[Mark_F]

Maybe the new owners will get Thomson or Cashmore in there for a bit of redesign work before they let the public loose on it again and it won't be an issue anymore.

Don't Thomson and Cashmore restrict their redesign work to clubs whose committees don't have a clue?

By the way, has it sold yet?

I am sure it has.

Chris -

I shouldn't be surprised at your lack of courage in a public forum.  You know you have said - here or elsewhere - that the green is A) suitable only for a wedge approach, and B)one where all the balls end up in the back and you only have a boring putt back up to the pin.

You might be surprised at where I play these days - my last game was at Commonwealth, as will be my next.

[Shane Gurnett]

Maybe the new owners will get Thomson or Cashmore in there for a bit of redesign work before they let the public loose on it again and it won't be an issue anymore.

Don't Thomson and Cashmore restrict their redesign work to clubs whose committees don't have a clue?

Generally, yes.  But wouldn't that make St AB a prime candidate for their next job?

By the way, has it sold yet?

I am sure it has.

Mark, if it has sold, will they honour the poor souls who punted their $50k at it a few years back?

[Chris Kane]

Mark, no problem with you contributing to the club through green fees - thankfully you can't play on a Saturday.

I have commented that one green was suitable only for a wedge approach.  Please show me where I've said that front-to-back sloping greens are overused.

The discussion is entirely academic anyway - the place will most likely be a market garden in a year's time.

[Mark_F]

Maybe the new owners will get Thomson or Cashmore in there for a bit of redesign work before they let the public loose on it again and it won't be an issue anymore.

Don't Thomson and Cashmore restrict their redesign work to clubs whose committees don't have a clue?

Generally, yes.  But wouldn't that make St AB a prime candidate for their next job?

I don't see how, since they don't have a committee, let alone a misguided one with an inferiority complex.

By the way, has it sold yet?
I am sure it has.

Mark, if it has sold, will they honour the poor souls who punted their $50k at it a few years back?

I am only interested if they honour the poor souls who punted $40,000 at it.

I have commented that one green was suitable only for a wedge approach.  Please show me where I've said that front-to-back sloping greens are overused.

Give me a while and I will.

The discussion is entirely academic anyway - the place will most likely be a market garden in a year's time.

Really?  I would say most likely outcome will be that it is a golf course - although I do of course have to respect your opinion, since you are well versed on golf courses that resemble gardens.

[Chris Kane]

Give me a while and I will

I look forward to seeing it, I am happy to acknowledge I am wrong if you can.  If you're unable to find it, I expect the same thing.

Really?  I would say most likely outcome will be that it is a golf course - although I do of course have to respect your opinion, since you are well versed on golf courses that resemble gardens.

On what basis do you think it will "most likely" be a golf course?  Your judgment is hardly reliable - for years you were telling us what a fantastic club and business model it was (under a series of aliases), then changed your mind at the eleventh hour when it became clear you were about to do your dough.


I will take a golf course resembling a garden over a market garden (or golf course with the gates locked to me) any time.

[David_Elvins]

I just think  the feature gets overdone and players can get sick of finding their ball a couple of yards off the back edge of the green on too many occasions. 

David,

Have you been spending a lot of time with Brian Walshe and Chris Kane lately?  I would have thought the answer to finding your ball a couple of yards off the back edge of the green on too many occasions was to:
A) Hit your approach shot from the correct angle, or
B) Use the slopes of the green/green complex to steer the ball, or
C) Hit your approach shot with the correct weight.

It's interesting what one's interpretation of a front to back green is.  I wouldn't call 3 at St Andrews Beach a front to back green because the first third slopes back toward the player, and most of the left hand side is a plateau that definitely does not slope front to back, although it does fallaway behind that.

I am also puzzled as to where you think there is a significant front to back slope in part of the 13th green, or 16 for that matter

Thanks for your imput Mark,  I meant the 12th, not the 13th, my apologies.  Your points ABC are valid but it is a the same as saying that the answer to people complaining about repetitively narrow fairways is to drive the ball straighter.   

And please stop psoting crap in this thread.

[Jeff_Brauer]

"The ground game is easiest when the ground around the target is rolling slower than the ground before the target.  Imagine (hypothetically) that you had an approach shot from 50 yards with a fairway stimping at 13 and a green stimping at 6.  It would be fairly easy putt the ball on the green as the ball slows when it hits the green.  Reverse the stimp readings and it becomes much harder to putt the ball onto the green as the ball rolls "speeds up" when it hits the green.  Greens that slope away from the player have the same effect (unless of course when the pin is at the very back of the green)."

David, the way I read this is that given the reality that most green stimp faster than fw, the front to back green would DISCOURGAGE the ground game, since it would be too dicey to control, and thus, not attempted.

Also, I think the idea that every green MUST slope back to front may have been overdone since WWII, but I would ask the same question of every other architect, starting in the Golden Age.  Its fine to pull out a quote from John Low, but lets examine the more prolific gca's of the Golden Age - How many Ross greens slope to the back? (Oakland Hills 5 and White Bear 12 are the only two I know, but I am sure there are more.  Even so, that's one per each of those courses, not a regular diet)  Like Ross, I include a reverse slope green every so often, but I think the notion that a course should have more than a few is insane, esp. for a public or once a year resort course.

Ask the same for Mac, Thomas, etc.  Actually, the course I noticed different green slopes on the most was Riviera, but they also went to the sides, and at different angles. 

I do look at side to side slope as a way to create the premium from one side of the fw or the other. However, I'm not sure the average golfer does.  I also try to vary the front to back slopes to require more or less spin control, and maybe trajectory control.  As someone mentioned, I do like the idea that from time to time, the golfer has to know that being long puts them below the hole. But, I fear a steady diet of reverse slope greens would prove as boring as all back to front slopers of the same slope.

Just MHO, but I have gotten the impression that the romantic notion of reverse sloped greens has trumped reality around here.  I don't think many gca's have really done them often, even back in the golden age.

[David_Elvins]

"The ground game is easiest when the ground around the target is rolling slower than the ground before the target.  Imagine (hypothetically) that you had an approach shot from 50 yards with a fairway stimping at 13 and a green stimping at 6.  It would be fairly easy putt the ball on the green as the ball slows when it hits the green.  Reverse the stimp readings and it becomes much harder to putt the ball onto the green as the ball rolls "speeds up" when it hits the green.  Greens that slope away from the player have the same effect (unless of course when the pin is at the very back of the green)."

David, the way I read this is that given the reality that most green stimp faster than fw, the front to back green would DISCOURGAGE the ground game, since it would be too dicey to control, and thus, not attempted.

Exactly the point I was trying to make, Jeff. 

[Carl Rogers]

Riverfront has a few greens that slope from front to back.

The second green does not really qualify because only the back fifth or quarter slopes back.  At the eleventh only the back left slopes away.

The third hole has a pronounced front to back, so does the eighth and the fourteenth.  Is that too many?  The context of the adjacent overall drainage and ground movement patterns makes perfect sense for these green complexes.

When the pin is in front on these greens, the ground does not work very well.

[John_Cullum]

I don't think any of the greens at Cuscowilla slope to the back (maybe the 7th on the right side)

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

I do not think either firm creates too many green complexes with this feature. I personally find it a wonderful thing  2 to 5 greens a course.

[Mike Nuzzo]

I do not think either firm creates too many green complexes with this feature. I personally find it a wonderful thing  2 to 5 greens a course.

Come on down - we're in that range....

[Jeff_Brauer]

"The ground game is easiest when the ground around the target is rolling slower than the ground before the target.  Imagine (hypothetically) that you had an approach shot from 50 yards with a fairway stimping at 13 and a green stimping at 6.  It would be fairly easy putt the ball on the green as the ball slows when it hits the green.  Reverse the stimp readings and it becomes much harder to putt the ball onto the green as the ball rolls "speeds up" when it hits the green.  Greens that slope away from the player have the same effect (unless of course when the pin is at the very back of the green)."

David,

Sorry, then, I was reading your post wrong.  You agree that sloping away from the golfer discourages the ground game.

BTW, I have often thought the "random contours" Pete Dye and others put in front of the greens discourage the ground game.  If you can't predict how its going to roll, the tendency is to pitch over it, at least under American conditions.

A cross slope like the Redan is very tempting to use as the ground game, however, providing the green slope isn't so much (Shinny 7) that its impossible to hold.

David, the way I read this is that given the reality that most green stimp faster than fw, the front to back green would DISCOURGAGE the ground game, since it would be too dicey to control, and thus, not attempted.

Exactly the point I was trying to make, Jeff. 

[Michael Dugger]

Threads like this piss me off.

The answer is no.  Absolutely 100% no.

[Kalen Braley]

David and Tom,

I thought 18 at PD sloped from front to back and if it doesn't that sure is one helluva optical illusion.

I landed my approach shot with a wedge short of that green, had it run on the green and trickle all the way off the back.  And the put coming back to a front pin sure as hell seemed like it was uphill.

17 at PD as well seems to play a bit front to back but I guess its more of a sideslope from the viewpoint of the tee box.

Kalen

[Tom_Doak]

Kalen:

The 18th at Pacific does drain out the back right, for the most part ... if you are approaching from the left the ball can run right out that way toward the trailer/clubhouse.  I just didn't think of that as being "front to back" in the classic sense.

[Chris Kane]

Threads like this piss me off.

The answer is no.  Absolutely 100% no.

What about them pisses you off?
Would they piss you off if they were about Fazio or Nicklaus?

[Michael Dugger]

Threads like this piss me off.

The answer is no.  Absolutely 100% no.

What about them pisses you off?
Would they piss you off if they were about Fazio or Nicklaus?

For the most part I think modern golf course design has LACKED these types of greens.

So here comes along some guys who actually build 'em.

But now someone is questioning if they've gone overboard?  It seems questioning such is to question their decision to buck the previously established "way it should be."

And I would feel the same way if someone questioned Nicklaus of Fazio's use of such greens.

[Bart Bradley]

Threads like this piss me off.

The answer is no.  Absolutely 100% no.

What about them pisses you off?
Would they piss you off if they were about Fazio or Nicklaus?

For the most part I think modern golf course design has LACKED these types of greens.

So here comes along some guys who actually build 'em.

But now someone is questioning if they've gone overboard?  It seems questioning such is to question their decision to buck the previously established "way it should be."

And I would feel the same way if someone questioned Nicklaus of Fazio's use of such greens.

Michael:

This was my first reaction as well.  I almost simply posted the word "NO".  Variety is the spice of golf and greens that run away add to the strategy required and fun of the game.  One of my clubs has 5 such greens...the variety and challenge is what makes the course great.

I say Doak and C/C are building the best greens of our generation...I hope they keep it up.

Bart

[David_Elvins]

For the most part I think modern golf course design has LACKED these types of greens.

So here comes along some guys who actually build 'em.

But now someone is questioning if they've gone overboard?  It seems questioning such is to question their decision to buck the previously established "way it should be."

Michael,

I think the discussion in this thread has been reasonably interesting.  I have learnt a few things.  THe question is one about moderation and proportions.  Both Doak and C&C draw some inspiration from Golden Age architects.  None of the courses of this era that I have seen have featured 5 greens that slope back to front.  I would have thought a question about proportions of different features is a good thing.  Not asking quetions because these guys are good at what they do is not the way to education in my mind.

[George Pazin]

What greens at Hidden Creek slope front to back (besides the redan)? I don't recall any specifically, just a bunch of roly poly greens.

Can't say that I disagree with the notion that a front to back sloping green discourages the ground game at all. Pretty much the only way to get it close, especially with a front pin, is to use the ground in front of the green. Of course, you can always just play past, as many have suggested.

I'd love to see more front to back sloping greens by any architects.

[Michael Dugger]

For the most part I think modern golf course design has LACKED these types of greens.

So here comes along some guys who actually build 'em.

But now someone is questioning if they've gone overboard?  It seems questioning such is to question their decision to buck the previously established "way it should be."

Michael,

I think the discussion in this thread has been reasonably interesting.  I have learnt a few things.  THe question is one about moderation and proportions.  Both Doak and C&C draw some inspiration from Golden Age architects.  None of the courses of this era that I have seen have featured 5 greens that slope back to front.  I would have thought a question about proportions of different features is a good thing.  Not asking quetions because these guys are good at what they do is not the way to education in my mind.

I might suggest, in that case, the question in your thread should be more specific.  As much as we all try to deny it, often times the title of a thread becomes "truth" in some people's minds.

So how about this?  What holes or courses from the Doak and C & C portfolio feature front to back sloping greens?

I'm curious, to be sure, about what constitutes "too many?"

[David_Elvins]

I might suggest, in that case, the question in your thread should be more specific.  As much as we all try to deny it, often times the title of a thread becomes "truth" in some people's minds.

So how about this?  What holes or courses from the Doak and C & C portfolio feature front to back sloping greens?

I'm curious, to be sure, about what constitutes "too many?"

Michael,

Did you read the opening post or are your postings just a knee jerk reaction to the thread title?  I fail to see how someone reading the opening post could misinterpret the thread so much.

To help get you into the spirit of the discussion:
Which Doak and C&C courses have you played?
How many front to back sloping greens appear on each of these courses?
What would you consider to be the ideal number of back to front sloping greens on a course?

[DMoriarty]

David,

I dont get the logic.  Think of a redan.  Isn't it the slope away that brings in the ground game?   

[Bill_McBride]

I don't think any of the greens at Cuscowilla slope to the back (maybe the 7th on the right side)

That reinforces my point about the numerous fall away greens at C&C's course at Barton Creek. I don't think anything feels forced on the land in either case.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()