Is "visibility" the sin/weakness of modern day architecture ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Is the emphasis on visibility one of the sins/weaknesses of modern day architecture ?

[Lou_Duran]

I am in the Simpson and Nicklaus camps when it comes to seeing the problems that the golfer is being asked to solve.    If blind holes added so much to the interest and enjoyment of the game, there is no reason why the modern architect would not incorporate a few of these in every course.  Conversely, if architects building during the classical era had the equipment and budgets to open up their routings, I suspect that the blind hole would be much rarer.

Blindness and quirk do serve the interests of the members at the expense of the infrequent player.  That sliver of fairway visible from the tee at GCGC would strike fear into my heart and cause indecision.  For Pat Mucci with a much superior mental picture of the hole, he would be just licking his chops.

It seems to me that if being able to see leads to boredom, one would also get bored on a blind hole, though perhaps not as quickly.  As someone once observed, a hole is truly blind only one time.

Admitedly, I am a visual person who has a difficult time understanding all the complaining about eye candy, directional bunkers, and waterscapes.  And while I am at it, I might as well confess that I believe that the average modern course is much superior than the average classical course.  Rather than a sin or a weakness, the ability to move dirt and make the targets more visually accessible and enticing could very well be one of the main reasons.      

[Tommy_Naccarato]

V-A-R-I-E-T-Y

Every golf course needs it, and unfortunately the people that hate blindness have no idea what the term means!

[ian]

Pat,

This is my favourite statement/question you have posed in the last few months.

Absolutely Yes.

Many (to be fair...not most) Modern Architects are control freaks. They like to control what you see, and completely define where you shoud hit to. They have a tendency to contain the crap out of everything to make sure each view and challenge is fully framed in for the eye.

A rumpled lie or a blind shot, just does not fit into that equation, so they just grade the crap out of the land till everything is visibile and everything is "fair"

What some like is the fact that everything is right there in front of you as obvious as can be; what some hate is that there is no luck, immagination or chance left in the game.

As Tommy put it so well there is only one key to greatness and that is variety. The courses described above are good, but lack the remainder of the elements that make up a great golf course.

Ian

[Dan Herrmann]

#14 at French Creek is a great example of giving the golfer the dangerous option (OB Left) of seeing the flagstick or the safe option of a blind approach.  The further left your tee shot goes, the more likely the chance you'll see the green.  A safe tee shot to the right has no danger, but it's a totally blind drop shot.

I've played this hole about 6 times so far (we opened the back nine on the 8th of August), and it's a LOT of fun.  Of course, I haven't hit a ball OB yet either

[JSlonis]

Very good question.  

Definitely...YES.

It seems as though comfort and fairness have become a very important design feature with many modern architects(see the Gary Player thread).  I disagree somewhat with Lou, I think the classical era architects were more concerned with properly routing a course into the surrounds and incorporating a true test of golf than they were with visually setting up everything for the golfer.

Some visual clues are fine, but I'd rather not be dictated to how to play a particular hole.  What is wrong with the golfer figuring some things out for themselves? Some things are better left to the imagination.

While I don't agree with the "let the golfer see everything" type of design, the modern architects are giving the majority of golfers what they want.  I hear players all the time at tournaments and clubs saying they "dislike a particular hole" or that "that hole was stupid, I couldn't see the fairway."

[Jeff Fortson]

Lou,

While I understand what you are getting at, and I think there is a ton of merit in what you are saying, especially re: blind holes being blind only once, I have a slight disagreement with you.  Hear me out, partner.  I promise to be short.

When comparing the "average modern" design to the "average classical" design I would have to say that I think the classics are better.

Mainly, for one reason.  Most "average modern" designs have much more than strictly golf to consider when they are being developed.  Most modern designs are being built with a community which means the property is probably not being developed for golf to it's fullest potential due to things such as homes, parks, roads, etc.

This being said, I do think that the land the architect is left with to design upon can be altered to be more pleasurable to the "average golfer" for the reasons you stated above.  However, when it comes right down to it, I think most "average modern" designs lack the natural routing, land features, and feel that the "average classical" design delivers to this day and that alone makes the golfing experience for ME more enjoyable on the "average classical" designs.

Jeff F.

[Lou_Duran]

Most classical courses which I have played are shoe-horned into relatively small areas, probably as a function of budget restraints and the technology of the time.  In my opinion, we often mistake proximity of tees from the preceeding green as THE determinant of a good routing.  Personally, I think that the flow and variety of the holes are more important, and I would gladly walk an extra 50 yards to get a better angle or avoid blind, up-hill shots.

I am not suggesting that the golfer should be allow to see everything.  Dr. MacKenzie, my favorite architect, was a proponent of camoflague (sp), but for the most part he made his hazards highly visible to inject doubt and fear in the mind.

Do blind holes really add to variety?  I seems to me that when you are playing to a blind landing area, you try to hit the one spot the caddy or playing companion suggests.  When the target and some of the hazards are in front of you, you start seeing options and the mind begins to play tricks.

A hole such as Perfection at North Berwick is neat but relatively one dimensional once you play it a few times.  The blindness caused by the fake sheds on the Road Hole is "different", but repeated with any frequency elsewhere, it would not be seen as too cool.

On the other hand, partial blindness as noted in this earlier earlier can add variety and interest.  Long Cove has a very short par four on the front side where the closer one drives to the water on the left, the better the look at the green.  If the player chooses the safe right side, he will have a very short iron to a blind green fronted by a sand bunker, and guarded on the back by water.  I personally like this hole a lot, though again, a member there has a huge advantage over the infrequent visitor.    

[Mike Benham]

I'll give this view (no pun intended) that the "name" architects, will avoid blind landing areas or approach shots where the golfer can't see the putting surface or hole location, in favor of the highly skilled or professional golfers who hate the situation when they can't see what they are aiming at ...

[Patrick_Mucci]

As an example of the emphasis on visibility today, I would ask those who have the book, "Golf Clubs of the MGA" to look up Briar Hall, and compare the picture that appears, of the old 6th hole, to the present day 6th hole.

[Jeff Fortson]

Patrick,

I have the book and see the picture but I have never played there. Could you try to describe what it looks like today so that I can understand what difference you are trying to point out?  Thanks.

Jeff F.

[Jim_Michaels]

Pat - that is a phenomenal question. The most interesting thing I have seen on this website. I think that the answer is yes to at least the question is visibility "a" sin of modern work, though I am not sure if its the number one issue. If they had access to better earth moving equipment, would the early 20th century architects have obliterated the blind shots they made the best of?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff  Fortson,

Take the picture you are looking at and think of the new tee located on a 45 to 60 degree angle to the right.

Then imagine huge mounds being placed behind and to the right of the green with large, mostly unplayable bunkers cut into them on a steep angle.  Then imagine the entire left side of the green having a huge bunker which ascends from a low point up to the level of the green.

The view from the tee is quite striking, white sand surrounding the green at almost every elevation.

I happen to like the way the golf hole plays, but think that the bunkering, and highly visible white sand is excessive, with the "emphasis" on the sand and not the green.

Having played GCGC and NGLA recently I noticed something relative to visibility.  GCGC has 14 holes where shots/views are fully to partially obscured, with many bunkers hidden.
NGLA has 12 holes where shots/views are fully to partially obscured, with many bunkers hidden.

Yet, these golf courses are considered as excellent golf courses from an architectural, aesthetic, challenge and playability point of view.  Perhaps less is more.

Geoff Shackleford's reference to "lighthouse" bunkers would seem to have been coined after a round at TN.

I don't object to a bunker sending a tactical signal to one's eye, but, I find it excessive when bunkers out of play are put on display.

"Ostentatious" might be an appropriate, descriptive word for  what I viewed and felt.

Why is there a need to thrust features in the golfers face ?

Is it a fear that the average golfer won't recognize them otherwise ?

[Michael Dugger]

Yes indeed, good question Pat....

Sure seems like there is a lot of emphasis put on it now days.  Like a lot of issue in GCA, it seems this one of visibility is derived more out of pressure-from the owner, from the "safety cops"-then it is out of pure golfing considerations.  

I agree with Tommy, it's vareity that's best.  I don't want every hole to be blind, nor do I want visibility on every one either.  Mix it up.  Far too often I hear that such and such bunker was placed where it is as a target.  Whoopdedamndo!!  I'll figure out where to hit it, if not the first time surely the second or third.  If the golf course needs target bunkers and the like then I imagine that the design probably is lacking in more ways than just visibility wise.

[Patrick_Mucci]

To what degree must visibility exist on any given hole ?

[Michael Dugger]

I'd say that most golfers get darn tired of cresting a hill or what have you and finding their ball either in a water hazard or a sand trap that they could have very well avoided if they knew it was in play.  

Of course a blind hole will always lead to this, however.

I think the visibility issue also addresses FINDING your ball after you hit it.  Once it bounds over a crest how is the player possibly to know where it came to rest, provided it isn't in the middle of the fairway?  Who know if it took a crazy bounce to the left or right, bounced off the cart path into the woods or cracked a tree limb and dropped straight down.  Visibility helps in all of these cases.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Why does NGLA succeed so well despite starting off with five  holes with blind elements ? And, seven out of the first eight holes have blind elements, and finishes with the last three holes having blind elements, yet the golf course is revered, architecturally.

[cary lichtenstein]

I wish we could bring back the classic architects for a week, familiarize them with the equipment and technology we have today, saddle them with the environmental and housing issues, and then ask them how they would change their architecture.

I think you'd be surprised that a lot of the things that are held so dear, might just be changed to our surprise.

While many of the old classic courses have great sites with wonderful topography, I think the job that many of the architects today are doing is terrific.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Quassi,

I'm reminded of an offshoot of a line from "The Last Hurrah"

"Like hell they would"

[Lou_Duran]

If they desired to get paid, the pre WWII architects would have modified their approach to meet the demands and methods of the time.  MacKenzie was a proponent of using machinery, and given his propensity and need for seeking work, I have no doubt that he would have gladly adapted.  I think that Ross too would have adapted, and Thompson was not above blowing things up.  Based on my limited experience with MacKenzie and Ross courses, the blind shot does not appear to be a common element in their architecture.

In as far as NGLA and its highly regarded architecture, I am not sure that that is accurate.  I have never played the course, but having read George's book, I can understand how some people look at it more as a very exclusive museum piece.  The architecture could very well be outstanding, but I've also heard that some of the pros consider it to be outdated, too short, and much too quirky for important competitions.  McDonald might be one architect who would probably decline to design in modern times.

The degree of blindness may be the key.  I personally like to see as much as possible, but if I can at least get a sense for the hole off the tee, I can normally play the hole.  For a member at GCGC or NGLA, there are no truly blind shots because through repetition, his mind's eye is well trained.  For the visitor, blind holes are difficult, disconcerting, and maybe exciting.  A course that is visually ambiguous favors the homer all that much more.

So, Patrick, should we ever have the opportunity for a match at either place, being the believer in the handicap system that you are, an appropriate upward adjustment to mine will be expected.  I know from Redanman that you all are sporting types in the NE, so I doubt that I'll be disappointed.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Lou Duran,

In as far as NGLA and its highly regarded architecture, I am not sure that that is accurate.  I have never played the course, but having read George's book, I can understand how some people look at it more as a very exclusive museum piece.  

The architecture could very well be outstanding, but I've also heard that some of the pros consider it to be outdated, too short, and much too quirky for important competitions.

For a member at GCGC or NGLA, there are no truly blind shots because through repetition, his mind's eye is well trained.
 

Some deranged lunatic has broken into your computer and has been posting on GCA, on this thread, under your name.

What pros have made that statement ?

Trust me, many shots at NGLA and GCGC remain blind to both member and quest, and no amount of play is going to provide one with a Jedi like sense of where the hole is.

One could play the first three holes over and over again on the same day and not have a feel for the pin on # 1 from the center or right hollow on # 1 or anywhere in the fairway on
# 3.  Even #2 might provide some repeated difficulty, and the same can be said for # 16 and the approach to # 18 from 230 to 100 yards.

George's book, "The Evangelist of Golf" is wonderful, but it can't duplicate the playing experience.

Lou, may I suggest that you lock your computer up when you finish using it each day.  

[Lou_Duran]

Mr. Mucci,

No other lunatics in this assylum.  I do have a tax deadline on Friday, and my propensity for procrastination is aided and abetted by an oversight in re-ordering my anti-depressants.  Since Katz refuses to render aid, I may be falling off the deep-end.  Pray for me.

I don't recall which pros commented on the peerless NGLA, and whether I heard it first hand.  It may have been on the Golf Channel, or a recounting on gca.com, or even talking to Mr. Bahto about it.  I agree 100% that reading about it and looking at the pictures is not even close to playing it.  Based on what another frequent contributor to this site has told me (that he likes it better than CPC), I have no doubt that it is a course that I would hold in very high standing.

You don't seem to believe that blindness has a considerably different effect on the infrequent player relative to the member.  Perhaps we react differently to visual cues.  If I know what is over the hill, whether I see it or not, my swing is more positive.  Personally, I am attracted by a glimpse of the thigh, but it makes me want to see much more.  Some would say that seeing the whole thing is less exciting and mysterious.  To each his own.  I prefer to see the landscape unfold in front of me, though, as Tommy noted, variety is the spice of life.