Golfers hit the ball than they used to. For architecture fans, the great fear is that championship courses built with yesterday's equipment in mind, will no longer be capable of providing a sufficient and balanced challenge for today's best players. Many old courses now use longer grass, or rough, to a greater extent, in order to defend par. I propose a discussion from the perspective of the golf course. Is rough a reasonable method to defend par?
I had the great pleasure of playing Merion GC (East) twice last June. Great course, certainly one of the best I've played. However, I felt the course had one serious flaw; it employed very long rough to defend itself. The late spring rough grass was incredibly long and lush, averaging 5-6" in most places. On hole #10, a short dogleg left, and #14, a medium dogleg left, the rough on the inside of the dogleg was 8-12" long, and a lost ball was a probable outcome.
Both of these holes would be much easier if typical 2-3" rough were used here, especially #10. But I thought the course was plenty challenging without the long stuff. The greens were lightning fast, sloped, and surrounded by deep and difficult bunkers. I was driving the ball badly that week, I got my ass kicked, and I walked off the course rather demoralized.
A second example is the Stanford GC, once a 6700 yard par 71, now a 6800 yard par 70. My dad was a member there. I played it regularly twenty years ago, and nowadays a couple times a year. The course used to feature wide fairways and light rough. Over the years, the club has narrowed the fairways and increased rough length to prevent the college players, and now the membership, from scoring too well. As a result, the course is less enjoyable. For instance, one of my favorites is the simple, flat 425 yard 13th. The green slopes from front left to back right, favoring a drive in the left side of the fairway. A big drive over the left fairway bunker used to yield a short iron with a great angle. Today, that same big drive leaves a short-medium iron from medium-long rough. It's discouraging. Stanford is still a great course; just not as fun as it used to be.
Now let's look at two modern designs I am familiar with, Ballyneal and Stone Eagle. Both are relatively short by modern standards. Stone Eagle is about 6800 yards, and Ballyneal about 7100 yards at 3700 feet elevation. On each course, the fairways are very wide, and bounded by a narrow strip (2-3 yards) of short rough, which helps keep balls in play. The courses are quite hilly, and feature sloped greens, desirable playing angles, and uneven fairway lies. These courses should provide a sufficient (and enjoyable) challenge for 99.5% of the golfers for many years to come.
I'm under the impression that most of the great courses designed during the first Golden Age of design were intended to play the same way, with wide fairways and lots of short grass.
Is the use of rough a reasonable way to defend a golf course?
1. Typical golf course rough takes skill to read your lie correctly. A good player can read different kinds of lies. For example:
a. Flier lies.
b. Balls that come out low and run.
c. Balls that behave somewhat normally.
d. Times when the club will grab and pull the shot left.
e. Pitchouts.
I like rough that offers a balanced combination of these outcomes. It takes skill, and a correctly anticipated result is rewarding. I especially enjoy fliers in late summer.
2. Long, lush rough like the kind at Merion does not offer good variety. Most shots are a pitchout, and the dreaded lost ball is a real possibility. Rarely are lies good enough to consider advancing the ball to the green. Rough like this is a drag.
3. Playing well from rough requires good technique. A sharply descending blow, versus a sweeping motion, allows the club to make contact with the least resistance from the grass. I often take an extra club and open my stance to make a descending pass at the ball.
4. Rough benefits the stronger player. It requires strength to move the ball from less than perfect lies. No matter how good one's technique, skill reading lies, the stronger you are the better. Once again, the stronger player is rewarded, and I don't like this.
At Pumpkin Ridge, 2-3" rye rough provides an excellent challenge, with a wide variety of lies, and a reasonable chance of success.
Poa annua rough is less interesting. At 2-3" it provides little resistance; you play the shot to fly a little shorter and roll a little longer. At 4-6" it grabs the hosel and yields a lot of low pulls.
2-6" fescue is lots of fun; it all depends on which way the grass is leaning. Down grain yields incredible fliers that roll forever. Shots into the grain can't be hit hard enough.
I haven't played many courses with bermuda or kikuyu grass. In each case, I assume the difficulty starts when the ball sits down, at which point even short rough lies are very difficult.
In conclusion, I've been considering this topic for months, as an alternative way of discussing golf ball distance from a course standpoint. Your opinions are appreciated.