Firm v rough

[John Percival]

The cover pic of Old Mac shows the beauty and challenge of firm v rough.
Question: what are the added costs of maintaining such areas on a daily basis as opposed to allowing grass to grow and cutting it once(?) a week.
Also, if f&f were implemented, would there be less bunkers needed greenside?

[Keith OHalloran]

Another question of firm v rough. In a practical sense, does the movement to all this closely mown chipping area really expand playing options for the normal player? For the mid handicap player, doesn't the putter become the default option from all greenside tight lies?

[Thomas Dai]

Another question of firm v rough. In a practical sense, does the movement to all this closely mown chipping area really expand playing options for the normal player? For the mid handicap player, doesn't the putter become the default option from all greenside tight lies?

Perhaps if modern putters had 5* to 7* of loft like they once did, instead of the 2* to 4* most seem to come as standard with these days then this could be the case. Indeed I have an old hickory shafted putter in my clubs cupboard with about 10* of loft which would be a fine club for such shots.

Plus we ought to consider that in many cases run off areas are not always immaculate and that the shot may need to be played in the rain or with dew on the ground and a few worm casts etc around the place.

I'll be interested to see how this thread develops.

For posterity here's the image. From this angle it seems reminiscent of the 17th at TOC.

ATB

[Brent Hutto]

I can only speak as a "mid to high handicapper" but any place that wants to take the trouble of providing 100 acres of closely-mown grass, giving me the option of using putter from 20, 30, 40 yards or more off the green...

Well, that's a place that can earn some of my green-fee money any time. I love it.

[Tom_Doak]

The fairways at Old Macdonald are fescue and they don't need to be mowed every day.  I don't know if they are on an every-other-day or every-third-day schedule.  So the added cost of keeping this area mowed as fairway is not as much there as in some other locales.

Also, having more fairway is more efficient in other respects than sending out a second mower to deal with roughs.

Bottom line, all that fairway costs more, but not way more because it's in Bandon.

[Jeff_Brauer]

A few years back, someone had calculated for me that fairways are about $4.5-6K per acre, roughs maybe half, based on cutting, fewer fungicides in rough (depending on the species of fw, like bent) and so on.

If and where that is about correct, then a course with 60 acres of fw vs. a more typical 30, would be $45-90K more expensive to maintain.

I am sure it is quite variable with grass selections, maintenance practice, climate, etc.

[Tom_Doak]

A few years back, someone had calculated for me that fairways are about $4.5-6K per acre, roughs maybe half, based on cutting, fewer fungicides in rough (depending on the species of fw, like bent) and so on.

Jeff:

I tried to have the same discussion with a superintendent a couple of months back.  When I suggested reducing the fairway acreage, a la Pinehurst, he said that could cost even more than grass to maintain!

The truth of the matter is that these costs are variable, because it depends on the mindset of the owner and superintendent.  Some are going to spend a lot of money maintaining any set-up no matter what we do, because that's what they think they should do.

[John Kirk]

Another question of firm v rough. In a practical sense, does the movement to all this closely mown chipping area really expand playing options for the normal player? For the mid handicap player, doesn't the putter become the default option from all greenside tight lies?

Hi Keith,

I'm a lower handicap player (typically 3-5), and at Bandon I find myself putting from off the green most of the time.  The fescue lays down tight to the ground there.  Lob wedges are almost worthless there, even counterproductive.

Regarding the picture (that's Old Macdonald #11), easy up and down!  Hardest shot ever?

[Keith OHalloran]

John,
Thanks for the input. I figured it would be about the same for all non professionals. It seems that everyone loves the tight mowed areas and the "options" but when the grass is too tight, many times, the only real option is putter, or perhaps hybrid these days.
Not many amateurs are going to nip a spinning 60 degree wedge off the lie in the photo.

[John Percival]

K,
The idea for the f&f is to try and satisfy two elements of course challenge...adequate challenge for the low handicapper and not overwhelm the average or lesser player.
At ANGC, during the Masters, on #18, when approaches are short, those that find the left bunker often lead to up and downs or close, while those that feed back down the hill almost never make 4. Perhaps an even better case can be made at 9. Instead of balls running back down the hill, if they were in a short greenside bunker the player would toss up a bunny and head to 10.
When the sand is groomed, a sand bunker often represents a 'green light' up-and-down (especially from below the hole) for the accomplished player, while average players are happy to just get out of bunkers. Thus, bunkers represent the greatest playing disparity among the classes.

F&f helps level the field by making the low hdcper evaluate spin, distance, etc, especially if uphill, while the avg can just roll it up and avoid the 'shovel' in the sand.
One would think that it would actually speed play, with less 'shovelling' and less grooming afterwards.
Where this has been used, comments please.

[Paul Gray]

John,
Thanks for the input. I figured it would be about the same for all non professionals. It seems that everyone loves the tight mowed areas and the "options" but when the grass is too tight, many times, the only real option is putter, or perhaps hybrid these days.
Not many amateurs are going to nip a spinning 60 degree wedge off the lie in the photo.

Partly true, although hybrid, 6 iron to PW and putter are all options still, as is the lob wedge on occasion, particularly when the turf is short but not exactly groomed. All depends on the vagaries of the lie, in keeping with the pleasant unpredictability of the game.

[Keith OHalloran]

Paul,
You are exactly right, especially if it is short and not exactly groomed. Problem is, most places I have seen try to keep it at tight and perfect as possible, making it very tough to chip.

[Paul Gray]

Keith,

Absolutely. Growing up on a links course it's just what I took for granted. It's pleasing to see that what I always took as normal is now apparently avant garde!

Even on this side of the pond you now have to generally get to a certain price point before you run into people that realise that imperfect and short isn't a sign of lack of quality. I'm confident that there's a drip, drip effect slowly starting to have an impact on the masses but it's still only in the early stages.

[Steve Lang]

 

"Thick rough has mercifully fallen from favor in recent years. As seen above at Old Macdonald in Oregon, short grass poses a more interesting mix of opportunity and challenge."

Huh?   More interesting than what?  fear of skyline green depth, bunkers & sand, water, ravines, hillsides, trees, etc.?   More group think developing, will this lead to bad experiments?

Beyond the sandy or coastal locations, and grasses that can be maintained with close lies and not turn to mud.. hmm how many are those in the big tent of gca that need more slippery green complexes? …  can courses not designed for the ground game really be retrofitted by simply reducing mowing heights and lowering water inputs?      
 
I've found using a hooded 7 wood was better than the putter for anything more than several paces off the green, giving more leverage, more pop & fun during one plays experienced at Ballyneal, Bandon, and Chambers Bay.. at Wildhorse, never inspired to use the 7W..  

frankly I find the short grass designs challenging and entertaining for sure, but it can be monotonous in its own way, living with the degrees of freedom introduced or allowed, like bouncing down to the 14th green at Bandon Trails



Buried in 30th Parallel Bermuda, Rye and such along the 45th  

[John Percival]

Steve,
One thing that we should remember on this site, as in the good game of golf, is that there are so many permutations...of courses, conditions, equipment, ability, etc.
Of course, f&f might not have its place in severe terrain or heavy/damp soil. But given the opportunity, would it be preferred over excess rough or bunkering?
No one would claim that Oakland Hills is fit for f&f, but there are opportunities for chipping/run-off areas and they work (IMO there should be more)
Hence, back to the questions...costs?, design affects? and how does it work in actual practice?

BTW. Have yet to get to Bandon. Hope to this year. Am DYING to play 14 @ BT. It may be one of the game's most divisive designs

[Steve Lang]

  John,

I'm basically with you, … I just don't see how the Bandon ones and some other new exclusive courses can be held out as trend setters for set-up of courses played by the average millions of folks world wide.  Fancy mowing patterns is one thing, F & F is quite another and perhaps just simply impractical for many, many locales.

If Supts can do it, sustainably, great.  Not holding my breath ..

Enjoy Bandon when you get there..  unique place for sure

  

[Sean_A]

I am not sure why the comparison is between firm and rough.  Sure, only certain courses can truly be dry and firm hence making it entirely sensible for the maintenance to take advantage of the conditions and provide more space to lay the game.  However, I can't see why courses can't have more short grass VS rough.  Looking at the situation from the glass is half full perspective (which seems to be prevalent in this thread), surely wet short grass is preferable to wet rough?  

We must always remember that f&f is relative to geographic areas.  One man's f&f is another man's soggy and limp.  That, however, doesn't mean that courses can't be made as f&f as is reasonably possible.  

Ciao

[Joe Hancock]

I don't see the short cut vs. deep rough debate as just a shot type selection issue. The short, firm grass around greens is also going to deflect misplayed shots much, much farther than the "bumper bowling" style of golf that deep rough presents. If you are only looking at this issue as it pertains to the recovery shot just off the green, you might be missing elements of the maintenance decisions that affect play.

Joe

[Paul Gray]

Steve,

Dare I say it but perhaps you're looking at this from a very post 1950's U.S perspective where short grass still has to be immaculately presented in order to keep the RTJ influenced eye candy brigade happy.

As has already been said, short grass allows for greater run off in all directions and therein greater variety of shots. The 'Bandon Ones' as you call them may be used to a very refined version of short playing surfaces but that by no means has to be the norm. And long, thick rough certainly has its place, just not perhaps on a downslope directly to the side of a green where greater architectural/maintenance merit would be gained by simply allowing the ball to run away from the target. It's much the same argument as can be made for having the restraint to resist putting bunkers in such locations.

[BCowan]

John,

   I think you could have less bunkers with F&F, I believe with more penal green side bunkers (which are frowned upon in US) an arch could eliminate and have fewer bunkers.  With short grass offering more variations and making it easier for the higher handicap and less easier for great players it is a win win!  Also with F&F i find it beneficial to shave bounce of wedges.  I think Phil's 64 deg no bounce wedge is a great asset with his skill set and could help the avg amateur with less bounce.  I am curious if some pro's carry different bounces for certain tracks/surfaces with their wedges. 

   I think that deep core aeration advancements have made F&F more viable if desired by clubs stuck in clay soils.  Helping change the soil profile. 

John, would you say the double irrigation system has added to slower fairways.  My friend who I play a lot with, used to play Oakland before dual irrigation and said the fairways were faster, would you concur?  I am guessing early 90's is when dual irrig. became the norm. 

[Steve Lang]

  One way or the other, you're playing the same shots all the time, bomb and gouge or pitch and putt.  I've simply seen design "trends" go too far but some of the collection gets recycled ultimately by the trend setters…  bell bottoms have comeback I see… maybe there dis nothing new under the sun.

[Paul Gray]

Nothing new Steve, just timeless truths. 

[BCowan]

Steve

          how is having the choice to play a hybrid, six iron, 9 iron, a 7w, and a putter the same as playing out of rough where a lob/Sand wedge is used 99% of the time?  Playing the same shot, hardly?  Some collection areas aren't interesting and others are very interesting including the photo John posted.  

[John Percival]

Ben,
One of the great dichotomies of u.s. golf is the obsession w/ green and distance. Short of spray paint, the only way ur gonna get green is to get wet. And, of course, wet means less distance. Those dual lines were/are extremely effective in insuring that some nasty rough can be had. And everything will be green. Now, if ur hosting the u.s. open, that's important (maybe too much so), but for everyday play, the masses will do just fine with some brown.

[BCowan]

John

I agree, and since Pinehurst doesn't over seed with Rye grass, they put some application on that insulates the grass during the winter from cold weather/frost.  It seems as though the application is like painting their fairways at Pinehurst.  Maybe we could see if application/ painting fairways could be cost effective up here here in the north with the rising water prices.  A middle ground to F&F with so many addicted to the color Green.  This may sound mad, but Rome wasn't built overnight.