Cape Kidnappers

[Eric_Terhorst]

I just wonder if the penal elements at #15 at CK override all other strategic 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.

Matt, if you can "work the ball" against the pitch why should this be a problem?

EDIT:  Matt says 15 at CK is a mickey-mouse hole.  On another thread he says that some holes ought to be designed to be played best by those who can "work the ball."  To me this hole looks like an example potentially of the latter.  If the wind is blowing across the hole, you may best play it by working the ball against the wind.  Downwind, best to hit it high and straight (on day 1, O'Hair hit his 2nd shot, a 5 iron, through the green from over 280).  Upwind, play under the wind.  What clubs you choose is immaterial, you're just trying to find a way to make a 5 or better and avoid disaster. 

Matt, it seems to me this hole fits your ideal of requiring the best of a great ball-striker....

[Alex Miller]

Who says there's pitch? Watching it on TV it looked pretty damn flat up there, certainly enough not to have to work the ball. Just my observations

[DMoriarty]

Matt, How many times have you played Cape Kidnappers.  You aren't "arm-chair quarterbacking" are you?

[David Kelly]

I haven't played CK as I chose to go to Tasmania and play Barnbougle instead when I was down there but since Wolf Creek was brought up I just wanted to use this opportunity to say again that Wolf Creek in Mesquite is a joke. 

[Leo Barber]

I've played the 15th a number of times now but alas have not been able to tame it.  The last effort I had the southerly coming off my right shoulder and played it driver 7i 7i - the first 7i not wishing to be greedy and to keep it in play for a comfortable 150 yards to the green.  Nothing comfortable though about the last 400 yards!! The approach shot is more mental than anything and is tough to judge because you are normally battling a breeze with the green looking like its perched in suspension on the edge of the world.  The recovery shot is not for the faint hearted either!!

[Cristian]

I've played the 15th a number of times now but alas have not been able to tame it.  The last effort I had the southerly coming off my right shoulder and played it driver 7i 7i - the first 7i not wishing to be greedy and to keep it in play for a comfortable 150 yards to the green.  Nothing comfortable though about the last 400 yards!! The approach shot is more mental than anything and is tough to judge because you are normally battling a breeze with the green looking like its perched in suspension on the edge of the world.  The recovery shot is not for the faint hearted either!!

Nice photo!

How much money were you playing for? ;-)

What does everybody think of the suggestion to create a band of semi-rough to stop balls rolling OB? Also it would provide a fairly easy recovery and tempt more people into hitting wood or driver rather than iron of the Tee.

[David Mihm]

Really an interesting thread here, thanks to Rob for highlighting it for me.  I did not see the coverage on NBC but was fortunate to play Kidnappers when I visited NZ in 2004. 

Regarding the controversy on 15 -- Tom is absolutely right, the hole was totally worth building, it was absolutely memorable, and 90% of the people who play Kidnappers aren't going to care about their score.  I played on a calm day and believe I played the hole something like driver-4 iron-4 iron into about a club and a half or two club wind.  It perhaps asks for a bit too much on a day when it plays into the wind.  You definitely don't want any more than 4-iron on your 2nd shot, and although the hole wasn't a perfect width, the green site is truly "at the end of the world."

To be honest, though, I found the rest of the course to be a bit on the bland side.  The front nine was relatively unmemorable, with the exception of #6.  I found #10 thrilling and the subtle green complex to be one of the most enjoyable.  #17 was also an exciting 2nd shot.  But in general I thought as a golf course, PacDunes offers far more inspiring HOLES whereas the vistas at CK are really the essence of the course.  There weren't a lot of tee shots that I would characterize as thrilling, I think partly because the fairways are SO wide.  Although there was great variety in the distance of the holes, there didn't seem to be a lot of variety visually, or in the recovery shots around the greens that I enjoy playing so much at Pac.  I probably would have a hard time recognizing it as a Doak course if his name weren't on the scorecard...not that I would confuse it for a Nicklaus or RTJ either...

Perhaps it is catering to a different clientele than Pac, but at least from the photos I suspect that most fans of GCA would enjoy Barnbougle more than CK?

[Jud_T]

Aside from the bickering about the merits of 15, It's great to see a tournament at a Doak course...I was more interested in seeing the course and what the TV guys had to say about it than in who won the tournament.  Can't wait for the Women's Open at Sebonack!! 

[Tom_Doak]

David:

Well, that's the first time I've heard Cape Kidnappers called "bland".  I guess there's a first time for everything!  You are probably right that most people would prefer Barnbougle, because it's got the classic linksy contours which most people here enjoy.  The ground at Cape Kidnappers is just a tilted plain (with the deep eroded valleys coming back into the plain, creating the "fingers" everyone talks about).  There is not a lot of undulation in most fairways on the back nine, whereas on the front nine most of them dip into the heads of the valleys.  But that's one thing I like about Cape Kidnappers -- it's not just another links course, it's really not like anyplace else, and I think that's why it winds up so high in the rankings.  (That, and it's an absolutely first-class operation in every respect.)

Adam:

You are criticizing Matt's judgment of the course but YOU haven't been there either.  And your speculation is incorrect ... the fairway area of the 15th is about as flat as it could be, as is the rough to the left.  (The rough to the right works off the top of the bank and starts down toward the trees.)  We DID consider less fairway and more rough to keep the ball on top, as someone suggested, but even that doesn't help much when you are landing a 320-yard tee shot on a hard surface!

Brett:

Cape Kidnappers is NOT rocky ... I never saw a rock there.  There's about eight inches of topsoil over a very weird subsoil that we think is some sort of volcanic material.  It is HIGHLY erodable and that's why those valleys between the holes are so deep ... the valleys actually come to a V point at the bottom.  Most of the land is tilted toward the ocean at 2 to 4 percent, and sometimes tilted to one side or the other just a bit.  The only drainage pipe on the course is under the greens and bunkers ... for everything else we relied on surface drainage to one of the valleys, sometimes requiring some subtle reshaping to get it to drain.  On #15 where we did do some subtle work we tried to get the water off to the right, so we wouldn't take a chance of the cliff face eroding further.  A little bit of the cliff face along that edge collapsed a year or two after we built the course, which is why it's fenced off!

[Michael Dugger]

Sounds like Ward's pissed anytime you take the driver out of his hand.

Nobody said they couldn't hit driver, and they did.  The margin for error was minimal, however....

[DMoriarty]

Matt

I'm confused about something.  Weren't you an ardent defender of Wolf Creek No. 8? 

[Matt_Ward]

Tom D:

Appreciate your follow-up post as per the hole -- you are right -- the land / playing conditions determine so much of the strategy used. Whether one uses driver or decides to pull out the putter. If I ever get to CK I'll be fascinated by my personal reaction when playing the hole.

David M:

In case you missed it -- I said it upteen times previously that I have not played the course and I have freely admitted to never having played there. My comments are limited and I have said as much. I don't doubt that those who only view courses from TV or photos are in an inferior position when held against those who have played the course(s). I understand that completely -- others may not.

I simply responded to what I saw on TV and from what Tom D mentioned about the penal nature of the hole -- deadsville left and hazard pinching up the right. My issue dealt with the actual width of the fairway grass itself. If the hole is less than 40 yards across with fairway grass and there is a real firm and fast conditions then the effective width of the fairway becomes even more narrower.

When you get the narrow nature coupled with fierce winds that can play it can make for some interesting situations -- witness the playing of the hole in the afternoon round and when they playoff started. I just wonder how the Joe Sixpacks will handle the hole -- clearly for many the fun factor will outweigh all other considerations -- whether they can valid or not.

In regards to the 8th at Wolf Creek -- the elastic playability nature of the hole has been stated many times before -- and I have answered that playability is there provided the players recognize the challenge presented and choose the appropriate tee to play from. Those who follow that advice will enjoy what it offers. Those who opt to ignore it do so at their own peril -- and rightly so I might add.

Eric:

I simply made observations from what I saw on TV -- clearly I am in the bleachers when compared to others who have been there. No doubt the wind element can make the situation in working the ball extremely demanding -- even for the best of players.

The issue becomes is there sufficient width in the fairway area -- the fairway grass only -- for the hole to be played in a wide variety of circumstances? I don't know how wide the actual fairway area is but again just from TV alone -- it looked fairly narrow given the fast and firm conditions present.

I agree with you that having players under such tough conditions -- either headwind or severe crosswinds -- can be what the doctor ordered for the extremely gifted ball striker. In the playoff neither O'Hair or Kim delivered.

David K:

In regards to your comments on Wolf Creek being a "joke" - so be it. As I have said many times before -- those who are lovers of classic design type courses will likely pan the place. So be it -- for them. I would urge such folks not to go there. Those who want to have a different style presentation for golf will find the course be quite entertaining and fun. Different strokes for different folks.

[DMoriarty]

In regards to the 8th at Wolf Creek -- the elastic playability nature of the hole has been stated many times before -- and I have answered that playability is there provided the players recognize the challenge presented and choose the appropriate tee to play from. Those who follow that advice will enjoy what it offers. Those who opt to ignore it do so at their own peril -- and rightly so I might add.

What I don't understand is why you don't seem to apply this well-worn position to the hole at Cape Kidnappers?

[Matt_Ward]

David:

The issue I raised was the overall width of the fairway -- what tee one plays will not matter as much if the fairway grass area is less than 40 yards and you have mega fast and firm conditions included -- balls not played to a precise location can then roll off to either sides if caution is not used. For the Joe Sixpacks of this world the length of the hole is not short when played unless you are at the 500 or 530 tee positions -- however -- from the club Website it indicates the fairway is quite wide until you get to the 274 yard mark where it necks down.

The 8th at WC is a par-3 and provides a 160-yd shot from an elevated tee to a green in full view. The hole changes dramatically when played from either of the two rear tee position.

Maybe just maybe -- the pros simply coughed it up when they played it the second time around and in the playoff ?

[Pete Lavallee]

I watched the final round telecast last night. During Julian Roberton's cameo appearance on the 17th hole, were my eyes deceiving me or was that Golf's Most Beloved Figure standing next to him with the blue shades?

[David Mihm]

Thanks for all the responses, everyone.  As a "newbie" on this forum I am still trying to figure out the best way to keep up!

Tom, I particularly appreciate your direct response.  I think perhaps a better way to say it (bland was probably too generic a word) is that at Kidnappers I remember the general experience of the day -- you're right that it is an absolutely first-class operation...wonderfully understated -- without remembering the individual holes the way I do/did after playing Pacific Dunes.  This could totally be a personal reaction to the type of holes I respond to...it must have been tough to route 18 holes in and out of the valleys as you say but I didn't think there was as much quirkiness/distinctiveness to the holes compared to what I've seen in photos of some of your other courses, and with what I've played at Pac. I hold your work in very high esteem in general, and some of the holes didn't have the dramatic flair that I was (perhaps unreasonably) expecting.  The understated nature of the holes fits well with the experience, however.

Matt, I'm not one to criticize armchair architects who haven't played some of the world's great courses...I am in that camp myself.  I was simply responding that in my view, having played the hole, I'd rather make 8 there and have played the hole than not have it built.  I would imagine that that opinion is shared by most Joe Sixpacks.  To be honest, I don't remember exactly where the hole really began to narrow, but let's say it's at the 275 yard mark.  I'd say if you allowed people to hit a 225 yard tee shot to get to that point +40 or 50 yards, that would be more than fair, which would make it 530.  Even Joe Sixpacks can get home from 325ish with a couple of 5-irons... 

Regardless, it is a tough hole but the game of golf would be worse for it had it not been built.  Visually it captures the imagination of casual observers like few others in the world.

For those that have played both, how would you compare CK to Old Head?  Have not played Old Head but sites seem comparable?

[Tom_Doak]

David:

I can make that comparison because at one time I did routings for Old Head, too.  But I hate the comparison because when you take away the clifftops, I don't think Old Head has many interesting golf features, and naturally I think Cape Kidnappers does.

The main difference though is simply ACREAGE.  There was barely room for 18 holes to squeeze onto the Old Head, so that some holes are just hanging over the edges, and the holes in the middle of the peninsula have no redeeming qualities.  In contrast, there's not a hole at Cape Kidnappers that doesn't touch on an interesting natural feature ... the only one that's close is #2, and it has some of the best fairway contours on the whole course.

[George Pazin]

For reasons only long time posters with elephant's memories of posters' respective positions can truly appreciate, this thread really put a smile on my face. Just absolutely unbelievable. You could rotate the names on people's posts and probably find out it was exactly duplicated long ago about some other course. Thanks for the laugh!

I hope I can make it to CK one day, but I fear my own psychological shortcomings may mean I may not be able to actually complete a round of golf. It sure does look awesome in HD, though.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

In retrospect, is there anything you would do differently with respect to the design and/or construction of the golf course ?

Same question for Sebonack

Now that you've seen and played the finished products, from a fine tuning perspective, what would you have changed ?

[Adam Clayman]

Adam:

You are criticizing Matt's judgment of the course but YOU haven't been there either.  

WTF?

Tom, If you could point out where on this thread, that I criticized Matt, I'll pay you your entire staff's salary, for a week, for each instance where I did.

Are you saying the edges of the corridor don't slope away to each side? 

[Kenny Baer]

For reasons only long time posters with elephant's memories of posters' respective positions can truly appreciate, this thread really put a smile on my face. Just absolutely unbelievable. You could rotate the names on people's posts and probably find out it was exactly duplicated long ago about some other course. Thanks for the laugh!

I hope I can make it to CK one day, but I fear my own psychological shortcomings may mean I may not be able to actually complete a round of golf. It sure does look awesome in HD, though.

I think CK looks awesome to say the least, last year I started a thread asking why it wasn't one of the top 10 in the world, I see that kind of potential. 

Asking for someone to hit 3 great shots to reach a green on a par 5 is something that I personally think there is too little of in GCA, especially for the best players in the world.  Even the toughest of par 5's typically require only 1 perfectly struck shot to reach the green, #15 at CK ask you to hit 3, many par 4's ask you to hit 2, why is having a par 5 that ask you to hit 3 not a good thing, especially since it is only done 1x during the round?  If all 3 or 4 par 5's required the same thing I would see it as a weakness.

#14 is everything that is right with Golf Arch.  I was watching the telecast with my Dad and explaining why it was such a great hole, I think it maybe one of if not the best short 4's in the world.

George,

The one person whom I have spoken with who has played Cape Kidnappers (he is a member of New South Wales) said that in person it is not near as "scary" as it appears.  He said one of the main recollections he had of the course other than the spectacular views was the width and links like charchter of CK.

[Leo Barber]

Nice photo!

How much money were you playing for? ;-)

What does everybody think of the suggestion to create a band of semi-rough to stop balls rolling OB? Also it would provide a fairly easy recovery and tempt more people into hitting wood or driver rather than iron of the Tee.

Haha, yeah it was a bit like that.  Two brothers playing for $10 a hole, but knowing the bragging rights were worth much more!  Think I won the 15th with a 7 and then parred 2 of the last three to square the match.

[Carl Nichols]

Tom D:
Picking up on Mike Malone's thread about Friars Head, what attributes of the design at Cape Kidnappers (if any) would you describe as new and unique?  

[Edited to note that Mike's thread was about FH, not NGLA]

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick M:

Anytime I second-guess myself in public, I set off a chain reaction with clients and golf writers and posters here ... I even managed to do it earlier in this thread while telling someone why I was glad I HADN'T done something differently.  So I'm not going to go there.  I like Cape Kidnappers just the way it is ... and Sebonack already has plenty of second-guessers on the team.

George:

I'm scared of heights myself, but as long as you don't go within four feet of the cliff edges in three spots at Cape Kidnappers, you'll have no problem at all.

Carl N:

I rarely describe anything I do as "new and unique," because there is a long history of golf architecture and you can find a precursor for most anything if you look hard enough.

The main thing about Cape Kidnappers that most people don't see (even when they are there) is that the design is fairly subtle, in contrast to the spectacular location.  There is a ton of short grass around the greens, and there are not a lot of obvious tiers and contours IN the greens ... but all of them work with the natural 2 to 4 percent slope of the property, so that on the holes going out toward the ocean the green is usually sloping AWAY from you, and you are better off missing LONG than short.  There is always a better side to miss on, and usually it's the scary-looking side.

My friend Tom Ramsey from Australia is still the first and only person to compliment me on those greens ... most people don't even notice them, because the rest of the place is so spectacular.

We also don't generally point out that there are a handful of holes there where we did a TON of earthwork ... melting down the tabletop of the fairway or green and filling up a very deep valley so it would be walkable and playable, as on holes 4 and 5 and 7 and 9 and the start of 16 fairway.  We've done similar things on a couple of other courses, but this was 5x the scale of the others.

[John Moore]

The one person whom I have spoken with who has played Cape Kidnappers (he is a member of New South Wales) said that in person it is not near as "scary" as it appears.  He said one of the main recollections he had of the course other than the spectacular views was the width and links like charchter of CK.

I was in that back bunker on #14. It was VERY close to the drop off and I was VERY careful getting in and taking my stance. 

It does have plenty of room off the tee  because of the wind but that's also a bit deceiving as it's tempting to just pound the driver on quite a few holes  but that can leave a shorter but very tricky approach due to the challenging green complexes. It's a very compelling design for a resort course, the views alone make one visit special but the endless variety of the wind and the greens make it a course you could play everyday and not be bored.