|
Post by grovey31 on Jan 25, 2021 17:40:59 GMT -5
Right so I’ve been pulled up on blind tee shots and shots quite a few times with my courses now. Some were things I hadn’t noticed but I’ll take that on the chin. But I really don’t get why people are so against blind shots. Blind shots are an actual thing in real life golf. I’m busy creating a links course at the moment with quite a few blind shots but now concerned about the negativity it might get. In regards to the OP: 1. "I hadn't noticed" (see in bold) = "unintentional blindness" 2. "Blind shots are an actual thing in real life golf". Most of the courses with blind shots on them were designed and built by the few people in the world who are the absolute best at that they do = "intentional blindness" or "strategic blindness". A lot of really good examples of this have already been mentioned. 3. "concerned about the negativity it might get": this is always the risk you take when you put something out into the world. You will never please everyone, trust me. You'll do yourself a massive favor by designing for yourself first and foremost. Alister Mackenzie has said he was more worried if everyone liked his courses because it meant they were uninteresting and lacked thought provoking play. My post is by no means an attack on you or your comment. I just thought it was a good way to differentiate between intentional/unintentional blindness which is a topic that constantly comes up on here. It's like buying Dexter golf shoes vs Footjoy. They both do the same thing but one is obviously better than the other. I personally think blind shots have their place in both real and video golf. If the best architects both past and present have done them, then of course we can too as long as we stick to their principles and ideas behind those decisions. If they are executed well and the design is sound then we can't argue with that, we can only decide if we like it or dislike it. Those are two very different things and there is nothing wrong with that. And with that being said, it honestly sounds like most people like them here than not. I think my favorite comment though has to be that someone was actually mad about holing out from the fairway for an eagle just because they couldn't see it... Glass half empty much? Hahaha
|
|
|
Post by PicnicGuy / BobalooNOLA on Jan 25, 2021 17:46:13 GMT -5
An "art analogy" ... melting clocks don't work in most situations for most painters, but then there's Dali.
I thought I had found rob's glasses, but they turned out to be my wife's. Sorry.
(Backs away slowly ... 🙄)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2021 18:08:26 GMT -5
Aiming blindly is pure luck, not skill in my opinion. If you have a target like an aiming pole, treeline etc - you have a clear target and so you know where to aim. So why the blindness if you provide aiming help to the golfer? Although your target is blind you still know where you're aiming. If a blind shot has a marker it is still a blind shot, too. Yes - this is the case most of the time, though not always. I still find no reason for the blindness most of the time, other than that the landmass is not removed because that is an unecessary expense to provide full visual. It is not that uncommon to find that I would prefer a slightly different routing when encountering blindness. If the purpose is to challenge the golfer on blind shots - I would guess they should not help the golfer with the marker. Again - what is the purpose of the blind tee shot? If you have an aiming marker, you have a target the same as if the landing area where visible. Also, semi-blind tee shots, where there is a visible shorter option, but not visible longer option is quite common and not a problem (when we look past the problem of those situations when you can have people in the blind area) - and brings strategy into your decision on the tee - do I want to take the risk of hitting blindly over trees for example. You then have the option to play short, or long. Also downhill fairway where you can see a certain distance, but loose it downhill - for example you start with a slight downhill, slight uphill so at perhaps 200 yards the fairway starts downhill and you loose sight. Depending on hole length, you can decide to hit long or short. This is quite different from a hill at 50-100 yard from the tee that blocks visuals. One of the better holes on one of my local courses is a short par 4, downhill, slight dogleg left. Tee shot is past a creek to a fairway that goes in the dogleg direction right to left. To the right you have water hazard. Long and to the left of the water pond (right side of the fairway) is a large fairway bunker. Past this is a very deep gorge that is lost ball. Left of the fairway the creek from tee gets deep deep and lost ball. Red stakes all the way, though missing left is the last thing you want as the ball may not get over so you are left with a rehit. The left and right creek goes down to the hole and it gets pretty narrow past 220 yards off the tee - and this is the point which gets blind off the tee. ca. 70 yard from the green, there is a cross bunker ready to catch balls running down the fairway - so if you want to drive the green, you need to get past this bunker, hit over trees blindly, and red penalty left, right and long. The usual tee shot here for me is a 7 or 6 iron to the landing area in front of the long bunker. But I hit pretty far with my irons, so average amateurs use a 4 iron, hybrid or a 5-7 wood. Most players (not Bryson) needs driver to get to the green. On a day with traffic so you have players in front of you, the risky option is not an option due to safety reasons. Another hole on this course was changed to a par 3 due to safety reasons; it was even easier to drive the green which where blind off the tee over trees. There where some close accidents on this hole, as it was many who was tempted to try the risky blind shot. Just to give examples that blindness can also be dangerous.
|
|
|
Post by wildy33 on Jan 25, 2021 18:12:37 GMT -5
Two things - Firstly, shorter hazards should have no place on a real (not virtual) golf course apart from creating visuals. 90% of your golf club carry the ball 200 yards or less off the tee. Putting hazards to challenge the slower swing speed player has always taken my head off because a) it's no fun for people who already find the difficult b) it slows down pace of play and c) maintenance costs. Good design should unnerve the better player to protect birdie, but should not hinder the bogey golfer. And my second point....
|
|
|
Post by mattyfromcanada on Jan 25, 2021 18:59:30 GMT -5
So it kind of boils down to this;
You like Fazio/Gary Player/Nicklaus/Ranch Dressing type courses.
You like CC/Doak/MacKenzie, Thompson, Colt, etc type courses.
Not saying one category is better than the other...well, actually I am.
|
|
|
Post by blueblood1995 on Jan 25, 2021 20:27:24 GMT -5
So it kind of boils down to this; You like Fazio/Gary Player/Nicklaus/Ranch Dressing type courses. You like CC/Doak/MacKenzie, Thompson, Colt, etc type courses. Not saying one category is better than the other...well, actually I am. Answer B? Is this correct?
|
|
|
Post by blueblood1995 on Jan 25, 2021 20:47:40 GMT -5
Just finished reading this and I'm a little exhausted. Phew! I do agree with those who say a blind shot done well is a most exhilarating experience. 5-stars for the The Dell at Lahinch. Closer to home the 2nd hole composite at Royal Melbourne (4th West) is a particularly good example IMO. The sightline dominated by a fairway bunker requiring a solid drive directly over the top for best position in. There's no rocks, no poles, no guides but there's no question regarding the direct line of play. (Unfortunately couldn't find a bloody photo of this beauty!) 18 on West is also a good example done well.
I did have one question and happy to send someone a PM but there was a recently approved course which generated a little bit of fruity discussion among some where there was a screen shot included which was a clear unintentional blind shot. I must admit I was a little surprised that it made it through.
|
|
|
Post by parttimejaffa on Jan 25, 2021 21:33:53 GMT -5
Ben addressed the point of intentional blindness with his playthrough at the immaculate & scintillating Walking Stick by vctrylnsprts. Well worth a watch as you can see care was taken on every inch of turf. The way blindness relates to the hole and plot in its entirety is a great indicator of blindness done correctly. It's laughable for anyone to say blindness has no place in golf or that it is scrutinized heavily by the masses. Personally, I'll never get enough of links golf where all sorts of blindness rears its beautiful head. I liken good blindness to pre-heating the oven with a shiela you really want to impress. You open with wide, undulating-felt views to suck the player in, then BAM you take that away from them. Immersion doesn't stop here, it grows.
Link
|
|
|
Post by 15eicheltower9 on Jan 25, 2021 22:08:37 GMT -5
I did have one question and happy to send someone a PM but there was a recently approved course which generated a little bit of fruity discussion among some where there was a screen shot included which was a clear unintentional blind shot. I must admit I was a little surprised that it made it through. Have you ever been to a party and a girl walks in who's usually a 5. But that day she's surrounded by 2s?
|
|
|
Post by tpetro on Jan 25, 2021 22:35:41 GMT -5
Grovey, Ben, myself, and several others: *writes clear, helpful, and topical post, attempts to move conversation forward*
Anders: *ignores reasonable explanations, gets furiously angry at one line from a random comment*
This is why we're still here. Please just be reasonable and interact with all the information we've given you instead of rattling on about crappy resort courses and aiming markers.
|
|
|
Post by mattf27 on Jan 25, 2021 22:46:56 GMT -5
TL;DR for this thread: Blind shots are fine, but make sure it makes sense. Also, guy gets dunked on repeatedly.
|
|
|
Post by blueblood1995 on Jan 25, 2021 23:59:11 GMT -5
I did have one question and happy to send someone a PM but there was a recently approved course which generated a little bit of fruity discussion among some where there was a screen shot included which was a clear unintentional blind shot. I must admit I was a little surprised that it made it through. Have you ever been to a party and a girl walks in who's usually a 5. But that day she's surrounded by 2s? Never. Only invites to parties where the girls are 10s although to be fair there's the odd 11 as well.
|
|
|
Post by b101 on Jan 26, 2021 1:20:31 GMT -5
did have one question and happy to send someone a PM but there was a recently approved course which generated a little bit of fruity discussion among some where there was a screen shot included which was a clear unintentional blind shot. I must admit I was a little surprised that it made it through. Yeah, it’s not an automatic rejection for one missed shot. If it’s a repeated thing then we will flag it and often point to the unintentional blindness as evidence of poor sculpting.
|
|
|
Post by blueblood1995 on Jan 26, 2021 1:24:43 GMT -5
did have one question and happy to send someone a PM but there was a recently approved course which generated a little bit of fruity discussion among some where there was a screen shot included which was a clear unintentional blind shot. I must admit I was a little surprised that it made it through. Yeah, it’s not an automatic rejection for one missed shot. If it’s a repeated thing then we will flag it and often point to the unintentional blindness as evidence of poor sculpting. That makes sense thanks for clarifying. Agreed one blind shot preventing approval would be a little tough.
|
|
|
Post by b101 on Jan 26, 2021 1:42:16 GMT -5
Two things - Firstly, shorter hazards should have no place on a real (not virtual) golf course apart from creating visuals. 90% of your golf club carry the ball 200 yards or less off the tee. Putting hazards to challenge the slower swing speed player has always taken my head off because a) it's no fun for people who already find the difficult b) it slows down pace of play and c) maintenance costs. I’m going to respectfully disagree here on one clear proviso: Hazards should be placed to challenge a player, not punish them for an already poor shot. Hence why awful muni courses with bunkers down both sides of a fairway to ‘punish the mishit drive’ are just that, awful. That caveat of strategic vs penal architecture aside... Say I do carry my driver 200 yards. Do I get no thrill from challenging strategically placed hazards and just play up the middle of wide open fairway every time? Because 18 holes of that will be really dull. Caveat number two: in this scenario, I would argue the golfer is playing off the wrong tees, but the point stands - you need a variety of hazard distances to ensure that every player is challenged. In the game, we KNOW everyone carries driver between 280-295, so hazards will be focused around those locations (and more likely around 295). Whereas in real life, average driving distance of amateurs is 216 yards and PGA pros 290... A far greater spread requiring a far greater range of hazards. Again, tee choice is by far the most cost-effective and easiest way of managing this scenario, but you still don’t want the short hitter bored and only challenged by having to hit longer shots into greens. Second example: a short par four of c. 300 yards will often have some hazards around 200 yards or the layup is basically a no brainer. This way, it may make you think about second shot distance. Because then the question could move from ‘can I carry this bunker?’ to ‘should I carry this bunker?’. Think of how uncomfortable people can be playing a partial wedge in real life and I think that goes to explain this particular example. Third example which I think you’ve alluded to is the visual hazard. Example is the 6th at St Enodoc - there’s this massive crater bunker to carry that will be intimidating, even if technological advances have taken it out of play. A better example might be the 4th at Royal St George’s, as into the wind, that one can be in play. I guess the point about technology is the final one. Sometimes bunkers are just there because they always have been and as the game evolves, their function changes (or is lost(. Not saying you’re wrong by the way - penalising the short hitter by bunkering heavily at a 220 yard landing zone whilst allowing the longer hitters free carries is something I would totally disagree with. But hazards at shorter distances do have their place, in my opinion.
|
|