[Brian Cenci]

Did anyone happen to see the feature this month in Golf Magazine's section, The Traveling Golfer?  It was a feature on La Costa.  Normally they go undercover at higher end public courses and resorts and normally I'd say they're fairly accurate.  But, they actually had positive things to say about La Costa including the greens fees not being that bad.  What a joke.  Are they actually making an unbiased assessment?  La Costa is nothing more than a glorified dog track, can't believe any golfer would have good things to say about the place, especially when you consider cost.

-Brian

[David Stamm]

I tend to agree with you, Brian. La Costa is really not that great and the green fee is over the top, IMHO. I'm not sure I would quite call it a dog track, but I certainly don't think the golfer is getting value for money there. BTW, you should see what they are charging for memberships...

[tlavin]

Did anyone happen to see the feature this month in Golf Magazine's section, The Traveling Golfer?  It was a feature on La Costa.  Normally they go undercover at higher end public courses and resorts and normally I'd say they're fairly accurate.  But, they actually had positive things to say about La Costa including the greens fees not being that bad.  What a joke.  Are they actually making an unbiased assessment?  La Costa is nothing more than a glorified dog track, can't believe any golfer would have good things to say about the place, especially when you consider cost.

-Brian

A dog track?  You live in Michigan, dontcha?

[George Freeman]

Brian,

I thought the same thing when I read that piece.  I saw that La Costa was being done and thought "oh joy, they are really going to rip this course a new one"....

But obviously they didn't and I too was very surprised.  I played back when it was still hosting the PGA tourny, and was supposedly in much better shape than it is currently (and more expensive!).  The only memorable thing about the course was the condition of the greens, which when I played them were some of the fastest, truest I've played...

That said, I thought it was very "over-hyped" and way too expensive; very blah experience (except the clubhouse)...that article stumped me...

[Brian Cenci]

Did anyone happen to see the feature this month in Golf Magazine's section, The Traveling Golfer?  It was a feature on La Costa.  Normally they go undercover at higher end public courses and resorts and normally I'd say they're fairly accurate.  But, they actually had positive things to say about La Costa including the greens fees not being that bad.  What a joke.  Are they actually making an unbiased assessment?  La Costa is nothing more than a glorified dog track, can't believe any golfer would have good things to say about the place, especially when you consider cost.

-Brian

A dog track?  You live in Michigan, dontcha?

Yea...what does that have anything to do with it.  I'd rather play Forest Akers West in E.L. for $25 ten times out of ten than play La Costa and pay that over the top fee

[cary lichtenstein]

They sell advertising don't they?

[Brian Cenci]

Cary,
      Yea they do, but still a little objectivity is still required in order to give the impression of ligitimacy.

-Brian

[tlavin]

Brian,

One can surely consider cost when making a decision of whether to play a golf course, but to call La Costa a "glorified dog track" in large part because of the cost is silly.  As you might say, I don't think that's "ligitimite".  Is Pebble a dump because they can nick you $500 to play?  Is your $25 muni in East Lansing a spectacular track because anybody can afford it?  The last time I checked, the rater's guide to GW (or any other magazine) doesn't include cost as a criterion for worthiness.  LaCosta may be overpriced, but it is in one of the most desired locations in America and it has hosted a tour stop and the combined golf course that the pros played on is far from a dog track.

[Brian Cenci]

Brian,

One can surely consider cost when making a decision of whether to play a golf course, but to call La Costa a "glorified dog track" in large part because of the cost is silly.  As you might say, I don't think that's "ligitimite".  Is Pebble a dump because they can nick you $500 to play?  Is your $25 muni in East Lansing a spectacular track because anybody can afford it?  The last time I checked, the rater's guide to GW (or any other magazine) doesn't include cost as a criterion for worthiness.  LaCosta may be overpriced, but it is in one of the most desired locations in America and it has hosted a tour stop and the combined golf course that the pros played on is far from a dog track.

From an average Joe perspective, considering cost does mean something...which if you do, then La Costa should be pretty low on the list of places to play for the price.   For the purposes of the article they do talk about cost, so it is relavent.  Obviously from a raters perspective, take away cost and I still don't think the course has enough architectual significance or value to be considered good enough to rate (in its current state).  I could care less what tournament they play or played there.  Have you played it?  Maybe I caught it on a bad week but other than 15 thru 18, the course is a major major letdown.  Is it a "glorified dog track"...ok maybe not entirely but there are some holes that are so bland.  Now I heard that the tournament plays the original 18, which may be better but what is out there now is only worth the local muni rate.  Using the Doak thought, unless you are staying a La Costa and getting discount on the price I wouldn't even play it.   Now, the clubhouse is nice though.  Maybe that's worth a free peek.   Anyone reading that article is going to be tempted to play there and pay the appropriate cost, I can guarantee nobody paying what they charge would walk away feeling the course was worthy of the price associated for play.

-Brian

[tlavin]

I have played it and I thought that it was an interesting golf course with a lot of elevation changes and demanding greens.  I played it 20 years ago when I knew next to nothing about golf course architecture (some things never change, I know), but it surely was an above average golf course in my favorite part of the country.  I wouldn't put it or its neighbor Torrey Pines in my personal Top 100, much less in the country's Top 100, but it's no dog track.

[Greg Tallman]

Brian,

One can surely consider cost when making a decision of whether to play a golf course, but to call La Costa a "glorified dog track" in large part because of the cost is silly.  As you might say, I don't think that's "ligitimite".  Is Pebble a dump because they can nick you $500 to play?  Is your $25 muni in East Lansing a spectacular track because anybody can afford it?  The last time I checked, the rater's guide to GW (or any other magazine) doesn't include cost as a criterion for worthiness.  LaCosta may be overpriced, but it is in one of the most desired locations in America and it has hosted a tour stop and the combined golf course that the pros played on is far from a dog track.

From an average Joe perspective, considering cost does mean something...which if you do, then La Costa should be pretty low on the list of places to play for the price.   For the purposes of the article they do talk about cost, so it is relavent.  Obviously from a raters perspective, take away cost and I still don't think the course has enough architectual significance or value to be considered good enough to rate (in its current state).  I could care less what tournament they play or played there.  Have you played it?  Maybe I caught it on a bad week but other than 15 thru 18, the course is a major major letdown.  Is it a "glorified dog track"...ok maybe not entirely but there are some holes that are so bland.  Now I heard that the tournament plays the original 18, which may be better but what is out there now is only worth the local muni rate.  Using the Doak thought, unless you are staying a La Costa and getting discount on the price I wouldn't even play it.   Now, the clubhouse is nice though.  Maybe that's worth a free peek.   Anyone reading that article is going to be tempted to play there and pay the appropriate cost,


I can guarantee nobody paying what they charge would walk away feeling the course was worthy of the price associated for play.

-Brian

Brian, with all due respect I do not believe any individual including your self is qualified to speak for for the entire golfing world. You lose credibility when making statements such as you final choice of words. The only thing one person can guarantee when speaking for the masses is that his/her will certainly be met with a differing opinion by some.

[Brian Cenci]

Brian,

One can surely consider cost when making a decision of whether to play a golf course, but to call La Costa a "glorified dog track" in large part because of the cost is silly.  As you might say, I don't think that's "ligitimite".  Is Pebble a dump because they can nick you $500 to play?  Is your $25 muni in East Lansing a spectacular track because anybody can afford it?  The last time I checked, the rater's guide to GW (or any other magazine) doesn't include cost as a criterion for worthiness.  LaCosta may be overpriced, but it is in one of the most desired locations in America and it has hosted a tour stop and the combined golf course that the pros played on is far from a dog track.

From an average Joe perspective, considering cost does mean something...which if you do, then La Costa should be pretty low on the list of places to play for the price.   For the purposes of the article they do talk about cost, so it is relavent.  Obviously from a raters perspective, take away cost and I still don't think the course has enough architectual significance or value to be considered good enough to rate (in its current state).  I could care less what tournament they play or played there.  Have you played it?  Maybe I caught it on a bad week but other than 15 thru 18, the course is a major major letdown.  Is it a "glorified dog track"...ok maybe not entirely but there are some holes that are so bland.  Now I heard that the tournament plays the original 18, which may be better but what is out there now is only worth the local muni rate.  Using the Doak thought, unless you are staying a La Costa and getting discount on the price I wouldn't even play it.   Now, the clubhouse is nice though.  Maybe that's worth a free peek.   Anyone reading that article is going to be tempted to play there and pay the appropriate cost,


I can guarantee nobody paying what they charge would walk away feeling the course was worthy of the price associated for play.

-Brian

Brian, with all due respect I do not believe any individual including your self is qualified to speak for for the entire golfing world. You lose credibility when making statements such as you final choice of words. The only thing one person can guarantee when speaking for the masses is that his/her will certainly be met with a differing opinion by some.

Greg,
     Have you played La Costa recently?  You are right though....I'm sure those that don't have any concern or care in regards to money would not feel slighted playing there.  Lets just say that I would venture to guess an overwhelming majority of individuals who would poney up the $200 to play there on weekends would feel taken....and this article doesn't help that situation at all.

-Brian

[Greg Tallman]

Brian,

One can surely consider cost when making a decision of whether to play a golf course, but to call La Costa a "glorified dog track" in large part because of the cost is silly.  As you might say, I don't think that's "ligitimite".  Is Pebble a dump because they can nick you $500 to play?  Is your $25 muni in East Lansing a spectacular track because anybody can afford it?  The last time I checked, the rater's guide to GW (or any other magazine) doesn't include cost as a criterion for worthiness.  LaCosta may be overpriced, but it is in one of the most desired locations in America and it has hosted a tour stop and the combined golf course that the pros played on is far from a dog track.

From an average Joe perspective, considering cost does mean something...which if you do, then La Costa should be pretty low on the list of places to play for the price.   For the purposes of the article they do talk about cost, so it is relavent.  Obviously from a raters perspective, take away cost and I still don't think the course has enough architectual significance or value to be considered good enough to rate (in its current state).  I could care less what tournament they play or played there.  Have you played it?  Maybe I caught it on a bad week but other than 15 thru 18, the course is a major major letdown.  Is it a "glorified dog track"...ok maybe not entirely but there are some holes that are so bland.  Now I heard that the tournament plays the original 18, which may be better but what is out there now is only worth the local muni rate.  Using the Doak thought, unless you are staying a La Costa and getting discount on the price I wouldn't even play it.   Now, the clubhouse is nice though.  Maybe that's worth a free peek.   Anyone reading that article is going to be tempted to play there and pay the appropriate cost,


I can guarantee nobody paying what they charge would walk away feeling the course was worthy of the price associated for play.

-Brian

Brian, with all due respect I do not believe any individual including your self is qualified to speak for for the entire golfing world. You lose credibility when making statements such as you final choice of words. The only thing one person can guarantee when speaking for the masses is that his/her will certainly be met with a differing opinion by some.

Greg,
     Have you played La Costa recently?  You are right though....I'm sure those that don't have any concern or care in regards to money would not feel slighted playing there.  Lets just say that I would venture to guess an overwhelming majority of individuals who would poney up the $200 to play there on weekends would feel taken....and this article doesn't help that situation at all.

-Brian

I think you way overestimate the ability of the average resort golfer to identify quality golf architecture from lesser works which is subjective to begin with. They likely gave less of a clue about golf architecture than world geography which, given all indications of the average gringo's ignorance on this topic says that they have nary a clue in the sense most here would consider insightful.

[Andy Troeger]

Brian,
I think you might find that people will find a reason to LIKE La Costa to justify the amount of money they just spent as opposed to becoming frustrated with things. If nothing else they will pleased to have played a tournament venue. Architectural merit means very little to the "some" average golfers when compared to some other considerations.

I've never seen the place so you may be right, just don't assume that means everyone else will agree.

[Pete Lavallee]

Brian

Which course did you play; from your decription I would guess the North, where you go through a tunnel under the road after the par 3 3rd. The original tournament curse is pretty good; the two new nines builrt to form th North and South layouts are far below the qulity of the original 18. Although there isadequate land for the new 9 on the North Joe Lee's work is frankly not as good as Wilson's. Although you may not agree with exactly where the bunkers are placed, Dick Wilson did build some wonderfully three dimensional ones. Definetly from the heroic school, it might not be everyone's cup of tea. Two yaers ago they offered the chance to play the Tournament Course 6 times during the summer. We palyed it and my biggest recolection was that the greens were in great shape but had very little undulatiuon. Definetly a ballstrikers course.

[Joe Perches]

Definitely a ballstriker's course.

Is that another way to say dull, boring, insipid, bland, and repetitive?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()