[Sean_A]

Looking at this aerial below of CC of Scranton it strikes me that the fairway shapes and configurations are awesome.  I spose part of the reason for this due to the effort of trying to enclose the bunkers with short grass rather than the reverse.   


Does anybody think Merion might look more like this is the fairways were taken out to the bunkers?

Compared with most aerials which merely show strips of grass slightly angling through trees this sort of design is enthralling.  Ian or anybody in the know, do these fairways still exist?  Does anybody have ground level pix of the course?  The more I become acquainted with the work of Travis the impressed I am.  I think its time one or more of you right hand coasters started creating threads on Travis.  I need to know stuff! 

Ciao

[Kyle Harris]

Sean,

The answer to your question really lies in two simple areas:

Irrigation and lightweight mowers.

[Joe Hancock]

Kyle,

I agree with your reasons why things narrowed. But, in light of that, what do the mega-budget clubs use to rationalize their current narrow state? Is course difficulty via rough the hindrance for clubs to return to what was?

Certainly a few thousand dollars in maintenance savings and limitations of irrigation systems can't be what some clubs are missing.....can it?

Joe

[Jeff_Brauer]

Sean,

Just a few thoughts as I await tonight's pummeling from the might Red Wings......

A few years ago, I saw a figure that fw cost $4650 per acre to maintain per year.  Obviously that can vary, but a course as shown above probably has 60 acres of fw, vs around 30 for a "narrow course.  If, shamelessly rounding, the per acre cost of a fw is now $5000 per, then its not just a few thousand dollars, its maybe $150K.

But a few things strike me - 

First, while we continually worry about the distance of tee shots I wonder if they have gotten any more accurate?  Were drivers nearly 100 years ago as accurate as civil war muskets, and thus requiring more fw width?  Certainly, there is nothing profoundly different regarding the nicely staggered bunkers, but the scale of that place definitely is huge.

Second, as to the bunkering, I do note that many are mounded up both front and back. Much of that sand would be invisible from the tee, although the golfer would have no trouble knowing where it was.....

A few specifics stand out - it seems the green openings are very narrow in the holes shown.  Was there really any advantage going one way or another on the holes shown?

On the 9th, the carry bunkers for the preferred line/shortcut are absurdly short.  The bunker on the right would probably be deemed unnecessary in later years.  Too small to be a save bunker, strategically guards the long cut, but if the left bunkers are in play, this looks too far out to be in play for a weak slice, etc.

If Fazio did the 10th, Mike Cirba would call it the "anti strategy" hole - the shortest route is completely unguarded, although, it is a starting hole and that may be intentional.

The 14th looks interesting, and would raise the discussion of trees in the fw.  Presuming its a par 5, the placement of trees and bunkers appears to require a pretty big risk to save at least 30-40 yards on the approach.  Perhaps that is why they left the fw under the trees - to allow a punch out?  Today, that would probably be rough, to the detriment of the strategy.  But, few players would like that hole!

[TEPaul]

Sean Arble:

I think the various reasons most all American fairways got narrowed over time has been pretty liberally covered on here over the years. I guess unfortunately those discussions just aren't in one place though. And I guess the reasons aren't all that exact but there does seem to have been a pretty common set of reasons that were not exactly preconceived.

In my opinion, the larger or better question is why they were generally so wide back then. It does seem there was something of a standardized fairway width back then that was in the neighborhood of 50-60 yards. And that standardization was occasionally written about; I'm not too sure how authoritative that writing was but nevertheless it still exists (the writing that is).

[Jeff_Brauer]

TePaul,

I know the old Quick Coupler Centerline Valves threw a 90' radius, having set a few in my youth.  That would give some irrigation coverage at 180 ft wide, or 60 yards, although the edges wouldn't get much. I suspect that they mowed out to about 50-55 yards where the water gave at least some coverage.  Later of course, it was found that the single row really did give uneven coverage and they went to double row for about the same area, then triple, then quad, but the fw kept at the original "good watering" zone of about 30 yards wide between the middle two sprinklers.

So, you think there was no B and I reason for the wider fw?  Is it just possible that they found that no one was using the far edges of the fw as the GA guys thought they would.  Did golfers find out that even with 60 yards of fw, the best plan was to aim for the middle to make sure you hit it? 

And, to my first question, is it possible that metal shafts, etc. allowed golfers to be more accurate (like modern rifles vs. muskets) and the whole concept of narrow fw began in part to keep the challenge of the game about the same, just like courses lengthen to keep "the challenge the same?"

Just asking if there was any way on God's green earth previous generations of gca's and clubs could have gotten something right without the help of current gca.com members!

[Mike_Young]

Just asking if there was any way on God's green earth previous generations of gca's and clubs could have gotten something right without the help of current gca.com members!

Jeff,
Good point.....no way gca's and clubs could have gotten anything right before....and it ddn't stop at the course...just look at the golf clothing....before none of us realized we need a 6 inch diameter belt buckle that cost $2000 on a white belt ...and a shirt with 3 inch sleeves and zipper neck....now I will admit that the big white belts were in for a while a few years back but they left with the pocket protectors until ...........
OH and you can up that pressure to about 180psi at the pump and really get ths quick couplers to throw it out there...just don't stand over it when you hook it up

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

Well, I have been known as a thread killer, but you mention some "threads" that really needed to be killed.....

[TEPaul]

"Just asking if there was any way on God's green earth previous generations of gca's and clubs could have gotten something right without the help of current gca.com members!"


Mr. Jeffrey Brauer, Sir:

I'm quite sure there is every reason to believe previous generations of gcas and clubs felt they got a lot right back then in their day, despite the fact there seem to be a pretty good number on here who think they had no idea what they were doing. I also think if those guys back then could see and hear what some on here say about them (particularly the ones who got involved in changing original architecture) they would be both very amused and furthermore probably wouldn't give one good goddamn what some on this website think or say about them.

To look at history in the context of our own day and our own present sensibilities I call "Looking through the prism backwards." I don't think it works very well and leads to some real historic inaccuracies and misunderstandings! 

[Mike_Cirba]

Sean/All,

I think you'll also like Travis's fairway configs on the older aerials of Lakewood found at the following link;

http://www.historicaerials.com/default.aspx?poi=3934

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mr. Paul, Good Sir,

I have called some opinions expressed on golf club atlas.com as "narrow prisms" but "backward prisms" fits the bill even better. Job well done!

Mr. Cirba, my good man,

The link to the aerial doesn't capture the "zig-zag" feeling of the original post photograph.  One thing I do see is that over time the gentle reverse curves oft written of by Golden Age architects dissappeared, most like via the tendency of mechanical mowers/tractors to want to drive straight.  I have always felt that if there was "flask" architecture, there should be "flask mowing" whereby the superintendent tells an inebriated minimum wage worker to drive straight, and then stand back and watch the great weaves get cut in the fairway.

Sadly, sobriety appears to be no good whatsoever for golf course architecture.

Let's drink to that, shall we?

[Mike_Cirba]

My Dear Mr. Brauer,

That somewhat sad historical omission is llkely due to the fact that pencils are somewhat less dangerous than gang mowers! 

[JESII]

Jeff,

I think Scranton is one of those places that would get more difficult with wider fairways because the ball would roll and roll into the wrong spots...I guess there is always a balancing act with the height and severity of the rough though. Based on your sprinkler math the rough was unlikely to be very full.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sean Arble,

I think this is a great topic.

While some may be able to offer reasonable explanations for the demise of great or unusual fairway configurations, with modern technology, it shouldn't be a challenge to recreate them.

Is it purely a cost factor, being out of vogue or some other reason that prevents modern day architects from designing them ?

P.S.  I've got to get to the CC of Scranton.

[Mike Bowline]

Jeff:

Your hypothesis of older equipment giving wider shot dispersions than today's equipment and therefore fairways might tend to be wider then than now is an interesting thought. However, I do not believe GA designs had wider fairways as a rule. Maybe occasionally [Scranton] but not often. Correct me if I am wrong - anybody. There may be isolated examples, but as a rule of the majority, maybe not.

You calculation of $5000/ac for FW maintenance per year is indeed eye-opening as to the costs today. That could very well be the answer.

[Peter Pallotta]

Sean -

I think there's alway a reason that underlies the reasons for things, i.e. something subtle and deep that underpins the practical and mundane.

Yes, irrigation and lightweight mowers and irrigation lines etc.  But underlying that? I think it's the increasing force and power and influence of conformity.

For some reason, I'm reminded of the famous exchange from Sunset Boulevard:

Joe Gillis: You're Norma Desmond. You used to be in silent pictures. You used to be big.
Norma Desmond: I AM big. It's the pictures that got small"

Peter

[Tom_Doak]

Mike:

As Tom Paul noted earlier, if you look at old pictures of U.S. courses, most of the fairways were much wider ... 50-60 yards was the norm.  C.B. Macdonald even cited the figure of sixty yards in his book.

Interestingly, I can't tell you whether the old links courses had really wide fairways back in Macdonald's day ... I haven't seen any photos that old, nor any references to the width of the fairways.  I have never had the impression they were that wide, but on reflection, it would be unusual for Macdonald [a staunch traditionalist if there ever was one] to have decided to make his fairways much wider than what he'd seen in Britain.

[Jeff_Brauer]

The thing that I always hate to see lost is the "zig zag" fw. All the GA guys wrote about it, using different names, and they set up angles of play.  I try to do that, and its actually a little easier when there are 3-4 rows of sprinklers.  But, you have to watch it to keep it.

I recall once course where I had laid out the sprinklers, using a few extra, on plan, to create a zig zag.  When I got out in the field, the irrigation contractor proudly informed me that he had straighened out the sprinkler lines for me!  I managed to get it back the way I wanted.  But even then, the mower guys also tend to straighten stuff out.

Perhaps the ever growing use of smaller lightweight fw mowers is the thing that will get contoured fw back in play - permanently.  In this case, I think the robot/computer controlled mowers might even be a good thing.

[TEPaul]

"Jeff:
Your hypothesis of older equipment giving wider shot dispersions than today's equipment and therefore fairways might tend to be wider then than now is an interesting thought. However, I do not believe GA designs had wider fairways as a rule. Maybe occasionally [Scranton] but not often. Correct me if I am wrong - anybody. There may be isolated examples, but as a rule of the majority, maybe not."


Mike Bowline:

I'd tend to disagree with that. To semi-prove it all one has to do is look at most of the old drawings. Many to most of them are scaled, particularly the hole drawings with the boxes at ten yards, so one just needs to count them up or measure the fairway widths on the whole course drawings that have a scale to tell that kind of width (55-60+) seemed to be pretty standard back in the old days.

Personally, I've never felt that additional width of fairway back then was necessarily just for strategic reasons; I think it was just a standardization in architecture back then for probably some other reasons.

All in all, I think fairway width should be tailored to the unique strategic ramifications of individual holes and should be whatever seems to highlight that----eg some should be wide or very wide and others not wide. I've never been a fan of any kind of standardization in golf course architecture.

[Jeff_Brauer]

What is the total width of TOC double fw?  I also wonder if that inadvertantly set the average width of fw for centuries.

[TEPaul]

JeffB:

The real irony of the fairways of TOC, is that many years ago (probably before 1850) the fairways of TOC were pretty narrow which is amazing considering players were playing them both ways at the same time. The reason they widened them out to be basically double fairways is to avoid the increasing danger to players.

One reason the likes of Max Behr (and perhaps Alister Mackenzie) liked the configuration of the fairways (swards) of TOC is because it was pretty hard to figure out where the fairways ended and rough began. They were sort of amorphous that way apparently and that seems to have appealed to those architectural thinkers as there was no particular distinction so it was looked at as sort of all the same thing.

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:

I've got this souvenir photo of The Old Course on my wall from playing in the Dunhill event, which is to scale, so I checked.  Here are the widths of The Old Course (approximate):

1-18 fairways combined = 120 yards!
3-16 fairways combined = 96 yards
5-14 fairways combined (with some rough in between) = 108 yards
6-13 fairways combined (Coffins in the middle) = 88 yards
9-10 fairways combined = varies between 56 and 76 yards.

So they're wide, but they're hardly standard!

[TEPaul]

TomD:

Wouldn't you says that TOC must be the widest over-all fairways on one of the world's over-all narrowest sites?

I think it may be and who can say there isn't a whole lot of irony in that in the context of the history and evolution of golf course architecture? Matter of fact, the site's over-all narrowness is probably the very reason the course needed to have such wide fairways! 

In other words, if the site wasn't that narrow do you really think its fairways would be as wide as they are?

[JESII]

Another ironic conundrum is that it also might have less than an average amount of total fairway acreage...

[Tom_Doak]

Jim:  Well, I'm sure there is more fairway acreage at St. Andrews than either course at Winged Foot, but less than many other courses.

Tom:  You are right about it being so narrow ... but only at St. Andrews would they be mowing fairway right up against an out-of-bounds wall or a public street!  The fact that they are bordered on both sides by other golf courses allows them to push the envelope a bit.

MacKenzie had the same thing at Moortown when he built it; but then property values in Leeds went up and the neighboring clubs both sold off their land for housing and built new courses further out, forcing Moortown to shift fairways and redesign several holes.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()