Ideal height of rough?

[Peter Galea]

Is there an ideal height of rough? 1 3/8", 1 1/2", 3" or none?
Does it depend on the grass type, time of year, width of fairway, wet or dryness, maintenance meld (thanks TEPaul), budget, design intent, mower type (reel vs. rotary)?  One or all of the above? Please discuss.

[RJ_Daley]

Well gee Pete, could we at least discuss it in context of a specific golf course and its turf type?  

[Joe Hancock]

Pete,

This is one of those questions that the answer is already known, yet needs to be discussed to enlighten.

Of course, all the parameters you've listed are factors in determining the ideal height of cut. As pointed out by Pat Fisk in the Augusta cutting height thread, the other areas of turf have a relationship with the rough in regards to ideal height.

One other factor that needs to be mentioned is the desires of the ownership/ governing body. To some, losing balls in the rough may be a more influential factor than actual playability...and so on. How many clubs are maintaining to "design intent" rather than the fancy of their membership base? Not very many, I would presume, or else we wouldn't have all the tree discussions on here that we do!

Joe

[Michael_Stachowicz]

Is it better to talk about it in terms of # of shots penalty?  Is a half shot the ideal penalty or a whole shot?  A one shot would be having to wedge out into the fairway with little advance to the ball, and a 1/2 shot would be getting close to the green allowing for a long putt or a chance at an up and down.

Then each rough type on each course copuld be evaluated in those terms to come up with a height.  For example: Thin fescue roughs could cetainly be mowed higher to provide the same penalty as a lower mowed lush blue/rye rough.

[Mike_Young]

IMHO if rough height becomes more than a 1/2 shot pealty, then bunkers become safe havens in many instances.  I think you see it often, I know it was prevalent at Eastlake during the Tour Championship a few years ago.  Rough just keeps becoming a cop out.  1.5 rough in the SE today is much tougher than it was 10 years ago mainly due to agronomics.

[A_Clay_Man]

Ah Yes, a question where the answer is never wrong. Totally subjective, isn't it?

 We all have preferences and hopefully we all have some form of different preferences. If that's true (and even if it isn't) I think the best answer, in a practical sense, is to never let conditioning get pigeon holed. Varying the rough height, turf and greens firmness, and any other variables you can vary, would be the fairest, funest and most challenging, to all. Screw this notion of consistency, all it does is stifel more thought.

It probably requires too much work and risk, unless the super was the principal, for the majority. But, I'd wager that a knowledgable confident super could figure-out the ebb and flow of conditioning for thier region.

Allowing for more than just two seasonal transition periods annually, seems like it could only add to the mysteries needed to be over-come, while golfing one's ball on that day under those conditions

[Matt_Ward]

Pete:

I have no set definition on how high rough should be -- but clearly there needs to be some sense applied when you go from fairway and then there's that tiny strip of 2-3 inch rough before you reach the hay fields.

That is what it's like when I played Dunluce at Royal Portrush. The fairways were 25 yard wide and you had a tiny playable rough strip before you went to the hayfields. I loved the layout but believe such an "either or" approach really doesn't add to the pedigree of the course.

In my own mind it's really unfortunate that growing high rough has become the E-Z way out for clubs to protect the nature of their courses. How does rough advance strategic thought or is rough merely penal in its characteristic?

For the sake of speed and for the promotion of better all around courses I would say modern layouts like Rustic Canyon and Black Mesa are two good examples of how to accomplish quality golf options without resorting to growing grass that  completely flies in the face of strategic golf.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Here is a crazy ideas to run up the flag pole.....

Why do both sides of the fairway typically get the same treatment of 6 foot of first cut, then out to the tree line with 2-3 inch rough?

Given that a 1000-2000 sf bunker only affects the strategy of a few players, why wouldn't the rough on either side of the fairway be different heights, at least on some holes to promote strategy.  I know the superintendents will howl that they would need another cut, but you could do it with existing first and second cut heights - just widen out the first cut to make on side a bit safer.

What if the premium side of the fairway on a given hole had deep rough, while the bail out side had just "first cut" rough that affected spin, and would make it hard to get to a specific spot on a green, but wouldn't result in a two stroke lost ball penalty?  Would that create a dilema in golfers minds?

[W.H. Cosgrove]

Jeff,
Would'nt your suggestion create a maintenance nightmare?  Wouldn't the different length rough cost more to maintain?