Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: David_Madison on August 28, 2011, 08:41:21 PM
-
Do firm greens that slope or run away from the fairway, or that are tilted from one side to another rather than back to front present a serious scoring challenge to top competitive players? Holes like #1, #10, and #12 at Oakmont seem to drive tour players nuts, but are still fun for member play. #10 at Sandhills might be another example where there's plenty of room for mortals to play but that would be challenging for top players to get the ball close and below the cup. Why aren't they used more by architects designing or renovating courses that they know are going to be used for professional tournaments?
-
Do firm greens that slope or run away from the fairway, or that are tilted from one side to another rather than back to front present a serious scoring challenge to top competitive players? Holes like #1, #10, and #12 at Oakmont seem to drive tour players nuts, but are still fun for member play. #10 at Sandhills might be another example where there's plenty of room for mortals to play but that would be challenging for top players to get the ball close and below the cup. Why aren't they used more by architects designing or renovating courses that they know are going to be used for professional tournaments?
I'm hardly a top competitive player, but as a low single digit player I can tell you it's very tough to get the ball close on greens that run away. I love the challenge though. You have to be so precise with your distance and even more so with your spin. The second hole at Onwentsia gives me nightmares. Controlling that first bounce is key.
-
;D :D ;D
David, so glad you mentioned the 10th at Sandhills. played there for four glorious around my 40th birthday, compliments of my lovely wife. We played fifty four one day , and the pin was in the front! So much fun trying to get it weighted just right on that shot!
-
David,
It's probably THE primary defense at GCGC.
Some slope high left to low right, others high right to low left, others front to back and some a combination of the above.
All conspire to thwart the golfer's efforts at scoring, from the approach, recovery and putting
-
It should be understood that the center of the fairway is, or should seldom be, the best position to place the tee shot. That depends on the design of the green -- what way it slopes from right to left, from left to right or from front to back. Occasionally the terrain calls for it from back to front. Many think all greens should slope from back to front -- why? Many players feel the green and its design should assist the player to stop the ball spin or no spin -- another method of developing monotonous courses. The architect's job is to provide problems as to how the shot should be played and it is the ground itself that should create these problems. There are many who earn their living playing golf and perhaps feel a mechanical certainty in what happens to a shot after it lands is their just right. I disagree. When holes are design so that placement from the tee is of paramount importance the shot to the green from an ill placed tee shot should have some form of increased difficulty in the shot to the green -- otherwise design has no meaning.
-
The previous post is a quotation from A. Vernon Macan reproduced in his biography Just Call me Mac by website member Michael Riste.
Further it should be noted that he emphasized front to back slope so that a players score could not be purchased in the pro shot, i.e. with a high lofted club. He wanted players to run the ball in and judge the roll out.
-
Garland, I am glad you posted that quote. Macan was way ahead of his time (actually that time may have never come!) in his writing and designs.
A trip around Shaughnessy will show (I think) 5 greens that slope front to back. I suspect in the recent Canadian Open they would be among those with the highest scoring average on the course, especially 3 and 18.
At Royal Colwood, 8 of the greens move left to right, right to left, or front to back. They are the best holes on the course, offering a day after day challenge to the membership and a strong test to the highest level of amateur tournament play.
And the challenge these type of greens offer is not the tricked up, long rough, narrow fairways challenge many courses need to use to test the best players, it is a challenge of real shot making and careful thought. It is what so many of us on this DG admire.
One caveat, this type of green construction works best when conditions are F&F, soft conditions negate the challenge, and - too often seen - soft approaches and firm greens are silly.
-
Dale,
It sounds to me that Mac made a big effort to make his greens drain well so they would play as he wanted them to in the PNW. After all, the golfing season was something like Sept to April without irrigation on courses.
-
I think Mike's book makes a convincing case that Macan was a pioneer in green drainage, at least in part because of the conditions he faced in this part of the world.
-
Garland, I am glad you posted that quote. Macan was way ahead of his time (actually that time may have never come!) in his writing and designs.
A trip around Shaughnessy will show (I think) 5 greens that slope front to back. I suspect in the recent Canadian Open they would be among those with the highest scoring average on the course, especially 3 and 18.
At Royal Colwood, 8 of the greens move left to right, right to left, or front to back. They are the best holes on the course, offering a day after day challenge to the membership and a strong test to the highest level of amateur tournament play.
And the challenge these type of greens offer is not the tricked up, long rough, narrow fairways challenge many courses need to use to test the best players, it is a challenge of real shot making and careful thought. It is what so many of us on this DG admire.
One caveat, this type of green construction works best when conditions are F&F, soft conditions negate the challenge, and - too often seen - soft approaches and firm greens are silly.
Didn't Shauhnessy dig up a bunch of his greens? Because he was ahead of his time. I wonder if the club has any documentation of what was undone? Photo's, as-builts, plans, sketches. Would be interesting to see.
-
I'm agreeing with everyone here. What I don't understand is why more architects aren't using this very simple technique to counter distance and other such issues in the design or redesign of the courses they are working on. We all know that length is no longer the key, that shorter and sportier courses are needed to keep the game economical and playable (including the "play it forward" initiative) yet it's just not happening in any meaningful way. I'm a member at a Nicklaus-designed 27-hole facility, and there's one green that sorta' runs away in the back half. It's rare to see anything by Fazio or Rees Jones that does, let along so many other architects not named Doak, Coore, or Crenshaw. We all know the right answer here. Why isn't it happening?
-
I'm agreeing with everyone here. What I don't understand is why more architects aren't using this very simple technique to counter distance and other such issues in the design or redesign of the courses they are working on. We all know that length is no longer the key, that shorter and sportier courses are needed to keep the game economical and playable (including the "play it forward" initiative) yet it's just not happening in any meaningful way. I'm a member at a Nicklaus-designed 27-hole facility, and there's one green that sorta' runs away in the back half. It's rare to see anything by Fazio or Rees Jones that does, let along so many other architects not named Doak, Coore, or Crenshaw. We all know the right answer here. Why isn't it happening?
Convention.
One added bit to greens that fall or tier away is there are instances where you don't see the bottom of the flag, even if you're hitting a short shot from the front of the green; how pissed does that make the average know-it-all?
I love Low's description of how a green should be:
7. Whenever possible, putting greens should be of the low, narrow plateau type, with the plateau tilting away, not toward, the player. No green should be higher at the back than it is in front, for that gives a player confidence. Only half the flagstick should be seen from where the approach shot should be played.
No green should be higher at the back than it is at the front... LOL... OK, there should be no absolutes, but my how things have changed.
-
Schuylkill has some great examples of this feature!
Hole 2 Front left to back right
Hole 3 Front right to back left
Hole 6 Hard right to left
Hole 10 Front right hard to back left
Hole 15 Front to back left
Mark
-
Garland, I am glad you posted that quote. Macan was way ahead of his time (actually that time may have never come!) in his writing and designs.
A trip around Shaughnessy will show (I think) 5 greens that slope front to back. I suspect in the recent Canadian Open they would be among those with the highest scoring average on the course, especially 3 and 18.
At Royal Colwood, 8 of the greens move left to right, right to left, or front to back. They are the best holes on the course, offering a day after day challenge to the membership and a strong test to the highest level of amateur tournament play.
And the challenge these type of greens offer is not the tricked up, long rough, narrow fairways challenge many courses need to use to test the best players, it is a challenge of real shot making and careful thought. It is what so many of us on this DG admire.
One caveat, this type of green construction works best when conditions are F&F, soft conditions negate the challenge, and - too often seen - soft approaches and firm greens are silly.
Didn't Shauhnessy dig up a bunch of his greens? Because he was ahead of his time. I wonder if the club has any documentation of what was undone? Photo's, as-builts, plans, sketches. Would be interesting to see.
Tony, there are, I believe, 5 original greens left at Shaughnessy. Interestingly some of the new greens (most were redone about 1970) have a front to back tilt. I had a chat with a member during the recent Canadian Open who had been there when all the original greens were in play. He was less than flattering about some of them, but I am not sure the average golfer necessarily understands this type of green design.
Shaughnessy is celebrating their centenary this year and have published a very well produced book to commemorate the anniversary. If anyone is interested copies can be purchased directly from the club.
-
Garland, I am glad you posted that quote. Macan was way ahead of his time (actually that time may have never come!) in his writing and designs.
A trip around Shaughnessy will show (I think) 5 greens that slope front to back. I suspect in the recent Canadian Open they would be among those with the highest scoring average on the course, especially 3 and 18.
At Royal Colwood, 8 of the greens move left to right, right to left, or front to back. They are the best holes on the course, offering a day after day challenge to the membership and a strong test to the highest level of amateur tournament play.
And the challenge these type of greens offer is not the tricked up, long rough, narrow fairways challenge many courses need to use to test the best players, it is a challenge of real shot making and careful thought. It is what so many of us on this DG admire.
One caveat, this type of green construction works best when conditions are F&F, soft conditions negate the challenge, and - too often seen - soft approaches and firm greens are silly.
Didn't Shauhnessy dig up a bunch of his greens? Because he was ahead of his time. I wonder if the club has any documentation of what was undone? Photo's, as-builts, plans, sketches. Would be interesting to see.
Tony, there are, I believe, 5 original greens left at Shaughnessy. Interestingly some of the new greens (most were redone about 1970) have a front to back tilt. I had a chat with a member during the recent Canadian Open who had been there when all the original greens were in play. He was less than flattering about some of them, but I am not sure the average golfer necessarily understands this type of green design.
Shaughnessy is celebrating their centenary this year and have published a very well produced book to commemorate the anniversary. If anyone is interested copies can be purchased directly from the club.
Wow... only 5!
Interesting some of the new greens tilt from front to back. I've played a number of clubs in Vancouver, but not there... yet. Perhaps someone was wise and realized that draining the greens out to the front would make the approaches wet and difficult to maintain ;)
Someone should do a recorded history from that member and what he recalls, and the same with any other guys that were around before the greens got blown up. I recall somewhere that Nicklaus grumped about the greens back in 1966.
Is Bob Barr the superintendent there? Googled it an he is... funny, I used to play golf with his father when I was a junior, he's a few years younger.
.
-
David,
When I have advocated front to back on this website in the past, I have received responses from architects here that the public wouldn't accept it.
It seems this issue is as old as golf in the US. I have read that one of the things those across the pond criticized US courses for from the very beginning was soft greens that canted back to front.
-
I'm agreeing with everyone here. What I don't understand is why more architects aren't using this very simple technique to counter distance and other such issues in the design or redesign of the courses they are working on. We all know that length is no longer the key, that shorter and sportier courses are needed to keep the game economical and playable (including the "play it forward" initiative) yet it's just not happening in any meaningful way. I'm a member at a Nicklaus-designed 27-hole facility, and there's one green that sorta' runs away in the back half. It's rare to see anything by Fazio or Rees Jones that does, let along so many other architects not named Doak, Coore, or Crenshaw. We all know the right answer here. Why isn't it happening?
David - Greens sloping front to back are generally unpopular, you can get away with an odd one but any more than one per course and the course tends to come under fire.
-
Its the concept behind the Redan.....Lookout Mountain has several of these greens. They make for difficult recoveries if you miss on the wrong side of the pin.
Anthony
-
All I can say is if folks don't like sloped/canted/front to back greens than they should definitely ignore any recommendations I have concerning where to play.
Ciao
-
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.
-
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.
That depends on whether you want to play golf, or play a game of mechanical perfection (see Macan quote above). If you want golf to stray from its roots then no one is really right and no one is wrong. The funny things is that the most perfect mechanics have gotten into the most imperfect mechanics' heads and gotten them to believe that a course suiting mechanical perfection is the way to go. This brought about the "dark ages". We need to continue to push for a new "enlightened age".
-
Garland - You still cant please everyone though. Some like their golf at the end of anothers spectrum. I like most of the things we talk about on here. I am not a fan the redan though.
-
My home club has 2 short par 4s that feature greens with a distinct slope of front to back and left or right. These greens change the hole from birdie opportunities to semi-difficult holes. Trying to hit a cut from a hook lie to a green that slopes hard to the back left is a real challenge. I have mastered the ability to stop the ball on the front of the greens only when the pins are in the back. When the pins are in the front I am either short of the green or on the back fringe. The courses have Bermuda grass so bouncing it up is not really an option. Most guys seem to like the challenge. It also puts more pressure on your tee shot as you want to come in with a wedge, not a 7 iron.
-
Adrian, my last design Turfvaert has 13, yes 13, front to back sloping greens, and has been a great commercial succes in the Netherlands.
However the course is not very long, has 6 par 3's, and wide fairways.
We did make a great effort of explaining to members and visitors what the course was about in all communication about the course.
-
Frank
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 ?
I don't particularly prefer one way or the other but I do get fed up with a number of blind approaches. One or two can add spice to a round, give you that sense of anticipation wondering how your approach has ended up but easy to overdo this type of shot. For instance, a weakness with Dornoch IMHO and definitely the weakness at CB going through the bottleneck.
Niall
-
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 - 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
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Thanks Dale
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.