Split it in half - A solution for USGA setups!

[Mark_Fine]

In my humble opinion, most of the greatest golf courses are generally meant to be played along the edges and not down the middle.  For one, there are often hazards in the middle and two, the edges often open up a preferred line of play or a shorter distance to the hole or a better line of sight (some advantage).  

As a suggestion to the USGA for course set-ups for major championships, if they going to suck most of the strategy out of the golf course by narrowing the fairways down to nothing, why not essentially cut the holes in half!  Instead of narrowing the fairway down the center corridor of the hole, why not position their narrow fairway on the most strategic side of the hole!  If the left side happens to offer a bit more strategy than the right, shift the fairway left or vice versa.  This way you at least bring some of the hazards into play rather than leaving all of them helplessly alone is a sea of rough.  

Will it look goofy, sure it will, but no more silly than running ribbon fairways down the center and leaving disjointed hazards scattered about the sides  

Just an out of the box thought to think about.
Mark

[Mike Nuzzo]

It sounds like a good idea....
Except I think you should NEVER in any way say there is anything good about making fairways as narrow as major championship fairways "need" to be.  Ever.
Think how hard they would play for the members after they leave the rough in place for the next event.

I'd rather see you suggest they play at Van Cortland Park.

Cheers

[ChasLawler]

If you're going to extremes already, why not widen the faiways corridors out to the hazards....then grow in a 10- 15 yard wide strip of rough down the middle? Make them at least choose a side.

[Mark_Fine]

Cabell,
Now that is an interesting idea!  I just hate to see ribbon fairways on the older golf courses.  I know one "restoration" architect who sometimes only recommends restoring hazards on one side of the fairway (not both) I presume because members don't want their fairways sooo wide.  Never thought about putting a strip of rough down the center  
Mark

[TEPaul]

Mark:

You actually expect the USGA narrow fairway Open set-up to take away the MIDDLE of fairways even if the fairways are 20 yards wide?? IT'S THE MIDDLE my Good Man---Heaven ForFuffel. That's where they expect you to hit the ball. Don't be complicating golf with this stupid notion that there may be a better angle from the right or left side of a wide fairway near bunkers. What do you tihnk this is all about other than identifying physical SKILL? They're not asking you TO THINK, they're just asking you TO DO!

[Matt_Ward]

Mark:

Ask yourself this -- why do pedigree courses like Oakmont, Shinnecock, Winged Foot, et al -- need to be bastardized at all?

The folly with last year's event was there for all to see. The USGA was the one holding the bag of stupdity because Shinnecock is one layout that doesn't need man's help to make it a better layout. Ditto what happened at Olympic in '98(18th hole) and the quackery at the final hole at Southern Hills in 2001.

The USGA is too hung-up on the four-round scores and what players shoot for 18. Ask yourself this -- minus the silliness seen at Carnoustie (Paul Lawrie) and Royal St. Georges (Ben Curtis) -- the R&A has simply gone about the buisness in letting the players play. The PGA has done likewise through the skill of its on-site personnel.

The USGA has some of the finest locations for its premier event (save for Torrey coming up) -- the very idea in having fairways that are coming closer and closer and then throwing forward the idea in watering the fairways is just more of the same responses we have seen previously.

No doubt the U.S. Open is one of the two premier events in the game. The set-up for such an event doesn't need some torture type element that emphasizes luck while minimizing skill.

Pinehurst #2 could be a way to demonstrate that the USGA "gets it" and moves 180 degrees away from the nonsense that took place at Shinnecock last year.

[Mark_Fine]

Matt,
The fairways will be narrower at Pinehurst #2 this year than they were in 1999.  I can guarantee you the width was taken away on the sides.  

There was a recent article about Davis making fairways even narrower in the future when he takes over for Meeks.  It will be interesting to see what Baltusrol looks like for the PGA.  Many of the fairway hazards are set well to the sides.  
Mark

[George Pazin]

If you cut it down to fairway height on the "strategic" side, aren't you providing even more of a roadmap?








Long live Sandwich '03 and Shinney '04!

 

[Mark_Fine]

George,
Narrow fairways take the edges out of play and that is often where the hazards (and preferred angles) lie.  "Fairway" bunkers become "rough" bunkers.  They no longer tempt and challenge the player to acknowledge their presence.  They are no longer strategic and are left as penal hazards for very poor shots.  By shifting the fairway out to these hazards they are brought back into play.  If Baltusrol for example wants to bring many of their fairway hazards back into play, the only way they can do it with narrow fairways, is to pick the hazards up and move them in.  I would not be in favor of that!  
Mark

[wsmorrison]

"Narrow fairways take the edges out of play and that is often where the hazards (and preferred angles) lie.  "Fairway" bunkers become "rough" bunkers.  They no longer tempt and challenge the player to acknowledge their presence.  They are no longer strategic and are left as penal hazards for very poor shots.  By shifting the fairway out to these hazards they are brought back into play.  If Baltusrol for example wants to bring many of their fairway hazards back into play, the only way they can do it with narrow fairways, is to pick the hazards up and move them in.  I would not be in favor of that!"

Mark,

Unfortunately, the powers that be at Baltusrol seem to be doing just that, as you know since it was revealed to us at the Baltusrol get together last year.  I agree it was a regrettable decision.

If the hazards are along the margins, and the overwhelming majority are, doesn't your idea take approximately half the hazards and take them completely out of play?  And, as George said, you are completely taking the player by the hand and showing him the right way to go; giving him his roadmap.  

The USGA would never go for this idea and they'd be right not to.  I'd rather fight the battle that restores width rather than expend energy in presenting a just as weak alternative.

[Mark_Fine]

Wayne,
It does take half the hazards out of play, but half in play is better than none in play    The idea was part in jest but at the same time I was trying to make a point.  I just hate to see those ribbon fairways on the older courses.  
Mark

[wsmorrison]

Mark,

If we have to put up with it for a year or so before and during the tournament and it is returned shortly afterwards (let members and guests see how the best can play--and hopefully better realize how that is vastly different from the way they can play) then I don't see anything wrong with that.  It is better than making more permanent alterations and intending to leave them that way as at Baltusrol.  Shinnecock's fairways, although they should have been left alone are surely going back to their former and in some cases greater widths.  I'm glad to see that Merion is gaining back their lost fairway dating all the way back to 1971.  It takes intelligent and educated members to see the light on this.  Consulting architects can and do assist in this process.

[Mark_Fine]

Wayne,
I agree but as you know, a lot of courses don't restore the width.  It is also much harder (and expensive) to restore if you have bent grass fairways and bluegrass rough  
Mark

[wsmorrison]

The restoration of width (doesn't Pat Mucci call this horizontal elasticity?) isn't that hard--even with different grass strains but it can take time and be expensive.

There seems to be a slow but growing trend to restore width.  Certainly the position taken by Oakmont, Shinnecock, Merion and others will have a ripple effect.  It seems the big boys are certainly looked to for guidance and it works works for good and bad.  I am confident that fairway restoration momentum is in a positive direction and I think it will be true for greenspeeds and the prevention of green softening as well.

[Mark_Fine]

Wayne,
A good example is Cherry Hills.  The fairway grass and rough grass is essentially the same.  We can move fairway lines quite easily and inexpensively.  If the fairways were bent, however, it would be a much different matter.  To bring in the fairways for a tournament and then take them out again afterwards is not trivial.  Some clubs just leave them in rather than go through all the aggravation and expense of moving them again.  Lehigh's fairways were narrowed many years ago due to the installation of a fairway irrigation system and it wasn't until last fall that we finally got them moved back out.  I'm sure you realize, clubs hate to have their golf course scared and/or under construction for any period of time.
Mark

[wsmorrison]

I never said it was a trivial matter.  I just pointed out that it is not hard to do; it just takes time and expense.  Cherry Hills is fortunate in the one regard that fairway lines can be moved and reverted easily.  

I would like to hear from some of our superintendent members how they would narrow then widen fairways for a special tournament with different grasses.

Tom Paul and I spoke with Mark Michaud at Shinnecock on this very issue and he was very helpful in describing the process.  He is very confident and has the ability to back it up.  He does not think it is a difficult matter at all.  It needs to be done correctly and in the right time frame.  That's all.

The matter you bring up at Lehigh is the same as a majority of clubs that were designed with greater width than the normal carry of sprinklers.  Only when new irrigation systems are put in can the issue be changed for the better.  I'm glad to hear that Lehigh has moved them back out.  What percentage increase were you able to get at Lehigh?  Is it finished?

[Mark_Fine]

I don't know the exact acreage gain at Lehigh but it was significant.  It was also a very contentious debate about expanding them and took many meetings and sessions with the various committees/board to move the process forward.  

Similar to what many clubs experience, most of the lower handicap members felt the course was being made to easy.  In reality, I think it got more difficult for them as the edges where brought back into play but time will tell.  I wanted to eliminate the first cut but that got shot down (for now).  

John did the fairway expansion last fall and there was ground under repair for quite some time.  Members were stressed out about how well the new grass would blend in and how long it would take.  I'm happy to say John did a fantastic job and the course looks awesome!  

We are dealing with fairway expansion at several clubs right now and it is a very controversial matter.  It takes a lot of education and study to get people to buy in.  This is one of the reasons we chose "width and angles" as a topic for our July Golf Tips Architecture column.  The concept needs explaining to those of us outside of this website community.  
Mark

[George Pazin]

Mark, I understand what you are getting at, and I hate the ribbon fairways as well. I just think if you choose to favor the "strategic" side of a hole, by which I assume you mean the side it's best to approach from, you are helping the players out.

[Mark_Fine]

George,
The good players know the strategic side.  They just don't play there because that option is taken away.  
Mark