It makes it an "alps" feature.

Not really.
I'd calll it a faux, pseudo, hybrid or miniature alps feature.[/color]

The fact that you assume there must have been an important and specific distinction in the way they used this term back then is, frankly, laughable.

That's funny[/color]

And don't use Lesley to justify anything you've said about an Alps hole. You're the one who called him incorrect and incompetent in that context, not me!  

I stand by my evaluation[/color]

Quote from: DMoriarty on November 27, 2006, 07:19:00 PM

I agree that NGLA is much more visually intimidating at least compared to today's Meroin 10, and I think I have make this clear since first bringing up NGLA.  

I will take this as a moral victory.  
One last question - is this an Alps hole?

Quote from: DMoriarty on November 27, 2006, 07:19:00 PM

First, the height of the tee compared to the landing area matters very much in determining just how that second shot will be.  

That's absolutely untrue. . . .

"Except that I never said they play their second shot well to the right.  Rather, the play well to the right of the direct line off the tee.  How do you play the hole, Tom?  Straight at the hole from the tee, or to the right?"

I play the tee shot directly at the hole and directly at the "alps" hill. I do that because I'm not even close to long. To go to the right needs to carry farther to clear the diagonal bunker, particularly into a stiff wind. The long ball player generally tries to hit the tee shot well down to the right because there's more fairway distance down that way and you will have less distance on the approach in from down to the right. I will guarantee you that playing the ball to the right off the tee is not a lower elevation than playing a tee shot directly at the green.

If you try to give me or anyone else an argument about that because of something you've determined through USGS or some other extraneous crap, then like Wayne decided to do, I see no other reason to continue to discuss any of this subject with you for the simple reason you are both wrong and completely intransigent towards people who really do know these holes better than you, as well as completely unreceptive to people who know these holes pointing out the truth about them to you.  

Mike Cirba,

And, you should know that I have in depth conversations with CBM, SR and CB on a regular monthly basis.

It is only after I receive confirmation from them that I post on these matters, with their blessings.

In fact, I don't know if you heard about it or not, but, several weeks ago, highly sensitive equipment, meant for earthquake assessment detected significant seismic activity in the Eastern end of Long Island.

At first it was thought to be a minor earthquake until the epicenter was pinpointed at the Southampton cemetary.

Seems that olde CBM and SR were spinning in their graves at about 50,000 rpm's.  It seems highly coincidental that this activity was detected immediately after you posted that the 11th at LACC was a Redan.

In my subsequent conversation with them, they asked that you refrain from making these quantum architectural leaps and stick to improving your chipping.

I agree with Tom and Mike that Wilson did not engage in template designs.  Did they incorporate any features?  Many of the UK courses have archetypal designs and of course had an influence on subsequent designs.  But were the influences as direct as they could be with Macdonald and Raynor?   I would say no.  

Yer, it seems clear that the definitions of templates can be very loosely applied.  Some see conceptual hole copies in strange places.   Inherently golf holes have commonalities, people differ in how they are viewed.

If people with an agenda look hard enough, maybe they will find, for example, a Maiden green on the 1st at Merion West.  I don't see a direct connection, but nothing surprises me from some on this board.  

Look, Wilson went to the UK to learn about golf designs.  He depended upon Macdonald and Whigham for a preliminary understanding of golf course architecture and to direct him to courses he should see.  That meeting and the itinerary of courses were surely an influence.  He learned a lot from the men and the courses.  But he applied that knowledge in a very different way from Macdonald and Raynor.  Thankfully in my opinion.

Too many on here get so fixated on the details of what those hole names really meant, in my opinion.

I've alluded to that for years.
And, I've asked the question, "who named the holes, the architect or the club ?"[/color]

For Pat Mucci to call Robert Lesley incorrect and incompetent for calling the old 10th an Alps hole is preposterous.

It's just a matter of the fact that Pat Mucci doesn't understand what Lesley meant by that term.

And you do ?

My powers of observation, my reading and my reading comprehension skills remain keen and I've toured Prestwick from 1952 to 1992 and NGLA from the 1960's to current date and have a reasonable understanding of what an "Alps" hole is.

For Lesley to classify that hole as an "Alps" hole is a gross overstatement and reflects a lack of understanding with respect to the dimensions of the critical features and their relevance in the play of the hole.[/color]