[Mike Hendren]

What's so Fine about tall Fescue?

Mike

[Joe Hancock]

Ponder:

If all the fine fescue/ native (the flowers were tough little pricks as well!) was water, would our scores ahve been higher or lower? I know each of us had multiple times where it took several slashes to extricate our golf balls from the hay.

Joe

p.s. I don't know the answer other than a timely fire through the naughty stuff.....

[Jon Heise]

I dont mind the long fescue.  Not too hard to walk through, and balls are relatively easy to find.  Hell, just about every time I "deposited" a ball in there, I came out with 2-3 ProV1's.  NOT BAD!

[JeffTodd]

Ponder:

If all the fine fescue/ native (the flowers were tough little pricks as well!) was water, would our scores ahve been higher or lower? I know each of us had multiple times where it took several slashes to extricate our golf balls from the hay.

Joe

p.s. I don't know the answer other than a timely fire through the naughty stuff.....

This is a timely thread. Having played with a fellow GCA member yesterday the subject of tall, native areas, has dominated the conversation for the last 18 hours.

Playing in NJ, where the rain has caused this stuff to grow incredibly dense, the golf course effectively had hazards on both sides of every hole on the course, with only a 10-20 yard buffer of rough between the fairway and a lost ball. On the occasions that balls were found, even a nine iron was an overly optimistic club selection. Had the grass been water I'm not sure if the scores would have been higher or lower, but the game would have been more fun. But more important, had the grass been water then perhaps those in charge of the course would be able to visualize how limiting and offensive the course, as presented, really is.

We both walked away feeling as if the native areas ruined the day, brought a perfectly average golf course down to the level where one speaks of malpractice, and even in normal conditions would add nothing to the experience or aesthetics.

To be clear, there is a definite difference between wispy fescue and torturous, dense, jungle hay. I have no problem with the former since, more often than not, your ball can be found and played. But when a narrow, parkland, course has every hole surrounded by junk (even in the buffer zones between two closely situated holes), and a shot that is offline by more than 20 yards will find it and be lost or effectively unplayable with anything more than a lob wedge, it's an awful way to play golf.

This was just another case of a parkland design trying to emulate a "links" appearance when the soil, native grass, maintenance, and most important, the design, do not lend themselves to that kind of presentation. It’s like putting lipstick on a pig, as they say.

[Scott Warren]

Jeff, what sort of distance are we talking between lost-ball-right and lost-ball left?

[astavrides]

Jeff, what course was it?

[Joe Hancock]

Jeff, what sort of distance are we talking between lost-ball-right and lost-ball left?

Particularly a relevant question once you factor in the terrain and maintenance of the the playing areas. The more contoured the land and the harder/ faster the turf, the more width is needed to stay out of the hay.

Joe

[Mike Hendren]

More narrowly, my question is:  

Are such natives:

1. An indigenous natural element? or
2. A cultivated aesthetic? or
3. A pragmatic erosion control? or
4. A ruse perpetrated by golf ball manufacturers? or
5. A ruse perpetrated by orthopaedic surgeons?

Bogey

[astavrides]

More narrowly, my question is:  

Are such natives:

1. An indigenous natural element? or
2. A cultivated aesthetic? or
3. A pragmatic erosion control? or
4. A ruse perpetrated by golf ball manufacturers? or
5. A ruse perpetrated by orthopaedic surgeons?

Bogey

Isn't it an environmental regulation/initiative for wildlife habitat and to reduce the amount of turfgrass that needs to be watered and cut?

[Mike Hendren]

Isn't it an environmental regulation/initiative for wildlife habitat and to reduce the amount of turfgrass that needs to be watered and cut?

Thank you for that sensible post. 

Mike

[JeffTodd]

astavrides,

We played the North Course at Charleston Springs, a Monmouth County Course. While that would sound benign enough, it was anything but. With a slope of 121 off the Gold Tees (the 2nd longest set) it felt like an episode of the twilight zone. I'm not a low handicap golfer, but I'm beyond the level of hacker and have been playing off 9 to 10 for some time. I wouldn't expect to find a muni with a 121 slope to be too penal to enjoy, but that was 100% the case.


Scott,

Naturally, the distances aren't uniform, but the narrow areas were typically most pronounced in the landing zone for a decent drive. After shooting some distances in google earth, a typical fairway was 30-40 yards wide, with 10 yards of rough on either side; more and less than that in a few places, but not many as there really wasn't a lot of variety to the course. While the holes are not isolated, there was not a single hole on the course where you could miss the fairway by more than 20 yards and have a reasonable expectation of finding your ball, and in places the fairways would pinch to well under 30 yards wide.

Throughout most of the course the cartpath would delineate the boundary of the rough and native areas.  I haven't downloaded the photo yet, but in some places where the playing corridors were wider than typically found on other holes, areas between the cartpath and fairway were allowed to go native as well, maintaining that fairly uniform 10-15 yards of rough, even when it would seem that the architect intended otherwise.

50-60 yards sounds like a reasonable width, but it did not seem reasonable when the penalty was so severe, there is no ability to bailout since it exists on both sides of the hole, and it is present on every single shot of the day. I've played golf at this complex in the past and the grasses were present, but not nearly as impossible. The constant rain is certainly a contributing factor, and the fallout was an $80 round of golf that was pure drudgery.

[Tom_Doak]

Michael:

I guess it depends on where you are.

At Crystal Downs, that "native" rough really IS native ... that's just what was growing there when they stopped maintaining it in the 1980's.  It's seasonal ... nothing to it May 1st, nasty after a wet spring and early summer, and thinned out by fall.

On many other courses, especially new courses, it grows too thick because the soils are too fertile and because it is seeded at too high a rate (because they don't want the roughs to look like dirt on opening day, even if they will be impenetrable for a generation to follow).

Honestly, I think a lot of that "long fescue" look is done by superintendents simply to present the APPEARANCE of being environmentally conscious.  I'm not sure it has that much of a positive effect.

[Dale Jackson]

Of course there are potential problems with too much of a good thing (I remember all too well playing at Deal in the 1990s just after an irrigation system was installed and dealing with the longest, thickest rough imaginable) but to my mind one of the most beautiful sights on a golf course is mature stands of fescue with all its browns and purples and the breeze forming waves through the grass.

[astavrides]

astavrides,

We played the North Course at Charleston Springs, a Monmouth County Course. While that would sound benign enough, it was anything but. With a slope of 121 off the Gold Tees (the 2nd longest set) it felt like an episode of the twilight zone. I'm not a low handicap golfer, but I'm beyond the level of hacker and have been playing off 9 to 10 for some time. I wouldn't expect to find a muni with a 121 slope to be too penal to enjoy, but that was 100% the case.


Scott,

Naturally, the distances aren't uniform, but the narrow areas were typically most pronounced in the landing zone for a decent drive. After shooting some distances in google earth, a typical fairway was 30-40 yards wide, with 10 yards of rough on either side; more and less than that in a few places, but not many as there really wasn't a lot of variety to the course. While the holes are not isolated, there was not a single hole on the course where you could miss the fairway by more than 20 yards and have a reasonable expectation of finding your ball, and in places the fairways would pinch to well under 30 yards wide.

Throughout most of the course the cartpath would delineate the boundary of the rough and native areas.  I haven't downloaded the photo yet, but in some places where the playing corridors were wider than typically found on other holes, areas between the cartpath and fairway were allowed to go native as well, maintaining that fairly uniform 10-15 yards of rough, even when it would seem that the architect intended otherwise.

50-60 yards sounds like a reasonable width, but it did not seem reasonable when the penalty was so severe, there is no ability to bailout since it exists on both sides of the hole, and it is present on every single shot of the day. I've played golf at this complex in the past and the grasses were present, but not nearly as impossible. The constant rain is certainly a contributing factor, and the fallout was an $80 round of golf that was pure drudgery.

Ch. Springs North gave me no problems in that regard on May 6, '09, but I imagine it is a lot worse now.

Eagle Ridge (B. Ault), by contrast was a frustrating experience for me last week.  Not because of fescue, but just general narrowness and blind shots.  Of course, at 73.9, 140, I shouldn't have played those back tees.  The scorecard did recommend the back tees for 0-12 handicap though.  (I'm a 9 hndcp also).

(It seems like with this website redo, if someone else posts when you are posting, you lose your post?)

[Scott Warren]

Scott,

Naturally, the distances aren't uniform, but the narrow areas were typically most pronounced in the landing zone for a decent drive. After shooting some distances in google earth, a typical fairway was 30-40 yards wide, with 10 yards of rough on either side; more and less than that in a few places, but not many as there really wasn't a lot of variety to the course. While the holes are not isolated, there was not a single hole on the course where you could miss the fairway by more than 20 yards and have a reasonable expectation of finding your ball, and in places the fairways would pinch to well under 30 yards wide.

Throughout most of the course the cartpath would delineate the boundary of the rough and native areas.  I haven't downloaded the photo yet, but in some places where the playing corridors were wider than typically found on other holes, areas between the cartpath and fairway were allowed to go native as well, maintaining that fairly uniform 10-15 yards of rough, even when it would seem that the architect intended otherwise.

50-60 yards sounds like a reasonable width, but it did not seem reasonable when the penalty was so severe, there is no ability to bailout since it exists on both sides of the hole, and it is present on every single shot of the day. I've played golf at this complex in the past and the grasses were present, but not nearly as impossible. The constant rain is certainly a contributing factor, and the fallout was an $80 round of golf that was pure drudgery.

So you've got 60 yards to play with, which includes 10 yards either side of rough to slow a wayward shot down?
I can't comment about the suitability of the maintenance style to the course, but if you came to the UK, even the inland courses seldom give you 60 yards of width to keep your ball in play.

How many times did you hit driver off the tee?

[Adam Clayman]

Like most features properly placed the texture adds to the feeling of natures infinite beauty. I love to see the tall grass bending in the breeze. Because afterall nae wind nae golf.

[Tim Pitner]

The longest hay I've ever seen was at . . . Sheep Ranch in June . . . and most people would hold that up as a model of width and playing options (there are certainly options).  The long grass was beautiful, but virtually guaranteed a lost ball. 

[Sean_A]

What's so Fine about tall Fescue?

Mike

Bogey

I like the look so long as its mainly out of play and/or well managed.  One of the main problems we have right now in the UK is the rough is getting worse year on.  If we don't get a decent summer the effects of rain and watering can't be killed back. Once you get a few years of this a deep lush meadow grass grows underneath the fescues and slowly takes over.  This is the state of every single irrigated links I know of - even the ones claiming to be trying to bring back fine grasses.  I say it again and again, but if there is an irrigation system I don't think many supers can keep it turned off even with the results we now have.  

So, if the rough isn't going to be controlled, I am in your camp - cut it all down regardless.  However, there are ways to control fescues, but I think its more about what folks want the playable areas to be like.  Once we can get folks on board with accepting what nature brings I think natural rough will be planted in more sensible areas and/or it won't be fed intentionally or not.

Ciao

[Wayne_Kozun]

On many other courses, especially new courses, it grows too thick because the soils are too fertile and because it is seeded at too high a rate (because they don't want the roughs to look like dirt on opening day, even if they will be impenetrable for a generation to follow).

This appeared to be the issue at Coppinwood - a new Tom Fazio course in the Toronto area.  This course is about 3-4 years old and in the first two years the fescue was horribly dense.  It is now getting down to a better density where you can find and play your ball.

[Carl Johnson]

Michael:

I guess it depends on where you are.

At Crystal Downs, that "native" rough really IS native ... that's just what was growing there when they stopped maintaining it in the 1980's.  It's seasonal ... nothing to it May 1st, nasty after a wet spring and early summer, and thinned out by fall.

From my standpoint, ecologically, "native" means something that originated in the place.  By that I mean something that has evolved over millions and millions of years with other flora and fauna in the same ecosystem.  In North America we have many plants brought over from the British Isles and other other parts of Europe by early, and not so early, settlers, that have become naturalized (same of course of plants from the other continents, excepting Antarctica I would guess.  Under this definition, just because a plant was growing on the land for a long time does not mean it is necessarily a native plant.  Some people might define a plant as native to North America if it orginated anywhere in North America.  Others would focus on the particular ecosystem.  That's the way I like to look at it.  In the Southern mountains we have an evergreen tree called the Fraser Fir.  It's native to this area in the purest sense.  Doubtless it could be grown -- maybe is -- and survive in other areas of the U.S. and the world.  Still, even if it had been grown and become naturalized in other areas, I wouldn't call it native to those areas.

[RJ_Daley]

Native area grass species, plant diversity and management are a subject that I don't think gets enough discussion and I suspect not enough curriculum in the turf science schools that turn out superintendents.  I might be wrong, but my impression is that the subject is touched lightly.  The native grass species mixes are wide and adapting their growth and succession over the years is tricky.  Not many areas of the country allow a yearly burning ritual.  And, even yearly burns aren't the be all and end all of the management of these areas.  I don't think there is a conventional wisdom recipe for choosing which seed combos to plant and manage on native areas of golf courses regionally.  But, when you think about it, a 180 acre golf course that has predominantly native areas between hole corridors may have more acreage of native than FW turf.  So, a super can't just plant it and forget it, in some ecological holistic management notion. 

Mike, have you seen Timberlake's Mirimichi project.  He boasts on the website of a strong eco effort and will use many native area strategies.
[urll]http://www.timberlake-justin.com/more-info-on-justins-mirimichi-golf-course[/url]

I guess they'll be filling in more of the blanks on this page:
http://mirimichi.com/

[JeffTodd]

Scott,

Naturally, the distances aren't uniform, but the narrow areas were typically most pronounced in the landing zone for a decent drive. After shooting some distances in google earth, a typical fairway was 30-40 yards wide, with 10 yards of rough on either side; more and less than that in a few places, but not many as there really wasn't a lot of variety to the course. While the holes are not isolated, there was not a single hole on the course where you could miss the fairway by more than 20 yards and have a reasonable expectation of finding your ball, and in places the fairways would pinch to well under 30 yards wide.

Throughout most of the course the cartpath would delineate the boundary of the rough and native areas.  I haven't downloaded the photo yet, but in some places where the playing corridors were wider than typically found on other holes, areas between the cartpath and fairway were allowed to go native as well, maintaining that fairly uniform 10-15 yards of rough, even when it would seem that the architect intended otherwise.

50-60 yards sounds like a reasonable width, but it did not seem reasonable when the penalty was so severe, there is no ability to bailout since it exists on both sides of the hole, and it is present on every single shot of the day. I've played golf at this complex in the past and the grasses were present, but not nearly as impossible. The constant rain is certainly a contributing factor, and the fallout was an $80 round of golf that was pure drudgery.

So you've got 60 yards to play with, which includes 10 yards either side of rough to slow a wayward shot down?
I can't comment about the suitability of the maintenance style to the course, but if you came to the UK, even the inland courses seldom give you 60 yards of width to keep your ball in play.

How many times did you hit driver off the tee?

To be clear, the width is less the issue than the penalty for exceeding it. I've played courses that are far more narrow than this one, but it is possible to find your miss, and even return it to play without facing a stroke and distance penalty. Of course, you can lose balls in any situation, but the golfer usually feels as if he has a fighting chance if he watches closely where the ball went. In this instance, failed attempts to advance the ball from the tall stuff that resulted in shots that went only a few yards were not found again. If you didn't step on your ball you weren't going to find it, most of the time.

As for the number of drivers, personally I didn't lose a tee shot all day. Still, if the answer is hitting hybrids and irons off the tee all day, what does that say about the design?  I did lose three balls, however.  I drove one into the grass, failed to wedge out,  and lost it within yards of where I stood. I lost two more, one on an approach, and one on a 2nd shot on a par 5. My playing partners didn't fair quite as well, and as a foursome we probably left 15+ balls lighter than we arrived. Based on the other groups out there, we were no exception, nor was the 5 hour round a surprise. Between the four of us I believe there was extensive searching on at least dozen holes, including two holes where the player landed the ball within yards of the green, catching a slope, and kicking past the 5 yard cushion and into oblivion. One need not hit a terrible shot to never see the ball again. If you flew the green you might as well drop and hit a provisional.

[JC Jones]

Tom -

The "hay" he is speaking of is at Kingsley Club.

Michael -

I think its native and I think Kingsley works to keep it relatively under control (at least thats what I took from my round w/ Dan Lucas).  I can tell you that I played worse than anyone this weekend and I lost 3 balls of my own but probably found 6 that weren't mine.  With a good line (and often some help from playing partners who had a better line) the ball is findable in the "hay."

[Jordan Wall]

astavrides,

We played the North Course at Charleston Springs, a Monmouth County Course. While that would sound benign enough, it was anything but. With a slope of 121 off the Gold Tees (the 2nd longest set) it felt like an episode of the twilight zone. I'm not a low handicap golfer, but I'm beyond the level of hacker and have been playing off 9 to 10 for some time. I wouldn't expect to find a muni with a 121 slope to be too penal to enjoy, but that was 100% the case.


Scott,

Naturally, the distances aren't uniform, but the narrow areas were typically most pronounced in the landing zone for a decent drive. After shooting some distances in google earth, a typical fairway was 30-40 yards wide, with 10 yards of rough on either side; more and less than that in a few places, but not many as there really wasn't a lot of variety to the course. While the holes are not isolated, there was not a single hole on the course where you could miss the fairway by more than 20 yards and have a reasonable expectation of finding your ball, and in places the fairways would pinch to well under 30 yards wide.

Throughout most of the course the cartpath would delineate the boundary of the rough and native areas.  I haven't downloaded the photo yet, but in some places where the playing corridors were wider than typically found on other holes, areas between the cartpath and fairway were allowed to go native as well, maintaining that fairly uniform 10-15 yards of rough, even when it would seem that the architect intended otherwise.

50-60 yards sounds like a reasonable width, but it did not seem reasonable when the penalty was so severe, there is no ability to bailout since it exists on both sides of the hole, and it is present on every single shot of the day. I've played golf at this complex in the past and the grasses were present, but not nearly as impossible. The constant rain is certainly a contributing factor, and the fallout was an $80 round of golf that was pure drudgery.

Jeff,

If your missing by fairways by 20 plus yards then you should expect a severe penalty.  Thats a big miss.  Since you've played the course before this would be more of a fault of bad play then fault within the course.  You should have known what to expect when playing there, and as such don't blame failed execution on the course.

Fescue not only looks good, but when maintained right can provide some really fun and interesting lies, particularly around greens.  I'm not opposed to real thick fescue, either.  It's easily apparent to the eye and anyone of any mental capacity knows to avoid it.  I love fescue, hay, be it whatever you call it.

Jordan

[Bill_McBride]

On many other courses, especially new courses, it grows too thick because the soils are too fertile and because it is seeded at too high a rate (because they don't want the roughs to look like dirt on opening day, even if they will be impenetrable for a generation to follow).

This appeared to be the issue at Coppinwood - a new Tom Fazio course in the Toronto area.  This course is about 3-4 years old and in the first two years the fescue was horribly dense.  It is now getting down to a better density where you can find and play your ball.

When I played at Peacock Gap in San Rafael, CA, after a Forrest Richardson remodel, the native grasses were knee high and it was very hard to find stray balls.  I was told the grass was relatively new and had to grow in thoroughly -- for a couple of years -- before it could be cut.  Maybe that's what they were doing at Coppinwood.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()