[John Chilver-Stainer]

David,

Thanks for the excellent interpretation of Whigham’s and Low’s use of the Dog's-Hind-Leg.

As you astutely described, this has little to do with the term Dog-Leg as we understand it today.

I have 2 questions I’d like to put to you as a golf historian.

1. Whigham refers to Old Tom Morris’s use of the term Dog's-Hind-Leg and it’s decription of the line of play. rather than the shape of the hole.
However at what point in time did it start having the modern meaning as an “acute” (more than 12.5 degrees) Dog-leg describing the shape of the hole?

2. Who was the first golf course architect that regularly started designing “acute” Dog-legs?

[Sean_A]

To me it doesn't really matter if we call something a dogleg or not.  The goal is to create an angle of play.  That can be done on a very straight hole. Granted, in this day and age, often times the effect of that angle can be negated more easily than a true dogleg.  That said, modern doglegs often offer less options because they have set turning distances correlating to specific tees which in effect correlates to formulas regarding how far players hit the ball.  For instance, the dogleg which makes the golfer hit a distance target in the fairway of be left (even if still in the fairway) stuffed behind trees if he then wants to have a go at the green.  Some like this sort of distance control tee shot, I don't find it anymore interesting (hence the reason I dislike Woking's 9th tee shot) than hitting between bunkers - indeed the two shots are quite close in their nature of challenge. 

I think if we look at the best holes, a very large percentage will move (or play) penny left (the temptation to skirt bunkers and other features is quite appealing on this sort of shot) or a penny right rather than full blown doglegs. 

Ciao

[DMoriarty]

John,

Those are both excellent questions and I wish I had a definite answer but I don't.  Hopefully someone else will be able to chime-in.

There was another type of a hole with a corner where the golfer couldn't carry the corner, so it was essentially a test of distance to see if the golfer could drive the ball far enough to be able to get to the turn.  This differed with a hole wherein one could try to bite off as much as as one thought he could chew.  [It gets a bit confusing because some (Flynn I think) called the first an "elbow" hole and the second a "dogleg" while others (AWT I think) did the opposite.]   Perhaps the concept of bending hole where line of play was dictated by the architect and the idea of the golfer choosing the angle got blended into what we see today, bending holes where maybe the golfer might have a relatively limited array of options.  

I believe early architects like Flynn and AWT and no doubt others relied on specific set turning distances for their doglegs, and this too was perhaps the beginning of the end for the wide open dog-leg concept with a large array of options and angles.  
________________________________________

Sean,

I agree that it does not matter whether we call something a dogleg or not.   But understanding how such concepts were once understood might provide insight into the evolution of golf course design, and whether aspects of that evolution have been for the better or worse.    I agree with your comments on set turning distances.  I prefer holes wherein the golfer has to balance distance and accuracy and come up with own angles.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()