[Greg Tallman]

That is the way i came off the course after playing Teeth of the Dog.

The conditions have turned the entire course into an aerial game and only flop shots around the green work for the most part. Such a shame, all this great movement around the greens and it is lost on all but one's eye as the turf surrounding the greens was a mix of bermuda and paspalum (and even St Augustine) and cut at a height that was akin to a first cut of rough, maybe 3/4, maybe higher.

Beyond that a couple of the recently added back tees simply add yardage and fail to make the course better. 5 is the best example, now a 490 yard par 4 with little or no fairway to hit to UNTIL you get to the 295-300 yard mark wherre it opens up bif time. Was the intent to kill the shorter hitters while giving the bombers a ranch of fairway to aim at?

My other critique is also conditioning and considering where Teeth stands on most lists... Can a golf course with 100% St Augustine rough be among the top 50 in the world?

Overall i really liked the look of the golf course, par 3s were fabulous and the shorter 4s along the coast were quite good. Just wished the course could play differently.

Played Punta Espada the following day and came away impressed and surprised as i put little faith in rankings from a certain publication that ranks it highly. All ican say is what i told my playkng companions... I thought the architecture at Teeth was superior based on the greens and surrounds but i would rather play Punta Espada on a regular basis as it did not lack in architectural interest and, even with paspalum grass, offered more options around the green... At least you could putt from 10 feet off the green which was not even a thought at TOTD.

[Greg Tallman]

For Jason Topp...

Let's compare the respective 5th holes, each a par 4 of 490 yards. (Edit: TOTD #4 and CDS #5)

TOTD - fairway is maybe 25 yards wide up to the 300 yard mark where it opens up to a wide open field of fairway. A guy who can carry the ball 300 can reduce the hole to driver wedge if taking the aggressive line. The green still supports the original length hole that i am guessing maxed out at about 410-425. Again deep depresions around the green where only option is a flop shot.

CDS - fairway is 50-70 yards wide until you reach about 300 where it bottles down to maybe 20 yards. The bomber is fitting a driver or stretching a 3 wood while if i take the agressive line and flirt with the trouble i might get it in the same area with a drive carrying 265 or slightly longer. The approach encourages a running approach (something 100% void at TOTD) while rewarding the high hitter with abiltiy to stop the ball. Fall off on but front left leave options of flop, putt, or any bump and run you are comfortable with.

Another comparison - the short par 3 on the water.

TOTD - #6 (EDIT: #5) is a 180 yard hole to a spit of a green. Played ot from 160 and loved it, wonderful hole for a decent player. For the average players, like the husband and wife pair of gynecologists from BarTHelona i was playing with, not so much. Even from roughly 100 yards there just isn't much width or recovorability there and the trees are downright menacing.

CDS - #7 is a 139 yard hole to a 4500 square foot green with three distinct sections and perhpas 35 yards in width. While many do not, getting the ball in play is not a "hit it straight or else" proposition. Accuracy is an element but not everything.

Just a couple of compariosns but rather relevant and presented in a completely unbiased manner.




 

[Tom_Doak]

Greg:

Conditioning has always been hit or miss at Teeth of the Dog.  When I worked for Mr. Dye in the 1980's, every time he would come back from the Dominican, he would say he "had to save Jose's job again".  [Jose was the superintendent, and may still be, for all I know.]  After about 3 times I started to wonder why they kept him around; after a few more times I realized that Mr. Dye LIKED going down there and helping Jose save his job.  He just needed something to do. 

Anyway, what's wrong with a little St. Augustine grass in the Dominican?

[Greg Tallman]

Greg:

Conditioning has always been hit or miss at Teeth of the Dog.  When I worked for Mr. Dye in the 1980's, every time he would come back from the Dominican, he would say he "had to save Jose's job again".  [Jose was the superintendent, and may still be, for all I know.]  After about 3 times I started to wonder why they kept him around; after a few more times I realized that Mr. Dye LIKED going down there and helping Jose save his job.  He just needed something to do. 

Anyway, what's wrong with a little St. Augustine grass in the Dominican?

As your primary rough? Hmmmmmm, not sure if serious?!!?!

[jeffwarne]

Greg:

Conditioning has always been hit or miss at Teeth of the Dog.  When I worked for Mr. Dye in the 1980's, every time he would come back from the Dominican, he would say he "had to save Jose's job again".  [Jose was the superintendent, and may still be, for all I know.]  After about 3 times I started to wonder why they kept him around; after a few more times I realized that Mr. Dye LIKED going down there and helping Jose save his job.  He just needed something to do. 

Anyway, what's wrong with a little St. Augustine grass in the Dominican?

Isn't that why they call it rough?

Going next week will get to see for myself

As your primary rough? Hmmmmmm, not sure if serious?!!?!

[Greg Tallman]

Greg:

Conditioning has always been hit or miss at Teeth of the Dog.  When I worked for Mr. Dye in the 1980's, every time he would come back from the Dominican, he would say he "had to save Jose's job again".  [Jose was the superintendent, and may still be, for all I know.]  After about 3 times I started to wonder why they kept him around; after a few more times I realized that Mr. Dye LIKED going down there and helping Jose save his job.  He just needed something to do. 

Anyway, what's wrong with a little St. Augustine grass in the Dominican?

Isn't that why they call it rough?

Going next week will get to see for myself

As your primary rough? Hmmmmmm, not sure if serious?!!?!

Jeff, not that it unplayable, just questioning if it is a turf a top 50 course would have.

If a crack staff were to go in they could have it good when weather allows but an awful lot of depressions on the high side of the green i would wonder if are ever dry... But at least a putter option would be helpful.

[Adam_Messix]

Greg--

We played Teeth of the Dog this time last year and it was in excellent condition so it must be a hit or miss thing.  It's always disappointing to see great architecture with the condition being less than ideal.  There are those who think that the Teeth is overrated because the holes away from the ocean are weak.  I tend to disagree with that assessment, the 2nd and 3rd holes are outstanding, particularly the volcano green on 3.  9 is a cool hole as well as the 11th, but I like Pete Dye par 5s as a rule.  The new back tee on 4 changes the hole dramatically in terms of length and angle of approach and 6 is a killer from the tips.  I miss the old 14th though, it was so severe and was a good way of using mediocre ground. 

I've always been interested in hearing the responses on Punta Espada.  My group particularly liked it and included it in a 1 and 1a ranking with Teeth of the Dog.  The 2nd is particularly cool with the greenside pond created by water flowing in from the ocean.  From a hole by hole standpoint, there's not a weak hole on the course although I think 13 could have been a better hole if Nicklaus had put a fairway area to the right so it had an alternate route versus the forced direct route over the ocean.  I liked the way the holes are routed in a loop out to the ocean, but having the beach club in that location forced them to make the course a bit disjointed (not the worst I've ever seen by a long shot, but the course has a pretty good flow to it except for this).  The tee shot on 17 is way cool.  I think there may be some who don't like the out of play areas, it almost looks too perfect, but it did not detract from the course to me. 

In a perfect world, you'd like to see both of these courses play more bouncy, but it's really hard to get Bermuda that way unless you're willing to let it look like Pinehurst at this past year's US Open. 

[John Percival]

Played TOTD multiple times, but not for 12 yrs or so.
Recall that 5 was/is the start of the Sea holes and a short 3 par to a peninsula green and 6 is the long 4.
Have they made changes to the course?

[Jason Topp]

For Jason Topp...

Let's compare the respective 5th holes, each a par 4 of 490 yards.

TOTD - fairway is maybe 25 yards wide up to the 300 yard mark where it opens up to a wide open field of fairway. A guy who can carry the ball 300 can reduce the hole to driver wedge if taking the aggressive line. The green still supports the original length hole that i am guessing maxed out at about 410-425. Again deep depresions around the green where only option is a flop shot.

CDS - fairway is 50-70 yards wide until you reach about 300 where it bottles down to maybe 20 yards. The bomber is fitting a driver or stretching a 3 wood while if i take the agressive line and flirt with the trouble i might get it in the same area with a drive carrying 265 or slightly longer. The approach encourages a running approach (something 100% void at TOTD) while rewarding the high hitter with abiltiy to stop the ball. Fall off on but front left leave options of flop, putt, or any bump and run you are comfortable with.

Another comparison - the short par 3 on the water.

TOTD - #6 is a 180 yard hole to a spit of a green. Played ot from 160 and loved it, wonderful hole for a decent player. For the average players, like the husband and wife pair of gynecologists from BarTHelona i was playing with, not so much. Even from roughly 100 yards there just isn't much width or recovorability there and the trees are downright menacing.

CDS - #7 is a 139 yard hole to a 4500 square foot green with three distinct sections and perhpas 35 yards in width. While many do not, getting the ball in play is not a "hit it straight or else" proposition. Accuracy is an element but not everything.

Just a couple of compariosns but rather relevant and presented in a completely unbiased manner.

 

Greg - Thanks!

I think you are a hole off on TOTD and are discussing 4 and 5. 

I would consider the two famous par threes (5 and 7) more akin to your 17th than your 7th.  On TOTD, I liked the fact that the forward tee on the par 3s required a shot over the water.  While such an arrangement might be less than ideal from a traditional playing values perspective, in that setting it is one of the most memorable shots that one can face in an incredible setting.  It struck me that people playing from the forward tee deserve the same thrill that those playing from the regular tees experience.  If I recall correctly, the shot from the forward tee at 17 of your course is also pretty unique, but it is not the same thrill as playing from the back tee. 

Hole 4 does bear resemblance to your 5th.  I did not go back to any 490 yard tee on that hole but from the aerial I can see your point.  I consider your 5th one of the most unique and enjoyable long par 4's I have ever played so that comparison is going to be a tough one for TOTD. 

I hope you had a great time on the trip.  Did you spend any time in La Romana?

[Greg Tallman]

For Jason Topp...

Let's compare the respective 5th holes, each a par 4 of 490 yards.

TOTD - fairway is maybe 25 yards wide up to the 300 yard mark where it opens up to a wide open field of fairway. A guy who can carry the ball 300 can reduce the hole to driver wedge if taking the aggressive line. The green still supports the original length hole that i am guessing maxed out at about 410-425. Again deep depresions around the green where only option is a flop sh ot.

CDS - fairway is 50-70 yards wide until you reach about 300 where it bottles down to maybe 20 yards. The bomber is fitting a driver or stretching a 3 wood while if i take the agressive line and flirt with the trouble i might get it in the same area with a drive carrying 265 or slightly longer. The approach encourages a running approach (something 100% void at TOTD) while rewarding the high hitter with abiltiy to stop the ball. Fall off on but front left leave options of flop, putt, or any bump and run you are comfortable with.

Another comparison - the short par 3 on the water.

TOTD - #6 is a 180 yard hole to a spit of a green. Played ot from 160 and loved it, wonderful hole for a decent player. For the average players, like the husband and wife pair of gynecologists from BarTHelona i was playing with, not so much. Even from roughly 100 yards there just isn't much width or recovorability there and the trees are downright menacing.

CDS - #7 is a 139 yard hole to a 4500 square foot green with three distinct sections and perhpas 35 yards in width. While many do not, getting the ball in play is not a "hit it straight or else" proposition. Accuracy is an element but not everything.

Just a couple of compariosns but rather relevant and presented in a completely unbiased manner.

 

Greg - Thanks!

I think you are a hole off on TOTD and are discussing 4 and 5.  

I would consider the two famous par threes (5 and 7) more akin to your 17th than your 7th.  On TOTD, I liked the fact that the forward tee on the par 3s required a shot over the water.  While such an arrangement might be less than ideal from a traditional playing values perspective, in that setting it is one of the most memorable shots that one can face in an incredible setting.  It struck me that people playing from the forward tee deserve the same thrill that those playing from the regular tees experience.  If I recall correctly, the shot from the forward tee at 17 of your course is also pretty unique, but it is not the same thrill as playing from the back tee.  

Hole 4 does bear resemblance to your 5th.  I did not go back to any 490 yard tee on that hole but from the aerial I can see your point.  I consider your 5th one of the most unique and enjoyable long par 4's I have ever played so that comparison is going to be a tough one for TOTD.  

I hope you had a great time on the trip.  Did you spend any time in La Romana?

Sorry about the hole mix ups, had lost the 6th from  memory - good, tough hole.

Did not get into La Romana proper as we spent the afternoon at Altos de Chavon within Casa de Campo. Thought it was a great spot, curious why we were almost the only people there.

I compared their 5th to our 7th as it is their "short" par 3 as suggested by yardage and the green complex. Thought both were excellent as was the Oceanside par 3 on the back (15?).

Need to break out the card before detailing any further thoughts.

[Greg Tallman]

Greg--

We played Teeth of the Dog this time last year and it was in excellent condition so it must be a hit or miss thing.  To be honest I cannot see it going from excellent to what I encountered, not that the turf was terrible but it was cut at heights and seemingly lacked the verticutting/aerification that presented the course other than so desired by Seņor Dye (my assumption)

It's always disappointing to see great architecture with the condition being less than ideal.  

There are those who think that the Teeth is overrated because the holes away from the ocean are weak.  I tend to disagree with that assessment, the 2nd and 3rd holes are outstanding, particularly the volcano green on 3.  9 is a cool hole as well as the 11th, but I like Pete Dye par 5s as a rule.  Agreed, the only "inland" hole you could poo poo would be the opener and, as with all holes on the course, the green hold enough interest to overcome the open meadow feel of the tee shot. I though three was perhaps the best shortish par 5 without water or OOB that I have seen. Used to reserve that comment for our 12th but TOTD 3 is clearly better. Did you find 9 and 11 a bit similar apart from the elevated green on 9?

The new back tee on 4 changes the hole dramatically in terms of length and angle of approach and 6 is a killer from the tips. The approach on 6 is no easy task from the gold tees either - only ball that bounced all day... not exactly forward  

 I miss the old 14th though, it was so severe and was a good way of using mediocre ground.  Do not recall the prior hole though the current iteration is solid at worst, with a marginal drive forcing a layup that requires your full attention and if in position to go for it a difficult target to say the least, no real bail out.

I've always been interested in hearing the responses on Punta Espada.  My group particularly liked it and included it in a 1 and 1a ranking with Teeth of the Dog.  I liked both quite a bit and, as I said above, thought the architecture at TOTD was superior but the overall experience at PE was preferable. Now, if TOTD was in great condition with the green surrounds offering multiple playing options it would likely change that perception.

The 2nd is particularly cool with the greenside pond created by water flowing in from the ocean.  From a hole by hole standpoint, there's not a weak hole on the course although I think 13 could have been a better hole if Nicklaus had put a fairway area to the right so it had an alternate route versus the forced direct route over the ocean.  I liked the way the holes are routed in a loop out to the ocean, but having the beach club in that location forced them to make the course a bit disjointed (not the worst I've ever seen by a long shot, but the course has a pretty good flow to it except for this).  The tee shot on 17 is way cool.  I think there may be some who don't like the out of play areas, it almost looks too perfect, but it did not detract from the course to me.  

In a perfect world, you'd like to see both of these courses play more bouncy, but it's really hard to get Bermuda that way unless you're willing to let it look like Pinehurst at this past year's US Open.  I believe PE was pure paspalum and a great deal of TOTD was paspalum as well as it begins to take over, especially around the greens and many fairways on the back side or at least it seemed

[Jim_Coleman]

     I am amazed that the conditioning on TOD is being questioned.  I couldn't disagree more.  The paspalum greens are smooth and reasonably quick for a resort.  The fairways are fine, rarely giving anything other than good lie.  The rough isn't very penal; it's wirey and the ball sits up in it.  It is tougher to hit a good shot from it than from the fairway.  I consider it a very well conditioned resort course.  I have been playing there for 25 years, and it's never been better.  I don't think Pete feels it necessary to save the super's job any more.
     As for the discussion of hole #4, I can tell you that less than 1% of the play is from the new back tee.  Yes, it's a silly tee shot from back there, but it is NEVER played.  To bury the course because of one new tee that's never used is a little silly.  I still say it is one of the great courses in the world - comparable to Pebble Beach.

[Greg Tallman]

     I am amazed that the conditioning on TOD is being questioned.  I couldn't disagree more.  The paspalum greens are smooth and reasonably quick for a resort.  The fairways are fine, rarely giving anything other than good lie.  The rough isn't very penal; it's wirey and the ball sits up in it.  It is tougher to hit a good shot from it than from the fairway.  I consider it a very well conditioned resort course.  I have been playing there for 25 years, and it's never been better.  I don't think Pete feels it necessary to save the super's job any more.
     As for the discussion of hole #4, I can tell you that less than 1% of the play is from the new back tee.  Yes, it's a silly tee shot from back there, but it is NEVER played.  To bury the course because of one new tee that's never used is a little silly.  I still say it is one of the great courses in the world - comparable to Pebble Beach.

First, nobody is burying the course. Architecturally it is fantastic and I stated as much.

Conditions are however an issue. The shot options around the greens were intended to be as varied as the languages heard whilst in the practice area, which is to say many. Sadly the only option available was some form of pitch shot that carried onto the putting surface as the turf in all chipping areas was both longish and thatchy. Perhaps there are simply different standards but those things noted in this and my previous post are issues I think most on this board would mention if they were to encounter them as did I.

Your characterization of burying a course because of one new tee is way off base as well. Another poster stated he thought the two courses were comparable so I offered a head to head critique of similar holes, one of which was the long par 4 on each.

Everyone on this forum has some affiliation with a course that will be discussed and critiqued and it's rarely going to be 100% positive no matter the course/facility.

The design is obviously one of Dye's finest but if I had a gun to my head and listed those I would play in order it would be:

1. Kiawah Ocean (FROM THE CORRECT TEES!)
2. Pete Dye Golf Club
3. Long Cove Club
4. Teeth of the Dog
5. TPC Sawgrass

Add options to the green surrounds and it could jump to #1, actually almost certainly would. I could even live with the St Augustine rough.

[Jim_Coleman]

   I find the options around the greens to be unusually varied.  Let's take the bowl to the right of 8.  I always putt; some use a rescue; some bump it into the hill; most flop.  Same for the right of 4; same for the right of 2; same for the left of 18; in fact, pretty much the same on most of the surrounds.  I never flop to a tight pin on any green there.  If you found yourself flopping all the time, I suspect you didn't consider all the options.

[Jay Flemma]

     I am amazed that the conditioning on TOD is being questioned.  I couldn't disagree more.  The paspalum greens are smooth and reasonably quick for a resort.  The fairways are fine, rarely giving anything other than good lie.  The rough isn't very penal; it's wirey and the ball sits up in it.  It is tougher to hit a good shot from it than from the fairway.  I consider it a very well conditioned resort course.  I have been playing there for 25 years, and it's never been better.  I don't think Pete feels it necessary to save the super's job any more.
     As for the discussion of hole #4, I can tell you that less than 1% of the play is from the new back tee.  Yes, it's a silly tee shot from back there, but it is NEVER played.  To bury the course because of one new tee that's never used is a little silly.  I still say it is one of the great courses in the world - comparable to Pebble Beach.

I agree. It was pristine when I was there last year.  Plus there are so many angles on so many holes, it's like a geometry test!  Dye Fore is just as good!

[Greg Tallman]

  I find the options around the greens to be unusually varied.  Let's take the bowl to the right of 8.  I always putt; some use a rescue; some bump it into the hill; most flop.  Same for the right of 4; same for the right of 2; same for the left of 18; in fact, pretty much the same on most of the surrounds.  I never flop to a tight pin on any green there.  If you found yourself flopping all the time, I suspect you didn't consider all the options.

Jim, I am not sure of your golfing abilities but mine are not the worst in the world and I assure you that putting was not even remotely an option. Maybe I caught it the one day this year that this was the case.

For the record I tried a hybrid from about 15 feet off the green on 12 (my 3rd hole of the day) and it got caught up and barely crawled onto the surface, leaving a lengthy par putt.

With my pitching of late I would have LOVED to have been able to putt, use the hybrid or a variety of iron bump and runs, just was not possible. I sure was not doing my best Tiger Woods impersonation for the fun of it.

[Adam_Messix]

The one thing that I really like about Dye courses is that you never have a direct shot into the fairway off the tee, there's always a bit of an offset angle and it rewards the player who can properly curve the ball into the target.  Also, there's so much subtle architecture on Dye courses where the course picks at your game in subtle ways.   The thing that separates Teeth of the Dog (and The Golf Club too) is that the course fits the ground very well, even the volcano green on 3 looks and plays well.  Nothing looks forced or contrived. 

Greg

There are some similarities between 9 and 11 from a first glance, but on the ground they play differently.  9 is just so much pronounced in terms of the hill and the trees that dictate the play of the hole.  I'm also a fan of the green complex on 11, the approach needs to be very precise. 

[Jim_Coleman]

Greg:  I'm sure you're a good player if you played the back tee on #4.  I'm a 7 who's a good chipper.  I never hit a lob wedge to a short pin at TOG, as the slopes up to many of the greens are too severe to stop the ball.  Putting works well for me; I do it a lot there.  My friends are often surprised by the OPTION I choose.  I do use the lob wedge if I sufficient green to play with.  This may sound counter-intuitive, but it works with the design Pete offers.

[Jason Topp]

Greg:

I interpret your opinions as related not as much to the conditioning of the course (other than choice of rough grass) but more related to the lines between fairway and rough.  Around the greens, the lack of short grass pretty much forces the pitch from rough on missed greens.  In some of the fairways, the fairways are narrow in the wrong spots and wide in the wrong spots. 

[Jim_Coleman]

    I interpret Greg's opinion similarly.  I just think he's factually wrong.  There's plenty of short grass around the greens.  Yes, there are a few places where the short grass stops and rough appears (say, short right of 4), but there's plenty of holes where putting, bumping, etc. are offered as options.  For example - right and left of 2; right of 3; short right of 4; right of five in the grass bunker; right of 6; right of 8; long right of 10; short of 11; NOT ON 12 - the one hole Greg cites; short right on 13; left on 14; long and left on 15;  short on 17; and left on 18.  No, I'm not taking Greg's opinion personally.  But, I think he is simply wrong.

[Greg Tallman]

    I interpret Greg's opinion similarly.  I just think he's factually wrong.  There's plenty of short grass around the greens.  Yes, there are a few places where the short grass stops and rough appears (say, short right of 4), but there's plenty of holes where putting, bumping, etc. are offered as options.  For example - right and left of 2; right of 3; short right of 4; right of five in the grass bunker; right of 6; right of 8; long right of 10; short of 11; NOT ON 12 - the one hole Greg cites; short right on 13; left on 14; long and left on 15;  short on 17; and left on 18.  No, I'm not taking Greg's opinion personally.  But, I think he is simply wrong.

Obviously you are correct Jim, I decided to punish myself and lie about what I encountered.

Right of 2 - ZERO chance. I was about 12 feet off the right side and given the state of my pitching would have loved to have had the opportunity to putt or use a hybrid but was not afforded that option.

Right of 3 - ZERO chance. As play was slow I messed around in the area both long of the right bunker and short of the right bunker for several minutes, putting wasn't a logical option.

Perhaps you have learned to putt over such turf but I assure you it is far different than that at any course here in Los Cabos, including Diamante where the paspalum complicates such shots around the green but does not necessarily preclude them as option and as stated before Punta Espada offered more options on its paspalum turf as well. 

[Greg Tallman]

Greg:

I interpret your opinions as related not as much to the conditioning of the course (other than choice of rough grass) but more related to the lines between fairway and rough.  Around the greens, the lack of short grass pretty much forces the pitch from rough on missed greens.  In some of the fairways, the fairways are narrow in the wrong spots and wide in the wrong spots. 

Not exactly correct. The turf I am speaking of was not the rough (St Augustine) but the same mix of paspalum and bermuda as the fairways, simply cut at a different height. Simply saying if cut a bit closer it would allow all options and make the course more enjoyable for everyone.

For the love of God... it is a great golf course that needs some TLC. That is all.

By the way you Pro should have the package in hand today for the Feb trip... will you make it?

[JESII]

Greg, any chance you caught it on a day when the crew simply hadn't been able to mow those short green surrounds in the prior couple?

[Jason Topp]

Greg:

I interpret your opinions as related not as much to the conditioning of the course (other than choice of rough grass) but more related to the lines between fairway and rough.  Around the greens, the lack of short grass pretty much forces the pitch from rough on missed greens.  In some of the fairways, the fairways are narrow in the wrong spots and wide in the wrong spots. 

Not exactly correct. The turf I am speaking of was not the rough (St Augustine) but the same mix of paspalum and bermuda as the fairways, simply cut at a different height. Simply saying if cut a bit closer it would allow all options and make the course more enjoyable for everyone.

For the love of God... it is a great golf course that needs some TLC. That is all.

By the way you Pro should have the package in hand today for the Feb trip... will you make it?

We are planning on bringing 8. I am trying to negotiate a house pass.   

[jeffwarne]

Greg,

I'm intrigued.
Will be interesting to see.
Will report.
Hopefully it was just a short term maintenance issue.

I've certainly had my fill lately of high end courses which feature almost exclusively super tight, soft surrounds in the name of "options", when truly the only option is putting or worse yet a hybrid
I do love tight bermuda if presented dryly

If good players, with good short games, consistently choose only to putt, those aren't options at all, and allow a poor chipper/pitcher to hide on what are essentially enlarged greens.

Variety is the spice of life, and I certainly like to see a mix of fairway turf (I see no need for this to be subfairway, walk mowed height), semi rough as you describe, and actual rough. (which admittedly was overused until a few years ago)
the old theory that everyone is the same out of the rough around the greens is utter nonsense as an elite wedge player can truly separate himself from an inexperienced/lower skilled wedge player-especially out of bermuda.

As an aside , I spent an amazing morning yesterday on Emerald Dunes short game area.
Great variety, lies, stances, 110 yards and in, 5 greens, fairway,bunkers, rough, not overwatered or soft.
plenty of basic stuff, but as many tough situations as you'd want/need to create
Could've spent the whole day there-had to catch my flight

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()