Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Tom_Doak on May 31, 2003, 03:13:38 AM
-
I'm not surprised this has developed into an argumentative thread.
The bottom line is that a few long hitters who think of themselves as more "skilled," are telling the rest that they are better qualified to judge the merits of a golf course because of their ability. If Rustic Canyon doesn't show off their driving game, which is their pride and joy, there must be something wrong with it.
The truth is that every golfer has their own set of skills, and rare is the golf course that rewards the player with the broadest range. In fact, I'll go further -- without the presence of wind, I don't think any course can truly test the complete spectrum of golfing ability.
-
Tom - to add to that of 27 million golfers in the US, what proportion are "skilled?" 1%? 2%? Is there an owner that would ever come to you with the guidlines of building a course to suit only "skilled" golfers?
Theoretically (but rather ridiculous), if I took the hardest course in the world (Koolua on Oahu) and could kept adding tees up to the green every player could find someplace they could play.
A spin on your thread is rather interesting - what course in the world has the broadless "skill" range?
JC
-
tom......im not sure i understand your statement 'rare is the golf course that rewards the player with broadest range'....
could you explain further?......
-
What's ironic is that if a course does "test" the skills of the better golfer (tour pro), and if the situation warrants it, they are gonna hit 2 iron so that they aren't challenged to the point of penal.
Pete Dye comes to mind as one whos courses routinely challenge the tee shot (or ego) for those who want to try for some small peninsula or landing area.
Skilled mentaly doesn't always translate to skilled golfer. ;D
-
It sounds like Tom Doak agrees with me and a few others in that building the ideal course- one that challenges and interests all types of players- is a near impossibility. Nicklaus in his book "Nicklaus by Design" has some interesting things to say about this. Muirfield Village as it was through much of its first 10 - 15 oyears was a course that was difficult for the pros and nearly impossible for the amateurs. I have it from a good source that many of the members didn't enjoy playing it. MV has been softened up over the past 10 or so years, and when the wind is not blowing, the Memorial scores are very low. To that I say so what. Let the pros shoot what they will. Par really doesn't mean anything, right? Anyone venture to say what the winning Tour score would be at Rustic Canyon under relatively calm conditions?
-
Jonathan,
Every golf course is designed for the skilled golfer.
-
There are two ways to test the skilled golfer.
You can keep adding length, which just keeps adding to their advantage. They'll love you for it, and praise your course.
You can mess with their head. Give them inconsistency, give 'em doubt. Take away the rakes, give them uneven lies, sloped greens, blindness, crooked fairway lines, etc... Do this and they will whine and avoid your course, but they will get tested.
Skilled golfers love fairness. It allows their physical game to shine and doesn't test the weak part of their game, their mental ability. If you truly wanted to test them, you'd make the course less fair.
When skilled golfers say they want to be tested, they are really saying they want courses where the advantage of their game is maximized. They don't really mean they want to be tested.
Dan King
Golf is not a fair game, so why build a course fair?
--Pete Dye
-
I'm not surprised this has developed into an argumentative thread.
The bottom line is that a few long hitters who think of themselves as more "skilled," are telling the rest that they are better qualified to judge the merits of a golf course because of their ability. If Rustic Canyon doesn't show off their driving game, which is their pride and joy, there must be something wrong with it.
Tom,
You are dead wrong. This thread is about my opinion about a specific feature on a golf course (Defended by others who agree with me) and others opinions, which defer from mine. Find anywhere in the thread where the point is made that I am "Better qualified" because I am more skilled. Your point is frankly completely convoluted. RC shows off a good driving game more so than almost any course I can think of. There is tremendous lateral width and only two holes have aiming requirements. If your point were even close to right, RC would be about my favorite driving course on the planet. The only shread of truth in your statement is that I do feel I am more qualified than Tim, BECAUSE I HAVE ACTUALLY PLAYED THE COURSE. DMoriarty is probably more qualified in his opinion then I am because he has played it a ton. The pride of my game is my putting. Have you played RC, Tom? Do you find it interesting off the tee? If yes, then you disagree with me as well. It has nothing to do with challenge. #9 at CPC or #10 at Riviera, heck even #16 at Bandon are great examples of holes that could be driven but are very INTERESTING because of the thought that goes into making that decision. I felt that 12 of RC's 14 holes did not require thought, just blast away. I would suspect that the vast majority of people who play RC, like it for just that reason. They blast away with impunity. It has nothing to do with superiority.
-
The 3rd at Pacific Dunes was certainly comfortably within range for two shots when I last played there. We did have a healthy tail wind, but it was only a 6/7 iron from the furthest bunker.
-
Paul C.: What I was trying to say was that most courses favor one set of skills or another. There aren't many that test driving, iron play, shotmaking, short game and putting in equal proportion, in my opinion.
David: Sorry if I misinterpreted your position. I haven't played Rustic Canyon so I have tried to stay away from arguing over the merits of the driving game there. As that thread has worn on, though, it occurred to me that it was mostly the long hitters (including yourself) who were saying there was nothing to do but "blast away." On re-reading, it isn't just the long hitters saying this, although it's mostly shorter hitters who are telling you that your wild drives will not allow you to score well.
I have never seen you play golf but if you do regularly drive the ball 320 yards then I can't imagine you find many fairway bunkers of interest on any golf course. Especially on mine, because like the designers of Rustic Canyon, I'm going to let you hit it that far and then get you at the other end of the hole.
Lou: I'm not sure I want to concede your point. I think there are plenty of golf courses which challenge and interest all types of players; I've even built a couple. But there is a difference between challenging all players and giving them all precisely what they want. You can't give everyone what they want. Like Tim alludes, if you build a difficult test of driving for Tour players, most others wouldn't finish. (Likewise, you CAN make a course too difficult around the greens. While most of the descriptions of Rustic Canyon sound like my kind of course, the tales of five-putting at #12 worry me, because it's easily possible for the bogey golfer to wind up in that wrong place.)
I have never been too interested in Slope because it purports to define the average "scratch" and "bogey" golfers, and there are just too many different types of players who have different strengths and weaknesses. As Redanman points out, even with Slope, there's different horses for different courses.
EVERY GOLFER HAS SKILLS. The courses that will be most popular are those where every golfer has a chance to display what they CAN do, rather than those which concentrate on showing them what they CANNOT do.
-
Tom,
Your concluding paragraph is exactly right and I agree completely.
-
"room for everyone"
Maybe the difference in peoples personal preference is similar to the dominant submissive roles I recently saw exploited on CSi?
There are those golfers that prefer to be told where to hit the ball, and then there are those who want to decide for themselves. Being one of the later I can hardly see the other side, but appreciate that there is another side.
-
Tom
Doesn't it all boil down to setting up the course? If the design will allow both features, direct-tax and indirect-tax on most all of its holes, wouldn't you call it a great course from an architectural standpoint?
I can think of playing Merion East when it was an indirect-tax layout, then came the 1981 U.S. Open, and its rough formed a direct-tax layout.
How many of the other top ten can offer these options by setup?
Willie
-
Tom,
Thanks for getting me to log-in again. Of course, it was a given, but I can only thank you for putting all of the DISCUSSION (For some of you, this doesn't mean argument) in regards to the topic in the most exact words.
Gotta go now, I'm trying to inspire myself to build a thread, which can have the JakaB's and the Mucci's of the world seething in disagreement. I love irritating them so!:)
-
In answer to Lou's question re: RC, I would say 30-35 under would win a tour event there.
-
The bottom line is that a few long hitters who think of themselves as more "skilled," are telling the rest that they are better qualified to judge the merits of a golf course because of their ability. If Rustic Canyon doesn't show off their driving game, which is their pride and joy, there must be something wrong with it.
Tom, I think you are on the right track here. Although instead of looking to "show off" their driving game, I would suggest driving is the long hitters "pride and joy" because they think it seperates them from the rest. So, long hitters are looking for more reward for their long drives in comparison to short drives (thus taking MacKenzie's statement on this issue to an extreme.) I just don't think that big hitters like to hit it 330 yds straight and then see that the rest of the golfers are still in the hole.
The most interesting strategic attribute of Rustic is that it offers the long hitter so much leeway off the tee that he never even considers hitting anything but a driver, even when he would be better off so doing.
Lots of temptation, but little reward. A novel strategic concept I think is brilliant given today's game.
-
David,
You have totally lost me agree with Tom and choosing that quote. I gathered that Tom even felt it was untrue. Please site a single example on the four threads this has grown to where one of the "Longer Hitters" has implied that "We are more skilled and therefore...better qualified to judge the merits of a golf course because of our ability." I personally know everyone (I think) on my side of the argument and none of us feels we are more qualified. Let alone more qualified because of our ability. I feel that I am more qualified than some (Tim), because I have played the course! I feel I am less qualified than yourself or Tommy (Who I had a long talk with this morning about my position) because you guys practically live on the course. It has nothing to do with length or ability.
Furthermore, this course is a bombers paradise. It absolutely allows a long hitter to show off their power game. Much more so than a target or tree lined course that puts the driver out of the bag and requires precision. If the ability to show off power on the tee was my sole criteria as a brainless, unread, uneducated, never gone to a seminar, drooling idiot than RC would be in my top five favorite courses on the planet. I can whack it, find it, and whack it again.
The blanket characterization that because I (And the others who agree with me) do not get excessive lateral width (And find it uninteresting) and therefore must have a personal agenda in disliking the course is insulting. Opinions are just that. I respect Tommy's (I know him and he has earned it). I am going to try to see RC again in the hope that I missed something. Your agreement with Tom and cheap shot characterization that anyone who disagrees with your point must have an agenda is both surprising and disappointing.
-
Thus far, throughout all of this, I've yet to learn whether or not it is crucial to place your drives in the proper place at RC. I haven't played the course so I don't know. But, will someone please tell me, if you drive to the wrong side of the fairways at RC, is your second shot more difficult?
-
David W. I am sorry if you found my post insulting and disappointing, but I stand by everything I said. I suggest you take a look at my part of the quote, not Tom's. The words in the box were his, not mine. That is why it says "Tom Doak said . . . ." I was saying something quite different. Read my post. It says nothing about you thinking you are better qualified. Nor does it say anything about you having a personal agenda, or any agenda, for that matter. Nor does it say that golfers cannot swing away at Rustic. In fact it says quite the opposite.
I quoted Tom, and told him I thought he was "on the right track." "On the right track" is a term I use to convey partial agreement, such as an agreement with the general point, but not necessarily with the specifics. So I dont feel the need to defend or support any of Tom's points. In fact, after saying he was on the right track, I went in an entirely different direction and drew an entirely different conclusion. That is what the words "Although instead of . . . I would suggest" conveyed at the beginning of my second sentence. Disagreement. Please do me a favor and cover up the Tom Doak quote at the top, and tell me if your reaction is appropriate.
I thought Tom was barking up the right tree (similar to "on the right track") when he commented on big hitters liking to show off their big hitting prowess and that they take great pride in their power. I don't know if this applies to you or not, nor did I say it did, but in my experience big hitters like to hit it big and do so at every opportunity with minimal risk. So Tom's point and my point share common roots. Our perceptions that big hitters like to hit it big. From here though we go in different directions. Think two holes sharing a tee box but playing in different directions.
I firmly believe that part of the beauty of Rustic is that it preys on the egos of long hitters. Invites them to go crazy, to put on a show, to swing away again and again and again. Yet it does not always reward them for the displays of power, or as Tom might say, for "showing off." In fact they are often no better off than the short hitters. Some big hitters have been unable to grasp this: Big hitters who see no reason play safe on most of Rustic's holes, ever. It sounds to me like you fit this bill, wouldnt you agree that you see no reason to play safe on most Rustic's holes, ever.
Again, read my words, not Tom's.
-
Thus far, throughout all of this, I've yet to learn whether or not it is crucial to place your drives in the proper place at RC. I haven't played the course so I don't know. But, will someone please tell me, if you drive to the wrong side of the fairways at RC, is your second shot more difficult?
Mdugger, it is my opinion that driving to the wrong side of the fairway, or to the wrong spot, usually makes your second shot much more difficult.
Here is 1/2 of an example: (http://www.golfclubatlas.com/images/000003851.jpg)
Ran's picture is the approach from the right (wrong) side of the second fairway. What the picture doesnt show is that the left (correct) side of the fairway gives an open view of the green and a chance to brace your shot against the slope which is behind this bunker; that this hole plays directly down the canyon, which makes it difficult and unpredictable to control the approach with spin; and that out of bounds borders the entire left side.
I am sure that David W and others disagree, on the theory that if you hit it far enough, you can hit a wedge in, and things like green slopes and visually akward shots dont matter.
-
This all depends on the definition of "skilled golfer" people are using. When I'm talking like this, I tend to use the phrase "better player" because I'm talking about players in my domain -- I'll vary from 4 to maybe 7 or 8, so I'm pretty much talking about single digit handicaps. Better than most. But "skilled"?
To me, these days with the equipment we've got now that'd mean someone with a plus handicap, to be honest. I'm single digit, but I'm a hacker, and I know it and reluctantly am forced admit it. I am capable of stringing together some good shots, some good holes, but I still hit just about every bad shot everyone else hits except whiffs, complete tops and shanks (now that I've jinxed myself, I look forward to all three tomorrow :))
I know a lot of single digit players like to think of themselves as skilled, but they are fooling themselves. Most of them are playing like I do, which is pretty much like redanman said he plays. Hit it long, wild and rely on the equipment to compensate for the fact we really have no business using a driver at all on any hole most days, but pretty decent iron play still hits a decent number of greens and a passable short game saves some pars and hopefully reduces the damage on holes where things get out of hand.
Where its a problem with the architecture (and the equipment) is that while I don't have the game to beat the course rating at Podunk Muni are more than I do at Augusta National, I have enough that I could string together a 3, 6 sometimes even 9 holes that would make people think I really know what I'm doing. If you give me wide open fairways with nothing to penalize my misses, you are making my game more equal to that of a truly skilled player. If you reward pure length, you allow me to easily beat my opposite, a 5 handicap who drives it only 200 yards but makes every shot count and probably would qualify as "skilled" by my definition above based on what would be required to maintain a 5 as such a short hitter.
No matter what defense a course has around the greens, simply missing is its own penalty. Even on TOC with its monster greens, if you badly miss it you aren't all that much better off that your 35 yard shot is a putt rather than a sand shot or a flop from an awkward lie in the rough. But a miss off the tee, if there's no penalty for where you are, doesn't matter. It isn't really affecting me that much if I have to hit from 180 instead of 130 (on many days I'm better off in the 150-200 range than 100-150, but that just because I hate my pitching wedge and it hates me back) Excluding courses with extraordinarily penal rough, most of the time on my tee shots I'll say I'm happy if I'm "between the trees". Give me a course with 20 yard wide fairways and 60 yards between the trees over a course with 40 yard wide fairways that are lined with trees right on the edge any day! (Substitute water/OB/cliffs/etc. if you hate trees, but you get my point)
And to be honest, I don't really derive the same satisfaction from the course if I don't feel like my occasional periods of adequate or even brilliant play are rewarded (or even noticed) by the architecture. I don't care if people are impressed that I'm having a good day off the tee and bombing a bunch 300+ down the center or that I'm hooking into the trees on every hole but still managing to find a way to par every hole, but for my own sake I want to be able to impress myself. If I can hit a big miss and maybe just have a few clubs longer into the green but otherwise pretty much the same shot, where's the fun in that? Golf is supposed to be hard, if I wanted easy I'd play the local cow pastures that probably rate 64 or so and feel impressed with myself that I'm shooting in the 60s on a regular basis.
-
tom d.....i would be interested in knowing what courses you [or others]feel most adequately test all golfers skills on all playing levels?...hell, i'll just start a post........
-
DaveM,
If you withdrawl Tom's quote, I have no problem at all with your post. My problem was your agreeing with Tom and choosing that specific quote. Eliminate his quote and we have no issues on this point.
-
Michael,
Sorry I didn't get to this one earlier.
David M, really does an excellent job of hilighting @ #2. To let you know, from experience, this is the first place I got to hit a shot on at Rustic Canyon, during grow-in, Gil and I were walking around, and I had brought an 8 iron and a slew of pellets, and we hit shots into this green from various angles. Not to mention the fact that I was thrilled to be hitting shots on MY golf course:) it was quite interesting doing it in a run-up fashion. I even took my ring of keys and placed them on the green so we had a target of sorts to FINISH at. (please notice how I capitilize FINISH.) To understand it better, you have to understand that paticular green. It has what is in essence, a huge pimple around the front/middle/center of the green. It seriously affects the green from the angle of approach, center to left of the fairway. From the right side, much further back then what you see in the picture, where the bunkers in the image actual come into the line of play into the green, you have to aim it right, beacuse it is going to be not only fast, but it is going to turn left. Why? it's taking the slope of the pimple in the green. Back right of the green, well, that is a whole other story because it does exactly the opposite of what you are looking at!
For some reason or another, I hit the ball the best off of this tee, and actually chose what side I want to come in from. To really have an affect from the left, depending on health, both mental and physical issues, to really make a difference going left, I have to know I'm hitting the ball really far, other wise, I'm going to get sort of an offset stance in the natural swale that dashes across the fairway. If I'm not playing long at that paticular time, and as I have played it in the last six months, I have been hampered by a bad back, and while I'm up for the challenge, I know the chances are slim that I'm going to be able to carry the bunkers in the photo. It's actually become a point of personal goal to do so.
You see, If I come-up short, I have a long bunker shot from a bunker that is pretty heavily faced, and then I have to get the ball running on the approach and ever-so-gently, let it become Gravity's Darling on the green. Surprizingly, I thought this was going to be a fools way to play the hole, but after being one too many times long left, and faced with a long running chip back up to the flag, which is in fact, going up the canyon, and that grade is ever so subtle, so much that it will stop your attempt if it sees a sign of weakness., Ihave actually started playing the hole as a three-shotter, putting it on, and hopefully sinking the putt. I have walked away more times with 5 on that hole playing it that way, but I had a legitimate chance at par, which in match play, with my handicap, would require the better player to birdie it to win.
The last time I played the hole, in the same fashion as I have explained, I made the putt, which means the Tiger has to eagle it to win the hole from the Rabbit.
Three things have happened:
1. This is the spot where in match play, I have to win the hole to get that quick jump, and get into my opponents head, and I have the strok working for me, as well as the shots in the bag because of the way I play the ball off of the tee.
2. Positioning of the drive on the right is most important to get that shot, but if I fail, I have plenty of room on the left to play an mid to long iron short left of the green to do the same, which, I have the club in my bag for that shot too--it's called a putter, and it is the club of choice on the close-cropped approaches of Rustic Canyon.
3.I can gamble for the green from the right with a five wood, which I can hit anywhere from 150 yards to 200. If I don't make it, then it is a very hard looking bunker shot, which isn't really as hard as it looks! How do I know? I learned to face the challenge rather then run away from it by aiming extreme left to the safer part of the hole!
But none of this works if I do not understand how the green flows throughout the surface, becausee that chip can actually be the death of you if you don't pull it off, and that is where the par you thought you had in the bag if you made the putt, becomes a double bogie six!
I hope all of that make sense!
-
Michael, I also forgot, that my pains with the hole for the first year of play, I even tried playing it pin-high right, where I would have a hi-lob over the green side bunker you can barely see in the picture on.
I have been there, done that, and quite unsuccessfully! But in true strategic fashion, I'm sure that there are several that can and do quite succesfully! (If they are too far right, and stymied by the bunkers)
-
#2 highlights both points. Clearly this picture is intended to show an easier approach from the left and a hard one from the right. #2 is a 430ish (Correct me if I am wrong) par four. A picture from the tee would show a fairway that a 747 could easily make an emergency landing on. Again correct me if I am wrong, but my recollection is that I could be 30 yards left of center of fairway and still be fine. In essence, I have a 45-yard wide landing are that provides me with the preferred line into the pin before I end up too far right and have to fly the pin. As hard as the hole plays and with the downhill, I recall hitting a 9-Iron into the green. With a 60+ yard wide landing area (45 of which allows the preferred shot, this hole could be used to highlight either point).
-
Shivas,
I am desperate for support. I think you meant that you agree with DaveW not DaveM.
-
Shivas,
While I agree with you that run-up shots are indeed rarer than many here would like to think or at least ought to be (a big contributor to that is overwatered American conditioning where bump and run is almost impossible), it's not as rare as you might think, because it depends not only on windy and fast & firm conditions, but LIE matters as well.
The wintertime often has wet conditions, but also, this past winter of ice storms hurt many Bermuda fairways in these parts. Our fairways are uncharacteristically spotty and unusually wet due to heavy spring rains. So we have a lot of thin or just plain no grass and wet lies, one of the most difficult types of conditions to hit consistently, especially with lofted clubs. Well, yesterday I had a couple of instances where I would normally hit lob wedge where I couldn't due to thin, wet lies. I chose to hit punch shots, which were more reliable even with wet fairways than trying to hit lofted clubs, where I can almost guarantee you I would have chunked both of them. I made par in both cases (one was like a birdie, on a 660+ yard wet par 5 into a 25 mph wind).
Your point is taken that aerial shots are the preferred method by most. Firm conditions with front pin placements, even with a gap wedge, necessitate landing in front of the green, I find. I even find myself attempting more run up shots than I used to, it makes it more fun and I feel turns me into a more complete player.
-
Anyone here aware of how hard the wind often blows in that canyon?
Ask Corey Miller.
I believe it's the first time he had to "lay down" on a golf course, although I'm sure he can tell the story if he chooses.
Go ahead, take out your lob wedge and throw the ball up in the air and wind, and "drop it" if you can. Just also remember that beyond that bunker on #2 from the right side the terrain falls away sharply from front to back and right to left.
Assuming you're coming into a 430 yard hole from 120 is a HUGE assumption with any kind of predominant "up canyon" wind.
-
Double-edged sword here, Mike. If the wind is up-canyon, that means the 2nd will be longer, but easier to stop... if the wind is down-canyon, guys like Shivas and Wigler will get it to 100 yards or so in and thus the shot will be harder to stop, but they will hit a Lob wedge....
I also seem to recall quite a bit of grass over the bunker coming in from the right... It does slope away, so yes, it's not the best angle, but our point remains it doesn't matter much with a wedge in hand.
Blame the equipment today.
TH
-
The conditions I meant to say was that it wasn't overly wet, enough so that a very thin lie with a lob wedge means I chunk it 80% of the time, but not enough so that I couldn't get some roll. I punched a 9-iron 70 yards (very low) uphill, bounced 2 or 3 times, and barely crept on to a front pin placement. Not soaked enough to splash or stick that shot.
Hitting a de-lofted club is easier in wettish thin lies, IMO. The thinness of the lie was more important to my decision than the moisture, but both were important. Almost any thin lie I will bump and run if possible.
Too-wet conditions in the U.S. is the big culprit. Watch the old pro-celebrity events on TGC with players like Sam Snead. Both the pros and the celebrity amateurs were bumping and running every single time from 70 yards in and around the greens because they could and that's how conditions were then, F&F. Of course, there were no such thing as lob wedges and possibly even sand wedges, either (can't remember when they were introduced).
-
I played Rustic Canyon on what seemed like a pretty calm day when I left Pasadena. I should have known something was going on when the guy in the pro-shop said "No wind-checks".
On the front nine the course was windy but playable but it really started to pick up on the back nine so much so that I could not stand my bag up and it was a workout walking up canyon on 10-11. When my fiance's hat blew off and 100 yards backward on 11, I had to lay my bag down perpendicular to the wind and layed behind it to block it. I do not remember how long it took HER to retreive it but we were done. We played two holes to get back to the clubhouse.
On 12 downwind, she hit driver pin high to the right and I hit a four iron through the green. I then putted back into the wind and got the ball a foot short of flagstick before it blew back to my feet. I attempted the same shot which this time went beyond the hole and got blown back into the cup for a birdie.
On 18 I drove the ball through the green from the 375 yd tee (I was to lazy to walk back into the wind to the tees I had been playing). I think the same shot from the ~440 tees would have ended up in the same place.
I would be interested in hearing the results of any bets (err field tests) as to just how RC defends against the long hitter. It did seem to me the canyon was much windier than other nearby areas.
-
That's some crazy wind you got, Corey. We need the regulars to weigh in re what the prevailing wind is... all I know is the two different times I was there, I didn't get any significant wind at all... one was very early am, one was pretty late pm... maybe that explains it...
That kinda wind you got makes the game absurd - you were a wise man to bail!
TH
-
Well, yes and know, Shivas. Whilst it sure would be fun to reach a 340 yard hole with a 4iron, and thus hit some 400 yard drives on holes that allow it, 80 yard drives into the wind are rarely fun, and when the ball won't sit still on the green, well.... absurd is the word!
TH
-
I differ there from you guys on the wind issue. Yes, for someone out of town, you don't have much choice because you are only there so long, and you want to play the course, but in my minds eye, that Mighty Wind is good once in a while for the Golfer's soul. Some of us need it to realize that our game is not bigger then the Game.
Unfortunate Corey that you had to experience the course like that, and you were victim to the much fabled Santa Ana Condition.
Generally, the prevailing wind is always coming from the coast or county line where the Santa Monica mountains ends right near Pt. Magu. I guess it would be called southeasterly if you put a compass point on it, but throughout Happy Camp, if you get to the western side of the canyon, more specifically holes 6, 7, 8 & 17 it blows differently there because of the winds swirlling around. It is quite a phenomenon to stand on #5 tee and see # 5 flag blowing one way, and #6 blowing exactly the opposite. In a Santa Ana condition, which occured out there a lot during this winter, the winds got pretty fierce, to the point, if one walked off, it would be understandable, but I wouldn't have done it. I would have taken my licks:)
This year's late winter conditions were because of the cold front that kept on coming in from Alaska, combined with the SA condition, it wasn't allowing the warmth which usually coincides with it to happen. Still, we had a pretty mild winter, much better then some people:)
-
When I played RC, the greens were hard and I had a hard time getting it close. With a wedge from the angle of DavidM's picture, The ball still would have released 10 feet, probably 20 if it was dead down wind. So, to get it CLOSE and make birdies, I needed to put the ball on a specific part of the fairway. When I didn't, I usually had a tough two putt par or an up-and-down for par.
After making a bunch of bogies in the first couple of holes from being on the wrong side, the fairways tightened up (in my mind) and the course became much more demanding.
But - that was only because the greens were hard and you couldn't stop a wedge on dime.
-
Say it with me everyone -- GOLF IS NOT BILLIARDS. GOLF IS NOT BILLIARDS. GOLF IS NOT BILLIARDS.
OK, fine: GOLF IS NOT BILLIARDS.
Let me add: GOLF IS NOT POOL.
Not to mention: GOLF IS NOT SNOOKER!
But riddle me this, Shivas-man (et alia):
True or False: Part of the golf-course architect's job is to snooker you into thinking that golf has nothing in common with those cue-and-ball games -- and to show you that, in fact, it does:that requiring you to think one shot (or several) into the future is as central to good golf-course design as it is to playing any of those cue-and-ball games.
-
RC 2 is 457 yds from the back. You get some roll, but don't get a huge amount of fairway roll on the fairways at Rustic even when it is very hard, because of the rye grass is thick and grows and grows.
Sounds like Corey Miller caught a Santa Ana day, we had more Santa Ana days this winter/spring then I expected. The prevailing is somewhat angling but generally blows up canyon. But the wind at Rustic is very strange. Because of the canyon, the wind direction isnt very consistent at all. Two flags near each other will often be blowing in opposite directions. One will tee off with the wind at their backs and when they get to the green it will be in their faces.
As for wind speed it is completely unpredictable, varying from zero to flag bending. No matter what the wind feels like on the ground, it is alway blowing much harder the higher your shot goes.
As for David W.'s suggestion about RC 2 having a 45 yard preferred spot, I dont think this is accurate. The entire hole is bordered by an OB on the left, which is pretty close to the fairway. The closer you are to the OB the better your angle to most of the pin placements. (Some like to go right, near the bathtub and cut bunkers, for certain other pins, but I dont.) This incremenally increasing danger is a key factor to Rustic's hazards. Mike Cirba described these as a rachet sprinkler hazard, where one inches closer and closer to the trouble, before going too far, then quickly racheting all the way back to the middle before starting the process again.
As for the bunkers, they are set well in front of the green, which should take the actual bunkers out of play for good ball strikers. (The hidden bunkers just right of the green are more in play.) So what do they accomplish? 1) They make the shot from the right more visually indimidating by taking the landing area out of view. 2) More importantly, the slope behind them magnifies the "down canyon" drop from the right side of the hole.
Simply, if the course is running hard and fast, it is quite difficult to stop the ball on the green from the right side of the fairway, because the shot is directly down canyon. Even if you do stop it, it is tough to make it stop where you want it to stop, something very important on this green. From the left side one can play short of the hole (between the bunker and the green) and sort of bank the ball into the hole.
As for hitting a wedge in, i guess it is possible, but even with a wedge is more difficult than you might expect to get close, because of the down canyon and slope of the green. Plus, do you guys really always hit the ball 330 yds into a quartering or side wind? If so, I am quite impressed!
I will say this about RC 2. More than most of the holes, it needs to play hard and fast around the green for the hole to work. When they overwater short and right of the hole, the hole just doesnt work as it should. But when they don't, it is a heck of a lot of fun.
Shivas your "this green sounds unfair if it is that hard "comment is misplaced, because there is a perfectly reasonable and doable way to play the hole and get the ball where you want it on the green.
As far as this being an "outside course factor," the course was designed to play hard and fast, at least as hard and fast as it usually plays. The "outside factor" would be when it is not maintained hard and fast.
-
I will say this about RC 2. More than most of the holes, it needs to play hard and fast around the green for the hole to work. When they overwater short and right of the hole, the hole just doesnt work as it should. But when they don't, it is a heck of a lot of fun
DM - can you see my disconnect then? When I played the course it was very wet in front and the green itself was pretty soft, as my 2iron stopping within 3 feet showed. It didn't work as a golf hole in that condition, as I said at the time or in one of the many other times we've discussed Rustic (it all blends together now!). Make it firm and fast and oh yes, one does get an advantage coming on from the left... But still, firm and fast also means a lot of roll, so the big hitters are still gonna be hitting a very lofted club in... Thus this hole can't be everything for everybody, which to me is ok. One thing it does NEED to be is firm and fast, or else it's blah for everybody. Well, maybe not "blah" but certainly not a great golf hole. Agreed?
Does it generally play firm and fast, with conditions Dan G. described? If so, fantastic.
TH
-
Folks,
From the way DavidM describes the hole, if you are on the right (wrong) side, you can be hitting into a downslope, and even a lob wedge won't be great. Whereas, if on the left (correct) side of the fairway, you can hit into an upslope or backstop. Obviously, this depends upon where the hole is, but even if one could almost drive the green and stop the ball on top of the bunker in the picture, in theory you might be better off in the fairway on the left with a better chance to get it close. Is this right? Sounds strategic to me.
Jeff [Kidney stone passed saturday night and back in the game] Goldman
-
Tom, I was just gettting ready to call you and tell you to play the course in the afternoon with me, AFTER you get done at Moronpark. Bring your Dad, cousins, grandmother or even your wife if you need too.
-
Tom, I think that your experience is a very good example of why raters should be very hesitant to draw too many conclusions from one visit.
As for hard and fast equalling more roll on drives: This is true to an extent, but not as true as it would seem. The fairways are rye and the rye grows very well in the sandy base. So, while the fairways are always springy, even after rain, they never get that fast. Sure there are spots where they get baked or worn where they get concrete hard and fast, but this is not the overall feel of the course.
As for the green complexes, both the greens and the huge approaches are bent, and the ball runs quite a lot more on the shaved bent then it does on the rye fairway. The area short and right of the 2nd green is shaved bent.
Dont get me wrong, there is roll at Rustic, just much more around the greens than in the fairway.
-
Dave,
Count all of us that get to play Rustic all of the time as the ones that are having our fair share of cake.
When I play favor to play Rustic Canyon, it is in the later part of the day when the fairways are wonderfully fast, and the greens firm which allow the golf ball to wander all over the green on any approach. It isn't as rock hard as any of the courses at St. Andrews, but it is firm. The last thing I would suggest to anybody though is trying to compare it to another fast & firm course, like a links or prarie course because this course is in a natural canyon where water is supposed to run-off. Still it is totally amazing how the sand base drains the course so well and so quick.
Come out here and see for yourself Dave, I think you will be somewhat impressed.
-
How hard and fast? So hard that a good player with high swing speed like Dan Grossman can't stop a crisp wedge from the fairway with no wind to the flat part of a green? If the course is that hard and fast on the green, why don't the fairways play that hard, too? The ball should be bouncing like a superball on fairways that hard.
Shivas, I dont know how to answer the first part of your question, because there are no flat spots on the greens at Rustic. But they are (or should be) hard and fast enough that Dan might not be able to count on his usual degree of stoppage on a green that slopes away from him.
See my explanation to Tom for the rest.
-
One more thing and then I have to go.
There is a real speed limit to how fast Rustic should be allowed to get for every day play. If it gets too hard and fast, it would become virtually unplayable and unputtable for the vast majority of golfers. The land and features just have too much slope.
That being said, it would be a simple task to rachet up the "hard and fast" meter, if the course ever desired to make things difficult for a high level tournament.
In essense, I would say that on a day to day basis, Rustic is slightly "watered down" just to keep it playable and things moving along.
-
Firm and fast would be wonderful at Rustic. Alas, neither time I was there it was that way... I trust you regulars though that it does get that way, and that is great news.
DM - as for raters not making too much out of one time around, believe me, at least for me that is factored in when submitting "rating" results. I stick to the general and answer the questions asked as best I can. Unfortunately, it's just the reality of life that one time is sometimes all we get. I was fortunate to see Rustic twice - once riding and looking, once playing. Trust me that any perceived weakness on #2 never factored into my assessment at all - it's just in discussions like this that such comes out.
And Tommy, oh would that the same realities of life would allow a round at Rustic on June 20... I believe you would get a kick out of my family group as much as they would of you! Sadly we have non-golfing wives and kids who are only grudgingly allowing the morning away. Next time!
TH
ps to DM - just saw your post - it's absolutely understood that RC can't be TOO firm and fast or else the 5 hour rounds commonplace now would mean 7 hours. Such is the reality of a popular public course... oh well....
-
Exactly, Dave, but which one is it? If you bomb a driver up the right side of #2, and have a gap wedge in, can you hold the sucker over the bunker on not? If not, the hole is strategic because your only chance to get it close is to hug left. If so, and there's no price to be paid for missing right off the tee,then it's not. That, it seems to me, is really all this boils down to.
Shivas, I assume you are asking whether RC2 actually is hard and fast? I would have to say, generally yes. But they do tend to overwater when it gets very hot, so it can be wet in the morning, usually drying off by afternoon.
One other thing, sort of the reverse of your point above. If they have over-watered enough to make it so your approach wont release, then the fairway will be wet also and you will not likely have a lob wedge to the flag, unless you can carry the ball around 340+ yds.
Also, remember that this course differs from other courses we discuss (including, I would guess, some of the public courses such as Wildhorse) in that the course will suffer through 70,000-80,000 paid rounds per year. It has to be set up to handle this type of play, so it probably doesnt play anywhere near its ideal on a day to day basis. Don't get me wrong, I think it plays great on a day to day basis, but it would be fun to see what the course could do to the "quality player" if they tweaked it a little for tournament play.
I have a hard time criticizing a public course that sometimes sets up slightly soft to maintain the integrity of the course. After all, it is not as if they are asking anyone to carry and play off of artificial mats in order to save the turf.
-
My opinions on #2, based on seeing it twice:
The bottom line is that David M. had it correct several posts ago. It doesn't "work" when it's kept anything but firm and fast, exactly because the line coming in from the right ceases to exact any penalty whatsoever.
Now David M. is also correct in saying we cannot, and should not, hold this "against" the golf course too much, because they have to keep the course less than screaming firm and fast, lest the 5 hour rounds become 7. This is a massively played public golf course and that's just the way it is.
These are the realities. You have a golf hole that is very well designed - oh yes, it is a beauty... no one has mentioned the semi-blind pot bunker way out to the right that can catch the completely non-thinking wayward drive... the green and green surround is one of 18 there that are brilliant... BUT... it doesn't play to the brilliance that it might.
That's kind of sad, but hey, the golf world isn't a fully happy place!
So how should one assess this golf hole - based on its design or on how it realistically plays? My feeling is you kinda punt and split it down the middle... acknowledge the great design, but also acknowledge the reality of how it plays... evaluate it with all of this in mind....
And then enjoy the hell out of it if you do catch it firm and fast!
David M. - I still defer to you re this golf course. Am I close on this?
TH
-
After shooting three rounds in the mid to upper 80s away from home this weekend, I should be the last person to comment here. But, to procrastinate further from work I need to be doing, here it goes.
I find this discussion quite fascinating simply because most of us who play the Game are just happy to find short grass anywhere on the golf course. The thought of challenging a fairway bunker or the out-of-bounds line for the sake of getting a better angle to the green is rather foreign in practice. I will admit that on the very rare occasions when I do pull it off, nearly always by accident, it is a very good feeling.
It is ironic to me that the skilled golfer who could take advantage of strategic principles generally find a way to play the course based on the theory that the shortest route is a straight line. In the absence of severe wind, these guys can hit over bunkers or lakes and back-up a ball on anything but a large downslope. Unlike most of us, they can stop a ball from heavy rough.
Spacious, firm courses do allow the high handicapper to gain more distance and live to hit another recovery shot. If the greens are moderately sloped and not rock hard, they make it easier to score. But both of these factors also make the game infinitely easier for "the skilled golfer". I ask the question again, what would the Tour pro shoot at RC under normal conditions? Maybe somethink like the 62 - 61 Stewart Cink shot in the US Open qualifier at a couple of club courses in Ohio. I would like to be convinced that a course can be designed to challenge and interest all classes of golfers simultaneously. Sadly, in my opinion, the gulf between the top echelon and the rest of us is the size of an ocean and growing.
-
Lou,
Double Eagle is a 'club course'? (site of his 61)
Your point is taken, Lou, as I discussed this with another here offline a short time ago. Strategy in a true sense is overrated for most of us, as we're just happy to hit it fairly straight while connecting decently. Except for the scratch guys, I'm simply happy with hitting it in the fairway, and I'm usually in the 5-7 handicap range. I absolutely cannot predict where my drives are gonna go, but I can aim a certain way to try to increase the percentages.
I can predict a little better where my irons are going to end up, so I can use strategy better than with the driver.
-
Scott,
I haven't played Double Eagle, though the reports that I have from a couple of people who have and whose judgement I trust is that a) it is not highly resistant to scoring, and b) it is not in the same class as the three or four other well-known Columbus courses.
I have played several Weiskopf-Morrish courses and I like their work very much. It seems to me that they build a very playable, fun product, with a lot of options, some quirk, and occasional novelty.
Having been around Tom W in the 70s on numerous occasions, it perplexes me that such a seemingly intelligent, well-spoken, and apparently creative guy can be such an unpleasant character at times. Personality aside, when I was at OSU, we dreaded to see him and Jim Brown riding around the course. His tree plantings and occasional mounds to toughen-up Scarlet weren't welcomed by most. However, his re-do of 17 green (where I've had some history), was not bad at all.
-
Guys, I am trying hard to be even-handed in my view of RC based on my many experiences there, and trying to address potential problems, shortcomings, etc. In that vein, I brought up that sometimes first thing in the morning the course is wetter than I'd like it (I probably should mention that I usually play RC around 6 a.m. this time of year, so when I say early morning i mean it.) You guys are making it hard to be candid though, because it seems like you are reading what you want to hear into what I am writing.
The bottom line is that David M. had it correct several posts ago. It doesn't "work" when it's kept anything but firm and fast, exactly because the line coming in from the right ceases to exact any penalty whatsoever.
. . .
BUT... it doesn't play to the brilliance that it might.
That's kind of sad, but hey, the golf world isn't a fully happy place!
. . .
And then enjoy the hell out of it if you do catch it firm and fast!
David M. - I still defer to you re this golf course. Am I close on this?
Tom, I am afraid you are not very close at all. In fact, I am having trouble getting how you could come to these conclusions based on what I said. RC 2 has "worked" just fine every time I have played it or seen it played. As for the line from the right "ceasing to exact any penalty whatsoever" where on earth did I say that?
The line on the right is always a much more difficult shot than the line on the left. I have never seen it so soft that one need not worry about the possibility of the ball releasing through the green. In fact, I cannot imagine a situation where trying to carry onto the green from the right would be a percentage play, just about from any distance, at any time of day. When I say that it is sometimes wet and overwatered, I am not saying that the ball will stick or plug (I've never seen a ball plug at RC); it just might not run every time like we would like it to. And, except on rare occasions, it dries up pretty early in the day. This, by the way, presents its own set of problems on this particular shot, because if you play it to run alot and it doesnt, you aren't left with the easiest shot.
As far as the course not playing to its full potential at every hour every day, what course does? It is not as if you have to win the lottery to hit it on a hard and fast day. Come play any day around 10 or 11 a.m. and you will have it plenty hard and fast almost all the time.
So it sounds like the hole is strategic when it's playing rock hard, and not so strategic for the long hitter when it's soft because you can hold the iron in.
Shivas, as I said above, the course never plays rock hard. If it did, it would be virtually unplayable, and not just for the "unskilled golfer." Further, I have played RC in all conditions, including first on the course after 3 days of rain, when rivers and lakes of water were visible on the fairways and greens 2 hours before we played, and it didnt play the kind of "soft" you are referencing. Even that day, the grass was wet, but the ground maintained that springy feel under foot. By the time we started our second nine, it hardly seemed as if it had rained. It just never gets that soft, no matter how much water. Miracle of sand, I guess.
So 'soft' is a relative term, of course, and 'hard and fast' a relative phrase.
-
It is ironic to me that the skilled golfer who could take advantage of strategic principles generally find a way to play the course based on the theory that the shortest route is a straight line. In the absence of severe wind, these guys can hit over bunkers or lakes and back-up a ball on anything but a large downslope. Unlike most of us, they can stop a ball from heavy rough.
Lou:
I think you've nailed the mindset of the "skilled golfer" in this post. They regularly play their game based on their belief that: that the shortest distance is a straight line; that they can hit over bunkers, lakes, and back it up unless it is downhill; and they can stop the ball from heavy rough.
RC eliminates much of the stuff that doesnt hurt the "skilled player" anyway, like excessive and repeated forced carries off the tee, carry bunkers, lakes, heavy rough.
RC also takes advantage of their "straight line" and their "stop it on a dime" strategies with several holes where one or both of these strategies will not work a substantial portion of the time.
______________
I don't know what a Tour pro would shoot under "normal" conditions, what ever that means. I don't really think it is significant either. Do you judge CPC by what a Tour Pro would shoot under "normal" conditions.
For what it is worth, I do know that a number of Tour Pros have shot in the mid-high 60's to the low 70's at RC, with the lowest from a past or present Touring pro being around a 67, I think.
Ed Getka predicted a winning score of a tournament under "normal" conditions as something like 30-35 under par. I would be impressed if anyone shot four consecutive 64s.
-
One more thing. There are few pat answers at Rustic such as "Left or Right is better for the skilled golfer." There are almost always multiple options with different advantages, and there is always the indecision and hesitation of not knowing if you are doing the right thing. As for RC 2, Middle-right is definitely safer (if you stay out of the bunkers), but left affords a much better look at a potential birdie. So which is better? Who can tell?
A few pics of RC 2 for comparison's sake. [NOTE: My pics are poor quality and were taken from the OB fence. So the angle is a little exagerated, but not by much.]
[Pics deleted to save space. ]
-
More great stuff - thanks, David!
Hopefully those who haven't played the hole can now understand the issues better - if they care.
My take remains - keep it firm and fast, and oh yes, the strategies are right there and work very well. Have it play soft, and it matters not. I believe you said this yourself, more or less.
Unfortunately the green was pretty soft my one playing, but I am looking beyond that now - my apologies for not doing so way back when we first "discussed" this! In any case after my drive sprayed right, I could clearly see I should have been royally screwed coming in from 200 from the right as I was... My only shot was the hit and hope 2iron over the bunker... I was as shocked as anyone when it hit the green and stopped within 3 feet of its pitch mark.
Damn I'd love to see Rustic playing screaming fast like Wild Horse does...my shot would have bounded way over... knowing this was gonna happen, I really would have had some choices to make on that shot...Oh well, I absolutely understand why it can't be kept that way generally. Here's hoping many people do get to see it firm and fast. That would be its proper maintenance meld, correct?
TH
-
Another fun one...
-
Why can't some of you distinguish between the highly skilled golfer and the merely high clubhead speed golfer? There is quite a difference, isn't there?