The Case for Ignoring Skilled Golfer’s Tee Shots

[DMoriarty]

TH and Tommy:  I am not really following either side of your lover's spat, but maybe it is time you guys got a room and make up, or at least play a round together, to clear the air.  

And please leave me out of it.  If I have unfairly maligned anyone other than Matt Ward regarding their opinion regarding RC, I apologize.  (Just kidding Matt.)  JakaB is correct that we do neither the course nor the architects any favors by too overzealously defending the course.  

I just enjoy discussing the course.  For me it makes a great case study, and helps me understand architecture.  It's nothing personal.

[THuckaby2]

Understood, David.  As you can see the air is getting clearer and clearer.  And would that I could actually play golf with the Emperor, given I never have!  Our paths in life just don't seem to allow that.

Some day.

In any case, do realize, as I'm sure you do, that when we are together in person, or talking on the phone, all crap is gone.  The veil of impersonality this forum provides emboldens us all and we all say things we wouldn't otherwise.  Nevertheless, words do matter.

Our discussion right now re 12 is very cool in any case.  Previous times it was not this way... Here's to coming to greater understandings!  

TH

[DMoriarty]

Tom, shouldnt the 80 yd shot from the right be challenging, given that those golfers have played safe off the tee, and they only have 80 yds in?  Otherwise everyone would always go right!

You definitely have to execute to get it on the green from anywhere, but it is not as if it is impossible to get it on the green from far right.  In fact, I don't think it is all that difficult, once you start to understand the down canyon.  You can hit a bump and run or hit it high, and the ball reacts consistently from day to day.  For most pins, I'd much rather be 80 yds right than in the fairway short left, or over/by the green.

Take another look at the last picture above.  The prevailing slope runs straight left of the line between the golfers and the green, so they can use the slope to their benefit, and are aiming at a relatively large portion of the green/apron with very little undulation.

As for the really big hitters, more power to 'em if they can fly it to the green and hold it.  I think the odds of them being able to accomplish this are quite long.

[THuckaby2]

David:

Yes, the 80 yard shot in should be challenging, without a doubt.  I'm just saying that perhaps there ought to be more of a reward for making an aggressive play.  I didn't see the reward, still don't.

But maybe that's because it isn't meant to exist?

Cue the twilight zone music, and hopefully the lightbulbs....

If I am getting this right, the golfer actually IS rewarded for finding the right slice of the pie, the right angle, far more than he is getting it closer to the green, even though generally closer is always going to be better.... right?

Bear with me if that sounds simple to you, it remains a difficult concept to grasp just because it is counter to most other golf holes.

Do I have this correct?  

Man, this just makes the golf hole grow even greater in my mind.  Ok, rip at it if you can - getting it close to the green still is gonna be a good thing, but finding the correct angle remains paramount even at that.  The risk is big.

And that correct angle is going to change based on pin position, one's preferred shot, how one is playing....

This is great stuff.  What a damn great golf hole.  Of course, I believe I always said that. We truly have no argument there... I'm just trying to understand better everything that's going on.

I gotta go today.  Perhaps tomorrow I might be braver and discuss holes where I didn't find nearly this much going on on the tee shot.  In my mind, they do exist.  But perhaps not... I am still kinda shell-shocked from the last time I tried that.

This is great stuff in any case and I continue to appreciate you taking the time to help me understand it better.

TH

[JakaB]

TommyN,

I never had any credibility from day one to lose...don't fight a battle with me over something you have earned and cherish.  Before you decide to hurt people you may think I respect and love consider the fact that you love golf architecture and the role it plays in your life...You better take it down a notch bud...cause you ain't seen every architectural feature created by man or the random acts of nature....I would rather give up every friendship and or passing relationship I have in the world of golf and man than sit by and be party to unadulterated bullshit...tone it down man before you lose everything you have earned and so richly deserve....you may reach a point of regret where you become just another cartoon character....and baby thats right where I started.

[DMoriarty]

Tom you've said repeatedly that the driver just right of the green didnt feel like that dangerous of a shot.  It isn't, so long as one doesnt miss left.   In fact, I think it looks so easy that it begs golfers (long and short alike) to hit it down that alley. But even if the golfer misses the gunk and bunkers, the drive must be precisely placed to make this play work, for most pins.  

Yes, angle does matter even within 10 yds of the green, as it does on the green itself (we all know there are better places worse places, on interesting greens.)

And yes there should be a reward for the properly executed aggressive play.  And there is here.  It is just that properly executing requires more than just hitting a straight drive.  You also have to hit it the exact right distance down a slippery slope.  

  

[DMoriarty]

you may reach a point of regret where you become just another cartoon character....and baby thats right where I started.

And here I thought you were the other Barney.

[Mike_Cirba]

Nice to see David and Tom Huckaby reaching a higher mutual understanding after all of this discussion.

I know that the architects hoped that this hole would be a mind-bender, and it seems from all of the detailed debate that they've succeeded, perhaps beyond anything they ever imagined.

As far as Tommy N. and JakaB, they seem to be a bit further apart still.

I'm just hoping that they are speaking to each other offline and using much less contentious tones.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

John, Quite obviously you took my post too seriously. It was done in the same vane as your posts--seemingly attacking, but really joking to the point that it attacks all aspects of each others characters in the most provocative of manners. If I'm wrong, I apologize, but have to say, that I'm just following your lead.

You the man!
T

[JakaB]

It is more different then anything anyone has seen in all of Golf, not just in California, and until you really get into it and study it a bit more then one round and drive-by, you will still maintain that it isn't really that hard of a golf hole.

It is however painfully obvious you didn't play the very back tees--where most "SKILLED" golfers play

The 12th hole defends itself beautifully in the truest sense of the word "GOLF", simply because of the mystery and the controversy that goes with it, and until you get more round under your belt on that hole, or at least make an honest effort to give the hole some study by taking more then the time to play it--this should only add interest into what your NOT seeing, considering how your opinion has changed since you last played it. (In October)

These statements to Huck are what upset me....for them to go unchallenged makes me embarrassed to have my name associated with this site.  Anyone can play any hole a hundred times and come away with so called insight into the mysteries of its design....but that same anyone does not have the right to then go to other courses...play them once..and then make determinations on their worth.  As a lover of a given course you are well within your rights....as a guru and course rater you have crossed the line of ethitical rationality when posting on a public forum.   In all seriousness how can anyone take anything you say about any new course seriously when you speak out of both sides of your mouth....I honestly believe the majority of people on this board can form an accurate opinion of what is good and what they appreciate in one or two visits...you used to too...until you were comprimised by this little beauty...thats fine and thats good...but don't lose your ethical rationalism behind the blanky of a new parent.

Now go back to your same old tire routine of insulting my brother..or take it a step further and slam my three children or dead sister....but never..never insult Huckaby or question his "honest effort"..

[T_MacWood]

Can you imagine a middle aged Englishman at home in Surrey (or someone in Middle America) looking in on GCA for the first time....being intrigued by the dilemma of the tee shot and the skilled golfer...and then reading that last post. Yikes. Perhaps it would be best to lurk.

I sometimes think I may go over-board in my strong views and opinions.....nah.....now those are some strong views and opinions...they put anything I've said to shame. Good to see Barney turn it up a notch or two.

[THuckaby2]

Ok, I swore to myself I was gonna just let this go today and focus purely on the architectural merits of this golf hole and this course in general... but my name is mentioned and well... JakaB, as he is wont to do, has hit upon the essence of what bothered me before, and continues to bother me about these discussions.

You see, people chide me about taking this too personally or making this too personal, but JakaB nailed it - how else am I supposed to take Tommy's post, the salient parts of which JakaB put in the box above?

I am very willing to move beyond this, I am just glad someone noticed this besides me.  Maybe Tim W. can now better understand my reticence to do a hole-by-hole critique of Rustic... When one's opinion is met with critiques on one's effort, well.... If anything this was the mildest personal critique I received - it was far worse before, both on and off-line.

In any case, this kinda stuff shouldn't appear in this forum - sometimes it happens though, and to me that's ok.  On this thread, for the most part in the last few pages there is very worthwhile discussion of a very worthwhile golf hole, so to me, the end justifies the means.

I just do appreciate JakaB doing this, in any case.

The funny thing about all of this is, I NEVER said #12 was an easy golf hole.  If anything, my constant argument has been that the green is so brutal that where one leaves the tee shot doesn't matter - it's a lose/lose tee shot.  I am coming to see - thanks to David M. - that such is not completely true.  Nevertheless I have more questions and I will post about those separately.  It's just interesting that Tommy seemingly berates me for an opinion I never had!  #12 is a stone bitch of a little golf hole  - maybe the very long hitters can overpower it - that is a separate issue that David W. has taken up, and I do believe it has merit - but for us mortals, it is never going to be easy.

TH

[ForkaB]

I think it is great that there has been built a course that is (apparently--never seen it) as interesting as Rustic Canyon, and also is accessible to so many articulate and passionate members of this site.  However, for those of us who sit on the sidelines, the hyperbole and defensiveness which seem to follow from any honest attempt to anlayse the course and point out where it might be imperfect or improved makes these threads (and by implication, the course) increasingly uninteresting.  Let's all try to be rational for a change, and admit it honestly when others with opposing points of view might just have a case, regardless of how much you love the place and hate to admit that it might just be just a little bit imperfect, like all golf courses in the world........

[THuckaby2]

OK, now back to #12.

I am very, very close to understanding Dave's take on this golf hole... I just have a few more questions.  I will say this, Dave - you have intrigued me so much re this, that you got me to do something I nearly NEVER do - research, rather than just talking out my ass.  I pulled out Geoff's book.  In the chapter discussing Rustic, there is a great picture of number 12 taken from above the left side, looking back at the fairway... this to me illustrates perfectly what's going on near the green.  Damn I wish I had a way to post it here... but in any case, you know the hole, it doesn't matter.  Geoff's caption to the pic reads:

"View from the rear of the 330-yard twelfth at Rustic Canyon.  The small elevated green is best approached from the middle of the fairway, where the player has a more forgiving shot.  Drives close to the green and near the bunkers will be facing a crowned surface sloping slightly away from them."

EUREKA!  I get it completely now - or at least I think I do.  I just don't think it's a "slice of pie" one needs to hit into, but more like a long rectangle.  That is, the key is that one achieves the proper angle in - remembering that the internal "knob" has a flat part extending out to the right - such that shots from the right, going up the knob - are indeed more forgiving.  Thus yes, too close to the green AND TOO FAR TO THE LEFT will be more difficult than those way out there to the right, along the "rectangle" extending out from the knob.  THIS was my disconnect - you see, my shot wasn't too close to the green, it was too close to the bunkers - ie too far left!  Had it gone 10 yards farther (on a line from the tee), I would have achieved the rectangle, had a less difficult putt in (I'm never gonna say an easy shot, damn no shot is ever going to be easy trying to get it to go up and stay on that knob).  Still, the key wasn't being too close to the green, the key was that I didn't reach the rectangle.

I guess I can see an argument that farther back on the rectangle might be better than close to the green in the rectangle also... but I don't agree with it.  if the green is firm - like it damn nearly always should be - than being 80 yards back means a LOT less margin for error than being able to putt the ball, or bump it up the slope... Even if you can spin the ball more, that's still a lot tougher shot than being close and either putting or hitting a running chip.

In any case, one picks one's poison then off the tee... Try to bash it close to the green, remembering that missing the rectangle means a damn hard shot, no matter if you get it very close to the green (ie you better stay far enough right)... if you feel you can do it, bash away and try to reach the green, keeping in mind the severe penalties (left and long) if you fail... hit something out to the right, keeping in mind that if you miss the rectangle you're gonna have a VERY tough shot, and even if you achieve it it's gonna be tougher than if you get closer in on the rectangle... Multiple choices, much "confusion", much "temptation" - all the makings of a damn great golf hole.

TH

[THuckaby2]

I think it is great that there has been built a course that is (apparently--never seen it) as interesting as Rustic Canyon, and also is accessible to so many articulate and passionate members of this site.  However, for those of us who sit on the sidelines, the hyperbole and defensiveness which seem to follow from any honest attempt to anlayse the course and point out where it might be imperfect or improved makes these threads (and by implication, the course) increasingly uninteresting.  Let's all try to be rational for a change, and admit it honestly when others with opposing points of view might just have a case, regardless of how much you love the place and hate to admit that it might just be just a little bit imperfect, like all golf courses in the world........

Rich - you also grasp the issue, and I appreciate the comment.  I know I am far from blameless in the acrimony that occurs re all this, but still, I have been and remain on the defensive... In any case, I do believe we are moving beyond, as the rational conversation yesterday - and hopefully continuing today - between me and David M. should show.

There is one thing for sure:  Rustic does remain a very valid "laboratory" for all the topics we hold dear here (as is Dornoch, btw!).  It would be very nice if we could discuss it more dispassionately... here's hoping!

TH

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom MacWood:

Regarding your Englishman in Surrey checking in for the first time, I've been saying for some time now that one of our shortcomings at GCA is the failure to attract significant European participation. That's a shame given the wealth of great architecture on that side of the pond.

I'm afraid this thread is a text book example of why our discussion is probably not appealing to many Europeans and possibly many others.

I started out wanting to discuss how important it was for a golf course to provide challenging tee shots for skilled golfers. In so doing, I laid out my assumptions for why such shots should really be given very little emphasis in evaluating a golf course. The logic was simple. Determine how many tee shots are played by skilled golfers and go with something in that range in any rating or evaluation system.

Essentially, the thread was hijacked. Instead of focusing on how much weight we should give to the small class of skilled golfers, we wasted all kinds of time on personal issues that have nothing with the original question.

One person even went to far as to suggest that my understanding of a particular golf course - Rustic Canyon - was wrong, that the problem was not tee shots for skilled golfers, but rather tee shots for all golfers. Then when asked to provide the appropriate details, he declined saying the entire issue was too personal and that friendships would be lost if we even discussed such a thing.

I would have preferred just sticking to the topic: how much weight should be given to challenging skilled golfers?

One thing I apreciate about your past criticisms of Sand Ridge is that they demonstrate an ability to focus on golf architecture and delete all this other junk. All the questions you raised, e.g., strategic use of the wetlands, green to next tee distance, impact of tree clearing on fairway contour, etc., were entirely legitimate. I saw no problem with the discussion and hope it demonstrated that it is possible to just stick to golf architecture and delete all the personal stuff.

Hopefully, we'll get back on track. But, clearly this thread was hijacked and, in my opinion ruined. Keep that up and we'll never get that gentleman from Surrey to even lurk.

[THuckaby2]

Tim:

Our threads crossed in cyberspace.  Please read what I wrote today, and then comment if you would care to.

Yes, your thread got hijacked, but hey, that happens all the time.. what thread ever stays exactly on it's assigned topic?

So now it's moved to a discussion of the merits of one golf hole, one that has been used as an example for your thesis.  Is this so bad?

Regarding your comments about the "one gentleman."  He is trying to move beyond this, and it seems to me clear that you should as well.  I do urge you to read the comments of JakaB, Rich Goodale, as well as Tommy N. for some illumination as to that gentleman's reasons there. I would also urge you not to further over-state that gentleman's case re Rustic, as his "critique" applies really to only very few tee shots, as he has stated repeatedly before.  But moving past this would certainly seem to be in your interest as well as that gentleman's.  Can you both live up to the term and let this go?  That gentleman is certainly willing to do so.

As for the gentleman in Surrey, he has many other threads he can explore.  Some will interest him, some might disgust him.  If he's ever heard of Rustic Canyon, or read Geoff's new book, I'd like to think the discussion between David and myself would pique his interest.

Disagree?

TH

[ForkaB]

Tim et. al.

That is not the problem.  The problem is that the gentlemen from Surrey, St, Andrews, Hoylake, Dornoch, et. al. do not give a toss about all the esoteric things we talk about on this site.  To them a golf course is a golf course, and bringing up such a subject as "The Redan" in the 19th hole would be considered a horribly gauche Americanism.

Sorry, but as the late, great Howard C used to say, "And that's the way it is!"

[Mike_Cirba]

Rich;

Those disinterested Europeans sure seem to spend a lot of time tinkering with those boring golf courses over the years.

Why, those Liverpudlians even changed Hoylake just recently, because I guess a course is a course just didn't seem to be enough course (coarse?) for them.  

Must be the gauche American influence.  

  

[ForkaB]

Mike

You are completely right,  They change their tracks all the time.  The difference (and it is a BIG one) is that they do not have a bunch of Monday morning quarterbacks sitting in front of computer screens and decrying the changes sight unseen or driving down country lanes to take furtive snapshots of the changes from the windows of their cars.  Most "European" golfers are about as interested in the arcana of GCA as American commuters are interested in the subtleties of "train spotting."  That is why there is so little participation on this sitre from this side of the pond.  At least IMHO.....

[Pete Lavallee]

JakaB;

I think there is a difference between analyzing Rustic Canyon and other courses. One can determine quite easily from one visit the strategy on the 4th at Barona Creek for instance: make the carry over the left side bunker and the green opens up, you can access the back pin by either flying it in or running it off the bankin the middle of the green. If you play out to the right off the tee you can only get to the front pin locations with a very hard long shot.

At Rustic I believe the idea was to allow the inticacies of the green sites to determine the optimum strategy for that day. How someone can comprehend the myriad of options in one or two visits is incomprehensible to me.

[THuckaby2]

Pete:

Well said.  The problem here is that most of us only get one crack at each of these apples, including Rustic Canyon.  Thus we assess as best we can, and if we're wise, we defer to those who have played it multiple times for the type of insight that Dave M. is expressing re #12, for example.

Would you suggest that we say NOTHING until we have played the course as much as Dave M. has?

That would make for a pretty silent discussion group....

I believe I've always shown the proper deference and if I haven't, well I must have been in a bad mood.  Remember it was I on another thread recently suggesting that this type of deference is mandatory for proper assessment... that is, discuss with the regulars before spouting off... others might disagree with it, but I believe it.

Oh yes, Rustic is one of those great courses that will reveal herself over time, without a doubt.  That much I believe we can all agree on.  Dammit, I wish I lived close to that I could have these revelations first-hand!

TH

[David Wigler]

The Case for Ignoring Skilled Golfer’s Tee Shots

We have several threads going on the subject of “skilled” golfers playing a course like Rustic Canyon. Essentially, they started based on a comment made by David Wigler. David described Rustic Canyon as being in the Top Ten of all modern courses “sixty yards and in” but went on to say that the course couldn’t be considered Top 100 material based on the fact that Rustic Canyon “failed to challenge the skilled golfer off the tee”.

Now, this point has been argued back and forth many times. David apparently still thinks his statement makes sense, though he seems to want to substitute the word “interest” for “challenge” as if this would have great significance. But, I still believe what David said makes absolutely no sense. Moreover, I believe it has nothing to do with whether one has seen the course. The simple fact is that any course that is really Top Ten “sixty yards and in” would have to be considered a serious candidate for Top 100 material overall.

Tim  - Who are you kidding with your last post.  Read above!  This thread was started as a personal attack on my opinion and specific to Rustic Canyon.  After reading above, reread the premise of your last post.  I will quote it for you.  

"I started out wanting to discuss how important it was for a golf course to provide challenging tee shots for skilled golfers. In so doing, I laid out my assumptions for why such shots should really be given very little emphasis in evaluating a golf course. The logic was simple. Determine how many tee shots are played by skilled golfers and go with something in that range in any rating or evaluation system.

Essentially, the thread was hijacked. Instead of focusing on how much weight we should give to the small class of skilled golfers, we wasted all kinds of time on personal issues that have nothing with the original question."

Whom are you kidding?  You highjacked the thread with your own premise.  This was not about the importance of tee shots!  This was about proving that RC cannot be a top 10 from 60 yards in and not a top 100.  In refusing to acknowledge the change from "Skilled" to "All" and the change from "Challenge" to "Interest" you were the primary cause of the acrimony and then you offhand blame it on Huckaby and myself and funniest of all, get offended when Huckaby has the gall to modify one of your quotes (Like you did to both of us on multiple occasions).  If I am the golfer in Surrey, my thought is that this Tim W. guy is way out of line and does just not read others writing, he doesn't even bother to read his own!

[THuckaby2]

Bruthah Wigler:

Whilst I of all people sure as heck acknowledge your sentiments, as well as the necessity to meet a public "comment" with a public response, please note that I have taken my part of this off-line with Tim W., and he has continued such off-line as well, finally.  It also seems that we have come to some understanding about all this...

I'd urge Tim, when he sees this, to take the high road and resist the temptation to start this all over again in here, since we have seemed to arrive at a certain peace.  Enough is enough.   Bear with David, he didn't know the truce was brokered.  

Dave - read my stuff above re #12 if you haven't already - does that make sense to you?  As I say it really doesn't apply to the big hitter - his issues are different - but I'd love your take.. does that make sense re how the average hitter sees/plays the hole?

TH

[DMoriarty]

EUREKA!  I get it completely now - or at least I think I do.  I just don't think it's a "slice of pie" one needs to hit into, but more like a long rectangle.  That is, the key is that one achieves the proper angle in - remembering that the internal "knob" has a flat part extending out to the right - such that shots from the right, going up the knob - are indeed more forgiving.  Thus yes, too close to the green AND TOO FAR TO THE LEFT will be more difficult than those way out there to the right, along the "rectangle" extending out from the knob.  THIS was my disconnect - you see, my shot wasn't too close to the green, it was too close to the bunkers - ie too far left!  Had it gone 10 yards farther (on a line from the tee), I would have achieved the rectangle, had a less difficult putt in (I'm never gonna say an easy shot, damn no shot is ever going to be easy trying to get it to go up and stay on that knob).  Still, the key wasn't being too close to the green, the key was that I didn't reach the rectangle.

I guess I can see an argument that farther back on the rectangle might be better than close to the green in the rectangle also... but I don't agree with it.  if the green is firm - like it damn nearly always should be - than being 80 yards back means a LOT less margin for error than being able to putt the ball, or bump it up the slope... Even if you can spin the ball more, that's still a lot tougher shot than being close and either putting or hitting a running chip.

Tom, you may be right about the rectangle shape around the green, but as you get out into the fairway, the rectangle shape grows wider and wider.   Yes, putting from the preferred alley would be easier than an 80 yard shot, but getting into the preferred alley is much easier 80 yds out.  You have a much larger margin of error when playing to 80 yds out than to a small square in front of the green.  

(By the way, when I lay up I try to play to 100 yds out.)

I hesitate to do the following, bc these things are very fluid at Rustic, but let me offer the following doctored picture, showing an approximation of what I perceive to be the preferred alley for certain pin positions (this will change slightly from play to play.)  For comparison, I've also tried to extend a rectangle out into this alley (using approx two cart lengths as my short sides.)



And from another flat angle which somewhat mirrors the line off the tee.  


As you can see, it is much easier to hit my perceived preferred alley 80 yds out than it is 10 yds out.  

Also and perhaps as importantly, the consequences of slightly missing the preferred alley are less severe from 80 yds out.