[David Ober]

Yes, Rustic Canyon is my new favorite course of all time -- it's that good.

I haven't played that many great courses, but all I can say is that I found Rustic Canyon to be as equally enjoyable experience as Pebble Beach, and a better golfing experience than the following fine courses:

Riviera
Pinehurst #2
Pinehurst #8
Oak Valley
Hillcrest CC
Oakmont CC
Rancho Santa Fe CC
North Ranch CC
The Crosby
Maderas
Torey Pines South
Torey Pines North
(I'm forgetting some other very nice courses that I've played)

and all the other courses I have ever played. Rustic is just plain fantastic, start to finish, hole after hole after hole. I could play there every frickin' day until I die and be happy.

Will post a more thorough report once I've had a chance to calm down. ;-)

[Brian Noser]

Welcome to the club David. I also agree with you as it being my favorite course. How did you play? just curious how you faired the first time out? There are some quirks that can be figured out over time. I miss playing there. I will be back out there one week from today though and I can not wait. After you colme down i would like to hear  some of you favorites to see if they compare to the masses here.

[David Ober]

Welcome to the club David. I also agree with you as it being my favorite course. How did you play? just curious how you faired the first time out? There are some quirks that can be figured out over time. I miss playing there. I will be back out there one week from today though and I can not wait. After you colme down i would like to hear  some of you favorites to see if they compare to the masses here.

I shot 73 my first time seeing the course. If I played it 100 times, my scores would probably range from 65 to 78, unless there was severe wind. I lost 3 shots today from not knowing the course off the tee, unfortunately.

[TEPaul]

David:

What's your take on #12 & #13?

[Bob_Huntley]

David,

Gently, gently, you are having a rush, Call Dr. Katz and take a deep breath. Think long and hard, were you carried away with a superlative round? Rustic is good, but, in my opinion, is not in the pantheon of some of your comparisons.

Bob

[David Ober]

David:

What's your take on #12 & #13?

What's not to like? I loved 12 -- go for the green, and you're penalized if you miss left. The safe play is to lay back to the right and then you still have a tough pitch. The hole is a little wide open off the tee to the right for such a short hole, but I don't mind that since the green is so severe.

13 is great. I love that green complex, which makes up for the easy tee shot. The pin was front left today, and my 3-wood ended up 30 yards short and to the right of the bunker. The resultant pitch shot was NOT easy. :-)

[David Ober]

David,

Gently, gently, you are having a rush, Call Dr. Katz and take a deep breath. Think long and hard, were you carried away with a superlative round? Rustic is good, but, in my opinion, is not in the pantheon of some of your comparisons.

Bob

I've played a LOT of golf, Bob, and I stand by my comments. The score I shot today was very average for me, so that certainly wasn't a factor in my rating.

[Bill_McBride]

David, is the "Oakmont" the one in Pittsburgh?

What course is "The Crosby?"

Like Mr. Huntley, I think you will wake up tomorrow morning and rethink this wild enthusiasm!  Rustic Canyon is a whole lot of fun but I don't think it was intended to play in the league of Pebble Beach et al.  "Affordable golf" can't afford to play in that league, either in construction or maintenance budget.

But I do agree it's fun.  #12 & #13 by themselves might be worth the price of admission.  

Were all the holes in play in original configuration, i.e. #7?  I haven't been out there for over a year and know there were serious areas of damage after last year's floods.

[David Ober]

David, is the "Oakmont" the one in Pittsburgh?

What course is "The Crosby?"

Like Mr. Huntley, I think you will wake up tomorrow morning and rethink this wild enthusiasm!  Rustic Canyon is a whole lot of fun but I don't think it was intended to play in the league of Pebble Beach et al.  "Affordable golf" can't afford to play in that league, either in construction or maintenance budget.

But I do agree it's fun.  #12 & #13 by themselves might be worth the price of admission.  

Were all the holes in play in original configuration, i.e. #7?  I haven't been out there for over a year and know there were serious areas of damage after last year's floods.

No, not the Oakmont in Pittsburgh, but the Oakmont in Glendale, California. A very nice course built back in the 20's, I believe. Played the SCGA Four-ball there several years ago.

"The Crosby" is a newish Troon Golf private club in San Diego. Very much like Maderas. Beautiful and well-manicured, it's a fine golf course in every respect.

[DMoriarty]

Glad you enjoyed yourself David.  It was a beautiful day.   It only gets more interesting when the wind blows a bit.   As for your exuberence, maybe it will fade or maybe it won't, but for most the excitement has grown rather than diminished with repeat plays.  

[Joe Perches]

Were all the holes in play in original configuration, i.e. #7?

The new #7 is a very different hole.  In my opinion, it's considerably poorer than the original.  The last significant flood moved the channel another 30 yards or so farther away from the tee.  The green placement is also a bit farther up.  The risk/reward of going to the right fairway off the tee is gone.  The right fairway itself is nearly gone.  There is no value of crossing the channel unless you can go just about directly at the green.  Even if you can go directly at the green, there isn't much reward.  The #7 green is now the 2nd worst on the course.  Too large, too undulated because of a significant transverse channel splitting the green itself.  The cant of the green from the left makes front pin placements exceedingly difficult to hold.  The bunker front left can be silly hard, and the margin to clear the bunker and still hold a ball on the front left half may be only 3 yards.

The hole and especially the green now just seems out of place and character for the rest of the course.  Just too penal.

Oh well.

[Michael Robin]

I haven't been out there since the flood, so I'm bummed to hear that about 7. That was one of best holes out there. Wonderful options, beautifully designed. I guess Rustic now has one more thing in common with Riviera - it was better before the flood.

[TEPaul]

"What's not to like? I loved 12 -- go for the green, and you're penalized if you miss left. The safe play is to lay back to the right and then you still have a tough pitch. The hole is a little wide open off the tee to the right for such a short hole, but I don't mind that since the green is so severe."

David:

As conceptually conceived that fairway on #12 was going to be perrhaps 75 yards wide and intentionally unencumbered by hazard features. Would you tell me if you see any particular strategic reason to play the ball out wide to the right to give yourself perhaps a longer SW in to particular pin placements as opposed to playing the ball the same distance off the tee but much closer to the green? Do you think those two choices have anything to do with the differences between a full shot as opposed to some half-shot pitch or chip? And if so, what is it about the green or its various pin placements that dictates that?

[David Ober]

"What's not to like? I loved 12 -- go for the green, and you're penalized if you miss left. The safe play is to lay back to the right and then you still have a tough pitch. The hole is a little wide open off the tee to the right for such a short hole, but I don't mind that since the green is so severe."

David:

As conceptually conceived that fairway on #12 was going to be perrhaps 75 yards wide and intentionally unencumbered by hazard features. Would you tell me if you see any particular strategic reason to play the ball out wide to the right to give yourself perhaps a longer SW in to particular pin placements as opposed to playing the ball the same distance off the tee but much closer to the green? Do you think those two choices have anything to do with the differences between a full shot as opposed to some half-shot pitch or chip? And if so, what is it about the green or its various pin placements that dictates that?

If I remember correctly (I've only played the course once), number 12 green is relatively (or at least effectively) small wen compared to other greens at Rustic. There's a front portion that is easily accessible, and then a rear portion that is not so easily accessible because it is raised in relation to the rest of the green.

If the pin is on the rear portion, then I'd rather be hitting a 80-90 yard full lob wedge at the hole than a 50 yard pitch, since holding the green will be more difficult. I want to fly something to the back portion with some spin so that it will hold.

Does that make sense?

[Michael Robin]

David, I also believe there is a significant amount of reward if you hug the
bunkers on the left side on your drive. The green is pitched to accept this attack angle more than anything coming in from the safer line off the tee right side, don't you think?

[Brian Noser]

Michael,  I think it depends on the pin position again. if it is in the front that anlge from closer to the bunkers does not work as well IMO, or for the back left position in the little swale just because of the smallness of the area. then again it has been a while since I have played there.

[George Pazin]

David, I suggest you mine the archives. There may be more discussion of Rustic, both pro and con, than any other course on this site.

[Craig_Rokke]

George mentioned both "pro and con" discussions about Rustic.
I don't remember guys discussing the cons. Any idea what
people might see as shortcomings in the course (aside from the range setup)?

[Mike Benham]

Craig -

After the King's Putter a few years back, there were more comments pro's and con's of the course.

I'd tell you to try the search feature but that would be mean.

If I recall, some of the cons had to do with the rough around the bunkers (conditioning and maintenance), the ownership/management and the 15th hole being out of place to the wide-open design of the rest of the course (for those RC fans, and I am one of them, please don't shoot me for trying to recall the cons off the top of my head ... )

Mike

[Brian Noser]

9 was boring, both the drivable par 4s run the same way. As do the long par 3s. 10 was boring with out the new bunkers. 4 was a terrible hole cause it looked boring and mundane. 7 was dumb bacaue not worth the risk to go over the wash. this is what i remember i think there were more cons listed.

Use the search!!

[George Pazin]

Craig -

I like Brian's synopsis, but I'll expand just a touch.

Quite a few people (read: raters ) felt that RC was not nearly demanding enough off the tee to warrant discussion as a great course. There was a very interesting thread that developed - if you could ignore the vitriol - about if RC was a top 10 modern course from 50 yards and in and a top 1000 course from the tee. I didn't agree with it - in fact, it was in many ways the impetus for my own thoughts regarding subtlety in gca - but it was pretty interesting.

For those who'd care to search, I'm pretty certain the primary thread in question was started by Tim Weiman in response to a comment made by David Wigler. Ignore the fact that people took comments a little too personally and you'll see an interesting discussion of the course's merits, as well as insight into each participants' philosophy of gca.

A certain long hitting NJ gca-er also seemed to feel RC was not demanding enough off the tee, although he did praise the course a great deal for its merits. There's probably a thread started by him from a couple years ago.

There is also a matchplay thread with RC versus Wild Horse, which discussed each courses' merits fairly well.

[David Ober]

Craig -

I like Brian's synopsis, but I'll expand just a touch.

Quite a few people (read: raters ) felt that RC was not nearly demanding enough off the tee to warrant discussion as a great course. There was a very interesting thread that developed - if you could ignore the vitriol - about if RC was a top 10 modern course from 50 yards and in and a top 1000 course from the tee. I didn't agree with it - in fact, it was in many ways the impetus for my own thoughts regarding subtlety in gca - but it was pretty interesting.

For those who'd care to search, I'm pretty certain the primary thread in question was started by Tim Weiman in response to a comment made by David Wigler. Ignore the fact that people took comments a little too personally and you'll see an interesting discussion of the course's merits, as well as insight into each participants' philosophy of gca.

A certain long hitting NJ gca-er also seemed to feel RC was not demanding enough off the tee, although he did praise the course a great deal for its merits. There's probably a thread started by him from a couple years ago.

There is also a matchplay thread with RC versus Wild Horse, which discussed each courses' merits fairly well.

I agree that a number of Rustic's holes might be made slightly better by narrowing up the landing area some or even quite a bit.

It's just that I don't think they're hurt that much, since the golf course is so obviously stating that it's going to be a wide open affair off the tee from the get go. In other words, this golf course WANTS to be wide open off the tee. That's almost its raison d'etre, actually, so how can you hold that against it?

And it's not like there' aren't holes that are at least somewhat demanding off the tee, like 3, 7, 14, and 16.

[TEPaul]

"There's a front portion that is easily accessible, and then a rear portion that is not so easily accessible because it is raised in relation to the rest of the green.

If the pin is on the rear portion, then I'd rather be hitting a 80-90 yard full lob wedge at the hole than a 50 yard pitch, since holding the green will be more difficult. I want to fly something to the back portion with some spin so that it will hold.

Does that make sense?

David:

Yes, it does, thank you. I think I've asked about that before but I don't remember the details. I'm always interested in what people think of it because when we were out there in the dirt in 1999, I think it was talking about the concept of the hole the point was it was going to be this huge wide unencumbered hole on this almost driveable par 4 and the concern was that people would stand on the tee and see no point at all of this hugely wide fairway. Of course it could've been strategically bunkered for the tee shot but Geoff Shackelford didn't want to do that thinking it might appear to be just a concept copy of Riviera's #10. The idea was to try to hook the tee shot and the approach together into a unified strategy. The reason was all three of us thought too many golfers just think in strategic single-shot increments. But to hook the tee shot and approach shot together effectively that tee shot placement had to have meaning in relation to particular pin placements otherwise the huge wide fairway would be sort of pointless. I just keep saying that something had to be done with the green for various pins that would truly cast some meaning into where that tee shot was placed even if there was no penalty at all on the fairway and it looked like it didn't matter where you hit it on it. I didn't even know if the green and pin placement was going to be seen from the 12th tee but Geoff said he thought it could be from the 11th hole for the golfer thinking ahead. It was sort of a risky concept since the huge wide open fairway ran the risk of being completely misunderstood unless golfers realized even with good approaches they coming up empty for some reason and maybe they should be somewhere else on that big fairway even if it looked like it didn't matter on the tee.

So I'm happy to hear in one time there you picked up on the meaning of that back green portion and that it's better to be farther out for a fuller shot with spin to that particular pin position.

I guess the concept worked out well after all.

Thanks for the info

[David Ober]

I like the wide open nature of the fairway conceptually, but visually it needs something else, IMHO.

I would put a smallish cross bunker about about 190 out from the back tee such that if you are going to lay up to a reasonable full LW/SW distance, you still need to THINK about how you are going to do so. The way it is now, you can just skank anything at all out there and you will be fine.

The cross bunker would force me to do one of the following if I decided to lay up:

1) Thread the ball between the trouble on the left and the cross bunker (which I don't envision cutting all the way across the fairway)

2) Lay up SHORT Of the cross bunker, leaving a PW/9 of 130ish yards.

3) CARRY the cross bunker, but not TOO far that you defeat the purpose of laying up!

Does that make sense? I'm certainly not a golf course architect or designer, but I know what I like in a golf course, that's for sure!! ;-)

[TEPaul]

David:

I think this is worth having a real in-depth discussion about (we don't do enough of that architecturally on here anymore), but please understand I can only talk about this conceptually as I've never seen the hole built (I do have a lot of photos of it built though). I just know what the thinking was and the intended concept is behind the hole. We all thought it was pretty neat but risky to try because to get the intended effect is a little tricky for a whole lot of reasons.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()