[TEPaul]

The other day something interesting occured to me at PVGC.

First, over the years that course has lost just about none of it's original fairway width as most every other course in the world had over time. The reason for that is the course never had any rough anyway---it was just fairway and then into maybe bunkering or just natural stuff, pine and woods and sand and such.

That has basically never changed except for the addition of maybe four steps (yards) on either side of each fairway that's in rough strips.

Why do they have that now? Well, maybe 4-5 years ago I went down there in the middle of the winter for some reason. Nothing was going on--nobody there and I think John Ott and I had lunch with super Rick Christian.

For some reason Rick got going on about those rough strips on either side of each fairway and now they were there basically just there for the purpose of turning the fairway mowers.

So I started looking at those fairway rough strips the other day and I noticed PV uses the more modern diagonal stripping method of fairway mowing even though it's nowhere as evident and apparent as at other courses.

And then I started thinking----what if PV decided to go to this more traditional and classic up and back fairway cut the way the old gangs did in the old days? If they did that they basically wouldn't need to turn the mowers a hundred of more times on each fairway and they wouldn't need those rough cut strips anymore either, at least not for maintenance purposes.

So what do you think---how cool and how much more intense would PV be if its fairways just transitoned from the short grass immediately into the natural junk the way it obviously used to.

I tell you I was looking at the fairway cant on the end of #13 on the left, and #15 on the right and #16 on the right and particularly #6 all along the big pit on the right and if The Valley went to the old up and back method and did away with their unique rough strips that place could be a lot more intense with that alone.

Do you think that would be a bad thing or a good thing?  

[Peter Galea]

Problem is Tom, that when mowing "up and back", mower turns are concentrated in front of the green and the  start of the fairway.

[BCrosby]

I like the idea as long as the fairways are very, very generous. As at PVGC.

I'm seeing the idea on other courses. Mike Young's course in Madison has very wide fairways, minimal rough, and then native tall grasses. It looks terrific and will be fun to play.

Minimizing the importance of rough is generally a good thing. Conversely, the importance of "positional" penalities ought to emphazied more. On great courses, being out of postion ought to be enough of a tax. If you are also in the rough, it can be a double tax. Certainly MacK, Behr and other Golden Agers thought the use of rough was something akin to lazy architecture. But to go that route means you need lots and lots of property.

Bob

P.S. I was of the understanding that the pines at PVGC had pinched in a number of fairways at PVGC. Some of them quite considerably. Do you not agree?

[Adam Clayman]

If rollout is important to these specific situations, why not just take a hand mower out there to shave the few areas, after the fwy mower has passed?

[Jim Johnson]

Tom,

Do you have any idea as to how many acres of fairway there are at PV?

Curious.

JJ

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

The Medalist comes very close to presenting what you describe.

Fairway versus woods, scrub or swamp.

It only works well with wide playing corridors.

The only reason I would oppose such a concept is that it opens the door to other modifications that some may feel are meritorious.

I always fear the domino effect on golf courses.
That one experiment will lead to another.

Since PV's fairways have generous width, I'd prefer to leave them as they are and cut down invasive tree or limb growth.

In other words, I'd work on the external factors influencing play, not the internal factors.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()