Gentlemen,
I do not see how this snit between Geoff and Brad is doing any good in advancing the core principles of the Treehouse. Agree or disagree, most of us share a similar desire for the greater glory of our game. Whether Rustic gets on Brad's list is a fairly minor issue.
It is easy to understand how some panelists would not rank Rustic as highly as others. It has little flash, a few obvious flaws and its salient qualities will go right over the head of any panelist not paying VERY close attention. This is one of those golf courses that you cannot simply tee it up for a breezy round on the way to Bel Air and fully grasp.
That stated, I am absolutely astonished at its purity of strategic expression. Every single hole had some twist that I found worthy of thought and study. I likened it to a Lahinch in that it has a magical simplicity that defies normal analysis. I won't bore the Treehouse with a hole-by-hole, but approach shots like #16, which must contend with the wash nibbling into the fairway from the right literally made my heart sing with gladness to be out there with the opportunity to try a creative approach.
Same goes for the last 100 yards on #9. . . . That may be one of the top ten best putting surface contours I have ever seen. Maybe #6 at NGLA is still the benchmark, but my 7-iron approach along the ground to Rustic's #9 was one of the most satisfying shots I've hit in recent memory.
Much of this silly pissing contest reminds me of the arguments surrounding Barona Creek. There are some similarities between the two designs. Anybody who knows me has figured out I am president of the Todd Eckenrode Fan Club. . . . . . in the same vein, I feel like Barona is as grossly under-rated as is Rustic.
But Jonathon can only report the numbers and the point of a panel is to solicit the opinions of a wide cross-section of players.
To expect that there will be absolutely no fudging near the bottom of the list is silly. Numbers can lie. There needs to be a person at the top with enough autocratic rule to correct flaws in the system. I do not condone nor condemn, that is just the way it is. The GD Panel has lots and lots of people, but the prevailing dogma/tone of the panel is a bit different. Not better, just different. I respect both.
With thousands of courses in this nation, the Top 100 seems a bit arbitrary. Cut it up as Modern, Classic etc etc and that is still too few. My personal hobby has always been finding hidden gems that may not crack the Top 100, but merit a Best in State ranking. My tastes do not run in line with prevailing opinions as a general statement, so a recitation of my personal Top 50 courses I've played would be far too eclectic.
Once again, we are going to run around the Mulberry Bush about whether the *experience* ought to be factored into the ranking of the golf course. That is a whole different issue, but it is a rare bird - and I like to think I am one - who can fully separate the two when evaluating a golf course.
Maybe Rustic suffers at the hands of this problem. So does Apache Stronghold, another course I could never tire of.
That stated, when you piece together a ranking list, the general public is not trained to make that distinction, so it is about show biz or architecture? Good question. Either way, I am with Tom Paul, there is a great big world of golf out there and there is plenty of room in the tent for Naccarato, an Armenian, guesst, Geoff, Wigler, Shooter, Shivas and the nice couple from Cleveland who think that Ted Robinson's "Aquatic Presentations" make the $200 green fees worth the jing.
Maybe we ought to try and work together instead of pecking at each other atop Mt. Hubris. . . . . .