What you see is not what you get

[Patrick_Mucci]

I played a course yesterday that had more than a few
FALSE FRONTS.

They are a wonderfully deceptive feature.  They make the player pay for shortcomings on the shot to the green and on the recovery shot, especially if the pin is up front, just behind the ridge of the false front.

Has this feature been diminished by the quest for information on the part of today's golfers ?

Unfortunately, the golf course also provided yardages to the center of the green on the fairway sprinkler heads.  
This data allows a golfer to ignore or override the tactical signal the eye sends to the brain, in favor of laser accurate data from a reliable source.

As a deceptive design feature, have FALSE FRONTS become extinct due to yardage markers.

Name some modern courses that use them on more than a few greens.

[TEPaul]

GMGC has a number of false fronts and the one on #18 is going to be enhanced to really be effective.

The playability and strategic consequences (with the higher greenspeeds) is what's talked about today with false fronts but originally, it's my understanding that false fronts served the primary purpose of not being a deceptive feature so much as actually the opposite!

The false front was used to "demark" where the green and its dimensions (side to side) was! It was a way of "lapping some green space down" so the player approaching the green from below, for instance, could have a better idea where the green was!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul & Shivas,

Why do you think so few of them are created today ?

[Willie_Dow]

Tom
 ???Are there some false fronts at Applebrook?  I have not played the course, but my tour with you and Mike Cirba, Rich Goodale, and Tom Huckabee, back in October, indicated some of this design thinking by Gil Hanse/Bill Kittleman.

[TEPaul]

Furthermore, if you analyze classic architecture carefully something like the false front may show itself as being almost a necessary feature in some cases for architectural and construction reasons.

Those that have read a good amount of what older architects wrote can hardly help but notice that they seemed somewhat contradictory in what they wrote and what they actually did.

The best example may have been Ross. Clearly he said he thought it wise to avoid blindness particularly blindness of green surfaces but then he built so many greens that had blind surfaces. The false front may have been one way of sort of compromising on that apparent contradiction.

But then clearly the false front was an effective (and inexpensive) way of "transitioning" architecturally from a green surface that had to be "leveled" to a large degree in relation to natural topography that was too sloped to build a green on natural grade so the false front was an effective "transition". Otherwise the architect would have had to grade way out off the front (sides, back whatever). And in some cases he may not have even been able to use that site and its topography and grade without "transitoining" features like this!

This is really no different in architectural effect than the more common greens that have an enormous high, deep bunker on the low side of the green sites overall topography. That bunker is certainly there for strategy and such but the mundane reason is architecturally it's there to support the entire green surface itself that had to be build up more level than the original topography once was.

False fronts serve that architectural purpose too!

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Why do I think false fronts aren't used much today? I don't really know but if I were to guess maybe a couple of reasons like some golfers might think they aren't fair and architects react to that sentiment or maybe some architects today just aren't so imaginative.

But I would think the more likely reason is because with the awesome earthmoving equipment today versus yesteryear architects today can just "grade out" problematic topography so they don't really need to do things like false fronts which were a more confined "transiton" requiring less earth moving.

Bill Dow:

I played Applebrook yesterday and yes there are a few "false" green space areas" that Gil used. Not just false fronts but some "false any green space area" At Inniscrone he did a really good "false back" on #4!!

But most of Applebrook's effect this way are some banks fronting the greens that aren't actual greenspace. Best examples #2!!,#6!!!, #13!, #14!!

[A_Clay_Man]

After having been fortunate enough to Play Pacific Grove so much, I found that the false fronts made the target much smaller. Grant it, the greens at PG are small but two of the most difficult shots day in and day out were the approaches to the 11th and 12th holes. Both have FF's, the 11th a very short par four so it was usually a little chip, and the 12th a par 5 was usually anywhere from 75-30 yds. I think it is the fact that the ridge that forms the FF has a backside to it and would invariably send your ball long and you beggin for it to stop, if not struck paarfectly.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Most of the ones I've played penalize a ball coming up just short, making the ball back/roll off the green and leaving a nasty putt, so I think that they were designed with tactical significance, and not to aid the golfer.

Hollywood has some severe ones on the 6th and 10th holes and a few subtle ones as well.

My GUESS is that with yardage markers dialed in, the player is less apt to rely on his vision, and the false front was designed to play on ones vision and present an optical deception, but, that's just a guess.

If you get a chance to play Hollywood, don't miss it, with the GAP's radius of 150 miles, you can easily claim it as well.

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick,

The 4th at Hollywood has a terrific FF, as well.  My ball landed at least halfway up the green on the right side, but my next shot was a chip from rough down below.  

It was fascinating, if frustrating, to watch.    

[TEPaul]

Pat:

There's absolutely no question that false fronts do not "aid" the golfer in the sense that if a ball lands on them it will filter back. Even when putting from above them to front pins the penalizing effect of hitting the false front from the other direction is a very real one with today's increased green speeds.

The "playability" of the false front was obviously not lost on the older designers and I'm sure some of the "deceptive" aspects of them wasn't either.

But it's hard to deny that the visibility of greenspace itself (the false front) was a design feature used by the older designers to compensate for total blindness of some green surfaces (and to show golfers approaching some basic green space dimensions)!

Otherwise architects like Ross would not have mentioned that! Ask yourself what would be easier? To run a ball up onto a green over a false front (greenspace) or if the false front was not there. It's quite clear to me that this playability would be easier with the former (the false front). And also ask yourself how many times you've ever tried this shot (an old fashioned one) compared to simply flying the ball over the false front. It will be interesting to see how you honestly answer that question! Maybe it will even inspire you to practice and try the "old fashioned" run-up shot more often! I've been so tempted myself to try it more often but most of the time I don't dare because I haven't practiced it enough to be good at it or have confidence in it but I want to get to know it in the future, particularly with much more of the firmness "through the green" that I'm see these days!!

Like most things in good architecture there's always the black with the white and the grey--the penal and deceptive with the visible and alluring--all of which when done well can add to the multi-optional!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I think, after you play Hollywood, that you may have a different take on the form and substance of false fronts.

Both # 6 and # 10 are very narrow in the front and a run up shot would have to be incredibly accurate, and even then, it could be deflected off line by the uneven fairway.

There is no blindness to the greens at Hollywood, so the false fronts don't present a signal or an awareness of the green location.

Hollywood has several types of false fronts which make them all the more interesting.

You should make the trip.   Some think Hollywood is amongst the top 5 in NJ

[TEPaul]

Pat:

If the false fronts at Hollywood are such that a runup shot is not a reasonable or a doable one (and maybe never was) then I would start to question the "multi-optionalism" of that false front and also the real quality of it architecture and design. But only theortetically--I would certainly like to see them!

I completely realize that any feature can be used anywhere to create various problems and solutions (options and strategies). That's why I think and say there should not really be any kind of "formulaics" in golf architecture!

Anything can be used anywhere, at least theoretically, but ultimately it has to be interesting, fun, challenging, whatever, and multi-optionalism is about the best long term barometer of that I know of! Ultimately all features have to withstand the test of time--which is play, interest and enjoyment.

For all I know the false fronts you mention at Hollywood may have their own unique interest and I would like to see them. Possibly they even create some kind of "one dimensional" problem and solution that may even be interesting because of that.

But anything should be looked at on its own and increased choices and possiblities is almost never a bad way to pan out! Certainly you know that! But if something (like Hollywood's false fronts) have some kind of "one dimensionalism" to them that have truly held golfers' interest all this time I would love to see it--that would be additionally unique!

[TEPaul]

And furthermore, almost every Ross "false front" I've run across is designed how I've described and with firm ground on the approaches the run-up is almost always a definite possiblity!

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom/Patrick;

There are some superb pictures of the false front on the 4th green at Hollywood on the course review here.

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/hollywood1.html

Unfortunately, no pics of 6 or 10, which if memory serves, are not as severe in pitch as 4, but are narrower.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Let's make a date to play there on a weekday.

[Joe Hancock]

TEPaul,

"almost always a definite possibilty"??

The golf version of Yogi bera, perhaps?

J/K!!!

Joe