False fronts -- an under-rated/under-utilized feature?

[Phil McDade]

On a couple of recent threads focusing on Colt/Alison's Milwaukee Country Club, I highlighted two greens with significant false fronts -- the short (driveable in some cases) par 4 9th:



and the shortish, also driveable par 4 11th:



A few recent GCA threads have also highlighted holes with dramatic false fronts.

Is this an under-rated/under-utilized feature? Should it be used more often to lend interest to a hole that otherwise might suffer from indifferent land or lack of other notable features?

This thread from a few years ago:

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,4714.0.html

had some very good comments on the use and history of false fronts, but few pictures. How about some pics of your best false fronts, and how they come into play on the hole?

[Tom_Doak]

Phil:

In general, I think false fronts are an over-rated, over-utilized feature.

Watching balls fail to get up on the deck and come back at you gets old after a while ... especially on uphill approaches where the ball may come a LONG way back off the green.

On the other hand, I think it's a VERY cool feature at the micro scale ... one or two feet high at the edge of a green, so you have to decide how to play your pitch or chip shot, and there is some fear in not making it up to the top.

[Rich Goodale]

Since one is never going to put a pin in a "false front" location, why not just mow and roll the area tight enough to focus on the function (of rejection) rather than the form (of deception)?

Rich

PS--I agree with Tom that the best use of this feature is on flattish land, where tie-ins to the fairway contours can lead to some cool approach shots (viz. many if not most of the holes at the Old Course).  Tied to an uphill green, it is overkill.

j-p p

[Mike_Cirba]

I'm wondering if many of the classical false front greens weren't originally designed to somewhat help the golfer, rather than punish a too-weak approach.

Instead, pre-irrigation,  I'm thinking that the FF's acted as speed bumps to apply the brakes to running shots that landed short of the green surface, permitting them to stay on the green if properly judged.

[Mike_Cirba]

I also think they were used on uphill holes to provide some degree of green visibility in terms of overall green width, albeit illusive, as well as some aid to depth perception.

[Mark_Fine]

As we know, most older golf courses are defended at the green  As these courses have aged, in some ways false fronts are a blessing in disguise for these classic courses.  They provide yet another level of defense without having to "change" things.  Unfortunately false fronts are a misunderstood concept and sadly deemed by some as "unfair".  Yes the concept can be overused (like any design feature), but a few in a round is more than acceptable and they can add a great dimension to a golf hole. 

Sadly, I've seen older courses where they shored up the approach/softened the false front, and added a bunker just for good measure.  All they did was make the hole easier for the better golfer and harder for the higher handicapper and in the process did nothing for the integrity of the original design.

[archie_struthers]

 


Wish I was hitting them in Florida  ,,,



I'm jumping on th e band wagon with Mr. Doak ....as I love them in small packages maybe up to 3 feet in elevation change... my club  Greate Bay .. originally  Ocean City - Somers Point   (Willie Park Jr. 1923 ) has some really  good ones ..they defend par without torturing ..the less skilled player sometimes doesn't even notice them


We've talked extensively on this previously ...didn't research the linK !

[Phil McDade]

Archie:

I actually did research the link -- what I was looking for in particular were good pictures of false fronts (ala recent threads on Redans, Edens, so forth) and a discussion of their merits.

Interestingly, Tom's point about not liking them on an elevated green is exactly how the false front on Milwaukee's 9th plays -- and it's quite penal, as mis-judging the approach can lead to a shot not far from where one pitched it in the first place, i.e., a roll-back of some 30-40 yards. I think the dramatic false front there enhances the hole, as it's quite short (@330 yds normally, sometimes moved to 295 yds for tourneys), and for the conservative player laying back with an iron off the tee, the second shot is still quite demanding of touch and length (and ability to NOT spin the approach shot). I like the false front on that hole, because in my view a short par 4 shouldn't simply be a safe tee shot/easy approach shot for those not taking on the green off the tee if its driveable. There should be some difficulty with the second shot for those taking the easy way, and the false front there is what provides it.

[Adam Clayman]

Pacific Grove's 11th and 12th holes use them to great affect. Wonderfully simple. The 12th has a bit more of a rise, than 3-4 feet, from the dip in front of the green. The 11th works better, IMO, because of the narrowness of the green's depth.

[Jon Wiggett]

Another reason for false frounts is when mowing a green once the slope reaches a certain steepness you have to go down to the bottom to flatter ground to turn safely. It is just as easy and safer to leave the cutting blade down as it is to lift.

[Scott Szabo]

I tend to enjoy false fronts, which I came to know and love when playing Sand Hills.  Especially #7 - that one got me a couple of times with a front pin.

Also, #4 at Ballyneal has sent more than one of my shots back off the green and down the hill.

I think if used in proper situations, they can add a great deal of fun to a hole.

[Tom_Doak]

Scott:

Have you played Dismal River?  It had some doozies of false fronts, with tragic consequences.

[paul cowley]

I tend to disagree with Tom....false fronts and backs [think deeply divided Biarritz holes for example ] create great frontal and internal pins when pinned close to the sloping edges.

The occasional 'big' one, always creates a dicey challenge when front pinned.

Although we agree on their use on the micro scale, less is not always more as a constant diet.

Jon....good call on their ease to maintain.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Phil:

In general, I think false fronts are an over-rated, over-utilized feature.

Watching balls fail to get up on the deck and come back at you gets old after a while ... especially on uphill approaches where the ball may come a LONG way back off the green.

On the other hand, I think it's a VERY cool feature at the micro scale ... one or two feet high at the edge of a green, so you have to decide how to play your pitch or chip shot, and there is some fear in not making it up to the top.

Tom Doak,

Don't you feel that they place a premium on understanding the architecture, the consequence of going short, long and too far to one side ?

In other words, don't they place a premium on understanding, planning and execution ?

How do you feel about ridges/spines traversing the mid section of a green that serve to accomplish the same thing, only deeper into the green ?

Is either feature in evidence at Old Macdonald ?

[Kyle Harris]

Watching balls fail to get up on the deck and come back at you gets old after a while ... especially on uphill approaches where the ball may come a LONG way back off the green.

I've found the best way to get around this happening is to take more club. But that's just me.

[RSLivingston_III]

My personal take is like Pat and Kyle, they force you to think and understand your strengths and shotmaking limitations.

[Ed Oden]

Phil, here are a few pictures.

#7 at Carolina GC, my home course in Charlotte.  This picture is taken from right of the green.  The false front can be seen slipping down to the left.


#2 at Sand Hills taken from just short and left of the green.


#10 at Shinnecock.


#10 at Yeamans.


#17 at Bandon Trails.


Ed

[Scott Szabo]

Scott:

Have you played Dismal River?  It had some doozies of false fronts, with tragic consequences.

Tom,

Nope, never played Dismal River.  The ones that I've played and enjoyed are the ones without the tragic consequences that you mention.  The ones that make you fear hitting the shot a bit soft and having it come back to your feet.  I saw that all too often at Sand Hills, thankfully not from me!

[Philippe Binette]

Favorite false front:  The swale in front of the par 5 7th at Kingston Heath...

the par 5 plays short and when they thought it was too short for modern standard... they didn't add 50 yards to the hole... a 3 foot swale on the front edge of the green

done deal. not an easy hole anymore... that is minimalism

[Matt OBrien]

Rumor has it that they changed C-1 at Huntingdon Valley and made that a false front. Can anybody validate that rumor?

[Kyle Harris]

Rumor has it that they changed C-1 at Huntingdon Valley and made that a false front. Can anybody validate that rumor?

It's not a false front. Just softened the contour and brought the collar all the way up the slope.

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick et al.:

I understand the value of having a false front on occasion, I just think they are already employed plenty often enough, and too often by some architects.

Of the holes for which Ed Oden posted pictures, the tenth at Shinnecock would be an example in my mind of using the feature too often.  It's a plenty hard hole having to pitch up that hill from the bottom, without the additional feature that even some of the balls getting up on the green may wind up sixty yards back down the hill ... or that the false front makes chipping and putting from the back of the green bring the same risk into play.

Yes, I know it's a great championship course, blah blah blah.  But that's not the kind of feature that works well for 98% of golf courses.  A local course here had a couple of severe false fronts like that and they were a disaster -- those two holes really held back the success of the place.

Does Old Macdonald have any of them?  Yes, indeed it does ... there are portions of the green on #3, #4, #5, #6, #10, #11 and #14 where the ball will back away off the green.  Now that you mention it, there is probably too much of that.  But the greens there are not built or grassed any differently than the approaches, so it's easy to fix with a mower if we want.

[cary lichtenstein]

Overrated

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

I'd agree that # 10 at SHCC is excessively difficult with the false front, partially because the penalty for failure to execute is so severe, and more importantly, the golfer is left with the same very difficult shot, over and over again.

I've seen fairly good players hit 2, 3 and 4 shots from below before finally arriving on the putting surface.

The question I had about Old Macdonald had more to do with spines/ridges in the mid section of the greens that function similar to false fronts, in that failure to attain the appropriate distance results in a ball being fed further back, away from the hole, but, not off the green, not unlike # 12 at NGLA which has a combination of a false front and a spine running through the mid section of the green.

[Carl Rogers]

Through my reading of this site over the years, I tend to try to discover some kind of basic consensus which I think the last couple of comments have done.  To state that would be to say that the false front is occasionally ok, but do not over do the number or the severity of the device.

With that said, would the 9th green at ANGC be an example of over the top???