[Patrick_Mucci]

Andy,

Let me add what I shouldn't have omitted.

The underlying conditions to the premise include fairly wide to wide fairways

[Peter Pallotta]

Patrick,
I wrote earlier in the thread that I have no great love for blind tee shots. You described one of their attributes, i.e. that the player "can't get a finite handle on the boundaries of the features, which is what causes a good deal of uncertainty."

Speaking only for myself, it is this extra level of uncertainty that I think, for the most part, unneccesary. The architect has already (presumably) designed the hole so that it requires some thought, and has many tools at his disposal: e.g. lines of play, hazards, tricky greens etc.  At a public course that I might be playing for the first time, those factors already give me more than enough to think about.

I'm standing on an unfamiliar tee box, a foursome ambling down the fairway in front of me, a foursome on the green behind me, I'm trying to figure out the basic shape of the hole, and some basic strategy, and I'm trying to sense the wind, and I'm deciding if a hybrid is a smart choice, and I'm choosing, say, to hit a fade, and I'm worrying whether my swing will do what I hope it will do.....and if I don't collapse in exhaustion before I hit the damn ball I sure as heck want to see it land.  

Peter

[SPDB]

Pat - Hope you're well.

I think the absence of blind tee shot or obscured DZ is far less pronounced than the absence of blind shots into the green.

To me the absence of blind shots into the green is the more pressing problem. Blind approach shots have important values. By virtue of the smaller target, they are more exacting than tee shots.  

But what people miss, and I was thinking about this this past weekend as I was playing Eastward Ho, where blind shots are legion, is that it can have a beneficial effect on other aspects of the game. For instance, the blind approach shot will likely lead to wayward play. This is an opportunity to bring back real short game interest into play.

So for me, I still see blindness off the tee, what I regret more is the lack of blindness on approach shots.

[Jim Johnson]

I would think it would possibly cause slow play if you could not see your ball land and most definitely would cause slow play if you could not see your ball then roll into rough bordering the fairway. Having to look for a ball in rough where you have really no idea where it entered or how far it travelled into, would have to bog down play.

Having said that, I would agree with Tiger B. above; one hole [maybe two] per round that featured a blind/semi-blind tee shot would be okay with me. Any more would be quirky/not desirable.

JJ

[Andy Troeger]

Patrick,
  That would certainly be of assistance in terms of the slow play issue. Especially if its a private course where one would expect most of the golfers to play the course fairly frequently and to be decent golfers.

[Patrick_Mucci]

J Johnson,

GCGC has between 4.5 and 5.5 blind tee shots in the sense that your view is partially obscured and/or you can't see the ball land, yet play is in 3.5-4 hours, hence slow play, even with deep, dense rough isn't a factor with respect to this issue.

At Preakness Hills, 5 holes have the LZ obscured, yet play is in under 4 hours.

Slow play isn't usually a function of architectural features, it's more a function of the golfers.

SPDB,

I"d agree, blind approach shots seem to have gone the way of the dinosaurs.

Which is why I find the approach shots to # 3 and # 16 at NGLA exciting.

[redanman]

#11 at Bethpage Black is a wonderful example of the use of this deceptive technique.  the fairways there are 22-28 yards wide and #11 is in a big wide open plain with no trees for comfortable "framing".  

Due to some grasses and a dip, the actual location of this fairway is difficult to exactly determine, making the player a little unsure.  Interestingly enough, you can see the players ahead of you playing the hole from about the knees up, but even from the interestingly further elevated "Open Tee" it is still difficult to determine exactly where the fairway is, just the players

A nice feature, agreed.

p.s. I agree with you below Pat.

JUST SAY NO! to elevated tees.

[Patrick_Mucci]

And,

It appears that the obscuring feature is extremely easy and inexpensive to create and maintain.

[A_Clay_Man]

Pattrick, I think Sean makes a good point about approach shots. Would you agree that certain amount of blindness works for greens as well as LZ?

Having just played LACC North, I was shocked at how much of the greens surface was totally blind on many of holes.

They were blind to the eye, but not to the mind's eye.

[ed_getka]

Patrick's reply #22 describes one of the things I love about Kingsley Club. There are a number of semi-blind shots where you can't see quite enough to feel really comfortable standing over your shot. I don't mind the occasional blind shot, but I much prefer the semiblind shots. You're not guessing where to go, but the uncertainty introduced by the semiblind shot is cool.

Andy,
  I will be interested to hear what you think of Kingsley Club. There are at least 5-6 semi-blind shots on the front side.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I think the problem with the feature is that it's not popular, and as such, any introduction of the feature to an existing hole would meet with staunch resistance from the membership.

Yet, for some reason, it seems that holes like this are memorable and challenging for most golfers.

Is the concept a victim of the quest for "fairness" and dumbing down ?

[Peter Pallotta]

Patrick,

you use the word "fairness" as if it's a bad thing.  

I think you mean to equate "fairness and dumbing down" with a particular style of modern golf course architecture.

I agree that there are enough 7,400 yard testaments to blandness being built (with their scores of elevated tees and directional bunkers), but I don't think semi blind tee shots are a necessary element of/pre-requisite for quality architecture.

One could argue that the goal "fairness" is valued because it rewards skill and the skillful player, and there's certainly nothing intrinsically wrong with that.

Peter            

[Anthony Butler]

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?

Conceptually Nicklaus might say this is an appealing feature to a hole, but I seem to recall him saying that his eyesight was so poor he hadn't seen a drive of his land for 10 years... and that he was too vain to wear glasses on the course. That was several years ago though...perhaps he's had Lasik since then?

One thing this thread has touched on yet not resolved is the difference between a blind tee shot and a blind second. To me, a blind tee shot says you can't see the ball land & roll on a well-stuck tee ball. That doesn't preclude you from having a view of the landing 'area' so as to speak.

A blind approach shot to me means you can't see the pin on the green from where you normally hit the ball. This would apply to a first shot on par3 and a third shot on a par 5. I guess if you're a long hitter this might also apply to the second on a par 5 eg #8 at ANGC. I'll let Patrick Mucci and others split hairs on this issue for a few pages.

I don't have any problems with a raised fairway, in fact it can be a nice vista from the tee. The totally blind tee shot where you can't see people standing anywhere near as far up as the landing area generally creates more problems than it's worth. I'd say in the 5 times I played at Pasatiempo, at least 2 times on #10 some yahoo hit up on our group while we were waiting for the green to clear before playing our second shots. One time it was literally the length of a putter from a hospital visit. That would take some fixing and change the character of the hole, but I would be surprized if their insurer would continue to write a policy after a couple incidents on this hole.

This is much less likely to happen at a private club due to more familiarity with playing conditions and more caution around the possibility of killing a fellow club member... Ironically the issue with slow on public courses is more likely to cause this kind of incident on a blind hole. People get fed up with waiting and tend to play up on people waiting in the fairway in the second part of a 5-5.5 hour round as if this will solve the problem. Depending on the wind conditions there are about 4 blind tee shots on my home course and I can count on one hand the number of times I have been unintentionally hit up on in the last 10 years.  

[Doug Siebert]

There don't seem to be many new designs with blind fairways.  I wonder if its liability or just being afraid of alienating golfers who think blindness is a design problem rather than a feature.

OK, there are SOME new designs, I can think of Old Head's 12th as a perfect example (and the most intimidating tee shot I've ever seen) but being in Ireland people don't notice it because Ireland is littered with blind holes so an architect can get away with it there in a new design.

[Anthony Butler]

There don't seem to be many new designs with blind fairways.  I wonder if its liability or just being afraid of alienating golfers who think blindness is a design problem rather than a feature.

OK, there are SOME new designs, I can think of Old Head's 12th as a perfect example (and the most intimidating tee shot I've ever seen) but being in Ireland people don't notice it because Ireland is littered with blind holes so an architect can get away with it there in a new design.

The 18th hole at Red Tail, a 2004 Brian Silva design in Devens, MA, has a blind tee-shot on 18. It goes out about 175yds off the tee and then steeply downhill to the green. Hole is about 580 from the back tees. I recall they have one of those towers you can climb to see whether the last group is out of range. Silva has another blind drive on the par 5 #15 at Shaker Hills about 6 miles away.

[peter_p]

Bandon Dunes #4 usually has a blind tee shot unless you are on forward tees. It takes a few rounds, or trust in your caddy to find the fairway at the dogleg. I think it is the best shot situation on the course.

The one time I played Kiawah-Ocean I hit what I though was a perfect drive, cutting off an appropriate part of the dogleg to the angled fairway. I get to my line and no ball showing.
No idea if it was snagged by the high grass short or it ran through into the long grass on the far side. My rule: only one 'hazard' per blind shot.

[Mark_Fine]

Pat and others,
I have not read this thread but do have the answer to your question about why more fairways are not made blind off the tee.  The reason is that very few courses can afford to install proper periscopes so golfers can check out the land scape over the hill to see what lies ahead  

Photo of the periscope on the first hole at The Golf House Club at Elie in Scotland (the first fairway landing area is blind off the tee):  



If you have not played here, you are missing a fun and very scenic links course on the coast of Scotland.  I just got back from a week trip and this course was special.  Also, spent time on the new #7 at St. Andrews with the lead architect and will try to post photos and an overview later.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

you use the word "fairness" as if it's a bad thing.  

I believe the general trend toward "fairness" is a bad thing becuase it equates to the removal of challenging or unusual situations-architecture.

I think you mean to equate "fairness and dumbing down" with a particular style of modern golf course architecture.

I agree that there are enough 7,400 yard testaments to blandness being built (with their scores of elevated tees and directional bunkers), but I don't think semi blind tee shots are a necessary element of/pre-requisite for quality architecture.

One could argue that the goal "fairness" is valued because it rewards skill and the skillful player, and there's certainly nothing intrinsically wrong with that.

When a steep bunker wall is deemed "unfair" and softened, I don't believe the effort is undertaken with the purpose of rewarding skill.

When a bunker is moved or removed because it's deemed "unfair" I don't believe the effort was driven by the desire to reward skill.

Likewise, the obscuring of a DZ, by mound, grass or other method is typically branded as "unfair" because it presents an uncommon challenge.

But, you bring up an interesting point.

Who decides the "skill level"  when attempting to reward it ?
     

[ed_getka]

Patrick,
   The unfortunate reality is that features being removed and not designed in in the first place revolve around two issues. One is most golfers want to shoot a low number, so they much prefer no hazards, or uncertainty, and flat greens. Second is pace of play. I have played at some fun courses over the years that were dumbed down to speed up pace of play. Of course, all the exciting shots were removed, but not many people at one course in particular seemed to mind.

[A_Clay_Man]

I know if a course that opens in approx. three weeks that use blindness in the most sensible way. Since the teeing grounds won't have markers, the golfer can choose where he/she tees the ball. Since the designer has allowed for multiple angles and elevations the golfer gets to choose the level of blindness.

On the approach side, this same course has blind approaches  from certain areas of the prepared surface. While others positions are not blind at all on the same LZ. Purely random, unpredictable, and, should allow the golfer to understand how they personally are running.

 

[redanman]

Mark

THe ratass munis of SF used to have a lot of really neato periscopes, so I doubt it's a money thing.  One doesn't always need a submarine quality one.

Just two mirrors and a long tube did it.  I think Peninsula (nee Beresford) has one or two also.

[Peter Pallotta]

Patrick
on your question re: skill and who decides when it's rewarded, the answer is in two parts. Skill is "the ability to do something well, usually gained through training or experience". Plain enough, and I think plain enough in the context of the game of golf. How this skill is measured is a separate question, and in the context of this discussion the important one. My pov all along has been simply this: that with all the tools at an architect's disposal (e.g. lines of charm, bunker placements, green complexes), I think that the blind shot is not a necessary aspect of quality architecture. If it is the result of an excellent routing, so be it - and I can and do enjoy one every once in a while; but it doesn't seem to me to be a pre-requisite for good/fun/quality architecture, even if most every classic course in the UK has them. You are probably right that the motives behind owners/architects not having blind shots are not the purest, but that in and of itself shouldn't invalidate the approach. (The road to hell, after all, is often paved with good intentions - or something like that). I don't know what "most" golfers want, though I assume they just want to play golf, and to have fun doing it. I also assume that, when they are on a public course, for the first time, and have a dozen other things to think about, they don't often want to worry about whether they'll smack someone in the head with an errant blind tee shot. If that makes them less than purists when it comes to golf course architecture, they probably wouldn't mind.

Peter

[Mark_Fine]

Bill,
Of course I was just being facetious about the periscopes but the one I saw at Elie was very impressive!!  

Most of what I have to say about blindness is in our book.  I literally played dozens of holes this past trip to Ireland and Scotland that were blind and loved everyone of them!  

[BCrosby]

Peter raises interesting questions. They've been around for a long time.

One of the reasons many of us resist the concept of "fairness" when applied to golf courses is first, that inanimate things like golf courses aren't fair or unfair. They just are. You and I play the same course. Likewise hats, tables, and mopeds aren't fair or unfair either. A category mistake is involved. (For you philosphers in the house, see G.E. Moore's "objective fallacy". It's a chestnut of Phil. 101.)

The other reason to resist the use of the concept is that many of us believe that one of the unique things about golf (as opposed to tennis or football or track) is that there is not a strict correspondence between skill and outcome. Stuff happens in golf. Rub of the green. There is a delicious unpredictability to the game. Something I have no interesting in diminishing.

Blind shots have a role in maintaining that delicious unpredicatility. Lots of other Golden Age design features do the same thing. But too many moderns find them "unfair" (sic) and they are beginning to disappear too. With the unhappy result that the architect's pallette has shrunk.

So I agree with Pat. The elimination of blind shots from newer designs is ultimately a bad thing for the game. They add spice to the sauce and when they aren't there, the sauce is less interesting.

Bob

[Peter Pallotta]

Bob,
thanks for a very thoughtful post. You really did just give me a new way of thinking about the issue.

Believe it or not, I majored in philosphy (and now, as the joke goes, I make as much money as some poets). I'd indeed fallen victim to a category mistake.  

I think part of the reason was that I was trying to point out a tendency I see to err in another direction, i.e. to assume that design features in golf course architrecture exist a priori, and independent of the actual physical demands and limitations imposed by a specific time and place.

I just don't think the old Scots had some platonic ideal of what the Old Course should look like or how the game should be played (or 'understood'). The original links land was of not much use for anything else (like growing food), and so the practical Scots decided to use it to play the game of golf - and played it just the way they found it, blind shots and all.

That the game and golf course architecture developed in line with that original choice is not surprising; but that's a different thing from assuming that this development was somehow predestined by a pre-established value system, or that it was the only way it could've (or should've) developed.

Thanks again
Peter

 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()