A "Rough" hypothetical

[George Pazin]

How do you think some of the older, ballbuster type courses would play for the pros with zero or almost zero rough?

I'm thinking about Winger Foot West, Oakmont, Oakland Hills, etc., with either 90% fairway cut, or a really light second cut ala today's Augusta.

I'm especially hearing the opinions of the top flight competitive golfers like Sully, MWP, Jamie Slonis, etc., but of course all opinions are welcome.

[Padraig Dooley]

I think they would be a lot more interesting. I am sick of playing courses that are too narrow with little or no strategy of the tee.

I played the Open qualifier in Baltray yesterday. The course was nice and firm but we spent too much time looking for balls in the rough.

I think what would happen would be the low scores wouldn't be much lower but the high scores might be a couple of shots lower, but again most shots are lost around the green and not off the tee.

[Kyle Harris]

George,

The width would only work with a firm and fast program. Else the pros would just have a large field to throw lawn darts. Once the ball gets rolling and is unimpeded by the grass - watch out.

[JR Potts]

I think they would play 2 shots a round easier.  And I don't believe this because of the premium severe rough plays on straight driving.  The shots saved would be around the green.  I think the effect on driving would be negligible.  

[George Pazin]

Kyle, I believer in firm and fast like Shinney '04, so that's a given.

Obviously, firm depends on the weather.

Ryan -

Why do you think it would be easier around the greens? I could see it being a little less potluck, but I don't think it would be any easier.

[JSlonis]

Kyle, I believer in firm and fast like Shinney '04, so that's a given.

Obviously, firm depends on the weather.

Ryan -

Why do you think it would be easier around the greens? I could see it being a little less potluck, but I don't think it would be any easier.

George,

It would be a bit easier around the greens because players would be able to hit more shots that they could control, and not just hack it out of the deep rough and hope they've judged it correctly.

Even it the golf course played firm, it would play a lot easier from tee to green as well, for much the same reason.  With more fairway and less rough, guys would be able to hit more controlled shots.  When really good players can control the spin of their shots, it makes the game easier, regardless of the firmness.  Obviously, firm conditions can be taken to an extreme, but the pros would rather have super firm conditions with more fairway and less rough than they would firm with high rough.

For tour level players, being able to control the ball with proper spin is the key to scoring.  When that comfort is taken away, it makes the game exponentially more difficult.  This is why you see the super low scores in certain events.  Look at the tournaments like the Bob Hope or the Phoenix tourney.  They usually have very low scores because the courses have generous landing areas with minimal rough and the very good players are able to really control their ball regardless of the hazards presented.  I think the great courses you mentioned would hold up far better than the ones I mentioned, simply because of the overall architecture, and more specifically the greensites and surrounds.

Take for example Winged Foot...compare this years US Open setup to a setup where the fairways were 35-40 yards wide with minimal rough thereafter.  If guys did hit it out of the fairway, they would still have a better chance of getting the ball back in play somewhere around the green where they could reasonably get the ball up and down.  During the US Open, just getting the ball back into a reasonable position from out of the deep rough was no bargain.  It probably wouldn't be a stretch to guess there could be a 10-15 shot difference over 4 days of play.

[Padraig Dooley]

It has been my experience that softer conditions lead to lower scores and firmer conditions, regardless how much shorter the course plays, lead to higher scores.

Less rough around the greens mean balls run further from the hole, making saving par more difficult.

[JohnV]

It depends on how other hazards (trees, bunkers, water) were on the course.  If the balls were rolling into them, the course could play as tough or tougher.  If they weren't and the greens didn't require shots from specific angles, they would play easier.

Firm and fast and proper greenside protections that required the player to keep it on the proper line along with difficult greens would be key.

In other words, the Old Course.

It would be interesting to see how Oakmont would play with no rough.

[George Pazin]

I have to admit, Padraig's answer was more along the lines of what I was thinking.

I look at a course like Oakmont, and I'd be willing to bet that, if it were at even just a good solid firmness, and not necessarily completely baked out, that the ball would run to places that would make for extremely difficult recovery shots.

I'd love to see a tournament there with no rough and really firm and fast conditions. I think it would be a real eye opener.

[JohnV]

George,

There are some Oakmont's members who think that the course will be too easy for the pros next year because of the lack of trees.  I'd hate to think how easy they would think it would play with no rough.

Winged Foot would probably still be pretty difficult because, as Phil showed us on #18, the trees are still a factor even with no rough.  And imagine how far from the green his bunker shot would have gone.  There'd be a lot more Pinehurst type shots around some of those raised greens

[Mike Nuzzo]

Come to south texas to test your hypothesis in a little while...  

[Matt_Cohn]

If there's less rough, the pro's hit driver on every hole.

Then they approach every green with a short iron or wedge.

I don't think a mis-hit 8-iron is going to run that much further away from the hole.

How often do you hit an approach shot off-line and wish the rough were deeper to stop it?

Occasionally, but...not a lot. You certainly wish it were shorter much less than you wish it were deeper.

How about a combo WF/Pinehurst - 6 inch thick rough, 25 yard wide fairways, and crowned greens with 30 yards of firm and fast fairway around them?

OK, now that could be hard.

[Kyle Harris]

If there's less rough, the pro's hit driver on every hole.

Then they approach every green with a short iron or wedge.

I don't think a mis-hit 8-iron is going to run that much further away from the hole.

How often do you hit an approach shot off-line and wish the rough were deeper to stop it?

Occasionally, but...not a lot. You certainly wish it were shorter much less than you wish it were deeper.

How about a combo WF/Pinehurst - 6 inch thick rough, 25 yard wide fairways, and crowned greens with 30 yards of firm and fast fairway around them?

OK, now that could be hard.

Matt,

This won't necessarily be the case. Considering that the firm/fast and width combination at its finest would serve to move tee shots further off line to less-than-desirable angles at distances further from the green than the down the middle tee shot (add true fairway bunkers to the equation) and suddenly the better player is playing for position rather than just distance.

This, of course, is the mark of a finely designed golf course and I feel width and firm/fast would bring back a lot of "classic" look to modern courses.

[Jason Topp]

I believe my course would play more difficult.  

Trees would still require accuracy off the tee and shots that missed greens would run a long way away from the green due to many of them being elevated with steep drop offs on the sides.  Currently the rough stops missed iron shots close to the green much of the time.

These pictures flatten out the hills a bit but give you a sense of what I am talking about:

13th:





17th:

[George Pazin]

I'll go on record right now as saying I will be shocked if anyone finds Oakmont easy next year, trees or no trees, unless there is a large downpour and the course plays soft.

I also can't imagine the course playing that much easier with minimal rough. The amazing contours, in the fairways, and on and around the greens, would definitely cause the ball to run into some tricky places. I'd guess the same thing about WFW.

Too bad we'll never find out.

[Matt_Cohn]

Several people have mentioned the posibility for the golf ball to run into tricky places given no rough around the green.

But this only happens if balls are coming in low, running, and out of control - or if you have exaggerated Pinehurst-style green setups.

The entire PGA Tour has proven the last few years that unless you have extreme rough or holes into which a ball hit with a driver will not fit, the pro's will not play for position. They'll hit driver, and I honestly can't see how shorter rough will change that.

Didn't Augusta give up on minimal rough with an emphasis on angles? If it doesn't work anymore at Augusta, where will it work?

[Shane Gurnett]

Matt,

Have you forgotten all the good stuff you learnt in Australia?

Firm greens and close cut surrorunds makes for much more demanding (and interesting) golf than rough encircled greens where the ball can just be hammered at the putting surface with the safety of knowing that the ball will not finish more than a few feet off the green if the shot is poor (ala the PGA Tour every other week).

Think back to how Kingston Heath was set up when you played there, or the Aus Open at Victoria. A ball slightly off line into those greens is punished severely (the ball can run up to 30m from the green if missed). If they were ringed with rough the course would play much, much easier (and be a lot more boring)

[Kyle Harris]

Several people have mentioned the posibility for the golf ball to run into tricky places given no rough around the green.

But this only happens if balls are coming in low, running, and out of control - or if you have exaggerated Pinehurst-style green setups.

The entire PGA Tour has proven the last few years that unless you have extreme rough or holes into which a ball hit with a driver will not fit, the pro's will not play for position. They'll hit driver, and I honestly can't see how shorter rough will change that.

Didn't Augusta give up on minimal rough with an emphasis on angles? If it doesn't work anymore at Augusta, where will it work?

Matt,

I am speaking of tee shots, not approaches.

Something tells me that if tee shots were still able to run through the fairway on 13 at Augusta National (and into the woods), the hole would play more difficult. .

Furthermore, how has the PGA Tour proven your assertion to be the case? At what point was there a controlled experiment between course setups?

Aren't scores on the PGA Tour categorically lower than 5-10 years ago?

[George Pazin]

There are plenty of us who think it would still work at Augusta, but we're not on the Green Committee.

The PGA Tour doesn't play many of the types of courses I was referencing in my opening post.

[Matt_Cohn]

Yay, I love getting GCA'ers riled up.

Shane - of course I agree with you. Just remember that the ball only gets 30m away if the conditions are firm and fast, and if the ground runs away.

Around the greens, the whole thing is contingent on the ball getting really far away from the hole due to the lack of rough. Otherwise the ball is just sitting in a nice lie.

1.5" rough (other than bermuda) has to be the easiest thing to play from around the greens. You can do anything from it, even more than from a fairway lie most of the time.

But when I think of WF, Oakland Hills, etc., I think of much more than 2" rough. Maybe that's the problem - I'm thinking of a tournament setup with 4-5" rough and I'm quite convinced that such a setup will always be harder than a setup with no rough at all.

I think two different questions, not just one, are posed here: 1) What if there was no rough, and 2) What if there was very little rough?. The answer to #2 is that it will be easy. The answer to #1 is that it could be easier, or it could be harder.

If we're only talking about the fairways - not the greens - for me it's a toss-up whether I'd choose 2" rough or 100% fairway as the easier setup. The narrower and more tree-lined a course is, the more I'd choose rough to stay out of trouble. The wider and more open it is, the more I'd go for 100% fairway.

But I wouldn't choose 4" rough over anything. Would anyone here argue that 4" rough is easier than 100% fairway?

So here's my hypotheis:
Most courses are easiest from the tee when there is 1.5"-2" of rough beginning about 5 yards inside the treeline/"trouble-line". Deviate from that - taller rough, no rough, narrower fairways, or short grass closer to trouble - and the course usually becomes more difficult.

Most courses feature that setup for daily play. If things are changed, I think I'd shoot better as the grass got shorter as opposed to longer.

George: Other than removing the new trees and taking out the 2nd cut, what would need to change at Augusta for the pros to consider angles important again? Do you think such a setup would be/could be harder than the current one?

Kyle: I agree with you on Augusta #13 although I think a lot of teeshots on that course play harder with the 2nd cut (2, 9, 10, 11, 15). I think my setup hypothesis above works at Augusta, too. It used to be different because the fairways were wide enough that they weren't often missed. Now they're narrow enough that rough can help more than it used to.

Enough of this. I have a nightclub to go to...

~Matt  

[Tony_Muldoon]

I'm especially hearing the opinions of the top flight competitive golfers like

As he's relatively new on here (and presumably modest) here's a clue as to another contributors credentials.

http://www.europrotour.com/player_profile.asp?player_id=54

Go Padraig!  (no not the other one this time )

[George Pazin]

Thanks for the link, Tony, and well done, Padraig, I'll be following your career as it develops.

George: Other than removing the new trees and taking out the 2nd cut, what would need to change at Augusta for the pros to consider angles important again? Do you think such a setup would be/could be harder than the current one?

Matt, unfortunately I think it depends hugely on the weather. I do think the course would play as tough or tougher with no new trees or 2nd cut IF it were really firm and fast. It might play slightly tougher with these is it's wet/soft. Ultimately, however, I don't think the additions are that significant with respect to scoring. For every tree blockout that causes the highly entertaining punch out, there are probaby several shots saved because the ball didn't run to a tougher angle.

I do think the additions are horrendously significant with respect to the original intent of the golf course, and the example it sets for golf viewers on the tube.