The "eye" in architecture

[TEPaul]

I've been mulling over what might be called the "eye" in architecture, particularly during the "Raynor Paradox" topic and the similar topic on designing on level land and all the conjecture about why some of Raynor's courses on level land are appealing while a level land course like Shadow Creek might not be. Much on that particular thread I do not agree with either, by the way!

But good architects have a good "eye" for not only identifying and incorporating various features and topography into routings and golf holes, they obviously also can have a good "eye" for creating good architeture on level land.

But the "eye" I'm most interested in is the golfer's "eye" and how the architect strives to direct it and focus it (or not) in various and interesting ways!

It's generalizing but some of the modern architects, like a Tom Fazio seem intent on creating enormous "whole hole" settings that probably effect the "eye" and the senses immensely.

Modern architects (and maybe the older ones too) are often trained or just instinctual in landscape architecture techniques that are used to primarily effect the golfers "eye". In this context we're talking designed uses and art priniciples of "harmony", "proportion", "balance", "rhythm", "emphasis" and "focal points".

Logically, this is all probably done to effect the golfer's "eye" and also to effect the ways he may think to play the course and the holes. This should translate into the strategies the golfer may try, I'm sure!

In almost all of this business I've always been struck how almost every designer inluding Fazio, Rees and even Tom Doak and Bill Coore have mentioned that the "eye" probably should be directed but more importantly and far more interesting to me that nothing should be offered architecturally that might be MORE than the "eye" can take in AT ONE TIME! I suppose by this that a single "focal point" should be used architecturally or maybe a few of them in close proximity!

The reason I'm interested and am making this post is because I don't think I agree with any of this! I don't think I agree with it at all--at least not always! And I've been thinking about it and wrestling with it for about three years now!

I have nothing against a good golf hole that might be "right in front of you" with everything about it clear and apparent including to an alarmingly obvious degree how to play the hole.

It's fine with me to have holes like this but I would prefer to mix them with holes that nothing was particularly apparent about how to play them--that no particular focal point directed the "eye" or even caught the "eye". The holes I know of like this make you look at them and search them as to WHAT to do, maybe even which way they go, but certainly HOW to play them! Many times nothing much is clear at all! I love holes like this!

If they deceive you or even trick the "eye", that's OK with me--frankly I think I like it much better that way. They force you to pay attention, to study them and to concentrate! To me holes like this are an instant and obvious reminder of what golf "strategy" is all about--it's often your very own way of doing things, or should be and for you to figure out for yourself!

So as an architectural example of what I mean there is probably no better example this way than NGLA. I say this because the dramatic, unique and often natural topography that MacD and Raynor used for golf (without touching it) is the best example of this in how they used sometimes radically manufactured sections of these holes combined with radically natural sections to do all kinds of interesting things with the golfer's "eye".

On the flatter sections of NGLA or at least the more generally visible sections the holes are often more low keyed, the  architecture seems to direct the "eye" more, at least to what it appears you should do.

Every hole at NGLA I think is varied this way and at some point I'd like to go through them all and explain how different they are to me regarding the golfer's "eye". But just to use the first two for now.

#1! is visible in its entirety before you but the focal point of the highly manufactured green site off to your left and very much the high risk option pulls you and your 'Eye" and aim toward it subliminally when the conservative play is maddeningly far off to the right of it! A short unique hole whose focal points and "eye" direction are anything but clearcut and simple.

#2!! What can you say about this hole? For a first time player it may be on the outside limit of no focal point at all--no architecural direction of the "eye" whatsoever!! Just an enormous and immensely BROAD ridge with nothing to direct the "eye" at all and a hole that is all spatial sense and feel for the first time player. Talk about a hole where the first time player (and his ball) is flying blind from the tee!! In the end, to me, this may be one of the more brilliant and fascinating golf holes of all--and probably 95% of it is natural!

But there are so many great holes to talk about that are confusing to the "eye" and do anything but direct it! Some of my favorites on a list I'll be adding to.

Pacific Dunes #16!!
Pacific Dunes #1!, #6!, #9!!
Merion's #11!, #4!, #6!, #7!, #8!
Pine Valley's #4!!, #6!, #8!, #12!, #13!!, #16!
NGLA's #1!, #2!!!, #7!, #11!, #14!!, #16! and even very much #17 right down in front of you with its broad expanse of architecture for the "eye" to contend with!
Maidstone #17!!!, probably my favorite of all for some reason.
Easthampton #11!

But probably everybody's all time best for no particular focal points for the "eye"--no direction at all just a whole series of them! And all of it an architect's own creation on a short flat piece of ground---Riviera's #10!!!

So, I guess I'm saying I don't really agree that a hole should direct the "eye" or even have a "focal point". To me it's OK to have many of them or even none. I do like the so-called "whiterock" holes of County Down but I could even like them better without the "whiterocks".

And even that hole at Ardrossan that's not been built and may never be that's the broadest thing you ever saw but right in front of you (maybe starting with an LZ that's about 130yds wide (fairway) and fanning out farther down to almost 250yds in width (fairway width!). I love that hole but the focal points are multiple and the whole thing is far too much for the "eye", certainly at one time--in its case you very much have to just look around and pick something and concentrate. Even Bill Coore said it was probably too much for the "eye", but I don't agree and strongly so. I don't agree with Bill Coore on everything!

I've never actually found anyone to agree with me on this--but I feel it could be a new dimension in golf architecture and strategy too. I recognize this kind of thing may come at a premium, though, as generally the necessary ingredient is width--and sometimes extreme width--and that can be expensive!

[Chris_Clouser]

I would add the 4th and 5th at Crystal Downs to your list of holes.  I may also add holes 12 and 17 to that.  On 17, you can see the green, but the first time on the tee, do you really know where is the best place to hit the ball?  I wouldn't have guessed right the first time I was there.  Having walked the course a couple of times now, I think I know, but I'm probably wrong.  On 12, the first time there, I had no clue where the green was, but you are drawn to that tree that's about 250 yards I would guess and feel that is a safe place to play to.  It is, but it isn't the most daring tee shot for that hole and it leaves you with a much longer approach.  

[JEarle]

TEPaul
 You make a couple good points that I think we touched on briefly under a different post when we discussed " curveballs "  within the course. I think it is the ability of the better architects to use the different forms of "eye" strategy as another feature of architecture. This combined with landforms, shot selection, angles of play etc. help create enormous VARIETY! This is one of the top reasons that architecture is considered successful.  

  To many times today we see architects who use the wrong forms of " eye " to create " good " designs.  We have talked about architects who use " eye candy " as the reasons for justifing thier styles. They try anything and eveything to distract the eye from the fact there is  NO strategy or options behind the design. We see waterfalls, ornamental trees, framing bunkers, wild flowers, brillant white sand, radiant green grass, and " striped grass " ( double cut - criss cross mowing patterns ) etc. All because the architects / developers believe that this is what the people want. What about good, fun architecture that has options and strategy for all types of players?

  Then there is the " I " architects who produce the same cookie cutter golf courses regardless of the landforms or locations. They continue to mass produce designs year after year void of any variety within the course and from design to design for that matter. Their idea is to design as many courses as possible.

  And lastly there are  " third eye " designs and we can only imagine the type of work that I am thinking about!

[Slag_Bandoon]

Interesting topic Tommy,
   There are times when I wonder why the architect MADE a hole. Was nature so ugly through his eyes to his mind that he had to change it to what he thinks beauty is?  And then, to present a panorama of obviousness.  
  #10 at Apache Stronghold is powerful eye dynamics - A sand filled gulch running the length of the fairway zigging and zagging like a lightning bolt at your feet.  Where to go?  Prayers help.   That whole place lets the eye wander with dreamy fascination.  Sure there's spots to hit but it's through a minefield of distractions.  

[TEPaul]

I guess what I'm saying is it would not be a bad idea to cut way back on focal points used for architectural direction or indication that lead and focus the "eye" on what to do. Let the player figure things out for himself by scrutinizing the landscape of the hole. Naturally this won't or can't work all that well with holes that are sitting right in front of you in every way--afterall how much can an architect hide things. The point is they don't seem to even try now! They appear to go the other way and think that the golfer needs a very clear road map--must have one in fact or they will be very confused and most unhappy.

I say confuse them or at least let them feel they figured something out for themselves and they just might end up being happier!

It's sort of the old psychoanalytical dictum that if the doctor just tells the patient what's wrong with him he's bound not to accept it or understand but if the doctor can cleverly lead him to where the patient thinks he's figured his problems out for himself then he will be an immaculate mental specimen---like me!

[Slag Bandoon]

 How much freedom does the architect have in a project?   He is expected to design for an owner/investment group/condo buyers/casual golfer/serious golfer within the confines of limited land and to make it grrrreat and wow! and this all has to be sensed on the first round or the word of the players will destroy a reputation only developed from hypey publications.  
  Marketing of golf courses has become a nauseating collection of cliches.  It presents the features and benefits of a course and its environs as idealic; as if to say that "all golfers want is green grass, waterfalls and a warm place to go to the bathroom."  
   Humanities detachment from natural nature is a sad attribute of devo (de-evolution).  The Earth has quite an interesting yarn to spin if we'd lend time for a conversation with her.  
   So, to your question Tom,  I agree that the "rub of the green mental process of golf should be more prevalent - and taught (marketed?).  Designers : Fight the dumbing! Go for the highest uncommon denominator.

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom Paul:

I'm a very big fan of golf holes where it is difficult to figure out where to hit the shot.  Generally speaking, modern architects don't do enough of this.

Like Chris Clouser, I find #5 at Crystal downs very tricky just to look at and I especially agree with your nomination of #9 at Pacific Dunes.

For simple confusion (can I say that?), I think #6 at Ballybunion is one of the very best.

[Jim_Kennedy]

TEPaul,
If you built the hole you've envisioned at Androssan wouldn't it need a green site that accepted shots from any approach?
Conversely, if the hole is laid out before the player it usually shows the optimal landing area for the optimal approach. In this case the greensite can be tightened up to a greater degree. Any permutations in between these extremes would preferably incorporate a greensite that lent itself to the requirements of the tee shot. I am only speaking about par 4's as 5's offer the extra shot to correct misplacement and 3's are usually apparent in their requirements.
I have a feeling that great holes do this. You know the holes you cited, do they resemble my remarks?

[Mike O'Neill]

TEPaul,

I cannot say that I follow exactly all that you are saying here. But you seem to be saying that we need not "focus" so much on the "eye" when designing golf holes. I have a theory regarding the aesthetics of golf holes that starts with the way the eye works. The most important element of a golf hole in terms of aesthetics is contrast. And the reason is because contrast is the most fundamental aspect of the eye's ability to provide information to the brain. Contrast is sensed not only in color differential but in depth perception. An educated brain, one informed through experience, can "perceive" the flow of a golf hole through contrast. That is so fundamental to the human experience that it is no wonder that artists, in this case golf hole designers, are naturally trying to communicate something visually. (By the way, for those who are not so fond of bunkers, bunkers are an excellent tool for providing information through contrast.)

Now the question of whether or not one should spend hours and hours of time trying to communicate "focal points" to golfers is a good question. Frankly, a lot of time is wasted in the field when a designer stands in one place in the fairway and stews and stews over the edge of a bunker and how it looks in relation to the green. You get the look you want and then wander over to the right thirty feet and the look has changed! The exception to that is when one spends time on a tee. From the tee, you can be reasonably certain that the view of the hole is similar for each golfer. Once the tee ball has been hit however, each golfer will find his/her own vista depending upon where the tee ball comes to rest.

I believe that the more important part of the design is not how the bunker edge "looks" in relation to the green, but in how it "plays". Having said that however, you just can't take away the artist's desire to communicate visually. It is great fun and at the heart of the artistic process. If you and I were out at Bayside in Nebraska today, I would take you to a couple of spots on the course where as I was building some bunkers I was thinking very much of the occasional golfer who might happen to land in a certain area and what that golfer would be faced with visually. And I think it would be fun for you to imagine along with me the reaction of said golfer. Some of that is just a great part of the design process.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I think one of the primary functions of good architecture is to send the proper tactical signals to the eye, regarding the play of the hole.

Without that message to the golfer how would he analyze the play of the hole ?

NGLA sends that message to the golfer on virtually every shot.
NGLA is the pinnacle of focusing on the " EYE"

[Richard_Goodale]

I agree with Patrick.  On any good golf hole your "eye" should be relatively easily attuned to the options available--if not the first time, than at least the second time you play the hole (sort of a variation on Tommy Armour's quote about "blindness").  I personally felt that both NGLA and Pacific Dunes and Merion were fairly easy courses on which to visualize what shot needed to be played.  This is GOOD.  Actually executing the shots you knew you had to play was the hard part!

[TEPaul]

Mike O'Neill;

I don't blame you for not being able to follow exactly what I was trying to say in the original post. I reread it and it sure is anything but clear!

But yes, I think what you said in your post is SOME of what I'm saying, that an architect should NOT necessarily set a focal point (to grab the golfer's eye) that is the obvious way for a golfer to go or play a hole!

I don't think an architect should create what some call "road map" holes using focal points for a golfer's "eye" to pick up on instantly or even easily! But many architects seem to like to do that and want to do that.

I don't really favor holes that a golfer stands on the tee and the focal point that leads the golfer's "eye" is the only way to go because I can't imagine that's particularly interesting from the standpoint of strategy, options, optional strategies, whatever you want to call it!

I do realize, however, that even options and strategy are not everything in golf architecture, at least not in a directional sense--just one of the most interesting parts and principles of it. There's certainly plenty of use and validity to holes that are obvious and demanding, I suppose,  even those that might be one dimensionally demanding and obvious.

Of course it's difficult to make this point or these points of mine because so many holes have so many nuances regarding these points of mine and it's very hard for me to be clear-cut about explaining them.

So the best thing to do, I suppose, is to start offering examples of various holes and to try to explain how I think they effect the golfer's "eye" in various interesting ways, how they use "focal point" for the golfer's "eye" or not, and also how this translates into how to play them or not.

Certainly plenty of contributors have discussed the nuances of great holes and how they play, how to play them but maybe not exclusively in the context of how they effect the golfer's "eye". That's what I would like to try to do!

And Mike, color contrast and depth perception are surely essential elements in all this! Those two and so many more that impact a player, his "eye", lead his "eye", confuse his "eye", fake out his "eye", or even make him search with his eyes to figure out where the focal points are or even if there are any in his selection of club, distance and shot!

[Paul Albanese]

It has been a while for me to respond on the site -- due mostly to the fact that once I start, my addiction to this site comes back, and I find myself spending way too much time here.  But, once again, I cannot help myself.

I agree with TEPaul about NOT always creating a golf holes that are direct roadmaps to how they should be played.  Creating golf holes without a "directionality" is an excellent addition to a combination of holes.  I would not want every hole to be that way -- just as I would not want to get on every hole and know that there is some visual clue as to how to play the hole.  I think it great for an architect to intentionally leave out "the clue" or the "obvious eye" as to how to play the hole.  Just as I hate seeing movies where the "clues" given during the first half, make it obvious as to how the end will be.  Have you ever seen a very good movie where maybe the plot was not that easy to follow -- but you leave the theatre thinking about it -- wondering what the director or writer was trying to get across.  I used to hate movies like that --- I used to desire a straight forward, "tell me what is going on" kinda movie.  But, then I started watching some of these movies that did not have the standard "hollywood" script -- OK, call them artsy -- and I would come away -- yes, a little confused at first.  But, I realized that I was thinking about the movie the entire night -- and for much of the next day.  And, then I realized I enjoyed it -- because it was making me think, and wonder -- these movies were making my mind and imagination work.  
     I think the same comparison can be made to one of these golf holes that do not have an "eye" or an obvious way to play them -- they make you put your own story together - the architect creates a situation where you have to let your own imagination and creativity take over --- now that is cool.  

[Mike O'Neill]

TEPaul,

I hope I am remembering #2 at NGLA correctly. If not, disregard this post.

When I played NGLA, I did so with someone who told me just to hit the ball over the ridge on #2. He said its very wide out there and anything will do. So I hit away and ended up on the back, far right side of the green with the pin on the far left side. Now I am not good enough to have controlled my tee shot and directed it to the far left side of the green. At the time I didn't know I was going to end up on the green at all. But if I were playing that again, and I were going to lay up with a three-iron short of the green, I might want to know which side of the fairway to lay up to. The blindness of that ridge takes away my ability to see the flagstick. And the tee shot becomes a real guessing game. I can just as well flip a coin and let that determine my avenue of play, my choice of landing areas. Yes, there is the sense of wonder after hitting your shot that is fun. But I am not so sure that I want to be rewarded for guessing "heads" correctly. Maybe the flagstick should have a visual cue, one of those marking stones I see pictured on the British courses. How do you play that hole?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike O'Neill,

If you hit over Don Kings hair, you can't go wrong, unless you miss your drive, you should end up in the middle of the approach or green, depending on your length.
Usually the caddy will stand on the top of the hill and give you the line, but I see your point, especially when the next green has a directional flag and # 2 doesn't.

[Mike O'Neill]

Patrick,

Thanks. I really need to be as close to the pin as possible at NGLA. I hit 11 of 14 fairways and totally got my brains beat in around the greens. I three putted from whatever distance that is on #2 from the far right to the far left. And I was happy to do so.

We did not have caddies by the way. I had to rely on my own "eyes" and they always seemed to get blurry on and around the greens.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike O'Neill,

I play with three brothers who have been members there for some time.  I can't begin to tell you the shots that I have learned from watching them play the golf course, it has been enlightening, and I'm talking about mostly in to and around the greens.  Left to my own devices it would have taken me years to learn through personal experience what I gleened from them.

Local knowledge is MAJOR.

As an example, there must be dozens of ways to play the third shot into # 7 from 5 to 100 yards in, and the variables increase dramatically as the pin is moved.

What a great place to play golf !

[TEPaul]

Mike O'N:

There you go! #2 NGLA is one of the really good examples of a hole with NO or very minimal "focal point" to direct a player's "eye" in an architectural context and hence his aim and strategy! Someone like Pat Mucci may say aim over "Don King's hair" and actually I have no idea what that is or means--I assume a patch of grass that's as good an aiming point as any.

Pat's point is well taken because what he's identified as the only real "focal point" (for the golfer's "eye") of the hole is really not in an architectural context and is nothing more than a clump of grass which comes with probably a good deal of local knowledge (or the advice of a player or caddie).

The point here is that #2 NGLA has no real "architectural focal point" to catch and lead the "eye" in an architecturally significant context to direct the golfer's strategy or line of play! Certainly it can't be assumed that Raynor/MacDonald had any plans for something like "Don King's hair" and architecturally all they provided the golfer with was an enormously broad, diagonal ridge with a diagonal bunker cut alone some of it and backdropped by sky!

This sort of architectural offering on the tee shot is anything but a "focal point" architecturally! Just the opposite in fact! The architects basically removed any "focal point" from the golfer in an architectural context and only supplied him with a broad high ridge to drive over with a variation in available aim that might span about 50-60 yds! And, to boot, this entire ridge is completely natural. They touched nothing about it during construction except to cut the wide diagonal bunker into it near its crest just below where it blended into sky!

This is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about as a lack of architectural "direction" or "road mapping" to direct a golfer strategically. But this one is essentially blind and actually there are other available holes at NGLA that are not as blind but still architecturally minimize or even almost remove architectural "focal points" available to the golfer!

NGLA is probably as good a course as any to go through the holes and talk about architectural "focal points" or lack of them because in fact the course's holes have some of everything and pretty much spans the spectrum on this subject I'm trying to develop of directing the "eye" a lot, a little bit, or not at all! Probably another reason it's always been do admired and respected architecturally!

[TEPaul]

Paul Albanese:

Welcome back. The movie analogy to making a viewer or golfer think is a good one. Particularly your last paragraph where you mention "make the golfer create his own story."

Actually, that remark "make the golfer create his own story" is the very basis of the principle of Max Behr when it comes to his overall feeling about golf architectural strategy!

His basic premises are;

1/ A golfer is less likely to resist or complain if what he must negotiate is natural rather than man-made! And so if the architect can't find a natural feature to be used for strategy then he should make one that mimics nature as well as possible in the "eye" and mind of the golfer.

2/ That strategically a golfer should be given "freedom" to plan his own strategy rather than have an architect direct him or dictate it to him.

In this context Behr created the extremely interesting concept of "lines of charm" which was essentially to remove the most "instinctual" spot from the golfer (his line of "instinct") thereby creating other actual optional routes (strategies) which are the "lines of charm". But his basic premise was don't make the golfer do anything in particular, just supply him with a number of various choices and allow him to "make up his own story", as you say, or his own strategies! Again, in a "man-made architectural context" the multi-optional #10 at Riviera is hard to beat as the best example of this.

In this way the "hazards" became the array of "focal points" that he claimed registered on the golfer's "eye" and mind but only in how to play before, around or over them, thereby supplying the golfer with the most important ingredient of the game architecturally--his own "freedom" to test himself as he sees best!

Behr also did not believe in even rough as he felt it was too restricting of a golfer's "freedom" (or choice) and that if a golfer chose (or even mishit a shot) very wide or away from a reasonable strategic choice then he just paid the price of finding himself out of position to his next or eventual target or goal!

Obviously, Behr understood that golf courses did not or could not have unlimited width and that was probably why he came up with removing from the golfer his "point or line of instinct" (with a hazard) which very well might have been something like a modern architect's "center directed" ideal LZ (like the middle of the fairway!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

In a way you could say the same about the second shot into
# 3, yet NGLA has chosen a directional flag to assist you in locating the pin on that expansive, blind green, which is similar to # 2.

Why the difference ?  Why have they chosen to treat two similar holes or shots differently ?

On # 2, I think you are given a focal point, up the right center, but those that heed that signal are in for a bit of a surprise, unless the hit a lucky shot.

Interesting treatment of similar shots.

Now let's throw in the tee shot at # 16.  Is that not just a longer version of # 2 ?  What of # 11's tee shot ?

[TEPaul]

Pat:

My feeling on a flag (or some pin indicator) on #2 vs the movable pole on #3 is that on #2 I would not use one. My  reason is both are par 4s and on #2 we're talking the tee shot and on #3 were talking the approach 2nd shot to the green.

I get that reasoning from something Gil Hanse once discussed about how to treat something on one of Gulph Mills's holes. I wanted to do something and Gil wanted to do something else. He said if the hole was a par 4 he'd do it my way but since it's a par 5 he thought his way was better. On not too much reflection he was right!

I'll get into the focal points of some of the holes at NGLA tomorrow but on the ones you mentioned; #3, very little without the pole (is that really architectural?), #11, no focal point, and #16 very little and what there is, the carry bunker, it's misleading and a fake out if the golfer thinks he should carry directly over it. What I'm talking about is just strictly architectural "focal points" to lead the golfer and on those holes true local knowledge and experience reigns. I don't count that kind of local knowledge as true architectural "focal points" in the actual context of this topic. The same with #2--there is no "focal point" architecturally on that hole. Whatever you've picked out is just local knowledge, not a real architectural focal point in the context of this topic.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Let's continue this tomorrow, but keep in mind the FAIRWAY FLAGS at GCGC for the tee shot, when we discuss NGLA

[Tom Doak]

Tom:  I would say I'm always conscious of what the player's eye is being drawn to, but I wouldn't say I always try to make the best line to the hole immediately obvious.

One of the things I like so much about #10 at Riviera is that the ideal place to hit the tee shot is the vanishing point:  the one place that the fairway bunker lip comes up high enough to completely obscure the fairway.  That's why it's so hard for a player without much experience at the hole to pick the right line; they're more comfortable aiming at something they can see.

I've always played exceptionally well on those blind holes in the U.K. because they give you a perfect stake to shoot over.

As you pointed out, Pacific Dunes has several semi-blind tee shots.  At #1, we cleared out beyond to give you a look at the second fairway, since you weren't going to see too much of the first -- but you can see the fairway bunkers which define the right side, and the left-center of the fairway which is the garden spot.  At the ninth, Brian Slawnik and Bruce Hepner made three little knobs on the top of the fairway as an aiming point for the tee shot to the right-hand green, while the tee shot to the left should go as close to the big fairway bunker as you dare.

[TEPaul]

The "vanishing point" and the "vanishing point" used architecturally as the ideal line to use strategically! Man, I really like the sound of that! It sounds like anything but "road-mapping" architecture to me!

Very sophisticated from the golfer's perspective, in my opinion! How many are going to pick that out and what does it do to the golfer's concentration, confidence etc? I love it where large amounts of visual hand-holding fade out (even if demanding) and large amounts of nuancy and low-keyed arcthitectural search and find "local knowledge" and personal "experience" factors kick in!

Pat:

No, I would not recommend using flags to demark the location of blind and semi-blind bunkering at GCGC regardless of their use in the past or their historic significance. On #4 GCGC I would rather a golfer just be aware the bunkers are there at some location beyond what Tom Doak has just called the "vanishing point", and even though they're not visible!

I think in this way those bunkers are made far more effective as a psychological problem--their location and presence is therefore magnified in the mind of the golfer simply because he cannot be exactly sure where they are. Their size and effectiveness is expanded in other words and in the golfer's mind he may then need "to give a wider berth" to them! It makes him search out some "reference point" or "focal point" of his own and go with it with as much confidence as he can muster sans visual reference. The non-visual or slightly unknown is more effective this way strategically to me. More effective and far more sophisticated!