Deceptive greens

[Tommy Williamsen]

I played Lookout Mountain this past summer. Now I am not the best green reader, but I was very confused by the greens. Some uphill putts were downhill, and putts that should have broken left broke right. A few years ago, I played at Red Sky Ranch in Vail Valley. Everything is supposed to break toward the valley. Those that didn't seemed to break uphill. I loved it. Sure kept me on my toes.

[Ben Sims]

I played Lookout Mountain this past summer. Now I am not the best green reader, but I was very confused by the greens. Some uphill putts were downhill, and putts that should have broken left broke right. A few years ago, I played at Red Sky Ranch in Vail Valley. Everything is supposed to break toward the valley. Those that didn't seemed to break uphill. I loved it. Sure kept me on my toes.

Counter slope internally to a green against prevailing slope external to the green accomplishes so many things. It can redirect water so that water isnt always running off the low side of the green. In the same way, it keeps approach shots from failing off the green to one side always. It makes putting more unpredictable and fun. I like what you’re describing quite a bit. I wish our courses here in C Springs understood it better.

[Joe Bausch]

Tommy, I've said many times that I consider myself a very good reader of old school greens.


I held that belief until I played in the Midwest Mashie this past October at Kirtland just outside of Cleveland. We played two rounds there. Not only could I not read the greens properly, but nobody in my group could either! I would love to get another shot at those Alison greens, and/or play another Alison course.

[Ira Fishman]

Ben,


I had a heckuva time reading the greens at Broadmoor East.


Joe,


Century CC was befuddling. Another Alison design.


And for some reason, The Island Club greens confused me.


I am a not good putter, but am a good green reader.


Ira

[Michael Felton]

The 10th green on WHO slopes fairly heavily from back to front (at least that's what the land around it does). There's a spot on the right side if you're putting towards the middle it feels like and looks like it should break quite a bit right to left. First time I played it I remember vividly reading it 2 feet outside the right on a 15 foot putt. Felt confident. Hit it and it broke about a foot right. To this day I just don't know what I'm doing on that green. It's got me completely scrambled.


The other thing is when I play RSG, I look at a putt there and I can just see what it's going to do. I can putt lights out round there. I play at Deal and I have to ask my playing partner to look at most of my putts because I cannot see the break on them. Literally could go anywhere. I have rarely putted well at Deal. I don't know why they're so different like that. Different grass maybe?

[Tommy Williamsen]

The 10th green on WHO slopes fairly heavily from back to front (at least that's what the land around it does). There's a spot on the right side if you're putting towards the middle it feels like and looks like it should break quite a bit right to left. First time I played it I remember vividly reading it 2 feet outside the right on a 15 foot putt. Felt confident. Hit it and it broke about a foot right. To this day I just don't know what I'm doing on that green. It's got me completely scrambled.


The other thing is when I play RSG, I look at a putt there and I can just see what it's going to do. I can putt lights out round there. I play at Deal and I have to ask my playing partner to look at most of my putts because I cannot see the break on them. Literally could go anywhere. I have rarely putted well at Deal. I don't know why they're so different like that. Different grass maybe?

I get around but can't figure out WHO. I assume it is England, but I'm not even sure about that. I wish folks would give us better clues.

[Stewart Abramson]

I get around but can't figure out WHO.

Me too.


After sone pondering, my guess is Walton Heath Old

[A.G._Crockett]

I played Lookout Mountain this past summer. Now I am not the best green reader, but I was very confused by the greens. Some uphill putts were downhill, and putts that should have broken left broke right. A few years ago, I played at Red Sky Ranch in Vail Valley. Everything is supposed to break toward the valley. Those that didn't seemed to break uphill. I loved it. Sure kept me on my toes.

Counter slope internally to a green against prevailing slope external to the green accomplishes so many things. It can redirect water so that water isnt always running off the low side of the green. In the same way, it keeps approach shots from failing off the green to one side always. It makes putting more unpredictable and fun. I like what you’re describing quite a bit. I wish our courses here in C Springs understood it better.

Great post.  Our eyes are drawn to big slopes, which can make more subtle slopes hard to see.  If you ride a bike, you know this, especially on roads cut through slopes, like rail trails; there are many times where your eyes tell you that you are going uphill (or down) but you legs are telling you that isn’t the case at all.


So you have a putt, especially a longer one, and just behind the green in you vision is a pretty big slope.  Your eyes and brain are going to tend to tell you that the putt breaks that way, only to find that the slope on the green is the other way. 

[Tom_Doak]

I knew a Japanese architect who insisted he made these sorts of uncanny breaks deliberately.  In my courses, they come about by accident, when the shaper’s eye is fooled - and I will usually leave them in.


My old friend Ed Connor, who was the first to do detailed mapping of greens in the 80s, told me that the Golden Age architects and builders’ eyes were frequently fooled, too.  He said that while Rosd and Tillinghast normally put 4-4% tilt in their greens, he had notice they erred toward 5-6% when playing into an upslope, and sometimes wound up too flat when the green site fell away to the back.  It’s possible some of that was deliberate, for visibility of a green above you, but Ed didn’t think so.

[Tommy Williamsen]

If the player is fooled by the break, it makes sense that the shaper might be fooled as well.

[John Connolly]

I played Lookout Mountain this past summer. Now I am not the best green reader, but I was very confused by the greens. Some uphill putts were downhill, and putts that should have broken left broke right. A few years ago, I played at Red Sky Ranch in Vail Valley. Everything is supposed to break toward the valley. Those that didn't seemed to break uphill. I loved it. Sure kept me on my toes.

I think the "everything breaks toward the valley," or "towards the ocean" or "towards Aunt Emma's house" is lore. It may be true but not because there's a valley or water or someone's home. It's because that's how the green tilts, grain be damned. I suppose greens get placed with a tendency to have them tilted to those adjacent landforms so it seems that there's something magical about them. But there isn't. It's just Newtonian mechanics.

[Ben Sims]

I played Lookout Mountain this past summer. Now I am not the best green reader, but I was very confused by the greens. Some uphill putts were downhill, and putts that should have broken left broke right. A few years ago, I played at Red Sky Ranch in Vail Valley. Everything is supposed to break toward the valley. Those that didn't seemed to break uphill. I loved it. Sure kept me on my toes.

I think the "everything breaks toward the valley," or "towards the ocean" or "towards Aunt Emma's house" is lore. It may be true but not because there's a valley or water or someone's home. It's because that's how the green tilts, grain be damned. I suppose greens get placed with a tendency to have them tilted to those adjacent landforms so it seems that there's something magical about them. But there isn't. It's just Newtonian mechanics.

I’ll disagree and say it’s not lore. The reason everything breaks towards Rae’s Creek or Indio, or conversely everything breaks away from Eagles Peak at the Air Force Academy is because it’s the predominant geographic slope. For an architect to consistently build counter to that slope (rather than perhaps a few times per round) is because fighting gravity takes a lot of dirt and would be pretty excessive. Also, draining a green against the predominant slope is also doable, but not the majority of the time. 

[A.G._Crockett]

I played Lookout Mountain this past summer. Now I am not the best green reader, but I was very confused by the greens. Some uphill putts were downhill, and putts that should have broken left broke right. A few years ago, I played at Red Sky Ranch in Vail Valley. Everything is supposed to break toward the valley. Those that didn't seemed to break uphill. I loved it. Sure kept me on my toes.

I think the "everything breaks toward the valley," or "towards the ocean" or "towards Aunt Emma's house" is lore. It may be true but not because there's a valley or water or someone's home. It's because that's how the green tilts, grain be damned. I suppose greens get placed with a tendency to have them tilted to those adjacent landforms so it seems that there's something magical about them. But there isn't. It's just Newtonian mechanics.

100% correct.  Golf balls react to gravity; even the very expensive ProV1x’s that I use don’t know where the valley or the ocean or Aunt Emma’s house are.  (Grain is another topic, and I won’t get into that here.)


On the 17th hole at my club, there are guys who SWEAR there is a “Brown house effect” and that everything breaks toward that house.  Which, of course, isn’t true except for putts on lines that slope toward said house.  It’s a huge green, and there are LOTS of putts that don’t break that way at all; they break according to the slope they’re on. 


Gravity: Not just a good idea; it’s the law!

[Kalen Braley]

John and Ben are both correct here in my view.

Of course gravity is the law, but in the absence of perfect knowledge (in this case direct experience with how a green breaks), your best bet is to go with the slope of the larger valley aka long view.

P.S. The stuff that really bakes my brain is these https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_hill.  There is a stretch of road about an hour south of here where you would swear the stream next to it is flowing uphill. I've pulled over and looked at it from several angles, yet my eyes still deceive me.  Mother nature does have her secrets...

[Ally Mcintosh]

I played Lookout Mountain this past summer. Now I am not the best green reader, but I was very confused by the greens. Some uphill putts were downhill, and putts that should have broken left broke right. A few years ago, I played at Red Sky Ranch in Vail Valley. Everything is supposed to break toward the valley. Those that didn't seemed to break uphill. I loved it. Sure kept me on my toes.

I think the "everything breaks toward the valley," or "towards the ocean" or "towards Aunt Emma's house" is lore. It may be true but not because there's a valley or water or someone's home. It's because that's how the green tilts, grain be damned. I suppose greens get placed with a tendency to have them tilted to those adjacent landforms so it seems that there's something magical about them. But there isn't. It's just Newtonian mechanics.

I’ll disagree and say it’s not lore. The reason everything breaks towards Rae’s Creek or Indio, or conversely everything breaks away from Eagles Peak at the Air Force Academy is because it’s the predominant geographic slope. For an architect to consistently build counter to that slope (rather than perhaps a few times per round) is because fighting gravity takes a lot of dirt and would be pretty excessive. Also, draining a green against the predominant slope is also doable, but not the majority of the time.

Correct. Additionally (implied above), it just looks more natural.


If you think about it, in a landscape with significant topographical movement, either macro or micro, building an essentially flat pad of 30x30 yards breaks up the ground’s flow. Half the battle - at least with minimalism - is building a green that feels like it’s part of the landscape. That’s easier when you work with the prevailing slope.

[Paul Rudovsky]

Here is another way of thinking about.  There is the "big picture" slope which is the over all slope of the land over everything your eyes can see.  And then there is the "local" slope on the smaller area (such as a complete green).  When figuring out or reading a particular putt, the "big picture" area becomes the green and the "local" area means the portion of the green between your ball and the cup (which of course will be 6' on a 6' putt).


Generally you eyes see the "big picture" slope and gravity is governed by the "local" slope...and by that I mean the ABSOLUTE slope.  However...your eyes will read the putt as breaking on the RELATIVE slope...which is the difference between the "big picture and "local" slopes.


So for example...if:

    --the absolute slope of the green is 4% from back to front,
    --and your ball is 40 ft from the front edge and the cup is 46 ft from there front edge, with a 1.5% front to back slope for that 6' distance


then the putt will probably LOOK or READ as a putt with a downhill putt with a 2.5% slope (which is the RELATIVE slope between the "big picture" of +4.0% and "local" of +1.5%), but in reality it is an uphill putt of 1.5% (because gravity only knows the local slope over the 6' the ball will roll on).


If you don't believe this, next time you are near Turnberry in Scotland ask for directions to the "Electric Brae" on Route A719.  It is a stretch of road of about 400-500 yards and marked at both ends by stone markers.  You will swear you are headed downhill...but if you stop your car and take a water bottle and pour some water on the pavement you will see it flow "uphill" (and vice versa if you are headed in the opposite direction).  You can also look up "Electric Brae" on Wikipedia.


One final point...when you see tour pros or other very good players use their hands to "cup" their eyes to block out their peripheral vision, they are trying to block out the "big picture" which can fool them and only focus/see the "local" slope.

[A.G._Crockett]

Here is another way of thinking about.  There is the "big picture" slope which is the over all slope of the land over everything your eyes can see.  And then there is the "local" slope on the smaller area (such as a complete green).  When figuring out or reading a particular putt, the "big picture" area becomes the green and the "local" area means the portion of the green between your ball and the cup (which of course will be 6' on a 6' putt).


Generally you eyes see the "big picture" slope and gravity is governed by the "local" slope...and by that I mean the ABSOLUTE slope.  However...your eyes will read the putt as breaking on the RELATIVE slope...which is the difference between the "big picture and "local" slopes.


So for example...if:

    --the absolute slope of the green is 4% from back to front,
    --and your ball is 40 ft from the front edge and the cup is 46 ft from there front edge, with a 1.5% front to back slope for that 6' distance


then the putt will probably LOOK or READ as a putt with a downhill putt with a 2.5% slope (which is the RELATIVE slope between the "big picture" of +4.0% and "local" of +1.5%), but in reality it is an uphill putt of 1.5% (because gravity only knows the local slope over the 6' the ball will roll on).


If you don't believe this, next time you are near Turnberry in Scotland ask for directions to the "Electric Brae" on Route A719.  It is a stretch of road of about 400-500 yards and marked at both ends by stone markers.  You will swear you are headed downhill...but if you stop your car and take a water bottle and pour some water on the pavement you will see it flow "uphill" (and vice versa if you are headed in the opposite direction).  You can also look up "Electric Brae" on Wikipedia.


One final point...when you see tour pros or other very good players use their hands to "cup" their eyes to block out their peripheral vision, they are trying to block out the "big picture" which can fool them and only focus/see the "local" slope.

Good post!


And I do NOT want to start another AimPoint debate, but this is exactly why so many pros use it.  Your eyes are drawn to the big slope; your feet aren’t.

[Tom_Doak]

If the player is fooled by the break, it makes sense that the shaper might be fooled as well.

Nowadays there is a level bubble on the machine, and a digital readout of the general tilt where you are working.  Sometimes progress takes all the fun out of things.

[Tom_Doak]

For an architect to consistently build counter to that slope (rather than perhaps a few times per round) is because fighting gravity takes a lot of dirt and would be pretty excessive. Also, draining a green against the predominant slope is also doable, but not the majority of the time.

Yes, if it's a significant slope, building up to counter it can be very difficult.  If a typical green is 60 feet wide by 100 feet long, and you're on a 6% grade, you'd have to build up the low side by 3.6 feet on one side of 6 feet at the front or back just to get to level, and that "correction" calls attention to itself because it looks so out of place in the landscape.


Bill Coore told me when they started Kapalua, he tried to build up the back of the fallaway 7th green to hold a shot, and when he went back up to the tee to look, the green looked like a ski jump!    So he decided to just go with the flow and let the green fall away [although not as much as it did naturally].

[A.G._Crockett]

For an architect to consistently build counter to that slope (rather than perhaps a few times per round) is because fighting gravity takes a lot of dirt and would be pretty excessive. Also, draining a green against the predominant slope is also doable, but not the majority of the time.

Yes, if it's a significant slope, building up to counter it can be very difficult.  If a typical green is 60 feet wide by 100 feet long, and you're on a 6% grade, you'd have to build up the low side by 3.6 feet on one side of 6 feet at the front or back just to get to level, and that "correction" calls attention to itself because it looks so out of place in the landscape.


Bill Coore told me when they started Kapalua, he tried to build up the back of the fallaway 7th green to hold a shot, and when he went back up to the tee to look, the green looked like a ski jump!    So he decided to just go with the flow and let the green fall away [although not as much as it did naturally].

Tom,Is it ever done the other way around by GCA's?  Do you build slopes behind or beside greens that run counter to the general slope of the green? 
I'm asking this out of pure curiosity; I wondered if Fazio did that on a number of greens at the "old" Finley at UNC, which had pretty flat greens overall, but often with slopes around the greens that ran counter to the greens themselves.  I had played the course many times prior to Fazio's work, but the course routing was so completely different from the routing of the original George Cobb course that there was no way to judge.

[Tim_Weiman]

My most memorable experience with a deceptive green came at Winged Foot with Tommy Naccarato and our host the late Neil Regan.


Tommy, of course, couldn’t really walk the course, so Neil picked a few greens for us to putt, including the famous Par 3 #10 on the West course.


The pin that day was kind of front left. Neil took us to the back right and told Tommy to have a go at it. Tommy hit a right to left putt that missed badly. Then, I tried to improve on what Tommy’s putt and did just as bad.


So, Neil showed us the way hitting a left to right putt that amazed us because it appeared to break uphill.


Tommy and I couldn’t even imagine doing what Neil did. He then tried to comfort us by saying “don’t worry…only about five percent of the members know how to hit that putt”.

[John Connolly]

I played Lookout Mountain this past summer. Now I am not the best green reader, but I was very confused by the greens. Some uphill putts were downhill, and putts that should have broken left broke right. A few years ago, I played at Red Sky Ranch in Vail Valley. Everything is supposed to break toward the valley. Those that didn't seemed to break uphill. I loved it. Sure kept me on my toes.

I think the "everything breaks toward the valley," or "towards the ocean" or "towards Aunt Emma's house" is lore. It may be true but not because there's a valley or water or someone's home. It's because that's how the green tilts, grain be damned. I suppose greens get placed with a tendency to have them tilted to those adjacent landforms so it seems that there's something magical about them. But there isn't. It's just Newtonian mechanics.

I’ll disagree and say it’s not lore. The reason everything breaks towards Rae’s Creek or Indio, or conversely everything breaks away from Eagles Peak at the Air Force Academy is because it’s the predominant geographic slope. For an architect to consistently build counter to that slope (rather than perhaps a few times per round) is because fighting gravity takes a lot of dirt and would be pretty excessive. Also, draining a green against the predominant slope is also doable, but not the majority of the time.

Actually Ben, I think we're agreeing. You state, "it's the predominant geographic slope" which is my point. It's the slope and only the slope, not a mythologic force by a distant land form. Again, that distant land form may be related to the green site slope so it turns out to be true but at the end of the day, effectively, all that matters is which way the green is tilted.

[Jeff Schley]

Here is another way of thinking about.  There is the "big picture" slope which is the over all slope of the land over everything your eyes can see.  And then there is the "local" slope on the smaller area (such as a complete green).  When figuring out or reading a particular putt, the "big picture" area becomes the green and the "local" area means the portion of the green between your ball and the cup (which of course will be 6' on a 6' putt).


Generally you eyes see the "big picture" slope and gravity is governed by the "local" slope...and by that I mean the ABSOLUTE slope.  However...your eyes will read the putt as breaking on the RELATIVE slope...which is the difference between the "big picture and "local" slopes.


So for example...if:

    --the absolute slope of the green is 4% from back to front,
    --and your ball is 40 ft from the front edge and the cup is 46 ft from there front edge, with a 1.5% front to back slope for that 6' distance


then the putt will probably LOOK or READ as a putt with a downhill putt with a 2.5% slope (which is the RELATIVE slope between the "big picture" of +4.0% and "local" of +1.5%), but in reality it is an uphill putt of 1.5% (because gravity only knows the local slope over the 6' the ball will roll on).


If you don't believe this, next time you are near Turnberry in Scotland ask for directions to the "Electric Brae" on Route A719.  It is a stretch of road of about 400-500 yards and marked at both ends by stone markers.  You will swear you are headed downhill...but if you stop your car and take a water bottle and pour some water on the pavement you will see it flow "uphill" (and vice versa if you are headed in the opposite direction).  You can also look up "Electric Brae" on Wikipedia.


One final point...when you see tour pros or other very good players use their hands to "cup" their eyes to block out their peripheral vision, they are trying to block out the "big picture" which can fool them and only focus/see the "local" slope.

Good post!


And I do NOT want to start another AimPoint debate, but this is exactly why so many pros use it.  Your eyes are drawn to the big slope; your feet aren’t.

Great post Paul.  Yet another thing to keep in mind while I putt.

[Jim O’Kane]

...

[Jim O’Kane]

P.S. The stuff that really bakes my brain is these https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_hill.  There is a stretch of road about an hour south of here where you would swear the stream next to it is flowing uphill. I've pulled over and looked at it from several angles, yet my eyes still deceive me.  Mother nature does have her secrets...

I should have played Pasatiempo instead of going to The Mystery Spot in Santa Cruz in 1989.

What a rip off.