[Mark_Fine]

I don’t have much time to post but thought I would share this observation regarding width.  Last year Lehigh CC finally decided to finish off their fairway expansion program (part of the original Master Plan).  The course now looks phenomenal.  
But as is typical at a lot of clubs, some lower handicap golfers complain about wider fairways because they feel the golf course will be made too easy.  

This past weekend Lehigh had their member/member tournament (a two day best ball of partners event with five nine hole matches).  Basically everyone plays with their same partner year after year.  Last year -8 was low gross for the event.  This year in perfect conditions, +1 won the event by 3 shots.  

I mentioned to a few of the guys afterwards that maybe by widening the fairways, we have made the course too tough  

As most of us know, adding width for the sake of width is a waste of acreage and maintenance resources.  But on a well designed golf course, restoring width can rekindle strategy and exciting lines of play.  Many older courses were meant to play down the edges not down the middle.  Adding back width brings hazards (that were often relegated to the rough) back into play.  It creates options and driving lines that players didn’t have before and they can once again get themselves in more trouble by tempting those lines of play.  If they succeed, they can score better so some scores might be lower than before.  But if not, scores go up.  Strange how this works    

[Mark_Fine]

Bill,
The greens were absolutely pure this past weekend.  If you didn't make a putt is was you not the greens.  

I suspect handicaps this year may be lower overall because the course did not have one of it's prime defenses for most of the playing season and this is the greens.  When the greens are soft and rolling at 7 or 8 as they were, scoring should be lower.  Angles of play don't matter as much and the course can be had.  

But this weekend the course played like the Lehigh we are used to and the results were quite interesting.  Yes it is just one data point but it was fun to point it out to some of the disbelievers  

And finally as I said before, "some" scores might be lower than before and if you play the course everyday like you do, I would hope you have a very low ringer.  

[Lou_Duran]

Mark,

If "they can work" means better scoring and having more fun, I agree with you fully.   I just had my best round in two years on a course with wide fairways and large greens.  I think that I hit the last 11 GIR, and though there were three 3-putt greens in the bunch, I also had two birds and an eagle.

Perhaps Lehigh was able to firm up its greens and protect some of the pins with tiers and mounds.  Unless the green complexes are complicated, I don't see wide fairways as being more challenging for the lower handicap players.  In my case, as a 6 and change, wide fairways are comforting and an invitation to make a freer swing.  Having a low to middle iron from the fairway is a whole lot easier than a long iron form the rough.

Why do you think that Lehigh played more difficult?  Was it drier with more wind?  Could it have been the mix of players?
 

[Mark_Fine]

Lou,
"Temptation" might be one of the reasons.  Also sometimes when you have a freer swing you hit it more crooked.  It's not like we added fairway all over the place.  Also the ball runs out more and sometimes into more trouble than just the rough (like bunkers and trees).  

I thought it was also interesting that our #12 hole was the only hole on Sunday that did not yield a birdie.  A half dead willow tree was taken down earlier this year on the corner of the slight dogleg opening up a view of the green and (according to some) making the hole much too easy.  Funny how so many more balls ended up in the stream on the left where the willow tree was previously saying "don't play this way".  

Give a good player a well defined target and they'll probably hit it.  Make the line a little bit less defined and they'll start thinking and then you have them.  

[BCrosby]

The success or failure of increased fairway width should not be measured by whether or not someone goes low.

The rationale for wide fairways assumes - indeed invites - precisely that result. Good players on their game will go lower on wider fairways than on narrower fairways.

The rationale for wide fairways is that scoring spreads overall will be wider. There will be more low scores, but also more high scores. The notion being that wider landing areas will entice people to take chances that they might not ordinarily take. Some will pull it off. Some won't.

So the winning score in one event doesn't tell you very much about the success of widening the fairways Lehigh. (This year's member/member results sound like something else was going on.) But with a course as good as Lehigh, I have to think that wider fairways will prove out to be a very good thing indeed.


Bob  

[Mark_Fine]

Bob,
My point exactly about the wider range of scoring.  Again who knows for sure about the wider fairways and the member/member scoring, but it is fun to talk about.  All I know is that this is the first test the course has had with these fairways under something close to normal Lehigh conditions.  It does have people talking which in this case is a good thing.

[Lou_Duran]

Guys,

I agree with your observations.  Green complexes have to be more sophisticated and well thought-out if the course is to have wide fairways and still be challenging and interesting.

On the other hand, with length, tight fairways, be it through any combination of rough, trees, sand, mounding, and water hazards, can still be formidable tests with rather one-dimensional greens.  Some of RTJ's work is of this type (eg. Firestone-South), and, for me at least, it is not as enjoyable.

I wonder how much more expensive it is to build and maintain wide fairways and complicated greens and surrounds.  From a design standpoint, it must also be much more difficult.  

[mike_malone]

  Mark,
    Do you feel that Flynn courses in particular can benefit from this widening ?

[Mark_Fine]

Mayday,
This concept pertains to many golf courses (particularly older ones) and not just Flynn's designs.  As I said before, most of the older classic designs were meant to be played along the edges not down the middle (as are many of the modern designs).  Our article in July's Golf Tips Magazine is on width, check it out.  

Here is another example; at this year's U.S. Open, Pinehurst #2 was again a great test.  Its difficult greens challenged the best players in the world to consider every angle of approach.  But what about the cavernous sand bunkers that Ross had so meticulously placed at the elbows, on the rises, and in the dips of his masterpiece design?  In order to "toughen" the old girl up, the USGA characteristically narrowed the fairways of Pinehurst #2 to ribbon width.  During the telecast, blimp shots showed wonderful, strategic bunkers languishing ten to twenty yards outside the fairway line.  Imagine if the golfers had been able to seek advantages by playing toward these hazards in order to gain a more direct line or favorable angle.  These are the bold and creative decisions and executions that truly identify the best golfers in the world.  As Ross himself said, "bunkers should be placed in such locations as to make all classes of players think."  Unfortunately, the world's best were denied this aspect of his strategic challenge.  

You’d like our August topic – "Tree times – Architects and Arborists"  
Mark

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark,

At a course that I'm familiar with there seems to be a movement toward narrowed fairways from a cross section of the membership, and not from just low handicap players.

I believe the supporters of this idea are those who delight in making the golf course more difficult.   Some members take pride in their golf course's ability to protect par irrespective of how that is accomplished, or how it affects daily play.

I've had discussions with a good number of members where I tried to convince them that returning the golf course to it's original widths is in everybody's best interest.

The difficulty is two fold.

First, the irrigation system in place fits the configuration of the currently narrowed fairways.

Secondly, over the years trees have been planted where fairway once existed to further define or enhance the narrowed fairway effect.

Thus, reclamation is more complicated and more expensive.

Trees must go and the irrigation system must be reconfigured.

Both are expensive and high profile projects.

Many members want to leave the course as it is, allowing 20-30-40-50 years of gradual changes to remain, rather than eliminate them in one fell swoop.

Many options and opportunities for variety in play would be presented if the fairways were returned to their intended width.

In many cases, the olde architects lulled and lured golfers into complacency by widening fairways.  While the appearance of width might have looked appealing from the tee, sometimes the angle of attack presented by the width was far less than favorable.

The concept of the benefits of widened fairways must be understood by the membership, and then the committment of the membership, vis a vis the budget must follow.   Sometimes one or both are difficult to achieve.

This is an ideal area for architects to inform, educate and guide green committees.

I was playing a golf course recently and paced off the width of the first fairway.   It was very wide.   But, depending upon where the hole was located, there were both prefered and unpleasant locations for the drive.

I then began to think about wide fairways in the context of annual maintainance costs.

My thoughts were directed toward the potential savings with longer carries from the tee before the fairway began, multiple tees and the trade off in cost with wider fairways.

I thought I came to a reasonable solution with three sets of tees.   A forward tee (Women, Juniors & Seniors), A middle tee
(for the better women players and most of the membership) and a rear tee (for better players or those who hit a long ball)

The course I initially referenced HAD considerably wider fairways and I'd like to see them returned, but, with the resistance to tree removal, the expense associated with it, and the expense of rerouting the irrigation system, I don't see it happening.

Perhaps this is an ideal area for a long term project funded through additional funds to the green committee budget, where a hole or three can be reconfigured each year.

[Mark_Fine]

Pat,
As you point out education is key and it takes some effort.  Spending time on the golf course with key committee members is one way to do it.  Lots of photos and examples help as well.  It can be a tough sell but it can be done.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark Fine,

I think the best way to sell it is through successful examples.

As I've previously referenced, there are golf courses that serve as "centers of influence".  And, if committee members can visit those courses to see the configuration of widened fairways and the impact on the golf course and the golfers who play them, then often, this concept will be imported to their club.

The key is promoting courses that have done this successfully, and that is where the golf magazines can perform a real service, one that counters the narrowed fairways advocacy.

Unfortunately, courses that host the US Open, The PGA, The Masters and even the British Open have narrowed their fairways.

This is what the public sees and hears and seeks to emulate.

What you frequently run into is:
If it's good enough for a golf course hosting a major it should be good enough for our local golf course.

It's that mindset and that highly visible trend that must be overcome.

[TEPaul]

" Mark,
    Do you feel that Flynn courses in particular can benefit from this widening ?"

Mayday:

To answer that question best, let me ask you what you felt about the discussions the other day about widening a few fairways on the course you know best----Rolling Green's #5, #7, #8, #15 and perhaps just a bit over the left tee shot fairway bunker on #17?

On another Flynn course on the subject of widening fairways--eg HVGC, in a discussion the other day with Linc Roden on the history of the firm and fast turn-around on that course about 20 years ago, he said when they did that (firm and fast from super over-irrigated) they also widened the fairways back out substantially for an obvious reason----they figured the ball was really going to run on the firm and fast ground "through the green". And as we all know the land at HVGC can really move the ball around.

[mike_malone]

 TEPaul,


    I think that the modern irrigation systems and mowing equipment enable us to wonder what someone like Flynn would do today with fairway contouring. I think he might pay more attention to what some call "golfing ground". This may lead to a less formal look to the fairway lines. Don't you think the wide but consistent width was a function of the times? Was it the "look" of the classic fairway contours that mattered or the practicality and strategy ?

   For example, the rough landing area on #15 at Rolling Green has a slope  heading toward a creek some 15 yards away. It also has a small hump . We agreed that fairway would be better here.


   What I was trying to get to with Mark was my sense that Flynn so often seemed to place fairways on the sideslope to test those uneven lies. These kind of fairways can now be analyzed for widening at various points where the golfing ground may dictate it.I see this widening as enhancing the stategy for the approach shot and creating more difficult recovery shots for the errant .

[wsmorrison]

Flynn had a fairly consistent fairway width of about 50-60 yards.  I don't think modern mowing or irrigation systems allow us to wonder what Flynn would do today but rather enable us to return to what he did do.  There's no need to wonder what he would do as his fairways designs were not constrained by irrigation throws at all.  Were gang mower widths responsible for the wide fairways?  Maybe, but I doubt it...the rigs were probably set up as a result of the fairway widths rather than dictating the widths.  Whatever the cause and effect, there is greater strategy with offset greens, bunker complexes and wide fairways.  Where possible, they should be returned to the design intent.

What is the look of classic fairway contours that you refer to?  Flynn may have had generally consistent width but he did not have straight lines to his fairways, they had a randomness more in line with nature than manufactured.  I'd say Flynn was probably one of the early practitioners of contour mowing of fairways.

What you describe about Flynn's propensity to place fairways on sideslopes is partially right.  It is an artifact of his willingness to rout anywhere and go boldly where no man has gone before (I'm hearing Star Trek music in my mind). Flynn's fairways would go uphill, downhill and sidehill.  This resulted in shot testing, sometimes shot demands, to hold fairways and find the correct landing area for ideal approaches.

[Mark_Fine]

Mayday,
Flynn's fairway widths were similar to others of his time and I'm not sure he did more sideslope fairways as you called them, than any of the other guys.  If he did, it was because of the terrain he was given to build his golf courses on.  If you want to see some sideslope fairways, play a few Emil Loeffler designs out toward Pittsburgh and you'll see what I mean    

As I said before, fairway was made fairway for a reason.  Thomas or Tillinghast for example just didn't run straight shots of fairway down every hole and then placed their strategic hazards.  There was a purpose for their fairway locations and most worked back from the greensite and shaped their fairways accordingly to the contours of the land, hazards, trees, outcroppings,..., etc.    

Donald Ross didn't have the land at some courses to create wide corridors (like Wannamoisett which sits on only 100 acres or so) but he still managed to make width a part of his design.  If you play the course it is amazing how is routed.  You never feel like you are shoehorned onto the property.  He was always concerned about room to play and managed it even on courses like this one.    

[mike_malone]

 Mark,

   In Philly my experience of Ross , Tillinghast , and Thomas have more of a straight up and down the hill feel for the fairways. I wonder if part of Flynn's fairway decisions at RG, HVGC, PCC were affected by his potential involvement in the site selection .

[Mark_Fine]

Mayday,
Are you talking about what is there now as far as fairways or was once there?  The differences could be significant.  

Don't forget, those architects you mentioned designed courses all over, not just in Philly    Seeing a wider selection of their courses will help you have a better overall assessment of what they did.  
Mark

[mike_malone]

 Mark,
      I hope to travel as much as you some day. I promise to pay attention to fairway contours.

[Mark_Fine]

Mayday,
Fairway width is a pet peeve of mine.  Other than bunkers, it might be the single most changed design feature on golf courses and in many ways has the most impact on how a golf course plays!
Mark

[mike_malone]

 Mark,

   It wasn't until I played The National last year that I fully realized the impact of width. I agree with you.

[TEPaul]

" Don't you think the wide but consistent width was a function of the times? Was it the "look" of the classic fairway contours that mattered or the practicality and strategy ?"

Mayday:

At this point I doubt anyone really knows why those old fairways were all so wide. There could be a number of reasons or perhaps even a bit of all of them. The subject is one that seems to particularly fascinate Matt Shaeifer of Merion.

[James Bennett]

" Don't you think the wide but consistent width was a function of the times? Was it the "look" of the classic fairway contours that mattered or the practicality and strategy ?"

Mayday:

At this point I doubt anyone really knows why those old fairways were all so wide. There could be a number of reasons or perhaps even a bit of all of them. The subject is one that seems to particularly fascinate Matt Shaeifer of Merion.

TE Paul

I don't really know why the fairways were so wide, but I wonder whether much of it was about agronomics.  

People here have opined that automatic irrigation installation has narrowed and straightened fairways.  If I look at historic photos of my course pre-automatic sprinklers (pre 1985 for us), there was a lot more width and curve in the fairway shape.  If I look at the original architectural map (about 1962)of the course, there are some wonderful fairway SHAPES and widths depicted.  Unfortunately, most of these areas were either planted out in tree LINES, affected subsequently by new irrigation LINES, or not constructed as originally drawn.  In those days, we irrigated with travelling sprinklers, which could be as easily located out on the edges as down the middle of the fairway.  Something was getting irrigated all the time, so more width was irrigated than under the automatic sprinklers.

I also wonder about the maintenance practices of the 1920's.  One thing that sticks in my mind is MacKenzie's comment that at Alwoodley they cut the fairways three times a year.  Only three times a year.  Given the low cost approach to golf in those eras, it was probably also a lot cheaper to have the one mechanised (? horse-drwan) mower cutting larger areas of fairway at a moderate height a few times a year than to try to cut a mix of fairway and large acreages of rough (possibly by hand).  

Of course, it is also a lot easier to be bold  with your (wide and shaped) fairway mowing patterns when you are not irrigating, ie when the entire playing area through the green  is getting the same amount of rainfall via Mother Nature only, a la circa 1920's.

[Mark_Fine]

Like most aspects of golf architecture, The Old Course at St. Andrews played a large role in the reason for wide fairways.  

One of the most strategic holes in golf is the par-5 14th at The Old Course - "Long."  The hole supports multiple strategies and routes, rewarding good choices and serving up plenty of trouble to golfers who misjudge the wind, the lay of the land or their own capabilities.  Here, the concept of risk and reward is clear, starting at the tee shot.  In order to reach the flat plateau of the "Elysian Fields," which provides a great chance of getting home in two, golfers have to risk a severe penalty - out of bounds down the right side.  The safer left side brings into play an ancient series of bunkers known as "The Beardies”.  Choosing that "safe" route also means that golfers will have to negotiate the notorious Hell Bunker on their second shot.  

MacKenzie once observed a foursome playing the 14th at St. Andrews and noted to himself that each of the four had chosen a different strategy for playing the hole and, furthermore, that, "each was likely correct in selecting the route he chose."  Is there a better case for the value of width than that?  

[Mark_Fine]

Bill,
See "gathering bunkers thread" and why there are so few of them  
Mark

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()