[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

or ....   ?

[Richard Hetzel]

It could be poor property, but it all depends on the architecture aspect. I played Otter Creek in Indiana today, and it boasted more than a fair share of them. One could argue that you might only need 1-2 per 18 holes.

[Dan Herrmann]

How many degrees of a dogleg are we talking about?

10 deg - no big deal - bring them on
45 deg - one or two per 18 is fine
90 deg - yeah - that's usually not too good, but there are obvious exceptions
>90 deg - bad, bad, bad

[Kirk Stewart]

or ....   ?

Do you consider Augusta National a bad plot of land or poorly designed ? With the abundance of doglegs off the tee I would say -- " or ...  ? "

Seems the best defense against the Pros these days is to bend the FW at the LZ. Hopefully, more doglegs become the norm in GCA versus 7400 yard runways.

Does the lack of spin on the modern ball and the difficulty to move it right or left have an impact  on future design ?

[henrye]

Pat, I don't think there is a rule on how many is too many.  On one course, 5 doglegs may work just fine, while on another, 3 may be too many.  I think it depends on the qualitly of the overall routing and the individual holes.

For example, there are 2 courses north of Toronto in the lake country, designed by the same architect within a few years of each other, on similar terrain with a few miles of each other.  Both have ample property and there are no space constraints.  One has no doglegs.  The other has 4.  Most prefer the latter course, while I prefer the first.

It might help if you gave an example of where you felt too many on a particular course resulted in poor architecture.

[John Moore II]

I'm with Dan, I think we need to define what kind of dogleg we are talking about. Because I suppose any hole that has a bend could be classified a dogleg. I Mean, Tobacco Road has 4 doglegs that are roughly 90 degrees, and another 6 that bend somewhere between 10 and 45 degrees. And I think they work fine, partly because TR has enough width to make it OK.

But before we really get into this discussion, we need to define what exactly a dogleg is in the context of this topic.

[Matthew Mollica]

Pat, I don't think there is a rule on how many is too many.  On one course, 5 doglegs may work just fine, while on another, 3 may be too many.  I think it depends on the qualitly of the overall routing and the individual holes.

Agreed.

I recently played a course which had 4 dog leg left par 4s in the first 7 holes. Granted the bends were of different magnitudes and the turn points were at different lengths from the tee, but it did start to feel monotonous.

I have also played a course with more than 6 dog leg par 4s, each of different lengths, and routed with variety in left and right bends. It was enjoyable.

I do feel that a gentle dog leg is a great way of asking golfers to decipher a hole's strategy, and also a good way of asking them to place their drive for reward.

MM

[David_Tepper]

How many is "too many?" How many are there at Medinah?

As long as there are no dogleg par-3's's, why couldn't every other hole be a dogleg?

[Norbert P]

How many is "too many?" How many are there at Medinah?

As long as there are no dogleg par-3's's, why couldn't every other hole be a dogleg?

Lost Tracks in Bend, Oregon, USA has 14 doglegs.  It's a hoot.  I can't remember much else about it though. It was designed by PGA President Brian Whitcom.

     http://www.losttracks.com/course.php

[hick]

pat, give me a ring when your in newport, or give a ring offline.

[Jim Nugent]

Seems the best defense against the Pros these days is to bend the FW at the LZ. Hopefully, more doglegs become the norm in GCA versus 7400 yard runways.

That was Seve Ballesteros' answer to the high-tech problem. 

[Matt_Cohn]

Well by definition, if there are "too many," than it's not good architecture. But I don't know what it has to do with insufficent property. Don't doglegs take up more room than straight holes, since you can't have another hole right next to it along the inside of the dogleg?

[Jason McNamara]

Maybe not insufficient property, but an oddly-shaped piece or a poor routing?  I am thinking of the 90-degree dogleg that hugs the property line (typically on the inside).

[Emil Weber]

As long as the doglegs are well-varied and fun to play, they are good. But You see a lot of mediocrity courses which have those 90-degree doglegs, that's probably where bad routing and bad property come together.

[Mark_Rowlinson]

There's hardly a straight 2- or 3-shot hole at Falkenstein (11th and 12th perhaps) and it is a great course.

[Joe Hancock]

I'd have to say it could be any of the above.

Doglegs can help to fit holes into problematic properties.

Doglegs can be bad architecture, if overused. But, they need not be bad architecture, they just sometimes are.

Doglegs could be overused by a designer who just happens to like designing doglegs. Maybe they are fun for him/ her, and they don't implement restraint in their designs.

As a point of clarification, we're talking holes that actually dogleg, not holes that have fairways set at an angle to the tee orientation....right?

I'm awaiting your reply to the question, Pat, as I would assume you have a specific example of a course with many doglegs that is considered great.....

Joe

[Adam Clayman]

Joe. ANGC.         Are they really dog legs if there's enough feedom for every level of ability?

[Steve Lang]

  Both, but only in an ideal world.

I used to play on a small public course with many doglegs, after work league play, and even before work play in summer..

it was a convenient course and made you hit required shots or very risky ones on a variety of holes, not just the doglegs

it was utilitarian golf and it was fine, sometimes you took risks sometimes not.. you still had to golf your ball into the hole in fewer strokes than your playing partners to win.  the architecture posed challenges, if not great ones.

[Anthony Butler]

It also matters what obstacles there are to cutting off distance on the doglegs. Doglegs can be bordered on the inside by scrub, barranca, trees-both surmountable and insurmountable, water, housing and other man-made hazards. If you have options off the tee, the weather conditions can create a number of different holes which keeps things interesting. Somedays a downwind hole can be handled with 3 wood over the corner and nine iron to the green. Other days, the hole requires a driver to the center of the fairway and 4iron, both of which need to be perfectly struck.

Looking at the current PGA Tour event, many of the doglegs are lined by tall trees and the options do seem limited. The difference is essentially a couple of clubs on your approach shot.

[Philippe Binette]

I doubt you'll have too many doglegs on a small property... what you normally end up with is straightish hole and 1 or 2 horrible dogleg.

Dogleg hole take more space than straight holes.

[Robert Emmons]

Woodcrest on Long Island has limited property and most holes other than par 3's are doglegs to fit...

[Mike McGuire]

Our Langford nine, over spectacular kettle moraine terrain, has has 5 straight holes and two very subtle doglegs. One could argue they are all straight.

I always thought this was a weakness. Maybe its not?

[Dan Herrmann]

I just got back from playing French Creek.  One of the great things that Gil did out there was design holes with wonderful angles, many set up by doglegs.

I've long felt that angles that "make you sweat" are key to successful golf course design.

[Sean_A]

I usually prefer doglegs which are a choice depending on far the player feels he can carry the ball.  One very good one is Deal's 6th which helps be a great short par 4.  If one can make the carry the payoff can be excellent.  If not, its a dogleg.

I generally don't like specified length doglegs.  Meaning ones where a player has to hit a specific distance - say 220-240 to gain the angle of the dogleg. One or two is ok, but that is more than enough. 

If leggers are varied I don't see how there can be too many of them, just like if straight holes are varied I don't see how there can be too many.

Ciao

[Jason Connor]

GCA should be fun on some level.  That can mean challenging, heroic, strategic, etc.

But the one course that comes to mind in this category was no fun whatsoever.

It was a Ray Floyd course in Myrtle Beach (they had 3 nines).

I don't remember the name, but it doesn't matter since I'll never go back.  We had 8 guys and none of us liked it.  It seemed every par 4 I was laying back.  I don't have to hit driver every hole.  But I'd like to 3 times a round and I'm not sure I did there.

And they seemed to be sharp doglegs which essentially took most strategy out of the hole as it was boring station-to-station golf.

So if "no fun" equal bad architecture, then I vote yes.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()