Cape Kidnappers

[Adam Clayman]

Tom, have you been successful on 15, playing it with a four iron?

I ask because we have a similar type hole here, and no matter how one tries to play it, on any one shot that goes an iota offline, recovery is questionable.

Also,

Making one side OB and the other a LWH seems arbitrary. Is it?

[Rob Rigg]

Hi Tom,

That makes sense - I know that on some course they "choose" to go with that look even though they can mow the rough - but you certainly don't want the guys taking headers into the bunkers on their machinery.

I know that we do not see the entire event on TV, but it is strange because I do not recall seeing anyone blast out of a bunker during the telecast today. It is ironic because on several holes like the 14th, the bunkers really dictate the strategy and they do look very nasty.

I can't remember if any of the guys were in bunkers last year on the telecast either?

I would imagine that amateurs get a real taste for the sand, although on most holes the sledding is tough enough without any additional hazards.

Seeing the elite pros make a meal out of 15 and having driving nightmares on 16 was great!

[Tom_Doak]

Adam:

The OB on 15 is not arbitrary ... they had to put a sheep fence up along that side, because otherwise you would be walking one step from your death looking for a ball in the rough.  If they'd made the fence a lateral hazard, you'd still have the option of finding your ball and hitting it, or falling to your death trying to find it.  But, since that's the way the hole is marked, that's the way those guys should be playing it!  Anthony Kim missed right, O'Hair missed left, so Anthony wins.

And, yes, I've won the hole by hitting 4-irons and 6-irons to get there in 4 and make a bogey.  You're right that it's no cinch to hit a 4-iron on that fairway three times in a row if the wind is really blowing, but it wasn't blowing that hard for the final round this year, as far as I could see.

Rob:

I only saw the last few holes this year, and didn't see any bunker shots other than O'Hair on 14 yesterday (took him two to get out, after his approach just barely got in the bunker, and he had no stance), and Anthony Kim in the back bunker on 15.  But there may have been more, they just tend not to show those shots from the guys that are out of contention.

There really aren't many bunkers on that back nine, anyway ...  I think there are 26 or 27 of them, but #10 only has one at the back left of the green, #12 doesn't have any, and #15 has only the bunkers at the green.  I remember this distinctly because Mr. Robertson thought we should have more bunkers, but I just didn't see any good places to put any ... pretty much all of them are hanging off the edge of the world.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

Whomever named # 15 "gangplank" certainly hit the nail on the head.

How is the sand held in place on the deep, steep bunkers ?

[Ben Cowan-Dewar]

The conditioning of the course was some of the very best I have seen, anywhere. Steve Marsden did a tremendous job and he rightfully basked in the praise this past week.

Camillo said you could simply not hit iron off that tee because it would have been three full blooded 3-irons with no margin for error. In regulation on Sunday he hit one of the greatest shots I have seen, a stinger five-wood that never got more than 10-feet off the ground. After a good drive, that left an 8-iron I think, so the idea that three irons would get you home is simply not realistic.

It was a great event and as for the windy conditions on Saturday, it was certainly playable enough for some golfers.

Camillo's display of hitting wedges off a tee and spinning them back to his feet was unbelievable - that was until he teed up the 5-wood and hit it straight up.

[Tom_Doak]

Camillo said you could simply not hit iron off that tee because it would have been three full blooded 3-irons with no margin for error.

That is, if you insist on trying to reach the green in three.  If you're just trying to make 5 [with one putt] or 6, you can hit irons all day.

For that matter, it was the same on 16, which is just as tough a driving hole in my opinion.  Up until the 230-yard mark the fairway is ridiculously wide, but in the heavy winds just before they called play, all of those guys were trying to smash driver up on the narrow part on top, even though there was no way they were getting home in two.

I'm just contending that there IS  a safe option instead of firing away with driver and claiming the hole is too narrow.  It's just that nobody wants to take the safe option, because they might make bogey.

[Kalen Braley]

I think 15 works based on what I could tell on TV because there was plenty of width to work with otherwise.  It doesn't seem out of line to have a ball buster penal hole where par is a good score and it seems to work given the context of where it is in the routing with 13 being a short par 3, 14 a short par 4, and 16 a short par 5.

Now if it was 18 straight holes of ball busting penal holes, or even the majority of them,  then that would be no fun...

[Tom_Doak]

One thing I didn't mention is that the O.B. fence on 15 which keeps you from falling is further up the hole ... where Kim hit his second shot.  The fence where O'Hair's tee shot went O.B. is only there to keep the sheep from coming up and defecating on the fairways and greens, but I guess it's still O.B. all the way around the cliff edge there. 

Frankly, the grass is so thick down there (because the sheep can't eat it) that it amazed me they found his ball, or Villegas' drive on 16 ... it is so steep there is just no way to mow it except to let the sheep on it, as they used to.  But the sheep like the shorter grass better, so they wouldn't go down there now, anyway.

[Jud_T]

The course looked really cool....That approach Kim hit on 14 was phenomenal...I probably won't get out there for 5-10 years and i'm already squeemish about that tee shot on 15!! 

[Matt_Ward]

Tom:

Got to say this -- when you have a hole that legitmately has a situation where hitting consecutive irons (as many as four!) to play it that's not far from the wind mills / clown's mouth requirements you see with putt putt.

My original question was on just how wide the fairway landing area is? If it's 50-60 yards across with fairway grass then no problem -- the top tier guys should be able to it -- no matter if gale force winds are blowing. However, if the target of fairway grass is less than 40 yards -- with deadsville to the left and a lateral hazard to the right -- then you have a hole that is really straightjacketing the way in which it can be played. I've never played it so my comments are simply those from the deep left field seats.

Tom, you harp on the "safe" play -- but keep in mind it's one that's forced upon them when the driving area is effectively much narrow than what standard play will permit.

In a word I find such "strategy" to be a strained concept on your part ... no offense.

Clearly, the issue is more about when the hole is played into a headwind or heavy crosswinds.

[Jud_T]

 

[Matt_Ward]

Jud:

If you are rationalizing why an architect includes something because a client wanted it -- that doesn't skate 100% free from the essence of what the hole does or does not to -- the architect still has his name attached to it.  Under your thinking -- the premise for the hole lies less with Tom and more with the ownership. Is that your spin ?

I fully comprehend the desire to add a gorgeous moment into the equation. Clearly, the hole does present a controversial side of things. However, when other holes here on GCA have been mentioned that are fairly similar in terms of forving the player to play a certain way -- see previous comments on the par-3 8th hole at Wolf Creek (Mesquite, NV).

I asked before about the width of the fairway area -- if it's 50-60 yards across that's fine with deadsville to the left and a hazard drop on the right. However, if the fairway portion is less than 40 yards then that presents a different matter -- especially when you have f7f conditions that can propel the ball even further to one side or the other. Such holes present a straightjacket formula and if comes down to hitting a series of irons to get to the hole then the concept of elasticity is indeed a very tight one (no pun inteneded) indeed.

[Jud_T]

 

[Kalen Braley]

I thought I'd do a little numerical analysis on the hole using my all-time favorite app Google Earth!! 

I took 13 measurements in total using the aerial as found on Google Earth.  I then divided up the fairway into 5 general sections as shown in the attachment.

Overall the average fairway width was 38.1 yards.  Its widest point came in section 2 at just over 50 yards, its most narrow in section 4 at just over 22 yards.  For sections 1-3, I took 3 measurements at varying spots to calculate an average, and 2 each in sections 4 & 5.

The results:

Section 1s average width was 36.7 yards
Section 2s average width was 45.7 yards
Section 3s average width was 40 yards
Section 4s average width was 24.5 yards
Section 5s average width was 40.5 yards

3 out of the 5 sections averaged 40 or more yards in width and only one section was fairly narrow, #4.  This looks to be a tough hole and based on how much trouble the pros had with it, no doubt it plays hard.  And whiles its true if you miss the fairway by much, you're toast, but it looked like one could afford to have thier ball run into the rough from the fairway and probably be findable/playable.

Overall though,  I'm not seeing anything "unfair" or viscious based on the width of most of the fairway.

[Tom_Doak]

Jud:

Your conclusion in post #36 is ridiculous, and I hope you will take it down, because you read much too much into my thought process detailed earlier.  If my client read your version he would have a fit, and rightly so.


Matt:

Per previous discussions, you choose to critique courses in terms of how you want certain holes to play, without any regard to what the land actually offered.  Never has there been such a clear case as this one.  

That finger of ground is as wide as it is, and it was IMPOSSIBLE to change it with earthwork.  We could either build a hole like the 15th, or a slightly shorter version of the same thing, or not build ANY hole where 15-16-17 now reside.  I chose to build the holes you saw on TV, understanding that some people would consider the 15th to be too penal.  I can live with that; in fact, I would do it again in a minute, because that decision was part of making Cape Kidnappers the best 18 holes we could get.

99% of people who go to Cape Kidnappers are there to play for fun.  And that hole is fun to play.  Most people won't play it with a bunch of iron shots as I suggested ... my suggestion was only aimed at someone who wants to win a match, or who is playing for a million dollars.  I am not calling it a strategic hole, but there are certainly different ways to tackle it depending on what you are trying to accomplish.

I am surprised we are even talking about this, since you have never been there, and I've played the course 20 times.  Isn't that your standard for discussion?

[Adam Clayman]

Kalen, your analysis, even if correct, does not translate to the actual playable width, because, the sides slope away each direction. So, the actual playable width is much much less, especially on such a fine F&F surface as they have at CK. I seem to recall someone saying that one player used a putter for their second shot just to try to stay on the planet.

[Kalen Braley]

Kalen, your analysis, even if correct, does not translate to the actual playable width, because, the sides slope away each direction. So, the actual playable width is much much less, especially on such a fine F&F surface as they have at CK. I seem to recall someone saying that one player used a putter for their second shot just to try to stay on the planet.

Adam,

Good point, it is very possible some of those sections are effectivly more narrow than they look on TV or an aerial.

[JMEvensky]

#15 at CK was the only hole I've ever seen that reminds me of #1 (formerly, #10) at Seven Bridges - the only par 5 I'd previously ever seen that, under calligraphy conditions, I'd play with 3 seven irons.   The difference, of course, is that #15 was superb and #1 is one of the worst holes I've ever seen.

Does calligraphy conditions = keeping score?

[Alex Miller]

Just want to say thanks to Tom D for answering my questions about 15.

Sorry it turned into this...

That said, even if it is a very tough hole, it absolutely does make the course that much more of an achievement. That green and 16's tee showcase parts of CK that give people an extra Wow (probably their 4th or 5th of the day).

Hope to get down there someday to walk the plank. 

[Matt_Ward]

Tom:

A few rebuttals ...

I simply asked questions about the overall width of the hole and from observing it on TV.

I never claimed to know firsthand what the hole is about. Just trying to learn more and question what's been posted. Simple as that.

If you are surprised about the discussion then frankly I am perplexed by your reaction.

First off, I agree with your premise on the bulk of the people who will be playing there is for 100% fun. No doubt about that. Clearly, there is a fun element to the hole and the scenery speaks volumes. I just wonder how much fun it can provide if you have a few people hellbent in playing military golf when there -- left/right, right/left, etc, etc.

Tom, I don't doubt the finger of the land is as wide as it gets -- the issue is whether such a hole can work in such a setting. There has been discussion many times here about holes that were forced upon certain land sites and often times the playability / elasticity protestations ensue. Often I have been the defender of such holes -- see the discussion on Wolf Creek's 8th hole as just one example.

I asked previously about the overall width of the fairway area -- if it's less than 40 yards and when combined with F & F conditions that pitch even slightly to one side the effective width area is even narrower than what is listed. I simply opined that with actual fairway widths closer to 50-60 yards it would leave the hole in a more playable capacity. Again, I freely admit I have never been to the course but the question(s) asked are certainly worthy of discussion -- even if it's one of your designs.

You suggested that if conditions are present that a player -- even a world class player -- might be better off hitting four irons in consecutive fashion then hoping to escape with a one-putt par when playing #15. I disagree and see that as a straighjacket formula.

I will say this again -- I have not played the hole but I am mesmerized by its overall beauty. However, the fingers provided make for a very tight corridor and when heavy winds are blowing -- not out of the ordinary -- it does narrow down the elasticity dimension.

I think of the 11th at Bayside in Nebraska -- the same people made a similar argument there but I found the width dimension for the Nebraska hole to be more forgiving -- clearly no edge of doom to the left like CK's 15th or a lateral hazard that juts in so closely to the right.

I hope to personally play the hole someday -- glad to see the hole play two different ways from their morning round to the one played in the afternoon.

[Cristian]

I haven't been to CK, nor have I been able to see the telecast here in the Netherlands, but I have seen pictures of the course and hole 15 and the discussion here, which I find very interesting.

I am wondering when one talks about the overall width of the hole vs the fairway width, isn't it perhaps better to have a bit more rough and a bit less fairway; the ball will stop quicker in the rough than on a f&f fairway (possibly on its way to OB).

Perhaps it would actually be a good idea to create a band of semi-rough on one (or both ) side(s) to stop the ball from going OB (or into the LWH)?

[Brett Hochstein]

What is the soil type up on those cliffs and throughout the course, and what sort of drainage challenges were/are present?

I am just curious as to the limitations of fescue/colonial.  Based on my understanding of geology (which might be terrible in this case), it would not seem likely that a lot of sand would be present up there and that the rockiness might make for a potentially perched water table in places.  That is at least the case at most cliffside courses in Scotland and California, from what I have seen.

As an aside, what is the heaviest type of soil where you can successfully grow a good stand of fescue/colonial/browntop, with emphasis on fescue?

[Rob Rigg]

Got to say this -- when you have a hole that legitmately has a situation where hitting consecutive irons (as many as four!) to play it that's not far from the wind mills / clown's mouth requirements you see with putt putt.

A mini putt putt reference? Making comments like this about a course that you have not played before?

Matt - Not trying to be confrontational - but I'm surprised that you wrote this based on the Wolf Creek thread and what you have said before about people commenting on courses they have not played.

[Tim_Weiman]

The 15th at Cape Kidnappers wasn't my favorite hole on the course, but I came away feeling like there was a strategy element to the hole. The width and the playing conditions force or encourage the player to make a decision how aggressive to be - in this case it means how many shots it takes to get to the green. Based on my experience there, the number of shots could vary quite a bit.

Chris Hunt, by the way, played the hole with a putter.....quite well if I remember correctly.

[Matt_Ward]

Rob:

I have stated SEVERAL times that my observations are limited because I HAVE NOT played the course.

I freely admit that -- I simply opined with my limitations clearly stated over and over again -- that the sense I get when I hear about people having to play four consecutive irons when certain wind conditions are up to be too straightjacketed in terms of its overall elasticity and even playability. My opinion is without doubt one with a seat in the bleachers as opposed to those who have played there.

Rob, people bitched and moaned about Wolf Creek -- the 8th in a specific sense and a few other holes, but that course was not designed by Tom Doak. Some of these same people may then rave about the 15th at CK even when a death sentence no less than what you see with certain holes at Wolf Creek is very much similar in style.

I just wonder if the penal elements at #15 at CK override all other strageic dimensions. When you have a fairly narrow fairways area and it has any sort of pitch with ultra fast and firm condition you can get all sorts of things happening.

Clearly, Tom believes the 15th is a solid hole -- I'll be very much interested if and when I actually play the course to see what my thoughts are -- both pre and post. Like I said the hole certainly creates a distinct impressions and frankly if a hole can avoid being tagged boring or predictable that's a fairly good statement on its overall qualities.