No Mow Areas should be eliminated on most courses

[Jason Topp]

I have played terrible golf this year.  My driver goes all over the place, my short game sucks and even if I played a course that simply had 18 tees and greens on a course mowed entirely at fairway height, I would manage to shoot a miserable score.  The experience has given me the opportunity to visit areas of the course that I did not know existed and has led me to the following insight:


No mow areas make the game miserable for everyone involved. 


You lose balls in such areas.  Worse, you spend forever searching for balls in them.  You are exposed to the risk of Lymes disease and you slow down everyone in your group who wants to be polite but really has the patience for at most three ball searches over the course of a round.  Almost no courses in the Midwest have the sandy soil that allows such areas to play appropriately.  At Sand Hills or Links courses one can often find the ball and then make an interesting decision between wedging out or hitting a more aggressive recovery.  On most courses, however, in the unlikely event that you find your ball, your decision tends to be whether or not there is a drop spot that allows you to take an unplayable that yields a better position than the provisional you duck hooked into the opposite set of no-mow on the other side of the fairway. 


I have heard all of the arguments in favor of such areas.  Those arguments are weak absent pure linksland soul.  I will get to them when I have more time.

[Joe_Tucholski]

Cost seems like a pretty good reason to me.

[Tyler Kearns]

Jason,


I hear you, and even courses such as Sand Hills has some inescapable native areas due to irrigation spray.  I played at Keller golf course in MSP before the Mashie and they have a fair bit of native area throughout the course, which they define as Environmentally Sensitive Areas.  Golfers are not permitted to enter and look for balls, and are to treat it as "Ground Under Repair", taking relief without penalty.  I didn't have to use that form of relief, and I'm sure it would have felt weird, but no looking for balls and no penalty strokes.


Tyler

[Kevin Neary]

It's all about finding balance. Some courses shouldn't have "no mow" areas, others should be abundant.


Where I play, the balance has been struck quite nicely. With an aggressive and continued tree removal program, many vistas have opened and the turf conditions have improved dramatically. Many places that were once forested have now become "no mow" areas, but are generally not in play. When they are in play, it adds a risk-reward element to challenge the better player.


Another course I was fortunate enough to play competitively at this summer, Siwanoy, was very similar. There were far more no mow areas, but most were out of play, or used for risk-reward. Both courses have found balance with differing amounts of "no mow," and that's what we should be striving for.

[Edward Glidewell]

Cost seems like a pretty good reason to me.

No mow doesn't mean no maintenance, though -- unless you want it to eventually be full of large/tall weeds and then trees at some point. I certainly don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised if it costs as much or more money to keep those areas clear of giant weeds as it would to just mow them as part of the standard mowing regime.


I suppose there are two different kinds of no mow areas, though. The ones I'm thinking of are "natural" areas that do require quite a bit of maintenance. If you don't care if your course is flanked with 4-6 feet high weeds then I guess you could have a true no cost/no maintenance area (depending on where the course is located, of course -- I'm sure there are places where that would not be an issue, but it definitely is where I live).

[Pete_Pittock]

No mow irrigation is a no-no.


I was on the green committee when our course started no-mow areas. Looked great, saved money, We promptly cut back about 40% of them that were still significantly in play. The first tournament showed forced carries over no-mow areas needed about a 20 yard cutback. .

[Mark_Fine]

The trend should be to have more of these areas rather than less.  They just need to be placed and maintained properly!

[Andy Ryall]

I have a good idea of the course being referenced; some of these areas are also blind from where shots may be struck, which further decreases ability to locate and increases search and rescue/recover missions.   With wind and firm turf, these areas become more of a reality to the retail golfer than may normally be the case.   The grasses, which are thick and wiry, versus heather, may be visually striking but I would echo the sentiment to cut back into truly areas that are further out of the normal line of play.

[Thomas Dai]

Where the terrain, vegetation type, maintenance budget etc permit then this is an understandable approach, goal maybe. To paraphrase a quote "looking for golf balls is no fun" and wastes time.
However, there are alternatives one of which is designated 'ecology areas' on courses. Some are backed-up by regulations, some are voluntary.
I've played a few UK courses with these designated areas and the premise is certainly not 'no mowing', rather it is let rough grass away from the usual lines of play grow through the spring and most of the summer and then crop it, harvest it even, in say August. This allows wildlife to nest, breed etc in the longer grasses but by cutting it once per year scrub and trees are unlikely to sprout high and grow tall.
Another approach, where there are no other animals around that are likely to eat them, is grazing sheep, cattle, horses and goats and goats in particular will eat most vegetation.
atb

[Jon Wiggett]

Jason,


try starting with a more balanced approach to the topic and you might get further. As it is what you are presenting is a rant about how the course/rough is at fault for your bad play. If you lose to many balls then maybe practicing in order to hit it straighter might be in order. If you feel you are inconveniencing other golfers constantly looking for balls then maybe a cursory look for a few seconds and then either play the provisional you should have hit when you saw your first ball disappear into the long stuff or just drop a ball in the semi, NR and play on.


The answer to the rough problem if the club cannot afford to mow is to graze.


Jon

[Anthony_Nysse]

So, who should have the final say as to weather a club should or shouldn't have native areas? Most clubs do a very good job of keeping them a fair distance out of the line of play, so instead of blaming the course....


Does anyone here thing Chicago Golf of Shinnecock should remove all their no mow areas? Of course not. Silly thought. The only negative about no mow areas is lost balls, but that's usually the golfer's problem.


https://www.turfnet.com/turfnet-tv.html/profiles/chicagofescue/

[Mark Pearce]

The answer to the rough problem if the club cannot afford to mow is to graze.

I am convinced this is right.  If it's good enough for de Pan it should be good enough for anywhere.  Any club worried about the cost of maintaining these areas can make money by charging farmers to allow their cattle/sheep/goats to graze.  As I recall it, de Pan use mobile pens to keep their goats to particular areas needing "work".

[Tim Gallant]

The answer to the rough problem if the club cannot afford to mow is to graze.

I am convinced this is right.  If it's good enough for de Pan it should be good enough for anywhere.  Any club worried about the cost of maintaining these areas can make money by charging farmers to allow their cattle/sheep/goats to graze.  As I recall it, de Pan use mobile pens to keep their goats to particular areas needing "work".

I believe Luffness New do this as well, although in non-playing areas. They are mobile pens, and I believe they get paid to have them there, but I could be wrong.

[Edward Glidewell]

So, who should have the final say as to weather a club should or shouldn't have native areas? Most clubs do a very good job of keeping them a fair distance out of the line of play, so instead of blaming the course....


Does anyone here thing Chicago Golf of Shinnecock should remove all their no mow areas? Of course not. Silly thought. The only negative about no mow areas is lost balls, but that's usually the golfer's problem.


https://www.turfnet.com/turfnet-tv.html/profiles/chicagofescue/

This is kind of what I was referring to in my post -- I'm positive that they spend a lot of money maintaining those fescue areas.


I've played a course several times that added some of those fescue areas after a renovation... they look NOTHING like that now, because they haven't spent (and maybe can't afford to spend) the money necessary to keep them free of every other kind of weed in existence. I've heard they wish they'd never added them, because it would have been easier/cheaper to just keep them as regular mown rough. Balls are typically findable and maybe playable out of that type of fescue, and I like it. But I don't like it when it becomes overgrown, which is what I think Jason was referring to.

[Lou_Duran]

I am sorry to see Jason in such a foul mood.  It goes to show that even those with agreeable, positive dispositions can be derailed by the temporary lapses everyone who plays this crazy game encounters with some frequency.

"No-mow" areas wide and long not only serve a good purpose financially and aesthetically, but also give the bomb-and-gouch types something to think about.  Perhaps the new rules will alleviate some of the frustration.

Like Jason, I am frustrated with my game.  My problem is on the greens and I am beginning to think that George Thomas was onto something.  Not that I have anything in common with Mr. Hogan, but we do share in the belief that putting is another game altogether, one that is not nearly as interesting and rewarding as moving the ball over great distances.

P.S.- I was ready to join Prairie Dunes more than 15 years ago until fighting the gunch one too many times.  A non-resident member I spent a few days with commented that he had never broken 80 in the 10+ rounds he played there each year.   He was a mid-single digit handicapper and I am pretty sure he resigned not long after that visit.  I agree with Jason's thesis.   I don't think grazing animals in the U.S. will work.  Better solution is to ensure no water and fertilizers reach these areas, supplemented by cutting as necessary.

[Kalen Braley]

Seems like the key to this is making sure its not an irrigated area.  In dry places like Utah, it will be very manageable and thinned out, but for somewhere that gets regular moisture from mother nature, i guess you're SOL.


Either way, as has been suggested, I think this is one of the keys to golfs survival.  Water less and mow less wherever you can....

[Peter Pallotta]

J - methinks your game will return in the very near future. Try to ride it out with equanimity. (I've tried to get my game back by reading "Golf in the Kingdom" for the 3rd time...but so far no luck!)

More generally, I'm having some fun this summer (while playing more golf and visiting more courses than I ever have before) trying to take in the whole of the maintenance regime at a given course, e.g. how much they water, how long they leave the rough, mowing heights around the greens, the amount of native/no-mow areas -- and trying to get inside the maintenance team's approach & philosophy in terms of how they believe all the pieces fit together to make the course play its best.

Sometimes it's hard (for me, at least) to figure out what their game plan is; and sometimes it feels that they think they have one kind of course when, to me, they clearly have a very different one.   

P

[PCCraig]

I certainly enjoy the look of the no mow areas as they add a great deal of texture to a course. That can be "needed" (?) at a place like Jason's home club which is built on essentially the Minnesota Prairie. Not sure mowed rough would look all that great?


I think the main problem is that you can't allow native grasses to grow in a very fertile, farm-able, soil and expect it to be thin and playable. Frankly the worst soils make for the best no-mow.


Personally I don't have a problem using the no-mow areas as a (or part of) a hazard. High and low maintenance rough around a bunker adds to the point that that particular feature is something to be avoided, no?

[Jason Topp]

Sorry for the rant at the start but it does seem to have gotten some attention.  I recognize that there are certain courses where native areas are a natural part of the course (including mine) and therefore should remain in place.  However, I would guess that most golden age courses in the Twin Cities have added native areas over the last 10 years and I am starting to think the idea is a bad one. 


1.  One of Mackenzie's 13 principles is that the game of golf should be free from the annoyance of searching for golf balls.  I agree.  It is such a pleasure to play the game without losing, or more importantly searching for golf balls.


2.  I do not believe that any area of a golf course is completely out of play.  I have seen so many wacky golf shots over my 40 years of playing the game that if there is a native area on the course someone will find it.


3.  I do not think such areas really look that natural, particularly on a course that has not had such areas in the past.  Even if it is natural to have thick prairie grass in an area, is the look worth the aggravation that it causes?


4.  I am not convinced that such areas significantly reduce maintenance costs.  I have seen many clubs spend considerable amounts of money in an attempt to thin out such areas which are naturally thick and unplayable.  It seems to me that running a mower over rough without irrigation is much easier to maintain.  [size=78%]  [/size]


5.  I am not sure about the environmental benefits of such areas.  Three golf courses near my house have recently been converted to housing and am absolutely confident that the biggest environmental risk associated with golf courses is bulldozing them over and creating streets, houses and neighborhoods. 


6.  For pleasure in a round, I suggest the heretical notion that it is preferable to have trees with cleared underbrush in out of play areas.  You hardly have to mow the grass in such areas because grass cannot grow.  You can experience shade on a hot day.  You can find your ball and once you do, putting the ball in play with a high, low or curved shot is more interesting than hacking as hard as you can at a ball with a wedge in the hope it will move 30 feet.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I tend to agree.  I have never found an "out of play" area for average golfers on the typical course.  Statistically, according to my studies of this:


Play corridor widths between natives need to be 44L/53R=97 yards total to keep lost balls under 8%

or one golfer per hole searching the weeds once every third hole

.

Play corridor widths between natives need to be 38/48=86 yards wide 12% lost balls, or one golfer per hole searching the weeds once every other hole

.

Play corridor widths between natives need to be 32/39=71 yards wide for 17% lost balls, every hole and a half.

Play corridor widths between natives need to be 27/37=64 yards wide for 25% lost balls, or one golfer per hole searching the weeds every hole

.


23% of tee shots are topped, meaning you want, at least from the forward two or three tees, some turf in front of tees, even though this is the easiest place to reduce turf in the  name of irrigation.

[/t]

[Kalen Braley]

Jason,


Sounds like Prairie Dunes is your dream course then?  Its either in the fairway or lost in the gunch! 

[Tom_Doak]

Does anyone here thing Chicago Golf of Shinnecock should remove all their no mow areas? Of course not. Silly thought. The only negative about no mow areas is lost balls, but that's usually the golfer's problem.

Aw, I was looking forward to suggesting to the green committee at Chicago Golf that they put a bunch of sheep and cows out there.


As impossible as that is, and as impractical as it is for Jason to suggest that clubs mow their entire 150-acre property [realistically, you've gotta stop somewhere], I do agree with him that the use of no-mow areas has been bad for many golf courses.  There are many places where the rough grows too thick to find a ball, and designating it all an "ESA" with a free drop is totally counter to the spirit of the game that only the USGA could come up with.


Forced carries over lost-ball rough off the tee are especially awful, but Jeff's numbers show how fruitless it is to try and keep the long grass "out of play".  I have enough trouble convincing clients to let me build corridors with 200 feet of playable width, and even then Jeff says that there's going to be one ball in the rough [out of four] on nearly every hole.


The bottom line is that long, native rough got trendy in design, and people started trying to apply it in places where it isn't natural.  If you are more likely to find a snake in the long grass than your ball - don't do it.  If you can mow the rough down at the start of summer and let it go brown, just do that.  Some people love the look of wispy grass but in many of these locations it isn't really wispy at all.  And eventually that wispy grass look gets as repetitive as a bunch of tree-lined holes.


Of course, one of the reasons for such proliferation is that golf courses are maintaining too big an area BECAUSE MODERN COURSES ARE ALL TOO LONG TO ACCOMMODATE THE USGA'S LACK OF ACTION ON GOLF EQUIPMENT.  6200-yard courses in the UK don't require 150-yard carries over native off the tee.

[Jonathan Mallard]

The answer to the rough problem if the club cannot afford to mow is to graze.


Jon

What are the costs of maintaining a herd to do so? Let's figure 15 head of goats or sheep.


If everything is included (Vet bills, housing, staff time to curb from other areas of the course, etc.) what comes out ahead on cost?

[Tom_Doak]

What are the costs of maintaining a herd to do so? Let's figure 15 head of goats or sheep.

That's not nearly enough.  The number to maintain 40 acres of rough would probably be over 100, and the reason it's not done is to keep the considerable droppings of 100+ animals out of the fairways.


The cost is negligible.  In fact, usually a neighbor farmer would pay YOU to graze some animals out there, so he can make money off the meat later.

[Jason Topp]

 The only negative about no mow areas is lost balls, but that's usually the golfer's problem.


https://www.turfnet.com/turfnet-tv.html/profiles/chicagofescue/

Of course it is the golfer's problem.   I recently played in a member guest on a course largely without native areas.  I played horribly but it was such a pleasure to finish 45 holes with the same ball I started with (although I did have to hang onto my caddie as he leaned out over a pond to keep the streak alive).  The fundamental tenant of the game is that you play the ball as it lies.  Native areas run directly contrary to that notion.