Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Ran Morrissett on November 15, 2002, 07:13:38 PM
-
I am sure it has some though I couldn't tell you what they are.
Instead, nearly six months after having been there, I'm wondering if maybe it really is as good as I originally thought, which is to say world class.
For instance, I played a consensus world top 10 course this year that doesn't have NEAR the risk/reward dilemmatic problems posed at Rustic Canyon.
I played a world top 20 course whose playing angles have been compromised, not because of tree growth, but because of ever narrowing mowing patterns. Plus, searching for balls is a problem as the flow of the game is ruined and the fun diminished.
I played a world top 20 course where a similar green complex is repeated 18 times.
I played a world top 35 course that is located in one of the most gifted settings in all of nature. Yet, its recent bunker 'restoration' project resulted in clean bunkers completely detached from their native surrounds.
I caught glimpses of a U.S. Open course that requires next to no finesse shots and where the ground game is essentially dead, even after the USGA leaves town.
I played a world top 70 course in the south that is superlative in every respect but it is missing 8-10 original fairway bunkers that makes it less interesting off the tee than it should be.
Rustic Canyon suffers from none of the above shortcomings. Again, I am sure that it has some weaknesses (as every course does) but can someone please point them out?
If the list isn't too long or damning, then perhaps this public access course outside of L.A. really does deserve to stand comparison with some of the world's best.
Cheers,
-
Your post makes me want to call up Tommy and book a flight to L.A.
It also has me guessing as to the actual "world top courses" you fail to call out, are you always so P.C. ? :)
-
I'll be out there in about 7-10 days and will be most interested to see the course and what it has to offer.
Clearly, my fascination is doubly intensified.
I shall see ...
-
Ran,
Shhhhhhhhuuuuushhhh!
I wish you would stop expousing on how great this golf course is because it is MY hidden gem, as well as David Moriarty,David Kelly and Lynn Shackelford's, and that we want NO interlopers.:)
(Sort of a Surf Punks My beach, my swells, my waves mentality.)
STAY AWAY!:)
OK, Craig Rokke, you can play tomorrow!:)
(If you happen to read this tonight, please call me at (714)803-3563)
-
Your invited to Shooter!
-
The course has been full from the day it opened. The course is booked 7 days in advance 30 minutes after opening at 6 AM. This is a combination of the price and the fact that players like it. It has a "players" crowd, young pros and good players drive for a hour or more to play it. That is a compliment. The words everyone uses are fun and different. Now that they have a clubhouse and toilets that "flush" it will be even more popular with the women and a few others.
Players have a tough time telling me why they like it other than it is "fun." Yet the course record is still "high", 67 shot by Alex Galvan, who was in my group. He is the head golf coach at LMU. Couples shot 68 in the only visit I am aware of. The maintenance meld is pretty good. Greens are kept firm and not too fast. Approaches are reasonably firm. I am always amused at players when they see the wide fairways. They swing harder than normal and usually end up hitting more off center. Little self control. This could be a whole discussion topic. On the other hand I have seen Tommy N. hit some tee balls out with mine soley because he turned it over and ran it out there.
Since I play it about once a week here are my thoughts:
The routing is good, there is a chance to score well early in the round, but you know there are difficult holes waiting on the back. The variety is good, 5,4,4,3,5,3,4,3,5 on the front 9.
The "fun" really starts on the greens. Having played Riviera for 15 years, I thought greens should be kept simple, but now I like Rustic's for interest. Gives the short accurate player a good chance. The greens have the same interest of courses I recently played in England, Swinley, Rye and The Addington.
I cannot imagine anyone playing there the first time without 3 putting at least once, and the greens only run about 9 on the stimp. But they are not "over the top."
A few minor negatives:
A few long walks from green to next tee. 12 to 13, 9 to 10, 17 to 18.
The tee shots on the uphill holes early are pretty similar, 5, 9, 10.
The clubhouse and range do not have the same rustic ambience that the course does.
The distance going down the canyon is weird. I tell eveyone to take 20% off the distance on the fairway plates.
The drive on 18 is disappointing with a driving range net and cart barn for a target.
All in all it has changed my view of which courses I enjoy. Players always say it is different. I smile because in Southern California it is all the other courses we have that are different than great courses in other parts of the world.
All those golf "experts" are presently at the 20/20 conference trying to figure ways to make golf more popular and all they have to do is study Wild Horse in Nebraska and Rustic Canyon in California. The proof is in the round count and construction costs.
Of course I may be a bit biased!
-
Tommy,
I am going to be in So Cal from Dec. 16 through New Year's. We have to tee it up. With all you've told me abut Rustic Canyon it is on the top of my list.
Email me or call me.
Jeff F.
-
As usual Lynn summarized Rustic perfectly from my one visit (36 holes) about 6 months ago.
I was also lucky enough to play Wild Horse this summer and there is MUCH to learn from both of these courses. Affordable golf that is plain FUN FUN FUN to play. What a novel concept ;)
Rustic Canyon's faults are minor and forgivable and its atributes are enviable.
-
Can't wait to see where it falls on the Golf Week top 100 Modern List top 25-30 it's that good, might be in my top 10-15 modern to play for the fun and the challenge of the different options this course presents. Yes some of the issues like practice range net are but a minor distraction of this wonderful place.
-
I loved the course when I finally got down there in July for 36 with David Kelly and David Moriarty. The only holes I felt were a bit of a let down were #3 and 12, the short par 4's where I simply don't feel there is a reason not to hit driver and get as close to the green as possible. Both greens are open on the right side, so if you know how to bump the ball along the ground I saw no reason to lay up. Of course I only saw one pin position the day I played and I'm sure there are probably spots where a different strategy is required.
I felt from the first time I saw the course when it was under construction that the short game would be emphasized and the course does not disappoint. The bunkering is generally excellent, although the pot to the right of #5 is way too shallow.
Of the newer courses I played this year I put Kingsley at the top, with Barona Creek and Rustic right behind.
I have been kicking around the idea of having the King's Putter at Rustic Canyon this spring, but would love to hear from Ran or Tommy, Lynn, and David M. & K. to get their input.
-
I bow to no one in my admiration for Rustic Canyon and consider the design and routing to be truly great. However does anyone else regret that they have had to make most of the wash and and scrub area environmentally protected and off limits to the golfer? I am not arguing that they shouldn't have done it I am just bemoaning the results.
For those people who haven't played RC since the GCA get together in May, most of the area on the front nine that is not grassed has been staked as environmentally sensitive areas and the golfer is not allowed to enter it and must treat it as a lateral hazard. This includes the entire area that runs between the 1st and 9th fairways, and the entire wash area that runs through holes 5-7. In addition they have erected small wooden fences that go along the cart path on 5 and in front of the wash that crosses the 5th and 7th fairways as well as a few other places. The environmetally protected areas are less intrusive on the back nine because less of the wash area borders those holes, still it is present along the entire right side of #10 and down the left side of #11.
Again I am not saying that the enviro. sensitive areas were not needed but they have left a mark on the course and how it is played. One of the refreshing aspects of Rustic Canyon is that there is no water to be found on the property - other than what comes in bottles. These off limits areas have become huge lateral hazards with the results being that much of the front nine plays as if it was routed around and through a large lake - if your ball is one inch inside the green tipped stakes, no matter the lie, it is as unplayable as if it were underwater. The fences and off limits areas bisecting the 5th and 7th fairways now allow for no recovery and makes the course play a little more like target golf. Of course the target aspect of the course is greatly mitigated by the width of the fairways and thank God for that.
All of this doesn't mean I don't love the course because I do and while I object to the same things that Lynn brought up in his post I think Rustic Canyon is truly one of the most unique, strategic and fun designs that I have seen in this country.
-
Lynn Shackelford:
Yours is a most interesting post, touching on some ancillary subjects like Rustic's uniqueness in comparison to other courses in California and the 20/20 initiative to grow the game in light of the popularity of Rustic possibly due to its "fun" and "difference". Also your mention that you thought greens should be 'kept simple' (after years at Riviera) is interesting too (and does deserve a separate thread).
I'm still amazed at reports of the apparent extent of this "up canyon/down canyon" thing as it relates to distance.
I couldn't see that (or the extent of it) at all the one time I saw the site preconstruction. I guess my eyes must be going on me. I was amazed to hear later the extent of the site's elevation change--I just couldn't really see that at all (other than the area behind 15, 16).
For me it must have something to do with not being used to the enormous scale of the place going back up to the hills way behind the back nine end (is that north?)! But I like how you describe the need for a 20% distance adjustment coming "down canyon"--an interesting and not unsubstantial "local knowledge thing".
I'm sorry to hear Ed Getka say that he feels #3 & #12 are the weakest links on the course (two holes in basic concept I felt were somewhat similar with a possible green orientation flip flop).
My hope on #12, at least, was that the green somehow would take a toll on golfers that unthinkingly placed the ball in the wrong part of the large unecumbered fairway due to the difficulty of a particular pin. The idea I felt was to very much pay attention to the particular pin before driving the ball. Although I've only seen photos of the green, I guess I can't tell the nuances well enough from them.
In very broad concept I thought the green (although smaller) might turn out in playability something like a sideways version of Doak's inline center ridge on Stonewall's #16! In other words, if your approach was on the wrong side of the green's ridge from the pin you'd have a very hard time putting to the other side, and that the drive on Rustic's #12 would set up ease or difficulty in spades of approaching whichever side the day's pin was on.
But the overall idea was that if the golfer didn't pay attention to the pin before driving he would pay a price on the approach even with a well executed approach due to a particular pin making it nigh on impossible to get near from various incorrect fairway positions. (In this sense I thought of it somewhat similar to coming up just short of but to the right of Riviera's #10!--but with #12 having the characteristic of that being a good thing at times--unlike Riv's #10).
I looked at the concept as a real subtle strategic connection (education!?) that sort of jumped a shot (the approach) by going essentially between the tee shot and the first putt (if you know what I mean?).
This post seems to be a bit scattered in thought--hope you can understand it!
-
Can someone please explain how, by what process, features on a golf course, like the washes at RC described above, get made into "enviro areas"? Who has that authority to come in and designate some drainage ditches as enviro areas? What species of plant or animal live in those particular ditches that could not go on living without this total umbrella and shield from a human "touching them" by say, striking an errant ball from them? Now, I am no botonist or biologist, but I sure didn't see anything out there that looked endangered that would and only could flourish in those ditches totally unmolested! AS I look at my pictures, I see washes 4-8 feet wide, normally dry, with some weeds growing in them. Won't the weeds and little bugs and squiggly crawling things still live without the "no touch' protection - given mowers and fert and applications will be made right next to them by no more than one to three feet distance! Lastly, is this just some lame California thing to have the owner/operators of a golf course set aside some irrelavant ditch and call it "enviro" and place a "no touch" sign as some extortion paid to the green crowd? I frankly don't see how the "no touch" area as described will allow any more plant or animal activity than marking it a normal hazard and one can play their ball or declare it themselves, unplayable if they so choose. The intermittent entry to retrieve an errant ball, or take a stance to hit one short of driving ones cart into them doesn't seem to be so impactful on their frail little lives to me. If you get bit by a Pacific Rattler, well put up a sign warning of that possibility if you enter. But, leave it to the golfers discretion.
This may not be the kind of weakness Ran was questioning, but it is weak in the sense of lame in my opinion.
-
It's on the wrong side of the country. :)
-
Dick,
One of the authorites on this is the EPA, which does want to figure itself in all of it.
Not to disagree with David Kelly, but I don't find the fenced-in eco areas to be to big of a problem at all simply because we don't play them as such--we usually don't have anyone behind us when we are playing, opting to be the last group out. It works great because this allows one to further graze around the course looking for even more options and features we haven't seen. You see, we keep finding even more features or share other ideas of types of shots to play as well as learning these greens which are, the best modern conglomeration of greens I have been on to date. It's really addicting.
Now that I have rambled off the original subject, back to the eco areas. The fences are those little double-rail ranch style that actually will discolor further and look, well, rustic. I can think of a hundred other courses right now where the eco areas don't work with the play or strategy of the golf holes. At Rustic, it probably does affect David since he is sooooooo longgggg off of the tee. But I like that, because it brings him with-in striking distance if we are playing a match!:)
-
But my question is about the process of how these areas get designated in the first place. Was there an agreement prior to construction that said washes would be maintained as no-enter enviro areas. Was that agreement made as a requirement to obtain permitting, zoning etc.? Or, was it a cookie tossed to the green crowd to appease them and insure that a more rigorous objection to development was made by the greens?
I come off as some sort of unsympathetic person that wants to grass everything over and not provide any habitat to the critters and beneficial plants. I am not. I just think that the strict no-enter no-touch restrictions to areas such as those washes or ditches at RC are superficial, accomplish nothing in the way of preservation or fostering a habitat that couldn't still be accomplished by signage to keep carts out of the area, and take care where you walk. A bridge and sign requiring golfers to cross there rather than tramp across the area would be acceptable and just as effective in my view.
I remember some areas at RC that may be protected more, that aren't potentially a round killer or obstruction to unfettered enjoyable play that could be no-enter. But, those ditches and washes aren't so sensitive from what I saw.
-
Dick,
I believe we discussed this at length the day we walked the course, but to refresh your memory: Deeming the wash sensitive and not accessible to golfers was a primary condition with the biologists/Fish and Wildlife/Fish and Game to getting the course approved, and done so rather speedily. If that had not been the case, I suspect we'd still be in the planning stages, if even there. So you can call it lame, but golfers would not be playing the course on this 82 degree November day here in Southern California.
I also don't feel it has impacted the design as much as I feared. It's not ideal, but having gotten to know a lot of the interestng species and plant material out there, particularly rare and beautiful birds, I'm glad golfers are asked to stay out of there. California sage scrub and its various life forms are an acquired taste, sort of like a Wisconsin winter. :)
Geoff
-
I could be entirely wrong about this but ultimately it might be a good thing that those protected areas are off limits not just for golfers but for others too that might get it into their heads at some future time to go in those areas and change things to the overall detriment of the golf course.
I know Geoff got very interested preconstruction in all the little things, particularly vegetatively, that live in there and probably agrees that ultimately it might be a good thing that it's as off-limits as it is to everyone!
Geoff also ran across a family of chameleon-like sidewinding weisensnappers back in 1999 out there and even got to know their language. So thanks to him they're still out there in those protected areas safe and sound and have apparently even become golf fans (although noone but Geoff sees them).
-
Geoff, I plead guilty to loss of memory. Trouble is, I can't dispute these things when someone tells me, "I told you that already" :-/ I'm sure my wife is taking advantage of this little senior moment trend to win a few disputes around here. "Like, I told you I ordered that 8 weeks ago!" :-[
I do vaguely remember being out in CA last spring and seeing the ditches. But the exact discussion or mention of Biologist/Fish and Wildlife/Fish and Game truly escapes me. You'd think it would have rung a bell because it sounds so compartmentalized and bureaucratic. But, at least I think I got the answer to the question that it was a compromise (or as I called it a cookie) tossed at the almighty "agencies" to forstall their making it rough on the developers and delaying the process. I guess I'll hold on to the position that in my humble opinion designation of those ditches as no-enter would not make a huge difference in the quality of the eco-system out there, if given there are indeed healthy and legitimate enviro areas (in my deteriorating mind) like between the 13th and 15th and pretty much the entire norther and western periphery that don't really come into play and are lovely areas that set off the course. I just have a problem with those ditches, and think they could be handled as in-play but with common sense sensitivity.
Rest assured, no ice worms, spiders, winter daffodils or mushrooms have been harmed in crafting this GCA post. ;D
-
Dick, You know how I'm a snapper for this kind of stuff, and you just have to believe me when I tell you that if the environmental areas really affected playabiliity, I would certainly say so.
The fact is that they (The eco areas) don't, and if other architects confronted with similar issues, designed something as fun and challenging, I would certainly welcome it.
Of course, there were a lot of other key issues about Rustic Canyon which, I have to remind you, were called into question--like the nature of the sandy base on #18 which you thought was going to be very questionable for growing grass. Ironically that fairway is one of the best conditioned at Rustic, and there isn't a day that I'm playing there, looking down that lovely fairway that I don't think of almost getting your rental car stuck in that soft sand, and barely getting it out.
But it is OK Dick, Ed Getka thought #8 was going to be unplayable when viewing the course for the first time. (It isn't) and in fact, it features a West Coast version of the DA which I'm hereby christening--Daley City It's a deep ugly pit which would love to bury its namesake further and further.:)
The speed of environmental approval of Rustic Canyon has got to be a all time record in this modern age. Hallelujah!
-
Taken from the words of the immortal Lilly Von Shtoop, It's Truuuuuu." (regarding my escapades on #8.)
Persoanlly I think they green is more then adequate, you just have to pin it properly instead of one place four or five times a week. The same thing is happening on #13 where the green is not only huge, its hard to get some of the Spanish speaking grounds crew to understand you have to move the pins around for variety. "Aqui, aqui, por favor, pronto, pronto!"
Well said David.
-
Dick,
There are three kinds of enivronmental areas that I can think of. First there are areas that have endangered species in them. Second are areas of wetlands that have to be protected to allow birds and plants that thrive there to continue to have a place to live. Third there are riparian corridors that are used by animals to get from one place to another. I believe that is probably the main point of the ESAs at Rustic Canyon (I'm sure Geoff can correct me if I'm wrong.) The dry river bed that runs through the property is probably almost the equivalent of an Interstate Highway for various animals to get from the hillls down towards the valley. Without it, animals would be unable to migrate or get to new areas for food or water. If people continue to go into an area like that, the undergrowth that the animals use for cover will be destroyed and the animals will be scared away by the presence of humans.
Tommy (aka Tony), since I don't want to see the next picture of you in Sports Illustrated being one where you are led away in handcuffs with jacket covering your face, try to stay out of those areas. ;)
-
Having played Riviera for 15 years, I thought greens should be kept simple, but now I like Rustic's for interest. Gives the short accurate player a good chance
Paging Dave Schmidt... Paging Dave Schmidt... I have the location for our next match play battle.... ;)
All great thoughts above about a wonderful golf course.
I'm going to be interested to read Matt Ward's assessment after he plays it, however. If ever there was a course without "pressure" on the tee shot (which Matt really seems to require), this is it. Oh, there is always a preferred angle into these genius greens at Rustic, but there is rarely much of a penalty for missing such... for example, on #2, the better line is left, by far. But a drive can be blown 50 yards off line to the right and not only still be playable, but with a shot that CAN hold the green... They're just not keeping it to the "on the edge" degree of firm and fast (as they do at Wild Horse) to penalize such a miss. Ed Getka's right also - both 3 and 12 have no penalty for miss, no reason whatsoever NOT to just bomb away with driver. TEP is right that 12 has an ingenius green that causes terror with all chips and pitches, but I didn't see any value in laying BACK or going way right for any particular pin...It's not like back or right is gonna make it any easier! Bang away and get it to where you can putt, I say. I guess this understanding will come with repeated play.
In any case this is REALLY nit-picking but hey, Ran asked for weaknesses. I could go on re strengths all day... greatest greensites I have seen in our state in ages... fun, fun, fun all day long... thinking man's course that damn right helps the shorter, accurate player... a course every type of player can enjoy (my Dad hits nothing but 4irons, disdaining all woods, and he came away with great success and loving it - see, he as a great short game)... incredible use of not the world's greatest terrain... did I say ingenius greens??.... bang for your buck factor out the whazzoo....
Let's put it this way: I get to SoCal fairly often for family stuff and I now have a new home course down there. IN fact I may get down there this weekend and the tee-time begging might commence....
BTW, #8 is a fantastic golf hole and truly belongs in any discussion of the world's great short one-shotters. Oh yes, my group had some very interesting putting occurrences to a back right pin... front right would be brutal. Question though - why the heck are they growing 6 inch rough all the way around that green? I guess it prevents infinite up and back but damn it would be better kept at fairway height.
I also liked 6 - from the back tee it was reminiscent of the great par 3 (#4?) at Royal County Down... long shot, over scrub, to a green set against a scrub-covered hill... only thing is, the green is BETTER at Rustic than at RCD (ok, there's blasphemy if you ever heard it). That makes the shot from the front tees VERY VERY fun also! The green banks left over that hump of all humps making a myriad of shots possible from that angle from the right - damn what a great hole. On nit pick though - the guys on 7 tee are in grave danger from wayward tee shots - not so much from the front tee, they are close enough that it would take a real *h*nk to hit them - but from the back tee it doesn't take much of a slice to get close to that tee. I'm not saying how I know this... nor do I have any suggestions for "fixing" it, other than to just tell people on 7 tee to be aware of incoming missles...
Great work by one and all at Rustic. Damn all this makes me want to MAKE it happen this weekend...
TH
-
Heeheeheehee (insert maniacal leprechaun laugh)...
Lynn's line just struck me as being so perfect for our relative golf games. ;)
But heck yeah, let me know if and went you get back to SoCal! That will merit some begging for sure!
TH
-
BTW, #8 is a fantastic golf hole and truly belongs in any discussion of the world's great short one-shotters. Oh yes, my group had some very interesting putting occurrences to a back right pin... front right would be brutal.
How far back right was the pin because that area is generally unpinnable due to the back-to-front slope? Front right is the easiest pin position because everything hit to the back of the green funnels down to the hole and leaves you with a relatively flat putt. #8 is definitely a great short par 3 though.
-
DK - that green is set an an angle so my version of back might not be what you're thinking of... It was a longer shot from the tee, but the pin was closer to the fringe by the tee than away from the tee, if that helps. It was pretty nasty and several putts didn't stay by the hole...
GREAT hole in any case. Love it.
TH
-
I must admit to a certain fondness for #8. I thought it was a fabulous hole even before I aced it. ;D
-
Lookout Tom I'm catching up to you, I'm only 1771 posts behind ya. :o
-
Craig - oh yes, your ace on #8 at Rustic is one for the ages most definitely. Forgive me if I act like an envious prick, as I do when anyone announces an ace, as I've played probaly 5000 par 3's in my life and never had this occur. I am jealous as hell and no amount of doyenship ever soothes that. ;)
Good news is I'll have another try this Sunday morning... yep, I'm playing Rustic early Sun am, after celebrating a Trojan victory from the day before. I may be a little "foggy" but that course will shake out the hangover.
TH
-
Tom,
Given your recent affinity for Vegas, I have an interesting prop bet for you. We all know that Rustic Canyon is fairly easy to go low at and we all know that they do not play defense in the Pac 10. What would be the over/under on your score at Rustic + the combined score of the game.
I figure you for a 73 (70 if not for the hangover) and a typical Pac 10 45 - 35 shootout. Therefore, my bet is 153.
-
Ha! Love it, Dave. OK, so the over/under is 153... my score could easily shoot that out of the water even if they do decide to play defense in the big SoCal battle - hey, USC's defense is pretty damn good anyway - but that does seem like a fair number. Well assessed.
BTW, given my ps message to Lynn I just cursed myself to 3-jack at least 8 times. So that too might throw it out of whack.
Just in the interest of full disclosure also, we tee off at 6:15am. It's likely DARK then. I was thinking that might cost a few shots but hmmmm... maybe that will help.... ;)
In a any case, in the spirit of defending my game and the defenses of the Pac10, I shall take the under nevertheless. You name the stakes.
TH
-
I'm going to be interested to read Matt Ward's assessment after he plays it, however.
WHY?
-
CG:
I respect Matt's assessment of golf courses absolutely - it seems to me that of the courses I've seen that he's discussed in here, he is always dead spot-on and I learn a lot from what he says.
To that end though, Matt does like to see "pressure" on the tee shot and does require his courses to have a certain challenge in all aspects to be truly "great." Matt, if and when you read this, please do correct me if I'm wrong.
This being the case, I will indeed be curious to read what Matt says about Rustic after seeing it. Given the current conditions, it seems to be there is very little "pressure" on the tee shot, and this is particularly true for the long hitter.
It's also possible that I am completely off my rocker re this - thus I want to see what Matt says! ;)
TH
-
Tom:
I've heard a great deal about Rustic Canyon from a variety of people who I respect. Many of the comments have been quite positive and I plan on playing the course during a writing story I'm doing for a few publications. I will be in the immediate LA area starting this weekend.
When I hear that Ed Getka places Rustic Canyon just two spots behind The Kingsley Club that says a lot.
Regarding my overall review of any course I do place an emphasis on the tee game. I want to see how the architect has crafted a consistent strategy / vision on combining the aspects of length and positioning. I also try to see how the architect has added a variety of ways in order to play the holes.
Last thing -- there are very few courses that I have played that I would bestow the word "great." I agree with Lee Trevino when I interviewed him a few years ago that the word "great" is used much too loosely. I will say this -- the people who said I would thoroughly enjoy Wild Horse were right on target and these same people feel no less about Rustic Canyon. I'm itching to play it and see firsthand.
It's getting a bit chilly now in the Northeast and it's time to head W-E-S-T!!!
Tom, if you and / or any other GCA poster happens to be free during the last week in November maybe we can hook up together!
-
Would love to meet up with you, Matt. Please do keep me apprised of your plans. I'm going to SoCal for a quick up and back this weekend, then after that no more trips... but if you get up this way maybe we can work something out.
Re Rustic, we are simpatico. I am still looking forward to your assessment...
TH
-
Tommy,
I never said I thought #8 would be unplayable, just a tough, intimidating hole. Like Tom H. I wish the left side of the green was mowed fairway height, but I could see how that would slow the pace of play.
-
Since I can't stand the magazine rating and ranking stuff anyway I really do hate to give them any valid criteria to use to judge the weaknesses of Rustic Canyon but what the hell, in the spirit of full disclosure, I'll give them Rustic's one real weakness!
The last time I heard Rustic's snapper soup was nowhere near up to par!
-
The snapper soup may, indeed, not be up to par, but they have a pretty good energy bar! Does anyone else feel that they could have done better with the look of the clubhouse?
You know--something a little RUSTIC?
-
Craig;
You're not getting off that easy! I was excited in speaking to Tommy N. the other evening when he told me you were out there, so now I'm going to put you on the spot and ask you to give us your impressions! ;D
-
Mike-
I'll get back to you on the impressions. I may have to brainstorm a while to come up with some weaknesses.
I have a pretty good list going in my mind of the positives.
-
I'm going to have to agree with Golf's Most Beloved Figure on this one. Playing Rustic Canyon was one of the great joys of my golfing life and the perfect course for anyone interested in how to design a golf course everyone can enjoy from childhood to their dotage.
The great Michael M. Thomas posted something a few weeks back on the subject of "resistance to fun." There was not a single shot on the entire golf course where I was not stimulated in some way to try a different kind of shot . . . I recall being 100 yards from the green on #9 with the pin set behind an abrupt swale and the sheer thrill of watching an 8-iron bump shot wander up to the green and totter next to the flag.
Like Garden city, Rustic is appealling because so many of the fairways simply blend seamlessly into the putting surfaces. The greens are an appropriate speed for the superb contouring - proof of the sheer stupidity of trying to stimp at 12 or 13.
The only complaint I have is that the front side seemed a bit of a shoehorn job and that several of the holes lacked a visual clue from the tee on the eventual direction of the hole. The tee shot on #2 looked oriented to the green on the right side, which I found confusing. The par-5 over the wash also seemd to orient the player to the 2nd (?) green.
Trees are by nature a poor crutch, but one or two well placed plantings might eliminate this routing confusion.
My favorite feature on the course? I think it was the waste area nibbling into the fairway on the 16th hole from the right side. I was 190 out and had to lob a 6-iron just past it to run the ball onto the fall-away green.
The 18th is really awful with that hideous driving range as the target, but Neal suggested a line of trees and i agree.
Besides that, I love it and could play it every day and never ever get bored.
-
Gib:
Didn't you know that dialing down on 'visual clues' is the new/old coming thing in really cool golf courses?
Hanse & Co is really starting to latch onto this new/old concept!
They're removing "road mapping" entirely from their designs. They've even got this mad genius, Bill Kittleman, who's just about perfected a new wrinkle in architecture called the "confusion factor".
Whole groups of golfers have been known to leap up from their post round drinks, hollering--"We've figured it out!" and run back out on the course to try one of Hanse/Bill's high confusion factor holes again!
What could be better than that? Golf at Hanse courses is becoming one big merry egg-hunt--as in--"Hey, Gib, you're ball is over here, can you believe it?"
-
Tom
Have you ever played with Gib?
He (and you!) would save huge amounts of energy and time if you just spurned actually hitting tee shots, walked out to a position down the middle 250-260 forwards, placed your ball on the ground and said to all and sundry: "This is where I would have hit it, had I deigned to hit it!"
Rich
-
That doesn't matter anymore Rich! And it's boring anyway being straight!
I'm really into this new/old Hanse/Kittleman "confusion factor" concept. I look forward to the day when two separate groups arrive simultaneously at the same spot on a fairway only to realize neither one of them should be there but that group way over on another fairway should be!!
Roadmapping in architecture is out! I was just reading a description of C.B. MacDonald's in his book "Scotland's Gift Golf" (a gift from that unbelievably kind man--Pat Mucci) about his memorable years at the old St. Andrew's that the group to arrive second on a green would stand aside for the group that arrived first!
How great is that! Only today I'd add to design a third group whose balls are also on the green but who shouldn't even be there!
-
Tom
You are going to have to go back to JakaB's previous posts on courses with 2 greens and 11 tees and/or some highly complicated theoretical mathematical works on topology to think of a green complex that could (within reason) have balls from players playing 3 different holes on their surface. I know that Kittleman probably has this conundrum locked up in his brain, even since he did a Vulcan mind meld on me at Applebrook, but it's beyond my current imaginative capabilities.......
-
Rich:
These greens would not need to be designed for three separate groups since two of those groups shouldn't even be on them at the same time!
I'm just thinking out of the box to a maximum of all the new "confusion factor" could do.
But clearly it would never work because it would slow up play and probably create a number of fist fights (the latter not being necessarily a bad thing in and of itself).
There's an interesting section in the back of Cornish and Whitten's book listing some of the interesting and novel ideas that have been tried or at least thought of throughout the evolution of golf architecture that for one reason or another had to be relegated to the dust bin of architecture!
But it's always fun to drag them out of that dust bin if only to consider other ramifications that may not have been considered that might make them actually work somehow.
Clearly the most fascinating of all those ideas would be Thomas "courses within a course"!
I really believe that could work and if it was done really well would be absolutely landmark!!
The only problem with it is it would require a rather unusual site (very few trees) and also a ton of width! And of course routing, concept and design would get immensely complex and a ton of work.
But the ideal would not just be a course with many permutations or routing progressions but one that although all open and visible a golfer would not really even see or be aware of the other permutations when he was playing any single one!
To me that would be the ultimate in design!
-
I had the pleasure in playing Rustic Canyon during the Thanksgiving holiday period and have just returned. I always enjoy taking a red-eye flight back home because it gives me time to analyze what this thread originally mentioned: Does Rustic Canyon have any weaknesses?
First, let me say flat-out that I was most impressed with the quality of the design details -- particularly with the putting surfaces. My compliments to all involved starting at the top with architect Gil Hanse.
Given the absolute dearth of quality golf available to the public throughout Sothern California the qualities of Rustic Canyon are clearly there for all to see. The nature of the greens presents a wide variety of shot options throughout the round and there certainly is a maximum "fun" element when playing similar to the feelings I had when playing Wild Horse in Gothenburg, NE. Rustic Canyon excites the senses because it DOES have the twin aspects of the ground and aerial games.
Given all the pleasures of playing the course I have a few "weaknesses" to offer.
First, the driving demands at Rustic Canyon are, with just a few exceptions, quite tame. Let me hasten to add that I am not suggesting that poor driving is acceptable. However, the absolute need for a complete marriage between power and accuracy is not of the highest order. You do have room to spray the ball and as long as you can play towards the green and in some cases whether you're on the left or right side of the fairways can often mean little difference. There are preferred driving positions but they are not required ones in order to score low.
Let me highlight a few examples during my round. The 2nd hole is a good long par-4 of 457 yards, however, the "bathtub" bunker needs to be placed more in the middle of the fairway so that the golfer must negotiate his way either around or over. The existing bunker position favors too much towards the right side and therefore becomes less of an issue than it otherwise might have been.
I drove the par-4 319 yard 3rd hole. The fairway bunker that guards the center point between tee and green should have been placed a bit further closer to the green in order to make the "carry" a bit more of a challenge. Expanding and angling the right hand bunker is also something that would keep the player in check from simply bombing away at the green with impunity.
I was about one foot off the green on my tee shot at the 340 yard par-4 12th which features a unique putting surface, however, the need for some sort of "thinking man's bunker" in or around the green would make for even more careful thinking at the tee. I was told by Tommy N that there has been some discussion on adding some sort of solitary bunker near the entrance to the mouth of the green so that tee shots would have to skillfully avoid it if the attempt to drive the green is made.
The par-4 11th at 435 yards is a good hole, but here the player can miss far right and HAVE an even better angle to the hole than if you skirt the left hand side and take on the lateral hazard. This is especially so when the pin is placed in the more demanding left rear position which is where it was when I played. I'm still scratching my head on that one. If ever a hole cried out for a fairway bunker that pinches in the right hand side of the fairway this hole certainly does. A bunker that starts at 270-300 yards in that general location would keep players from simply bailing out without any worrry.
The same can be said for the final hole -- 460 yards. Here the golfer is given a complete reprieve if you simply "miss" it to the left. Might a fairway bunker on that side "force" players to play towards the center and right side of the hole and thereby elevate the risk if you faily to execute properly?
Two of the weaker driving holes are the 9th and 10th. Both holes are rather similar in length -- 560 & 572 yards. Both play in the same direction. And both suffer from no real strategic aspects on the tee shot and second shot. It's simply lacking. I would have loved to have seen a bunker placed in the middle of the fairway on at least one of the holes to spice things up in the same manner as you find at the par-5 3rd hole at Pac Dunes. Also, challenging the player on the second shot would be helpful. At the 10th you can play away from the lateral hazard on the right without any consequence. Might a small bunker on the left side about 90-100 yards have worked?
What's a good example of a great driving hole? The par-5 535-yard 5th hole is of the highest order indeed. I hit a good tee shot that ended up on the favored line and left me about 200 yards. I hit a seven-iron a hair thin and ended up short. The hole says at the tee to play down the right side because it gives you the better angle to the green with your second. There is a diagonal hazard / wash that runs from left to right and creeps in quite closely on the right side for those trying to position their tee shot on that side. The more you play right the greater the risk in reaching it. The golfer can avoid that by simply driving down the left side to avoid it but here is where Rustic Canyon shines -- even if you should bomb a tee shot down that side you must then contend with a green that is protected by an elevated "wall" that also runs on a diagonal. What an addition to the hole! Fail to carry it and your ball will slide further left and leave you with an even more daunting 3rd shot. A superb par-5 because the thinking / options are tied so well together.
The other weak aspect I found with Rustic Canyon is that with the exception of the 11th -- all of the long par-4's at the course run in the same direction. The 2nd, 14th, 16th and 18th all go the same way. It would have been nice to se at least one more long par-4 go in a different direction.
I also think having five par-5' and five par-3's is one too many in each category given how the hole stack up in a collective sense. Having either the 9th or 10th as a long par-4 would add in this regard. I also believe that the 4th hole is the weakest of the par-3's even though the horseshoe shaped green is well done
During my round David Moriarty said it best. Rustic Canyon provides a sense of "fun" for all types of players. Clearly, the course is well beyond the qualities of golf in the SoCal area but that isn't really saying much since so little of high order golf is available although I believe the nearby Sky Course at Lost Canyons is a special place of a completely different character and presentation.
In re-reading this thread I agree with Gib when he said you would really never be bored with the course. Too many of the courses in SoCal and even those in nearby Nevada and Arizona are utterly pedestrian in their strategic consequences and are nothing more than the pro forma Happy Meal Design 101 presented time after time after time. It's more of the same eye-candy and downhill par-3 type holes with fronting water hazard and out-of-play flanking bunkers.
I really enjoyed Rustic Canyon and the vision it presents is clearly needed so that the golfing public can better understand what golf can be. Kudos as well to the superintendent and staff for the fine conditions given the young age of the course. I was told by those I played with that the turf was not nearly as firm as it has been. I would love to see such turf situations in a future visit.
Public golf needs more Wild Horses and Rustic Canyons. I don't know if future "tweakings" will be done, but Rustic Canyon can certainly add some elements that would only enhance the pedigree it cleary has.
P.S. One last note -- given the high price structure it costs to play golf in the Southland -- Rustic Canyon is a major league bargain at $35 and $45 on weekdays and weekends respectively! Carts are $10 extra but the course cries out to you to walk. I can't wait to return because it's a course that has "fun" written all over it.
-
Matt Ward:
Despite Tommy N's urging, I haven't made it to Rustic Canyon and so I can't respond to your detailed comments about the course. But, I was interested in your comment about the course lacking the need for a "complete marriage between power and accuracy".
A while back someone criticized Pine Valley for the penal nature of its many forced carries, pointing out that asking golfers to clear 180-200 yard hazards is too much for a very large percentage of golfers. The writer compared PV unfavorably to the Old Course, where no such requirement is present.
At the time, I had trouble with the notion that Pine Valley's forced carries were a weakness. Sure, it may not be an ideal course such as St. Andrews, but PV was never meant to be for everyone, I don't think.
I wonder if the same concept applies to Rustic Canyon. Only a small percentage of golfers can consistently hit drives more than 200 yards. Even more difficult, it seems to me, is hitting fairways. I'm guessing the bottom 50% of the golfing public doesn't hit more than a couple fairways a round.
Perhaps Geoff or Gil might comment, but I understand Rustic Canyon was conceived with these realities in mind, just like George Crump went in the completely opposite direction with the PV design.
If so, I wonder if describing the wide fairways as a "weakness" makes sense. So few golfers combine power and accuracy that I'm inclined to think challenging such players should be a secondary consideration at best.
The temptation is to argue that a golf course should be all things to all classes of golfers, from the beginner to the most skilled. But, I wonder about this notion. Perhaps it is better to discourage this ideal, to candidly acknowledge that not all courses can fit for all players.
Going this route would mean the absence of a need to marry power and accuracy is a virtue rather than a weakness.
-
Tim Weiman:
Let me further clarify the statement you mentioned. I fully understand and "get" the essence of Rustic Canyon. It is to provide wide playing angles from the tee.
As you get nearer the target / putting green the course puts high emphasis on the type of shot you will be able to hit DEPENDING upon your position from the fairway. I personally don't believe you can give endless bail-out options to the player. I'm not advocating single lane highway fairways by any means but a tweaking of the holes I indicated.
Rustic Canyon is a first rate layout that personifies rich detail and completely runs 180 degree direction away from the blah SoCal layouts you generally find. Nearly all of the putting surfaces are well crafted. And, just like Wild Horse, proves there are different ways to "test" players of varying ability levels without going into overkill with emphasis on the penal thrust of design that is often favored on many upscale daily fee designs I have played.
Tim, let me state that I believe driving the ball should be elevated and combining the two aspects (power and accuracy) I mentioned is a point of emphasis I try to assess when playing. I provided specific examples where that can be done at Rustic Canyon and such "tweaking" would not compromise the thrust of what makes the course so much fun. I personally believe it would enhance it.
-
Matt,
The reason why I like Rustic Canyon so much from the tee is because how important it is for all certain types of players to set their drives up in relation to how they are going to play the rest of the golf hole.
In the wide perspective of things, you had a pretty wide fairway there on #1, and look how you played the hole!:)
While making a great recovery, you placed yourself in-line for an easy bird. However, you still ended up with par and I sense, that for an easy opening that had to be of somewhat disappointment for you. You had your chance to score--and yes, the greens did there best to provide you with the challenge. Ironically so did #9 fairway!:)
The same would have to go with #3. With Matt's incredible length off of the tee, he was on the short and quirky 3rd, with a legitimate chance, putting for eagle.
He walked off with par.
And while that hole may have some weakness because of the width of the green, or even better, as David Moriarty has mentioned, the back-side being a tad bit too much sloped to allow the big-hitting Tiger's to roll-off into the magnificent back blind sand hazards, the hole can and does claim its vicitims.
In his feature interview, here on GCA, Robert Price said, "It is the micro forms - frequent changes of slope direction (i.e. frequent minor undulations) which provide the challenge to the golfer both on the fairways and the greens. Smooth (flat) horizontal surfaces should not be the dominant characteristic of a modern golf course! So is the characteristics of Rustic Canyon. So fine of detail in its shaping--or lack of it, yet, so different when compared to so many modern designs where it is all graded-away and renewed with undulating drifts and curls that not only look man-made and constructed but, even worse, engineered for the set-up of only one paticular shot.
The fact is, I want to be challenged no matter if I hit a great drive or not, and I can only hope that each and every challenge may be different from the next to enhance the experience. This is where the memories come from, as well as the ability to dictate GREAT golf. And wherever that drvie may come to rest. I know what is up-ahead as far as where I have to precisely place the ball on the green to achieve my goal--getting the ball into the hole in the least amount of strokes possible.
On #10 for example, as many times as I have had trouble driving on that hole, I still have hit some great shots throughout the width and area of where my length takes me. It truth, it doesn't matter where the ball is on the fairway, I just have to think of one thing--making sure I don't end up caught in the corner where I would be forced to deal with the sand hazards that lie between me and the green, as well as decided where the hole is at on the putting surface. The green is that deceptive! However, I can put my mind at ease if I don't have those hazards to carry, and only have to concentrate on the placement of the hole by not getting the ball caught in the corner and placing it 100 yards to 150 yards away from the pin. (There is actually no difference in the shot, only the skill to get the ball to run to the hole and not to try to fly it which can bring on further trouble with the right side.
Matt, it certainly was an entertaining day and hope you find the same enthusiasm on return visits as I do when I know I'm going to go out there to play the course weekend and week out.
Also, for the most part, every course I love has weaknesses, and I love each and everyone of them because they me how the game is not perfect to every shot in one's bag. I also know that those weaknesses can and do have their way with me at every chance, no matter the handicap or strength of golfer I might be.
Hopefully that is the same allure that keeps us of coming back.
-
Matt, your travels are amazing to us mere mortals :) Can't help but think you are commenting on Hidden Creek again. Is there any hole besides #5 that you wouldn't tweak at RC? How low did you go? The greens that you drove(#'s3 & 12) were the architects successful in defending par or birdie at the greensite?
Most importantly, thank you for your time, energy and honesty in making such detailed posts of your golf travels. I don't have to agree with (all or most of) your comments, but do respect you for pulling no punches.
Some bunkering on #'s 9,10 and 12 "might" work and enhance the experience but those fine and very reasonable comments get lost in the total redesign of RC that is the context of your thread. We all might benifit from what your think the greatest strenghts of this course are.
-
Matt- I couldn't help but notice that your "power and accuracy" line sounds a bit like Hootie and why they grew the rough at ANGC.
P.s. I can't say I have read all your critiques, but this one really shines as it seems much more detail oriented than others I have read in the past. Keep it up.
-
Matt Ward:
Unfortunately, I can't respond to your specific suggestions. I hope someone like Tommy N who is well familiar with the course will do so.
Let me add that I didn't read your post to mean that you didn't "get" the essence of the design. Instead, I'm just becoming more convinced that far too often we forget what the game is like for the bottom 50-60%. We forget that hitting 200 yard drives is very, very hard. Hitting fairways - or trying to place one's tee shot to one side or another of a fairway hazard is also very hard.
I appreciate that Ran began the thread by asking about RC "weaknesses". Further, I understand that the course might not challenge the most talented 10% from the tee box. But, I cringe when this feature is described as a weakness.
-
Matt Ward:
I second those who appreciate the detailed comments you provided. That's far more important than whether or not we share the same view.
-
Matt,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts about Rustic. I agree there are some areas that could be improved upon. I appreciated your detailed post and will keep it in mind the next time I play there in a few weeks.
-
Ed Getka:
Who "attacked" Matt?
-
Tommy N:
Your majesty -- please realize that in visiting the metro areas of SD, LV, Scottsdale and LA all within one week I was running a bit low on unleaded fuel when I arrived at Rustic Canyon! ;)
You also need to mention how RC presents a practice putting green that mimicked what you find at Oakmont and that the actual putting surfaces were a bit less in speed. Nice trick indeed! Anyway, given my Roberto Duran (no mas) stroke that day I did not capitalize on some scoring opportunities. I look forward to my next go round together. By the way -- I did do a fun up'n down at the 9th! Remember your keen advice?
Nonetheless, I still hold to what I said previously. I thoroughly enjoy Rustic Canyon because it DOES have a vision and it's one that allows all types of golfers the opportunity to enjoy the course.
My only narrow focus was the idea that you can't permit long hitters to simply overpower the course with impunity. There must be some sort of "penalty" that can come forward in the fairway areas. Even you, the almighty Emperor, conceded this point after I reached the fringe of the 12th with my tee shot.
Again, just examine the specific holes I pointed out and a simple tweak will only serve to elevate the overall presentation.
Brad M:
Given the dearth of quality golf in SoCal, a point the Emperor clearly acknowledges, I salute the concept of what Rustic Canyon is -- ditto Wild Horse, etc, etc.
Brad -- who said anything about a total wholesale redesign? I said the word TWEAK. A TWEAK IS NOT A REDESIGN. If you can explain to me how missing a drive DEAD RIGHT on #11 allows you to have a better angle to the green then someone who drives it down the left side and challanges the hazard please enlighten me.
As someone who relishes the long straight tee shot I also know what it takes to keep people like me from simply getting away with murder whenever the opportunity arises. That's what I stated there must be some sort of balancing between absolute raw length and laser like accuracy. Brad, go through the specific examples I mentioned in my post. Even the Emperor himself admitted no less to me about a number of points I raised.
Brad, the strength of the course is the ABSOLUTE DETAIL you find with the putting surfaces and the manner by which the aprons are cut so F-I-N-E to encourage the ground option. At many of LA's top clubs (Riviera, Bel-Air, LACC) the ground game is rather limited if not practical because of the kikuyu.
You have to bring together the flight of the ball and plan for the appropriate run with your approach after the ball lands. That takes a great degree of VINTAGE SHOTMAKING and is something rarely found at so many courses -- not just in SoCal from my experiences. It's not point-to-point stop type golf. I especially liked the boomerang par-5 13th hole, to name just one example. Thanks to David Moriarty I was able to take his advice and "feed" the ball to the hole with my 3rd shot which was a few yards off the green.
RC is about t-h-i-n-k-i-n-g! When you have such rich detail in the manner by which the greens are crafted it is clearly a winning effort from all those who collaborated.
I'll say this again -- I LOVE THE COURSE. But, fine-tuning and analyzing under a microscope is what this thread is about. I went to the course, played it from the tips, and provided some concrete examples that, I believe, answer what Ran initially wanted to get responses on.
Tim W:
My statements of weakness at RC are clear. Why are the 9th and 10th nearly copies of the same hole?
Why are all of the long par-4's, with the exception of the 11th go in the same direction?
My statements on the merits of driving the ball (i.e. marrying distance and accuracy). Why the endless bailout areas that are sometimes as wide as Kansas?
Tim, it's difficult to respond to any of the things I just mentioned because you have not played the course. Just realize this -- I concur with the feelings and comments of many who thoroughly enjoy RC. Count me as one of those people. Any person treking to SoCal who doesn't stop by and play the course will be sadly lacking in their golf portfolio. However, RC does have specific weaknesses (I use the word with the smallest of "w's") that I mentioned and if those who have played the course would like to respond specifically to the holes I mentioned I'd be happy to hear the counter point rationale. My mind's open -- just convince me. ;)
Adam:
Don't confuse me with the gang that could not shoot straight at ANGC. I'm not advocating the growing of rough (second cut is the PC term, right?) and other such bastardizations. All I suggested was a few tweaks. Heck, if nothing is changed I would still rate RC no less than a 7 to 7.5 on the Doak scale. I just think it could be "world class" as Ran stated in the very beginning. I believe a few of the suggestions I made might be a direction worth exploring. Even if nothing is done the layout has oodles of character far beyond nearly all of what you find in the SoCal area. Although I have to add, much to the chagrin of The Emperor, I still have a fondness in my heart for the Sky Course at Lost Canyons! That would certainly make for an exciting day of golf -- 18 at RC and 18 at Sky! What a total difference in philosophies and styles!
-
I played with Matt yesterday at Rustic Canyon and I would like to point out something to those of you who haven't played with him - he hits the ball a ton. He reaches places in the fairway that are not reached by 95% of golfers.
So my question to you Matt, does your extreme length color some of what you see as weaknesses at RC?
-
Matt, thanks for your additional comments that deal with some of the wonderful subtle features of RC.
From memory, leaving the ball out right on #11 might lengthen the hole by as much as 25-50 yards, vs the same drive taken down the left side, I much prefer hitting a 7-8 iron to a 3-4 iron equivalent. (for you it only might be the difference between 7 and 9 iron) That being said there could be pins that on certain days might better be attacked from the right. I will gladly defer to Tommy, David... or GS. But I don't think a bunker right in the 270-300 yard range makes much sense.
As to the issue of all the long par 4's going the same direction, I don't think that is true, the shots that best fit each of these are somewhat different in a subtle sense, but then again I could be wrong, a ariel view of the routing might better answer this question, please remember this is a somewhat narrow property.
In your follow up posts you have begun IMO to hit on what is so special about RC, those subtle features and the integration of the fairways to green, the choice on almost every shot of a different way to play it, thats right almost every shot, your option AIR or GROUND. How many coures can one make this claim of, not enough that is for sure.
-
David Kelly:
Your question to Matt is what I'm trying to get at.
A while back I reported on a study Dusty Murdock told me about. It took place down in Florida where 800 tee shots were measured and the average length was 140 yards.
That's right 140 yards.
Today 300 yard drives have become so common (for a small elite) that we have completely lost sight of how hard it is to hit 200 yard drives. It's beyond the ability of a very large percentage of golfers.
-
I was glad to get out and play with Matt because I had yet to play the course with someone who really bombs the ball (although I should note that DavidKelly, who likes to take my money at Rustic, was close to him on more than a few drives). We had a very enjoyable round, and a really appreciated his comments and observations. Likewise, I appreciate his written summary of the course. As always, he is detailed and fair, and all of the comments, both positive and negative, have some merit. At the very least, Matt has given us something to talk about regarding Rustic, other than the the unabashed praise that many of us offer.
On the 5th hole, I mentioned in jest to Matt that I don't think anyone should be allowed to comment on a course until they have played it at least 10 times. This has some merit at Rustic, which is very subtle, especially with regard to the wide fairways and the advantages and disadvantages of the different angles of approach to the greens. While I lack Matt's skill and experience as both a golfer and as a golf course analyst/critique/reviewer, I will try to address some of his comments from the persective of a hacker who has played Rustic more than a few times.
The 2nd hole is a good long par-4 of 457 yards, however, the "bathtub" bunker needs to be placed more in the middle of the fairway so that the golfer must negotiate his way either around or over. The existing bunker position favors too much towards the right side and therefore becomes less of an issue than it otherwise might have been.
I like the bathtub bunker where it is.
--First, as David Kelly has mentioned, it serves a practical purpose of encouraging the golfer on the second tee to play away from the 5th green, which is in-play from the 2nd tee (ask Gib.)
--Second, the bunker threatens the golfer who chooses to ignore the best angle of approach and tries to shorten the hole by hitting directly at the green (most pin placements favor a far left tee shot, which lengthens the hole and brings o.b. into play.) Incedently, Matt's tee-ball on the 2nd miraculously ended up just right of the bathtub and just left of the companion "cut" bunker (which is about 10-15 yrds right of the bathtub), leaving him a short approach (150 yds) from a less than ideal angle.
--Third, and perhaps most importantly, the bathtub and its companion both come into play on the 5th hole -- thus completing the picture that Matt paints of this fantastic par five. After a few times hitting "the wall" many golfers play away from the left and left-front of the green (which is protected by the wall) and toward the right and right-back of the green. This brings both the cut and bathtub bunkers into play, and adds yet another dimension to what Matt calls a "superb par-5."
The 3rd and 12th holes. I am inclined to agree that these two holes do not present much risk to those that go for the green from the tee. Both holes invite the golfer to go for the green and both offer very little downside, especially for the golfer who works the ball from right to left. While both holes offer plenty of trouble left and long (3: nasty bunkers, 12: a tightly mown slope), I have seen very few drives miss left or long (more on 3 than 12). This is perhaps because of the ample landing and approach area just right of each green. (The bunker well right of the third green is more likely to catch an errant "safe lay-up to the right" than an drive intended for the green.) That being said, these holes are great fun the way they are. And, as Tommy noted, a drive on or just off these greens certainly does not guarantee an eagle or even a birdie. If Gil et al. were to tinker with these holes I would encourage them to do so in a manner which added risk only to the most aggressive tee shots, without disturbing the wide open feel of the right routes.
Holes 9 and 10. I agree that the drives are very similar and and somewhat uneventful (this is also noted by Lynn, above), but I strongly disagree that the challenge is lacking on the second shot. Take 9. Depending on the flag, positioning is everything. For example, Matt's second shot was well right of the green, and Matt hit a very nice and creative third shot to get close to the right side pin. While Matt's shot was not easy, he was in the perfect position from which to approach that right-middle pin. If that pin were were anywhere else, the difficulty of his shot would have increased exponentially. (Gib had a similar experience, running it close from about 100 yds. to a very difficult back-left pin -- I recall that Gib was on the left side of the fairway, which is the ideal angle for a run-up to that pin.)
Hole 11. There is a big bailout right, but I disagree that going way right actually helps the golfer, especially on a left pin. First, as noted above, sticking close to the trouble shortens the hole. Second, I think the ideal approach to a left pin is from the LEFT side of the fairway, not the RIGHT, as Matt states. This is because of the spine that bisects the green from front to back. Approaches landing on the right side of the spine are likely to stay on the right side of the spine, leaving a very difficult putt. (I may be wrong-- I was distracted by my own troubles-- but I believe Matt's shot from the right side of the fairway stayed on the right side of the spine, leaving a very difficult putt.) Shots that carry the spine are likely to hit its downslope, may not hold the green, and may kick into no-man's-land.
In fact, while it is counter-intuitive to want to approach a green from the same side as the pin placement, this is often the ideal angle of approach at Rustic, because of the vertical features that exist in the middle of many of the greens (See, particularly, 9, 11, 13, and 18.)
The 4th hole. If this is the worst of the par 3's, this is great praise indeed for the other one-shot holes. At first glance, the hole doesn't appear to be much-- short, wide open in front, grassed all the way, ample green-- a hole my mother (a permanent 36 index) would love. But the 4th has proven to be one of the more interesting holes on an interesting course. The trouble seems to be caused by the hump in the middle of the green, which kicks short shots to the front and/or left, and often kicks shots to hit to the middle-back over the back of the green. I have seen more variety of shots and clubs on this tee than any other at Rustic. (I try to hit the ball low and well short of the green, hoping to kick off the downslope of a shallow swale and roll onto the green and over the hump.) I have rarely seen this hole birdied, except on extreme front pin placements. The 4th exemplies that difficult balance in golf architecture-- building a non-threatening and playable hole for the hacker, while challenging the accomplished golfer.
Long par 4's. Except for 11, they all play down-canyon. I've never thought this was a problem, since I tend to lump long par 4s with par 5s. By my count, five of the long holes play up canyon and five play down canyon.
Tommy and Brad M: I have no idea what Matt shot, but I have no doubt that Matt could shoot a much lower score with a few more laps around the track, especially once he got used to the subtle tilt of the land reeking havoc on almost every putt. But, it is worth summarizing what I have heard many accomplished golfers say after playing the course: They really like it, think it is great fun to play, but feel that it lacks challenge for the skilled golfer. They also feel that they could have gone much lower than they actually scored. It is a testament to the subtleties of the course that very few of these golfers shoot the scores that they think should have.
Thanks for your comments and company, Matt. Hope to play with you again soon. And keep up your detailed reviews, they provide a great service to the sight.
-David
-
Before answering some of the additional comments I want to say that I was mistaken in stating LACC had isues with kikuyu. That is not the case and I thank those who communicated that to me. Mea culpa!
David Kelly:
When I play a course I observe all types of players. I was even noticing how the players in front and behind us were playing the different holes.
I've said this many times before and it has been independently backed up by others here on GCA -- I don't rate courses simply in terms of my game. I rate on what a course provides and although the low handicap players as a percentage of the total are small, it's important to see how a course can deal with this type of shotmaking.
I ask you this -- does length off the tee expose RC in some of the way I mentioned? I believe so and the gentle tweakings I'm talking about are just that. I believe I understand the psyche of the better player who hits the ball long. If you don't provide some defense in terms of course design you can be sure such a player will continue a frontal assault with impunity. Is that fair to the player of modest or shorter length? Clearly, that puts a good deal of pressure on the designer because you must anticipate the nature of som many different skill levels. "World class" golf courses do that very thing time after time no matter who is playing.
When I hear the phrase "world class golf" I expect such a course to be capable in testing the better player. When the phrase "world class golf" is used I set the bar very high because you're saying plenty when that phrase is mentioned.
I still have to question how the better player is penalized on a few of the short par-4's if they decide to go with the big stick? All I suggested is that adding an additional bunker -- possibly like the "bathtub" one on #2 fairway to the front portion of holes like #3 and #12 would give the longer player something in addition to think about. Just the added element of having "something else" to think about can raise doubt when standing over the ball and getting ready to "pull the trigger." I'll give you an example of one of the best short par-4's I've played -- the 16th at Pac Dunes. At 338-yards or thereabouts the hole is simply awesome. The green can be driven with the right wind but it must be struck with utter precision. Dire straits await those who fail to properly execute. The same holds true for the 15th at Wild Horse. Compare these holes to the short par-4's at RC and I believe the argument I've made is self-evident.
On the two par-5's -- the 9th and 10th, why not add a bunker or bunkers in the manner that was done at Pac Dune's 3rd hole? Placing a hazard a good ways off the tee directly in the middle of such a large fairway would give the longer player some pause -- otherwise you simply have blast away. If I'm not mistaken the 17th at Wild Horse follows this strategy and it works quite well for those who fall asleep on the tee.
One of the odd characteristics of RC is the desire to have 5 par-5's and an equal amnount of par-3's. Was this by design? Was there no way to say have a traditional balance of four each? If anyone knows the answer to this I'd like to hear more on this subject.
Tim Weiman:
I've been around the game a little bit of time to understand the capabilities or lack thereof of the average player. When I was in high school I and in my early days in college I caddied at a private club in Jersey and saw more average golfers in most summers than many others will ever see.
However, when someone uses the phrase "world class" as Ran did in his initial post in describing RC I have to assess ANY course on the totality by which it faces ALL levels of play. And -- that does include top players and those who can hit the ball a good distance -- even though they represent such a small overall percentage. In my opinion -- you have to factor those type of players into the mix. You may feel otherwise. So be it.
I think you have this notion in your head that I am somewhat ignorant on the realities that Joe Sixpack faces when playing. I am not. When I normally play with my "gang" they include different handicap levels and each of us is able to carry the ball in the air much different yardages. I observe very carefully how a course reacts to each circumstance. A world class golf course is one that can test thoroughly the varied ability levels of players. To simply say a course is a solid layout ONLY for the high handicap player is not bad at all -- it's just not complete in my opinion and therefore a bit lacking to qualify for such a lofty distinction as "world class."
Brad M:
Again, I say this -- how does playing down the left side of #11 help with your playing angle to the green -- even if the distance is shorter? The approach from the right gives you an easier angle to nearly all of the pin placements. Sometimes having a bit more distance is not nearly as important as in having the better angle. One last point on the same hole -- let's say a bunker was placed on the right about 270-300 yards. Who is going to be influenced by that? It's not the average guy or gal -- that's for sure.
Brad, I'm not suggesting or hinting that a host of bunkers be added just for the sake of clutter. Far from it. But strategic considerations can be enhanced all the same.
The issue of long par-4's should have featured more than one hole (i.e. 11th) going in that direction. The 2nd, 14th, 16th and 18th all go in the same general direction. A great routing provides some attempt at design balance to ensure that you will be tested accordingly. Give you an example -- at Pac Dunes you have the long 7th and the long 13th. You cannot play both holes with the same wind direction unless you get the freak day and the wind turns suddenly.
Brad -- I agree with your final sentence. It would be really nice if more courses took the design approach of RC. I don't know how many people in SoCal really understand what RC is about because of all the junk food golf that exists in the region. Too many have cookie-cuttered greens with boring traps that flank so far away from the green to be downright laughable as a functional hazard.
The issue isn't how good RC is -- it's about rising to the level of being "world class." As I said before -- a few minor tweakings and then a discussion can take place regarding its claim to such an elite level.
P.S. I just wanted to add that the 6th hole -- par-3 of roughly 217 yards is one of the finest you can play. An absolute jewel of a hole. Ditto the 14th hole -- a cape hole without the water. I didn't have any wind and hit drive 9-iron from the tips, but I'd love to play that beast when the wind is coming at you big time. Wow!!! I might also add another superb putting surface as nearly all are at RC. If aspiring architects want to know how to put detail into green complexes visit RC ASAP.
-
Matt Ward:
I don't know what Ran meant by the term "world class", but I'm inclined to think that a course that is fun for the vast majority but doesn't test the ability of a small elite to hit tee shots both long and straight might still meet that standard.
Very few people can hit the ball long. A smaller percent can hit the ball straight. I doubt one percent can do both. So, why present this as something that would disqualify a course from being world class?
-
Matt,
I hope our playing partners will confirm how I told them you were on about your 50th round of the week!:) There is little doubt of your abilities here as well as the miles you put in for the week. In conversations with Matt during the week he was here, he flew into LAX; drove directly to the far end of La Quinta; drove down to Rancho Sante Fe; then back to La Quinta, drove to Las Vegas; then drove down to Scottsdale; back to La Quinta; drove to Temecula; back to La Quinta; drove to Rustic Canyon then finished out the day driving to Pasadena, and then LAX.)(and I thought Ran had energy!)
As far as the 11th, I can speak ions about that hole as it has also been a nemisis of mine to some degree. I have doubled it over and over and over, only acheiving par about once; and then about three rounds ago; actually birdied the SOB by taking on the left trap off of the tee, which actually opens up more then I had ever known!
To my surprize, it was in good shape, with an open shot to the green about 225 yards out. I then hit the best three-wood I have hit in some time with a good draw on it and it hit the front of the approach and scrambled right to the middle left pin, where I properly sunk the putt.
Amazed? I was totally in shock! But of course it was short lived after doubling the 12th!
I have played all over the 11th, and I can say no matter what that if you are not able to carry that short of the green fairway bunker then you best lay-up, and do it short of the hazard taking the left out of play. Why? Because the greenside waste bunker that you saw me in yesterday is similar to the Road Hole bunker in regards to a certain "magnetism" that just pulls about any shot that comes close to it, in.
If one has the gotchies and can get to what looks like the extreme left from the tee or even in the center of the fairway, you can hit a draw into the left pin placement. But as far as the right side of the green.........I still have to learn a thing or two hundred about that one!
David M,
I think it my be also intersting to note that the right green side bunker at the 5th is a sort of large Road Hole-effect hazard as anyone near it sort of just folows the drop-off into it.
I love the fact that I can play Rustic Canyon with a half-mediocre driving game and have the same ball at the end of the day. That is unlike a course, say like Lost Canyons--Shadow where it is a given that you will lose the majority of your drives with the same type of play. Who wants to spend all day looking for lost golf balls that really weren't that far off line?
-
Well, if one played RC over the Thansgiving holiday, holes 3 and 12 would seem a wee bit tame. A buddy played on Tuesday morning and I played Thursday morning; both days in with wind gusts that hit 40. My friend hit the 3rd green and my tee ball ended up on the 4th tee box. My 68 year old father hit his tee shot 285 yards on #3.
That said, 12 is too much like 3, but less so. Therefore, I suppose that would be a weakness of RC.
-
Tim
While I am glad that Rustic was built taking the mid- and high-handicappers into consideration, I don't think we need to eliminate the upper echelon when critiquing the course. Matt should certainly question Rustic's ability to stand up against the longest and the straightest hitters. (The fact that Matt is one of these rare golfers is beside the point.) I think the course holds up just fine against these golfers.
By the way, many of the golfers that regularly play Rustic can and do challenge the 12th and 3rd greens (both are down canyon and play substantially shorter than their yardage), especially when they play the appropriate tees. Many also challenge the longest holes on the course, including the uphill par fives.
As I said to Matt, Rustic is a course I could play with a scratch golfer and my mother and we could all have fun. If we had to eliminate the scratch golfer from the above statement, my opinion of the course would suffer. Fortunately, I think the course holds up just fine, against a the good, the bad, and the ugly.
That being said, 18 is a hole where we may want to take Matt's view with a grain of salt: He hit is drive on 18 well right of the corner, over all of the trouble and left himself a wedge to the green. The area he refers to as the right bail-out area, is, unfortunately for me, the preferred line for those of us who cannot clear all the trouble. Had he missed his huge drive to the left of the fairway bunkers he would probably have cleared the "bail-out" and been o.b.
-
Matt,
I wonder if Hanse & Co. realized just how much shorter the holes going down the canyon would play because of the slope. Maybe Geoff could fill us in. I say that because at 319yds and 340yds (312yds and 335yds from the blues) holes 3 & 12 play much shorter than they look on the card.
The only thing I would do to #12 would be to allow the grasses and weeds down the left side and around the left bunkers to grow back so that they pose more of a threat to the golfer standing on the tee. If it looked as if recovery would be very hard from that area it would make golfers play farther out to the right and away from the green. Even with a sand wedge in your hand it is very hard to get the ball close to just about any pin position on the 12th green.
The one suggestion you made that I agree with you on the more I think about it is putting in a bunker on the right side of the 11th fairway about 270-300 yds out. As it is now I almost always aim for that area and blast away and I am often hitting my second from in front of the teeing area of #12. While I don't think this gives me a better angle to the green it does eliminate problems down the left side. Just something small like in the dead grass area we were looking at would change my approach off the tee.
As for adding fairway bunkers in the middle of #9 and/or #10, how far out would you put them? I say that because I think the Principal's Nose bunker on #13 is in a perfect spot even though you and I do not have much difficulty going over it even from the back tees. However that bunker presents a problem and requires a decision on the tee from most golfers who play the hole.
-
David Moriarty:
It's tempting to argue that a course should play for "all types of players", including the top one percent. But, I think in building golf courses, like many other things in life, we tend to err in one direction or another.
It's far better to err in the direction of not worrying about a small elite, than to make the opposite mistake. From what I've heard, the designers of RC had their priorities straight.
Anyway, I'm curious how often people are shooting in the mid sixites at Rustic Canyon. Is this happening very often? Can you just bomb away without also having a good short game?
-
Tim,
I believe the course record is 67, which has not been matched. I have also heard that only a few (including Freddy Couples with a 69) have gone under 70.
I have also heard that Steve Pate plays Rustic with some regularity, as well as a few other pros and a many more aspiring pros. Also, a very large skins game amongst better players takes place once a week.
I heard from one of the assistants that Steve Pate and another pro played 18 in the high winds last week, and came into the clubhouse laughing and asking to play another 9 holes.
Giving up on building for all types of players is giving up some of the beautiful things about golf, such as average people being able to play and enjoy the same courses as the golfing gods, as well as people of differing abilities enjoying the game together.
-
Anyway, I'm curious how often people are shooting in the mid sixites at Rustic Canyon.
As far as I know they're not. I believe the course record is 66 or 67 and players such as Fred Couples, David Berganio and Steve Pate have had a crack at the course.
Can you just bomb away without also having a good short game?
Yes you can bomb away but a good and imaginative short game is required to score well. I can bomb away with most but DO NOT have a good and imaginative short game and hence I do not score well. Or at least as well as I think I should.
-
More than most people I have played with Matt is very concerned with and solicitious of the opinions of people of all levels. However, i do believe we are going down a slippery slope here with the use of the term "world class". It means different things to different people just as i am sure Ran and Matts rankings differ.
Perhaps the reason i am a little sensitive to this is that most non-architecture junkies would equate "world class" with "championship" with "difficult". This process has led to the disfigurement of many classic courses. the natural progression is a recent conversation I had with someone about my classic course where they said "some of the holes are not championship holes???? I guess the twelve handicap is putting for par a little to often.
Is anything wrong with "world class" meaning a top modern design?
-
DMoriarty:
My understanding is that 99% of the golfers can enjoy RC together. That last 1% is so insigificant that we shouldn't worry so much about them.
-
Gentlemen:
I agree that the use of the two world phrase -- world class, can mean different things to different people. In my mind -- a course that attains such a lofty standing is one fully capable in getting and maintaining the interest of all types of players -- including those who are low handicap players and those fully capable in hitting the ball a 'decent' ways of the tee. I use as an example the final sentence used by Tom Doak in his decription of Shinnecock Hills -- "A great course to play every day, as well as a proven championship venue, not many courses can claim both." That sentence describes for me what the term "world class" means. It obviously means other things for others. It is for that reason why Shinnecock is to me the finest golf course I've played in the States.
To set the record straight I played Rustic Canyon with three fine gentlemen who know the course as well as they know their own families and I'm glad I had them in tow when I was there. To simply tee it up without such company would have required more visits to understand the "base" complexities of RC.
Second, the wind the day I was there, was clearly not at Santa Ana force -- thank heavens for that. But, I often find discussions about courses can be distorted when the conversations invariably start with either how 'demanding' or 'easy' the hole / course played because of such wind conditions. There was enough of a win to effect certain holes but the conditions were quite stable.
The detailing of the green complexes at RC is clearly world class when compared to what is available for the non-affiliated golfer to sample if that is how the term is applied to some. I only wish Bethpage Black could have such complex and facinating green complexes instead of the circular cookie-cutter types you find there for the most part.
Corey M:
You are dead on target. The average golfer and even those I break bread with in golf media person only understand "world class" golf in terms of naked difficulty. Nothing could be further from the truth. I may come across as a person who is viewed as just advocating difficulty for the sake of difficulty but, I believe, is not accurate.
RC is a superb course and one with gentle tweakings could rise even further. I am fully aware that such a statement can be viewed in the answer you gave in your most recent post --to wit, that would mean to a disfigurement of what the course superb from the get-go.
RC is a top modern design -- no doubt. I just define "world class" in a different manner. I've played a number of superb courses that are breathing down your neck with difficulty crammed into every nook and corner. But remember this -- adding strategic questions to a golf course is not necessarily adding sheer difficulty. It's a small distinction but one I believe people here on GCA can understand.
Corey, you are right -- too often the "12 handicap" players you speak about (there are also others) who value difficulty for the sake of difficulty. I don't believe that's been my point on how RC can become a much more fascinating course with additional shotmaking options.
Tommy N:
I hear you loud and clear about Lost Canyons Shadow partner. I'm not a proponent about that 18-hole course, but I do like Sky which also has its fair share of detractors.
Tommy, all I was saying is that Sky gives you the Dye feeling of intimidation when you step on the tee. I said this to you before that I believe the Sky could certainly use a few "tweaks" itself starting with the lame finishing hole. I indicated to you previously that management could easily extend the back tee at the 18th a good 30-40 yards and with the downhill nature of the hole you could really have a superb closer for those capable in handling the hole from that position. The guy who sits in the bleachers at Dodger Stadium should NEVER even go beyond the middle tees at the course!
The Sky and RC are as different as night and day. RC is not about intimidating you with forced carries and tough angles and a host of fairway bunkers that will grab you as quick as zombie on a dark night. If you are not hitting the tee ball with a good share of distance and control LC / Sky will eat your lunch and you / me at the same time. I have a fond preference for both styles, however, I can clearly see how people (yourself and others) can easily view RC as being light years beyond that of LC and a host of the upscale daily fee courses that feature the bombardment of obstacles as their sine qua non.
That is why I really like Pete Dye and those associates of his who have followed in the way he has designed courses. However, I also have a preference for those styles that call upon the golfer in a much different way. What Gil Hanse and his talented collaborators have done at RC is truly special and I'll say this again -- if you trek to SoCal and don't get over to Moorpark and play there your golf portfolio is indeed much emptier than it should be.
David K:
We agree on a few things -- why not just move / extend the frontal bunker in the fairway at #3 back at best 10-15 yards. This would make the carry a bit longer and prevent anything but your Sunday best from taking that aggressive line. I also think adding either one or two pot bunker types on the line at #12 would likewise do the same thing.
What's ironic is that someone like me, who does hit the ball a decent ways off the tee, is suggesting strategies to ensure some sort of balance / fairness for all levels of players -- especially those who can't or won't take that type of aggressive play off the tee. I referenced other short par-4's on daily fee facilities that do the vey thing I just mentioned. A simple tweak or two at #3 and #12 will do the same.
As far as yardage is concerned I don't know how much shorter the holes are down canyon, but as you know the course was a bit "softer" than it normally is as you, David M and Tommy N mentioned to me during our time together.
Regarding the par-5's 9th and 10th. There needs to be some sort of thinking man's obstacle off the tee and in challenging the second shot. You cannot have similiar type holes where the thinking ONLY occurs as you settle in for your third shot. Regarding some sort of middle placed fairway bunker -- I say follow the example of what Doak did at #3 at Pac Dunes, as just one example, or the 13th at RC -- although I believe that bunker could have been moved a bit further back, however, that's just a trivial concern of mine.
The fairways at #9 and #10 are extremely wide enough to accomplish this. Again, what I am suggesting is that par-5's need to have strategic implications when you step on the tee -- look at #5 at RC as a great example.
Also, when you have two par-5's that go in the same direction and are roughly the same yardage -- there needs to be some sort of differentiation between them.
I'm glad we see "eye-to-eye" on the fairway bunker on the right side of #11. Drop in a bunker about 270-300 yards on that side and all of sudden the better player has to THINK doubly about where to put one's tee shot. Just the added THINKING element only serves to add to the qualities the hole already possesses and now brings the left side danger back into some sort of meaning / implications.
But, that's been my point about RC. The tee game strategies are no less important than what was clearly accomplished with the green complexes. The world class golf courses engage thinking the minute you set foot on the tee box and continue the mind game through to the last putt. There are a number of holes where the tee game strategy is well done. I happened to notice how you and I played the 480-yard 16th hole. You choose a three-metal, I believe, in order to stay short of where the hole begins to turn and somewhat bottle-necks. A very smart play since you would still have nothing more than a mid-iron to the green that sits below the fairway. I, on the other hand, hit driver and finished about 150 yars out. In retrospect, your decision makes far better sense because you eliminate the trouble that creeps in from the left. That is the type of tee game thinking I am speaking about.
Tim Weiman:
If you don't have a sound short game you WILL have LITTLE success at RC. See my remarks above for the point I am making for the total incorporation of all types of shots.
-
Thannks guys for a lively and thoughtful discussion. Being a regular player there, I have enjoyed it.
I believe the course records from the back tees are still--
67--Alex Galvan, golf coach at Loyola Marymount U. and class "A" pro. Good local player for many years.
67--J.T. Kohut, former UCLA player. He missed by one shot from advancing to the second stage of Tour qualifying.
I believe Couples shot 68 in his visit. I believe John Pate shot 68. Fine amateur, brother of Steve.
-
Fantastic reading - thanks, guys! Although I have played this course but once, it is near and dear to my heart, so I really enjoyed all this talk. I am very glad Matt's assessment came out as it did though - if ever there is a course that can seemingly be overpowered by the long hitter, Rustic is it. I personally don't mark the course "down" much for that, as the people who can do this are such a tiny percentage of the golf world, but Matt am I very glad you are consistent in your assessments! That's what I meant when I said WAY up above that I wanted to read what Matt said about it... both because I do find Matt to be so often right on, and because several others have mentioned to me off-line this facet of Rustic, and Matt has often said how he likes to see "pressure on the tee shot" and all too often it's not there at Rustic. Matt is spot on re all of this.
That being said, how much this "matters" is open to debate for sure as the greens sure do "protect" the course and prohibit truly low scoring by anyone....
I too am curious re #11, btw. In my one time there, I looked at it and figured hmmm... tempting the left MUST be rewarded... but I'm with Matt - it really doesn't seem to be... I hit a freakin' great drive (for me), actually producing a draw that was as far left as one could be, and still be on the fairway... I was faced with a full 165 yards all carry all over the bunker... I would have been way better off 40 yards right - could have gone right up the length of the green. Tricky hole... and I read all the other assessments of this... but I remain unconvinced that just blindly blasting the ball out to the right isn't the best play. Why NOT do this? Why risk the crap on the left at all?
I kinda like this hole in any case, just because it produces all this disagreement. If the right-thinking people here can't agree on the best way to play a hole, that speaks volumes. I'd venture to say there are a few others on Rustic that could elicit this....
Best bang for your buck in golf: Rustic Canyon. Weaknesses? Hell, maybe there are some... but the debate on that even continues!
TH
-
Tom Huckaby:
I'm a huge fan of "pressure on the tee shot".......at the US Open where I love the idea of narrow fairways (26-28 yards) and very thick, penal rough.
For everyday play, however, pressure on the tee shot does more to take away enjoyment for the vast majority, so much so that a course that avoids it should be given extra points.
It sounds to me like Rustic Canyon got the tradeoff correct.
Remember, not many people can hit a golf ball 200 yards. Even fewer people can hit a golf ball 200 yards and straight. Emphasizing pressure on the tee shot, will just make the game more frustrating for most people.
My advice for anyone who feels unchallenged by a course like RC would be to get out their old persimmon drivers and see how much more fun the game would be.
Sure, twenty years ago I could hit my Powerbilt 300 yards without too much difficulty. But, hitting it 300 yards and straight was much tougher.
It sounds like Matt is just playing with the wrong clubs.
-
Tim:
I am with you on this, for the most part. Note above where I conjecture as to how much "pressure on the tee shot" matters... I understand completely how irrelevant this is for the VAST majority of golfers...
Rustic Canyon is FUN, FUN, FUN. It fills a niche most definitely of affordable golf that makes one think. To that end it succeeds tremendously as a great golf course.
BUT... Matt's requirement for pressure on the tee shot is a valid one and does matter - to what extent is what's debatable.
People aren't going back to persimmon, nor does one need to do so to enjoy Rustic Canyon. Read all of Matt's praise for the course....
The point here is, I think, that in a consideration of whether Rustic deserves to be "world class", this is a definite negative. That's all, no more, no less.
And for a course that really doesn't TRY to be anything other than it is - low key, no frills, fun, strategic affordable golf - does this conversation even need to happen?
TH
-
Great discussion, so many points to respond to that I'll try to keep it brief.
The short par-4 issue with 12 and 3 has been discussed before here, and I'll say again that I love the idea that people think about whaling away without consideration for any other option on #12. God bless 'em if they can hit a 330 yard draw and avoid the trouble left and negotiate the green. There are plenty of hard holes to come and this was definitely meant to be a par 3-1/2. I can't speak for Gil or Jim, but this swing away with driver concept was not my hope for #3. It was intended to ask for a little more deliberation on the tee depending on the hole location. This green looked superb in the mix stage but for some reason with grass on it, just came out tilted more to the fairway, and about 100 sq. feet larger than I had hoped. I think if it were a long, "thinner" looking green without the high collar rough on the back side, that the flip wedge shot would intimidate more as it was intended. Firm ground would help too. The OB/road and front greenside bunker aborb a lot of hooks when the ground is firm.
As for #11, I don't think a 270-300 bunker would add much in the way of positive thought, but instead, just more "don't go there" obedience golf which wasn't what we were after off that tee. Instead, I think the bail out drive would be at a severe disadvantage if the course played more firm, as the green slopes, again assuming firmness, would reward drives in the fairway and make approaches from way right much more difficult.
In fact, I would be hesitant to change anything because many of the places where the architecture seems off kilter may be directly related to the ground and the fact it is playing soft. I know there was one week where the greens sped up and the summer heat had things firm, and rounds played much longer. So there is a balance that should be met that would make it easier to evaluate places to tweak.
Finally, you can imagine the humor I find in all of the good players who've let me know it's a nice course, but a little on the easy side, and yet, they haven't seem to have broken 70 yet! Or even broken par, and that's with five par-5's and soft conditions. Ah...scratch golfers...
:)
Geoff
-
VERY well said, Geoff. I'm far from a scratch myself, played what was a great round for me, and came away with a score that had me thinking the whole drive home "why wasn't that lower?" Rustic is gonna do that to people for sure - it's all in the ingenious greens!
Don't know that I'd advocate any changes also - really firm and fast and that course is gonna tear people up as you say and make rounds take forever. Sure would be fun that way though with no one else around...
Particularly re #11 - great thoughts - interesting to me how the debate goes re that. I must say I was really fooled, and I'm still up in the air as to which is the better way to go. Right SEEMS to be better, going up the green... but left is shorter... I kinda think one could play this forever and never come to any conclusion. To me that means a great golf hole.
Same goes for 12. Oh hell yeah, bang away. I can't hit a 330 yard draw - nor a 300 yard draw as is needed from a block up - but still, bashing it out as far as you can just seems to be a natural play there. Why not? Ahhhh... but there's the rub.... that green is such a killer it really doesn't matter where you put the tee shot, you're gonna have an interesting and tough second no matter what! So keep that just as is, thank you...
And re #3, as I told you off line my group of 4 players played that 4 completely different ways. Yes, for the really strong player it is just bash away, but again he has a tough green to deal with... the genious there is how much thought is required for everyone else... it was very cool how our group did - I bashed over (and barely made it, just short of green); my dad went short and right; lefty brother took left route; bro-in-law went long and right... all four had interesting seconds... the only one who made birdie was my Dad, who hit 4iron, 6iron... classic!
TH
-
Tom Huckaby:
I enjoyed your response, especially your suggestion that the debate may be something we shouldn't even waste time on.
But, why not go back to persimmon? If the course really is too easy because of the lack of pressure off the tee, wouldn't using more appropriate technology be the best solution? Isn't that the lesson Simpson was teaching us years ago?
FYI, I did recently get out my old driver and had difficulty hitting much more than 250 yards in wet conditions. Man, you wouldn't believe how much more fun that is. It makes the standard 300 yard drives with steel heads and graphite drivers seem pretty boring. Gosh, how much we have lost!
Geoff:
You guys got it right from all I hear.
-
Tim:
Just to clarify: discussion of the merits of the course is very worthwhile. Debating whether it should be considered among the world's greats is what seems pointless to me.
And no, the titanium driver is not going back in the bottle, not for guys like Matt, not for anyone. It's fun to do and sure, I've done it also - but then again I don't hit it all that far with the rocket launcher I carry these days!
In any case, I doubt Geoff and Gil want this to be a museum piece and force people to use old technology - the point is one doesn't HAVE TO to enjoy the course and be challenged! Nevertheless it can be overpowered, and remember this course was built in 2001, with full knowledge of today's technology. For some this lack of pressure on the tee shot is a negative, for others it doesn't matter... thus the debate.
TH
-
Tim Weiman:
You really have to help me out here. How do you weigh in with an opinion on a golf course you HAVE NEVER played?
I have an issue with this because I've always believed that actual field work (i.e. going to the site in question) is the only real way to fully understand what is present.
You are surmising things from the comments of others -- not from any personal experience with Rustic Canyon. How credible is that? I want to also emphasize something you overlooked, but Tom H did not. I really do love Rustic Canyon. The course is affordable and the level of detail for the green complexes is something many architects should emulate.
All I spoke about is the lack of tee shot strategies on a number of the holes. Not all of them. All of a sudden you start to segway into some inane linkage to what is done at the US Open / re: driving skill. Hello Tim -- that's not my point at all.
Geoff S:
I played the course one time and look forward to returning. I salute you, Gil and all the others who developed such a fine course. However, I believe there are weaknesses at the course and I would hope those who designed the course take those comments for what they are meant to be.
The 3rd green is much too big for the type of hole it is intended to be. How does not having a strategically placed bunker just short of the green take away from the hole. Ditto the placement of a bunker on the right side of #11? You also did not mention the idea of having some sort of middle fairway located bunker in the driving zone for either #9 or #10. Both of which are similar length par-5's that run in the same direction.
What about the bulk of the long par-4's running in the same direction?
Geoff, I would hope that those who built the course do not fall in love with all the legitimate praise so that they develop deaf ears to counter points when raised. To give you a comparable example -- I am a big fan of Bethpage Black but I am also quite aware of the shortcomings of that marvelous course.
Again, I love Rustic Canyon and believe it's something any person who treks to the SoCal area MUST play.
-
Even though I think a bunker on #11 would work if I were in charge of Rustic Canyon I probably wouldn't do anything- if only because I wouldn't want to start a precedent for making changes to the course.
However what I would do is to try to get the the tall grasses and weeds to grow again in areas like the hazards on #1 & #3, the right side of #10 from about 150yds out, the left sides of #11 and #12, and around a lot of the bunkers. Maybe they will grow out again in the spring but I know a lot of it was cut down.
And I would have seriously rethought the plans for the clubhouse.
-
Matt Ward:
You are in danger of suggesting that people who haven't played a particular course can't meaningfully participate in a discussion about it. I've done enough "field work" in my day to know that isn't true.
Go back and you will see I did not question your assessment that the marriage of power and accuracy was not tested throughout the entire course. Having not seen the course, it would be pretty silly for me to do so.
Rather, I questioned your assumption that this feature should be considered a "weakness". Big difference.
-
Tim Weiman:
I don't mind differences of opinion when people have actually been to a course in question. Actual field work trumps comments from the peanut gallery everytime in my book. This includes gleaning things from aerials and all such related aspects. When you or anyone else throws in comments about a course you have NEVER played the issue of credibility clearly arises.
If you played the course you would better able know the "context" by which I made my statement concerning how the course is weak in the areas of tee game strategy -- particularly when you look at the details carried out with nearly all the green sites.
Look Tim, I'm not going to get a tennis match in volleying back and forth on this subject. It's been covered before many times and I know my position and I don't need you to lecture me about how you believe you can do otherwise. Suffice to say we agree to disagree.
-
Matt Ward:
When a person begins by acknowledging they haven't played a particular golf course, it hardly seems their credibility is in question.
Credibility is more in question if a person suggests that only those who have played a course can meaningfully comment, as you did with your comment "field work trumps comments from the peanut gallery".
Consider the statement "one weakness Pine Valley has is forced carries". Does one really need to have played the golf course to take issue with this statement?
-
Matt;
Thanks for the lively discussion.
I have a lot of thoughts, but little time at present. I would like to weigh in quickly on the 11th hole, however, because I do believe that hugging the left side and challenging the hazard has considerable benefits. They include;
1) Shortening a lengthy par four that plays even longer "up-canyon".
2) An approach that doesn't require a carry over the right-front bunker.
3) An angle of approach that works "into" the slope, and may be the only place to get to a right side hole location on THAT green for most players. (for those who haven't been there, RC's 11th green is almost two greens, bisected down the middle by a ridge.
4) The left side features sort of a natural turbo boost feature that can propel properly placed drives even further.
The following photos illlustrate my points.
The tee shot, showing lots of room to the right and a risky angle left;
(http://www.golfclubatlas.com/images/RC11t.jpg)
The long approach if one bails right, showing the turbo boost and preferred position to the left, and the right front bunker. Incidentally the hole location in the pic is on the left side, but imagine it behind the bunker on the right.
(http://www.golfclubatlas.com/images/RC11a.jpg)
The approach angle from the left from closer to the green than one can drive, but still showing the angle as well as the fact that one is working the second shot "into" the prevailing slope.
(http://www.golfclubatlas.com/images/000004021.jpg)
The green itself, looking rightside to left from behind.
(http://www.golfclubatlas.com/images/RC11.jpg)
Thanks again, Matt, for your fine and thoughtful report! ;D
-
Pictures speak many words. Thanks, Mike!
See, in my newbie inexperience the one time there, I didn't focus on where the pin was... which was back left. To that pin, I can't see ANY advantage of going left on the drive. Yeah, I might get the turbo boost and shorten the hole... but my angle into the back left pin is so much better from the right side, I'll take 50 yards back and coming from there.
So the lesson here is check the pin position!
This remains a wonderful golf hole.
TH
-
Tom Huckaby;
To a back left pin from the left side of the fairway, couldn't you just hit your patented draw and work the ball of the center feature on the green and use the existing slope to get it scurrying back there??
Ok..except for the "patented draw", doesn't that seem to be a reasonable play looking at the pic again? ;) ;D
-
Mike C:
Appreciate your thoughts and well done pictures!
Mike, my point is a simple one -- if you have a bunker ont he right side about 270-300 yards you actually force back into play the left side and all its inherent dangers. In other words, a right bunker actually pinches in the better player. You cannot simply blast away and go from there.
It's no less than the thinking that went into the placement of fairway bunkers on the 18th hole at ANGC. As you well know Jack Nicklaus, among others, had made a habit of driving far left to avoid any possibility of hitting the tight tree line up the right side. Even though the angle from far left was not the most desirable it did allow the player to play a second shot without risk of being impeded. The fairway bunkers changed that thinking and in doing so made for a better hole, in my opinion.
Keep in mind that although hitting it "dead" right on #11 at RC may not produce an optimum angle to all pin placements it does in effect take out the possibility of making a six on the hole. If you snipe it left and either lose your ball or get a very bad lie then all bets are off regarding score.
I would also add that even if you hug the left side you do not get a free pass to all pin placements. When the pin is set dead left you still have a demanding second shot EVEN after you've challenged that side. I believe it's a bit better coming from from the right.
My larger point is that the details of the green complexes is clear -- what's needed on a few holes at RC is a tee game strategy that works hand and glove together. At some holes you have it as I previously mentioned (i.e. 5th, 16th, to name just two) while at others you don't or its considerably less so.
Again, just for the record, I love the course, but if anyone is suggesting that RC is perfect or beyond slight modifications I think they being far too protective.
-
Mike,
You are right that it is advantageous to play down the left side on 11 as better approach angles open up on your second shot. It is just that the disadvantages of coming in from the right are not enough to dissuade me from trying to drive the ball to that side to keep away from the problems along the left.
-
Matt;
Please read my reply to Tom Huckaby re: approaching 11 to a back left pin, only this time...I'm SERIOUS about the "patented draw"! (Tom's got the Bob Murphy fade going ;)) I KNOW you could sling one back there, using the center green feature and contour to work one back there easily!
Your larger points are well-noted, and they are certainly food for thought. I particularly think the 3rd hole might not be quite working as well as intended, even according to Geoff Shack's earlier post.
9 & 10 are two back to back drives without a lot of demand from the tee and one of them might be an interesting candidate for some cross-bunkering.
As far as 18, it doesn't sound as though you played the hole like a mere mortal, but most of us have to consider that the corner is an awfully penal and deadly feature. The hole plays VERY long for those of us who chickened out left. :)
-
Unfortunately Mr. Cirba has played enough golf with me to know my rightist limitations. Me and draw go together like Notre Dame and getting a first down against USC. ;)
So yes, maybe this is again MY personal limitations talking... but still, even if I could hit a comfortable draw, I still don't see going left side being worth the risk, with a back left pin. The angle from the right just seems so much easier... it would be pretty simple to hit a straight shot over the green spine from the right. Like DanK says, is risking the crap on the left worth it at that point?
Pin on right side, heck yeah, it's worth it. Left - I just don't see it, even with your wonderful pics and having been there!
TH
-
Just a short note, I have enjoyed the discussions, it is great to know that we have built something that inspires thought. I think that inspiring thought is indeed the true role of the architect. The other aspect that I love is that the word FUN keeps coming up, it was definitely our intention to build a course that was fun to play.
As for the specific points: Hole 3 : lots of internal discussion on this hole ;), and some merit should be given to the thoughts of adding a bunker, or certainly changing the grass type on the back slope that would feed more balls into the left hand bunkers. Hole 9: We absolutely fell head over heels in love with the natural contours in the ground and felt that the vagary of the lies, and bounces would serve to provide enough interest to the tee shot and subsequent shots. Hole 10: After our visit in May, Geoff, Jim, and I submitted a plan to add bunkering to the right and center of the hole off the tee, to add more character to the shot, and distinguish it from the 9th hole. The owner has not decided to let us implement it yet, we are hopeful to get a shot at it this winter. Hole 11: Mike Cirba hit it on the head with his description of the different approaches depending on the hole location, and Geoff's comments about adding a negative aspect to the hole were also part of the equation. Hole 18: Even after throwing an architectural hissy fit we could not overturn the owners decision to put up the fence and the artificial turf in the range. Large scale plantings are on the plan to help to hide these disappointing aspects of the facility.
Thanks for all of the thoughts,
Gil
-
Gil, thanks, stop being such a stranger :)
-
Matt,
I think it would be best to allow you explaination when it comes to disagreeing with Tim Weiman.
You see, Tim and I talk about 10-12 times a week (No fooling) and during the construction of Rustic Canyon, I more or less told him everything I saw and learned in the days I got to visit the site. While he may have this intimate view of the course while never actually having been there in person, he was also invited to the grand opening and unfortunately had to cancel at the last minute due to other personal agenda. I personally emailed him many pictures from the events of the day.
Knowing Tim VERY well, and realizing his views as a TRUE student of the art, I would think it be in the best interest for all of us to allow him some levity and freedom to speak. Like yourself he is very well traveled; an excellent person and a discerning voice to any discussion.
-
Tommy:
Thanks.
As we discussed, this site has seen excesses in the form of people expressing strong opinions about an architect without seeing much of his work or about one particular golf course without ever seeing it.
So, understandably, people (myself included) have cautioned against that sort of thing.
But, I worry as much about a form of elitism developing at GCA whereby one's resume of golf course experiences substitutes for careful thinking about golf archecture principles. When a person suggests someone who hasn't seen a course is part of a "peanut gallery", a warning flag about that elitism problem should go up.
"Field work", as some here have called it, is most useful if the goal is to provide course descriptions. But, hopefully we go beyond simply providing descriptions and advance to the point of discussing golf architecture concepts. Clearly, a guy like Simpson, writing before modern means of transportation were available, didn't expect his readers had seen or played the courses he described. That's part of what makes Simpson so good: he valued the importance of explaining architecture concepts far more than just filing a travel report.
I regret missing the Rustic Canyon get together you mentioned, but after seeing hundereds of golf courses and a large portion of the world's best, you realize that you actually don't need to see a course to understand the design concept. Indeed, there are many golf architecture concepts one could discuss without having to go see every example one might find. Do you really need to see every blind shot in the world to discuss this concept? Do you need to fall into every pot bunker to have an opinion about this form of defense? Do you need to putt on every green to discuss matters like green contour and speed?
Obviously, one doesn't need to see any particular golf course to question whether the failure to test "power and accuracy" off the tee really constitutes a "weakness". A better case could probably be made that such features are a strength: why design a course to test something that 99% of the golfers can't do?
I'm glad courses like Rustic Canyon and Pacific Dunes were designed by serious students of golf architecture, people smart, strong and wise enough not to worry about golfers with the most extraordinary skills.
I was very fortunate during my oil industry days to travel widely and see lots of great golf courses, but these days I think I learn more down at the local muni where people who can hit a golf ball 200 yards and straight are few and far between.
-
David:
Thanks for all the thoughts here. Let me clarify a few things re my take - remember I've just played there once, also, so take this with an ocean of salt:
Re #11 - What I meant to say is that it's such a tougher shot to a left pin from the left side, why bother trying to keep in left when the pin's there? You say to me:
"I still think that challenging the left hazard on No. 11 (435) really opens up the green, and makes birdie possible for a left pin placement. I haven't seen birdies from the right to convince me otherwise. Tom Huckaby, if you can carry the ridge that bisects the green (which, as you may recall, is bigger than it looks in the picture) and still hold the green from the right side, more power to you."
I honestly don't see how being left helps to a left pin. I was there and I was staring at a long shot, all carry over the left bunker, really wishing I was over the right where I wouldn't have to carry that bunker and could just bounce the ball in, up the length of the green. How is this shot somehow easier from the left? That I am completely missing... but please do explain. As for coming from the right, again I only watched shots from there but they all ended up better than me coming from the left, thus my impression. None of them carried the ridge, but two of them bounced up and over it with little problem...
Re #2: your impression is true IF the course is kept firm and fast. It was pretty soft when I was there and in soft conditions, the strategy is lost. I lost a drive way right, had 210 in, and rifled a 2iron that hit on the green and HELD, about 2 feet from its pitchmark. Firm and fast and I would have been screwed from the right for sure...
TH
-
This is neat to read discussion of #11 tee shot strategy and approach because eons ago when we had just routed the course, I posted a question about the need to be able to see a pin placement on holes that required some decision about being on a preferred side off the tee. It was a rather hotly debated subject to my surprise. This was the hole in question.
Ultimately, placement based on the hole location became a little less black and white for #11, but I don't think to the detriment of the hole because the green Gil crafted exceeded anything I could have seen for that greensite. The array of views expressed here suggests that even in soft conditions, the hole is more of a preferential choice for the approach angle. Though I stll believe that drives bailing out right (well not the 300 yarders) are penalized by lengthening the hole significantly, and by having a much less inviting target.
Personally, I hate hitting a shot from the right across to the left with a hazard to catch the pull. So I think there is a great reward for hitting down the left side, to be setup to hit away from the hazard and to the left pin.
We all have our preferences and the hole evolved into this type of "preferential strategy," which is just fine by me since it works for several holes at the Old Course, and definitely is more conducive to faster, more forgiving play, a big key for a public course. I always thought this subjective strategy was the beauty of #11 at Augusta pre rough, hearing how everyone had a different view on which side of the fairway was best (some wanted to hit directly into the green from the right, some would much rather hit over and away from the water). It's a bit like field goal kicking and setting up which hash marks your kicker wants to kick from (well, that's in college football anyway). To each his own, but you still have to pull off the shot.
Geoff
-
Damn that was well said, Geoff. As an inveterate fader of the golf ball, you can understand my bias re coming from the left... but you really nailed this one, my friend. Well done.
I was just bummed when on 11 tee, I pulled off a miracle shot for me - a DRAW of all things - and then saw what I was faced with, as opposed to my playing partners all of whom went way right. I wanted more of a reward for pulling off the tee shot, that's all! ;)
But damn, I've said a few times on this thread and I'll say it again: any hole that elicits this much discussion and this much disagreement is all right by me. I love holes that need to be figured out. Sounds like #11 never will!
It is helpful for us faders if we can see the pin placement, true. But hell, we'll live. With a little effort we can figure it out!
TH
-
David M:
Without sounding like a repetitive devil's advocate let me mention a few things, but before I do I will say again that I truly love RC and can't wait to play it again on my next SoCal journey, but I have to offer a slight difference of opinion on a few points.
In your keen analysis you forgot about how similar and lacking the tee shot is at both the 9th and 10th. Both holes are nearly carbon copies of each other and go in the same direction. The demands only present themselves with your third shot to the green complexes.
Second, the long par-4's on the course, with the exception of the 11, all follow the same general direction. I would have liked to see a bit more of balance with a longer two-shot hole or holes going up canyon as well.
Regarding the 11th it all boils down to the general philosophy of RC versus that of other courses you mention. You can drive erratically at RC and make bogies. At the other courses -- especially the Sky at LC, that will not likely be the case. Which one is better? I don't believe there is a better, however, I do believe the tee shot needs to be challenged in no less the same fashion than the complexities of the greens themselves at RC. You say that is done and I believe it's a matter of degree based to some extent on how you play and how someone like me plays.
On a number of holes at RC that does happen, but I think it's a bit of a stretch to say they all works so well and without any letdown.
I do take exception to your characterization of Dye courses. You can and will get sufficient rewards at Dye courses like LC / Sky when you drive with skill. Clearly, the risks at LC can be quite punishing, but that's part of the joy in playing the course because the player must adjust his game to meet the demands presented. No one says you MUST hit driver at all the holes at Sky! I can mention plenty of holes, but just take the long downhill par-5 12th which I believe is nearly 600 yards or thereabouts. Here Dye has a center positioned fairway bunker about 335-340 yards that is well done. The big hitter has to really think about what he will do as soon as you step on the tee. And the tee game strategy followed will have a direct outcome on what is done with the second shot and eventually the third. Where is that challenge at the 9th and 10th at RC until you get to the third shot? Is it as testing as the other holes at RC? Might some sort of cross bunker sequence worked on at least one of the holes?
Keep in mind the example I presented before -- the 3rd at Pac Dunes with its two center placed bunkers -- excellent stuff indeed! In that particular case the bunkers are in play whether the wind is behind you or aganst you. You have to shape the shot accordingly and the qualities of the hole start immediately right at the tee.
The 3rd and 12th are also heavily weighed towards reward with little risk. What's really ironic is that someone like me who hits the ball a decent ways is making the argument of the shorter hitter who may not get to the surface on most occasions. ;D
I don't see short par-4's that way and I referenced two examples of other short holes that work more effectively -- the 16th at Pac Dunes and the 15th at Wild Horse. Same desire for reward at those holes, but the element of risk is accentuated and balanced as it properly should be.
Gentlemen, I don't doubt the sheer qualities RC possesses. I will go as far to say it is, along with Wild Horse, RC is among the 2-3 best courses we have in the USA today in terms of two important categories: overall architectural detail (with special emphasis on green complexities) and general affordability on a daily basis and I say that based on the fair share of courses I've sampled.
However, when people do not concede any points then I think they are taking much, too much of hard line. To give a comparable example, I truly love Bethpage Black, but I do concede that a number of the putting surfaces there are fairly pedestrian in their overall presentation. Does that take away completely the qualities the course possesses. In my mind -- not a bit.
David, long hitters do not have to take the advantageous routes you mentioned to be totally successful. When a long hitter has a free pass to wack the ball all the way away from the immediate and most pressing of trouble and know that there is complete freedom on the other side, to wit, no traps or high grass -- he can still approach the target with enough of a lofted approach and still finish somewhat comfortably near the target. I did that at #11 with a drive wide right and still a 9-iron second from no more than 150 yards. Does that happen all the time at RC -- no, it doesn't, but there are holes where it does take place and I somehow get the impression that even the tiniest bit of concession seems to rankle quite a few of you tenacious defenders. So be it.
In my analysis I am splitting some hairs and I realize that -- no doubt -- no less than a few of you. RC is well crafted and the collaboration that has been achieved is proof positive that golf can offer designs that are not penciled in with the same boring McDonald's Happy Meal approach so commonplace in the many course visits that I do throughout the year. RC is a place ANY golfer must PLAY when in the SoCal area because what it generally demonstrates needs to be emulated in public golf here in America. The few gentle tweaks I am suggesting will not take away from that but, I believe, will only serve to enhance it.
Tim Weiman:
You said ... "Obviously, one doesn't need to see any particular golf course to question whether the failure to test "power and accuracy" off the tee really constitutes a "weakness". A better case could probably be made that such features are a strength: why design a course to test something that 99% of the golfers can't do?
I'm glad courses like Rustic Canyon and Pacific Dunes were designed by serious students of golf architecture, people smart, strong and wise enough not to worry about golfers with the most extraordinary skills."
Tim, power is no less part of golf than any other element. It is an advantage when used properly as it should be and I also believe should be featured in a design of any course. Sometimes those who carp on about power and distance as you seem to do, want to do nothing more than restrain at all costs those who do execute that rare combination of power and accuracy. If you don't have that shot in your bag don't try to constrain those who do beyond a degree of reasonableness. Golf is about the totality of shot execution and power, when done correctly, needs to be a part of that mix. I've stated in specific instances how power can be appropriately challenged with some suggestions for RC. You seem to think that I am suggesting some sort of US Open dive test and have said that in a previous post. That is far from what I am suggesting.
-
Matt Ward:
I don't play much golf these days, but twenty years ago knocking drives out there 300 yards with my steel shaft, brass back Powerbilt persimmon wasn't much of a problem. Today I need graphite, titanium heads, Pro V1 balls and a couple weeks practice to do that.
But, that has nothing to do with my skepticism about the importance of "power and accuracy".
While I'll play far less, I spend more time watching others play and this has had a much bigger impact on my golf architecture views than my aging, slower swing speed and shorter distance.
A few years back Dusty Murdock, an old IMG guy, told me about a study he and a few golf industry colleagues conducted down in Florida. They measured 800 male tee shots and found an average drive of 140 yards. About five percent surpassed the 200 yard mark. I think Dusty said only about ten guys hit drives 250 yards or longer.
Thinking that Dusty might be exaggerating or that the random sample might really be skewed, I spent a couple hours several Saturday afternoons watching people tee off from an elevated tee at a local muni. Sure enough, the cohort I saw was very consistent with what Dusty had reported to me.
It began to sink in, that while I used to practice hitting one handed three irons and expect to pass the 200 yard mark, for most people hitting a golf ball that far with a driver using both hands is extremely difficult.
Then, too, I went back to the golf course I grew up on, Pelham Country Club (the site of the 1923 PGA) and saw how a few holes had been lengthened due to how far people were hitting the ball these days. For the life of me, I couldn't figure out how that made any sense. Why encourage the viscious cycle of technology imporvements and course renovations when fundamentally relative distance rather than absolute distance is really what the game is about. If Simpson could spell that out before my father ever touched a golf club, why couldn't the golfing public see that today?
I react strongly to the notion that the failure to test the combination of power and accuracy is a "weakness", because I think the notion makes so little sense. The overwhelming majority have no prayer of meeting this standard. Those that can represent an elite minority so small that we should "constrain" their influence on golf course design. It is far better to send a clear message to practicing architects that building courses most people will consider fun is really what needs to be done. Again, I credit Gil and Geoff for being thoughtful enough to see that.
I also like Tom Doak's idea for the St. Andrews Beach project. He will design the two courses so that there will be a composite course to test the modern professional. That kind of innovation I fully support. But, if a project involves only 18 holes the far better choice is to forget out the elite players who truly do play a different game than your average weekend golfer.
-
Matt Ward:
I should probably mention one other golf experience that made a deep impression.
Quite near where I live, the Cleveland Metroparks has two wonderful nine hole courses. They play about 2,500 yards with a combination of par 3s and short par 4s; one even has a par 5 that maybe plays 480 yards......a miles and a half for most people who play the course.
Little Met, as one is called, is actually a pleasant walk in the park, especially for about six dollars, the non peak price. (It goes up to about eight dollars, I think, during the summer.)
Early this spring I had a most enjoyable game with a fellow in his early forties who just took up the game. He had almost no ability to strike the golf ball, but impressed me with how much he seemed to be enjoying himself. It turns out, he had just taken up the game last year and absolutely loved it.
His enthusiasm boiled over as he told me how thankful he was spring had come and he could play golf again.
I made the mistake of saying: "Yes, golf is a really great game......and it's even better when you go play some good courses".
"Oh no", he replied, "I don't want to do that".
A bit stunned, I asked him why he didn't want to play any good courses.
"I did that once", he explained, "there was this hole where you had to hit 100 yards over water......I don't ever want to do that again".
-
Without going into detail--this has really been a great thread. It's discussions like this that keep snowbound hillbillies who have to live great courses vicariously, coming back.
-
Steve Wilson:
Actually, it does seem to have a nice blend of course detail, concept discussion and input from people involved in the project (Gil and Geoff). And, how could I forget, Tommy jumping in as well.
-
Steve,
I will totally agree with you on this thread as it should be a lesson for all on how to discuss and provide personal opinion, no matter how much it may differ from the norm.
No constant haraguing over "I'm right, your wrong and that is the way it is" vs. "No your wrong and I'm right and you can go _______ yourself!"--"we're really friends off-lin!" :)
-
Actually, we're all sworn blood enemies, but this facade of diplomatic, civilized understanding is simply a clever ruse to throw off the faint of heart who bemoan the "negativity" of this site. ;)
-
I haven't commented on this thread because I've never played Rustic Canyon but this is a very interesting thread indeed. There's a lot of opinion on fundamentals in architecture on here--and some very fine and thoughtful opinion on architectural fundamentals, and it certainly diverges from a consensus of opinion which is probably a very good thing!
Matt Ward did another very comprehensive course analysis and plenty of comprehensive follow-up posts on his impressions, including a few comments on things about the course he considers weaknesses, obviously because that's the question in this thread's title.
It's nice, of course, to hear from Geoff Shackelford, as it's always good to hear the thinking of one of the course's architects regarding the fundamental concepts of specific golf holes on the course.
First of all, Rustic Canyon, with enough time in play now, seems to have succeeded as well as anyone's best expectations to have accomplished what it was designed for.
My understanding was always that it was intended to offer the area's golfers a higher level of sophisticated design at a reasonable price and generally for the purpose of offering them a golf course that was fun for them, not necessarily one that would make them bleed everyday score-wise or unrelenting challenge-wise! And it seems to most everyone, the golf course, from routing through much of the design detail is sophisticated and does what it was intended to do.
Matt Ward is clearly very long. Analyzing a golf course in the context of a very long player is OK, I guess, but only to a degree, particularly if the course was not designed to hold PGA Tour events and such.
And it does occur to me that Geoff Shackelford is one who's very disenchanted with the constant push for greater length in architecture certainly since he's clearly disenchanted with the regulatory bodies who he feels are almost totally failing to properly restrain length to the real detriment of golf architecture. That kind of architect would naturally be disinclined to keep up with the latest outrageous distances some are hitting the ball today in his design offerings! He, with Gil Hanse, has obviously chosen to gear the architecture of this course to other areas and in other directions.
The discussion of #11 is also very interesting and informative. The apparent differences of opinion on the hole's strengthes and weakness is truly fascinating, particularly between Ward and Shackelford.
I think I recall Matt Ward mentioning in an earlier post on this thread that that hole (#11) had a weakness because it challenged the golfer on the inside but not on the outside of the fairway as that related to the approach shot. Matt even implied that something more should be done design-wise to challenge the tee shot on the outside if that was an easier shot in, as he indicated he thought it was.
GeoffShac said he felt the way the hole now is made the drive what he called a "preferential golfer's choice" and that's something I frankly think is brilliant. I'm aware how enamored Shackelford has always been with ANGC's #11 as a hole that through decades of play pros cannot seem to agree on which way to play the hole--which side of the fairway to play for and how that sets up the approach!
Now, honestly how good is that in nuancy sophisticated architecture? It doesn't get much better than that, in my book, particularly if a hole has decades of time in play to prove it!
I would also suggest that Matt recognize that everytime he sees a hole that bends left and is "featured up" on the inside of the drive that he should not assume that challenging the inside is necessarily the best way or the only way to produce a reward. If that was the way all architecture was it would be awful formulaic, in my opinion. Basiclly, that to me is just another form of architectural "roadmapping"! On a hole like #11 Matt should understand better the true appeal of the concept of the "reverse dogleg" which that hole very well may be to some golfers (preferential).
If a hole like that can occasionally sucker a golfer into falling for a riskier inside line because he automaticlly assumes that's the way all holes like that should be (roadmapping), then so much the better! I call holes like that "fakeout" holes, and I like them better depending on the extent they can fakeout golfers!
Lastly, it's impressive to be as long as Matt is but like all long players he'll need to match it with some measure of accuracy. Whether or not he does that generally, I really don't know. But an enormous drive is of no use to anyone if it's way out in left or right field.
If one is going to talk about the long and impressive shots he's hit on various holes, though, I'd prefer he also tell us all how well that worked out. I've heard too many long players remark that they hit a drive and 9 iron to some very long hole and forget to tell us they came up 20 short of a green or perhaps made a bogie anyway--because it's likely there's some real meaning and interest in that--and yes, architecturally.
Anyway, this is a very interesting and informative thread by all.
-
Mike Cirba, your assertion:
"Actually, we're all sworn blood enemies, but this facade of diplomatic, civilized understanding is simply a clever ruse to throw off the faint of heart who bemoan the "negativity" of this site. <http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/YaBBImages/wink.gif> "
only heightens my suspicion that GCA, other than my paltry contributions, is the work of a single highly creative, but slightly demented mind. The gathering at Inniscrone was probably populated by out of work actors working cheap to shield the industrious fiend from prying eyes. So, in addition to being creative, demented, and industrious this person is also wealthy and judging from the amount of time spent at the computer must surely resemble Dobby the house elf.
I will be subjecting all of GCA to textual analysis to prove my theory, and at the conclusion of this arduous project I will also look like Dobby but with a little more meat on my bones.
I also suspect "the onlie begetter" of this site of having stolen my ball on the fifth at Inniscrone.
-
from what I have heard the only weakness that RC has is Bagels. That's right, bring bagels and maybe you'll get out without a tee time.
-
David M:
Actually the three guys I played with at Rustic were my Dad, who hits nothing lower than 4iron on any shot (ie no woods), my lefty brother (who has a slice that makes grown men weep), and my brother-in-law (who makes John Daly look controlled and accurate). Each of them were on the right side of 11 (which was a miracle in itself for my brother), and each of them had fairly easy shots to the green (such being the 3rd, for my Dad). Note they all played from the whites. The huge key here is that while it was tough for them to get the ball back to the hole, on the green short of the ridge was WAY WAY WAY better than off the green anywhere... which is what one is faced with coming from the left. Yes, it's a shorter shot... but I'll take putting any time. I am truly pathetic with my irons but I believe I could find the green most of the time from the right... likely leave it short of the ridge most of the time, but it would be putting. From the left finding the green AT ALL is just one damn tough shot. On top of the bunker to be carried, there's the "face" short and left that at least when I was there was buried in 8inch high rough.
Perhaps my bias also comes from my result there... I hit an all-world iron shot (or so I thought) that came up a foot short, bounced back and buried in the deep rough, leaving me absolutely no shot. Had that come from the right, the same shot would have been putting.
Thus my feeling on the "advantage" of coming from the left... as I say, perhaps multiple playings will reveal more of this to me. And again, all this to me is a GOOD thing.
TH
-
I just wanted to add that in my reviews of any course I do not simply apply the "Ward standard." That standard would mean only assessing a course by the way it EFFECTS MY PLAY. I play with a wide range of golf friends throughout the United States who have varying levels and styles of play. I try to observe quite closely the manner by which they "attack" any hole.
I believe I always attempt to view a course based on a number of ways a hole can be played. In my mind rigorous analysis is the only way to go and I agree with Tom Paul that it's not just how far one hits the ball but how one played the entire hole AFTER the fact.
Rustic Canyon is a superb layout -- just look at how many posts have been made and I for one am happy to see that such discussions have not moved back to the cave man approach one has seen on previous threads of "bias" or other such inane banter. Amen to that ...
David Moriarty:
I never said that angles are "irrelevant" from any distance, but even Geoff acknowledged that if someone were to hit 300 plus on #11 and kept it way right the approach would still be demanding but the player would also have the benefit in using a short iron as I did that day. All I offered is a remedy (fairway bunker) that pinches in that type of player BACK to where the hole really is.
David, when I mentioned the comment about how you play and how I might play I have to say this -- you have to admit there are a number of short hitters have little real understanding in what often goes through the minds of long hitters who happen to be low handicaps. Not only is added length an unknown item in their games, but having the wherewithal to hit more lofted approaches allows them to "attack" pin placements that the shorter player could never dream of accomplishing. It is because of this ability that when short hitters assert that "X" is so demanding they often fail to understand that such a hole may be extremely exacting for THEM, but far less for those golfers who are extremely strong as well as accurate. I know from our time together that you are very astute in understanding the different levels of players and how that might effect their play / anaylsis of any hole in question.
David, when I say "get away" with something at a hole I am referring to the fact that capturing the better player is certainly going to happen at RC, but you have to admit there are holes (I have spelled out which ones previously) could use a degree of more sophistication when you step on the tee. Again, I am not saying the green complexes are not superbly detailed but there has to be way to "corral" power or that type of player will consistently take those liberties. Superior golf courses try to "level" the playing field by not permitting power to go unchallenged. I understand the argument put forward by those who defend the "proper" way in playing #11. I believe you cannot give the longer player such liberty to hit it way right and still have a clear view of the target.
David, appreciate your agreement with me on a few of the holes I mentioned. I hope people realize I'm not saying by any stretch they are "weak" holes, however, I am suggesting that they can be enhanced and only add to the growing and justified reputation of RC.
-
Matt makes a good point here in saying that it is difficult for us short-knockers to really grasp what the big boys can do. But while it is difficult, please realize it's not IMPOSSIBLE... it is a variable that must be kept in mind in any case. And most of us have played with enough long hitters to know what they can and can't do. One round with Dave Wigler is all that is required! In any case I know this affected my assessment of Rustic, as I've always been one to mention (or agree with) the fact it can be "overpowered" and perhaps needs more "pressure on the tee shot" for the long-knockers. That doesn't come from my experience, believe me. But while difficult to fully comprehend, perhaps, it's not that difficult to "imagine"... and thus I understand Matt's take on 11 most definitely. My personal feeling is there's enough going on on that hole as it is, such that an addition of a bunker to keep in check the tiny minority of golfers that can hit it that far is really unnecessary... but I understand Matt's take here most definitely.
TH
-
Thomas of Huckaby, shame on you! I have met some short knockers and you sir are no short knocker!
While you may not blast it out there ala Matt Ward, you do give the ball a mighty wack.
-
Well thanks, Craig. But everything is relative and compared to several guys I play with regularly, I am a short-knocker indeed. Compared to Dave Wigler and Dave Schmidt and Josh Taylor and Todd Eckenrode and likely several other GCA regulars with whom I've played, I am a weakling. And though I haven't played with Matt Ward, from all I hear compared to him I might as well not play! ;)
TH
-
America's guest,
Heck compared to those guys we are all short knockers!
-
When I think of the context of the long hitter, and even the long hitter hitting the ball accurately and how that applies to architecture today and analysis, I always think of that particular time at Pacific Dunes (just after it opened) when Josh Taylor (I think it was) launched a tremendous drive downwind and hit an 8 iron to the PAR 5 #3 green!
Tom Doak, in the vicinity (and apparently most definitely curious and concerned as to how his course would stand up to the good long player), seemed to be very worried about how Taylor played that 3rd hole!
HOWEVER, on the very next hole, the par 4 beside #3 going back the other way, Taylor hit a good drive, perhaps not his very best but did not reach the PAR 4 #4 with a good 1 iron second shot! Taylor, of course, was the first to make this interesting observation.
I still don't know how Tom Doak feels about all this and as to how his course stacks up against the long and good player, but if you ask me these two holes and what they are side by side and one after the other in the routing progression just about says it all for interesting routing and brilliant hole to hole design, particularly considering what they're called par-wise!
Those two holes, taken together, and with a particular wind pretty much says what it's all about--all of it, to me.
-
TEPaul:
Your example goes a long way in proving my point at RC. It's critical in any design to have holes that are challenging in both directions. With the exception of one hole -- the 11th, the remaining long par-4's (#2, #14, #16 and #18) all go in the same direction. In fact, four of the five par-5's also go in the same direction although completely opposite of the four par-4's I just mentioned but no less than two of them (#9 and #10) are fairly ordinary in playing your first two shots.
I agree with your take on the routing of Pac Dunes. My point in speaking about RC is that you want to make sure that the "challenge" is preserved irrespective of the wind on any given day.
Tom, if you look at Pac Dunes what's fascinating is that you cannot play #4 and #13 with the same wind direction unless you encounter some unique weather changes. I will also add #7 in the listing of great long par-4's because the way the hole is designed. Also, as you know, the wind element at Pac Dunes can make the use of "par" a bit irrelevant and therefore cause the 3rd hole to be a "par-4" and the 4th hole to ba a "par-5" on that particular day.
P.S. One of the unique things that Pete Dye has done is design uphill long par-4's in order to keep the long iron or even wood approach in play. A good example -- the 11th at the Sky Course at Lost Canyons!
-
America's guest,
Heck compared to those guys we are all short knockers!
Very true. The issue here though is that "those guys" do need to be accounted for in an assessment. As equipment progresses, their numbers grow exponentially....
TH
-
Huckster,
While those long knockers as you call them should not be ignored, I think you can also focus too much on them. At best they are maybe 5% of all golfers, so it really depends on what your building your course for. I think courses like Rustic Canyon that are playable and enjoyable by the vast majority of all golfers and at a great price are much more needed than those who will challenge the Matt Ward's of the world at the expense of everyone else.
-
Agreed 100%, Craig. I am absolutely not saying courses should be designed with them and only them in mind, nor should how the course plays for them make up the bulk of one's assessment. No, my thought is more that if we're talking inclusion of a course among the world's greats - which is Ran's question here, after all - than that is just one of many factors that must be considered. But it is a factor and can't just be thrown out, either.
TH
-
Craig:
I never said or implied that one should throw the baby out with the bath oil. ;)
I did say that a gentle tweaking of RC may be a major plus in enhancing the inherent qualities the course has. There is no doubt that challenging the fullest range of players can be a tough exercise but there are courses with that sort of "elasticity" and it doesn't automatically mean one must necessarily add yards and yards of distance. Positioning bunkers in the middle of fairways is just one example how you can grab the attention of even the best of players and it's a technique that should be carried out even more so given the fact that flanking bunkers are less and less of a major challenge given the nature of today's equipment and the skill level of a number of players.
Again, I refer back to Ran's mentioning of the statement "world class" golf course and how that two word phrase is defined by different people.
RC and Wild Horse are probably two of the finest designed layouts we have in America given what they charge the public on a daily basis. The complexities, the sheer detailing of the putting surfaces, the surrounding landing areas, and the unique semblance of different holes makes for invigorating golf of a high order.
-
Matt,
I'm actually just trying to give "Mr Aw Shucks, America's guest, I'm a short knocker" a hard time. Being able to hit the long ball is truly a gift and I must admit being in awe of the truly big hitters. It is a totally different game than one I am familiar with. I do appreciate your perspective.
Does a course have to stand up to the world greats to be considered one of the world greats? What is the criteria?
From the sound of it, Rustic is holding up pretty well so far, with a 67 as the course record with some pretty strong players going at it.
-
Craig:
Tough question -- no easy answer.
Some believe, and I don't doubt its application, is how much fun does the course provide? Naturally, one man's fun may be another's boredom. Does the course really excite the senses in playing it over and over again?
In playing with David Moriarty I was struck by his comment that various players and age ranges can play at RC without much difficulty. I agreed with him that's a major plus in assessing the caliber of a course.
I don't deny the issue of challenge is something I look at quite closely. Sometimes, I will admit, I place a bit more emphasis than others, but I believe a course should make you WORK HARD on some shots in proportion to your ability level by moving tees and pin locations accordingly. I'm not saying by any means it needs to be a nonsensical slog because there are a number of new courses that throw more stuff at you than Santa Ana threw at the Alamo! But, I also believe the tee game strategy is no less important than what you find at the greens. That doesn't mean some inane slog of herculean forced carries or holes clogged with high rough on both sides. It does mean a melding of power and control -- working the ball with the driver is a high art and one any course should promote.
In my mind "world class" doesn't mean a course has to stage major championships or high octane events for the PGA Tour, or have the capability in bringing Tiger / Phil to their knees, etc, etc. I do believe that a course must have the "elasticity" to test all types of players in a thorough and comprehensive way through each and every shot / hole. Given the demands of such a definition there can only be so many courses that reach such a high bar.
From the feedback I got from Tommy N, David M and David K when I was at RC -- a number of fine players have played the course including Steve Pate and Fred Couples, to name just two. And, with the course record still at 67 it does indicate the course has held its own thus far.
I really like RC and believe a few gentle tweaks on a few holes I've already specified would elevate the "fun" meter even further.
-
During my round with Tommy N, David M and David K the subject of Rustic Canyon v Barona Creek came up. All of us had played both courses and I agreed with the group that RC is clearly the better overall design.
The sheer detail of the green complexes at RC is hard to beat and although Barona Creek is not a slouch in this area either I just believe RC rates a clear edge in that department. As far as the tee game requirements are concerned I'd rate them a push. Although I am still trying to figure out how one can hold an approach to the par-3 16th at BC when the pin is cut far right and when the wind is behind you! ;D
How do others see the two courses? Is there a difference and if there is how much so?
-
One of the frustrating things about helping some of the requests that people make for info, is a lack of follow-up. Heres a great thing about gca. The ability to pull up from the back pages something of interest. Perhaps some detail on the actual changes that have been made?
Here we have before and after. Ideal v. reality
what you say?
Hole 10: After our visit in May, Geoff, Jim, and I submitted a plan to add bunkering to the right and center of the hole off the tee, to add more character to the shot, and distinguish it from the 9th hole. The owner has not decided to let us implement it yet, we are hopeful to get a shot at it this winter.
From: http://www.geoffshackelford.com/_wsn/page3.html
The 10th hole, What Went Wrong (and Right)?
By Geoff Shackelford
Posted December 5, 2003
This was the last hole to be cleared and constructed at Rustic Canyon. The hole was covered in dense white sage and brush, thus it was always a bit of a mystery what exactly we would find when we could see it better.
So the fact that the 10th didn’t come out quite as we had hoped may have to do with not having the time to reflect on its playing qualities a little bit longer. It didn’t help that we lost some aesthetic features during the cart path installation and seeding process, but some things are out of the architect’s control.
Excuses, excuses!
With the 9th a par-5 that we wanted to remain nearly bunker-less, the 10th was supposed to be more of a bending hole, snaking its way through scrubland and crusty, sandy areas. At one time a “Hell’s Half Acre” was considered, but it just didn’t quite fit the terrain or the playable public course concept.
The idea was to place the focus on the position of the lay-up shot (we envisioned the hole as a three-shotter, so it’s amazing to hear that the hole is easily reachable in two for so many average golfers!).
We built the 47-yard long, rambling green to reward an approach from straight into the length of the green.
Lay-up second shots bailing out left would be hitting to a green going away from them, with a view that would make it tough to discern which of the ledges the hole was placed on.
Still, a large approach welcomed those who laid up left, but that approach was also deceiving in how much it would go away from players approaching from the ample left side.
Our goal of rewarding those who lay up over or near the fairway bunkers came out as we hoped. However, the distinction between the advantageous lay-up location and the less visible view of the green down the safer left side, is not as obvious. Some would argue this vagueness is a good thing, but personally, I’d have liked the hole to be more distinctive to offset it a bit more from the intentionally vague par-5 9th.
In hindsight, we would have built one more bunker to add to the existing complex to further accentuate the importance of your second shot. This would create more of a “peninsula” effect for the second shot area of fairway beyond the bunkers. And thus, would create a more distinct and dramatic decision for the lay-up shot.
The tee shot also did not come out as expected. The ground here was odd, sloping from right to left, even though the canyon hillside is on the left side. (You’d think the fairway would slope from left to right).
Drives placed down the right side shorten the hole and provide a nice view to go for the green.
Drives hit with a right-to-left spin that end up down the left side, get more roll and leave a better view and angle for the lay-up.
In other words, it’s the player’s preference and we had no problem providing the width for the golfer to choose their way to the hole.
All in all, the 10th was the most disappointing hole in that it didn’t distinguish itself enough from the 9th, yet the green complex may have been the most pleasant surprise of the project because it is so different than anything else on the course and in Southern California.
-
Thanks for posting that Adam.
For all of the supposed weakness of the 10th, how come I see the best of players fail to achieve birdie or better on a consistant basis?
The tenth needs one small thing--some definiton off of the tee. As Geoff points out in the article, originally the hole was slated for a Hell's Half Acre-style cross bunker. I couldn't wait for it! Especially after playing something strategically similar at Inniscrone's 9th. Unfortunately, the site tried (or should I say the designers?) but could properlly yield that famed style of hazard. However, the corner is in fact screaming for it now, and it deserves to have some detail added. Juswt enough to make you not want to venture right.
Meanwhile the green complex itself continues to baffle those who don't play he course on a regular basis--deception of depth reigns supreme, and the putts follow gravity specifically. That should be all you need to know about how to putt them!
-
The 10th green is absolutely brilliant, and one of my favorites at RC. It is amazing how difficult it is (for me at least) to get close to that pin. The visual deception still keeps me off balance after many playings. Unfortunately, as has been stated, there isn't much definition off the tee, which further stands out after the same situation on the previous hole.
A bunker somewhere in the drive landing area to give you something to think about would be helpful. Although I think it would be even better to do it on #9, which is much more wide open. Playing the second shot properly is the key to the hole to be able to have a chance for birdie. With nothing but one's mental demons to interfere off the tee on #9, the hole could really use definition in the landing area.
In spite of this, these are minor quibbles regarding one of my favorite courses.
-
Are the other par 5's so reachable that this rigth side, with it's ideal angle, is a repetition? With the green complex being so unique, what was so wrong with tempting the golfer from that rightside?
Of course, you can ignore ny questions because I have never been to RC, so my credibility in asking is seriously diminished.
-
Adam,
I must insist you stop with this, "Of course, you can ignore ny questions because I have never been to RC, so my credibility in asking is seriously diminished" stuff because your questions are good ones.
The two back to back par fives are reachable with two very good shots. (And some "good" wind)
For a strong golfer, he will be hitting driver and three wood most evertime to reach them, although I have seen I think it was Andy Lipshultz reach it on #10 from the middle tees with Driver and 3 or 4 iron--hopefully he will chime-in. But the main thing--YOU STILL HAVE TO PUTT and this is where both holes can take the very best of players and reduce them to mumbling.
Biride or eagle is a possibility at all times--so is bogie. This is why Rustic Canyon--a reasonably priced, public course, is so very provocative.
Ask Tom Brown what it was like recently when trying to reach #10 in 45 mph Santa Ana winds recently. Tom is a strong player, and will be the first to complain about par 5's being too short to challenge him--but with his length, no matter how ridiculous it is with the modern day equipment--Took three good solid shots to make it there.
-
I think it was Andy Lipshultz reach it on #10 from the middle tees with Driver and 3 or 4 iron--
Whoa big fella!
Not exactly. It was from the blue tees, with driver, 4-wood and I think the 4-wood hit a few hard objects through the waste area to bound up to the green. It was luck; I'm not that long.
-
I thought you reached it with a long iron! My mistake! Sorry!
-
BTW, I 3-putted for my par.
-
Tommy- I guess I shoulda used a smiley cause after reading about 100 pages searching for this thread I came across a wardism, and that was the point of my remark. Of course I can comment on commentary about a course I've never seen.
But you either miss my point or I phrased it improperly, Why is that there was a need to change the rightside? from reading, I can only surmize it was because too many were reaching it from the right side. Another reason I questioned it is that here at Kirtland (Riverview, Baxter Spann '99) there are 3 par 5's all reachable with good to reasonable drives. The fun factor involved is huge and if you want to have customers who repeat, I believe fun is more important than other amenities.
-
Adam, when you come out you can see for yourself that the hole is fine as it is. Plenty of challenge there! (emoticon not needed!)
-
First off - I think #10 is rather distinctive in how it plays.
It's a good length hole w/ lots of options for a good player.
The contours on the green are wonderfully subtle.
Don't know why, but I see the #9 green at Carnoustie somehow in #10 RC.
(Nicely)I would rather Geoff second-guess some of the other holes. :)
Tommy - 45 mph wind.
I think that's accurate.
Somewhere after 30 mph, it gets to be ridiculous.
On 10, I hit:
A good drive with perfect height control.
A good 2 iron with perfect height control.
A smooth 5 iron from 120 with good height control.
30 feet above the hole, but back downwind.
My next putt was also 30 feet - and I thought I hit a good first putt. Easy 3 putt - really discouraging - I was proud of my 3 shots before.
In the summer w/ bouncy conditions and downwind, I have reached #10 in 2 shots w/ a 3 wood on the second shot. Not so easy in the winter or w/o wind. In any conditions, I love the 30 yard pitch I usually have left for my third shot. It's usually a fairly easy up & down conversion, but there are a lot of options and a lot to think about.
Re: 45 mph - I usually consider myself a good wind player, but I wasn't that day. I was awful! Rob Waldron played fairly well - at least 2 or 3 birdies I think.
I'm looking forward to KPIII.
Happy Holidays.
Tom
-
The first time I had played the course the only thing that I did not like was hole 7 I had not purchased a yardage book and the wind was howling. I did not like the fact that it took driver out of your hand. I played again two weeks later no wind and a yardage book anf figureed out that you can hit over the wash with driver and be rewarded with agressive play.
Currently I have five rounds under my belt and the course gets better every time. I love that you can hit a different shot on the same hole everytime you play. I happen to like #10 It is reachable in two but with two pokes. but the green complex, well I still have not figured it out. many options.
Other than hole #7 that I had a problem with I love the risk reward factor I am an agressive player when I am playing for fun this course let me do that often. I have been near or on the green on every par 5 on the course in 2 with an Iron but the green complexes do not yeild many birdies. I think that is the stongest point of the course.
-
I returned to Rustic today with a group of NLU participants in what must have been reminiscent of the glory days of GCA that initially formed this thread. A return to days gone by, so to speak.
https://refuge.nolayingup.com/t/easter-week-la-golf-outing-wwog-refugee-edition/6412/107
Rustic the course was everything I remembered and all any golfer could yearn for. I am literally shocked at how well the course aged and can state with no equivocation that Rustic is and was a beacon of architectural light that must be shown across the paths of any architect who desires to better our world. I was honestly moved, moved to the point that I want to take this time to personally apologize to all the fine men who preceded me on this thread. Yes you, Huck, Tommy, David and even Geoff. At best I can only hope to walk those fairways with any or all of you one day soon again.
-
Too many level stances.