TEPaul,
Going from 54 acres to 27 acres for the Open and then back to 34 acres for membership play still leaves a vast gap between what Flynn intended and what's in play today.
Part of me accepts a degree of narrowing because I truely believe that the advent of high tech with I&B have narrowed shot patterns over the last two decades.
One of the beauties of Shinnecock's fairways is the way they meander over the terrain, ribbonlike in their appearance as the twist and turn over the undulating topography.
High rough and good breezes are elements/factors that demand wider fairways.
I think there's a unique dynamic in golf that doesn't exist in most other sports.
You, as an individual, can't go on a football field and duplicate a particular play or fete. The same is true in basketball, hockey, soccer and baseball.
But, you can in golf.
You can place a ball on the spot where Corey Pavin hit his 4-wood.
You can place a ball where Watson chipped in on # 17 at PBGC.
For some reason, there's a desire to play a golf course as, or from where, it played in the Open, even though that play may be well beyond the ability of the individual golfer.
Everyone wants to play the "Open" course and I believe that that syndrome, golf's equivalent of the "jock sniffer" syndrome, is responsible for courses retaining a good deal of the U.S. Open set-up or configuration.
For whatever the reason, and it would take years of group analysis to determine the reason, members don't want golfers shooting low numbers on their golf course. There's a defensive mentality when it comes to protecting par.
They can't have a course that just hosted a U.S. Open subject to subpar rounds by rank amateurs, thus, narrowed fairways tend to remain long after the tournament has departed.
On February 28, 2004, you, I and others were where the rubber met the road when we were told that the fairways at a course that hosts the Open were being permanently narrowed and that the bunkers would probably be moved in to match the new fairway widths.
We also witnessed this at Oakmont.
As I stated, while I'm generally opposed to it, I can tolerate a limited degree of narrowing to "equalize" the design intent in view of tighter shot patterns in modern golf as a result of high tech.
However, you and I have discussed and endorsed the value of horizontal elasticity when it comes to width.
While the more acreage you put under management comes at a cost, the incremental cost isn't that great, and at the clubs we're discussing, it's certainly affordable. In fact, the cost for transitioning to and from narrow fairways should be a consideration when clubs negotiate their fee with the USGA.