[Mike_Young]

I and Bob Crosby(another GCA poster ) were in a meeting last week discussing a course to which we belong (Athens Country Club, 1926 Ross)and the discussion of rough came up.  So I am posting to gain some different opinions.

Here is mine.  Rough was meant in most cases to extract 1/2 shot penalty but still let you advance the ball.  In the early part of the American golf scene rough was not watered and therefore it might be long but not thick. Or as is the case in the south ; I have found that 2" bermuda is much tougher to recover from than a 4" cool season grass.  And recently with the emergence of products such as Primo and other growth retardents the 2"rough of today is twice as thick as the 2" rough of 10 years ago.  Based on my above ramblings I conclude that with Ross wanting to defend par at the greens; then a modern WATERED, FERTILIZED rough of 1.25 inches (Bermuda grass) should suffice. I have watched some of the older members and ladies not be able to advance from the present rough yet many think that this has made our course a better course. Please give me some opinions.

[Tom_Doak]

Mike,

I think the appropriate height of rough depends on a lot of things, most importantly grass type and fairway width.  The wider the fairways, the more appropriate it is to have more penal rough.

But as to your direct question, rough is TOO rough when you have any trouble finding your ball.

[Gib_Papazian]

Excellent topic!

I have some stong opinions about rough. Generally, it hurts the weaker golfer disproportionally. There is nothing more mind-numbing than having to chop a ballout of the cabbage with zero hope of reaching the target.

An inch or so - just enough to take the spin off the ball is quite enough. That way, a clever player can manufacture a shot along the ground and try to sneak it up onto the putting surface.

Otherwise, it become a strength move and further encourages the aerial game at the expense of recovery shots.

NGLA has almost no rough these days, thanks to Karl Olson cutting it back and letting the basic architecture and geometric arrangements speak for themselves.

Deep grass - unless you are trying to stifle players of the highest class - is nothing more than a crutch to hide thoughtless design.

Given the choice, I would opt for no rough at all on a golf course if possible. That requires clever planning, but my question is still the same:

"How does deep grass enhance the architecture of a golf course?"

It doesn't in the vast majority of cases.  

[RJ_Daley]

The maintenance approach to rough can make or break a course design integrity.  A case in point that I experienced at Bayside in Ogallala last week.  This is a new grow-in effort on the back 9 holes and the area has high winds most of the time, spraying irrigation water patterns, often far afield into rough areas.  The natural native is a nice sparse sandy prairie grass and sage base with some small gravelly areas where the prairie starts to become more of the high plains plateau found further on in Colarado and Wyoming.  That sparsity is most desirable for rough because it allows the 1/2 shot penalty-recovery possibility to advance.  But, the grow-in of wind drifted irrigation and blue grass fairway seed migration has spread to the rough and made it in many places totally impossible to find or advance the ball if lucky enough to find it.  To exacerbate the situation, the super has in most places, not cut a substantial intermediate cut of rough.  Instead it goes from approximately 5/8 or 3/4 blue fairway directly to 6-8" untenable rough.   The fairways themselves are nicely maintained in proper presentation as fast an firm.  They are overwide but many are crowned.  One can hit a second shot on par 5s well within the fairway by 15-20 yards only to see the ball bound towards rough and enter feebily and yet never to be found even 1 foot into the rough.  This is not what the designers want, I know from conversations with them.  It is a bit maddening that this situation is not being rectified to date and will detract greatly when raters begin to evaluate next spring if not properly addressed.  It is not fair in my view to the designers of the course to not have it presented properly.

Native rough areas are tricky and it takes as much maintenance savvy to treat them properly as it does to maintain the more focused playing areas of fairways and green surrounds, and they are every bit as important.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Mike, Excellent topic.

One of the things,especially coinciding with Tom's excellent verse is that especially with Ross courses, the encroachment of rough into areas that clearly weren't prescribed as such.

I know the first excuse, and sometimes a viable one, is that a lot of fairway rough and trees were added to protect neighboring golf holes. Meanwhile the fairway shrunk and the fairway bunkers got smaller and soon you have a bunker that is now close to the middle of the cart path that has been added. It's evolution at its worst.

Lu Lu Temple #1 & 7 is a prefect point in example. Thanks to some idiot that didn't bring his camera that day, I don't have any pictures of the club. I regret that, because Lu Lu is certainly worthy of the regard for their attempts to reclaim the course and as Tom has pointed out, make the fairways wider to the point that the rough can accurately sentence penalty for a bad shot.

#1 & 7 are jointly connected, and at one time in-between the holes existed fairway bunkers that not only guarded play, but sentenced penalty for being there. Bill Vostinak and myself took notice of this while looking for one of my errant scrubs in the trees while on #7. Seeing the dead carcass of bunkers in there was needless to say, "Less then inspiring."

The 1st green is blinded on its left entrance, so playing the entire left side to the hole was an option for a higher-handicap player, it still wasn't the quickest way to the hole. Certainly the right side was much more daring with its out of bounds glaring on the right for those who dared off the tee, furthering itself as it gets closer to the open entrance to the green.

The importance of recovering these areas is just so glaringly evident, and it is hard to beleive that so many don't or can't simply because they can't fathom cutting down trees or worse--having to cut more grass.

It is ultimately "Design By Maintanence."

I think it should be the other way around.

Credit Ron Forse with Jim Nagle for also furthering my education by sending me aerials of Lu Lu Temple, further corrupting my mind. I see this stuff and I get just as excited as they do in their attempts to recover it.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Mike Young-
If common bermuda is the grass, 2" isn't bad if not overly lush from fertilizer and water. The hybrid types, 328, 419..shouldn't IMHO be longer than 1.25 in. You might catch a great lie with the ball sitting up because of the shoot density, or a horrible lie if down. Where roughs are not overseeded I like the seeded bermudas for rough and the improved types for close cut areas.

[Ed_Baker]

Mike,

Great topic!

I think the 1/2 shot penalty is a good approach to the topic of rough.One that the architect should indelibly imprint on the super and his staff.This and green speed are most critical to proper maintainence meld with design intent.Otherwise,as Tommy says,you end up with "design by maintainence."

[Matt_Ward]

Agree with TommyN about "design by maintenance." When rough is grown too high it is usually the weakness of the original design that is being protected.

Fairway widths should not be overly narrow as they are on many Northeast private layouts. In those instances you have two issues -- high rough and the close proximity of tress that overhang playing areas. Talk about a double-header of poor design and maintenance being married together!!!

This discourages different playing angles to the green and in many ways defeats the versatility of the holes as they were meant to be played.

Regards,

[Tommy_Naccarato]

I'm going to get that beer real cold!!!!

[Bruce Goughnour]

Mike,

Played Cateechee about 2 months ago - lost a ball that rolled just off the back of the green on #5 (if I recall the number - downhill par 5).  The rough had to be at least 2-3 inches high just a couple of feet past the fringe.  My divot was on the green so we had a good idea where the ball should've been, but alas we never found it.  IMHO that was excessive.

Liked the design - open, natural, differing shots required.  Very good, short par 4s.

Site of my son's first birdie - #2 playing about 105, hit to about 6 feet and he sunk it.  Beat my first bird by 5 years!

Regards!

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Bruce,
Glad to hear from you!!!!!

Hope all is well and the business is doing good.

Shoot me an email and let me know how everything is!

[Mike_Young]

Bruce G,
I have tried to have Cateechee lower the rough but since we are on 479 acres and have to disburse almost 1.2 million gallons a day it is hard.  Most of this goes into the roughs by design but as you can see from playing it and as TD was saying earlier the fairways are wide enough to allow for a native rough that is out of play.  Sorry for the inconvenience.  
Also, I think that when David Stone was first experimenting with the Honors native grasses he came up with a mixture of Tupersan and something else that would thin a southern rough.  I just see excessive rough more and more in the South with wall to wall irrigation and really don't know the answer unless you can convince a club not to water roughs as agressively.
Mike

[Patrick_Mucci]

Don Mahaffey,

Why do you feel 328 and 419 bermuda shouldn't be allowed to grow to more than
1.25" in the rough ?

Why do you feel common bermuda can be allowed to grow to 2.oo" in the rough ?

What's the distinction in terms of the quality or features of the grasses that causes you to recommend mowing at the .75"  differential ?

[Mike_Young]

Pat,
I think what he is saying is that the density of the hybrid grasses make it too harsh at 2 inches where the common bermuda is not nearly as thick.  However I think with the growth regulators and excessive water, even the common is too dense.  Rough has just become another victim of too much water golf courses.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Patrick,
328 and 419 were developed for low cut situations. Compared to common they have a much higher shoot density and much finer leaf texture. They also have higher fertility needs and require more maintenance due to their thatch producing properties. Roughs with these grasses become very tight and puffy leading to inconsistent lies (not necessarily a bad thing), some balls will sit up on top of the turf regardless of the HOC, and some will fall down in the turf and be very difficult to advance. If the HOC is higher than 1.75 you can lose balls or make it very difficult to find. These grasses are used for roughs quite often, but usually they are overseeded, so they are really rye most of the time, and the few months they are pure bermuda they are cut short because that is one of the methods to get them to transition in the first place. I have not overseeded my 419 rough for two seasons now and it is very healthy. I learned my lesson this summer when I let it grow to 2", it was impossible. A ball would get swallow up by it, a search would ensue, followed by a pitch to the fairway or a futile attempt with a fairway wood followed by colorful adjectives.
Common on the other hand has a much more open canopy, making the lies more consistent, balls easier to spot, and more options when playing the ball.
I also like the contrast between 328 or 419 fwys and common roughs. Different colors and textures gice the course a nice look. I think we will see more of this in Arizona as the water restrictions tighten and fewer roughs are overseeded.

[Philippe Binette]

Rough is never too rough, the key problem is that courses in America are searching for a uniform cut of rough all over the course... Thick rough can be use as part of the strategy of a hole, like on some links courses where tall fescue and bushes protect a side of the fairway. Players have to learn to play around it...
And, as far as I'm concern, people are protestesting against rough close to a green, how about water!!! There's no possible recovery there...

[Patrick_Mucci]

Don Mahaffey,

I don't know the exact type of bermuda, but the worst bermuda rough I ever saw was at Shoal Creek, where the ball sat under the canopy.  It was difficult to find your ball and very difficult to reasonably advance it.

Most of the 328 I've seen has been used on tees and as an encroachment buffer around greens where the fairway and rough was 419.
Though I believe Jupiter Hills went wall to wall 328 some years ago, they may have regrassed since then.

At a course I'm familiar with in Florida, they transitioned from common to 419 and didn't find the need to alter the height of the rough other than the usual member complaints.  The 419 also seemed to need less maintainance and didn't turn purplish in the winter.

The other proplem with 419 is, few states have certification programs, and with mutations, you don't know if you're getting 419 or yet another hybrid.

Is it a grass of the past in Arizona, or is it still being used for new courses ?

Many courses in Florida suffered because the
419 invaded the greens through natural growth and

[Don_Mahaffey]

Patrick,
328 is the grass of choice. I don't know if 419 is the grass of the past, but I do know some sod farms have plowed it up due to mutation. Although I like common roughs, I love my 419 fwys. They transitioned beautifully, I didn't sod patch a single square foot this year! It's just a little more aggressive than 328 and I don't notice much of a difference in leaf texture. I agree that it is not the best to use around putting surfaces. I regrassed two greens with an ultra-dwarf called mini-verde this year. Around both greens we sodded a 328 collar.  

[Mike O'Neill]

Dick,

Yes, Bayside needs a first cut of bluegrass rough. There is so much roll in some of those fairways from side to side (especially on the back nine) that a first cut would allow for the holes to play the way we intended. Given the shortness of the course, it is useful for the golfers to have to place the ball in the proper spots, but not useful if the ball goes bounding into the native. Of course, as with the front side, the more you play it, the more you find ways to avoid those rolls. I ended up playing three iron off the tee on #9 a lot last year to give myself a fairway lie. It seemed to work well because the hole is a short par 4. And that is a flat hole really. But I wanted to be in the fairway.

I still don't know what I'd do on the back nine. So many of those holes require hitting the preferred side of the fairway. They remind me of what I saw of Olympic during the U.S. Open. You can hit the left side of the fairway with a slice spin and watch the ball feed 20 yards to the right on #10 I imagine.

By the way, I guess the rough is too rough if you can't find yourself in there.  

[Mike O'Neill]

Dick,

Yes, Bayside needs a first cut of bluegrass rough. There is so much roll in some of those fairways from side to side (especially on the back nine) that a first cut would allow for the holes to play the way we intended. Given the shortness of the course, it is useful for the golfers to have to place the ball in the proper spots, but not useful if the ball goes bounding into the native. Of course, as with the front side, the more you play it, the more you find ways to avoid those rolls. I ended up playing three iron off the tee on #9 a lot last year to give myself a fairway lie. It seemed to work well because the hole is a short par 4. And that is a flat hole really. But I wanted to be in the fairway.

I still don't know what I'd do on the back nine. So many of those holes require hitting the preferred side of the fairway. They remind me of what I saw of Olympic during the U.S. Open. You can hit the left side of the fairway with a slice spin and watch the ball feed 20 yards to the right on #10 I imagine.

By the way, I guess the rough is too rough if you can't find yourself in there.  

[Rob_Waldron]

Mike

I agree with Tom Doak. Rough is too high when you begin to lose balls. I have had this discussion with Dr. Mike Hurdzan specifically about one of his courses, Fieldstone CC located near Wilmington, DE. Mike has battled the owner (about the height and proximity of tall fescues) who is hell bent on having a difficult course. Unfortunately the rules of golf only permit a 5 minute search for a lost ball and the penalty is stroke and distance. For the group behind you this probably equates to an additional 7-10 minute wait on the tee. Just what we need ..... a longer round of golf. If an architect needs two foot high fescues placed ten feet off the fairway to protect the integrity of his design, he may want to consider another profession.

[John_Conley]

Mike:

Great question, although I will file it under the "rhetorical" category - those where you don't really expect an answer!

I just played in the 35th Dora Invitational.  Mount Dora Golf Club is 5700 yards tipped out, par 70.  The greens are VERY small and the course plays relatively easy 51 weeks of the year.  Second weekend in October?  Watch out.

Hole locations are taken to 3-4 paces from the edge of the already small greens and placed on difficult slopes.  The rough is allowed to grow, becoming steel wool.  I am a transplanted Minnesotan whose lived in Florida for 9 years.  I had no idea about the difficulty of Bermuda grasses until I'd been here for a few years, so I don't think others that haven't played in chewy Bermuda can comprehend the severity.

To attempt to answer your question, it depends on what you are trying to accomplish.  This event had a strong local field and -1 won, with only 11 players better than +10 for the three rounds.  Rough this severe is necessary to make the course challenging.  Said another way, you can get away with some things on a 5700 yard course that you can't try at 7000.

For daily play, low rough heights are enjoyable for a number of reasons.  Pace of play, fun factor, and consistency.  Rough is too rough if you are having trouble locating balls in it.

[John Bernhardt]

I agree that except for competitions, that daily fee or resort courses should keep the rough about 1 inch plus depending on grass and situation. that will take the spion off the ball and make for a tough shot without making finding the ball so time consuming. interesting post regarding how turf management has changed this issue.

[Peter Galea]

"If you can see your knees, you've got a good lie."

Rough is supposed to be rough or they would have called it "easy".

I sense mixed messages on the board. On one hand, bunkers are too consistant and playable; deep rough is just too hard to play out of.

Keep the ball in the fairway. If you can't do that watch it till it stops rolling and visually mark the spot. (I know all on this board knows that, but I fear many beginners have not been taught well enough.)

[Dan King]

Where did this idea of uniform rough come from? ½ shot penalty?  what's wrong with inconsistency?  Rough should some times be no penalty, some times ½ some times you should be totally screwed.

Dan King
dking@danking.org

quote:"To tell the truth, I caught Nixon once myself [cheating]. He'd landed in some really bad rough no one could shoot out of unless you had a bazooka. I was watching him from the fairway when he disappeared into the thicket. Hell, I figured he was going to drop another ball, take his loss like anyone else in that situation and play on. But hell no -- out comes his ball flyin' high onto the fairway. Then Nixon comes out looking real pleased with himself. I knew he threw it out, but I didn't say anything. What could I say? He was the President."
--Sam Snead

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()