[TEPaul]

Think of all the great old golf courses all over the world that offer at least one and sometimes a number of blind shots during the round. Almost all the world's top ranked older courses seem to have them. But many modern architects shy away from this offering although a number such as Coore & Crenshaw, Doak, Hanse, maybe DeVries don't.

Historical architectural writing points out that there was a time, probably towards the end of the 19th century and into the beginning of the 20th century when the blind shot was considered to be a prized architectural offering.

But some of the modern architects have stated that the blind shot is to be avoided for a number of reasons. Of course they cite liability but they also say the modern golfer won't accept the blind shot in golf any more. Maybe they're right about that to a degree but even modern golfers who complain about the blind shot in golf I'd bet get a secret exhileration anyway when faced with that blind shot!

I like what Max Behr has to say about blindness in golf:

"......Blindness, therefore makes a call upon intelligence. It comes down to the question as to whether the character of the deception is legitmate......Therefore if blindness be such that we are continually deceived, it is only natural that we should object to it. But if the deception is such that we can with intelligence overcome it, then it must certainly be accounted an asset. Blindness is the one type of  hazard in golf which contains an element of mystery."

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

A society that wants instant gratification seems unlikely to accept this type of architecture, yet, Tom Doak designed a very good double blind hole on # 9 at Pacific Dunes if you hit your drive a little left while playing the upper green.

I don't think that you can dismiss the liability issue in the U.S..

[TEPaul]

"A society that wants instant gratification seems unlikely to accept this type of architecture,...."

Pat:

I was going to include that. Truer words could not be said! And sure, one probably should not think to dismiss the fact of increased pressure from legal liability but still the likes of Coore & Crenshaw, Doak, Hanse and maybe De Vries continue to build blind holes and blind shots and so far as I know--so far so good!!

Tom Fazio has stated and written that he wouldn't really consider building blind holes for a variety of reasons--liability, unpopularity etc, etc.

Do you think this is something that one has a legitimate right to criticize Fazio's architecture for in a general sense or do you think stating that Fazio really won't consider the blind shot in golf is just another example of "bias" against him and a double standard?

[Jonathan Cummings]

Tom/Pat

Pete Dye has blind shots on nearly all his courses.  His son is following the family tradition.

Clearly, PBDye is not afraid of using deception and blindness, for at PBDye Club in MD there are eleven blind or partially blind shots, three blind ponds, two clearing bells and three posted signs with blind lay-up-to-hazard distances.

It's a miserable day in day out course but one that can be fun playing once in a while.

JC

[paul cowley]

......fortunately there is a great body of accepted holes of this type to cite when defending oneself against litigation.
....i cringe and fume when the 'liability' card is played and waters down a good hole which could be better.

 ....build them all and let the lawyers sort them out [fast food owners beware,they are smelling a meal!]........

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jonathan,

I had forgotten about the 5th hole at Old Marsh, an interesting and controversial hole.  Some love it, some hate it, and some feel that water shouldn't come so close to the green on a blind approach.

TEPaul,

I suspect a "homer" post.

Fazio is a high profile target for plaintifs seeking damages, and I would suspect his employers are probably prime targets as well.

I don't know that you can fault someone for wanting to avoid an expensive legal situation, by avoiding blind shots, on courses they design in the U.S..

The only blind shot at Friar's Head is on the par 3, # 10, but I believe that you can see the golfers climbing to the 11th tee.
So, I don't view it as a totally blind hole since you can also see the green.
Are there any blind shots at Hidden Creek ?
I don't recall any blind shots at the C&C nine at Southern Hills
Are there any blind shots at Notre Dame & Easthampton ?

The 1st hole at Galloway is a blind dogleg right.

When you look at the 4-5 blind shots at NGLA, I don't think that you'll find anyone today who would design that many blind shots on one golf course.

And, Yes, I would think it  would be bias to single Fazio out, without examining the work of other architect's with respect to blind holes, and without examining all of Fazio's work to see, if in fact, he has or has not designed any blind holes.  
As I said, # 1 at Galloway is blind so your premise seems flawed or biased from the get go.  But, that's no surprise.

Why don't you just rave about the C&C blind holes and then we can put this thread to rest.

[ForkaB]

Tom

I agree with Behr when he says:

"......Therefore if blindness be such that we are continually deceived, it is only natural that we should object to it."

This is the reason why I see (and Maxie, I suspect, saw) The Old Course (particulary 2-6) as architecturally objectionable.

[John_Lovito]

When I first started golfing I HATED blind shots.  I played Apawamus about eight years ago and I was quite dissapointed with the course because of all the blind shots.  However, I've come full circle.  I really enjoy the uncertainty and the anticipation of the outcome that result from blind shots.

[A_Clay_Man]

Aftet my recent tour of Beverly CC, my perception of a blind shot has really been crystalized. Ross used the topography to create blind shots, but never felt like blind shots. If that makes any sense? I knew I could trust the fact that there was a fairway out there, past yonder hillock. I just could'nt see all of it. Funny thing how some of my best shots come at these moments. Similar to "letting go" with your swing, letting go of any fear because you trust the archie. Is just another example of the type of warm and fuzzy feeling, that allows for better golf.

On my first Forrest Richardson course, the fourth hole @ The Hideout, uses blindness past a certain point in the fairway. Standing on the tee, the golfer is given the option to play safely to what he/she can see, or risk the unknown with what lies beyond the elevation change. Of course, it is only blind once, and the feeling is different the next time or times around.  Different, because while you may know what lies yonder, the gamble or thrill of what will be, will always be present. Especially on this hole, because the drop down is to what use to be a natural gulch, dammed up to water cattle. It has a shape to it where only those with proficient short games, or horeshoe's up ones arse, should play to the blind spot.

[Kelly_Blake_Moran]

Rich,

I found the holes 2-6 at TOC very satisfying, particularly the play into the greens.  The blind tee shots were exciting particularly when successfully playing the tee shot along the intended line and then finding the ball in excellent position.  That happened at Dornoch as well.  My caddy did referr to the course as the most dangerous course in the world, but that may have something to do with the close proximity of tees to green, and the fact that it seemed more comfortable to drive the ball into areas that actually housed the landing area for an adjacent hole.  I beleive this occured on hole #13 for instance.  In any regard I was delighted with holes 2-6.

My acceptance of blind shots has more to do with the lack of desire to turn the land upside down to correct the situation.  Now, maybe this could be avoided with a better routing in that particular area, however the routing often times is good either side of the blind shot or blind hole, so the correction of the blind situation could negatively impact the routing for several shots either side of the blind situation.  I have been opposed by some during construction in these blind situations out of their fear that such a situation will destroy the credibility of the course and cause the daily fee player to not return to the course.  The desire to give the daily fee player something predictable, like a WalMart shopping experience, is pervasive in the industry.  There is a reluctance to challnege convention and to ask the daily fee golfer to invest themselves in trying to understand the challenge.  I think Wynford Marsalis made a great point in an interview when he said that it is not the artist responsibility to give the public what they want, what they already know, rather it is the artist responsibility to produce what is true to them and then expect the public to rise to their level in trying to understand it.  I beleive he was saying this in reference to Dizzy Gillispe's ground breaking music.  As TE Paul pointed out there are some great architects out there who seem to be ahead of the coventional wisdom, like Doak, Hanse, CC, although they may want to go on record in that way for fear a developer may shy away from that attitude and fall back on the more conservative, conventional, and less demanding styles of a Fazio or Rees.

Rich Goodale,

Please email me your address and I will send you copies of my Dornoch pictures if you desire them.  My email is kbmgca@ptd.net.

[tonyt]

What was that thread with the great diagrams of the old par 3 played over a huge mound-like hill to a valley fronted green? That and some of the alps holes shown in other threads are holes that you won't see repeated.

As for that par 3, I wouldn't put it on a course on The Open Championship rota, but would love to play it a few times per year myself just for the sheer enjoymant of the challenge and the discovery.

When blind tee shots AND approaches die, so does a wonderful and enjoyable architectural element in this game I love.

[Tom_Doak]

I try not to have blind shots on my courses.  They open liability problems, and they are generally unpopular.

However, I often wind up with one, just like the old-time architects, because I'd rather have a couple of very good holes with one blind shot, than a couple of mediocre holes without one.  Routing choices led to the ninth at Pacific Dunes (the best way to get to the tenth tee), just as they led to the eighth at Pebble Beach or the fifth at Royal Melbourne West.

Pete Dye genuinely believes that a blind shot is an important inclusion in a round of golf, because it makes the good player uncomfortable ... that's the story behind the Old Marsh hole and many other similar versions.  Just for the hell of it, we included a similar hole for the 12th at Texas Tech, although it's not blind if you drive it long enough and straight enough.  (I wanted to make those college kids think, too.)  But generally, I only include a blind shot if it makes the other shots around it better.

[TEPaul]

"As I said, # 1 at Galloway is blind so your premise seems flawed or biased from the get go.  But, that's no surprise."

Pat:

That pretty much does it and settles it. You're the one whose toally blind or your ability to observe the simplest things in architecture is virtually nil! I don't know how many times I've played that hole--a lot--and that's not a blind hole in the sense it's possible for anyone to get hurt on it. The hole is just a dogleg right where you can't see the green from the tee. It's not a particularly short par 4 and there's no way--no way in hell that anyone's going to get hurt by a golfer on the tee on that hole who's doing anything other than driving his ball directly into the group ahead of him on the fairway that he can clearly see. Like so many golf holes in this world all a golfer on the first tee at Galloway needs to do is wait until the players ahead of him are out of view and everything will be hunky dory!

[ForkaB]

Kelly

I take your point re 2-6 TOC.  I find them a bit repetitive, but to each his or her own!  You are right, of course, that the greensites are something else.  My only quibble with them is, as others have posted, they can be very benign (or even boring) unless the pins are put in positions A or B.

I'd love to see your photos of Dornoch and anywhere else you made it on your trip.  My e-mail is r.goodale@btopenworld.com.

Enjoyed meeting you up there last month and hope it will not be the last time

All the best

Rich

[TEPaul]

Rich said;

"This is the reason why I see (and Maxie, I suspect, saw) The Old Course (particulary 2-6) as architecturally objectionable."

Rich:

I'm not in the slightest aware that Max Behr said he thought TOC was objectionable (or holes 2-6). You must have gotten the wrong impression of what he may have said and also Robert Hunter in "The Links" when he discussed TOC.

What they said is that technically some do (particularly at first sight) find TOC objectionable. But what Behr (and Hunter) referred to particularly on his essay on "Blindness" (and Hunter in "The Links") was that many in the world of architecture found blindness objectionable but that for some reason TOC got a pass (for a number of things) just because that was the way it was.

Behr's larger point, of course, was that TOC was of that 'fortunate state' (his words) to have actually pre-dated man-made architecture and the formulaic, game playing minds of modern architects and their architecture where such things weren't acceptable (hence objectionable).

No, Behr and Hunter didn't find TOC or its blindness objectionable at all--matter of fact they admired it greatly (as did almost every one of the truly talented and thinking architects of that time) and even subscribed to the radical and unique theory of why it was anything but objectionable. It's a theory that you seem to struggle with from time to time. And the theory they had went by this odd and confusing name. They all called it "Naturalness"--but in the case of TOC it was the real thing!!    

Just this kind of thing--a golf course that preceded man-made architecture that used Nature unadorned, obviously with elements of random blindness was the very essence of the "sport" of golf (as distinct from the formulaic mind of man and his insatiable inclination to control and alter things). Behr believed strongly that this inclination of Man's was beginning to force golf and it's architecture to make Nature lose its necessary balance in the equation of golf.

[ForkaB]

Tom

You might want to re-read my post, carefully this time....

When you have done so, please tell me, kindly, what Behr said specifically about 2-6 at TOC.

Thanks

Rich

[Willie_Dow]

Playing along the New England coast, all shots are blind ones in the fog!
It's sorta fun!

[SPDB]

I've said it before, but it probably bears mentioning again in the context of this thread. I look at blindness much in the same way that I look at any hazard, i.e. it is something that needs to be negotiated and you will be penalized if you fail to execute.

Travis used blind shots terrifically at Round Hill, and it helps to install some teeth into what is otherwise, a very short course.

They should rename the club Ray Charles CC. It's awesome
To wit:

1. blind approach (only top of flagstick visible)
2. blind drive over a long hump in the fairway.
3. no blindness
4. no blindness
5. no real blindness
6. no real blindness
7. tee shot plays to a crest in the fairway in the dogleg. partial
8. blind downhill second shot to a sunken green, but the player can get a look at the green if he takes an extreme left line off the tee, i.e. reward for accurate drive is the view, penalty is blindness.
9. no blindness
10. short par 4, the tee shot is somewhat blind in that you do not know what lurks over the hill, but if you fail to clear it, the second shot will be blind.
11. no blindness
12. second shot is played to an elevated green. only top of flagstick is visible.
13. blind drive.
14. no blindness
15. second shot on the par 5 is blind, regardless of whether you are laying up or going for the green.
16. some blindness on the drive.
17. no blindness
18. some blindness off the tee (i.e. you probably won't see your drive come to a rest).

[TEPaul]

Rich:

Why would I want to reread it?

"This is the reason why I see (and Maxie, I suspect, saw) The Old Course (particulary 2-6) as architecturally objectionable."

Why don't you tell me why you suspect that Max Behr would have thought holes 2-6 or any other part of TOC was architecturally objectionable?

He never said anything like that that I'm aware of but perhaps you've read something from him I haven't. Or perhaps you think Max Behr might have agreed with you which probably isn't very likely since you don't seem to understand much of anything of what he wrote or professed about architecture anyway.    

I doubt Behr subscribed to your theory that architecturally it's just a matter of a hole is a hole is a hole or that no golf architects were or are artists and golf architecture is not art. It seems to me that Max Behr was far more than a mid-school existentialist.  

[ForkaB]

OK, Tom, I'll make it simple. My only point was:

If, Max Behr said what you said he did, i.e......

"It comes down to the question as to whether the character of the deception is legitmate......Therefore if blindness be such that we are continually deceived, it is only natural that we should object to it."

...., then I believe that he would have found 2-6 at TOC objectionable, for they continually deceive you (i.e. the character of their deception is "illegitimate"--in Behr's words).

If you have access to any of his writings in which he comes to a different conclusion, for that specific example, I would be interested in reading what he has to say.

That's all.  You may get your dander down now.

Rich

[Bob_Huntley]

The dumbest blind hole at one time was the par three eighth hole at Spanish Bay. The green sat behind wetlands with eight to ten foot high reeds completely obscuring the target. After considerable complaints the foliage was trimmed and a decent hole emerged.

[Forrest Richardson]

I think there are some distinctions needed here. The terms "shot" and "hole" are sometimes confusing when we speak of "blind" in golf.

Firstly, a "blind shot" is different from a "blind hole". A blind shot is typically brought upon by the golfer, except at the tee, where both blind shot and hole are the same. I do not mind blind shots at all on par-4/5s — that is, I do not mind conditions where the choice or poor execution of a golfer creates a situation where the route to the hole cannot be seen from where he/she ends up. I also do not mind blind par-3s, although they are difficult to get past critics in modern day projects. If there is a good reason, then I say "yes".

A blind hole is another matter. A blind hole is a par-3 where you cannot see the green, or a par-4/5 where the almost all of of the play is blind: both hitting from the tee and then onto the green. These are very rare. Golfers will sometimes call a hole "blind" even though they mean just one shot may be blind, or perhaps just one shot from a particular spot.

Another use of the term "blind shot" is when the second shot or approach is blind when the hole played as "it is supposed to nbe played". But, this is perhaps better termed a "partially" blind hole.

[Mike Hendren]

But many modern architects shy away from this offering although a number such as Coore & Crenshaw...don't.

Tom Paul,

Interesting you cite C & C.  Sand Hills offered a world-class opportunity for an Alps hole or a sunken green site (think 14th at Cruden Bay) given the excellent drainage, but they utilized neither.  The course did offer blind pin positions, such as left on the one shot 6th.  

Perhaps they would have been required to manufacture such a hole which would be inconsistent with the balance of the course.  Maybe there was such a hole among the 130 identified but it was not routable.  

Do not misunderstand, I rate the course a 10 and the experience an 11, but can't help but wondering what if....

Regards,

Mike

[Forrest Richardson]

"[T]he architect need not be afraid to introduce the occasional blind approach, for he will remember that strokes of this sort are almost always popular, if they do not come too frequently."

— C. H. Alison, Some Essays on Golf Course Architecture

[A_Clay_Man]

Bob- Damn that mother nature for letting those reeds get so high! Plus, a par three looking SW along the 17 mile drive is so so frik'in beeuuuteefull, who's lookin for a green? You'll see it when you get to it.

 This naturalistic altruistic attitude is derived from the fact that once you have struck el spheroid, there ain't mucci you can do about it.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()