[Garland Bayley]

At http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,52753.msg1211150.html#msg1211150 Jeff Brauer wrote:

We have often been told that the green front bunkers in the GA were placed 10-20 yards in front to allow a carry.  Obviously, if we believe there was more run up back then, then we have to believe the gca's left most, but not all, of the green fronts open.

I hear people say that the golden age guys used reverse slope greens more, but I don't know that I have ever seen a lot of actual evidence of that in the old courses I have seen/played.  And, if balls ran more, it made sense to slope towards the golfer more.  Running away would seem almost impossible to hold, and I don't recall any writing saying a well struck ball shouldn't hold the green.

White Bear Yacht Club has one (no. 12) and Riv struck me as having many "planed" greens (no rumples, but pitched all in one direction) but not always to the front, sometimes to the sides. 

There are others, I suspect, and I recall some writing about it - not sure who wrote about the well placed knob in front of a green - hit the front and scoot back, hit the back and careem off the back of the green, but land short and roll over, and it can be well played shot.

Actually, though, I suspect that back to front sloped greens were pretty much the norm, with other slopes thrown in for variety, but would be willing to accept being wrong if someone better traveled than me actually could name a bunch of them.

Is the "front to back" green slope more a gca.com myth than reality?

A. Vernon Macan wrote in a letter concerning Shaughnessy  "It is quite a common practice to trap each green with traps on each side. While frequently seen on many courses it is not a good practice I admire. By a good two shot hole, I refer to a hole which is longer than a drive and a pitch and should be played with a combination of two shots as distinct from two individual shots, the ease or difficulty of the second depending on the accuracy of placement of the first. From this theory, it can be understood why the centre 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 that a mechanical certainty in what happens to a shot after it lands ist their just right. I disagree. When holes are designed 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."

[Jeff_Mingay]

I was recently in Victoria and Vancouver and revisited a few Macan-designed courses, out there. Mr. Macan did live by his own words, designing many greens that slope every way but back to front.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Garland,

Someone disagrees with me on architecture?  The noive!

I am not familiar with Macan or his writings and work.  I based that statement on what I presume is remaining original works of other, more known gca's from that era, like Ross, Mac, Thomas (although the greens at riv tilt more than most in different ways) etc.  I have also gone through many Ross plans at the Tufts archives and the majority of the green plans have notes about taking fill from the front to build up the back, and show spots of +1 or +2 at the back, with the front being 0.

Let's put it this way - unless really downhill, if you see a green, it has to tilt towards you at least a little bit, and I see most greens on classic courses as visible.

Is one select quote enough to make me believe you over my own eyes?

[Jeff_Brauer]

By the way, I have gone out and measured how golfers play greens.  I find it takes an up slope of about 1.33% for average golfers to hold shots on greens.  Any less, and they run right through the green.  At one point, I assumed that perhaps long irons would require more slope to hold equally well, but I just don't see it for whatever reason.  Maybe its more theoretical than can be practically measured.

And the big question to be answered in this post about the theory of greens is whether a constant diet of reverse slope greens makes for better golf?  I don't design too many courses for low handicap players.  Mine are squarely aimed at the average guy, for whom golf is hard enough.  Should they be creative enough to recognize a reverse slope and play for it?  I guess so, but when you struggle to get ten shots a round airborne at all, getting one airborne and in the general direction of the green, only to see it rejected by contours is pretty frustrating.

I usually include a reverse slope and cross slope green or two for variety, and no one seems to mind.  I do question whether even good players would like greens to be equally divided between right, left, front and rear general slopes.  I just don't hear the howls for that anywhere but from selected posters here.

And, as stated, what I take from the biggest of GA archies is that is the way they felt, too.  Certainly by Thompson, RTJ and Wilson the back to front was solidified as "standard" but I think it was gradually becoming more universal throughout the golden age, if not before.  Those odd writings favoring it may have been a similar lament as to why, a la Garland in this thread.

But, maybe its just me being practical.

[Garland Bayley]

As the quote shows, Macan thought all back to front slopes creates monotony. Clearly green chairman and players over the years agree with Jeff that golf is difficult enough without sloping greens front to back. Or, the modern game has migrated too far away from the classic game to be accepting to having a ball fly in and land on a slope away from the shot and get the big kick onwards. Furthermore, it seems to me that the evolution of green speeds has greatly changed the nature of what a running ball will do on a front to back slope. I'm pretty sure that in Macan's day, the grass would slow the ball and allow the player to stop it near the hole. Whereas, a ball flying in would bounce and not have the grass to slow it. In modern day, the combination of sloping away and fast green speeds would not slow the ball at all have the same detrimental effect that the sloping away would have on a ball flying in and bouncing away.

It is also instructive to note that although none of Macan's routings have been changed, many of his greens have. You have to go to courses that have little money for changes to get a full compliment of Macan's original greens. Courses such as Colwood National in Portland, and Pendleton Country Club in Pendleton. If you visit courses like Kelowna, Marine Drive, and Fircrest, you will find many of the greens have been completely redone, although each has at least one example left of the front to back sloping greens.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Garland,

In my experience studying Macan's work and working at restoring a couple of his courses, it seems that one of the biggest issues with golfers understanding those fallaway greens was/is the difficulty in keeping the fairway area immediately in front of the green consistently firm enough to properly handle a terrestrial approach. This was the problem with Macan's 12th green at Victoria (NLE) for example. This green ran hard away from the approach, but old-timers there tell me that you could rarely land a ball in front of the green without it stopping/really slowing down. Conversely, if the ball landed on the putting surface it would almost always run off the back. I don't know if this is (really) true or not, but theoretically it kinda makes sense... especially considering the weather/environment in the Pacific Northwest.

In my view, this is neither good or bad; it's just golf. But it does add to the story here

It wasn't always a fallaway green versus a back to front sloping green in Macan's view either. He also advocated tilting greens side to side (as per writings by John Low) to prefer approach play from the opposite side of the fairway. I've seen a few of these greens from him as well - on both courses and sketch plans - which are pretty cool, too, by comparison with just another 'catcher's mitt' green.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Garland/Jeff,

It is very possible that green irrigation only, as was typical on early 20th century courses basically converted us to the aerial game.  If greens held, and the approach was rock hard, why not eliminate the chance of bad bounce with the run up?  I know I would, if score mattered.

As Jeff says, I have seen cases where the green front is too soggy to allow the run up, but this is actually more prevalent with green irrigation AND greens draining to the front.  In the last few years, I often make a point of draining greens more to the side and less front, and where possible, away from the main cart path entry side, all to keep surrounds drier for golfers.

BTW, with part to part heads around greens now, and special controls for the fw approach, you would think we could control firmness in the approach, but its often tough.  Sometimes, the fix is as simple as making sure all those part circle heads don't stop and reverse at exactly 90 degrees, where several of them sprinkle their end points in the exact same location.

But that it now.....then was then.  I still think whether the entire green also has a side slope as well as a back to front affects play, with players knowing they can use the slope to get to the pin, and also knowing they don't want to short side themselves if the bunker is on the low side of the green.  The slopes are much less than before, but with faster greens, the net effect and concept may remain the same.

[Wayne_Kozun]

When it comes to the green how much thought should be given to players that don't or can't hit the ball high?  I hit the ball a bit longer than average and I hit my irons very high so I don't mind having to hit a high shot into the green.  But if you watch women or seniors playing then you will notice that many of them never really get the ball up in the air enough to stop a ball on the green.  How do you design a hole that they can play?

My club has a par 3 that plays from 90-110yds with bunkers on all four sides - it is the #18 handicap hole.  (The GCA on the course was George Cumming with a redesign by Tillie - I don't know if Tillie changed this hole much, if at all)  For most guys it is no problem as long as you hit the ball straight - it is just some sort of a wedge (SW, GW, PW) onto a smallish green.  But for women or seniors the margin of error is quite small due to the lack of height and spin - they have to hit the front third of the green for it to stay on, even though the green has some back to front slope.  This hole plays radically different for them - is that fair?

Here is a front view of the green

[Matthew Petersen]

I'm not entirely sure what point you're trying to make here, Garland.

You found one quote from Macan, in which he acknowledges that most others do prefer greens that slope back toward the player, and this is supposed to somehow repudiate Jeff's prior quote?

[Garland Bayley]

Macan's rule was only to build back to front slope when necessary to bring the green surface into view. I suppose this meant that it was mostly done on uphill approaches. Because he seldom built back to front, his greens would drain away from the approach for the most part. Drainage was a big issue with him, perhaps because he worked primarily in the wet areas of the Pacific northwest.

[Garland Bayley]

I'm not entirely sure what point you're trying to make here, Garland.

You found one quote from Macan, in which he acknowledges that most others do prefer greens that slope back toward the player, and this is supposed to somehow repudiate Jeff's prior quote?

The purpose is to put up two contrasting views and discuss.

It seems to me that clearly there was more use of front to back slope in the past. For example, others have reported on this website that TOC has half its greens sloping front to back.

My theory is front to back slope became less tenable with increased greens speeds.
Jeff's theory is that irrigation leading to an aerial game is a major factor.

What do you think?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Garland,

Actually, my theory is that back to front is by far the most common slope, back to even the TOC, although I don't have the grades to prove that.   I am really asking you to prove to me that other slopes were far more common.  I may be wrong, but I just don't think so.

To start with, even on level ground, its amazing how much back to front slope is required to make a green visible.  Its something I struggle with as basic slopes reduce from 2-2.5% to 1.5-1.75%.  Many greens appear as slivers.

Add in all the old plans I have looked at, and I just don't see that front to back wasn't always the norm, which as noted, even Macan alludes to.

But, its an interesting discussion of how and even moreso, why, back to front became almost universally standard.

[Garland Bayley]

Jeff,

I'm not disagreeing that back to front has always been quite common, probably far more common that front to back. I am saying that front to back was more common in the past than now, and that there are reasons why it is less common today.

One of those reasons, is that green committees and golfers have been wanting greens to be converted away from front to back slope. For example, the front nine on my home course was built in the 1930s with a front to back sloping green. For some of the members, it was the favorite hole and green. However, it was rebuilt in perhaps the 1980s to be back to front sloping. The back nine built in the 1970 had no front to back sloping greens and has problems with drainage in front of some of the greens. The rebuilt green on the front nine has drainage problems in front of it now.

An interesting anecdote about that green and drainage was a men's club skills contest where I scored points for my team by punching a shot under the tree branches onto that green. We had a choice of which side of the fairway to hit from and as a lefty I made the less common choice as the slopes were opposite and I wanted to play the ball above my feet thereby bringing the tree branches into play. We went around twice with the contest, with a downpour intervening between the two go arounds. The second time, there was a rain created temporary pond in front of the green, completely taking away my punch shot option. Had the green not been changed, my shot would have worked both times around. As it was I went to the other side of the fairway and played the ball below my feet, landed the ball just short (within a foot) and the drainage problem prevented it from bounding onto the green.

[JC Urbina]

Garland,

You need to make a trip to Richmond C.C and survey these greens.  It will put the notion aside that Macan always built greens from front to back.  These greens are some of the most interesting green surfaces I have ever seen.  Except for one green they all appear to be original.

My point being that even Macan sought to change up his ideas and when you see these greens you would say that he was Protecting all sides including the recovery game of which I am fond of.  

I have seen a lot of golf courses in my time and I found these greens to be some of the boldest I have ever putted on. I would say that Macan in his later years took the defense of the green up a notch.

 A few standouts greens # 3.4, 11,14,16,17   If Macan wasn't involved with these greens I want to meet the guy who was.

I was inspired by the 11th green at Richmond. I hope they never change the surfaces.  

[Garland Bayley]

Jim,

Are you saying Mac built no front to back sloping greens at Richmond? I have only played six of his courses, but on all of them I found back to front sloping green(s). At Marine Drive, I immediately recognized #3 as one of the three remaining Macan greens with its front to back slope.

[JC Urbina]

Garland,

They were a mix of green slopes.  Yes I would say that some were back to front, the most interesting ones were from right to left or left to right.  The 11th green had one bunker on the right side of the green but it was the left side with its grass slopes that made the green so interesting to play, if I remember right the last half did slope to the back right. 

The 17th green was sloped from back to front but the contours more then made up for general tilt of the green.

Do yourself a favor and visit Richmond C.C you will see the next level of green defense.  Some may disagree with my observation but they were so much fun to putt and trying to figure out the movement a true test of the eye.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Good call on Richmond, Jim... I agree, those are some of the most unique (and consistently severe, and challenging) greens in the world. And, from what I remember, they are varied - as you point out. They are Macan's, too. I've seen all of his original green sketches for Richmond, which was built in the 1950s.

I've always figured Macan decided to be so dramatic with the greens at Richmond because the course is otherwise so flat and the original construction budget was reportedly very skinny (something like $50k for the entire course, I seem recall). All of the money, time and concentration was put into the greens to make the course as interesting as possible, is my guess.  

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,

They were a mix of green slopes.  Yes I would say that some were back to front, the most interesting ones were from right to left or left to right.  The 11th green had one bunker on the right side of the green but it was the left side with its grass slopes that made the green so interesting to play, if I remember right the last half did slope to the back right.  

The 17th green was sloped from back to front but the contours more then made up for general tilt of the green.

Do yourself a favor and visit Richmond C.C you will see the next level of green defense.  Some may disagree with my observation but they were so much fun to putt and trying to figure out the movement a true test of the eye.

I'm a little confused. I asked about front to back, and you write about back to front.
I am not at all surprised that back to front was there if the course is as flat as Jeff says. He did like to make the surface visible.

[Garland Bayley]

When it comes to the green how much thought should be given to players that don't or can't hit the ball high?  I hit the ball a bit longer than average and I hit my irons very high so I don't mind having to hit a high shot into the green.  But if you watch women or seniors playing then you will notice that many of them never really get the ball up in the air enough to stop a ball on the green.  How do you design a hole that they can play?

My club has a par 3 that plays from 90-110yds with bunkers on all four sides - it is the #18 handicap hole.  (The GCA on the course was George Cumming with a redesign by Tillie - I don't know if Tillie changed this hole much, if at all)  For most guys it is no problem as long as you hit the ball straight - it is just some sort of a wedge (SW, GW, PW) onto a smallish green.  But for women or seniors the margin of error is quite small due to the lack of height and spin - they have to hit the front third of the green for it to stay on, even though the green has some back to front slope.  This hole plays radically different for them - is that fair?

Here is a front view of the green

It's always fair. The question is, Is that too difficult? Probably. I would think it would be better to leave at least a small opening in the front. That way people who can't hold the green can run up to near that opening and have a chip they can keep on the green for sure. Most of the golden age guys wrote about always letting the dub get around and have a good time. Surprised to hear of a classic era hole making it that difficult for the dub.

Being a bit of a dub myself, I have been known to resort to the strategy described above when there is an opening in front I know I can lay up to.

[JC Urbina]

Garland,

I simply brought up the fact that Macan did not always design greens from front to back.  Later in his years he was actually veering away from a type cast.  I mentioned the back to front green #17 as an example of his willingness to stray away from his writings.

Macan wrote;
 "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"

Macan created a whole new set of problems with his creative green contours.  You not only had to be in the right place in the fairway you had to consider the problems with a recovery shot around most of the greens at Richmond.

 Something a lot of modern designs do not consider.  Add a lake along the edge of a green and poof 50% of the problem solving is taken away.  Add several bunkers around every green and the creativity is reduced, bunker shot been there done that.

That is why the 11th green at Richmond is so fascinating and why I interjected a few different thoughts on Macan.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jim,

No doubt creative green contours of all kinds can replace bunkers, ponds, etc. and be fun with fewer lost shots and golf balls.

I wonder how Macan's ideas met with golfers back then?  Any better than they please golfers now?

Also an interesting point about when in his career Macan wrote that.  We tend to compartmentalize the Golden Age as if it lasted a week, not two decades.  There was a lot of architectural change from start to end, and for that matter, what gca doesn't change his views from start of career to end?

I would love someone to fill in the detail about when and why Macan started out with more front to back and changes, as you say, later in his career.  Ploy to get more jobs?  Took a trip to Scotland that opened his eyes?

[Tom_Doak]

I wonder how Macan's ideas met with golfers back then?  Any better than they please golfers now?

That's a fair question.  When you think about the architects who were the strongest advocates for front-to-back greens [Macan, John Low, Max Behr], they didn't exactly have the most famous careers, though certainly other circumstances contributed to that.

Jim:  Where's Richmond?

[Bill_McBride]

Of Macan's courses I have played Columbia-Edgewater, Marine Drive and Royal Colwood, a good sample.  Maybe these are not the original greens, but I don't remember that many front to back sloping greens.  What did I miss?

The course I know with the most front to back greens is Crenshaw and Coore's course at Barton Creek in Austin.  The terrain is interedting and little effort was made to build up the back of greens.  There are as many as nine front to back greens and it's a gas to play.

[Garland Bayley]

Of Macan's courses I have played Columbia-Edgewater, Marine Drive and Royal Colwood, a good sample.  Maybe these are not the original greens, but I don't remember that many front to back sloping greens.  What did I miss?

The course I know with the most front to back greens is Crenshaw and Coore's course at Barton Creek in Austin.  The terrain is interedting and little effort was made to build up the back of greens.  There are as many as nine front to back greens and it's a gas to play.

No one seems to know how many Macan greens are left at Columbia-Edgewater, with most guesses being in the range zero to none.
There are only three left at Marine Drive, of which I noted above #3 is a clear front to back example.
Don't know about Royal Colwood.

[Garland Bayley]

I wonder how Macan's ideas met with golfers back then?  Any better than they please golfers now?

That's a fair question.  When you think about the architects who were the strongest advocates for front-to-back greens [Macan, John Low, Max Behr], they didn't exactly have the most famous careers, though certainly other circumstances contributed to that.

Jim:  Where's Richmond?

In Richmond, just behind the International Buddhist Center.



That would be Richmond, BC just south of Vancouver, BC. Home to the best Chinese food in North America.


Macan had quite a famous career in the Pacific Northwest. He worked on every course of importance in Oregon, Washington, and BC with the exception of Portland Golf Club.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()