Focus is often on links, heathland and downland courses in the UK but do parklands get a fair crack of the critics whip? Okay for 12-months p/a golf parklands arn't necessarily likely to be up to the same playability standards as other sorts of courses built on better draining land but are they all just mud?
Parklands also often get criticised for their avenues of tress, alboretum golf is a term I've heard used. Is this fair, or do the trees, if planted and maintained appropriately add something to the golf?
One aspect of parklands that makes me uncomfortable is the length of the rough in and around the trees. Some courses seem to leave tree branch's low to the ground plus leaving the grass at a high cut, not jungle high, but appreciably higher than first cut height, which if you do venture offline makes finding the ball difficult (and slow) and produces difficult recovery shots for the lessor player. My preference is for the grass height within tree areas to be kept lowish so balls can be found easily and recovery shots, like punches and three-quarter shots can played by all levels of player, the half-shot penalty.
What do you reckon?
Here are a couple of photos of an admittedly very nicely maintained traditional English parkland course which hopefully will better explain my point about height of both the rough and tree branch's.
All the best.
This par-4 hole plays left to right in the photo. Tree branch's not too low, grass not too high. Find the ball easily and recovery possible but probably not close to the hole.
A view from behind the green at a dog-leg par-5. Find it easy, punch it out but probably not get it close, unless you're Seve. Variety of tree species.
Looking into the trees from the fairway at the corner of a dog-leg par-4. Low grass, raised branch's, differing tree species. Appropriate tree maintenance. Interesting bell.
