While the law evolves, the majority of precedent has held that if the course was in existence prior to the home purchase and the course has not changed its design in a way to materially change the risk, the homeowner assumed the risk and the course will not be liable. As equipment has changed, questions have risen suggesting that the risk has increased due to the ability of golfers to hit the ball further offline. Moreover, there are often issues of fact regarding the materiality of changes, e.g. the tree "removal" at Quaker Ridge. But Bob's summary of the law is generally correct, at least in the US.