[Patrick_Mucci]

In reading about "CAPE" greens, not surrounded by water or hazards, with their highly elevated greens, I noticed a reference to high internal banks/slopes within the green.

# 8 possesses all of the features of a "Cape" green and its surrounds.

# 2 had an internal mound removed years ago.
With that mound returned, would the 2nd green be a Cape or NON-cape green.

Doesn't # 8, rather than # 2, more closely resemble a Cape hole, especially with the diagonal drive option and the chasm on the left ?

[Geoffrey Childs]

#2 Yale "Green: natural to the right - but similar to Cape overall (Bahto)
"In general the green can be considered a 'Cape setting' jutting out, seemingly into mid-air, rather then out into a body of water." (Charles Banks, circa 1931) p234 of George's book

#8 ""Combination Green - 'Cape and 'Redan' strategy" Bahto
"The green combines characteristics of both the Cape and the Redan" (Banks, circa 1931) p238 of George's book

All the talk of Cape holes at least in the past is about the greens and not the drive.  I believe the cape concept evolved into a drive across an angled hazard perhaps through studying the 5th hole at Mid Ocean.

[ANTHONYPIOPPI]

Pat,

I'd say it's the second without doubt. If Banks in his writing said it was the Cape, then in my book it's the Cape.

The internal mounding refer to on the second was in more towards the middle of the green and very slight compared to the eighth at Yale.

Your point is very valid however and both the 8th at Yale and the 12th at Fishers which has mouding on the opposite side, have greens that resemble the Cape at Mid Ocean.

On the second, and 8th at Yale and the 12th at Fishers it is safe to go slightly long.

Anthony

[Tim Gavrich]

I think one could make more of a "Cape" case for #8 on the tee shot, but  I'd call #2 more of a cape shot into the green.  On 8, you can access most any pin by using the big hill on the right side of the green; you don't really need to mess with the left greenside bunker.

Could one argue that #4 has Cape-like tee shot characteristics?  I know that it follows the Road Hole template, and I've always thought of the real Road Hole as a Cape-type of hole.

[George_Bahto]

Regarding the Cape hole description of Yale #2 GREEN:  

What I wrote is what Banks wrote in an article that appeared in a Yale Alum Bulletin. He was there - he helped build it - and what he learned, he learned from his mentors.  

Yale-2 is a pretty straight-away version of a Cape hole to a Cape oriented green, the green hanging out, seemingly, into mid air representing 3-sided surrounding hazard. It does give you the look of a slight right to left dog-leg because of the topo and the greenside guarding bunker.


Concerning the 8th at Yale, the 12th at Fishers Island: These are “technically” (whatever that many mean) in the Macdonald, Raynor context, a 2-shot Redan to a Cape oriented green. Both of these holes are great examples of this genre.

The 17th hole at Essex County CC in NJ is another very fine example. Slight dog-leg left that left you (when built - 1925) with an uphill Redan length approach to a green (about 185-190), the green hanging out, guarded by an angled Redan-type greenside bunker.

At ECCC long hitters now hit short clubs to the green (blind to the player) - there is no room to lengthen the hole so we put in a bunker just inside the left fairway line, about 45-yards from the green. Great deception bunker for from the fairway approach area it looks like it is right next to the green, taking away the short left bailout, but there is plenty of room between the bunker and the green. Players start to think “go a bit to the right” but now you will contend with a very deep, very steep diagonal bunker.

The right rear pins placements at this hole and Fishers’ 12th are really tough even though you have a pretty good front shoulder. At Yale-8 it is reversed - the left rear pin is the tough one.

I think these are some of the finest holes they built and variation of these holes often appeared as the finishing hole on many courses.

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

You know, you've got some big balls starting another thread on here so soon with the word "Cape" hole in it. I'm wondering if David Moriarty is still alive and still with us after some of these "Cape" hole threads.  

[wsmorrison]

With all these templates, why not a bottle hole fairway with a punchbowl green on one tier and a reverse redan on the second with a biarritz swale in between and cape characteristics and of course, an alps-like sandy waste but no obscuring mound?  

These references get a bit silly if you ask me.

[Geoffrey Childs]

George

I find that right rear pins on Yale #8 are far more difficult to find.  That huge shoulder on the right side of the green repels balls down to the left.  It takes perfect distance control and shot shape to get to those pins.  The ground game and run ups simply won't do for back right. You have to fly it back there.

[Geoffrey Childs]

Wayne

In real life these holes work and are fun and challenging to play. What's silly about that?

[Patrick_Mucci]

"MacDonald contoured the right side of the putting surface with a steep right to left tilt as a backstop.  Players who successfully placed their drives near the water from the tee, thereby gained a more favorable angle into the green.

By contrast, this same feature punishes tmidity rom the tee by deflecting balls from the far right side of the fairway across the green and into the bunker or water.

MacDonald so loved his creation that rather than build his home in Bermuda facing the ocean, he instead ordered it constructed ot overlook the Cape hole."

While the above describes the 5th at Mid-Ocean, it's almost an identical description of the 8th at Yale.

The tee shot and green at the 2nd at Yale don't provide the same concept as described above.

My vote.

# 8 at Yale is the true Cape, # 2 is a pretender to the throne.

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

[wsmorrison]

Geoff,

There isn't anything silly about the way the holes play, there is something silly about the nomenclature.  Because of the template philosophy, everything is seen in those terms.  It imparts a sense of patterned design rather than a connection to the natural ground.  I think an important aspect of golf is a respite from the man-made, the dictated and predictable world we are immersed in away from a golf course.  A golf course should provide a reconnection with nature and not a grassy construct where the hand of man is so overtly evident.  This is one deep reason that I find templates, especially when wholly unnatural, less desirable.  Fun to play?  Absolutely.  Strategic?  Yes.  An appealing design?  It is not an aesthetic I am fond of.  Where I see a stagnant design output rather than an evolution and attempt to try new things, I see a safe approach and art should not be safe.

As Pat would say, that's my theory and I'm sticking to it  

[TEPaul]

Here's a "Theory" for you:

Could it be that as things evolved for the better in American architecture and with Americn designers through the teens and into the early 1920s that various architects just got sick and tired of hearing about Macdonald's "template" holes and their nomenclature (as Wayne calls it) as the only design modus that was good?

And realizing and hearing from them that they were sick of it Macdonald got pretty pissy with the rest of them (don't forget when Piper approached Macdonald at NGLA in the early 1920s to ask him to express his feelings on the principles of architecture Macdonald told Piper the rest of them could all go to hell as far as he was concerned).

The only thing I can think of that would definitely scotch this "Theory" is that when Macdonald finally hied on out to Bermuda to his bungalow to write his book he did admit that Horace Hutchinson said that perhaps the best holes at NGLA were the non-template original Macdonald holes.

But I'm sticking to my "Theory" too and if anyone quotes that remark of mine above to disprove my "Theory" I will deny I made that remark until the cows come home.

[Geoffrey Childs]

Wayne

I know what you are trying to say but I mostly disagree realizing that this is all a matter of taste.

If you came across this landform when routing a golf course what would you do
1- ignore it
2- bulldoze the hill to make a visual with the water
3- ignore the seaside greensite and build a green somewhere else
4- build one of the great holes of the world that happens to have a blind (alps) approach and a punchbowl green?

[wsmorrison]

Geoff,

I agree, it is mostly a matter of taste but design philosophy is a component as well.

I haven't been to FI either but from examining the photograph, I think the landform was used very effectively by Raynor.  I do not imply that he was universally forcing things on the ground though I think the percentages of work in his portfolio are overwhelmingly in favor of engineering versus natural (actual or appearance) especially at the green end.

I certainly see your point of view and respect your admiration for this school of design.  IFrom what I've seen,  love playing the courses and think the clubs outstanding.  In my mind, the designs are not of a style, some may call it a sophistication, that I appreciate best.  Are many excellent?  Yes.  But there is something lacking.  I tried to explain my thoughts and I think we understand and respect each other's ideas.

[Geoffrey Childs]

Wayne

I concur with your last post and especially about the engineered look of the greensites in particular. For the most part I think the Macdonald/Raynor school used the landforms in a natural way (see Fishers, Shoreacres etc.) where the ravines, streams and hillsides are utilized in the routings to near perfection IMHO. Its the greensites that are the most obviously engineered.  The older photos especially look more natural and flowing even in the bunkering. Some modern interpretations are almost a caricature of the style (Silva in particular) and I don't care for that look either.

Many architects have engineered looking greensites. If you look at Winged Foot for example its pretty obvious.  Same for Strong, Emmet, Langford and others.

[wsmorrison]

Geoff,

I'll continue our lovefest and agree with you whole-heartedly.  My aesthetic affinity leans more towards the works of Flynn, Colt, Thomas and others.

However, there is a lot to appreciate in playing the courses of Macdonald, Raynor, Banks, etc. but I think their aesthetic efforts were constrained and their strategies formulaic and did not reach the greatness of others.  

The Natural School rules!  

[Patrick_Mucci]

The Natural School rules!  

Wayne,

Only if you've got the right topography

[wsmorrison]

Well, I agree for the most part.  By natural I mean using the land as you find it and where necessary making man-made look natural.

You can have flat ground and make a natural looking golf course with tremendous interest...especially on sandy soil.  Boca Raton South (NLE) accomplished this with only 10' of elevation change. Indian Creek is an observable example where topography was created, but in a natural way.

Macdonald made Lido on land that was a swamp.  He designed and Raynor made the topography; how natural looking it was, I'm not sure.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Wayne,

10 feet of elevation change in Boca Raton probably creates the highest point in Boca Raton and points south, save for the garbage dumps along I-95 and the TPKE.  

From the photos I've seen and the remnants of the courses I've seen, I think those guys were pretty goof at making their designs fit into the surrounding land, no matter how constructed they were.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()