[Mike_Cirba]

Played Rolling Green again today and was struck by the number of approaches to elevated greens where a shot coming up short is at risk to roll back down the fairway 10, 20, 30 or more yards, leaving those awkward recovery shot from uncomfortable distances (i.e. 40 yard pitch shots steeply uphill and usually somewhat blind).  

It occurred to me that this is somewhat of a Flynn trademark.  There are also any number of holes like this at Philmont North, at Huntingdon Valley, and #10 at Shinnecock may be the most famous of this "type" he built (although #9 at ANGC is probably the best known of this type of hole).  

Generally, what does this group think of that particular design feaure?  It seems to me to be much more problematic than just ending up in fronting bunkers, and also much more likely to lead to marking disastrous numbers on the card.  It also leads to a mindset where one often finds themselves overclubbing, simply because the penalty for being short is pretty severe.

The irony is that the "don't be short" choice leads to one often being above the hole, which is no picnic on greens like Rolling Green.  Flynn is sometimes criticized for not being particularly severe in his use of internal green contours, but I'm finding that there is more than enough slope (not to mention amazingly thoughtful subtleties) in many of his greens to provide that last crucial defense against easy scoring.  I doubt that anyone who's ever played Rolling Green or HVGC would ever complain about mundane greens by Flynn.  

Having putted off the 15th today from the back on a day when I was rolling the ball quite well, I know you won't hear it from me!

[TEPaul]

MikeC:

There's a lot of that kind of approach to greens all over the place in many of the older architecture!

Basically there's a lot of it at NGLA (best example #12) and Maidstone too!

Not only can balls come off the green on holes like that but sometimes approaching them requires a different type of ground game shot if you're going to make that choice! A normal knockdown shot doesn't work on that kind of green approach--you have to get the ball much lower and on the ground much farther back and running up the slope instead of coming in low and hitting into it!

It took me a while to figure that out at NGLA on #12.

The ground game approach to Hanse's #1 & #2 Inniscrone and definitely #6 & #13 Applebrook are very much like that in the front!

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Interesting observation. What really sets up that feature is the severity of the slope. I wonder if that is something Flynn looked for or even minipulated to magnify the effect.

[TEPaul]

It appears that kind of green front feature is relatively common not just by Flynn but other architects of that era (certainly Ross).

I don't believe it's much more than the result of basic "green siting". If you look at the contour lines of Flynn's earliest "iterations" you can pick up the natural "fall" in the ground, in these cases where the front of the green is and what becomes the front approach of his green sites.

What he did from there in green construction could be almost anything depending on the particular hole and green and the particular natural slope. In some cases like Shinnecock's #10 the green area needed to be "dished out" to some extent and on a hole like #14 the instruction was to build up the rear of the green somewhat.

Holes like #1 and #4 Rolling Green are on the same basic gradual ridgeline (falling from front to back at the approaching golfer) but separated by #2 and its teeing area. There's a perpendicular natural gradual ridgeline separating the right of #2 and the right side of #4 which makes the green site at #4 a bit more severe to the approaching golfer. Certainly green approaches like #8 and #11 are this way to an extent.

If you look at #4 green from #1 green or from #2 tee you can see that the green site was sort of dished out in back and maybe even raised in front to some extent simply to level the green enough for play against the natural back to front fall of that green site.

It's always interesting to look at green sites such as this kind (whether Flynn or Ross or Wilson, MacD/Raynor etc) and their green-end bunker placements.

Generally the greenside bunker placements may in some way both be to support this green surface "leveling" against natural fall and probably to supply the fill to level the green surface in the first place!

So far we've seen this basic "green siting" and construction technique in Boston, Cleveland, New York and Philadephia and Lancaster. In some cases as a result of this he may have minimized the natural fall but in most cases possibly magified directly in front of the green but again just to create an adequate enough "leveling" for the green surface to play properly.

Flynn certainly appears to have found very interesting green sites but this kind of thing seems more common in overall green site construction in that era than unique to Flynn.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

One of my favorite Flynn green sites is the 17th at Country Club. Kind of a modified Redan. I'm curious if he scooped it out.

[Mark_Fine]

Mike,
Don't you think this feature is primarily due to the type of terrain many of Flynn's courses were built on?  Given that the classic guys favored the ground game and left the fronts of most greens open, greensites set into relatively steep slopes will result in this effect.  

Many Ross courses for example, have similar features so I wouldn't call it a Flynn trademark.  I'd call it a "site specific" trademark.
Mark

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom(s)/Mark;

While I agree that greensites on many older courses by many architects were built on the "high points" for the reasons we've discussed in here many times before, I think there are some subtle differences that make Flynn standout in this regard.

This is pure conjecture based on observation, but it seems to me that Flynn often located his greens EXACTLY at the top edge of the steepest point of an elevation rise.  That is somewhat different than placing a green at the Very Top of the elevation rise, as Ross often did, because in many hilltop Rossian greens you find a somewhat flatter "transition area" just short of the green where a running shot may be accommodated, and where it's unlikely the ball will trickle back 10-50 yards down the fairway.

Flynn, by contrast, seemed to build a lot of greens that sit right on the edge of disaster.  Usually, there is additional elevation change and slope through and beyond his green sites...they are not at the very top of a slope, but instead at the top of the steepest point.  

I think this accomplished a few other things that might not be entirely obvious.  By locating greens this way, aside for the "shot demands" and intensity level it places on the golfer, I think the most important thing Flynn was trying to do was provide target visibility.  I find it amazing how much of the green and surrounds Flynn was able to "show" the golfer, even on greens that are benched into steep hillsides.  

I think the other reason he might have done that is something Tom Paul mentioned.  Flynn loved to build his bunkers into upslopes, for visibility and dramatic purposes, and those steep rises must have been just too attractive for him to pass up.  

Going back to contrast where Flynn places his uphill greensites with some others, like Ross, I find that many times Ross's "top of the hill" approach led to a greater degree of blindness for the approach, as well as a less dramatic looking, well-defined target.

I find this difference to be generally true, with exceptions of course, but in any case, I can't think of any architect who created "rollback" situations as much as William Flynn, simply because he seemed more willing than others to place his greensites a little further down an elevation change (to the steepest point) than some of his contemporaries.

I also wonder why we hardly ever see this feature in today's architecture.  

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW;

I was looking very carefully at all of the 17th at CC of Cleveland. It's a marvelous natural hole all the way along particularly the natural ridgeline for the tee shot!

We looked carefully at the green-end in the approach area you mentioned and my feeling is he probably either dished that area slightly or built up the fronting carry bunker right or the green area up slightly.

It does make for an interesting "playability" certainly but is very functional too as it gets the drainage flow coming from the right side past the green in front and away from the green surface.

Funny you should mention the redan aspect of that green approach because we were talking about that too, although we concluded that the bunker short right really wasn't that well placed for a redan type run-up shot. There seemed to be too much of a "kicker" just over it and it seemed to be too close to the green for that shot! But good call!

[Mark_Fine]

Mike,
I guess it's a matter of opinion but if I took the time to look though all my notes, I'd bet l've played a dozen or more Ross designs that exhibit that "rollback" or more commonly called "false front" feature!  Ask the boys at Charles River about what happens to some balls that end up just short of greens    You might not roll 20 yards back, you might roll 50 or 60!!  

But your observation is a good one and there is no doubt Flynn did this as well!  
Mark

[mike_malone]

Mike
 Hope you enjoyed yourself.I spoke with our super about the more dramatic rollback this fall.We have planted bent in the front of these greens.This seems to have less resistance than the poa we had before.Also,we have observed other area regrassings  have had trouble in their first year with this approach area.So,we are purposely cutting the grass lower to lend to more compacting.(that may not be the correct technical term).
   I have a copy of the 1976 Women's Open tape.It struck me that balls were NOT falling back on #15.They did have alot of rain that week,but i think agronomic changes are at play here.Certainly the grass is cut much lower than 1926.
   So many people fret about technology ruining classic courses.I think the speed of the greens and the approaches neutralizes things.

[TEPaul]

MikeC;

You might be right about Flynn not going as far up hillisides and such as Ross did.

There could be another stylistic reason Flynn did that!

Flynn seemed to have attempted (construction-wise) to try to "saddle" his greens into terrain, whether hillside or otherwise (flatter terrain) far more than Ross did (at least in Ross's earlier work). Many times in Ross earlier greens they just sat up on terrain with very little "saddle" effect (in the middle of them).

That's one of the reasons, in my opinion, that Flynn's greens seemed to have more of a "flow" to the green surfaces (generally created on flatter terrain by what we call "pulling up strings" mostly on various parts of the green like the back corners). This works really well for visibility, playability and green-end drainage patterns (particularly in keeping water from coming in off the back of greens).

In many of Flynn greens this created a general sort of "dished" effect to his green surfaces--creating a "saddle" look!

[Mike_Cirba]

Mark;

I'm not sure that what I'm describing is the same thing as a "false front".  On many of the holes Flynn built, you're generally ok if your ball makes it onto the green surface.  It's just that there is often a steep slope just preceeding that, so it's a razor-thin margin at times.  

I would agree with you that Ross tended to create more actual "false fronts", where the front part of the green was actually part of the prevailing slope, and balls would trickle back off.  As Tom Paul mentions, Flynn did more of a "dishing effect" at the point of a steep elevation change, and I can't think of any greens at Rolling Green, or even Lehigh for that matter, that incorporate green space into the classic "false front", such as one sees on #11 Plainfield.

mayday;

Yes, we had a great day, thank you, and the course record remains safe.    

I think your point about modern agronomic changes is a very good one, but leads to two questions that I've tried to incorporate into the rest of this discussion;

1) What do we think of "rollbacks" generally as a design feature?  Are they fair, or do they risk being "hokey"?

2) Particularly with modern agronomics, as well as a complaint by many modern architects that they often are forced to build courses on land with difficult elevation changes, why do we not see the "rollback" much in modern design?  Can anyone think of a modern hole with this feature?  How do modern architects "prevent" the rollback when locating greens on steep elevations?  

[Chris Hervochon]

It seems as though this might be a well accepted design feature.  However, I am curious as to what point it can be over done or is done in a manner that is unnacceptable or unfair.  For example, on a 90 or 100 yard wedge shot that lands short of the green or onto the front but spins off, if that ball comes back to your feet is it unfair?  Basically, I am referring to the slope leading up to the green and how far back down the fairway it should extend to be ideal.

[Dave_Miller]

Mike:

Mark is right that there are several holes at Charles River where these rollbacks can come into play.

No's 5,8,12,14, 17 particularly this can happen.  

12 and 17 are not high enough to casue a 40 yard rollback but can cause a 15 or 20 yard rollback and leaving one with a difficult chip.

No. 5 and 8 were, and can be, particularly severe.  The result can be a 40 or 50 yard chip up the hill.

While it is easy to see the design of the holes allow for this I sometimes wonder if current maintenance practices bring this more into play in today's era versus many years ago.  

The front of 5 and 8 were shaved very close for the last few years with the result that balls that came up a little short would roll back a long way.  Frustrating yes and creating divot fields also resulted.  

Also given the severity of the green slopes and the desire for fast greens it was not unusual to see the ball roll off the greens and down the slope.  Even more frustrating.

Changing maintenance practices has helped to resolve these issues to a large extent.  

When Mark played there this fall they were not as severe as they had been but the feature is still there.  

It would seem to me that this was a feature of not just Flynn but some other Golden Era architects as well.

Best,
Dave

[Willie_Dow]

Mike

Let's not forget the drainage considerations.  With the slowness of the greens in the yesteryears, my thoughts would be that run-offs today might have been drainage features of days gone by.

But they certainly show how effective evolution can come into play on these old courses.  The buildup of sand, or the encroachment of the fringe surely show up when you probe the surrounds.

[TEPaul]

MikeC:

Maybe the term "rollback" approach is an apropos one for some of Flynn's greens. But that particular feature is by no means unique to Flynn.

Despite so many greens of Flynn's with that feature I have not run across many Flynn greens with the classic "greenspace" false front (like Ross) with the notable exception of #18 Lancaster that has ONE HELLUVA functional false front! I'd say it might be as much as 10-12 steps (depending on the greenspeed!).

Next time you come over to look at our Flynn material I'll show you a few greens that really do hang the friont edge right at a naturally preciptious contour situation. Shinnecock's #10 is a good example but so is #18 (the original #9)! There is something about that green site we just discovered that's very interesting in a general architectural routing and design sense!

For modern greens that have that "rollback" effect you can't find two better examples than Gil's Applebrook's #6 and #13!

#6 was apparently Bill Kittleman's conceptual baby and it appeared so severe at first it even made him nervous for a while!

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom;

Just let me know when you and Wayne are getting together again and I'll look forward to going through all of that fabulous stuff again with you guys.  

I agree that a number of holes at both Inniscrone and Applebrook have that feature.  I've scratched my head, though, and can't think of any other modern holes that do!  

I can't figure out why that is??  

Would 18 at Hidden Creek qualify?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()