[Patrick_Mucci]

Do angled greens, angled bunkers, angled creeks and angled mounds create the best architectural challenges to the golfer ?

Many talk about the road hole at TOC being one of the best holes in golf.  Isn't it the angled fairway, bunkers and green that create that assessment ?

Others speak of the greatness of Amen Corner.  Aren't the angles at # 12 and # 13 at ANGC largely responsible for the great challenge the holes offer ?

[Bill Gayne]

Yes because it allows for risk/reward scenarios like on a cape hole. How far of the angle does one try to cut off on the tee shot?

Angles also take away symetry which can provide options.

[TEPaul]

Yes, the diagonal is the most useful angle in golf architecture.

[BCrosby]

Agreed. Imho angles are at the heart of great architecture. They can't be overused.

To extend your thesis a bit, creating angles is not just a matter of building features on the diagonal. Angles can be created by off-setting tees and greens from the centerline. That allows you to mix diagonal features and in-line features so that even the in-line features don't play in-line. C&C are masters at that and do it a lot at Sand Hills and Cusco.

Bob

[Jeremy_Glenn.]

OMG, this must be the first time Pat and I ever agreed on something!  

Absolutely, the diagonal line is one of the most important building block of compelling architecture.  Not just designing things diagonally (such as greens, creeks, bunkers, etc...) but also locating these features diagonally one from the other.

[Kenny Lee Puckett]

Pat -

Absolutely!

How about #6 at PVGC or #14 at NGLA as the embodiments of proof.

JWK

[EAF]

Absolutely!

[Andy Hughes]

OMG, this must be the first time Pat and I ever agreed on something!  

I had the same thought! Pat, I knew you'd be right eventually  , and I think you are spot on re the Road Hole.

[W.H. Cosgrove]

Angles are essential to great architecture.  Yes the risk reward is important as is the ability to tie features together, creating consistency and flow.  

What hasn't been mentioned is that angles create motion in a static environment.  As we look at angles our eye tends to start at the nearest point and then track to the furthest point.  In a very subtle way, like standing next to a passing train where we feel as if we are being pulled into the train even though we remain still.  The angled hazard or feature pulls us to it.  

Pete Dye is great at pulling our eye toward a dangerous feature on one side of a hole while allowing bailout areas away from the trouble.  This may be a part of the reason that Fazio is a contentious figure in this web site.  His framing of the holes and his creation of 'portraits' draws us to the center of the hole making the the shot easier to visualize.  The dissonance created by angles is simply not there.  We are left, in Fazio's work with a sense of beauty but are unfulfilled by the visual challenge.  

Try thinking of holes with hard angles (90°) and how you react to them when playing.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

I disagree with angles being the most important. I think that FEATURES are whats most important.  

Features are what makes great golf. It could be a hollow, a hill, a bump, a grind, a crevasse, a road, a fence line, a solitary tree, a sandy blowout, a back drop, a skyline, an old wall or "dyke," a monumental landform, a creek, a river, an ocean, the duneline of a sandy beach, a sloping hillside, even a mountain of rock.

Its how you use all of these features to make the best golf.  Most of them are natural, just some of them have to be man-made.

If angles, squares, and circles produce the best architectural prospects of the given piece of land, then so be it.

While Tom Doak will probably dispute the circles and the squares, many of them can be found on some of the best putting surfaces the game knows.

[W.H. Cosgrove]

Tommy...do you think it would be possible to create angles using various features?  A series of mounds to give the impression of an angle?  A waterfeature with a shape that creates an angle?  Or a more complicated use of a hollow that creates foreshortening creating a false angle?  

The very features you discuss are the building blocks of the strategic puzzles.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Bill,
One of the first things I think of when I think of angles, and while many here will dispute if they really are angles on these holes, its the 2nd 3rd and 7th at the National.  Don't ask me why I think of these holes, but I do.  The difference is that while they offer very glamours rewards for following the straight line, they also offer some pretty interesting chores for the angled, less rewarding avenues.  (if this makes sense)

So, yes, I think it is possible, but the angles are products of the features which are utilized. I'm not a fan of RTJ, but one of the holes that does bare interest in regards to water hazards and angles is the par 5, 13th at Dorado Beach.  I haven't seen the hole in person and I don't even know if the lakes are man-made or natural, but eiher way, it seems to be a hole of some sound strategic principles, which I'm sure makes it even more strategic nowadays with the new equipment. (the 2nd shot which would require a biting high fairway wood or long iron to carry the 2nd pond or lake and a pretty nasty deep bunker.)

[henrye]

Pat, I don't think that it is the angle of the green at the 12th at Augusta that makes it a challenge.  I think it is due to the slope, shallowness of the green and the water being very much in play if you're short or have to chip back from over the green.  Come to think of it, in general, I think a shallow green presents more of a challenge than an angled one.  As for the famous bunker on 17 at TOC isn't it a small (circumference) deep pot bunker with vertical walls?  I understand the green being angled, but what are you referring to when you mention the bunker?

[Patrick_Mucci]

HenryE,

Pat, I don't think that it is the angle of the green at the 12th at Augusta that makes it a challenge.  I think it is due to the slope, shallowness of the green and the water being very much in play if you're short or have to chip back from over the green.

There is relatively little slope on # 12 green, especially on the right side.

Shallowness, left and near the mid-point is a considerable factor.   But, the green presents an angled target.
The right side is the longer side.

The challenge of chipping back from over the green is more a function of hole location then the fronting water.  
Hole locations on the right have ample room, the middle is protected by a substantial bunker.  Only the far left side presents a considerable challenge.[/color]

Come to think of it, in general, I think a shallow green presents more of a challenge than an angled one.  As for the famous bunker on 17 at TOC isn't it a small (circumference) deep pot bunker with vertical walls?  I understand the green being angled, but what are you referring to when you mention the bunker?

They are all interrelated, the fairway, angle of the green and intervening bunker.  All conspire, in concert with one another, to make approach and recovery shots difficult.[/color]

[A_Clay_Man]

Tommy, RTJ made a similarly sounding hole at LaGuna Seca near Carmel. The 15th or 16th hole utilizes two water features (maybe they are one, but appear as two) to create the strategy and angles needed on a confounding 3 shotter.

Other uses of angles that gets my juices flowing are the sharp slants and cants to certain death. Pete Dye uses them effectively, and I'm under the impression Pete gives Raynor credit for the influence. Others have speculated that he was really influenced more by Langford, since two of his early golf life experiences, were mistakeningly credited to Raynor.

Other similar examples can be found at Lawsonia, BWR, Poppy hills right side of the green on #14, Ridgecrest in Nampa Idaho had this same feature only on steroids on it's uphill 17th.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()