Wild Horse v Rustic Canyon

[Matt_Ward]

The comparison between these two unique public courses -- both are relatively inexpensive -- makes me wonder how people see these two courses when compared against one another.

Frankly, I am perplexed that Wild Horse is among the top 25 modern courses by GolfWeek but Rustic Canyon is not even in the top 100. Is Wild Horse really thaaaaaaaaaaaaaat far beyond Rustic Canyon.

I'm not going to engage in a silly match play contest of holes but I do believe that the layout in Moorpark, CA is much closer, if not even ahead, of the one that's situated in Gothenburg.

I wonder how others view the two layouts -- please participate ONLY if you have played both of them. Observing either of the courses simply from photographs doesn't demonstrate much real "homework" to me.

[GeoffreyC]

Matt

They are quite similar. Wild Horse played faster then any course I have ever played but for Ireland during the drought they had in 2000. It made playing an absolute blast.  Holes like #15 at WH in firm and fast conditions raise the pulse and stir the heart. It is one reason why I love the game so much.  

The absolute architecture is probably more sophisticated (I don't want to use the term "better") at Rustic. During my rounds it was easy to see the potential if TEP's maintenance meld ever came to being at RC but it was missing a bit.

My scores for both courses (for what that's worth) are very similar and clearly well up the Top 100 modern list of GW.

[RJ_Daley]

Matt,  for me as a 14 index player who can't seem to get better, to score well enough to say I am happy with my round, I would have to say that in terms of degree of difficulty, Rustic is a harder course for my level of player, and I would have more satisfying rounds at WH and could be more frustrated at RC.  That would hold true with wind or calm conditions.  While I have played WH many more times than RC, I don't think it is necessarily a familiarity thing.  

The course ratings and slope are, tips RC 73.1/126 6933 yards, and WH 73.0/125 6805 (new back tees have added a few yard), member tees RC 71.4/124 6618 and WH 70.4 122 6315.  Maybe that says it all, but to me there is even a more pronounced degree of difficulty at RC, maybe 3-4 strokes.

If you asked me where would you like to play tomorrow, on any given day, I honestly would not be able to be consistant.  I would pick RC tomorrow, and WH next week.  

That may sound like a politically correct answer, but really, I have my moods...

[Tom_Doak]

I have played them both just one time each, so I don't know them nearly as well as some people here ... and I don't really want to get into the details because I will be accused of praising and/or picking on fellow architects who are also friends and former associates.  I will stick to general observations.

I played Wild Horse 3-4 years ago and Rustic Canyon over this past winter.  The most obvious difference between the two was that Wild Horse (then) was in much better playing condition than Rustic Canyon (then).  At Wild Horse we had very firm conditions and wind; Rustic Canyon was pretty soft and there wasn't much wind that day.  Also, parts of the washes at Rustic Canyon were overgrown and roped off, which really undermines the design since those washes were intended to be playable hazards.

(Having suffered through maintenance difficulties on at least two of my better designs, I can sympathize with Gil and Geoff there.)

Wild Horse opts for 18 medium sized greens with plenty of internal contour; I don't think the strategy of driving the ball changes too much based on the pin placement, but you must drive the ball well, and you must leave your approach on the correct side of the hole.

Rustic Canyon gives the average player MUCH wider fairways (but several forced carries) and large greens; it is possible to hit a lot of greens and still post a poor score.  It allows for a greater variety of options in playing the holes, but the width makes it that much more important for the golf course to play firm.

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 they are similar in terms of quality and would most likely get the same rating on the Doak scale, giving Rustic Canyon the benefit of the doubt that it isn't always as soft as the day I saw it, and the fences come down.  

Honestly, what they both remind me of is High Pointe, which from me is a genuine compliment, although some would disagree.  And that's sort of in line with Dave's assessment ... High Pointe was more highly regarded by some people ten years ago because it was so different, but now I've done other things which people admire more.  (Except, Dave, that Rustic Canyon is not like any of the public courses in Chicago, and would have the same type of enthusiastic-but-not-unanimous following there that it does in L.A.)

That's all I intend to say on the subject; please don't ask me any detailed questions about the two courses, because it does me no good to answer.

[RJ_Daley]

Anyone want to throw Barona Creek into this mix?  I have gotten a certain sense of similarity in feel and context to associate all three (RC,WH,BC) at times while playing at them.   I think at their ideal maintenance meld, firm and fast and dry playable rough, they all share a certain appeal to those with an affinity for such conditions.  

But, only Wild Horse can deliver those ideal maintenance meld conditions most consistently.  Even Wild Horse has times where it is comparatively softer than ideal.  But, BC and RC can not deliver those conditions as consistently as WH, and I doubt never will.  It is not anyone in course managements fault either.  It is simply the difference between 24,000 rounds played at tops at WH, and 80,000 possible more at the others.  What course can be allowed to take that stress with those dry lean conditions for too long and meet the general public's expectations of a course in American maintenance meld standards and concepts?  The public would call RC and BC goat ranches if that were the operational standard.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Tom,
I don't think you have to say anymore! Well done!

Dave,
Read ALL of Tom's description and then try to describe the architecture, maintanence and other comparisons and then post again. Not on thing in your original post was about the architecture, or at least you didn't allude to it.

[Scott_Burroughs]

Tom D,

With your busy schedule, it's nice to see that you still get around to see new courses.

...are overrated by their proponents (which is no surprise)....WH, frankly, is rated more for what it stands for than what it actually is.  It stands for hard and fast and cheap.  That's a winning combination to many.

That's exactly what someone else told me recently.

[Mike_Cirba]

I have a favorite of the two, but it's close enough that it's not worth telling.

Let's just say that both courses are almost exactly what public course golf...hell, any golf, should be all about.

[Matt_Ward]

Clearly, what's striking to me is that Wild Horse is the 19th best modern course (GolfWeek) and Rustic Canyon didn't even sniff the top 100. Is the gap that wide between the two courses?

[Mike_Cirba]

Matt;

If I recall correctly, Rustic Canyon finished just out of the Top 100 Modern in last year's Golfweek listing.  

Statistically, that can probably be as small as a single point between the two.  

I wouldn't get hung up too much on exact rankings.  They are both superb courses.

[Mike Nuzzo]

RC gets its fans by virtue of it being in close proximity to LA, while having no peers in its group.  That makes it unique.  RC might get lost in the crowd if LA were more like Chicago

Would you name one public course in Chicago better than Rustic? let alone a dozen?
One with better green complexes, variety, strategy...
Dubs isn't.
Sorry Matt I've never been to WH...

[HamiltonBHearst]

If statistically the difference between 19 and a course not in the top 100 is so small, why present the ratings in this way?  Funny a rater telling us not to get to hung up on ratings.  Maybe Rustic makes top 20 without those unsightly houses behind the fourth green.

[Matt_Ward]

Mike:

I hear what you're saying, but my issue comes down to the fact that Wild Horse is in the high altitude land of modern courses and when I see it ahead of such unique designs as The Kingsley Club, Karsten Creek, Arcadia Bluffs and Paa-Ko Ridge I have to wonder that maybe, just maybe, the course is a tad overrated.

I'm a big fan of the layout in Gothenburg and for what it provides as an alternate vision away from the carnival designs that parade themselves as being superior courses.

Personally, I don't see Rustic Canyon thaaaaaaaaaaaat far behind Wild Horse even if the stats don't have them, as you indicate, that far behind. Nonetheless, RC is still outside the top 100 and the other is within the top 20. That's a lot of ground to cover IMHO.

Personally, I would say RC -- when it's maximum firm and fast -- is the superior course because the greater range of holes and shot-making diversity is a bit more thorough and challenging than at Wild Horse. No doubt if someone would play Wild Horse in a typical 25 mph wind they may feel differently!

I do have to say that Wild Horse has two of the most unique holes I have seen on the public front -- the long par-4 8th is a gem of a hole -- it requires a marriage between distance and direction and the "evil" fairway bunker that angles in from the left is really why Proctor & Axland are so gifted -- simply delicious stuff for the way the bunker "looks" and the way it "plays." I also believe the short par-4 15th is one of the best short par-4's in all of public golf in the USA that I have played. The range of options is always there. Nothing less than a wow IMHO.

I also reviewed both courses thoroughly and have to say the greater diversity of holes rests with RC although I believe no less than one of the par-3's at RC (take your pick with the 4th or 17th) is simply far less than the others there and the same situation exists with the five par-5's -- no less than one of them is also quite pedestrian (the 1st can certainly qualify on that score). I have also stated quite a few times that all of the key long par-4's play "down canyon" which is regrettable because having one or more going the other way would allow for a greater challenge no matter the wind direction or land movement.

That's why one of the "weaknesses" of Wild Horse for me rests with the two par-5's on the back. BOTH play in the same direction and are easily reachable even for the player who doesn't hit it that far. It's too bad the 17th wt Wild Horse could not have been a long par-4 and the 18th coming back being a par-5 to make sure there would be a balance no matter the wind direction.

All in all, both are unique and the "fun" element is clearly present.

[Brian_Gracely]

I have also stated quite a few times that all of the key long par-4's play "down canyon" which is regrettable because having one or more going the other way would allow for a greater challenge no matter the wind direction or land movement.

#11 at RC plays up canyon and I felt it was the toughest hole on the course.  

[Matt_Ward]

Brian:

Mea culpa -- but my point still holds that having a disproportionate number of long par-4's going in the same direction (2nd, 14th, 16th, and 18th) is redundant and could have been alleviated in some form or another.

Ditto four of the five par-5's also head in the same general direction -- the 1st being the lone exception.

P.S. The issue of the 11th was discussed in great detail previously -- my position was that having some sort of bunker on the right side would prevent people from simply playing completely away from the junk that hugs the left side. Some felt otherwise. The green at the 11th is also quite unique.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Matt,
Try looking at it this way for your game and not so much in relation to par, but actually 1-shot, 2 shot, & 3 shot holes with half shots included for holes you think you could either hit or miss 50% of the time. This is the way Captain Thomas professed many of the holes he designed when laying out a golf course.

In example:

For me, here are number of shots for me to usually get on the green.

1-3 shot
2-2-1/2 shot
3-2 shot (sometimes a possibility of it being a 1-1/2 shot)
4-1 shot (for many good players its a 1 1/2 shot because they play it high into the wind and miss the green--everytime!)
5-3 shot (But 4 shot from the new back tee!)
6-1-1/2 shot
7-2 shot (with many times it being a 1/2 shot added)
8-1 shot
9-3 shot
10-3-1/2 shot (at least now with the HHA and until I learn how to better play it. For you I would guess a 2-1/2)
11-3 shot
12-2 shot
13-3 shot
14-3-1/2 shot for me! (the hardest hole on the course in my opinion, especially in the prevailing wind)
15-1 shot
16-2-1/2 shot
17-1-1/2 shot
18-2-1/2 shot

Now these are going to be much different for you, and especially from either the Blue or Black tees for me.

For most, RC is a course that gets harder and harder as you play into it, and I equate that as an exacting test for most. I have seen others, many good golfers play, and its the same for them too even if they drive the ball further then me and also play much more efficient approach shots to the green. (I catch-up in the putting though:))

So how would these holes figure for you in shots and half-shots?

[Ben Cowan-Dewar]

Both are overrated by their proponents (which is no surprise).

That is interesting, because I have always thought Rustic Canyon is underrated by its opponents.

Which Chicago public courses would you say are better, because I need to revisit Chicago if I have missed them.

Having not played WH, I will not get into specifics, except to say I played Rustic four times in 2003 (at different times of year) and have not seen it anyway other than firm and windy.

[THuckaby2]

Well, there's firm and then there's Wild Horse's asphalt/putt from anywhere/god help you if you land it too far/give up on anything in the air/unfathomably fun firm.  It would be incredible to see Rustic in those conditions.  But the paying public there would likely quit after 3 holes, so Rustic is what it is - pretty darn firm, but playable in the air.

Does Rustic ever get really screaming firm and fast, like Wild Horse?

TH

[Ben Cowan-Dewar]

Tom,
The SoCal folks can better answer this, but I played Woking in the midst of their heat spell/drought last year and Rustic was just as firm in one of my visits last year.

I have also never been able to spin a five iron to any green at Rustic, which I know you said you once had it soft enough to do, so I am not sure if I have just been lucky.

[THuckaby2]

Ben:

It was a 2iron, on #2, coming from the right over the bunker, and it hit and stopped with 3 feet.  But that was very early and in the dew... so really doesn't count.  

In any case my point isn't that Rustic plays soft - it surely doesn't.  Good lord it was plenty firm when we were there earlier this year.

I just can't imagine Rustic getting to the same degree of firm as Wild Horse though.  Man it would be very cool if it did... and maybe it does, thus my question.  Maybe you've answered it.  Nothing against you, I just need some confirmation from someone who's been to both places, because the firm I saw at Wild Horse was really mind-blowing.

TH

[Matt_Ward]

Tommy:

Wind direction and turf conditions would in many ways determine the answers you seek.