[Patrick_Mucci]

Why aren't there more greens that run-away from the golfer ?

Landforms don't favor a universal green cant or orientation, and run-away greens would seem to favor the ground rather than the aerial game, especially on longer approaches.

Why has there been almost a universal, deliberate attempt, for over 100 years to generally ignore the landform at the green and design dart board greens canted toward the golfer ?

Why haven't/aren't more of them being designed and built today ?

Can you name some good ones like the 10th and 13th at GCGC

[Scott_Burroughs]

Modern ones include:

#4, #8, and #15 (back of green) at Fazio's Forest Creek
#18 at C&C's Kapalua (Plantation)
#3 and #17 (back of green) at Doak's Beechtree

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick;

Kelly Blake Moran's 7th green (par five) at Hawk Pointe features a green that rises from front to back for the first 20%, and then features a rapid descent of about 5 feet for the next 80%, falling even further to a chipping area behind the green.  The green is fascinating, and shot requirements change dramatically with each different pin position.  

[texsport]

In the Houston area:

River Ridge GC, Parkland Course #4-Par 4 playing down hill, down wind and with the back of the green blind. Listed as one of Best 18 Modern Holes by Sports Illustrated.(Sealy,Texas)

Blaketree National GC #4-Par 4 green falls away toward back left with water over the back left.(Montgomery,Texas).

Blaketree National GC #8-Currently a par 5 being converted to a long 4. Will be very dangerous since it generally plays down wind and the green falls away toward the water over the back left .(Montgomery,Texas)


Walden on Lake Conroe #13-Sightly uphill par 3 but the back of the green falls away toward big drop off behind the green.(Conroe,Texas).

Texsport

[George Pazin]

Coolest one I've seen is #15 at Gil Hanse's Inniscrone. End of a long par 5.

[David_Tepper]

I do not know if they would exactly qualify as "run-away" greens, but the OC Lake Course has several greens where the back of the green is no higher than the front. The greens on #1, #3, #10 are the most obvious examples. The greens that are most sloped back-to-front (#4, #7, #8, #18) do follow the slope of the land and do not look artificially canted.

[Phil_the_Author]

What about the 4th hole at Bethpage Black?

This wonderful par five that should have been reachable by most in two was best played as a three-shotter as Tillie designed it, and still it played to well over par for the field!

[Doug Wright]

Aren't there several at Oakmont that fit this description quite nicely? One of my favourite greens at my home course Denver CC is the 9th, one of the few remaining original greens from the early 1900s, which slopes ever so gently towards the rear. Like the Oakmont greens and others that are or will be mentioned on this thread, these types of greens can really play with your head when the maintenance meld is working...

All the Best,

[Dan Grossman]

There is a par 3 at Westbrook CC in Mansfield, OH where the green runs away.  I believe it is #9, about 170 yds.  However, it is deceiving because the green looks like it slopes towards you.  The hole is slightly downhill and the green is pushed up, but not enough to get the surface to horizontal.  It is easy to missread chips and putts from the front portion of the green when the pin is in the back.

The course is a wonderful old Donald Ross design from the early 1900s.

[Rick Shefchik]

Patrick -- I'm not sure I accept your premise that a green that falls away at the back favors the ground game over the air game.

I think it is at least as difficult, if not moreso, to figure out where a running shot is going to come to rest as it is to figure out where your aerial approach will end up. If you should happen to run a ground approach to the back third of this type of green, it will keep running, possibly to more to ill effect than the shot that flies in.

If I were more worried about a shot going long than about it finishing short, I'd feel more confident sending the shot in high than sending it in low. But maybe I'm missunderstanding something here.

[Mike Benham]

I thought Dan would bring up the hole at Monarch Bay, I can't remember which number, a par-5 I think, and the approach shot is slightly uphill and downwind and the green has a high front and slopes back and to the left.  When the hole is back left with a firm green, you have to land on the front third with a little draw spin.  I would think that a front right hole location would be tough to get close too.

To answer Pat's question, Monarch Bay was designed/redesigned a few years ago, so this is a modern example.

[Dan Grossman]

Mike - I thought about bringing that hole up.  It is #12 at Monarch Bay, a 525 yd par 5.  The front 1/3 of the green is sloped towards the golfer and then the back 2/3 slopes away.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Rick, Mike, Dan, et. al.,

I'm referencing greens that are sloped, entirely, from the front to back, not greens were just a portion of the green slopes to the back.

Being long of the pin is the prefered location, leaving the golfer with either putting or chipping uphill, back to the pin.

The KEY question isn't identifying some of these holes, rather, with the natural topography favoring no particular slope, why are greens sloped front to back so rare ?

[Joe Hancock]

Answer to KEY question: Because architects recognize that 95% of the folks who play golf aren't aware and/ or talented enough to play that type of green design...IMO.

Joe

[Ken Bakst]

Pat
     I’m going to take a stab at answering your KEY question because I absolutely love front to back sloped greens, including in particular those at GCGC that you mentioned, and would like to see more of them built.  In fact, I was really looking for a place at Friar’s Head to encourage C&C to build that type of green, but there just wasn’t a single hole on which that would have made sense given the natural landforms.
     Front to back sloping greens work best on holes where the natural landform is sloping front to back and, consequently, there is a natural “blindness” to the greensite.  Just think of the natural landforms at GCGC 10 & 13 and you will understand my point.  My hypothesis is that the modern golf design “edict” that everything be visible has led most architects to either avoid routing holes where visibility is compromised (think about how many modern day architects would identify and build the 10th green at GCGC given its blindness) or move enough dirt to make everything visible, thereby obliterating what might have been a natural landform over which a front to back sloping green would have made sense.  I’m sure there are many flaws in my thinking, and that’s why I called it a hypothesis!  :)

[Mike Benham]

I would agree with Ken's hypothesis, that is more due to that natural landforms providing the flow of blind front to back slope.

Front to back sloping greens maybe a maintenance (drainage) nightmare as there is minimal drainage on the back sides of green complexes.

And Dan and I have determined that the hole at Monarch Bay does slope front to back with no plateau in front.  Although we didn't answer the "key" question, we did answer the question without a question mark !!!

[Dan Grossman]

The hole at Westbrook is unique (IMO) in that while the ENTIRE green does slope front to back, it is not blind in any manner.  The land on which the hole sits drops probably 30 or 40 feet from tee to green in a gradual manner.  The green slopes away at an angle somewhat less steep than the natural landform.  So, the hole is downhill providing a clear view of the green.

I guess to attempt to answer your key question, I think that you would rarely see this type of hole because of the lack of natural greensites.  Because most holes are contoured in some manner to get the water to run off (I think), it seems strange to have the front of the green elevated instead of the back, providing a blind shot.  I would think that fall-way greens would only really work when the architect puts a green on a downslope or in a hollow, which is not typical.  Most architects (that I have seen) tend to have the tees and greens in higher places than the fairways.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ken,

In reflecting on your hypothesis, I would agree, the trend in fairness and visibility seem to discourage or eliminate this type of configuration

Mike & Dan,

I'm not sure I understand your reply.

Landforms don't favor one particular design, nor do landforms favor one particular type of green site.  If the land rises, or falls, run-away greens can occur naturally with the same frequency as facing greens.

I don't see how the back or lowest point on the green automatically becomes the lowest point on the property, impeding drainage.  Neither do I understand why a green sloped back to front would be immune from drainage from the higher elevations

The third hole at Pebble Beach could be a good location for a run-away green, fitting in to the terrain nicely.

90-95+ % of greens are facing greens.
Nature can't be that BIASED  

But, architects could be.

[Dan Grossman]

Pat -

I was trying to get at your point, although I didn't make it very well.  

I was just trying to make the point that most greensides do not use the natural contours of the land.  They tend to be elevated above the fairway.  In order to eliminate blindness, they need to be sloped back to front.  In the United States, blindess is looked upon by most people outside of GCA.com as poor design.

[Mike Benham]

Hey Pat -

I too am confused with what I wrote ...

I agree that landforms don't favor one particular type of design but I suspect the reason why we don't see more front to back slope is because of the ability to change the existing landform with a bulldozer.

The 3rd at Pebble is a good example of a "could be" and that of course would be possible if the road wasn't behind the green.

I believe the 9th and 10th at Pebble might give a better example of following the landform if we allow for some left to right movement.

[Michael Moore]

Mr. Mucci -

When you put multiple questions into one post it is sometimes difficult to determine which one is key and which ones are less so.

Perhaps you could list them in order of urgency.

[Jeff Mingay]

Where's Vernon Macan when you need 'em!

Macan, who did some tremendous work in the Pacific Northwest, was an advocate of fall-away greens. And he built many too. Most of which, sadly, have been altered.

When a group of members of Shaughnessy GC in Vancouver complained about such greens on their Macan-designed course, the architect retorted, "Today, the uninformed believe a green should be constructed with the slope from back to front, so that it will retain the ball. In brief, this suggests the shot should be a mechanical operation and the result of mathematical certainty. This is not the game of golf. Golf was not conceived as a mechanical operation but rather full of fun and adventure. Many things could happen to the ball after it pitched on the green. The ill-happenings were not regarded as ill-fortune or ill-luck, but part of the adventure, and the more skilled found methods to overcome the risks of ill-fortune."

Enough said about fall-away greens  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dan & Mike,

Now I understand, thanks

Michael Moore,

I thought that the brilliant minds that frequent this site could decipher my questions in order of importance.
But, at your request, I'll try to spell it out, if one question isn't obviously more key than the others, then again, that seems rather labor intensive.

Jeff,

I think your post and Ken's tie in nicely.

Interpreting if I may, is design being reduced to the lowest possible comprehension level for golfers, with golfers directing the architects as to what's acceptable ?

[Tim Weiman]

Pat Mucci:

One of the best run away greens I've seen is here in Cleveland at the Westwood Country Club, an Alison & Colt design.

The short par four third hole only plays about 315 yards, but a ravine to the right of the green makes laying up for a short pitch the smarter play.

Yet, the pitch is quite tricky thanks to the run away nature of the green and a hump about one third of the way from the front.
 
The only way to get close on a pin in the middle or the back is to hit the front side of hump and let the ball trickle over. It's the kind of shot you could practice for hours and never get bored.

[CHrisB]

The Crenshaw Cliffside course at the Barton Creek Resort in Austin has more fallaway greens than any course I have ever seen.  On #s 1,2,3,4,6,9,12, and 16 the highest point of the green is at the front, falling away to the back, and there are a couple of other holes (#s 8,13) with greens sloping away at the front but banking up again in back.

This can make for some really tricky pins, especially on #16 when the pin is on the "car hood" section at the front of the green, with fallaways left, right, and long, and a downslope in front of the green.  The only other such "car hood" green feature I've seen is at the downhill par-3 6th at Maxwell's Old Town Club in Winston-Salem, NC.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()