Why Does the Back to Front Sloping Green Dominate?

[Mark_F]

Ian Andrews' recent post on the merits of Huntingdon Valley, in particular the fallaway greens at several holes ensuring it is judgement of bounce and run that is important instead of a caddie's or laser guide's, accuracy, lead me to this topic.

Tom Doak, in Anatomy of a Golf Course, wrote that "a flat or slightly back-sloping green has instant merit because of the difficulty of stopping an approach shot... it is one of the few situations where the difficulty of the shot stands the test of time, because a short approach shot does not make things much easier".

Given the perpetual interest and intrigue, why does the back to front sloping green dominate more than the reverse?

[TEPaul]

Because the back to front sloping green gets its own double- thread and the front to back sloping green never seems to get any.

[johnk]

I always wonder this as well.  Here are what I think are the major factors:

1. Aesthetically, players prefer to see more of the green presented to them, and like to see the whole flagstick.

2. Drainage tends to work toward the fairway by default.

3. Greens that slope away are much harder to play to and get called "unfair"

I think architects should include more greens that have pins
on "away-slopes".  Some great greens occur when say 35% of the surface slopes away from the common approach.

[TEPaul]

Seriously, for front to back slopes to work as effectively as they can and should architecture or particularly maintenance practices have to be brought to bear to enhance their effectiveness.

Logically this would include firm approaches to provide for increased options such as the ground game and run-in options. It's only commonsensical that back to front architecture works best and did work best in the era of over irrigation and the modern aerial game.

But of course that can all change again. Front to back sloping greens did work once and they can again. All they really need to do so is what's sometimes referred to as the "ideal maintenance meld"!

And most ironically of all some of the basic reason for back to front sloping greens in the old days and in the old architecture just isn't quite as necessary any more. A lot of that back to front slope was designed into various types of holes long ago simply because aerial golf just wasn't very prevalent or effective and certainly not as much as it is today. So with today's aerial effectiveness back to front architecture really isn't as essential as it once was, is it?

[Tim Gallant]

I played recently at a couple of courses that had lots of greens with back-to-front slopes. At one particular course (built in the late 20s by a prominent designer) there were a lot of back-to-front slopes on the greens. On reflection, I started thinking: do you believe he (or any designer) did this because he knew that amateurs almost always miss short as opposed to long? Therefore, for the average to beginning golfer, it is an easier up and down, or up and two-putt from short of the green back up the slope? Whereas for the scratch golfer who is challenging pins, there is a chance they will make the dreaded mistake of going above the hole, and therefore, have no way to be aggressive with a birdie putt?


Or is this just a coincidental bi-product of another reason why back-to-front greens are/were so pervasive?

[Jim_Coleman]

   I don't know what percentage of participants here are relatively new (say, less than 5 years), but it should not go unnoticed that royalty has made an appearance here.

[JMEvensky]

   I don't know what percentage of participants here are relatively new (say, less than 5 years), but it should not go unnoticed that royalty has made an appearance here.

The Lurker?

[Marty Bonnar]

The thread’s fifteen years old!

[Ian Andrew]

It's the easiest to see ... and it receives the shot the most effectively.

[James Brown]

Because without the back to front green, Golf would have been nearly impossible in the 19th century. 

[Ally Mcintosh]

It's the easiest to see ... and it receives the shot the most effectively.

This two reasons should signal the end of the thread. Is there really any debate?

[Mark_F]

It's the easiest to see ... and it receives the shot the most effectively.

So the ancient links and courses of the UK, with all of their blindness, randomness and oddities, the back to front green dominated because it is the easiest to see?  That doesn't add up, Ian.

[Ian Andrew]

You asked the question: Why Does the Back to Front Sloping Green Dominate?


In the world of golf there are far more created courses than found golf courses.
There are very, very few links courses.


When architects choose - they tend to almost always choose back to front.
Players see the green better, it happens to receive the ball more effectively ...


I'm not saying that's right or not ... just telling you why that type of green "dominates" the game.
Your choice of the word "dominate" (to me) makes this a question about general patterns in architecture ...


as for the links courses ... if you broke them down ... you might be surprised about the direction of the slopes over 18 holes ...

[Sean_A]

The bottom line is archies pander to the wishes of golfers...most of whom expect to see receptive greens.  Back when links were originally built the idea of "consulting" golfers simply didn't exist.  Something definitely changed when Oxbridge lot ruled the roost and that is golf design became more codified.  That trend has continued and intensified ever since.  There have been bursts of style changes etc, but the general approach to design has become more rote over time.  Such a codified approach leaves little room for deviant design....hence the big push to increase aesthetic appeal to create difference.  Its a natural progression of increased knowledge and improved technology.  I can fully understand the lamentations of some for simpler designs using all sorts of age-old concepts without all the aesthetic trimimings and charging X amount extra.  To me, The Loop looks to achieve this but still add a bit of flair which sets it apart.  In time, this could be seen as Doak's greatest creation.

Ciao

[Ira Fishman]

At the end of an otherwise undistinguished short Par 5 on our course is an extremely deceptive green. From the fairway, near the green, and when putting, you swear that it is back to front when in fact the green runs away front to back. It fools everyone.


Any other examples of such deception?


Ira

[Thomas Dai]

I quite like the occasional green that slopes away. But then ‘occasional’ is a bit different to ‘dominate’. Guess they need a bit more space though to allow for balls running through the back.
As an aside, didn’t Mackenzies famous competition winning entry have the lessor player playing in from behind, or at least from near behind, the green?
Good point about reversible courses.
Atb

[RJ_Daley]

At the end of an otherwise undistinguished short Par 5 on our course is an extremely deceptive green. From the fairway, near the green, and when putting, you swear that it is back to front when in fact the green runs away front to back. It fools everyone.


Any other examples of such deception?


Ira

I find that an approach to a level to slightly lower greensite, with a lower plains or valley backdrop behind the hole, where a slight front too back greenslope exists, is one of the most confounding deceptions.  One swears the  slope is back to front, but the putt totally fools the player. 

[archie_struthers]

 


Apart from the reasons mentioned there are some basic rules that make back to front the preferred design over time.

All golf courses have both budgets and borders/ property lines. Front to back slopes require greater costs and more land. For courses seeking more yardage or less spending the back to front works best.


Also , as regulation pushed designers into keeping storm water from leaving the site it promoted the condition .

[Jeff_Brauer]

The bottom line is archies pander to the wishes of golfers...most of whom expect to see receptive greens...... 

Ciao

Sean,


First, I will reiterate the obvious, back to front greens are seen best and hold shots best.  I see someone write "pandering" and have to say, its a bit strong, for a few reasons.  We MIGHT be pandering to the GM, who wants faster speed of play, yes.


First, the goal of golf course design has to include making a course playable, and back to front greens do this.  It does not need to be ultra challenging for pros as it's main goal.  Yes, it is nice to introduce some unique challenges once in a while.  Not very satisfying.  I usually do a Redan and another back sloping green, whether reversed Redan or direct back slope modeled somewhat after White Bear Yacht Club 12 or Oakland Hills 14.  Here is the sad thing, average golfers rarely figure out that the correct landing zone is 20-30 yards ahead of the green, and better players merely hit down harder to get more backspin (and usually succeed) rather than allow for roll out, which is unpredictable, unless you give them a backstop on one corner.


The other part of "pandering" is this - you seemingly forget how difficult this game is for most who are going to populate any course.  The USGA Slope research showed that only 2 of 3 average golfers will hit a green sized at 15% width and 20% depth (or for 160 yards, 24 yards wide and 32 yards deep, but most greens aren't that big.)  According to a 2013 study g

olfers with Handicap of 30 or more hit 6% of greens in regulation on average, golfers with Handicaps of 25-30 hit 10% of greens in regulations, Even golfers of 10-15 handicap only hit about a quarter of greens in regulation. 

Statistically, they need all the help they can get! The idea that somehow targets should somehow reject less than perfect shots just makes a course far too difficult for most, maybe all.  [/size][/font][/color]

I know average golfers hate it when a ball that lands on the green somehow bounds off.  [/size][/font][/color]

Not only do I produce mostly back to front greens, I also make the front portion concave a bit so a ball that hits the green tends to bounce inwards and stay on the green.   

I even saw it at ANGC 16 this year.  A competitor hit on the left edge of the green and bounded away from the water to the center of the green.  So, RTJ designed that championship green to help good even pros.  And, I still recall the recent thread about how the TPC greens were renovated - some multiple times - because Tour pros couldn't hold them with the large hump in the front centers.  Or, how Jim Colbert would look at any similar feature I proposed with, "Jeff, you must be the best damned player in the world if you think you can play that!"  So, yeah, they count on it, too.

So, you/we can be an architectural snob if you/we want to, but in the real world, experience has shown that back to front works better than the un-architected greens of old.  So well in fact, that most architects really don't consider side or reverse slopes at all, and others, like me, reserve them for special situations.  Just the fact that I call it a "reverse slope" green show how ingrained the back to front slope is.

Would mention a few other things - the need to flatten greens for green speeds has introduced a few challenges in getting that back to front slope right.   We still have the usual swale coming out the front (not necessarily front and center, can be angled to the sides somewhat, at least on downhill approach shots) but the back swale, usually exiting one side or the other, requires either some angle forward, where it needs to drain between any bunkers, or be located as close to the dividing ridge as possible, with the slopes behind it approaching that maximum 3% slope. Otherwise, its really easy for the back side of the green to become partially blind, negating one of the advantages of back to front slope, i.e., vision to the green.

[Sean_A]

Apart from the reasons mentioned there are some basic rules that make back to front the preferred design over time.

All golf courses have both budgets and borders/ property lines. Front to back slopes require greater costs and more land. For courses seeking more yardage or less spending the back to front works best.


Also , as regulation pushed designers into keeping storm water from leaving the site it promoted the condition .

So, there is space for 5 sets of tees, but not for some front to back greens?  Its more a question of priorities, which I understand. 

Jeff

I play a great many courses with a few front to back greens which most would consider playable and those that don't fail to grasp the concept properly  .  Again, I understand if prioriities are different, but I would prefer if excuses weren't made and archies were simply straight forward.  Its a bit like listening to folks blame health & safety for everything when its really just an easy excuse which people generally don't question.

Ciao

[MCirba]

Originally...to stop the ball.


You don't need that much pitch to drain water.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,


What era greens are you talking about?   

Before tile systems, surface drainage was even more important because greens were cut at 1/4" or more (1/4' was typical when I started golfing in the 60's, at least on muni's, but I recall Medinah's greens being faster).

Point is, height of cut might and lesser tile systems may have induced the old guys to surface drain more than we need to now.  At least, something I have wondered about over the years.


As I have said before, years ago, I went out to a few courses that each had greens that "didn't hold" and found the non holding greens had a back to front slope of less than 1.33%.  I suspect with shorter grass and sand base, that might be 1.5% or so now. In any case, 1.5% is considered the minimum for good surface drainage, freeze damage avoidance, etc.  And, more and more, it may not be enough to shed poor quality irrigation water off the surface fast enough.  We might be back on the upswing for green contours as that trend continues!


Sean,


Which architects response was making excuses?  In my view, all our responses were pretty much "Just the facts, M'am."  I do agree with you, its always worth questioning, especially on this website, more or less devoted to questioning everything about modern architecture.    I asked myself that years ago, tried a few reverse slope greens, and concluded (much like Ross) that maybe one or two per course was enough to create a different shot type.  But, not so good an idea that I would replicate it on even half the greens.  You could even make the case that the back to front green enhances the chip and run and ground game, giving golfers some confidence in trying the shot with a backstop of sorts.


And, back to front allows focus on left to right and right to left shots, etc.  Varying the backstop factor is subtle, but can influence strategy.  I have tried to put a bigger slope and backstop behind the shot from the preferred angle.  However, the question also remains,  do you help or require greater precision for the Sunday pin approach shot?


For instance, on a tucked back right pin, do you increase the slope to help the golfer and encourage aggressiveness, or have the green nearly level and falling away  on the sides around that pin?  Or do you provide a backing mound and increase green's slope towards the golfer allowing them to hit the extra club and spin it back to the hole? That is a shot option when trying to avoid short siding yourself into the front guarding bunker, i.e. strategy.


And, as I mentioned, I came to the conclusion that a long par 4/short par 5, such as Oakland Hills 14, into the wind to help stop the shot works best for a reverse slope green.  Would be interested to hear other architect's opinions.


Not an excuse, just some context sensitive thoughts, rather than painting that whole issue with a broad brush.

[Thomas Dai]

Greens that are higher at the rear are more visually appealing and photograph better (and look better on TV), aspects that I would suggest have increased in relative importance as the decades have gone by.
Atb

[Sean_A]

Which architects response was making excuses?  In my view, all our responses were pretty much "Just the facts, M'am."  I do agree with you, its always worth questioning, especially on this website, more or less devoted to questioning everything about modern architecture.    I asked myself that years ago, tried a few reverse slope greens, and concluded (much like Ross) that maybe one or two per course was enough to create a different shot type.  But, not so good an idea that I would replicate it on even half the greens.  You could even make the case that the back to front green enhances the chip and run and ground game, giving golfers some confidence in trying the shot with a backstop of sorts.

And, back to front allows focus on left to right and right to left shots, etc.  Varying the backstop factor is subtle, but can influence strategy.  I have tried to put a bigger slope and backstop behind the shot from the preferred angle.  However, the question also remains,  do you help or require greater precision for the Sunday pin approach shot?

For instance, on a tucked back right pin, do you increase the slope to help the golfer and encourage aggressiveness, or have the green nearly level and falling away  on the sides around that pin?  Or do you provide a backing mound and increase green's slope towards the golfer allowing them to hit the extra club and spin it back to the hole? That is a shot option when trying to avoid short siding yourself into the front guarding bunker, i.e. strategy.

And, as I mentioned, I came to the conclusion that a long par 4/short par 5, such as Oakland Hills 14, into the wind to help stop the shot works best for a reverse slope green.  Would be interested to hear other architect's opinions.

Not an excuse, just some context sensitive thoughts, rather than painting that whole issue with a broad brush.

By excuse I was alluding to the idea that punters don't like front to backers to archies don't build em' often...then come up with reasons (for me not very convincing if variety is truly prized) why instead of simply saying punters don't like em'.  To me there is more to architecture than simply providing a likeable product.  Golfers need the odd bit of feeling uncomfortable and some holes that nothing except the required shot will do.  While vanilla is geat, it may be better still when mixed with mint.

PS...nobody is suggesting that half the greens need to fallaway, but if done well, even with that number it will take golfers some time to figure out what the hell's going on. 

Ciao

[Jeff_Brauer]

Sean,


In two posts you have said "back to front slope " when I would use the term "front to back slope" to describe fall away greens.  Am I confused by your terms?


I do agree that it is conceptual question.  I have written and believe we need more variety in golf course designs.  The question is whether including, I won't say bad, but perhaps less desirable concept just for the sake of variety worth it?  For instance, I would use a few reverse greens, a few pinched, penal fairways, etc., even though I don't think the penal style of design is good in general.  So, I see your point there.


As to whether average golfers complain about them, I guess I have heard enough to say, yeah, almost universally.  As I mentioned a few weeks ago, a golf rater was going to my current project, and without even seeing it, mentioned uphill holes where you couldn't see the base of the pin.  This was a general comment, before he even sees the course.  Others, even golf players hate the middle of the green to flow away, as its hard to hold.  Especially, if the way the green is bunkered basically requires an aerial approach to the surface, which so many do.

Trying to produce the likeable product or the or a feeling of discomfort are similar design issues.

Golf courses are businesses.   After a lot of thoughts, yeah, we should provide a fun, comfortable, likeable product.  I am sure my clients hire me to fill the tee sheets, no to try to sway a generation of golfers minds, LOL. (Some might....but I don't have that clause in my contract, LOL) Even when I want to, as mentioned, a few examples at least for now, seem about right, sort of like a chef being forced into a fairly standard menu, and slowly introducing more exotic dishes as specials.  And, the ones they like (I'll have the Reverse Redan, thank you) get added to the regular menu.


So, maybe because I do try a few of those things, I didn't understand your point, but we aren't that far apart.  I do think most architects try it occasionally, but can't be sure who/what/where you have played.  But, Ross, Mac, etc. appear to have felt the same way about reverse slope greens.  What about Scotland?  The newer courses are probably mostly (if not as much as later) front to back greens, no?  Haven't been in a decade, so going on memory, but seem to recall seeing most greens, meaning they must be back to front, since there isn't much downhill shots on those seaside courses.


Like I said, the reverse slope is  a way to introduce a different shot concept on a course, so I do use them 1-2 times per course.  I suppose I could go nuts and create more......say 3 on one course if I wanted to get jiggy with it.