[Patrick_Mucci]

If fronting bunkers were deeper and rear bunkers shallower, would it change the thinking of golfers on their approach shots, thus changing the way the game would be played ?

If you combined that with a green tilted from high front to low back, would it accelerate the process ?

[Joe Hancock]

Behind the green would become the place to be when playing safe. The golfer would need to take more club on approach shots to achieve this.

Front to back tilting greens would encourage this type of play, but I don't know if it would be accelerated. Also, I'm not sure that this is a positive if it were to be overused. It might add to slow play.

Joe

[Jordan Wall]

Amatuers would hate it because many tend to underclub (I am NOT being rude, promise ), and then with the bunkers and all it would be rough.  I think besides with just amatuers though, it might make the pro's think more, especially with firm greens.  Even with the lowered lip at the Road Hole many players still did not get up and down.  I think the overall result would be that scores would tend to go up, and like Joe said, slow play would continue and possibly worsen.

[Gary_Nelson]

Pat,

I think the answer depends on the target market for the golf course.  Public course golfers vote with their dollars and may not come back to a course with deep bunkers in front.  
Consequently, they may never "re-learn" the game as you suggest.

What would it teach golfers if we were to tilt the green from high front to low back?  I think it would teach them to demand over-watering so they could hold their approach shots.

Gary

[Andy Troeger]

If fronting bunkers were deeper and rear bunkers shallower, would it change the thinking of golfers on their approach shots, thus changing the way the game would be played ?

If you combined that with a green tilted from high front to low back, would it accelerate the process ?

Pat,
The answer to both of your questions seemingly has to be yes. It would change things rather drastically as it would seem to favor missing long instead of short, and depending on the severity and firmness of the greens would make it very difficult to allow shots to stay on the green (unless you're leaving room to bounce the ball in...however you mention fronting bunkers).

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

I think the answer depends on the target market for the golf course.  Public course golfers vote with their dollars and may not come back to a course with deep bunkers in front.  
Consequently, they may never "re-learn" the game as you suggest.

What would it teach golfers if we were to tilt the green from high front to low back?  I think it would teach them to demand over-watering so they could hold their approach shots.


It might teach them to take enough, or the right club, instead of underclubbing as most of the golfing world does.[/color]

[paul cowley]

Patrick...I think that is a fine direction to take a little more of the time as a full diet might be tough to take.
I would combine it with angled front to back greens and use that to  create even more variety on dogleg holes.

[Andrew Summerell]

Does architecture change the way we play the game, or do golfers (through popularity) change architecture?

If golfers don't like the course, they won't come back & play ir again.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

In the first half of his career Jack Nicklaus talked a lot about doing basically that kind of thing---eg putting most of the danger in front of greens and more bail-out behind greens.

Why did he do that or advocate it? Simply because he really felt most amateurs never hit enough club!  

[Brent Hutto]

There one hole at my new home course that is quickly becoming a favorite of mine just because of its confounding requirement to play long instead of short...sometimes.

There's a little tongue of green jutting out on the left that makes the "good miss" be short and/or left of the green in the rough when the hole is cut in that location. Anything else is a terrible angle.

Otherwise, the strategy is determined by a large bunker dominating the front of the green (although it's not all that deep, so perhaps not ideal by Pat's criteria) with a somewhat shallow green front-to-back. This is also a slight falloff on the back right of the green. So when the hole is cut center or right the good miss is over the gree.

The last time I played that hole I hit my tee shot way right and had to chip out, advancing the ball to about 150 yards from the green. The hole was on the right side so I took that front bunker completely out of play by hitting my 155 yard club to the back of the green from where it bounced 15 yards into the light rough. I pitched it up about five feet and was just as pleased as I could be to have been given a chance to play a hole "backwards" from the usual strategy.

On other occasions I have laid up short of the front bunker when I couldn't reach the green (it's a pretty long Par 4 that plays into the usual wind) and that pitch shot from a perfect fairway lie over the bunker is no bargain. There's not much green to work with between the bunker and the hole and past the hole everything pitches to the back of the green. It's a good risk/reward thing for a high handicapper. Either you hit a wedge exactly the perfect distance (plus or minus 3-4 yards) to get it close to if that seems too demanding settle for having a 30+ foot putt from the back fringe.

[AndrewB]

I'm looking at this from the view of underclubbing, since that seems to be where the thread going.

If fronting bunkers were deeper and rear bunkers shallower, would it change the thinking of golfers on their approach shots, thus changing the way the game would be played ?

That depends on whether the bunkers extended the length of the green, and what else was there.

When in doubt, I conciously underclub because it is usually the smarter play (read: leaves you an easier up and down than going over).  The front of greens usually have "openings" to them with fairway running right up to the edge; behind greens there are typically not such areas, and one is always left in rough, a bunker, or contending with significant contours.  Almost always the easier up and down is from the fairway short.

But, if broadened to incorporate all challenges short and long of greens, rather than just bunkers, I think your point is a valid one.  For example, using the same reasoning I described above, I always play the 11th at Royal Dornoch to miss long rather than short.  The front of the green is much narrower than the back, and there are steep slopes and bunkers guarding the front/first half of the green.  Furthermore, over the green there is a good five or six paces of fairway before any rough starts, so the up and down from there is much easier.

If you combined that with a green tilted from high front to low back, would it accelerate the process ?

For the record, I love greens that tilt from high front to low back.

I think it would actually slow the process:
With a green sloping away from me, I try and land my ball closer to the front of the green to increase the likelihood of keeping it on the green.  So, I think this would in fact cause more people to miss short from "getting too cute".

Another point is that you can't see the back of the green as well or at all, and what you can't see is always scarier than what you can.  Players won't want to hit it in places they can't see, and would therefore tend to avoid going long.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Pat,
I believe there would be little change. I don't think it matters what depth the bunkers are to the chronically short, or at what angle the green lies. The other symptoms of their disease, i.e., ego, remembering the one-shot-out-of-ten, forgetting the wind, the lie, their stance, will continue to conspire against them.  

You're not talking abiout a mythical scenario, the type of hole you mention is rare but it does exist, so it isn't like players have no experience with it. Additionally, there are plenty of existing holes where it's apparent from the fairway that short isn't good, yet the chronically short player doesn't heed the advice.

[Doug Siebert]

I've been a fan of front to back sloped greens for a long time, and while I think we need a lot more of them, I'd hate to see courses made that overdo those the way many overdo the back to front slopes today.

I think it isn't so much a matter of poorer golfers underclubbing as just not being consistent.  If a guy hits a good 7i 10% of the time 150 yards, a so-so one 50% of the time 135 yards, a poor one 30% of the time 120 yards, and a hack job 10% of the time 80 yards, what's the right club selection for him?

His average is 130, his most likely outcome is 135, but he has to plan for the possibility of 150.  If he plays it 130-135, he might get close more often that way, but he's got negative reinforcement for the 10% of the time he actually hits a good shot when he hits it over the green on the fly!  I certainly wouldn't ever advocate to people to play that way if they had a goal of improvement in the future, even though it'll bring their scores down in the short term.

[Tom_Doak]

Pat:

I don't know that it would change the situation much.

I've noticed on front-to-back sloped greens that most golfers, when behind the hole, leave their putts way short because their instinct is that a putt from the back of the green is faster -- they just don't see the slope of the ground at all!  Since they can't see the bunkers in the back of the green, they probably wouldn't adjust their clubbing on that basis, either.

I have played courses with members who had played them 100 times and still never noticed that there WAS a bunker behind a particular green.

[Philippe Binette]

I remember thinking of that when seeing Forsgate...

on some holes, the back of the green is a lot better than the front bunker... but on some others, there's an even deeper bunker at the back of the green, that hurts...

[Patrick_Mucci]

I'm looking at this from the view of underclubbing, since that seems to be where the thread going.

If fronting bunkers were deeper and rear bunkers shallower, would it change the thinking of golfers on their approach shots, thus changing the way the game would be played ?

That depends on whether the bunkers extended the length of the green, and what else was there.

Fronting bunkers means just that.
I wasn't referencing flanking bunkers.[/color]

When in doubt, I conciously underclub because it is usually the smarter play (read: leaves you an easier up and down than going over).  The front of greens usually have "openings" to them with fairway running right up to the edge; behind greens there are typically not such areas, and one is always left in rough, a bunker, or contending with significant contours.  Almost always the easier up and down is from the fairway short.

Not if you had to carry a deep fronting bunker.
That would change your philosophy.[/color]

If you combined that with a green tilted from high front to low back, would it accelerate the process ?

For the record, I love greens that tilt from high front to low back.

I think it would actually slow the process:
With a green sloping away from me, I try and land my ball closer to the front of the green to increase the likelihood of keeping it on the green.  

How could you land your ball closer to the front of the green if a deep bunker fronted it ?[/color]

So, I think this would in fact cause more people to miss short from "getting too cute".

It would be just the opposite.
Noone would want to be in a deep fronting bunker recovering to a green that falls away from them.[/color]

Another point is that you can't see the back of the green as well or at all, and what you can't see is always scarier than what you can.  Players won't want to hit it in places they can't see, and would therefore tend to avoid going long.

Only once.
Then, experience would be the great teacher.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,
I believe there would be little change. I don't think it matters what depth the bunkers are to the chronically short, or at what angle the green lies. The other symptoms of their disease, i.e., ego, remembering the one-shot-out-of-ten, forgetting the wind, the lie, their stance, will continue to conspire against them.  

Ego is a factor, but remember, ego is rewarded and reinforced by short shots because they don't find any trouble.
If there were deep bunkers fronting a hole, at some point experience and intelligence SHOULD overcome ego.[/color]

You're not talking abiout a mythical scenario, the type of hole you mention is rare but it does exist, so it isn't like players have no experience with it. Additionally, there are plenty of existing holes where it's apparent from the fairway that short isn't good, yet the chronically short player doesn't heed the advice.

Could that be because the penalty for not heeding the perceived advice isn't that distasteful ?[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

I don't know that it would change the situation much.

I've noticed on front-to-back sloped greens that most golfers, when behind the hole, leave their putts way short because their instinct is that a putt from the back of the green is faster -- they just don't see the slope of the ground at all!

Those that don't understand Sir Isaac Newton are condemned to leave their putts short.  Uphill birdie putts appeal to me, but, one can't be too bold.[/color]

Since they can't see the bunkers in the back of the green, they probably wouldn't adjust their clubbing on that basis, either.

Initially, I'd agree, but surely, their powers of observation, or conversation with friends should enlighten them.

Going long is so alien to the mind of golfers that it's a hard concept to come to grips with.[/color]

I have played courses with members who had played them 100 times and still never noticed that there WAS a bunker behind a particular green.

You must be refering to RGKeller.

Despite the intellectualizing by some on this site, that the golfer is only fooled once, I've noticed the same thing, that when it comes to golf, experience isn't necessarily the best teacher.

Some golfers notice the conspiracy of features from the get go, others NEVER notice them.

But, for those that notice and understand them, the dilema remains.  There's an ideal position to approach to, but, the margins of error are thin and painful should they be exceeded.  

Erring on the conservative side brings its consequences, so the hole retains it's unique balance, be conservative and pay the potential price of a stroke, or play the hole in an optimal fashion and run the risk of one or two strokes, or the reward of a birdie.

The concept seems ideally suited to every level of golfer and that's why I'm surprised that it's not more prevalent..

I wouldn't advocate this configuration on more than one or two holes per 18, but, it does present a unique and challenging dilema, for thinking and non-thinking golfers alike.[/color]

[Jim_Kennedy]

Pat,
You've said:
"Not if you had to carry a deep fronting bunker"
"Fronting bunkers means just that"
"How could you land your ball closer to the front of the green if a deep bunker fronted it"

Water, false fronts or steeply elevated greensites would seem to be interchangeable with the deep fronting bunker. There are hundreds of holes on hundreds of courses sporting forced carries to the green and hundreds of others where being short is easily seen as not a good option and yet you still see players with not enough club.

There should be billboards at the 150yd. markers that read "TAKE MORE ClUB".    

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim Kennedy,

Fronting water seems to get everyone's attention.

Recognition may be directly proportionate to the penal nature of the fronting feature.

Many don't see or understand the impact of false fronts or elevated greens.

Perhaps it's the steady diet of greens that pitch up from front to back, making recovery from beyond them difficult, that predispose us to being short.

I like your signage suggestion.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()