Merion 10 Again? The Devolution of the Cape Concept. . .

[TEPaul]

Sully:

You can see on that aerial what looks to be a winding cart path route that's behind the 4th green. The tees are on that line.

I think the hole today is something like 440 from the tips which makes it around a hundred yards longer than the kind of cape hole description Tillinghast was using and the type of description that Green Section bulletin drawing and description posted above was using and basically the kind of hole the original NGLA's #14 was.

The diagonal formed by the lake and the fairway on Mid Ocean's #5 is about the most perfect diagonal (bite off whatever you think you're capable of) I have almost ever seen in golf.

But the basic combined strategy of this hole is to bite off as much as you can for two reasons:

1. To get a shorter iron in
2. To get the drive as close to the lake as possible because the green is pretty significantly canted from right to left and the player wants to get into an approach position of playing up into the "bolster" of it (think if the tees were farther left on Shinnecock's #7 redan). If you are way out to the right on the tee shot the approach is longer and at a more difficult angle on that green that would run down and away left.

The hole is not the most complex strategy in the world just that the basic strategic elements are so good in play and in look from that high tee looking out on that beautiful diagonal fairway with water all along the left.

But when you see the hole in person and play it you can tell that green could've been closer to the lake and into more of a cape position and green orientation. But for a hole this long it seems Macdonald/Raynor put the green in the best place and sloped and contoured it the best way for this particular strategy which is quite different than something like NGLA's #14 or Merion's #10 or PV's #12.

So someone thinks we should agree on a cape definition before we can discuss this subject?

My recommendatiion is that we agree on two definitions because with so-called "Cape" holes there ARE two definitions as can be undeniably seen by comparing something like Mid Ocean's #5 with Merion's #10, PV's #12 and NGLA's old original #14.

This thread is entitled "The Devolution of the Cape Concept". I would not say the cape concept has devolved, just taken on another or second meaning over time and even in the inventory of Macdonald since he did design both NGLA's #14th and Mid Ocean's #5 and anyone can see not only that're they're pretty different but how and why.

Have you ever noticed when you look up the definition of a word in the dictionary some to most words have a number of meanings that are numbered separately in the overall definition?

It's sort of the same thing with the definitonS of the Cape Concept as with the definitionS of all those other words in the dictionary, and it doesn't mean all those words including the Cape Concept has DEVOLVED!

[Phil McDade]

Glad to see Brian brought up Machrihanish -- I haven't played Mid-Ocean, but I have played the 1st at Machrihanish, and the strategic choice brought up by the diaganol carry is pretty simple: Bite off as much as you can, and you have a shorter shot into the green. The green site and surrounds themselves are pretty benign -- some flanking bunkers some 30 yards short of the green, but that's it (there is a nice set of little pot-like bunkers on the far side of the fairway at @ 250 yards that add some thought to the diagonal tee shot.) And, Machrihanish's 1st plays at 423 from the tips (well, it did several years ago before they added a new tee), which is similar in length to Mid-Oceans's 5th.

It would seem that Machrihanish's 1st (and the course dates to the late 1870s) plays more like Mid-Ocean's 5th, and less like Merion's 10th or Pine Valley's 12th. Those holes (based on the comments so far) seem like more strategic short par 4s, in which the decision on the tee carries a degree of risk vis-a-vis positioning of a 2nd shot into the green that enables the best angle of attack to the green.

To answer TEPaul's question, what about Fownes' 17th at Oakmont? Based on how David defines a cape -- in which the hazards around the green define the approach of the 2nd shot, which then informs the tee shot -- doesn't Oakmont's 17th match that definition pretty well? Short (322 yards at last check), with a doglegging/elbow-like fairway, a mess of fairway bunkers at the crook of the elbow, and a green sitting in a sea of sand. I may be jumping George's Oakmont thread here, but there are quite a few posters with initimate knowledge of Oakmont. And -- also along TEPaul's question -- does Oakmont predate NGLA? Did Fownes ever dine with CBM and/or the Wilson Bros.? At whose place?

[TEPaul]

Phil:

It's a good question if Oakmont's #17 as we know it predated NGLA. I know the Fownes's Oakmont was supposedly started in 1903 by H.C. And I know W.C worked on the course constantly for about the next forty years so who really knows what #17 looked like way back then. Maybe Mark Studer knows.

Macdonald and W.C. Fownes certainly did know each other and if from nothing else definitely from----once again---the Lesley Cup.

Here's a bit of trivia for you:

The original Lesley Cup was Massachussetts vs New York vs Philadelphia (later expanded to include Quebec). For the first few years Philadelphia was getting really waffled so in an attempt to be more competitive they created the Pennsylvania Golf Association in 1909 at the Lesley Cup for the simple reason they wanted to get Pittsburgh and Oakmont's W.C. Fownes on the team. (W.C. Fownes won the US Amateur in 1910).

The Pa Golf Association's centennial is coming up and coincidentally to this subject of Oakmont's #17, Oakmont's Mark Studer is the president of the Pennsylvania Golf Association this year.

Personally, I would not call Oakmont's #17 a cape hole. I think it's just its own unique thing, and if it's anything it probably fits better into Tillinghast's definition of an "Elbow" hole.

If we get too broad comparing these holes I think the whole point of these discussions and the value of them sort of gets diluted.

[JESII]

As Bahto notes, the problem with this analysis is that the “risk/reward drive concept is not what a Macdonald cape hole is about.  You could not have 'invented' a diagonal drive over a hazard in the British Isles for certainly there would have been and still are many of them in the British Isles.”  While a “diagonal carry over a hazard was certainly not an original idea,” but the positioning of a green, with water on three sides, was original.   And it was the positioning of the green which inspired and was emulated, especially on short par fours.  

.......

I thought it might be interesting to think of some of the more interesting holes which could be viewed as descendants of Macdonald's cape, whether their creators knew it or not.

.......

My home course, Rustic Canyon, has a terrific hole (the 12th) which fits the definition with some modifications; with bunkers on one side of the narrow green and a steep fall-off on the other side, and a green with plenty going on.   It is short but is nearly impossible to clear the bunkers and hold the green.  Those who I have seen on the green had to hit a run in a big, sweeping draw, literally bouncing over the corner bunkers.  It is always one of the most entertaining and challenging holes on the course.   I’ll post an aerial when I get time to grab one.

David,

Do you think there might be a single green complex on one course in GB, that pre-dates NGLA, oriented very similarly to what you have just described at Rustic Canyon? If so, why would CBM's version of that particular type of hole not be considered a copy of the original when you are implying that the holes around the U.S. that were built after the NGLA are copies of the CBM template? In other words, assuming there is a hole in Great Britian with a green complex quite similar to #10 at Merion, why should CBM get credit for the concept?

[TEPaul]

Sully:

Isn't the answer to your question pretty obvious after about fifty pages of these Moriarty Merion/Macdonald threads?

Moriarty is attempting to use any avenue he can possibly think of to imply that Macdonald should be given more credit for just about everything in Golden Age architecture.

The thing that really fascinates me about these Moriarty Merion/Macdonald threads is why anyone even asks him a question at this point. The guy actually thinks he's doing some important research on architecture here. Can you believe that? What a sick joke on all of us that is. And if he gets to the point even he knows there is no answer he then tries to give some of us this ridiculous "Miss Manners" lesson in how impolite we have become at his expense.

[SPDB]

Phillip -
What about the 8th at Rockaway. A classic cape in the CBM mode, i.e. green jutting out into the water. Featured here:

8th at Rockaway (sorry, don't know how to grab the pic off google maps)

Is Tillie exclusively responsible for this hole? If it is a vestige of the Emmet design, it might be an interesting point vis-a-vis the 14th at NGLA. Either way (Tillie or Emmet) it adds to the discussion.

[JESII]

The trouble with all of that Tom, is that I know Merion and Pine Valley and I do not know the Bostwick Brothers, so if I'm talking, I'm doing it over here. Although, if you go back on to that thread and tell about 10 more of those old time stories that are so cool, I'll read them all and get my GCA fiz for the day just like that.

[Doug Braunsdorf]

As Bahto notes, the problem with this analysis is that the “risk/reward drive concept is not what a Macdonald cape hole is about.  You could not have 'invented' a diagonal drive over a hazard in the British Isles for certainly there would have been and still are many of them in the British Isles.”  While a “diagonal carry over a hazard was certainly not an original idea,” but the positioning of a green, with water on three sides, was original.   And it was the positioning of the green which inspired and was emulated, especially on short par fours.  

.......

I thought it might be interesting to think of some of the more interesting holes which could be viewed as descendants of Macdonald's cape, whether their creators knew it or not.

.......

My home course, Rustic Canyon, has a terrific hole (the 12th) which fits the definition with some modifications; with bunkers on one side of the narrow green and a steep fall-off on the other side, and a green with plenty going on.   It is short but is nearly impossible to clear the bunkers and hold the green.  Those who I have seen on the green had to hit a run in a big, sweeping draw, literally bouncing over the corner bunkers.  It is always one of the most entertaining and challenging holes on the course.   I’ll post an aerial when I get time to grab one.

David,

Do you think there might be a single green complex on one course in GB, that pre-dates NGLA, oriented very similarly to what you have just described at Rustic Canyon? If so, why would CBM's version of that particular type of hole not be considered a copy of the original when you are implying that the holes around the U.S. that were built after the NGLA are copies of the CBM template? In other words, assuming there is a hole in Great Britian with a green complex quite similar to #10 at Merion, why should CBM get credit for the concept?

Because it fits his argument here.  It will be discarded when it doesn't  

"Square peg, meet round hole..."

[JESII]

Doug,

I would hate that to be true...

[TEPaul]

Brian Phillips said:

"The 10th is not (IMHO) a 'cape' hole because the angle of the fairway is too straight from the tee.  There is not enough angle to 'bite' off as much as you want.  You either go for the green or just hit the fairway up as far as you want for you favourite short iron in.  There is no rick or reward up the fairway.

David Moriarty responds:  
 
"I agree.  It is a cape hole.  Aren’t there Macdonald capes that are fairly straight off the tee?"

Am i losing my mind? (probably ), but Brian said in his opinion the 10th of Merion is NOT a cape hole because the fairway is basically straight (not much to bite off) and then David Moriarty says he agrees and then pronounces the 10th a cape hole.

Does David Moriarty even understand what Brian meant when he said he thinks Merion's #10 is NOT a cape hole? Does David Moriarty understand what NOT means? Does David Moriarty even know how to read?

[JESII]

JES,

Your post reminded me I forgot to post an aerial of Rustic 12.  I prepared one but forgot to post it.   I lightened the green slightly because it is otherwise pretty difficult to see.

It is not as good of an example as Merion 10, but it certainly shares some of the characteristics.



All the ground slopes the direction the hole plays, so the green is extremely difficult to hold from the tee or from the left side.  There is quite a bit going on in the green, and it is possible to use one little upslope to help stop it, but that is about it.    

There is no one way to play the hole, except that the left side is always bad unless you get past the bunkers.

I can't imagine a hole like that was ever conceived prior to Mr. Macdonald inventing the concept...




Seriously, David, if you are going to adamantly refuse that the angled drive is a characteristic of the "cape hole", how do you explain #5 at Mid-Ocean?

[Phil_the_Author]

David,

Your lack of understanding of the architectural design of the 12th hole at WFW by Tilly as a version of a cape hole is astounding.

Tilly's "definition" as you put it, where he stated, "Where a corner is formed close by the green itself, usually by the encroachment of a hillside or sandy waste, and this type is known as a Cape hole.” is NOT APPLICABLE to #12 at WFW yet he himself declared and named it a CAPE HOLE!

The CBM version of the Capre hole has shot into the green played over the hazards. There is NO CHOICE in this as EVERY shot traverses his hazard.

This is NOT the case of #12 at WFW. The 3rd shot of this par-five when played down the right hand side of the fairway will be played from a flat area that lay in front of a large fairway bunker in the right rough. There is NOTHING between the green and the player who plays his third shot from there other than more fairway. NOTHING. There is NO FORCED CARRY over a hazard. NONE.

That is why I brought up THIS PARTICULAR HOLE to show that there are distinct variations to how a hole may be created and still be properly considered a true type of "Cape Hole."

The ONLY time the hazard comes into play, as Tilly wrote, "encroachment of a hillside or sandy waste" is where the trees extend into the LEFT FAIRWAY LINE blocking the green from the player who is attempting to go for it on his SECOND SHOT (something that he was & is unable to do if he plays down the right side of the fairway). There is NEITHER HILLSIDE NOR SANDY WASTE that the palyer wust hit over and only if the player is at the extreme lefthand side of the fairway does the left front bunker come into DIRECT LINE OF FLIGHT play on the SECOND SHOT.

It is quite obvious that you don't know the hole if you believe that it plays as a "cape" from the right hand side of the fairway on the third shot as Tilly wrote in how he designed the hole to be played.

He created a variation on a theme here and it works wonderfully on many levels.

You also wrote:
"Quote: Tilly was definitely NOT influenced by or follow CBM's design philosophies in any way.
 
No offense meant, Mike, but this last bit is right up there with the statement someone made a while ago that Merion's routing was not impressive.  

But lets not get into this now, as this deserves its own thread."

I appreciate that i am very forgetable, but the name is Phil   as I was the one who wrote it. Secondly, Tilly wrote several times in a VERY critical fashion about CBM's design philosophies and his disagreements with them.

New thread or not, if you believe that Tilly was influenced in any positive way by CBM, and this despite writing that a number of his creations were wonderful courses, you are quite mistaken and it shows a lack of knowledge of Tilly's design philosophies and how they were put onto the ground.
 

[JESII]

David,

I have not been to Mid-Ocean, but Tom Paul makes it pretty clear that due to the slope of the green it is advantageous to approach that green from the left side of the fairway. I have been working under the assumption that your position on here is that a true cape hole would steer the player to the outside of the dogleg. Is that accurate?

[TEPaul]

"David,
I have not been to Mid-Ocean, but Tom Paul makes it pretty clear that due to the slope of the green it is advantageous to approach that green from the left side of the fairway. I have been working under the assumption that your position on here is that a true cape hole would steer the player to the outside of the dogleg. Is that accurate?"

Sully:

Don't take my word for the way Mid Ocean's #5 plays (best tee shot is the longest and as close to the water on the left as possible for the best approach angle up into the right to left cant of the green) take George Bahto's word for it from his book on Macdonald entitled "The Evangelist of Golf".  

Moriarty quotes from things like that only selectively if he thinks it makes his argumentative case about something and he purposefully just avoids the rest in the book if it doesn't, if in fact he has even bothered to read that far.  

He may be able to get away with that crap with someone who doesn't know that much about Macdonald and these kinds of holes but he's never going to get away with it with me!  

[Bill Gayne]

The idea of the cape hole is interesting because it can work as a short par four (NGLA), long par four (Mid Ocean), and par five (Pebble Beach). About six months ago I started a thread about the different lengths of cape holes and those who replied thought it was best as a par five.



From Mid Ocean's website. http://www.themidoceanclubbermuda.com/course/hole_five.html

[TEPaul]

"David,
Your lack of understanding of the architectural design of the 12th hole at WFW by Tilly as a version of a cape hole is astounding."

Philip:

I think that sentence to Moriarty would be a whole lot more apropos if you simply removed the first "the" and then "the 12th hole of WFW by Tilly as a version of a cape hole".  

The sentence should read "Your lack of understanding of architectural design is astounding."

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,

I don't think that the 10th hole qualifies as a cape, by anyone's definition..

It's a straight hole with an offset green.

If you compare it to the Cape holes at NGLA and Mid Ocean, there's very little in terms of architectural similarity and it plays radically different from both holes.

Yoiu need a smaller square peg.  

[TEPaul]

David Moriarty just said above:

"Interesting. My book is at home, but if I recall correctly Bahto notes that Macdonald did build some cape holes where the angle was better from the inside of the dogleg.  This must be one of them.  Now I understand why people would consider the drive a risk/reward drive.  

But again, the green capes, so the old definition fits.

Perhaps it was not only the change at NGLA but also the fame of this hole which lead to the distortion of what constituties a the "cape hole."


David Moriarty:

You have just got to be kidding us!!!!

Oh so now you finally understand, do you? Your book is at home is it??

Do any of us really have to go through this ridiculous litany of arguments and petty caviling from you for days on end just to teach you something as simple as this??

This is about the best indication to date of just what an obtuse waste of time you are on here about architecture and all these preposterous "hypotheses" of yours which you defend well past any modicum of logic and commonsense.

You think you're supplying anything interesting and informative on here? If you want an education on architecture get out on these golf courses and in the field like the rest of us and get it just like that Tom MacWood should have done.

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

Check out Tillinghast's definition of a "cape" hole in the chapter "Twisting the Fairway" in the book "The Course Beautiful".

His definition could hardly be more descriptive of a hole like Merion's 10th and PV's 12th.

And if you don't think so please tell me why.

[JESII]

Interesting. My book is at home, but if I recall correctly Bahto notes that Macdonald did build some cape holes where the angle was better from the inside of the dogleg.  This must be one of them.  Now I understand why people would consider the drive a risk/reward drive.  

But again, the green capes, so the old definition fits.

Perhaps it was not only the change at NGLA but also the fame of this hole which lead to the distortion of what constituties a the "cape hole."

______________________

TEPaul,

According to every photo and diagram I can find, at least part of cape green jutted out over the ocean.  Take a look in Bahto’s book, page 54 I think.

However, I've always felt, and others who concern themselves seriously with this kind of question seem to feel, that the question is not really an appropriate one for the simple reason most people just get confused because the reality is the "cape" type hole in fact has two definitions for two types of hole strategies or playing characteristics whether C.B. Macdonald or anyone else admitted it or liked it or not.

While people may be confused now, they weren’t then.  At least Macdonald, Tillinghast, and Flynn all defined a cape hole virtually the same way.  It was the green, not a diagonal drive, which made it a cape.

My recommendatiion is that we agree on two definitions because with so-called "Cape" holes there ARE two definitions as can be undeniably seen by comparing something like Mid Ocean's #5 with Merion's #10, PV's #12 and NGLA's old original #14.

That is fine for today, but not for historical analysis.  I do not think they used your second definition, and so when we look at their holes, neither should we.

Plus, it just confuses the issue, because the two strategic concepts work in opposite directions.  While this may be great for a golf hole, it is not so good for a concept or definition.  

Just look at the confusion the two definitions have cause on here.  Even after I clarified the concepts, many knowledgeable posters are still confusing them.   Even you and Wayne were not able to recognize cape holes at two courses you guys know quite a bit about.

_____________________

I wonder if you can see the answer to your original question right here in these two sets of quotations.

[Bill Gayne]

I have not read this thread in its entirety nor am I going to so this may have been covered but attached is a link to CBMs writing on the Cape hole at NGLA.

http://www.aafla.org/SportsLibrary/GolfIllustrated/1914/gi5h.pdf

[TEPaul]

Bill:

Thanks for posting that article--it's in one of the albums at NGLA.

Even if that hole was replaced early on due to the road to the clubhouse (the old road to the clubhouse was on the other side of this hole) we can see from that article how different in play and in design that hole was from Macdonald's Mid Ocean Cape hole.

I think David Moriarty has just figured out what the difference is so perhaps the unnecessary caviling can cease as he has learned a reality or two about "cape" holes and how different the two types really are.

[TEPaul]

"Surely you dont think I just read that article?  Take a look at my first post.
Did both these holes have cape greens?  If so, they are both cape holes under his original definition.  
I am really not sure why this is so difficult to comprehend."

So difficult for who to comprehend? What holes have cape greens? Are you referring to Mid Ocean's #5 too? Is it possible that you have not figured out yet how different those two hole are (NGLA's original #14 and Mid Ocean's #5) and why? Wasn't it you who initially claimed that there was not a diagonal carry tee shot to the fairway of one type of cape hole? Not only are you a incredibly slow learner you can't seem to manage to understand the responses to your questions. It's a very bad combination, that's for sure.

The first think you should do as Tom MacWood should have is take the time to actually see some of these holes before caviling for days on end with people who know them well as well as their histories.

 

[JESII]

This is the question I was referring to David, you asked it in the opening post onthis thread.

When did we go wrong with our understanding of the cape hole?   It is unclear.  

Please read that question and then re read the post of mine just above that is all quotes from you and TEP. The answer to your question is right there.

[Patrick_Mucci]

The fourteenth hole at National Golf Links is called the Cape Hole, because the green extends out into the sea with which it is surrounded upon by three sides.
-- C.B Macdonald, Golf Illustrated and Outdoor America, August 1914.

George Bahto, in his second interview on cga.com, describes the “cape hole” as Macdonald’s most misunderstood hole concept.  Most of us are aware that the original cape green the description “cape hole” is now applied to just about any hole with a forced diagonal carry where the golfer has the option of cutting of as much of the hazard as the golfer is willing to risk, in order to gain an advantage over the shorter hitter.

But, as George Bahto notes, this was not to what Macdonald was referring (my emphasis added):  

That's not true.
A review of page 123 in George's "The Evangelist of Golf" provides a drawing of the original "Cape" hole, and there is an INHERENT advantage given to the golfer who cuts off more of the hazard to gain an advantage over the shorter player.[/color]  

"It has become a strange evolution over time that the present (mis)conception of a Macdonald type Cape hole has come to refer to risk / reward tee-shot over some type hazard - the reward of a successful challenge being a better approach to the green. Remember, I'm talking about the Cape hole in the context of Charles Blair Macdonald 'inventing' the strategy, which he did.

A review of the drawingof the original 14th, on page 123, as designed by CBM refutes the above statement[/color]
. . .
The Cape definition that has evolved of the diagonal risk carry will certainly continue to be used .   I tend to agree whole-heartedly.  but a true cape hole refers to the orientation of the green complex, again, all this in the context of the Macdonald/Raynor architecture."

The drawing on page 123, of CBM's original "Cape" hole confirms that it encompasses both concepts[/color]

I agree with Mr. Bahto that the cape hole concept is extremely misunderstood.  Unfortunately, the “cape hole” description is not only (mis)applied to modern courses, but is also (mis)applied even with golf holes of its own era.  It is almost as if all the past and future impact and influence of the hole was discarded the same day NGLA’s old 14th green was abandoned.

I disagree with that statement, and so would you if you'd review page 123 of "The Evangelist of Golf"[/color]

When did we go wrong with our understanding of the cape hole?   It is unclear.  But in the mid-twenties, an unattributed article described the cape hole concept in terms which were much more similar to Macdonald’s version than the modern version, noting that there is a gap in acceptable distances between a long one shot hole and a shorter “drive and pitch hole,” and that the only acceptable to utilize a piece of land of this distance was by building a “cape hole.”   The article described the underlying principle as “a sharp elbow in the fairway at about the 225-yard point . . .,” then a narrow green guarded by “a large bunker in the elbow, and some sort of a hazard on the far side of the green. “   The player who drives it even with the elbow has and “easy open approach” to the green, while one who drives it short has a “possible but difficult shot over the bunker in the angle of the green.”


Please review page 123 of "The Evangelist of Golf" wherein the drawing of the original hole reveals everything you need to know, and..... contradicts your premise.[/color]

Whenever it went wrong, the cape notion is certainly distorted now, even by some of our most respected posters, two of whom apparently think themselves expert enough on the era to try and write a tome about a designer whose career was interlinked with Macdonald’s peers, if not with Macdonald himself. Wayne Morrison and Tom Paul summarily reject any inspirational or influential connection between Macdonald’s cape concept and subsequent and similar holes by Flynn and Wilson.

I won't comment on that, but, you should review the drawing on page 123 prior to making any further pronouncements.
It's quite revealing.[/color]  

In particular, they see absolutely no conceptual connection between the original cape concept and the revised version of Merion 10,  even though it seems to fit the above descriptions almost perfectly.  

WHOSE DESCRIPTIONS ?

If you view the drawing of the original 14th at NGLA on page 123 of "The Evangelist of Golf", you will see that it bears LITTLE OR NO RESEMBLENCE to the 10th at Merion.[/color]


They apparently base their outright dismissal on Wayne’s observation that Merion 10 and similar holes (holes by Flynn and Pine Valley 12) lacked a risk element off the tee in the form of a the diagonal carry.   In this regard, Wayne rhetorically asked if these holes were ”meant to be played with various angles off the tee depending upon the risk the player was willing to take?”

David, it's clear that CBM intended for their to be elements of risk off the tee for diagonal carries.  None exist at Merion.

Please, before it's too late, view page 123.
And, if you don't have George's terrific book, go out and buy it ASAP[/color]

As Bahto notes, the problem with this analysis is that the “risk/reward drive concept is not what a Macdonald cape hole is about.  

That's not true, it's an integral design component.
If you would study the drawing on page 123, you'd see the benefit of longer diagonal carries as it relates to the approach to an angled, well protected green[/color]

You could not have 'invented' a diagonal drive over a hazard in the British Isles for certainly there would have been and still are many of them in the British Isles.”  While a “diagonal carry over a hazard was certainly not an original idea,” but the positioning of a green, with water on three sides, was original.   And it was the positioning of the green which inspired and was emulated, especially on short par fours.  


David, the angle of the green as it relates to the DZ's and the length of the approach as it relates to the angled green and the surrounding hazards are interwoven fabrics in the design and principles of play with respect to the original 14th hole.  If someone could post a picture of that drawing, it would enlighten you, as you're laboring under a false impression and understanding of how the hole was configured and how it played.[/color]

But Wayne and TEPaul apparently do not understand Macdonald’s basic concept, and are unfortunately letting their misunderstanding distort their views on many of our great courses.*

I'm not so sure of that[/color]

I thought it might be interesting to think of some of the more interesting holes which could be viewed as descendants of Macdonald's cape, whether their creators knew it or not.

My home course, Rustic Canyon, has a terrific hole (the 12th) which fits the definition with some modifications; with bunkers on one side of the narrow green and a steep fall-off on the other side, and a green with plenty going on.   It is short but is nearly impossible to clear the bunkers and hold the green.  Those who I have seen on the green had to hit a run in a big, sweeping draw, literally bouncing over the corner bunkers.  It is always one of the most entertaining and challenging holes on the course.   I’ll post an aerial when I get time to grab one.

While Wayne and TEPaul apparently disagree, Merion’s 10th hole looks to fit the description even better. Here is a photo:




When you view the drawing of the original 14th at NGLA and compare it to the hole above, you'll see that they are not remotely similar, in configuration and in playability.[/color]

As you can see, the hole bends sharply at about 225, and the angle looks perfect from there.  From anywhere short of there, the approach would likely seem daunting.

What are some of the other great short holes which could be seen as descending (consciously or unconsciously) to Macdonald’s real cape concept.

*Wayne and TEPaul, not only disagree, they get so riled up that they cannot even respond without expressing their contempt, as if the notion of Wilson or Flynn being influenced by the cape is sacrilege.   They dismiss even the suggestion of a similarity between Macdonald’s cape concept and Merion 10 as “awful,” “spurious,” “utter nonsense,” based on “shabby research”  and “flawed analysis” (Wayne) and “far-fetched,” “uninformed,” “mind-bending,” “crap.” (TePaul)

Here's hoping that they can set their vitriol, rudeness, and sarcasm aside on this thread, or at least be civil enough to stay away.  

David,

Please, view the drawing of the original 14th at NGLA, it will enlighten you.

Thanks[/color]