1

Golf Course Architecture / Re: Is Carnoustie flatter than Troon?

« Last post by David_Tepper on Today at 10:43:57 AM »

While they rarely come into play, Carnoustie has far more trees on the property than you see on most links.

2

Golf Course Architecture / Re: Secrets of 13 at NGLA

« Last post by Ira Fishman on Today at 09:28:42 AM »

Well, to give you a tie back to gca, Lewis Lapham’s grandfather was a founder of CPC, and apparently his father assisted Mackenzie in its design/construction by hitting balls from different locations.
And to deepen the CIA “speculation,” Lapham’s brother was the General Counsel at the CIA, and there was an unrelated Lewis Lapham who worked at the CIA in the 1960s and 1970s.

3

Golf Course Architecture / Re: Monroe Golf Club in Rochester NY

« Last post by PGertner on Today at 09:27:24 AM »

It is good to see the Board of Governors at Monroe finally "get it." I was Supt between 1988 and 2003, and tried to get a tree removal program started. Monroe has stunning land movement, has beautiful green sites is one of Donald Ross' best designs yet views were completely blocked out and polluted with hundreds of trees including many huge Christmas trees planted by 1960's and 1970's Boards of Governors.


Better late than never! Thrilled they got it right.


Patrick Gertner

4

Golf Course Architecture / Re: Is Carnoustie flatter than Troon?

« Last post by Niall C on Today at 09:17:31 AM »

Carnoustie is indeed flatter. The only real natural dune systems are the dunes on either side of the 2nd hole and right-hand side of the 3rd with the 3rd tee supposedly being the highest point on the course. Quite a lot of the other raised areas are man made such as the area between the 18th green and first tee, mounding to back of the first and 3rd greens, the raised area in front of the 15th green and possibly the raised area in front of the 12th (can't recall specifically on that one). The fairways are however fairly flat although with plenty of rumple.


Niall

5

Golf Course Architecture / Re: Secrets of 13 at NGLA

« Last post by Greg Hohman on Today at 06:30:01 AM »

If no reason emerges for the choice of 13 at NGLA beyond the "nod wink, you belong, now we can talk" one, I can add "OT" to the subject of the thread. In the meantime, I will show my weakness-fondness for wondering if there is something deeper. Did something of importance in the espionage game happen on 13 (a person did something or said something) or happen on the site before NGLA was built? Or, hewing to the mandate here, is there something about the placement of the hole itself (it points in the direction of a noteworthy operation or a buried body) or about its being a par 3 (7 is the first number of a password)...

6

Golf Course Architecture / Re: Secrets of 13 at NGLA

« Last post by Ally Mcintosh on Today at 02:58:41 AM »

"'They wanted to make sure you were the right sort"

A sad and kind of shocking commentary. An echo of the attitude of Britain's MI6 service, which explains why Kim Philby ("the right sort") rose to such prominence despite being a mole for the KGB for 25-30 years.

I think there is more nuance to this, and I say this hoping I've established a reputation for being overtly egalitarian.

The more I learn about spy agencies, the more I realize that it's very important that most spies are both quite successful and quite wealthy. Firstly, wealth an success, on it's own, gives people a legitimate reason to be in any room and plausible deniability. It also helps these folks be in those rooms under natural pretenses, as subtle shibboleths could easily give you away -- knowing that the 13th is an Eden hole, and what an Eden hole is, for better or worse, is likely important cultural information that will get you into conversations with people who would otherwise be inaccessible.

My favorite example of this is Ian Fleming -- who was an actual spy -- and had every reason to openly discuss spycraft with literally everyone he encountered, including members of spy agencies who probably thought they were just talking to an author of fanciful spy novels.

That isn't to say that working for the CIA in general should require that sort of ridiculous pedigree, but if his intention was being an actual spy, the question makes sense to me.

I think this is correct.


And the answer to the question doesn’t matter other than to show he had played and recognised the 13th hole at NGLA.


The fact that he said he knew the answer, a “7-iron” also shows that he hadn’t. A spy would have elaborated on the answer exactly to find a soft spot and “in” with the person he’s talking to. Back to Matt’s point…


…. Maybe I should have been a spy instead of settling for golf course architecture!

7

Golf Course Architecture / Re: USGA Junior Amateur at Oakland Hills - Luke Colton

« Last post by Matt_Cohn on Today at 12:12:13 AM »

I see that next year’s championship, for which Luke is now exempt, will be at Trinity Forest. In Dallas. In mid-July. 

8

Golf Course Architecture / Re: Secrets of 13 at NGLA

« Last post by Matthew Lloyd on Yesterday at 11:13:14 PM »

Or maybe the CIA was made up entirely of golfers in the 1960s and 1970s. Which might explain their incompetence.

Very good. And true. Hahahahaha.

9

Golf Course Architecture / Re: OT-PCC Handicap adjustment/re-rating

« Last post by Erik J. Barzeski on Yesterday at 09:31:05 PM »

At first I had a hard time getting my head around how a -1 PCC converted to an higher differential, which you'd expect to be the direction for an easier course.  Then it dawned on me that you subtract the PCC from from the difference between the gross score and the course rating. -(-1) is plus one.  Similarly, a +1 is subtracted, reducing the differential.  Now it makes sense to me.

I just think of it as a change to the course rating.


72.4 -1 = 71.4. Thus, a higher differential for the same score.

10

Golf Course Architecture / Re: OT-PCC Handicap adjustment/re-rating

« Last post by Carl Johnson on Yesterday at 08:11:57 PM »

At first I had a hard time getting my head around how a -1 PCC converted to an higher differential, which you'd expect to be the direction for an easier course.  Then it dawned on me that you subtract the PCC from the difference between the gross score and the course rating. -(-1) is plus one.  Similarly, a +1 is subtracted, reducing the differential.  Now it makes sense to me.