Anti-Flog Rough, Vol. 2

Blue Blazer said I left out something on the Anti-Flog Rough post. That's where I pointed out the silliness of the USGA trying to grow rough to different heights depending on the hole.

Apparently the theory goes that taller rough on shorter holes will somehow negate the advantage of long hitting floggers, even though it's on the long par-4s where the dump-and-chase approach works best. 

I suggested that it is a peculiar idea for the USGA to be manufacturing lies (of the playing surface variety) even though the organization has admirably been a proponent of "play it as it lies."

Then there's the idea that the USGA, which has denied altering course setups to counteract the benefits of  equipment deregulation, is actually doing exactly what it denies by using different rough for different holes idea. They appear to be trying to counteract changes in the game.

But Blue Blazer thought I should have also pointed out that the USGA has gone to great lengths to improve the consistency of conditions throughout its Open courses: same green firmness, better bunker sand consistency, etc... and here they are actually forcing inconsistency into the setup equation. 

Why? It seems the only logical conclusion one can draw is that this is an effort to eliminate flogging, a symptom caused largely by modern equipment and ridiculously narrow fairways.

So, can anyone think of a way that super high rough on a short par-4 like the sixth at Winged Foot somehow enhances strategy or rewards skill that a normal setup would not?

Anti-Flog Rough?

Back in May when Sports Illustrated threw me in a room with David Fay, Brad Faxon and Larry Dorman to discuss the state of the game, Fay said it was his hope that the rough at Winged Foot would be 8 inches on certain short holes.

This, apparently to deal with the flogging mindset that became even more widely practiced at Pinehurst just a few weeks following the roundtable.

So in reviewing Jim Achenbach's recent column on Walter Driver, I found this perplexing:

Driver also would like to be seen as an innovator, so a major change in the famous U.S. Open rough apparently will be seen in his first year as president. Driver was chairman of the Championship Committee before becoming USGA president, and his fingerprints already are all over the U.S. Open. After the USGA lost control of course conditions at Shinnecock Hills in the final round of the 2004 Open, Driver wrote a collection of course setup guidelines that were successfully adopted at the 2005 U.S. Open and will be followed at all future U.S. Opens.

Mike Davis, senior director of rules and competitions, outlined the changes in the rough by saying that for the first time the U.S. Open rough will not be a uniform height. Davis indicated that the primary rough probably would be higher on short par 4s and lower on long par 4s.

Now, for the moment I'm going to disregard the fact that growing rough at higher heights on shorter holes only reinforces the idea that the USGA is obsessed with preventing red numbers.
 

And I'm going to ignore how disturbing it is that the USGA, obsessed (and wonderfully so) with "play it as lies" golf, is working so hard to manufacture lies. (No pun intended.)

After all, course setup staffer Mike Davis is one of the real bright hopes within the USGA. He and Tim Moraghan got Pinehurst through the '05 Open despite the meddling of Tom Meeks and Lord knows who else.

And I like the staggered rough cutting concept that Davis has introduced because it has eliminated the ridiculousness of drives just missing fairways finding heavy rough, while tee shots further off line find less penalty. Davis also does not seem pre-occupied with the winning score hovering around par, as some are.

However, last I looked, flogging really separates the bombers from the shorter hitters on the long par-4's, not on the shorter holes where the USGA plans to grow more rough.

So with shorter rough on longer holes, it would seem that the players will only be that much more encouraged to flog it off the tee to get that flip wedge approach.

Apparently, the USGA doesn't see it that way...

The theme here is easy to decipher: The USGA does not want long hitters to be able to exploit shorter par 4s by bombing their drives with impunity somewhere close to the green. Some kind of remedy needs to be found, Davis indicated, and variable rough may be one answer.

"I Have A Theory"

It'll never be confused with Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" proclamation, but the mid-fourth round car wreck at Torrey Pines prompted Gary McCord to note that the play looked "like my buddies at home," which then had Peter Kostis announcing "I have a theory, I have a theory."

You keep building golf courses like this thing and you're going to breed a generation of 6'5" 240 pound golfers where power is everything. This golf is brutal...

Bobby Clampett chimed in at this point to remind us that the course is 7,600 yards at sea level, so we didn't get to hear Kostis expand on the theory. 

So, was he...

A) Going to say that the architects and developers are to blame for the current state of course setup and the way golf is played (flogging/ugly)?

B) Going to say that architects are to blame for the power game? 

C) Going to say that the emergence of 6'5" 240 pound players is the result of equipment that provides significant benefits for those who are taller and stronger? 

I'm guessing answer was NOT (C). So let's add architects to the better athletes/agronomy/workout programs/grooves/loft etc... rationale for doing nothing that might impact the sacred ball-driver synergy.

Rees-toration of a Rees-toration?

I can't keep up with all of these brilliant modern classics going under the knife.

First we had Best New Remodel of Best New's, and now we have Rees Jones renovating his own Rees-torations. A Rees-Rees-toration? Or a Ree-ees-toration? Eh, either way, thanks to reader Frenchie for this from PGA.com.

Atlanta Athletic Club is turning Rees loose on their Highlands Course...again. He apparently didn't make it forgettable enough prior to the 2001 PGA Championship, so he's back to install more tees, more 2-d bunkering and more nonsense just in time for the 2011 PGA.

 --All fairway and greenside sand bunkers will be reshaped and made deeper, with new drainage and bunker sand installed.

--The locations of all greenside bunkers will be studied in detail to promote variety and develop more challenging approach shots and hole locations. When reshaped, all greenside bunkers will be shifted closer to the adjacent putting surface.

To promote variety? Hmmm...guess that monotonous left bunker/right bunker thing made every hole bleed together? Shocking.

--Fairway mowing patterns will shift closer to the edge of each renovated fairway bunker.

--All fairways to be regraded and drainage to be installed.

--All tees, collars, approaches, green surrounds that are cut at fairway height and fairways will have Diamond zoysia grass.

All of the holes will undergo some revision, although the greens will not be rebuilt. Most holes will have a new championship tee built, adding length to nearly every hole.

Length? It was plenty long enough in 2002...what happened?

Clayton on "Championship" Issues

Mike Clayton, writing for The Age (thanks to reader Graeme):

In Australia, we have nearly always played our best events on our best courses, but in America and Europe, commercial considerations usually win out over the quality of the golf course.

How dare he! Of course, it's true.  And my favorite line:

Rough is a curse that clever design should be able to do without and we should take no notice of what we see from America on our televisions. It is moronic and one-dimensional to think the game is better when it is played from long green grass.

Moonah Madness

This sounds familiar (thanks to reader Michael for this):

The Australian PGA Tour has fined its own chairman, Wayne Grady, as the fallout over Moonah Links continued yesterday on the final day of the Australian Open.

Grady was fined an undisclosed sum over his verbal spray directed at Australian Golf Union executive director Colin Phillips on Friday. At least three other players — Stephen Leaney, Stuart Appleby and Craig Parry — are also to be fined for their criticisms of the course and the AGU, which runs the Open.

The fines come from the tour's tournament director Andrew Langford-Jones.

"Obviously 'Grades' committed a breach of our code of conduct," said the tour's general manager, Gus Seebeck, yesterday. "As our chairman he knows he carries extra responsibility to stay within that code. The comments that were made were not meant for public consumption, but they were overheard by certain people, unfortunately, and they were of a personal nature.

"Grades knows this, but it's a closed shop now, and it's between Wayne and Colin to patch up their personal issues."

Grady's attack came during the furore over the state of the 12th green on Friday, when Peter O'Malley's ball blew off the green in high winds. Phillips was the tournament director, and this was his last assignment after 27 years in charge of the AGU.

Doesn't this boil down to the same thing? Today's players are not eloquent when it comes to explaining why setups are over-the-top, and governing bodies either (A) don't have much idea what they are doing when it comes to course preparation in inclement weather, or (B) are trying to produce a "respectable" winning score in the face of major changes in the sport?

Moonah course architect Peter Thomson responded to the player complaints, and it leaves me wondering if the golfing great has spent just a bit too much time sitting around the Royal and Ancient clubhouse listening to clueless administrators commiserating about the spoiled modern pro. From Martin Blake's story:

Thomson responded wryly when I asked: "Do you think some of these players spend so much time in the U.S., where they are pampered and looked after so much with course preparation and everything else, that when they come home and it gets a bit tough they don't react well?

"I'm impressed with your opinion . . . I know that is what everybody else thinks," he replied.

"But, as a side issue, it has struck me that it would be a very sad day if the players were able to select the courses on which they wanted to play.

"The R&A would not have a bar of that, nor would the USGA. In fact, for the last 50 years of my lifetime, the USGA has been responsible for making courses so difficult that people take three irons off the tee.

"But neither the R&A nor the USGA buckle when they get a bit of criticism. I would like to think our championship joins that category.

"In order to convince the world that we have a championship that matches the big two, we have to have a comparable course. That's what this is."

Trying to mimic the USGA and R&A course setup strategies probably isn't the wisest thing to do these days. But based on the player feedback, I'd say the AGU succeeded in one respect.

The Art of Course Setup, Vol. 467

From the wild and wacky Australian Open:

Stephen Leaney refused to sign his card for a 74 in protest and was disqualified.

He had a bogey and playing partner Peter O'Malley had a triple-bogey at the par-3 12th, prompting tournament officials to start lightly watering the green for every subsequent group to negate the impact of the strong northerly wind.

O'Malley had a par putt of less than a meter that was caught in a wind gust and rolled three meters past the pin. After he marked and replaced the ball, it rolled further from the hole. He asked officials if he could replace the ball again, but the request was disallowed.

"You can imagine how we felt," said Leaney. "We'd got the rules officials over to make a decision and then they recognize what was going on and water it."

O'Malley, who made the cut at 4-over, declined to comment.

Lengthgate?

My latest Golfobserver.com column is now up. Lengthgate looks at the accusation many players are making privately that the Tour is encouraging the extension of courses to produce star-studded leaderboards.

Azinger On Disney Telecast

Mike Tirico wrapped up the Funai Classic telecast by noting the low scores despite the lengthening of Disney World's Magnolia course and asked for Paul Azinger's final thoughts.

PAUL AZINGER: Well it was lift, clean and place all week and that made it a lot easier. But I'm always a fan of David being able to beat Goliath. You know, Corey Pavin could beat Greg Norman and Gary Player could beat Jack Nicklaus. And if we keep getting longer and longer every week it's going to be a one dimensional show.

IAN BAKER-FINCH: That's right. 

Casper on Course Lengthening Trend

Add Bob Casper to the list this week saying that lengthening courses is a mistake. His solution:

No doubt, distance is an advantage off the tee. But firm greens and flyer rough negates the upper hand of the power game. It's a scary notion that millions of dollars can be spent for renovations and restorations to courses in hopes of affecting a tiny percentage of players known as bombers. The formula for success for all golf's governing bodies should be firm -- and unchangeable.

Firm is good, firm is good.

And thankfully, Casper never once mentions narrowing the courses any further (he, unlike some, apparently realizes that there is a point when 20 yards is closer to a walkway than a fairway). But it is interesting how there continue to be more calls for rough when this year's flogging approach has only become more accepted despite efforts to stop it. The more they narrow fairways and the more rough that is harvested, the more the players just swing away. 

More O'Meara

Tim Rosaforte writes about the lengthening of Disney's Magnolia course, where he says the 7,500 yard course has become major like in toughness (well unless you look at the scores).

"This is the Funai Classic," said John Cook after his practice round, "not the U.S. Open."

Rosaforte provides another opportunity for more Mark O'Meara brilliance. He, the co-architect of the splendid TPC Valencia (where the even the Champions Tour refuses to go).

"I'd like to see them pinch in the fairways and plant roses bushes with big thorns," O'Meara said. "If you want everybody to compete, play a course hard and fast. At Augusta, take out the secondary cut and take the pine needles out into the fairway and let the trees be the equalizer. Most of these doglegs today, these guys hit it over the doglegs and the hazards. You have to hit the ball long. You have to be strong and you've got to be powerful."

How to fix the game, by Mark O'Meara

At least Mark O'Meara honestly sums up what all of the arguing over lengthening and narrowing courses is really about: scores, and prevention of low ones.

"What they should do, if they want to fix the game, is look at the places with the highest scoring averages," said O'Meara, who dabbles in course design. "Make courses drier and faster, with more trees, make it more penal. Make players think a little more instead of just reaching for the driver and swinging as hard as they can."

Fix the game, look to the places with the highest scoring averages. What a great idea!

As for his comments about addressing flogging (add trees, rough, etc, etc, etc), haven't they already done that?  (Except fast and firm, which is difficult when the Tour seems to be followed by rain every week.)

Flashback

While doing research for a story, I stumbled across this article on Tiger from May, 2001. He was asked if course design was in his future.

Jack Nicklaus, Arnold Palmer and Gary Player began their design businesses in their 30s and 40s.  The 25-year-old Woods said he has no clear timetable for beginning a design career. He also said that he wouldn't necessarily design long courses just because he is known for his length.

"You really don't have to have the hole 470 or 480 yards for it to be challenging," Woods said.

I point this out because 470-480 was sort of still a "long" hole four years ago for most players, except maybe Tiger.

Yet how many times during the Presidents Cup did you see players hitting wedges into 475 yard holes?  And NBC's announcers making sure to point it out?

While watching I was thinking that you would need another 75-100 yards to create a "long par-4" in the modern professional game, assuming you would like to see a mid-to-long iron approach.

Fast and Fiery

Lawrence Donegan writes from Firestone about Paul McGinley's fine play and his thoughts on course setup.

Paul McGinley, one of the more thoughtful members of the professional circuit and therefore one of the more strident critics of the obsession with ever longer courses, sounded like a man who had found nirvana yesterday and not just because he shot a four-under-par 66 to vault up the leaderboard at the NEC Invitational here. Firestone Country Club, built in 1929 as a recreational facility for the workers at the eponymous rubber company, is an old-style course, its narrow fairways lined with matured trees and its greens defended by subtle slopes. At 7,360 yards it is not particularly long by PGA tour standards, yet with the average score for the first two rounds at a fraction below 72 - two over par - it is one of the more troublesome.

What does it say when 7,360 yards is "not particularly long by PGA Tour standards?"

"That's because the course is playing fast and fiery," the Irishman said. "Why don't people get it into their heads that the way to stop technology is not necessarily holding the ball back. Let's find a way of making the courses fast and fiery like it was today. That way length isn't so important; then ball control becomes important; course management becomes a factor; keeping the ball below the pin as well."

Sadly Paul, most in golf think that fast and fiery is bad because such conditions merely shorten courses. The other benefits (premium on placement, variety of shots, accuracy, introduction of temptation, etc...) just don't outweigh the desire to prevent the occassional 350 yard drive. Of course, the players carry it so far now (thanks to those workout programs) that the 350 yard drives are all carry and no roll!