A case for tight(er) Fairways?

[Tim Bert]

I'm selfish when it comes to topics like these.  I enjoy wider fairways because I don't hit the ball all that straight off the tee.  Sure - I enjoy a good punch out or an approach from a difficult position behind a tree or from the rough every now and then, but I also have a heck of a lot of fun when I'm going for the greens from the fairway.

I agree with many on here that "wide" can be a code word for "easy" though I've also seen examples of wide courses that can be plenty tough.  I like to think of "wide" as a code word for "fun."  Probably not for the best of golfers, but I care first and foremost about my own enjoyment when I'm on a course.  At some point that will probably shift to my kids, assuming they decide to take up the game, but they're too young right now.

This thread reminds me of the "Are we contributing to the problem" thread (dealing with technology and equipment.)  Only if we think there is a problem to begin with are we contributing.  I can play the widest course with the best technology and still bust my ass and not break 80 unless everything falls perfectly into line.  

It seems like we spend a lot of time crying the misery of how easy the game has become.  I personally don't agree.    

The finest players always rise to the top.  As long as they are swinging golf clubs and hitting golf balls into golf holes, it doesn't matter if the course is wide, narrow, treeless, forested, fast greens, bumpy greens, slow greens, flat greens.  At the professional level Tiger Woods is still going to have the advantage because he's the best by a wide margin.

Jordan, as to your coach's question... I don't know you, but I know what makes you play bad.  It's the same as the rest of us mortals, though it impacts us to varying degrees.  It is lack of focus and complete dedication to each individual shot (and for some of us layer on a little lack of talent, but the former still hinders us more.)

[Patrick_Mucci]

If narrow fairways were an architectural ideal, don't you think Bobby Jones and Dr. Mackenzie would've designed their collaboration with them?

No.

You're viewing 1932-1934 architecture in the context of the presentation it made to the players of that era, you can't view the narrow-wide fairway in terms of how golf was played 73 years ago, while ignoring how golf is being played today.[/color]

Why didnt the man, who sought out the best golfing ground, intent on building the best course in the country, utilize Jordan's ideal width and rough measuremets?

Because the play and the players in 1932-1934 were what they were, not what they are now.

You're stuck in a time warp and don't realize it.[/color]

I'll tell you why. 1) It assists the non-thinking golfer who hasn't figured out where to play, by showing them exactly where to hit it. 2)It stops balls from continuing on to their unpredictable conclusion making predictability the norm which has led to the expected.

That's sheer nonsense.

1  The PGA Tour Pros know where and how to play better
    than anyone else in the world.

2  With PGA Tour Pros there's not much happening in the way
    of unpredictability.  These guys are the most precise guys
    in the world.[/color]

The fact that aerial assualt has been perfected, on soft turf, facilitates the need for designers to overcome this perceived problem. If that means lobbying for different equiptment specs, so be it.

And how do you propose going about that ?

How would you accomplish it, just at the local club level ?[/color]

Patrick says Jones and Mac didn't envision specific realities of today. How does he know that?

It's simple.
The USGA didn't envision it a mere 20 years ago.
And, If they had envisioned it, ANGC wouldn't have had to buy additional land to lengthen their golf course.[/color]

Didn't Mac warn about excessive increases in lengths due to I&B?

Where and when did he sound the clarion alarm ?[/color]

[Kirk Gill]

As has been mentioned, tight fairways dictate play, but only in terms of shot dispersion right-to-left. Jordan, what's your take on holes that use crossing hazards or islands of fairway to limit your distance off the tee so as to force you into dealing with approaches of a desired length? This is a way of creating difficulty which also dictates play, but in terms of shot dispersion forward and back.

[Adam Clayman]

Principles don't get stuck in time warps.

I'll site the tenth at Shinny on 04' as an example of how removing long grass behind a firm green showed that these guys are human, and  how balls hitting a firm surface can go on to unpredictable locations. That hole also questioned the modern pros ability to think through a hole. Most players went for the distance, hitting to the bottom of the swale, when balls left further back could've controlled their spin and held the green.

As for the clarion call, I asked the question, but It's likely many archies sounded the bell and noone listened. Just like today.

What would I do on the local club level to accomodate today's pro game. Nothing. What would you do?

[Tom_Doak]

Jordan:

You are absolutely right that narrow fairways will help differentiate the better players from the rest.  The question is simply how often that is warranted.

I played in the member-guest this weekend at Sebonack, in about a 20-mph wind with fast greens.  The fairways are plenty wide for anybody.  But nobody broke par, anyway.  In fact the best NET score, best-ball of two players, was even par 72 on the second day.

Imagine if the fairways had been narrow!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Principles don't get stuck in time warps.

Of course they do.

You can't view golf, as played by today's PGA Tour Pros, in terms of the presentation of golf courses circa 1934.

You have to view architecture in the context of the of the game of the golfers who are playing the golf course.

Do you really believe that the best players from 1934, with the best equipment available to them in 1934 could handle today's designs and set-ups ?

There's no way, conversely, you can't view a golf course circa 1934 as being the ideal representation and presentation to provide a meaningful test to today's PGA Tour Pros.

You have to view architecture in the context of the golfers who are intended to play the course when it opens, not golfers and equipment who may come along in 80 years, or 80 years earlier.[/color]

I'll site the tenth at Shinny on 04' as an example of how removing long grass behind a firm green showed that these guys are human, and  how balls hitting a firm surface can go on to unpredictable locations.

Removing the grass may have made it easier in some instances.  Playing back down hill, out of the rough is a difficult shot, one that may prevent the recovery from holding the green.  Putting and chipping with 4-6 irons from behind the green was an milder challenge.

Citing one example amongst thousands, doesn't bolster your argument.[/color]

That hole also questioned the modern pros ability to think through a hole. Most players went for the distance, hitting to the bottom of the swale, when balls left further back could've controlled their spin and held the green.

I dispute that contention.

First, you have to remember that the conditions presented during the open don't come close to resembling the conditions that exist 24/7/365.

Second, Mother Nature has an enormous say in how the course will be presented to each golfer.

Third, laying back, on a windy site, may not be the most prudent choice.

The PGA Tour Pros think through a hole in the context of THEIR game, on how they're playing, and at the moment of truth, not in the context of some vague, abstract exercise.
There are two options.
Lay back to the plateau or hit to the bottom of the valley.

Me, I want to be at the base of the hill every time.
I'll take my chances from 120 yards versus 180 or more.

In terms of the law of large numbers I'll fare far better, although I may have an occassional problem.[/color]

As for the clarion call, I asked the question, but It's likely many archies sounded the bell and noone listened. Just like today.

ONLY Ron Prichard sounded the clarion alarm.

Noone else wrote to the USGA and published their correspondence.

There's lip service and their's being an activist.

Ron Prichard was a visionary and an activist.
He saw the problem and communicated it to the governing body of golf well in advance of others.[/color]

What would I do on the local club level to accomodate today's pro game. Nothing. What would you do?

You can't deny that the ball is going farther and straighter, thus, if a tournament comes to a local golf course, it should be amended to present a challenge commensurate with the abilities of the competitors, and that includes narrowing the fairways as Jordan suggested.

I've advocated horizontal elasticity for years.

The biggest problem with horizontal elasticity is that the golf courses DON'T return the fairways to their pre-competition widths, and that includes Merion ( sorry Wayno)[/color]

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom D:
Judging from that example, maybe what narrow fairways actually do is differentiate the BEST players from the rest. If that's true, it answers the question of how often they're warranted (despite what the golfing ego of the decent-to-good player tells you).

Peter  

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick:  Ron Prichard is hardly the only architect who complained about length and equipment to the USGA.

Pete Dye had me ghostwrite articles for him on the subject in the early 1980's.  Jack Nicklaus has been complaining about it publicly for years and years.  They are not the only ones ... although many do not complain because it provides work for themselves.

[Joe Hancock]

ONLY Ron Prichard sounded the clarion alarm.

Noone else wrote to the USGA and published their correspondence.


Ron Prichard was a visionary and an activist.
He saw the problem and communicated it to the governing body of golf well in advance of others.[/b][/color]

Pat,

Are these statements in conflict? How can he have done something in advance of others when it appears by your first statements that there were no others? Which way is it?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jordan:

You are absolutely right that narrow fairways will help differentiate the better players from the rest.  The question is simply how often that is warranted.

Tom, it depends upon the caliber of the field, the nature of the event and other factors, such as the wind and weather.[/color]

I played in the member-guest this weekend at Sebonack, in about a 20-mph wind with fast greens.  The fairways are plenty wide for anybody.  But nobody broke par, anyway.  In fact the best NET score, best-ball of two players, was even par 72 on the second day.

Imagine if the fairways had been narrow !


That would be a mistake.

The presence of the wind, especially high winds, dictates wide fairways.

A member-guest is a social event, not a competitive event commensurate with PGA Tournaments.

It would be a terrible mistake to alter Sebonack for play for any event, other than perhaps a PGA Tour event.

I've stated that Sebonack, from the back tees, is an overwhelming challenge for almost every level of player.

I can see the golf course holding its own against almost everyone, especially when the wind is UP.

But, you designed this golf course for the MODERN player.
It wasn't designed in 1934, 1948, 1958 or 1976.

From the back tees, it was intentended to be difficult for TODAY'S golfers, be they amateur or Pro.

So, you designed it in the context of presenting a challenge to those who would trod its fairways in 2006.

At 7,300+ yards, on undulating topography, with difficult greens, swept by high winds, Sebonack would overwhelm a great number of PGA Tour Pros from 1934 until the late 1900's

It's a difficult golf course, but, it was always intended to be such.[/color]

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Jordan,
As your Doctor in Golf Architecture, I prescribe to you one heavy dose of Wethered & Simpson. Take it before you go to bed, when you wake-up; at lunch and before dinner.

You'll stop this thinking in no time!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tommy Naccarato,

I think many have misconstrued the contex of Jordan's comments and erroneously extended and expanded them to include the entire golfing world

[Jordan Wall]

Jordan,
As your Doctor in Golf Architecture, I prescribe to you one heavy dose of Wethered & Simpson. Take it before you go to bed, when you wake-up; at lunch and before dinner.

You'll stop this thinking in no time!

Tommy,

I think Patrick has it spot on, I haven't lost my mind.
 

Hopefully we can get together again.
If your still up here, give me a buzz.

Cheers,
Jordan

[Tom_Doak]

Sean:

I agree with you completely up to a point, but don't forget that wider fairways cost more to maintain -- especially here in America where we want our fairways green and weed-free.  So your two criteria for choosing where to play are ultimately at odds.

[BCrosby]

Sean -

Your point about narrowing wide playing corridors with rough tending to be a prelude to tree planting programs (where corridors are narrowed permanently) is exactly right.

That is what is going on at ANGC as we speak.

Bob

[W.H. Cosgrove]

The Sebonack example may not be valid.  After seeing the radical putting surfaces that Mr. Doak and Mr Nicklaus installed, I don't think your lie in the fairway makes that much difference.  Its the putter.......

Assuming length is the greatest difference between the low handicap and high, the mower is the most available tool to provide difficulty ff of the tee.  Widen the fairway to 250 yards and then choke the landing areas off with rough.  If it isn't in the correct spot, change the pattern.  If the better player wants a better lie, take less club off of the tee.  

Jordan, I know you want to bomb it, but at an avancing age that simply isn't an option for many of us!