It is disappointing to hear that there is still talk of taming some of the greens at RCCC; I found them to be great fun and of terrific variety, with plenty of concave and convex green sites to either funnel the ball toward the hole, or away from it (a few greens seem to accomplish both).
I really liked the greens, but I can understand why some find them severe, especially in their receptivity in tough conditions. For example, both the 16th and the 11th greens were great fun, but both were extremely difficult to hold and to putt when firm. Given the difficulty of these holes and others tee to green, it doesn't surprise me that there have been some complaints. The catch is that some of the more severe green sites (like these two) help make for some of the most exciting and interesting holes out there. It would be a shame to see them altered unnecessarily.
That being said, it probably isn't productive to just dismiss the complaints as the whining of incompetent golfers, as Matt Ward (and perhaps a few others) seem to want to do . . .
". . . It's laughable -- the issue for such people is a simple one -- hit better approaches to get closer and practice one's putting.
. . . Those who raise the issue need a few putting lessons or hit their approaches closer to the hole.
. . . Rock Creek is not DUMB DOWN golf -- it's about producing fine golf shots that will be approrpiately rewarded when executed well.
. . . when people bitch and moan about green speeds then frankly some of that has to be a "look in the mirror" situation
. . . Tom provided plenty of ways to get to the pin location -- it's up the player(s) to know their putting stroke and if in doubt hit better approach shots to compensate for it.
. . . People will bitch and moan just for the sake of being heard because saying "they suck" or "can't putt worth a lick" is far too e-z."
This kind of reactionary macho garbage is rarely productive. Telling those complaining to man up because "they suck" and cannot hit it close doesn't add much to the conversation, does it? Plus, as Tom Doak mentioned, it is almost invariably the better golfers who raise this type of complaint, not those (like me) who actually do suck at golf and cannot hit is close.
Based on what I have heard from people in Montana and out, my guess is that Rock Creek is facing the same issues that great courses have been facing for the past century, and it is likely that the problem is the opposite of what Matt sees. Rock Creek has probably forced a small group of very good golfers-- those who usually can hit it close and make their putts-- well outside their comfort zone. Trying to throw it close isn't necessarily the best play, and being close to the pin isn’t a guarantee of a made putt, even for a very good putter. Better golfers tend to expect a certain payoff for quality ball striking, yet quality ball striking might not produce these results at Rock Creek. And, unfortunately, the top golfers generally hold sway over lesser players, on the mistaken assumption that good golfers must have a better understanding of golf courses.
Maybe what the course needs is a strong internal advocate, preferably a very good player, who understands and appreciates what makes the place so special and is willing to take on the voices of those who want to see the same sort of payoff for “shot value” as they see at other courses.
________________________________________________________
Tom H.
As I was playing and loving OM I was wondering which was more fun; OM or RCCC, and I am not sure I have an answer. As for whether anyone should see one over another, I think the answer depends very much upon who is asking. While my answer might be different if I weren't answering "America's Guest," I'd say that you, Mr. Huckaby, should fly to Missoula, Butte, or Helena and play RCCC.
-- OM is a terrific course flowing over the kind of terrific land where one might expect to find a terrific course, even though going in some might have thought that when it came to quality golf land, OM must be suckling mother Bandon's hind tit. Yet it more than holds its own when compared to any of the other Bandon courses. Not only that, but OM's explicit incorporation of the foundational elements of excellent strategic golf holes makes it even more special, and I think you would probably come away from it not only in love with OM, but also with even a greater appreciation (if possible) for the likes of TOC, NGLA, CPC, and maybe even a few relative dog tracks like Rustic Canyon.
-- But even against all that, I still think RCCC would be my recommendation for you, personally, just because it is just so damn different. OM is more in your wheelhouse/comfort zone, while RCCC is flowing down a mountainside which is blanketed by fricken' glacial moraine (think sand dunes where each grain of sand is about the size of a Volkswagen beetle.) RCCC is so much better than any modern mountain course that to my mind it ought to entirely transform our expectations of what a golf course on a tough site can be. In fact it is so good it almost seems silly to think of it is a mountain course at all, and almost insulting to limit it with such a description. It is a hell of a lot of fun, even as much fun as places like Sand Hills, Ballyneal, OM, B Trails, PD, and even some of the old greats.
-- So to you I'd say go play RCCC. But to others I might say go play OM. In fact, if you do go play RCCC you might consider telling everyone you meet at RCCC to go play OM so that they might better understand and appreciate what makes RCCC so god damned good, and so they might think twice about changing it.
Hope this helps.