[Dunlop_White]

Dunlop,

              I just turned on GCA, and was briefly looking at you thread on "False Fronts".
 
              I just want to mention, these are label's we put on golf courses, which I'm sure would raise lodd and hearty laughter from the great old early architects. I'm sure they never intended to create a "False front". They just made an effort to roll the green's surface down to marry the approach portion of the fairway. And sometimes, most always, on uphill holes; they mowed the front of the putting area to a location which brought it into view. It would also be worth remembering that many of today's putting surfaces are mowed in a rounded fashion, which has added tightly mowed turf where it had not been called for by the original architect. (Hence "false fronts" - it hurts to say it - even on downhill holes, or holes laid on flat ground). When I hear Bobby Clampett and a few of his pals rant on about "false fronts", I understand why I cannot watch American golf telecasts.
 
              "False front" ranks right up there with "shot values".
 
              Why not call Tees  ---  "Tees"?  Why add "complex"?
 
              Why not call bunkers  ---  "bunkers"?  Why add "complex"?
 
              Why not call a green  ----  "a green"?   Why add "complex"?  Does anyone understand the green includes the bunkers AND the surface, (known by a few people as the putting surface),  When I speak with folks who tell me how great the greens are on their golf course, I often then comment, "That sounds great", and ask, "How are the putting surfaces"?  - I get blank stares.
 
               Dunlop, all I'm asking is that people speak clear and simply. Sometimes the inner architectural lingo just wears me out.  Has anyone read Hemingway?
 
                                                            All the best to you;

                                                                Ron Prichard

[Dunlop_White]

Ron,
 
Thanks for this. Funny thing, the thread you read on "false fronts" I posted in 2002, 5 years ago. Someone must have pulled it back up from the cobwebs.
 
If I recall, the reason I brought it up was that we had our green contours and slopes "softened" at Old Town Club to accommodate faster green speeds with Crenshaw bentgrass conversion. Some greens were lowered in the rear to accomplish this. Others were raised in the fronts to accomplish this. Still others were raised in the fronts and lowered in the rear, a combination.......
Here's my problem, any time he raised the grade in the front to soften our slopes, the architect, Bob Cupp, tied it into the approach with a false front that wasn't part of Perry Maxwell's original green plan. It looked "forced" to me. I felt he should have graded out further into the approach -- perhaps 40/50 yards -- to make the tie-in more natural. In my opinion, too much attention was given to the green surfaces, and not enough attention was given to how they connected with their surrounding features.  
 
Dunlop

[Kyle Harris]

Going to have to say here, Ron... I think you're reaching on this one. If you want, email me.  

False front is just as descriptive a term as anything else in golf. I cannot say that I agree that on uphill holes the green was mowed just to put it in view... Willie Park's one uphill green on the White Course at PSU (today's 7th) is and was mowed significantly down the hill and could very well be called a false front. The putting surface which is pinnable is not visible from the tee, and the green was designed and cut much lower than for simple identification purposes.

Would you prefer them to be called rolled fronts?

Why call them bunkers when sand trap is just as good? 99.9% of them are filled with sand anyway, if you want specific we can all say sand bunker and grass bunker....

False front is far far far less offensive than many of the other terms in golf.

A tee can also be a wooden plank upon which the ball is set. It can also refer to the tee box, which has two meanings to different people - either the surface upon which the tee is placed (aka the teeing ground) or the area between the tee markers which denote the "in play" area for the teeing ground for the day.

As per the rules, everything "through the green" are all parts of the golf course with exception of bunkers and hazards. The putting green is a closely mown area upon which the player may mark, lift, clean and replace his ball without penalty.

The terms green complex, tee complex and bunker complex are more specific than simply mentioning green, tee and bunker. You asked for more specific and clearer terms and you got them.

As for the people who use them, shoot the archer, not the arrow.

I do agree that the term putting green and green should carry two meanings, and I'd much rather here the putting greens referred to as putting surfaces because the word green is misleading. They are surfaces upon which a game is played, not plants at which to look.

All this with a big wink and tongue firmly planted in cheek. Your lexicographic legerdomain has me stumped.

[Chris Cupit]

A "modern" interpretation.  The entire front can not hold a hole location unless green speeds were 7 or maybe 8.  But the hole was never intended to have a hole there.

The previous hole was short (tips of 355) to a small green surrounded by three deep bunkers.  For the better player it was a piece of cake--wedge shot to a small but well defined target.  For seniors and ladies, this hole with three deep bunkers located left, right and center, was very difficult as it was an "island" green essentially and sand is their big nemesis.

Now, the hole frustrates better players as they can (and do) often come up just short and with some spin see their shots roll well off the green where they must hit a great shot (putt, bump and run or flop) to get anywhere within 6 feet.  The average guy can run his shot up and has plenty of room to chip and no longer has any bunker to worry about simply getting out of.  Now, he/she has a chance to get up or down and while they usually will still take three to get down, they feel like they have a "chance" versus the old bunker shot.

(Short and right are OK although straight and long gives a bit of a spooky chip back--you see the edge of the green as it disapears like an "infinity edge" pool).  But short and right is where 80% of golfers miss anyway.  Long is usually the scratch player being too defensive and if he's spooked by the chip, well...good.

New hole was also lengthened to 377 which with the hole being a little uphill gives the scratch player that little "in-between" wedge they often hate.

I love the change as it helped the bogey player and is much more frustrating to the scratch golfer--neat application of the design principle IMHO!

[Nick Church]

Worst false front I have ever encountered is at the 10th hole at Olde Stone in Bowling Green, KY.

For all the praise heaped on that course (including by yours truly), the extreme false front found on the 10th is a colossal mistake.

The green sits atop a ridge, while the approach shot is played from well below in the valley.  

No problem with that ... until you realize that a front left bunker protects 90% of the green's dimension.  The green runs much more left to right than it does in depth.  

The only opening into the green is a severe false front, shaved to bring balls back down the slope of the ridge.  Way too penal.  The combination of these features (distance, angle, elevation change, bunker, etc) is compromised by the severity of the false front.

The only reason balls don't come 100 yards back down to your feet is that the rough is grown sufficient to swallow the ball.... although, I'd bet there have been times in which gravity wins the match.

In my opinion, Arthur Hills made a huge mistake with this hole.

Sorry --- I have yet to capture a picture to better illustrate my perspective on this hole.  Soon, hopefully, soon.

[Bradley Anderson]

I would question if what we perceive today to be “false fronts” where originally just a development of greenkeepers instructing their mower operators to continue cutting beyond the beginning of the putting surface into the fairway.

Even with the tools that we have today, the transition between the putting green and the fairway can become the most worn area of the golf course, simply because you have two different operations pivoting on the same ground. Imagine how difficult that area must have been to manage back in the day when fairways were cut by horse drawn gang mowers, or steel wheel tractors.

[Andy Levett]

What is a 'false front?'
I've never seen or heard the expression other than on GCA. After reading this thread and others I think I have an idea but would be grateful for a definitive definition.
I don't think the expression is well known in the UK at all. Who popularised it?

[Bill Brightly]

The front section of the green tilts severely back to front. It is too steep to put a pin on, so it really is a "false" green, but the grass is green height. From the fairway, it may appear to be flat, but if you fail to carry the ball past the ridge where the false front ends, the ball will come all the way back off the green. Many also have a steep uphill  fairway short of the green, so the ball can come back 10-20 yards or more.

I think false fronts work very well when the shot to the green is a 90-130 yard shot, where your backspin can suck the ball right off the green.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()