[Bill Brightly]

Does anyone have any experience with removing the first cut of short rough around fairways? I played in a three-way interclub event yesterday and this became a topic of conversation after golf.

I can see the appeal if a club is looking to "stiffen its defenses" and allow more balls to run through the fairway and reach the primary rough. But I envision a lot of moaning from the membership at large, especially when balls routinely stop against the rough, creating difficult "half and half" lies.

Thanks.

[K. Krahenbuhl]

Does anyone have any experience with removing the first cut of short rough around fairways? I played in a three-way interclub event yesterday and this became a topic of conversation after golf.

I can see the appeal if a club is looking to "stiffen its defenses" and allow more balls to run through the fairway and reach the primary rough. But I envision a lot of moaning from the membership at large, especially when balls routinely stop against the rough, creating difficult "half and half" lies.

Thanks.

We did it this year at Champions in Houston Bill.  Our fairways are cut very tightly and eliminating the extra cut provides great definition.  Our rough (bermuda) is currently kept at 1.75".

[Robert Emmons]

We did it at Huntington CC a few years ago and the complaining from scratch golfers was so much we gave up and put a first cut back...RHE

[Bill Brightly]

We did it at Huntington CC a few years ago and the complaining from scratch golfers was so much we gave up and put a first cut back...RHE

Scrath golfers complaing about conditions? How unusual! In this case, the idea of removing the first cut seems to be led by better players looking to increase the challenge.


K. Krahenbuhl,

Thanks for posting the photos. I think it looks very cool. But the club in question is northeast parkland course. I assume that the bluegrass rough is 2.5". I wonder if anyone has photos of such a course with high roughs and no first cut.

[Mark McKeever]

The Cricket Club will no longer have any first cuts on the golf course.  Greens and fairways.  I have the feeling that some will hate it because of the impact it will have on shots that get snug up on the edge of the cut.   

Stay tuned for some updates Memorial Day weekend!

Mark

[PCCraig]

My home course had some issues with winter kill in the 1st cut last year, so they grew it out to allow it to better rest/repair it. The thought was to see what members thought of it for a year, too, with the idea that maybe the 1st cut would be abandoned entirely. Personally, I liked the classic look better (more definition), but apparently a bunch of members really missed the 1st cut and now it's back this year.   

[Frank Pont]

I have introduced it several of the courses I work with, since having first experienced it at Renaissance Club a few summers ago.

Key for it to work are sandy soil, fescue roughs that aren't irrigated and very wide fairways.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Seems like the perfect time to rearrange mowing lines, a first cut could add up to a couple of acres or more of grass. If a club chose to transform it into fairway it could distribute that 'extra' acreage in areas that are perceived as 'needing' more width and narrowing it up it places where it doesn't, and for very little (if any) extra maintenance cost.

   

[John Percival]

A big issue with no first cut are tilted fairways and their runoffs.
When we were at Indianwood, balls would routinely trickle off the canted fairways and stop next to the rough.
Thus, the rough was unusually heavy behind the ball, as it was sitting down.
Sorry, but not appropriate.

Perhaps another way to look at the debate is to compare fairways to greens. The collar separates the putting surface from areas of rough. Thus the first cut should also be viewed that way....as a transition area.

As a way of compromise, clubs can mow the first cut 'into' the fairway. In other words, instead of a fairway width of 32 yards and a 1 yard wide first cut on each side, why not a 30 yard fwy and a 1 yd cut on each side. Thus, the fairway is actually narrower, yet those trickles receive a more fitting result.

[Joe Hancock]

My preference, and thus, opinion, is that the height difference between fairway and rough shouldn't be so great as to make this discussion necessary. Deep rough unduly punishes average golfers, and often keeps balls from getting into bunkers, trees, and other awkward lies.

Fairways cut super short and rough kept too long isn't the right recipe for enjoyable golf, IMO.

Joe

[Adam Warren]

I have seen it lots of places, and its mainly a matter of rough height.  The guy who said they have it at 1.75" is probably about as long as you can have it.  Any more and I think you have to have a first cut.  I mentioned this in the greens thread as well.

[Michael Ryan]

I played Merion in June of 2011 and the golf course went from fairway cut directly to primary rough that was probably 3 inches and healthy.  Our host told us this was part of the lead up to the final decisions by the USGA on fairway widths and possible movements of some fairways in regards to traditional angles. 

I recall that my buddy hit a fantastic drive on # 4 that caught the slope and ran down into a position that he was on the very left side-fairway cut but his ball was up against the 3 inch rough-a terrible break from which he had almost no chance to advance the ball into a good position for his third shot.  Our host remarked that the current set up had a lot of members up in arms as well.

I'm sorry but I don't have any pictures from that day.

Mike

[BCowan]

Radrick Farms, in Ann Arbor,MI has no first cut.

[Tyler Kearns]

I've posted a link below to a USGA article on the issue;
http://gsr.lib.msu.edu/article/oatis-waste-7-26-13.pdf

We decided against re-introducing an intermediate cut at our club because we would have needed to purchase/lease another machine and hire another staff member.  Not to mention, with rough at 2.25", another height of cut would have taken away from the desired fairway definition we have achieved.

TK

[Dan Herrmann]

No first cut at French Creek - It's been that way since the course first opened in 2003.  I love it.

PS- Merion doesn't have a first cut.  Pretty great role model!

[Thomas Dai]

On parkland courses my preference would be to cut everything to either fairway, fringe or green height except where the terrain is so extremely tilted - in respect of both mower usage and shots running crazily away - as to make this inappropriate. Less looking for balls, speeds up play and mis-directed shots will bounce and run and finish further from the intended target than if mown rough were present thus preserving shot making and recovery skills.

atb

[Neil_Crafter]

This is Merion - right side of 1st fairway taken in October 2012, some 9 months or so prior to the US Open. No first cut - just straight from fairway to primary cut. Our host was saying that they were planning to mow the edges with a mower set up slightly tilted from side to side so that the height of cut was around 2" or so at the fairway edge and grading up to around 4" back about 5 feet or thereabouts (I'm recalling these heights from memory as I didn't write them down). Whether they used this tilted mower or not I don't know.

And the fairways weren't too wide either  - a real premium on accuracy.

[Paul Wold]

We did it at The Country Club of Rochester. Tested it in 2012 on a few holes and did the entire course last year. It has not been an issue.

[Sean_A]

My preference, and thus, opinion, is that the height difference between fairway and rough shouldn't be so great as to make this discussion necessary. Deep rough unduly punishes average golfers, and often keeps balls from getting into bunkers, trees, and other awkward lies.

Fairways cut super short and rough kept too long isn't the right recipe for enjoyable golf, IMO.

Joe

Si, plus the pix offered don't float my boat.  It looks far too stark and unmabiguous.  Golf eyes like blurred lines  .

Ciao 

[Thomas Dai]

Okay I know the location is a bit of a Sistine Chapel and criticism of such doesn't normally go down too well amongst some folks, but which is the real 'hazard', coz it looks to me from the photo provided that the rough is more of a penalty than the bunker?

So, why have bunkers at all if the roughs gonna be the real hazard?



Fuse lit, retire behind wall!?

atb

[Adam Lawrence]

I had an interesting discussion about this subject at one of the leading heathland clubs in England recently. The original concept for those courses (or at least this course), way back in the day, is that grass would be mowed at one height, with gangs I imagine, and beyond that would be heather. More recently, a combination of heather loss and fairway narrowing means they typically have a lot of semi and primary rough. I think it would be wonderful if they could return to the old look - wider fairways transitioning into heather. But it needs a change of mindset.

[Sean_A]

I had an interesting discussion about this subject at one of the leading heathland clubs in England recently. The original concept for those courses (or at least this course), way back in the day, is that grass would be mowed at one height, with gangs I imagine, and beyond that would be heather. More recently, a combination of heather loss and fairway narrowing means they typically have a lot of semi and primary rough. I think it would be wonderful if they could return to the old look - wider fairways transitioning into heather. But it needs a change of mindset.

Adam

I completely agree, but the key to it working in the heathlands is because there is a "native" area for the fairway to bleed into - or vice versa (see heather around bunkers or heather patches "connecting" the sand to the main heather area).  On parkland courses, that "native" area is usually trees and/or bunkers, but how often do we see a buffer of rough before sand and/or trees?   We usually get quite an arbitrary and fake looking demarcation which is what I object to. I notice in recent years there has been a fad to have cutlines running to the centre of bunkers - which is awful as well.  The eye is drawn up that cut line and abruptly ends at the centre of a bunker - whats with that?  Why not cut all the way around the sand and not just one sweep either - take a few sweeps wide of the sand (if not all the way to the tree line, but lets not dream too much) so the eye isn't focused so much on two lines (the sand edge and edge of fairway) close together?  I can fully understand budget constraints for a great many places in the spring/summer, but when I see the Merions and lesser Merions presented that way it makes my head spin.  Its not a money issue, its a decision in favour of that type of cutline - mind boggling.

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

I had an interesting discussion about this subject at one of the leading heathland clubs in England recently. The original concept for those courses (or at least this course), way back in the day, is that grass would be mowed at one height, with gangs I imagine, and beyond that would be heather. More recently, a combination of heather loss and fairway narrowing means they typically have a lot of semi and primary rough. I think it would be wonderful if they could return to the old look - wider fairways transitioning into heather. But it needs a change of mindset.

Adam,

The Highgate course at Enville, a heathland course used many times as a Regional Qualifying venue for The Open, west of Birmingham, out past Stourbridge, is usually set up not dissimilar to this - fairway, then one narrow mowers width of very light semi then straight into the heather. Very nice it is too, just don't miss the fairways.

atb

[Adam Lawrence]

I had an interesting discussion about this subject at one of the leading heathland clubs in England recently. The original concept for those courses (or at least this course), way back in the day, is that grass would be mowed at one height, with gangs I imagine, and beyond that would be heather. More recently, a combination of heather loss and fairway narrowing means they typically have a lot of semi and primary rough. I think it would be wonderful if they could return to the old look - wider fairways transitioning into heather. But it needs a change of mindset.

Adam

I completely agree, but the key to it working in the heathlands is because there is a "native" area for the fairway to bleed into - or vice versa (see heather around bunkers or heather patches "connecting" the sand to the main heather area).  On parkland courses, that "native" area is usually trees and/or bunkers, but how often do we see a buffer of rough before sand and/or trees?   We usually get quite an arbitrary and fake looking demarcation which is what I object to. I notice in recent years there has been a fad to have cutlines running to the centre of bunkers - which is awful as well.  The eye is drawn up that cut line and abruptly ends at the centre of a bunker - whats with that?  Why not cut all the way around the sand and not just one sweep either - take a few sweeps wide of the sand (if not all the way to the tree line, but lets not dream too much) so the eye isn't focused so much on two lines (the sand edge and edge of fairway) close together?  I can fully understand budget constraints for a great many places in the spring/summer, but when I see the Merions and lesser Merions presented that way it makes my head spin.  Its not a money issue, its a decision in favour of that type of cutline - mind boggling.

Ciao

Agree totally, and it is all about 'difficulty'. The sad thing is that we only have to read MacKenzie or any other of the golden age designers to be reminded that long rough is a lousy way to make a course difficult.

[Niall C]

Adam

If it was about difficulty I suggest there could be an argument to do away with the rough such that balls ran straight into the heather. Unless they are watering any rough I suspect that the heather would be much harder to get out of. From an aesthetics point of view, I agree rough between fairway and heather looks awful.

Niall

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()