Are angles the answer?

[Mark Bourgeois]

Sean

The main objection would be potentially negating the longer hitter's length. I think there's merit in that but the length isn't taken away per se but is unlocked only with the combination of length and ability to shape shots. And isn't the ability to control one's ball the ultimate measure of golfing talent?

Anyway, one of the keys for me is to put a feature on the inside of the dogleg. The meaning of that feature is dependent on the tee -- and can change dramatically. Which is fascinating to me for some reason.

[Ian Andrew]

A fairway shaped like a banana has greater impact on length + accuracy than anything I know.

The further you go, the more you must work the ball of fit the shot.
The shorter you go, the more hole lines up for you.

The best example I can remember "consistently" asking for this was the "pre-renovation" Royal Montreal, where trees reinforced the banana shape fairways. Tough driving course for the long players at that Canadian Open.

[Sean_A]

Mark

I know I wouldn't find a steady diet of inside dogleg trees or bunkers for 18 holes.  I only mention the idea as a way to combat pros.  Lord help us if that is a method used for "normal" clubs.  Still, I like the idea of width created at the tee, but not to the degree of banana holes.  Width can also be just for variety without huge differences in angles.  I say use the space if it is available.  I can imagine a lot more tees forming a V around the previous green.

Ciao

[Mark Bourgeois]

Sean

Well, yeah, I'm certainly not advocating 14 dog legs. We are in agreement this really is about the one percenters vs the rest of us. Putting some sort of a feature on the inside keeps the hole interesting for both groups but in different ways. For those of us with a straighter hole, it's something to get past or to challenge. For the 1% it's something to carry, avoid or get past when you start bending the ball.

I wonder if instead of an inside feature how an outside feature might work. How would a reverse dogleg work with this tees en echelon idea?

Ian, I am with Sean: no banana holes please! That might hold in the long drivers but can be like a par 8 for the rest of us. 

[Ian Andrew]

I realized once I went to get an example - that the shape was up to interpretation.
I intended something subtle like this:

[Philip Hensley]

I do like the banana idea. Could you cant the fairways further down the banana to increase the penalty of a bomber not working the ball enough?

What about worrying about the angle of the 2nd shot for the 1% instead of the angle of the tee shot? It seems as if the long bombers don't worry so much about diagonal hazards, esp the few that work the ball well.

Or perhaps showing the landing zone clearly for the average hitter where the long bomber cannot so easily demarcate his landing zone. Not necessarily a blind shot but one where it's tough to see exactly what is going on and creates uncertainty in the mind of the player. Even if one is familiar with the course there's something about not being able to see exactly what's out there that messes with the mind of the player.

It's a tough problem because there is a fine line between making it more difficult for long bombers vs. overtly punishing legitimate advantages long hitters have due to genuine talent.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Ian, this is the type of hole I have in mind. Note tees locations. Do we have the same idea?