News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Bob (Guest)

Re: Rustic Canyon in Golfweek.
« Reply #25 on: February 03, 2003, 10:00:58 AM »
Sounds like fun to me.  Will it be possible to post images on this site?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Matt_Ward

Re: Rustic Canyon in Golfweek.
« Reply #26 on: February 03, 2003, 11:20:07 AM »
To echo what Brad said -- it's clear that Rustic Canyon, Barona Creek, and Wild Horse offer what REALLY PUBLIC GOLF NEEDS! I have not played Hawtree and take Brad's word there. I would also offer Twisted Dune in NJ as being in that type of company.

Affordable golf in connection with quality design can be done. If it can be done in the LA market in SoCal it can be replicated anywhere in the USA.

Dave M: I'm itching to get back to RC. My best day now turns out to be Saturday the 22nd. Talk sooooooon ... The Emperor also tells me he's game as well as a few others from GCA who might be in the area. Adios for now .... ;)

P.S. I don't doubt that "off-course" elements may play a role with some reviewers but I think they really have to have some direct role with the architecture to be really considered in my book. Yes, the clubhouse is fairly pedestrian and the artificial qualities of the practice are self evident, however, they really have no direct connection to the course design and would not focus, or should I say, have my focus, taken away from such a grand layout.

One last thing -- Dave M, I see your point on the par-3's and will be more than curious to play them all again. I'd have to say that in my travels the 6th at RC is one of the finest 200+ par-3's you can play among all public courses I've seen. Absolutely dynamite type hole!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

DMoriarty

Re: Rustic Canyon in Golfweek.
« Reply #27 on: February 03, 2003, 11:32:31 AM »

Quote
There's no question a "setting" can distract raters of any hole but my advice would be if they notice things like that to then attempt to place it out of their mind, to discount it if that "setting" really does not affect the architecture of the hole or how it plays.
Tom, I almost hate to point this out, but you sound quite a lot like your arch nemesis here.  Don't tell me you agree with Pat when he attempts to completely divorce the "Style" of a course from the "strategy" of a course.  Certainly esthetic concerns don't end at boundary of the course.  

One of MacKenzie's core architectural tenants was to try to blend the course into nature as much as possible, in order to create an enjoyable and uplifting experience for the golfer.  It is hard to imagine that he would have drawn a line at the course boundary and said "nothing visual beyond this point has any bearing on the quality of the course." Golfers generally experience more enjoyment playing courses in visually appealing and natural surroundings.  This alone is enough to make the surroundings an integral part of the quality of the course.

Unfortunately, a much better example (than the houses behind No. 4) exists at Rustic.  Mr. Klein astutely points out that, after No. 4, Rustic is a trek into the wild, and this holds true through No. 17.  One can't help but be somewhat let down when the god-awful driving range net comes into view as one crosses the ravine and approaches the 18th tee.  Further, one can only imagine how much more inspiring the quality 18th would be if the aiming point off the tee wasn't somewhere between the cart-barn door and the large, round, concrete planter.  This was certainly not the architects' fault, but it surely should and does influence raters when they evaluate the course.

Bob and Tom,  The logo was originally a rendering of one of the local bushy plants.  (I think this may have been Dan King's idea, but am sure he did not receive any credit.)  This was a good idea and fitting for the course, but the rendering just did not work esthetically.  Recently they have been using the much simpler and more generic crossed golf clubs.  I am not sure this is permanent or not.  Personally, I don't mind this logo because it is understated.  A course like Rustic shouldn't have a hoity-toity logo.  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

THuckaby2

Re: Rustic Canyon in Golfweek.
« Reply #28 on: February 03, 2003, 11:34:49 AM »

Quote
 A course like Rustic shouldn't have a hoity-toity logo.  

Concur.  A simple RCGC over crossed clubs works just fine, if the bush idea doesn't work.

The place just does deserve something...

TH
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Lynn Shackelford

Re: Rustic Canyon in Golfweek.
« Reply #29 on: February 03, 2003, 11:51:02 AM »
Tom Paul

You are better than me on judging pure design.  If I see Rene Zellweger in a 1965 Volkswagen bug I think one thing.  If I see Rene Zellweger in a 2003 Porsche I think another thing.  I wish I could be more objective but I have life long biases to overcome.  
John Wooden and Mother Teresa would see the same person but most of us would have trouble.  But I agree that being purely objective is a worthy goal for which to strive.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

VCgolfer

Re: Rustic Canyon in Golfweek.
« Reply #30 on: February 03, 2003, 12:07:48 PM »
Logos?? Don't ou have to have merchandise to find a logo!?

The operation of this place is as bad as it gets.

How does such a nice course have such a cheap operation? I play there a few times a month, love the golf. But Idon't hit balls there or eat there. Just go for the great golf. The rest of the facility is depressing. If the golf course wasn't so good, the place would go belly up in no time.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Rustic Canyon in Golfweek.
« Reply #31 on: February 03, 2003, 12:22:34 PM »
Dave & Matt -

Please post a detailed recap of your wager - sounds like something that encapsulates many of the ideas held in high esteem by members of this site.

VCgolfer -

Gee, my heart bleeds for you, having to play a place for the golf rather than the side amenities. Tough life you have.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

SL_Solow

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Rustic Canyon in Golfweek.
« Reply #32 on: February 03, 2003, 12:31:06 PM »
As usual, there are merits on all sides of this discussion.  First, with regard to Brad's discussion of the clubhouse we should remember he is writing for a magazine with a circulation that is broader than our treehouse.  I suspect many of his readers are interested in the clubhouse facilities so they are worthy of mention so long as they are not overemphasized.  Second, the overall appearance and ambience of a course is important to most people in evaluating a course.  For example, many architects have attempted to recreate the strategy of Pebble's oceanside holes; how many faux 18's next to man made lakes have each of us played?  Yet I have yet to see one imitation that gives the same feeling as the original and most of this can be attributed to the setting.  Would Banff Springs be the same without the mountains?  On a less inspiring note, those of us who played Troon North before the clubhouse and the housing development generally have a very different feeling about it today, even though the strategy is identical.  But this should be no surprise because much of the game's appeal, at least to an urbanite, is its natural setting.  This is part of many peoples' preference for the "minimalist" approach to design.  However, this recognition of the beneficial impact of the overall appearance of a course can be overdone.  The CCFAD phenomenon reflects an overemphasis on the clubhouse and amenities and may be the true genesis of the criticism of that portion of Brad's review.  Similarly, architects who spend more time on framing than on creating interest in the field of play have made the mistake of exalting form over substance and ultimately produce disappointing results.  Thus the trick is to strike a proper balance and, as in all matters of taste, individuals can disagree in good faith.  I prefer an emphasis on strategy first, but if it can be combined with beauty the product is memorable.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Andy Lipschultz

Re: Rustic Canyon in Golfweek.
« Reply #33 on: February 03, 2003, 12:31:06 PM »
VCgolfer:

Maybe RC has a cheap operation, because they have cheap green fees. I find the staff accommodating and friendly. I play there constantly as a walk-up single, and have never failed to get on within 30 minutes and w/o any atittude from the staff.

Why not hit balls there? It's just for warming up. If you're playing that day, I assume you're not hitting balls to "work on your game."  

The food? Please. Even my wife wouldn't complain about food at a golf course and she's a culinary snob.

And you others whining about the style of the "clubhouse"? It ain't a clubhouse. It's a small pro shop, a snack bar and a restroom. Want a clubhouse? Gather up 200K and join Sherwood. Or go play at Lost Canyons for a nice clubhouse...oh yeah, but the courses sort of suck for the $$$.



« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Andy

Re: Rustic Canyon in Golfweek.
« Reply #34 on: February 03, 2003, 12:31:22 PM »
Tough group.  I sort of agree with VC that the other stuff does matter.  Do none of you stay at The Four Seasons when you travel?  All  Days Inn customers?

I think playing golf on a good course, with a bad operation, bad amenities, is okay every now and then, but I do like the other stuff to which just makes the day more special.  I am not asking for over the top stuff, just polite people, good food, cold beer, and a good atmosphere to top off the day.  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Bob (Guest)

Re: Rustic Canyon in Golfweek.
« Reply #35 on: February 03, 2003, 12:40:31 PM »
Can someone post a picture of this clubhouse?  And if its that bad why not incorporate something similar to Papazian Hills suggested clubhouse.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Slag Bandoon

Re: Rustic Canyon in Golfweek.
« Reply #36 on: February 03, 2003, 02:35:51 PM »

Quote
Just go for the great golf. The rest of the facility is depressing. If the golf course wasn't so good, the place would go belly up in no time.

"Gee! I won a million dollars and now I'll have to pay a bunch more in taxes! Wo is me."  But underneath his statements, VietCongGolfer poses a whetstone of a question. . .

 Could Rustic Canyon be the touchstone of future accessible golf?  The model of courses to be? The answer lies in its financial sovereignty so I suggest if you like it to promote it verbally and financially.  Will the people continue to support it?  Praise it? RC's idea of putting the course first may well make or break our hearts. A lot is riding on this endeavor.  Get out the rosary beads and peyote buttons, or wherever you draw spiritual strength from.

  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tommy_Naccarato

Re: Rustic Canyon in Golfweek.
« Reply #37 on: February 03, 2003, 02:38:03 PM »
To let everyone know, Rustic does have a logo, and it is pretty basic and simple: two hills off-setting each other to form a canyon. Uber Director of Golf, Mark Wipf came-up with it. This was only after unsuccessful several attempts by myself to help him.

Now, I have to address the 4th and the 18th, and.........TREES! (Brad should appreicate this because after all, he is a foremost authority on how trees have affected so many golf courses over the years)

Yes, tract housing developments are an ugly sight on any golf course, but the fact remains that they (The houses) were there before the idea of a golf course ever came into being. The golf course is separated from the houses by a flood channel and natural open space of some 150 +/- yards. Does it come into play, mentally, these typical early 1980's two-story homes in a quaint Moorpark neighborhood that is not unlike any LA suburbian?

Not for me at least, I grew up around them, but for others I'm sure that it does.

Personally, it doesn't affect my views on the actual architecture of the course. But exactly as Tom Huckaby has noted, there are those that don't look at Architecture in a vaccuum (Hoover or Dirt Devil) and will let any small-negative become a bigger influence in a final outcome of opinion. Those types are out there and they dominate Golf, or at least their vision of it. Thankfully it isn't my vision. I'll take the homes anytime on a site that was utilized to its fullest (architecturally speaking) then one that was taken simply for granted. (Like Sandpines for instance)

So what is the answer?

Why TREES of course! They have recently planted some small ones to block out the housing that comes into view on the 4th. But of course, as in the same situations in the past, they won't be enough, so they'll plant more, and more. All until the sight of the housing is gone and in a few years some of us who live in our "vaccuums" can expounce on how trees have negatively affected Rustic Canyon #4 because they have grown into the line of play.

Trees have also been planted to line the left fairway of the 18th, so it can hide a ugly driving range fence, which will eventually someday change how that hole plays, and so on and so on, etc. etc. etc. Has the driving range fence at Riviera #2 ever drawn as much heat as Rustic #18? I don't like it, but to me it doesn't downgrade one bit of the phenominal architecture that exists at Riviera--er, other then holes #7 & 8:)(Thanks Tom Marzloff!)

This same thinking is why there are now GPS monitors on all of the golf carts.

There have been many times before the new clubhouse had even been started, that the David's, (Moriarty and Kelly) Lynn and myself all said that it was ashame that they even had to build a clubhouse and driving range. We would have been more then happy to see Rustic Canyon operate out of that tiny little trailer, phone lines flooded with golfer's hoping of getting a tee time, and where just out in front of that trailer, Jessica cooked you a hot dog and served you up a cold beverage while sitting at one of the home-made wooden picnic tables, looking at all of the golfers with smiles on their faces.

It was then, that I felt like I was a member of the legendary Apple Tree Gang, only it was Avocados and lemons that were growing on the hillsides.

That time, this very last year from May to when the clubhouse was started was A Golfweek "10", PERFECT! Brad Klein, you'll know what we have experinced in the last year and see it too, when Wittenbury first opens up. I do hope you enjoy it while it lasts because there are plenty of customers that aren't going to be happy with something.

In truth, it only shows how the sum of the immenities to the general golfing public, eventually ruins the entire package when it really doesn't need them.  "Haven't they ever heard of "choosing the customers you want," David Kelly recently exclaimed to us on Rustic Canyon's 10th, after hearing that they would be adding GPS to the golf carts.

I couldn't agree more.



« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Slag Bandoon

Re: Rustic Canyon in Golfweek.
« Reply #38 on: February 03, 2003, 02:53:33 PM »
Tommy, nice post.  Good food for thought and very encouraging.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

THuckaby2

Re: Rustic Canyon in Golfweek.
« Reply #39 on: February 03, 2003, 02:54:57 PM »
Tommy:

Damn that is all well-said.

And I believe you got what I was saying/asking quite correctly without horribly missing the point as my pal Guest did - and that I do sincerely appreciate.

Please believe me I am not advocating adding ANY amenities to the wonderfully simple, maddeningly interesting golf establishment that is Rustic Canyon.  I never saw it in the days of the trailer, etc. but I'm with you, that is a small version of perfection.  Just as Sand Hills needs nothing else beyond the perfection they have, neither would Rustic.

My comments were based on surrounding views... NOT amenities.  I know you get this but just feel I need to reiterate it.

So while I am saddened to hear of the simple clubhouse and functional but bare-bones driving range causing some negative backlash at Rustic, I am happy to hear that trees are being planted where you say.  Geoff told me once he had asked for large eucalyptus to be planted along the left of 18, and damn that would be an improvement... little things like that DO matter.

As you say, it is very unfortunate that there is such a large sector of the golf world for whom amenities cloud everything... Tommy, we've had this discussion before and you know I've always been one to point this out, not that I am part of it or agree with it, but just that it is a sad reality.  I'm not sure what any course can do to change it... My day at Rustic, for example, I was one of very, very few walkers, so if everyone is riding, it just seems natural to add GPS to keep up with the Joneses.  It's really hard to fault Rustic for this, sad as it is... Same goes for the clubhouse... you just can't expect them to never build one, as cool as we all think that would have been....

Yeah, here's hoping golf comes first and everything else second.  But it just sadly isn't the way of the golf world.  Even a cool place like Rustic Canyon is still a business... and in business one rarely can choose the customers one wants.  Again, just a sad reality.

TH
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:02 PM by -1 »

A_Clay_Man

Re: Rustic Canyon in Golfweek.
« Reply #40 on: February 03, 2003, 05:13:49 PM »
Am I understanding that the clubhouse is really bad? Why's it bad?

Why were they in such a rush to build something that everyone seems to agree is bad? DId they lose sight of thier mission or did they get blinded by too many greenbacks? Can you imagine someone telling them that they really need a clubhouse, as the phones are ringing off the hook? Caught up in the L.A. mentality one can only assume.

Lynn- love the Wooden reference with Mama T. Go coach

It seems only natural to dance with what brung ya, translated means; it should have an understated functional clubhouse with multiple options and no tight driving areas for the big knockers ;D ;D
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tommy_Naccarato

Re: Rustic Canyon in Golfweek.
« Reply #41 on: February 03, 2003, 08:01:54 PM »
Adam,
The clubhouse really isn't all that bad at all. It is an understated design for a affordable public golf course, much better then say, Goose Creek's which is really clumsy.

The problem which I think Brad and the others are talking about is that:
1-The Pro Shop has yet to be really stocked-up with a full line of merchandise, although they have just recently gotten in some really nice hats, pullovers, wind shirts and golf shirts. Other then some golf balls and golf gloves, there is absooutely not one ounce of equipment.

2-The interior decorations are....non-existant. The walls are bare, including in the restaurant. But with a recent purchase of a Plasma Screen TV, you would think that would liven things up a bit. But in true fashion, instead of mounting it properly in a corner for everyone to see, they chose to mount it flat on a wall which takes ones eye away from the beautiful view of the 18th which the clubhouse overlooks. The furniture for the restaurant looks like it was purchased at a Old Town Moorpark garage sale, and just outside, this beautiful patio and not one ounce of furniture.

3-Another problem, and I feel that it is a vital one is that color chosen for the clubhouse (A sort of darker shade of green) just doesn't seem to match the solid natural look of the entire canyon. While some may think that this is being too picky, I think it is that attention to detail that matters a lot. A could see a goldenrod or even white color that would make the place really inviting. making people want to stay and have a few margarita's while watching other golfers finish their 18 as the sunsets on another beautiful Southern California day.

So who do you blame?

THE OWNER........

Someone who clearly doesn't have any taste or style, as well as refuses to open up his pockets and adequately run the business properly.

(You would think that decorating the place would come to the forefront instead of a $5,000 plasma TV, especially since the business is new. Q: What does he do?  A: Buys another Plasma TV so he can put it in another corner. It hasn't been delivered yet.)


« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Brad Klein

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Rustic Canyon in Golfweek.
« Reply #42 on: February 03, 2003, 08:49:32 PM »
Lest anyone think that Tommy N. is serving as my interior decorator, let me say a few things.

First, the food at RC isn't bad, and I am especially partial to tasty $6 cheeseburgers with fries that they deliver to your table, so the limited menu is fine by me.

Second, the bare walls on a vaulted ceiling - 15-feet high - are weird, as is the absolutely barren pro shop. I don't need cushy Bobby Jones shirts and cashmere sweaters, but something is preferable to nothing.

Third; the clubhouse design isn't the problem; it's the starkness of its unadorned exterior and the fact that it sits in conjunction with a long, block-ish cart barn to occupy the last 150-yards of an otherwise admirable straightaway par-4 finishing hole of 400 yards. The tee shot calls for a modest left to right shot, meaning you set up at the barn; and if you pull your second shot a tad it will kick into the cash register.

Fourth; let's be clear about this monstrous structure of a range that looms like Godzilla over the 12th green (as I recall) and that dominates the landscape as you enter the site. It's fully netted, about 80-feet high, with garish green artifical turf and mats, to boot. It's tasteless, contrary to the entire philosophy of the golf course, and simply stupid and insulting to look at and play off of. Otherwise, it's okay.

So, we are talking extremes here - wildly in contrast with the admirable land plan and routing of the golf course. It's as if someone put a Denny's at LaCumbre in 1928 and tried to sell it as part of George Thomas' original plan.

It's one thing to talk about clubhouses that are awkward or clumsy. But this sits like a stupidly insulting assault by the owner or manager and ruins the ambiance. Despite that, as I made clear in the review,  it's a fine golf course.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:02 PM by -1 »

Tommy_Naccarato

Re: Rustic Canyon in Golfweek.
« Reply #43 on: February 03, 2003, 08:58:16 PM »
Brad, You did such a fine job of describing all of it, I'm going to put away the notions of painting your office in a glistening shade of Mettalic Pea.

Now about that Moose's head for the wall I was recommending......
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

VCgolfer

Re: Rustic Canyon in Golfweek.
« Reply #44 on: February 03, 2003, 09:26:55 PM »
I think I was misunderstood. I love the golf course, but the quality of the range and clubhouse doesn't entice me to come early to spend money on the range or to stick around afterwards and eat or hit balls. It has a real American Golf atmosphere like Simi Hills setup and feel.

But that doesn't spoil what's between the first tee and the18th green (well, I don't know about the 15th green!!). It's truly fun golf, and a cosistently maintained course which is rare in SoCal (though I keep waiting for the maintenance spending to start matching the clubhouse and landscape expenditure!). It just seems like a missed opportunity to have a facility that is great in all respects and one that could be more financially profitable for the owner to have people eating and drinking there instead of Wood Ranch BBQ!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

A_Clay_Man

Re: Rustic Canyon in Golfweek.
« Reply #45 on: February 04, 2003, 07:58:09 AM »
It sounds like they forgot all the love that went into the course's design & construction. And it seems like a no brainer that the range should probably not be there. Eighty foot high nets implies 90 foot high kreosoaked telephone poles to hold up the nets, yuck.
 
I have some big art if they want it?

And if your ball does kick in the cash register do they give a free round?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Mike_Cirba

Re: Rustic Canyon in Golfweek.
« Reply #46 on: February 04, 2003, 09:41:17 PM »
A couple of thoughts...

1) There are houses behind the 4th green??   :o  Can't say I noticed.

2) The course was operating out of trailer when I played there last year.  Personally, I would have dumped the trailer, erected a little outdoor covered hut for players looking to escape the sun or rain, or to grab a sandwich or sell a few balls, but the picnic we had out in the open air in the little clearing seemed to suit the place just fine (ala the Apple Tree analogy Tommy mentioned earlier).  

3) The range netting is abysmal, impossible to ignore, and terribly out of character.  

But mostly I remember the golf holes.  The setting, with the minor flaws mentioned above, mostly consists of naturally raw hillsides rising from the canyon floor.  The "internals" of the golf holes....make it difficult for this golfer to be too distracted by much else.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Geoff_Shackelford

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Rustic Canyon in Golfweek.
« Reply #47 on: February 04, 2003, 11:16:01 PM »
Naturally, Brad's review is quite stellar from my point of view. For Rustic to get a "9" for green design is obviously quite special! I can't speak for Gil or Jim or my purported "associates" who were mentioned, but it's fun to read such an in depth critique in print and to hear what others think.  Brad knows that I don't agree with all of the categories analyzed, particularly those that are out of the golf architect's control. We had some say in the clubhouse and cart paths, almost all of which was ignored and done about as shabbily as one could imagine (it will ultimately be a mistake as the clubhouse could have enjoyed strong food and beverage revenues with a warm sense of community feel, especially with nearby business park workers looking for a fresh lunch spot).  

But I don't know if it's fair to hold the clubhouse and range design against the course design as Brad did on his ballot. Then again, I can't see giving one of Fazio's designs extra points because the clubhouse is an architectural marvel (the Estancia effect :)), but people do.

The criticism of the 4th hole framing is not a huge surprise. We all have different reactions to such things and from day one we knew that some just wouldn't be able to let go of the vanity aspect. Ben Crenshaw, for instance, was too interested in studying the green to notice when I pointed out the annoyance of the housing, and others have suggested moving the entire routing to avoid getting down near the homes. But the green site that Gil found was just too good to pass up in our view and I love hearing feedback like David Moriarty's, regarding the difficulties he finds the more he plays it. Our goal was fun, interesting golf first, framing a distant second.

Oh, and the large fairway running up to the 4th green was intentional. Jim Wagner made the point that the rest of the threes had some form of carry over waste, grasses, junk or a combination of the three, and this would be a way to get people off to a good start, to provide a nice contrast to the others and also to get golfers thinking about a low running shot.
 
Thanks again for the interesting feedback everyone.
Geoff (and associates) :)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

DMoriarty

Re: Rustic Canyon in Golfweek.
« Reply #48 on: February 05, 2003, 12:08:09 AM »
Someone asked about the logo (which I think is a third try):


Someone asked for pictures of the clubhouse/range area.  

View from No. 18, Black/Blue Tees of Range, Cartbarn, and Clubhouse.  Green and pin are barely visible on right side of picture. Safe aiming point is the Cartbarn door, now somewhat sheltered by wooden fence.

View from No. 18, White/Red Tees. From this angle, the buildings are not directly inline with the line of play off the tee. Left half of green area is visible.  Player in cart played from back tees toward Cartbarn door.


Closer look at buildings from tee area.  Clubhouse is in back right.


View of Range and Clubhouse area from access trail away from the course (18th fairway is on the other side of the range.


. . . and with parking lot.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

A_Clay_Man

Re: Rustic Canyon in Golfweek.
« Reply #49 on: February 05, 2003, 06:44:06 AM »
Could someone elaborate on who owns this place?
I guess i've been under the assumption that Geoff and gang were principles.
No?
And,
Could you also tell us how you were able to get the county involved?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:02 PM by -1 »

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back