The role of "rough" -- what should it be???

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom Paul:

I'm not so hard line on this point that I'd cross Pinehurst and Shinnecock of the list of regular US Open sites.  For these courses, a different set up than venue like Winged Foot or Olympic obviously makes sense.

I just don't want the two great Opens and one great invitational to become similiar tests.

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

Timn

Olympic could and should be prepared like P#2 and SH.  It would be mind-boggling, but it will probably never happen.......

[THuckaby2]

Rich:  re Olympic - SHOULD I agree - COULD, what?  How could they ever set up Olympic firm and fast like that?  It's never dry enough, year-round, is it?

I agree it would be mind-bogglingly cool... but I don't think weather conditions there would allow for it.  I've been there in August and it's still sopping wet....

I wish we knew a member or two who could clear this up.  

TH

[Matt_Ward]

TomH:  I can remember Olympic being very firm and fast -- to wit, the 17th fairway and balls running like they were on a poll table at the '87 and '98 Opens. It's possible.

TimW: The BO at Carnoustie was a JOKE! You had a great layout turned into a shameful exercise where one criteria was involved -- LUCK! Ask yourself --what has Paul Lawrie done since? You make fairways so narrow and given their basic contours the ball will literally go every which place but stay on the fairway. I just hope what was done to Carnoustie won't prevent future BO's from returning, but with a much more saner preparation.

I don't believe having hay right off the fairways "identifies" anything except the factor of luck. I can remember quite a few Opens where this has happened --the last two at Oakmont also featured this condition.

What I am advocating is not an abandonment of rough at the US Open but some element of basic sense. You penalize by degree -- not by hacksaw! Give players an opportunity to show their total and comprehensive skills. Let's not just turn this into an event where you are testing who is straighter from the tee.

Recovery is a part of any golf event -- ditto chipping and pitching skills when greens are missed. Hitting out of hay when you miss by 6 feet to one side or the other is not an indicator of anything. The USGA, to its credit, understand this through their attempt to get uniform conditions with the way in which rough is prepared for the Open -- to wit, 1/2 shot penalities when you hit into the primary rough. There is little, if any skill, in taking a lob wedge and playing it out of six inch grass to a green that falls away. It's one word -- luck. Is that what should be identified over 72 holes in one of the game's premier championships?

The majors have an identity and I agree with you each is special. But let's have a perspective on rough is and should be -- the very nature of greatness that the classic ocurses have will come to the forefront when prepared sensibly and consistently. Just an opinion ...

[THuckaby2]

Matt, I was present at both of those USOpens at OClub, and some places were firm and fast... but the rough was still very wet and overall, even THEN it wouldn't go in the same sentence as Shinnecock or Pinehurst.

I still think SHOULD - yes.  COULD - doubtful.

But it WOULD be very cool, if it could be pulled off.  You'd have to cut all the rough, shave the fairways, hope to god for a month or so of unseasonably dry weather (ie no morning fog), then give it a LONG time to recover.

So yeah, I suppose it could be done.. that's not far off from what happened the last USOpen... but call me a doubting Thomas!

TH

[Justin Hanrahan]

I have two views on rough - one relating to the fairways and the other around the greens.

I was staggered when I played a couple of weeks of golf in Ireland how rough can look impossible and yet play reasonably. Someone earlier mentioned the lack of "turf science" or something similar in this regard. There must be some sort of art involved in getting the rough to play like Lahinch where it looks ready to bite your leg off and yet lost balls were kept to a minimum and you could play forwards in nearly every instance.

The other issue, around greens, sees me agreeing with a fellow Melbournian, Chris, who observed that too many courses eliminate the need to think around the greens.

Even I could practice until blistered to improve my "flop" shot to a reasonable level. The idea of having 2,3 or 4 clubs capable of being the right one is a much more interesting (and fun) way to play.

Keep the rough lower around the greens, penalise a crappy shot (rather than see all shots end up 4-8 feet from the fringe) and have a bit of fun!!

[Tim_Weiman]

Matt Ward:

Recovery shots are well tested at the British Open and they should be.  That's why I disliked the Carnoustie set up so much.  It simply wasn't appropriate.  It was far too USGAish for my taste.

As for my advocacy of something different, for a penal set up at the US Open, I do not believe the ability to hit tee shots very straight is a matter of luck.  To the contrary, it is a skill.  

Your reference to hitting out of hay doesn't apply.  Every player knows that if he wants to win, he shouldn't hit it there in the first place.

All the whining we hear about the USGA is from golfers who don't want to admit a weakness in their game.  They talk about the importance of recovery shots because they have so little confidence in their ability to hit the correct shot in the first place.

The US Open is intended to be a simple, but brutally difficult test.  I'd hate to see it become more like the other majors, even if I personally enjoy British Open golf more.

[Mike_Cirba]

I haven't had time to read all the posts here, but narrow fairways lined with thick rough are the antithesis of what golf should represent; adventure and freedom.

Without getting too political here, a course setup like Carnoustie a few years back is authoritarian, stagnating to the imagination, and almost communist in its conformity; it's the golfing equivalent of making us all political prisoners.

[Mike_Cirba]

Comrade shivas,

You ask, "-- what is the reason that multiple-option golf is better, on it's merits, than no-option, hit-it-here-or-else, golf??"

Two young members of the proletariat were ending their long work day on the collective farm in the outskirts of the city of Minsk.  Even though they were tired, one suggested they should have some fun on their way home to the small apartment they shared with 23 others in the city.  

He said, "Ivan, let's say we take out staffs and find round stones and hit them all the way to our gorgeously spartan flat.  The one who gets there and can knock their stone into the outside commode in the least amount of swings is the winner."

Now, his comrade Igor was intrigued.  He knew that the shortest way home was along a long, straight, flat path that led almost to the door of the apartment.  He also knew his somewhat dull-witted friend Ivan would choose that route, as his mind had been somewhat stultified through too many years in the Red Army and re-education camps.  

Although that was the direct route, Igor also knew that road to be more heavily trafficked with personnel carriers, and the big lumbering Russian tanks would often break down en route along that passageway.  Beyond that, the main road was lined with thick, high grasses, which would make finding any wayward stone problematic, not to mention tougher to hit with the next swing.

So, Igor decided that he would take to the back roads, and make his way across more freely open terrain, across rolling hills, and into little farmland dells.  He thought he could defeat his larger, stronger opponent using a little free thought and wile.

The two men set off in differing directions.  This being pre-Gorbachev Soviet Union, each was stopped on his way by party officials from the KGB who asked what the were doing.

Who won?  Well, Ivan of course.  Even though it took him a full 348 blows (par was 300) to reach the commode, he ended up winning by default.  You see, the party official who saw what Ivan was doing just nodded understandingly and let him continue on his way.

Unfortunately, poor Igor was unable to explain his deviation from the obvious route so satisfactorily, and was arrested and eventually hung as a subversive.

What is the moral of the story?  

A tight, narrow golf course protected by deep rough will protect par and the status quo, certainly.  So will the secret police.  

 

[Bill_Spellman]

Shivas
        I think that you may be contradicting yourself. As I understand your post, you agree that "strategy plays a part, or should play a part on some holes, but not all. Reading some of your posts on "length", isn't the decision to hit the ball as hard and as far as possible a strategic decision?

        As previously stated, strategy is dependant on a variety of factors, not only what is presented to you by the architect, but outside influences and personal feelings based upon health, ability, memories of all types of shots already hit that day and on and on.

        I am in the group that likes the "chess game"- some short moves with minor pieces and big moves with major pieces. I don't think strategy is limited to a 380 yd. par 4 that presents options. Each and every shot on all courses requires you to make a committment to SOME kind of shot, right or wrong.

Did I misunderstand?

[Matt_Ward]

TimW:

Help me out here. You agree that Carnoustie was bad and was "too USGAish" for your taste, however, you advocate the US Open should be a "brutal difficult test." Tim -- what about the word fair -- did you ever think about this element? Think of your contradiction between what Carnoustie was and what you believe the US Open should be.

First, there have been US Open sites where if a player misses a tee shot by six feet the same penalty applies if he were to miss the same fairway by 600 feet! Isn't that what Carnoustie was about and a number of US Opens in the not to distance past have featured as well?

For too many years the braintrust of many golf organizations (USGA until most recently) believed that having hay (six inches or more of grass) right off the prime fairway cut was appropriate and really "identified" the better player. In my mind, it does not -- all you have is wedge outs to the fairway. All that does is fail to reward / penalize proportionally to the type of shot actually played. Under your analysis there is "black" and "white" in golf. I don't see it that way and believe rough should be uniform to provide "reasonable" recovery possibilities in proportion to the degree of success / failure the last shot was played.

I'm not advocating anyone get a free pass from missing fairways, but I'm also not advocating that they must play from rough that is literally hay in all circumstances! The penalty for rough should not be the same as if one hit into a water hazard.

When fairways are made so narrow you have perverted the game into nothing more than irons off the tees. Top pros are not idiots and will not pull the driver out if there opportunity for success is so small. Few, if any pros, will hit driver knowing full well that the penalty is way off the charts of reason. The same applies to when greens are missed and the organization in charge of the event permits six inch hay to grow right off the green. What skill is there in hitting out of that stuff when you're miss is off by just a few feet?

I'm amazes that people who advocate "brutal difficult" conditions don't realize that golf is a game of skill, but since we are humans we must have some sense of balance so that mistakes are not punished so severely as to elevate one element of the game over another.

I believe rough has a role but it should not be used as the be-all end-all in any level of golf. Rough should add to the strategic value of the course and not dominate the proceedings. Great courses don't need brutal rough to elevate them -- their strategic merits should speak loud and clear without being made into 18-hole Frankensteins. When golf simply becomes bowling alley layouts with Robin Hood archer straight tests you have in my mind a boring repetitive exercise. What about emphasizing the different playing angles and asking players to improvise. Hay length rough just off the prime cut fairway takes that away and you get the mechanized version of golf that just puts me to sleep.

Hope this helps ...

[Mike_Cirba]

Comrade shivas,

Incidentally, Ivan later went on to victory in the Latvian Open, contested over a 7,400 yard, narrow tortue chamber in the Bavarian Hills that bills itself as "modeled after the standard USGA Open setup".  

[Curious JJ]

Shivas
F-yes! I love it when the architect DEMANDS I got to do something. He says "You got game you crazy mofo Curious JJ?!" WAHooooo! Bring it on bitch!

Besides thinking on the golf course gives me a headache.  

[Curious JJ]

Shivas
Hell yes! I pray before I tee off please god don't make think. Oh no my head is swimming, more choices, I say screw choices! If god had meant golfers to think they would have been born with brains. I like a golf course that requires every golfer strap on Depends. Bring it on bitch!
 

Has anyone seen my drool cup, I've seemed to have misplaced it?

[Bill_Spellman]

Shivas

Well said. I totally agree that there should be a variety

[RJ_Daley]

Cirba, that one gets printed to the scrap book of all time posts!

[Mike_Cirba]

RJ,

Thanks!  Glad you enjoyed it.  Hope you're having a good winter, my friend....er, comrade.

[Curious JJ]

shivas
Ouch! What the hell do you mean? Don't bring me down bro, were bros shivas and Curious JJ. We think a like, we talk a like, were cut from the same cloth - burlap. We like to say stuff like "The Glass" and pebble and Frisco, I love that man! I've got a feeling these other guys got no game, and thats why they talk all this strategy mumbo jumbo. Am I wrong?

I'll tell you the role of the rough, its where you're suppose to put one foot when you tee off. Let's see what you got mo fo!!? These guys have never played it all the way back, they don't know the exhiliration of getting popped in the mouth by Medinah or the pleasures of a warm load in your shorts at The Ocean.  Boo!

Thanks for the advice, all try to cool it on the bi-otch. How 'bout:

You don't scare me Dye! Lets get it on! Jo mama!!

No ones located my drool cup? Damn, I just had that thing.

[Paul Turner]

I thoroughly enjoyed the Carnoustie Open, it really held my attention, unlike many other majors.  

I wouldn't want to see that that type of set up again, but it was a good "one off" and great to hear all the whining.  My heart bled for them.

[Tim_Weiman]

Matt:

I'll take another shot at explaining my views.

Please note that I began by saying my views ARE contradictory.  That's conscious and intentional.

I abhor rough for everyday play for reasons Alister Mackenzie articulated years ago.

My views on championship play are another matter and I'm also consciously contradictory.  I want the majors to be as different as possible.  This means I hate the idea of the R&A doing something like was done at Carnoustie.   But, equally I hate people criticizing the USGA for very penal set ups at the US Open.

I want these two events (and the Masters) to emphasize very different skills.  In my judgement, the US Open is the event where it is most logical to emphasize the ability to hit the ball straight.

The British Open, it seems to me, is far more a test of creativity, the short game and the ability to play in the wind.

The US Open isn't about creativity.  It is about the ability to do what you are told.  The challenge is very clear, just horribly difficult.

I'm actually not worried so much about "fairness".  On links courses you get funny bounces; it is not meant to be fair.

With USGA set ups it isn't supposed to be fair either.  It is supposed to be hard.  Very hard.  You can hit drivers, but you better be able to hit them straight.  You can back off and hit long irons, but you better be prepared to hit longer approach shots that make setting up good putts much more difficult.

If you win either of these events, you have done one hell of a job.  If you can win both types of events, then you win a special place in the history of the game.

[TEPaul]

Tim:

On second thought I like your idea about the US Open staying with it's rough dictated narrowness less and less because the other majors are different.

Let the good championship courses in America and Europe be what they are--don't set them up in a one dimensional way year after year.

You may think this kind of policy identifies the best over all golfer but I say it will probably more likely and more often identify a certain kind of golfer for the British Open and another kind of golfer for the US Open etc, etc.

Let these championship courses be what they were designed to be and they will identify who the best all around golfer is just fine.

That's the way it was before they got into this annual one dimensional set-up stuff and that's the way it can be again.

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom Paul:

I have low expectations of people agreeing with me on this point, but it doesn't change my conviction one bit.  I'd be bored to death if the majors became more and more alike.

Deep down people don't like to admit how tough it is, how much skill is required to hit the ball straight.  That's the real reason people complain about the USGA.  The psychological pressure to consistently perform this skill is just too great for most people.  Even the very best players in the world.  So you'll hear all sorts of interesting arguments put forth all to avoid admitting their game is good, but not quite good enough to perform one of the very toughest skills under pressure.

[Matt_Ward]

Tim:

I appreciate your take but don't buy it.

Most US Opens are played on parkland layouts -- all BO's are played on links type courses. That in itself is a major difference. Also ask yourself -- why is ANGC trying to be something different than what it's founders envisioned it to be?

You can still reward / penalize straight driving, but don't take it to absurd dimensions. What's absurd? Penalizing all no matter the proportional manner by which players execute / fail to execute shots.

I'd like to see US Opens won (i.e. Payne Stewart's thrilling victory is just one example) -- not always the tired old manner by who lost.

All the US Open needs to do is play the tips, get the greens firm and fast and yes, have rough, but keep it as one of the factors of the championship -- not the whole story. The classic courses were designed to reward fine play -- does it matter if the person shoots even par when doing this or good many under par. I don't think so.

Accuracy is part of the Open -- you see it as THE key ingredient. I just want to see courses prepared so that you present real and meaningful options for all players to really use all their clubs -- especially the driver. When fairways are narrowed to absurd margins and many are contoured to propel the ball into the rough in almost all instances (i.e.,17th at Olympic's Lake, 10th at Oakmont, 18th at Oakland Hills / South) you are not rewarding skill you are emphasizing luck. In my mind US Opens should always be about skill and I believe that for the most part (minus the stupid pin placement on the 18th at Olympic, the 18th at Southern Hills early in that week) the USGA understands and makes sure this does in fact happen.  

[Tim_Weiman]

Matt,

I must not have been clear enough.

I'm totally opposed to the introduction of rough at Augusta.

Anything resembling a USGAish set up is contrary to my desire to see the majors as very different tests of golf.  Introducing rough at Augusta is like curtailing penal rough at US Opens.  Both are steps towards blurring the distinctions between these events.  

You are correct in saying I view accuracy as the key ingredient to the US Open (not to mention putting).  I view accuracy as a matter of skill rather than luck.  Honestly, I've never met a golfer who didn't think hitting the ball straight took a lot of skill.

There are plenty of tournaments rewarding guys who bomb away with their driver.  Let's have at least one event that emphasizes the more difficult skill of hittiing the ball straight.

Guys who can't hit it straight don't deserve to win the US Open.

[TEPaul]

I couldn't agree with that last post of Matt Ward's much more. Let some of the championship courses of America be what they are and they'll do fine in identifying the best champion and that certainly should include straight, and they surely are enough different than the courses of the British Open without the inclusion of narrow corridors of US Open style rough.

Tim, noone said a US Open champion shouldn't hit it straight but some of these championship course the way they were designed really don't need the help of narrow center corrridors of fairway defined by penal rough on both sides to test a champion's need for straightness.

The Champions of the past, before the inclusion of ultra narrow high rough bordered US Open style fairways I doubt exactly hit it crooked.

The problem with the type setup you recommend and the way the US Open setups have been for a number of years is that straightness is about all they identify! It's important but it's not everything. I think they've put far too much emphasis on straightness only and you're proposing they continue that.

Pinehurst in 1999 is a far better way to go in my opinion! They should continue that kind of rotation and that kind of setup--it's the way the course was designed to be and they didn't inlude their normal 28yd wide high rough bordered fairways.