[Peter Pallotta]

Since Par 4s are my favourite "pars" in golf, I have no choice but to like doglegs, whether severe or less sharply angled, since there sure are a whole lot of them out there, especially on the courses that I tend to play.

Now,  I think I understand why/how certain given sites and circumstances encourage architects to design doglegs; and, as I always have to grant, while I've played a goodly number of courses over the years, few would be considered in any way special or make anyone's lists - so your experience may be different than mine.

But here's the trouble with dogleg Par 4s, the way I experience them: almost invariably (indeed, almost by necessity and definition) the "turn" of the dogleg is the point from which a golfer, any and all golfers, will get a clear view of -- and hit his approach to -- the green. And, since the rules and traditions of "Par 4s" are very well established, every golfer expects to be able to get to that "turn" in one shot.

And so: in dozens of rounds at my local course (which has a lot of doglegs) and paired up with a hundred other golfers like me as we've played hundreds of dogleg par 4s, I have never, ever seen anyone (including me) do anything but pull out their driver long before getting to the tee and then blast away, time after time after time, aiming right at the centre of the turn and hoping for the best.

Now, my local course is fairly wide open, and on a couple of holes there are bunkers on the inside of the dogleg that one might try to fly over, but a) that amounts to essentially the same thing in practice and b) soon gets monotonous -- after all, no one is doing anything other than, as per above, pulling their driver and blasting away.

Is your experience of dogleg Par 4s different than mine?
Are there ways to mitigate this seemingly inherent trouble with doglegs?
Does it come down to a terrific green being the only element/quality that can differentiate one dogleg from another 
 
Peter
 

[jeffwarne]

Not sure I understand the question ....but
I like doglegs, especially ones with trees where the only way to gain an advantage is to either take on the vertical challenge of the trees, or curve it around the dogleg.
On treeless courses the option exists to curve it, but one doesn't have to, which is also OK for variety's sake.
I'd much rather watch an expert bend it around the trees on 10 at ANGC then watch a bomber fly it over a bunker with a one dimenesional shot shape regardless on dogleg direction.
I particularly like "stupid" doglegs where curving the ball an extraordinary amount produces a huge advantage.
Certainly harder to do now with modern balls.

[Peter Pallotta]

Jeff - the inherent 'trouble' I'm asking about is that these types of holes result in every golfer, almost every time, using their drivers off the tee to get to the one spot everyone, always, wants and needs to get to, which is the middle of the fairway at the 'turn' -- and with the only exception being the long hitter who can cut the dogleg and thus get an advantage, which advantage itself is almost always the same without exception, i.e. a shorter approach shot. I like Par 4s, I even liked doglegs I guess, but full of "variety" and choices and options they are not.  Or are they?  That's the question at least

Peter

[Joe Sponcia]

Peter,


I personally feel the treed corner is a lazy and monotonous way to defend par...against high handicaps who make up the majority of players and women who overwhelmingly play from tee boxes that are too far back to be equitable. 


I can't tell you the number of rounds I've played over the years with lessor length players that simply can't carry some corners while playing the appropriate length tee boxes.  I would much prefer a bunker or rough defend corners so everyone has a fair shot.  Why should the man with less ability be asked to shape his shot (more) after hitting a fairway, while his low handicap counterpart essentially gets off scot-free?  Low handicappers pay the least freight and seem to be rewarded the most (and I am one of them).

[Doug Siebert]

There are ways to make the advantage of carrying the corner a bit less. For one, make the terrain at the turn nice and flat, but leave players who cut the corner with the ball above or below their feet. My kryptonite is hitting a wedge with the ball below my feet, I'd probably lay up to the corner just to avoid that shot even if it meant hitting a 5 iron rather than a PW approach.

Or if you make it a really sharp dogleg like 70* or more, make the fairway pretty narrow in that area so you have to get the distance right - enough to clear the trees but not so much you go through the fairway (assuming there is some sort of appropriate penalty for going through)

I'm the guy who is cutting a lot of those corners, but I don't particularly care for the holes where you get some ridiculous 100 yard advantage over the shorter hitters because you can hit the ball 50 yards further. Hitting further is already an advantage without the design of the hole further magnifying that advantage without adding much risk.

Consider 13 and 14 at Dismal Red. On 13 you can get a massive advantage cutting the corner - instead of a ~200 yard shot playing left of the bunkers if you take the line right of the bunkers and catch that sharp downslope you have less than 100. But there's a serious price to be paid if you fail, since you might not be able to find the ball in that native if you come up short, and a sand wedge off a downhill lie isn't always a slam dunk (especially when you are thinking to yourself you have to really hit a good shot or you are going to waste a terrific drive)

On 14 there's just that little hill out there you can hit over, which not only leaves a FAR better angle into the green with a little 50 yard flip wedge than if you hit to the corner, but there's almost no risk since the strip of native is only 20-25 yards wide so if you mark the line of your drive you almost can't help but find it. Given how crappy the angle would be from the corner to that green, I'll take the blind shot out of the native from 150 when you mishit and fall short 10 times out of 10. Not knocking the hole because I love that green, but the risk/reward for longer and shorter hitters is a bit out of whack on that one.

[Sean_A]

The questions seems strange to me, however...There are ways to increase the interest level of leggers.  For one, and this is a harsh way, turn the hole into the wind.  Granted, the concept works better without trees so folks have room to play.  For two, Playing to different parts of the turn can also leave progressively more desirable landing zones.  All that said, there shouldn't be too many severe leggers so the variety doesn't have to be huge. 


Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

The modern way of designing dog-legs very much focuses on the turning point because that's how the centreline is drawn on a skeleton routing. The shape of the fairway is so often then drawn to suit that turning point. In my opinion this results in some of the examples and problems stated above regards one point that everyone is trying to reach.

Where possible, I much prefer to design very gently curving fairways that start offset to the centreline. Sometimes this means simply offsetting the tees to a straightaway fairway. This negates the importance of the turning point in a dogleg while adding to the options.

[Joe Sponcia]

Ally,


That seems to be a great approach vs. what I normally see...the landing strip.  Would you be willing to show (in pictures) what you believe to be ideal vs. what is excessive? 

[Jim Tang]

Peter -

What about a shorter dogleg?  There is a dogleg at a muni outside of Chicago that I used to play at that offers some decent options off the tee. 

The hole is relatively short, about 340 yards.  It bends right.  The entire right side of the hole has trees.  The inside of the dogleg has a bunker.  On the left side of the hole, through the fairway, 230 yards from the tee, is a pond.

Standing on the tee, here are the golfers options...

1.  Hit driver, attempting to sling the ball around the corner and gain an advantage in length.  From this position, the second shot is likely a sand wedge or pitching wedge.  But, standing on the tee with driver, the player knows the pond through the fairway is in play.  If the player fails to pull off the left to right shot with the driver, and instead hits the dreaded straight ball, he's wet. While I'm not a big fan of ponds as hazards, the threat of water in play through the fairway should give one pause on the tee.

2.  Play a 190 to 210 yard shot off the tee, placing the ball in the middle of the turn of the dogleg.  This play eliminates the possibility of finding the pond off the tee, but it leave a longer approach shot.  Instead of hitting a wedge, the player is probably pulling an 7 or 8 iron.

If you want options in a dogleg, make it shorter.  Make the turn of the dogleg reachable with less than a driver, and offer risk/reward options on different lines of play from the tee.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Why would anyone want to reduce the advantage of those who can play an artfully curved shot around a dogleg for advantage?

I agree that gentle doglegs do this and accommodate those who can't. I recall my mentors saying about sharp doglegs  - "There are only two situations where I won't use a sharp dog leg - Where there are a lot of trees and where there aren't...."

[jeffwarne]

Peter,


I personally feel the treed corner is a lazy and monotonous way to defend par...against high handicaps who make up the majority of players and women who overwhelmingly play from tee boxes that are too far back to be equitable. 


I can't tell you the number of rounds I've played over the years with lessor length players that simply can't carry some corners while playing the appropriate length tee boxes.  I would much prefer a bunker or rough defend corners so everyone has a fair shot.  Why should the man with less ability be asked to shape his shot (more) after hitting a fairway, while his low handicap counterpart essentially gets off scot-free?  Low handicappers pay the least freight and seem to be rewarded the most (and I am one of them).

First of all not every hole is a treed dogleg-that would be a lack of variety-though I could be intrigued by a course with more than its fair share just to make it different than other courses. i.e. for it to have its own reputation.
Why on earth would a player with "lessor length" and higher handicap be expected to carry the corners?
As far as the lower handicap player getting off "scot free" isn't that why the higher handicapper has the shots-and the reason the low handicapper works outand practices? Why should a higher handicapper have a "fair shot" (i.e.the same chance) at doing something that requires high skill.
Why deny the occasional curve challenge just because someone else can't do it?
As you point out that may be a tee/ego problem.
Those same bunkers(vs. trees) you promote also favor the powerful vs the low ball short hitter. How is a bunker at the corner no different than a tree to a low ball low clubhead speed player?


Does a 25 handicapper have a fair shot at hitting a hang back super high launch cut 3 iron 220 yards over a high lip from a fairway bunker?
Should we dumb down that bunker because the higher handicap has no shot at that either?


The "OCCASIONAL" treed dogleg is a vertical challenge that simply bunkers cannot provide AND as you mention is often a great way to create strategy for the second shot(and yes can be hard on the shorter hitter especially if he places it poorly). Of course it can be overdone and often is due to overgrowth and overplanting.
Much rather see a dogleg on a parkland course protected by a tree or two than ball eating "native" grass" that is anything but native.


That said, I certainly wouldn't want courses to be displayed as "fat Elvises" as noted in Gib Carpenter's wonderful IMO essay and catalyst for change at Philadelphia Cricket Club. Trees of course have to be maintained/cullled like any other course feature.

[Joe Sponcia]

Peter,


One of my favorite examples was at my old club, Par 4, nearly 90 degree dog leg, completely hemmed in by trees on both sides.  From the black tees (championship) 413 yards vs. my white tee friends who played from 377 yards essentially on the same direct line. 





I would carve a smooth Driver (and I'm not long, but hit it straight and can shape shots) or hard 3 wood with an 18 yard draw around the corner.  The landing area had a slight downslope which also shot balls toward the hole. A good drive would leave me 135-140 yards.     


With perfect path, but a 1.5 degree open face, physics say my friends would slice 24 yards (which they often did) on what is a 33 yard fairway.  They would usually have 160-175 left.  With smooth 9 iron (me) vs. 5 iron or hybrid (them), the hole was essentially a shot easier.  If they dinked it under 210 yards (the hole was slightly uphill until you reached the corner) which once per week golfers are prone to do, they had to lay up right before wedging up to a smooth bogey or double. 

[Joe Sponcia]

The next hole was even more of a favorite!  Downhill par 4, slight leaner right with a gigantic specimen at the corner.  Bunker left, water at the end of the fairway.  Luckily land mines and barbed wire was removed a few years ago     My box was 373 yards vs. my white tee buddies, 358 yards. 


I would hit stock hybrid to 135ish vs my white tee buddies who would usually choose hard 3 wood.  The fairway at the ideal landing area was a sweet 23 paces wide! 

[Doug Siebert]

Why would anyone want to reduce the advantage of those who can play an artfully curved shot around a dogleg for advantage?

There are ways to reduce the advantage of carrying the corner that don't impact or have reduced impact on that those play the 'artfully curved' shot. I don't think we should reduce the benefit of shotmaking, but think just being able to carry it 260-280 too often confers a massive advantage over those who can only carry it 210-230 - far beyond the 50 yard advantage they would have on a straight hole.

Of the defenses I mentioned, the only one that would negatively impact the draw/fade around the corner would be non-flat lies in that area. Even that can be dealt with - for instance in a dogleg right to ground that slopes left to right the ball will ride the slope down to where it might be flat on the right side of the fairway. The guy bombing it over the corner probably carries or bounces through that flat area and ends up with the hanging lie.

[Peter Pallotta]

Thanks much, Joe - those are excellent examples and descriptions.

Several posters who I esteem have wondered "what the question is" or are confused by it. I'm really not sure I understand. Ally, for example, tuned it right away with the reference to many modern doglegs being focused on the centreline-turn. THAT'S the nature of the dogleg, as I experience it, and THAT is the inherent 'trouble' I thought worth discussing. 

I'm all for the better player gaining an advantage, and I personally like trying to draw/fade shots around the turn even though I don't have the requisite skill to pull it off very often. But in PRACTICE (as my original post indicates and as your experience confirms), I have watched a hundred golfers on a hundred doglegs do exactly the same thing, every single time, which is the most/best most of us can do, i.e.  aim for the centre of the turn and fire away with driver.

That does not seem to make for a type of golf hole that offers much in the way of variety or options or choices or various ways to play it. Get around the turn and you've got as shorter approach; don't get around it and at best you have a longer approach (while at worst you're laying up).

That gets a bit old; and that's not even referencing the points you make about the seemingly excessive advantage the better/longer player gains on some doglegs. 

[Thomas Dai]

A real pain on doglegs is trees at the corner, they keep growing higher and higher, and whilst long, and especially high ball hitters, may be able to fly their shots over them, most cannot (miind you, as long hitting folk get older and the trees taller they'll also be less able to carry them!).


There's a fairly sharp l-r dogleg par-4 (the 12th) of only about 330 yds on the otherwise very nice Green Course at Frilford Heath where the trees on the corner of the dogleg have been allowed to grow sooooo damn high as to take all sorts of playing options away from the hole. It's pretty much down the left side only unless you can hit your tee shot long and very high and land it soft (perfect for J Nicklaus circa 1950's to 1980's) and even then there's not much space for the ball to stop before running into the gunch on the far side.



Overall I like arcs and curves rather than corners and defined turning points, a bit like Ally mentions above. Allows for variety and options. As to trees on corners of doglegs, see above.


Atb

[Steve Lang]

   Peter,


Have you considered that the "masses" don't really manage their way around all that much?  Blasting it down the pike is unfortunately not so much a thought as a reaction to playing a par 4 and putting it into play as far down fairway as possible, let alone which side to be on.  Not unlike setting up an approach shot on a par 5 versus hitting driver and 3-wood as far as possible, damn the torpedoes!


Thinking about the Hogan quote on why he didn't hit driver on a certain hole, reply was, he didn't have to.

[Sean_A]

Pietro


I was confused by the question because the nature of a penal drive doesn't change because the hole doglegs. That doesn't mean all leggers are penal, but sharp ones do tend to be of that sort...otherwise it would be easy to play inside or outside the dogleg and still find your ball...which really makes a nonsense of the intended design.


Ciao

[Kerry Gray]

A few thoughts,
While I agree with you that bombers will always try to take the short cut, their are things that can be done to make them think about it.
bunkering/hazards on the outside of the corner can make them pay a price for over doing it. That is, slightly squeeze the landing area where they get the most advantage so they must be accurate. One local of mine has a water hazard on the other side of the outside corner(dogleg left) and its very easy to reach that hazard if you are slightly right off the tee, so I often hit three wood instead.
The other factor is shaping the green, one of my favorite doglegs has a very large landing area over the bunker guarding the corner. You can be 30 yards right of the ideal approach line, looks easy off the tee but the green is contoured severely right to left with a deep bunker guarding the right side as well. So even though you cleared the bunker guarding the corner, if you did not keep the ball towards the left side of the fairway, the approach shot is very difficult to hold the green.
I think the best doglegs do not let you just bomb it without concern for being slightly off line. Secondly the green is designed to favor a more precisely hit shot.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()