News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Patrick_Mucci

What is or constitutes a "Cape" hole, architecturally ?
« on: November 25, 2009, 09:35:22 PM »
I've heard several premises on the subject.

But, doesn't the real answer lie in the study of the "Cape" holes designed and built by CBM, SR and CB ?

Shouldn't the "Cape" holes at NGLA, St Louis, Lido, Shinnecock, Mid Ocean and Yale be studied, along with the "Cape" holes crafted by Raynor and Banks, before concluding which inherent feature/s need to exist in order to constitute a "Cape" hole ?

Jonathan Cummings

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What is or constitutes a "Cape" hole, architecturally ?
« Reply #1 on: November 25, 2009, 10:10:40 PM »
Pat - Uncle George's book probably has the best definition/description of what Mac/Raynor/Banks intended when they designed a cape hole.  Funny, but many people misinterpret the classical concept.  JC

Steve Lang

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What is or constitutes a "Cape" hole, architecturally ?
« Reply #2 on: November 25, 2009, 10:43:37 PM »
Pat,

Why get into imaginary minutia beyond: 

1) diagonal carry over hazard (preferably water or near-death experience) , bite off as much as you dare

2) green utilizing same hazard for approach shot(s) to the green

with all due respect, CBM & the other ODG's did it very well at many courses, but really, once it became or was recognized as a "formula hole design" it became "open art" and its study should certainly not be restricted.. but you have to start somewhere
Inverness (Toledo, OH) cathedral clock inscription: "God measures men by what they are. Not what they in wealth possess.  That vibrant message chimes afar.
The voice of Inverness"

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What is or constitutes a "Cape" hole, architecturally ?
« Reply #3 on: November 25, 2009, 10:53:00 PM »
I would guess that 95% of holes referred to as "Cape" holes today have diagonal carry tee shots but greens no where near the hazard or projecting into the hazard.

Not everybody has studied CBM and Bahto as closely as the GCA.com crowd has!

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What is or constitutes a "Cape" hole, architecturally ?
« Reply #4 on: November 26, 2009, 01:00:18 AM »
Patrick,

This came up recently, and I've taken this response from an earlier post and reworked it a bit:

Original Understanding
As George notes in his book, Macdonald's understanding of the hole was quite specific.   Macdonald's and Whigham's 1914 Golf Illustrated article on on the Cape (in their all too brief Representative American Golf Holes series) leaves no doubt about what they considered a Cape Hole:  "The fourteenth hole at the National Golf Links is called the Cape Hole, because the green extends out into the sea with which it is surrounded upon three sides."    Here is a stitched photo of the plasticine model of the original hole, from the article mentioned above:



H.J. Whigham offered a very good of the fundamental strategic principles underlying the hole in his 1909 Scribner's article:  
"The same principle is applied at the 5th hole, which will be perhaps the most celebrated in the country. The actual distance from tee to flag is about 290 yards—one would have said the worst possible distance for a hole—but it works out beautifully. The hazard in this case is water. Here it is impossible quite to reach the green, but the fine driver if he likes to take a risk and go almost straight for the hole, may get within putting distance and so have a good chance for a three. But the least slice will carry his ball into Sebonac Creek; or if he fails to get 240 yards he will have a difficult little pitch shot onto the promontory. The man who can drive 200 yards may prefer to play fairly well to the left so as to be sure of opening the hole; but then he has a long approach onto the promontory. Finally, the short driver can get across the water by playing well to the left and carrying less than 100 yards; but he has a long second to play and may easily take a five. In fact, the hole is either a three or a four or a five, according to the way the tee shot is played."

Whigham's diagram of the tee options from his 1909 Scribner's article:


The Modern Conception:  A Dumbed Down Cape.
As Macdonald described in Scotland's Gift (and as George succinctly reports in his terrific book) the Cape hole lost its cape green not long after its creation.  This left the hole with a diagonal carry off the tee where one could get closer to the green the more one cut off, and perhaps this accounted for the eventual change in understanding of the concept.   Now almost any sort of hole with a diagonal carry off the tee is called a Cape Hole.   The golfer has a choice of how much of the diagonal to cut off.  The more he cuts off, the less he has left to the green.

In my opinion we've lost some things in translation and/or transition.   While some of Macdonald's Capes had a diagonal carry over trouble (Mid-Ocean and NGLA most notably) there was more to the hole than just cutting of distance.   The trick was understanding one's abilities and executing one's shot to not only get close, but also to get the best angle into the green.   So for example at NGLA's Cape the most daring carry might leave the shortest shot but the absolute worst angle to the green unless the golfer could carry all the way almost even with the green.   Conversely a less daring but well placed shot might leave a slightly longer shot but a much better angle, while the safest carry might leave the longest shot and a difficult angle.   If I recall correctly, George noted that some cape greens favored the angle more from the outside while some (Mid Ocean?) favored the angle from more inside.

So it wasn't just about cutting off as much as possible to get closer to the hole.  It was about balancing the temptation of getting as close with the restraint of knowing one's game and choosing the best line and angle.  And then of course the golfer had to execute, and not just on the drive. Now, like many of our supposed "strategic options" the concept of the cape has been dumbed down to simply cutting a corner to get a shorter shot in.  

Other Applications of the Original Cape Concept.
Many prominent designers and course builders adopted Macdonald's and Whigham's definition of a cape, although they obviously often substituted bunkers or other trouble the water surrounding three sides.  CBM, Raynor, and apparently Banks built many to fit this mold.   In the mid-20's when increasing traffic on Ardmore Avenue necessitated the change, Wilson replaced the CBM style "Alps" 10th at Merion East with a CBM style "Cape" hole.  Flynn described the cape similarly and noted that it was one of his three basic hole concepts for par fours (along with the elbow and dogleg,) and Tillinghast did so as well.  

There are also many other fine early examples of the concept in the ground, including a short par four at Pine Valley that reportedly fits the mold (not sure if it was one of the few CBM suggestions that Crump reportedly followed there.)  While I am not sure he identified it as such, Thomas built a heck of a cape hole at Riviera's 10th.  When thinking about how Prairie Dunes must have played as a Nine Hole course, I was struck by how much the 3rd (now the 6th) must have felt like a cape in the original sense, although incredibly Maxwell created this sensation using mostly contours.  The 12th at Rustic is very cape-like (in the original sense) but the back is guarded by nothing but ground slope away (and in ideal conditions nothing else is needed.)   Other examples abound.  It is really a terrific hole concept and works wonderfully on a short par 4, providing a fan of options where oftentimes the full consequences of the drive are not fully felt until the second.  

Below are the description of Merion's "cape hole" and two photographs, all from the USGA Green Section Record (Nov. 1925.)  [One interesting aside is the measure of the hole: 330 yards.  From the tee in the photos, the hole was at least 50 yards shorter.]







Sorry for the lengthy reply. 
« Last Edit: November 26, 2009, 01:34:39 AM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Dale Jackson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What is or constitutes a "Cape" hole, architecturally ?
« Reply #5 on: November 26, 2009, 01:54:22 AM »

Sorry for the lengthy reply.
 

David, please do not apologize for this post, you have come up with great stuff here,  Posts like this are why I was attracted to this site in the first place, and why I continue with unabashed enthusiasm, despite the dead ends we go down from time to time.
I've seen an architecture, something new, that has been in my mind for years and I am glad to see a man with A.V. Macan's ability to bring it out. - Gene Sarazen

Bryan Izatt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What is or constitutes a "Cape" hole, architecturally ?
« Reply #6 on: November 26, 2009, 02:26:41 AM »
David,

Nice synopsis. 


Patrick,

Would you agree that the person who coined the term "Cape" inherently defined the architectural features of the the Cape hole?  Would that be CBM?  If it was CBM who initially defined it, then it would seem to be a short par 4 with a diagonal tee shot over water with a green that juts out into a water feature.  Would the study of the others that you mentioned in the first post not lead only to an understanding of how the term morphed over time?


Below are two examples of modern Cape holes that adhere to the green jutting out into water, but don't feature the diagonal carry.  This seems to be counter to the more modern definition of a Cape hole being a diagonal carry over water off the tee.

In the first, the green/water interface is stark - a vertical RR tie wall.  In the second the demarcation looks more forgiving, but the rough between the green and river is actually an 8 foot embankment.  Any shot that misses the green is generally in the water.  Are these examples closer to the original CBM concept than most, because they use a green jutting out into the water?  I wonder if these architects studied CBM et al?









Dónal Ó Ceallaigh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What is or constitutes a "Cape" hole, architecturally ?
« Reply #7 on: November 26, 2009, 03:05:40 AM »
I refer the honourable gentleman to the replies given some (actually a month or so ago and also in 2002) moment ago:

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,41932.0/

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,3060.0/

Dónal.


Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What is or constitutes a "Cape" hole, architecturally ?
« Reply #8 on: November 26, 2009, 03:45:26 AM »
Sorry!

Ciao
« Last Edit: November 26, 2009, 03:55:38 AM by Sean Arble »
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

George_Bahto

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What is or constitutes a "Cape" hole, architecturally ?
« Reply #9 on: November 26, 2009, 09:54:11 AM »
David M:

great explanations - I think most of GCA-ers get it (in its purest form) but the rest of the golf world .................

 ??????? - the diagonal is the thing   :P   oh well
If a player insists on playing his maximum power on his tee-shot, it is not the architect's intention to allow him an overly wide target to hit to but rather should be allowed this privilege of maximum power except under conditions of exceptional skill.
   Wethered & Simpson

Phil McDade

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What is or constitutes a "Cape" hole, architecturally ?
« Reply #10 on: November 26, 2009, 10:36:56 AM »
Here's a photo of the reworked 8th at Flossmoor CC (Chicago south side), a Tweedie course that's undergone some recent renovation work by Michigan-based architect Raymond Hearn. A par 4 of medium length, the drive is pretty straightforward, but the second shot struck me, upon playing it this summer, as having characterisitics of a classic Cape hole second shot.



Here's a closer look at the green, from the left side, where it's evident there is trouble fronting the green as well as to the right (unplayable marshy area). There is some room long of the green (to the left of this photo), but it's not too deep and a marshy area encroaches about 15-20 yards behind the green as well.


Jim_Kennedy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What is or constitutes a "Cape" hole, architecturally ?
« Reply #11 on: November 26, 2009, 10:44:00 AM »
Macdonald is guilty of causing this problem by constructing two of his most well known 'Capes' with (somewhat) diagonal tee shots over water.  What the heck was he thinking? >:(  ;D

« Last Edit: November 26, 2009, 10:45:43 AM by Jim_Kennedy »
"I never beat a well man in my life" - Harry Vardon

TEPaul

Re: What is or constitutes a "Cape" hole, architecturally ?
« Reply #12 on: November 26, 2009, 10:46:59 AM »
" ??? ??? ? The diagonal is the thing.  :P Oh well"


Uncle George:

The diagonal is what "thing" exactly? Do you mean just the tee shot or something to do with the green placement and orientation as well?

TEPaul

Re: What is or constitutes a "Cape" hole, architecturally ?
« Reply #13 on: November 26, 2009, 10:49:34 AM »
Tillinghast's definition of a cape hole is also very interesting and made more interesting still in how he distinguished a cape hole definition from an elbow hole definition. I wonder when exactly Tillinghast wrote those two definitions. I bet Phil Young might know.

Patrick_Mucci

Re: What is or constitutes a "Cape" hole, architecturally ?
« Reply #14 on: November 26, 2009, 11:00:00 AM »

Pat,

Why get into imaginary minutia beyond: 

1) diagonal carry over hazard (preferably water or near-death experience) , bite off as much as you dare

Steve, but, that carry you reference especially the "in perentheses" part doesn't exist on MANY of CBM's "Cape" holes.
That's one of the reasons that I started this thread.


2) green utilizing same hazard for approach shot(s) to the green

That too is also absent on many "Cape" holes and that's what also prompted me to start this thread.

That's why I suggested a comparitive analysis of ALL of the "Cape" holes designed by CBM, SR and CB.

Only then would the common or predominant feature/s reveal themselves.


with all due respect, CBM & the other ODG's did it very well at many courses, but really, once it became or was recognized as a "formula hole design" it became "open art" and its study should certainly not be restricted.. but you have to start somewhere

TEPaul

Re: What is or constitutes a "Cape" hole, architecturally ?
« Reply #15 on: November 26, 2009, 11:13:21 AM »
"Shouldn't the "Cape" holes at NGLA, St Louis, Lido, Shinnecock, Mid Ocean and Yale be studied, along with the "Cape" holes crafted by Raynor and Banks, before concluding which inherent feature/s need to exist in order to constitute a "Cape" hole ?"


Patrick:

Sure, no reason not to begin the study of the inherent feature/s that need to exist to constitute a "Cape" hole by first studying the cape holes created by Macdonald, Raynor and Banks.

But let me ask you and the rest something. Are any of you aware of a cape hole by Macdonald, Raynor and Banks that does NOT have some form of a diagonal carry over some form of a hazard off the tee?

I haven't read this entire thread so excuse me if I mention something on here that's already been mentioned----eg the so-called Cape hole on the Macdonald/Raynor Shinnecock. One drawing of that hole that was done by George Bahto has the tee on that hole in a place sort of behind the redan green and far to the right where we don't believe a tee ever existed. The actual tee shows on a blueprint and it is far to the left where all the tees are now and apparently always have been.

Wayne Morrison pointed this out to me this morning.


Futhermore, Pat, and on the other hand, where the tees are now and apparently always have been on Macdonald's original Cape Hole (NGLA's 14th) in relation to that fairway which has apparently pretty much always been in basically the same place (although it may've been sligtly further right before the road existed making it even less of a diagonal tee shot) has never seemed to me to be much of a diagonal carry. If it is or ever was it is pretty slight or at least until you get pretty far down that hole!
« Last Edit: November 26, 2009, 11:25:12 AM by TEPaul »

Patrick_Mucci

Re: What is or constitutes a "Cape" hole, architecturally ?
« Reply #16 on: November 26, 2009, 11:22:03 AM »
David,

Nice synopsis. 


Patrick,

Would you agree that the person who coined the term "Cape" inherently defined the architectural features of the the Cape hole? 

NO, I wouldn't agree to that.

I think you have to delve into and analyze the actual product rather than the written description of the concept or design of the hole.

I would ask you to examine the CBM's "Cape" at Shinnecock and describe for me how it meets the criteria attributed to the perons who "coined the term"



Would that be CBM? 
If it was CBM who initially defined it, then it would seem to be a short par 4 with a diagonal tee shot over water with a green that juts out into a water feature. 
Would the study of the others that you mentioned in the first post not lead only to an understanding of how the term morphed over time?

"Morphed over time" ?
CBM's substantive design career was very brief.
Examine his "Cape" at Shinnecock and tell me how it conforms, in any way, to your, or anyone else's description of a "Cape" ?


Below are two examples of modern Cape holes that adhere to the green jutting out into water, but don't feature the diagonal carry. 

This seems to be counter to the more modern definition of a Cape hole being a diagonal carry over water off the tee.


Then, how can the holes be classified as "Cape" holes ?

This is one of my points.

What is a "Cape" hole ?

Is it at the green end ?  The drive ?  or, do both have to exist in order to meet the definition of a "Cape" hole ?


In the first, the green/water interface is stark - a vertical RR tie wall. 
In the second the demarcation looks more forgiving, but the rough between the green and river is actually an 8 foot embankment.  Any shot that misses the green is generally in the water. 
Are these examples closer to the original CBM concept than most, because they use a green jutting out into the water? 
I wonder if these architects studied CBM et al?







Steve Lang

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What is or constitutes a "Cape" hole, architecturally ?
« Reply #17 on: November 26, 2009, 11:25:56 AM »
 8)  Pat,

Certainly a "cape" hole was a simple geographical reference at the time of its first descriptive use, alluding to coast line and an ultimate rite of passage, i.e., a peninsula green.  I feel both are required.

The strategic formula.. priceless

The endless compounding of the original formula.. muddling


a modern cape hole in my area with diagonal carry and peninsula (albeit small protrusion) green.  The drive and the approach shots combine to make it a cape hole. 



kyle k's photos best show the green, a small peninsula



« Last Edit: November 26, 2009, 11:39:46 AM by Steve Lang »
Inverness (Toledo, OH) cathedral clock inscription: "God measures men by what they are. Not what they in wealth possess.  That vibrant message chimes afar.
The voice of Inverness"

TEPaul

Re: What is or constitutes a "Cape" hole, architecturally ?
« Reply #18 on: November 26, 2009, 11:26:59 AM »
"I would ask you to examine the CBM's "Cape" at Shinnecock and describe for me how it meets the criteria attributed to the perons who "coined the term""


Pat:

What exactly are you using or asking others to use to examine Macdonald's Shinnecock cape hole?

Patrick_Mucci

Re: What is or constitutes a "Cape" hole, architecturally ?
« Reply #19 on: November 26, 2009, 11:29:11 AM »
TEPaul,

Both CBM's original blueprint and George Bahto's schematic/diagram reflect a carry over a diagonal hazard.

In the blueprint it's a staggered hazard, not unlike # 8 at NGLA, but, a carry over a diagonal hazard nonetheless.

Without the carry over a diagonal hazard, even though it may be a relatively straight hole from tee to fairway/DZ, I don't believe a hole can be classified as a "Cape" hole irrespective of what occurs at the green.

David Stamm

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What is or constitutes a "Cape" hole, architecturally ?
« Reply #20 on: November 26, 2009, 11:36:36 AM »
I enjoyed Park's example at Maidstone on the 7th. Macdonald/Raynors Cape at the Creek on the 10th is the only version I've played of theirs. It's a very fun hole.
"The object of golf architecture is to give an intelligent purpose to the striking of a golf ball."- Max Behr

Patrick_Mucci

Re: What is or constitutes a "Cape" hole, architecturally ?
« Reply #21 on: November 26, 2009, 11:39:57 AM »
I enjoyed Park's example at Maidstone on the 7th. Macdonald/Raynors Cape at the Creek on the 10th is the only version I've played of theirs. It's a very fun hole.

David,

Aren't those two holes dramatically different, architecturally ?

If so, how can they BOTH be classified as "Cape" holes ?


TEPaul

Re: What is or constitutes a "Cape" hole, architecturally ?
« Reply #22 on: November 26, 2009, 11:44:25 AM »
"TEPaul,
Both CBM's original blueprint and George Bahto's schematic/diagram reflect a carry over a diagonal hazard."


Pat:

For starters, I'm not sure how or why you say something like that because the tee on George's drawing and the tee on that Macdonald blueprint are probably up to 75 yards from one another and not distance-wise but directionally!  ;)

Plus there are no fairway lines on that blueprint like on George's drawings and the mid-hole bunkering is not exactly the same either.

Nevertheless, my point is did Macdonald, Raynor or Banks ever do a cape hole that did NOT have some kind of a diagonal carry off the tee?
« Last Edit: November 26, 2009, 11:46:24 AM by TEPaul »

Patrick_Mucci

Re: What is or constitutes a "Cape" hole, architecturally ?
« Reply #23 on: November 26, 2009, 11:45:02 AM »
Steve Lang,

Then your definition would be that both features have to exist, the diagonal drive over a hazard, preferably a water hazard, and an angled approach to a green surrounded on three sides by a hazard, preferably a water hazard.

Is that correct ?

If so, I would say that that's a pure "Cape" hole.

Jim_Kennedy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What is or constitutes a "Cape" hole, architecturally ?
« Reply #24 on: November 26, 2009, 11:47:38 AM »
TEP,
Yale #2 has no carry over water.

Pat,
By his own explanation, or at least in concert with Whigham, it's the green jutting out into the water that is mentioned first.
Jutting green on Yale #2, but not into water.
Second is that green's being surrounded on three sides by the water hazard.
Yale #2 surrounded on two sides.
Third seems to me to be the presence of the water hazard running laterally down the length of the hole
Yale #2 has trees laterally, but I don't remember how it looked in the old aerials and I'm not going to look right now
...and fourth, the impact that has on the subsequent approach to the green.
Yale #2 presents the same sort of problem.

That may be too simple for anyone else but me, but that's how I look at them. All in all, it's mostly faithful to the basics, with sand and possibly trees replacing water as the hazards.

   

« Last Edit: November 26, 2009, 11:49:32 AM by Jim_Kennedy »
"I never beat a well man in my life" - Harry Vardon