[George Freeman]

After playing three rounds at Lawsonia and swinging by Erin Hills for a fourth this weekend I realized that playing these courses in the spring gave me the opportunity to recognize what I think might be the perfect hazard. 

As is typical with most Midwest courses that have long fescue or other grasses surrounding the playing corridors, both Lawsonia and EH had recently burned and/or cut down all their long grass.  I would definitely agree that the longer fescue/tall grass has a great aesthetic look as it sways back and forth in the wind, making the course look like one big body of water.  However, when chopped down, I think it creates a fantastic hazard.

The reasons are pretty simple.  You can almost always locate a ball that finds its way into the hay, and usually relatively quickly.  Once located, the randomness of the lie is what really makes this such a great hazard.  Will your ball be lofted up on a tuft of grass; the perfect flier lie just waiting to be launched?  Or will it be nestled down to ground level with clump of grass directly behind it, allowing the golfer to only hack it back sideways to the fairway?  Or somewhere in between?  Do you try to reach the green with a 5-iron even though lie is marginal and there is a change you leave it in the gunk?

Randomness is key here, as well as playability and half-shot penalties, which in my mind are the best kind.  OB = one and only one fate.  Water = one and only one fate.  Grass maintained as described above is the antithesis of those two hazards and I think it is far superior.

What do you think?

[Garland Bayley]

I think all water is not created equal. The small stream or burn catches you only a fraction of the time. Therefore is also a fraction of a stroke penalty. The pond catches everything hit its way, making it not as suitable as your fescue as a hazard.

[Jim_Kennedy]

George,
Sounds interesting.

At the Shennecossett course in Groton the fescues are tall and very wispy in places, so much so that finding your ball is a snap. The hard part is figuring out what effect it's going to have when you try to swing through it. It can grab the shaft of a club and totally ruin the shot, or offer little or no resistance.
It too is a very random hazard as sometimes the 'best' swing path is toward the green, and sometimes the best path is away from it. You must make the right 'call' or you can will pay more than the 1/2 shot price. 

[Doug Siebert]

I'd agree with this sentiment.  When the grass is too long, as it has been whenever I've been at Lawsonia, hitting in there on one of those blind drives is almost a guaranteed lost ball - even if I can figure out the direction I entered from I'm not familiar enough with the course to know the distances.  One of the benefits of local knowledge is knowing approximately where a well struck hook into a strong headwind is likely to end up so you know just where to look.

One of the things the USGA really gets wrong with their setup on courses with traditional rough is that they try to make it as uniform as possible.  There is some random element in how much the ball sits up, but in their mind the perfect rough would as uniform as shag carpet, rather than random like a good wispy or burnt fescue.  Then you end up with ridiculous situations where a miss of 10 feet just over the first cut leaves you screwed, but a miss of 30 yards into the gallery leaves you just fine (well, unless the course has lots of trees)

[Richard Choi]

I would argue that really soft sands with islands of (relatively) short rough is pretty ideal hazard. I just played a round at Chambers where I hit several wayward drives in to the hazard area. The variety of lies was quite diverse. I had some where they were sitting perfectly on the sand where i had very little trouble hitting it out (even with a hybrid). I had some where it was sitting on an island middle of a hazard where lie was okay but my stance was horrible. There were also fried eggs, and other lies within people's footprints where it took me 3 to 4 shots just to get to the fairway.

And since it is mostly sand, it took almost no effort to find the ball.

To me, that is pretty ideal.

[Garland Bayley]

I would argue that really soft sands with islands of (relatively) short rough is pretty ideal hazard. I just played a round at Chambers where I hit several wayward drives in to the hazard area. The variety of lies was quite diverse. I had some where they were sitting perfectly on the sand where i had very little trouble hitting it out (even with a hybrid). I had some where it was sitting on an island middle of a hazard where lie was okay but my stance was horrible. There were also fried eggs, and other lies within people's footprints where it took me 3 to 4 shots just to get to the fairway.

And since it is mostly sand, it took almost no effort to find the ball.

To me, that is pretty ideal.

I found the best way to escape awkward hazards at Chambers Bay is to take a mighty swing and yell "Take this Jay Blasi!"

[George Freeman]

George,
Sounds interesting.

At the Shennecossett course in Groton the fescues are tall and very wispy in places, so much so that finding your ball is a snap. The hard part is figuring out what effect it's going to have when you try to swing through it. It can grab the shaft of a club and totally ruin the shot, or offer little or no resistance.
It too is a very random hazard as sometimes the 'best' swing path is toward the green, and sometimes the best path is away from it. You must make the right 'call' or you can will pay more than the 1/2 shot price. 

Jim – The fescue/grass you’re explaining sounds ideal, and in a perfect world clubs could obtain/maintain grass that is both aesthetically appealing (i.e. long, wispy brown grass) as well as playable in the ways I explained above.  However, it seems like getting and keeping that kind of grass is a difficult thing to do.  More often than not the long grass on courses is very penal:  lost ball a majority of the time, and if you do find it you probably can’t even get a club on it.

The course I grew up playing in northern Michigan had both good and bad long grass areas.  The problem is that wherever the sprinklers hit the unkempt grass, you’re going to get close to unplayable gunk.  Then you have the terrible problem that missing the rough by 10-15 yards is much better than missing the rough by 3 yards.  Another reason for the difference in playability between some unkempt areas appears to be due to different types of grasses.

[SL_Solow]

I agree with the general premise.  I think George's observations regarding the impact of irrigation on tall fescues are important in considering what a club can do.  But of course, the touring pros and those who are influenced bt them, hate this type of discussion because the idea of randomness is generally anathema to them.  They want to be rewarded for good shots and they want bad shots to be punished equally thus creating a fair test for determining who played the best.  As a greens chair, it is not unusual to hear similar sentiments coming from the "scorecard and pencil" types and particularly from the low handicaps.

[Matthew Petersen]

I'd agree with this sentiment.  When the grass is too long, as it has been whenever I've been at Lawsonia, hitting in there on one of those blind drives is almost a guaranteed lost ball - even if I can figure out the direction I entered from I'm not familiar enough with the course to know the distances.  One of the benefits of local knowledge is knowing approximately where a well struck hook into a strong headwind is likely to end up so you know just where to look.

One of the things the USGA really gets wrong with their setup on courses with traditional rough is that they try to make it as uniform as possible.  There is some random element in how much the ball sits up, but in their mind the perfect rough would as uniform as shag carpet, rather than random like a good wispy or burnt fescue.  Then you end up with ridiculous situations where a miss of 10 feet just over the first cut leaves you screwed, but a miss of 30 yards into the gallery leaves you just fine (well, unless the course has lots of trees)

Doug,

That's something the USGA has made a big point of not doing for the past few years (essentially as long as Mike Davis has been handling setups). He's specifically addressed the issue you point out, which is that it's ridiculous to punish someone 5 yards from the fairway as much as someone who missed by 15 yards (and of course in many cases the worst misses gets a good lie on a spectator trampled area).

[George Freeman]

I agree with the general premise.  I think George's observations regarding the impact of irrigation on tall fescues are important in considering what a club can do.  But of course, the touring pros and those who are influenced bt them, hate this type of discussion because the idea of randomness is generally anathema to them.  They want to be rewarded for good shots and they want bad shots to be punished equally thus creating a fair test for determining who played the best.  As a greens chair, it is not unusual to hear similar sentiments coming from the "scorecard and pencil" types and particul;arly from the low handicaps.

Those good players shouldn't be finding themselves so far off the fairway!

For every day golfers, it just seems to me that this type of hazard is the perfect mix to promote quick play and fun/interesting golf that doesn't beat up the golfer with 10 strokes a round added due to water hazards and/or OB.

[Adam Clayman]

George, I never considered what you described as a hazard, but, it works. And, it works for the exact reasons you cite. The randomness of the lie.

When will the golf world realize that giving the pro, or low handicapper what he/she wants, is a BIG mistake?
They should learn to deal with what they get, not get what they want.

BTW, Is there a golf course where you can't work the ball both ways off the tee?    (Make that all 3 ways, I forgot straight)

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()