[M. Shea Sweeney]

From the Spirit of St. Andrews-

10. There should be a complete absence of the annoyance and irritation caused by the necessity of searching for lost balls.

Why do many high end golf courses break this principle allowing "native areas", fescue, blue stem, etc. to grow out of control?

There is constant discussion about what is hurting golf, but what hurts golf more than the "annoyance and irritation caused by the necessity of searching for lost balls"?

Why do so many great clubs embrace "tall grass" needlessly close to playing corridors?

One should be punished for a missed shot, however why to the point of no return? Why knee high, burly rough 4 yards from a putting surface?

[Bradley Anderson]

Back in the mid 1990s I let areas grow wild on the golf course I maintained because I thought it would:

- give the golf course a links look
- save money on mowing fuel
- enhance wildlife habitat

The first two years those areas looked nice with the seed head inflorescence swaying in the breeze, but I can't honestly say that we did much for wildlife habitat other than maybe some field mice and rabbits had more cover. And in retrospect it probably didn't make much sense to add a links look to what was essentially a parkland course.

By the forth year these areas became host to thistle weeds and volunteer softwood species like cottonwood, willow, silver maple and juniper bushes. Now we had to adopt a management strategy to deal with the invasives, and that sort of erased the savings we had from mowing. In fact those "naturalized" areas became more expensive to maintain.

And for the amount of lost balls that they inconvenienced golfers with, I decided to restore those areas back to 2" rough cut.

The golf course I am currently caring for has about 60 acres of native area and most of it is genuinely natural woodlands and wetlands. But every winter I go in to these areas and hack back the tall grass and buckthorn and willow infestations to widen the playing corridors.

[jeffwarne]

"out of play unmaintained natural" areas require maintenance, are rarely natural, and are ALWAYS in play for someone.

[Nigel Islam]

My issue is that for the first nine I spend so much time looking for my playing partners balls I invariably start hitting it in there myself.

[M. Shea Sweeney]

So why is this practice accepted?

When did it start?

Do Super's  and people in charge of agronomy just "love the way it looks"? Is it not about providing the best playing field possible?

Is it not about how the course play's before it looks? I am talking about so called GREAT courses.

Tom Doak said:

"I like any sort of existing ground cover where you can find a ball and play it.  That includes woods when there is a relatively clean forest underneath, heather if it isn't too thick, sparse grasses that are unmowed, or turfgrass that's generally maintained at two inches or less.

I don't like "native" rough that is so thick that you can't find your ball in it or play a shot out of it.  And I really don't like it when new golf courses plant such rough and create the problem for themselves."

All these intiatives to "save the game"-- Tee it forward-- how bout CUT IT LOWER 3.0!!

I watch hunderds of rounds a year destroyed by nasty, overgrown nonesense.

 Go put a junior on a golf course lined with "fescue", or better yet, host a junior tournament. How is that growing the game? How do we expect juniors to become seniors when their time on the golf course is miserable because they've lost a ball on every hole, and didn't really hit it that bad?

[Paul Gray]

Back in the mid 1990s I let areas grow wild on the golf course I maintained because I thought it would:

- give the golf course a links look.......

I mean this in no disrespectful way to you, Bradley, particularly as you went on to point out how your perspective has changed somewhat, but nothing makes me cringe more than the 'faux links' effect. I know links golf and I know how annoyed I get when someone tries to mimic it. Not entirely applicable, but the principle stands:

The attempt at reproducing well known holes with hopelessly different materials is the most futile nonsense of the lot. - Harry Colt

Replace the word 'holes' with 'styles' (and I don't think I'm taking too much of a liberty with that) and you have it in a nutshell.

[Bradley Anderson]

Paul,

At the time I was young and I was copying what other people were doing. In retrospect it was not the best "look" for that golf course. I realized that and changed it back to how it was designed by the architect.

But that said, I do think that there are some areas on parkland courses where you can do fescue grasses. But be aware that those areas are not going to become less costly to maintain.

[Tom_Doak]

So why is this practice accepted?

When did it start?

Mike:

It started with the Audubon Society, and the big golf organizations feeling like they needed to make a concerted effort to look more friendly environmentally.  The one thing they identified that they could do was to make the "out-of-play" area more useful as wildlife habitat, and that means letting them go ... though it is at odds with Dr. MacKenzie's tenth principle. 

It was accepted, in part, because the better players were okay with the idea of narrower fairways and punishing off-line shots.

It is a real dilemma.  I've spent a fair amount of time with the people at the Golf Environment Organization, and this is one of their big "likes" too.  Philosophically, I'm in favor of all of their goals, but I'm not in favor of solutions that make every golf course look alike, and make them less enjoyable for the average guy to play.

[Jon Wiggett]

Its fine saying that all the grass on a golf course should be maintained so a ball can always be found but firstly there are many areas which are rarely visited by golfers and keeping grass low is expensive if done through mowing on a regular basis. Of course the best way is to cut hay or silage and remove the cutting or to graze.

Jon

[Paul Gray]

Leaving aside "native" areas (something I only hear in relation to US courses), in GB&I there are many links courses where the rough is out of control. Donegal golf club is probably the worst offender that I have played in recent times but there are many others. In fact, I tell a lie, Muirfield was actually a bit of a joke when I played it. Far too often, members at these clubs proudly advocate this practice, puffing their chests out and proclaiming: "it's one of the toughest tests in the country, get in the long stuff and you're in big trouble!". As if instant loss of ball was a good thing. Yes, it adds challenge, but there are better and far more interesting ways of challenging ALL players, not just those who struggle to hit the ball straight (and whose golfing lives are made miserable by rough mismanagement).

It's a culture that's been allowed to develop, I think - "it's links golf, the rough is supposed to be like that!" - "it's a hell of a championship test" - pick your platitude, but I think it catches on and then you see Carnastie and other Open venues with punishing rough (and they see the US open on TV) and it becomes a badge of honour...



On flatter sites, not flanked by dunes, high rough is probably sold as providing definition - although I agree with that from an aesthetic standpoint, playability will always take priority over aesthetics for me.  

Too true. And the past nine months of rain have done nothing but thicken up the rough, as per the Open last year. I have no objection to leaving well alone areas which should rarely come into play, but to miss a fairway but a couple of yards and find yourself in serious trouble is, it seems to me, neither big nor clever.

That only serves to highlight another reason why any attempt to replicate links style rough (which is not necessarily immensely thick) on different ground is so nonsensical: the infertile nature of links terrain which makes it so good for golf also makes it relatively useless for growing anything in dense quantity. Allow 'native' grasses to grow on fertile meadow/farm land and the nett result is unplayable and/or unmanageable without considerable expenditure.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Its fine saying that all the grass on a golf course should be maintained so a ball can always be found but firstly there are many areas which are rarely visited by golfers and keeping grass low is expensive if done through mowing on a regular basis. Of course the best way is to cut hay or silage and remove the cutting or to graze.

Jon

True Jon... Whilst I understand and agree wholeheartedly with the premise of MacKenzie's 10th principle, I think pinning it solely on "native" areas when there are clear positives - i.e. biodiversity, less maintenance (in true native areas), aesthetic definition - isn't entirely fair. True native areas are GOOD if the site is big enough to allow them to be far enough away from the centreline of the hole.... On one hand we are talking on a Streamsong thread about eliminating the first cut and transitioning straight to native... and on the other hand it's getting castigated here... as long as there is good width, they have advantages... That said I prefer native vegetation that allows the ball to be found too...

[Jon Wiggett]

Ally,

I have played with people who have a 150 yard spread on their tee shots so to expect every ball to be findable is just unrealistic. The problem with a lot of people is they do not understand that the best result in strokeplay is the lowest score. This is especially true for the brigade of players between 15 and 28 in handicap. Something that would help would be a move to player back to playing more matchplay as it teaches you to play the man and not the course.

Of course, the other possibility would be to turn all deep rough into a hazard where you got a penalty drop just like a water hazard

Jon

[Bradley Anderson]

Jon,

Here in the states we mark tall grass areas with red lateral hazard stakes to speed up play. No one ever goes back to the point where their previous shot was played, which is probably how it should be ruled when you loose a ball in the tall grass.

[Bryan Lewis]

From the Spirit of St. Andrews-

10. There should be a complete absence of the annoyance and irritation caused by the necessity of searching for lost balls.

Why do many high end golf courses break this principle allowing "native areas", fescue, blue stem, etc. to grow out of control?

There is constant discussion about what is hurting golf, but what hurts golf more than the "annoyance and irritation caused by the necessity of searching for lost balls"?

Why do so many great clubs embrace "tall grass" needlessly close to playing corridors?

One should be punished for a missed shot, however why to the point of no return? Why knee high, burly rough 4 yards from a putting surface?

Mackenzie was so wise!  I'm glad you started this thread.  It's one of my biggest pet peeves.  When the native grass is sparse and thin, it is beautiful.  Unfortunately it rarely is.  I'm not sure it has been mentioned here yet, but people looking for balls every hole really slows play for everyone not just those looking for balls.

Bryan

[John Kavanaugh]

When Mackenzie played golf balls were a lot harder to come by and more expensive. I would have worried far more about losing them back in the day.   Now with the slightest effort anyone can find three balls for every one lost. Why people who claim not to care about par and hate the card and pencil give a damn if they lose a golf ball is beyond me.

The mystery is why and how you do find three balls for every one lost but never yours. That is not a Mackenzie issue.

[Garland Bayley]

When Mackenzie played golf balls were a lot harder to come by and more expensive. I would have worried far more about losing them back in the day.   Now with the slightest effort anyone can find three balls for every one lost. Why people who claim not to care about par and hate the card and pencil give a damn if they lose a golf ball is beyond me.

The mystery is why and how you do find three balls for every one lost but never yours. That is not a Mackenzie issue.

Talk about a clueless response.

My buddy and I played 18 holes in 2 1/2 hours today and had "complete absence of the annoyance and irritation caused by the necessity of searching for lost balls".

[John Kavanaugh]

If I hit the ball 102 times in 2 1/2 hours I'd need shoulder surgery.  Why not tell us where you and your buddy played and walked and finished in 2 1/2 hours. I bet it is the picture of Mackenzian strategy.

[John Kavanaugh]

Here is some real world advice.  If you don't like looking for balls, don't. No one cares what you shoot. ESQ let's you take double anyway and if there is one thing I know after 44 years of golf is that if you feel the need to tell someone your score they don't want to hear the how.

Golf is the only sport outside of marbles where you are likely to finish with more balls than you started.

[M. Shea Sweeney]

John-

I think I understand you to be taking to task the "Golf in the Kingdom" kind of guys. Score doesn't matter, so why do you care about losing a ball etc, etc. So be it, and I do not disagree.

However, I think that is for another discussion.

The discussion here is regarding the fact that too many golf courses are hurting the game by pinching playing corridors with overgrown nonesense because "it looks nice". No doubt asthetics are apart of golf architecture, however not as to comprimise the playing field.

Furthermore my experience has been that more fun is had by the majority of golfers on courses where they are most able to advance their ball to the green.

Augusta is constantly blamed for disrupting green keeping strategies when in reality they are setting the best example- let the defense be on the greens, and players be free to use their imagination, and shot making skills.

How do we expect our juniors to become seniors when they can hardly develop an imagination on the golf course because it is limited to pitch out or unplayable??

[John Kavanaugh]

No, I just want people to take personal responsibility for hitting a poor shot.  I find many similarities between golf and women. I give Mackenzie little credence for his views on either as he was from a far different era.

[Nigel Islam]

I think a course with heavy public traffic should avoid high rough as much as possible. A member's course with likely stronger players and less play high native areas are fine. I really can't stand looking for my playings partners golf ball with impatient golfers behind me while the group in front keeps losing balls as well.

[John Kavanaugh]

I think a course with heavy public traffic should avoid high rough as much as possible. A member's course with likely stronger players and less play high native areas are fine. I really can't stand looking for my playings partners golf ball with impatient golfers behind me while the group in front keeps losing balls as well.

Nigel,

Around 5 years ago my buddies and I all agreed to not look for anyone else's ball in our group. It is fun playing with adults. It is solely up to the individual how far they choose to lag behind. Now if the group in front of us is hung up on finding golf balls we simply skip the hole they are on and come back later making that hole our 18th of the day. This is a non issue for adults with a spare $5 or $10 bucks in their pocket.

[Jason Thurman]

If a player hits a crappy shot, I have no problem with them getting stuck searching for their ball as part of the penalty. I'm cheap but also a snob. One of golf's greatest mental challenges for me is dealing with the frustration of losing a Taylormade Penta TP5 that I cut a great bargain on in some long grass, and digging out half a dozen Dunlop Locos while never finding my own ball. For that reason, I don't mind the plague of long grass as much on those higher end courses referenced in the original post. At least then I have a chance of turning over a ProV1 or two.

I do hate what it does to pace of play though.

[John Kavanaugh]

Saying that looking for balls hurts pace of play is another misconception. In 4hrs there are 48 five minute time periods. If a group takes 5 hrs does anyone really believe it is because they spent an additional 12 time periods looking for balls they never found. Do you really believe that if the rules limited lost ball searches to 1 minute 15 seconds that same group would get done in a respectable 4:15?  Of course not.

Golf is slow because there are just some people who like it that way. I recently started playing indoor tennis with my golf buds. Our biggest problem with the game is that it only takes 1 1/2 hours and then we are left staring at each other not wanting to go home.  We really wish it took longer.  I love how the time golf takes connects the dots in my life.

[Jason Thurman]

Come on John. You know the guys looking for balls don't care what the rules say and they're not looking at a five minute timer. Most of them just end up taking a free drop anyways. Still, every 90 second search takes another 90 seconds.

Ball searching isn't the only culprit in slow play, but it is one of many. Still, you're probably right. Get rid of all the long rough on courses and guys will still find a way to take forever to play. It's not like a round at Pinehurst #2 moves much faster than Whistling Straits.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()