[Joe Stansell]

Put me squarely in the camp where the rough should not be so deep that you can't easily find your ball, but not so short where you'd be indifferent about being there versus the fairway. I imagine the height that achieves this balance varies depending on a number of variables that is likely site specific.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim,

I don't think your club can have it both ways.

You can't have members complaining that your course is too easy because a "lesser" course produced scores two shots higher than your course, implying that you need to toughen up your defenses, and then have the members complain that the course is too hard.

There's an inherent conflict in the memberships position, you can't have it both ways.

OR, is it a matter of two seperate factions, one wanted a tougher, harder course and the other wanting an easier course ?

That's an internal battle that only the club can solve.

I recall, that for the 20+ years I sat on Green Committees and Boards, every time that Mother Nature made the rough more difficult, the membership blamed the Super, the Green Committee and/or the Board.

That's why I prefer dictatorships

[mike_malone]

 It is hard to know why the other course had higher scores than ours but the rough would be the last difference I would
  Point to. It is very hard for most golfers to admit "better" and "harder" are not the same. In fact weaker elements like narrow playing areas make courses harder to score on . In this particular instance I also believe the smaller and more undulating greens were more difficult to putt. My observations come from asking those who played in the event.

[Joe Bausch]

It is hard to know why the other course had higher scores than ours but the rough would be the last difference I would
  Point to. It is very hard for most golfers to admit "better" and "harder" are not the same. In fact weaker elements like narrow playing areas make courses harder to score on . In this particular instance I also believe the smaller and more undulating greens were more difficult to putt. My observations come from asking those who played in the event.

Was the other course Inniscrone Mayday?  If so, Jim would do the opposite no matter what.  Just like that Seinfeld episode. 

[Kyle Harris]

shots hit into the fairway should be rewarded.

No. No. NO NO NO.

[Jim_Coleman]

Joe:  No it was not Inniscrone.  As you know, I do not recognize Inniscrone as a golf course.

[Mark Steffey]

shots hit into the fairway should be rewarded.

No. No. NO NO NO.

sorry...  but all things being equal, if i am in the fairway and the guy i'm playing with is in the rough - i should have a better chance of hitting and holding the green than they.

[Kyle Harris]

shots hit into the fairway should be rewarded.

No. No. NO NO NO.

sorry...  but all things being equal, if i am in the fairway and the guy i'm playing with is in the rough - i should have a better chance of hitting and holding the green than they.

You do, statistically. That does not mean that there are not instances where the guy in the rough may be able to play a better shot than you. Furthermore, the fairway does not necessarily imply you will always have a better shot. Position relative to the actual features of the golf course may influence this better. By the length of the grass, you are granted the ability to control the ball better - however - if other golf features render this ability useless, you will not have a shot.

Furthermore, as there does not exist in the rules definitions for "fairway" or "rough" it would be hard to actually make a value statement within the confines of the game - this is your preference solely. "Should" has no place in the game of golf except in regard to the diameter of the hole.

[Mark Steffey]

yes, this is my preference, solely.   i have no other standing to imply any such authority.

and for 'all things being equal' it would have to be a situation from almost identically similar positions on the course (albeit, one ball being in the fairway, and one being in the rough - but both being able to get sprayed from keegan bradley's spit).   i would certainly not be able to enter in outside influence such as angle to a flag location from the left rough vs being in the right fairway - no?

and while there may not be definitions in the 'rules' for fairway and rough... in my golf universe i know what both are and every course i've played in the last whenever present both.

[Kyle Harris]

yes, this is my preference, solely.   i have no other standing to imply any such authority.

and for 'all things being equal' it would have to be a situation from almost identically similar positions on the course (albeit, one ball being in the fairway, and one being in the rough - but both being able to get sprayed from keegan bradley's spit).   i would certainly not be able to enter in outside influence such as angle to a flag location from the left rough vs being in the right fairway - no?

and while there may not be definitions in the 'rules' for fairway and rough... in my golf universe i know what both are and every course i've played in the last whenever present both.

So, if on that day the ball happens to sit up in the rough and your ball lie in a divot in the fairway.... your chances should still be greater?

I agree that rough areas of the course present a less likely chance of a good lie than the fairway, however, your initial post stated that shots in the fairway "should be rewarded." I simply cannot agree with this statement. There are thousands of golf courses where only a small portion of the fairway is actually a desirable angle - including the one Jim Coleman is speaking about with this thread.

[Mark Steffey]

So, if on that day the ball happens to sit up in the rough and your ball lie in a divot in the fairway.... your chances should still be greater?

I agree that rough areas of the course present a less likely chance of a good lie than the fairway, however, your initial post stated that shots in the fairway "should be rewarded." I simply cannot agree with this statement. There are thousands of golf courses where only a small portion of the fairway is actually a desirable angle - including the one Jim Coleman is speaking about with this thread.

once the usga correctly decides that divots are ground under repair!!!!  YES.

but now we are moving into something different.  my ball should never end up in a divot.  i should never get a bad kick into a bunker.  i should always hit a tree and ricochet into the fairway.  and if you play too you hear this tens of times every round!  i like this as overcoming this is often what separates the men from the boys in our game, no?

[Kyle Harris]

So, if on that day the ball happens to sit up in the rough and your ball lie in a divot in the fairway.... your chances should still be greater?

I agree that rough areas of the course present a less likely chance of a good lie than the fairway, however, your initial post stated that shots in the fairway "should be rewarded." I simply cannot agree with this statement. There are thousands of golf courses where only a small portion of the fairway is actually a desirable angle - including the one Jim Coleman is speaking about with this thread.

once the usga correctly decides that divots are ground under repair!!!!  YES.

but now we are moving into something different.  my ball should never end up in a divot.  i should never get a bad kick into a bunker.  i should always hit a tree and ricochet into the fairway.  and if you play too you hear this tens of times every round!  i like this as overcoming this is often what separates the men from the boys in our game, no?

Ugh.

Divots as ground under repair? Please. At what point in the healing process for a divot does it cease to be ground under repair? We need rules to enforce not touching the ball during a round, not more situations where the ball can be touched.

The only place where the golfer is granted complete domain over the lie is on the tee. From there, the golfer is playing into a field of uncertainty, through which a combination of skill and luck will determine outcome. Only until the ball is holed will the golfer be granted control again.

Athletes demand perfection and defined outcomes. Golfers look at odd situations, turn to their competitors and say, "watch this!"

[Carl Johnson]

  I appreciate everyone's response.  I have been coming off my "don't mediocratize the course" position lately, and this thread has moved me further in that direction.
   Let me answer some of the factual questions.  We have some (but certainly not Merion's) pedigree.  We have hosted a Women's Open and will be hosting a Women's Amateur.  In Pa., we have hosted all the major events, and are considered a great Flynn course.  We are of modest, but not short length - tees at 6300, 6600 and 6900, par 70/71.  I would say our fairways are of average width, and there is considerable rough area (20 or more yards) to tree lines or boundaries.  Yes, it has been a good spring for growing grass.
   I think one thing that annoyed some (undoubtedly a minority) of the members is that we hosted an Amateur qualifier last year with a neighboring club with a lower reputation and were 2 strokes easier - in part because our rough was quite tame.
  I still feel that it is a mistake to cater to the higher handicapped majority, and that great courses are great in part because they don't do that.  But there degrees, I suppose.

If the higher handicappers are the majority, and they are willing to pay not to be catered to, so be it.  As a high handicapper, I would not want to belong to your course (not knowing what club it is, and based only on what you've told me here).  However, if the market bears it, and you prefer it (impossible golf for the average member), go for it.  (I'm a political liberal free market guy when it comes to golf.)  Having said that, I think the rough should be "rough," but I like to be able to find my ball in the rough most of the time and have a good chance to, at least, get it back in play.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark Steffey,

How recent would the divot have to be to qualify as ground under repair.

Carl,

Remember, this is the same club that complained that the course wasn't tough enough.

Shivas,

I agree, the last test you want to subject your course to is the scoring from the Pro golfer.

Those guys are good, some of them are very, very good.

What seems like difficult rough to the average golfer, usually poses a lesser challenge to them.

I see the issue as a seasonal issue and Spring in Philly, New York or Boston will produce difficult rough.

You can't gauge the entire season based on early spring conditions

It's just common sense, which doesn't appear to be so common.

[Mark Steffey]

Mark Steffey,

How recent would the divot have to be to qualify as ground under repair.

It shouldn't be ground under repair.. I was laughing at the introduction of playing out of a divot from Kyle that I tossed that out (but without a jokey-joke smiley face).  Divots are rub of the green "tough luck".

It was my intention to play Rolling Green in the qualifier too, but schedules prevented me unfortunately.  I would have known where the fairways were a poor choice to play and where to instead drive into the rough.
[i suppose though I could have called and asked them to let me play and qualify the next day, no :p ]

I'll never say never, but I may one day happen upon a course designed by a fan of Desmond Muirhead where there is a 25y wide stretch of rough 200yds deep in the middle of the hole with 10y paths of closely mown grass running parallel down the sides!!!

[Jim_Coleman]

     I suppose there are places at RG where playing from the rough would provide a better opportunity than playing from the fairway, BUT ONLY IF THE ROUGH WERE NOT PENAL.  For example, on 4, the right rough provides a much better angle than the left fairway to a left side pin position.  On 5, the left rough offers a much better shot to the right side of the green than the right side of the fairway.  Hence, the need for meaningful rough.

[Phil McDade]

     I suppose there are places at RG where playing from the rough would provide a better opportunity than playing from the fairway, BUT ONLY IF THE ROUGH WERE NOT PENAL.  For example, on 4, the right rough provides a much better angle than the left fairway to a left side pin position.  On 5, the left rough offers a much better shot to the right side of the green than the right side of the fairway.  Hence, the need for meaningful rough.

Jim:

With all due respect, this makes little sense. Why do you feel the need to -- and more importantly, why does your course -- penalize the better player off the tee who knows where to hit his drive on, e.g., #4, for a better angle into the green for a given pin position? As many on this board have demonstrated with various threads over the years, the use of trees, narrowed fairways, and expanded and deepened rough is what is making many courses so one-dimensional in their play.

[mike_malone]

 Jim,

  That right rough on #4 is supposed to be fairway. That would explain why the angle is better. But over time we narrowed that fairway.  I find that the answer to most concerns at RG is to just put it back to the way it was designed.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Well no one made me King so I won't comment on what any one club should do.  However, my recommendation to clients is always to keep the rough just high enough (given grass types) that you can distinguish the rough from the fw.  I know come courses aren't designed to do this, and of the theory of fuzzy edges and all one hieght of cut.  Sometimes, those are appropriate, but most courses fall into the now typical fw/rough dichotomy.

Some mention playing in the rough like Hogan, et al.  I believe there is a difference between rough and tournament rough, so the comparison to me is invalid.  If the average member has Hoganesque skill, then they could play Hogan deep rough.  And the beauty of rough, is that in only a few weeks (weather dependent) they can grow the rough higher for those special events, while making every day play more enjoyable.

Besides, how much differential in height does it take to make the fw an advantage?  I have seen those studies where the grooves allow just as much spin from the rough as from the fw, which is a conceptual problem.  But do we grow it just for those 1% who get more proportional punishment from deep rough at the expense of fun everyday play?  While that Philly club seems to have more good players than most (frankly, I doubt those reported handicap numbers are correct) they still represent only 15% of the every day golfers.

To me, clubs need to cater more to their every day players than is typically the case when top end players rule the greens committee.

But, that's just me.  But, its not a personal opinion, its one based on watching a lot of players at lots of courses to see who enjoys what, rather than some notion that I know best how to basically ruin someone elses golf by punishing the living snot out of them because that is how it started eons ago, or because that is how the US Open is played!

[Rich Goodale]

I remember following Watson and Nickalus at the Crosby at Spyglass in the late 1970's when they were the two best players in the world.  On the 9th Nicklaus hit his drive high over the right hand bunkers into the rough and Watson then did exactly the same.  As I walked down towards their balls, I was thinking "And these guys are the best in the world?!"--until I got to their balls and saw that the rough was moderate and ~180 yards away the pin was at the back left of the green.  They both hit their second shots to birdie range, and it dawned on me that they probably had both hit their drives exactly where they wanted to.  To me the preciision of those drives identified the fact that they were the two best players in the world, and the fact that the rough where they hit their drives was playable (even with increased risk) identified the fact that Spyglass was a course that rewarded well-executed strategies and the super knew how to prepare the course to allow this to happen.

Any course that defines its "greatness" by the depth of its rough is just fooling itself.

[Padraig Dooley]

A pertinent question might be what courses have improved by the addition of higher/more rough?

Or what courses have improved by lower/less rough?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Padraig,

The other pertinent question would be to define the standards of "improved" for either scenario, and therein lies the rub.

Another pertinent questions, since they are comparing themselves to US Open pedigree courses, are:

Do Oakmont, Merion, et all actually maintain US Open standards all the time, or only when they host the US Open? 
Did they consider graduated rough, like the US Open?
Do you factor in the relative difficulty of rough for Pro Golfers vs. Ams?  (ie, if even average good players are 1/2 as good as pros, does half the typical US Open rough provide the same relative challenge for their members?
What does the super say?  Can he mow it five times a week since its always desired to be a certain length?  Cut it on Friday for decent weekend play and let it rise up until Thursday, so most can play on any specific day to their liking (tough luck if Sat is your only golf day!)

It's a tough question, but I still say, in general, why does every course in America feel the need to be as tough as a US Open venue, or as well maintained as ANGC?   Maybe they should consider deeper rough when, say, a dozen players a day shoot 64.

[Padraig Dooley]

Padraig,

The other pertinent question would be to define the standards of "improved" for either scenario, and therein lies the rub.

Another pertinent questions, since they are comparing themselves to US Open pedigree courses, are:

Do Oakmont, Merion, et all actually maintain US Open standards all the time, or only when they host the US Open? 
Did they consider graduated rough, like the US Open?
Do you factor in the relative difficulty of rough for Pro Golfers vs. Ams?  (ie, if even average good players are 1/2 as good as pros, does half the typical US Open rough provide the same relative challenge for their members?
What does the super say?  Can he mow it five times a week since its always desired to be a certain length?  Cut it on Friday for decent weekend play and let it rise up until Thursday, so most can play on any specific day to their liking (tough luck if Sat is your only golf day!)

It's a tough question, but I still say, in general, why does every course in America feel the need to be as tough as a US Open venue, or as well maintained as ANGC?   Maybe they should consider deeper rough when, say, a dozen players a day shoot 64.

Jeff, I was thinking about what 'improved' would be as the question was being written. How about 'more popular'?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Padraig,

Then I would think the lower rough would win out.  Okay by me.  It can always be grown out for special events, no?

[Phil McDade]

I tooled around a course today that struck me as having nearly ideal rough -- probably 2 inches in length, and somewhat wispy despite very good growing weather around here. It'd be hard to lose a ball in it, and the "mediocre" player can easily hit a shot out of it, and advance it considerably even, although it's doubtful that caliber of player would hit as good of a shot out of it than if he were in the fairway. For the better player, it's not as penal, but probably gives him pause as to just how much of a flier he'll get coming out of there. Maybe a half-stroke penalty on average?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()