Isn't high, penal rough ideal?

[Garland Bayley]

GJ Bailey:

Why do you want each major to be a similar test?

If it is an ideal test, you don't need other types of tests.

If I were holding academic competitions, I would not want one to be a math test, one to be a literature test, one to be a science test, and one to be a history/philosophy test. That would not identify the greatest academician. I would want four comprehensive tests.

[Tim_Weiman]

GJ Bailey:

I guess I am more skeptical about the very notion of an "ideal" test. Feels like that notion is at least partly responsible for the creeping influence of the USGA at Augusta. And, I hate the idea of the British Open being anything like the US Open.

As for the academic analogy, I am having trouble seeing how that fits. A "comprehensive" test will likely have different sections covering different subjects, but what would be the point of four comprehensive tests? Doesn't one do the trick?

[PCCraig]

I prefer an ideal test be repeated for each major. The thick rough test is nowhere near ideal. I have suggested on occasion that playing the Dye and Ross courses at French Lick would make a great US Open. Set up the Dye narrow, and make them demonstrate ball striking from the fairway, and accurate driving from the tee. Set up the Ross course wide and let them let it fly from the tee, and hit recovery shot from wherever. To me this is more ideal.

Have you played either of the French Lick courses? What are you basing this statement on? Photos?

Currently I prefer The Open Championship as the most ideal of the majors.

Well, of course you do...you're a 30 handicapper. If I couldn't hit a fairway I wouldn't like rough either.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tim & Terry,

I thought it was Joe Dey.

And, I was under the impression that he uttered the famous statement when asked if he was trying to embarrass the greatest players in the world, when he answered, "certainly not, we're just trying to identify them."

[Garland Bayley]

I prefer an ideal test be repeated for each major. The thick rough test is nowhere near ideal. I have suggested on occasion that playing the Dye and Ross courses at French Lick would make a great US Open. Set up the Dye narrow, and make them demonstrate ball striking from the fairway, and accurate driving from the tee. Set up the Ross course wide and let them let it fly from the tee, and hit recovery shot from wherever. To me this is more ideal.

Have you played either of the French Lick courses? What are you basing this statement on? Photos?

On discussion with people that have played them and in particular last weekend with someone who plays them both, who thought it is a great idea, except for spectator handling.

On the design philosophy of the architects.

Currently I prefer The Open Championship as the most ideal of the majors.

Well, of course you do...you're a 30 handicapper. If I couldn't hit a fairway I wouldn't like rough either.

Well I can trade insults too if that is what your desire. The desire of low handicappers to narrow fairways and accentuate their self esteem by beating high handicappers clearly is a result of low self esteem and a lack of confidence, or perhaps just plain old arrogance.
  

[Jason Thurman]

I think it's important to test recovery skills in the National Championship, just like we test other facets of the game. Recovery can take a lot of different forms though. Sometimes it means creating a shot from off the beaten path, like Mickelson on 13 at Augusta a few years back. It might also mean occasionally muscling up and ripping a ball out of thick grass (think Tiger on the 6th at Pebble back when it just wasn't a fair fight).  Other times, it might mean having the patience to pitch out and scramble for par, or even bogey, while avoiding the risk of disaster from an awful lie. You've got to test decision making and course management too.

I thought the setup at Olympic last year was just about perfect. Pebble was pretty good a few years back, outside of the bumpy greens. I think it should generally be possible to extract the ball from the rough at a US Open, but I have no problem with it straddling the line between possible and impossible.

For everyday play? Sure, let's find our ball easily and play on. I'm a 10 handicapper, I have no illusions of being able to play out of that crap. I couldn't score with Kawhi Leonard defending me either. But if someone wants to win an elite championship, I'm completely on board with making them work their tail off for it.

[Garland Bayley]

GJ Bailey:

I guess I am more skeptical about the very notion of an "ideal" test. Feels like that notion is at least partly responsible for the creeping influence of the USGA at Augusta. And, I hate the idea of the British Open being anything like the US Open.

Only if you are so misguided as to believe the USGA is conducting an "ideal" test. The creeping influence of the US Open is because of the stature of the US Open, not because it remotely approximates an "ideal" test.

As for the academic analogy, I am having trouble seeing how that fits. A "comprehensive" test will likely have different sections covering different subjects, but what would be the point of four comprehensive tests? Doesn't one do the trick?

Since each test will be different, you will not have a single "winner" from each test, but over a series of tests you will clearly have the strongest candidate performing the best the most often. That is as opposed to having Tom Watson being the "bad weather" champion. Left handed golfers being the "right to left shot making" champions. Lee Janzen and Scott Simpson being the "straight driving, good putting" champions. Etc.

[Garland Bayley]

Tim & Terry,

I thought it was Joe Dey.

And, I was under the impression that he uttered the famous statement when asked if he was trying to embarrass the greatest players in the world, when he answered, "certainly not, we're just trying to identify them."

And that would have been at Winged Foot.

[Jason Thurman]

Garland, aren't you an instructor? Surely you know that all tests have biases, and that's why it's so important to present different formats and styles. There's no such thing as one "ideal" test.

It scares me to think that you might believe there can be an accurate way to measure the comprehensiveness of human intelligence, even if just narrowed to "academic knowledge." Writing exams and exam questions is one of my specialty areas, and understanding the inherent biases in a given "presentation style" is crucial to minimizing them as much as possible. Even the most well-written assessments are full of bias.

Likewise with tests of golf.

[PCCraig]

Pat C:

It doesn't look like anyone presented a rebuttal that could possibly have surprised you (myself included).

So, I am wondering why did you reject traditional GCA arguments against thick penal rough for everyday play?

Why did you think Mackenzie was wrong for believing the annoyance of looking for lost balls isn't good for golf?

Do you believe thick penal rough does not slow play? Or, are you willing to accept a slower pace of play to better "test" accuracy?

Tim,

Thanks for all of your good responses. I haven't accepted or rejected any arguments regarding rough. My main thought with starting this thread is that it seems to me that it's become too easy to discount penal rough in the "minimalist" age.

Of course I never said that Merion-esque rough should be implemented at the local municipal golf course. I only raised the question if 1) it brings more to the architectural table than most initially give it credit for, and 2) that given sufficiently wide playing corridors what's wrong with a little penal rough? Why should players, good and bad, be allowed to hit poor shots and be given a disproportionate ability to "recover?"

Isn't higher rough the answer to the "bomb and gouge" mentality seeping down to the ranks of golfers? To make the gouge difficult enough that distance alone is not the #1 advantage to low scoring?

Note: I don't define "high, penal rough" as my picture above shows. I'm thinking more like 3-4" in more typical cases, which is difficult to lose a ball in and makes recovery hard but not impossible.

[Garland Bayley]

... 2) that given sufficiently wide playing corridors what's wrong with a little penal rough? Why should players, good and bad, be allowed to hit poor shots and be given a disproportionate ability to "recover?"
...

On a completely flat uniform playing field with uniform turf conditions, a player is penalized proportionally to the degree of error he makes. So the use of disproportionate by golf writers is completely illogical. Since most golf courses have somewhat ideal positions to hit to, and other positions are complicated by bunkers, water hazards, rough, side hill lies, blindness full or partial, etc. All nonideal shots are disproportionally penalized compared to the ideal.

So what's wrong with removing a small amount of this disproportional penalty by cutting the rough so balls can be easily found?

[PCCraig]

I prefer an ideal test be repeated for each major. The thick rough test is nowhere near ideal. I have suggested on occasion that playing the Dye and Ross courses at French Lick would make a great US Open. Set up the Dye narrow, and make them demonstrate ball striking from the fairway, and accurate driving from the tee. Set up the Ross course wide and let them let it fly from the tee, and hit recovery shot from wherever. To me this is more ideal.

Have you played either of the French Lick courses? What are you basing this statement on? Photos?

On discussion with people that have played them and in particular last weekend with someone who plays them both, who thought it is a great idea, except for spectator handling.

On the design philosophy of the architects.

Currently I prefer The Open Championship as the most ideal of the majors.

Well, of course you do...you're a 30 handicapper. If I couldn't hit a fairway I wouldn't like rough either.

Well I can trade insults too if that is what your desire. The desire of low handicappers to narrow fairways and accentuate their self esteem by beating high handicappers clearly is a result of low self esteem and a lack of confidence, or perhaps just plain old arrogance.
  

Insult?? More like fact. If I hit it in the water 18 times during a round...I'd hate water. But I'd also figure out a way not to hit it in the water. I know plenty of high handicaps that can't hit the broad side of a barn with a driver, but hit a mid-iron decently straight. Why should a high handicapper be rewarded for being given an easy recovery from missing a fairway with a driver they can't hit properly?

No insults, just a fair question.

[Garland Bayley]

I prefer an ideal test be repeated for each major. The thick rough test is nowhere near ideal. I have suggested on occasion that playing the Dye and Ross courses at French Lick would make a great US Open. Set up the Dye narrow, and make them demonstrate ball striking from the fairway, and accurate driving from the tee. Set up the Ross course wide and let them let it fly from the tee, and hit recovery shot from wherever. To me this is more ideal.

Have you played either of the French Lick courses? What are you basing this statement on? Photos?

On discussion with people that have played them and in particular last weekend with someone who plays them both, who thought it is a great idea, except for spectator handling.

On the design philosophy of the architects.

Currently I prefer The Open Championship as the most ideal of the majors.

Well, of course you do...you're a 30 handicapper. If I couldn't hit a fairway I wouldn't like rough either.

Well I can trade insults too if that is what your desire. The desire of low handicappers to narrow fairways and accentuate their self esteem by beating high handicappers clearly is a result of low self esteem and a lack of confidence, or perhaps just plain old arrogance.
  

Insult?? More like fact. If I hit it in the water 18 times during a round...I'd hate water. But I'd also figure out a way not to hit it in the water. I know plenty of high handicaps that can't hit the broad side of a barn with a driver, but hit a mid-iron decently straight. Why should a high handicapper be rewarded for being given an easy recovery from missing a fairway with a driver they can't hit properly?

No insults, just a fair question.

As you may discover from my dissertation on your idea of disproportionate, there is no "easy" recovery from missing a shot. It is always harder. So no one is being rewarded.

Or as the old time architects used to say lack of accuracy (or distance) is penalty enough. Or something to that effect.

[Carl Johnson]

The "problem" is that golf courses are different from one and other.  Of course, that's not really a problem, but rather one of the great virtues of golf.  Conditions – rain, wind, and so on – vary.  That cannot be controlled – a good thing.

I like the idea of a somewhat more-difficult-than-usual course for the US Open.  I'd also like to see it conducted on great courses.  However, I'd like any beefed-up difficulty of a course used for the US Open to simply add to what's already there, rather than change its character.  In other words, I don't like the idea of taking a great course that has a normal strength of defense A, and then adding deep rough as defense B.

Unlike most of you, I'm not personally familiar with Marion (although I suppose I might be able to search this site and learn something about it ), so I don't really have an opinion on how Marion should be set up for the Open.

Skipping ahead to next year, I like the idea of going back in time at Pinehurst.  My vague recollection is that for the 1999 Open at Pinehurst the USGA lengthened the Bermuda rough, but that in 2005 they cut it much shorter.   My understanding is that there will be no Bermuda rough in 2014 – but rough of a different sort.  So, if Pinehurst #2 as originally designed was a great course, then going back to the original defenses ought to be a good thing.  We'll see.

[jeffwarne]

Carl,
That's a good post.

I'd like to think that a great golf course could host a US Open without ANY special preparation.
Amazing how the setup variables seem to diminish/overshadow the actual design.
Is anyone really sweating a greenside bunker in a US Open setup?-or praying their misses find one......

Shinnecock is a great golf course in its non Open years-less so in 2004.Love to see them play one out there in anormal year.

Bethpage was a great golf course prior to permanently adopting the US Open mowing lines and heights.

[SL_Solow]

This debate would have been far better before the equipment got out of hand.  While I dislike exceedingly penal rough, the distance that people carry the ball at the professional level has tipped the scales and all but eliminated the challenge of many of the classic courses.  So if the idea is to defend par (which may be dubious in and of itself) or to test a variety of skills, a course which is reduced to a series of drivers and pitches must have severe rough as the ability to hit wedge from the rough outweighs the advantage of being in the fairway.  That is why the "bomb and gouge" style has been successful on so many conventional tour courses.  Granted, there are some special places where, if appropriately firm and aided by wind, the course can defend itself.  but these are few and far between.  So one either accepts lower scores or does something to shift the balance against the longer but wilder hitter.  In Hogan's day, when they wanted to toughen a course, it was usuallly lengthened and the hazards were moved and/or made tougher.  Now, the courses can't be made long enough.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Garland, aren't you an instructor?
Surely you know that all tests have biases, and that's why it's so important to present different formats and styles.

There's no such thing as one "ideal" test.

Jud,

I don't want to divert this thread, but, how is a math test biased ?

If students are being tested on the "times tables" I don't see how an "ideal" test can't be created.

Back to GCA.



It scares me to think that you might believe there can be an accurate way to measure the comprehensiveness of human intelligence, even if just narrowed to "academic knowledge." Writing exams and exam questions is one of my specialty areas, and understanding the inherent biases in a given "presentation style" is crucial to minimizing them as much as possible. Even the most well-written assessments are full of bias.

Likewise with tests of golf.

[Tom ORourke]

I am for it one week a year at the US Open. A big part of this event is mental, and I want guys to stand on the tee knowing that they need to hit it in the fairway, and then on the green. I have no problem with that for this event. I never cared for the Davis setup where you could get away with marginal drives. As long as the rough is cut back by the following Thursday I am okay with it, and in fact love it.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Does anyone think that rough of this nature is good for the game, including the U.S. Open ?

This rough has to be 9 or more inches.

If it gets wet, it will be impossible to hit out of, let alone find the ball.

And, if it gets wet, it will be almost impossible to cut to a reasonable level, whatever that's deemed to be.

Is this the extreme a course has to go to to defend par ?
If it is, maybe, just maybe, the tournament never should have been held here.

[Tim_Weiman]

GJ Bailey,

Just to be clear - if I haven't already been - I don't consider the USGA setups for the US Open to be an "ideal" test. To the contrary, I am very skeptical about the very concept of an "ideal" test.

The influence of the USGA on Augusta, IMO, is encouraged by the very concept of an "ideal" test, not the specifics of USGA setups which happen to favor accuracy in a way that just doesn't belong at Augusta National.

Pat C:

Good thread. As for everyday play, even 3-4" inch rough can be a real pain for many golfers. A good example is in Cleveland at Sand Ridge where I am still a member and am quite familiar with the golf course.

Take someone there as a first time visitor, jump in a cart for a tour of the course and it is likely they will tell you there really aren't any holes that present any serious difficulty.

But, I have seen Northeast Ohio publications with polls showing Sand Ridge as the most difficult course in the area.

Why?

It's all about the thick blue grass rough which even at 3" can be really brutal to the point of being no fun.

In contrast, I am a big fan of the rough at Lahinch which is much longer but thinner and easier, though not simple, to play shots out of.

[Garland Bayley]

Tim,

The reason ideal is written "ideal" is because there can be no ideal test. The better word IMO is the word comprehensive that I used in my academic analogy. The point being that the US Open at Merion will be far from a comprehensive test. To approach a more comprehensive test I suggest the championship be conducted on more than one course with more skills examined than drive straight, putt well (U S Open), or hit it so that it turns left (Masters), or playing in bad weather (Open Championship). Obviously more skills than these are examined in these tournaments, but it shouldn't be that they predominate, well maybe except for bad weather.

[Tim_Weiman]

GJ Bailey,

If you convince people to use the word "comprehensive" rather than "ideal", the next thing that will happen is people will debate what "comprehensive" actually means. All that will accomplish is encouraging the concept of trying to make the Majors similar tests.

It is much better, in my opinion, to encourage them to be different tests.

[PCCraig]

Does anyone think that rough of this nature is good for the game, including the U.S. Open ?

This rough has to be 9 or more inches.

If it gets wet, it will be impossible to hit out of, let alone find the ball.

And, if it gets wet, it will be almost impossible to cut to a reasonable level, whatever that's deemed to be.

Is this the extreme a course has to go to to defend par ?
If it is, maybe, just maybe, the tournament never should have been held here.

Pat Mucci,

If that rough means that the Open isn't played at such snooze inducing sites such as Congressional, Bethpage, and Torrey Pines I would be completely fine with the above "extreme."

[Patrick_Mucci]

PatC,

Have you ever played Congressional or Bethpage Black ?

[PCCraig]

PatC,

Have you ever played Congressional or Bethpage Black ?

Yes.

[Tags:]

Tags: