After reading some advice on Anaheim golf, I tried to play several course but the only one that could get me on was Tustin Ranch.  It was ripped apart by the GCA group.  I was playing with my boss and two other salesmen.  They were all 20ish handicaps and never would read GCA.  They actually wanted to play golf because they wanted to have fun and enjoy themselves.  It was a radical concept, much like choosing to watch Caddyshack instead of Schindler's list.  Here were my conclusions:

Tustin Ranch is perfect for the crowd it serves.  The course is visually beautiful.  There are multiple waterfalls and meandering brooks that bisect the property.  The flowering put up around the course is stunning.  Several of the holes are framed very majestically by the mountains (Robinson did a nice job of playing into the mountains, so that you get the vistas).  The maintenance is immaculate and the course is deep dark green.  I spent 3:45 (Yes a foursome where one score was in the 70's, 1 in the 90's and 2 in the 100's played in 3:45 on a Tuesday afternoon) listening to them rave about the beauty, the condition and the playability of the course.  No one minded the $100 plus green fee because the course delivered on a visceral level.  So my question is this: what is wrong with a course being fun?  Does every course have to be a mental exercise?  Aren't there times where People is more fun to read than Time; where ESPN is more fun to watch than CNN; where Sam Kinison is more fun to listen to than Lou Dobbs.  I wonder if we all (Myself very much included) forget this too often and a round with Huckaby's family or (For me) the rest of our sales team is occasionally required to remind us how the other 95% of golfers think.

Sean:

That's well-said - people do report and discuss the interesting courses here, because this is supposed to be about architecture after all, not match reports.

BUT.... there also does seem to be a prevailing negativity against "dumb blonde" courses, or others at which no great architectural insights are to be achieved.  I believe what Dave is saying is that those have a place to, and shouldn't be looked at so negatively.

No?

Sean:

"Dumb Blonde" is a term coined by Doak, used to describe (more or less) a course that's pretty but from which nothing is to be learned.  As for competition, that's a separate issue and Mike Hendren's current Topi "Golf is Just" gets into that... Oh I enjoy it also, obviously... But I can also just whack the ball around for pure joy.  Dan Kelly puts it well in that thread - golf can be different things at different times for the same golfer.

Dave:

OK, gotcha.  Again I am with you.  I think quite a few people here do understand we are the tiny minority, and the things we obsess over don't matter at all to the masses.  And yes, courses like Tustin Ranch that are enjoyed by the masses ought to be considered in that light.  I have just come to understand though that too much of this isn't good for any of us... That is, if too many Ice Cream Sandwich courses are built that cost way too much to play, room is not left for the bare-bones vanilla ice cream course that can be as much fun at 1/3 the price.  I know you understand this as well... That's just the other side to this we have to keep in mind.

TH

I took the unprecedented step of inviting myself to next year's Reverse Jans outing, so you know where I stand.

I learn a lot from this site, about architects, courses, players, people, etc.  I have also learned a great deal about my toleration for golf minutia, and the depth of my interest in golf architecture.  It's a good deal deeper than the typical player, but some of y'all are going to wind up diggin' youselfs to China.

from the new book "Dream Golf" - which I'm halfway thru and am finding to be well-written and very interesting - page 48, a quote from Mike Keiser:

"...but the new courses are being designed for the pros, or for the 1 percent of the golfing population that can hit a drive three hundred yards.  For the rest of us , these courses are just too hard. THERE'S NOTHING FUN [my caps] about being asked hole after hole to do things that you can't do."

which also reminds me of people who insist on playing from tees which are obviously too far back  for their games:  why oh why do they do that toothemselves?  do they really think they are that good?  do they like to beat themselves up on the course?  I guess they don't want to have FUN!

David- it's interesting to read your take here.  Firstly, I'm glad Tustin Ranch is that nice now.  I remember playing it several years ago and thought it was pretty average.  They've obviously improved the conditions and it has I'm sure filled in nicely.
  You know, I had a similar experience to you last week. I went out to the Palm Springs area to play some wonderful and challenging courses (Tradition,  Stone Eagle ), but I was also at a meeting and 4 of us decided to play Indian Wells CC, site of all the old Bob Hope Desert Classic tournaments.  It's 50 years old now, and although in need of some work is just a lot of fun.  The other 3 guys were  100+ players, but we all enjoyed the day-  no one else around.  Short, but with some still interesting holes, we  had a ball.  And I enjoyed not having to grind to score well. Loved being able to hit 3 iron second shot to the finishing short par 5 and just missing double eagle!  

Sam Kinison is ALWAYS more fun to listen to than Lou Dobbs. Hell, Sam Kinison is probably more fun to listen to than just about anybody. And just about anybody is more fun to listen to than Lou Dobbs.

I have my occasional Sam Kinison moments on the golf course.

And I too love just plain old fun golf. But I'd rather get my fun golf at a cheap muni (Poolesville in suburban Maryland) or a quaint older course (Cumberland in Carlisle, PA) than at a $100+ monument to beauty. I prefer to save those rounds for something special. For me that means something like Cuscowilla, Pinehurst, Bulle Rock, Golden Horseshoe.

TimT

It's threads like this that make me want to poke myself in the eye with a rusty, red hot needle.

Wigs, The place is perfect for you. I knew it would be. I'm not surprised. But what are you suggesting, that most of us that like GREAT golf archtiecture don't like to have fun?

I play on a somewhat semi-regular basis, a course near here called Los Amigos. It's flat as a board with some interesting potato chip-like greens and Kikuyu fairways that once in a while look like they water. Some of the bunkering has so evolved that they look like Donald Ross designed the bunkering--although that's a dreamy stretch by me. It's only around 5,900 yards long and it plays around a juvenile detention center. (no fooling) I find that I can make a birdie or double bogie or worse on most every hole. In fact, I have seen many VERY good golfers do the same. The place is a kick to play.

So, is it the pinnacle of golf course architecture? Well, let me remind you that very same critical eye of yours shot holes in my home course for archtiectural ineptitude because of length and lack of strategy and for the most part-I don't think was fun enough for you.

So what is the point?

Tustin Ranch is geared at one type of crowd: The Cohiba-chomping (with label in plain sight, otherwise the cigar is no good), beer cart girl-flirting, mindless OC-Randy "Duke" Cunnigham-is-innocent mofo who has a Callaway staff bag loaded with built in Santa Ana, bought at Roger Dunn clubs. (Roger Dunn's very own Cougar brand). These are the same guys who can take a seven on a hole and ask you to mark it down as a five.

Me, I would much rather be at somewhat nearby Willowick Golf Course, looking at some of the neat golf architecture that existed there at one time OR throwing down some diet coke at some Garden Grove hump-hump bar practicing on how to speak my best Vietnamese.

Wigs, I knew you would love that place. Why am I not surprised? Meanwhile you probably missed a great bottle of vino at The Cat & The Custard Cup.

Pete,
That's the point! You see, in the eyes of the OC/Easy to impress Wigler-set, Ted Robinson is a brand name!

It's threads like this that make me want to poke myself in the eye with a rusty, red hot needle.

Wigs, The place is perfect for you. I knew it would be. I'm not surprised. But what are you suggesting, that most of us that like GREAT golf archtiecture don't like to have fun?

I play on a somewhat semi-regular basis, a course near here called Los Amigos. It's flat as a board with some interesting potato chip-like greens and Kikuyu fairways that once in a while look like they water. Some of the bunkering has so evolved that they look like Donald Ross designed the bunkering--although that's a dreamy stretch by me. It's only around 5,900 yards long and it plays around a juvenile detention center. (no fooling) I find that I can make a birdie or double bogie or worse on most every hole. In fact, I have seen many VERY good golfers do the same. The place is a kick to play.

So, is it the pinnacle of golf course architecture? Well, let me remind you that very same critical eye of yours shot holes in my home course for archtiectural ineptitude because of length and lack of strategy and for the most part-I don't think was fun enough for you.

So what is the point?

Tustin Ranch is geared at one type of crowd: The Cohiba-chomping (with label in plain sight, otherwise the cigar is no good), beer cart girl-flirting, mindless OC-Randy "Duke" Cunnigham-is-innocent mofo who has a Callaway staff bag loaded with built in Santa Ana, bought at Roger Dunn clubs. (Roger Dunn's very own Cougar brand). These are the same guys who can take a seven on a hole and ask you to mark it down as a five.

Me, I would much rather be at somewhat nearby Willowick Golf Course, looking at some of the neat golf architecture that existed there at one time OR throwing down some diet coke at some Garden Grove hump-hump bar practicing on how to speak my best Vietnamese.

Wigs, I knew you would love that place. Why am I not surprised? Meanwhile you probably missed a great bottle of vino at The Cat & The Custard Cup.

Tommy - Sorry we did not have a chance to hook up.  I was out for a series of meetings that ended up dragging into dinner both nights.  Basically I was working from 7:00am until 11:00pm.  I ate at a really good local dive Mexican place and a very generic Sports Bar across from where the Mighty Ducks play.  I would have loved to have gotten a chance to try your families restaraunt.

I am also sorry you took offense at my liking Tustin Ranch.  I did like it though.  It is not a course that belongs on any top 100 list (Or even for that matter, in the courses to be considered for a top 100) but it is an extremely pretty place and a lot of fun to play.  Like you, I hold a course that attempts to be a top 100 golf course to a higher standard than I hold a course that simply wants to be pretty, easy to score well on, aesthetic, and fun.  I do not believe I ever said that there is anything wrong with great architecture or those that like it - myself being firmly in that group.  My point was that there is also a place for courses that want to cater to a crowd that wants to be wowed by beauty and could not care less about architecture (And between us, there are a lot more people in the later category than the former).

You bring up RC again.  I hope I did not say somewhere that I did not find it fun (Although if I did, it was to piss off DM and not because it is my real feeling).  I found RC to be a blast to play.  Shivas and I see things differently many times but one thing we are in complete agreement on is, what could be more fun than a course where you can blast away off the tee with impunity and think around all of the greens.  My RC criticisms were in the other direction - does the ability to blast with impunity affect strategic shot values to the point where the course should not be a top 100?  We do not need to debate that point as we have in the past ad nausem and neither of us will convince the other he is wrong.  Given a choice between RC and Tustin, it is probably RC 9 times, Tustin 1.  I would think that if you took my boss and other salesmen (Or Huckaby's family - not to drag Tom into this - Tom, do not feel that you need to reply) it might be 6-4 or 7-3 Tustin because of the beauty (Assuming cost was not a factor).

As I said earlier, I put this on a different thread so it would not be interpreted as criticism of those who dislike Tustin and more of a question in a vacuum - Does golf have room for aesthetics and beauty at the sacrifice of strategy?

I hope next trip I have more time and we can hook up.

Dave

Tustin Ranch is geared at one type of crowd: The Cohiba-chomping (with label in plain sight, otherwise the cigar is no good), beer cart girl-flirting, mindless OC-Randy "Duke" Cunnigham-is-innocent mofo who has a Callaway staff bag loaded with built in Santa Ana, bought at Roger Dunn clubs. (Roger Dunn's very own Cougar brand). These are the same guys who can take a seven on a hole and ask you to mark it down as a five.

OK Tommy.  Let's say you and I and DM and Joe Perches have the 2nd to last available tee time at RC for a Sunday.  Then there are a foursome of your above described stereotypical blokes who live right in between Tustin and RC and are trying to decide where to play for the day.  They call RC and are told their is one more tee time left right before your tee-off time.  they call Tustin and find a time available too...

Where do you want those guys to pick to play their Sunday game?  I say, always tell everyone how beautiful Tustin is, and that is where all the elete meet to be the man and have fun...

Hey Wiggles,

I believe that big world theory that there is a course out there to satisfy everyone's tastes.  I say thank goodness there is a Tustin or some such for those that would pick it over a Barona, RC, etc.  I could have fun with the right bunch, even at a Robinson L.A. flower garden-water park, if it is fun I seek, and that is the place everyone else wants to play.  Although, I don't know many golf pals that would pick that sort of place over a serious golf course like RC, actually.

Tustin Ranch is perfect for the crowd it serves.  The course is visually beautiful.  There are multiple waterfalls and meandering brooks that bisect the property.  The flowering put up around the course is stunning.  Several of the holes are framed very majestically by the mountains (Robinson did a nice job of playing into the mountains, so that you get the vistas).  The maintenance is immaculate and the course is deep dark green.  

David,

You have mentioned 5 things which made Tustin Ranch fun:

waterfalls (actually they are "waterscapes" a TR TM)
meandering creeks
stunning flowers
majestic mountain vistas
immaculate conditioning

It sounds to me that this is a list that explains why Tustin Ranch is $100; those 5 things are what make Ted Robinson Courses more expensive than they need to be. In his early days Ted actually designed golf courses which avoided all these extras; some of them are quite good. San Vicente, which is about 20 minutes north of Barona Creek, is the perfect example. There are no waterscapes or flower fields, conditioning is average, there are majestic mountain vistas however. It's a wonderful resort/retirement course which provides golf in a pleasant setting; all for $55. But somewhere along the way Ted drastically changed the way he designs golf courses.

In his later years Ted began cranking out courses which I'm sure are a mirror image of Tustin Ranch; we have about a dozen here in SD County. The problem I have with them is that all the focus goes to the peripherals like the waterscapes and flowers; the landscaping has become more important than the golf course architecture.  Frankly I have yet to see how all this landscaping really improves the golfing experience. Is the golf course architecture so mundane that you need a sensory feast to occupy yourselves while playing the course? Don't get me wrong, I love a golf course in a beatiful setting. But when you devote so much time and money to improving the internal setting of the course to the detriment of actually playing golf, it sets a bad precident. No doubt Ted Robinson's philosophy pleases many people who own golf clubs; but is it really what golfers want and need?