I played a few weeks ago in a college tournament where there were two par fives which the coaches almost decided to play with internal ob.  The reason they debated the subject was that players more often then not drove the ball into adjacent holes cutting the dog leg off, making the hole much shorter.  One of my teamates commented that "internal ob is the club realizing that the architect F-ed up the routing" and for the most part i agreed with him.  Do you feel that this is the case, or is it a legitamate way of making a hole harder? Is it something else?

Royal Liverpool?

will Hoylake still have it for the Open?

Doesn't Ganton have internal out of bounds on #18 in the middle of the fairway?

The guys on the Golf Channel speculated that Hoylake might have more internal OB than any course in major championship history. They want on to rave about the layout.

Personally, I hate internal OB.

Santa Ana Country Club in unincorporated Santa Ana, California has an internal out of bounds that separates holes 1 and 18.  Off the top of my head, I can't remember if one goes to the right of the out of bound stakes on hole 1 the player is out of bounds or if the player goes to the right of the OB stakes on hole 18 the player is out of bounds.  However, the OB is only operable for one of the holes mentioned.

From what I remember reading, the driving range at Hoylake was OB in all previous Open championships, so I would assume it would be defined as such for this year's rendition.  One would think there wouldn't be any other call but to consider the range OB on the 3d and 18th on the open rotation.

   Lack of vision/blindness might be a reason for internal OB.
   The nested spoon holes might work if play is in the same direction on both holes. That's certainly safer than hitting into oncoming players.
   Internal OB for a driving range is okay because it is extremely dangerous to head out into the range to hit your wayward shot. People don't stop hitting. And it also takes a long time to find your ball.

Jean-Marc:

Your teammate is probably right; I made that mistake once and once only.

However, there are a few holes I've seen which are great golf holes, if you can just accept the OB as OB.  And if they'd routed the course to avoid that problem, the holes they created wouldn't have been nearly as good.  The hole mentioned above at Pacific Grove is one of them.  So maybe we should lighten up about it.

Thanks, Mr. Doak.

My home club has two holes that "spoon" and about ten years ago we put in an internal OB. They are two of the best par fours on the course, are on opposite nines, and have very different characters. They play in the same direction. And although we did put in a few trees near the teeing ground of one of the holes, we did not want to plant a line of "committee trees" between the holes. There are very few trees in play on our course, two small groups and one stand alone, and none should be a factor except for a mis-played shot. Internal OB was the best option to protect golfers.

One might prefer no IOB, but in all save one instance I've seen, they made sense.

I wouldn't blame the architect for internal OB, I tend to see it on courses that are fairly tightly routed -- if the architect isn't given enough land to work with, some compromises must be made.

In some cases on older designs it could well be that the architect just wasn't able to forsee the totally out of hand equipment today.  Why would a course routed 80 years ago have taken into account players carrying the ball 300 yards and high enough to hit over mature trees?

Internal OOB conjures up thoughts of perennial Open Chmapionship qualifying course, Lundin Links in Scotland, lying like a siamise twin next to Levin links. At one time there was a railway line running through the links, which led to the situation of something like 7-10 holes with internal OOB.

Japanese courses, too, laid-out upon wickedly constricted parcels of land, are infested with internal OOB. A terrific Australian golfer - the late Roger Mackay - played most of his best golf in Japan, winning a bunch of tournaments with very straight driving.  

Huck, Actually there are four instances at PG where there is internal OB. 5,6,12 & 18.

All but #18 are safety and courtesy issues. Which, in the context of where PGGL falls into the realm of real golf courses, is an acceptable allowance. Afterall they are local rules.

#12 still allows for a bold line off the tee, having a slight miss right cost stroke and distance, makes challenging it even more bold, in my eyes.

Adam:

Thanks for the reminders.  I'd agree that all of these fall under what I first mentioned - necessary evils.  I absolutely understand why each of them exist... 18 borders the driving range, so I kinda consider that a boundary of the golf course.  My issue is with arbitrary lines set between two golf holes.  I get why they must exist, in most instances... I certainly see why they exist on 5/6 PG Muni and on 12... I just don't have to like them, as I really believe absent a packed course they don't need to exist.  I really have a strong belief that if someone can find a way to play a golf hole while keeping the ball on the course, he ought to be allowed to do so.  Again understanding safety issues and why sometimes he can't... but still, in a perfect golfing world, wishing such safety issues didn't have to rule the day, even when no one is around.

So I'm just not sure I'm with you on your take on 12.  Or perhaps, well... I would be if that stroke and distance penalty was caused by a FENCE or a boundary of the course, not by something artificially put in - it just seems so fake to me... so arbitrary... do you really think that ALWAYS existed from when the course was first created?  But it's just a perception thing, as I try to explain above.

And Paul - thanks for the clarification re Hoylake - that's exactly how I came to understand it, thus have zero against it there.  Those to me at least seem, look, feel like boundaries of the course.  The 12 PG Muni example is just a line set arbitrarily between two golf holes.  The former I can certainly live with; the latter, well.... it takes a hole as cool as 12 PG Muni (which really is) to get me not to completely hate it.

TH

Stan - thanks for the clarification on 5/6.  Of I course I think that rather silly rule is even WORSE, but I also feel confident in any serious play there such rule is not enforced.

But let's discuss 12.  It is such a great hole esthetically, strategically, in terms of the cool dunesy rumpled land.... I still believe that infernal (sp. intended) arbitrarily added OB right is a negative, in fact keeping it from inclusion in a discussion of the world's great shortish par 5s, which it truly might be in otherwise.

I don't buy Adam's take that it puts more pressure on the drive and thus that's a positive.  Oh, the effect is surely true - you know you can't go right - but to me it's just so FAKE... not meant to be... arbitrarily added... I just don't buy it as a positive.  Remember too I fully understand why it must be so, for safety reasons protecting those coming up 13.

As I say, it's just a perception thing.   Did the designers of the course really intend for that to be played as OB?  I'm sure they didn't intend for people to intentionally bomb the ball way out into 13 fairway either... but I don't see that as a very realistic profitable option anyway.

This is intriguing.  You guys are the experts on the course - I am a mere infrequent visitor.  But you haven't won me over yet.  Infernal OB really needs a LOT of defending, or I should say I need a LOT of convincing, for me to ever see it as a positive.

TH