[Tim_Weiman]

ChrisB:

Thanks for approaching the topic as a discussion about golf architecture.

You have asked a good question and I'd probably have to think about it for awhile.

But, off the top of my head I would say the following:

If a course was truly Top Ten within sixty yards for ALL golfers, it would have to have MULTIPLE deficiencies for ALL golfers on other parts of the golf course for it to fall outside of the Top 100 overall.

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom Huckaby:

If you want to start a thread about how Rustic Canyon lacks interest off the tee for ALL golfers, go right ahead. That is a separate discussion, in my view, but is one that could be very interesting.

Ken Cotner:

I recognize a drive effects other shots. So do many other types of shots. You can't mark down your score until you put the ball into the hole.

Mike Nuzzo:

I'm with you. We should ban all courses that aren't walkable from Top 100 consideration. Do you know of any such courses?

[THuckaby2]

Tim:

Glad to see you can answer a question when it appeals to you.  I guess mine didn't.

But by your post, it seems to me we have come to some agreement.  If you care to, go re-read mine and it should be simple to see how.  We said the exact same thing, coming from two different angles.  Deficiences can be overcome just as superlatives can be downgraded....

TH

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom Huckaby:

I think it would be far better if you would just go ahead and start a thread on how Rustic Canyon lacks interest for ALL golfers off the tee.

Wouldn't that be more interesting? Hell, I might even just sit back and enjoy it!

[THuckaby2]

Tom Huckaby:

If you want to start a thread about how Rustic Canyon lacks interest off the tee for ALL golfers, go right ahead. That is a separate discussion, in my view, but is one that could be very interesting.

Tim, you really are a piece of work.  Good lord, David's right in asking:  do you even read any posts but your own?  You are very astute, hey I refer to you all the time as the Ireland golf expert and trust your judgment very much.  But you mind-boggling narrowness about this question is really difficult to believe.

Sorry my friend, I'm not gonna start any post focusing on the negatives of a course I like, one that friends are very attached to.  I'll leave that to critics like yourself.  Have at it.  I've only explained too many times to count now how this is a very narrow critique of an otherwise wonderful golf course - a drop of water in a sea of positives.  Remember that?

TH

[THuckaby2]

Tom Huckaby:

I think it would be far better if you would just go ahead and start a thread on how Rustic Canyon lacks interest for ALL golfers off the tee.

Wouldn't that be more interesting? Hell, I might even just sit back and enjoy it!

Amazing.  OK, that's the end of this.  Enjoy yourself, Tim.

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom Huckaby:

I remember that drop of water, but I just can't see how discussing a negative is a bad thing. How else do we advance golf architecture? Is there really anyone associated with the Rustic Canyon project that can't comfortably participate in such a discussion?

[THuckaby2]

Tim:

You obviously weren't a part of previous discussions regarding this golf course.

I sent you an email politely requesting that you drop this - I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you hadn't seen that before you posted the above.  Thus I'll now make a public request:  please drop this.  Too many hard feelings have been generated already.  

It's like this:  what if I posted in a public place a query about your wife's faults?  No matter how many great qualities she had, that would be a very insulting conversation.   Now start a post querying about which of your wife's many virtues are the best ones, and everyone is very happy.

Golf courses are taken far more seriously than are wives.

One learns that through experience.

After you see Rustic Canyon, you feel free to start this discussion, and I'll be the one to sit back and NOT enjoy it as further hard feelings are the result.

TH

ps - maintaining friendships is of SO much more value than "advancing golf course architecture" it's to me stupid to make the comparison.  But if you see it differently, more power to you - the golf world appreciates your quest.

[Tim_Weiman]

Shivas:

I'm happy to be held to either "ignore" or "relatively little".

The bottom line is that tee shots by skilled golfers are such a small percent of all golf shots that when assessing a golf course, you can either "ignore" them or place "relatively little" weight. Either way, you'll be doing just fine.

[DMoriarty]

Tim, this thread is starting to take on the feel of the old, boring "one most play and know every fact and detail about a course before forming an opinion about it" threads.  Only this time it seems it is you who is arguing for some kind of limiting evaluation criteria.  

I think that David W. may not have grasped some of the intricacies of Rustic during his single play, and some of that may have been based on his own game that day.  I think that would be true of any evaluator.  It was true of me after one (and 10 and 20 . . .) plays, and I have said in the past that I think it true of TH and Matt Ward.  

That being said, I have no doubt that all of these people tried to take players of varying skills into consideration when viewing the course.  

As for interest vs. challenge.  I dont mind using whichever one they want, because I think my points hold up well against either criteria.  I don't understand why you refuse to acknowledge their tweaked definition.  

This whole direction seems to be bogging down an argument that I have found quite interesting and informative up to this point.  

[DMoriarty]

Correct me then.  You admit that you suspect I will fly the green quite often.  How far is the carry if not 265?  I cannot be that far off, if I can fly the green.  I hit a high fade.  Is it impossible that the tree simply is not a factor for a high fade hitter?

 I have no basis for either admitting or denying that you will fly the green quite often.  I am merely going on the fact that you said you can aim right at it and clear all the trouble almost every time.  If you aim right at it and clear the trouble almost every time, you will end up well over the green quite often.  (If I said 'fly' it was my mistake.  

The carry from the black tee to the green is somewhere around 310 yds, as the crow flies, using GPS to measure.  I am not sure whether this is the front edge or middle, but as the actual green is quite shallow, I am not sure this makes a difference.  So to aim at the middle of the green and clear all the trouble every time, you'd have to be able to consistently carry the ball 290-300 yards.  

It is possible that the tree is simply not a factor for your high fade, if you never mishit it or hit it low.  But it is right there staring you in the face.  

Also Tim, I really dont know what you mean by collection area right of the green.

Secondly, you put number 12 in a vacuum when I am referring to 12 of the 14 tee shots.  Even if I were wrong on 12 (Which I still do not believe I am) it would make 11 uninteresting tee balls and not change my point.

 I think I've gone through each hole in the past.  The only holes you've explained your thoughts in detail are 12 and 3.  And I've agreed with you, to a degree, regarding 3.  You've also discussed 7 a little, and I have also addressed that.  But if you want to talk about more, that is fine with me.  Oh yeah, I've also discussed No 2.

I suspect your wording of questioning my understanding of golf architecture is just poorly chosen.  If you truly believe what you wrote, then I think the question is reversed.  How could you understand golf architecture if you cannot separate good from bad?  I have seen horrible golf holes with phenomenal bunkers.  I have seen great driving holes with mediocre greens.  I have seen great courses with weak holes and weak courses with great holes.  How can someone who understands golf architecture not be able to separate good from bad.  How can someone who understands golf architecture not be able to look at a magical green complex like #1 at RC and not be able to say "Wow, if they put some framing and reference in the fairway and placed some demand off the tee, to require thought, this green would turn this into one of the best opening holes in California."  That is what a student of golf architecture does.  We have written posts ad nauseum about this exact point and how we analyze all facets of a course while we play.

I view golf to be a chain of events, with each shot to serve the next.  I also think the examination of individual links is overrated and overdone.  One cannot truly examine a green complex in "a vacuum."  

As for the need for framing and reference and [perceived] challenge off the tee on RC 1, it sounds to me like you want to turn RC into just another course with the usual framing and reference and perceived challenge of the tee.  If you did, hole number one would not be one of the best openers in California and we would have nothing to talk about, because RC would have been stripped of the very thing that makes it great.  

Why cant the lack of framing and reference be part of the challenge off the tee?  

[Forrest Richardson]

Mike Nuzzo,

I read, with interest, your comment about a course that was by all accounts terrrific — but not walkable. I consider this a shame, but am not convinced it should affect the rating as much as you profess. Let me ask you this question: It used to be that feature-length movies had intermissions. Writers and film directors purposefully planned where these breaks would occur. In modern times we have virtually no films with intermissions — does the change in format affect the quality of the film or how it might be reviewed by critics? Should it?

[David Wigler]

Dave,

I hope you can join me since Tommy cannot.  Maybe seeing it through your eyes will help (Or seeing it through mine will help you see the other point).  Talk to Tommy, he is trying to set it up.  I am done discussing RC until then.  I agree with Huckaby completely.  This has turned into a very personal argument.  Tim seems intent on refusing to allow the counterpoint to be "All golfers" and "Interest" and it has turned into nothing more than boring repetition.  

I completely agree that you know it better than me, and as I said, I really like the people involved in the project and hope that I find what on missed on my second visit.  I am done discussing RC in any capacity until then.

[Forrest Richardson]

I still maintain that a skilled tee shot may be played by virtually any level of golfer — that the "once-in-a-lifetime" execution of a club hitting a ball is, in and of itself, enough to make even the worst player feel he or she can overcome a hazard or obstacle — at least in mind. To suggest that the problem presented at the tee is reserved for any single category of golfer is nonsense.

Golf within the mind — that which we might not be able to muster physically — but can always be had in our dreams is the gift of the game that you cannot take away from any visitor to the links. To "talk down" to the golfer at the tee, no matter how awful his game, is a terrible mistake in design judgement.

[Tim_Weiman]

Forrest Richardson:

I don't recall anyone suggesting that the problem presented at the tee is reserved for any single category of golfer.

What are you referring to?

[Forrest Richardson]

Tim,

I thought you wrote, "Here again we have simple math. The percent of all golf shots that are tee shots by skilled golfers is (17 percent times 10 percent): 1.7 percent..."

...Wait, you did write that!

My point is rather simple: A skilled golfer is not so much about physical ability, which is the focus of your hocus-pocus math. This — the ability to execute — is only a portion of the definition. A skilled golfer can also be one who professes to have skill — a mindset that is at the essence of golf — in its heart. Thinking one has skill is the joy of the psychology of golf and all its design. It is this charm — the ideal shot — that makes us want to return and makes the route to the hole so damn troubling at times.

As golf architects our role needs to be to present the appearance (and reality) of the requirement to be skilled, regardless of whether the patrons of a course will actually have any skill.

At Rustic Canyon I do believe the openness of some tee shots is repeated, perhaps, too often. And, the subtle positioning of tee shots may be lost to those who do not seek the details and play there very often. Whether this is cause to downgrade the beautiful work is probably not justified at all. I find the openness there charming.

To repeat: The term "skilled golfer" is at the root of your thread. I submit that you, and others, may have assumed that to be a "skilled golfer" one must actually hold a valid "Skilled Golfer's License", and this is not the case. We all drive. And we are all skilled — some just more often than others.

Your percentages and math are bunk. Why? Because you are dealing with golf, and in golf the possibilities are infinate and varied. ("Bunk" might be a bit harsh. I am sorry.)

[Tim_Weiman]

Forrest:

You are getting spiritual on me and that's okay. These days all I need is about one good tee shot to convince myself that I still have some skill to play the game. Maybe that's why I spend more time these days watching other people play and taking in what it all means.

For the guy struggling to just hit a golf ball 150 yards, that rare solid drive in the fairway does bring joy. Just those few seconds are worth it.

But, at the end of the day I'm skeptical about any definition that would put more than ten percent of the golfers in the category of being "skilled". Actually, the figure is probably more like two or three percent.

Anyway, let's focus on where we might agree. From all I've heard, the details of Rustic Canyon may be lost on people who just play it a couple times. Moreover, the openness may be a "breakout", something so different that less astute observers of golf architecture just may not get it.

[THuckaby2]

Anyway, let's focus on where we might agree. From all I've heard, the details of Rustic Canyon may be lost on people who just play it a couple times. Moreover, the openness may be a "breakout", something so different that less astute observers of golf architecture just may not get it.

Tim:

That is one possibility.  Having seen and played the course, and heard many things from many people myself about the course said outside of this forum, there are other viewpoints.  Very astute observers of golf course architecture may well look at this quite differently, and get things that are beyond what you are thinking here.

It is quite arrogant to think that one viewpoint means "astute", another means "ignorant."  

TH

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom Huckaby:

There will always be "less astute" observers of golf architecture. I'd put myself in that category. For example, not long ago I was walking a hole with an architect and member of his design team. From about 150 yards out I focused on the area about 30 yards short of the green trying to assess wether it was designed to allow for a run up kind of shot.

Not really I was told. The design was more related to drainage. Way over my head. I never think about those things.

Did I think they were "arrogant" because I was obviously a "less astute" observer of golf architecture than they were?

Of course not.

It is common for people to miss all kinds of details. That doesn't make them "ignorant", just "less astute". Join the crowd!

[THuckaby2]

Fully agreed, Tim.

Go read the second part of the second sentence of your quote I put in the box. The first part of that sentence I fully agree with - oh yes, no one can see all details of a fine course in one or two visits - if one can, it's not a great course.  But I only included the first part of that sentence to be fair to you, to give the second part context... That is where I find your arrogance.  It seemed to be you said astute observers see a breakout there that less astute observers miss.  My take on that is that astute observers just plain disagree on how much of a breakout might exists.

TH

[Forrest Richardson]

Tim,

Agreed. My feelings about Rustic Canyon are based on seeing the course under construction, and then once since, although I did not play. So, they are not complete feelings. The openness is by design, but the repetitive nature of this design calls perhaps too much attention to this trait. Do I like the openness off the tee? Yes. And it would fair to say that not every tee shot is "open". The positives outweigh, by far, any negatives.

[DMoriarty]

I'm having a hard time believing we're having this discussion about a 295 yard carry over junk? Who the hell tries that?  I don't try that (and I've tried just about every stupid shot there is!)  What's the real deal?  Is it 260 to carry, with the rest being roll you can reasonably expect to get?

The real deal is that it is about 310 yds from the black tee to the green, almost all of it carry, unless the their green sensor is in the wrong place or the Global Positioning System is out of order.  

Some people do hit it out right and try to draw it to the front or at least near or to the apron.  But this angle is fraught with peril  Left at all and they are in bunkers or gunk.  Short and they have a terrible angle downhill.  Long and up and down is quite an accomplishment.  

A few pics, poor quality, some taken different days:

Tee shot from black tees, green is directly behind tree:


Plenty of fairway short and right of green:


From left/short of green, showing distance between end of left gunk and front of apron and green:


From left fairway, bunkers short of green:


The danger of being just short, in furthest bunker:


Proximity of OB left to green:


From left of green, showing slope of back of green area/apron:


Green complex from well right of fairway:

[JakaB]

David,

Those are the most unbiased pics I have ever seen...thanks.

[George Pazin]

Thanks for the pics. Not at all what I was imagining.

[THuckaby2]

Great pics - thanks, Dave!

OK, tees must have been up the day I played, because I most definitely made the carry - and you know how draws and I go together like oil and water - I hit it as straight as I could (meaning only 10 yards worth of left to right, as opposed to my standard 25!), and I ended up about 10 yards right of the bunker, still short of the green.  The pin was on the right back, sort of on top of the knob.  My best - and really only - shot (given my sometimes Cirbanian chipping game these days, particularly off tight lies) was a putt.  I did pretty well to get it to 15 feet.

You tell me how someone 80 yards back was better off than I was, to that pin.  Hell, to any pin.  I still don't see it... but again, I have only seen the hole twice, and looking at these pictures, well... I'm gonna live up to my promises elsewhere and defer to your expertise - you have seen the hole many many many times and you do know your shit, as they say.  I just still am having a hard time understanding how 80 yards back is better.

I look forward to the explanation!

TH

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()