[David_Tepper]

https://www.golf.org.au/clayton-give-me-fun-over-fair/

[Mark_Fine]

Amen!  Talked about this many times here and written articles about it as well.  It is also a highlight of our book on hazards.  Well written Mike 

[Thomas Dai]

It's a "+1" article.
In fact I linked it into another current GCA thread yesterday.
Well worth reading.

atb

[Bernie Bell]

"We can also eliminate blind greens, blind bunkers, and blind approaches.  The greater the experience the writer has of designing golf courses, the more certain he is that blindness of all kinds should be avoided.  The only form of blindness that should ever be permitted is the full shot up to a green whose position is accurately located by surrounding sand-hills.  Even in a hole of this kind, it is not the blindness that is interesting, but the visibility of the surrounding sand-hills."  A. Mackenzie

[JESII]

Yes Bernie, clearly the exception that proves the rule.


Also supports the idea that he was in business as opposed to fantasy camp.

[Bernie Bell]

Not my point Jim.  The article holds up Mackenzie's book as guidance and then blames "the Americans" for the concept that blindness came to be seen as something to be avoided.  Mackenzie himself said that (as did Hunter and, to a lesser extent, Ross).  People who know far more than I do, a large group that obviously includes Mr. Clayton, can argue the merits of blindness, but to disregard Mackenzie to swipe at "the Americans" seemed to me a false note in an otherwise lovely score.

[Don Mahaffey]

"We can also eliminate blind greens, blind bunkers, and blind approaches.  The greater the experience the writer has of designing golf courses, the more certain he is that blindness of all kinds should be avoided.  The only form of blindness that should ever be permitted is the full shot up to a green whose position is accurately located by surrounding sand-hills.  Even in a hole of this kind, it is not the blindness that is interesting, but the visibility of the surrounding sand-hills."  A. Mackenzie

Not my favorite quote.
“...only form of blindness...permitted...”
Seems particularly pompous

[Duncan Cheslett]

"We can also eliminate blind greens, blind bunkers, and blind approaches.  The greater the experience the writer has of designing golf courses, the more certain he is that blindness of all kinds should be avoided.  The only form of blindness that should ever be permitted is the full shot up to a green whose position is accurately located by surrounding sand-hills.  Even in a hole of this kind, it is not the blindness that is interesting, but the visibility of the surrounding sand-hills."  A. Mackenzie

I’ve been a member of two MacKenzie courses - one designed early in his career and one late.

Both courses have multiple blind shots of exactly the type he decries.

MacKenzie’s famous 13 “rules” are interesting mainly because of the frequency with which he completely ignored them.

I am sure that Dr Mac would have agreed completely with Mike on the issue of fairness.

[Jon Wiggett]

The enjoyment and tolerance of blind shots like most things is a question of how often it is used. Over use it and it becomes a negative. However as a plus to it's use, I cannot recall a great course that does not have at least one blind shot.


Jon

[Bernie Bell]

"We can also eliminate blind greens, blind bunkers, and blind approaches.  The greater the experience the writer has of designing golf courses, the more certain he is that blindness of all kinds should be avoided.  The only form of blindness that should ever be permitted is the full shot up to a green whose position is accurately located by surrounding sand-hills.  Even in a hole of this kind, it is not the blindness that is interesting, but the visibility of the surrounding sand-hills."  A. Mackenzie

I’ve been a member of two MacKenzie courses - one designed early in his career and one late.

Both courses have multiple blind shots of exactly the type he decries.

MacKenzie’s famous 13 “rules” are interesting mainly because of the frequency with which he completely ignored them.

I am sure that Dr Mac would have agreed completely with Mike on the issue of fairness.

Probably so, Duncan, based on my reading, and so would I.  But here is what Mr. Clayton said:


"What changed was the introduction of the concept of “fairness” and the idea formulated primarily by Americans and adopted largely by Australians (and most others) that you had to be able to see where you were going. The notion of the “blind shot” was seen as somehow silly, poor design and something to be avoided by course architects at all costs."


That's not a "change" from what Mackenzie wrote, first in the published book, and then re-affirmed twenty years later in the Spirit book that Mr. Clayton refers to.  Certainly does not seem to be an idea "formulated primarily by Americans" when Mackenzie himself expressed it twice, the first time in 1920.  Hunter later expressed the same idea, and credited it to Mackenzie, not as some new American idea.  I'm not arguing the merits of blindness with anyone, certainly not with an accomplished architect like Mr. Clayton.  Not qualified.  I loved the piece, and have shared it, and I love to ring a bell on the links as much as the next guy.  I think Mr. Clayton has a burr in his saddle about "the Americans" and golf.  The one line was, to me, a sour and gratuitous note.  That's all. 

[MCirba]

I sometimes wonder what certain architects would design if they were given some good land and no owner restrictions or expectations (complete free reign) with the further stipulation that no one would ever be told who designed the course, with those playing just told that the course has been here/there for as long as anyone can remember.

I would expect that anything unusual or controversial would be easily accepted as cool vintage quirkiness, even if the course was brand new.

[Tommy Williamsen]

I love a periodic Blind shot. They are great fun. Running up a hill to see if your shot is ok is great fun. It is like playing catch over you house. It is exciting.

[Mike_Clayton]

Not my point Jim.  The article holds up Mackenzie's book as guidance and then blames "the Americans" for the concept that blindness came to be seen as something to be avoided.  Mackenzie himself said that (as did Hunter and, to a lesser extent, Ross).  People who know far more than I do, a large group that obviously includes Mr. Clayton, can argue the merits of blindness, but to disregard Mackenzie to swipe at "the Americans" seemed to me a false note in an otherwise lovely score.

Bernie


It wasn't intended to be a 'swipe' at Americans. There is so much to be admired about American golf.
It was supposed to be a 'swipe' at what we see on out TVs from America and the pro tour whose members revere fairness above all other.  Perhaps I should have made that point instead of generalising.
My guess is, of you polled tour players and the things they thought virtuous principles of design, 'fairness' would be way up there. As would a dislike of blind shots and bunkers in the middle of the fairways.

[Jeff Schley]

#1. I had to look up the word "spruiking"   

#2. Fairness in regards to GCA is the focus, but golf is about more than just that, although our focus here.  Weather for example, is fair for some when they teed off and much more difficult for others based on when they teed off, thus is that fair or unfair? It embraces the reality that chance does play a role in the game and although some may bitch and moan they got the bad side of the draw in regards to weather, tough it is part of the game. The random bounces at Royal St. Georges many dislike as having too much luck as opposed to a flat course like Royal Liverpool.

#3. The point of Greens Committees are an interesting one, but a necessary evil as without those members volunteering their time, who would look after the affairs of the course? In reality we can't hire "consultants" for every single decision to be made to an ideal. You have a wide variety of knowledge and personalities and sometimes the decisions may suffer, but what is the alternative? Like complaining about a local politician in a small town that is a $2k part time position (not too much different than volunteering) making a decision about something you may not like. Go ahead and run or volunteer yourself, or accept it IMO.

[Thomas Dai]

#1. I had to look up the word "spruiking"   
#2. Fairness in regards to GCA is the focus, but golf is about more than just that, although our focus here.  Weather for example, is fair for some when they teed off and much more difficult for others based on when they teed off, thus is that fair or unfair? It embraces the reality that chance does play a role in the game and although some may bitch and moan they got the bad side of the draw in regards to weather, tough it is part of the game. The random bounces at Royal St. Georges many dislike as having too much luck as opposed to a flat course like Royal Liverpool.
#3. The point of Greens Committees are an interesting one, but a necessary evil as without those members volunteering their time, who would look after the affairs of the course? In reality we can't hire "consultants" for every single decision to be made to an ideal. You have a wide variety of knowledge and personalities and sometimes the decisions may suffer, but what is the alternative? Like complaining about a local politician in a small town that is a $2k part time position (not too much different than volunteering) making a decision about something you may not like. Go ahead and run or volunteer yourself, or accept it IMO.

Ref Point No3 - no offence to folks reading this who volunteer their times and I’m sure are all absolutely wonderful Committee members and do great deeds but you don’t need to hire consultants and committee input is overrated.
Golf Clubs have GM’s/Secretaries, Course Managers/Superintendents, Head Pro’s, F&B Managers etc. These guys and gals know more about the business that any butcher, baker, candlestickmaker, tinker, tailor, soldier, sailor, doctor, lawyer etc etc who sits on a Greens or any other Committee. And frankly it’s usually folks on Green or other Committee's and their ego, vanity, self importance and petty political games that screw-up golf courses and golf clubs. I’ve been there and watched it.
It’s a bit like a small group of shoppers telling the guy or gal who’s run shops or stores for decades how to run his shop or store or a truck driver or construction working telling a surgeon how to conduct a medical operation.
A committees role should be simple ... hire good people and then bugger off and let the guys or gals you’ve hired get on with their jobs without interference. And if the person that’s been hired turns out to be a dud, fire them and hire someone else who does know what their doing.
As the old joke goes .. “Why do golf clubs always have showers in the locker room? Because a committee cannot run a bath.” Sadly it’s true.
Rant over, well at least for a short while!
Atb

[Mike Bodo]

The enjoyment and tolerance of blind shots like most things is a question of how often it is used. Over use it and it becomes a negative. However as a plus to it's use, I cannot recall a great course that does not have at least one blind shot.


Jon

While I love Mackenzie's University of Michigan "Blue" golf course, there are three blind shots on the front nine alone (two on back to back holes) and I believe one on the back, which is arguably a little much. That said, the green complexes and putting surfaces are some of the most wicked and best I've played on - including Oakland Hills (South). I'm sure the more time I spend on the course the blind tee shots won't bother me as much, but I don't believe I've ever played a course that had that many blind shots on it.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()