[TEPaul]

I heard a few years ago that Coore & Crenshaw were thinking of experimenting with some interesting "reverse dogleg" concepts!

That would be where the ideal play is to the OUTSIDE of the dogleg to set up the best approach to the green although it may seem from the tee that the best way to play the hole would be to the INSIDE of the dogleg generally challenging an "inside dogleg" bunker or trees or such!

But researching Flynn in the Boston area but particularly in Cleveland I saw a bunch of clearly "reverse dogleg" concepts from him. And yesterday before leaving the course due to heavy rain, #3 Rolling Green is clearly a reverse dogleg!

So I guess this type of hole must be all over the place.

And I love this kind of concept that I would call basically "fake out" strategy! It's clear to me that most golfers don't pay enough attention to architecture and its strategies to even notice how two shots connect strategically. They seem to play golf in single shot increments and that's about it.

Clearly a good reverse dogleg would hoodwink or trick them into taking a risk (carrying an inside bunker) only to find that the risk accomplished is not only no reward (on the second shot) but is sometimes much worse off than if you'd played safer away from the danger on the inside of the dogleg!

I think holes like that with greens that orient toward the outside of doglegs (or have greens that are loaded up with greenside bunkering on the same side as the inside of the dogleg are really good because they can fake out so many golfers to taking a risk for nothing!

I guess some may say though that it's logical to take that risk for a slightly shorter approach although a potentially more dangerous one!

But I like reverse doglegs, particularly if they fake out golfers--I just didn't know that there seem to be so many of them around!

[mike_malone]

Could you mean#2 at Rolling Green?

[mike_malone]

BTW Tom

Can't believe you let such a beautiful day to play go by

[A.G._Crockett]

I agree with Dave Schmidt that this is somewhat accidental.  It may be that a hole where the play is to the outside of the dogleg has been caused by tree growth on the corner of the inside that makes it impossible to clear the corner.
The outside is always an option on a dogleg, but should leave a much longer shot.  A dogleg in which the longer shot is the easier shot wouldn't seem to be particularly good or likely design; i.e., you carry the bunker on the inside but are still blocked from the green by a tree.

[Rick_Noyes]

This may also be called an effort to limit the power game.  If a player can boom a drive over an inside bunker, he takes the risk of having a shorter but more difficult approach.  The higher handicap player could/would/should opt for the longer but safer route of playing to the outside for a longer but safer approach.  But that is the players choice in either instance.
I don't really agree in luring or faking-out the player.  I don't like the double cross.

[Ric]

I have heard of the reverse cowboy, but not the reverse dogleg.  Is this something new?

[Keith Williams]

We have a couple of holes like that at my home club (I also think the strategy was by accident) but I always kinda viewed it as a "give-take" strategy setup where you can either challenge the dogleg knowing that if you succeed you will have a shorter approach with a more difficult angle or you can play out to the wide side knowing you are sacrificing distance to gain a better approach angle.

I think this kind of goes back, in a way, to the "anti-strategy" thread from a couple of months ago.

Keith.

[Scott_Burroughs]

Yes, it must be #2 at Rolling Green.  You could say the same thing about #18, so the trees on the right won't be in the way and not flirt with the fairway bunker on the inside of the dogleg.

I think this feature is more common that you might think.  look at #7 at Pinehurst #2.  I played there for the first time a month ago and figured the best angle was to hug the right side of the fairway for a shorter shot.  But the best angle is to aim for the outside of the dogleg, so you have a better angle in, even though it plays 10+ yards longer.

[Chris_Clouser]

Tom,

I think we've talked about this before with reverse-doglegs and how C&C may have been influenced in this regard by the use of this type of hole by Perry Maxwell on Austin and possibly Old Town.  I also believed this style of hole is used by many architects, and sometimes accidently.  

Maxwell was also very good at designing doglegs that played to tilted fairways that would induce a fade of draw while the green would more readily accept the opposite shot.  The dreaded "bastard" hole.  

This along with the regular dogleg with the risk being at the corner made Maxwell a master of using "elbows" (the term PM used to describe these holes) to provide a variety of holes through the round.  Then once he added the "Line of Charm" concept to his designs that he picked up from Mackenzie, he really designed some spectacular holes that appear to be straight, but really should be played as doglegs with the shot selection.

[Eric Pevoto]

How does this idea differ from that discussed on Mike Cirba's anti-strategy thread?  An alternative to the line of charm concept.  

I don't have any problem with a few "gothcha" shots where the player is lured to play to the wrong line or spot.  If it sets tension or question in the players mind, it can't be bad.  

[TEPaul]

Mayday:

Yes, I meant #2

Dave Schmidt:

I think you may be right about some of these designs being accidental or unintentional like some reverse doglegs.

But clearly not all! Certainly to somewhat encourage a golfer to take the risk of carrying a bunker (on the inside of a dogleg) and then be blocked by a tree is not a good concept, not a good design or valid strategy and is something that will not last long in deception and will not fool even a dunce golfer more than once!

It's no secret though that architects have thought of the reverse dogleg concept as a means of subtly tricking a golfer into a risk for no real reward!

In the best of designs there generally is a bit of a chess game going on between the good architect and the thinking golfer and it's certainly valid that the architect may mix things up in every conceivable way to trick a golfer somehow!

Some people think that good architecture should only be a constant form of formulaic "road mapping" or formulaic "message sending" to golfers because there should never be any deception at all as it might be considered "unfair" or "UnAmerican" or some other form of trickery that fails to hold the hand of the golfer!

I like the architect that unabashedly challenges the golfer to think all by himself, sometimes with no "hand-holding", no "road-mapping" and sometimes even in the face of subtle trickery--and offers things architectural or in strategic concept where a thinking golfer might even suspect that trickery may be afoot somehow and figure out how to identify that! It just makes the mental side of playing golf that much more challenging and interesting!

Certainly Hanse/Shackelford attempted this type of thing at Rustic Canyon on #12 and also probably #13! #12 is a wonderful concept to me and not the least of which is the tee shot to an enormously wide fairway with absolutely nothing penal on it!

The subtle trickery on that tee shot, is, if a golfer sees nothing at all to challenge or penalize him on a tee shot alone he's likely to fall for hitting the ball directly at the ultimate target (the green) off the tee. The entire concept of the hole is that depending on the day's pin position that might not be a good idea at all!

The reverse dogleg concept is really no different. Some might have done it unintentionally but even so I would not think it should be considered a design mistake in every case and I can't imagine that Coore and Crenshaw would be looking to experiment with a concept like that simply to create a mistake in design.

[Michael_Choate]

I like that concept.  The course I played yesterday, Black Sheep, (see course review posting) has a couple of these where challenging the bunker leaves you a shorter approach but over or close to a nasty bunker on the short side.  

[TEPaul]

I just can't imagine that this kind of concept would have been unintentional in every case or how could we be looking at a significant number of holes designed this way by Flynn, and even in a letter to a sports editor a description of at least one of them about what it was he was trying to do!

Call it anti-strategy, unintentional, a mistake, anything you want to call it but it's clear to me that he was intending it as just another form of architectural deception--something he surely did in a number of other ways!

I guess one of the primary reasons I like this kind of thing, is,  at the very least, it's "anti-formulaic" in architecture and I've always been all for that!

[A.G._Crockett]

Imagine two different holes, both doglegs
A hole on which the player carries the bunker on the inside of the dogleg, then has to hit a very demanding short shot into the green, while the lesser player can play to the outside and then hit a relatively safe longer club in sounds like "an easy bogey, hard par" design strategy, which is generally good.
I think that the second hole one in which the golfer is "tricked" into playing inside, does so, apparently successfully (say by carrying a bunker or other hazard) and still has no shot.  My experience has been that this happens mostly on older courses where the trees have grown out and blocked the original lines of play intended by the architect.  
Risk/reward, and/or illusion of difficulty are great design techniques; trickery probably isn't.

[Jim_Kennedy]

TEPaul,

I don't think there's any trickery involved if an architecture leaves a harder but shorter shot to the green on a dog leg hole. The player is rewarded for his good play and is further challenged under the suspicion that if he can get "here" he can handle the rest. What's anti-formulaic about that? A reward is given for good play.
If the architect lures the player yet leaves no reward for a successful challenge to his dare then it's trickery with out substance, the real anti-formula. Holes like that won't stand the test of time and have any ever been considered good? They only work once but they won't cut it over the long haul.

[Jeff_McDowell]

Tom,

What I liked about your description is the idea that the golfer can choose to cut the corner to create a shorter shot, but deal with a hazard on the second. Or the golfer can play to the outside of the dogleg to get a longer shot while taking the hazard out of play. That's a nice strategy that lets the golfer play to their strengths. Or in my case play to the lesser of my evils.

[TEPaul]

JimK:

I really don't think I agree and will cite you an excellent example of a hole that very much could sucker or trick a golfer into a real risk for very little or probably no reward--and likely a greater risk for the second shot.

That would be hole #8 at Gulph Mills.

The green sits about 320 yds from the tee but far to the left of a pond. Unfortunately a willow tree has grown up on the far side of the pond making it virtually impossible to carry the ball over the pond and the tree and at the green or near to it.

We very much wanted to take the willow down and reestablish the pond as more of a tempting carry. The consensus was to not remove the tree for other reasons.

But if the tree did come down most golfers who felt they could do it would try to hit the ball over the pond as close to the green as possible. This green is a Perry Maxwell that is small, heavily bunkered all around and with internal contours that make approaching the green tricky (particularly with shots that have no spin). Additionally the green is a bit above the fairway!

The point of all this is that players would challenge that pond if the tree was removed! The pond and the green positioning makes the hole a dogleg left!

If they carried the pond they would be about 20-60 yards from the green. The smarter more prudent play is to hit the tee shot out to the right (actually from the tee it looks like down the middle of the fairway) and leave yourself with about 100 yds in--or some full wedge shot.

But without that tree players would be tempted time and again into coming as close to that green as possible by going over the pond despite the fact that it shouldn't be much of a secret to anyone that hitting some kind of 20-60-yds shot into THAT particular green is an extremely difficult thing to do!

So the point is I wanted to see that tree go to tempt players to go over the pond, taking quite a risk, and come close to that green. To me it's a dangerous risk that not only offers no reward, it offers far more risk on the second shot than if you placed the ball in the fairway at about 100yds and totally avoiding the pond.

The riskier shot over the pond is a complete fake-out in what it offers next, in my book, although I'm convinced many golfers would fail to recognize it as such!

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

The R-L dogleg 6th at Cypress Point is a very interesting example.  In my two goes at it this summer I hit what I (and my caddies) thought were perfect drives, over the left hand side of the mid-fairway bunker and far enough to go bounding down the hill.  Problem is.......even though I probably hit both drives 280-300 I ended up with a side hill downhill lie which required a hooked 1-iron/5-wood around a tree to have any hope of reaching the green.  I tried this shot the first time and failed miserably.  The second time I just hit a 5-iron at the caddies walking up the hill to the 7th and had a straight lob wedge into the green.

Where this hole gets interesting is in the fact that there is another bunker on that hole, on the far side of the fairway, now in the trees and, seemingly out of play.  The grass between it and the central fairway bunker is not mown.  However........

......Gib adn I decided to go up there and take a look.  The strip begtween the two bunkers wa about 15-20 yards wide, only slightly cambered to the left and looked for all intents and purposes like position A.  In the good old days (pre-ProV1/.95 COR) I would guess that a good adn well aimed smack of Persimmon against balata would get one to that plateau, while one on the angle I was able to take with the help of technology would have landed in the bunkers (at least for me).  Not only that, the second shot from that upper right hand plateau gives you an ideal lie and angle to the green, even though a brassie would probably be needed to get home in two.  Today, if that plateau were mown to fairway height you could get yourself into position for a long-mide iron shot from a fairly level lie, IF you were prepared to try to land a draw on that plateau and deal with the conequences of blocking it right into the bunker or the woods.

The Armenian and I wondered why CPC seems to have chosen to neuter much of the strategy available on this hole.  Does Tom Doak, or anybody else involved in the current restoration there have any thoughts, comments?

[TEPaul]

Rich:

You will notice if you read GeoffShac's book on Cypress, hole #6 (unless reading it is part of your anti-reading sentiment), that he explains in detail the very thing you mentioned above and the very thing you and Gib wondered about! It's in the caption to the photo of Mackenzie about to hit his tee shot and Robert Hunter looking on (I hope the sight of Hunter doesn't offend you in some way!).

It seems like a form of "reverse dogleg" to me although clearly in the case of hole #6 there is plenty of bunkering on the outside of the dogleg!

A very interesting hole, and I can't imagine why the club would have ever compromised that interesting "outside dogleg" shot!

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

Tom

Now you know why I don't read anything about GCA--I know it all already!

I like Hunter.  As Tommy N. helpfully pointed out to me, a first class writer on socialism and the plight of the working class.  If he were alive today he'd be on the barricades at Washington Avenue with Martha Burk and her Comely Coeds and not rabbiting on about the "right of free association" at some Bohemian Club encampment......

Peace and Love

Rich

[TEPaul]

Rich:

Clearly not a bad pick-up on your part but, of course, you did present it in your post above as; "I would guess that..."

So, by all means, never hesitate to turn to Geoff or me for confirmation on these things!

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tom,
It doesn't sound like #8 at gulph Mills was intended to be approached from 20-60 yds. due to the era in which it was built, but no matter. It would be now if they let your group prevail.  
The 100 yd. spinning shot would seem to be the best way to approach this hole, as you suggest, but it's not the only way as you further state.
Sixty yards with a lob wedge that drops softly is another. A 20 yd. bump into the bank might work too, I don't know.
I say this, the architect still hasn't tricked me into taking the risk because I am still left with a shorter, albeit more delicate, approach shot. If I am capable of making it, or possibly finding the green in one, then I will continue to take this avenue to the hole. If I continually card bogies or worse, I will decline the invitation, lay up, and take the alternate 100 yd. shot. How many times will the ruse work? It might work any time I
am playing with an I-didn't-come-here-to-lay-up attitude but that is all.
I think this hole still follows a formula, risk for reward, if the willow were removed.    

[TEPaul]

Jim:

Please believe me when I tell you what I did about GMGC's #8!

This is by no means a theoretical point. If it were, I'd be the first to admit it. I've seen golfers of every caliber scores and scores of times but particularly good ones (obviously, since they're able to get their tee shots that far down) come too close to that green and mess up the shorter shot!

It's actually sort of an unspoken joke at GMGC and the better and smarter golfers in the area are aware of it! There is no bank to bounce the ball into (unless you want to bounce it straight into almost a vertical sand bunker face!

It's possible to pull the very short shot off, of course, but it's about ten times harder to do successfully than hitting a full SW or PW from around 100 yards out to that green.

I've been watching this happen for 25 years and if we could take that tree down I'd be watching about ten times more of it!

Years of proof in play is virtually undeniable when it comes to the validity of this design concept on this hole! And for some odd reason I've been watching golfers who probably don't think all that clearly make the same mistake for years!

[THuckaby2]

holey moley... if I ever play Gulph Mills with the Doyen of Doyens (which is indeed in my top 10 life goals) I now know what to do on #8... or more correctly what NOT to do... someone please remove the driver from my bag!  

TH

[Jim_Kennedy]

Your Doyenship,
I believe you!!!! When I suggested a bumped shot I remembered the elevated green, forgot the part about surrounding bunkers, but......  
Looks possible, plays nearly impossible, very tempting, highly alluring, sucks the best of them in. Is it "anti-formulaic" or just a damn fine hole!?

  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()