[Patrick_Mucci]

When playing recently, I noticed that several fairways were rendered blind.

Some by tall grass between the tee and the fairway.
Some by a mini-berm like feature crossing in front of the Fway.
Some by an inverted bunker like feature short of the fairway.
Some by a cross bunker
Some by the terrain itself (uphill and downhill)

In each case the fairway was effectively screened, creating an element of uncertainty in the golfer's mind and the play of the hole.

The outer boundaries, trees, mounds and other features allowed the golfer to interpolate the corridors of play, but, not with the same degree of certainty that visual recognition would provide.

The blind to semi-blind nature of the tee shot added an element of excitement.

Why isn't this feature embraced ?

Why is there a demand for the golfer to see the fairway or DZ ?

Is it the medal play philosophy ?

[Mark_F]

Is it the medal play philosophy ?

Patrick,

Could well be, but would a corollary of that be the equipment?

Whether it is entirely true or not, equipment companies create the perception that many players are better, which would tend to lend itself more to lowering your scores.

I have yet to see, and doubt I would?? an equipment add that extols the virtue of a big-headed driver conquering the blind shots at your home course, or Royal County Down, for instance.

[Sean Leary]

Patrick,

Do you think they make more sense at private courses where repeated play is the norm??  Might not work as well at the CCFAD...

[Jay Flemma]

why not?  years of precontditioning by rtj, the golf media and peoples laziness wanting to be spoonfed via the doctrine of framing.  Viva Black Mesa!

[Jason Blasberg]

Pat:

Short answer is that golfers, like people generally, are intellectually/creatively lazy.

I cringe every time I hear someone say such and such course is great, "it's all laid out in front of you . . . it's not tricked up."  

It's usually the better players that harp on this and I immediately know that while they may know a lot about playing the game they know little about design.  

[Andy Troeger]

Pat,

To try to answer your question the way it was phrased...the best reason against them especially on public courses are...

Lost balls (and time searching for balls) since you can't see where they end up...leading to slow play.  We played a quirky course with some blind tee shots at a high school tournament over the weekend and it took forever.

The course was private so the the kids didn't know it very well...I personally liked some of the holes, but it was a nightmare watching some of them try to play them.

[Pete Stankevich]

Patrick:
I would think most of the participants on this site embrace a good blind hole, the challenge of it, the imagination required.
Just not a steady diet of them.  But I'm amazed how many average golfers and even good players think this type of hole or shot is unfair or bad design. They're so concerned with their results, they can't take a minute to appreciate the shot or the hole.
As Andy mentioned, slow play is also a factor.  But what is also a factor is LIABILITY.  Blind holes are perfectly safe if the golfers take all the necessary precautions, take the time to ring the bell or whatever, but a lot of people won't bother to do that.  Next thing you know, someone's getting hit with a teeshot.  And if you do take the time to be safe, play slows down.  

[Tim_Weiman]

Pat,

At the risk of this thread being hijacked (to another Fazio bashing thread), I can't help mentioning what happened at Sand Ridge during the design/construction process.

Number 13 is long par 4 (about 460) where a large portion of the proposed landing area was hidden by a hill. Fazio decided to bulldoze the hill so the entire fairway could be seen.

It was assumed this would make the hole "better".

I'm with you 100% that uncertainty is a desireable design feature, but some the the biggest names in the business don't seem to think so.

I can't understand why.

[astavrides]

because its not as fun to play a blind shot.

[Duane Sharpe]

At Blackhawk, Rod built our 13th hole with a blind tee shot with a split fairway. In between there is a couple of bunkers that many tee shots happen to find about 270 off the tees.  We were recieving many complaints about  this hole and the penalties you face for hitting a good straight shot.
When we approached Rod on what we could do about the blind tee shot?, his response was

"It is only blind once...........don't hit is there next time!!"

I thought this was a fitting quote for this post.
Sharpee

[Jim Johnson]

In this day and age, I've got to think that developers have a concern about liability, if they have any say in the design.  

Played Cherokee Run [Palmer/Seay design in Georgia] back in early April, and on the 12th [?] hole, you have a semi-blind tee shot, with ample signage of "ringing the bell" after hitting your approach shot. Well, the group in front of us either forgot to "ring the bell", or didn't care to, and so we waited, and waited, and waited. Can anyone say "slow play"?  

JJ

[Sean Leary]

Pat,

At the risk of this thread being hijacked (to another Fazio bashing thread), I can't help mentioning what happened at Sand Ridge during the design/construction process.

Number 13 is long par 4 (about 460) where a large portion of the proposed landing area was hidden by a hill. Fazio decided to bulldoze the hill so the entire fairway could be seen.

It was assumed this would make the hole "better".

I'm with you 100% that uncertainty is a desireable design feature, but some the the biggest names in the business don't seem to think so.

I can't understand why.

The EXACT same thing happened at my home course with the 12th hole, a par 5.  It would have been a beter hole IMHO, had Fazio left it partially blind, but they kept grading the hill (during multiple visits by Fazio, btw) until the entire fairway could be seen.

[Jordan Wall]

I was caddying for someone the other day, and he had gotten the trip to play Maidstone, SH, and NGLA.

I asked him about NGLA, which I study a lot, and he said it was unnatractive.

I asked why, and he said too many blind shots.

Simply put, some people feel the game is hard enough (which I personally question).

[Tom Huckaby]

Jordan:  your man there is FAR from alone.  In fact I'd venture to say there are way more golfers who dislike blind shots than those who find they add an element of excitement.

And this alone might be why more aren't built.

But I'd also agree with those who cite slow play issues.

And it's all a shame, really.  I love blind shots.  But I am weird and know it and accept it.

 

[John Keenan]

Add another vote in opposition to blind shots.  I would note that they are really only blind the first time you play them. Second time around you know the line. Be it the trees or what ever landmark you use.

None the less no go on blind shots for me.

[Tim Pitner]

because its not as fun to play a blind shot.

Au contraire, mon ami.  For example, the tee shot at Pacific Dunes #9 is blind (because the fairway is beyond a steep ridge rising well above the tee) and thrilling, made all the more so because, into the wind, you're not sure how much you can carry in order to reach the fairway.  You can say it's only blind once but, because of the wind factor, you're still not really sure where to aim on subsequent plays.  The uncertainty is brilliant.

[Peter Pallotta]

I don't think I'm intellectually or creatively lazy (though if was I was I guess I'd be the last to know), but I have no great love for blind tee shots, nor do I think they have as much architectural merit as others seem to. With all the options available to an architect (e.g. bunker use/placement, lines of charm, green complexes etc), I don't see the need for the blind tee shot to be in his arsenal. Yes, if his routing is excellent, and if that routing demands a blind tee shot, well, so be it: I can live with that, and once in a while I can even enjoy it. But I think it's easy to confuse their historical significance (i.e. the fact that some great old courses have them) with an architectural necessity. I also think we can easily assume that an architect is simply bowing to client pressure in not having one, when it’s just as easy to assume that the greatest golfer ever didn't like blind tee shots when he was playing and so doesn't like designing them either.   Finally, as Sean suggested, I think they work best (for several reasons) on private courses, or at least on 'home courses' that one gets to play often.

Peter

[peter_p]

Patrick,
Two other reasons:
Jack Nicklaus prefers elevated tees. But his vaunted deficiencies in the short game   didn't have him advocate punchbowl greens.

You may be becoming less tall.

It is becoming a faux standard of design. Ou architect wants to only make changes on one tee shot, which is the only blind shot on the course. Says the hole doesn't fit in with the rest.
He should change to bowling  , sigh.

[Jim Sweeney]

Liability.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Who wants to hear:

"This is my Pro V, I think that's your Nike Platinum under the unconscious guy with the bleeding forehead.....and I don't think the clean and place rule applies.  For that matter, I think he is an unmovable object under the rules......At least, I ain't gonna try to move a 300 lb dead guy for your benefit......"

BTW, safety considerations aside, the key to enjoyable blind shots to me is still definition - a subtle valley, an aiming tree, etc.  Then you have the thrill of not knowing your exact result immediately (which bugs some, but I can tolerate) but not the uncertainty of possibly hitting the ball 180 degrees from the intended line of play (which I have seen happen).

[Scott Witter]

To me the value or understanding and acceptance of such a feature depends on who you ask or who is playing on any given day, lies somewhere between what Peter Pallotta and Jeff Brauer are saying.  I understand both comments and both have merit.  Truly, if the routing and the land offer this situation to create the best design and there is no way out without sacrificing other great holes before or after, I wouldn't change a thing and work with it.  But, I would probably not ever knowingly or intentionally seek out a design that would include a blind tee shot, at least not in the pure sense such as Jeff describes where there would be obvious potential to harm another player.  Other more subtle blind situations however which we have all experienced  and as Jeff also describes are something different.

[A.G._Crockett]

A lot of the fun and charm of the game is watching the ball fly, bounce and roll, especially on well-struck tee shot. (I think Nicklaus says something about this is "Golf My Way.") The blind shot adds a completely different element of fun, but a much less enjoyable one for the average golfer if overused.

Wouldn't blind shots also tend to reduce the golfer's ability to think strategically about a hole, unless it was a course that they played constantly?

[Patrick_Mucci]

If you reread the original post, it's not as if the entire shot is invisible or blind, it's just that the DZ is obscured.

I don't know how 2 feet of rough fronting the fairway, or a 2 foot berm fronting a fairway will slow up play.

The golfer sees nearly everything about his shot, from impact until just before touchdown, he just can't see the landing area, he can't get a finite handle on the boundaries of the features, which is what causes a good deal of uncertainty.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Pat, I like one or two blind or semi blind fairways per course. I find iit is a lot like many of the features we discuss on here. They make great contributions, but if too many individually or quanitivly the course becomes a bit too quirky for modern tastes.

[Andy Troeger]

Pat,
  I think the situation you mention would probably take care of most safety issues (it would appear you would be able to see a person or a cart, just not the actual ground). However, by not being able to see the ball land, I would think you would lose depth perception.
  On a course with thick rough where balls are not obvious from a fair distance away it would seem like it would still slow up play some looking for the ball in the rough. With the uncertainty of the shot, maybe it would cause more errant drives and I think COULD slow up play. It depends on the situation, there are certainly those where it would likely not have much or an effect.
  I'm curious though, how natural of a situation would this be? I've admittedly not seen many holes of the type you mention, and the two or three I can think of I didn't care for, because they were flat holes with some odd thing in the way (reeds coming out of a pond for example). It does make the hole MUCH more intimidating, but it seemed to have more effect on the high handicapper than the low. Just my observation in the couple of instances I can recall.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()