Some constructive criticism (hopefully) to T Doak!

[Brad Swanson]

Tom,
   Are you refering to #2 at Riverdale?  I've always liked that hole, but have been puzzled why there is so much room to the left, especially considering that a straight shot from the far left side of the fairway from a slightly pulled lay-up tee shot is stymied by the large tree in the left rough.  

Brad Swanson

[TEPaul]

Tom Doak:

Now that's one damned interesting answer you gave me about short rough basically doubling in an area that might be a perfectly good option area and also that you seem to imply that you learned that from Pete Dye (in that example you mentioned)! Doing it that way at least in prinicple, the club would have to keep that rough area at that playable height though, wouldn't they or else they would just be wrecking a perfectly good option? And who's to say they would do that or even realize that they should keep that rough at that sort of necessary height (short)?

I'm going to really have to think about that for a while as it certainly is an interesting theory (or prinicple). To be honest after all this time I myself have always thought of fairway area as essentially the place to be and rough not the place to be, not necessarily because the rough is hard to play out of but simply because it is rough and I thought that meant something to an architect (in how they lay out holes and concepts).

I've assumed it because I've just always thought that fairway area is one of the best indicators to golfers, and yes from the designer of the course, of where they should go (and shouldn't go) in the entire architectural makeup of the holes and their concepts and options--all of which make up the hole's strategy!! If ever there was any message from the designer to any golfer of what the hole was all about, I thought this was the way the message was sent!

Not that I necessarilty believe that a designer should send any kind of message to a golfer though, because I don't think I do think that!

The way you present this though it seems like any player should find his own best route or strategy wherever that may be, fairway, rough, who knows what?!

I've definitely never thought of it that way, have you? In a very real way it does seem like a purer more natural, less shot or option directing (or roadmapping) way to design though!!

But then again, you always run the risk of having the club not be aware of that very interesting nuance and grow the rough high in that interesting option area and thereby ruin it (as an option area)!

That to me is far worse, and if that has a chance of happening I think the club, and most definitely the architect,  should consider just spending the money to maintain the validity of that option by keeping it in fairway instead of running the risk of losing an option by recommending short rough and having the club eventually forget about why it's that way!

Very interesting though!

[Tom Doak]

Tom:  In short, the answer to your question is yes, that is how I think of it.  Mr. Dye's answer to me at Riverdale Dunes was basically not far from what I'd seen overseas, where everything is "through the green" rather than fairway, and as MacKenzie cryptically wrote, "at the great schools of golf, there is no defined line between fairway and rough."

You are right that Stonewall has to keep some of those areas mowed short if they are to function as intended, and I'll try to be sure that they understand.

Brad S:  I was talking about the tenth hole at Riverdale Dunes, not the second.

[Brad Swanson]

Tom,
   I never thought that #10 at Riverdale Dunes had a large amount of width the first few times I played that hole.  Recently, I have just decided to pull driver and hit it over the fairway traps, and that landing area indeed has a fair bit of width to it as does the layup short of the traps.
   Pardon my assuming it was #2.  I thought your work on that course was confined to the #2,#4, and #5 holes on the course (I really enjoy those holes).

Brad Swanson  

[Mark_Fine]

I enjoyed the comments about "width" that is superfluous and have mentioned that many times in the past.  I'm glad to see Tom Doak agreed with this.  I've played many courses where the added width adds little if any strategy (it probably reduces strategy in some cases and just adds expense and higher maintenance costs).  

On the other hand, I do believe (know for a fact) that many of the classic courses have lost their width due to tree plantings and the perceived need to narrow fairways to toughen their golf courses.  The best of the older courses were meant to be played "along the edges" not down the middle like many modern layouts.  The lack of width dramatically reduces these strategic options!
Mark

[TEPaul]

Mark:

I really don't think any of us are suggesting using width superfluously--width for width sake, in other words. The point is width is something that can be extremely useful in creating interesting options and more of them that in turn create more interesting strategies but of course the remainder of the hole has to be such that the width does have meaning!

[Willie_Dow]

Tom/Tom

An interesting thread to read on a rainy New England day.  T/P is looking for options. T/D sees options if they will not cost a lot to maintain.  I like both your options.
Tight, firm bent grassed fairways allow squeezed shots.  Short rough allows one to gamble, it might be a flyer or it might be a fortunate option.
Aesthetically, I like the option of brown, short, scraggy stuff through the green.  Remember our past discussions of the dried out brown look?
Let's not offer a Lon Hinkle type of option, however.

Brian:  I'm anxious to see that new nine discussed during your visit with Jeremy.  I'm still working on those promised pics, but my conclusion is that I need to invest $250 in Adobe to send them to you.

Willie