[Jim_Coleman]

   I am not talking about a driving range (like Gulph Mills) or a sister course (like Formby, I think) being out of bounds.  I'm talking about a design where a ball is in bounds for one hole but out of bounds for another.  For example, making it out of bounds to play an adjacent fairway.  I think it is always bad architecture.  Are there any good courses with such an internal out of bounds?

[Thomas Dai]

They have this on the 7th and 8th holes at Stinchcombe Hill and it works well. Two slight dogleg mid-long par-4’s that run parallel to each other but it opposite directions. The course has been around for a hundred plus years and once upon a time this feature wouldn’t have been necessary but these days with the modern ball and clubs and a society which has become more claims focused things are a bit different.
Atb

[Tom_Doak]

   I am not talking about a driving range (like Gulph Mills) or a sister course (like Formby, I think) being out of bounds.  I'm talking about a design where a ball is in bounds for one hole but out of bounds for another.  For example, making it out of bounds to play an adjacent fairway.  I think it is always bad architecture.  Are there any good courses with such an internal out of bounds?

It's certainly not ideal, but it's sometimes necessary when you don't really have enough space for 18 holes with proper spacing.


However, it's almost certainly bad architecture when you build a hole that doglegs sharply around the green of another hole, and then have to declare the other hole OB.

[Pete Lavallee]

At Coronado GC here in SD we have such a feature. The 13th hole is a C shaped par 5, doglegging twice to the left. Some golfers would surely try to shorten the hole by playing directly at the green. Of course their balls would be flying over the heads of golfers teeing off on #12! Just like the strategy of the 16th at TOC is improved by the OB boundary, so is this hole. It is arguably the best hole on the course and rated stroke index 2. The course has a small acreage, being built on fill the Navy dredged from the Bay in 1955 to allow Aircraft Carriers to enter the harbor.

[Sean_A]

I find this sort of OOB objectionable. 

I'm talking about a design where a ball is in bounds for one hole but out of bounds for another.  For example, making it out of bounds to play an adjacent fairway.  I think it is always bad architecture.  Are there any good courses with such an internal out of bounds?

Huntercombe has OOB on the right of the 14th near a house.  I don't see the point of this because nobody wants to be on that line anyway...its already self punishment. 

Ciao

[MCirba]

What about Hoylake?

[Tal Oz]

The 12th at Pacific Grove has internal OB pretty aggressively down the right from the 13th hole. IIRC it's basically along the treeline. It's a safety issue more than poor architecture.

[Sean_A]

What about Hoylake?

Hoylake doesn't have OOB as described above...does it?  So far as I recall, the OOB is exterior to the course, but in the middle of the property.  Frankly, its ingenious design. A big chunk of dull ground is used for the range and the range is easy to access from the house.

Ciao

[Jim_Coleman]

Tal:  If one’s design requires an internal OB for safety reasons, isn’t that a flaw in the design?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Generally, yes.  The gca didn't realize how easy it was going to be and put a green, tee, or landing zone in the prime LZ for the hole in question.


I have taken some grief at times for laying out holes with mostly no or slight doglegs.  In general, I will never place another hole inside the DL of another one, but I have seen it happen a lot......usually in home made designs, but not always.

[Tal Oz]

Jim + Jeff, I just took a look at my scorecard. Turns out there's no internal OB there lol.

In general I would agree with you both. 12 and 13 have more room than you'd think (roughly 75y from the center of 12 fw to the edge of 13 fw) but the incentive especially for longer hitters is to cut off some of that dogleg since you run out of room at 275 ish on a straight line. I did some digging on the pacific grove website and it lists Jack Neville laying out the back 9 in 1960 and an aerial from 1968 shows the road already there. That most likely rules out an initial routing where the hole played farther away from 13.

In my one play there last year, I seem to recall a fellow GCA'er over there by the trees.

[mike_malone]

I grew up playing DuPont Nemours and the 8th had OB to the left keeping people from 5. I actually think the design is fine but the OB is unnecessary.
 After rerouting of a highway they made 18 a dogleg instead of straight. This caused the need for internal OB between 18 and 8. It’s not the architecture but unfortunate circumstances.


Btw Nemours is sporty as my father always said.

[Mark_Fine]

Nobody likes internal OB but sometimes the architect has no choice (generally done for safety reasons and/or as Tom said, because of limited acerage). 

[Tim Fitz]

Hideout (in Naples, Florida) has internal OB on the second hole. When originally opened, golfers could play down the third fairway to avoid the “great hazard” on the par 5 second. After a couple of seasons they established the OB (I assume for safety).


Not ideal, but I think Tom D nailed in that space constraints may have required this concession. Hideout’s property is divided into two parcels and there may not have been sufficient space to avoid this.


Even taking account of the internal OB, Hideout is a compelling course and is certainly in the top tier of the Collier County courses.

[Jim_Coleman]

I understand, but do not know, that Philly Cricket had to institute an out of bounds for tee shots played from the 18th tee to the first fairway after removing trees that made that tactic an option.  Does anyone know if this is true? And if it is, would removing those trees have been a mistake?

[Tom_Doak]

The 12th at Pacific Grove has internal OB pretty aggressively down the right from the 13th hole. IIRC it's basically along the treeline. It's a safety issue more than poor architecture.

I was going to bring that hole up.  If you assumed that the o.b. right was a property line, rather than a safety solution for the par-4 coming back the other way, you would have to admit that the 12th is a terrific hole.


NOTE:  I just saw your second post.  I can confirm that at one time the 13th fairway WAS out of bounds while playing the 12th.  I guess they have taken it away due to complaints?

[Sean_A]

The 12th at Pacific Grove has internal OB pretty aggressively down the right from the 13th hole. IIRC it's basically along the treeline. It's a safety issue more than poor architecture.

I was going to bring that hole up.  If you assumed that the o.b. right was a property line, rather than a safety solution for the par-4 coming back the other way, you would have to admit that the 12th is a terrific hole.

NOTE:  I just saw your second post.  I can confirm that at one time the 13th fairway WAS out of bounds while playing the 12th.  I guess they have taken it away due to complaints?

Maybe it still is a terrific hole? A question, does bad architecture equal bad hole?

Ciao

[Jim_Coleman]

   Let me ask my Philly Cricket question a different way.  Was putting the "Hinkle tree" near the 8th tee at Inverness a better architectural option than declaring his alternate route out of bounds?  Or, put another way, would a tree removal project that allowed for an alternate route for playing a hole (up another fairway) be a bad architectural decision?

[Thomas Dai]

If the installation of an internal OB is necessary to keep folks playing the course without having to spend loads of £$£$ on routing etc changes then it's fine by me.
I also reckon that should an equipment rollback ever occur some internal OB's might not be needed anymore.

atb

[MCirba]

What about Hoylake?

Hoylake doesn't have OOB as described above...does it?  So far as I recall, the OOB is exterior to the course, but in the middle of the property.  Frankly, its ingenious design. A big chunk of dull ground is used for the range and the range is easy to access from the house.

Ciao

Sean,


I've not been there so not sure if the "cops" is relevant to this discussion.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.golfdigest.com/story/royal-liverpools-lone-defect/amp

[Tom_Doak]

Maybe it still is a terrific hole? A question, does bad architecture equal bad hole?

Ciao

Sean:


That was my point; I think it IS a terrific hole.  But lots of people will have to get over their built in rejection of internal o.b. before they can admit that.


To turn your question around:  if it's a good hole can the architecture really be bad?

[Kyle Harris]

Bad architecture? No.


Bad use of OB? Yes.

[Sean_A]

Maybe it still is a terrific hole? A question, does bad architecture equal bad hole?

Ciao

Sean:

That was my point; I think it IS a terrific hole.  But lots of people will have to get over their built in rejection of internal o.b. before they can admit that.

To turn your question around:  if it's a good hole can the architecture really be bad?

Tom

IMO holes can be very good despite poor architectural elements...or at least what I consider poor. Stupid trees, bad cut lines, stupid rough, shrunken greens etc are rampant on huge a percentage of very good holes. On this point I would say a great deal of architecture is not down to the architect of record. Even if some of this stuff was in place on day 1, it is often not by architect choice. I may disagree with some intentional elements, usually bunkers. However, that is usually for reasons of overuse/lack of variety or unnecessary...not because the bunkers are poor architecture...just a boring solution to creating interest.

Ciao

[Mark_Fine]

Internal OB is usually a subjective tactic instituted by the club not the architect.  Almost always done for safety.  But think about a course like St. Andrews Old where the rule of thumb is to play everything left which is essentially down the corridor of the adjacent golf hole.  What if they instiuted Internal OB there     Now that would make the course really tough (if not impossible).  Would it ruin the architecture? 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Nobody likes internal OB but sometimes the architect has no choice (generally done for safety reasons and/or as Tom said, because of limited acerage).

Mark, the funny thing about that is when you do the math, straight holes take up less room, and would seem to be a better choice for limited acre sites.  Obviously, topo has something to do with what type of holes you build, but in this day and age, especially in the US, I think most architects believe that lawsuits, etc. force us to think in terms of "safety first" even if we weren't inclined to do so otherwise.


Hope all is well with you!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()