Short Grass as a Golf Hazard

[Steven Blake]

That is weird they are very similar.

Steve Blake

[Jud_T]

looks like abject plagiarism to me.  I'm pretty certain Tom wrote his piece well before 3/13/11...  sounds like a cease and desist letter from one of our august legal minds is in order...

[BCowan]

''Balance is nice but playability for all groups of players and growing the game is important.  I think more "properly" maintained short grass areas does both.''

Steve,

   I would say that a muni is where most start the game.  I said in a prior post that I played the back 9 with someone who complained about the tight shaved short grass at OGC in Florida.  Most people don't go to the short game area and practice their short game.  I do see what Jeff is saying and I believe the thread was about introducing short grass to an existing course.  I don't think short grass around the greens is going to grow the game, if anything it may make it harder for the beginning golfer.  Nor do I think we should dumb down golf arch by not introducing them on some holes at courses that don't have short grass areas.  Also I don't see ''US Open'' like conditions around almost any course(s) I play, like people seem to embellish with rough around the green.   
 
     Just as in tree removal, you don't need to go ''Oakmont'', Holston Hills looks like a ''Happy Medium'' as it pertains to tree removal.  I think that is what Jeff was saying. 

[Steven Blake]

Cowan,

I get his point, too much of a good thing is a bad idea.  My real point was that making golf more fun, cheaper, easier, and quicker (3 1/2 hour rounds is ideal) is important to growing the game.  I think wider fairways and more closely mown turf around the green makes that more a possibility than the normal 2 to 3 bunkers around every green.

Steve Blake

PS As far as tree removal Oakmont and Holston are great example albeit one is more aggressive than the other.

[BCowan]

Steve

   I like wide fairways too and more shaved green areas.  Maintaining short grass and wide fairways has got to cost much more than raking bunkers everyday.  Sandpro's are very fast.  The chemical applications for wide fairways and around the greens is real expensive.  It may speed up play, avg golfers do struggle in bunkers.   

[Steven Blake]

Cowan,

You are not wrong but it depends on the course and the level of maintenance.  Country Club's spend A LOT of money maintaining bunkers because members want absolutely perfect bunkers.  Its not unheard of for clubs to spend more money maintaining bunkers as they do maintaining greens for example.  They want them all to play the same and perfect.  This is a reality of the business today not something I agree with considering bunkers are a HAZARD as defined in the rulebook. 

As far as spraying and maintaining closely mown turf, it depends on location, turf species, how its taken care of, etc.  If you are going to spray every 14 days, water it a lot, buy $200 K in equipment to mow it, mow it daily etc then yes it will cost a lot. It just depends.

Steve Blake

[BCowan]

Steve

   I am not looking at it from a CC standpoint, I have worked maint. on an upscale public course that prob spent 35%-50% less on maint. then the area CC.  Also the Ocala Golf Club tour i posted, they over seed their fairways with Rye in the winter so it just isn't CC that are wasting money.  Leaving them dormant and spraying them green is the best scenario to making both parties happy IMO.  I know what you are saying, but there has to be a transition point.

[Steven Blake]

Cowan,

Absolutely, I agree!

Steve Blake

[Michael Felton]

My thoughts on the matter. I think the thing that makes short game shots harder for most people is distance between your ball and the hole (generally speaking). Rough around the edges of the green stops the ball going very far away from the hole. Short grass around the greens lets the ball roll away from the hole and will, IMO make the next shot quite a bit more difficult. It's hard to imagine a shot that would be easier from 20 yards away than from 10 yards away, even if you can put your putter on it. I know that Pinehurst played like that back in 2005 and a lot of the best players in the world were really struggling to get it close on those crowned greens that were surrounded with short grass.

[Tim Gavrich]

Let's consider broadly the number of courses out there where it is rare--let's say, on four holes or fewer--to be all of the following:

a) at least pin-high
b) more than a club length off the green
c) in fairway-height grass

Then let's consider broadly the 400-600 (or up to 1,000, if you want) very good/great/wonderful/top-notch courses in the world. How many of them are of the above type? Very, very few, right? Which ones are they?

Of what I'd call the top 15-20 courses I've played (and, granted, my resumé of courses played is nothing compared to that of most people on this site), I'd say that none of them satisfy a, b and c above. Granted, my standard of four holes is not very high, but nonetheless I believe that thought experiment is instructive about what makes for an interesting, repeatedly desirable set of green complexes.

I don't think anyone's calling for a universal mandate that all greens on all courses have loads of short grass around them. But I'd wager that in that big group of the worlds best courses, there are many more where there is pin-high short grass by almost every green than there are courses where there is pin-high short grass around almost none of the greens.

[Ronald Montesano]

looks like abject plagiarism to me.  I'm pretty certain Tom wrote his piece well before 3/13/11...  sounds like a cease and desist letter from one of our august legal minds is in order...

I spoke with the author of the piece on my site and he recalled it immediately. His intent was to cite Tom's list and it did not receive such treatment when we posted it on BuffaloGolfer. I have just gone back to the author's piece, made the necessary adjustments and apologize for any calumny or somesuch.

[Charlie Gallagher]

I strongly agree that short grass is the best defense as Robert Hunter once said. Many posters have hit upon its merits, the fact that the ball tends to roll away from the hole and green, the tightness of the lie influencing the skills required for recovery, the higher interest surrounding recovery etc.
If one visits Wolf Point or great links courses like Ballybunion, County Louth, or Cabot, one can experience the full posibilities of short grass as a defense. I recently played a fabulous Donald Ross in FL, Timmuquana, and many of its greens are surrounded by all manner of slopes and collection spots, all presenting tight lies. The same scheme is presented at Boston Golf Club.  I just find the choices and test far more interesting than rough.

[Thomas Dai]

A bump for this topic in view of some comments and thoughts about the set-up etc at Winged Foot for the 2020 'DeChambeau' US Open.
atb

[David Ober]

Like it in moderation.
Like anything, it can overused.
Variety is the spice of life.

One definite myth is that rough around the greens is a crap shoot. Absolutely not true and a great wedge player can separate himself in wiry, difficult rough more so than when a bad wedge player/chipper can substitute putter or 3 wood because the ground is shaved.
Of course rough used to be overused and that's certainly no good.

Like the shortgrass feature, but when "chipping areas" consistently become putting areas, the variety is lost.
That said, all players should have the skill and imagination to roll the ball from off the green with a variety of clubs, including putter.

<in my best Terry Jones as Sir Bedevere voice> Who are youuuuu who are so wise in the ways of golf?