Canted and greens that slope away

[David_Madison]

Do firm greens that slope or run away from the fairway, or that are tilted from one side to another rather than back to front present a serious scoring challenge to top competitive players? Holes like #1, #10, and #12 at Oakmont seem to drive tour players nuts, but are still fun for member play. #10 at Sandhills might be another example where there's plenty of room for mortals to play but that would be challenging for top players to get the ball close and below the cup. Why aren't they used more by architects designing or renovating courses that they know are going to be used for professional tournaments?

[David Cronheim]

Do firm greens that slope or run away from the fairway, or that are tilted from one side to another rather than back to front present a serious scoring challenge to top competitive players? Holes like #1, #10, and #12 at Oakmont seem to drive tour players nuts, but are still fun for member play. #10 at Sandhills might be another example where there's plenty of room for mortals to play but that would be challenging for top players to get the ball close and below the cup. Why aren't they used more by architects designing or renovating courses that they know are going to be used for professional tournaments?

I'm hardly a top competitive player, but as a low single digit player I can tell you it's very tough to get the ball close on greens that run away. I love the challenge though. You have to be so precise with your distance and even more so with your spin. The second hole at Onwentsia gives me nightmares.  Controlling that first bounce is key.

[archie_struthers]

 

David, so glad you mentioned the 10th at Sandhills.  played there for four glorious around my 40th birthday, compliments of my lovely wife. We played fifty four one day , and the pin was in the front!    So much fun trying to get it weighted just right on that shot!   

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,

It's probably THE primary defense at GCGC.

Some slope high left to low right, others high right to low left, others front to back and some a combination of the above.

All conspire to thwart the golfer's efforts at scoring, from the approach, recovery and putting

[Garland Bayley]

It should be understood that the center of the fairway is, or should seldom be, the best position to place the tee shot. That depends on the design of the green -- what way it slopes from right to left, from left to right or from front to back. Occasionally the terrain calls for it from back to front. Many think all greens should slope from back to front -- why? Many players feel the green and its design should assist the player to stop the ball spin or no spin -- another method of developing monotonous courses. The architect's job is to provide problems as to how the shot should be played and it is the ground itself that should create these problems. There are many who earn their living playing golf and perhaps feel a mechanical certainty in what happens to a shot after it lands is their just right. I disagree. When holes are design so that placement from the tee is of paramount importance the shot to the green from an ill placed tee shot should have some form of increased difficulty in the shot to the green -- otherwise design has no meaning.

[Garland Bayley]

The previous post is a quotation from A. Vernon Macan reproduced in his biography Just Call me Mac by website member Michael Riste.

Further it should be noted that he emphasized front to back slope so that a players score could not be purchased in the pro shot, i.e. with a high lofted club. He wanted players to run the ball in and judge the roll out.

[Dale Jackson]

Garland, I am glad you posted that quote.  Macan was way ahead of his time (actually that time may have never come!) in his writing and designs. 

A trip around Shaughnessy will show (I think) 5 greens that slope front to back.  I suspect in the recent Canadian Open they would be among those with the highest scoring average on the course, especially 3 and 18.

At Royal Colwood, 8 of the greens move left to right, right to left, or front to back.  They are the best holes on the course, offering a day after day challenge to the membership and a strong test to the highest level of amateur tournament play.

And the challenge these type of greens offer is not the tricked up, long rough, narrow fairways challenge many courses need to use to test the best players, it is a challenge of real shot making and careful thought.  It is what so many of us on this DG admire.

One caveat, this type of green construction works best when conditions are F&F, soft conditions negate the challenge, and - too often seen - soft approaches and firm greens are silly.

[Garland Bayley]

Dale,

It sounds to me that Mac made a big effort to make his greens drain well so they would play as he wanted them to in the PNW. After all, the golfing season was something like Sept to April without irrigation on courses.

[Dale Jackson]

I think Mike's book makes a convincing case that Macan was a pioneer in green drainage, at least in part because of the conditions he faced in this part of the world. 

[Tony Ristola]

Garland, I am glad you posted that quote.  Macan was way ahead of his time (actually that time may have never come!) in his writing and designs. 

A trip around Shaughnessy will show (I think) 5 greens that slope front to back.  I suspect in the recent Canadian Open they would be among those with the highest scoring average on the course, especially 3 and 18.

At Royal Colwood, 8 of the greens move left to right, right to left, or front to back.  They are the best holes on the course, offering a day after day challenge to the membership and a strong test to the highest level of amateur tournament play.

And the challenge these type of greens offer is not the tricked up, long rough, narrow fairways challenge many courses need to use to test the best players, it is a challenge of real shot making and careful thought.  It is what so many of us on this DG admire.

One caveat, this type of green construction works best when conditions are F&F, soft conditions negate the challenge, and - too often seen - soft approaches and firm greens are silly.

Didn't Shauhnessy dig up a bunch of his greens? Because he was ahead of his time. I wonder if the club has any documentation of what was undone? Photo's, as-builts, plans, sketches. Would be interesting to see.

[David_Madison]

I'm agreeing with everyone here. What I don't understand is why more architects aren't using this very simple technique to counter distance and other such issues in the design or redesign of the courses they are working on. We all know that length is no longer the key, that shorter and sportier courses are needed to keep the game economical and playable (including the "play it forward" initiative) yet it's just not happening in any meaningful way. I'm a member at a Nicklaus-designed 27-hole facility, and there's one green that sorta' runs away in the back half. It's rare to see anything by Fazio or Rees Jones that does, let along so many other architects not named Doak, Coore, or Crenshaw. We all know the right answer here. Why isn't it happening?

[Tony Ristola]

I'm agreeing with everyone here. What I don't understand is why more architects aren't using this very simple technique to counter distance and other such issues in the design or redesign of the courses they are working on. We all know that length is no longer the key, that shorter and sportier courses are needed to keep the game economical and playable (including the "play it forward" initiative) yet it's just not happening in any meaningful way. I'm a member at a Nicklaus-designed 27-hole facility, and there's one green that sorta' runs away in the back half. It's rare to see anything by Fazio or Rees Jones that does, let along so many other architects not named Doak, Coore, or Crenshaw. We all know the right answer here. Why isn't it happening?

Convention.

One added bit to greens that fall or tier away is there are instances where you don't see the bottom of the flag, even if you're hitting a short shot from the front of the green; how pissed does that make the average know-it-all?

I love Low's description of how a green should be:

7. 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.

No green should be higher at the back than it is at the front... LOL... OK, there should be no absolutes, but my how things have changed.

[Mark McKeever]

Schuylkill has some great examples of this feature!

Hole 2 Front left to back right
Hole 3 Front right to back left
Hole 6 Hard right to left
Hole 10 Front right hard to back left
Hole 15 Front to back left

Mark

[Dale Jackson]

Garland, I am glad you posted that quote.  Macan was way ahead of his time (actually that time may have never come!) in his writing and designs. 

A trip around Shaughnessy will show (I think) 5 greens that slope front to back.  I suspect in the recent Canadian Open they would be among those with the highest scoring average on the course, especially 3 and 18.

At Royal Colwood, 8 of the greens move left to right, right to left, or front to back.  They are the best holes on the course, offering a day after day challenge to the membership and a strong test to the highest level of amateur tournament play.

And the challenge these type of greens offer is not the tricked up, long rough, narrow fairways challenge many courses need to use to test the best players, it is a challenge of real shot making and careful thought.  It is what so many of us on this DG admire.

One caveat, this type of green construction works best when conditions are F&F, soft conditions negate the challenge, and - too often seen - soft approaches and firm greens are silly.

Didn't Shauhnessy dig up a bunch of his greens? Because he was ahead of his time. I wonder if the club has any documentation of what was undone? Photo's, as-builts, plans, sketches. Would be interesting to see.

Tony, there are, I believe, 5 original greens left at Shaughnessy.  Interestingly some of the new greens (most were redone about 1970) have a front to back tilt.  I had a chat with a member during the recent Canadian Open who had been there when all the original greens were in play.  He was less than flattering about some of them, but I am not sure the average golfer necessarily understands this type of green design.

Shaughnessy is celebrating their centenary this year and have published a very well produced book to commemorate the anniversary.  If anyone is interested copies can be purchased directly from the club.

[Tony Ristola]

Garland, I am glad you posted that quote.  Macan was way ahead of his time (actually that time may have never come!) in his writing and designs.  

A trip around Shaughnessy will show (I think) 5 greens that slope front to back.  I suspect in the recent Canadian Open they would be among those with the highest scoring average on the course, especially 3 and 18.

At Royal Colwood, 8 of the greens move left to right, right to left, or front to back.  They are the best holes on the course, offering a day after day challenge to the membership and a strong test to the highest level of amateur tournament play.

And the challenge these type of greens offer is not the tricked up, long rough, narrow fairways challenge many courses need to use to test the best players, it is a challenge of real shot making and careful thought.  It is what so many of us on this DG admire.

One caveat, this type of green construction works best when conditions are F&F, soft conditions negate the challenge, and - too often seen - soft approaches and firm greens are silly.

Didn't Shauhnessy dig up a bunch of his greens? Because he was ahead of his time. I wonder if the club has any documentation of what was undone? Photo's, as-builts, plans, sketches. Would be interesting to see.

Tony, there are, I believe, 5 original greens left at Shaughnessy.  Interestingly some of the new greens (most were redone about 1970) have a front to back tilt.  I had a chat with a member during the recent Canadian Open who had been there when all the original greens were in play.  He was less than flattering about some of them, but I am not sure the average golfer necessarily understands this type of green design.

Shaughnessy is celebrating their centenary this year and have published a very well produced book to commemorate the anniversary.  If anyone is interested copies can be purchased directly from the club.

Wow... only 5!

Interesting some of the new greens tilt from front to back. I've played a number of clubs in Vancouver, but not there... yet. Perhaps someone was wise and realized that draining the greens out to the front would make the approaches wet and difficult to maintain

Someone should do a recorded history from that member and what he recalls, and the same with any other guys that were around before the greens got blown up. I recall somewhere that Nicklaus grumped about the greens back in 1966.

Is Bob Barr the superintendent there? Googled it an he is... funny, I used to play golf with his father when I was a junior, he's a few years younger.
 
.

[Garland Bayley]

David,

When I have advocated front to back on this website in the past, I have received responses from architects here that the public wouldn't accept it.

It seems this issue is as old as golf in the US. I have read that one of the things those across the pond criticized US courses for from the very beginning was soft greens that canted back to front.

[Adrian_Stiff]

I'm agreeing with everyone here. What I don't understand is why more architects aren't using this very simple technique to counter distance and other such issues in the design or redesign of the courses they are working on. We all know that length is no longer the key, that shorter and sportier courses are needed to keep the game economical and playable (including the "play it forward" initiative) yet it's just not happening in any meaningful way. I'm a member at a Nicklaus-designed 27-hole facility, and there's one green that sorta' runs away in the back half. It's rare to see anything by Fazio or Rees Jones that does, let along so many other architects not named Doak, Coore, or Crenshaw. We all know the right answer here. Why isn't it happening?

David - Greens sloping front to back are generally unpopular, you can get away with an odd one but any more than one per course and the course tends to come under fire.

[Anthony Gray]

  Its the concept behind the Redan.....Lookout Mountain has several of these greens. They make for difficult recoveries if you miss on the wrong side of the pin.

  Anthony

[Sean_A]

All I can say is if folks don't like sloped/canted/front to back greens than they should definitely ignore any recommendations I have concerning where to play. 

Ciao

[Adrian_Stiff]

Sean - I was talking to a friend today who was playing The Stranahanfirst time today and he said he hated it. He hated the things you (and I) like. The thing is this site has a very minor take on what the general feeling it. You cant please everyone if you have contoured greens some like it flat, same the other way, some like long courses some like tight courses some like wide fairways. No one is really right and no one is wrong.

[Garland Bayley]

Sean - I was talking to a friend today who was playing The Stranahanfirst time today and he said he hated it. He hated the things you (and I) like. The thing is this site has a very minor take on what the general feeling it. You cant please everyone if you have contoured greens some like it flat, same the other way, some like long courses some like tight courses some like wide fairways. No one is really right and no one is wrong.

That depends on whether you want to play golf, or play a game of mechanical perfection (see Macan quote above). If you want golf to stray from its roots then no one is really right and no one is wrong. The funny things is that the most perfect mechanics have gotten into the most imperfect mechanics' heads and gotten them to believe that a course suiting mechanical perfection is the way to go. This brought about the "dark ages". We need to continue to push for a new "enlightened age".

[Adrian_Stiff]

Garland - You still cant please everyone though. Some like their golf at the end of anothers spectrum. I like most of the things we talk about on here. I am not a fan the redan though.

[Tom ORourke]

My home club has 2 short par 4s that feature greens with a distinct slope of front to back and left or right. These greens change the hole from birdie opportunities to semi-difficult holes. Trying to  hit a cut from a hook lie to a green that slopes hard to the back left is a real challenge. I have mastered the ability to stop the ball on the front of the greens only when the pins are in the back. When the pins are in the front I am either short of the green or on the back fringe. The courses have Bermuda grass so bouncing it up is not really an option. Most guys seem to like the challenge. It also puts more pressure on your tee shot as you want to come in with a wedge, not a 7 iron.

[Frank Pont]

Adrian, my last design Turfvaert has 13, yes 13, front to back sloping greens, and has been a great commercial succes in the Netherlands.

However the course is not very long, has 6 par 3's, and wide fairways.

We did make a great effort of explaining to members and visitors what the course was about in all communication about the course.

[Niall C]

Frank

Of the 13 front to back sloping greens, how many of them could you see some part of the putting surface on the approach shot ?

I don't particularly prefer one way or the other but I do get fed up with a number of blind approaches. One or two can add spice to a round, give you that sense of anticipation wondering how your approach has ended up but easy to overdo this type of shot. For instance, a weakness with Dornoch IMHO and definitely the weakness at CB going through the bottleneck.

Niall