David M.
The say the British golf fans are the most knowledgeable of any golf fans in the world, because they don't applaud a great shot from a level lie. They simple expect a great shot to be executed from such a lie. When the lie becomes more unlevel, the more the British fans appreciate the shot.
My critique of Rustic versus the Bandon courses, and Chambers Bay is the significantly leveler lies that are at Rustic. The greens are fabulous. The bunkering is fine. But those characteristics at the others certainly approximate the quality at Rustic and in some cases exceed them.
Garland, I think you raise a fair and interesting point about the fairway contours. Rustic's site doesn't have near the movement of, say, first fairway at Pacific Dunes, and I guess in that sense you could say that the site there is not quite as suitable as some in this regard.
That said, from the perspective of the architecture, Gil, Jim, and Geoff did a hell of a lot with a little movement, and there may be more there than some may realize. Again, with all things Rustic is really a matter of subtlety and using even the apparently insignificant features to their fullest. Take a hole as apparently flat as the 2nd, perhaps one of the flatter holes on a course. It actually slopes significantly down canyon as does everything at Rustic, and has a small swale (actually an old road) bisecting the entire landing area from short left to long right. I think many would be very surprised how often this apparently insignificant feature can come into play, causing uneven, awkward lies, and also mpacting positioning (The swale has a strange tendency of redirecting half-hearted attempts to access the more preferable left side back to the less desirable right side.) The 7th fairway has a meandering swale across the landing area and the lies it creates are bane of my existence. And of course there are more obvious examples like the fairways on the 1st, 9th, 14th and 16th, all of which leave plenty of uneven lies depending upon the placement, and there is the overall slope of the entire property. All that said, I do know what you mean, and think it a fair and reasonable explanation of why you find the site at Rustic not as "suitable for golf" than some other sites. Truly crumply fairways create all sorts of fun and interesting lies and Rustic doesn't have truly crumply fairways.
As for greens, I agree that Rustic's are "fantastic." IMO most of the greens at Rustic fit the course about as well or better than any greens I have ever seen, including greens on courses by other great modern designers such as Doak and CC. Something about how well the greens fit in with not only the surrounds, but also the integral role they play in the entirety of the golf hole beginning at the tee.
As for your comparison courses, I view the greens at Bandon Dunes substantially less so, and a big step below the others at the Bandon complex. BD's aren't bad greens, but to my mind they just don't fit all that well with what else is ongoing, almost as if they were airlifted in from a different kind of course all together. I haven't seen Chambers Bay but if the greens approximate or exceed the quality of the greens at Rustic, then Chamber's Bay must have some damn fine greens.
___________________________________________
Hey Mike Hendren, if you find my comments confrontational well then you can kiss my ass.
On a less serious note, I understand the desire to repeatedly fly off and see the next best thing, and have done plenty of that myself and probably will continue do more. Seeing a variety of courses can certainly broaden our understanding and appreciation of gca. But there is a slippery slope into superficiality and frivolity when we treat the study of golf course architecture like a checklist, a treasure hunt, a popularity contest, or even general survey course.
____________________________
George, As usual, yours is a fair take. As you guessed, I am not here to encourage people to post more. While I am being "arrogant, condescending, and judgmental" let me add that, given the mandate of the website, I don't understand why people are here posting at all. Are they really trying to contribute to a better understanding of golf course design? Are they frankly discussing golf course architecture? Or is it purely a shiny happy sorority social?
____________________________________
Niall
Thanks for the response on the subtle contours issue. As I said I haven't been there so it is interesting for me to read your take. I am not sure I understand what you mean by:
"Now I should say that I'm referring to contours or (subtle) features that dictate/strongly suggest preferred approach angle." Unfortunately, I just went back and looked at my post and see that I used very similar language and even underlined it, so now I am not so sure what I mean either. Upon reflection, I am not sure that the greens "dictating" the preferred angle was the right description. I say this because oftentimes it just isn't entirely clear which as to which angle is the most advantageous angle. It just isn't that clear cut, which I see this as a good thing. Maybe someone who has played both can help us out or maybe I should try to come up with an example to better explain what I am thinking and my question.
____________________________________
Anthony wrote:
I forgot. I thought RC could have been better by using the slopes of the canyon walls for elevated tees. I only remember one that was dramatic.
Anthony, I remember you saying this. Didn't you also think that 5th would be a a much better a hole if the green was elevated about 10 feet above the immediate surrounds? (I remember relaying these comments to the super and thinking he might hunt you down and cut out your tongue with a weed whacker.)
The one "dramatic" tee you remember is undoubtedly the 16th, sometimes lovingly referred to (by me) as the "Fazio tee." I think it was Kavenaugh who argued that the tee was a sellout of some sort, or maybe he just complained about the short climb.