Roughless golf

[Jon Wiggett]

During the golden ea of GCA most of the architects push the idea of width being important for strategy. Since then and mainly due probably to the pictures flickering across our screens of the PGA Tour many GCAs have disregarded this idea in favour of tight tree and rough lined courses. This in turn lays well with the average player who often doesn’t want to be challenged with a decision but prefers an in your face challenge.

On the other hand a course where almost everywhere was cut at fairway height would have the following advantages.

1. Never looking for balls and thus speeding up play.
2. Wider fairways leading to more strategy.
3. Spreading of the wear and thus better quality turf (in theory)
4. Easier golfing thus playing to a larger market.
5. Simpler maintenance regime.

A course that uses this to great advantage and praise is of course TOC and another that used to with similar aclaim was ANGC. Of course such a scheme would mainly come into question where fairway irrigation was not required or did not have issues such as water use or cost.

What do people think would be the pros and cons of it and how would it be accepted in the USA and/or GB&I/ Europe

[S. Huffstutler]

I like it. One of my favorites, Naples National doesn't have any rough. Augusta was more fun to watch without rough, too.

Steve

[Kyle Harris]

Back in December, Rob Waldron and I played a round of golf at Royal St. Cloud in St. Cloud, Florida by Chip Powell. There are several stretches of holes were fairways are mowed extra wide and shared by parallel holes.

The course is a pleasant surprise and anyone in Orlando looking for an afternoon round could do much worse than St. Cloud.

I think the concept can be very advantageous in Bermuda grass rough since traffic areas in Bermuda tend to mimick very spongy fairways. For most of the season, I could have putted down the Redan 11th at Mountain Lake because of the traffic tamped bermuda being so uniform and short.

[Philip Gawith]

 This in turn lays well with the average player who often doesn’t want to be challenged with a decision but prefers an in your face challenge.

I agree with you Jon that roughless golf would do much of what you say....but what is the evidence for this claim? I doubt the average player thinks of the challenge golf poses in the terms you suggest.

[paul cowley]

Sign me up..........and its good to see Chip Powell get a mention here.

[Ron Farris]

John - I have often thought about this concept.  

I think you are right in that irrigation is the culprit.  Irrigation for fairways would have to be wall-to-wall or non-existant.  I like the non-existent type, in theory.  

Cart traffic issue - People are like cows and they tend to follow the same path instictively.  Even golf course architects, who ride in a cart, tend to pull the cart 1 wheel off the path when parking (curbless).

Maintenance - I like the maintenance aspect of it.  Less mower types should equate to less headaches for the mechanic.

I recently drove by a small 9 hole, SAND GREEN, golf course that had exactly what you are talking about.  The entire place was mowed with a 9-gang, pull behind, ground driven mower.  When I saw it I thought it looked like the greatest mower on the planet.  I wondered if a person could still get parts for such a unit.  

The problem they had, in my opinion, was all the trees planted on the course.  Mowing around trees spaced close together with this type mower would not be a pleasant experience.  

Given the right club it might work.  Low play and a willingness to play on non irrigated fairways.  Wonder what the initiation fees would be for such a club.

[Greg Tallman]

Sign me up..........and its good to see Chip Powell get a mention here.

Chip Powell did an executive course at a property I was at in Florida and later some renovation work on a course we were at in Fort Meyers... Good guy... builds a helluva challenging executive course.

[Sean Walsh]

Phillip,

The average golfer just needs one dose of Brora to remedy his affliction  

[Jon Wiggett]

Phillip,

people in general (even though they often don't know it) like to be given a clear choice of one option. The more choice they have the less likely they are going to be able to choose. Its human nature thats to blame but there are hundreds of studies to prove it.

[Rich Goodale]

Sean

Brora is a great example.  It's not completely roughless, but what rough it has is wispy and/or closely cropped.  What it also has is a LOT of width, with just about complete playing separation of all the holes.  I can't remember ever being in somebody else's fairway at Brora.

TOC, alas, is far too narrow for "roughless" golf.  They have cultivated rough between most outgoing and incoming holes essentially to slow down errant shots that might interfere with the shots of players on other holes.  If the whole couirse was maintained like 1 and 18 it would be chaos out there, which would be very interesting......

[John Chilver-Stainer]

Roughless Golf following your description would be generally ideal. In fact now and then we find this in the more compact courses, particuarly UK Munis but what about the expansive courses and more recently the “extensive” courses (as seen from an ecologocial standpoint).

Even on the classic links, rough is often used strategically to define the inside of doglegs and will usually influence the line of play.

I was just trying to visualise Carnoustie, Gullane or Muirfield without rough. I think they would lose they’re drama and their wildness. It really depends on what kind of topography lies within the “rough areas”. If the topography is flat and uninteresting then let the rough grow, if it’s bumpy and lumpy then by all means shave it.

Personally I think the corridor widths of the playing areas between rough should be at least 60 yards - in a tight course this could mean no rough areas.

[Troy Alderson]

John - I have often thought about this concept.  

I think you are right in that irrigation is the culprit.  Irrigation for fairways would have to be wall-to-wall or non-existant.  I like the non-existent type, in theory.  

Cart traffic issue - People are like cows and they tend to follow the same path instictively.  Even golf course architects, who ride in a cart, tend to pull the cart 1 wheel off the path when parking (curbless).

Maintenance - I like the maintenance aspect of it.  Less mower types should equate to less headaches for the mechanic.

I recently drove by a small 9 hole, SAND GREEN, golf course that had exactly what you are talking about.  The entire place was mowed with a 9-gang, pull behind, ground driven mower.  When I saw it I thought it looked like the greatest mower on the planet.  I wondered if a person could still get parts for such a unit.  

The problem they had, in my opinion, was all the trees planted on the course.  Mowing around trees spaced close together with this type mower would not be a pleasant experience.  

Given the right club it might work.  Low play and a willingness to play on non irrigated fairways.  Wonder what the initiation fees would be for such a club.

Ron,

Yes pull gang mowers are still made with professional quality.  Jacobsen no longer makes a pull gang but parts are still there.  Toro is still (?) making a pull gang.  R&R products still makes parts for professional golf pull gang mowers.

As per maintenance program, the course may still need the same approximate number of employees on the staff.  It may reduce the number of different mowers, but there would be more of them to stay ahead of play.  I would plan out at least 4 fairway mowers, 2 surround mowers, and 5 walking greens mowers or 2 riding greens mowers.  Two heights of cut, the greens and everything else.  As you can see 8+ employees needed just for the mowing.  I love the idea and I would implement the program when I come to own a golf course.  Start with cutting down trees that are in the way and slowly take the height of cut down.

Troy

[Don_Mahaffey]

Ron,
http://www.locketurf.com/Products/PullBehindMower.aspx

7-gang pull behind with a 16ft width of cut...and you can pull it with a 30hp tractor.

[Jon Wiggett]

Hi John,

How is Sagogn coming along?

yes it makes sense that if the land is flat and boring then rough makes it look more spectacular and is use to defines doglegs.

I believe however that if Gullane No.1 was devoid of rough that it would be just as challanging, although not as difficult to score on, to the average player. Next time you play it you should look more closely at the angles to the greens out of the rough and then you notice on many holes that if you are coming in from the wrong angle it is difficult to stay on the green let alone attack the pin.

Narrow fairways dictate to the golfer and only help make golfers dull and stop them looking at what is really happening in front of them.

[Jim Nugent]

Ever since the U.S. Open this year, I've been wondering which great courses would still be great and challenging, if they had no rough.  Would Oakmont?  Shinnecock Hills?  Prairie Dunes?  Bethpage Black?  Riviera?  Others?  

How much do the top courses depend on rough to defend themselves?  Does that say anything about their architecture?  Does truly great architecture make rough superfluous and even a drawback?  

I'm mostly thinking of challenging for the best players, as I suspect these courses are a handful and more for everyone else, with or without rough.  

[Tony Ristola]

I think it's a concept more likely to work in Europe, as the standards for turf and expectations of members-guests are lower. Though enamored by the Japanese Garden maintenance practices of US courses, they don't have the budgets to support them, and environmental restrictions are higher.

In some regions it's not uncommon to find courses without fairway irrigation, which allows them to be cut as wide as desired. Another major benefit; lower development costs, and costs related to water usage.

[John Chilver-Stainer]

Hi Jon,

I agree narrow fairways limits the stategy of the game and we all want to keep the game open and free. However as much as we detest it there is eventually a limit. My suggestion as a “rough” guide is a 60 yard corridor which could snake in and out 15 yards or so.

At the 17th at Murfield. If the huge expanse of rough to the left from the tee was removed it would open up and shorten the hole dramatically.

I could imagine Carnoustie would be more interesting to play without rough as the approaches are sometimes well defined by large mounds and deep bunkers and there are no significant dog legs where the corners could be cut.
Going off line at Carnoustie would open up some interesting angles - as VdV demonstrated at the 18th.

If you get a chance read the Book “Golf on Gullane Hill” by Archie Baird. A labour of love, where he describes not only the history and culture of golf at Gullane, from a few Holes to 54 Holes, but also the rich wild life hidden in the rough. A haven for butterflies and insects of all sorts as well as nesting birds, from plovers to hawks, not to mention hares, voles, mice, etc. and we haven’t even begun to talk about the flora.

No rough is a good concept in the right setting - however I’m sure you’d leave the “Steckginster”(Gorse)!!

Sagogn is going to be spectacular - drop by one day.

Cheers
John

[Jon Wiggett]

Jim,

I think its great to look at the top courses for the best players but how many courses are needed in this category? I think the vast majority of courses, like golfers, fall into the not championship bracket. These courses could still be and should be interesting and challanging. Unless they were toned down, I wonder if courses such as Oakmont,  Shinnecock Hills,  Prairie Dunes,  Bethpage Black would even feature on a list of best courses if judged from the point of view of a 24 handicapper? If they were to be it would be because they would be still interesting to play even without the high degree of difficulty manufactured for the US Open.

As I haven't played any of them it is difficult to comment but I would have thought that both Shinnecock and Beth would still be great plays without rough.

John,

I will try to get across next month sometime

Degree of difficulty alone doesn't make a course great and being easy to shoot under par doesn't make a course boring.