|
Post by gmanuk1965 on Mar 30, 2023 20:10:15 GMT -5
So, as I found out when designing during the 2K21 era (I'm now playing 2K23) that unintentional blindness was a major aspect in designing to get rid of, but there is also intentional blindness where designers intentionally create blind spots. How can I tell the difference when a designer has actually intentionally caused a blind spot from a lazy designer who hasn't fixed an unintentional blind spot? What are some examples of intentional blind spots?
I may have thought of one. would it be classed as an intentional blind spot if say you can see the fairway ahead of you but only a 3-Wood or 5-Wood could be used unless a fade or draw was used with a Driver to get around some trees blocking the rest of the fairway?
|
|
|
Post by bubbadave on Mar 30, 2023 20:46:46 GMT -5
I'm unsure of the definition too, but I think it comes down to not putting in a hazard that the golfer can't see from the tee box and/or fairway if they hit a good tee shot. That said, when I state hazard, I'm talking OOB, bunkers or water.
|
|
|
Post by fargo on Mar 30, 2023 22:21:43 GMT -5
I suppose the fundamental idea is: would a real life golfer standing on the tee know where to hit, and have a fair outcome from hitting a reasonable ball in a reasonable direction?
Obviously in this game the player can engage scout cam, and it's really easy to consider your course from a bird's eye perspective when designing a course. But it's not realistic to have blind hazards and holes where you can't see anything, so it does break the immersion and it simply looks pretty bad to a random bloke playing your course.
There's heaps of blind drives and blind approach shots in real life courses, especially traditional links courses, but generally you can see where to hit due to the contouring of the land of some other features such as an aiming stick or a big rock or something. If you're going over a hill then you'll generally find a generous fairway over it, or you'll be able to see a valley or a corridor to play down.
You won't find many blind drives on modern highly manicured courses as the architects are normally mindful to frame the holes off the tee, so be careful that the type of shot matches the general style of course.
Punchbowl greens are designed that way primarily because the approach shot is blind and that was a way to ensure the blind shot is not inherently unfair.
Your example in the second paragraph sounds completely fine - there is definately no requirement that you can see the fairway 320 yards down the hole, assuming you can see where to hit 250 yards down the hole and have a pretty good idea where the fairway leads from there if you want to take on a heroic shot.
A good example of a blind drive on a course you might know is 10 at Augusta National (from the back tees). You can't see any of the fairway from the teebox, but you can see where it is going to be because of the corridor of trees. There are no bunkers down that corridor before about 400 yards.
|
|
|
Post by leckner43 on Mar 31, 2023 0:15:21 GMT -5
In real life and video games, I enjoy some blind tee shots, with the caveat that hazards should always be seen. Blind tee shots over hills to find better angles or speed slots are great. Maybe not on every hole, but they do provide variety. It’s fun to crest a hill or turn a corner to see where your ball ended up. Links courses commonly have blind tee shots, but they’ve always embraced that golf should not necessarily be fair.
Blind approach shots are miserable, IMO. Augusta only has one blind approach (from the fairway on 8) and I’m not sure it was intended given the way the game and hole have changed.
I like blind tee shots when the slope indicates how the hole should be played. Blind tee shots with a flag or stake indicating the best line are terrible. That’s how the Broadmoor does it, for example.
|
|
|
Post by paddyjk19 on Mar 31, 2023 6:40:50 GMT -5
For me intentional blindness is part of strategy.
You might use contouring in front of the green that means a short but safe drive leaves a blind shot into the green but the risky drive opens up the view and playing surface.
For tee shots the tenth at Augusta a great example, as is the 14th to a degree
|
|
|
Post by bubbadave on Mar 31, 2023 12:21:41 GMT -5
Blind approach shots are miserable, IMO. Augusta only has one blind approach (from the fairway on 8) and I’m not sure it was intended given the way the game and hole have changed. I generally agree. There are caveats, however. On the first hole of a course I'm designing, the golfer can see the green and bunkering clearly from the tee box across an inlet and up an incline. Long hitters, or those playing from the forward tees can reach the secondary fairway, but then their approach shot is blind to the green and the back bunker. If they lay up on the primary fairway, which is elevated, their approach is longer, but the entirety of the green and its hazards are laid out for them visually. This is but one example of intentional blindness.
|
|
|
Post by leckner43 on Mar 31, 2023 22:05:44 GMT -5
Blind approach shots are miserable, IMO. Augusta only has one blind approach (from the fairway on 8) and I’m not sure it was intended given the way the game and hole have changed. I generally agree. There are caveats, however. On the first hole of a course I'm designing, the golfer can see the green and bunkering clearly from the tee box across an inlet and up an incline. Long hitters, or those playing from the forward tees can reach the secondary fairway, but then their approach shot is blind to the green and the back bunker. If they lay up on the primary fairway, which is elevated, their approach is longer, but the entirety of the green and its hazards are laid out for them visually. This is but one example of intentional blindness. Great point and I totally agree.
|
|
|
Post by paddyjk19 on Apr 1, 2023 3:59:21 GMT -5
In real life and video games, I enjoy some blind tee shots, with the caveat that hazards should always be seen. Blind tee shots over hills to find better angles or speed slots are great. Maybe not on every hole, but they do provide variety. It’s fun to crest a hill or turn a corner to see where your ball ended up. Links courses commonly have blind tee shots, but they’ve always embraced that golf should not necessarily be fair. Blind approach shots are miserable, IMO. Augusta only has one blind approach (from the fairway on 8) and I’m not sure it was intended given the way the game and hole have changed. I like blind tee shots when the slope indicates how the hole should be played. Blind tee shots with a flag or stake indicating the best line are terrible. That’s how the Broadmoor does it, for example. There can be plenty of good blind approach shots such as the alps or punch bowl template holes that are iconic. They’ve had periods of being ignored by modern golf architects but you’ll see lots done very well on golden age courses
|
|
|
Post by paddyjk19 on Apr 1, 2023 4:24:14 GMT -5
Also got Himalaya bunkers like at Royal St George’s 4th hole which partially obscures the 4th fairway and offers the player that do or die gamble.
A Himalaya bunker is also used on approach at the 6th hole on St Enodoc, where the safe drive leaves a blind shot directly over the bunker to the green whilst a bold drive down the left gives a partial view of the green.
It’s a good example of how risky drives should give you a look at the green but a timid safe drive leaves you blind. Perfect risk reward - you decide whether to face the hard shot from the tee or leave yourself the hard shot to the green. Masterful design
|
|
|
Post by sandgroper on Apr 1, 2023 6:01:18 GMT -5
The 4th at The Dunes (Barnbougle) has a massive bunker in front of you if you layup off the tee. My estimate is the bunker would easily be 30 foot high. Would that be considered Himalayan?
|
|
|
Post by paddyjk19 on Apr 1, 2023 6:05:40 GMT -5
The 4th at The Dunes (Barnbougle) has a massive bunker in front of you if you layup off the tee. My estimate is the bunker would easily be 30 foot high. Would that be considered Himalayan? That would definitely be Himalayan! There’s not a guideline as far as I know but if the face of the bunker obscures the target completely from either the tee or the approach I’d say it’s Himalayan. Also if it scares you to death with its size, it’s Himalayan! That’s said, I’m building a fictional course at the moment that has a “double Himalaya” - it’s only one large bunker green side but the green surface is reminiscent of the himalaya putting green at St Andrew’s and either requires using contours along the ground or pin point aerial wedge shots to get close. It’s an apt hole to name Himalaya
|
|
|
Post by fargo on Apr 1, 2023 6:25:45 GMT -5
The 4th at The Dunes (Barnbougle) has a massive bunker in front of you if you layup off the tee. My estimate is the bunker would easily be 30 foot high. Would that be considered Himalayan? Great looking hole that, and I look forward to playing it one day. May have a few similarities to hole 6 at Cormac's Bluff...
|
|
|
Post by paddyjk19 on Apr 1, 2023 7:55:25 GMT -5
Not sure if this will help anyone looking to incorporate intentional blindness but I've implemented it on a few holes on my current WIP, an intended 100 year old Heath / Common course. I've used a couple of templates but also have used a modified Himalaya style on one approach. Alps;Easy / safe tee shot leaves a blind approach over a Sahara bunker which is also blind; Aggressive drive leaves a view of the green and negates a carry over the alps and bunker; Himalaya;OB left which pushes you to the right and brings in the enormous bunker on approach, which leaves you blind; Lay up down the left close to OB gives you a sight of the green and easier access to the funnel to use the ground game; The heavily contoured green can be accessed via the funnel to feed the ball or you can fly a wedge to your intended green zone and spin it; Leven;This is an example of partial blindness, the easy tee shot leaves a forced carry and a blind shot to the front portion of the green; Aggressive tee ball negates the forced carry and gives you a look at the putting surface; Personally, I love old style blind shots but I also like to see them tied to strategy rather than just being blind for the sake of it
|
|
|
Post by sandgroper on Apr 1, 2023 9:42:37 GMT -5
.
|
|
|
Post by gmanuk1965 on Apr 1, 2023 19:28:10 GMT -5
Thanks for the info. I like the idea of Himalaya bunkers which is something I will have a go with in the future. I am now about to play Augusta and check out hole 10 and 14 for ideas. Getting rid of unintentional blindness is a good idea but adding intentional blindness is also good as it adds variety to playing a course rather than hitting the ball in one direction. I tend to create holes like the latter because I often don't think. There is a book I read a while back called Grounds For Golf by Geoff Shackleford which has some ideas from real golf courses for blind spots. The reasoning for the question that started this thread was to find out that if a planned blindness was carried out would the TGC judges realise the difference between intentional and unintentional blindness but I'm thinking that what bubbadave pointed out, it would be that, that the judges would be looking for that should be avoided.
|
|