Maintaining the rough on a classic course

[Jeff Johnson]

We have just completed  a restoration project on at our course.  Intailed in the restoration was the removal of around 300 trees and the addition of 21 bunkers that were on the original design.  From the tips the course now extends to 6775 yards.  My question is how should our roughs be maintained?  With the removal of the trees the golf course has become what many have called "more playable" or some might say "easier".  

During the course of the project the architect talked about allowing the roughs to dry out and reduce inputs such as water and fertilizer.  I am now hearing talk about increasing fertility in the rough and use water to get the rough thick and lush, the direct opposite from what I thought our intentions were.

Any thoughts from others would be appreciated.

[Mark_Fine]

Course maintenance details should have been spelled out in the Master Plan along with hole by hole descriptions and explainations of design intent, etc.  Was the course restored or renovated?  

[A_Clay_Man]

Clearly you are right to question this wrong turn. The one dimensionality of long lush rough seems contrary to the facts you've presented as a restoration. I'd suggest that you convince them they can have long lush stuff anytime in the future, if indeed the course plays easier or they find the added bounce and roll to be mundanely exciting.

Is there a reason you've left off the name? Is the membership the kind that would be embarrassed to have  "off-color"turf? woo hoo

[rgkeller]

One of the problems with "restoration" is the one that you presented. No trees and no rough and orginal bunkers that will probably not be in play for modern golfers can lead to an awfully boring course.

There should be sufficient rough to impede the approach. The firmer the greens, the less rough is necessary, but difficulty is always in order.

[Joel_Stewart]

Maintaining seems like it would be an easy task.  The hard part at my club is establishing the rough lines.  Below is a photo showing the bunkers in the rough.

(For those familiar with this hole, you can see the recent clearing of trees behind the green).

[A_Clay_Man]

RG- You imply that it's more boring? I disagree. Boring to me is hitting the same shot hole after hole when missing the green or fairways.

Have you read Gib's immutable truth's? In it he states that the growing of rough is often done to detract from weaker design elements.

I'll ask once again, what course just finished a resto and is now 6775 yds?

Joel- Now if you get them to low mow the rough areas protecting the bunkers you might have something.

[Kelly_Blake_Moran]

Pepper,

If your architect has gotten you this far, and you are pleased with the work to date, you should listen to him.  Now that you have undergone a major change to the course, it may be time to settle back, play it, enjoy it, and then revisit any nagging issues regarding play, after you have become thoroughly familiar with your "new course".  You do not have to listen to other's opinions if you and your architect do not agree.  Apprarently the two of you, maybe with others, have developed a well thought out plan to get this far, don't waver, pesist with your vision.  Best Wishes.

Joel,  get that rough out of there! Fairway to bunker!

[Jeff Johnson]

This was a "RESTORATION" not a renovation.  It was at The Minikahda Club in Minneapolis.  6775 yds is all we can muster and that is all, so you should not be suprised at 6775. The course is land locked and we did a pretty good job getting that much.  Ron Prichard was the architect and did a wonderful job.  

The greens are firm as well as the fairways.  Fairway edges have been brought up to meet the bunkers with minimal rough in between.

I would prefer to see the roughs maintained firm and dry.  If a ball goes off the fairway let it roll into the rough or a fairway bunker.  With thick lush rough I do not see the ball making it far past the first cut of rough.

I am the golf course superintendent and I placed this post to get some input.  I do not know any of you from timbuktu but I thought it would be nice to get a different perspective from those of you on this sight.  

It is easy for people to loose sight of the original plan after it has taken place and I do not want to loose sight of it.  We are pleased with the way the restoration took place and we feel we really have something special.  My feeling is anyone can have a lush and thick rough, but if we could manage a firm and dry rough then we will have something a bit more special.

Thanks for you input,
Jeff Johnson    

[John_Lovito]

pepper,

At my home course we recently have gone through a similar scenario.  The course is in the process of being restored (about 75% done) and in conjuncture with the restoration the approach to maintaining rough had changed quite a bit.  Previously our set up was to have thick rough along the fairways and around the greens.  This has changed tremendously, we now have wider fairways and more chipping areas around the greens.  

I mention this because initially many members had similar concerns as your membership about the course playing easier after the restoration.  Now that we have had a couple of seasons under the new set-up, those concerns are no longer heard.  The vast majority of members appreciate how much more fun it is to be able to create shots and enjoy the increased importance on course management.  

The removal of trees to regain avenues of play and the recapturing of bunkers at your course sounds like a great improvement.  Thick rough could very well negate some, if not most, of the benefits realized from the restoration.

[A_Clay_Man]

John Lovito-Are you aware at how interesting those conclusions are?

Any attempt to diseminate this type of information can only help get rid of these freshman mistakes made by powers that think they are all that.

[Pat K]

IMHO the rough on an early american golf course should not be in the way of the game. There are always compromises to be made but in general it should be ouside the playing corridor. If it stops a ball from reaching a bunker then it's deminishing the hazard. In more instances than not heavy rough removes options from the game. It just puts the L wedge in the players hand which is pretty boring hole after hole. As the caretaker of the Essex County club I have been part of widening the fairways and short grass areas. Yes we do have some hay and sme heavy rough in the wet areas. In most instances the more room the ball has to roll the more trouble the player gets into. The farther the ball rolls off line the more interesting the recovery shot. As the ball reaches new areas areas shots have to be invented to get the ball close. As far as fertization is concerned, if an area gets a bit of traffic then it needs to be fed to keep it alive. And as always the ever important drainage is a major issue in determining the playibility. It's a trial an error process. good luck

[John_Lovito]

A Clay Man,

I’m convinced that the reliance on rough is purely a “macho” thing.  Members love to tell guests things like “you better stay out of the rough because it’s at least a stroke penalty.”  I use to here this at my club all of the time, heck I probably said it myself a thousand times.  Wider fairways in combination with firm and fast conditions add dimensions to the game that don’t exist with heavy rough and narrow fairways.

John

[Joel_Stewart]

In all fairness to the super, we have had a lot of rain in San Francisco and they haven't been able to mow the rough properly.  This picture was taken a few days ago.

[Jeff Johnson]

Pat,
Thanks for chiming in.  I have seen your course and talked to you in the past.  I have heard you speak at the restoration conference in Williamsburg as well.  I know convincing our members about changes can be difficult.  They have done there job by going through with the restoration, now it is my job to bring the course to the condition dememd by Ron.

Jeff

[Craig Disher]

Even though this thread is about the maintenance of the rough - what about its placement? If rough was intended to be less important as a hazard on classic courses, shouldn't a true restoration be faithful to the much wider fairways intended by the architects? Thanks to the Pine Needles thread, I superimposed Fought's restoration plan for the 1st hole over a 1930s aerial view. He's pushed the treeline back to where it was originally but look at the fairway. It's much narrower than what Ross intended (e.g note Ross's fairway just below the large bunker right of the green) . In this case, maybe the narrow fairway is needed to keep the hole challenging - but is it a true restoration?



I think that on a classic course, the rough should mean inconsistency - the likelihood of an uncertain lie as the penalty. If the condition of the rough is consistent, the penalty is consistent. Maybe that's ok, but was that the intent of the classic architects?

[Jeff Johnson]

I would concur with your last statement Craig.  My feeling is the rough should be inconsistent.  The constant is then that the rough is consistently changing based on natures inputs not artifical inputs.  Tricking up the rough and making it gimicky takes away from how the course was designed to play.  Place more of a premium on firmness of greens, hole location and green surrounds and bunkers.

Jeff

[Mark_Fine]

Craig,
Nice post.  Unfortunately, to a better player, a wide fairway means an easier golf course almost regardless of what you do in the rough areas.  One of the key questions that needs to be studied/answered as far as I am concerned, is does the course benefit strategically from the added width?  Was it designed to play along the edges as many of the best designed classic courses were?  If the angles created by the width ofter advantages, then it should definitely be restored.  If not, you are going to have a much tougher arguement to get clubs to add the extra fairway in a restoration.
Mark  

[Kelly_Blake_Moran]

Craig,

It may be that the fairway restoration is the next phase.  I mean it is a big name architect, and you can't go wrong hiring the big names, no? Maybe you know more detail and in fact this is not true.  

While the angles is one way to judge fairway width, sometimes wider fairways actually can bounce and roll you into trouble, so the intent of added fairway does not have to be for preferred angle, but rather fairway becomes a hazard.  Despite the enormous fairway widths in places at NGLA it is most enjoyable, maybe it is easy for a good player, but I found it enjoyable, and I found the fairways to cause more problems than if the area were rough.  Look at your example.  If fairway were restored up tot he bunker it is possible the wayward shot would be carried into the bunker, or off to the right where it appears the terrain could be tough.  Possibly there is a preferred angle from this area therefore if someone is playing to this area for the best angle into a pin they must be careful, a careless shot could roll them into trouble.  But it does not just have to be a preferred angle to justify fairway, fairway can be placed as a hazard, or as the conveyance to a hazard or unsuitable terrian in terms of sloping lies, or srathcy, rough terrain making for bad lies

A well designed irrigation system, proper turf grass selection, and the rough can be real, unpredictable rough.  Rustic, clumpy, dirt , all of these varying and unpredictable conditions can be attained if properly planned for.

[Mark_Fine]

Kelly,
I very much agree with you and argue those points often.  However, if there is no real reason to play along the edges of a wide fairway, the arguement loses some merit particularly with the better players.  They will simply play up the middle.  Unfortunately, very few courses will allow their fairways to play as firm and fast as we would like to have them.  I guess they figure if they spent $1MM on the irrigation system, they better use it.
Mark