David,
Let’s see if I can clear this up for you regarding Tilly’s use of CBM’s “Cape” template type hole.
I think what you wrote is quite accurate: “Yet the Cape was somewhat unique compared to his other of his holes in that CBM's original golf hole was the model (unlike the Redan for example) and his name for this concept was widely adopted by other designers and implemented into their courses.”
So then, did CBM or Whigam put into print their exact definition of what their unique “Cape” hole was? By this I mean their actually written definition? If not, would you accept George Bahto’s definition as HE believes CBM to have defined it?
From “The Evangelist of Golf” on page 54:
You then stated just a bit further on, “Both Tillinghast and Flynn wrote about incorporating "Cape Holes" into many of their courses…”
Now according to you, Tilly’s design philosophy, including early on, was influenced by CBM. This despite Tilly himself having written that he and his friend “Charlie” argued continuously through the years over the fact that they had distinctly DIFFERENT design philosophies and that Tilly stated specifically that he was very much against the idea of using templates as CBM did.
I say that because you also wrote, “On the other thread the issue was not whether Tillinghast had "copied" CBM. CBM held no copyright on these concepts. To me at least, the issue was whether Tillinghast's work had been influenced by CBM, particularly his work at NGLA. More specifically, the issue was what whether Phillip accurately reflects the reality of the times when he suggests that Tillinghast was not influenced by CBM or that he was not incorporating CBM's "prototypes" into his courses.”
If that were the case then we should see Tilly both admitting to it instead of denying it AND that his definitions of hole types were the same as CBM’s. The fact is that they AREN’T! Let us use the example of the “Cape hole” as defined above. Compare that to Tilly’s own definition which was published in 1916 and then copied into this page from his 1917 booklet “Planning A Golf Course.”
There is no question that these definitions are decidedly different. In fact George refers to this as a “mistaken” definition of the “Cape” hole type that came into existence (according to him but we can see that is incorrect) AFTER the original Cape Hole’s green at the National was changed in the 1920’s; in other words, quite a few years after tilly had already built his own “Cape” holes of a distinctly different type and definition.
Let me give you an example of one of Tilly’s. The 12th hole at Winged Foot West is named (by Tilly) “Cape.” Now why would he name a 487-yard par-five “Cape?” The approach shot into the green is from the right side, short and straight up the gut of the putting surface. So how could this possibly be a “Cape” hole? It is because he designed it as a REACHABLE in two shots par-5. Looked at from that perspective the green juts and turns left just before the putting surface, EXACTLY as he defined it in 1916.
So David, just because a hole is named a “Cape” doesn’t mean that it is either the same type of hole that CBM designed and defined nor is it influenced by him.
Jim Kennedy, yes it is known where else he was during his three trips to the UK in 1895, 1898 & 1901. He played nearly every great course in Scotland and England as he travelled throughout the realm. This is how he became close friends with so many of the older UK professionals such as Ben Sayers who spent a great deal of time with him when he came over here to visit his son.