Are Reverse Slope Greens Only Meant To Be Approached With a Short Iron?

[Mark_F]

I'm currently having a disagreement/contrary philosophical viewpoint  with someone who seems to believe that reverse slope greens - i.e. front to back - are best served by being approached with short irons.

I don't follow this line of logic at all.

Does anyone else?

I think they work perfectly well with long iron/wood approaches because running the ball in is always a fine test of judgement that, in part, allows longer hitters to match it with shorter hitters.

Thoughts?

[Bill_McBride]

#1 and #10 Oakmont.  How much better does it get than watching a long shot roll down the slope onto those greens?

Anyone who thinks fallaway greens are just to be approached with short irons is not thinking about the ground game.  How would they attack that green with a short iron if the pin were in front?

[JESII]

I think reverse slope greens are great because they demand a high degree of ball control. It really doesn't much matter to me if the ball is on the ground or in the air, so long as the player knows what the ball is going to do he/she should be OK....and it's a bit different from the norm.

[RichMacafee]

I've got no problem with them as long as the green is accessible from the front.

If the green is too raised at the front, or has a severe dip short of the green (or rough), it doesn't work IMO.

[Brian Phillips]

I don't think the original redan can be reached with a short iron and it is one of the great par 3's in the world.

[Mark_F]

I've got no problem with them as long as the green is accessible from the front.

If the green is too raised at the front, or has a severe dip short of the green (or rough), it doesn't work IMO.

So Rich, where do you stand on the 17th at KH then?

And you must never have been to Macrihanish.  The 12th there is a fantastic hole, with a front to back sloping green and a severe upslope/dip in front of it.

It's a short par five that an 8 time club champion should be able to dine out on with a mid iron second.   :

[RichMacafee]

I've got no problem with them as long as the green is accessible from the front.

If the green is too raised at the front, or has a severe dip short of the green (or rough), it doesn't work IMO.

So Rich, where do you stand on the 17th at KH then?

And you must never have been to Macrihanish.  The 12th there is a fantastic hole, with a front to back sloping green and a severe upslope/dip in front of it.

It's a short par five that an 8 time club champion should be able to dine out on with a mid iron second.   :

I have grown to love the challenge of the 17th at KH, after initially not liking the hole much at all. I love the imagination required, and the fact that there are 2-3 options of how to play the shot every time you play the hole. I do believe you have to play it a lot to get to know all the subtleties of it though, and I understand why some believe there is a lot of luck involved. Once you know the contours, there is actually very little luck involved at all.

I am a huge fan of front-back sloping greens, I wish there were more of them. The challenge of the approach shot on 3W at Royal Melbourne is one of my favourite shots on the course, even though it is generally from 80-110m only. Do you think that green would work well on a 400m hole? I'm pretty convinced it wouldn't.

I've played a lot of golf in the UK, but sadly Macrihanish was one that I missed. It is on an ever growing 'to do' list for when I get back there. Would the green on the 12th work so well if the hole was a 410m par 4?

Basically, I love these type of greens, but feel there needs to be an option to come in from short if it is a long approach. It doesn't have to be a flat or easy option, but it needs to be there.

[Neil_Crafter]

Mark
I hope not. I have recently designed a new green and approach to the reachable par five 12th at Glenelg GC here in Adelaide. The front 70% of the green falls away from the player before flattening out at the back. A carry bunker is placed some 15m short of the green and a well played second (or third) that carries the bunker will kick off the slope at the bunker back and run down into the green. Plenty of fairway left but with a high diagonal ridge guarding the left side of the green (think the 3rd at Royal Adelaide) playing safe out to the left leaves a very frightening pitch over the ridge. I had some reservations about how it would be accepted by the members when building it but they love it. As its a par five, the green works with a long approach as well as short one. Tell your friend politely the error of his ways.......
cheers Neil

[TEPaul]

No way. One of the best uses of them can be at the end of a reachable par 5.

In my opinion, when golf started to try to fit golf architecture into all these little "formulae" or "standardizations" was just about the time really exciting golf architecture began to lose its way.

I think that began to happen in the 1920s to be honest with you. The reason that happened is also most interesting, and is perhaps one of the best subjects that ever could be discussed on this website. I think it was a fundamental shift far more than any of us realize, and the reason for it was really fundamental.

[Anthony Butler]

I have recently designed a new green and approach to the reachable par five 12th at Glenelg GC here in Adelaide. The front 70% of the green falls away from the player before flattening out at the back. A carry bunker is placed some 15m short of the green and a well played second (or third) that carries the bunker will kick off the slope at the bunker back and run down into the green. Plenty of fairway left but with a high diagonal ridge guarding the left side of the green (think the 3rd at Royal Adelaide) playing safe out to the left leaves a very frightening pitch over the ridge.

Do they generally have the pin in the back of the green or often on the front section? Sounds like the hole is much more challenging when the pin is located on the front... with the pin on the front, if you hit a good drive, it almost forces you to go for it on your second.

[Patrick_Mucci]

NO,

GCGC has two reverse sloped greens.

# 10 which can require a long approach and # 13 which usually requires a short approach.

The beauty of the LONG approach is the potential for being long, which is diminished on a short approach.

Theoretically, being below the pin (long) is desired on reverse greens, but, being too long can be troublesome.

When a reverse green has trouble behind the green, this presents an interesting dilema because the golfer wants to be long, but, not too long.  That's fairly easy to achieve with a short shot and much more difficult to acheive with a long shot, which makes the long shot far more interesting and challenging.

Reverse greens lose some of their charm and challenge as the approach shot gets shorter.

My vote would be for an intermediate to long approach as the best way to maximize the interest and challenge.

[Shane Gurnett]

Mark,

Was the argument/discussion in reference to any particular holes or course?

[Neil_Crafter]

Anthony
The pin is rotated through all parts of the green just like a regular one! When it is up the front you still have a choice of laying up short of the bunker and pitching over or carrying the bunker with your second. I also did a reverse slope green about 6 or 7 years ago on the par 5 15th at Fleurieu Golf Club at Mt Compass south of Adelaide. Works well there too.

[Mark_F]

I've played a lot of golf in the UK, but sadly Macrihanish was one that I missed. It is on an ever growing 'to do' list for when I get back there. Would the green on the 12th work so well if the hole was a 410m par 4?

It already is a par four Rich.  It works whatever the length of the approach.

Patrick:

Does the 10th at GCGC have any contour, or dips, or a sloping fairway in front of the green?

Shane;

Of course.

One guess on the course, maybe two on the holes in question, since I only count one of them as a front to back sloping green, and then it really isn't.

[ed_getka]

Reverse slope greens are meant for all clubs, except in the case of the fronting bunker that has to be carried to allow your ball to roll onto the green (like Neil's example). 15m doesn't sound like much to work with unless you had a midiron or less.
   James Bennett saw a great example at Plainfield with #7 par 4, where the green falls away to back left.
   
Patrick,
   Isn't #3 at GCGC working away from you also?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ed Getka,

The real slope to # 3 green is from high left to low right.
There might be some front to back slope, but, it's minimal

Mark Ferguson,

There's very little contour in the 10th green, it slopes back to front and right to left.

The approach is flat