Rough as a design feature

[Jerry Kluger]

I heard Ben Crenshaw on the radio yesterday and in discussing ANGC he said that the primary rough that has been introduced into the course has caused balls to be held up from going into the trees. He said he liked the width of the course which was part of the original design and its attribution to the Old Course. So width was an original design feature of the course and now the rough is a design feature which directly affects the original width feature by not allowing balls to wind up inside the tree line.   


We have discussed in the past how rough becomes a significant feature when it surrounds bunkers and holds up balls from going in them and it is again a feature when it prevents balls from going into trees which line fairways.

[Wade Whitehead]

I think ANGC likes a bit of rough because it's more difficult to control spin from it.  Fairway to the treeline would mean clean contact (as the pine straw is immaculately kept).

It also keeps shots from going into the gallery during the tournament.

WW

[Tom_Doak]

Rough is the most misunderstood design feature.


Fairways cannot go on forever, so every course has to have some sort of rough.  At Augusta, it used to be whatever was growing under the trees; then it was the pine straw, and now it's the second cut. This narrowing has taken away some of the strategy of the course; Crenshaw says there are three holes where his ideal placement for a certain hole location is now in the second cut.


Rough does NOT have to be uniform, or long grass at all; it just needs to present the possibility of a bad lie that will make the approach harder.


 The villain was the guy (whoever it was) who came up with the maxim that the rough should be a half-shot penalty.  If it's that much, and that certain, then one would never prefer to be on the correct side but just in the rough, vs in the fairway on whatever side.  And that's when strategy dies.


It was Tom Simpson who said the middle of the fairway should never be the ideal spot.  By that same logic, rough should never be too penal.

[Jerry Kluger]

Tom: So when you are designing a course do you view the rough as a feature that causes certain results and by that I mean what Crenshaw pointed out where the rough is put in to stop balls from going into the trees. I think it is far more significant where it is put in between a fairway and a bunker - the gathering bunkers that we see in GB & I do not have rough surrounding them and come into play much more.  I remember a friend told me that at this club during their restoration work they widened the approaches so that more balls would go into the greenside bunkers and not be held up by the rough. 

[Dave McCollum]

Tom already provided the perfect comment.  My own is based on personal experience at our course where we cut the rough to 2", a length where finding the ball is never an issue.  I find it more interesting than long rough because it not only allows recovery shots, it temps golfers to try shots that may beyond their skill set.  In short, it requires judgment about the lie and best shot to hit.  Seems that ANGC's does this as well, but I base that on watching TV.  It may very well be substituting a new and inferior strategy to a superior original one, but, in my experience, it is still better than the ball-eating rough at, say, the setups at Torrey Pines and Merion for the US Open.     

[Thomas Dai]

A query about what is sometimes termed “ball eating”/US Open style rough.


How often would you have to cut it during prime grass growing season, other seasons as well, to stop it being “ball eating” and what would effect would this have in relation to manpower, machines, budgets etc?


Also, as water restrictions may well come into place at some point in time, if they haven’t already in some areas, how might this effect matters.....are the days of lush, thick rough possibly numbered anyway?


Just curious.


Atb

[Jeff_Brauer]

As a design feature, its getting more complicated, with intermediate cut, second cut, etc.


Let's face it, rough might be 50 acres of the course, bunkers maybe 3 acres.  Rough rules as a hazard.


Two thoughts:


Like others, recommend it is just deep enough to provide color contrast and reduced spin (with Bent and Blue up north, easy peasy)


I have always wanted to experiment with rough at different heights on opposite sides of the fairway.  Would you tempt the "best side" fairway edge with 2" rough, but not 4" rough?  Would longer rough on the safe side increase demand but decrease strategy, or should the long rough be on the preferred side of the fairway, etc.?

[Sean_A]

I have always been a fan of uniniform rough....from bald patches, to daisies to 3-4 inches.  Its when rough is codified that the real problem begins...and this will lead to headaches on how much fairway should be provided given the harsh rough.  Growing, I played plenty of golf from the rough, but it was never long...just inconsistent and definitely not fairway.  Lets face it, these days, fairways can be cut so low that adjacent rough isn't much longer than the fairways of regular joe 1970s courses! So sure, rough is a good design feature if properly presented. 

The one aspect I take way from "rough" is that the height of grass is not equal between strains and seasons.  Some grass types at 2.5 inches is horrible rough if uniform.  Generally, I think it is beast to keep the rough unusually down in the spring...when it is most difficult to do so. Then gradually ease off and let nature take more of a direct course getting into July.  Unfortunately...most places let rough get out if control early and it remains a constant battle all summer unless the weather really cooperates.  This is what often prompts me to complain about fairway width when the real problem is often rough not properly controlled. Its better to err on the side of rough being too short rather than too long 

Ciao

[Joe Hancock]

Rough and fairway....why have both? Just mow the grass where it is willing to grow at one height...somewhere around 3/4 of an inch would keep most golfers happy, and keep the water to a minimum. Color contrast?....what the.....I don’t think we need to focus on that as an architectural feature....


Humans just can’t be satisfied with simplicity, and spend stupid amounts of money to prove it.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom: So when you are designing a course do you view the rough as a feature that causes certain results and by that I mean what Crenshaw pointed out where the rough is put in to stop balls from going into the trees. I think it is far more significant where it is put in between a fairway and a bunker - the gathering bunkers that we see in GB & I do not have rough surrounding them and come into play much more.  I remember a friend told me that at this club during their restoration work they widened the approaches so that more balls would go into the greenside bunkers and not be held up by the rough.

Jerry:


I love it when there is no rough between fairway and bunker, but it can be a lot more expensive to maintain a course that way, and not all fairway turf types hold up well when exposed on the edge of a bunker like that, where they are likely to dry out.  It doesn't work with every bunker style, either; if you're really mowing fairway right to sand you need a big and sturdy lip that will hold up to hanging the mower reels over the edge.


We can ask a superintendent to mow tighter to the bunker, but there are limits to what they can do.

[Peter Pallotta]

It sometimes makes me chuckle that average golfers (like me) so happily buy into a conception of the game that is so way above our station.
The notion that the rough can impact our game/score through so subtle an effect as 'taking spin off our approach shots' is one of those conceits.
I'm not complaining, mind you: the conceit serves us all quite well -- saves money for the mom and pop operators, gives architects and/or supers another tool to liven up the design, and allows me to tsk tsk away a poor shot by calling it a 'flyer',
Ha ha -- I haven't hit a real flyer in 30 years, but it does make me feel younger (and a better golfer) to think I have...

[Jerry Kluger]

Need some sod wall bunkers in the US

[Jon Wiggett]

I have always been a fan of uniniform rough....from bald patches, to daisies to 3-4 inches.  Its when rough is codified that the real problem begins...and this will lead to headaches on how much fairway should be provided given the harsh rough.  Growing, I played plenty of golf from the rough, but it was never long...just inconsistent and definitely not fairway.  Lets face it, these days, fairways can be cut so low that adjacent rough isn't much longer than the fairways of regular joe 1970s courses! So sure, rough is a good design feature if properly presented. 

The one aspect I take way from "rough" is that the height of grass is not equal between strains and seasons.  Some grass types at 2.5 inches is horrible rough if uniform.  Generally, I think it is beast to keep the rough unusually down in the spring...when it is most difficult to do so. Then gradually ease off and let nature take more of a direct course getting into July.  Unfortunately...most places let rough get out if control early and it remains a constant battle all summer unless the weather really cooperates.  This is what often prompts me to complain about fairway width when the real problem is often rough not properly controlled. Its better to err on the side of rough being too short rather than too long 

Ciao

+1 on all of it. Well said Sean.

[Jeff Schley]

I'm commenting from the amateur's point of view, not a playing professional.  I like having rough as it makes me focus more on where I want to aim my tee shot for courses that have a variable length (2-4 inches).  If the rough is uniform to less than 2 inches, with dried out patches perhaps, then I just bomb away and simply avoid hazards. 

So off the tee I try and aim at the proper side for approach, while avoiding hazards, unless there is variable rough that could be penal (over 2 inches to me) which makes me just want to hit the fairway to avoid that.

Also explains why I haven't gone pro for it could be too simplistic, but I rather like hitting shots from 1 - 1 1/2 inch rough as it gives me some grass under the ball for lift.

[Dave McCollum]

Here's the practical reality for just a normal golf course:  set the rough mower to desired height (for us 2"), assign a guy to mow it continuously, days off it grows, days on start over, rinse and repeat for entire growing season.  That is a full time man/expense and the rough varies with his schedule and the seasonal changes.  We're a compact course at about 125 acres of turf and can mostly do it with one guy plus fill in labor for exceptional growth.  We are irrigated, in the US, have about 5 full time greenskeepers and fill in during peak growth with others.  I would say we're lean, maybe bare minimum as far as maintenance budget.  Anyone who does it for less gets rain and makes up for it with more labor as needed. I'm mot proud of this; it's the hand we're dealt in our market.  As for the quality of the crew, that's debatable.  I've got guys who care, for what I pay them, and that is key.  I think it works, but not for high end club.  OTOH, we're not a dog tract either.  You'd enjoy a round here,  The realty is we manage our rough, our course, and try to keep the maintenance in proportion with our revenue.  We aren't winning.  That's a problem for golf and these effete discussions about is not ideal.  No offense to courses that debate mowing lines and height of rough cut, but a pretty good golf course struggling to make it is a problem.  I don't want your sympathies.  It's a tough business.  The problem is unrealistic expectations in your market and mine.  In mine, I need to charge more, in most of yours, you need to spend less.   
.         

[Thomas Dai]

I would venture to suggest there’s a historical reason it’s called “rough”?
If the intention was for such areas not to be “rough” then they should be referred to as say “the manicured 2 inch” or “the manicured 3 inch” etc.

Atb

[Mark_Fine]

I typed this up last night but didn't get to post it. I already see some others have said the same


---------------

Tom,
Does Sebonack have any real rough to speak of?  In the few times I have played it, don’t remember much at all.


Rough is hardly the right word to describe the “rough” these days on most well maintained golf courses.  It is anything but “rough" as most is lush and uniform and predictable.


I’m in Ben’s camp regarding “rough” at Augusta.  I think it does prevent balls from finding more trouble.  Kind of like one of my pet peeves, rough directly in front of and/or along the sides of bunkers.  All the rough does in this case is lessen the hazard value of the bunker as balls that are destined for the bunker get hung up in the rough instead.  A “fairway" bunker for example should not be surrounded by rough.  I call that a rough bunker.  A fairway bunker should be in the fairway and/or have fairway running right up to the edge of the bunker.  I also don’t like carry bunkers that have rough beyond them.  It defeats the purpose of the bunker which is to tempt the player to take on the hazard to have a shorter shot or preferred angle into the green.  Who wants to make a long carry over a bunker and end up in rough? 


I also don’t like rough that results in lots of lost balls.  The game is hard enough and there is no reason to maintain it that high and that lush.  In truly out of play (or mostly out of play areas) it is fine to mow it less often.  But in areas that see lots of golf balls, it is not necessary.  Only a slight difference in cut from fairway height is enough to give a good golfer a challenge.  For the higher handicapper (especially if it is tightly mowed bent grass) they will often prefer to be in light “rough” anyway.  Kind of like being in the first cut along a fairway.  Most golfers love it as they can get their club under the ball.  Personally I am not an advocate of first cuts.  It adds to maintenance costs and really isn’t needed.  That said, I don’t like is a bent grass fairway that immediately transitions to heavy rough.  I would prefer to see much shorter height rough in general and that transition is acceptable. 


Proponents of rough will argue that without rough, the value of accuracy is undermined.  On a well designed golf course, that is usually not the case for lots of reasons we all know.  Probably the best argument for rough is lower maintenance costs vs fairway cut. 

[jeffwarne]

Humans just can’t be satisfied with simplicity, and spend stupid amounts of money to prove it.

love that line

[Kyle Harris]

Rough is the most misunderstood design feature.


Fairways cannot go on forever, so every course has to have some sort of rough.  At Augusta, it used to be whatever was growing under the trees; then it was the pine straw, and now it's the second cut. This narrowing has taken away some of the strategy of the course; Crenshaw says there are three holes where his ideal placement for a certain hole location is now in the second cut.


Rough does NOT have to be uniform, or long grass at all; it just needs to present the possibility of a bad lie that will make the approach harder.


 The villain was the guy (whoever it was) who came up with the maxim that the rough should be a half-shot penalty.  If it's that much, and that certain, then one would never prefer to be on the correct side but just in the rough, vs in the fairway on whatever side.  And that's when strategy dies.


It was Tom Simpson who said the middle of the fairway should never be the ideal spot.  By that same logic, rough should never be too penal.

There are two ways of looking at half-shot penalty, I guess. My understanding is that the half-shot came from the 50/50 percentage of drawing a good lie. Though I think realistically the odds should be more variable!

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mark,

Proponents of rough will argue that without rough, the value of accuracy is undermined.  On a well designed golf course, that is usually not the case for lots of reasons we all know.  Probably the best argument for rough is lower maintenance costs vs fairway cut.

[/size]

[/size]When I teamed with Lanny Wadkins on a design, I recall asking him about his tee shot strategy, and the answer was "Middle of fairway, obviously."  Nothing about shading right or left, mostly due to rough and trees.  So, rough requires accuracy, and reduces traditional strategy.

[/size]

[/size]I do agree we need rough to keep fairway maintenance costs down, for most clubs at least.  And, I think rough probably holds more balls in from hitting trees, so for average players, who actually like a bit of fluff under the ball, a 1.5-2" rough works all the way around on a public course.

[Peter Pallotta]

One day, and that day may never come, recreational golf will become a 'sport' instead of a 'game'. And on that day, 'skill' will take its rightful place at the top of the pyramid/hierarchy of values: better ball strikers will be rewarded for their straight drives, both in absolute terms (with ideal 2nd shots) and relatively speaking (compared to worse ball strikers, who will be in 5 inches of rough); and better iron players will be similarly rewarded when they actually hit and hold a green (instead of plunking it in the water hazard short, or the deep bunkers left and right). And on that day, if it ever comes, those who then love the sport will look back on these days (and these posts, and the consensus opinion) with bemused incomprehension -- wondering why we'd insisted so vehemently on stripping away all tests of skill in the most intriguing and hard-to-master sport of all.
This is what I currently think. 

[Sean_A]

One day, and that day may never come, recreational golf will become a 'sport' instead of a 'game'. And on that day, 'skill' will take its rightful place at the top of the pyramid/hierarchy of values: better ball strikers will be rewarded for their straight drives, both in absolute terms (with ideal 2nd shots) and relatively speaking (compared to worse ball strikers, who will be in 5 inches of rough); and better iron players will be similarly rewarded when they actually hit and hold a green (instead of plunking it in the water hazard short, or the deep bunkers left and right). And on that day, if it ever comes, those who then love the sport will look back on these days (and these posts, and the consensus opinion) with bemused incomprehension -- wondering why we'd insisted so vehemently on stripping away all tests of skill in the most intriguing and hard-to-master sport of all.
This is what I currently think.

Pietro

On the contrary, it is a question of which skills to predominately highlight and to what degree to highlight those skills as not all skills can be given equal weight.  My take on modern narrowing of fairways is it is at least as much an economic decision as anything else and much of anything else is primarily a consequence of watering systems rather than a philosophical shift. On the philosophical side, the re-emergence of strategic design as an important, if not always viable, alternative to the straight jacket game I was raised with on tv (and consequently rejected because it is so boring to watch and play) is only possible with width on offer.  Granted, it is difficult to create proper consequences using width without firm playing surfaces, but even then I think there can be a happy medium reached if the concept of rough is redefined.  It is practically without exception that the courses I enjoy most are those which are some combination of wide, firm, gravity and wind influenced and not overly busy.  I prize the luck element of golf which is so prevalent, but I prize even more how the courses I describe can play so differently each day.  To me it is sad when the goal is to present the course the same each day regardless of weather and instead rely solely on design to challenge golfers.  To me, narrow courses almost have to be set-up slower, more conservative and consistent or they would become silly...or even worse, not enjoyable to play. Luckily, its a geat big world and there are usually courses to suit all.

Ciao   

[Peter Pallotta]

Thanks, Sean. I wasn't trolling with my previous post; but I am gratified that it engendered such a nuanced and detailed response. I do think that what I described 'may one day come' -- but in any event, and in the meantime, I find it much more interesting/instructive to read thoughtful ideas rather than conventional/ready-made ones.
P
 

[Thomas Dai]

Is cutting rough lower really an economic decision?


I can understand that it will be on wild, steep terrain but just off the fairway, the kind of place where it’s usually cut say 2” higher than the fairway?


If your already mowing a nicely grassed, manicured even, area say twice per week with the blades set ‘high’, does it cost more to mow the same area twice per week with the blades set ‘low’?


Atb

[Tom_Doak]

If you're already mowing a nicely grassed, manicured even, area say twice per week with the blades set ‘high’, does it cost more to mow the same area twice per week with the blades set ‘low’?

You might have to water a bit more if you are cutting the grass lower.  On the other hand, if you don't irrigate the rough, cutting it low enough to stress it out might mean you don't have to mow it as often!