[Tom_Doak]

I'm starting a new thread here because I don't want to hijack the Ohoopee thread.


Ally Macintosh and I both expressed on that thread a preference for holes where you can see where you are going - especially when you're not playing the tee shot over something cool, and there are just other factors intervening in your view.


Jeff Warne disagreed, per the below:

I have zero problem with not seeing the green from the tee but there is no doubt that often times, a hole is more attractive if you can see the green from the tee.In that respect, there are courses where I think too often you only see to the turning point or just beyond. It can be tedious if the majority of holes are like this.

I agree with that.  I enjoy the occasional blind tee shot over an interesting feature, even several of them in a round, but I dislike holes that just go out and turn a corner blindly.

I'm struggling to understand this.The shot being struck itself is not  blind(unless a long potentially aggressive play is made), just the next shot and the ideal strategy or perfect position may not be evident on a first play.Some of the coolest holes still left that can'nr be reduced to nothing by technology have turning points that encourage a positional strategy or actually curving the ball.I too love "blind" up and over shots and I really struggle to see how to see how top architects would not like holes where the mystery is around the corner(or "go out and blindly turn a corner) and want the strategy and green location clearly "all out in front" of them   There went 13 at ANGC....and for that matte we're eliminating 1,2,3,5,8,9,10,11 13, 14 17,18 at ANGC?In fact the only non par 3 hole we're keeping is arguably the worst par 4 at Augusta in its current form.IMHO such a hole (where you can see enough of the landing area to at worst play something you can see land to it) like this works better on a first play than a completely blind second shot such as #3 at NGLA (where the only option is to walk up)

It's possible Jeff has identified one of the reasons I'm not as fond of Augusta as a lot of people are.  I hadn't really thought about it in these terms before.

My objection to the type of hole being described is that there's no cue of where you should be trying to play, and you often can't tell when you hit the tee shot if it's good or not.  [On #10 and #13 at Augusta, the topography gives you a cue of where to play, and I love both of those holes . . . on #9 or #17 it does not.]  It's the kind of situation that prompts many architects to place "target bunkers", and I absolutely hate target bunkers.  [At least Augusta does not do that.]  I prefer golf holes that feel like full golf holes, and not point-to-point exercises.

I've rarely been accused of "putting it all out in front of you," but golf holes are much more beautiful and thrilling when you can tell where they are going.  I'd rather find those, than design them like a maze.

[Ed Brzezowski]

Spending a bunch of money to fix the issues you described. We have a par five with three blind shots, architect should have been ashamed to design such a mess.


Golf is a visually pleasing game, don't hide your good works show them.


my .02

[Jason Topp]

To me - having enough clues that you can figure out what you are trying to do is the key.  Tobacco Road has a lot of blind/semi-blind shots but I always thought there were good clues as to the boundaries of play so that you could hit the shot and know what is ahead.


My favorite shot on my home course involves a drive to a wide blind fairway but you can see the green off the tee.  I am not sure seeing the green helps with planning the tee shot but the view seems to increase my enthusiasm for playing the hole.

[Kyle Harris]

Spending a bunch of money to fix the issues you described. We have a par five with three blind shots, architect should have been ashamed to design such a mess.


Golf is a visually pleasing game, don't hide your good works show them.


my .02

Interesting because the hole in question at your course I loved because of the unique quality you mentioned.

Sorry to see it gone.


For what it's worth applying a similar exercise to Pine Valley as Jeff did with Augusta:

#1, 4, 6, 8, 11, 13, 16, 17 all feature greens not visible from the tee.

Balanced with:


#2(!), 7, 9, 12 (finally!), 15, 18

7 counts in the latter because the first goal is the HHA and clearing that renders a proper view of the putting surface.

Interesting to me because the holes in each category at juxtaposed between long and short two-shotters. Also interesting because The Lurker has told me on numerous occasions that Crump, et. al. cleared the left side of the 13 to attempt to give the golfer a view of the green from the tee.

[archie_struthers]

 




I'm more fond of quirk as I get older, guess its seeing lots of strange things in a different perspective. Blind shots are fun and challenging by asking imagination to enter the fray. I prefer uphill tee shots to downhill so who knows?


One thing you have to consider is safety. Not all of us play courses with caddies so blind shots can cause some issues. On the other side of this coin one of my favorite tee shots ever was the 4th at (you guessed it) Pine Valley whether playing or caddying. You could really challenge the right side and hit it way down the fairway by cutting the corner just right. When they put in the bunkers at the top of the hill it ruined this shot for me.

[Mark Pearce]

I love the anticipation of learning where your ball has finished.  I count 11 blind shots in a round at Elie and love the place.

[JESII]

Boy...I can't on board with this. If the best hole has both the fairway and green visible enough to figure out where to go on the first go around, fine...but what about the value of experience and observation?

[Tom_Doak]

Perhaps I’m not explaining myself well.


I’m a bigger fan of blind shots than most.


What I don’t like is a visible but boring target for the tee shot, and no view of the rest of the hole.

[jeffwarne]

Boy...I can't on board with this. If the best hole has both the fairway and green visible enough to figure out where to go on the first go around, fine...but what about the value of experience and observation?

agreed-kind've my point


I was just trying to make sure I understood what Ally and Tom were saying.


Played a really cool hole this week in a practice round
It was my first hole of the day(but not the first hole) and couldn't tell exactly which way it was going as all I could see was a nondescript bunker which appeared to be through the fairway.
Not being warmed up I pull drew  my 3 wood tee shot down the left edge of the fairway.
When I got around the corner an incredibly cool driving valley revealed itself and an even cooler green site that I was positioned perfectly for. So ideally a drawn tee shot was the play, and interestingly a miss to the inside of the curve/dogleg(left rough or woods) was going to give the better angle into green(as opposed to a tee shot missed right) set at the bottom of another valley.
I drove back to the tee to see if it appeared any different to me and to determine where I needed to aim to reproduce what I had just done slightly by accident.
I found the hole to be very unique and interesting.


Aesthically it was a dud until suddenly it wasn't....


As i said earlier, being able to see the landing area or at least some portion of it to play conservatively to it is far more appealing to me than the third hole at NGLA on a first play (who wants to walk steeply uphill 100 yards then back)
and I embrace and love blind shots

[James Reader]

Is the 6th at Sunningdale New an example of Tom’s point?  I played there last week and it struck me that the hole - which in my opinion would be a great par 5 anyway - was made even better by the fact that you can see the green from the tee.

[JESII]

Is that it? Seeing the end target? Or are we talking about the visibility helping guide you where to go?


I don't know the Sunningdale hole, so does the newly visible green help you figure out where to hit your tee shot? Or does it act as a temptation to aim your tee shot in the wrong place? This last point is, I think, a big part of the value of the deforestation of the 12th at Pine Valley...and may well do the same on 13 if they try it.


If it's simply to mark an end point to the hole, I'm still not getting the concept/value.

[Thomas Dai]

Arcs vrs doglegs.
Not that I’m adverse to blindness, or some degree of partial half-flag say blindness, but being able to get an inkling from the tee of what’s ahead is usually quite nice. And in these more safety conscious times when some folks can hit the ball a loooong way and veeery high over tall obsticles too, well, who knows what is or who is ahead and ‘in range’ when attempting cutting the corner of a dogleg?
There is also the matter of looking across at other holes whilst playing the one you’re on. Less easy as trees grow.
And as the variance between the short hitter and the long hitter has increased over the decades more space is presumably needed at the turning point of any sharpish dog leg to prevent one or the other or even both types of player being blocked out.
Atb

[James Reader]

I don't know the Sunningdale hole, so does the newly visible green help you figure out where to hit your tee shot? Or does it act as a temptation to aim your tee shot in the wrong place? This last point is, I think, a big part of the value of the deforestation of the 12th at Pine Valley...and may well do the same on 13 if they try it.

In my mind, a bit of both Jim.

[Tom_Doak]

Is the 6th at Sunningdale New an example of Tom’s point?  I played there last week and it struck me that the hole - which in my opinion would be a great par 5 anyway - was made even better by the fact that you can see the green from the tee.

Yes!  If that hole has trees all on the inside corner, it's not nearly as appealing.  Although at least there is something one needs to do with the tee shot, besides hit it straight out to the spot.


Kyle's little addendum regarding the 12th at Pine Valley [finally!!] is also telling as to my point.

[Jim Nugent]

How does #8 at Pebble measure up by this yardstick?

[Ally Mcintosh]

Perhaps I’m not explaining myself well.


I’m a bigger fan of blind shots than most.


What I don’t like is a visible but boring target for the tee shot, and no view of the rest of the hole.

This being exactly my point as well.


Shouldn’t be read as not being fond of blind shots.


Trying to think of another example, 8 at Yale must have had the view of the green blocked before they cleared the trees. Now the beauty and strategy of the hole is there to see.

[Tom_Doak]

How does #8 at Pebble measure up by this yardstick?

Jack Nicklaus correctly calls it "the greatest second shot in golf". 

[Jonathan Mallard]

  It's the kind of situation that prompts many architects to place "target bunkers", and I absolutely hate target bunkers.  [At least Augusta does not do that.] 

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.

[Jud_T]

My only real gripe is when you are playing courses with a lot of blindness for the first time without a great caddy.  I played Round Hill Club once as a guest with a member who knew the course so well he couldn’t relate to a newbie and it was a bit of a hit and hope affair.  This is perhaps a real issue for high end destination courses which many guests may only play once or twice.

[Ben Stephens]

I love the anticipation of learning where your ball has finished.  I count 11 blind shots in a round at Elie and love the place.

Well you certainly did where my ball had finished whilst being foursome partners at Perranporth    have you hit a 9 iron into a par 5 since then??!!

[Ian Mackenzie]

Perhaps I’m not explaining myself well.


I’m a bigger fan of blind shots than most.


What I don’t like is a visible but boring target for the tee shot, and no view of the rest of the hole.

You mean...kinda like #17 at TOC, Tom...?...
I recall a thread 1-2 years back about that very hole and this exact topic. (Also par 4 vs par 5)

[jim_lewis]

Jonathan:

I think Tom Weiskopf's memory is a little fuzzy. When he was playing in the Masters, the fairway bunker on #1 was "directional" because it provided the line for the players who wanted to carry it and risk the trees on the right. Most players could carry it back then. I even saw Billy Mayfair carry that bunker with 15-20 yards to spare, and he was never one of the longer hitters. Over time they have moved the tee back so far that no one (as far as I know) even tries to carry the bunker. It is now too punitive. The bunker is much deeper than it appears on TV. I have also suspected that they moved the bunker a little toward the green, but I don't know that for a fact. It is very tough to reach the green from that bunker because of its depth. Most tour players hit their
irons so far and high these days that it is much smarter to lay back and left of the bunker and take your chances with a longer approach shot.

BTW, The pine trees further up the fairway on the left didn't exist back in the sixties, so players could carry the bunker and avoid the trees on the right by hitting their tee shots though the fairway and out in front of the 8th tee. When those trees were added, that brought the trees on the right more into play. I remember seeing Don January try to play from the newly planted pines on the left, probably in the late 60's or early 70's. Back then you would see several shots into the right trees. I think it was a better hole back then because players had to make a decision on the tee. Not so much today. I guess the club figures that hole is tough enough as it is, especially given the added pressure of the first shot of the day, especially on Thursday for a first time player.

I think those pines were added about the same time the two fairway bunkers on the left of 18 were added to keep Jack Nicklaus from avoiding the right trees by hitting his tee shot out into the open area left of the current bunkers. They also added some trees in that area about the same time. I cite all of this from memory, so I could be off a little.

[John Foley]

What I don’t like is a visible but boring target for the tee shot, and no view of the rest of the hole.

Tom - this sounds like the Knoll hole, #14 @ Yale. No real definition on the drive just hit it out here. Get to the landing area and the somewhat unique green opens up to you. Not saying it's a bad hole but it doesn't bring any excitement. It does hit a "breather" slot in the routing. Thoughts???

[Peter Pallotta]

Truth be told, I don't like feeling disoriented & confused. It makes an already challenging game even more challenging, and not in a way that (for me) is either interesting and fun. It impinges on my shot-making, but almost (it feels) accidentally, or at least unintentionally. And unlike an awkward & convoluted routing, which at least might be leavened (though for me never saved) by an especially pleasing vista, the lack of clarity -- and resulting disorientation -- in what Tom is describing is offset by nothing at all, and in fact results in blandness rather than thrills, particularly for a first time/one time visitor. If I needed an extra test of my ball striking and shot making skills, I'd bring out the persimmon instead.

[Kalen Braley]

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. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()