News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Robert Gusick

  • Karma: +0/-0
Too many doglegs?
« on: August 14, 2007, 12:22:26 PM »
Yesterday I had the opportunity to play Metropolis Country Club in White Plains NY.  It's a Herbert Strong/Tillinghast course with tight fairways and quick greens and was in magnificent condition.  The members are understandably proud of their course.  However, when I looked back on my round, I was surprised at the number of severe doglegs that I was faced with.  By my count, there are 7! (Holes 3,5,6,8,10,12 & 18).  5 right and 2 left.  By severe, I mean tight bends with corners well protected by large, mature trees.  It seemed that all day I was hitting drives that had to be both long and in exacting position just to get even a look at the green.  To be honest, it was exhausting.  I don't mind being penalized for a poor tee shot with an approach that is blind, or long, or a forced carry over water or a bunker, etc.  Nor do I mind a few challenging doglegs.  However being faced with the downside of being completely blocked out on half the multi shot holes seems to me to be too much (and to be honest, a bit repetitive).

My question for the group is, when is it too much?  What other courses out there are like this?  Am I just being a wimp?


Tom Roewer

Re:Too many doglegs?
« Reply #1 on: August 14, 2007, 12:26:51 PM »
Reference the recently completed PGA Championship @ Southern Hills.

Phil McDade

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Too many doglegs?
« Reply #2 on: August 14, 2007, 12:39:31 PM »
Robert:

Interesting looking course -- it looks similar in some ways to Strong's Canterbury in Cleveland (site of '73 PGA won by Nicklaus), which relies less on length and more on its 14 (admittedly, some more severe than others) doglegs to test the player. Maybe a Strong trait -- doglegs vs. length?

Curious about the terrain on some of the doglegs -- holes like 6 and 12 obviously (assuming the adjoining wooded property is owned by the course) could have been straightened. But they'd be shorter, too, and I wonder if the terrain of those holes is more interesting as a dogleg than via the "crow flies" route, with perhaps less interesting terrain? Holes 3 and 10 look fairly obviously dictated by surroundings -- the tennis courts on 10, the lakes and nearby holes on 3. Holes 5, 8 and 18 (and the 6th as well) look to be pretty short, compared to some of the others -- are they playable with an iron/fairway wood to get to the corner? I'd be interested to learn more about hole lengths there.

In general, I tend to like courses with doglegs, because of the demands it puts on placing the ball correctly in the fairway and the "look" of the hole. A hole like 11 would have to be on some interesting terrain -- or feature some nifty greensite work or a cool green itself -- to hold my interest. Several of the doglegs look pretty cool, and the par 3s at first glance look pretty good, too? (Is 17 a par 3? How long??)
« Last Edit: August 14, 2007, 12:40:18 PM by Phil McDade »

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Too many doglegs?
« Reply #3 on: August 14, 2007, 12:51:17 PM »
Southern Hills also shows what happens to dl as length increases.  They sure play differently than intended, basically as layup holes, although you could argue that a gentle dogleg would allow "fitting the ball in" in current parlance.

Sharp doglegs are also hard on average players who may not consistently be able to get to the corner.

So, unless we believe that two longstanding trends - ever longer tee shots by better players and still inconsistent ones by average players, we should limit sharp doglegs and use mild ones.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Robert Gusick

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Too many doglegs?
« Reply #4 on: August 15, 2007, 08:22:21 AM »
3 - 395 uphill
5 - 375 uphill
6 - 406 slightly downhill
8 - 358 uphill
10 - 444 downhill
12 - 445 slightly downhill
18 - 387 slightly uphill

The course is 6518 yards, par 71 (71.9/135)

17 is a short par 4 (343)
The 3's measure 174, 137, 173 & 138.

6 is the signature hole.  2nd shot is from a downhill, sidehill lie, to a 2 tiered green with a big bunker guarding the front.

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Too many doglegs?
« Reply #5 on: August 15, 2007, 08:36:59 AM »
Robert,

You're just being a wimp.

With respect to Metropolis, they made the HORRENDOUS mistake of sticking tennis courts in the middle of the golf course, thus altering a number of holes, including # 10 which I think they really botched.  #'s 16 and 17 also suffered and they added # 15 to make up for a hole they lost.

In the 70's a great number of clubs, caught up in the tennis fad disfigured their golf courses.   Montclair also comes to mind.  Unfortunately, what's been done, can't be undone so easily.

It's an interesting golf course on an unusual piece of terrain.

P.S.  You won't like Deepdale ;D
        It's got 7 doglegs on the first nine holes and 4 more on
        the back nine

Phil McDade

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Too many doglegs?
« Reply #6 on: August 15, 2007, 08:59:35 AM »
Patrick:

Do you have a rough description of 10 before the tennis courts, as well as how 16 and 17 were altered?

Robert: Thanks for the hole lengths. Is that a perpindicular bunker (relative to the green) in front of 6?

Robert Gusick

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Too many doglegs?
« Reply #7 on: August 15, 2007, 09:13:11 AM »
Phil - Yes, the bunker is perpendicular, though from the fairway it looks quite circular.


Phil McDade

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Too many doglegs?
« Reply #8 on: August 15, 2007, 09:24:24 AM »
One would think a front center pin position on a 406-yard dogleg with a downhill, sidehill lie is not the easiest of holes to shoot at! Not a feature you see too often these days, modern or classic. Kind of a lion's mouth/gate hole, perhaps -- didn't Raynor do something like this at Charleston, maybe?

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back