[Kyle Harris]

Wayne,

I remember the tee shot being partially blind except for the extreme right side of the fairway. Was there a new tee added behind the ones on the top of the hill? The one we played was fairly close the 2nd green.

I could just be fuzzy though, even though I just shaved.  

[JESII]

Ian, Wayne and Kyle

I can't believe you would expect me to remember all of those other reverse doglegs out there, I mean I've only played about 5,000 rounds and even played #8C this past saturday. Insert full line of smiley's.

#8 on the C-nine is certainly a very strong "reverse". The entire landing area is canted significantly from the right, and you must then go up that way with your approach, good call.

#11 by the strictest of definitions is probably a "reverse", but it does not play anything like the others mentioned. Once your tee shot has traveled about 220 yards (remember how much downhill it is) your lie is very flat, especially by HVCC standards, and the ball does not run off to the right much. The bulk of the 10 foot slope is in the very early part of the fairway, and if your ball is back there you're not going for the green with the next very often.

RE: #7, I assume you are talking about A-7, the par 5. You might want to work the ball into the slope to hold the fairway, but I don't think this instance really fits the reverse dogleg concept. You want to draw it off the tee to take full advantage of the slope, and if you are laying up you can do a number of things to get the ball into the best position at the crest of that last hill.

[wsmorrison]

Jim,

Ian and I mentioned the C-5 dogleg left with the green benched into the hillside.  There is a pretty good left to right slope away from the dogleg.  That is an excellent hole with a pretty high demand tee shot and a very high demand approach given the  elevated green, mostly hidden and the significant left to right slope of the green.  

I think you're right that A-7 doesn't really fit the reverse dogleg category.

[TEPaul]

"Would 4 at PVGC be considered a reverse dogleg?  I seem to remember it going away from the dogleg right tee shot."

Sean:

Definitely not. The concept and strategy of that hole was enough discussed by those that had to do with the creation of the course to tell what they were trying to do. Basically that hole could be called a super demand "shot testing" hole for two clubs and basically raw distance but the ideas for it from Crump to Fownes to Alison were to keep it (and even strengthen the concept) into one where the golfer pretty much needed to keep the ball well right to have the best shot in. Alison specifically called for the left green-side bunker to be cut well right to guard against an approach coming from the left of the fairway. That recommendation was actually accepted but it sure doesn't look like it was ever done for some reason.

[TEPaul]

I love the "reverse dogleg" concept because as was said on the first page of this thread by Mark Ferguson it appears to be a strategic concept to see if the golfer is thinking and paying attention to the golf course.

Some might call the concept a "fake-out" as the golfer may tend to take a risk off the tee with inside bunkering et al for no real reward.

There's no question Flynn did a number of these holes. As for the term "reverse dogleg" I don't recall that Flynn or anyone else back then actually used that term or any other term to describe this interesting strategic concept. I started using the term about ten years ago when talking to Bill Coore or maybe Geoff Shackelford about it. C&C were trying to dabble with the concept, I believe, somewhere around the time they were building Easthampton. At least I heard they were looking to dabble with the "reverse dogleg" concept.

So, if an architect like Flynn did as many of these types of holes as we can see he did, what was his purpose? Were they supposed to be fake-out holes that relied on strategic deception (would it looked like what the best strategy should be but really isn't)?

I have a suspicion it may've been a little of that but perhaps was more of an attempt to basically develop the old "tortoise and hare" strategies fully. The old "tortoise and hare" concept was something Flynn mentioned and wrote about a good deal.

A "reverse dogleg" is almost the ideal "tortoise and hare" concept in the sense of attempting to "balance" the differing options of the "tortoise" and the "hare". The "hare" (the long man) had the opportunity to use his distance to carry the inside bunkering and if he was successful he had a much shorter approach but one where he generally has to carry greenside bunkering much more for his approach shot. In that sense it seems like this concept is basically a "two shot risk" for the "hare" for his ultimate reward.

On the other hand, it's assumed that the "tortoise" is not capable of carrying those inside bunkers for a shorter approach to the green so he must recognize he has to drive away from the green and the risk on the inside to the outside of the fairway thereby giving himself a longer approach shot but one that's leaves him a more open but longer shot into the green.

In a sense it seems the old “tortoise and hare” analogy was one where it was assumed the “tortoise” thought better or thought more conservatively basically avoiding architectural “penal” risk along the way while assuming more distance, simply to lay in wait for the “hare” to hang himself somehow with his exuberance.

The "reverse dogleg" also used Behr's "line of instinct" really well (direct line to the hole but one fraught with danger). The reverse dogleg just complicates it a little with what the long man faces on his next shot.

But again, when you have a concept that can somehow "balance" or "even out" the capabilities of various players well it's bound to be an interesting hole over time.

[mike_malone]

 I think we should take into account the routing and the attempt at variety as it relates to one of these holes. For #18 at Rolling Green, it is a back-to back par five. #17 doglegs left in concert with the ridge,while #18 moves away from the slope. This creates some variety in these holes.

    For HVCC there are several straightish holes that precede #16. It breaks up that pattern nicely.

[Brent Hutto]

How about something like the eighth at Cypress Point? Is it too short a hole to be considered a reverse dogleg? It seems to me that you're trying to get the ball to go right but any shot without left-to-right spin is going to feed left when it lands.

I have a question for those who dislike reverse doglegs. Does it matter if it's a reversed dogleg-right versus a reversed dogleg-left? I know as a lefty slicer there are few things more challenging than a narrow reversed-camber dogleg to the right.

FWIW, reversed-camber doglegs are one of my two favorite design features. The other is the green that slopes away from the player, preferably on an uphill approach shot to make center and back pin positions semi-blind. Lou Duran and I briefly touched on these two features while walking down the eleventh fairway at Spyglass Hill. That is an absolutely gorgeous example of a reverse-cambered dogleg-right short Par 5. My second-favorite hole on that course.

[Mark_F]

TE Paul,

Does the 'reverse dogleg' concept work, from what you have seen?  Or perhaps more pertinently, does it keep working with people who have played the hole before?

That is, does it catch out the hares, assuming, of course, that the maintenance practices make the concept work.

Last week I played a round with two who have never played a particular hole before, and they both fell for it.  Be interesting to see if it happens next time.

[JESII]

#9 or #14 - Augusta ??
#6 - Seminole ??
#14 - Pebble Beach ??

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()