[Thomas Dai]

I’ve read quotes about golf being a better game when played from a tee positioned higher than the fairway/green.


Recently I played a famous old and historic UK course, where on quite a few tee-shots vegetation circa 3-5 ft high obstructed the views of the fairways. I wasn’t too fussed about this, but despite aiming poles being provided, my playing partners, all 6ft or so tall, were not impressed...”we want to see the fairway/green/hazards” they said.


Visibility vrs invisibility?


Thoughts?


Atb

[Tom_Doak]

I don't think it's important to watch your ball land in every bunker, but strategic hazards are meaningless if you can't tell where they are.


Meanwhile blind shots are much more fun if you are getting the accomplishment of hitting over something imposing, but blindness caused by long grass alone doesn't have as much appeal.

[Matthew Essig]

I think it has some to do with "the length of time your ball is moving = enjoyment" theory.


If a blind shot is done correctly, it has extreme enjoyment because you don't know where the ball is until you can see it, almost like the ball could still be moving (even though its not). A little Schrödinger's Cat feel.


If the shot is so blind that you don't have any idea where it is, then it does the opposite.


For example, a green tucked behind a dune with tall grass vs. the tee shot completely blocked by gorse.


Does any of that make sense? I'm running on too little sleep to explain myself properly, I think.

[Sean_A]

I don't think it's important to watch your ball land in every bunker, but strategic hazards are meaningless if you can't tell where they are.

But after successive plays one does know where the hazards are.  It is its own excitement to contemplate if you got away with one.  The 18th at Burnham is a great example of this.  Even so, the blind shot can get boring if there are too many.  Think of Cleeve Hill...just too many blind drives even if on most of them it doesn't matter if you can see the landing zone.


Ciao

[Jeff_Brauer]

Of course its better, for reasons TD states.  And, for reasons all the GA guys wrote in their books.  Yes, they admitted that vision to the FW was a bit less important than vision to the green, but they still all advocated for it, and unless physically impossible with site and machinery situations, they strove for it and designed it that way.


This comes up from time to time, but really, if you are talking about one blind hole (which, BTW is more satisfactory if the line is somehow marked) as counter point, or to introduce that "did it or didn't it" feeling discussed above, its one thing.  To discuss it as a concept any architect would purposely build repeatedly, or a principle that should change, or be ignored by fave architects,,,,,you are just a bit delusional.

[Bill Raffo]

There was a private course near where I grew up that was known to have a number of blind tee shots and I always assumed I wouldn't like it. When I finally got out on North Jersey Country Club, I thought it was an absolute gem of a course. It's an old Walter Travis design and its has great playability, great difficulty balance, hole to hole, balanced width, quirky greens and uses the land and the natural banking, extremely well.


Anything works when it's done well. 

[Ira Fishman]

Jeff,


I disagree. Our home course is pretty mediocre otherwise but the six blind or semi-blind holes (including a Par 3) are among the best holes on the course.  Perhaps more relevant, Lahinch has three blind holes in a row, and I am hard pressed to name a better course that I have played.


I do agree that vegetation is not a good reason to have a blind tee shot.  I also agree that hiding hazards with a blind shot does not make sense even if you know that they are there after one or two plays.


Ira

[Jimmy Muratt]

Blind shots tend to work much better on private courses, for obvious reasons.  I tend to enjoy them as they present more of a mental challenge than a physical one.  A level of doubt and uncertainty creeps into your mind when everything isn't in plain sight in front of you.   Like anything, they can be overdone but I think that they offer a unique challenge that can prove to be very rewarding when a shot is executed properly.

[Dave McCollum]

Old cliché:  blind only once.

[Scott Szabo]

I love the occasional blind tee shot, but not a heavy dose during the round.  #6 at Ballyneal from the lower tee is blind and its a lot of fun not knowing just for sure where the tee ball is until cresting the hill. 

[Jon Wiggett]

As some have stated already, blindness and semi-blind shots are quite exhilarating if not over used. I do think it is important to have an idea of where the hole is going. I think the general trend away from blind tee shots has it roots in the misguided desire for fairness and the rise of the 'resort' course over the private course when it comes to comments on GCA matters.


Jon

[Greg Hohman]

Matthew, the line "almost like the ball could still be moving (even though it's not)" helps me to understand why I enjoy No. 11 on Mission Trails here in San Diego. The tee shot is uphill. Beyond the lip of the hill, no bunkers in the FW, a gentle downslope. Lake Morena is not directly behind the green, but you can see it, if memory serves, upon reaching the crest of the hill. Awareness of no bunkers, gentle, slightly (left) turning downslope and picturesque water "in your future" - plus this sense you point out - all contribute to making a tee shot that has sailed out of sight, yet on the right line, extra exciting.

[MCirba]

I don't think it's important to watch your ball land in every bunker, but strategic hazards are meaningless if you can't tell where they are.


Meanwhile blind shots are much more fun if you are getting the accomplishment of hitting over something imposing, but blindness caused by long grass alone doesn't have as much appeal.

Tom,

The Old Course seems to break both of those rules, much like it breaks every other rule in the book.   

[Jason Topp]

I have noticed a number of blind tee shots on courses built using a minimalist approach with short green to tee walks.  However, Sand Hills has very little blindness off the tee.  There are always good clues about your options off the tee even if the entire range of targets are not necessarily visible. 


Would blindness off the tee be a good indicator of the quality of a routing on a minimalist golf course?   

[Jeff_Brauer]

Old cliché:  blind only once.

Another old cliché" (Nope, that's not MY Titlelist over by the dead guy....."


I will say, back on topic, that my self and many other architects have inadvertently caused blindness, either because we didn't account for native grass height in front of the tee, or it was changed later.  There is a lot of emphasis on turf reduction, and sometimes the changes later on include new varieties of native grasses.

[Jim Nugent]

I don't think it's important to watch your ball land in every bunker, but strategic hazards are meaningless if you can't tell where they are.

How does TOC stack up in this measure? 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jim,


Well, not very well, but while a great example, that isn't really a great example logically speaking.


The theory is we should have learned something since then, about golf and golfers, and players and architects nearly unanimously agree strategy is better when you can see it and plan it, reducing dumb luck.  Yes, it diminishes the need for course knowledge, too, which is a bit of a loss IMHO.  Just not great enough to purposely build a blind hole, unless absolutely forced..


Even in the Golden Age, you can probably count the purposely blind holes and the number is pretty low.


There is another thread on whether history can be the setting of a course.  In a way, history gives old blind holes a pass, because everyone knows it was harder to move earth back then, but few (outside of here.....) would give a pass on building them today, except in rare natural circumstances.

[Jon Wiggett]

In a way, history gives old blind holes a pass, because everyone knows it was harder to move earth back then, but few (outside of here.....) would give a pass on building them today, except in rare natural circumstances.

I agree that golden age GCAs did not search out blind holes but they certainly did not shy away from them either. Is it possible that modern GCAs lack the imagination and gumption to take on a blind hole unless necessary?


Jon

[Peter Pallotta]

I'm thinking of a Par 4 tee-shot at a local course where you hit up and over a significant rise in the fairway (that doglegs slightly right to left).  The hole has width and no hazards whatsoever -- and yet the subtle uncertainty that comes with not being able to pick out/visualize a target and landing zone serves much the same function as would bunkers 200 yards out (i.e. easily carry-able) or wispy rough lining the fairways, i.e. it puts a tingly question/doubt/fear in your mind, regardless of the fact that repeated plays have already given you some confidence that all will be well.       

[Jon Wiggett]

Having thought about it a little longer is it really blindness that golfers dislike or playing uphill?


I ask this because at the club I grew up at Dewsbury we had two proper blind tee shots, the 8th and the 15th (now the 14th). Both were blind from the back tee at the point of play. The 8th was sharply uphill for the first 100 yards before disappearing over the top whereas the 15th was off the top of an escarpment and played a long way downhill. I heard many moans about the 8th especially about the blind aspect of the shot but nothing other than praise for the 15th.


I have never heard a complaint about the 8th or 17th tee shots at RDGC despite them both been blind.


So is blindness the problem or the nature of the shot?


Jon

[Ally Mcintosh]

I agree with Tom and Jeff - blind holes created by vegetation aren't ideal.... and you don't really deliberately set out to build them.... It was the pre-golden age guys that designed the really obvious ones (created by land rather than vegetation), not the 20th century folks.


That said, I completely agree with Jon that architects shy away from them far too much. If we ever get these three new holes built at Strandhill, one of them is going to come with either a blind tee shot or blind approach, depending how far you hit the ball. Thinking about putting a Westward Ho style top-shot bunker in there as well.... Two no-no's in one hole. Nothing to do with vegetation though.

[Niall C]

FWIW what I've found on older UK courses is that where you have blind shots where say you hit over a rise, there is almost always a good bit of latitude on the other side. Whether they were designed like that or over the years successive greens committees have widened the landing area/removed any hazards, I don't know.

I can think of only one old course where in recent years a hazard was introduced into a blind land area. I haven't played that particular course in 10 or 15 years so would be interested to know whether that hazard is still there or whether it got taken out.

Niall

[Thomas Dai]

What about hitting over areas of gorse, bull-rushes, sea-rushes etc which, if looked after, can often be low enough in height so the fairway etc can still be seen?
atb

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()