Parkland Golf - Have we gone the wrong way?

[JR Potts]

My home course is known for its length and trees but also for its rough.  Does long rough make the course play easier?  Does it take the tress out of play and lessen the strategy?

It seems that most parkland courses have become obsessed with long rough and have thus eliminated the penal nature of the trees - which for many parkland courses, represent 90% of the hazards.

[PThomas]

Ryan - I started a similar thread a few days ago, whether LONG rough and trees is duplicative and unnecessary

I say yes!

[JR Potts]

I agree with your conclusion and apologize for the duplication.  

[John Kavanaugh]

It is now hot enough that yesterday while playing a parkland course I found myself in the rough and took time to walk down the shade line.  

This is not at all the same thread and asks some different and interesting questions...as a matter of fact it asks the exact opposite.

Here we have a very solid player asking if rough makes a parkland course easier and P's thread asked if it made it too hard.  I'll go with the solid players contention that anything that keeps the ball from going futher into the trees and is not so long that you can still find your ball does make the course easier.  The only double penalty in golf is the OB or lost ball where you lose stroke and distance.  The notion of double penalty is once again dumbing down golf...or PCP.

[mike_malone]

I can see the trees and rough working together. If the trees are the aerial hazard and the rough is the ground hazard it works for me.


    Many years ago a green super at my course trimmed up the hardwoods. So, now they provide that aerial hazard. And because the air and sun have a chance to get under them, some grass can grow among the trees. If you end up within the trees you can often hit a full shot.