[Tim_Weiman]

Tom Paul:

I think some forms of blindness are okay even for modern course, but obviously not every kind works. At the extreme end something like the Dell hole at Lahinch might even work because while playing the previous hole you can see what is happening ahead of you and the tee for the hole following the Dell is in plain view. Conversely, the 5th hole at Prestwick really doesn't work because the exit from the green is not in view and the "ring the bell" trick just wouldn't cut it here.

What kinds of blindness do I like? Something like #15 at Crystal Downs is perfect, so much so that people might not even think of it as a blind hole. But, if you decide to go with a long iron off the tee and don't hit it far enough you will have to play the approach from a depressed area with a blind or semi blind shot. No safety problems for lawyers to worry about, but reward or penalty for how the tee shot is played.

I'd like to see modern architects do more of that.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

You are the one who inserted Fazio and Bias into this thread.
You are the one who singled him out, without bringing any other architects into the discussion, and you don't see the bias ?  Talk about blind.  If I were you, I'd take extra special care of Cooreshaw.  It's only unfortunate the the poor dog can't speak for you as well.

North Jersey in Wayne New Jersey may be one of the most blind golf courses you could ever play.  There are probably
9 or more holes that are blind off the tee or on the approach.

Local knowledge is a huge factor and competitive advantage in playing the golf course.

[Mark_F]

How does the issue of liability and blind holes work in the USA?

Presumably, the people architects are afraid of getting sued by don't play the classic courses that do have blind holes?

[BCrosby]

Mark F -

You ask a good question. The fact of the matter is that there are remarkably few reported cases finding architects liable for negligent/dangerous designs. The pervasive fear American architects have about possible tort liability is wildly overblown. I suspect a lot of the fear is fomented by their insurance carriers who want to sell larger and larger liability policies.

Citing fears of law suits as a reason not to design blind holes is a cop-out, I think.

But back to the main topic -

There are lots of modern architects in the US who design blind tee shots. An example is Pinehurst No. 8 (Fazio) which has 9 or 10 blind tee shots. (Why Fazio would design a resort course - a course most people will play only once - with so much blindness is beyond me. A topic for another thread.)

Far more rare are blind approaches on modern courses. And when the moderns do build them - take Dye's misguided no. 5 at Old Marsh - they seem often to make a hash of it.  

But on the classic courses in Scotland, my guess is that the ratio is closer to 1 to 1. There are at least as many blind approaches as there are blind tee shots. I haven't done a survey, but if my hunch is right, why is that?  Why is the blind drive ok in the US while the blind approach is relatively rare? While they seem to be equally acceptable in the UK?

For example, there are more blind approaches at Cruden Bay and Prestwick than on all the the golf courses I've played in Georgia combined. On the other hand, there are lots of blind drives on courses around here. Why the disparity?

Bob

[HamiltonBHearst]

I must be a little confused Mark.  Are there groups of people that are more likely to sue than others?  I was not aware of this.

If you mean a member is less likely to sue their own club I accept that premise, but what about guests.  I generally do not ask my guests how they feel about tort reform.  Should I?  Please let me know your secret for spotting people that won't sue so I can be more diligent.  I am sure my club would want it that way.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark F,

Guys who have been dead for 60-80 years don't make ideal denfendents when someone sues seeking damages.  

And, the legal climate has changed between the 1920's and current date.

Bob Crosby,

Are you positive that Fazio designed Pinehurst # 8 with
8, 9 or 10 blind shots ?

That seems in direct contradiction to TEPaul's post and allegation regarding Fazio.  Could you just double check that and make sure your numbers are accurate.

I wouldn't want TEPaul to be wrong again.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Do you think this is something that one has a legitimate right to criticize Fazio's architecture for in a general sense or do you think stating that Fazio really won't consider the blind shot in golf is just another example of "bias" against him and a double standard?

I'll let you reread your post and BCrosby's post, then you can answer your own question about "bias" or double standards.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

There are lots of modern architects in the US who design blind tee shots. An example is Pinehurst No. 8 (Fazio) which has 9 or 10 blind tee shots. (Why Fazio would design a resort course - a course most people will play only once - with so much blindness is beyond me. A topic for another thread.)

In case you missed what BCrosby posted.

P.S.  Don't believe everything you read.  

[JWL]

TEP

This topic reminds me of a situation we encountered at the opening of the Apache Course at Desert Mountain a few years ago.  Nicklaus designed a longish Par 3  #17 -over 210 yds) that played slightly uphill into a punch bowl green that drained out the rear.  The green was built on a left to right axis and the flag was all that could be seen from the tee.  A pot bunker was constructed into a ridge about 30yds. short of the green but on a direct line to the center of the green axis.  Therefore, a player could tell where the pin was on the green by its relationship to the bunker.  If left, it was on the front section of the green.  If right of the bunker, the pin was in the back section of the green.  I say all of this to tell you I couldn't believe the reaction to this design.  The member intially hated the hole because they couldn't see the putting surface.  It sat in a bowl between two ridges and the pin positions basically ran down the axis of the green.  In fact, on the opening day, the members played a shotgun start.  On on of the first shots taken on that hole, a lady made a hole-in-one.   Somehow I wouldn't be surprised if she was upset that she wasn't able to see it go in the cup.  
I say all of this, to point out how unpopular this design feature is in today's game.  The liability issue is real on new courses, and although Nicklaus often likes to use this mystery element, we have to be very careful that at least the players ahead shoulders are visible from the fairway or tee, by someone in the trailing group.
We often use blind tee shots,(i.e #11 Pinehurst National and #12 Great Waters) especially when their is some type of framing to give some definition to the direction of play.  As others have said, the player trust Nicklaus not to hide some form of hazard in the blind hitting area.  
Mystery is good sometimes, but you have to be careful how you do it in this day and time.

[T_MacWood]

JWL
Which course do you prefer Pinehurst National or Legacy?

[JWL]

TMac

I have always been very partial to Pinehurst National.  In fact, it is one of my favorite course that I have been involved with.   Never has gotten much recognition, but c'est la vie!

Legacy is a nice daily fee golf course developed by the same developers as PN.  Fun course.

[Mark_F]

Patrick Mucci:

I guess not, but presumably if someone got beaned by a golf ball on, say, NGLA, and their lawyer was Martha Burk, the current head honchos would be in trouble for not taking due precaution and eliminating the blindness?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark F,

In their defense, I would state that NGLA and "Blind" are synonymous, in the world of golf, and that even those who have never played NGLA have heard of its blind nature, therefore anyone setting foot on the grounds understands and accepts the nature of the hazards by their very presence on the grounds.   Everyone that is, except TEPaul.

TEPaul, for years, thought that the NGLA clubhouse was a halfway house for men recovering from prostrate surgery, and that the initials "NGLA" stood for: Noone Gets Laid Anymore.

And, when someone told him, there are a lot of blind holes there, he thought they were referencing sightless members, who weren't very well thought of.

The man thought that the term niblick meant biting and licking your girlfriend's ear.  
That a spoon was something silver that you were born with, lodged in your mouth.
That a mashie was a guy who had too much to drink who was groping your date.
That a mashie-niblick was a guy who succeeded in groping, biting and licking your dates ear.

I tell you the guy didn't have a clue about architecture until somebody gave him the seeing eye wonderdog Cooreshaw.

To give you some insight regarding TEPaul's perspective.
The first day he received the dog, someone threw a rubber ball into TEPaul's pool.  The dog walked on the water, out into the middle of the pool and retrieved the ball, and walked back to the deck without getting so much as a single hair wet.  Everyone was amazed.  Everyone except TEPaul, who shouted , that stupid dog can't even swim.

Does that tell you all you need to know about the man ?

[Mark_F]

Patrick Mucci:

I feel like I've known him for years.

Re; your opening statement that blindness and NGLA are synonymous and therefore all who glide along the fairways do so at their own risk, that displays rather too much common sense and logic when applied to the law.  
I trust you won't be awaiting your nomination to the Supreme Court anytime soon?

[Chris Kane]

Patrick:
Outstanding!      

[ginger1]

I think we should savor the existing blinds holes like #12 at Brookline-The Open Course and not build any more.   I design golf holes and I like to see a golfers waist at all times, some want to see a golfers shoes at all times, the issue is liability.
The legal system of today is just looking for design that does not include safety and I am not going to put my financial life on a very interesing but outdated aspect of golf design.

[A_Clay_Man]

Is there no assumption of risk when sttepping onto a golf course? Why wouldn't a posted sign reading "BLIND SHOT- Only hit when clear" remove all liability to managment & archies? By so doing they put the onus of responsiblity onto the individual. If a golfer hits a person who is off property, how is anyone else but the striker of the ball responsible?

[Patrick_Mucci]

A Clayman,

In today's society few accept responsibility for their actions and seek to blame others, through the legal system.

To answer your question, because they designed a hole, knowing the wild shot pattern that golfers hit balls, that brought the agreived party into range.  Faulty design.

[A_Clay_Man]

Patrick- That is so outrageous that the wild shot patterns can be predicted. Wouldn't some quality attorney defeat such a ridiculous presumption.

I know of only one horror story regarding being struck and the solution was a sign. The city paid 400K to a person who actually was seriously messed-up mentally not some litigeous bastard who had his feelings hurt when their shoelaces were bruised.

It sounds like a way for the insurance companies to hijack the fears of the archies similar to the current situation with medical mal-practice.

[TEPaul]

This is Pat Mucci's post #32;

"TEPaul,

on June 21st, 2003, 7:57am, BCrosby wrote:There are lots of modern architects in the US who design blind tee shots. An example is Pinehurst No. 8 (Fazio) which has 9 or 10 blind tee shots. (Why Fazio would design a resort course - a course most people will play only once - with so much blindness is beyond me. A topic for another thread.)  
 
In case you missed what BCrosby posted.

P.S.  Don't believe everything you read.  

Pat:

It would certainly appear that one shouldn't believe what one reads particularly if it's written by Tom Fazio---ie!

"But they also did some things that today wouldn't be acceptable. Some of the holes on our famous golf courses, even some designed by legendary designers, wouldn't pass muster with today's golfers. Back then you didn't blast away a pile of rock to remove a blind spot; you just played over it. It was an issue of equipment and economics. If we tried that today we'd be run out of town because golfers don't like blind holes and it's easy to avoid building them.
(Tom Fazio--"Golf Course Design" 2000);

So, Pat what do you make of that?? If Pinehurst #8 (Fazio) has all those blind holes would you say---?

1. Fazio writes one thing and then does another?
2. Fazio may not have much idea what his company is building?
3. Fazio isn't aware he's both confused and confusing?

Because if he is it would appear he might understand that what he says vs what he does is a bit of a DOUBLE STANDARD!

Pat, why don't you show me where Coore & Crenshaw, Doak, Hanse, DeVries etc built blind holes and then said they'd never build blind holes because today's golfers would never accept them and run them out of town if they ever did build blind holes?

On the other hand, maybe you should just go to your room stay out of these grown up architectural discussions which tend to make you look more and more like an idiot. Or, if you plan on continuing this discussion why don't you sit down and insert your other foot in your mouth---the first one is nicely inserted at this point!    

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Don't get upset with me because you were foolish enough to believe everything you read.

Actions speak louder than words.

Fazio designs blind holes.

You said that he didn't, quoting a book written by .......?

You made the initial claim, you brought bias and Fazio into this thread.  Just because you have egg on your face is no reason to blame an observer who points it out to you.

You look foolish because you didn't do your research.

[TEPaul]

So Pat, what do you make of post #44? You just want to avoid that one completely don't you?

You talk about bias and double standards on this site all the time--and the object of what you perceive as bias is generally Tom Fazio!

All I'm saying is I don't think there is bias--just observation and some stated FACTS!

Here're the facts;

Tom Fazio or his company seem to have built a number of blind holes at Pinehurst #8 but Fazio has written in his own book that it's completely unacceptable to today's golfer to build blind holes. Furthermore, he said if he ever did something like that he'd be run out of town.

Something seems pretty inconsistent there, don't you think? So where's the bias--and where's the double standard?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Here're the facts;

Tom Fazio or his company seem to have built a number of blind holes at Pinehurst #8 but Fazio has written in his own book that it's completely unacceptable to today's golfer to build blind holes. Furthermore, he said if he ever did something like that he'd be run out of town.

Something seems pretty inconsistent there, don't you think? So where's the bias--and where's the double standard?

I think that you have your facts wrong.

Fazio never said that it was completely unacceptable to build blind holes.  Let me quote for you what he said, as it appears on page 78, 79 and 80 of his book, which is in under the sub-heading of " A New Technology"

"By contrast, when we built Galloway National along the edge of the bay across from Atlantic City, New Jersey, we reshaped the site itself.  Environmental regulations do not permit surface water to run into nearby Reed's Bay because it's a protected habitat.  Howerver, the interior of the Galloway National property is sandy loam soil, which is permeable, so we were able to easily create depressions and contours-which fit perfectly with the design concept of the course-that now helps retain flood water on site until it percolates through the sand to the water table below.

"Could Ross or Tillinghast have done that ?  Of course they could, with modern training and experience, maybe as well as or better than anyone.  They were certainly able to do outstanding work on wonderful pieces of ground, even on land that wasn't so wonderful, and produce interesting, lasting work.  But they also did some things that today wouldn't be acceptable.

Some of the holes on our famous golf courses, even some designed by legendary designers, wouldn't pass muster with today's golfers.  Back then, you didn't blast away a pile of rock to remove a blind spot; you just played over it.  It was an issue of economics and equipment.  If we tried that today, we'd be run out of town because golfers don't like blind holes and it's easy to avoid building them."

Pinehurst # 8 wasn't built on a rock bed.
I believe the soil is mostly sand.

I think Fazio's point, which you misinterpreted and then embellished, is, that his designs are not constrained economically, technically and physically by unusual ground conditions such as rock formations or rock beds.  And that he is not FORCED to incorporate such features into the design of his golf courses because he can alter them today, without the constraints of yesteryear.

The FACT that he designed and built Pinehurst # 8 with blind holes would seem to indicate that he can and does incorporate them in his design inventory.

[A_Clay_Man]

Pat- Isn't the qualifier "in a general sense"  enough to accept that there are exceptions to rules and TePaul recognizes that.

to criticize Fazio's architecture for in a general sense

[Patrick_Mucci]

A Clayman,

What does that mean ?

Would you call 9-10 blind shots on 18 holes at Pinehurst # 8 a general sense, or an abundance of them ?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()