Maintaining heavy rough ruins architecture

[mike_malone]

 I played Stonewall which I love but the rough 20 yards off the fairway causes either a five minute look ending in a lost ball or a near impossible chip out.


 As I observe the grass at the back of the Merion bunkers I feel the same thing.


  The architecture of these courses can create challenging options for wayward shots without this annoying practice.


It's a kill joy.

[cary lichtenstein]

i totally agree

[Matthew Essig]

Or have fairways wide enough (40-70 yards) so a lost ball is only because of a poor drive


https://twitter.com/wesleybryangolf/status/869628743903477764

[Thomas Dai]

Unless there are predators around an appropriate number of sheep and/or goats can assist.
Atb

[Mike Sweeney]

Good answer from Tom Doak on this Streamsong thread:

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,54441.0.html

Mike:

We have tried to build courses with "no rough" [no mowed rough] several times, where we could.  These are the factors that make it easier or more difficult:

1.  You're committing to a fairly big acreage of turf to do this [you have to have enough playable area where you can find your ball], so you have to be using a type of grass for the fairways that isn't extra-costly to maintain relative to the roughs.  Bermuda, paspalum, and fescue all fit ... perhaps even bluegrass fits.  Bentgrass fairways do not lend themselves to this application.

2.  In most cases there is just a BIT of mowed rough as a buffer to the native, because it's hard to go straight from 1/2 inch cut to six-inch high native.  If you insist on counting that, even Streamsong probably has a little bit of mowed rough. 

3.  Some superintendents will insist they need x feet of rough buffering the whole course in order to turn the mowers around when they are mowing the fairways at a cross-cut, but that's only because they can't get over doing things the way they've always done them.

4.  It does help if you have sandy soil, because of the methods of modern green construction.  If you're building on clay, it's hard to have short grass all around the green.  You're afraid the greens mix will get contaminated if any water drains from the surrounds onto the green, and even if you do make everything drain away from the green, you've still got clay next to sand, so the fact that it's short turf does not mean the ball will react the same way when it lands.  This is part of that old GCA corollary -- everything is harder for Mike Young than it is for me.   (And he's right, it is just hard to work in Georgia clay.)

5.  Sandy soil also helps because the native rough tends to manage itself better.  On more fertile soils it just keeps getting thicker and you lose balls all the time, so you have to maintain the rough periodically.

6.  Sandy soil ALSO helps because you can take some of the tee-to-fairway area right down to open sand where you can still find a topped tee shot.  This is probably the place where we've made the most exceptions to the "no rough" concept ... because you have to be able to find topped tee shots, and not many clients want to bring the fairway all the way back to the tees.

We have attempted the "no rough" look now at Ballyneal, Stone Eagle [though you need a bit of rough there because it's impossible to mow right up to the rocks], Sebonack, the Bay of Dreams, Rock Creek, Old Macdonald, and Streamsong.

[Tom_Doak]

The Old course at Stonewall has always been maintained that way.  It was a bit short to start with [6600 yards par 70 is not really that short], and they wanted a reputation as a tough course to help sell memberships, so they made the rough difficult from the beginning.  I was worried it would be that bad for the Mid-Am last fall, but they backed off a bit, or else it was a dry year.  We did make the fairways 40=45 yards wide, which they considered huge at the time, everything in town being compared to Merion for the U.S. Open back then.


The North course fairways are that much wider, and the rough has never been as nasty on that side as I had more control of the seeding rates     However, maintenance costs have something to do with all of this, too -- Stonewall runs 36 holes on a fairly limited budget, so they try not to spend many $ on the roughs.

[Sean_A]

Mike

There is a difference between no rough and lush, thick 3-4 inch rough.  As I say, I think Merion is caught in a dilemma between maintaining a championship face with such short yardage and what makes sense for daily play.  I would prefer less rough, but more importantly, if the fairways were pushed out to the bunkers then much of the "problem" is solved.  But that gets back to championship face....

Ciao

[MCirba]

Mayday,

I agree with your premise but would also suggest that course superintendents right now in the region are hard pressed to keep growth down with the tremendous amount of rainfall we've experienced this spring.   The problem is compounded by the fact that the grass not only grows long and thick but tends to stay wet, making recovery really burdensome.   

[Bill Raffo]

Mayday,

I agree with your premise but would also suggest that course superintendents right now in the region are hard pressed to keep growth down with the tremendous amount of rainfall we've experienced this spring.   The problem is compounded by the fact that the grass not only grows long and thick but tends to stay wet, making recovery really burdensome.

Also, isn't it enjoyable that the home course plays different across the calendar year?  This is the time of year in the NE, along with early fall, when it should be at it's most difficult. Thick rough and fast greens....

[mike_malone]

For me golf is hitting full shots. Chip outs from evergreens, retrieving balls from water, and losing balls in constantly heavy rough is not golf.




I will give one example from Stonewall. #14 encourages one to take on the left  "fairway" bunker. I missed left and searched hopelessly.  Even if I found the ball my only shot would be a wedge regardless of the time of year! 


A well maintained rough would allow a try at the narrow front to back sloping green over the left green side bunker.Good luck with that!  But at least I can dream.

[MClutterbuck]

The one real surprise I had during my recent trip to Scotland was the roughs were really light and not at all dense. Finding your ball in the rough was not a problem and in general you could play a full shot out even on really wild drives.


I understand this was in part due to very dry weather in the Spring and the time of year, late May.


However, there was one exception: Muirfield. We encountered heavy rough in some holes were the caddy said there was no chance even finding the ball, much less play out of it.  This was the case even really close to the fairways, with #2 being the worst. Clearly Muirfield has a different maintenance/course setup objective, even years away from Open play.

[Mike Schott]

For me golf is hitting full shots. Chip outs from evergreens, retrieving balls from water, and losing balls in constantly heavy rough is not golf.




I will give one example from Stonewall. #14 encourages one to take on the left  "fairway" bunker. I missed left and searched hopelessly.  Even if I found the ball my only shot would be a wedge regardless of the time of year! 


A well maintained rough would allow a try at the narrow front to back sloping green over the left green side bunker.Good luck with that!  But at least I can dream.

[size=78%]Not that I advocate heavy rough, especially too close to the fairway or too many water hazards but shouldn't there be a penalty for a severely wayward shot? There will be times when you have to take an extra stroke to chip back into a badly missed fairway.[/size]

[Joe Bausch]

I will give one example from Stonewall. #14 encourages one to take on the left  "fairway" bunker. I missed left and searched hopelessly.  Even if I found the ball my only shot would be a wedge regardless of the time of year! 

A well maintained rough would allow a try at the narrow front to back sloping green over the left green side bunker.Good luck with that!  But at least I can dream.

Photos of the 14th at Stonewall:

http://www.myphillygolf.com/uploads/bausch/StonewallOld/pages/page_79.html?

[Jason Topp]

I certainly agree if the rough is so thick you cannot find a ball, and I generally agree that lighter rough yields more interesting golf than heavy rough.  However, I do not think there are many hard and fast rules.

Generally, I think rough should require the player to read the lie and account for it in the next shot.  My course has wide fairways and heavy rough.  I have learned a bunch of new and interesting shots because of it - getting the heel off the ground for short game shots, hitting a knuckler that runs a long ways for approach shots and opening the blade on an iron shot to account for the grass grabbing the club and shooting the ball left.  The shots become much more interesting on a firm course because of the possibility of having the ball run 50-75 yards. 

Rough thickness and height is also heavily dependent on the quality of player at the course.  For most of us, it does not take much height or thickness to yield interesting shots.

[Peter Pallotta]

On the Merion thread (from 2013)   JSlonis notes that prep/changes included covering up 7 or 8 of his preferred lines off the tee in rough.
On one side: a top flight golfer who has learned how best to engage with a quality design. On the other: set up men who seem determined to put their own philosophy of a championship test ahead of the once-great architecture - thus ignoring both the designer's original intent and the experience/insights of those who play the game better than they ever will.
This happens all the time, at courses much less noteworthy than Merion, including at the local courses I play.
We often wonder if architects need to be decent golfers in order to design good courses; maybe the question is whether superintendents need to be decent golfers in order to  maintain good courses.

[Tom_Doak]

The one real surprise I had during my recent trip to Scotland was the roughs were really light and not at all dense. Finding your ball in the rough was not a problem and in general you could play a full shot out even on really wild drives.


I understand this was in part due to very dry weather in the Spring and the time of year, late May.


However, there was one exception: Muirfield. We encountered heavy rough in some holes were the caddy said there was no chance even finding the ball, much less play out of it.  This was the case even really close to the fairways, with #2 being the worst. Clearly Muirfield has a different maintenance/course setup objective, even years away from Open play.

2/3 of the difference between Muirfield and the others is the soil.  Muirfield is a loamy sand, which retains more water so the grass grows thicker.  The other 1/3 is club culture -- they play a lot of alternate-shot matches [less looking for balls] and are not focused on keeping visitors happy, like the other courses you played, all of which make $$$$ from the overseas visitors.

[James Brown]

I played in the Maryland Mid-Amateur a few weeks ago at a private course (Old South CC) that was proud of its super dense 4-inch rough and it was no fun at all.   We couldn't find balls 10 feet off the fairway.   

[Thomas Dai]

Sometimes wildlife restrictions have a part to play.......birds that nest in long grass mean that in some places the grass can't be cut until mid/late summer. In the UK skylarks and corncrakes would be examples.
atb

[RJ_Daley]

The most extreme example I have seen with the notion of unplayable-unfindable rough next to firm and fast fairways was Carne at the Buda Cup, with a few more of the courses we played at various similar stages of too much unmaintained rough.  It was a matter of budget I was told.  Just not enough money to address the problem.  And, the new 9 at Carne was not even open on a consistent basis due to budget constraints.   I felt it was a catch-22 impossible equation where a wonderful designed, routed and exciting new 9 holes (even with quite wide fairways) is too much budget, probably due to too few customers willing to pay up for the experience of sleeves of lost balls and frustration after hitting the FW.  On firm and fast, sand based turf in fairways, the ball can land well within a reasonable margin on a fairway, and run on the ground as we love to be hopelessly lost two feet into the impossible rough.  That simply shouldn't happen.

Players want to hit shots, shape them, and strike the right distances.  They don't want to look for balls and have no chance of advancing more than a few yards if they find their balls in untenable rough.  I get the water retention of clay and sand characteristics as they relate to species and thickness of grasses.  I get seasonal high precip. promoting thick growth.  But, it seems to me, that a course operator should be prepared to mow out likely rough in play areas to a findable and variably playable condition as often as possible, for their own sake of keeping play moving efficiently, and giving a customer a fun - not frustrating day. 

[Sean_A]

The one real surprise I had during my recent trip to Scotland was the roughs were really light and not at all dense. Finding your ball in the rough was not a problem and in general you could play a full shot out even on really wild drives.

I understand this was in part due to very dry weather in the Spring and the time of year, late May.

However, there was one exception: Muirfield. We encountered heavy rough in some holes were the caddy said there was no chance even finding the ball, much less play out of it.  This was the case even really close to the fairways, with #2 being the worst. Clearly Muirfield has a different maintenance/course setup objective, even years away from Open play.

2/3 of the difference between Muirfield and the others is the soil.  Muirfield is a loamy sand, which retains more water so the grass grows thicker.  The other 1/3 is club culture -- they play a lot of alternate-shot matches [less looking for balls] and are not focused on keeping visitors happy, like the other courses you played, all of which make $$$$ from the overseas visitors.

Tom

I am calling you on this.  Muirfield has more than enough money to keep the rough in check. While I can understand if club culture dictates that sufficient funds won't be allocated to keep the rough under control, I ain't buying that matters are out of the club's control due to soil.  I dare say it is the same for practically all the big clubs without wildlife restrictions. 


Ciao

[Bill Brightly]

Mayday,


Picking up on what Mike said, the rough this year has been incredibly plush all over the Northeast I really don't think it is the height of the cut as much as it is the thickness of the plant.


I think the amount of light rainy days with not too  warm, not too cold temperature has been perfect for the rough this spring.


I've never seen the rough this plush at my home course in New Jersey. I bet it thins out in July-August.

[MClutterbuck]

Sometimes wildlife restrictions have a part to play.......birds that nest in long grass mean that in some places the grass can't be cut until mid/late summer. In the UK skylarks and corncrakes would be examples.
atb

I could bet that the particular spots of heavy rough we encountered were due to no cut the previous summer/fall. I don't think they had that much growth this season.

[MClutterbuck]

The one real surprise I had during my recent trip to Scotland was the roughs were really light and not at all dense. Finding your ball in the rough was not a problem and in general you could play a full shot out even on really wild drives.


I understand this was in part due to very dry weather in the Spring and the time of year, late May.


However, there was one exception: Muirfield. We encountered heavy rough in some holes were the caddy said there was no chance even finding the ball, much less play out of it.  This was the case even really close to the fairways, with #2 being the worst. Clearly Muirfield has a different maintenance/course setup objective, even years away from Open play.

2/3 of the difference between Muirfield and the others is the soil.  Muirfield is a loamy sand, which retains more water so the grass grows thicker.  The other 1/3 is club culture -- they play a lot of alternate-shot matches [less looking for balls] and are not focused on keeping visitors happy, like the other courses you played, all of which make $$$$ from the overseas visitors.

They kept us very happy even with that kind of rough!


The members did have us playing really fast in the PM with the foursomes. To your point, they don't even walk together. While 2 are hitting their drives, the other 2 are close to the landing area and can mark the balls immediately. I figured out in the afternoon why most holes have the paths cut in the middle of their roughs from tees, it is for members to walk safely to the landing zone while their partners are teeing off.


With respect to $$$$ from visitors, we made a quick calculation and I guess it is a TON of money for HCEG. On this particular Tuesday they had 108 players on the course out by 10am.

[mike_malone]

I agree that the roughs in the NE of the US are tough this spring. But Stonewall maintains it like this most of the season.
I just became frustrated now.


  The point is that courses that consistently maintain rough too penal lose their architectural value.


We played St. Enodoc last year after a rainy spring and a county tourney. It was impossible. We were so tired from slogging through the rough that we hated the course. 

[Mike_Young]

Just speaking for the South....OFTEN bermuda rough today at 2 inches is much different than bermuda rough at 2 inches 20 years ago.  If rough is fertilized at the same rate as the fairway and irrigated the same and then "primo" the same it can become so thick you can't hit the ball.   Rough can be long and playable but thick rough is a matter of how it is maintained...JMO