Rough Lines, An Overlooked Improvement?

[Gib_Papazian]

Because it remains a pet peeve of mine, I have been focusing of late on the sometimes nonsensical and arbitrary rough lines that plague even the best of golf courses.

We faced this difficulty at Olympic until a year or two ago, and despite the whining of a few members, the course is vastly improved from a strategic standpoint. Many little rolls and folds were brought back by simply mowing the grass and thereby reintroducing them into the lines of play.

That said, it is still a mystery why the loudest squawks erupted from the mid to high handicappers who stand to gain the most by these modifications.

Because we spend so much time dissecting Garden City here in the Treehouse, I saw an example of this on the first hole last week when playing with Patrick M. There is a fascinating little hump directly to the right of the front greenside bunker currently covered with long grass. The rough lines are arbitrary, swinging wide from the bunker  that seem to invalidate this feature. The mound was obviously put there for a reason. On closer examination, if mowed to fairway height, it would suggest all sorts of creative shots when approaching from the right hand angle.

This is only one instance, but it struck me as a more subtle example of what would happen if the knob to the left front of Pacific Dunes’ par-3 fifth hole was covered with long grass instead of being part of the approach area to the green. The hole would be horribly diminished.

The long and short of it (grass) remains that it strikes me as incredible how many excellent courses have compromised their architecture simply by sloppy or thoughtless mowing patterns. Sometimes, in the case of having the USGA redrawing rough lines for a championship, the course never really recaptures its original look. I think that happened over a course of time at Olympic. Maybe we were U.S. Open-ized.

I wonder how many clubs would benefit from simply bringing in a consultant to ferret out lost natural features - whether from rough encroachment or silly tree plantings. I was brought in recently to a local club for some opinions and it was laughable where some of the trees and rough lines had crept too.  A fresh set of eyes sometimes does wonders. Look what Karl did over at NGLA. Just by removing trees and mowing the grass he turned a “10" into a “15" on a scale of 1-10 . . . :-)

It cost so little, why don’t more clubs do it? Could it be that architects are in the business of moving dirt and are at loathe to suggest simple improvements? That is not an accusation to my friends in the ASGCA, just a question.

Is there room in the business for experts who do nothing but suggest affordable improvements? After all, municipalities and most clubs are short on cash.

Comments?      

[Mike_Cirba]

Gib,

I can think of two other excellent courses where some features have been lost or minimized due to having been "USOpenized" in their mowing patterns.

There are a number of bunkers at Merion that would come into play, sometimes very strategically, if they were not "blocked" by rough.  I'm thinking the short, greenside bunker on number five as the best evidence of that problem.  If the higher right side around the bunker were maintained as fairway, it would not only bring the bunker back into play, but also the possible variety of shots for approaching that very superb green.  I've heard rumors that opening the mowing patterns at Merion is part of the ongoing changes happening there, so I'm hopeful this will be rectified soon.  The bunkers themselves are another matter.

Another that comes to mind is the long 17th at Baltusrol Lower.  Generally, the mowing patterns have been excellent at both Baltusrol courses in recent years, and the restoration and tree-clearing effort that have taken place are exemplary.  Still, the higher left side beyond the sahara bunkering complex used to be fairway, with a now almost useless bunker sitting in the middle of it.  

As I see it, this used to be the riskier, less obvious route, where one could challenge that bunker and if successful, be left with a much better view of the green than is possible from the lower right side.  

I know that RW is well-aware of this lost strategy, so perhaps we'll also see this returned in time.  Perhaps that is no longer possible as the adjoining 17th on the Upper course comes in pretty close to that area, but I'd love to see it.

[Wayne_Tucker]

Hey Mike, great point you made about #5 at Merion -- when I played there, the back tee hadn't yet been installed, and that bunker really wasn't in play.  On what other holes do you think they'd change the mowing patterns?  

I'm thinking #6, #10, #11 and #18 can be made better by widening fairways in certain places.  I'm not sure though, as I haven't played the course in a while. So how I remember the course may not be how it looks right now.

[aclayman]

Short on cash? Municipalities?
How could any muni be short on cash, unless they are brand new and the sunk costs haven't been recovered yet, or...?. Every public coursed I know is jammed to the gills and is reaping from the popularity and laziness (carts). If you(any course) can't make money in this market you really do need to hire more consultants, or maybe you hired too many?

[TEPaul]

The early word is Merion might be seriously looking into all the ramifications of firm and fast through the green and that would probably be in tandem with expanding their fairways-maybe even bigtime!

That's the early bird word and it's completely unofficial but it's sounds like a very cool early bird word to me!!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Gib,

Great point.

Unfortunately, I think too many clubs have focused on larger or more visible projects.

It seems that green lines and fairway lines are lost gradually, almost invisibly over time until someone recognizes that a departure has occured.

At my course in New Jersey we are about to install an updated irrigation system, and I have been telling them they need to bring in an architect to restore and finalize the rough lines prior to the installation.  
But, I doubt that will occur because we have some Board members who know more than architects.  I wonder if architects know more about dentistry and medicine ?  

I must tell you, I missed the mound on # 1, until you pointed it out.  Sometimes you get so close to something that you can't identify or understand it.  Sometimes an outsider sees things a member may miss due to familiarity or blending.  Fresh viewpoints and constructive criticism should always be welcomed and appreciated.  
Sometimes two heads are better than one.

At GCGC I think the rough lines have moved/narrowed due to the pattern the mower operators follow near bunkers and trees (#11) that have grown over the years.  
But, the process happens so slowly that only outsiders recognize that something is wrong.

Good ideas can come from more than one source, and it is a foolish club that doesn't take good ideas under consideration, and not reject them because they didn't think of them.  

I do know that some architects place electrical wires under the perimeter of the green, preserving them for all time, should the surface lines get lost through improper mowing patters.  Perhaps there is some way to preserve fairway lines as well.

[TEPaul]

Come on Pat, the Board is about to get a new irrigation system without finalizing the lines of the fairways? If you want to see the fairways expanded to what they once might have been and probably should be again now is the time to get it done and get those lines finalized! What if some of the piping need to be added to and expanded out which it obviously might need to be. Talk about putting the cart before the horse. What's your Board thinking?

You want me to leave an anonymous message on the phone machines of your Board members? I'll do it.

As I understand it greens can be perimeterized with underground metal detectors so a club can get the sattelite to shoot the perimeters anytime they want to. So the same has to be true for fairway   lines. I'm told it isn't even expensive to do that and you don't even need to know somebody in NASA!

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom & Patrick;

Can that combination of electrical lines and metal detectors be setup in a way that they shock the crap out of any future groundskeeper who happens not to cut to their perimeter?

Nothing fatal, mind you.  Just something that lights up the tractor in a way that it probably won't happen again.  

[TEPaul]

No, No, there's nothing in the US Satellite system that actually shocks maintenance crew members who don't cut to the proper expanded green and fairway lines--just a big voice from the sky that booms out; "I'm watching you dufuss, you've gotta do better than that!!"

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike, TEpaul, et.al.,

Green lines get lost easily over a short period of time, especially if bunkers are immediately adjacent to the green.

Most maintainance workers are hourly employees not enjoying the highest wages, and, when mowing near the edge of a nearby bunker, the tendency is to create a little margin of  safety between the mowing machine and the bunker, hence the greens shrink rather quickly.

TEPaul,

You've heard the phrase "they just don't get it", well it is amazing that seemingly intelligent people don't understand how their fairways have shrunk, and have shifted over the years, requiring an architect to restore them to their near original form.
 
It's not a question of the cart before the horse, it's more the horse's ass before the cart.

This may be another case of a wonderful opportunity "LOST"

Then again, when you consider that we just excavated about 15,000 cubic yards of dirt for a lake, and had a contractor willing to haul it away for free, these morons, excuse me, these MORONS built huge mounds on a wonderful old Tucker golf course.  They built huge mounds along the fairways without any drainage planning, negatively altering the look and playing conditions of the holes.
Now, they are planting trees on top of the mounds, some right behind some tees.  Those trees will grow into the tees eventually, but they don't seem to understand that yet.

What's behind this idiocy ??  EGO, EGO, EGO !

Those in charge are rarely right, but never in doubt !

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick;

Your passion is evident.

It's nice to know that members like you exist out there, and it's been my privilege to meet others who are fighting the good fight, even to no avail.

Generally, and cumulatively, I do think that things are changing for the better and I take some comfort in that.  However unfortunately, I think more harm will be done before common understanding and education fully takes hold.  

One would think that members at some of the world's best courses would just logically select the proper path, yet we've seen time and again that this is clearly not the case.  So, it should be no surprise when the members of Generic CC, in mid-county America, decide on courses of action that are in diametrical opposition to the design intent of the original architect.  The only thing that helps is people who are passionately interested and willing to stick their necks and reputations on the line to try to educate and convince their memberships otherwise.

The good news, and the cause for hope and optimism, is the increasing knowlege of classic course design (through forums like GCA) and the amount of true restoration work that is happening out there..  It's even taken hold in new course building, so I believe we are not some anachronistic fogies hoping for a return to the past.  

One battle at a time, my friends, and let's not get discouraged when we lose.  The war is starting to be won, so let's not lose our belief, or more importantly, our passion.

[Gib_Papazian]

It might be unrealisitic, but NGLA has me rethinking (again) about the entire idea of "rough" in the traditional American sense.

Doubtless, it is cheaper to maintain rough than fairway, but if we simply cut the long grass back on most of the courses in this country and perhaps relaxed the conditioning expectations of the course as a whole to control costs, would we be better off?

Playing the angles by using clever green complexes and bunkering schemes seems a far better way to challenge golfers than a mind-numbing chop out of cabbage. Even light rough seems to contribute nothing to the overall playing experiance.

It seems more reasonable to establish a boundary of maintained area and let nature take its course on the rest. Sort of what I imagine Pine Valley looked like before they began to carefully groom their "unmaintained" areas.

IMHO, rough is often little more than a crutch to hide a lack of architectural creativity.

There will always be those who decry closely mowed grass through the green as an enmasculation of the golf course, but I'll bet if the rough was completely removed from - for instance - the Lake Course at Olympic, it would not only be more strategically compelling, but might actually play tougher.

Think of the tee shots on #2,4,5,12 and 14 without some long grass to stop errant shots. It would also reintroduce the idea (preaching to the choir . . sorry) of using the idea of using the contours of the ground to direct your ball.

Golf used to be a game of strategy and angles - just this simple modification might turn the tide completely in the other direction by showing John Q. Public the other side of the coin.

And who cares how this would effect the Pro game? In fact, who in the Treehouse give the game the Pro's play any thought at all in terms of design?  

Once us mortals get used to having to carefully control distance as well as direction on fast golf courses, the idea of hassling with deep rough would quickly seem completely contrary to the roots of the game.

Not that flame-outs 50 yards off line ought not be dealt a severe penalty, but what is the point of trying to cram narrow ribbons of short grass between over-fertilized hay?  

[aclayman]

Gib-
C'mon down and play Spyglass hill. You will be impressed with the recent use of the natural grasses to frame the holes.

[TEPaul]

Gib:

You said above; "Not that flame-outs of 50yds or more ought not to be dealt a severe penalty...".

Actually I distinctly recall reading the thoughts of more than one of the old "Golden Age" designers and writers mentioning that it really wasn't all that necessary to design something severely penalizing for the golfer who hit shots like that. The conclusion was that golfer who hit shots like that probably possessed a game that was penalty enough! Truly that's what they wrote. So that theory would seem to definitely speak to your thought of minimizing rough. And then of course that minimized rough also kept alive the possiblity of the heroic recovery shot which as we all know was highly valued in the old days.

I saw Bagger Vance again the other day and it did mention towards the end that a personal philosophy of Walter Hagen's whose golf game was a flamboyant as he was, was that all he really needed to do is hit one great shot per hole (no matter where he'd been on the hole) and he would probably be alright. I guess Walter was considered the king of the recovery shots.

You had to love that scene where Walter is out on the beach about 200yds from the green with his ball on a sand bar and he tells his caddie to go on up to the green and hold the flag because it's great theater and who knows he just might hit the flag.

[ForkaB]

Gib et. al.

The current issue of the National Geographic has a quote from the art historian Jean-Louis Bourgeois, regarding the Great Mosque of Djenne:

"They (permanently designed scaffoldings) express the African belief that maintenance is integral to architecture, that architecture is a verb as well as a noun."

The more I peruse this site, and the more I play golf, the more I believe that it is the surperintendent who influences the quality of the courses we play, and not the architect, be he or she dead or alive.

[TEPaul]

Jeeesus Rich:

You asked me not to mention your IQ again and here you go talking about the Great Mosque of Djenne and Jean Louis Bour...Bourg....Bourgei...Whatever! And African maintenance practices and such. What am I supposed to think?

I read you loud and clear though. The supers are like curators of the art. If they don't know what they're doing they can't seem to turn the lights up on the art and if they're great curators they manage to turn the lights up full and really show off the art.

I call it the "maintenance meld"--the architecture/maintenance meld!