Which setup is better...

[Matthew Essig]

Thick rough or closely mown runoff areas?
State your pick and why you chose it.

I like the runoff areas more because they are more hazardous than bunkers.
(has no connection to the thread I started yesterday...)

(thought of topic with the arguments in the Mike Davis setup thread)

[Phil McDade]

Matthew:

It depends.

I like to see run-off areas when they are consistent with the rest of the course. Thus, I expect to see them at Pinehurst, in keeping with how that course traditionally has, or ought to, play. I think Tom Doak suggested the run-offs at Olympic were a bit incongruous.

Erin Hills, hosting this in five years, has an interesting combination -- run-offs on par 4s and 5s, thick rough around some of the par 3 green surrounds.

[Sam Morrow]

I like both but seem to be more interested when I play a course with the run-off areas.

[Scott Sander]

When aesthetically appropriate - sometimes both!

Few of us have so well-rounded a short game that we can chop and trundle with equal efficiency.
So, a greensite that has -this- in one area and -that- in the other introduces some additional decision-making on the approach. 

Both confidence and the lack of it are powerful magnets.

[Brad Isaacs]

The closely mown areas left of 13 and of 17 as well as others added greatly to the setup. The drama of the shots provided by more than just Ernie Els and T Woods are ample support for the drama they provided.

Ernie and his put that came back as well as his chip that went in.

Tiger and his chunk that didn't run on 18 also showed why he was not qualified to be the champion this year, and his chip on 17 that was dead but he still made par on the hole showed how good he can be.  I don't know about incongruent? I would have to play it to be that critical, but I don't think so. Mike Davis and his crew did a good job in this area. Great course setup! (especially after a let down of Congressional)

 Olympic did a great job on tree removal as well, from a TV perspective.

[Doug Siebert]

When aesthetically appropriate - sometimes both!

Few of us have so well-rounded a short game that we can chop and trundle with equal efficiency.
So, a greensite that has -this- in one area and -that- in the other introduces some additional decision-making on the approach. 

Both confidence and the lack of it are powerful magnets.

This.  If you want to fully test a player's game, you have to insure they can play the flop or chop out of the thick stuff and the bump and run or putt from off the green with equal efficacy.

Not suggesting we need to grow some spinach around some greens at Pinehurst, but I see nothing at all wrong with the combination platter served up at Olympic.

[David_Elvins]

The more of the club the player can get on the ball, the more he can show his skill.  Or lack of it.

The more options a player has the more the mental game is in play and the greater the opportunity to show creativity. 

It's a no brainer that runoff areas make for better golf than rough. 

Its no surprise that one of PGA Tour's worst recovery players won at Olympic.  His lack of recovery skill was not much of a problem as there were few opportunities for the great recovery players to show their skill. 

[Doug Siebert]

I don't buy that it takes less skill to get up and down from the spinach than it does to get up and down from a closely mown area.  Putting more club on the ball means you have more control over what happens to it, but fewer variables in how the club/ball interface will happen also means experience in playing such shots is less important.