Do "restoration" specialists get a pass?

[corey miller]

On mowing heights for the non-fairway "rough" areas?


I know some (like me) tout the greens expansions and tree removal and improved mowing lines but why is there never a discussion of the height of rough which in many places is more important to playability/enjoyment than the previously mentioned items?


Am I supposed to admire parkland tree removal when in many places it just allows the course to have healthier and higher and more penal rough? 


It just feels that the sad secret is that architects are afraid (believe me I know the politics) of mentioning the dirty secret and offering an opinion?


I am most familiar with NYC Metro area golf where there have been many fine restorative works, Are there architects in this area that have made specific recommendations as part of their restoration efforts?  Anywhere?


Just wondering as we move to an era where we will need wall to wall irrigation not for increased short grass but for higher more penal rough. 

[Tom_Doak]

There are a lot of areas where restoration projects get a free pass.  Overpaying and playing fast and loose with the historical details of the course are by far the two biggest issues.


As to all the new native rough areas, for me they are more a speed of play / frustration issue than an irrigation issue.  Where are you based that designers are irrigating "native" roughs?  That's not a factor where I live - indeed, the reason to let the rough grow is partly that you'd have to water it more and spend more $ maintaining it if you mowed it regularly.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Corey, I think we are already in the "more rough irrigation" era.  Some studies have shown modern irrigation components to be up to 23% more water efficient, but it gets offset by a lot of courses adding at least that much in irrigated acreage, or adding to water need by sand capping fw…...


I know that wasn't your main question.  In my master plans, I recommend mown roughs just high enough to differentiate them from the fw.  I'm not familiar with any grasses that can't be mowed somewhere near 1.5-2", or any reason other than conscious decision to go to 4" and I know the minute I leave, they can cut the grass anyway they please.


In the restoration mode, philosophically, do we know how high the roughs were in each decade?  For tournaments (on famous course) or everyday play?  Was the limiting factor mowing equipment of the day or did anyone recommend a certain height way back when?  Are you accounting for the week of rain that makes it grow and then impossible to cut for a while?


It seems like something like mowed rough height, which can be easily changed, and probably often was, should be governed by what the existing members would like, doesn't it?  Would be hard to reach a consensus I guess.  Most members want it to go from benign to difficult about five yards further than they hit their longest drive

[corey miller]

Thanks guys for both being so generous with your ideas and time.


I live in the NYC Metro area and i continually tout the great restoration work done here. That said, I am having a hard time understanding four inch rough (and irrigating it) in the context of a restoration.


And I do disagree on the notion that we go with what “members like” as an architect. I know that may be the reality but that is part of my question. Why the sell out? 


It seems a major thing to “bend” on when we are changing mowing lines two feet to incorporate a bunker or expanding a green pad six inches.


Why can’t an  architect say what height the rough (I don’t think I mentioned native rough) should be when doing a restoration ? Why does all this “research” suddenly become irrelevant ?

I will also concede that I am using the term “restoration “ very loosely but do admire that at least you give them a guideline Jeff.

[Joe Hancock]

Corey,


This is tough to avoid the juvenile humor when writing this, but all “4 inches” aren’t the same. If the rough was mostly fine fescue, growing at the whims of nature rather than under the hand of man, then you would find 4 inches acceptable. But, and to your point, almost any type of turfgrass which is mown high while being fertilized, watered and striped for aesthetics is going to be a pain to golf from. In Westchester County, the common regime there ought to limit rough heights to something far less than 3 inches, if we’re trying to create enjoyability.

[Peter Pallotta]

Joe -
your post and reference to 'enjoy-ability' brings to mind a question: I wonder if sometimes a restoration/renovation sacrifices some pleasure in the playing (hitting out of shorter rough) for some pleasure in the viewing (the aesthetics of striped rough).  I wonder if a calculation isn't sometimes made, i.e. deciding if the leading/influential members will be pleased enough by how their course looks (especially to outsiders and prospective new members ) that they will overlook & not grumble too much about how the course plays-- especially how it plays for the 'weaker' members among them.
P           

[Tom_Doak]

I live in the NYC Metro area and i continually tout the great restoration work done here. That said, I am having a hard time understanding four inch rough (and irrigating it) in the context of a restoration.

And I do disagree on the notion that we go with what “members like” as an architect. I know that may be the reality but that is part of my question. Why the sell out? 

It seems a major thing to “bend” on when we are changing mowing lines two feet to incorporate a bunker or expanding a green pad six inches.

Why can’t an  architect say what height the rough (I don’t think I mentioned native rough) should be when doing a restoration ? Why does all this “research” suddenly become irrelevant ?

I will also concede that I am using the term “restoration “ very loosely but do admire that at least you give them a guideline Jeff.

Your note on the mowing lines and green pads is funny.  I am constantly amazed how precise we have to be in flagging lines now.  You can be 100% sure those ODG architects did not flag the fairways that way.


As to rough heights, in my experience the green committee often makes the primary rough higher than they should on re-opening, to fend off criticisms that the course has become "easier" as a result of tree removal.  God forbid the course rating should go down 0.2 !


At Crystal Downs, I have recommended the opposite approach to all of this -- keep the rough short, so that it doesn't matter much whether you are in the fairway or the first cut, instead of widening the fairways.  It will save $$ and hopefully keep my dues down, compared to widening the fairways to where they used to gang-mow everything at 3/4 inch [and then spraying them frequently].

[Kalen Braley]

I've played a fair amount of courses in the inland and mostly dry areas of the west that have implemented more or less what Joe describes in his post.


Non-irrigated areas beyond the rough, that yes can be a bit thick and nasty in the spring when it gets rain.  But soon enough without watering or fertlizing, dries out in early summer to become both whispy and very manageable for the rest of the year.

[corey miller]

Thank you for an answer Joe!!!!!


You and Mike D have succeeded on the "enjoyability" as Sunningdale.  I had your great work in mind while contrasting the mindset that seems to be in vogue at other places in the county.


I know Winged Foot West has forever been the "best" course in Westchester, so all others may as well cede the title but so many more could match/exceed Winged Foot West on "enjoyability" were they not so worried about being like Winged Foot.  And recently, after all the restoration work in the county, it looks like "being like Winged Foot" means WFW rough.


That said...I understand the "common regime" but do you guys work with clubs and Supers to help them understand the height that best highlights the superior work?


It is bad enough a architect has to deal with wrong-headed ideas from committees the moment they leave the property but does rough height need to be memorialized in these working document?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Does anyone remember the phrase, "4 Iron Rough?" (i.e., rough where 4 iron the longest club you can hit out of it)  I heard it around Chicago when I first got in the biz, and it was debated as sort of out of date then.  It certainly precluded short hitters or muffs from reaching the green from their max distance, so in a way, was at least intended as "proportional punishment." 


I guess in that theoretically perfect idea, carried too far, short holes would get even higher rough than medium or long holes (i.e. 7 iron rough on short par 4 holes?)


In general, I would say roughs have gotten shorter over the decades, again trying to move short hitters and wild drivers along in their pace of play (with rough deep enough to cause lost balls or extensive searches now verboten)  But, as in the WF example, there will always be a few courses who want to be known as difficult and they can mow it longer if they please.


As an architect, I don't really care that much.  Good players can generally be affected by reduced spin (forgetting top tour pros and their 130 MPH swings) by 1.5-2"" rough, which allows lesser players to find their ball and hit it (which is always fun golf) advancing it at least most of the way to the green.


Just MHO.

[Adam Clayman]

Corey, I asked a name archie once Why the "weschester Co. look" ? The response was so depressing, he said, he liked the texture. Zero thought to creative, delicate shotmaking around the greens. And I called out a picture on FB book once, because what looked like newer grass surrounds looked out of place with the rest of the landscape.  Not knowing it, who'd done resto work. Oh boy, did get a good ass chewing for being ignorant. That tends to suppress real discussions and then the glad handing access seeking ass kissing really begins.

[JMEvensky]

As an architect, I don't really care that much.  Good players can generally be affected by reduced spin (forgetting top tour pros and their 130 MPH swings) by 1.5-2"" rough, which allows lesser players to find their ball and hit it (which is always fun golf) advancing it at least most of the way to the green.


Just MHO.

Playing in the South with Bermuda rough and greens, I've always wondered why anyone would want rough higher than 1 1/2" - 2". If the greens are kept firm, something pretty easy to do, controlling any shot from the rough is difficult for a good player--the fear of a flyer is always in your mind.


Bermuda rough should be pretty easy to maintain at a height which gives good players fits and everyone else the opportunity to make solid enough contact to advance the ball.

[Jeff_Brauer]

In Bermuda territory, I have actually always preferred some of the improved common varieties as they aren't as dense as 419 (and newer) varieties.  Also, cheaper and give some color contrast.  That said, most supers don't want common Bermuda planted anywhere on their golf course, certainly not intentionally, since it tracks into other grasses, ruining their genetic purity.


Way back when, we used to seed even fw with common, then sprig with 419, especially in flood areas to get quick germination, and knowing in ten years time the 419 would choke the common out.  Now, we have to spec grasses to be perfect day one.