[Rick Shefchik]

I realize maintenance has been mentioned here, but my experience at Talking Stick suggested to me that there are few places in the world where the inherent strategy of a narrow/wide fairway usually plays out the way it should.

Talking Stick North was clearly designed to make the ground game a viable option, especially if you chose the more dangerous line, rather than playing it safe off the tee and bringing greenside hazards more into play. But being a desert course, it needs a lot of water to remain green, and several times members of my foursome hit shots that landed short of the green and more or less stayed there because of residual morning watering.

I have to think that the linksland courses in England, Scotland and Ireland are the best examples of width playing an important role in how a hole plays. If you can't count on a bounce from the apron, a lot of the strategy goes out the window.

[Scott Szabo]

Now, now, its Christmas.  Be charitable.  Both myself and the Wings need some charity.

Your Wings need some charity? How about my beloved Avs?  This new NHL sure has put a hurting on our teams.  I long for the days when an Avs-Wings game was so special....

[Jeff_Brauer]

Scott,

Yes, if my offensively challenged Stars can come back from two goals down multiple times this year against the Avs, then they need more than the Wings.

Given his lack of lateral mobility, why exactly did the Avs trade for Jose Theordore and his big goalie contract.

PS- Thanks for taking Pierre Turgeon off the Stars hands.

[Scott Szabo]

Jeff,

I think Pierre was hoping for a return to greatness, which obviously isn't going to happen.  Aebischer was awful last year, and I mean awful, in stretches and it was obvious he couldn't get the job done.  Jose came with a huge price tag, which should be cut severely after this year as his contract is up and nobody is going to pay him anywhere near that.  That was the killer in our retaining Blake - without Jose, Blake would still be an Av.

I think our best bet is with Budaj, who has been fairly good in the net.  Hopefully, after we get through this year, we can dump Jose, Brisebois, and a couple others and replace them with quality players.  As for Turgeon, I don't recall what we're paying him, but he hasn't been too bad since his return.

Love the new NHL..........

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff Brauer,

Do you really feel that Wilson's fairways were narrow ?

I don't see evidence of that, even on his designs as they exist today.

I think the introduction of automated irrigation systems, and the squeezing of Green Budgets, not the architects led to the narrowing of fairways.

[Troy Alderson]

General comment,

It would appear to this gang of GCA wack-jobs that the width of the fairway is determined by many factors including seasonal wind, water availability, and maintenance budget.  A golf course in a thick wooded forest would require wider fairways than one is an open setting.  Then again the thick trees would block a lot of wind and lend to narrower fairways and the opposite for open terrain.

So now it appears to come down to the personal taste of the GCA and the golfer playing.  I like wide fairways with strategic hazards, golf is hard enough as it is.

Troy Alderson

[Mark Bourgeois]

Wouldn't fairway width, when coupled with green design requiring a very specific angle of approach, offer the bogey golfer a chance to get around a course, while offering challenge and interest for the scratch golfer?

Can anyone provide an example of a course with narrow fairways that accomplishes the three goals of: playable for everyone, fun for everyone, and challenging for the expert player?

Perhaps Jeff's analysis did not go far enough; for example, doesn't Pinehurst #2 meet the above challenges, yet nobody seeks to copy those wild greens...

Mark

[Mark_Fine]

For the few still following this thread, here is an article on width that Tom Ferrell and I published in Golf Tips.  

http://www.finegolfdesign.com/articles/golf_tips_7_05.pdf

Some of you who have not seen it might find it interesting.  It was well received when it ran and generated lots of inquiries about the concept.  That is part of what we were trying to do with a series of eight architecture articles.  

Mark

[Lloyd_Cole]

I think the single row irrigation systems first employed may have narrowed fairways.  They could throw 90 radius (or about 60 yard coverage) but only 50-66% of that was effective coverage.  To get the edges wet meant overwatering the middle grossly, so they cut fw down to  about 30-35 yards for maintenance reasons, so they could water the middle of the fairway correctly and leave the rought a bit drier, but still acceptable.  Later, they found that you needed multiple rows of sprinklers (two or three in the fw) to get adequate coverage.

So, maybe the changes were simply maintenance driven.  

This sounds most likely to me. Yet again, an 'advance' in technology hurts the game of golf. I tend to think that the ability to 'immaculately groom' a golf course, as G. Cornish would put it with no irony intended, has been at the the evil carrot dangling before committees and developers which has swayed their decisions in directions such as narrowing fairways.

I recently force fed myself Cornish and Graves's 'Golf Course Design', it was not easy,  and I was struck, on several occasions, by the authors' belief that said grooming was what the modern golfer demanded.

I quote -
'Waste bunkers have not always proved functional. For one thing they compromise the immaculate grooming of many contemporary courses.'
and
'With golfers demanding ever faster greens, these grades are seldom steep'
and
'Golfers expect the greensward to be perfect'
and
'The bump and run shot.. is fast disappearing. This profound change in the players game largely parallels developments in turfgrass science.., the increasing sophistication of automatic irrigation, and the perfection of the greensward arising from the superintendents' skill and dedication'

All assumptions in a book published in 1998, not 1975...

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Jeff,
 I have to tell you the only reason why I haven't particpated on this thread is I'm still recovering from reading your opening post because it hit me like someone scratching their nails across a blackboard.....

Narrow Fairways=Flawed Theory, at least if its that way most of an entire course, or even partially. I could see it once in a while but I take to it the same way I would if you had more then two holes in a round that featured complete blindness as a design feature. Deception yes, Complete Blindness more then two or three times max, completely out of the question. And even that maybe too much.

What is wrong with advocating wide fairways for varied methods of play? What is wrong for allowing golf courses managable for all forms of golfers that allow them to compete equally, or rewarding smart play for his or her's own method or style of play? Why are there no more Paul Runyon's of the world winning tournaments? Could it be because the method of play has become a solitary method of hit the bejeebees out of the ball--straight, Wedge it on and one putt?

Isn't this the complete point of strategy, to confound the golfer, hit him right in the face and make him get into his mind and make decisions?

It cracks me up seeing Matt Ward post yesterday, and this isn't slighting Matt, but more showing how he thinks one specific way:

While talking about Sebonack, he mentioned Tom Doak as being the man with the gifted "look" skills and I know what Matt is getting at because he has critiqued me from time to time about being too much into the "Look." (I think he would be surprised how much I'm into the playability, the slopes and nooks and crannies that influence play, sometimes most of them even natural or very well constructed that you can't tell they arne' natural. Matt is isolating, one-dimensionally looking on the "Look" of the raggy nature of the bunkers, the natural state of the site and that Tom has utilized those features to their fullest, while Nicklaus & Co. tend to focus more on clean and manicured playablilty issues for the stronger golfer. I think he is misidentifyng both parties strengths and weaknesses,)

I've seen Tom Doak walk around a golf site and seen how he figures how golf balls will play off certain features. He probably knows how to make things work better for  every aspect of golfer then Nicklaus has in his entire career, which not to slight Jack, sometimes the courses fit only one style of play--for one type of golfer. A VERY GOOD golfer. And that's about one the strongest critiques I can say about Jack.  

However the positive is that Jack is supposedly trying to obtain those same skills as the collaboration has taught him--the benefits of that collaboration, as Tom has equally credited certain things he too has learned, or at least what he has shared here from time to time.

I think Width is the key issue, because with width comes ground game and to me that's what makes golf complete, alive and interesting. It's the strategy, the path we choose to play a golf hole that adds to the excitement. It's the challenge put forth, which when confronted over and over and over again--one-dimensionally--the reason why golfers tend to lose interest or to the point they just don't care about anything but conditioning and perfect greens. It's all out of their control.

Jeff, have you ever read George Thomas's book, cover to cover? (and understood the meaning and what it could mean to you and your designs? Or is it I jut haven't gotten to see it yet in person?) (IOW:What holes have you designed with width as a viable strategic purpose?)

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tommy,

Please calm down. I would hate to be the one to give you a heart attack.......but sometimes I wonder - Ran calls this a discussion group, not a "defend your sacred opinion" group.  So, until he changes the name, I may, from time to time, post conversation starters about - gasp - golf course architecture theory.  I will leave it to others to post a "Tom Doak is the greatest and can do no wrong" thread, even if I think he pretty damn good.  However,  there is merit in speculating - rather than immediately dismissing without thought, as you are prone to do - on a few things.

To answer some questions, I have read Thomas' book cover to cover several times, and overall feel its the best of the Golden Age Books.  I employ many, many, of his design thoughts in my work.

If you read some of my other posts on this and other threads, I too advocate fw width variety.  Hey, requiring an accurate tee shot once in a while is a strategy, but I agree it would be boring every time out. But, I believe a wide fw every time out might be pretty boring, too.    

First, if we can open up angles of play with greens angled at 10 degrees and 40 yard wide fairways, isn't that just a strategic design as a hole with a green angled at 20 degrees and a 60 yard wide fairway?  Wouldn't that be just as fun while reducing fw mowing, costs, etc?

Second, how much effort do we expend for both angles of play that get used by, say 3% of the golfers (probably more like 0.0003%, but that is another story).  Unless a hole is exceptionally well designed, golfers figure out the best route over time, and the outer portions of fws tend to get underused.  Who can afford all that fw for no one but a stubby purist electrician from SoCal would use?

Third, how do wide fairways open up the ground game?  Most of the ground balls I see go pretty straight.  Actually, I know what you are saying (also in one of my subsequent posts was that I don't need a lecture on the theoretical advantages, because I understand them.  

Good thing I didn't get a parrot for Xmas, cause I got my share of them here!  The post wasn't really about your particular opinion and thoughts.  It was about whether millions of golfers actually using designs could be right over a dozen guys in the Golden Age who all came up with the theory, probably copying from each others books?  (And yes, I know the wide fw theory goes back to TOC, but there are many GBI courses without ultra wide fw inbetweend designs of TOC and the Golden Age.

In short, is it so bad the majority ruled?

I think we all agree fairways have narrowed over the years.  I just wondered if they reduced in width because the practical won out, or the theory never came into full flower as much as the old guys expected.  Or maybe golfers found the trade off of the wide fw making the course too easy wasn't worth the strategic advantage.

I would like to know what people consider wide fairways, just to be sure we aren't arguing needlessly.  Here's my take

Narrow - Less than 30 Yards
Medium Narrow - 35 Yards
Medium - 40 Yards
Medium Wide - 45 Yards
Wide - 50 Yards plus

I have seen some narrow courses in CA, mostly, I presume from land values (San Dimas comes to mind) and we know the NE and other areas have narrowed their corridors through tree planting to the 30 and less width on many courses.  So, if you and I both agree that 40 or so yards is wide enough for fw, then we may just be arguing semantics again.

Since its New Years, can we agree wide fairways are a waste on par 3 holes?

Happy New Years, and may the Stars beat the Sharks while the Ducks get grounded!

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Jeff,
I am calm. Very calm, especially after taking a few minutes from laughing so hard--AGAIN!

What design thoughts? (Of Thomas')

I'm sure you do like to mix it up a bit, and truthfully, I like this thread because it relates solely to architecture and theory and principles. So you can relax yourself, Golf Club Atlas is running smooth and sure.

You seem to want to write-off what the GREAT architects did, as nothing but them copying each others ideas and thoughts. Frankly I find that notion absurd. Really absurd. I think they did admire each others works--such as Thomas, and they did learn from each other, certainly Thomas did, but all of that knowledge came from one place--Great Britain. They were inspired there. Certainly Tillinghast was, so was MacDonald and Wilson and Ross and Watson and Colt and whomever else you want to include. I thnk they related to what they saw and what they felt proved to be the very best golf. Certainly inspirational holes with names like Redan, Perfection, Eden, Cader, Sahara and others were of lore that allowed them to expound the virtues in their own designs. The beauty of these holes usually starts out at one place--the Green and how it was defended in getting there. The very sense of strategy itself. Further inspiration was taken from large hazardous areas that were usually quirks of nature or in some cases, even man-made. Still, it all related to getting to the green and negotiating the contours that proved to be the best spot in the fairway to come in from for each golfer and their individual method of play. Not one single method of play, but several.

PIE: MacKenzie wrote in Spirit of St. Andrews how Joyce Wethered could play the 3rd much different then other players, opting to play the left side of the hump, utilizing the green contours to get the ball to the pin. He said she had acheived below par there more then any other great male player. She utilized the width, and the features of the course to a hole with very few angles if any, just things to negotiate.

You see, I think the ground game is dictated at the green with it's contours. IF width aids a certain player and it's within reason, certainly it is a strategy of playing a hole, No?

You say,

Third, how do wide fairways open up the ground game?  Most of the ground balls I see go pretty straight.   Actually, I know what you are saying (also in one of my subsequent posts was that I don't need a lecture on the theoretical advantages, because I understand them.

Joking aside, what are the best Jeff Brauer Ground Game holes which a stubby, purist electrician from SoCal to expound upon, study and dissect?

I'm not calling for wide fairways on every hole, I'm calling for variety and strategy. Certainly the greatness for all strategic golf holes does start with some width, or at the very least, some of the designs which us "dinosaurs" most admire.

What are some that don't rely on width?

I'll give you one:

The course the probably help best get me started thnking there was a big world of strategic golf course design out there with-in my grasp--my former home club, Mountain View CC which I intend to someday do a course profile on.

The 9th hole at Mountain View is a hallway of a fairway completely shut in by trees on both sides with the neighboring 1st hole on the right and houses and OB on the left. It's a par 5 that is reachable in two with a rather troublesome pond that would have my weekly group either talking to themselves or telling stories to this day about it's difficulties. The ironic thing was I was having some problems with me normal razor straight driving game and I would nip a tree and then be forced into laying up short of the pond. At the same time, I was having problems with my fairway wood game and I would push the ball way right, clearing the pond and put me further right into the trees--sometimes! But still I would produce some miracle fourth shot that would put me on or close to the green and then make a phenmominal putt to save par.

I guess I came-up with my own twisted way to make the fairway wider!

Mountain View's 9th

This was just one hole on a course that had TONS of width, so much to the point that we all utlized it similar to the shared fairways that MacKenzie and Thomas expounded on years before. I still think this course, looking past it's agronomic issues is a pivotal one for me and my learnings. After all Jeff, we are all students, aren't we?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Didn't Tom Doak comment that one of the best deceptions he could create for a golfer was a dogleg where the green and flagstick were visible ?

Don't wide fairways accomplish the same deception, but to a slightly lesser degree.

Don't they provide the lines of charm, deception and the ability to lull the golfer into a false sense of security ?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tommy,

Sorry to hear you have a cold.  But, we can always discuss gca, and I appreciate your comments on talking about theory. I often try, and most people seem more comfortalbe discussing individule holes, rather than general theory.

As to what design thoughts of Thomas I follow - A few examples include shaping greens to fit the natural tendency of shots.  He wrote of using long skinny greens on downwind holes, since the wind straightens the ball and aids distance, so you can concentrate on accuracy.  I also like the idea of the fairgreen behind greens on long par 4's, because a shot long is better than one that comes up short.

Its true that I noticed that the Golden Age books seemingly espouse almost exactly the same design principles, including zig zag fairways, etc. and all start with a bash of greens chairman!  Like you, I think variety is necessary, and while they did achieve that on their best courses, I think the idea of 14 long holes with some kind of carry bunker would have been just as repetitive as holes with trees on both sides.  There are so many possible tee shot challenge types, I hate to rely on one over and over. Yet, I think they did.

I am not dismissing their ideas, but suggesting that with time they (had they not died or had careers interupted) would have moved to other ideas, possibly after seeing how their Golden Age courses played out in a new age of tech after WWII, and getting feedback from golfers, seeing RTJ and the US Open remodels, etc.

Why do you find it so hard to believe that gca could, should, and would evolve to new concepts?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pat,

You are correct that wide fw can induce false confidence and make one more likely to play at the green.  And, I agree they should be used in that capacity where that can be accomplished.

Tommy,

To finish my post to you, I also agree that the ground game is dictated by green contours.  I think we are saying the same thing - width within reason is great for options, ease of play by more, etc.  And,  I endorse variety and strategy.

But, I believe that gcas (again) learned that a green angled at 20 degrees provides no more strategy than one at 10 degrees (in most cases) as it related to the frontal opening. Besides that, the game changed and virtually no one runs it in anymore, even though I leave frontal openings for lesser players on virtually all holes myself, to, as  you suggest, leave that option.

With irrigation, we don't place bunkers 40 yards short of the green for the roll on (although I just built such a hole and am building another - both with reverse slope greens that require the golfer to land short to hold it)  I build a lot of Redanish greens.  Read Ron Whitten's write up of the Quarry in MN - basically that course won best new because there are so many shots where you can use green and green surrounds to get the ball to the pin.  Its a fun course for that reason.  Granted, some are to the sides and back, and a lot closer to the green, but not too unlike the old days when you could "aim it here to get it there."  However, I'm not sure that (while the fws are generally pretty wide to make up for other difficulties) that any more fw width would make those design features any better or worse under the modern game.  

I agree with your example about Joyce W.  Statements like ".....but (in my best Borat style....) statements like ".....and others were of lore that allowed them to expound the virtues in their own designs...." and "The very sense of strategy itself" notta so much!  They sound smugly confident, but don't really illuminate any design concepts. I am a plain talker.

Lastly, I don't agree that all their inspirations came from GBI.  While there were certain principles established over 500 years of golf before the golden age, I believe they were trying hard to establish a new American design paradigm, practical in designing courses that worked in our wide variety of climates, vs. the relatively similar climates throughout GBI.  And I think their thought process went to the ideal designs, vs. some of the randomness found in earlier links, primarily because they had to think about such things as how wide a fw should be and where are bunkers most effective, rather than put them where the sheep lay.

I think the American playing corridor probably did relate to how far a hose and sprinkler could be stretched from the original centerline irrigation system, perhaps nothing more. (Interestingly, current railroad guage can be traced back to Roman Carts and their width)

Short version is that we seem to agree on a lot of design theory, but you seem offended that anyone could dare think we could build on anyones theory of design, even though in every other field of human endeavor, each subsequent generation has built on the ideas of those who came before.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Some good detailed responses there Jeff.

I do think that GCA has evolved creatively, but it's been because of Golden Age values. As you know, I'm not a fan of repetition and I can name a lot of courses done by some of the usual suspects where it reigns supreme. It's safe, no frills non-creative architecture and frankly, to think of it being something to trumpet the praises over, I just can't do that.

I need creativity.

From memory, doesn't Giant's Ridge have a rather large drop off area in the middle of one of it's fairways? If so, I would assume that it required a more difficult, more blind approach from the right hand side from a rather large fairway, correct? If so, I would think that would be some sound strategic golf architecture. BUt, I also think what matters most is the putting surface and how it defends itself. At the very least it should at least define the shots from the fairway.

Lets take Riviera for example:

#1--The horseshoe shaped green is protected by a rather large creek-like bunker. Going backward, the next hazard in line would be a bunker left which would require the player going for the green in two, somewhat of a challenging shot. Going further back there is the barranca and then back from that a fairway suitable for landing a jumbo jet.

There are just so many ways to play the 1st at Riv. I'm hilighting how the strategies, the path in is most visable when going backwards on the  hole, allowing you to plan your strategy, shot for shot.

To me that is width and strategy. When most walk off that green with a par, they feel ripped off!

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tommy,

The 13th at the Quarry has a two level fw, which was more or less the way the land was after mining. The green sets on another remnant shelf, is very wide and has lots of contour, so being higher gives vision so you can plan your shot. Some areas of the green have a back board, others fall away, so you an use that to plan the shot.  The green sits on a mining ledge, so the frontal run up is moot.  Actually, we left a 10 ft wide access, mostly because the contractor had to build that ramp to get sand in the green.  Even that little opening affects strategy - tempting long hitters to run it up that gap on the drive.

I don't disagree that the first at Riv is a nice hole, but since the trees have grown in, doesn't your desription confirm  that you think it works okay even though it has been narrowed over the years?  And wouldn't that kind of support my proposition that the extra width really wasn't necessary?

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Jeff,
 The fairways according to Google Earth are currently maintained around 35 yards wide (on #1) However the fairways I think, at least from photos before rough became the norm were probably more then 60 yards wide if not more. The further left the more you bring that left bunker into play, and it partially blinds the left.

As far as the trees on the right, I've seen Andy Bean hit one and literally almost drop right on the top of my head. We're talking some years ago, like 1983 when that happened. (gasp!)

Of the times I've played there and seen many a good player there, I've never seen anyone come close to hitting the trees unless it was a pretty wild shot. I'm not saying it isn't possible, but the trees don't affect play as much as you think. they certainly don't interceed as much as you make it seem. (I say that now, and next time there, I can see me pushing a shot into them!)

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tommy,

Hope the cold is better today.

Using No. 1 at Riv as an example, and assuming the trees haven't grown in signifigantly let me ask a question.

From your descriptions, there was 60 yards of 1" high fw in the golden age, and now there is 35 yards of 1/2" fw with about 12 yards of 1 1/2" rough on either side, on a typical day of country club play.

Just out of curiosity, if the hole was maintained at 60 yards of 1/2" fw today, do you think that having only the trees and bunkers one shot ahead to deal with in planning the tee shot is more clearly more interesting and tempting than if there was rough and fw to complicate and shade just how far left you played off the tee?  I can frankly see an argument for both cases.

While not really on topic, I could see varying roughs, deeper on the preferred line side, easier on the other side, as a great way to enhance the strategy of a lot of holes with decent fw width.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()