News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Alex Miller

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Gil Hanse and Paul George
« Reply #25 on: March 09, 2014, 02:18:40 PM »
Gil Hanse is closer to Carmelo Anthony or Chris Paul than Paul George.

Very talented, but has possibly worked with more limited cast (and by cast I mean sites in the GCA world, Gil has fantastic people surrounding him). Melo and CP3 have had similar careers up to this year, but right now Melo is part of a team that is struggling while CP3 and Lob City are perhaps on the verge of breaking out of their annual 2nd round playoff exit. As a Laker fan I have to say the Clippers are more than fun to watch; they're very talented and could go far.

Given recent successes, of which I'd include the reno at Doral and what I've heard about the Olympic course as well as a great potential opportunity in Bandon, I'd say CP3 is probably a good comparison.

Nigel Islam

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Gil Hanse and Paul George
« Reply #26 on: March 09, 2014, 02:54:22 PM »
Paul George just is a tad inconsistent. I still think if West and Hibbert play well, the Pacers have a shot to beat Miami. Having a game seven at home would have helped though :(

Kyle Casella

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Gil Hanse and Paul George
« Reply #27 on: March 10, 2014, 09:05:32 AM »
I think I was a bit harsh to use the word stupid, so apologies for that. I do think though that the comparison is a hard line to follow.

Jason Thurman

  • Karma: +1/-0
Re: Gil Hanse and Paul George
« Reply #28 on: March 10, 2014, 09:26:16 AM »
So... you're not smart enough to follow, and therefore the thread is stupid?



It's a pretty simple comparison if you can handle parallel comparisons. Maybe you should reread post #6 a few times.

The gist is that the rush to declare both guys elite has resulted in them becoming overrated. They're still largely unproven commodities with a lot of potential and a flash of brilliance here and there, but I don't think Hanse belongs in the same category as Doak and C&C any more than I think George belongs in the same category as Durant and Lebron.

That's not to say Hanse can't get there someday. I just don't see a resume that backs up his lofty regard around here, so I'd love to hear from others more familiar with his work why I'm wrong - or even better - why I'm right.
"There will always be haters. That’s just the way it is. Hating dudes marry hating women and have hating ass kids." - Evan Turner

Some of y'all have never been called out in bold green font and it really shows.

Charlie Gallagher

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Gil Hanse and Paul George
« Reply #29 on: March 10, 2014, 09:35:02 AM »
    I'm going to echo Cassella. Not only are Gil's courses high quality, his restoration work is superb. I played Plainfield two years ago and that course has been restored to brilliance. Same with Fenway, which I was lucky enough to play last spring.  I can't vouch for Doral, as I found it hard to judge it by what I saw on television, but the bunkering looked good and it seemed to play quite strategically.
   My bet is Gil's and Jim Wagner's best work is still ahead of them. I would be stoked to see them do something in the Chop Hills in Eastern CO or in the sand belt in Nebraska.

Kyle Casella

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Gil Hanse and Paul George
« Reply #30 on: March 10, 2014, 09:46:58 AM »
So in return for apologizing you attempt to insult my intelligence? Thanks for that. I understand the purpose of your post, I just don't think it is at all worthwhile to compare the career trajectory of a golf course architect and and NBA player because those are two very different things.

I would say Gil has proven himself to be one the better restoration experts of the day, especially when you look at the roster of clubs who have trusted him with their courses. I think anyone who has played the pre and post-restoration North course at LACC can attest to that. As far as his original work goes, I have only played Rustic and Boston Golf Club, but played both numerous times. Both are outstanding. I think Rustic is the greatest affordable, public course built in the US in a long, long time. It represents everything we should want developers and golf course architects to strive for, in my opinion.

Jason Thurman

  • Karma: +1/-0
Re: Gil Hanse and Paul George
« Reply #31 on: March 10, 2014, 11:53:28 AM »
Oh Kyle, don’t be so sensitive. I didn’t insult you. I just pointed out the irony in your previous post. There’s a whole population of people who believe the joke is to blame if they don’t get it. Consider my previous post a useful insight to how the rest of us view that line of thinking.

Let’s talk about Rustic Canyon though. I always hear how great it is, and I enjoyed playing it. I do think it’s dramatically overrated though, and your statement that it’s “greatest affordable, public course built in the US in a long, long time” only further contributes to that. You’re not alone in considering it so highly, of course. But a statement like that is REALLY lofty. In fact, it sounds a bit like the text message I mentioned sending in the original post, when I effectively suggested that Paul George might be better than Lebron.

Rustic Canyon is a nice course in a setting that was never going to produce a poor one. But it’s overrated, and here’s why:

1.   I frequently see Hanse lauded for “use of the canyon” and the way the course’s surroundings affect a player’s ability to judge the break on greens, or even whether a shot is uphill or downhill. But I don’t believe for an instant that Hanse deserves credit for the intrinsic qualities of the course surroundings. With that land parcel, the holes were always going to be routed up and down the canyon regardless of who did the design. As a result, the perception skewing is an intrinsic quality of the site and not a quality of the design itself. It’s still cool, but Hanse’s role in fostering the effect of the canyon has been greatly overstated.
2.   The course is extremely penal with the proximity of native areas to many holes. If those native areas were replaced with water, the playing characteristics of the course would not change for those who respect the environment but the perception on this site would be dramatically different. If you believe lost balls are a bad thing, then how do you give Rustic Canyon a pass for the extreme number that it is likely to extract from an honest 15 handicapper?

We’re all very binary these days. Everyone seems to believe Reese Bobby’s motto “If you ain’t first, you’re last.” I’m guilty of it myself, as I admitted in the original post. But Reese Bobby was high when he said that. Hanse and Rustic Canyon are both closer to first than last, but to put them #1 is to ignore courses like Wild Horse and The Harvester. Hanse is part of a long list of architects who do nice renovation work and have designed some really nice courses. He absolutely belongs in the discussion with DeVries, Prichard, Forse, and Brands, and he's probably at the top of that list. Maybe he’ll hit a home run if his design at The Prairie Club is completed. If he’s able to crank out the best course at that resort and do something outstanding with the Olympic course, he’ll vault well up the list in my mind. But let’s at least ask him to pull it off before we give him the credit for it.
"There will always be haters. That’s just the way it is. Hating dudes marry hating women and have hating ass kids." - Evan Turner

Some of y'all have never been called out in bold green font and it really shows.

Josh Tarble

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Gil Hanse and Paul George
« Reply #32 on: March 10, 2014, 12:07:52 PM »
Gil Hanse is far better than Paul George at this stage.  Gil is not putting up any 0-9s against the Bobcats. 

I do like the premise of the thread though.  Gil is the next hot thing in design, but in my mind he hasn't put up his version of Pacific Dunes or Sand Hills to be considered alongside C&C and Renaissance.  He has put out the foundation for a really good career and Castle Stuart and Rustic are likely better than a lot of people will ever build.  I also think your point about the Olympic course is a good one as well.  From all accounts it's a pretty solid site, so let's see what happens with it.

Matthew Sander

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Gil Hanse and Paul George
« Reply #33 on: March 10, 2014, 12:39:15 PM »
Maybe he’ll hit a home run if his design at The Prairie Club is completed. If he’s able to crank out the best course at that resort and do something outstanding with the Olympic course, he’ll vault well up the list in my mind.

Does anyone know the status of that project? I know that the website used to include a little preview of the "Old School" course along with its other courses. That is no longer on the website and I wondered if its absence had any deeper meaning.

Alex Miller

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Gil Hanse and Paul George
« Reply #34 on: March 10, 2014, 12:40:36 PM »
Oh Kyle, don’t be so sensitive. I didn’t insult you. I just pointed out the irony in your previous post. There’s a whole population of people who believe the joke is to blame if they don’t get it. Consider my previous post a useful insight to how the rest of us view that line of thinking.

Let’s talk about Rustic Canyon though. I always hear how great it is, and I enjoyed playing it. I do think it’s dramatically overrated though, and your statement that it’s “greatest affordable, public course built in the US in a long, long time” only further contributes to that. You’re not alone in considering it so highly, of course. But a statement like that is REALLY lofty. In fact, it sounds a bit like the text message I mentioned sending in the original post, when I effectively suggested that Paul George might be better than Lebron.

Rustic Canyon is a nice course in a setting that was never going to produce a poor one. But it’s overrated, and here’s why:

1.   I frequently see Hanse lauded for “use of the canyon” and the way the course’s surroundings affect a player’s ability to judge the break on greens, or even whether a shot is uphill or downhill. But I don’t believe for an instant that Hanse deserves credit for the intrinsic qualities of the course surroundings. With that land parcel, the holes were always going to be routed up and down the canyon regardless of who did the design. As a result, the perception skewing is an intrinsic quality of the site and not a quality of the design itself. It’s still cool, but Hanse’s role in fostering the effect of the canyon has been greatly overstated.
2.   The course is extremely penal with the proximity of native areas to many holes. If those native areas were replaced with water, the playing characteristics of the course would not change for those who respect the environment but the perception on this site would be dramatically different. If you believe lost balls are a bad thing, then how do you give Rustic Canyon a pass for the extreme number that it is likely to extract from an honest 15 handicapper?

We’re all very binary these days. Everyone seems to believe Reese Bobby’s motto “If you ain’t first, you’re last.” I’m guilty of it myself, as I admitted in the original post. But Reese Bobby was high when he said that. Hanse and Rustic Canyon are both closer to first than last, but to put them #1 is to ignore courses like Wild Horse and The Harvester. Hanse is part of a long list of architects who do nice renovation work and have designed some really nice courses. He absolutely belongs in the discussion with DeVries, Prichard, Forse, and Brands, and he's probably at the top of that list. Maybe he’ll hit a home run if his design at The Prairie Club is completed. If he’s able to crank out the best course at that resort and do something outstanding with the Olympic course, he’ll vault well up the list in my mind. But let’s at least ask him to pull it off before we give him the credit for it.


How many times have you played Rustic?

A couple quick points to yours:

1. Use of the canyon is vague, but if we're talking about green complexes canyon or not, they are some of the best I've played, and really get better with each additional play. They provide immense strategy in figuring out the approach, and therefore the tee shot as well. There's ample short grass and a variety of well-placed hazards, which less often than one would expect is native area.

2. The penal nature of the drives... I don't buy that criticism of Rustic. I spray it off the tee quite a bit but there is so much room to miss out there. Beyond the fact that I'd say I can play the ball from the native half the time, if I do put one in the junk that penalty is well-deserved because it means I missed a 60+ yard wide landing area!


Some other things that you may have missed if you think it's overrated- the elasticity of the course to be playable in strong winds from both directions, the compete change in strategy on some holes given different pin positions (2, 4, 12, 13 stand out), the number of bold/unique design features that are mostly not seen on public courses trying to grab as large an audience as possible (4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15).

I could go on, but to me Rustic close in quality, playability, and enjoyment as say... Pinehust #2. I may get lamabasted for typing that outright, but actually that hole-by-hole matchplay thing we do on here sometimes would probably yield interesting results.

Rustic is love, Rustic is life.  ;) ;D

Kyle Casella

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Gil Hanse and Paul George
« Reply #35 on: March 10, 2014, 02:18:22 PM »
There you go again. I understand the comparison between the two, but I will reiterate that I think its not at all relevant to compare the career of an athlete to a golf course architect. It's a catchy topic thread but clearly the quality of a golf course architect cannot be defined by the kinds of statistical analysis that one uses to evaluate a basketball player. The body of work is much more nuanced and a lot harder to compare across peers for a gca than a basketball player.

I'm not trying to say Gil is the best there is, although I do happen to think very highly of both his original and resto/reno work, I just think its a bit simplistic to compare him to a three year NBA veteran.

Native area- It should be penal because often the best angle at Rustic is achieved coming into the green from the side of the fairway nearest the most amount of trouble. The fairways, for the most part, are extremely wide so I don't really see the problem from a strategic point of view in needing to challenge the most penal part of a fairway in order to gain the best approach to the hole.

The canyon- Obviously the natural tilt of the land will always have an impact on how the ball moves on the ground, but its how the architect uses that naturally interesting ground that really counts. How do we know what another architect would've done / how he would've used the canyon? We know what is there, which is excellent use of the canyon and arroyos that introduce strategic interest which leaves the golfer really thinking on every approach and every putt. Gil/Jim/Geoff were smart enough to leave the ground alone for the most part. They deserve a lot of credit for showing that restraint.

What are other courses built in the last couple of decades that, price adjusted for metro area, offer the kind of value that Rustic does for the money? $66 for a peak tee time on arguably the best public course in the LA metro area is a steal.
« Last Edit: March 11, 2014, 09:53:57 AM by Kyle Casella »

Jason Thurman

  • Karma: +1/-0
Re: Gil Hanse and Paul George
« Reply #36 on: March 10, 2014, 06:33:59 PM »
Alex, I've played Rustic Canyon enough times to render an objective judgment on it, but not so many times that I've become biased. I don't disagree that it's an excellent golf course. But yeah, when you start comparing it to Pinehurst No. 2, I shake my head a bit. That's really the point of this whole discussion of Hanse. He's good, but the rush to put him in the top tier is a little too hasty.

Kyle, do you see what happened at the end of your post? You went from "Rustic Canyon is the greatest affordable, public course built in the US in a long, long time" to "Rustic Canyon offers one of the best cost-of-living adjusted values among golf courses in the US." The latter is certainly valid, but it doesn't make the former true. A 7 wearing a great dress is a really sexy 7, not an 11.

Gil Hanse is far better than Paul George at this stage.  Gil is not putting up any 0-9s against the Bobcats. 

This I can't formulate a reasonable argument against.  Maybe he's more like Anthony Davis - not quite there yet, but you can see the potential and starting in a few years he's going to own this game for a long, long time.
"There will always be haters. That’s just the way it is. Hating dudes marry hating women and have hating ass kids." - Evan Turner

Some of y'all have never been called out in bold green font and it really shows.

Josh Tarble

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Gil Hanse and Paul George
« Reply #37 on: March 10, 2014, 06:41:51 PM »

Gil Hanse is far better than Paul George at this stage.  Gil is not putting up any 0-9s against the Bobcats. 

This I can't formulate a reasonable argument against.  Maybe he's more like Anthony Davis - not quite there yet, but you can see the potential and starting in a few years he's going to own this game for a long, long time.

No, if you're going to make the comparison, it's clearly Chris Paul.

He's had several excellent efforts (seasons) and maybe not given amazing sites (teams) that the current greats (LeBron, Durant) have had.  But he's knocking on the door and his chance for greatness is within his grasp (Olympic course, this season's Clippers).

Alex Miller

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Gil Hanse and Paul George
« Reply #38 on: March 10, 2014, 06:49:36 PM »

Gil Hanse is far better than Paul George at this stage.  Gil is not putting up any 0-9s against the Bobcats. 

This I can't formulate a reasonable argument against.  Maybe he's more like Anthony Davis - not quite there yet, but you can see the potential and starting in a few years he's going to own this game for a long, long time.

No, if you're going to make the comparison, it's clearly Chris Paul.

He's had several excellent efforts (seasons) and maybe not given amazing sites (teams) that the current greats (LeBron, Durant) have had.  But he's knocking on the door and his chance for greatness is within his grasp (Olympic course, this season's Clippers).

Thank you.  8)

Josh Tarble

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Gil Hanse and Paul George
« Reply #39 on: March 10, 2014, 06:53:27 PM »
Haha, sorry Alex.  I just saw your post on the top of the page.  You are spot on.

If the site is as good as people are describing, it seems like Hanse has the opportunity to build a world beater in Rio.  I think he's shown enough that he will be able get the best out of the site.  I only hope the construction woes and politics aren't enough to muck up his plans.

Kyle Casella

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Gil Hanse and Paul George
« Reply #40 on: March 10, 2014, 07:12:26 PM »
Alex, I've played Rustic Canyon enough times to render an objective judgment on it, but not so many times that I've become biased. I don't disagree that it's an excellent golf course. But yeah, when you start comparing it to Pinehurst No. 2, I shake my head a bit. That's really the point of this whole discussion of Hanse. He's good, but the rush to put him in the top tier is a little too hasty.

Kyle, do you see what happened at the end of your post? You went from "Rustic Canyon is the greatest affordable, public course built in the US in a long, long time" to "Rustic Canyon offers one of the best cost-of-living adjusted values among golf courses in the US." The latter is certainly valid, but it doesn't make the former true. A 7 wearing a great dress is a really sexy 7, not an 11.

Two points in reply. One, affordable golf, in my mind, is defined by comparing a course to other options in a geographic market. Rustic is affordable for LA but might be expensive elsewhere. Similarly, a great public course like Wild Horse might be $45, but you can't deny that $45 for a round in Nebraska is different than $45 for a round in LA (Disclaimer: not knocking Nebraska, just using it for comparison). When I threw in that statement about adjusting for location, I was trying (poorly) to point out that that $40-70 in LA, SF, NY, etc. is a lot different in terms of golf affordability than the same price bracket in a lot of other markets. In order to judge affordability I don't think one can overlook that difference.

Second, I'll stand by my opinion and understand others might think differently (it was an opinion, by the way- I wasn't trying to state a matter of fact). I just don't think there can be very many courses out there, built in the last couple of decades, that are as good and as affordable as Rustic. You haven't necessarily pointed out alternatives that have made me really reconsider my statement. Rustic, in my opinion, is an excellent golf course. It's one of my favorites, including privates, in the LA area and also one of the most affordable.
« Last Edit: March 11, 2014, 09:54:24 AM by Kyle Casella »

Nigel Islam

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Gil Hanse and Paul George
« Reply #41 on: March 10, 2014, 07:35:04 PM »
. A 7 wearing a great dress is a really sexy 7, not an 11.

In breaking news, Jason Thurman is now GCA's Colin Cowherd!

Jason Thurman

  • Karma: +1/-0
Re: Gil Hanse and Paul George
« Reply #42 on: March 10, 2014, 08:54:08 PM »
If I'm Colin Cowherd, then I know who my Phyllis is (those not familiar can listen to Phyllis at this link, which is worth your time: http://larrybrownsports.com/college-football/alabama-fan-phyllis-colin-cowherd-cow-turd/214299).
"There will always be haters. That’s just the way it is. Hating dudes marry hating women and have hating ass kids." - Evan Turner

Some of y'all have never been called out in bold green font and it really shows.

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Gil Hanse and Paul George
« Reply #43 on: March 11, 2014, 12:31:58 AM »
Jason,

I think your tepid opinion of Rustic is probably shared by many, whether they publicly admit it here or not. Rustic doesn't seem to be the kind of course that will equally excite everyone, especially on limited play.  And while I disagree with your opinion, I won't insult you by insisting that you are dramatically underrating the course.

An honest 15 handicapper will lose far more balls at Rustic Canyon than at the new Trump Doral.

Are you just trying to be provocative, or do you really believe this?
« Last Edit: March 11, 2014, 12:46:31 AM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Nigel Islam

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Gil Hanse and Paul George
« Reply #44 on: March 11, 2014, 12:52:19 AM »
Sorry Jason, I couldn't resist. Cowherd uses that line all the time. It would be interesting to hear what Phyllis thinks of Gil Hanse courses. I know she prefers Robert Horry to Paul George.

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Gil Hanse and Paul George
« Reply #45 on: March 11, 2014, 09:18:36 AM »
Jason,

I think your tepid opinion of Rustic is probably shared by many, whether they publicly admit it here or not. Rustic doesn't seem to be the kind of course that will equally excite everyone, especially on limited play.  And while I disagree with your opinion, I won't insult you by insisting that you are dramatically underrating the course.

An honest 15 handicapper will lose far more balls at Rustic Canyon than at the new Trump Doral.

Are you just trying to be provocative, or do you really believe this?

Where can you lose a ball at Rustic?   The carry at 14.  The creek on 1.  I guess the native bordering  some of the holes.  I don't think I've lost any balls in half a dozen rounds at Rustic. 

Doral?  OMG. 

Jason Thurman

  • Karma: +1/-0
Re: Gil Hanse and Paul George
« Reply #46 on: March 11, 2014, 10:22:15 AM »
Phyllis definitely prefers Robert Horry to Paul George. I'd also bet that she prefers Jim Farmer to Robert Horry. Regardless, no apologies needed for comparing me to Cowherd. That's one of my favorite things I've ever read on the Internet, excluding the Facebook messages that used to come my way from a certain sorority girl in college.




David, it should be said again that I really like Rustic. I think it's excellent, and would probably rate it a 6 on a 1-10 scale. From my experience, Kyle is correct in saying that there's no better public course in the US at the same or lower cost-of-living adjusted price. But that doesn't extrapolate to "greatest affordable course in the US in a long time." Wild Horse may be slightly more expensive relative to cost of living, as may be The Harvester, but both are certainly affordable and slightly but noticeably better than Rustic in my opinion, as Wild Horse has better interior terrain and more compelling shots while The Harvester also has outstanding terrain and more truly unique holes. Rustic has wonderful subtlety, but at times it goes too far and borders on just being boring. I’m picking nits a bit here, but that’s the only real way to separate courses of such quality.

Which gets to your last question. I’m being completely serious. The environmentally marked areas around the perimeter of many of Rustic’s fairways are off-limits, as I’m sure you know. And because those areas aren’t glistening and blue like the water at Doral, it’s very difficult for a player who hasn’t played the course many times to know which of them to avoid. In many cases they encroach quite tightly on lines of play, particularly considering the high winds at Rustic. I agree that there’s generally enough width on the course that the areas aren’t unfair, just like Doral has plenty of width and it’s water hazards shouldn’t be considered unfair. But the fact is that a first-time player who doesn’t fence-hop at Rustic every time their ball rolls three feet off the fairway is likely to lose at least as many balls as he would at Doral.

I do understand that knowing which areas to avoid would come with more plays than the few that I’ve logged. One thing that I’ve always said about it is that it would be one of the first 15 courses I’d pick if I could only play one course for the rest of my life. It’s a ton of fun and, again, has subtlety that would reveal itself continually. I can totally understand how guys who play it a lot fall in love with it, as it’s a great course. It just isn’t quite AS great as it’s sometimes billed.
"There will always be haters. That’s just the way it is. Hating dudes marry hating women and have hating ass kids." - Evan Turner

Some of y'all have never been called out in bold green font and it really shows.

Joe Hancock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Gil Hanse and Paul George
« Reply #47 on: March 11, 2014, 10:28:29 AM »
Jason,

In the old days, when I scored 60 out of 100 on a school test, I barely got a "D" grade. Now it's "excellent"? Cool. I already feel better about myself.  :)

Joe
" What the hell is the point of architecture and excellence in design if a "clever" set up trumps it all?" Peter Pallotta, June 21, 2016

"People aren't picking a side of the fairway off a tee because of a randomly internally contoured green ."  jeffwarne, February 24, 2017

Jason Thurman

  • Karma: +1/-0
Re: Gil Hanse and Paul George
« Reply #48 on: March 11, 2014, 10:30:11 AM »
Joe, Google "Doak Scale." This site's not dedicated to discussing remedial-ed caliber courses.
"There will always be haters. That’s just the way it is. Hating dudes marry hating women and have hating ass kids." - Evan Turner

Some of y'all have never been called out in bold green font and it really shows.

Joe Hancock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Gil Hanse and Paul George
« Reply #49 on: March 11, 2014, 10:36:19 AM »
Joe, Google "Doak Scale." This site's not dedicated to discussing remedial-ed caliber courses.

I'm being a smart-aleck. You didn't say Doak scale, so in the general use of a scale of 1-10 I think my example stands. BTW, staying in a hotel room that is a 6 on a 1-10 scale is OK for one night, but for a week it kinda sucks.

Joe
" What the hell is the point of architecture and excellence in design if a "clever" set up trumps it all?" Peter Pallotta, June 21, 2016

"People aren't picking a side of the fairway off a tee because of a randomly internally contoured green ."  jeffwarne, February 24, 2017