Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: DMoriarty on January 31, 2003, 07:59:21 PM
-
In the Feb 1 edition of Golfweek, Brad Klein wrote a brief review of Rustic Canyon. He was quite complimentary of almost all aspects of the actual course, and quite critical of the non-course structures (clubhouse, cart barn, driving range, cart paths, and parking lot.) I think most would agree with his assessment.
His comments got me thinking about just how much these non-essential structures influence golfers' (and raters') perception of the quality of any course. I know that some Golfweek raters visited the course before the clubhouse complex was very far along. It would be interesting to compare their "Rater'sNotebooks" to those that visited the course after the completion of the buildings. Not a large enough sample to be scientific, but it might be interesting nonetheless.
Also, having played the course more than a few times, I smiled at a few of Mr. Klein's less than positive comments. For example, while his rating of the one shot holes was high (8 ) he commented that the "only real letdown is a dull fourth hole (161 yards) to a wide open target." This sentiment is shared by many golfers (including Matt Ward) the first few times they play the course. However, to some of the regulars (including me) it is one of Rustic's most challenging and interesting holes. Four is that unique par 3 that offers multiple options off the tee, forces the golfer to consider angle of attack, provides multiple short game challenges, and does not unduly penalize the high-handicap player. Those that have repeatedly played it know that there is more challenge than first appears. I have seen less birdies on number 4 than on any other hole on the course (although 14 is a close second.)
Why go through all this? Just to point out that sometimes appearances deceive, and that sometimes deceptive appearances can be at the core of a golf hole's charm.
Having said that, I very much enjoyed Mr. Klein's review, and thought he captured the essence of Rustic. And, it was nice to see Mr. Klein telling the golf industry that if they built more courses like Rustic they would not be in the economic mess they are in. Any chance the industry will take heed?
-
"Why go through all this? Just to point out that sometimes appearances deceive, and that sometimes deceptive appearances can be at the core of a golf hole's charm."
David:
Unbelievably interesting point! "....appearances deceive, and that sometimes deceptive appearances can be the core of a golf hole's charm."
It should be distilled even further to the use of "deception" in golf architecture. Historically deception (visual deception) was such an integral part of early architecture. Obviously much of that had to do with the quirks of nature and the natural landforms used for golf. Matter of fact, visual deception such as blindness was considered a prized architectural commodity in early European golf.
Curiously, that concept in architecture was turned on its head and became an apparently unacceptable thing in golf and frankly almost every architect, even those considered the best in the business seemed to buy into that unacceptability but even more curiously much more in word than in deed!!
The concept appears to have gone from the prized to the controversial to the downright unacceptable today.
But it seems to be sneaking back in again (deceptively!?). Frankly, Gil Hanse seems to me to be one of the best at it today but mostly in some very subtle ways (however, he has to be aware of the nuances of what he's doing!). Certainly I would have to think that Geoff Shackelford's huge contributions to Rustic Canyon must also be responsible for this as I'd stake my life on the fact that this very thing is one that Geoff might enjoy, advocate and understand so well!
I just love this kind of thing in architecture although recognizing that it may be more useful in the more private sector courses rather than public. But even that I find to be a poor argument as public operators should rise above the fear of criticism and put their faith in the inherent "experience" factor that's at the root of deception that should bring thoughtful and curious golfers (such as yourself) back for more to attempt to unravel whatever mysteries are possessed in (visual) deception.
But to do that certainly they will have to suck it up with the criticism this kind of thing so often generates from "one time play reviewers", even very good ones like Brad Klein and Matt Ward.
Just yesterday I was reading some Tillinghast (just a fascinating and voluminous writer on all things golf and architecture) and he very much warned against what he called 'trickery and cunning' in architecture as he explained how much more sophisticated, modern and almost scientific American golf architecture was becoming. Too bad we can't ask him if he felt ALL forms of "deception" in architecture was resorting to trickery and cunning.
You should start a new thread entitled "Deception--it's use and validity in architecture?!"
I think a thread may be on here way in the back pages (probably started by me) but the subject should be up for discussion again.
Examples of really interesting deception in golf holes around the world would be fascinating and probably generate a long and interesting list and despite the apparent unpopularity and unacceptability today (of deception) are still probably considered some of the most interesting in the world.
An even more curious and interesting sidenote: I've heard it said that Tom Fazio, although completely opposed to any kind of blindness in architecture could be one of the most skilled in producing holes that possess visual deception particularly as it affects a golfer's judgement of distance.
-
Yes, I too enjoyed Brad's accurate article on Rustic. I disagree with some of the rating numbers on the Rater's Notebook. But in all he grasped the charm of the course, we are definitly on the same page on golf design.
Except.........
My first reaction to the 4th was the same at Ward's and Brad's. Decent hole nothing special. However like David M., it grows on you. First it is the one hole where the wind is almost always a factor and when it isn't, it becomes a different hole. Secondly at first site the green doesn't seem that unique, but after you keep making 4 your attitude and respect for the tee shot placement increases. It certainly passes Tom Paul's green within a green test. The charm for me is I love playing it even though there is no dazzling feature. I watched a movie last night with Rene Zellweger. She isn't a knockout at the start, but sure is a charmer after watching her for 90 minutes. The charm just grows. And lastly it sure passes Mackenzie's test, "brings the greatest pleasure to the greatest number." I have learned from this not to make judgments now until I have played a hole more than 4 or 5 times.
-
Lynn:
Good stuff! And so now Rustic's 4th has a name and a very applicable one at that. Forevermore it will be known as the "Rene Zellwegger" hole.
-
Dave M:
I also enjoyed reading Brad Klein's review of RC. Let me mention that it's very possible that a hole like the 4th can "grow" on you after playing it a few times. I do agree that sometimes initial impressions can be overplayed in some respects and in others can be viewed less so. My main frame arguments to certain key aspects of RC go simply beyond the 4th hole.
In reading Brad's comments I didn't think the discussion on "off-course" aspects is really central to the discussion of the course. I rate the course and all 18 holes -- first and foremost. How well the clubhouse / driving range meshes with the course is really irrelevant to me and I'm sure to many others who have had the pleasure in playing RC.
No doubt the clubhouse at RC is purely functional and truth be told -- I'm glad the focus is the golf course because that's why I decided to trek there from Clifton, NJ. If I want an elaborate clubhouse there are plenty of courses in New Jersey and throughout the Northeast that fulfill this dimension.
The aspect of Brad's comments looked at RC from a slightly different perspective than the one I gained after playing the course. Brad didn't highlight the "lite" quality on the tee game needed when playing the course and he also didn't focus on how some of the short par-4's (i.e. 3rd and 12th, to name just two) can be improved. I thought his comment on the 7th was somewhat misplaced but that's really being a bit prickly on my part. He also glanced over the sameness on holes such as the 9th and 10th.
When Brad gives a final 6.5 rating and says the course might just crack into the top 100 modern designs for GolfWeek I have to say he's being a bit cautious on the impact the course generates. I see RC as being a very unique and creative influence on WHAT MODERN COURSES SHOULD BE ABOUT.
Yes, there are a few dimensions I would have liked to see a bit differently at RC, however, the overall impact of the course when analyzed collectively shows a layout with a different presentation / style that is clearly needed. Upscale public courses have simply priced themselves out of the market in most locales and in others like the LA market the quality of public golf is quite depressing -- just ask Dave M, Dave Kelly and Tommy N. For most players and that is one of the main attractions in going to RC -- it gives a super value to an experience that is so clearly different and uplifting when compared to so many other SoCal public course options. All one needs to do is just visit nearby Lost Canyons and you will see a contrast of Grand Canyon like proportions between the two designs.
RC has supreme "elasticity." You can have a wide range of players playing the course and each can enjoy the challenges that are provided. Some sophisticated designs today provide that reality. Dave M mentioned this to me when I was there and upon reflection I believe it's one of the greatest strengths of the course.
I had the pleasure in 2002 in playing Rustic Canyon, Wild Horse and Twisted Dune. Each of these three (you can also include Barona Creek) provide an experience on what imaginary design can be for public course players. It's a situation that bears repeating in some many other locales throughout our country.
-
Tom,
I have only seen one of Mike DeVries courses(Kingsley Club), but he did a masterful job of presenting semi-blind shots that get you to thinking. He introduces the element of doubt into your mind and that in turn makes it hard to commit to the shot at hand. The other interesting feature of some of his holes are some bowls like you find at NGLA, where if you take the less aggressive line off the tee you can end up down in one of these depressions without a view of the green. Great stuff in my book.
-
Matt and Lynn, I also wondered about some of the scores given by Mr. Klein, but I am not familiar enough with the Golfweek rating system to intelligently comment.
I especially like Matt's point about Rustic's potential "creative influence on WHAT MODERN COURSES SHOULD BE ABOUT." Influencing the way things are done across an entire medium is often what separates great art from good art, and Rustic certainly provides a novel and workable blueprint for where public golf course design should be heading.
Lynn, funny you would bring up a movie analogy, I was thinking of one also, albeit a slightly different one.
When 'Oh Brother Where Art Thou?' came out, I read a review that said something like: "Like many Cohen Bros. films, 'Oh Brother' may not be considered one of the best movies of this year, but it will certainly be considered one of the best movies of next year." The reviewer's point was that Cohen Bros' movies grow on you as time goes by and on repeated viewings. I think the same can be said of Rustic, and of other quality courses that have subtle attributes, instead of obvious ones.
To take the metaphor further, most Hollywood filmmakers make their movies to immediately grab the audience and say all that they have to say in a single viewing. I wonder if modern golf course architects are also adopting this approach to golf course architecture/ golf entertainment-- especially at resort courses and other expensive 'once-in-a-lifetime' vacation courses. If they are, this is unfortunate and counter to the history of golf. When golfers played the vast majority of their lifetime of rounds on one local course, cheap one-time thrills would not suffice as quality architecture.
Matt,
I realize that you meant your comments regarding Number 4 as an aside to the main thrust of your comments regarding Rustic's perceived vulnerability to the long, wild tee ball. However, I suggest that upon repeated play you might find more subtle challenges off the tee shots that you first perceived, as you would upon repeated plays of the 4th hole.
In fact, as a fun wager, I suggest that next time you are in town we play a strange game devised to uncover the importance of accuracy and angle of attack at Rustic. On all the par 4's and 5's you let me place both of our tee shots as follows: I will place your tee shots 280-340 yards from the black tee anywhere in the fairway I want (the large variance in distance will take into account changes in elevation and wind conditions-- but I will always place your ball at a distance where only the really big hitters can hit it.) I will place my tee shots 30-50 yards shorter than yours, but on the line to the green that I prefer. Let me do this and, even though you are probably 8-12 strokes better than me, I would be willing to play all the par 4s and 5s against you even. I may not win this wager, but it might be closer than you might think.
-
"In fact, as a fun wager, I suggest that next time you are in town we play a strange game devised to uncover the importance of accuracy and angle of attack at Rustic. On all the par 4's and 5's you let me place both of our tee shots as follows: I will place your tee shots 280-340 yards from the black tee anywhere in the fairway I want (the large variance in distance will take into account changes in elevation and wind conditions-- but I will always place your ball at a distance where only the really big hitters can hit it.) I will place my tee shots 30-50 yards shorter than yours, but on the line to the green that I prefer. Let me do this and, even though you are probably 8-12 strokes better than me, I would be willing to play all the par 4s and 5s against you even. I may not win this wager, but it might be closer than you might think."
Now that's great! No more of this subjective architectural opinion and banter on here that's putting your architectural opinion not only where your mouth is--it's more--a real wager based on real architectural opinon.
-
A question for all of you who have read the Brad Klein article on Rustic Canyon: did you get the hard copy of GolfWeek or did you find the article on the GolfWeek website? I have looked for the article on the website, but have not been able to find it yet. Please advise. Thanks.
-
David Tepper:
I got the hard copy.
-
after walking 36 at rustic tuesday, ( and getting solid playing tips from dave after the first 18) I nominate Rustic as "THE BEST GOLF VALUE IN AMERICA"!! A grand total of $55 , yes $55 for two rounds!
Yes, the clubhouse (and especially the practice area) does detract form the "walk in the park" , but RC is really loads of pure FUN, that really does grow on you,even without the wind blowing. It plays the gca preferreed "firm & fast", which when combined with the subtle elevation changes, makes clubbing ( be short) especially important. Matt, Dave and Brad have captured teh unique nature of RC. It's exactly what GOLF needs more of. Don't miss it!
-
Some really good words there Matt.
I'm going to give you a pass on the 4th though since you were on about your 12th round in four days--at least it seemed like it. (Note* While Matt was in town, everyday I talked to him he was either on the road to San Diego, Las Vegas; Scottsdale, and Palm Desert.) You deserve to see this hole again and see for yourself how well that green plays in one's mind when trying to get to a paticular pin-position.
Usually, everytime I step on to this tee, especially when Lynn and the David's have played, I mutter to myself--and to my playing partners, "This is how you play this shot!" Which of course is a really low rolling 4 iron that usually has know problem making the back left or center pin-positions. In truth, and in some regards, the hole plays so much like the original Eden #12 on the Old Course. Maybe not in strategy, but surely in the sense of getting the ball to play low enough into the usual dead-in-the-face wind. There may not be a lot of trouble in front, but in a Pine Valley-like fashion, your exposed to another whole different game on the putting-green. It is a very fun, maddening, playful, deceptive, challenging and even cantankerous, putting surface.
You then in very Eden-like fashion have the backside to deal with which is a very pitched back that slopes into the hazard. I would say that if you had to relate any green at Rustic Canyon--to the Old Course of St. Andrews, it would have to be the greens at #2, 4, 9, 12 & 13.
-
Dave M:
I tip my hat to you for the creative juice in coming forward with such an idea -- I'm game for it! ;) I'll be visiting the SoCal area again during the week of February 17. Can you play RC sometime later that week -- either Friday or Saturday? I'm likely looking to play Friday so if you get free from whatever you're doing that would be great. I would also love to have the Emperor in tow along with David K. Let me know what can be done.
Getting back to RC -- the course is clearly a must play for any real golfer who enjoys the interplay of air and ground games. My comments about RC are really a splitting of small hairs but it's something I do with all courses I play because when you examine the merits (and lack thereof) of any course it's important to put everything under the microscope. In that way you can really understand how such a course plays up against the best in other parts of the country.
Dave, I don't doubt that if you put balls in different positions even with one that has a 30-40 yardage gain it may still put increased pressure on the longer hitter. I hear what you're saying but from my initial visit I'd have to say a few things for you to consider. The short par-4's I've mentioned at RC are still weak on the demands of the longer hitter (i.e. 3rd & 12th and to a lesser degree the 7th). You know that -- you even agreed with me and I believe the Emperor himself and Dave K would also agree. The similarity of the par-5's (9th & 10th) also needs to be altered or changed to present different challenges since both holes are comparable length and go in the same direction. A pity the par-5's as a whole do not have the qualities of the 5th and 13th.
I truly believe that with just a few minor tweaks the overall qualities of RC can only be better than what one plays today. I just hope people realize that when you combine the cost to play along with the architectural dynamics that have been provided you have a prototype of a course that needs to be duplicated in so many other geographic spots in the USA. If the LA area can have a course that doesn't require two credit cards to play then you clearly have something of tour de force quality.
P.S. When you judge the merits of the five par-3's you have to admit the 4th does take up the rear spot. I'd say the best in order are:
6th
8th
15th
17th (I think there will be debate here because the 17th is somewhat weak as well!)
4th
-
I would appreciate it very much it someone would be kind enough to fax me a copy of Brad Klein's article on Rustic Canyon. I have not be able to find it on the Golfweek website. My fax # in San Francisco is 415-956-5661.
Many thanks!!!
-
Matt. Glad to hear you are coming out this way again. I would love to play. Friday will probably be pretty tough, but I will try to make myself available for Saturday. Since you are playing Rustic again, I think we might as well we put aside our discussion regarding the Par 4s until after that date. (You're not really going to pass up that opportunity to fire away full bore off the tees, are you?)
-As for the merits of the Par 3s, if forced to rank them, no question I would place Number 6 first.
-I'd rank Number 4 second. May sound strange to you, but No. 4 is always interesting, challenging, and fun. It provides by far the most options off the tee, and it is the most difficult to birdie if the pin is anywhere other than the far front. No. 4 is also a great hole because it is very non-threatening to the high handicapper, while still very challenging for the low handicapper. Personally, I think No. 4 gets a bad rap because of all that mowed grass between the tee and the green. While this shouldn't even be an issue for low handicappers, it is a nice feature for the high handicappers. Do raters have a bias against holes that are playable to high handicappers?
-No. 4 would edge out No. 8 because No. 8 depends on wind to supply some of its interest, while No. 4 as interesting whether or not there is wind.
-Next I'd place No. 15 and 17, in a tie. No 15 is a very good uphill par 3, but the green is my least favorite on the course (it is the only one that seems at all manufactured.) Certainly a challenge to play, though, especially in a strong crosswind. No. 17 is a fun hole, but just doesn't measure up to 6, 4, or 8.
-Overall a very strong group of Par 3s, with plenty of variety.
Hopefully, we can discuss this more when we play again.
Always good to read your opinions. I will be in touch soon.
-
All you can do when you write these reviews is to try and be fair based upon a one-time visit. There isn't time or money in anybody's travel budget to keep us there as long as would be ideal, and I've learned to make basic observations that are designed to provoke while being fair. The review article in Golfweek was also a memo to our raters, that this is a course they need to take seriously. More importantly, it was a note to the entire golf industry that this is the kind of course they ought to be building - as are Wild Horse in Gothenburg, Neb. and Hawktree in Bismarck, ND.
I spent the next day of my two day visit to S. Cal. with Tommy Naccarato visiting and seeing some things that are at the wrong end of the maklet. Rustic Canyon is at the correct end, but that doesn't excuse an awful clubhouse and range. I defer judgment on the enduring intrigue of the 4th green, and I look forward to playing the course again soon to find out what people like so much about that sleepy looking par-3. Maybe it was the setting that threw me off, right in front of those little houses.
-
Mr. Klein,
Do clubhouse and range, if not up to your standards, undermine the course architecture? And if the building or range is of a great standard in your view, does this enhance the course design?
Gary
-
"Maybe it was the setting that threw me off, right in front of those little houses"
There's no question a "setting" can distract raters of any hole but my advice would be if they notice things like that to then attempt to place it out of their mind, to discount it if that "setting" really does not affect the architecture of the hole or how it plays.
There's a wonderful "short" at Westhampton with houses directly behind it that if removed would immensely benefically affect the "setting" and there's a similar situation on #14 at Royal County Down.
But do either visual "settings" affect the architecture of those holes? Not in the slightest. So if it's strictly the architecture that's being analyzed those houses and that "setting" should be completely discounted by raters, in my opinion.
-
I do not think that "setting" can be divroced from the architecture of the course. The difference here also is that on many courses the "setting" has changed through outside development over the years. This hole I believe was built with that "setting" in mind. If this had been a particularly fantastic view at the end of the property looking down the canyon we would be extolling the wonderful vista.
On one of the other threads their was talk that perhaps Rees Jones builds some mounds to block outside view and is this preferable to trees or nothing. If mounds and trees are introduced to block something that does not matter to architecture then perhaps the mounds themselves do not matter?
16 Sleepy hollow is a short across a ravine with the Hudson in the background. I am sure it is not the best "architecture"short hole MAC ever did but with the setting it is darn good at a wonderful angle to the riverpointing almost to the end of the palisades. Maybe there was a better spot or angle for this short but the setting trumped the other factors thus it is part of the architecture.
-
So if it's strictly the architecture that's being analyzed those houses and that "setting" should be completely discounted by raters, in my opinion.
But TEP, unless one is the "I'm blind, but I have a handicap" guy featured on the endlessly-run USGA commercial, doesn't setting matter, to the golfer anyway? We don't play with our eyes closed...
I've never seen the worth in analyzing architecture in a vacuum like this. I know I've said this many times before, but I've never gotten a good rebuttal... Architecture matters to architects and developers, to decide who's doing the best job. EVERYTHING matters to golfers.
TH
-
This debate reminds me of Tom Fazio's comments in his book about the colorful trailers in the distance at Portrush. I believe he implied that it reflected poorly on the architecture, it might have been OK for Colt in his day (of course the trailers undoubtably arrived later), but it was not acceptable today. Might an over emphasis on framing lead to golf courses that may look good, but aren't necessarily interesting/stimulating.
Is there a picture of this hole?
-
Guest, trying to be as polite as possible, rather than attack me, care to take a stab at answering my query to Mr. Paul?
I really think this is a valid question and gets to the essence of how evaluation of golf courses is done. I have nothing against evaluating "pure architecture" and discounting things like setting - doing so just doesn't mean much to me personally, nor do I see why it should to golfers who are not actively in the golf course architecture business.
Care to tell me why this is wrong? I come here for education, no matter what you think.
TH
-
To get away from the personal attacks, what does Rustic Canyon use as its logo? Does it simply have the name or is their a symbol attached to it?
-
Bob - I have the scorecard right here, and there really is no logo... just the words Rustic Canyon Golf Course with certain letters underscored and a suitably "rustic" looking font.
As I recall the shirts and hats just had lettering also...
But perhaps Dave M. or one of the other local regulars will check in and update this.
TH
-
How about a contest for a logo design. Maybe the winner could get a free gangsome once a year for life or for something worth doing a good job.
-
Sounds like fun to me. Will it be possible to post images on this site?
-
To echo what Brad said -- it's clear that Rustic Canyon, Barona Creek, and Wild Horse offer what REALLY PUBLIC GOLF NEEDS! I have not played Hawtree and take Brad's word there. I would also offer Twisted Dune in NJ as being in that type of company.
Affordable golf in connection with quality design can be done. If it can be done in the LA market in SoCal it can be replicated anywhere in the USA.
Dave M: I'm itching to get back to RC. My best day now turns out to be Saturday the 22nd. Talk sooooooon ... The Emperor also tells me he's game as well as a few others from GCA who might be in the area. Adios for now .... ;)
P.S. I don't doubt that "off-course" elements may play a role with some reviewers but I think they really have to have some direct role with the architecture to be really considered in my book. Yes, the clubhouse is fairly pedestrian and the artificial qualities of the practice are self evident, however, they really have no direct connection to the course design and would not focus, or should I say, have my focus, taken away from such a grand layout.
One last thing -- Dave M, I see your point on the par-3's and will be more than curious to play them all again. I'd have to say that in my travels the 6th at RC is one of the finest 200+ par-3's you can play among all public courses I've seen. Absolutely dynamite type hole!
-
There's no question a "setting" can distract raters of any hole but my advice would be if they notice things like that to then attempt to place it out of their mind, to discount it if that "setting" really does not affect the architecture of the hole or how it plays.
Tom, I almost hate to point this out, but you sound quite a lot like your arch nemesis here. Don't tell me you agree with Pat when he attempts to completely divorce the "Style" of a course from the "strategy" of a course. Certainly esthetic concerns don't end at boundary of the course.
One of MacKenzie's core architectural tenants was to try to blend the course into nature as much as possible, in order to create an enjoyable and uplifting experience for the golfer. It is hard to imagine that he would have drawn a line at the course boundary and said "nothing visual beyond this point has any bearing on the quality of the course." Golfers generally experience more enjoyment playing courses in visually appealing and natural surroundings. This alone is enough to make the surroundings an integral part of the quality of the course.
Unfortunately, a much better example (than the houses behind No. 4) exists at Rustic. Mr. Klein astutely points out that, after No. 4, Rustic is a trek into the wild, and this holds true through No. 17. One can't help but be somewhat let down when the god-awful driving range net comes into view as one crosses the ravine and approaches the 18th tee. Further, one can only imagine how much more inspiring the quality 18th would be if the aiming point off the tee wasn't somewhere between the cart-barn door and the large, round, concrete planter. This was certainly not the architects' fault, but it surely should and does influence raters when they evaluate the course.
Bob and Tom, The logo was originally a rendering of one of the local bushy plants. (I think this may have been Dan King's idea, but am sure he did not receive any credit.) This was a good idea and fitting for the course, but the rendering just did not work esthetically. Recently they have been using the much simpler and more generic crossed golf clubs. I am not sure this is permanent or not. Personally, I don't mind this logo because it is understated. A course like Rustic shouldn't have a hoity-toity logo.
-
A course like Rustic shouldn't have a hoity-toity logo.
Concur. A simple RCGC over crossed clubs works just fine, if the bush idea doesn't work.
The place just does deserve something...
TH
-
Tom Paul
You are better than me on judging pure design. If I see Rene Zellweger in a 1965 Volkswagen bug I think one thing. If I see Rene Zellweger in a 2003 Porsche I think another thing. I wish I could be more objective but I have life long biases to overcome.
John Wooden and Mother Teresa would see the same person but most of us would have trouble. But I agree that being purely objective is a worthy goal for which to strive.
-
Logos?? Don't ou have to have merchandise to find a logo!?
The operation of this place is as bad as it gets.
How does such a nice course have such a cheap operation? I play there a few times a month, love the golf. But Idon't hit balls there or eat there. Just go for the great golf. The rest of the facility is depressing. If the golf course wasn't so good, the place would go belly up in no time.
-
Dave & Matt -
Please post a detailed recap of your wager - sounds like something that encapsulates many of the ideas held in high esteem by members of this site.
VCgolfer -
Gee, my heart bleeds for you, having to play a place for the golf rather than the side amenities. Tough life you have.
-
As usual, there are merits on all sides of this discussion. First, with regard to Brad's discussion of the clubhouse we should remember he is writing for a magazine with a circulation that is broader than our treehouse. I suspect many of his readers are interested in the clubhouse facilities so they are worthy of mention so long as they are not overemphasized. Second, the overall appearance and ambience of a course is important to most people in evaluating a course. For example, many architects have attempted to recreate the strategy of Pebble's oceanside holes; how many faux 18's next to man made lakes have each of us played? Yet I have yet to see one imitation that gives the same feeling as the original and most of this can be attributed to the setting. Would Banff Springs be the same without the mountains? On a less inspiring note, those of us who played Troon North before the clubhouse and the housing development generally have a very different feeling about it today, even though the strategy is identical. But this should be no surprise because much of the game's appeal, at least to an urbanite, is its natural setting. This is part of many peoples' preference for the "minimalist" approach to design. However, this recognition of the beneficial impact of the overall appearance of a course can be overdone. The CCFAD phenomenon reflects an overemphasis on the clubhouse and amenities and may be the true genesis of the criticism of that portion of Brad's review. Similarly, architects who spend more time on framing than on creating interest in the field of play have made the mistake of exalting form over substance and ultimately produce disappointing results. Thus the trick is to strike a proper balance and, as in all matters of taste, individuals can disagree in good faith. I prefer an emphasis on strategy first, but if it can be combined with beauty the product is memorable.
-
VCgolfer:
Maybe RC has a cheap operation, because they have cheap green fees. I find the staff accommodating and friendly. I play there constantly as a walk-up single, and have never failed to get on within 30 minutes and w/o any atittude from the staff.
Why not hit balls there? It's just for warming up. If you're playing that day, I assume you're not hitting balls to "work on your game."
The food? Please. Even my wife wouldn't complain about food at a golf course and she's a culinary snob.
And you others whining about the style of the "clubhouse"? It ain't a clubhouse. It's a small pro shop, a snack bar and a restroom. Want a clubhouse? Gather up 200K and join Sherwood. Or go play at Lost Canyons for a nice clubhouse...oh yeah, but the courses sort of suck for the $$$.
-
Tough group. I sort of agree with VC that the other stuff does matter. Do none of you stay at The Four Seasons when you travel? All Days Inn customers?
I think playing golf on a good course, with a bad operation, bad amenities, is okay every now and then, but I do like the other stuff to which just makes the day more special. I am not asking for over the top stuff, just polite people, good food, cold beer, and a good atmosphere to top off the day.
-
Can someone post a picture of this clubhouse? And if its that bad why not incorporate something similar to Papazian Hills suggested clubhouse.
-
Just go for the great golf. The rest of the facility is depressing. If the golf course wasn't so good, the place would go belly up in no time.
"Gee! I won a million dollars and now I'll have to pay a bunch more in taxes! Wo is me." But underneath his statements, VietCongGolfer poses a whetstone of a question. . .
Could Rustic Canyon be the touchstone of future accessible golf? The model of courses to be? The answer lies in its financial sovereignty so I suggest if you like it to promote it verbally and financially. Will the people continue to support it? Praise it? RC's idea of putting the course first may well make or break our hearts. A lot is riding on this endeavor. Get out the rosary beads and peyote buttons, or wherever you draw spiritual strength from.
-
To let everyone know, Rustic does have a logo, and it is pretty basic and simple: two hills off-setting each other to form a canyon. Uber Director of Golf, Mark Wipf came-up with it. This was only after unsuccessful several attempts by myself to help him.
Now, I have to address the 4th and the 18th, and.........TREES! (Brad should appreicate this because after all, he is a foremost authority on how trees have affected so many golf courses over the years)
Yes, tract housing developments are an ugly sight on any golf course, but the fact remains that they (The houses) were there before the idea of a golf course ever came into being. The golf course is separated from the houses by a flood channel and natural open space of some 150 +/- yards. Does it come into play, mentally, these typical early 1980's two-story homes in a quaint Moorpark neighborhood that is not unlike any LA suburbian?
Not for me at least, I grew up around them, but for others I'm sure that it does.
Personally, it doesn't affect my views on the actual architecture of the course. But exactly as Tom Huckaby has noted, there are those that don't look at Architecture in a vaccuum (Hoover or Dirt Devil) and will let any small-negative become a bigger influence in a final outcome of opinion. Those types are out there and they dominate Golf, or at least their vision of it. Thankfully it isn't my vision. I'll take the homes anytime on a site that was utilized to its fullest (architecturally speaking) then one that was taken simply for granted. (Like Sandpines for instance)
So what is the answer?
Why TREES of course! They have recently planted some small ones to block out the housing that comes into view on the 4th. But of course, as in the same situations in the past, they won't be enough, so they'll plant more, and more. All until the sight of the housing is gone and in a few years some of us who live in our "vaccuums" can expounce on how trees have negatively affected Rustic Canyon #4 because they have grown into the line of play.
Trees have also been planted to line the left fairway of the 18th, so it can hide a ugly driving range fence, which will eventually someday change how that hole plays, and so on and so on, etc. etc. etc. Has the driving range fence at Riviera #2 ever drawn as much heat as Rustic #18? I don't like it, but to me it doesn't downgrade one bit of the phenominal architecture that exists at Riviera--er, other then holes #7 & 8:)(Thanks Tom Marzloff!)
This same thinking is why there are now GPS monitors on all of the golf carts.
There have been many times before the new clubhouse had even been started, that the David's, (Moriarty and Kelly) Lynn and myself all said that it was ashame that they even had to build a clubhouse and driving range. We would have been more then happy to see Rustic Canyon operate out of that tiny little trailer, phone lines flooded with golfer's hoping of getting a tee time, and where just out in front of that trailer, Jessica cooked you a hot dog and served you up a cold beverage while sitting at one of the home-made wooden picnic tables, looking at all of the golfers with smiles on their faces.
It was then, that I felt like I was a member of the legendary Apple Tree Gang, only it was Avocados and lemons that were growing on the hillsides.
That time, this very last year from May to when the clubhouse was started was A Golfweek "10", PERFECT! Brad Klein, you'll know what we have experinced in the last year and see it too, when Wittenbury first opens up. I do hope you enjoy it while it lasts because there are plenty of customers that aren't going to be happy with something.
In truth, it only shows how the sum of the immenities to the general golfing public, eventually ruins the entire package when it really doesn't need them. "Haven't they ever heard of "choosing the customers you want," David Kelly recently exclaimed to us on Rustic Canyon's 10th, after hearing that they would be adding GPS to the golf carts.
I couldn't agree more.
-
Tommy, nice post. Good food for thought and very encouraging.
-
Tommy:
Damn that is all well-said.
And I believe you got what I was saying/asking quite correctly without horribly missing the point as my pal Guest did - and that I do sincerely appreciate.
Please believe me I am not advocating adding ANY amenities to the wonderfully simple, maddeningly interesting golf establishment that is Rustic Canyon. I never saw it in the days of the trailer, etc. but I'm with you, that is a small version of perfection. Just as Sand Hills needs nothing else beyond the perfection they have, neither would Rustic.
My comments were based on surrounding views... NOT amenities. I know you get this but just feel I need to reiterate it.
So while I am saddened to hear of the simple clubhouse and functional but bare-bones driving range causing some negative backlash at Rustic, I am happy to hear that trees are being planted where you say. Geoff told me once he had asked for large eucalyptus to be planted along the left of 18, and damn that would be an improvement... little things like that DO matter.
As you say, it is very unfortunate that there is such a large sector of the golf world for whom amenities cloud everything... Tommy, we've had this discussion before and you know I've always been one to point this out, not that I am part of it or agree with it, but just that it is a sad reality. I'm not sure what any course can do to change it... My day at Rustic, for example, I was one of very, very few walkers, so if everyone is riding, it just seems natural to add GPS to keep up with the Joneses. It's really hard to fault Rustic for this, sad as it is... Same goes for the clubhouse... you just can't expect them to never build one, as cool as we all think that would have been....
Yeah, here's hoping golf comes first and everything else second. But it just sadly isn't the way of the golf world. Even a cool place like Rustic Canyon is still a business... and in business one rarely can choose the customers one wants. Again, just a sad reality.
TH
-
Am I understanding that the clubhouse is really bad? Why's it bad?
Why were they in such a rush to build something that everyone seems to agree is bad? DId they lose sight of thier mission or did they get blinded by too many greenbacks? Can you imagine someone telling them that they really need a clubhouse, as the phones are ringing off the hook? Caught up in the L.A. mentality one can only assume.
Lynn- love the Wooden reference with Mama T. Go coach
It seems only natural to dance with what brung ya, translated means; it should have an understated functional clubhouse with multiple options and no tight driving areas for the big knockers ;D ;D
-
Adam,
The clubhouse really isn't all that bad at all. It is an understated design for a affordable public golf course, much better then say, Goose Creek's which is really clumsy.
The problem which I think Brad and the others are talking about is that:
1-The Pro Shop has yet to be really stocked-up with a full line of merchandise, although they have just recently gotten in some really nice hats, pullovers, wind shirts and golf shirts. Other then some golf balls and golf gloves, there is absooutely not one ounce of equipment.
2-The interior decorations are....non-existant. The walls are bare, including in the restaurant. But with a recent purchase of a Plasma Screen TV, you would think that would liven things up a bit. But in true fashion, instead of mounting it properly in a corner for everyone to see, they chose to mount it flat on a wall which takes ones eye away from the beautiful view of the 18th which the clubhouse overlooks. The furniture for the restaurant looks like it was purchased at a Old Town Moorpark garage sale, and just outside, this beautiful patio and not one ounce of furniture.
3-Another problem, and I feel that it is a vital one is that color chosen for the clubhouse (A sort of darker shade of green) just doesn't seem to match the solid natural look of the entire canyon. While some may think that this is being too picky, I think it is that attention to detail that matters a lot. A could see a goldenrod or even white color that would make the place really inviting. making people want to stay and have a few margarita's while watching other golfers finish their 18 as the sunsets on another beautiful Southern California day.
So who do you blame?
THE OWNER........
Someone who clearly doesn't have any taste or style, as well as refuses to open up his pockets and adequately run the business properly.
(You would think that decorating the place would come to the forefront instead of a $5,000 plasma TV, especially since the business is new. Q: What does he do? A: Buys another Plasma TV so he can put it in another corner. It hasn't been delivered yet.)
-
Lest anyone think that Tommy N. is serving as my interior decorator, let me say a few things.
First, the food at RC isn't bad, and I am especially partial to tasty $6 cheeseburgers with fries that they deliver to your table, so the limited menu is fine by me.
Second, the bare walls on a vaulted ceiling - 15-feet high - are weird, as is the absolutely barren pro shop. I don't need cushy Bobby Jones shirts and cashmere sweaters, but something is preferable to nothing.
Third; the clubhouse design isn't the problem; it's the starkness of its unadorned exterior and the fact that it sits in conjunction with a long, block-ish cart barn to occupy the last 150-yards of an otherwise admirable straightaway par-4 finishing hole of 400 yards. The tee shot calls for a modest left to right shot, meaning you set up at the barn; and if you pull your second shot a tad it will kick into the cash register.
Fourth; let's be clear about this monstrous structure of a range that looms like Godzilla over the 12th green (as I recall) and that dominates the landscape as you enter the site. It's fully netted, about 80-feet high, with garish green artifical turf and mats, to boot. It's tasteless, contrary to the entire philosophy of the golf course, and simply stupid and insulting to look at and play off of. Otherwise, it's okay.
So, we are talking extremes here - wildly in contrast with the admirable land plan and routing of the golf course. It's as if someone put a Denny's at LaCumbre in 1928 and tried to sell it as part of George Thomas' original plan.
It's one thing to talk about clubhouses that are awkward or clumsy. But this sits like a stupidly insulting assault by the owner or manager and ruins the ambiance. Despite that, as I made clear in the review, it's a fine golf course.
-
Brad, You did such a fine job of describing all of it, I'm going to put away the notions of painting your office in a glistening shade of Mettalic Pea.
Now about that Moose's head for the wall I was recommending......
-
I think I was misunderstood. I love the golf course, but the quality of the range and clubhouse doesn't entice me to come early to spend money on the range or to stick around afterwards and eat or hit balls. It has a real American Golf atmosphere like Simi Hills setup and feel.
But that doesn't spoil what's between the first tee and the18th green (well, I don't know about the 15th green!!). It's truly fun golf, and a cosistently maintained course which is rare in SoCal (though I keep waiting for the maintenance spending to start matching the clubhouse and landscape expenditure!). It just seems like a missed opportunity to have a facility that is great in all respects and one that could be more financially profitable for the owner to have people eating and drinking there instead of Wood Ranch BBQ!
-
It sounds like they forgot all the love that went into the course's design & construction. And it seems like a no brainer that the range should probably not be there. Eighty foot high nets implies 90 foot high kreosoaked telephone poles to hold up the nets, yuck.
I have some big art if they want it?
And if your ball does kick in the cash register do they give a free round?
-
A couple of thoughts...
1) There are houses behind the 4th green?? :o Can't say I noticed.
2) The course was operating out of trailer when I played there last year. Personally, I would have dumped the trailer, erected a little outdoor covered hut for players looking to escape the sun or rain, or to grab a sandwich or sell a few balls, but the picnic we had out in the open air in the little clearing seemed to suit the place just fine (ala the Apple Tree analogy Tommy mentioned earlier).
3) The range netting is abysmal, impossible to ignore, and terribly out of character.
But mostly I remember the golf holes. The setting, with the minor flaws mentioned above, mostly consists of naturally raw hillsides rising from the canyon floor. The "internals" of the golf holes....make it difficult for this golfer to be too distracted by much else.
-
Naturally, Brad's review is quite stellar from my point of view. For Rustic to get a "9" for green design is obviously quite special! I can't speak for Gil or Jim or my purported "associates" who were mentioned, but it's fun to read such an in depth critique in print and to hear what others think. Brad knows that I don't agree with all of the categories analyzed, particularly those that are out of the golf architect's control. We had some say in the clubhouse and cart paths, almost all of which was ignored and done about as shabbily as one could imagine (it will ultimately be a mistake as the clubhouse could have enjoyed strong food and beverage revenues with a warm sense of community feel, especially with nearby business park workers looking for a fresh lunch spot).
But I don't know if it's fair to hold the clubhouse and range design against the course design as Brad did on his ballot. Then again, I can't see giving one of Fazio's designs extra points because the clubhouse is an architectural marvel (the Estancia effect :)), but people do.
The criticism of the 4th hole framing is not a huge surprise. We all have different reactions to such things and from day one we knew that some just wouldn't be able to let go of the vanity aspect. Ben Crenshaw, for instance, was too interested in studying the green to notice when I pointed out the annoyance of the housing, and others have suggested moving the entire routing to avoid getting down near the homes. But the green site that Gil found was just too good to pass up in our view and I love hearing feedback like David Moriarty's, regarding the difficulties he finds the more he plays it. Our goal was fun, interesting golf first, framing a distant second.
Oh, and the large fairway running up to the 4th green was intentional. Jim Wagner made the point that the rest of the threes had some form of carry over waste, grasses, junk or a combination of the three, and this would be a way to get people off to a good start, to provide a nice contrast to the others and also to get golfers thinking about a low running shot.
Thanks again for the interesting feedback everyone.
Geoff (and associates) :)
-
Someone asked about the logo (which I think is a third try):
(http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid50/pcc323228fc209aeafc1f67b3a717cfa9/fcae8c56.jpg)
Someone asked for pictures of the clubhouse/range area.
View from No. 18, Black/Blue Tees of Range, Cartbarn, and Clubhouse. Green and pin are barely visible on right side of picture. Safe aiming point is the Cartbarn door, now somewhat sheltered by wooden fence. (http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid50/p907961a634b0693a043f15e45baf5505/fcae90f3.jpg)
View from No. 18, White/Red Tees. From this angle, the buildings are not directly inline with the line of play off the tee. Left half of green area is visible. Player in cart played from back tees toward Cartbarn door.
(http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid50/peb9502f633f5b98c0f5057480110da67/fcae90e3.jpg)
Closer look at buildings from tee area. Clubhouse is in back right.
(http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid50/p1d5b82a8c8c61094f807f69b38a0eec0/fcae90f9.jpg)
View of Range and Clubhouse area from access trail away from the course (18th fairway is on the other side of the range.
(http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid50/pd96c13b3b0a096a4f4bca438b5d9b247/fcae90d6.jpg)
. . . and with parking lot.
(http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid50/p674347183355787520bc4e2f97c8c486/fcae90cc.jpg)
-
Could someone elaborate on who owns this place?
I guess i've been under the assumption that Geoff and gang were principles.
No?
And,
Could you also tell us how you were able to get the county involved?
-
Very descriptive images David. I know you more then likely made a special trip out there to get them--Thanks!
Adam, Rustic Canyon is owned by Craig Price and his company Highlands Golf. Craig is the son-in-law of David Price, the former owner of American Golf. (They just happen to have the same last name) This is Craig Price's frist venture in actually owning a golf course.
In closing, I try to play a low running shot everytime at #4 simply because it is the most fun and usually most successful shot played into it. I have seen way too many times, players trying to hit a high shot into the green, and either push, pull or come-up way too short of the pin. I feel my Game actually happened upon this hole because my strength is the low-runner. This doesn't mean I haven't had my share of failures on the hole, because I too have pushed-it into the most impressive natural bunker that is right of the green, which Matt Ward can even tell all about!:)
It is my opinion if you are left on the hole, even in one of the sand hazards, par is still attainable as the putt to a central or right pin position is better to be attacked from the left side of the green because you are actually going up-hill. You can take a shot at it. Unlike Sunday where I hit a really good shot and ended up 10 feet past the hole and ceremoniously three-putted. All's fair in Love and War I guess!
-
Unless I am mistaken, Craig Price was CEO of National Golf Properties, the 200+ golf course REIT (symbol TEE) that was spun-off from American Golf and run into the ground. TEE is now being bought out by Goldman Sachs/Starwood. Having run TEE deep into trouble, it appears Craig Price is giving the golf business another go. It would be interesting to know who the financial backers of Highland Golf are. Does Highland Golf actually own the golf course and the land under it or is the land leased from Ventura County?
-
Do sacred cows get defferential treatment ?
-
Was just out to Rustic and had a blast. It is unique, beautiful and immense fun.
It's got shot opportunities around and into the greens which remind me of Scotland...firm, fast, undulating (and true) without being contrived in the least. The greens and surrounds have you judging (trying to figure out) the bounce and release on approaches and around the greens. There are options to either chip, pitch or putt...it's immense fun. The wind was blowing a fair bit, which added to the interest.
I love the bunker work.
The 4th? Much has been made of the houses, but I didn't see them, and I'd been given a heads-up by this post and additionally by Tommy N. when driving into the site! They just didn't register. In fact I'd have forgotten about this aspect totally had Tommy not asked me about them after the round!
As for the 4th hole itself...that green may not be draped by glaring hazards...Joe Public may be able to bounce it in, but it surely didn't strike me as a weak link. It’s a nice looking hole…not stunning, but it fits into its surrounds seamlessly. I like the little scrapes (bunkers) around the green. Once on the green, if you’re on the wrong section you're working to make 3...miss the green and you've got the same challenges...plus a little. It may be more a psychological factor during the round…coming off the green early in the round, good players just may be pissed for getting beat by a hole which looks at first glance somewhat tame.
I do think the short par-4’s could use a bunker on each to strengthen them a little for the strong player…on the 12th I think a small pot bunker like that on the 9th at St.Andrews…right around the area where a good player would land his drive would add interest just as their Principal’s Nose bunker does on the next hole (but would it be repetitive?). Such a bunker on the 12th would give pause, even indecision with club selection and line selection on the drive…it’d make the hole play more like the 10th at Riviera...which I understand was the intent.
On the 3rd I’d place a bunker out to the right-front of the green about 15-20 yards away to catch tee shots that bail. It would be a miserable distance for a bunker shot, and the ensuing shot back to the green with the surrounding bunkers and wash behind the green would be hairy. Then again both these observations and ideas are based on first impressions, and the next time out, in different conditions, these holes could just kick my ass. In any case...as they stand now, they are fun holes.
The clubhouse and cart barn are just too close to 18 for my liking.
My hat’s off to the crew involved with its creation…to repeat Matt Ward's line…it is ”what modern courses should be about.” To think another architect passed up this opportunity!
-
Tony,
Thanks for the kind words, and for pulling this thread up so I could again see David's photos of the Craftsman-turned-Colonial-gone bad clubhouse and also the artful new logo. Looks like a reverse ode to the Mae West hole at Bel-Air. :)
I agree with you on the short 4's. Maybe something minor to add some hesitation to those who are driving near the greens. Gil and Jim and I agreed that the little pots on 2 and 13 came out better than we thought and perhaps a few more of them would add some fun without slowing down play or detracting from the existing features.
I'm not clear on what you were suggesting for 3? An extension of the existing right bunker or something beyond that? We definitely wanted to have more penalty for the drive that bails out than currently exists. I would vote for a minor reduction of the rightside green boundary, particularly in back for starters. Visually it might make someone a little more aggressive from the right (since so few hit run-ups!).
Geoff
-
Geoff S:
While you're on the subject of course improvement it might behoove the powers-that-be to look over the 9th and 10th because the holes are quite similar in the manner of their presentation.
Throwing in some sort of diversity in these two holes will add greatly to the holes and to already fun and unique experience.
P.S. I agree with your take on the 3rd and 12th holes -- what prevents the addition of another bunker to keep the long boys in check?
-
Matt,
Agreed. I think Gil has expressed somewhere here what we'd like to do on 10 (additional fwy bunker with current complex to liven up the second shot, restoring some of the waste area at 1/2 way point, get the irrigation squared away and maybe something off the tee). This would break 9 and 10 up and correct some of the features lost in the seeding process while making the strategy on 10 more interesting. I'd leave 9 alone and see if the initial work on 10 differentiates the two a bit better because it was definitely not our intention to have them looking/playing similarly. 9 was meant to be very vague, 10 to have great emphasis on the second shot layup to get a better view for the hard-gauge 3rd shot.
As for doing the work, that's up to the management. Considering that many things are still not finished from the construction as the course approaches its one-year anniversary (native revegetation, extensive landscaping, cart path tinting, irrigation head adjustments, etc...) I think our desire to enhance the holes is probably low on the list.
Geoff
-
Geoff: I'm going out there again, so I'll bring this thread back up so you can enjoy the photo's, and comment on No.3 with clarity.
One other aspect I totally blanked on but wanted to bring up were the crusty areas of sand with grass clumps in the roughs. I like this a lot. This reminded me of the right side of the 3rd at Pinehurst No.2. and with the amount of fairway, these areas couldn't be condemned as accelerators for the balls to a worse fate. The more of this the merrier in my eyes, and it may be a way to help camouflage at least some of the cart paths.
-
Dmoriarty,
You're correct, Tom Paul is echoing what Mr Mucci said, even though Tom Paul disagreed with him when he said it.
But, he is not alone, many others disagreed with Mr Mucci.
It's interesting, the way the rules of engagement and evaluation are bent when the names of the players change.
Why should Rustic Canyon, the golf course, be judged by the club house, range and food ? It shouldn't. The golf course should be judged strictly on its own merits ?
Mr Mucci also indicated that evaluative standards should be applied fairly, equitably and universally not selectively. If the clubhouse and range are to be ignored in evaluating the golf course at Rustic Canyon, other courses should be judged strictly on their merit, excluding non-golf course features and structures.
MacKenzie's nature is a far cry from what he would find today.
His sites were unencombered by environmental and political restrictions, they were multitudenous and cheap.
If Mackenzie were here today, would he walk away, frustrated by the constraints, or modify his thinking ?
You can't compare the architectural works completed between
1900 and 1930 to the architectural works completed between
1973 and 2003 without understanding and adjusting for the many changes that occured in those intervening 73 years.
-
archnemesis fan:
I'm doing what? Agreeing with Pat Mucci? That's virtually impossible (that possibilty could never more that 2% in the most ideal of worlds). Either you're wrong or whatever you think I'm agreeing with him on I taught him at some point and neither of you are willing to admit it at this point.
Agree with Pat Mucci!? NEVER!
That would be close to positively unthinkable!
-
Hey guys... you had to notice that Golf Magazine gave Rustic "only" an honorable mention in the "Best Places You Can Play" list in the March issue... did Golf Magazine blow it here or what? Are all of these courses that did make the list significantly better than Rustic? I haven't played or seen any of them, and the only one I've heard about is The Falls (Lake Las Vegas), which Wigler played and liked...
Strange....
TH
-
Tom Huckaby;
Yes, I saw that "list" last night. I particularly liked the pic of the Art Hills course (in Illinois?) with the bulkheaded island green. ::)
Even better was the "Top 10" inclusion of ShoreGate in NJ, which was discussed in here some months ago. I played there last year with redanman, Matt Ward, and another fellow and if people think that Stone Harbor by Muirhead was "over the top", this might set a new standard. If people want to see man-made architecture, this is a great place to visit, because there sure is enough of it there, on every single hole. They left no stone unturned, if you catch my drift. :P
-
Mike - let's just remember all this the next time Golf Magazine is exalted for its great rankings, whilst the magazine for which I am a panelist, which gave the ever-beloved Rustic the title of "Best New Affordable", is once again vilified.
I know, I know. GolfWeek is the bees knees re all this anyway. I just had to say SOMETHING.... oh yeah, seeing the much-maligned Shoregate in there did make me smile.... and all this in the same issue where they call Sand Hills over-rated...
TH
-
Tom Huckaby;
I understand your lament. However, I'm really curious how the "Top 10 You Can Play" in Golf Magazine are determined. Are their regular panelists used, or is this some offshoot? Or, is it all Brian Macallen's opinion?
They called Sand Hills overrated?? In what context?? Has madness set in?? 8)
-
Mike - I have no idea. Perhaps someone can clarify this.
In fairness also, I wonder how Rustic would have fared in Golf Digest if they made one overall list, instead of the classifications including "affordable"? Perhaps it would have been up very high, perhaps not. Of course we will be able to ascertain that when the Best Courses in the US list comes out later this year - the same numerical values are used. If Rustic makes that list, we'll know.
TH
-
The GOLF Magazine list is basically chosen by Brian McCallen, with outside input from whomever he feels like listening to.
As a panelist for their top 100 list, I am not solicited for input. (However, this does make some sense, considering the courses are brand new and I probably haven't seen more than one or two of them, so my vote would be fairly meaningless.)
Many architects are asked at the beginning of each year what might be the best candidates for next year's list, of the projects they have just finished.
Basically, though, the list means little except general recognition and a potential tag line for advertising by the courses and their architects.
-
Cool - thanks for the clarification, Tom D. I kinda figured it must be this way... It won't stop me from giving shit the next time the "this magazine's rankings suck/ these are great" thread comes out, but the truth is still a good thing to have! ;)
TH
-
Thanks for the info that it's basically one-man's opinion, Tom. I suspected as much.
So, it seems that blaming the Golf Magazine raters for "Top 10 You can Play" is roughly equivalent to blaming Golf Digest raters for "Places to Play".