Death of the dogleg

[John Connolly]

Or is the announcement of their death premature?

Seems there are not as many doglegs built anymore. Gentle curves left and right, yes, but abrupt turns, not so much. If that is true, why? On the older courses, they seem to have been employed to use small, awkward pieces of the property.

And if they are protected on the inside, what's better, bunkers or trees?

[Peter Pallotta]

Deader than a door-nail, John.
From what I read here (and from the lack of sharp doglegs on new courses), both golfers and architects consider them "one dimensional" and "lacking in options", and complain that such holes wholly depend on/reward "distance control".   
And the truth is: they *are* one dimensional, and they *do* lack in options, and distance control *is indeed* being tested and rewarded.   
But so what? That description (and criticism) applies just as well, and maybe even better, to most of the *Par 3s* I've ever played in my life.
And you don't read almost anyone complaining about *those* kinds of golf holes.
I think that's partly because the sophisticated view these days is that such sharply dog-legging, tree-lined holes have one other major and over-riding problem, i.e. the *trees*. 

[John Connolly]

Flynn, and perhaps other ODGs, used them often. He would usually have a nest of bunkers along the inside of the bend with elongated greens that were narrow along the inside line, and elongated on the outside line. To me, this is a strategic hole as it invites contemplation and mandates a risk/reward analysis. But not only is this not considered by some to be strategic, "golden age" design, it has become its antithesis.

[Jay Mickle]

Seems that Capes are the new dogleg.

[BCowan]

Seems that Capes are the new dogleg.

+1, great post

[corey miller]

Isn't one of the "problems" with many doglegs the amount of land they take up?  Because of perceived safety issues the inside of the turn can't be another hole and a dogleg with trees on the inside or little carry/aiming challenge is worthless.

[Greg Chambers]

Could it be that almost all new projects lately are built on wide open spaces?  Thus relieving the architect of having to shoehorn a golf hole in on a smallish piece of land in order to make the routing work?

[Don Mahaffey]

I walked one yet to be built yesterday with Mike Nuzzo.   Turns left about 60 degrees and dogleg is dissected by drainage ditch/creek type feature that is about 255 to carry from back tee if you go at the inside of the dogleg. 
Drainage ditch ties into a larger creek that runs up the right side of the second half of the hole with the green set hard against.   
So take aggressive line off tee, attack the inside of dogleg, carry ditch and perfrct angle for second. 
Play straight and safe off the tee and you approach a narrow green hard against a hazard on the right. 
Can’t wait to build it.

[Peter Pallotta]

+1
And probably even a better hole from the middle tees. Folks who play the back tees aren’t afraid of 255 yard carries (even if they should be); while folks who play the middle tees *are* afraid of trying to carry 220 yards (even if they shouldn’t be).

[Tom Bacsanyi]

Can you even have a dogleg hole without trees or water on the inside of the dogleg?  If there's just bunkers or something it's not as heroic a challenge.

[Duncan Cheslett]

A good dogleg hole should play around a pre-existing feature, whether it's an escarpment, water, scrubland, or a forest. Ideally the corner should cuttable to varying degrees depending on the ability and/or bravery of the player.


Simply sticking a few bunkers in an open field and mowing a dogleg fairway round them is profoundly unsatisfactory.


Subsequently planting trees to limit the options available to the average player only makes the situation worse. The flat-belly will rarely be affected at all.


Preferably, the green and its bunkering should be orientated so as to benefit approaches from the "safe" tee shot position, rather than the "bold".

[Duncan Cheslett]

Fat Finger Syndrome...

[Sean_A]

Yes, a proper dogleg is usually the result of too little land/awkward shape property/dunes or...loads of land.  It is my impression that not many top notch archies from the Golden Age looked to build severe doglegs or if they did doglegs were in a very limited number.  It is a difficult type of hole to pull off with any sort of satisfaction because they are so one dimensional.  As Duncan suggests, the leggers I tend to like are those moving around or inside (or both!) a natural landform.  They tend to be awkward such as St Enodoc's 10th, but I wouldn't want to see that hole removed because of its awkwardness.  Indeed, I believe it is the only original hole remaining at St Enodoc. I like Kington's 2nd a lot because the corner can be shaved, but it is a blind and dangerous shot.  In both cases there are prominent landforms in play and they are the only proper leggers on either course with the possible exception of St E's 1st. 


So I don't tink the dogleg died, it is simply a rarely used tool (but important tool) in the archies bag of tricks...pretty much always has been given choices.

Ciao

[Jeff_Brauer]

Sharp dog legs do eat up a lot of land, presuming you don't want to put anything in the inside corner (you really don't.....).  They aren't really graceful.  There is no guarantee that new tech and longer drives won't make them as obsolete as some of the Golden Age ones.  Medinah renovated to get rid of several of theirs, like 18, 16 (current), 9, etc. Just one example, noted because they couldn't keep getting tournaments until they did remodel those out of existence.


And, what do you really gain with a dog leg at say, 60-90 degrees vs. one 30-45 degrees?  Or even 20-30 degrees?


Mike and Don's seems pretty good from description.  Its okay if there is something other than trees to guard the inside corner.


Or as my old boss used to say, there are only two instances where a sharp dogleg doesn't work.....first is where there are trees, second is where their aren't.

[Jon Wiggett]

I have posted this once already but it has not appeared so second try.


I wonder if the fact that it is much harder to work the ball in the air with modern equipment has something to do with it. There are definitely fewer on modern courses. I have always liked doglegs especially the slight ones where angle into the green was the main strategy. Having said that it is very rare that a sharp dogleg works well.


Jon

[Thomas Dai]

Anyone care to mention a few top quality sharp or near-sharp dogleg holes?
Atb

[MCirba]

Anyone care to mention a few top quality sharp or near-sharp dogleg holes?
Atb

Thomas,


For starters



2 at Metacomet.  (Love)


14 at Wannamoisett (can't decide if I love or hate)

[Ira Fishman]

Two number 16s: Ballybunion Old and Mid Pines.


Ira

[Ted Sirbaugh]

Anyone care to mention a few top quality sharp or near-sharp dogleg holes?
Atb

#11 at Somerset Hills

[Nigel Islam]

Anyone care to mention a few top quality sharp or near-sharp dogleg holes?
Atb

I have not played it, but some would consider #13 at Augusta National to be a quality hole.

[Sean_A]

Anyone care to mention a few top quality sharp or near-sharp dogleg holes?
Atb

In my experience there are very few top quality sharp leggers. Most cases cited will be favourites or not truly in the same class as proper top quality holes.  A course which comes to mind with seemingly a fair number of sharp leggers is Pennard.  3, 10, 16 & 17 are all extreme.  None are what I would call top quality holes, but except for 17 they are pretty good.  Perhaps the sharp leggers is a reason for the polarity of Pennard?  I never considered this possibility before. 


Ciao

[Ira Fishman]

Three more number 16s although might not qualify fully as “sharp”: Pasatiempo, Primland, and Pacific Dunes.


Ira

[Thomas Dai]

Thanks folks.
Sharp or near-sharp? Curve or kink?

Excluding Ballybunion/Pennard, which have dunes of variable height on the inside, do the others mentioned (so far) have anything in common on the inside of the dogleg?
Out of interest is at 13/ANGC a sharp or near-sharp dogleg or more of a curve?
Atb

[Mike Hendren]

The 18th at Crystal Downs is rock solid.

Perhaps the increase in the range of tee shot lengths has been detrimental to the dogleg.  Tough to settle on a turning point that's relevant for the 180 yards tee shot and the 325 yards tee shot.  Heaven forbid the bomber has to dial it back - that's bad architecture is it not!

Bogey

[John Connolly]

"Tough to settle on a turning point that's relevant for the 180 yards tee shot and the 325 yards tee shot."

That is an important point, one would think. Although weren't there disparate driving distances in 1922?