[Mark_Fine]

Closely mown turf that for example carries the ball away from greens are quite common on golf courses these days.  I love the feature and use it often where appropriate as it adds variety and shot options.  But were there such features in classic architecture?

Most of us know that in the 1920s and the 1930s, fairway mowing heights on most well kept courses were generally between 1 and 1.5 inches or about the same as today's intermediate rough height.  We know the ball doesn’t roll very far in intermediate rough.  It settles down very quickly.  As such, unless the pitch was well above 1 to 1, which back then would have also been hard to mow/maintain, closely mown run off areas really weren’t a common feature on many courses.

Comments?

[Matthew Delahunty]

Maybe not as closely mown in the past, but back in the 1920s and 1930s many of those areas were probably not irrigated either, so in drier months there may still have been more run off.

[jeffwarne]

Closely mown turf that for example carries the ball away from greens are quite common on golf courses these days.  I love the feature and use it often where appropriate as it adds variety and shot options.  But were there such features in classic architecture?

Most of us know that in the 1920s and the 1930s, fairway mowing heights on most well kept courses were generally between 1 and 1.5 inches or about the same as today's intermediate rough height.  We know the ball doesn’t roll very far in intermediate rough.  It settles down very quickly.  As such, unless the pitch was well above 1 to 1, which back then would have also been hard to mow/maintain, closely mown run off areas really weren’t a common feature on many courses.

Comments?

In that case, time for some actual restorations.
Make America chip again.

[Thomas Dai]

In that case, time for some actual restorations.
Make America chip again.



Alas not just America. The virus that is green and lush has unfortunately spread worldwide.


Golf’s an outdoor seasonal game. Theres too much sameness these days.


Course conditions should be allowed to change with the season and if that means sometimes playing in dry and bouncy conditions so be it. There’s a skill in playing from tight, really firm turf, hardpan and semi-hardpan lies.


Plus the games for is everyone not just physically strong players who can gouge the ball from longer grass but also the more aged players who may not have the physical strength to muscle the ball from manicured modern ‘rough’ grass but can play successfully from tight, firm turf.


Some of the greatest and most memorable shots of all time have been played from less than perfect lies on firm beige and brown turf, Seve’s famous chip at Royal Birkdale in 1979 or Tigers play at Royal Melbourne  during the 2019 Presidents Cup. Indeed the latter may have been one of the greatest and most interesting events held in recent years because of the course conditions.


Atb

[Mark_Fine]

Amen to firm fast conditions.  I was actually shocked to see Yeamans Hall had overseeded   But even golfers at great clubs like that like to see green grass.  I am sure that course is pure joy to play once the rye dies off and the firmness of the turf returns. 


I love the idea of closely mown short grass around greens.  My question was about architects having that as a real option 100 years ago??   I guess you could all but kill the grass and play the areas as hardpan but with the mowing technology back then, you didn’t have the option of balls feeding off a green and rolling 10 or 20 yards away unless the slope was extremely steep. 


We talk about how classic courses today are often defended at the green.  This is in part true not just because of the contour in the greens, but also because of modern grasses and maintenance practices.  Take an old Flynn course like Rolling Green, you can have a reasonably good shot land 20 feet onto some of the greens and roll 50 yards or more back down the fairway.  Was that what Flynn intended?  Was that even possible back then when that fairway was being mowed at 1 - 1 1/2” cut? 


There is a reason, though most of us don’t like doing it at all, that some old greens need to have green contours softened because they are pitched at 6-8%!  With modern grasses and much tighter mowing cuts, should surrounds be altered as well?  Some will say leave well enough alone but what to do is not always obvious.  Look at the example of Rolling Green. 

[Joe Hancock]

Not taking sides of whether to over-seed, or not, but ryegrass gets a lot of undeserved blame.


Many, many years ago, when I was a super, I used to overseed in NC with rye on fairways, tees and greens(also included poa trivialis). The greens would get so fast in the spring, I’d have a hard time keeping approach shots on the greens….because those balata balls back then would zip right off the front.


Fairways? Nice and firm….because there was zero fairway irrigation….not because I wouldn’t, but because there wasn’t any system in place.


So, bemoan overseeded conditions all you want, but please, quit blaming the grass.

[Mark_Fine]

Joe,
Point taken about rye grass.  But we both I think agree that it takes water to grow it in and keep it green more so than Bermuda grass.  Didn’t mean to get off topic with overseeding comment. That is a whole different subject. 

[mike_malone]

Mark,


  I certainly want you out to Rolling Green to give me a top notch opinion of the changes made as we have finished our upgrade.


   I think that the false front issue is a modern defense against modern technology so it is fair. I have no doubt that Rolling Green was more challenging to the best players of the day in 1926 than today.


In fact our private label IPA is False Front.

[Mark_Fine]

Mike,
Look forward to seeing the work.  As you know, our 17th at Lehigh is quite similar in the way balls can roll a long way off the front of the green and back down the fairway.  As you say, it might not have been intended but it does provide a modern defense. 


Not sure the architects of the time (even Flynn who envisioned the need one day for 7000+ yard golf courses) felt speeds would get to what they are today. 


Just think if today’s courses will have to deal with a similar percent rise in 50 or 100 years 

[Jim_Coleman]

   Gary Player had a problem with what Mike refers to as “false fronts.” They’re mostly elevated greens, where on 13 of them a ball hit just short of the green, or even on the green, will roll back down the fairway anywhere from 10 to 50 yards.
   At least one contributor here, as well as Player, has called this too one dimensional. Reasonable minds can differ.

[mike_malone]

   Gary Player had a problem with what Mike refers to as “false fronts.” They’re mostly elevated greens, where on 13 of them a ball hit just short of the green, or even on the green, will roll back down the fairway anywhere from 10 to 50 yards.
   At least one contributor here, as well as Player, has called this too one dimensional. Reasonable minds can differ.
[/



I recall him saying “ I can’t believe the members put up with these green (fronts)”. At least he thought we had the best greens he played. Of course the members love the course and see the fronts as our distinctive feature. Player seems to have a narrow view based on his own game which shows in his course designs.

[mike_malone]

Mike,
Look forward to seeing the work.  As you know, our 17th at Lehigh is quite similar in the way balls can roll a long way off the front of the green and back down the fairway.  As you say, it might not have been intended but it does provide a modern defense. 


Not sure the architects of the time (even Flynn who envisioned the need one day for 7000+ yard golf courses) felt speeds would get to what they are today. 


Just think if today’s courses will have to deal with a similar percent rise in 50 or 100 years 

17 at Lehigh is the most RG hole there. I love how the ball rolls into the middle of the green on that hole from an approach from the right but if you don’t hit the correct shot you are subject to the roll back.

[mike_malone]

 I have watched many competitions with top notch players trying to deal with our high greens and false fronts. Those who adapt by taking the spin off do fine. Those who are stubborn get punished.


I think we have a very distinct and challenging course that is loved by the members and mostly admired by others. Some find the abundance of uphill challenge not to their liking. I think they are wusses.


We are addressing these issues and are likely to continue to do so. We needed someone with Hanse Design’s reputation to allow anyone to change our greens significantly. 

[Ira Fishman]

Mike,


I have not had the pleasure of playing Rolling Green, but your post captures so well Hope Valley. Even our number 18 is a Par 3 with a pronounced perched green and false front.


And no Mark, the elevated greens and false fronts are not a result of splash build up. They are the way Ross designed them (with one exception).


Ira

[Mark_Fine]

Ira,
How would the front fronts of a green be the result of splash build up?  Splash build up comes from a bunker next to a green.  As golfers play out of the bunker sand is splashed onto the green surface.

#11 at Plainfield has a bunker in front of its false front green.  Soil probes would tell how much build up has occurred but again usually there aren’t bunkers right in front of greens with false fronts.  Not sure what Gil found when he worked on that course.  I will ask him.  It is a Ross. 
 

[Ken Moum]

   Gary Player had a problem with what Mike refers to as “false fronts.” They’re mostly elevated greens, where on 13 of them a ball hit just short of the green, or even on the green, will roll back down the fairway anywhere from 10 to 50 yards.
   At least one contributor here, as well as Player, has called this too one dimensional. Reasonable minds can differ.
[/



I recall him saying “ I can’t believe the members put up with these green (fronts)”. At least he thought we had the best greens he played. Of course the members love the course and see the fronts as our distinctive feature. Player seems to have a narrow view based on his own game which shows in his course designs.

IMHO,  too many golfers, both skilled and otherwise,  forget that on a firm golf course False fronts and no rough in front give players like me the option of bumping the ball onto the green.


Even with rough, I do it all the time on the many elevated greens at Red Mountain Ranch,  where I play.

[Charlie Goerges]

I love the idea of closely mown short grass around greens.  My question was about architects having that as a real option 100 years ago??

I'd love to get the answer to this too.


I have my own hypothesis that it wasn't that they had the option of highly-manicured, closely-mown, short grass as we currently understand it. Instead, there was the lack of long, green, lush rough surrounding the green, so the fairway and rough cuts might well have functioned more like our modern closely mown areas.

[Mark_Fine]

Charlie,
Good thoughts.  As you know, irrigation or lack there of back then had a lot to do with how lush the grass was.  Same goes for today.  But what we do know is what the mowing capabilities were at the time. 


I just played Harbour Town the other day which is a much more modern course than the ones we are talking about as it opened for play in 1969.  Greens back when it opened were estimated to be rolling at around 5.  As such, you can imagine what all the "run off" areas we see today on the golf course were rolling at.  Probably 2-3 at most.  Today those areas are rolling faster than the greens at most public golf courses. 

[cary lichtenstein]

   Gary Player had a problem with what Mike refers to as “false fronts.” They’re mostly elevated greens, where on 13 of them a ball hit just short of the green, or even on the green, will roll back down the fairway anywhere from 10 to 50 yards.
   At least one contributor here, as well as Player, has called this too one dimensional. Reasonable minds can differ.

I agree with Gary Player, I always thought if you hit a green u should  be rewarded. Trying to hit a green from 185 yards out, hitting it and having your ball roll back down the fairway 50 yards is cruel and unusual punishment

[mike_malone]

   Gary Player had a problem with what Mike refers to as “false fronts.” They’re mostly elevated greens, where on 13 of them a ball hit just short of the green, or even on the green, will roll back down the fairway anywhere from 10 to 50 yards.
   At least one contributor here, as well as Player, has called this too one dimensional. Reasonable minds can differ.

I agree with Gary Player, I always thought if you hit a green u should  be rewarded. Trying to hit a green from 185 yards out, hitting it and having your ball roll back down the fairway 50 yards is cruel and unusual punishment

How about Velcro greens to hold balls up?

[cary lichtenstein]

   Gary Player had a problem with what Mike refers to as “false fronts.” They’re mostly elevated greens, where on 13 of them a ball hit just short of the green, or even on the green, will roll back down the fairway anywhere from 10 to 50 yards.
   At least one contributor here, as well as Player, has called this too one dimensional. Reasonable minds can differ.

I agree with Gary Player, I always thought if you hit a green u should  be rewarded. Trying to hit a green from 185 yards out, hitting it and having your ball roll back down the fairway 50 yards is cruel and unusual punishment

How about Velcro greens to hold balls up?

If part of a green is so pitched that balls roll off it, is it really part of the green or just a closely mowed  area? I used to hit a 3 iron 185 yards, hitting a green with a 3 iron is a tough shot and should be rewarded so you can putt next. Chipping or pitching or a penalty running off into the water is silly golf.

[mike_malone]

Cary,


  I guess I’m for variety in different courses. Greens set on hills create many challenges and have more stressful approaches than flatter land. In fact missing to the sides may give you the most difficult challenges. If you are on the high side that downhill shot is tough. If you are below the green you could be hitting a blind shot possibly over a bunker. To get these challenges requires the possibility of roll backs from green to fairway.


I don’t think the false fronts are the problem. It’s our expectations for results from a well struck shot.


Having said that I can see the benefits of short grass versus putting surface.


Last week I hit what I thought was a very good shot that went on the green but came up about a foot short of cresting the slope. I ended up 35 yards short. I still preferred the shot to a putt from above the hole or a chip from the rough above the green.

[Ed Brzezowski]

Cary,


  I guess I’m for variety in different courses. Greens set on hills create many challenges and have more stressful approaches than flatter land. In fact missing to the sides may give you the most difficult challenges. If you are on the high side that downhill shot is tough. If you are below the green you could be hitting a blind shot possibly over a bunker. To get these challenges requires the possibility of roll backs from green to fairway.


I don’t think the false fronts are the problem. It’s our expectations for results from a well struck shot.


Having said that I can see the benefits of short grass versus putting surface.


Last week I hit what I thought was a very good shot that went on the green but came up about a foot short of cresting the slope. I ended up 35 yards short. I still preferred the shot to a putt from above the hole or a chip from the rough above the green.

So I am going to assume a shot hit 3-5 yards short on number eight will still result in a 60 yard recovery?

[Jim_Coleman]

Mark: Yup

[mike_malone]

Cary,


  I guess I’m for variety in different courses. Greens set on hills create many challenges and have more stressful approaches than flatter land. In fact missing to the sides may give you the most difficult challenges. If you are on the high side that downhill shot is tough. If you are below the green you could be hitting a blind shot possibly over a bunker. To get these challenges requires the possibility of roll backs from green to fairway.


I don’t think the false fronts are the problem. It’s our expectations for results from a well struck shot.


Having said that I can see the benefits of short grass versus putting surface.


Last week I hit what I thought was a very good shot that went on the green but came up about a foot short of cresting the slope. I ended up 35 yards short. I still preferred the shot to a putt from above the hole or a chip from the rough above the green.

So I am going to assume a shot hit 3-5 yards short on number eight will still result in a 60 yard recovery?

Ed,


Yes. The steepness of the hill and the fairway makes that inevitable. Maybe one day we decide to change the hole by making it rough in front. That would be an interesting discussion.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()