Do we classicists give knee-high, native roughs a free ride?
Yes, we all love the look of the fescues and native grasses and plants blowing in the wind, with their myriad of colors and textures. It all looks sooo terrific, that is, until one's ball starts hop, hop, hopping it's way into the "gunsch".
Muirfield had it to a great degree, and it led to one of the most unusual finishes when Gary Evans actually lost a ball in the stuff off the 17th green, which might have been disastrous to his round (stroke and distance) had he not recovered miraculously.
But, it also reared it's head at Bethpage for the men, and Prairie Dunes for the women. It's become such an "in" thing that courses that never had it are growing it, such as Aronimink (off 10) and Merion (i.e a recent poster's complaint of playing "Merion by the Sea").
So, I ask, what is different inherently about that deep, inpenetrable, lose the ball in it gunsch as opposed to thick, uncleared woods, or even water hazards lining each fairway?
If it's thin enough to find your ball and have half a chance of gouging it forward or sideways, or possibly catching a decent lie and being able to play a shot, that isn't quite so bad. However, more and more I'm seeing stuff that you could lose your golf bag in, and I haven't heard a soul here decry the trend.
I love penal hazards, but stroke and distance for lost balls that stray from fairways gets to be a bit much.
What do you all think?