An OB Stigma in the US?

[Kyle Harris]

I'll come out and say it: I think OB is underused as a hazard.

While OB is the most punitive of the "hard" hazards (same as a lost ball, but that's not a hazard) why isn't it used as a more strategic hazard, especially on US courses?

One of the things I like about the 6th and 18th tee at Carnoustie is how the tee is pushed right up against the OB fence and that a golfer can reasonable set up parallel to the OB stakes on 6 for the ideal line, or aim away and take the possibility of going OB completely out of play. It's a mental hazard as well as a strategic one.

I also like how the 14th at Merion has the OB right in play to gain an ideal line into the green. Again, it's the option of the player and serves as much more effective hazard than a bunker or deep rough would.

[Mike Nuzzo]

[oppositional]What is an appropriate amount of use?[/oppositional]

[Kyle Harris]

Mike,

It's all site dependent, naturally.

Carnoustie and Merion, my two cited examples, are on rather awkward plots with nooks and crannies in the sites. A perfectly square or rectangular site would have less opportunity.

Frankly, I'd like to have the option between challenging OB or bailing out away from it once or twice a round. I think it could be used as an effective defense on a short par 4.

I'll post some sketches in a bit.

[Brent Hutto]

Out of bounds is the least interesting and most distracting of all hazards. Treating it as anything other than a necessary nuisance whose impact on play is minimized is tantamount to architectural malfeasance IMHO.

Not to say that great courses like Carnoustie or Merion are somehow less great because of the intrusion of OB lines but the OB surely isn't what makes them great.

What's next, asking golfers to leave their divots unrepaired to encourage future players to aim away from the most popular landing area? Semi-

[Kyle Harris]

Brent,

Yet, it is a feature on some of the most noteworthy holes in existance... like the 17th at St. Andrews, or it augments other hazards, like the principal's nose on the 16th at St. Andrews.

I think what makes it uninteresting is the same thing that makes ANY hazard uninteresting... overuse as a penal/punitive feature and underuse as a "choice" feature.

In all the above cases, there is a choice to take the OB out of play of a mis-hit. The OB only comes into play when the player decides it should - in which case, I think it offers quite a thrill.

[Wayne Wiggins, Jr.]

I like how Tillinghast utilizes out of bounds at #15 at Phila. Cricket.  It's a par 3, downhill, 190 yds., with OB hard against the right side of the green.  

Because the green drops off to the left, with a number of bunkers, I think the player can be a little more "visually intimidated" by them, then the unforeseen danger lurking in the hedgerow to the right.

[Tommy Williamsen]

I like how Tillinghast utilizes out of bounds at #15 at Phila. Cricket.  It's a par 3, downhill, 190 yds., with OB hard against the right side of the green.  

Because the green drops off to the left, with a number of bunkers, I think the player can be a little more "visually intimidated" by them, then the unforeseen danger lurking in the hedgerow to the right.

I hate 15 at Philly Cricket.  The parking lot is scary to be sure but is not needed to make the hole good.  I wonder if the parking lot was there when Tilly designed it.

I hate OB more than Sean Arble dislikes excessive bunkering.
What is interesting about taking a stroke penalty nad going back to the place where you hit the shot.  As least in a bunker or long grass there is a possibilty of recovery.  I will admit it makes the player think and is a test to the nerves but so does water etc.  That is not to say all OB is bad.  The road hole is definitely more interesting because of the OB, but how many actually hit it there?  

The worst examples of OB are interior ones like the first at Hoylake.

I wonder how many architects would purposely design a hole that flirts with OB vs how many design holes with OB because of the land.

[Kyle Harris]

Tommy, are you perhaps thinking of the 10th at Philly Cricket?

I'll invoke the high and mighty...

Didn't C&C use OB quite effectively on the 2nd at Talking Stick?

[Tommy Williamsen]

Tommy, are you perhaps thinking of the 10th at Philly Cricket?

I'll invoke the high and mighty...

Didn't C&C use OB quite effectively on the 2nd at Talking Stick?

Right.  Actually I do not remember 15. If I recall properly 18 at PC has tables etc not too far off the green.  Are they OB?  

I have not played Talking stick yet.  I'm not saying that all OB is awful but that much of it is too penal and there because of the constraints of the land rather than by design.

[Kyle Harris]

Tommy,

I do agree with you in that regard, and the 2nd at Talking Stick has ample room right with which to play. The ideal angle into the green, however, must face the OB.

A strategic decision and not a forced play.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

TSN #2

[Jeff_Brauer]

No OB on US courses?  Played in a condo canyon lately?

Things like roads and OB as hazards are underused as primary hazards, because they really aren't practical as crowds on and around the golf courses grew.  And, oh yeah, the lawyer population.

Plus, in pure golf terms, just as water is often too penal for a particular shot, so is OB, esp. if there is potential for damage to property and life, besides the penalty stroke!  Some recoverable hazard often makes more sense in terms of encouraging bold play.  OB probably discourages bold play in most players.

Given how little most golfers like it, I think its probably used more than enough.

[Andy Troeger]

Put me in the crowd that does not care for OB. I'm not sure I've ever really liked a hole with OB as a significant feature (and that includes Talking Stick). I don't always hate it either, but I'd rather see bunkers or rough or even water.

My thought is that OB is automatic reload. What's the fun in that? At least a parallel stream would lead to a drop in most cases. Plus the stream looks nicer than a fence with some often ugly buildings on the other side of it

OB around the perimeter of a course is often a necessary issue, especially on tight properties. If you've got it, you might as well use it well (as was done at Talking Stick). If you can get away without it, better yet.

[D_Malley]

merion east OB in play on 13 holes.
phila cricket OB in play on 11 holes

#15 at Phila cricket is a much better hole when played from the lower tee which is closer to #14 green.  they should expand that tee back and also use it as a tee for #13 which provides a better angle for that hole also.

[Doug Siebert]

While I don't really like stroke and distance penalties as a rule, the type of OB at Carnoustie is the least objectionable to me because at least you don't waste a lot of time looking for the ball to find it since it is just short grass in the OB area.

[Scott Szabo]

To me, the out of bounds penalty is just too harsh.  Any time a shot that actually goes forward and is penalized more than a complete whiff is just wrong, in my opinion.

Most out of bounds markers that I encounter line the boundaries of the course, and are needed for that purpose.  I also see quite a bit of this when houses line the fairways.  

I haven't played a great deal of courses that have OB markers as a strategic element, but even if that were the case, I would think some other type of hazard could be used that wouldn't be as penal.

[CHrisB]

Would any of your opinions change when viewing the game in the context of match play instead of stroke play?

In stroke play, OB could be viewed as a scorecard-wrecker, but in match play, is there any such thing as too harsh of a penalty for a missed shot?

[Paul Carey]

The OB at Carnoustie is the absolutely worst kind of out of bounds....internal out of bounds! If you have played the course you will see that the out of bounds stakes are set artificially to "protect" the other courses or driving ranges which have no need to be protected in an Open Championship.  It is not strategic in the least.

Finally, If the 18th hole at Carnoustie was the last hole at a Florida PGA Tour event it would be getting trashed on this site.  It is a the absolutely worst hole on a great course.

 

[Mike_Cirba]

OB can be a very strategic and scary feature.

On course OB generally stinks, except at Hoylake.

OB into a condo stinks.

OB on both sides of a condo canyon stinks worse.

OB coming into play at an oblique, diagonal angle is generally a good thing.

OB behind greens is ok.

OB in front of greens...not ok.

OB you can clearly see...good.

OB that's blind until you get there...bad.

[Doug Siebert]

Mike, Do you know of a course with OB in front of the green, or were you just on a linguistic roll there?

I've played courses where you have to carry OB pretty close to the green if you want to drive a par 4 or hit a par 5 in two, but assuming you follow the "proper" flow of the hole, I can't imagine there's a course out there with OB in front of the green.  But I'm sure someone will point out an example.  If so, please post pics so we can all point and laugh!

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike's comment about blind OB brings up a question -

Do carts with GPS show OB on their on cart graphics?  How about most hole signs?  I think I can recall some but not all hole signs marking OB, but off hand from limted experience, most graphic reps of holes sort of blot out those kind of details.....just asking as a practical matter.

BTW, I can't think of an OB in front of a green off hand either.

[Kyle Harris]

As per usual, Mike Cirba gets what I'm saying.

Too often, OB seems to be thrown into the "punitive make the golfer not come within 30 yards of me" category and never in the "make the golfer think and choose a line" category.

OB is criticized for being artificial and contrived... yet random plots of sand placed in an area where sand doesn't randomly expose itself naturally isn't? Come on here guys, let's drop the hypocrisies.

[Tim Bert]

Kyle,

I think that OB is okay where it makes sense as Mike Cirba described.  I don't think it is hyprocritical to have a different standard for placement of bunkers and OB since the penalty for OB is so much more severe.  I'd prefer to see OB only where course property lines are an issue, and even then clearly marked on the scorecard if not in view.

[Andy Troeger]

As per usual, Mike Cirba gets what I'm saying.

Too often, OB seems to be thrown into the "punitive make the golfer not come within 30 yards of me" category and never in the "make the golfer think and choose a line" category.

OB is criticized for being artificial and contrived... yet random plots of sand placed in an area where sand doesn't randomly expose itself naturally isn't? Come on here guys, let's drop the hypocrisies.

Kyle,
The issue with me is the amount of the penalty with OB. There's a big difference between hitting it in most bunkers and having to reload. OB certainly is intimidating, but the penalty is silly IMO.

To me the only reason OB should be used is around the perimeter of the property. If you can be creative with it as Mike's list entails so be it, but I've not seen it used well often enough to think much of it.

[Kyle Harris]

Andy/Tim,

The point of this thread is that the OB isn't being used well enough. I'd love to see it more at the corners of doglegs, with plenty of room to bail to the outside of the dogleg at the price of either distance or angle - but a reasonable OB carry will cut the corner.

Or in the Talking Stick example which I cited.

Or like the Road Hole or 16th at St. Andrews.

It shouldn't just be the bane of the snap hook...