Isn't high, penal rough ideal?

[PCCraig]

Over the last week or so, the head professional from Hazeltine National returned to Merion (where I believe used to be an assistant) and tweeted out a collection of really neat pictures of the course in nearly full Open presentation. One that stuck out to me was this of a ball sitting in the high rough:



This past weekend I was playing at my home course and due to the very wet, cool spring we've had the rough was very thick and tall in spots (3-4"?). Our 6400 yard course's rough is usually cut pretty low...marginalizing the penalty for missing fairways and in some cases reason to aim for certain parts of the rough off the tee (at least for me). However, this past weekend I missed tee balls in pretty familiar spots and was sufficiently penalized with a far more difficult recovery/approach shot. Instead of complaining, I thought to myself, why shouldn't I be penalized for missing a fairway? (Especially on a shorter golf course by modern standards).

I know that it may be "GCA Politically Incorrect" to say this, but I'm finding myself thinking that in the wake of modern technology...has this become the ideal? While wide fairways that promote multiple angles of attack are still ideal, why shouldn't the player be penalized for missing the ("wide") fairway? Would it be more effective from a maintenance standpoint to widen fairways but leave the rough to be just that, rough?

[Jeff_Brauer]

For what?  The US Open or everyday play?  For the 1% top players or the 99% who pay the bills?


Even for all but top tourneys, I have always felt that the reduced spin from even light rough was penalty enough.   It makes you think and/or hit a harder shot than from the fw. 

All you need to do is add one stroke to a players score on a hole to affect a golf match, not ten. And, its more exciting golf if there is a chance of recovery, rather than the automatic one or more stroke penalty for missing the fw.

For the rest, it makes golf enjoyable, not some kind of endurcance test of manhood.

But, that's just me.

[Jim Sherma]

Not if pace of play is a concern. If you have to traipse around the rough looking for balls that are only visible when looked straight down upon the pace of play will suffer. Courses where the rough can exert a half stroke penalty and yet still have the ball visible as you walk towards it is ideal.

If medal play, by the rules, sub four hour rounds are desired then length of the course/routing, severity of the rough and green speeds will all have to be rolled back.

[Bill_McBride]

Go back and read Dr. Mackenzie's list of what makes for great golf.  One item high on the list is no deep rough to avoid aggravating hunting for balls.  

At the U.S. Open there will be marshals and spectators in quantity to help find balls in the deep rough.  When my foursome on a Saturday spends too much time searching, that's no fun.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Bill,

Not quite related, but I did play in the Las Vegas Pro Am many years back and the rough was deep.  The marshalls don't really pay attention to the amateur shots like they do the pros, and I recall searching for a shot about one foot off the fw edge, and I was pretty certain where it went in.  My partners, including Gary Player, weren't happy with that slight delay and Player let me know it pretty publicly.......but, it wasn't a bad shot, it just happened to trickle in the very deep rough, so I wanted to find it.

[Shaun Feidt]

I think the picture above is somewhat extreme.  Also, the time of year and overall health of the grass plays a huge role in determining playability.  Our rough is usually maintained between 2"-2.5".  During the spring, due to the lush thick grass, 2" feels more like 4".  But by summer time when it begins to thin out, 2" is really not much of a challenge.  We will bump up the height usually in mid July just to help the grass survive the summer heat.   I should also note the majority of rough on our course is not irrigated, so mother nature plays a huge factor.   Grass type obviously plays a huge role in what kind of lie you will end up with also.  If it is a monostand of the the same grass type, I feel you have a better chance that the ball will rest on top.  But with a hodge podge of grass types, very much like our rough, the ball will tend to sink down in more and you will find more inconsistent lies.  I think the superintendent at Merion just talked about this in a recent interview for Golfdom magazine.

[Paul Gray]

The title of the thread leads me in to an error people make all too often. It is primarily not about height, it's about thickness. The links course I grew up at had knee high stuff which, although it still penalised a missed fairway, was skinny enough to allow you to generally find your ball. Anything just a couple of inches high was more akin to playing off of a lush fairway than out of the rough.

So many maintenance guys now go wrong in that they try to imitate something which they think to be classic but is in fact anything but. I say this at a time when I'm currently trying to pursued our club to abandon the thick stuff policy and am often met with "but it's like a links course." No, it isn't.

When golf is reduced to a game of hunting in the undergrowth it become a battle of attrition which most of us don't get much pleasure from. And it still meant to be fun, right?

Even Tour pros wouldn't much fancy having to find their balls in the sort of stuff likely to be seen at Merion and those guys are getting far healthier fees than any of us are ever likely to get for playing a game we purport to love.

[Bill_McBride]

Bill,

Not quite related, but I did play in the Las Vegas Pro Am many years back and the rough was deep.  The marshalls don't really pay attention to the amateur shots like they do the pros, and I recall searching for a shot about one foot off the fw edge, and I was pretty certain where it went in.  My partners, including Gary Player, weren't happy with that slight delay and Player let me know it pretty publicly.......but, it wasn't a bad shot, it just happened to trickle in the very deep rough, so I wanted to find it.

Gary's ever the gentleman. 

[Tim_Weiman]

Pat:

I might be one of the few supporters on this board of USGA setups for the US Open, including narrow fairways and long, thick penal rough.

But, Jeff Brauer is exactly right. It makes no sense for everyday play. Heck, I don't even like it for the Masters, the British Open or the PGA.

The US Open is for the super elite level of golfer and it should be a unique test that is different than other major championships.

Besides that, the last thing golf in America needs is anything that slows play.

[JMEvensky]

I might be one of the few supporters on this board of USGA setups for the US Open, including narrow fairways and long, thick penal rough.


The US Open is for the super elite level of golfer and it should be a unique test that is different than other major championships.

Johnny Miller has been quoted saying the exact same thing.

Now,whether you want to be in JM's camp...

[Garland Bayley]

The ugliest picture ever posted on this website. Come on folks, what should the prize be? A weekend drinking stout with Aidan?

[archie_struthers]

 


Tournament players are quite different from our everyday golfers , and still cry when the rough is up, or wet , or uneven !  Jeff B and dR. Mackenzie have it right , high penal rough doesn't work on an everyday basis , particularly  in the states.

On my one , fabulous trip to Ireland , our caddies just assumed we would abandon any balls launched into the  hay as a matter of course . It took awhile for some of my mates to get used to abandoning the search . American golf would do well to adopt this mindset once in a while, it would make for happier campers!

[Matthew Rose]

Few things aggravate me more than playing a course with knee high rough on both sides of every fairway. Inevitably, somebody in the group in front will hit a ball into it on every hole.

[Nick Cauley]

Is the reason the rough is so high do to the fact they are playing a US Open there next week.

[Charlie Gallagher]

Pat and other responders,
   I get the penal flora that thick rough presents and it's ability to defend, and I understand its  employment on Open courses as a challenge to the best players in the world. Never the less, I have concluded that the good Doctor was correct.
   Deep rough slows play and overwhelms the average player. I think the most interesting courses employ cunning design, not rough, to challenge players. This is true at TOC, Boston Golf Club, Wolf Point, Rustic Canyon, Pinehurst #2, and other courses that employ hazard placement, green complex design, and width and fairway design, to create challenge. "Indifferent shots are punished, but recovery is possible" is much more fun and interesting to me than "find it, and gouge it out."  In my mind the best courses defend themselves via what I outlined above, while giving players options for problem solving. Augusta National used to be this way, but some of it's strategy has been lost due to tree instalation. I am very sure that Dr. M would be upset by that.

[Bill Brightly]

PatC,

I don't know your handicap but would give odds that you are single digit, probably less than 5. Only sticks suggest this method of testing players, only sticks willingly accept this "challenge."

Up until a week ago, the rough at many clubs n the Northeast looked like your photo because it was excessively wetand it was prime growing season. It was hard to even get the equipment in there to cut without doing major damage.

Even though the roughs will be high at Merion for the event, I would be be shocked if they did not cut it back from the photo you posted. Sadly, it seems to be a common practice to leave the roughs extremely high right up until tourney time (I know this was the case at Ridgewood before the Barclays) and then cut it to the desired height before the pros show up. I am always appreciative of what members put up with to allow us to view professional events at these great old courses.

[jeffwarne]

Total nonsense
What is the point of a fairway bunker when shit like that awaits EVERY  hole both sides
Just finished 2 weeks of tournament golf with that or worse on every hole and stupid fast greens to boot

[Richard Choi]

It is ideal...

if your ideal golf hole is the 17th at Sawgrass. I have played on a few courses under harsh tournament conditions and practically every ball I hit to the rough was an automatic lost ball. Just because the ball is find able with five Marshalls and hundreds of spectators present does not mean they are playable on a normal weekend.

I hope this was just a joke of a thread...

[Ben Sims]

I've got 8 or so rounds under my belt at Chambers Bay now.  There's not a hole that goes by out there when I don't consider what it's going to look like at the US Open.  After seeing that photo, I'm worried for how the USGA will want to narrow the fairways and grow the rough.  The beauty of the course is in trying to approach the greens from multiple angles under very tight and firm conditions.  At the length they'll be playing in 2015, it won't matter how high they hit mid-long irons on most of those greens.  However, I fear they'll use long rough at the fairway (distinct idea from corridor margins) margins to defend the golf course.

[Dan Delaney 🐮]

The ugliest picture ever posted on this website. Come on folks, what should the prize be? A weekend drinking stout with Aidan?

Mr. Bailey,
I came across a worse picture on Monday while working though Golf's Longest Day coverage.  Rather than sully Ran's site with another gem, I'll just post the link (source: John Peterson twitter post).

http://instagram.com/p/aG4_Pdl-8d/
Be warned: Cringe Factor 5

And I'll be happy to drink stout with anyone.

[SL_Solow]

I  believe this goes beyond lost balls.  One of the most interesting shots in golf is the recovery.  if the only option is to attempt a wedge back to the fairway, the recovery shot is lost.  so while there should be a penalty for inaccurate driving, (and sometimes that penalty may only be a bad angle of approach) it should not be insurmountable.

[Paul Gray]

Total nonsense
What is the point of a fairway bunker when shit like that awaits EVERY  hole both sides
Just finished 2 weeks of tournament golf with that or worse on every hole and stupid fast greens to boot

Jeff,

I can nearly feel your pain through the screen and I can't say I blame you.

You have my sympathies.

[Garland Bayley]

Sorry, but they fertilize rough at many courses, and then cut it to the desired length. My understanding is that they will be cutting the rough at Merion to the desired length just before the tournament. The difference is the US Open length is longer than every one else's length.

I don't go back to courses where I have found that some of my money has gone to fertilize rough so they can have that wall to wall lush look.

The ugliest picture ever posted on this website. Come on folks, what should the prize be? A weekend drinking stout with Aidan?

Mr. Bailey,
I came across a worse picture on Monday while working though Golf's Longest Day coverage.  Rather than sully Ran's site with another gem, I'll just post the link (source: John Peterson twitter post).

http://instagram.com/p/aG4_Pdl-8d/
Be warned: Cringe Factor 5

And I'll be happy to drink stout with anyone.

[Bob_Huntley]

There were two British Opens that used this defense, the first being Muirfield,  with hay as high as an elephants eye and then the disaster at Carnoustie.  This latter event had the Superintendent explaining that the players were being paid enough to sort it out. For some unknown reason the Queen gave the chap  some sort of honorarium.

 
Bob

[Carl Johnson]

Pat:

I might be one of the few supporters on this board of USGA setups for the US Open, including narrow fairways and long, thick penal rough. . . .

The US Open is for the super elite level of golfer and it should be a unique test that is different than other major championships.

Tim, this begs the question of whether "thick penal rough" is an appropriate way to test the "super elite golfer".  Most obviously, it (I'm talking about hack-it-out rough) jacks up the premium on accuracy by adding an element not normal to everyday golf.  Is that the right way to go about testing the super elite golfer once or so a year?  Just askin'.

[Tags:]

Tags: