The reverse dogleg

[mike_malone]

TEPaul

   #12 at Rolling Green (sort of mirror image of #8 Gulph Mills),is interesting to look at in the evolution of reverse dogleg.
  Today the hole doglegs right.There are trees planted in 1930's on the right side that make the dogleg.There are 2 traps on right and one on left in driving area.There is a creek that comes in  almost to the fairway on right.There are 2 big traps on either side of entrance to green and three small traps in back of green on a hill.The hole is 330 yd.The prudent thing to do is hit it in the  middle and lay back to 100 yds.from green
   But in 1926 when the course was built,there was one trap on left in driving area,2 traps at front of green.No trees on the hole.So the hole was not really a dogleg ,just a green set at an angle to the fairway.
  By 1937,trees are planted right to create a dogleg.2 traps were put  on right in driving area.The trap on left was removed.The 3 little traps are put  on the hill to keep balls from bouncing on to the green.The reverse dogleg was created.I believe Flynn was involved in this change,although i have no proof.Then the best shot was to hit away from inside of dogleg.
    This may be an example of how Flynn changed a hole after construction to change the strategy.
   Of course now you just hit it straight,lay it up and hit a wedge.I think Flynn made the hole fun when he changed it,but we have reduced the fun .
  

  
  

[Jeff Goldman]

Shivas,

The 2nd shot on 16 at BWR strikes me as sort of similar to the tee shot at nine, in reverse.  There, to play safe you have to kick it out way to the right to have the good angle, or you can try a fade from near the river, depending on where the flag is.  Played it last saturday, and hole was way back, making it possible to go inside the tree to the left.  I played my usual safe wide right, while my nephew hit a monster 3-wood inside/over the tree with a slight draw, leaving it about 15 feet from the hole.  Shot of the year, and he got a huge cheer from folks waiting on 17.  What a course!

                           Jeff Goldman

[TEPaul]

JimK:

I don't know what to call it really--I only know what happens so often in this particular case--and I'm sorry, maybe I'm sadistic but I just love to see this kind of ploy in archtecture if you can find the hole that's capable of it--ie a tempting risk that pulled off puts you in a riskier situation than the safer play! It's so rare to find a hole that just keeps suckering people into the same mistakes over and over again! How valuable is a hole like that? It's like a con artist who continues to con and keep the con time after time! Rember Redford and Newman after the organized up and pulled off the BIG CON? Well, it was only the first step in conning the guy and fleecing him out of so much money. The more important second step (which the audience was less aware of) was KEEPING the con for the rest of time! Otherwise those two guys would be looking over their shoulders for the rest of their lives!

I like holes that seem to be able to KEEP the con, if you know what I mean!

It's even bizarre in the way we found it necessary to present the request to take down the tree to the membership. There were plenty of those who claimed it would make the hole too easy!

I really didn't want to explain clearly to almost the entire membership that I'm certain that will not be the case. I so much wanted to prove those wrong in the most valid way possible--IN PLAY! And there's no doubt in my mind that would happen.

There's no doubt in my mind that many players will just keeping making the same mistake over and over again! The thing that will make them do it will be those times that they DO pull off that more difficult shot and make birdie!

But I know what I'm talking about--the shot from farther out is much easier to pull off day in and day out and will result in more birdies than the shorter shot and definitely less mistakes than the shorter shot.

The hole looks very easy and technically should be but for reasons given it just isn't.

We sometimes call it a "mental hole" where if you start thinking too much about that approach even from 100 yds it starts to get in your head and you are apt to play the hole poorly in waves!

It's certainly not as intense as the same short approach to PVGC's #8 but talk about a mental hole and a mental approach. It's not a good idea to start to have doubts about whether you're going to pull off the approach to PV's #8 and some of the same is true of GMGC's #8.

Matter of fact I saw three very good players on two successive days come within 40 yard of PV's #8, and one bladed it over the green (absolutely dead) and the other two flub the short approach half way and into the front bunker!

[TEPaul]

Mayday:

I have played #12 Rolling Green enough to know that the approach can be an interesting and intense one like the hole or two I'm describing! The green and it's surface can be intense to putt from the wrong spot and of course missing the green can be a real problem for par!

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

Hang in there with me, Oh Doyen of all Doyens, but isn't the 8th at GMGC the one that Ross originally designed with a highly elevated green far to the right of the current location, and was changed because some of the loveable old geezers there couldn't make it up the hill?  If so, why not just restore the hole to DJR's original intent and fuggedabout the willow tree, the pond and the arriviste Maxwell green?  Wouldn't that be more architecturally pure?  If I am wrong about all this, well, never mind........... :-/

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tom,
I couldn't agree more with the thoughts expressed in your last post.
My remaining question is even though it may butt up to the edge of the risk/reward formula, doesn't it still use tried and true principles in its design?
Its use is unique to its location and it sounds as if there couldn't be a better hole for this site but it sounds to me,
after your imaginable description, more like the hole puts the best principles to the utmost use.
It's a pity the other members couldn't see that removing the tree would add another dimension to what sounds like a little gem of a hole. Love to see it sometime.

[paul cowley]

there was a hole designed and permitted to be built  at a course on fripp island , s.c. in the early 90"s that would have been a true reverse dogleg .it was also referred to as a 180 degree dogleg .envision an ample fairway extending 160 yds with  water then separating a boldly sloping ,front to back  facing green ,at 220 yds from the tee .beyond the green extends a fairway 100 yds wide and 60 yds deep  .the safest way to  par or better would be drive the fairway and pitch back to the green .short hitters could lay up ,play over ,and pitch back .this hole was never built .yet.

[TEPaul]

JimK;

That tree is old and it ain't gonna last!

Rich:

You've got a good memory about the 8th hole of Maxwell's and even more so where Ross's original was!! That's impressive in and of itself!

But---!

Arriviste Maxwell, huh? Restore to Donald Ross for architectural purity, huh?

Let me ask you a simple question and please give me your answer.

You have a Ross hole that went through 15 years of play and never worked at all well for the membership. It was redesigned by Perry Maxwell and has been roundly admired and appreciated for the last 65 years by the membership and numerous others!

What would you do?

[Eric Pevoto]

linksland,

That very concept has been discussed on GCA before.  In fact, I think Tom Paul may have been the one that brought it up.  Sounds interesting, though I can't imagine, considering pace of play, how well it would work.  Oh, the limits of practicality.

[TEPaul]

linksland:

That concept was brought up and discussed some on here well over a year ago.

The concept occured to me when playing a course in Pittsburgh and while walking off a hole on the back nine looking back at it and envisioning things sort of in reverse.

Playing over the green and coming back at it was an option. We called it "the playback hole"

[Mike_Young]

I have seen it several times and in most cases the hole is routed with the landing area falling to the outside of the dogleg.  Ross used it on #13 at Athens Country Club(a dogleg right) where the inside of the dogleg provided a blind approach to a green that falls severely from right to left and yet on the outside of the dogleg the green is visible and accepts the shot easily.  There is also an early bunker on the right side that probably prevented any kind of approach with a hickory shaft from the right side.  When one goes against the terrain in such an instance it would make sense that the outside of the dogleg would most always work back up the hill into an acceptable greensite without much shaping.
Mike

[A_Clay_Man]

I like the concept of a having a misdirectional bunker. In other words, your going along and most of the holes have a bunker on the prefered side of the fairway or inside the leg and then, for apparentlymisdirectional reasons, the bunker is on the opposite side. It seems to make you have to think harder, especially your first time around a course.  

The 16 hole at BWR is called "unter der linden" and is probably the best use of a tree on a course I have ever seen. As I recall kicking way out to the right on your second never really worked due to the hellasih rough if one goes too far right.  Skirting the right edge of the tree was always my thoughts but even then there ain't much room long. Plus the downhill nature of the lie in the fairway was usually gonna push you farther right. Solution, aim for the tree, you'll never hit it.