We've launched the new forums! Read more here

if we were not allowed to play other fairways or leave the design of the hole

had the rules actually been the way of this hypothetical then thats all we would of ever known and all of it would seem pefectly normal to us and lets face it, it probably would have been more understandable and acceptable to us than some other the rules we currently actually have. Its sort of pretty simple and understanding in a way - "here is the hole and it must be played as designed."
 
It is fair in the same way that one day I can hit a shot that rattles off 9 trees and ends up in the middle of the fairway and another that it goes out of bounds.
 
Last edited:
I agree with you I thinking playing from other fairways, although allowed is complete ********. If you're on a hole, then you're on a hole. Why should an errant shot be ok on one hole and not on another? Makes no sense to me.
 
Unless there are white stakes along every hole of the course there is no possible way to enforce this, even then some people don't play by the rules and would play that way anyhow.

And if you are trying to get rid of the "luck" factor, what are you going to do about when a ball hits the pin and goes into the water versus a ball that hits the pin and drops straight down?

That's just the way golf is, sometimes you get lucky and other times you don't.
 
Speiser said:
I agree with you I thinking playing from other fairways, although allowed is complete ********. If you're on a hole, then you're on a hole. Why should an errant shot be ok on one hole and not on another? Makes no sense to me.
Click to expand...

If your errant shot ends up in the woods, but is not out of bounds and has a playable lie, you can play it. You're not within the defined structure of the hole perhaps, but you can still play your shot.
 
rollin said:
had the rules actually been the way of this hypothetical then thats all we would of ever known and all of it would seem pefectly normal to us and lets face it, it probably would have been more understandable and acceptable to us than some other the rules we currently actually have. Its sort of pretty simple and understanding in a way - "here is the hole and it must be played as designed."
Click to expand...

The "as designed" is the sticking point for me. If a hole dog legs right, as is designed for a fade tee shot, why do I have to fade that shot?
 
blugold said:
The "as designed" is the sticking point for me. If a hole dog legs right, as is designed for a fade tee shot, why do I have to fade that shot?
Click to expand...

to play it as it was meant to be played...no? And you wouldnt have to play the fade, you can always lay up to the leg.
 
SharkHat said:
If your errant shot ends up in the woods, but is not out of bounds and has a playable lie, you can play it. You're not within the defined structure of the hole perhaps, but you can still play your shot.
Click to expand...
good point
 
In bounds is in bounds. My complaint is the person who hits into another fairway then stands there lining up a shot and delaying the play of the foursome playing that hole. We need a right of way rule, of course here in New Jersey it doesn't work on the roads either.

Sent from my AT100 using Tapatalk 2
 
Jackf said:
In bounds is in bounds. My complaint is the person who hits into another fairway then stands there lining up a shot and delaying the play of the foursome playing that hole. We need a right of way rule, of course here in New Jersey it doesn't work on the roads either.

Sent from my AT100 using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...

hahahaha- good one
 
original posters point is a good point but i think that good golfers also account for the 'bail out' areas and optimal miss parts of the course and it's about taking what the course gives you.

i don't see an issue with playing a shot intentionally errant to gain maximum probability for score...if the course has issue, they'll take it away by planting a tree or create a hazard...anything will suffice if it is your intention to discourage competitors from taking advantage of an flaw in course design
 
radbag1001 said:
original posters point is a good point but i think that good golfers also account for the 'bail out' areas and optimal miss parts of the course and it's about taking what the course gives you.

i don't see an issue with playing a shot intentionally errant to gain maximum probability for score...if the course has issue, they'll take it away by planting a tree or create a hazard...anything will suffice if it is your intention to discourage competitors from taking advantage of an flaw in course design
Click to expand...

That's true. A well placed pond can keep people out of that area very easily.
 
Kobey said:
That's true. A well placed pond can keep people out of that area very easily.
Click to expand...

Very easily? In theory, but too many of us will actually be in the darn thing. lol

radbag1001 said:
it's about taking what the course gives you.
.anything will suffice if it is your intention to discourage competitors from taking advantage of an flaw in course design
Click to expand...

That's sort of what can be said for the whole point. A "flaw" is not really what a course gave you. It is exactly that, a flaw. I don't know for certain but I think it safe to assume that for the most part when a hole is designed its probably not designed with the thought of one being allowed to play it from the other hole or to cut across its leg by playing up and over the trees/wooded area. Otherwise there would of been no real purpose to plan out or give too much thought to the hole the way they did in the first place. I'm sure they would see these things on a blue print before the build. I think the intention when designing a hole would be to play it as designed. No?

Kind of an unfortunate situation for the intended build. You put a lot of thought and effort to design a hole with certain characteristics and difficulty. But then (with exception of tee and green) the players find away to circumnavigate the whole darn thing. Basically taking away the integrity of the hole.
 
SharkHat said:
If your errant shot ends up in the woods, but is not out of bounds and has a playable lie, you can play it. You're not within the defined structure of the hole perhaps, but you can still play your shot.
Click to expand...

Yes but you really could still be considered in the intended designed hole because you didn't cross the imaginary boundary of another hole. And I know this would create a lot of scenarios and debate because then one can add to my comment being contradicting and saying "how is it ok to chip out from the woods but not ok to go over them?". Answer for that one yet I don't have. lol . But I'm trying and never said this was perfect but hey, neither is everything about the game the way we play it now.
 
rollin said:
Yes but you really could still be considered in the intended designed hole because you didn't cross the imaginary boundary of another hole. And I know this would create a lot of scenarios and debate because then one can add to my comment being contradicting and saying "how is it ok to chip out from the woods but not ok to go over them?". Answer for that one yet I don't have. lol . But I'm trying and never said this was perfect but hey, neither is everything about the game the way we play it now.
Click to expand...

Like I said earlier, what if the two neighboring holes are next to each other by design, so that wayward shots would have one safe side to play from?
 
SharkHat said:
Like I said earlier, what if the two neighboring holes are next to each other by design, so that wayward shots would have one safe side to play from?
Click to expand...

If by design then would be just fine because it was by design and intended to be that way for those holes.
 
Couldn't this take some of the creativity out of the golf course as well? I mean if everybody just accepted that they have to hit the ball this way and then that way and then this way again, it'd make the game boring. I've played a couple courses where on two or three of the holes it is a lot easier to come in from a different side of the green than just the normal straight on approach, that's what makes it that much more fun.
 
rollin said:
If by design then would be just fine because it was by design and intended to be that way for those holes.
Click to expand...

So, how can you tell the difference?
 
SharkHat said:
So, how can you tell the difference?
Click to expand...

Mulligan9111 said:
Haha each course is going to have to hand out instruction manuals.
Click to expand...

Common now fellas. That wouldn't be rocket science would it? . I simple pic of the hole at the tee and on score card which most courses have anyway for golfers unfamiliar to it I'm sure would do just fine.

Mulligan9111 said:
Couldn't this take some of the creativity out of the golf course as well? I mean if everybody just accepted that they have to hit the ball this way and then that way and then this way again, it'd make the game boring. I've played a couple courses where on two or three of the holes it is a lot easier to come in from a different side of the green than just the normal straight on approach, that's what makes it that much more fun.
Click to expand...

I think you sort of answer your own argument in the same quote. Whats actually more boring and takes away from the creativity of a hole is being able to just simply circumnavigate it. That in itself is what removes some integrity or character from the hole and the course resulting in making it more boring.. think about it a moment - You have (as you mentioned) a course with 3 holes that are easier to play from different fairways. (I assume doglegs). Isnt that more boring than having to stay and follow along the actual holes? I would think so. Easier but more boring.
 
A top down view of the hole is enough to tell you the designer's intent?

I'm with Blu, the out of bounds stakes mark where you're not supposed to play from. Anything in bounds is fair play.
 
rollin said:
Common now fellas. That wouldn't be rocket science would it? . I simple pic of the hole at the tee and on score card which most courses have anyway for golfers unfamiliar to it I'm sure would do just fine.



I think you sort of answer your own argument in the same quote. Whats actually more boring is being able to just simply circumnavigate a hole. That in itself is what removes some integrity or character from the hole and the course resulting in making it more boring.. think about it a moment - You have (as you mentioned) a course with 3 holes that are easier to play from different fairways. (I assume doglegs). Isnt that more boring than having to stay and follow along the actual holes? I would think so. Easier but more boring.
Click to expand...

Because there is usually a larger risk trying to get into those positions, whether it's trees, water, bunkers, etc. One of the holes I'm talking has trees that run along the fairway up until about 50 or 60 yards out then it opens up a little bit. There is a very deep green side bunker right in front of the green (the green is wider than it is in depth), however if you are able to hit your drive up over the trees and far enough down the fairway that is to the left of hole you are suppose to be playing on, you will have a shot at the green with no bunkers or trees in your way. Keep in mind, it is a very risky tee shot to try this, and not one most players go for, but it certainly gives you an advantage going into that green. There are many times people go for the shot and end up hitting into the trees or not hitting it far enough down the fairway to get in the right position to approach the green.

The risk/reward makes that hole a ton of fun to play.
 
Mulligan9111 said:
Because there is usually a larger risk trying to get into those positions, whether it's trees, water, bunkers, etc. One of the holes I'm talking has trees that run along the fairway up until about 50 or 60 yards out then it opens up a little bit. There is a very deep green side bunker right in front of the green (the green is wider than it is in depth), however if you are able to hit your drive up over the trees and far enough down the fairway that is to the left of hole you are suppose to be playing on, you will have a shot at the green with no bunkers or trees in your way. Keep in mind, it is a very risky tee shot to try this, and not one most players go for, but it certainly gives you an advantage going into that green. There are many times people go for the shot and end up hitting into the trees or not hitting it far enough down the fairway to get in the right position to approach the green.

The risk/reward makes that hole a ton of fun to play.
Click to expand...

OK so in the case of holes you describe its a harder shot with risk then yes you are actually adding something to it and would make sense for what you said. But that doesn't mean it would have to be allowed in this sick little world of imaginary rule of mine and in general this is the rarity and not the norm of simply being forgiven or even rewarded for screwing up badly or using easy outs to make a hole easier which is the case more than not.
 
rollin said:
OK so in the case of holes you describe its a harder shot with risk then yes you are actually adding something to it and would make sense for what you said. But that doesn't mean it would have to be allowed and in general this is the rarity and not the norm of simply being forgiven or even rewarded for screwing up badly or using such an easy out to make a hole easier.
Click to expand...

Well I would think in general it's a rarity that people purposefully play the down the wrong hole, wouldn't you? I would also think it's a rarity that a big screw up ends up rewarding the player.

You are never going to be able to fix lucky breaks from bad shots, unless you line every hole with white stakes. And even that doesn't fix the problem of possible lucky breaks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top