[TEPaul]

Contributors:

Just read that initial post of David Moriarty's that Pat just reposted and that Moriarty used to begin this thread!!

Now, I ask you, is that any way to begin a thread on here? Is he just trying to start an argument with Wayne and I? If not he sure did a great imitation of it. Is there any reason under the sun that you can think of why we should not come after him for that? That entire post as it relates to what I've said is a cape hole under various definitions, including Tillinghast's, is a laundry list of unbelievable distortions. If this guy is trying to just automatically find a fight with me he doesn't have to do much more than produce an initial post like that one on his thread.

If this guy wants civility on here he's going to have to do a whole lot better than that out of the box on his threads, that's for sure.

[Bill Gayne]

. . .
The Cape definition that has evolved of the diagonal risk carry will certainly continue to be used .   I tend to agree whole-heartedly.  but a true cape hole refers to the orientation of the green complex, again, all this in the context of the Macdonald/Raynor architecture."[/i]

The drawing on page 123, of CBM's original "Cape" hole confirms that it encompasses both concepts[/color]



They apparently base their outright dismissal on Wayne’s observation that Merion 10 and similar holes (holes by Flynn and Pine Valley 12) lacked a risk element off the tee in the form of a the diagonal carry.   In this regard, Wayne rhetorically asked if these holes were ”meant to be played with various angles off the tee depending upon the risk the player was willing to take?”

David, it's clear that CBM intended for their to be elements of risk off the tee for diagonal carries.  None exist at Merion.

You could not have 'invented' a diagonal drive over a hazard in the British Isles for certainly there would have been and still are many of them in the British Isles.”  While a “diagonal carry over a hazard was certainly not an original idea,” but the positioning of a green, with water on three sides, was original.   And it was the positioning of the green which inspired and was emulated, especially on short par fours.  

I haven't taken the time to figure out the color posting but from the above I have the following opinions. From my reading of CBMs writing I concur that a proper cape hole encompasses both elements of risk. That's the primary reason you can have elasticity in the length of a cape hole.

Secondly, I have not been to Merion but if the tenth hole lacks both elements of risk (off the tee and the shot to the green) it's not a proper cape hole.

Third, cape holes can be built on links courses. Although both of these holes were built after NGLA. Both in Ireland immediately came to mind.



From the right tee box.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,  

I am not exactly sure I understand you, but I am sensing it has something to to with the drawing on page 123.  I'll take a look when I get home.  

If it is the drawing I am thinking of (showing a number of different distances from different angles off the tee), then I know what you mean, and wondered about that as well.  I just figured it was Gibs fault, but it might be a good question for George.   Doesnt he say that a ball cutting the corner would likely bound into the bunker.

I think you're refering to the sketch of the 5th at Mid-Ocean.[/color]

You know Yale dont you Patrick?  

Yes, I do.[/color]

Is there a diagonal carry on its cape?

"It's Cape"

That's an interesting question.
Some say, because the topography didn't allow for a TRUE Cape to be designed and constructed, a modified or hybrid Cape was constructed where ONLY the green and surrounds had the features associated with a Cape.  George Bahto refers to the green and surrounds as a "Cape Setting" and not a true Cape Hole.

In addition, the original Cape at NGLA played at 305 yards, the 2nd at Yale played considerably longer, at 365 yards, and even longer due to the uphill nature of the hole.

# 2 at Yale is essentially a straight away hole with a green and surrounds that borrowed CBM's template bunkering, although, the green wasn't surrounded on three sides by a hazard which is one of the critical features of a Cape Hole.[/color]

And Patrick . . You do realize that I cannot check the drawing in between parapraphs . . . dont you??


You lost me on that one.

But, if you don't have it, get George's book, it's most enlightening.[/color]

[TEPaul]

"Contrary to popular opinion, I am no fool."

I think I'll just stick with the ever increasing popular opinion on here and pretty much totally discount what you seem to say about yourself.

"You are familiar with Yale, right?  Does its cape feature a diagonal carry?"

Wrong:

I've never seen Yale despite Geoff Childs constantly telling me I've got to get up there to see it. And unlike people like you and Tom MacWood I tend to not express any opinion on holes and courses I've never seen. And what I certainly don't do and never will is argue with people for days on end about holes they know well and I have never even seen.

It's not architectural truth and clarity you're looking for. All you're looking for is to continue arguing with anyone and everyone on here.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I don't mind arguing with David.

I think he brings up some interesting issues and questions that make us delve deeper into the origins of architecture rather than just accept everything that's been written, on blind faith.

I am, however, waiting with great anticipation, for him to advance the premise that Seminole is FLAT

[Paul_Turner]

Can't see the 2nd at Yale being a "Cape" at all.

[TEPaul]

"I am, however, waiting with great anticipation, for him to advance the premise that Seminole is FLAT  

Patrick:

I'm quite sure you won't need to wait long for him to advance something as equally preposterous as that.

[Bryan Izatt]

Tom,

Re the 5th at MOC, you wrote:

"I think the hole today is something like 440 from the tips which makes it around a hundred yards longer than the kind of cape hole description Tillinghast was using and the type of description that Green Section bulletin drawing and description posted above was using and basically the kind of hole the original NGLA's #14 was."

I'm always curious about reputed legth on dogleg holes, so I measured it.  The card says it's 433 from the tips and 373 from the red (second from the front, third from the back) tees.  As you'll see from the following picture (which hopefully won't disappear into the ether), the only way they can get 433 out of it is to have the tips back and parallel with the middle left (right in the picture) of the 4th green.  Where were the tees when you played it?



From where I measured it, it requires a 210 yard drive and 163 yard second.  If more of the lake is cut off, say with a 250 yard drive to the middle of the fairway, you're left with a 120 second shot.  However, if you push a 250 yard drive out to the right edge of the fairway, the second becomes 150 with a more open look, but a worse angle to approach to the green topology.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bryan,

An original tee was just below the bridge in the picture you posted, near the ligthly shaded green grass.

I'd be curious to know the carry distances from that point, as well as the hole's overall length from that point

[Bryan Izatt]

Pat,

Do you mean in the middle of the triangle formed by the path?  Or further down the path toward the water, near the bridge?  The tees are not very clear on the aerial.  And carry to which point?

[Bryan Izatt]

For comparative purposes here's the picture of the old 14th at NGA from the M&W article.  The carry is not daunting by modern standards, either left or right.  M&W seemed to focus on the psychological effects of the water to the right.  In any event, the angle to the green doesn't seem much better whether you go left or right off the tee, unless the concept was to drive the ball 315 yards or so, to be parallel to the green.

The hole looks strikingly angular to me compared to any current version of any cape hole.



In looking at it, it strikes me that the 15 at the Teeth of the Dog looks somewhat similar (absent the forced carry of the tee, and a bit more run out room behind the green).  Perhaps Dye was inspired by CBM (design credit request coming?).

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Do you mean in the middle of the triangle formed by the path?  Or further down the path toward the water, near the bridge?  

Further down the path, near the water.

The tees are not very clear on the aerial.  

It's a light green patch

And carry to which point?

To points that would leave you in the middle of the fairway 100, 150 and 200 yards from the green.   What's the distance to those points and what's the carry on the line to those points ?

Thanks

[Bryan Izatt]

Pat,

Do you mean in the middle of the triangle formed by the path?  Or further down the path toward the water, near the bridge?  

Further down the path, near the water.

The tees are not very clear on the aerial.  

It's a light green patch

The total yardage from that point is about 320 yards playing to the centre line of the fairway.  That's got to be the forward tee according to the card.

And carry to which point?

To points that would leave you in the middle of the fairway 100, 150 and 200 yards from the green.   What's the distance to those points and what's the carry on the line to those points ?

Distance to green         100               150               200

Drive required               215              170               120

Carry on that line          135              125                65

I added 10 yards to the distance from the edge of the water to achieve a safer carry distance.

Thanks

You're welcome

[Phil_the_Author]

David,

Regarding my answer about #12 at WFW you asked, "But I still wonder why you think he thought it was a risk-reward hole.  By the way he described it (as you quoted) doesnt it sound like he viewed it as a three shot hole?"

Yes, it was a short three-shotter, but long hitters could gamble and go for it in two. The original tee box is much further right and lower than what most see as the fairway today. With the new tees pushed back into Maine at some 660+ yards, the original one up at the 480 mark seems far out of todays line of play.

That is why Tilly wrote that playing down the right worked well for most players as they would have hit it on top to where the left side of today's fairway runs. This would cut down on drive distance and increase the risk/reward option.

You also asked, "Also, just to be sure, are you saying that the fairway does not bend pretty close to the green.  The reason I ask is that in the aerial, while it is very rounded now, it looks like there used to be much more room on the left, Was it ever more of a pronounced dogleg."

The turn of the fairway is far less than an overhead would have one believe from how it looks and plays on the ground. Still, it isn't that a bend isn't there as much as the green angles back and away in combination with a slight bend. The bottom line though is that 2 well-played shots down the right side in Tilly's day would leave a 50 to 80 yard third shot directly to the green through an entrance that is completely devoid of any hazard encroachment.

That is why the hole is unique in its type as it only plays as a cape when one gambles and decides to play for it in two swings from the tee.

[TEPaul]

“Tom, I hate to burst your bubble, but my interest in cape holes and golf architecture has nothing to do with you or Wayne.”

David Moriaty:

It doesn’t? Than why did you put this in the first post of this thread?





“But Wayne and TEPaul apparently do not understand Macdonald’s basic concept, and are unfortunately letting their misunderstanding distort their views on many of our great courses.*

*Wayne and TEPaul, not only disagree, they get so riled up that they cannot even respond without expressing their contempt, as if the notion of Wilson or Flynn being influenced by the cape is sacrilege.  They dismiss even the suggestion of a similarity between Macdonald’s cape concept and Merion 10 as “awful,” “spurious,” “utter nonsense,” based on “shabby research”  and “flawed analysis” (Wayne) and “far-fetched,” “uninformed,” “mind-bending,” “crap.” (TePaul)”

”Here's hoping that they can set their vitriol, rudeness, and sarcasm aside on this thread, or at least be civil enough to stay away.”

[Bill Gayne]

Bill Gayne,

Thanks for posting the photographs.   But that first hole would not be a cape hole if we require both elements, would it?  
________________________________  

David,

It's the hole on the upper right of the attached picture with the two bunkers by the green. I think this was a green that they actually had to move back due to damage from sea spray. So there may be a timimng difference in the two photos.

[TEPaul]

“TEPaul
I was accurately describing Wayne's and your comments on the Riviera thread, the comments to which I was responding.”

David Moriarty:

If you wanted to start a new thread it would have been a far better idea to leave Wayne and my comments on the Riviera thread rather than bringing them onto the opening post of this one. When you bring remarks like these below onto the first post of this thread it’s no different than just continuing to post on the Riviera thread.

"Wayne and TEPaul, not only disagree, they get so riled up that they cannot even respond without expressing their contempt, as if the notion of Wilson or Flynn being influenced by the cape is sacrilege.  They dismiss even the suggestion of a similarity between Macdonald’s cape concept and Merion 10”

Wayne and I have no problem at all comparing the similarity of golf holes. What we have a problem with is your implication that because of the look and play of Merion’s 10th and PVGC’s #12 that means they should be attributed to Macdonald because he influenced those two holes. We feel that implication would probably have been quite a surprise to Merion's Wilson and Flynn and to PVGC's George Crump. It probably would have been more of a shock to Crump as he had an iteration two hole later that really was a close conceptual copy of Macdonald's 14th at NGLA.

But having said that one also needs to look very carefully at both when, how and why that PV cape iteration was arrived at. The fact is that hole was essentially an iteration that had to connect to hole iterations immediately before it and immediately after it. It may not have been that Crump just decided to create a copy of NGLA's Cape hole in a "clear clay" situation.

If I were you I'd just overlook that last paragraph entirely. It's far too sophisticated and complex for one such as you who is just now beginning to scratch the surface of golf architectural understanding. For you to even attempt to understand that paragraph you would need experience in the art and science of routing first.

[BCrosby]

Brian -

I'm not sure where you got the back tee location for your measurement of the Cape at Mid-O. Last time I played it the back tee was well to the left of the tee you show (i.e. to the left and somewhat behind the 4th green). There is a smooth oblong area that shows that tee.

Do your measurement from there. I'm curious to see the number.

Bob

[Patrick_Mucci]

quote author=DMoriarty link=board=1;threadid=27682;start=70#msg528282 date=1169880370]

Patrick,

I looked at page 123, and I still don't agree.  

Than rereview the drawing.[/color]

There is a diagonal carry (only a 120 to 150 yard diagonal carry according to Macdonald), but we knew that without looking at the drawing.  

David, you're confused.

The carries start at 100 yards and go all the way to 290 yards, depending upon how much the golfer wants to "bite off" with their tee shot.

Length is a critical factor, since the ideal DZ to approach the green from is at about 260, which would require a carry of 240+.  Carries of that length were routinely impossible in 1911.

Hence, the critical factor in the play of the hole was the position that would maximize the angle of attack into the green, a green surrounded on three sides by water.

While you might not think that carries of 150, 175 and 200 aren't significant, they sure were in 1911.  200 would be a most heroic carry.

Looking at the diagram, and I suspect that Bryan's posting may be of a plasticine model rather than an actual aerial of the hole, a carry of 100 yards would leave the golfer in a terrible DZ with respect to approaching the green.

It should also be noted that the terrain slopes precipitously from high left to low right, making carry, even though it may have been far left, very important to the play of the hole.

But, playing too far left created disastrous results as deep bunker and high mounds made the approach blind.

The placement of the tee shot, especially with length was THE critical "play" component of the hole.

The drive presented on the 14th, the Cape at NGLA, original or current, in no way resembles the drive presented on the 10th at Merion. [/color]

Have you read what George wrote, or do you just like the pictures?  

I like the pictures, but, I don't necessarily accept everything that George writes as The Gospel.

Take for example, the picture of the 14th green, on the bottom of page 122.  Look at the caption for that picture.
It clearly states that the photo is of the original Cape Green at NGLA.  Yet, you'll notice that it's not surrounded on three (3) sides by water.  In fact, it appears that NO water is directly behind the green (to the left in the photo), which is in stark contrast to the drawing on page 123.

So, here we have a photo of the original green and a drawing of the original hole.  Yet, the photo doesn't seem to support the drawing.  Wouldn't you agree.  And, wouldn't you therefore agree that the photos are proof, and cast doubt on the theory that a "CAPE" hole has to be classified as such, solely in the context of the green and its surrounds ?

I suspect that the configuration of the original green and its surrounds is not that much different from the current green and its surrounds.

The photo of the ORIGINAL green on page 122 refutes your definition, and that of the alleged quote by CBM and HW, of what constitutes a "cape" hole and places more emphasis on the drive and what the drive faces as being one of, if not THE critical determining factor in classifying a hole as a Cape hole.[/color]
 

Macdonald tells us why the hole is called the cape:

"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."

But, the photographic evidence REFUTES that claim.

This wouldn't be the first time that CBM contradicted himself.
I've pointed out other occassions as well.

The photographic evidence is indisputable.[/color]

According to Bahto not all capes have a diagonal carries,


Where does he say that ?
What he said was that not all cape greens extend into water[/color]

but I do not know Macdonald's courses so I cannnot say.

Bahto uses Yale as an example,

NO, he doesn't.
He states that the "GREEN" is considered a cape green even though there's no water near the putting surface.
He states that there are more Cape "greens" that don't jut into the water and that cape "greens" can jut into marsh, sand or another hazard.

When Bahto describes # 2 at Yale, he states that it's
"Green natural to the right - but, SIMILAR to Cape overall."

He further quotes Charles Banks description of the hole/green.

 "In general the green can be considered a "Cape SETTING", jutting out, seemingly into the mid-air, rather than out into a body of water"

To be technically correct, the 2nd at Yale ISN"T a Cape hole, but, rather a hole with a "Cape like Green".
That is, if you're to believe Banks and his understanding of CBM and SR, and one's own understanding of what constitutes a "Cape" hole[/color]

but his drawing of the Lido shows no diagonal carry.  Likewise, Macdonald's model of the course doesnt show a diagonal carry.  

David, that's incorrect.  The routing plan at Lido shows two distinct lines of play from the tee.  One directly for the green and the other in the middle of the fairway.  The hole was 278 yards and was probably measured thru the mid-points of the fairway, meaning that it played much shorter, directly at the green.  And, the green WASN'T surrounded on three sides by water.  In fact, it doesn't appear to have been surrounded on any side by water.

You're view is one of form versus substance.
Just because a hole is branded or called a Cape, doesn't make it a "cape" hole.  The name used to describe the hole was probably derived from the structure and configuration of the green and its surrounds, ala Yale.[/color]

In his 1915 Golf Illustrated article, Macdonald wrote that the Lido's Cape Hole drive would be more technical than that at NGLA, but he does not mention a diagonal carry.

He doesn't have to.
One look at the routing plan tells you that there were several avenues of play one of which was a direct diagonal to the green, ala NGLA.

Just because he doesn't mention something doesn't mean it didn't exist.   Only a lawyer would try that one.[/color]

Whatever our thoughts on the issue today, Tillinghast, Flynn, and our mystery author from the Green Section all focus on on the cape green concept.  

There's a reason for that.

It has to do with topographic opportunity.

The opportunity presented itself at Mid-Ocean, it didn't at a number of other sites.

Since CBM, SR and CB were into template designs, replicating the terrain at the 14th at NGLA could be an impossible task, especially if water wasn't present.

But, replicating a green and its surrounds was easy.
They were experts at that.

Hence, they replicated what was feasable, what was affordable, and what would still produce a recognizable feature that would allow the club to name the hole "Cape"  And that occured at the green end, that's what enabled the holes to be named such, due to their "Cape Like" greens.

The green became the focal point, in elevation, cant and surrounds because they were easy to replicate, whereas, it was probably impossible to replicate the large body of water, shoreline and non-green components of the hole[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul, Wayne and David,

You're all good guys.

But, you can't approach every exchange at swords point.

It's not good for any of you, and it doesn't further the best interests of the site.

Stop sniping at each other and stick to the issues.
Snipe at each others ideas and theories and not each other.

Sometimes we all say things in the heat of battle or in a fit of anger.  And we usually come to regret it later.  
As my father told me, once the words pass from your lips, you can't retract them, so measure them carefully.

Whatever has been said or implied or infered, make amends, say, I"m sorry I got carried away, I made a mistake, I'll try not to do it again and go back to being civil, and on topic.

All three of you are great contributors to this site and I hate to see you get mired in personal jousts at the expense of valueable and informative posts.

If you need to pick on someone, pick on me.

That's three against one.

So, you'll need to get more help.

If I can have my ex-wife over to my house for an enjoyable Christmas dinner, you guys should be able to get along as well.

Just don't ask me about the seating arrangements.

[TEPaul]

"TomPaul
Thanks for your advice on what I should and should not include in my posts, but I think I have it under control.
Where exactly did I say that Merion 10 or Pine Valley 12 should be attributed to Macdonald???  
I said no such thing."  


Thank you for making that clear. You are making that clear, aren't you?

[TEPaul]

If holes such as Merion's #10 and PV's #12 are to be considered "cape" like, they would much more appropriately fit into Tillinghast's definition of a cape hole and not Macdonald's definition of a cape hole.

And I certainly wouldn't call a "diagonal" a "corner". They are two quite different things.

I also would not call the green on Mid Ocean's #5 a "cape" like green. The essence of that green is that it is canted right to left and requires an entirely different strategic consideration from the tee than a hole like Merion's #10 or Pine Valley's #12 or even NGLA's old #14, or present #14. The whole tee shot strategy is to play the tee shot as long as possible and as close to the water on the left as possibe for the best angle up into the right to left cant of that green.

[Patrick_Mucci]

David, you're confused.

The carries start at 100 yards and go all the way to 290 yards, depending upon how much the golfer wants to "bite off" with their tee shot.

Length is a critical factor, since the ideal DZ to approach the green from is at about 260, which would require a carry of 240+.  Carries of that length were routinely impossible in 1911.

Which is why I am not confused.  The diagonal carry was from about 100 (Macdonald said 120) to about 150, and then the land turns the other direction and the next carry point is at around 250, which was out of their range in 1911.

So the diagonal carry was 150 or shorter.

That's not incosequential in 1911[/color]

Hence, the critical factor in the play of the hole was the position that would maximize the angle of attack into the green, a green surrounded on three sides by water.

Which is what I have been saying all along.

While you might not think that carries of 150, 175 and 200 aren't significant, they sure were in 1911.  200 would be a most heroic carry.

There was no carry possibility of 175 or 200.  Unless one hit I giant hook out over the water and coming back in sideways.

The placement of the tee shot, especially with length was THE critical "play" component of the hole.

I agree, which is why George and I (and apparently you) argue that the risk/reward factor we usually associate with diagonal carries should not be considered the defining factor.  

It was a critical element since a carry of 150 yards, into the wind, in heavy air near the sea was no easy task.[/color]

This hole was not about cutting the corner to gain an advantage, it was about correct position to gain an advantage.

It's the same thing, up to a critical point where carry was no longer possible.

Don't forget, with the land sloping significantly toward the water, carry is just about reaching the margin of the water, it's about reaching a point in the fairway where your ball, when bouncing and following the terrain wouldn't go back into the water.

As Bryan said, you have to add a good 10 yards to your carry distances as just making it to the land was hardly sufficient to insure your ball remained dry.[/color]
 

The drive presented on the 14th, the Cape at NGLA, original or current, in no way resembles the drive presented on the 10th at Merion.

True.  But they both had "cape" greens, and position off the tee was critical in both holes.

I disagree with the classification of # 10 as a true cape green.
Merion's 10th lacks THE differential in elevation associated with CBM's, SR's or CB's "Cape" greens.  It's virtually flush with the fairway and surrounding terrain.

I believe that Bahto indicated, based on the writings of Banks, that "Cape" holes/greens that don't jut into the water have dramatically built-up escarpments.   Yet, those features are absent at the 10th at Merion.  Bahto further indicates that when water was lacking, CBM and SR built their "Cape" greens as a TERRACE, seemingly jutting out into mid-air.
No such configuration exists at Merion's 10th.

While one could say that the 10th green at Merion is almost entirely surrounded by bunkering and that it's offset from the fairway, I don't believe that the offset is of the true nature of a "Cape" green as conceived and designed by CBM and his followers.

The reason I say that is because approaches from the middle of the fairway at # 10 at Merion, from 50, 90 and 170 yards must be mostly, if not entirely aerial, and that was NOT a feature of the "Cape" green.

In order to have an unencombered approach at # 10 at Merion, the golfer has to drive the ball "green high", and that's not the case with any of CBM's, SR's or CB's "Cape" holes.[/color]

The cape green was the original concept that Macdonald came up with, and it was the cape green concept that Wilson, Flynn, and Tillinghast, and probably others adopted into their designs.

Rather than make a general pronouncement, could you cite specific holes where you think this is the case.

In addition, the elements in Bahto's categorization of a "Cape" green include the following:

GREEN:  Undulating, often with a banked, high side approach.

Merion's 10th has neither[/color]

[TEPaul]

"Can you explain to me the difference between Macdonald's original concept of a cape green, and Tillinghast's?"

To understand the difference the best thing for you to do is simply look up their own written definitions of a cape hole and concentrate on the exact words they use.    

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,

If you wanted to say that the 10th at Merion is a pseudo cape or has some of the characteristics of a cape, I think that would be an accurate statement.

But, calling it a true "Cape" is inaccurate IMO.

As to WF, AWT and HIW using CBM's Cape principles, I'd rather examine your premise on a hole specific basis.

Thanks.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()