[D_Malley]

A golden age course that i play often which is built on the flattest land of any course i have ever played in this area.
yet it has more blind tee shots of any course i have ever played in this same area.

for this example i define a blind tee shot as follows:
not being able to see your drive's final position
you may be able to see the green
you may also be able to see some of the fairway hazards
it is not easy to determine the fairway edges

my question is:
what do you think of using this method on flat propertys?
do you think this was used purposfully?

[David_Elvins]

I love it.

On a flat site, playing over any small elevation changes present makes the course seem less flat.  

Eric Apperly was an architect that loved building holes that went over hills.  At New South Wales Golf Club and Newcastle Golf Club, it males for an interesting routing on undulating sites but it really shines at one of his lesser courses - Duntryleague - where every small elavation change on a relatively flat site is played over.  

Kingston Heath is another course on a relatively flat site where ridges are constantly played over.  the 1st, 6th, 8th, 9th, 14th, 16th and 17th all have a degree of blindness.  I think it would have been possible to route a course there with no blind shots however i don't think it would be as good. 

[Jaeger Kovich]

did you read the jim urbina interview about erasing the lines?

[D_Malley]

no, i did not see that, but i will

it is definitely an uncomfortable feeling on the tee when you can not see the lines of the fairway

many tee shots on this course have that quality, but i rarely hear it talked about as a design element.

[Mike Cirba]

D_Malley,

I'm trying to guess which course you're referring to.   Not too much flat in the way of Golden Age courses on our side of the river.

Is the course in NJ?

[Tom_Doak]

D Malley:

You could be talking about Garden City Golf Club.  There are at least a couple of holes there which are almost dead flat, and when the rough grows up in front of the tees, you can't see the landing areas at all.

I imagine that some people hate it and some people are fine with it, depending on their pre-shot routine.  If you focus on a tree or a cloud for your line, no problem.  If you feel that you need to zero in on a spot in the fairway, you could not be more uncomfortable than on those holes at Garden City.

[D_Malley]

Tom D.
thx for the response
is this something that you would consider as a design element when you are building a golf hole

[D_Malley]

Mike, Hint

it is the oldest 18 hole golf course in the phila. area

[Mike Cirba]

Mike, Hint

it is the oldest 18 hole golf course in the phila. area

D_Malley,

I've yet to play Springhaven unfortunately, which is probably why it didn't come to mind. 

I'm more intrigued after hearing your description.

[Joe Bausch]

You've played a lot of Findlay courses, Mike.  Is this 'flat holes/blind shots' a common feature he employed?

[Mike Cirba]

You've played a lot of Findlay courses, Mike.  Is this 'flat holes/blind shots' a common feature he employed?

Joe,

I think #2 at Reading CC, along with 12 & 13 on the same course are pretty good examples.    Although hardly flat, Findlay did use interesting landforms in landing areas even on the drabbest stretches of the property.

[Ed Oden]

Raynor created blind shots in a number of places at both Yeamans Hall and CC of Charleston.  He did so in a variety of ways: 

Accentuating a subtle roll in the land such as at Yeamans #15...



...raising fairway bunker lips to create an "alps" effect on #5 at Yeamans...



...sometimes combining both a subtle roll and a fairway bunker like at #10 at CC of C...



...a crossing berm which must be negotiated on the second shot of the par 5 15th at CC of C...



Ed

[Tom_Doak]

Tom D.
thx for the response
is this something that you would consider as a design element when you are building a golf hole

D:  To date, I have not built a hole like this.  I generally prefer to let the player see where he is going, although I don't mind the occasional blind shot for the player who drives out of position, or even an occasional blind tee shot up and over an impressive feature.

However, you do bring up a good point with this type of hole.  Normally, architects object to blind holes because of safety concerns ... but on holes such as you are describing, you can clearly see a golfer in the group in front; it's only the target you can't see.  So, an architect who does not oppose blindness for blindness' sake should be open to this type of hole.  However, I cannot think of a modern course where I've seen something similar ... either the tee is elevated, or some earth is moved to make the fairway visible.

[Tom_Doak]

Actually, now that I think about it, High Pointe has a couple of holes where you are driving down into a valley, and you can see the green but not the landing area.  The third hole was particularly tough for people, because you could see fairway bunkers to the left and the flag to the right, so most people drove it to the right even though left was the better angle.

[Mike McGuire]

Tom -

Could this feature be employed to "hide the lines" without adding a lot of difficulty to the hole ?

[Carl Rogers]

Tom & et al,
One of the striking characteristics of Riverfront relative to other courses in Tidewater Virginia is that on this "flat" site there are a lot of shots that land just oh so barely over your sight line angle (I am very tall and it they are over my line of sight). 

The fourth hole tee shot is particularly this way.

It was disconcerting for a few rounds until you realize there is more room out there than you think.

[Zack Molnar]

Another raynor course where this is employed is at The Camargo club in Cincinnati. At the sixth you can not see the fairway lines, only the green ahead, which is actually misleading as the green is in line with the left side of the fairway. Additionally, on the 7th hole, your drive is flat, but then the hole is depressed into the ground, allowing the golfer to only see the top of the flagstick. And, the green is enormous so that is slightly a guess as to where the pin is actually located. This also happens a couple times on the back, but these two holes on the front are prime examples. You can see the shot on 7 on the course review on this site.
I personally think this is an excellent feature. It adds a sort of disconcerting sense to the golfer, and really makes him commit to the shot. The architect can also make it so that different tees have different variations of blindness, allowing better players more of a challenge, an important aspect of architecture.

[Matt Langan]

Generally speaking, I am not a fan of blind shots, especially when I am playing at a course that I am unfamilar with. Imagine this scenario (as I'm sure you've probably experienced it, I don't think this will be too difficult to do):  you are playing a course for the first time and you hit a shot in the direction that you think is correct based on the way the direction the fairway appears to be moving up until it falls away, you it flush and on line with your intended target, and then you walk/drive up to find that your ball has found the heavy rough or a hidden bunker/water hazard. I don't think that golfers should ever have to be presented with this type of agony, because they haven't necessesarily done anything wrong. I disagree with blind shots as those that have been described for this reason.

Although I'm young and my architecture expertise pales in comparison to my fellow GCAers, I think that a golf course should be an artistic chess board of sorts: it incorporates art because a course should have a variable character (in difficulty and design), be aesthically pleasing, be in tune with its surrounding environment, and force a player to think; however, like a chess board, a course should be transparent and a golfer playing on it should make scores that are understandable (meaning that all of their good shots should be rewarded, and most of their bad shots should be punished).

Don't get me wrong...I love local knowledge (like hitting it on a portion of the green where you know the ball will roll towards the hole, or hitting it in certain parts of the fairway where you will enjoy a bit of a kick that bumps you an extra 10-15 yards), but the blind shots unfairly place a local player in a position of power, which doesn't suit the pure nature of the game.

[Duncan Betts]

Actually, now that I think about it, High Pointe has a couple of holes where you are driving down into a valley, and you can see the green but not the landing area.  The third hole was particularly tough for people, because you could see fairway bunkers to the left and the flag to the right, so most people drove it to the right even though left was the better angle.

Sounds like a great hole, I love visible deception like that, which is why I hate short dogleg holes where the green isn't at least visible.

[Jon Wiggett]

Generally speaking, I am not a fan of blind shots, especially when I am playing at a course that I am unfamilar with. Imagine this scenario (as I'm sure you've probably experienced it, I don't think this will be too difficult to do):  you are playing a course for the first time and you hit a shot in the direction that you think is correct based on the way the direction the fairway appears to be moving up until it falls away, you it flush and on line with your intended target, and then you walk/drive up to find that your ball has found the heavy rough or a hidden bunker/water hazard. I don't think that golfers should ever have to be presented with this type of agony, because they haven't necessesarily done anything wrong. I disagree with blind shots as those that have been described for this reason.

Although I'm young and my architecture expertise pales in comparison to my fellow GCAers, I think that a golf course should be an artistic chess board of sorts: it incorporates art because a course should have a variable character (in difficulty and design), be aesthically pleasing, be in tune with its surrounding environment, and force a player to think; however, like a chess board, a course should be transparent and a golfer playing on it should make scores that are understandable (meaning that all of their good shots should be rewarded, and most of their bad shots should be punished).

Don't get me wrong...I love local knowledge (like hitting it on a portion of the green where you know the ball will roll towards the hole, or hitting it in certain parts of the fairway where you will enjoy a bit of a kick that bumps you an extra 10-15 yards), but the blind shots unfairly place a local player in a position of power, which doesn't suit the pure nature of the game.

Matt,

the home player or team always has an advantage in any sport and golf is no different. You liken golf courses to chess but in chess don't players try to mask their strategy from the opponent as much as possible. I am not sure what your 'pure nature of the game' is and maybe you can expand on it but golf does reflect life in many ways in that it throws up unforseen problems and bits of luck on a regular basis many of which are 'not fair'. How you react and deal with these is very much the essence of the game.

If you feel that a player should ALWAYS be rewarded for their good shots then why don't you think that all bad shots should be punished?

If you look at your mound that kicks the ball an extra 10 to 15 yards down the fairway. You see it as okay because your example gives you an advantage. Yet your mound will have four basic sides. Carry the crest and ball will go futher but land just a few feet short and to the side and your ball might end up being kicked in to the deep rough. Is that fair that two shots landing so close together should have such different results? Maybe not but that is part of the fascination of golf.

Blind shots have been an inherent part of the game of golf from its earliest beginnings. Playing TOC is one of the if not the purest golfing experiences that any golfer can have. TOC utilises blind shots often.

Jon

[Matt Langan]

Jon:

I agree that the home team definitely does and should have a bit of an advantage over the visiting team, but I don't think that they should get an unfair advantage (like know that a bunker or pond is lurking in an unseen location), which can occur with the incorporation of blind shots.

You're right, my comparison to the game of chess was a bit off base. I cited a chess board because both players involved in a game of chess can see all the pieces of the game and how they are moving on a defined area. I think this is how a golf course should be. A checker board, a Monopoly board, or any other game in which all of its pieces and places are generally viewable would have also sufficed to make my point. I wasn't thinking about the strategy aspect of chess, and I'm sorry I wasn't as clear as I should have been.

In reference to when I said that "the blind shots unfairly place a local player in a position of power, which doesn't suit the pure nature of the game." I was talking about how this unfair advantage is almost a bit unethical - there isn't a fair opportunity for both parties to score the same with an equal amount of skill and mental strength - which contrasts with the purity of the game.

I think that players shouldn't always be punished for their bad shots because I think that golf courses should allow for golfers to be able to recover from their bad shots if they are able to show miraculous skill during their shots from the trouble in which their bad shots put them in. I believe in second chances. If all of the bad shots were punished, then golf holes would be full of OB and water hazards looming closely along the outskirts of the fairways or greens. I think that is excessive, and the game would be a lot less fun!

[Matt Langan]

Jon:

Also, in response to your mound point. It's very true...the mound can be a double-edged (or more appropriately a no-edged) sword in that it can be both advantageous or disadvantageous depending on where the ball strikes it. However, this is not unfair if it is viewable by all players. If the players are able to view the mound and hit towards it, then either scenario (bouncing to or away from the target) is acceptable. However, when a player hits a mound that they didn't know was present because it was hidden, then a degree of unfairness comes into play because the golfer didn't know that their shot if hit in that direction would be susceptible to the duplicitous nature of the mound's kicks.

Alright, so I've definitely given blind shots a lock of knocks, but I do want to clarify that I don't think ALL blind shots are bad. I think incorporating blind shots are fine as long as what is hidden isn't something that is game-changing (like a bunker, lake, or thick rough). I think blind shots can be a great design element to incorporate into the course because it conjures up a degree of uncertainty in the golfer, which I think makes the game a bit more fun and tests a golfer's ability to trust their gut.

[Jon Wiggett]

mmmm, Matt,

I do understand your point and used to think very similar things. I changed my mind when I discovered that most courses living up to my old expectations were dull and boring despite being very fair.

I think you need a long trip to Scotland and play many of the great courses that are here that are highly regarded to appreciate the place that blindshot, with or without inseen hazards have in this game. Golf is a game that is by its very nature is unfair but in which the expectation is that the players of this game will be at all times fair.

Jon

[Matt Langan]

Haha I guess I need to book a flight to head across the pond. Care to pay!?  A good trip to play true links courses might just change my opinion, I've got to admit.

[Jack_Marr]

Pornmarnock has a few holes like this. The rough hides the fairway.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()