Is "rough" the only defender against the PGA Tour Pros ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Watching a few tournaments this year it seems that member golf clubs/courses are incapable of challenging the best players in the world unless they tighten fairways and enrich the rough.

Distance doesn't seem to matter anymore.

500+ par 4's don't offer a challenge.
600+ par 5's don't offer a challenge.

Clubs can't move and deepen their bunkers for 4 days and then replace them in the prior state.

Green speed and firmness are often at the mercy of Mother Nature.

The only impediment, the only defense seems to be the rough.

It keeps getting narrower and deeper.

Is this what tournament golf has evolved to ?

Will those who watch golf clamor for similar conditions at their local clubs, narrower fairways with deeper rough ?

Will the banning of square grooves have any impact ?

[Mike Sweeney]

If the PGA follows the USGA's trick and turns Hazeltine into a Par 70, the winning score is even par.

That said, I probably agree with your premise.

[Richard Choi]

Pat, good topic, I was going to bring up something similar.

My beef is this. Why bother having bunkers if they are a better choice than being in the rough??? The sand in these "hazards" are so uniform and so firm that it poses absolutely no challenge for these players. I mean, Harrington hit a 3 wood out of the hazard with one feet out of the bunker over 300 yards!

If I am a PGA player, I am hoping and praying that if I miss the fairway, I end up in the bunker.

What kind of hazard is that?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Richard,

When you view Tiger's previous fairway bunker shot on # 18, the 300+ yard fairway bunker shot that Harrington hit and all the holed or nearly holed greenside bunker shots, I think you have to concede that bunkers are no longer the hazards the were intended to be.

In addition, many seem out of place today.

I think Nicklaus had the right idea with his attempt at returning the concept of furrowing.

But, I also believe that tournament golf has transitioned from sport to a hybrid of sport and entertainment, and JQP wants to see birdies and eagles versus hard earned pars, bogies or worse, and therein lies the problem

I don't know how a course can physically keep it's architecture current for PGA Tour Pros in the face of high tech I's & B's..... not to mention their talent at using I & B.

[Richard Choi]

I agree with you Pat, but don't you think having a low rough (~2 inch) and having soft and uneven bunkers that is a REAL challenge is would provide more exciting and startegic golf than what we have today?

With the setup like they had today it just takes all of the course's built in strategy moot.

[noonan]

Rescue clubs have negated distance. The shot Yang hit on 18 would not have been probable with an iron.

[Charlie_Bell]

How 'bout making "rough" bunkers?  Small islands of 3" grass, strategically located...

[Patrick_Mucci]

Richard,

I'm an advocate of returning the function of bunkers to their original intent, that of being a "HAZARD"

So, whichever way you do it is OK with me.

However, the PGA Tour Pros are perfectionists.

With respect to the bunker locations on holes I've studied, especially on modern courses, randomness seems absent.

You don't see stray bunkers at unusual distances from the tee, in unusual locations, hence the PGATP's figure out where to hit it and then hit it to that location.

One of the features on # 18 at NGLA is the random and seemingly unusual bunker locations scattered throughout the hole.
But, even that configuration can be defeated by the PGATP's.
They tend to have a discipline not found at the amateur level.
They'll just figure out where the optimal drive should be and plunk their tee shot in that location, negating the strategic placement of those seemingly random bunkers.  They have the length to then hit an iron or mid iron into that green.

The other factor in their favor seems to be FLAT fairways.

I think that's why Shinnecock presents additional challenges to them.
Some of those fairways are roller coaster ribbons in a sea of fescue.

[Ken Moum]

I agree with those who point at the sand-filled non-hazards sprinkled all over today's courses.

All they need to do is follw the lead of the super where I play and use the cultivating tines on a Sand Pro very time they rake. He's doing it to compensate for the mediocre, contaminated sand we have, but the result is that any shot that flies in is likely to plug, and the stuff is so fluffy that you simply cannot spin the ball out of it.

And if it's raked up on the faces, the ball almost never rolls to a flat lie.

The 20 handicappers like it, because they can get out with a dig-and-shove stroke, but no one who's any good out of a bunker likes it.

Add a little flyer rough and V grooves and you've got something.

K

[Steve Lang]

  We've grown the rough at WCC's ol' TPC course getting it ready for the Champions Tour event in October..  2.5. to 3" bermuda is hellacious.. having played it for two days, i can't believe normal golfers really want to play with such a setup.. where you can lose a ball unless you happen to walk over it at times..

it does psych you out on the tees, when you know you really want to get one down the fairway or hit a green.. literally the sand is your friend

i can't believe this doesn't affect the pros a little bit more than they may let on.. but of course they're playing for money.. and all compete on the same field, just like amatuers

[Criss Titschinger]

Geoff Ogilvy wasn't a big fan...

http://blogs.golf.com/presstent/2009/08/frustrated-ogilvy-pga-over-course-set-up.html?eref=sihpT1

Quoted from the article:

[Ogilvy said that the 2004 PGA Championship at Whistling Straits was the most enjoyable PGA Championship he's ever played.

"It's probably the least likely place where we play where they could ruin the setup," he said. "There are some very long tees we didn't play last time, but as far as propagating and harvesting absurd rough, which they seem to have done the last two years in the PGA, I just don't think Whistling Straits is a place where they are going to do that. I really enjoyed that PGA, but the others ones have been harder to enjoy because if you miss the green by a foot, you can have nothing."

"The difficulty of your shot should be the position the ball is in, not the lie that the ball is in. Some shots that bounce next to the green, yet don't get into a bunker, are in this," he said, holding his hands six inches apart to show the depth of the rough.

His argument is that a slight miss is often more penalizing than a shot that flies farther away from the intended target.

"I think you should have hard shots from good lies, not easy shots from bad lies," he explained. "So if your greens are not good enough to defend themselves without six inches of rough, then the greens aren't good enough. You don't need six-inch rough at Augusta, or at Oakmont, although they grow it. You don't need it at Pinehurst, or Royal Melbourne, or Shinnecock Hills. And if you don't have greens like that, then just let the guys make birdies."

The Aussie feels that the PGA of America would do well to follow the new philosophies of the USGA when it comes to preparing a course to host a major. "The U.S. Open seems to be going in the right direction; the PGA Championship seems to be going in the other direction," he said.  "Last year at Oakland Hills the story was all about the rough. I'm sure everyone is not as pissed about the rough this week, but it's not very nice. It's odd that the PGA hasn't changed but the U.S. Open has."]

[Wayne Wiggins, Jr.]

It seems this is the case.  Although I look at two courses in the Phila. area that are about to host PGA tourneys, and I see places where width would cause these guys more angst than higher rough.  In these two instances, currently these holes will be played Driver or 3W with a wedge approach... whether they're in the FW or the rough.  However...

#2 at Aronimink - If the rightside of the fairway, past the dogleg, were widened to almost the wood-line than tee shots that carry the bunkered dogleg would need to be played with a right-to-left shape to hold the FW or else roll well out of position or worse.

#16 at Merion - It was pointed out to me last time there, that there's rough between the FW on the left and the beginning of the quarry, that if cut as FW would cause balls to more-than-likely scurry further left and also get out of position and possibly blocked by the treeline within the quarry. 

And, secondly I was amazed after re-watching the Senior Open Championship, at Sunningdale, at how many of these guys (Norman, Funk, Langer, Kite, etc.) had trouble with the short par-4 on the back (12 or 13 maybe?).  Some went for the green, some laid up to wedge distance, some played for position… but none of them, that I saw, walked away with anything better than par.  And I imagine they thought they’d make birdie standing on the tee!

So, maybe there are other options that, sadly it seems the powers-that-be think can’t compete with the uniform, high, strangling rough, which limits options off the tee, as the elixir to some defending-par-at-all-costs problem we seem to have.

[Tim Pitner]

After reading Ogilvy's statements, it occurred to me (again) that what really ought to happen is that the PGA Championship should be stripped of its major status--it's never had much of an identity after changing from match play--and the Australian Open ought to be designated a major, provided they play the tournament on worthy courses.  Then, we'd have 2 majors in the U.S. and 2 elsewhere and we'd see a different kind of course to test the players, one generally without high rough. 

[Matthew Rose]

600+ par 5's don't offer a challenge.

I'll play devil's advocate on this one.... I think the longer two at Hazeltine seemed to have held their own against the field, particularly against one Eldrick T. Woods. I don't think I've ever seen him lay-up so many times in a 72-hole event.

[JESII]

Pat,

Wouldn't the most sensible thing be for the host site's to maintain the course as if it were any other week?

[Jim_Kennedy]

Pat,
I think we'll see much different set-ups going forward, grooves are going to have a measurable impact.

Go the other way with green speeds on Tour and it will drive them a bit batty, and let the fairways grow 1/4" to 3/8" longer.

Fewer and older members aren't going to be clamoring for deeper rough.

[John Keenan]

Curious how the new wedge policy may impact hazard play? 

[David Stamm]

Pat, I think this depends on the course that is being discussed. I would imagine that Oakmont's greens, for example, provide a terrific first line of defense, depending on speeds of course, without resorting to jungle like rough. I'm of the belief that a holes defense starts from the green. When the players is scared of what may happen because of the treachery of the green, the choices he makes starting from the tee will change. Now, if the course doesn't offer much up for defense on the greens because of their blandness, then artificial defenses have to be reverted to if one wants to "protect" the course. It all depends on the architecture....

[Jim_Kennedy]

John Keenan,
It can't, but softening up the sand in the bunkers can. 

[Carl Rogers]

Current major event course set-up would seem to confirm that rough is the only answer.  Too bad ...

Try smaller greens, lots of movement in and around and on the greens, lots of fall offs of short grass ... less pre-occupation with bunkers so they do not have to be deep for the event and then too deep for regular play ... ie Pinehurst No. 2?

[Patrick_Mucci]

600+ par 5's don't offer a challenge.

I'll play devil's advocate on this one.... I think the longer two at Hazeltine seemed to have held their own against the field, particularly against one Eldrick T. Woods. I don't think I've ever seen him lay-up so many times in a 72-hole event.


Mathew,

How can a fairway bunker that allows a player to hit a 305+ second shot onto the green with a metal wood second, be deemed to have held its own ?

600 yard par 5's don't present a significant challenge to PGATP's today, that's irrefutable.
And part of the reason is that the fairway bunkering is benign.

Tiger's decisions to lay up, or hit any type of shot, are "daily, circumstance" related, rather than globally determined. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Wouldn't the most sensible thing be for the host site's to maintain the course as if it were any other week?

Jim,

I think the real problem is that the spectrum and divide between the two extremes of the spectrum have become too wide.

The old concept of TPC courses, designed and set up primarily for the PGATP's may be the answer, rather than disfiguring local golf courses, no matter how good their pedigree.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,
I think we'll see much different set-ups going forward, grooves are going to have a measurable impact.

Jim, I'm not so sure.
Tiger says it won't matter to him since he's not playing with square groove.

Go the other way with green speeds on Tour and it will drive them a bit batty, and let the fairways grow 1/4" to 3/8" longer.
While I tend to agree, I don't think that TV viewers and ratings will support this type of set-up.

Unfortunately, I think golf has lost a bit of its purity as a sport/game and has transitioned into the entertainment arena.

Fewer and older members aren't going to be clamoring for deeper rough.

That's for sure.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat, I think this depends on the course that is being discussed.

Yes, to a degree, but, I think systemically you can't deny the trends

I would imagine that Oakmont's greens, for example, provide a terrific first line of defense, depending on speeds of course, without resorting to jungle like rough.


Agreed, but, it's a rare course that could duplicate Oakmont's greens, culture and micro-climate.

I'm of the belief that a holes defense starts from the green.

Agreed, I"m also of the backward theory.

When the players is scared of what may happen because of the treachery of the green, the choices he makes starting from the tee will change.


Let's say that your theory is correct.
Your theory gets thrown out the moment the selection committee names a golf course absent that feature.
This isn't something that you can introduce to a golf course overnight.
Golf courses tend to be static in their configuration.

Now, if the course doesn't offer much up for defense on the greens because of their blandness, then artificial defenses have to be reverted to if one wants to "protect" the course. It all depends on the architecture....

David, with the PGA Tour Pro's trajectory and ability, combined with today's I&B, unless Mother Nature really co-operates,  I don't think there is a viable defense unless you gimmick up the golf course.

I think the governing bodies have a dilema, and that is, how to present a challenge, on a local golf course, to the best golfers in the world today, using the most advanced hi-tech equipment and balls.

Because I&B were allowed to get out of control, I don't see how the governing bodies can present that challenge without a degree of gimmickerie.

ANGC has an advantage in that it's the same site and thus it can be easily fine tuned based on the previous results.
Few tournaments have that luxury.

And, even ANGC and The Masters had to grow the rough and narrow their fairways to present a meaningful challenge to the best golfers in the world.

[JESII]

Pat,

Wouldn't the most sensible thing be for the host site's to maintain the course as if it were any other week?

Jim,

I think the real problem is that the spectrum and divide between the two extremes of the spectrum have become too wide.

The old concept of TPC courses, designed and set up primarily for the PGATP's may be the answer, rather than disfiguring local golf courses, no matter how good their pedigree.

But at least with my suggestion that "divide" is not in question...today we have no way to judge the difference and the vast majority of people act as if it is much smaller than the reality.

The problem with that is the decisions individuals and clubs make to mimic Hazeltine or theindividuals that played there this weekend csots money and time. The net effect of that is reduced enjoyment/participation in the game.

The upside of my suggestion is that people will realize they'd be better off figuring out what works for them and their customer.