[Philippe Binette]

false fronts

I've walked Sand Hills last weekend and no doubt about it, it is really a great course. But I was surprised by the amount of false front (severe ones I must say... out there).

After all, false front are on 1, 2, 4, 7, 11, 13, 15, 17, 18 (might be missing one or two and there are some partial false fronts at 6 and 9). Most of those false front can run your ball 50 feet back in the fairway.

Does all those severe false front compromise or enhance the links style play of the course?
Could it be consider a lack on variety to have that kind of feature on half the holes?

I would love to hear about that especially those who played the course.

[Kyle Henderson]

Having played Ballyneal and Sand Hills in consecutive days, it was natural for me to compare the two courses heavily. I thought that the nature of the green sites at Ballyneal were much more varied due to the inclusion of concave green complexes and convex surfaces that featured subtle to considerable back stops/gathering slopes at a corner or two. Sand Hills frequently featured very bold false fronts or side boards that kick balls onto the greens, less subtleties in that respect. Conversly, the interior contours of the putting surfaces at Ballyneal were much bolder and complex than Sand Hills'.

In many ways, these difference reflect the different grasses used for the putting surfaces. The slower-running fescues at Ballyneal allowed for bolder slopes in the greens. The surrounding slopes may not draw errant approaches away from the greens at Ballyneal as drastically as at Sand Hills, but this creates the need to hit chips and pitches from a tight lie very precisely to negotiate the humps and bumps in the greens. The faster-running bent grasses at Sand Hills place more of a premium on getting shots to stop downwind or playing shots low into a head wind that will chase onto the surface. Under those conditions, the false fronts present a more intriguing challenge. How far short of the green are you willing to land your approach for braking purposes knowing your ball may come half of they way back to you?

Put simply, Sand Hills may feature some repetitiveness, but primarily with regard to shots I would love to play several times per round (especially since I'm always playing the soft, poor man's muni courses where one simply shoots darts at the pin).

[Mike McGuire]

or false sides and false backs.......I have never seen so many balls on the green putted off  the green in my life as I did at Sand Hills in two rounds. The wind is a big part of the challenge.

On #6 the pin was up. We watched a friend in the group ahead of us put it off the green from six feet, ended up 50 ft away. Even after watching that I did the same thing (straight downwind)

# 9 i was back right - pin was middle - hit it too hard and putted it off the green front left - had 100 ft or more. Maddening.

[Eric_Terhorst]

Phillippe,

I've played several C&C courses, though not Sand Hills, and have noted a fascination with the false front.  If the golfer knows there's a false front there, that fact might dominate his thoughts as he strikes the ball and cause him to mis-strike--advantage architect.  Perhaps that advantage is too easy for architects to wield against us golfers--is that what you're objecting to? 

I personally like the challenge and the thought put into designing a "front" that looks "false."  But I understand how some might find several of them repetitive or an easy out--easier than building varied fronts.

The pics below are from C&C's course at Notre Dame.  It's a recurring theme there as well, though as you can see not too  "severe." 

#8 414yd par 4, green 


#11 green

[Sean_A]

Never seen any of the courses mentioned.  However, the false front is a classic architectural conumdrum.  Should I take the aerial route or the ground route? Even from the middle of the fairway it depends on all sorts of stuff.  Unfortunately, many false fronts are not supported with proper maintenance regimes so the choice is taken away.  Ross may have been the king of false fronts though often times the false bit just follows the the lay of the land and with uphill approaches this is in essence the effect. 

Ciao

[Jim Nugent]

or false sides and false backs.......I have never seen so many balls on the green putted off  the green in my life as I did at Sand Hills in two rounds. The wind is a big part of the challenge.

On #6 the pin was up. We watched a friend in the group ahead of us put it off the green from six feet, ended up 50 ft away. Even after watching that I did the same thing (straight downwind)

# 9 i was back right - pin was middle - hit it too hard and putted it off the green front left - had 100 ft or more. Maddening.

On the face of it, that seems absurd.  Was there any way to keep the ball near or semi-near the hole, if you didn't sink your putt?  If not, sounds like they put the pin in a real poor position, or a design/maintenance flaw. 

[Mike McGuire]

Jim - If you hit the put the perfect speed it was possible to keep it by the hole. One ounce too much and bye bye-

It was a severe pin but the wind was what made it treacherous. Blowing about 25 mph out of the south. So above the hole on six was also straight downwind.

[PThomas]

no, i don't think so

[Tom Huckaby]

This is interesting.  I've played the course I believe 10 rounds... and this is the first I ever noticed "too many" false fronts.  Thinking about it as you laid it out here, wow that does seem like a lot.  But playing it the thought never occurred to me.  No clue why this is.

TH

[Philippe Binette]

One thing I'm thinking of.

The course was built in '95 or so, when 10 on the stimp was fast for everything except the Majors. From what I've seen, the greens were around 11.5 / 12 last saturday...
this foot or foot and half faster speed makes a huge difference on false fronts.

I personally thought that the greens were too fast for a potentially windy site. I would hate to travel all the distance to get there, start a round in the morning and by the 8th hole being sent home because the course is unplayable due to stronger wind.

[Tom Huckaby]

Also very interesting and quite different from my two trips there.  It never got "too fast" when I was there, not even close.  But I can see how it could, for sure.  If balls are rolling around the greens due to wind, that's goofy golf.   Here's hoping they never let it get that way.

TH

[Tom Huckaby]

shivas:  I have no doubt you said that; I just don't recall reading it, or if I did, I didn't listen, as it certainly wasn't an issue either time I went there.

You say a lot of things.... 

[Tom Huckaby]

Geez, when you forget thought provoking threads like this, little wonder you forgot to pay me my beers for Northwestern kicking the living crap out of your alma mater, Santa Claus or whatever it's called....

 

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,7860.0.html

Well, my thoughts in that thread stand.  And forgive me for not remembering one of the hundreds of threads you start, particularly one four years old.  As for beer bets, you forgot to collect.  It was waiting for you at the table at which a bunch of us sat.  Recluses who plant themselves away from the crowd rarely get free beer. 

TH

[Mike Mosely]

No way...I love false fronts.  They ar eone of my favorite features in all of golf...even when I get stung by them.

[Patrick_Mucci]

false fronts

Rely on them for what ?

I've walked Sand Hills last weekend and no doubt about it, it is really a great course. But I was surprised by the amount of false front (severe ones I must say... out there).

OK, you were surprised, what's the relevance of that ?

After all, false front are on 1, 2, 4, 7, 11, 13, 15, 17, 18 (might be missing one or two and there are some partial false fronts at 6 and 9). Most of those false front can run your ball 50 feet back in the fairway.

Are you sure that you're not confusing false fronts with genuinely elevated greens ?

Does all those severe false front compromise or enhance the links style play of the course?

Do you consider "drainage" to be a concern ?
Do the configurations of the greens lend themselves to moving surface water away from the greens ?

How is the design of each hole you listed compromised by a raised green or false front ?

Could it be consider a lack on variety to have that kind of feature on half the holes?

Did you notice a pattern of:  High tee, low fairway, high green ?
Which holes lack variety ?
Which holes present a similar approach ?

I would love to hear about that especially those who played the course.


Do the false fronts you observed place an increased emphasis on the aerial game, or, is their latitude for the ground game on any of those holes ?

[Tom_Doak]

I don't think that Sand Hills "relies" on false fronts at all and I've never really thought there were "too many" of them, but I have seen Bill Coore spend a lot of time in the dirt flagging the front edges of his greens, and he does have a strong tendency to bring the line well down the front of the upslope to the green for visibility purposes.

It's also true that many of Sand Hills' greens are elevated and not very accessible to "ground game" shots which some people here tout so highly.  In fact, the last time I talked to Dick Youngscap, we agreed it would be nice if someone built a more Scottish-style course in the area where you approached holes along the ground.  Wild Horse has some of that sort of feature and that's a big reason it is rated so highly ... Dismal River is an aerial-approach course even more than Sand Hills.

[Philippe Binette]

To Patrick mucci:

Ok, the word relies might be the wrong one... Although Sand Hills plays probably a lot more difficult this way than if the greens were along the ground.

Greens are elevated but the fact that the same slope that create the elevation leads into the greens, it makes it a false front.

Drainage: A) It's a sandy site that doesn't receive a lot of rain...
                B) You can drain a green without false front

By definition: if you follow a pattern, you repeat the same stuff, you lack of variety

I think the ground game could be considered.


Finally, I don't think it's fun that you divide a comment word by word and try to demolish it just because it's a C&C course

[Patrick_Mucci]

To Patrick mucci:

Ok, the word relies might be the wrong one... Although Sand Hills plays probably a lot more difficult this way than if the greens were along the ground.

Greens are elevated but the fact that the same slope that create the elevation leads into the greens, it makes it a false front.

Are you saying that any green that sits atop an incline automatically has a false front ?

How is that so on # 1, # 4 and the others ?

To me a false front is a green where the front of the putting surface drops below the grade of the green and is unpinable.

How many holes at Sand Hills fit that criterion ?

Drainage: A) It's a sandy site that doesn't receive a lot of rain...
                B) You can drain a green without false front


A)  Mullen, Nebraska receives about twice as much rain per year as Los
     Angeles and about 57 % as much as NYC
B)  It sure makes it a lot easier when the front of the green and the
      terrain in front of the green slopes further downward.

By definition: if you follow a pattern, you repeat the same stuff, you lack of variety

By your definition most Ross Courses and Sand Hills lack variety.
How do you account for Sand Hills's lofty rating if it lack variety ?

I think the ground game could be considered.


That's difficult to do when the greens sit above the fairways, wouldn't you agree ?

Finally, I don't think it's fun that you divide a comment word by word and try to demolish it just because it's a C&C course

Disecting your comments have nothing to do with the architect of record.
It's merely a method of addressing each point you've made.

You can't put forth a series of premises and then complain when each premise is addressed seperately.

At Hidden Creek each green is slightly elevated from the fronting fairway, yet, that feature doesn't automatically categorize the green as having a false front.

Perhaps your definition of a false front differs from others.
 

[John Kirk]

It's been a couple years since I was there, so my recollections may be a bit sketchy.

As Phillippe says, there are many greens positioned so that the final fairway approach to the green is quite steep.  Balls that fail to reach the green can roll backwards.

I think that Phillippe makes an incorrect assumption when he suggests:

"Does all the severe false fronts compromise or enhance the links style play of the course?"

I don't know whether the course was specifically designed to "enhance links style play" or not.  The steep approaches make bouncing the ball into the green a less desirable option, but that is the nature of the unique challenge presented.  One friend, not a member of the club, who visits Sand Hills regularly, is well known for putting a ball from long distances off the green.  Although I don't do that, I can see this as a viable option, but it gets more problematic if you tried to hit a two or three hopper off a steep upslope into a green.

It may not be the nature of Sand Hills to allow (or accept) a certain type of shot, but that is true of virtually all golf courses.  Sand Hills yields shots of great interest in a spectacular setting.  If you've got an uphill approach to a green with a steep upslope in a big crosswind, you try to hit it low and just get it there, or maybe let it bounce once short of the green.  The one time I remember hitting the 17th green, I hit a low 8-iron that bounced once on the apron before rolling on.

I say this feature is not a shortcoming; rather a characteristic of this unique course.

[Philippe Binette]

Patrick:

My comments were not negative against sand hills...

After a couple of days of break from GCA.com, I read the entire thread again.

Here's what I thought:

1) You can drop a ball 15 feet on the green from the front edge on the 1st green at Sand Hills and the ball will roll off the putting surface and down the fairway.

2) I  don't consider false front to be a bad thing, I just wondered if some people have thought about this issue before.

3) By the way: My initial post was a question, not an affirmation

4) Your comment saying: so you were surprised, what's the relevance of that ? is out of place

5) My comment: I think the ground game could be considered... is irrelevant, there were some words missing in that one.

I was looking for smart constructive comment... sorry I'm wasting GCA.com time

[Patrick_Mucci]

Phillipe,

With a high tee, low fairway, high green configuration, I don't believe that Sand Hills is the poster child for the ground game, unless we redefine the ground game.

I don't think that the golf course RELIES on false fronts, but, I'm willing to listen to a reasoned account of how it may.

How do you think that Sand Hills RELIES on false fronts ?

Remember, the key word is, "relies"

[John Kirk]

Phillippe,

I tried my best to offer constructive commentary, and I generally agree with you.

[Philippe Binette]

All right,

When I say the word relies, I meant that it is one of the most impressive features out there, how often and how far back the ball can roll off the greens.

I could imagine that the course is really hard for the average 18 handicap, who can't fly and stop the ball  on the greens. Is Sand Hills only fun for the 10 handicap or less

[George Pazin]

How common are elevated greens on UK links courses?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()