Pointless Out of Bounds

[James Boon]

Adrian,

Sure there will be examples of internal OOB which aren't all bad, and Hoylake is certainly one, but I'm still not a fan of it in general.

I understand that not all sites are perfect and in most cases the use of internal OOB for protection of players on an adjacent hole is a necessary evil which could have been due to site, time, budget constraints or whatever. I understand why a lot of poor buildings have been built, with the architect often doing there best in a bad situation, but I still wouldnt defend them in design terms. 

Cheers,

James

[Sean_A]

I loath internal oob and imo it is indicative of poor architecture.  The problem some have is in separating the architect from the architecture.  An archie could do a fantatsic job on a site just to create a mediocre course.  This is part and parcel of focusing on courses rather than archies unless you are personally familiar with the projects in question.  

BTW  Hoylake's oob is not interior as the practice ground is not part of the course, therefore there is absolutely nothing wrong with its oob as it is in effect a boundary.  Why in the heck can't folks get that?  In fact, keeping the practice ground where it is may be one of the best decisions the archies made their over the years.  It eats up a large chunk of the flat land and creates great interest for two holes on the flat land.  Plus the course still starts and finishes in front of the house.  If you ask me, the placement of the practice ground is bloody brilliant.

Ciao

[James Boon]

Sean,

Your separating the architect from the architecture is spot on and so much better put than my pre coffee kicking in ramblings!

What is the situation with the practice ground at Hoylake? Whats its history? Do the club not own it, as I would have said it was classed as internal oob but is as you say a great way to add interest and use efficiently an otherwise dull piece of land.

Cheers,

James

[John Chilver-Stainer]

Is internal OB due to poor architecture or difficult site conditions or changing circumstances or dangerous golfers?

Obviously the better choice of Architecture is to keep green surfaces and landing areas well away from OB.

However  in the case of MacKenzies layout it appears to have been changing circumstances have forced the OB further into the golf property due to safety requirements on the path .

If this was Rays Creek or the Pacific Ocean or an Island Green instead of OB there would be less concern as it would only cost one stroke.

Whinging about OB is common among players, who are more concerned their score will be threatened than the threat to the safety of others.

How much space do golfers feel they are entitled to?

[Tim Martin]

Recently played Pequabuck Golf Club in Terryville Connecticut. The amount of internal ob stakes for safety reasons made the course a virtual torture chamber. Although not a large property the routing is certainly the cause of the problem.

[Kyle Harris]

What if the out of bounds is a setback from the property line that allows for a hole like the Principal's Nose or Road Hole to be copied?

[Mark Pearce]

Kyle,

Isn't that lazy design?  There are road holes without a road, surely an alternative hazard could be put in place.  Better still, a hole that suited the land as it lay might be a better hole.

[Kyle Harris]

Kyle,

Isn't that lazy design?  There are road holes without a road, surely an alternative hazard could be put in place.  Better still, a hole that suited the land as it lay might be a better hole.

Out of Bounds is a underused hazard. Null areas on a golf course and the strategic wrangling they offer need to be explored more.

Golfers need to quit whining.

[jeffwarne]

Adrian
I dont see how merely putting up a few white sticks at ground level makes the course any safer

The reality isn't that it makes the tee shot so much safer, it also makes second shots much safer--and it puts the players at risk from balls hit off the OTHER tee.

Without the OOB, there are going to be golfers in that fairway playing towards each other. 

FWIW, I used to live in South Dakota, and there are at least four courses in the state with "in-the-air" OOB.  They each have a flagpole of some sort, and if you ball passes on the wrong side of it, you're OOB--even if it lands in bounds.  In one case they make you play back around the pole, but the other three you have to re-tee.

K

Can you explain how they "play back around the pole?"
 Do they go through the out of bounds again?
I love that rule

[Mark_Rowlinson]

Duncan,

There are a lot of questionable out-of-bounds in courses local to us. I assume you are referring to the 2nd at Avro with your 300 yard blind dogleg. Some of the most questionable are at Ringway, a (largely) Colt course. There are a lot of parallel fairways and parallel dog-legs in particular. Eacg is now heavily lined with tall trees. In Colt's day there were very few trees. Presumably he intended that golfers could take shortcuts by playing in the wrong direction up somebody else's fairway. But because the trees have grown so tall over the years doing so would be dangerous because you can't see who might be in danger if you cut the corner. Many of these holes play from elevated tees, so the temptation for the big hitter to take out the bends. Out-of-bounds lines have been marked in these places, but in my experience it doesn't deter the big hitters who can clear a 300-yard carry, because at that distance they are back on their own fairway and, therefore, in bounds. But these out-of-bounds are a perishing nuisance to the average player or, worse, the bad player. They don't need out-of-bounds because they are nottrying to cut the corner, simply not hitting straight - the trees and other hazards have them struggling to play to their one or two shots per hole handicap anyway.

Do you know Stockport Golf Club? It has out of bounds to the side of and through the back of the greens on holes 7 and 8. It always seems harsh to me, because if you miss either green you are likely to run away into the trees. Maybe the OOB is to eliminate the problem of where you might drop under penalty if you had to seek relief. There simply isn't anywhere to drop the ball within the rules.

At Conwy there are two very strong holes running parallel but in opposite directions, the 8th and 9th. The 8th is a long par 4 usually played into wind, the 9th a 540-yard par 5 played sort of with the wind. There are out of bounds posts alongside the 8th fairway, but only in play on the 9th hole. The reason is simple. From the forward and visitors' tees there is a great temptation to drive onto the 8th fairway to cut the big dog-leg on the 9th and try to get home in two. You are driving into the faces of approaching players. However when the R and A, Seniors' Tour or the professional ladies play there the OOB is removed. You are welcome to drive up the 8th! It's not easy to do from the back tee because of the proximity of gorse and broom on the tee, but the lady professionals, playing from the men's yellow tees always drive up the 8th, taking all the defences of the 9th out of play. Not satisfactory!

[Tommy Williamsen]

Sean, I don't quite I understand your point about the practice area on #1 at Hoylake.  I'm not sure that putting the practice area in its present location was the only option.  Part of the dilemma with it for me is that most golfers miss it right.  To have OB on the first hole is asking for trouble.  I'd be curious to know how many folks hit it OB there.

[John Chilver-Stainer]

Mark,

I just looked up Conwy G.C. – a great looking links in a great location.

What is the history of the club?
Was the 9th Tee always so far back?   



Since the PGA players are shortening the hole anyway by going up the 8th, they obviously don’t feel an obligation to take on the challenge of the length of the designated fairway.
 
Has the club ever thought of shortening the 9th to take out the Dog Leg?

In return for an easy Par 5 they can have a long Par 4.
The course looks as if it can afford a loss of length and the front 9 has a Par of 37 anyway.

The line into the green from the 8th is more attractive as it avoids the cross bunkers on the 9th .
In the interests of preserving the integrity of the history of the 9th, ie not tweaking the green and bunkers, would the opening up of the rough on the right of the hole (viewed from the line of play) and intrusion of rough on the left inhibit the playing line from the 8th fairway to the 9th Green? 

[Mark_Rowlinson]

John - Conwy

It's the back nine that has a par of 37, the front nine only having the one par 5 at the 9th.

The layout has changed a lot over the years and there are vestiges of old holes here and there, holes that were played to different greens and so on. The two major influences were the World Wars. On each occasion the course was occupied by large military camps. They clearly flattened out the dunes which are shown as being rather more dramatic in old prints. The other significant change to the design was brought about when the A55 coast road was re-routed through a tunnel under the Conwy Estuary. It came out of the tunnel into part of the golf course. Several holes were lost. New land was acquired (thankfully linksland), entirely new holes created and further alterations made to existing holes. Comparatively recently the short 2nd was redesigned by David Williams (who is a member of the club) and it is now a very good hole indeed. The most recent changes were carried out in order to host final qualifying for the Hoylake Open. On the whole these involved substantial alterations to the bunkering.

I used to play Conwy a lot - my parents lived nearby and when our children were young they could enjoy being indulgent parents while I battled with the wind and the gorse. That's all changed, the children having grown up and my parents having long since died. So now I might go down once or twice a year probably to give some golfing friends an outing. I'm always happy to host GCA visitors if the course is free (it's a very busy course). Now every time I go down there is something new. They are always tinkering with it. It's not an architectural masterpiece and no harm is done by these changes, and generally I imagine they are done in order continue to host R&A and tour events. At the same time they need to keep it playable for visiting parties of average players whose fees are a substantial factor in the club's funding.

One day I'll get round to posting a photo tour.

[John Chilver-Stainer]

Mark,

Thanks for the history, nostalgia and correction. I'm sure I won't be the only one who would love to see some photos of a course that's so close to your heart.

John

[Duncan Cheslett]

A couple of interesting developments concerning the out of bounds on the 4th hole at Reddish Vale which I referenced earlier in this thread;

Firstly, a fascinating article has come to light from The Manchester Courier of the 11th March 1913 describing the course as it was towards the completion of its construction. I don't know how to insert PDF files here but it can be viewed from this link. http://reddishvalegolfclub.weebly.com/history-2.html

The 4th hole is described thus;  "The next hole is a mashie shot, and one plays a little to the right in order to get a run down to the green. A pull will be disastrous, and the hole will take, perhaps, a dozen strokes." Clearly then, no out of bounds was in place in 1913 and would appear to have played no part in MacKenzie's plans.

A look at the Ordnance Survey map from 1909 however, possibly explains why the OOB was added.



The grassy area with a path running though it which is now out of bounds was originally densely wooded. Hence why a pull could have meant taking "a dozen strokes." I imagine that this caused much delay, and rather than go to the work and expense of removing the trees a line of white posts was erected.

The trees of course, have long gone - but the posts remain!



Secondly, the club this week successfully played host to our County Seniors Championship. Interestingly, the Cheshire officials decided that, even at County level, the out of bounds to the left of the 4th hole is "unfairly punishing". They created their own local rules and all the competitors played the hole with no out of bounds to the left.

My objection to to this Out of Bounds is mainly because of its artificiality and that the hole is made 'harder' by such contrived and unsubtle means. I am pleased with the County stance, though. Without the OOB the punishment for a wayward shot to the left is a very tricky blind pitch up to a green protected by several bunkers. This would seem to me sufficient on what is, after all our Stroke 17 hole.

The two large oak trees by the green in the Google Earth photo at the start of this thread have, by the way, recently been removed.

[Ken Moum]

Can you explain how they "play back around the pole?"
 Do they go through the out of bounds again?
I love that rule

Imagine a sharp dogleg left on a treeless golf course.  By playing straight for the green, you would cross two other fairways, shortening the hole by something like 40%.

So they put up a pole in the left rough, at the inside of the bend.  Your ball MUST pass that pole on the right.  If you hit it left of the pole onto one of the other holes, you must play backward so that you can round the pole on the right.

The closest parallel I can think of is in sailing where a boat that misses a mark has to loop back and round the mark correctly.

K

[Ronald Montesano]

Why not a hazard with a drop area? If this has been mentioned, GOOD!

[Pete_Pittock]

If there is a cliff to the left of the OOB line on #4 at Reddish Vale it is likely a safety buffer. Losing a ball is better than suffering injury looking for a ball that may just be at the boundary of the cliff. The history should be clear with members, check minutes of board meetings or ask The Oldest Member. 

[Duncan Cheslett]

If there is a cliff to the left of the OOB line on #4 at Reddish Vale it is likely a safety buffer. Losing a ball is better than suffering injury looking for a ball that may just be at the boundary of the cliff. The history should be clear with members, check minutes of board meetings or ask The Oldest Member. 

It's not really a cliff Pete, more the start of a steep wooded slope down to the river 200ft below. The same kind of slope abounds around the course and everywhere else out of bounds posts run along the very edge. No-one ever tries to find a ball hit into such areas - apart from a few intrepid juniors who rope up and search for lost balls to earn a litttle extra pocket money!

Debate flared last night in the clubhouse bar; on one hand were the 'leave things as they are' brigade who were appalled that County officials had the temerity to change the local rules and that removing the OOB made the hole 'easier'.

The clear majority however, expressed largely previously unvoiced views that the OOB was something of an historical anomaly and that given the current ie of the land  MacKenzie would undoubtedly not have made the area to the left of the green OOB. If he ever did in the first place!

The clincher for me were the comments by a former captain and greens chairman that a slightly pulled or hooked tee shot should not automatically be punished by the loss of two stokes where the land allowed for an attempt to recover par.