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

[Niall C]

Ally

Bob Crosby is the man to help. Simpson used a couple of latin phrases to describe what he meant. If I recall correctly one meant to suggest something while the other was to deceive.

Pat

With the terrain we have in Scotland, I’d suggest most older courses have at least one situation like this and in almost every example I can think of there is generally more latitude given in the landing areas than would normally be the case. Of whether they were designed to give more latitude or whether they became that way over time, I can’t say.

The one modern course in Scotland where I don’t think they do it is ironically Castle Stuart on the drive on the last hole. I say ironically because the fairway is plenty wide enough, it’s just nowhere near where you expect it to be standing on the tee. Unless they had a caddy or a strokesaver I doubt many golfers would intuitively know where they were going. It’s also ironic that on a course where the designers have gone to so much effort to give it an old fashioned feel using sleepers etc, that they didn’t think to use the traditional Scottish method of simply sticking a marker pole in the ground to let players know where to go.

Niall

[Rich Goodale]

Pat

I walked the entire Old Course yesterday with a fellow GCA.com wingnut, and we were both amazed at how many of the tee shots gave you absolutely no clue as to where to hit the drive, due to blindness off the tee and unimaginable bunkers /ground movements n the fairways.  If you really want to slag off courses with similar MOs, watch out for the flak from the TOC-is-god brigade.....

Rich

[GLawson]

I only enjoy the blind shot when there is a bell in the landing area that you have to ring for the next group:)  I thought that was unique to my quirky home course in VA until I saw the same concept at Sunningdale Old and Rye.

[David Davis]

To me this sounds like more of a maintenance issue perhaps. Though it would be interesting if an architect chimed in here that had designed exactly this type of hole and could give their thoughts of why and if indeed it was intended to be maintained in that manner.

Pat, I'm guessing you take caddies on most of your rounds and when you don't know a course they would surely point out the line of play and explain why. Or you would have a member with you telling you that. Then it's no different from any other first play on any course with a blind shot.

Like many have said it's only blind once and then not even once unless you are alone or with others that have no idea how the hole plays.

I have no issue with this I guess. It may not be my favorite kind of hole but I do like blind shots when you know the course and or have seen it once. I like the added challenge of trying to imagine the fairway/green and how your ball needs to fly to hit it.

[BCrosby]

As Niall notes above, this issue goes way back. Tom Simpson distinguished suppressio veri and suggestio falsi. Simpson says:

"The strategic golf architect, in a word, hides his hand as much as he possibly can, and likes to keep the scratch player guessing. But if he is inclined to press the advantage of suppressio veri it does not mean necessarily that he will go to the length of suggestio falsi."

Bob

[Tim Gavrich]

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 ?

Did the architect have the option of keeping the hidden fairway lines more or less aligned with the visible ones?

If so, that would seem like a bit of a crutch used to make the hole tougher.

How do you (and others) feel about the flagpole behind the third green at Yale and the dartboard in the tree behind the ninth green at Cascades?

[Patrick_Mucci]

To me this sounds like more of a maintenance issue perhaps.

Agreed

Though it would be interesting if an architect chimed in here that had designed exactly this type of hole and could give their thoughts of why and if indeed it was intended to be maintained in that manner.

Pat, I'm guessing you take caddies on most of your rounds and when you don't know a course they would surely point out the line of play and explain why. Or you would have a member with you telling you that. Then it's no different from any other first play on any course with a blind shot.

What the eye sees often overrides accurate recall.
And, caddies don't stand in the middle* of a fairway and identify the perfect line.
# 2 at NGLA may be the exception.

Like many have said it's only blind once and then not even once unless you are alone or with others that have no idea how the hole plays.
I don't buy that argument because tee markers are moved, hole locations are moved, winds shift and memories fade or are faulty.
I challenge anyone to play # 3 at NGLA from the fairway just short of the center bunker, and tell me where they'll hit their approach without the benefit of other indicators.

I have no issue with this I guess. It may not be my favorite kind of hole but I do like blind shots when you know the course and or have seen it once. I like the added challenge of trying to imagine the fairway/green and how your ball needs to fly to hit it.

How many times would that theme have to reoccur before you objected to it ?

[Jon Wiggett]

Pat

I walked the entire Old Course yesterday with a fellow GCA.com wingnut, and we were both amazed at how many of the tee shots gave you absolutely no clue as to where to hit the drive, due to blindness off the tee and unimaginable bunkers /ground movements n the fairways.  If you really want to slag off courses with similar MOs, watch out for the flak from the TOC-is-god brigade.....

Rich

Rich,

this is one of the great things about TOC and its bias towards local knowledge. Lots of blind tee shots and many, many severe blind bunkers.

Jon

[Sean_A]

Pat

I walked the entire Old Course yesterday with a fellow GCA.com wingnut, and we were both amazed at how many of the tee shots gave you absolutely no clue as to where to hit the drive, due to blindness off the tee and unimaginable bunkers /ground movements n the fairways.  If you really want to slag off courses with similar MOs, watch out for the flak from the TOC-is-god brigade.....

Rich

Rich,

this is one of the great things about TOC and its bias towards local knowledge. Lots of blind tee shots and many, many severe blind bunkers.

Jon

The odd thing about TOC is in my experience the blind bunkers are rarely an issue because most players are usually hitting more toward the right.  I think the only blind bunker I ever found at TOC is behind the 16th green.  In fact, even though the course is fairly heavily bunkered, the contours remain its best and most deceptive defense.

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

I've seen the scenario Pat describes a few times. One factor perhaps worth considering on older courses is when new tees have been added later on at different angles when lengthen a hole?
atb

[Patrick_Mucci]

Rich Goodale,

This isn't about a "blind" tee shot, it's about the misleading visual signal sent to the golfer's eye by the mowing patterns of the straight fairway lines which are clearly visible, which indicate the boundaries of the fairway as the golfer stands on the tee.

Then, once out of sight, the fairway lines shift significantly, such that a drive hit down the middle of the visible fairway lines, ends up in the rough.

Let me also add that these are straight holes, not doglegs, and that the trees flanking the fairway continue their pre-crest linear nature, adding to the deception.

[Jon Wiggett]

This isn't about a "blind" tee shot, it's about the misleading visual signal sent to the golfer's eye by the mowing patterns of the straight fairway lines which are clearly visible, which indicate the boundaries of the fairway as the golfer stands on the tee.

Then, once out of sight, the fairway lines shift significantly, such that a drive hit down the middle of the visible fairway lines, ends up in the rough.

Let me also add that these are straight holes, not doglegs, and that the trees flanking the fairway continue their pre-crest linear nature, adding to the deception.

But if it were visible you would have no problem I take it. Perhaps the GCA wanted the golfer to use their course knowledge, imagination and intelligence when trying to take on this hole.

Jon

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jon,

I don't think it's an architectural issue.

The fairway lines as crafted by the architect have been intentionally moved vis a vis maintenance practices

[Jon Wiggett]

Jon,

I don't think it's an architectural issue.

The fairway lines as crafted by the architect have been intentionally moved vis a vis maintenance practices

Patrick,

how do you know this. Can you post the proof that you must possess about the architect's original intentions. His original plans and notes on the hole would be good so if you can post these to back up you argument that would be great

Jon

[Ally Mcintosh]

This is definitely suggestio falsi rather than suppressio veri though.....  So I'm with Patrick on this one..... And Tom Simpson

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jon,

I don't think it's an architectural issue.

The fairway lines as crafted by the architect have been intentionally moved vis a vis maintenance practices

Patrick,

how do you know this.

Can you post the proof that you must possess about the architect's original intentions.

His original plans and notes on the hole would be good so if you can post these to back up you argument that would be great

Jon,

How do I know this ?

I know it because I've been playing the course for about sixty (60) years and have the architects original schematic of the course along with his detailed hole drawings.

The shifting of the fairway lines is a more recent occurrence and not a product of the architect's original design.

Hope that helps

[Phil Young]

Pat,

Would you consider a skyline green that has bunkers behind it and are therefor hidden from view from the fairway an example of "architectural deception" & or "dishonest?"

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Would you consider a skyline green that has bunkers behind it and are therefor hidden from view from the fairway an example of "architectural deception" & or "dishonest?"

Phil,

No, to the contrary, I'd view rear bunkers on a "skyline" green to be a form of an architectural safety net.

I think that one of the greatest "skyline" greens that I've ever played is the 4th at Arcola.

From the moment you walk onto the tee and gaze upon the hole, you're struck by a singular feature, a flagstick, in the distance, waving in the breeze, set against the sky.

From the DZ, the approach shot is visually intimidating because you don't know what lies beyond.

A bunker behind the green would save balls from running further away from the green, which, if they did, would make the recovery even more challenging.

 

[Jon Wiggett]

Jon,

I don't think it's an architectural issue.

The fairway lines as crafted by the architect have been intentionally moved vis a vis maintenance practices

Patrick,

how do you know this.

Can you post the proof that you must possess about the architect's original intentions.

His original plans and notes on the hole would be good so if you can post these to back up you argument that would be great

Jon,

How do I know this ?

I know it because I've been playing the course for about sixty (60) years and have the architects original schematic of the course along with his detailed hole drawings.

The shifting of the fairway lines is a more recent occurrence and not a product of the architect's original design.

Hope that helps

So if you could post them that would be interesting to see.

Jon

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jon,

I wish I was adept at posting maps and photos.

I'll try to get the schematic to someone capable of posting photos and maps.

Having played the course for about 60 years, you'll have to trust me on the maintenance issue.

[Jon Wiggett]

Patrick,

I have no reason to not trust you but it would have been interesting to see the GCA's original ideas compared to how the hole has evolved.

However, if I were to carry on like YOU do I would be saying you are unable to prove what you claim and so should withdraw it. This site is supposed to be a discussion board where people can put up for discussion ideas and thoughts. It should be possible to discuss in an open way based on acceptance of the other persons point of view being a genuine opinion. This site is not a court of law where every idea is to be challenged by others demanding proof and when proof is given then altering the argument to be able to insist on more proof to the point where through ridiculous and insignificant points become un-provable  so as to win a petty argument.

Patrick, you start a lot of interesting threads but the way you attack other people's ideas and the pedantic, boorish nature of you posting do ruin many a thread on this site. I do not know if architectural deception is honest or not but I do find posting in a discussion in a way designed to shut down the open and frank exchange of ideas to be not only morally bankrupt but from the ethos of this discussion group also highly dishonest.

I am sure I am not the only poster who would welcome a change in your posting style and who knows, maybe someone would even help you post the plans and photos which would I am sure be most enlightening.

Jon

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

I have no reason to not trust you but it would have been interesting to see the GCA's original ideas compared to how the hole has evolved.

However, if I were to carry on like YOU do I would be saying you are unable to prove what you claim and so should withdraw it.

Jon, the difference is that I can prove it by providing photographic evidence.
My issue is not being able to transfer photos from my phone/camera to a thread.
But, that mechanical inadequacy does not alter the facts.
Hence, I'm not about to withdraw a thread that I know, without fear of contradiction, is factually correct.

This site is supposed to be a discussion board where people can put up for discussion ideas and thoughts. It should be possible to discuss in an open way based on acceptance of the other persons point of view being a genuine opinion.

Why should I accept a premise, idea or thought that I believe to be flawed or false ?


This site is not a court of law where every idea is to be challenged by others demanding proof and when proof is given then altering the argument to be able to insist on more proof to the point where through ridiculous and insignificant points become un-provable  so as to win a petty argument.

Substantiation of your premise lies at the core of legitimizing that which you postulate.
Shouldn't opinions be subject to scrutiny and held to some standard of proof

Patrick, you start a lot of interesting threads but the way you attack other people's ideas and the pedantic, boorish nature of you posting do ruin many a thread on this site. I do not know if architectural deception is honest or not but I do find posting in a discussion in a way designed to shut down the open and frank exchange of ideas to be not only morally bankrupt but from the ethos of this discussion group also highly dishonest.

So, you object to the process of scrutinizing and analyzing any and all opinions ?
We should just accept that which is postulated ? ? ?

I am sure I am not the only poster who would welcome a change in your posting style and who knows, maybe someone would even help you post the plans and photos which would I am sure be most enlightening.

I'm sure that many object to my posting style, whatever that may be.

But, I've never been big on "style points".

Maybe the East German Judge was on to something.

Now, is there something of value you'd like to add to this thread ?

Jon

[Jon Wiggett]

Patrick,

classic you

I do not accept your inability to post your evidence is the reason behind not putting it up. I think it is just that your proof does not exist so you should either post it or withdraw your fantasy.

Jon

[Tim Gavrich]

Partrick--

This thread reminds me of one from eight years ago which I started (and in which we had a bunch of back-and-forth discussion) about the 14th at Hidden Creek, whose green is described in the review on this site as follows: " From the tee, the golfer is hard pressed to determine where on this 51 yard (!) deep green the hole actually is." (http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,27338.0.html)

Reading that thread again now, I'm not sure I entirely agree with my then-16 self, but regardless, I'm struggling to square your objection to the shifted mowing lines in the case of this blind-tee-shotted golf hole with your initial response to me from that thread:

Tim,

The first time I played HC, the deception on # 14 was so good that I thought the bunker at the back of the green, fronted the green.

Why should I have been entitled to know exactly where the hole was located.

That's what your eyes are for, and mine aren't good.

Some golfers want to be spoon fed, shortcutting or undercutting all of the challenges.

I prefer that some responsibility remain on the golfers shoulders, eyes and brains.

Now, I understand that total blindness isn't the driver of the deception on the hole at Hidden Creek, but it seems that after one play, you or your caddie at this course should be able to suss out a spot in the distance or foreground that points to the more important fairway lines: the ones that are out of sight from the tee.

Or, the club could place one or two march stones before the fairway dips out of sight to indicate the unseen fairway lines. I think that would be an interesting feature, but it might be an example of "entitlement" or "spoon-feeding" per your quote above.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

classic you

I do not accept your inability to post your evidence is the reason behind not putting it up.

Jon,

First, I really don't care what you think or accept.
You're really irrelevant concerning this issue.

Secondly, I recently had three guests who played the hole.
I warned them in advance about the treachery that was out of sight, but, they could not overcome the visual signal sent to their eye by the visible fairway lines.
Two drove it into the right rough, while one drove it in the left rough, clearly overcompensating for my warning.

Upon reaching their drives, all commented that the feature was "dicey" at best and definitely disingenuous, architecturallly..
And, they were pre-warned about the exact nature of what awaited them on the other side of the crest.

But, the tactical signal sent to their eye was a strong one, one that's very difficult to overcome.
Especially with a fairway that slopes toward the intruding rough.

I think it is just that your proof does not exist so you should either post it or withdraw your fantasy.

As I stated previously, I really don't care what you think.
But, I'm so certain of the condition's existance that I'm willing to give you good odds on the accuracy of my description.
We can each mail a cashier's check to Ran, made out to each other, for him to hold.
Then, you pick an individual to represent your interests, I'll pick one for my interests and we'll have them pick a third (tie breaker).
Name your price, big shot.