Not Enough Challenge For Skilled Golfer

[Ben Cowan-Dewar]

One last thing, Cuscowilla is nothing like RC off the tee.  It is a different world.  #1 requires a flirt with the left trap to have any chance at a back pin.  Two is a very demanding tee shot.  Four requires an aggressive line to hold the green in two.  Five is a true risk/reward short par four (Try to make par if you do not clear the bunker).  #'s 6, 9, 10, 14, 15, and 18 all had demands off the tee in my opinion.

Dave,
Cuscowilla’ s first hole is 380 yards. Rustic's three par fours are 320, 330 and 340. If a person is able to drive these three greens wouldn't it stand to reason that they could hold a short iron on the first at Cuscowilla? I realize that Cuscowilla’ s opener is uphill, but I driver-PW and I was not able to drive all the greens at Rustic.

If you were driving the short holes at Rustic, five would not be scary at Cuscowilla. It is not that long a carry for those that can hit the ball 290+.

Of the other holes you mentioned, I think four does not evoke that much interest, but I can see your point.

Nine, fifteen and 18 rely on trees to create real threat, but do require shaped drives.

10 is a thrilling tee shot and I love it. If I drove the ball 290 yards though, I could see how it would be less enchanting. With only about 135 yards left, assuming you take a conservative route.

Meanwhile 11 and 15 offer thrilling tee shots at Rustic, even if you do drive a long ball.

I think this is a fair comparison, because they are both in your classification of great green complexes. In my opinion, they are not that far apart in the top 100 modern either.

[THuckaby2]

Tim:

You again missed a very key point.

It's not just that very skilled players don't find much interest off the tee at Rustic, I'd venture to say the interest doesn't exist for ALL players, on too many holes.  

So it's not so simple to say this just effects a tiny minority.. not at this golf course anyway.

And once again, it is a tiny negative in a sea of positives.

You see, I agree with you if you praise a course for saying "screw it, we won't require long accurate drives - short ones will do just as well, but you're going to have to figure out which way to go and where it's worth it to try and hit it longer."

But I would downgrade a course if they say "screw it, it doesn't matter what you do off the tee."

That's a subtle but VERY important difference.

Do you understand this?  To me it's the crux of the whole issue here.

TH

[THuckaby2]

George:

I am a member of the course rating panel for GD.  I play the courses, fill out the surveys, enjoy the process.

I could give a rat's ass which one finishes #36 and which #37.

If that causes them to boot me, so be it.  

And your question underscores the problem with this entire discussion.  I don't require ANY particular aspect of any golf course, nor would my rankings - if I set such forth, which I never have for myself and really don't care to do now - show any bias toward one "style" or another, I think... I'd like to think I take each course I see on its own merits, with all factors mattering one way or the other, all fitting into one overall assessment.

Just to show how this works, my three favorite golf courses on this planet at Cypress Point, NGLA and Sand Hills.  None of these are huge "tests" off the tee - each have some holes that are such, some holes that aren't....

So let's not try to overgeneralize here, shall we?

TH

[Dan King]

JakaB writes:
The unquestionable envy for those who shoot long and straight is rampant on this site and so out of whack with mainstream society that it borders on destroying our very credibility

No envy here. If hitting it long and straight means not ever enjoying a course like Rustic again, thank god I can't do it. I like my short and crooked drive, it makes the game more fun on more golf courses.

Note to all you highly skilled, long and straight drivers of the golf ball: Rustic Canyon is not the course for you. Avoid it. Also avoid courses like Cruden Bay, North Berwick, Machrihanish, Valley Club of Montecito, NGL, Merion, etc...

Go play your 7,500 yard courses and leave the other courses for those of us that like to have fun playing a game.

And please keep Rustic Canyon out of any top 100 list.

Dan King

Excessive golfing dwarfs the intellect. Nor is this to be wondered at when we consider that the more fatuously vacant the mind is, the better for play. It has been observed that absolute idiots play the steadiest.
  --Sir Walter Simpson  (The Art of Golf)

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom Huckaby:

Wow! The crowd at Rustic Canyon must be a damn good group of golfers if there are too many holes that the tee shot don't hold interest for any players.

I've certainly never played such a course or in such esteemed company. Nor do I remember Southern California golfers being that good.

But, it least we now have a story - if true - that makes more sense. If there really are too many holes with tee shots that don't hold interest for EVERY golfer playing the course, than I'll cast my ballot against Top 100 without even seeing the course.

But, this is something different than what David said about the problem being in reference to "skilled" golfers.......

and.........

I have NEVER seen any golf course that had tee shots on too many holes that failed to challenge every single golfer playing the course.

You must be playing a different game than the people I see everyday.

[THuckaby2]

Dan:

Rustic is crowded enough as it is... man I shudder to think what would happen if it did suddenly get in one of the magazine top 100 lists.  The price would likely be raised, that's for sure...

But on the other hand, if it does make one of these lists, then that's a hell of a statement to make, and maybe we'd get more courses like Rustic?

Such a dilemna...

As for the rest, you just named several of my favorite courses on the planet.  I just want to make that clear in case you, or anyone, thinks I personally favor 7500 yard monsters... That's not the case at all, far from it.  My take on this thread is very, very narrow.

TH

[THuckaby2]

Tim:

It is mind-boggling to me that a very astute, very smart guy like you keeps missing this extremely simple point.

All golfers don't miss a CHALLENGE at Rustic - hell, any golf shot is challenging for the 18 index and up crowd - what all golfers miss, on too many holes, is INTEREST.

Those are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.

I've explained why several times above.

But let's try again.

To me, interest on a tee shot means that there is something there other than just brainlessly blasting away.  You have to try and figure out which side is better, or you try to decide if a risk is worth taking, or you try to avoid some penalty - all are parts of what I would say add "interest" to the tee shot.

If none of these things exist, then that to me is a boring shot, and it doesn't matter if you're Al Cyrvyk or Tiger Woods, a shot with nothing to think about is no fun.

Maybe others disagree with this, maybe mindless bashing is fun.  But let's take this as a given for anyone who has any insight into the game.

THIS is what to me is lacking on some holes at Rustic Canyon.  Once again, to me it is heavily outweighed by interest elsewhere, and thus I did love playing the course.  But it is a factor that is lacking, which can be weighed as heavily or as lightly as one cares to.

In summary, this isn't about CHALLENGE, it's about INTEREST, and they are two very, very different things.

Here's hoping that this explanation, number 23 tried, works better than the 22 previous.  

TH

[KCtheSunshineBand]

tomhuckaby
shake shake shake
shake shake shake
shake your booty
shake your booty
shake shake shake
shake shake shake
shake your booty
shake your booty
tom youse dancin!

[George Pazin]

I think it kinda depends on what your definition of interest is.

Some find trying to hit a tight lined fairway as interesting - ie. shot is dictated to you.

Some enjoy trying to find the right line amidst a myriad of options.

I have a bright, successful friend who thinks Spyglass is the best course on the Monterey Peninsula because it has ice plant, which provides an extremely difficult playing condition.

As a wise man says all the time. Golf is a big game...

JakaB -

There's a big difference between tee to green & tee to 60 yards out.

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom Huckaby:

You put more emphasis on the difference between "challenge" and "interest" than I would.

What does this really mean for the vast majority of golfers?

Don't most golfers just hope for a clean hit and that the ball goes in generally the right direction?

[THuckaby2]

Tim:

If one doesn't require challenge or interest, why does one play?

Yes, the majority of golfers do just want to hit the ball cleanly.  Fair enough.  But I'd guess the majority of golfers do prefer some courses to others.  If that's not the case, there would be far more stand-alone driving ranges....

So what makes them like one course more than another?  I guess it depends on who you ask, and we could take this to the absolute lowest common denominator, in which case it would be conditioning and cart girls.  I assume that's not what you want to discuss.

To me, "interest", as I defined it in the previous post, adds fun to the game for all golfers.  Maybe I have this wrong.  But if I am wrong, what's the point of discussing golf course architecture at all?

TH

[Mike_Cirba]

shivas;

Yes, it does.

In those cases, the closer you get to the green, the tougher your options become.

Ask Don Mahaffey, who drove it over the 12th into short rough and took a six.

Ask DavidKelly, who drove up alongside and took a 7.

You can find yourself in fine shape...not in a bunker, not in deep rough, not in a pond, but still dead as a door nail.

To be fair, though, I can see how that type of subtlety is often missed.

[CHrisB]

Tom Huckaby:

You put more emphasis on the difference between "challenge" and "interest" than I would.

What does this really mean for the vast majority of golfers?

Tim,

I think interest can exist independently of challenge if (1) uncertainty about the outcome of the shot is created, or in the absence of that, (2) if the setting is inherently interesting.

Examples of (1) would be tee shots to undulating fairways, or blind/semi-blind fairways, or two-tiered fairways, or on holes where the hazards appear to come into play but don't.

Examples of (2) would be the 1st/18th at The Old Course, which are not challenging tee shots but full of interest.  The 18th at Kapalua (Plantation) might be another example.

Wide-open holes where (1) and (2) do not apply will lessen interest for all levels of players, because the influence the course has on the outcome of the shot becomes more predictable.  The point of interest moves away from the course and back to the player, and it turns into a driving range where the main interest is in executing the swing.

[THuckaby2]

Mike:

Poor scores can be taken on any of these holes regardless of where one leaves the tee shot.  That's not what Dave is asking... I don't think so anyway.

Let's take 12, for example.  That green is so severe, with such incredible contour, that you tell me where the good place to leave the ball is and the bad place is.  Yes, long would not be a good thing... but the hole is 340 from the tips... if long is a worry at 340 yards, then something is wrong with the game.

So taking that out, well... heck as I say to me it's a fun golf hole because I just dig being able to even try to drive a par 4, and there is a bit of a risk carrying over the scrub if you go straight at it - that's a long carry... but assuming I can make the carry, what difference does it make where the ball ends up after that?  Just why is it better to be back farther or farther to the right?  To me NO SHOT is ever going to be easy going into that green... so hell, being on it is always going to be the best result... or are you gonna tell me 100 yards back at some perfect angle is preferable to putting there?  I don't see the angle where that would be true, although such a thing could be possible...

I don't think this is missing any subtlety... This to me is a great golf hole, just because of the green.  The good outweighs the bad!  It doesn't matter a lick to me that there is no preferred angle.  I know, this is the point Tim would like to make about the course, or golf courses, as a whole... and it works on this golf hole... One just ought not to overgeneralize.

The same can be said for #3, really.....

To JakaB - yes, this is somewhat painful, but again the good outweighs the bad.  Ratings are done confidentially, and discussions here, well... I choose what to say and what not to say, so if it's painful it's my own fault.  Of course I would appreciate if the lovers of this course try to understand better when I say how much I do like the course and this is one tiny negative, but what the hell... In the end there aren't many discussions like this...

TH

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom Huckaby:

I think what you're missing is that the game is inherently interesting and challenging for most people. My local muni  probably wouldn't measure more than a "2" or "3" on the Doak scale, yet it provides lots of interest and challenge for people everyday.

The theme of this thread is how important it is to challenge skilled golfers off the tee and how much the failure to do so should influence our assessment of the course.

I selected Rustic Canyon because it seems like the ideal candidate to discuss this issue. Moreover, David Wigler provided us with some concise statements to examine and explore. As I think JakaB acknowledged, if David is right about the quality of the course "sixty yards and in" there must be a hell of a lot wrong with it elsewhere (for the vast majority of golfers) not to merit Top 100 consideration.

You have moved the argument from Rustic Canyon not challenging (or providing interest) for skilled golfers, to the course not providing this for ALL golfers on too many holes. Fair enough. You and David might see it differently. But, I am still skeptical about the course not providing tee shot interest for ALL golfers on too many holes?

Which holes do you feel ALL golfers do not find tee shot interest or challenge?

Chris:

I’m not sure how your example of #1 at TOC applies. Doesn’t the golfer know that the challenge lies with the approach shot? Isn’t that what people have been saying about Rustic Canyon?

[Mike_Cirba]

I find Ran's comments on the course profile interesting.  I think he anticipated some of this debate.

"Will Californian golfers realize what a gem of a course these three men produced? Certainly some will, as the sense of freedom from the typically tightly packed public courses will only inspire. Others won't, as the course is so different that they will have no frame of reference."

"The biggest item that will help the perception of the course is a first rate yardage book that provides a paragraph or two of text highlighting the options that are available to the golfer. The golfer may come to realize that the sea of green grass on the 4th or 9th or 12th holes is actually there for a reason. Once they start to understand the options that the design gives them, and appreciate the thought that went into each hole, they are unlikely to play elsewhere."

"The only problem? Securing a tee time - both private and public golfers will be jostling for tee times because Rustic Canyon is simply that much more fun and thought provoking to play than just about any course - public or private - that one cares to name."

[THuckaby2]

Tim:

Fair enough.  At least we have come to an understanding.  To me there is a big difference between challenge and interest, so please do be careful to get those terms correct, at least if you're going to ask me questions about them.  I never said that some of the tee shots don't provide challenge for all golfers - as you say, and to which I've agreed, challenge exists on every golf shot for the lesser skilled - no, what I said is INTEREST is lacking for all golfers, even the less skilled, on too many golf holes.  That to me is a very different thing than challenge, and if you choose not to acknowledge this, there is nothing I can do to change that thought.  C'est la vie (apologies to Dan Kelly if I spelled that wrong).

And please forgive me if I abstain on answering your questions re specific holes, at least publicly here.  JakaB has it right in that criticizing a course loved by people I consider friends is just not my cup of tea.  That's what I mean by focusing on the positive... you have asked me for a laundry list of negatives, and I'm just not going to do that.

I will agree with you - I believe I have always agreed with you - challenge off the tee for the highly skilled player is not a requirement for greatness for a golf course.  Pine Valley proves this.  As I've said many times, the good can outweigh the bad.  It does at Pine Valley, it does, but to a lesser extent, at Rustic Canyon.

So can we leave that as asked and answered?

As for the rest, if you really want my thoughts on specific holes, send me an email and I trust you'd keep such thoughts confidential.

TH
tom.huckaby@clorox.com

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom Huckaby;

Using #12 as an example, if you go for that green and miss it on the wrong side (left, short, or long), depending on hole location, you are in much more difficult position (even though you are much closer) than if you had bailed out the drive to the right, leaving about an 80 yard pitch or chip and run up the length of the green.  

Even then, if the hole is cut atop the "knob" in the back left, a prudent approach is not to challenge that hole, but be content to get the ball somewhere on the mid-lower level of the green for a good shot at an uphill-two putt.

It's a hole where the drive needs to be to be well thought out and then approached gingerly, I believe.

And...I almost forgot....OB lurks just a few paces left of that green.

[THuckaby2]

Mike:

Ran's thoughts are telling.  That's why I say I punt and defer to those who have played the course many times when it comes to challenge... As for interest, I remain a doubting Thomas.

As I say, I wish I lived closer to find this out better for myself.  Such is life.

Just do realize also that Ran's is one opinion, and I have heard many others.

TH

[THuckaby2]

Mike:

I believe we're going to have to agree to disagree re 12.  Man, I just don't see how 80 yards back is ever going to be better than being right next to the green.  There is no spot you could put the vast majority of golfers at where they'd have better success from 80 than from 5, with the exception of over the green.

See, there is no "length of the green" on which to run it up!

Not that I remember anyway... If I have this wrong, then mea culpa.  All I remember is severe rolls throughout, with the knob in the middle, such that no side is favored over the other.

And I'm never gonna understand how 80 yards back is better....

Oh well.  As I say, to me it's a cool hole just because of the incredibly severe green.  That again ought to be enough.

TH

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom;

I say that simply because I was playing with Don Mahaffey and JohnV and both of them went for the green...John ending up short left, Don over, while I bailed to that spot 80 yards right.  

The scores were 4,5,6.  I wouldn't have traded my position for either of their's, believe me!  

I'm ready to let this rest, although I really wish David would come out of his irritated silence and give me an answer on how he defines "lines of charm".  

[THuckaby2]

Mike:

David's silence isn't out of irritation, unless one considers work irritating.  

But I can counter you if we're basing this on results... in my group, it went like this (the pin was back right):

TH - right next to green, short right - freakin hard shot, putts it and gets it to 15 feet, two putt par and feeling damn happy to get that.

Dad - way right, 120 in - misses green, suffers, takes 6 at least as I recall.

Brother - 80 yards or so in on same line to the right, misses green, suffers, takes 6 at least as I recall.

Brother in law - 50 yards or so in, next to scrub, coming in more straight at the green, up the hump - misses green, suffers, takes 6 at least as I recall.

You tell me who had the advantage.  I sure as hell wouldn't have traded my shot just short of the green on the right for any of theirs.

But seriously, you really think 80 yards back is better than short left?  I don't see that... Maybe pin high left in the case of a way back left pin you might have an advantage, but still I'd take JV's spot over yours, and just putt the ball.  You still had the right front hump to go over... you didn't exactly have an easy shot... and that's because such just plain doesn't exist going into that incredible green!

TH

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom;

That's VERY interesting.  I can definitely see how a hole cut on the right side would NOT put me in an advantageous position from the spot I drove to versus where you ended up.

In fact, I might play my second shot to where you drove to purposefully and hope to get down in two from there.

However, with the pin back left, up on the knobby thing, I was able to pitch to the middle of the green, trying to get it to possibly run up the slope and stop up on top.  Of course, I didn't have the guts to really challenge it, knowing if I went long I'd be DEAD, so my well-played shot finished in the middle of the green.

So, I think what i've learned is that if the hole is cut left (one can see the hole location from the preceding hole) then I would bail the drive to the right.  If the hole is cut right, I would probably try to drive as close as possible, or even favor the left.  If the hole is in the middle, I'll flip a coin.  

BTW, what are you doing driving a 340-yard hole??  

[CHrisB]

Chris:

I’m not sure how your example of #1 at TOC applies. Doesn’t the golfer know that the challenge lies with the approach shot? Isn’t that what people have been saying about Rustic Canyon?

#1 TOC is an example of a tee shot that is not challenging but has a tremendous amount of interest because of the setting--the Home of Golf, opening shot in the round, in front of the R&A Clubhouse, looking out toward the Swilken bridge, Road Hole in the distance, town on the left, beach on the right, etc.

Take the identical design, put it in the middle of another course, and it loses some interest.  Repeat the concept too many times during a round, and the course loses interest.

I'll let those in the know decide how this relates directly to RC; I just thought I'd respond to your very good question about the difference in challenge and interest.  I gave some examples to show that a tee shot can indeed have interest without challenge.

[Tim_Weiman]

ChrisB:

No one could possibly argue that there is tremendous interest in the opening tee shot at St. Andrews, that's for sure!