[Ran Morrissett]

I am sure it has some though I couldn't tell you what they are.

Instead, nearly six months after having been there, I'm wondering if maybe it really is as good as I originally thought, which is to say world class.

For instance, I played a consensus world top 10 course this year that doesn't have NEAR the risk/reward dilemmatic problems posed at Rustic Canyon.

I played a world top 20 course whose playing angles have been compromised, not because of tree growth, but because of ever narrowing mowing patterns. Plus, searching for balls is a problem as the flow of the game is ruined and the fun diminished.

I played a world top 20 course where a similar green complex is repeated 18 times.

I played a world top 35 course that is located in one of the most gifted settings in all of nature. Yet, its recent bunker 'restoration' project resulted in clean bunkers completely detached from their native surrounds.

I caught glimpses of a U.S. Open course that requires next to no finesse shots and where the ground game is essentially dead, even after the USGA leaves town.

I played a world top 70 course in the south that is superlative in every respect but it is missing 8-10 original fairway bunkers that makes it less interesting off the tee than it should be.

Rustic Canyon suffers from none of the above shortcomings. Again, I am sure that it has some weaknesses (as every course does) but can someone please point them out?

If the list isn't too long or damning, then perhaps this public access course outside of L.A. really does deserve to stand comparison with some of the world's best.

Cheers,

[Will E]

Your post makes me want to call up Tommy and book a flight to L.A.
It also has me guessing as to the actual "world top courses" you fail to call out, are you always so P.C. ?

[Matt_Ward]

I'll be out there in about 7-10 days and will be most interested to see the course and what it has to offer.

Clearly, my fascination is doubly intensified.

I shall see ...

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Ran,

Shhhhhhhhuuuuushhhh!

I wish you would stop expousing on how great this golf course is because it is MY hidden gem, as well as David Moriarty,David Kelly and Lynn Shackelford's, and that we want NO interlopers.

(Sort of a Surf Punks My beach, my swells, my waves mentality.)

STAY AWAY!:)

OK, Craig Rokke, you can play tomorrow!:)

(If you happen to read this tonight, please call me at (714)803-3563)

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Your invited to Shooter!

[Lynn_Shackelford]

The course has been full from the day it opened.  The course is booked 7 days in advance 30 minutes after opening at 6 AM. This is a combination of the price and the fact that players like it.  It has a "players" crowd, young pros and good players drive for a hour or more to play it.  That is a compliment.  The words everyone uses are fun and different.  Now that they have a clubhouse and toilets that "flush" it will be even more popular with the women and a few others.
Players have a tough time telling me why they like it other than it is "fun."  Yet the course record is still "high", 67 shot by Alex Galvan, who was in my group.  He is the head golf coach at LMU.  Couples shot 68 in the only visit I am aware of.  The maintenance meld is pretty good.  Greens are kept firm and not too fast.  Approaches are reasonably firm.  I am always amused at players when they see the wide fairways.  They swing harder than normal and usually end up hitting more off center.  Little self control.  This could be a whole discussion topic.  On the other hand I have seen Tommy N. hit some tee balls out with mine soley because he turned it over and ran it out there.
Since I play it about once a week here are my thoughts:
The routing is good, there is a chance to score well early in the round, but you know there are difficult holes waiting on the back.  The variety is good, 5,4,4,3,5,3,4,3,5 on the front 9.
The "fun" really starts on the greens.  Having played Riviera for 15 years, I thought greens should be kept simple, but now I like Rustic's for interest.  Gives the short accurate player a good chance.  The greens have the same interest of courses I recently played in England, Swinley, Rye and The Addington.
I cannot imagine anyone playing there the first time without 3 putting at least once, and the greens only run about 9 on the stimp.  But they are not "over the top."
A few minor negatives:
A few long walks from green to next tee. 12 to 13, 9 to 10, 17 to 18.
The tee shots on the uphill holes early are pretty similar, 5, 9, 10.
The clubhouse and range do not have the same rustic ambience that the course does.
The distance going down the canyon is weird.  I tell eveyone to take 20% off the distance on the fairway plates.
The drive on 18 is disappointing with a driving range net and cart barn for a target.
All in all it has changed my view of which courses I enjoy.  Players always say it is different.  I smile because in Southern California it is all the other courses we have that are different than great courses in other parts of the world.
All those golf "experts" are presently at the 20/20 conference trying to figure ways to make golf more popular and all they have to do is study Wild Horse in Nebraska and Rustic Canyon in California.  The proof is in the round count and construction costs.
Of course I may be a bit biased!

[FORTSONATOR]

Tommy,

I am going to be in So Cal from Dec. 16 through New Year's.  We have to tee it up.  With all you've told me abut Rustic Canyon it is on the top of my list.

Email me or call me.

Jeff F.

[GeoffreyChilds]

As usual Lynn summarized Rustic perfectly from my one visit (36 holes) about 6 months ago.

I was also lucky enough to play Wild Horse this summer and there is MUCH to learn from both of these courses. Affordable golf that is plain FUN FUN FUN to play.  What a novel concept  

Rustic Canyon's faults are minor and forgivable and its atributes are enviable.

[brad_miller]

Can't wait to see where it falls on the Golf Week top 100 Modern List top 25-30 it's that good, might be in my top 10-15 modern to play for the fun and the challenge of the different options this course presents. Yes some of the issues like practice range net are but a minor distraction of this wonderful place.

[ed_getka]

I loved the course when I finally got down there in July for 36 with David Kelly and David Moriarty. The only holes I felt were a bit of a let down were #3 and 12, the short par 4's where I simply don't feel there is a reason not to hit driver and get as close to the green as possible. Both greens are open on the right side, so if you know how to bump the ball along the ground I saw no reason to lay up. Of course I only saw one pin position the day I played and I'm sure there are probably spots where a different strategy is required.

I felt from the first time I saw the course when it was under construction that the short game would be emphasized and the course does not disappoint. The bunkering is generally excellent, although the pot to the right of #5 is way too shallow.

Of the newer courses I played this year I put Kingsley at the top, with Barona Creek and Rustic right behind.

I have been kicking around the idea of having the King's Putter at Rustic Canyon this spring, but would love to hear from Ran or Tommy, Lynn, and David M. & K. to get their input.

[David Kelly]

I bow to no one in my admiration for Rustic Canyon and consider the design and routing to be truly great. However does anyone else regret that they have had to make most of the wash and and scrub area environmentally protected and off limits to the golfer?  I am not arguing that they shouldn't have done it I am just bemoaning the results.

For those people who haven't played RC since the GCA get together in May, most of the area on the front nine that is not grassed has been staked as environmentally sensitive areas and the golfer is not allowed to enter it and must treat it as a lateral hazard.  This includes the entire area that runs between the 1st and 9th fairways, and the entire wash area that runs through holes 5-7.  In addition they have erected small wooden fences that go along the cart path on 5 and in front of the wash that crosses the 5th and 7th fairways as well as a few other places.  The environmetally protected areas are less intrusive on the back nine because less of the wash area borders those holes, still it is present along the entire right side of #10 and down the left side of #11.  

Again I am not saying that the enviro. sensitive areas were not needed but they have left a mark on the course and how it is played.  One of the refreshing aspects of Rustic Canyon is that there is no water to be found on the property - other than what comes in bottles.  These off limits areas have become huge lateral hazards with the results being that much of the front nine plays as if it was routed around and through a large lake - if your ball is one inch inside the green tipped stakes, no matter the lie, it is as unplayable as if it were underwater.  The fences and off limits areas bisecting the 5th and 7th fairways now allow for no recovery and makes the course play a little more like target golf.  Of course the target aspect of the course is greatly mitigated by the width of the fairways and thank God for that.

All of this doesn't mean I don't love the course because I do and while I object to the same things that Lynn brought up in his post I think Rustic Canyon is truly one of the most unique, strategic and fun designs that I have seen in this country.

[TEPaul]

Lynn Shackelford:

Yours is a most interesting post, touching on some ancillary subjects like Rustic's uniqueness in comparison to other courses in California and the 20/20 initiative to grow the game in light of the popularity of Rustic possibly due to its "fun" and "difference". Also your mention that you thought greens should be 'kept simple' (after years at Riviera) is interesting too (and does deserve a separate thread).

I'm still amazed at reports of the apparent extent of this "up canyon/down canyon" thing as it relates to distance.

I couldn't see that (or the extent of it) at all the one time I saw the site preconstruction. I guess my eyes must be going on me. I was amazed to hear later the extent of the site's elevation change--I just couldn't really see that at all (other than the area behind 15, 16).

For me it must have something to do with not being used to the enormous scale of the place going back up to the hills way behind the back nine end (is that north?)! But I like how you describe the need for a 20% distance adjustment coming "down canyon"--an interesting and not unsubstantial "local knowledge thing".

I'm sorry to hear Ed Getka say that he feels #3 & #12 are the weakest links on the course (two holes in basic concept I felt were somewhat similar with a possible green orientation flip flop).

My hope on #12, at least, was that the green somehow would take a toll on golfers that unthinkingly placed the ball in the wrong part of the large unecumbered fairway due to the difficulty of a particular pin. The idea I felt was to very much pay attention to the particular pin before driving the ball. Although I've only seen photos of the green, I guess I can't tell the nuances well enough from them.

In very broad concept I thought the green (although smaller) might turn out in playability something like a sideways version of Doak's inline center ridge on Stonewall's #16! In other words, if your approach was on the wrong side of the green's ridge from the pin you'd have a very hard time putting to the other side, and that the drive on Rustic's #12 would set up ease or difficulty in spades of approaching whichever side the day's pin was on.

But the overall idea was that if the golfer didn't pay attention to the pin before driving he would pay a price on the approach even with a well executed approach due to a particular pin making it nigh on impossible to get near from  various incorrect fairway positions. (In this sense I thought of it somewhat similar to coming up just short of but to the right of Riviera's #10!--but with #12 having the characteristic of that being a good thing at times--unlike Riv's #10).

I looked at the concept as a real subtle strategic connection (education!?) that sort of jumped a shot (the approach) by going essentially between the tee shot and the first putt (if you know what I mean?).

This post seems to be a bit scattered in thought--hope you can understand it!

[RJ_Daley]

Can someone please explain how, by what process, features on a golf course, like the washes at RC described above, get made into "enviro areas"?  Who has that authority to come in and designate some drainage ditches as enviro areas?  What species of plant or animal live in those particular ditches that could not go on living without this total umbrella and shield from a human "touching them" by say, striking an errant ball from them?  Now, I am no botonist or biologist, but I sure didn't see anything out there that looked endangered that would and only could flourish in those ditches totally unmolested!  AS I look at my pictures, I see washes 4-8 feet wide, normally dry, with some weeds growing in them.  Won't the weeds and little bugs and squiggly crawling things still live without the "no touch' protection - given mowers and fert and applications will be made right next to them by no more than one to three feet distance!  Lastly, is this just some lame California thing to have the owner/operators of a golf course set aside some irrelavant ditch and call it "enviro" and place a "no touch" sign as some extortion paid to the green crowd?  I frankly don't see how the "no touch" area as described will allow any more plant or animal activity than marking it a normal hazard and one can play their ball or declare it themselves, unplayable if they so choose. The intermittent entry to retrieve an errant ball, or take a stance to hit one short of driving ones cart into them doesn't seem to be so impactful on their frail little lives to me.  If you get bit by a Pacific Rattler, well put up a sign warning of that possibility if you enter.  But, leave it to the golfers discretion.

This may not be the kind of weakness Ran was questioning, but it is weak in the sense of lame in my opinion.

[George Pazin]

It's on the wrong side of the country.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Dick,
One of the authorites on this is the EPA, which does want to figure itself in all of it.

Not to disagree with David Kelly, but I don't find the fenced-in eco areas to be to big of a problem at all simply because we don't play them as such--we usually don't have anyone behind us when we are playing, opting to be the last group out. It works great because this allows one to further graze around the course looking for even more options and features we haven't seen. You see, we keep finding even more features or share other ideas of types of shots to play as well as learning these greens which are, the best modern conglomeration of greens I have been on to date. It's really addicting.

Now that I have rambled off the original subject, back to the eco areas. The fences are those little double-rail ranch style that actually will discolor further and look, well, rustic. I can think of a hundred other courses right now where the eco areas don't work with the play or strategy of the golf holes. At Rustic, it probably does affect David since he is sooooooo longgggg off of the tee. But I like that, because it brings him with-in striking distance if we are playing a match!:)

[RJ_Daley]

But my question is about the process of how these areas get designated in the first place.  Was there an agreement prior to construction that said washes would be maintained as no-enter enviro areas.  Was that agreement made as a requirement to obtain permitting, zoning etc.?  Or, was it a cookie tossed to the green crowd to appease them and insure that a more rigorous objection to development was made by the greens?  

I come off as some sort of unsympathetic person that wants to grass everything over and not provide any habitat to the critters and beneficial plants.  I am not.  I just think that the strict no-enter no-touch restrictions to areas such as those washes or ditches at RC are superficial, accomplish nothing in the way of preservation or fostering a habitat that couldn't still be accomplished by signage to keep carts out of the area, and take care where you walk.  A bridge and sign requiring golfers to cross there rather than tramp across the area would be acceptable and just as effective in my view.

I remember some areas at RC that may be protected more, that aren't potentially a round killer or obstruction to unfettered enjoyable play that could be no-enter.  But, those ditches and washes aren't so sensitive from what I saw.

[Geoff_Shackelford]

Dick,

I believe we discussed this at length the day we walked the course, but to refresh your memory:  Deeming the wash sensitive and not accessible to golfers was a primary condition with the biologists/Fish and Wildlife/Fish and Game to getting the course approved, and done so rather speedily. If that had not been the case, I suspect we'd still be in the planning stages, if even there. So you can call it lame, but golfers would not be playing the course on this 82 degree November day here in Southern California.

 I also don't feel it has impacted the design as much as I feared. It's not ideal, but having gotten to know a lot of the interestng species and plant material out there, particularly rare and beautiful birds, I'm glad golfers are asked to stay out of there. California sage scrub and its various life forms are an acquired taste, sort of like a Wisconsin winter.  
Geoff

[TEPaul]

I could be entirely wrong about this but ultimately it might be a good thing that those protected areas are off limits not just for golfers but for others too that might get it into their heads at some future time to go in those areas and change things to the overall detriment of the golf course.

I know Geoff got very interested preconstruction in all the little things, particularly vegetatively, that live in there and probably agrees that ultimately it might be a good thing that it's as off-limits as it is to everyone!

Geoff also ran across a family of chameleon-like sidewinding weisensnappers back in 1999 out there and even got to know their language. So thanks to him they're still out there in those protected areas safe and sound and have apparently even become golf fans (although noone but Geoff sees them).

[RJ_Daley]

Geoff, I plead guilty to loss of memory.  Trouble is, I can't dispute these things when someone tells me, "I told you that already" :-/  I'm sure my wife is taking advantage of this little senior moment trend to win a few disputes around here.  "Like, I told you I ordered that 8 weeks ago!"  

I do vaguely remember being out in CA last spring and seeing the ditches.  But the exact discussion or mention of Biologist/Fish and Wildlife/Fish and Game truly escapes me.  You'd think it would have rung a bell because it sounds so compartmentalized and bureaucratic.  But, at least I think I got the answer to the question that it was a compromise (or as I called it a cookie) tossed at the almighty "agencies" to forstall their making it rough on the developers and delaying the process.  I guess I'll hold on to the position that in my humble opinion designation of those ditches as no-enter would not make a huge difference in the quality of the eco-system out there, if given there are indeed healthy and legitimate enviro areas (in my deteriorating mind) like between the 13th and 15th and pretty much the entire norther and western periphery that don't really come into play and are lovely areas that set off the course.  I just have a problem with those ditches, and think they could be handled as in-play but with common sense sensitivity.

Rest assured, no ice worms, spiders, winter daffodils or mushrooms have been harmed in crafting this GCA post.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Dick, You know how I'm a snapper for this kind of stuff, and you just have to believe me when I tell you that if the environmental areas really affected playabiliity, I would certainly say so.

The fact is that they (The eco areas) don't, and if other architects confronted with similar issues, designed something as fun and challenging, I would certainly welcome it.

Of course, there were a lot of other key issues about Rustic Canyon which, I have to remind you, were called into question--like the nature of the sandy base on #18 which you thought was going to be very questionable for growing grass. Ironically that fairway is one of the best conditioned at Rustic, and there isn't a day that I'm playing there, looking down that lovely fairway that I don't think of almost getting your rental car stuck in that soft sand, and barely getting it out.

But it is OK Dick, Ed Getka thought #8 was going to be unplayable when viewing the course for the first time. (It isn't) and in fact, it features a West Coast version of the DA which I'm hereby christening--Daley City It's a deep ugly pit which would love to bury its namesake further and further.

The speed of environmental approval of Rustic Canyon has got to be a all time record in this modern age. Hallelujah!

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Taken from the words of the immortal Lilly Von Shtoop, It's Truuuuuu." (regarding my escapades on #8.)

Persoanlly I think they green is more then adequate, you just have to pin it properly instead of one place four or five times a week. The same thing is happening on #13 where the green is not only huge, its hard to get some of the Spanish speaking grounds crew to understand you have to move the pins around for variety. "Aqui, aqui, por favor, pronto, pronto!"

Well said David.

[JohnV]

Dick,

There are three kinds of enivronmental areas that I can think of.  First there are areas that have endangered species in them.  Second are areas of wetlands that have to be protected to allow birds and plants that thrive there to continue to have a place to live.  Third there are riparian corridors that are used by animals to get from one place to another.  I believe that is probably the main point of the ESAs at Rustic Canyon (I'm sure Geoff can correct me if I'm wrong.)  The dry river bed that runs through the property is probably almost the equivalent of an Interstate Highway for various animals to get from the hillls down towards the valley.  Without it, animals would be unable to migrate or get to new areas for food or water.  If people continue to go into an area like that, the undergrowth that the animals use for cover will be destroyed and the animals will be scared away by the presence of humans.

Tommy (aka Tony), since I don't want to see the next picture of you in Sports Illustrated being one where you are led away in handcuffs with jacket covering your face, try to stay out of those areas.  

[THuckaby2]

Having played Riviera for 15 years, I thought greens should be kept simple, but now I like Rustic's for interest.  Gives the short accurate player a good chance

Paging Dave Schmidt... Paging Dave Schmidt... I have the location for our next match play battle....  

All great thoughts above about a wonderful golf course.

I'm going to be interested to read Matt Ward's assessment after he plays it, however.  If ever there was a course without "pressure" on the tee shot (which Matt really seems to require), this is it.  Oh, there is always a preferred angle into these genius greens at Rustic, but there is rarely much of a penalty for missing such... for example, on #2, the better line is left, by far.  But a drive can be blown 50 yards off line to the right and not only still be playable, but with a shot that CAN hold the green... They're just not keeping it to the "on the edge" degree of firm and fast (as they do at Wild Horse) to penalize such a miss.  Ed Getka's right also - both 3 and 12 have no penalty for miss, no reason whatsoever NOT to just bomb away with driver.  TEP is right that 12 has an ingenius green that causes terror with all chips and pitches, but I didn't see any value in laying BACK or going way right for any particular pin...It's not like back or right is gonna make it any easier!  Bang away and get it to where you can putt, I say.  I guess this understanding will come with repeated play.

In any case this is REALLY nit-picking but hey, Ran asked for weaknesses.  I could go on re strengths all day... greatest greensites I have seen in our state in ages... fun, fun, fun all day long... thinking man's course that damn right helps the shorter, accurate player... a course every type of player can enjoy (my Dad hits nothing but 4irons, disdaining all woods, and he came away with great success and loving it - see, he as a great short game)... incredible use of not the world's greatest terrain... did I say ingenius greens??.... bang for your buck factor out the whazzoo....

Let's put it this way:  I get to SoCal fairly often for family stuff and I now have a new home course down there.  IN fact I may get down there this weekend and the tee-time begging might commence....

BTW, #8 is a fantastic golf hole and truly belongs in any discussion of the world's great short one-shotters.  Oh yes, my group had some very interesting putting occurrences to a back right pin... front right would be brutal.  Question though - why the heck are they growing 6 inch rough all the way around that green?  I guess it prevents infinite up and back but damn it would be better kept at fairway height.

I also liked 6 - from the back tee it was reminiscent of the great par 3 (#4?) at Royal County Down... long shot, over scrub, to a green set against a scrub-covered hill... only thing is, the green is BETTER at Rustic than at RCD (ok, there's blasphemy if you ever heard it).  That makes the shot from the front tees VERY VERY fun also!  The green banks left over that hump of all humps making a myriad of shots possible from that angle from the right - damn what a great hole.  On nit pick though - the guys on 7 tee are in grave danger from wayward tee shots - not so much from the front tee, they are close enough that it would take a real *h*nk to hit them - but from the back tee it doesn't take much of a slice to get close to that tee.  I'm not saying how I know this... nor do I have any suggestions for "fixing" it, other than to just tell people on 7 tee to be aware of incoming missles...

Great work by one and all at Rustic.  Damn all this makes me want to MAKE it happen this weekend...

TH

[THuckaby2]

Heeheeheehee (insert maniacal leprechaun laugh)...

Lynn's line just struck me as being so perfect for our relative golf games.  

But heck yeah, let me know if and went you get back to SoCal!  That will merit some begging for sure!

TH

[David Kelly]

BTW, #8 is a fantastic golf hole and truly belongs in any discussion of the world's great short one-shotters.  Oh yes, my group had some very interesting putting occurrences to a back right pin... front right would be brutal.

How far back right was the pin because that area is generally unpinnable due to the back-to-front slope? Front right is the easiest pin position because everything hit to the back of the green funnels down to the hole and leaves  you with a relatively flat putt. #8 is definitely a great short par 3 though.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()