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.