[Peter Pallotta]

I play a few courses that I consider poorly designed (in whole or in part). I was thinking of what they had in common. One is that all of them have a hole or two, always a dogleg, that feels jammed in or badly planned.  I like dog legs in general, but these are the kind that bend so severely that what the architect is testing the average golfer on is not directional control but distance control, i.e. he is asking that you land the ball in what is basically a 10 yard long strip of fairway -- hit it a bit long and you're in the rough, hit it a bit short and you can't see/aim for the green/flag (because you didn't get around the bend).  Now, even as an average golfer, I expect and want to be tested, i.e. if I hit my ball too far left or too far right I expect to pay the price. But to ask the average golfer to have distance control as well as directional control is asking a bit too much, I think.  It's not good design - and I say that because the courses I'm talking about are, in every other way, geared to the average golfer...except on these sharp, jammed-in doglegs that demand direction and distance control. Today I feel like that combo is too much to ask. I know there have been discussions here about where the 'bend point' on doglegs should be for various golfers playing from various sets of tees. That's important, yes - but to me more important is that the bend 'point' should be more of a bend 'line' that extends for 20+ yards.

My self-justifying complaint of the day.  

Peter

[Ken Moum]

You have nailed one of my least-favorite features on a golf course.

Back when I lived in South Dakota, I played some tournaments on Meadowbrook GC a highly-thought-of muni in Rapid City and its par fives do that in spades. At least they did in 1980s and early 90s.

One is basicall long and straight with a narrow fairway.  But at the end of the fairway, the green is offset to right, over a creek.  Due to trees next to the green, it was pretty much unreachable in two, but your second shot had to be teh right distance or you couldn't hit that wege to the green. Too short and you were blocked by the trees, too long and you ran through the end of the fairway--perhaps even OB

Two others were double doglegs where both shots had to be precisely placed for distance and direction or you might have to "chip out" from the fairway. On one of them I slightly misplayed my tee shot and had to chip sideways to hit my third. Then I hit my third about 10 yards too far (still in the fairway, however) and had to chip backwards to have a play for the green.

On two other courses I play now and then--one here, and the other in Salina where I'll be playing a tournament this weekend--have short par fours with sharp doglegsleft that have trees on the inside and a big bunker through the fairway.  Since they are short, so it's not so bad, but it's tough for most of us to hit a tee shot into that narrow distance window.

We're headed to the tee on a short hole, knowing that getting a soft--or hard--bounce can leave us with no chance at par.

K

[Bill Brightly]

I agree 100% and I feel this type of hole often escapes criticism because they are often visually appealing and quite challenging from a scoring perspective. But I think of them as target golf: "hit it HERE so you can have a chance of hitting it HERE" is what I think of when I stand on the tee of this kind of hole.

Here is an example: Weyhill (Saucon Valley) Hole 18, a double-dogleg par 5, where you really had only one place to hit your drive and it had to be 220 to 245 in length



Thankfully, the hole was just opened up to allow for far more options, including a great risk/reward option by hitting it long and right:

[Peter Pallotta]

Bill, Ken - thanks. In a way, though, you guys are lucky -- at least you have trees 'boxing in' the landing zone on the inside of the dogleg. One of the courses I played had not trees -- yes, someone planted them there, but at least they are natural and natural looking elements -- but instead the largest and silliest looking set of containment mounds you can imagine...which is to say, the architect put them there on purpose so that the hole would play 'better'.  Particularly strange on a course that measures 6,100 yards from the very back and that in most others ways is a 'low slope' kind of place.  I can't escape the conclusion that the architect jammed a hole in that didn't fit and then compounded the problem by not thinking of the 'distance control' he was demnading.  And that this was the first hole, the opening hole, made it worse, for me at least.

Peter 

[RSLivingston_III]

Bill,
Are you involved with the green committee? Any chance the tree clearing and the bunker is more of a restoration?
Were there some old structures left over that were abandoned and buried in the trees?
I didn't take time to look it up but was assuming it was a classic course.

[Bill Brightly]

Bill,
Are you involved with the green committee? Any chance the tree clearing and the bunker is more of a restoration?
Were there some old structures left over that were abandoned and buried in the trees?
I didn't take time to look it up but was assuming it was a classic course.

Ralph,

No, not on the greens committee (there) I am just a non-resident member at SVCC. I am not an expert on Weyhill's history, but I know that there are several old limestone quarries and there was a working cattle farm until the course was built in the mid-1960's.

 As you play 18 you come up on the old farm buildings, silos, etc., which have slate roofs and really are quite attractive. I think they took out a couple of dying spruce trees on the left to open up great views of these buildings, and the trees around the old quarry were probably planted in the 70's, so YES that is a restoration. I dont know if 45 years makes it a "classic course" but I have NO DOUBT is was William Gordon's finest work.

[Adam Clayman]

Peter. I'll play devil, and from your description of having only two holes out of 18, it may not be horrible architecture. Also you give an awful wide berth when you say average golfer. Let's see if anything sticks before I start making stuff up.

[Ken Moum]

Peter. I'll play devil, and from your description of having only two holes out of 18, it may not be horrible architecture. Also you give an awful wide berth when you say average golfer. Let's see if anything sticks before I start making stuff up.

I cant stand a little of it, such as the two par fours I mentioned.  One course doesn't have another hole like that, and the course is very short, so that isn't the only short par four.

The other course has one more similar hole, but it's not as severe and it's a short course as well. I would say, however, that a famous GCA journalist of my acquaintance once replied to my comment saying a couple of holes there were routed backwards with, "The whole course is backwards."

OTOH, Meadowbrook used to have that in spades on three of it's par fives and somewhat on the fourth.  It was bad enough that I used to say that it had the four dopiest par fives I ever saw on one golf course.

K

[Doug Siebert]

Peter,

How old are the courses in question?  If they were designed when everyone was playing persimmon or even first generation metal woods, it may not be the architect's fault...

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()