[Jeff Bergeron]

Did you notice that Philly Cricket (host of the PGA Club Pro) didn't have fringe/collars on the greens? I spoke today to a competitor that qualified for the PGA and he loved the feature. I love it too. However I wonder if I could deal with the whining of members.
]When I visited PCC the Pro and  Super said it was generally well received by members. What do you think?

[BCowan]

I only played one course that was collarless.  Elks Run in the Metro Cinci area had collarless greens.  I was there for a US AM qualifier.  The course was public, so I don't know how a private club would receive it. 

[Wade Whitehead]

The Old Course lacks collars, doesn't it?

WW

[Jeff Bergeron]

The Old Course lacks collars, doesn't it?

WW
 Don't know but that would be a helluva endorsement.

[Jason Topp]

If the greens are surrounded by short grass I see no problem.  If they are bordered by rough I would be pretty irritated with being on the edge of the green with rough behind my ball.  Also, would be problems keeping the rough grass (which is normally a different type of grass on Northern US courses) off the green?

[Phil Young]

Jeff,

Paramount CC also has no collars. Interesting that the two courses were both named the "Best Restorations" in the past two years and share this feature that was original to when they were built.

Jason, I understand your concern when you said, "If they are bordered by rough I would be pretty irritated with being on the edge of the green with rough behind my ball." But then again, what if your ball ends up on the heavier fringe right up against the same rough cut? Isn't this a more difficult situation? Doesn't being on putting surface that way allow you at least a reasonable opportunity to use a putter as an option where that is a far more difficult shot to attempt on fringe level grass up against a rough edge?

I, too, am a huge fan of collarless putting surfaces.

One other point, for greens that are a bit small, eliminating the collars alone can allow for a tremendous expansion in overall putting surface size...
 

[John Connolly]

Jeff,


Our club went collarless last year after our restoration. Members like the look and there have been no complaints regarding playability. I understand how one might be concerned regarding balls coming to rest against the adjacent rough but it's been a non-issue. If one thinks about it, there is no greater probability of that occurring in a fringeless environment than with fringe. And it might be easier to deal with when it does occur - the golfer has to contemplate 2 heights of cut instead of 3.

[Jason Thurman]

Do you people not carry wedges? Being on the fringe with rough immediately behind the ball is no big deal - you pull out a wedge and chip it. Being on the green with rough immediately behind the ball is much trickier. A putter just doesn't get through the rough well enough to get a clean strike on the ball, but you feel pretty douchey when you pull out a wedge and take a little chunk out of the green with a chip shot.

[BHoover]

I wouldn't be a fan. I'd rather see greens surrounded by short grass to offer more options on the type of shot.

[John Connolly]

Here's a thread I started last year on the subject.


http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,58471.25.html

[Adam Clayman]

HOC of collars, and their thump readings, turns out to be the most important factor in highlighting core principles. Along with the proper maintenance meld, they heighten exponentially, the most exciting aspect of the sport. When the ball almost stops.

[John Connolly]

Adam,


What are thump readings?

[Phil Young]

Jason,

You wrote, "Being on the fringe with rough immediately behind the ball is no big deal - you pull out a wedge and chip it. Being on the green with rough immediately behind the ball is much trickier."

Since when is architecture of a golf course on any level dictated by making the shot easier for the player? Also, if the use of a putter in that situation is a problem for you switch to a 3-wood/metal or a similar club that will go through the rough. 

This is a case of taste rather than correct design. I simply prefer greens without a collar/fringe.

[Jamey Bryan]

Phil

I rather strongly disagree here.....   in fact, transitioning directly from green to rough is the only bone I have to pick with one of my favorite courses anywhere-- Ballyhack.  Ballyhack doesn't (or at least didn't) have a fringe cut, but transitioned directly from fairway (at the green entrance) to green.  No problem for the green fronts, but often at the rear of the green there was no buffer between the green and "first cut" rough.  With the great firm green surfaces you see at Ballyhack, I saw many balls on the green but nestled against the first cut with no clear ball surface.  Putting is difficult enough that I don't see the necessity for this feature.  Of course, if I were fortunate enough to play there more often I would practice the shot with a "bellied" wedge or fairway metal....

I still think you should be able to get a putter on the ball when the ball is on the green surface, though.

Jamey

[Terry Lavin]

Shoreacres and Chicago Golf Club went collarless a few years back. Great concept that has aided in the F&F maintenance meld at both courses.

[Jason Thurman]

Phil, it's not about the shot being easier. I can chip just fine out of tight lies. In fact, I'd probably be well served to start lag putting with my 9 iron. My only qualm with transitioning from green to rough is that I think the right play when up against the rough is to hit a chip shot, which is a shot that's likely to cause some damage to the putting surface. In the rare case where course maintenance practices can make a difference in how convenient it is for players to take care of the course, I tend to side with making it easier rather than more difficult. It's hard enough to get a guy to fix a ballmark around here - I sure as hell don't want to tempt players to take full divots out of the green.


That's just my preference, as I suspect it is for many golfers. In fact, I suspect it's the reason that collars on the greens became the norm. If you disagree, that's fine. But can you explain what it is that you think is gained from a golfing perspective by a green being collarless?

[Phil Young]

One of the biggest things gained is literally that... putting surface. Consider just how much is gained by having a 12-18 inch swath of "fringe" that circles an entire green into putting surface instead. It turns out to be an enormous amount. This, in turn, allows for hole locations that are much closer to the exterior hazards which creates more interestingly demanding approach shots.

In short, at least for me, it restores many angles of play for all shots played into the green. That makes the game far more about shot execution instead of how far one hits their drive. Angle of play is created as much by where on the putting surface the hole is located as it is by where the shot being played into the green lay.

That is why I am very much in favor of seeing golden age courses that were designed and built without fringes/collars be restored that way.

[BCowan]

Phil,

   Good points.  I think with modern green speeds it will be perceived negatively due excessive roll-out not due to gravity and firmness.  I always liked how Inverness had a 5-8 ft collar of bent grass surrounding the green collars.  I know more to most courses go with Kentucky blue and other mixes to prevent Poa from creeping in.  I like the point you made about the increase of pin-able hole locations.  Texas wedge, hybrids, and woods seem like the best options. 

[Carl Johnson]

At my club collars are required.

[Doug Siebert]

If the issue is balls getting up against the rough, and the difference between "ball on green up against rough" and "ball on fringe up against rough" is the ability to use a club that might take a divot, why do we need such a large fringe? Most courses I see have a 3-6 foot fringe - probably about the width of the green mower. They really only need a few inches, or let's a foot since mowing a 4" fringe consistently is probably too difficult so long as people are still running them.

Though I have to say, I think if a course goes without the fringe and has rough up against the green surface they should accept that there may be a few divots left on the green within a couple inches of the edge from people playing a chip shot. I don't have a problem with that, and I don't see why anyone should. The divot that results is hardly likely to affect anyone else's shot.

I view it like greens where you have two sections where you can't putt from one section to the other. They have to expect that if they put the flag in one section some people who find their ball in the other section are going to play a lofted shot. I can't say I feel bad about that, because that's what the design calls for. I guess it helps that I'm a picker, so if I play a lob wedge off a green I do less damage than my approach shots do landing on the green. People who take beaver pelt divots may feel a greater need to restrain themselves! 

[Brent Hutto]

The fringe doesn't take away any putting surface for me. I can't recall the last time I did anything other than putt from a fringe.


Regarding chipping or hitting a wedge from the putting surface...I would never do anything other than putt from a green surface per se. I do not always control the depth of my divots and possibly saving a stroke isn't worth damaging, perhaps severely, the green that is carefully maintained to provide a smooth putting surface.


If I played a course with no collars/fringes that would be fine by me but no particular advantage. It's a bit of local color along the same lines as wicker baskets instead of flag or frilly edges on bunkers.

[Mark_Fine]

Maybe there is a Super here who can comment on the maintenance aspects of cutting greens without a collar, e.g. mowing with a Triplex vs hand mowing, clean up passes, turning space, ...

[Adam Clayman]

John, Thump is firmness. Thump readings come off the thump meter, which was developed for supers to quantify how firm  it is out there. Not sure if it ever gets used.

Judge, you highlight how much terminology matters. Collarless, to me, means the rough is immediately adjacent to the green.  Fairway height cut green surrounds are the collar.  There might only be a foot or three between the two on the stimp, but if the grass immediately adjacent to the putting green is too long, the ball stopping is assured, sooner, and therefore less exciting, less nuancy. It's that last 1/4 revolution of the ball, combine w/ firmness and slope, that determines the most sophisticated form of "rub o' green" on a properly melded course.

[Terry Lavin]

Collarless to me means that the rough grass collar around a green that separates the bunkers or surrounding ground is removed and replaced with bent grass maintained at or near the same firmness and speed as the turf on the green.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()