Kyle:
There is something you should know about the concept you recommend---eg the use of a feature like a "chalk pit" in front of a back tee to create some blindness on perhaps part of the landing area. And that is that the issue of blindness in golf and architecture had a total transformation in acceptance somewhere around the end of the 19th century.
I don't think anyone really knows why this happened. There is no question that in golf before the 20th century the occasional "blind" shot was actually admired---they called it "prized" in golf and architecture. (The reason they felt it was "prized" is interesting to know).
Then just about at the beginning of the "Golden Age" blindness in golf and architecture became unacceptable for some reason, even vilified and including by some of the best architects in the world.
The irony is that even if most all of them recommended blindness not be used in architecture (particularly blind putting surfaces) so many of them used some form of blindness anyway. They may not have dedicatedly created man-made blindness but they certainly created holes that had some degree of blindness, perhaps if only because of topographical realities that couldn't be avoided or altered.
Not all went along with the transformation to lack of acceptance of blindness, however. Max Behr waxed eloquent on the inherent benefits of blindness in golf----eg the beauty of lack of instant gratification during which the imagination could soar to contemplate the glories of what might be
.
It has continued to evolve to the present day where the idea that "everything should be right in front of you" seems to have become "prized" in golf architecture.
NGLA is very much admired on here and that's interesting too because we know that a number of the holes there are all or part models or concept models of very old holes from Europe and there is a good deal of blindness involved.
On the first nine holes at NGLA a full seven of them have blindness of some type.