[Mark_Fine]

Jeff,
Safety is always paramount!  I am working on one course where they have an Internal "aerial" OB    If you ball crosses into the air space above the OB markers it is deemed OB.  Yes crazy but all done in the name of safety.


All is well (as well as things can be these days).  Hope the same with you. 
Mark

[Tom_Doak]

 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.

Jeff, this is always brought up as a rationale for design decisions, but how many lawsuits do you know of over such things -- vs. yourself or any other designer you know of?  Is it really a major concern, or is the fear of it the concern?  [I like to sleep at night, too.]

[archie_struthers]

 


Almost always a bad thing. Two in our area both lousy holes!

[Lou_Duran]

   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?

I don't often see this in modern courses.  It seems to be a problem of older courses which were designed for shorter balls and equipment, and fewer players.  It is not an architectural issue for the most part, IMO.  It might be more of a rules issue, i.e. if stroke and distance was not so punitive (is a lake separating two holes going in opposite directions bad architecture?). 


Lakewood CC in Dallas has a DLL par 5, #17, with OBL separating the hole from parts of three others.  For most golfers it is not a big problem as bunkers and trees make cutting the corner improbable.  But for elite juniors on up to Tour players, I've seen monstrous drives over the obstacles leaving 140 yards for the 2nd shot approach.

[/size]I can think of a couple others, neither good holes, but to solve a problem of safety and integrity of the holes.  I am sure that cost was also a factor.  [size=78%][/size][size=78%]  [/size]

[Thomas Dai]

Could an internal OB instead be classified as a penalty area (when played in either one or more directions)?
atb

[Jeff_Brauer]

 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.

Jeff, this is always brought up as a rationale for design decisions, but how many lawsuits do you know of over such things -- vs. yourself or any other designer you know of?  Is it really a major concern, or is the fear of it the concern?  [I like to sleep at night, too.]

I am aware (at least partly by Bob Crosby on this site) that golf course lawsuits are low in comparison to the rates for other businesses.



Among them, If I recall,
 
-Slip and falls are tops, and most of those are actually in or around the clubhouse.



-Cart accidents are next.  However, the big rise in cart lawsuits come from them now being widely used as neighborhood transportation.



- Somewhat behind that are ball strikes, with OB strikes bringing more lawsuits than on course ones.


So, yeah, if you want to design based on that, go ahead.  You and I actually had a similar exchange on this site late last century (that still sounds weird to me) when someone posited something like "if a perfect tee location was on the slice side of another hole, in the LZ, would you place it there."  It, or another one may have asked if you would leave a tree and squeeze a hole closer to homes or another hole to save it.


Your answer seemed to be you would put the tee there, in an admittedly purely theoretical question.  Mine was I wouldn't put it there, and rebuild the hill or whatever it was that made it perfect in a safer location.  I believe your answer was the more popular one around here, but I am still not so sure which is right, LOL.



I have spend more free time than most analyzing the traditional "safety cones" proposed by different architects, and comparing them to shot data we have (Broadie mostly) to determine, IMHO, the percentages of being struck if within 24R/16L degrees off a tee, 22.5/15, 21/14, etc.  (Yes, the data shows slices go about 1.5x wider than hooks, at least for "D" players who are most likely to cause a problem)


Unmovable houses and patios are one thing.  Moving golfers have quite a bit less chance of being hit, given both ball and golfers are moving.  In the end, I have no problem with parallel holes, but do keep greens and tees out of whatever safety cone I establish (narrowed if trees or whatever to help) I reason that with 4 golfers standing tightly packed for several minutes while hitting their tee shots or putts, the chances go up.  Not to immoveable house standards, but up.

I sometimes just go by the "hair on the back of my neck" rule.  If I feel really uncomfortable on a particular spot, I would avoid making people stand there.


Again, just my humble opinion.  As to lawsuits, the hard part is, while your chances of getting sued are pretty minor, but if you were, I have no doubt the other side could find an "expert witness" to testify that some safety rule or another has been broken. 


I have turned down the "opportunity" to testify in a few lawsuits claiming a play corridor was too narrow, mostly because I believed it was, don't need that kind of work, and would hate to have to stretch the truth just to make some money.


For the record - and I think I have mentioned it before - I have been sued twice, and both for doing by job or rejecting dead grass on behalf of my owner.  Apparently, grass companies believe they should protect their right to provide dead grass to golf courses. And, in one case, they argued they had the right to do it at a higher price than their original agreement.  Just goes to show how people are always thinking much differently than at least I do.

[Sean_A]

The legal issue creating internal OOB always struck me as odd. If one accidently blows a shot into the wrong fairway and hits someone, we'll, its an accident and standard legal practice applies. If someone knowingly goes up a wrong fairway andhhits someone, doesnt standard legal practice still apply? I don't see how the OOB actually creates a safer environment. In fact, one could argue, as is also often the case for trees, that the OOB has created a false sense of security which then means golfers drop may drop their guard.

Ciao

[Jeff_Brauer]

Sean,


I don't pretend to be a lawyer, but the lawyers I have heard speak on the matter make a few points.


First, we are talking civil suits, not crime and punishment.  It varies by state, but most are quite liberal in allowing the public to be heard, i.e., lawsuits rarely get thrown out early.


Second, in seminars, etc., lawyers have told me the standard of care is to design to keep the (maddeningly vague) "preponderance" of shots out of adjacent areas.  Whether that is 90% or 99%, who can say?  I suspect its trending towards the higher.


Or, as a few lawyers have snarkily told me, "First one is on the house.  The second "accident" should start you thinking, maybe a little less if the events are something like 50 years apart, as opposed to 50 days."


And, as I hinted, there have been just enough suggestions (standards, no, but lawyers can make them seem like it) as to how far away to space tees and greens, and even more stats on shot dispersion, where we never really had it before, for a clever one to make a case.


I have tended to think in how many shots are contained in an area by %.  It occurs that an adjacent homeowner would be thinking in terms of "strikes per week."  Thus, is a course plays 30K rounds, and the chances of that house being hit are 1%, that is still 300 per year, or almost one a day (maybe more than one a day after rain days)  and they are likely to not think that is a viable safety rate.  It's all in the presentation, I guess.


And, as I said earlier, if an immoveable object like a house is at 1%, I think individual golfers are much less because of movement, the incredible coincidence of time and space and trajectory, path, etc. all come together.  But, I think we all have experienced areas where, by design, we are much more in the flight path that is comfortable.  In course OB often falls in that category, but not always.

[Sean_A]

Jeff

Off property issues is a completely different matter. Even so, calling off site areas OOB doesn't make these areas any safer.

Ciao

[Jeff_Brauer]

Sean,


I agree.  The OP just asks if it's good design.  And, I said no.

[Jim_Coleman]

Sean:  I would think an internal OB absolutely could affect an architect’s liability, as it prevents a player from intentionally playing to a different hole.  Thus, the routing constitutes bad architecture with or without the OB.

[Sean_A]

Sean:  I would think an internal OB absolutely could affect an architect’s liability, as it prevents a player from intentionally playing to a different hole.  Thus, the routing constitutes bad architecture with or without the OB.

Jim

As I stated previously, maybe.  A lot can change once an archie leaves the scene.  So I guess much depends on how loosely you define the term architect.  I detest internal OOB because I think its a scam, but not necessarily bad architecture. 

Jeff

Of course its your opinion, but I wouldn't be prepared to blanket statement such work as poor. 

My point remains the same, calling an area OOB doesn't create a safe environment. I think real problems begin when clubs call in archies with a sheet to investigate possible safety issues as part of a report.  Once possible safety issues are brought to a club's attention by an "expert" and clubs don't act, this gives ammunition for insurance companies not to pay out for a claim.  I was a member of one club when an archie did a report claiming possible safety issues.  The club made the archie remove that section of the report because that question was not part of the archie remit.   

Ciao

[Jeff_Brauer]

Sean,


It's tricky sometimes.  I have thought about it a few hours, and while I guess I wouldn't make a blanket statement, I would say a green or tee in the crux of an adjacent dogleg is almost always pretty bad, and you see heavy trees, nets, etc. which is a pretty good indicator the routing gave them problems.  I suppose there are many instances where such a  juxtaposition works okay.  I know I would never design that one on purpose. 


It might get trickier when you have an old course designed when safety corridors were typically 150 feet or something, and the course is still here.  If people haven't gotten hit with the tighter corridors, then maybe they can legit claim its safe.  If a more modern designer, as corridor widths have gone up over decades with experience, tried to get away with a green tucked inside a dogleg, it would certainly get closer to negligence. 


No one wants to tear up an old club and I think its rare that it happens for safety,  but it must have happened somewhere.



Also interesting about taking parts of a report out.  I understand their point, depending on what all the gca pointed out. On the other hand, if there is a real problem, not sure the "stick the head in the ground" approach would help them, if a claim was made.  In the end, as far as I can tell, the legal standard is "if you know you have a problem, you are generally obligated to mitigate it.  Or, in that oft said phrase, "Know or should have known.....X".  That may mean moving holes, but more often, I guess it means nets, mounds, or trees, or some combo of all of them.


BTW, an attorney might claim that a gca isn't an expert because they have done formal studies, they haven't trained in statistical science, etc.  There are a few companies out there, and a few more over in Europe, that sell themselves as safety experts.  I have read their manuals and the generally don't make specific recommendations.  Its more along the lines of "If you have a steep mowing slope near a pond, you may want to consider softening it."  Or for golfers put signs, signs everywhere a sign, blocking out the golf scenery, messing my mind...….to a point where its ridiculous.  Honestly, I think private clubs probably have a lower standard, first because members are presumed to know the course, but second, I bet they value their membership in the club enough not to make waves!

[Sean_A]

Jeff

Design can often come down to needs must. It is difficult to view 100 year old design with the eyes of today. I think courses designed in the past 50 years or so should be viewed differently. It's a bit like cars in that way. Many think old cars without modern safety technology and design are death traps, but we allow them to exist as is. We leave it up to people to drive these cars sensibly.

Probably the most dangerous course I know from an internal safety aspect is Painswick. Any kind of safety rule you can imagine is broken with that design, but I still go back! Knowing the course, it's at least as much my fault for being there as it is the guy who potentially hits me.

Ciao

[John Chilver-Stainer]

In my experience the internal o.b. is instigated by players deliberately choosing to play to an adjacent fairway rather than the fairway on offer from the tee.
Is that bad design?
Surely the players are "obligated" to play the fairway presented to them!
In most cases where internal o.b. is introduced it's not that the adjacent fairway is a shorter route but for the long hitter an easier route because he can avoid the obstacles presented to him in the "obligated" fairway.
So does that mean the GCA should consider this situation in his design?
Quite often where there is normal o.b. down the right hand side of the "obligated" fairway, a rogue golfer will avoid the danger by playing to the adjacent fairway to the left, knowing he can reach the green with his second shot.
Is this a problem?
Apparently yes as players on the adjacent fairway are unnecessarily exposed to danger.
Who is at fault the rogue player or the GCA?
Why does the rogue player feel he's entitled to avoid the "obligated" fairway? Is he not obliged to play it and take on the risks and rewards on offer?
Or does he have the freedom of the course to choose the placement of the shot where he pleases?

[Jim_Coleman]

John:  I would say that it is bad architecture if a foreseeable alternate route is dangerous.  If the modern game has caused the situation at an older course, the architect is not to blame, and an internal OB may be an unfortunate necessity. If a restoration or renovation creates the situation, then the new architect is to blame.

[Mike Bodo]

In my experience the internal o.b. is instigated by players deliberately choosing to play to an adjacent fairway rather than the fairway on offer from the tee.
Is that bad design?
Surely the players are "obligated" to play the fairway presented to them!
In most cases where internal o.b. is introduced it's not that the adjacent fairway is a shorter route but for the long hitter an easier route because he can avoid the obstacles presented to him in the "obligated" fairway.
So does that mean the GCA should consider this situation in his design?
Quite often where there is normal o.b. down the right hand side of the "obligated" fairway, a rogue golfer will avoid the danger by playing to the adjacent fairway to the left, knowing he can reach the green with his second shot.
Is this a problem?
Apparently yes as players on the adjacent fairway are unnecessarily exposed to danger.
Who is at fault the rogue player or the GCA?
Why does the rogue player feel he's entitled to avoid the "obligated" fairway? Is he not obliged to play it and take on the risks and rewards on offer?
Or does he have the freedom of the course to choose the placement of the shot where he pleases?

When ANGC first opened and for successive years after that, players often elected to play 9th hole via No. 1 fairway, in particular when the pin was on the left side of the green, as the second shot to it from no. 1 fairway was an easier approach than from No. 9's fairway. There was extensive debate about the merits of it here.


https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,51383.msg1183580.html#msg1183580

It wasn't until the original green was redone and more trees were planted that the option of playing the 9th up no. 1 fairway was removed. However, based on the above ethos, should players have been required to play the 9th as it was originally intended back in the day and should internal out of bounds been introduced initially to remove the option of playing the 9th up No. 1 fairway due to potential safety concerns?

[Jeff_Brauer]

My preference for stopping short cuts is more along the lines of the Hinkle tree.    Unless placing a few large trees right of the tee to catch tee shots when they are still low causes too much shade, that is.

[Jim Sherma]

Jeff,
Safety is always paramount!  I am working on one course where they have an Internal "aerial" OB    If you ball crosses into the air space above the OB markers it is deemed OB.  Yes crazy but all done in the name of safety.

I've seen this at Hanover CC on the newer par 5 on the front nine. Four new holes, (holes 3-6: pars 5, 3, 4, 4) were designed by Gil Hanse (I believe that this attribution is correct but am not 100% sure). The club swapped had land across a road for some contiguous land on the other side of the course. The use of the internal "aerial" OB is not good design in my opinion. It feels like there was a forced goal of having pars including a 5 and a 3 within those four holes in order for score card balance. The hole in question would likely be much better as a long par 4 eliminating the need of the internal OB while making the course par one less. 

[Sean_A]

In my experience the internal o.b. is instigated by players deliberately choosing to play to an adjacent fairway rather than the fairway on offer from the tee.
Is that bad design?
Surely the players are "obligated" to play the fairway presented to them!
In most cases where internal o.b. is introduced it's not that the adjacent fairway is a shorter route but for the long hitter an easier route because he can avoid the obstacles presented to him in the "obligated" fairway.
So does that mean the GCA should consider this situation in his design?
Quite often where there is normal o.b. down the right hand side of the "obligated" fairway, a rogue golfer will avoid the danger by playing to the adjacent fairway to the left, knowing he can reach the green with his second shot.
Is this a problem?
Apparently yes as players on the adjacent fairway are unnecessarily exposed to danger.
Who is at fault the rogue player or the GCA?
Why does the rogue player feel he's entitled to avoid the "obligated" fairway? Is he not obliged to play it and take on the risks and rewards on offer?
Or does he have the freedom of the course to choose the placement of the shot where he pleases?

I am sure I agree with the "obligated" comments. My first thought went immediately to shared fairways the of course to TOC 1 and 18. It's common to play away from the OOB on both holes...into what is nominally the other fairway. If it can be done at TOC, why is there obligation to play your own fairway elsewhere? Imagine OOB stakes down the middle of 1 and 18!

These questions arise from the severe OOB penalty as much as architecture. It's very difficult to separate these and other issues from architecture.

Ciao

[John Chilver-Stainer]

Thank you Mike and Sean for providing some high class examples of the situation I'm trying to describe.

So there's more than one question in contention here, and probably even more if we get going

1)  Are the holes mentioned, the 9th at Augusta (version 1950's) and the current version of the 1st and 18th at St. Andrews "badly designed" holes?

2) Should players deliberatly playing to the adjacent fairway and thus circumventing the challenges to the hole presented to them, be praised for their lateral thinking or shamed for their anti social actions and avoiding the challenge of the designed hole?

3) Is internal o.o.b.(or tree lining) a case of being over cautious and spoiling the fun for the circumventors and therefore unwarranted?

[Sean_A]

Thank you Mike and Sean for providing some high class examples of the situation I'm trying to describe.

So there's more than one question in contention here, and probably even more if we get going

1)  Are the holes mentioned, the 9th at Augusta (version 1950's) and the current version of the 1st and 18th at St. Andrews "badly designed" holes?

2) Should players deliberatly playing to the adjacent fairway and thus circumventing the challenges to the hole presented to them, be praised for their lateral thinking or shamed for their anti social actions and avoiding the challenge of the designed hole?

3) Is internal o.o.b.(or tree lining) a case of being over cautious and spoiling the fun for the circumventors and therefore unwarranted?

I don't know about 9 at ANGC, but I don't consider TOC 9 or 18 to be badly designed holes.  In fact, I have a lot of time for both.  That said, I do admit to not fully understanding why anybody would take on the risk of OOB on 18.  That play makes no sense to me. 

I don't think players should be praised or shamed.  To me, its like any other option available.  What I would say is don't hold up the game waiting for your wrong fairway play to be safe. If the shot is there in short order, fine.  If not, play to your own fairway and move on. 

Like most things in life, creating OOB or planting trees to achieve a specific goal should be decided on a case by case basis.  I feel far safer if I can see the action around me, but I am used to looking about for potential danger.  As a general rule, I am against both scenarios being employed for safety reasons, but there are always good exceptions. 

In general, I don't think it is helpful to issue blame for potential safety situations.  I believe archies design with good faith in mind. In the vast majority of situations safety issues can be avoided with common sense.  I would rather have the opportunity to keep my safety in my own hands. Trees often don't allow for this opportunity.

Ciao

[Jeff Schley]

 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.

Jeff, this is always brought up as a rationale for design decisions, but how many lawsuits do you know of over such things -- vs. yourself or any other designer you know of?  Is it really a major concern, or is the fear of it the concern?  [I like to sleep at night, too.]

Lawyers will counsel you, "it only takes once to devastate you and possibly cause bankruptcy."  This is termed as risk, so to mitigate it steps are taken. In the USA with it's over litigious society I would pay attention, other countries I can't speak to as much.

BTW when I first played Lahinch with the crossing over of holes it was wild.  Forget the two holes, but one is with the two Himalayas on a par 4/5 and then coming home on 16/17 maybe crosses. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Sean,
A bit OT, but your "keep my safety in my own hands" comment reminded me that my mentors would never design parallel holes in the same direction, figuring you had a chance to see a shot coming at you from the front, but not one from behind you.  Another gca out of the RB Harris school - David Gill, loved those type of holes, probably figuring if running ridge to ridge or whatever, if it worked better for a hole, he didn't mind using the same directions.


So, believe me, its something architects think about, although they often come to different conclusions about how to minimize safety risk to golfers and to a lesser extend, legal risks to themselves.


My absolute best golf story was playing with another gca at the ASGCA annual meeting in Scotland. My playing companion that day had a tremendous slice, which made for a tough day on the Old Course, with its OB right nearly all the way around.  On 18, with many visitors leaning over the rail, other pedestrians, parked cars, etc. he wanted to make sure he didn't go OB right.  He aimed at least 30 degrees left and then, of all things, double crossed it, hitting a big hook over the first fw, and down to the beach.  The caddy said, "Never seen that before......but I've only looped here for 42 years."


The shared fw at TOC is a good example of the evolution of architecture.  Its historic, no one would change it, and it does show that holes in close proximity or even crossing can work with reasonable golfers (I think the caddies help there with all the first timers.) But over 500 years, those haven't been proven to be the best ideas, and architects learned to phase those out in each new design.  It's hard to justify an unsafe idea in the name of history, quirk, or whatever, at least if you have seen a golfer lose an eye.  Then, he isn't a statistically safe golfer, he is a person.



That's my take anyway. Once you know better via collective experience, it's hard not to follow that new line of thinking.


Second OT, I once lost a job when my preliminary routing showed opening holes running parallel, more like Inverness in Toledo rather than TOC, and widely spaced, even though they were connected in spots.   The committee just couldn't get over the fact that I would consider such a thing, no matter how many measurements I showed them as to why it was spaced well enough. 

[mike_malone]

Someone needs to invent an invisible fence for golf.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()