Pete Dye's Lost Canyons

[Yannick Pilon]

Just thinking about going to California to play (and study!) Rustic Canyon, but I saw that Lost Canyons is just a few miles away.

Would that make a good combo?  Has anyone played Lost Canyons?

Thanks for the info.

Yannick

[ed_getka]

Not too many think highly of it, but apparently one of the courses may be soon to be going out of existence, so if you want to see it, it would probably be better to go sooner rather than later. Play Rustic first though, as you are likely to find it hard to tear yourself away.

[John Kavanaugh]

It is an excellent combo...Pete Dye is one of the great living architects of our day...he might even know more about GCA then our leading critics..

[peter_p]

Here is a link to article about the possibility that one course will close for housing, and the other be private. It is just in inititial planning and has not been approved.

http://www.simivalleyacorn.com/news/2006/0203/Front_Page/001.html

[DMoriarty]

Yannick,

They do make a good combo if only for how starkly they contrast.  Most notably, both Lost Canyon courses are imposed onto severe land, and are severe courses with severe features.  Miss and your ball is likely gone.  There are some features I like at Lost Canyons but for me the cons far outweigh the pros, especially upon repeat plays.  

It is an excellent combo...Pete Dye is one of the great living architects of our day...he might even know more about GCA then our leading critics..

Barney,  I didn't know you made it out to play Lost Canyons.  Which course did you like best, the Shadow or the Sky?  

[rjsimper]

I don't have any evidence to back it up other than "what I heard" and I am sure someone more knowledgable than I can chime in here, but I think that saying it's "Pete Dye's" Lost Canyons is a bit of a misnomer...

The subject of Rustic Canyon plus one other has been talked about quite a bit...are you talking about a weekend back to back combo, or a 36 in the same day combo?

If you have designs on one round Saturday and one round Sunday, I would consider other area courses (area being a loosely defined term certainly opens up your options a bit more).

Let the record further show that while the Shadow course is the one headed for oblivion, the chorus of opinion tends to support the Sky as the better of the two layouts.

[David Kelly]

My recommendation would be to play a morning round at Rustic Canyon.  Go over to Lost Canyons and have lunch. Then go back to Rustic Canyon and play a second round.

[ed_getka]

David,
  You neglected to tell him what to have for lunch. Apparently, discerning palates go for the tri-tip sandwich.

Yannick,
   I have had lunch there 3 times, but haven't felt compelled to play the courses there. Partly because of the green fee, but mostly because I didn't have rope and pitons. I have heard there are some very good holes out on those courses, but it hasn't sounded like there were enough to make it worth my time. That is partly because I do tend to miss shots and I don't feel like losing balls all day.

[RJ_Daley]

I only played the Sky once, thanks to Craig Edgeman.  I think it is a great contrast with Rustic Canyon.  Personally, I would recommend playing Lost Canyons, one or both courses first.  Then, the next day go and play Rustic as many rounds as you can get in.  

The contrast for me would be like describing having a diet of unsatisfying odd ball novelty food being the comparison with Lost Canyons, then being starved for some good old comfort meat and potatoes, which I'd call Rustic.  

[David Kelly]

RJ_Daley,

Lost Canyons is more of a novelty for people from the east or the midwest.  Unfortunately in Southern California most of the new courses that have been built in the last 25 years have been on land similar to Lost Canyons.

[Craig Van Egmond]

RJ,

     I'm sorry about that whole Lost Canyons thing.. will you ever forgive me?


Yannick,

     Play Lost Canyons only if you are interested in seeing a course completely opposite of all things Rustic.. ie.. penal, overpriced and no fun.

[RJ_Daley]

Forgive you, heck I'm indebted to you for the day!  And, I don't think it was some sort of lost time on a golf course.  There were interesting holes and hard shots to make, that while beyond my abilities to play well there, were interesting.  It is just that it is too severe, nearly every hole with no forgiveness into the barancas and gulches, etc.  Cart ball, and severe angles off tees with fairways running out too soon, can lead to a difficult and less than enjoyable flow of a game.  That is why I would say most folks would love Rustic after they play Lost.  Throw the price comparison in to the mix, and it really becomes a startling contrast.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Lost Canayons dserves to stay lost.  While there are some good holes there are too many that use land that really was meant more to ski on than play golf on.

[Tony Ristola]

Greetings guys,

The locals call it Lost Ball Canyons.
For good reason.

If the wind howls, have fun.
It has its moments, but they're too few.
The course does photograph well though.

You might want to go look around first.
And if you enjoy walking, forget it.

[Aidan Bradley]

Perfect timing Tony. It's a pretty interesting place.

Aidan.

[Michael Robin]

Aidan - Are those three pics from the Sky course? The first one looks like 17 which is the scariest/best hole on the course IMO. A 130ish yd par 3 for those who haven't been. Left and back fall off the cliff.

[Dave Esler]

Yes it does photograph well.  By the looks of the waves forming in the bunker sand, it must be the windiest place on earth?

Dave Esler

[DMoriarty]

Sometimes people on this site like to compare quality of nearby courses by a "how many times out of ten would I play it" test.  While I never liked that test much, it might be telling to note that the combined retrospective results for me and those who play there most often is something like:  Zero plays at Lost Canyons in our last 500 rounds at Rustic, combined.   I do have one friend who does play their for free occassionally with a buddy, but has often commented that he'd rather pay at Rustic rather than play for free at Lost Canyons.    

That being said, I really do think it might be worth seeing just for the sake of contrast.

Also, in fairness, there must be a few defenders of the course around here.   After all, I think both courses made some form of Golf Digest's "Best New" lists . . .do they have a Best New Overpriced Absurdity Category?  Plus, Matt Ward used to staunchly defend the course as a great test.  If I recall correctly he blew off a small GCA gathering at Rustic to go play there once, and he even argued that the Sky course ought to host a US Open.    So maybe it is just a matter of taste.  

[Matt_Ward]

David M:

Allow me to correct the record.

I enjoyed playing the Sky Course -- it's a good bit better -- design wise and strategic wise than the sister Shadow Course. I never used the word "great" in my comments / re: Sky Course. I did say the layout puts plenty of pressure on one's tee game and I do like a number of holes on the course -- the par-4 9th is well done. The sameness of the 1st and 10th holes is a bit disappointing but you also have the likes of the uphill par-4 11th which is tough dynamic hole and the daunting and challenging downhill par-5 12th is well done -- I especially enjoyed the placement of the fairway bunker at the 335-yards mark for those who want to give the green a try in two blows.

On the flip side -- I also didn't much care for the UPHILL par-4 16th because it is so outrageous in the way it has been created but clearly the design team needed to get out of one canyon in order to finish the course.

I never said it could host a US Open because of logistical considerations -- getting gallery to and from the holes would be quite impossible. I did say the capacity for demanding shots is indeed present with a good number of holes there. The par-3 17th is a fine hole and the need to accurately gauge the distance to a back left pin placement is no easy feat.

People can appreciate golf without being one-dimensional. I too enjoyed Rustic Canyon but I would not hesitate in returning to play Sky -- the Shadow is the layout I would avoid a repeat play.

[DMoriarty]

Matt,  I mentioned your views not to rekindle old debates but to point out to Yannick that reasonable minds do differ on the qualities of the Sky (but not the Shadow.)  

But some of your comments did get me questioning my memory so I did a quick search through the archives . . . you may never have used the term "great" but in the past you held a quite high opinion of the Sky . . . calling yourself a "big fan" . . . placing the Sky in the top 100 courses you have ever played . . . refering to the "wonderful" placement of the holes in the canyons . . . etc.

As for the Sky as a potential US Open site, you did acknowledge the logistical difficulties, but nonetheless the course itself was worthy of the US Open suggested that USGA should give it consideration.  

Calling those who dislike the Sky  "one-dimensional" is akin to calling them "close-minded" for not personally being into masochism.

[John_Cullum]

What price is considered "overpriced" in that part of the world?

[CHrisB]

This is interesting to me...after reading the first 10 or so
responses to Yannick's question I wasn't feeling any real
interest in checking out Lost Canyons. But after the pictures
were posted, I immediately changed my mind. Look at those
green complexes! And the setting... It has to be worth at
least one play.

Not too many think highly of it

both Lost Canyon courses are imposed onto severe
land, and are severe courses with severe features.  Miss and
your ball is likely gone.

penal, overpriced and no fun

It is just that it is too severe, nearly every hole with
no forgiveness into the barancas and gulches, etc.  Cart ball,
and severe angles off tees with fairways running out too
soon, can lead to a difficult and less than enjoyable flow of a
game.

Lost Canayons dserves to stay lost.  While there are
some good holes there are too many that use land that really
was meant more to ski on than play golf on.

I understand the general complaint is that it is too penal and
that the land is too severe in places. And the price seems to
be an issue as well. But almost all of you who responded
negatively also say that there are some good holes, good
features, good moments at Lost Canyons.

So, what are they? If I'm deciding about whether to play a
new course I'd like to hear what's good and bad about the
course. So far, I've only read what's bad (although not in
much detail) with only vague references about what's good.

For example, no one has said anything (good or bad) about
the green complexes--are they as interesting as the pictures
would indicate?

Would it be a good match play course?

[rjsimper]

Overpriced is pretty darn relative in this or any part of the world -

Tierra Rejada at 20 bucks would be overpriced as far as I'm concerned...

But for this debate, I believe Lost Canyons just REDUCED their rates to right around the 100/110 bucks a round mark.

In comparison, Rustic is 55 on a weekend prime tee time and 40 on the weekdays.

[Matt_Ward]

David:

Let's be clear I made it a point to articulate a number of points on several of the holes there -- I touched upon them again in my comments on this threas as well. Some work quite well -- and others less so.

I particularly liked the manner in which several of the holes were designed through the canyons. I also outlined a few that don't work nearly as well. If you read the totality of my comments I tend to avoid the generalistic and sometimes simplistic thumbs up or thumbs down approach that many have opined about concerning the course.

I look at the Sky Course in many ways as I do with Wolf Creek in Mesquite, NV. I never said it would be everyone's cup of tea and frankly that's not my concern. I liked it for what it offered and tried to balance that with an in-depth critique of the holes that work and those that don't.

Try to understand that giving a course "consideration" is a very broad area for contemplation for a USGA event like the Open. Think of it like adding the name of various suspects -- the list gets narrowed down to a few key prospects for a host of reasons -- logistics is clearly one of them.

David -- folks who favor the style of Rustic Canyon are to be saluted for there liking such a fine course -- I enjoyed it thoroughly as well. I can only trust the layout is in the daily conditioning that befits the actual design of the course. I have heard several reports that that is far from the case now.

Let me point out that my likes and dislikes for golf courses is a bit more pragmatic than the iron core zealots who favor one particular style to the extreme. You spin the argument with the insertion of the word "masochism." That's delightfully funny but IMHO an opinion clearly disposed to paint the Sky Course with the broadest of brushes. My paint strokes are bit more discerning and reasonable.

[DMoriarty]

Matt, you implied that those who dislike Lost Canyons are "one-dimensional" and I disagree.    

Chris,

Fair points, but if you go into the archives you will find that Lost Canyons just about every detail of this course has been discussed ad naseum in the past.  You should take a look.  

As for me, I dont really want to open up those cans of worms, especially given that I seem to be in trouble for even pointing out that some posters have liked the course in the past.