[A_Clay_Man]

Here's one of my all time favorite spots. "Sand Pit" on Kohler's River course.



Is there a limit to the number of fallaway greens, a single course could or should have?

With so many course that followed the antithesis, what would you think if they were the predominate characteristic of a golf courses face?

[THuckaby2]

WOW!  What a cool-looking green...  

AC - of course when the subject is fallaway greens, my thoughts immediately go to #4 Spyglass, which has to be among the world's best.  No, I haven't seen the hole at Pine Valley that this is supposed to be modeled after... But darn #4 Spyglass plays so well, it is my favorite hole on that course.  It also plays damn well in the EA Sports video game!

Now as to your question, that is a tough one.  Fallaway greens have always been cool to me because they are different.  I'm trying to imagine a course where they are the norm and well... I'm thinking it would be damn fun to play, but would really take some getting used to.  That being the case, what is wrong with a course that takes getting used to, that requires different shots?  That's the whole damn reason for an American like me to travel overseas for links golf.

So I think if it can be done so that it doesn't look overly hokey or artificial, it would be really cool.  I'd love to have to change my standard thinking to play it, like I have to when playing links golf.

TH

[JSlonis]

A Clay Man,

This is the predominant characteristic of nearly every green at Pinehurst #2.  Although they can be maddeningly difficult at times, with the addition of the chipping areas, they do lend to more creative play overall.

[A_Clay_Man]

As I was hitting the button to post this, it occurred to me that The Rawls course had more than most.

Huck- Come to think of it, #3 & #4 are fallaways at Spy. I was thinking of #4 earlier today but not so much about the fallaway aspect but the gunsight aspect. Another simple example is the 14th at Pacific Grove. The two mounds short on either side of the green give the golfer the option on which to use, if any.

[THuckaby2]

AC - on #3, the shot is just from so high above, the fallway aspect isn't as keen... but come to think of it, it IS a fallway, huh?

And you're right re #4 being more of a "gunsight"... thinking about that and #14 PG, I see what you mean there.  Kind of important to get the tee shot so you can hit it down the barrel.. and if you don't, you have to use the banks...

Interesting re Pineurst #2 also, Jamie.  I haven't played there, just seen it on TV... but I see what you mean.  It does make for more creative shotmaking....

TH

[Tom_Doak]

As you guys know, Ran M. is one of the all-time biggest fans of fallaway greens and on every course of mine he's seen he asks if we considered more of them ... even when we've done five or six!

There are two reasons modern architects don't build more of them:

1.  Concern that if the approaches aren't maintained correctly, they can be unfair.

2.  Visual issues -- a fallaway green surface is difficult to see from the fairway, and therefore not so popular to golfers.

Aside from these issues, a lot depends on the architect's habits for routing holes on the topo.  If you tend to route holes so that you're hitting approach shots across a dip into an upslope, that doesn't leave you opportunities to build fallaway greens.  I suspect that's really the main reason more greens of this type aren't found.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

One of my favorites--#16 at a course called Stonewall in just outside of Philly, PA.

[A_Clay_Man]

Huck- Ya know what? I forgot I made the observation a few years ago that the first four greens at Spy, all fall away from the golfer.

Jamie- I have not seen the duece yet either, but I suppose the results are the same whether they are built up on ridges or fallaway naturally. They both require an added amount of  consideration along with a deft touch upon execution.

[Rick Shefchik]

I've come to moderate my views about the green on Spyglass #4, but I still believe this: if you're going to build a green like that, don't put the hole where a ball can't come to rest. I know, that seems like common sense, but when I played #4, the pin was all the way up front, and putts from below the hole wanted to roll right back to you if they didn't go in.

The problem, I would assume, is that the greenskeeper needs to move the hole locations around to avoid too much traffic on any one part of the green, but the more fall-away a green is, the fewer available hole locations. Looking at the Blackwolf Run River Course picture above, I'd like to see how much more green there is on the left side of the green (the right side of the picture). From what is visible, it appears that the available hole locations on the right side are very limited. No problem -- as long as the greenskeeper doesn't cross the line.

[SPDB]

was this the one they filled in with water for the women's open?

[A_Clay_Man]

Sean- No, That is the current 18th original 9th on the River that had the entire left side filled in with water. It shares the double green with the Valleys finisher. When they were on the same course it was very cool.

[Steven_Biehl]

One on John Low's "11 points" from his book Concerning Golf covers this issue.  This point would not be very popular among most of todays golfers:

"Wherever 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."

I wouldn't like the entire course to have fallawy greens, but five or six on a course would be fun to play.  

[THuckaby2]

Rick - we discussed this before I believe - you just got an awful pin that day at Spy - the stupidest one, in the front.  heck yeah, unless the make the green a lot slower that is infinite putting (or chipping!) at its worst. I can't see why they'd ever put it there, either... there are a lot of other potential positions, right, left, middle, back... I guess it is a narrow green so they did what they did, but that was most unfortunate.  You need to come back and play it when the pin is middle... or back... both make for great, and different, fun.... middle is the most intense position... tough to get the right distance and not go all the way to the bottom.

And AC - great thought - you're right, the first four do all fall away... I've never thought of them that way... one does learn something every day.

[Rick Shefchik]

Tom -- I'll gladly come back to Spyglass -- even if the pin is in front on #4 again. Of course, I'd prefer it someplace else...

[ForkaB]

#7 (?--help me out here Marinites!) at Mill Valley was the first I ever really noticed and it makes an otherwise bland hole on an otherwise mediocre (but beautiful and funky!) course something special.

I also like the 6th at Kingsbarns, particularly the gathering pot bunker at the back which grabs you where the sun don't shine if you get too bold or too incompetent when going after a back pin.

[James Edwards]

Rich,

good selection..

The great thing also, about the 6th at Kingsbarns amongst others, is that that same pot bunker located in the middle on the right, also catches the bold shots into the short pin because of the angle of the green from front right to back left.

IMO, A good example of a fallaway green with mounding round the outside?  If that makes sense....

[THuckaby2]

Rich:

I have a buddy who lives right down the street from Mill Valley Muni, and we play it all the time.  Id guess what you're thinking is #8 - par 4, dogleg right, HUGE trees on left, more HUGE trees and river on right... the green goes with the slope of the land, so it is higher in front than it is in back... during those rare Marin times when the land isn't waterlogged, one does have to bounce it into that green and hope it stops before going off the back edge.  Very cool when it works... but that's about 3 days a year!

And oh yes, #6 at Kingsbarns works very well for this also.

Rick:  if you get here, we shall play (repeat over and over in mysterious faraway voice)...  

[A_Clay_Man]

Does anybody know if the old #16 at ANGC would fall into this fallaway category?

Even if it falls away to one side, I prefer that to a steady diet of containment.

[texsport]

It would seem that fallaway greens are best suited to sites with up hill and down hill approach shots.

On up hill holes, you can't see the back of the green anyway and on down hill approaches, the fallaway is clearly visable.

With fronting and rear bunkers, the front pin position on uphill approaches would be tough. On down hill approaches, the rear pins would be challenging.

A good example utilizing a fallaway green on flat terrain is Jay Riviere's #4 Parkland Course at River Ridge G.C.in  Sealy, TX.

The hole is a slight dogleg right around a huge tree with constricted fairway at 250 yds. off the tee. This forces an accurate layup around the tree and a 170-180 yd. shot to a 3-4 club deep fallaway green with a chipping /collection area past the green. The whole thing is bordered on the right by the Brazos River. Great hole!

Texsport

[gookin]

Seems to me that the number of fallaway greens would be determined by the routing and the piece of property. Would someone start a project with a preconceived idea of the number of fallaway greens?   Two of my favorites are #10 and #12 at Oakmont.  #17 was recently redone and now falls away to a very deep bunker.  Does anyone really like the redo of #17 green at Oakmont?

[Bill_McBride]

Gookin, don't forget #1 at Oakmont, another front to back sloping green and dangerous that early in the round when you really don't have the touch yet!

#17 with a fallaway green would really be difficult, hitting a short pitch over those front bunkers.  It was hard enough in the original design.

[Mike_Cirba]

Are we defining fallaway greens as front back sloping greens, or are we referring to fallaway greens as convex greens that might "fall away" in any direction?

If the latter, I just played Whisper Rock in Scottsdale by Gary Stephenson and Phil Mickelson this past week.  I'll try to share more detailed thoughts later this week, but for now I'd just like to share that it was very interesting to see that it's possible for fallaway, thoughtful, smallish, undulating greens to coexist with high green speeds (12 on the stimpmeter) while still maintaining modern notions of "fairness".

I'll try to explain why later.  

[Scott_Burroughs]

Mike,

Sounds like you just described Pinehurst #2 (though not all greens are small).

[Mike_Cirba]

Scott;

I've tried to avoid that analogy with #2 simply because I think people have such a preconception of what that means, and the term "domed" greens comes immediately to mind.

While there are similarlities at Whisper Rock, it's the differences that are worth talking about (and I hope to do so soon).  

 

[A_Clay_Man]

MikeC- I suppose the fall off can be in any direction. But in my mind I was thinking along the lines of allowing them to follow the natural terrain. So many greensite have been built up just to accomodate stopping the ball. This seemed to lead to the proliferation of containment mounding and or contrary build-ups to counter-act the slope. If I were describe just one type that I see in my mind when thinking about this, it would be almost saddle like. Mostly because I love a fasle front and the fallaway from the apex is mostly unpredictable, Not completely, just infinitely more taxing.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()