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.


Joe Hancock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Rough, and how it relates to architecture
« on: July 31, 2015, 04:33:10 PM »
I'm trying to think my way through the idea of rough on a golf course, and why it even exists. If the architecture of a course is adequate, then mishits and wrong angles should serve up all the penalty that is needed, no?

Are there courses that are much better because of rough? Are there courses that would be much better without rough?

I'll admit it; My wife and I recently played somewhere that I should have loved for it's architecture. But, the rough was a product of years of maintenance that favored bentgrass and poa in the rough, and it was brutal. Everywhere. I'm not weak, or a bad golfer most of the time, but this stuff was:

A) No fun
B) A distraction to what should have been very good architecture
C) Tiring to say the least
D) The focal point of the whole round, that is, hit straight off the tee to avoid the rough, rather than hit it where the architecture would favor your positioning
E) All of the above, and then some

As of this moment, I'm thinking my ideal presentation would be similar to Diamond Springs GC; One cut everywhere, except greens at normal greens height. Give me 3/4" turf that's not lush, but bouncy and tough, and give it to me everywhere that is currently being mowed as golf turf. You know, like the good ol' days.......

Now, tell me why I'm full of it, please?

" What the hell is the point of architecture and excellence in design if a "clever" set up trumps it all?" Peter Pallotta, June 21, 2016

"People aren't picking a side of the fairway off a tee because of a randomly internally contoured green ."  jeffwarne, February 24, 2017

Brent Hutto

Re: Rough, and how it relates to architecture
« Reply #1 on: July 31, 2015, 04:35:52 PM »
The only reason for rough that makes sense to me is there's only so much grass you can afford to mow to fairway height. I reject any idea that grass longer than an inch or so improves a golf course no matter how cunningly it's meant to be deployed.

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Rough, and how it relates to architecture
« Reply #2 on: July 31, 2015, 04:52:35 PM »
I think it emanates from three sources -

The development of irrigation and the long ago standard two row system which coverd 100-140 feet well (depending on sprinkler size and pressure)

The cost pressures to maintain fairways as their level of maintenance increased.

The Golf Digest Top 100 being based on difficulty.  To the surprise of many here, I think it really started earlier than the 1969 (?) top 100 list. Probably from the post WWII RTJ era.

In my early days, I recall hearing the phrase "4 iron rough" which I thought dated back to Hogan days, or maybe RTJ, just after post WWII, in which many clubs tried to get rough deep enough so the longest club you could hit out was a 4 iron.  On other courses, the thought was that all you had to do was reduce spin and thus control, but so many wanted to really punish the off line drive by nearly a stroke.

No one really mentions it, but I got the impression that old Ben had some say in courses getting tougher and based on accuracy over width and strategy.  Maybe then, the all wanted to be as straight as Hogan, as opposed to today, as long as Phil.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: Rough, and how it relates to architecture
« Reply #3 on: July 31, 2015, 05:27:27 PM »
Ever since Old Tom Morris started being a greenkeeper, there has had to be a line where the maintenance of the course stopped and the "rough" started.  In olden days, with animals grazing the fairways, it was much harder to find the line as the sheep made up their own minds ... and of course a lot of the "rough" was gorse and heather, rather than long grass.


What there wasn't, was "maintained" rough, cut to a uniform height to serve as an edge of play and to have a certain penalty value.  That concept came much later; I don't know exactly when.  There is little mention of "rough" in the masters' books on golf architecture, though nearly all of their drawings indicate an edge of the fairway.  The one mention of rough I distinctly remember was Dr. MacKenzie's line that "at the great schools of golf, like St. Andrews and Hoylake, there is no defined line between fairway and rough."  It took me a lot of time to sort out what he meant by that, because it's so different now.


At Crystal Downs this year, we are working toward widening the fairways, and to put off the decision on exactly how much to widen, I suggested that the superintendent cut down ALL the mowed rough as low as he could this summer ... to about one inch height.  The upshot is that the course plays much more like when I first saw it thirty years ago, when the irrigation system didn't reach far enough to water the rough, and it was mostly thin fescue ... so it didn't really matter whether you drove into the fairway or the rough, as long as you kept it out of the native [unmaintained] roughs. 


Next month they are going to ask me where the fairways should be expanded, so they can design the irrigation system around those lines; I wonder if this summer's experiment will help anyone understand that there don't need to be any lines?

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Rough, and how it relates to architecture
« Reply #4 on: July 31, 2015, 07:11:52 PM »
Joe

I think there is room in architecture for rough.  The trick, as with all features, is to get the balance right.  Offering plenty of opportunity to avoid the rough and not grow rough which will create lost ball situations also goes a long way to keeping the game fun.  I really do miss the days when longish whispy rough was prevalent on links.  The rough at Gullane when I first played there remains my over-riding memory of the course...and I still heavily applaud clubs, probably moreso than for any other reason, for presenting excellent rough.  Its just a shame its so rare to do so.

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Jaeger Kovich

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Rough, and how it relates to architecture
« Reply #5 on: July 31, 2015, 08:02:29 PM »
I'm so sick of courses with the never ending sea of blue grass rough.

I don't think courses where most of the property is disturbed, and almost everything is regraded helped the cause. I'm curious how some design with rough lines rather than fairway or maintained lines are.

Would something as simple as the invention of a drive/sit on mower been the start? I cant imagine anyone push mowing an entire golf course w an ancient push mower!

Dave McCollum

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Rough, and how it relates to architecture
« Reply #6 on: August 01, 2015, 05:08:15 PM »
More rough, especially around greens, means less options and becomes the one dimensional, knee-jerk choice to grab the sand wedge.  I’m still somewhat amazed that so many high cap players automatically choose this option even when it not dictated by conditions.

Peter Pallotta

Re: Rough, and how it relates to architecture
« Reply #7 on: August 01, 2015, 05:23:38 PM »
Joe is a good golfer who knows and understands quality architecture, has played many if not most of the classics in America, and who has built, run, and/or maintained many different kinds of golf courses over the years. If he even finds himself *wondering* about rough, it's a sure sign that despite any conventional wisdom it probably serves little good/useful purpose. And *that* is very interesting to me.
Peter
 

Joe Hancock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Rough, and how it relates to architecture
« Reply #8 on: August 01, 2015, 07:36:30 PM »
Peter,

Thank you. A bit oversold, but thanks.

So, a couple more questions, as I'm sure everyone is compiling a well reasoned answer to my first posts' questions anyway.....

Would the 18th at Merion be better or worse if the rough was eliminated and everything presented at "a"(not necessarily the current) fairway height of cut?

If you, an educated member of GolfClubAtlas were asked to be on the board of your club because of your wealth of golf architecture knowledge, and asked to justify, architecturally only(not financially), the rough....could you?
" What the hell is the point of architecture and excellence in design if a "clever" set up trumps it all?" Peter Pallotta, June 21, 2016

"People aren't picking a side of the fairway off a tee because of a randomly internally contoured green ."  jeffwarne, February 24, 2017

JMEvensky

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Rough, and how it relates to architecture
« Reply #9 on: August 01, 2015, 08:36:18 PM »


If you, an educated member of GolfClubAtlas were asked to be on the board of your club because of your wealth of golf architecture knowledge, and asked to justify, architecturally only(not financially), the rough....could you?



I've tried the converse--arguing the rough wasn't architectural but solely a maintenance issue. A Southern club with zoysia fairways and 419 rough--that's the usual combo in Memphis.


It's an uphill push.In my experience,the issue always comes down to maintenance budget.Short grass is more fun,etc.--but rough is cheaper.


Not even my wealth of architecture knowledge as an esteemed poster on GCA can trump the argument "but every club in town has rough around the greens".




Doug Siebert

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Rough, and how it relates to architecture
« Reply #10 on: August 01, 2015, 09:42:43 PM »
The problem is that rough is uniformly seeded - actually that it is seeded AT ALL. I think whoever started doing that didn't own a dictionary. If it was just a collection of grass, weeds and whatever else wants to grow there that can stand being mowed down once in a while it would work better. Sort of like what Pinehurst accomplished with seeding the rough in clumpy patches so you get a random result. Making the rough uniform presents the same challenge on every shot, and players with the strength and skill to escape it have the same advantage over those who don't on every single shot and therefore less need to care if they hit there.

There's a reason why fescue works so well as rough. It is clumpy and uneven, but so long as it is mowed down enough that you can find your ball it provides some additional challenge for the shot - sometimes just a little and sometimes a lot, depending on what sort of break you catch.
My hovercraft is full of eels.

Peter Pallotta

Re: Rough, and how it relates to architecture
« Reply #11 on: August 01, 2015, 10:11:44 PM »
Joe - not a direct answer to your question, but my honest experience with a range of budget/middle of the road golf courses over the years, and a few good or very good ones. In short, rough is a cheat, a short-cut to an end/goal that is itself a cheat.

1. For banal courses with little architectural interest (i.e. with little playing interest other than the simple fun of hitting a ball with a stick), rough is used to give the appearance of said interest. If the greens are boring, and the surrounds uninteresting and the tee shot uninspired/straightforward, taking an 80 yard wide fairway and cutting it in half with 20 yard wide strips of rough on either side doesn't change that reality one bit; but since it is a cheat utilized by countless courses (including the ones down the street and around the corner), everyone bands together and just hopes that no one yells out that the emperor has no clothes.

2. For better courses, where the greens and surrounds are of some interest (i.e. they reward the playing of an approach shot from one side of the fairway or the other, or on a Par 3 call for some thought/imagination in terms of where to land the ball), generations of golfers who are not nearly as good or smart as they think they are have fussed and fumed that, for example, a "poor drive" (by a higher handicapper) that doesn't fly a long way and fades off to the right isn't punished enough, and indeed seems to produce an easier approach than their own booming draw that ends up on the left side of the fairway. So after many complaints, the committees (comprised of golfers also not nearly as good or smart as they think they are) decide to toughen up the course by adding thick rough down both sides -- never stopping to acknowledge that a) this doesn't do the booming draw any good, but only punishes that higher handicapper, or b) that inadvertently or not, that higher handicapper has smartly played the hole as it was designed, from the right side, and so should be rewarded. 

No 1 cheats the game itself and golfers along with it, No 2 cheats the spirit of the game, a game of angles and of opportunities (to play a given hole or an entire course or the game itself in many different ways). The sad part, it seems to me, is that this kind of cheat is now built into the very fabric of golf in North America (at least where I play the game) -- i.e. far from being frowned upon, it is actually planned into the design from the start.

While there haven't been many new budget/mid range courses built in the last decade or two, I have played several of them, and this is what I find: from tree-line to tree-line, or from artificial containment mounding to artificial containment mounding, there is a hundred yards of space. That means that the architect/builder either cleared a hundred yards worth of trees or created that mounding a hundred yards apart -- and did so intentionally. Why did he do that? Because he has already planned to narrow the space by using yards and yards of rough, and then ensured that this will be the cased by running the irrigation out there on the edges, those 25 yards per side -- and thereby created the very situation someone like Jeff decries, i.e. a situation whereby it will be more expensive to maintain the hundred yards as fairway than it will be to maintain 50 yards of it as rough.

Again, I ask: why did the architect do that? I mean, if he wanted 50 yard-wide fairways, why didn't he simply create containment mounding 50 yards apart, or clear only 50 yards of trees in the first place? Well, you're guess will be better than mine, but I think it's because a) that's the way things are done when cheating becomes the norm, and b) because his otherwise banal design -- with boring greens, and uninteresting surrounds, and uninspired tee shots -- will not as quickly or easily be recognized as such when the rough (that he has planned from the start) grows in. In other words, he's counting on golfers being golfers and committee men being committee men and on no one shouting out that the emperor has no clothes.

Peter
PS - In the new world to come and that is indeed already here, with increasing restrictions on inputs/water and with an enhanced focus (from all corners) on sustainability in general, that architect would do very well to think his way to a better and smarter design, one that clears only 45 yards worth of trees or creates mounding only 45 yards apart, (i.e. just what he needs and no more, and without any rough to water or maintain in any way) and that features greens and surrounds and hazards that engage and interest us in and of themselves; and those committee members will be well served by waking up to the reality both of the game/the spirit of the game/the playing of the game, and to their own mediocrity in that regard. 
« Last Edit: August 01, 2015, 10:54:10 PM by PPallotta »

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Rough, and how it relates to architecture
« Reply #12 on: August 02, 2015, 06:12:37 AM »
"Clear cut lines of rough have not always been with us. My experience is far too small for me to generalize but I did not see a course in America that did not have them. Nearly all our inland courses today have them. Only on some of the seaside courses do the old, more varied conditions exist. At St. Andrews, for instance, there is certainly a rather broken line of rough country to catch a slice on the way out but that is all. For the most part you are trying to avoid a particular bunker from the tee or obtain a certain strategic position for your next shot; you are not trying to go down a groove." BERNARD DARWIN

[/size]The above is more what I had in mind, though I don't mind a hole or two which may use rough to heighten the anxiety...just so long as I can quickly find the ball.  [/color][/size]My how times have changed...so its easy to see why some are anti-rough.  But one may as well be anti bunker or anti tree or anti water....these are all valid and good features if used wisely.  Balance and variety are always the keys to good architecture.  [/color]

[/size]Ciao
[/color]
[/size][/color]

New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

BCowan

Re: Rough, and how it relates to architecture
« Reply #13 on: August 07, 2015, 06:19:30 PM »
I'm trying to think my way through the idea of rough on a golf course, and why it even exists. If the architecture of a course is adequate, then mishits and wrong angles should serve up all the penalty that is needed, no?

Are there courses that are much better because of rough? Are there courses that would be much better without rough?

I'll admit it; My wife and I recently played somewhere that I should have loved for it's architecture. But, the rough was a product of years of maintenance that favored bentgrass and poa in the rough, and it was brutal. Everywhere. I'm not weak, or a bad golfer most of the time, but this stuff was:

A) No fun
B) A distraction to what should have been very good architecture
C) Tiring to say the least
D) The focal point of the whole round, that is, hit straight off the tee to avoid the rough, rather than hit it where the architecture would favor your positioning
E) All of the above, and then some

As of this moment, I'm thinking my ideal presentation would be similar to Diamond Springs GC; One cut everywhere, except greens at normal greens height. Give me 3/4" turf that's not lush, but bouncy and tough, and give it to me everywhere that is currently being mowed as golf turf. You know, like the good ol' days.......

Now, tell me why I'm full of it, please?

Joe,

   This is a great thread and I am surprised it hasn't gotten more traction.  First off I am very excited to play Diamond Springs in a month.  I think you make very good points.  A few things I have noticed is bent/sand mix on golf carts that people dispense in the rough to fill in their divots.  Even people who have played for 20+ years don't know they are making future rough intolerable. 

    The big reason i want the ball to stop in the rough is Evergreens, Spruces, ala Christmas trees.  They have no business on the GOLF course IMO.  So if memberships and owners hadn't of planted them in ''pick the decade'' all one cut could be great.  Also double and triples sprinkler systems helped give us wrist breaking rough.  I really like the look of the Aussie maint. meld from photos (haven't been there). 

   If you had no rough, how about more Grass bunkers strategically placed of course?

Joe Hancock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Rough, and how it relates to architecture
« Reply #14 on: August 07, 2015, 08:11:25 PM »
Ben,

Thanks for the additional thoughts on rough and reasons for it. Trees that are not good on a golf course can only be made worse by being even more of a factor.

One reason the thread didn't gain traction is PPallotta's thoughts. He always gets to the root of the matter, so to speak. And usually on the first try!

Not only that, but the idea of rough being unnecessary apparently isn't palatable. Too big of an idea. Too unconventional and against all we've known for a long time.
" What the hell is the point of architecture and excellence in design if a "clever" set up trumps it all?" Peter Pallotta, June 21, 2016

"People aren't picking a side of the fairway off a tee because of a randomly internally contoured green ."  jeffwarne, February 24, 2017

Brent Hutto

Re: Rough, and how it relates to architecture
« Reply #15 on: August 07, 2015, 08:21:33 PM »
I wonder how long the opinion-makers of golf have been wedded to the the bloody-minded idea that driving the ball straight is oh so morally superior to merely driving it long. After all, we eventually have to get the ball into a hole so tiny as to require a flag stick to tell us where it is. Who decided that not just the final result but every shot on every hole has to be contrived so that anything other than one correct direction is punished?

Joe Hancock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Rough, and how it relates to architecture
« Reply #16 on: August 07, 2015, 08:36:24 PM »
Brent,

So, in other words, when and who decided where fairways should be?
" What the hell is the point of architecture and excellence in design if a "clever" set up trumps it all?" Peter Pallotta, June 21, 2016

"People aren't picking a side of the fairway off a tee because of a randomly internally contoured green ."  jeffwarne, February 24, 2017

BCowan

Re: Rough, and how it relates to architecture
« Reply #17 on: August 07, 2015, 09:12:50 PM »
Ben,

Thanks for the additional thoughts on rough and reasons for it. Trees that are not good on a golf course can only be made worse by being even more of a factor.

One reason the thread didn't gain traction is PPallotta's thoughts. He always gets to the root of the matter, so to speak. And usually on the first try!

Not only that, but the idea of rough being unnecessary apparently isn't palatable. Too big of an idea. Too unconventional and against all we've known for a long time.

Joe,

   I don't agree with most of PPallotta's points.  ANGC is loved and its rough is miniscule and basically only there due to them keeping the greens too soft IMO (I haven't been there so burn me to the stake).  Sweetens Cove doesn't have rough that I can think of, just areas of fescue maint very short.  The reason is you have a great archie and he was given pretty much free reign to my knowledge.  Bold features are needed imo for it to be successful.  Contrast is definitely needed.  As far as water is concerned it is an issue in 4 or 5 states but drastically blown out of proportion on this site IMO.   I think there has to be a market for re-usable sprinkler systems for this idea, but you would know better then I.  Make mine Firm and Slow! 

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: Rough, and how it relates to architecture
« Reply #18 on: August 07, 2015, 10:22:41 PM »
As far as water is concerned it is an issue in 4 or 5 states but drastically blown out of proportion on this site IMO. 


Ben:


Think again.  Rivers are interstate highways.  What is one populous state's problem, is also therefore its neighbors' problem, when it comes to water in the U.S.  Don't think there aren't people in other states eyeing all that water in the Great Lakes.

BCowan

Re: Rough, and how it relates to architecture
« Reply #19 on: August 07, 2015, 10:38:42 PM »
Tom,

   I agree with your statements.  I hope DE-saltification goes well out west.  Israel seems to lead the way in this technology. 

http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/06/14/413981435/israel-bringing-its-years-of-desalination-experience-to-california

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: Rough, and how it relates to architecture
« Reply #20 on: August 09, 2015, 12:19:00 PM »
Tom,

   I agree with your statements.  I hope DE-saltification goes well out west.  Israel seems to lead the way in this technology. 

http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/06/14/413981435/israel-bringing-its-years-of-desalination-experience-to-california


Ben:


I hope you read all the way to the last paragraph of your article.  As the expert says, desalination is the last resort.  It's important to save what we can, first. 


He doesn't go into the details, but desal water costs an enormous amount of energy to produce ... and some sources of energy require an enormous amount of water to produce.  If you just look at one in isolation, without the other, it's a lot easier to minimize the problem.  When you look at the big picture, water consumption is a big deal across all of our vital industries ... in ag, not just irrigation but fertilizer and chemical production.

Mark Saltzman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Rough, and how it relates to architecture
« Reply #21 on: August 09, 2015, 03:15:47 PM »
Joe, I think you hit the nail on the head when you said 'if the architecture of the course is sufficient'. Sure, I agree, many of the great, strategic, golf courses have no need for rough (and are probably worse because of it), but the vast majority of golf courses were designed with rough as a key feature. Removing it wouldn't make the course better, it would just open the route to out of bounds, water hazards and tree lines.

Jud_T

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Rough, and how it relates to architecture
« Reply #22 on: August 09, 2015, 03:22:39 PM »
Joe, I think you hit the nail on the head when you said 'if the architecture of the course is sufficient'. Sure, I agree, many of the great, strategic, golf courses have no need for rough (and are probably worse because of it), but the vast majority of golf courses were designed with rough as a key feature. Removing it wouldn't make the course better, it would just open the route to out of bounds, water hazards and tree lines.


Perhaps it's some of those courses that should be removed... 8)
Golf is a game. We play it. Somewhere along the way we took the fun out of it and charged a premium to be punished.- - Ron Sirak

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: Rough, and how it relates to architecture
« Reply #23 on: August 09, 2015, 06:02:24 PM »
the vast majority of golf courses were designed with rough as a key feature. Removing it wouldn't make the course better, it would just open the route to out of bounds, water hazards and tree lines.


Most or all of the courses built before 1950 were designed to have fairways that were 50-60 yards wide.  Rough was not a key feature of those.  I'm not sure it was for Trent Jones or Dick Wilson or Pete Dye, either ... it was just an economic fact of life.


When I was working for Mr. Dye I built a hole at Riverdale Dunes [#10] with a very wide fairway ... it was sort of like #10 at Riviera, where the best line for the approach was to hit away to the left off the tee.  He asked me why I'd made the fairway so much wider than the others, and when I explained myself he said it was fine for the best angle to be out there, but why did I need to make it fairway instead of light rough?  The light rough was less expensive to maintain and easier for the average golfer to hit out of.  I was a bit taken aback that Pete would set up a hole so that golfers would aim for the rough to get the best angle, but he didn't think twice about it; there were other holes where he said the best approach might be from a waste bunker!

Dan Herrmann

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Rough, and how it relates to architecture
« Reply #24 on: August 09, 2015, 06:34:17 PM »
Personal experience.   When Hanse built our course, the rough was primarily fescue with some other native grasses.  You could get a bare lie, a great lie, or more often, something in-between.   I loved it.   

But a former greenkeeper didn't like how it looked, so he aerated, fertilized, and scattered friggin rye seed.   

The course still plays great, but I rue the loss of the original designer's intent. 

Unfortunately, the rye grows and thrives, whatever we do to it.  The only thing that has been able to defeat the rye is Bermuda grass, which is a whole different type of hell. :) .     (And I'd love to know how Bermuda is now seeming to thrive in Pennsylvania!)