Rough in the approach area?

[Mark_Fine]

I was at a number of Tillinghast courses the other day including Fenway and noticed Gil has rough growing in the approach areas on #3 and #9.  I know he recommended it at holes like #1 at Rolling Green as well.  I understand why he advocates this but personally I don't like the concept.  I realize it may "be fairer" and "save balls from a worse fate" of running back down the fairway, but it all but eliminates the bump and run or a low sweeping recovery shot that needs closely mown turf to reach the green.  I would mow it to fairway height or in a worse case compromise, a first cut level.  

I should note that the slopes on the front of these greens are fairly steep.  

Any one have any thoughts on this?
Mark

[A_Clay_Man]

Mark- I doesn't sound any different than the standardized maintenance that allows for only one type of shot. Justifications of pace or playability for the lowest common, is sad.

Low mow the world as far as I'm concerned. Then I can decide on what shot is appropriate other than just a steep backswinging 60 degree.

[John Gosselin]

Mark...Gill drew or recommended ending the fairway and maintaining the would be approach as rough on the 1st hole at Rolling Green because that is how it appears on Flynn's original drawings. It was a feature he thought the club should consider bringing back.



 

[Rick Shefchik]

Here is a perfect opportunity to debate whether the Golden Age archies always had it right. If you find some dusty blueprints in the attic of your clubhouse and realize that your name architect wanted rough on the approach to an uphill green -- but you couldn't figure out why, exactly he wanted it that way, or how it would make the hole better -- would you revert to his intent anyway?

"Because Flynn said so" or "because Tillinghast liked it that way" strikes me as insufficient justification for the way you play your course today.

[TEPaul]

Rick:

I couldn't agree with you more regarding what you said about just following what you think some old architect appeared to do or recommend on a drawing or following what you think he was recommending when you have basically no idea why. Do what works best for the golf course and playability is what I say. All this stuff isn't that simple but it isn't rocket science either and just a little common sense with maintaining the function of various options and playabilities should be about all that's required to do the trick best!

Flynn, for instance, did a lot of seemingly odd things in some of his drawing and of course being a constant "iterator" with continuous hole drawings he just might have removed what someone saw on one on the next one.

On a long par 4 putting rough in the approach doesn't make a ton of common sense to me although on some very steep approaches that might have a false front green above it, I guess I can see the reasoning to some extent. Some of those old super steep approaches you see on some Flynn courses like Rolling Green's #4, #8, #11, #15 would be very hard to get a bump and run shot running into the green anyway. To pull off shots like that you'd basically have to hit the ball super low and get it on the ground way back and really scooting. I sure haven't seen many Americans who have that shot much less even capable of imagining it.

But Flynn had some pretty novel ideas he came up with for one reason or another many of which he probably never really pushed.

Another novel idea he had basically revolved around his fear that the ball was going to go too far and start obsoleting architecture. Amazingly, he seemed sort of freaked out about that back in the late 1920s and wrote as much in a USGA Green Section report back then.

One recommendation he had was to over-irrigate the drive landing area or the expected LZ to stop or slow down the ball but to maintain the approach to the green as firm!

I doubt many on this board, anyway, would agree with that recommendation of his to over-irrigate the LZs to stop or slow down the drive!

[Dan Kelly]

If you find some dusty blueprints in the attic of your clubhouse and realize that your name architect wanted rough on the approach to an uphill green -- but you couldn't figure out why, exactly he wanted it that way, or how it would make the hole better -- would you revert to his intent anyway?

No.

[A_Clay_Man]

We have a situation at Riverview on one of Baxter Spann's greens. There's a nose on the front right and when I tried to show Mario that the rough needed to be pulled back so the full glory of the nose could be optimized. He quickly came back that the rough lines were to the archie's specs. I asked Baxter and he seemed to consider the adding of suggested mow lines, to his final plan, was just that a suggestion. Believe me, on this short par five, the execution of playing that nose is imperative to holding the green from many more places and from many more people. The perfect example of how after the actual playing of hole (perhaps years) is likely different from what gets laid-out on paper and/or the ground.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Mark,
I think it's important to look at one facet of this, the recommendation is for one hole at one course and two holes at another.
I recently played a short par 4(9th at Sankaty) with an elevated and well bunkered green that had rough growing in the throat. For a long hitter trying to reach but who came up a bit short the grass would save a chip shot vs. a pitch. The shorter hitter didn't really need to avail himself of any run-up area as the approach shot really would need to be well lofted.
This hole is another example where the rough would also help a player who chunks his approach from distance.    

[Mark_Fine]

Having seen the drawings for Rolling Green, I realize Flynn had this feature in his plans.  I'll check, but I don't believe he incorporated such a feature on some of the other holes that Tom mentioned which have even more severe approaches.  I realize some of the reasons for it on number #1, e.g.  keeps balling from rolling back in the fairway, makes the green appear like an "island", makes the green appear more elevated then it is,... but I still don't care for the design concept.  

The same goes for the two approaches at Fenway.  I did not see the plans (if there even are any) from Tillinghast, but doubt he would have called for rough there.  And even if he did, I think the hole would look and play better without it.  
Again, maybe a first cut height would be a compromise.  

And as mentioned, these guys did often deviate from their drawings (those that did drawings) both in the field and from one set of drawings to the next.  It's hard to tell for sure what they actually ended up doing without having an aerial or pictures that was taken a few years after the course opened for play.  Some guys like Flynn, wouldn't even add any bunkers until after a period of time passed to see how the course was played.

But regardless of what these guys liked and/or recommended, I don't really care for rough in front of greens where a run up/low running recovery shot is possible (even if it is a very difficult shot to pull off).  

I assume most of you agree.

Mark

[Mark_Fine]

Jim,
I played the hole you are talking about at Sankaty Head.  If I remember correctly it is about 280 yards.  I'm not sure I like the rough there but I guess that is just personal preference.  I think there might be more options without it.  That course is often firm and fast and I like the option (even though it may be difficult) of a low run up shot.  Wouldn't a long running drive (most people can't carry the ball 280 in the air) have a better chance to get home in one?
Mark  

[mike_malone]

 Mark
   While that feature appears in Flynn's design for#1 RG,it was not built that way.He had a bunker on #13 that was not built either.I have no idea why it was not done.
     Hanse showed some courage placing it in the master plan;there is no way our members would go for it.There is no evidence of the same on any other holes at RG besides #16,the 130 yard(as designed) par 3
    Ron Forse thought that the steep #13 was intended to be fairway,but it is rough now and much like #9 HVCC.It is too steep for fairway.
  Our present #6 has rough in front but was intended to be fairway.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Mark,
With no rough, of course, but I don't think that shot is particularly playable on #9. I think the rough actually helps out more players than it hurts on this hole.

[Mark_Fine]

Mayday,
Its all very interesting and we may never know why those guys did what they did.  I hear you about the steepness of #13 but your #8 and #15 are pretty darn steep as well and they are fairway.  I'm guessing but those slopes could be 3 or 4 to 1 in spots.  Whatever they are, they're steep.

Jim,
You are right, the hole may be fairer or even easier with rough, but I'm not sure it is as interesting with rough.  Remeber it is only 280 yards.  
Mark

[DPL11]

I doubt it was original, but rough was grown in front of 2 greens at Manufacturers G&CC. The approach to #9 and the upper #18 green due to severe back to front slope. The upper 18th not only rolled off the front, but back to the 150 yard marker. Anyone who has played there knows what those greens are all about. The #9 green was altered by Forse in the last month after 47 1/2 years of debate.

[mike_malone]

 There has been much discussion about #15 ,#8 at Rolling Green relative to the height of grass in the 20's and that the ball was not likely to have rolled back down the hill then.But the way we maintain it now,it is inevitable.#13 is practically 90 degrees,so i can see why that is kept as rough and likely has always been.I wonder how #9 at Huntingdon Valley was originally.

     Mark
   
   I think RG is a good example of what you mean----as it was built.Only the severe slope of #13 and the forced carry on a 130 yard hole had rough in front of them.
   I wonder when we changed #6 to rough.It is on my list to change back.It should be a hole that you can bounce on.(Although i made a one by carrying it on--did i mention that?)