Knee-high Native Roughs

[Mike_Cirba]

Do we classicists give knee-high, native roughs a free ride?

Yes, we all love the look of the fescues and native grasses and plants blowing in the wind, with their myriad of colors and textures.  It all looks sooo terrific, that is, until one's ball starts hop, hop, hopping it's way into the "gunsch".  

Muirfield had it to a great degree, and it led to one of the most unusual finishes when Gary Evans actually lost a ball in the stuff off the 17th green, which might have been disastrous to his round (stroke and distance) had he not recovered miraculously.

But, it also reared it's head at Bethpage for the men, and Prairie Dunes for the women.  It's become such an "in" thing that courses that never had it are growing it, such as Aronimink (off 10) and Merion (i.e a recent poster's complaint of playing "Merion by the Sea").

So, I ask, what is different inherently about that deep, inpenetrable, lose the ball in it gunsch as opposed to thick, uncleared woods, or even water hazards lining each fairway?

If it's thin enough to find your ball and have half a chance of gouging it forward or sideways, or possibly catching a decent lie and being able to play a shot, that isn't quite so bad.  However, more and more I'm seeing stuff that you could lose your golf bag in, and I haven't heard a soul here decry the trend.  

I love penal hazards, but stroke and distance for lost balls that stray from fairways gets to be a bit much.

What do you all think?

[Mike_Young]

Mike,
You have touched on something that I think has become a major problem in the last 10 years.  Yes, we like the look but the problem is that on most courses today that rough is watered and most likely fertilized creating a situation that was not there before.  Originally these areas had no water and from a distance gave a tall flowing look but could be played .  Even today I think it can be played from on many seaside courses.  Yet when you see it on a course such as Merion, it is almost impossible to find a ball.  I played there last month and it was a treat but the rough was impossible.
In the south we try that with bermuda and it is even tougher.
This is a typical case of searching for a look that is idiginous to one part of the country and one type of condition yet not functional in another.
I know when the Honors first opened the supt there (Davis Stone)experimented with several different ingredients to try and grow the tall grasses in a thinner manner.  I think he came up with something.
Is form following function or function following form?
Mike

[ChipOat]

I decry the trend big time.

I don't like it at Metedeconk and I don't like it at Merion.  It slows up play and it's unnecessary.  Generally, if you hit it where the stuff's growing, you're probably making bogey, anyway.

What's wrong with easy bogies?

[Peter Galea]

Native grasses should be seeded at very low rates, so that each plant can "express" itself. This creates a grassed area that is long, thin and wispy, a turf where you can walk in, find your ball and get it back to the fairway. Too often these grasses are seeded to heavily and pushed to quickly to get the instant gratification of "the look" that is impossible to play from. An area "in play" that cannot be played from doesn't belong on the golf course.
People think of native area's as those that are low maintenance, when just the opposite is true, at least initially. This takes a committment of several years and intensive maintenance to succeed.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

I'd agree with Chipoat and his disapproval at the two courses mentioned, however, I think the tolerance or acceptability of knee high rough is/can be directly related to the width and slope of the fairways.

GCGC has had knee to waist high rough for quite some time, and the complaints from members and guests appear to be minor.

The fairways are generous and with a few exceptions, flat.

Shots that find the knee high rough, are at best, errant.
At many other courses, the same shot would be OB, in the water, in the woods or on another holes fairway or rough.

On narrow fairways, knee or waist deep rough is too penal, takes forever to find your ball, and unless you have Nicklaus's wrists, it's difficult to extricate the ball.

When a golf course was prudently designed for this type of rough, I think it's acceptable.  Where it's an afterthought, or an attempt to harden the course, I think it's ill advised.

[brad_miller]

Mike, learn to keep the ball lower in the WIND!

[Mike_Cirba]

Brad;

I prefer to view my shot trajectory as "Nicklausian".

Good point, well taken!

[Jeff_McDowell]

I'd like to make a distinction between knee-high turf based rough such as fescues and natives. Native grasses in Minnesota cannot be played out of. Big bluestem grows over six feet tall and has seed stems the diameter of your little finger. Imagine catching your hozzle on that. Other natives aren't as tall, but they easily reach four feet tall. And this stuff is dense.

Around here you don't put natives near playing areas.

[Peter Galea]

Thanks Jeff, for the distinction. I should have qualified my post by saying, my experience is on the coast of California.

[Rob Hallford]

No free rides for the heather!  I find that the knee-high rough that has really taken hold here in Indiana is a detriment to enjoyment and pace of play.  The problem lies with the average player who assumes that if it's a par 4 or 5, he has to hit your driver off the tee.  Joe Sixpack wants to make a birdie, and driver gets him there in his mind (plus it's fun).  Never mind that from the white tees it's only 220 yards to where the fairway narrows between impenetrable roughs.  Never mind that the architect wanted you to hit 7 iron into this green--Joe wants driver, wedge, 1-putt.  Once the ball is sprayed into the hazard, Joe doesn't want to play the stroke and distance game, so he troups off into the nether regions of East Bumble in search of his 50 cent rock.  Bah.  As long as these courses don't have forecaddies on all par 4's and 5's, pace of play will continue to move past 5 hours toward 6 (I've been there this summer!).

rob

[Ed_Baker]

It does seem that this is a disturbing trend.

I am seeing a lot more of it around Boston on Parkland courses, it really doesn't "fit" in my opinion.

I think it is more a case of aesthetics gone awry effecting playability, because searching for balls twenty feet from the fairway is silly unless the fairway is fifty yards wide. Pat's point that the fairway design is really the crux of the matter and should dictate the application is certainly true, but as we all have seen time and again, common sense has very little to do with course presentation.

[Rob_Waldron]

BAN THE KNEE HIGH FESCUE!!

The so called "natural look" of tall fescue is totally out of control. If the intent is to copy the look found across the pond then the weather conditions must also be copied. You say the weather is different, well so are the growing conditions and native grasses.  

Far too many courses have extended natural areas into the play areas. Result: slow play, lost balls, frustration, golfers who will not return. I have spoken to several architects who swear that their design plans do not incorporate the fescue in play. Many architects use fescue in the landscaping plan for esthetics purposes which is fine. Unfortunately this is not always the case. So maybe the problem may lie with the maintenance of the course.

 Let's identify several of the major culprits so we can bring them to justice!

Fieldstone, Wilmington, DE
Bellewood, North Coventry, PA
Hunters Oak, Queenstown, MD
Stonewall, Elverson,PA - sorry TD
Applebrook, Malvern, PA

[Joe Hancock]

I like knee high fescue. I like it way out of play, I like it long and left so the masses never find it with a shot, I like it to break up lines of vision across the course, I like it to reduce mowing acreage, I like it because its better for nature than every square footed mowed at 1 1/2 inches or shorter, etc.....

Joe

[Patrick_Mucci]

Rob Waldron,

I played Applebrook today, and must agree with you.

In some cases, some rather STRONG individuals, attempting to extricate the ball, forced it down, deeper into the rough, resulting in an abundant number of swings, and finally into their pockets.

Some of the grasses are so thick that finding the ball, even with eagle eyed caddies, is purely a matter of luck.

These grasses need to be thinned out dramatically, and not just through the natural processes.

I like a good number of things about Applebrook, but the deep, thick grasses are excessive, and need to be thinned and/or removed, depending upon their location.

[Fred Gray]

Knee high rough is a pet peeve of mine. One of the RTJ trail courses is 20 minutes from my house and I play it less than once every 2 years because of the loved "lost ball hazard". The joy of losing a lot of balls and a round taking 5+ hours is hard to measure.

If it is in the south, covered by irrigation, and un-mowed, its a lost ball. On my home course, the tall stuff is in-play on one hole where it makes no sense to hit a driver and get anywhere near it, this does not bother me. It adds some difficulty to a hole that needs it. Too many courses have this for the links look and reduced maintenance...

Or maybe they just love selling balls at full retail to golfers at the turn.

When I am a very wealthy man and build my own club there will be no lost ball hazards and no white stakes. If it is intended to be a true hazard, put up yellow or red stakes. Otherwise let all play on.

[angie]

here's what i hate hate hate : courses with "native grass" areas where the dunderheads establish a "local rule" that grants a free friggin drop if your ball strays into the stuff.  a free drop!  that's not golf.  i couldn't believe it when i played such a course recently this summer in my area ("chicagoland"). and another thing: same-ish deal, they plant all the fescue and call it an "environmentally sensitive area" and red stake it, but they don't stop there -- oh, no they don't: they tell you that you can't even step foot inside the area to search for your ball. that's not golf either -- both are versions of an effete ill-considered in principal un-scorable vainglorious idiocy. the same guy who designs them must also do ice fishing houses with basements. there is no smiley that's frowny enuf for this.

[joepa300]

The trend to establish "native or natural" areas on the golf course has more to do with environmental management than aesthetics. By converting, or on new courses establishing, these areas you can create habitats for sensitive species such as butterflies and songbirds, and grassland nesting birds. The loss of natural habitat has endangered a number of these species and often golf courses are the only greenspace in some communities that are large enough to support these populations.

Generally these areas are not maintained so there is a substantial reduction in fertilizer and pesticide use, as well conserving water. A course with closely mowed turf from wall to wall is generally a sterile environment and the biodiversity of plant and animal life is extremely limited.

However, playability can not be ignored as these areas are designed. Site assessment, as well as clientele needs to be taken into consideration. The golfing public also needs to understand that environmental management is a critical factor in design and maintenance.

[mike_beene]

There were places at Muirfield where the rough was chest high.One of these spots was in patches down the left of 17.In these,a found ball would be unplayable.Besides pace of play,my other complaint with high rough is that,as I get older,the closest I have come to hurting myself on a golf course is attempting a hard swing in the rough.It may sound wimpy but I think there is a safety issue.

[Joe Hancock]

So is the issue with knee high fescue, or it's placement on the golf course? I'd have a hard time thinking anyone would not like the look and benefits of said grass if it was not in play. I have a problem with placement of tall grass when it is in general play areas and in irrigated areas, but to say all knee high fescue is bad is similar to saying all water hazards are bad or all bunkers are bad.

Joe

[Fred Gray]

So is the issue with knee high fescue, or it's placement on the golf course?

This the exact point. On the RTJ trail courses, it is often the primary driving hazard. Miss the fairway to one side, splash, miss it to the other and it is time for the search party. As a visual, cool, 3 yards of the fairway to the right on a 425 yard hole, bad.

These lost ball hazards are often an element in very penal designs. They punish the lesser golfer greatly.

Tee ball short right, lost ball.
Re-tee, short right again, but happily found it, 2 strokes to get out.
Now in the fairway, 225 away, laying 5.
Five hour round.

I am somewhat better than that, but I remember it. I hate being stuck behind these train wrecks for 5+ hours.