[JNC Lyon]

Ron,

As most of the posters have pointed out, the green jutting out into a body of water or thin air is what defines a "Cape" hole.  Diagonal tee shots are everywhere, while Cape greens are not.

As for the 5th at Fox Chapel, the green juts out from the right bank into thin air, falling off steeply on three sides.  The diagonal tee shot is also there, and the golfer can cut off the creek for the best angle into the Cape green.

[Ronald Montesano]

I disagree with those who say that the 5th at Fox Chapel has a diagonal tee shot. Thanks to the pregnant fairway, this tee ball is straight away, which is what lead me to question that it was a Cape hole. With the enlightenment that the cape (initially at ALGN from MBC), not the fairway, juts out into the hazard, I came to understand why this Raynor classic is a Cape hole.

[George_Bahto]

For years the short 10th hole at Creek (Club) was thought of as a cape hole - again. Because of the diagonal drive over the water.

A year or two ago info came out, the hole was a Leven hole but the huge sand hill obfuscating the left side of the green had been removed. The club is restoring the feature.

Again, my posts reflect the Macdonald point of view. I have no problem with the evolved definition, just attaching the word “Cape” to the new definition

 ................  An island par-3 is not a cape

later, I’ll post pics of Yale-3 green and the Fishers Island Cape (where the second shot is over water to their Cape green) but the tee shot calls for the player to drive as close to the water as possible in order to gain the shortest approach tot the green.

[DMoriarty]

George, that is really interesting about the Cape/Leven confusion at the Creek.   As you know, Whigham described the Cape and Leven as being based on the same principle but wrote that the application was "a little different."  The difference (at NGLA at least) was that on the Cape the long hitter could play more directly at the green, but too short of shot on this line would leave an approach from a very difficult angle.  In contrast, because of the dune/mounding and nature of the green on the Leven, the better play for the longer hitter was to play play more away from the green to open the green up from the side.  (Because of the diagonal carry off the tee on the Leven, the shorter hitter had no choice but to play more toward the hole, and then face a shot from a tough angle over the dune/mounding for a second.
____________________________________________________

There is always a lot of speculation and guessing about what is a Cape hole.  I've always found this a bit odd because CBM and HJW described the hole in detail.  My guess it is gets confused because the original Cape at NGLA was modified and the namesake feature lost.

A few years ago I tried to pull together some information on the original concept and update the information periodically when the issue comes up.   Hopefully some will find it helpful . . .

Original Understanding of the "Cape Hole."

As George Bahto notes in his excellent 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."    On other words, the hole is named after the geographic feature.  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 description of the fundamental strategic principles underlying the hole in his 1909 Scribner's article:

"The same principle [as at the Sahara] 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 on the next shot.   And there was no single "best" place to be, for the best place was entirely dependent upon the length of one's drive.  

For example, at NGLA's Cape the most daring angle along the water might easily stay dry but still leave the shorter hitter but the worst angle of attack to a difficult green surrounded by trouble on three sides.  A long drive would open up the green and leave a short chip or long putt (from off the green.) but, as HJW put it, "if he fails to get 240 yards [the distance necessary to start to open up the green if one took the more direct line along the water] he will have a difficult little pitch shot onto the promontory." Conversely a less daring but well placed shot away from the trouble might leave the shorter hitter a longer shot but a much better angle, while the safest carry and shortest shot 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 and their "cape" terminology, 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 adopted the CBM/HJW definition and noted that it was one of his three basic hole concepts for par fours (along with the elbow and dogleg,) Tillinghast did so as well.  

While the original Cape Hole at NGLA was unfortunately modified (and Cape green lost) to make room for the road, there may arguably be many other fine early examples of the concept in the ground, including a short par four 12th at Pine Valley which reportedly fits the mold.  While I am not sure he identified it as such, Thomas built a heck of take on the cape hole concept at Riviera's 10th.   I was struck at Prairie Dunes by how much the  original 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 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 a diagram, description, and two photos depicting Merion's "so-called cape hole," the 10th.  All are from the November 1925 USGA Green Section Record and part of the series on "Instructive Golf Holes."  [One interesting aside is the measure of the hole is incorrectly listed as 335 yards.  From the tee in the photos, the hole was over 50 yards shorter than that.]







Was the Diagonal Carry Integral to the Cape Concept?

Again, remember that 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?

So the Short Answer is :  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.

Here is a photo of the original Cape Hole" from the August 1910 American Golfer:



One from the fairway, 1914.


A slightly different angle, 1910.



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.  



So it seems that he diagonal carry off the tee is not integral to the hole concept.  While some cape holes feature a short diagonal carry, that carry is not really strategically significant to most golfers.   Other Cape Holes do not feature a diagonal at all.

[Michael Essig]

There is a fairly simple definition of a cape. It is a hole that has a hazard that runs the length of one side of the hole, bunker or water. The hole should also curve around the hazard, so on the tee shot, the closer you aim to the green, the longer of a carry you have over the hazard. A great example is the 14th at Chambers Bay.

[DMoriarty]

There is a fairly simple definition of a cape. It is a hole that has a hazard that runs the length of one side of the hole, bunker or water. The hole should also curve around the hazard, so on the tee shot, the closer you aim to the green, the longer of a carry you have over the hazard. A great example is the 14th at Chambers Bay.

No doubt this is is a simple definition.  But it is not the original definition, and it falls well short of the strategic nuances of the original understanding.

[John_Cullum]

I had mistakenly assumed that the Cape was defined solely by the fairway.

As does everyone else, which begs the question-is it? The defining feature of most every cape hole, and certainly those regailed as the finest examples, is the tee shot

[DMoriarty]

I guess I mistakenly assumed that people would bother to read more than a few sentences if I provided plenty of relevant topical information as well as snappy pictures and graphics.

My mistake.  

[Kalen Braley]

I would agree in concept with David's post.

The Science dictionary defines it thusly:

A point or head of land projecting into a body of water.

A cape is all about the green in this case.  The carry over water and/or diagonal really have nothing to do with it.  However that being said, I wouldn't think there is any limitation on par or otherwise.  I've played a few par 3s that can be accurately described as cape holes as they jut out into a body of water. (Surrounded on 3 sides)  Whether its the tee shot, or an approach shot seems irrelevant.

[DMoriarty]

Kalen,

In its original conception, the hole was reportedly meant to be just a bit beyond reachable.  I think the idea was that a good hitter would have to stretch and hit a very good drive in order to benefit of the easiest approach, and if the golfer took too aggressive a line for the length of the shot, the golfer was left with a tricky pitch to a tough green.  In other words the green was not supposed to be all that receptive to even short pitches from the more direct line of play.   (See Whigham's description of "a difficult little pitch shot onto the promontory," above.)    On the hole you are describing, the green would have to be receptive enough to handle even a shot from the tee, would it not?

That said, there are lots of variations on the concept, with some Capes being quite a bit longer than just beyond drivable, and I think George said some provide the better angle from outside the dogleg.  So it is not set in stone, and the par three hole you describe above definitely incorporates at least some of the main strategic charactertics of a cape, especially for the lesser player (like me.)  

Beyond this, it seems that whether a par three could technically be called a cape is strictly  a matter of semantics.  

[DMoriarty]

Along the lines of Kalen's question, Merion's 10th hole, as it played in the recent Amateur, provided a look at the zaniness that can occur when technology and a forward tee turned Merion's cape hole into a par three, distance-wise. On at least one of the days the hole played within iron range for many of the golfers, but on t.v. at least it looked like not too many of the golfers hold the non-receptive green, at least not anywhere near the hole.   So golfers were hitting what looked like shortish mid-iron to the right, then chipping or pitching.

[Kalen Braley]

David,

You are indeed correct.  The hole I'm thinking of plays 150+ from the mens tee, so it certainly doesn't incorporate the extra defintions of a golfer choosing how much risk to take on and having a potentially easier 2nd shot shot to the green.  (Although last time I played it, I intentionally under-clubbed to take the water out of play as all the trouble was long, left, and right)

[Michael Essig]

I guess I mistakenly assumed that people would bother to read more than a few sentences if I provided plenty of relevant topical information as well as snappy pictures and graphics.

My mistake.  

D, you had me at "George . . "    Also, Matt (my son) post under your own name!

Getting back to the point.  Based on the original description of the cape hole - green surrounded by water on three sides - doesn't that state, or least imply, that it is the green's location, and not the tee shot, that defines the hole?

[Bill_McBride]

I guess I mistakenly assumed that people would bother to read more than a few sentences if I provided plenty of relevant topical information as well as snappy pictures and graphics.

My mistake.  

You forgot the [sigh] emoticon!

[DMoriarty]

Yes and yes.

[Michael Essig]

Doesn't that beg the question (which is what this string is all about) - can you have a cape hole without water?  Or isn't something with a green surrounded on three sides by sand/canyon/hazard just the waterless version of a cape hole?

I can't remember the hole, but it was at Kapalua, I think it was on the Village Course - a par 5 - where the green sat perched out on a ridge with canyon in front and right, and garbage behind.  Lay-up left, but not too left, and it was a pitch to the green.  Go at the green, and the last 60 yards was all carry over the canyon to the green.

[Sean_A]

Yes, we have all had the history lesson - more than once. 

To ME's point, it also begs the question of why its okay to bend the principles for a Redan (blindness and uphill are essential principles IMO - that were often ignored by CB Mac), but not on a Cape.  

Ciao

[Michael Essig]

To ME's point, it also begs the question of why its okay to bend the principles for a Redan (blindness and uphill are essential principles IMO - that were often ignored by CB Mac), but not on a Cape.  

Exactly my point - when a hole loses a basic characteristic, doesn't it stop being an imitation, and start being "influenced by" a particiular design.  I was reading a book this weekend that referenced 12 different holes as a "Redan" - starting with the original at North Berwick.  Almost none of the next 11 "Redans" had all of the characteristics of the original - a par 3, green is blind from the tee, slightly uphill, green angled away, sloped from front to back and right to left, with deep bunkers.  What if the hole has only four of those characteristics?  Is it still a Redan?  And bringing this full circle, is the only characteristic of a cape hole - a par 4 with a green surrounded on three sides by water?

[DMoriarty]

Michael,

It need not be water.  A number of the holes discussed above use bunkers instead of water.   I believe George Bahto (the true expert on the subject) had described some of them as jutting out into nothing but air.  My home course has a hole I consider to be consistent with the cape concept, yet the backside drop off is nothing but a steep mowed slope.  

I don't think of any of these holes as "imitations," and they aren't defined by a checklist as Sean Arble is won't to do.  They are different applications of some pretty flexible general strategic concepts.  CBM and HJ Whigham were out to build great golf holes and hopefully teach others to do so as well.  As they said about the Redan, there are infinite potential applications of the basic concepts depending on the nature of the site.   So to argue about whether it is or is not a "Redan" or a "Cape" too often becomes an semantical, definitional debate, and that strips the life out of what CBM and HJW were trying to accomplish.  

For example, to Sean, no Redan can be a redan except for the Redan.  That may work for Sean, but that is not a conversation even worth having to me.  I'd rather try to learn what we can from these great holes and see how similar principles can be and have been applied to make other holes that, while not identical, are nonetheless great on their own.

So modify or bend to your heart's content.  My only purpose was to relay the original understanding of the underlying principles, so that we may better be able to understand how some of these modern concepts are different or the same.
_________________________________________

Yes, we have all had the history lesson - more than once.

Pretty weak effort at a slap, Sean. I expect more from you, Ol' Chap. Some have seen it before, but others obviously haven't. Others might had seen it, but apparently failed to read it. Still others are too caught up their narrow views to learn much of anything. I'll let you decide where you fit in.

. . .  it also begs the question of why its okay to bend the principles for a Redan (blindness and uphill are essential principles IMO - that were often ignored by CB Mac), but not on a Cape.

So C.B. Macdonald and H.J. Whigham dared to deviate from Sean Arble's Essential Principles of the Redan? Who knew? Just who the hell did those pikers think they were, anyway?  Don't they know that only Sean Arble possesses the true secrets of the Redan, and those horrors at NGLA, Piping Rock, and elsewhere were but pale, hollow, and weak blasphemes?  And I won't even get into the bastardizations at Merion, Pine Valley, Sleepy Hollow, etc.  

Or perhaps there is another more reasonable way to understand it?  Perhaps, as delusional as they may have been, C.B. Macdonald and H.J. Whigham had their own understanding of the principles underlying the Redan and the Cape?  

You may be comfortable lecturing Charles Blair Macdonald and Henry James Whigham as to the proper way to understand a Redan hole and/or even a Cape hole, but I have a feeling they wouldn't be moved.   As between you and them . . . well you can guess as to who I think is the better source.

Please don't get me wrong.  Of course you can go ahead and understand the underlying principles of the Cape any way you like, same as with the Redan.  But when it comes to understanding the history of golf course architecture, I prefer their take to yours.  
Tallyho!

[Sean_A]

David

Very lawerly response; why write in15 words what can be written in 200 words?  You won't be surprised to learn that your opinion on anything to do with golf history carries little if any weight with me.  

Ciao

[DMoriarty]

David

Very lawerly response; why write in15 words what can be written in 200 words?

A lawyer swipe?  You are really scraping rock bottom here.  Disappointing.  I expect more from you.

You won't be surprised to learn that your opinion on anything to do with golf history carries little if any weight with me.

We agree.  My opinion on golf history ought to carry very little weight, at least where the likes of CBM, HJW, and others who were there have written extensively on the issue.  Their opinions are what matters.   I would be excessively self-centered if I thought otherwise.

[Ronald Montesano]

I believe you could both write your responses to each other in two words, both lacking a second syllable.

Now that intermission is over, thanks again for all the insight regarding the Cape hole.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()