[Sam Kestin]

Fellas,

Got in a discussion with one of the assistant pros around here about course architecture, the length of the modern golf ball and the USGA's effort to roll back the grooves/reduce spin thereby putting more of a premium on driving the ball in the fairway. I wondered aloud if this might not be more easily accomplished by course designers making an effort to have more of the putting surfaces slope away from the player. This would make driving the ball in the fairway and the placement of the tee shot to allow for the best angle into the green much more important.

Most golf courses I've played, theres at the very least a 4-1 ratio of greens that slope towards the player to greens that slope away from the player. Why is this?

Is my theory on reducing this ratio overly simplistic? At face value, to me, it seems like way too easy of an answer. You guys are the scholars on these types of questions--so I put it to you all to tell me why this is a Neanderthal theory on my part...

[George Pazin]

Most golf courses I've played, theres at the very least a 4-1 ratio of greens that slope towards the player to greens that slope away from the player. Why is this?

Is my theory on reducing this ratio overly simplistic? At face value, to me, it seems like way too easy of an answer. You guys are the scholars on these types of questions--so I put it to you all to tell me why this is a Neanderthal theory on my part...

Sounds like you're very lucky, usually it's more like 18:0.

I think it gets back to the concept of fairness - too many golfers think it's unfair if they hit a green but don't hold it.

Several of my favorite golf holes are front to back sloping, but everyone on here is sick of me talking about them...

[Ken Moum]

Most golf courses I've played, theres at the very least a 4-1 ratio of greens that slope towards the player to greens that slope away from the player. Why is this?

Golfers don't like having their ball bounce over a green, and most of us can't stop the damned things on greens that slope toward us.

Greens with front-to-back slope are more likely to be blind for both approach shots and short pitches... another thing most oglfers don't like.

Greens with front-to-back slopes aren't as visually attractive as those with a slope the other way.

Tradition.

K

[George Pazin]

Greens with front-to-back slopes aren't as visually attractive as those with a slope the other way.

Wow, I completely disagree with this, but then, as we've seen on the drop shot thread, my tastes are not exactly mainstream.

I don't think I've ever seen one slope away to the degree that it was blind, interesting thought.

[Matthew Sander]

Isn't it funny how golfers typically don't have the stomach for shots running long, but don't think twice about leaving an approach slightly short to ensure an uphill putt or chip? Take Oakmont #1 for example. The hole's difficulty lies in its f to b sloping green. However, the difficulty does not necessarily come from missing long, because you are left with an uphill chip, pitch or putt. The challenge comes from our predisposition to missing short which leaves a much more difficult shot. If we were fed a steady diet of f to b greens we would become desensitized to their challenge. I think their effectiveness lies in their relatively infrequent use. I really do like a good front to back sloping green, especially in a match w/ someone who is not familiar with the green !

[Phil_the_Author]

Sam,

One of the great par-fives in the world, the 4th hole on Bethpage Black when approached directly over the front bunker it slopes front-to-back. When approached from the side, as Tilly encouraged in his design and comments about it, it slopes from left to right depending upon how far down the fairway your second shot actually gets. A good 95 % of shots will be played into a downhill sloping green.

[PCCraig]

I wish more were! But I think to be effective they would either have to be used on shorter holes when players have wedges in their hands, or the green would have to be long and receptive to a long run up shot.

[Jud_T]

Golfers don't like having their ball bounce over a green


K

Golfers also don't like walking, playing by the rules, practicing their short games, and brown fairways...

[Dale Jackson]

I am an enormous fan of greens that do anything back slope from back to front, especially front to back.  But I think one critical component of such greens is that to be effective the maintenance meld needs to be f and f AND the approaches need to match the greens in how they play. 

I have played a couple of holes with f to b greens that played hard and fast but the approaches were soft.  The result?  A ball landing on the green could not be held, a ball landing short stopped short of the green - arghhh.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Ken hit most of the reasons on the head in my opinion. Not that I (nor he I suspect) goes along with them.

Many, many architects still believe in framing, providing full visibility and aiding the golfer.... I don't believe in those things either though.

[Adrian_Stiff]

I think they just are generally unpopular. Maybe 1 possibly 2 within a course you can get away with,  but to many they signify bad design. When I talk to golfers the greens they dont like that I have done, are Redans or front to backers (perhaps there is a relation in both). When you talk in depth to these peope about the rationale sometimes you can win them back, when you mention variety and perhaps how it is the holes only defence, the majority though see them as not good.

[Jim_Coleman]

    I think they can be perceived as "unfair."  Of course, nothing on a golf course is unfair.  One per course, or per nine maybe, is totally cool.  Much more would cause the course to become "quirky"  -  another harsh word.

[A.G._Crockett]

There is a middle ground in this; the back portion of the green could slope away, either on one side or the entire back.  I currently play a course that has this feature on a number of greens, and I think it is outstanding GCA.  Makes you think about club selection and play different shots, and can change putting strategies as well.

[Carl Rogers]

Subject to some interpretation because of green complex intricacies at Riverfront, the:
- 3rd (has a small top shelf at the front), 8th & 14th holes have a pronounced dominant rearward tilt
- 2nd, 15th & 18th holes have a partial, from the back middle to back, rearward tilt
- 10th hole has front to middle to side subtle punchbowl series of slopes

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

I agree 4 to 1 is a great ratio.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Fellas,

Got in a discussion with one of the assistant pros around here about course architecture, the length of the modern golf ball and the USGA's effort to roll back the grooves/reduce spin thereby putting more of a premium on driving the ball in the fairway. I wondered aloud if this might not be more easily accomplished by course designers making an effort to have more of the putting surfaces slope away from the player. This would make driving the ball in the fairway and the placement of the tee shot to allow for the best angle into the green much more important.

Most golf courses I've played, theres at the very least a 4-1 ratio of greens that slope towards the player to greens that slope away from the player. Why is this?

Is my theory on reducing this ratio overly simplistic? At face value, to me, it seems like way too easy of an answer. You guys are the scholars on these types of questions--so I put it to you all to tell me why this is a Neanderthal theory on my part...

Sam, I don't most golfers like that feature and I'd venture to say that more golfers wouldn't like that feature.... redundantly.

Not long ago I was with some golfers at GCGC and we were playing the 10th hole.
While you can see the flagstick, the green is invisible because it slopes away fairly steeply.
When we got to # 13, I heard one of the golfers say, "Oh no, not another one of those stupid greens that go away from you.

While I really like those type of greens, even in multiples, I think they're out of favor with the retail golfer.

I think you have to remember that we're probably viewed as eccentrics by most golfers with many of our preferences being at odds with the retail golfer.

[Peter Pallotta]

Sam - I've always assumed that one of the reasons (Ken mentioned most of the others) was that when architects pushed up the earth to raise a green site, it was easier and more aesthetically pleasing to have that mound of earth slope back towards the golfers, i.e. in the direction from which they approached the green. This left the back of the green looking not all that great, and certainly not 'tied into the surrounds', but maybe that was considered less important since few golfers would be turning back and noticing that side of the green once they'd putted out and moved on.

Peter

[Doug Siebert]

Sam - where are you playing you have a 4:1 ratio??


Combining this with the drop shot par 3 thread, one of my favorite local courses has a drop shot 3 par that also has a green that slopes away from the player (for all but a little narrow neck at the very back of the green)  This is a diabolical and frustrating hole, but I love it despite (or perhaps because) of that.

It plays 185 from the back, and I believe 160 from the regular tees.  It has a pretty severe drop, with the ground in front of the green sloping quite heavily away to the right, so landing short is no bargain.  That rightward slope of the ground in front of the green is made even more dicey by the fact that one of the very few stands of trees on the entire course is short left, so if you aim a bit left to land short and counter the rightward tilt you better not pull it!

As if that wasn't difficult enough, it also plays with the prevailing wind, and since the tee is on the highest point on the course, and the course is surrounded by corn fields and pasture the wind is generally strong.  Even though I'm usually hitting a 9 iron there and just trying to land it on the very front portion of the green (unless the pin is back) I'm always happy to walk away with a par, but probably do less than half the time.

A good example of a good drop shot par 3 and green sloping away from the player.  I might make the hole sound a bit too hard, but for those who don't like difficult holes it does have the distinction of getting more holes in one every year than any other hole in the area.  The ball rolls around on the green so much the hole is bound to get in the way more often than on the typical back to front sloping greens...

[Sean_A]

I think they just are generally unpopular. Maybe 1 possibly 2 within a course you can get away with,  but to many they signify bad design. When I talk to golfers the greens they dont like that I have done, are Redans or front to backers (perhaps there is a relation in both). When you talk in depth to these peope about the rationale sometimes you can win them back, when you mention variety and perhaps how it is the holes only defence, the majority though see them as not good.

Adrian

I hope most archies don't follow the popluar argument in deciding good and bad architecture or we shall have a world of cookie cutter courses and one in which there is no need for creativity of architects. 

I love front to backers because they are a great equalizer for length, but I don't think they are really attractive greens - usually.  Most just think of them as flat becasue the grade can't be too noticeable or the hole would be consididered a bit whacky.  Besides, much of the strength of a front to backer is the visual decpetion that it is flat and so guys misplay shots unknowingly.

Ciao 

[Adrian_Stiff]

Sean- Good architecture or Bad architecture is in the eye of the beholder. I think its better to design popular rather than unpopular. None of my golf courses have gone bust, it depends how you view that. If I designed some of the GCA likes, I think they would be in trouble, I recently had to build a new green and fashioned it a bit on GCA likes.....its not popular.
I think you can squeak an occasional front to backer in. The 4: 1 ratio woud be disaster. I think most archies do follow the popular path, the better business plan works to accessing larger volumes of customer not pleasing minority opinion, that though should not mean that architects cant be creative and produce attractive golf courses that in time will rank highly in the golf charts.

[Anthony Gray]

  One classic example would be the 14th  green at TOC which seems to get overlooked because the Hell Bunker is a prominant feature on that hole. There is room if you go past the green to play back to the hole and penelty if you come up short your ball may end up back at your feet.It is unique and should be copied more.

  Anthony

 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()