[Pete Lavallee]

The "better player's" criticism of Rustic canyon does seem unjustified. With 4 par 5's, where players can blast away with impunity and 2 driveable par 4's, with no defense in place for the longest, NOT ONE player has shot 66 in the 10 months the course has been open! I think the real key is that to normally land the ball within 15 feet of the hole you have a 15 foot circle to land your ball in. BUT, when the pin is tucked just over a steep ridge at Rustic your landing zone now shrinks to at least half that size to get that same 15 footer for birdie. I've seen three low markers, from the same spot (the wrong one) fail to get within 20 feet of the hole from 70 yards out, with full L wedge in their hands. That wedge shot that sticks beautifully on a flat part of the green just won't jump up over those steep slopes. The beauty of it all is, that if you postion yourself correctly that landing area circle can really be increased with the right attack angle. Or you have to play something that runs up the ridge, not a shot that many modern players own.

[DMoriarty]

Rich and Tom,

I had hoped that this thread would evolve into a broader, more theoretical look at strategy vs. challenge, but I will go with the flow.  I always enjoy discussing Rustic.

Tom and Matt, I believe that you greatly overestimate the ease and effectiveness of throwing darts at Rustic's greens. Sure it is sometimes possible to throw up a high spinning iron and hold certain portions of greens. But the margin of error of so doing is inversely related to the accuracy of the tee shot.   As far as the course playing soft, I just don't see it.  The greens may not be as firm or as fast as Wildhorse, but if certain greens were much firmer or faster, the approaches would be more comparable to shuffleboard than to darts.  There are already 6 or 7 greens where I regularly aim at a point off the green to let it roll or bounce on, and 5-6 more where I sometimes do, depending on my angle and the pin position.  You guys are better, so maybe you would try to stick it on every green, but I havent seen anyone be successful doing that yet.  Shivas wrote:

I've said again and again that a 7,000 yard course (in years past, the benchmark for a brutally long course) requires the long player to hit little more than PW's irons in for approaches, on average (14 drives x 250 = 3500 yards; 4 second shots on par 5's at 200 yards each = 1000 yards; 4 par 3's at 175 average = 700 yards.  That's 5200 yards for 22 shots, leaving 1800 yards for 14 shots, or 128 yard approaches on average to the par 4's, with less than that into the par 5's).

Shivas, you've got to come out here and play. Fairway for as far as the eye can see.  You can swing yourself silly.  To make it interesting I will buy you a beer for every par four you approach with a PW or less. (Not one of your closed face running draw PWs-- ala the famous 4I, 2I, 7I at Olympic.  A normal PW distance.) You buy me a beer for everyone you approach from 9I or more, or go for from the tee.  It will be a fun game -- I am a happy drunk!  Here are the par 4s:  457, 319, 330, 435, 340, 480, 479, 460. Shivas wrote:

Take a course with 100 yard wide fairways.  Two players:  A, who hits it 300 and is pretty wild (he hits maybe 4-5 fairways a round on a tight course but can hit 12-13 on THIS course); and B, who hits it dead straight off the tee 260 and never misses a fairway on any course (Iron Byron).  Assume they both hit their approaches with equal accuracy for the clubs they are hitting in.  They have equal short games and putting skills.  The both play the aerial game and the greens are receptive.  [A] wins every time.

Okay, I'll bite.  Provided that Mr. Byron knows the course and chooses the correct lines off the tee, my money is on Mr. Byron at Rustic.  Shivas, don't overestimate Rustic's susceptibility to the whack then attack approach.  The greens aren't your typical flat, boring greens.  They have lots of fun angles and kickers.  I don't care how much spin you put on a ball, its not going to spin back if it hits on a steep downhill slope.  

Shivas wrote:

The problem is that for many years, we've thought of "angles" in a two-dimensional way.  Aerial golf is three dimensional, unfortunately.

The greens at Rustic are three dimensional also.  

Ben Dewar wrote:

David Moriarty can attest to the relative firmness the day we played.

Ben, the day we played the greens weren't exceptionally firm, probably about average.  

Tim Weiman wrote:

Maybe Rustic Canyon can't be all things to all people. Pine Valley can't either.

Tim I agree with your discussion of strategy, but I dont think Rustic is quite ready to surrender on the "challenge" front quite yet.  The only long bombers that I have heard of who have brought the course to its knees have all been playing the longest, most accurate ball yet,  the new Titleist Hypothetical.

Has anyone had success trying to overpower the course with a "whack then attack" style (bombing down the middle off the tee, then firing at the pin)?  Has anyone one even seen anyone whack then attack the course into oblivion?   Matt, what did you shoot the day you played with us?  How about you, Tom?  Mr. Wigler?  If any of you didnt score as well as you expected, what happened?  Miss all of your 8 foot uphill birdie putts?

I've heard a lot of good golfers finish then say "this course is too easy."  I ask "how did you play?"  They usually say something like, "Well, I had an unusually bad day, but I could just tell the course is way to easy."  I havent heard anyone say,  "Wow a 67!"  I guess Lynn might have heard one guy say this, but I think he is the only one.  

Lou Duran wrote:

It seems to me that a course like Rustic Canyon, which I haven't played, would favor a Tiger Woods and penalize a Corey Pavin.  A tight course off the tee, be it through rough, trees, hazards, sharp angles, etc. would clearly help the short but straight driver, and penalize the long, crooked knocker.  A short and crooked player may find a wide open course more playable, though such a course would have difficulty holding the interest of the longer, low handicap player.

 I've never understood this reasoning.  If I am short and accurate off the tee, I want to play a course that puts a premium on proper decisions and placement.  When the long crooked hitter does hit the fairway on a tight course, he's got a great chance at birdie because he is close. Even if he is in the rough or in a bunker, he is still close, so he can still knock in on and go at birdie.  If the long hitter can stick it on a downslope at Rustic, I am sure he can knock it on a flat green from 145 out of a bunker or rough.   At Rustic, the short hitter can gain relative advantage even if he hits it substantially shorter, by properly placing his ball.  Look at Riviera, some narrow holes but generally a very strategic course.  It is rarely if ever overpowered, and some smart, shorter hitters can think and execute their way into contention.  Of course, smart, long, and straight will always win anywhere, but we can't all be Lou Duran.  

Matt Ward wrote:

David, next time I'm at RC I want you hit your approaches from where I land my drives from the extreme back tees and for you to compare what you score with your drives from the middle tees. I bet you'll shoot lower from the former. Just think about it

Sounds great!  I don't think that I've ever had a chance to play the first hole from the ninth fairway.  Wait . . . come to think of it, I have.  Seriously, if your distance was typical the day we played, I think I have played from your approach distance on almost every hole (maybe not the 9th.)  I will still take angle over length at Rustic.    

Matt, I am sorry if I mischaracterized your position.  I recall that shortly after you played the course you had general criticism about the tee game.  You also had specific comments about 1, 2, 9, 10, if I recall correctly.  As far as me agreeing that certain holes could be improved, that is true, but I think the improvement would be  a negligible plus to the overall quality of the course.  As to 3, I would not like another fairway bunker or moving any of the existing fairway bunkers.  If, anything, I'd tweak the green.  As to 12, I have come full circle on that one.  I think it is a truly fantastic hole and I don't think they should touch it.  A fairway bunker would add little or nothing to the strategy of the hole, and would take away from the terrific feel of the course.
___________________________

You guys are looking for every shot to be a "test," presenting some question your game must answer.   But it seems the test you guys are looking for is "True or False," or maybe "Multiple Choice."  Each shot is graded seperately, if you get it correct you get a point, incorrect and you lose a point.  And then, after that shot is played, you move onto the next question, which may have absolutely nothing to do with the last.  

To me, playing Rustic Canyon is more like trying to write an essay.  Anyone who has graded essays has seen numerous students who knew the material as well or better than the rest, but they just couldnt pull it all together.  In successful essays, each point leads you to the next and each has bearing on the other.  The author must think ahead and plan his attack, usually starting at the conclusion and and then figure out a plan to get there.  Otherwise he might not like his final grade.   Maybe it is my law school training, where 3 or 4 hour tests often consist of one question that would be impossible to completely answer in 10 hours, but I find essay tests more challenging than multiple choice or true/false.  

Jeff Forston said

. . . to say that you need trouble off the tee to make a tee shot more challenging or interesting is a complete lack of imagination, in my opinion.  If anything, the less trouble and framing there is for a tee shot, the more difficult and deceiving that tee shot becomes.  Nothing plays into a golf course's pocket more than sedating and deceiving the player.

I competely agree, Jeff.   This can really raise a problem for the architect, though, if he is concerned with garnering praise and ratings, for he might just sedate and deceive the raters so that they totally miss what the course is all about.  Maybe this is why architects who spell it all out generally do well in the ratings.  

[David Kelly]

Like Pete_L. I'm still waiting to see a "better player" go low at Rustic Canyon.  In my 40+ rounds at Rustic Canyon I haven't seen many  single-digit golfers shoot under their handicaps.  One guy I have seen do this is Lynn S. and while he is not short off the tee he is by no means a bomber.  I have seen him put together some nice rounds by being controlled off the tee and by using his great short game.

I played with Tony Ristola in 50 degree weather and 30 mph winds while he shot in the mid-70s at the Lost Canyons Sky Course only to come back a few days and post a score 10 shots higher at Rustic Canyon on a 75 degree day with no wind.

For all the talk of no challenges off the tee and good golfers being able to overpower the course I have watched a lot of people come off the course frustrated at their scores.  Almost to a man people feel the course will play easy when they first see it or even play it for the first time.  The proof is in the pudding however.

[Matthew Mollica]

Guys -

If 'challenge off the tee' involves an accuracy component, and not a sole demand of unrealistic length, i'm a little confused as to how strategy and challenging tees shots could ever be mutually exclusive....

Matthew

[T_MacWood]

Didn't ANGC allow for driving without impunity. Of course we all know that just because you are not in a hazard or in the rough does it mean you are in good shape, you may have placed yourself in a very precarious position. ANGC seemed to identify the best golfer year in and year out.

Many golfers rely on the roadmap that bunkers, rough or trees provide. A lack of beacons to guide the golfer can be confusing, it effects their equalibrium, it makes some golfers uncomfortable. For that reason its a great tool to use on occasion.

[THuckaby2]

Dave:  that's one hell of a post and much appreciated.   I get the feeling that like others, you have a very personal attachment to this course and darn it, you should.  As I've never ceased saying, it is a wonderful golf course.  I had a blast there.

BUT... nothing you say in that post refutes the basic premise that a good player can just whack away off the tee with little penalty and little concern for strategy.  I personally don't mark this as a "weakness" of Rustic - it's an issue for a very tiny percentage of players - I just might agree that it's an issue that would keep some people from rating it at the very top echelon of courses, as has seemed to occur in the Golf Week rankings.

We can and will discuss this next week, it will make for great conversation for sure.

BTW, no one ever said it's an "easy" course (I don't think)... the greens alone and some very tough pin positions take care of keeping scores higher than they might be.   And no, the good player isn't having his score kept down because he misses strategy or angles - such are insignificant for him, as we say.  Those greens are just so tough that getting it close FROM ANY ANGLE, NO MATTER HOW SHORT THE SHOT is enough to make this "no one's scored 66" very believable.

No, the issue isn't that this "lack of challenge/interest off the tee for the better player" makes the course EASIER for him, it's more that it makes it LESS INTERESTING, LESS FUN, than others at the very top end... Big difference here.

In any case, I've tried to stick to your broader, theoretical  general question... it's just kinda hard to focus on the theoretical when we have such a perfect real-life example.

TH

ps - can't resist reminding people as we continue to discuss Rustic that a certain other, much-maligned ranking system for another magazine ranked it #1 Best New Affordable in the country, whilst the oft-praised GolfWeek has no mention of it other than Brad's scathing commentary on the "amenities" in his side bar.  

[D._Kilfara]

Sorry I'm late to this thread - I see that I was paged yesterday...

Re: the 18th at the Old Course, I've argued the point before, and I'll argue it again - this hole gives every golfer who plays it a glimpse of strategic decision-making, and as such it should be celebrated for rather more than its stunning/historical backdrop. To wit:

--The 18th at TOC is 354 yards long from the box tees. If you hit the ball, say, 180-200 yards off the tee - don't discount the percentage of mid-to-high handicappers who can't hit the ball any further than that - you can of course play safely to the left, but that turns the hole into a 370- or 380-yard dogleg. That little bit of safety may be the difference between being able to reach the green in two and having the Valley of Sin come into play on your third. Or it may mean the difference between hitting a wood and an iron, or a long iron vs. a medium-iron. It's very easy for single-digit handicappers and other golfers for whom 354 yards can always be negotiated in two shots regardless of the ferocity and direction of the wind to pooh-pooh this point, but believe me, not all golfers are like that. To take the shortest route to the green means flirting with the out-of-bounds on the right - full-stop. (This is reason number one why TOC #18 works - the tee and the green are both on the right edge of the wide fairway. If both were in the middle of the fairway, there would be no strategic element to the hole at all.)

--Along similar lines...you can't discount the psychological aspect of such an inviting fairway. When I stand on the 18th tee, I'm usually thinking, "Sure, I can play left and leave myself a 6-iron into the green...but wouldn't I rather take the straighter line and leave myself an 8-iron instead? I want to make birdie here, not some wussy two-putt par!" It's a seductive line of thought, and it often leads to double-bogeys and worse. (This is reason number two why TOC #18 works - the penalty for missing the fairway is stroke-and-distance. Without that drastic penalty, the hole wouldn't work, really. I don't think you can't have a super-wide fairway flanked on each side by 10 yards of light rough and 10 more yards of slightly thicker rough and trees that might deflect the ball back toward the fairway, because then there really isn't any choice as to which line one should choose.)

--For the big bombers, who can realistically threaten to reach green in one shot (and TOC #18 can certainly be reached from certain teeing positions and/or given certain wind/turf conditions), I think it's obvious that to drive the green, you need to skirt the fenceline on the right. Many big hitters will probably choose a line at the left edge of the green and say, if the ball fades onto the green, great, but if not I'll still be pin-high and have a good angle for my second shot. Which is fair enough, but that's not the way to make a two or an easy three. To give yourself a realistic chance at an eagle or two-putt birdie, you have to challenge the OB right - and, in certain circumstances, the OB behind the green. (This is reason number three why TOC #18 works - the hole is short enough for some golfers in some conditions that the option of gambling to reach the green is there. Many a golfer who gets within 30 yards of the green will wish that he'd left himself a full wedge instead.)

As for the point about the pin never being on the right side of the green...well, I have to concur that you never really see the pin any further to the right of right-center, but then, I'm not sure some people realize that much of the back-right corner and right half of the green is so steeply sloped as to be unpinnable. Next time you're in St. Andrews, make sure you stand at or near the back-right corner of the green (just behind the perimeter fencing works) and look down to the usual Sunday pin position, just above the Valley of Sin in the front left or front middle part of the green. It's a drop of at least three or four feet, and probably more like five or six feet. While this sloping makes the right side and back corner of the green unpinnable, its extension into the fairway means that shots running into the green will tend to curve from right-to-left, meaning that to hit the center of the green from the tee (or with a run-up shot) means you have to skirt that much closer to the fenceline.

The pros can make TOC #18 look deceptively easy at times. Play the hole just a few times, and you might think the same think. Drive the ball just once out of bounds, and I promise you, you'll see the hole in a whole new light...

As for how all of this relates to Rustic Canyon, which I've never seen or heard anything about beyond the confines of this forum, I'll leave that for others to determine.

Cheers,
Darren

[George Pazin]

Dave M -

Best post I've ever seen you make. Maybe you're not such a bad guy after all...

Actually, that's one of the best posts, period.

Huckster -

I think he covered your question thoroughly. Just because you can whack away without thinking doesn't mean you should.

[THuckaby2]

George:

He covered it thoroughly without a doubt.

I just don't think he successfully refuted the basic premise.  There's neither enough negative penalty to stop the good player from whacking away, nor enough positive reward to get him to try for the "better" angles.  That has not been refuted, not from what I can tell anyway.

So really, for the good player, there's nothing he can't or shouldn't do, period!

And it has nothing to do with it being a test, either multiple choice, essay or otherwise... it has to do with it being interesting and fun!  Off the tee for the good player, it's just not much of either... not as much as a truly GREAT course is, anyway.

For us peons, hell yeah, all the interest/fun/test is there.  So do bear in mind this is just a tiny "lack of positive" effecting a tiny percentage of players... so how much does it matter?  Well, not much, not to me...

But to argue it doesn't exist... well... that's just a very tough argument to make, one that Counselor Moriarty is trying very hard on... but the jury is still out and it ain't looking good for him!  

TH

ps - I ought to have answered Dave's question re how I did in my round at Rustic, given he did ask.  First of all, I don't whack and attack, I don't hit the ball far enough. I thoroughly enjoyed trying to find the right angles and outside of #11 I think I got most of it correct.  I played decently and shot 74.  I was VERY happy with my score, it was less than I thought I'd have!

[Mike_Cirba]

David Moriarty;

Damn if that's not one of the best posts I've ever read here.  

I LOVE the essay test analogy, and as someone who has been on record here saying that I don't believe a primary function of a golf course is to "test" golfers, what you described in your multi-layered assessment I can live with.  

Too many times courses become boring, predictable,
reiterative, redundant, and rote through an effort to make them "true/false", or even "multiple choice" tests.  

"Fill in the blanks" is a step up, but an "essay test"...ahh...that's surely golf at it's best...

David; I'm wholly impressed with your thinking and fabulous analyisis.  Thanks for sharing!      

[George Pazin]

Let me put it another way.

Course record is 67.

If someone were to come in & play to preferred landing areas, not just whale away, and break this record, wouldn't that show the fallacy in your thinking?

Didn't Mackenizie & Jones say, when building Augusta, that a course should reward well thought out & executed play with low scores?

If a golfer doesn't feel adequate challenge off the tee while not posting a low round, or even playing to his handicap, I'd say the weakness lies with the golfer & not the course.

[JakaB]

Can a "Line of Charm" exist at a venue such as Rustic...I just don't see a "Field of Delight" ...Rusticly speaking....holding the same interest of a serious student of the game.

[THuckaby2]

George, George, George.

And Mike, Mike, Mike.

Add big sighs here.....

Let me say this again, very slowly:  this isn't about the TEST, and the course record has nothing to do with this, nor does whether it's essay or whatever, nor does it have anything to do with how much of a challenge this is.

The issue here is that for the good player, there's neither enough negative penalty to stop him from whacking away, nor enough positive reward to get him to try for the "better" angles.  Thus there's nothing for him to think about on the tee other than just blasting away as hard as he can.  That would mean the tee shots are less interesting and less fun.  THAT'S ALL!

Yes, for all of us normal players, Rustic is a wonderful essay test, very hard to figure out, and thus very fun.

BUT THAT'S NOT THE ISSUE HERE!

The issue is the above.  It's not that big of a deal... but it is enough to keep the course from being in the very top echelon of golf courses, as some believe it should be....

And I've also given a way to "fix" this - just firm it up!

So George, quoting course records is meaningless.  You do get this, right?  If not, I can go on at great length about what determines how a great player will score... it ain't tee shots, unless you put in very high rough...

TH

ps - please understand I am smiling as I type this, and it's all in good fun.  You guys know your stuff, that's why I sigh when I see you missing the point here....

[George Pazin]

I may be missing your point, but I don't think I'm missing the point, & I think that's where the difference lies.

The bashers you're describing may in fact feel they can whale away with nothing to think about, but maybe if they thought for a half second instead about placing their tee shots in more favorable positions, they could score better. That's the point of the game, isn't it?

And then, maybe if they come to this earth shattering realization, they would actually start to feel a little pressure off the tee.

Just something to think about...

[THuckaby2]

OK, fair enough, George.

For many reasons, I disagree, all of which have been already stated.  There's not enough postive for finding the "right" angle, nor negative for missing it.  It's not that they don't think - au contraire - they think quite a bit - all good players do - but they find out right away it doesn't matter - and that is disappointing.

TH

[Jeff Fortson]

Tom Huckaby,

Should tee shots have enough penalties on them so that if you miss your mark, birdie is an impossibility?

I don't think that if you play to an improper angle that the possibility of birdie should necessarily be taken away.  It should just be more difficult to make one.  

If I am hearing you right, you believe that there is absolutley NO advantage to hitting a tee shot in any specific direction at Rustic Canyon.  Is this what you are saying?  If so, does that mean you could play these holes from any point in a 360 degree circle around the greens?  Is there any advantage for taking specific angles?  

Like I said, I have never played here, but I would be shocked to think that there is absolutely no strategic value in placing tee shots for proper angles to pins.  I guess I'll just have to wait and see for myself.

Jeff F.

[THuckaby2]

Jeff - let's not take this to absurd degrees.  We're talking about one "less than hugely positive" aspect of a truly wonderful golf course.  So the answer to everything you say is generally no.  It's not that extreme.

But you raise a very interesting question in:

"Should tee shots have enough penalties on them so that if you miss your mark, birdie is an impossibility?

I don't think that if you play to an improper angle that the possibility of birdie should necessarily be taken away.  It should just be more difficult to make one."

As a guy who very stupidly competes with players of your caliber from time to time, I'm tempted to say "screw the good players and hell yes birdie should be impossible if you miss the mark...."  But I'm not that self-centered and I personally like to see recovery shots allowed.  So I agree with you - miss the mark and make it more difficult, but not impossible.

Of course with today's rocket golf balls that also sit on a dime, and after watching Tiger make that birdie from the trees a few weeks ago on the back nine at Torrey, I'm straining to think of a situation where birdie is impossible PERIOD....

TH

[Matt_Ward]

Dave M:

Read your long thesis and have a few counterpoints to present.

First, you ask me about my score that day. Let's also point out that I treked througout the SW for seven days BEFORE FINALLY getting to RC as my last round. Most people would have collapsed after just a three day Ward adventure of this type!

When you say score I say this: on my first visit to any course I try to get the "lay of the land." I try to visulaize all the cues one gets from the placement of the bunkers -- to the contouring of the greens -- the comments of my playing partners. The next time I return the game face is on and it's time to pull out the calculator and add'em up. When people say the lowest score at RC is 66 or 67 my answer is so what -- even if the score were lower or higher I only look at what I will score.

David, regading club usage the simple fact that you conveniently ignore is this -- a wedge or 9-iron for your second shot, no matter the angle (unless the ground is St. Andrews type concrete) is still a short shot. If you take my drives (even the one I hit on the 1st ) you will have a much easier second shot than you might think possible. Second, the turf conditions at RC are not as firm and fast as Wild Horse and for those who've played both courses I'm sure they will agree.

Part of the issue I have with all the defenders of RC is that there is not one concession on the main argument that the tee game element is really less detailed than what you find with the green complexes. Hello -- anybody home on this point! It's time for a bit more of a reality check. David Wigler captured a good bit of this in his initial assessment of RC and for the most part I agree with it.

David, you won't even concede one aspect needs to be changed when clearly holes like the 3rd, 9th, 10th, 11th and 12th, to name just a few, can be tweaked (nothing more than that) and then the challenge for the tee game will improve. You cannot allow better players the opportunity to bail out or hit it cross town without some sort of significant penalty. What's the worse that's going to happen -- a three putt?

I think most of the defenders of RC simply believe that if you ONLY have superb green complexes the rest no matter how rudimentary or pedestrian is sufficient. I don't buy that. For years I've played Bethpage Black -- likely the most complete opposite of courses to RC as you can find) and the fear of God is certainly present as you MUST have a first class tee game to complete the round and the challenge of the greens complexes, while certainy less detailed & intense as RC, are still good in roughly one-third of the layout.

David, when you play approaches from a longer hitter tee's game and compare that to your score from drives hit from the middle tees you will notice immediately what I am talking about. Rustic is a superb public course and to be clear I've said it's a model that should be copied in many communities throughout the USA. However, the course IS NOT perfect and a gentle tweaking on the driving zones on a few holes is clearly in order.

P.S. Let me also mention that RC is indeed mega fun as Don Mahaffey pointed out and I agree with that. Let me also suggest that contrary to what Mike C says I do like golf to be a test of the player. That's one of the reasons why I play -- to be tested thoroughly by a layout that will expose / reward / challenge / motivate me to do better with each round.

[Mike_Cirba]

Darn, I wish I had more time to write today because this is certainly an interesting and well-thought-out discussion.

In the interest of time, I'd pose this question;

Does The Old Course provide sufficient challenge from the tee for today's big hitters?  Does it put enough premium on the tee ball to challenge and "test" the better player?

[THuckaby2]

GREAT question, Mike - and I was waiting for this to come out!

Hmmmm.... Tiger's incredible antics there notwithstanding, I'd say TOC at least poses SOME challenge and interest of the tee for even the best players. although blasting to the left always does seem to be an easy option.  Missing those bunkers is the challenge, given the huge penalty for hitting them.. and with those rock greens and rock fairways, angles in do matter, so challenging the right is worth their effort.

Make TOC soft and this ceases to exist.... but it's thankfully never going to be soft... is it?

TH

[D._Kilfara]

The Old Course is soft when it rains a lot - not super-squishy soft, but its greens and even fairways can be receptive in certain conditions. That said, I think you're underestimating the challenge of TOC - there are bunkers everywhere, even to the left, and even the best of players have to be absolutely cognizant of where they are. Remember, get in an Old Course bunker, and at least 50% of the time you're effectively talking about a dropped shot, which is rather more than you can say about many other driving hazards at most other courses.

Huckster, were you going to respond to my earlier long essay about #18 at TOC, or had you moved on already?

Cheers,
Darren

[THuckaby2]

Darren - thanks for the clarifications re TOC.  I couldn't imagine it NOT having challenges, I was just over-generalizing in the interest of being quick.

Now back to #18, and your previous post - thanks!  Sorry to not comment till now, you're right, I did get wrapped up in Rustic Canyon discussion.  But by my take all you say makes very good sense, and people need to keep this in mind before they just blow that off as an easy golf hole.  I did not know, btw, that the back right would be unpinnable - it's been 15 years since I've been there and the memory is foggy! That front right pin was weird... and seemed strange even to me... so I went back last night and looked at the pics and yep, there we are, right by the street, front of the green.  Cup-cutter must have had a sense of humor that day!

TH

[Mike_Cirba]

Let me ask a couple of followups;

Does Pinehurst #2 provide sufficient challenge from the tee for today's big hitters?  Does it put enough premium on the tee ball to challenge and "test" the better player?

Does Augusta National (prior to tree planting and rough growing...the one we all grew up knowing) provide sufficient challenge from the tee for today's big hitters?  Does it put enough premium on the tee ball to challenge and "test" the better player?

How about Cypress Point?

[THuckaby2]

Pinehurst:  yo no se.  Not familiar enough with it.

Augusta - probably, but likely less now than how it's described in Wexler's new book.

Cypress - oh yeah, the challege is there.  This stuff called iceplant and sand dunes keeps anyone honest, no matter what Rich Goodale says!

TH

[Jeff Fortson]

Tom Huckaby,

Thanks for the comments, this is my type of thread as I love to talk strategy.  

As for Tiger Woods, well I've played with him three times.  He is "Super-Human" when it comes to golf.  He is truly from Krypton.  The recovery he hit at Torrey is something that I believe only he could do.  I'm sure if you gave other guys 100 balls from the same spot you'd get someone that hit that shot ONCE.  He could hit that from the same spot at least 50% of the time in my opinion.  I have seen him hit shots (when he was 16 years old mind you) that I have never seen anyone else hit, EVER.  Tiger Woods should not be the caliber of player that courses are built for because he is talented and intelligent enough to take any course apart.

As for the long ball that spins, I agree something needs to be done about it.  However, with as much distance as I have gained with the newer balls, I have gained too much spin.  High spin can make scoring tough when your 7-iron shots spin off greens.  

Basically, they need to regulate the golf ball, that's the solution I think we all agree on.  

The firm and fast conditions we all like are to blame for these long drives too.  I was at the 95' Open Championship at St. Andrew's and watched Costantino Rocca, who isn't a really long driver of the golf ball, almost drive #18, with a Titleist Professional 90 compression ball.  Firm fairways were the leading contributer to this drive.  Obviously, this is just an example, but it applies to the distance issue I am trying to prove.  

My reason for bringing the fast and firm issue up is that you claim that is exactly what Rustic Canyon needs.  Won't that make the "long, good player" have even shorter shots into the green?  Don't you think that the better the player, the better ability one has to control approach shots into firm greens?  This philosophy doesn't add up to me.  Granted, firm conditions will make full approaches to greens more difficult but in an exponential way to the worse player.  To me, this philosophy takes a short or mid iron out of the good players hand and puts a P-Wedge or S-Wedge in his hand where the firmness of the green is going to be marginalized even more.

You can firm it up all you want but that makes drives go longer and, in effect, neutralizes the effect that firm greens will have an approach shots.

I can't wait to play Rustic so my opinion will weigh in heavier on this topic.

Jeff F.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()