[Matt_Ward]

I have to wonder given how important speed of play is at many public courses today what the role of rough should be?

I can remember playing many a six-hour round at Bethpage Black and watching as player after player wandered into the hay and the death march began on nearly every hole.

Too many upscale public courses think having 3-4 inch grass off every fairway and off just every green adds to the "experience" in playing that respective course. Usually, in my mind, that's a dubious premise.

I often think that rough actually is a weakness because it's so easy to elevate the minimal strategic consequences of a course as initially designed using this feature. I mean how strategic is it to land in 4 inch cabbage and slash a wedge back to the fairway? Doesn't rough, beyond anything minimal, really take away from the overall character of the game. Didn't the good Doctor Mackenzie talk about the frustration in looking for lost balls?

Maybe the group can explain how they see the role of "rough" and given the nature in trying to grow golf's popularity how it must be / can be incorporated and in what manner?

[redanman (Guest)]

Talking Stick North just eliminated all rough, I have heard, but cannot personally vouch for.

I tried to suggest it to Pete Galea for Ocean at HMB, but I think Mgt wouldn't go for it.

The role of rough is to limit certain options and require certain shots.  I think it affects hte weaker player more, just as bunkers and water do.

Wind is the best hazard to test the good player, no?

[Matt_Ward]

redanman:

Wind is something to keep in mind depending upon the location and where it can play a major role (i.e. Bandon, Pac Dunes, etc.) Not every location can be so fortunate.

I think design should maximize angles and keep players off balance with well done contoured greens. Let the errant tee shot bound further and further away from the line of play.

Letting rough grow to the point where it becomes like a grazing area for sheep does not add to the qualities of a course in most instances in my opinion. The average player becomes immensely tired / frustrated and the better player can adjust with a shorter club off the tee to stay in play.

In my mind, keeping rough grass in the 2-3 inch length is more than sufficient in preventing players from spinning their balls for complete control. Even the USGA recognized that unduly rough does not really identify a variety of skills (i.e. trouble shots, recovery) and it becomes nothing more than a wedge out. I mean why hit driver when it pays to be "defensive." That kind of styles leaves a lot to desire and takes away so much in terms of strategic thinking.

When I see courses like Pinehurst #2 and a few other courses which work WITHOUT prevalence of rough you can see the design greatness time after time and how recovery and skill around the greens / chipping, etc is maximized. I often think that many other so-called classic courses are "classic" primarily because they depend way too much on the penal aspects of unlimited rough.

The adage of "less is indeed more" clearly is something to consider.

[Peter Galea]

Great question! I don't know how to answer it just yet.
 
redanman is correct there is no rough at Talking Stick North except around the bunkers and tees. Believe me, even with a fairway lie on each shot, the course does not lack teeth.

The South Course has rough of about 1 inch.

The grassing lines at HMB Ocean were set in stone. This was a water use issue. Originally the roughs were fescue. It was to be grown up to about 4 inches then watered only enough to keep the plant alive. Thin and wispy - Kate Moss like.
The plan worked well until I turned the water off. The powers to be said brown native areas were fine, but not rough along fairways.  

[Lou Duran]

I am with Matt on this one.   I prefer light rough 10-15 yards around the fairways, resulting in no lost balls but a partial stroke due to less spin on the ball and awkward angles to the green.  Heavier, more punitive rough beyond this area is fine subject to the lost ball provisal.  Light rough combined with firm and fast conditions through and including the green provide challenging, exciting golf.

[TEPaul]

It's such a good question; "What's the role of rough?"

I couldn't agree more that rough has almost become an "architectural feature" it's so prevalent in design today.

In fairness to it, I suppose one of the primary reasons for it's prevalence is a cost factor.

But that aside, what is it's overall architectural significance? Certainly many of the old architects didn't advocate it much because of lost balls or time spend unnecessarily searching.

Matt, seems to imply that the use of rough is sort of almost a "cheap" or almost non-benefical feature in an architectural sense, and, I, for one, tend to agree. Rough does have the effect of sort of "center directing" things and restricting or minimizing otherwise wonderful and interesting options that very much need width and fairway width or just general width at that! How often do you see today the ideal angle of placement at the very edge of a very wide fairway? When you do, note it, because it probably involves a pretty cool and sophisticated strategy!

Very much the cutting edge of the strict architectural argument against using any semblence of rough at all was without doubt Max Behr and his basic "line of charm" prinicples! He believed with this priniciple that an architect should put features (bunkers, mounds etc) in the center of things or inside fairway lines--particularly in the "line of instinct" which he defined as precisely the ideal spot the golfer would like to hit the ball--thereby taking that spot away from the golfer and creating interesting alternative options!

He also believed that an architect should use every other available method to defend targets--green orientations, contours, slopes, bunkers etc to defend against various angles of approach!

With all this and this principle he looked upon "rough" in an architectural sense as unnecessary, counterproductive and very much restricting of what he called the "sense of freedom of expression" of the golfer. Boiled down, he clearly meant "the golfer's very own undictated personal strategies".

".....In this respect the penal hole means nothing. The confinement of width of play by the rough precludes to a great extent the creating of future threats. Therefore the penal idea that makes a virtue of rough with its penal bunkers robs nature, the opponent, of deploying herself strategically. And that simply means intelligently. And whenever we curtail anything so that it cannot fully express itself, inhibitions are setup and degeneration sets in. That delicate and subtle relation of values that make things worthwhile is broken down. False values are set up. And these are always quantity values."

Max Behr, 1926

[ChipOat]

What a GREAT post.  I couldn't agree with Matt Ward more.

In theory, a well designed hole shouldn't need any rough.  While that may be a bit of an overstatement - perhaps not.

Think:  Would the 10 "greatest" holes you know still be "great" if they had no rough?  I'll bet they would.

Do they need rough in majors?  I guess they do since even AGNC has a "second cut".  It seemingly makes sense since what golf course has 18 "great" holes?

[Ran Morrissett]

Rough should be used SELECTIVELY as one of any number of hazards that a golfer must face during his round.

Of course, too much rough gets boring but to get rid of all rough would only deprive the course of variety within its overall challenge.

Plus, rough lends visual appeal to  plenty of courses. Can you imagine the view from the 1st tee at Crystal Downs with no tall grasses that give the front nine its distinctive texture? Not a very appealing thought, if you ask me! Same for Devil's Paintbrush.

[Stan Dodd]

I think the idea of "fun" should be an architectural/course setup premise.  Looking for balls is not fun.  Should there be a penalty for a stray shot, absolutely, moderate rough can penalize both the good and bad player at the level of their ablility.  The mid to high handicapper is challenged by advancing the ball from even moderate rough, while the scratch player suffers with lack of control.  Both levels of players are punished equally unfaily with a lost ball. I reminded of consecutive rounds on Gullane#1 (go look for your ball) and North Berwick.  There is no doubt which was the most fun, and one could argue which better identified a players skills.

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

I personally cannot think of a great hole that needs absolutely no rough (water holes excluded).  What is important to me is that the rough be subtle and not USGA/Carnoustie penal.  The greatness of Foxy at Dornoch, for example, is partly because of the very light rough on the left, which catches the ball drive hit just left of the bold, fast-lane, line and both slows it down considerably (leaving a long shot to the green) and ofers an uncertain lie.  Also, on that hole there is heavier rough long right which punishes the long "bail out", as a great hole should.  You can play that hole conservatively and never even think of the rough, but if you want to challenge it, rough is always in your mind.  Finally, you can reach the green from either the left or right rough, but it takes a GREAT shot to do so.

[Matt_Ward]

The key question is "does rough add to the strategic value" of any course or does it "take away" from it.

You can have courses with different shades of grass to present some sort of contrast, but I tend to favor courses where if a player misses to one side (not by a country mile though!) the automatic choice is not some sort of lob wedge out of the hay to get back in play.

Too many classic courses in the Northeast / i.e. New York metro area have become de facto bowling alleys. I marvel at Tillinghast's design effort at Ridgewood CC in Paramus, NJ, however, the over abundance of hanging limbs PLUS rough has really minimized the internal strategic value of this course. The same be said to a lesser degree to a whole range of courses in Westchester County (NY).

When you play any number of Charles Banks designs in the metro area (Essex County, Forsgate, The Knoll) you will see a designer who added so much strategic value to the designs without the need for punishing rough that only hurts the mid to high handicapper.

I look at the famous picture of Bobby Jones putting out against Al Espinosa in the 1929 US Open at WF and you see a background of open space.

Rough is not an absolute equalizer and many times emphasizes luck to a large degree (i.e. how far down the ball sits is completely arbitrary) -- also, witness the nonsensical preparation of Carnoustie a few years back for the BO. Clearly, the very definition of links golf was perverted with that championship.

Courses designed properly do not need hay field rough that is immediately situated right next (2-3 yards) from the edge of fairway cuts in my humble opinion. I'm so sad that ANGC has seen fit to move away from the very premise that Bobby Jones and Dr. Mackenize initially prescribed. Rough has a role, but only in concert with adding value to the overall shotmaking requirements you must face throughout the round of 18 holes.  

[TEPaul]

Matt:

To answer your question, "Does rough add to the strategic value of a course or take away from it?"

Personally, I would say rough probably adds strategic value to a course of very simplistic design but to the type of course and design that Max Behr envisioned it very definitely takes away from the strategic value--might even wreck it in fact!

[RJ_Daley]

Great post Tom, now I know why you are a "Doyen"  

Matt, the hole corridor separating primary rough should be exactly like a meadow grazed by sheep.  It should be uneven, and closely cropped at about 2 to 6 inches, but wispy and not lush at all.  The second cut on most courses should also be dry, sparsely fertilized or non-fertilized, and kept at no more than 2 inches.  I don't think there is enough turf research into the genetic qualities and cultural maintenance practices of rough, or what species or cultivar is best.  Fescues soon become undergrown with lush blues and some broadleafs in most areas I have seen when water and fert from irrigation migrates into them by wind and surface drainage.  Then the rough gets out of hand and presents the old problem of what to do to knock it down.  Burning is not allowed in many places.  Cutting it and bailing it causes it to look like just that, a cut and bailed hay field, but it doesn't address the return to blue undergrowth with too lush of a texture.  I wish there would be a cheap and safe application of a material that would make it sparse and look like the sheep have been randomly munching it, leaving it to have the brown/reddish top for contrast and definition, and some to be light green and short shorn for reasonable recovery and shot making.  Whistling Straits have some ornamental sheep for atmoshpere in their rough areas, but it is impractical to devise a containment for enough of them to actually do some good, I think.

I most enjoy the rough-native areas at a place like Lawsonia in deep fall when freezes have knocked the rough down and turned it brownish/grey and wisped it out with help of a late summer or early fall cutting and minimal regrowth.  Or, I like the early spring regrowth of emerging rough after a fall burn like I have seen at Wild Horse.  But either way, the problem of eventual emergence of too much lush undergrowth pops up.

[Kelly_Blake_Moran]

My home course in my youth had a width of rough next to the fairway that was maintained and irrigated, beyond that it was not irrigated, turf was spotty but mowed, and you could have a hard pan lie.  It was ideal.  If fairways are wide, there is little need for irrgated rough, maybe 10 feet of fescue that is mowed, then beyond that have fescue, no irrigation, but mowed.  That way you get those tight lies, possibly on hard pan between clumps of grass.  That is rough.  Searching for balls in tall grass is not right.  Bluegrass should be banned from golf courses.  

This approach makes real rough, plus irrigation demands are reduced.  Irrigation materials and installation costs are more though.  A line of heads must be placed along the edge between the 10' of primary fescue, and the secondary fesue.  That way the secondary can be grown in, afterwards the heads are adjusted to half heads so only the primary rough and fairway receive irrigation.

The fesue works well because it does not perform ideally in traffic so it can be stressed in areas, again making real rough, making for some bad lies, but at least you can see the ball, and put the clubhead on the ball, but it may be on hardpan.  The secondary rough fescue is established, it is mowed to keep a reasonable height, but receives no fertilizer, no water, no chemicals other than to treat weeds initially.  It makes for difficult, but honest lies, not lies in knee high grass

[TEPaul]

This is interesting reading on the role of "rough", architecturally or otherwise and also on how to maintain it properly for the desired "playability".

Now here's a very interesting wrinkle to all this which basically combines two thread topics--this one and the one on "turning mowers". Let's take the thin strips of rough on the sides of PVGC's generous fairways which then immediately transitions into the boondocks, where there is no rough farther out!

Apparently these thin strips of rough are there to turn the fairway mowers on and as to an architectural purpose, well, they don't have one except maybe a negative one which would be to keep otherwise misplayed shots out of the boondocks.

But since their function is a maintenance one and not an architectural one they also need to be fertilized a bit more than a golfer interested the architecture of the course would like to see them. And the reason they do need to be fertilized (and consequently become lusher than they should be) is because if they weren't the mowers would beat them into dirt and it would be unsightly and maybe even worse for playability (in the minds of some golfers).

Maybe a small issue to most but still a bit of a dilemna to some and seemingly a bit of a catch-22 also!

Frankly, I'm not too sure I can exactly envision why they need to be there to turn mowers on either, but I'll take the word of those who know. Why can't a fairway mower just cut along the edge of the fairway even if it does immediately transition into the boondocks themselves? Would that look too artifical or something as the carpet of fairway transitioned immediately to the natural ground (sans any rough)?

[Kelly_Blake_Moran]

I believe if you do a traditional mowing pattern by mowing in an oval pattern, then possibly the thin strip of rough is not necessary.  If you mow checkerboard then it may be needed in some spots.  The checkerboard pattern is awful, it looks awful on TV, as if a plaid jacket has been placed on the course, and defeats the purpose of proposing golf as natural to the land.  The oval pattern takes more time, but looks much better.  I prefer to allow the rough to be worn and thinned, but there are too many people concerned with fairness, too many new adults in the game to allow this on most courses.

[Tim_Weiman]

Matt Ward,

Excellent topic!

My views on this topic are a complete contradiction.  I hate the idea of rough on public courses, basically because of the impact on pace of play.  I also hate the idea of introducing rough to the Masters Tournament because that is not the kind of test Jones/Mackenzie envisioned.

But, I'm a big supporter of the typical USGA set ups on those Northeast bowling alleys you mentioned.

I support the the traditional USGA set up because I want the four majors to be as DIFFERENT as possible and think the US Open should be the major that places a strong emphasis on execution of a few demanding tasks (e.g., hitting accurate tee shots, hitting precise iron approach shots).  Within this context, very penal rough plays an important role.

The British Open, by contrast, is designed to test a greater variety of skills, especially short game recovery shots.

The R&A Open setup shouldn't emulate the USGA's approach to US Open set up and vica versa.  The use of rough, or lack thereof, is an important element in keeping these tournaments as different as possible.

[Matt_Ward]

TimW:

You can have different types of styles with the majors, but really Tim do you think it makes sense for all the top players to cover the drivers on just about all the long holes because the proximity of high hay right off the fairway takes that option away from them.

Think how marvelous the 99 Open was at Pinehurst #2. I don't want to see the top players clubbing down with 3-woods and 1-irons and the like because 20-25 yards fairways produce the same boring type golf. What would make northeastern venues play even better (i.e. Winged Foot, Baltusrol, Oak Hill, etc.) would be if they cut the rough to allow players the OPTION in hitting driver and should they miss the high grass would not prevent their tee shots from running further into trouble. The same preparation would apply to Lake at The Olympic Club.

Also, when you allow hay to grow just off the green you ELIMINATE skill as a factor and it becomes a matter of luck as you wack the ball out with a lob wedge from the narly lies. Skill -- total skill, with all the clubs should be the ultimate aim.

I still believe that any course that over emphasizes rough as a factor of its "greatness" is really not as "great" as many might believe. Just my opinion.

[Jeremy Glenn II]

In my mind the role of rough should only be to reduce maintenance costs.  I think it is given far too much importance when it comes to playability.  It has become the leading "directional" feature of a hole's play, leading to penal designs, target golf and reduced strategy.

[Tim_Weiman]

Matt,

Yes, I do.  It's not boring.  It's terrifying.  The whole point is NOT to present options (the other majors cover that base), but to make very specific demands.

I think the reason people complain about USGA set ups it that it exposes weaknesses in their game: they don't like to admit that they can hit it a long way, but they can't hit it straight.

If a player wants to bomb away with the driver, he can go to Augusta or across the pond every year.  The US Open is intended to be a different kind of test.

It doesn't make the US Open better.  My personal preference is the British Open.  But, I just want these two events to be as different as possible: different courses, different set ups, different shot making skills emphasized.

Notice that the very, very best players have been able to win on both types of courses (e.g., Nicklaus, Woods) while the tier which sits right below them in stature (e.g., Ballesterous) have not been able to do so.

Matt, I'm in a small minority that feels this way, but I can't help feeling that if my golf ability was world class, deep down I'd want to win on different courses with different set ups.  Complaining about the unique demands of any major championship, whether it be the Britsh Open, the US Open or the Masters, just seems kind of wimpy.

What is bad is when the distinctions between these events become blurred, when people try to establish a single standard for what the majors should be like, when people try to make these events too much alike.  That's why I dislike the introduction of rough at Augusta or set ups like Carnoustie.

[Chris Kane]

When rough is overused, it can make the course easier than if it were maintained otherwise.  Tom Doak's article Short Grass as a Hazard is an excellent introduction to the topic.

Witness the relative preparations of two courses on the Australasian Tour in recent weeks: Paraparaumu Beach for the NZ Open with Tiger, and Royal Melbourne for the Heineken Classic.  Paraparaumu had thick greenside rough meaning that an errant shot was not fully penalised, as a player could flop his recovery onto the green with little imagination or skill for that matter.  Royal has fringe cut very fine which allows balls to roll into hollows a fair distance from the green, and also gives players something to think about with their approaches.  Do they play a 5-iron, 8-iron, PW or LW?  Much more exciting to watch.

[TEPaul]

TimW:

I've never been a big advocate of high rough which creates sort of center directed straight only non-strategy to a large degree and has apparently become the general set-up offering of US Opens of recent times.

But your argument of offering a different test from the other majors to maybe find the best all around player is a very good one and you made it very well and about half convinced me!

I really like your argument that the tests of the major tournaments should be different tests to examine who has it all or who has the most of it!

But just to maintain that examination of all the different skills of the players how about if the USGA reanalyzed the best sites across this country and the courses that offered those different tests because of the inherent differences in the way those courses were designed? And then just used those different courses as they were designed to be in the examination of the talents of the players on a rotation basis.

In other word instead of playing off the other majors to establish the different tests, how about the USGA doing that in their own tournment, so the test would be different every year because the designs of the courses would be different and the way to play them too?

Basically that's the way it used to be until the USGA started to set-up every site they used into the US Open--the major test of Straightness Only!

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

I definitely agree with those who say it should be wispy, uneven and unpredicatable. And when used strictly to narrow the fairway or to punish the slightly off line shot it can limiting strategicly - although there are times when it can be incorporated into the strategy of a hole without it limiting interest and actually adds to the variety of hazards the golfer must deal with - it beats the hell out of water.

Some courses really don't need rough in the traditional sense - ANGC which its wide corridors emulating the Old course, Pinehurst where the pine straw, tuffs of love grass and trees, and courses like PVGC, Sand Hills and Cypress Point that are bordered by sandy or dunesy gunch. Many times the rough simply defines the playing area and acts as a transition between the maintained area and the natural environment - so depending on the locale the nature of the rough or transition will differ.

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom Paul:

I understand your argument and will give it some more thought.  For the moment, however, I stick to my original position mostly because I think the majors should be viewed collectively.  Thus, it is important that they be kept as different as possible.  We don't want the US and British Open to be anything like each other.  Never.  Not this year, next year or any year.  It is equally important for the other two majors to be something unique.

Basically, I think we should stop all the whining about difficult USGA set ups which emphasize the need to hit the ball straight.  My God, it is only one tournament a year, only for the very best players who should occasionally face a very stiff test of accuracy.  Period.

Like I said, we should also avoid anything like the Carnoustie set up or growing rough at Augusta.  

Part of my thinking comes from Paul Daley.  In his book on Links Golf, Paul warned about the dangers of "cross pollinization", specifically the danger of applying non links concepts to links golf.

I experienced exactly what Paul is saying during a visit to Ballybunion last year when an American standing on the 6th tee wanted a "direction bunker" so he would know where to hit his tee shot.  Having played the hole many times, I was embarrassed that my guest would suggest such a thing, that he would ever dare suggest Americanizing a great Irish links.

I apply the same logic to the traditional Northeast US Open sites.  They are what they are.  They shouldn't be changed.  And yes, for the US Open they do depend on growing penal rough.  What wrong with that?  It's far better than doing surgery, spending lots of money to accomodate improved technology.  I love the idea that in at least one tournament, length at the expense of accuracy will get you nowhere.

My biggest concern is with the PGA because I think it lacks a unique identity.  Thus, I would like to see it do two things:

a) move to match play (which television would hate)

b) consciously move to being the major that includes an emphasis on newer designs

We have one major (the Masters) played every year at one site.  We have two Opens which have rotations at traditional venues.  We should have one, the PGA, committed to newer designs.  Whether Whistling Straights is the best example one might argue, but conceptually it is a step in the right direction.

[TEPaul]

Tim:

I don't know, I'm still not that comfortable with the US Open being the great test of accuracy just for accuracy's sake and just to be different.

I agree that it's a real shame to see someone suggest that a Ballybunion should be Americanized in anyway. It is what it is, as you say.

The same is true of many of the best of the American "championship" courses, they are what they are and they can be vastly different from one another. And they should be allowed to be what they are and that might not necessarily be a rough bordered, narrowed fairway test of accuaracy.

Certainly the notable recent exception to that annual higher, more penal rough-lined type US Open setup was Pinehurst #2 when they did not do that for once and let the course show it's own unique defenses. I think all felt it was one of the most succesful Opens of modern times because they let the course's architecture show it's stuff the way it was designed to. It may very well have been requiring of accuracy but not so much due to the rough of the more common U.S. Open setup, but more due to the strategic ramifications of those greens and green-ends and the angles and distances to approach them from.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()