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

[David_Elvins]

Do Doak, Coore and Crenshaw, (and other post modern architects) build too many front to back sloping greens.

My sample size is very small, 2 Doak courses (Barnbougle Dunes and St Andrews Beach) and 1 Coore and Crenshaw course (Hidden Creek).  However at both Hidden Creek and St Andrews Beach I felt that the front to back sloping green feature was overused (5-6 times in a round atleast)

IMO at these two courses front to back sloping greens discourage the ground game that the firm and fast conditions were meant to encourage.

Have people who have played other courses by Doak, Coore and Crenshaw, and other similar architects made similar observations.  Is it a theme in their work?  Or is it specific to these two courses?

[David Stamm]

David, do you feel the same way about Rustic Canyon?

[David_Elvins]

David,

I didnt get the impression that there were a lot of greens that fell away to the back at RC.

Which greens would you put in that catergory there other than 13?  a few others late on the back nine? 

[Mike Hendren]

Doak's Quail Crossing features a stellar front to back sloping green on a par five on the back nine (13?).  Blind and deep with a nice squared side. 

[David_Elvins]

Doak's Quail Crossing features a stellar front to back sloping green on a par five on the back nine (13?).  Blind and deep with a nice squared side. 

Don't get me wrong, I love a lot of the greens in their own right.  I just think  the feature gets overdone and players can get sick of finding their ball a couple of yards off the back edge of the green on too many occasions. 

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.

[Will MacEwen]

I've only played the Bandon courses.  I didn't notice this feature at PD, but I thought BT had quite a few greens that either didn't necessarily slope to the back, but had fall-offs that were very much in play.

[Jeremy Rivando]

This is a topic I came across yesterday on Jeff Mingay's blog.  http://www.mingaygolf.blogspot.com/

Jeff cited a number of principles that Scotsman John L. Low (1869-1929) adhered to including this quote.

"Whenever possible, putting greens should be of the low, narrow plateau type, with the plateau tilting away, not toward, the player. No green should be higher at the back than it is in front, for that gives a player confidence. Only half the flagstick should be seen from where the approach shot should be played."

I find it a bit extreme to say that no green should tilt from the back to the front.  That being said I find it's an element that is in short supply.  Great designs must continue to incorporate many different styles and rely on features that will challenge the player. 

A front to back sloping green should fit in well on a number of different holes, especially par 5's IMO.  We hit the ball higher and softer than ever, I doubt that there will ever be too many front to back sloping greens.

[Jim Nugent]

IMO at these two courses front to back sloping greens discourage the ground game that the firm and fast conditions were meant to encourage.

David, I would have thought front to back greens encourage the ground game.  Can you explain? 

[Adam Clayman]

  I just think  the feature gets overdone and players can get sick of finding their ball a couple of yards off the back edge of the green on too many occasions. 

David, Do players also get sick of having their balls end up on the front of back to front sloping greens?

From my samplings, I do not not get the sense that this green slant is over done by either design team.

[Scott Weersing]

Do Doak, Coore and Crenshaw, (and other post modern architects) build too many front to back sloping greens.

My sample size is very small, 2 Doak courses (Barnbougle Dunes and St Andrews Beach) and 1 Coore and Crenshaw course (Hidden Creek).  However at both Hidden Creek and St Andrews Beach I felt that the front to back sloping green feature was overused (5-6 times in a round atleast)

IMO at these two courses front to back sloping greens discourage the ground game that the firm and fast conditions were meant to encourage.

Have people who have played other courses by Doak, Coore and Crenshaw, and other similar architects made similar observations.  Is it a theme in their work?  Or is it specific to these two courses?

What is too many greens? There should be a variety of greens in a good course. Some greens should slope back to front. Some should be crowned so that they slope from the middle to the back. Some should slope one side to another. Some should be small and others large.

I dislike courses where every green slopes from back to front. There is no challenge. There is no requirement to be on one side of the fairway over another side. The only thing to think about is to be below the hole.

I would have to say that the courses that we talk about on this site have a variety of greens. There are many architects who build greens that slope from front to back such as Gil Hanse and Forrest Richardson.
Many golfers are uncomfortable with hitting into a green that slopes from front to back as they need to determine where to land the ball.

[Tom_Doak]

David:

I don't think your characterization of "front to back" sloping greens is quite right.  I think both Bill and I build a lot of greens which aren't "back to front", and which fall off in multiple directions, but not a lot of them which fall off to the back.

Beechtree does have a bunch of greens that fall to the back, and St. Andrews Beach has a few (3, 5, 8, 9 sort of, 16 to the back left).  I think the only ones at Pacific Dunes are the upper #9 and #16 (back right).  Sand Hills really doesn't have any of them at all ... I guess part of #13 falls to the rear.  It just depends on what kind of mood we're in, and what sort of green sites we've chosen.

[DMoriarty]

Do Doak, Coore and Crenshaw, (and other post modern architects) build too many front to back sloping greens.

My sample size is very small, 2 Doak courses (Barnbougle Dunes and St Andrews Beach) and 1 Coore and Crenshaw course (Hidden Creek).  However at both Hidden Creek and St Andrews Beach I felt that the front to back sloping green feature was overused (5-6 times in a round atleast)

IMO at these two courses front to back sloping greens discourage the ground game that the firm and fast conditions were meant to encourage.

Have people who have played other courses by Doak, Coore and Crenshaw, and other similar architects made similar observations.  Is it a theme in their work?  Or is it specific to these two courses?

David, could you clarify what you mean by front to back sloping green?   On your understanding of a front to back sloping green do you mean that the front is lower than the back, or the front is higher than the back? 

Probably a silly question, but I am not sure I understand your point and a clarification on the definition might help.

[David_Elvins]

IMO at these two courses front to back sloping greens discourage the ground game that the firm and fast conditions were meant to encourage.

David, I would have thought front to back greens encourage the ground game.  Can you explain? 

Jim,

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.

[David_Elvins]

David, could you clarify what you mean by front to back sloping green?   On your understanding of a front to back sloping green do you mean that the front is lower than the back, or the front is higher than the back? 

Probably a silly question, but I am not sure I understand your point and a clarification on the definition might help.

One witth a front higher than the back.

[David Stamm]

David,

I didnt get the impression that there were a lot of greens that fell away to the back at RC.

Which greens would you put in that catergory there other than 13?  a few others late on the back nine? 

18, for example, falls away a bit. Remember, everything breaks towards the entrance gate.

[David_Elvins]

David:

I don't think your characterization of "front to back" sloping greens is quite right.  I think both Bill and I build a lot of greens which aren't "back to front", and which fall off in multiple directions, but not a lot of them which fall off to the back.

Beechtree does have a bunch of greens that fall to the back, and St. Andrews Beach has a few (3, 5, 8, 9 sort of, 16 to the back left).  I think the only ones at Pacific Dunes are the upper #9 and #16 (back right).  Sand Hills really doesn't have any of them at all ... I guess part of #13 falls to the rear.  It just depends on what kind of mood we're in, and what sort of green sites we've chosen.

I am fairly confident with what I characterise as front to back slope.  I wouldn't call the 9th at St Andrews Beach front to back, even though it has that reverse tier (or 5 or 16 for that matter). The holes I was thinking of at StAB were 3,4 (other than back right corner most of green slopes front right to back left), 8 and 17 (front right to back left).   5, 6, 12, 15 and 16 all have signifcant front to back slopes in part of the greens.  Don't get me wrong, I like all of the greens, I just thought that the 4 holes I mentioned with predominant front to back slope over the whole green was slightly over the top when it came to course balance.  

I was generally curious if this was something that was happenning a lot at similar courses by similar architects.  It seems from the responses so far though that it is generally restricted to these two courses and isnt an industry wide trend.

[DMoriarty]

Thanks.  

I am not sure I agree that back to front encourages the ground game.   On back-to-front sloping greens aren't most golfers much more confident in their ability to stop the ball?  

I think you have the wrong hole number at Rustic.  13 is the par five that where the green horseshoes around the bunker and the green slopes quite a bit from back to front. 

Not sure what actually slopes back to front at Rustic, but a number of holes feel like they do.  I love this feature and wish more architects did it.  It makes controlling your distance much more interesting.

[Jim Nugent]

IMO at these two courses front to back sloping greens discourage the ground game that the firm and fast conditions were meant to encourage.

David, I would have thought front to back greens encourage the ground game.  Can you explain? 

Jim,

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.

I thought you would have a harder time holding a green that slopes front to back, if you fly your shot onto the green: the downslope is more likely to kick your ball off the back.  Easier to land your approach in front, and let it run onto the green.  I haven't really played enough greens like this though.  

[David_Elvins]

I think you have the wrong hole number at Rustic.  13 is the par five that where the green horseshoes around the bunker and the green slopes quite a bit from back to front. 

Not sure what actually slopes back to front at Rustic, but a number of holes feel like they do.  I love this feature and wish more architects did it.  It makes controlling your distance much more interesting.

Sorry, I meant hole 12 with the slope to the back right.  I didnt really notice too many front to back holes at Rustic and was suprised that Stamm brought it up.

I agree that it is a great feature.  3 at Royal Melbourne West and 8 at St Andrews Beach are two of my favorite uses of it.  It seems to work well on that length hole (350 yards) where the player can choose to either drive near the green or hit a full wedge in).

[DMoriarty]

Sorry David I miss-typed. 
 I should have written:

Not sure what actually slopes FRONT to BACK at Rustic, but a number of holes feel like they do.  I love this feature and wish more architects did it.  It makes controlling your distance much more interesting.

Sorry for the confusion.

[Doug Siebert]

Front to back slopes don't encourage or discourage the ground game.  Sure, its easier to stop the ball with the ground game on a back to front slope, but likewise it is easier to stop an aerial shot on such a green.

Is your protest really that "too many" such greens discourage the ground game or that they just play too difficult?

[Bill_McBride]

I'm thinking of an early C&C, the Crenshaw course at Barton Creek.  Offhand, I'd say there are at least seven front to back sloping, fall away greens - 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 16, mayxbe more.

I've played there a number of times, and never felt that was a problem.  The ground there slopes a lot and C&C just made a decision to let the greens lay naturally over the ground, not built up back ends.  They really didn't move much dirt there, particularly when contrasted to the two Fazio courses on the property that get all the great press.

[Mark_F]

I just think  the feature gets overdone and players can get sick of finding their ball a couple of yards off the back edge of the green on too many occasions. 

David,

Have you been spending a lot of time with Brian Walshe and Chris Kane lately?  I would have thought the answer to finding your ball a couple of yards off the back edge of the green on too many occasions was to:
A) Hit your approach shot from the correct angle, or
B) Use the slopes of the green/green complex to steer the ball, or
C) Hit your approach shot with the correct weight.

It's interesting what one's interpretation of a front to back green is.  I wouldn't call 3 at St Andrews Beach a front to back green because the first third slopes back toward the player, and most of the left hand side is a plateau that definitely does not slope front to back, although it does fallaway behind that.

I am also puzzled as to where you think there is a significant front to back slope in part of the 13th green, or 16 for that matter, since it is well established that the greens there are too small, and if there was a significant portion that sloped front to back, then ergo the entire green must do so.

I would have thought that front to back sloping greens only discourage the ground game if the green complex didn't allow for it. 

[Shane Gurnett]

Mark,

Maybe the new owners will get Thomson or Cashmore in there for a bit of redesign work before they let the public loose on it again and it won't be an issue anymore.

By the way, has it sold yet?

Shane

[Chris Kane]

Have you been spending a lot of time with Brian Walshe and Chris Kane lately? 

Mark, I'm interested in what leads to to believe that I concur with what David has said re overuse of front-to-back sloping greens.  Perhaps you could go through the archives and find what I've said on the subject to justify the bizarre comment above - you have plenty of time now that you have nowhere to play.