Uphill Approach Shots: Better with or without Fronting Bunkers?

[Benjamin Litman]

Yesterday, we all lost an hour, but most of us gained nearly 20 degrees (to say nothing of more sunlight). Local golf by month's end no longer seems absurd.

Prompted by several responses to my Lake Merced review/photo tour, I am curious to learn people's thoughts on steeply uphill approaches to the green (most often on par-4s or par-5s, but occasionally on par-3s). Several people lamented that, at Lake Merced's par-4 4th, a bunker and some rough now guard the front of the green, preventing run-up shots. I countered that gravity makes run-up shots on steeply uphill approaches virtually impossible, or at least unwise. Indeed, I argued that green-fronting bunkers/rough probably makes holes with such approaches play EASIER, even fairer, for the average golfer than they would with short grass all the way to the green. I reasoned that, with short grass only, coming up even fractionally short (and the miss for most golfers is short) would result in the ball tumbling all the way back to the golfer's feet (or close), essentially resulting in a do-over. (An example that comes to mind is the 10th at Shinnecock.) With bunkers/rough, by contrast, a short approach would be "caught," allowing for a shorter next shot and one from a different kind of lie. (Two examples are the 4th at Lake Merced and, more notably, the 10th at Yale. Regarding the latter, note this description from Chris Millard's "Golf's 100 Toughest Holes": "The common mistake here, urged on by gravity more than human error, is to be short.  MacDonald and Raynor thought of that in advance: a deep trap extends across the front width of the green to catch short shots.")

So, are holes with uphill approaches to the green "better" with or without fronting bunkers/rough? Or, is each design simply different, presenting its own unique challenges?

[Jeff_Brauer]

I can see it either way, but am more likely to use cross bunkers on the par 3 hole, iron in hand, ball on tee.  Maybe on a par 5, or very short par 4, if the bunkers actually coincide with, and mark the left and right green edges as closely as possible.  I think most par 4's ought to have an open green.

On most uphill par 4 and 5 holes, I find the old "bunker left/bunker right", which normally I shy away from, to be handy in marking the extent of the target, if the hole is uphill enough to actually have a totally blind green, while leaving a run up ramp.  Sometimes, I use a false front, or raised back edge to help make at least some portion of the green visible, but if not, the bunkers usually do the job.

I do agree that the uphill slope of the approach area really stops older players with less swing speed, so the strategy is probably to take enough club to reach the green, but then the problem is stopping.  I try to make either a deeper green, and/or slope it up to the max extent that is cuppable, like 2.5% or so.  That is often the natural inclination anyway, if the green is built into an uphill sloping site. If I am left with a green where the ball is tough to putt if above the hole,  so be it.

[Benjamin Litman]

Thanks, Jeff, for the designer's/architect's perspective. Very, very interesting.

When you say that you "think most par 4's ought to have an open green," I assume you mean that applies to par-4s with steeply uphill approach shots, too, correct? If so, why? Isn't whatever benefit an open green provides in that situation (a minimal benefit, I would argue, because of how hard it is to run up a shot to a severely perched green) offset by the costs (serious costs, I would argue, because of how easily a ball could return back to the golfer's feet, requiring the same shot, potentially over and over and over again)?

Your focus on the green's visibility is interesting, and something I hadn't thought of. Is your point that, as long as the green is at least partially visible (due to framing bunkers at left and right, or a false front), any unfairness caused by the steep slope leading up to it is obviated? I hear you that overclubbing, combined with a deeper and slightly upturned back of the green, are the solutions, but I worry that most amateurs (a) aren't smart enough (or are too stubborn) to figure out how much they need to overclub, especially on steep uphill shots and (b) still miss short no matter what club they hit, especially on steep uphill shots.

Thanks again.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Benjamin,

I think the open front allows lesser players to hit some area of the green with a run up, and if you really, really look at how the majority of golfers play, that is almost essential to their game.  Also, forced carries just cause so many to choke, and rarely challenge the better players, so if we are designing a course to fit all, cross bunkering just seems like it should be a lightly used feature.  Again, with the ball on a tee, and distance adjusted by multiple tees, a par 3 seems the best way to go if using this type of green once.  Any short approach is probably acceptable.

As to the uphill, I would guess that many approaches would actually be on the third shot.

As to visibility, I just happen to like it, although you will see some on this board pushing for more blind holes, because visibility has become "too standard."  Visibility makes golfers more comfortable, and I am not trying to put ants in anyone's pants during golf just to make them uncomfortable. (I guess they could sell canned ants in the pro shop if that's what golfers really want!)  The thing I think compensates for a blind green's "unfairness" (another unfavorable buzzword around here, see the other thread) is the side front bunkers giving the golfer at least some idea of how wide the target is in absence of being able to see it, all of which helps plan the shot a little.  Like you say, its probably futile, since they under club even on level ground, and usually fail to account for either wind or elevation change.

Of course, sometimes my emphasis on the viz can create a little tough situation in itself.  If I tip the green up more than usual, add the false front, dipping down to the golfer, and have a steep fairway approach, it is quite possible to putt right off the green and end up 30-40 yards down the fairway, which no one likes, unless it happens to their opponent, of course.

I guess it can happen on a green with front hazard, too.  A former employee, on the famous 16th at Dornick Hills in OK, played a driver off the deck to reach the fringe of this elevated green, famous for its rock cliff in front.  He then shanked his chip back down to the fairway 50 feet below, and had to trudge back down to hit his third.  He is a pretty good player, and it had to be the worst shot he ever hit.

[Benjamin Litman]

Thanks again, Jeff, for the thorough and helpful response.

I guess what I'm still having trouble understanding is how allowing for a run up--even if essential to most golfers' games--is helpful to those very same golfers on a steeply uphill approach. On such a shot, gravity almost always won't allow for a run up to even get to the green; if you think about a greenside chip into a steep bank to "kill" the ball's momentum, a run-up shot up a steeper and far longer slope will "die" before it reaches the green. That being the case (feel free to dispute my premise), I imagine most golfers would much prefer having a bunker short of the green to catch the approach shot and give them a shorter, and more varied, next shot. Again, a good comparison is the 10th at Yale (fronting bunker) versus the 10th at Shinnecock (short grass all the way to the green).

As for visibility, I agree that blindness is best reserved for tee shots, not approach shots.

As for "unfairness," see my post on that thread, which, as noted, went live exactly at the same time that yours did. We're in agreement that the debate over that term is too semantic (although I go further and say that most people on here get it wrong) and that the focus should be on playability.