CB Macdonald did not mince words when he described the Cape concept. Here again are those words:
"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." So why is it so hard for some to take him at his word?
Was the Diagonal Carry Integral to the Cape Concept?
Short answer: No. While the two most famous Capes do feature diagonal carries, these carries were only around 150 yards the longest. So while these may have been scary carries for all, they were only strategically significant to short hitters.[/i] Other of CBM's early versions of the concept, such as at St. Louis, Yale, and the Lido, did not feature this type of diagonal carry.
1.
NGLA and Mid Ocean.
With today's insane technology, it is easy to forget
the greens on Cape holes generally could not be carried from the tee. So when considering the "diagonal carry" we ought to be thinking of the actual, realistic, carry.
AT IT'S LONGEST, the diagonal carry at NGLA was 150 yards. From CBM in 1914:
"The shortest way over the water, a carry of 120 yards, is the longest way to the hole, whereas the shortest way to the hole is to the right, a carry of 150 yards." Likewise, at Mid Ocean the diagonal carry was about the same, around 150 yards
AT ITS LONGEST. So, again, for even the moderately competent hitter, making the carry was not really ever an issue. So while the capes at NGLA and Mid Ocean featured fairly short diagonal carries over over water, the actual diagonal carry was not long enough to be a key strategic component.
2.
St. Louis, Yale, and the Lido.
Some of Macdonald's Cape holes did not require a diagonal carry. There is no diagonal carry at Yale's Cape. St. Louis (1914) does have a carry over a creek of about 150 yards off the tee (probably shorter then.) but
the Cape at St. Louis does not feature a diagonal carry off the tee. Perhaps most telling is the Lido's Cape, because presumably CBM could have made the underlying strategic principles exactly as he wanted. Here is what CBM had to say about the hole in 1915:
"The fifth hole resembles the Cape hole at the National, but the bunkering and undulations probably make it a little more scientific than our Cape hole off the tee. One will always see however that it is the creation ofBut so far as I know man and not the creation of Nature, for it has, as most holes on this course have, the technical design of an architect rather than the inimitable design of nature."** The Lido's Cape had
no diagonal carry off the tee, at least not anything like the diagonal at NGLA. There was an optional diagonal carry
away from the hole, but even here the carry is no more than 150 yards AT ITS LONGEST, and thus not an issue all but the very short hitter off the tee. Here is a photo of the plasticine model of the 320 yard hole.
In Sum, the diagonal carry off the tee is not integral to the hole concept. While some holes feature a short diagonal carry, that carry is not really strategically significant to most golfers. Other Cape feature do not feature a diagonal at all.
**[ASIDE: note that even in 1915 (when the Lido was not being built) CBM had already realized that his attempts to play "creator" could not possibly match nature.]
_____________________________________________
Ally,
I think your post expresses the modern conception of the cape rather well --
cut off more of the diagonal and reap the reward of a shorter shot and better angle into the green. This too is pretty indicative of our modern understanding of the way strategy works:
Interestingly, Whigham's comments above seem to be slightly anti-strategy... I haven't seen NGLA but both his comments and the diagram seem to indicate that the closer to the hazard, the harder the approach... Length is the main (only?) gain from challenging the hazard...
I'll hand it back to you experts now... Please feel free to shoot me down...
Successfully challenge a hazard, reap a benefit. Fail, and your dead. Simple as that. This seems to be the simple formula that applies to most of what we think strategy is these days. Do-or-die strategy. Reap a big benefit or die trying. It doesn't get much more heroic than that. But far from being "anti-strategy" the original conception of the Cape hole is actual a much more sophisticated and layered concept of strategy. And unfortunately it was so subtle that now some don't even recognize it as strategy.
1. The original cape involved a delayed cost, one that might only come into play on the second. balancing of costs and benefits that were far more nuanced than the black/white, pass/fail world of the modern cape.
2. The costs and benefits were less do-or-die and more incremental: Driving on the most direct line benefited the golfer by getting him closer to the green, but with a potential cost of a much more difficult angle of approach. Likewise hitting it further away from the most direct line might provide a better angle, but the cost was a longer shot.
3. Rather than simply punishing the duffer, the hole aimed to push back a bit on the golfer who overestimates his ability. Try to hit a very good shot, but only hit it
nearly good? You'll be left with a miserable angle.
So there was plenty of strategy. It just wasn't as blatant and in your face as most of the supposed strategy we see to today.