J Slonis - keep in mind blind shots are only blind the first time - a good player will learn what to do with it once he knows what is there.
That's not true.
A blind hole is blind EVERY time.
I don't know of a single golfer that hits the ball in the exact same spot every time he plays a blind hole, nor do I know of a golf course that keeps the hole location the same, day in and day out.
While you may have a general feel for the nature of the blind hole, it remains blind every time you play it from a new position to a new hole location.
Having played the 16th hole at NGLA a good number of times, the punchbowl nature of the green has saved innumerable miscalculations on my part.[/color]
Sand Hills is a good example - it has a lot of approaches in particular where the pin is elevated such that we would consider it blind.
Which holes ?[/color]
But once you play it, you understand the next time what to do with the shot and how the course offers endless possibilities - probably why it has been among my favorite golf experiences ever.
Even with nearly half of the approaches falling into this category (1,5,6,9?,10,11,12?,13,15,17,18) mentally I can sit here today and visualize what is needed.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your definition of "blind" but, on most of those holes you can see the hole location at some point during the play of the hole, or from a prior hole.[/color]
So if we want to term it good visuals, or whatever, at least being able to visualize a shot and then trying to execute it is what makes it for me.
Then I take it that you don't like # 17 at Prestwick or # 3 at NGLA ?[/color]
I think the definition of "blind" may be in question, but my interpretation is that I cannot see the majority of the area to which I am intending to hit my shot. But "blind" and "unknown" are not the same thing to me, meaning that even if I cannot see where I want to land the ball, at least having played a course before I know where I want to go with it - even if hitting from different parts of the course.
A good example from Sand Hills is the very first hole, especially if you lay-up for your third. Standing in the fairway you cannot see the surface of the green, but realize it does sit in a bit of a bowl with plenty of room to hit it left or to the back of the green. So while it may not be visible, it allows me to know what I need to do.
I also think one key difference exists between an "average" 18-hcp and an "average" scratch golfer - the average golfer has trouble telling the depth of the pin location, even on his regular course. Conversely, better (or at least more observant) golfers can usually judge reasonably well the depth of an elevated pin. Maybe playing golf since I was standing makes it easier for me to judge something like this than it does for other players - so to me "blind" shots don't necessarily mean that I don't have a good mental image of what I need to do.
Prestwick #17 - not having played it, I assume the "alps" interfere with the view of the approach. I am certain that during the Open Championship each contestant knows exactly what he is trying to do with his shot. Blind but not unknown.
NGLA? Sound like #16 is a pretty fun hole - assume it is blind too but at least you know you have some bailout.
So maybe to sum up - my original comment about good visuals should be translated as a hole that has enough character to stand out in my mind so that each time I play it, I recognize the challenges, and in doing so can choose to try a shot that would best negotiate the obstacles ahead.