Does rough mask architectural weaknesses?

[Matt_Ward]

A golf media friend of mine suggested to me the other day while we were playing that courses that have a high degree of rough are really "weaker" from a pure design aspect because the inclusion of more rough only serves to mask the architectural weaknesses of a given layout.

In simple terms he opined that high rough is simply added to make hole(s) more dificult but not necessarily architecturaly compelling.

I wonder if others find that premise to be accurate?

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Absolutely!

You can also put containment in there also.

Maybe award-winning golf architect Jeff Brauer would like to comment.......

[cary lichtenstein]

100% correct. Narrow fairways, high rough can make any course much more difficult, but not necessarily either a good course or an enjoyable course.

I think one of the things that makes a top course is whether or not you would want that course to be your home course.

If it beats you up everyday, what fun is that?

[Matt_Ward]

Tommy / Cary:

If that's the case -- then why not go further -- is rough really needed? Clearly, on the taxpayer-owned layouts the elmination or minimization could go a long ways in bolstering the fun quotient without the tedious searching for lost balls and the accompanying slow play that invariably results.

[wsmorrison]

I don't agree with the generalization.  Courses with great architecture and those without can have maintenance practices that use penal high rough.  We know that it would be best if our great courses that are narrowed by USGA practices for national championships would revert back to full width and less penal rough.  However, it is often the case that the holes are left that way so people can play it as the pros did and also because it takes a while to revert back to the old fairway widths if they choose to do so.  Unfortunately, in the past, the practice was maintained for decades.  "Does rough mask architectural weakness?" would be better asked as "Can rough mask architectural weakness?"   The answer is clearly yes.  Good courses don't necessarily need it while on inferior designs it often serves to mask featureless ground or poorly executed designs.  

[cary lichtenstein]

Just to use an very good example, Augusta National, home of The Masters, did not have rough until a few years ago.

What does that say?

I'm not advocating no rough, but...

[A_Clay_Man]

I'd even go so far as to say that rough masks architectural greatness.

[Doug_Feeney]

Cary,

I'm still not sure what they have at Augusta these days can really be thought of as "rough", but I know what you mean.  
 
In the case of Augusta, I think adding the light rough actually exposed some of the "architectural greatness" by preventing the players from spinning the ball on demand- with a tight fairway lie and a short iron approach architectural greatness often gets overlooked.

[Steve Curry]

Rough is cheaper.

We should put rough down the middle and the fairways off to the sides to make it more fun for the masses.

I like Varity and think, if strategic, rough serves as a fine challenge.  I don't like it in between hazards and the line of play.

I have seen examples of rough essentially being used as a hazard and think it has the same effect as sand with probably more penalty.  So I would have to say that rough may be over used but can be very much a part of the architecture.


Steve

[Tom_Doak]

Those who say "no rough at all" are probably not looking at the maintenance budget very closely.  That would be pretty expensive in most places.

Rough can also be used strategically, if the architect chooses to do so.  [It could be placed in precisely the same spots as bunkers could, although few golfers would find this as attractive.]  However, in general, rough lines have been changed long after courses were built in order to define the line of play and keep maintenance costs down, with little thought to strategy or architectural interest.

[TEPaul]

In my opinion, rough is just another semi-architectural feature available in the long list of alternatives available to architects to express concepts and strategies. It's probably at the lower end of the barrel of interesting available features but it is one nonetheless. But like any other available architectural feature, bunkers, mounds, pits, hollows, slopes and contours, trees, all kinds of orientations and shapes, etc is can be overused or poorly used.

[Andy Levett]

rough lines have been changed long after courses were built in order to define the line of play and keep maintenance costs down, with little thought to strategy or architectural interest.

Yes. In my little corner of the world, northern England, we're blessed by literally dozens of   welcoming, affordable courses by the likes of Colt, MacKenzie and Braid but cursed by greens committees who use rough, or worse, saplings to define the line of play and think they're improving and updating the course by doing so.
Thankfully things are changing. I played with one of the greenkeepers at Pleasington this year and he told me the R&A expert sent down to advise on setting up the course for The (British) Open qualifier had recommended taking out trees, treating silver birch as a weed, widening some fairways. That sort of thing will have a trickle down effect, influencing other courses in the area.
I agree that going to "no rough at all" would be expensive and pointless but as things stand at the moment the question could also be asked "does rough mask architectural greatness" - with strategic courses being reduced to freeway courses increment by increment.

[Matt_Ward]

Tom D:

Who said someone has to maintain the area that's not fairway?

I'm not saying it needs to be cut to "fairway conditions" but simply having the area as a "playable" through the green option would keep the game moving and allow for the true architectural elements to come to the forefront IMHO.

Too many courses opt for the inclusion of penal rough (I define that as 4 inches of bluegrass or similar or 3 inches of bermuda) because it's easier to do than opt for a complete master plan that might detail what is truly missing in their thinking and their overall course architectural presentation.
 

[Patrick_Mucci]

100% correct. Narrow fairways,

Matt Ward never mentioned "Narrow fairways", that's your alteration of the original post.[/color]

high rough can make any course much more difficult, but not necessarily either a good course or an enjoyable course.
Look at the great courses of the UK, they have high, difficult rough[/color]

I think one of the things that makes a top course is whether or not you would want that course to be your home course.

If it beats you up everyday, what fun is that?

GCGC is plenty of fun, as are NGLA and Shinnecock, and their roughs are plenty deep.

Could you or anyone else who indicated that high rough makes those courses weaker, tell me how ?  Thanks[/color]

Augusta had rough.
Where did you get the idea that it didn't ?[/color]

[TEPaul]

Pat:

I think you might get some serious arguments from a whole slew of touring pros that Shinnecock is fun to play!  

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Do you really care about those 120 or so guys, or their opinions  ?  

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Tommy / Cary:

If that's the case -- then why not go further -- is rough really needed? Clearly, on the taxpayer-owned layouts the elmination or minimization could go a long ways in bolstering the fun quotient without the tedious searching for lost balls and the accompanying slow play that invariably results.

Matt,
Now your starting to sound like Max Behr! Way to go!

Rough may be cheaper, but the type of rough we are talking about is thin, sparse and is meant to challange by still presenting a reasonable attempt at recovery. You know Tom Doak--St. Andrews............

But we all know that type of rough is ugly  because it requires little maintenance!

[Kevin_Reilly]

If that's the case -- then why not go further -- is rough really needed? Clearly, on the taxpayer-owned layouts the elmination or minimization could go a long ways in bolstering the fun quotient without the tedious searching for lost balls and the accompanying slow play that invariably results.

Timely post...I played Harding Park the other day and the rough lines and grass length rivaled anything I've seen across Lake Merced under tournament conditions (excluding Open rough).  Plus the rough was wet.  Really made Harding a long slog.  Unenjoyable as well.  Our group was looking for balls on  a bunch of holes...tee shots in the rough disappeared.

[Michael Whitaker]

High, penal rough only serves one purpose... to make a course artifically play more difficult.  I'm not speaking of a strategic section here or there, but fairways bordered by severe rough throughout a course. The first time I played the Cascades at The Homestead (which was rated the best course in Virginia) I was struck by how they used high rough to protect their course. Cut the grass and it ain't so great a test for top players... but, keep the fairways artifically narrow and bordered by high rough and it's the 39th best course in the country!?!?

There are a LOT of courses that use that tactic to protect their "resistance to scoring."

[Jack_Marr]

Rough is one of the variables that a course manager can tweak from week to week to change how a course plays. It also adds the luck factor to a course design, along with many other features. There are many many many different lies you can get in rough, making shot selection more interesting in many cases.

I went into the rough once, and I really enjoyed the experience. I'll try it again one day.

[Marc Haring]

I stated in a previous thread how a good course that we played many years ago had been severely diminished by the sudden inclusion of acres of heavy, unforgiving rough. Strategic options that were offered had been replaced with a desperate one-dimensional attempt at avoiding the stuff and ending a hole with the same ball that started it. Not enjoyable.
Andy Levett stated that things were changing in the North of England but believe me, this advice has been going on for as long as I can recall but it is rarely heeded. I even played a classic course earlier this year that was clearly choked to the point of suffocation with trees, yet they continued to plant saplings.
The problem IMHO is TV golf. It is always played on essentially penal golf courses, which is then perceived as the ideal by the masses. Also I believe long rough is introduced by misinformed supers and greens committees for visual and environmental reasons.  
Here’s a picture of a delightful course spoilt by rough.

[A_Clay_Man]

I'm not opposed to the concept, and proper application. Like most sensible opinions here, I'm opposed to the mis-use and abuse. Same with the trees.

If moderation is the key, we masochists can enjoy watching Phil Blackmar's interpretation of moderation for the near future.  

I'll prefer to seek-out those courses that understand that they are not PGA Tour stops, and golf them repeatedly.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I'm not opposed to rough.  It's certainly a valid way to increase challenge.  Overdone in many cases, it does take away all tee shot straregies except hitting to the middle of the fairway, but a course with no penalty for missing a tee shot wouldn't be very strategic either.  IMHO, the rough should be just deep enough to reduce backspin, not cause lost balls or hack outs, which is enough penalty, at least for inner rough.

As some have said, the rough has really evolved as a means to reduce maintenance. I mentioned earlier this year that I am playing with different widths and heights of rough to enhance strategy.  To give credit where credit is due, I was impressed with the second hole at the Legacy, an Art Hills course in southern Michigan.  

The second hole, for example, had fw bunkers on the right side at about 240 and 300, requiring a controlled distance tee shot to get a frontal opening to the green.  Close beyond the fairway edge on that side, deep fescues await, adding penalty for missing to the premium side.

On the left, there is at least 50 yards of lowly mowed blue/fescue.  You can play out of them, but there is a frontal bunker, so I played to the front of the green after my pull hook tee shot, and got up and down. So, on the premium side, there is a better chance of of 3 there, but also, higher chance of 5 or 6 while a safe tee shot should limit your score range to 4-5, unless you play stupid after your tee shot.  That creates an interesting dilema.

I wonder if a hole would also be good or better if the roughs were reversed?  Say there was fairway or light rough right of the bunkers?  It would increase your temptation to play right, and challenge the bunkers, as you have chance at 3, and reduce chances of a high score, at least from deep rough, while playing left would avoid the bunkers but probably take 3 out of the mix.  If your "safe tee shot' went to safely left into the deep stuff, you could still make a high score.  

Thus, the light rough on the right side would in effect, treat a missed high risk tee shot better than a missed low risk tee shot, which has some merit.

Net, net, rough could be used a lot better for strategy than it really is.  Its an area not many architects have really explored, based on my experience.

[RJ_Daley]

I am thinking of the mindset the archie-designer-router has from the original intent to present the golf course based on the land that is there to design upon.  Anotherwords, what did Maxwell envision in terms of what the rough would accomplish when he laid out Prairie Dunes.  What did C&C or Jeff Brauer see when they laid out Sand Hills or The Colbert course at KSU (sorry Jeff I forgot the exact name of the course).  

Do some archies see the routing and subsequent placement of the rough as a crutch to mask a deficient route and expeditious use of the land?  What did Ross see as the role of rough at some of his most famous lay-outs?  Did he use it to route and guide, or did he see the maintenance meld as not having rough as a factor, and leave the errant shot areas low mowed or in pine needles, etc.  

Rough is certainly dependant upon the site, nature of the land, and intent of the designer to use or create or define the playing corridors.  One doesn't want prairie native grasses at ANGC and we don't want wall to wall maintained or cut grass at Sand HIlls.  There is no defined proper usage of the concept of rough where one size fits all.

The better question is if the architect used the rough effectively and within the context of the land.  

Marc Haring:  I am really trying to understand how the course in your pic might have looked without the native grass areas.   Did it have wall to wall turf cut at perhaps 2 inches VS what looks pretty good to me in the pic?

[TEPaul]

I can certainly tell you that after about two years of growing in the rugged fescue rough on the surrounds of the new bunkers of Merion East certainly has made those bunkers look a whole lot better! Do those rugged looking fescue rough surrounds mask some architectural weakness? I'm sure there'll be plenty of diverse opinion on that.