Behind the Green

[Tom_Doak]

Just typing out loud here, but is it possible that the RTJ/Wilson era of elevated greens contributed to the lack of back side designing?  And that modern design is gradually changing that trend?

Over the last 25 years or so, I sense that greens are generally NOT built on as high a footpad, mostly because there are more public courses and every foot of green height equals a foot deeper bunker, not usually associated with public golf. 

Add in the resurgence of chipping areas after the '92 Open at Pebble, where the USGA first used chipping areas, and it lead to a design trend of greens are built lower with fw around parts of them, with the emphasis on chipping options.

Lastly, as the front to back slope of greens has gradually reduced from 4% in the 60's, to sub 2% since the turn of the century, and I imagine there are fewer modern lob shots from behind a green than there might have been in earlier times.

Jeff:

I would agree with most of this.  I know that one reason I think about shots from beyond the green more is that I tend to build greens without any "footpad" at all.  Not only does this bring the back of the green more into play, but in some circumstances, it allows you to see what's back there.

Andrew:  The 14th at Rock Creek is a very long par-4.  In fact, there is a "Matt Ward tee" at nearly 550 yards, just because there was a natural place for one ... it's a crazy long hole from there, even 100 feet downhill.

[Bradley Anderson]

The hickory clubs did not have nearly the loft that we are able to get now and so the golfer was probably much more conscience of going long and having a very difficult recovery from behind the pin. I am always fascinated by how often I encounter grassed-over bunker cavities behind older greens.

I wonder - now that we have better tools for providing firm greens should these features be restored?

[Patrick_Mucci]

The hickory clubs did not have nearly the loft that we are able to get now and so the golfer was probably much more conscience of going long and having a very difficult recovery from behind the pin. I am always fascinated by how often I encounter grassed-over bunker cavities behind older greens.

Bradley,

Interesting that you say that.

At every new club that I play, I look for those grassed swales and wonder if they were bunkers and if so, when they were converted to grassed swales.

I wonder - now that we have better tools for providing firm greens should these features be restored?

I believe that they should.

I find two hole locations particularly difficult.  Very front and very back.

Typically, if you come up short on a front hole location, you're not particularly challenged with your recovery.

Ditto if you come up short on a back hole location.

So, returning those swales to sand bunkers would create an increased challenge for most golfers, especially when the green tilts back to front.

The 16th at The Creek could be exhibit "A" for creating a dire situation for golfers who go long when the hole is on the back tier of the green.

[Dan Herrmann]

Dye may be the king of "stuff" behind the green, no?

[Bradley Anderson]

Patrick,

The recovery from a rear bunker to a fast and firm green is especially challenging when the slope of the green is from back to front.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bradley,

The neat thing about # 16 at The Creek is the back, upper plateau.

If the hole is cut there, short approaches are facing the likelihood of taking three putts to get down.

So, there's a premium on trying to get to the back plateau, but, if you go long, par is extremely difficult to recover to.

It tests your judgement, your will and your committment

[Philip Caccamise]

I love the "long" hazard on a reachable par 5. It really makes the player think hard about committing to their swing with a wood/hybrid/long iron and the risk/reward of going for it.

A great modern example of this is #7 at The Club at Foxland Harbor outside Nashville, an excellent (currently) semiprivate Bill Bergin (?) design with a lot of Golden Age features which plays surprisingly fast for the grass used and the area. There is a vicious coffin bunker over the back of the green which is about 6-7' down, and all three times I played there I came up short after hitting the 2nd thin because I was thinking about that bunker. The green is elevated so you really have to hit a solid shot to reach the surface.

[Thomas Dai]

Some views with photos taken from the sides and rear of greens. Very different perspectives to direct front on.

Below 10th green at Royal Dornoch from the beach side. The approach to this par-3 is played from the right of the photo.



Below 5th green, par-4, at Royal Dornoch taken from an opposing fairway later in the round. The approach is normally from the left of the photo over the three fronting bunkers.



Below Par-3 2nd hole at Carne taken from the walkway to the 3rd tee. The approach shot is played from the left of the photo.



Below The 12th hole, short dog-leg left par-4, at Carne taken from front left of the green. The approach shot is normally played from the right of the photo.



Below The par-4 9th hole at Carne taken from the 10th fairway. The 9th green, on the skyline, at centre-right of photo, is normally approached from well left of the photo.



Below Par-5 2nd hole at Enniscrone taken from the rear of the green. The approach shot would normally be played from the saddle in the dunes to the right of centre in the photo.



Below The par-4 13th hole at Enniscrone taken from the rear of the green. The approach, normally a pitch, is normally played from the centre of the photo.



Below The par-5 14th at Enniscrone taken from the rear of the green. A 3rd shot approach would normally be played from a line above where the flag is positioned in the photo.



Below Par-5 16th at Enniscrone. Photo taken from left side of green. Approach shots normally are played from the right of the photo.



All very different perspectives of green sites to directly front on.

All the best.

[Sean_A]

As an advocate of minimal bunkering, I am much more a fan of short grass behind the green than sand.  I especially dislike rear framing bunkers with a swale between the sand and green.  It isn't often long is the safe play, but on holes with narrow greens it is often the case where the front is protected and the wings are dead anyway - so the best miss is long.  This works for the Redan.  I recall Kiawah's 14th, a Redanish hole with a large chipping area to the rear of the green - one of my favourite features of the course.   Generally speaking, I would like to see more short grass linking green to tee.  Its almost a certain guarantee that the archie will be creative.

Ciao 

[William_G]

I think nearly every green at Old Macdonald has something of not from behind the green

[Patrick_Mucci]

As an advocate of minimal bunkering, I am much more a fan of short grass behind the green than sand.  I especially dislike rear framing bunkers with a swale between the sand and green.  It isn't often long is the safe play, but on holes with narrow greens it is often the case where the front is protected and the wings are dead anyway - so the best miss is long.  This works for the Redan.  I recall Kiawah's 14th, a Redanish hole with a large chipping area to the rear of the green - one of my favourite features of the course.   Generally speaking, I would like to see more short grass linking green to tee.  Its almost a certain guarantee that the archie will be creative.

What would that do to maintainance costs ?

Ciao 

[Howard Riefs]

Dye may be the king of "stuff" behind the green, no?

You really see that come true at Kiawah Ocean, says the guy who overshot the small tabletop #3 green on two occasions.

A good photo tour from Bryan Izatt shows the danger that lurks behind the greens:

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,51074.0.html

[Garland Bayley]

I love the "long" hazard on a reachable par 5. It really makes the player think hard about committing to their swing with a wood/hybrid/long iron and the risk/reward of going for it.

...

So you appreciate a hazard based on an arbitrary number called par? Isn't that what is wrong with golf architecture by formula that it had fallen into when tour players are making/advising on most of the courses?

Which is your favorite formula? Jack? Gary? Arnold? Greg?

[Sean_A]

As an advocate of minimal bunkering, I am much more a fan of short grass behind the green than sand.  I especially dislike rear framing bunkers with a swale between the sand and green.  It isn't often long is the safe play, but on holes with narrow greens it is often the case where the front is protected and the wings are dead anyway - so the best miss is long.  This works for the Redan.  I recall Kiawah's 14th, a Redanish hole with a large chipping area to the rear of the green - one of my favourite features of the course.   Generally speaking, I would like to see more short grass linking green to tee.  Its almost a certain guarantee that the archie will be creative.

What would that do to maintainance costs ?

Ciao 

I don't know, but what does any short grass add to maintenance?  I can only assume this is why there is the idiotic fairway pinching near greens we see all too often on American parkland courses.  I would be in favour of more short grass and as a tradeoff greens rolling at 9. 

Ciao

[Patrick_Mucci]

I don't know, but what does any short grass add to maintenance? 

Increased budgets

I can only assume this is why there is the idiotic fairway pinching near greens we see all too often on American parkland courses. 

I don't think that's the reason

I would be in favour of more short grass and as a tradeoff greens rolling at 9. 

The question to either create more short grass or reduce green speeds to 9 is never a question/decision posed in green committee meetings.

One has nothing to do with the other.

Ciao

[Philip Caccamise]

I love the "long" hazard on a reachable par 5. It really makes the player think hard about committing to their swing with a wood/hybrid/long iron and the risk/reward of going for it.

...

So you appreciate a hazard based on an arbitrary number called par? Isn't that what is wrong with golf architecture by formula that it had fallen into when tour players are making/advising on most of the courses?

Which is your favorite formula? Jack? Gary? Arnold? Greg?

What?

I appreciate a hazard which in this case a halfway competent player is not going to be involved in with the normal club into the green, in this case a wedge. However if the player chooses to be aggressive and does not pull off the shot correctly he is penalized. That is the POINT of a hazard.

What kind of response was this???

[Garland Bayley]

I love the "long" hazard on a reachable par 5. It really makes the player think hard about committing to their swing with a wood/hybrid/long iron and the risk/reward of going for it.

...

So you appreciate a hazard based on an arbitrary number called par? Isn't that what is wrong with golf architecture by formula that it had fallen into when tour players are making/advising on most of the courses?

Which is your favorite formula? Jack? Gary? Arnold? Greg?

What?

I appreciate a hazard which in this case a halfway competent player is not going to be involved in with the normal club into the green, in this case a wedge. However if the player chooses to be aggressive and does not pull off the shot correctly he is penalized. That is the POINT of a hazard.

What kind of response was this???

What about the architecture writers that say the point of a hazard is to make a player think? Are you an advocate of the penal school of architecture?

[Sean_A]

I don't know, but what does any short grass add to maintenance? 

Increased budgets

I can only assume this is why there is the idiotic fairway pinching near greens we see all too often on American parkland courses. 

I don't think that's the reason

I would be in favour of more short grass and as a tradeoff greens rolling at 9. 

The question to either create more short grass or reduce green speeds to 9 is never a question/decision posed in green committee meetings.

One has nothing to do with the other.

Ciao

Pat

If maintained on a golf course, the features are linked.  And since there is a budget for cutting grass, it is a reasonable suggestion to create more short grass at the expense of making the shortest grass longer.  The reason country club folks don't have more short grass isn't about budget, the money is often there.  Its about priorities on how to spend the budget.  Most clubs don't value short grass as a hazard so they don't spend their budget on developing more short grass. Instead, they spend the money on trying to achieve magical stimp numbers, or on lovely even rough, or on flowers, or on cart path maintenance, or on a monochrome green look etc etc.  There are seemingly endless things to spend money on that don't actually make golf any more interesting or fun.

 

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

I don't know, but what does any short grass add to maintenance? 

Increased budgets

I can only assume this is why there is the idiotic fairway pinching near greens we see all too often on American parkland courses. 

I don't think that's the reason

I would be in favour of more short grass and as a tradeoff greens rolling at 9. 

The question to either create more short grass or reduce green speeds to 9 is never a question/decision posed in green committee meetings.

One has nothing to do with the other.

Ciao

Pat

If maintained on a golf course, the features are linked.  And since there is a budget for cutting grass, it is a reasonable suggestion to create more short grass at the expense of making the shortest grass longer.  The reason country club folks don't have more short grass isn't about budget, the money is often there.  Its about priorities on how to spend the budget.  Most clubs don't value short grass as a hazard so they don't spend their budget on developing more short grass. Instead, they spend the money on trying to achieve magical stimp numbers, or on lovely even rough, or on flowers, or on cart path maintenance, or on a monochrome green look etc etc.  There are seemingly endless things to spend money on that don't actually make golf any more interesting or fun.

 

Ciao

It is my educated guess that adding extra short grass around greens adds only small amounts to the labour time and hence budget as long as it is designed / maintained in a way that allows the same mower as the fairway / approach to be used.

There are better ways to try and save money for sure.

[Philip Caccamise]

I love the "long" hazard on a reachable par 5. It really makes the player think hard about committing to their swing with a wood/hybrid/long iron and the risk/reward of going for it.

...

So you appreciate a hazard based on an arbitrary number called par? Isn't that what is wrong with golf architecture by formula that it had fallen into when tour players are making/advising on most of the courses?

Which is your favorite formula? Jack? Gary? Arnold? Greg?

What?

I appreciate a hazard which in this case a halfway competent player is not going to be involved in with the normal club into the green, in this case a wedge. However if the player chooses to be aggressive and does not pull off the shot correctly he is penalized. That is the POINT of a hazard.

What kind of response was this???

What about the architecture writers that say the point of a hazard is to make a player think? Are you an advocate of the penal school of architecture?

First of all, I don't really care what architecture writers say. It's my opinion that I'm expressing. If you disagree with me, that's absolutely fine, but an attacking tone does not describe your position. Second, isn't that exactly what I said above? I am in favor of hazards which do not affect a properly played shot but hurt a misplayed shot. I do NOT enjoy courses with hazards just to have hazards in the Nicklaus/Dye vein.

If you disagree with my assessment explain why, don't resort to attacking me with assuming questions.

[Garland Bayley]

First of all, I don't really care what architecture writers say. It's my opinion that I'm expressing. If you disagree with me, that's absolutely fine, but an attacking tone does not describe your position. Second, isn't that exactly what I said above? I am in favor of hazards which do not affect a properly played shot but hurt a misplayed shot. I do NOT enjoy courses with hazards just to have hazards in the Nicklaus/Dye vein.

If you disagree with my assessment explain why, don't resort to attacking me with assuming questions.

OK, since you don't like answering questions, here are some statements.
"I am in favor of hazards which do not affect a properly played shot but hurt a misplayed shot." is a totally meaningless statement. All hazards affect misplayed shots. The goal is not to hit the ball into hazards.
"I do NOT enjoy courses with hazards just to have hazards in the Nicklaus/Dye vein." is awfully damning of the work of Nicklaus and Dye. They would probably take umbrage with the idea that the create hazards "just to have hazards".

[Patrick_Mucci]

I don't know, but what does any short grass add to maintenance? 

Increased budgets

I can only assume this is why there is the idiotic fairway pinching near greens we see all too often on American parkland courses. 

I don't think that's the reason

I would be in favour of more short grass and as a tradeoff greens rolling at 9. 

The question to either create more short grass or reduce green speeds to 9 is never a question/decision posed in green committee meetings.

One has nothing to do with the other.

Ciao

Pat

If maintained on a golf course, the features are linked.  And since there is a budget for cutting grass, it is a reasonable suggestion to create more short grass at the expense of making the shortest grass longer.  The reason country club folks don't have more short grass isn't about budget, the money is often there.  Its about priorities on how to spend the budget.  Most clubs don't value short grass as a hazard so they don't spend their budget on developing more short grass. Instead, they spend the money on trying to achieve magical stimp numbers, or on lovely even rough, or on flowers, or on cart path maintenance, or on a monochrome green look etc etc.  There are seemingly endless things to spend money on that don't actually make golf any more interesting or fun.

Sean,

Your opinion borders on bizarre in terms of how committees actually function.

The decision to create "short grass" isn't a maintainance issue, thus it rarely appears on a green budget line item.
It's an architectural issue.

As to your comment that "the money is often there" is another bizarre comment.
The pressure to reduce or contain costs is enormous and I'm not aware of any clubs with substantive slushfunds for whimsical projects.
As to the comment that there are "endless things to spend money on", I'd like to know what clubs have this luxury ?

As to "valuing short grass as a hazard", I don't know many clubs/committees who have that perspective when the architect never presented it

I know some architects who created tightly mown areas to serve as pseudo or hybrid hazards, and i've heard of a green committee deciding to  create "chipping" areas, after watching a tournament on a Pete Dye Course or after the USGA made changes at courses such as Pinehurst, but asking clubs to inject short grass as a hazard when the architect never planned same is usually a disaster waiting to happen.

Ciao

[Sean_A]

Pat

If expanding playing areas isn't a maintenance issue what is?  US courses spend more money on maintenance than other other place on earth - especially those courses you frequent.  Money is there regardless of pressures to cut budgets.  Priorities and lack of creative thinking are the obstacles to more short grass.  Short grass is just not valued in the US - even though in many cases the original architecture would have prescribed far more short grass than currently exists. 

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

Different parts of the globe operate differently and have different desires and expectations but let's just say you have a grass area. A man on a mower cuts it all every day. The grass is X-mm long. You lower the blades slightly, and the same man on the same mower still cuts it all every day, and hey presto, you get shorter playing surfaces. Will it take him any longer? Will it cost more? Yes or no?
ATB

[Andrew Buck]

Different parts of the globe operate differently and have different desires and expectations but let's just say you have a grass area. A man on a mower cuts it all every day. The grass is X-mm long. You lower the blades slightly, and the same man on the same mower still cuts it all every day, and hey presto, you get shorter playing surfaces. Will it take him any longer? Will it cost more? Yes or no?
ATB

In that scenario, no.  In practice it does cost more, at *most* US clubs to maintain fairway than rough.  Fairways may be mowed 4 days a week, vs 2 for rough.  In addition, the shorter grass in many climates has poa creep and is much more susceptible to disease, thus requiring more chemical treatment.  Finally, at many clubs their is more "acceptance" of rough area's not being uniform and disease free.