Greens that slope against the surrounding grade of the land

[Jason Topp]

I often find the general tilt of surrounding land a very helpful data point to consider when reading a green. If one pays attention, a putt can break much more sharply in a particular direction or break in the opposite direction from what an inspection based on the green itself might suggest. 


Once in a while, one encounters a portion of a green that is sloped in the opposite direction as the natural grade.  I am talking about more broad slopes as opposed to internal contours such as the lumps on a Maxwell green.


I find that I usually have a negative reaction to such slopes.  My reaction might be because my focus on surrounding grade has been thwarted, but I doubt it. There are plenty of golf course features that trip me up without generating the same reaction. 


I find such slopes look awkward and unnatural.  They must present strange drainage issues.   


Did the architect screw up in creating such slopes? Do they have merit that I am not seeing?

[Joe Hancock]

Jason,


The first green I thought of was the 17th at The Heather Course (RTJ) at Boyne Highlands. Except, it doesn’t really cant back into the slope, it just looks that way, and it fools ya.


But, I think you already said it. When features get built that fight mother nature, and humans rely on human engineering to impose their will on the land, it will eventually fail. So, yes, IMO, the architect messed up. Don’t trap water on purpose, it never works out well. And, it looks awkward because it’s unnatural in most settings. Now, you get into windswept sand dunes and the rules go out the window.

[Greg Chambers]

The Norman course at Red Sky Ranch does this over and over again...in the fairways with bunkers, and all around the greens.  It’s easily one of the most disappointing rounds of golf I ever played...I had such high hopes

[Kyle Harris]

This very idea is the basis to some of the most brilliant construction work in golf architecture.

[Jason Topp]

This very idea is the basis to some of the most brilliant construction work in golf architecture.

I would love to learn more Kyle.  Can you give some examples?

[Jon Wiggett]

The course I grew up playing Dewsbury had the 7th green that did this being benched into quite a steep slope with the putts breaking towards the hill. It was a really tough green to read if you did not know it well. I suspect this was not intentional but rather due to the middle of the green gradually sinking over the years. I think it has its place as long as the drainage issues are addressed.

[Peter Pallotta]

What do you mean, Kyle? Please expand, as I am confused.
Confused at Jason's post, because if I'm understanding him right I've found that feature to be a cool & appealing one.
Then further confused after reading Joe and Greg's posts --and concluding that they must be right and so I must be missing or misunderstanding something.
And then completely confused after your post, that turned everything upside down.
I played a minor Stanley Thompson course and the only green I remember (and remember really liking) was the one that had the land all around it (and the immediate surrounds) tilting & sloping one way and the back portion of the green tilting & sloping the opposite way (or seeming to at least - I missed my par putt on the high side).
I don't remember thinking it looked unnatural (and I'm usually quite a stickler for that). Instead, I remember thinking: 'Oh, this is golf course Architecture' (with a capital A).

[Sean_A]

In my experience, many of the greens that turn against the flow of the land are of the bench type and I just assumed subsidence was the reason (or the removal of a bunker, swale, knob). I like it no matter how the counter-intuitive situation came about.  First, it gives local knowledge an edge which modern equipment has to some degree eliminated. Second, in my experience the greens usually don't look unnatural, they break "unnaturally".  Often times, its very, very subtle which is why it is difficult to read.

Ciao 

[archie_struthers]

 


Always thought I could read any green, even if I struggled to hit a lot of them. However the first second and third time I played Stonewall (old) made some really bad reads. Having caddied since age 11 this was befuddling to me. Sometimes downright embarrassing. Finally got an idea just from memory of past failures but they were really tricky.


Pretty sure TD reversed the polarity here as discussed above.

[Mike_Young]

Jason,


The first green I thought of was the 17th at The Heather Course (RTJ) at Boyne Highlands. Except, it doesn’t really cant back into the slope, it just looks that way, and it fools ya.


/quote]


My first thought also...best example out there...

[Carl Rogers]

IMO, the Cascades has a number of areas on each green, whose slopes, that are or appear to be very counter intuitive to the adjacent off green topography.  Probably common at mountain courses.

[Thomas Dai]

A fine feature if used sparingly, although more severe terrain maybe requires its use more often.
Particularly nice if on sand.
On earth-clay though drainage, and the implications if the drainage is not good, can be a pain (just like it can be on tees benched tightly into slopes).
Atb

[Cal Seifert]

IMO, the Cascades has a number of areas on each green, whose slopes, that are or appear to be very counter intuitive to the adjacent off green topography.  Probably common at mountain courses.

Was thinking the same about the alps hole at Lookout Mountain. I’ve never been but the pictures seem that way.

[Kyle Harris]

Streamsong Blue #10 is a great example.

[Tommy Williamsen]

The Norman course at Red Sky Ranch does this over and over again...in the fairways with bunkers, and all around the greens.  It’s easily one of the most disappointing rounds of golf I ever played...I had such high hopes

I did not notice it so much on the fairways but did on the greens and was one of the reasons I liked the course so much. There were many putts that broke into the hill. It kept me off balance and put green reading on a premium. It seems to me that this is a good thing to do periodically. Normally the first thing I do is see how water will drain and begin reading the putt based on that. RSR kept me off balance on the greens.

[Duncan Cheslett]

There are several greens at Cavendish where the ball breaks uphill.


Of course it doesn’t, but that’s what it looks like because the slopes on the green are slightly counter to the surrounding topography.


I think it is a masterful piece of deception by Dr Mac.


Even local knowledge doesn’t completely equip one to disbelieve the evidence of one’s own eyes.

[Jim_Coleman]

I’d say Rolling Green’s 3rd green falls into this category.  Front to back (seemingly uphill) is faster than back to front.  Quite confusing after the first two greens which are very fast from back to front.

[Kyle Harris]

I’d say Rolling Green’s 3rd green falls into this category.  Front to back (seemingly uphill) is faster than back to front.  Quite confusing after the first two greens which are very fast from back to front.

This green follows the general slope though. It's all downhill so the green follows the general slope because it moves back-to-front. The illusion is because the fill pad is so much.

[Jason Topp]

Jason,


The first green I thought of was the 17th at The Heather Course (RTJ) at Boyne Highlands. Except, it doesn’t really cant back into the slope, it just looks that way, and it fools ya.


/quote]


My first thought also...best example out there...

I think of  this as a common example of something I like.  It looks like it breaks the other way but actually does not.  I find greens of this nature to be common, particularly where mountains are a part of the terrain.

[Jason Topp]

There are several greens at Cavendish where the ball breaks uphill.


Of course it doesn’t, but that’s what it looks like because the slopes on the green are slightly counter to the surrounding topography.


I think it is a masterful piece of deception by Dr Mac.


Even local knowledge doesn’t completely equip one to disbelieve the evidence of one’s own eyes.

Again - I like this feature.  On rare occasions however, I have found some greens that actually slope against the surrounding terrain, for example a pond is to the right of the green (meaning the terrain almost certainly slopes that way) but the green slopes away from the pond. 

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Two general points, not directed at anyone:

1. If you're still using your eyes to read greens, "you're doing it wrong" as Internet memes would joke. Use your feet. Learn AimPoint, or at least something like it. Just my recommendation… the "visual tricks" architects used to disguise slopes on the greens have been defeated for many.

2. I know of a ski resort course where almost every green slopes against the grade of the land. I asked the super about it and he said… "yeah, duh, that way we only need drains on one side of the green." In other words, picture a slope downhill from left to right. The green slopes right to left, so the water all drains to the little "valley" left of the green and right of the slope.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Jason, I have played White Bear only once but I seem to remember a green sloping into the hill somewhere early in the round. Is that true?

[Jason Topp]

Jason, I have played White Bear only once but I seem to remember a green sloping into the hill somewhere early in the round. Is that true?

Tommy - Very possible.  I cannot think of one but I probably have played there 5 times.