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.htmlThe 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.