When is architectural deception ........ dishonest ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

When a golfer is standing on the tee of a hole that ascends slightly in front of him, that crests and then descends, such that the golfer can't see the DZ from the tee, how disingenuous is it to have the blind fairway lines differ significantly from the visible fairway lines ?

In other words, a golfer on the tee thinks he's driving down the center of the fairway, when in reality, he's driving down the far left or far right side of the fairway.

Ergo, a drive that he thinks he's executed perfectly, ends up in the rough.

Gimmickie ?

Legit ?

[Ken Fry]

Like the old saying goes Pat, a blind shot should only be blind once.

Your description made me think of #12 at Crystal Downs.  The fairway rises in front of you and gives the appearance the hole runs straight away.  After the crest of the hill, the fairway cants right to left and bends to the right.  A well struck center drive can run through the fairway quite easily.

After one play, you stand on the tee with a shade of doubt.  On multiple plays, conditions and wind direction add to the decision of target and ball flight.  I believe it to be legit and a challenge to overcome the mental obstacle placed in front of you.

Now for the courses that present the same challenge but have a hidden water hazard or out of bounds well within reach off the tee for most players, that crosses the line.  If you can't pull off the tee shot properly, you shouldn't be punished to the point of needing another ball.

Ken

[Joe Hancock]

I've played a hole like what you are describing. I didn't enjoy it.

I'm generally not a fan of deep rough, so my distaste in your example starts there.

It would be hard to attach the word dishonest, but deception is appropriate.

[Rees Milikin]

Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

[Peter Pallotta]

To borrow Bogart's line to Peter Lorre in 'Casablanca': 'It's not a thief I mind, it's a cut-rate thief'. What you describe, Pat, is cut-rate deception -- and if it only 'deceives' the first time it is even more cut rate (though Ken's description of the 12th is very good.)
Peter

[Jon Wiggett]

I have no problem with this as I believe there should be some advantage for local knowledge. I do however think that the lost ball possibilities should be kept to a minimum.

Jon

[Joe Hancock]

After further consideration, I have to say it isn't the mystery I mind (in fact, I love that), it's the fact that someone decides to cut the grass(or not) at some differing height to provide a perceived, odd sort of interest. More and more I'd rather not have that be in the way of fun golf.

[Ally Mcintosh]

This isn't something I like, not least because I hate the idea of losing balls on blind shots where you hit the shot you meant to.

Deception - as the golden age guys used it - was all about depth and distance, not about hiding tricks and hazards. As always, Tom Simpson had a good quote that differentiates between the two types. Can't recall the detail though. Perhaps someone else has it to hand?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Like the old saying goes Pat, a blind shot should only be blind once.

Ken,

That statement isn't true as it implies that all circumstances are identical and that the golfer possesses a photographic memory

Your description made me think of #12 at Crystal Downs.  The fairway rises in front of you and gives the appearance the hole runs straight away.  After the crest of the hill, the fairway cants right to left and bends to the right.  A well struck center drive can run through the fairway quite easily.

After one play, you stand on the tee with a shade of doubt.  On multiple plays, conditions and wind direction add to the decision of target and ball flight.  I believe it to be legit and a challenge to overcome the mental obstacle placed in front of you.

Now for the courses that present the same challenge but have a hidden water hazard or out of bounds well within reach off the tee for most players, that crosses the line.  If you can't pull off the tee shot properly, you shouldn't be punished to the point of needing another ball.

Ken

[Patrick_Mucci]

I'll add a factor to the circumstances.

Now suppose that the fairway only in the invisible DZ slopes significantly toward the rough that protrudes from the visible fairway lines.

Now, it's a double whammy.

[Bill_McBride]

To borrow Bogart's line to Peter Lorre in 'Casablanca': 'It's not a thief I mind, it's a cut-rate thief'. What you describe, Pat, is cut-rate deception -- and if it only 'deceives' the first time it is even more cut rate (though Ken's description of the 12th is very good.)
Peter

Casablanca or Maltese Falcon? 

[Ed Brzezowski]

18 at Merion come to mind Patrick? 

[archie_struthers]

 

Don't think you should have a short porch on a blind hole but certainly having to bend it or know the play isn't that much to ask. Totally on  board with you are a stranger but once on a golf hole.

Lehigh CC, a neat Flynn outside Philly ,  has a fairway that's really hard to hit , semi blind and uphill where you almost have to snap,hook it to find the sweet spot in the fairway . ths new equipment has changed the dynamic a bit as the young guys can fly it so far but  you just need to,hit a better second shot .if you don't bend it like Beckham . It challenges your skill , a good thing!
 

[Eric Hammerbacher]

A course I play has this exact situation on the 17th hole.   A blind tee shot to an offset fairway with a pond jutting into the LZ about 240 yards out on the left.   Then someone had the great idea to route the cart path between the light rough and the pond.  So you can hit a slight draw to the left center of the fairway, bounce once or twice, hit the cart path and bounce in the pond.  You end up searching for a ball that you think was in the fairway and is now probably in the pond, but isn't known or virtually certain.  If you could see it happen it would piss you off but least you can drop up by the pond, however since it's a blind shot it can leave a bad impression with one hole to go.  I've seen it happen to the group behind us and it can really back up play.  

So yes, I feel it is dishonest and it does mess with you psychologically in the few holes leading up to it and even after your round.  In this case, even local knowledge is only good for saying "No it's not lost it probably bounced in the pond."  At least give me some rough to slow down a ball that lands in the fairway, as I have no problem with a bad swing resulting in a big hook ending up in the pond.
 
Definitely seems like a gimmicky hole to me.

[Sean_A]

Yes, when blindness is on the table, the architecture and maintainance should be more forgiving. I think this is rule 33.

Ciao   

[Peter Pallotta]

To borrow Bogart's line to Peter Lorre in 'Casablanca': 'It's not a thief I mind, it's a cut-rate thief'. What you describe, Pat, is cut-rate deception -- and if it only 'deceives' the first time it is even more cut rate (though Ken's description of the 12th is very good.)
Peter

Casablanca or Maltese Falcon? 

Bill - sad to say, I went to look it up and we're both wrong.The sentiment is indeed from Casablanca, but I got the line wrong: what Bogie actually says to Lorre is "I don't mind a parasite. I object to a cut-rate one."

So, in short, my post was useless as an analogy!

[Jason Topp]

If the fairway is blind on a new course, one can usually depend on the fact that the fairway is going to follow certain norms.  When those norms are violated, I would consider it dishonest.  Whether the dishonesty adds to or detracts from the quality of the hole depends on the hole.

Examples I have not liked generally involve penalty strokes.  My one round at Angeles National finished on a hole with an uphill tee shot.  I hit it a bit shorter than my playing companions and it turned out I was dry and they were in a pond for which there was no indication that a pond existed.  Big Fish has a canted fairway that somewhat fits the description with some blind bunkers in the middle of the fairway.  I know of like them but I am not sure I can defend them.  Many holes have hidden slopes that can provide an advantage with local knowledge. I definitely like those. 

[Rees Milikin]

Is #2 at Lawsonia an example?  I was under the impression I hit the correct shot, but was taken for a ride once I saw where I ended up.  When I go back, I won't be fooled again.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pat,

Reminds me of Pete Dye's 12th at Stonebriar here in DFW.  Blind tee shot, a valley cut in the hill seems to indicate the middle of the fw, and a cluster of bunkers to the right.  Somehow, I knew Pete meant the correct line to be over the bunkers and hit it that way, and was right in the middle of the FW.  Going through the valley would have put me left edge and further from the par 5 green, maybe the left rough.

On blind shots, I generally prefer a clue, and somehow this arrangement gave it to me, which is fine every once in a while.  Had the obvious line put me in a pond or something, it would be bad.  Generally, when forced into a blind tee shot, I tend to mark the route with a valley in the ridge, target bunkers framing, etc., and then leave more room for a miss, wider fairways, etc.  It is up to the golfer to know via experience whether to shade to one side or the other.

Of course, my preference is for no blind shots, but sometimes you must, and if required, it does make for interesting variety.

[Ben Hollerbach]

The 4th at Royal New Kent would be a good example of this, From the tee all you can see of the landing zone is a grouping of fairway bunkers and a sliver of fairway immediately to the left. The illusion is made stronger by your view of the green in line with the fairway bunkers in the distance and a large grass covered mound that obscures your view left of the visual line. Upon first playing I believed the line must be just left of the fairway bunkers, which is playable, but the preferred line is over the middle of the large mound to the center of a fairway that is nearly 50 yards wide.

To me, it was an introduction into something different and put me on high alert the rest of the round questioning what I was seeing. Of course I should have probably realized that after playing the blind par 3 3rd. As it was brought up prior, You are only surprised by that once. I have no issues with the architect providing visual tricks that make the player question what they are seeing, as long as the punishment for not reading the allusion correctly is a lost ball.

[Mark Fedeli]

The problem I have with the "you have to play it once" theory is that it equally excuses both well and poorly conceived blind holes. I love using local knowledge but I agree with Jeff that the best blind holes should offer some sort of clue, no matter how subtle and difficult to discern, of the most intelligent way to proceed.

[Brent Hutto]

This forum continues to be totally obsessed with how a course presents itself to the golfer who has never seen it before. I guess that makes sense (as John K. might say) on a site that's of, by and for hit-and-runners.

[Jim Nugent]

This forum continues to be totally obsessed with how a course presents itself to the golfer who has never seen it before. I guess that makes sense (as John K. might say) on a site that's of, by and for hit-and-runners.

And the bigger question is, how does the hole play, after you know the deception?  i.e. once you understand the line(s) to take, is the hole good, bad, ugly?

[Patrick Hodgdon]

I think the 18th at White Bear Yacht Club qualifies under this description. Even after playing it 4 times I wouldn't say I'm comfortable with the shot. The hill in front of the tee box goes up 20-30 feet and is marked by a rock in the middle/middle-right to mark the middle line of the fairway on the dog-leg right hole, but a strong (270+) drive straight over it still goes through the fairway and up into heavy rough and pine trees with the driving range on the other side. Alternatively playing a fade with the driver brings the small unseen water right of the fairway into play. For the most part I believe the play is a long iron or hybrid to avoid both going through or bringing the water into play.

I'd be curious to hear the other MN GCAers thoughts on the hole, but it's probably the only hole out there at WBYC that I don't really like as a result.

All that being said, if it wasn't the 18th, I wonder if I would like it more as another unique hole that needs to be played more than once.

[Steve Lang]

  I'd like to know what course prompted this thread, and the score...  and how honesty is involved in gca, let alone evaluated or of interest.

hit & run for some but certainly not all