News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Wade Whitehead

Re: Isn't high, penal rough ideal?
« Reply #25 on: June 06, 2013, 04:30:31 PM »
Will the gallery at Merion be constantly trudging through ankle-high rough?  May have to wear Dry Joys if so.

WW

Michael Wharton-Palmer

Re: Isn't high, penal rough ideal?
« Reply #26 on: June 06, 2013, 04:31:51 PM »
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.

Is recovery from rough any harder than from courses like Doral that have water instead of heavy rough.
Give me the rough over man made water hazards anyday.

I agree that this picture is EXTREME but rough to me is a far better architectural strategic option than "fairway lakes".
There has to be some form of rewrad for hitting fairways and allowing recovery at the same time, that would be graduated rough in the form the USGA prefers, personally  think as a rule of thumb US Open set ups have this about right.
If you are more than ten yards off the fairway you should see deep rough, it is still a better option than seeing a splash
« Last Edit: June 06, 2013, 04:40:15 PM by Michael Wharton-Palmer »

SL_Solow

Re: Isn't high, penal rough ideal?
« Reply #27 on: June 06, 2013, 04:37:04 PM »
Michael;  I didn't know that those were the only 2 choices.  Myrejection of overly penal rough does not imply an endorsement of excessive use of water. I suspect we can come up with sometning else that will create sufficient interest while avoiding the deficincies caused by those alternatives.

Michael Wharton-Palmer

Re: Isn't high, penal rough ideal?
« Reply #28 on: June 06, 2013, 04:41:01 PM »
SL I hope the modified response makes more sense..pressed the send button too early ;D

Garland Bayley

Re: Isn't high, penal rough ideal?
« Reply #29 on: June 06, 2013, 05:10:34 PM »
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'.

NO! If the most exciting shots in golf are recovery shots, then you are only testing boring golf.  :'(
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Terry Lavin

Re: Isn't high, penal rough ideal?
« Reply #30 on: June 06, 2013, 05:20:50 PM »
High penal rough is ideal setup for a short US Open course. Not for regular play on your typical course or even a typical Tour stop. But it is ideal for Merion this year given the lack of length and the soft nature of the course. Soft fairways mean fewer bounces into the rough. If the rough is cut too low, it will be a double whammy and the scores will look like the Buick Open at Warwick Hills. The setup needs to ensure some suffering, IMHO.
Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.  H.L. Mencken

Paul Gray

Re: Isn't high, penal rough ideal?
« Reply #31 on: June 06, 2013, 06:17:35 PM »
Discussion seems to be leaning eerily into old territory here whereby the argument implies that the correct way to test the World's best is simply to ensure they struggle to break 70. Why oh why should the guy that is literally playing the game better than anyone else on the planet at that given point in time find any course a struggle?

Muscling a ball twenty yards from knee deep stuff is hardly likely to inspire the next generation of shot makers. If all we want to measure is sheer accuracy we might as well not bother with a course at all and simply ask the World's top players to turn up at a predetermined range and we'll keep score 'archery style.' Oh, and let's not bother asking anyone to hit anything more than 3 iron.

In the places where golf cuts through pretension and elitism, it thrives and will continue to thrive because the simple virtues of the game and its attendant culture are allowed to be most apparent. - Tim Gavrich

M. Shea Sweeney

Re: Isn't high, penal rough ideal?
« Reply #32 on: June 06, 2013, 06:25:33 PM »
Not ideal-

People enjoy golf most when they are able to hole out with the same ball they started with.

People enjoy advancing the ball albeit in excess

Nothing worse for junior golf and growing the game in general

Play around the green becomes meaningless

Takes imagination out of play

Slow play

Removes strategy

Irrationally penalizes the player

Nothing worse for junior golf and growing the game in general

When did this start?

Why is this common practice at great north east clubs?

Why does it continue?

Chip Gaskins

Re: Isn't high, penal rough ideal?
« Reply #33 on: June 06, 2013, 07:10:41 PM »
which identifies the best player....

tall rough that leads to 1/2 shot penalty back to the fairway

OR

firm and fast where the ball bounces and rolls and on the best struck shots end up in the spot intended

honest question and one that really only applies to professional events.

Tim_Weiman

Re: Isn't high, penal rough ideal?
« Reply #34 on: June 06, 2013, 08:12:32 PM »
Carl Johnson,

You ask a fair question, so let me be clear: I favor thick penal rough with a premium on accuracy only for the US Open.

Basically, I want the major championships to be very different tests. Thus, I hate the creeping influence of USGA type setups at Augusta and believe British Open courses should be played like they are for everyday play.

There should be different tests for the elite players, IMO - no "ideal" test repeated for each Major.

If we continue US Open type setups here in the States, avoid doing crazy things to British Open courses and take Augusta back to what Jones and Mackenzie envisioned I would be happy.

As for the PGA, how should it be a unique test? I have always seen the PGA as the major event to introduce new courses (balancing the Open rota and Augusta as a permanent site).
Tim Weiman

Tim_Weiman

Re: Isn't high, penal rough ideal?
« Reply #35 on: June 06, 2013, 08:20:53 PM »
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 Weiman

SL_Solow

Re: Isn't high, penal rough ideal?
« Reply #36 on: June 06, 2013, 08:21:40 PM »
Tim really defines the better argument.  The US Open has generally been a driving and putting contest.  Miss the fairway and it is difficult to demonstrate approach prowess.  Miss a green and hope you are in the sand as the tall rough makes chipping a lottery.  So ball striking, particularly straight driving, is at a premium and great putting is needed to help salvage pars.  Not the most interesting golf but I suppose it is acceptable once a year and it creates tension as disaster is constantly lurking.  The problem is when clubs think that set up defines great golf and great architecture and try to emulate it.

Bill_McBride

Re: Isn't high, penal rough ideal?
« Reply #37 on: June 06, 2013, 09:40:29 PM »
Tim really defines the better argument.  The US Open has generally been a driving and putting contest.  Miss the fairway and it is difficult to demonstrate approach prowess.  Miss a green and hope you are in the sand as the tall rough makes chipping a lottery.  So ball striking, particularly straight driving, is at a premium and great putting is needed to help salvage pars.  Not the most interesting golf but I suppose it is acceptable once a year and it creates tension as disaster is constantly lurking.  The problem is when clubs think that set up defines great golf and great architecture and try to emulate it.

Just think Scott Simpson and Lee Janzen and the pieces click into place. 

Tim_Weiman

Re: Isn't high, penal rough ideal?
« Reply #38 on: June 06, 2013, 10:04:37 PM »
Bill,

Actually, I think about Jack and Tiger, the super elite guys that could win very different contests. They are why I support the USGA setups while I also hate the influence the USGA appears to have at Augusta.
Tim Weiman

Bill_McBride

Re: Isn't high, penal rough ideal?
« Reply #39 on: June 06, 2013, 10:31:29 PM »
Bill,

Actually, I think about Jack and Tiger, the super elite guys that could win very different contests. They are why I support the USGA setups while I also hate the influence the USGA appears to have at Augusta.

Yes but......the fact that short straight hitters can win along with big guns like Jack and Tiger just confirms the limitation deep rough lays over that event. 

PCCraig

Re: Isn't high, penal rough ideal?
« Reply #40 on: June 06, 2013, 11:08:31 PM »
Bill,

Actually, I think about Jack and Tiger, the super elite guys that could win very different contests. They are why I support the USGA setups while I also hate the influence the USGA appears to have at Augusta.

Yes but......the fact that short straight hitters can win along with big guns like Jack and Tiger just confirms the limitation deep rough lays over that event. 

The "limitation?" Seems well rounded to me.
H.P.S.

Tim_Weiman

Re: Isn't high, penal rough ideal?
« Reply #41 on: June 06, 2013, 11:50:16 PM »
Bill,

Honestly, I don't understand your logic. You suggest both long and short hitters can win US Opens, but somehow USGA setups with deep rough cast a "limitation" over the event.

Supposing the USGA setups only permitted short hitters to win. Or imagine the setup only permitted long hitters to win.

Would either of those setups be better than having a setup where both long and short can win?
Tim Weiman

Bill_McBride

Re: Isn't high, penal rough ideal?
« Reply #42 on: June 07, 2013, 08:17:14 AM »
Bill,

Honestly, I don't understand your logic. You suggest both long and short hitters can win US Opens, but somehow USGA setups with deep rough cast a "limitation" over the event.

Supposing the USGA setups only permitted short hitters to win. Or imagine the setup only permitted long hitters to win.

Would either of those setups be better than having a setup where both long and short can win?

I guess I'm thinking that only the very top long hitters can win with that set up because they are simply better than anybody else, and then a long string of short but straight hitters who can stay between the rough lines but can't really win anywhere else.  Simpson and Janzen fall in that second category.  You won't see the bomb and gouge multiple winners, guys like Phil and Vijay, compete at Merion, but you might see a David Toms play well.   Or a well disciplined Tiger.   

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Isn't high, penal rough ideal?
« Reply #43 on: June 07, 2013, 08:40:35 AM »
MWP

There's a difference.
Deep rough is immediately adjacent to every fairway, water isn't.

Jeff Brauer,

I would have reminded Gary that the USGA rules allow for 5 minutes of searching for your ball and at the expiry of that allotted time, you would move on.   And, oh, by the way Mr Player, would you help me look for my ball in the meantime.

PatC,

Merion HAS to grow their rough as pictured for fear that Tom Meeks's prediction will come true.

In addition, the rough pictured, especially when wet, is MORE than a one shot penalty as extrication is far from guaranteed.

]

Carl Johnson

Re: Isn't high, penal rough ideal?
« Reply #44 on: June 07, 2013, 10:19:31 AM »

Tim, I understand your point.  Without specifically addressing the fundamental issue now, I have another question regarding . . . .

If we continue US Open type setups here in the States . . . .

I take it you mean narrow fairways and thick rough as a "US Open type setup."  I am going to assume - and of course I may be wrong here - that the US Open did not always have that kind of set up (nor will it always, e.g., Pinehurst #2 next year).  Can you or anyone else give some history on the "when and why" of the beginning of the narrow fairway, thick rough set up for the US Open (saving me some research time)?

Terry Lavin

Re: Isn't high, penal rough ideal?
« Reply #45 on: June 07, 2013, 11:16:34 AM »
It's my understanding that PJ Boatwright was the man who is responsible for the tough Open setup brand.  Tom Meeks followed him and implemented his "theology" of difficulty being the best way to "identify the best player".  Some would argue that this sort of setup better identifies the "luckiest" or "pluckiest" player or the best driver and nerviest putter of the week.  The USGA has softened its approach on an episodic basis in the past ten years or so, but in general, they try to supply a stern piece of ground to play upon.  Witness the brick hard surfaces at Shnny, Pebble and Pinehurst, as an example.  Weather neutralized Congressional to some extent and the players just killed the course.  At Olympia, where the USGA cut our seven-inch rough on the Tuesday before play began in the face of a soft golf course with weather projections for more moisture coming, players just beat up the course for 36 holes, but when the weather changed and the course firmed up, the scores went up as well, with only three players breaking par for the whole week.  Despite that, Olympia got panned for being too easy, a fate that would never befall Merion, the USGA's shrine of sorts, even if they wind up with record low scoring all four days in a row.  I say this without resentment, it's just the way it is. 
« Last Edit: June 07, 2013, 11:18:11 AM by Terry Lavin »
Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.  H.L. Mencken

Garland Bayley

Re: Isn't high, penal rough ideal?
« Reply #46 on: June 07, 2013, 11:24:50 AM »
...

There should be different tests for the elite players, IMO - no "ideal" test repeated for each Major.

...

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.

Currently I prefer The Open Championship as the most ideal of the majors.
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Tim_Weiman

Re: Isn't high, penal rough ideal?
« Reply #47 on: June 07, 2013, 11:27:01 AM »
Carl Johnson,

I am not an expert on the history of USGA setups, but have the same general recollection as Terry Lavin. That is that PJ Boatwright was the person responsible for the thick, penal rough setups and it dates back to the 1970s, I think.

Let me add one other point: I have seen or played almost all of the US Open courses and believe it is important to point out they each have their own character. Oakmont is not Pinehurst. Merion is not Shinnecock Hills. So, I don't think we should attempt to apply a rigid model and set up each of these very different courses exactly the same way.
Tim Weiman

Tim_Weiman

Re: Isn't high, penal rough ideal?
« Reply #48 on: June 07, 2013, 11:29:06 AM »
GJ Bailey:

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

Matthew Essig

Re: Isn't high, penal rough ideal?
« Reply #49 on: June 07, 2013, 11:30:31 AM »
Carl Johnson,

I am not an expert on the history of USGA setups, but have the same general recollection as Terry Lavin. That is that PJ Boatwright was the person responsible for the thick, penal rough setups and it dates back to the 1970s, I think.

Let me add one other point: I have seen or played almost all of the US Open courses and believe it is important to point out they each have their own character. Oakmont is not Pinehurst. Merion is not Shinnecock Hills. So, I don't think we should attempt to apply a rigid model and set up each of these very different courses exactly the same way.

+1
"Good GCA should offer an interesting golfing challenge to the golfer not a difficult golfing challenge." Jon Wiggett

Tags: