[Alfonso Erhardt]

I think it is a fantastic defense against good players. Just place short pins in such greens and the number of options it opens on par 5s, for example, is just great.

In Spain, Javier Arana was very insistent on front to back sloping greens as a way of separating well struck shots from those that were not. He started doing that following Tom Simpson's advice that the greens should follow the lay of the land and not have their back built-up.

In his home course, Neguri near Bilbao, 8 greens slope front to back and many greens are canted. Some in a very subtle manner and others quite agressively. Other of his courses also feature the front to back theme, but not as much.

Alfonso

[Sean_A]

Sean - I was talking to a friend today who was playing The Stranahanfirst time today and he said he hated it. He hated the things you (and I) like. The thing is this site has a very minor take on what the general feeling it. You cant please everyone if you have contoured greens some like it flat, same the other way, some like long courses some like tight courses some like wide fairways. No one is really right and no one is wrong.

Adrian

Everything in moderation my friend.  Pay no attention to your mate.  You have created something very worthwhile with the Stranahan and the greens are as creatively interesting as anyone with an ounce of merryment in their blood could wish for.  Keep up the good work.

Ciao

[Frank Pont]

Of the 13 front to back sloping greens, how many of them could you see some part of the putting surface on the approach shot ?

Niall,

judge for your self, you can see most of the greens in the hole by hole pictures at:

http://issuu.com/frankpont/docs/turfvaert_holes_description_1

The backward sloping holes are: 3,4,5,6,8,10,11,12,13,14,15,17,18.
My guess is you can see part of the putting surface on all except for hole 8

This is achieved by either:

- having the tees higher than the green on par 3's
- having large false lips on greens
- showing other parts of the green

[Jeff_Mingay]

Dale and Tony,

As I recall, criticism of a number of Macan's greens at Shaughnessy started from the very beginning; and, of course, Macan was quick to react to that criticism. I don't have access to my files (or Mike's book) at the moment, but Macan was quoted defending many of those fall-away greens at Shaughnessy shortly after the course opened for play. Tony's right, too, that certain PGA Tour pros were quite critical of a number of greens there during the 1966 Canadian Open. Four years later greens reconstruction started.

This reminds me of Macan's old 12th green at Victoria, which also pitched away from the fairway. In conversations there, I've learned that the problem was, basically, the approach area. The Pacific Northwest receives quite a bit of rain, as we know. This makes it difficult to consistently maintain firm approach areas without significant drainage in place. Installation of wall-to-wall watering systems complicates the matter. I hear the approach at Victoria's old 12th green was nearly always much softer than the putting surface. Balls landing short of the putting surface - where, I'm sure, Macan wanted properly played approach shots to pitch - rarely jumped onto the green; and, if a ball hit the green it would almost always roll over the back.

Seems to be a maintenance issue rather than an architectural one, perhaps. If the approach is firm, this is a very interesting shot to play. If the approach is too often too soft, it sucks. Hence, the old 12th green at Victoria was wiped out during the mid-1980s.

[Garland Bayley]

Jeff,

My understanding from Mike's book is that greens that run away are ideal for the PNW, because that generally allows the run up to be downhill too, thereby draining well. Since Mac was so concerned about drainage, I have to think he would have had the run up areas drained well too.

One of the biggest criticisms I have of my home course is they took the one green that ran away from the player on a downhill approach and built it up so that it sloped back to front. Just made a soggy mess in front of it in the winter. Interestingly this spring I participated in a skills contest that included approaches to that green. We used a 3 hole loop twice for the contest. The first time, I scored points for the team by being one of the few that chose to run the ball onto the green putting my partner and I near the top of the leader board. Before getting back there, we had a heavy downpour. There was actually a temporary water hazard in front of the green, thereby eliminating my shot of choice. I lofted one in, over the water, landing inches short of the green surface and sticking in the soft ground without bouncing onto the green.

[Terry Lavin]

Olympia Fields North has an interesting medium-length par 4, the 11th that has this feature.  But it is doubly interesting because it also has a reverse camber fairway.  In other words, it's a right-to-left dogleg in which the fairway is canted to the right.  Then the green is canted right to left.  Were it just a right to left dogleg without the fairway or the green canting, the hole would be relatively defenseless to good players.  With the double trouble of the canting, it is a very challenging hole for all levels of play.

[Dale Jackson]

For those following the AV Macan aspects of this thread, I just last night unearthed the following nugget. 

In 1927 Royal Colwood hosted the PNGA championships for the second time.  In an article appearing in the Seattle Times in the Spring of 1927 promoting the tournament, mention is made that "there have been remedied several greens that fell away from the approach shot" and specifically holes 12, 14 and 16 are mentioned.  This is work that was designed and supervised by Macan himself, so even at that early stage there was obvious pressure to move towards more accepted green constructions.

It should be pointed out that the greens he built on 12 and 14 are anything but easy, 12 in particular is one of the most sloped greens on the course, tilting dramatically from back left to front right.  He may have rebuilt those greens but that does not mean he conformed to mediocrity.
 

[Garland Bayley]

Thanks Dale

[Niall C]

Frank

Many thanks for the link, your course looks stunning. FWIW the impression I get is that the greens follow the contours of the ground rather than any deliberate attempt to slope away. The photo on number 8 I would guess is not from the approach area as you could certainly see the putting surface. Thanks for posting.

Niall

[Jeff_Mingay]

Garland,

I think the idea that Macan was revolutionary with regard to surface draining greens has been blown out of proportion a bit. Everyone who's paid attention to this subject - forever - knows that effective surface drainage is the most important element of green design, whether you're in Victoria or Phoenix.

In theory, draining greens off of the back (and sides) of the putting surface will keep the approach area from receiving too much water. But I've never read Macan mention this. Every time I've read Macan discussing fall-away greens it's purely related to the type of terrestrial shot he wanted golfers to learn to play. (Perhaps Dale can correct me if I'm wrong.) Again, I think these greens were misunderstood and, perhaps, didn't always function as intended because of the climate in the Pacific Northwest and also, later, the introduction of watering systems which lead to more Poa and courses that became generally more damp, more often.

[Frank Pont]

FWIW the impression I get is that the greens follow the contours of the ground rather than any deliberate attempt to slope away. The photo on number 8 I would guess is not from the approach area as you could certainly see the putting surface. Thanks for posting.

Niall

Funny enough the course was built on what used to be absolutely flat cow fields, so every contour of the ground was created. (although only 80 k m3 of soil were shifted). The photo of 8 indeed was taken from a hill next to the fairway.

[jim_lewis]

Dave:

I am not sure that I agree with your point that greens sloping away are rarely found on Fazio courses. I am too tired right now to tax my brain trying to think  of examples on other courses, but I can cite several examples on the two courses at Forest Creek. I think you have played both courses so let me mention a few holes. South course first..#4 is a fairly stout par four. The slope to the back right is hard to see until you hit your first putt well past the hole. #8 is a short par 4. The right half of the green runs to the back and the left is a "false left" that feeds every think off the left side of the green. #15 is a medium par 4 with a redan-type green that runs to the back left. #18 is a tough par 4 with a ridge across the middle of  the green. Everything past that ridge runs hard to the back left. If you fliy that ridge, you better have some loft or the ball will wind up in the pond behind the green. Hole locations determine the difficulty of all these holes.

North course....#1 is a short par 4 with a green that runs to the rear. The green is fronted by a bunker making an up pin very tough. At least lit is short so you should be able to hit a short iron to that pin. #5 is a medium par 4. When the pin is back, anything right rolls off right and anything left runs left. #7 is a tough par 4 featuring a downhill second shot to a green that runs to the rear. #13 is a short par 4 with a significant front to back slope and a small pot bunker in front. It is extremely difficult to get to a front pin located right behind the bunker or at the top of a false front right of the bunker. #17 is a tough par 4 with a deep green that runs from front left to the right rear, big time.

I rarely hear anyone complain about the front to back slopes except when the hole is place near the front. That gives a huge advantage to the long hitter who can hit a lofted iron to the green. Most of the rest of us try to bounce something onto the green.

Jim

[David_Madison]

Jim,

I haven't been down to Forest Creek in a few years, but I need to. Let's try to get together this fall.

I really don't remember the specifics of your greens, and while I do remember a couple of runaways (especially #18), I don't remember them being a common thing. My sense of Fazio, Nicklaus, Jones, and others is that they build up their greens to require a flown-in shot, and then bank the green from back to front to accommodate that aerial approach. You see an occasional run-off of a portion of a green here or there, but not often. It's rare to see a complex where the green is effectively at the original or natural grade and positioned so that the ground runs away or at a shot-influencing side tilt where you have to land it short or well to the side and then judge what happens on the ground.

My sense when I do play a Fazio or Nicklaus hole that has all or part of the green running away at the back is that the issue can still be handled with a lofted, spun shot that lands softly and doesn't go very far along the ground. I think it's rare to play a full approach where for the strong player the priority when judging the shot is what happens to the ball once it lands since no matter what kind of shot you hit the ball is going to run out.

[Tony Ristola]

Dale & Jeff: From what I recall about Victoria is the seaward holes among the rocks drained quite well, but once you got inland, it was the typical Vancouver Island glacial till induced rice fields (. Instead of rebuilding the 12th green, the club might  have been better of stripping out the fairway entering the green and fixing that; but that was 1980... back in the stone age.

Frank: Nice work. Looks like fun.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()