|
Post by wildy33 on Jan 25, 2021 11:56:18 GMT -5
References - trees, buildings etc - that help you aim, or simply an aim marker. All these makes the shot easier and less luck. But - what are the purpose of the hill and blindness? Why have it there? "It could be great" - for what? To stop the low-hitting senior to roll his ball onto the fairway? You can use bunkers for that purpose. Usualy when I find this on courses - it is because it would mean a ton of land need to be removed - which costs money, and so they leave the land there. It is of no purpose, and the aiming marker is there to help the golfers - the bells in the fairway to let the golfers on the tee know when it is clear, if they hear it - or if the group actually use the bell. I have waited on tee for like 10+ minutes.. and decided just to hit the shot - coming down the fairway to find angry golfers who got the ball landing on their feet. It is dangerous and it is bad routing of the course. Give me one good reason to have a hill 50 yards from tee that blocks visibility. One reason. Because when the course was designed they chose to put the tee behind it as it’s an exhilarating, heroic shot to play. It’s not bad routing if done well. My home course has a blind tee shot exactly as you describe and it lifts an otherwise straightforward dogleg right. They can be great features when utilised well. I have never had an issue with hitting into other golfers or being hit at and haven’t heard of any either. You can tell where the group in front are based on the previous hole and people ring the bell. The hole in question: Also an honorable mention to the punchbowl 3rd at B&B. One of my favourite approach shots I've ever hit! Framed beautifully dunes right, left and back, you know where you're going but nothing beats the excitement of walking to crest of the hill and hoping your ball is in a good spot!
|
|
|
Post by b101 on Jan 25, 2021 12:00:58 GMT -5
Let's not conflate this with a sculpting issue with reviewing. But, by way of explanation of the latter: You are again misunderstanding what we class as unintentional blindness with reviewing, which is essentially clear cases of poor sculpting. From a previous thread, with no names attached to the pictures - they just happen to be the ones to hand, the below are examples of bunkers that have no reason for being blind and are only blind because of sculpting issues. Citing specifics allows designers to know what we mean by poor sculpting: Bird's eye: Player's view - bunker and green totally invisible:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2021 12:10:49 GMT -5
Let's not conflate this with a sculpting issue with reviewing. But, by way of explanation of the latter: You are again misunderstanding what we class as unintentional blindness with reviewing, which is essentially clear cases of poor sculpting. I do not think I misunderstand at all. If you have a hill that blocks visibility and so makes the tee shot blind - the designer just have to claim "it is to make the tee shot more thrilling - it is intentional". While you say "it looks unintentional".. and get into problems. How can you tell that the tee shot blindness is unintentional? If a hole has what you consider a thrilling blind tee shot - but the blindness was unintentional - then the hole is bad because the designer made it unintentional?
|
|
|
Post by b101 on Jan 25, 2021 12:27:19 GMT -5
When we’re dealing with not approved, it’s not ambiguous and is symptomatic of many other sculpting issues. If there’s the slightest possibility that it might be to add excitement then we’d overlook it, but it never is. You can tell when someone intends something to be blind and when they don’t. By all means go back through the not approved thread to get an understanding of that level of course - we are not talking borderline here.
Equally though, I’m not here to debate this with you. This is a criterion for approval, like it or not. Reviewers are good at judging it and it’s not an immediate rejection for one blind bunker.
|
|
|
Post by PicnicGuy / BobalooNOLA on Jan 25, 2021 12:36:27 GMT -5
This was way more fun as a spectator this time around, Ben !
|
|
|
Post by b101 on Jan 25, 2021 12:39:43 GMT -5
Yeah, it's something that comes up regularly...
|
|
|
Post by trailducker on Jan 25, 2021 12:54:23 GMT -5
I think the other thing being lost in translation here from Ben and the others is also the amount of occurances as well as compounding other issues. Anders I think in your head you're talking more specific sceneros but in their head they are referring more to overall reoccuring issues on courses they review. My understanding is if the reviewer sees sculpting issues throughout the course (not related to the blindness in particular) then that leads to the blindness being unintentional because sculpting is a problem throughout. Also I assume great sculpting throughout and one unintentional blind shot somewhere is not an immediate grounds for non-approval but often when they see someone with unintentional blindenss it occurs multiple times on a course so it's a factor in the non-approval.
That's where they say thsoe "intimidating" or intentional blind shots are very crafted by the designer to drive home THIS IS A BLIND SHOT FOR A REASON to the golfer. Whether it's a wayward tree behind or rock in front, or directiong tress/hills on the sides as well as a forgiving landing zone.
Hopefully I'm not conflating the conversation here, just trying to connect both trains of thoughts I am seeing.
|
|
|
Post by wildy33 on Jan 25, 2021 13:13:33 GMT -5
I think one could argue the second shot on the 8th at Augusta is one of the more famous "blind" shots that is quire transferable to designing courses on this game? No view of the green surface but still guided by the treeline left and humps to the right? You have no idea where the ball has finished but you can easily paint a picture in your mind's eye
|
|
|
Post by charliehustle on Jan 25, 2021 13:15:27 GMT -5
All I want to say is that in real life blind shots aren't completely and totally blind. What I mean is that you can walk to the top of a hill and observe the area you are shooting for. Yardage books exist. Practice rounds exist. There may also be other visual aids like a tree line that gives that golfer an idea of where they should be aiming.
If you have a blind shot setup in game, whether it be an approach shot or other...if there are hazards in play in the blind area, try not to make them feel like they are there to troll the golfer.
As someone said earlier, design like the scout cam doesn't exist. Don't underestimate the value of a yard marker. Placing yard markers as appropriate make blind shots a little less blind and can add to the perception of strategic intent. A reviewer should notice such details.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2021 13:43:22 GMT -5
I think the other thing being lost in translation here from Ben and the others is also the amount of occurances as well as compounding other issues. Anders I think in your head you're talking more specific sceneros but in their head they are referring more to overall reoccuring issues on courses they review. My understanding is if the reviewer sees sculpting issues throughout the course (not related to the blindness in particular) then that leads to the blindness being unintentional because sculpting is a problem throughout. Also I assume great sculpting throughout and one unintentional blind shot somewhere is not an immediate grounds for non-approval but often when they see someone with unintentional blindenss it occurs multiple times on a course so it's a factor in the non-approval. That's where they say thsoe "intimidating" or intentional blind shots are very crafted by the designer to drive home THIS IS A BLIND SHOT FOR A REASON to the golfer. Whether it's a wayward tree behind or rock in front, or directiong tress/hills on the sides as well as a forgiving landing zone. Hopefully I'm not conflating the conversation here, just trying to connect both trains of thoughts I am seeing. I discuss blindness, not the database. However the reason given for blindness off the tee makes me question the critique on blindness on fantasy courses. So far, the only reason for blind tee shots has been "thrilling excperience". No strategic reason at all. For me as a golfer - that is no good reason. Ofcourse no problem to disagree. The other problem with this in real life, is the real danger that people are in the landing area you don't see (which is of no concern in a video golf game). If a blind tee shot due to a blocking hill is fine if it is intentional - but not fine if it is unintentional - I think this is confusing and inconsistent. And how can you tell if it is intentional or not? No answer to that so far. You may assume it is unintentional or intentional - but how can you know for certain? Mind reading? Make up your mind - is a blind tee shot thrilling or not? What do intention of the designer matter? The blocking hill is the same if it is intentional or not. Let me tell you of an eagle I made on a par 4 at La Cala golf resort, Asia course in Spain. I was in the middle of the fairway. Perfect tee shot. From my lie in the fairway, I could see the flag - but not the green. Hit a great shot - and when we got to the green, we all looked and could not understand why we didn't see my ball. Took some time before we found it in the cup. My experience on that hole - was that I was robbed to see the shot go into the hole. I know this is part of golf - but for me - that was not thrilling - it was a feeling of robbery for my experience. It is not everyday you hole a 130 yard shot. Others may have completely different experience on such a shot. It was not completely blind as I could see the flag - but the thrill of seeing the ball land and roll in the hole. There was no strategic reason not to see the green on that hole (downhill from fairway) - but they would have needed to remove some land in order for us to do so. This is ofcourse expensive
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2021 13:47:37 GMT -5
I think one could argue the second shot on the 8th at Augusta is one of the more famous "blind" shots that is quire transferable to designing courses on this game? No view of the green surface but still guided by the treeline left and humps to the right? You have no idea where the ball has finished but you can easily paint a picture in your mind's eye 8th at Augusta is a par 5. You have no blind tee shot. Your landing area on the layup option is clearly visible from the fairway. There is a clear visible green from the layup area. That the risky go for green in two is blind is ofcourse completely fine. This is part of where blindness can be strategic - you want to go for the green? Sure - but you do not see the green - you have problems left, and mounds to the right to make it tricky if you miss. So you have a harder time aiming, and some problems left and right - though you clearly do not want to miss left at all on the 8th, which is why you see many shots to the right.
|
|
|
Post by joegolferg on Jan 25, 2021 13:49:24 GMT -5
Speaking of hills I think you just died on one, Anders. Maybe it's about time we just put down the gravestone and call it day...
|
|
|
Post by tpetro on Jan 25, 2021 13:50:54 GMT -5
I think the other thing being lost in translation here from Ben and the others is also the amount of occurances as well as compounding other issues. Anders I think in your head you're talking more specific sceneros but in their head they are referring more to overall reoccuring issues on courses they review. My understanding is if the reviewer sees sculpting issues throughout the course (not related to the blindness in particular) then that leads to the blindness being unintentional because sculpting is a problem throughout. Also I assume great sculpting throughout and one unintentional blind shot somewhere is not an immediate grounds for non-approval but often when they see someone with unintentional blindenss it occurs multiple times on a course so it's a factor in the non-approval. That's where they say thsoe "intimidating" or intentional blind shots are very crafted by the designer to drive home THIS IS A BLIND SHOT FOR A REASON to the golfer. Whether it's a wayward tree behind or rock in front, or directiong tress/hills on the sides as well as a forgiving landing zone. Hopefully I'm not conflating the conversation here, just trying to connect both trains of thoughts I am seeing. I discuss blindness, not the database. However the reason given for blindness off the tee makes me question the critique on blindness on fantasy courses. So far, the only reason for blind tee shots has been "thrilling excperience". No strategic reason at all. For me as a golfer - that is no good reason. Ofcourse no problem to disagree. The other problem with this in real life, is the real danger that people are in the landing area you don't see (which is of no concern in a video golf game). If a blind tee shot due to a blocking hill is fine if it is intentional - but not fine if it is unintentional - I think this is confusing and inconsistent. And how can you tell if it is intentional or not? No answer to that so far. You may assume it is unintentional or intentional - but how can you know for certain? Mind reading? Make up your mind - is a blind tee shot thrilling or not? What do intention of the designer matter? The blocking hill is the same if it is intentional or not. Let me tell you of an eagle I made on a par 4 at La Cala golf resort, Asia course in Spain. I was in the middle of the fairway. Perfect tee shot. From my lie in the fairway, I could see the flag - but not the green. Hit a great shot - and when we got to the green, we all looked and could not understand why we didn't see my ball. Took some time before we found it in the cup. My experience on that hole - was that I was robbed to see the shot go into the hole. I know this is part of golf - but for me - that was not thrilling - it was a feeling of robbery for my experience. It is not everyday you hole a 130 yard shot. Others may have completely different experience on such a shot. It was not completely blind as I could see the flag - but the thrill of seeing the ball land and roll in the hole. There was no strategic reason not to see the green on that hole (downhill from fairway) - but they would have needed to remove some land in order for us to do so. This is ofcourse expensive Dude... I gave you an extensive post about the strategy of tee shot blindness. Either you cannot read or you're choosing to ignore what I said because you disagree, which is not how productive discussion works. Oh and La Cala is not the pinnacle of architecture. You're probably right about that shot and that it shouldn't be blind mainly because it's not a well-designed golf course. We're not citing crappy resort courses, we're giving examples for some of the most revered designs on the planet.
|
|
|
Post by charliehustle on Jan 25, 2021 13:56:15 GMT -5
I think the other thing being lost in translation here from Ben and the others is also the amount of occurances as well as compounding other issues. Anders I think in your head you're talking more specific sceneros but in their head they are referring more to overall reoccuring issues on courses they review. My understanding is if the reviewer sees sculpting issues throughout the course (not related to the blindness in particular) then that leads to the blindness being unintentional because sculpting is a problem throughout. Also I assume great sculpting throughout and one unintentional blind shot somewhere is not an immediate grounds for non-approval but often when they see someone with unintentional blindenss it occurs multiple times on a course so it's a factor in the non-approval. That's where they say thsoe "intimidating" or intentional blind shots are very crafted by the designer to drive home THIS IS A BLIND SHOT FOR A REASON to the golfer. Whether it's a wayward tree behind or rock in front, or directiong tress/hills on the sides as well as a forgiving landing zone. Hopefully I'm not conflating the conversation here, just trying to connect both trains of thoughts I am seeing. I discuss blindness, not the database. However the reason given for blindness off the tee makes me question the critique on blindness on fantasy courses. So far, the only reason for blind tee shots has been "thrilling excperience". No strategic reason at all. For me as a golfer - that is no good reason. Ofcourse no problem to disagree. The other problem with this in real life, is the real danger that people are in the landing area you don't see (which is of no concern in a video golf game). If a blind tee shot due to a blocking hill is fine if it is intentional - but not fine if it is unintentional - I think this is confusing and inconsistent. And how can you tell if it is intentional or not? No answer to that so far. You may assume it is unintentional or intentional - but how can you know for certain? Mind reading? Make up your mind - is a blind tee shot thrilling or not? What do intention of the designer matter? The blocking hill is the same if it is intentional or not. Let me tell you of an eagle I made on a par 4 at La Cala golf resort, Asia course in Spain. I was in the middle of the fairway. Perfect tee shot. From my lie in the fairway, I could see the flag - but not the green. Hit a great shot - and when we got to the green, we all looked and could not understand why we didn't see my ball. Took some time before we found it in the cup. My experience on that hole - was that I was robbed to see the shot go into the hole. I know this is part of golf - but for me - that was not thrilling - it was a feeling of robbery for my experience. It is not everyday you hole a 130 yard shot. Others may have completely different experience on such a shot. It was not completely blind as I could see the flag - but the thrill of seeing the ball land and roll in the hole. There was no strategic reason not to see the green on that hole (downhill from fairway) - but they would have needed to remove some land in order for us to do so. This is ofcourse expensive By your description of the hole, it does seem like there was strategic reason for the blind shot. Downhill fairway means you could have layed-up and had an unobstructed view of the green and a CHANCE to experience a hole-in for all of it's glory. You assumed the risk of the shorter approach shot and also ended up getting the reward as well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2021 14:02:17 GMT -5
I discuss blindness, not the database. However the reason given for blindness off the tee makes me question the critique on blindness on fantasy courses. So far, the only reason for blind tee shots has been "thrilling excperience". No strategic reason at all. For me as a golfer - that is no good reason. Ofcourse no problem to disagree. The other problem with this in real life, is the real danger that people are in the landing area you don't see (which is of no concern in a video golf game). If a blind tee shot due to a blocking hill is fine if it is intentional - but not fine if it is unintentional - I think this is confusing and inconsistent. And how can you tell if it is intentional or not? No answer to that so far. You may assume it is unintentional or intentional - but how can you know for certain? Mind reading? Make up your mind - is a blind tee shot thrilling or not? What do intention of the designer matter? The blocking hill is the same if it is intentional or not. Let me tell you of an eagle I made on a par 4 at La Cala golf resort, Asia course in Spain. I was in the middle of the fairway. Perfect tee shot. From my lie in the fairway, I could see the flag - but not the green. Hit a great shot - and when we got to the green, we all looked and could not understand why we didn't see my ball. Took some time before we found it in the cup. My experience on that hole - was that I was robbed to see the shot go into the hole. I know this is part of golf - but for me - that was not thrilling - it was a feeling of robbery for my experience. It is not everyday you hole a 130 yard shot. Others may have completely different experience on such a shot. It was not completely blind as I could see the flag - but the thrill of seeing the ball land and roll in the hole. There was no strategic reason not to see the green on that hole (downhill from fairway) - but they would have needed to remove some land in order for us to do so. This is ofcourse expensive By your description of the hole, it does seem like there was strategic reason for the blind shot. Downhill fairway means you could have layed-up and had an unobstructed view of the green and a CHANCE to experience a hole-in for all of it's glory. You assumed the risk of the shorter approach shot and also ended up getting the reward as well. No, there is no problem removing the land to make the green visible from the fairway - it do not make the strategy of the hole change at all. But removing that landmass is costly - so why do it? My story is just to give an insight to what visibility can mean to a golfers experience - as a contrast to the "thrill of a blind shot".
|
|