Are closely mown areas adjacent to greens

[Matthew Essig]

I don't understand why there is debate over closely mown areas. Here is why:

I have seen 12 different links courses on my trip, and (most of them) are quite old. They all use closely mown areas. Now, you might say that because they are links courses, you have to compare them differently to the vast majority of non-links courses. Links courses....
1. Are firm and fast
2. Have the wind as a cooperative factor

So, why do links courses have closely mown areas? Is it to help players with the two factors above? More room for the bounces and rolls of firm and fast turf and the push/pull of the wind? Sure that is part of it, but if there is one thing I have learned on the trip, it is how closely mown areas enhance the green surrounds. It makes the depressions and bunkers play larger and more difficult, but can also make the green play larger with slopes feeding the ball in and the short cut of the grass itself. Closely mown surrounds are an integral link between green and the fairway.

Also, these courses are the root of the game. They came first.

So this leaves me asking two styles of questions as to why closely mown areas aren't used more....
1) When did closely mown areas "fall out of style?" Why is it a problem that they are "coming back in style?"
2) Why have rough when you can add style, complexity, and creativity (shotmaking from green-side, shotmaking into the green, and for the architect sculpting) with closely mown areas?

[Jason Topp]

I am not sure about Patrick's overall question, but I do think the short grass surrounds at my course pose significant challenges to the high handicap player.  The course has big greens with modest slopes but are maintained at fast speeds and are generally elevated compared to the surrounds.  Putting or chipping along the ground is a very challenging shot:

1.  You need to hit the ball solidly to have any idea how far it is going to go.  If the green slopes away, it takes good touch just to keep the ball on the green.
2.  You need to be able to read the ground between you and the green.  Most people underestimate the effect of the slope up to the green.  Many people do not pay attention to the nature of the surface between them and the green and therefore do not see which way the grass is leaning, how thick or thin it is, and how dry it is. 

A good player takes all of this into account and still gets up an down often.  Good players are capable of hitting the shot with a putter, 9 iron, hybrid or lob wedge as the situation requires. 

Someone who struggles with the short game pulls out putter and rarely takes less than 3 to get in the hole and often takes 4.  He misses the green entirely much more often than one would think.  Also - because there is nothing to stop the ball on a downslope, greenside shots are longer than they would be with a green surrounded by rough. 

I like playing from short grass around the green.  I believe the course would be easier if the greens were surrounded by 2 inch rough and suspect the better player has a greater advantage at my course than he would with the rough.

[David Bartman]

a trend that's become overused to the point that many of them are improperly used ?

Are some of them next to impossible to recover from, for the average golfer ?

We are about to start to undertake a remodel of my home club here in Los Angeles, Brentwood CC.  The new layout has many new closely mown areas.  It will be interesting to see if 1.  those areas play easier or more difficult for the average golfer and 2. being that we are sticking with Kikuyu grass, if we can keep them firm and fast enough to even play the variety of shots that a closely mown area should provide.  

(I was hoping to get before and after photos of the entire project)

[Paul Gray]

Ignore easy or difficult. Closely mown areas provide more interest. Ultimately, that's the point of slinging a bag on your back and playing the game.

[A.G._Crockett]

I'm not buying it.

Put my ball 15 yards off a domed Pinehurst #2 green and give me the "option" of either putting it or hitting a lob wedge off a tight lie to a firm green and I'm putting it. Take away the wedge option and I'm still putting it.


No way, no how multiple options make any shot harder. Are you guys actually such mental/emotional cripples that you literally stand there and can't make up your mind when there are multiple ways to play a shot? Or do you think everyone ELSE in the world is that sort of idiot?

As someone said earlier in the thread, it's like claiming that cutting down a tree makes the course harder. Bull shit it does.

Brent,
I don't think anybody said multiple options make a shot harder, per se.  What I said was that if you give a low handicapper more options, he'll benefit much more than the high handicapper because he likely has more shots in the first place.  One of the options will suit him.
Give them both the exact same shot, and you introduce more of an element of chance as to whether the low handicapper can benefit.

The issue, when you speak of an "equalizer", is not just the ability to simply get the ball on the green, but to get it close and get up and down.  Give a low handicapper more options and he'll get it up and down more often.  The high handicapper doesn't; that's why he's a high handicapper.

[Jason Topp]

Ignore easy or difficult. Closely mown areas provide more interest. Ultimately, that's the point of slinging a bag on your back and playing the game.

If one pulls out a putter for every shot is it more interesting?

[Patrick_Mucci]

a trend that's become overused to the point that many of them are improperly used ?

Are some of them next to impossible to recover from, for the average golfer ?

We are about to start to undertake a remodel of my home club here in Los Angeles, Brentwood CC.  The new layout has many new closely mown areas.  It will be interesting to see if 1.  those areas play easier or more difficult for the average golfer and 2. being that we are sticking with Kikuyu grass, if we can keep them firm and fast enough to even play the variety of shots that a closely mown area should provide.  

(I was hoping to get before and after photos of the entire project)

David,

Doesn't Kikuyu limit club selection and play ? (options)

To all,

There are options in theory and options in practice and I'd rather confine the discussion to options in practice, truely viable options.

[Pete_Pittock]

did the "seamless" appearance of minimalist design have an effect?

[Brent Hutto]

I'm not buying it.

Put my ball 15 yards off a domed Pinehurst #2 green and give me the "option" of either putting it or hitting a lob wedge off a tight lie to a firm green and I'm putting it. Take away the wedge option and I'm still putting it.


No way, no how multiple options make any shot harder. Are you guys actually such mental/emotional cripples that you literally stand there and can't make up your mind when there are multiple ways to play a shot? Or do you think everyone ELSE in the world is that sort of idiot?

As someone said earlier in the thread, it's like claiming that cutting down a tree makes the course harder. Bull shit it does.

Brent,
I don't think anybody said multiple options make a shot harder, per se.  What I said was that if you give a low handicapper more options, he'll benefit much more than the high handicapper because he likely has more shots in the first place.  One of the options will suit him.
Give them both the exact same shot, and you introduce more of an element of chance as to whether the low handicapper can benefit.

The issue, when you speak of an "equalizer", is not just the ability to simply get the ball on the green, but to get it close and get up and down.  Give a low handicapper more options and he'll get it up and down more often.  The high handicapper doesn't; that's why he's a high handicapper.

A lot of the "options" of which we speak when we talk about these things aren't really options at all. As I mentioned, offering me the option of playing a lob shot off a tight lie isn't really an option at all. It's not a shot I have.

My "equalizer" comment was directed as Tour-type rough where the ball can be five feet off the green and sitting at the bottom of three inch gnarly rough. On the stereotypical heavy rough setups that the Tour often favors on parkland courses, there's a certain clubhead speed needed to get the ball out at all.


I guess the ultimate "equalizer" though would be to have the 20 yards surrounding the green be three-quarter inch "rough". It offers no real impediment to the good player while given the weaker player a cushion under the ball. Not that I'd mind such a setup personally ;-) but it sort of overshoots in the "equalizer" direction.

[Paul Gray]

Ignore easy or difficult. Closely mown areas provide more interest. Ultimately, that's the point of slinging a bag on your back and playing the game.

If one pulls out a putter for every shot is it more interesting?

Jason,

As a links golfer I can absolutely assure you that simply having mown areas does not mean I pull out the putter for ever shot. Today, just for example, from thirty yards in I hit putter, 6 iron, 8 iron, PW and 58 degree wedge.

All of those shots, with the possible exception of the 58 degree wedge, are easily within the realms of playability for a 28 capper.

Note: I didn't hit all of those clubs on the one hole!

[Sean_A]

Brent, you aren't the only one playing the game    I find the biggest issue with rough around greens is much more apparent in winter.  There is truly only one option once the grass is wet for winter - flop over the rough.  I hate it and its one reason why I stay away from parkland golf in winter.

A lot of the "options" of which we speak when we talk about these things aren't really options at all. As I mentioned, offering me the option of playing a lob shot off a tight lie isn't really an option at all. It's not a shot I have.

Ciao

[Jason Topp]

Ignore easy or difficult. Closely mown areas provide more interest. Ultimately, that's the point of slinging a bag on your back and playing the game.

If one pulls out a putter for every shot is it more interesting?

Jason,

As a links golfer I can absolutely assure you that simply having mown areas does not mean I pull out the putter for ever shot. Today, just for example, from thirty yards in I hit putter, 6 iron, 8 iron, PW and 58 degree wedge.

All of those shots, with the possible exception of the 58 degree wedge, are easily within the realms of playability for a 28 capper.

Note: I didn't hit all of those clubs on the one hole!

Paul - you point out the limitations associated with broad generalizations.  If people make informed choices to hit a variety of shots, I think it is a good thing.  In my experience, US courses with tightly mown surrounds are more hit or miss in this respect depending on contour, grass type, ground condition and green speed.  I think it is difficult to make a general pronouncement one way or another.

I suspect I used all of your listed options on links courses other than the high shot when the wind is up.

[Brent Hutto]

Brent, you aren't the only one playing the game    I find the biggest issue with rough around greens is much more apparent in winter.  There is truly only one option once the grass is wet for winter - flop over the rough.  I hate it and its one reason why I stay away from parkland golf in winter.

A lot of the "options" of which we speak when we talk about these things aren't really options at all. As I mentioned, offering me the option of playing a lob shot off a tight lie isn't really an option at all. It's not a shot I have.

Ciao

Yeah and it's why I'm happy (living 150 miles inland) to have switched a decade ago to a club that doesn't overseed in winter. I know the situation of which you speak and it's abysmal when the damp winter conditions are combined with lovely bright green rye overseed that must be played over and not through.

[Paul Gray]

Jason,

You make a fair point. Certainly there needs to be a promotion of other firm and fast factors in order for those options to present themselves, regardless of the length of the grass. I've played clay based courses which are conducive to a running game and sand based ones which are anything but.

And I may have exaggerated when I suggested anyone could play all of those available options. I say that now because I got to thinking about my dad, a very occasional and truly terrible golfer! He regards himself as being in the perfect spot if he's just off of the fairway, his reasoning being that a bit more grass under the ball gives him slightly better odds of making contact. 

[Grant Saunders]

I think it greatly depends on how closely mown the surfaces are. Grass kept too short can reduce options almost as much as grass that is at rough height (not to mention how expensive it becomes to maintain).

The trend towards surrounds an run offs at near green height of cut is a step too far in my view. A nice 12mm surface offers a wide variety of shot types and still produces sufficient run to propel shots towards or away from the intended target.

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick:

I am a big fan of short grass surrounding greens, but I think I agree with you that it can go too far.

I played a modern course a couple of months ago that had short grass behind many greens ... many times after the green dropped off six or eight feet down.  I love to play bump-and-run shots up the slope to the green, but those slopes were so high and steep that it just wasn't practical at all; the ONLY recovery shot was to play a lofted wedge from tight, soggy bentgrass.

Short grass around the sides and back of the green is a cool feature, but you have to get the SCALE of it right.  If the amount of slope isn't practical for chipping, then it's a maintenance headache that doesn't provide shot options, it only pretends to.

[jeffwarne]

I think it greatly depends on how closely mown the surfaces are. Grass kept too short can reduce options almost as much as grass that is at rough height (not to mention how expensive it becomes to maintain).

The trend towards surrounds an run offs at near green height of cut is a step too far in my view. A nice 12mm surface offers a wide variety of shot types and still produces sufficient run to propel shots towards or away from the intended target.

+1
music to my ears
bring back chipping,bump and runs, and pitching for the average guy

[Patrick_Mucci]

did the "seamless" appearance of minimalist design have an effect?

Peter,

It's a good question, but I think the seamless transition from fairway to green usually isn't interrupted by steep slopes such as the ones behind and at the green flanks.

[Thomas Dai]

Anyone remember the days when folk carried clubs like this double-sided 'chipper' in their bags?



I think Cleveland and Odyssey brought out single-sided versions a little while back and I believe Ping made a 'chipper' many years ago.

There were also 'jiggers' back in yee olde hickory days.

Apparently at one early Walker Cup, to be held in the UK, Francis Ouimet had a 'jigger' made and presented to every member of his team before the match began and told them all to practice with the club as they'd need to use it a lot.

atb

[A.G._Crockett]

Anyone remember the days when folk carried clubs like this double-sided 'chipper' in their bags?



I think Cleveland and Odyssey brought out single-sided versions a little while back and I believe Ping made a 'chipper' many years ago.

There were also 'jiggers' back in yee olde hickory days.

Apparently at one early Walker Cup, to be held in the UK, Francis Ouimet had a 'jigger' made and presented to every member of his team before the match began and told them all to practice with the club as they'd need to use it a lot.

atb

I could be wrong, but I think the two-sided chippers are now non-conforming?

Also, I remember how interested everyone was when Todd Hamilton used a hybrid from all over the place the year he won the Open.  Hybrids, still called "rescue" clubs at that point, weren't even in wide use yet, and nobody had seen one used that way.  I love chipping with a hybrid during the winter on dormant bermuda, but don't use it much at all this time of year.

[David Bartman]

a trend that's become overused to the point that many of them are improperly used ?

Are some of them next to impossible to recover from, for the average golfer ?

We are about to start to undertake a remodel of my home club here in Los Angeles, Brentwood CC.  The new layout has many new closely mown areas.  It will be interesting to see if 1.  those areas play easier or more difficult for the average golfer and 2. being that we are sticking with Kikuyu grass, if we can keep them firm and fast enough to even play the variety of shots that a closely mown area should provide.  

(I was hoping to get before and after photos of the entire project)

David,

Doesn't Kikuyu limit club selection and play ? (options)

To all,

There are options in theory and options in practice and I'd rather confine the discussion to options in practice, truely viable options.

I tend to think so, Riviera does a good job of keeping its closely mown area firm enough to allow a variety of shots.  Time will tell as to how well Brentwood can do it given that it isn't on the same sandy soil that Riviera is on?

[Bill_McBride]

a trend that's become overused to the point that many of them are improperly used ?

Are some of them next to impossible to recover from, for the average golfer ?

We are about to start to undertake a remodel of my home club here in Los Angeles, Brentwood CC.  The new layout has many new closely mown areas.  It will be interesting to see if 1.  those areas play easier or more difficult for the average golfer and 2. being that we are sticking with Kikuyu grass, if we can keep them firm and fast enough to even play the variety of shots that a closely mown area should provide.  

(I was hoping to get before and after photos of the entire project)

David,

Doesn't Kikuyu limit club selection and play ? (options)

To all,

There are options in theory and options in practice and I'd rather confine the discussion to options in practice, truely viable options.

I tend to think so, Riviera does a good job of keeping its closely mown area firm enough to allow a variety of shots.  Time will tell as to how well Brentwood can do it given that it isn't on the same sandy soil that Riviera is on?

I hope it turns to play firmer than the velcro-like kikuyu at La Cumbre, what a mess that is.  No ground game options at all. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

I don't understand why there is debate over closely mown areas. Here is why:

I have seen 12 different links courses on my trip, and (most of them) are quite old. They all use closely mown areas. Now, you might say that because they are links courses, you have to compare them differently to the vast majority of non-links courses. Links courses....
1. Are firm and fast
2. Have the wind as a cooperative factor

They also don't mow those areas nearly as tight as they do at many of the courses in the U.S. and that's a huge distinction.

So, why do links courses have closely mown areas? Is it to help players with the two factors above?

More room for the bounces and rolls of firm and fast turf and the push/pull of the wind?

I'm pretty sure that closely or tighly mown areas behind greens don't help the golfer under almost any circumstance.
Ditto the flanks on an elevated green

Sure that is part of it, but if there is one thing I have learned on the trip, it is how closely mown areas enhance the green surrounds. It makes the depressions and bunkers play larger and more difficult, but can also make the green play larger with slopes feeding the ball in and the short cut of the grass itself.

Most closely mown areas next to greens, that I've seen, do the opposite, they move the ball further from the green, not closer, since most of the greens with closely mown areas are elevated.

Closely mown surrounds are an integral link between green and the fairway.

There is no point of separation between the two, no line of demarcation.
I think you may be confusing the feature and/or the location and application of the feature.

Also, these courses are the root of the game. They came first.

So this leaves me asking two styles of questions as to why closely mown areas aren't used more....
1) When did closely mown areas "fall out of style?"

When it became too expensive to maintain them

Why is it a problem that they are "coming back in style?"

Because they're being used indiscriminately and in the wrong locations.

2) Why have rough when you can add style, complexity, and creativity (shotmaking from green-side, shotmaking into the green, and for the architect sculpting) with closely mown areas?

Because recovery is beyond the ability of the average golfer and poor golfer.

[Sean_A]

For me, if done right, closely mown grass surrounding the green is effectively green - it should be that firm even if the grass is a bit longer than the actual surface.  Any player should have the option of putter, putter-like chip n' runs or flops.  Its down to the player to decide which shot suits best.  The other benefit to this approach, which I have yet to see mentioned, is that on flatter holes, the seamless transitions between fairway and green makes it difficult to figure out the yardage of the shot....well for those who don't use cheater guns anyway    If the area in question can't be kept firm, I have no issue with higher rough, but still would like the odd bits of fairway "miss spots" now and then - including behind greens.  All that said, clubs that are open in winter should be doing everything reasonable to keep turf firm.  The dreaded winter 2.5 inch clag is a serious turn-off.

Ciao

[Paul Gray]

Mucci,

You make some well considered ans worthy points.

The one area I will however take issue is with the assertion that recovery from short grass is beyond the average player. I see golfers of all shapes, ages, genders and sizes recover perfectly well from short grass. Not sure the same could be said to longer stuff. Considering this point, my mind wandered to thinking about the two ladies well into their 80's that I played through the other day. There is no way on Earth those old girls could possibly lob wedge anything towards a pin but were clearly more than happy bumping the ball around the course without ever getting the ball more than a few feet off the ground. Your assertion, I suspect, is more a reflection of how far removed the game has become from its natural playing conditions, i.e. players struggling with short grass not because it's particularly difficult but because it's alien to them.