In Defence of Blind Drives

[Adam_F_Collins]

Our old course is full of blind shots. The other day, I hit a solid drive on our long par 4 5th hole (457), as did a friend. The drive is slightly uphill, over the horizon and then steeply downhill, perhaps a hundred feet to the green. A good drive might roll down to the 150 mark.

As we picked up our bags and followed our balls toward the horizon, we talked about how the blind drive allowed you to feel and enjoy something different about a solid drive. You could feel it ringing in your bones long after the strike, and it allowed us to believe - if just for a few moments - that our drive would careen beyond the 150 - maybe all the way down toward the 100. It allowed you to savour a drive in a way that is different than watching the final truth of the bounce and roll - something deep in your soul.

And it's a sweetness of its own.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I too enjoy the occaisional blind drive, providing I am absolutely sure of the intended direction.  I have seen people drive off up to 180 degrees off the intended line on account of the fw being blind, and another one being visible.

It also helps to be reasonably sure that the landing area is clear, since as much as I love to see the results of a blind drive, I fear finding my ball under a dead golfer.

I think the joy of them is summed up by the "the longer it takes to know your result, the more enjoyable the shot" theory.

[tonyt]

Adam,

I reckon the type of little old course that has lots of quirky features is great fun for that same reason.

Whether it be the blind shots, the need to play away from holes, watching balls bounce strangely on ungraded fairways or whatever, it is a type of golf that allows you to see things differently to the mundane everyday.

Some find it annoying. I pity them. It is exhilirating to play a course that makes you wide eyed and attentive more than others.

[Phil_the_Author]

For a while now, and for the very reason that Adam states, I've decided that I much prefer the term "Blind Landing" since there really is no blind drive. On the tee one always takes a definite aim and hits it with this in mind.

Where it ends up is a different story entirely.

[Patrick Kiser]

When I see and read from this site how many incredible courses people have played, I don't think I'm in a position to say what is the best "blind" hole in American golf.

But I can definitely say that the 13th at Harding Park in San Francisco has to be a pretty decent example.

The first thing about it is you pretty much know no matter how well (or poorly) you strike the tee ball ... you know you'll find it.  So there's a sense of relief that you'll at least get a chance to play a second shot.  The question is ... where will the second shot come from.  So this already builds anticipation.

The second part is as you're walking (you should walk at Harding to really appreciate the course) up and over the hill, you're presented with a rather nice panorama of 1) the sloping fairway down to the green, 2) the view of Olympic Lake in the distance, and 3) the 14th is in your mind already...  So there's a combination of the 2nd shot coming up and yet more anticipation of the 14th.

Last but not least is the false front to the green sloping to a slightly elevated plateau green with good undulation and some tiering.  Depending on the pin placement that day ... the second shot could be really dicey.  The sucker pin is to the left back.  This green has just grown on me over the past few years.  Also the surrounding area around the green are typically no man's land (except for the bunker).  Eventhough there's a bunker to the left side, the real trouble is anything over the the green (either right or left).  When you know this from the fairway for the second shot, you think twice about club selection and ... you take into account the wind coming off Lake Merced that day.

All these factors play in my mind on this 13th and I think it's for this reason that I really enjoy a good blind hole like this par 4 at Harding Park.  It just makes you run through a lot of emotions.

My two cents.

[Dan_Callahan]

I love the blind drive on Yale #10. You know that the second shot is virtually impossible unless you are in the fairway, but all you can do is hit your tee shot and hope for the best. It's one of those holes that would never get built today, but is one of my personal favorites for its sheer audacity.

[Jay Flemma]

It's what makes places like Black Mesa and Royal New Kent and Tobacco Road downright legendary instead of merely really good...

[Phil Benedict]

I love the blind drive on Yale #10. You know that the second shot is virtually impossible unless you are in the fairway, but all you can do is hit your tee shot and hope for the best. It's one of those holes that would never get built today, but is one of my personal favorites for its sheer audacity.

Dan,

17 is similar don't you think?  And maybe 12. Drives up and over a hill where you can't see the landing area.  I don't find them to be particularly hard drives because the landing areas are pretty wide and it's very clear from the way the holes set up where you need to aim.

Blind tee shots where there is doubt on where to aim are more difficult, at least on courses one plays infrequently.

[Jason Blasberg]

Blind shots and hanging lies are what make the classic's great.  More modern designers should utilize blindness, especially for the low handicaper b/c it drives them crazy (pun intended)!

[Chris Cupit]

Scariest blind drive in golf--Royal County Down #9
If you hit it down the middle, it's hard to beat the walk as you crest the hill and look down toward the fairway, green and Slieve Donard

[Jay Cox]

17 is similar [to 10] don't you think?  And maybe 12. Drives up and over a hill where you can't see the landing area.  I don't find them to be particularly hard drives because the landing areas are pretty wide and it's very clear from the way the holes set up where you need to aim.

I think there are pretty big differences between the tee shots at 10, 12, and 17 at Yale.  Their main similarity is that they are blind (or, in the case of 12, semi-blind).  The EFFECT of the blindness on the player is completely different.

The blindness at 10 creates a visual "gap" in the hole.  You can see a whole lot of land in front of the tee before the landing area, up to the point of the hill on the far side of the entrance road.  You can see the green jutting up in the distance.  The hole always felt longer to me because I couldn't see anything in between, which always tempted me to hit driver even though I probably should have hit three wood (because, as Dan said, being in that fairway is absolutely essential).  I've talked to other people, though, who said that it made the hole feel shorter, so that they were tempted to hit too little club off the tee, especially since the hole plays longer than scorecard yardage.  Either way, the gap-style blindness at 10 (where you can see the area before and after the landing area, but not the landing area itself) has the effect of confounding the player's ability to visualize distance.  I love it.

12 is more of a gradual climb, with what blindness there is resulting from the humps and rolls of a gradual hillside.  While the fairway edges at both 10 and 17 are fairly straight, so it's easy to just aim at the middle, 12 juts and doges a bit, feeling to me like a path wandering up the hill rather than a set of stairs placed haphazardly at different levels (as 10 does).  As a result, the blindness at 12 always confounds my sense of direction rather than my sense of distance.  In terms of shot values, I also felt that 12 rewarded placing left if the pin was on the right and vice versa - that the approach is much easier if you've got a favorable angel in.  But I always found it hard to make myself try to place the ball because of the blind rolls and the non-linearity of the fairway.

I don't like the 17th tee shot nearly as much as the 10th or the 12th, because the blindness at 17 struck me as pure visual intimidation.  You can't see anything except the sheer wall of grass just beyond the pond, so the blindness doesn't create deception or confusion -- it just creates fear.  And there's pretty much no uncertainty about what the proper play is:  unless you're a real tiger, you take a driver and whale it right down the middle of the not-all-that-wide corridor over the wall.  It's an exhilirating shot, but unlike 10 and 12, I don't think the blindness adds that much to the shot value.  But, as Adam said in the post that started this thread, the simple thrill of watching a ball clear a fearsome (if easily surmounted) obstacle and sailing majestically into the great unknown makes the hole eminently worthwhile.  17 feels much more like the "classic" blind hole to me than either 10 or 12, where so much of the rest of the hole besides the landing area is laid out before you.

[Doug Siebert]

Scariest blind drive in golf--Royal County Down #9
If you hit it down the middle, it's hard to beat the walk as you crest the hill and look down toward the fairway, green and Slieve Donard

I haven't played RCD yet, but I have a hard time believing that drive on the 9th can be more scary than Old Head's 12th.  The fairway is blind and you are just looking at a sheer cliff as you cut across the water several hundred feet below.  Plus the fairway angles quite a bit so if you play too safe you would easily hit through and face some difficulties I'm sure.

My only gripe with it is that you run out of fairway with an aggressive line.  I hit through the fairway a few yards, pros would all be hitting 3W there to stay in the short grass (and Tiger might still go through the fairway)

[TEPaul]

"As we picked up our bags and followed our balls toward the horizon, we talked about how the blind drive allowed you to feel and enjoy something different about a solid drive. You could feel it ringing in your bones long after the strike, and it allowed us to believe - if just for a few moments - that our drive would careen beyond the 150 - maybe all the way down toward the 100. It allowed you to savour a drive in a way that is different than watching the final truth of the bounce and roll - something deep in your soul."

Adam FosterC:

I assume you've read Max Behr's musings on blindness.

"And yet the abortive principles of the Penal School assert that all hidden architecture is bad. But should the golfer, in all cases, become immediately aware of what his fate is? Is golf to be robbed of all illussion? Is the walk between shots to be, only, either a tragic or dull affair? Is it not suspense of knowledge that, in hunting, shooting, fishing, and in all sports (as opposed to "games") sublimates the mind and heart into a region where, for a moment, we are permitted to dream impossible things, and become heroes? In games we satisfy the physical demands of our bodies and the quick objective use of our senses, but in sports, it is the nourishment of the imagination that makes them so lovable. In a game we are face to face with a duplicate of ourselves; but, in a sport, we stand before the great unknown, wooing her with the virtue of our skill, hoping to be enfolded in her arms, but never sure that at the end we will not find ourselves outcast. Surely the maid of our heart should not reveal all her charms to us at once."  

[Jeff_Brauer]

TEPaul,

Interesting stuff.  Falls into the "time not knowing the result of a shot making golf more interesting" school of thought.

I always felt that the reduction in blind shots, while certainly a practical matter, also resulted from life being a little less mysterious overall.  Back in Scotland, they didn't know what the weather would be for any golf game, and now we have 5 day forecasts.  They didn't know what ailed them (although it was probably alcohol consumption) and now we have full body scans to tell us exactly what is going on inside our bodies.  Those are just a few examples of how we in general don't have or like the mystery as much as we used to.

That is kind of big picture thinking, but it might account for a little of trend away from blindness.  And the counter trend back to it by some gca's - thats accounted for by our fondness for nostalgia.

[Mike_Cirba]

Jeff,

I'm not sure I can read the headlines and think that life is any more predictable or any less adventurous, unfortunately.  

I see the lack of blindness being one part fear of liability and one part political correctness (re: "fairness").   It's the whole idea that the game should be so homogenized towards predictable outcomes as to be leveling itself to some awfully dull lowest common denominator idea of what a golf course "should be".  I've always been amazed how a Jack Nicklaus, for instance, can profess love for The Old Course, and then design courses where he wishes he could build every hole downhill so you can see everything.   Strange...

For my part, I think Adam summed it up very well.   My personal favorite is driving out of the quarry on the 18th at Merion.  There is no better feeling than hitting the ball solidly and watching it rise over the quarry wall, only to land somewhere out of sight beyond.  

It makes the steep walk up that hill to find the outcome completely exhilerating.

[TEPaul]

"I always felt that the reduction in blind shots, while certainly a practical matter, also resulted from life being a little less mysterious overall.  Back in Scotland, they didn't know what the weather would be for any golf game, and now we have 5 day forecasts.  They didn't know what ailed them (although it was probably alcohol consumption) and now we have full body scans to tell us exactly what is going on inside our bodies.  Those are just a few examples of how we in general don't have or like the mystery as much as we used to.

That is kind of big picture thinking, but it might account for a little of trend away from blindness.  And the counter trend back to it by some gca's - thats accounted for by our fondness for nostalgia."

JeffB:

You know the real cause of not wanting something like blindness in golf just as well as I do.

We live in a world of increasing need for "instant gratification" plain and simple. Back in that day people just had far more patience than most all of us do today. "Instant gratification" is just everywhere in our world today and that was certainly not the case back then. And they probably had far more active imaginations back then than we do because of their lack of instant gratification.