[Frank Pont]

I frequently use this quote of Tom Simpson when I explain to classic courses what kind of fairway to rough transitions I am looking for:

"There should never be a line of demarcation which divides the fairway from the rough. It can serve no possible purpose; it is inartistic and reflects no credit  on the work of the staff. The eye ought to be unable to detect where the fairway ends and the rough begins, even if the fairway consists of grass and the rough of heather. It is quite simple to obtain this result, although it may take a little more time"

Tom unfortunately never expands on how "it is quite simple to obtain this result", and even though I have discussed it with many greenkeepers I have not found the simple way of achieving this result.

Any bright ideas in this forum?

[Jon Wiggett]

Hi Frank,

except for having no formal fairway corridors and so having patches of rough popping up all over the place I am not sure. The only reason I have come up with this is that I have played quite a few holes where it was not possible to cut many areas of the course along the playing corridors which left you with this effect.

Jon

[Tim Liddy]

See Jim Urbina's interview on this site. He and Tom Doak are the best at screening the view of grassing transition.

[Tom_Doak]

Frank:

Even before Simpson, MacKenzie wrote that "at the great schools of golf, like St. Andrews and Hoylake, there is no defined edge of the fairway". 

While Jim Urbina [and the rest of my crew] eventually figured out how to achieve that look architecturally, I think Simpson and MacKenzie were referring to ways to do it from the maintenance perspective.  There are two:

(1)  If you go to Royal North Devon, you'll see no mowing lines ... because the sheep and cows grazing the edges of the fairway do not chew in straight lines.

(2)  Also, at places like Royal North Devon, they do what Ken Nice and crew are doing in Bandon:  they don't mow a clean-up pass around the perimeter of the greens or the fairways, they just lift up the mower reels a bit before they get to the edge.  As a result, the edge changes from day to day, and blurs to the point that there's really no edge at all.  The look of the greens at Old Macdonald is unbelievable, it looks like the whole world is putting green. 

The only people who have a problem with it are the rules guys, because it's not always clear when the ball can be marked or lifted.  But, then, a lot of club members probably like the defined line, too.

[Ally Mcintosh]

I think I picked the importance of this up from Tom (Doak) a few years ago and ever since I've held it as one of the key things to achieve in detail design terms.

When you've good, natural, moving topography, the easiest way is to just take the fairway line or green line over that hump or hill so that the transition disappears for a while. More nuanced ways of hiding the lines I'm trying to learn as I go along and from a maintenance perspective, I'd love to know of any tricks in achieving this.

Thanks for the Simpson quote, Frank. I hadn't seen it before but I'm sure I'll find reason to borrow it from now on.

Ally

[Rich Goodale]

My guess is that Simpson and Mackenzie and I'm sure others were thinking of visuals rather than practical.  There has to be a relatively unambiguous line between fairway and non-fairway due to the rules, as Tom points out.  However, that does not mean that this line must be pronounced (or even visible) from the tee or any other part of "through the green."  Rough transistions at St. Andrews (and other venerable courses) are mostly invisible due to the proliferation of blind or semi-blind shots (due to undulation (i.e. architecture)).  You generally know after having hit your shot whether or not you are probably on the short grass, as well as whether or not you might be f****d, but the uncertainty adds to the golf rather than defining it.

A super I know once a year or so tries to get me to approve his wavy and very much visible and manufactured mowing lines, saying something to the effect of "isn't than cool!"  I normally give a half-smile and ambiguous grunt, which makes him happy.  If I were more honest and cruel I might hurt him, and golf is far too unimportant to risk such a thing....

[Frank Pont]

Tom, I was indeed referring to the fairway to rough transition from a maintenance point of view. The method you describe will probably give choppy results at first but then over time give a more natural feel. Still curious though how they did it in the 1920's when the maintenance equipment was very different from now.

Rich, I know the rules define a green, but do they also specifically define fairway and non fairway? If so, was that also the case in Simpsons time?

[Rich Goodale]

Frank

I'm not a rules historian, but ( n addiition to "greens") the current rules distinguish between positions cut to "fairway height" and those not so.  The most significant effect of these distinctions regards embedded balls--on fairway height cuts lift you can clean and place, on non-fairway height cuts (i.e. rough) no relief (unless a local rule says otherwise).  As to what it was in Simpson's day, I don't know, but probably something much more simple..........

Rich

PS--I'm playing Cruden Bay Thu/Fri for the first time since your work there.  Any inside tips?

rfg

[Frank Pont]

Rich, did some googling, and I think the rules regarding fairways and rough might be a bit different, see following quote:

"In a recent U.S. Open blog posting, USGA’s Director of Rules Education Projects Wendy Uzelac, points to USGA Rule 25-2, which reads: “A ball embedded in its own pitch-mark in the ground in any closely mown area through the green may be lifted, cleaned and dropped, without penalty, as near as possible to the spot where it lay but not nearer the hole. The ball when dropped must first strike a part of the course through the green. 'Closely mown area' means any area of the course, including paths through the rough, cut to fairway height or less.”
 
Uzelac explains that the USGA defines “closely mown area through the green” as simply, “through the green.” This, she notes, defines “the whole area of the course except 1) the teeing ground and putting green of the hole being played and 2) any hazards.” Since there is no mention of the height of the grass, “through the green” also encompasses the various levels of rough.

So if this is true there is no reason not to use Tom Simpson's suggestion.....

[Rich Goodale]

Thanks, Frank

I was unclear in using the phrase "fairway height" rather than "closely mown" even though in the Rules they mean the same thing.  Or, to be more pedantic, closely mown or better (i.e. including greens). Sorry.

Rich

[Frank Pont]

Rich,

I think you missed the most important part of my last message:

closely mown area through the green defines “the whole area of the course except 1) the teeing ground and putting green of the hole being played and 2) any hazards.” Since there is no mention of the height of the grass, “through the green” also encompasses the various levels of rough.

This would mean that the demarcation line between fairway and rough is irrelevant for the rules.

[Tom_Doak]

Rich, did some googling, and I think the rules regarding fairways and rough might be a bit different, see following quote:

"In a recent U.S. Open blog posting, USGA’s Director of Rules Education Projects Wendy Uzelac, points to USGA Rule 25-2, which reads: “A ball embedded in its own pitch-mark in the ground in any closely mown area through the green may be lifted, cleaned and dropped, without penalty, as near as possible to the spot where it lay but not nearer the hole. The ball when dropped must first strike a part of the course through the green. 'Closely mown area' means any area of the course, including paths through the rough, cut to fairway height or less.”
 
Uzelac explains that the USGA defines “closely mown area through the green” as simply, “through the green.” This, she notes, defines “the whole area of the course except 1) the teeing ground and putting green of the hole being played and 2) any hazards.” Since there is no mention of the height of the grass, “through the green” also encompasses the various levels of rough.

So if this is true there is no reason not to use Tom Simpson's suggestion.....

I am surprised to read this, since I've always had the impression that the Tour only gives a lift clean and place for balls in the fairway.  I'm calling Wendy.

Frank, one reason it was easier in the old days of maintenance to make "no defined line" is that there was no fairway irrigation to make a color difference, and because there was no irrigation, the first cut of rough was usually pretty thin, instead of the frog-hair we are all familiar with today.

[Rich Goodale]

Frank

I was referring to this issue and only this.

Per the USGA/R&A Rules

25-2. Embedded Ball

A ball embedded in its own pitch-mark in the ground in any closely mown area through the green may be lifted, cleaned and dropped, without penalty, as near as possible to the spot where it lay but not nearer the hole. The ball when dropped must first strike a part of the coursethrough the green. “Closely mown area” means any area of the course, including paths through the rough, cut to fairway height or less.

Cheers

Rich

[Ben Sims]

There are a number of ways to hide a line, many were discussed above.  A couple I have learned is paying extreme attention to soil and seed mixture variety.  Disturbed/cultivated soil is going to grow grass differently than undisturbed native.  Minimizing impact to the margins makes a lot of sense in this regard.  Watching Zach Varty, Brett Hochstein, and Jeff Stein use their boots to kick over small wind-rows of sand on the edges of a golf hole taught me how important those margins are to their boss.  

Secondly, varying seed distribution rates and cultivars to better match native areas on the edges gives a less definable line.  Having a straight "fairway mix" and an approximated "native mix" for the backs of bunkers and edges of fairways goes a long way to mottling the edge.

[David Davis]

ok so this is interesting, am I misreading this quote perhaps? Why can't I think of a course that I see fitting this description by Simpson that has been quoted? In just restating it you should be be able to see the transition lines between the fairway, first cut, second cut etc and deep rough?

If that's the case could you please give me some examples or perhaps show a picture of a course where this is the case and this example is properly demonstrated. I'm rather visual anyway.

[Frank Pont]

Tom and Rich,  I now am very confused by the USGA quote of Wendy, I thought reading it it was very clear. Tom please let us know what you learn from her!

David, I think Simpson would have hated the current trend of fairway, semi, first cut, second cut, managed rough, wild rough. He wanted a natural CONTINIOUS transition between fairway and rough, not one with STEPS.

Tom, I still work on a lot of courses with no fairway irrigation where this would be easier to achieve. Also where you have the sprinklers on the edges of the fairways irrigating inwards it would be easier to achieve (especially if the fairway irrigation hardly gets used as it should be)

David, in terms of courses that have the natural transfer look I would vote for Southerness if I remember correctly

[David Bartman]

Frank , Tom  and Rich,

The rules of golf indicate that a drop is only given for an embedded ball in closely mown areas.   However, a local rule can and usually is, if you look at the back of most scorecards with local rules imprinted, used to indicate that the embedded ball rule will be able to be invoked through the green, thus eliminating the distinction between closely mown and areas not closely mown.  This still eliminates hazards from the embedded ball rule. 

[BCrosby]

I get that it might be possible to hide the transition from fw to a higher cut of rough.

But that's not what Simpson said. He claimed he could "quite easily" mask the transition "even if the fairway consists of grass and the rough of heather".

That would be much harder to do.

Bob

[Jon Wiggett]

Frank,

in the olden day fairways were mown with gang mowers towed behind eithe a tractor or even a horse. It is probably impssible to get a the same cutting line each time and so I would have though this led to the effect you asked about.

Jon

[JC Urbina]

Frank / Tim

I first started paying attention to grassing lines after my first visit to St Andrews and made it a mission to mask that line.  In my 2002 interview on Golf Club Atlas  I listed things I would like to talk about and one was what I called Corridor Golf.  Nobody was paying attention to that line of "demarcation'

  I had never read Tom Simpson's quote prior to your posting it but always felt after studying The Old Course I was convinced the only way to make the new age designs as creative as the old I would have to work on that line.  Even today one of the first things I notice when I step on to a golf course is how the mowing lines are presented.

 It's a small part but an important part. especially to guys like Tom Simpson.

[Cristian]

Would it be a solution in the present age of fairway irrigation and sprinklers to mow the first band of rough outside the perimeter of sprinklers at fairway heigth more or less? Of course it wouldn't really be rough, but it would result in a gradual transition in colour which would be blurry rather than a straight line. Also the colour and the grass length transition would not coincide on the same (mowing) line.

Are there any examples of clubs already employing this practise?

[Jon Wiggett]

Something that I remembered last night was I once set up a spare mower angling the HOC across the units from fairway to semi height. It gave a seamless transition but had one or two negative comments about definition and it was a real pig to set up.

Jon

[jeffwarne]

I frequently use this quote of Tom Simpson when I explain to classic courses what kind of fairway to rough transitions I am looking for:

"There should never be a line of demarcation which divides the fairway from the rough. It can serve no possible purpose; it is inartistic and reflects no credit  on the work of the staff. The eye ought to be unable to detect where the fairway ends and the rough begins, even if the fairway consists of grass and the rough of heather. It is quite simple to obtain this result, although it may take a little more time"

Tom unfortunately never expands on how "it is quite simple to obtain this result", and even though I have discussed it with many greenkeepers I have not found the simple way of achieving this result.

Any bright ideas in this forum?

a fascinating topic

Other than Tom's comments, anyone have any other comments vis maintenance on achieving Simpson's results?

Certainly it would seem it would be a harder effect at a course with different grasses for different areas.
Are there other examples in the US besides Bandon?
I would think a course without irrigation would have the best chance at this effect, but it would seem iregular/infrequent/inconsistent mowing on the perimeters could acheive the desired results?

sadly, I see far less of this look in the UK/ireland these days with deep defined rough on many links courses and more frequently irrigated fairways.

[Tom Bagley]

The actual embedded ball rule (25-2) permits relief only in "any closely mown area through the green" which is defined as "any area of the course, including paths through the rough, cut to fairway height or less." 

HOWEVER, most American golf associations, the USGA included, establish a Local Rule that permits relief for any embedded ball through the green.  This Local Rule is typically included on the "hard card" which defines the somewhat permanent local rules or "conditions of competition" that are in place from one championship to the next.

The explanation I have heard as to why this broader language is not included in Rule 25-2 itself, is that it is one of the areas where there is a difference of opinion between the R&A and USGA.  In links golf, one is more likely to encounter an embedded lie through the green in a "sandy area" - to use a 2012 colloquialism for a part of the course that is not a hazard; a situation from which the R&A is not inclined to provide relief.  Away from links courses, most of us are more likely to encounter an embedded ball in soft ground (mud) - hence the more liberal US application of the rule. 


Other than in formal tournament play, your local golf course would need to adopt a Local Rule as the USGA does, or else you would not be entitled to relief, unless your ball was in a "closely mown area."

[Frank Pont]

Tom,  thanks for elaborating, I had heard a similar explanation today from a Dutch person knowledgeable about the rules. Adapting such local rules at golf courses seems a small price to pay to get much nicer and more natural looking fairway to rough transitions......

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()