One reason I posted the quote is because I suspect that the modern conception of what constitutes a dogleg is different now than Whigham's view was then. So far I can figure, Whigham would have disagreed with many (but not all) of the comments made about doglegs thus far.
- For example, I don't think Whigham would agree that a dogleg requires an "acute angle bend in the fairway."
- I think he would have politely disagreed with the notion that TOC had no doglegs.
- I am not sure why Melvyn is connecting the notion of dogleg holes to blindness, but I don't think Whigham saw it that way.
- Riviera 10, CPC 9th, and CPC 16th, were offered as quality holes which were not doglegs. I suspect that Whigham would have viewed all of these holes as rooted in the principle of the dog hind's leg.
- Joel Stewart asked about CPC 17th and PB 18th. Again I suspect Whigham would consider them doglegs.
- Others offered that a dead straight hole with protruding hazards from the side would not be a dogleg, nor would a "dead straight hole with bunkers along the LOC." Again I think Whigham would have disagreed with both notions.
- If asked, I probably would have said NGLA's 18th as basically a straight hole, but to Whigham it was a "splendid example" of a hole rooted in the principle of the dog's hind leg.
- Whigham's other examples - the Cape, the Leven, and the Sahara - are not necessarily holes fitting with some of the notions of the dogleg expressed above.
That said, Philippe Bennette, Peter Pallotta, and Bob Crosby are all viewing the issue in a similar light to Whigham, I think, and they capture the idea pretty well. I'd add as an observation that Whigham seems to describing from the concept from the golfer's perspective - how the golfer might choose to chart his course - whereas some of the modern conceptions focus on actual the physical shape of the the golf hole (or fairway) as determined and defined by the architect. One doesn't find many discussions of acute bends in fairways from these old thinkers. I think they viewed it more as a starting point and a golf hole, and it was left to the golfer to supply the turns.
Phillippe and Bob mentioned John Low. Phillippe, does Low ever actually discuss the issue in terms of the line of charm, or are you paraphrasing? Low's descriptions and explanations are so good it is hard to not just quote him endlessly, but here is a bit of what John Low wrote about the bee-line vs. the true line (terms I really like) in his terrific discussion of bunker placement. The reference (I think) to the Beardie bunkers on the Long hole (14th) at The Old Course:
They are, it is true, almost on the bee-line to the hole; but golf need not be played in bee-lines. It is a mistake to suppose that because you hit a shot straight down the middle of the course and "find it bunkered you are to fill up the offending hazard. Next time you will play on the true line, not on the bee-line, and all will be well. There seem to me to 'be far too few "round-the-corner" holes in golf. What a grand hole that present first hole is at Hoylake; how much more interesting than the bee-line business! The long hole inward at St. Andrews is also played in something of the same manner: the first shot to the right, the second to the left, the third to the right. . .
Low then returned to a discussion of the Pot bunker in the middle of the 9th fairway at TOC, near the green, and in the process expounded upon the importance of placing hazards in a manner which puts the onus on the golfer set his own angles and to chart his own course:
And, to return to my apology for the little pot so near the bee-line, I would submit that it too is a good hazard. There is plenty of safe ground to the left of our pot, 'but by going very near the difficulty we gain just a little distance and a slightly better position. The greedy golfer will go too near and be sucked in to his destruction. The straight player will go just as near as he deems safe, just as close as he dare. Just as close as he dare: that's golf, and that's a hazard of immortal importance! For golf at its best should 'be a contest of risks. The fine player should, on his way round the links, be just slipping past the bunkers, gaining every yard he can, conquering by the confidence of his own "far and sure" play. The less skilful player should wreck himself either by attempting risks which are beyond his skill, or by being compelled to lose ground through giving the bunkers a wide berth. Hazards which are cut across a course are bound with or against certain winds to be either ridiculous or detrimental. The true hazard should draw the play towards it, should invite the golfer to come as near as he dare to the fire without burning his fingers. The man who can afford to take the risks is the man who should gain the advantage. It is a coarse kind of hazard that only demands of the player that he should send his ball over it anywhere up in the air, in almost any direction. Yet how many such bunkers exist on modern courses, and how few of the finer side hazards, which must be coquetted with and passed within eye-glance if perfect play is to be made. There is probably no sight which the golfer's eye can see with such pleasure as the view of the ball after a long shot just slipping past the corner of a green-guarding bunker. By placing the hazards close in on the fairway, golf becomes a contest of risks, the perfect shot betters the imperfect, and accuracy gets its full reward.
Some may view Low's discussion as veering well off topic as it was about bunkers and bunker placement and doesn't necessarily address what we might consider the "shape" of the golf holes, but again I don't think these gentlemen necessarily thought of holes as having shapes like we think if it. Rather, the golfer gave the hole shape by the "course" he chose between tee and the hole at the end. I think Whigham and Low agreed that, for most golfers on most great holes, that that course would rarely be straight.
______________________________
Neil White, a good point about par threes. I should have mentioned that Whigham was discussing holes generally requiring two or more shots to the green. He had discussed one shot holes previously. That said, I think there are at least some one shot holes which share common characteristics with the underlying principles at its most basic, but perhaps we should save that for another thread.