Why was ANGC designed with no rough?

[Jerry Kluger]

Golf Channel rebroadcasted an episode of Feherty where he interviewed Lee Trevino and Trevino said that the reason that ANGC was designed with no rough was to give players the same playing surface from wherever they hit the ball.  Is that correct?

[V. Kmetz]

I don't know about Trevino's information, but I recall the gist of a Bobby Jones quote:

"The worst thing about golf is looking for golf balls"

cheers

vk

[jeffwarne]

ANGC was designed with wide playing corridors to promote the use of strategy and angles, rather than forcing them down narrow avenues.

The original ANGC did have rough(but very wide fairways), it wasn't until the mid 70's that one height of cut was used for most of the playing areas, replaced somewhat recently by the "second cut" surrounding most fairways

[jeffwarne]

The original ANGC did have rough(but very wide fairways), it wasn't until the mid 70's that one height of cut was used for most of the playing areas, replaced somewhat recently by the "second cut" surrounding most fairways

I think it's a shame it didn't remain all the one height.

agreed it was a very cool look as well.

I must say this is the first year I noticed that the first cut was extracting a penalty as many people were ending up in it on 14,then missing the green long although those same tee shots probably would've ended up in the woods on pine straw, In my opinion those shots are more fun to watch than short irons from fliers

[BCrosby]

ANGC has gradually become more and more like a US Open venue. I'd guess that trend will continue. It reflects an astonishing lack of comprehension about what MacK and Jones were trying to do there.

Bob

[Mark McKeever]

It reflects an astonishing lack of comprehension about what MacK and Jones were trying to do there.

Bob

Well put Bob.

Mark

[Bill Brightly]

Hey guys, let's not forget that almost ALL the ODG courses built in the US had far less rough when they opened than today... I would bet that they never even envisioned being able to grow rough like we play in today...

[Tim_Weiman]

BCrosby:

In most discussions here at CGA, folks are critical of the USGA for its US Open setups (narrow fairways/long rough).

I have always disagreed believing that the US Open should be a very different event than the Masters or British Open.

But, as you point out, unfortunately, the folks at Augusta are gradually undermining the argument the the majors should be distinct, different tests of golf.

Wish that wasn't the case.

[Alex Miller]

I think this is probably looking at the question wrong:

Why are courses designed with rough? To punish shots that are not properly or accurately struck?

At ANGC there is no need for rough. You have greens that dictate strategy and punish shots that come in from the wrong angles.

[Jerry Kluger]

But isn't it generally felt that a well designed and properly maintained course doesn't need deep rough to pose a challenge to players?  I think that the US Open at Congressional proved that soft and receptive greens without significant contours make for low scores no matter how deep the rough.

[Patrick_Mucci]

But isn't it generally felt that a well designed and properly maintained course doesn't need deep rough to pose a challenge to players? 


Jerry,

That might have been true 100 years ago, but, I think it's less true today.


I think that the US Open at Congressional proved that soft and receptive greens without significant contours make for low scores no matter how deep the rough.

[Jim Nugent]

ANGC has gradually become more and more like a US Open venue. I'd guess that trend will continue. It reflects an astonishing lack of comprehension about what MacK and Jones were trying to do there.

Bob

They clearly have narrowed some of the playing corridors.  But I keep hearing from one person after another who has been there, that the overall course is still remarkably wide open.  i.e. with the exception of a few holes, it's not close to being like US Open venues. 

Can anyone clarify? 

[Mark Pritchett]

ANGC has gradually become more and more like a US Open venue. I'd guess that trend will continue. It reflects an astonishing lack of comprehension about what MacK and Jones were trying to do there.

Bob

They clearly have narrowed some of the playing corridors.  But I keep hearing from one person after another who has been there, that the overall course is still remarkably wide open.  i.e. with the exception of a few holes, it's not close to being like US Open venues. 

Can anyone clarify? 

Correct, the course is very open with plenty of width and the second cut is very playable, nothing close to US Open type rough or even average golf course rough for that matter. 

[BCrosby]

ANGC is becoming more and more like a classic US Open venue. (Mike Davis may change that. We'll see.) It's not there yet, but that seems to be the model being emulated. For a course that was once distinguished by the width of it playing corridors, today many of those corridors are less wide or, in some cases, narrow.

No. 1 - new fill-in trees on left are tightening and will continue to tighten fw.
No. 2 - ditto
No. 7 - words escape me
No. 9 - new fill-in trees on left will gradually tighten fw. It's already threading a needle to get to the wide LZ.
No. 11 - words escape me
No. 15 - new pines right and higher rough narrow considerably LZ. Note also new fill-in trees on left
No. 17 - words escape me
No. 18 - fill-in trees on left have already and will continue to tighten fw.

ANGC is the only top 25 course I know of that has added trees over the last decade. The only one. And we aren't talking about just a few trees. I'd guess that more than a thousand have been added. Many are blended in with existing stands, but virtually all of the new ones were planted on the fw side of those stands. They will continine to impinge on playing corridors. In short, ANGC will get narrower every year unless there is a sea change in the management of the course.

Yes, there remain some holes with wide playing corridors. But to focus on those and not see the bigger picture is what it means to take your eye off the ball. The architectural principles important to MacK and Jones - that width was important (a) for a course to be more playable and fun for the weaker player and (b) for a course that encouraged strategic thinking by better players where the greens are sufficiently challenging - those principles no longer seem to weigh in the balance. 

I know, I know, they have to do something if ANGC is going to host a major tournament every year. We can have that argument if you like. But that's a separate set of issues. The issue here is architecture. What has been done to ANGC over the last decade or so has made it a much less interesting course architecturally. The reduction of width is a big (but not the only) part of that. And that's a real loss to golf architecture. A marker for great golf design has been diminished. Whether it will be lost entirely someday is anyone's guess, but things aren't trending well.   

Bob

[Mark Pritchett]

Here is a picture of Merion. 

Thoughts on this "classic course" with less trees?  Is this set up wide? 



Photo Credit:  John Mummert/USGA

[Jon Wiggett]

The crazy thing is all that tightening up does not make it any harder. The US Open set up only played half a shot harder per round than the Castle Stuart. Yet one was thought really tough and the other too easy by many. Would be better if people saw what was actually there and not the illusion certain groups try to create.

Jon