Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Tim_Weiman on May 28, 2003, 02:11:15 PM
-
On another thread David Wigler offered the following comment to explain why he would not rank a course (Rustic Canyon) Modern Top 100. The course, David wrote “simply does not present enough challenge to the skilled golfer off the tee”.
Interesting, I thought.
It reminded me of a conversation I once had with Bob Lewis about Pine Valley. Essentially Bob described Pine Valley as being all about the approach shots and play on the greens. Tee shots weren’t especially challenging at his level, I recall Bob saying. That made sense to me because the last time I played Pine Valley, other than the infamous par 3 fifth hole, only #9 tee shot really scared me. In short, the course had plenty of width so that even playing at about an 8 handicap (at the time), I found the course much like Bob: most of my trouble came on the greens.
So with that in mind I’m wondering whether anyone applies the logic David used to assess Rustic Canyon to assess Pine Valley. Would anyone move Pine Valley down in the rankings simply because it doesn’t really challenge skilled golfers off the tee? Does it make sense to assess the merits of a course based on how tough it is for skilled golfers off the tee?
P.S. For those who don’t recognize Bob’s name, he is the competitive course record holder at Pine Valley and a former runner up in the US Amateur. Bob also has more Walker Cup wins than all but three people in history, I believe. As such, he clearly qualifies as a “skilled golfer”.
-
You've caught me before with sarcasim haven't you Tim?
My take would be that maybe Rc should move up in stature being compared to PV and what came to my mind, the design intent with no rough at ANGC.
Hit it anywhere, and have fun on your approach.
-
Adam,
Actually, what was even more striking was David's comment that RC was Top Ten within sixty yards but nonetheless not Top 100 due to the failure to challenge skilled golfers off the tee.
Having not seen Rustic Canyon I can't really comment about either statement. However, the combination of those two statements seems odd - with all due respect to David.
I cited the Pine Valley/Bob Lewis example because it clearly serves to illustrate a very highly rated course that really doesn't challenge players of Bob's quality off the tee.
Another example one might cite is Pinehurst #2. Does the 15 handicapper step up to any of those tee shots and feel intimidated?
Truthfully, I can understand someone arguing that to be say Top 10 or 20, the course must place serious demands on tee shots. But, again, if a course is really Top 10 from sixty yards in, how could it fall all the way outside the Top 100?
Personally, I'm skeptical about placing too much emphasis on accuracy off the tee. Experience tells me that only a small elite have this skill and I'd hate to encourage this standard to be considered a top rated course.
But, again it really is the combination David described that just doesn't quite add up for me.
-
Tim:
My thinking here is that "challenge for the skilled golfer off the tee" is just one of many factors that would go into assessing a golf course, and really would only be noted on the extremes; that is, if it is VERY difficult or VERY easy. And even then, it's a very minor point... one that perhaps makes a difference only in the type of quibbling and fine detailed nit-picking that goes on in ranking golf courses.
To that end, I'm most definitely on record here as agreeing with David W. in his assessment of Rustic Canyon, with the only difference being that I'd say it lacks "interest" for the highly skilled golfer off the tee rather than "challenge". That's a key difference. At RC, it has been stated time and again by David M. and the other diligent supporters of the course that angles in do matter, and thus the "challenge" would be there off the tee as advantages are gained by being on the proper side for approach. David W. might disagree with this; I've come to punt on it and just trust those who have played the course many times, such as David M. So I'd say the challenge is there, but the interest still is on the low side... the skilled player just doesn't need to think as much as he might on other courses on his tee shots, and so thus might be a little less interesting. One way or the other, the challenge at RC remains in the greens primarily - just as Bob Lewis seems to have assessed Pine Valley - simply because the greens and green surrounds are SO ingenious and SO great that it trumps big time the challenge found off the tee, whether or not one believes such exists at all. And the greens are so great that we can forgive the course for the tee shots, if such forgiveness is necessary, as David M. and the other supporters would vehemently argue against. In the end, it just doesn't matter that much, except when one is really splitting hairs.
I've never seen Pine Valley, so I can't assess how all this applies there. I can only trust Bob Lewis' assessment, which does seem to make sense... But in any case, given the incredible sea of positives about PVGC by all accounts, this would definitely be one drop of salt water in the overall assessment. By that I mean, yes, it might not present a huge challenge for Bob Lewis off the tee, but who cares? The good so overwhelming outweighs this one tiny bad.
The same assessment can be made at Rustic Canyon, perhaps to a little less extreme extents... the good there absolutely outweighs this one little bad, maybe not to the point of irrelevance as at PVGC, but still enough to make the overall assessment a very, very positive one.
But Adam's right in any event - just being in the same paragraph as PVGC is lofty praise indeed for the humble little public course in Moorpark, CA....
TH
-
Shiv- Thats why we pay lawyers. There are those whose opinions are trustworthy, and since I haven't seen RC I trust the info I've received here thru discussion.
What comes to my mind is that even tour players don't know where they are gonna hit it, day to day. So what skilled players are we talking about? Also, with the greensites that have been described at RC, the pin positions, day to day, would dictate the placement of drives. Assuming of course that the skilled player knows what shot he is going to hit next, without fail. Now that's challenging.
-
Tom Huckaby:
I'm not sure exactly what you meant by saying you agree with David Wigler. Are you saying that Rustic Canyon is Top Ten material 60 yards and in, but because the golf course lacks "interest" off the tee for skilled players it fails to achieve Top 100 status?
My problem is two fold:
a) saying a golf course is Top Ten sixty yards and in puts it in such lofty territory that unless we put a very strong emphasis on challenging skilled players off the tee, it's hard to imagine how the course would not be Top 100
b) clearly, there are some very prominent designs which also feature width (e.g., Pine Valley, Pinehurst, Royal Melbourne, etc) where nobody has ever suggested this disqualifies them from Top 100 consideration
I cited the example of Bob Lewis and Pine Valley because it shows that historically we have avoided devaluing a course simply because of width or the failure to "challenge" or "interest" skilled golfers off the tee.
What's interesting is that Pine Valley was conceived as being a test for skilled players while Rustic Canyon - I'm told - was built more with the masses in mind. Yet both feature width.
I'm also at a loss to understand why anyone would place so much value on testing skilled golfers off the tee. The ability to hit long and straight tee shots is something that only a small, elite minority of golfers possess, indeed a minority so small that it hardly seems worth much, if any, emphasis at all.
Now, if we were trying to decide between Top Ten and Top Twenty perhaps this business of testing skilled golfers off the tee might come into consideration. But, only to split hairs, I would think. For the most part, isn't it better to emphasize a balance of challenge and fun that just might forego challenging skilled golfers off the tee a la Pine Valley?
-
Tim;
And let's not forget that we're talking Top 100 "modern" classification here for RC...not Top 100 comprehensive.
If a course has green complexes that would put it in the Top 10 modern, I find it somewhat perplexing that it could be so boring from the tee to move it completely out of Top 100 consideration.
Having played RC, I can assure you that in my opinion, it's hardly boring from tee to green....just not always obvious and blatantly self-evident.
For instance, David brings up the fact that there are 3 short par fours he can attempt to reach with his drive and I understand he hits it a long way so I'm sure that's true.
However, I played there with 2 other long hitters and we all took driver on the 12th. These fellows are some good players all around (John V & Don Mahaffey) and after all hitting driver, we ended up with two bogeys and a double.
Probably not the smartest play in retrospect.
On many holes, the location of the cup dictates the preferred angle and driving position. On others, such as the 5th, 7th, 11th, 14th, and 18th, a big driver can dare to bite off as much as they can chew for preferred position. Other holes feature center bunkering which must be considered and negotiated.
I'm not the longest driver in the world...perhaps about 260-270 or so, and there were only a few holes where I felt I could just blast away mindlessly from the tee, but when I did and got out to my ball, I would often feel that I'd been somewhat deceived when I considered my position.
-
Does "challenging" or "testing" skilled players off of the tee HAVE to mean that if you don't hit a certain area with your drive then you are dead or punching out or looking for your ball? Because if that is the criteria then Rustic Canyon fails the test.
However I think the only point that those that defend RC's width are making is that if you do not put the ball in certain areas of the fairway it makes it HARDER to score well but still not impossible. There are certain areas in each fairway that one has to hit in order to have the best chance to score, however the beauty of RC is that if you miss these areas you can still give yourself a chance at birdie/par with a well executed shot. Better drivers of the ball are still rewarded but scramblers and short game specialists are still in the game.
I think the only hole on the course where it does not matter where your tee shot ends up in the fairway is #9. I think a very good case can be made on every other hole that there is an optimal place to position your drive. Optimal but not imperative.
On Memorial Day at Rustic Canyon my foursome shot scores of 71, 79, 94 and 130 with two players playing the blacks, 1 playing the blues and 1 playing the whites and we finished in under 4 hours with the 130 holing out on every single hole. We spent very little time looking for golf balls and finished 2 holes in front of the group behind us. There are very few public golf courses in the country that will host 75,000+ rounds this year on which we could have done that. That to me is great golf course architecture.
-
David;
You're correct.
It's unlikely that RC will ever host the US Open.
Sitting here tonight looking at the hole by hole layouts of Olympia Fields (which I haven't played, but sit here perplexed at trying to determine why the USGA picked it over Merion...those were the two courses under consideration for the 2003 Open), to that I say, THANK GOD!!!
If I see one more "pinched in" bunkered area 280 from the tee on both sides of the fairway, I think I'll hurl!!! :P
-
Danm You, David Kelly! You promised you wouldnt tell anyone about my Memorial Day 130.
I've said plenty on this in the past, and will refrain from saying more for now, except to ask a question, the same as David's.
What do you all mean by "challenge off the tee" and "interest off the tee?"
-
Tim: Remember when I expressed the fear that some people would say just this about Pacific Dunes?
Luckily they haven't, thanks to the wind and the beauty of the Oregon coast. But most of my other courses have been criticized by good players for being too open off the tee. The management at Stonewall still doesn't believe me when I tell them it's the narrowest driving course I've ever built.
Shot values are about balance. My courses are generally testing enough from the fairway in that they don't need to be super-tough off the tee. Sounds like the same goes for Rustic Canyon ... I wonder if that's a coincidence, or something Gil learned from me? At any rate, it shows confidence in the rest of his design.
-
I'll probably get drawn and quartered for this but a rater called me up recently and asked what all the todo was about Rustic (I haven't played it). He said much of what David said - it is too easy. He also said it is not top 100 in his book.....
-
Jonathan and Tom,
Thanks for helping.
Tim,
Understand how unfair this thread is. Maybe more than any other course I have gone to, I wanted to love Rustic Canyon. For all of his weirdness, Tommy is a dear friend and I would do anything for him. The one time I met Lynn, I found him engaging and charming. Geoff has corresponded with me several times and I respect him immensely. I enjoy reading Gil's stuff and think he has real talent. This was not a course built by people I do not know and will never meet (Rees or Tom Fazio). This was the GCA course built by friends and acquaintances. Maybe it would have been smarter for me to keep my mouth shut and just skip all of the threads on it. Believe me, you would be amazed at how many people send me stuff offline when I express my honest opinion (Tom too, I am sure). If you want to understand why people do not post, it is because you are required to love GCA preferred stuff and risk very personal threads if you support a non GCA architect (Rees or Tom) or criticize a GCA one.
RC is not Pine Valley or Royal Melbourne. When you are hitting no more than 9-Iron or Wedge into greens, it hardly matters if you are in the right spot on the fairway. When you are hitting putter for your second shot on two par fours and your third shot on two par fives it hardly matters if you are in the preferred position.
Not that this makes any difference at all but to answer Mikes question, I played the three drivable's: birdie, birdie, par. I made five birdies, two double bogeys, two bogeys and nine pars. You can absolutely blast away at the course.
Someone correctly pointed out that I am talking about top Modern's. I am not comparing the greens at RC to CPC or Prairie Dunes. I absolutely stand by my statement that from 60 yards in, this course is a top 10 modern. From the tee to 60 yards, this course is a top 500 modern. That combination puts it in the second 100 IMO. For what it is worth, GW and GD's ranking panels agreed with me. All that written, for what they spent, the course is a marvel and given the dearth of good public golf in So Cal, it is a fantastic option and should do extremely well. My suggestion to you Tim is to go play it and then decide if my opinion requires a personal thread to critique it.
-
Mike,
I fully agree with you.
I was not trying to call Dave out in the other thread when I asked:
“What are your other top 10 from inside 60 yards?
Was Rustic soft when you played it?”
I played Rustic twice in February, with firm ground, and the second time I laid up on all three, after going for them in round one. I scored better on three and seven and equalled my score on 12.
Likewise on 3, if that pin is back, I cannot imagine having to play a greenside bunker shot to a back pin. Conversely with that back pin, I firmly believe the left side is ideal place to play the pitch from. I know others had misgivings about how that work, but there were lots of other GCAers out that day, who can attest to that shot.
The seventh is another that makes getting to the back pin from the right side, impossible! We saw numerous plays from the right that could not get down in two. I hit the best chip of a long trip and had to make an 8-footer. This seems foolish when a 5-iron might left me an easy sand wedge.
If a long hitter goes for 12 and is long, I would bet on a wedge shot from 80 yards every day of the week.
To me, that is great interest on each of those short par fours.
-
Ben,
Why would you not try to drive 12. There is nothing right of the hole but fairway. It is a reward/reward shot. Who cares if the slice misses. I played RC when the course was mostly firm and fast. As for my other favorite modern green complexes (Off the top of my head and in no specific order), the list would include Kingsley Club, Cuscowilla, Double Eagle, PGA West, Talking Stick North (Ironically, another course that I was not in love with off the tee), Bandon Dunes, and The Golf Club.
-
David;
Please understand that this is not "personal". It's just golf course debate, some of it tongue-in-cheek and I apologize if I've offended you.
I'm just trying to get you to fully detail your thoughts. For instance, in the Cascata thread, you talked about the great use of "line of charm" from the tee, but I swear I studied that aerial top to bottom and haven't the slightest idea what you're referring to.
I recognize pictures don't tell the "hole" story, so I was hoping you (or Lou, or Jonathan) could share your experiences, referring to that overhead photo for clarification.
As far as great green complexes, have you played Pacific Dunes yet? Frankly I thought the ones at Bandon Dunes were fairly unimaginative and rote by contrast.
Thanks.
-
Thank YOU, David Wigler, for explaining the very difficult, and very strange, position we find ourselves in when discussing Rustic Canyon.
Tim, I can say it no better than David just did, and I agree with every word he says, with again perhaps the only difference I have is that while I agree completely with David that on the shorter holes, it is just blast away - for exactly the reason he says - on the longer holes, I am prepared to accept the word of those who play it often that the correct angle in does matter, so perhaps the challenge is there off the tee even though upon my two times around I didn't see it.
The bottom line is once again that I do love this golf course.
And just as David says, I consider those who love and defend it (David M., Tommy) to be friends, and if you read my post on Geoff's book you ought to know how I feel about him - he's my #1 golf hero these days. His dad Lynn has been a hero of mine for years, due to hoops, and meeting him, playing with him, seeing what a genuine great guy he is in person (confirming what I always thought and hoped watching from afar) has been a huge thrill for me over the last few years.
So yes, I do love this golf course, I'd enjoy playing there all the time and just wish I lived closer to facilitate that.
It just does have this one weakness, which as I say is a drop of water in an ocean of positives. It is very disheartening when mention of this tiny weakness causes such discord... Oh yes, as David says, I have been blasted on and off line for this, and likely will be again. But hey, isn't this part of the frank and honest discussion that is supposed to be encouraged here?
Oh well... Does this tiny weakness keep the course from any ranking status? Hell if I know. I know I rated RC pretty damn high for GD. It did get Best New Affordable - pretty damn lofty praise.
To me that ought to be enough.... it is what it is....
In any case, to answer David M's question:
"challenge off the tee" - is the player significantly challenged on his tee shots. Is there a reward for getting it in the right place and a significant penalty for missing such.
"interest off the tee" - are the tee shots fun to play... this can come from challenge, risk/reward, strategic choices required, several other things. Lack of these would be uninteresting, the "blast away" mentality that we've mentioned before.
I find RC to have enough challenge, at least on most holes - you and David K. and others have convinced me to accept that; and while the course has enough interest of me (I am a relative hack), for the very skilled player it is just so much blast away, on too many holes, that at least compared to the very high echelon of golf courses you seem to wish to compare it to, the tee shots hold less interest.
TH
-
As far as great green complexes, have you played Pacific Dunes yet? Frankly I thought the ones at Bandon Dunes were fairly unimaginative and rote by contrast.
Thanks.
Ok, the last thing I want is another argument with guys I consider friends, but this is the 2nd time I've read this (Moriarty said this also) and I gotta wonder what you guys saw and I didn't. I played each course a bunch of times and I sure as hell didn't come away with this impression... "unimaginative and rote" greens at Bandon Dunes? My god if those are such the ones at nearly every course I play here in CA must have been done by steamroller.
I don't get this. Please tell me this is just hyperbole to make a point.
TH
-
Mike,
When I was at Bandon, Pacific had not yet opened. I walked the property with Gib but did not get to play the course. It looked magical.
As for Cascata, frankly I think you are being disingenuous and that is why I dropped the discussion. Jonathan, Lou and I gave very detailed descriptions of what we liked. The site has 425' of fricking elevation. You cannot tell crap from an aerial when it turns 425' of elevation into flat land and you are smart enough to know that. This is not a flat piece of property in Philadelphia where aerials can show the course. There is a definitive "Line of charm" up the left side and then right on 18. Another down the left side of three. The aerial turns these invisible and makes the course look routine.
Someone else who has never played the course commented on cart paths. Funny, but I never noticed one from the field of play. I will bet the aerial of Victoria National show paths as well. Rees hid them masterfully on this course.
Mike - You do not have to like the golf course and you are certainly free to dismiss it without being there (For the record, that is exactly what i did until I played it). You also certainly do not have to believe Jonathan, Lou or I. Honestly though, you are not trying to learn, you are trying to discredit. Play the course! If you dislike it, then we disagree. I will not argue with you any more about it until you see it.
-
Double Eagle? In my opinion DE's greens are mundane and a weakness of the course. Lost Dunes green complexes aren't among the best modern? No Sand Hills...I would certainly cite this course.
I was under the impression 'line of charm' dealt with internal hazards and features.
-
Tom,
Never played Sand Hills. Scheduled to play Lost Dunes for the first time in a couple of weeks. If they are that good, they will be added.
-
I've played RC 20 or so times. I have made most of my birdies on 3, 9 and 12. So what. Courses have easy holes and difficult holes. Would I toughen these holes up off the tee? Sure, for my game, but I hit pretty long.
I think 7 is one of the great, short, par 4s anywhere and if you can drive it, or get close, good on ya for taking the risk.
I can't seperate the green fee factor when I judge courses, though, I suppose I should. All I know is that everytime I play, I;m astounded that I paid only $35 (in SoCal) to play this great course and if I have to put up with 3 holes that I deem less "challenging" or "interesting" off the tee, so be it.
P.S. I assume the word "challenging" refers to the fact that the wayward tee shot does not find OB, or some kind of hazzard.
-
Andy:
Hell yes, throw in the bang for buck factor and Rustic is WAY up there in the rankings... throw in the "importance to golf" factor and it rises even higher (for showing that fun courses can be built, and be successful, without moving huge amounts of earth, even in SoCal)...
Unfortunately these things don't "count", not how the magazines do things anyway - although it sorta does for GD, given the "best new affordable" status RC achieved.
In my mind those things SHOULD count, but that's a very separate question....
The standard m.o. here when discussing courses does seem to be to leave those factors out, anyway.
BTW, I am with ya re #7 - absolutely, good on ya if you can make that carry straight at the green. Mucho choices off the tee.... That is most definitely NOT one the holes mentioned when describing the tiny weakness of the course...
#6 is one of my favorite par 3's on this planet, also....
TH
-
Quail Crossing should be top 100...
it has some of Tom Doaks' personal favorite greens
it has width off of the tee
it has a crappy clubhouse
the driving range is shit
from 1 yard in its top 2 modern
David Wigler doesn't appreciate its nuances
Tom Doak is a great guy
it only costs $35 to play
Don Mattingly lives nearby and is a great guy...
-
Dave,
As I said the worry on 12 is long. If your long drive can reach the front of the green, fine, but if you can hit it to the back, I would not hit driver. With a back pin, getting up and down from over the green is difficult.
Going for it and missing, would leave a 40 yards into that green, which is a curse worthy of laying up.
Interesting that you mention PGA West. With the rough that surrounds so much of those greens, and sharp bunkering, there is not much use for the ground game.
Where does Cuscowilla fit in for you? I agree with the great greens, but with the width in the fairway, does that not subtract from the interest? What holes there present interest there off the tee, in your opinion?
-
Guys:
First, a couple points to get out of the way: I understand David Wigler's comments were in reference to the Modern top courses and not a comprehensive list of all courses. Let me also add that my questions or comments are not personal. I simply felt that David expressed a view that was hard to understand given my experience as a student of golf architecture and certainly worthy of exploring.
If someone says a golf course "sixty yards and in" is among the Top Ten - modern or otherwise - I must conclude he is talking about an extraordinary golf course. For such a course not to be considered in the Top 100 certainly raises questions about how much weight we put on various features of a course.
Can anyone here think of a golf course that would be among the Top Ten "sixty yards and in" and NOT be among the Top 100?
I simply find that to be a combination of circumstances hard to believe. But, maybe I'm wrong. A more learned student than I, perhaps Tom Doak, can point to a few examples.
As I could not come up with such an example, I turned to the comments of Bob Lewis about Pine Valley. While we're at it, I might also point out that some professional golfer was also quoted saying "what's the big deal about #13 at Pine Valley? .......Isn't it just a simple driver and short iron?"
I'm also inclined to think that Pinehurst #2 is an example. Does any even semi skilled golfer find that much challenge off the tee?
Yet in both cases, we would hardly say something like David did about Rustic Canyon, that these courses while quite strong around the greens, don't really challenge skilled golfers off the tee? Well, maybe we would say it - Bob Lewis did - but we wouldn't look at this as any shortcoming.
What is exactly is so important about challenging skilled golfers off the tee? Should this feature receive more than minor consideration in evaluating a course? If so, why?
Would the world of golf architecture be better if Tom Doak placed more emphasis on that consideration in building Pacific Dunes? In other words, if Tom had committed the same sin Robert Trent Jones did in certain places on Ballybunion's Cashen course?
I think not.
Placing emphasis on testing skilled golfers off the tee only serves to undermine the golfing experience for the vast majority. Isn't that part of Mackenzie's genius?
David Wigler asks about hitting nine irons into greens and makes the argument that this negates the importance of tee shot placement that Rustic Canyon lovers talk about. But, I'm wondering what percentage of golfers playing Rustic Canyon face this situation. Is it a majority? If not, how large is the minority? And why should we care if it is a small majority? How many par fours at Pine Valley do "skilled golfers" approach with more than a short iron?
Our friend Tommy Naccarato has encouraged me to jump on a plane many times to come and have a look for myself. Sooner or later I'll do so. But, in the meantime I'm going to wonder if some people just don't understand or accept the design intent of Rustic Canyon or any other course that has considerable width.
The notion that failing to challenge skilled golfers off the tee should be given much weight in evaluating a course design doesn't make a great deal of sense to me. As I see it, the vast majority of golfers aren't really "skilled" and we shouldn't worry so much about those that are.
-
Tim:
Well said.
As I've said many time, it is a tiny drop of sea water in an ocean of positives. Hell yes it only effects a very small minority of players - we've all agreed on that.
Thus it only comes up in the very fine hair-splitting that occurs when you try to say this course is #2, this is #12, etc. Given the differences between these courses are so small, these tiny negatives do matter - BUT ONLY IN THIS CONTEXT.
Maybe Rich Goodale has it correct. We should just call this course a "two star" or whatever and leave it at that. I know it would have saved a lot of acrimony....
But that designation is never enough, not for most people anyway.
TH
-
Tom Huckaby:
Are you saying that most golfers do not hit into the par 4's at Rustic Canyon with nine irons, typically?
-
Tim - That is a cop out. Tom Huckaby already correctly redefined "Challenge" as "Interest". I more eloquently used the term "Interest" many times. There is no interest in blasting driver off every hole and having no concern about where it ends up because of the excessive width. You and I both know that this is not the case in either Pine Valley or Pinehurst #2. The toughest tee box decision was whether to drive the green with Driver or 3-Wood off 3 and 12 (Driver on 12, 3-Wood on 3). This is not strictly a 3-hole criticism. Only two of the non-par threes presented any reason to not blast away with a driver. That written, go see the greens. They are fantastic. The course is what it is. My opinion is mine. Play the golf course and then debate it with me. Like I said to Mike, it gets very tiresome to debate when the person you are debating has not seen the course. I understand how this may be necessary at a Merion (Where access is an issue) but anyone with $40 can goes see Rustic Canyon. I will continue this discussion once you have played it and therefore earned the right to agree with me or think I am crazy.
One last thing, Cuscowilla is nothing like RC off the tee. It is a different world. #1 requires a flirt with the left trap to have any chance at a back pin. Two is a very demanding tee shot. Four requires an aggressive line to hold the green in two. Five is a true risk/reward short par four (Try to make par if you do not clear the bunker). #'s 6, 9, 10, 14, 15, and 18 all had demands off the tee in my opinion.
JakaB - I lack the courage to write what you write but I certainly feel that way sometimes when I defend Rees or Tom F. or dare to criticize a GCA preferred.
-
Tom Huckaby:
Are you saying that most golfers do not hit into the par 4's at Rustic Canyon with nine irons, typically?
Hell Tim, "most" golfers likely don't get within 150 yards on a 350 yard hole...
So yes, most golfers do not hit 9irons and wedges into the par 4's at Rustic Canyon.
Remember the "weakness" David W. and I are describing pertains to skilled golfers, and skilled golfers only.
TH
-
David Wigler:
Are you saying that the skilled golfer faces "challenge" off the tee at Pine Valley? And, if so, on how many holes?
I'm usually not fond of the idea of quoting someone else to make an argument, but I do think a guy like Bob Lewis certainly qualifies as a "skilled" golfer and one who knows Pine Valley very well.
The "excessive width" simply doesn't challenge such a player, does it?
I'm not in the same universe as Bob as a player, but my own experience there confirmed what many people have observed for years: Pine Valley's fairways are quite wide and hitting them isn't that difficult for even the semi skilled golfer.
So, given that this feature is never held against Pine Valley - a course designed for better players - why would we hold this feature against Rustic Canyon - a course for the masses?
This is really what I think hasn't been explained. Imagine if we changed Pine Valley to create challenge off the tee for skilled players. How many people would think we made it a better course?
-
Tim:
I believe David is gone, so I shall try to take this up in his place.
And to that end, I think I explained this before. I believe David would agree with my explanations.
But once again, to try and set this straight:
This "weakness" we are describing is just one aspect in the assessment of the golf course. If it exists at Pine Valley, it is overwhelmingly dwarfed by all the other positives, to the extent that it is irrelevant. It is also relatively insignificant at Rustic Canyon, but it is not made irrelevant there, not to the extent it is at Pine Valley, because while Rustic has many incredible positive attributes, they are not of the caliber of those at a course like Pine Valley. It's also possible the weakness may be greater at Rustic than it is at Pine Valley - I don't know, I have only seen pictures of the latter.
And in any case, disscussion of this tiny "weakness" ONLY matters when splitting hairs, I have had said several times...
This is getting silly. I doubt even the most ardent supporters of Rustic Canyon feel it is in the class of Pine Valley, generally listed at the #1 golf course on the planet.
I've discussed all this with David W. several times, I believe he'd agree with this assessment. If you are waiting to hear such from him, that's fine.
Another bottom line here is that this discussion sort of fails speaking in a vacuum... as I am re Pine Valley, you are re Rustic... attempts at absolute quantifications don't always work for golf courses.
TH
-
Tom Huckaby:
My point here is obviously not to argue that Rustic Canyon is in the same class as Pine Valley. The point is to examine the notion of whether or not the failure to challenge skilled golfers off the tee should make a significant difference in evaluating a golf course.
I've offered the Pine Valley example only to point out that we have not significantly altered our view of this course simply because the width of fairways is beyond what challenges skilled or even semi skilled golfers.
When David said that Rustic Canyon was in the Top Ten Modern courses "sixty yards and in", it sure seemed to me that he was referring to an extraordinary course, one that couldn't possibly fall outside the Top 100 Modern courses simply because it - like Pine Valley - doesn't challenge skill golfers off the tee.
That's why I asked if anyone could cite an example of where a course was top ten "sixty yards and in" and yet the course wasn't also top 100 material.
"Sixty yards and in" constitutes a huge part of any course course. If David is right that Rustic Canyon is in the rare air in this category, wow, it sure seems odd to fall such a long way because of tee shots for a small elite group of players.
Mostly what I'm challenging here is the idea that the failure to build penal holes (or jst penal tee shots) is any shortcoming at all. I just don't see where that case has been made.
-
Tom Huckaby;
While one may say that this issue is a "tiny drop of sea water in an ocean of positives", it doesn't appear to be so from David's perspective if he thinks the green complexes are Top 10 world class for ALL players but then degrades the course enough to drop it out of the Top 100 Best designs built since 1960 due to this issue for some small-percentage of highly SKILLED players.
Tom, you've played with me so you know my game. I'm trying to recall any tee shot at Rustic that I felt that I could mindlessly blast away, save for perhaps 9 & 10. There are "cape" style drives on at least four holes, center bunkering on others, carry choices on some, proximity of OB on 3 & 12, and definite preferred angles on others.
Would he prefer that everyone's slightly misplaced shot at 280 yards finds either deep rough, pinching bunkers, or a pond?? ::)
David must not only smoke the ball, but hit it pretty straight as well. I only wish I found RC that easy from the tee in the two times i played there.
-
Tim:
Understood. However, if you don't see the argument having been made yet, then you never will see it. It's been stated over and over and over again, in many, many, many ways....
Penal golf shots are not required; rather, boring golf shots should be prohibited. That goes for ALL players. The effects are just magnified for the highly skilled.
Maybe that helps, likely not. In any case, I give up. Maybe David will return tomorrow and resurrect this.
TH
-
Tom;
Before you throw your hands up, can you see my point?
Unfortunately, I have meetings all afternoon so I won't be able to respond quickly. Guess that's why I get paid. ;)
-
Mike:
This has gone far enough. Re-read David's post at how strange and unfair this argument is for us... For me particularly, I would REALLY prefer to focus on the positives of Rustic, of which there are many.
Interesting tee shots just wouldn't be the first place I'd start, that's all. And you know my game as well.
TH
-
Tom Huckaby:
The notion that a golf course should challenge all classes of golfers is thrown around and I understand that some of the best minds in the history of golf architecture have made this argument.
Do I have more insight than an Alister Mackenzie? Of course not.
But, I see the debate about Rustic Canyon taking the argument one step further and, perhaps, beyond the point of logic. That is to say that we now seem to be arguing that each and every shot should be challenging for all classes of golfers.
Again, I can only repeat that even Pine Valley doesn't achieve this standard. The skilled player doesn't get intimidated by the pyschological features of the course. He doesn't worry about the forced carries. He doesn't worry about the thick forest on both sides of the fairway.
I don't know if I would say he is "bored", but he knows that what lies ahead - his approach shot and play on and around the greens - is really what makes the course challenging.
I'm very skeptical about establishing a standard that says every shot must challenge every class of golfer. Can this really be done? Can it be done without taking away pleasure from the vast majority, maybe 90 percent of the people playing golf?
From all I've heard, Rustic Canyon succeeds precisely because its designers - like Tom Doak at Pacific Dunes - understood this.
Tom, let me just add one thing. I doubt anyone at this website has offered more support to the way the USGA sets up its courses for the US Open, i.e, the very penal way it treats wayward tee shots or missed approach shots. But, that is one event for an elite class of golfers that is hardly worth appealing to for day to day play.
Do we really want to encourage the golf architecture community to worry so much about challenging skilled players off the tee? I can't see why we would. The tradeoffs would probably just undermine great architecture, in my opinion.
-
Tim - you are taking this to extremes now that to me are bordering on the absurd. Yes, I understand your points, clearly. But just where did I ever say that every golf course must challenge every class of golfer all the time? That is absolutely, definitely, clearly, for sure, no doubt about it, fundamentally, I'm running out of synonyms NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT my point.
Just remember there are no absolutes, never, anywhere, nor should there be. Not on golf courses anyway.
A lack of interest is just never going to be a good thing, not for a golf course trying to be "great". And Rustic Canyon is in many ways a "great" golf course. If it has one perceived weakness, then to me it's fine, to others it keeps it out of some ranking. I honestly don't care.
In any case, I see you are trying to extend this to an overall discussion of what should and shouldn't be for golf courses and fantastic, great, good luck in that endeavor.
Me, I like interesting tee shots. I like to be made to think. If I'm not made to think off the tee, the course better make me think or make me have fun in other ways or I'm not going to like the course.
I liked Rustic Canyon - a LOT.
Isn't that enough?
TH
ps - giving up is one thing - having my position horrifically misconstrued, that I can't stand for.
-
Mike,
As for Cascata, frankly I think you are being disingenuous and that is why I dropped the discussion. Jonathan, Lou and I gave very detailed descriptions of what we liked. The site has 425' of fricking elevation. You cannot tell crap from an aerial when it turns 425' of elevation into flat land and you are smart enough to know that. This is not a flat piece of property in Philadelphia where aerials can show the course. There is a definitive "Line of charm" up the left side and then right on 18. Another down the left side of three. The aerial turns these invisible and makes the course look routine.
David;
I was not being disingenuous. You made the statement that Cascata has some of the most interesting holes from the tee and best lines of charm you'd ever seen and I was asking, as was Tom MacWood, what you meant.
Line of charm requires that the line of instinct be interrupted.
What does elevation change have to do with that...it can clearly be seen on any two-dimensional image.
After looking at the aerial and mentally drawing straight lines from tee to green (line of instinct), both of us were confused by your use of the term because in only one or two cases did it appear that the direct route was interrupted, and that was more often by a turn of a dogleg into desert beyond than anything that existed "within the playing areas".
What is disingenous about asking that?
A simple example of interrupting the line of "instinct" (i.e. the impulse to go straight at the target)
(http://www.golfclubatlas.com/images/RC11t.jpg)
-
Tom Huckaby:
I don't know if anyone's position has been misconstrued. It seems clear that we have a case of a course that has been described as:
a) being Top Ten sixty yards and in
b) having tee shots that fail to challenge the skilled player
I'm simply questioning the idea that "b" is a significant negative, one that would move a course ranking down significantly.
More specifically, I've tried to highlight the following points:
a) some of the world's most esteemed courses include width that goes well beyond what is necessary to test "skilled" golfers
b) "skilled" golfers are small part of the golfing world
c) the disparity between "skilled" golfers and the rest of the golfing world is so great that placing much, if any, emphasis on testing the former on every shot may be counterproductive
Tom, I see that you said you would prefer to focus on the "positives". Okay. Tell me, if a course is Top Ten "sixty yard and in" but doesn't challenge an elite group of golfers off the tee, would it make sense to significantly downplay its ranking? Isn't that "focusing on the negative"? Or shall I say a perceived "negative"?
Why do we not elevate the course's ranking due to the absence of penal shots off the tee? Isn't that a "positive"?
-
Removed.
-
Tim:
You ought to be a lawyer, or a politician, if you're not already one or the other or both.
PLEASE understand the "emotional" difficulties involved in discussing this issue, given it's been tied to Rustic Canyon. PLEASE allow me to focus on the positives, so I don't have to go through the pain of arguing with friends who are quite devoted to the course AGAIN.
Unfortunately, to answer your questions using the Rustic Canyon example requires me to focus on the perceived "negatives" of this golf course, and I just don't want to do that any more. Hopefully you can understand this. Friendship is far more important to me than any course or any issue about this game.
This has been beaten to death. I can only say so many ways that the positives far outweigh the negatives. How about you answering one question for me: why isn't that enough?
And you continually miss the extremely key difference between challenge and interest. PLEASE go re-read that, I can't state it any better than I have above. It has nothing to do with a shot being PENAL, it has to do with a shot being BORING. You can't understand that?
Boring tee shots are a negative - FOR ALL GOLFERS.
Maybe shouting will help you hear, and understand:
I COULD GIVE A CRAP WHERE RUSTIC CANYON IS RANKED - AND THE ONLY DISCUSSION IN WHICH THIS LACK OF INTEREST OFF THE TEE BECOMES AN ISSUE AT ALL IS A DISCUSSION OF HOW IT FALLS AMONG OTHER GREAT GOLF COURSES.
This goes for all golf courses. Tim, I see and understand your points - believe me I do.... Why can't you see that this is just one part of a great overall whole?
I guess the problem here is in statement (a) in your first listing. PLEASE don't make me refute that.
TH
-
Dan:
Tim W. used Rustic as an example. I sure as hell don't want to focus anything on it, and I too find a hell of a lot of good there. And please re-read the entire thread. Lack of interest off the tee can be outweighed, as it is at many courses, generally is at Rustic, just perhaps not enough to get it to the exalted ranked status some would ask for it.
Tim, see the problem with your questions? Here we go battling over Rustic again....
TH
-
JakaB:
Leave it to you to cut to the chase. ;)
Obviously I don't want to answer the question you pose in caps.
The greens and green surrounds are fabulous.
Some of the tee shots don't hold much interest.
Overall it's one hell of a fun golf course, a great achievement, sorely needed and a fantastic step in the right direction.
I never quantified it as "top" anything... Tim seems to be basing his whole argument on this quantification, one I could give a rat's ass about. That's David Wigler's battle and while I agree in principle with his assessment of the course, he can fight it out on his own over those quantifications. I guess I ought to have made that clearer from the start.
My feelings for the course are the above, that's it.
TH
-
Tom - you are right. I will go back and delete my post. I guess the only point I was trying to make that I think some courses with wide fairways exact a 1/2 stroke penalty for putting it in the wrong place. As someone who is always trying to shoot a low score, it frustrates me when I incur one of these 1/2 stroke penalties and therefore place high demands on my tee shots if the fairway is wide.
I guess I should improve my iron play. ;D
-
Aw heck Dan, your post was a good one and I didn't meant for you to remove it... my apologies for using you as a convenient example.
And you're right - lots of courses DO extract that 1/2 stroke penalty for being on the wrong side. I didn't see this much either tour I took of Rustic, but as I say above I shall punt and trust the judgment of those who've played it a lot in agreeing that this must occur. I sure as heck have been able to see this on other courses, without a doubt.. that would fall under both interest and challenge off the tee: interest in trying to figure out the correct side, challenge in hitting it. When that exists it's a heck of a positive without a doubt.
TH
-
JakaB:
Thanks for your response. I was hoping someone else would come forward and question how a course could be Top 10 within sixty yards and yet not be top 100 material.
So, I agree with you. If Rustic Canyon is Top 10 within sixty yards - an incredible architectural accomplishment - than the entire rest of the course must suck for it to fall outside the Top 100.
So far I haven't heard anyone say that. I've only heard that a small minority of "skilled" golfers won't find "challenge" or "interest" off the tee. Apparently, that and that alone moves a course with the very highest quality green complexes out of Top 100 consideration.
Has Rustic Canyon tried too hard to be all things to all people? Not from what I've heard. Not from what David Wigler appears to be saying. To the contrary, it sounds like the course proudly stands up and says "screw the elite players.....who cares if they don't find tee shots challenging".
How refreshing!
And who ever said Rustic Canyon takes the big stick out of the "hands of the powerful"? Is that what anyone here argued? In fact, I thought I heard at least one contributor - David Wigler - suggest that he COULD bomb away with his driver.
In the final analysis, it comes down to how much we want to emphasize the ability to hit long, accurate tee shots. There is a seductive argument that could be made for this - hitting long, straight tee shots IS one of the greatest challenges in golf. But, it just isn't that much fun for very many people. That's the problem. That's what sounds so refreshing about Rustic Canyon.
-
JakaB:
Do those who hit long and straight tee shots have some "unquestionable envy" of those who can putt well?
-
Been down this road before...
Couple of questions/thoughts:
1) I'd be curious to David & Huckster's own personal lists - my instinct is that, similar to Tom D's recent thread where one is asked to only remove a course if you can state an alternative, there might be other courses that possess similar "lack of interest/challenge" off the tee, or at least close enough to not offset the better green complexes.
2) Huckster - You don't care where RC ranks? Aren't you a rater? You better not let the powers that be see that statement. :)
I think Tim's points are more than valid topics of discussion - I personally agree with him, but I can certainly see where someone else might not. Golf is a big game...
Expecting someone to defend his position is a large part of what this site is all about, IMO. I don't quite understand why people get upset when their opinions are questioned or when someone attempts to further flesh out said opinion.
At least we finally got some more meat about Cascata. ;D
-
One last thing, Cuscowilla is nothing like RC off the tee. It is a different world. #1 requires a flirt with the left trap to have any chance at a back pin. Two is a very demanding tee shot. Four requires an aggressive line to hold the green in two. Five is a true risk/reward short par four (Try to make par if you do not clear the bunker). #'s 6, 9, 10, 14, 15, and 18 all had demands off the tee in my opinion.
Dave,
Cuscowilla’ s first hole is 380 yards. Rustic's three par fours are 320, 330 and 340. If a person is able to drive these three greens wouldn't it stand to reason that they could hold a short iron on the first at Cuscowilla? I realize that Cuscowilla’ s opener is uphill, but I driver-PW and I was not able to drive all the greens at Rustic.
If you were driving the short holes at Rustic, five would not be scary at Cuscowilla. It is not that long a carry for those that can hit the ball 290+.
Of the other holes you mentioned, I think four does not evoke that much interest, but I can see your point.
Nine, fifteen and 18 rely on trees to create real threat, but do require shaped drives.
10 is a thrilling tee shot and I love it. If I drove the ball 290 yards though, I could see how it would be less enchanting. With only about 135 yards left, assuming you take a conservative route.
Meanwhile 11 and 15 offer thrilling tee shots at Rustic, even if you do drive a long ball.
I think this is a fair comparison, because they are both in your classification of great green complexes. In my opinion, they are not that far apart in the top 100 modern either.
-
Tim:
You again missed a very key point.
It's not just that very skilled players don't find much interest off the tee at Rustic, I'd venture to say the interest doesn't exist for ALL players, on too many holes.
So it's not so simple to say this just effects a tiny minority.. not at this golf course anyway.
And once again, it is a tiny negative in a sea of positives.
You see, I agree with you if you praise a course for saying "screw it, we won't require long accurate drives - short ones will do just as well, but you're going to have to figure out which way to go and where it's worth it to try and hit it longer."
But I would downgrade a course if they say "screw it, it doesn't matter what you do off the tee."
That's a subtle but VERY important difference.
Do you understand this? To me it's the crux of the whole issue here.
TH
-
George:
I am a member of the course rating panel for GD. I play the courses, fill out the surveys, enjoy the process.
I could give a rat's ass which one finishes #36 and which #37.
If that causes them to boot me, so be it.
And your question underscores the problem with this entire discussion. I don't require ANY particular aspect of any golf course, nor would my rankings - if I set such forth, which I never have for myself and really don't care to do now - show any bias toward one "style" or another, I think... I'd like to think I take each course I see on its own merits, with all factors mattering one way or the other, all fitting into one overall assessment.
Just to show how this works, my three favorite golf courses on this planet at Cypress Point, NGLA and Sand Hills. None of these are huge "tests" off the tee - each have some holes that are such, some holes that aren't....
So let's not try to overgeneralize here, shall we?
TH
-
JakaB writes:
The unquestionable envy for those who shoot long and straight is rampant on this site and so out of whack with mainstream society that it borders on destroying our very credibility
No envy here. If hitting it long and straight means not ever enjoying a course like Rustic again, thank god I can't do it. I like my short and crooked drive, it makes the game more fun on more golf courses.
Note to all you highly skilled, long and straight drivers of the golf ball: Rustic Canyon is not the course for you. Avoid it. Also avoid courses like Cruden Bay, North Berwick, Machrihanish, Valley Club of Montecito, NGL, Merion, etc...
Go play your 7,500 yard courses and leave the other courses for those of us that like to have fun playing a game.
And please keep Rustic Canyon out of any top 100 list.
Dan King
Excessive golfing dwarfs the intellect. Nor is this to be wondered at when we consider that the more fatuously vacant the mind is, the better for play. It has been observed that absolute idiots play the steadiest.
--Sir Walter Simpson (The Art of Golf)
-
Tom Huckaby:
Wow! The crowd at Rustic Canyon must be a damn good group of golfers if there are too many holes that the tee shot don't hold interest for any players.
I've certainly never played such a course or in such esteemed company. Nor do I remember Southern California golfers being that good.
But, it least we now have a story - if true - that makes more sense. If there really are too many holes with tee shots that don't hold interest for EVERY golfer playing the course, than I'll cast my ballot against Top 100 without even seeing the course.
But, this is something different than what David said about the problem being in reference to "skilled" golfers.......
and.........
I have NEVER seen any golf course that had tee shots on too many holes that failed to challenge every single golfer playing the course.
You must be playing a different game than the people I see everyday.
-
Dan:
Rustic is crowded enough as it is... man I shudder to think what would happen if it did suddenly get in one of the magazine top 100 lists. The price would likely be raised, that's for sure...
But on the other hand, if it does make one of these lists, then that's a hell of a statement to make, and maybe we'd get more courses like Rustic?
Such a dilemna...
As for the rest, you just named several of my favorite courses on the planet. I just want to make that clear in case you, or anyone, thinks I personally favor 7500 yard monsters... That's not the case at all, far from it. My take on this thread is very, very narrow.
TH
-
Tim:
It is mind-boggling to me that a very astute, very smart guy like you keeps missing this extremely simple point.
All golfers don't miss a CHALLENGE at Rustic - hell, any golf shot is challenging for the 18 index and up crowd - what all golfers miss, on too many holes, is INTEREST.
Those are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.
I've explained why several times above.
But let's try again.
To me, interest on a tee shot means that there is something there other than just brainlessly blasting away. You have to try and figure out which side is better, or you try to decide if a risk is worth taking, or you try to avoid some penalty - all are parts of what I would say add "interest" to the tee shot.
If none of these things exist, then that to me is a boring shot, and it doesn't matter if you're Al Cyrvyk or Tiger Woods, a shot with nothing to think about is no fun.
Maybe others disagree with this, maybe mindless bashing is fun. But let's take this as a given for anyone who has any insight into the game.
THIS is what to me is lacking on some holes at Rustic Canyon. Once again, to me it is heavily outweighed by interest elsewhere, and thus I did love playing the course. But it is a factor that is lacking, which can be weighed as heavily or as lightly as one cares to.
In summary, this isn't about CHALLENGE, it's about INTEREST, and they are two very, very different things.
Here's hoping that this explanation, number 23 tried, works better than the 22 previous. ;)
TH
-
tomhuckaby
shake shake shake
shake shake shake
shake your booty
shake your booty
shake shake shake
shake shake shake
shake your booty
shake your booty
tom youse dancin!
-
I think it kinda depends on what your definition of interest is.
Some find trying to hit a tight lined fairway as interesting - ie. shot is dictated to you.
Some enjoy trying to find the right line amidst a myriad of options.
I have a bright, successful friend who thinks Spyglass is the best course on the Monterey Peninsula because it has ice plant, which provides an extremely difficult playing condition.
As a wise man says all the time. Golf is a big game...
JakaB -
There's a big difference between tee to green & tee to 60 yards out.
-
Tom Huckaby:
You put more emphasis on the difference between "challenge" and "interest" than I would.
What does this really mean for the vast majority of golfers?
Don't most golfers just hope for a clean hit and that the ball goes in generally the right direction?
-
Tim:
If one doesn't require challenge or interest, why does one play?
Yes, the majority of golfers do just want to hit the ball cleanly. Fair enough. But I'd guess the majority of golfers do prefer some courses to others. If that's not the case, there would be far more stand-alone driving ranges....
So what makes them like one course more than another? I guess it depends on who you ask, and we could take this to the absolute lowest common denominator, in which case it would be conditioning and cart girls. I assume that's not what you want to discuss.
To me, "interest", as I defined it in the previous post, adds fun to the game for all golfers. Maybe I have this wrong. But if I am wrong, what's the point of discussing golf course architecture at all?
TH
-
shivas;
Yes, it does.
In those cases, the closer you get to the green, the tougher your options become.
Ask Don Mahaffey, who drove it over the 12th into short rough and took a six.
Ask DavidKelly, who drove up alongside and took a 7.
You can find yourself in fine shape...not in a bunker, not in deep rough, not in a pond, but still dead as a door nail.
To be fair, though, I can see how that type of subtlety is often missed.
-
Tom Huckaby:
You put more emphasis on the difference between "challenge" and "interest" than I would.
What does this really mean for the vast majority of golfers?
Tim,
I think interest can exist independently of challenge if (1) uncertainty about the outcome of the shot is created, or in the absence of that, (2) if the setting is inherently interesting.
Examples of (1) would be tee shots to undulating fairways, or blind/semi-blind fairways, or two-tiered fairways, or on holes where the hazards appear to come into play but don't.
Examples of (2) would be the 1st/18th at The Old Course, which are not challenging tee shots but full of interest. The 18th at Kapalua (Plantation) might be another example.
Wide-open holes where (1) and (2) do not apply will lessen interest for all levels of players, because the influence the course has on the outcome of the shot becomes more predictable. The point of interest moves away from the course and back to the player, and it turns into a driving range where the main interest is in executing the swing.
-
Mike:
Poor scores can be taken on any of these holes regardless of where one leaves the tee shot. That's not what Dave is asking... I don't think so anyway.
Let's take 12, for example. That green is so severe, with such incredible contour, that you tell me where the good place to leave the ball is and the bad place is. Yes, long would not be a good thing... but the hole is 340 from the tips... if long is a worry at 340 yards, then something is wrong with the game.
So taking that out, well... heck as I say to me it's a fun golf hole because I just dig being able to even try to drive a par 4, and there is a bit of a risk carrying over the scrub if you go straight at it - that's a long carry... but assuming I can make the carry, what difference does it make where the ball ends up after that? Just why is it better to be back farther or farther to the right? To me NO SHOT is ever going to be easy going into that green... so hell, being on it is always going to be the best result... or are you gonna tell me 100 yards back at some perfect angle is preferable to putting there? I don't see the angle where that would be true, although such a thing could be possible...
I don't think this is missing any subtlety... This to me is a great golf hole, just because of the green. The good outweighs the bad! It doesn't matter a lick to me that there is no preferred angle. I know, this is the point Tim would like to make about the course, or golf courses, as a whole... and it works on this golf hole... One just ought not to overgeneralize.
The same can be said for #3, really.....
To JakaB - yes, this is somewhat painful, but again the good outweighs the bad. Ratings are done confidentially, and discussions here, well... I choose what to say and what not to say, so if it's painful it's my own fault. Of course I would appreciate if the lovers of this course try to understand better when I say how much I do like the course and this is one tiny negative, but what the hell... In the end there aren't many discussions like this...
TH
-
Tom Huckaby:
I think what you're missing is that the game is inherently interesting and challenging for most people. My local muni probably wouldn't measure more than a "2" or "3" on the Doak scale, yet it provides lots of interest and challenge for people everyday.
The theme of this thread is how important it is to challenge skilled golfers off the tee and how much the failure to do so should influence our assessment of the course.
I selected Rustic Canyon because it seems like the ideal candidate to discuss this issue. Moreover, David Wigler provided us with some concise statements to examine and explore. As I think JakaB acknowledged, if David is right about the quality of the course "sixty yards and in" there must be a hell of a lot wrong with it elsewhere (for the vast majority of golfers) not to merit Top 100 consideration.
You have moved the argument from Rustic Canyon not challenging (or providing interest) for skilled golfers, to the course not providing this for ALL golfers on too many holes. Fair enough. You and David might see it differently. But, I am still skeptical about the course not providing tee shot interest for ALL golfers on too many holes?
Which holes do you feel ALL golfers do not find tee shot interest or challenge?
Chris:
I’m not sure how your example of #1 at TOC applies. Doesn’t the golfer know that the challenge lies with the approach shot? Isn’t that what people have been saying about Rustic Canyon?
-
I find Ran's comments on the course profile interesting. I think he anticipated some of this debate.
"Will Californian golfers realize what a gem of a course these three men produced? Certainly some will, as the sense of freedom from the typically tightly packed public courses will only inspire. Others won't, as the course is so different that they will have no frame of reference."
"The biggest item that will help the perception of the course is a first rate yardage book that provides a paragraph or two of text highlighting the options that are available to the golfer. The golfer may come to realize that the sea of green grass on the 4th or 9th or 12th holes is actually there for a reason. Once they start to understand the options that the design gives them, and appreciate the thought that went into each hole, they are unlikely to play elsewhere."
"The only problem? Securing a tee time - both private and public golfers will be jostling for tee times because Rustic Canyon is simply that much more fun and thought provoking to play than just about any course - public or private - that one cares to name."
-
Tim:
Fair enough. At least we have come to an understanding. To me there is a big difference between challenge and interest, so please do be careful to get those terms correct, at least if you're going to ask me questions about them. I never said that some of the tee shots don't provide challenge for all golfers - as you say, and to which I've agreed, challenge exists on every golf shot for the lesser skilled - no, what I said is INTEREST is lacking for all golfers, even the less skilled, on too many golf holes. That to me is a very different thing than challenge, and if you choose not to acknowledge this, there is nothing I can do to change that thought. C'est la vie (apologies to Dan Kelly if I spelled that wrong).
And please forgive me if I abstain on answering your questions re specific holes, at least publicly here. JakaB has it right in that criticizing a course loved by people I consider friends is just not my cup of tea. That's what I mean by focusing on the positive... you have asked me for a laundry list of negatives, and I'm just not going to do that.
I will agree with you - I believe I have always agreed with you - challenge off the tee for the highly skilled player is not a requirement for greatness for a golf course. Pine Valley proves this. As I've said many times, the good can outweigh the bad. It does at Pine Valley, it does, but to a lesser extent, at Rustic Canyon.
So can we leave that as asked and answered?
As for the rest, if you really want my thoughts on specific holes, send me an email and I trust you'd keep such thoughts confidential.
TH
tom.huckaby@clorox.com
-
Tom Huckaby;
Using #12 as an example, if you go for that green and miss it on the wrong side (left, short, or long), depending on hole location, you are in much more difficult position (even though you are much closer) than if you had bailed out the drive to the right, leaving about an 80 yard pitch or chip and run up the length of the green.
Even then, if the hole is cut atop the "knob" in the back left, a prudent approach is not to challenge that hole, but be content to get the ball somewhere on the mid-lower level of the green for a good shot at an uphill-two putt.
It's a hole where the drive needs to be to be well thought out and then approached gingerly, I believe.
And...I almost forgot....OB lurks just a few paces left of that green.
-
Mike:
Ran's thoughts are telling. That's why I say I punt and defer to those who have played the course many times when it comes to challenge... As for interest, I remain a doubting Thomas.
As I say, I wish I lived closer to find this out better for myself. Such is life.
Just do realize also that Ran's is one opinion, and I have heard many others.
TH
-
Mike:
I believe we're going to have to agree to disagree re 12. Man, I just don't see how 80 yards back is ever going to be better than being right next to the green. There is no spot you could put the vast majority of golfers at where they'd have better success from 80 than from 5, with the exception of over the green.
See, there is no "length of the green" on which to run it up!
Not that I remember anyway... If I have this wrong, then mea culpa. All I remember is severe rolls throughout, with the knob in the middle, such that no side is favored over the other.
And I'm never gonna understand how 80 yards back is better....
Oh well. As I say, to me it's a cool hole just because of the incredibly severe green. That again ought to be enough.
TH
-
Tom;
I say that simply because I was playing with Don Mahaffey and JohnV and both of them went for the green...John ending up short left, Don over, while I bailed to that spot 80 yards right.
The scores were 4,5,6. I wouldn't have traded my position for either of their's, believe me! ;) ;D
I'm ready to let this rest, although I really wish David would come out of his irritated silence and give me an answer on how he defines "lines of charm". ;D
-
Mike:
David's silence isn't out of irritation, unless one considers work irritating. ;D
But I can counter you if we're basing this on results... in my group, it went like this (the pin was back right):
TH - right next to green, short right - freakin hard shot, putts it and gets it to 15 feet, two putt par and feeling damn happy to get that.
Dad - way right, 120 in - misses green, suffers, takes 6 at least as I recall.
Brother - 80 yards or so in on same line to the right, misses green, suffers, takes 6 at least as I recall.
Brother in law - 50 yards or so in, next to scrub, coming in more straight at the green, up the hump - misses green, suffers, takes 6 at least as I recall.
You tell me who had the advantage. I sure as hell wouldn't have traded my shot just short of the green on the right for any of theirs.
But seriously, you really think 80 yards back is better than short left? I don't see that... Maybe pin high left in the case of a way back left pin you might have an advantage, but still I'd take JV's spot over yours, and just putt the ball. You still had the right front hump to go over... you didn't exactly have an easy shot... and that's because such just plain doesn't exist going into that incredible green!
TH
-
Tom;
That's VERY interesting. I can definitely see how a hole cut on the right side would NOT put me in an advantageous position from the spot I drove to versus where you ended up.
In fact, I might play my second shot to where you drove to purposefully and hope to get down in two from there.
However, with the pin back left, up on the knobby thing, I was able to pitch to the middle of the green, trying to get it to possibly run up the slope and stop up on top. Of course, I didn't have the guts to really challenge it, knowing if I went long I'd be DEAD, so my well-played shot finished in the middle of the green.
So, I think what i've learned is that if the hole is cut left (one can see the hole location from the preceding hole) then I would bail the drive to the right. If the hole is cut right, I would probably try to drive as close as possible, or even favor the left. If the hole is in the middle, I'll flip a coin. ;)
BTW, what are you doing driving a 340-yard hole?? ;D
-
Chris:
I’m not sure how your example of #1 at TOC applies. Doesn’t the golfer know that the challenge lies with the approach shot? Isn’t that what people have been saying about Rustic Canyon?
#1 TOC is an example of a tee shot that is not challenging but has a tremendous amount of interest because of the setting--the Home of Golf, opening shot in the round, in front of the R&A Clubhouse, looking out toward the Swilken bridge, Road Hole in the distance, town on the left, beach on the right, etc.
Take the identical design, put it in the middle of another course, and it loses some interest. Repeat the concept too many times during a round, and the course loses interest.
I'll let those in the know decide how this relates directly to RC; I just thought I'd respond to your very good question about the difference in challenge and interest. I gave some examples to show that a tee shot can indeed have interest without challenge.
-
ChrisB:
No one could possibly argue that there is tremendous interest in the opening tee shot at St. Andrews, that's for sure!
-
In all the time I've played RC, I've only seen good things happen on #12 when the tee shot is played out to the right and close to pin high (so you're just off the green, up to 60 yards away). Most with driver, try to hit a draw around the pepper tree, but with the overspin, they're rarely over the back and more often in the traps, or the knarly (sp?) rough (short and left). Come to think of it, I've never seen a tee shot end up on the green.
-
Tom H,
I was the one that favours laying back 80 yards, my reasoning is simple. This is 80 yards for the skilled golfer, (remember, you said: "vast majority of golfers at where they'd have better success from 80 than from 5". I am referring to a smaller sample, the small minority who could get within 5 yards of a 340-yard hole. Having made that clear, 80 yards is an arbitrary distance, but on that the golfer can spin a wedge and have a chance at stopping the ball on the green.
You said, "if long is a worry at 340 yards, then something is wrong with the game". Now, I will concede that from 15 feet most golfers have a good chance at getting down with a putter. However, if all these greens are drivable (which I assume means the drive on the green), how is ten yards further over the back edge so unattainable?
I will concede that fact, but I cannot believe many have distance control to hit that green (or within a five yard circle) and not go long. Therefore, there is probably a greater chance that people are five to 15 yards short. With the large fringes many would consider this a practically "the green.
Tying back to my original argument, if that pin is back, the drive left 10 yards short of the green, plays closer to 25-35? yards? Many better players contend that the 30 to 40-yard wedge shot is the hardest in the game. I will take their word for it, especially when the pin is back. Now you have a chip or a putt that requires unbelievable control to go after the back pin. As Mike Cirba said, lots frighten of that from the fairway, so deft touch would be required. Without the ability to spin a 35-yard shot, I feel the 80-yard shot is easier.
-
Gentlemen:
This has been fun but I need to get some work done and thus can't devote the effort to a decent reply. Basically, my take is that the green is so severe that the advantage gained in being able to spin the ball from 80 yards is negligible, because NO ONE can spin the ball on those type of contours with that type of firmness as exhibited there at Rustic. Bottom line, no more, no less.
TH
-
Tom,
I could get my LW to stop after its first bounce and the course was firm.
I am not superman, but at least don't discredit the option as plausible. It negates my entire post above, which I would not have typed, if I believed the wedge shot unstoppable.
-
Tom;
I landed on the green, about halfway on, and the ball started climbing the knobby thing in the back, before rolling back to mid-green.
It's most definitely doable by mere mortals, and I used my 56 degree wedge.
-
Interesting. At least we've discovered our disconnect. My take was that no ball would ever stop on that green. My bad if I got that wrong.
Just shows the respect and admiration I have for you guys also as I am currently blowing off a work meeting to make sure and see what you said... ;D
TH
-
No getting a 5-iron to stop on number two, that is impossible. ;D
-
Tom;
Be assured that the same respect goes both ways. ;D
I was just given about double my present work responsibilities due to a departing employee, and yet I come back to hear what you have to say on the matter, as well.
Of course, I might not be back on GCA for six months, but that's not due to you!
It's due to Wigler. ;) ;D
-
Could it be that what is considered a good shot from 80 yards (middle of the green, in this case) is considered a bad shot from just off this green (ala Huck)? I know I usually feel this way, even if I logically know the shorter pitch/chip/putt/whatever is just as difficult.
KC, with full disclosure that not only have I not played the hole, I haven't looked at any photos...aerial or otherwise ;)
-
Ha! Great stuff, boys. ;D ;D And it was a 2iron I hit into #2 that stopped within three feet, Ben. I've come to realize since then that that shot was a freak - it was very early and I must have hit a particularly dewey patch.
By the time we got to 12, all was fine in the firm and fast department!
By the way, my favorite hole on the course, in retrospect having not played it in a long time now, is now #11. I absolutely love the fact I argued for days with Dave M. and others about the better angle in, and I still remain unsure. Is it weird that this uncertainty makes me LIKE the golf hole more?
One more btw - I just found the scorecard from my family group, and it turns out we went 4-5-6-7, with the 5 being made by my Dad, who definitely came in from the farthest away. Maybe you guys were right all along... ;)
TH
TH
-
Ask DavidKelly, who drove up alongside and took a 7.
I have in the course of playing #12 at Rustic Canyon many times achieved the following:
eagled the hole
birdied the hole more than a few times,
went driver, putter,putter,putter,putter,putter,putter for a 7, hit the pin in the air on my drive,
driven it out of bounds,
driven it through the hole into some weeds,
putted from more than 75 yards away,
bogeyed the hole many times
and have used everything from a 5 iron to driver off the tee.
Today playing with Lynn and David M I bogeyed the hole with a one putt. It is one of my favorite holes on the course and a hole that I have said many times shouldn't even be handicapped because it can be played even in a match by scratch and 18 handicappers.
As for skilled golfers not finding interest at Rustic Canyon I know that Fred Couples, Steve Pate, David Berganio, John Pate and Denis Watson among other VERY SKILLED golfers all had very good things to say about the course and all have said that they had fun. Or maybe they aren't quite skilled enough?
-
David Kelly:
Reading your experience on #12 I'm tempted to make a wise crack remark about how it proves the course is not interesting off the tee.
But on a more more serious note, I'm wondering if Rustic Canyon is not the sort of course you can play once or twice and truly understand.
Does the course - the mystery of the course - unfold gradually over several, if not many, rounds?
Are those who play it on a regular basis more likely to sing its praises?
-
Tim,
I compared the course to the Old Course, in that respect. Not to say they are of equal calibre, but simply that the secrets are so clearly revealed as you look at the course more. It is certainly one of only many courses I have seen this year that I think about the holes and look at the photos often to figure out what I will do there next.
I never thought I would envy those golfers in Southern California.
-
One of the reasons so many of us are passionate about Rustic Canyon is that it is extraordinarily unique. Nothing else in Southern California plays like it and nothing that I have seen looks like it. The design makes for a great public course but it would also have made a great private course as members could play it over and over again without getting bored.
My brother who is not an avid golfer once drove up to it to take a look and later said to me, "THAT'S the course you're always talking about? Whats the big deal?" I have also heard of people driving up taking a look and deciding not to play it.
Not comparing the quality of the two courses but like TOC, Rustic Canyon becomes more interesting the more you play it and like TOC some people may not find it to their liking or see what others see in it.
-
Tom,
Thank you for biting the bullet. I had meetings all afternoon and called Tom first to tell hi I was done with this thread.
Mike,
12 might be 340 down the middle of the fairway but it is less than 300 as the crow flies. Furthermore, given the forward kick and the pitch onto the green, and tee shot of say 265 or more should end up on the surface (That is how Huckaby got there). I hit driver to 20 feet and two putted for birdie. I play a fade. I could not care less if the ball sliced as it is all fairway right of the green (Same as two) my worst-case scenario was going to be pin high 20 feet right. I'll bet you dinner that you can place the pin anywhere you want, give me a 20-yard pitch or a putt from the front of the green and go back to 80 yards and I will beat or tie you on four out of five balls. On 3, I lipped out a 12-foot eagle putt with a 3-wood tee shot. Again, I had five eagle putts in the round. I can only think of two holes where I had any other thought than "Blast away." The course simply lacks interest off the tee. TIM GO SEE THE FRICKING COURSE!! Tom did a great job defending our feelings and he is dead right. I'll try another analogy. Dolly Parton has a top ten set of cans but I wouldn't do her with the lights on. The face tosses her from the top 100. RC might just be the Dolly Parton of Golf Courses.
Mike - I promise this is my last comment on Cascata until you see the course. We are arguing on three threads and I cannot keep up. #3 at Cascata is a 570-yard hole that drops about 100' from tee to green (Something that is impossible to see from your aerial). I was playing with two bombers only slightly shorter than me. The middle to right side of the fairway is stepped and plateau'd (Again invisible on your aerial). They both hit right and with the elevation had between 215 and 240 to the green. Rees built a terrific line of charm down the left side if you were willing to risk the desert. I hit it perfectly and the ball kicked forward to the 170 plate. The drive went 396 yards and I played the hole Driver, 9-Iron. It is a brilliant design that is invisible from an aerial. If you want to learn about the course, you will take this at face value. If you want to continue to battle on a course you have not seen, then I give up, you win, JakaB is right, and everything not designed by Doak, Gil, or any other architect who posts on GCA is shit and should be blown up and redone by Doak, Gil or another GCA type. Furthermore, I am done arguing on RC. I like the people involved in designing it too much. Tom – you are on your own. RC is exactly like Pinehurst #2 and Pine Valley and it is simply because of the lack of knowledge of Morons like me that GD and GW did not put it in the top 100.
-
David Wigler:
You may have noticed that Tom Huckaby made the following comment during our discussion about Rustic Canyon:
"challenge off the tee for the highly skilled player is not a requirement for greatness for a golf course. Pine Valley proves this."
Is Tom right about this?
-
I thought of you all this morning when I walked up to the 14th tee at RC. Jeff Hicks or someone had the nerve to place the tee markers a yard or two behind the black plate. Seems silly now, but it felt very important at the time.
Thinking of all of you must have relaxed me a bit because I hit a very good drive, for me. I cleared the hazard, ended up somewhat on the flat side of the fairway, and only had 250 to middle of the green. For those that havent played it, here is Ran's picture from the blue tee, which is 30-40 yards closer to the green.(http://www.golfclubatlas.com/images/RC14.jpg)
A very interesting discussion, although I get the feeling that some are holding back. I hope everyone is courteous enough not to pull punches-- speak openly and lay it on the line, call a fig a fig, as it were. Those involved are in the wrong business if they cant take it, and those loyal to RC should keep their own mouths shut if they arent willing to listen to what others have to say.
As to me being a homer and a loyalist, that is certainly a fair assessment, and I am glad of it. After years of driving endlessly all over SC in search of a great course, it feels good to be a homer and a loyalist. I drive 45 miles through LA to be a loyalist every chance I get. I used to play at more expensive courses that I wouldnt play now if they were 1/2 Rustic's price. I could possibly even scrape together enough to join a club, if any would take me, but I can't fathom why I would do that now. I now am friends with some of the usual Rustic suspects but that came later. I have no equity stake, have payed no nonrefundable sum, no monthly dues, nothing keeping me there but quality. I am a homer and a loyalist by choice, and that choice is based on perceived merit alone, and is revokable at any time.
A general question, not just about RC: What is the point of "interesting greens" or "great green complexes" if the course does not offer the width to completely explore the greens? As for RC, without all the width, what would be interesting about the greens? Is it all just about putting up and over humps?
JakaB: Sometimes it is a good idea to look at your cards before you push your all your chips into the pot. Then again . . . Blind Call. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. You will change your tune once you do. I am sure of it. Come out and play.
-
What happens on those 3 shortish par 4's at Rustic if you fire away with the driver right at the green, and you bomb the hell out of it 320 or so, but you miss 15 yards left or right of each green? Whaddya got for a second shot (assume the pin is dead center because when bombers go for greens like that, they generally play to the fat side and I want to know about both misses)?
Hole 3. 320 yds. Rt is safe miss (many think too safe), until bunker about 40yds right. If you are barely left, 6 ft bunkers. A little more left is OB. Front left bunker, Back left very nasty bunker.
Hole 7. 330 yds. Short, dead in hazard. Left, dead in hazard. Long, probably dead but not in hazard. There is a shallow bunker around the edge of part of this hazard and then large collar/approach then green. Right long, hardpan lie over large mound on green edge. Right of front, safe.
Hole 12. 340 yds. Safe right and back. Front and left, bunker/waste area and very difficult angle. OB right.
-
The discussion of twelve is great. Reading some of the comments, I think I may have been playing the wrong hole all this time. I will try to get some pictures in the next week or two so we all can play along. Until then, something to think about.
I've been pulling punches a bit. We are all a little hesitant when talking about $35 public course draw certain comparisons, but the more I play RC12, the more I realize that it is absolutely brilliant. The best and most original new concept for a hole that I have ever seen. Future generations will write about RC12 in books on golf course architecture.
Pine Valley? Never been there, but if Pine Valley has short par fours that are signicantly more interesting, challenging, and fun than RC12 then it must be one hell of a course.
-
Dave Wigler;
Thanks for the reply re: Cascata. I hope to get out there and play it, perhaps this coming winter.
One question regarding the hole you described. Do you think the carry to reach the "power slot" that propelled your ball to within 9-iron distance on a 570 yard par five is something that is within the capability of the average golfer, or is that an option only available to the longest hitters? I'm just curious because I know you hit the ball a very long way....and pretty accurate too I'd imagine if you had 5 eagle putts at RC! That's quite the feat!
In any case, I appreciate you providing more info, I hope you aren't offended by my questions, I hope we can get together to play sometime, and I also thought your Dolly Parton comment was very clever, VERY humorous, if ultiimately inaccurate.
I think of Rustic Canyon more like Julia Roberts in "Pretty Woman"; a little scruffy, fun for ALL, perhaps a bit too easy, but with a beauty and complexity shimmering underneath it all for those who look carefully. She'll wear well with age. ;) ;D
-
Mike,
My bad on the taking insult. Let's hook up and play this summer. As to your question on Cascata, I believe the runnway goes up the entire left side and anyone who can hit it 250 (With 50' of elevation drop can take advantage of it (To differing levels). Picture 18 at Kapalua. Also, a shorter hitter would be playing tees further up. Perhaps Lou could speak to this point better.
Tim,
I believe Tom either would have said or meant "Interest off the tee," not challenge. If that is Tom's opinion, then this is a rare disagreement that we have. I believe that interest off the tee is an esential quality of a great golf course. I also believe that Pine Valley and Pinhurst #2 have great interest off the tee.
-
I think of Rustic Canyon more like Julia Roberts in "Pretty Woman"; a little scruffy, fun for ALL, perhaps a bit too easy, but with a beauty and complexity shimmering underneath it all for those who look carefully. She'll wear well with age.
Mike, Mike, Mike ...
Julia Roberts? In comparison to the famed Dolly Parton quote, she ain't got no cans and it wouldn't help if the lights were off ...
RC has width off the tee, varying angles of approach and bodacious curves on the greens ... as a goddess for comparison to Rustic Canyon, there is only one possible choice (and the name fits) Christy Canyon ... and yes, they are real ;)
-
Mike Benham;
As creative and imaginative as Rustic Canyon is, I've seen Christy Canyon do some daring and amazing things that are of far greater strategic and functional interest to me than just preferred approach angles and interesting recovery shots.
I also doubt that she wouldn't be found challenging or interesting to the skilled player. ;)
Your analogy borders on overkill! ;D
-
I only have one more question and then I am done with
this thread.
David Wigler - Did you play the back tees at Rustic?
I only ask because I only remember #12 being drivable. Maybe I just didn't eat my Wheaties that day. :-/
-
David Moriarty:
It's a pleasure to read how much you enjoy Rustic Canyon. Truthfully, I never felt LA was a particularly good place for golf when I lived there in the late 80s/early 90s - other then the weather, of course. Funny thing, I think the round of golf I most enjoyed was at Rec Park in Long Beach on one of those rare days where it actually rained and I was able to go out and play in not much more than two hours.
Dan King probably has it right. Those that aren’t impressed can go elsewhere, but it sounds like a great addition to golf in LA. One of these days Tommy will finally get me to come have a look.
David Wigler:
I’m glad Dave Schmidt likes the Dolly Parton analogy, but it doesn’t do much for me. I’d still like to know why you place so much emphasis on challenging skilled players off the tee. Should we be encouraging architects and their clients to emphasize this SO MUCH that even if someone builds a course that is Top Ten of all modern courses sixty yards and in, it would not be considered for Top 100 simply due to lack of challenge for skilled players off the tee?
Then too, I noticed you disagree with the assessment that for skilled players Pine Valley is really all about precision of approach shots and play around greens. How many tee shots really challenge the skilled player? In sum, what is the difference between Pine Valley and Rustic Canyon off the tee? Aren’t they both so wide that the skilled player doesn’t have any worries about hitting fairways? Don’t both courses – however different their appearance might be – really boil down to play around the greens?
-
12 might be 340 down the middle of the fairway but it is less than 300 as the crow flies. Furthermore, given the forward kick and the pitch onto the green, and tee shot of say 265 or more should end up on the surface (That is how Huckaby got there). I hit driver to 20 feet and two putted for birdie. I play a fade. I could not care less if the ball sliced as it is all fairway right of the green (Same as two) my worst-case scenario was going to be pin high 20 feet right. I'll bet you dinner that you can place the pin anywhere you want, give me a 20-yard pitch or a putt from the front of the green and go back to 80 yards and I will beat or tie you on four out of five balls.
David W. I wonder about what appears to be a typo in the first sentence quoted above. Did you mean to say "any tee shot of say 265 yards or more should end up on the surface"?
Your dinner bet is an interesting offer. If I werent a twelve index I might consider exploring it further, with a few modifications, of course.
I'm curious though, that you would place yourself with 20-yd pitch or putt from the front (I assume if you used the tee as your reference point you would say right of the green not front.) Do you think it as easy to hit your drive to a point 20 yds right of the green as it is to place your drive at a decent angle 80 yds out?
Also a test for me to see how well I know the course. (If you,ve answered this before I havent seen it.) I assume the pin was toward what you called the front the day your had your 20 ft eagle putt. Your putt was either from the very front(right) edge, or your putt was actually from the collar. Please let me know how well I guessed.
Questions for both TomH and DavidW: Do you think it possible that there was some luck involved in your ending up just next to and right of the green? How many times out of 10 do you think you could get back to that spot?
-
If I recall correctly, I think Tom Paul indicated that the last time Davis Love played PV, he only hit driver on one hole...
Not because he was trying to keep it in the fairway, per se, but because he wanted to avoid driving too far through them!
-
Mike B.,
I saw Christy Canyon in a restaurant in the Valley a few months ago and I have to say that she was looking much the worse for wear. She has a LOT of mileage on her and those were some hard miles.
-
Tim, Golf in LA sometimes proves that golf is such a good game that you can have fun playing anywere. That being said, I do think we are sometimes a little harsh on LA-- there are some fun older public courses, mostly by Bell, and there are some that have been built in the past 15 yrs that are enjoyable as well. As for Rustic, come out and play.
Don’t both courses – however different their appearance might be – really boil down to play around the greens?
I havent played Pine Valley, but this statement is only true at Rustic if you are not precise enough off the tee.
-
Tim,
I'm going to take a wild guess that Dave was putting a little puffery into that "Top 10 from 60 in" comment and that if somebody put a gun to his head to come up with 10 better, and he thought about it, he could easily do it. I may be wrong, but that's just a hunch.
My question is: Why not challenge the skilled player's tee ball? Good players are good players because they can golf their ball and more often know where it's going. Why not design courses that test whether they can or not? Isn't that the point? Otherwise, why even bother with any sort of challenge off the tee? And for that matter, why bother making approach shots challenging or green contours challenging for the skilled player? Hey, as we've all heard a million times, 300 yards and 3 foot putts both count as 1 on the card. Why challenge one and not the other?
Shivas,
To the first point, I did not think he was putting puffery into that statement. It was not a wild claim, I think most feel this is pretty in line.
To the second point, I am not sure I get.
Did Augusta with no rough present no challenge off the tee?
Would modern courses be better off if we adopted U.S. Open width to challenge better players?
Lastly, with the difficulty of RC's green complexes, adding rough or lots of fairway bunkers would make the approaches impossible.
So even if I conceded that there is a lack of interest (which I do not), I am not sure what fixes would be proposed.
-
Tim,
I am probably now as frustrated with you as Tom was yesterday. Do you read our responses before challenging them? I have corrected Challenge as Interest in almost evey single response, yet you still want me to argue challenge. Is that because your argument falls apart if the word is interest? To answer the question that you would be asking if you simply would read Tom and my responses: Yes a course must interest a player off the tee for it to be in the top 100, no matter how good the greens are. Boring off the tee does not a top 100 make.
DMoriarty,
It was a typo and I did mean any. My point on 20 yards out is that I will almost always carry my drive 265 yards and will either hit it straight or with a fade. My worst case scenario would be a slice, putting the ball pin high, 20 yards right. On ten shots, I would guess that I would hit the green four times, just miss the green four times and hit two slices giving me 20 yard pitch shots. Somebody trying to hit an Iron and leave themselves an 80-yard approach would have no chance. I could care less where the pin is.
Dan,
I did play the back. Maybe you had a reverse wind?
-
Dave Schmidt:
I didn't make any wild guess. David Wigler said he thought Rustic Canyon was Top Ten (presumably among Modern) golf courses "sixty yards and in" and I took him at his word. I assume he chose his words carefully and meant what he said.
Given that, I was struck by his further assertion that because the course failed to challenge skilled golfers off the tee, he would not consider it Top 100 material.
Sitting back to ponder David's remarks I could not think of any golf course that has this combination of features. Indeed, early in this thread I asked if anyone else could. But, so far nobody has. That tells me something.
Then I thought of the comments Bob Lewis made about Pine Valley from the perspective of the skilled player - okay, let's say truly elite, amateur player. And I thought of my own last experience playing Pine Valley about six years ago:
My Handicap at the Time: 8
Fairways Hit: 12
Three Putts: 6
Score: 86
What does that say? Hell, today if I go down to my local muni I'm lucky to hit 7-8 fairways and the course couldn't be more than a "2" on the Doak scale.
But, your questions are fair: why not challenge the tee shot of the skilled player? Isn't this the point of the game? Why challenge play around the greens if one doesn't challenge tee shots?
I think the answers to your questions lie in tradeoffs. Do we have to make them? And, if so, which ones make sense?
On this subject, I happen to believe we are somewhat burdened by the past statements of famous architects - Mackenzie, perhaps - about the importance of creating golf courses for all levels of play. This marvelous idea sounds so great that I hope architects will always keep somewhere in the back of their mind. But, I'll go further and say we should only pay so much homage to it and should never assume it means that every shot on a golf course can present the same challenge to all level of golfers.
Let's take the Pine Valley example. For the 15-20 handicap players, many tee shots can be terrifying. He sees only the awesome distance he has to carry and the thick woods bordering the fairways frighten him all the more. By contrast, the skilled player sees only wide, easy to hit fairways. No big deal for him even if you found room to build longer tees. So, what would we have to do to instill the same level of psychological pressure on the skilled or truly elite player? How narrow would the landing areas have to be? And after we got done, how much fun would it be for the vast majority?
No, we don’t push to narrow Pine Valley’s wide fairways just because they really fail to challenge skilled players. We tell the skilled player he will have to make his mark elsewhere – on and around the greens. We accept that tradeoff – just as the designers of Rustic Canyon intended – because it makes sense. This tradeoff makes sense because an undue emphasis on testing skilled players off the tee would make the course too unappealing for too many players. Who likes losing golf balls and being in the woods all day?
Now you will protest that I show no such sympathy for the man who can drive well but can’t putt or chip. No, I won’t cry for the man who wishes to be considered “skilled”. If he can’t putt or chip, he’ll just have to accept being not that great a player. If Tiger someday breaks Jack’s records, it will be because he has a better short game.
I’m simply happy to say “tough” to the guys who want to consider themselves “skilled” yet have no short game, but I don’t want architects making the game tiresome for the average guy who has no pretensions at all. That’s what placing undue emphasis on testing skilled players off the tee would do.
Some may believe we don’t have to make such tradeoffs, but I don’t believe it and think the guys who designed Rustic Canyon understand this far better than their critics.
P.S. About twenty years ago I heard from a very good golfer that he wasn’t impressed with Cypress Point. “Way too easy” this near scratch player said reporting his round right around 70. Good for him. Like Dan King said, he can play elsewhere.
-
David Wigler:
It's fine by me if you want to use the word "interesting" instead of "challenging".
But, the point remains, how are the tee shots at Pine Valley "interesting" for the skilled player?
-
On ten shots, I would guess that I would hit the green four times, just miss the green four times and hit two slices giving me 20 yard pitch shots.
David Wigler,
You must be a machine. I am wondering if Winged Foot in 1974 would have even been a challenge for you.
-
David Wigler-
I find your comments regarding Ms. Parton to be extremely offensive and totally unnecessary in this discussion. I happen to like nearly everything about her.
I also take umbrage from your characterization of my game at Cascata. While I did wear my skirt that day and failed to break 80, I played the course from the back plates. I even reached a couple of the par 5s on two, though I struggled on your uninteresting greens and bunkers.
However, given your relative youth and disadvantaged education, I do forgive you. Some day in the not too distant future we will go at it on the course, mano a mano.
-
Mike Cirba-
Re: Cascata or Shadow Creek
Don't bother. They know all the members of the Rees Jones and Tom Fazio Hate Clubs. Perhaps when C&C, Doak, Hanse, or Strantz open up something out there you'll be welcomed. Or maybe they'll uncover a NLE Ross course with bowled greens scratched out on the desert floor.
Just kidding! Vegas is the place to go. If I was only single and had no avesion to artificiality!
-
David Kelly:
David Wigler might do exactly as he said. The problem is that serious students of golf architecture need to think about what ten different people might do while playing a golf hole.
A serious guy like Bob Lewis understands Pine Valley doesn't involve that much interest - or what Tom Paul calls "direct tax" - off the tee for the skilled golfer, but he would also never criticize the course for it.
There is always a danger looking at a course from just your own point of view.
-
My point on 20 yards out is that I will almost always carry my drive 265 yards and will either hit it straight or with a fade. My worst case scenario would be a slice, putting the ball pin high, 20 yards right. On ten shots, I would guess that I would hit the green four times, just miss the green four times and hit two slices giving me 20 yard pitch shots.
I am speechless . . . almost. I expected you to predict a higher degree of success than I thought likely. But wow. Eight balls on the green or fringe and two others the perfect miss! You've thrown me for a loop, confused me, knocked me off my foundation.
DavidW, one of the two of us drastically misunderstands this hole.
I'll tell you what, I hate to go the bravado route, but cant think of what else to do. So I'll call bullshit.
I've never seen you play, but I don't think you can do what you think you can. In fact, I would be surprised if anyone can do what you think you can. I feel strongly enough about it that I am willing to put my money where my mouth is. I will bet you that, in only ten shots from the black plates under normal (not wet) conditions, you cannot stop four balls on the green and four on the fringe. You can hit two anywhere, out of bounds even, and still win. You pick the amount, up to $1000. My wife would kill me if I lost $1000 dollars, but I do not think that will be an issue. If you want to play for more, I'll even go to my wife to lobby for approval.
-
To clarify, I am talking about the 12th hole at Rustic Canyon. Are you? Let me know if you accept, and for how much, as well as when you want to do it. Offer good today only (I dont like to leave offers open.)
-
It amazes me to this day how so many people think that to challenge a good player off the tee you need tree lined fairways, hazards, rough, or out-of-bounds. I ABSOLUTELY disagree 110%.
Before I really get into my point I must say that these variables mentioned above can be penal when drives end up in them, however, I believe that a drive with none of the above can be as tough, if not tougher, if the green complex is difficult to approach.
Imagine being in the middle of a completely HUGE field of grass mown to fairway height and there is an extremely well defended green complex 400 yards out in this giant 1000 acre pasture of fairway height grass. You can play in a 360 degree circle if you like. With nothing to "frame" or "aim" at I would think that most of you and most "good" players would have a much more difficult time driving the ball in the proper place for an easier approach.
On the flipside, take the same situation and put bunkers, water, trees, OB, rough, or any other penal additive that you want and frame the proper route for an easier approach to the green complex and I GUARANTEE we would all do better than without them overall. WHY? Because so much of this game is visual and the ability to visualize shots. I would find it much easier to shape a shot away or towards some kind of hazard to help me get a better angle.
For example, if you take the "idiot trees" out of play on the tee shot at #18 at Pebble I think it would be an even more difficult tee shot. The drive on #16 at NGLA would be tougher for me if the windmill were not in my sight. I cut it off it every time!
Obviously, hazards and the like penalize tee shots that are off line for the "forced" intended line of play but I find it more difficult to hit a tee shot with nothing to help frame it. This is simply my opinion and I believe in it wholeheartedly. Green complexes should penalize a misplaced drive more than hazards off the tee.
Jeff F.
-
Yeah, I don't thing ANGC without rough is challenging off the tee. Seve and Olazabal have both won there twice hitting it all over the place. I think the challenge off the tee there in the last couple decades was very much exaggerated.
I have to take the opportunity to disagree with Shivas, since I so frequently agree with him that Patrick probably thinks I'm biased.
I'd say Seve & Olazabal won because their superior scrambling ability allowed them to overcome their poor driving - not that their poor driving didn't matter. Golfers with lesser ability would likely not have won under these circumstances. If driving didn't matter at all, I'd imagine they would have combined for even more wins. Unfortunately, even the best scramblers in the world are not going to be successful scrambling all the time. Heck, maybe their victories had more to do with simply having a tournament where they did drive the ball into their intended areas.
If the driving challenge were not there at all, I'd guess more nobodies would win. Look how often the normal tour courses, supposedly better driving tests, result in pure putting contests.
Lastly, Seve is still a master scrambler & putter - if driving didn't matter at ANGC he would still be competitive there.
-
Shivas,
Thanks. I do think we should take David at his word that he considers Rustic Canyon Top Ten sixty yards and in. If true, it is an amazing accomplishment for the project team and they deserve our highest compliments.
Part of my energy on this topic is that I believe in tradeoffs. Architects and project teams DO decide to emphasize different things in building a course. Frankly, I see the ability to create wonderful green complexes as far more worthy of our praise than simply building tee shots that challenge highly skilled golfers.
Couldn't any moron do the latter? Is that the kind of architecture we really want to encourage?
As for your comments on Augusta, I'm with you on the point about today's players hitting wedges to greens verses the way things were in Jones' day. But, I think it also introduces the whole issue of technology and how it has corrupted golf architecture. And that for another thread.....I think.
-
Shiv -
Sounds to me like you're saying ANGC performed exactly as designed - allowing for the possibility of herioc recovery, unlike the US Open type setup. Doesn't mean that it still doesn't test driving - obviously not to the same degree as the US Open, but who really thinks the US Open provides any kind of model for good golf architecture?
-
Shivas,
When Seve won his Masters (1980 and 1983), you said he did it by scrambling.
"But as to your point that Seve and JMO won because of their scrambling abilities, let me point out that the reason they are even getting up and down and scrambling for pars in the first place is that they didn't have to wedge out of 6 inch rough like at the Open or waist high heather or nasty pot bunkers like at the British,"
BUT, Seve won at the British (1979 and 1984) to bookend his Masters wins nicely. Did these British open courses (Lytham and St. Andrews) not provide the challenge? Or were they anomalies?
Sticking to that argument, do you believe that Augusta was an inferior course with no rough?
Do you believe it could have been top 50, without possessing the challenge from the tee?
Lastly, do you believe the same could be said for Lytham or St. Andrews?
-
Tim
- you say
"Frankly, I see the ability to create wonderful green complexes as far more worthy of our praise than simply building tee shots that challenge highly skilled golfers.
Couldn't any moron do the latter? Is that the kind of architecture we really want to encourage?"
Is Tillinghast a moron for building Bethpage Black?
Flynn for providing the same stern test off the tee at Shinnecock?
Frankly your statement astonishes me. Do you totally dismiss those views that believe a more balanced test from tee to green is better?
-
Geoffrey:
I don't think I ever spoke against a balanced test from tee to green. What I simply said is that its hard to believe that any golf course considered Top Ten sixty yards and in would not be considered Top 100 material simply because it failed to challenge skilled golfers off the tee.
You'll note I clearly said that the failure to challenge skilled golfers off the tee might be a factor to make some distinction between the quality of golf courses. I just think going from Top Ten (sixty yards and in) to outside the Top 100 (overall) doesn't make sense. It strikes me as putting TOO MUCH emphasis on challenging skilled golfers off the tee.
-
Sorry to jump into this thread late but I will add one point that already might be mentioned; if a course offers that much interest on the approach shots (and in various playing angles), then it goes without saying "IT IS challenging off the tee". It has to be otherwise all that interest going on around the green can't be that effective.
e.g. just because you hit the fairway at Pinehurst #2 means nothing. The reason that is is because the greensites are so amazing!
If it is easy to get yourself in perfect position on the tee shot, then I would argue that the greensites can't be all that interesting (or effective).
Mark
-
Good one Mark- I fully agree. Its like comparing the green complexes at Running Deer with those at Friars Head. Both are wild and crazy but one are the (IMHO) best modern set of greens complexes ever built while the others are just wild and crazy.
However, I could count how many times Tim posted that he doesn't see how its possible for David to say RC is a top 10 from 60 yards and in but not in the top 100 (I won't but its quite a few) before it shows a lack of respect for ones stated opinion. The opinion was backed up with reasoning. Tim, I could also misconstrue your statement "I just think going from Top Ten (sixty yards and in) to outside the Top 100 (overall) doesn't make sense. It strikes me as putting TOO MUCH emphasis on challenging skilled golfers off the tee." Could you please quantify how much is TOO much? Its his opinion that its NOT too much at RC. Can't we just accept that fact or are you willing to give me your QUANTITATIVE assessment of all of the elements of a top 100 golf course that are necessary for a balanced test?
-
Mark's post got me to thinking about this a bit more (always dangerous and I risk a migrane) but I think its clear (to me) that David's argument stems from the fact that he believes that blasting away with impunity so that he has a putt, pitch, sand wedge or other wedge into a greens complex (still from the fairway) takes away from the challenge and lets the stong (long) player score well. Its worth the risk in his opinion to fire away.
This got me think of this years LA Open at Riviera. #10 at Riviera is one of the great short holes. Tom Paul uses it as an example of Behr's lines of charm and risk vs. reward. If you go right with a driver on this hole you are supposed to be dead due to the green sloping away, the narrow target over the bunker and almost equal death if you go long. However, in the playoff of the LA Open admitedly a very important situation and tournament, Mike Weir I believe took out the driver and hit it way right into a bunker. He, a skilled player, proceeded to hit the ball from that death spot to about 6 feet! Weather it was the 60 degree wedge, the "stop and drop" technology of the ProV1 or a combination of these along with great skill he choose driver, hit it in the worst possible spot but close to the green and escaped. Is this consistent with David's views?
-
Geoffrey:
I think the situation you described with Mike Weir probably is consistent with the thinking David Wigler expressed. Presumably, Weir qualifies as a "skilled golfer". Presumably, the situation you described on #10 at Riviera qualifies as an event where a skilled golfer wasn't challenged off the tee.
That sounds like what David was describing on a hole at Rustic Canyon - #7 or #12....I can't quite remember.
Do we agree on this much?
-
Geoffrey,
For those guys there is little defense on a hole like that. If he can pull off that shot, God bless him. If you make the difficultly (risk/reward) any harder, then the other 99.99 % of golfers who play there will struggle to finish the golf hole let alone play it.
Mark
-
Tim- we agree (although in thinking it might have been Charles Howell and not Mike Weir).
I respect David's argument and I understand it and think he articulated it well (although I don't agree with it) ;D. I'd actually like a piece of David M's bet.
I'm not sure I'd go as far as "Presumably, the situation you described on #10 at Riviera qualifies as an event where a skilled golfer wasn't challenged off the tee." I just happened to remember this example of a truly important situation at perhaps the single most strategic short par 4 in golf that could illustrate David's idea. Weir or Howell (highly skilled players) didn't feel intimidated enough on this hole of all holes to layup with the tournament on the line.
Mark- The hole is perfect for 99.999% of golfers but I think I made a point about the basic argument discussed in this thread.
-
Geoffrey:
On another post you asked if I wanted to give a quantitative assessment to back my often - and perhaps, obxiously repeated statement - that a course considered Top Ten within sixty yards couldn't possibly not be considered Top 100 material based on the failure to challenge skilled golfers off the tee.
I think that is possible - maybe even easy to do. Are you still interested or just pissed over my "broken record" mantra?
-
Weren't it charles da third who hit the bunker shot from 40 yds rt on #10 at this years LA LA open?
-
This "top 10 from within, 60 top 500 from without" just doesnt make sense, at least not a Rustic. The green complexes are great because of the options they afford the golfer hitting into them. Take away the width of the fairways and you are left with pretty greens that dont work.
Take RC 12. Complimented for its great green in same breath as it is criticized for its excessive width and lack of challenge/interest off the tee. OK, so lets leave the green alone but build a new tee box to make it a long par 3, or even a short one. Where would you put the tee so the green was still great, or even made sense?
In line with the existing tee? No way. I'd guess that over 80% of the balls would end up short or long, even if the hole was no more than 90 yds. I would not wager that I could hold 2 in 10 shots from just about anywhere on this line.
Somewhere on the first 50 yards of the existing fairway? A little easier, but still almost impossible for the vast majority of golfers, unless they intentionally miss the green short, then chip or putt from there. Not ideal for a par 3.
The only possible tee I can think of that doesnt make the hole impossible or eliminate much of its allure is about 80-120 yds almost straight right. About in the safe layup spot, and even this tee would make a portion of the right side somewhat inaccessible-- a big loss on a green this small.
So that is what I don't get about the top 10/top 500 comment. If some are basing their assessment on how the greens putt, then they really misunderstand the greens and the course.
Lose the width the great green goes with it.
-
David Moriarty;
I agree with you, but if you have the ability to play it as a par three from 340 yards, where's the interest for the "skilled golfer"?
If I can drive the 10th at Riviera, and have a slight lefthanded fade on most of my shots, being able to keep them all within a 20 yard margin for error where my worst shot will finish 20 yard left of the hole, hole high, then I quickly get bored by the lack of interest therein. ;
Damn...I hate doing being sarcastic, truly I do.
I hope David Wigler knows I'm just busting on him.
-
Can't openess off the tee be highly illusory ?
Take for example the 3rd hole at Pacific Dunes.
It looks as wide as a few football fields, but if the pin is on the far right of the green, isn't that really a narrow fairway or prefered LZ ?
Shouldn't one evaluate actual width in terms of, or in relation to effective width ?
-
"Can't openess off the tee be highly illusory ?
Take for example the 3rd hole at Pacific Dunes.
It looks as wide as a few football fields, but if the pin is on the far right of the green, isn't that really a narrow fairway or prefered LZ ?
Shouldn't one evaluate actual width in terms of, or in relation to effective width?"
Pat:
Congratulations, I think you just figured out strategy that's intentionally less than apparent on wide and sometimes unencumbered fairways!
You might be getting there slowly but at least you seem to be going in the right direction! ;)
-
Tom
With all due respect, neither you, nor I, nor 99% of all golfers are long enough to think about reaching PD#3 in two. So, isn't the "narrowness" caused by the bunkers on the left mostly meaningless? If you have most of your brain cells working, don't you just hit it out to the right off the tee, tack back to the left with a wood/long-mid iron for the desired approach angle and distance, etc.?
-
Rich,
You're probably right that 99% of the players at Pacific Dunes should just go to the right on the third tee shot and not worry about getting to the green in two.
However, I can assure you that far more than 1% of the golfers who play there, think about getting there in two, and try to go left.
-
INTEREST not challenge. INTEREST not Challenge. INTEREST not challenge. Repeat it with me Tim. Is it so hard to at least allow me to defend the argument I want to make?
#10 at Riviera is an extremely interesting hole with many thoughts. There is real benefit in laying up, as the miss is extremely penal. Every miss at #12 at R.C. is in a fairway collection area right. There is no harm in missing thus no interest in the shot. This is not just about #12. On 12 of the 14 holes, you can just blast away with impunity. (Also, I notice that no one has brought up #3 (Which I hit with a 3-wood and I assume even short hitters drive onto (3 in my foursome did). This is also not about better vs. worse golfers. Everyone blasts away at RC and it is probably fun for them as most do not care about strategic options. This is about excess width and lack of creativity off the tee. Something Tim, you would earn the right to disagree with me about if you would JUST GO PLAY THE COURSE!
As for #12 bet, Mr. Moriarty, you completely missed my point (Which Geoffrey Childs expressed so much better than me) and did not read what I wrote. I said I would "guess...". On average, I hit 8 fairways per round and have six misses go right. I will take your $1,000 bet and send the check to Ran tomorrow. Here is the bet. You put the pin wherever you want. I hit first and hit driver 10 times. You hit whatever club you feel will get you to the "Preferred spot 80 yards out." Since my index is lower than yours is, we will eliminate putting. Closest to the pin in two wins and I have to win 7 out of 10 times. I hit a ball OB left; you can putt off the tee and win. Frankly, I could not care less if I only hit the green twice and balloon 8 balls pin high, twenty yards right. I am going to beat you on the second shot because mine is shorter and easier. That is a hole that lacks interest. Send in your check! Furthermore, let's stop referring to this as a 340-yard hole. My ego is not that big. As the crow flies, it takes a shot of 265 (My best guess - If Tommy or Geoff is reading this, please correct me) to get to the front edge. 340 is way out to the right and down the middle of the fairway.
-
TEPaul,
Yes, I'm moving slowly in the right direction.
However, I do take solace in the fact that when you finally get there, I will have already arrived some time earlier.
This is due to the fact that I recognize that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line, while you're still serpintining with Shelly.
Tom Doak,
I considered it, and tried it on two occassions. unfortunately, I hit the two worst drives of the trip. Fortunately, the 12th fairway was there to bail me out.
I think the pin, the wind, and your drives on the first two holes predispose your decision, unless of course TEPaul is your caddy, and in that case the prefered drive is deep into the gorse, where TEPaul will be lost for hours, allowing you to return to the clubhouse for a caddy who knows something about golf, the course and architecture. ;D
-
David Wigler writes:
Furthermore, let's stop referring to this as a 340-yard hole. My ego is not that big. As the crow flies, it takes a shot of 265 (My best guess - If Tommy or Geoff is reading this, please correct me) to get to the front edge. 340 is way out to the right and down the middle of the fairway.
Robert Trent Jones said every hole should be a difficult par but a comfortable bogey. But why not have a hole that is a difficult birdie but a comfortable par. Since par numbers are meaningless in the grand scheme of things, what would be so terrible with that? But if that doesn't suit you, just call it a par 3.
Would your opinion of this hole be different if the card had said it was a par 3? Would we be talking about this being one of the greatest par 3s in golf?
Dan King
There's a tale that's told, presumably apocryphal, about a round of golf that Arnold Palmer and Ben Hogan played in 1960. On the first hole, Hogan scored a textbook par-3. Palmer's drive came to rest in a tree stump; his second shot made it to the edge of the green; and he holed a 40-foot putt for par. On the second hole, Hogan's drive split the fairway; his second shot was on the green; and he two putted for another classic par. Palmer's tee shot landed in three inches of water; he blasted his second shot out onto the fairway; his third shot came to rest several feet beyond the green; and he chipped in for par. On the third hole, Hogan executed four more near-perfect precise shots for his third par in a row. Meanwhile, Palmer's tee shot landed in the rough; his second shot landed in a bunker; and his third shot bounced into the hole for a birdie. Whereupon Hogan turned to Arnold and demanded, "Look dammit; we're here to play golf. Stop fooling around."
--Jerry Izenberg
-
Dan,
You have just summed up why I keep trying to get everyone to change the word from challenge to interest. If the card listed 12 as a par 3, it would be among the most challenging in the world. It still would not be an interesting hole IMO. #14, and #18 are both interesting tee shots with multiple options and requiring thought. They were my favorite holes on the course. #6 while not as challenging (If #12 was a par 3) is infinitely more interesting in how to approach the green.
-
For a hole with little interest off the tee, the 12th at Rustic certainly does stimulate a lot of discussion. I find the strategy can only really be formulated with multiple plays, and that the designers were wise to leave the hole in its' current state, to flesh out any posible refinements, similar to Thomas adding the greenside bunkers to the 10th at Riviera, after witnessing how the hole played for at least a year. Although I like the hole the way it is now, a fairway bunkering scheme could make it even better, by providing the interest that David and Tom want without unduly penalizing the average player.
I have a question for David. I have had the pleasure of playing with him, and his swing does effectively eliminate the left side of the golf course. For this reason the 12th plays right up his alley as he can bomb away with almost all of his misses finishing safely to the right of the green. However, what if the hole was a mirror image, with the road and OB running down the left side. In this case now, when you bomb away, your two misses finish OB, your four near misses leave you short sided, knowing you'll have a hard up and down for your 3, and you still have 4 eagle putts. Does this hole have more interest to you?
-
DavidW
You are right to not take my bet, as it is a suckers bet all the way. I only suggested the bet because your prediction was so outrageous that the outrageousness cannont explained just as an overestimation of your own skill. So I could only opine that either 1) you do not remember the hole, or 2) you remember the hole but you dont really understand it at all.
Your latest post reenforced my opinion above.
As to your suggested bet, no thanks. I try not to bet against those much better than me, except for my weekly donation to David Kelly. But your suggestion was worth a laugh, especially the part about how your index is lower than mine so we will dispense with . . . putting. I'm not a great putter, but I dont think I would lose the majority of strokes on the greens, especially at Rustic. Your suggestion also further reenforces my above opinion. Getting the right putt is the whole point of most of Rustic, so dispensing with the putt would be the last thing I would do if I were trying to understand the course.
Plus, the question isnt how well you would do compared to me, it is how well you would do compared to you. So how about YOU BET YOU.
I'll set the pin and caddy for you. You 10 hit irons toward a spot I designate in the fairway, and then ten shots at the green, trying to play the shot as I suggest. You then hit 10 balls trying to drive the green and give yourself a chance at eagle. You putt everything outside of the leather. We add the gross scores and if the layup score wins, you donate $1000 dollars to CGA.com. If going for it wins, then pay yourself whatever you want. The only catch is that you have to try, and that you have to really go for the green-- for eagle-- on all ten drivers. No intentional "misses" right.
-
David,
I will give it my honest effort, but that is a lose/lose bet. How about; I win with my driver and YOU donate the $1,000 to GCA. I would have no idea how to intentionally miss right. I hit a long fade. All my misses go right. It is the Bruce Lietzke theory on driving. Control your game and eliminate half the golf course.
I made no predication only a guess and I was trying to be fair about putting. Putting is the real strength of my game. If you want to add putting to the equation, all the better to prove my point.
PeteL,
Very interesting question. It would be much more challenging if OB was right. It would also be more interesting for me as I would have to decide to go for it and risk OB or not. In a match I was losing, I might risk the shot but if I was winning, I could play safe. This is why I did not want this argument to be #12 in a vacuum. Let's look at #3, #7, and #12. All three can be driven. All three have a safe bail out on a slice right. I remember reading somewhere that something like 90% of golfers play left to right. If #3 or #7 was inverted, than #12 works better for me. Because all three require the same shot and can be had with the same miss, that is where my lack of interest comes from.
-
No thanks David, not for $1000. While I am sure you'd try your hardest, I would never bet $1000 in a contest pitting anyone against himself. To do so would be foolish. Plus, I offered the thousand dollar bet because I was absolutely sure that I could not lose. I don't think you can win with this last proposed bet but it is possible that you will. I was looking for a sure thing.
By the way, I think driver has an advantage that would not normally exist. I think most your drives will end up beyond the green. The shot from there is definitely a feel shot, and the opportunity to hit multiple shots from there will give you a big advantage you would not normally get during the course of plays over many days or months.
Just to be a sport though . . . so long as you actually aim at the pin or at least try to hit the middle of the green on all of your drives, and so long as you give your best efforts on the Lay-up, I will bet up to $250 dollars, with the loser paying $250 toward defraying costs of next spring's King's Putter and/or toward any Open GCA event which Ran might choose to hold at Rustic.
But hypothetically, if we do try this, will we learn anything? Would any of the results below alter your opinion of the hole:
a. Driver is well under par and wins big.
b. Driver has a few disasters and Lay-up wins big.
c. Driver and Lay-up play the hole fairly evenly.
As for me, I would expect the answer to be somewhere in between b. and c., with the pin placement I have in mind.
If option a. wins big, I will be surprised and will definitely reconsider whether the hole is as strategically interesting for long hitters as I think it is.
What about you? Will any of these results change your opinion?
By the way, you never told me if I was correct on my guess as to your last eagle putt.
Let me know if you accept the challenge.
As to Pete L's question. Don't most long hitters hit a draw? Do you evaluate the hole the same or differently for them?
-
David W.,
If you say that you aim directly at the green on #12 and play RH with a fade, how do you negotiate the tree that is about 50 ft. in front of the black tees and effectively shields a direct line between the tee box and the left side of the green? Do you just go over it? The farther up the black tees play the more it becomes a problem.
Being a LH fader it isn't much of a problem for me but many right-handers I play with are forced to play down the middle and use a draw to get close to the green.
-
DavidM,
I would take that bet any day. I suspect A as a lock but would not be shocked at C. Basically. I do not hit my driver much less accurately than my 4-iron. I would bet on one disaster with each club. On the other nine, I just cannot accept that I would be better off 80-100 yards from the green than on or within 20 yards of the green. The only way it would change my mind is if I really was playing well and executed 10 high fade drives. If I could not beat 10 smartly played irons by 2-3 strokes, than I would admit I was wrong.
I am not trying to avoid your eagle question. I cannot find it. Please repeat and I will try to answer it.
As for most long hitters, I think you are incorrect. Look at the tour. The guys famous for their long accurate driving Tiger, Els, Price, Vijay, etc. play fades. The only big hitter who consistantly plays draw that I can think of is Duval. Again, the stat may be incorrect but I believe it is 90% of golfers play left to right. I think I answered the second part of the question in my response to Pete. Eliminate 12 in a vacuum. Do you believe that three drivable par fours, all with hazard left and bailout right is design variety? Do you want to make our bet on #3 as well (I will use a 3-wood)?
DaveK,
I only played RC once. I do not remember the tree. For whatever reason it did not enter my thinking on the hole. I do not know how it relates to the tee position. In that same line of thinking, Tommy tells me that when I was out, they were working on the back tee on #7. He assures me that from the true back tee, I would not dismiss it as a drivable par four. I will take his word on that.
-
David W. your point that the 3 driveable par 4's all have a hazard to the left and bailout to the right is valid. Would your opinion of the variety change if 3 and 12 were bunkered to punish the bailout left and make a player really lay back if he goes right, and the back tee at 7 was in play?
-
Absolutely!!
-
I for one am glad this thread went on so long - I think I finally understand David's position.
Just one more question: Do you think the fact that you are a good putter maybe had as much to do with your lack of interest in the tee shot situation? In other words, maybe a long hitter who's not very proficient with the flatstick would be better off considering which way to approach the hole.
-
George,
I cannot answer that. Maybe?
-
George,
That is a GREAT question!
Early last year, for about the first three or four months the course opened, it was a learning experience for all--Here you have a brand new course, with a brand new crew, and a really talented young superintendent that is trying to explain to a first time course owner what he is going to need, from staff to equimpment to run this golf course.
They have done a remarkable job, and in truth, given the owner, Jeff Hicks deserves the GCA Medal of Honor.
But in that beginning, some of the pin placements that were being utilized were being laid-out, at least on the front nine, were pretty easy, and in fact as the greens got faster through the year, as they matured, they lost a lot of pins because of the phenominal contours of these greens. Jeff told me two weeks ago, that he hopes to never have them that fast again, because frankly they don't need it. I haven't played the course in two weeks, and while it has had a good chane to get past the first major aeration of the year, they were getting to a perfect pace about 11:00am during the day, after the wind picked-up further and the dampness from dew and watering disappated.
I can't begin to tell you how many times I have tried tolet people figure these greens out on their own, on their first trip out, just so they can have that healthy respect, and more then anything, memory of how far their putt had broke the last time they played there. David doesn't need help there. He knows how to respect of Rustic Canyon with his comments of being Top 100, which in my opinion they are Top 25, and that is being conservative. I think no matter his opinion of the course in two weeks, he will walk away knowing more about the course then he knew before, and it will make him want to return again, and again, and again to learn more about it, and in because in truth, Rustic Canyon for guys like all of us is like a drug. You might not feel it your first time, but you'll start to feel it more on your second and third and fourth and fifth, and so on and so on and so on.
I hope I can be with him when he does feel it too, because this course truely is a miracle in a land that doesn't believe in them, just like a saint in the streets of Detroit or Pittsburgh, and generally speaking, I think David is one of this wesites personable characters. Anybody who mets him will feel the same.
Hopefully on the tee Sunday, June 15th you'll be hearing David, David, David & Tommy are now up!
-
Tim, sounds then like we have a bet! A win/win for the rest of these guys, no doubt.
I had guessed that the day you had your eagle putt, the pin was in the front half of the green, and that your ball was either barely on the front of the green, or actually on the fringe. Am I correct or incorrect?
You may be right about more long hitters fading the ball. I really have no idea, I had just always heard that better golfers hit a draw to get more run. But I guess with today's technology they dont need run.
Do you believe that three drivable par fours, all with hazard left and bailout right is design variety? Do you want to make our bet on #3 as well (I will use a 3-wood)?
I've always thought that the tee shot on 3 felt a little too much like the tee shot on 12, but consider this a minor blemish. As for 7, it doesnt have the same feel at all, and doesnt present the same type of risk reward calculation. Not many even consider going for it on 7, and of those that do, not many make it.
No, I don't want to add No. 3 to the bet. I have noted in the past that 3 just doesnt quite work as intended.
-
Several comments:
a) mission accomplished: Tommy is back posting. JakaB's "he'll be back within three days" proves to be right on. This thread proves its worth for this alone.
b) I'd kill to caddie for David W. in this "match", if it occurs, not that he needs my help, just that I'd love to be there. Interesting thing is, I WILL be in the area and playing golf Fri June 20 - seemingly 5 days too late - oh well... But just as fodder for the "raters get everything" take that seems to come up here from time to time, I won't be playing Rustic - I'm gonna be playing Moorpark CC. So close and yet so far... gotta do it for GD "best new" rating.
c) I never said I drove the green on 12 - I said I got close. I was short right - as I recall I had a pitch of 25 yards or so. How it got there I don't recall - I just remember it being not all that tremendous of a shot. In any case my take remains that that green is so wild, it doesn't matter where your 2nd comes in from, there's no signifcantly better or worse way. The regulars there likely can and will refute this, though I haven't read a good refutation of that yet... I still can't see how 80 yards back is gonna be better than right next to the green... but hey, I too hope to find this out more in person some day.
d) to me "interest" off the tee is required for greatness, "challenge" off the tee might not be (for the top echelon), taking into acccount what Mr. Lewis said re Pine Valley. Obviously that is a great course that doesn't - for him - hold challenge off the tee. I'd be surprised if it didn't hold his interest, however, one way or the other.
e) I am DAMN glad I have no working home computer and thus was out of this argument for three days!
TH
-
Tom, The reason I was back in four days (so quite obviously Jackassabee was wrong:)) was because there was some stimulating architectural disscussion, not the same old, I'm going to bend them till they break stuff that seems to be the norm here nowadays. The constant confrontational attitude of some actually is tiring, and I think you would even agree with that. Do you see me arguing or knocking any particpants character like John does with me, in any of my posts?
Nor do I see it in yours. And that thankfully is somewhat of a relief. At least someone else isn't arguing. Your discussing--big, huge difference.
And if you think I was swearing off the site for good, go back and read what I was saying in my original thread.
-
Tommy:
I'm just happy to have you back one way or the other, bottom line!
So my apologies for giving credit to your "rival". If that offended you that was surely not my intent.
Just got the word I shall be playing Moorpark CC, early am June 20... oh the things I do for the good of Golf Digest Magazine. ;)
TH