False Fronts

[Dunlop_White]

How old is this design concept - false fronts on greens?

Probably as old as the game since St. Andrews has one on Hole 18. Is this, in fact, a false front?

What are your opinions on false fronts to greens?

Are they used too much or too little today?

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Dunlop,
I would call the green front at the 17th more of a false front, but, the back side of the Valley of Sin is a worthy comparison, if not admirable foe.

The Road Hole's false front is also one of the largest I have ever seen. In fact, if I would have been able to take it home, I could have used it for a garage door.

Another great false front on the Old Course would be the 14th. Love that one too! (In fact, I think I'm anamored with allof the greens at the Old Course.)

Another false front I have seen  and admire greatly, Plainfield #11. Absolutely phenominal stuff there. And of course there is the 11th & 16th at Pasatiempo.

[ian andrew (Guest)]

My favourite is at Prestwick, it's in the middle of the back nine (12?). Most impressive one I have ever seen.

I've heard people say that the one at Charleston CC (11 or 12?) is too much? Are there false fronts that are over done?

[Mike_Cirba]

Aw, crap.

I was going to name the coolest one I played last year at Plainfield's 11th, but Tommy beat me to it.  Thanks, Tommy...

Thinking about southern California, and Tommy's pics of Torrey Pines, wouldn't the 13th rank as the 'missed false-front opportunity' of the decade?  Especially considering that anyone trying for the green in two would have to consider that the ball might suck back down about 40 yards directly "under" the green.  Those laying up to the top of the adjoining hill would have to worry about spinning wedges in the same manner.  

It could have been awesome...instead, it's simply really, really ugly.  

[Bill_McBride]

Looking at both the "plateau greens" and false front threads, would it be fair to say that the front approach (unless there's a complete cross bunker) to a plateau green would be a false front?  

[Dickie Wrist]

There's a false front on one of holes on one of the courses in Killarney Golf and Fishing club (Mahoneys Point? - 6??) that looks so false that you would never actually fall for it.  

It just looks like they have continued mowing the green half way down the hill. The only real effect is to make the actual playable part of the green look tiny, which I suppose makes it a more daunting second shot.

Dickie

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

I like false fronts, the second at the 13th Pinehurst #2 is intimidating simply because the false front it there stairing out you, same with the 10th at Shinnecock. The 11th at Crystal Downs is a false green.

[TEPaul]

Other than what are some good ones, how about the point of false fronts? The concept of them and where it came from or evolved from.

We've had this topic before on Golfclubatlas and the concept (if you can call it that) was clearly evolutionary, like so many other aspects of architecture!

Many of the early greens and architecturally constructed green sites were raised, either by simple siting or by green construction! Ross, with his career long high tee and high green site routing style had a unbelievable ton of high green sites!

The so-called false front was initially just a maintenance method of bringing down a tongue of greenspace height grass so the general target of the green could be seen or better seen from the approach below!

At that initial early stage I don't think the playability or strategic ramifications of "false fronts" was remotely what it is today. Today it has evolved into a brilliant concept and strategic concept. This probably isn't much different in an evolutionary sense than the so-called "chipping areas" of today. Originally "chipping areas" had little of the interesting playability of today and back then probably weren't even known as "chipping areas", not like today.

But when greens became better and quicker the "false front" was launched into the realm of sophisticated playability and strategy bigtime! And today those strategic playabilties and strategies are rapidly increasing in sophistication and intensity.

Certain aspects of even the modern age have definitely enhanced the strategic ramifications of the "false front" concept. "False fronts" can be visually deceptive in any case but again, some aspects of the "modern age" like increasing green speeds but particularly reliance on yardage (approach yardage) can really throw off a golfer when dealing with a "false front" simply because although "unpinnable" the front of the "false front" is considered green space and the beginning of the green is measured from there. If a golfer does not factor that into his calculations yardage-wise he will likely make a mistake in the distance needed to get beyond the false front on the short side and consequently have to endure the full strategic impact of the false front concept which often means a ball running backwards and well off the green in front!

In some intense cases of false fronts even those putting from above them forget to factor them in and suffer unbelievable consequences of putting off the green in front (ANGC's #9!).

Someone above seemed to imply that the false front term meant something that looked "false" in construction. That might have had something to do with it originally but now the "false" part only means "unpinnable".

There have been some great uses of this concept in new construction too of "false sides" and even "false backs" like Gil Hanse's blind "false back" on Inniscrone's #4!

[Fred C.]

I believe the 6th at Merion has a false front.  It makes the 2nd shot a bit tricky.

[JEarle]

Another concept or evolution of the false front has to come from proper construction techniques. In the early age of golf course construction the green sites were blended into the surrounds. This allowed the maintenance to "meld" with the design intentions. With the evolution of the "spec" greens and modern construction equipment the blending of green sites into the surrounds has almost become obsolete. Today it takes a keen architectural / construction eye to properly blend elements together.  In keeping with TEPauls' melding concepts we need to add "construction melding " to the mix. Construction techniques need to match the design intent as well as the maintenance methods. All 3 areas must work together for the architecture to be a success. The " false fronts" are perfect examples of the harmony between the various forms of melding.

[TEPaul]

Not only does Merion's #6 have a "false front" (green space) on that green but it's almost impossible to see where it is because they now have about 10-15 paces of very closely mown chipping area very distinct from the fairway leading up to it that looks like green but it isn't! It's really deceptive and can truly mislead the golfer--a good thing indeed to induce concentration!!

The same is true on #14 but it's actually a good thing that the green is semi-blind so you can't see it and get visually thrown off!

[Scott_Burroughs]

We've talked about this before, but Tobacco Road has two:  holes #5 and #16.

[Ran Morrissett]

One key to a false front is where does it feed the ball ?

Into a bunker? A few yards back away from the green? Or fifteen-twenty yards away from the green? The 13th at No. 2 and the 5th at Tobacco Road (see their respective course profiles for pictures) are excellent examples of potentially sending the ball to that awkward 15-20 yard recovery range.

False fronts on reachable par fives is a great combo as it makes both the gambling 2nd or the wedge approach a testy challenge. The 13th at Royal Sydney is one of the finest I've seen in this regard.


Tommy,

As you know, only until recently has the 17th at St. Andrews become a false front. The hole was placed on the lower shelf for its first 100 years, thus robbing one time visitiors of one of golf's great shots. I assume Walter Woods was responsible for the change?

[TEPaul]

JEarle:

Very interesting that you say that! My take on the evolution of this kind of thing is that the old "false fronts" probably evolved out of the old original "push-up" greens that sometimes didn't meld very well into the approaches and created almost pushed up "flat top" appearing green fronts that could not be seen from the approaches below.

So if it wasn't too severe a transition between the end of the approach and the beginning of the original front of the "push-up" green they could then drape down some "unpinnable" green space into the end of the approach and create the "false front".

The all time best example of that to me is MacDonald's ongoing dilemma of how to handle the approach and front of #7 NGLA's green (right side)! That transition was very severe (still is) but against his intuition he actually accepted some advice without totally insulting the one offering it and drapped the green-space (or at least a very close cut) over the front of the green into the approach thereby creating an unbelievably interesting area of playability that remains today.

It's so severe in contour, though, that very few elect to chip from even the end of the fairway approach onto the green and most everyone elects to putt the ball although that is a play many do not use much today. When the pin is front right you'd have to have nerves of steel to elect to chip the ball up that shallow but radical incline, which is "false front" though. And if it's not exactly "false front" greenspace it is very closely mown and distinct from the fairway cut and of the same effect as green-space "false front".

I think that many of the architects today are beginning to get back to a real seamless transitions from the approach to the front of the green that makes a false front unnecessary. Good examples would be Gil Hanse's #15 Inniscrone, #8 Applebrook and a number of approach to green transitions of Coore & Crenshaw's at both Friar's and Hidden Creek! Some of them are extremely seamless of the GCGC style!

[TEPaul]

Ran;

Most really effective "false fronts" that I've seen send the ball back into the fairway which is generally inclined at some distance and to some extent.

We're going to enhance Ross's "false front" on Gulph Mill's #18 bigtime, I hope. The only question is how to maintain the inlined fairway area leading to the false front. If we maintain that fairway area close cropped enough the ball will filter back about 70 yds down the hill! I'd like to see it to that extent because the hole is such a short par 5 and it needs this kind of green-end intensity to make the entire hole work well strategically, in my opinion, but if we go the full-boat like that we are going to have a number of players putting the ball off the green and then having a 70yd full pitch recovery straight back up the hill!

That's going to create large degrees of anger and criticism but we hope we can withstand that and keep that playability! My advice and theme on recommending this severe playability on our finishing hole is that almost the entire theme of Gulph Mills is its approach shots are far longer in "playability" than in actual distance and a number of the greens combine that theme with "false fronts".

So the message on the severe "false front" playability of #18 (running that far back into the fairway!) is if you haven't figured it out by the 18th hole, here it is in SPADES!!

#8 NGLA (Bottle Hole) is a great example of a "false front" running the ball right back into fronting bunkers and very intense ones at that!

[corey miller]

RAN- having just played Royal Sidney this false front came to mind immediately.  I snapped a few pictures of this one which iwe can get on the site.  As long as you do not notice where my ball is in the shots!!!!!

[JEarle]

TEPaul

I think that we are seeing the samething within the landforms. I'm looking at the old " push up " greens as better architecture and construction then most of todays work. The ability, behind the old methods, of tying into the surrounds / hazards allowed the formation of different architectural elements. The older courses have a variety of landform elements, from sutle tie-ins ( #14 Merion) to abrupt  (#3, #6 Merion) it is the ability the create seemless tie-ins that makes these courses so special. To many of todays courses contain this abruptness which lack proper construction techniques, thus they appear awkward or the "flat top" green.
Could some of the abrupt slopes, that you cited, be considered architectural elements? It seems that #12 Applebrook and #15 Merion are part of the design philosaphy. Just as the seemless approach to the greens (#15 Inniscrone, # 8 Applebrook and #5 Merion ) are intrical parts of the strategy. Ultimately it is the "melding" of design, construction, and maintenance that create excellent architecture.  

[Pete L]

Two good ones in So. Cal. are the left side of number 8 at Barona Creek and what used to be number 6 at Ojai.

[TEPaul]

JEarle:

You asked if some of the abrupt slopes I cited could be considered architectural elements? What a great question and one I could only speculate on in any particular example!

I think, though, if either of us filtered through some of the great holes in our minds and tried to categorize those abrupt slopes, or lack of them, we might find some very interesting evidence of very clear architectural thinking on the part of some of the great old architects.

Clearly, they very much worked off some basic architectural formulae that way or let's call it architecture principle in that vein. Basically the formulae, as you know, was with holes that called for long approach shots they were likely to give you a more seamless transition into the front of the green and with holes that didn't require a long approach they might give you something a bit abrupt or very abrupt.

There are clearly some other factors involved in these kinds of decisions other than just the length of holes and approach shots like what some of the risk/reward factors and options might be in the first half of the holes and how that tied into the overall strategies.

And just when we think we've figured out these formulae and principles they were apt to throw us a total curveball and go the other way just for the hell of it which might create a hole that was of extreme high intensity for the approach (like NGLA's #8) or even the other way like NGLA's #17 which is basically approach/green front seamless but with the element of blindness thrown in to mix things up some more!

But there are a number of other holes I would like to discuss with you this way like Applebrook's #13 or maybe even Huntingdon Valley's #18 or #2 "C" nine. These seem to be holes that are hard to categorize as to what they were doing exactly!

It's all very nuancy and interesting but when analyzing these things I don't think we should be in the slightest bit hesitant to also say where we think something just doesn't work well and therefore might be questionable design!

[JEarle]

TEPaul

Could the clear architectural thinking include the ability or lack of construction techniques. I always feel that some design elements are a direct result of practicallity in the construction process. The majority of great old architects spent 90% of thier time on-site and I think this shows in the relationship of design elements to construction techniques. Strategies can be altered, while the construction techniques of that era and unexpected landforms couldn't. Keeping that in mind, "curveballs" may very well be a direct result of daily architectural supervision. The daily supervision allows the architect to use the landforms to break detectable formulas that may arise within the golf course during construction. Yes, some holes could be categorized as questionable or they could be seen as quirky. Ultimately it could be the architect seeing something within the course or ground that justified the "curvreball" or even a "knuckleball" But this probably took months of on-site presence to detect. So it may take numerous rounds or months of thought to understand. This is the genius of the great old architects and the battle of todays. One of the marks of great architecture is the ability to criticize. I believe that if a course doesn't stimulate thought / critism then it lacks architecture.

I have never been to Huntingon Valley and I'm vaguely familar with Applebrook, so we will have to concentrate our dicussion on # 13.

[SL_Solow]

Among the moderns Morrish/Weiskopf seem to favor this feature e.g. #16 at Troon North.

[TEPaul]

JEarle:

Ok, #13 Applebrook it will be then. The first half of the hole is beautiful, beautiful tree standing alone left which was a big consideration, a very accomodating tee shot but it's a long par 4 albeit down the prevailing wind! The bunkering on the right ridge (I'm sure manufactured but extremely naturally done) is some of the best looking bunkering on the golf course and just about some of the best looking I've ever seen. Doesn't look as if it's positioned in such a way as to really come into play much for a tee shot though--that's fine I guess, it's probably more to separate the near proximity to the midsection of #12.

It's the second half of #13 and particularly the green-end, particularly the front approach and off to the right of the green that might be what will be somewhat controversial! At least that's what I thought at first and clearly so did Mike Cirba.

Here's why. The approach is going to be a long one into that green in most circumstances and there's a very interesting carry bunker smack in the middle of the fairway maybe 30yds short of the green, with a significant dip in the fairway behind it that then climbs to the green very severely and would seem to very much preclude a runup shot option (which would seem reasonable for such a long hole).

Off to the right of the green  is an extremely wide fairway stretch that continues past the green and cants to the left. Mike Cirba didn't like the fact that this very wide stretch has only a very small portion quite near the right side of the green that might carom the ball onto the green. It appears the vast majority of this fairway stretch will not allow the ball to filter to the green and you're left with a most difficult chip or even long fairway putt down it onto the green.

At first I agreed with Mike about this but now I don't know that I do. The effect and the playability of this area is really a mirror image of the left side chipping and bailout area of #6 Inniscrone which is a great hole or at least the green-end is.

But directly in front of this green the incline is steep enough that it appears it would kill a run-up option stone dead! But then I realized that the run-up option may be far more sophisticated then I'd noticed! The way to play a run-up option here is to hit a much lower approach shot that just carries the mid fairway carry bunker and get it running down the slope just behind the bunker and through the valley and up the steep incline onto the green! This is great stuff really and a bit of a hdden but very cool option. It probably plays something like the big dip in front of the 9th at Portrush--a par 5!!

So anyway, #13 Applebrook would appear to be one of those curveballs to the principle of giving a really long par 4 a reasonable run-up option but on second look it does have it just very well hidden and probably very sophisticated. So it's probably gonna be a very cool hole.

And as I said before to keep all this stuff working the way it should at Applebrook JarredV is going to have to keep that course fast and screaming fast would be best!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Does the  8th at NGLA qualify ?
Does the 15th at The Creek qualify ?
Does the 12th at NGLA qualify ?
Does the 14th at ANGC qualify ?
Does the  5th at ANGC qualify ?

Does the severity of the false front add substantially more to the tactical play of the hole ?

Are certain false fronts a prefered landing zone for your approach to a front pin location ?  Should this benign feature disqualify it as a false front ?

[TEPaul]

Really all the false front is is an unpinnable greenspace on the front where the ball will roll back towards you if approaching it and your ball doesn't get past it and if you happen to get something from the other side on it it will roll away off the green front.

All of those holes you mentioned are basically false front--NGLA's is partial and the rest is close cropped.

Pat if you play the ball into that incline in front of #8 NGLA on purpose, you got some brass balls!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Unfortunately, I learned the hard way about the front of # 8 at NGLA, not just with my good second shot, but with my good (so I thought) bunker shot, with my second bunker shot, I played it past the forward pin.

But, on some holes, the false front is the place to be when the pin is up front.  The 8th at NGLA doesn't fit that bill.