Green Surrounds: Rough or Collection Areas?

[Ed_Baker]

I know this topic has been discussed on here numerous times with no real consensus.But playing Winged Foot last week got me to thinking about this subject again because I believe WF has got it right, they have both,... on virtually every hole.

The push up greens with false fronts and ample bunkering found on many of the older courses coupled with green contouring that produces "greens within greens" presents the player with a virtual array of recovery shot options.

Here in the Northeast there is a decided propensity to have heavy rough bordering the greens collar and bunkers.This makes missing greens mostly a study in sand and lob wedge recovery that becomes very boring, if you miss a green and are not in a bunker, then the play is virtually the same, a flop shot, hope it stops, from the short side, or a pitch and run when you have green to work with.

One of the benefits of the restoration efforts that I see is the greens expansions are returning some of this rough area to green or collar or fairway height cuts and creating a sort of "gray area" out of what was always heavy rough when the greens shrunk. It is literally possible to putt in to bunkers on some holes now and a less than precise approach shot will also roll off the green in to a collection area or a bunker.

My question is; should the green surrounds be maintained like Pinehurst #2 was for the Open or should they be like TCC is and was for the Ryder Cup? Or should there be a "balance" so neither is mutually exclusive? Let's assume for discussion purposes that we are talking about older private courses so that pace of play and revenue demand are out of the picture.
What should be rough and what shouldn't and why?

[mike_malone]

My course was closed from aug.to april.During the regrassing of all the greens and 5 of the fairways,the green cmte. chair decided to put a collection area to the right of our first hole.There  is no trap on this side of the green,so in essence the fairway raps around the right side of the green.There is a 3to4 ft.slope down for 10to15 ft. then a gentle upslope for 3to4 ft. before the rough starts again. This has sparked argument.There is  the group that says"the hole is easier".They seem to be think that any change that brings in variety at the expense of difficulty is wrong.I get frustrated by this group.Some say that Flynn did not believe in "chipping areas" or collection areas,but i doubt they know what Flynn thought.What i do feel comfortable about is that Flynn went for "challenging" versus"punishing".How do you present the idea that hitting a lob wedge from deep rough to a fast green that slopes away from you is not for every hole?I hesitate to tell some members that the area in question is beautiful.I think they would commit me for that.Are chipping areas or collection areas consistent with Flynn design philosophy?

[Ed_Baker]

I think chipping or collection areas were used by many of the dead guys but that it was more of a function of irrigation practices, or more precisely lack of modern irrigation. The ability to maintain lush thick rough on a daily basis did not exist or simply wasn't practical. Which is one of the reasons for the thread, my belief is that the "standard" of thick rough surrounding greens is more of a by product of shrinking greens and 360 degree irrigation heads and a "convenient" maintainence paradigm from zone watering, coupled with the ridiculous "green is good" member expectations. The rough just kind of evovled and really negated some of the design features. As it was a slow insidious process similar to the greens shrinking from mowing in a circular pattern, the members just came to accept it.

The point is, that the world class clubs like Winged Foot with virtually unlimited resources, have recognized Tillies intent and present the course in a "balanced" manner where the variety of collection areas and rough enhance the individual green complexes. The practice of treating them as green complexes and not separating the greens from "through the green" is really what returns the classic course closer to its design intent but with the manicured "green" look that members expect.

[Dave_Miller]

This is a tough one.  Good points can be made for both rough and collection areas.  
Maybe because Ed and I worked together on Green and restoration Committees I tend to think in the vein of the balanced approach.  
The Green expansion at Aronimink to recapture the original shapes has done a terrific job of having rough in what would be the proper places and also having collections areas ala #1,#14, & #16 in what would clearly be the proper places.  Makes for some very interesting decisions on the shots when these areas are found.
Don't think there is truly a right or a wrong.  But the balance of a Winged Foot and  Aronimink are fantastic.
Cheers
Dave Miller

[M.W. Burrows]

I hope some of the members at the club I work at start catching on to this mentality.  I love to see balls funnel into bunkers and roll twenty feet off the side of a green instead of two feet into rough.

Where I am an Assistant Superintendent we've actually started removing rough this winter in the hopes of restoring some bump and run options but some members just don't get it and want the rough put back.  Golfers seem to think that rough is difficult and fairway is easy no matter what.  They don't take the time to think about how interesting tight lies and all the options you have chipping and putting can be.  This is especially true at my place where we mow the fairways and approaches down to .325 inches and lower.   Instead of golfers appreciating the firm, dense fairways that provide such nice tight lies for them to shape their shots and putt from well off the green they complain that the fairways are too short and they can't hit fairway woods or pitch(lob) around greens!?!

Actually, I think people are crazier than normal this year.  I am actually hearing complaints that the greens are too firm at the course I maintain.  We are talking about a 108 year old bump and run course and the members are bitching because they can't see ball marks.  Someone told me that they hit a shot into the 7th green (which is a blind, 30-40 foot drop from the fairway to a green that runs away from you) and left the ball 10 yards short of the pin and it ran through the green and it was completely unfair and the greens should be wet down!!!!!

I have also been told that our bunkers seem like they are not even being maintained at all because there are barespots between the clumpy fescues and blue stem and lovegrass and moss, and because there is no edging or defined lip!!!!  Can you imagine National or Shinnecock with manicured bunkers?  Well that's what it would be like here.

I guess I'm getting off of Ed's subject but it got me thinking, I agree with Ed's topic and 90% of the people on this discussion group probably enjoy catch areas, firm fairways, greens, and approaches, and interesting golf but how do we sell it to all the people who think golf is simply hit your driver to the fairway and look at the sprinkler head for the yardage and hit the appropriate iron to the pin and the color green?

I have to admit, I'm thinking about leaving the business I'm in.  I love maintaining golf courses the way they should be played but am having a real tough time constantly trying to compromise the integrity of the golf course to fit certain peoples golf games and lack of imaginations.  

Someone help me, Pat Mucci you would be good at this, how do I respond to a member who just complained that "the greens are too firm, I hit a 5 iron into it and it ran through the back and didn't even leave a ballmark"?  After working at Winged Foot for a few years that's all I've been trying to master in my career is having firm conditions.  I don't know what to think anymore.

[Kevin Smith]

MW - Presumably the Green Committee at your club has been part of the planning process which prompted your superintendent to adopt the firm and fast approach.  Assuming this is the case they should be taking the heat not you.  Simply indicate that after a long and arduous process the committee felt this was the best course of action to ensure the design integrity of the course, as well as, the overall health of the turfgrass.  If that doesn't work, tell them to get a lesson.  No matter how long you are in the business, you will never please 100% of your clientele.

Which leads to another point, how many times has anyone taken a lesson from a PGA professional and been given instruction on shotmaking skills vs. simple ball striking.  I'm sure better players address this issue with their instructors.  However, by educating a beginning golfer with the art of bump and run shots, knock-down , etc., wouldn't they have a better appreciation of "firm and fast" from the outset?

[RJ_Daley]

M.W., you are a turf hero!  It is a shame that we hear of such absurd demands on a good turf man and gentleman like yourself, coming from a bunch of dunderhead members.  You ought to print out these various discussions on GCA when they relate to maintenance and particularly firm and fast desirablility.  The one on "dents" on the green is a good place to start.  Also, you ought to ask the GCSAA to sponsor some sort of traveling road show to educate and model the concept of the ground game and related maintenance practices that foster firm fast and playable turf that has water conservation in mind as an ancillary issue. I think a road show in support of the supers out there discussing these matters with a panel of experts from turf guys to  sympathetic name pros who would extoll the benefits of such a move to firmer, dryer, and less lush conditions would benefit many guys like yourself and open up a new awareness in these poor member saps that only get the Augusta lush green syndrome as a model of what golf should be.  Perhaps the local pros ought to take a more responsible approach in their regular club teaching-lessons duties by pushing the teaching of ground game shot making and explain to the members that it is a dynamic of the game they are missing with the narrow mentality of soft and lush conditions.

Please stay in the business someplace where you will be appreciated.

[Doug Wright]

Ed/Dave,

I'm curious about the "balanced approach" you mention at Winged Foot and Aronomink. Who's achieving it? The Green Committee or the superintendent? How do they achieve that? Do they look at each greensite and say "shave here, but not there?" and how do they determine what areas to shave?

If you know...is it art? Science?

All The Best,

[A_Clay_Man]

I have to say that the rough provides a good contrast and sometimes the fairgreen can be deceptive.

I do love the use of grass bunkering as an added feature which can be more difficult than a sand bunker.

I guess the right choice depends on the course. The best use of fairgreens I've seen was at Stevenson Ranch.

[Dave_Miller]

Doug:  I believe it is art rather than science.  It is not an easy call.  Rick Holanda the superintendent at Aronimink does a very, very good job and if you see where the collection areas are placed you say - Oh yeah that makes sense. I mentioned number 14 in my previous post I meant number 12. It really just looks right when you see it.   The same with the rough such as around number 2.  
I believe that Rick has a very good working relationship with the Green Committee and they probably decide these things together but I've never asked anyone.  I will.  
Cannot speak to Winged Foot as last week was the first time I saw the two layouts but again everything just made sense.
Having these areas really makes you think about the next shot.  Do I putt, do I need a 7 or 8 iron, will a sand or pitching wedge work,  How's the green sloping?  Really adds a lot of fun and sometimes gain and pain to the round.
Best
Dave

[Dave_Miller]

MW
Sounds like the Green Committee and Super are hanging you out to dry.  It sounds like you care enough that the members should be very happy.  This however never happens.  There are instances at our Club where we have a great super, who does a fantastic job, where we argue about things like this. However we usually find there is a good reason for things and it is accepted.  But you cannot please unreaonable people.  Some members at all clubs sometimes check their common sense at the front gate.
Don't get out of the business.  Keep doing a good job.  you'll find a Club tht appreciates your hard work and caring.
Best
Dave Miller

[Doug Wright]

Dave,

Certainly if there is a way to "balance" the two (rough and shaved areas) I think it makes the play more interesting, because they require different skills, judgment etc.--what to hit from the shaved areas, bump and run, flop, putt, and how the ball will react from the rough areas, distance control and the like. Of course, there are horses for courses, and some just don't readily lend themselves to one or the other. It's one of the things I seem to see in many Ross courses, the ability to attain this type of balance.

All The Best,

[TEPaul]

Matt Burrows:

I feel for you pal--it's a tough job with your clientele! And I second what others have said--you're doing the right things as frustrating as it may seem to you.

But look, you job is complicated enough so no reason to complicate the way you explain to your membership how to deal with what they're thinking.

You just have to explain to them what "options" are all about on a golf course! It's not really that mysterious. Tell them they're getting frustrated because they're only looking at their course in one dimension! Tell them the fun, the gratification of it is it has many dimensions (the options).

Tell them landing a ball on a green (that just dents) may not be the only way--in some cases in may not be the best way--so ask them to just look around for another way--BECAUSE IT'S THERE!

But Matt--your job--if you're going to explain this to them successfully is going to be to provide them with other options in IN EVERY SINGLE SITUATION for the one they used that failed!

I'm quite certain you know what I mean by that. And I do mean every single situation! Unfortunately it just takes one situation, one instance, where they think the one way is the only way. If that's true and it failed for them--you're just going to have a bit more work to do and a lot more explaining to do or else they're gonna make you put the course back to one dimensionality that works!

You can do it though! Just give them all the options (EVERYWHERE) and if need be just keep explaining to them what they are! Those options might not neceassarily have to work for them everytime but at the least they have to understand wha they are and that they can work!

I feel for you pal! I know some of your members and I'll make some calls if you want!