I recently read this -
"Championship condition" requires severe rough to challenge today's average touring pro - even Augusta National came to that conclusion. That still qualifies as an "opinion" although it would appear I could get a near-unanimous vote on it.
The source is an intelligent man. Would it be a unanimous vote? I don't think so. What do you feel?
Tiger Woods (in good shape pre-scandal) won the 2009 Australian Masters at Kingston Heath with rounds of 66, 68, 72 and 68 to win by 2 shots with -14. Course par 72, 6960 yards with a reachable (505yd) par 5 opener. Greens were quite receptive on the first two rounds, with water pumped onto them in part due to fear of warmer forecasts over the weekend. I caddied on the weekend, and walked on damp greens early Satuday morning. Pro players who shot -3 or better for the week finished inside the Top 20, in what was a good field, boasting Woods, Scott, Leishman, Ogilvy, Sim, Senden, Baddeley, Appleby and Richard Green among others.
As you can see from the images below, there was some rough about the course -
But nothing like this -
For the 2009 Australian Masters, Kingston Heath was set up with fairway cut extending to the bunkers.
Sparse rough also provided the chance to take aim at the green on approach, with a little spin control, and a little luck with lie among the variable non-fairway areas.
So is severe rough an essential ingredient for Championship Golf?
MM