David,
I believe you misunderstood what I wrote. I stated, "Tilly had a bit of a different take on defining what a "Cape" hole is. For the most part, he viewed it as a two-shotter with a particular bend to the hole that was different than a "dog-leg" or "elbow" hole..."
Note the examples shown before that satement on the thread and you'll see that they are all the classic par-three type of Cape hole. That is why I stated that Tilly viewed it mostly as a two-shotter and designed almost all of his that way. The "Cape" features are similar to what other architects used in their designs yet different in that they rarely, if ever, involved a water carry in Tilly's use of the hyole type.
Phillip, all the examples I gave (and all of what were considered cape holes under the original understanding) are of two shot holes, not of par threes. I would say that except for the original and the one at Mid-Ocean, the others' cape holes "rarely if ever involved a water carry." The concept was applied to holes that most often involved other hazards besides water, and other types of hazards substituted for the water in the original. Just like Tillie.
So I think if we are talking about the original concept, your Tillie distinction is without a difference.
To the best of my knowledge and memory, I have never written that his understanding of the Cape hole type was consistent with CBM, Wilson, Flynn or any other architect. Neither did I ever write that it wasn't. I have only written what Tilly's personal view of a Cape hole (and many others as well) and used his own defining words to describe and explain it.
Well then perhaps I misunderstood. Here is one of your responses to my earlier explanations of an article describing Wilson's "cape type hole" at Merion, the 10th, and my description of CBM's and HJW's understanding of the hole:
David,
You make a good observation in how the term "Cape" for a hole description was used quite differently in the early part of the 20th century.
In his advertising booklet "Planning a Golf Course," Tilly referred to three types of holes that had fairways that turned. The "dog-leg," the "elbow" and the "cape." This is how he defined it:
"There is still a third variation, where a corner is formed close by the green itself, usually by the encroachment of a hillside or a sandy waste, and this type is known as a Cape hole."
Note how Tilly defined the fairway turn to be "close by the green" and not associated with the tee shot. Two examples of Tilly Cape holes can be found on the 3rd hole at Brook Hollow (Tilly wrote of this hole in a "Green Committee" article he wrote for Golf Illustrated in 1921 and the 12th hole on Winged Foot West. Tilley even gave that hole its name... "Cape."
Both of these holes shared a common feature at the green, a stand of trees just short of it where the green hides behind in relation to the second shot in. Both have left side bunkers, but it is the trees that are the encroachment that creates the "Cape" effect on them.
It appears that the original idea for the "Cape" feature then was at the green complex rather than simply something that would require a long-drive played over an obstruction to an angular fairway.
. . . .
Surely you can see how I took this as agreement with the others? I followed this up by noting that Flynn shared the same definitions with Tillie (So did M&W by the way) and asked you a few questions, but you didn't answer.
Anyway, if there was a difference between the various understandings of the hole type at the time as compared to Tillie's, you haven't yet identified it. Because what Tillie's would have been considered a cape hole for all of them, and visa versa. Or are you suggesting that if the green caped into water that he would have called it something different? I cannot imagine that this would have been the case.