Not Seeing Where You're Going

[Tom_Doak]

Kyle:


Exactly.  The more things you can see, the harder it may be to make a correct decision, if they don’t all align to the same choice.  Whereas if you can’t see much, you have to dumb down the correct answer, because people would hate it if the only bit you showed them was misleading.

[Ally Mcintosh]

I can’t remember the Tom Simpson quote but paraphrasing, it is essentially “Deception is good, outright trickery is bad”.

[Sean_A]

I can’t remember the Tom Simpson quote but paraphrasing, it is essentially “Deception is good, outright trickery is bad”.

Why?

On the other side of the not seeing ledger I am reminded of Burnham's 18th.  All that is on view is a curved fairway.  One certainly should sense how to play the shot and that there may be more to be gained by cheating left.  Its fantastic to wonder if the shot was pulled off...especially if one knows the drive was hit a tad futher left than intended.  But perhaps this tee shot falls under the cool feature exception?  I don't know, but I do know it is a terrific finishing hole and the element of doubt helps. In any case, it would take a seriously raised tee to offer a view to the green...it would probably look ridiculously out of place.  That is to say, it may be more important to keep a good green to tee walk than it is to showcase a tee to green view. 

I tend to think, for me anyway, this is more about trees blocking views than land forms doing so.  That said, also on Burnham's 18th is a rather crude cut through a dune which I think Colt ordered so the green would be on view for the approach. Its the sort of thing that some archies would have provided a tall pin to offer an idea of the target.  There are low tech solutions to some  "modern" problems.

Ciao

[MCirba]

"Does anybody remember laughter?"

[Ally Mcintosh]

I can’t remember the Tom Simpson quote but paraphrasing, it is essentially “Deception is good, outright trickery is bad”.

Why?

On the other side of the not seeing ledger I am reminded of Burnham's 18th.  All that is on view is a curved fairway.  One certainly should sense how to play the shot and that there may be more to be gained by cheating left.  Its fantastic to wonder if the shot was pulled off...especially if one knows the drive was hit a tad futher left than intended.  But perhaps this tee shot falls under the cool feature exception?  I don't know, but I do know it is a terrific finishing hole and the element of doubt helps. In any case, it would take a seriously raised tee to offer a view to the green...it would probably look ridiculously out of place.  That is to say, it may be more important to keep a good green to tee walk than it is to showcase a tee to green view. 

I tend to think, for me anyway, this is more about trees blocking views than land forms doing so.  That said, also on Burnham's 18th is a rather crude cut through a dune which I think Colt ordered so the green would be on view for the approach. Its the sort of thing that some archies would have provided a tall pin to offer an idea of the target.  There are low tech solutions to some  "modern" problems.

Ciao

Sean,


If it’s not trees, it’s a routing thing. There’s no way I’d massively raise a tee (if out of place) or do a big cut through a dune just to get a view of a green*. And you’re right, there are great holes where you can’t see past the turning point because of obstruction by dunes or landforms.


The point was all other things being equal, it’s more pleasant when you can. And there’s a time on some courses where you go “oh here’s yet another hole that feels like the last because I can’t see past the dogleg”.


*Although we did shave a dune on the 3rd at Carne and we did raise the tee, both with a glimpse of the green in mind. But the driver was that because of the huge landforms, there was no shot at all without doing this. And there’s was nowhere else I could go that wouldn’t seriously disimprove the hole and the routing.

[Niall C]

Ally

I don’t know Burnham’s 18th but I think the point that Sean makes is a good one. Many holes manage to suggest an intended shot or ideal line and that is what makes them interesting in their own right. Having sight of the green would often not make that much difference.

Take North Berwick for instance. Sean suggested there were only 4 holes where you couldn’t see the green. I’m not sure that is correct but the 2nd is possibly one of them. Certainly you have a vague idea I think by the fairway and the general lie of the land where the green might be and you might even see the top of the flag but would it make much difference to your tee shot if the green was on a raised plateau ? I think probably not.

Niall

[Mark_Fine]

There is no right answer here.  ALL points of view are valid.  I will ask one related question; we all probably have prints, paintings, lithographs of golf holes hanging on our walls.  Does anyone here have one that is from the tee and does NOT include the green (at least in the distance)?  My guess is no. 


There is something about seeing the green that makes a hole special but at the same time there are some tremendous holes where this is not the case.  But we don't take photos of those (at least not many of them, maybe the Dell hole with the white rock on the hill).  Variety is such a key aspect of great golf courses. 

[JESII]

I've rarely been accused of "putting it all out in front of you," but golf holes are much more beautiful and thrilling when you can tell where they are going.  I'd rather find those, than design them like a maze.

Maybe we should dissect this closing statement from the opening post...


Golf holes are more thrilling when you can tell where they are going?


I won't argue the beauty side of this, but is it really more thrilling to know from the moment the tee shot is hit if it's good or almost good?

[Kyle Harris]

I've rarely been accused of "putting it all out in front of you," but golf holes are much more beautiful and thrilling when you can tell where they are going.  I'd rather find those, than design them like a maze.

I won't argue the beauty side of this, but is it really more thrilling to know from the moment the tee shot is hit if it's good or almost good?

I think the take away here is hitting a tee shot you think is bad only to find out it's good - which while "all out in front of you" is only discovered after the shot is struck and subsequently located.

[Sean_A]

I can’t remember the Tom Simpson quote but paraphrasing, it is essentially “Deception is good, outright trickery is bad”.

Why?

On the other side of the not seeing ledger I am reminded of Burnham's 18th.  All that is on view is a curved fairway.  One certainly should sense how to play the shot and that there may be more to be gained by cheating left.  Its fantastic to wonder if the shot was pulled off...especially if one knows the drive was hit a tad futher left than intended.  But perhaps this tee shot falls under the cool feature exception?  I don't know, but I do know it is a terrific finishing hole and the element of doubt helps. In any case, it would take a seriously raised tee to offer a view to the green...it would probably look ridiculously out of place.  That is to say, it may be more important to keep a good green to tee walk than it is to showcase a tee to green view. 

I tend to think, for me anyway, this is more about trees blocking views than land forms doing so.  That said, also on Burnham's 18th is a rather crude cut through a dune which I think Colt ordered so the green would be on view for the approach. Its the sort of thing that some archies would have provided a tall pin to offer an idea of the target.  There are low tech solutions to some  "modern" problems.

Ciao

Sean,

If it’s not trees, it’s a routing thing. There’s no way I’d massively raise a tee (if out of place) or do a big cut through a dune just to get a view of a green*. And you’re right, there are great holes where you can’t see past the turning point because of obstruction by dunes or landforms.

The point was all other things being equal, it’s more pleasant when you can. And there’s a time on some courses where you go “oh here’s yet another hole that feels like the last because I can’t see past the dogleg”.

I agree.  My only point was its all good stuff if done right and in the right balance.  I don't really buy into one type of bunker, tee shot, green or whatever being the best.  All styles and types are good. 

Ciao

[Jeff Schley]

I agree.  My only point was its all good stuff if done right and in the right balance.  I don't really buy into one type of bunker, tee shot, green or whatever being the best.  All styles and types are good. 

Ciao

Sean this is a good reminder that there are so many variables of a course in terms of location, weather, budget, original designer, etc. that it is a complex matrix for what works for each course.  I can't fit into size 32 pants anymore, but I still try and look my best come Sunday.

[JESII]

Kyle, I'm not following.

[Jeff_Brauer]

There is no right answer here.  ALL points of view are valid.  I will ask one related question; we all probably have prints, paintings, lithographs of golf holes hanging on our walls.  Does anyone here have one that is from the tee and does NOT include the green (at least in the distance)?  My guess is no. 


There is something about seeing the green that makes a hole special but at the same time there are some tremendous holes where this is not the case.  But we don't take photos of those (at least not many of them, maybe the Dell hole with the white rock on the hill).  Variety is such a key aspect of great golf courses.

Mark, what is this, some kind of new math statement? 


I think most of us are saying about the same thing - most holes are better when you can see them tee to green, but its not a hard and fast rule.  IMHO, I try to design zero but usually the land dictates a few, which is about the right number to me, where you can't see the green from the tee.  Every site is different, but a course with no holes visible from tee to green would almost certainly strike most of us as poor design.


Anytime a designer chooses to design a dog leg in the woods, they concede the green won't be visible.

[size=0.85em]As to whether a tee shot is more thrilling to know from the moment the tee shot is hit if it's good or not, that can happen with the green visible or not.  Obviously, with wide fw, if a golfer takes the safe option they will likely know, but with air time and roll out, and if they challenge a fw hazard, there is still that uncertainty for a few seconds.  If you can't see the green from the tee, you would extend that uncertainty another few minutes until you walk/drive to the ball, and can see if it opens up the pin, but is that worth it?[/size][/color]

[Kalen Braley]

ANGC #13 is certainly on the short list of greatest Par 5s ever built.

So yes, I concur with Jeff, its certainly a guideline, not a rule!

P.S. And I'm guessing there are a few who have prints or paintings from the tee shot perspective of that hole...

[Jeff_Brauer]

Geoff Cornish's book on the history of golf course design noted that when doglegs were first introduced, they were very controversial.  Not sure it was for visibility reasons, but early thought seemed to envision playing straight at the hole.

[Kyle Harris]

Kyle, I'm not following.

Angles.

Blue #12 at Streamsong is a decent example. Fairly wide fairway with edges obscured. You can be further left than is readily apparent from the tee but that's the better angle to the green. Aiming for the fat part of the fairway leaves a workable, but not as easy, angle.

It's all in front of you but the best ways to play it are only apparent after a few plays.

[JESII]

If this is it, then sign me up for some more mystery...


I thought it was about greens not visible from the tee and whether or not the quality of the hole changes with that visibility.

[Peter Pallotta]

Jim, Kyle:
I had the opposite reaction to that line, i.e. 'It's all in front of you but the best ways to play it are only apparent after a few plays'.
Which reaction was, to put it bluntly: oh, the banality of it all. Let me get this straight: you need to play the golf hole not once but - egad! - two or maybe even three time before you know the best way to play it. (Of course, your host might just offer up a tip and tell you the first time out, or you could maybe even just ask.)
But even if you didn't ask, this concept/line of thought, this defending of the obvious by simply *deferring* it, seems to me just about the best example of the emperor having no clothes in all of gca. How does having to play the hole twice (instead of once) have any relevance to its essential architectural merit & interest & challenge? What's the golf hole like -- what does it ask of you, how does it test you, mentally and physically -- once you *do* know the best way to play it?
(Methinks Jim developed into a very fine golfer not because he played a lot of holes that you needed to play twice in order to figure them out, but because he often played over the contours and uneven stances and hook-lies and firm running turf of Huntingdon Valley!)
I liked the earlier line of thought much better, i.e. if the architect has you believing that you can see everything it's just then that he can more easily fool you -- like a great magic trick where it appears, no matter how many times you see the magician perform it, that you really are seeing *everything*. But of course you don't see everything, and instead are left to ask yourself over and over again: 'How'd he do that?'
P

[Sam Andrews]

There is no right answer here.  ALL points of view are valid.  I will ask one related question; we all probably have prints, paintings, lithographs of golf holes hanging on our walls.  Does anyone here have one that is from the tee and does NOT include the green (at least in the distance)?  My guess is no. 

FYI



In my copy of The Golf Courses of the British Isles, Rountree's picture of Princes features the drive from the eleventh tee. No flag or green in sight. The Sandwich illustration is simply of some poor soul in Hades. And you can just see a tiny flag in the Littlestone picture (which is said to be of the 17th but should be the 16th unless the whole course has been rerouted since).

[JESII]

Jim, Kyle:

How does having to play the hole twice (instead of once) have any relevance to its essential architectural merit & interest & challenge?

P

Because hitting shots is not the game. Figuring which shot to hit is...

[Peter Pallotta]

If it took me a year of intense study to figure out there'd be much appeal for me, with the journey as pleasurable as the destination. If I can do it tomorrow but just not today, I think I'll pass; in that event there'd be more challenge to be had in learning to hit the shots, and more fun in hitting them.
Or are you playing devil's advocate, Mr Pithy?

[JESII]

We’re slicing it pretty thin here Peter...it is, after all, just a game we play for fun.


But what you describe could be just as easily found on a video game...


I suspect you are simply looking for us to prove the value of deferred gratification.


The number of great shots and holes that have some level of obscure target/end result must outweigh those ‘with it all right there in front of you’...

[JESII]

Not counting picture holes...

[JESII]

Maybe we're talking past each other on this...


My feeling is that there's no reason to minimize the value of experience and observation. The player will have earned it, why not reward it?


I wouldn't plant a tree to block the view of a green from its tee but I sure wouldn't cut down an attractive one that did just that.

[Peter Pallotta]

Jim -
We probably are.
While in all my posts here you'll find very few professing a love for quirk, and even fewer expressing any fondness for blind shots (or even, as in this case, not seeing at least a bit of the green from the tee, except very occasionally), I did appreciate you trying to delve into and unpack Tom's original statement/premise. And for me, the most compelling case for that premise was Tom's & Kyle's notion that the more of the whole hole a golfer can see the more the architect has to work with in terms of beguiling them (with visual stimuli and deceptions and choices etc.) But to me that's a very different 'picture' than one, as in Kyle's example at Streamsong Blue, where the 'clues' lead the golfer in a certain (likely wrong) direction -- but only once, on first playing.
P