Rough height and the IMM

[TEPaul]

"I'll let him explain it in detail if anyone needs that, but the basics are that every golf course has an ideal presentation of firmness of the fairways - approaches - and greens. This firmness is intended to highlight the architectural characteristics of the golf course.

I feel the hieght of rough should be an ingredient in this conversation for the simple reason that plenty of balls end up in the rough. Its height is one of two factors (the other being thickness) that determine what type of shot you can hit from it."

Sully:

I think you're aware that Max Behr in his basic philosophy of golf and architecture (highly strategic), for instance, didn't really believe in the idea of rough. Apparently he believed in as much width as could be available to promote the basic "playable" ingredients of multi-optional strategic golf.

On the other hand, to do that in the design of a golf course would take a ton of design thought, I would think, to make the holes play in a strategically valid manner, if  you know what I mean.

How would you like your course, HVGC, if essentially there was no rough on it?

I guess, as you think through your course in that light you'll need to decide if there are some areas or angles that would compromise various holes if those areas or angles were all in fairway height grass with no other obstacles on or around them.

Behr didn't seem to believe in rough but he certainly did believe in the ultra functional and well placed "hazard" feature. Matter of fact ideal angles and such he felt should be well guarded by hazard features to promote what he referred to as "pressure points".

For example, in tennis, he called those areas "in play" and just adjacent to "out" lines "pressure points". In the tennis context though the risk factor of those tennis "pressure points" was the likelihood of the ball going "out" but the reward factor was they were harder for the opponent to get to. But obviously, in tennis, unlike golf, the ball is vied for!  

[Troy Alderson]

an ideal MM the characteristics should be fluid in their affect on one's ball as the moisture is both removed and added to the canvas.

Adam,

Very poetic, "removed and added to the canvas".  Maybe you whould think about writing golf and maintenance articles.

Troy

[Troy Alderson]

Should rough be inconsistent as well ?

Michael,

Can something called rough be consistently rough (aka not smooth) and would not that (not smooth) mean random which esentially mean inconsistent?

The "rough" was not meant to be maintained, IMHO.  I used to get my rough mower operator complaining that the mower did not cut smoothly.  I told her not to worry, it's just the rough and should be a penalty for hitting into it.  Which by the way I do quit consistently since fairways are too narrow in the USA.

Troy

[Troy Alderson]

Jim,

 I think the consistency of rough, particularly just off the fairway, has lessened the purpose of rough. Which I take to be relatively unmaintained areas of the course with random possibilities for lies. I love it when I hear my friends say " This rough is lousy; there's no grass in some places".


   I think the unmaintained rough is a better fit for the fast and firm fairway, because you wonder what kind of lie you will get as the ball rolls into the rough.

OK, so we think the same.  Never mind my previous post.  

Troy

[JESII]

"Tommy,
Would love to sit down and talk about an IMM for HVCC, especially of a bottle or two of red is involved."

Sully:

Why don't we talk about it on here hole by hole concentrating on the fairway/rough lines etc?

Sounds good Tom, give me a day or so and I'll start a thread covering a few holes at a time.

Wayne,

If you read this, I'll need your help posting some photos/aerials/drawings of the course.

[Doug Siebert]

Michael Malone,

Are your friends complaining about large nearly bare spots, or the small ball sized bare spots in otherwise deep and lush rough that make recovery nearly impossible?  I certainly don't like the latter myself.

I still prefer rough that's roughly cut, and is of random heights.  That's really only possible when its cut short and then grows at different rates.  Maybe someone could figure out a way to have a blade with different heights at different points along its length to produce semi-random rough height.

I wonder what the reaction of the average player, or average pro would be?  Would they react like they did to bunker rakes designed to produce deep furrows like Nicklaus used at Muirfield last year?

[mike_malone]

 Doug,

  They complain most at the ball sized bare spots. I always say "It's the rough!". I should probably post this on the thread as one of the many things I do that annoy other golfers.

[JESII]

Behr didn't seem to believe in rough but he certainly did believe in the ultra functional and well placed "hazard" feature. Matter of fact ideal angles and such he felt should be well guarded by hazard features to promote what he referred to as "pressure points".

For example, in tennis, he called those areas "in play" and just adjacent to "out" lines "pressure points". In the tennis context though the risk factor of those tennis "pressure points" was the likelihood of the ball going "out" but the reward factor was they were harder for the opponent to get to. But obviously, in tennis, unlike golf, the ball is vied for!  

And in golf, I suspect Behr would not penalize one as severely as an out ball does in tennis. But I could be wrong about that too...what type of hazards did Behr talk about? OB/Water type hazards that result in lost balls or more subtle types like a ridge line that'll pull the ball down into a a bad approach position?