[Aaron]

I have seen only a couple pictures taken of this course and I must say the site looked rather astonishing. I was wondering if Fazio created a course that equals what looks to me as a great property and whether it is worth shelling out the dinero for.

Aaron

[A_Clay_Man]

Oh Boy! this should be good.  

[Tim_Weiman]

Aaron,

I played each course at Pelican Hill about five times, thanks to a generous expense account when I lived in LA back in the early 90's.

Looking back, I remember 3 or 4 holes that I would enjoy playing again........on another expense account.

However, I do think one thing at Pelican Hill is worth mentioning.  I wouldn't mind working the check in desk.  Not many views are much better.

[Gib_Papazian]

:-/ I remain undecided about its place in the California pecking order.

One one hand, it is a beautiful place - there is a reason all those wealthy people chose to build 5 million dollar houses in the surrounding foothills.

But the piece of property as golfing grounds do not measure up to the aesthetics. Some of the holes - and I am more familiar with the newer course (I believe it used to be called the "Links," but I was so focused last Summer on the architecture when playing it, I cannot remember what its new moniker is) - are jammed into the ground.

That said, it is tough to envision anyone doing much better with it. There are all sorts of canyons and hillsides to deal with - severely limiting the width available to insert some strategy.

It reminds me a bit of a coastside Crosby National, with similar challenges but less dramatic topography.

There is not much meat to the design and perhaps it is a bit  too user friendly, but the 17th and 18th holes of the newer course are extremely well done. 17 is one of the better par 5's I have played although I am still not sure the best way to play it.

I've been called on the carpet in the Treehouse about defending that hole before, but even after a couple more tries I still look forward to playing it. Plus, the green is set on the edge of the world, providing the approach shot with a similar sensation as (dare I say) #18 at NGLA.

Unfortunately, I have not gotten the opportunity to play much of Fazio's work. Most of it is concentrated in places I rarely go. I wonder if we aren't being a bit hard of him on this site. There is a reason he has so many courses on the GW Modern List.

Where he had room to work at Pelican Hill, I did find the basic strategies well thought out. Perhaps he gets a bad rap because there is rarely a riddle (puzzle) to consider when playing one of his holes.

In other words: "If you place your ball there, here is what you get. If you don't then this is what you are dealt."

Pretty basic stuff, but when compared to a couple other guys who get dissed constantly here, at least there is some variety in shots called for.

One of the woes at Pelican Hill, and this has nothing to do with the architecture, is the sterile ambiance of the entire experience.

There is not the tiniest measure of charm about anything at Pelican Hill - sort of an undercurrent of smarmy self-importance. I have observed this is reflected not only by the staff, but also the players who flock there.

Everything is squeaky clean and polished, but there is no soul. Pelican Hill is a monument that worships not golf, but money. And money only. A fishing net cast soley to harvest self-absorbed golfing newbies and their corporate charge cards. The ultimate CCFAD.

When driving away, don't look back or you'll be turned into a pillar of salt.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

If Gib's reply wasn't the most poignant remarks on Life In Southwestern Orange County, then I'm Tom Fazio.

Just absollutely brilliant.

Pelican Hill is THEE monument to golf in Southern California, and just as Tim Weiman has also pointed out, a sign of importance and meaning in the area is an invitation to play there either on your own expense account or someone elses. It is the same as getting the invite to sit in the "Jack Seats" at the Staples Center. A sort of "I'm here and your not," mentality or for a better verse, modern day American exclusiveness.

Somehow I just don't think people of true vision think this way--all exclusive, yet no substance and that is exactly what the architecture at Pelican Hill is--No substance. But.......It is on a very beautiful panoramic point that features the Oceano Pacifica; with the echoing sounds of boats leaving for an evening cruise. Yes, it is somethign enjoyable to hear and see off in the distance, to take your mind off of the stagnant golf architecture that is taking place. Site of this years Fazio Cup.

The courses are now called Ocean North--Which used to be the Links, and Ocean South--which remains to its original name, not that it matters. But don't think you are going to see golf architecture that is going to be worthy of acclaim, because it is non-existant. Pelican Hill is all about the beautiful view and, of course, for the people that don't understand substance, it is the basic DNA of what makes a golf course great--the perfect picture in their eyes of maintained park-like nature. Which of course is not natural because it isn't irregular, quirky and spontaneous. such is the Fazio School.

[Paul Richards]

Both courses at Pelican Hill are pretty good.  

Whether they are worth taking out another home mortgage
to play is the real question.

[Tim Jackson]

Aaron

I have played both courses several times and can remember numerous holes on both courses.  I find both to be interesting and challenging and full of character as well as substance.  What The Irvine Company charges to play it and how the staff is run is no consequence of the architect.  Mr. Nacarrato's vague rebuff offers no specifics so I will...

North:

1.  A short par five, uphill at 515 yards or so.  A well placed tee shot, aided by the swaled fairway leaves a decision to go for a large (all the greens on both courses are ample) green that drains 2/3 to the front and 1/3 to the rear.  The left hand of the green in blocked by two bunkers which when viewed from the fairway provide a climbing dramatic hazard.  I usually have a go at it and then three putt for my par.  The obvious strategy is in the decision to go or not.  Pins on the left of the green are difficult to access and can even be blocked if the lay up is to far left.  Position is key.

2.  A medium length downhill par 3 at 190 it has one of my favorite bunkers ever guarding the left side of the green.  The front right corner of the green flashes strongly into a slope and will send shots short right careening onto and sometimes over the putting surface.  A fairly simple green with two drainages.  A great looking hole.

3.  A tight short downhill par 4 (410 yards) with bunkers guarding each side of the landing area.  A good tee shots leaves a short iron to a green with a sideways step and severe fall offs left and long.  Even with a short iron for most seconds, when the greens are firm a difficult approach.  The proper sectoin of the green has to be hit.

4.  A damn hard par 4 for its yardage, 415.  Can have a go at the tee shot, but the better line left is guarded with a bunker that catches a lot of play.  The green is fronted with a deep bunker keeping balls out of the canyon and has a large (2.5 - 3 foot) step that divides the green 1/3 front and 2/3 back.  Any pin on the back is difficult to access and if you don't find the proper level a three putt is common.  Cool hole.

5.  A tumbling contoured fairway collects balls and at 445 you don't need to kill it as the fairway grades will take the ball down the hole for you.  Not a demanding tee shot, but a green that fades mostly to the back left.  Many times balls need to be run into the green to hold when conditions are firm.  A very difficult green to read.

6.  A neat little par three of 165 yards.  Again a very cool bunker complex front and center with one of the smallest bunkers I have ever seen.  The green is divided by a sideways step and collects from the rear.  A fun shot to hit, especially when the pin is on the lower right half of the green.  If you do not find the proper side of the green with the tee shot, two-putting is difficult.

7.  Perhaps the widest fairway in creation with a single bunker in the center at the crest of a rise.  Really not a lot of strategy, unless you can fly the bunker and catch the backslope which adds extra carry.  Tee shots hit right will tend to fade and leave longer seconds to a green that is better approached from the left.  Savior bunkers short right of the green collet mishits from going into the canyon (good thing at those pro shop prices) and a wide cut of fairway left of the green is where many shots end up.  Another difficult green to read.  A good portion of the green fades away.  A strong hole.

8.  A good par five at 530, which leaves a decision again after a well struck tee shot.  The green is situauted along the edge of another canyon right and has bunkering left.  If you go for it you have to protect a little left as grades become much more severe the further right you go, but this brings the bunkering into play.  If you choose to lay up a small pot like bunker in the center of the fairway comes into play just where you would like to hit.  Also one of the smnaller greens on the course.  The hole has great views of Newport and Corona del Mar.

9.  A difficult par four at 420 yards.  The tee shot calls for a long iron as the fairway narrows severly at the dogleg.  The downhill tee shot leaves a medium to long iron uphill into a damn hard green.  It is the largest green I can never hit.  Most of the green fades to the front but the back left 1/3 drains back left.  A strong flash behind the green will contain most balls, but again another three putt contender.  A small, narrow bunker right of the green also stiffens the approach.

Well that is what I remember of the front nine on the North Course.  I just remembered my Hoosiers are playing, but I would love to continue discussing, specifically how Pelican has charm and substance.  The Irvine Company does charge quite a bit to play there - but don't knock the architect for that.  Looking at the land the course sits on does great justice in understanding the challenges it must have taken to put golf there.  Is every hole great - obviously not, but I think paying attention while playing it will prove it deserves more than a call as 'stagnant architecture'.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Paul,
What features of Pelican Hill's golf architecture make both courses good?

-Is it the routing?
-How about the strategy?
-What makes it "Good?"

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Tim,
Unfortunately, I don't have time to go into great detail as I wish I could. My internet time has been very minute as of late.

As far as routing of the course, it fails to take advantage of one natural feature of the land, and if I'm not mistaken, the housing that abuts several of the golf hole spectacular for a course of its supposed greatness.

One thing you leave out in your description of the Pelican Hill's golf holes is the ability to describe how each hole blends with its natural surroundings--the truest aspect of great golf architecture. Something the Fazio organization knows little about because there is no money involved in utilizing these features. (this is not a bash, but it is a valid criticism.)

Once again, I think that the term of "Great," as far as architecural greatness is being compromised by those who seem to think of it as architectural bashing. Especially if it is coming from members or employees of Fazio designed courses.

I wish I could add more at this time, and if you don't believe my words, then go ahead and take advantage of that expense account and get out there and play it as Tim and others have. that is the only way you can find out for yourself. Then spend the next day by going out to Riviera or LACC and see what "Great" really means.

[Paul Richards]

Tommy:

I used the word "good", not "great."

When I get a chance to rummage through my photos, I
will respond as to my thoughts on the routing, etc.

At this point, all's I can say is that you hit the nail on the
head with your statement:

>spend the next day by going out to Riviera or LACC and see >what "Great" really means.

[Tim Jackson]

Well the Hoosiers won, but I missed the game.  How bittersweet life can be.  Continuing...

10.  A 420 yard uphill par 4.  Again the tee shot collects, but the fairway bunker left does come into play.  The second shot to the green leaves only the front right of the green open and visible.  A small, nasty bunker front center-left is not  a very fun placxe to try to make four from.  The back half of the green drains back left while the front half comes off the front.  A great visual on the second shot when the pin is back left over the bunker and you can only see the top half of the flagstick.

11.  A short par 4 (348) that plays even shorter downhill.  Iron off the tee and wedge in, but the green is very difficult.  The green seems somewhat crowned and fades in all directions.  A steep fold off the back and a small deep bunker front right protect the putting surface.  I have never hit so many shots that looked so good but ended up so poorly as the second into this one.  It can be maddening because of the short length of the second.  You usually will have a pretty good downhill lie too.

12.  Longish par 3 of 200 yards uphill.  A great native bunker with cool rugged edges climbs up the left of the hole, but doesn't come into play.  Another native backed bunker on the right certainly gets more play.  The wind is generally in your face for the tee shot and it plays about .5 to 1 club longer.  The green is large with a transition in the middle.  Back half drains away, making it difficult to judge the distance the ball needs to be hit, and the front half drains off the front.  Balls will collect from the left, but a difficult shot nonetheless.

13.  A dramatic tee shot down into a tight valley.  A iron off the tee is probably the more prudent play.  Fairway bunkers right and left add challenge.  A short uphill for the second to a green with a lateral transition.  An extremely interesting bunker guards the higher left half of the green - think flying brain - and a deep bunker protects the right.  Again if you do not find the proper tier two putting is a challenge.

14.  One of the best green settings on the course, along with #17.  The tee shot plays from a shoot with some fairly small, severe bunkers guarding the right side of the golf hole which is somewhat the better line.  The further you play away from them the greater chance of a sidehill lie.  The second is usually a mid-iron to a green with no backdrop, no framing, and no way of telling how far you have to hit it.  You see green and you see ocean.  If they didn't put the yardages on the sprinklers I would probably never make the correct choice.  This is a great example of decieving the golfer and certainly gets your blood pumping as you have no idea where your shot will end up until it lands.  A strong. deep bunker guards the front of the green which is steeply contoured from back left to front right.  Another difficult green on which to judge the break.

15.  The tee shot is fronted by the irrigation pond, which adjoining #17 is one of the best examples of an elevated water feature that comes off as natural.  A bunker on the inside of the dogleg protects the best line on the tee shot.  It is almost impossible to make four if you get into the front 1/3 of it.  The green has bunkers short right and back left with some very interesting noses.  The green again, is quite large and sectioned.  The first half drains front right and the back half drains left.  Shots will collect long right and be repelled left.

16.  A short par 4 of about 160 yards.  The shot is slightly uphill with a deep native bunker working from short to long left.  The green has a middle transition and drains mostly to the front, but the each side falls away.  When condiitons are firm it is very fun to play.

17.  A very good to great par 5.  The longest on the course at 548 it is extremely difficult to hit in two.  The aforementioned irrigation pond only comes into play for shots hit well right (Fazio protecting the poorer player) and perhaps should be closer to play.  The fairway collects from the left, but the right line is more direct.  From the position of the tee shot looking into the green is awesome.  A good number of detailed bunkers looking as though they have been 'hooked' and distorted left and a green with no backdrop ala #14.  Going for it is very risky with a canyon on the right and one of the smallest greens on the course.  The lay-up becomes more difficult as you approach the green with the bunkers pinching in.  One of the neatest features of the green complex is the twisting swale/basin behind the green.  If you play it step back there and take a look.  Some neat grading.

18.  A strong finisher at 426 (Both Pelican courses are not overly long due to the severity of the site and constriction) that plays from a ridge that offers tremndous ocean views behind.  You can see the green tucked into a canyon from the tee which is another neat feature.  The tee shot is protected with native bunkers right and left that are extremely convoluted and have great lines.  The second is over the canyon down hard to the green which collects long and left.  Bunkers short and long right keep balls out of the canyon and strengthen the second as you really must play over them.

I wouldn't tell you to pay the exorbitant greens fee for fear you may not like Pelican, but I do feel it is better than what has been represented here in the past.  Again, a very difficult site to route golf on and I think it is a great golfing experience.
The South Course to come if you wish.

[Tim Jackson]

Mr. Nacarrato

I would love to hear your thoughts on how Pelican does not fit naturally into its surroundings.  And I did not call the course 'great' in its relation to other courses in the area or abroad.  You seem to take 'great' license when refering to others posts.  

If you can, go to Pelican and tell me where the earth was moved.  Show me where the unnaturalness lies.  Tell me what great physical features of the site were not utilized.  I think it only fair for you to be as specific as possible.  I did not talk of the how the course lays with the land because I do not see where this ideal has been compromised.  Think of the piece of land it sits on.  Tell me of another course in the area which has been placed on such a piece of severe ground and does a better job of fitting into its surrounds.  

Now, you said the course lacks substance and is stagnant architecture.  Could you elaborate.  Perhaps my perception of the architectural features and design strategy are off base.
And please, I don't mean to intone anger into these comments just validate your conclusions for me if you would.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Mr. Jackson,
Being that I am not at my computer, I can't show you pictures that will show proof of earth movement as well as other features that fully describe the best modern course in Orange County, which in fact is what Pelican Hill really is. However, that isn't really saying much is it?

As I have mentioned in posts of recent weeks, the faux rocks on the back to back par 3's are in example. They a hideous reminder of just how artificial Pelican Hill can get in some places. Even the hole preceeding, is very reminescent of some of the typical dreck of courses in SoCal that require housing to afford the property at large; as well as the architect who designed them. But in afterthought, we are in fact talking the Irvine Company, and we know just how well Donald Bren has done with that organization and what they have done to what was one of the more beautiful areas of Southern California. (we can go into great detail over the over-building of the infrastructure of Southern Orange County which is in itself a crime.)

But to get back to Pelican Hill......

Given the lay of the land; the amount of housing that went on the site; How it was masterplanned for housing and resort (which ironically never got built) with the golf courses used as a gimmick for this cause, I think that something else much grander and BETTER could have been built. In fact more then just (2) golf courses. The land is actually good golf course land with some excellent topographical features that have been LEVELED or "terraced" for placing each hole unto itself.

Is all of it engineering marvel? Yes, absolutely. A testament to man's ability to control an environment while adding the element of the beautiful blue Pacific ocean. And they had to move a lot of earth to do it.

How do I know this?

I used to spend a lot of time at Crystal Cove with my ex-one true love. We used to park on what is now those two back to back par three's, and the preceeding par 4 before it. It was nothing more then a flat-as-you-can-get bluff that was utilized for parking for people walking down to the beach as well as, parking for SoCal Edison employees who had a small substation/service yard nearby. All of that land west of PCH was FLAT till you got to the cliff, and it was definitely not linksland as the original name of the Ocean Course-North suggested.

The cliffs below are also comprized of sandstone which as you might know, is pretty hard to confuse with the type of boulders used for the back drop of the first of the two back to back par 3's. All of it is fake and man-made, and can just as easily be placed in a Palm Springs-type of environment as well as Floridian.

In further, Mr. Jackson, I will make you an offer. Email me by clicking on my name, and we can get together and I will SHOW you in person what I feel are the faults of both Pelican Hills courses. I can even do it tomorrow afternoon if you would like! (Even the name Pelican Hill is also a contrived name. Quite ashame considering the other great names regarding the history of the area.)

Who knows, maybe you can show me something that might make me really realize that Tom Fazio is a gift to Golf in Southern California. (I will maintain at this time that Captain George C. Thomas was indeed that gift)

Paul, Sorry for the jumpiness. Yes, the courses are pretty decent, but far from "Great." Somehow I feel the architecture as well as the history of Beverly CC is more interesting to study then Pelican Hills. I'm sure you more then agree!:)

[TEPaul]

Tim Jackson:

Would you happen to be the Tim Jackson who won the US Mid-Am? If you are I might have to sick Ken Bakst on you!

[Tim_Weiman]

Tim Jackson,

Much of Pelican Hill has become so much of a blur to me that even your detailed descriptions of each hole don't revive my memory very much.

But, seven years after last playing the course, I still remember the approach shot to #14 quite well.  I agree with you on the lack of framing and the difficulty judging distance.

Wouldn't it be awesome if yardage markers weren't allowed?  

[A_Clay_Man]

So what are the green fees now? 250? And if the word great isn't being used, how can you or your company justify a fee over 50 bucks. I would hate to pay more than that for just good.

[Aaron]

LACC and RIveria are near by? I did not know that...I'll just go play them!

If Riveria is in such close proximity to Pelican then why is it considered so good?

Aaron

[Tim Jackson]

TEPaul:

Unfortunately I only share a name with the Tim Jackson of US Mid-Am fame.  If I had his swing perhaps golf would be a bit less frustrating.

Mr. Weiman:

I think it would be interesting to play a round or two without looking at any yardage information.  It certainly would make approaches difficult to judge and bring deception back into the game somewhat.

Mr. Nacarrato:

I begin with this:  I know that there is nothing on this earth I can say to change the way you feel about Fazio.  That is emminently clear from reading your past posts.  I almost fell out of my chair, when you stated how the objectivity of members or employees of Fazio courses is compromised and their definition of 'great' is biased.  I am not a member, nor an employee of a Fazio club, nor did I say Pelican was great in any context with comparison to other courses.  A statement coming from you about about a biased opinion of Fazio work is almost laughable.

I try to deem each course based on the merits the individual course or club.  One of your weaker arguments is that Pelican is not good because Riviera and LACC are close by and should be held in higher esteem.  I would not argue that at all, I just thought the thread was about Pelican Hill.  

Now, about the housing.  Yes, it is unfortunate that Pelican Hill has views of some of the most outlandish neighborhoods in America.  But as far as housing on the course, I believe 5, 9 and 12 on the North are the only holes with homes actually abutting golf.  On the South 2, 3, 5, 11, 12, 13, and 14 are adjacent to development.  Now I was not a math major, but that is 27% of the golf holes with housing infringing, leaving 73% with only long range views of the million dollar track housing.  The golf courses used as a, 'gimmick for development', a bit harsh I'd say.  You and I both know The Irvine Co., I would guess Fazio did a good job of keeping development away.  Disagree?  To digress, when playing Riviera I believe that there is housing or urban development on 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13 and 18.  I know that most of the homes are well above golf grades, but it didn't keep me from looking at the mansions.  I am not knocking Riviera, just applying your logic.  Furthermore, I believe LACC has the Playboy Mansion along one of its famed holes.  That actually puts it into my top 5 regardless of what Ron Whitten thinks.  There is some urban intrusion we could use more of!

But to get back to Pelican...

The rock work on the par 3 12th is also a point of contention.  Now I would ask, and be honest, how many people do you think realize it is not real?  If you had not been to the site previously, would you know?  If you walk through the fence on #13 and down to the cliffs you can see the faces from which the forms were pulled.  Other than the texture on the GFRC, obviously not sandstone, how can you tell?  I think the rock adds to #12 and certainly provides the grade for #13 tees to sit on.  If not rock it would have been a simple slope.  I think the rock is more dramatic than the slope would have been.  I know for you ANYTHING artificial is to be derided, and I would agree most times, but I disagree in this case.

As far as the topographical features unused on site, you still have not been specific.  If you look at the canyons on the North Course left of 2, right of 3, right of 4, on 6, right of 7, right of 8, right of 9, right of 14, left of 16, right of 17 and right of 18, I think finding golf was probably difficult.  You and I both know that with the environmental restrictions in California if is difficult to take golf into drainages.  If you attempt to cross the canyons the earthwork becomes even greater - basic to grading, so the golf was place along the ridgtops mainly, which opens the views of housing.  Unfortunate, but perhaps necessary.  Disagree?

The land you talk of West of the PCH contains only 4 holes.  11-14 of the South Course.  You say the land was flat and that it is not true to the original linksland name.  You say Pelican Hill is a contrived name.  When did course names become pertinent to architectural discussions?  Weak point.

I agree Pelican is not perfect, and I agree that Riviera is a classic, but have you heard about this course in New Jersey?  I hear that is truly a gift to golf...  just using your logic....


 

 

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Mr. Jackson,
I think you pretty much have shown the difference between what great golf is compared to average golf. You seem to be looking at the mansions at Riviera. When in fact, I have used every trip to Riviera to look specifically at the golf course, while at Pelican Hill, the golf architecture is so non-existent I'm looking at the houses!:)

To get away from the joking.......

My bias is simply based off of the PRODUCT that the Fazio organization has made its money off of. (It's sad that golf courses have to be deemed as product, really. But that is what the Fazio organization see themselves as producing)

I wish that there was a better way to put this, and some might not believe this, but Fazio is not neccesarily the bone of contention here. Mediocrity disguised as Great is the nature of my complaints. Pelican Hill is far from being great, and it barely clears Good.

Why? (And you want specifics)

The entire Pelican Hill facility was a master-planned product. When this happens, certain interesting and key features of topography are sacraficed. These features, which are naturally conceived are the key ingredients to bulding a GREAT golf course. Instead, many of those features don't work with how the clubhouse or the proposed five-star hotel (that was never built) need to be situated. these decisions alone destroyed any chance of THAT land being GREAT for golf.

Yes, in the old days, they could route golf courses better because of less restrictions, but what does that compare to the million-dollar track housing that is on some of the most ecologically fragile areas of Pelican Hill? Pelican Hill was conceived during a time when eco restrictions were much less severe then they are today, and I will stand by my convictions that many architects are responsible for giving-in, and rolling over to such ridiculous demands. (Where were the eco-terrorists when they were planning these million-dollar track homes that reside on the four holes west of Pacific Coast Highway?) What about some of the shelving for future building that will make many of the views from the South Course completely blind, once they are built upon? (I'm thinking of that massive land movement just south of the 5th hole.)

This has nothing to do with the enviorment, it has had everything to do with money dictating the experience. That in itself is what Orange County is all about--inflation and over-excess while building the perfect mess. in other words...everything that Gib mentions in his post about OC.

You describe the canyons of the Ocean-North course, with their proximity to the golf holes. I hate to go back to the classic age again, but comparing it to what Bill Flynn had at Lehigh CC in Allentown, PA, I have to scream foul. If that is too far away for a comaprison for you, then look at Ojai Valley Inn and what George Thomas did on the back nine there.

Those are routings.

They take advantage of every dip and canyon the site had to offer and produce some of the most imaginative NATURAL golf with minimal movement. If earthmovent was needed, they did it, but only to the most minimal extent that was needed.

Yes, they can be considered sporty layouts and every golf architect working today should study them if thay already haven't.

I also think that Tim Weiman brings up an excellent point regarding memorablity. There are way too many courses out there that I have played one time and can remember every hole in exacting detail. some of these courses aren't even very good golf architecture nor in a class of Pelican Hill. However, I see that I'm not the only one that feels that the golf at Pelican Hill is less then memorable.

My offer stands. If not today, email me and tell me a time and I will more then be happy to go out there and show you exactly what I mean, and maybe you could even show me something I don't see or remember.

In closing, I will say one thing about Pelican Hill that I do like.

I thought the bunkering was exceptional on some of the holes, but it drastically suffered from less then challenging placement. It's a shame that a golf course has to rely on eye candy to equate the experience when in fact the site was ready to do all of that, if it was in more capable hands with someone that had the knoweldge of what GREAT challenging golf is all about.



 

[Tim Jackson]

Mr. Nacarrato

You seem to not understand my point.  Look at how SEVERE the canyons around Pelican are.  Look at how steep and how narrow they are.  Where golf is, is the only place it could have went - master planned or not.  Put golf anywhere but where it is and the earth moving would have increased ten fold.  Can you not see that?  Read what Mr. Papazian said, "...it is tough to imagine anyone doing much better with it.  There are all sorts of canyons and hillsides to deal with...'.  Are we both blind to what you say is a terrible routing?  (Not to infer Mr. Papazian believes it is a good routing.)

Mediocre disguised as great.  As near as I can tell when I actually re-read the thread is that only you are bringing up course comparison or geographic comparison or calling anything great or not.  You bring up Riviera, LACC, et all.  It seems to be a trait of yours.  Get asked tough questions and run behind a classic is what you do best.  I think comparing any two courses is tricky.  In fact I think rankings are down right silly.  I never said Pelican was great in any reference to any other club or area - I said it was a great golfing experience and I stand by that.  You even state it is the best modern design in Orange County and then rip it in the next statement.

You also seem to think that architects somehow have the ability to flout environmental law and, '...give in too easy...', when somehow they must be able to tell local, state, and federal enforcers to take a hike - we'll just put the golf where we want thank-you.  If you truly believe this, you know even less than I assumed.

I know the easiest out would be to agree to disagree.  I am not sure we have ever discussed a thread on which we were even near to agreement.  But I will take your offer.  I do not spend much time in Southern California anymore, but next time I am out that way I would love to take a field trip with you.  I would very much appreciate the chance for you to explain to me where golf should have went on that property and everything that must have been compromised to produce such mediocrity.  I have to travel until the middle of the week, but I would love to hear your further comments.  And if you could, would you mind re-reading the thread and answer some of the questions I have asked of you?  I have always answered yours.


Aaron

Don't let mine and Mr. Nacarrato's differences affect your view in any way.  That is the best thing about golf architecture - drawing your own conclusions.  Even though I almost always disagree with Mr. Nacarrato, I still respect his opnions, and that is one of the best things about this site.  If you can do it - go play it and tell us what you thought.

[Tim_Weiman]

Tommy N:

I'm not aware of all the details on the permitting process at Pelican Hill.  But, while living in Long Beach the story I always heard was that Pelican Hill was a thirty year project: twenty eight years of permitting and two years of construction (for the first course).

So, I agree with Tim Jackson that building golf courses is kind of like managing investments in oil refineries: you can't just blow off the regulators, especially in California.

Pelican Hill is what it is: ideal for business entertaining on the expense account.  I never once heard anyone complain about lack of "strategy"; most people were just happy to be there.

Is it a place to "study golf architecture"?  Obviously not.

One other point.  I don't know how good Fazio did with what he had to work with.  I like 3-4 holes on the newer course, but I have no idea what restrictions he faced that impacted potential routing plans or utilization of the site's natural features, etc.  

Tom MacWood raised similiar questions about Sand Ridge.  Having a detailed knowledge of the Sand Ridge site, I was able to respond.  But, how do we discuss "how the architect did" without a large body of knowledge about the project?

In the end, I think we will often be left only able to comment on the "final product", which in the case of Pelican Hill is okay but not worth a special visit for architecture junkies.

[Tim_Weiman]

Tommy N:

I also share Tim Jackson's view that comparing Pelican Hill and Riviera doesn't make a lot of sense.  Other than both being in Southern California, they don't seem to have much in common.  The properties are completely different.  Their strengths and shortcomings are completely different.  They are likely to appeal to people with totally different interests.

[THuckaby2]

Aaron - I don' think our stalwart debaters above answered the geographical question, if they did please forgive the reiteration... but... Pelican Hill is indeed "relatively" close to Riviera and LACC, they are both in what one would call "SoCal."

BUT... Pelican Hill is at least an hour's drive from LACC, through some of the worst traffic on this earth.  Riviera is another 5-10 miles or so beyond.  Be forewarned.

And also, do remember each of the latter are indeed private, whereas Pelican Hill will indeed take your $275 no matter who you are.

Now back to the discussion of PH's worthiness....

TH

[SPDB]

From the looks i get on the website, i think it looks spectacular. The topo does look severe, which must have restricted creativity somewhat.

I noticed that there is a short par 3 (topping out 125) on the South course.

No one gives Fazio any credit for continually including what many on this website consider a lost hole type - THE SHORT PAR 3. I have played a bunch of Fazio courses that include the short hole (Johns Island, Hartefeld, Galloway). I think the PH example is trememdously interesting since there are 2 GREENS on this particular hole - Anyone know the history behind this?

[peter_mcknight]

I am not the first to admit that the views and surroundings at Pelican Hill are nothing but fabulous.

The courses themselves are essentially forgettable from a pure architectural design point-of-view.  There are maybe 4 or 5 holes of any interest.

The driving range is not on the main property--one needs to be shuttled to and from the range.

When Donald Bren decided to place an upscale golf course in Newport Coast, he wanted the prettiest picture that man could design.  This explains why he made sure Fazio was hired to do the design work.  The worst of the property is some of the non-native floral arrangements on the course and the one par 3 that plays over a semi water filled rock quarry.

Both courses are basically unwalkable from a 4.5 hour round point of view.  Of course, if you want to walk, you almost need to be in NBA kind of shape.

The greens are not all that challenging--most have little or no break and are not that severely contoured.

There will be some more housing around the course coming up, not to mention the final completion of the Marriott time share and hotel complex.  None of the future development is subject to the City of Newport Beach's greenlight initiative (Newport Coast will become part of the City 1-1-02) due to the passage of SB516 this year.

Finally, I enjoy playing there when I have to on business.  I certainly would never pay to play there (Torrey Pines, Sandpiper and La Purisima are much better and cheaper).  I believe there is a reduction of fees to around $175.  One can also join the Pelican Hill player's club for $350, which lowers one's fees to about $125-145 per round.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()