[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

I wasn't referencing those pronounced false fronts where you get the results you describe, rather the more subtle or miniature false fronts that don't release the ball forward, leaving the golfer with a chip or putt from off the front of the green.

Where soils are of questionable quality, why wouldn't you elevate a green to enhance surface drainage ?

[Michael Whitaker]

War story.  My home course, Carolina Golf Club course in Charlotte, just hosted pre- and final qualifying for the Quail Hollow Championship that begins tomorrow.  In pre-qualifying on Thurs., April 22, the pin on no. 7, a par four, was tucked on the left just over the false front, the most dreaded location for club members.  The hole is listed at 448 yds., but it's a dogleg and plays much shorter (although uphill to the green).  Average score Thursday was 4.63, the highest relative to par of any hole on the course that day.  I watched any number of approach shots.  Anything in front of or near the pin ended up 40 yds. back down the fairway.  The only way anyone that I saw approach successfully dropped the ball dead 15 feet behind the hole, with no spin, and let it trickle back down a slope toward the hole from there.  I'm sure any number of qualifyers were playing the hole for the first time, and I marveled at those who could get the shot right.  Pro, amateur, the challenge is the same.  By the way, Billy Mayfair closed with birdies on 7, 8 and 9 (he had started on the back) Monday to lead all qualifiers with a 65.  The pin was friendlier on Monday and the average score was 4.23, not the hardest hole that day.

Can't wait to see it at the Dixie Cup!

[Sean_A]

I like false fronts from the steep rise which can cause balls to roll back 10, 20 30 yards and the wee lip which can cause a ball to stop dead rather than kick up.  To me the keys of a false front is to offer the ground approach if the correct angle for it is earned, the aerial approach and the ground recovery.  The only way to do that is with f&f conditions.  False fronts in soft conditions are a waste of time.  I hate watching balls pitch past flags, spin back and then end up 20 yards off the green.  If I were an archie, I would be very hesitant to build false serious fronts on parkland courses. 

Ciao 

[Jerry Kluger]

Pat: I have no historical facts to back this up but I believe that they were originally used way back when green speeds were no where near where they are today.  We now have that feature being used with significantly faster green speeds and sometimes even more dramatic slopes which in the end means unfair hole locations.  I do however think the feature is not used enough on the sides or backs of greens in combination with closely mowed areas which make for challenging recovery shots. 

[Tom_Doak]

Tom Doak,

Where soils are of questionable quality, why wouldn't you elevate a green to enhance surface drainage ?

Pat:

I generally prefer not to elevate greens artificially, but to locate them in a place where the surface drainage is already going away from them.

Still, no one has ever complained that my greens don't surface drain well enough.

[Matthew Petersen]

I would not say universally great but I do think they are terrific when used in moderation. We have 2 at my course. One is on a reachable par five and one is on a short par four. I have learned the hard way that my skill level requires me to bail out to the center of the green from 75 yards on the par 4 when the hole is in front. Despite this knowledge I am tempted to go for the pin every time.

Jason,

As to moderation, I believe that C&C used them on just about every hole at Hidden Creek and they seem to have turned out quite well.

In addition, it's not unusual to see them employed universally on a course since they serve a valid purpose when it comes to drainage.

Patrick,

I hope I'm not incorrectly interpreting Jason's view (Jason, feel free to berate me if necessary ), but I think he may have been asking for moderation in the use of the severe variety of false fronts. You mentioned Hidden Creek as an example where they have been used extensively, but according to photos (I haven't played HC so please correct me if I am wrong) they seem to be the more subtle variety. While there is indeed punishment for not executing the correct shot, the penalty is not as severe as it would be at ANGC's 9th or Plainfield's 11th. Also the more subtle variety can allow for more ground game options. The severe examples (where a bunker or 50 yd runoff awaits) seem to require the high soft shot. Nothing wrong with that, but a steady diet wouldn't provide much variety.

That said, I really like some of the more severe false fronts that are used on short par 4s where they can force strategic decisions from the tee (especially with a hole location tight to the false front). An example from a modern course is the 13th hole at The Raven @ Verrado (AZ). Here one could try to drive the green which may require you to negotiate the false front. If you're unsuccessful or simply try to drive as close as you can to the green you have a very difficult shot to the tight front pin. Maybe it is wiser to lay back off the tee to give room for a full wedge where spin and loft can leave you a reasonable distance even if you play somewhat behind the hole.
 

I love that hole, but it seems most people I have played there with hate it. Perhaps it's just unfamiliarity. The first time through it really is nasty. After playing it a few times, you get more confident in hitting your second shot harder than you think you need to.

I have told people in the past to try to hit it into the desert beyond the green. Most just look at me like I'm crazy, and then say uit's unfair when they come up short. Ah, golfers.

[Chris Buie]

False fronts are one of the aspects of GCA that you have to consciously take into consideration - that is, you actually have to think and strategize.  A false front makes the player think the green/target is bigger than it actually plays.  Many greens have a very large surface area but with the ff they actually play quite small.  To do well you have to clearly think about that - and having options and having to think about how to play a shot is one of my favorite aspects of architecture and playing.
I'm guessing it was a practical drainage matter at first, until archies realized the strategic value.  Then they had a lot of fun with that as well as with the sides and backs of the greens.  It puts a premium on accuracy for the approach shot and best of all gives the player different options to be creative in their greenside recovery shots.  That is more clever and fun than just hacking out of deep rough or playing a pitch from a place dead level with a flat green.  It think archies need to be careful with this though.  It can be taken too far.  For instance, most of the greens on Pinehurst #4 are very similar.  I like a good or at least better place to miss a shot - and I like differing angles to play with on the greenside recovery.  #4 is a rather extreme turtle back affair with most of the recovery pitches being very similar and very difficult.  For me, there is some enjoyment to be had with that kind of challenge from time to time.  But it can be done more cleverly.
Even to this day after playing the well designed 'beveled' type of greens for 30 years I have to think before I decide whether to play one of the loft shots, putt it, or bump and run it.  Often there is no clear answer and I just go with my instincts.  That is part of the fun.  
Well, that's my amateur hour view of it.  I don't really feel qualified to be on the same page with Doak and some others but I suppose there is a bit of value in hearing the views from those like myself who are not experts but play these courses and enjoy giving the designs more than a little consideration.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat: I have no historical facts to back this up but I believe that they were originally used way back when green speeds were no where near where they are today.  We now have that feature being used with significantly faster green speeds and sometimes even more dramatic slopes which in the end means unfair hole locations.  I do however think the feature is not used enough on the sides or backs of greens in combination with closely mowed areas which make for challenging recovery shots. 

Jerry,

That's a good point, but, I wasn't viewing the feature in the context of putting or the ball rolling back, off the green.

I was looking at the feature as a "backstop" that would stop the forward progress of balls misjudged or mishit.

Rather than allowing the ball to continue forward these features act to abruptly stop balls hit into the upslope, or balls hit well short that would otherwise run onto the green.

[Gary Slatter]

I enjoy false fronts, except on "modern" courses where they always seem to end up in a depression with a drain cover surrounded by divots.  The old courses seemed to be able to let water disapate better than we do now a days.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I enjoy false fronts, except on "modern" courses where they always seem to end up in a depression with a drain cover surrounded by divots.  The old courses seemed to be able to let water disapate better than we do now a days.

Gary,

I agree.

I'd chalk that situation up to poor design.

[Mike Demetriou]

Last week, I was fortunate to play both Yeamans Hall and Chechessee Creek Club. Each course has a variety of false fronts, both the pronounced form and the subtle varieties that Pat referenced earlier.  Both courses execute the concept very well.  I really enjoyed seeing the classic and the modern course employ variations on this theme, and I learned a ton.  I also thought they jacked up the fun meter by a great margin.

Tom, can you please explain for us more about what you mean about the difficulty in building a USGA green with a false front, and why you know of only two dozers who can pull it off? I don't know enough about building greens to understand your post, but I'm very interested.  Given that you restored Yeamans, can you also speak to what was involved in the restoration aspect of the greens with false fronts? 

[jonathan_becker]

Sticking to the impact of play on the fronting slope, how about when the pronounced false front doesn't let the ball run tens of yards down the slope? 

Sometimes, you've got areas of rough that catch balls before they can get too far away (mostly in the U.S I would guess).  It really negates the difficulty of the recovery shot more times than not because all you have to do it lean into it with a lofted wedge of sorts and pop it right out of there.  That's a piece of cake compared to hitting a 40 yard pitch off a tight lie back up to the flag.
 

[Ron Farris]

Pat -- I haven't played a ton of these, but it does make it quite fun. And, I agree, I think you see it mostly at Golden Age courses. However, I did watch my brother putt for birdie on the first at Sand Hills and make 11. 

Tony, I played with a gentleman at the Sand Hills who did exactly what you just described at #1.  I watched him putt of the green twice.  It was painful to watch and it seemed like a sever penalty for the high handicap golfer.  The other side of the coin is that it rewards the golfer who has put in the time and effort to become a good golfer.  With the advances in technology giving lesser skilled golfers the ability to score better (length, spin, ball control), the false front is a way to keep some type of reward for those who have actually worked hard to develop their golfing skills.  

The gentleman I played with experienced this type of action at least 10 times while playing the Sand Hills.  He picked up on #1 in the interest of speedy play.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike D,

USGA greens are built with tiers/layers, thus it's more difficult to craft/contour/slope a green, especially one with steep slopes falling toward a steep sloped fairway.

With a pushup green it's a much simpler process.

[Mike McGuire]

Here is an example of a false front on a Langford green where the effect is tempered with the planting of bluegrass rough.
If the area in front of the green was maintained with bent grass (as was intended) balls would end up rolling down to a
point 20 yards from the green.

#2  West Bend

[jonathan_becker]

Mike,

Looking at your first post, I forgot that you were talking about rough.  I was thinking along the same lines in my reply above on this page.

If you hit a draw into the flagstick in your photo and don't carry it far enough, it's going to spin or roll back to the rough as illustrated with your arrow.  There is virtually no penalty for the misexecuted shot.  If anything, I would be thankful that I have a relatively easy pitch and would be looking to get it up and in every time. Your photo shows this quite well.

This could be fairly penal if the rough was 4 inches + and the lie was awful, but I guess you're still pitching back up the hill so it could be much worse.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

Thanks for the picture, it says far more than a thousand words.

Is this hole a par 3 ?

This might be one of TEPaul's posters for the anti-maintainance meld.

The fault isn't with the architecture, it's with the maintainance decision.

How long has the front of that green been maintained like that ?

Who made the decision to either plant Bluegrass or maintain the grass at rough height ?

You may want to go to Historicaerials.com to try to establish the date if you don't know it.

One of the features I like about that type of green is the agonizing few moments you spend hoping that your ball will stop and remain on the green or fringe, hoping that it won't roll down to more dire fate.

Here is an example of a false front on a Langford green where the effect is tempered with the planting of bluegrass rough.
If the area in front of the green was maintained with bent grass (as was intended) balls would end up rolling down to a
point 20 yards from the green.

#2  West Bend

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()