I was saying they should make the rough longer in another thread, today I found I"m not the only one who thinks that. Obviously a minority though ;) This article on TGC's website showed there is some interest (although the opposite? from the PGA higher-ups) to make courses more challenging for players by keeping the rough long and placing more emphasis on accuracy. No Wimps at Arnie's Course
Last edited by steffies : March 16th, 2006 at 11:22 AM.
Nope :( I have a sick kid at home today. It's nice though and the wind isn't as bad as yesterday. It was crazy here by the water. I'll get out one day soon. Thank goodness spring is on the way, I'm tired of winter golf ;)
I was saying they should make the rough longer in another thread, today I found I"m not the only one who thinks that. Obviously a minority though ;) This article on TGC's website showed there is some interest (although the opposite? from the PGA higher-ups) to make courses more challenging for players by keeping the rough long and placing more emphasis on accuracy. No Wimps at Arnie's Course
It sounded like Arnie wanted it much longer than it currently is. The Tour came through and set the mowers to 3 1/2 inches as a compromise. The Tour's primary motivation is money and advertising dollars come from higher ratings. I would suspect that they've found most casual golf viewers do not enjoy watching guys grind it out to win a tournament at even par and would rather see a birdie binge and guys lighting up the leaderboard on Sunday. The more drama the better the ratings seem to be...and add to it that you have better chances of Tiger, Phil, Vijay, Ernie, Daly, etc. being in the hunt on Sunday by not penalizing them too much for errant tee shots. With those guys in the hunt the ratings go up exponentially.
It's really too bad that there isn't a happy medium. Lengthening the courses appears to reduce the chances of the shorter hitters on tour and growing the rough to U.S. or British Open standards seems to penalize the long hitters extraordinarily.
Personally I believe the happy medium is to lock in the "technology" where it is today and redesign a lot of the courses. Not necessarily adding length put putting more bunkers, mounds, etc. from the 275 to 330 mark off the tee. Make all of the players consider their options rather than forcing one specific group of players to reconsider their way of playing the game.
They say its supposed to be as long as 4 1/2 inches thick or more by the end of the week. That ought to make for some tough shots from the rough. They seem to be having trouble now. Its amazing how the grass just grabs the club and almost comes to a complete stop. Makes the players think about the shots a bit more. Makes it more exciting if you ask me.
... growing the rough to U.S. or British Open standards seems to penalize the long hitters extraordinarily.
Long rough penalizes all players equally. Whether a long or short hitter lands in it, they're looking at having to get out of it. I agree with el_capitan, it makes it more exciting. To see people bomb it out there with no consequences, isn't too exciting to me. I'd rather see, "Uh oh in the rough, what now?"
Long rough penalizes all players equally. Whether a long or short hitter lands in it, they're looking at having to get out of it. I agree with el_capitan, it makes it more exciting. To see people bomb it out there with no consequences, isn't too exciting to me. I'd rather see, "Uh oh in the rough, what now?"
I don't disagree that it penalizes each hitter equally. The point I was trying to make is that the longer hitter tend to end up in the rough more than the short hitters. Take a look at the British Open or U.S. Open...if a guy carries it 280-290 off the tee and slightly mishits it the ball still likely ends up in the fairway. NOTE: A degree or two of the clubface being opened or closed at impact out at 280 yards isn't nearly as dramatic as the same degree mistake out at 315 or 325. Look at how many times you see short hitters hitting through fairways at both Open championships and you'll find its not nearly as often as the big hitters on Tour. It has a bigger impact on the longer hitters when they grow the rough up than it does the shorter hitters because they big hitters find it more often.
By the same token simply adding 30-50 yards to a hole only changes it slightly for the big hitter. Instead of hitting a 9I or PW into the green he may end up hitting 7I or 8I (which most guys are pretty accurate with). Now look at the impact it has on a short hitter. Instead of being able to hit a mid iron (say 5I or 6I) into the green they now must hit 3I, 4I or even a hybrid into the same hole. All of which are much more difficult to get close than a 7I or 8I.
Each remedy has a bigger impact on one group versus the other. I think the happy medium is to keep the courses at a length that gives both players an opportunity to put it close on the approach as long as they are in the fairway. Maybe that means widening the fairways out at 320 but putting more bunkering in. Maybe it means moving the tees around each day...one day you make it tougher for the longer hitters to keep it in play but the next make it easier for them based on the tee position? There is no clear cut solution.
I just watched Tiger hit one out of the rough. His swing is strong enough that the rough doesn't seem to effect him as much a some of the weaker hitters. No matter what the distance, length of rough or any other tinkering done with the course, the long, strong hitters are at an advantage.
March 16th, 2006, 11:15 AM
Linear Mode
Similar Threads
