The demise of dog-legs ?

[Ally Mcintosh]

James, I don't think there's anyone here that is conceding the demise of doglegs.

But I do think there are some who'd like to see less sharp, obvious, turning points.

Long, sweeping doglegs are much more strategic and elegant.

[Sean_A]

I hadn't noticed classic courses were filled with lots of leggers.  I usually come across 3-5 in a round.  I think Ross was more keen on the concept than many others...its not unsual for his courses to have 4-6 leggers. Most of the time holes move a jot in one direction or another or straight holes with hazards which create the shape.  I am usually not keen on the long turning legger which is what we can get sometimes with containment mounding/fake dunes...should be called a crescent.  The sharp legger too is to be avoided, but I must stress that Ross built his share of these.  These are the holes where trees guarding the inside of the leg or the run-out can be troublesome.  I don't like the style, but it makes sense that if a point to point hole is going to be built there should be trouble long and on the inside of the leg.  The miss should be away from the hole.  I think this type of hole works better if handicappers players can mainly play driver and better players have to figure out the lay-up club or risk the inside trouble with a driver. 


For me Ally is spot on....I don't want many obvious turning point holes which does seem to be a trait of modern archies.  This is part and parcel of target golf or better described as point to point golf. 


Ciao

[Niall C]

Sean


Well said on all counts. What a lot of classic (links) courses seem to have is tees that are off set to the line of the fairway, usually when the hole has been extended and they can't go straight back because of the previous green. This creates the shape but not the obvious landing area as it becomes bite off as much as you can chew or are able to swallow. I can't recall seeing this built into a modern design from scratch.


Niall