Is today's golfing public so obtuse that

[David_Madison]

Yes, absolutely yes. I live in Chapel Hill, NC, about a 30-minute drive from Tobacco Road. I can't find anyone who will admit they like the course, let alone love or appreciate it. The best I can get out of anyone is that it's fun once or twice a year as something different, and that it has a great atmosphere. But it's thought of as tricked up and unfair. Yet is there anyone posting here that feels the same?

[BCrosby]

Pat said:

"In addition to the approach to the Alps at NGLA, depending upon your position for your approach and/or your recovery, there can easily be 14 additional holes with blind shots."

That's right. It's pretty remarkable when you think about it. I'd bet a similar number of holes can be blind at both Shinnie and Garden City.

At GC, I would guess that more than half of the DZ's are blind in whole or in part. Even on flat holes. For the simple reason that Travis built the tees at FW level. Very few tees are pushed up, even slightly.

Blindness on those courses works bcause it was almost always linked with wide fw's and generous playing corridors. GA architects that used blindness as a regular feature understood that connection.

I wonder if the reason modern uses of blindness are so often criticized is because the necessary connection between blindness and playing widths is not always understood. To the point that when modern golfers have a blind shot, they react before understanding what the GA architect is giving back to him in terms of generous LZ's.  

Bob


 

[Steve Pozaric]

My home course has a lot of quirk - blind tee shots, slopes on fairways and some heavy sloped greens.  To me, that is what makes it fun to play over and over, because it is always a little different.

However, when I was a public course golfer (as I was just a couple of years ago) and put me on a course I have never seen, without a yardage book, or even a course I have seen maybe once or twice before, well, I am not a huge fan of having no idea of where I should be going.  After I have played them a number of times, sure it becomes fun, but with the large number of options, many people, at least the non-hard core GCA types, would probably choose the easier options.  

Just IMHO.

[Mike Benham]

Mike Benham,

If the owner/developer is giving the GCA directions and instructions, what does he need the GCA for ?

Let's use Mike Stranz as an example.  Two of his courses, Tobacco Road and Monterey Peninsula CC Shore are as different as night and day when you look at the design feature you started the topic with, blind shots.

Did he design these two courses without input, either directly or indirectly, from the owners and members?

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike,
Tillinghast didn't build that green so that you'd have to aim 45 degrees or more on your 15 foot putts.
Modern green speeds created that.

I love boldly contoured greens with a lot of slope, but let's not lose sight of the fact that they (can) play way differently now than when ODG's designed them

Jeff,

That's a given, but is it too much to ask for a little slope and contour on modern greens?  

And not just the dumb-ass, multi-sectional, "greens within a green" concept where it looks like someone cut into a pie at regular angles.

Yesterday I had putts that broke over 10 feet.   It was thrilling and amazing fun.

A few years back I played a modern course near there with similar topography and I recall being struck by the fact that although they greens were blazing fast, I didn't have to aim more than a ball or two outside the hole all day long.

To me, that just ain't natural.  

[Kirk Gill]

I recently played Jim Engh's Pradera course. There are numerous holes that have quirky features and blind shots, especially of the kind that Mr. Cowley references, where a drive to the wrong side of the fairway leaves you with a blind shot. One hole, I believe the ninth, has this great knob right in front of the green which deflects short approaches and is high enough so that when the pin is front/center, as it was the day I played, it allows you a view only of the top half of the pin. Just that bit of blindness threw me off.

At the same time, there are a number of elevated tees, particularly the 16th, and some greens that are very heavily contoured. I've seen many a post where a designer is accused of having created "goofy golf." So where is the dividing line between quirky, and goofy? If a guy is designing quirk into his courses, as Jim Engh most certainly does, how do you decide when it's over the top? There are many holes at Pradera that are "right in front of you," and many that are not. The golfing public seems to like Engh's courses just fine, no? What am I missing?

[Mike_Young]

With the earthmoving equipment avaialable today it is very easy to create a golf course with no restraint.  IMHO the "lack of restraint " is one of the issues I have with much modern design.
Having said such.....I don't consider myself a minimalist as much as one that appreciates simplicity.  If an ODG created a hole or series of holes whereby the landing area was blind yet he allowed me a significant area in which to land the ball w/o having to search then I don't see much to be gained in elevating a tee etc.....now if it is a tree lined hole with an extremely tight landing area and the shots are running to one side of the fairway...then perhaps sight is desirable if feasible.....I just think that once you start this type of change on a course where do you stop.....I have always thought you either look at a course in one of two orders  shots/holes/whole  or either whole/holes/shots......most players will evaluate based on the shots within the holes without regard to how the routing lays or how the holes are played while a person that enjoys the game for the game and the beauty might evalutate a course on its "whole" considering the flow of the holes and lastly the different/dificulty of the shots required.  the great courses have both of these.  AND the big issue comes to courses where the whole takes precedence but the USGA or whatever group wishes to make the shot take precedence...thus narrow fairways, speed etc.....

[Tom_Doak]

"Does the owner of the project give the GCAs direction that they want a course has elevated tees, no blind shots, no quirk?"

     I often have input like this from my clients, whether directly, or just by listening to them talk about the golf courses they like.  (I always ask them about their favorite courses and what they like about them.)  Certainly, I've had several clients who expressed a distaste for blind shots.  The one who talked most about his fondness for elevated tees was Mike Keiser ... funny how people's perceptions do not pick up on this.  However, Mike doesn't object to the idea of a couple of blind shots at Old Macdonald, because that's part of the gig and because it will provide some variety with his other courses.


Do GCAs enlist focus groups to get feedback on their past designs, the designs of others or what the golfing public wants?

My main focus group is our guests at each year's Renaissance Cup -- a diverse group of players who generally like our work but who are not afraid to comment on what they like and don't like.  Golf Club Atlas is another sort of focus group, and so are the various rankings.  I don't need somebody else to tell me why Tobacco Road is popular or not, I can go judge for myself on that.  Ultimately, though, I'm not out to build the most popular course possible ... I'm out to build something that I like and that the client likes, with the confidence that if we like it, others will, too.

[Michael Whitaker]

I'm not as well read on the inner thoughts of the ODGs as most of you here, but I don't recall anyone, dead or alive, calling for an increase in the number of blind shots to make the game more interesting or appealing. Nor do I remember reading anywhere that an architect thought his course could have been better if only he could have devised a few more blind shots.

I wonder... how many courses that were reworked over the years by the ODGs had blind shots or quirky features ADDED after the original construction. When a change was made were not blind shots and quirk often REMOVED in favor of a more unobstructed experience for the golfer.

Patrick - Are there any instances you can site where a blind shot was added to a significant course after its initial construction? I can't think of any.

[Doug Ralston]

You think everyone wants downhill holes only?

We played 'Olde Beau' in NC a few months ago. There is 1500ft of total elevation change on this 'quirky' course. About 700 ft of that is UPhill. And many of those holes are great.

#18 at Dale Hollow, #4 at Kincaid Lake, #14 at Stonecrest ...... I can think of so many uphill holes I love.
 
But courses with a lot of elevation change in any direction are likely to be very much golf cart encouraged [some are so extreme that no realistic walking exists there]. Now, I love many of those courses, but you may not.

As for blind shots, I think that can be interesting if not overdone. I know at least two courses nearby that have definitely overdone it.

We are not obtuse ...... we all play courses for our own reasons.

Doug

[Bill Gayne]

I've been reading Darius Oliver's book and I've been thinking about this passage:

"The difference between enjoying a course like St. Andrews and understanding its relevant design concepts is huge, with many unable to distinguish between the features on the ground and the actual elements that really make the individual holes work."

Pat, I really think the public is "obtuse" for various reasons including that for the most part the have only played one style of golf course on a regular basis, the impact of media, and marketing. They know what they enjoy based on prior experiences and what they believe is good.

[TEPaul]

TomD---

     I'd just as soon direct this question or questions to you since you certainly have made a point over your career of seeking out, seeing and studying a large amount of courses around the world and obviously you have very much read and studied the written word and the opinions of architects over time about their craft and business including what should and shouldn't be at various times.

The first question is--do you think generally golfers come to want or appreciate various things on the one hand, or tend to not appreciate or want certain things on the other hand, because they've been led to believe they should appreciate certain things about a golf course and not appreciate other things about them?

Let's consider the issue of blindness in architecture and how the way it's percieved may've changed almost 180 degrees over time.

It's fairly well known that back in the 19th century the aspect of blindness was considered to be something of a prized feature. I suppose that was because there was so much of it naturally that it just became accepted.

All that seemed to change when architecture (and maintenance) became more capable of avoiding it in construction and maintenance. Beginning in the early 20th century architects began to criticize blindness.

Do you think architects began to do that because they felt golfers had come to resist it or for some other reasons?

I suppose what I'm trying to ask you is how much do you think architects can mold or alter golfers' opinions about what should and shouldn't be and secondly how much do you think they should try to do that?

I think golfers generally might tend to accept what their told to accept by people who they view as experts.

I guess the ultimate question is whether golf architects should play the role of leaders to a much larger degree or whether they should generally follow what they perceive golfers want and don't want?

I've always felt that golfers will learn quite easily to accept what they're given by those they generally feel know much more about golf architecture than they do.

But maybe that's not the case at all. Maybe golfers generally just have their own individual minds about these things and are not easily influenced even by those they might consider experts.

[TEPaul]

Patrick, I'd also like to ask you a question---seriously.

Why is it that you frame this issue of visiblity (or lack of blindness) by asking if the golfing public is obtuse because they seem to prefer visibility and not blindness?

What if they simply enjoy visibility and not blindness? Why do you think that makes them obtuse?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Benham,

If the owner/developer is giving the GCA directions and instructions, what does he need the GCA for ?

Let's use Mike Stranz as an example.  Two of his courses, Tobacco Road and Monterey Peninsula CC Shore are as different as night and day when you look at the design feature you started the topic with, blind shots.

Did he design these two courses without input, either directly or indirectly, from the owners and members?


In terms of routing and feature specifics, I'd say yes, absolutely.

What direct information do you have that it was a collaborative effort with the owners and members ?

What aspect of the routing and individual features did the owners/members craft ?

The Shore course at MPCC was originally designed by Neville and Baldock and Revised by Harris around 1962. [/color]

[paul cowley]

TomP....I think that in the beginning golfers had to play the course as they found it, and they came to appreciate blindness because it wasn't an option in many situations....it wasn't really questioned from a design viewpoint... it was more a site condition that they had to deal with....they didn't have a choice and they learned to play the course and its occasional blindness as one its challenges.

If they had an option between blindness and visibility, my gut feeling is that most of the earlier players would have chosen the later.

Its probably a natural condition of man to want to be able to see the adversary.

That being said....who does one design for?....the visual player or the player who appreciates unseen challenges?

That's an easy one....both of course!

[Patrick_Mucci]

I'm not as well read on the inner thoughts of the ODGs as most of you here, but I don't recall anyone, dead or alive, calling for an increase in the number of blind shots to make the game more interesting or appealing.

That's because an abundance of blind and/or semi blind shots were already manifested in their designs.

Why would they want overkill ?

They also tended to use what the land presented, whereas, modern day designers can change the landscape with the mere lowering of the blade.[/color]

Nor do I remember reading anywhere that an architect thought his course could have been better if only he could have devised a few more blind shots.

Why would he if they were already manifested in his design ?

I also don't remember reading why Orville and Wilbur Wright didn't mention that their aircraft would have better served its use if it had provided beverages, meals and TV.

Your analogy is fatally flawed.[/color]

I wonder... how many courses that were reworked over the years by the ODGs had blind shots or quirky features ADDED after the original construction.

Are you referencing the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 7th, 8th, 10th, 11th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th and 18th holes at NGLA ?

Where would you like additional blindness added ?[/color]

When a change was made were not blind shots and quirk often REMOVED in favor of a more unobstructed experience for the golfer.

Have someone explain it to you, that's a key element in the gist of this thread.[/color]

Patrick - Are there any instances you can site where a blind shot was added to a significant course after its initial construction?

Sure.  Would you classify ANGC as a significant course ?[/color]

I can't think of any.


Perhaps you're limiting your concept of how the blindness is created.

When holes are lengthened, often the DZ's are moved back and the intervening fairway now presents a blind shot.
[/color]

[Scott Weersing]

Yes, absolutely yes. I live in Chapel Hill, NC, about a 30-minute drive from Tobacco Road. I can't find anyone who will admit they like the course, let alone love or appreciate it. The best I can get out of anyone is that it's fun once or twice a year as something different, and that it has a great atmosphere. But it's thought of as tricked up and unfair. Yet is there anyone posting here that feels the same?

I have not played Tobacco Road but I am looking forward to playing a course that is different and memorable. There are enough Rees Jones courses here in Virginia Beach that I can't wait to play courses with quirk and blind shots into greens.

I think most golfers want a course that is what they expect with two par 5s and two par 3s per nine. They want a course that is affordable and you can take a cart. One reason I love Pacific Dunes is because it is not a normal routing and you have to walk. You don't need to have blind shots to have a great course. I can't think of too many at Pacific Dunes.

[TEPaul]

Paul:

Post #40 is a wonderful one. It's both far ranging and concise at the same time. It's printoutable.

That sentence that begins 'An educated man' is the most thought provoking.

I think it's important to add to that the fact that it doesn't just take a man who is educated period or intelligent above others. He has to be educated by and through the experiences of what the vagaries of his mind and body can and cannot do with a golf ball and golf club and how that plays out for him on a golf course.

It has never been lost on me, and I think I learned it early on as much via my father as on my own that golf can be one of the damnedest levelers with people in all of live.

I've met and played with people over time whose attention I could never have gotten if not for golf. When they can see that you can play a little---eg basically a lot better than they know they will ever be able to---it brings them down from their lofty perches in a heartbeat and so naturally.

In this way golf is a remarkable thing.

I just wonder how this plays out generally when golfers and even those high powered people interact with professional golf course architects.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick, I'd also like to ask you a question---seriously.

Why is it that you frame this issue of visiblity (or lack of blindness) by asking if the golfing public is obtuse because they seem to prefer visibility and not blindness?

What if they simply enjoy visibility and not blindness?
Then they enjoy less of a challenge.
And, challenge is an inherent virtue and lure of the game.[/color]

Why do you think that makes them obtuse?

Because of the effort to reduce the golf course to the lowest common denominator in terms of the challenge presented by the architectural features and THAT conflict with their specific games

More to follow below[/color]

TEPaul,

Seriously, think about the intent of the architect in terms of his intent relative the play of the game on any given hole and then think of how tees were elevated to thwart his presentation, his playing concepts, his desire to integrate the features he created with the play of the game.

Think of the removal of all of those features designed to interface with the golfer, features that had an intended purpose irrespective of the golfers view of them.

Now think of the golfer, discontent with a specific feature, lobbying to have it eradicated for his selfish self interest.
Then, expand your thought process to consider that other members may have disliked different features and if golfer (A) had been successful in having his nemisis removed, well why couldn't golfer (B), (C), (D), etc., etc., be successful in having their pet peeves removed ?

And so, there's a trend toward making the golf course "more fair" for special interest groups.

And how do you make it more fair, by removing distinctive features, and blindness and semi-blindness are one of those "lightning rod" features.

The inherent challenge presented by the architecture is also the inherent lure of the game, and when golfers, especially obtuse golfers, want to eliminate those challenges that have a particular effect on their game, they do so with a self interest and NO GLOBAL SENSE OF A DISINTERESTED CHALLENGE AS PRESENTED BY THE ARCHITECT.

Not every feature appeals to every golfers game.
A dogleg left may hamper the fader, a dogleg right may hamper the draw, but, is that a reason to lobby to alter those features ?

Since those unbalanced features may even out over the course of a round, they may be viewed as a tolerable nuisance, amongst different factions.

But, blindness and semi-blindness usually affects EVERY golfer, and thus it's easier to lobby and achieve a consensus amongst the membership.  The blindness or semi-blindness must go.  And in doing so, the club defeats a unique feature as conceived, designed and constructed by the architect.

Think about Pine Valley.

Do you think that Pine Valley would have retained most of it's early design features had it just been another suburban club run by the "membership" and a revolving board ?

I think not.

I think consensus building would have caused many a feature to have been altered or eradicated.

The same is probably true of Seminole, NGLA and other great clubs, clubs that had the wisdom to entrust the future of the golf course to a few select individuals.

One only has to study the disfigurations that have occured at club after club over the years to understand the concept

[paul cowley]

TomP.....I had deleted 'An educated man....', as too lofty .... but your thoughts were not lost on me. Thanks.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Patrick,

I think TD said it best - in Scotland, they tend to accept things as given a bit more. IN the US, we tend to want to change, renew (sometimes for the sake of renewing) etc. Its part of our culture.

That said, all of your verbiage doesn't necessarily address TePaul's point.  Why do we assume the gca had it right if he produced a blind hole. Just because he is retained as architect, doesn't mean he is infallible does it?  Or, if a hole - built to be enjoyed by the membership - is not enjoyed by the membership that their will should prevail.

What is more important - a consensus built over several years of playing a hole by those who count or a decision made perhaps in a split second by a gca in an office miles away?

As to challenge, there are many different types of golf challenges, and many would argue that blindness reduces that challenge as much as it enhances it. At the very least, someone could legitimately determine that it is not the kind of challenge they wish on their course. At best, many would accept both situational blindness (wrong side of fw) and occaisional blind shots as change of pace.  Few, as you note, would want a constant diet. Some want none, and in fact, I think thats been the general consensus.

And, if blindness is so easy to get rid of because its an easy consensus that its not good, why argue to the other way?  Because you know better than those heathens who pay the dues?

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Good answers there.

However, I tend to think that golfers generally are not really so obtuse as you seem to want to imply but they probably are as self-interested or even selfish as you imply about not wanting to face greater rather than less challenge in the game.

If we look back on the sweep of golf architecture, man-made golf architecture that is, it's pretty easy to see it has come a long, long way in about 150 years.

In that time mankind has obviously come to realize he is capable of dominating Nature about a hundred times more than back then.

But I don't think he really wants to completely dominate Nature in golf and architecture and basically just remove it entirely from the equation or golf really would become as defined and standardized as something akin to a tennis court where the sole purpose of the playing field is to isolate and highlight human skill and execution.

But I think golfers and architects alike have become content to manipulate Nature far more than they once were able to do and the first and perhaps one of the most significant casualities of that increased manipulation was the aspect of blindness in golf and architecture.

Who would deny that blindness in golf requires a certain amount of imagination and then trust in one's imagination to physically execute a swing and shot that matches one's imagination without some visual aid? And who would deny that the results inherent in blindness require patience in determining what really happened?

I don't think many today would deny that we are into a time and culture of instant gratification compared to the way the world once was.

There's no question that instant gratification requires more visibility or less blindness.

[TEPaul]

"Because you know better than those heathens who pay the dues?"

JeffB:

The ultimate question really does come down to that, doesn't it?

Come on, we have seen these same questions on here couched in the very same way. They all seem to imply that the questioner is the only one who knows best and that anyone who doesn't agree with him is an idiot or obtuse.

What about the idea that there can be a number of opinions about some subject and that's OK?

But how does a golf architect address something like that?

I guess with the issue of blindness to simply try to provide it if someone wants to play to it or with it and provide some way to avoid it if one wants to do that and can.  

I guess the rub is Mother Nature just doesn't always arrange things that way.

Frankly, all things in and all things considered, I'd prefer to sort of go along with Mother Nature and that arrangement. If and when that becomes too obnoxious simply try to route away from it or around it somehow.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TePaul,

Isn't there a good argument to be made that blind shots aren't as strategic as visible ones?  You can't plan for what you can't see, and I haven't heard too many folks wax poetic about "imaginating shots" as great design.

Forget the land arguments. The real arguments are made by players who prefer strategy to quirk or luck, no?

Sorry to sound like W.....I meant imagining shots!

[paul cowley]

Jeff....when you say "in the US, we tend to want to change, renew (sometimes for the sake of renewing) etc. Its part of our culture".

I'm curious, especially when you write "[for the sake of renewing]".....are you talking about the ritual drinking of rice wine, sake, as part of traditional Japanese renewal toasting?

...or are you just using 'sake' in the normally recognized English word definition?