of the fairway? It's a little hard for me to believe that good green complexes wouldn't favor approaches from one angle versus another.
One problem is determining how much something is favored. If it takes a rather precise well struck high spinning wedge to achieve a desired outcome from an unfavorable angle & someone manages to achieve this, then the reward for hitting it to the preferred landing area might be overlooked by the golfer. In other words, he executed a more difficult shot, while another landing area might have allowed for a little more error.
I say, good for him - well played. However, this could lead him to think the tee shot is uninteresting unless he plays it a few more times & comes to appreciate the benefit of playing to another area.
To me, that's the difficulty in ascertaining the value of an indirect tax.
-
George:
Well, this is the crux of one of the many disagreements we've had lately, and I appreciate you keeping this on the up and up. You also were never my worry, though. ;)
Let's take #2 out of the equation: that doesn't work because of the current maintenance practices and it's hard to fault the architect too much for that, although the wisdom of creating holes that depend on being firm and fast to work at a low-price, heavily trafficked public course is a separate question... But anyway, get that in the right conditions and there is interest galore off the tee.
On each of the other three, there are definite places you want to have your THIRD shot come in from, with definite advantages/penalties to each - Gil Hanse lays it out well in the diagram he gives of #9, for example (page 244 of Geoff's book). But even in that diagram, there is just one spot for the tee shot to go (marked "A"), it's right in the middle of the fairway, long and far. No mystery there! Then for the 2nd shot, Gil lays out perfectly that spot "B", past the "trench" bunker, is the preferred angle in for an upper shelf pin, while spot "C", left of the trench, is the preferred angle in for a lower left pin. All well and good, as I say the 2nd and the approch are brilliant. What I don't see is any reason not to bash away on the tee shot. Yes, there is a hazard left, so one needs to sort of guard against that... but the fairway is very, very wide, so it really ought not to be an issue. There's no advantage to be gained in accessing either spot B or spot C from either side of the fairway - length is all that's required. Shorter-hitting players aren't gonna reach the Trench in two anyway, so spots B and C are irrelevant for them....
So we have a golf hole that achieves something quite difficult to do - it gives interest to the 2nd shot on a long par 5. But does it do so at the expense of giving interest on the tee shot?
Not that this is a horribly bad thing - it's a fun golf hole to play regardless of how the tee shot works or not. I just don't see what interest exists on the tee shot... A very fair response to that might be "none, it doesn't need it." Fair enough.
Perhaps the regulars can enlighten me on this, that would be cool.
The others kinda work the same, but this is enough for now.
TH
-
I think #11's a freakin' great hole as it is, although a pin sheet so one knows where the pin is would be helpful.
#7 I have no good idea where to hit the tee shot... I'm not certain of the line on 14... it goes on and on.
2 - doesn't work if it's not playing firm and fast - as David M. himself says - firm it up and then the interest returns (you'd need to stay left, challenge the ob);
5 - bash away, why not? All the interest comes on the 2nd shot, the fairway is massive, and there's really no advantage where the tee shot goes as long as it goes far;
Tom: on 11 I always aim over the bunker had hope for the middle for the fairway. For me, trying to hug the left if I knew the pin was on the right, is too dangerous for my limited golf game. If I'm in the middle I can reasonably deal with a pin left, or right.
#7: If the wind is coming down canyon, I lay up. Obviously it depends on how far you can crank it, but if I go for it, I try to hit a draw to the right of the dead tree.
#2: Even in wet conditions, are people really making par when they have to negotiate the greenside bunker after driving to the right? Or, better yet, are they hitting the green on their approach?
#5: I only hit driver if the wind in coming down canyon. There is a very narrow area on the left side of the fairway, which can accommodate driver. The baranca runs on a diagonal from left to right. My 4-wood to the right side of the fairway comes within 20 yards of the baranca.
#14: You need a few playings to figure out where you can regularly take aim.
-
David Wigler:
Let's play a thought experiment. Imagine if you were to express the following in a post:
"Tim Weiman has stated his case for why tee shots for skilled golfers should not merit more than about one percent of our evaluation of a golf course. I don't think Tim's analysis makes any sense and here is why:................".
Should I assume that is a personal attack? Isn't it just a reasonable response? After all, I'd still like to see a credible, coherent argument for why the point I made isn't valid.
-
I wish the list of smileys had a lightbulb - my understanding is really growing re this golf hole.
Tom IV --
Check that "message icon"!
Just what the doctor ordered.
-
Tom,
Please pardon me for this quick aside. I dont understand why you repeatedly rehash how you've been unfairly maligned regarding this topic in the past. I've enjoyed our discussion, but I am starting to wonder if just maybe I am being played the fool, and if you just might be more interested in baiting the usual suspects. I think dropping the martyr talk would likely go far in keeping us all on the right track, and will also leave no doubt that this is really about your genuine curiosity regarding the course.
In response to your comments regarding specific holes.
2: Tom you keep using my name to support you view that the hole doesnt work when it is soft, and that it often is soft. I think you must have missed my response to your earlier post, where you attributed this view to me, then asked me whether your summary of my position was 'close.'
Tom, I am afraid you are not very close at all. In fact, I am having trouble getting how you could come to these conclusions based on what I said. RC 2 has "worked" just fine every time I have played it or seen it played. As for the line from the right "ceasing to exact any penalty whatsoever" where on earth did I say that?
The line on the right is always a much more difficult shot than the line on the left. I have never seen it so soft that one need not worry about the possibility of the ball releasing through the green. In fact, I cannot imagine a situation where trying to carry onto the green and stop the ball from the right would be a percentage play, just about from any distance, at any time of day. When I say that it is sometimes wet and overwatered, I am not saying that the ball will stick or plug (I've never seen a ball plug at RC); it just might not run every time like we would like it to. And, except on rare occasions, it dries up pretty early in the day. This, by the way, presents its own set of problems on this particular shot, because if you play it to run alot and it doesnt, you aren't left with the easiest shot.
I also think that I said that, as to my comments regarding the watering, I usually play around 6 a.m. this time of year so I see the course when it is wet as it will get. Yet even at this hour the ground always has that bouncy feel.
12: I guess playing twelve to the right is a little easier because the tee shot is shorter, but the real advantage is that the tee shot to the right has a much greater margin of error. As for whether there are any easy approaches, I guess not if you are looking for a big soft flat green with the pin in the middle, but this is a hole that can be played 4 Iron, sand wedge. Shouldnt the sand wedge have some challenge? Further, while I butcher it regularly, I just dont think the hole is that hard. The shot from the far right can be played with any trajectory, from high and spinning to on the ground the whole way, and is just not that difficult for most pin placements once you've hit it a few times.
3: Tom and Pete: I think going to the left on 3 may make sense when the pin is back right, and some like it for more than that, but I havent yet discovered much of a clear advantage of going left with any other particular pin. I think the problem with 3 is that from the right there is perhaps too much lee way to bounce the ball in. I'd be curious to see how the hole played if (a) they cut the grass short on the bank left of the green so those nasty bunkers were more in play off the tee and from the right, (b) if they lowered the back left portion of the green, so the back portion of the green didnt slope away from the trouble.; and/or (c) if they put some movement in the ground on the back right side of the green/ back left side of approach. When I say "they" I of course mean the original design team, and no one else.
5: Tom, the advantage of the tee shot on RC 5 can best be viewed from the green. Next time, look at the green complex then look back over the trouble to the driving fairway, and you will notice that one side might have definite advantages over the other, especially if the golfer is going for the green in two. Of course the other side might have different advantages.
As for the golfer who is definitely laying up, it is a much shorter, easier, and potentially more precise lay-up from the right side of the fairway as opposed to the left.
9: This is a very wide fairway with great natural undulation. There is more on right than the left, so you are more likely to get a very difficult lie on the right. Since I am laying up anyway I dont think it is worth it for me to try to play close to either edge.
10: One can shorten the hole significantly by playing down the right side then cutting the dogleg on the second shot. This route also leaves you with the best angle to approach the green. But cutting this corner is no easy task and is very visually intimidating. Left and middle are safer, but are substantially longer and not as favorable angle for those going in two.
11: This is definitely a hole where people differ as to the correct angles. In my experience, it is much easier to get it close to a left pin from the middle-left (no further right than the long swale that often funnels drives hit over the bunker.) Yes, there is danger short and left, but it is a shorter shot and one does not have to navigate over the hump and diagonally over the front slope. Even it is a safer approach from the far right, I think it is much more lead to a potential three putt on this difficult green.
Keep in mind that I am talking about getting it close or at least avoiding potential 3-putts.
By the way, just to prove I am completely nuts: While I dont mind going at the right side of the green from the left, I prefer to go at the right side of the green from the right.
Tom, perhaps you can answer these questions to help me understand why you refer to these tee shots as lacking "interest."
--Do you find "interest" in straight, flat, narrow fairways surrounded by thick rough? If so, why so?
--Is a great course required to have nothing but "interesting" tee shots.
--So I know what you mean, can you give me some examples of some great par 5's that present an "interesting" tee shot for golfers who know they are going to lay up. For example, we were both definitely laying up at SFGC 9; was that an interesting shot, or was it just hitting down the middle? How about the par 5s at Cypress for those planning to lay up?
-
Andy_Lipschultz,
I agree with your comments on the strategy off of the tee for holes 11, 7, 2, and 14. I do think, however, that on 5 at least from the black tees, more than 90% of golfers can take a full driver and not worry about it going through the fairway if they take the line from the right center of the fairway to the left.
-
.One problem is determining how much something is favored. If it takes a rather precise well struck high spinning wedge to achieve a desired outcome from an unfavorable angle & someone manages to achieve this, then the reward for hitting it to the preferred landing area might be overlooked by the golfer. In other words, he executed a more difficult shot, while another landing area might have allowed for a little more error.
George you have definitely hit on the essense of Rustic here. There is rarely a situation where if you miss the preferred angle that you have no chance of recovering. It just may be that your percentages would be better somewhere else.
Along the same lines, figuring out the "preferred" plays is not easy either. They do exist, but are rarely clear cut, especially as they change with the conditions. A single or a few successes stemming from a certain play might not provide enough data to fully understand the possibilities of that certain play, much less the other potential options.
I think this might be what sets Rustic apart, but it does create a dilemna for those who must draw a conclusion after only one play.
Let's take #2 out of the equation: that doesn't work because of the current maintenance practices and it's hard to fault the architect too much for that, although the wisdom of creating holes that depend on being firm and fast to work at a low-price, heavily trafficked public course is a separate question... But anyway, get that in the right conditions and there is interest galore off the tee. ?
Tom, I missed this the first time through, but want to clear this up once and for all.
The current "maintenance practices" make it so RC 2 doesnt work? I sure hope you are not relying on anything I've written or said to support this conclusion. If so, please review my posts on this issue on the other thread.
The current maintenance practices work quite well for RC 2 and the rest of the course. The course is maintained plenty firm, so that bounce and roll are definitely considerations on all down-canyon shots and most up canyon shots. I've clarified this more than a few times.
Perhaps you are reading too much into my observation that the course is not kept at its cutting edge for regular play. Of course it isnt, and I doubt many courses, public or private, are. But to describe it as anything but firm and fast is a mis-characterization.
To give you something to compare to, RC regularly plays at least as firm as fast as Pacific and Bandon played when I was there this spring; it plays firmer and faster than Cypress did both times I was there; and it plays firmer and faster than SFGC the day we played (except the new greens at SFGC were harder); and it plays much firmer and faster than Stevenson Ranch the one time I played it (although it sounds like I caught SR on a very slow day.)
I know you often wish it played as firm and fast as Wildhorse. I've never been there, but I am familiar with concrete hard, wind blown, sunbaked Midwest/West turf. Rustic would not be playable for anyone if it was kept rock hard. The whole place is slanted, and not just a little. Balls roll down hill.
The only reasons I brought up the maintenance practices are (1) because if it is 6-8 in the morning and the grass is wet from irrigation or dew, you obviously should not expect it to play as firm and fast as normal; and (2) if one ever wanted to really make the course a torture chamber for exceptional golfers, it could be done with very minimal effort, without altering the nature of the course.
So Tom, if you want to draw your conclusion based on your two visits and/or someone else's opinion, by all means do so, but please dont base your conclusion on my opinion of the playing conditions.
As far as the course design being incompatible with a "low-price, heavily trafficked public course," what a leap! For the reasons above, you are again mistaken.
-
David M. This has gone on way too far and being away for three days made me see the silliness of discussions like these, or at least their place in life's priorities (or mine, anyway). In any case, I don't disagree with anything you say here, not one bit. Thanks for taking the time to reply in any case...
I do enjoy trying to figure out this golf course, and I have deferred to you constantly throughout this for clarification. I continue to appreciate you showing me the error of my ways.
Re #12, well... I really thought you did say it didn't work the way things are kept now (softer than they might be). My apologies for misunderstanding that.
As for all the rest, check your instant message.
TH
-
This was a fun one...
:)