Complaints about Rustic Canyon's fans

[George Pazin]

Each time this course comes up, posters feel the need to b@#$% and moan that RC has such passionate fans that are willing to discuss it seemingly endlessly.

There is a simple solution to this "problem":

if you want to discuss other courses - your course, your buddy's, your archnemesis' (doesn't everybody have one? ) - FEEL FREE TO START A THREAD OR START TALKING ABOUT SAID COURSE(S) INSTEAD OF MOANING ABOUT RC'S SUPPORTERS. PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

I think it is fantastic that RC has such passionate fans that they are willing to discuss it day and night. If more people followed their lead with respect to other courses, the site would be better for it.

You can bet your every last dollar that when I get down to Tasmania, you will see me posting about Barnbougle early and often!

End of rant.

 

[JakaB]

George,

There is not a course in the world that if you play 100 times won't reveal little secrets that could be discussed as architectural genius if we so choose.    It is simply the random nature of nature.   I love talking about Rustic....as a matter of fact....I think it debunks the whole theory that you need to play a course to rate it.   When looking at the course from either a Golfweek or a Doak perspective I have little doubt that playing the course would ever change my current rating.   It is a solid two points beneath Hidden Creek on the B scale...

[Tom_Doak]

John:  I disagree with the first part of your statement ... every course has some subtleties, but there are a lot of modern courses where "the random nature of nature" has been utterly removed from play, and the architect's substitutions aren't all that interesting.

[George Pazin]

George,

There is not a course in the world that if you play 100 times won't reveal little secrets that could be discussed as architectural genius if we so choose.

And, yet, getting even a prolific pontificator such as yourself to reveal anything about, say, Victoria National (other than your opinion that redanman doesn't know what he's talking about), is like pulling teeth.

[JakaB]

George,

Tell you what.....of the 18 tee shots and 18 approaches at Victoria National I can tell you a story of an architectural feature that while fascinating....I don't know if it is natural or artificial....lucky or genius...so...in the spirit of getting along....I will break my silence and answer one question about one of the above 36 situations on the course......I just think what I think is so tied to my own game it is boring and egoiconoclastic.    So throw me a bone and I will ponder and give you ten words or less and then be done.   Hell, ask the people who visit me...I don't even talk about the architecture of the course in person.

[Mike Benham]

Each time this course comes up, posters feel the need to b@#$% and moan that RC has such passionate fans that are willing to discuss it seemingly endlessly.

There is a simple solution to this "problem":

if you want to discuss other courses - your course, your buddy's, your archnemesis' (doesn't everybody have one? ) - FEEL FREE TO START A THREAD OR START TALKING ABOUT SAID COURSE(S) INSTEAD OF MOANING ABOUT RC'S SUPPORTERS. PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

George -

I made the same statement that you just wrote to David M. the other day when he apologized for a topic turning into a Rustic thread.  

Least I be harpooned by Pat Mucci, I have learned that it is best to only comment/interject/state my opinion on courses that I have played.  Having not played NGLA, Shinney, Pacific Dunes and some of the other stalwarts of GCA, I find topics concerning Rustic enjoybale because I can contribute (although my 3 rounds there pale in the experience arena to David and Tommy).

Mike

[Mike Benham]

Wait a second, does the title of the topic related to the non-working ceiling fans in the grill?

Maybe they need a good electrician, anyone know one?  

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

I am a fan of Rustic Canyon but not one of the fans refered to in this post. I had heard and read so much about the course that I really was expecting it to be the course the neighborhood President would have played if he and the course had more crossover in life. The course had such a huge hill to climb for me to even meet expectations it really had a minimal chance of meeting said expectations. I love the passion David, Lynn and others have for it. I love the passion so many of us bring to this board and life. David, Lynn and others please do not ever stop.

[Mike_Golden]

I've played about 7 rounds of golf at Rustic and while it's always nice to see how passionate some of us are about the course I probably don't quite share that passion.  I certainly enjoy playing there and appreciate the quality and access provided by a really good muni golf course but don't have the sense of something special when I reach the first tee that I get at Bethpage Black (which most of you know I have played hundreds of times) or Cypress Point (which I have played once).  Rustic certainly presents some interesting strategic choices but I think until you've played a course enough times to really understand the difference most of us are simply looking to hit the fairway, figure out the best way to put the ball on the green, and execute the golf shot.  That makes it difficult to really focus on the strategic aspects of the sport, which of course become more interesting as you play a course more often.  Take me out to Bethpage Black and I can show you every inch of the golf course and how to play each hole, at least from the perspective of my game;  put me at Rustic and I'm going to play my game in the manner in which it seems to make the best sense for me and the more I listen to someone else's input the less likely it is that I will play well-I suppose that is one of the best things about golf in that it is so individual.  

 

[RJ_Daley]

I agree with you JB, I hope the regulars out there keep defending the course for the true high calibre it is in the world of GCA.  I also hope that they as consumers keep vigilant to make on-going issues of watering, or maintenance meld always a topic of keen oversight from the knowledgeable consumer's standpoint.

That brings me to a question.  Since there is no problem with full tee sheets and rounds per year played, I suppose there is no local "member" pass or defined set of playing privileges that an individual can purchase... or is there?  It would be interesting if some of the regulars could buy a stake into the course, even if it is only a local "member" pass, and that the owners would give them some sort of forum to express their thoughts and ideas about the on-going conditions and operations...

( think I just heard the superintendent loading a few rounds into his revolver)  

[David Kelly]

Rustic Canyon is what it is - a superior public golf course in an area with very little to offer in affordable public golf.  To expect the thrills one gets at Bethpage Black or Cypress Point is asking for a bit much to put it mildly.

I think the main reason it is discussed so much on here is primarily because it is a course that so many GCAers have in common through the various GCA get-togethers there as well as the number of people from Southern California who participate on this discussion group.

I wonder if Rustic Canyon has had more GCA members play it than any other course in the country?

[Mike_Golden]

Rustic Canyon is what it is - a superior public golf course in an area with very little to offer in affordable public golf.  To expect the thrills one gets at Bethpage Black or Cypress Point is asking for a bit much to put it mildly.

David,

I don't see anything in my post that says I expect the same thrill as Bethpage Black or Cypress Point.  What I said was that I don't get it that same feeling there and although it's a very good golf course that I enjoy playing I don't share the passion of you and the rest of the RC regulars.  I see nothing wrong with the way any of us feel about that.  It's great that RC is available as a public course at a reasonable price and that playing it regularly works so well for so many people.  I'm not the student of golf architecture that many people on GCA are and for me, as Tom Doak said so well on another thread, RC is a golf course made for strategy while other courses, like Wild Horse, which I haven't played, and certainly Bethpage Black, are made for shotmaking.  I'm much more a shotmaking student than architecture so some of RC's subtleties are lost on me.

Having grown up playing muni golf until the last 10 years or so I'm far from a snob when it comes to golf courses.  In all honesty, given the choice between playing RC (which requires a 60 mile drive for me), and Costa Mesa Muni (which is a 10 mile drive), I would probably choose Costa Mesa Muni, which is a very enjoyable public golf course designed by Bill Bell JR (per the Emperor(MG)) .  That's got little or nothing to do with the quality of the two golf courses, it's just that Costa Mesa satisfies my need to play a reasonably challenging golf course within a reasonable distance from my house.  I'll be moving to Long Beach shortly and I'm sure I'll find good golf there as well at Rec Park, El Dorado, and hopefully the redesigned Skylinks

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Mike,
So you don't think Rustic Canyon was designed for shot making?  From what I have seen the way the course was designed during the design process, shotmaking was at the forefront of all of the decisions made in regards to architecture. Its just a different type of architecture that many don't know or understand because they have never really studied it from a historical perspective.

Even David Moriarty himself, who played the course first before anybody here the day it opened commented on how much different a golf course this is compared to others, and to let you know further, none of us had even met David at that point--we all just hung around the same website! This a golf course that should never be compared to BB-Black or NGLA or Shinnecock, but certainly stands on a much higher level then Pelican Hill, Quintero, Oak Creek, Santa Luz and others which are all high-profile courses with little brain or braun other then the chance for a lot of lost golf balls. There is nothing wrong with comparing it to those kinds of courses.

Yes, its hard to get to Rustic from Orange County--about an hour and 15 mnutes for me and maybe an hour and a half for you--still, I play there more then anywhere, but you knew this! (They built it and I come, just like I always said I would!)

Also, Costa Mesa--Billy F. Bell or BB Jr., not BB Sr. Both Mesa Linda and Las Lagos courses were built in 1968. BB Sr. died in 1953. But you knew I was going to correct you on this didn't you!  

[Thomas_Brown]

This a golf course that should never be compared to BB-Black or NGLA or Shinnecock, but certainly stands on a much higher level then Pelican Hill, Quintero, Oak Creek, Santa Luz and others which are all high-profile courses with little brain or braun other then the chance for a lot of lost golf balls.

Well said.

[Mike_Golden]

Tommy,

The comments about RC and strategy and design were from Tom Doak:

I think the contrast between the two is significant, that they offer two different viewpoints:  Rustic Canyon is more about design and getting the player to think about design, while Wild Horse is more about playing golf, and getting the player to execute golf shots.

I think Tom said that very well.  I'm not criticizing anyone who loves RC and I've now said that several times on this thread;  I said for me, playing a local course that I find enjoyable works better into my schedule and priorities.  I've always been like that-hell, I played Shoreline GC in Mountain View almost exclusively for serveral years because of that..  Also, as you know, the last two times I went to RC to play the wind was howling and it made it almost impossible to enjoy the round.  So I hesitate to commit to drive out there.  But that's my preference, not anyone else's, and if someone invited to play at 8 AM or so on a Sunday I'd probably be there (just not 6 AM).

I actually didn't know it was Billy Jr. who did Costa Mesa but thanks for the correction.  My take on this is that is shows he could do a pretty good job because both courses there are fun to play.

[Mike_Golden]

Tommy,

One more thing, which you already know-I won't play Pelican Hill, won't play Oak Creek, won't play Strawberry Farms, Tustin Ranch, Tijeras Creek (again), Aliso Viejo, Monarch Bay, Black Gold, Texas Tee, Cement Ponds, Sleeping with the Fishes GC, Stugots GC or any of the other high end OC courses because they aren't worth the time or the money.  There's no question RC is significantly better than the ones on the list that I've played (Oak Creek, Aliso Viejo) and is a terrific golf course

[ForkaB]

Tommy,

The comments about RC and strategy and design were from Tom Doak:

I think the contrast between the two is significant, that they offer two different viewpoints:  Rustic Canyon is more about design and getting the player to think about design, while Wild Horse is more about playing golf, and getting the player to execute golf shots.

Sorry to semi-hijack this thread (actually, hijacking a RC thread has always been on my list of the "100 things to do before you die"........),  but I think that Tom Doak's quote above is very interesting.

Tom (if you are there (here?)):

Is there such a thing as "design for design's sake" regarding golf courses which is (or can be) something different than "(design for) playing golf, and getting the player to execute golf shots."

Is Rustic more about design than playing golf?  The testimony of just about all who have played there seem to say not.  Are they "right" or "wrong?"

[Matt_Ward]

Rustic Canyon is not simply getting players to think about design -- sure, that's part of it -- RC also entails getting to the most favored position for the next shot. In my mind, that's central to the playing of the game. There is a strategic component to the course although I have mentioned my own feelings that the redunancy of #9 and #10 along with the down canyon profusion of long par-4's is a bit too similiar.

Nonetheless, the design sets the tone in giving the player a range of options and challenges -- clearly, the course allows for the wherewithal of Joe Sixpack to play alongside the lower handicap player without all the cluttering up of the design with inane features as waterfalls, triple tier greens, OB or H20 hugging each hole and other such carnival features that seem to populate so many modern courses that I have visited.

The detailing of the greens is certainly miles beyond the drivel that calls itself golf in so much of SoCal and for that reason alone the profile of RC is something other bonafide public courses need to emulate in order to maximize the "fun" element that is central to the development of future players.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Matt,
EXACTLY!

[THuckaby2]

Wait a second.

Did I just read what I think I did?

Or did the earth somehow turn over on its axis?

Tommy Naccarato agreeing with Matt Ward, and about Rustic Canyon of all things?

It's a proud day in the august history of this discussion group.

Or a sad day.  I can't decide.

 

[Tom_Doak]

Rich:

The testimony of all who have played Rustic Canyon is pretty much limited on this site to people who are already very interested in golf course design, so that's no way to judge the answer to your question.

You cannot get a player to think about design unless the golf course makes them pay, at least subtly, for not thinking about it.  That is why I said the conditioning of Rustic Canyon is extremely important there.  If you give someone wide fairways like that, combined with soft greens and no opportunity to use the contours of the approaches, then the good player will not have to think too much, other than on his first putt.

So, I don't think it's "design for design's sake," but it's pretty clear that at Rustic Canyon they want you to think about your options of how to play the hole, while at Wild Horse they want you to hit the shot you need to hit.  I don't think either approach is wrong.  The routing of Wild Horse is well done, and the shots they're asking you to hit are all carefully planned to work in any wind condition.

[John Langdoc]

Sign me up for the "Rustic passionate fans club."

I've only played it once.  I too had monumental expectations.  [I played it in the same weekend between rounds at Torrey Pines and PGA West after deciding, “what the heck, let’s squeeze it in there, I’m dying to play it.”  Yes San Diego, to Moorpark, to Palm Desert over a three day weekend.  The trio is a terribly interesting comparison, but I digress.)

Rustic EXCEEDED my monumental expectations.  If it ain’t fun, I don’t know what fun is.  A large part of the “fun factor” was the strategy.  The countless options on each hole.  What a blast.

[Mike Hendren]

My $0.02:

I would be surprised if anyone in the treehouse didn't "like" Rustic Canyon.  There's plenty to like there.  I would also be surprised if anyone did not believe that it is a very good golf course.  There is plenty of architectural merit and Gil Hanse et al deserve plenty of credit.

I'm merely speculating, but I believe the "rub" (on the surface - let's be honest - there's an acrimonious undertone) lies in the course's failure to garner top 100 status and a sense of panic that if didn't make someone's list out of the gate, it probably never will since the latest and greatest will always be crashing the party.  For example,  Talking Stick North and Black Creek broke the top 100 early on, but have since dropped off and are unlikely to ever return.  Like Rustic Canyon, they reflect classical elements, are strategic and break the modern mold.  

Among moderns, I would not rate Rustic Canyon in the top 100.  But I'd have to think about it an awfully long time and cannot find fault with those who would.  

Mike

[Matt_Ward]

Mike:

Regarding your comments about RC not being a top 100 modern course I'd be curious to know if you see Wild Horse being rated as high as 19th?

My question -- what does one course (Wild Horse) have in such a high amount to merit a 19th position when compared to what RC is supposedly missing not to be included?

Please realize I'm not taking an "acrimonious undertone" position -- just a straight up question for you to answer.

Thanks ...

P.S. Please assess for me the standing of RC versus the likes of Talking Stick / North and Black Creek if you have played all of them. Look forward to your answer.

[THuckaby2]

This is another situation where the whole rating thing gets nutty, and I say that as one who participates in the process (though not for Golfweek).

From everything we've heard, Rustic ended up #101.

Wild Horse is #19.

The way I understand the stats and the way these are computed by Golfweek, that could mean a TINY differential in points, to the effect that you maybe 2 raters out of the 25 who might have turned in ratings for each give WH a 9 and Rustic an 8, or something like that.

Thus Matt keeps asking why there is SOOOOO much difference between these two, and I have to go back to what Mike Cirba said in that thread - the differences truly are TINY!

How many courses have been built since 1960?  If WH is #19 and Rustic #101, then both are in a very tiny percentage at the very top.

Thus I find the whole thing much ado about nothing... they are both great courses, both highly celebrated.

No?

TH