[Michael Dugger]

Lynn Shack wrote...

"I played there today with former tour player Dennis Watson.  He said something that I thought was interesting.  After about 17 holes, he said, "I think this is a pretty easy course to shoot par, but it would really be hard to shoot much under par on a regular basis."

Sounds a lot like Robert Trent Jones' philosophy that every holes should be an easy bogey but difficult par.  Guess that guys knew what he was doing after all (just kiddin')


  

[Ben Cowan-Dewar]

Does Rustic truly get easier the more you play it?

To master the course, one must get the ball close, which is undoubtedly a learned advantage. However, there were shots that I did not try the second time I played the course, upon learning the contours of the greens and tee shots that gave me more pause for thought.

Can ignorance be bliss at Rustic? While I learned my lesson on 16 the first time I played the course, I played two, four, six, seven, eight, 11, 13, 14 and 18 with more apprehension.

Lynn,
Did Dennis Watson play shots differently than you would, based on lack of knowledge?

[Tom_Doak]

Question:

Most of the time our GCA doyens assert that the opinions of Tour professionals are utterly useless in determining the merits of a course, and we don't discuss course records at all.

Why are these things being brought up to defend Rustic Canyon?

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom;

I think for the same reason that you asked one time here whether Pacific Dunes was too "easy".

Both courses clearly don't rely on the typical modern ideas of "difficulty" or "resistance to scoring".  

Both courses emphasize fun, playability, and creativity.

Both courses can be a bit benign in windless, soft conditions, and I see that not as a fault of the architects, but simply due to the fact that they rarely play that way.

I recall Dan Belden coming here and saying that he felt PD was too easy to score on.  I recall people jumping to the defense of PD and saying basically the same thing..."what did you score?"

I think that the world is divided between those who appreciate the type of courses that are fun, interesting, and playable by most levels of golfers and those who are looking for a "test of golf", defined by tough carries, slick greens, LENGTH, and narrow target areas.  

Those defending RC and PD by citing the course record seem to me to be saying that it's possible to have both.  

[Lynn_Shackelford]

Tom D.
No way will I ever attempt to defend Rustic on this website.  I might in a crowd of non GCA golfers attempt to impart some design philosophy into the mix.
It is just that I don't get to play often with Tour Pro or former Tour Pro and I enjoyed watching his thought process and ability to handle shots on his first time on the course.  Perhaps he was being polite, but I found his comment interesting enough to share here.
Since I play there often, and the course is on track for 80,000 rounds annually, I wish there was a ground swell enthusiasm for Moorpark CC.

[Mike_Cirba]

Oops...I had missed Lynn's quote of Denis Watson's before posting and thought we were just referring to the discussion of course records at RC.  

I think the potential problem stems when courses are designed or heavily modified primarily with tour players or plus-handicappers in mind.  Still, I would think that anyone would want to hear what all levels of players, including touring pros, think of their course.  

[DMoriarty]

Most of the time our GCA doyens assert that the opinions of Tour professionals are utterly useless in determining the merits of a course, and we don't discuss course records at all.

Why are these things being brought up to defend Rustic Canyon?

Tom,

I am not sure that Rustic's defenders put the Tour professional game/opinion at issue.  Rather, some of Rustic's detractors repeatedly made the following assertions:

1.  Rustic would be boring for a quality long hitter, because it fails to provide for sufficient challenge off the tee.

2.  Rustic would be too easy for the quality long hitter, because the quality long hitter can too often blast away then successfully approach the greens with a short iron with utter disregard for finding a proper playing angle.  

Those of us who are more familiar with the course but are not quality long hitters questioned the validity of both these assertions, to no avail.  Essentially, the detractors insisted that we did not understand the quality long hitters game.  

I think some of the focus on Tour Pros, other quality players, is just an effort to point out that the detractors' assertions are thus far incorrect:  1) Quality players do enjoy the course, and 2) Quality players are not tearing it up.

That being said, I don't think the course record is relevant whatsoever.  Undoubtedly, the course record at Rustic will someday be very low.  After all there are eight eagle chances.  I'd hate to see a quality evaluation tied to the course record.

[Matt_Ward]

David M said:

"I'd hate to see a quality evaluation tied to the course record."

I agree with you completely -- but I also find myself in the small grouping of people who can favor what Mike Cirba pointed out. I do enjoy courses that are "fun" and those that can be "testing." Sometimes you get course that fit into both categories -- not many though IMHO. Those that fall into such rarified air are among the best, I believe, one can play.

I really enjoy RC but I believe David has pointed out quite correctly what are some of its deficiencies from the tee (although he believes otherwise). Clearly, David and I see RC in a different way. I believe David sees RC as the quintessential public course simply because of its width (which offers little discrimination IMHO) and the green contours (which are marvelously done). I take the other point of view that too many of the long holes play down canyon and the boring nature of the back-to-back 9th and 10th holes needs a slight difference -- in addition, you have the lack of true penalties for the 3rd and 12th holes off the tee. I still have his challenge to return to the course and play for a score which I eagerly look forward to doing next time I'm in SoCal.

But, I would hope that zealot defenders of RC would give a little appreciation to the fact that people like me and others can truly enjoy the course but NOT see it as highly as they do for a host of reasons explained.

I've never played Moorpark so I can't comment but I respect the words of David M, David K and The Emperor when they it's not in the same league as RC. Next time I'm in the area I'll play there to see for myself.  

[DMoriarty]

Tom,

I think Matt's post might give you an idea how we got into started looking at how well pro's and other top-quality golfers play Rustic.  Matt is absolutely adamant that course just cannot challenge or entertain the better/longer golfer.  Those of us that play there regularly find this laughable for a few reasons, not the least of which is that quite a few better, longer golfers have played the course, didnt go low, and loved it.  

Also, we get a kick out of our friend Matt, who believes his assesment with the core of his being despite the facts that:  (1) Matt has played the course a grand total of one time, under benign conditions, with easy weekend pin placements, and (2)  Matt considers himself one of those power players who could easily overpower the course, but while he did not keep score during his one round, had he, he would have been very lucky if to score in the low double figures over par.  

Tom, I'd love to hear your assessment of the course.  If you are ever in the area you should check it out.  

Matt,

I don't recall commenting on Moorpark on this site.  In fact I have never played the course.  One day I went out there and it was so windy that there were zero golfers on the course, so I went to Rustic, which was crowded and playable, if you didnt mind a ball or two blowing off the green.  I also toured the course once and based on that experience I doubt I will bother to play it. But I am glad that others enjoy it.  Keeps them away from Rustic.

[Matt_Ward]

David M:

As Reagan said to Carter during the 80 debates -- "there you go again."

I always enjoy the "facts" you leave out during your gentle putdown on my assessments of your beloved RC.

First, I didn't keep score that day as I usually due when I assess a course for the first time. I'm more than prepared to do that on my next visit there.

Second, to remind you (since amnesia may have developed) that I played RC as the last course on a eight-day swing through the greater Southwest that included 10 courses and a total of nearly 3,000 miles driving. Forgive me great one if I happened to be just a bit lagging on the last day.

Third, the width areas you have at RC can be fortified with at a minimum is a gentle tweaking. The stance you take is that NOTHING can be done to RC BECAUSE it is soooooooo puuuurrrfect right now. That is hardly the case. I've pointed out several areas where some tweaking would ONLY serve to enhance the overall course and not disturb what it has added to the quality of golf in the SoCal area.

I'm not going to get into length of my playing skill but when you tackle Bethpage Black on a regular basis from the tips I believe I have an appreciation of what consitutes demanding layouts that give no quarter.

David, you once again make the assertion that I don't think highly of RC -- that is FALSE. I just don't think of the layout as it is today as HIGHLY AS YOU. If time permits you should travel and see some of the more noteworthy public layouts such as Wild Horse in Gothburg, NE and Black Mesa just outside of Santa Fe, to name just two. Both provide width but not unlimited width plus they sufficient green contours to test you time after time in terms of seizing the best spot from where to approach the target.

Last item -- I'll send you a copy of Jersey Golfer where the review for RC appeared in a general round-up of other courses in the SoCal area and in Vegas. All you need to provide is a home or business address. But, puuuhleeeeeze enough of the putdowns because my opinion is different than yours. Nuff said.

[Mike_Golden]

Having played 3 rounds at Rustic last week let me add my 2 cents:

Rustic, while a wonderful, fun, interesting golf course, is not the most difficult course in the world, particularly if you hit the ball a long way.  I don't consider myself a really long hitter but was able to reach most of the par 5's with 2 good shots (I was hitting the ball really well for 2 of the rounds last week, particularly off the tee).   Unfortunately for me it also requires skill around the greens, something my game has little of right now, which makes it tough to really score well.  I would think, though, that if I played it regularly I would maintain my current handicap and possibly even drop it a little by the necessity of chipping and putting better.  It's totally different than a course like Bethpage Black, where you need to hit the ball solidly for the entire round to score decently, or Pasatiempo, where there really isn't an easy par or 'birdie' hole on the entire course (particularly since #1 became a par 4).  The closest thing to a birdie hole at BB, in my opinion, is #4, usually considered one of the great par 5's in the world, and that's only because of the local knowledge of hitting the second shot right to have a pretty easy up and down birdie.  Rustic has some excellent birdie opportunities, including a couple of almost driveable par 4's, as well as all the par 5's being pretty reachable in 2.  I would think that really good players would be making a lot of red numbers on those holes.  So I can understand a difference in perception between someone like Matt, who I understand is a very hitter, and mere mortals like the rest of us.  Playing with The Emperor I could see used the strategic elements of the golf course in his favor where, after the first round when I was thinking far too much, I just hit it to what seemed to be a good place and then hit the next shot the best way I knew how.

[DMoriarty]

Come on Matt, relax a little.  I was questioning neither your golfing abilities nor your manhood.   As the thread isn't about your abilities, I saw no reason to delve deeply into the reasons you give for not tearing up the course.  My point was twofold:

1)  When people hear your opinion of Rustic, they should realize that your experience is quite limited (one play).

2)  You and others who contend Rustic is boring/easy might be more convincing after you and/or others blast away and consistently tear the course a new one.  

Also, lets put a few other things to rest:

1. I have never said that Rustic is perfect.  In fact, while I would disagree with any changes that would fundamentally alter the cousre, I think there is much room for improvement and have repeatedly said so on this site. (I'll let you read my past posts on this.)  
2.  I have never said that you dislike Rustic.  I said you think much of it boring/easy off the tee and not sufficiently challenging for the quality long hitter.  Uhh Matt . . . look back a few posts where you agree that this is your assessment ("David has pointed out quite correctly what are some of its deficiencies from the tee (although he believes otherwise).")  [my emphasis]

Matt you really shouldnt take me so seriously.  Most of us are weakest when it comes to accurately evaluating our strengths.  I am just trying to prey on your vanities a little.  Maybe to suggest that Rustic tends to do the same.

I hope to get to Black Mesa soon, but have played other Finger, Dye, Spann courses, so I have some idea what to expect.  I would love to play Wildhorse, but don't hold out much hope for the time being.    

I'd love to have a copy of the Jersey Golfer which discusses Southern California.  Why don't you bring it out on your text trip this direction?  

Always a pleasure,

David.  

[Matt_Ward]

David M:

I don't doubt your point that seeing a course more than once MAY influence what a person thinks of the facility. It MAY also reaffirm the original evaluation. Let me say that my next visit to RC will be an interesting and one I'm looking forward to experiencing.

David, I never gave or hinted that my visit to RC was more than just one round. At the same time I truly believe my original assessment of RC was quite fair given what I saw and experienced on my initial round. Now, can I help it that I didn't play the course in hurricance winds or that the pins were not places on the edges on EVERY hole. Next time I'm in town I'll give you advance warning and you can prep the weather men to deliver gale force Santa Ana winds when I'm there.

David, again you put words in my mouth that I didn't say. Please refresh my memory on where I said that RC was "easy or boring." All I ever said is that the intensty of demand from the tee is not at the highest of levels. Of course, the flip to the side of the argument is that the philosophy of RC is quite different from say Bethpage Black and there is merit in both cases. I've pointed out to the point of exhaustion the specific holes I believe can be tweaked at RC. Emphasis on the word T-W-E-A-K in a number of diriving holes on the course.

To be totally frank -- what I shoot or what someone else shoots is irrelevant. If that weren't the case who would need GCA -- you might just contact Tiger and get his comments alone as the game's premier player as everyone else would be immaterial.

David, I would like to know specifically what "tweaks" you would make to RC. You see that would help me better understand where you're coming from. I've outlined several of mine and I believe any or all of them would dovetail well without upsetting the fundamental nature of what makes RC a very special place to play. Like I've said before -- anyone visiting the greater SoCal area would be well advised to venture to Moorpark and play RC -- it is clearly beyond the nature of what one finds for the most part in the overall region and given what one pays to play the course it's one of the best bargains in the USA.

David, forward me an address at mattwardgolf@hotmail.com and I'll forward you the magazine. It might just surprise you.

P.S. You need to see Black Mesa becaue like you, I've seen my fair share of Dye / Finger / Spann designs and this one, Black Mesa, is indeed worthy of a special look -- no less than the deserved acclaim that many pay to RC, Wild Horse and a few others of this ilk.

[Mike_Cirba]

David;

I would take up Matt on his offer for a copy of the "Jersey Golfer".  It's really a good, frank read, and always focuses on the golf courses, and not just the usual magazine fluff.  

I don't know that I've seen a regional golf magazine that has such editorial integrity and journalistic independence.

[DMoriarty]

David, again you put words in my mouth that I didn't say. Please refresh my memory on where I said that RC was "easy or boring."

Actually you affirmed the words out of my mouth.  What you said:

   ". . . I believe David has pointed out quite correctly what are some of its deficiencies from the tee (although he believes otherwise).

What I had said about the supposed deficiencies from the tee, immediately prior:

   "Rather, some of Rustic's detractors repeatedly made the following assertions:

1.  Rustic would be boring for a quality long hitter, because it fails to provide for sufficient challenge off the tee.

2.  Rustic would be too easy for the quality long hitter, because the quality long hitter can too often blast away then successfully approach the greens with a short iron with utter disregard for finding a proper playing angle.

 What am I missing?

To be totally frank -- what I shoot or what someone else shoots is irrelevant.

I completely agree, with respect to any particular round.

That being said, I would think that if your general assessment was correct, we'd see a pattern of quality long hitters:
    (1) Going really low on a course which offers 8 legit eagle chances and a bunch of wide open par 4s; and
    (2) Quality long hitters not enjoying themselves and not coming back.  
Instead, we see a pattern of:
   (1) quality long hitters scoring higher than they expect (sometimes by 10 shots or more); and
   (2) quality long hitters returning to the course because they had a great time.

Assuming my description is accurate, how do you explain this?   Do you think that this is consistent with your assessment?

David, I would like to know specifically what "tweaks" you would make to RC.

First, let me say that it isnt your specific tweaks that I so oppose.  Rather, it is your general assessment that without tweaks much of the course is uninteresting and defenseless against long hitters.  More importantly, I think our differences reflect a more fundamental difference in how we view architecture.  

Second, while we've covered this at least three times, I'll again list some of my suggested tweaks:

1. Hole 3:  I agree that the hole doesnt quite work, but dont want to see more bunkers.  Instead, I'd like to see them try shaving the rough between the green and the greenside bunkers, and possibly even lowering the back left hump of the green so it is much easier to hit into the back bunkers from the tee and right side.  I also wouldnt mind seeing more ground movement just right of the green or even on the right side of the green.

2. Hole 5.  Definitely build the missing back tee as was originally planned, to further entice big hitters to hit drive down the middle/left.  

3.  Hole 8.  While I like the hole, I have concerns that the green doesnt have enough pin placements for the amount of play, and think they may eventually have to expand it.  If they go right with the green (the simplest solution) I sure hope they keep the right to left slope as it is integral to the way the hole plays.

4. Hole 10.  I agree that the course should make the changes that Gil suggested:  Continue the sand drift from the right side hill (about 300 off back tee) out onto the fairway; and add bunkers extending more into the corner of the dogleg.

P.S. You need to see Black Mesa becaue like you, I've seen my fair share of Dye / Finger / Spann designs and this one, Black Mesa, is indeed worthy of a special look -- no less than the deserved acclaim that many pay to RC, Wild Horse and a few others of this ilk.

I hope to get out there soon.  

David, forward me an address at mattwardgolf@hotmail.com and I'll forward you the magazine. It might just surprise you.

Thanks Matt, email on the way.  

By the way, Matt, I have played Bethpage once and walked it several times.  I think it an excellent course, but too difficult for most golfers.  Perhaps as a result of this, when I played the pace was miserable.  

[DMoriarty]

David;

I would take up Matt on his offer for a copy of the "Jersey Golfer".  It's really a good, frank read, and always focuses on the golf courses, and not just the usual magazine fluff.  

I don't know that I've seen a regional golf magazine that has such editorial integrity and journalistic independence.

Mike,  

Matt was kind enough to bring out a few copies of his magazine when he came out to play Rustic.  I agree with your assessment entirely.  I would like to know how he does it, though.  And if he can do it, why cant other publications?  

[CliffBourland]

I've played Bethpage Black about 5 times from the back tees w/ my first time in 1987.  Tough to compare RC to BB.
They're different animals.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()