[Scott Macpherson]

Hi,


I was interested to learn recently that there is a hole in Scotland where, for safety reasons, players are asked not to hit their tee shot further than 150 yards. It the 291y first hole at Dumfries and County Golf Club. On the club website they say:


'Hole 1 is a nice short par 4 of 291 yards. However for Health and Safety reasons a “Safety” shot of 150 yards is only allowed from this 1st tee due to private housing bordering along the right and also the “Burns Walk” public footpath crossing the fairway just short of the green. An accurate tee shot leaves a short iron approach shot to a shared green with the 6th for your second'



Are there other holes in or outside the UK where players are effectively told to lay-up on tee shot to lower the risk of a ball leaving the property? How do you feel about this as a golfer?


Other than shortening the hole to a par 3, redesign the hole (including adding safety fences etc), is this an acceptable solution? Are there other solutions?


Scott

[Thomas Dai]

Scott,

The 11th at RCD's Annesley course, a shortish dog-leg right par-4, has or had a sign on the tee asking players not to attempt a drive of more than 250 yds from the tee quoting H&S concerns. There is a caravan park along the right hand side of the hole which I imagine is the concern, particularly as the prevailing wind is from the left.

Nice hole actually, surprisingly nice course too, if you like firm and fast, tight holes, small greens and quirk. Some might dismiss the course as too short and there are changes underway to increase it's length etc. A course worth playing IMO if you're at RCD and have some time on your hands. A much better course than folk probably realise.

Atb

[Jeff_Brauer]

I have seen courses with a short range, and thus issues two buckets of balls, one shorter hitting ball for driver practice and a regular balls for hitting irons.  I thought that was ingenious. 

I have seen many ranges as "irons only" but don't recall seeing any strict distance limitations. 

I have seen signs asking not to cut corners on doglegs, but none requiring a max distance.

When faced with similar situations, I have simply recommended cross bunkers or native roughs at XX yards from the tee to force the shorter shot intuitively.

[Jason Topp]

While it might be a necessary compromise in a particular situation, s[size=78%][/size]uch a requirement is an affront to the soul of the game.[size=78%]  [/size]

[John Chilver-Stainer]

 "While it might be a necessary compromise in a particular situation, such a requirement is an affront to the soul of the game."
Jason, is this your own intepretation of golf or is this a widely accepted philosophy?

What is the difference between asking golfers not to hit more than 150m (for H&S reasons) and forcing a layup at 150m as Jeff suggests?
Where is the affront?

[Jason Thurman]

Please list all holes that meet this criteria in this thread as a public service announcement so that we can avoid them at all costs.


I can think of two holes I've seen that, while not outright demanding a layup, certainly encourage one:


* Hole 1 at Canewood in Georgetown, KY, where a sign on the first tee states that cutting the dogleg over the housing is not allowed. Easily one of the ten worst courses I've ever played.


* Hole 12 at Aston Oaks, where the sign doesn't so much ask for a layup as it does remind you that there are lots of houses to the right. Also a very bad golf course.

[Carl Nichols]

I have seen courses with a short range, and thus issues two buckets of balls, one shorter hitting ball for driver practice and a regular balls for hitting irons.  I thought that was ingenious. 

I believe that's the arrangement at Wilshire in LA. 

[Jason Topp]

]What is the difference between asking golfers not to hit more than 150m (for H&S reasons) and forcing a layup at 150m as Jeff suggests?[/font][/color]
Where is the affront?

The heart of the game is getting it in the hole however you think you can best accomplish that task.  Any hole mandating a particular approach runs directly contrary to that viewpoint.

An example of a hole that most people find unsatisfying is the first at North Berwick's West course because for nearly all of us, the play is a 7 iron and then a wedge up to the green.  Even there, however, certain people can try to drive the green.  I would argue that the hole is vastly superior as it stands than it would be if the player were forced by some sort of local rule to hit the layup most of us hit anyway.

The hole described in the original post takes away even a foolhardy creative approach to playing a particular hole.  Sometimes foolhardy approaches are successful and finding them is one of the fundamental pleasures of the game.

[Matt Frey, PGA]

In Cincinnati, Hartwell's third hole, a par-five, has a sign mandating that golfers not hit their drives over the net that runs along the right side of the tee and Caldwell Drive, a residential road. A skilled golfer could easily clear the net with a driver, however, a block or slice is destined to hit a car or a house. The layup shot cannot be more than 125 yards from what I can remember.

Not the world's greatest course by any stretch of the imagination, but some decent greens and a great price (in 2005).

[Kalen Braley]

It is the mandatory hitting distances off the tee on the other side of the equation that are usually more bothersome.

And no don't ask me to move up a set of tees, or not post my score because I played different sets of tees....I have my male ego to keep in check!! 

[Niall C]

Scott


I've played that course a few times and it's a good course that's worth playing (Fernie,Braid I think). In the old days, the first would have been a natural dog-leg away from the boundary which is on the right but with the carry distances of modern drivers the green would be too tempting to leave it as it is.


Others like that include a hole at Westerwood at Cumbernauld that was supposedly Seve but in reality Dave Thomas (I think). The hole was a nice enough par 4 that they built holes on either side too close to the line of play making it too dangerous to use a driver. In the end I believe they gave the hole up.


Was there one like that at Letham Grange ?


Niall

[Keith Grande]

Is there a sign when you get to the preferred landing area that says - do not shank - there are houses and people in the area?

Why not just make it a par 3 then from the preferred spot?

[John Chilver-Stainer]

Jason,


Thanks for the reply. I think your description of the spirit of the game of golf is an over simplification and confuses the romantic expression of the freedom of being able to "hit where you want", with the reality of the game of golf as one of control and respect.


The only time you could "hit where you want" to get in the hole, was back in the good old feathery ball days, where the ball could fly about happily without harming anyone.


Nowadays with the hard ball, safety and insurance liabilities, rules of golf and etiquette as well as the pure respect of the management of the golf course, your romantic sentiments and "affront "can never apply.


However if you really want to play unrestricted golf, try entering the Matterhorn Eagle Cup on the Gornergrat Alp in Zermatt. Slamming golf balls over the alpine tundra to a 50cm Hole across a 9-Hole layout is one of the best "back to basics" golf you can get. It only happens one weekend a year but is usually booked out well in advance - I've played it 3 times and loved it each time.

[Mike_Clayton]

Scott,




The course i grew up playing - Eastern in Melbourne - had a road to the right of the 1st hole and for a while they mandated players had to play an iron from the tee on a reasonably long par 4.
The Lakes in Sydney had a boundary problem right of the 4th hole and we cut a sandy waste across the fairway about 230 yards from the tee to take the driver out of the hands of those most likely to fly the ball into the houses.

[Brad Tufts]

#18 at Newton Commonwealth (Ross) here in Boston has a sign like this.  This is a formerly private (pre-1950) public course.


The hole is straightaway 270y or so, downhill about 100 feet, and the small green is steps away from the proshop door, on the far side of a creek about 10 yards short.  A row of thick trees theoretically protects the proshop and the heavy foot traffic walking in and out at all times, and the first tee just to the left.  There is a sign that basically prohibits going for the green from the tee, and gives yardage to the creek (230 or so).


In my one play in 2000 or so, impetuousness of youth took hold, and I hit 3W on the front of the green.  Perhaps I should have played PW-PW, as I three-whacked for par...

[Philip Caccamise]

Please list all holes that meet this criteria in this thread as a public service announcement so that we can avoid them at all costs.


I can think of two holes I've seen that, while not outright demanding a layup, certainly encourage one:


* Hole 1 at Canewood in Georgetown, KY, where a sign on the first tee states that cutting the dogleg over the housing is not allowed. Easily one of the ten worst courses I've ever played.


* Hole 12 at Aston Oaks, where the sign doesn't so much ask for a layup as it does remind you that there are lots of houses to the right. Also a very bad golf course.

Ten worst? You're kind. I'd put it in the bottom three worst of the over 1,000 courses I've played.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()