Necessary Elements to Blind Tee Shots and Blind Approach Shots

[Patrick Kiser]

As I continue reading through the Kingsley thread and finished rereading the RCD volume, I wondered about something.

There's no question that Kingsley with it's up and down topography offers some interesting holes with the blindness aspect coming into play.  Ditto with RCD.  Maybe RCD has the most out there.  Not sure.

But what are some of the key elements to using blindness off the tee and on approaches effectively?

Off the tee, we've heard the need to exclude any additional hazards (e.g. such as water or a pot bunker).  But what about width, breadth ... and length?  What are the key elements that make the blind tee shot interesting and even exciting?

Maybe David Tepper will have a different opinion but when for instance I think about the 14th at San Geronimo, I still struggle with that hole and I think it's because the fairway narrows significantly once over the blind hill.  The hill also severely cants left to right.  Hit just over the hill with enough mustard and right of center and there's a strong chance you will have lost your ball because the cant contributes to the ball careening right heavily.  Go just enough offline from left center and it's bye bye over the fence.  Even Lincoln Park's blind 7th off the tee can feel pretty tight.  Anything right is huge trouble.  A little too offline left and good luck finding your ball.

But then I think of the 8th at Pebble.  Need I say more?  There's enough room for error and there's the excitement of seeing how tough you've set yourself up for your 2nd shot.

And what about the approach shot?  We know about the strategic element in gaining position into the green and whether blindness presents itself or not.  However, there's definitely some difference in opinion out there to the blindness of the approach relative ... to the distance into the green.

I thought Matt Cohn made a very interesting point with regard to the distance.  Quote:

" I'd rather be blind from 200 yards than from 100. From 200, I'm just trying to get the ball on the green anyway, most of the time. So if I have to pick a target in the background and it turns out that I'm off by a few yards, no big deal. There is some joy in coming around the hill and seeing the ball on the green.

From 100 yards, the expectation is for a precision shot. If the shot is blind, it seems like a letdown. I probably can't try to be very precise because I can't see the pin; at the same time, there's not as much suspense to the shot because it's a wedge, and it's probably going on the green anyway. It would feel like a bit of a letdown.

I'll take the appropriately forgiving 200 yard version anytime."

I couldn't agree more.  I think one of my all time most exciting shots ever was at Black Mesa from well over 200 yards out to an uphill blind green.  Just nutted it to within feet.  Don't ask me which hole because the grey matter is letting me down.  But I think for me the level of difficulty and risk/reward creates the element of excitement.  I just can't think of too many 100 yard in blind shots that offered the same level of excitement.

So, same question here.  What are the key elements that make the blind approach shot interesting and even exciting?

[Jeff_Brauer]

I think any blind shot, esp. the tee shot still needs some definition as to where to go.  It can be done with a slight valley to mark the general line.

On second shots on par 5's, I have made them optionally blind - the golfer always has the option to "play within his headlight range" and the blindness is the bold risk/reward option.

I like blind approach shots least of all, and think most golfers and gca's do, too, but the same general principles apply.  If its blind because its uphill, I tend to do "bunker left-bunker right" to define it.  I would be more likely to build a half blind green, along the lines of the Dell hole, but with some parts of the green visible for those who just don't feel comfy playing a blind shot under any circumstance.

[Sean_A]

Jeff

Thats interesting.  I have always thought blind shots should be blind - no markers - no clues - well, ok, I can understand markers for the sake of visitors, but...   

I think blind shots are great so long as it isn't easy to lose a ball.  I don't mind bunkers, but I really like blind tee shots where the following shot is critical for the angle of approach.  It absolutely requires the player to trust in his line and swing - perhaps the two hardest tasks the golfer faces with a blind shot. 

Due to my recent experience at Temple, I also really like the blind shot that seems improbable, almost a mirage like situation where it seems hard to believe there is a green stuck some place which seems like it should be visible.

Ciao

[TEPaul]

I may be in the extreme minority on the subject but I've never felt blindness in golf (and architecture) needs any "necessary elements". I feel the whole idea of "necessary elements" just works toward standardizations and formulaics in golf and architecture----ultimately not a good thing, in my opinion.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Sean,

I agree on losing the ball, and as Patrick opined, the fw should be wider and with no penalty causing hazards you can't see.  I disagree on the total blindness, having seen golfers tee off 180 degrees from the actual line of play.  and most players would disagree with the mirage.  

My "perfect" blind shot would be 4 at Royal St Georges, and Pete Dye has one at Stonebridge Ranch here in DFW.  The tee shot is blind, but there are some deep bunkers on the right.  You can play over the dip for fw centerlline, or shorten the par 5 a bit by going over the deep bunkers.  While you can't see a thing, somehow, standing on the tee (and maybe looking at the little scorecard map or knowing Pete) I instinctively knew that the first time I played and enjoyed it, then, and every subsequent playing.

In truth, blind shots are inferior conceptually to visible ones, at least if you believe in strategic design.  We accept them when they have to be built because of rock, or whatever, or occaisionally as different types of shotmaking tests.  But, I feel there is very little room in golf for a purposeful shot that would confuse a golfer trying for score, and hence the need for some kind of definition to make it palatable.

[Sean_A]

Sean,

I agree on losing the ball, and as Patrick opined, the fw should be wider and with no penalty causing hazards you can't see.  I disagree on the total blindness, having seen golfers tee off 180 degrees from the actual line of play.  and most players would disagree with the mirage.  

My "perfect" blind shot would be 4 at Royal St Georges, and Pete Dye has one at Stonebridge Ranch here in DFW.  The tee shot is blind, but there are some deep bunkers on the right.  You can play over the dip for fw centerlline, or shorten the par 5 a bit by going over the deep bunkers.  While you can't see a thing, somehow, standing on the tee (and maybe looking at the little scorecard map or knowing Pete) I instinctively knew that the first time I played and enjoyed it, then, and every subsequent playing.

In truth, blind shots are inferior conceptually to visible ones, at least if you believe in strategic design.  We accept them when they have to be built because of rock, or whatever, or occaisionally as different types of shotmaking tests.  But, I feel there is very little room in golf for a purposeful shot that would confuse a golfer trying for score, and hence the need for some kind of definition to make it palatable.

Jeff

But the 4th at Sandwich is a "choice" blinder.  One can bail to the left which of course leaves a terrible angle of approach.  So yes, in this sense, the choice of risking the blind shot is strategically superior to a forced blind shot, but I really wouldn't call this a blind shot hole as there is a choice.  I spose the same could be said of blind approaches.  The ones where good tee shot position offers a view of the green (again, Sandwich offers a few doozies with the 5th not being a bad example) aren't really blind approaches. 

Ciao

[Patrick Kiser]

I may be in the extreme minority on the subject but I've never felt blindness in golf (and architecture) needs any "necessary elements". I feel the whole idea of "necessary elements" just works toward standardizations and formulaics in golf and architecture----ultimately not a good thing, in my opinion.

TEPaul,

Fair enough and maybe the choice of words wasn't the best.

So how about this: what makes an interesting and exciting blind tee or approach shot vs. not?  What makes the difference?

[TEPaul]

"So how about this: what makes an interesting and exciting blind tee or approach shot vs. not?  What makes the difference?"


PatrickK:

I'm trying very hard to consider that question and some appropriate answer to it but perhaps you're asking the wrong guy because at the moment I can't seem to think of a single blind shot I've experienced that I've  felt did not afford some kind of interest and excitement! 

[TEPaul]

PatrickK:

Actually I can think of a blind shot that was really bad. It was on the second shot of a par 5 (#10) on an Arnold Palmer course north of Pittsburgh. It was really badly designed particularly for something like the opening round in the Pennsylvnania State Amateur where about 90% of the field had no idea what to do or where to go. To say it created a pace of play problem is a massive understatement.

[Patrick Kiser]

PatrickK:

Actually I can think of a blind shot that was really bad. It was on the second shot of a par 5 (#10) on an Arnold Palmer course north of Pittsburgh. It was really badly designed particularly for something like the opening round in the Pennsylvnania State Amateur where about 90% of the field had no idea what to do or where to go. To say it created a pace of play problem is a massive understatement.

Tell us more. 

What was so bad about it?  Was it just the complete lack of knowing where to go off the tee or was there more to it?  Did it have anything to do with where the first shot landed and how it positioned you?  Was there something in the landing area of that 1st shot?  Or did it have to do with the blindness into the green?

[Tim Bert]

I like blind approaches that offer a preview. That way the attentive golfer is rewarded.

Two examples -

The Alps hole at Yale has a blind approach and depending on where you are the odds are that you will not see the flag at all. BUT if you look closely at the green from the tee you can get a glimpse at the pin and at least attack the correct side of the green since missing to the wrong side is treacherous.

Another example comes into play for fully or partially blind shots where the golfer has a chance to examine the green prior to playing the hole. This allows the golfer to see what is required but still offers the thrill of the blind shot. This is what happens at Kingsley. Depending upon where you are hitting from you might have somewhat blind approaches on 4 or 5 or 6. For 4 the green is in full view on the walk from 2 to 3. For 5 the green is in full view as you move from 1 to 2. For 6 the green can be viewed from 4 tee.

[James Boon]

I've never minded blind holes, in fact I quite like it when there are a few on a course. I think its just the excitement of rising up over the hill or whatever has made it a blind shot, to see where your ball has finished up, be it in the fairway or on the green?

I find that a punchbowl green often works well on blind approach shots, and slightly wider fairways on blind tee shots.

When I played Royal County Down in September our caddie was invaluable, due to the number of blind shots. However on the 11th hole he told us where to go and then we proceeded to spray balls all over the place regardless of where he had suggested we go, and I'd hit every fairway up till then. So whether we could see where we were going or not didn't matter...

Lastly, two points I always make in defending the occasional blind shot (cliche alarm!). Firstly no one ever said this game was meant to be fair (afterall life isnt always fair) and secondly remember that its only a blind shot the first time you play it, so pay attention! 

Cheers,

James

[JESII]

Is there a good blind shot out there that would be considered less than good if it were not blind?

[Mike_Cirba]

Jim,

Define "less good". 

Would the 18th tee shot at Merion have the same excitement if it was all wholly visible, or would you still ascend out of the quarry with the same sense of wonder and anticipation?

[JESII]

Mike,

I was asking "less than good" because I was wondering if blindness alone can make a shot good or great when it would otherwise be mediocre.

I think once your drive on #18 at Merion becomes blind you are quite happy...because you've cleared the wall...and no worse than a 6 or a 7 is likely...

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick:

We have had versions of this discussion before, and it always comes down to the same thing ... few people like blind shots in general, but we can always rationalize it for a hole which feels exciting to us. 

Your rationalization of the tee shot at Pebble Beach is one such example; I can't believe anyone would enjoy that tee shot in isolation, but it's followed by the greatest second shot in golf.  Likewise, when we were starting Old Macdonald, I had several people insist that the tee shot on our "Road Hole" should be blind -- even that we should build something in the way -- even though it's the approach shot which (to me) makes that hole great.

It would be cool to divide blind shots into different categories, and then have a vote on who likes what.

So, here are some examples:

1.  Blind par-3 to green in hollow -- the Dell
2.  Blind par-3 over ridge to green in open -- the Himalayas @ Prestwick
3.  Blind par-3 over side of ridge -- 15th Cruden Bay

4.  Blind tee shot over marker post -- several at Royal County Down
5.  Blind tee shot over gorse -- #6 St. Andrews
6.  Blind tee shot over building -- #17 St. Andrews
7.  Blind tee shot over hill in fairway -- #10 Kapalua (Plantation)
8.  Blind tee shot off shelf of fairway -- #6 Kapalua
9.  Blind tee shot up hill to fairway above -- #8 Pebble Beach

10.  Blind second shot over hill on par-5 -- #4 Lahinch
11.  Blind second shot over hazard on par-5 (option to play around) -- #6 Old Macdonald

12.  Blind approach (long) over ridge -- #13 Rye
13.  Blind approach into hollow -- #7 Camargo, several at Machrie
14.  Blind approach over sandhill bunker -- #6 St. Enodoc


For me, the most important part of a blind shot is that the intervening hazard is impressive and fun to hit over.  If it isn't, then someone like me just wonders why they didn't route the course differently to avoid that blind shot.  If it is big and fun, I'll almost always give it the benefit of the doubt.

By that standard, the tee shot at Pebble Beach is a mess.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

I'm probably an exception, but I love all of the types you mentioned.

The problem with the thinking about #8 at Pebble is 1) The 7th wouldn't have been built today or/and 2) If it was built today, most of today's architects would just play the hole and then cart them 200 yards back up the hill for the next great view/hilltop tee shot. 

[Tom_Doak]

Mike:

I'm not saying that the routing for that part of Pebble Beach isn't the best it could be -- and better than anybody else would have done, because most of us either wouldn't have seen the site for #7, or would have avoided the blind tee shot for #8, or all that and more.

I'm just saying that to call the tee shot at Pebble Beach a great blind shot, in and of itself, is ridiculous.  It's a blind layup.  Just for reference, can you name another blind layup that anyone would call good?

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

I can't think of too many good blind layups...ok...I can't think of any! 

However, was it a layup shot at the time it was designed, or did it take a good blow by the better player to reach the optimum spot for the approach shot?

[Tom_Doak]

That's a fair question, which I've never really thought much about.

Certainly Jones would have had to lay up.  But the 5- or 10-handicap male golfer in the 1920's probably didn't ... IF they let him play the back tees.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

I don't have the yardage in front of me, but I'll Google Earth it later.   I just seem to recall Nicklaus hitting 3-wood during the 70s - 80s, so imagined the most mortals in earlier times could have/would have needed to hit driver.

[David Botimer]

How about the 2nd shot on 6 at Pebble Beach?  For me it was a "choice" shot in that going for the green in 2 meant a 3 wood which might not even clear the top of the hill (I'm just not good enough to know every time how high my ball flight is  ).  A layup would have taken double bogey out of play (my line required flirting with the O.B. right), but also eliminated birdie.  Fun shot!  I cleared the hill, and was left with a 20 yard chip shot.

[David_Tepper]

Patrick K. -

The tee shot on #14 at San Geronimo is probably the quirkiest, most blind tee shot of any hole I can think of in the SF Bay Area (or just about anywhere else for that matter!).  I am pretty sure San Geronimo was built after WWII, which means the course is not that old, but I certainly can't imagine anyone designing a hole with a tee shot like that today. On the other, the setting of the green on that hole is very, very good. It is possibly the best green site on the course.   

I usually bail on that tee shot and hit a weak push slightly right, which leaves me 180 yards or more into the green.  On one or two occasions, I have actually hit a nice draw over the marker post and been nicely rewarded for doing so, with my ball winding up no more than 125 yards from the green. The downslope of the hill actually slopes left and moves balls hit left of the marker towards the green.

I would like to think Vernon Macan was aware of this feature and designed the hole to reward to well hit tee shot.

DT     

[Patrick Kiser]

I'm just saying that to call the tee shot at Pebble Beach a great blind shot, in and of itself, is ridiculous.  It's a blind layup.  Just for reference, can you name another blind layup that anyone would call good?

Tom,

I think I must have lost you somewhere.  The purpose of my thread was to get at what makes, and I quote myself, "what are the key elements that make the blind tee shot interesting and even exciting?".  I further refined it after TEPaul's feedback to rephrase and ask "what makes an interesting and exciting blind tee or approach shot vs. not?  What makes the difference?".

That what I'm trying to get at.

The mention of the Pebble 8th was just to state how "there's the excitement of seeing how tough you've set yourself up for your 2nd shot".

There's isn't the same kind of instant gratification we would otherwise experience from a non-blind tee shot and that I feel is one of the key elements of the blind tee shot from my experience.  But what contributes more to this is that the fairway is expansive enough and provides a margin of error.  If that just so happens to be layup then so be it.  If the fairway was very narrow and several tee shots went into oblivion down the rocky shore ... well then not very exciting.

I don't recall saying the actual blind part of the 8th was great.  What's cool to me is the combination of the blindness with the positioning if offers relative to the layup.  Not to mention the vista into the green and the sight of the 9th and 10th.

Now to your point about the "most important part of a blind shot is that the intervening hazard is impressive and fun to hit over".  Is that all it takes?  Nothing more?  I'm not thinking so from my experience at this point.  What if we had the interesting and impressive intervening hazard to hit over,  but then not much of a fairway beyond that?  Or into a pot bunker or water came into play?  Etc., etc.

I'm just thinking there's more to it and was just trying to get to the bottom of it, if possible.

The list you provide and suggestion to the categories is a good start, but it's still not telling me what some of the keys are.  I certainly wish I could get to play those someday to find out for myself.

[James Boon]

Thinking of the elements that make for what I consider a good blind tee shot, I start to think of holes on links courses where from the tee there is rough ground and the element we are hitting over that makes it blind is a sandhill or dune that is equally rugged in character. A view that is both intimidating and exciting.  I'm thinking 6, 9 or 11 at RCD, 8 at Saunton, perhaps 8 at Brora or even the shot over the bunkers on the 4th at Westward Ho!? If it was a gentle uphill slope towards the top of a rise, with no real challene, I don't think it would have the same excitement?

The second key element I think of on a blind tee shot is the reveal at the top of the rise, where we get to see a, where our ball is and b, what else there is out there? In this respect I love 9 at RCD, with a tee shot over rough ground an a reveal of a fantastic view and the challenge of the long approach shot. I've not played Pebble Beech but I imagine the reveal at the top of the rise is spectacular, but that the view from the tee shot is not so exciting?

Though I'm sure I've just listed a few holes that strike fear into higher handicap golfers! The higher handicap players I played with at RCD seemed terrified on the blind tee shots but enjoyed there game nevertheless?

Cheers,

James