"rough ... is not on the golf architect's palette"

[AndrewB]

From Geoff Shackelford's recent article "Rough Matters?" at golfobserver.com:

Contrary to popular belief, rough was not, and still is not on the golf architect's palette.

Is it true that architects don't think about rough at all when designing a course?  If so, when does it start getting considered?

[Jeff_Mingay]

I agree with Geoff.

Frequently, rough fits in after the economics of the irrigation system are figured out. In other words, what can we afford in regard to irrigating short grass.  

[cary lichtenstein]

I find this impossible to believe

[Tommy Williamsen]

I find this impossible to believe

I agree.  If it is true I can't imagine it is true for many architects.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Here is a longer quote form the article.  The context seems to be that rough did not enter the architects "palette" until the late 20's.  I can believe that. It is difficult, however, to believe that "it is still not on the architects palette."

"Contrary to popular belief, rough was not, and still is not on the golf architect's palette. Nor is it the feature that makes great courses what they are. Rough nearly always detracts from a well-conceived design.

Rough hides the lasting features of our best courses the way dust or poor lighting would make a masterful painting less vital.

Ideal strategic locations to the sides of fairways that were once meant for approaching hole locations are now typically covered by rough, casualties of the mindset that the centerline of a hole is the only path to success.

 
Rough entered the game in the late 1920's when players started hitting the ball too far for championship courses. In the late 90s and early part of this century, fairways were narrowed and the tall stuff harvested more than ever, with the added caveat that rough was asked to offset soft playing surfaces and the easy recovery elements found in today's manicured bunkering."

[RSLivingston_III]

Do you mean not at all concidered, or just not a top ten and is still in the back of your mind? It at least has to come up regarding green construction.

[Forrest Richardson]

It depends on what grass varieties are being planted. Often, when there are different varieties at low fairway areas vs. rough areas, the irrigation system is designed to follow this border between grasses. This is especially true in transition zones — Phoenix, e.g. — where we see nearly every golf course overseed with ryegrass in fairways, let leave roughs dormant bermuda. In this case...you bet...we consider roughs and where they begin and end.

[RSLivingston_III]

Actually, rough came along much earlier than the late 1920's. Many of the pro's were consistantly using Driving Iron's in the teen's to keep the ball in play and out of the rough. OB Keeler writes about Vardon & Ray's 1913 US tour (and the US Open) talking about the rough.
Now this might not have been a "mancured" rough.

[Sébastien Dhaussy]

Concerning the history of rough, I recommend reading this article from Dr Hurdzan :

http://www.ausgolf.com.au/golfarchitecture2.htm

[Troy Alderson]

Concerning the history of rough, I recommend reading this article from Dr Hurdzan :

http://www.ausgolf.com.au/golfarchitecture2.htm

After reading the article, I would ask all golf courses to mow the fairways out as far as possible considering existing cart paths and tree lines.  Golf is hard enough as it is, we do not need an additional hazard (rough).  Very few golfers can attempt to hit par, so why defend it.

I was attempting this at the last golf course I worked.  Using the cart paths and tree lines to determine the "through the green" cut at 5/8".  With more time and staffing earlier in the year, I could have pulled it off without enyone knowing.  Having strategy back in a golf course should allow golfers to appreciate the complexity of this game we play.  Irrigating only to keep the grass alive would help also.

Troy

[Peter Zarlengo]

As far as rough being on the architect's palette, I would imagine that it is. Anything found on a golf course, from grass and sand, to cart paths and rough would be familiar to an architect. And while most might prefer the former, I would guess that a good designer would be familiar with implementing them all. I spent a good bit of time on a mower cutting rough in order to create better playability and aesthetics on a golf course.

Playability- Because of interesting topography and fast conditions on the fairways, balls would have probably had a tendancy to run straight from the fairway, through the thin strip of rough, and into the more variable native grass on a fairly well planned and executed shot. My job, at the request of the architect through my boss, was to cut the rough on certain holes to allow the ball to catch without as much penalty to the golfer.

Aesthetics- Another of my duties on the mower was to give the bunkers a look of being half in fairway and half in the native grass. The rough served as a buffer between the fairway and native areas. The visual attraction of the fairway/rough/bunker/native was a great feature that could not have been accomplished without good rough design.

[jeffwarne]

Rough is DEFINITELY on most modern  architect's palettes.

Case in point being any course that has  bent fairways and bluegrass or fescue rough-the two are rarely allowed to mix. (although one of the rare exceptions to this recently are the areas where Atlantic has cut some bluegrass roughs areas down to near fairway height, even though their fairways are pure bent-but that had little to do with the architect)
Then throw in the native roughs and you've got a whole lot of palette going on.

Many of the older northern courses that don't have bent fairways can narrow or widen fairways on the whim of the superintendant, but most of the modern upscale courses have bent fairways that don't allow for varying fairway width without regrassing.

Whether it should be on the architect's palette is a subject of great debate on this site,but there are definite grassing lines drawn in the planning stages of most modern golf courses.

[Yannick Pilon]

Rough is definately one of the tools we have to design golf courses.

I agree that it often detracts from the experience of playing a great design, but it is nonetheless, a tool we use to vary the design experience.

Not one of the first tools, but still one of them.

YP

[PThomas]

it should be....hitting the ball straight should count for something

[Ulrich Mayring]

I agree. Hitting the ball straight should count for something - there should be an advantage built into the golf course. The player should make a positive experience, when hitting the ball straight. And an even better one when hitting it straight and long.

However, rough is all about negative experiences. And, I am sorry to say, the mere absence of negative experiences is not in itself a positive one. That is aiming way too short.

It is a bad enough experience for the golfer to have hit a bad shot. Do not concentrate on making it even worse with rough or penal hazards, instead focus on providing positive experiences for the good shots.

Thank you, I will play your course often.

Ulrich

[Kalen Braley]

I think wide fairways that give stratgic advantages to everyone works well for all groups.  For the high handicapper it allows them to at least hit the fairway, never mind hitting the correct part of the fairway.  So even though they may be out of postion, at least they have a clean lie to work with.

And for the low handicapper it gives them the choice/challenge of trying to hit the correct part of the fairway to give them the best approach into the green.

As to hitting it straight, sure some holes can be designed/setup this way, but why make them all this way a.k.a U.S. Open style??