Is the TV rough long enough?

[Thomas Dai]

Just wondering ........ and not in relation to normal amateurs playing their usual golf ...
..... but given that the guys (and gals) we watch on TV are generally much stronger and fitter and that clubheads and grooves are superior to prior decades is the standard first cut of tournament rough long enough on inland/parkland style courses (ie the kind seen on most TV tournaments)?
If it were longer would there be more of a premium on staying in the shorter fairway grass as longer rough would be less easy to gouge out of or at least gouge out of with any degree of certainty or accuracy?
I’m not thinking super-long here, just long enough to be more challenging for a strong bloke (or gal) to be able to play a full swing short iron or wedge shot with a consistent chance of success.
Thoughts?
Atb

[Jeff Evagues]

It is definitely not long enough because the Tour wants the guys to shoot 64 or so as much as possible.

[Adam Clayman]

Thomas, It's logic like this that has ruined the sport, both physically playing it, and watching it on tv.


The Standard presentation Rough, is for poorly designed courses on ground more suited for parking lots.


i.e. The newly added longer cut at Augusta.  A friend tried to defend the added length to the grass because it gave the player something additional to consider on their next stroke. My comeback is... What about it's effect on the previous stroke? By stopping the previous shot's progress, it aides in making the next shot easier because it stops it from finding a much worse spot, or, at a slightly different angle.


Are we going sit back and watch the governing bodies and the Pro game give up all the core principles? Probably.

[Jim Sherma]

A different question, but getting at the same point:


Are the greens firm enough for reasonable rough to present a challenge.


If you need to prevent a high clubhead player from advancing the ball to the green at all then you require very long and dense rough. If the goal is to remove enough of the spin so that the ball can not be fully controlled from the rough then you can get away with lesser rough but need firm greens. The pros never seem to tear it up at the Australian tournaments when the greens are like pool tables.

[John Kavanaugh]

If we were able to play the same conditions the pros play we would lower our scores by 3%.

[JESII]

Per hole?

[John Kavanaugh]

Firm fairways are easier for us.


I just noticed this week that hole locations are carefully place on level ground.


Perfect fast greens are sweet.


Honestly, the rough is shorter and more uniform for the pros.


Overall maintenance is purposely the best it will ever be all year.


btw. For an 80 shooter on a PGA Tour course a 3% reduction in score is a 20% reduction in handicap.


Don't believe me? Think about how well most people play in member/guests. Sandbagging or Sandcapping?

[Peter Sayegh]

If we were able to play the same conditions the pros play we would lower our scores by 3%.

i agree...especially with all those bodies guarding oob.

[Jim Nugent]

If we were able to play the same conditions the pros play we would lower our scores by 3%.

Is that your experience at Victoria National? 

btw. For an 80 shooter on a PGA Tour course a 3% reduction in score is a 20% reduction in handicap.

Doesn't it depend on the course rating?  3% of 80 is an average of 2.4 strokes per round.  I don't know the handicap formula, but my impression is that if the CR is 76, that's a lot more than a 20% reduction. 

[John Kavanaugh]

If we were able to play the same conditions the pros play we would lower our scores by 3%.

Is that your experience at Victoria National? 

btw. For an 80 shooter on a PGA Tour course a 3% reduction in score is a 20% reduction in handicap.

Doesn't it depend on the course rating?  3% of 80 is an average of 2.4 strokes per round.  I don't know the handicap formula, but my impression is that if the CR is 76, that's a lot more than a 20% reduction.

Jim,


Yes Victoria National plays much easier during tournament conditions compared to tournament preparation conditioning. The Tour is so hell bent on proving how great their players are that in the last event at Victoria they played lift clean and place all four days. The Tour even goes so far to provide pins that accept putts better than our daily heavy metal sticks.

[Peter Pallotta]

I’m starting to see the USGA in a brand new light.
They must roll their eyes as every week they watch tour events with rough that isn’t rough, length that plays short, and greens that hold approaches but let putts make beelines to the cup.
I see now that they consider it their duty to ‘identify the best golfers’ at least once a year, during the US Open — since the tour sure as heck isn’t doing it the rest of the time.
And, interestingly, there was that article recently asking if we put too much importance on the majors. I wonder if the Tour wasn’t behind that - you know, feeding a journalist an idea or two.

[Greg Smith]

You know, JK, I think you are right.


I recently played my first round ever at a real, genuine, big-time famous classic course where conditions are Tour-like.  The greens were blazing fast, but so perfect that every putt went precisely where I aimed (which was a new experience to me!).  With the greens that fast, many shots rolled off the edge but were stopped by the collar of thick rough.


However, those collars were in such outstanding shape that I very quickly got reps on playing that bump-it-out shot with a SW from 6 inches off the green.  That shot was exactly the same presentation every time.  The "pristine, tough" conditioning actually let the shots around and on the greens be more predictable -- to the point where even I could figure out a decent coping strategy.

[Thomas Dai]

Threads do morph in interesting ways sometimes.
About 30 yrs ago Cal Peete won quite a few tournaments and lots of $$.
Now CP was a famously short hitter but the anecdote was that he could hit a 5-iron from the fairway closer to the pin than Joe Bighitter could hit a short iron from the rough.
These days the sons (and daughters) of Joe Bighitter are physically much bigger and stronger, bigger and stronger enough to frequently muscle short iron from the rough nice and close to pins, even tight ones on firmer, quicker greens.
But it this because the first cuts of rough are still the same length, maybe even shorter, than they were back in Cal and Joe's days? Should the first cuts of rough - and it's TV tournament golf I'm referring to here not average club players - be mowed higher to allow for the increased strength of modern players and limit their ability to gouge shots onto greens/near pins?
atb

[Sean_A]

ATB

I guess my response is it depends. If the boys are playing non descript pga tour course #23, then sure, do what you want to create difficulty. It doesn't matter in the slightest to me because I am not buying the product regardless.

If we are talking more rough at Augusta, one of the Open rota courses or the odd cool course the tours play, no, absolutely not. If anything, I want less rough.

Happy Hockey

[Jeff Schley]

As an amateur I like fast fairways and soft greens to get more distance off the tee and easier approaches. Pros like soft of both as the soft fairways help them hit fairways and distance is so far in the air anyway it helps more than hurts and they don't run through the fairways. Really these discussions don't come up on links courses for the "rough" is heather/gorse/wispy grass anyway.

[Thomas Dai]

ATB
I guess my response is it depends. If the boys are playing non descript pga tour course #23, then sure, do what you want to create difficulty. It doesn't matter in the slightest to me because I am not buying the product regardless.
If we are talking more rough at Augusta, one of the Open rota courses or the odd cool course the tours play, no, absolutely not. If anything, I want less rough.
Happy Hockey

Certainly not The Open nor the Masters.
Atb

[Ally Mcintosh]

I think that by far the most important question on this thread is asking why "Ciao" has - after many years - changed to "Happy Hockey"?

[Sean_A]

I think that by far the most important question on this thread is asking why "Ciao" has - after many years - changed to "Happy Hockey"?

Ally

The Yzerman era is upon us...the first year of a proper rebuild for the greatest hockey club (and therefore, club) on the planet!





Happy Hockey

[John Kavanaugh]

You don't brush your teeth before a date to make it more difficult to get a kiss.

[A.G._Crockett]

Deep rough all around the golf course is a leveling agent because more players are limited to just advancing the ball instead of using superior skill to play a shot to the green out of the rough.  Whether because of skill or strength, or a combination of the two, when you take away the option to play a heroic shot from out of the fairway, you've diminished the test.  If I want to see players chop the ball back into the fairway from the rough, I'll just film the Saturday morning points game with my buddies.

FWIW, I don't see one bit of evidence that the Tour wants crazy low scores.  What I DO see is the Tour setting up courses so that the best players in the world can show that they are the best players in the world.  I know it's contrarian on this board, but I'm bothered a lot less by setups that result in -20 winning than I am in setups that aim at par as a winning score.  Which is why the US Open is BY  FAR my least favorite major to watch year in and year out. 

[Michael Wolf]

A scratch player playing from the back tees on a PGA Tour setup would shoot 4-5 strokes higher than the same player on the same course from the same tees without the PGA Tour manipulations. It's true there probably would be some benefit from the pristine playing surfaces, especially now that repairing spike marks is allowed.


But the comments on this thread re:the depth of the rough on tour are way off mark. Even an extra inch of bermuda rough at an average course like CC of Jackson presents enormous difficulties for a scratch player. The rough during tournament week at places like Muirfield Village, Bay Hill and PGA National is hard to describe. Not just the height but the "stickyness". Combine it with tightly groomed runoffs, shaved banks around water hazards, and the relentless demands of any 7,500 yard golf course, and scoring will quickly snowball for all but the very top players in the world. The bottom line is that the top 1,000 players in the world are just really really good in all phases of the game.


Everyone understands just how far the ball is traveling today, because it's easily measured and documented. But what's underappreciated is just how good the short games and recovery shots are of the games elite. Tolerances on balls, shafts, grooves etc are more consistent than ever before. Wedges are replaced every 3 weeks. Teaching methods are better. Training methods are better. Everything is aligned to create more elite players.


There are no easy answers. And the idea that courses aren't set up hard enough is just going down the wrong path.


My comments are based on walking inside the ropes during tournament weeks of Web, PGA Tour and major championships for the past 15 years.


Michael Wolf

[JESII]

The reality is, perfectly smooth putting surfaces results in the make-able putts being easier...everything else will be more difficult for that 80 shooter...especially approach shots from the rough.


I just thought 3% was a hysterical number pulled from deep...

[JESII]

FWIW, I don't see one bit of evidence that the Tour wants crazy low scores.  What I DO see is the Tour setting up courses so that the best players in the world can show that they are the best players in the world.  I know it's contrarian on this board, but I'm bothered a lot less by setups that result in -20 winning than I am in setups that aim at par as a winning score.  Which is why the US Open is BY  FAR my least favorite major to watch year in and year out.

Interesting in that I agree with you completely in enjoying -20 at least as much as Even Par...but disagree that the Tour isn't looking for low scores.


The different items I notice that speak to a desire for low scores are:
-frequent use of lift, clean and place,
-hole locations that never skirt the edge of risk,
-frequent use of forward tees and
-the combination of firm fairways and softer greens.


I've decided the PGA Tour golf is entertainment more than anything else...and they need to find the balance of In-Person versus Televised because the people on site sure do detract from the television quite often.


Out of curiosity, does anyone think it would be more entertaining to watch the guys hit it 40 feet with a 6 iron than 8 feet with a wedge?

[Jim Nugent]

 And the idea that courses aren't set up hard enough is just going down the wrong path.

I just attended the Shriners event (PGA Tour) in Las Vegas.  The pin placements looked impossible on Saturday -- often tucked behind bunkers, in remote corners of the greens, a few paces away from the edge.  A local guy I spoke with, who plays the course a lot, told me he never sees pins like that for their play.  He wondered how anyone could move on moving day. 

But that didn't stop Kevin Na from shooting 61, Tony Finau and Patrick Cantlay 62, and a bunch of other guys shooting 65 or less. 

[John Kavanaugh]

The reality is, perfectly smooth putting surfaces results in the make-able putts being easier...everything else will be more difficult for that 80 shooter...especially approach shots from the rough.


I just thought 3% was a hysterical number pulled from deep...

When a course is pampered for months and then let sit on the edge of death for one week fairways will run out at least enough to allow for one club less per approach. I think that we would all agree the consistent roll out of tee shots we see on TV is not what we experience in real life. Especially during the months prior to an event. It’s not a huge leap  to say that hitting one less club into par 4’s and making par 5’s reachable in two would result in a 3% reduction in score.