[Matt_Ward]

David M:

Without sounding like a repetitive devil's advocate let me mention a few things, but before I do I will say again that I truly love RC and can't wait to play it again on my next SoCal journey, but I have to offer a slight difference of opinion on a few points.

In your keen analysis you forgot about how similar and lacking the tee shot is at both the 9th and 10th. Both holes are nearly carbon copies of each other and go in the same direction. The demands only present themselves with your third shot to the green complexes.

Second, the long par-4's on the course, with the exception of the 11, all follow the same general direction. I would have liked to see a bit more of balance with a longer two-shot hole or holes going up canyon as well.

Regarding the 11th it all boils down to the general philosophy of RC versus that of other courses you mention. You can drive erratically at RC and make bogies. At the other courses -- especially the Sky at LC, that will not likely be the case. Which one is better? I don't believe there is a better, however, I do believe the tee shot needs to be challenged in no less the same fashion than the complexities of the greens themselves at RC. You say that is done and I believe it's a matter of degree based to some extent on how you play and how someone like me plays.

On a number of holes at RC that does happen, but I think it's a bit of a stretch to say they all works so well and without any letdown.

I do take exception to your characterization of Dye courses. You can and will get sufficient rewards at Dye courses like LC / Sky when you drive with skill. Clearly, the risks at LC can be quite punishing, but that's part of the joy in playing the course because the player must adjust his game to meet the demands presented. No one says you MUST hit driver at all the holes at Sky! I can mention plenty of holes, but just take the long downhill par-5 12th which I believe is nearly 600 yards or thereabouts. Here Dye has a center positioned fairway bunker about 335-340 yards that is well done. The big hitter has to really think about what he will do as soon as you step on the tee. And the tee game strategy followed will have a direct outcome on what is done with the second shot and eventually the third. Where is that challenge at the 9th and 10th at RC until you get to the third shot? Is it as testing as the other holes at RC? Might some sort of cross bunker sequence worked on at least one of the holes?

Keep in mind the example I presented before -- the 3rd at Pac Dunes with its two center placed bunkers -- excellent stuff indeed! In that particular case the bunkers are in play whether the wind is behind you or aganst you. You have to shape the shot accordingly and the qualities of the hole start immediately right at the tee.

The 3rd and 12th are also heavily weighed towards reward with little risk. What's really ironic is that someone like me who hits the ball a decent ways is making the argument of the shorter hitter who may not get to the surface on most occasions.

I don't see short par-4's that way and I referenced two examples of other short holes that work more effectively -- the 16th at Pac Dunes and the 15th at Wild Horse. Same desire for reward at those holes, but the element of risk is accentuated and balanced as it properly should be.

Gentlemen, I don't doubt the sheer qualities RC possesses. I will go as far to say it is, along with Wild Horse, RC is among the 2-3 best courses we have in the USA today in terms of two important categories: overall architectural detail (with special emphasis on green complexities) and general affordability on a daily basis and I say that based on the fair share of courses I've sampled.

However, when people do not concede any points then I think they are taking much, too much of hard line. To give a comparable example, I truly love Bethpage Black, but I do concede that a number of the putting surfaces there are fairly pedestrian in their overall presentation. Does that take away completely the qualities the course possesses. In my mind -- not a bit.

David, long hitters do not have to take the advantageous routes you mentioned to be totally successful. When a long hitter has a free pass to wack the ball all the way away from the immediate and most pressing of trouble and know that there is complete freedom on the other side, to wit, no traps or high grass -- he can still approach the target with enough of a lofted approach and still finish somewhat comfortably near the target. I did that at #11 with a drive wide right and still a 9-iron second from no more than 150 yards. Does that happen all the time at RC -- no, it doesn't, but there are holes where it does take place and I somehow get the impression that even the tiniest bit of concession seems to rankle quite a few of you tenacious defenders. So be it.

In my analysis I am splitting some hairs and I realize that -- no doubt -- no less than a few of you. RC is well crafted and the collaboration that has been achieved is proof positive that golf can offer designs that are not penciled in with the same boring McDonald's Happy Meal approach so commonplace in the many course visits that I do throughout the year. RC is a place ANY golfer must PLAY when in the SoCal area because what it generally demonstrates needs to be emulated in public golf here in America. The few gentle tweaks I am suggesting will not take away from that but, I believe, will only serve to enhance it.

Tim Weiman:

You said ...  "Obviously, one doesn't need to see any particular golf course to question whether the failure to test "power and accuracy" off the tee really constitutes a "weakness". A better case could probably be made that such features are a strength: why design a course to test something that 99% of the golfers can't do?

I'm glad courses like Rustic Canyon and Pacific Dunes were designed by serious students of golf architecture, people smart, strong and wise enough not to worry about golfers with the most extraordinary skills."

Tim, power is no less part of golf than any other element. It is an advantage when used properly as it should be and I also believe should be featured in a design of any course. Sometimes those who carp on about power and distance as you seem to do, want to do nothing more than restrain at all costs those who do execute that rare combination of power and accuracy. If you don't have that shot in your bag don't try to constrain those who do beyond a degree of reasonableness. Golf is about the totality of shot execution and power, when done correctly, needs to be a part of that mix. I've stated in specific instances how power can be appropriately challenged with some suggestions for RC. You seem to think that I am suggesting some sort of US Open dive test and have said that in a previous post. That is far from what I am suggesting.

[Tim Weiman]

Matt Ward:

I don't play much golf these days, but twenty years ago  knocking drives out there 300 yards with my steel shaft, brass back Powerbilt persimmon wasn't much of a problem. Today I need graphite, titanium heads, Pro V1 balls and a couple weeks practice to do that.

But, that has nothing to do with my skepticism about the importance of "power and accuracy".

While I'll play far less, I spend more time watching others play and this has had a much bigger impact on my golf architecture views than my aging, slower swing speed and shorter distance.

A few years back Dusty Murdock, an old IMG guy, told me about a study he and a few golf industry colleagues conducted down in Florida. They measured 800 male tee shots and found an average drive of 140 yards. About five percent surpassed the 200 yard mark. I think Dusty said only about ten guys hit drives 250 yards or longer.

Thinking that Dusty might be exaggerating or that the random sample might really be skewed, I spent a couple hours several Saturday afternoons watching people tee off from an elevated tee at a local muni. Sure enough, the cohort I saw was very consistent with what Dusty had reported to me.

It began to sink in, that while I used to practice hitting one handed three irons and expect to pass the 200 yard mark, for most people hitting a golf ball that far with a driver using both hands is extremely difficult.

Then, too, I went back to the golf course I grew up on, Pelham Country Club (the site of the 1923 PGA) and saw how a few holes had been lengthened due to how far people were hitting the ball these days. For the life of me, I couldn't figure out how that made any sense. Why encourage the viscious cycle of technology imporvements and course renovations when fundamentally relative distance rather than absolute distance is really what the game is about. If Simpson could spell that out before my father ever touched a golf club, why couldn't the golfing public see that today?

I react strongly to the notion that the failure to test the combination of power and accuracy is a "weakness", because I think the notion makes so little sense. The overwhelming majority have no prayer of meeting this standard. Those that can represent an elite minority so small that we should "constrain" their influence on golf course design. It is far better to send a clear message to practicing architects that building courses most people will consider fun is really what needs to be done. Again, I credit Gil and Geoff for being thoughtful enough to see that.

I also like Tom Doak's idea for the St. Andrews Beach project. He will design the two courses so that there will be a composite course to test the modern professional. That kind of innovation I fully support. But, if a project involves only 18 holes the far better choice is to forget out the elite players who truly do play a different game than your average weekend golfer.

[Tim Weiman]

Matt Ward:

I should probably mention one other golf experience that made a deep impression.

Quite near where I live, the Cleveland Metroparks has two wonderful nine hole courses. They play about 2,500 yards with a combination of par 3s and short par 4s; one even has a par 5 that maybe plays 480 yards......a miles and a half for most people who play the course.

Little Met, as one is called, is actually a pleasant walk in the park, especially for about six dollars, the non peak price. (It goes up to about eight dollars, I think, during the summer.)

Early this spring I had a most enjoyable game with a fellow in his early forties who just took up the game. He had almost no ability to strike the golf ball, but impressed me with how much he seemed to be enjoying himself. It turns out, he had just taken up the game last year and absolutely loved it.

His enthusiasm boiled over as he told me how thankful he was spring had come and he could play golf again.

I made the mistake of saying: "Yes, golf is a really great game......and it's even better when you go play some good courses".

"Oh no", he replied, "I don't want to do that".

A bit stunned, I asked him why he didn't want to play any good courses.

"I did that once", he explained, "there was this hole where you had to hit 100 yards over water......I don't ever want to do that again".

[Steve Wilson]

Without going into detail--this has really been a great thread.  It's discussions like this that keep snowbound hillbillies who have to live great courses vicariously, coming back.

[Tim Weiman]

Steve Wilson:

Actually, it does seem to have a nice blend of course detail, concept discussion and input from people involved in the project (Gil and Geoff). And, how could I forget, Tommy jumping in as well.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Steve,
I will totally agree with you on this thread as it should be a lesson for all on how to discuss and provide personal opinion, no matter how much it may differ from the norm.

No constant haraguing over "I'm right, your wrong and that is the way it is" vs. "No your wrong and I'm right and you can go _______ yourself!"--"we're really friends off-lin!"

[Mike_Cirba]

Actually, we're all sworn blood enemies, but this facade of diplomatic, civilized understanding is simply a clever ruse to throw off the faint of heart who bemoan the "negativity" of this site.  

[TEPaul]

I haven't commented on this thread because I've never played Rustic Canyon but this is a very interesting thread indeed. There's a lot of opinion on fundamentals in architecture on here--and some very fine and thoughtful opinion on architectural fundamentals, and it certainly diverges from a consensus of opinion which is probably a very good thing!

Matt Ward did another very comprehensive course analysis and plenty of comprehensive follow-up posts on his impressions, including a few comments on things about the course he considers weaknesses, obviously because that's the question in this thread's title.

It's nice, of course, to hear from Geoff Shackelford, as it's always good to hear the thinking of one of the course's architects regarding the fundamental concepts of specific golf holes on the course.

First of all, Rustic Canyon, with enough time in play now,  seems to have succeeded as well as anyone's best expectations to have accomplished what it was designed for.

My understanding was always that it was intended to offer the area's golfers a higher level of sophisticated design at a reasonable price and generally for the purpose of offering them a golf course that was fun for them, not necessarily one that would make them bleed everyday score-wise or unrelenting challenge-wise! And it seems to most everyone, the golf course, from routing through much of the design detail is sophisticated and does what it was intended to do.

Matt Ward is clearly very long. Analyzing a golf course in the context of a very long player is OK, I guess, but only to a degree, particularly if the course was not designed to hold PGA Tour events and such.

And it does occur to me that Geoff Shackelford is one who's very disenchanted with the constant push for greater length in architecture certainly since he's clearly disenchanted with the regulatory bodies who he feels are almost totally failing to properly restrain length to the real detriment of golf architecture. That kind of architect would naturally be disinclined to keep up with the latest outrageous distances some are hitting the ball today in his design offerings! He, with Gil Hanse, has obviously chosen to gear the architecture of this course to other areas and in other directions.

The discussion of #11 is also very interesting and informative. The apparent differences of opinion on the hole's strengthes and weakness is truly fascinating, particularly between Ward and Shackelford.

I think I recall Matt Ward mentioning in an earlier post on this thread that that hole (#11) had a weakness because it challenged the golfer on the inside but not on the outside of the fairway as that related to the approach shot. Matt even implied that something more should be done design-wise to challenge the tee shot on the outside if that was an easier shot in, as he indicated he thought it was.

GeoffShac said he felt the way the hole now is made the drive what he called a "preferential golfer's choice" and that's something I frankly think is brilliant. I'm aware how enamored Shackelford has always been with ANGC's #11 as a hole that through decades of play pros cannot seem to agree on which way to play the hole--which side of the fairway to play for and how that sets up the approach!

Now, honestly how good is that in nuancy sophisticated architecture? It doesn't get much better than that, in my book, particularly if a hole has decades of time in play to prove it!

I would also suggest that Matt recognize that everytime he sees a hole that bends left and is "featured up" on the inside of the drive that he should not assume that challenging the inside is necessarily the best way or the only way to produce a reward. If that was the way all architecture was it would be awful formulaic, in my opinion. Basiclly, that to me is just another form of architectural "roadmapping"! On a hole like #11 Matt should understand better the true appeal of the concept of the "reverse dogleg" which that hole very well may be to some golfers (preferential).

If a hole like that can occasionally sucker a golfer into falling for a riskier inside line because he automaticlly assumes that's the way all holes like that should be (roadmapping), then so much the better! I call holes like that "fakeout" holes, and I like them better depending on the extent they can fakeout golfers!

Lastly, it's impressive to be as long as Matt is but like all long players he'll need to match it with some measure of accuracy. Whether or not he does that generally, I really don't know. But an enormous drive is of no use to anyone if it's way out in left or right field.

If one is going to talk about the long and impressive shots he's hit on various holes, though, I'd prefer he also tell us all how well that worked out. I've heard too many long players remark that they hit a drive and 9 iron to some very long hole and forget to tell us they came up 20 short of a green or perhaps made a bogie anyway--because it's likely there's some real meaning and interest in that--and yes, architecturally.

Anyway, this is a very interesting and informative thread by all.

[Steve Wilson]

Mike Cirba, your assertion:

 "Actually, we're all sworn blood enemies, but this facade of diplomatic, civilized understanding is simply a clever ruse to throw off the faint of heart who bemoan the "negativity" of this site.   <http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/YaBBImages/wink.gif> "

only heightens my suspicion that GCA, other than my paltry contributions, is the work of a single highly creative, but slightly demented mind.  The gathering at Inniscrone was probably populated by out of work actors working cheap to shield the industrious fiend from prying eyes.  So, in addition to being creative, demented, and industrious this person is also wealthy and judging from the amount of time spent at the computer must surely resemble Dobby the house elf.

I will be subjecting all of GCA to textual analysis to prove my theory, and at the conclusion of this arduous project I will also look like Dobby but with a little more meat on my bones.

I also suspect "the onlie begetter" of this site of having stolen my ball on the fifth at Inniscrone.

[A_Clay_Man]

from what I have heard the only weakness that RC has is Bagels. That's right, bring bagels and maybe you'll get out without a tee time.

[THuckaby2]

David M:

Actually the three guys I played with at Rustic were my Dad, who hits nothing lower than 4iron on any shot (ie no woods), my lefty brother (who has a slice that makes grown men weep), and my brother-in-law (who makes John Daly look controlled and accurate).  Each of them were on the right side of 11 (which was a miracle in itself for my brother), and each of them had fairly easy shots to the green (such being the 3rd, for my Dad).  Note they all played from the whites.  The huge key here is that while it was tough for them to get the ball back to the hole, on the green short of the ridge was WAY WAY WAY better than off the green anywhere... which is what one is faced with coming from the left.  Yes, it's a shorter shot... but I'll take putting any time.  I am truly pathetic with my irons but I believe I could find the green most of the time from the right... likely leave it short of the ridge most of the time, but it would be putting.  From the left finding the green AT ALL is just one damn tough shot.  On top of the bunker to be carried, there's the "face" short and left that at least when I was there was buried in 8inch high rough.

Perhaps my bias also comes from my result there... I hit an all-world iron shot (or so I thought) that came up a foot short, bounced back and buried in the deep rough, leaving me absolutely no shot.  Had that come from the right, the same shot would have been putting.

Thus my feeling on the "advantage" of coming from the left... as I say, perhaps multiple playings will reveal more of this to me.  And again, all this to me is a GOOD thing.

TH

[Matt_Ward]

I just wanted to add that in my reviews of any course I do not simply apply the "Ward standard." That standard would mean only assessing a course by the way it EFFECTS MY PLAY. I play with a wide range of golf friends throughout the United States who have varying levels and styles of play. I try to observe quite closely the manner by which they "attack" any hole.

I believe I always attempt to view a course based on a number of ways a hole can be played. In my mind rigorous analysis is the only way to go and I agree with Tom Paul that it's not just how far one hits the ball but how one played the entire hole AFTER the fact.

Rustic Canyon is a superb layout -- just look at how many posts have been made and I for one am happy to see that such discussions have not moved back to the cave man approach one has seen on previous threads of "bias" or other such inane banter. Amen to that ...

David Moriarty:

I never said that angles are "irrelevant" from any distance, but even Geoff acknowledged that if someone were to hit 300 plus on #11 and kept it way right the approach would still be demanding but the player would also have the benefit in using a short iron as I did that day. All I offered is a remedy (fairway bunker) that pinches in that type of player BACK to where the hole really is.

David, when I mentioned the comment about how you play and how I might play I have to say this -- you have to admit there are a number of short hitters have little real understanding in what often goes through the minds of long hitters who happen to be low handicaps. Not only is added length an unknown item in their games, but having the wherewithal to hit more lofted approaches allows them to "attack" pin placements that the shorter player could never dream of accomplishing. It is because of this ability that when short hitters assert that "X" is so demanding they often fail to understand that such a hole may be extremely exacting for THEM, but far less for those golfers who are extremely strong as well as accurate. I know from our time together that you are very astute in understanding the different levels of players and how that might effect their play / anaylsis of any hole in question.

David, when I say "get away" with something at a hole I am referring to the fact that capturing the better player is certainly going to happen at RC, but you have to admit there are holes (I have spelled out which ones previously) could use a degree of more sophistication when you step on the tee. Again, I am not saying the green complexes are not superbly detailed but there has to be way to "corral" power or that type of player will consistently take those liberties. Superior golf courses try to "level" the playing field by not permitting power to go unchallenged. I understand the argument put forward by those who defend the "proper" way in playing #11. I believe you cannot give the longer player such liberty to hit it way right and still have a clear view of the target.

David, appreciate your agreement with me on a few of the holes I mentioned. I hope people realize I'm not saying by any stretch they are "weak" holes, however, I am suggesting that they can be enhanced and only add to the growing and justified reputation of RC.

[THuckaby2]

Matt makes a good point here in saying that it is difficult for us short-knockers to really grasp what the big boys can do.  But while it is difficult, please realize it's not IMPOSSIBLE... it is a variable that must be kept in mind in any case.  And most of us have played with enough long hitters to know what they can and can't do.  One round with Dave Wigler is all that is required!  In any case I know this affected my assessment of Rustic, as I've always been one to mention (or agree with) the fact it can be "overpowered" and perhaps needs more "pressure on the tee shot" for the long-knockers.  That doesn't come from my experience, believe me.  But while difficult to fully comprehend, perhaps, it's not that difficult to "imagine"... and thus I understand Matt's take on 11 most definitely.  My personal feeling is there's enough going on on that hole as it is, such that an addition of a bunker to keep in check the tiny minority of golfers that can hit it that far is really unnecessary... but I understand Matt's take here most definitely.

TH

[Craig Van Egmond]

Thomas of Huckaby, shame on you! I have met some short knockers and you sir are no short knocker!

While you may not blast it out there ala Matt Ward, you do give the ball a mighty wack.

[THuckaby2]

Well thanks, Craig.  But everything is relative and compared to several guys I play with regularly, I am a short-knocker indeed.  Compared to Dave Wigler and Dave Schmidt and Josh Taylor and Todd Eckenrode and likely several other GCA regulars with whom I've played, I am a weakling.  And though I haven't played with Matt Ward, from all I hear compared to him I might as well not play!  

TH

[Craig Van Egmond]

America's guest,

    Heck compared to those guys we are all short knockers!

[TEPaul]

When I think of the context of the long hitter, and even the long hitter hitting the ball accurately and how that applies to architecture today and analysis, I always think of that particular time at Pacific Dunes (just after it opened) when Josh Taylor (I think it was) launched a tremendous drive downwind and hit an 8 iron to the PAR 5 #3 green!

Tom Doak, in the vicinity (and apparently most definitely curious and concerned as to how his course would stand up to the good long player), seemed to be very worried about how Taylor played that 3rd hole!

HOWEVER, on the very next hole, the par 4 beside #3 going back the other way, Taylor hit a good drive, perhaps not his very best but did not reach the PAR 4 #4 with a good 1 iron second shot! Taylor, of course, was the first to make this interesting observation.

I still don't know how Tom Doak feels about all this and as to how his course stacks up against the long and good player, but if you ask me these two holes and what they are side by side and one after the other in the routing progression just about says it all for interesting routing and brilliant hole to hole design, particularly considering what they're called par-wise!

Those two holes, taken together, and with a particular wind pretty much says what it's all about--all of it, to me.

[Matt_Ward]

TEPaul:

Your example goes a long way in proving my point at RC. It's critical in any design to have holes that are challenging in both directions. With the exception of one hole -- the 11th, the remaining long par-4's (#2, #14, #16 and #18) all go in the same direction. In fact, four of the five par-5's also go in the same direction although completely opposite of the four par-4's I just mentioned but no less than two of them (#9 and #10) are fairly ordinary in playing your first two shots.

I agree with your take on the routing of Pac Dunes. My point in speaking about RC is that you want to make sure that the "challenge" is preserved irrespective of the wind on any given day.

Tom, if you look at Pac Dunes what's fascinating is that you cannot play #4 and #13 with the same wind direction unless you encounter some unique weather changes. I will also add #7 in the listing of great long par-4's because the way the hole is designed. Also, as you know, the wind element at Pac Dunes can make the use of "par" a bit irrelevant and therefore cause the 3rd hole to be a "par-4" and the 4th hole to ba a "par-5" on that particular day.

P.S. One of the unique things that Pete Dye has done is design uphill long par-4's in order to keep the long iron or even wood approach in play. A good example -- the 11th at the Sky Course at Lost Canyons!

[THuckaby2]

America's guest,

    Heck compared to those guys we are all short knockers!

Very true.  The issue here though is that "those guys" do need to be accounted for in an assessment.  As equipment progresses, their numbers grow exponentially....

TH

[Craig Van Egmond]

Huckster,

      While those long knockers as you call them should not be ignored, I think you can also focus too much on them.  At best they are maybe 5% of all golfers, so it really depends on what your building your course for. I think courses like Rustic Canyon that are playable and enjoyable by the vast majority of all golfers and at a great price are much more needed than those who will challenge the Matt Ward's of the world at the expense of everyone else.

[THuckaby2]

Agreed 100%, Craig.  I am absolutely not saying courses should be designed with them and only them in mind, nor should how the course plays for them make up the bulk of one's assessment.  No, my thought is more that if we're talking inclusion of a course among the world's greats - which is Ran's question here, after all - than that is just one of many factors that must be considered.  But it is a factor and can't just be thrown out, either.

TH

[Matt_Ward]

Craig:

I never said or implied that one should throw the baby out with the bath oil.

I did say that a gentle tweaking of RC may be a major plus in enhancing the inherent qualities the course has. There is no doubt that challenging the fullest range of players can be a tough exercise but there are courses with that sort of "elasticity" and it doesn't automatically mean one must necessarily add yards and yards of distance. Positioning bunkers in the middle of fairways is just one example how you can grab the attention of even the best of players and it's a technique that should be carried out even more so given the fact that flanking bunkers are less and less of a major challenge given the nature of today's equipment and the skill level of a number of players.

Again, I refer back to Ran's mentioning of the statement "world class" golf course and how that two word phrase is defined by different people.

RC and Wild Horse are probably two of the finest designed layouts we have in America given what they charge the public on a daily basis. The complexities, the sheer detailing of the putting surfaces, the surrounding landing areas, and the unique semblance of different holes makes for invigorating golf of a high order.

[Craig Van Egmond]

Matt,

      I'm actually just trying to give "Mr Aw Shucks, America's guest, I'm a short knocker" a hard time. Being able to hit the long ball is truly a gift  and I must admit being in awe of the truly big hitters.  It is a totally different game than one I am familiar with. I do appreciate your perspective.

Does a course have to stand up to the world greats to be considered one of the world greats? What is the criteria?

From the sound of it, Rustic is holding up pretty well so far, with a 67 as the course record with some pretty strong players going at it.

[Matt_Ward]

Craig:

Tough question -- no easy answer.

Some believe, and I don't doubt its application, is how much fun does the course provide? Naturally, one man's fun may be another's boredom. Does the course really excite the senses in playing it over and over again?  

In playing with David Moriarty I was struck by his comment that various players and age ranges can play at RC without much difficulty. I agreed with him that's a major plus in assessing the caliber of a course.

I don't deny the issue of challenge is something I look at quite closely. Sometimes, I will admit, I place a bit more emphasis than others, but I believe a course should make you WORK HARD on some shots in proportion to your ability level by moving tees and pin locations accordingly. I'm not saying by any means it needs to be a nonsensical slog because there are a number of new courses that throw more stuff at you than Santa Ana threw at the Alamo! But, I also believe the tee game strategy is no less important than what you find at the greens. That doesn't mean some inane slog of herculean forced carries or holes clogged with high rough on both sides. It does mean a melding of power and control -- working the ball with the driver is a high art and one any course should promote.

In my mind "world class" doesn't mean a course has to stage major championships or high octane events for the PGA Tour, or have the capability in bringing Tiger / Phil to their knees, etc, etc. I do believe that a course must have the "elasticity" to test all types of players in a thorough and comprehensive way through each and every shot / hole. Given the demands of such a definition there can only be so many courses that reach such a high bar.

From the feedback I got from Tommy N, David M and David K when I was at RC -- a number of fine players have played the course including Steve Pate and Fred Couples, to name just two. And, with the course record still at 67 it does indicate the course has held its own thus far.

I really like RC and believe a few gentle tweaks on a few holes I've already specified would elevate the "fun" meter even further.

[Matt_Ward]

During my round with Tommy N, David M and David K the subject of Rustic Canyon v Barona Creek came up. All of us had played both courses and I agreed with the group that RC is clearly the better overall design.

The sheer detail of the green complexes at RC is hard to beat and although Barona Creek is not a slouch in this area either I just believe RC rates a clear edge in that department. As far as the tee game requirements are concerned I'd rate them a push. Although I am still trying to figure out how one can hold an approach to the par-3 16th at BC when the pin is cut far right and when the wind is behind you!

How do others see the two courses? Is there a difference and if there is how much so?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()