[Jason Topp]

In his recent interview on the Golf Channel, Jack Nicklaus talked about his philosophy of having second shot golf courses.  In other words, make the fairways extremely wide and then set up a difficult second shot.  His point was that if someone is spraying the ball all over the place, they will struggle anyway.  It will be a lot more fun for them if they keep the ball in play.  He cites Augusta (at least as it used to be) as his model.

While I embrace the general concept, I think that a design needs to keep the tee shot interesting.  Having recently played a Nicklaus course as well as a couple of other courses that employ this philosophy, I find the wide fairways boring when I am hitting the ball reasonably straight.  

Do others agree?  Are there courses that embrace Nicklaus' concept but still make the tee shot interesting?  To me, the back nine at Pasatiempo does a good job of doing so.    

[Craig Disher]

Pinehurst #2 and the US Open might be why he made the point. The fairways there are very generous but hitting to the wrong area can produce extremely difficult second shots. Hitting to the correct area is challenged by Ross's placement of fairway bunkers.

From what I saw there a couple months ago, the fairways have been narrowed by perhaps as much as 50% - it's very strange to see fairway bunkers with 30-40 yards of rough between them and the fairway. Sure, this is a good way to put the pressure on the drive but I don't think it makes the course more fun or more interesting.

[Kyle Harris]

Frankly, I'd rather put pressure on the mind than just the drive.

One of the ironic aspects of narrowing fairways it that you tend to guide the played to the correct angle, so if they do execute on the drive, they have a relatively easier second.

I'd love to see wide fairways, players trying to bust it, and scratching their heads because they couldn't read the features from the tee and plan accordingly.

Fairways Hit: 90%
Greens Hit: 40%
Putts: 34

Yeah, that'd be nice to see.

[Tony_Chapman]

Wide fairways are optimal for most golfers and I would agree that we should keep that as wide as possible to speed play and to keep the average golf from having to "reload" many times during the round.

What most good architechts would try to do, I assume, is create a generous landing area but one that has a specific place to be in order to place the approach shot close enough to score.

The other positive to the wide fairway is that most times a slightly wayward drive would have the opportunity for a recovery rather than a pitch out of deep rough or trees.

My $.02!!  

[TEPaul]

"Do others agree?  Are there courses that embrace Nicklaus' concept but still make the tee shot interesting?"

Firstly, it's not Nicklaus's concept only one he thankfully understood from the past and reused.

I do not at all believe in "standardized" fairway widths throughout golf courses whether they be narrow, medium or very wide. I believe like so many other things about golf and architecture fairways width should offer variety of width.

I say let each hole's fairway be as wide as the particularly strategies on any hole call for. Some may be narrow, some medium and some extremely wide but whatever the width of fairway is it needs to work well with the hole as an entire strategically unified hole.

But I do think occasionally very wide fairways that offer no obvious directional keys on the tee shot and perhaps no penalty at all on the tee shot but only keys that are contained in what comes after the tee shot are some of the best and most thoughtful architectural offerings there can be.

Why? Simply because it may encourage or even force golfers to look at entire golf holes to understand their demands and strategies and how they all connect together (what Max Behr called "unity" of design) and begin to think ahead in sequential and progressive hole strategies instead of simply fixating on the shot at hand only in an of itself and when that is over the next shot is considered as to its incremental meaning.

I think a golfer should at least think about how he'd like to play an entire hole from the tee on and if the tee shot is an enormous unencumbered fairway, logically he may think to look at where to be on that fairway for the next shot or even the one after that instead of criticizing the tee shot as being uninteresting and boring in and of itself. He may soon find that in effect it really wasn't where he should've been when he finishes the hole if it was designed well in a "unified" sense.

Many of Donald Ross's better golf courses sort of feast on people who think only in single shot increments instead of in a "whole hole" strategic sense. Some say this is why he was such a good and subtle "second shot" architect---eg because he often gave you very little in the way of keys on the tee shot.

I know a pretty good number of golfers at my own Ross course who hit what they consider shots that are good ones but perhaps from the wrong place in fairways and they still haven't figured out why something went wrong.

[mike_malone]

 Wide fairways also lead to shots ending up in the rough farther off the ideal spot. This is often overlooked.

[Jim_Coleman]

    There is your classic Malonism.  "A wider fairway can lead to a lie in the rough that is tougher because you are farther away from the middle of the fairway."  Huh?  Would you be closer to the middle of a narrow fairway if you hit the ball in the same place?
   I guess Moses believes that most golfers are so skilled that they will aim to the far side of a wide fairway.  When one misses that shot just a little, he'll be in the rough further away from the middle.  Where if you're presented with a narrow fairway, you'll aim down the middle, miss it slightly, and be in the rough, but closer to the middle.  Huh?  Professor Irwin Corey makes more sense.

[Kyle Harris]

Jim,

The middle of the hole (or the middle of the ideal line) need not correlate to the middle of the fairway...

[Brent Hutto]

I hop I'm not guilty of Malonism but I think good players aim at edges if the payoff is sufficient.

There's a long Par 4 at my home course where the fairway is straight away and quite wide enough to hit if you aim center or center-left but it slopes down to the right toward some trees with swampy underbrush (marked as a lateral hazard). However, with the hole cut on a little shelf in the back left corner of the green you really want to be approaching the hole from as far right as possible. If you can hit it long enough and fade it (right-handed) a bit there's a spot where the fairway widens out on the right but it's not a big target.

The last time we held a women's NCAA tournament they put the flag back left for the final round and there was a 15-20mph breeze from left to right and helping. The women were not long enough off to be hitting wedges into that back shelf like the stronger men's players so they really, really needed to be hitting their 6-irons and 7-irons from the right side. On that final round day there were two birdies made on that hole, both from the muddy bare ground in the edge of the woods over to the right of the fairway. However, there were also balls lost in the woods (lateral hazard) plus balls in the deep rough plus balls in the right-side fairway bunker.

I think no matter how wide the fairway, you can sometimes induce good players to aim at an edge where a slightly offline shot will be in the rough or worse. It might take an "unfair" hole location and a bit of breeze but sometimes aiming down the middle is not the only rational strategy.

[mike_malone]

 What are the implications for restoration work when today's watering systems make it possible to have all kinds of fairway configurations?


   Would the classic architects have made different choices for fairway configuration if they had such opprotunities as exist today?

    Is TEPaul's idea that each hole calls for a different fairway width a big problem for restoration efforts?


    Wouldn't we have big arguments when the original designs may show straightaway fairways?



   I welcome the exciting prospect that we can "update" what the dead guys would do today?

   That is more challenging than just saying it should be exactly as it appears in some old aerial.

[Kyle Harris]

I am placing a ban on any discussion in this thread of the MorrPaul Bunker or the Mayday Chipping Area on holes 7 and 1 respectively at Rolling Green...

So behave boys  

[tomgoutman]

I think Tom Paul's comments reflect the views of most good golf architects. The problem with having too many narrow fairways on the course is that it reduces the strategic options from the tee to one: find the fairway with your tee shot. Ross was brilliant at making players chose right side or left, long or lay back options from the tee. One of the unfortunate developments on some of his course (e.g., Torresdale) is the overgrowth/overplanting of trees that has resulted in a narrowing of the fairways and lessening of strategic options from the tee (and second shot for that matter, which will often be nothing more than a punch out). The focus on the second shot in nothing new--how about Pine Valley, with its very generous fairways?

[mike_malone]

 Kyle,
   No comments from me about RG.

   I am interested in others' views about fairway width. I think  it is fascinating. We hear about how the introduction of centerline watering standardized widths. But now more flexible systems are available. For new courses it gives more "waterable" options.

    But should we restore fairways on older courses only to configurations suitable for archaic technology or attempt to figure out how they would do it today.


  I realize this means that some new ideas of "restoration" research may be necessary.

[mike_malone]

 tomgoutman

    The interesting part of TEPaul's idea is that standardized "wide" is also to be avoided.

[Jim_Coleman]

    Kyle Harris:  
              I don't know who you are, but God bless you.

[Kyle Harris]

Mike,

I think, at least in regard to fairway width, that the role of technology is somewhat overblown.

Technology tends to be more forgiving in the distance area and not so much in the accuracy area. I mean, perimeter weighting's been around for years now.

I feel that widening fairways out to hazards placed in a manner such that they need to be challenged (but not necessarily dealt with, carried, or played) to provide an easier next shot is the way to go.

Take the 11th at Rolling Green for example, the green is much more easily approach from the left side near the bunker. If the fairway down the right hand side were widened a bit more, there would be plenty of room for the golfer to miss and still get a good lie, however, since he has a good lie, he is then tempted into attempting to hit that green from a very very poor angle - and therefore perhaps compounding his trouble.

If he can stop a mid-iron from a downhill lie on that green... he deserves his par, doesn't he?

[mike_malone]

 Kyle,
    I was speaking of "watering" technology not "golfclub "technology.

[Kyle Harris]

Yes, I just reread that, saw technology and then went off.

I'd be eager to see if anyone would be willing to post irrigation plans for their club if they have them. I am constantly looking for irrigation heads on courses as they hold many clues as to what once was.

Jim Rattigan,

If you're reading this, do you have any such plans for Schuylkill CC? I think that'd be an ideal example for this thread. I'll be out this weekend but checking email periodically.

[TEPaul]

Mike Malone asked:

"Would the classic architects have made different choices for fairway configuration if they had such opprotunities as exist today?"

Mayday:

That is a very legitimate question! That is a remarkably good question even if it's one that may not be well understood on this particular website. Why would that be that it may not be well understood on this website? In my opinion, it's because too many on this website glorify every single thing that was done in the past and they do so without even bothering to consider all the reasons things happened back then as well as what has happened in certain areas since those times in the past. Fairway width just might be one of those things.

"Is TEPaul's idea that each hole calls for a different fairway width a big problem for restoration efforts?"

Of course it's a big problem for restoration efforts. Why? Just look at any aerial of most all those old courses. What do you see? You see fairways on just about every single hole that were very wide, in almost all cases about 55-60 yards wide. Why was that? Do any of us really know? I doubt it. We need to consider more carefully why that may've been back then. Was it primarily for just strategic reasons or did it happen to have something to do with other things that were prevalent back then like incredibly wide gang mowers pulled behind tractors? This is a subject I find Matt Shaeffer's really good superintendent is very interesting in and discovering the reasons why.

I'd say whatever the reason they really did not always have to do with strategies. We finally found something at the Cascades from the mid 1930s explaining the "standard fairway widths'. When we measured those original fairways we found them to be all 55-60 yards wide---totally standardized. We even found that a perfectly good Flynn hole was redesigned (by Flynn) because its basic landform did not really allow for this "standardized" fairway width.

One of the best bits of advice I've ever heard was from Jim Finegan who mentioned to me that these old golf courses were great but we should always remember that we can consider some of the things that came after them that can make them even better than they ever were. Massive advances in agronomy is probably the most notable.

It doesn't take a rocket science mind to tell that a golf course can be interesting if it offers a wide variety of narrow, medium and wide fairways on its 18 holes if those widths have some real meaning to what he rest of the hole is all about.

Some on here are so fixated on just automatically reverting back to every thing that once was that some of us seem  to have forgotten that we really are capable of thinking for ourselves today and that Finegan was right that we need to more carefully consider the reasons that things were the way they were back then and that it's possible to do things today because of the things we know now that they never knew or used back then for various reasons.

Those old Golden Age architects apparently dreamt that in the future golf architecture could be taken to new and exciting levels that they in their times could not quite achieve for various reasons. If they really did feel that way I seriously doubt they'd want to see any of us today just blindly following every single thing they were doing in their times long ago, and failing to take into account the things that may come someday after them---many of which now have come.

I think getting away from standardization in fairway width was one of them. I think "standardization" in most any form in golf course architecture it inherently detrimental to it.

[mike_malone]

 Tom,
    Thanks--heading off to Lulu---answer later

[TEPaul]

"Tom,
    Thanks--heading off to Lulu---answer later"

Mayday:

When you told me a couple of weeks ago that you worked you were lying to me weren't you? If you work it must be only on golf courses. Just as a forewarning, I do not want to be hearing about "investment opportunities" when I'm trying to figure out how to get a fifteen foot putt close enough that I actually look like I know what I'm doing.

[Stuart Hallett]

TEPAUL,

I agree with the general consensus on wide fairways, and your comment about "standardisation", which has become a serious problem in the golf industry as a whole.

As for justifying wide fairways from the past. Apart from the strategic interest, can it be that generous landing zones were related to the penalty incurred in the rough areas. The 2 or 3 cuts of rough we see today obviously didn't exist back then. Modern machinery and commercial pressures has had a huge influence on the quality of the rough lies that most golfers now take for granted.

[TEPaul]

Stuart:

It would seem that if the fairways of the old pre-WW2 courses really were of a wider standardized width (and you can pretty much see on old aerials they were) can any reasonable mind actually concluded that those wider standardized widths all made sense strategically or were all of that standardized width merely for strategic reasons? I'd think one could simply look at the green-ends of holes and tell if that were true or not, and I doubt it was just that.

No, I think it probably wasn't that or not just that. The truth is they probably created "standardized" widths back then for the reasons that we created narrow fairways after WW2---it was just a series of events that no one probably thought much about. The same was probably the case with those much wider standardized fairways back before WW2.

The most cogent minds I know on this particular subject believe fairways were of those wider standardized widths back then as a result of those massive gang mowers. Probably three passes each way and you were done. Something that simple probably created the standardization and then it just became something that was designed on most all holes as they do today at about 35 yards on most holes (the old doubled 17 yard irrigation cast of the singleline systems that came in after WW2), that is until some of these really good renaissance guys recently started to give us all kinds of differing fairways widths on a single golf course.

[wsmorrison]

Tom,

When were gang mowers first introduced?  Maybe they were around very early on (at least as early as photographic evidence provides) so we may not be able to determine if there really was a cause and effect from mowing practices.  If there was an effect, we would be able to identify a change in fairway width as a result of the gang mower introduction.

The watering systems are often pointed to as prime reasons for narrowing fairways.  But during the wars, with gas rationing, did fairways shrink to keep costs down?  I know greens purposefully shrunk for that reason.  Maybe the narrowed fairways stayed that way for no real reason after the war.

I think we should also consider that golf was intended to be enjoyable.  In the early days it was hard enough just to hit the ball and get it in the air for most.  Sure Mackenzie, Thomas, Ross, Flynn,Tillinghast and others were designing enjoyable difficulty and then Crump, Flynn, Wilson and others designed more demanding shot-testing courses.  But don't you think wide fairways were meant to keep the ball in play (they were expensive to lose) and to keep it enjoyable?  

After all, it was way before the USGA started squeezing everything to bowling alley lanes  

[TEPaul]

Wayne:

That's a good point. I think we certainly can see that very wide fairways were around before the massive tractor pulled gang mowers were used. Look at that photo we suspected was the 4th hole of Merion East, for instance. A very wide fairway that showed a single horse and a very narrow mower behind it. Maybe they figured back then that if you were going to mow grass just go ahead and mow a lot of it because they sure didn't mow fairways every day as we do now and it sure would've been a pain to lose a ton of golf balls back in that day when they weren't so easy to get. I just have a strong suspicion that whatever the reason for the standardized much wider fairways back in that day it wasn't done JUST for the strategic reasons some on here think it was.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()