[Kalen Braley]

Pat,

Why can't this be the case for a par 3 and/or especially a par 5?

How is an approach to the green in 2 from a 2nd shot any different if the golfer still must face a risk/reward diagonal carry?

[Jim_Kennedy]

.


edit: sorry, something happened to my post again.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Why can't this be the case for a par 3

Because the golfer can't evaluate, plan and execute his shot/s in the context of determining the angle and distance from which he'll hit his approach to the green.  Both of those factors have been pre-determined for him.  He's playing the hole strictly in the context of target golf, not tactical or strategic golf.

"Cape" holes tend to be protected on three sides by hazards, water or sand, leaving the golfer with a choice on how he will attack the green, taking into consideration the shot/s he must plan and execute in order to fulfill his choice.

On a par three no such options exist.  The golfer must approach the green from a predeterimined location at a predetermined distance.
There's not much in the way of tactics or strategy in that, it's purely target golf dictated by the superintendent.

The golfer cannot elect to take more risk in order to produce a shorter approach shot.
The golfer cannot elect to take more risk in order to produce a prefered angle of attack.
The golfer cannot elect to take less risk in order to leave a longer approach.
The golfer cannot elect to take less risk in order to leave a more difficult angle.
On a par 3, those elements are dictated, not electived.

If we expand the definition of a "Cape" to be one where the green merely needs to be surrounded by a hazard on three sides, almost any hole could qualify as a "cape".  There would be nothing unique or differentiating about the hole in terms of "nomenclature".


and/or especially a par 5?

Finding a good par 5 is a task in itself.
Finding a good par 5 with the "Cape" configuration consisting of a green surrounded by three sides by a hazard, water and/or sand, where the second shot can be over a diagonal hazard in order to gain a tactical advantage is even more difficult.

I might have seen one or two par 5's with this configuration, one or both of them might have been in the Carolinas.

If they exist, they exist in rare form, and the tee shot has little in the way influence over the "Cape" aspect of the hole.[/b]
 
How is an approach to the green in 2 from a 2nd shot any different if the golfer still must face a risk/reward diagonal carry?

See my comment above

[Patrick_Mucci]

If we view the architect's routing and individual hole design as an examination of a golfer's skills, mental and physical, doesn't a "Cape" hole with the tactical diagonal carry to a fairway that will determine an approach from the various angles and distances, present an important facet of that examination ?  One that's unique in golf ?

[DMoriarty]

Dave Moriarty,

I'd agree that a cape hole CAN'T be a par 3.
I'd disqualify Par 5's as well.

Patrick, I understand what you are saying but I don't find hard and fast qualifications or conditions to be all that helpful.  Once we do that the discussion becomes purely definitional.   I would go so far as to say that I don't think that CBM ever envisioned the cape as a par 3, given that he seemed to think the green ought not to be reachable from the tee.  (As for par 5's I am not aware of any but don't know for sure.)  So including these holes as "cape holes' stretches the concept further than I am comfortable stretching it.   

I think when we start taking about par 3s or par 5s we have to distinguish between a cape green as a feature of a hole, vs. the concept of a cape hole.   Surely a green on any hole could stick out into something be surrounded on trouble on three sides, And one could look at the geography and describe the green is a cape (because it fits with the definition of the feature.) But while any cape green might share some of the underlying strategies with a cape it wouldn't necessarily be a cape hole as I understand it, and I don't think it was a cape hole as CBM understood it. 

I feel that the diagonal tee shot, that allows the golfer to determine his angle and distance on his approach, is a critical element in classifying a hole as a "Cape" hole.

I don't think so.   Some holes (including the two most famous) obviously have it to some degree, but most of the strategic considerations are there whether or not there is a diagonal carry.    Looking back through time at the holes, it does seem that there had to be some sort of trouble on the inside, but I am not sure they all had this.   George would know.

I think I explained why I don't think the diagonal was required early on in the thread.   

Is that element is found in most or all of the CBM "Capes".
SR's ?
CB's ?

I am not expert on either, but I believe that some of both did not have a diagonal carry, at least not as we usually think about it.   Yale doesnt.  St. Louis doesnt.  Links didn't except if someone played well to the outside of the hole (and that one wasnt that long.)  Even on the two famous ones the forced diagonal used to be short enough to only apply to a relatively small range of golfers in normal conditions, although the fact that the the diagonals blend into all the the trouble on the inside surely made a difference psychologically. 

So while I understand where one might get this idea that I diagonal is necessary, and think it makes for a cool golf hole, I think it makes for a pretty cool hole concept even without the diagonal carry.  , I just don't think it matches up with the facts. 

If so, then that feature must be incorporated in the definition/classification of a "Cape" hole.

Again, I think that many didn't have an inside diagonal carry, so if we make that part of the definition then it seems we lose some that CBM considered capes.

So while I think Kalen would include holes that CBM wouldn't have, I think that you would exclude holes CBM wouldn't have.   

______________________________________________________________

Kalen see my comments above to you and patrick.   

Again I think it a mistake to make this purely definitional, is it a cape or isnt it sort of thing.   It is more about understanding the underlying playability issues including the options and challenges the golfer must face.    Surely par 3 capes may have been inspired by the cape concept and they share certain playability aspects with them but their are other playability aspects which are missing. 

That is why I am posting.  Not to tell you or anyone what qualifies, but rather to try and figure out what makes it such a great concept.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dave,

The concept is great because of the relationship of the tee shot to the approach shot, they're inextricably connected.

As to the balance of your last post, I'll address it when I have more time.

In terms of the "Cape" at St Louis and The Links, as I stated earlier, just because a hole is labeled a "cape" on a scorecard, doesn't make it a cape.

Both holes you mentioned appear to be dogleg par 4's, not "true" capes.
Neither have water surrounding the green.

This goes back to one of my original points, that of differentiating a dogleg from a cape.

While there's and advantage and a risk of taking the inside line, there is no required carry on the doglegs.
I believe that a "true cape" requires the diagonal carry off the tee to maximize the angle of attack and minimize the distance to the green.

That's my premise and I'm sticking to it.

[DMoriarty]

Pat, 

I don't think I mentioned the Links but if I did I probably meant the Lido.

I agree that with some of these holes there is a blurring between dogleg and cape, but generally the difference between those two is not whether there is a diagonal carry but instead where the hole turns.  If the hole turned at the green or just before then it was a cape.  If before then it was either a dogleg or an elbow, again depending upon where it turned.

By basing your definition on the diagonal carry you eliminate too many capes, including the cape at the Lido!

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Were you referring to a cape hole on CBM's Links club course? If so, did you ever see that place? If you did, do you remember Bert or the pro shop?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat, 

I don't think I mentioned the Links but if I did I probably meant the Lido.

Is Lido's 5th REALLY a "Cape" or does the scorecard just call it a "Cape" ?
From the schematic, and I'd prefer to see an aerial photo, the 5th appears to be a dogleg with a carry over an undesirable area.
The green does not appear to be surrounded on three sides by a hazard, water or sand.
So, is it really a "Cape" ? A hybid ? Or, just a dogleg ?

I agree that with some of these holes there is a blurring between dogleg and cape, but generally the difference between those two is not whether there is a diagonal carry but instead where the hole turns.  If the hole turned at the green or just before then it was a cape.  If before then it was either a dogleg or an elbow, again depending upon where it turned.

I understand what you're saying, but, that makes for an even more blurred distinction.

My read is that there are "PURE CAPES", CAPES", HYBRID CAPES", FAUX CAPES AND DOGLEGS, and sometimes a hole can stradle categories.

By basing your definition on the diagonal carry you eliminate too many capes, including the cape at the Lido!

Again, how do you come to call the 5th at Lido a "cape" ? 
By it's scorecard name or by the configuration of the hole ?
I think you have to go by the latter.

Not all "DOGS" are pedigrees.
They're still dogs, but, they're not purebreds, and so it is with "Capes"

Just because a scorecard names a hole "Cape" doesn't make it one architecturally.

That's where I think you have to craft a definition or criteria.

I'd advocate a "pure Cape" definition as a hole incorporating a diagonal carry off the tee that presents a tactical advantage in both angle of attack and distance to the green, to a green, offset into and mostly surrounded by a hazard/s, with water being the purest form and bunkering being accepted as an acceptable form.

Once a "purebred" definition was acceptable, you could create sub-categories for lesser or varied "Capes"

How does that sound ?

[George_Bahto]

Cape at Lido - it is sticking out into the Lido off fairway waste area

[Patrick_Mucci]

George,

Doesn't the ideal drive need to carry the area on the right in order to have the ideal angle and distance into the green ?

[George_Bahto]

yes Pat, that's the ideal drive but there are a lot of variances for the not so ideal shot

examples: shorter you have different angles ........  you could also run out of fairway if you were off line too much   -   all sorts of problems for a short-ish par-4 ..... to me, these are great holes and I think this configuration is one of the better ones

I don't remember the exact yardage but the it is in the very short 300+ yardage - very typical yardage.

Pat the green was very large offering a large target but I do not have any idea what the configuration of the putting surface was, which would be a key element to the overall strategy of the hole


example: if you hit the drive where you call "ideal" - would the green accept the approach best from that angle - I would suppose, yes ...................  which is just basic architecture for that yardage

[DMoriarty]

Patrick,

There is a diagonal but it is the exact opposite of the diagonals at NGLA and Mid Ocean.  The diagonal is on the outside, not the inside!

From my earlier post, including 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. 



______________________________

George,  see the photo of the plasticine above.  It looks as if CBM intended the green to have been contoured to favor the approach from the left side of the fairway.  If this was the case then the diagonal on the outside of the hole would not have produced the best angle.  My guess is that the diagonal exists to make the safe drive (away from the trouble left) a bit more interesting.

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

What are you asking him for---did he ever play The Lido?

Did you, you ultra ancient golfer?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()