Are chipping areas out of place OR good strategic additions?

[Chip Gaskins]

If they are not in concert with the rest of the green complex?

I recently played Baltusrol and I noticed several chipping areas had been cut into the heavy rough around the green.  Though I am a big proponent of short grass around the green, having one little chipping area seems a bit strange.  I suppose my question is specific to Baltursol and were these "chipping areas" something that Tillinghast had in mind, but a bigger question is, do you guys thing they add or detract from green complexes?

[Eric_Terhorst]

Chip,

I just had an opportunity to consider this question yesterday, as I was fortunate to play Pete Dye's Firethorn in Lincoln, NE.  The rough was a heavy bluegrass (which in some places on the day of my visit they were watering  ), and around the greens, they had some cutouts very similar to the one you pictured at Baltusrol. 

First, I wondered, "Why did they decide to cut this grass here?"  Then I simply lamented that there wasn't more short grass.  The long bluegrass at Firethorn was very difficult to play out of--certainly less predictable.  Not monotonous, but I think more short grass would add to the fun. 

For me the cutouts do "detract" because they make me want to man the mowers instead of playing golf....

[Joe Hancock]

If the added short grass areas aren't well thought out strategically/ architecturally, then they become nothing more than expensive ornaments to look at. That example looks expensive to me....

Joe

[Kyle Harris]

Chip:

As a related question - is the rough around the green out of place?

[Mark_F]

Chip,

They seem out of place here because of the rigidity of the mowing lines of fairway and the rough surrounding the greens.

The edge of the green falls away slightly into the chipping area, so you would presume they were designed or created in harmony, but because of the formality of the maintenance, the chipping area is highlighted, instead of blending in, where it might be a little more lethal?

[Phil_the_Author]

Chip,

Tilly didn't use chipping areas and the omes at Baltusrol and BNethpage are not only not his but entirely out of place and poor additions... IMHO!

For meI find the sudden popularity of them to be the highest of irony since they best serve a GROUND game, something that modern technology has done away with.

[Kevin_Reilly]

They seemed to spring up as a modifications for play after the success Open at Pinehurst #2.  They seem "forced" in many examples.  I recall that the USGA put one on the 9th hole at Olympic for the '98 Open.  It was never a factor, and looked like something designed from 3000 miles away.

[Ryan Farrow]

Chip,

Tilly didn't use chipping areas and the omes at Baltusrol and BNethpage are not only not his but entirely out of place and poor additions... IMHO!

For meI find the sudden popularity of them to be the highest of irony since they best serve a GROUND game, something that modern technology has done away with.

Phillip, are chipping areas not more about recovery options than the ground game? There are very few ways to play out of the rough, and mostly depend on your lie. Chipping areas take away that chance. You can always flop, bump, or chip a shot on tight grass, but those options are not always available when you have a green surrounded by rough. This I am sure you already know. I just don't know what you think modern technology has to do with any of this.

[Tim Gavrich]

I like the use of chipping areas, as anything, when it works visually.  In most cases, this is certainly feasible.  The problem I see is that for them to REALLY work, the golf course needs to be maintained at near-PGA Tour conditions, at least as far as fairways and greens go.  Otherwise, they don't seem to come into play too much.

There's a resort in North Myrtle Beach, Barefoot Resort, with four pretty high-end golf courses--a Fazio, a Dye, a Norman, and a Love--I have played all but the Fazio.  The last time I played one of the courses there, in the summer, the fairways were just too soft and slow for a ball to roll down any of the chipping areas.  And even if it did, the only real option was a pitch shot that had to land on the green because you couldn't reasonably putt through such slow fringe or bump the ball into a soft hill with predictable results.  But at a place like TPC River Highlands, a private club that is never far from Travelers Championship conditions, the chipping areas draw balls down to the bottoms and play as intended.

In general, I'm in favor of bigger fringes around greens; not necessarily in the form of chipping areas.  I don't like when newer courses just have a foot-wide strip of fringe grass and then a green wall of primary rough around them; it looks funny to me.

[Phil_the_Author]

Chip,

Modern technology has every player hitting high shots into any and every green and fairway. I can't remember the last time I saw a player of any calibre playing along the ground because it was the advantageous thing to do when there was no wind. As an example of what i mean, when watching the Open this coming week, at a course where the ground game should be employed by the smart player at least on occasion, consider just how few will use it.

That is why I wrote, "For me I find the sudden popularity of them to be the highest of irony since they best serve a GROUND game, something that modern technology has done away with."

As you correctly stated, chipping areas allow for more recovery options and shot types that may be employed. The vast majority of these "options" are played along the ground and not through the air. With technology causing most people today to think how far to hit rather than HOW TO PLAY a shot it is no surprise to see that the ground has become forgotten.

[Kyle Harris]

What makes everyone so certain there was rough around the green in the first place? Think about how fairways were cut back then. I find the rough around the green more offensive to the design sensibility than the area of short grass.

[Phil_the_Author]

Kyle,

You asked, "What makes everyone so certain there was rough around the green in the first place? Think about how fairways were cut back then. I find the rough around the green more offensive to the design sensibility than the area of short grass."

In the case of Baltusrol, which Chip originally mentioned, and Bethpage, which I added, the proof that neither had "chipping areas" are the photographs of the courses and holes from the time when they were first opened for play. As Mr. Lennon might sing, "All you see is rough..."

[Kyle Harris]

Kyle,

You asked, "What makes everyone so certain there was rough around the green in the first place? Think about how fairways were cut back then. I find the rough around the green more offensive to the design sensibility than the area of short grass."

In the case of Baltusrol, which Chip originally mentioned, and Bethpage, which I added, the proof that neither had "chipping areas" are the photographs of the courses and holes from the time when they were first opened for play. As Mr. Lennon might sing, "All you see is rough..."

Phil,

I'm quite impressed you can determine the height of the grass from an aerial. Whether or not it's been irrigated? Sure...

The point is... the equipment at the time (gang mowers) were usually turned around the greens without even lifting the reels. I can see it on a fairway that was segregated from the green with rough as may be the case with holes such as 5 and 6 at Bethpage (among others!) but I hardly think either example was categorical.

[Phil_the_Author]

Kyle,

You stated, "'m quite impressed you can determine the height of the grass from an aerial. Whether or not it's been irrigated? Sure..."

I didn't say aerials... I said photographs. For example, there is a wonderful photograph of the putting surface of the 8th green at Bethpage Black taken in September of 1938. It CLEARLY shows that the surface extended all the way to the edge of the crest of the hillside leading down into the fronting pond. That photo was used to decide that it should be restored. KLikewise photographs from that same time period clearly show that there were no short grass (fairway height) chipping areas behind the 4th and 10th greens on the Black as well as any at Baltusrol from the same time frame.

I don't blame you for being impressed by me, but not for the reason you quoted! 

[Kyle Harris]

Kyle,

You stated, "'m quite impressed you can determine the height of the grass from an aerial. Whether or not it's been irrigated? Sure..."

I didn't say aerials... I said photographs. For example, there is a wonderful photograph of the putting surface of the 8th green at Bethpage Black taken in September of 1938. It CLEARLY shows that the surface extended all the way to the edge of the crest of the hillside leading down into the fronting pond. That photo was used to decide that it should be restored. KLikewise photographs from that same time period clearly show that there were no short grass (fairway height) chipping areas behind the 4th and 10th greens on the Black as well as any at Baltusrol from the same time frame.

I don't blame you for being impressed by me, but not for the reason you quoted! 

Fair enough Phil.

Those holes it doesn't surprise me, as the green surface is segregated from the fairway on the 10th, and the 4th green is offset so the gangs could turn off to the right of the green and not need to go around back.

I know next to nothing about Baltusrol.

[Phil_the_Author]

My personal problem with the chipping area concept is that they are not universally used ona golf course. They are used sparingly and with no real reason as to why a particular green is chosen for using one over another. For example, at Bethpage, if one were to have achipping area then I would think that behind the 11th green would make a much more interesting and understandable place for placing it. But that is just me.

If a course was designed where chipping areas were used throughout all or most of the green complexes i would be very much in favor of it.To simply choose to have one or two because it would be a cool thing to do is wrong...