[Tom_Doak]

I have played lots of blind holes in my life, and generally speaking, I don't mind the concept one bit.  You aren't looking at the target when you hit your ball ... so as long as you can tell approximately where you're supposed to be going in advance, I say they're fine.  They aren't done much in modern architecture, not because they're unpopular among good golfers (though they are), but because of the liability issue, which I don't mean to discuss here.

What I want to discuss is why I like some blind holes and hate others.  For me, it's about going back to basics.

If we were out hitting balls around open links ground without golf holes laid out on them, there would be nothing more natural than to decide at some point, "Let's hit it over that dune."  It's a natural challenge and an entirely valid one that is the essence of all those tee shots at Royal County Down in particular.  Ideally, there is some natural definition ... i.e. the ideal line is to hit over the very peak of the hill ... but today we need guide posts for each different tee just to be sure.

By the same token, I don't mind an occasional blind approach shot, as long as you can tell generally where the green is by reading something in the arrangement of the dunes.  I don't think the golfer always ought to know exactly where the flag is ... for 97% the green is the target, not the flag.  The Dell at Lahinch is perhaps the epitome of what I'm talking about ... the green sits in a well-defined natural hollow, and the challenge is to hit over the frontal dune and land just beyond it.

However, some people defend ANY blind hole on the grounds that all is fair in love and war.  If that's your point of view, there's no point in arguing about it, but some blind holes are really disappointing to me because they don't have any definition.  The Himalayas at Prestwick is one example -- yes you hit it over a ridge, but the green is a long way on the other side, in an open field, with bunkers to both sides.

But the hole that got me thinking about this topic is the Dell hole at Erin Hills.  Lots of people have opined in favor of it just because it's blind, and lots of others hate it because it's blind.  To me, it's possibly the most disappointing blind hole I've ever seen.  There's nothing to hit over ... you just aim at a rock on a flat horizon and the shot goes down from there to a valley green.  To name it after the Dell at Lahinch is ridiculous.

[Willie_Dow]

The reason I like a blind hole shot is the shot value of local knowledge.  It takes away that questionable value of an equitable stroke control factor, which should be weighed on the frequency of playing a course.

[Brian_Ewen]

I like the anticipation after any blind shot .

[Adam Clayman]

There's a certain individuality about B. S. (blind shots).  I have noticed blind shots that wouldn't be blind ten yards farther right, but, have never seen  the great shot executed when the golfer is on the visible part of the fairway, but, on an inordinately high percentages of occasions have seen the great shot pulled off from the blind spot. I'd call that serious MoJo and an example of a good B. S..

[Tom Roewer]

IMO the 3rd @ Gleneagles Kings is a great example.  Nice driving hole and a green that is large enough.  I think this(green size)is essential for the hole to stand up, be challenging, refreshing , yet fair to an extent.

[Dan Moore]

I am a big fan of partial blindness like I see on many Langford/Moreau courses.  A mound or a crest of the hill may obscure the landing zone or hide the surface of the green even though you can still see the flag.  I think this adds a measure of mystery and challenge that is otherwise missing and keeps a hole interesting on multiple plays.  To use examples at Lawsonia, I never tire of the drive on the second over the pair of constructed mounds on the crest of the small hill about 75-100 yds from the tee.  I also find the very slightly raised area in front of the green on 11 which hides the surface of the green but not the flag (especially when the pin is right) intriguing as it adds to the challenge of reading (seeing/feeling) the distance correctly.  

I did not care for the tee shot of the Dell at Erin Hills at all.  I can't imagine a more boring shot after you have played it a few times.  The thrill of a soaring shot over a high dune or massive bunker, as the shot at the Sahara hole at Sandwhich was originally described, is sadly lacking.  

So for me blindness which adds mystery and challenge is the most intriguing.  

[Sean Walsh]

Tom,

I'm assuming then that your are not a fan of Klondyke (or does its lack of bunkering redeem it?)

It would also seem that the Erin Hills Dell would more aptly be named Klondyke

[Andy Troeger]

Tom,
Without having seen the holes in question your theory and explanations make sense to me.

One of my concerns with blind shots tends to occur when there's a large chance of losing a ball in high rough or water or whatever it happens to be. I'm sure its been done well, but in general I usually don't favor that.

[Jeff Doerr]

Due to my golfing skills I am often left with a blind shot.  

I love blind shots where:

1) You get a preview - I started a "windows" thread a while back about this.

2) You can do a short climb up the hill to gain your bearings against the skyline.

One of the great pleasures in golf is the anticipation after a well struck blind shot. One of my favorite images in golf is Sergio running after his shot and jumping in the air to try and get a glimpse of his heroic blind recovery...

[Tom_Doak]

Sean:

I'm not a big fan of Klondyke, but I don't hate it, either, because it has a definite point to it (getting the ball up and over and obstacle and having to take a lofted enough club to do so when you're still hoping to reach the green in two).

[Kalen Braley]

Of all the comments I agree most with what Andy said.

Attempting blind shots are fun and require players to "estimate" the best they can both yardage and direction.  However its frustrating to hit a blind shot, hike up over the hill or dune and have a massive sea of gunch unfold before you.  The player should have a chance to find thier ball as they only have an approximate coordinate to where it would have ended up.

Tom,

What would your short list be of both do's and don'ts for blind holes?  

[Matt Kardash]

I think my favourite type of blind hole is the type where if you flirt with a hazrd off the tee you are rewarded with a view to the green. But if you bail out off the tee you face a blind shot into the green. To me, those kinds are the most thrilling. I beleive Pete Dye built a number of these types of holes.

[Dan Moore]

Matt,

I think thats ok and Erin Hills has some of that, maybe too much, but the analysis can dig a little deeper.  When blindness is presented as choice of something to avoid or not avoid I think its more sophisticated to provide a choice where the blinder approach is the better angle and the more visible approach is a more difficult angle.  Or even better when the choice varies day to day depending on the pin location.  

[Daryl David]

I think my favourite type of blind hole is the type where if you flirt with a hazrd off the tee you are rewarded with a view to the green. But if you bail out off the tee you face a blind shot into the green. To me, those kinds are the most thrilling. I beleive Pete Dye built a number of these types of holes.

Matt,
You just described my favorite hole at Ballyneal which is #12.  A well struck drive down the left flirts with deadly bunkering if pulled too far.  If you get past that bunker you have a perfect view of a dramatic green and can see which of 4 deep bowls the pin might be placed.  If you drive the safer route of middle to slightly right, the slope throws your ball down to the right edge of the fairway where you have a blind second over green side bunkers to the putting surface.  That shot is exciting because even if you hit the green you could be looking at 3 putt if you end up in the wrong side of a bowl.  You really don't know your fate until you climb the hill.  

[BCrosby]

Seems to me that there are at least two very different kinds of blind shots.

One is the Alps type. There is no where to hit it off the the tee to reduce the blindness of the approach. I agree with Tom that in the case of "Alps" blindness, painted rocks or stakes are not a very satisfactory way (architecturally) to give the golfer a line. Dye did just that at the 16th at Atlanta National and on the 5th at Old Marsh. I think they are bad holes, for that and other reasons.

It's much better that directional hints in "Alps" blindness be given by surrounding landforms. As such, the blindness can seem almost natural, thus easier to buy into. I have never been bothered by the fact that I couldn't locate the pin. Nobody else I'm playing with can either, so that's fine.

The other kind of blindness is strategic. The amount of blindness you must deal with is a function of where you position your shot. What Dan talks about above. I think it is a wonderful feature, whether used on the tee shot or on the approach shot. TOC has got some of that type. As well as PVGC.  The 1st at Athens CC is a wonderful example of strategic blindness.

But the thing about strategic blindness is that it requires very wide playing corridors in order to work. Which is actually another virtue, if you have the land available for it.

Bob

[JMorgan]

Well put, Bob.  I prefer the strategic variety that you describe vs. the "pure luck" kind.  And where blindness is total, I at least want a hint from the surrounding landscape and several shot options.  

A good blind shot should have more than one option.  

A good blind shot shouldn't result from bad routing, eg. a hill top blind shot designed for no reason other than to lead the player to the remaining holes on the course.

I can see how blindness might be good when sequenced in a routing to affect the player's psychology or provide variety.

[David Druzisky]

i like the story line about "lets hit it over that dune".  I would expand on that in regrds to the question and say if you were playing over links land in a competitive manner at some point you might make the strategic decission to take the chance t hit over the dune because the guy you are playing against took the obvious and longer route around the dunes.  Courageous and stimulating.

How about the difference between one shotters, two shotters, and even three shotters?  on a one shotter the originating line of play is of course fairly dictated.  On a par 5 it can be a great way to put interest in the 2nd shot options.

It is funny how some appreciate a blind shot here and there and some just cant deal with them.  Something to do with imagination or lack there of.

I just don't think you can get away with combining too many penal elements with the blind shot.  Not to say being stuck upon the hllside on The Dell hole is not penal.  But, it is still a pretty cool shot to try and make.

[Tim Liddy]

Although not entirely blind, I think Maxwell gets it right at Southern Hills.  A few of the green surfaces are blind (#9 and #18) but you have a general sense where the green is located.  You see a bit of the front of the green and the flagstick. You do not know where the back and blind side of the greens are ending.

These greens, with that are partially blind, are better than completely blind approach shots. I have an idea of the target and the flag but do not know how close my shot is to the flag until I get up to the green.

[Phil McDade]

I like the notion of partial or semi-blindness, where the hole reveals more and more of itself as you progress from tee to green. L/M do alot of this on their courses, as Dan indicated, notably at 15 and 16 at Lawsonia, two very good partially blind par 4s.

I just played a golden-era 9-hole course where two of the three par 3s had green features partially hidden, two par 5s featured blind landing areas, and two other holes where a short or less-than-ideal drive provided the golfer with a blind or semi-blind approach into the green. It was pretty cool.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

I like blind holes, but, your question made me wonder why I liked them and which blind holes I liked and which blind holes I didn't like.

Off the top of my head I couldn't think of a blind hole that I didn't like.

Yet, I recalled many that I did like, irrespective of whether the blind feature was off the tee, on the second or on the approach.

Then I recalled a blind shot that I didn't like.
But, my dislike is not due to the architecture, rather, the way the hole is maintained.

It's the second hole at Mt Ridge, a good par 4 that's blind off a lower tee, up over a ridge, with a fairway that once over the ridge slopes toward the green with a left to right cant.  Someone decided to let a semicircle of rough grow into the right side of the fairway.  Thus balls hit dead center, kick right and into the rough that intrudes well into the fairway.

That, I don't like.

The reason that I don't like that blind shot is that all the architectural signals to the golfer's eye, as they stand on the tee, indicate that a ball hit dead center should be A-OK to ideal, and, just the opposite is true.

I suspect that some misquided individual/s championed this concept in order to heighten the advantage of local knowledge.

Some say that blind holes are best offered and accepted in small doses, yet, NGLA can offer blind shots on about 16 holes, from tee shots, to second shots, to approaches to recoveries.

I'm not a fan of blind shots where water or OB are perilously close to the intended target zone.

The pond left of # 16 green at GCGC would be an example.
# 5 at Old Marsh might join that category, but, the rock directional on top of the mound/s gives the golfer an idea of the intended line.

I'm wondering if my inability to cite bad blind holes is the result of my spotty memory, or, the fact that they don't distinguish themselves in my eyes, and are thus, immemorial.

I'll try to recollect what I would deem to be a bad blind hole, architecturally, but, other than the hole I cited, which was due to misguided maintainance practices, I can't think of any.

[Bill Gayne]

The excitement of the blind shot isn't on the tee. It's on the walk to the summit of the dune or obstacle that provided the blindness. A good blind hole creates a sense of anticipation or possibly anxiety every time the hole is played. The old saying "a hole is blind only once" is true but the excitement of seeing what's been hidden should exist every time. I think on blind holes the architect should be leading to you special places on the property.

Some ways I can think to keep blind holes interesting over time is through center line ridges or bumps in the fairways that may provide a "turbo boost" of an additional 20-30 yards. The anticpation of walking to the crest of a hill to see if you caught the favorable side of a center line ridge that will give you a better angle into the green.  Or if you drove it far enough to catch that bump behind the dune that will allow the player to go for a par five in two.

Two of my favorite blind holes are the ninth at Royal County Down and thirteenth at Doonbeg.

I don't like blind hazards.

[Doug Siebert]

I am a big fan of partial blindness like I see on many Langford/Moreau courses.  A mound or a crest of the hill may obscure the landing zone or hide the surface of the green even though you can still see the flag.  I think this adds a measure of mystery and challenge that is otherwise missing and keeps a hole interesting on multiple plays.  To use examples at Lawsonia, I never tire of the drive on the second over the pair of constructed mounds on the crest of the small hill about 75-100 yds from the tee.  I also find the very slightly raised area in front of the green on 11 which hides the surface of the green but not the flag (especially when the pin is right) intriguing as it adds to the challenge of reading (seeing/feeling) the distance correctly.

I would have to say that the 2nd at Lawsonia is an example of the type of bad blind hole that Tom is talking about.  Yes, you have the two hills to line up on, but you certainly don't want to hit straight between the two, unless you are a very short hitter.  With the dogleg to the right, you end up having to adjust your aim towards (or even beyond) the right mound to get the correct line for your shot (or where you want it to end up if you work the ball to the right)  It seems to me this is exactly the sort of lack of definition that I think he alludes to with the example of Prestwick's Himalayas hole.

Perhaps this is partially an artifact of today's driving distances versus the very short turning points in Lawsonia's doglegs.  However, in a course that plays F&F today and surely must have played even more F&F when it was built, on a hole like that where the ball would gone nearly as far as it does today for good players thanks to the fairway slope and very sparse grass during a dry summer, I'd guess this was a problem even for golfers in 1930.

I like blind holes, but I don't really like the combination of blind holes and doglegs, or blind landing areas for deep grass, insuring you will lose the ball.  Lawsonia has this in spades for shots that are offline but not wildly so.  If you can't see it land from the tee the search area is just too large, you better have great eyes or get lucky, otherwise you might as well re-tee.  Blindness shouldn't be used to turn rough that's typically a half shot hazard into a stroke and distance penalty, that's just too harsh IMHO.

Lawsonia has a lot of positive attributes, but I think it really falls short in its use of blindness.

[Tom_Doak]

Doug:

I haven't seen Lawsonia in twenty years, and the maintenance was much different back then, but I agree with your example in concept.  Any time I'm building a blind shot, I'm going to make it extra wide on the back end to make sure you find your ball.  The anxiety caused by the lack of visibility should not be compounded by potential lost-ball hazards.

[Phil McDade]

Doug:

I'm pretty sure you're a better golfer than I (I'm certain of it, because I'm not very good). I've been playing Lawsonia for years, spraying tee shots all over the place, and can honestly say I've never lost a ball there because of its blind shots (I've lost some there, but because of shanks I could see all too well, and not because of a blind shot).

I can see how someone accustomed to simply going full-throttle off the tee box at Lawsonia might lose a ball in the hay. But the fairway corridors there, generally, are pretty darn wide. I'm fairly convinced that one of the reasons L/M built a certain amount of blindness into the tee shots there was to give pause to players on the tee, and make them at least think of the consequences of a full-throttled approach off the tee.

To use the 2nd as an example, it plays 422 from the whites and 431 from the tips. I've never hit anything less than driver there, because for me that's a long par 4. But for the very good player, might it not be reasonable to hit something other than driver there? The approach shot is downhill; for someone who can hit fairway wood/long iron 220-240, that leaves a (downhill) mid-to-long iron into a pretty large, receptive green. Isn't that, from a golf architect's perspective, a pretty reasonable trade-off for the distance given up with a driver, if the player is uncertain about where his drive will go due to the blind tee shot? Sure, the tee shot is blind regardless of the club used, but driver increases the chances of an inaccurate shot, no?

[Jim Sweeney]

Tm and DOug-

Isn't that what makes the Combination Alps/Punchbowl concept so successful- a blind approach yet the green and its surrounds collect balls. Fishers Island may be the best example I have played. Camrgo's 7th contains balls though they do not collect due to the bunkers and rough, but the ball is always playable.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()