Are closely mown areas adjacent to greens

[Patrick_Mucci]

a trend that's become overused to the point that many of them are improperly used ?

Are some of them next to impossible to recover from, for the average golfer ?

[Richard Hetzel]

I don't see them them as being overused and could be used more. Maybe more work to keep those areas in those condition? I think it makes it easier because it adds the option of using the putter (or another low lofted club) off of the green rather than a wedge. When I have the choice of using a wedge or putter, I will take the putter 9/10 times.

[ChipRoyce]

Personally, I like closely mown areas as it 1) creates more variety in recovery shots and 2) tends to magnify mistakes on approach shots.

That said, your post makes an interesting suggestion that it does in fact make scoring harder, esp. for the high handicapper. Closely mown often means very thin lies, which create all sorts of (unintended) challenges with a wedge. Sure you could putt, but depending on the severity of slopes around a green, lots of opportunities to mess up long or short.

I was playing in a club tournament this weekend and was refreshing to have my ball caught up on long rough on a shot that went long over the green. I had a little wedge to pop back up onto the green surface, something I learned back on Long Island at Southward Ho (known for long rough right off the putting surface) and seldom encounter here in NC.

[A.G._Crockett]

The only way I think these areas become a problem for the average golfer is adjacent to a severe false front or a crown, such that a slightly mishit shot runs excessive distances away from the green.  And in those cases, the average golfer has little chance for recovery because we typically don't possess the hop-and-stop lofted wedge shot the the pros use.

But other than that, it's a great feature for the very reason that amateurs CAN recover and can use a variety of clubs besides a high lofted wedge.

Speaking only for myself, I really like the feature this time of year in the South because with lush bermuda, even tightly mown, it's the only time of year when I can approximate the hop-and-stop shot.  It's a fun shot for me for four or five months each year.

[Paul Gray]

Harder for the intellectually challenged, yes, regardless of handicap. But any thinking golfer, from Seve to the beginner, can prosper from a tightly mown lie. The problem for most is not an issue of execution but one of applicable. There is no default option, or if there is, it's a six or eight iron bump. That thought simply doesn't enter the minds of many and only greater exposure to conducive conditions will change that. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Some clarification.

They're not just located in front of the green, but at the flanks and back of the green.

As to options,  I think you have to consider viable or practical options.

What's the reality ?

With an elevated green, what's easier, hitting an L-wedge from rough or a putter or other club from a tight fairway up that incline and close to the hole ?

[Paul Gray]

Above is a picture of the 5th green at Hayling. The essence of this exceptional bit of golden age architecture lies in the short grass which surrounds the green in all directions. The green is only 12 yards wide and, being a links course, the wind is frequently strong. The prevailing wind blows from the left as you view it, meaning often you have to either work the ball against the wind or aim at the holes' only bunker.

Undoubtedly, growing grass around the plateau green would, in this instance, make it play far easier but it would also completely destroy the hole. This is a hole which exists for short grass and a classic 'tough par' which pre-dates RTJ by a few decades.

[Jim_Coleman]

    To suggest that mowing closely around green is more difficult than leaving rough is preposterous.  Yes, it may provide more options; and yes, it may be more fun.  But no, it isn't more difficult.  Reminds me of those who argue that taking a tree away makes tyhe hole more difficult.  Again, better maybe, but not more difficult.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim,

Hit it just over the green on the 14th hole at Arcola and I'll bet you as much as you like and as often as you like that you can't up and down it from the closely mown area.

Then, you can make the same bet with me from a few feet further back from the rough.

Same bet to the right of # 11 at Mountain Ridge

[Brent Hutto]

If the grass is short enough to make putter an option (not necessarily the best option but at least possible)...

And if the short grass is fairly smooth without too many dead or divoted cuppy spots...

Then I think the net effect is a bit of an equalizer between the stronger and weaker player. Weaker players struggle with making contact out of thick rough but if they also struggle with tight lies then putter can bail them out. And the ball will definitely run farther from the green on short grass than rough.

What you get when the rough continues right up to the green is the situation where errant shots bounce 3-5 yards off the green then sit down in the rough. Once a stronger player masters that lob wedge "gouge" out of the thick stuff (Tour players are masters at it) the risk is contained into a very small range for those players. They know what they'll be facing if they miss the green and they can play that same 10-yard gouge shot repeatedly every time they miss a green.

Cut that rough down to short grass running 10, 15, 20 yards away from the green and everyone (weaker and stronger players) ends up more than a couple yards off the green. But a putter or running shot from 20 yards isn't THAT much riskier than a putt or runner from 5 yards. The stronger player will still be more comfortable playing a lofted shot from tight lies than the weaker player but not as comfortable (consistently) as he would be just gouging out of thick stuff.

So if you think leveling the outcomes a bit between a 2-handicap and a 20-handicap around the greens is a good thing then go with the extended runoffs cut short. If you want to maximize the difference between more and less skilled players then grow it up as rough. Or you can mix and match it with some variety from hole to hole.

It would look funny but for that matter you could mix and match thicker rough on one side of the green and "chipping areas" on the other if you wanted. Might conceivably bring some strategy into the player's mind, in as much as he is willing to risk a different chance of a missed green depending on his own personal strengths in recovery shots...

[Patrick_Mucci]

Brent,

One of the difficulties for the average member and the better player is the dilemma of being over an elevated green and having to hit the putt hard enough to climb back up the slope, then soft enough not to roll all the way off the green since most greens are sloped back to front.

The issue isn't putter versus L-wedge, where you can easily blade or chilly dip the L-Wedge.
The issue is L-Wedge out of rough versus almost any shot from the tightly mown area.

I just don't see the average member having the skill set to meet the challenge presented by tightly mown areas adjacent to elevated greens, versus flopping an L-Wedge from the rough somewhere up on the green.

And, I see clubs increasing the number of areas adjacent to greens.

This seems to be the newest trend in maintenance.

[Brent Hutto]

Brent,

One of the difficulties for the average member and the better player is the dilemma of being over an elevated green and having to hit the putt hard enough to climb back up the slope, then soft enough not to roll all the way off the green since most greens are sloped back to front.

The issue isn't putter versus L-wedge, where you can easily blade or chilly dip the L-Wedge.
The issue is L-Wedge out of rough versus almost any shot from the tightly mown area.

I just don't see the average member having the skill set to meet the challenge presented by tightly mown areas adjacent to elevated greens, versus flopping an L-Wedge from the rough somewhere up on the green.

And, I see clubs increasing the number of areas adjacent to greens.

This seems to be the newest trend in maintenance.

I guess it depends also on how deep and/or gnarly the rough is. Tour-type rough (lush, overwatered, three inches) is just brutal for anyone who can't generate at least 75mph of clubhead speed with that lob wedge.

But now if we're taking about an inch and half of cool climate rough (or an inch of Bermuda) then the rough is totally a bargain for higher handicappers. If the ball will come out with a modest-speed L wedge then pop it out and play that 10-yard gouge is something anyone can do. Might even luck into hitting it close once in a while.

[Ben Hollerbach]

Closely mowed areas around greens seem to be a great equalizer. for the higher handicap player who struggle out of high rough the chipping area affords them a simple shot to put the ball on the green. Whereas the lower handicap player, now presented many more options, seems to struggle to get the ball close to the hole. From a closely mowed area the player can always get the ball onto the green but it may be now harder to get the ball very close. To me that's a win-win. Of course, this really only applies when the turf is dry and firm. closely mowed areas that are soggy play extremely unfairly.

[Jim Tang]

Love closely mown areas.  They can be a true hazard.  The best ones offer multiple options of recovery.  I don't think they are overused and wish more courses used them.  They are not too hard for the average golfer to recover from if putter is an available option.

[Jerry Kluger]

I don't know what average golfers you play with but the ones I play with almost daily have little chance or even attempt to play a flop shot.  My observation of tour players is that most of them use a flop shot as a last alternative.  I read on Golfwrx about a wedge fitting of a really good player by Bob Vokey.  He explained that in tight lies around the green you want bounce and a lot of it.  Opening a lob wedge and making a simple turn using the bounce will allow the club to get under the ball and make solid contact without a big flop swing.

You certainly have far more options playing off closely mowed areas as compared to deep rough.

[Michael Felton]

I think the thing that creates the most difficulty for a Tour level player is distance from ball to hole (generally speaking at any rate). If a collar of rough around the green prevents the ball from going further away it will tend to make the shot easier (again - in general - thick rough 20 feet away from the hole with the ground running away from you will be extremely difficult). Take the Road Hole at St Andrews. If the back of the green and the bank there was covered in lush rough, it would take a lot of the fear out of the hole, because that would stop balls rolling down onto the road or up against the wall behind it. Having short grass there makes it way more difficult. At the same time, the area to the front right of that green is much more playable as fairway than it would be if it were rough.

I don't think it's overused, more likely the opposite, at least in the US.

[Ed Homsey]

Closely mown areas adjacent to greens do appear to be a growing trend, but is it all that new?  Original course drawings by Walter Travis, and perhaps others, clearly show fairways wrapping around greens.

The more options we have when preparing for a shot, the more difficult the shot, in my opinion.

Is that a good, or bad thing?  I like it.

[Pete_Pittock]

They are more of a problem early on a dewy morning, or when over-irrigated, when the putter is less of an option.

[Paul Gray]

Closely mown areas adjacent to greens do appear to be a growing trend, but is it all that new?  Original course drawings by Walter Travis, and perhaps others, clearly show fairways wrapping around greens.

The more options we have when preparing for a shot, the more difficult the shot, in my opinion.

Is that a good, or bad thing?  I like it.

Quite right. This is merely part of the ongoing return to 'proper golf' and a break away from the dark ages. Unfortunately, all golf clubs are stuck in various eras so some are nowhere near 2014 just yet. Actually, some are only just heading in to the dark ages!

[A.G._Crockett]

In the first place, the misses of the high handicapper, which tend to be more frequent and worse, tend to run farther away, while the more skilled player avoids that miss.   The reason we're so stunned when a pro gets victimized by a false front and a closely mown area and has the ball roll 20 yds back down the fairway is that we see it so seldom.  Bad players do that sort of stuff all the time!

But even once both players have missed into the closely mown area, I can't see it as much of an "equalizer".  The sheer probabilities are that if ANY player has only one shot available to them their chances of success diminish.  Low handicappers have more weapons in their short game arsenal in the first place; give them chances to choose their weapon and they'll typically prosper relative to the lesser player.

With closely mown areas I understand that the high handicapper has a better chance of getting the ball on the green, but that in itself isn't necessarily an equalizer.  If you give the low handicapper multiple options, chances become greater that there is one of them at which he is very, very good; that's why he's a low handicapper.  So he gets the ball close, while often the high handicapper is on the green but a mile away.

[Joe Bausch]

The more options we have when preparing for a shot, the more difficult the shot, in my opinion.

I basically agree with your statement, Ed.  Give golfers more options, and the brain is forced to analyze.  And even if the player chooses what is probably the best route to play a shot based upon that day's conditions and their skill level, but then doesn't play the shot well, doubt creeps in most minds.  And doubt about a shot erodes confidence when presented with a similar scenario later in the round.  And that's game over for some.   

[Brent Hutto]

I'm not buying it.

Put my ball 15 yards off a domed Pinehurst #2 green and give me the "option" of either putting it or hitting a lob wedge off a tight lie to a firm green and I'm putting it. Take away the wedge option and I'm still putting it.


No way, no how multiple options make any shot harder. Are you guys actually such mental/emotional cripples that you literally stand there and can't make up your mind when there are multiple ways to play a shot? Or do you think everyone ELSE in the world is that sort of idiot?

As someone said earlier in the thread, it's like claiming that cutting down a tree makes the course harder. Bull shit it does.

[JMEvensky]

No way, no how multiple options make any shot harder. Are you guys actually such mental/emotional cripples that you literally stand there and can't make up your mind when there are multiple ways to play a shot? Or do you think everyone ELSE in the world is that sort of idiot?

Agreed--with the exception of the very best players.

If a PGAT-level player can hit EVERY shot,then multiple options becomes a process of him figuring out which option is best.Sometimes the hardest thing for a good player to do is choose between "equal" options.

As to everyone else,multiple options increases the chances that every player will have at least one option that's doable.

How can that be anything but easier?

[Thomas Dai]

I was pondering this a while ago and wanted to understand the outcome in relation to novices-higher handicappers.

In order to mimic a novice-higher handicapper, I borrowed some left handed clubs (I play right handed) and attempted to play left handed putts, hybrids, chips and pitches from closely mown areas, from manicured 2" rough and from gunge onto both flattish and domed greens.

The outcome - significantly better results with the putter/hybrid every time from the closely mown area, even a bad putt would reach and stay on the green. Poor results from the manicured 2", often taking 2 shots to get onto the green, frequently 3 shots if heavily contoured. From the gunge, awful, just awful, could barely get the ball out in 2-3-4 shots.

To me, and others may disagree, closely mown is preferable provided a machine can cut it, a kind of if you can cut it, cut it low approach.

However, I would also suggest that some grass types do not allow the ball to roll unless the grass is cut very, very short, and I guess this has maintenance issues, and maintenance issues also need to form part of the debate.

atb

[Bill_McBride]

The many putts Martin Kaymer played from off the greens at #2 tell me the options from closely mown grass are a lot more fun than 2" rough where there is only one shot. How is this even debatable?