Blindness - How much is Okay?

[JESII]

Tom

Exactly.

I recall from the '86 and '95 Opens that early in the week a large percentage of players drove it over the hill and played from the bottom and as the week went along, and the pressure built, and they players realized the futility of their attempt to shorten the approach, they laid back to the top of the hill.

If you recall from last June there was a consistent wind blowing directly down the 10th, but almost nobody reverted to the top of the hill this year.
What does that mean?  
--Todays player is not as versatile as in years past. Maybe
--The wind made it unrealistic to lay-up because of the club required-probably a 6 or 7 iron. Maybe
--The players still didn't think it would be easier to get on the green from the top of the hill than the bottom. Yes, but why? Because today's equipment does not respond as well downwind as equipment from 10 and 20 years ago.

REPEAT: GREAT HOLE!

[ForkaB]

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?

JES II

I think I tried the 3rd way in my one and only go--come off the drive and propel it into the right rough halfway down the hill and then skank an ugly 7-iron hack out of the cabbage to the front of the green, but I could be wrong.....

[JESII]

Sounds more effective than some of my attempts.

[TEPaul]

"What does that mean?  
--Todays player is not as versatile as in years past. Maybe
--The wind made it unrealistic to lay-up because of the club required-probably a 6 or 7 iron. Maybe
--The players still didn't think it would be easier to get on the green from the top of the hill than the bottom. Yes, but why? Because today's equipment does not respond as well downwind as equipment from 10 and 20 years ago."

Sully:

I think the players knew that green was so firm there was no conceivable way in hell of holding it from the top of the hill (so no one tried that if they could help it). I think the thing that just stunned them all for the entire week is how hard it was to hold that green even from 60 yards away and below it even hitting the approach sky-high.

I guess the truth is that green surface was about twice as firm as it was in 1985 or 1995! I think most probably thought it may've been a little bit more than a little "over the top" that way.

There may be one other subtle reason though---and that is I don't think these present balls spin as much as in 1995 and  certainly not as much as in 1985---eg the balata-type ball.

[TEPaul]

As for me playing that hole and my options. I could probably hit the best drive of my life even down a 20 MPH wind and still not get it down that hill to the bottom. But I always had good success getting it on that green from the top of the hill as I watched my opponent hit it half-way down the hill into the cabbage on the right, then skank a 7 iron somewhere, screw up from there and just pick up or forget the rest like Rich Goodale!  

One should never forget that good golf strategy is not just understanding what YOU reasonably can and can't do in a risk/reward sense----it's also fully understanding how and how often your opponent will "screw-up" rendering your most sophisticated to your most basic strategies unnecessary.

Perhaps the greatest golfer of all time understood not only the strategies he should employee even if in a vacuum but more importantly how he could alway adjust due to the failures of his opponents and even his fellow competitors. And most amazingly how well he could not only do this in not just match play but stroke play and even be remarkably good at predicting it all before he even teed off.  

[JESII]

Tom

I agree with all but your first sentence.

The genius of that hole today is that the shot from the top of the hill, hit by an Open participant hits the green on a significantly steeper angle than the 70 yard pitch. The 70 yard pitch is not able to develop enough spin to make up for the lack of elevation.

They don't lay-up because they are not sure they will be able to hit the approach the right distance to get the ball on the green (ie within 5 or 7 yards of the front edge).

[TEPaul]

Jim:

Maybe the players in the last Open would've had an easier time stopping the ball on that green from back on top of the hill rather than from below for the reasons you said. I didn't spend a whole lot of time on that hole during the last Open but the time I did spend there I don't recall a single player trying to hit it from the top or even one doing that. The point you make, though, is a good one---eg maybe that's what they should've tried to do more of---because there's no question that the short approaches from below were certainly not getting the job done with regularity!

[Marty Bonnar]

Adam,
I believe I might be a member of the UK Club with the MOST Blind Holes on its golf course.
A synopsis:
1. Par 4 - Blind drive
2. Par 4 - Can't see the drive land
3. Par 4 - See 2
4. Par 3 - OK although you can't see the ball land on the green
5. Par 4 - Blind drive
6. Par 5 - Can't see the drive land
7. Par 3 - OK
8. Par 4 - Can't see a long drive land
9. Par 4 - OK
10. Par 5 - Can't see the drive land
11. Par 3 - Can't see the ball land on the green
12. Par 4 - OKish
13. Par 4 - OKish
14. Par 3 - Can't even see the green!
15. Par 4 - Blind Drive
16. Par 4 - OK
17. Par 4 - Can't see the ball land
18. BLIND DRIVE!

YET!...

Visiting Parties think it's one of the nicest Courses they've ever played!

BIZARRE...

But, WE assume visibility is everything whilst those guys just LOVE the environment.

Once again, QED.

FBD.

[TEPaul]

Martin:

Have you had your eyes checked lately? Perhaps it's more than blind drives.

[Kyle Harris]

Personally, I love blind tee shots.

Gives the homer an advantage and provides just the right amount of uncertainty in round. Some of my favorite holes in golf are blind tee shots or partially blind approaches.

I especially love when a mound obscures part of the green or when you can only see the top half of the flag peeking over a bunker or mound.

These add flavor and excitement to any round of golf and there needs to be more in design.

[Adam_F_Collins]

My home course, Brightwood Golf Club in Dartmouth Nova Scotia (A Ross(Walter B. Hatch)/Willie Park Jr. design) is riddled with blindness. (There's certainly more character here than we find in most new courses who've had it all bulldozed out of the land).

It's a short, old course and it's virtue is protected by uneven lies, small greens - and blindness.

1-Blind drive
2-blind green surface
3-semi-blind drive, blind approach
4-blind green surface
5-Blind drive
6-blind green surface
7-open
8-blind drive
9-blind approach
10-blind drive
11-blind green surface
12-open
13-blind approach
14-open
15-open
16-open
17-open
18-semi-blind drive, blind green surface

There are places where this is dangerous. And I think there's a bit too much blindness here. But it does add a lot of interest at times, particularly when there's a chance to avoid the blindness with specific placement, or especially long drives.

A view becomes a reward of it's own.

I think that it's a good tool, and something modern designs can gain from. Therefore, I hope our designer friends whom are currently working are able to include it here and there - and that blindness in some forms does not fall victim to paranoia.

[Pat_Mucci]

Donnie,

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.

Normally, I'm not a huge fan of an inordinate number of blind holes/shots, but, somehow, they are integrated so well in the context of the architecture, strategy and options at NGLA.

I thought about the number of holes that you could have a blind or semi-blind shot on at NGLA, and it's about 13 or so holes.  Yet, there's not one of them that isn't fun, doesn't present a challenge or is unfair.

After I played NGLA for the first time, I reflected on the golf course and the great number of blind/semi-blind holes which I encountered and if they detracted from the golfing experience and the strategy.  I continue to engage in this exercise after each round.

I've come to a personal belief that the blind/semi-blind nature of the holes is perfectly integrated with the strategic options presented by the genius of CBM.

On many holes the aggressive line is rewarded with a visual, whereas a safer line results in blind/semi-blind shots.

There is a neat balance between having a blind/semi-blind shot and a clear shot, and part of that balance is random, no matter how good the golfer's game.  Other times, superior play is clearly rewarded with better visuals.

But, I can see how some might be overwhelmed by the blind/semi-blind nature of the golf course.[/color]

[Gerry B]

some good points for and against. One or 2 per round makes it interesting. Some  of my favorite blind /semi blind holes already mentioned include:

#4 at fishers island  one of favorite holes anywhere

#3 at Gleneagles - love ringing the bell after putting out

#3 at Yale is also a very interesting hole as are some of the other blind shots scattered throughout the course.

#10 at Friars Head

#3 at NGLA

A couple at Bandon / Pacific are fun

A few more of my favorites on this side of the pond:

#8 at Scarboro in Toronto (Tillinghast) a great 2 shot par 4 with a tv monitor near the tee box to let you know the group ahead is clear.  

#5 at Forsgate

#4 at Merion East plus a couple of the tee shots on the back nine.

#13 at Shoreacres -tee shot -quirky but fun nonetheless

 #16 tee shot at Mid Ocean Club -short par 4 but tight.

[Adam_F_Collins]

Geez, from the look of these posts, it seems that many appreciate - even enjoy - some blind holes.

So why is there such a move to eliminate them?

Has the pendulum swung too far against blindness in golf?

[Kyle Harris]

I believe it's mainly for safety and pace of play considerations...

[peter_p]

The second shot on #5 at New South Wales.

Which affects you more mentally, a blind tee shot or a blind approach? Based on my limited research it would have to be approach shots as you have a more defined target. Machrie has a lot of both types, but I wasn't put off at all on shots to fairways. The shots to greens was like eating a ton of ice cream.

[PThomas]

Adam -- yes the pendulum has too far away from blind shots, I think

[Mike McGuire]

One of the newest courses to employ blind shots that ive seen is Hidden Glen in Wisconsin. Desinged by P.B. Dye in 2001.

The 6th is 353 (tips) water left. If you hit it 290 up the left you can look down about 30ft at the green. I think its a great stategic hole. Some people lay up for completly blind shot..where you are looking uphill..but have to factor in a big downhill elevation change . I heard its modeled after a hole Pete did at Long Cove on HHI.?

The other is the 551 y 17th. The green first becomes visible around 100. IT is tucked behind some mounds on the right ..with pot bunkers lurking. Wiith only a lone elm in the distance going at in two is fun to guess exactly where the green is.

Both holes are not blind if played expertly or bravely...Thats what makes them interesting IMO.  

Mike