Irish PGA looking for a new home

Mister Sifter

Pat Ruddy has asked that the European Club has a break in 2010. In order to allow them to cut back the rough for the members.

http://www.irishgolfdesk.com/news-files/2009/11/6/irish-pga-leaves-the-european-club.html

uberwolf

given any pro I've spoken to who's played the PGA, the rough was too tough for them as well! The high profile boys had a gallery to help, but it was a lost ball for the bulk of them

jimjo

I heard so many give out about the rough there, its meant to be terrible and people I spoke to said they wouldn't go back because it was too tough. They said when you spend a lot of money on a green fee (which you do at the european club) you want a good enjoyable day out which sounded fair enough to me. Then when i mentioned the bunkers the fella i was playing with totally lost the run of himself giving out left right and centre! Cant please everyone i guess! but the rough there was very extreme by all accounts

Maverick.ie

I know the rough in the european was tough, but to many golf courses have all but eliminated rough on the course which is only fooling people into thinking the can actually play the game

stumpypeeps

Maverick.ie wrote: »

I know the rough in the european was tough, but to many golf courses have all but eliminated rough on the course which is only fooling people into thinking the can actually play the game

Everyone can play the game. Thats the point. Long rough is only for the upper echelons of the sport. Given 95% of Golfers are 15 + handicaps, adhering to your philosophy would deeply damage the numbers playing the game due to a lack of enjoyment.

mag

Maverick.ie wrote: »

I know the rough in the european was tough, but to many golf courses have all but eliminated rough on the course which is only fooling people into thinking the can actually play the game

this is true to a point.... sure the european is a challenging enough track as it is without the penal rough but imho courses should have around ankle high rough at least, particularly around the greens - there should be a proper penalty for missing greens beyond bunkers.

sure most people are 15+ hc and spending most of your round looking for balls isnt particularly enjoyable but there has to be some appreciation of the line between where golf is meant to be played and suiting waywardness. the handicap system will equalise the difficulty factor in the long run.

Maverick.ie

stumpypeeps wrote: »

Long rough is only for the upper echelons of the sport.

What a load of rubbish,

Hear Hear Mags

Sandwich

Maverick.ie wrote: »

I know the rough in the european was tough, but to many golf courses have all but eliminated rough on the course which is only fooling people into thinking the can actually play the game

Wouldn't agree. Rough is an important part of golf course design, but overused it is a crude weapon. Much better for the typical, even good golfer, to be able to play his ball without hunting for it too often, and needing luck and brute force to get it back into play if he does find it.

More sophisticated design, rewards/punishes the quality of a shot on a more graduated scale, and applies the penalty for a wayward shot by presenting a difficult but possible recovery option : tougher approach to green, 'bailout' or layup shot, chip out, curved or creative recovery shot possibility etc.

Rough punishes alright, but good design punishes and tests with sparing use of rough.

Maverick.ie

I agree with some of your points sandwich, but most golf courses today have rough cut to an inch or in some caes a bit less high this no penalty, some players who cant hit a fairway for love nor money prefer to be in the rough as they can clatter 3 woods back up to a hole and it takes the skill of golf course management out of play. Watch a good low handicapper use his noggin to play a sensible iron out of rough to put themselves back into a good position, most really heavy rough on the likes of moyvalley or new forest is a good 80 yards wide on most holes but the semi is virtually none existent imo most of the newer golf courses are about length off of the tee rather than position.

stumpypeeps

Maverick.ie wrote: »

What a load of rubbish

Having worked as a Greenkeeper for some time, I imagine I'm better qualified than you to make that call. I've observed thousands of golfers and perhaps 3 or 4 % might be able to deal with long rough. The rest lack the technique and strength to play reasonable shots from poor lies.

Unfortunately, that 95% pay the bills to keep these courses up and running.
Perhaps, you are an excellent golfer, well done, but golf is designed to be played by 10 year old girls up to 90 year old men. Focusing on low handicappers is counter productive.

heavyballs

stumpypeeps wrote: »

Having worked as a Greenkeeper for some time, I imagine I'm better qualified than you to make that call. I've observed thousands of golfers and perhaps 3 or 4 % might be able to deal with long rough. The rest lack the technique and strength to play reasonable shots from poor lies.

Unfortunately, that 95% pay the bills to keep these courses up and running.
Perhaps, you are an excellent golfer, well done, but golf is designed to be played by 10 year old girls up to 90 year old men. Focusing on low handicappers is counter productive.

i don't think he's suggesting it should be focused on low hcp's,
the people you've observed not being able to cope with the rough should take their medicine and chip out,that's why they have high hcap's.
There's nothing wrong with having tough rough once the fairways are adequately wide.
Don't like you're sarcastic tone btw "Perhaps, you are an excellent golfer, well done, " very childish imo

Brockagh

Sandwich wrote: »

Wouldn't agree. Rough is an important part of golf course design, but overused it is a crude weapon. Much better for the typical, even good golfer, to be able to play his ball without hunting for it too often, and needing luck and brute force to get it back into play if he does find it.

More sophisticated design, rewards/punishes the quality of a shot on a more graduated scale, and applies the penalty for a wayward shot by presenting a difficult but possible recovery option : tougher approach to green, 'bailout' or layup shot, chip out, curved or creative recovery shot possibility etc.

Rough punishes alright, but good design punishes and tests with sparing use of rough.

I agree with that. Look at Augusta, for example. Very little if any rough along the fairways there.

heavyballs

Brockagh wrote: »

I agree with that. Look at Augusta, for example. Very little if any rough along the fairways there.

are you using Augusta as a typical example? It's about the greens in Augusta followed by the length,if they had thick rough on top of that what score would win? Answer..alot over par

uberwolf

heavyballs wrote: »

the people you've observed not being able to cope with the rough should take their medicine and chip out,that's why they have high hcap's.
There's nothing wrong with having tough rough once the fairways are adequately wide.

Tough rough is fine. It's a different story when the lads playing the PGA are losing 3 & 4 balls in a round IMO.

stumpypeeps

heavyballs wrote: »

i don't think he's suggesting it should be focused on low hcp's,
the people you've observed not being able to cope with the rough should take their medicine and chip out,that's why they have high hcap's.
There's nothing wrong with having tough rough once the fairways are adequately wide.
Don't like you're sarcastic tone btw "Perhaps, you are an excellent golfer, well done, " very childish imo

Yes it was sarcastic, I was a little miffed at having my argument described as a "load of rubbish". That is confrontational and ignorant. Regardless of whether you disagree with my opinion.

Perhaps you can impart some similar moral overtones to Maverick.ie.:rolleyes:


It depends on what you describe as long rough. 3 inches is pretty much the standard. He suggested that some courses have it at less than an inch. Approximately the height of cut for fairways.

If you are suggesting that 5 inch rough should be introduced to most courses I think you are alienating 95% of the playing population. Thats my opinion Not a fact. Just based on my own experiences with members etc.

f22

Back on topic again, anyone have any ideas where it might be played, another links course?

stumpypeeps

f22 wrote: »

Back on topic again, anyone have any ideas where it might be played, another links course?

Given its proximity to The Open and to ensure Harringtons continued support, I'd imagine a links course would be top of the agenda.

The northwest has a number of wonderful courses and deserves the exposure. Carne, Rosses Point, Ballyliffin, Enniscrone etc...

Maverick.ie

because your back on topic I wont bother replying to stumpy's point about 3 inch rough

stumpypeeps

Maverick.ie wrote: »

because your back on topic I wont bother replying to stumpy's point about 3 inch rough

Indulge me if you will. We cut our rough at 3 inches. I think thats pretty standard.

Maverick.ie

Great if you do I'm all for it. go to many many other courses today and you will find the rough cut to an inch high and with fairways in the main cut at between 12 and 15mm with the exception of the european who cut fairways at 6mm, and by the way I don't mind a bit of sarcasm it can be quite funny, I wont give my full profile but I'm at the other end of the scale you spoke about earlier.

f22

I agree that rough should penalize you, but unfortunately we don't have spotters so the idea that missing a fairway guarantees a 5 minute scramble to try find your ball would result in 5 hour rounds and pissed off golfers.

stumpypeeps

Maverick.ie wrote: »

Great if you do I'm all for it. go to many many other courses today and you will find the rough cut to an inch high with fairways in the main cut at between 12 and 15mm with the exception of the european who cut fairways at 6mm, and by the way I don't mind a bit of sarcasm it can be quite funny, I wont give my full profile but I'm at the other end of the scale you spoke about earlier.

Oh you don't mind a bit of sarcasm? Thats wonderful. :D:D

I think we probably got our wires crossed. In my mind long rough is anything above 4 inches. Which is just too penalising. I'm not one for rough below 3 inches. 3 Inches is pretty manageable for everyone. I guess its all about striking a balance. But I have seen some courses let up 5 inch rough. Lush and dense 5 inch rough. Its not fun to watch a group of 50 year old ladies spend half an hour playing a hole.:(

Gailf

Don't think it would be everyone/anyone's choice but Royal Dublin could well be a possiblity.

Seem to remember speculation that, before Baltray got the nod, the club were interested in hosting this years Irish Open.

Links course and former host venue aswell of course.

Curly7

Maverick.ie wrote: »

I know the rough in the european was tough, but to many golf courses have all but eliminated rough on the course which is only fooling people into thinking the can actually play the game

Agreed