[Cory Brown]

I was interested in hearing opinions on intermediate cuts of rough.  They seem to have become the norm in modern golf.  Most new courses have them and many older courses have added them.  I believe that visually they are acceptable on courses with bent fairways and relatively tall rye roughs, where the contrast can easily be seen.  But on courses with all one variety of grass they can be difficult to see.  A fairway cut and then a rough cut provides more contrast and a better visual.  Also I believe they are added in the name of fairness, where a ball three feet off the fairway should not be punished as much as a ball 15 feet off the edge.  I don't believe that is a valid notion because a shot in the rough is a shot in the rough.  I believe that fairways should be widened to where the intermediate cut ends at least and that will provide a "fair test".  Essentially I believe a wider fairway and only one cut of rough is a far better option.

[Phil_the_Author]

Cory,

You raise an interesting idea with the statement, "Also I believe they are added in the name of fairness, where a ball three feet off the fairway should not be punished as much as a ball 15 feet off the edge.  I don't believe that is a valid notion because a shot in the rough is a shot in the rough..."

If that is true, then do you also believe that a shot in a bunker should always be uniformly difficult to recover from as all other shots in the bunker?

[Cory Brown]

Not necessarily, a ball in the bunker could end up in many very different lies, and also a ball that just trickles into the bunker often times could be a far worse lie than one that flies into the middle of the bunker, and that is fine.  A ball that just trickles into the rough could bury where one that flies fifteen yards into the rough could sit up nicely.  However a ball that flies further off line could have a much tougher angle into the green.  I see nothing wrong with either situation.  The idea that shots should be punished progressively more the further off line it is in the name of fairness is unnecessary.

[Phil_the_Author]

"The idea that shots should be punished progressively more the further off line it is in the name of fairness is unnecessary..."

Yet Cory, isn't that at the very heart of golf course design? Isn't that why holes with risk/reward elements are so appreciated?

On the great courses many times one can be in the fairway and find themselves with no shot toa green or to the prefered location for the enxt one.

"Fairness" isn't a concept that is inherent in good design as much as shot angles and rewards for proper shots hit.

The idea of graduated rough at the U.S. Open sites is obviously one that you disagree with. Yet with the extreme narrowing of fairway lines, shouldn't there be some give and take?

[Cory Brown]

Philip,

I see now that we are mostly in agreement.  There is nothing wrong with a shot on one side of the fairway being blocked as sure as there is nothing wrong with a shot from the rough on the other side of the fairway having a great angle in.  As to the US Open setups, yes I believe there should be some give and take with the extreme narrowness of the fairways, however I don't believe this is something most other courses should emulate.  Widening fairways and eliminating intermediate roughs would make much more sense than trying to make all golf courses look like US Open setups.  This situation significantly reduces the strategy and enjoyment of the game for the average player.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()