[Patrick_Mucci]

I recently played a very nice AWT course.

I was shocked to see the rough at 6-8-10 inches.
In addition, it was lush, benefiting from nearby irrigation heads.

I also noticed that the fairways had been narrowed, which probably explains the lushness of the rough.

Why do clubs make configure/maintain their courses at a level beyond the ability of their memberships ?

At a time when golf is on the decline, why not make the course fun to play ?

Why make it tedious or too difficult to play ?

Why aren't more clubs widening their fairways to the original widths ?

[Jim Sweeney]

Good questions all. I generaly like narrower fairways requiring greater accuracy if there is substantial opportunity to recover from non-fairway positions. However, taking interesting features out of play by narrowing fairways and planting trees is a no-no in my book.

[Matt Kardash]

I have been a member through my dad at a club north of Montreal called Le Blainvillier for about 12 years or so. When the club first opend, both 18's were ranked as highest and second highest slope rating's in the province of Quebec. Over the years the club has done many things to make the courses playe easier.

Originally, the club used to let the fescue grass grow wild almost everywhere. Now the fescue is only really found in areas before the start of the fairway's and in other places you'd be hard pressed to hit it.

Green contours have been softened.

Two holes that once had greens bordering a water hazard now have bunkers as a buffer. The bunkers that have been added look straight up horrid and do not fit at all with the style of the rest of the course.

The list goes on...

I think the worst offence has been to tamper with some of the greens. Some of these greens were pretty damn bold and made recovery play and long putting a real challenge.

I'm guessing most members are happy that the courses are a little more "user-friendly", but I see it more as "watering-down" the course.

[Kirk Stewart]

I recently played a very nice AWT course.

-- Does this AWT course have an USGA or PGA pedigree ?

I was shocked to see the rough at 6-8-10 inches.
In addition, it was lush, benefiting from nearby irrigation heads.

I also noticed that the fairways had been narrowed, which probably explains the lushness of the rough.

--Why would narrowing the fairways explain the lushness of the rough? They are not related.

Why do clubs make configure/maintain their courses at a level beyond the ability of their memberships ?

--Perhaps it may be due to the answer of pedigree. Do Oakmont, Augusta National and courses of similar ilk have their courses set up beyond the playing ability of their membership (of course) ?

At a time when golf is on the decline, why not make the course fun to play ?

--I think it would not only be fun but immensly enjoyable to play. Are you assuming that the membership and guests are not having fun ?

Why make it tedious or too difficult to play ?

-- Perhaps they have that USGA or PGA pedigree reputation to uphold ? Perhaps this reputation is their key differentiator when it comes to membership sales or is this a realtively new phenomenom ?

Why aren't more clubs widening their fairways to the original widths ?

--Why aren't more members consulting with their local PGA professional to learn how to keep it on the map ?

[John_Conley]

Pat, I think Brauer nailed it when he cited a study that showed golf courses were too long for the average player but too short for the scratch player.  High-level amateurs and today's professionals are so good that it is easy to see how courses designed for them are just too flippin' hard to be fun for the rank and file.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

I think it's more of a function of the greens committee and/or chairman as to which direction a club goes with its course. If the committee is controlled by low handicappers who want more of a challenge, then the course can get more difficult. The kind of rough you describe is patently ridiculous. If the club is aging and the committee is controlled by those members, then you may have the situation described by Matt Kardash above.   

[Patrick_Mucci]

I recently played a very nice AWT course.

-- Does this AWT course have an USGA or PGA pedigree ?

I was shocked to see the rough at 6-8-10 inches.
In addition, it was lush, benefiting from nearby irrigation heads.

I also noticed that the fairways had been narrowed, which probably explains the lushness of the rough.

--Why would narrowing the fairways explain the lushness of the rough? They are not related.

They are inextricably related.
Hint:  Throw radius

Why do clubs make configure/maintain their courses at a level beyond the ability of their memberships ?

--Perhaps it may be due to the answer of pedigree. Do Oakmont, Augusta National and courses of similar ilk have their courses set up beyond the playing ability of their membership (of course) ?

You are incorrect.

ANGC is NOT set up beyond the playing ability of their membership.

In addition, those are courses which hold Major National Championships, the course I referenced does not.

At a time when golf is on the decline, why not make the course fun to play ?

--I think it would not only be fun but immensly enjoyable to play.


If you think it would be fun and enjoyable to play, why don't we make a wager for a few quid that you won't play to your handicap.
What's fun about having to play out of 6-8-10 inches of rough off of every fairway and green ?

Are you assuming that the membership and guests are not having fun ?
No, I'm telling you that members and guests aren't having as much fun.

Why make it tedious or too difficult to play ?

Perhaps they have that USGA or PGA pedigree reputation to uphold ?

They have no such pedigree

Perhaps this reputation is their key differentiator when it comes to membership sales or is this a realtively new phenomenom ?

It's a relatively new phenomenom.

Why aren't more clubs widening their fairways to the original widths ?

Why aren't more members consulting with their local PGA professional to learn how to keep it on the map ?

Keep WHAT on the map ?

And, how do you know that more members aren't consulting with their PGA Pro ?

[PThomas]

.
I was shocked to see the rough at 6-8-10 inches.
In addition, it was lush, benefiting from nearby irrigation heads.

.

talk about a waste of water!

[Ken Moum]

My home course, a Ross, has seen a steady planting of trees, narrowing of fairways and reduction in the size of the greens over time.

The latest narrowing, from and average of about 35 yards from rough to rough, to about 25 yards, was done simply to save money. Our maintenence budget is so tight that our superintendent has resorted to all manner of money-saving ideas just to keep the place going.

It was not a movement to make the course harder. In fact, until I pointed it out, no one of the members I play with even noticed it. 

When I say, "That ball would have been in the fairway three years ago," they all say "You're right!" They often noticed that their scores had gone up, but never put two and two together.

I recently bought aerials of the course from 1948 and 1971 and it's amazing how much narrower the course is, and how much smaller some greens are.

It is NOT a better course than it was four years ago.

This summer, my wife and I were talking about how narrow the fairways had gotten, and our part-time GM and good player said, "The rough is the only defense the course has."

My question is, defense from what?

Ken

[Kirk Stewart]

I recently played a very nice AWT course.

-- Does this AWT course have an USGA or PGA pedigree ?

I was shocked to see the rough at 6-8-10 inches.
In addition, it was lush, benefiting from nearby irrigation heads.

I also noticed that the fairways had been narrowed, which probably explains the lushness of the rough.

--Why would narrowing the fairways explain the lushness of the rough? They are not related.

They are inextricably related.
Hint:  Throw radius


----The rough is lush and 6-10 long inches because of bountiful water and the lack of lawn mower.


Why do clubs make configure/maintain their courses at a level beyond the ability of their memberships ?

--Perhaps it may be due to the answer of pedigree. Do Oakmont, Augusta National and courses of similar ilk have their courses set up beyond the playing ability of their membership (of course) ?

You are incorrect.

ANGC is NOT set up beyond the playing ability of their membership.

In addition, those are courses which hold Major National Championships, the course I referenced does not.

At a time when golf is on the decline, why not make the course fun to play ?

--I think it would not only be fun but immensly enjoyable to play.


If you think it would be fun and enjoyable to play, why don't we make a wager for a few quid that you won't play to your handicap.
What's fun about having to play out of 6-8-10 inches of rough off of every fairway and green ?


---Let's make the wager for money instead.


Are you assuming that the membership and guests are not having fun ?
No, I'm telling you that members and guests aren't having as much fun.

Why make it tedious or too difficult to play ?

Perhaps they have that USGA or PGA pedigree reputation to uphold ?

They have no such pedigree


--Which is why I asked. Personally I think it is fun to experience varying course conditions at your home club. Shake things a bit. We had an event called Pete's revenge (Tim is the Supt) whereby the course was set up as hard as possible. Legit pins, but very tucked, obnoxiously quick greens, longer than normal rough and it was a hugely popular event. In hindsight, I think the most alarming issue with this AWT course would be pace of play.

Perhaps this reputation is their key differentiator when it comes to membership sales or is this a realtively new phenomenom ?

It's a relatively new phenomenom.

Why aren't more clubs widening their fairways to the original widths ?

Why aren't more members consulting with their local PGA professional to learn how to keep it on the map ?

Keep WHAT on the map ?


--the golf ball

And, how do you know that more members aren't consulting with their PGA Pro ?



[/quote]
[/quote]

[W.H. Cosgrove]

I think many courses have decided that in order to compete in today's market, they need to produce a more spectacular looking and difficult golf course.  It reminds of the guy who marries the gorgeous blond only to find out that she spends so much time getting ready that their is little energy left for the festivities.  And I might add he can't afford to keep her looking like that forever. 

In part I blame the rankings game.  Particularly the advent of the concept of Resistance to scoring utilized by Golf Digest.  In a recent discussion of a course in Oregon, I said I enjoyed the course but really didn't want to play it as a steady diet.  And just tonight my brothers who are joining me for some golf decided that the less expensive and easier course in town would be more fun and we are going to leave the heralded and more expensive alternative for another trip. 

The game really doesn't need to be more difficult.  I play to a single digit and all to often find myself wishing for greens a little slower  and the rough a little lower. 

Oh yes an answer, courses add to their difficulty because they really don't understand that this iss rerally supposed to be relaxing not a struggle.

[Matt_Cohn]

This seems like a very American thing to me in terms of the attitudes involved.

Is this occuring in Europe as well?

[Sean_A]

This seems like a very American thing to me in terms of the attitudes involved.

Is this occuring in Europe as well?

Matt

I do believe that some courses in GB&I are narrowing their fairways and keeping the rough up.  The rough is blamed on the weather, but many clubs can still do something about it - I have seen some this year which have controlled it very well despite the inordinate amount of rain.  I spose for many links the mistake in the first place was watering systems put in place that were not terribly accurate with the water spray - hence nasty meadowy type grass has infested rough and spread into fairways - or vice versa.  Of course, now it may often be a budget issue.  There are bound to be some clubs that think they have never cut some areas and are reluctant to do so now.   

The sad thing is by narrowing the fairways/keeping rough up that a disconnect with the original architectural intent is happening.  Courses are meant to be wide enough to allow for extreme weather.  These days, courses they do this well are far and few between - probably because it is seen as too easy for flat bellies.  Its a very sad situation that can easily be cured with a change of mindset - IE screw the flat bellies.  If they think golf is too easy let them figure out a way to make it more challenging.  Its sort of similar to guys driving 90 mph in moderate or heavy traffic and coming up on your ass expecting you to alter your speed/or duck out of the way (often inconveniently) to accomodate them.  I say screw that.  If you want to drive like that in conditions that don't allow for it, figure out a way to do it without my help. 

Ciao

Ciao

[Chris Kane]

I blame the media 

[Patrick_Mucci]

I recently played a very nice AWT course.

-- Does this AWT course have an USGA or PGA pedigree ?

I was shocked to see the rough at 6-8-10 inches.
In addition, it was lush, benefiting from nearby irrigation heads.

I also noticed that the fairways had been narrowed, which probably explains the lushness of the rough.

--Why would narrowing the fairways explain the lushness of the rough? They are not related.

They are inextricably related.
Hint:  Throw radius


----The rough is lush and 6-10 long inches because of bountiful water and the lack of lawn mower.

That's usually a good start.
Does that come as a surprise to you ?


Why do clubs make configure/maintain their courses at a level beyond the ability of their memberships ?

--Perhaps it may be due to the answer of pedigree. Do Oakmont, Augusta National and courses of similar ilk have their courses set up beyond the playing ability of their membership (of course) ?

You are incorrect.

ANGC is NOT set up beyond the playing ability of their membership.

In addition, those are courses which hold Major National Championships, the course I referenced does not.

At a time when golf is on the decline, why not make the course fun to play ?

--I think it would not only be fun but immensly enjoyable to play.


If you think it would be fun and enjoyable to play, why don't we make a wager for a few quid that you won't play to your handicap.
What's fun about having to play out of 6-8-10 inches of rough off of every fairway and green ?


---Let's make the wager for money instead.

Name the amount

Are you assuming that the membership and guests are not having fun ?

No, I'm telling you that members and guests aren't having as much fun.

Why make it tedious or too difficult to play ?

Perhaps they have that USGA or PGA pedigree reputation to uphold ?

They have no such pedigree

--Which is why I asked. Personally I think it is fun to experience varying course conditions at your home club. Shake things a bit. We had an event called Pete's revenge (Tim is the Supt) whereby the course was set up as hard as possible. Legit pins, but very tucked, obnoxiously quick greens, longer than normal rough and it was a hugely popular event.


Many courses have those ONE day events.
Some are refered to as the "greenkeeper's revenge"
As a steady diet, there'd be a new greenkeeper.

In hindsight, I think the most alarming issue with this AWT course would be pace of play.

That's another issue, finding your ball.
Then, extracating it is an effort, especially if you don't choose the right club and leave yourself in the rough

Perhaps this reputation is their key differentiator when it comes to membership sales or is this a realtively new phenomenom ?

It's a relatively new phenomenom.

Why aren't more clubs widening their fairways to the original widths ?

Why aren't more members consulting with their local PGA professional to learn how to keep it on the map ?

Keep WHAT on the map ?

the golf ball

And, how do you know that more members aren't consulting with their PGA Pro ?


You never answered this question

[/quote]
[/quote]

[Mark Pearce]

This seems like a very American thing to me in terms of the attitudes involved.

Is this occuring in Europe as well?

I play at a Harry Colt designed course (with a bit of James Braid and one new, weak hole).  Three or four years ago I could play relatively easily to my 12 handicap.  Indeed I was coming down.  Since then the rough has been allowed to grow and fairways have been narrowed, in some cases to the severe detriment of strategy.  I have been taking regular lessons and am now a better golfer than I was three years ago but my handicap is going up.  I go to play at other courses and on very many find it easy to play to my handicap or better.

I think the club I belong to has a very good course.  I am, however, thinking about moving.  There's no fun for me playing 430 yard par 4s with 25 yard wide fairways and thick 6 inch deep rough.  Particularly where that rough has been encouraged to grow in areas which were the "safe miss" in the past, but with a probable shot penalty but which now pretty much require a reload.  My driving has always been a strength of my game.  I'm now delighted to finish the round with the same ball I started with.

[Jim Franklin]

Patrick -

I am with you 1000%. There are fewer people playing golf these days because golf is HARD and not because it is too easy.

I play at an AWT that hosts a major for the Seniors and we have 6-8-10 inch rough for daily play and then 3 1/2 inches for them. It does not make any sense. In addition, we have pinched some fairways so that if you try to carry a few bunkers, you are rewarded with that 6-8-10 inch thick rough. It makes no sense to me.

I had a client out the other day and he isn't a bad golfer, but we spent SOOOOO much time looking for his slightly wayward tee shots that it just was not fun. We had a foursome on our butts all day because it took so long to find his shots. Golf is supposed to be fun.

Good thread, thanks for starting.

[Adam Clayman]

Caulk it up to a combo of ignorance and misplaced attitude. Not even some of the best courses in the world are impervious to what is basically a virus.   

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim,

It's interesting that we encountered the same dilema on different courses.

Namely, the deceptive nature of the view of a carry bunker from the tee.

On the 9th hole at the AWT course I played, there's a diagonal fairway bunker along the left side of the fairway that challenges the golfer.

I was fortunate in that I carried it by a wide margin, but, another player in our group, a very solid 5 handicap hit a good drive that carried the bunker, only to find the ball in deep rough that was invisible from the tee.

I had played this hole earlier in the year and commented about this deceitful maintainance practice and its counter productivity on the architectural intent of the feature, the risk/reward element.

I can only surmise that it's a green chairman's attempt at revenge on the stronger player.

AWT's tactical signal to the eye of the golfer standing on the tee is clear.
Succeed in challenging the diagonal bunker and you'll be rewarded by having a better angle and a shorter distance to a green surrounded by water.

Finding yourself in 6-9-10 inch rough was NEVER contemplated and is a recent practice by misguided individuals.

This theme is replete throughout the golf course.

Another hole requires a heroic carry over water on the second shot to a LZ that's seriously pinched in, however, if your drive is in the rough, you have no shot at getting over the water.  And, if you're in the fairway and hit a good second shot, a little off line, you're in 6-8-10 inch rough 60-80 yards from the green.

For the higher handicap who can't clear the water in two shots, the third shot becomes too difficult due to the narrow nature of the LZ.

It's insane and I can't understand why the membership would tolerate it.

[Ken Moum]

It's insane and I can't understand why the membership would tolerate it.

As I noted in my example, I would bet that nine out of ten members haven't noticed the difference. They may have noticed that their scores are higher--but chalked it up to the fact that they suck.

And the best players may have noticed it, but likely think as a +1.6 at my club did... he said he liked it because the 6 handicapper he played for money couldn't keep up.

Interestingly, it got so tough in May and June (when the rough was wet and thick) that he and another +1.7 index were both up to 2 handicaps and thrilled about getting strokes for the first time in years.

FWIW, now that things have dried up a bit, one of them is a +2.2 and the other +1.1

Ken

[Patrick_Mucci]

It's insane and I can't understand why the membership would tolerate it.

As I noted in my example, I would bet that nine out of ten members haven't noticed the difference. They may have noticed that their scores are higher--but chalked it up to the fact that they suck.

It's impossible NOT to notice lush rough that's 6-8-10 inches high

And the best players may have noticed it, but likely think as a +1.6 at my club did... he said he liked it because the 6 handicapper he played for money couldn't keep up.

Aaaah, the vested interest or faction, the bane of all architects.

Architects forge a disinterested challenge, favoring no particular golfer, yet, golfers favor altering golf courses to suit their games without any regard for the games of others.  They are not disinterested parties, and that's whree the trouble starts.

Interestingly, it got so tough in May and June (when the rough was wet and thick) that he and another +1.7 index were both up to 2 handicaps and thrilled about getting strokes for the first time in years.

The "bad machines" don't know when they're bad.

FWIW, now that things have dried up a bit, one of them is a +2.2 and the other +1.1

[Rick Sides]

Good question Pat.  I think part of it is the fact that some golf courses have a fear that their course may be too easy with all the advanced equipment these days.  In reality, golf is a pretty friggin hard game regardless of equipment advances.  And as I firmly believe, the majority of golfers fall into the average to hacker category(myself included) and a lot of people deflate their scores giving the illusion that they scored better than they really do.  I played in a tournament at my club 2 weeks back with a man who spent more time in the trees than a lumberjack and he gave himself an 84!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Rick, et. al.,

What I find extremely interesting is listening to the perspective of different factions on why they believe the course needs to be made more difficult.

Many lower handicap players want shots/architecture made more difficult for the higher handicap to whom they're giving shots.

Some golfers want their golf course to be harder than their neighboring golf courses or friends and acquiantances golf courses.

Others want to emulate the difficult conditions seen on TV.

At a time when the game takes too long, and play is down, most have forgotten that a round of golf should be a journey, a short journey where a reasonable challenge is presented, with that challenge being fun to meet.

[Rick Sides]

I'm right there with you Pat.  Golf is suppose to be a challenge, but a fun challenge.  To the average joe like most of us, we just want to post a decent score, win a few dollars, and have a good time.  Too many courses try to build courses or modify courses based on the pro game which is really on perhaps 1% of golfers.  Not many weekend warriors like us will ever know what it feels like to crush a ball 330 yards on a drive and hit a 9 iron onto a par 5.  Courses really need to look at their consumers more.

[Ken Moum]

It's insane and I can't understand why the membership would tolerate it.

As I noted in my example, I would bet that nine out of ten members haven't noticed the difference. They may have noticed that their scores are higher--but chalked it up to the fact that they suck.

It's impossible NOT to notice lush rough that's 6-8-10 inches high

All I can say is that I have pointed out to about three dozen members (all of whom play more than once a week) that between 2005 and 2007 the fairways were narrowed from 35 yards to 25 yards and not one of them had noticed it.

The rough at our course it sommonly in the six-inch range, and sometimes get much longer due to difficulty in keeping up with mowing.

Ken

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()