Can Canyon Golf be great golf?

[Andy_Lipschultz]

Tom H: To me it's worth the fight, since the more converts there are to RC and less golfers enamored with Lost Canyons/Tierra Rejada/ Cascades/Eagle Glen/Hidden Valley and the rest of its ilk, that the industry will (might?) think twice on the style of course that is constructed.

We need more affordable golf and it comes via courses like RC which don't have a lot of construction cost that must be ammortized through higher green fees.

[THuckaby2]

George:

That's a very qood question.  In fact I asked my Dad exactly this after he floored me with his effusive praise of Moorpark and relative pooh-poohing of Rustic, after playing the former a few months after the latter (I was really counting on him liking Rustic far more - it really does fit his game far better).  His answer?

"Why would I want to go back to Rustic?  I want to play Moorpark again!"

I do believe that over time, he'd see that losing so many golf balls as he did at Moorpark, and suffering the long cart drives as one does, would become bothersome.. and once he's had the tremendous success of making the long carry required on the tee shot on #4 on the creekside nine ONE TIME (for example), it ceases to have as much value doing it again and again...

So yes, over time hopefully the worth of Rustic would become apparent.

The problem is, my Dad plays golf outside of his once a week at his local par 3 maybe 10 times per year.  When is he supposed to achieve this in-depth knowledge?

And again, my experience is my Dad is closer to the majority than the minority.

So what do do about people who just plain don't have the time to "get" a course like Rustic and just go for the flash when they do have the time?

There are a lot of them... so this isn't a very easy answer.

TH

[THuckaby2]

To me it's worth the fight, since the more converts there are to RC and less golfers enamored with Lost Canyons/Tierra Rejada/ Cascades/Eagle Glen/Hidden Valley and the rest of its ilk, that the industry will (might?) think twice on the style of course that is constructed.

We need more affordable golf and it comes via courses like RC which don't have a lot of construction cost that must be ammortized through higher green fees.

Andy:

I agree wholeheartedly we need more Rustic Canyons... I just don't see what a guy like me can do to make more converts.  I've discussed this with Tommy before... to me life is far too short to hassle this, to be brutally cynical and honest.  There are plenty of golf courses for them and for us... and my time is better spent playing than sweating this...

TH

[Matt_Ward]

Huck:

I'm not pulling back one word. Many people simply don't delve below the surface because it's not something that interests them. Nothing wrong with that. I don't look below the surface of ballet -- my wife does.

George P:

I hear what you say about the cart paths at WC but the ride between holes isn't excessive. You also have some all-star holes there (8th, 14th, 17th, to name just three). If I had to name a canyon course that works quite well Wolf Creek is one for sure in my book.

David M.

I hear what you're saying about the difficulty of such terrain and that the folks with Pete and company did the best they could at LC / Sky even though you don't like it. The issue with Moorpark isthat nearly all the green sites are rather similar -- big discs that really don't have much to offer. At least at Sky you do get green contours that weave through the individual greens and this in turn puts pressure on the player to aim correctly with their approaches.

I have to take issue with your assessment of Moorpark v Lost Canyons / Sky regarding the severity of the sites. In my mind -- Moorpark takes the cake easily. If you compare Mooprak with Shadow then you would have a much closer situation.

Nonetheless, I do like Sky although I do concur that many people will find it just as abrasive for all the reasons they described. I would not play there everyday but I do like the differences it presents.

[THuckaby2]

Matt:

I'm surely not asking you to pull back any words... au contraire, I want MORE words from you!  I do respect your thoughts on all things golf very much... I figure you are another one who could help me see the light here, if any light is to be seen.  It may be impossible, I don't know...

But I remain waiting for some good reason why Tom Paul's statement doesn't hold up, and that is the bottom line re all of this.

TH

ps - lots of people like flat greens more than bold contours, also - they have better success on the former!  

[Thomas_Brown]

Quick thoughts:
1) Sherwood in Thousand Oaks - Is that canyon golf? -Probably.  
Is it great? -Maybe not
2) The flat greens at Moorpark?
-They're following the latest USGA green flattening guidelines so they can amp. the speed to 12 on the stimp.  
3) Big Canyon CC - Not a "canyon course", but a track I like very much.

I do like the uphill 13th at Moorpark.
In isolation - that's a great canyon hole.
Visually stunning w/ the cliffs, great strategy off of the tee.

But, a canyon course great? -Not likely.

[Scott_Burroughs]

Andy,

Your "Moorpark backwards" comment wasn't lost on me.  Much funnier than 15 years ago when Stroh's beer was semi-popular.  Stroh's backwards isn't nearly as funny as Moorpark, though it does remind me of a GCA.com lurker near you.

[THuckaby2]

Dan:

Lots of people feel this way.  None have given me a good explanation as to WHY this is a crock - that is why all opinions don't have equal validity, when it comes to personal taste in things that are supposed to bring enjoyment, such as in golf, music, wine, etc.

Please do explain this, I'd love to learn.

And I've said that many times also.  

TH

[THuckaby2]

OK sure, Dan - post and delete and run.  But I read your post before you now deleted it... You cannot hide from the truth!

 

For one and all - my buddy Dan K. said that it's a crock that all opinions have equal validity.  He may be right - I'm ready to be convinced.  I just find this dubious when it comes to matters such as this.

TH

[Dan Kelly]

Tom IV wants to know what's wrong with Tom I's proclamation: "Golf and its architecture is a great big thing and there really is room in it for everyone!"

There's nothing wrong with it! Nothing!

I don't mean to speak for Tom I, who's clearly capable of speaking for himself, but I do believe that there's an unspoken parenthetical in his statement, after "everyone." That unspoken parenthetical would be something like "(even people with no taste)."

Am I right, Tom I?

[Dan Kelly]

OK sure, Dan - post and delete and run.  But I read your post before you now deleted it... You cannot hide from the truth!

 

For one and all - my buddy Dan K. said that it's a crock that all opinions have equal validity.  He may be right - I'm ready to be convinced.  I just find this dubious when it comes to matters such as this.

TH

Man, oh, Man, Tom IV! It was up for no more than 20 seconds -- and deleted because it was posted entirely by accident! I was still writing, and still thinking, and mistakenly hit "Post."

Yes, I said it was a crock that all opinions have equal validity. And I'll certainly stand by that.

[THuckaby2]

Put back in the "crock" line, you pansy!  

And I shouldn't speak for Tom I either, but I believe you have it right... the "even people with no taste" is assumed by him - go read how he wants me to tell my family group they are idiots on his behalf!

I just continue to think my idol Mr. Paul doesn't take this as far as he ought to.  Their is no such thing as right or wrong, good or bad, "taste" when it comes to matters as personal as this.

I standy ready for an explanation as to why that is incorrect.  Tell me why I ought to like a wine rated 99 by Wine Spectator if I hate tannis (which I don't, btw).  Tell me why I ought to love a golf course because a group of guys rating for a magazine say it's great, even if I don't have any fun playing it at all...

I am waiting.... just why is it a crock (now that you feel confident enough to post such).

 
just having fun with that, btw.

TH

[DMoriarty]

 In any case, my job in the ratings game is not to wonder why - it is to assess what's there.  And I did find more to like at Moorpark than Matt did... I found it in general to be a pretty darn fun course, with a lot of fun shots to play...  If that makes me a contributor to the "problem" you see, then my apologies.  I guess I should have lied and rated it extremely low, in the hopes my one vote out of hundreds would cause its downfall.

If the Golf Digest Ratings Manual dictates that a course like Moorpark recieve 100s of high ratings, then I need no further indictment or evidence to convict the Golf Digest Ratings as being completely misguided.  

Re all the rest, I agree with you.  Oh would that sites such as Rustic's be more favored....

Dont you see a contradiction between what you are saying above/below and this statement?  Why on earth should architects/builders like Cupp take less money for courses like RC when you, your family, those like you, and apparently the GD ratings system is perfectly happy with courses like Moorpark CC??  

TH

[Dan Kelly]

Dan:

Lots of people feel this way.  None have given me a good explanation as to WHY this is a crock - that is why all opinions don't have equal validity, when it comes to personal taste in things that are supposed to bring enjoyment, such as in golf, music, wine, etc.

Please do explain this, I'd love to learn.

And I've said that many times also.  

TH

Explanation: Some people have better taste than others. It's that simple. If you disagree with that, there'll be no persuading you.

(And just in case you wonder: I'm not claiming to be one of those people with better taste, when it comes to golf courses -- at least among the company here at this Web site.)

The people with better taste are very often in the minority.

One example: Literature is a great big world, and there's room in for everyone! So: Go ahead and enjoy John Grisham's novels, and I certainly won't criticize your enjoyment thereof -- but don't tell me he's a better writer than, just to name one, John McPhee, whose books don't sell one-thousandth as many copies as Grisham's.

[THuckaby2]

David:

In saying one of hundreds of votes, I considered mine as one of ALL raters that have seen the course, not just GD.  Or are you granting that GD's ratings are the only ones that matter?

But the point isn't the math, the point is that mine is just one vote.  I could crusade and lie... but I prefer to answer the questions honestly.  If my assessments differ from those of others, than that's for the best!

Re the 2nd part, I'm just wistfully wishing for the perfect world for me personally. I never said it was going to happen.  In fact, my cynicism is that if it's not going to happen, then why bother fighting?

Life is far too short.

TH

[THuckaby2]

Dan:

We can end it then.  When it comes to which BOOK is "better", you're never going to convince me that John McPhee's are necessarily better than Grisham's.  Enjoyment comes in many forms, and if someone enjoys a book, it is better for them, no matter what any "experts" say.

Now just why should I like that wine that tastes bad to me?

TH

[DMoriarty]

In saying one of hundreds of votes, I considered mine as one of ALL raters that have seen the course, not just GD.  Or are you granting that GD's ratings are the only ones that matter?

Not granting that at all.  In fact, none of the magazine ratings matter to me one bit.

But the point isn't the math, the point is that mine is just one vote.  I could crusade and lie... but I prefer to answer the questions honestly.  If my assessments differ from those of others, than that's for the best!

My point is that if you can honestly answer "the questions" and come up with a positive rating, then the questions are inherently flawed and will lead to absurd results.  Systemic flaws produce flawed output.    

Re the 2nd part, I'm just wistfully wishing for the perfect world for me personally. I never said it was going to happen.  In fact, my cynicism is that if it's not going to happen, then why bother fighting?

I dont know Tom.  Seems like you are trying to blow both GD's harmonica and my harmonica at the same time.  You just got done saying that your high rating was honest and that Moorpark was fun and worthy . . . now you want me to believe that really you would much prefer more like RC and less like Moorpark.   I am not sure you can have it both ways.  If I believe what you wrote about Moorpark then it seems that Cupp's alleged decision wasnt so off.  After all, I'd hate to deprive your family of their enjoyment.  

Life is far too short to cop out.  

[THuckaby2]

Dave:

"Postive" is relative.  I gave a numerical value to each of the criteria required for a GD rating, and my take on the overall is that it was positive.  As I say, I found a lot to like about that golf course.  You don't.  Fair enough.  But just why am I - and thus GD's system, by extension - wrong and you are right?

I did find a lot to like at Moorpark - I found MORE to like at Rustic Canyon.  Bottom line, plain and simple, no agenda.  So just what is wrong with this?

No cop out here, just living life and having fun.

TH

ps - Dave - did you actually go play Moorpark?  Wow... but I have to ask.. why?

[DMoriarty]

Dave:

"Postive" is relative.  I gave a numerical value to each of the criteria required for a GD rating, and my take on the overall is that it was positive.  As I say, I found a lot to like about that golf course.  You don't.  Fair enough.  But just why am I - and thus GD's system, by extension - wrong and you are right?
TH

Becase the routing, cartpaths, site, walkability, strategy, price, and concept of Moorpark are are all hideous and bad for the game, and because Moorpark CC is the type of golf course that any self-respecting golf magazine, editor, writer, rater, and rating should be openly campaigning against.  

[DMoriarty]

PS  I think it more accurate to say that Golf Digest's system and therefore you by extension are wrong.  

[Andy_Lipschultz]

Quick thoughts:
1) Sherwood in Thousand Oaks - Is that canyon golf? -Probably.  
Is it great? -Maybe not

Half and half. 1-3 and 10-16 at Sherwood is an easy walk, with 17 (par 3 over a baranca) providing no option to walkThe rest of the holes start creeping uphill into a hilly/canyon area. Is it great? Don't know, but it's damn close.

[THuckaby2]

So says you, David.  That is your opinion and I respect it.  I really even agree with you, to a large extent.  One of our differences seems to be that I focus on the positive though... See, I can agree with every word you write, and still find some fun golf shots there and so I might classify my assessment as "positive" just based on that.  The playing of the game remains most important to me.

The more important point is, however, that I continue to think though that campaigning against all this is biting off my nose to spite my face... I have so little time for golf given all of the other realities of life, well... I just don't have the time for this, especially since I find it such an incredibly uphill battle.

I also enjoy playing new courses, even ones that you would never think to try.  I find seeing new courses to be fun, even if they turn out to be bad.  Just a different way of looking at golf...

In any case, I continue to respect those of you who fight the fight though - I wish I had the time, the energy, and the influence to effect change.  Sadly I have none... So I will continue playing the game as much as I can, which has been pretty darn fun so far.

BTW, once again - did you actually play Moorpark? You must have, given these strong opinions.. for shame, David - supporting such an awful place.  

TH

[Andy_Lipschultz]

Tom:

I think fighting the fight, starts at places like this DG. Doesn't take a whole lot of time and certainly doesn't cut into golf. Changing minds one at a time.

[THuckaby2]

Andy:

Minds here don't need to be changed.  It's the real world where it's needed!

TH

[DMoriarty]

There you go again Tom . . . you agree with every word I say yet you still like the course?  Impossible.  And wishy-washy to say the least.  


As to the rest, it begs the questions I've already asked . . . why do you rate, why do you write, why are you here . . . but youve answered all that to you satisfaction at least.  


You know I havent played the course because we have discussed it offline.  I believe that we also discussed that I have seen every hole on the course and since seeing it I just cant get myself to pay for it . . . maybe if I was a rater then It would be free and I would love it.  By the way, I have never slept with a man either, yet I have a pretty strong notion of what I would think of it if I had.