[DMoriarty]

Yet another conversation about Rustic Canyon broke out on the 'courses which grow on you' thread.  I thought maybe I could spare deserving topic by diverting the Rustic discussion to over here.

Since it opened there have been many raving compliments and some some slight criticisms of RC.  While everyone generally likes it, more than a few have pointed out a weakness or two.  

For example, No. 1 has been called to short for a par 5 and too hard for an opener; No. 2 called not exacting enough from the tee; No 3 too easy on the driver, and not tempting enough to try to drive bc it is only a 6 iron then 9 iron;  No. 4 is blah, has ugly houses and is only exciting on the green; No. 5, to short for driver;  No. 7 no good reason to lay up left, no good reason to try the carry right; No. 8 too short, green too small, green too forgiving, why the rough?

. . . you get the picture.

In fact, I think that positions have been taken which would indicate that every hole in the course is a weak hole, with the possible exception of No. 6.  

I am wondering . . . just which one is the weakest, and why?  

Maybe we can even come up with a list from weakest to strongest!  

[Bill_McBride]

Why not #6?  You can't even see the fairway down there from the tips!

Anybody who's calling those holes at RC weak doesn't get it!

[Jeff_Mingay]

I haven't visited Rustic Canyon yet, but how can a hole be "too short for a par 5" and at the same time "too hard for an opener"? That statement makes no sense, really.

Take the par value away, and I guess it's just a challenging hole.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

David,
You don't know how disappointed I am with this entire website right now.

We have today-

-People praising Fizzio
-People ragging on Rustic Canyon and comparing Pacific Dunes to Shadow Creek (one of the most over-rated golf courses of all-time)
-Tom Paul getting into a head to head battle with Tom Macwood, when they both stand for the same thing. (Redundancy at its best)
-18 signature holes exist in New Mexico
-A single-Malt called Languvilin Cask-Strength or something like that has eluded my palate and my wallet once again.

Not a good day

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Jeff, That in fact is the wide array of comments on the first hole from the people that particapte on this forum.

God forbid there wasn't a number on the scorecard to justify their existence!

[Mike Hendren]

David,

I'd remove #4 from the weakest list first.  An incredibly delicate shot to the back left pin we played at KPIII.   This was one of my favorite holes on the golf course.

Mike

[Joe Perches]

I am wondering . . . just which one is the weakest, and why?  

I think the  weakest holes are the backside par 3s.

Weakest:

15 - With a  badly done triple tiered green, where it is too possible to get a 5 being just 10 feet long on your first iron.  You can have no chance stopping your first putt with a real possibility of putting off the green, ending up downhill 50 yards besides.

It's just a fill-in hole to get to the 16th tee.

Next weakest:

17 - The landing area and green need to be hardened.  Yes, the green cant is unexpected, but after the first few times you play this hole, it becomes quite simple.

[Matt_Ward]

I really enjoy Rustic Canyon and I had the opportunity to listen to a comment from someone who has played Rustic and Wild Horse and he said (I won't name him) quite frankly that the detailing at Wild Horse was not as precise when compared to the design in Moorpark, CA.

I tend to agree but I must add that I believe the top 20 modern rating for Wild Horse by GolfWeek to be a tad higher than it should be given the other layouts I have played nationwide. How Rustic Canyon is ignored is indeed baffling.

Yes, I am one of those who has listed some shortcomings of Rustic Canyon, however, I also believe that it provides a different and most welcomed / needed vision on what public golf can be for the non-affiliated player.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Joe, I totally agree with you on #15 and what you suggest on #17 will be happening  as soon as the new sprinkler heads get installed to replace the bad ones.

[Matt_Ward]

Maybe Tommy or David M can speak to the issue of how the course is being prepared on a daily basis.

I have heard from someone most familiar with the course that the people managing the facility are applying a good bit of water and minimizing the importance of the ground option.

Be interested to hear comments on that.

[JakaB]

I don't understand how 1, 9 and 10 can all be par fives unless the placement of the clubhouse was more important than the architecture.....it just seems like everything centers around a clubhouse that is just not all that..

[DMoriarty]

Maybe Tommy or David M can speak to the issue of how the course is being prepared on a daily basis.

I have heard from someone most familiar with the course that the people managing the facility are applying a good bit of water and minimizing the importance of the ground option.

Be interested to hear comments on that.

Matt,

I'd be glad to address it.  I'd like to see the course firmer and faster.  They have had endless problems with the sprinklers and controlling just where they are watering.  The computer system was up and running for the first time ever a few month ago, then broke, but is now fixed again.  Many of the sprinkers dont reach as far as expected so there are often brown hard spots directly next to over-irrigated spots.   I think they are in-line to have all their sprinkler heads replaced as defective.  Also, they are replacing all the sprinklers around the greens with 180 degree (instead of 360 degree) sprinklers, so they can water the greens without watering the fringes.  

That being said, the course is still a pleasure to play and for the most part plays as intended.  Would be better if they could manage to get the water under control.  Jeff Hicks (the super) is making efforts but has not had the management support getting things right until very recently.  I trust now that a few problems (new sprinklers, computer) are being fixed, things will become much more consistent.  

By the way Matt your source plays most of his rounds with the sun rising . . . I probably play a few more than him in the late morning and early afternoon and can assure you that the course usually plays quite nicely.    

By the way,  it is my understanding that your source is a member of this discussion group and perfectly capable of posting on this issue, if he so desired.   Odd that you would see fit to put words in his mouth and then challenge me and Tommy to anwer to your take on his words.   Believe me, we've discussed it at length.   In my opinion your source is very grumpy and mean in the morning and has been known to complain about things such as dew on the grass and the occasional fog, once announcing during the only fog in about a 5 month span that if it kept up he would refuse to play in the morning.  Perhaps it is a matter of viewing the course as half empty or half full.  

[Mike Benham]

Not a good day

Tommy -

This should brighten your day ...

                      W L PCT GB

Los Angeles      78 58 .574 - -  
San Francisco   76 63 .547 3.5  
San Diego        73 64 .533 5.5
Colorado          59 77 .434 19.0  
Arizona            42 95 .307 36.5

[DMoriarty]

Joe, I am not sure I understand what you are saying regarding 17.  I noticed the other day that  you said that the back right pin was the most difficult but that left me scratching my head.   I think that is one of the easier pins for the reasons you state.  Anything on the left side (front middle or back) is much more difficult and in my opinion that is what makes the hole.  

[Matt_Ward]

David M:

Take a chill David -- I just asked a simple question -- I don't need all the barking and commands from your royal highness on what my intentions are.

The issue was raised by someone I respect and I wanted to see if it has merit or none at all.

Nothing more ... nothing less.

[DMoriarty]

I don't understand how 1, 9 and 10 can all be par fives unless the placement of the clubhouse was more important than the architecture.....it just seems like everything centers around a clubhouse that is just not all that..

Barney, could you explain your logic.  You've lost me. Why does having 1, 9, and 10 par fives mean that they were designed to accomodate the clubhouse??  

[JakaB]

David,

Because it seems like 1 and 10 are par fives to get away from the clubhouse....while 9 is used to get back to the clubhouse.   My idiot intuition tells me that it would have been different if returning nines to a specific location was not a priority.....not a problem as much as a requirement..

[DMoriarty]

Barney I dont get that sense about these particular holes. In fact, until the recent bunker additions on No 10, my guess is that all three of these holes were pretty much as is before the course was built.  The course does start out easy, so maybe you are partially correct about No. 10.  
_______________

Matt.  Relax.  Just thought it odd that you wouldnt let your source speak for himself, if he so chose.  Remind me to be careful what I say next time me meet for a pleasurable round or two.  

Speaking of which, why dont you come back out and we will play a double header with your source, so we can get an idea of the conditions throughout the day.  Surely with all you've asked and said about the course, you should see it for a second time??

Anyway, I hope I have answered your question to your satisfaction.

[Matt_Ward]

David:

As an FYI -- as a member of the golf media everything I hear is ON THE RECORD unless I say otherwise. Be forewarned!

One last thing -- I hope to return to SoCal soon and would love the opportunity to play RC -- to have you in tow for four house would be a great opportunity for us to do a live version of "point" & "counterpoint."

I found it interesting about his comments on RC v Wild Horse. A very compelling case can be made for the former against the well respected latter. Maybe a thread can be started on that regard.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Mike,
And fading fast! But we got Az tonight,and I think if we can take all three it will lessen the pain. IF THEY DON'T, we are in trouble!

Matt,
Your source is a slouch and an upstart who only knows golf courses according to the Dewey Decimil System and also doesn't know how to vote in the upcoming election. I will confront this with him and David M. on Friday and/or Sunday when we are at the Dodger game. (Friday night is fireworks night and Slouch Cap night on Sunday)

You know what? Rustic Canyon is weak and you should all stay away!

[Matt_Ward]

Tommy:

Tell my "source" I enjoyed our time together in my "neck of the woods!"

One other thing -- his comments on RC v Wild Horse made me really think about it and frankly I believe RC has a very compelling case. Like I said -- a thread on that would prove to be most enlightening.

[Joe Perches]

the back right pin was the most difficult

I can't reach the green using 8 iron from the back tees as I've seen some other do.  I hit 4 and 5 from the back there.  I still however think it's the right tee for me.

That right pin position difficulty depends on whether you want to make birdie or par and how consistently you hit middle iron.  Some righthanders with a natural draw have to start out over the trees right to get close to that pin.  That can be a fun gamble to watch.  High fade is the right play I think.

So anyway with the pin on the right,if you hit it too far right or chunk it, you can get a high score.  When the pin is left or center, with all that landing area short of the green, offlines, misses and chunks don't have quite the same penalty.  Mis-hit shots short still sometimes get to the green.

I'd like 17 more if you had to be more precise with the shot.  The apron and green really do need to get back to what Rustic was like closer to the course opening in early/mid 2002.  Hit the middle of green, watch the ball roll long.

Not quite like USGA/Shinnecock hardness I guess, but definitely much harder and firmer than now.

Today, hit the middle of the green, see the ball stop within a few feet, even with 4 iron.  I believe that's a recipe for dull golf.

[David Kelly]

This source says that Rustic Canyon is too wet and even though it may be dried out by the afternoon there is no reason for it to be as wet as it is in the morning.  It hasn't rained in 5 or 6 months - wetness shouldn't even be an issue!

Additionally even if it is dried out by 2:00 there is damage being done to the course in the morning hours when the course is wet.  Examples:
1) The many divots being gouged out of the course especially around the greens.
2) The literally hundreds of ball marks on the greens from balls hitting the soft greens in the morning and not being repaired by the golfers or the staff.
3) Areas like the wet swamp in front of the apron on #3, the big dirt patch in the swale in front of #6, many areas of the 7th fairway, and the par 3 tee boxes to name just a few.

The course is still a great pleasure to play however it is laughable to suggest that the playing conditions are not a cause of concern.  And I say this fully realizing that Rustic is a public golf course that does land-office business and has ownership that does not support the superintendent as it should.

I am not assigning blame but the course's condition speak for itself.

[DMoriarty]

David,

Glad we agree that RC is still a pleasure to play.  

But you've lost site of the fact that we also agree that it has been way to wet, especially in the morning, although as usual your doom and gloom is greatly exaggerated.   But no one suggested that the overwatering is not cause for concern, nor that the overwatering doesnt hurt the day to day condition of the course.  

So where do we differ?   You are a pessimist and a doomsayer and I am not.  Jeff tells me that steps are being taken to correct the problem, and I believe him.  But no use arguing, when the infrastructure is finally in place we will see improvement first hand, or not.  

Joe is correct that we need to turn back the conditioning clock to where it was in the beginning.  Soon.  Otherwise my good friend David Kelly will implode.  

I'll try to take some photographs this week, so the rest of you can get a sense of what we are talking about.  

[Thomas_Brown]

I'm just hoping Shackelford gets that other course done, so we can read about something else.

Rather than analyze what's wrong w/ Rustic - It's so easy to debate why that person's opinion is wrong - I would put it the other way - Which holes are so memorable and interesting?

e.g. #10 or #17 at Bel Air.
#4, #9, #10, #18 at Riv.
#7, #8, #18 at Pebble
#18 at Kap.
#4 at Bethpage
#3 at Wanna.
...

RC #14 is somewhat interesting but not in the same league as the above.  I agree the course is a pleasure to play and has some interesting greens for chipping and approaches.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()