[Rob Bice]

The topic thread on double doglegs made me think of a question.  Two of the courses I have probably played most in my life each went through rennovations within the last ten years.  One of the consistent themes in both rennovations was removing bunkers that were on the outside of the doglegs and adding bunkers on the inside of the doglegs.  These changes made sense to me because you are adding a risk to cutting the corner.  But why were the bunkers on the outside of the doglegs in the first place?  Most of the holes had only one bunker off the tee so it is not like they were just part of an overly bunkered hole.  Another course I have played several times doesn't have any fairway bunkers (aside from the desert) and it is extremely challenging off the tee.  So, more broadly how do you think about fairway bunkers in general?

[Wade Whitehead]

I once knew a playing professional who said "There's more yardage - but never trouble - on the outside of a dogleg."

WW

[Adam Clayman]

IMO, the bunkers on the outsides of dog legs are either placed for framing, containment or for penalty. All 3 of which seem less than ideal. I will admit to seeing a few that work. Key word few. Framing adds a reference for scale. The penalty should be the added length not compounded. That leaves containment which on some sites might be necessary.   

[Bill Brightly]

Adam,

While I agree with everything you wrote, I think there is one more good reason for the hazard to be on the outside of a dogleg: that is when the best angle of attack to the green is from the outside of the dogleg.

I think the Road Hole at the Old Course is a good example, although there you must contend with an OB hazard and not a sand bunker. Best attck is from as far right as you dare hit it.

Here is Charles Banks version of a Road Hole. Clearly, best angle to the green is far right side of the fairway, so that is where the bunkers are placed. (What is not shown is large overhanging tree that makes hard left tricky, if not blocked.)

[TEPaul]

"But why were the bunkers on the outside of the doglegs in the first place?"


Rob:

Historically there've been a number of reasons for doing that.

1. For no particular reason to do with strategy other than to catch a missed shot that did not find the fairway.
2. For reasons of perspective or as someone said above---framing (to show golfers the defined width limits of a fairway).
3. Because the outside of the dogleg might actually be the ideal place to go for the next or approach shot. To determine that one only needs to analyze what comes next (approach or next shot). For instance if the orientation of the green angles right out to the outside of the dogleg rather than to the inside then that is the ideal place to be.


Flynn did a number of holes like Shinnecock's #8 that is a dogleg right with bunkering on the inside and not on the outside. But when you look at the orientation of the green it angles straight out to the outside of the dogleg and it has a really tough bunker to carry on the right of the green----eg the place to approach from is the outside of the dogleg even if unbunkered. If you look at the inside of the dogleg where the fairway bunkers are it's impossible to miss the fact that is not the place to approach the green even if there were no bunkers on the inside of the fairway.

We call that Flynn's strategic "fake out" ploy and I guess he did it as much as he did just to see if players could read "whole hole" strategies rather than just apparent single shot risk/reward factors.

[Rob Bice]

TEP-
Very good points.  The most likely explanations are your points 1 and 2 for the holes I am thinking about at the two courses.  The rennovations could also be described as restorations - the courses were restored more closely to the original designs.  Over time maybe the designs had been tweaked by people who had more of a framing or errant shot theory on fairway bunkers.  Otherwise it just doesn't make sense given your third point - that is risk/reward for the player who is trying to set up his optimal next shot.

[JNC Lyon]

Adam,

While I agree with everything you wrote, I think there is one more good reason for the hazard to be on the outside of a dogleg: that is when the best angle of attack to the green is from the outside of the dogleg.

I think the Road Hole at the Old Course is a good example, although there you must contend with an OB hazard and not a sand bunker. Best attck is from as far right as you dare hit it.

Here is Charles Banks version of a Road Hole. Clearly, best angle to the green is far right side of the fairway, so that is where the bunkers are placed. (What is not shown is large overhanging tree that makes hard left tricky, if not blocked.)

Bill,

Did Raynor have a hand in the design at Hackensack?  I always thought it was 100 percent Banks, but that drawing would indicate otherwise.  When (if at all) does the club plan to restore those bunkers.  Also, I love that Bottle Hole at 9.  I would love to see that restored as well.

[Bill Brightly]

Good pick up Jon! But no, that was an error made by a consultant who thought Raynor had a hand in our course. That notation prompted me to do a lot of research, and I found that we hired Banks 6 months after Raynor died.

[Adam Clayman]

Bill, I have hard time understanding why a bunker would be placed at the ideal angle of approach. Shouldn't that angle be my desire? It's similar to that planting of the trees on the 11th at Augusta. Isn't it? The road hole structure and OB is different than a bunker, but imagine if they did place a bunker on the right side of the fairway, blind to the player, from the tee. Would that be good? No way. Penalizing a player for playing the proper shot, be it distance or direction, is not right in my estimation.

As for Raynor & Banks drawing,  The bunker that eats into the green is similar to Road, which creates the bet angle of approach, but since it's a dog leg left, does it really work? The heroic carry is what is missing, isn't it?

[Bill_McBride]

Bill, I have hard time understanding why a bunker would be placed at the ideal angle of approach. Shouldn't that angle be my desire? It's similar to that planting of the trees on the 11th at Augusta. Isn't it? The road hole structure and OB is different than a bunker, but imagine if they did place a bunker on the right side of the fairway, blind to the player, from the tee. Would that be good? No way. Penalizing a player for playing the proper shot, be it distance or direction, is not right in my estimation.

How about if he had to flirt with a bunker over there?  That's the risk/reward element.

[Adam Clayman]

Ace,
 The risk reward is the heroic carry over the inside corner, to shorten the hole. The less skilled, or the plodder, plays the outside of the leg. Why guarantee the less skilled are at a disadvantage if the best angle of approach is riddled with peril? 

[Bill Brightly]

Adam,

There is sufficiant room in the right fairway to have a good angle to the green. The bunkers only penalize those who aim right
but miss right. What I really like is that the bunkers pinch in more the longer you hit it. It makes the A player hit a draw or consider 3 wood.

Without the bunkers, right is a safe bailout. My understanding is that Macdonald and Raynor wanted the player to be as bold as he dared to get the best angle to a green, but pay a price for missing on the aggressve side. The safe side is left, so why further penalize the safe player? I should add that a very high % of players need 3 shots to reach this green, so their play is driver left, long iron or wood right, then wedge to the green for  very easy 5 or one putt par.

I think the "heroic" element is flirting with the right side hazards and getting away with it, NOT carrying an "inside the dogleg bunker." There are plenty of good holes with that element, but the drawing, IMO is a rare example where outside bunkes work better.

The Road Hole has a hazard, the most punishing of all: OB. I believe Raynor used water on Fishers Island. On an inland site, I believe Banks had no other options but a series of bunkers. If you study the drawing, the short-left bunker (never built) represented the railroad shed, adding an element of blindness to the tee shot. But the three bunkers on the right are not blind, the hole plays slightly uphill. He wanted you to see what you were flirting with.

The trap behind the green clearly represents the  road at TOC.

[Bill_McBride]

Ace,
 The risk reward is the heroic carry over the inside corner, to shorten the hole. The less skilled, or the plodder, plays the outside of the leg. Why guarantee the less skilled are at a disadvantage if the best angle of approach is riddled with peril? 

Mackenzie was pretty clear that you have to EARN the best angle, not bail out into it.

[Adam Clayman]

Thanks gentleman. I see that there is no rule on outside bunkers depending on angle and intent. Most of my experience has been with ones that seemed forced.

I did once discuss the situation with Ron Prichard regarding one of the holes at Beverly. In that case, with that green, outside bunkers would've been superfluous. 

[Ally Mcintosh]

You can argue that there are occasions when dogleg bunkers on the outside of the angle are used for strategy and angle.... But you are arguing the exceptions...

Like Adam, I see them all the time used for framing, as target bunkers and to aid the golfer with length perception... In other words, for pretty poor reasons...

[Sean_A]

There is always room for the odd bunkering to the outside of a dogleg; perhaps if only to create a penal hole or create a red herring.  I recall seeing some unusual outside bunkering where the fairway moved heavily toward the inside.  I can also think of severe doglegs where getting to the outside is imperative - the 2nd at Notts being one of the best examples of this sort of design I know of.  However, in this case (and I would think often times), the intuition of golfers is to get to the inside and so no bunkering of any sort is necessary - golfers can place themselves in danger without the aid of bunkering because the hole is counter-intuitive.  There can be no hard and fast rules about bunkering otherwise all bunkering would be a waste of time. 

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

I agree Sean,

I'm not advocating that they are not used... I just see them used for what I consider poor reasons all the time... But it's amazing how many architects prefer that approach - the framing / target bunkers / aid the golfer in every way approach... and that's their perogative...

[Sean_A]

I agree Sean,

I'm not advocating that they are not used... I just see them used for what I consider poor reasons all the time... But it's amazing how many architects prefer that approach - the framing / target bunkers / aid the golfer in every way approach... and that's their perogative...

Ally

Yes, I wasn't referring to you particularly - just another rant...

Ciao

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()