[Ira Fishman]

I find semi-blind greens on Par 3s somewhat irksome, such greens on Par 4s perfectly okay in the right context, and such greens on Par 5s often a great design feature.  I am not sure the reason for the different reactions other than perhaps wanting the thrill of seeing the ball go into the cup on a Hole in One (happened only once in 47 years of playing).  What are others reactions to such greens?


Ira

[Kalen Braley]

Unless you happen to be this lucky lady....


http://www.golfdigest.com/story/gd0711kindred_gagne


It such a rare feat, I'm not sure architects even consider this when designing the green and tee box.  Perhaps they do thou...

[Tom_Doak]

Ira:  Did you see your hole in one go in?  Or not?


I was witness to Ran's hole in one on #16 at Cabot Links a couple of summers ago, but none of us could see it go in because the green sits in a bit of a bowl.

[Ira Fishman]

Tom,


I did not see it go in. But it was last fall, and I can say that I found semi-blind Par 3s irksome well before then. Not necessarily objectionable as bad design, but off-putting whereas I am far more positive about semi-blind Par 4s and Par 5s. It could be indiosyncratic, but would be instructive to know how others feel.


Ira

[Tom_Doak]

I've never heard this particular line of thinking before, but I have heard good players (including Jay Sigel) opine that on a par-3 or a short approach, you should be able to see the bottom of the flagstick because that's your target, whereas on longer approaches you're just trying to hit the green.  I asked Jay about the 13th at Merion, and he said he didn't like it for just this reason.  So I filed it away, Pete Dye style, as a potential way to get in good players' heads.

[Bill Brightly]

So I filed it away, Pete Dye style, as a potential way to get in good players' heads.

Excellent! I just read the chapter in Doak's Little Red Book where Tom asks for such concepts to thwart the aerial game.


Ira, have you played the Redan at North Berwick? Maybe "irksome" is a key factor to a hole being considered really good?

[Ira Fishman]

Bill, alas, I have never had the pleasure of playing in Scotland. Hope to discover that definition of irksome someday.


Ira

[Sean_A]

So long as there is a way to bounce shots in, many par 3s where the green can't be seen are among my favourite and best that I have played. The times where I find blind/obscured shots (of any type) objectionable are

1. When the fairway landing space is narrow

2. If there is a decent possibility of losing the ball or going into water

3. If it is dangerous with no method of knowing when it is safe to play other than to walk up the fairway (even then if the hole is good enough I will give it a pass  )

4. If you walk me a distance from a green to give me a blind shot...yes, I have seen this before!

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

So I filed it away, Pete Dye style, as a potential way to get in good players' heads.

When I read Ira's opening post, the thoights of Pete Dye and earlier postings with Tom immediately came to mind.
Fine feature....if, like most things, not over-used. Maybe most effective these days, what with rangefinders etc, on less than full shots.
The 7th at Royal County Down would be a fine par-3 example.
Atb

[Joe Bausch]

I've never heard this particular line of thinking before, but I have heard good players (including Jay Sigel) opine that on a par-3 or a short approach, you should be able to see the bottom of the flagstick because that's your target, whereas on longer approaches you're just trying to hit the green.  I asked Jay about the 13th at Merion, and he said he didn't like it for just this reason.  So I filed it away, Pete Dye style, as a potential way to get in good players' heads.

Some data to chew on:  with all those USGA events at Merion over the decades, there has never been a hole-in-one on the par 3 13th.

[Tim Martin]

Two in particular I like are 5 Lahinch and Tom's 17 at Atlantic City CC.

[Ira Fishman]

At the risk of being inconsistent, I loved the 5th at Lahinch the one time I had the pleasure of playing it. But it still probably fits the definition of irksome.


Ira

[jeffwarne]

If all the irksome and unfair holes were removed from golf.....it'd be a lot harder to find an enjoyable group to play with.


My other nit would be.


Isn't it an even better(or at least equally great) thrill to walk up to a green, see no ball, wonder..... wonder......look over the green......and finally look into the cup and see a ball?

[Kevin Jackson]

The replies up to now can't help but make me think of a bit of a hybrid scenario that I think is generally desired, but maybe it counts as semi blind?
The 15th at Camargo Club is a 170-192yd Redan par 3 with all the typical features (you have all seen the photos).  The tee shot plays a little uphill, just a few yards.  The typical pin placement is the middle or back of the green.  However, the green has a spine running from front middle to back middle at the 45 degree angle the green is placed.  The spine creates a situation where the half of the green nearest the tee is nearly totally visible from the tee, but the back half of the green is maybe visible for the first 1/3.  Therefore, with a typical pin in the middle/back portion of the green on the back side of the spine, it is a classic hit-and-hope type tee shot.  Aim at the visible front 1/3 of the green and the ball will disappear as it chases towards the hole.


Would you consider this semi blind since the bottom of the flagstick is not visible from the tee?


I also find this to be the single most exciting shot on the course.  Even guests that are taken aback about the instruction given to them on the landing area can't help but get excited when a well struck shot disappears.

[Bill Brightly]

Bill, alas, I have never had the pleasure of playing in Scotland. Hope to discover that definition of irksome someday.

Ira

Ira,


Play it once and you will get over your dislike of semi-blind par threes.


As some here know, I am a bit of a Macdonald-Raynor-Banks nut and simply love Redan holes... So when I finally teed it up at NB #15, I was more than a little bit nervous. (I also had my buddy film my shot...) I hit a 6 iron that appeared  to be really good, landing just short or maybe on the front of the green. But since it was partially blind... I could not tell how good it was... Imagine my anticipation as I walk up past the spectacle bunkers (still no clue) and finally saw the ball 35 feet past the pin (cut middle left.) My pitch mark was one foot short of the green and right, so my ball clearly flirted with the hole. I left my lag putt up the hill about 3 feet short and banged home the knee knocker for one of my favorite pars!


Embrace irksome!!!

[Ira Fishman]

This thread has taught me that I need to be more granular in my analysis/reaction to particular design features.  The Dell, the Redan, and the Volcano (I have played one each) are among my favorite Par 3s.  The lesson is that quirk/distinctiveness wins the day whereas unimaginative uphill semi-blind Par 3s or holes that use a bunker with a high brow to protect a Par 3 do not.


Ira

[Kalen Braley]

Tom D,


So the question remains, have you ever designed/or made a change to a par 3 green with seeing the ball go in the hole as the reason for the change?  Genuinely interested if this is on the mental checklist..

[Jon Wiggett]

Well, I guess that means the Redan and Dell are done for  


Ira, I think you will find that semi blind par 3s have a very important place in GCA. The great thing about a hole in one on them is you have the disappointment of thinking a great shot is not on the green replaced by the elation of finding the ball at the bottom of the cup.


Jon

[Jay Mickle]

Two in particular I like are 5 Lahinch and Tom's 17 at Atlantic City CC.

Would the 13th at Tobacco Road into the "like" category?

[Carl Rogers]

Riverfront 4th is very slightly uphill and with the folds along the ground plane the bottom of the flag is not visible.  See Rennaissance Design Web Site for this hole.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()