News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Mike Hendren

  • Karma: +0/-0
Why don't more greens..
« on: June 10, 2012, 02:56:34 PM »
slope downward from the front?  Seems like a very easy feature to design/build and can be the epitome of subtlety.

Bogey
Two Corinthians walk into a bar ....

Mark McKeever

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why don't more greens..
« Reply #1 on: June 10, 2012, 04:18:01 PM »
Bogey, so basically a green sloping from front to back?

Mark
Best MGA showers - Bayonne

"Dude, he's a total d***"

Mark Saltzman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why don't more greens..
« Reply #2 on: June 10, 2012, 04:26:30 PM »
Because a ball landing on the green must be rewarded.

Adrian_Stiff

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why don't more greens..
« Reply #3 on: June 10, 2012, 04:31:40 PM »
Because they are basically unpopular with the masses. They are a great defence and can be escpecially usefull on easier holes, perhaps that require a short approach but the mindset of many is the want to stop the ball quickly rather than not. I think golfers tolerate a minimal use of them but if there are too many then its seen as a flaw.
A combination of whats good for golf and good for turf.
The Players Club, Cumberwell Park, The Kendleshire, Oake Manor, Dainton Park, Forest Hills, Erlestoke, St Cleres.
www.theplayersgolfclub.com

Dan King

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why don't more greens..
« Reply #4 on: June 10, 2012, 04:42:09 PM »
Because such greens require some thought process form the golfer. The game is moving away from requiring thought.

Cheers,
Dan King
Quote
Ye try to hard and ye think to much. Why don't ye go wi' yer pretty swing? Let the nothingness into yer shots.
 --Shivas Irons

Doug Siebert

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why don't more greens..
« Reply #5 on: June 10, 2012, 05:29:03 PM »
They just need to be marketed to golfers better.

My favorite course in the area has a really interesting 14th hole (part of a six hole stretch that's all par 5s or 3s)  It plays 185 from the back tee, and is severely downhill and plays with the prevailing wind.  On top of all that the green slopes from front to back.  When the hole is in the front and the green is firm, you must land it short.  This is further complicated by the fact that the ground in front not only slopes towards the green, but left to right, and there are is a stand of trees to the left in case you allow for that bounce to the right and pull it.  The green is kidney shaped with the fat end on the front and narrow end on the back, so it makes a very narrow target that is blessed with steep 15 foot slopes along both sides on t he back half.

It sounds like a beastly hole, and it certainly can be, but it also has the distinction of having more holes in one on it than any other hole in the area.  Most par 3s in the area are easier, and many are shorter, but because the ball rolls a lot more after landing than is typical, there's an increased chance of the hole getting in the way of the ball.

So maybe par 3s offer the correct venue to introduce modern golfers to this type of hole?  You'd need an elevated tee so they won't whine about not being able to see the green - not like most modern par 3s don't have this already.  Besides the holes in hole, there's an added bonus that guys can feel better about themselves taking less club than they normally would for a hole of that length due to the fact they need to land short of the green!
My hovercraft is full of eels.

Brent Hutto

Re: Why don't more greens..
« Reply #6 on: June 10, 2012, 05:33:28 PM »
Is it a modern preference? I don't recall more than an odd hole here or there with a significant away tilt on classic courses. There's one at Pine Needles (#2 or #3 is it?) and my home course (Ellis Maples 1961) has one green like that. But even on links courses it's never more than maybe one or at most two greens on a course.

Melvyn Morrow

Re: Why don't more greens..
« Reply #7 on: June 10, 2012, 05:40:09 PM »
I thought it was the moans from golfers that have persuaded Architects to look to the easy option. Letís face it many a player will not walk to the Greens preferring to ride, and then when close need artificial aids to judge distance and the latest technology in equipment to compensate for questionable skill and to try to get close to hitting the Green. The final straw was sloping Greens. No aids to combat slopes, apart from their brains which have gone into hibernation due to lack of use.

Come on Michael, itís clearly not golf these people are playing; otherwise we may have encountered some form of test or challenge. The whole point to their game is that they do not want to be tested, they want an easy game that they can dominate, requiring no commitment so no need to worry about self-respect.

Now had you asked Golfers, I wonder what the answers would have been ;D  

« Last Edit: June 10, 2012, 05:42:45 PM by Melvyn Hunter Morrow »

Mark Pearce

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why don't more greens..
« Reply #8 on: June 10, 2012, 06:10:12 PM »
I think Elie has 6 greens that do this (1, 2, 6, 9, 10, 15) (and 5 slopes away at the front and up at the back.  Of these holes 5 of them are "half par holes" to make the apparentlt easy birdie (2, 6, 10, 15) or save the tough par (1, 9) the player has to play a perfectly judged approach.  Otherwise it can be tough to save par or bogey.  On a relatively easy course like Elie, I think no-one minds this feature.  Adrian is right, though, on a tougher course punters don't like being asked tough questions, particularly not with a short club in hand.
In June I will be riding the first three stages of this year's Tour de France route for charity.  630km (394 miles) in three days, with 7800m (25,600 feet) of climbing for the William Wates Memorial Trust (https://rideleloop.org/the-charity/) which supports underprivileged young people.

Matthew Mollica

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why don't more greens..
« Reply #9 on: June 10, 2012, 06:32:10 PM »
RMW #3 jumps to mind whenever this topic comes up. A short 4, with a small depression in front of the green, sitting oblique to approaches made from all but the best placed drives. The green slopes front to back significantly. In recent plays, I've bumbed fairway wood along the ground, hit a spinning sand wedge, and even putted from anywhere 40yards to 80yards short of the green. It is great fun, an exacting approach, and always a little different.

MM
"The truth about golf courses has a slightly different expression for every golfer. Which of them, one might ask, is without the most definitive convictions concerning the merits or deficiencies of the links he plays over? Freedom of criticism is one of the last privileges he is likely to forgo."

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why don't more greens..
« Reply #10 on: June 10, 2012, 06:57:43 PM »
Park Jr and Fowler used this sort of green with regularity.  I have never heard any great cry from punters about front to backers like I do about centreline bunkers and blind shots.  I think archies don't want hassles or take too many risks so they say golfers don't like it.  Its not much different to people citing health an safety reasons when they can't be bothered to really look into something.

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Fraserburgh, Hankley Common, Ashridge, Gog Magog Old & Cruden Bay St Olaf

Mark Saltzman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why don't more greens..
« Reply #11 on: June 10, 2012, 07:49:34 PM »
Stanley Thompson used this on many of his courses.  Maxwell also used it on occasion.

Ally Mcintosh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why don't more greens..
« Reply #12 on: June 11, 2012, 07:54:52 AM »
Because they are basically unpopular with the masses. They are a great defence and can be escpecially usefull on easier holes, perhaps that require a short approach but the mindset of many is the want to stop the ball quickly rather than not. I think golfers tolerate a minimal use of them but if there are too many then its seen as a flaw.

And because they are much harder to design with good visibility of the putting surface unless on downhill holes... In essence they provide more blindness... Which is also unpopular with the masses...

Best used with false fronts and green flashes to give some identifying marks that provide comfort for the same masses...

Having just come back from my first visit to Machrihanish, I was very impressed with the greens at 12 & 13 which both sloped significantly from front to back whilst giving good indicators to the approach...

jeffwarne

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why don't more greens..
« Reply #13 on: June 11, 2012, 08:01:41 AM »
Once again Goat Hill emerges
at least 4 of 9 greens with this feature
"Let's slow the damned greens down a bit, not take the character out of them." Tom Doak
"Take their focus off the grass and put it squarely on interesting golf." Don Mahaffey

Mike Hendren

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why don't more greens..
« Reply #14 on: June 11, 2012, 08:23:43 AM »
A couple I like off the top of my head:

Doak's 14th at Quail Crossing - sited just past the crest of a small rise.  Very deep green with a straight side edge (I love those for some reason) that falls uniformly toward the rear on a 550+/- par five.

Flynn's 8th at Cascades - a short par three where the back of the green severely turns upward, giving the false impression that putts break back toward the tee.  Even with a short-iron/wedge it's very difficult to access a pin on the front half of the green.  Easy to leave the putt short putting back up the hill that looks flat.

Two Corinthians walk into a bar ....

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Why don't more greens..
« Reply #15 on: June 11, 2012, 11:44:29 AM »
Because such greens require some thought process form the golfer. The game is moving away from requiring thought.
Dan,

Agreed, but it also may be related to drainage as well


Cheers,
Dan King
Quote
Ye try to hard and ye think to much. Why don't ye go wi' yer pretty swing? Let the nothingness into yer shots.
 --Shivas Irons


hhuffines

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why don't more greens..
« Reply #16 on: June 11, 2012, 12:29:02 PM »
I'm with you on this one Bogey.  I was blown away by the first "real" one I saw at Prestwick.  The 8th at Forest Creek South slopes entirely from front to back in my recollection and is a neat feature for a shortish iron shot.

Link Walsh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why don't more greens..
« Reply #17 on: June 11, 2012, 02:40:34 PM »
I always liked the first at Tobacco Road.  It is quite severe front to back, but it fits because it's a par 5 some people (not me...) can try to reach in 2.  Even with a wedge in your hand, you really have to consider landing your shot short of the green. 

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back