Blind Shots (again)

[Paul Payne]

There was a thread a few weeks ago where Forrest had dug up an even older thread with a quote from Tom Doak. I am going to paraphrase but it essentially said " I try to avoid blind shots whenever possible because golfer don't like them and the liability issues they can bring."

Is this really true? Do golfers in general really hate blind shots? I know there are a lot of GCA'ers who like them (myself included) but do the architects really get bad feedback on these shots? Is this because of unfamiliarity the first time out or is it something more than that?

Also, Do blind shots really bring on litigation? This one almost bothered me more. If lawsuits are being won and paid over blind golf shots it seems to me the end of the road is here. Nobody in their right mind will build one. Is it true?

[Andy Troeger]

I think blind shots certainly can be fun and especially work well on private courses where most golfers "know" where they're going, but can't see it.

The one issue that I don't like about them on crowded courses is knowing when to hit. The course I play the most here in SB has a few holes where the landing area off the tee is blind. Since most people ride and the carts have GPS its not a big deal since the cart will tell you when the group in front is X yards away. Since I usually play with my Dad and others that ride, whether I walk or ride at least there's always a cart in the group for that purpose. However, a few weeks ago I played by myself walking and had some issues on a few holes of having to wait a long time before I could actually "see" the group in front to know when I could hit.

There's obviously ways around that, but I think this group is a little bit unusual in our affinity for blind shots. I wouldn't want one on every hole, but a few per round makes life a little more interesting

[D_Malley]

a blind shot is only blind once to a golfer who has memory

[cary lichtenstein]

a blind shot is only blind once to a golfer who has memory

It's still blind for him if he can't see the foursome when he hits

[Jeff_Brauer]

I would say yes, generally golfers dislike blind shots.

As to litigation, the general legal principal as I understand it is that golfers are responsible for their own shots, but if a club (or presumably gca) designs in a situation where they could reasonably anticipate problems, they may be liable.  I think blind shots could fall under that category, and you would have the cost of defending a lawsuit, even if you happened to win.

That said, there are different kinds of blind shots.  Certainly the Dell hole, where you wouldn't see the golfers on the green, but would surely see their trolleys outside of it, or see them enter the bowl, but not leave, meaning they are still there wouldn't be a problem.  Tee shots up and over a hill w/o mirrors might be different.

[Paul Payne]

Yes, I can see the difference between a hole where you cannot see anything ahead vs. one where you can see into the distance. The latter I would guess at worst would not slow up play any more than a typical par 3 hole would. Still, I may be one of the few that really like a blind shot now and then.

Jeff,

I am just curious, in your experience have there been very many actual law suits over blind holes or is this more a legal caution that is discussed up front as a potential liability?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Paul,

I have heard of more lawsuits from "proximity" issues, i.e. holes too close together. Many stem from situations where golfers can unknowingly "come around a corner" into play and not see incoming balls.

Can't actually say I have heard about a blind shot lawsuit.  

[Bill_McBride]

I think blind shots certainly can be fun and especially work well on private courses where most golfers "know" where they're going, but can't see it.

The one issue that I don't like about them on crowded courses is knowing when to hit. The course I play the most here in SB has a few holes where the landing area off the tee is blind. Since most people ride and the carts have GPS its not a big deal since the cart will tell you when the group in front is X yards away. Since I usually play with my Dad and others that ride, whether I walk or ride at least there's always a cart in the group for that purpose. However, a few weeks ago I played by myself walking and had some issues on a few holes of having to wait a long time before I could actually "see" the group in front to know when I could hit.

There's obviously ways around that, but I think this group is a little bit unusual in our affinity for blind shots. I wouldn't want one on every hole, but a few per round makes life a little more interesting

Andy, SB Muni?  I've played a lot of golf there over the years and there are several funky tee shots where you aren't really sure what's going on with the group ahead.  

GPS on the carts at SB Muni?  Aargh.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

The removal of blind shots is a concession to the quest for "fairness"

A blind shot is always a blind shot because the golfer does not always land in the same spot and as such the orientation of his target, which can also move, changes.  While the golfer may have a general grasp for what lies ahead, he has no finite guide to assist him with the shot.

As to the legal liability, I don't buy it.

A golf course is inherently a risk filled environment, and those that set foot on the golf course waive liability for most events.

The 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 11th and 16th holes at NGLA are totally blind on some of the shots.  Yet, that hasn't prevented those hole from continuing to exist in their original form.

The liability issue may be more of an excuse for not designing blind holes rather than a substantive legal impediment.

Liability didn't seem to stop Pete Dye from creating his version of # 17 at Prestwick on # 5 at Old Marsh.

[Andy Troeger]

Andy, SB Muni?  I've played a lot of golf there over the years and there are several funky tee shots where you aren't really sure what's going on with the group ahead.  

GPS on the carts at SB Muni?  Aargh.  

Bill,
Actually...this was at Blackthorn which I think is owned by the county, but at least one of the two SB muni's (I'm thinking you mean Elbel--kind of outside the city?) does indeed have a few goofy shots.

And alas...all those courses have GPS!  

[Tommy Williamsen]

I think pa is right that dislike of blind shots is a concession to fairness.  There is way to much emphasisi on score.  If there were more match play tourneys I think things might be different.  If Americans could learn to deal with less than perfect, fair conditions the state of golf in this country would be the better for it.  But it ain't gonna happen,  Two of my pet  peaves are: "the course isn't in good shape or the greens fast enough," and "you can't see the ball landd, it isn't fair."  grow up and play the course.

[D_Malley]

is there a difference between a blind tee shot and other blind shots.  merion is loaded with blind shots if you consider not just the tee shot. i probably should not mention merion, next thing you know we will go to twenty pages on this thread.

[Bill_McBride]

Andy, SB Muni?  I've played a lot of golf there over the years and there are several funky tee shots where you aren't really sure what's going on with the group ahead.  

GPS on the carts at SB Muni?  Aargh.  

Bill,
Actually...this was at Blackthorn which I think is owned by the county, but at least one of the two SB muni's (I'm thinking you mean Elbel--kind of outside the city?) does indeed have a few goofy shots.

And alas...all those courses have GPS!  

Andy, I have never heard of Blackthorn.  I'm thinking of what they now call Santa Barbara Golf Club which was always the Santa Barbara Municipal Course, or "The Muni," for ever and ever.  Good old course but lots of funky but not quite goofy shots.

[Andy Troeger]

Bill...sorry, I shouldn't use abbreviations. SB to me means South Bend, IN    

The funnier part is we managed to make a few posts out of it talking about opposite sides of the country!

[Bill_McBride]

Sorry, Andy.  Since I went to college at UCSB - SB = Santa Barbara!

[Walt_Cutshall]

I don't like blind shots (particularly the first time I play a course), but the occassional blind shot is okay (I guess). A great example is the 5th hole at Long Cove. The shot into the green is completely blind from just about anywhere in the fairway. However the hole is short (317), and the shot into the green is just a little wedge. And it's the only blind shot on the course if you are keeping the ball in play.

I don't think there are any liabilities issues on the hole since the top of the flag is easily visable.

[Paul Payne]

Patrick,

I agree with you (that is always kind of fun) that eliminating blind shots is pandering to fairness, or I believe "cuttin' the likker" a bit. I wonder if this is an aspect of GCA that could be relegated more and more to private clubs and vanish from public and resort courses?

It would appear that if there is not a proven legal liability out there that this would be accounted more for taste and possibly unfamiliarity.

Tommy,

Possibly one reason I like these shots is that I probably play match play as often as stroke play.

Racer,

I enjoy both blind tee shots and blind approach shots. I'm not sure what others would think but IMO the blind tee is slightly tougher simply because the chance of an errant shot might be greater.

[Bill Gayne]

I read this quote today from a prominent living architect. Anybody care to guess who?

"I liked Co Down a lot, except that you had more than 25 full shots which were blind," he said. "You couldn't tell where anybody was on the course. Hit it over the top of a hill and you might kill somebody. You can't have that in this day and age.

"I realise there was no earth-moving equipment when it was built, but I believe you could remove a lot of the blindless without changing the overall character of the links. Not that I have any objection to blindness as such. It is part of links golf. But it must have definition, not this business of hitting over a white stone."

[Paul Payne]

Nicklaus???

[Doug Siebert]

Patrick,

Re: NGLA's blind holes....isn't part of the reason there have been no lawsuits surrounding them because they've always been that way?  I would guess that there's at least some concern that an architect designing blind holes like that today in the US would run a risk either for himself or the course, versus something that's been around longer than most of NGLA's members.

Can some of our resident lawyers pipe up?  Do you think there's an increased risk of a successful lawsuit against the architect or course over an accident on a new blind hole versus an identical hole that had been around since the 20s?

Personally I like blind holes, but I do think there should be some way of knowing when the coast is clear.  Ideally you want only one shot's worth of blindness -- that is, if you have a blind shot on a par 3 or an approach on a par 4 or 5, like the example of Lahinch's Dell that was given.  I know I'm safe to hit because I see the group ahead leave the green area for the next tee off to the left.

If you have a hole that's blind for two shots like Muirfield's 11th, you can't see anything past the top of the big hill.  I don't have any way of knowing if I'm OK to hit, or if the group ahead is still looking for a ball in the rough or waiting for the green to clear.  Some courses solve this with bells or periscopes, some with forecaddies, some just rely on luck because no matter how long you wait you can never be 100% sure its long enough.

[David_Elvins]

Paul,

I am suprised that Tom Doak would speak out against blind shots.  At St Andrews Beach he uses blindness, or partial blindness, as a strategic feature on holes 1, 3, 5, 8, 14, 15 and 17.

And it is great to see.  The fairways are wide and a view of the pin is a really effective reward for those that can place the ball in the right part of the fairway.  

[Ed Tilley]

I read this quote today from a prominent living architect. Anybody care to guess who?

"I liked Co Down a lot, except that you had more than 25 full shots which were blind," he said. "You couldn't tell where anybody was on the course. Hit it over the top of a hill and you might kill somebody. You can't have that in this day and age.

"I realise there was no earth-moving equipment when it was built, but I believe you could remove a lot of the blindless without changing the overall character of the links. Not that I have any objection to blindness as such. It is part of links golf. But it must have definition, not this business of hitting over a white stone."

Good god. I hope they never try and 'improve' the links by making it fairer. RCD is imperfect perfection, if that doesn't sound a bit Irish.

It may be Nicklaus but I know that, after the British Seniors Open, he was effusive in his praise of RCD. He did, however, mention the blind shots, saying that it took a bit of time to work out where he was going.

[Bill Gayne]

It was Nicklaus. I cut from an article in the Irish Independent about his plans for St. Patricks. www.unison.ie

I really don't fully understand what he means by "I must have definition." Aren't blind shots by their very nature "undefined" and based on a trust that a good swing will yeild good result despite the landing area being visually undefined?

[Paul Payne]

Personally I've liked some of Jack's courses and disliked others. My feeling though is when he discusses GCA he always sounds more like he is complaining than preaching.

David,

Just to set the record straight, it was an old quote from a thread way back and I did not see the full context. As I said, I read it from a section that Forrest had passed around about 3-4 weeks ago. As I don't know what the full discussion was, I would not hold Tom totally accountable for a black or white judgement on what he said. It just stuck with me because I am partial to blind shots and was curious about what the future holds for shots like these.

[Jeff_Brauer]

....I really don't fully understand what he means by "I must have definition." Aren't blind shots by their very nature "undefined" and based on a trust that a good swing will yeild good result despite the landing area being visually undefined?

Bill,

I think blind shots can be defined, and they usually are in modern design.  On tee shots, we often cut a small valley to indicate the line of play.  Sometimes the landing area is blind, but trees frame it and define the direction of play.  Bunkers flanking an uphill green with blind putting surface can do the same thing.

A few things haven't come up in these discussions -

A hole that lays out in a long view in front of you is usually much more attractive than staring at a hillside.  Reason enough to avoid them in most cases.

Whenever you have a mound/dune in the line of play, it makes both the tee shot and the second shot blind for those who duff their tee ball.  Holes that run through valleys are more attractive (see above) and player friendly.

We haven't discussed the differences, if any, of blind hazards vs. blind landing areas.  Generally, if I have a blind landing area, I define it as above, and there is usually an absence of hazards.  I might roll the fw on one side and not the other, but I seldom would consider hazards in blind landing areas, figuring that the golfer needs a little more wiggle room under the circumstances.