[astavrides]

generally don't like them because:
1) easier to lose a ball
2) I have to either guess where to hit it or walk up to the point where I can see, then walk back to my ball
3) don't get immediate feedback on my shot.  
4) can't think about my next shot while im walking to my ball.

not sure what the plusses are, but I have to admit I didn't read joes article or melvyn's post (i never do).
a) the thrill of cresting the hill and then seeing where your shot finished doesn't exist for me.  wouldn't the thrill be the same if you knew the result right away?  My eyes are bad enough that it often takes me a while to see where a non- blind shot finished and that doesnt add any excitement, only anxiety.  I get out my rangefinder if I can see it.  
b) people like them or say they like them on this site because 1) they're supposed to say that on this site and 2) a lot of links course or ODG courses (which are generally good courses for other reasons) have them because they had to have them.

[Jeff_Brauer]

"My eyes are bad enough that it often takes me a while to see where a non- blind shot finished and that doesnt add any excitement, only anxiety.  I get out my rangefinder if I can see it."

I forgot to mention the rangefinders (and carts) as ways to negate the supposed challenge of blindness, making the concept even less relevant than it might have been when golf was more like Melvyn likes it!  (Not a knock on Melvyn at all. Hey, I like some elements of old school golf myself, but as a designer, have to "give the people what they want" ( maybe less so now that my kids are mostly through college........)

[Mark_Rowlinson]

I love the excitement of driving or pitching blind over a cairn or marker post, provided that the ground on the far side is not unfair. RCD, Hunstanton, R St G's, I can think of lots of exciting examples. But there are also blind shots on Heaton Park, a JH Taylor municipal in North Manchester. It is one of the most dangerous places I can think of and some of people playing there are not perhaps as civilised as others. I still wake in a cold sweat when I recall playing there many years ago when I could still hit the ball a decent distance. We were out as a two-ball following a 4-ball of beginners. We gave them what we thought was plenty of time to clear the far side of a hill, over which we drove. There was a yell, followed by the sight of four club-wielding hooligans charging in our direction intent on malice. We picked up our clubs and ran - couldn't do that now!

[Jud_T]

Are there any scratch players here who can honestly say they love blind shots?  Or has the scorecard and pencil mentality permeated your soul...

[Dan King]

I've always liked blind shots, but I do believe there are two keys to a good blind hole.

• I like if a player can gain an advantage by hitting a certain area that is blind. I don't want too many hazards, but rather strong rewards. It makes rushing up the hill so much more fun when you have anticipation of possibly hitting that turbo burner, rather than dread that you might be in a hazard.
• I like a blind hole where the observant golfer can see some part of the landing area earlier in the round. It can even be much earlier, such as a hole on the back nine that you got a look at earlier, while playing the front nine. Golfers who pay very little attention to the golf course and only pay attention to the hole they are playing will be penalized. Golfers that take in their surrounding will be rewarded

Cheers,
Dan King

The Redan at North Berwick is another fine hole which has been copied almost as often as the Eden at St. Andrews. The original hole can hardly be considered perfect, as it is too blind and there are too many bunkers which have no meaning, but the ideas embodied in the hole are excellent, and these ideas give an architect great opportunities of making interesting holes.
 --Alister MacKenzie

[Carl Nichols]

If you followed my recent Philmont North thread, you might remember that it contained two holes, each with blind tee shots (#6 and #10).  Check out where they are in the routing:



Notice anything that is likely when playing it on the ground?  If you are paying attention, you'll see the 6th hole clearly when playing the 5th, and when walking from 9 green to 10 tee, it is simple to see where you need to hit the tee shot.  So the shots aren't quite as blind as you might think.   

Unfortunately, that's because you're having to walk back almost half of the 10th hole on your way from the 9th green to the 10th tee.

[Duncan Cheslett]

I'm in the middle of a week's holiday in Tenby with my family, and I've played the eponymous course every morning. There is a blind drive on maybe 10 holes, and a blind approach on 5. The 4th has a blind drive AND a blind approach!

I love 'em!

Last night I played against a fellow holidaymaker with a single figure handicap (I'm off 19). I beat him 5 & 4 with no shots given due solely to the 'local knowledge' I had gleaned in the previous three days.

So blind holes are great if you know where you're going...

[Tim Gavrich]

I don't mind full-blind shots every now and again, but semi-blind shots are more interesting.

[Carl Rogers]

I keep thinking about context.

If you buy (big picture I mean) into the over the top Mike Strantz design, then you accept blindness as part of the package.

If any of like partially and subtlely obscure shot making in a part of the world where you would not think you could have them, the Riverfront is the course.

[Will Lozier]

I would make point of blind shots being more appreciated over time on a members course where memory does provide a mental "view" - a shot is only blind once, right?  On a daily fee course where one might only play the shot once or twice, they tend to be more controversial.  

Personally, having been lucky enough to play many a blind shot in the UK and I LOVE walking over a hill after hitting a shot to see my fate!  If you are one who disdains them, think St. Enedoc - the second at the 1st when you see that vista hoping to have an eagle putt, the drive on the 3rd, or the approach on the 6th!  Or, Royal County Down - to name just a couple the tee balls on the 2nd, 3rd (from the backs), 5th, 6th (from the backs), 9th!, and the 11th, the approaches on the 3rd & 13th!.  Or, Lahinch - the tee shots on the 3rd & 5th (a truly one-of-a-kind!) and the second on the 4th (especially when it is downwind, you have 210 to the green, and your caddie hands you an 8-iron!).  I could name countless more - the tee shots on the 7th & 11th at Sunningdale Old, the amazing approaches at Deal's 3rd & 15th, Rye's 6th & 13th, RSG's 4th, 5th, etc., etc., etc.

And just to name a few in the State, there is the 3rd at Old Mac, maybe the most fun tee shot in the world!  Or the Doak's Alps!  Or the approach at the 2nd at Pacific Dunes from the right.  Bandon has a number of blind shots that, again, are loads of fun with the right attitude of adventure!

Blind shots typically (not always) make for a totally unique golfing experience and should be reveled!

Cheers

[Jim_Kennedy]

Nice essay from Richard Mandell on Blind Holes:

http://www.golf-architecture.com/byrmga.php?id=2

[Sean_A]

I keep thinking about context.

If you buy (big picture I mean) into the over the top Mike Strantz design, then you accept blindness as part of the package.

If any of like partially and subtlely obscure shot making in a part of the world where you would not think you could have them, the Riverfront is the course.

Carl

I think its the other way around.  If you like blind shots you will probably like Strantz courses.

Ciao 

[Anders Rytter]

I've come to really like the, but only a few on each round. The best is if you get an advantage bu either hitting to a blind spot or a disadvantage by playing safe and then have a blind shot afterwards.

RCD hole 13 is probably my favorite hole in golf, a lot of this has to do with the potential blind 2nd shot if not challenging the narrow part of the fairway from the tee.

[James Boon]

I don't think my attitude to blind holes has changed since I first started playing, other than I probably love them even more now! Sure having every shot blind, or if there are safety concerns I can see the problem, but a blind shot reminds me that for golf golf is still an adventure, just like when I was a kid and we would all hit a driver on a long blind par 3 near us and then virtually run to the crest of the hill to see who had hit the green? 

What I hate about archies avoiding blind holes is when they make me walk without hitting shots.  This strategy makes no sense to me.  Either way I am walking so why make me walk up to a spot just so I can see the fairway from the tee?  
       

Couldn't agree with this more.

I'm with both Sean and Brian on this one!

Cheers,

James

[JESII]

There are plenty of exceptions, but in general I'd prefer a blind hole to a fully visible hole with partial visual obstruction being my favorite.

I like when the target and much of the surrounds are hidden from view but there are relevant clues as to what should be done. I think it rewards observation and execution. I can't bring myself to understand/empathize with the notion that everything should be in full view from the first time you play a course. Knowledge should have a reward.

[Brent Hutto]

Expanding on Jim's formulation, I think varying degrees of blindness/semiblindness/visibility are a great accomplishment from an course designer. To me a flat-out blind shot where you launch a ball into space based only on a mental image of the geometry is thrilling but best used in small doses. A couple times a round would be enough.

But like certain risk-reward features where you choose how much to "bite off" it's fun when some part of the fairway or green is visible but you have to fill in the remainder mentally. A simple case is when you tee off over one ridge, then there's a low area you can't see but there's more fairway rising beyond and visible. You can kind of mentally extend your aiming line over the first ridge and the line from the green back toward the (invisible) landing area but the ball is still going to disappear at some point.

Or if a hole doglegs around an elevated area on one side or the other, leaving you a peek at a corner of the green or maybe a greenside bunker but to actually hit it on the green you're going to have to go up and over the hump or ridge. There's a course near me that I don't play often but it features several holes where, depending on where the drive ends up, you may be trying to fit the ball narrowly down one edge of the fairway and over a rise to get to an invisible or semi-visible green. It's amazing how often I will try that shot and instead of doing what I want, the shot goes dead straight on line to the spot I can actually see instead of the not visible spot I tried to make myself aim toward.

That was too wordy. I'm trying to say a blind shot is cool. But a shot where the real target can't been seen but something very close to the target can is doubly confounding to my weak sense of "trust" in my swing.

[JSlonis]

Are there any scratch players here who can honestly say they love blind shots?  Or has the scorecard and pencil mentality permeated your soul...

I don't mind them at all. For the most part, I think they are fun and give an advantage to the player that accepts them and isn't bothered by them.

I will admit though, that I played one for the first time earlier this week (The ACE Club, Gary Player) that I wasn't crazy about.  I didn't like it because it was the first hole.  Maybe it's just me, but I thought it was odd and uncomfortable to start your day hitting a totally blind tee shot.

[Phil McDade]

Any thoughts on blind holes with directional markers? Found both stateside and over in the UK -- do they diminish a bit the thrill/uncertainty in such shots? Or a necessary guide?

[Melvyn Morrow]

Phil

Of course they do, but it is the nature of the way the modern game has been going. Modern players want Easy not Testing and Challenging.

Christ, Phil are we not talking about Golf, where is the challenger in the modern game, surely there must be an aid to help whatever, if not, don’t worry in the next year or two something will turn up. After all, Heaven forbid we do not want golfers having to think let alone break into a sweat worrying about what they might have to do.

Let’s take away the uncertainties, after all for many golfers the game is just like a ride in the park.

[Jeff Taylor]

I love 'em.  At Elie in Scotland there are half a dozen tee shots where you aim at a pole at the top of the ridge.   I don't know of many more fun courses.   Blind tee shots are more tolerable than blind approaches.   

Why have a pole if the intent is to have a blind shot?

[Sean_A]

I love 'em.  At Elie in Scotland there are half a dozen tee shots where you aim at a pole at the top of the ridge.   I don't know of many more fun courses.   Blind tee shots are more tolerable than blind approaches.   

Why have a pole if the intent is to have a blind shot?

Because originally, there often was no intent.  Holes fell one after another on the available land as it was presented.  The fact that some holes were blind was merely a consequence of that style of design.  Blind holes weren't thought of as unusual - they just were.  Because we have machinery and carts these days, blind shots must be intentional unless there are budgetary restraints.  Besides, how often is a pole in the right place - tee hee?  I think it is wonderful that poles have remained steadfast while equipment changes have gone on and sometimes new tees have been built!  I will say one thing, we "lost" a pole on the 15th a few years ago.  Now there is much more conversation from guests as to where to hit the ball. 

Ciao

[Mark Pearce]

Phil

Of course they do, but it is the nature of the way the modern game has been going. Modern players want Easy not Testing and Challenging.

Christ, Phil are we not talking about Golf, where is the challenger in the modern game, surely there must be an aid to help whatever, if not, don’t worry in the next year or two something will turn up. After all, Heaven forbid we do not want golfers having to think let alone break into a sweat worrying about what they might have to do.

Let’s take away the uncertainties, after all for many golfers the game is just like a ride in the park.

Possibly the daftest post yet I have read from this source.

It is absurd to expect that a golfer should be asked to play a blind hole he has never seen before without some clue as to where to hit.  In some cases, this can be because the fairway heads in a certain direction.  In others, though, some guidance is needed.  There are many blind par 3s where the golfer stands on a tee and sees nothing but a hill of rough.  Some marker (a post or cairn) is essential.  This doesn’t lose the magic of blindness, which is to challenge the golfer to play a shot he cannot “see”.

Otherwise, the result would be balls played on the basis of pure guesswork, likely into deep rough with no prospect of being seen again.  That isn’t a challenge, or a test, it certainly isn’t an examination of the golfer’s thinking, it’s just stupid.

[Sean_A]

Mark

Hell, I don't need a blind shot to hit in the wrong direction.  At Seascale we all thought we were playing to a hole in the opposite direction of where we meant to and everything was in full view and there were tee markers - tee hee. 

In general I think you are right Mark.  Imagine if a newbie stood on Burnham's 10th without a pole.  The fairway is plenty wide, but...you gotta have a general idea of where to go.  The pole saves a long reco walk.  I have hit balls into the blind without a clue as to what was going on and never saw the ball again -  not much fun the first time round.  Perranporth is good for this.  Usually though, there are clues which can be picked up once one sees enough blinders.

Ciao

[Brent Hutto]

I have a buddy who's a decent driver of the ball but can be a little wild at times. But give him one of those blind ridges to hit over with a pole or even a tree on the horizon to aim at and he'll practically knock down the aiming pole. Something about have a whole visible fairway to aim at makes him sloppy but say "Just aim at that pole" and he becomes a sharpshooter.

Maybe there are golfers for whom blindness makes a shot actually easier...

[Melvyn Morrow]

Knowledge is the curse of the golfing classes, but the modern game or should I say the way it has been taught over the last half century has persuaded the golfer that knowledge is the key to the game.

I feel that has been at the centre of the decline in the modern game, designs and the current way the game is played. Knowledge mellows the test, the actual challenge, modern players do not generally like blind Holes as it negates the ability to understand them until played. They render the modern aids worthless leaving the player devoid of information apart from his inner instinct which has been defused (or inoperative) by the constant use of outside aids.

Knowledge is not the friend of a golfer that is holy in the format of the test and challenge of the course. Many golfers love the thrill of facing an unknown course, encountering it as if naked with the exception of clubs and ball. Knowledge actually takes away rather than gives what golf is all about, after all is not all sport and games all about the thrill of the chase.

Outside aids from distance measuring devices through to carts actually rob the player of the full experience of playing golf. The information or knowledge seeker is so desperate to perform that they lose sight of the bigger picture which is for the player to test himself against the course, in the traditional manner armed with just clubs and ball that Ladies & Gentlemen is Golf.

Knowledge corrupts your mind and game when referring it to the Game of Golf.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()