[Tim Jackson]

Tommy

I understood your Fazio comment to be a joke, hence my reference to the WW II general of note.  In fact, if you were watching 'Almost Famous', perhaps we have more common ground than I thought.

I do not feel at all that I 'know more' than anyone on this site.  That assumption would just beg of hubris.  I try to write only about courses or topics I am familiar with and support my opinions with what I know to be true.  I happen to know alot of the history, construction, restrictions, etc. of Pelican Hill.  I truly believe that both courses when studied intently can offer something with regards to shaping, contouring, green settings, bunker interest, and yes, routing on such a severe piece of ground understanding the restrictions put on the architect by the state of California, the federal government agencies, and The Irvine Co. (with regards to lot development).

I know that many people are hung up on how much it costs to play and the manner in which The Irvine Co. markets the courses, but that really should have no impact on the architecture discussion - should it?  I am fairly certain that many of the architectural gems of the golden age were not necessarily built for the poor huddled masses.  I am not inferring that Pelican is in that league architecturally, just making a point.

Is Pelican great?  No.  Is it terrible?  No.  Did it take advantage of every aspect of the existing land?  I feel as much as it could have, but that is where fact and opinion separate.

[JakaB]

Tommy,

I am truly sorry...I did not mean to insult your fat ass...I think if you knew how fat I am myself you would understand my comment.  I don't know why but it seems acceptable for people with the same affliction, race or religion to make fun of each other.  Remember the retarded comedian on the Facts of Life...you had to be retarded to find her funny...kind of the same thing.  

[THuckaby2]

Very well said, Tim.  And I know this is between you and Tommy but you posed a very interesting question on which I must comment:

I know that many people are hung up on how much it costs to play and the manner in which The Irvine Co. markets the courses, but that really should have no impact on the architecture discussion - should it?  
 

I'm one who would say architecture cannot exist in a vacuum, that's it's all well and good to state how wonderful or horrible it is but one way or another, one has to pay to play, it's not just there to look at, so cost and access DO factor in.  To me it's just a bit too hypothetical to discuss Pelican Hill and NOT mention the costs to play, given they are at the very high end of the spectrum.  If it were free or very cheap, the discussion would be different indeed... Along with high costs come high expectations, which I think is fair.

We've discussed this before... To me it's not a hangup, it's reality.  But I am interested in other thoughts....

TH

[David Wigler]

Tom,

Let me take a stab at my feeling on cost and its relevance to architecture.  I have stated here and elsewhere that La Costa is the worst golf course in the country.  I do not really believe that to be true strictly architecturally but when money for development, cost to play, architectural merit, etc. are factored in La Costa is a huge mistake.  If I had to reach into my wallet and play a course tomorrow, La Costa would be the last choice I would make.  Therefore, in that sense money matters.  La Costa had a big budget, charges a fortune and is a dog track.  

If I am strictly discussing architectural merit though, cost is irrelevant.  Fazio's fees are five times Doak's.  It would be unfair to say that since a course chooses Fazio and therefore has to charge more to recoup the fee, it has to be five times better.  IMO the questions of inventive routing, best use of land, design features, strategic requirements, and interest should be independent of the cost to see them.

I guess what I am getting at is that a total value proposition has a place when discussing where I am going to play but not as much of a place in discussing which is better.  

[THuckaby2]

David - thanks for the explanation, I understand all this.  And you have me until right at the end...

I guess what I am getting at is that a total value proposition has a place when discussing where I am going to play but not as much of a place in discussing which is better.  

True, in choosing a venue for an event, cost is always going to be a factor, except for the very small percentage of the population (perhaps quite larger in golf circles, but still small) for whom money is no issue.

BUT... I still think "value for one's money" does factor into whether a course is "better" or not.  I'm not talking about how much money they spent to build a place, I'm talking about how much they charge me to play it.  Getting the most out of a site for the least amount of dollars is a separate question, and if anything, SHOULD be factored in if judging the merit of the architect, wouldn't you say?  But that's not important to me anyway, as that still borders on the hypothetical.  Architects and people in the business can judge each other based on that - what should it matter to a consumer like me?

Nope, as a consumer, all I care about is what I get for my money, either in terms of daily fee or club membership fees.  If one course is the same as another at a significantly lesser cost, which one am I going to say is "better", however one defines that term?

Cost does matter.  Always has, always will.  

Now another separate question is obviously what is the role of the consumer in judging the merit of courses?  That could get pretty deep.  You can guess where I'll fall...

Cheers!

TH

[A Clay Man]

I just can't let this one go... Gib, Did you mean what you said about your disgust for the most insulting post ever?

As far as Tommy's comments about the recent Fazio marketers invasion, I have to say it is palpable and strikes me as someone who, unlike BarneyF, uses their real name to further ones acceptance into the inner circle of working archies, or works for the man. (?)

[David Wigler]

Tom,

I am struggling to explain myself mostly because a large part of me agrees completely with you.  Let me take another shot at it.  I wish I were more familiar with golf in your neck of the woods because the analogy would work a lot better with courses you are familiar with.  I will try Las Vegas and hope you have played the courses and get what I am getting at.

If someone asked me what the best course in Las Vegas is, I would answer Shadow Creek without hesitation.  For my last trip out to Vegas though, I played SouthShore C.C.  Southshore is the better value proposition because it is an outstanding course and costs me $280 less than Shadow.  At the time of my last trip, the craps tables had been very unkind to me and I could not see throwing another $500 behind a round of golf.  Shadow Creek is still the better golf course but Southshore was the best decision for that period of time and the current condition of my wallet.  

I really believe that value proposition and architectural merit are independent entities.

Now let me revert to the original question on this thread.  Is Pelican Hill worth playing?  Because it charges the same as Riviera, is in the general vicinity of Riviera, and last I had heard Riviera allowed limited guest play, my answer would be no.  Pelican fails on both architectural merit and value proposition.  If Pelican charged $40, I would still say that Riviera is a vastly superior golf course but Pelican is worth playing if (And only if) saving $210 is important to you.  It does not change which is the better golf course, only which is the better value proposition.

[Tim Jackson]

Tom

I do agree with you, that as a consumer, the value of what I get for what I have paid certainly affects where I choose to play.  Living in Scottsdale it has been tempting not to play at all with the ridiculous prices charged in this area at this time of year.  The Pelican Hill courses service one of the most wealthy zip codes in the nation.  The Irvine Co. does very well off of the courses, revenue wise (eight figures).  As an unabashed capitalist, I do not fault them for deciding what return to attempt to make on their investment in whatever time frame they deem.  Simply put Pelican's profitability is acceptable to them with regards to charging more and essentially limiting play.  That being said...

It seems most of the discussions inherent to this site deal strictly with the design of the course independent of the price to play.  It would be interesting to see how the contributors here rank courses based on value.  It just seems to me when discussing various courses, the modern ones (private or public), are talked of in terms of green fees or membership prices, while the old school courses (Merion, Winged Foot, and Oakmont to name a few) are allowed to exist outside of this criteria.  Now trust me, I am NOT knocking these courses or their membership in any way.  I am just discussing what seems to be the case.

[THuckaby2]

David - I live in Northern California, home of incredibly overpriced golf... perhaps second only to Southern California and of course, Las Vegas.  Yes, I am familiar with Vegas courses.  So I too can agree with what you're saying...  That's a darn good example you used:  Shadow Creek is indeed the "better" course, no matter how much more it costs to play.

So in discussions of courses at the absolute upper end of things - ie Shadow Creek, all the great private clubs, etc. - cost can be ignored.  The vast, vast majority of golfers are never going to play them anyway, so any discussion of them is indeed simply hypothetical - so throw out whatever factors you want, it's not based in reality.

For courses that ARE realistically available, cost is a factor, and hell yes should be part of the equation.  If I compare Bethpage Black to anything, am I gonna leave out the very key fact of how cheap it is to play?  Even though in this case the course is that good that I COULD, it's always gonna come up.

Same goes for Pelican Hill - it's right there in a "hotbed" of overpriced golf (sorry Tommy, you know the reality) and there it sits as the MOST expensive.  Should we ignore that fact, when comparing to say, Goose Creek?

TH

[THuckaby2]

Tim:

You've caught the "mood" in this DG most definitely... The older classic clubs are indeed allowed to skate on the cost issue.

I have no problem with this, to me it makes sense, getting to play such courses has nothing to do with money anyway so cost just plain isn't an issue!  By that I mean, as far as I understand things, Bill Gates can't just walk up and get a membership at Shinnecock, National, Cypress, Seminole, Merion, etc.... correct?  So money isn't factored in.  Fair enough.  From wonderful personal experience I've also found that the guest fees at so many of these great classic private clubs are so ridiculously low that if cost is a factor, they just come of better!

But in any case, where money is a factor, it can and should be considered.

Maybe I'm way off given my lower-middle-class economic reality... and I mean no offense to anyone with these comments.

But re public and resort courses anyway, heck yeah what it costs is always gonna factor in, for me, and dare I say for the vast majority of the consumers using such courses, in terms of any assessment one cares to make.  It also drives me freakin' crazy how much private clubs cost in my area, so that's reality - and a personal bias - also.

Thanks for the comments, in any case.  I do continue to learn here...

TH

[Tim Jackson]

Tom

I'm following you here.  How many dead presidents have to join me when I go to play a round certainly factors into my decision of when and where to play.

I just feel at times the expense of a course is held against the architect for whatever reason, and I don't see how that is justified.  I seen it written on this wonderful site, that many courses don't deliver the golfing experience one would expect from the prices charged.  I would bias the owner or developer before the architect.  They set the rates.  So in a way, I think that the owners or developers mant times taint the view of a course by what they do and the architect is left with the blame for not meeting expectations given the price.

[TEPaul]

I hadn't looked in on this thread, except once long ago to find out if MR. JACKSON was the US Mid-Am Champ.

This is definitely a West Coast thread! I've never seen or heard of Pelican Hill and from the sound of things I might wait a while longer.

But I had to make a post here because I'm so impressed how polite you fellows are--Mr. Jackson, Mr. Naccarato etc, etc--the manners are really stunning!! I noticed a brief lapse into the informal Tommy and Tim on page 2 but you both seemed to remember superior etiquette shortly thereafter!

So I'm very impressed by you Left Coasters, you must have very competent Mamas to have taught you so well and from now on it's going to be MR. MUCCI for me!

[Paul Richards]

David:

Excellent points!

I concur!

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Barney,
One thing for sure, My ass is fatter then yours, and that must mean something right?

Tim,
Being that I'm a child of the 70's, I don't think I have to announce to the world that I left a few brain cells there. Hence my liking Almost Famous. Could the music have gotten any better?

Of course, I'm just as happy listening to Antonio Vivaldi, Wolfie Motzart, Paul Whiteman, or Emerson Lake & Palmer.

My problems with Pelican Hill are simply one thing. It has everything to do with pronouncing a greatness that is over-rated and its popularity with the natives is all based off of how much it costs to play there or who is picking up the tab. Just like Gib's original reply to this topic, that existence is pretty shallow. Granted if that is where people want to joyusly live an experience at Pelican Hill, More power to them. I would just as soon have my joyous experiences in Scotland, Australia, Bandon, Philadelphia, West L.A., Daly City, both ends of the Monterey Bay or Long Island.

[THuckaby2]

So COST is the main issue, when you boil this all down, eh?

Gee, wish I had said that...

TH

[Tim Jackson]

Tommy

I spent enough time in the Irvine and Newport Beach area to understand accumulation of material wealth is the prominent driving force in the area.  It doesn't appeal to me.  But I do feel that Pelican gets the short end of the architectural stick because of the social environment it serves. In fact many of the comments in this thread only seem to validate that.  Certainly there are shortcomings on the courses, as there are on 99.9% of all courses.  

Now about Emerson Lake and Palmer...  actually my tastes (and I probably date myself here) run more to Pearl Jam and Dave Matthews, but I belt out the chorus to 'Tiny Dancer' with the best of the atonal when I can.

[JohnV]

Back in 1993, Pumpkin Ridge opened to acclaim.  At the same time, the city of Portland completed its newest course the Great Blue at Heron Lakes.  Ghost Creek at Pumpkin Ridge cost $50, the Great Blue cost $20.  The local weekly left-leaning paper called Willamette Week reviewed both of them. The author said, when you get the urge to play the Great Blue, take the $20 and put it in the drawer.  The next time you get the urge take another 20, borrow 10 from a friend and go play Ghost Creek.

Nowadays, Ghost Creek costs about $100 and the Great Blue is $25.  I probably wouldn't give up 4 rounds GB for one at GC very often.  Does this mean that the Great Blue is now better than Ghost Creek?  No, but it does mean that every course, like everything else has a relative value.  Is a $100,000 Mercedes better than an $25,000 Pontiac?  Yes, but do I want to spend that kind of money for the extra value?

I've never played Pelican Hill, but I did plunk down my $200 to play Riviera a few years ago and I'd pay $250 to play it again before I'd play PH.  Somehow, paying $350 to play Pebble does seem to be over my limit for any course though.

[THuckaby2]

Very well said, JohnV.  I feel the exact same way.  Every course does indeed have its relative value, which is different for each individual.  My point is more that to deny this seems silly.

And Tim and Tommy:  as a die-hard ELP fan, I gotta say bravo brothers.  But whereas I too can shamelessly belt out the chorus to most famous Elton John songs, do either of you find yourself singing the beginning to KarnEvil #9?  I tend to do that each time I arrive at a golf course I've never played...

TH

[Tim Jackson]

Tom

You have to help me out with the ELP - Ford was calling the shots when I was born.

Mr. Moriarty

I rather enjoy both courses and have quite alot of fun each and every time I play them.  I respect your view, but I stand by what I have written, which I believe to be elementary...

[THuckaby2]

Damn, I feel old.  JFK was shot two months after my birth.

So yes, you are forgiven for lack of ELP knowledge.  Tommy will get a kick out of this anyway!

TH

[Paul Richards]

Tom:

I'm with Tim.  I had to think hard to figure out who ELP
was without cheating and looking at the previous posts.

However, it must be because I am also so much younger than you, (born 8 months AFTER JFK tragedy).

[THuckaby2]

Yes Paul, your youth does betray you here.    

Poor Keith Emerson, Greg Lake and Carl Palmer have never been so forgotten.  I need Tommy to get back in here and help me out!

TH

[Tim Jackson]

...my dear Watson.  See I was....  Moriarty....  Sherlock.... kind of....  going with.... damn, is there no love for the classics of literature here!

[jim__janosik]

Tim:

Nobody  can argue that it was a site full of  restrictions.
That does not justify  a  average  golf expereince
claiming  to  be  a  world class one.  THAT  is is the
problem with  PH.  Maintenance  levels have always  been
suspect at best too.

It  is a  Toyota  claiming  to be a Ferrari.  Thats why it gets
so much grief.

Did you work for the Irvine Co? or maybe FORMA?  I know some of those guys.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

DMoriarity and Jim Janosik,
You have both properly put my perspective of Pelican Hill in the least amount of words. You both get "A's!"

Tim, Nothing wrong with liking the Pelican Hill courses at all. I too really like that view. But I also like golf architecture.

Now, about Emerson Lake & Palmer.
My favorite band growing up. Gib knows all about it. Karn Evil #9; Just Take A Pebble; The Endless Enigma.(aka The body of Tom Fazio's California work) It's all Brain Salad Surgery, really.......

Last time I saw ELP in concert was at Virgin's Megastore in Hollywood. A pre-invite concert that was broadcast live on KLOS with Jim Ladd hosting. Also partied with them after their UCI gig, at the bar at The Four Seasons, right next to Big Canyon CC in Newport. (Yes, right up the street from Pelican Hill:))

My first meeting with Greg Lake and Keith Emerson went like this: "Keith, I want to thank you because you have showed me over a vast number of years that there was no conceivable way I was going to ever play keyboards or piano, and Greg, you have proved to me that there was no was i was ever going to be good at playing guitar!

They both laughed and said, come on in with us, we are going to get a drink, which, I had the fond honor of buying Keith Emerson, a Couvousier. (Of which I had became inspired to try at 16 years old, only after seeing a picture of Keith in Creem magazine, swigging a bottle of the stuff.)

I of course relayed this to him also. He laughed and said in his British accent, "Well at least I influenced you to do something!"

(Greg Lake)Cold and misty morning I heard a warning born in the air,
About an age of power where no one had an hour to spare,
Where the trees have withered, silent children shiver in the cold,
Now that this is captured in the lenses of the jackals for gold....

(Hammond B-3)Dah dah dah, dah dah dah

(Greg Lake)I'll be there, I'll be there, I will be there!

--The opening verse of Karn Evil #9

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()