[Sean_A]

The past two months have seen me visiting a very long string of good to excellent courses.  Off the top of my head:

Michigan
Grosse Ile
Notts
LuLu
Lederach
Rolling Green
Merion
Hillside
Ashburnham
Pennard
Burnham & Berrow
Blackwell
Carne
Rosses Point
Enniscrone
Strandhill
Huntercombe
 
and probably a few others.  It strikes me that the theme of this two month period has been rough or lack of rough.  Almost without exception, the inland courses controlled the rough much better than the links.  I know a certain amount of this debate is personal as to how much rough there should be, but at some point something has to give.  The fun factor of the links is largely reduced because of unnecessarily high rough or in most cases, more accurately, fairways not wide enough.  I spose the most shocking example was Pennard.  I have never seen such defined  contrast between fairway and rough there.  Pennard is well known for there being little distinguishable difference between fairway and rough.  I had another shocking example at Burnham on Saturday.  There was a strange wind making the front 9 near impossible to play.  Nobody in our group finished the front 9 and we all registered NRs for the event and I am sure the vast majority of competitors did the same.  The silly thing is the wind couldn't have been more than 20mph - its just that the course wasn't set up to handle even this murmur of wind from that direction. 

Rye has often been cited as being a better winter course than summer one because the ball doesn't roll so much.  This obviously doesn't make Rye anything exceptional in GB&I.  However, could part of that bias for Rye being a good winter course be partly due to minimal rough?  After seeing Burnham (a course I rarely play in the summer) in such a constricting state it is clear to me that Burnham is far better in the winter than summer despite less roll.  In effect, the combination of severe rough with firm conditions has made many a links far too narrow.  Fairways could in fact be doubled on the courses which are hilly. 

Given that I don't believe clubs are going to start widening fairways (which I believe is the real solution) - the common refrain I hear is the flat bellies tear it up when the rough is down.  My questions are:

Is it practical to cut down rough during a peak time of growth - say mid May - how much work would this entail?

Do others experience this same frustration every May, June and sometimes well into July or am I just losing it?

I don't recall rough being anywhere near as nasty 20 years ago.  Are we just having wetter winters/springs which encourage more growth or were the fairways wider 20 years ago - or is it a combination of factors? 

Do other folks on this site agree the fairways should be wide enough to handle pretty much the worst of the wind given the ground conditions or is this just going a step too far?  In other words, like many courses get set up for an entire year for the one flat belly event, should folks just know not to play certain courses when the wind is coming form odd directions or is too strong?  Is it worth keeping fairways wide enough to handle those odd weather days?

Sorry for the rantish aspect of this post.  It just seems that so much cool architecture which comes alive when the wind is blowing is being buried in rough.  Its terribly dishaeartening.

Ciao

[Mark Pearce]

Sean,

No, it's not just you.  The Northumberland used to maintain its rough sensibly until it hosted the Carris Trophy a few years ago.  That meant the R&A came in and consulted for a while on set up and preparation.  The upside was a dramatic return to the quality of greens older members said had always been a feature of the course.  The downside was narrowed fairways and knee high rough in areas that many decent handicap golfers tend to put balls.  Due to a later growing season than much of the UK we don't really suffer 'til June but June and July are bastards and medal rounds tend to be a grind. By September we're having fun again.

P.S.  One of the real plus points of Lundin and Elie at BUDA was the lack of silly rough.  Other than from playing really atrocious hsots it was virtually impossible to lose a ball, or spend much time looking for one.

[Philip Gawith]

Sean - I also agree. Even at Huntercombe the rough is too thick. This means that rounds at this time of year become signficantly slower, with balls quite often being lost in the semi-rough before you get to the undergrowth. If you were being kind you would say that this was down to maintenance challenges owing to lots of rain - but I think it goes further than that. I think many clubs still suffer from the dull machismo that "tough" is "good", a vindication of their course etc etc.

Indeed, I was trying to remember who had written most persuasively and pithily on the virtues of width so I could forward it to the greens committee!

[Rich Goodale]

Sean

My experience this year varies.  As Mark said below, the roughs at both Lundin and Elie were very manageable (playable with fractional- stroke penalty) and ball-findable as long as you didn't spray your ball miserably.  I have found the same at Dornoch in my visits this year.  My understanding of the key to getting good links rough is NOT mowing but grass management.  If you get an invasion of broad-leafed grasses no amount of mowing is going to solve the problem.  The answer is to get rid of those grasses through patient and careful agronomy.  It is harder to do this in rainy years, but not impossible.

As for Committee decisions to "toughen up" courses, growing thick rough is the easy and cheapest option.  Even I can do it (looking out the window at my unmowed lawn....).  Interestingly, at Dornoch, they have narrowed the fairways to make the course easier for visitor.  This is because they manage the rough they have properly, and the band of rough stops balls from bounding into more sinister places (such as gorse).  If there were virtually no rough between the fairways and the gorse (as it was 20+ years ago) and the course was playing fast and firm, some visitors would find the course far too hard.  The course can be toughened other ways (e.g. pin positions) if they ever want to "protect" "par."

Rich

[Mark Pearce]

A word of praise too, for The Berkshire.  I played there on Friday and both courses were in immaculate condition, as they should be less than a week after the Berkshire Trophy.  Narrow fairways and the quickest greens I've played all year but in two rounds I didn't lose a ball.  Part of that of course is down to the wonderful golfing characteristics of heather, in which you can (nearly) always find a ball but never a decent lie - an ideal hazard.  However, even the grass rough was tough but (a) findable and (b) offered a range of playing options, not just the hackout.  It's possible to make courses tough but playable at this time of year, it's just that some clubs understand how better than others.

[Bill_McBride]

Sean - I also agree. Even at Huntercombe the rough is too thick. This means that rounds at this time of year become signficantly slower, with balls quite often being lost in the semi-rough before you get to the undergrowth. If you were being kind you would say that this was down to maintenance challenges owing to lots of rain - but I think it goes further than that. I think many clubs still suffer from the dull machismo that "tough" is "good", a vindication of their course etc etc.

Indeed, I was trying to remember who had written most persuasively and pithily on the virtues of width so I could forward it to the greens committee!

This doesn't specifically address the virtues of width, but Dr Mackenzie makes a great point (#10) in his list of "essential features of an ideal course:"

"10.   There should be a complete absence of the annoyance and irritation caused by the necessity of searching for lost balls."

This certainly speaks to the desirability of keeping the rough cut down to a level where you can find and play your errant golf ball.

[Brent Hutto]

I don't know why it isn't understood more universally that a round spent with hole after hole of tromping around in long grass hoping to find a nigh-invisible golf ball becomes a tedious bore and not an invigorating game. We've all had those rounds on a deep-rough course, playing with one or two members of our foursome who are spraying the ball around just enough to end up 5-10 yards deep in the primary rough on nearly every hole.

An observer not familiar with the game would find it incomprehensible to watch us sullenly wasting time...heads down, hands clasped behind backs, trudging slowly through tall grass for five minutes at a time over and over again for half a day. Here in the land of Bermuda rough it is trivial to impose sufficient penalty for a wayward shot with 1-1/2" of heavily watered and fertilized grass. Is it not practical to impose a similar penalty using cool-weather roughs short enough to allow most balls to be spotted readily?

[Philip Gawith]

Thanks for reminder Bill!

And Mark I agree with you re the Berkshire - I have played there a few times in the past 6 months and it is beautifully set up as you describe.

[James Bennett]

Sean (et all)

I concur.  I had the privilege in 2006 to play a number of great courses.  The two best courses (in my opinion, and in all course rankings universally acclaimed) had rough grasses that are best described as fine grasses.  Finding and playing a ball from these was a challenge, but not impossible, and not difficult to find a ball.

I also had the privilege to play a couple of courses that had hosted a US Open.  One of these gave me an introduction to bluegrass, the other was lush following record rainfalls that prevented any maintenance.  The bluegrass is a stern test, but can be demoralising especially if it has a little length to it.  In both cases, the ball looking can be tedious.

Growing up in a mediterranean climate, I am used to roughs that are generally thinner than the fairways (lack of rain).  If I grew up in a wetter climate with summer rain, then I might be used to thicker roughs.  The thicker roughs aren't as much 'fun' to play and certainly provide a greater separation between the men and the boys.  The question is how much separation do you really need!

James B

[Mark Chaplin]

I mentioned on a previous post that you chaps may have missed about the rough at Deal. Play in May it's fine but June and 1st half of July is exceptionally penal until the rough burns up, then it becmes fine again. I didn't realise but we are a SSSI (site of special scientific interest?) I believe English Nature tell us to what extent we can cut the rough and what parts of the course must remain natural. Now if we want to build a 20 sq yard new tee we have to return an equal amount of cultiated land to natural dune land. We are re-introducing sheep to the land to assist in managing the rough.

Currently Deal's fairways are plenty wide enough but miss them in early summer and ball finding becomes very difficult.

I recently spent 10 days in the US feasting on some of the best golf they have to offer, like James I came across blue grass which gave me hell. My final shot of the trip to #18 at Flossmoor - under rated gem in Chicago right by OF - was the first pitch I knocked stiff from the thick stuff all week. Inverness Club has tough rough surrounding small hard greens which require the deftest touch when chipping from the long stuff. Chicago Golf also required confident striking but the softest touch especially when wrong sided on some of the best & toughest greens I've ever played.

I found Pine Valley the most playable offering options around the greens, just a shame I couldn't buy a fairway!

As for the heaths, if they ever grew the rough high that would completely ruin the exercise, the heather is their defence and long may that remain the case.

Chappers

[James Bennett]

I recently spent 10 days in the US feasting on some of the best golf they have to offer, like James I came across blue grass which gave me hell.

I found Pine Valley the most playable offering options around the greens, just a shame I couldn't buy a fairway!

As for the heaths, if they ever grew the rough high that would completely ruin the exercise, the heather is their defence and long may that remain the case.

Chappers

Chappers

Pine Valley was one of my two best experiences with playable rough.  The other - Cypress Point.

Oh, and my one game at Deal was in April 2006 (or was it early May?) when the rough was manageable.  I often miss wide fairways when on holiday.

James B

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()