[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Let's be honest...width is great.

It gives us all the chance to make a mistake and not lose a ball or have to dig it out of the fescue etc...which is certainly fine, but...

Unless there is a reason to use the edges of the corridor, however, I hate to say it but, Shivas will have been right all along. He has stated numerous times that the chorus for more width on here is really just screaming for easier golf.

That's not true.

Width has to be contexted in terms of the architect's  presentation of the width, the presentation of the width in connection with hazards and the orientation of the green.

A hole/fairway may be wide, but effectively play far narrower.

The 1st fairway at NGLA is wide, as is the 1st Fairway at GCGC, but, drives hit right at NGLA and left at GCGC are faced with far more difficult shots than drives hit to the opposite side of the fairway.

Wide fairways ease the pressure on the tee shot for most, but, upon closer examination, a drive in the fairway on a wide hole doesn't necessarily equat to making the hole easier.  Wide fairways also allow the architect to deceive the unwary or unobserving.

# 16 at GCGC is a good example of that.
With a wide fairway, a drive hit in the left edge of the fairway would appear to be safe, and, it would appear to be the shortest line to the green, however, the approach from that location is partially blind, has to carry deep bunkers, flirt with an adjacent pond and come into the green at an awkward angle.  Whereas a drive hit to the center or right side has the ideal angle into the green, doesn't have to carry anything in front of the green, can use the fairway short of the green and is visually all encompassing.

So, width can be used to deceive or lull the golfer into a false sense of security, both valuable architectural ploys.[/color]

The Travis thread inspired this thought. Interesting fairway hazards are key points along the way. They really do make for an interesting journey but...for me, it all comes down to the green complex.

That's being narrow fairwayed/minded.
It's the global presentation, incorporating width with hazards, lines of play from the tee, angles into the green, the orientation of the green and the presentation of the green and its surrounds.[/color]

How many greens really deserve a 75 yard wide fairway?


That would depend on the global presentation.

Does # 7 at ANGC deserve a 75 yard wide fairway ?
# 15 at ANGC ?

The greens that "really deserve" a 75 yard fairway are the ones the architect intended to have a 75 yard fairway.  Many of which have been lost due to narrowing vis a vis irrigation, cost or tree introduction.[/color]

[JESII]

Doug S,

I disagree with your statement..."I'm just not sure that preferred angles of approach is enough of a reward"...

I think when maintained firm enough, the preferred angle of approach becomes increasingly important. Think of it in terms of a three ball run on the pool table...The guy that controls the cue ball best will have the best chance to complete the run. Same as golf...approaching a hole from the wrong side of the fairway does not eliminate the chance of a par, but it does make it less likely. That's how I want greens presented...so that I am rewarded through percentages.

[JESII]

Pat,

If I only address one point at a time do you think you could leave the green ink in the pen?


The first sentence of your last paragraph..." The greens that "really deserve" a 75 yard fairway are the ones the architect intended to have a 75 yard fairway"...could be construed as saying that every green is designed with its ideal fairway width and there is no reason to discuss it. Did I read you properly?

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

JES II,

I wouldn't say "Ideal" I would say, "Intended"

If an architect designed and built a hole with a 75 yard fairway, my instincts tell me that he had good reason to do so, and that there's a correlation between that width, the architectural features, configuration of the hole and the green and surrounds.

That doesn't mean that the hole can't be discussed, but, absent a direct conversation with the architect, the discussion is seriously handicapped if not fatally flawed.

The ODG's were pretty smart cookies and ever cognizant of efficiencies and costs and their relationship to one another.

If a fairway was designed and built to 75 yards, my instinct is to give the architect credit for and credibility in his thinking and efforts.

Over the last 60 years irrigation lines, tree plantings and cost accounted for the great majority of narrowed fairways.  Restoring them should be a strong consideration for any club.

I don't think anyone is advocating restoring a 26 yard fairway to 75 yards when the original fairway was 50 yards.

And, I think that's where/why you're getting confused.

That, and talking to TEPaul

[W.H. Cosgrove]

Chambers Bay is a golf course with some extremely wide fairways.  Built in part due to high wind conditions in the Tacoma Narrows it also seems to have provided Jones/ Charlton/Blasi the opportunity to create some very difficult second shots requiring imagination not demanded on a lot of other US courses. 

The trick will be to keep the golf course VERY firm as when it is soft, like last summer when it opened, the shots simply didn't work.  Now with some age and firmness the ball careens around the place like a pin ball machine, creating some demanding if not frustrating results.  Chambers makes the width work.

[JESII]

What are some examples of greens that were designed to be approached from a very wide radius?

[Phil Benedict]

JES II,

I think the place for super wide fairways is when there are a bunch of bunkers placed strategically within that fairway, which I realize violates your principle of a small number of highly penal bunkers.  The bunkers dotting the fairway create options with regard to the line and distance you choose off the tee, which doesn't necessarily have to be along the edges. 

There is a hole I play in Palm Desert with a fairway which must be about 100-yards wide, with maybe 10 bunkers placed sort of randomly within the interior.  It's almost like it's three fairways crunched together.  It's fascinating to play.

[Peter Pallotta]

What are some examples of greens that were designed to be approached from a very wide radius?

JES -

on another thread Sean Arble suggested that if you answer The Old Course to just about any question asked here, you won't be wrong too often.

Sorry, that's not very helpful, but I threw it out there in case you might be able to do something with it. 

Also, you said earlier "I think when maintained firm enough, the preferred angle of approach becomes increasingly important....That's how I want greens presented, so that I am rewarded through percentages".  And it struck me that the question then becomes how 'big' we think the percentages need to be for the green to deserve that wide fairway.

I'm not explaining this well, but as an example -- would a diagonal ridge running across an entire green be too small a percentage? Well, it probably would be to small to make a difference for a player like me, but would it be to small for a player of your calibre?

Peter 

[Garland Bayley]

...
The trick will be to keep the golf course VERY firm as when it is soft, like last summer when it opened, the shots simply didn't work.  Now with some age and firmness the ball careens around the place like a pin ball machine, creating some demanding if not frustrating results.  Chambers makes the width work.

Do I detect the budding of a Chambers Bay skeptic into a Chambers Bay enthusiast?
 

[archie_struthers]

 

In a game that is losing interest for many...not us of course...can too easy be wrong!

Most golfers in this results (gratification) driven world don't appreciate the pain like some of us do... they want to do good...shoot low scores...hit it far  .in fact I'm guessing the next generation accepts adversity even less
readily....hurting golf...or at least limiting participation


although taxes and the economy might toughen everyone up real quick

[Sean_A]

What are some examples of greens that were designed to be approached from a very wide radius?

Sully

I am thinking that wide fairways leading to greens provide more and less advantagous approaches.  Sure, you could say the same thing if hitting out of the rough  - its less advantagous.  But often times, in their efforts to toughen courses up, folks rough over the most advanatagous areas or make it not worth the risk to get into the best position.  It gets back to the indirect tax of a poor angle (but still having options of which some may not be to go for the green) versus the direct tax of rough, water etc. which may not allow a golfer to even think of going for the green.

Ciao

[JESII]

Peter,

I do not know St. Andrews, but from all reports it certainly seems like all 18 holes could answer the question...

The diagonal ridge should encourage approach play from the side of the fairway the ridge runs towards when the pin is below it and from the opposite side when the pin is up top when it's firm...and reverse that when the ground is soft...

[Peter Pallotta]

JES -

yes, those are the same reports I've heard... But then maybe most would say that in the case of TOC it's because of the wind and the changing wind conditions there -- and I didn't want to restrict the question of vailidating very wide fairways to that criteria/environment alone.  Maybe I'm wrong in that....

Peter

[JESII]

Peter,

I think firm greens can dictate the need for wide fairways as well...not quite as well as wind, but it's the best we got...

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

What are some examples of greens that were designed to be approached from a very wide radius?


TOC, NGLA, Seminole, PV, GCGC to name a few.

Another factor that can't be ignored is the WIND.

Sites swept by pronounced winds need wide fairways, almost irrespective of what's at the green end.

And, the more severe/demanding the green end, the greater the need for added width.[/color]

[Doug Siebert]

Doug S,

I disagree with your statement..."I'm just not sure that preferred angles of approach is enough of a reward"...

I think when maintained firm enough, the preferred angle of approach becomes increasingly important. Think of it in terms of a three ball run on the pool table...The guy that controls the cue ball best will have the best chance to complete the run. Same as golf...approaching a hole from the wrong side of the fairway does not eliminate the chance of a par, but it does make it less likely. That's how I want greens presented...so that I am rewarded through percentages.

I don't disagree, but it comes down to a question that the player has to ask himself.  Which is going to hurt me more, a somewhat worse approach angle or the risk of missing this fairway if I don't execute the shot?  If there's not much penalty for missing, who cares -- playing from the rough on an F&F course is sometimes a help from wedge distance!

The advantage better be huge if you want to encourage players to hug the side of that 75 yard wide fairway that's bordered by OB ala Hogan's Alley.  Even today's pros with modern equipment don't find that reward suitable.  On a less extreme example where you think it is worth it for you, the equation is different for someone like me who is pretty wild with the driver but can hit those super high iron shots that soften those angles somewhat even on F&F courses.  Take a 75 yard wide fairway with wispy rough on either side that's no real penalty and everyone plays the angle (well, at least those who understand strategy at all)

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()