Legal to go for the green or not?

[iacas]

Nothing wrong with not liking the rule or not playing the course. I doubt if you (or anybody else used to playing "nicer courses") would like it anyway.

This isn't about class warfare or something, @MS256 , and it's not a "rule."

Plus, were I to play that course, it looks like the play is to hit a shot near that other green (over the trees) and then to hit a second shot toward the green. Shorter distance than a drive to the landing area and then onto the green.

---

To the OP, just hit toward the green. The single stake means nothing, and your ball looks like it'll either be playable or in the water hazard.

[MS256]

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

This isn't about class warfare or something, @MS256 , and it's not a "rule."

---

Who said anything about class warfare? It's simply a fact. I know quite a few people that won't play there and that's fine. It's not for everybody and doesn't have to be.

Quote:

@MS256 Plus, were I to play that course, it looks like the play is to hit a shot near that other green (over the trees) and then to hit a second shot toward the green. Shorter distance than a drive to the landing area and then onto the green.

---

Lob it over the trees down close to the green where other people are playing and/or other people hitting into you? Well I guess that's one way to do it.

[iacas]

Who said anything about class warfare? It's simply a fact. I know quite a few people that won't play there and that's fine. It's not for everybody and doesn't have to be.

"I doubt if you (or anybody else used to playing "nicer courses") would like it anyway."

Sounded a bit "reverse snobby" to me. That's all.

Lob it over the trees down close to the green where other people are playing and/or other people hitting into you? Well I guess that's one way to do it.

I've never hit into anyone, and wouldn't start. That course appears to be poorly designed. Something could have been done. Even (as much as it's generally detested) internal OB.

[MS256]

That course appears to be poorly designed.

Now there's something even those of us that play there (and most of all the current owner) would agree on, but that horse has left the barn. If there was even 10 more acres we could fix some problems on the back nine.

Luckily I've never heard any complaints from regular customers about playing that hole the normal way because they know they can't hit that shot anyway.

BTW. The owner is talking about a plan to build a new green and change a hole that would eliminate the internal OB on the hole I posted a while back that you hated. If he does at least that would fix that problem (and save me a stroke or two every other round).

The question he has to ask is whether or not he would get any more play than he gets now. If so it might be worth it. If not it's probably not worth the expense.

I happen to think it wouldn't increase play at all but of course it's not my call.

[boogielicious]

Most courses I've played have at least one bone-headed hole design - even those built by famous golfers.

QFT!

[18rounds]

Now there's something even those of us that play there (and most of all the current owner) would agree on, but that horse has left the barn. If there was even 10 more acres we could fix some problems on the back nine. Luckily I've never heard any complaints from regular customers about playing that hole the normal way because they know they can't hit that shot anyway. BTW. The owner is talking about a plan to build a new green and change a hole that would eliminate the internal OB on the hole I posted a while back that you hated. If he does at least that would fix that problem (and save me a stroke or two every other round). The question he has to ask is whether or not he would get any more play than he gets now. If so it might be worth it. If not it's probably not worth the expense. I happen to think it wouldn't increase play at all but of course it's not my call.

Sometimes I find these old cheap courses to be charming because of their crappy design not in spite of it. I played a terrible old goat patch that had something like 12 greens that were shared for 18 holes. Odd and poorly designed but I would play it again just because it is different. I am not saying that a new course should go against common sense and accepted rules of course design but like an old house sometimes it is better to embrace the quirks than try to fix them.

[iacas]

Let's not veer too far please. Thanks.

[turtleback]

Lob it over the trees down close to the green where other people are playing and/or other people hitting into you? Well I guess that's one way to do it.

If he was going to go for the green on ANY driveable par 4 I bet Erik waits for the green to clear.  This is about as complete a red herring as I can imagine.

Sometimes I find these old cheap courses to be charming because of their crappy design not in spite of it. I played a terrible old goat patch that had something like 12 greens that were shared for 18 holes. Odd and poorly designed but I would play it again just because it is different.

I am not saying that a new course should go against common sense and accepted rules of course design but like an old house sometimes it is better to embrace the quirks than try to fix them.

Quirky is fine.  But a line is crossed when a course is so quirky that it cannot be played without local rules that violate both the letter and spirit of the Rules of Golf.

[bossfrog]

Quirky is fine.  But a line is crossed when a course is so quirky that it cannot be played without local rules that violate both the letter and spirit of the Rules of Golf.

What line is that?  Because the bottom line is whether the course is fun to play or not.  It's not as if the PGA will be holding an event there.

[turtleback]

What line is that?  Because the bottom line is whether the course is fun to play or not.  It's not as if the PGA will be holding an event there.

The line is that I would not consider it a real golf course and would not play it.  I mean, how hard is it to come up with a course where it is possible to play by the ROG?.

Just because you can have fun doing something golf-like does not mean that it is golf.  I can have all kinds of fun hitting balls on the range but that doesn't make THAT golf.

If the course makes it impossible to play by the rules then it is not golf, IMO.

[No Mulligans]

Seems that the owner/designers intentions are pretty clear.  If they're not clear to you then just ask the management.

The local/owners rules supercede any other rules.  You're on his property, 'in his house' so to speak.  Show some respect and play the hole the way he intended it to be played (or get the heck off of his property).

[iacas]

The local/owners rules supercede any other rules.  You're on his property, 'in his house' so to speak.  Show some respect and play the hole the way he intended it to be played (or get the heck off of his property).

Golf doesn't work that way. What's next: "Do not hit driver from this tee box?" and "Do not go for this green in two?"

For example, look up the Lon Hinkle Tree. Nothing wrong with the way he played it (nor with their attempts to thwart him).

[Lihu]

For example, look up the Lon Hinkle Tree. Nothing wrong with the way he played it (nor with their attempts to thwart him).

Interesting story:

http://www.invernessclub.com/Portals/42/course/tour/Hinkle.htm

[Zeph]

We got lots of mountains and golf courses built into the natural landscape here i Norway and I've seen a few unique rules. I've always wondered if the rules were in compliance with the PGA/R&A.; I don't mind and I usually follow those rules, but it's good to know how it actually works.

[turtleback]

Seems that the owner/designers intentions are pretty clear.  If they're not clear to you then just ask the management.

The local/owners rules supercede any other rules.  You're on his property, 'in his house' so to speak.  Show some respect and play the hole the way he intended it to be played (or get the heck off of his property).

Exactly.  But when the owner starts making up his own rules that have nothing to do with golf it ceases to be golf. And it is NOT a question of the the owners intentions, it is about the ROG.

We got lots of mountains and golf courses built into the natural landscape here i Norway and I've seen a few unique rules. I've always wondered if the rules were in compliance with the PGA/R&A.; I don't mind and I usually follow those rules, but it's good to know how it actually works.

In the US (I don't know if the process is the same for local rules with the R&A;) the ROG include an appendix, Appendix I, which lists conditions and givens sample language for local rules.  The USGA, in essence, pre-approves, local rules for certain situations.  It also states that for other local rules approval has to be gotten from the USGA.

There are also Decisions under the Rules of Golf which make crystal clear that courses are not free to just make up whatever local rules they want, which is why a course that makes an improper local rule and enforces it ceases to be a "real" golf course, IMO.

http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Decision-33/#d33-8-1

If the owner being defended by No Mulligans is making up local rules that do not satisfy the ROG then they really have no right to use USGA course ratings and slopes, rounds played on that course should not be submitted for handicap (how can you play a round under the principles of the ROG when the local rules forbid it?) and frankly unless the owner explicitly makes these things clear to people coming to play then he is, IMO, guilty of false advertising.

When I go to something that calls itself a Golf Course I expect to be able to play golf by the ROG, and I do not think that expectation is unreasonable.

[No Mulligans]

If the owner being defended by No Mulligans is making up local rules that do not satisfy the ROG then they really have no right to use USGA course ratings and slopes, rounds played on that course should not be submitted for handicap (how can you play a round under the principles of the ROG when the local rules forbid it?) and frankly unless the owner explicitly makes these things clear to people coming to play then he is, IMO, guilty of false advertising.

When I go to something that calls itself a Golf Course I expect to be able to play golf by the ROG, and I do not think that expectation is unreasonable.

I did not defend the owner.  I only pointed out that it in general it is respectful to honor an owners wishes while in their 'house', not this owner specifically, any owner.  Maybe I'm someone that would stay the heck off his property.

[bossfrog]

Jeez... what the hell did I start with this thread..lol

[Lihu]

Jeez... what the hell did I start with this thread..lol

This thread was tame compared to some other ones.

Thanks for starting it.