[Niall C]

“But, if the short doglegs are forcing it, it won't be popular.  Courses from the 1920's (Colonial, Medinah pre Rees) got unpopular on the tour due to 200 yard doglegs and shaped shots.  The pace of obsolescence seems to be increasing.”
 
Jeff Brauer made the above comment on the TPC Sawgrass thread that I found quite interesting. Given the “increased pace of obsolescence” (fantastic phrase !) that Jeff refers to, do you think that architects will shy away from using dog-legs in the future, at least where trees or some such thing prevents the corner being cut ?


Niall

[Josh Stevens]

I changed golf clubs about 10 years back - from one where almost every second hole was a sharp dogleg, to one where there were essentially none, other than the odd gentle curve

The difference was the dogleg course was quite tight, and so the dogleg was asking quite an obvious question, while the straighter course had hugely wide fairways and so threw up all manner of options.

After all there is only one real dogleg on TOC

[Jeff_Brauer]

Niall,

For the most part, I have.  Or, at least reduced dogleg severity.

Even back at the 1974 Open at Medinah, they were complaining about the 200 yard "snap" doglegs at Medinah - Holes 9, old 13, 18, etc.  Most have been fixed, I think. When I started in gca a few years later.   Whenever I might have routed a sharp dogleg at the then 250 yard point (soon changed to 800 feet, 267 yards) my mentors would ask me if I was expecting the ever increasing length of tee shots to level off......I didn't and they haven't, so straighter holes are less likely to become problems.

[Tom_Doak]

Niall:


I have never been a big fan of sharp dogleg holes [like the 16th at Medinah that Jeff mentioned], although, there are some great ones, and I never say NEVER.


Nearly all golf architects have been trained to draw out their holes with centerlines to 800 feet, as Jeff mentioned.  [Former golf pros tend to use 900 feet.]  I think this has affected design more than most realize, because in essence we are always designing holes to wind up at a broad, relatively flat landing area.  You rarely see a hole on a modern course where the terrain falls off 230 yards out, and a long drive might get away from you, as on old courses which were designed for different equipment. 


I realized this when working on our reversible course, because sometimes the "reverse" hole has an awkward landing area ... and I think it's more interesting because of it.  But it will be hard to re-program myself to do it deliberately!

[Rick Shefchik]

When the Ryder Cup comes to Hazeltine, I hope younger viewers will get a chance to see diagrams of the original course that Trent Jones laid out in 1962. Sharp doglegs everywhere: 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 17 an 18. Jones did this deliberately, seeing doglegs with blind landing areas as the only way to combat the "excessive" distances the pros were hitting the ball.

The USGA must have liked the idea at the time, because it awarded a U.S. Open to the course when it was just 8 years old. Of course, the pros hated the course -- Jack Nicklaus more than any of them, though Dave Hill took the brunt of the criticism because he was willing to speak out. Weather was a factor the first day of the '70 Open, but the doglegs did their job: Tony Jacklin was the only player to break par for 72 holes.

All the doglegs except 6 and 10 have been straightened out. There would have been no subsequent Open, PGA Championships or Ryder Cup if Hazeltine had not reconfigured those holes several times since 1970. We'll never again see a major championship played on a course like the original Hazeltine; we may never see any course like that again.

[Tom_Doak]

When the Ryder Cup comes to Hazeltine, I hope younger viewers will get a chance to see diagrams of the original course that Trent Jones laid out in 1962. Sharp doglegs everywhere: 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 17 an 18. Jones did this deliberately, seeing doglegs with blind landing areas as the only way to combat the "excessive" distances the pros were hitting the ball.

The USGA must have liked the idea at the time, because it awarded a U.S. Open to the course when it was just 8 years old.

Didn't they award the tournament sight unseen, a couple of years before the fact, because the developer of the club was incoming President of the U.S.G.A. or something like that?


Both Trent Jones and Dick Wilson built a lot of sharp doglegs, relative to anything I've seen lately.  But Wilson was essentially retired by the time of the 1970 Open, and Jones' work was more in Europe than in the U.S.A., so I don't know if the reaction to Hazeltine changed their thoughts on the matter at all.

[Thomas Dai]

After all there is only one real dogleg on TOC

Probably a fair point in relation to todays longer hitters but for short hitters 'tacking' their way around the hazards there can still be doglegs. And for decades/centuries there was probably quite a lot of 'tacking' going on at TOC, even by the better players.


And another thing - trees - less trees, less doglegs and more hitting across corners?


Atb

[Bill_McBride]

I changed golf clubs about 10 years back - from one where almost every second hole was a sharp dogleg, to one where there were essentially none, other than the odd gentle curve

The difference was the dogleg course was quite tight, and so the dogleg was asking quite an obvious question, while the straighter course had hugely wide fairways and so threw up all manner of options.

After all there is only one real dogleg on TOC

Josh, I pulled up the Google Earth aerial of TOC.   The 17th is really only a dog leg if you bail out left.  From the tee to the green is a straight line if you hit your tee shot on the caddies' preferred line over the shed.

[Eric Smith]

Bill, I do recall Dr. Gray once designing a dog-leg on the himalayas putting course next door.

I changed golf clubs about 10 years back - from one where almost every second hole was a sharp dogleg, to one where there were essentially none, other than the odd gentle curve

The difference was the dogleg course was quite tight, and so the dogleg was asking quite an obvious question, while the straighter course had hugely wide fairways and so threw up all manner of options.

After all there is only one real dogleg on TOC

Josh, I pulled up the Google Earth aerial of TOC.   The 17th is really only a dog leg if you bail out left.  From the tee to the green is a straight line if you hit your tee shot on the caddies' preferred line over the shed.

[Pat Burke]

I have felt that holes that gently dogleg are a good way to challenge today's better players.  The sharp dogleg holes often allow bombers to not only cut huge amounts of distance, but often do so while giving a very wide target for a miss.
On my home course at coto de CAza, the 3rd hole is a dogleg left par five.
I carry the ball about 270, and can hit it over the corner, basically giving my carry yardage about a 60+ yard wide miss.
For the avg member, they have to hit it straight out to the corner in to a much narrower target.
When a hole has a long gentle bend to it, I feel it requires players who hit it varying distances to fit the tee shot into the fairway.

[Doug Siebert]

I have felt that holes that gently dogleg are a good way to challenge today's better players.  The sharp dogleg holes often allow bombers to not only cut huge amounts of distance, but often do so while giving a very wide target for a miss.
On my home course at coto de CAza, the 3rd hole is a dogleg left par five.
I carry the ball about 270, and can hit it over the corner, basically giving my carry yardage about a 60+ yard wide miss.
For the avg member, they have to hit it straight out to the corner in to a much narrower target.
When a hole has a long gentle bend to it, I feel it requires players who hit it varying distances to fit the tee shot into the fairway.

I agree, I feel the increased margin for side to side error is worth more to me than the distance I gain by cutting the corner, particularly on dogleg left holes. I play those with a straight drive on a line that's not quite as aggressive as I could take, confident that if I miss left I'll be OK and if I fear block it right that's a shorter miss so I'm OK there as well (obviously this assumes I make reasonably solid contact with it, an assumption that's more accurate on some days than others )

Cutting the corner on a hole that doglegs right is a lot more awkward shot for me, because if I miss left I go through the fairway and if I fear block it right I won't make the carry. If I'm feeling good about my ability to hit a power fade I'll just cut a little bit of corner with that shot, if I'm not I'm better off playing a 1 iron to the turning point. If there's OB or another disaster awaiting a pull through the fairway I'll never try it if the ground is firm, because fear of hitting there will almost guarantee I block it right and defeat the whole point of trying to cut the corner in the first place!

[Bill_McBride]

Bill, I do recall Dr. Gray once designing a dog-leg on the himalayas putting course next door.

I changed golf clubs about 10 years back - from one where almost every second hole was a sharp dogleg, to one where there were essentially none, other than the odd gentle curve

The difference was the dogleg course was quite tight, and so the dogleg was asking quite an obvious question, while the straighter course had hugely wide fairways and so threw up all manner of options.

After all there is only one real dogleg on TOC

Josh, I pulled up the Google Earth aerial of TOC.   The 17th is really only a dog leg if you bail out left.  From the tee to the green is a straight line if you hit your tee shot on the caddies' preferred line over the shed.

Was that before he fell in the Swilken Burn?

[jeffwarne]

Doglegs can provide great variety and interest.
Who doesn't like to rip one over, or around a corner.
Sure they can dictate a shot, and can be overused, but let's not pretend wide open straight holes are there for "options"
It's not an option if you decide how you're going to play the hole once your ball is in the air


Are slowly designing, engineering, and tree clearing ourselves of fun, heroic, interesting challenges?

[Tommy Williamsen]

This is really interesting. I hadn't noticed that newer courses have fewer doglegs, but as I think about it the biggest doglegs are just gentle turns. I have to admit I like a doglegged hole.

[David_Elvins]

“But, if the short doglegs are forcing it, it won't be popular.  Courses from the 1920's (Colonial, Medinah pre Rees) got unpopular on the tour due to 200 yard doglegs and shaped shots.  The pace of obsolescence seems to be increasing.”
 
Jeff Brauer made the above comment on the TPC Sawgrass thread that I found quite interesting. Given the “increased pace of obsolescence” (fantastic phrase !) that Jeff refers to, do you think that architects will shy away from using dog-legs in the future, at least where trees or some such thing prevents the corner being cut ?


Niall

Don't doglegs go out of fashion when equipment changes lead to large gains in the length of drives and then when equipment development becomes static, designers start designing big doglegs again? 

[Ally Mcintosh]

I don't think newer courses have fewer doglegs at all. But I do think the newer courses following a more classic era of design do.

Golden Age and before golf courses tended to have long, sweeping doglegs. Often these were actually straight fairways with a centreline offset from the tee.

"Modern design" as invented by Trent Jones seemed to rely much more heavily on the turning point and with that came more and more severe doglegs. I speculate that this came about as much with the rise of detailed drawings and master plans with turning points at the same distance for consistency. Once you've stick routed a course, it's almost second nature to make a big deal of the turning point as you are drawing your fairway lines.

I dislike severe doglegs and I dislike obvious turning points. Once in a while for variety but where there are one or two holes like this, there are often 4 or 5.

[Rick Shefchik]

When the Ryder Cup comes to Hazeltine, I hope younger viewers will get a chance to see diagrams of the original course that Trent Jones laid out in 1962. Sharp doglegs everywhere: 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 17 an 18. Jones did this deliberately, seeing doglegs with blind landing areas as the only way to combat the "excessive" distances the pros were hitting the ball.

The USGA must have liked the idea at the time, because it awarded a U.S. Open to the course when it was just 8 years old.

Didn't they award the tournament sight unseen, a couple of years before the fact, because the developer of the club was incoming President of the U.S.G.A. or something like that?


Both Trent Jones and Dick Wilson built a lot of sharp doglegs, relative to anything I've seen lately.  But Wilson was essentially retired by the time of the 1970 Open, and Jones' work was more in Europe than in the U.S.A., so I don't know if the reaction to Hazeltine changed their thoughts on the matter at all.

Tom, there was a bit of cronyism involved in the awarding of the 1970 U.S. Open to Hazeltine. The club's founder, Tot Heffelfinger, had been President of the USGA in 1952-1953, and USGA executive director Joe Dey was a close pal. But the Open wasn't awarded to Hazeltine until after the 1966 U.S. Women's Open was held there. The announcement was made in January 1967, so the USGA certainly had a good look at Hazeltine before deciding it was a worthy course. On the eve of the 1970 Open, Dey's successor, P.J. Boatwright, even included the original dogleg par-4 17th hole as one of the holes he liked best on the course.

After the Open, the 17th became the major target of the USGA's criticism. Boatwright told Hazeltine they'd never get another Open until the hole was changed. Eventually it became a par 3, and the par-3 16th was converted to the course's signature par 4.

[Josh Stevens]

I changed golf clubs about 10 years back - from one where almost every second hole was a sharp dogleg, to one where there were essentially none, other than the odd gentle curve

The difference was the dogleg course was quite tight, and so the dogleg was asking quite an obvious question, while the straighter course had hugely wide fairways and so threw up all manner of options.

After all there is only one real dogleg on TOC

Josh, I pulled up the Google Earth aerial of TOC.   The 17th is really only a dog leg if you bail out left.  From the tee to the green is a straight line if you hit your tee shot on the caddies' preferred line over the shed.

Actually I was thinking of the 7th, but no matter.

Might there also be an economic component - doglegs are not a very efficient use of land unless they are running around some feature that is already there and could not otherwise be used for golf such as a pond, quarry or boundary fence..

I recall a comment once, I think by Clayts on some podcast where he talked about the 6th at RMW. Great hole, but consumed a huge amount of land, such that if it were in Sydney they would have laid out 5 holes on it, running back and forth.   Bit of a Melbourne-Sydney snipe there, but the point is reasonably valid given the cost of suburban land

[Mike_Clayton]

Josh


It's hard to think of a par 4 anywhere in the world which takes up as much land at Royal Melbourne's 6th. It's a massive hole - especially now it's a drive and a 9 iron:)


It would be a good question.

[Joe Andriole]

 "But Wilson was essentially retired by the time of the 1970 Open,"   - euphemism for interred ??
Dick Wilson, who enjoyed a nip or 2 "passed" in '65

[cary lichtenstein]

It's sad to see the demise of doglegs, I always thought they made for the most interesting holes except when the trees were thick. I loved cutting doglegs, hitting over the trees or whatever. I grew up at Tam O Shanter in Niles Illinois. Numbers 6 and 7 were par 4's and I could tee it up high and hit it over the OB and trees and cut off 100 yards into the greens. 2 of my favorite holes.


Ditto with the 3 hole at Pebble Beach if I recall correctly.


At my home course after Tam O Shanter, Green Acres, the tree on 10 was so high I could never hit over it, but 14, 17 and 18 were golden opportunities.


I remember played other courses were all 14 holes were pretty much dead straight and tree lined on both sides, and I always found those harder and boring.

[AChao]

This is a really great point -- the demise of dog-legs.  I never liked walking backward to tees for 80 yards or so.  But that seems like a minor inconvenience to a future with more and more straight holes. 

Maybe the golf ball needs to be rolled-back so that holes don't have to be continually lengthened ...

[Kalen Braley]

This is a really great point -- the demise of dog-legs.  I never liked walking backward to tees for 80 yards or so.  But that seems like a minor inconvenience to a future with more and more straight holes. 

Maybe the golf ball needs to be rolled-back so that holes don't have to be continually lengthened ...

AChao,

The irony of that statement is, doglegs, especially ones with trees....(think Olympic Club here)....are exactly what the Dr. ordered to disarm the weapons in the race of lengthening holes.  They make an aggressive play much more penalizing for failure to execute.

[James Brown]

I still think the satisfaction of shaving a drive down the short side of a gently bending hole is one of the game's great pleasures.  #7 at Pinehurst 2 is a good example.  That hole is not that much of a dogleg on pure geometry, but the bunkering down the right side applies a huge premium on accurate placement. 


Sad to see so many architects here concede the end of the dogleg. 

[Joe Hancock]

I didn't even know the dog-legs were sick.....

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()