When is architectural deception ........ dishonest ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

I don't think there's any necessity to distinguish between a "dogleg effect" and hole being classed as a "dogleg".

The hole isn't a dogleg

Like many dogleg holes, this one could play dead straight if you could hit a driver 300+ yards and very high couldn't it?

NO, you'd end up in the right rough.

The fairway slopes from high left to low right, from the crest to just in front of the green.

As someone who drives the ball more like 200 yards, it sure looks to me like I'd have to play my tee shot at one angle then turn slightly to the right and play my second at a different angle. Which is how I play most dogleg holes.

Not at all, with a 200 yard drive you wouldn't make it to the crest or right rough.

I'll get the exact yardage, but from the back tee it's 460, probably 420-440 from the Blue and about 400 from the White

[Patrick_Mucci]

Here's the view from the tee.

On my last play, I aimed and drove the ball directly at the tall tree in the backround.
My drive had a nice draw on it.



This is the view of the fairway over the crest.



It's hard to see, but, my ball ended up just a few yards left of the rough.

If my drive was slightly right, or didn't draw as much, I'd be in the right rough.

And, it would be moronic to aim any further left due to the trees guarding the left side of the fairway.

[Patrick_Mucci]

So at the risk of getting called a Moron I wouldn't call this dishonest, I would call it a gimmick.

Rob, you moron you.

You're forgetting about intent, the reason that the rough was allowed to grow like that.
It's not a gimmick, it's a deliberate attempt to deceive, a deliberate attempt to counter what the golfer's eye tells him to do on the tee.

I'd suggest that you and others look at HistoricAerials.com, to see the change in the fairway.
Aerial views don't provide you with what the golfer sees, that's why I had Bill Brightly post those photos from the tee and from the other side of the crest.

Looks to me like they had a 402 yard straight hole that they thought was playing too easy so they pinched in the fairway to force players to layup off the tee or gamble to hit the 15 yard landing zone and have a wedge in.

Now the real question would be can the contour be seen from the first fairway?

No.

I can assure you that hitting that green from a lie that falls away from you, back to front, high left to low right, is a very difficult task.
It's one of the hardest par 4's on the golf course, a course that has 9 very difficult par 4's, I believe it's the 3rd handicap hole, hardly an easy hole.  And that's just another reason why you deserve moron status.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick

You could not have described the tee shot off the 17th at Royal Porthcawl any better..If you drive it where everything tells you to drive you finish way in the left rough - but drive over the middle of the bushes on the right and you are perfect.
It's a bad driving hole IMO because it misses twice. The drive you have to hit looks ridiculous and the drive which looks perfectly fine is not good at all.

Mike,

As you know, golf's a funny game, and it's very difficult to hit a shot that your eye tells you is the wrong shot to hit.

It's very difficult to align yourself counter to the visual flow of the hole.
Counter to every tactical signal sent to the eye by the architectural features
It's very difficult to aim close to those bordering trees.

Everything about this tee shot screams, "middle or right side of the fairway" to the golfer.

Yet, tee shots hit down the middle end up in the rough and as Bill Brightly described, it's very, very difficult rough and that green is very difficult to hold out of the rough.

The interesting thing about this awkward situation is how easily it can be corrected.
And, there's an abundance of photographic evidence indicating how the hole/rough/fairway was configured for decades prior.

It's a dishonest presentation

[Patrick_Mucci]

I'm sorry to let you down. When I played Mountain Ridge last May, there were a lot fewer trees than in the photo. I guess it's a testament to the way a good tree removal program can change the aesthetics of a course.

I took a screenshot of Mountain Ridge's second hole (with Google Maps) and drew some lines stemming from the orientation of those crisply rectangular tee boxes.

It does seem like there are a few yards down the right that could be maintained as fairway, without getting too close to the 11th green. Go about five yards right of the right edge of the #2 fairway and you still have another 35 yards to the left edge of #11 green.



The "bulge" on the right side of the fairway is certainly visible, but given the orientation of the tees (accentuated by some parallel lines extended from the sides of the tee boxes), I'm sure you can see why I described this hole as a dogleg - albeit a slight one.

Tim, you're forgetting a crucial element, the ground fade.
Once balls hit the fairway, they bounce directly right.
So, the hole plays straighter than illustrated, two dimensionally.

Looking at the rest of the par fours and fives on the course on Google Maps, it appears eight of them (1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13) have tee complexes that line up more directly at the green than those at the second hole. Again, tee box orientation is not the final determining factor for "dogleggedness," nor is that particularly important, but it does seem that #2 is less straightaway than most of the other par fours and fives on the course.

Tim, look again at the photo from the tee.
Where are you going to play your tee shot ?

Here's the view from the tee.




Also, the print that Bill provided is marked "Hole 11." When were the nines switched?

Decades and decades ago

Out of curiosity, what does the "Hole 2" field drawing look like? I ask for two reasons.

I'll take a photo of it this weekend.
It's straight.

First, the current 11th hole plays arrow-straightaway like the "Hole 11" drawing depicts.

Second, there's no left-side aiming bunker on the "Hole 11" drawing like there is on the current second hole.

Correct.
If there was one, would some criticize Donald Ross for designing similar holes, like they do for # 2 and # 11 at Seminole, also designed in 1929 ?

Of course, on the "Hole 11" drawing there appears to be a complete cross bunker short of the fairway, which doesn't exist on either the current second or 11th holes, though the current 11th does have that pond fronting the fairway.

Originally, there were cross bunkers on # 5.

The 1931 aerial is grainy and difficult to read, so I can't tell you if there was a cross bunker on # 2 at inception.
There appears to have been a right side fairway bunker that was removed more recently

HistoricAerials.com is a terrific resource.

That irrigation pond was added in the 50's or 60's I believe

[Patrick_Mucci]

I'll make one more cursory attempt to understand your contention, then I'll leave you to it.

Would the "dishonest" part thing be that they've grown rough in what you think was originally intended as the most desirable landing zone?

Brent,

I've been playing the course for about 60 years, so I have a resonable grasp on how it's played over those 60 years.
In addition, Historicaerials.com reveals the straight lines in the DZ prior to the recent configuration.

What you and others haven't grasped is my reference to intentional deception in terms of the mowing patterns

That's not "dishonest". That's simply one of the innumerable features of many century-old golf courses that have been changed by growing rough in places that were originally short grass. It differs from the original drawings, it may not be to your taste but it is what it is.

You couldn't be more wrong.
And, it's not, what it is, it's what some factions want.

No different really from some classic Ross course where someone dug a new bunker in place where the original design had only grass. Might be a bad idea but it's not fooling anyone.

Poor analogy.

Look at the photo from the tee and then tell us where you'd aim your drive.


Neither is that quarter-acre of rough growing in a place where 75 years ago you could have landed your tee shot.

How about 20, 30, 40, 50, 60 and 100 years ago.

[Mark Pavy]

Pat, the real question is whether or not you understand why this hole has nicked you in the head.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat, the real question is whether or not you understand why this hole has nicked you in the head.

Mark,

For more than a few years I've been lucky enough to be a very accurate driver of the golf ball.
It's not unusual for me NOT to miss a fairway in a round, and missing two fairways is a bad driving round.

So, the hole hasn't nicked me in the head.

As you saw from the photo posted, on my last play, in a tournaent, I hit a perfect drive.

Hence, the impact of the fairway bulge has been minimal on my game when compared to others.
I've seen dozens upon dozens of golfers hit what they think are great tee shots, only to find themselves in difficult rough, with a difficult lie, to a difficult green.

The course is such a great golf course that it doesn't need to rely on dishonest deception to challenge the golfer.

It's an intentional ploy that should be eliminated.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tim,

Could you extend those lines all the way to the tree left of the green, because that tree is the aiming point and ball hit at the tree, without a draw, end up in the right rough.

That gives you some idea as to how much the fairway slopes from high left to low right.

thanks

[Mark Pavy]

Pat,

This whole thread and all of your arguments are proof that you are indeed troubled by that tee shot. Ironically, it suits my eye, but not yours, why??

Read your replies objectively.

"I'm a straight driver of the ball"
"It's hard to aim left because of the trees"
"The fairway slopes left to right"
"It's hard to aim left when the eyes information says straight"

You haven't mentioned it yet but, the first horizon line, the brow, also slopes left to right.
I'm sure you tee it up on the right side of the tee.

If the hole were completely mirrored, you would not have started this thread, maybe I would have!!!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

This whole thread and all of your arguments are proof that you are indeed troubled by that tee shot.

Ironically, it suits my eye, but not yours, why??

Because you lack in depth experience on the play of the hole

Read your replies objectively.

"I'm a straight driver of the ball"
"It's hard to aim left because of the trees"
"The fairway slopes left to right"
"It's hard to aim left when the eyes information says straight"

You did not quote me properly.
I said that I was an "ACCURATE" driver of the golf ball, NOT a straight driver of the ball.
There's a huge difference
Please read my posts more carefully.

You haven't mentioned it yet but, the first horizon line, the brow, also slopes left to right.
I'm sure you tee it up on the right side of the tee.

Depending on the wind, yes, but, I still have to aim at the tree or a little left of it with a draw.

If the hole were completely mirrored, you would not have started this thread, maybe I would have!!!

Not true.
The configuration of the rough/fairway is the critical element, not the way the golfer hits his drives.

[Tim Gavrich]

Tim,

Could you extend those lines all the way to the tree left of the green, because that tree is the aiming point and ball hit at the tree, without a draw, end up in the right rough.

That gives you some idea as to how much the fairway slopes from high left to low right.

thanks

Preview is limited, but I did my best to model where a number of tee shots hit on certain lines discussed in this thread will end up on this hole, approximately. All four of the shots depicted end up about 230-240 yards from the back of the tee box from which they originate. That also appears to be the widest part of the fairway, at approximately 40 yards. The curvature of those lines is supposed to depict the way in which tee shots kick and roll to the right on the fairway.

Patrick, I intended the light blue path to be reflective of your most recent tee shot on the hole. I regretfully couldn't get the line to curve twice (in order to show the right-handed draw you hit). The black path is supposed to be a straightish shot that starts at or right of the tall tree, and the yellow one is a miss to the right.

The path in white is the one I would prescribe, and it starts at the right edge of the bunker, rather than at the tall tree (where the parallel red lines end). The more I look at the photo from the tee, the more my eye is drawn to that line, rather than the tall tree. The way the fairway curves around that bunker suggests that there's promised land there. Looking at the tall tree, I feel apprehensive that if I miss right of there, I'm going to run out of fairway (which we have seen is very true). But when I look at the bunker, I have the feeling that if I blast the ball over it, I should be alright, even if I miss a little left. And indeed, if you were to extend that white line straight, you'd have some extra room left to the left edge of the fairway.

Patrick, were it up to you, how many yards of fairway on the right would you reclaim? Would you compensate for it by removing some of the left-hand fairway?

[Mark Pavy]

Pat, are there any trees up the left in the road?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tim,

Thanks, this is great.


Preview is limited, but I did my best to model where a number of tee shots hit on certain lines discussed in this thread will end up on this hole, approximately. All four of the shots depicted end up about 230-240 yards from the back of the tee box from which they originate. That also appears to be the widest part of the fairway, at approximately 40 yards. The curvature of those lines is supposed to depict the way in which tee shots kick and roll to the right on the fairway.

OK, but, the kick is a little more pronounced

Patrick, I intended the light blue path to be reflective of your most recent tee shot on the hole. I regretfully couldn't get the line to curve twice (in order to show the right-handed draw you hit). The black path is supposed to be a straightish shot that starts at or right of the tall tree, and the yellow one is a miss to the right.

No problem

The path in white is the one I would prescribe, and it starts at the right edge of the bunker, rather than at the tall tree (where the parallel red lines end).

Tim, that would have you aiming dangerously close to the trees on the left

The more I look at the photo from the tee, the more my eye is drawn to that line, rather than the tall tree. The way the fairway curves around that bunker suggests that there's promised land there.

Nope, that's a predisposed conclusion you've drawn based upon the aerial.
On the tee you see the wide, safe expanse to the right, and that's where the golfer's eye is drawn.

Looking at the tall tree, I feel apprehensive that if I miss right of there, I'm going to run out of fairway (which we have seen is very true).
Tim,  you can't be serious.
What happens if you miss left.
Missing right is the attractive path that the golfer's eye perceives

But when I look at the bunker, I have the feeling that if I blast the ball over it, I should be alright, even if I miss a little left.
Then you'll begin double bogeying the hole consistently.
That's a disastrous line.
But, what do I know, I've only been playing that hole for about 60 years.

And indeed, if you were to extend that white line straight, you'd have some extra room left to the left edge of the fairway.

Patrick, were it up to you, how many yards of fairway on the right would you reclaim?

The answer to your question is "visual" rather than "linear"
The "line" I would choose is easy to determine.
It's the continuation of the fairway/rough line that the golfer's eye sees at the crest of the hill as he stands on the tee.
If you look at old aerials you can see that line.
So, for me, it's about continuity, having the rough line beyond the crest match the rough line at the crest,, and not bulge significantly into the DZ.

Would you compensate for it by removing some of the left-hand fairway?

NO, why would I ?

Thanks again for posting the photo and lines.

The line from the right side of the tee to the tree is the line I take, with a draw.
Anything right of that line ends up in the thick right rough.
Anything left of that line runs the risk of being in the trees or left rough.

While my irons stink, my course management skills remain keen.
I know how to play the hole and I know how not to play the hole.

Look at the minimal margin for error you leave yourself when playing the line you indicated.
If you go over the bunker, you'll be in the trees or heavy rough.


By the way, what's your handicap ?

P.S.  There used to be a bunker on the right side of the fairway near the crest.
       HistoricAerials.com will show you it's exact location

[Brent Hutto]

OK, it's a difficult hole that leaves almost no room for error if you're a righty playing a draw. It would be easier and would suit Pat's game better if the rough lines were dead straight as they were in the mid-20th century.

I still see little "deception" assuming one has played the hole before (or is willing to trust the advice of a caddie) and there is certainly no "dishonesty", whatever that might mean in this context.

You're hitting a demanding tee shot to a target that's extremely narrow due to the slope of the terrain and you're hitting it blind over a ridge which makes the proper line non-obvious.

That could describe 10,000 tee shots in the world, couldn't it? This particular one is probably in the Top 1% of them for difficulty but half the courses I've ever played have tee shots up and over a ridge to a sloping and/or dogleg fairway (although yes I realize you do not consider this to be a dogleg hole by your definition even though for most players it plays exactly like a slight dogleg right because of the required shots). That's a hard shot but hell, this is a hard golf course and #2 is one of the harder holes on the course.

[Patrick_Mucci]

OK, it's a difficult hole that leaves almost no room for error if you're a righty playing a draw.

That's absolutely untrue.
If you're a righty with a draw you have an advantage,
It's the straight ball driver and worse, the fade/slice driver who's at an enormous disadvantage.
And, do most club members fade/slice their drives or draw/hook their drives ?

It would be easier and would suit Pat's game better if the rough lines were dead straight as they were in the mid-20th century.

You can't be that obtuse, can you.
My game is better suited for the hole than 99 % of the membership's.

As to existance of  the "bulge" in the right side fairway/rough line, you're being disingenuous and intellectually dishonest by stating that they "were dead straight in the mid-20th century."  The creation of the bulge is far more recent, hence, I will have to examine everything you post with an element of enlightened suspicion.

I still see little "deception" assuming one has played the hole before (or is willing to trust the advice of a caddie)

That's because you're a moron, actually, a two fold moron, or, quite possibly a founding member of the Ray Charles school of golf course architecture.

"Trust the advice of a caddie"
What does a caddy know ? 
They're standing at the crest of the hill watching the flight of the ball so that they can find it in the rough.
How many caddies have played the hole ?
How many caddies walk back to the tee versus to the crest of the hill ?
And, even if they walked back to the tee, they would be fooled by the visual presented by the fairway/rough line at the crest.

Yesterday I played with two guests who have played the course a dozen times.
One of whom had read this thread prior to playing the hole
Neither one found the fairway, even after I informed them of what they were facing with their drive.

Based on your experience playing this hole, are you really that much of a moron that you're going to tell me, who's played the hole hundreds and hundreds of times, over a 60 year period, how the hole really plays ?

Especially after declaring that the tee shot doesn't suit a righty who draws the ball ?  ?  ?


and there is certainly no "dishonesty", whatever that might mean in this context.

So, you don't understand "whatever that might mean", but, declare that there is "certainly no dishonesty"
Proving once again that you don't have a clue with respect to what you're talking about.

There's an intentional dishonest, you just don't understand it.

You're hitting a demanding tee shot to a target that's extremely narrow due to the slope of the terrain and you're hitting it blind over a ridge which makes the proper line non-obvious.

Not quite.
You're being deliberately misled as to where the fairway is.
That's a critical issue that you can't seem to grasp

That could describe 10,000 tee shots in the world, couldn't it?

NO

This particular one is probably in the Top 1% of them for difficulty but half the courses I've ever played have tee shots up and over a ridge to a sloping and/or dogleg fairway

Please name the holes with a blind tee shot where the indicator of the fairway lines is highly misleading on a hole where the fairway slopes significantly toward the misleading indicator ?

Please name the holes that have the same properties off the tee as the 2nd hole at MRCC

(although yes I realize you do not consider this to be a dogleg hole by your definition even though for most players it plays exactly like a slight dogleg right because of the required shots).

Tell us, what's the required shot ?

And, remind us again, how many times have you played this hole ?

That's a hard shot but hell, this is a hard golf course and #2 is one of the harder holes on the course.

We're aware of that, but, why make it harder by deliberately inserting a swatch of rough in the DZ where the golfer is misled into thinking that it's a desireable target from the tee ?

[Mark Pavy]

Why would you keep aiming at the big tree week after week when you know:

1. The line of the tree is right edge of the fairway
2. The fairway slopes left to right
3. Where the fairway is
4. There is a bulge of rough down the right

Is it because you find it difficult to change your ingrained habit of 60 years?

Your line is wrong, aim 10-15yards left.

[Bill Brightly]

Here is the second hole at Mountain Ridge as seen from the 4th tee, about 300 yards behind the hole. I think this photo shows the sigificant slope and also how far out into the driving zone the rough is now maintained.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Why would you keep aiming at the big tree week after week when you know:

1. The line of the tree is right edge of the fairwayWRONG
2. The fairway slopes left to right
3. Where the fairway is
4. There is a bulge of rough down the right

I aim at the big tree and drive at the big tree with a slight to good draw because that's the best way to hit the fairway.



Is it because you find it difficult to change your ingrained habit of 60 years?

When I played yesterday, I hit the fairway and when I played today I hit the fairway.
In fact, for 60 years I've had a habit of hitting the fairway, but now, you, in your infinite, moronic wisdom, are going to tell me how to play the hole ? ?  ?

Do you realize how utterly moronic that makes you look ?

Your line is wrong, aim 10-15yards left.

My line is perfect.
Only a total moron would aim 10-15 yards left of the tall tree in the center of the fairway.
Driving 10-15 yards left of that tree would put me in the trees in the left rough.
Is this your first year of playing golf ?

[Brent Hutto]

What an uplifting contribution to our collective understanding of Golf Course Architecture this is.

[Patrick_Mucci]

What an uplifting contribution to our collective understanding of Golf Course Architecture this is.

Brent,

I understand how foolish you look and why you would want to criticize text and photographic evidence confirming your foolishness, but, you were an active contributor to the thread, albeit a misguided and erroneous contributor, but, a contributor nonetheless.

Tell us again how a golfer, aiming at the tall tree in the center, who hits a draw, is disadvantaged.

If anything, you should have learned how you failed to recognize faulty architectural signals and how to improve your course management skills.

[Bill Brightly]

Which tree are you guys talking about?


Here is another view of the approch from the crest of the hill in the center of the fairway

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bill,

The tall tree in the middle, the one just right of the bunker.

The same one that Tim was kind enough to draw lines from the tee to that tree.

[Mark Pavy]

That's a great picture of Bill's (the one taken from behind the green)...that clearly shows the apex of the DOGLEG.

Considering that you have maintained the hole is straight, which is most definitely DISHONEST, it's very difficult to interpret anything you've written other than the ravings of a lunatic having a bitch about a hole.

[Patrick_Mucci]

That's a great picture of Bill's (the one taken from behind the green)...that clearly shows the apex of the DOGLEG.

Mark, I suggested that Bill take that photo

Considering that you have maintained the hole is straight, which is most definitely DISHONEST, it's very difficult to interpret anything you've written other than the ravings of a lunatic having a bitch about a hole.

Did you not see Donald Ross's 1929 field drawing on graph paper ? ?  ?

The hole was designed as a straight hole.

The hole was built as a straight hole.

Did you not see the aerials from the 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's

The hole was altered vis a vis shifting mowing patterns.

Obviously, you're a colossal moron who can neither read nor interpret photos.

What idiot would instruct someone to aim their drive 10-25 yards to the left of the tall centerline tree ?

What idiot would instruct someone to aim into the trees in the left rough ?

Have you tried a course management seminar ?