Your thoughts on uphill approaches to angled and sloped greens

[mike_malone]

   If I hit it little shorter than I wanted? Absolutely. And to the same place 30 yards below. What am I missing?

It’s about all shots to this type of green complex.

[Mark_Fine]

This is a good example of where I like to talk about “original design intent” and what is or is not “restoration”? As you know when Flynn built those greens there wasn’t bent grass in front of them rolling at 8 on the stimp meter where the balls would roll 50 yards back down the hill. The balls back then stopped much closer to the green and there probably were less “divot fields” so the design intent has definitely changed. I’m sure Flynn would not be happy with balls rolling 40 or 50 yards off the green into a small circle full of divots!  This is what I would alter if I were ”restoring the design”.  I would slightly modify many of those approaches given the new low cut grasses used today.  Then you wouldn’t have to defend what Flynn did there and they still would present the challenge and interest he intended these false fronts to create.

[mike_malone]

Mark,


  I agree that the original challenge shouldn’t be ruined by modern maintenance practices.

[Stewart Abramson]

I played Rock Spring (Banks) in West Orange NJ week before last —


I think it is #10 — might be the most severe false front I ever played. I got a bit inattentive with my approach after a well placed drive and watched the ball roll about 50 yards back off the green – – twice.


I wouldn’t want too many holes like that, but this one was a nice mixup in architecture to keep things interesting

Here's a photo of #10 approach at Rock Spring



Rock Spring #10 397

[mike_malone]

That Rock Spring photo makes me smile. My good friend who had to relocate from Delco to Hoboken told me he was playing his golf there now to remind him of Rolling Green.

[Kyle Harris]

It seems the most simple factor here is whether or not the architect wanted the golfer to see the extent of the putting surface from the fairway, no?

I don't immediately recall the visibility of each putting surface in the examples from Rolling Green but I do remember some variance with 4, 12, and 15 being examples where the putting surface is obscured.

[mike_malone]

It seems the most simple factor here is whether or not the architect wanted the golfer to see the extent of the putting surface from the fairway, no?

I don't immediately recall the visibility of each putting surface in the examples from Rolling Green but I do remember some variance with 4, 12, and 15 being examples where the putting surface is obscured.

Good point Kyle


The original landing zone would afford visibility.

[Sean_A]

When there are multiple uses of this feature you get a chance or two to redeem yourself from early failures. When it becomes a defining characteristic of a course you know you will be challenged all day.


Sean,


 If there are more occasions the low hitting golfer learns how to navigate better through more chances.


It seems that having a bailout opening in the entrance helps the higher handicapper. The best players still believe they can execute the shot so are more prone to the worst outcomes.

I guess that is one way to look at it. I see it as overkill. That said, I get that there are some sites which naturally lend themselves to many such holes in which case it is what it is. The archies just have to do their best to disguise this truth.

Ciao

[mike_malone]

Having enjoyed the challenges of those uphill shots to angled greens today where one shot was excellent and others left dicey pitch shots, and deep bunker recovery shots I can only say this is a different class of golf. It’s like links is different.
 You can’t have as much variety of challenges around the green as this affords in any other type of golf.


I need to reiterate what Rory said about the green set below the top of the hill.  That makes for the shot on a side hill that is quite challenging.