[mike_malone]

 I am thinking of one hole that is 400 yards ,downhill tee shot.At 150 from the green the hill flattens out .The green sits up some 30-50 feet above the low spot in the fairway.The majority of players have a difficult downhill lie to an uphill green.But the big hitters can land close to the bottom of the hill and get a big bounce going up the hill.They are left with an easy wedge.Moving the back tee back may be difficult.
         Is it bad design to just create a section of rough that covers part or all of the fairway,forcing the big hitters to lay back?A cross bunker could be another idea i suppose,but i was thinking of being experimental and not doing something permanent.

[Forrest Richardson]

Ideas — true ideas — are difficult to kill. Those who try often get injured in the process.

[Gary_Smith]

Why should long AND straight off the tee be punished?

[Rick Shefchik]

Covering part of the ideal landing area with rough strikes me as no more unfair that putting a pot or fairway bunker there.

Covering all of the ideal landing area with rough removes any incentive to try for a great drive. That's not good architecture, in my opinion.

[Forrest Richardson]

Well, Rick, it wouldn't be a great drive if the normally ideal landing area were made unappealing, would it?

[Rick Shefchik]

Forrest -- No, it wouldn't. I guess that would be the point of growing rough all the way across the fairway -- taking the option of a long, straight drive (a pretty good definition of "great") off the table. But growing the rough halfway in leaves "long and straight" on the table -- it just makes it tougher.

I just don't see the point of a par 4 or par 5 hole that makes all players equal off the tee.

[mike_malone]

 Gary
    I have heard that statement about "long and straight " being punished before.It makes sense to me. However,on the hole i am thinking of  the long hitters seem to get a out of proportion benefit because of the land. They can land 20 yards farther but end up 50 yards farther.Now there is a bunker on the left side of the fairway,but flying it only sends you into the tree line toward the parrallel hole.The landing area does somewhat slope to the right and the bunker on the right side of the green is deep and imposing,so that the left rough is somewhat better than the right rough.

  Rick
     I think leaving fairway on the left by the bunker  may be the idea here.Tempt the bunker and miss---great shot----but hit right and you deal with rough.If there were rough all the way across the big hitters would just layback.


  I also believe this is the only hole on this course where i would toy with this idea so it would not be overused.The concept of variety comes to mind.(Although there is a hole where the fairway stops 260 yards from the tee,but this because it falls off down a hill there.)

[Forrest Richardson]

Rick — I'm not defending the idea, necessarily.

But, to your comment that "I just don't see the point of a par 4 or par 5 hole that makes all players equal off the tee." — — —

Such a hole would ultimately place the burden on the second shot, thus equalizing play from the first shot inward. Actually, so long as not too many holes are of this type on a course, it could be quite interesting. Besides, equalization in the form of a lay-up off the tee does require control and accuracy — placement. And, it is unlikely that the heroic shot past the trouble would not be completely out of the question.

So — you have a heroic or lay-up tee shot, depending on the ability of the player.

[mike_malone]

 Forrest
 And would not the better and stronger player be at an advantage from the same spot as a lesser player?
     This somewhat gets to my concern that started this thread.The longer hitters are getting -1- a turboboost to a much shorter shot with a slight uphill shot--and2- avoiding the difficult downhill to uphill shot.It seems out of whack.
     Of course this a "classic" course and the designer did not fully anticipate today's ability to just crush it all the way down the hill.

[Forrest Richardson]

That could be. Golf is not fair.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Gary Smith,

Why should long AND straight off the tee be punished?

Because the architect may have determined, on a specific hole, that looooong and straight isn't the play he intended.

It's done all the time with cross bunkers, streams, ponds, rough, doglegs and sometimes the Pacific Ocean.

Holes such as # 15 at GCGC, # 8 at Pebble Beach,
# 7 at PV and many others are examples where loooong and straight isn't the play of choice.  Likewise, on many doglegs,
loooong and straight gets the golfer in trouble.

[Bill_McBride]

Let them hit the long ball.  I played today with a guy who hit most tee shots 40 or 50 yds past mine.  His second shots were typically less than 100 yds, tricky little pitches that were difficult to get close.  Our final scores were not as far apart as our tee shots.

[Steve Lang]

 

I submit it is an equalizing idea if placed and maintained correctly.  But what does it look like and how does it fit into the overall look of the hole?

We used to have such on our Palmer #8, it was about 280 yds from second in Blue Tees and 240 from White tees.. not really in play 10 years ago from Gold tips either..  effectively leaving everyone the same approach shot ~ 105-125 yds.. However if you were playing more forward tees than your normal capability, you just went at it and played out of the rough, which as maintained to a 2nd cut type height.. it wasn't really a penalty like a crossing ditch could be.

One day this crossing rough disappeared.. no one was told why and no few missed it, likely most of all the greenskeepers..

[Doug Siebert]

Mayday,

I'm not a big fan of such holes, but my primary annoyance with them occurs when they are done needlessly just to force layups or where the site or routing sucks and it is done over and over again because of the terrain.

Have you considered doing something a bit different, like maybe putting in the rough strip diagonally to allow hitting it a big longer on one side, but only if you are straight.  It gets more interesting if you allow the longer hits to the "wrong" side of the fairway.

Better be fairly severe rough or a really firm green, otherwise given the choice I might feel I could control the ball better hitting a wedge from an uphill lie in the rough versus playing from a downhill lie at 170.  But perhaps that's the choice you'd want to force on the longer hitter after all -- a lot of players just automatically play for the fairway in such situations and don't consider whether it is really the smartest play for their game.

[ForkaB]

If it goes all the way across the fairway, emphatically yes!  If it is partial and has a channel or two which can reasonably be navigated by the skilled player, no.  Anything which completely takes away tee shot options on a non "par"-3 hole is bad architecture.  IMO.

PS--I give a pass on this to #8 at PB, but not any other holes.....

[Mark_Fine]

The best hazards tempt, not just penalize!  

[Gary_Smith]

Gary Smith,

Why should long AND straight off the tee be punished?

Because the architect may have determined, on a specific hole, that looooong and straight isn't the play he intended.

It's done all the time with cross bunkers, streams, ponds, rough, doglegs and sometimes the Pacific Ocean.

Holes such as # 15 at GCGC, # 8 at Pebble Beach,
# 7 at PV and many others are examples where loooong and straight isn't the play of choice.  Likewise, on many doglegs,
loooong and straight gets the golfer in trouble.

Of course you are right that long is not always the play. For someone to be too long and straight (down the middle of the fairway) on a dogleg hole, thus driving through the fairway, would be a case of being long, straight, and stupid.   However, straight to me is not necessarily always down the middle of the fairway. If a player was long and straight, and used his strengths to cut the corner of the dogleg, if he executes the shot, he should be rewarded.

As Forest mentioned, a clubbing down type of hole can bring interest to a course, as long as there is not too many of them. In Mayday's hole description, I can see his point that the longer player gets a turboboost, but life ain't always going to be fair.

I hope that the old classic courses don't all go to the pinched-in fairway look to discourage length off the tee. I don't see where a longer hitter should also have to be a straighter hitter.

Just my opinion, I could be wrong.  


 

[mike_malone]

 Gary
  Thanks for your view.I am conflicted as to how to solve this issue.That is why i put the thread in the form of a ?

[Kelly Blake Moran]

If it is Rolling Green you have an outstanding architect in Gil Hanse who did your master plan, you should consult with him in the field.  

[Mike Hendren]

I'm no fan of "fairway interuptus."  Why not a checkerboard rough pattern (ala the BEAUTIFUL orange/white end zone on Shields Watkins Field in Neyland Stadium )?  Why not change the mowing patters and move the strip around?  Why not keep the back tee at rough height?  

IMHO it is the ultimate artificiality.

Mike

[RJ_Daley]

Dave, I sure hope some unconventional course owner takes you up on this.  If for no other reason than to just get it out of your system.  

But, I am sympathetic to your idea.  I'd even like it on a shortish par 4 about 330-60 yards with the 2 1/2 inch cut on a slight tear drop hump of about 3000 square feet set at about 250-60 off the tee and about 3-4ft elevation above the left and rt fairway, where one would get the added challenge of playing short as an option but then having a semi hidden putting surface if you were short and the hump was directly on line with the green, or flying it, or if you are on or in the flyer strip/hump, you get a variable uphill or down hill lie.

[Forrest Richardson]

It just dawned on me that we are currently remodeling a private club in Tucson where the 21st Hole (yes, 21st of 27, total) is interrupted by a swale at about 260-yards. This low area has been mowed to fairway height for years and the club has problems keeping the undulating area in decent shape. There are other issues, such as access up slopes (the membership is older and many use carts), and poor drainage.

Our solution is to create a rough strip — although in this case it will meander with the grades and the swale. I believe the original design probably features this area in rough. It will solve many problems, not to mention taking the big club out of low handicappers — unless they feel up to traversing the rough area to the fairway beyond.

I think it will make sense and make players think more — and more often.

[mike_malone]

 The reason the rough cut appeals to me is its reversibility.I think we often need to see how some of these ideas actually play.Some the other ideas are interesting but may be more costly to do and resistance to change seems to be a requirement for club membership.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Mayday,
Why not look at the area where the longer hitters are getting the turbo boost? Tighten this area up or make the kicks less predictable, or a combination of the two, and you create longer odds for the longer shot. No one gets robbed, everyone can still play to their strengths, more options exist.    

[A_Clay_Man]

Naturally, I have a different take. Because of the hill, I'd say growing the rough is a negative. Mostly because it makes nature predictable.

I'd go the opposite way and bikini wax the hell out of the hill so that the ball will have as much gravity effect it as possible.

I mean how much more exciting it will it be to watch a ball bound up the slot, to only have it turn around and roll back to the bottom. Not every ball will roll back and not every ball will roll back the same amount.

Those aspects that create  the uncertain, the unpredicatable, are good architecture.

Ergo,
the antithesis would be watching every shot hit into the hill, stop exactly where everybody knows and sees, and even before it happens.

Which shot do you want to hit and watch?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()