Not Seeing Where You're Going

[Roman Schwarz]

I agree that further visual beyond the tee shot is a good thing in most cases because, beyond being visually pleasing, it can be useful.  It can make the player think ahead a little too much rather than concentrating on the task at hand.  Also, assuming there is trouble along the line of instinct right at the hole, it creates internal tension on how to attack the hole.

#10 at Ballyhack was the first one that came to mind.  There's a junk area straight on line with the green that the fairway wraps around.  There's also a treeline that would typically obstruct the view of the green, but just enough trees were taken out to give a peek of the green and the 2nd shot landing area.  I enjoy that little tease from the tee that otherwise wouldn't be there.

Ironically, if you lay up to 100 or so for the 3rd, a lot of the green runs away and you can't see the putting surface.

This also made me think of the inverse...Dormie's #11.  You can see the flag from the tee...but not at all on the approach.  The 2nd is a hit-and-hope blind shot with no aiming point unless you can really bomb it off the tee.  I know that one really drives Ran batty.

[Tom_Doak]

Something that seems lost in this conversation, is the concept of how often.

Yes 18 holes of not seeing where you're going would suck... but a handful, especially when incorporating interesting land forms or features, is not only good in my view, but great design!

Its like meeting a new gal, you want a few mysteries to figure out along the way...where is the fun in having it all right there in front of you from the start. 

If it incorporates interesting land forms or features, I'm happy with that, several times per round.  But if it doesn't, the correct answer for "how often" is, as little as possible.

[Tom_Doak]

While it's the only such instance, I'm pretty sure I read and interview with Tom Weiskopf in which he took issue with how they had changed #1 some years ago. His stance was that the fairway bunker was originally directional but had been changed to become penal in nature.

The bunker inside the corner on the 1st at Augusta may have been "directional" for someone like Tom Weiskopf, but it was strategic / penal for the members.  That's not what I mean by a "target bunker".  A target bunker is something to aim at through the line of play, that almost no player will reach.  I hate those with a passion, but they are frequently employed on the sort of hole I'm trying to describe here, because you can't tell where you are going.

[Jay Mickle]

What I find frustrating is a fairly straight hole over a hill that hides the green where pin position dictates on which side of the fairway the tee shot should be placed for the best approach. A strategic hole that has lost its value. Middle of fairway to middle of green is as much as I could hope for but for some playing companions wishing to take advantage of a short par 4 it is a more than a bit annoying.

[Tom_Doak]

What I find frustrating is a fairly straight hole over a hill that hides the green where pin position dictates on which side of the fairway the tee shot should be placed for the best approach. A strategic hole that has lost its value. Middle of fairway to middle of green is as much as I could hope for but for some playing companions wishing to take advantage of a short par 4 it is a more than a bit annoying.

There is, of course, little you can do about that sometimes when topography insists on making itself known in a golf hole.  In that case, should we make the hole boring so you won't be annoyed about the strategy?


The 11th at Muirfield is a hole like that, where you want to hit the blind drive depends on the hole location.  You get a peek at the hole location when you play the 5th hole, so usually it works out fine . . . but years ago, when I was off first by myself, I drove it right for the left-hand pin position only to come over the hill and find the greenkeeper cutting the new hole on the right wing of the green.   

[Jerry Kluger]

Do you think this is most important the first time you play a course - I do.  Unfortunately we most often judge a hole by the one time we play it.  However, the second time around you know the hole and where to play your shot so it isn't such an important factor. 

[Tom_Doak]

Do you think this is most important the first time you play a course - I do.  Unfortunately we most often judge a hole by the one time we play it.  However, the second time around you know the hole and where to play your shot so it isn't such an important factor.

Yes, and to be fair, I see a lot of courses only once.  Still, knowing the hole and where to play your shot is not that appealing if the hole is boring, and the discussion has established that often these holes are not very strategic, because it would be "unfair" to introduce strategy into the tee shot where you can't know what the second half of the hole is doing.

[JESII]

Tom,


To be fair, all the discussion has established is that boring tee shots on holes with a hidden green are boring...


Now, I’m not looking to extend a conversation on boring holes so if that’s it, no problem.


Do people play #6 at Sunni gale differently? Or is it just a prettier hole? Is it a good hole when it wasn’t prior?


I suspect #12 at PV is dramatically cooler looking, but is anyone aiming straight at the green? I haven’t been there in the last couple years so don’t know.

[Mark_Fine]

I have not read all the posts and maybe someone already mentioned it, but many on this site consider The National Golf Links a 10 (me included) and I believe there are at least 9 shots that are blind. 

[Kyle Harris]

Jim Sullivan,


I don't know that anybody is aiming straight for the green, but the hole really asks the question of how far away from the flag should you aim? Seeing the target just within reach has to make that a tough proposition.


I think all the examples given at "great" courses have one thing in common: a variety in terms of the difficulty of the blind and subsequent shots.

[Sean_A]

I was thinking of Kington and there are six holes where you can't see the green from the tee.  None except the 13th are really among the best holes.  At Cavendish there are seven holes where the green can't be seen from the tee.  I would say three are among the best holes on the course...11, 14 & 18.  Althought not seeing the 18th is sheer stupidity on the club's part...it would be a great improvement.

I think in general I agree with Tom etc.  There is something powerful about seeing the entire hole from the tee especially over cool ground.  It just so happens Kingtons 14th is a cool example, reminds me a lot of Sunny New's 6th.





One of my absolute favourites of this type is the 16th at Valley Links...there are a few other good examples as well. There is no question a view of the green will tempt folks to do something "different".


I just played a hole where I think seeing the entire hole makes for a more satisfying experience...the 2nd at Castlerock's Bann 9.


I guess what I find most annoying is when dull trees block a dogleg view of a green or even a greenside bunker. 

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

Sean is getting the point here.


As much as designers may want to harp on about strategy, this has as much to do with aesthetics... we think about that a lot more than sometimes realised.


Although I think this particular thread is to do with both. It is not yet another thread about blind tee shots.


Incidentally, you can see 13 greens from the tee at Elie, despite the large number of blind shots - best of both worlds.

[Tom_Doak]

Do people play #6 at Sunni gale differently? Or is it just a prettier hole? Is it a good hole when it wasn’t prior?

Jim:


The second of Sean's two pictures is the sixth at Sunningdale New.


If it were all trees along the inside of the hole, would you think about whether to play down the fairway, or down the right edge of the fairway, or maybe over that first set of trees, or maybe in between the two sets of trees?  Most people would just hit straight down the middle of the opening they were given, and the hole would feel much different.


It's more beautiful, too, and it's hard for me to separate the two, because temptation is often part of beauty.

[Thomas Dai]

And when tee-shot visibility has an degree of curve or arc about it then there's the "how much can you bite off" element to it, and for almost every level of player too (unlike sharp or sharpish doglegs or even where there's a straight ahead head high rise). And this in turn brings in other factors like challenge, course management, firmness of the fairway, wind etc etc. Plus these days, when pace of play issues abound, there's the ease/difficulty of seeing where the ball finishes (ie where did ball go into the gunch!) and the implications if there is a group in front that might be hit into or some folks on say a crossing footpath (a subject which might make an interesting topic/thread in its own right).
atb

[Edward Glidewell]

As a mid-high handicapper, I've never been a big fan of blind shots because even though I pick a line there's a decent chance my ball won't actually end up on that line. When I can't see where it landed it makes it very easy to lose balls. Of course it's less of an issue if there's tons of room, but I can think of numerous times where I thought I'd hit a perfectly fine shot only to be unable to ever find my ball once I reached the landing area.

That's really an aside from the main point of the thread, though. I agree that it's generally more aesthetically pleasing when you can see the green from the tee, although that's not a hard rule -- I love the way #10 at Augusta looks from the tee, for example. But generally speaking I think you lose something when you can't see the green from the tee; I recently played the new 9 hole Bobby Jones course in Atlanta and was completely lost on the 9th hole. I had no idea where the green was and no idea where to aim my tee shot. I was actually confused on my second shot as well -- I briefly thought I was supposed to be hitting to a completely different green on another hole.

[Kalen Braley]

Seeing that pic of #6 at Sunni New, after all the discussion, can't think of a better time to use a Hannibal Lecter Principle here...

We begin by coveting what we see!

[jeffwarne]

This IS NOT about blind shots!
It's about greens not visble from the tee on a two or more shot hole.-yet the landing area or some/most of the turning point is(two different things)


It could be argued it's about blind objectives to a given area(i.e. where is the best "landing area given the information available", and that may well change once the area beyond the visble portion of the hole is known.
But shouldn't judgement/intuition be rewarded by a first time player who senses where to drive it or lay up to best play the hole a first time



It's about a view or at worst a partial view of a landing area without a view of the ultimate target on the following shot.
Tom has also gone so far as to call it a boring shot and it could well be(I'm not defending boring shots), but I see no reason no view of the green automatically makes the tee shot boring. I do see how the shot could be more exciting once one knows the hole and where (if any) is the preferred drive)
Sometimes the preferred drive is simply in the fairway-despite the frequent discussion about the mythical preferred "side of a fairway" for presumably an angle

Given many people will only play a course once, I believe having the ability to play a shot given limited information (a landing area without an ultimate destination) is a skill that some will execute better than others,
Furthermore, I'd hate to see an interesting hole (or even a connector to another great hole) go to waste just because someone refused to build a hole because a green couldn't be seen-especially if we were dealing with interesting topography and ultimately a really cool hole like the hole i mentioned earlier in the thread.

[Peter Pallotta]

If it could talk, what would St. Andrews-The Old Course say about all this?
As the answer to every question or issue ever raised or debated here, I'll defer to its answer.
Though I am more comfortable (and less disoriented) when I can see off the tee the relationship between my first shot and my second.

[Mark_Fine]

The green is not visible on eight of the eighteen holes on my home course Lehigh CC (which I consider a great Flynn design) and I don't think any of the tee shots are boring. 

[Tom_Doak]

If it could talk, what would St. Andrews-The Old Course say about all this?
As the answer to every question or issue ever raised or debated here, I'll defer to its answer.
Though I am more comfortable (and less disoriented) when I can see off the tee the relationship between my first shot and my second.

You can see the flag from the tee on the majority of holes at The Old Course.


You won't see it at the par-5 5th, but you do see the two bunkers [the Eyes] that you have to get past with your second shot.


You don't see it at the 7th, which doglegs around some gorse.


I don't think you can see the flag at the par-5 14th, but you can see the Elysian Fields running on toward Hell bunker, so there's no question of where the hole is going.


And you can't see the flag at the Road Hole, which does not do anything to disqualify it as a great hole . . . even though it would probably be a better hole if you had some clue where the left side of the fairway was.

[jeffwarne]

The green is not visible on eight of the eighteen holes on my home course Lehigh CC (which I consider a great Flynn design) and I don't think any of the tee shots are boring.

+1

[Jim Nugent]

Tom, do you feel the same way about approach shots to the green that are blind and give you little cue where to go? 

I've read more than one person say the first time they played NGLA, they found the Alps hole completely visually baffling.  Does #8 at ANGC also have some of that quality?  Watching on TV it's real hard for me to figure out where the players should aim their second shots on that hole. 

[Tom_Doak]

Tom, do you feel the same way about approach shots to the green that are blind and give you little cue where to go? 

I've read more than one person say the first time they played NGLA, they found the Alps hole completely visually baffling.  Does #8 at ANGC also have some of that quality?  Watching on TV it's real hard for me to figure out where the players should aim their second shots on that hole.

Again, this topic was not about blind shots.


Blind approach shots deserve their own thread, if you care to start one.  To the ones you mentioned:


The 3rd at National, like the Alps at Prestwick, is dramatic as hell.  To play them well, you have to have a caddy showing you where to go, but it's actually more impressive to do it on your second or third play when you know about all the potential calamity that's between you and the hole.  But whenever you encounter it, you have to keep your head down and visualize properly and hit a great shot in spite of your unease over the blindness, so I think the blindness actually improves the hole.


The 8th at Augusta is a hole I've grown much fonder of, over time.  You are rewarded for playing as close to the mounds with your second shot as you dare, to shorten your little third shot . . . but if you pull the second shot too far left, you're in a world of trouble.  Meanwhile, the average player is rewarded for hitting two solid shots as far up the hill as he can, to reduce the severity of the angle over the mounds for his third.  But unlike the Alps, I'm not sure that the blindness ADDS merit to the hole; it would be a great hole if it was flatter, too.

[Duncan Cheslett]

This thread reminds me of the 10th at Cavendish, where careless scrubby tree growth to the left of the fairway has rendered the green invisible from the tee.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Au703_J8oqQ


This is a great hole - but will be even better when someone goes out there with a chainsaw and the entire hole can be viewed before teeing off!

[Niall C]

I think I've got the gist of what Tom/Ally are saying and I think I also understand Jeff's view and I don't think they are necessarily conflicting. Not being able to see the green/flagstick from the tee doesn't necessarily mean the tee shot will be boring but I suppose an otherwise boring tee shot might be made better by the green/flagstick being visible.

In routing a course therefore should the focus be on avoiding situations where you can't see the green/flagstick from the tee or should it be on making the tee shots of as much interest as possible irrespective of whether the green/flagstick is visible ? I tend to go with the latter but then in my neck of the woods with a lot of older courses it's not an unusual situation and it usually means the hole is a lay of the land type rather than manufactured which is what I prefer.

As an aside, I played a course last night that while based on an old nine holer has been extended to 18 in recent years and with the remains of the old holes getting a modern makeover. Without counting I suspect the vast majority of greens on the 2 and 3 shotters weren't visible from the tee. It wasn't always clear, or at least there was no real suggestion as to what the preferred line was off the tee, and in fact on a couple of occasions it was totally confusing. It was like the modern designer spoke a different language to the old guys. Very odd.

Niall