When is architectural deception ........ dishonest ?

[Tim Gavrich]

I feel bad to have been unable to recognize a hole I have played from that picture. Due to the bunker at the front-right part of the green, wouldn't being farther right than the right part of the current fairway be a worse angle than is now afforded? The hole doglegs to the right, so the slope of the fairway is actually a help. Knowing what hole it is now, I have no objection to it whatsoever. Furthermore, my view that that bunker on the left is meant to show the player where to go is stronger than it was previously.

As I recall, the hole is much more open now than it was in the pictures provided.

Looking at Google Maps, it seems that moving that fairway to the right by any substantial distance would bring the 11th green into play off the tee.

[Brent Hutto]

I play a version of that hole 2-3 times a week as the closing (18th) hole at my home course. Except ours is about 2/3 the width depicted in those five-year-old pictures of #2 at M.R. and our green has considerably more front to back slope.

It's a lefty slicer's nightmare, I'm here to tell you. In fact, I moved up a set of tees for the entire course simply to give myself a straighter tee shot on that and one other narrow, dogleg-right hole. The de facto "senior tees" on #18 at my club offer more or less the angle it appears in Joe Bausch's photos. The regular "men's" tees are 35 yards farther back and tucked about 10 yards more to the right.

So in answer to Pat's challenge, for my game the blindness means nothing. It's just a hole that requires a shot shape that I do not possess. No different than a 160 yard approach shot to a hole tucked behind a bunker with a shallow green. Make it blind, cut down the bunker lip to make it visible, it's a nigh-impossible shot either way.

[Jon Wiggett]

Yes...and Jon Wiggets poor driving...

and Jim Sulivans crap spelling

[Bill Brightly]

[Bill Brightly]

[Patrick_Mucci]

So is this a view from up near the green, looking backwards toward the same ridge that makes for a blind shot off the tee?
NO, It's not the view from the green, looking backwards.



In which case this is the view from on top of the ridge, looking toward the green.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I feel bad to have been unable to recognize a hole I have played from that picture.

Just when I was begining to gain confidence in your powers of observation

Due to the bunker at the front-right part of the green, wouldn't being farther right than the right part of the current fairway be a worse angle than is now afforded?

NO

The hole doglegs to the right, so the slope of the fairway is actually a help.

The hole is NOT a dogleg


Knowing what hole it is now, I have no objection to it whatsoever. Furthermore, my view that that bunker on the left is meant to show the player where to go is stronger than it was previously.

As I recall, the hole is much more open now than it was in the pictures provided.

Looking at Google Maps, it seems that moving that fairway to the right by any substantial distance would bring the 11th green into play off the tee.

Eliminating the intruding bulge of rough on the right side would not bring the 11th green into play off the tee.

Now you've completely eroded any confidence that I had in your powers of observation.

The fairway/rough line at the crest would remain.
It's the intrusion of the right side rough beyond the crest that's the problem.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Here's the photo from the green side of the crest showing the intrusion of the right rough into the midst of the fairway.

When you consider the sharp slope from high left to low right, balls hit down the middle of the fairway end  up in the right rough.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Here's Donald Ross's field drawing of the current second hole.

As you can see, the fairway/rough lines are straight as an arrow, with no bulging rough on the right side

Perhaps Jon Wigget doesn't understand what the word "linear" means

[Brent Hutto]

I'll make one more cursory attempt to understand your contention, then I'll leave you to it.

Would the "dishonest" part thing be that they've grown rough in what you think was originally intended as the most desirable landing zone?

That's not "dishonest". That's simply one of the innumerable features of many century-old golf courses that have been changed by growing rough in places that were originally short grass. It differs from the original drawings, it may not be to your taste but it is what it is.

No different really from some classic Ross course where someone dug a new bunker in place where the original design had only grass. Might be a bad idea but it's not fooling anyone. Neither is that quarter-acre of rough growing in a place where 75 years ago you could have landed your tee shot.

[Mark Pavy]

The hole is NOT a dogleg

PMSL

[Patrick_Mucci]

I'll make one more cursory attempt to understand your contention, then I'll leave you to it.

Would the "dishonest" part thing be that they've grown rough in what you think was originally intended as the most desirable landing zone?
I don't think that they've grown the rough in on the intended DZ, I know that they've grown the rough in the DZ.
The Donald Ross schematic clearly indicates the straight rough/fairway lines.

That's not "dishonest".

How would you know ?
Do you know the intent of those responsible for the bulge in the mowing lines in the right DZ ?


That's simply one of the innumerable features of many century-old golf courses that have been changed by growing rough in places that were originally short grass.

No, it's not, it's a deliberate attempt to gain an advantage, vis a vis, local knowledge.

It differs from the original drawings, it may not be to your taste but it is what it is.

No, it's an intentional attempt to deceive, not merely a shift in mowing lines.



No different really from some classic Ross course where someone dug a new bunker in place where the original design had only grass. Might be a bad idea but it's not fooling anyone. Neither is that quarter-acre of rough growing in a place where 75 years ago you could have landed your tee shot.

It's amazing how many people, totally unfamiliar with a golf course, hole and feature, offer their opinions with an air of authority.
You couldn't be more wrong.
It is different for a variety of reasons that would only escape you, if presented.

 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Would someone point out the dogleg in Ross's field schematic.

Thanks
[/quote]

[Brent Hutto]

It can't be "dishonest" because there's no dishonesty possible. The course has caddies for Christ's sake, not to mention the fact that it's  a private club whose members presumably play it more than once in their lives.

The mowing line is a feature that you don't like. It's a feature that was not on those 100-year-old drawings. That doesn't make it "dishonest", unless the club makes a claim to a 100% authentic course that adhere's strictly to the original architect's drawings in every detail.

You're making it sound like someone is going to go look a the Ross drawings then aim their tee shot based on an antique set of blueprints instead of what's actually right there on the ground. On a forum that's chock full of beard pullers, this thread takes the cake.

[Mark Pavy]

Would someone point out the dogleg in Ross's field schematic.

Thanks

[/quote]

It's just a jump to the left..........

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sg-vgGuTD8A

[Patrick_Mucci]

It can't be "dishonest" because there's no dishonesty possible. The course has caddies for Christ's sake, not to mention the fact that it's  a private club whose members presumably play it more than once in their lives.

Tell us how the caddy will counter the optical signal sent to the golfer's eye.
Tell us how the average golfer can hit a fairway that plays less than 15 yards wide

The mowing line is a feature that you don't like. It's a feature that was not on those 100-year-old drawings. That doesn't make it "dishonest", unless the club makes a claim to a 100% authentic course that adhere's strictly to the original architect's drawings in every detail.

Brent, what part of "deliberate deception" don't you understand ?
The fairway is very, very, very difficult to hit due to all the factors I've listed.
Discount see how pronounced the bilge of rough is ?
On a fairway that slopes significantly from high left to low right ?
You must have an incredibly low golfing IQ

You're making it sound like someone is going to go look a the Ross drawings then aim their tee shot based on an antique set of blueprints instead of what's actually right there on the ground.

You'd have to be a colossal moron to reach that conclusion.
Did you not look at the photo Bill Brightly posted ?
Where would you aim on your tee shot ?

On a forum that's chock full of beard pullers, this thread takes the cake.

You seem to be posting numerous times on this thread, despite the fact that you have no clue as to what the golfer faces, and why !

[Rob Marshall]

So at the risk of getting called a Moron I wouldn't call this dishonest, I would call it a gimmick. Looks to me like they had a 402 yard straight hole that they thought was playing too easy so they pinched in the fairway to force players to layup off the tee or gamble to hit the 15 yard landing zone and have a wedge in. Now the real question would be can the contour be seen from the first fairway?

[Tim Gavrich]

I feel bad to have been unable to recognize a hole I have played from that picture.

Just when I was begining to gain confidence in your powers of observation

Due to the bunker at the front-right part of the green, wouldn't being farther right than the right part of the current fairway be a worse angle than is now afforded?

NO

The hole doglegs to the right, so the slope of the fairway is actually a help.

The hole is NOT a dogleg


Knowing what hole it is now, I have no objection to it whatsoever. Furthermore, my view that that bunker on the left is meant to show the player where to go is stronger than it was previously.

As I recall, the hole is much more open now than it was in the pictures provided.

Looking at Google Maps, it seems that moving that fairway to the right by any substantial distance would bring the 11th green into play off the tee.

Eliminating the intruding bulge of rough on the right side would not bring the 11th green into play off the tee.

Now you've completely eroded any confidence that I had in your powers of observation.

The fairway/rough line at the crest would remain.
It's the intrusion of the right side rough beyond the crest that's the problem.

Patrick--

I'm sorry to let you down. When I played Mountain Ridge last May, there were a lot fewer trees than in the photo. I guess it's a testament to the way a good tree removal program can change the aesthetics of a course.

I took a screenshot of Mountain Ridge's second hole (with Google Maps) and drew some lines stemming from the orientation of those crisply rectangular tee boxes.

It does seem like there are a few yards down the right that could be maintained as fairway, without getting too close to the 11th green. Go about five yards right of the right edge of the #2 fairway and you still have another 35 yards to the left edge of #11 green.



The "bulge" on the right side of the fairway is certainly visible, but given the orientation of the tees (accentuated by some parallel lines extended from the sides of the tee boxes), I'm sure you can see why I described this hole as a dogleg - albeit a slight one.

Looking at the rest of the par fours and fives on the course on Google Maps, it appears eight of them (1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13) have tee complexes that line up more directly at the green than those at the second hole. Again, tee box orientation is not the final determining factor for "dogleggedness," nor is that particularly important, but it does seem that #2 is less straightaway than most of the other par fours and fives on the course.

Also, the print that Bill provided is marked "Hole 11." When were the nines switched?

Out of curiosity, what does the "Hole 2" field drawing look like? I ask for two reasons. First, the current 11th hole plays arrow-straightaway like the "Hole 11" drawing depicts. Second, there's no left-side aiming bunker on the "Hole 11" drawing like there is on the current second hole. Of course, on the "Hole 11" drawing there appears to be a complete cross bunker short of the fairway, which doesn't exist on either the current second or 11th holes, though the current 11th does have that pond fronting the fairway.

[Mike_Clayton]

Patrick

You could not have described the tee shot off the 17th at Royal Porthcawl any better..If you drive it where everything tells you to drive you finish way in the left rough - but drive over the middle of the bushes on the right and you are perfect.
It's a bad driving hole IMO because it misses twice. The drive you have to hit looks ridiculous and the drive which looks perfectly fine is not good at all.

[Bill Brightly]

As Mike suggests, tee shots like this are just bad. I've played MR about ten times over the last ten years and I estimate that I was in the right rough nine times. The shame is that this hole has a great green, a large multi-sectioned green with a lot of movement movement, protected by bunkers and cool runoffs. From the fairway you have options and it is a good test of your mid-iron game. But from the right rough there is only one play: a running shot that lands well short of the green that hopefully rolls to the middle of the green. I imagine that this would get tiresome for members.

Tim, I'm willing to guess that the modern tee was angled slightly to emphasize the dogleg effect to go with the mowing lines designed to creat the dogleg effect.

[Bill Brightly]

[Brent Hutto]

I don't think there's any necessity to distinguish between a "dogleg effect" and hole being classed as a "dogleg".

Like many dogleg holes, this one could play dead straight if you could hit a driver 300+ yards and very high couldn't it?

As someone who drives the ball more like 200 yards, it sure looks to me like I'd have to play my tee shot at one angle then turn slightly to the right and play my second at a different angle. Which is how I play most dogleg holes.

[Bill Brightly]

Pat can answer better than I, but I believe at 200 yards you won't carry far enough to crest the hill and reach the downslope. So the very severe right to left tilt to the fairway may not feed your ball into the right rough like so many others.

[Brent Hutto]

Yeah, distance wise the usual men's tees on that hole are probably like the way-way-back tournament tees on the 18th at my club. If I were so foolish as to tee off from back there it's just a matter of playing up onto the ridge than laying up to a wide area of the fairway on my second and leaving a wedge in.

But the bigger hitters who do occasionally play our 18th from way back have a similar complaint to Pat's. Our fairway slope is probably not so severe but it's like threading a needle from back there to manage not to land in the left rough (and stop) but also not feed all the way right into the right rough. Fortunately we tend to keep our Bermuda rough trimmed down a bit so it's not absolutely necessary to be in the fairway to reach the green.

[Bill Brightly]

Brent, like many private courses in North Jersey, MR has beautiful thick rough. Probably a mixture of rye and bluegrass. It is "gouge and hope" from there; you probably cannot hold the green if you carry the right bunker on the fly.

Patrick's use of the word "dishonest" is probably as close as he can come to saying unfair... Moronic is probably also off the available list... But if the right section that is rough were changed to fairway, the golfer would still be left with a fun, challenging, golf shot to a really cool green.

I think this is a perfect example of well-intentioned people looking to make tweaks to a hole to toughen it, but they really just "dumb down" the hole.