Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: James Boon on October 25, 2009, 12:15:43 PM
-
This one has always confused me to be honest. I’ve read or heard so many people refer to a cape hole as one which involves a diagonal carry from the tee, however I always thought that its should be a hole with a green sticking out into a lake? Afterall the definition of the word cape is “A point or head of land projecting into a body of water.” However a quick Google search found this…
http://golf.about.com/od/golfterms/g/bldef_capehole.htm
It is only now on reading The Evangelist of Golf that I realise why there is this confusion. As I’m sure most of you will know, the original 14th at NGLA, known as the Cape hole, did have a green that jutted out into Sebonak Creek, but this was replaced by one inland when a new road to the clubhouse was built. However, the diagonal carry from the tee remains, and so it is this characteristic that has taken over as the definition of a Cape hole. Funny thing is, though I’ve not played NGLA, from the aerial photos, the diagonal carry doesn’t actually look that pronounced, though Philip's recent pictures show it to be quite pronounced?
Etymology is a funny old thing, and the definition of words does change from time to time. But for me, it’s the old definition of a green jutting out into a water hazard that should be the true definition? What does everyone think?
Cheers,
James
-
Well, think about the myriad capes of the world. Is Cape Cod of similar configuration to Cape Horn to Cabo del sol? My understanding was that it had more to do with the fairway than the green. Let's hear what the rest of the inmates have to say.
-
Merriam-Webster:: a point or extension of land jutting out into water as a peninsula or as a projecting point
George Bahto: "The ‘Cape’ hole, according to Macdonald, was first labeled that (not first designed) when he built the 14th at NGLA. Most people think it is the angle of the tee-ball play that makes it a ‘Cape hole’ – not true. The word ‘cape’ refers to a body of land jutting into a body of water, forming a small peninsula. Macdonald 14th ‘Cape’ green originally jutted into the bay, but was subsequently moved in the late 1920s for two reasons. One was that downwind, big hitters were attempting to drive the green. The second was the necessity of constructing a new access road along the edge of the shoreline. Macdonald moved the green to the left further onto shore and surrounded it with sand. Then, Raynor (a civil engineer also) designed a new access road leading to the front gate. Cape holes come in a variety of designs. The 14th at Fishers Island, for example, requires the tee-ball to flirt close to the edge of a hazard rather than successfully attempt a carry. Even greens that jut out into midair on the edge of a precipice can be considered ‘Cape-style greens’ – the second green (not the second hole) at Yale was called just that in an early verbal description."
Seems pretty clear what CBM had in mind.
-
originally, yes. Is the cape on Bermuda the same? I don't believe the green juts quite so much.
-
From this sites review:
(http://golfclubatlas.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/mo5a2-692x432.jpg)
If you look at an aerial you'll see it jutting out into the 'Sargasso Sea'..
-
I thought it was this:
-
Good topic. So if you say it is a cape tee shot, then it refers to a shot that is over a hazard and allows you to bite off as much as you can. Correct? So are Cape Holes now more called Cape holes because of drives over hazards or because of the green's position into a hazard?
Anthony
-
I thought it was this .....
(http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q2/brianewen/Golf/GM.jpg)
-
The 14th Cape at Chicago GC
(http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc235/pdools/019-2.jpg)
-
Every single image in this thread shows varying styles - but as long as the green complex "juts" outward causing an angled shot into the green complex over water/bunker/rough it is considered a Cape hole. Some are sublime, some are blatant, yet all share the same trademark design.
Cheers,
-
The 14th Chicago Golf, the Seth Raynor re-do has the Cape green - hole-14 - jutting out into a hazard - the hazard in this case is greenside sand simulating “jutting out into water”
The original yardage at Chicago-14 was to be 356, according to a drawing of the Walker Cup course. One of the reasons for the Raynor re-do of the course is that Chicago Golf was awarded the Walker Cup - also because the old Macdonald course (The Old Macdonald Course - hah) ..... had become antiquated (I think less than 6500 - yds) and the old Macdonald routing (hah - sorry) was those old ”slicers” holes of CBM.
So, often a “Cape green” simulated the dictionary “cape” definition ..... yes the great 2nd green at Yale as is the 5th ! Banks wrote it up as a Cape green” in his 1931 hole by hole:
Hole 2: "Green: natural to the right - but similar to "Cape" overall"
The “diagonal drive over a hazard” definition of a Cape Hole is not entirely wrong, I guess (I have a hard time writing that). It has become an evolution over the years.
I guess, after the NGLA Cape green was moved inland because of the new road was to the new gate, the yacht basin and the old beach club and the 14th NGLa was still called “Cape,” people then believed the diagonal drive as the definitive feature of the hole.
Over the years more and more architects and clubs called their diagonals as Capes.
James, the diagonal drive at National is quite pronounced.
-
George_Bahto
So, often a “Cape green” simulated the dictionary “cape” definition ..... yes the great 2nd green at Yale as is the 5th ! Banks wrote it up as a Cape green” in his 1931 hole by hole:
George,
Did you mean 2nd and 8th?
-
Jim, you're right ...... (even though you are a "lefty" (golfer) - :P
Banks called the 8th-Yale: "combination green - "Cape" and "Redan" strategy"
boy Jim, for a Hotchkiss English Professor who only worked with Raynor a short tiime, Banks was right on, wasn't he
-
George,
There's something to be said for learning, ;D and it sure makes it easier to explain yourself when you possess an English Professor's command of the language. I really admire Banks, the idea of chucking a nice, safe position at Hotchkiss and running away with the Raynor and CB 'circus' must have taken some real guts, and driven his family nuts.
p.s. The 8th is my favorite hole on the golf course, even though it doesn't favor a draw. ;)
-
J Kennedy: I really admire Banks, the idea of chucking a nice, safe position at Hotchkiss and running away with the Raynor and CB 'circus' must have taken some real guts, and driven his family nuts
for those who do not know, Banks taught English for about 17 years at The Hotchkiss School (were he attended prep-school), after graduating from Yale. Then left to join raynro after they met when they were building the Hotchkiss course (1923-1924)
I still haven’t been able to pin down the exact time he left Hotchkiss to join the Raynor-Macdonald circus (I really like that one, Jim) even though I have all the Hotchkiss bulletins and year books .etc.
The best I can tell is that Banks worked part time for Raynor during the 1924 summer vacation, went back to Hotchkiss for a bit to turn over his work on the endowment program and left there in 1925.
Now Seth died in January 1926 - leaving Banks with probably a year at best with Raynor. Incredible
For hands-on architects Raynor and Banks had nearly 30 course in various conditions of construction at the time Raynor died ......... from 2 course in Hawaii in the west to Long Island in the east - from Milwaukee in the north to Yeamans Hall in the south -
How long would it have taken for Raynor to get to Hawaii from Long Island ???
Aside: I have turned up about 28 courses Raynor never received credit for building - just last week, a muni not far from Mountain Lake, in FL. He was truly the living definition of the word “reticent”
-
From this sites review:
(http://golfclubatlas.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/mo5a2-692x432.jpg)
If you look at an aerial you'll see it jutting out into the 'Sargasso Sea'..
First a diagonal tee shot from the tee, followed by a diagonal shot to the green.
-
As George notes in his book, Macdonald's understanding of the hole was quite specific. Macdonald's and Whigham's 1914 Golf Illustrated article on on the Cape (in their all too brief Representative American Golf Holes series) leaves no doubt about what they considered a Cape Hole:
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.
Many prominent designers and course builders adopted Macdonald's and Whigham's definition of a cape, although they obviously often substituted bunkers or other trouble the water surrounding three sides. CBM, Raynor, and apparently Banks built many to fit this mold. In the mid-20's when increasing traffic on Ardmore Avenue necessitated the change, Wilson replaced the CBM style "Alps" 10th at Merion with a CBM style "Cape" hole. Flynn described the cape similarly and noted that it was one of his three basic hole concepts for par fours (along with the elbow and dogleg,) and Tillinghast did so as well.
There are also many other fine early examples of the concept in the ground, including a short par four at Pine Valley that reportedly fits the mold (not sure if it was one of the few CBM suggestions that Crump reportedly followed there.) While I am not sure he identified it as such, Thomas built a heck of a cape hole at Riviera's 10th. When thinking about how Prairie Dunes must have played as a Nine Hole course, I was struck by how much the 3rd (now the 6th) must have felt like a cape in the original sense, although incredibly Maxwell created this sensation using mostly contours. The 12th at Rustic is very cape-like (in the original sense) but the back is guarded by nothing but ground slope away (and in ideal conditions nothing else is needed.) Other examples abound. It is really a terrific hole concept and works wonderfully on a short par 4, providing a fan of options where oftentimes the full consequences of the drive are not fully felt until the second.
As Macdonald described in Scotland's Gift (and as George succinctly reports in his terrific book) the Cape hole lost its cape green not long after its creation. This left the hole with a diagonal carry off the tee where one could get closer to the green the more one cut off, and perhaps this accounted for the eventual change in understanding of the concept.
In my opinion we've lost some things in translation. While some of Macdonald's capes had a diagonal carry over trouble (Mid-Ocean and NGLA most notably) there was more to the hole than just cutting of distance. The trick was understanding one's abilities and executing one's shot to not only get close, but also to get the best angle into the green. So for example at NGLA's Cape the most daring carry might leave the shortest shot but the absolute worst angle to the green unless the golfer could carry all the way almost even with the green. Conversely a less daring but well placed shot might leave a slightly longer shot but a much better angle, while the safest carry might leave the longest shot and a difficult angle. If I recall correctly, George noted that some cape greens favored the angle more from the outside while some (Mid Ocean?) favored the angle from more inside.
Here is how Whigham described the various choices presented to the golfer in 1909:
The same principle is applied at the 5th hole, which will be perhaps the most celebrated in the country. The actual distance from tee to flag is about 290 yards—one would have said the worst possible distance for a hole—but it works out beautifully. The hazard in this case is water. Here it is impossible quite to reach the green, but the fine driver if he likes to take a risk and go almost straight for the hole, may get within putting distance and so have a good chance for a three. But the least slice will carry his ball into Sebonac Creek; or if he fails to get 240 yards he will have a difficult little pitch shot onto the promontory. The man who can drive 200 yards may prefer to play fairly well to the left so as to be sure of opening the hole; but then he has a long approach onto the promontory. Finally, the short driver can get across the water by playing well to the left and carrying less than 100 yards; but he has a long second to play and may easily take a five. In fact, the hole is either a three or a four or a five, according to the way the tee shot is played.
So it wasn't just about cutting off as much as possible to get closer to the hole. It was about balancing the temptation of getting as close with the restraint of knowing one's game and choosing the best line and angle. And then of course the golfer had to execute, and not just on the drive.
Unfortunately, like many of our supposed "strategic options" the concept of the cape has been dumbed down to simply cutting a corner to get a shorter shot in.
Here is a stitched photo of the plasticine model of the hole, from the article mentioned above:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/NGLA-CAPE-plasticine-Merged.jpg?t=1256520309)
Here is Whigham's diagram of the tee options from his 1909 Scribner's article:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Whighams-Cape-Diagram.jpg?t=1256520352)
-
David,
Thanks for posting the photo of the model. Really cool.
-
Aside: I have turned up about 28 courses Raynor never received credit for building - just last week, a muni not far from Mountain Lake, in FL. He was truly the living definition of the word “reticent”
George, are any of those courses in Minnesota? Considering that he designed three in our state, I figured it's possible he might have slipped in another one or two while no one was looking...
-
Tilly had a bit of a different take on defining what a "Cape" hole is. For the most part, he viewed it as a two-shotter with a particular bend to the hole that was different than a "dog-leg" or "elbow" hole. After defining those in his 1917 booklet "Planning The Golf Course" he wrote:
"There is still a third variation, where a corner is formed close by the green itself, usually by the encroachment of a hillside or a sandy waste, and this type is known as a Cape hole."
Notev the distinction in design features from what has been shown in some of the photos above. To Tilly, simply because the a greeen was offset with a fronting bunker and some rough didn't fit HIS definition of a Cape. In his mind the fronting area needed to be "waste" or simulated as such rather than a clearly manufactured hazard. It was to mimic the natural features found by a green that juts out into the water which was not to be found on inland courses.
In 1922/23 he built a Cape hole at brook Hollow with a small copse of trees serving as this natuarl hazard, a variation then on his own definiotion.
-
Phil:
Yes, Tillie certainly did have something of a different opinion on what a cape hole was (different from what apparently most of us THINK the opinions of others of his time were).
I've always liked Tillie's opinions and definitions of the various types of holes simply because they seem to be more detailed and complete but it would be interesting to know to what extent other architects of his time agreed with his definitions.
-
Phil,
I think it's hard to visualize the difference in what Tillie said and the Cape green, there really doesn't seem to be any. What does it matter if the front is encroached by a mound or sandy waste vs. what CBM or SR or CB used, the strategy is still the same.
Secondly, you then say that he thought using a sandy waste was more in keeping with using a water hazard than manufactured bunkering, but again, they all play the same. Even Tillie used a tree, so what the heck was he talking about?
-
I think what Tillie was saying is that even if different types of architectural features (water (water hazards), sandy areas not considered to be hazards (bunkers), mounds, bunkers, trees etc) often seems to some to be synonymous and completely interchangeable architectural features that in the minds of some or perhaps most golfers they really are not for reasons that should be pretty obvious that are reflected within the Rules of Golf, among other things.
For instance, would I (or presumably numerous other golfers) think somewhat differently about strategy if a green was pretty much surrounded by water rather than a sandy area for instance? You bet I would!
-
You're saying that sandy areas, bunkers, waste areas, mounds are all synonymous, therefore they all play alike when used in the same configuration. It Tillie's definiton created a third style of Cape, then why was it necessary to "mimic the natural features found by a green that juts out into the water" ?
The green is not surrounded by water, but if any other medium was used in place of H2O the same safe approach would still present itself.
-
I'm not sure who you are expecting to answer your #23---Phil, me or someone else.
-
You ;D or Phil, if he so chooses.
-
You said:
“You're saying that sandy areas, bunkers, waste areas, mounds are all synonymous, therefore they all play alike when used in the same configuration.”
I said:
“I think what Tillie was saying is that even if different types of architectural features (water (water hazards), sandy areas not considered to be hazards (bunkers), mounds, bunkers, trees etc) often seems to some to be synonymous and completely interchangeable architectural features that in the minds of some or perhaps most golfers they really are not for reasons that should be pretty obvious that are reflected within the Rules of Golf, among other things.
For instance, would I (or presumably numerous other golfers) think somewhat differently about strategy if a green was pretty much surrounded by water rather than a sandy area for instance? You bet I would!”
I cannot see where I said I think they are synonymous! Can you see where I said I think they are synonymous?
-
Jim,
What must be appreciated in the differences with Tilly's view and definition of a Cape hole versus others is the nature of the sites upon which he was building them. They weren't near the ocean or other water. He therefor explained that a "Cape" hole could be created without this by using natural features that would punish the player nearly in the same way as hitting into water would. A greenside bunker and rough area wouldn't really fit the bill. That is why he tucked his cape hole green sites out into areas where the player would have to carry over this natural hazard area. There could be a bunker fronting the green site just as one might find one between the ocean and putting surface on a true seaside Cape, but the "Cape" hazard was larger and as non-manufactured as possible.
-
Phil,
I do appreciate that, but I don't think that creates enough of a 'difference' to label it a third style of Cape. If you were hit a ball into the manufactured bunkers (especially the original versions) to the left of #2 green at Yale, or worse, to the left of #8, you'd have a near-death experience that could be more troublesome than some little ol' water hazard.
-
Jim,
I think I see the problem here; I believe you misunderstood Tilly's quote that I used and that's because I didn't introduce it well. When Tilly stated, "There is still a third variation..." he wasn't refering to a third style of Cape, but rather to a third variation of a two-shot hole whose fairway turned, the first two being a dog-leg and an elbow.
Tilly's definition of all three are simply his own for how he would go abouit designing a hole of that type.
-
Can someone explain why #12 at WFW is called Cape?
To me it seems like none of the definitions seem to fit this hole.
Personally - When I am explaining a cape hole to someone, I always use #18 at Pebble as an example.
-
Thanks Phil, got it now.
-
Jaeger,
It is called "Cape" because that is the name that Tilly himself gave it. Did he consider it a "Cape" hole? That is hard to say because, if he did, it would have been stretching his definition to fit. Of course, he may have viewed the sand in the front and left of the green to be waste area rather than a bunker... but that is only a guess...
-
I think one of the reasons the definition of a Cape Hole confuses people is there is little question that various architects back then really did describe them differently. For instance, when Macdonald described the cape hole he pretty much used his iteration of it at Mid Ocean and when he described its features he pretty much got into describing the tee shot on it (his tee shot or shots).
He probably did that because apparently someone on the tee with him asked him if he could hit a dog running down the fairway (the carry distance on the tee shot mattered due to the water on its left) and Goll-Dang if C.B. didn't damn near hit that dog with his tee shot.
So today for maximum architectural/definitional exactitude we should probably qualify that Cape Hole at Mid Ocean as "The hit the dog running down the fairway in the ass with your tee shot" architectural type of Cape Hole.
-
Jaeger,
It is called "Cape" because that is the name that Tilly himself gave it. Did he consider it a "Cape" hole? That is hard to say because, if he did, it would have been stretching his definition to fit. Of course, he may have viewed the sand in the front and left of the green to be waste area rather than a bunker... but that is only a guess...
The Cape concept comes from a hole at Royal North Devon. To my knowledge Tilly never visited Westward Ho! so prusumably his verion of the hole was based upon his exposure Macdonald's concept.
-
Here is a link to an article written by Macdonald & Whigham:
http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/GolfIllustrated/1914/gi5h.pdf
-
Personally I've always felt the decision to put the road along the shoreline and ditch that original Cape Hole's green in the process (a decision obviously agreed to by Macdonald) is one crying shame. I've always felt the original road to the clubhouse (or clubhouse site) running right through the middle of the property (used today as a maintenance road) was just fine (terrific actually).
However, I do understand that perhaps part of the consideration or the decision to put the road along the shoreline (and the NGLA driveway much farther along) may've had to do with access for those other than NGLA people to that beach or land past NGLA along Peconic Bay.
Nevertheless, IMO sarcficing that original Cape Hole green is a tragedy!
-
Tom,
Your knowledge and conclusion are not fact. "The Cape concept comes from a hole at Royal North Devon. To my knowledge Tilly never visited Westward Ho! so prusumably his verion of the hole was based upon his exposure Macdonald's concept."
Tilly travelled throughout the UK during his several trips there and did not limit himself to the Eastern Scottish courses as some think. It is quite possible and likely that he did visit Westward Ho despite your not being aware of it. Tilly visited many courses throughout both Scotland and England that many are unaware of. Still, whether he visited the course or not doesn't have anything to do with his developing his own theory as to what characteristics a "Cape" hole should contain.
That your statement that his version of the hole was based upon exposure to Macdonald's concept is based upon your personal past stated concept that Tilly's design philosophies were greatly influenced by Macdonald, this despite his own written words that completely contradict this idea that I have shared with you in the past.
That you believe it to be so is certainly your privilege; stating it as proven and accepted fact is simply not true.
-
Actually, I think I was wrong about the Westward Ho! Cape being the inspiration. Macdonald's concept was an original and not related to the famous British hole. Of all the holes at NGLA the Cape got the most buzz. It was predicted it would become one of the most famous holes in America; apparently Tilly was impressed.
-
Tilly had a bit of a different take on defining what a "Cape" hole is. For the most part, he viewed it as a two-shotter with a particular bend to the hole that was different than a "dog-leg" or "elbow" hole. After defining those in his 1917 booklet "Planning The Golf Course" he wrote:
"There is still a third variation, where a corner is formed close by the green itself, usually by the encroachment of a hillside or a sandy waste, and this type is known as a Cape hole."
Notev the distinction in design features from what has been shown in some of the photos above. To Tilly, simply because the a greeen was offset with a fronting bunker and some rough didn't fit HIS definition of a Cape. In his mind the fronting area needed to be "waste" or simulated as such rather than a clearly manufactured hazard. It was to mimic the natural features found by a green that juts out into the water which was not to be found on inland courses.
In 1922/23 he built a Cape hole at brook Hollow with a small copse of trees serving as this natuarl hazard, a variation then on his own definiotion.
Phil,
I think Tillie's understanding of the hole was very much the same as CBM's, Wilson's, Flynn's, Crump's, etc. It had to do with the green in relation to the fairway. Not sure why you write that Tillie's understanding was different, because I think in the past you have written that his understanding was consistent with that of CBM, Wilson, Flynn, etc.
It is only the modern understanding that has gotten garbled, as far as I can tell. None of these guys required water to make a cape hole, but substituted other trouble for it on inland courses.
-
David,
I believe you misunderstood what I wrote. I stated, "Tilly had a bit of a different take on defining what a "Cape" hole is. For the most part, he viewed it as a two-shotter with a particular bend to the hole that was different than a "dog-leg" or "elbow" hole..."
Note the examples shown before that satement on the thread and you'll see that they are all the classic par-three type of Cape hole. That is why I stated that Tilly viewed it mostly as a two-shotter and designed almost all of his that way. The "Cape" features are similar to what other architects used in their designs yet different in that they rarely, if ever, involved a water carry in Tilly's use of the hyole type.
To the best of my knowledge and memory, I have never written that his understanding of the Cape hole type was consistent with CBM, Wilson, Flynn or any other architect. Neither did I ever write that it wasn't. I have only written what Tilly's personal view of a Cape hole (and many others as well) and used his own defining words to describe and explain it.
For erxample, I once posted that tilly's view of a dog-leg and elbow holes were quite different from each other. Tom Doak responded by stating that he had always thought that Tilly looked upon them as a variation of a theme. I responded by pointing out how very different Tilly's descriptions of the features are for each one and so they are quite separate and distinct...
-
David,
I believe you misunderstood what I wrote. I stated, "Tilly had a bit of a different take on defining what a "Cape" hole is. For the most part, he viewed it as a two-shotter with a particular bend to the hole that was different than a "dog-leg" or "elbow" hole..."
Note the examples shown before that satement on the thread and you'll see that they are all the classic par-three type of Cape hole. That is why I stated that Tilly viewed it mostly as a two-shotter and designed almost all of his that way. The "Cape" features are similar to what other architects used in their designs yet different in that they rarely, if ever, involved a water carry in Tilly's use of the hyole type.
Phillip, all the examples I gave (and all of what were considered cape holes under the original understanding) are of two shot holes, not of par threes. I would say that except for the original and the one at Mid-Ocean, the others' cape holes "rarely if ever involved a water carry." The concept was applied to holes that most often involved other hazards besides water, and other types of hazards substituted for the water in the original. Just like Tillie.
So I think if we are talking about the original concept, your Tillie distinction is without a difference.
To the best of my knowledge and memory, I have never written that his understanding of the Cape hole type was consistent with CBM, Wilson, Flynn or any other architect. Neither did I ever write that it wasn't. I have only written what Tilly's personal view of a Cape hole (and many others as well) and used his own defining words to describe and explain it.
Well then perhaps I misunderstood. Here is one of your responses to my earlier explanations of an article describing Wilson's "cape type hole" at Merion, the 10th, and my description of CBM's and HJW's understanding of the hole:
David,
You make a good observation in how the term "Cape" for a hole description was used quite differently in the early part of the 20th century.
In his advertising booklet "Planning a Golf Course," Tilly referred to three types of holes that had fairways that turned. The "dog-leg," the "elbow" and the "cape." This is how he defined it:
"There is still a third variation, where a corner is formed close by the green itself, usually by the encroachment of a hillside or a sandy waste, and this type is known as a Cape hole."
Note how Tilly defined the fairway turn to be "close by the green" and not associated with the tee shot. Two examples of Tilly Cape holes can be found on the 3rd hole at Brook Hollow (Tilly wrote of this hole in a "Green Committee" article he wrote for Golf Illustrated in 1921 and the 12th hole on Winged Foot West. Tilley even gave that hole its name... "Cape."
Both of these holes shared a common feature at the green, a stand of trees just short of it where the green hides behind in relation to the second shot in. Both have left side bunkers, but it is the trees that are the encroachment that creates the "Cape" effect on them.
It appears that the original idea for the "Cape" feature then was at the green complex rather than simply something that would require a long-drive played over an obstruction to an angular fairway.
. . . .
Surely you can see how I took this as agreement with the others? I followed this up by noting that Flynn shared the same definitions with Tillie (So did M&W by the way) and asked you a few questions, but you didn't answer.
Anyway, if there was a difference between the various understandings of the hole type at the time as compared to Tillie's, you haven't yet identified it. Because what Tillie's would have been considered a cape hole for all of them, and visa versa. Or are you suggesting that if the green caped into water that he would have called it something different? I cannot imagine that this would have been the case.
-
David,
Again you are simply missing what I said. I wrote, and I can't see how to make this any clearer, "Note the examples shown before that satement on the thread and you'll see that they are all the classic par-three type of Cape hole. That is why I stated that Tilly viewed it mostly as a two-shotter and designed almost all of his that way."
I wrote what I did because the examples on the thread BEFORE I posted what I did were of the par-three type while Tilly almost never did and defined his "Cape" hole as a two-shotter. This was an example of something different FROM WHAT HAD BEEN WRITTEN ABOUT UP TO THAT POINT! That is all.
That other architects designed "Cape" holes to be used as par-three's is different in concept and usage from Tilly since he didn't. It doesn't mean that the FEATURES that make up a "Cape" hole are not the same, but that the APPLICATION is different.
-
Phil,
I went back over this thread several times and there aren't any examples of Capes on par 3s. Are you referencing another thread?
If the concept was unique to CBM where else could AWT have seen it?
-
...p.s I like how he made the distinction between a dogleg and an elbow.
-
David,
Again you are simply missing what I said. I wrote, and I can't see how to make this any clearer, "Note the examples shown before that satement on the thread and you'll see that they are all the classic par-three type of Cape hole. That is why I stated that Tilly viewed it mostly as a two-shotter and designed almost all of his that way."
I wrote what I did because the examples on the thread BEFORE I posted what I did were of the par-three type while Tilly almost never did and defined his "Cape" hole as a two-shotter. This was an example of something different FROM WHAT HAD BEEN WRITTEN ABOUT UP TO THAT POINT! That is all.
That other architects designed "Cape" holes to be used as par-three's is different in concept and usage from Tilly since he didn't. It doesn't mean that the FEATURES that make up a "Cape" hole are not the same, but that the APPLICATION is different.
Phil. I understood you. You apparently do not understand how other designers then used the term. So far as I know Cape Holes were ALWAYS PAR 4s for all of these guys. Sometimes a short par 4, sometimes a long par 4 but always a par 4. The Cape at NGLA? Short Par 4. The Cape at Mid Ocean? A longer Par 4. The cape at Merion? Shor Par 4. The cape at Pine Valley? Short Par 4. Flynn's various cape holes? Long and Short Par 4s. The cape type 10th at Riviera? Par 4. The (arguable) cape type 6th hole at Prairie Dunes? Par 4. The 12th at Rustic? Par 4.
I don't know where you got this idea that Tillie's concept of the Cape as a Par 4 was original or even his alone. It was not. That is all I am saying.
_____________________________
Jim,
While again not original or exclusive to Tillie, I too like the way he (and the others) described the differences between Elbow and Dog Leg holes. I think that what we now call a "Cape" they would have simply called a "dog leg" where one can cut the corner and has an option of how much to cut off.
As an aside, according to H.J. Whigham Old Tom Morris described these types of holes as like a "dog's hind leg" so I assume the term "dog leg" is an abbreviated version of Old Tom's descriptions.
-
Jim & David,
After reading your comment "I went back over this thread several times and there aren't any examples of Capes on par 3s" I went back ovcer it myself and saw exactly where and how I screwed up. I saw Michael Rossi's post #5 which is a par-three and my brain simply went into dumb-drive including my ignoring David's entire post, which frankly is a very well-thought out one, as I quickly scrolled down to where I decided to make my post.
I was wrong in the point I was attempting to make and ask for forgiveness for getting the thread quite needlessly off-track.
Jim, the concept was not unique to CBM and Tilly quite easily may have visited Westward Ho when in the UK. Now the argument may be made that since there is no written record of Tilly visiting Westward Ho that we simply can't assume that he did. The problem with this line of reasoning is that there is also no written record that I am aware of that confirms that Tilly visited NGLA before he wrote his 1917 booklet in which one could find his definitions of par-4 holes whose fairways turn, each type of which he had already designed and built at least one of. Tilly did have a distinct difference of opinion in design philsophy with CBM and wrote of it. He stated that they had a number of friendly heated discussions on this throughout their careers and friendship.
-
If CB and Whigham aren't to be believed when they wrote that there was .... "probably not another like it anywhere", who the heck came up with it?
-
David,
"I don't know where you got this idea that Tillie's concept of the Cape as a Par 4 was original or even his alone. It was not. That is all I am saying."
Please understand, I never said that Tilly's concept of a Cape hole was unique to him or was original. All I said was that he defined it in a certain fashion. As I hope you already see from my apology of my misunderstanding, I was simply trying to give a view of the hole type from what I mistakenly thought was another perspective.
You also stated, "I too like the way he (and the others) described the differences between Elbow and Dog Leg holes. I think that what we now call a "Cape" they would have simply called a "dog leg" where one can cut the corner and has an option of how much to cut off."
This is not the view that Tilly would have had. He had a clear distinction of how and where the fairway would turn on these three different hole types. The "Elbow" would turn either without a hazard or with one that most players could carry with a "courageous shot" as Tilly put it, whereas the dog-leg turns around a hazard that it would be "impossible to carry over."
The Cape was distinct in that the fairway corner was always "formed close by the green itself." Therefor in his version it wasn't one of how much of a corner one could cut off as it was the angle of the shot that MUST carry onto the green.
-
Something is not making a lot of sense to me given the material evidence (photos) of NGLA's Cape Hole (originally and today) on his particular thread.
The ground photo (the first photo) in that GI article (Tom MacWoods post) is confusing to me. What is Cape Hole green----eg the green you can see on the very left of that first photo (is that the 14th green or the original 12th?) or a green far out on that piece of land that goes significantly into the bay?
If it is the latter it sure doesn't look much of anything like the green promontory in the photo of that platiscine model (which doesn't go very far into the bay)?
There is also the matter of where the original road is if in fact that distant promontory is where the original green was (because that photo then shoud've been taken from somewhere near where the tees on #13 are).
And if that green on the far left of the first photo (Tom MacWood's imbedded LA 84 link) is in fact the original Cape Hole green there is the matter of that significant pond and concrete abutement in front of it----eg that doesn't show up at all on the photo of the plasticine model.
I've actually gotten out of the car on the present road and looked at where that original Cape green was and I believe all the concrete fragments one can't help noticiing along the shoreline on the right of the road are the concrete abutements to that original Cape green.
Admittedly, one thing I have never bothererd to do is check out the configuration of the shoreline to the right of the present road and I suppose that may help explain this seeming confusion with the material (photographic) evidence on this thread.
There is one other possible interesting bit in all this material evidence and that is apparently the original 12th green is not the same as the one there today (apparently the original contours were quite different). I don't know whether that means the original green was in the same place as today's green or if it was in a slightly different place.
-
As I have always been under the impression that the Cape at NGLA was based upon the Cape hole at Westward Ho. So when they
wrote that "there is probably not another like it anywhere" they certainly didn't mean that the concept hadn't already been done, just that THEIR concept hadn't. What was their differing concept?
"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 on three sides..."
It is this particular feature of their Cape design of the green extending out into the water that was unique and that there was not another like it anywhere for that reason.
-
If CB and Whigham aren't to be believed when they wrote that there was .... "probably not another like it anywhere", who the heck came up with it?
Jim, A very good question. In my opinion, Phil's post above denying credit to Macdonald and Whigham for the hole is what we see all too often around here. Because Phil has a proprietary interest in Tillie he apparently feels like he must not acknowledge that anyone else (except for Old Tom himself perhaps) ever did anything all that original in golf design.
So far as I know, the Cape at NGLA was considered an original. Whigham seemed to have a good familiarity with just about every course on every continent, but an especially in-depth knowledge of the courses in Great Britain, so I find it unlikely if he wouldn't have been familiar with Westward Ho, yet Whigham thought Macdonald's Cape at NGLA to be original.
Yet Phillip would rather assume that Tillie must have seen a cape hole elsewhere and before he saw or read of NGLA, and that this must have been his influence and it could not have been what was at the time the most famoust hole in America. While I generally avoid emoticons, this deserves at least an ::).
Don't get me wrong, I don't doubt that a similar strategy might have existed somewhere, but no one ever pointed it out if it did. Plus, the American original and the one called the "CAPE" was at NGLA. Surely not even Phillip will deny that it was CBM and/or HJW who came up with the NAME at least.
_____________________________________________________
David,
"I don't know where you got this idea that Tillie's concept of the Cape as a Par 4 was original or even his alone. It was not. That is all I am saying."
Please understand, I never said that Tilly's concept of a Cape hole was unique to him or was original. All I said was that he defined it in a certain fashion. As I hope you already see from my apology of my misunderstanding, I was simply trying to give a view of the hole type from what I mistakenly thought was another perspective.
Understood. Thanks for clarifying.
You also stated, "I too like the way he (and the others) described the differences between Elbow and Dog Leg holes. I think that what we now call a "Cape" they would have simply called a "dog leg" where one can cut the corner and has an option of how much to cut off."
This is not the view that Tilly would have had. He had a clear distinction of how and where the fairway would turn on these three different hole types. The "Elbow" would turn either without a hazard or with one that most players could carry with a "courageous shot" as Tilly put it, whereas the dog-leg turns around a hazard that it would be "impossible to carry over."
My mistake but one of semantics. For some reason I often flip flop the way that both Flynn and Tillie used the term "dogleg" and "elbow."
The Cape was distinct in that the fairway corner was always "formed close by the green itself." Therefor in his version it wasn't one of how much of a corner one could cut off as it was the angle of the shot that MUST carry onto the green.
I think you have again misunderstood me. I was probably unclear again. I wrote the way we currently view the term "Cape." I switched from speaking of the way the term was once used, to the way we currently use it -- to connote a diagonal over which we can choose to cut off as much as we want.
-
As I have always been under the impression that the Cape at NGLA was based upon the Cape hole at Westward Ho. So when they
wrote that "there is probably not another like it anywhere" they certainly didn't mean that the concept hadn't already been done, just that THEIR concept hadn't. What was their differing concept?
"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 on three sides..."
It is this particular feature of their Cape design of the green extending out into the water that was unique and that there was not another like it anywhere for that reason.
I don't recall ever reading that their hole was based upon anything at Westward Ho or anywhere else. I have read that it was an original concept. Where have you ever seen the reference to Westward Ho?
-
David,
I couldn't possibly tell you where I heard, read or got the idea from that the Westward Ho Cape was the type that they modelled the NGLA Cape after. Just as Tom Mac alluded to that earlier in this thread (and yes I did see where he then took that point back) I, too, have always been under that impression, most probably because of the concept that the NGLA was designed based upon the great hole types of the world...
-
I mistakenly thought the hole was loosely based on the Cape at Westward Ho!, but then I went back and read Macdonald, Whigham and other's comments and there was never a mention of WH, in fact they all said the hole was an original concept. Which makes sense based on the fact it bears absolutely no resemblance to the hole at North Devon.
Phil
Are you familar with the Cape at Westward Ho!?
-
"Because Phil has a proprietary interest in Tillie he apparently feels like he must not acknowledge that anyone else (except for Old Tom himself perhaps) ever did anything all that original in golf design."
THAT is most definitely NOT what I've noticed Phil Young said on this thread or any other! Matter of fact, not even close. But that sure is the kind of diversionary and apparently potentially argumentative interpretation we really do see all too often on this website. Fortunately, most who follow these threads are pretty well aware, at this point, where and from whom those kinds of interpretations and remarks come from. ???
-
Phil,
If it's as you say, ..."It is this particular feature of their Cape design of the green extending out into the water that was unique and that there was not another like it anywhere for that reason", then that would seem to lend some credence to the idea that Tillinghast recognized the concept from NGLA and defined it for his own use, just as he came up with the his own definitions of dogleg and elbow.
Tom,
If you go to the photo and zoom in (400 power makes it really clear) you'll see the same bunker schemes on the model and on the ground.
-
Jim Kennedy:
What makes you think that Tillinghast may not have come up with some of these concepts (or terms) on his own and perhaps even without any influence at all from anything to do with previous golf course architecture? Afterall a "cape" is a pretty well known word used in a ton of other applications than just golf architecture.
If we could find examples of others using the term "cape" to describe holes or architectural concepts and principals before Tillinghast ever did that might then fairly scotch that thought. The same may be said for his use of the term "dog-leg" even if I seriously doubt he was the first to use that term. His use of the term "elbow" interests me more, however. I'm not aware of any common use of that term in architecture before Tillinghast used it and as we know he was quite the coigner of terms for architectural concepts in his career----viz his term "Cart before the Horse" hole and concept which even he admitted might be a bit controversial in play! ;)
-
I don't think it would scotch it at all Tom as AWT's idea of a Cape and CBM's idea of a Cape are basically the same stratagem.
AWT wrote about it 7 or 8 years after it had been put on the ground by CBM. AWT wasn't living on another planet and as Phil acknowledged, CBM and AWT had friendly discussions about architecture. Maybe he was taking a friendly swipe at CBM by offering up his own definition.
-
JimK:
All true (to some degree) I'm sure. Another logical answer just might be that those guys just never looked at who influenced whom and from where anything like some of us do or try to do today.
I realize the entire subject of "influence" in the entire subject of golf course architecture is a most tempting one as ultimately it sort of leads to what some call "architectural family trees" but my sense is that even with that the real and accurate history of it all just may be quite a bit more amorphous than something that pat! ;)
-
Jim Kennedy:
What makes you think that Tillinghast may not have come up with some of these concepts (or terms) on his own and perhaps even without any influence at all from anything to do with previous golf course architecture? Afterall a "cape" is a pretty well known word used in a ton of other applications than just golf architecture.
If we could find examples of others using the term "cape" to describe holes or architectural concepts and principals before Tillinghast ever did that might then fairly scotch that thought. The same may be said for his use of the term "dog-leg" even if I seriously doubt he was the first to use that term. His use of the term "elbow" interests me more, however. I'm not aware of any common use of that term in architecture before Tillinghast used it and as we know he was quite the coigner of terms for architectural concepts in his career----viz his term "Cart before the Horse" hole and concept which even he admitted might be a bit controversial in play! ;)
Jim, You see how it works?
Never mind that CBM's Cape Hole was being written about as early as 1906 and in detail in 1909, 1910, 1911, 1912, 1914, etc. . . never mind that Tillinghast was very well informed of everything going on in golf, was a golf writer himself and even editor of a golf magazine. He probably never even heard of Macdonald's Cape hole . . . surely he could have just missed all the articles and references and the holes' fame and accolade, and come up with both the concept hole and name all by himself!
What a joke. That is what goes on here. People get so caught up in their own guys they refuse to be reasonable about anyone else. Of course TEPaul is not concerned about Tillie so much . . . his stake in this is to pretend (as he and Wayne have in tne past and likely do in their book) that Flynn cape hole was his original concept and creation and also that the "so called cape type hole" at Merion had nothing whatsoever ever to do with a Macdonald lineage.
That is why these conversations get pointless. No one just wants to figure it out, everyone wants to advocate for his own guy, even if it means tearing down others (as TEPaul and Wayne have done repeatedly.)
-
Tom,
I don't. There were not more than a couple handfuls of these guys and they all seemed to travel around on the same circuits, relatively speaking. I feel that they all had a certain influence on each other, but with a definite pecking order. For instance, a man like Wilson would surely have his own ideas, but he would more likely be swayed by men like Tillinghast and Macdonald than vice versa. A man like Crump definitely had his own plan, but he surely liked the idea of input form his buddies, the architects.
-
This one has always confused me to be honest. I’ve read or heard so many people refer to a cape hole as one which involves a diagonal carry from the tee, however I always thought that its should be a hole with a green sticking out into a lake? Afterall the definition of the word cape is “A point or head of land projecting into a body of water.” However a quick Google search found this…
http://golf.about.com/od/golfterms/g/bldef_capehole.htm
It is only now on reading The Evangelist of Golf that I realise why there is this confusion. As I’m sure most of you will know, the original 14th at NGLA, known as the Cape hole, did have a green that jutted out into Sebonak Creek, but this was replaced by one inland when a new road to the clubhouse was built. However, the diagonal carry from the tee remains, and so it is this characteristic that has taken over as the definition of a Cape hole. Funny thing is, though I’ve not played NGLA, from the aerial photos, the diagonal carry doesn’t actually look that pronounced, though Philip's recent pictures show it to be quite pronounced?
Etymology is a funny old thing, and the definition of words does change from time to time. But for me, it’s the old definition of a green jutting out into a water hazard that should be the true definition? What does everyone think?
I think you have to amend your definition to incorporate the feature of "how much can you bite off on the tee shot in attempting to get as close to the green as possible as you skirt the hazard"
Many clubs name their holes for their general qualities or unique circumstances.
With these names one must give the hole "latitude" and not limit or constrict the name of the hole to a very specific or singular architectural configuration or definition.
The "Cape" hole at Fishers Island differs dramatically from the "Cape" hole at NGLA
-
...........so it's easy for me to imagine the Titans taunting one another, like AWT co-opting CBM's stratagem for the Cape and defining it as his own.
Or CBM doing something similar to AWT.
-
"What a joke. That is what goes on here. People get so caught up in their own guys they refuse to be reasonable about anyone else. Of course TEPaul is not concerned about Tillie so much . . . his stake in this is to pretend (as he and Wayne have in tne past and likely do in their book) that Flynn cape hole was his original concept and creation and also that the "so called cape type hole" at Merion had nothing whatsoever ever to do with a Macdonald lineage.
That is why these conversations get pointless. No one just wants to figure it out, everyone wants to advocate for his own guy, even if it means tearing down others (as TEPaul and Wayne have done repeatedly.)"
Moriarty:
First of all, neither Wayne Morrison nor I ever said what you just ascribed to us above---and that is part and parcel of the ongoing problem you have on this website and a growing number of people on here have with you.
I have no idea where in the hell Flynn came up with the idea for the design of Merion's present 10th hole (or even if it was Flynn who came up with it). I suppose I can guess if someone made me but I don't really see the point in that. All Wayne and I ever did is disagree with your assumption (or was it a conclusion?) that the influence for that particular hole must have been from Macdonald/Whigam.
And please don't talk to any of us about getting caught up with what you call "our guy" or "our guys" as it sure is patently clear that you seem to think practically everything in American architecture is somehow influenced by or attributable to C.B. Macdonald. You've even gone so far as to accuse me of roundly disrespecting or minimizing Macdonald on here while the truth is I grew up with and around more Macdonald architecture than you will probably ever know and I grew up with it before you were probably even born. I love Macdonald architecture for that reason among others. Perhaps you are getting my opinion of Macdonald mixed up with Wayne Morrison's as I wouldn't really expect someone like you to even realize there might be some distinction between the two of us!
-
David,
You are simply taking things way too far.
I am NOT, as you claim, "In my opinion, Phil's post above denying credit to Macdonald and Whigham for the hole is what we see all too often around here..." denying Macdonald and Whigham any credit at all for this hole. Just the opposite.
It certainly was M&W who wrote that the NGLA was to be a course with holes that would be designed on the basis of the great holes of the world. In fact weren't they the authors of the entire series of descriptive articles published in Golf Illustrated beginning in May 1914? Isn't the first sentence of the first article, "This is the first in a series of representative American golf holes to be a monthly feature of this magazine..."
Of WHAT are they REPRESENTATIVE of? Each article in the series leading up to the "Cape Hole" mentions the specific hole in the UK that it was based upon. The Cape article does not, but that doesn't mean that a reader of the day, and today for that matter, wouldn't think that it wasn't based upon the Cape Hole at Westward Ho, and yes, "Philip WIKLL DENY that they came up with the name" as Westward Ho and its Cape Hole were in existence and called such BEFORE NGLA was even thought of as a concept!
That neither lessens the greatne4ss of the hole nor does it challenge M&W's concept as being original and new in any way, shape or form, for as I have already posted, that they extended the green complex out onto a peninsula off from the fairway and into the sea WAS NEW & ORIGINAL and I stated so.
You are certainly entitled to your belief that, "Phil has a proprietary interest in Tillie he apparently feels like he must not acknowledge that anyone else (except for Old Tom himself perhaps) ever did anything all that original in golf design..." but this belief is foolish, stupid and just plain wrong.
You stated, "So far as I know, the Cape at NGLA was considered an original." The problem with that is that you are stating as fact something based ONLY upon your knowledge. That I would state that "As far as I know all the holes at NGLA were based upon the great holes from the UK" has just as good a standing as a supposition as does yours. In fact, it may have even more so since it is based upon CBM's OWN WORDS recorded in his 1911 "National Golf Links of America: Statement of Charles Blair Macdonald" wherein he writes to the members of the club on p. 12 par. 1, "Dear Sirs, Some six years ago the idea was formulated of establishing a classic golf course in America, one which would be designed after and eventually could be favorably compared with the championship links abroad..."
"Designed after... the championship links abroad..." So why wouldn't someone believe that the "Cape" hole was therefore "designed after" the Cape hole at Westward Ho in North Devon?
"Whigham seemed to have a good familiarity with just about every course on every continent, but an especially in-depth knowledge of the courses in Great Britain, so I find it unlikely if he wouldn't have been familiar with Westward Ho, yet Whigham thought Macdonald's Cape at NGLA to be original." I, too, believe it to be an original and EVEN STATED SUCH, in how it took the concept of the hole and created something new and exciting out of it.
"Yet Phillip would rather assume that Tillie must have seen a cape hole elsewhere and before he saw or read of NGLA, and that this must have been his influence and it could not have been what was at the time the most famous hole in America..." Once again you twist my words. I have a strong disagreement with Tom Mac as to whether or not CBM was a MAJOR INFLUENCE in forming Tilly's design philosophy.
It was TOM who stated, "The Cape concept comes from a hole at Royal North Devon. To my knowledge Tilly never visited Westward Ho! so presumably his version of the hole was based upon his exposure Macdonald's concept." It was THAT statement of fact based upon his LIMITED "To my knowledge Tilly never visited Westward Ho" that I took exception to. Once again both you & Tom claim as fact things that are simply based upon your "knowledge" yet if someone else makes a similar statement they are by definition attacking the truth and doing it because of their "vested interests." Absurd!
Yet after all that you don't have even the courage of your convictions to stand upon when you state, "I don't doubt that a similar strategy might have existed somewhere, but no one ever pointed it out if it did."
Sorry David, but you lose credibility in your criticism of me when I state that the concept might have been copied from elsewhere because it hadn't been done before according to Whigham and then state that you actually BELIEVE that it "EXISTED SOMEWHERE" already without a "DOUBT"! The height of hypocrisy!
You are wrong in your beliefs about my motivation and reasoning.
-
"...........so it's easy for me to imagine the Titans taunting one another, like AWT co-opting CBM's stratagem for the Cape and defining it as his own."
JimK:
Frankly, to me and from what I've read the one who seemed to or tended to co-opt ideas in architecture as originally his own or just lay claim to them as such appears to be Alister MacKenzie. I have no real idea about the truth of any of it but from where I sit some of his clearly original ideas on architecture or as applied to it by him were some of the most original and significant ever conceived of.
-
"Tom,
I don't. There were not more than a couple handfuls of these guys and they all seemed to travel around on the same circuits, relatively speaking. I feel that they all had a certain influence on each other, but with a definite pecking order. For instance, a man like Wilson would surely have his own ideas, but he would more likely be swayed by men like Tillinghast and Macdonald than vice versa. A man like Crump definitely had his own plan, but he surely liked the idea of input form his buddies, the architects."
JimK:
I hear what you're saying above and perhaps the whole thing is a bit like trying to put a thousand angels on the head of a pin and trying to figure out who the hell led them or really influenced them all somehow.
Again, I think this kind of subject is tempting to discuss for a lot of reasons but I really am with a guy like Doak who I think has said it best on here----eg the whole thing is sort of like an untrackable melting pot (of ideas, opinions, suggestions etc) in the final analysis. I have always said that the best way for any of the contributors and discussants on here to come to truly understand this and the way it has pretty much always been is to just get out there and take as much time as necessary (days, weeks, months) to watch it happen in the field with some or most architects and their support crews and consultants. That certainly was an eyeopener and education for me and the confirming news is I've done that with a number of architects over the years and it all works pretty much the same way.
Some of the guys on here are just going to have to have these kinds of experiences if they ever want to understand this and stop the petty arguments on here which this thread seems to be become another of a long list of them and of course interestingly waylaid in this way by the very same less than handful of contributors.
-
Here are Tilly's own words on the subject. It seems clear to me that Tilly associated the concept with CBM, and not Westward Ho!
http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/GolfIllustrated/1919/gi111s.pdf
-
The article has a more full description of the differences between Doglegs and Elbows. It seems that AWT is saying here that a dogleg can't be reached from the tee, but the elbow hole can be carried. That appears to somewhat different than what he wrote in his pamphlet.
He does associate CB with the Cape, and whether or not that's any kind of conclusive evidence it surely makes a good case that AWT knew who thunk it up and where it was placed on the ground.
TEP,
It may be untrackable for the most part, but when evidence starts to unfold showing that one man 'got' an idea from another it helps everyone in their understanding of the continuum of ideas.
-
"TEP,
It may be untrackable for the most part, but when evidence starts to unfold showing that one man 'got' an idea from another it helps everyone in their understanding of the continuum of ideas."
JimK:
When the evidence starts to unfold showing that one man "got" an idea from another?
What evidence is that? If you don't want to take my opinion for the way these things generally happen perhaps you'd prefer to take someone's opinion like Doak. Failing that I don't see any particular reason to assume that one architect "got" some idea from someone else unless and until THAT architect actually said or wrote so himself. Do you? ;)
-
It's pretty simple Tom, read the article TMac posted, look at the timeline of AWT's explanation of what makes a Cape hole, and even you should be able to concede that CBM's concept was what got AWT thinking.
If you don't you can use your brush to start a self-portrait.
-
Tom,
Thank you for posting that article of Tilly's. It is one that I had forgotten about. I do believe that you and Jim are both reading more into it than what is there. Yes, he mentions CBM as having several holes which "are fine examples of this feature" but he also mentions his own at Shawnee, the 7th, as being a "famous" Cape hole.
I've already been berated for even suggesting that Tilly's "Cape" hole versions had differences from others, especially M&W's as their definition places the cape as being surrounded by water, but here is an example of that proves the very point of being decidedly different. This hole was designed in 1909, about the same time that NGLA was being built. It was NOT a par-4 but a 522-yard par-5; an obvious difference that shows that his design was contemporaneous to M&W's and not a copy... Point of FACT is that that Tilly's course was open to the public in May 1911, and even though there was some play at NGLA, it wasn't officially open for play until later that year in September.
Jim, you suggested to Tom P that he should, "read the article TMac posted, look at the timeline of AWT's explanation of what makes a Cape hole, and even you should be able to concede that CBM's concept was what got AWT thinking." Actually by reading it the exact OPPOSITE conclusion must be drawn. There is absolutely no record of Tilly being at NGLA before it opened in 1911 and his design at Shawnee was two years old and being constructed at that time.
It is also interesting that he also stated that this "type" of holes is "encountered often." Tilly also didn't credit M&W as being the originators of the concept, though that really means nothing, yet he also doesn't say anything about any of the often encountered other versions of this hole type as owing their concept to M&W either. I am curious as to where these other cape-type holes had already been built.
Jim, finally, your conclusion that, "The article has a more full description of the differences between Doglegs and Elbows. It seems that AWT is saying here that a dogleg can't be reached from the tee, but the elbow hole can be carried. That appears to somewhat different than what he wrote in his pamphlet..." is incorrect. That is EXACTLY what he wrote in his 1917 booklet...
-
Jim,
To help clear up exactly what Tilly wrote in his booklet, here is a copy of the two-page cenjter portion which contained these definitions:
(http://i364.photobucket.com/albums/oo90/PhiltheAuthor/DoglegElbowCape.jpg)
-
Phillip,
You begin your rant at me above by quoting a comment I made to Jim before you had realized you had completely ignored my post and misunderstood how CBM and others understood the hole, and at the time of my post you were making some pretty bizarre claims about the originality of Tillie's ideas on the Cape (that Tillie had come up with the par 4 cape) and were being pretty stubborn about it. You should read my comments to Jim in that context. And it that context, you were crediting Tillie with far more than he actually did. You've since corrected that, but at the time my comments were appropriate.
Of WHAT are they REPRESENTATIVE of? Each article in the series leading up to the "Cape Hole" mentions the specific hole in the UK that it was based upon.
This is just plain silly. They were representative of American Golf Holes. Are you kidding me here?
Everything I have ever read about the Cape Hole, from 1906 on, indicates that it was an ORIGINAL CONCEPT. I recall no mention of a hole at Westward Ho, and suspect it had nothing to do with the hole (or name) at NGLA.
You stated, "So far as I know, the Cape at NGLA was considered an original." The problem with that is that you are stating as fact something based ONLY upon your knowledge. That I would state that "As far as I know all the holes at NGLA were based upon the great holes from the UK" has just as good a standing as a supposition as does yours. In fact, it may have even more so since it is based upon CBM's OWN WORDS recorded in his 1911 "National Golf Links of America: Statement of Charles Blair Macdonald" wherein he writes to the members of the club on p. 12 par. 1, "Dear Sirs, Some six years ago the idea was formulated of establishing a classic golf course in America, one which would be designed after and eventually could be favorably compared with the championship links abroad..."
Come on Phillip. "As far as I know" includes multiple accounts of the formation of NGLA incluiding multiple firsthand accounts by CBM and HJW, and accounts but some of the leading writers of the time on both sides of the ocean including Darwin and Hutchinson. In every account that addressed it, the Cape is described as being a wholly original concept and not based on any other hole. So it is not as if I am making it up. Given that you have no conflicting information, I think your point is pointless.
"Designed after... the championship links abroad..." So why wouldn't someone believe that the "Cape" hole was therefore "designed after" the Cape hole at Westward Ho in North Devon?
Because virtually every time the hole comes up there is a discussion about how the hole concept was original to Macdonald, and not based upon any other hole.
"Whigham seemed to have a good familiarity with just about every course on every continent, but an especially in-depth knowledge of the courses in Great Britain, so I find it unlikely if he wouldn't have been familiar with Westward Ho, yet Whigham thought Macdonald's Cape at NGLA to be original." I, too, believe it to be an original and EVEN STATED SUCH, in how it took the concept of the hole and created something new and exciting out of it.
"Yet Phillip would rather assume that Tillie must have seen a cape hole elsewhere and before he saw or read of NGLA, and that this must have been his influence and it could not have been what was at the time the most famous hole in America..." Once again you twist my words. I have a strong disagreement with Tom Mac as to whether or not CBM was a MAJOR INFLUENCE in forming Tilly's design philosophy.
It was TOM who stated, "The Cape concept comes from a hole at Royal North Devon. To my knowledge Tilly never visited Westward Ho! so presumably his version of the hole was based upon his exposure Macdonald's concept." It was THAT statement of fact based upon his LIMITED "To my knowledge Tilly never visited Westward Ho" that I took exception to. Once again both you & Tom claim as fact things that are simply based upon your "knowledge" yet if someone else makes a similar statement they are by definition attacking the truth and doing it because of their "vested interests." Absurd!
Tom had recanted his statement before you went off on Tillie perhaps seeing the hole at North Devon. It is not my fault that you did not read his post. I cannot read your mind and know what you bother to read and didn't, and it makes little sense for you to scold me about an understanding that I gained from your innaccurate comments based upon your failure to read what came before.
Yet after all that you don't have even the courage of your convictions to stand upon when you state, "I don't doubt that a similar strategy might have existed somewhere, but no one ever pointed it out if it did."
Sorry David, but you lose credibility in your criticism of me when I state that the concept might have been copied from elsewhere because it hadn't been done before according to Whigham and then state that you actually BELIEVE that it "EXISTED SOMEWHERE" already without a "DOUBT"! The height of hypocrisy!
Frankly, Phillip, it is statements like these that make me wonder if sometimes you don't become a bit too emotional in these discussions, especially about all things Tillie.
I wrote that I "did not doubt" that a hole with similar concepts "MIGHT have existed somewhere," but that "no one ever pointed it out IF it did. This was my polite way of saying that your theory is all wet. There is no evidence of any such hole much less evidence that it was the basis for CBM's cape or any other such Cape. That is why I used words like MIGHT exist and IF it exists. I can think of no way to make a positive any less negative than by intentionally using the double negative "I don't doubt that the something similar might exist somewhere." After all I am not familiar with every hole ever in existence so I can't rlghtly claim no such hole ever existed, can I? But I do make clear that if any such hole ever existed nothing was ever mentioned of it BY ANYONE.
Yet incredibly you claim I wrote that the hole existed "without a 'DOUBT'"?? AND THEN YOU HAVE THE NERVE TO CALL ME A HYPOCRITE FOR SUPPOSEDLY WRITING WORDS I NEVER WROTE, WORDS THAT YOU HAVE TO TWIST BEYOND RECOGNITION TO FIT THEM IN MY MOUTH??
Really Phillip, it is too much. You are behaving like TEPaul. I understood why you might have been offended by my comment above about you having a proprietary interest in Tillie (even if, frankly, it is quite obvious to all of us who regularly read your posts) but this last bit is only cementing that impression.
The Facts Are:
- According to all accounts of which I am aware (that is to say all the accounts of which anyone is aware, except perhaps George, Tom, Jim Urbina few others are aware here) the CAPE CONCEPT WAS A CBM ORIGINAL CONCEPT AND WAS NOT BASED ON ANY HOLE ABROAD.
- CBM'S Cape concept for NGLA predated any other cape concept in America.
- CBM's Cape concept for NGLA was widely publicized from 1906 on, and may have been THE MOST FAMOUS HOLE IN AMERICA AT THE TIME.
- It is impossible to imagine that any of those who came after were unfamiliar with CBM's cape hole, at least in name, reputation, and description.
- The notion that any of those who came after somehow had somehow had their own independent epiphanies regarding the matter is beyond the bounds of reasonableness, as is the notion that they discovered an unmentioned hole somewhere that shaped their ideas before they became aware of CBM's hole.
So the notion that these holes might have suddenly and spontaneously sprouted up of independent lineage and entomology is downright absurd.
Take TEPaul's absurd suggestion above that Wilson's cape hole Merion's was entirely unrelated to NGLA's. It is not as if Wilson was unfamiliar with the concept at NGLA long before he designed the new hole at Merion!
(As an aside, both TEPaul and Wayne have in the past suggested that the 10th was Flynn's design. Every source I have seen describes it a a hole by Wilson, and they have never produced a thing publicy that says differently, except of course for Wayne's absurd theory that if Flynn ever drafted a plan then he must have been the designer. )
________________________________
While I am being frank, I am a bit surprised by your lack of understanding of CBM's and others approach to the Cape hole. It is one thing to be an expert on Tillie, but quite another understand Tillie in the context of the times. It can't be all Tillie all the time or your view will necessarily be skewed, as it was with the Cape hole.
-
Phil
Shawnee opened May 1911. Play began at the NGLA in late 1909, and there were numerous profiles of the course prior to that including Whigham's famous article in May 1909 where he described all the holes in detail. Here is Tilly's description of the 7th at Shawnee in 1914:
"In the opinion of many the seventh hole is one of the best, although in design it is quite simple. A ridge extending out in front of the green makes a pronounced dogleg of it and the drive must be long and accurately placed before the green is opened up to the second shot. The necessity of placing the tee shot, with the second in mind, is obvious on many of the Shawnee holes."
When did Tilly first mention the Cape in his writing? I believe the Wernersville hole was designed in 1915 and Tilly's description was written in 1916.
-
I've already been berated for even suggesting that Tilly's "Cape" hole versions had differences from others, especially M&W's as their definition places the cape as being surrounded by water, but here is an example of that proves the very point of being decidedly different. This hole was designed in 1909, about the same time that NGLA was being built. It was NOT a par-4 but a 522-yard par-5; an obvious difference that shows that his design was contemporaneous to M&W's and not a copy... Point of FACT is that that Tilly's course was open to the public in May 1911, and even though there was some play at NGLA, it wasn't officially open for play until later that year in September.
Come on Phillip, you are being a big baby. You weren't berated for this at all. You were berated for claiming that AWT had come up with the concept of the Par 4 cape hole (as opposed to the fictional par 3 cape hole) and for claiming that AWT came up with the notion of using hazards rather than a body of water. Neither was the case, but because you hadn't read what I had written you argued about it for quite a while before you finally figured out you were wrong. Don't now twist it so that we were unfairly picking on you.
Also, as is always the case on this particular your timelining leaves much to be desired. They had been golfing on NGLA since 1909 and had played a tournament of many of the the major figures in golf in 1910, so you always trying to rely on the opening of the club house at NGLA to slip Shawnee is getting a bit old and is more evidence of what I called your proprietary treatment of Tillie.
As for your timelining of Shawnee, I've never seen this completed 1909 plan that you often refer to, could you post it? Is it exactly the same as the course turned out? If so, how do you know this?
Plus, in this particular situation, the Cape hole had been discussed since 1906 in the golf press. Both Macdonald and Whigham had written about it multiple times over those years. Buy the spring of 1909 every reader of Scribner's magazine had heard of the hole and even had seen a schematic of its strategy, including Perry Maxwell in rural Oklahoma even though he had never even played golf much less designed a course!
So your suggestion that somehow Tillie beat CBM to the punch on the Cape is a bit much, don't you think?
-
"It's pretty simple Tom, read the article TMac posted, look at the timeline of AWT's explanation of what makes a Cape hole, and even you should be able to concede that CBM's concept was what got AWT thinking."
JimK:
I read that article and it is not the first time I've seen it; I read it many years ago, and not from Tom MacWood. I must say I cannot see from it that Tillinghast said or implied that Macdonald was where he (Tillinghast)got his ideas of a Cape Hole from (as MacWood seems to imply is obvious). All Tillie said is that Macdonald's iteration is a good example of a Cape hole; and not that Macdonald's iteration is where the idea or concept came from.
"If you don't you can use your brush to start a self-portrait."
I must say, Jim Kennedy, I have no idea at all what that remark means. Why don't you try to enlighten me about it? ;)
-
David,
Sorry top disappoint you, but this "Big Baby" is NOT being "a bit too emotional" but am simply responding to your comments, especially where you misrepresent what I have stated as you once again have done.
"You were berated for claiming that AWT had come up with the concept of the Par 4 cape hole (as opposed to the fictional par 3 cape hole) and for claiming that AWT came up with the notion of using hazards rather than a body of water. Neither was the case, but because you hadn't read what I had written you argued about it for quite a while before you finally figured out you were wrong. Don't now twist it so that we were unfairly picking on you..."
I NEVER stated that Tilly had come up with the concept of the par-4 cape hole or with the notion of using hazards rather than a body of water. I CLEARLY stated that Tilly's definition of a "Cape" hole was as stated in his 1917 brochure. That is ALL that I said. That it is different from M&W's is true as THEY CLEARLY i when they wrote in Golf Illustrated in 1914 that it is "called the Cape hole, because the green extends out into the sea with which it is surrounded upon three sides..."
Let's see, one has a hole extending into the sea and surrounded by water on three sides the other has a sandy waste or mounds beyond which the green complex sits... sounds ths exact same thing to me all right!
Even you should be able to see that there are at least a few differences in the two definitions...
-
Here is a photo of NGLA's Cape Hole from the August 1910 American Golfer.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/1910-CAPE-AG.jpg?t=1256609318)
The photograph is curious, because there appears to be a golf course there with golfers, yet Phillip and others like to think that NGLA didn't exist until over a year later.
-
David,
Sorry top disappoint you, but this "Big Baby" is NOT being "a bit too emotional" but am simply responding to your comments, especially where you misrepresent what I have stated as you once again have done.
"You were berated for claiming that AWT had come up with the concept of the Par 4 cape hole (as opposed to the fictional par 3 cape hole) and for claiming that AWT came up with the notion of using hazards rather than a body of water. Neither was the case, but because you hadn't read what I had written you argued about it for quite a while before you finally figured out you were wrong. Don't now twist it so that we were unfairly picking on you..."
I NEVER stated that Tilly had come up with the concept of the par-4 cape hole or with the notion of using hazards rather than a body of water. I CLEARLY stated that Tilly's definition of a "Cape" hole was as stated in his 1917 brochure. That is ALL that I said. That it is different from M&W's is true as THEY CLEARLY i when they wrote in Golf Illustrated in 1914 that it is "called the Cape hole, because the green extends out into the sea with which it is surrounded upon three sides..."
Let's see, one has a hole extending into the sea and surrounded by water on three sides the other has a sandy waste or mounds beyond which the green complex sits... sounds ths exact same thing to me all right!
Even you should be able to see that there are at least a few differences in the two definitions...
Come on Phillip, you also wrote that Tillie's understanding was unique in that it applied to PAR FOURS and not just PAR THREES. And you wrote this repeatedly before figuring out it was wrong. And by the time Tillie wrote is 1917 Pamphlet, CBM had already designed multiple Capes without water.
Tillie was a great marketer of himself. It is hard to find him wrtiting of a hole or concept where he does not manage to mention his own work, but surely you cannot suggest that this was a Tillie concept, can you?? If so, where does Tillie even write about it before CBM was doing it?
-
"The photograph is curious, because there appears to be a golf course there with golfers, yet Phillip and others like to think that NGLA didn't exist until over a year later."
That's just another BS deflection and argumentative diversion. Noboby I'm aware of who knows anything about the real and true architectural history of NGLA (including Wilson and his committee ;) ) said that the golf course did not exist in 1910----it was only a question of when it formally opened for play which had a lot to do with at least one real agronomic failure at NGLA (or perhaps even two) for reasons that have been well documented from many parties! ;)
-
David,
You must really enjoy misquoting and misrepresenting what I say as you do it so often. I NEVER stated anything that would deny that there was a course there and that limited play hadn't occurred prior to the official opening day as you misrepresent by stating, "Phillip and others like to think that NGLA didn't exist until over a year later" as you posted below the 1910 photo. Point of fact is that I clearly stated that they had been doing so.
But you did ask a question that I didn't answer. "As for your timelining of Shawnee, I've never seen this completed 1909 plan that you often refer to, could you post it? Is it exactly the same as the course turned out? If so, how do you know this?"
You'll be able to see it in the next issue of Tillinghast Illustrated that will be on-line sometime next week. It contains a partial evolution history of Shawnee up to the late 1930's. Tilly's original routing is included copied directly off the advertising document upon which he himself created and, as it states on it, drawn by Tilly's own hand.
Tilly wrote that he began work on Shawnee with the design and layout in late 1909 followed by course construction in 1910 with the course opening for play in May, 1911. Yiou can choose to believe it or not...
-
Last time David as this has becaome more than a complete waste of time. I NEVER ONCE, not a single time stated that this was a Tilly concept, just that Tilly DEFINED the hole type as HE SAW IT AND DESIGNED THEM... I've said that over and over again and will now bow out of this thread...
-
"The photograph is curious, because there appears to be a golf course there with golfers, yet Phillip and others like to think that NGLA didn't exist until over a year later."
That's just another BS deflection and argumentative diversion. Noboby I'm aware of who knows anything about the real and true architectural history of NGLA (including Wilson and his committee ;) ) said that the golf course did not exist in 1910----it was only a question of when it formally opened for play which had a lot to do with at least one real agronomic failure at NGLA for reasons that have been well documented from many parties! ;)
If you actually believe this then you haven't been paying attention, not even on this thread. And you are wrong about the supposed agronomic failures and their timing. I've explained this to you before repeatedly, but you weren't paying attention then either. Or maybe your memory is just shot. That happens they say with age, neglect of active use of ones intellect, or the repeated abuse of one's brain cells.
________________________________________
Phillip, if anyone doubts any of my representations of your posts they are above.
As for your timelining, if your implication was not that Shawnee was first, then what is the point of repeatedly pointing out that Shawnee opened before NGLA's clubhouse was ready and they had their official opening? And what is the point of repeatedly noting that Tillie had may not have seen NGLA before the opening? He could read couldn't he? And wouldn't you say he was pretty well informed on what was ongoing in golf? It is not as if NGLA was a closely held secret before the official opening was it? Tillie would have had to have been living in Oklahoma to not have known about the Cape Hole by 1909 or before, no wait he would have known in Oklahoma. He would have had to have been living in Siberia, and that is presuming the mails would have been running very, very late to Siberia.
And Phillip, we cant count it Shawnee's as a cape hole if Tillie himself only retrospectively decided it was one in order to slip it into a self-promotion in one of his articles. t one until 1919!
As for Shawnee, what was the date of the drawing in the advertisement? When did it first appear as an advertisemen? Are the holes labeled by name?
___________________________________
Last time David as this has becaome more than a complete waste of time. I NEVER ONCE, not a single time stated that this was a Tilly concept, just that Tilly DEFINED the hole type as HE SAW IT AND DESIGNED THEM... I've said that over and over again and will now bow out of this thread...
Again Phillip, if you are not trying to create the implication, then what is the point of almost all that you have written. From your first post it has been aimed at creating the impression that Tillie might have come up with this on his own. Why then, if this is not your claim?
_________________________________________
I am interested in this plan of Shawnee so could you at least address my question as to its date?
Thanks.
-
You know, Batman has a pretty cool cape.....
-
You know, Batman has a pretty cool cape.....
I'm surprised you noticed. Aren't you usually staring at his tights?
-
Phil,
Before we saw the written word of AWT you said this was his definition of an elbow and a dogleg:
"The "Elbow" would turn either without a hazard or with one that most players could carry with a "courageous shot" as Tilly put it, whereas the dog-leg turns around a hazard that it would be "impossible to carry over."
Then you said:
"Jim, finally, your conclusion that, "The article has a more full description of the differences between Doglegs and Elbows. It seems that AWT is saying here that a dogleg can't be reached from the tee, but the elbow hole can be carried. That appears to somewhat different than what he wrote in his pamphlet..." is incorrect. That is EXACTLY what he wrote in his 1917 booklet"...
I'm sorry Phil, but you presented AWT's words in an ungainly manner when you said the dogleg turns around a hazard that would be 'impossible to carry over". That leaves the impression of trees that are too high to carry, not just distance. It is completely clear from the article what he meant but at first it did seem at odds with what you wrote.
I'm not trying to beat you over the head Phil, but I fail to see how a man as wise as yourself cannot see the obvious similarities of the two Capes, AWT's and CBM's. Their main feature is their position in regards to the fairway, they both sit off to the side at the end of it, and secondly, they are both protected by hazardous means.
No one seems to have called this configuration a Cape until CBM, it appears that it was unique to him, and it was copied later by others, AWT included.
Those are the most real, the most reasonable and the most believeable facts.
-
After wading through all the bickering from the usual suspects, I looked up the Cape hole at RND. Seems most references to it are referring to the Cape Bunker as the feature. It seems to have nothing to do with the Cape concept (either of them) that are being discussed here. So, it doesn't seem like that hole inspired CBM.
I'm left with a question for the NGLA/CBM'ophiles. If the Cape hole at NGLA is an original concept not based on any famous hole in Scotland or England, are there any other holes at NGLA that are also original concepts. Were not all the holes supposed to be inspired by famous holes from abroad?
Is not Foxy at Royal Dornoch also a Cape hole of sorts, both off the tee and in the positioning of the green?
-
COMMERCIAL INTERRUPTION:
The only thing that I have enjoyed about this thread is Tom Paul's reference to a Doak statement;
"Again, I think this kind of subject is tempting to discuss for a lot of reasons but I really am with a guy like Doak who I think has said it best on here----eg the whole thing is sort of like an untrackable melting pot (of ideas, opinions, suggestions etc) in the final analysis."
I like the visual of an untrackable melting pot of ideas....well stated, and appropriate when describing the so called Golden Age.
Much of the rest has become a squabble over who first coined the term, or came up with a definition, or even who first utilized or created certain land features that resemble what we now commonly refer to as a "Cape".
The land forms and features that form this type of hole have always existed, and have been utilized as a strategic element since men first started whacking a ball around with a stick.
In the beginning these "Cape style" holes were not created, but found....because this type of land feature, [a stretch of land that curves around an open hazard] is found naturally in links golf terrain.
As the game became more sophisticated, designers started to create and build this strategic concept on land where it didn't exist naturally.
Its a common design element that has been used by all golf designers.
Its very central to my "Curves of Charm Theory".
Who first used this type of land feature will never be known.
Who came up with the first "term" for this type of hole will never be known as well.
But whatever this term was, I'd bet it wasn't in English....but in Gaelic.
NOW BACK TO THE ORIGINAL PROGRAM
-
paul cowley
stop all that straight talk, please! don't you know that threads like this one are common sense free zones?
rich
-
Its a common design element that has been used by all golf designers.
Its very central to my "Curves of Charm Theory".
Oh, now we know who invented it, it was you Paul. :o ;D
-
Blimey, what did I start with such an innocent query... ;D
Cheers,
James
-
You know, Batman has a pretty cool cape.....
I'm surprised you noticed. Aren't you usually staring at his tights?
Right on cue, a perfectly snarky reply!
-
Paul Cowley did invent the "Curves of Charm" theory or at least he invented the term for it (I may've even been in the geographic vicinity when it came to him although I can't be 100% certain of that---but I am sure I was nearby in what might be called the "time spectrum" when if first came to him). If some of us go after him and tackle him and pin him down and apply constant nuggies to both his arms until he can't take it anymore we may get him to admit WHERE he was when the idea first came to him and we may even get him to show us precisely how it works on the very landform he first thought of it. Shit, I'll even bring the spray paint cans so we can line the whole thing out on the ground where his novel and original idea first occured to him. Can't get much more historically accurate and FACT-based than that my little Architectural Munchkins!
-
After wading through all the bickering from the usual suspects, I looked up the Cape hole at RND. Seems most references to it are referring to the Cape Bunker as the feature. It seems to have nothing to do with the Cape concept (either of them) that are being discussed here. So, it doesn't seem like that hole inspired CBM.
I'm left with a question for the NGLA/CBM'ophiles. If the Cape hole at NGLA is an original concept not based on any famous hole in Scotland or England, are there any other holes at NGLA that are also original concepts. Were not all the holes supposed to be inspired by famous holes from abroad?
Bryan,
I think that's an interesting question, and perhaps a question of varying degrees.
The topography for # 16 is so unique, so wild, that I can't imagine it being a replica.
Certainly the area of the green, with its punchbowl green may have been inspired by another hole, but, I can't imagine the amphitheatre like surrounds as having existed elsewhere, and certainly not at any links course.
# 18 also has unusual topography that doesn't seem to lend itself to replication.
Could there be design elements that CBM observed, even minor elements that he expanded for his purposes, his architectural versions ?
Possibly, but, is it also possible that the landform cried out for an original design.
An additional question might be, did the landform dictate an original hole, with features CBM found appealing during his visits and studies ?
-
After wading through all the bickering from the usual suspects, I looked up the Cape hole at RND. Seems most references to it are referring to the Cape Bunker as the feature. It seems to have nothing to do with the Cape concept (either of them) that are being discussed here. So, it doesn't seem like that hole inspired CBM.
I'm left with a question for the NGLA/CBM'ophiles. If the Cape hole at NGLA is an original concept not based on any famous hole in Scotland or England, are there any other holes at NGLA that are also original concepts. Were not all the holes supposed to be inspired by famous holes from abroad?
Bryan,
I think that's an interesting question, and perhaps a question of varying degrees.
The topography for # 16 is so unique, so wild, that I can't imagine it being a replica.
Certainly the area of the green, with its punchbowl green may have been inspired by another hole, but, I can't imagine the amphitheatre like surrounds as having existed elsewhere, and certainly not at any links course.
# 18 also has unusual topography that doesn't seem to lend itself to replication.
Could there be design elements that CBM observed, even minor elements that he expanded for his purposes, his architectural versions ?
Possibly, but, is it also possible that the landform cried out for an original design.
An additional question might be, did the landform dictate an original hole, with features CBM found appealing during his visits and studies ?
Pat, take a look at the thread now on page 1 about the third hole at Deal, check out the photos and see if there's any similarity to #16 at NGLA.
-
"Were not all the holes supposed to be inspired by famous holes from abroad?"
No, not according to Macdonald, even if those holes that were not copies of holes abroad used some of what he called some architectural "principles" or even features of various holes abroad he referred to as "classical" but those architectural principles or features were only used in part apparently on some of the original holes of NGLA. A perhaps decent way to tell the different between template holes from abroad compared to the rest of the holes of NGLA is to simply check out the names of the holes at NGLA! For instance, you may not find any holes abroad named "Valley," "Shinnecock," "Sebonac," "Narrows," "Peconic." ;)
-
Paul Cowley did invent the "Curves of Charm" ...............we can line the whole thing out on the ground where his novel and original idea first occured to him. Can't get much more historically accurate and FACT-based than that my little Architectural Munchkins!
That wasn't what my post was about, we were talking Capes. I figured that if Paul felt the need to remind us of his discovery then he might as well take responsibility for the Cape, too. After all, if he's one of the few, if not the only, architects to have ever found or used anything in a new configuration then we should just give him credit for all of it, from time immemorial to now. ;D ;D (Two smileys so no one thinks I'm trying to upset them)
-
No smileys are necessary, at least not on my account. I've been aware for some time now that you and your posts have a novel way of taking what someone says and trying to extrapolate it far beyond what they either said or meant. A few on here have become quite good at telling others they know better what some meant than the people who said it in the first place. It's quite the talent if one really thinks about it! ;)
-
Tom, I'm sorry if you missed the humor.
-
Bill,
The hole at Deal is on relatively flat land, next to the sea, # 16 at NGLA has huge elevation changes from tee to DZ to green.
As to the amphitheatre like quality of the green at Deal, yes, it's there, but, that amphitheatre like quality exists at many green sites in the UK.
What's different about NGLA's 16th green is its true saucer like green, within the amphitheatre.
I don't see # 16 at NGLA as anywhere near a replica of # 3 at Deal.
-
JimK:
I never miss the humor----either way!
-
Bryan,
Thanks for the clarification on Westward Ho.
There are only 4 holes (maybe 5) at NGLA that could be considered holes closely modeled on holes abroad, and even with these there are significant differences (improvements, CBM would say.). Many others had features and aspects inspired by aspects of holes abroad but they were applied in an original manner and in original arrangements as the site allowed. From various descriptions, the Cape was a step beyond even this category. It was considered a new concept, one not based upon any particular hole or features or even on a combination of these. It was thought to be original. Unique. Nothing else like it anywhere.
That isn't my opinion or analysis. Rather, it is how the hole was described by Macdonald, Whigham, and others with a very good understanding of what else was out there. So this notion that the hole and concept must have been based on some other hole or holes is revisionist history.
I don't know about the hole at Dornoch. I recall that someone (Rich?) claimed CBM never made it to Dornoch, but idont know. However if we are to believe CBM, HJW, and others this was not the inspiration nor was any other hole.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul I generally agree with much of what you wrote in your commercial break but not all of it:
1. the transition from finding holes on the links to applying those principles elsewhere was neither direct nor fluid. While it may seem onviously the best approach to us, for whatever reason those early practicioners creating courses on non-links (as opposed to finding them on the links) were not transferring the concepts and arangements to their courses, at least not generally. Macdonald established that this was the correct way to approach design and provided a terrific example of how to do it, thus establishing the design approach of what we think of as the golden age of golf design.
2. As strange as it may seem, in the case of the Cape concept, it is not clear that anyone had ever found this type of land formation and used it in the manner that CBM did at NGLA. If they had, then certainly CBM, HJW, were not aware of it, nor were the various commentators on both continents who commented (favorably and less favorably) on the hole. And this hole may have beenthe most famous hole on by far the most talked about course in the World, so surely the proud Brits and Scots would have come up with a prototype if they had one!
So while your description of the process may apply to the development of design principles generally, it does NOT apply to this partular concept or this particular hole.
3. Same goes for the name and description of the hole. So far as I know, "Cape" was not some oft used descriptive name or concept from the lexicon of early links golf, like alps or long or punchbowl or home. The term appears to have been coined by M&W at NGLA. At least so far as know.
4. Those others such as Wilson, Crump, Flynn, Tillie, and others who regularly incorporated the original cape concept into their designs did so from well within CBM's long shadow. They all knew the concept from NGLA's Cape Hole and the extensive discussion about the course and that had taken place on both continents. And they even cooptedt he name for one of their three basic types of par 4's from CBM's Cape hole at NGLA! What stronger evidence of the influence of CBM's Cape hole could there be?
So, in short, no matter how hard it usually is to trace the geneology of golf holes and names, it just isn't that complicated in this particular case. It was a CBM hole and named by him.
That you now see the concept everywhere and see it as a basic fundamental building block of good design is a tribute to CBM, his creativity, and his tremendous influence on all who came after.
---------
Paul I just reread your post and had a thought .... Is it possible that you are focusing on the modern understanding of the term "cape" as in a diagonal carry where the golfer can bite off as much as he/she can handle? I ask because if that is the context of your post then it makes much more sense. Because there just isn't that much mystery to the origins of the cape concept as they used the term in the first third of last century.
-
Bill,
The hole at Deal is on relatively flat land, next to the sea, # 16 at NGLA has huge elevation changes from tee to DZ to green.
As to the amphitheatre like quality of the green at Deal, yes, it's there, but, that amphitheatre like quality exists at many green sites in the UK.
What's different about NGLA's 16th green is its true saucer like green, within the amphitheatre.
I don't see # 16 at NGLA as anywhere near a replica of # 3 at Deal.
Based on your comments above, I wonder if you've been to Deal.
I hadn't until a couple of weeks ago, two years after my only day at NGLA.
I'm not saying the third at Deal inspired the 16th at NGLA, but there are some strong parallels.
The tee shot starts off on level ground and soon starts climbing steeply up to a plateau some 100 yards out.
The green sits well down inside a bowl, and has great contouring within the green's punchbowl surrounds.
The shot is blind from 150 yards and all you can see from closer is the top of the flagstick.
Both holes are straight. The hole we played at Deal was a 450 yard par 4, not the par 5 it plays from the back tees.
I thought there were many parallels.
Here's where the steep hill starts at about 280 yards from the green:
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s196/jmayhugh/deal/deal3f-1.jpg)
From the top and looking ahead at the punchbowl:
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s196/jmayhugh/deal/deal3f3-1.jpg)
From right in front of the green:
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s196/jmayhugh/deal/deal3f5.jpg)
The green down inside the punchbowl:
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s196/jmayhugh/deal/deal3g-1.jpg)
Very cool green contours, from the right side:
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s196/jmayhugh/deal/deal3g4.jpg)
(Thanks to John Mayhugh for the use of his photos ;) )
-
Bump for Pat Mucci.......
-
Bill,
By your measurements that would mean that the hill doesn't begin until you're 270 yards off the tee.
That's a rather demanding requirement, especially if there's just the slightest breeze in your face.
While NGLA's tee shot is uphill, reaching the elevated plateau isn't that challenging unless a north wind is up.
# 16 it has two cavernous depressions flanking both sides of the central spine of the fairway.
I don't believe that Deal has that configuration.
While there are similarities there are also substantive differences, but, I see what you mean by the general concept.
Was Deal one of the courses CBM studied ?
-
Bill,
By your measurements that would mean that the hill doesn't begin until you're 270 yards off the tee.
That's a rather demanding requirement, especially if there's just the slightest breeze in your face.
There's a gentle uphill before the hill starts at those bunkers. I may be 20 or 30 yards off on the 450 yards. From the back tee as a short par 5 it plays completely differently at 510 yards. The club is building a new tee 30 yards back to lengthen the par 5.
While NGLA's tee shot is uphill, reaching the elevated plateau isn't that challenging unless a north wind is up.
# 16 it has two cavernous depressions flanking both sides of the central spine of the fairway.
I don't believe that Deal has that configuration. You could definitely consider those deep fairway bunkers as the challenge to the tee shot presented by the depressions at NGLA.
While there are similarities there are also substantive differences, but, I see what you mean by the general concept.
Was Deal one of the courses CBM studied ? It could have been. Wasn't Sahara at NGLA based on a hole at Royal st George's (Sandwich?) That's only a couple of miles away on the north side of Princes. I'll have to get out Scotland's Gift: Golf and see if he lists the holes that inspired NGLA. I think George Bahto has a similar listing, will look at that as well.
Whether or not the hole at Deal inspired Macdonald, it is the best hole on a wonderful course, so happy I was able to play three rounds there at the BUDA Cup.
-
What I find most interesting about the definition of a Cape Hole is that nobody seems to mention that both shots are effected by water. While we know there existed holes with the drive over water before NGLA and hence at least one reason why those holes weren't called Capes, were there holes with an approach to a peninsula green? When was Dunbar's 12th built? Were there par 3s with a peninsula green? In other words, did CBM just take the Cape concept from two separate holes and call it original or was the peninsula green concept original?
Ciao
-
In the book golf course design by Graves and Cornish they give CBM credit for the Cape design.
"The Cape. This is a Charles Blair Macdonald original - not a links hole but nevertheless a classic. It is most often a par 4 dogleg left or right with a "heroic" carry required from the tee if a golfer is to reach a green perched on a cape... An excellent example is the 5th at Mid-Ocean...In creating NLGA CBM set out to adapt British classics to his masterpiece"
Back to the cape, what characteristics are required for a golf hole to be considered a cape? Par 4, heroic carry, green site perched on a cape?
IMO par is not a requirement only the heroic carry and the green site.
-
Bill,
None of Deal's holes are included in CBM's ideal golf course, but, that doesn't mean that it might not have influenced him.
-
Obvious links hole that have Cape elements are North Berwick's 2nd and Machrihanish's 1st. And looking at some of the drawings, I think the 8th at Brancaster has some too.
-
Bill,
None of Deal's holes are included in CBM's ideal golf course, but, that doesn't mean that it might not have influenced him.
George Bahto doesn't mention Deal in his discussion of the Punchbowl hole in The Evangelist of Golf.
I still wonder if old CB visited Deal while playing the Sahara at Sandwich. The coincidence wouldn't be farfetched.
-
"I still wonder if old CB visited Deal while playing the Sahara at Sandwich. The coincidence wouldn't be farfetched."
BillB:
Of course it's not farfetched. One has to appreciate that Macdonald made three separate architectural study trips abroad over a four year span (1902, 1904 and 1906) all or some over a number of months. In his book he says:
"I completed my research studies and brought home surveyors maps of the more famous holes; the Alps, Redan, Eden, and the Road Hole, also some twenty or thirty sketches, personally drawn, of holes embodying distinctive features, which in themselves seemed misplaced, but could be utilized to harmonize with a certain character of undulating ground and lay the foundation for an ideal hole."
Unfortunately all that material he referred to has apparently been lost. And one can't forget that it has been often said that Devereux Emmet did the same thing abroad perhaps anyway and perhaps for Macdonald.
-
I recently read an extract from a club history of Machrihanish which was written in the 70's/80's, where the author (I think) talks about the first being even more of a carry from the tee back in the 1920's when he was a boy as the beach has receded or the grass has taken over to make the landing area more generous. That being the case it is easy to imagine the green being a lot nearer the shoreline.
I also came across a plan of the old Forres course near Findhorn as it existed in 1894. There is one hole where the drive cuts over the bay and the approach plays to a green which sits adjacent to a "cape" although it would appear not actually in it. Hard to say purely from the plan whether the water actually came into play.
Also I think it was Eyemouth which had/has a hole which played over the cliffs to a green which had a green with cliffs front, back and left. I'm sure there were other holes which had different elements of the Cape design.
I think therefore that maybe the ideas were out there and what Mac did was refine them and then define them.
Niall
-
I recently read an extract from a club history of Machrihanish which was written in the 70's/80's, where the author (I think) talks about the first being even more of a carry from the tee back in the 1920's when he was a boy as the beach has receded or the grass has taken over to make the landing area more generous. That being the case it is easy to imagine the green being a lot nearer the shoreline.
I also came across a plan of the old Forres course near Findhorn as it existed in 1894. There is one hole where the drive cuts over the bay and the approach plays to a green which sits adjacent to a "cape" although it would appear not actually in it. Hard to say purely from the plan whether the water actually came into play.
Also I think it was Eyemouth which had/has a hole which played over the cliffs to a green which had a green with cliffs front, back and left. I'm sure there were other holes which had different elements of the Cape design.
I think therefore that maybe the ideas were out there and what Mac did was refine them and then define them.
Niall
Niall, unless I am reading them incorrectly, in all of these descriptions you seem to be focusing on the drive over a corner. CBM's Cape was defined by the green.
As for the idea, it is a take on a very general idea about diagonals and angles and choices and carries, the same general idea behind most great strategic features and it is used repeatedly on his courses on all sorts of holes.
But as to the Cape Hole in particular, Macdonald thought and wrote that this particular application or arrangement was original to this particular hole. Others with great experience on the links courses agreed with him. The hole wasn't based on anything but sound strategic principle applied in a manner that, according to Macdonald and others, had never been done before.
So I think it a bit inaccurate to conclude that CBM just refined and defined ideas that were already out there. Yes it is true at the most general sense wherein all architects are always just refining ideas that are already out there. But according to all the accounts I have seen, the Cape concept was unique, and not based on any other hole.
I don't think anyone has yet come up with a hole yet that would have been considered a Cape as they understood it then, have they? And they certainly have not come up with a hole that CBM and others saw and understood to be a Cape, have they?
What I keep coming back to is this: CBM wrote that as far as he knew the concept underlying the Cape Hole was original. Others who knew quite a bit more about these courses than we do agreed with him.
So why is there so much reluctance to give CBM his due?
- Was there some sort of conspiracy to give CBM credit he did not deserve?
- If credit for originality was what CBM was after, then why did he spend years explaining and describing all the holes he was emulating at NGLA?
- Why was he so insistent that the only sound way to do architecture was to look to the principles underlying the great holes?
Again, I can't help but wonder what is driving many of these posts (not yours necessarily.) It is not as if this is my new crazy theory. I am not the one who claimed this hole was an original concept, CBM did and others with great knowledge did as well. Why are we so intent on second guessing them?