Tom Doak:
Now that's one damned interesting answer you gave me about short rough basically doubling in an area that might be a perfectly good option area and also that you seem to imply that you learned that from Pete Dye (in that example you mentioned)! Doing it that way at least in prinicple, the club would have to keep that rough area at that playable height though, wouldn't they or else they would just be wrecking a perfectly good option? And who's to say they would do that or even realize that they should keep that rough at that sort of necessary height (short)?
I'm going to really have to think about that for a while as it certainly is an interesting theory (or prinicple). To be honest after all this time I myself have always thought of fairway area as essentially the place to be and rough not the place to be, not necessarily because the rough is hard to play out of but simply because it is rough and I thought that meant something to an architect (in how they lay out holes and concepts).
I've assumed it because I've just always thought that fairway area is one of the best indicators to golfers, and yes from the designer of the course, of where they should go (and shouldn't go) in the entire architectural makeup of the holes and their concepts and options--all of which make up the hole's strategy!! If ever there was any message from the designer to any golfer of what the hole was all about, I thought this was the way the message was sent!
Not that I necessarilty believe that a designer should send any kind of message to a golfer though, because I don't think I do think that!
The way you present this though it seems like any player should find his own best route or strategy wherever that may be, fairway, rough, who knows what?!
I've definitely never thought of it that way, have you? In a very real way it does seem like a purer more natural, less shot or option directing (or roadmapping) way to design though!!
But then again, you always run the risk of having the club not be aware of that very interesting nuance and grow the rough high in that interesting option area and thereby ruin it (as an option area)!
That to me is far worse, and if that has a chance of happening I think the club, and most definitely the architect, should consider just spending the money to maintain the validity of that option by keeping it in fairway instead of running the risk of losing an option by recommending short rough and having the club eventually forget about why it's that way!
Very interesting though!