Great golf courses and the blind shot!

[T_MacWood]

Blind shots are often the result of interesting terrain...so it makes sense that many great golf courses have blind shots. The blind dirve can be one of the more exciting and exhilirating shots in golf. I love the blind drive through a saddle at 10-Shinnecock. Winged Foot has an interesting blind drive on the back nine--I don't recall which hole. A remember one at Sand Hills (10?) which confused me-I thought the hole dog-legged the opposite direction. CPC #8 is fun. Mayfield has three fabulous blind drives. Many others...

Blind approaches are hit and miss--some work, others are not so good. Cascades has a blind approach with a big target sign hanging above the green--not so good. Mayfield has a partially blind green in a hollow, same with Cape Breton...they work well. The blind green at Long Cove I don't like (like Old Marsh)--too flukey. It actually is easier for the pro who would have the exact yardage to the flag. Jefferson a local RTJ-2 course has green in a bowl with giant-a fun hole. One of the best modern is Victoria National--where the green is hidden behind a spoils pile. If you are long enough and to the left its not blind, but often I suspect it is.

It also depends on your definition of blind green--absolutely blind or seeing just the flag.

[BCrosby]

Enough with the close textual anaysis one of the worst architecture books ever written. The only thing interesting about the book are Fazio's own appalling views.


Tom -

I think blind tee shots and blind approaches are two different animals. Two very different design choices.

In the US, at least, blind drives occur pretty frequently. Whether it is budgets that limit how much dirt can be moved or whether it is the inspired use of existing landforns, there are lots of them. They are relatively uncontroversial. Reason? Uusally because fairways are built pretty wide and archies go out of their way not to build hazards into the fairway that can't be seen from the tee. It's sort of a no harm, no foul thing. (I suspect people would raise hell if a pot bunker were placed in a blind landing area. But the moderns are pretty scrupulous about not doing that sort of thing. )

Blind approaches are much, much more controversial and rare, at least in the US. I don't know why. It doesn't have to be that way.

The architect liablity issue is, I think, a bogus excuse. Moreover, there are plently of UK models that show how blind greens can be done well. Prestwick, TOC, Cruden, The New, Kingsbarns, etc. all have terrific blind greens. Hitting approaches to them can be a thrill. It is full sphincter lockdown.

But modern architects don't build them. Or at least they do very rarely. (Silva's new course in Chattanooga is a happy exception.)

My guess is that the reluctance to design these kinds of approaches is mostly political. The typical committeeman is convinced that a blind green is unfair per se. However well it might be done. Dye's work at Old Marsh was extremely unhelpful in this regard. I think no. 5 at OM became (and still is) notorious and helped to kill off the concept for many modern architects. Anyone disagree? At a minumum it didn't help the cause.

My favorite blind approaches are where the concept is used strategically. One of the best holes I know in this regard is no. 1 at Athens CC (Ross). A slight dogleg right with very wide landing area. Trees on the right, but wide open fairway on the left. The green is nestled against a slope from the left. Thus a drive to the safe, left side of the fairway results in a totally blind approach. An aggreesive drive down the right side that skirts the trees, offers a clear view of the green. A wonderful use of blindness to create strategy. Highlands CC (also Ross) in Highlands, NC, has a couple of similar holes.

I wish more modern architects used blind approaches in a similar way. Or even in a more radical way. It is a tool they need to put back intheir toolbox.


Bob    

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

You're entire post #47 is an appalling exercise in either rationalization or an inability to recognize the obvious. Perhaps you don't even realize it.

This remark by Tom Fazio in his own book is about as clear as one can be about not using blindness in golf architecture;

“But they also did some things that today wouldn't be acceptable. Some of the holes on our famous golf courses, even some designed by legendary designers, wouldn't pass muster with today's golfers. Back then you didn't blast away a pile of rock to remove a blind spot; you just played over it. It was an issue of equipment and economics. If we tried that today we'd be run out of town because golfers don't like blind holes and it's easy to avoid building them.
(Tom Fazio--"Golf Course Design" 2000);

Can’t you read Pat? Again, he said; “If we tried that today we’d be run out of town because golfers don’t like blind holes and it’s easy to avoid building them.”

There is not an iota of any kind of ‘misinterpretation’ on my part. The facts cited on this thread about what Fazio’s Co. may have done at Pinehurst #8 and what he wrote in his own book are wholly inconsistent and if you can’t see that you’re totally blind! Read that damn remark again;

“IF WE TRIED THAT TODAY WE’D BE RUN OUT OF TOWN BECAUSE GOLFERS DON’T LIKE BLIND HOLES AND IT’S EASY TO AVOID BUILDING THEM.”

In my opinion, it’s just a bunch of crap that Fazio would say such a thing. Is he trying to create some sort of self-fulfilling prophecy in modern golf architecture or perhaps figure out some way to justify what he does vs what some of the best of the architects of yesteryear did and what some of the good ones today do? And in case you’re still missing the obvious that would be to build BLIND HOLES if a particular opportunity may arise. I don’t see any of those architects, past or present, building blind holes and then writing a book saying it “wouldn’t be acceptable.” (Except perhaps Donald Ross who said he didn't advocate building blind putting surfaces and then building a number of them. He too should be criticized for very much lacking in consistency of deed and thought!

This kind of remark on Fazio’s part is exactly the kind of thing that any of us have every right to criticize Tom Fazio for. To deny the obviousness of Fazio's inconsistency is not the same thing as you wading into some defense against bias and double standard against Fazio----you’re attempting to stifle any architectural criticism of him at all. That’s not going to happen on here. And you want facts? I just gave you two undeniable FACTS! And they show one of a few things;

1. Fazio writes one thing and then does another?
2. Fazio may not have much idea what his company is building?
3. Fazio isn't aware he's both confused and confusing?

Figure out the obvious Pat, and don't try dreaming up any more bullshit rationalizations to explain it away--I'm not interested.

[H._Wethered]

Maybe Tom Fazio had not yet seen Pinehurst #8 when he wrote that book!  

[TEPaul]

It's probably more likely that Tom Fazio doesn't see any inconsistency between a course his company built that has a number of blind holes and saying that building blind holes wouldn't be accepted today. Not much more than a year ago I listened with a couple hundred other people at a forum on restoration in Philadelphia when Tom Fazio said he and his uncle George had agreed decades ago after he said they lost a lot of money on a few restorations that they'd forever steer clear of restorations and just do new construction. I swear to Christ I saw a lot of people look at each other as if to say; "Did he just say what I thought he said?" I mean, for God's sakes he was on a panel on classic course restoration with Bill Greenwood and Brad Klein! If he'd really decided to give up doing restorations decades ago what was he doing on the panel on restoration in Philadephia in the midst of his company doing the architectural part of the restoration of Merion's bunkering? Was he trying to imply that it's a poor idea for an architect to do restorations because that architect might lose lots of money as he claimed he and his uncle George had? Even odder if TomF is so concerned about losing money, as he himself said he was that he'd agree to do that restoration free of a fee! Some of the things he says seem to be quite bizarre but at least they aren't quite so bizarre as the things Pat Mucci says on here!    

[mark chalfant]

This is an interesting old thread...

[jim_lewis]

Tobacco Road may hold the record (at least among modern courses) for blind shots. I seem to recall that one par 4 is blind off the tee and again on the approach. The course is built in sand, so the blind shots could have been easily and inexpensively avoided. Overdone for my taste. Oops, I just noticed that the subject of the thread applies to "great" courses. My bad.

[John Moore II]

Tobacco Road may hold the record (at least among modern courses) for blind shots. I seem to recall that one par 4 is blind off the tee and again on the approach. The course is built in sand, so the blind shots could have been easily and inexpensively avoided. Overdone for my taste. Oops, I just noticed that the subject of the thread applies to "great" courses. My bad.

Well, some on this site consider Tobacco Road to be a Doak 8; it ain't, but whatever, we can talk about it.
#1-Blind tee shot, blind second shot
#2-Blind tee shot
#4-Semi-blind tee shot, only 1/2 the fairway is visible from the tee, so a group far to the right will not be seen
#5-Semi-blind tee shot given the mounding, its hit or miss whether or not you can see people in the fairway
#7-Blind tee shot
#9-Partially blind approach shot
#13-Blind tee shot if trying to cut any off the corner, if playing straight out into the grass, no blind
#15-Somewhat blind landing area, totally blind green if playing from left side of fairway, 1/2 blind if playing from right side of fairway, which no one does.
#16-Blind Tee shot and half blind approach to skyline green
#18-Blind tee shot, semi-blind approach
Couple that with the fact that if you hook of slice a ball the tall grass will blind you from finding it....

And we wonder why it take 5+ hours to get around Tobacco Road.

[jim_lewis]

John:

There are many members of the discussion group who are big fans of Tobacco Road. I have been expecting some of them to defend the excessive use of blind shots on Tobacco Road. Maybe Mike Strantz was trying to make up for all of the times that Fazio would not let him design a blind hole!! I don't recall many such holes on the other 3 Strantz courses I have played, so maybe it was the owners who wanted them at TR. I have no problem with an occasional blind shot, especially if it is dictated by the terrain. That was not the case at TR since the sand could have been pushed around pretty easily.

[John Moore II]

Jim-for what its worth, he actually moved some dirt to create the blind shots. The tee shot on #1 I have read many times was manufactured. That also makes the green on 9 a manufactured position since its on the side of the same hill.

I am also surprised no one has come up and tried to skin me alive for talking bad about TR.

[Chris DeNigris]

John- Obviously you were just aching to be provocative, so here ya go...

For most of those shots to be truly blind you'd either have to be very, very short or really near-sighted.

1. Tee shot not blind if you hit it straight, you can see fairway.

2. Decent look at the fairway, not really blind.

4. Same as 2 but even better view of fairway.

5. Same as 2 and 4, waaay too much of a stretch to call it blind.

6. You can easily see the green dimensions, the pin and just about all the hazzards, again not really blind.

9. Most of fairway easily in view, less blind than even 2, 4 and 5. However you forgot to mention that the approach is somewhat blind.

13. Tee shot not blind, however layup 2nd is, as well as green approach.

15. I think you got this one right!

16. 2 in a row!

18. Hat trick!

Tee shot on 7 is blind, but there's so much obvious width visible from the tee box that it matters very little.

So, aside from that, I think you pretty much nailed it.

Have you played much in GB&I?

What other Strantz courses have you played?

[jim_lewis]

Chris:

You nailed it too. I am both short and near-sighted. My memory of TR is fuzzy, since the one time I played it was about 7 years ago. I just can't find time to make the 25 mile drive again. I do remember wondering where the target was on several shots. But once I found my ball, the shot was no longer blind.

My answer to the question you asked John:

I've only played 28 courses in GB&I.
My other Strantz courses are Caledonia, True Blue, Bulls Bay, and Tot Hill Farms. That is, if you don't count the various Fazio courses that some folks give him credit for.

Jim Lewis

[John Moore II]

Chris-You are correct about some of my assessments, I even went back and corrected some of them. Saying 6 was blind was a typo on my part, I meant to say 7 on that one and probably meant to say the approach on 9 originally as well. However, the rest that I mention are either blind or partially blind. Take #1: you can see part of the fairway of course, but you can't see if groups are still playing from behind the mounds and that is what I meant. Same on #2, you can't see if people are playing from down in the fairway.

The problem to me is not the blind shots from a shotmaking standpoint. I shot like 75 there with 5 birdies the first time I played the course, and did it with no yardage book. I just aimed for the green grass and hit a shot I felt good about. The problem is the safety aspect. The number of blind shots on that course present a safety hazard because people on the tee or in the fairway or whatever don't know if the landing area in front is clear. So, they have two options: hit soon and risk hitting a group in the landing area or wait an exceptionally long time and back up the whole course. The safety aspect and the fact that TR is a resort course getting 'One-and-done' players is my beef with it having so many blind shots.

I have never played in the UK or Ireland

I have only played Tot Hill Farm of Strantz's other work. It is crazier than TR, but I don't think it had quite as many blind shots.