Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Patrick_Mucci on July 13, 2014, 10:36:19 PM
-
a trend that's become overused to the point that many of them are improperly used ?
Are some of them next to impossible to recover from, for the average golfer ?
-
I don't see them them as being overused and could be used more. Maybe more work to keep those areas in those condition? I think it makes it easier because it adds the option of using the putter (or another low lofted club) off of the green rather than a wedge. When I have the choice of using a wedge or putter, I will take the putter 9/10 times.
-
Personally, I like closely mown areas as it 1) creates more variety in recovery shots and 2) tends to magnify mistakes on approach shots.
That said, your post makes an interesting suggestion that it does in fact make scoring harder, esp. for the high handicapper. Closely mown often means very thin lies, which create all sorts of (unintended) challenges with a wedge. Sure you could putt, but depending on the severity of slopes around a green, lots of opportunities to mess up long or short.
I was playing in a club tournament this weekend and was refreshing to have my ball caught up on long rough on a shot that went long over the green. I had a little wedge to pop back up onto the green surface, something I learned back on Long Island at Southward Ho (known for long rough right off the putting surface) and seldom encounter here in NC.
-
The only way I think these areas become a problem for the average golfer is adjacent to a severe false front or a crown, such that a slightly mishit shot runs excessive distances away from the green. And in those cases, the average golfer has little chance for recovery because we typically don't possess the hop-and-stop lofted wedge shot the the pros use.
But other than that, it's a great feature for the very reason that amateurs CAN recover and can use a variety of clubs besides a high lofted wedge.
Speaking only for myself, I really like the feature this time of year in the South because with lush bermuda, even tightly mown, it's the only time of year when I can approximate the hop-and-stop shot. It's a fun shot for me for four or five months each year. :)
-
Harder for the intellectually challenged, yes, regardless of handicap. But any thinking golfer, from Seve to the beginner, can prosper from a tightly mown lie. The problem for most is not an issue of execution but one of applicable. There is no default option, or if there is, it's a six or eight iron bump. That thought simply doesn't enter the minds of many and only greater exposure to conducive conditions will change that.
-
Some clarification.
They're not just located in front of the green, but at the flanks and back of the green.
As to options, I think you have to consider viable or practical options.
What's the reality ?
With an elevated green, what's easier, hitting an L-wedge from rough or a putter or other club from a tight fairway up that incline and close to the hole ?
-
(http://www.haylinggolf.co.uk/files/haylinggolf2.co.uk/Hole_Pics/Hole_5.jpg)
Above is a picture of the 5th green at Hayling. The essence of this exceptional bit of golden age architecture lies in the short grass which surrounds the green in all directions. The green is only 12 yards wide and, being a links course, the wind is frequently strong. The prevailing wind blows from the left as you view it, meaning often you have to either work the ball against the wind or aim at the holes' only bunker.
Undoubtedly, growing grass around the plateau green would, in this instance, make it play far easier but it would also completely destroy the hole. This is a hole which exists for short grass and a classic 'tough par' which pre-dates RTJ by a few decades.
-
To suggest that mowing closely around green is more difficult than leaving rough is preposterous. Yes, it may provide more options; and yes, it may be more fun. But no, it isn't more difficult. Reminds me of those who argue that taking a tree away makes tyhe hole more difficult. Again, better maybe, but not more difficult.
-
Jim,
Hit it just over the green on the 14th hole at Arcola and I'll bet you as much as you like and as often as you like that you can't up and down it from the closely mown area.
Then, you can make the same bet with me from a few feet further back from the rough.
Same bet to the right of # 11 at Mountain Ridge ;D
-
If the grass is short enough to make putter an option (not necessarily the best option but at least possible)...
And if the short grass is fairly smooth without too many dead or divoted cuppy spots...
Then I think the net effect is a bit of an equalizer between the stronger and weaker player. Weaker players struggle with making contact out of thick rough but if they also struggle with tight lies then putter can bail them out. And the ball will definitely run farther from the green on short grass than rough.
What you get when the rough continues right up to the green is the situation where errant shots bounce 3-5 yards off the green then sit down in the rough. Once a stronger player masters that lob wedge "gouge" out of the thick stuff (Tour players are masters at it) the risk is contained into a very small range for those players. They know what they'll be facing if they miss the green and they can play that same 10-yard gouge shot repeatedly every time they miss a green.
Cut that rough down to short grass running 10, 15, 20 yards away from the green and everyone (weaker and stronger players) ends up more than a couple yards off the green. But a putter or running shot from 20 yards isn't THAT much riskier than a putt or runner from 5 yards. The stronger player will still be more comfortable playing a lofted shot from tight lies than the weaker player but not as comfortable (consistently) as he would be just gouging out of thick stuff.
So if you think leveling the outcomes a bit between a 2-handicap and a 20-handicap around the greens is a good thing then go with the extended runoffs cut short. If you want to maximize the difference between more and less skilled players then grow it up as rough. Or you can mix and match it with some variety from hole to hole.
It would look funny but for that matter you could mix and match thicker rough on one side of the green and "chipping areas" on the other if you wanted. Might conceivably bring some strategy into the player's mind, in as much as he is willing to risk a different chance of a missed green depending on his own personal strengths in recovery shots...
-
Brent,
One of the difficulties for the average member and the better player is the dilemma of being over an elevated green and having to hit the putt hard enough to climb back up the slope, then soft enough not to roll all the way off the green since most greens are sloped back to front.
The issue isn't putter versus L-wedge, where you can easily blade or chilly dip the L-Wedge.
The issue is L-Wedge out of rough versus almost any shot from the tightly mown area.
I just don't see the average member having the skill set to meet the challenge presented by tightly mown areas adjacent to elevated greens, versus flopping an L-Wedge from the rough somewhere up on the green.
And, I see clubs increasing the number of areas adjacent to greens.
This seems to be the newest trend in maintenance.
-
Brent,
One of the difficulties for the average member and the better player is the dilemma of being over an elevated green and having to hit the putt hard enough to climb back up the slope, then soft enough not to roll all the way off the green since most greens are sloped back to front.
The issue isn't putter versus L-wedge, where you can easily blade or chilly dip the L-Wedge.
The issue is L-Wedge out of rough versus almost any shot from the tightly mown area.
I just don't see the average member having the skill set to meet the challenge presented by tightly mown areas adjacent to elevated greens, versus flopping an L-Wedge from the rough somewhere up on the green.
And, I see clubs increasing the number of areas adjacent to greens.
This seems to be the newest trend in maintenance.
I guess it depends also on how deep and/or gnarly the rough is. Tour-type rough (lush, overwatered, three inches) is just brutal for anyone who can't generate at least 75mph of clubhead speed with that lob wedge.
But now if we're taking about an inch and half of cool climate rough (or an inch of Bermuda) then the rough is totally a bargain for higher handicappers. If the ball will come out with a modest-speed L wedge then pop it out and play that 10-yard gouge is something anyone can do. Might even luck into hitting it close once in a while.
-
Closely mowed areas around greens seem to be a great equalizer. for the higher handicap player who struggle out of high rough the chipping area affords them a simple shot to put the ball on the green. Whereas the lower handicap player, now presented many more options, seems to struggle to get the ball close to the hole. From a closely mowed area the player can always get the ball onto the green but it may be now harder to get the ball very close. To me that's a win-win. Of course, this really only applies when the turf is dry and firm. closely mowed areas that are soggy play extremely unfairly.
-
Love closely mown areas. They can be a true hazard. The best ones offer multiple options of recovery. I don't think they are overused and wish more courses used them. They are not too hard for the average golfer to recover from if putter is an available option.
-
I don't know what average golfers you play with but the ones I play with almost daily have little chance or even attempt to play a flop shot. My observation of tour players is that most of them use a flop shot as a last alternative. I read on Golfwrx about a wedge fitting of a really good player by Bob Vokey. He explained that in tight lies around the green you want bounce and a lot of it. Opening a lob wedge and making a simple turn using the bounce will allow the club to get under the ball and make solid contact without a big flop swing.
You certainly have far more options playing off closely mowed areas as compared to deep rough.
-
I think the thing that creates the most difficulty for a Tour level player is distance from ball to hole (generally speaking at any rate). If a collar of rough around the green prevents the ball from going further away it will tend to make the shot easier (again - in general - thick rough 20 feet away from the hole with the ground running away from you will be extremely difficult). Take the Road Hole at St Andrews. If the back of the green and the bank there was covered in lush rough, it would take a lot of the fear out of the hole, because that would stop balls rolling down onto the road or up against the wall behind it. Having short grass there makes it way more difficult. At the same time, the area to the front right of that green is much more playable as fairway than it would be if it were rough.
I don't think it's overused, more likely the opposite, at least in the US.
-
Closely mown areas adjacent to greens do appear to be a growing trend, but is it all that new? Original course drawings by Walter Travis, and perhaps others, clearly show fairways wrapping around greens.
The more options we have when preparing for a shot, the more difficult the shot, in my opinion.
Is that a good, or bad thing? I like it.
-
They are more of a problem early on a dewy morning, or when over-irrigated, when the putter is less of an option.
-
Closely mown areas adjacent to greens do appear to be a growing trend, but is it all that new? Original course drawings by Walter Travis, and perhaps others, clearly show fairways wrapping around greens.
The more options we have when preparing for a shot, the more difficult the shot, in my opinion.
Is that a good, or bad thing? I like it.
Quite right. This is merely part of the ongoing return to 'proper golf' and a break away from the dark ages. Unfortunately, all golf clubs are stuck in various eras so some are nowhere near 2014 just yet. Actually, some are only just heading in to the dark ages!
-
In the first place, the misses of the high handicapper, which tend to be more frequent and worse, tend to run farther away, while the more skilled player avoids that miss. The reason we're so stunned when a pro gets victimized by a false front and a closely mown area and has the ball roll 20 yds back down the fairway is that we see it so seldom. Bad players do that sort of stuff all the time!
But even once both players have missed into the closely mown area, I can't see it as much of an "equalizer". The sheer probabilities are that if ANY player has only one shot available to them their chances of success diminish. Low handicappers have more weapons in their short game arsenal in the first place; give them chances to choose their weapon and they'll typically prosper relative to the lesser player.
With closely mown areas I understand that the high handicapper has a better chance of getting the ball on the green, but that in itself isn't necessarily an equalizer. If you give the low handicapper multiple options, chances become greater that there is one of them at which he is very, very good; that's why he's a low handicapper. So he gets the ball close, while often the high handicapper is on the green but a mile away.
-
The more options we have when preparing for a shot, the more difficult the shot, in my opinion.
I basically agree with your statement, Ed. Give golfers more options, and the brain is forced to analyze. And even if the player chooses what is probably the best route to play a shot based upon that day's conditions and their skill level, but then doesn't play the shot well, doubt creeps in most minds. And doubt about a shot erodes confidence when presented with a similar scenario later in the round. And that's game over for some. ;)
-
I'm not buying it.
Put my ball 15 yards off a domed Pinehurst #2 green and give me the "option" of either putting it or hitting a lob wedge off a tight lie to a firm green and I'm putting it. Take away the wedge option and I'm still putting it.
No way, no how multiple options make any shot harder. Are you guys actually such mental/emotional cripples that you literally stand there and can't make up your mind when there are multiple ways to play a shot? Or do you think everyone ELSE in the world is that sort of idiot?
As someone said earlier in the thread, it's like claiming that cutting down a tree makes the course harder. Bull shit it does.
-
No way, no how multiple options make any shot harder. Are you guys actually such mental/emotional cripples that you literally stand there and can't make up your mind when there are multiple ways to play a shot? Or do you think everyone ELSE in the world is that sort of idiot?
Agreed--with the exception of the very best players.
If a PGAT-level player can hit EVERY shot,then multiple options becomes a process of him figuring out which option is best.Sometimes the hardest thing for a good player to do is choose between "equal" options.
As to everyone else,multiple options increases the chances that every player will have at least one option that's doable.
How can that be anything but easier?
-
I was pondering this a while ago and wanted to understand the outcome in relation to novices-higher handicappers.
In order to mimic a novice-higher handicapper, I borrowed some left handed clubs (I play right handed) and attempted to play left handed putts, hybrids, chips and pitches from closely mown areas, from manicured 2" rough and from gunge onto both flattish and domed greens.
The outcome - significantly better results with the putter/hybrid every time from the closely mown area, even a bad putt would reach and stay on the green. Poor results from the manicured 2", often taking 2 shots to get onto the green, frequently 3 shots if heavily contoured. From the gunge, awful, just awful, could barely get the ball out in 2-3-4 shots.
To me, and others may disagree, closely mown is preferable provided a machine can cut it, a kind of if you can cut it, cut it low approach.
However, I would also suggest that some grass types do not allow the ball to roll unless the grass is cut very, very short, and I guess this has maintenance issues, and maintenance issues also need to form part of the debate.
atb
-
The many putts Martin Kaymer played from off the greens at #2 tell me the options from closely mown grass are a lot more fun than 2" rough where there is only one shot. How is this even debatable?
-
I don't understand why there is debate over closely mown areas. Here is why:
I have seen 12 different links courses on my trip, and (most of them) are quite old. They all use closely mown areas. Now, you might say that because they are links courses, you have to compare them differently to the vast majority of non-links courses. Links courses....
1. Are firm and fast
2. Have the wind as a cooperative factor
So, why do links courses have closely mown areas? Is it to help players with the two factors above? More room for the bounces and rolls of firm and fast turf and the push/pull of the wind? Sure that is part of it, but if there is one thing I have learned on the trip, it is how closely mown areas enhance the green surrounds. It makes the depressions and bunkers play larger and more difficult, but can also make the green play larger with slopes feeding the ball in and the short cut of the grass itself. Closely mown surrounds are an integral link between green and the fairway.
Also, these courses are the root of the game. They came first.
So this leaves me asking two styles of questions as to why closely mown areas aren't used more....
1) When did closely mown areas "fall out of style?" Why is it a problem that they are "coming back in style?"
2) Why have rough when you can add style, complexity, and creativity (shotmaking from green-side, shotmaking into the green, and for the architect sculpting) with closely mown areas?
-
I am not sure about Patrick's overall question, but I do think the short grass surrounds at my course pose significant challenges to the high handicap player. The course has big greens with modest slopes but are maintained at fast speeds and are generally elevated compared to the surrounds. Putting or chipping along the ground is a very challenging shot:
1. You need to hit the ball solidly to have any idea how far it is going to go. If the green slopes away, it takes good touch just to keep the ball on the green.
2. You need to be able to read the ground between you and the green. Most people underestimate the effect of the slope up to the green. Many people do not pay attention to the nature of the surface between them and the green and therefore do not see which way the grass is leaning, how thick or thin it is, and how dry it is.
A good player takes all of this into account and still gets up an down often. Good players are capable of hitting the shot with a putter, 9 iron, hybrid or lob wedge as the situation requires.
Someone who struggles with the short game pulls out putter and rarely takes less than 3 to get in the hole and often takes 4. He misses the green entirely much more often than one would think. Also - because there is nothing to stop the ball on a downslope, greenside shots are longer than they would be with a green surrounded by rough.
I like playing from short grass around the green. I believe the course would be easier if the greens were surrounded by 2 inch rough and suspect the better player has a greater advantage at my course than he would with the rough.
-
a trend that's become overused to the point that many of them are improperly used ?
Are some of them next to impossible to recover from, for the average golfer ?
We are about to start to undertake a remodel of my home club here in Los Angeles, Brentwood CC. The new layout has many new closely mown areas. It will be interesting to see if 1. those areas play easier or more difficult for the average golfer and 2. being that we are sticking with Kikuyu grass, if we can keep them firm and fast enough to even play the variety of shots that a closely mown area should provide.
(I was hoping to get before and after photos of the entire project)
-
Ignore easy or difficult. Closely mown areas provide more interest. Ultimately, that's the point of slinging a bag on your back and playing the game.
-
I'm not buying it.
Put my ball 15 yards off a domed Pinehurst #2 green and give me the "option" of either putting it or hitting a lob wedge off a tight lie to a firm green and I'm putting it. Take away the wedge option and I'm still putting it.
No way, no how multiple options make any shot harder. Are you guys actually such mental/emotional cripples that you literally stand there and can't make up your mind when there are multiple ways to play a shot? Or do you think everyone ELSE in the world is that sort of idiot?
As someone said earlier in the thread, it's like claiming that cutting down a tree makes the course harder. Bull shit it does.
Brent,
I don't think anybody said multiple options make a shot harder, per se. What I said was that if you give a low handicapper more options, he'll benefit much more than the high handicapper because he likely has more shots in the first place. One of the options will suit him.
Give them both the exact same shot, and you introduce more of an element of chance as to whether the low handicapper can benefit.
The issue, when you speak of an "equalizer", is not just the ability to simply get the ball on the green, but to get it close and get up and down. Give a low handicapper more options and he'll get it up and down more often. The high handicapper doesn't; that's why he's a high handicapper.
-
Ignore easy or difficult. Closely mown areas provide more interest. Ultimately, that's the point of slinging a bag on your back and playing the game.
If one pulls out a putter for every shot is it more interesting?
-
a trend that's become overused to the point that many of them are improperly used ?
Are some of them next to impossible to recover from, for the average golfer ?
We are about to start to undertake a remodel of my home club here in Los Angeles, Brentwood CC. The new layout has many new closely mown areas. It will be interesting to see if 1. those areas play easier or more difficult for the average golfer and 2. being that we are sticking with Kikuyu grass, if we can keep them firm and fast enough to even play the variety of shots that a closely mown area should provide.
(I was hoping to get before and after photos of the entire project)
David,
Doesn't Kikuyu limit club selection and play ? (options)
To all,
There are options in theory and options in practice and I'd rather confine the discussion to options in practice, truely viable options.
-
did the "seamless" appearance of minimalist design have an effect?
-
I'm not buying it.
Put my ball 15 yards off a domed Pinehurst #2 green and give me the "option" of either putting it or hitting a lob wedge off a tight lie to a firm green and I'm putting it. Take away the wedge option and I'm still putting it.
No way, no how multiple options make any shot harder. Are you guys actually such mental/emotional cripples that you literally stand there and can't make up your mind when there are multiple ways to play a shot? Or do you think everyone ELSE in the world is that sort of idiot?
As someone said earlier in the thread, it's like claiming that cutting down a tree makes the course harder. Bull shit it does.
Brent,
I don't think anybody said multiple options make a shot harder, per se. What I said was that if you give a low handicapper more options, he'll benefit much more than the high handicapper because he likely has more shots in the first place. One of the options will suit him.
Give them both the exact same shot, and you introduce more of an element of chance as to whether the low handicapper can benefit.
The issue, when you speak of an "equalizer", is not just the ability to simply get the ball on the green, but to get it close and get up and down. Give a low handicapper more options and he'll get it up and down more often. The high handicapper doesn't; that's why he's a high handicapper.
A lot of the "options" of which we speak when we talk about these things aren't really options at all. As I mentioned, offering me the option of playing a lob shot off a tight lie isn't really an option at all. It's not a shot I have.
My "equalizer" comment was directed as Tour-type rough where the ball can be five feet off the green and sitting at the bottom of three inch gnarly rough. On the stereotypical heavy rough setups that the Tour often favors on parkland courses, there's a certain clubhead speed needed to get the ball out at all.
I guess the ultimate "equalizer" though would be to have the 20 yards surrounding the green be three-quarter inch "rough". It offers no real impediment to the good player while given the weaker player a cushion under the ball. Not that I'd mind such a setup personally ;-) but it sort of overshoots in the "equalizer" direction.
-
Ignore easy or difficult. Closely mown areas provide more interest. Ultimately, that's the point of slinging a bag on your back and playing the game.
If one pulls out a putter for every shot is it more interesting?
Jason,
As a links golfer I can absolutely assure you that simply having mown areas does not mean I pull out the putter for ever shot. Today, just for example, from thirty yards in I hit putter, 6 iron, 8 iron, PW and 58 degree wedge.
All of those shots, with the possible exception of the 58 degree wedge, are easily within the realms of playability for a 28 capper.
Note: I didn't hit all of those clubs on the one hole!
-
Brent, you aren't the only one playing the game ;) I find the biggest issue with rough around greens is much more apparent in winter. There is truly only one option once the grass is wet for winter - flop over the rough. I hate it and its one reason why I stay away from parkland golf in winter.
A lot of the "options" of which we speak when we talk about these things aren't really options at all. As I mentioned, offering me the option of playing a lob shot off a tight lie isn't really an option at all. It's not a shot I have.
Ciao
-
Ignore easy or difficult. Closely mown areas provide more interest. Ultimately, that's the point of slinging a bag on your back and playing the game.
If one pulls out a putter for every shot is it more interesting?
Jason,
As a links golfer I can absolutely assure you that simply having mown areas does not mean I pull out the putter for ever shot. Today, just for example, from thirty yards in I hit putter, 6 iron, 8 iron, PW and 58 degree wedge.
All of those shots, with the possible exception of the 58 degree wedge, are easily within the realms of playability for a 28 capper.
Note: I didn't hit all of those clubs on the one hole!
Paul - you point out the limitations associated with broad generalizations. If people make informed choices to hit a variety of shots, I think it is a good thing. In my experience, US courses with tightly mown surrounds are more hit or miss in this respect depending on contour, grass type, ground condition and green speed. I think it is difficult to make a general pronouncement one way or another.
I suspect I used all of your listed options on links courses other than the high shot when the wind is up.
-
Brent, you aren't the only one playing the game ;) I find the biggest issue with rough around greens is much more apparent in winter. There is truly only one option once the grass is wet for winter - flop over the rough. I hate it and its one reason why I stay away from parkland golf in winter.
A lot of the "options" of which we speak when we talk about these things aren't really options at all. As I mentioned, offering me the option of playing a lob shot off a tight lie isn't really an option at all. It's not a shot I have.
Ciao
Yeah and it's why I'm happy (living 150 miles inland) to have switched a decade ago to a club that doesn't overseed in winter. I know the situation of which you speak and it's abysmal when the damp winter conditions are combined with lovely bright green rye overseed that must be played over and not through.
-
Jason,
You make a fair point. Certainly there needs to be a promotion of other firm and fast factors in order for those options to present themselves, regardless of the length of the grass. I've played clay based courses which are conducive to a running game and sand based ones which are anything but.
And I may have exaggerated when I suggested anyone could play all of those available options. I say that now because I got to thinking about my dad, a very occasional and truly terrible golfer! He regards himself as being in the perfect spot if he's just off of the fairway, his reasoning being that a bit more grass under the ball gives him slightly better odds of making contact. ;D
-
I think it greatly depends on how closely mown the surfaces are. Grass kept too short can reduce options almost as much as grass that is at rough height (not to mention how expensive it becomes to maintain).
The trend towards surrounds an run offs at near green height of cut is a step too far in my view. A nice 12mm surface offers a wide variety of shot types and still produces sufficient run to propel shots towards or away from the intended target.
-
Patrick:
I am a big fan of short grass surrounding greens, but I think I agree with you that it can go too far.
I played a modern course a couple of months ago that had short grass behind many greens ... many times after the green dropped off six or eight feet down. I love to play bump-and-run shots up the slope to the green, but those slopes were so high and steep that it just wasn't practical at all; the ONLY recovery shot was to play a lofted wedge from tight, soggy bentgrass.
Short grass around the sides and back of the green is a cool feature, but you have to get the SCALE of it right. If the amount of slope isn't practical for chipping, then it's a maintenance headache that doesn't provide shot options, it only pretends to.
-
I think it greatly depends on how closely mown the surfaces are. Grass kept too short can reduce options almost as much as grass that is at rough height (not to mention how expensive it becomes to maintain).
The trend towards surrounds an run offs at near green height of cut is a step too far in my view. A nice 12mm surface offers a wide variety of shot types and still produces sufficient run to propel shots towards or away from the intended target.
+1
music to my ears
bring back chipping,bump and runs, and pitching for the average guy
-
did the "seamless" appearance of minimalist design have an effect?
Peter,
It's a good question, but I think the seamless transition from fairway to green usually isn't interrupted by steep slopes such as the ones behind and at the green flanks.
-
Anyone remember the days when folk carried clubs like this double-sided 'chipper' in their bags?
(http://thumbs1.ebaystatic.com/d/l225/m/mytHGnPX1gc6wDqJcfgnMGw.jpg)
I think Cleveland and Odyssey brought out single-sided versions a little while back and I believe Ping made a 'chipper' many years ago.
There were also 'jiggers' back in yee olde hickory days.
Apparently at one early Walker Cup, to be held in the UK, Francis Ouimet had a 'jigger' made and presented to every member of his team before the match began and told them all to practice with the club as they'd need to use it a lot.
atb
-
Anyone remember the days when folk carried clubs like this double-sided 'chipper' in their bags?
(http://thumbs1.ebaystatic.com/d/l225/m/mytHGnPX1gc6wDqJcfgnMGw.jpg)
I think Cleveland and Odyssey brought out single-sided versions a little while back and I believe Ping made a 'chipper' many years ago.
There were also 'jiggers' back in yee olde hickory days.
Apparently at one early Walker Cup, to be held in the UK, Francis Ouimet had a 'jigger' made and presented to every member of his team before the match began and told them all to practice with the club as they'd need to use it a lot.
atb
I could be wrong, but I think the two-sided chippers are now non-conforming?
Also, I remember how interested everyone was when Todd Hamilton used a hybrid from all over the place the year he won the Open. Hybrids, still called "rescue" clubs at that point, weren't even in wide use yet, and nobody had seen one used that way. I love chipping with a hybrid during the winter on dormant bermuda, but don't use it much at all this time of year.
-
a trend that's become overused to the point that many of them are improperly used ?
Are some of them next to impossible to recover from, for the average golfer ?
We are about to start to undertake a remodel of my home club here in Los Angeles, Brentwood CC. The new layout has many new closely mown areas. It will be interesting to see if 1. those areas play easier or more difficult for the average golfer and 2. being that we are sticking with Kikuyu grass, if we can keep them firm and fast enough to even play the variety of shots that a closely mown area should provide.
(I was hoping to get before and after photos of the entire project)
David,
Doesn't Kikuyu limit club selection and play ? (options)
To all,
There are options in theory and options in practice and I'd rather confine the discussion to options in practice, truely viable options.
I tend to think so, Riviera does a good job of keeping its closely mown area firm enough to allow a variety of shots. Time will tell as to how well Brentwood can do it given that it isn't on the same sandy soil that Riviera is on?
-
a trend that's become overused to the point that many of them are improperly used ?
Are some of them next to impossible to recover from, for the average golfer ?
We are about to start to undertake a remodel of my home club here in Los Angeles, Brentwood CC. The new layout has many new closely mown areas. It will be interesting to see if 1. those areas play easier or more difficult for the average golfer and 2. being that we are sticking with Kikuyu grass, if we can keep them firm and fast enough to even play the variety of shots that a closely mown area should provide.
(I was hoping to get before and after photos of the entire project)
David,
Doesn't Kikuyu limit club selection and play ? (options)
To all,
There are options in theory and options in practice and I'd rather confine the discussion to options in practice, truely viable options.
I tend to think so, Riviera does a good job of keeping its closely mown area firm enough to allow a variety of shots. Time will tell as to how well Brentwood can do it given that it isn't on the same sandy soil that Riviera is on?
I hope it turns to play firmer than the velcro-like kikuyu at La Cumbre, what a mess that is. No ground game options at all.
-
I don't understand why there is debate over closely mown areas. Here is why:
I have seen 12 different links courses on my trip, and (most of them) are quite old. They all use closely mown areas. Now, you might say that because they are links courses, you have to compare them differently to the vast majority of non-links courses. Links courses....
1. Are firm and fast
2. Have the wind as a cooperative factor
They also don't mow those areas nearly as tight as they do at many of the courses in the U.S. and that's a huge distinction.
So, why do links courses have closely mown areas? Is it to help players with the two factors above?
More room for the bounces and rolls of firm and fast turf and the push/pull of the wind?
I'm pretty sure that closely or tighly mown areas behind greens don't help the golfer under almost any circumstance.
Ditto the flanks on an elevated green
Sure that is part of it, but if there is one thing I have learned on the trip, it is how closely mown areas enhance the green surrounds. It makes the depressions and bunkers play larger and more difficult, but can also make the green play larger with slopes feeding the ball in and the short cut of the grass itself.
Most closely mown areas next to greens, that I've seen, do the opposite, they move the ball further from the green, not closer, since most of the greens with closely mown areas are elevated.
Closely mown surrounds are an integral link between green and the fairway.
There is no point of separation between the two, no line of demarcation.
I think you may be confusing the feature and/or the location and application of the feature.
Also, these courses are the root of the game. They came first.
So this leaves me asking two styles of questions as to why closely mown areas aren't used more....
1) When did closely mown areas "fall out of style?"
When it became too expensive to maintain them
Why is it a problem that they are "coming back in style?"
Because they're being used indiscriminately and in the wrong locations.
2) Why have rough when you can add style, complexity, and creativity (shotmaking from green-side, shotmaking into the green, and for the architect sculpting) with closely mown areas?
Because recovery is beyond the ability of the average golfer and poor golfer.
-
For me, if done right, closely mown grass surrounding the green is effectively green - it should be that firm even if the grass is a bit longer than the actual surface. Any player should have the option of putter, putter-like chip n' runs or flops. Its down to the player to decide which shot suits best. The other benefit to this approach, which I have yet to see mentioned, is that on flatter holes, the seamless transitions between fairway and green makes it difficult to figure out the yardage of the shot....well for those who don't use cheater guns anyway ;D If the area in question can't be kept firm, I have no issue with higher rough, but still would like the odd bits of fairway "miss spots" now and then - including behind greens. All that said, clubs that are open in winter should be doing everything reasonable to keep turf firm. The dreaded winter 2.5 inch clag is a serious turn-off.
Ciao
-
Mucci,
You make some well considered ans worthy points.
The one area I will however take issue is with the assertion that recovery from short grass is beyond the average player. I see golfers of all shapes, ages, genders and sizes recover perfectly well from short grass. Not sure the same could be said to longer stuff. Considering this point, my mind wandered to thinking about the two ladies well into their 80's that I played through the other day. There is no way on Earth those old girls could possibly lob wedge anything towards a pin but were clearly more than happy bumping the ball around the course without ever getting the ball more than a few feet off the ground. Your assertion, I suspect, is more a reflection of how far removed the game has become from its natural playing conditions, i.e. players struggling with short grass not because it's particularly difficult but because it's alien to them.
-
Mucci,
You make some well considered ans worthy points.
The one area I will however take issue is with the assertion that recovery from short grass is beyond the average player. I see golfers of all shapes, ages, genders and sizes recover perfectly well from short grass. Not sure the same could be said to longer stuff. Considering this point, my mind wandered to thinking about the two ladies well into their 80's that I played through the other day. There is no way on Earth those old girls could possibly lob wedge anything towards a pin but were clearly more than happy bumping the ball around the course without ever getting the ball more than a few feet off the ground. Your assertion, I suspect, is more a reflection of how far removed the game has become from its natural playing conditions, i.e. players struggling with short grass not because it's particularly difficult but because it's alien to them.
Paul,
I think it may come down to what one means by "recovery" and what and why you are recovering from in the first place. There's a lot of gray area in between a Philly Mick flop shot and being able to putt from 50', right? It's not either/or.
Pat's point is that these areas often take the ball farther from the hole than light rough would allow; the fact that an 80 yr. old lady can now use a putter from 50' instead of bumping a wedge from 20' only gives the illusion of options and the ability to recover.
And when the high handicapper DOES get the ball on the green from 50' with their putter or hybrid, they may still be farther from the hole than they would have been in the fringe.
Recovery means how soon the golfer can get the ball in the hole, rather than just what club(s) can be used for the next shot and whether or not the next shot is on green or not. And just as the length of the entire hole is the single biggest factor in the difficulty of the hole, so is distance from the hole the single biggest factor in getting the ball in the hole around the green. If closely mown areas take the high handicappers ball farther away, their scores will go up regardless of what club they hit next.
-
And let's don't forget the ever popular combination of a really low-cut "chipping area" that runs 50 feet from the green and then directly into a couple inches of rough. So instead of a lob wedge gouge from five yards off the green it's a lob wedge gouge from 20 yards that often comes up short and runs all the way back down into the rough.
-
I'm reminded of this old ditty:
A bad putt is better than a bad chip.
-
But the question Patrick and A.G. are asking is whether a bad 30-yard putt is better than a bad 10-yard chip.
I think as long as you have the clubhead speed to get a lob wedge through the grass and onto the ball, the usual collar of rough starting just off the green does tend to keep slightly errant shots within, say, ten feet or so of the putting surface. Just chop down onto the back of the ball (with sufficient clubhead speed) and you'll gouge it out. Even if you only advance it 10, 20, 30 feet you'll have a putt for your next shot.
By comparison putting across 50 feet or so of possibly bumpy, wet or grainy fringe grass then up a steep hill to reach the green isn't the simplest thing in the world (ask anyone but Martin Kaymer how that worked out for them on the grainy Bermuda at the US Open). If the putt were from ten feet off the green it's much easier than a gouge out of rough from the same spot. But many courses have fall-offs where those putts are going to be far longer than ten feet or even ten yards.
-
Does anyone else find the hybrid shot more effective on bermuda than it is on northern grasses? Lou Duran showed me how to hit the shot in Dallas last year and I have found it very useful on bermuda but nearly useless on faster running grass. I don't have enough control over distance on northern grasses and choose to chip. On bermuda, the shot fits my eye much better and I seem to do ok with it. I can't really think of a logical explanation for the difference.
-
I quit doing the fairway wood/hybrid chip thing when I played with Jeff Warne at Palmetto years ago. He pointed out that my distance control with my (mallet) putter on those shots was far, far better than my distance control with a metalwood. Longer shaft, awkward lie angle, not a shot I practice much. Just too risky.
So I pretty much either putt the heck out of it with a putter or go ahead and hit some kind of pitch/chiip/bump-and-run with a wedge or short iron. And all my play is on Bermuda.
-
Brent,
I go back to what I said about people being used to certain shots. Sorry to repeat myself but I am a links golfer that grew up playing links golf and therefore, despite having played a lot of different golf since, my golf DNA if what it is. I am shockingly bad from soggy, thick rough around the green. I have precious little grasp of how the ball is going to react from that stuff. Conversely, I can flick a ball in the air off of a piece of rock hard pan in a way which you would quite possibly assume just wasn't possible.
-
Brent,
I go back to what I said about people being used to certain shots. Sorry to repeat myself but I am a links golfer that grew up playing links golf and therefore, despite having played a lot of different golf since, my golf DNA if what it is. I am shockingly bad from soggy, thick rough around the green. I have precious little grasp of how the ball is going to react from that stuff. Conversely, I can flick a ball in the air off of a piece of rock hard pan in a way which you would quite possibly assume just wasn't possible.
Question for you, Paul. My initial thought about this was that the vast majority of golfers, regardless of skill level, would prefer a 5 foot chip out of thick rough instead a 50 foot putt up a steep hill. And I say this as someone who tries to putt from anywhere he can, and loves to do so. In the case of that example, would you still prefer the putt? And, if not, would you consider yourself the minority or majority in the UK?
To add a personal example. If only the back of the 4th green at BPB had rough instead of a closely mown and steep fall off, my handicap would no doubt improve (though, the hole would certainly suffer).
-
Mark,
With numbers as extreme as you suggested I'd take the chip. If however we we talking a 10 foot chip or a 20 foot putt, I'll take the putt ever time.
And believe me, I am in the minority in Britain simply because the majority in Britain play in conditions more similar to what you are used to than the links and heathlands widely associated with British golf. Actually, climate being what it is, spongy long grass in America is probably preferable to the UK. There is nothing more ridiculous to my mind than an artificial sudo-international target set up on a boggy mud field in February in Britain. Nonetheless, it's a prevailing trend which has been with us since the 80's. We even hold Ryder Cups on it. ::)
-
Does anyone else find the hybrid shot more effective on bermuda than it is on northern grasses? Lou Duran showed me how to hit the shot in Dallas last year and I have found it very useful on bermuda but nearly useless on faster running grass. I don't have enough control over distance on northern grasses and choose to chip. On bermuda, the shot fits my eye much better and I seem to do ok with it. I can't really think of a logical explanation for the difference.
Jason,
I wrote this a few posts back, but I really like the hybrid chip on DORMANT bermuda during the winter months. I barely use it at all with the grass is green and growing; 7 iron or something like that works a lot better. I feel like you just almost have to carry the ball to the green when bermuda is really popping unless the grass is really shaved AND you are going down grain.
-
Yeah, this time of year on our Bermuda one bounce in the fringe/apron grass is practical but multiple bounces or rolling it there's just so little margin between skittering along the surface of the grass and bouncing/rolling "hot" versus settling into the grain and stopping quickly. Best to either wedge it onto the green or in a pinch kill it by hitting the fringe once and then onto the putting surface.
-
Mucci,
You make some well considered ans worthy points.
The one area I will however take issue is with the assertion that recovery from short grass is beyond the average player.
I see golfers of all shapes, ages, genders and sizes recover perfectly well from short grass.
I think the difference of opinion centers around "elevation".
From flat areas surrounding the greens I might agree that the average to poor player has a fighting chance.
But, it's those tightly mown areas that fall away from elevated greens, tightly mown areas that take a ball that just runs off the green and deposits it 10, 20, 30 and 40 feet away from the green.
Now the golfer is faced with a steep upward slope.
If the golfer has "short sided" his miss, then he's got his hands full.
In the last two weeks I"ve watch PGA Tour Pros attempt to both putt and chip the ball up the incline, only to have it come back to a spot not far from it's original position.
If a PGA Tour Pro has difficulty with that shot, what does it say about the average or poor golfers chances of recovery.
Not sure the same could be said to longer stuff.
I think I'd prefer a full or forceful swing to an extremely delicate touch, especially because most golfers have practiced that full swing, while few have practiced that delicate touch up a steep incline of tightly mown grass/fairway
Considering this point, my mind wandered to thinking about the two ladies well into their 80's that I played through the other day. There is no way on Earth those old girls could possibly lob wedge anything towards a pin but were clearly more than happy bumping the ball around the course without ever getting the ball more than a few feet off the ground.
30 minutes with me and I'd have them hitting that Lob Wedge stiff from around the green.
I can see them putting or chipping a dozen times before they get the feel of the incline and it's influence on the ball.
Your assertion, I suspect, is more a reflection of how far removed the game has become from its natural playing conditions, i.e. players struggling with short grass not because it's particularly difficult but because it's alien to them.
Not at all.
It's a reflection of the greater variety of shots presented at different courses.
When's the last time you saw a 30 yard drop shot par 3 on a links course ?
Just because that hole exists at other courses doesn't mean that the game has become far removed from it's natural playing conditions,
in fact, it's just the opposite, it's how the game has adjusted to the variety in the natural playing conditions.
Take the photo of the thumbprint/Horseshoe green that someone posted.
Now pretend that that steep bank and the area 30 feet from the bottom of that steep bank was all tightly mown grass.
Think of how hard that shot is, how difficult it is to gauge.
Would you rather play that shot from tightly mown grass, or rough ?
-
a trend that's become overused to the point that many of them are improperly used ?
Are some of them next to impossible to recover from, for the average golfer ?
We are about to start to undertake a remodel of my home club here in Los Angeles, Brentwood CC. The new layout has many new closely mown areas. It will be interesting to see if 1. those areas play easier or more difficult for the average golfer and 2. being that we are sticking with Kikuyu grass, if we can keep them firm and fast enough to even play the variety of shots that a closely mown area should provide.
(I was hoping to get before and after photos of the entire project)
David,
Doesn't Kikuyu limit club selection and play ? (options)
To all,
There are options in theory and options in practice and I'd rather confine the discussion to options in practice, truely viable options.
I tend to think so, Riviera does a good job of keeping its closely mown area firm enough to allow a variety of shots. Time will tell as to how well Brentwood can do it given that it isn't on the same sandy soil that Riviera is on?
I hope it turns to play firmer than the velcro-like kikuyu at La Cumbre, what a mess that is. No ground game options at all.
My guess it will be somewhere in between the extremely sticky and thatch laden kikuyu @ La Cumbre and Riv. TBD if the inbetween will provide the reasonable ability to hit ground game shots.
-
Pat,
You wrote that you'd rather have the more powerful shot from the rough because, in part, it's exactly the sort of shot players have more experience of. That was exactly my point earlier about the running shot simply being hard because people were less used to it.
Now, you mention slope and, certainly, you have a very good point about that. But go back and look at my previous post about the 5th green at Hayling. Oh, and as is so often true of photos, it's a lot steeper than it looks. So imagine you're down the side of one of those slopes and, playing to that ROCK HARD green which is only 12 yards wide, you either have a high option from thick long grass or a shot from short stuff. I am telling you now that you don't want to try to control that shot from thick stuff. Gentle, delicate weighting is the shot needed. There is no way of stopping the ball out of that bunker, let alone from thick rough. Of course, it is fair to note that long grass would hold the ball up more so, had you only have the missed the green by a foot or two, you might be better off if thick grass were there to hold your ball up. But miss by more and be in thick stuff and you're in a whole world of trouble. Don't misunderstand me, it's a bloody tough shot any which way and I've made a mess of it in all conditions with all clubs!
And Pat, those ladies ain't gonna be using a lob wedge on the course at the moment. They don't have the hand speed needed with the ground as it currently is to work it. THEY'D JUST CHUNK IT. Winter, fine. Summer, no. Jesus Pat, they can't get driver airborne! Or 3 wood or 5 wood or 7 wood or 9 wood for that matter. Seriously though, if they weren't playing on sand they would have long ago concluded that their golf days were behind them. You had to see them! But they were having a nice time, so good on them.
But I'm now going to go back to your very original point and suggest that, whilst the short stuff isn't being overdone, it is perhaps being over cut. Any hacker needs a little grass under the ball in order to be confident. And that's it.
-
Paul makes a very good case. Each situation is different and everybody cannot be accommodated all the time. I see short grass play all the time and better players tend not to use putters while lesser players (me) look for ways to putt the putter in my hand because they know that generally its a safer play...if the grass is kept short. If the grass is not very close to fairway height and there is elevation involved, a big percentage of the putter hounds (me) will switch to a different club. Often it isn't a flop club, but a bump and run club...meaning bang the ball into the hill and have it pop up. This is not an easy shot, but many feel that attempting to flop a shot uphill onto hard greens and often with liittle surface to work with is the most dangerous play in terms of earning a kiss on the card.
I for one would be hugely disappointed to encounter a course that plays firm and not have short grass around greens. I am especially disappointed when I encounter courses (typical American parkland) which have 2-4 inch rough 5-10 feet from green surfaces, often the rough cuts off entry into bunkers. To me, this is a heinous set-up. I agree that sometimes its easier to hit from this rough, especially if one isn't short-sided, but the question of easy or hard is a red herring. I am looking for interest in the game and playing from greenside rough generally doesn't interest me. For me, golf is much about contours and slopes so courses should be set-up to make golfers cope with contours. In general, rough reduces those opportunities. I understand we all have different ideas about golf and thats fine because there are plenty of different places to play the game. It works out pretty well.
Ciao
-
I am especially disappointed when I encounter courses (typical American parkland) which have 2-4 inch rough 5-10 feet from green surfaces, often the rough cuts off entry into bunkers. To me, this is a heinous set-up. I agree that sometimes its easier to hit from this rough, especially if one isn't short-sided, but the question of easy or hard is a red herring. I am looking for interest in the game and playing from greenside rough generally doesn't interest me. For me, golf is much about contours and courses should be set-up to make golfers cope with contours. In general, rough reduces those opportunities.
That's the setup I find "overused" at the places I frequent. Patrick's experience may be that the extensive "chipping area" thing is becoming a cliche wherever it is that he plays but for my part, if every course with the " 2-4 inch rough 5-10 feet from green surfaces" were to mow it down to fairway height it would not be overused but rather welcome.
-
Anyone notice the little hollow to the left (as it's played) of the 11th green at Hoylake in The Open on the TV today?
The hollow itself, which seems to be only about 2 ft deep, is closely mown. The 2ft high bank between it and the green however, has grass growing on it that looks like it's about 1-2 inches long.
Sergio was in this hollow. Even if he'd wanted to, the grassed bank would have stopped him from putting or bumping the ball onto the green, so he had to wedge it - I believe he holed the shot (I briefly left the room but heard the crowd shout from the TV!).
It got me thinking about the use of the low band of wooden sleepers, there seemingly deliberately to prevent run-up recovery shots, from just off the 14th green at Rye.
atb
-
Anyone notice the little hollow to the left (as it's played) of the 11th green at Hoylake in The Open on the TV today?
The hollow itself, which seems to be only about 2 ft deep, is closely mown. The 2ft high bank between it and the green however, has grass growing on it that looks like it's about 1-2 inches long.
Sergio was in this hollow. Even if he'd wanted to, the grassed bank would have stopped him from putting or bumping the ball onto the green, so he had to wedge it - I believe he holed the shot (I briefly left the room but heard the crowd shout from the TV!).
It got me thinking about the use of the low band of wooden sleepers, there seemingly deliberately to prevent run-up recovery shots, from just off the 14th green at Rye.
atb
I noticed that. The commentators said that it used to be a bunker. I wouldn't approve of that everywhere, but in an occasional spot I don't think it's bad that a course force someone to use a lofted club from a tight lie. You could still bump it, but it would be a lottery what happened to the ball. Especially so in a spot that was a bunker. You can't putt from those (at least not most of the bunkers at Hoylake).
Sergio did hole the shot yes.
-
Anyone notice the little hollow to the left (as it's played) of the 11th green at Hoylake in The Open on the TV today?
The hollow itself, which seems to be only about 2 ft deep, is closely mown. The 2ft high bank between it and the green however, has grass growing on it that looks like it's about 1-2 inches long.
Sergio was in this hollow. Even if he'd wanted to, the grassed bank would have stopped him from putting or bumping the ball onto the green, so he had to wedge it - I believe he holed the shot (I briefly left the room but heard the crowd shout from the TV!).
It got me thinking about the use of the low band of wooden sleepers, there seemingly deliberately to prevent run-up recovery shots, from just off the 14th green at Rye.
atb
And 2 at Rye, those wee "eyebrows."
-
David Bartman, considering you were the medalist at the Mid-Am qualifier at The Valley Club yesterday, what did you think of the tightly mown areas there? Or did you hit so many greens it was a non issue? ;)
-
David. Bartman, considering you were the medalist at the Mid-Am qualifier at The Valley Club yesterday, what did you think of the tightly mown areas there? Or did you hit so many greens it was a non issue? ;)
Jim, I see the par was 71. Which of 1 and 10 was labeled a par 4?
-
David. Bartman, considering you were the medalist at the Mid-Am qualifier at The Valley Club yesterday, what did you think of the tightly mown areas there? Or did you hit so many greens it was a non issue? ;)
Jim, I see the par was 71. Which of 1 and 10 was labeled a par 4?
The first.
-
David Bartman, considering you were the medalist at the Mid-Am qualifier at The Valley Club yesterday, what did you think of the tightly mown areas there? Or did you hit so many greens it was a non issue? ;)
I liked the tightly mown areas that have been added. I think they make the golf course a bit easier for the best golfers, but certainly add a play-ability and shot options to all players. They were maintained in a fashion that allowed for a different types of shots, which I think should be the goal of those areas.
I spent some time during my practice round seeing what shots worked best from them, but you are correct, in my qualifying round I hit 14 greens, 1 fringe, 2 closely mown areas and 1 bunker. So I didn't have many opportunities, I did putt both times from the closely mown areas, right of 12 over the bunker and left of 13, both times I was less than 30 feet from the hole.