Dave Moriarty,
I'd agree that a cape hole CAN'T be a par 3.
I'd disqualify Par 5's as well.
Patrick, I understand what you are saying but I don't find hard and fast qualifications or conditions to be all that helpful. Once we do that the discussion becomes purely definitional. I would go so far as to say that I don't think that CBM ever envisioned the cape as a par 3, given that he seemed to think the green ought not to be reachable from the tee. (As for par 5's I am not aware of any but don't know for sure.) So including these holes as "cape holes' stretches the concept further than I am comfortable stretching it.
I think when we start taking about par 3s or par 5s we have to distinguish between a cape green as a feature of a hole, vs. the concept of a cape hole. Surely a green on any hole could stick out into something be surrounded on trouble on three sides, And one could look at the geography and describe the green is a cape (because it fits with the definition of the feature.) But while any cape green might share some of the underlying strategies with a cape it wouldn't necessarily be a cape hole as I understand it, and I don't think it was a cape hole as CBM understood it.
I feel that the diagonal tee shot, that allows the golfer to determine his angle and distance on his approach, is a critical element in classifying a hole as a "Cape" hole.
I don't think so. Some holes (including the two most famous) obviously have it to some degree, but most of the strategic considerations are there whether or not there is a diagonal carry. Looking back through time at the holes, it does seem that there had to be some sort of trouble on the inside, but I am not sure they all had this. George would know.
I think I explained why I don't think the diagonal was required early on in the thread.
Is that element is found in most or all of the CBM "Capes".
SR's ?
CB's ?
I am not expert on either, but I believe that some of both did not have a diagonal carry, at least not as we usually think about it. Yale doesnt. St. Louis doesnt. Links didn't except if someone played well to the outside of the hole (and that one wasnt that long.) Even on the two famous ones the forced diagonal used to be short enough to only apply to a relatively small range of golfers in normal conditions, although the fact that the the diagonals blend into all the the trouble on the inside surely made a difference psychologically.
So while I understand where one might get this idea that I diagonal is necessary, and think it makes for a cool golf hole, I think it makes for a pretty cool hole concept even without the diagonal carry. , I just don't think it matches up with the facts.
If so, then that feature must be incorporated in the definition/classification of a "Cape" hole.
Again, I think that many didn't have an inside diagonal carry, so if we make that part of the definition then it seems we lose some that CBM considered capes.
So while I think Kalen would include holes that CBM wouldn't have, I think that you would exclude holes CBM wouldn't have.
______________________________________________________________
Kalen see my comments above to you and patrick.
Again I think it a mistake to make this purely definitional,
is it a cape or isnt it sort of thing. It is more about understanding the underlying playability issues including the options and challenges the golfer must face. Surely par 3 capes may have been inspired by the cape concept and they share certain playability aspects with them but their are other playability aspects which are missing.
That is why I am posting. Not to tell you or anyone what qualifies, but rather to try and figure out what makes it such a great concept.