[Jordan Wall]

I was just sitting in English class today when something funny happened.
I was drawing pictures of golf courses, and I had drawn #7 at Ballyneal, where the tip of the flag could barely be seen and only the front of the green was visible.  Then, I drew a picture of Augusta #12.  Both were decent pictures, so I asked my buddy which one he liked better.  He said he liked the one of Augusta better because it was so much easier to tell it was a golf hole.  Once I pointed out the tip of the flag on my Ballyneal picture he realized a course, but he still didnt like that it was so hard to see flag and green.

My question is why players always like seeing the hole and what they are playing at.
I look at Ran's review of County Down and there are many pictures with directional poles, and many blind shots.
I think it is very cool.
However, I was speaking to a member at Seattle about NGLA and he said the course was merely ok due to the blind shots.

Isnt a course better with one or two blind shots?
Arent blind shots good for, if anything, variety?
I dont like the concept of always needing to see where my ball lands.
Part of the fun of golf is guessing anyways, so wouldnt blind shots fit perfectly?
Should each course have a blind shot to provide interest?

And, is the acceptance of blind shots beginning to dwindle among golfers?
With new courses being built to look pretty and beautiful, do courses lose architectural value by focusing too much on aesthetics?
Because, after all, if courses are built to simply look good there would be no blind shots.  You cant really make a blind shot pretty.

[Patrick_Mucci]

It's called, and has to do with the golfer being out of his "comfort zone".

[Jordan Wall]

It's called, and has to do with the golfer being in his "comfort zone".

There is nothing wrong with being out of a comfort zone, at least in golf.

I think to be great golf needs that uncertainty factor.

[Joe Hancock]

I think to be great golf needs that uncertainty factor.

Jordan,

Why do you think this?

Joe

[Jordan Wall]

Joe,

I like it a lot when there is an uncertainty factor.

I think when I cannot figure out which way a putt breaks, the architect has done a good job in creating a successful green.
When the architect has included a blind shot, he has produced a new challenge to the golfer, which can make an otherwise easy hole play difficult, given I havent played it a few times before.
Also, I think an uncertainty factor can sometimes mean there are many options for the presented golf shot.  For instance, do I smash a 9-iron and bounce it up to the hole, or do I use the slope behind the hole and take an extra club?  Or, do I play a punch with a 6-iron?  I like it when there are such options, as it makes me think.

At least for me, uncertainty in a course really makes me think about the shot I am going to hit.
Do I carry that bunker? Play safe?
I think such options are very good for a golf course.

Jordan

[Patrick_Mucci]

It's called, and has to do with the golfer being in his "comfort zone".

There is nothing wrong with being out of a comfort zone, at least in golf.

I think to be great golf needs that uncertainty factor.

Jordan,

You asked, "Why can it be hard to accept blind shots for average golfers"

I answered the question, you just didn't understand the answer.

[Jordan Wall]

It's called, and has to do with the golfer being in his "comfort zone".

There is nothing wrong with being out of a comfort zone, at least in golf.

I think to be great golf needs that uncertainty factor.

Jordan,

You asked, "Why can it be hard to accept blind shots for average golfers"

I answered the question, you just didn't understand the answer.

I undertood, that just wasnt the type of discussion I was hoping for.

It was a bad title.  I changed it to hopefully further the discussion.

Thanks for the answer though, as I do think you are right on with it
 

[Phil McDade]

I think to be great golf needs that uncertainty factor.

Jordan,

Why do you think this?


Joe

Because uncertainty creates doubt, and doubt often/usually leads to consideration of different options, which I would argue is the hallmark of great golf course architecture.

[Joe Hancock]

I think to be great golf needs that uncertainty factor.

Jordan,

Why do you think this?


Joe

Because uncertainty creates doubt, and doubt often/usually leads to consideration of different options, which I would argue is the hallmark of great golf course architecture.

I'm trying to get Jordan to meander past blindness as a means to create uncertainty. Optical illusions pertaining to distance, as one example.

Joe

[Jim Thompson]

In the face of uncertainty don't most favor safety over strategic options thereby minimizing the effects of architecture?  Isn't it better to make a player choose visible options with unknown results, directly challenging the player with choices?

In the context of this discussion do you consider shots to be blind ONLY if they have not been seen earlier in the round or rather is a blind shot one where the landing areas are obscured?

[Lloyd_Cole]

Jordan, here's the 6 sentence version. Uncertainty leads to bad golf swings. This is  empirically proven. Just watch Colin Montgomery trying to close out a major. Blind shots ecourage uncertainty. Overcoming this, trusting one's aim, and swinging well is one of the great victories over the course that we can claim. That is why blind shots should not be eliminated, and why they should be appreciated.
Dammit, I have enough trouble aiming when I can see the hole.

[Tyler Kearns]

Jordan,

The uncertainty of a blind shot is unnerving, but a well executed stroke yields an exciting walk to discover the results. That is fun, and does present a good challenge.

On another level, blindness creates some practical problems, which is why it shouldn't be overdone. Blind shots slow down play because we cannot see where a wayward stroke has entered the rough, or even a well struck shot for that matter. Further, without such ugly contrivances as periscopes and bells, we have to wait longer for the preceeding group to clear the landing zone because anybody would opt to wait a little longer in the name of safety.

TK

[Joe Bentham]

the best blind holes play to generous landing areas.  #9 at pacific dunes is a good example...plenty of room to play.

[Jordan Wall]

I think to be great golf needs that uncertainty factor.

Jordan,

Why do you think this?


Joe

Because uncertainty creates doubt, and doubt often/usually leads to consideration of different options, which I would argue is the hallmark of great golf course architecture.

I'm trying to get Jordan to meander past blindness as a means to create uncertainty. Optical illusions pertaining to distance, as one example.

Joe

Perhaps greens sloping a different way than what they look like from the approach?

[Jason McNamara]

Jordan, here's the 6 sentence version. Uncertainty leads to bad golf swings.

Isn't the Pete Dye comment "once I make them start thinking, they're screwed," or similar?

Jason

[Lloyd_Cole]

Jordan, here's the 6 sentence version. Uncertainty leads to bad golf swings.

Isn't the Pete Dye comment "once I make them start thinking, they're screwed," or similar?

Jason

Jason, that is the one sentence answer.

[Jordan Wall]

Does St. Andrews have a lot of uncertainty?  Pine Valley?  NGLA?

Do all the great courses have a certain amount of uncertainty, be it blind shots or not?

[ed_getka]

Jordan,
   I don't think that is the case. Most of the great courses I have played aren't great because of uncertainty. They are great because they pose specific challenges, you know what the challenges are, and you try to overcome them.
   The greatness comes from the discomfort of knowing that if you don't play the given shot properly it will generally make the next shot even harder. What I am trying to say, and not very well, is that great courses aren't about just hitting the fairway and then pulling your 160 yd. club and knocking it on the green. Blindness can be an element of this, but partial blindness seems to be better IMO.

[Tyler Kearns]

Jordan,

Further to what Ed was saying, blindness is best applied as a result of a conservative or poorly executed stroke. In this manner, it is not forced upon the player. If one decides to avoid the challenge being presented by a hazard and opts to bail-out, the second stroke to the green is obscured or totally blind. This gives the player a choice on the tee, risk hitting into a bunker, or face the uncertainty of a blind approach shot.

TK

[tlavin]

The occasional blind shot, especially one "created" by the natural topography, is a delightful feature.  If these types of shots occur more than several times in a round of "normal" play, I would think that the architect should have considered moving some earth to open up the view.

[tonyt]

Jordan,

If I took a pair of photos into work (one of a pristine and inviting deep green coloured hole and the other of a windswept undulating wasteland with plenty of "uncertainty")and showed all those who enjoyed golf, most would vote they like the former.

Certainly for the average person it may make a better picture hanging on the wall.

But in the flesh, the average Joe when playing a delightfully quirky course with shots like the blind or semi blind one you intimated, and then playing the garden setting of the other, will not always hold their original view.

People over here don't go to a Barnbougle Dunes or St Andrews Beach and complain it doesn't open up everything in front of you or that its look reflects the wild seasons instead of maintaining lush green surrounds. Indeed, most first time Barnbougle players look when they return like they've changed religions. Meanwhile, a very over watered flower bed decorated parkland course a few minutes drive from St Andrews Beach gets loved by quite a few. But it is also derided by many for this, be they architecture geeks or once a year people who happily either have little clue or don't intend to make some study of it.

Here in Australia, people are attracted to Barnbougle Dunes like lemmings, some of them more than once, who prior to that would have only ventured in the name of golf three hours up the road from Melbourne for a $69 a day golf/lodging/food deal on the Victorian/New South Wales border.

It is harder to sell "wild" on paper, but easier to sell it once it is in the ground. The group-think on here about the values of the average golfer occasionally get misrepresented by what they say as opposed to what they do, or what they think in principle rather than what they think after seeing examples. If I was way wrong, then (to use an extreme and arbitrary example) there would be a little inhabited financial black hole along the Oregon coast at Bandon.

[Mark_F]

People over here don't go to a Barnbougle Dunes or St Andrews Beach and complain it doesn't open up everything in front of you

Some of them do.

They also complain the greens are too small, they are too wild, there is nowhere to miss some of them, it is too windy, the crows steal balls...

[Jordan Wall]

The occasional blind shot, especially one "created" by the natural topography, is a delightful feature.  If these types of shots occur more than several times in a round of "normal" play, I would think that the architect should have considered moving some earth to open up the view.

When would you draw the line of too many blind shots on a course?

Does it depend on the type of course to determine how many blind shots there are?

Does a hole like 15 (? I think ?) at St. Andrews count as a blind tee shot, where the bunkers are not visible from the tee?

[Shane Sullivan]

I don't mind blind shots so much - I don't get many hitting from the front tees so it makes the hole more memorable.

What I don't like is when there is an artificial pole or post indicating the line.  I much prefer if there is a natural feature that has been used to do this - an unusual tree or a temple or building in the distance or an unusual undulation which draws your eye.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()