[RJ_Daley]

Is it time for the turf grass industry to turn more focus and attention to the rough?

We see plenty of high end cutting edge research on the fairway and greens species and cultivars.  We see research that is so sophisticated as to manipulate the genetics of the plants to yield more density of putting surface turf, more disease resistance, wider tolerances of nutrient/water quality uptake, etc.  But, have the white coated, plastic pocket protector, electron microscope wielding, turf techies forgotten about the roughs?

I think the discussion and comments on Bandon Trails is the perfect example.  The observations by Mike C and some others about the unrecoveralbe, unfindable, abyss of matted native grasses and undergrowth only inches to feet off the intended playing surfaces mowed lines is right on target.  There we see a wonderfully interesting and exciting golf course presenting amazing shaped and naturally sculpted fairways, greens and surrounds, yet 4 out of 4 errant shots into the native yielding the ramifications of lost or unrecoverable, slow play inducing torture.

Native rough maintained at ideal consistency of penal yet playable, is rare.  Can the local ordinances allow for burning?  Most likely not so in the majority of locales.  Can the club or golf course operators find a herbicide or retarder chemical solution that is allowed or cost effiecent?  So far, that doesn't seem to be the case.  

Cuscowilla had several areas where one can compare the early opening time period photos with what is now the status of most of the native areas.  The rough - native in the begining was undergrown and playable, and now is nearly impossible and slow play promoting.

How do we tamp down the growth yet maintain the look and semi playability of a rough that incurs penalty without the death sentence for the slightly off line duff?   Where are all the turf scientists?

[TEPaul]

RJ;

With all due respect to you because I have real respect for you and your opinion, I think that's one of the worst ideas I've ever heard of.

I put a post to Mike Cirba to the same effect on that other thread that you said inspired this one.

I do understand what you're saying about some of the problems with public golf and public golfers and slow play issues and such due to lost balls but don't you think at least one time or in one place at least we could agree that it's a good thing---no, probably a great thing to let public golf and public golfers experience what some of the world's really great courses are like and play like? Does golf architecture really have to dumb everything down totally because the course is labeled "public"?

I wouldn't ever advocate it everywhere for public golf because clearly it wouldn't make sense but in the case of a complex like Bandon just give it to them.

Leave that natural rough and rough areas as it is---don't groom, manage it or clean it up in the slightest. If the public golfers who play the Bandon courses don't like it because it's torture and slows play to a crawl then they wouldn't come there, would they?

But they are coming there and I have no doubt they'll continue to. I say leave those courses as they are. Give the public sector some of the vast difference the private sector has always had---and that's precisely what the Bandon complex of courses is doing!

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom;

My comments about Bandon Trails would be the same if the course were public or private.  I brought up the resort aspect simply to point out the pace of play issues that might result, but if BT were private I'd have the same issues.

Locally, you'd have to admit that the hay got a bit out of hand on the original course at Stonewall, and even when Pine Valley had the completely natural look, it took a good degree of maintenance to keep it that way, as odd as that sounds.

There's a fine line between the type of rough that one finds at Maidstone, or Muirfield, for instance, where the ball is almost always findable and playable, versus Prairie Dunes in mid summer where it's not even worth looking for.

I think that's the distinction that RJ is trying to point out as well, and I think that Michael Hurdzan has written somewhat brilliantly on the very same issue.  

[RJ_Daley]

but don't you think at least one time or in one place at least we could agree that it's a good thing---no, probably a great thing to let public golf and public golfers experience what some of the world's really great courses are like and play like? Does golf architecture really have to dumb everything down totally because the course is labeled "public"?

Tom, I'm going to saw myself right off the limb here and say that I think that Sand Hills, and my darling Wild Horse would not be AS highly loved by those who play if they found the same rough conditions as "appear" in photos to be the case at Bandon Trails.  Wild Horse burns twice a year!!!  They get more rain than Sand Hills, and have more irrigation drift and fert runoff to low native areas than Sand Hills.  If Josh didn't manage the rough with burning (and what ever else he does) it would not be quite so desirable IMHO.

Lawsonia restoration brought native areas more into play with thinning of trees there.  At a minimum, the bring in a hay mower and bailor to cut and thin key areas of rough.  I don't know what Mr Lucas may or may not be doing at Kingsley Club.  But, I suspect it may be a consideration to do something there from time to time.

I'm not the world traveller I'd like to be, and haven't first hand experienced the great courses of GB&I and OZ, but it is my understanding from viewing TV events That for whatever management and natural condition reasons, the roughs are inconsistent with plenty of areas of findable yet reasonable penal recovery.  That is the line of demarcation for me.  It isn't really a dumbing down at all.  The contours, bunker placements and severity, and stategic placement of all that is still the heart of the design, not the dead end nature of super-rough.

One last thing... the courses at Pacific Dunes and Bandon Dunes have been open.  Whereas, Bandon Trails has not.  Pac and Bandon have had their roughs accepted by the customers.  But(from the limitted look at the pictures) the Trails course may be a more severe rough situation than the other two, and the jury is still out as to what the customers may think of that.

[TEPaul]

"Locally, you'd have to admit that the hay got a bit out of hand on the original course at Stonewall, and even when Pine Valley had the completely natural look, it took a good degree of maintenance to keep it that way, as odd as that sounds."

MikeC:

Believe me when I say this that the hay at Stonewall was or still is about 500--1000% more penal than what I'm looking at in those photos of BT. I played in some state tournaments out there and officiated the last State Open there a couple of years ago. Even with about 10 spotters and two way radios right on top of balls that were wild it was about 50/50 we could find them for the players even if we saw exactly where they went. The same was true at Applebrook in the Patterson Cup two years ago. I've been around enough and long enough to tell from those photos of BT it's not anywhere near as bad as those two.

If slowness and timing are really the issue here the solution is not a matter of reducing the amount of lost balls by grooming and dumbing down penal rough areas it's more a matter of golfers understanding the rules well enough to automatically play a provisional in case of doubt. We run very large fields in GAP events on some pretty dangerous courses and the players are all aware of this procedure as it's always part of their "rules of competition sheets" and they all get the same verbal briefiing to that effect on the first tee. Public courses can do the very same thing we do!

PVGC is very different this way. I've been playing down there in tournaments for decades and the unbelievable thing is the amount of actual lost balls on that course is really low. Part of that is how the caddies work and the other part is although the off-fairways are very penal for recovery shots finding the ball is never a real problem probably because PVGC has managed and maintained the course's understory for decades.

[TEPaul]

"But(from the limitted look at the pictures) the Trails course may be a more severe rough situation than the other two, and the jury is still out as to what the customers may think of that."

RJ:

As I said, just let's see what happens before determining that question but BT doesn't look that bad or that much different than the other two to me. Burning out the rough areas annually? I don't know about that. That would be a question for the architects or a really good agronomist. What's out in the roughs at BT may be nothing like what's out in the roughs and SH or Wild Horse. If they torched the rough areas of BT who knows what it would look like next year. I live on a farm and I know what torching fields of grass is all about but I wouldn't advocate just torching anything growing.

[RJ_Daley]

Tom, BT can't be torched.  With the pine forest nearby and right outside of the native areas, that is NOT a solution, obviously.   But, it pretty much needs to be done at Wild Horse.  

Playing the provisional is also an obvious response.  So, everytime you have the blind to semi-blind shot at BT or anywhere else where you might have gone into the unfindable-umplayable hay, tee a second and hit it to where it isn't blind, right?  After you have that situation 3-6 times a round, what will your "rating" be of that course?  What will the players behind you say when you first go see in the blind area if you are OK or lost then go to the presumably safe non-blind, probably extra shot "lay-up" situation.  They will love it, I'm sure, and they will have nothing but kind words for the course and their desire to return will rise greatly.

An understory of pine needles and an understory of thick and matted blue grasses, fescues and mish mash are two very different things.

Perhaps, we have stumbled into a maintenance meld solution as I write and ponder this...  When a golf course with native is being grown in, is there a rough "understory" material of something like pine needles or a waste product available to "spread" throughout the rough areas that would allow for tall wispy yet hazard grasses to exact their appropriate measure of penality, without exacting the death penalty?  

I just continue to maintain that you can't execute the duff or low handicapper too many times before they get turned off and turn away.  

[TEPaul]

"Playing the provisional is also an obvious response.  So, everytime you have the blind to semi-blind shot at BT or anywhere else where you might have gone into the unfindable-umplayable hay, tee a second and hit it to where it isn't blind, right?  After you have that situation 3-6 times a round, what will your "rating" be of that course?  What will the players behind you say when you first go see in the blind area if you are OK or lost then go to the presumably safe non-blind, probably extra shot "lay-up" situation.  They will love it, I'm sure, and they will have nothing but kind words for the course and their desire to return will rise greatly."

RJ:

In my opinion, playing a provisional ball is an obvious response because it's the correct response. That's the way golf is supposed to be played in case of a lost or OB ball. "What will their "rating" of the course be?" Do you mean raters? I hate raters and rating so I couldn't care less what they think. What will the players behind you say? I hope they'll say what most any player should say when someone in front of him loses a ball and uses the proper procedure for a lost ball.  

"An understory of pine needles and an understory of thick and matted blue grasses, fescues and mish mash are two very different things."

PVGC is not naturally an understory of pine needles. If they didn't manage the penal areas they'd have a mat of ground cover down there people would have a hard time walking through plus it would probably create vines that would begin to wreck the trees and create an impenetrable jungle. That's the way it is on my side of the river anyway.

"Perhaps, we have stumbled into a maintenance meld solution as I write and ponder this...  When a golf course with native is being grown in, is there a rough "understory" material of something like pine needles or a waste product available to "spread" throughout the rough areas that would allow for tall wispy yet hazard grasses to exact their appropriate measure of penality, without exacting the death penalty?"

I really don't know what that question means.  

"I just continue to maintain that you can't execute the duff or low handicapper too many times before they get turned off and turn away."

Athough that sounds sort of over dramatic to me I realize what you're trying to maintain here but the fact is there're courses all over the world including the States and particularly in Europe that have rough areas that're every bit as penal as those photos of BT and somehow all these centuries golfers seem not to have been turned off and turned away.

But who the hell knows, I'm not that big a public golf course player so these days maybe the public sector are into something altogether different that needs to be completely dumbed down in various ways. As I said before, maybe almost all public courses should both design and maintain to try to guard against any public player losing his golf ball but I have to think there're enough public players out there who'd enjoy one public golf complex that isn't that way. They just might have one at Bandon Dunes.

So let's just wait and see if it becomes a problem and if not my suggestion is to leave BT the way it is.  

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom;

I'm not sure why you insist that this is a public vs private course issue.  My lord, I've played some public courses that were so tight, penal, and unforgiving that I needed a shag bag before I got through it.  By contrast, I find that many private clubs seems much more in tune to the issue of clearing appropriate playing areas to minimize the potential for lost balls.  There are a number of differing reasons accounting for that fact, but it's the truth.  

Golfers who go to Bandon aren't your garden variety public course player, by and large, anyway.  I don't think many people venture to that obscure corner of the country without at least some abiding interest in course architecture and great golf.  So, we agree that this should be given some time and I hope to get out there to see for myself before too long.

[TEPaul]

"Tom;
I'm not sure why you insist that this is a public vs private course issue."

MikeC:

I'm not insisting anything of the kind---quite the opposite in fact. Every time I hear the penal card dealt on here someone mentions you can't do things like that on public courses without creating a death march or morbid discontent where no one is willing to come back! I've just never believed that. I don't think public golfers are much different than private golfers or any other golfers and if they are they shouldn't be.

I've seen a ton of private courses for years that're every bit as penal in their rough areas as BT appears to be and I don't see those course's membership revolting and walking away as some on here suggest public golfers will under similar circumstances.

So I don't really see the difference---I'm not insisting that this is or should be a private vs public issue at all--again, just the opposite---they're all just golfers to me, or they should be and they should act like it.

It's probably a provable fact that both public and private golfers lose a ton more golf balls on these modern golf courses both public and private that have water everywhere.

I admit that the rules are different for balls lost in water hazards vs balls lost or OB---the latter has far more of the 5 minute search option in effect but, hey, that's been a rule in golf for practically ever---it's just something that all golfers including those ones in the group behind ought to learn to deal with without freaking out or they just ought to take up tennis, in my opinion!

[Don_Mahaffey]

RJ,
Concerning Bandon, I think it may be a little early to condemn the rough at BT. I played BD and PD in the last six weeks and had no problem finding my ball or my partners in the rough. It framed the holes nicely but was thin and wispy and easy to find and advance balls out of.

BT is not even open yet and more then likely the rough there has been irrigated and fertilized to grow in. Once it matures I'm guessing the water and nutrients will be held to a minimum and I'm guessing it will become similar to the rough at the other courses at Bandon.

There actually is quite a bit of research on turf grown at rough height. Dr. Kopec at the Univ. of Arizona has done extensive research on native salt grass (disticulas sp?) that could be used in warm arid areas. Other grasses are being bred to form a decent rough turf with little water and fert inputs. All this research is being done in an effort to make golf turf more sustainable on fewer inputs. The problem I see is not with the turf research but with the golfing public. Lush green grass is what the golfing public equates with nice high end conditions. Educating the average golfer that thinner, lean turf in the rough is better for the game is the challenge, not producing or managing the turf, IMO.

[tonyt]

I brought up the resort aspect simply to point out the pace of play issues that might result

Without referring to BD or this single post here 'cos my post is a tad OT, I would say (with apologies Mike), that I wince at the occasional mention of pace of play issues that instead of addressing pace of play, merely change the pace without any knowledge or effort on the part of the golfer.

In some cases they are clever, but a slow player who doesn't know he is being hurried along is still a slow player. The American mammal needs to be tought to play at a particular pace, be the course a simple and well cleared muni or the formerly less neatened Pine Valley.

More to the point in this thread, I would rather Bill & Ben do their thing. And if after some play an issue becomes apparent, possibly raise it then. The assumptions here are too automatic, and therefore have an effect somewhat like a Ward Checklist, which fails the possibility of a case by case analysis.

[Donnie Beck]

Don,

 You took the words right out of my mouth.. The biggest problem I see with native roughs is too much water and fertility. Turn off the water and Mother Nature pretty much takes care of itself.

[TEPaul]

Don and Donnie: (that sounds like a 1950s rock duo)

I couldn't agree more. When it comes to rough areas the best policy is probably to do as little as possible--just let Mother Nature do what she's been doing before even I was born! Someone on here mentioned the idea of "groomed rough". I dunno, somehow that sounds to me like a contradiction in terms.

[Craig Sweet]

I always figured the best solution was to keep the ball out of the rough.

Unfortuately today's golfer wants to hit the ball a mile on every hole,so they hit their titanium drivers, and they take a huge swing, and then they whine when they can't keep it in play.

Maybe courses like BT will bring back a more thoughtful and strategic approach to the game?

[Craig Sweet]

I don't think the problem is too much water and fertilizers. I don't know too many supers that do any more watering and fertilizing than they absolutely need to do.

My experience has been a tendency to over seed with native grasses during grow in and for the first few years the native rough is thicker than it will become with time and natural thinning.

[G_Tiska]

Graig,
I agree 100%.. seeding rates on fescue [native] areas are very important. More seed is not better
Many native areas I've seeded were at 65lbs per acre.
Most important after grass is estiblished turn the water and fertilizer OFF!!!!!!!!

[Joe Hancock]

Our target rate at The Mines GC, in Grand Rapids, Mi was 20 #/ acre of Fine Fescue blend with 5#/ acre of Little Bluestem. Also, we specified varieties of FF that weren't necessarily the most genetically engineered for disease resistance, as natural selection seems to be an important element to making these "natural" areas function well as an area of play on the golf course.

Hope this helps,

Joe

[A_Clay_Man]

Here in the land of... Narrow irrigation corridors combined with the undulating terrain, causes some areas on the periphria of play to over grow with weeds ..ahh... I mean native plants. Typically, the surrounds provides a randomness to the scrubbrush, but in certain key spots, gravities pull works on the water as well as the balls being golfed. These areas should be thinned on occasion, or the water producing them should somehow be recycled for elsewhere.

[Marc Haring]

I have done a couple of trial plots where we removed the topsoil from areas and overseeded with fescue. The results have been very impressive, thin wispy fescue with an open growth habit and so I wonder if the answer for new builds would be to limit the amount of topsoil redistributed on the rough areas following shaping.

[ForkaB]

I have done a couple of trial plots where we removed the topsoil from areas and overseeded with fescue. The results have been very impressive, thin wispy fescue with an open growth habit and so I wonder if the answer for new builds would be to limit the amount of topsoil redistributed on the rough areas following shaping.

Great idea, Marc!

For those with short memories, Tom Doak's thread from a few weeks ago about Colt's observation on the need for width on inland (i.e. topsoil rich) courses, implied the very same thing.

I wonder, do high profile courses like  BT, grow in their rough early on the get "the Look" or is there an honestly agronomical resaon for this?  Anybody who knows, let me know.

Dick

Great thread.  IMHO there is nothing less conducive to the enjoyment of the game of golf (at any level of competence or interest) than heavy rough.  I wonder why the powers that be in the US seem to have been promoting such a nefarious concept for so long.  Has it been indifference or ignorance, or maybe just a combination of the two?

[TEPaul]

Marc:

That is a great idea about limiting topsoil in proposed fescue areas. It seems to me plenty of mistakes have been made recently on courses, particularly on restorations, by otherwise excellent architects who let fescue get too aggressive probably by doing to much with it. They tell me that it takes 2-3 years to get fescue to be ideal by getting it to be thin and wispy but it seems too many have over-encouraged and over-managed it. To me the area between Maidstone's #13 and #15 is ideal. The fescue is high but thin and wispy enough to quite easily find and somehow play your ball.

[ForkaB]

Tom

Thanks for agreeing with me, yet again!  I'm very proud of your progress in trying to understand GCA.

If you were not such an infuriatingly accurate golfer, you might have noticed in your few fleeting visits to Europe, that most rough over here is "thin and wispy", and always has been (with some notable excpetions).

Any chance of selling "thin and wispy" to those "fat and gnarly" proponents at GAP or the USGA?

Cheers!

[Marc Haring]

As there was interest in the concept of limiting topsoil to rough grassland areas, here are a couple of pictures showing where the topsoil has been stripped and seeded with fescue.

This illustrates the difference between topsoiled plots and the area where the topsoil has been stripped. It is about 2 ½ years old.


This shows a close up of the area. It is cut just once a year and provides an ideal long rough situation where the ball is easy to find but a penalty of escape is incurred.

[RJ_Daley]

Thank you Marc for the illustration of your experimenting with an idea to manage rough areas.  That sort of effort to experiment with a slightly to radically different approach is EXACTLY what I had been trying to draw out of the discussion.  I think that both the industry of seed producers, to turf managers like yourself, turf research stations like the OJ Noer Center, and architects specifying how rough areas are to be seeded and treated, all could think out of the box a little and try some things.  Good on you for the effort.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()