Why is rough symmetrical?

[Doug Siebert]

That is, why do I always see it where if you have 10' of first cut on one side you have 10' on the other side, or if it is cut 3" high on the right side it is 3" on the left?

Tom Doak mentioned in another thread how you could tell rough was too long if you were worse off being in the rough on the correct side of the fairway versus in the fairway on the wrong side.

So given that, why couldn't different widths or heights of cut be used strategically if we aren't going to use wide fairways?  If you have a green that's designed to be approached from the left, maybe you increase the width of the first cut on that side, or keep the primary rough cut lower on that side.

Thoughts?

[Kyle Harris]

Doug,

My thought would be that it's just easier to tell an operator to go make two passes around the fairway with a National or whatever is used to cut the primary cut than to have to go out and make any changes.

Not so much laziness or apathy as it is inertia.

[Tommy Williamsen]

I've always wondered why rough has to be uniform.  I'd like to see rough have bare spots, clumps of grass etc.  Then it would require differing skill sets than just hit it hard through the grass.

[Grant Saunders]

While it is an interesting idea to have various heights of cut used, it insnt particularly practical.

It would require as many machines as different heights and operators to run them. It would not be practical to be constantly changing mower settings as you progress around the course. This goes against making golf more affordable by keeping running costs down.

I understand that Augusta has a target green speed they aim to achieve on every green and will mow each one however many times it takes to reach the set speed. It may require one cut or may need 5 cuts depending on the green. Again, a nice idea, but they use 18 mowers and operators to achieve this result. Most courses simply could not sustain this level of input.

[Tim Gerrish]

Thank you Grant!  It takes all the fun out of the game if everything is consistent, but when it comes to maintenance, lets keep it simple!

The grass is only uniform right after you cut it.  There are so many micro climates on a course.  Imagine some rough is in the shade, other areas in full sun.  Some rough is in wet areas, others high and dry.  Same can be said for fairways too!  They all impact the rate of growth, thickness, etc.

[John Moore II]

To go with what others have said, it simply is not practical to have rough at different lengths at different spots and be asymetrical.
--That being said, if a course have only single row irrigation and the rough does not get much water, it is possible, as many places will grow faster than others and some places not at all.
--Consistency also depends on frequency of cut. If a course has the ability to cut the rough daily (most do not) than the rough will nearly always be uniform. However, if the club cuts once a week (more normal) or once monthly (not likely) than the rough will become more inconsistent and asymetrical.

Doug--If you really want asymetrical rough (and you're a member of a private club where the Super will care what you say) try to convince him to cut the rough less. If the other members agree (somewhat unlikely) than I am sure he will be happy to cut the rough less, gives him more time to spend on greens, fairways and more relevant parts of the course.

[Doug Siebert]

I think you guys are confusing symmetrical with consistent height.  I'm not talking about rough that is all patchy and of different heights, I'm talking about mowing different sides of the fairway differently.  I don't see how that would be all that difficult to do, if you mow one side at 3" and then when it is done you take a minute to raise the mower to 4" and then mow the other side.  Or you mow two rows worth of first cut on one side but mow 8 rows of first cut on the other.  I don't see it as being time consuming maintenance-wise, though it would take a bit of extra training for the staff.

Anyway, I didn't want so much to get bogged down in the practicalities, so much as in thinking in a purely theoretical discussion of whether it would have any value strategically.  It would be another way of making one side more or less attractive than another if you are unable or unwilling to have wider fairways to affect a golfer's strategic choices off the tee.

[Tim Gerrish]

Doug,

Practically speaking...Are you going to post the height difference on the first tee?  On each tee?  No one will be able to stand on the tee and tell the difference...  Maybe 1.5" rough on one side and 4" on another... But the average golfer would surly miss it.  Would the height by greater only on one side?  Always the left side?  Always the outside or inside of the dogleg?? 

How is that strategic? 

The USGA has gone to the graduated rough for the open.  But for everyday course
set-up we need to keep things simple.  The game is hard enough as it is..

Lets go back to wider fairways! 

[TEPaul]

I think symmetrical rough and consistent rough heights (and condition) probably is a function of the practicalities of maintenance considerations but I also think it's a mentality of "standardization" in golf.

Mowing practices are understandable that way but this notion of totally irrigating rough areas is something I've never agreed with. It's obviously just a desire for standard consistency with golfers.

[JohnH]

I think you guys are confusing symmetrical with consistent height.  I'm not talking about rough that is all patchy and of different heights, I'm talking about mowing different sides of the fairway differently.  I don't see how that would be all that difficult to do, if you mow one side at 3" and then when it is done you take a minute to raise the mower to 4" and then mow the other side.  Or you mow two rows worth of first cut on one side but mow 8 rows of first cut on the other.  I don't see it as being time consuming maintenance-wise, though it would take a bit of extra training for the staff.

All due respect Doug, it would be a time consuming operation.  Most courses that mow rough with 12 or 15 ft tri-deck rotary mowers have to adjust every wheel to exact height for a uniform cut.  I know on my machine for the operator to do such a thing would take on the minimum 15-20 minutes to do it.  Having to jump back on and off to do that 6 or 8 times or through an 18 hole course would be impractical, especially for my senior citizen retiree.  Some courses mow with reel type mowers (for quality of cut or striping reasons) which require a more in depth means of reel adjustment.  A vast majority of the time regarding large scale rough mowing we aren't talking about a single lever pull that adjusts mowing height in one motion to the desired height.  Getting seasonal or college aged kids along with senior citizen retirees to keep all that straight amongst 18 holes?... well, that's another story altogether.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Doug,
Well, you're batting .500. It may be impractical to change mowing heights but it's totally practical to establish different mowing widths and then stick to them. 

[Norbert P]

 Rough heights variation practices does come down to the impracticality of it.  I think more can be achieved for strategy with creative mowing patterns.

  Here's a hole, (*that I have not seen or played), that looks uncreative to me because the fairway edges have little variation to them.  In my opinion, they are too linear.

 

If, for example, the fairway made a push in from the right, and perhaps a push out on the left, and not necessarily at the same distance from tee, we have a virtual dogleg visually and will possibly force us to consider a different club, as the green sets up, I presume, for us to come in from the right.
  Mowing with obstacles and shapes in them would be less practical than perfect ovals and rectangles but not unnecessarily so, giving more interest.

*Disclaimer in case I say something stoopid . . . again.

[Joe Hancock]

Slag,

Widen that fairway by 50% and I will disagree with you vehemently.....

I like the clean look of those edges, honestly. The one thing that mystifies me is that rogue bunker short left, out in the middle of the rough. But, like you, I need the stoopidity disclaimer.

Joe

[Tim Gerrish]

Joe,

I think many of us would need a disclaimer.  That fairway bunker doesn't relate to the hole.  Now wrap some fairway around it and make it apart of the family.  Could it be "protecting" adjacent housing, etc?  Or does it just look nice from the tee? 

I thought the back left bunker seemed a little too uphill and out of touch.

[Doug Siebert]

John,

I didn't realize that changing mowing heights was such an involved process, thanks for clueing me in!


TEPaul,

Do you believe the desire to irrigate the rough is in the name of consistency or in the name of insuring that the rough is adequately penal?  During a severe dry spell its often preferable to be in the rough than in the fairway, due to the additional roll and the nice tight lie you'll get -- the ground there is much firmer since it is never cored.  Its rather like the difference on tour when a pro misses wide into the trampled areas behind the gallery ropes.  So long as there is no tree trouble the player often finds a shot that presents little more difficulty than one made from the fairway, and certainly far easier than would be the case if he'd only missed the fairway by 5 yards.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Doug,

I posted the same idea a few years back here and TePaul chimed in on the easier to mow theme then.  I still wonder, if bunkers are so hard to maintain (esp. with the jagged edges that many like) and that seems worth it, why not rough differences?

I think graduated roughs near to farther off the tee have some merit, and I think 10' of short rough vs. 30' on the other side of the fw also has some merit.  Think about mowing the intermediate cut as you go out from the tee - cut towards the green on the left, circle around and come back down the fw.  But instead of making a second pass op the left, turn around and only make a second pass on the right, exiting the hole behind the green on the way to the next fw.

Doesn't seem any harder a system to implement than changing cups every day, if some enterprising soul could sell it to a club.

[Edwin Roald]

Doug,

Struggled to find the comment by Tom Doak that you are referring to. Rough is one form of an obstacle. Why can you tell rough is too long if "you are worse off" in the rough on the "correct" side of the fairway than on the other side? If you were better off in the rough on the correct side, wouldn't your tee-shot loose all sense of purpose? Shouldn't the best line be fraught with danger?

[Jeff_Brauer]

It seems to me that if the correct side was fraught with less danger, it would encourage the bolder play to that side. I think sand bunkers on one side and deep rough on the other, for instance.

If more danger on the "good side", it would encourage the safer play towards the middle, as would symetrical rough to some extent.  Ask most golfers, and getting it in the fw is still job 1 on the tee.  Anywhere in the fw.  Asymetrical rough might change that thinking and it would be a fairly radical idea, I think.  Who besides Hogan, and the current bombers on par 5 holes really plays for the rough?

But, you could argue that a well designed green may require no rough at all to help you determine (perhaps after the fact?) what was the best side of the fw.

[Doug Siebert]

Actually Jeff I play for the rough in certain cases strategically to control spin.  On my home course's 6th hole if I have to lay up I will lay up into the right rough if the pin is back.  That makes it easier to hit a shot with less spin that I can land toward the middle of the green and roll back a bit.

It helps angle-wise with a pin that's back left but not because of any fronting bunkers (this is just a partial SW after all)  Its more because it allows me to aim away from this evil little pot bunker behind the green and helps me avoid leaving the ball to the right of the hole which is far too easy to do from the fairway, because if you land left of the pin the ball won't hold the green, but if you end up right of the pin its almost sure three putt.

If the pin's not back there's no reason to be in that rough, and if it is front then that's the worst place to be for multiple reasons...

[Edwin Roald]

But Jeff,

I feel that the courses many here praise for strategic merit are the ones where the bunkers bring high penalty, at least much higher than most bunkers on the courses that have symmetrical rough. Land in a bunker on a links course, and you usually have to blast out.

I agree with you that this "encourages" the safe play. The trick remains making the best line just appealing enough for one to have a go at it.

I don't like using rough to influence or enforce strategy, but of course we must accept it for budget reasons. I find this asymmetrical rough thing quite appealing though.

I was brought up on courses where rough was asymmetrical, and today it still is on many courses, although generally I don't think it is done intentionally. Sometimes it happens for a fortunate lack of thought and in other cases naturally. I agree that it does bring greater depth to the game.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Doug,

Sounds like a cool hole. Any links to the club web site or way to post a pic to make sure I understand it completely?

Edwin,

I agree to a degree.  But I have heard tour pros up to and including Jack Nicklaus describe their strategy and its almost always to avoid bunkers off the tee and get in the fw somehow.

And, if we make the approach angle just that much more appealing, I have always wondered if we really have a strategic hole, or just a penal hole in disguise?  If the fw bunkers are on the right, for example,  but the green is angled and sloped so that it will not hold at all from the left to justify taking the risk of hitting right off the tee, haven't we just created a "hit it here or else" hole that appears to be just a little more strategic?  If the green is near impossible to hit from the left, and its a sure bogey, I think we have.

If its harder to hit from the left, then perhaps its strategic, but are there really any good options for the golfer?  I can risk bogey by being in a blast out trap or risk not holding the green by playing safe.

The devil is in the details and it is, as you suggest a fine line and difficult balancing act.

[Edwin Roald]

Jeff,

Agreed. Still, the problem with the dominance of stroke play is underlined by the comment you refer to by the pros. One can almost say that the one who plays the most boring golf wins.

Also, this form of strategy, or risk/reward or whatever catch phrase we choose can become so repetitive. So please let's agree on variety number one, and I am all for asymmetrical rough as a part of that.

[tlavin]

I've always wondered why rough has to be uniform.  I'd like to see rough have bare spots, clumps of grass etc.  Then it would require differing skill sets than just hit it hard through the grass.

Stick to the munis and you'll get your wish!

Seriously though, it seems to me that it would be a pain in the #$% to maintain rough at different heights, not to mention expensive.