Do Doak and C&C build too many front to back sloping greens?

[David_Elvins]

David,

I dont get the logic.  Think of a redan.  Isn't it the slope away that brings in the ground game?   

David,

I dont get the logic.  Think of a redan.  Isn't it the slope away that brings in the ground game?   

Slopes the bring the ball to the hole bring in the ground game.  Greens that have a general tilt away from the player cannot generally be used to work the ball to the hole unless the pin is at the very back of the green (or off the very back of the green), or the player is already past the flag.  I will post  a few pictures soon.

The 4th at Hidden Creek might be a good example.  It has a 45+ yard long redanish green.  It is great fun chasing a ball to the pin when it is at the back of the green.  However from what I could tell on my one visit, the extremeness of the slope (I would estimate 3 feet + from front to back) means that with any other pin position the slope cannot really be used to take the ball to the hole. 

[Cory Brown]

David,

You make a good point about the difficulties of using the ground game on a front to back sloping green.  However, I believe the challenge in this type of green comes in when you are trying to figure out how to play to it.  A ball landing at the pin will likely roll off the back, so it is necessary to judge where your ball will land in front of the pin or in front of the green to allow it to bounce up towards the pin.  Back to front greens frequently take on the dart board effect where you hit it to the hole and it stops immediately.

With the new equipment and balls, I believe we should see more of these types of greens to allow the thinking golfer the chance to play the appropriate shot.

Another issue is water movement.  A back to front sloping green will drain to the approach possibly causing a wet condition, which is of course not conducive to the ground game.

[David_Elvins]

David,

You make a good point about the difficulties of using the ground game on a front to back sloping green.  However, I believe the challenge in this type of green comes in when you are trying to figure out how to play to it.  A ball landing at the pin will likely roll off the back, so it is necessary to judge where your ball will land in front of the pin or in front of the green to allow it to bounce up towards the pin.  Back to front greens frequently take on the dart board effect where you hit it to the hole and it stops immediately.

With the new equipment and balls, I believe we should see more of these types of greens to allow the thinking golfer the chance to play the appropriate shot.

Another issue is water movement.  A back to front sloping green will drain to the approach possibly causing a wet condition, which is of course not conducive to the ground game.

Vey well put Cory,  especially the point about drainage.  Thanks.

[DMoriarty]

David,

I dont get the logic.  Think of a redan.  Isn't it the slope away that brings in the ground game?   

Slopes the bring the ball to the hole bring in the ground game.  Greens that have a general tilt away from the player cannot generally be used to work the ball to the hole unless the pin is at the very back of the green (or off the very back of the green), or the player is already past the flag.  I will post  a few pictures soon.

The 4th at Hidden Creek might be a good example.  It has a 45+ yard long redanish green.  It is great fun chasing a ball to the pin when it is at the back of the green.  However from what I could tell on my one visit, the extremeness of the slope (I would estimate 3 feet + from front to back) means that with any other pin position the slope cannot really be used to take the ball to the hole. 

But if a green slopes away, and the conditions are firm, then sometimes is not the only way to get the ball close through the ground game?   Take Rustic 6, for example, where most of the green slopes away.  If it is at all firm, I don't know how one would ever get close on a front pin if they did not land the ball short of the green.

[David_Elvins]

David,

But would you try and land the ball short with a high shot or a low shot?

[Patrick_Mucci]

I think 3 of the 4 par 3s  at Hidden Creek, for example have greens that fall significantly to the rear. 

To me that is an over use of the feature.

David,

Only # 3 falls significantly to the rear, and it's supposed to, it's a modified redan.

# 7 is relatively flat and has elevations toward the back of the green.

# 11 is fairly flat.

# 14 is also fairly flat with the major contour dividing the green from high
         right to low left.

Some of the greens have a slight back to front cant, while # 10 is more of a two tiered green, but, it does slope front to back on the upper, forward tier.

The internal contouring is so dramatic that while the fronts of some greens slope front to back, as you get to the mid-section and rear, the contours are all over the place, like # 2 and # 8.

[David_Elvins]

I think 3 of the 4 par 3s  at Hidden Creek, for example have greens that fall significantly to the rear. 

To me that is an over use of the feature.

David,

Only # 3 falls significantly to the rear, and it's supposed to, it's a modified redan.

# 7 is relatively flat and has elevations toward the back of the green.

# 11 is fairly flat.

# 14 is also fairly flat with the major contour dividing the green from high
         right to low left.

Some of the greens have a slight back to front cant, while # 10 is more of a two tiered green, but, it does slope front to back on the upper, forward tier.

The internal contouring is so dramatic that while the fronts of some greens slope front to back, as you get to the mid-section and rear, the contours are all over the place, like # 2 and # 8.

Thanks for the input Patrick,  I had it in my mind that the back half of 11 and the 14th sloped front to back but didn't get great photos in the midday sun and might defer to your local knowledge.  I also thought that there was a fair bit in the par 4 6th as well, is this right?

I liked your description of the 2nd and 8th green, by the way.  Without doubt my two favorites on the course and two of the coolest greens I have seen. Although unfortunatly I suspect some might think the elephant in 8 a bit over the top.

[Sean Walsh]

Threads like this piss me off.

The answer is no.  Absolutely 100% no.

Michael,

I don't understand how a thread that merely questions the practices of an architect in a respectful fashion is so bad.  Especially when it leads and is guided towards a very good discussion of the topic at hand.  I for one am enjoying the discourse being at a much higher level than is often encountered. 


David,

How many of the greens you thought were overdone also had a side tilt to them?  Does this side tilt (if present) match up with the rest of the architecture of the hole?  If the front to back and side tilt are used well I don't think I'd have a problem with it.  Much like having bunkers protect certain areas only it may take a few rounds to work the course out. 

Sorry my experience on any Doak (and I've never seen a C&C) course is insufficient to comment on but I hope the following examples add to the discussion.

Would you consider 15 at TOC a front to back sloping green?  If so I found a low approach the only way to play it. Actually 14 is the same as long as you can get your second shot to the plateau beside Hell, I found I was better to hit a flatter shot and run it up than try to hold the green (which was all nigh impossible for someone of my standard).  16 runs a little front to back after the hump but more left to right and is also better for a running approach for me. 

These 3 holes do have one thing in common that mitigates against the aerial approach they all have a step (of varying sizes) in front of the green.  IMO this makes a miss short aerially much worse than a shot too strong along the ground.  Anything short usually left a terrible next shot while long gave you an even money chance at up and down.  In short the margin for error is much greater playing these holes through the air rather than along the ground.   

On TOC is 3.  I believe the preference here is determined more by your drive and what you are more comfortable with more than the slope.  If you are a decent wedge player and play the right club off the tee to give you that full wedge/short iron then go for it.  My second would be a knocked down 7 iron every time.  13 is back to front for much of the green but since most people are coming in with a longer club and there is so much trouble at the front it's immaterial whether the ground or aerial is preferred.  Play long and putt back (for all but the best players). 10 is also front to back but strategy is determined by pin position and your drive. 

That's 6 holes and the 5th also has a pronounced front to back slope for the first 10 yards or so (The size of the green  and the huge swale before do make it more receptive of an aerial approach though)

I know TOC isn't golden age but it would seem Doak, Coore and Crenshaw et al are more influenced by TOC than most others.   

[Peter Pallotta]

Do optical illusions count?

What I mean is, if a green doesn't actually slope from front to back but appears to because of fall offs and/or contours that tie into the surround in an intentionally deceiving way, does this provide as much or more or less fun/challenge/variety/interest?

Thanks
Peter   

[Chip Gaskins]

The ground game is easiest when the ground around the target is rolling slower than the ground before the target.  Imagine (hypothetically) that you had an approach shot from 50 yards with a fairway stimping at 13 and a green stimping at 6.  It would be fairly easy putt the ball on the green as the ball slows when it hits the green.  Reverse the stimp readings and it becomes much harder to putt the ball onto the green as the ball rolls "speeds up" when it hits the green.  Greens that slope away from the player have the same effect (unless of course when the pin is at the very back of the green).

I hope that makes some sense.

though your statement could not be more obvious after you read it, it is one of the biggest "ah ha" i have had on this site recently

just think oakmont #10

[Patrick_Mucci]

Chip,

What about # 1 and # 12 at Oakmont ?

[Doug Siebert]

Peter,

I really like seeing holes where you are playing to green cut into the side of an uphill slope because of the illusion of the green falling away from you when it really isn't.  There's a course around here with a couple holes like that and its doubly interesting because on the first one of those it really look like it falls away from you but doesn't -- it actually slopes pretty strongly back to front so more than a few people who end up a bit long with their approach will chip it over the green and have the ball run 30 yards off the front!

The second one of those has one of the craziest greens around with a large blind false front that is backed by a section that falls away to the rear.  If the pin is cut in that area you either need to dial in the distance really precisely or play to one side to avoid the inherent danger in that area.  If you do aim at the pin and go long its a really nerve wracking chip knowing that if you go past the hole the ball won't stop rolling for about 30 seconds and you will be left with a shot rather like the one Mickelson took four tries to execute last weekend.

[Chip Gaskins]

Chip,

What about # 1 and # 12 at Oakmont ?

Most definitely and add #15:

#1


#10 (looking back)


#12 (approach)


#12 (looking back)


#15 (looking back)

[Tom_Doak]

Sean Walsh:

Your analysis of those holes at The Old Course is very good.  We tried to build a green something like #14 St. Andrews for Old Macdonald and I am sure it will be controversial, even though it's not as severe as the real thing.

The Oakmont greens illustrated are of a different nature than what you find at The Old Course, and I'd guess those are what Americans think of when you say "front to back green".  I've only done a few like that.  The first green on the North course at Stonewall is an ode to Oakmont.

After some reflection, I think David E. is right in his initial premise though -- we do build more front-to-back greens than most of the Golden Age courses, with Oakmont and The Old Course being very prominent exceptions.  In my case, it is a function of rarely bringing fill material to a green ... so if I choose a green site where the slope is going away from the line of play, I'm very unlikely to fill the back to where it drains the other way.

Nobody has mentioned Kapalua (Plantation) for Bill & Ben yet -- there are a lot of greens sloping to the back there because of the steep grade.  Bill told me they tried to build up the back of #7 when they started and it looked like a mogul on a ski hill.

[Adam Clayman]

The part of David's premise which seems like an odd position to have is when he mentions "easiest". There seems to be a predilection to not knowing how to, or, being able to, land the ball short of the green and roll it up there. The 18th at Pajaro Valley being the poster child for this type of approach to a green that slopes away.
 
The other aspect of the that does not compute was in relation to some formulaic nature of design habits from two of the design teams that do anything but..

 

[Kirk Gill]

There seems to be a predilection to not knowing how to, or, being able to, land the ball short of the green and roll it up there. 

This is a good point. Many players, used to soft conditions and receptive, forward-sloping greens should be expected to have difficulty approaching a front-to-back sloping green, especially in firm and fast conditions. It's hard to know how to do something that you've never had to do! That's one of the things that makes such greens interesting and fun - the lure of the unknown...

Of course, growing up playing rock-hard muni's, we had to land the ball short of the green even when the green's slope was steeply back to front ! They keep 'em softer now, though...

[Mike Nuzzo]

Nobody has mentioned Kapalua (Plantation) for Bill & Ben yet -- there are a lot of greens sloping to the back there because of the steep grade.  Bill told me they tried to build up the back of #7 when they started and it looked like a mogul on a ski hill.

I've seen some, not Kapalua, that look a lot more like a ski jump than a mogul...

[George Pazin]

The ground game is easiest when the ground around the target is rolling slower than the ground before the target.  Imagine (hypothetically) that you had an approach shot from 50 yards with a fairway stimping at 13 and a green stimping at 6.  It would be fairly easy putt the ball on the green as the ball slows when it hits the green.  Reverse the stimp readings and it becomes much harder to putt the ball onto the green as the ball rolls "speeds up" when it hits the green.  Greens that slope away from the player have the same effect (unless of course when the pin is at the very back of the green).

I hope that makes some sense.

though your statement could not be more obvious after you read it, it is one of the biggest "ah ha" i have had on this site recently

just think oakmont #10

Might be an "ah ha" for you, but that doesn't make it true. And just because something is easiest, it doesn't make it right.

Gotta work now, I'll try to explain later. I'm not trying to be a jerk, I just disagree with this notion.

[Patrick_Mucci]

David Elvins,

Yes, # 6 generally runs away from you, but, you can't hit it short, and there's a good deal of movement in the green that's other than front to back.

I find that greens that run front to back are in the great minority, hence, if a golf course has a good number of them, I like it.

Hidden Creek and Garden City have their share.

[tonyt]

David Elvins,

I find greens like St Andrews Beach #8 often very much encourage a low or ground approach. When pitching to that green from just short, getting the ball on land as soon as possible is sometimes by far the safest play. The more downwind that hole plays, the better one might be to get it down sooner.

In general, lets presume that for a front to back sloping green, the ball has the potential to be going further after landing and thus when compared to a back to front sloping green, the chances are sometimes increased of the ball running long. With control therefore required to have the ball settling into a gentle roll at the right time to avoid a mischief, many players might find in some instances they have less chance to achieve that if they hoist their approach high in the air. The margin for error taking a ground approach to a green sloping to the back may well be increased, but then on the same hole, so it can be for the high approach.

Don't take my post as my take as opposed to yours, but as a raised hand to say that the principle of back to front ground receptiveness or lack of may well be a principle, but not an absolute.