Blindness - How much is Okay?

[Adam_F_Collins]

There is a lot written and spoken against blind shots in golf course design. But it's rare that courses are built on completely open, flat sites which allow complete views of all shots - from all positions.

How much blindness is alright? What about times when only the top of the flag is visible, and you can't see you're ball on the green? What about times when you're drive is not placed in the best position and your view to the green is blocked by a land feature?

When does blindness come into play in modern design, and how do people feel about it?

[Jonathan Davison]

Totally blind is fine in my opinion, nothing better than running over a hill to see if you found the green. One of the best blind holes is the third at the kings Gleneagles, just wonderful. If it was going to be built today I am sure it would be bulldozed down, but that's modern design.

[Sean_A]

Adam

I don't mind blind holes.  In fact, I would welcome a good blind hole or two per course.  Some can be thrilling (Tenby's The Bell, Machrihanish's Machrihanish and Lahinch's The Dell are superb)!  There is a hole host of great semi-blind holes.  I especially like holes which offer a view to the green if a drive is well placed, otherwise they are blind.  #5 at Sandwich and #8 at Hayling are particular favourites.  The second at West Cornwall is not quite as exacting, but great non-the-less.

I can't think of a modern course (I have played) that offers up great blind holes, but then I play mostly old courses!

Ciao

Sean

[James Edwards]

Thats a great call Jonny for #3 at the Kings course Gleneagles, Scotland... and one that we both thoroughly enjoyed playing in the summer last year.  Getting to the top of the hill after you had hit your approach and indeed staggering to the top pre execution was the downside because the hill is some 50 feet+ !"

I believe the 12th on the Kings is also completely blind as one of our following group friends almost disembowed one of our playing partners on the fly whilst we were waiting to hit our approach!

[ed_battye]

Sean,
I too like holes where a poorly placed drive reduces visibility of the green especially so when the green was previousley visible when on the tee.

How many fully blind or partially blind holes is too many? Is there a "too many"?

I personally think that blind holes which gather to the green are the best so that when the golfer does eventually see his ball he is more often that not pleased with the better than expected result.

[Evan_Green]

I am not a big fan of totally blind shots, however if they are well done, I'm not necessarily opposed to them. However another type of blind shot to consider is the nearly blind shot

 
For example, one I am very fond of is #7 at Camargo, with its sunken Punchbowl green, but you can just see the tip of the flagstick. (See Ran's photos from his Camargo writeup). While you can barely see the tip of the flag, you can see nothing of the (enormous!) green and its surrounding bunkers. Furthermore, you dont have a clue where you ball ended up until you're almost to the green. Great hole!

[Adam_F_Collins]

I realize that most of the golf world is not in favor of playing a lot of totally blind shots - and there are reasons of safety to consider there as well - and that makes a lot of sense.

I'm thinking more about blindness which depends on position - and holes which reveal their secrets as you play your way through them.

I think blindness might be a nice element to play with as an architect, but I imagine that it would have to be used very carefully. I'd say that it might be more like a "now-you-see-it, now-you-don't" type approach.

It seems to me that a skillful use of blindness might actually add a lot of character to a golf course design.

[Evan Fleisher]

I too am a fan of some blindness, the thrill of finding out exactly where the ball has ended up once struck is always fun and trying to guess land features and "feel" you way through a shot is something I've always been intrigued by.

Three of the more fun examples I could come up with...

* The par-5 13th at Tobacco Road with it's hidden punchbowl green behind the big dune

* Not sure of the hole number, but I think it is one of the last four holes at John's Island West, another par-5 hole but reachable in two if you want to challenge the big mound which cuts the corner for that shot...very much a risk/reward type hole

* The par-4 14th at Cruden Bay...a sunken green completely blind...what more can I say?

[Donnie Beck]

I like the occasional blind hole. I think they are fun. I will probably be crucified for saying this, but my biggest knock on NGLA is I think it has too many blind shots.

[ForkaB]

I'm with Donnie, in that moderation in blindness is a virtue, but I disagree about NGLA.  It pushes up to the edge of too much blindness, but does not cross the line.  IMO.

[peter_p]

The Machrie is the only course that I think crossed the line.

[Joe Perches]

How much blindness is alright?

I believe it depends on how often the course is expected to be played by the same individual, or what the interval of play is.  I rarely mind blind shots the second time I play a course.  I believe blind shots on resort style courses are poor design choice.  How often is it OK to take a 1/4 mile walk, 3 or 4 minutes out and back, to inspect the landing area for a first time player of the course?  Not too often in my experience.  I personally do not like "hit it over there" type of guidance from partner, opponent, or caddy on holes I can not see.

[A_Clay_Man]

The second hole at Victoria Nat'l has the kind of blindness that should be acceptable for all. Similar to the first par 5 at Bannf. Just around the corner.

The unacceptable type of blindeness is when there's no visual clue, that hazards await. That clue, could be something as simple as boulder, to signify a stream, for example.

Seeing is everything is highly over-rated.

[Mike_Cirba]

Count me in as one who believes that seeing everything on every shot gets to be boring and always feels contrived.  

I mean, half the tee shots on The Old Course are blind.  Find a line and go for it.

Anyone who believes that there is such a thing as "too blind" should be forced to play the 4th hole at Fisher's Island repeatedly until they learn differently.

Wait a second...is that really a punishment?  

[Lloyd_Cole]

I'm with Mike. 75% of golf is boring. Blind shots are fun. The second shot at Silloth is blind - that's getting the message out there right from hole 1.

[Doug Wright]

I especially like holes which offer a view to the green if a drive is well placed, otherwise they are blind.

Sean,

I agree with you--I think this is a terrific design feature. One of my favourite holes is Riverdale Dunes #6 (Pete Dye, though I think a young Tom Doak was on the bulldozer for this hole). 15-20 foot "Dunes" (artificial, it was a potato field, but it still works...) left and right and an opening for a clear view of the green for the properly placed tee shot. I love this hole.

[Evan_Green]

Another very interesting concept is #5 at Long Cove- the short par 4. If you challenge the water off the tee, you get a clear shot, but if you bail out you have a scary blind shot to a green that isnt very deep from that angle with water behind and bunkers short. Hitting that shot from the right side is one of the scariest shots I have played - you want to run to see where the ball went even before you hit it.

There you get a blind shot if you deserve it (whimp out) and it takes quite a precise shot to recover.

One of Dye's gems.

[Wayne Freeman]

I also think that a couple of blind shot holes are fun and interesting.  Several that come to mind that are great are #3 at Yale, #10 at Friar's Head, and a couple of par 4's at Quaker Ridge and Fishers Island.  Prestwick has a couple of all time ones -  did the U.S. designers copy these?

[TEPaul]

Probably the best use of blindness today (perhaps the only real acceptable use of it in today's perception) is when it's used in a strategic way. In other words, where strategies allow you to avoid it somehow---and logically with a higher risk strategy to avoid it!

On the other hand, I love the idea that Mark Parsinen developed for a hole (conceptually). The long hitter took a risk with distance and accuracy to give himself a much shorter shot to the green but by doing that he took on some blindness as opposed to laying much farther back for a much longer shot with total visiblity!

He basically took the standard application in the first paragraph and turned it on its head. That's why guys like Parsinen are so interesting to me--at least conceptually---they keep thinking of all kinds of ways to restir the stew!

[ForkaB]

Tom

Isn't Mark's hole just what Shinnecock #10 is (or used to be, for the big hitters)?

[JESII]

Good call Rich,

I don't know the hole by Mark Parsinen that Tom referrences but #10 at Shinnecock certainly fits the description. Have you played #10 both ways? If so, do you feel there is a clear choice for you off the tee as to laying back or driver to the bottom?

[TEPaul]

"Tom
Isn't Mark's hole just what Shinnecock #10 is (or used to be, for the big hitters)?"

Rich:

Very good point and very good example. Mark's hole (on paper) looks nothing whatsoever like the 10th at Shinnecock but the overall concept is very similar! Good call!

Matter of fact, Rich, the example of Shinnecock's #10's strategy this way and Mark's hole strategy is a great example of a close "concept copy" in a strategic sense as opposed to a straight "hole copy". The stratgies employee the exact same "concept" although the look of the holes couldn't be more different!

Another interesting difference between #10 Shinnecock and Mark's hole is Shinnecock's is a real choice distance-wise but the different distance options are basically "in-line" while Mark's hole is very wide and employees not just a vastly different distance option but one of a vastly different direction from the safer and longer approach play!

But still both are the same in the basic strategic "concept" of more length for a shorter approach but one with blindness.

[Ted Kramer]

I think a blind shot or 2 can add a ton of charm to a round of golf. I'm not so hung up on using it in a strategic sense. I think that it can add to the feeling of playing the game upon the available landscape; It seems rustic to me. If a blind shot exists, so be it. I find nothing wrong with it if it doesn't lead to an unsafe condition.

-Ted  

[JESII]

For me the options from the tee on the 10th at Shinnecock are so great because of that awesomely undulating fairway at the top of the hill. Usually a fairway of that width is plenty wide for a 220 shot, but those humps can all too easily send the ball into the rough from where any chance of hitting the green is all but eliminated. I have also successfully reached the bottom of the hill and faced a 90 yard uphill shot from a very slight downhill lie that was in no way easier than the 180 shot one would have from a well played lay-up.

Great hole, made even better in my impression by the way it played in the USOpen last year.

[TEPaul]

Sully:

Hitting the ball over the hill on Shinnecock's #10 is pretty interesting actually when it comes to direction---at least the way the course was set-up for the Open last year with extremely tight (and rolling fairways). The driver in the Open could hit the ball down and into the first cut of rough on the left or down the right side of the fairway and the fairways were so tight and rolling all balls would basically end up in a spot at the bottom of the hill on the right side of the fairway about 5 yards wide and about fifteen yards long. With that set-up last year the balls over the hill collected in that space so completely Michaud had to actually cover that area during practice rounds---the only fairway area on the course he had to do that, I think. And even from down there only 60-75 yards from the green I think less players could keep the ball on the green than the more infamous 7th hole!