Visual Deception - Fool Me Once...But Fool Me Twice, NO CHANCE!

[Mark Saltzman]

Visual Deception for me has been the topic de jeur.  I started a thread about a bunkering pattern that makes it look like bunkers are on all lines and there is no safe line on which to hit the tee ball (http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php?topic=50853.0).  I started another thread on Donald Ross' cross-bunkered par-3s (http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php?topic=50854.0) and concluded that part of the reason he built the bunkers where he did was to make the golfer think (incorrectly) that the bunkers are much nearer the green than they actually are.  A visual trick to make the shot seem more difficult.

There are, I'm sure, many other visual tricks that are used to make shots appear more difficult than they actually are.  There are, similarly, visual tricks that make it very difficult to properly gauge the distance of the shot, or the location of other features in relation to said visual trick.

But, my question is, do these tricks work the second time around?  Aside from the fact that GPS / yardage finders / yardage books partly (and sometimes completely) negate the effect of a visual trick on the first go-around, what impact do these tricks have the second time?

Thoughts?

[Sean Leary]

I think that they can still cause a certain level of discomfort in repeated plays. Which is a good thing.

[Scott Warren]

Certainly I think there is a lasting impact with such features, even if you can get an exact distance via rangefinder, caddie or sprinklerhead.

Even with that knowledge, what your brain knows and what your eyes see will differ significantly and that creates a discomfort that I - and others I've discussed this with - find off-putting when trying to settle over the shot and commit to it.

There is also the fact that such features will often block your view of the green and you may be unable to ascertain exactly where the hole is in relation to a tier or swale, or exactly how close it is to the front, back or side of the green -- those things can cause great uncertainty even if you have the exact distance in your head.

Finally, hard/fast conditions, undulating ground and strong wind - whether present individually or in combination - will further add to the challenge posed by such a shot, even on repeat plays and even when armed with a known distance to the hole.

Tom Simpson and Harry Colt were particularly skilled at creating these endlessly-challenging and interesting shots.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Mark,
Ross or Simpson or Colt had to realize that a player would visit their courses more than once, so they would never have gone to the trouble of creating such features, and creating them on multiple courses, if they thought the concept didn't work.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark,

I think the answer or question is:

Can your intellect override thearchitectural signal being sent to your eye ?

[Mark Saltzman]

Mark,

I think the answer or question is:

Can your intellect override thearchitectural signal being sent to your eye ?

Am I the only one that would answer yes?  Does yours, Patrick?

Visual deception is very interesting the first time I play a course.  But, as someone who as a good memory for golf holes/features, I'll make note of the deception.  Quite often when playing the hole for the second time, I'll get a feeling of confidence knowing that the shot is far easier than it appears.


Scott,

I agree that these visual deception features will have a practical impact on play and that golfers will find themselves in these bunkers on occasion.  In theory no one should miss 25 yards short of a green, but (obviously) in practice players mis-hit shots, have to recover from the woods, are faced with a strong head-wind, etc, etc.  But, I think, the main purpose of certain features is the visual deception, and I am curious if this deception lasts beyond the first round.

[Frank M]

The visual deception is always there...it's your perception that changes

[BCrosby]

The effect of good fore-shortening bunkers on me is maddeningly persistent over time.

Even if my brain says the play is X yards, my eyes tell me the distance is X-Y.

My eyes almost always seem to carry the day.  

Bob

[Peter Pallotta]

Mark - I think the best visual deception features are those that work in concert with another feature, a none-deptive one.  If, for example, there's a bunker or gulley that appears to be hard against the green but is in fact is 20 yards short, that works well enough on its own; but it works a lot better if the green slopes back to front or drops off at the back -- such that on subsequent plays the mind's memory of the (past) visual deception is compounded by the (present/constant) fear of htting it too far.

Peter   

[Jim_Kennedy]

Blindness and visual deception are two sides of the same coin. As it's been said, a blind hole isn't blind the second time you play it, and neither are visual tricks. You still have to use your powers of recall to deal with both of them, but as Bob just said, what you 'see' has an impact.


Your brain 'knows' that the yellow lines are the same length, but that's not how your eyes see them.      

[Marty Bonnar]

Brain's a pretty crappy computer then, isn't it!!!?
 
FBD.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Brain's a pretty crappy computer then, isn't it!!!?
 
FBD.

 You can refer to the tapes once your computer records the first play.

[Dónal Ó Ceallaigh]

There was an excellent article by Frank Pont in the October 2010 issue of Golf Coure Architecture. The title was "The secrets of visual intelligence." I couldn't find a link to the piece on the Golf Coure Architecture web-site.

Frank gave the following examples:

- make targets seem closer/further away than they really are (as in Mark's "Bunkering Everywhere" thread)
- make targets seem narrower/wider than they really are (used the new par three hole at CB as an example where the right portion of the green appears narrower than the left side, although the green has a constant depth)
- make targets seem more/less focused (less defined or more gradual mowing lines, transitions between fairway and rough)

[Sean_A]

I am gonna buck the premise and say good visual deception weasles its way into your mind regardless of what you know.  Of course, as Pietro suggests, good deception requires a sting in the tale.  Below is Worcester's 6th, a medium length par 3 with a long green.  The left bunker looks like it guards the middle portion of the green - well past the flag.  In fact, the bunker is up front (level with the flag) and there is tons of room to the rear of the green.  The safe play (when you know the hole) is to take enough club to carry past the bunker, but if the flag is up front this leaves a nasty right to left putt (the sting in the tale).  Regardless of how many times I have played this hole that left bunker plays on my mind in trying to figure out the flag's location relative to it.  Its very hard to tell.

 

Same course, the 14th.  That right bunker looks like it is set middle of the green, once again it is up front, protecting the bounce in off the right.  Gauging that shot (once again, once you know the hole) knowing that the everything feeds to the left bunker is quite tricky.  The sting this time is the amount of slope feeding to the left.  Its shocking to watch balls turn left.


Here is another interesting deception, Little Aston's 7th.  That berm cutting in off the left looks menacing, but its easily carryable, to the point where the trees are an issue (the sting) if one plays safe left. 


The 8th is really nasty.  The front bunkers hide all the actual greenside bunkers and the front to back nature of the green. 


The 9th too looks like one has to make sure to carry the heather, in fact, there is plenty of room.  BUT, notice how the land moves away from the tee.  We are "encouraged" to half a club more when what really need is half a club less - then you have to remember the wind!  I love this kind of stuff. 



Continuing with Little Aston, the 13th is fantastic in how the narrowness of the green is hidden. 



This may be the best bit of trickery.  The 14th has this huge bunker cutting in from the right.  It looks very easy to carry, certainly less than 200 yards.  Well, its more like 215, slightly uphill and with the bunker raised quite a bit.  One can't tell how much room is beyond the bunker.  The sting here is that left looks dangerously tight, but in fact its fairly wide and quite safe.


By just carrying the bunker as it would seem a good idea, one is left with a terrible angle.


The final hole, more deception with the size of the bunker and importantly, playing uphill.  It looks tight to the green, but there is quite a bit of space.


This same ploy is pulled off quite well at Brancaster's home holeand the sting is the green runs to the rear..



No, good deception will work most of the time on most of the people. 

Ciao

[Mark Saltzman]

Sean, a predictably excellent post from you -- one that I very much enjoyed.

Would it be fair to say that in most cases the key to a good visual deception is that other features, in relation to the deception, become very difficult to gauge?  The architectural feature that causes the deception will not be the feature that actually causes the 'sting'.

I think I have been thinking too simply -- for example, of a single bunker placed well short of the green that appears to be right next to it.  After a single play, any perceptive golfer will note this and remember it the second time around. 

[Sean_A]

Mark

I think that is so.  Most deception on its own, no matter how cool, isn't going to worry golfers much once they know the score.  The best deception has some sort of added component which even when the golfer knows what is going on gets into his head.  The example of Little Aston's 8th makes me uncomfortable.  Of course, every course should have some shots which agitate golfers.  No matter how much we profess that golf should be a walk in the park, sometimes, it shouldn't be.

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

For me, visual deception is an enormous amount of the fun in GCA.... It's why I'm such a big fan of Tom Simpson...

I could give numerous "favourite" examples but perhaps predicatably (and perhaps because this is an ongoing answer to Sean's queries about the course), there are three excellent examples at Portmarnock (3, 13, 17) where bunkers work with a very small cross ridge between 25 and 40 yards short of each green to make you believe the green is just behind. Also, one of the best Hawtree changes at the course was a small centre bunker on the 5th, 15 yards short. When working in tandem with the larger bunker on the right that actually looks short of the green (although it is tucked in very tight), it is easy to consistently misjudge this approach, even after repeat plays.

[Bill_McBride]

The best visual deception to me is ALWAYS a factor, no matter how many times you've played a hole.   It works best on holes where a brave, risky tee shot opens up the view of a green but the safe tee shot leaves your view of even the flagstick obscured.

The best example I can think of - although there are many - is the "Leven" 17th at NGLA.   After the long carry down the far left, after clearing a mess of sand and rough vegetation, the player gets a clear view of a wedge shot down the long axis of the green:



After a safe tee ball out to the right of the dangerous line, you get this obstructed view every time, of the flag peeking over the sandy berm, making an accurate shot of the correct distance to the shallow green very hard to judge:



In this case, visual deception is not a one time thing.