[Robert Mercer Deruntz]

I  have played quite a few courses recently where balls are hanging up on the steep bunker banks because the rough has been cultivated to a lush and consistent state that fails to feed balls down into bunkers.  The biggest culprits are bluegrass and zoysia sodding.

[Dan Herrmann]

We've had great luck as a result of Gil Hanse's "chunking" technique.  The native fescues and field grasses do a wonderful job, and respond well to summer heat.

[John Moore II]

RMD--So don't hit it in the bunker...but really, if the bunker is supposed to be a hazard, why not the surrounds?

[Tommy Williamsen]

I have thought that rough has become to uniform for years.  When I was a kid, the rough had patches of hardpan, clumps here and there.  It required different shots.  Today rough is so thick and lush that you pretty mcuh hit the same shot from everywhere.

[Brent Hutto]

So why is it bad to have every patch of rough on the course exactly the same thickness and depth but it's good to have every square foot of putting surface exactly the same speed and firmness?

[George Pazin]

I have thought that rough has become to uniform for years.  When I was a kid, the rough had patches of hardpan, clumps here and there.  It required different shots.  Today rough is so thick and lush that you pretty mcuh hit the same shot from everywhere.

Yep.

Brent -

'Cause it makes the game more interesting and fun?

[JohnV]

Any time I've had a player complain to me about the inconsistency of the rough, I reply that is why they don't call it "smooth". 

Unfortunately it has become way too consistent in my opinion also.

If the demand for bright green overly maintained fairways can be classified as "Augusta Syndrome", perhaps the demand for lush, consistent rough should classified as "US Open Syndrome".

[Padraig Dooley]

We've had great luck as a result of Gil Hanse's "chunking" technique.  The native fescues and field grasses do a wonderful job, and respond well to summer heat.

What is the 'chunking' technique?

[John Moore II]

I don't think rough generally is too uniform. But it depends on where you play. If its uniformly penal, is that bad? Rough is meant to be a penalty, and I don't think it should be entirely uniform, but the example given to start the thread is a foolish one.
JVB--I agree, I think the demand for uniform rough may come from seeing US Opens. But it may also come from the current usage of treeline-to-treeline watering

[John Sheehan]

I have thought that rough has become to uniform for years.  When I was a kid, the rough had patches of hardpan, clumps here and there.  It required different shots.  Today rough is so thick and lush that you pretty mcuh hit the same shot from everywhere.

Tommy,
I agree with you.  I recently happened upon a "playing lessons with the pro" featuring Padraig Harrington.  He showed how the rough on the Irish course they were playing was unpredictable.  The spot in which his ball stopped was fairly lush, but not too bad.  Very near his ball in either direction was: 1) longish, wispy rough, 2) longish thick rough and 3) short and wispy rough.  I liked his assessment that links golf and rough was unpredictable and definitely not "just" or fair.  He said that dealing with the unfairness and the decision-making the lies entailed were an inherent part of links golf.  I'd like to see it be more a part of all golf.

At my own club the rough is mostly uniform, thick, thick-bladed and penal.  I've never understood the attitude that rough should be as penal or more penal than a hazard -- an opinion mentioned in this very thread somewhere.  IMHO, this makes no sense.  Rough is not a hazard.  The beauty of rough is its unpredictability, the inability to know if you can spin the ball, or whether it will fly, the thrilling chance of a great recovery shot, or the emotional let down of a failed attempt. 

Very little is as boring to me as rough that simply calls for a hard lash with a sand wedge at all times.

There was an interesting article posted a line a few years ago about the history of roughs.  I'll see if I can locate it.

John

[TEPaul]

"What is the 'chunking' technique?"

Padraig:

As I've seen it done (by the Hanse Co at French Creek), it's taking manipulatable chunks of site-sod (with interesting grasses) and hauling them with the bucket of a front-end loader and installing them into the surrounds of bunkers, generally the front faces. It give the bunkers a look of "instant maturity" as if they'd been there for years.

I was about three hundreds yards away and Hanse's partner Jim Wagner and some of the construction crew where muscling this big chunk into place on the top of the bunker. The chunk came loose and basically rolled Wagner back down into the base of the bunker at which point he proceeded to curse and scream and kick the shit out of the poor chunk of sod.

I went over there and said:

"Jim, what the hell are you doing?"

Jim Wagner:
"Well, the damn thing tried to kill me."

TEPaul:
"Look, Jim, first you take a front-end loader and go over to a section of this site and cut and abuse this sod and then take it way over here to another section of the course and away from its family where it will never see its parents and grandparents and brothers and sisters and cousins again and then when it's not completely cooperative you curse and scream at it and then proceed to kick the shit out it?!"

Jim Wagner:
No response

TEPaul:
You've got to realize that chunk of sod has feelings too."

Jim Wagner:
No response



PS:
Padraig, when that took place I'd just come from over on #17 at French Creek where bunker genius Bill Kittleman was working on a rugged ridgeline with some odd bunkers and formations (one called something like the "garage" or the "basement") with a set of sterling silver teaspoons he had swiped from his wife. Sometimes BillK refers to this technique as "grunkle" and it's done with loving and miniscule handwork (or even fingerwork if you wish). It takes him months to do or multiple boxes of cigars---however one wants to view his time input. This is a far more sympathetic and loving method of working with earth and the land and this is why BillK is such a genius. The 17th at French Creek is entirely the idea and concept and work of BillK. An hour or so before while standing on the tee (which angles at a 45 degree angle to the line of play) I'd asked Rodney Hine who was also a partner of Hanse's and is now at The Boston Club what the idea and concept behind this very odd but remarkable looking 17th hole was. Rodney said both he and the crew had been asking themselves that question for a number of months but that to date nobody had the slightest idea!

(Basically when BillK is on the job on a Hanse project they tend to assign him one hole which he works on for many months alone and away from the rest of the crew. The reason they say they try to isolate him by assigning him one hole is because he is such a genius and such an out-of-the-box thinker if they don't isolate him he tends to confuse the rest of the people on the crew).

[Padraig Dooley]

Thanks, Tom

[Mark_Fine]

IRRIGATION is one of the main culprits!  When a club spends over a million $$$$ to put in a new watering system, they unfortunately tend to want to use it. 

[Brent Hutto]

I'm recently back from my first trip to Brora and bow to no one in my appreciation for such a irregularly maintained yet top-notch course. And by modern USA standards or even those of neighboring Royal Dornoch there was a certain degree of "imperfection" on offer if you compared putting surfaces on one part of the course to another at Brora. All were great greens to putt on but not perfectly consistent throughout the round.

The point I wanted to make is that the modern preference for "perfection" in putting greens and fairways quite naturally extends to "perfect" rough and "perfect" bunkers in the sense of wall-to-wall consistency and uniformity. It's all part of the same impulse. Heck, I'd think on a fertilized and irrigated course "perfect" uniform rough would be easier to achieve than similar results on fairways.

And finally, I am in total agreement with the puzzlement about exactly when it came about that being a couple yards off the fairway is supposed to entail a worse penalty than being in a bunker and in some cases nearly as bad as being in a lateral hazard. With the added bonus of hours per round spent tromping around looking for lost balls. As with many other GCA and maintenance issues I think the industry has confused the ability of elite players to control the ball out of tall grass (by applying 90mph+ of clubhead speed to a high-lofted wedge) with a "need" for everyday handicappers to be faced with nigh unplayable rough in order to make hitting fairways a worthy goal. Nonsense.

[D_Malley]

chucking video

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Lt7-YnG0Mhw

[John Sheehan]

I have thought that rough has become to uniform for years.  When I was a kid, the rough had patches of hardpan, clumps here and there.  It required different shots.  Today rough is so thick and lush that you pretty mcuh hit the same shot from everywhere.

Tommy,
I agree with you.  I recently happened upon a "playing lessons with the pro" featuring Padraig Harrington.  He showed how the rough on the Irish course they were playing was unpredictable.  The spot in which his ball stopped was fairly lush, but not too bad.  Very near his ball in either direction was: 1) longish, wispy rough, 2) longish thick rough and 3) short and wispy rough.  I liked his assessment that links golf and rough was unpredictable and definitely not "just" or fair.  He said that dealing with the unfairness and the decision-making the lies entailed were an inherent part of links golf.  I'd like to see it be more a part of all golf.

At my own club the rough is mostly uniform, thick, thick-bladed and penal.  I've never understood the attitude that rough should be as penal or more penal than a hazard -- an opinion mentioned in this very thread somewhere.  IMHO, this makes no sense.  Rough is not a hazard.  The beauty of rough is its unpredictability, the inability to know if you can spin the ball, or whether it will fly, the thrilling chance of a great recovery shot, or the emotional let down of a failed attempt. 

Very little is as boring to me as rough that simply calls for a hard lash with a sand wedge at all times.

There was an interesting article posted online a few years ago about the history of roughs.  I'll see if I can locate it.

John

Sorry for the length of time between my last post on this thread and this follow-up.  I had a difficult time finding an active link to the article.  It may have been posted here before - I don't know.  But it is well worth the read. 

It was originally written for Golf Architecture Magazine by Michael Hurdzan. He entitled it, "Rough Justice - The Hisory, Theory and Folly of Roughs."

http://www.ausgolf.com.au/rough-justice-by-dr-michael-j-hurdzan

Hurdzan, besides offering a good stab at the history of "rough" (this "menace," in my opinion) makes some excellent points about how and why it has become such a horridly penal element on today's golf courses.

His opening paragraph foretells what is to come:

"Roughs, those areas of grasses cut higher than fairways and bordering them like a fur collar on a coat, have become a common form of hazard on golf courses; perhaps too common and to the point of ruining the game. A look at the history, theory and folly of rough might serve to refocus our thinking and restore some vital elements back to the game of golf - like strategy for example."


John

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()