Penal links rough vs. TOC

[Thomas Dai]

Very informative CM's blog from RCP. Imspires confidence and credibility and shares knowledge. Wish more clubs/CM's provided such a link.
Atb

[Jon Wiggett]

It is illegal to disturb a birds nest once they have laid. I had the misfortune to have a pair of Skylarks nesting 20 yards in front of my front 8th tee last year and was not able to mow at all within a 15 yard radius to it until the beginning of September which brought a few grumbles. Despite the numerous golfers walking right by the nest the pair actually raised two lots of chicks.


Jon

[Mark Chaplin]

Jon the skylark singing is a wonderful sound and we should do all we can to help them survive.

Blogs if they are kept up to date are an excellent way for modern thinking green staff to communicate directly with golfers and the wider public at large. There is nothing worse than turning up at the club with guests after weeks of great greens to find them "ripped up". Being able to instantly communicate exactly why the work is being done, the benefits and a few pictures works wonders.

[Adam Lawrence]

Very informative CM's blog from RCP. Imspires confidence and credibility and shares knowledge. Wish more clubs/CM's provided such a link.
Atb

There are loads and loads. You just need to look.

[Jon Wiggett]

Jon the skylark singing is a wonderful sound and we should do all we can to help them survive.

Blogs if they are kept up to date are an excellent way for modern thinking green staff to communicate directly with golfers and the wider public at large. There is nothing worse than turning up at the club with guests after weeks of great greens to find them "ripped up". Being able to instantly communicate exactly why the work is being done, the benefits and a few pictures works wonders.

Mark,


don't misunderstand me, I have nothing against Skylarks just the unfortunate position of this nest was a slight issue. Last year we had 14 pairs nesting in the rough around the course.


Jon

[Niall C]

Sean

I think you are right in that we have different views on what constitutes wide/narrow.

What I was really getting to however with my question was not so much what clubs, but who in the clubs is advocating narrow fairways. I've been a member at a number of clubs, one of which you listed, and I've known committee men, captains and past captains at each and never have I heard it said that the course was being deliberately set up to make it harder. Yes, they may lengthen holes and add bunkers but that's not a set up issue.

In terms of set up I suspect in most places it's never really discussed and the greenkeeper just goes on his merry way doing what he has always done. Occasionally clubs will undertake a major clearing out exercise, which Silloth did when I was a member, and that Gailes did last year, where whole swathes of gorse was chopped out and heather severely trimmed and such like, but often that is to peripheral areas and the general mowing lines remain the same.

Niall

Niall


If memberships are allowing greenkeepers to do their thing, then they are for whatever the greenkeepers do. You can't on the one hand sign the cheques then on the other hand say you aren't responsible.  Besides, I do hear we need to make courses tougher comments a lot.  In fact, folks bannering for 30 yard fairways are in effect advocating for tougher courses.  What gets my goat is these same people then complain about slow play.  Its as if they expect perfection from a wild range of handicap golfers.  Its a system designed to slow play down, yet folks can see the obvious connection.


Ciao

Sean

There is a difference between (tacitly) accepting the status quo and telling your greenkeeper to either bring in the rough or let it/encourage it to grow. If there is any variance from the status quo then I'd suggest that in most instances it's to clear out areas adjacent to fairways. You've seen that in recent years at Dornoch, Silloth, Gailes and numerous other links courses. In fact let me throw in Moray as another example. Virtually every course I've been a member of in the last 10 to 15 years.

I appreciate that you think the status quo is too narrow but in most instances members are happy. I've yet to hear anyone, including greens conveners etc, advocate reducing fairway width and increasing length of rough for everyday use. To me the idea that they do is a lazy cliché that doesn't reflect what's generally going on.

Niall

[Sean_A]

Niall


You must live a sheltered life. I have heard, and I am certain to hear it more often, many people say that courses need rough, bunkers, water and narrowed fairways to make the game harder for good players.  This is, I believe, a very common thought process, and one used very often when courses are altered. 


Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

..... I have heard, and I am certain to hear it more often, many people say that courses need rough, bunkers, water and narrowed fairways to make the game harder for good players.  . 

To focus on this particular aspect, is it sometimes more difficult, more challenging, harder, when there is nothing in front of you to focus your play on?


Just short grass and seemingly entirely flat terrain all the way to a distant green with same at great distance to both sides and beyond as well. What is there to aim at, to aid visually gauging a distance, to aim away from, to carry, to avoid?


Obvious terrain related features are nice but sometimes can no features at all, blandness even, also be considered (as a visual/mental) hazard?


Atb

[Richard Fisher]

Thomas, To answer your first question, yes! There is nothing harder (for this moderate golfer) than the shot into a flat and unprotected seaside green.

To answer an earlier question on this thread, Harlech is constrained in almost all matters of rough control (not just the immediate semi etc), by the protocols of Natural Resources Wales: there is a very good and informative greenkeeping blog on the website at RStD by the excellent greenkeeper, Rhys Butler. NRW can also (as at Aberdovey) influence the placing of tees and other features, despite the club owning the freehold. Much more seriously, NRW also controls the overall drainage protocols for Morfa Harlech, and I am sure that GCA members will have seen some of the sharply critical comments on some other golf sites about the recurrent water at Harlech this year, in the bunkers and elsewhere. There is a medium-term issue here happy resolution of which is fundamental to the future health both of the course, and of the RStD club itself.

As an example (I think) of getting seaside rough 'right', just back from a couple of days in Norfolk. We played 36 holes of singles at Hunstanton yesterday and 36 at Brancaster today and the latter, in particular, still encourages width with pleasingly few opportunities for losing balls (unless wrestling with the various fences or the sea tangle). There is probably a bit more fairway shaping in the past, but the great thing about Brancaster remains that nobody involved has any aspirations for the club and course to be more than the supremely natural, endlessly interesting, member-friendly challenge that it is. Nothing is being 'tricked up' in the search for difficulty. Hunstanton (which I still place on a somewhat lower rung, overall, than RWNGC) was in perhaps the best 'day-to-day' condition of any course that I have seen this year, and the problematic rough (in Sean's terms) was in the wetter, lower-lying parts.

[Sean_A]

Richard


Brancaster does the next best thing where width is concerned.  On the whole, their fairways are actually not terribly wide, but they do as good a job as anybody in achieving width by superbly controlling the rough. The club has no illusions of championship grandeur and no inkling of a championship rep to uphold. 


North Berwick used to be very similar to Brancaster until recently in that there isn't the space for wide fairways, but with rough kept in check it wasn't an issue. 


To me it comes down to a set up philosophy which melds with the design.  If a course is meant to play bumpy and firm on a windy site, it makes little sense to purposely introduce strangling rough.  Bottom line, harsh rough either enhances or inhibits a design; there really isn't an inbetween or neutral effect.  I am of the opinion that purposeful harsh rough rarely enhances a design, but that on many courses there are a few opportunities where nasty rough is a reasonable choice as a hazard.  Sometimes there isn't much choice due to lack of space, money or legislation.  Thats fair enough, but in which case I would say the rough then is part of the design if the club doesn't have a choice and it is what it is....take it or leave it. It is however, very disappointing, when clubs allow rough to negatively impact the design, reduce playability and therefore provide less pleasure to the rank and file member or green fee payer. 


Ciao

[Mark Pearce]

Sean,


I agree with all that.  Despite your repeated characterisation of my position as being a fan of narrow fairways and thick rough, that really isn't my position at all.  What puzzles me, however, is the courses you accuse of deliberately encouraging this.  You may be the only person I have ever heard accuse Elie, for instance, of being narrow with thick rough.  Indeed, in the last few years there has been an effort to thin out the rough in several areas.  Most clubs simply can't afford to make ALL the rough on the course thin but you have to hit a really bad shot to lose a ball at Elie.

[Sean_A]

Mark

There are some harsh areas at Elie which didn't require a bad shot at all to be in hack out trouble.  Some areas I noted:

1. Between the fairway and OOB the rough is stupidly lush and long.

2. Not far left of the left bunker

4. Left of fairway

9. Left of fairway; short & right of the green

12. Left of fairway and right just past 10 tee

14. Left, between fairway and OOB

18. Left of fairway

None of these areas was far off the fairways and the rough is infested with incredibly lush, non fescue, so if its 5 inches high...well forget it.  That sort of rough should be about 2 inches, 3 tops.  Plenty of time was spent looking for balls, but because the course was not crowded and we went out on 3, we still finished in under 4 hours.   

Ciao

 

[Niall C]

Sean

To be clear, when you talk about golfers advocating longer rough and narrower fairways, are they talking in an abstract sort of way about how to deal with the likes of Rory and Dustin, or are they actually advocating it for their home course for day to day play ? If it’s the former then I agree with you but if you are saying the latter then I think we’ve found another difference between the golfing culture in the US/England, and Scotland because I can’t recall ever hearing that up here.

Niall

[Sean_A]

Sean

To be clear, when you talk about golfers advocating longer rough and narrower fairways, are they talking in an abstract sort of way about how to deal with the likes of Rory and Dustin, or are they actually advocating it for their home course for day to day play ? If it’s the former then I agree with you but if you are saying the latter then I think we’ve found another difference between the golfing culture in the US/England, and Scotland because I can’t recall ever hearing that up here.

Niall

I have no idea why, but for some reason many golfers tend to evaluate difficulty of courses by how pros and very good ams score.  They often don't seem to make the connection that these flat bellies come round maybe once a year, and far more often, never.  Yet, I have heard it said countless times that courses need rough/trees/bunkers/water to make them harder.  Frankly, I am amazed you have never come across this attitude.  It isn't by accident that these features have become so prevalent in our courses...or do you think it is an accident?  If so, maybe you are right.  However, an accident by neglect or by allowing a greenkeeper to make all the decisions may indeed be worse than accidental!  However, I do think many golfers tacitly agree to draconian set-ups because they do little about reversing the trends and just accept it.

Anyway, I made my point.  It doesn't really matter why courses are set-up for the best players, what matters is they are.  I would like most courses set up for mid to high cappers (just as they were many moons ago) and simply let the better players score lower.   


Ciao   

[Ally Mcintosh]

Let's also not forget that all links courses have slightly different geological and ecological histories. In other words, native grass types are different on some links than others.

There's a big difference maintaining rough on a machair landscape or low lying dune slack or field of fescue and scrub than there is on marram infested primary dune land.

Ally

[Mark Chaplin]

Sean around 15 years ago Donald Steele had Deal remove a number of bunkers that made the course too difficult for the less capable player. The rabbit doesn't need a deep pot bunker at 180 yards and the skilled player ignores the bunker at 250 yards. The design has altered so the bunkers/strategic positioning are more relevant to better players, than they were 10 years ago.

As for the rough read the blog, 30 years of little cash and poor course management has left lots of weeds and the wrong grasses. Considerable work has been on going for a few years to improve the situation and will continue for any more to come. RCP has achieved a level of financial stability that allows the work, many clubs just do not have the manpower or cash to pay contractors to do the work.

[Doug Wright]

The contrast between the Royal Portrush Dunluce course and the adjacent Valley course seems striking to me--Dunluce with fierce, ball losing rough everywhere, Valley hardly any. I'm no expert on Royal Portrush but that seems to be very much a decision by the club rather than some issue with weather or other random causes.

[Mark Pearce]

Mark

There are some harsh areas at Elie which didn't require a bad shot at all to be in hack out trouble.  Some areas I noted:

1. Between the fairway and OOB the rough is stupidly lush and long.

2. Not far left of the left bunker

4. Left of fairway

9. Left of fairway; short & right of the green

12. Left of fairway and right just past 10 tee

14. Left, between fairway and OOB

18. Left of fairway

None of these areas was far off the fairways and the rough is infested with incredibly lush, non fescue, so if its 5 inches high...well forget it.  That sort of rough should be about 2 inches, 3 tops.  Plenty of time was spent looking for balls, but because the course was not crowded and we went out on 3, we still finished in under 4 hours.   

Ciao

Interesting.  On reflection, there probably is some tough rough in those places.  On each of them, though, there are acres of space on the other side and I play well away from each of those areas.  In a strong westerly, only the left of 9 is ever an issue for me.  There's also thick rough left of 5, just short of the green.  Again, loads of space on the other side and left is not the side to miss.  A good example of how courses can look very different after a few plays.

[Dave McCollum]

Again, thanks for the discussion.  We experimented this year with not mowing sections of rough that are largely out of play.  We turned down the water and eliminated fertilizer.  We grew weeds, not wispy grass.  My conclusion is that we’d have to spend a lot more money to make these areas ideal.  Money we don’t have.  Our grass, climate (hot, dry summers), and market limit what we can do.  I suppose that is true of all courses and clubs, except for the extremely well endowed. 

While in SA I went out and walked TOC a couple of times at 4:30 AM and watched the maintenance crew at work.  Three guys walk mowing those enormous greens, guys and gals raking bunkers, mowing fairways, running sprinklers, and so on.  At the time, I had the thought that the grass has been there so long it had evolved into a miniaturized version of whatever variety it started out as.  When they mowed fairways, no grass was coming off the reels, at least from my very foreign perspective.  I chatted up some of the crew, and although I don’t remember the number, it didn’t seem an excessively large crew.  I never saw anyone working on the roughs.

Now, after this discussion and like most golf maintenance and great design, it costs a fortune to make it look like nobody touched it.