[JMEvensky]

My experience on admission's committees has surprised me over the years when I learn how little people who are considering a club know about the pedigree of the course architecturally.

Or care.

For the overwhelming majority,THIS golf course is no different from THAT golf course. A million other things are higher on the priority list for people looking at which club to join.

[Steve Okula]

If somebody wants to spend more than what I think is necessary, it worries me.  Maybe they want a bigger irrigation system, or more drainage, or fancier cart paths, or more bunkers ... all I know is that they are making the project more complicated, which takes focus away from getting the essentials right.  The biggest problem in China is that everyone seems to want to make the projects as complicated as possible, and it all distracts from the golf.

Tom,

Have you ever had a situation where you thought there was too much drainage?

[James Boon]

Thomas,

From my experience of working on private houses, I'd certainly say that just because the client has plenty of money it doesn't mean they necessarily have the taste, class, or understanding of the subject enough to get an end product that the cognoscenti would approve.


Can you name five (5) owners with money who designed their own course in the last 20-30 years ?

Most owners are smart enough to hire GCA's.

The problems seem to arise when some of those owners dictate the end product


Of course there are also plenty of examples where that money has led to an interesting end product, be it innovative or overcoming difficult engineering challenges.

I don't see golf courses as being any different? One key thing related to your opening post is that the current thinking of the cognoscenti (which I suppose in this case is those nutter on GCA  ) related to golf course architecture is a minimalist approach which doesn't necessarily need much money to be spent. As Patrick says, successful people don't like to waste money, but that doesn't mean they won't want some ostentatious show of their wealth by spending money? 

Sometimes that manifests itself in the clubhouse.

When you eliminate the acquisition cost and just consider the costs related to the golf course, doesn't the architect dictate costs vis a vis his design on each particular property ?

Cheers,

James

Patrick,

I was offering up houses as an example where too much money can lead to a worse end product, just to give a wider example for the discussion. Of course all of these people hire an architect to design their house but they will dictate to that architect to some extent what the end product ends up like and I'm sure this dictating is the same in the golf course architecture business? Either through the choice of architect because say of the style they know he will design the course in, or by actually "sticking their nose in" for want of a phrase?

When it comes to buildings, from my experience the client dictates the budget and I need to design within those costs. I know there are some architects who have found themselves in the exulted position of being able to get builder and client to act exactly as they wish, but for those of us in the real World its not the case. I'd be surprised to hear if its any different in the World of golf course architecture, but I'm here to learn and am happier to do so than to prove that I'm right.

Cheers,

James

[Tom_Doak]

James:

I think budget issues are a bit different for golf courses than they are for houses.  Generally speaking, someone building a house has a better idea of what it should cost, and therefore more likely has a number in mind, than someone developing a golf course does.  Golf course developers rely on us to tell them what's possible and what the price of eggs is.  That can lead to excess, if the architect is so inclined.

[Jim Nugent]

Patrick, here is how the Trump LA website read in February 2011:

"Who designed the Trump National Los Angeles Golf Course?
This golf course is the world’s first and only Donald J. Trump Signature Design."  

Plus, in an article on that same website, Trump then said, “It’s a Donald J. Trump design, you know.”

So whatever Pete Dye did, Trump used to claim HE, the Donald, was the sole architect.  What happened?  Had Trump somehow forgotten who designed the course?  Did something jog his memory after 2011 and remind him that Pete Dye actually should get credit?  

I haven't played the course.  I base my sense of it on what I've commonly read here on GCA.com.  Here are some examples, from past threads that involved TNLA:

0.  Since Gib made a somewhat approving post about TNLA in this thread, let me lead with what he wrote in 2010: "the golf course is little more than an expensive amusement that has no chance to stand the test of time on its own merits."  i.e. a few years ago Gib pretty well said that Trump LA meets the basic question of this thread.  

From other GCA posters:

1.  "I can only opine on the first nine at Trump National on CA coast. It is on a piece of land that never should have been used for golf.  And the design is boring back and forth on narrow terraces with outrageous contrived water features (not the Pacific). I feigned injury and happily left after 9."

2.  "All in all, I feel the best club in the bag for those holes is a ball retriever." (Talking about holes #1 and #17.)  

3.  "IMO, the green complexes are not at all compatible with the clubs that are being hit into the various holes."

4.  "Trump National in Palos Verdes is awful"

5.  "Trump was a disaster as Pacific Trails and the Fazioing and waterfall certainly would not improve a back and forth mess."

6.  "The land was really not suited for golf.  The course resembles the terrace farming used in Italy.
The playing corridors are not wide enough and each hole has a concrete curbed cart path that runs the entire length of one side of the hole (usually the higher side) and is often in play.
The first hole has an incredibly annoying fake water feature that drowns out the Pacific Ocean.
Recovery shots are impossible if the fairway is missed by more than a few yards in places.
In addition to the stupid water feature four or five unnatural lakes were added to the property and are really out of place.
The course is unwalkable.
With the exception of the 1st hole all of the holes run either north or south which makes for a very boring routing.
Most of the holes play relatively straight.
The green complexes are pretty redundant, most of the greens are turned at around a 45 degree angle in order to make straight holes seem less straight.
Trump did have people come in and do some additional work on some green complexes to put more variety and interest in them but Dye's original green complexes were pretty boring.
The green contours are unnatural and often don't tie in to the surrounding land.
The course feels very unnatural and contrived."

7.  "I've grown up watching Ocean Trails be built, then fall into the ocean, then Trump turn what was an ok course into "Disneyland" golf. The course is 90% show and very little substance. If you're in Palos Verdes, the best course is Palos Verdes Country Club, and the best course for value is actually the Terrenea par 3."

8.  "I played Trump's course in LA...it is exactly what his hair is to his face"

9.  Then there's the post by none other than Pat Mucci, who some years ago wrote, "You can have the most beautiful vistas in the world, but, if the core values of the architecture are inferior, the golf course will fail in a comparitive environment and under the weight of its own inadequacies.  Wasn't there a thread accompanied by pictures of Trump Los Angeles, where people stated that the views were breathtaking but the golf course mediocre at best?"

i.e. you, Pat, raised the same questions about this course. 

Trump Scotland: my sense is that Trump made a course that looks like a links, but plays like a parkland course.  He used two types of grass -- so he could open earlier as I understand it -- and now faces the daunting task of phasing out the rye.  The course does not play F&F, but the opposite, of S&S.  And it will apparently take years to create true links conditions, if they ever are able to do so.  

Why I think Trump doesn't quite get golf: he built a parklands type course in a dunes/links setting.  He claims he wants the best courses, but does not hire the best architects.  He designs (his claim) a course he says is better than Pebble, that many on this site think is a lot worse than Rancho.  

Much of his business is built around image -- the Trump brand, the beauty contests, his fascination with mass media -- and I think that carries over into many of his golf ventures.  It may well pay off financially -- he may do great with real estate sales, hotels etc -- but image does not make great golf courses.  

Trump the ramrod: he is happy to use eminent domain to force landowners to forfeit their property.  He has destroyed others' views, to punish them and try to force them off their land.  

He often throws vast money at projects --at least by his accounting -- unilaterally declares his courses the best in the world, even while they in reality lag far behind.  Here's an interview that is pretty typical:

"Q: You own courses all over the world. What makes your golf clubs the "best"?
A: I have the best liocations. bedminster should be in the top 10. My Florida course is the best in Florida and Trump National LA is better than Pebble Beach.

Q: That's a big claim. You really believe Trump National LA is a better course than the famed Pebble Beach?
A: That's what people say until they play my course. I have 3000 acres and 2.5 miles on the ocean. That's the ocean, not the bay. Every single hole fronts the ocean. I love Pebble, too, but even people who love Pebble say Trump LA is superior. What Pebble has is history and some day Trump LA will have history, though I might not be around to see it. Trump LA is far better than Bandon Dunes in Oregon. It's unfair to compare a course in Los Angeles, a great metropolitan area, to one in a wasteland far away from civilisation."

To me that brief interview reveals a great deal about what Trump values: views, waterfront acreage, every hole fronting the ocean, great metro areas vs the wastelands of civilization.  It's partly bluster, but I think Trump buys his own b.s.  

He gets the job done, business-wise no question.  He knows how to buy and sell. But he's so focused on image, he doesn't understand well what makes a great golf course. At least IMO.  

Again quoting from a post Gib made in 2010 about Trump LA: "part of the allure to me is the sheer amusement at Trumps level of grandiose buffoonery."  And..."Look at it this way Dick: The more knuckleheads who buy into Trump's hallucinations, the less crowded it will be at Bandon and Pebble Beach.  

Note: I think he's a quick learner.  His Scotland course has gotten the highest ratings -- by far -- of any Trump course.  Maybe that's why he hired Gil to renovate Doral -- and is why it won't surprise me to see him work in the future with more of the architects favored on this website.  

[James Boon]

James:

I think budget issues are a bit different for golf courses than they are for houses.  Generally speaking, someone building a house has a better idea of what it should cost, and therefore more likely has a number in mind, than someone developing a golf course does.  Golf course developers rely on us to tell them what's possible and what the price of eggs is.  That can lead to excess, if the architect is so inclined.

Thanks Tom,

Cheers,

James

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick, here is how the Trump LA website read in February 2011:

"Who designed the Trump National Los Angeles Golf Course?
This golf course is the world’s first and only Donald J. Trump Signature Design."  

You need to understand what that means in the context of this project.
It is not an inaccurate statement

Plus, in an article on that same website, Trump then said, “It’s a Donald J. Trump design, you know.”

After the landslide, only 15 holes were available for play..
I would venture to say that only Trump would have, could have and did reclaim this project.
He is solely responsible for the redesign and he is solely responsible for this course reopening as a viable 18 hole golf course.  

So whatever Pete Dye did, Trump used to claim HE, the Donald, was the sole architect.  

Well, he was.
Without Donald, there is no course

What happened?  

What happened was that Dye's course slid into the ocean

Had Trump somehow forgotten who designed the course?  

There was no 18 hole course when Trump bought the property and subsequently invested millions to re-stabilize the land and redesign the course

Did something jog his memory after 2011 and remind him that Pete Dye actually should get credit?  

Yes

I haven't played the course.  I base my sense of it on what I've commonly read here on GCA.com.  

In other words you're totally ignorant about the play of the course.
And that you're opinion is based solely on negative critiques.

Here are some examples, from past threads that involved TNLA:

0.  Since Gib made a somewhat approving post about TNLA in this thread, let me lead with what he wrote in 2010: "the golf course is little more than an expensive amusement that has no chance to stand the test of time on its own merits."  

Well, it's four years later and the course is still there and operational

i.e. a few years ago Gib pretty well said that Trump LA meets the basic question of this thread.  

Your ignorance and inability to grasp the circumstances regarding the reclamation of this course are stunning.
Without the acquisition cost and reclamation cost there is NO GOLF COURSE.
Trump had to import and stabilize over 1,000,000 cubic yards of fill in order to replace what had been lost to the ocean.
To help you out, just think of the impact of the 18th hole at Pebble or the 16th or 17th at CPC sliding into the ocean and the cost to replace them.

From other GCA posters:

1.  "I can only opine on the first nine at Trump National on CA coast. It is on a piece of land that never should have been used for golf.  And the design is boring back and forth on narrow terraces with outrageous contrived water features (not the Pacific). I feigned injury and happily left after 9."

How much credibility do you assign to an admitted liar ?

2.  "All in all, I feel the best club in the bag for those holes is a ball retriever." (Talking about holes #1 and #17.)  

Seems like the same could be said about 15, 16 and 17 at CPC and 4, 6, 7, 8, 9,10, 17 and 18 at Pebble

3.  "IMO, the green complexes are not at all compatible with the clubs that are being hit into the various holes."

So Pete Dye doesn't know how to design greens in the context of approach shots into them.
Is that your stated opinion as well ?

4.  "Trump National in Palos Verdes is awful"[

Then why did he pay to play there ?

5.  "Trump was a disaster as Pacific Trails and the Fazioing and waterfall certainly would not improve a back and forth mess."

Did this poster actually play the course ?
Sounds like his criticism is of Dye's work

6.  "The land was really not suited for golf.  

What does that mean ?
Yale, Lido, NGLA, was that land suited for golf ?

The course resembles the terrace farming used in Italy.

The playing corridors are not wide enough and each hole has a concrete curbed cart path that runs the entire length of one side of the hole (usually the higher side) and is often in play.

Just like Pebble Beach

The first hole has an incredibly annoying fake water feature that drowns out the Pacific Ocean.

Where, exactly, is that fountain located ?
On the tee ?  On the green ?  In the bunker ?

Recovery shots are impossible if the fairway is missed by more than a few yards in places.

Like Pebble Beach ?  CPC ?  GCGC ?

In addition to the stupid water feature four or five unnatural lakes were added to the property and are really out of place.

Are they irrigation sources ?

The course is unwalkable.

Why is that ?

With the exception of the 1st hole all of the holes run either north or south which makes for a very boring routing.

Like NGLA and most links courses ?]

Most of the holes play relatively straight.

Like GCGC ?

The green complexes are pretty redundant, most of the greens are turned at around a 45 degree angle in order to make straight holes seem less straight.[

Gotta admit, that's a new one for me.
Would you do us all a favor and identify the author of each of these critiques

Trump did have people come in and do some additional work on some green complexes to put more variety and interest in them but Dye's original green complexes were pretty boring.

Dye's green complexes boring ?
So Trump redesigned and improved Dye's work

The green contours are unnatural and often don't tie in to the surrounding land.

You can't have it both ways.
You can't declare the land unfit for golf in one breath and then claim that the greens are unnatural and don't tie into the land in another.
The course feels very unnatural and contrived."

How so ?

7.  "I've grown up watching Ocean Trails be built, then fall into the ocean, then Trump turn what was an ok course into "Disneyland" golf.
An "OK COURSE ?
It fell into the ocean.
There was no course unless you consider 15 holes a golf course
Trump took a disaster and turned it into a golf course  

 The course is 90% show and very little substance. If you're in Palos Verdes, the best course is Palos Verdes Country Club, and the best course for value is actually the Terrenea par 3."

8.  "I played Trump's course in LA...it is exactly what his hair is to his face"

And this is the basis for your evaluation ?
You're a bigger moron than the poster you quoted

9.  Then there's the post by none other than Pat Mucci, who some years ago wrote, "You can have the most beautiful vistas in the world, but, if the core values of the architecture are inferior, the golf course will fail in a comparitive environment and under the weight of its own inadequacies.  Wasn't there a thread accompanied by pictures of Trump Los Angeles, where people stated that the views were breathtaking but the golf course mediocre at best?"

That's an accurate statement and has probably got more to do with my discussion and debate with Tom Huckaby than Trump L.A.

i.e. you, Pat, raised the same questions about this course.  

It's true about every course.
I believe that any course's architectural values take precedent over the views afforded from the course

Trump Scotland: my sense is that Trump made a course that looks like a links, but plays like a parkland course.  He used two types of grass -- so he could open earlier as I understand it -- and now faces the daunting task of phasing out the rye.  The course does not play F&F, but the opposite, of S&S.  And it will apparently take years to create true links conditions, if they ever are able to do so.  

If you NEVER played the course, how can you comment on how it plays ?

Are you and the other morons now claiming that it's impossible for Rye fairways to play F&F ?

Why I think Trump doesn't quite get golf: he built a parklands type course in a dunes/links setting.  

So, it's your claim that Trump Scotland is a "Parkland" course ?

He claims he wants the best courses, but does not hire the best architects.  

So Hawtree and Gil Hanse aren't the best architects ?
You are a moron

He designs (his claim) a course he says is better than Pebble, that many on this site think is a lot worse than Rancho.  

Tell us the names of those claiming that Trump Scotland is a lot worse than Rancho ?

I'm prepared to accept Brad Klein's and Ran Morrissett's opinions rather than some unnamed morons

Much of his business is built around image -- the Trump brand, the beauty contests, his fascination with mass media -- and I think that carries over into many of his golf ventures.  It may well pay off financially -- he may do great with real estate sales, hotels etc -- but image does not make great golf courses.  

Which courses of his have you played and when did you play them ?

Trump the ramrod: he is happy to use eminent domain to force landowners to forfeit their property.  

Isn't that the purpose of eminent domain ?
Isn't that why the law was created ?

He has destroyed others' views, to punish them and try to force them off their land.  

Since when is a property owner entitled to unrestricted views over another property holders land ?

He often throws vast money at projects --at least by his accounting -- unilaterally declares his courses the best in the world, even while they in reality lag far behind.  Here's an interview that is pretty typical:

Do you expect him to state that his courses are terrible ?

"Q: You own courses all over the world. What makes your golf clubs the "best"?
A: I have the best liocations. bedminster should be in the top 10. My Florida course is the best in Florida and Trump National LA is better than Pebble Beach.

Q: That's a big claim. You really believe Trump National LA is a better course than the famed Pebble Beach?
A: That's what people say until they play my course. I have 3000 acres and 2.5 miles on the ocean. That's the ocean, not the bay. Every single hole fronts the ocean. I love Pebble, too, but even people who love Pebble say Trump LA is superior. What Pebble has is history and some day Trump LA will have history, though I might not be around to see it. Trump LA is far better than Bandon Dunes in Oregon. It's unfair to compare a course in Los Angeles, a great metropolitan area, to one in a wasteland far away from civilisation."

To me that brief interview reveals a great deal about what Trump values: views, waterfront acreage, every hole fronting the ocean, great metro areas vs the wastelands of civilization.  It's partly bluster, but I think Trump buys his own b.s.  

Let's just say that you don't get it

He gets the job done, business-wise no question.  He knows how to buy and sell. But he's so focused on image, he doesn't understand well what makes a great golf course. At least IMO.  

What Trump courses have you played, and when ?

Again quoting from a post Gib made in 2010 about Trump LA: "part of the allure to me is the sheer amusement at Trumps level of grandiose buffoonery."  And..."Look at it this way Dick: The more knuckleheads who buy into Trump's hallucinations, the less crowded it will be at Bandon and Pebble Beach.  

Note: I think he's a quick learner.  His Scotland course has gotten the highest ratings -- by far -- of any Trump course.  Maybe that's why he hired Gil to renovate Doral -- and is why it won't surprise me to see him work in the future with more of the architects favored on this website.  

But you said in a paragraph above, that he doesn't hire the best architects.

You told us that Trump Scotland is a disaster, a parkland course in a links setting with the wrong grasses.

Tell us again, which Trump courses have you played and when

[Joe Hancock]

Pat,

I don't know much history of the current or preceding version(s) of TNLA. Did it fall into the ocean because it was a golf course, or because Dye did designwork that caused it to fall into the ocean, or because the land was unstable/ unfit for any type of development? Do you have access to a geological study previous to any development on that land that would indicate whether or not that land was destined to move towards the ocean previous to it being a golf course?

Joe

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

I don't know much history of the current or preceding version(s) of TNLA. Did it fall into the ocean because it was a golf course, or because Dye did designwork that caused it to fall into the ocean, or because the land was unstable/ unfit for any type of development? Do you have access to a geological study previous to any development on that land that would indicate whether or not that land was destined to move towards the ocean previous to it being a golf course?


Joe,

Trump was NOT the developer that converted the farmland to a golf course.

The land in the area is generally unstable.

A viable theory is that a leaking municipal sewer line contributed to or precipitated the landslide.

Trump came in, replaced/reintroduced 1,250,000+ cubic yards and stabilized the land and redesigned/reconfigured the golf course, and for this, these morons want to vilify him and the course he saved ?

[Gib_Papazian]

Patrick,

That is no theory, there was a leaking line (dating from when PV was first developed) that had somehow been breached - but never detected as there was no sign of it along the side of the cliff. I was told the developer eventually went under and nobody but Trump would touch the project. Again, for what it is, it certainly could have been far worse.

Jim,

I'm not sure what sort of assertion you're trying to make about a previous post I made in 2010. The fact is, believing that Trump LA can hold up favorably to Pebble or Bandon is a HALLUCINATION. Thus, the more idiots that buy into it, the smaller the crowds at Bandon etc. Further, using that standard, even if a rater were blinded by the bombastic stream of horseshit Trump exhales from his pie-hole - and actually bought his reclamation project is a top 20 course in CA (as opposed to "The Greatest" as Trump claims) - once the acid wore off there is no way even a fan boy of  Mr. "You're Fired" could state with a straight face it would stand the test of time.

Now, all that stated, the golf course is NOT a pile of shit! I have seen plenty of catastrophically expensive train wrecks in my life and this is not one of them.  It is a decent, reasonably well done golf course rescued from disaster on a marginal piece of land. Yes, the terraced fairways are tough on duffers with a slice - and the course suffers the same drawbacks in terms of routing as Cascata (back and forth along the ridge) - but nobody walks off and says they will never come back.

It is no more of a carnival of pointless eye candy and silly waterfalls than Bali Hai in Las Vegas. Yes, the rough is way too high and the green complexes are a bit clumsy in spots, but I would rather play Trump LA than get my skull beat in at Industry Hills. Again, the golf course is a soft-6 . . . . . . maybe a strongish 5, with gorgeous views on the bluffs above the Pacific. It is a notch below the Art Hills course at Half Moon Bay - worth playing on similar terrain, but with some real drawbacks.    

[Jim Nugent]

Gib, I thought your comments in 2010 were a lot less favorable than from a few days ago.  I also thought they fit the OP in this thread pretty well.  If I didn't accurately characterize what you said, my apologies.

Comparing TNLA to Industry Hills (Tom Watson called the Ike the worst course he'd ever played) is not setting the bar very high.  And calling TNLA little more than an amusement that can't stand on its own merit is pretty damning. 

I don't know if that six you give it is based on a Doak-type scale.  Tom says a six means "A very good course, definitely worth a game if you’re in town."  Can a course that is an amusement, that doesn't stand on its own merit, be considered "very good?" 

From what you said, I would think a four might fit better.  Tom describes a four as, "A modestly interesting course, with a couple of distinctive holes among the 18, or at least some scenic interest and decent golf."

Trump says he spent $250 million on the course.  Did all that money produce a better course... or even a good course?  Lots of posters here think the course sucks.  Some say it was better before Trump took over -- that he should have left well enough alone. 

Decades ago I used to drive through that area from time to time.  IIRC, Rancho PV condemned land in and around there on a pretty regular basis.  The road heaved and buckled in places; and some homes built along the cliffs up and down PV South tumbled into the sea.

Trump himself clearly has a flexible relationship with truth: he proved that by dishonestly crediting the design solely to himself, then changing that to include Pete Dye.  Patrick's defense of this is comical. 

Let me ask you directly: do you think Trump's money produced a worse course?  i.e. do you feel TNLA is a course that meets the question asked in the original post? 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim,

What's beyond comical is your failure to understand that if Trump doesn't buy the property and repair/restore the damage, irrespective of the cost, THERE IS NO GOLF COURSE.

So, how can a golf course be worse than NO GOLF COURSE.

Here's your moronic question:

Let me ask you directly: do you think Trump's money produced a worse course? 

How can an 18 hole course be worse than a 15 hole course ?

To help you with the answer, were you aware that a good portion of the course slid into the Pacific ?

Your question has to be one of the top 10 moronic questions ever asked on this website

[Gib_Papazian]

I wrote this before a fashion shoot and did not post it - so if anybody thinks I am colluding with Mucci, think again:

Jim,

The question is really, arguendo: "If a tolerably good piece of land is available, does the fact a client has more money than sense tend to produce a golf course that fails to meet its potential due to (a.) owner demands that are contrary to rational decisions ("The Dragon" - Defendant's Exhibit A) that enhance the final quality of the golf course, or (b.) an architect who - with an unlimited budget - decides to pull out all the stops in the hope that including every single idea he comes up with will somehow create Merion.

Let me put it in context of my original (and now 2nd) profession.

Within Michael Cimino's insane expenditures on Heaven's Gate - including the genius of Vilmos Zsigmond, who I was blessed to count as one of my teachers - is a fantastic movie. Another Academy Award, just like The Deer Hunter. However, with an unlimited budget with - as it turned out - finite pockets, his excess brought down UA and with it the end of the maverick auteur director. Cimino was Tom Doak, except without perspective or a sense of minimalism. Both were the "enfant terrible" in their respective professions, except Cimino did not know how to prioritize his ideas without some amount of structure.

With no constraints, it was like Tiger Woods in a cat-house full of Victoria Secret models. Just fuck yourself bloody, wait for another infusion of pussy - rinse and repeat . . . . . . . until the house that Fairbanks, Pickford and the Little Tramp built was a steaming pile of ashes and the bean counters could say "I told you so" - and screw up the industry for those of us who graduated from film school at exactly the wrong moment.

A moment of bitterness. My apologies. I was actually in the second audience (after the original screening) to see the original four-hour version and thought with some editing there was a real movie there, but by then the critics had torpedoed it for good.

Now, to the point: Trump LA did not come into existence in a vacuum, which is the problem with your logic - and why Mucci jumped atop your  assumptions and drove them over the cliff of reason. Trump LA was a perfectly fine Pete Dye course until . . . . . . wait for it  . . . . . A LARGE PORTION OF IT FELL INTO THE OCEAN. Easily the most horrific thing I have ever seen - even beyond when the Olympic Club lost four completed holes (plus two rough graded) in a series of El Nino landslides on the dunescape and bluffs rolling up from the beach along Fort Funston.

Thus, the finished product of Trrump LA, arguably a quasi jam-job to begin with, was really like a grievously injured war veteran who came home missing a leg and an arm, only to magically have someone step forward and completely rebuild him. Not as the same man he was before the cliffside collapsed, but as a reasonably reconstructed being not obviously wearing an artificial prosthesis.

The point of contention is that Trump is trying to pawn off a reconstructed Frankenstein as Iron Man - instead of taking a bow for saving a environmental mess for the good of the community and the game of golf. The guy is an asshole, but the only asshole with the balls to step forward. I've got to give the Devil his due - and in retrospect, he deserves street cred and a measure of 'dap. I am offended by Kobe too, but if you got to bet your life on one guy having the last shot at the buzzer, who ya got?      

If The Donald (who otherwise makes me shriek) had not flopped open the checkbook, upon that spot would be the overgrown entrails of an abandoned golf course, clinging precariously to the cliffs of Palos Verdes - serving as the ultimate prop for enviroNazi interests and attorneys to pursue their NIMBY objectives. Unlike you, I have watched - and written extensively as paid staff for a newspaper - about the obnoxious madness that is all things California Coastal Commission.

Or, the course could have been converted into a real Frankenstein like Los Lagos in San Jose, a bizarre (though amusing) collection of holes routed by a gangsome of angry, non-golfers with an impossible agenda - which included "protecting" an "environmentally sensitive" culvert that was a repository for every South Bay homeless wino suffering from mental illness to piss and shit with the raccoons and squirrels.

I was there when CourseCo took control and Brian Costello ought to get a medal for enduring those lunatics.

So, where Trump LA is concerned, take your pick! Sometimes the devil you know is better than the one you don't laddie.

Write it down, methinks you need a shot of reality.

                

[Jim Nugent]

Gib, I understood Pat's point.  But he is wrong.  There was a golf course without Trump. 

One month before Ocean Trails was due to open, parts of #18 slid into the ocean.  The authorities forced the course to close two other holes as well: it played as a 15-hole course for several years, before Trump bought it and did his restructuring/renovations. 

Question still remains: is the course better now than it was, even with 15 holes, or did too much money make for a worse golf course?  Plenty of people say it was better before.  Did you play it pre-Trump?  Can you answer the question?  Sounds like Pat absolutely cannot: he's claiming there was no course at all without Trump, which is not true. 

I still don't know if you consider today's course a soft six on a Doak-type scale, and if so, how you reconcile that with your earlier comments about the place, that pretty well portray it as a Disneyland-type joke.

btw, if I understand Trump right, he did not spend $250+ million on the course.  He says the bank had $211 million into the course when he bought it.   

I liked Heaven's Gate pretty well when I saw it decades ago.   

[Patrick_Mucci]

Gib, I understood Pat's point.  But he is wrong.  There was a golf course without Trump. 

No, there wasn't.
There were only 15 holes, not 18 holes.
15 holes isn't a golf course, especially when the golfer is left far from the clubhouse upon the completion of his play.
18 holes make a golf course

One month before Ocean Trails was due to open, parts of #18 slid into the ocean.  The authorities forced the course to close two other holes as well: it played as a 15-hole course for several years, before Trump bought it and did his restructuring/renovations. 

So, by your own reluctant admission, the course was incomplete.

The answer to the question of what's better, an incomplete 15 hole course or a complete 18 hole course is self evident.


Question still remains: is the course better now than it was, even with 15 holes, or did too much money make for a worse golf course? 

Only an incredibly obtuse individual could ask this question.
Without Trump spending the money, not only is there NO course, but there's a high possibility that more of the course will slide into the ocean

Plenty of people say it was better before. 

Which people ?
Identify them.

What's incredible is that you equate the site, pre and post landslide, as equivalent, as if the site never changed.

What's even more mind boggling is that you think the site could be re mediated without the expenditure of significant sums.
Your reasoning is beyond moronic

Did you play it pre-Trump?  Can you answer the question?  Sounds like Pat absolutely cannot: he's claiming there was no course at all without Trump, which is not true. 

There was no course, there were 15 holes with the possibility that more could be lost to the Pacific.

I still don't know if you consider today's course a soft six on a Doak-type scale, and if so, how you reconcile that with your earlier comments about the place, that pretty well portray it as a Disneyland-type joke.

btw, if I understand Trump right, he did not spend $250+ million on the course.  He says the bank had $211 million into the course when he bought it.   

Since when is the acquisition cost for the land equated with the cost to build a course ?


If I owned the land at Sebonack and designed and built the course that exists on the site today, is my cost to design and build the course the same as Mike Pascucci's ?

What's cheaper, oceanfront land in California or grazing land in Mullen, NE ?

I liked Heaven's Gate pretty well when I saw it decades ago.   

That doesn't come as a surprise.

[Bruce Katona]

It's much easier for Tom Doak to not spend his construction contingency line item than to try and save $500,000 $-1,000,000 his client diesn't have due to site conditions (rock blasting, lack of topsoil to plate graded areas, dewatering either the low spots or from hitting an artesian spring).

 

[Tom_Doak]

Bruce: 

I am sure that what you've said above is true, but I don't get your point.

I was thinking about this today, and the best example I can come up with are all those courses that have been built as land-swap deals.  A developer comes in, buys out an old club so he can develop the land, and provides a generous check to build a new course further out of town.  I've seen at least half a dozen such projects, and every one of them was a classic example of overkill -- club champs at the old course unable to break 80 on the new monstrosity.

[Bruce Katona]

Tom:

Not spending contingency dollars means your on budget.

Saving a million by value engineering is sometimes possible, but any small site hiccup throws the budget for a " variance"

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bruce,

I think Trump was aware of ALL of the costs associated with the acquisition and reclamation, before he sent his check in.

Remember, a West Coast acquisition was an additional selling point for all his other courses, since he advertised reciprocity to all of his clubs if you joined one of his clubs.

[Gib_Papazian]

Jim,

After further consideration, I am going to concede your point that Trump LA is closer to a Doak 5 than 6. You've taken me to the mat and emerged victorious - I shall alert the media. Perhaps my memory was seduced by the sparkling beauty of the backdrop - in the same vein as Old Head, which is a decent golf course on the most frighteningly gorgeous piece of land imaginable.

However, you cannot be serious asserting the golf course should have been left as a train wreck. It is all well and good to advance a preposterous argument as an academic exercise, but the idea of expecting people to pay big money to play a 15 hole golf course - ending up a mile from the clubhouse - is lunacy at best.

Oh, I'm sure somebody in the Treehouse will point out that challenging convention is healthy, but that was not the spot to try and reinvent golf's rubric. The elasticity of Sheep Ranch is one thing, but the paying public is not going to accept a truncated golf course for 200 bucks a throw. In the long run, the debt load could not be met as the retail golfer would forever view it as incomplete; a beautiful girl with one breast or a leg missing is impossible to ignore. That does not invalidate the person, but it is not the same.

Your idea reminds me of a Producer and Director, who asked me and Her Redness if we would get our production team together for a film festival competition. From time to time we do it to keep our chops sharp, and decided to go ahead with this pair; we are now cured forever of working with anybody we do not know well.

I'll spare you the story - which is quite amusing - but the short version is that a series of crews get together, pull a genre out of the hat and have 48 hours to write, shoot, edit and color correct a 4-8 minute short film. It is actually a lot of fun because there is no client to please, you just let it rip.

We'll call the Director Alex because that is his name. We had planned to start rolling on a Saturday morning after he coughed up the script. I had a few locations lined up based on our brief conversation and the crew was ready to go at 7am. Alex came tottering in at 9am, two hours late and leaving us no time to break down a shot list.

Our Editor - still a bit annoyed we dragged him away from a paying gig that day - was champing at the bit, so we decided to shoot the script in order to make it easier to cut quickly. It took a while to get into the groove because the Auteur turned out to be a newbie who only talked a good game. Despite these challenges, Redhead took over coaching the talent, we put together the shot list on the fly and were halfway down page 5 by late afternoon.

I asked Alex, "Okay, what's next?"

Blank look.

"That's it," he said. "Fade to black."

One of the camera crew, a full-blast Rasta from France, walked up to Alex and said, "You kiddin' right bra?"

It turns out that Alex wanted to leave the audience clamoring for more, explaining he was deliberately challenging traditional narrative structure by abruptly ending the film at a random spot.

Our Editor - who is a bit of crank to begin with - stammered red-faced "What the fuck am I supposed to do with that?"

I got pulled aside by three of the crew and had my asshole rerouted for not checking out this idiot.

Explaining to Alex (the Producer had no clue until that moment) what happened when Stravinski inflicted the Rite of Spring on his audience in 1913 made no impression. Jean-Luc Godard famously quoted that his films "have a beginning, a middle and an end, just not necessarily in that order." What we had was a beginning, a middle and another middle.

So, we quickly huddled and sent Alex back to the editing room with our cutter - mostly to get him off the set. The clock was ticking and there was no way anybody was going to stand in that theater the next week and answer audience questions after screening that complete whiff. It wasn't avant-garde, it wasn't a surprise ending at the apex of a story arc (Empire Strike Back), it was just a random stop.

Just like what Trump LA looked like after the landslide - and nobody was going to buy our auteur's idiotic hallucination he was pushing the envelope of cinema convention any more than paying customers were going to appreciate a 15 hole joke, followed by a long cart ride back to the clubhouse.

Imagine if Rob Reiner had rolled credits just before the final scene of A Few Good Men. Let's cut out the last three minutes of The Sting - or end Pebble Beach on #15. Or Cypress at #14. How about if I pull the needle off the record after the first two notes of Eclipse at the end of Dark Side of the Moon? Just the idea irritates me - like a 15 hole golf course pretending to be anything but a disjointed landslide - or band-aid on a brain tumor.

In the end, we figured out a serviceable ending to the film - although needing one more actor we pressed our camera operator into service in front of the lens. I'm guessing Alex learned his lesson because he never mentioned the mutiny at the screening and privately admitted he was glad we saved him from himself.

Last I heard, Alex had gone back to comedy writing and decided Directing was not his cup of tea. Our film, titled "The Interview," finished 11th out of 20 entries, which is 13 places better than the original version would have fared. Trump LA is not going to make anybody's top ten list of anything either, but at 15 holes, nobody would even take the original version seriously.      

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()