High fescue rough areas--Yes, No, Maybe, and where?

[TEPaul]

This thread is to generate a discussion on the use of a high, generally fescue type rough areas on various golf courses.

The discussion should cover at least three seemingly separate and maybe unconnected contexts;

1. Aesthetics
2. Playability (penality)
3. Correct maintenance practices

A number of golf clubs, and some very notable ones, seem to be in the midst of transitioning in one way or another with areas of high fescue rough. It seems like this transitioning at some of these notable courses include both philosophical, aesthetic, strategic and maintenance questions.

These clubs include Merion East, The Creek, PCC (a few years ago) and Aronimink in the last few years. My own course went through this question in the last few years.

Perhaps the one most interested in a discussion or immediate answers is The Creek.

The Creek seems to believe that the aesthetic beauty of high fescue rough (perhaps even of the ball eating variety in some selected areas) is undeniable, particularly when one reaches the 6th tee and the look and aura of the course from then on changes dramatically from what preceded it to that great open sweep down to the sound. I'd doubt anyone would deny that liberal areas of visible high fescue rough waving in the breeze at that point on the course is undeniably beautiful and additionally dramatic.

But at that point, particularly on the right of the 6th hole the issue of playability and lost balls hits home hard, particularly amongst less accomplished players. Other areas of danger follow such as the left along #7.

Merion East, on the other hand, grew ball-eating, albeit beautiful high fescue rough a few years ago and the membership virtually freaked out and rebelled. That process may've been somewhat intended to drive a number of less accomplished players off the sometimes overcrowded East Course over to the more golfer friendly West Course. If that was one goal, which I do not know that it was, I think it was successful.

However, in the last month and a half or so Merion East has cut very low large areas of what used to be high ball eating fescue rough areas. They've cut down so much of it and low enough, it now gives the golf course a most interesting and unique look of some combination of a "Parkland" course with something of an inland links look in mostly out of the way areas. At Merion East the high fescue areas are mostly out of play with the exception of a few holes such as left of #14's tee shot that is probably as dangerous as The Creek's #6 on the right.

The Creek is also apparently quite interested in a bit of a heightened “degree of difficutly” since their course is relatively short with not much available elasticity.
I think those occasional random applications of danger (high fescue) is an interesting thing to have---with the stress being on “random areas” and random holes and not most everywhere off fairways on all holes. In a sense those occasional holes sort of get in a player's head before they get there.

As for the proper and ideal maintenance of high fescue rough areas, such as when to cut it or not, I’d sure like to see the supers on here weigh in with their thoughts and maintenance practices.

But what do you guys think The Creek, for instance, should ideally do with areas of high fescue rough, and most specifically---where?

Again, the threes separate areas of discussion should be;

1.   Aesthetics
2.   Playability (penality)
3.   Proper annual maintenance practices, like when to mow them or not.

[TEPaul]

Another course I've played recently where high fescue rough areas are prevalently in the player's mind is Fishers Island. The golfers I was with up there did go in to search for balls in those areas but never very optimistically. The chances of finding a ball in those areas seemed to be a bit better than 50/50.

How do you like them apples?

[TEPaul]

Perhaps the most ideal course I've ever seen in America, year in and year out, with their use of high fescue rough areas is Maidstone. Most of the time it's old enough and wispy enough to pretty much not lose a ball and to also be able to struggle with the question and choice of just how much distance you want to get out of it. In other words, the temptation to try for more than is sometimes reasonable is very real. And, in my opinion, that factor alone is a very good thing when it comes to any rough areas.

[Jason Topp]

Most Midwest courses have created these areas, I assume because of a desire for that environmental certificate.

1. Aesthetics

I like the way it looks.

2. Playability (penality)

I really dislike its impact on playability, unless it can be maintained in a fashion similar to most of the links courses or at Sand Hills where you have a reasonable chance of both finding your ball and hitting some sort of recovery shot.  I have not seen a real successful effort at creating such areas on midwestern soil, although Windsong Farm is trying to do so West of the Twin Cities.  

If placed in largely out of play areas, as is the common practice here, it only really affects poor players, makes them more miserable, and penalizes them when they are already doing a good job of that themselves by hitting it in the area in the first place.  I think such areas add no strategic interest to a course.

If maintained to allow recovery, I would prefer to see it put closer to the line of play to create any useful strategic interest.

3. Correct maintenance practices

See #2.

[Bob_Huntley]

Tom,

Very briefly, the Shore Course at MPCC on opening day was a thing of beauty. Fescue grasses as high as an elephants eye graced each side of the fairways. Aesthetically it was stunning.

The first foursome out on opening day included Forrest Fezler, runner-up to Hale Irwin at the massacre at Winged Foot, who had worked throughout with Mike Strantz on the construction of the course. He lost three balls on the first two holes and it was obvious that aesthetics would eventually have to give way to playability. The decision to stop watering the rough and cut it became the clamour of the membership. This has been done but it sure doesn't look as pretty as it once did.



Bob

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

One of the only things I have against Prairie Dunes, which in many ways is a perfect golf course, is simply the gunch off the fairways, which by mid-summer is impenetrable and where the odds of finding your ball is zip.

We'd complain if those areas were water hazards, yet they get a pass because they're grass.    I wish there were a way to keep them thinner (they do a controlled burn every year) but it doesn't seem possible.  Certainly, some courses seem to manage that, but I think it requires long, dry stretches in most cases.

btw, isn't most of the long, impenatrable fescue at Merion growing in the bunker faces?  

[Dave Collard]

2. Playability (penality)

I really dislike its impact on playability, unless it can be maintained in a fashion similar to most of the links courses or at Sand Hills where you have a reasonable chance of both finding your ball and hitting some sort of recovery shot.  I have not seen a real successful effort at creating such areas on midwestern soil, although Windsong Farm is trying to do so West of the Twin Cities.  

I think that The Links of Lawsonia in WisCONsin has
done well with this, though in some years past it was
allowed to grow much too thick.  I haven't been there
this year so I don't know its current state.

[Jim_Coleman]

   Aesthetics:  It all depends on the course.  At a linkslike or Heathland type course, where the look is natural, it looks great.  I include Garden City, the Hamptons courses, and I'll even give you Merion, in this category.  On parkland courses (Aronomink, New Cricket, Philmont) it looks contrived and silly to me - it's there just for the sake of being there.  (Nor do I like fescuey eyebrows on bunkers at parkland courses.)
    Playabilty:  It has none.  Not only isn't it playable, but it takes five minutes to determine that it's not playable.  I should amend that by observing that the fescue in America is unplayable.  In Great Britain, the fescue seems to be more wispy.  They reserve gorse and heather for their unplayable stuff.  But I haven't seen that British-like fescue here.  Only the unplayable/unfindable kind.
   Why trees are lambasted for the lack of choices they offer while fescue is revered is lost on me.  I'd rather be given the choice of trying to bend a shot around, under or over a pretty tree (not an ugly evergreen) than trudge back to the tee after searching in fescue for five minutes.
    Maintenance:  No credentials here, but give me the British kind.  Otherwise, fescue is brown water to me.
    p.s.  Nice seeing you this past weekend.  Great fun!

[ForkaB]

Redanperson is right.  If the fescue rough looks pretty off the tee it is unplayable eye candy which is inimical to a proper and enjoyable game of golf.

[Tom Roewer]

Perhaps the most ideal course I've ever seen in America, year in and year out, with their use of high fescue rough areas is Maidstone. Most of the time it's old enough and wispy enough to pretty much not lose a ball and to also be able to struggle with the question and choice of just how much distance you want to get out of it. In other words, the temptation to try for more than is sometimes reasonable is very real. And, in my opinion, that factor alone is a very good thing when it comes to any rough areas.

[TEPaul]

"btw, isn't most of the long, impenatrable fescue at Merion growing in the bunker faces?  

MikeC:

Yes it is and frankly that has now become one of the great philosophical anomalies in the entire world of golf and golf course architecture.   Isn't it odd that GOLFCLUBALTASERS apparently didn't get their way despite thinking that they must have had some significant undercurrent influence on Merion East in the end?  

None of us on here like that plaintive cry from modern golfers "Get in the bunker" but in Merion East's case it is understandable. The plaintive cry of Merion East is now some variation of "Get in the Bunker" to "PLEASE get in the SAND in the Bunker".  

[Tom Roewer]

TE:  I am with you concerning your Maidstone reference.  Chicago G.C. is so great looking with the ribbons of fairway framed be the tall fescue. I don't remember any areas that were very close to "normal" playlines that were so thick that you couldn't find the ball and advance it. I personally love the look.

[Sean_A]

It seems to me that when I fisrt encountered fescue rough it was of the whispy variety.  Going back to some of these same courses the rough seems to be thicker and more or less ball eaters.  I don't mind the whispy stuff because it is easy to find a ball, but difficult to play from, much like heather.  I really detest thick stuff.  It is worse than water or OB because time is wasted looking for the ball.  I can think of nothiong more boring in sport than searching for balls.

Ciao

Sean

[BCrosby]

Let me pile on.

My first visit to Scotland was during a wet summer. The fescue was high and thick. Anything hit into it was lost or unplayable.

It was not the wispy, playable rough I had looked forward to seeing. To the contrary, Royal Aberdeen and others effectively played like a Florida resort course laced with water hazards.

On my next trip things were drier, courses played much wider and the golf was more fun.

Bob

[TEPaul]

Richard the Magnificent:

Don't you realize to say that redanman is right is inherently inimical in and of itself? Mike Cirba's observation that there has been a wonderful phase of the absence of negativity and backbiting on here in the last few days or a week is now officially over.

You are a mindless, immoral, and excessively grubby and smelly little troglydyte.

[TEPaul]

Guys:

I think your observations regarding the various playabilities of high fescue roughs are logical and sensible.

Unfortunately, it seems that does not exactly answer the overall questions of a club like The Creek.

The reason being, proper and necessary maintenance practices of fescue roughs, be they wispy and thin in dry weather or thick and ball-eating in naturally wet conditions, does not exactly allow clubs to provide wispy and thin playing conditions all the time given the fact that either way they can only be mowed once, twice or thrice a season to be high wispy and thin.

So the question becomes can a membership live with or live with long enough the thicker conditions to allow the high fescue areas to dry back out and become wispy and thin in drier weather? It seems more than apparent that both necessary maintenance practices (the obviously limited amount of mow cycles) in conjunction with Mother Nature's vagaries (wet or dry weather) does not allow all that much latitude to have high, thin and wispy fescue rough all the time.

Or is the question if a club cannot have wispy and thin fescue rough all the time should they not try to have high fescue rough at all?

Bobzee, I think you just answered GB's basic answer to that question.  

My sense is to have it and just live with what Mother Nature does and does to it.

Obviously, some of the best and most specific answers to the questions of The Creek, for instance, is not whether or not to use it but to be extremely careful and considered as to WHERE they attempt to use it on their course.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom:

Once again, the problem is that American clubs want to establish a certain look and playability at all times REGARDLESS of the weather.  Which can't be done.

When they're having a wet year and the rough is getting too penal, just mow it down and abandon the tall and thick look.  When it's dry, let it grow.

What's so hard about that?

Fescue is much more adapted to certain courses (or even certain spots on courses) where the soils are very well drained (sandy or gravelly) and it tends not to grow too thick.  

It's getting thicker on more courses, as someone remarked, because they have expanded their irrigation systems and the thick rough gets a lot more overspray than it used to.

[TEPaul]

Oh, and in addition to thanking all of you, so far, for your excellent thoughts and answers, I should also mention that your general abhorence of severe penality in some areas and some weather conditions with high fescue roughs shows that all of you are nothing much more than a bunch of Nature-hating, time-consumed and impatient instant gratification-loving whimps.

[Ed_Baker]

Oh my God, not "Merion bythe Sea" again.

We have the non-wispy ball eating variety, the most intrusive area on play is the hump in the left side of the fairway on number 8, if they ever cut it they'll find 1000 golf balls.

I like the look of it.
I hate the way it slows play.
I don't see how it would serve any function other than being ornamental, to grow it on bunker faces... over the top in my opinion.

[TEPaul]

"Tom:
Once again, the problem is that American clubs want to establish a certain look and playability at all times REGARDLESS of the weather.  Which can't be done."

TomD:

It appears that is the real unavoidable problem which any club must deal with, including The Creek. Obviously if the club's members can't take the severe penality and pain in naturally wet conditions they will never be able to use high fescue rough and enjoy the interesting elements of its playability when it's high and dry and wispy.

The necessity of very infrequent mowing cycles makes this unworkable to start with but the other side of the coin is that it once again puts golf and golfers in a direct confrontation with Mother Nature, and even if many golfers don't seem to realize it yet, that's a battle whose outcome is inevitable.  

[TEPaul]

"We have the non-wispy ball eating variety, the most intrusive area on play is the hump in the left side of the fairway on number 8,"

Eddie Baby;

You have high, hairy, ball eating fescue on the HUMP on #8?

That sounds truly disgusting, worse in fact than even Quasimodo, the Hunchback of Notre Dame.

[Craig Van Egmond]

When Bandon Dunes first opened there was a lot more rough on both the right side of #1 and the left side of #17. The next 3 times I went there the fairways were a little wider. each time.

Opening day at Newcastle Golf Club in the Seattle area, the course had the most beautiful thick fescue rough alongside pretty much every fairway. It made for great scenery but also brutally long rounds hunting for lost balls. Within 2 months they had cut it way back and today much of it is gone completely.

You have to find the right balance between looks and playability.  Prairie Dunes still has some knarly rough.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I think high fescue roughs will become more prevalent.

I think the primary impetus for this will be financial pressures on green budgets.

I see them escalating.

One way to alleviate the pressue is to discontinue maintainance practices in these areas, allowing high fescue rough to grow.

High fescue rough should only be introduced on holes with WIDE fairways.

Without generous fairway widths, the holes will become too penal and play will be slowed down.

Clubs must be careful with respect to emulating courses where high fescue roughs exist in harmony with the architecture.

Just because they work at one golf course doesn't mean that they're adoptable an another.

Careful thought must go into the conversion process.

And, today and into the future, green budgets must be carefully disected and analyzed.

Green budgets shouldn't carry the burden of maintaining clubhouse, grounds, pool and tennis facilities, and, it's time for Green Budgets to stop being diluted by NON-GOLF tasks and maintainance, like flower beds, turn around areas, etc., etc..

Their focus must return to the GOLF COURSE and not the collateral issues that have been thrust upon them over the years.

[john_stiles]

On a course that I frequent,  the notion that high fescue is cute and beautiful now affects play from the first tee.

A stray tee shot would formerly clatter amongst the few trees and you would punch a recovery to the fairway if the trees were an issue.  A shot to the green was not usually likely but you could usually get withing 100 yards of the par 4 green.

Now we have high fescue under the trees.  You can't find the ball very easily, and if you did, the full blast is required. A simple punch cannot often be made through the high dense fescue.  A full shot is often not possible because of the trees.  Kinda of a double whammy now.

We also now a 'stringer' of high fescue about 6 to 12 feet wide running down between two holes for about 80 yards. It looks pretty odd, funny really.  You stop and think what are these folks thinking.

I agree with the sentiment that the fescue, where you can find a ball about 90% of the time is fine.  But in the south east US,  where we do get rain,  I have not seen fescue anywhere that can be light & wispy & penalizing.

Only possible exception to that are some of the areas at Cuscowilla and I do not know their maintenance practices or the type of fescue.

[BCrosby]

TEP -

You question is a good one. It is even more of a problem here in the SE with Bermuda. Four inches of Bermuda rough at East Lake is unplayable for all but the strongest golfers.

You get a different problem if you try to thin out the rough and keep it dry. In the SE clay soil, unless it has grass growing in it, tends harden into asphalt when kept dry in the summer.  

Is there such thing as a mower that thins grass rather than cutting it horizontally? Sort of like the thinning scissors at the barber shop?

Bob