[Ronald Montesano]

Two contributions:

I'm glad that Peter Sayegh didn't miss Jeff Warne's buried lede. Seriously, how was there no reaction to Male Projectile Dysfunction? Are there no linguists out there, no appreciators of sly allusion? Kudos to JW for his wit, and to Peter for alluding to it.


Second, music people and tonal enthusiasts, Erik B.'s correlation of hearing music to hearing the yell of fore has me questioning the projective, tonal qualities of each type of sound. The yell of Fore is a single-syllable, usually squeaky, non-gutteral utterance. Why is it non-gutteral? This element of golf is ironic. We mean to alert someone to clear and present danger, but we don't want to disturb the rest of the golf course. If you intend that your fore shall be heard 200-250-300 yards distant, you understand that it will be heard laterally as well. It won't be heard behind you as deep, as your speaker/mouth is not aimed in that direction.


In contrast, a speaker is calibrated better than a human mouth, and is relaying a consistent, extended auditory sequence. As such, you unconsciously tune in to it, and calibrate your ear to its sound. The yell of fore is singular and shocking, but usually weak and delayed (forgot to mention that.)


How many golfers, even the seasoned, masters of the fore, play it immediately upon ball leaving clubface? Few to none, I wager. Ball is already 100 yards distant, minimum, when we consider yelling. Delay of 1 second, it moves another 40 yards. We yell. How fast does sound travel? By the time it overtakes ball, the orb is descending and nearly upon its unsuspecting victims.


Fore is outdated. We should all be wired with bluetooth nodes that deliver powerful electric shocks to warn our targets.

[Sean_A]

Or maybe cut down the trees that people claim are for safety. I would prefer to leave the decision making about safety in my hands rather than some never see again archie or demented Green Chair.

Ciao

[Garland Bayley]

Or maybe cut down the trees that people claim are for safety. I would prefer to leave the decision making about safety in my hands rather than some never see again archie or demented Green Chair.

Ciao

And, yet we have people post here that they played a treeless course with the result that they never felt so unsafe in their golfing lives.

[Joe Hancock]

Or maybe cut down the trees that people claim are for safety. I would prefer to leave the decision making about safety in my hands rather than some never see again archie or demented Green Chair.

Ciao

And, yet we have people post here that they played a treeless course with the result that they never felt so unsafe in their golfing lives.

Sounds like the kind of hyperbole you’d expect from mainstream news. Is it people, as in many people? Or, is is two people, which justifies upping it from “person”?


I’m poking fun, but I’d be curious if you can come up with any posts that use the words “never....unsafe.....golfing life...” in the context of trees and safety on a golf course. I’ll also be happy to accept the excuse that the search function sucks on here.


Every tree doesn’t provide protection, and treeless courses aren’t without danger.....unless you remove the common denominator.....humans.

[Garland Bayley]

Or maybe cut down the trees that people claim are for safety. I would prefer to leave the decision making about safety in my hands rather than some never see again archie or demented Green Chair.

Ciao

And, yet we have people post here that they played a treeless course with the result that they never felt so unsafe in their golfing lives.

Sounds like the kind of hyperbole you’d expect from mainstream news. Is it people, as in many people? Or, is is two people, which justifies upping it from “person”?


I’m poking fun, but I’d be curious if you can come up with any posts that use the words “never....unsafe.....golfing life...” in the context of trees and safety on a golf course. I’ll also be happy to accept the excuse that the search function sucks on here.


Every tree doesn’t provide protection, and treeless courses aren’t without danger.....unless you remove the common denominator.....humans.

If there is one obvious example, I am sure there are many other examples.

https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,65776.msg1573359.html#msg1573359

[Doug Siebert]

I wasn't suggesting that people would hit the ball 400 yards AND several fairways over. But the further you are able to hit your good shots, the further your wild shots will also go. So if yesteryear's long hitting amateurs maxed out at 300 and today they max out at 350 their wild shots may not be 50 yards longer but they are probably 35 to 40 yards longer. And thus even further off the intended line.

Like I said I'm done fighting this battle, but make no mistake there will be further technology changes and today's distances will be as quaint in 2040 as 2000's distances are today.

We haven't even begun to exploit what's potentially possible in producing a custom shaft engineered to a specific player's swing to load up and release as much energy through impact as possible. I could easily see another 10-15 mph of clubhead speed once they're able to marry the output of a something like True Temper's ShaftLab to a next generation 3D printer to produce a shaft tailored to an individual's swing. Won't help the average player much since they don't swing consistently enough to really benefit, but pros and top amateurs with a good repeating swing will love it.

[Sean_A]

Or maybe cut down the trees that people claim are for safety. I would prefer to leave the decision making about safety in my hands rather than some never see again archie or demented Green Chair.

Ciao

And, yet we have people post here that they played a treeless course with the result that they never felt so unsafe in their golfing lives.

Sounds like the kind of hyperbole you’d expect from mainstream news. Is it people, as in many people? Or, is is two people, which justifies upping it from “person”?

I’m poking fun, but I’d be curious if you can come up with any posts that use the words “never....unsafe.....golfing life...” in the context of trees and safety on a golf course. I’ll also be happy to accept the excuse that the search function sucks on here.

Every tree doesn’t provide protection, and treeless courses aren’t without danger.....unless you remove the common denominator.....humans.

If there is one obvious example, I am sure there are many other examples.

https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,65776.msg1573359.html#msg1573359

What does West Cornwall have to do with trees, unless you are suggesting planting trees on links? If someone is that worried about being hit aerials can easily be used to determine if a course meets one safety standard.

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

I think the general (widespread) assumption that trees provide a safety barrier is untrue... But not any more untrue than the assumption (niche) that open landscapes are more safe...


...Let’s be honest, you’re not watching people teeing off on another fairway. By the time you hear the shout, you’re neither picking up the in-flight ball, nor do you have any more reaction time than to throw your hands on your head and duck.


The small number of times you do keep your eye on another group teeing off in an open landscape are probably balanced with the small number of times that trees actually do protect you on a tree-lined landscape.

[Jerry Kluger]

I have only heard of one case where a golfer successfully sued after being struck in the eye by a golf ball.  In that case the golfer sued the course because of an inherent defect in the design of the course where it could be forseen that a wayward shot would strike a player on another hole.  I don't know all the details and it was a long time ago but the location of the respective tee boxes made it that a tee shot from one hole could hit a player on the tee box from another hole. 


I was hit once where there were parallel holes in opposite directions with a hill/mound running between them and a ball hit from one fairway went over the mound and hit me on the parallel fairway.  The player could not see if his ball could hit someone and because of the hill it was hard to yell loud enough to warn the other player. Luckily, I was hit in the arm.

[Kalen Braley]

One would think no one else other than Garland and myself have played tree lined golf courses and watched the vast majority of balls hit offline get knocked down as opposed to going thru the trees. 

The math really isn't hard here.  You're walking down an opposing fairway and chances of being hit is fairly low.  Then factor in that almost every ball from opposing fairways will be knocked down before they can get anywhere near you and your chances are massively reduced again.

[Niall C]

I have only heard of one case where a golfer successfully sued after being struck in the eye by a golf ball.  In that case the golfer sued the course because of an inherent defect in the design of the course where it could be forseen that a wayward shot would strike a player on another hole.  I don't know all the details and it was a long time ago but the location of the respective tee boxes made it that a tee shot from one hole could hit a player on the tee box from another hole. 


I was hit once where there were parallel holes in opposite directions with a hill/mound running between them and a ball hit from one fairway went over the mound and hit me on the parallel fairway.  The player could not see if his ball could hit someone and because of the hill it was hard to yell loud enough to warn the other player. Luckily, I was hit in the arm.

Niddrie Castle GC - 2007 golfer lost an eye. Sued club and other player and won £400K. Club appealed and appeal judge increased their share of the ££400K that needed to be paid. Club was negligent in not undertaking a proper risk assessment. Now I've not played the course but I have seen it and there are a number of blind shots but not much by way of (mature) trees.

[Niall C]

Kalen

I think your line of thought is true when you have a belt of large/mature trees but not so true when the trees are smaller younger trees. If anything the latter gives a false sense of security and gives those that are shy of shouting Fore an excuse for not shouting.

A shout, even a late shout, gives everyone a chance to duck. They might still be hit but at least they can protect their head or whatever they deem valuable !!

Niall 

[Kalen Braley]

Niall,

That is certainly true.  And perhaps my experience is biased as most golf courses I've experienced either have existing mature trees or very few at all. I can only think of a few that had planted young trees, but as I recall most were young enough that you had no trouble seeing people behind them.  Larger mounding whether pre-exiting or man-made typically was more of a factor in having a limited view on adjoining holes.

[Garland Bayley]

...Let’s be honest, you’re not watching people teeing off on another fairway. By the time you hear the shout, you’re neither picking up the in-flight ball, nor do you have any more reaction time than to throw your hands on your head and duck.


The small number of times you do keep your eye on another group teeing off in an open landscape are probably balanced with the small number of times that trees actually do protect you on a tree-lined landscape.

To look to try and pick up ball flight would be a fools errand. You would be exposing the most sensitive part of your anatomy.

Proper warnings with fore give plenty of time to duck and cover. I am often amazed at how long I have to wait after ducking and covering to hear the ball hit the ground.

Apparently most posting here about trees only providing protection a small fraction of the time hit it to straight to have much experience. Wild Willys like Kalen and I see a high percentage of wild shots get knocked down by trees.

[Jeff_Brauer]

We once had a lawyer give a seminar at an ASGCA meeting.  The basic legal guideline, according to him, was the maddeningly vague standard of "the preponderance of golf shots will be contained where they are meant to fly."  I understand why golf, and the legal system wouldn't want a standard of 99% or even 90%.  (golf to avoid lawsuits, lawyers to encourage them for fees, LOL)  And, it would be hard to measure, and I think everyone wants each case to be unique, because, well it is.


If you Google various legal websites regarding ball strikes, they are equally vague, as in "There have been cases where the golf course has been found liable...."


A few of us in the profession have, at times, been called as expert witnesses, work we hate, even if defending a golf course.  Even with the few published standards, most old courses have unsafe areas, where modern practice would be wider spacing, etc.  That can work both ways.  Either someone can "prove" an area is statistically unsafe, or the other side can point to literally 10,000 courses where a similar hole/shot/boundary situation exists, sort of making that the defacto "standard practice" in the industry.


Late last year, I turned down an offer to testify for a course that would have actually helped me in a business relationship.  I looked at the aerial photo of the house being continually hit, and had to agree that it was just far too close to the course by any standard, and short of lying under oath, I couldn't come anywhere near saying it wasn't a design flaw.


Another interesting note, on those few occasions when I might even consider testifying, half the time I had competed for the job and lost, so would not even be considered a credible expert, as if I had a grudge to hide every time.  Similarly, the few I have taken were to defend a friend in the biz from what I considered a frivolous suit - frivolous enough as to make me angry at it even being filed - and even that can be held against the expert. 


As a result, most of these lawsuits feature a "professional expert" with questionable credentials in design (if they exist at all) but a willingness to say anything wanted in an expert report for fees of $5-15,000 or so.  Not the way I would want to make a living, LOL.  I have enjoyed the learning aspects of being a part of the legal system, but spending any more time in court is certainly not on my bucket list, even if getting paid to do so and at no risk of losing any money, as the defendant might be.

[Jeff Schley]

Late last year, I turned down an offer to testify for a course that would have actually helped me in a business relationship.  I looked at the aerial photo of the house being continually hit, and had to agree that it was just far too close to the course by any standard, and short of lying under oath, I couldn't come anywhere near saying it wasn't a design flaw.

Is there a standard at all?

[Ally Mcintosh]

Late last year, I turned down an offer to testify for a course that would have actually helped me in a business relationship.  I looked at the aerial photo of the house being continually hit, and had to agree that it was just far too close to the course by any standard, and short of lying under oath, I couldn't come anywhere near saying it wasn't a design flaw.

Is there a standard at all?

There are generally accepted guidelines. No standards though. That might put you at risk for more lawsuits.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Late last year, I turned down an offer to testify for a course that would have actually helped me in a business relationship.  I looked at the aerial photo of the house being continually hit, and had to agree that it was just far too close to the course by any standard, and short of lying under oath, I couldn't come anywhere near saying it wasn't a design flaw.

Is there a standard at all?

Everyone in the biz likes to say there isn't one, and/or that there are always potential mitigating standards, but if you ask any gca, they will probably instantly tell you how far they like to keep property lines/centerlines away from other centerlines.  And most are pretty close together.

[Thomas Dai]

Everyone in the biz likes to say there isn't one, and/or that there are always potential mitigating standards, but if you ask any gca, they will probably instantly tell you how far they like to keep property lines/centerlines away from other centerlines.  And most are pretty close together.

Would it be reasonable to presume that the preferred proximity of such property lines/centrelines to other centrelines has increased substantially over say the last 20 yrs?
Atb

[Jeff_Brauer]

Thomas,


Yes, I think that is safe to say. 


There are many 1920's courses where the PL is 100-120 feet from the Centerline.  Post WWII, the most common was 120-135 feet.  By the 1960's, 150-150 or 300 feet corridors was probably most typical.  In the 1980's where you might have seen 150 left, 175 right.  And many of those courses exist without a lot of problem.


The Urban Land Institute published the only standards I recall, and it called for 175/175 or 350 feet total on a double loaded hole.  Personally, I would use the 350 (if the developer would give it to me but split it 155-195, 160-190 feet right or similar)


I would guess that is still the most used dimension now, with a few courses having gone to 375-400 foot hole corridors.  That said, I was involved in a project a few years ago where the developer and main gca both thought 300 feet wide for a single hole was too wide, and some holes ended up a bit less than that.


I have studied this, and the statistics for relative flight and roll come into play a bit.  It is possible to justify a narrower corridor where there are fences, shrubs or even an uphill slope to the adjacent property.  For the average 220 yard tee shot, there is probably 15% roll, where the effects of being hit by a ball would be less than being hit on the fly, etc.  Thus, the boundary might be reasonably calculated as to where a shot lands 187 yards off the tee.


Again, hard to come up with a hard standard, even for one hole, much less an entire industry comprised of 15,000 courses.

[Kalen Braley]

Jeff,

I was thinking 150 feet in each direction from the center line (300 feet total) would be the minimum standard for holes where driver is the most likely play off the tee.

If you can divulge, how far was the center line to the property line and/or structure in the case you turned down?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Kalen,


I agree 150 feet is enough, and in that case, a "6 lbs of mansion got built on a 5 lb lot" at 170-180 yards off the tee on the slice side, about 135 feet off the CL.  More than that, they saved a big tree front left of the tee, and have a creek left, and the wind typically blows left, meaning golfers had to aim right of the theoretical centerline, narrowing the deflection zone.  Removing a tree would help, as the typical aim line for golfers figures in where shots go, no matter where the gca drew the theoretical centerline of play.


Back to the 150 feet, I delved through the available data, and at 170 yards or so, that captures from memory, 92% of "D players tee shots on the right side, left side 150 feet probably captures 98+%, 165 feet captures 100% of measured shots left) 


On a 30,000 round course, a hair more than 16,000 balls end up right of the CL, and that means up to 1320 might leave the property......which might be 110-220 a month, depending on length of golf season.  Of course, D players are the wildest, make up 16% of handicaps and probably a third of golfers, so on a course with normal participation across the spectrum, that reduces to 37-73 a month, which is still possibly 2-3 a day.  All of this presuming no elevation change at the property line, no trees, no wind, golfers aiming at the center of the fw (within reason) 


Not all would hit the exact same lot, which theoretically reduces potential ball strikes by 50-66%, and to less than twice per week for for any particular house.  (Assume that 20 yard spread, or 210 feet, and imagine 70-90 foot wide lots along the course)


I am pretty sure the typical homeowner would measure the risk in terms of frequency, not % of shots, and consider once a week, month, quarter, or season to be a more reasonable measure of shots striking his house, even if there were a theoretical 92% safety factor. 


I have run through the math at the 175 to 190 feet on slice side, and it greatly reduces the rates of foul balls in the stands, so to speak, up to 98-99%, which naturally reduces the number of potential ball strikes to once every 3-4 days, again, with no barriers.  IMHO, trees which are famously 90% air but knock down 90% of shots, would reduce those to manageable numbers.  So would any other ground level barrier.  A 170 yard tee shot rolls the last 20 yards or so, which wouldn't be lethal or damaging, and the barriers could also come in a bit.


All of this is conceptual, of course.  It would be impossible to apply to a given situation without further thought, though.

[Garland Bayley]

... IMHO, trees which are famously 90% air but knock down 90% of shots, would reduce those to manageable numbers.  ...

So there we have it! A GCA implying that dangerous ball strikes on other golfers can be reduced 90% by trees.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I'm not sure why that would be a debate?


I am sure that the reasonable definition of safety will tend to increase over the coming years, as they have the last 50 or more, but gca's have considered it.


I know my mentors would rarely put two parallel holes running the same direction, thinking that facing the oncoming ball might be perceived as a bit safer.  Another one of the Robert Bruce Harris proteges commonly did so, and from memory of Dick Nugent discussing it, that was apparently a topic of discussion back when all were in the RBH office in the 1950's.  My guess that was spurred by some lawsuit against some gca, maybe even them, I don't know.


In modern times, a bigger safety issue might be the extensive perimeter fw mounding found on many courses from the 1980's. Basically, moving earth got cheaper and provided instant separation and buffer, while trees never grew faster (at least any you would want to use on a golf course.)  Separating fairways visually is considered desirable by most.  However, even at 20 feet high or so, mounds block vision but not airborne shots, which can be a problem if a ball happens to try to occupy the same space as a golfers noggin.  Golf course shade trees, at least deciduous trees, especially if pruned high to allow mowers below may provide both vision to oncoming golfers while simultaneously knocking down shots.  I say 90% based on golf experience, but who knows what the real percentage is. 


The chance of a shot actually landing right where a walking/riding golfer stands is very low, even at 50% reduction with trees, it has to IMHO, make a parallel fw safe enough.  I think that is "proven" by the popularity of golf.  If people were getting killed of left and right (....probably more right, given those who slice)  But, then again, what do I know?

[Garland Bayley]

I'm not sure why that would be a debate?

...

Neither am I. However, there have been many posters on this site that claim that trees don't improve safety, and even a few that claim a course is safer without any trees.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()