|
Post by grovey31 on Dec 22, 2020 12:04:29 GMT -5
It is true that we have the option to play each course with certain assistance and resources and use them to our full advantage. It is also true that if we use those resources and can see all of the hazards ahead of time then one should not "complain" about not knowing a hazard was there. Here is my question though: If it's acceptable to create invisible bunkers because we have the tools to see them on the scout cam before hitting the shot, then is it in fact not an invisible bunker at all? If that's the case then why even make it blind or hide it? Is the blindness even the strategic element anymore? I personally think bunkers look really cool so it would be a good thing to show them off to the player. I also think it's way more fun to hit over a bunker instead of a simple hill.
Bunkers are obviously used as strategic elements, whether they are blind or not, but I think courses play better and look better too when you can see an artfully designed and sculpted bunker on the corner of a dogleg or in the middle of a fairway. I really think it's important to marry strategy and aesthetics together to create the best overall experience in this game. As far as it being a "design flaw", there's a big difference between it being a conscious design decision and done really well and maybe only once or twice in the round versus done accidentally without thought or care and then using the "tools or aids" as a way to defend it's existence and strategy (not accusing at all).
I think if we were to poll actual golf course architects like Bill Coore, Tom Doak, Gil Hanse, etc. they would mostly say "no" to invisible bunkers. There's also a sense of excitement and thrill that a player gets while watching their ball fly over a mean looking bunker. The opposite of that feeling would be uncertainty and nervousness which I personally don't want while playing the game I love.
Closing thoughts: 1. Do I think invisible bunkers should be generally or widely accepted, no. 2. Will I complain about said invisible bunkers, eh maybe a little. 3. Will I play courses that have invisible bunkers, unlikely.
|
|
|
Post by whodatmatt34 on Dec 22, 2020 12:23:39 GMT -5
As far as it being a "design flaw", there's a big difference between it being a conscious design decision and done really well and maybe only once or twice in the round versus done accidentally without thought or care and then using the "tools or aids" as a way to defend it's existence and strategy An excellent post by Grovey as a whole that sums up why you should spend time sculpting your bunkers to be visible and look nice. He hit the nail on the head with everything. But the quoted line perfectly articulates so many people's frustration with this thread. The OP can say he wasn't referring to his course as much as he wants, but fresh off arguing about it in another thread after having his course rejected with that as one of the reasons, it's incredibly transparent. It's disingenuous as hell to argue that this is anything other than the OP trying to justify his lazy sculpting by finding people that agree with him that not every hazard needs to be visible. We're not dumb here. Yes, there's a time and a place where blind hazards can be acceptable, but as a general rule of thumb, it should be done for a reason. And that reason shouldn't ever be "I don't care to sculpt a sightline."
|
|
|
Post by virtualgolfer65 on Dec 22, 2020 13:00:52 GMT -5
Blind tee shots, controversy and arguments have existed, since the first sticks and rocks were used ages ago. Having played around the world the past 40 years I've experienced a mind-numbing number of memorable holes that were blind tee shots or approaches and I have my own memories and opinions of them. That said, I found a really good discussion on here from 2018 that has a lot to offer in this present thread. TLDR: 1) it's okay to design a hole with blind shots and enjoy the course as it is 2) if you need to use the scout cam to see the trouble then is the blindness necessary 3) Why do all the work of sculpting and such, just to limit a players view of a hill in front of you 4) This isn't reality, so don't do anything that jolts a player from that suspended perspective 5) You'll be fortunate to have a player on your course once and you want to leave a lasting memory and not sully it with unfair holes or ones where the blindness doesn't really offer more than if it were not blind. 6) The scout cam may be turned off by players/societies or not used at all. 7) Provide the best experience for the player and that means don't use blind shots/hazards or limit them to perhaps once per course. Oh and there's much more than above, so just go read through the couple pages of responses from staypuft39 , gamesdecent , mayday_golf83 , Violinguy69 and many others. Well worth your time to read. tgctours.proboards.com/thread/17252/blind-shots-discussion
|
|
mayday_golf83
TGCT Design Competition Directors
Posts: 2,279
TGCT Name: Jeremy Mayo
Tour: Elite
|
Post by mayday_golf83 on Dec 22, 2020 14:19:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by tpetro on Dec 22, 2020 14:25:33 GMT -5
I didn't reply to this thread but I'm glad you instinctively know I'm right about this issue.
|
|
mayday_golf83
TGCT Design Competition Directors
Posts: 2,279
TGCT Name: Jeremy Mayo
Tour: Elite
|
Post by mayday_golf83 on Dec 22, 2020 14:39:09 GMT -5
I didn't reply to this thread but I'm glad you instinctively know I'm right about this issue. My mind is ready for a vacation!!!!
|
|
|
Post by joegolferg on Dec 23, 2020 5:07:06 GMT -5
I do have to ask, isn't also just as exciting to hit a ball over a blind carry/hill/corner the same way it is to hit over a menacing looking bunker? I personally love doing that just as much. For me, building blind bunkers isn't something I only do for playability reasons, I do it to add realism and keep with the traditions of how the dead architects did things back in the early day's building courses in Britain. With overheads and scout cam in mind you do the the TST and many people who play without any of these things so the playability factor of blind bunkers isn't completely lost. I've seen this discussion since the beginning of TGC as a game and it's become very noticeable that there is divide in opinion between British (some European) and American community members on this issue, with the latter usually being the group opposing blind shots/hazards. This divide also exists in the non virtual golf world.
|
|
|
Post by staypuft39 on Dec 23, 2020 6:21:57 GMT -5
Well there we go, maybe OP was just adding realism and paying homage to dead architects the whole time. And you jerks shout him down.
|
|
|
Post by PicnicGuy / BobalooNOLA on Dec 23, 2020 7:26:07 GMT -5
I do have to ask, isn't also just as exciting to hit a ball over a blind carry/hill/corner the same way it is to hit over a menacing looking bunker? I personally love doing that just as much. For me, building blind bunkers isn't something I only do for playability reasons, I do it to add realism and keep with the traditions of how the dead architects did things back in the early day's building courses in Britain. With overheads and scout cam in mind you do the the TST and many people who play without any of these things so the playability factor of blind bunkers isn't completely lost. I've seen this discussion since the beginning of TGC as a game and it's become very noticeable that there is divide in opinion between British (some European) and American community members on this issue, with the latter usually being the group opposing blind shots/hazards. This divide also exists in the non virtual golf world. American here, bucking the trend, I suppose.
|
|
|
Post by PicnicGuy / BobalooNOLA on Dec 23, 2020 7:28:32 GMT -5
Amateur shrinks abound ... 😜
|
|
|
Post by PicnicGuy / BobalooNOLA on Dec 23, 2020 8:11:19 GMT -5
I guess in these times it DOES, but SHOULD it seem odd that I am interested in not just knowing, but actually understanding, the "other guy's view" (that I just don't understand).
Or that it should be on a topic reflected in critique of my design output ?
Why seek out a different example to use in the discussion when we have one in front of us, and I'm happy to hear about it, as long as they are happy to hear my defense ? At the end, we both should be able to keep our views and go merrily onward if the discussion hasn't changed them. It's digital golf, nothing more.
So I truly appreciate the responses pointing me to other articles on the subject, as well as those who explain WHY they personally do or don't agree (there ARE both posted). The more views I hear articulated, the more I may be sympathetic to avoiding that feature in future courses, even if it seems fair enough to me. Maybe not.
The attacks on my motivations are unwelcome. I may be obnoxious & persistent, and my intelligence is certainly fair game, but I'm straightforward with you folks to a fault, and why not ? Plus they waste everyone's time. Save them for PMs to me if you just must lash out, okay ?
There's a topic in the header. I was sticking to it.
|
|
|
Post by PicnicGuy / BobalooNOLA on Dec 23, 2020 8:32:38 GMT -5
Well there we go, maybe OP was just adding realism and paying homage to dead architects the whole time. And you jerks shout him down. Not so much as that was the lay of that particular piece of land and I liked it well enough not to sculpt, just kind of fuzzy it smooth. I can't start with a flat plot, unfortunately, like some designers. The whole blindness thing is very situational, imo, and I don't see how any rule can fit all, but I'm trying to let folks explain what the 'rules of thumb' are, if they can do it without insulting me. I also thought my not looking at the overhead at times was a shortcoming or flaw in my game, but apparently it's s.o.p. for some. I wouldn't have guessed, as I rarely see a pro on TV, nor someone IRL playing a course for the first time NOT using the scorecard (gps wasn't prevelant in my golfing heyday). I get the 'challenge', but with it should come added risk, IMO To see how pathetic my attempts at any conscious homage would be 😜 12 at Murray's started as an Augusta 12 tribute, but I decided the same general concept was all I could muster. Green slopes towards tee, you don't want short because it's closely mowed in front, etcetera. Not great, but I've enjoyed it each time since creating it, so ..
|
|
|
Post by PicnicGuy / BobalooNOLA on Dec 23, 2020 9:21:44 GMT -5
It is true that we have the option to play each course with certain assistance and resources and use them to our full advantage. It is also true that if we use those resources and can see all of the hazards ahead of time then one should not "complain" about not knowing a hazard was there. Here is my question though: If it's acceptable to create invisible bunkers because we have the tools to see them on the scout cam before hitting the shot, then is it in fact not an invisible bunker at all? If that's the case then why even make it blind or hide it? Is the blindness even the strategic element anymore? I personally think bunkers look really cool so it would be a good thing to show them off to the player. I also think it's way more fun to hit over a bunker instead of a simple hill. Bunkers are obviously used as strategic elements, whether they are blind or not, but I think courses play better and look better too when you can see an artfully designed and sculpted bunker on the corner of a dogleg or in the middle of a fairway. I really think it's important to marry strategy and aesthetics together to create the best overall experience in this game. As far as it being a "design flaw", there's a big difference between it being a conscious design decision and done really well and maybe only once or twice in the round versus done accidentally without thought or care and then using the "tools or aids" as a way to defend it's existence and strategy (not accusing at all). I think if we were to poll actual golf course architects like Bill Coore, Tom Doak, Gil Hanse, etc. they would mostly say "no" to invisible bunkers. There's also a sense of excitement and thrill that a player gets while watching their ball fly over a mean looking bunker. The opposite of that feeling would be uncertainty and nervousness which I personally don't want while playing the game I love. Closing thoughts: 1. Do I think invisible bunkers should be generally or widely accepted, no. 2. Will I complain about said invisible bunkers, eh maybe a little. 3. Will I play courses that have invisible bunkers, unlikely. This is my favorite response so far, grovey ! Thank you for the time to politely & articulately dissent. Unfortunately, you can't know about invisible bunkers until you're on the course, but abandoning a round in the game is easy and doesn't waste the greens fees. Nor does it offend this designer when you do. I am now more interested in understanding the apparent disdain (not necessarily from you) for beforehand course/hole knowledge when playing the game. IMO, any time the test is 'open-book', it's entirely the test-taker's fault they don't get 100%. Anyway ...thanks again !
|
|
|
Post by abowidow5712 on Dec 23, 2020 12:54:38 GMT -5
In my personal opinion, I think if you're alright with "invisible" bunkers then you're missing the point of strategically placing bunkers. Sure a bunker can be there just for aesthetics, but a bunker should always be placed with a purpose like b101 and grovey31 are getting at. Alister MacKenzie said "He believed in very well thought out placement of bunkers, putting them where players would likely hit it if the bunker wasn’t there." A bunker should have a purpose and keeping it out of view from the golfer can take away from that purpose. Obviously there can be blind shots where a bunker is waiting on the other side of the hill in your desired landing area, like b101 and joegolferg said, but if there isn't a blind shot then you should be able to see the bunker. In this game are "invisible" bunkers alright, I guess, but is it realistic? No. I prefer realistic as possible and I think a lot of other people do too. Here's an article from the American Society of Golf Course Architects. Hope this helps in some way. That article goes a little bit more in depth than necessary for this discussion's sake, but a lot of good information in there. asgca.org/design/existing-courses/course-renovation-articles/bunkers/ Here's the full article where I got the quote from Alister MacKenzie, excellent architect to learn from. His 13 principles of golf course design still hold true to this day and his catalog of courses stacks up well against any of the great architects, some argue he is the best. Bunkers are discussed towards the end of that article. thefriedegg.com/alister-mackenzie-biography/And this is another article that might be of interest. www.google.com/amp/s/golf.com/travel/ways-architects-use-grass-hazards/amp/
|
|
|
Post by PicnicGuy / BobalooNOLA on Dec 23, 2020 16:53:44 GMT -5
I am playing Oakmont right now, and it has had so many 'violations' it's awesome. Standing on the 5th tee as my ball sails over a blind ridge to a fairway lined by bunkers that only the scorecard revealed to me. The 3rd or 4th had bunkers flanking the back half of the green on a blind uphill approach - but it was a short shot, so it was rightly on me to be within a few yards of my target distance for safety's sake.
Now this is Oakmont, so only Mr Fownes' or Fazio's feelings should possibly be affected by these remarks, in a world that makes sense. One of my favorite courses to see host a major. 1 under through 5 ...
And the 8th 277 yr par 3 downhill to an unseen green surrounded by (again unseen) bunkers on 3 sides .. but you can see the tip of the flagstick. Now, I love it, tbh.
|
|