Width, what's it all about ?

[Jeff_Brauer]

sometimes I wonder if all that "theory" about width and angles is really all that it was cracked up to be.  IMHO the width of the play corridors got set at about 60 yards because the first sprinklers back in the oldy days threw water just that far.  It could very well be that fw have narrowed over time to increase the enjoyment of play by bringing in more noticeable consequences.

TD,

Well, they sure found out in a hurry that sprinkler throwing 90 feet radius did NOT cover all that well at the edges.  But, the single row is where they started.  Kind of like the Wright Bros didn't come out of the gate with a 747........

I am not sure, but I think I recall something about NGLA having trouble growing grass and the sprinkler salesman calling on CBM, so I have the impression it has some kind of early system.  It might have been greens only to start.

CBM was right in that play corridors are still about 60 yards (or more) in most cases.  I happen to believe he wasn't thinking in terms of rough and fw mostly because there was no tech available to really differentiate hieights of cut.  You cut greens and you cut tees and fw back in those days.  Of course, it all changed at some point as mowing and irrigation got more sophisticated.  Exactly when I do not know.

The provocative question is whether given all that has happened should fw be 60 yards wide as many here suggest, or does the majority of US courses have it right, all things considered, with fw at 30-40 yards and 10-15 yards of basically light rough on each side?



Well, that seems like revisionist history.  I've never seen a sprinkler that covered 60 yards of width effectively; in fact fairways started to narrow when they introduced fairway sprinklers that covered 40-45 yards.

The early American courses did not have fairway irrigation systems.  And, though I don't have C.B. Macdonald's book handy today, when laying out his perfect course for a newspaper article back in 1904, he gave three points for "proper width of fair green", and put the number at something like 50-60 yards.  [I can't remember what the number is for sure.]  That number was always striking to me, because I'm sure that most Scottish courses were never that wide, unless you were counting whins-to-whins.

[Tim Nugent]

Original fairway irrigation was done with plug-in sprinklers through quick-coupling valves and needed a night water man.  Although there were several early manufacatures, the Toro 690 became the mainstay of single row automatic sprinklers.  As Tom and Jeff stated, the can cover 60 yds (87'-108' radius)- Jeff, but not effectively - Tom.  Between the fact that the outer +/-20% is not Effective Coverage (the water droplets are large and land far apart) and the circular nature of the throw (which produces areas of single, double and no coverage) it was found that even with these water cannons, only about a max dia. of 48 yds could be irrigated (directly perpendicular to the sprinkler) and less at the intersection point of two sprinklers. A look at old aerials will show these patterns. 
So, eventually, to produce consistant turf, fairways were mowed to correspond to the effectively irrigated areas.  Some surpentined and others were kept with straight edges - connecting the ntersection pts.  If the turf in the rough was only partially irrigated or not at all, it was accepted because it was "Rough".
IMO, as the fairways narrowed but were more consistant in quality, golfers want the roughs to also exhibit the same degree of consistancy, so single row systems were replaced with double row systems and now the first 10 yards of Rough was also fully irrigated.

[Kyle Harris]

Jeff,

My response is to simply say that the fairway could be wide enough such that "left" and "right" have little meaning when the fairway is used as the frame of reference. I'd rather the statement, "In the fairway, left of the bunker" instead of "In the left part of the fairway, next to the bunker" to have more meaning. 

Width should be employed such that instead of aiming left or right, the golfer is forced to aim "for" or "away" from a particular feature or hazard.

OR

Width should be employed such that there is very little change in height of cut framing the hole. Forcing the golfer to search for an aim point instead of merely aiming for where the fat part of the fairway is based on the edges of the fairway cut.

[Ally Mcintosh]

...I see very few modern courses with good enough green complex designs to warrant width solely as the traditional strategic device... For a start, fairways have to be 60 yards plus to bring in sufficient angle... For seconds, green complexes have to be even more severe to counter equipment advances...

...Even still, I firmly believe that that's what we should be aiming for where the site and budget allow...

That probably means the lost ball argument is the most valid one for today's game and courses... Although aesthetics and mental effect should be seen as another advantage for width in my opinion...

Ally

I take issue with a couple of points you made. Firstly, why must fairways be 60 yards wide to bring in different strategy to a hole. Surely you can do the same thing with 30 yards of fairway ? What I think I'm railling against here is the idea that you have wide fairways simply so that players don't lose balls. The danger with that is if you don't do anything with all that width to make it interesting the golf become insipid and dull. At least with a narrower fairway there is a test even if it is only to keep in the playing corridor but as many conventional courses show you can get loads of options in normal width fairways.

The second issue which is worthy of a thread of its own is your statement that greens should have severe contouring to counter modern equipment. I consider myself as one of the great majority of average golfers and like most average golfers I don't exactly play my approach shots with pin point accuracy and bundles of check. I have what you would call a fair degree of variance in the results of even my mid irons. My issue with the greens on some of the modern courses where they have swales and large contours is that if you mix that with my indifferent approach play it becomes pot luck and a sense of judgement is lost. Now I appreciate I may be employing the counter argument to the one I use for fairway width but I think its a question of degrees, greens which are all swales gouing this way and that are as bad as 10 yard wide fairways.

Niall 

Hi Niall,

I perhaps wasn't clear with getting my points across but...

You can't use the same angles with 30 yards of fairway as you can with 60 yards - That is simple geometry. And what I'm trying to say is that with modern equipment, maintenance techniques and some insipid design of green complexes, it is very rare to see great modern holes in the traditional strategic vain. If you have a 30 yard width, the difference between left side and right side for a long approach is minimal. The difference for a short approach is greater but the strategy is usually nullified by equipment advances (i.e. stopping a wedge over a bunker is easier these days)... Add to that the trend of building bunkers slightly removed from the green (i.e. not tight against the putting surface) and the strategy is nullified even more. If you have wide fairways, bunkers tight to greens and slopes and shoulders playing away from those bunkers, it makes the angles come more in to play.... At least that's how I see it...

As for building in width to stop losing balls, I think that is the most important element of all in the modern game.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick

I note your comments but not sure that you are saying that their width is part of what makes them great.

Niall, I am saying that "width" is one of the components that makes them great.

As for your statement that width has universal appeal you can count me out of that number, certainly width for the sake of width.
Could you cite 10 classic U.S. courses where the introduction of width was "for the sake of width" ?

Do something with the width to make the hole interesting and I am all for it but creating 60 yard plus fairways with no strategic worth in the width then I'm afraid that does nothing for me. 

Could you cite 10 classic courses where there are 60 yard plus fairways with no strategic worth ?

I suspect that this is more a figment of your imagination than reality.

BTW there are plenty of classic courses over here which have also passed the test of time that don't require double fairways to attract visiting golfers.

Once again, you're resorting to an extreme, and or figment of your imagination, when you equate double fairways with width.

[Niall C]

Patrick

I note your comments but not sure that you are saying that their width is part of what makes them great.

Niall, I am saying that "width" is one of the components that makes them great.

As for your statement that width has universal appeal you can count me out of that number, certainly width for the sake of width.
Could you cite 10 classic U.S. courses where the introduction of width was "for the sake of width" ?

Do something with the width to make the hole interesting and I am all for it but creating 60 yard plus fairways with no strategic worth in the width then I'm afraid that does nothing for me. 

Could you cite 10 classic courses where there are 60 yard plus fairways with no strategic worth ?

I suspect that this is more a figment of your imagination than reality.

BTW there are plenty of classic courses over here which have also passed the test of time that don't require double fairways to attract visiting golfers.

Once again, you're resorting to an extreme, and or figment of your imagination, when you equate double fairways with width.

Patrick

First comment understood.

Second comment, no I couldn't because I've barely played more than ten US courses let alone classic US courses and I suspect you couldn't cite ten where there was a reason given for their width, thats the problem with classic courses, neither of us were around when they were created.

Neither could I cite 10 classic courses that have 60 yard wide fairways let alone those with no startegic worth but then I play in the UK. Perhaps you could cite 10 classics over here that have 60 yarde wide fairways ? If you do manage to get to ten I suspect one will be actual and the other nine figments of your imagination.

The reference to double fairways was a reference to the total width of the fairway in that 60 yards plus is more or less double 35 yards, the normal width of a fairway over here. It was not a suggestion that literally that each hole had two fairways but then I'm sure you knew that and were just being obtuse.

Niall 

[Niall C]

"Hi Niall,

I perhaps wasn't clear with getting my points across but...

You can't use the same angles with 30 yards of fairway as you can with 60 yards - That is simple geometry. And what I'm trying to say is that with modern equipment, maintenance techniques and some insipid design of green complexes, it is very rare to see great modern holes in the traditional strategic vain. If you have a 30 yard width, the difference between left side and right side for a long approach is minimal. The difference for a short approach is greater but the strategy is usually nullified by equipment advances (i.e. stopping a wedge over a bunker is easier these days)... Add to that the trend of building bunkers slightly removed from the green (i.e. not tight against the putting surface) and the strategy is nullified even more. If you have wide fairways, bunkers tight to greens and slopes and shoulders playing away from those bunkers, it makes the angles come more in to play.... At least that's how I see it...

As for building in width to stop losing balls, I think that is the most important element of all in the modern game."

Ally,

I think I see what you say with regard to equipment/maintenance techniques but to some extent does the move back to fast and firm not help the cause ? If the suggestion is that too soft conditions allied to modern equipment allows the player to stop the ball then I don't see what difference the angle the player approaches from will make, they will still be able to carry the trouble. Now I can see how the design of the green complex can make a difference but again do you really need that amount of width to achieve that ? Note, I'm not saying that a wide fairway can't be interesting or provide strategic play but width in itself doesn't create that strategic interest.

Niall

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick

First comment understood.

Second comment, no I couldn't because I've barely played more than ten US courses let alone classic US courses and I suspect you couldn't cite ten where there was a reason given for their width, thats the problem with classic courses, neither of us were around when they were created.
Then, how can you say that their width is just width for "width's sake" ?

It would seem that your perception of width (for width's sake) is non-existant.

With respect to the courses I cited, I see no evidence of width for width's sake.
Remember too that mowing was done with a tractor with huge gang mowers and thus width was a necessity if those big rigs were going to turn around and head back up or down the fairway.

Modern day Irrigation systems are probably responsible for diminishing width more than any other factor

Neither could I cite 10 classic courses that have 60 yard wide fairways let alone those with no startegic worth but then I play in the UK.

Then how can you posit anything about width and classic American courses such as the ones I cited ?

Perhaps you could cite 10 classics over here that have 60 yarde wide fairways ?

I never made any statements regarding the width of courses in the UK, classic or modern.
If you do manage to get to ten I suspect one will be actual and the other nine figments of your imagination.

The reference to double fairways was a reference to the total width of the fairway in that 60 yards plus is more or less double 35 yards, the normal width of a fairway over here. It was not a suggestion that literally that each hole had two fairways but then I'm sure you knew that and were just being obtuse.

Niall 

[Niall C]

Patrick

To answer your first point my comments in relation to width were in relation to the theory not the practice and certainly not about any particular course including classic american courses I've never played. It was you who then brought specific courses into the discussion.

As for the suggestion that the width of the gang mower played a part in the width of the fairway, at first glance I find that one a bit far fetched but interested to hear more. Are you really suggesting the turning circle of these machines dictated the width of the fairways ? With regards to irrigation, I was brought up on an inland course that didn't have any irrigation apart from greens until about 15 to 20 years ago and the fairways were the same average width before the installation of the sprinkler system. Neither was that unusual compared to other local courses.

While I'm genuinely interested in the historical reasons why older courses became wider for practical reasons, what I'm really interested in is the reason for it in the modern age where we don't have the constraints referred to above. As I said in probably the first post on this thread I've played only a few really wide courses as favoured on this discussion board and all of them are modern. I've purposely not named them as that then brings in peoples personal preferences etc and gets away from the theory.

What I've taken from the discussion so far is that many see width as a means of not losing balls which means more fun or at least less frustration. To a point that makes sense. However isn't there the possibility that this leads to uninteresting, perhaps insipid golf ? Again not naming names but I've found the few wide courses I've played have been less interesting on each subsequent visit. Thats not the case with more conventionally designed courses I've played. Yes there has been a fair number of rubbish courses in there, but they were rubbish up front so never really changed on subsequent visits. Others continued to remain fun and challenging, some even more so when you begin to appreciate the challenge more.

I still wonder if some of the GCA's who design wide fairways find it more challenging to make them interesting.

Niall

[Tim Nugent]

I still wonder if some of the GCA's who design wide fairways find it more challenging to make them interesting.

Niall

Niail, actually I find the opposite to be the case.  Wide fairways give you the opportunity to put more stuff in them. IE a ridge across half or a speed slot up on side. Plus the allow for featuresand hazards to be placed within the farway as opposed to alongside it.

The narrower the fairway, the more one-dimensional it tends to become.  That's more challanging to make interesting.

As for old American courses, I'll re-tell a story. I was at Tuscumbia GC in Green Lake WI - thought to be the oldest 18 in the State.  Narrow, tree lined course.  However out in the trees, one could see the "old" bunkers.  Being a sand course, they were just grassed over but the forms are still evident.  Talking with a guy in the bar, he said his grandpa used to cut grass there back in the day and they mowed it east-to-west one week and north-south the next, before all the trees were planted.

I tell this because I believe you will find that many old American courses were built on relatively open land.  This would allow for wider original fairways but as trees were planted and grew, they would force the narrowing of the fairways.

Also, to use the example of an unirrigated course to dispell irrigations impact, could it not be that they were just mimicking what the wealthy clubs, that had irrigation, were doing?

[Richard Choi]

Isn't wide fairways without firm greens kinda pointless?

I see how some of the posters believe that wide fairways do not pose enough of a challenge. That is certainly true if the greens are soft (no matter how much contour they have). If better players can just stick their approach right next to the pin, angles really don't come into play at all.

However, if you have firm greens with pin locations that require a certain approach angle to get close, then you really start challenging the better players with width.

I love wide fairways because it makes golf fun for everybody; higher handicaps don't have to spend half the time looking for their balls while making lower handicap players have to think and plot their strategies green to tee to have a really good score. To me, that is best of both worlds.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick

To answer your first point my comments in relation to width were in relation to the theory not the practice and certainly not about any particular course including classic american courses I've never played. It was you who then brought specific courses into the discussion.
That's correct.
I cited them as classic courses with width because you were questioning the introduction of width on modern courses.
See your quote below

"Now my experience on these modern large scale productions are limited as most of my golf tends to be on older, more conventionally scaled courses so I am interested to find out if my assumption as to the appeal of wide fairways is all that their is to it or whether there are any other good reason for them."

Therefore, I cited recognizable courses with a good deal of width.

You seemed to view width as a design flaw, yet, the courses I cited, all with wide fairways, are held in highest regard, architecturally and in terms of playability.

I thought that list of courses would bring you to your senses with respect to your negative opinion on wide fairways.

As for the suggestion that the width of the gang mower played a part in the width of the fairway, at first glance I find that one a bit far fetched but interested to hear more. Are you really suggesting the turning circle of these machines dictated the width of the fairways ?
In some cases, yes, especially near the greens.
When fairways were mowed with tractors pulling huge gang mowers, the turning radius was not abbreviated.

With regards to irrigation, I was brought up on an inland course that didn't have any irrigation apart from greens until about 15 to 20 years ago and the fairways were the same average width before the installation of the sprinkler system. Neither was that unusual compared to other local courses.


Automated irrigation systems and even the hand coupled systems brought about the reduction in fairway width at many courses.
I'd say that the 40's, 50's and early 60's saw the most shrinkage.
Then, as fairways moved in trees and shrubs were planted in the adjacent roughs, effectively narrowing the playing corridors even more.
I'd say that the 60's, 70's and 80's were the heart of the arborist movement.

Then, as the trees grew and their drip lines extended, into the playing corridors, the drivers of the fairway mowers shied away from the tree line, further narrowing the fairways.

While I'm genuinely interested in the historical reasons why older courses became wider for practical reasons, what I'm really interested in is the reason for it in the modern age where we don't have the constraints referred to above.


I have a theory on that.
Just this morning I was discussing it with an orthopedic surgeon who was tending to my youngest son who just broke a bone playing basketball

My theory:
Courses needed to be wide to accomodate Fast & Firm conditions.
With any type of rolling or slanted terrain, (don't forget how important surface drainage is) under fast and firm conditions, with narrow fairways, almost every shot would end up in the rough on the runout, but, wide fairways allowed for deviation in the run out.

Today, and for the past 20-30 years, with soft, lush conditions you could bring the fairways in because the ball wasn't going anywhere after impact.

As I said in probably the first post on this thread I've played only a few really wide courses as favoured on this discussion board and all of them are modern. I've purposely not named them as that then brings in peoples personal preferences etc and gets away from the theory.

The courses we were discussing this morning were Westhampton and NGLA, both with wide fairways.
The "Doc" claimed that since Westhampton had transitioned to F&F recently, the need for wide fairways became evident.
Wide fairways allow for acceptable margins of error on F&F courses, courses where the angle of attack into the green is critical.

What I've taken from the discussion so far is that many see width as a means of not losing balls which means more fun or at least less frustration. To a point that makes sense.

I understand that, but, it's not my primary point.

At NGLA, with wide fairways, if you hit your drive to the right on # 1 you have a blind approach, same on # 2.
On # 3 if you hit your ball left on the drive you're really blind and faced with an abrupt impediment to advancing your ball.
Same with $ 5, hit it left and your blind in a bowl.
I could go on and on about the need for position on each hole and how width is illusory to the point of deceipt.

When playing NGLA or most wide courses many golfers are lulled into a false sense of security, thinking that they have the entire fairway at their disposal, when in fact, there's a prefered section of the fairway that should be the golfer's target (based on their ability)

However isn't there the possibility that this leads to uninteresting, perhaps insipid golf ? Again not naming names but I've found the few wide courses I've played have been less interesting on each subsequent visit. Thats not the case with more conventionally designed courses I've played. Yes there has been a fair number of rubbish courses in there, but they were rubbish up front so never really changed on subsequent visits. Others continued to remain fun and challenging, some even more so when you begin to appreciate the challenge more.

I can't speak to the courses you reference, but, perhaps the problem with them is not at the fairway end.
Perhaps the failure lies at the green end.

If you play Seminole, Pine Valley, GCGC, ANGC or NGLA I think you'd get a feel for how the respective architects incorporated width into their designs and how well they used it to present a challenge to every level of golfer.

On the modern side, Hidden Creek, Sebonack, Sand Hills, Wild Horse, Pacific Dunes and Bandon Dunes are examples of courses that integrate width with their green complexes to form an enjoyable challenge for every level of golfer.

Width is good, but, a course can't sustain itself on width alone.

I still wonder if some of the GCA's who design wide fairways find it more challenging to make them interesting.

Tom Doak and others would be far more qualified to answer that question.

[Sean_A]

The game of golf is about hitting it straight off the tee. You need to keep your drive within a 25 yard width for championship golf or risk some form of penalty or part penalty. 25 yard fairways are often narrowed from tradional 35 yard fairways for standard golf. I am not advocating jungle and lost balls keep the semi rough shortish but very few golf courses new or old can afford to have wide fairways. In a modern construction on less than perfect land a desire to have width will IMO push that course to the limits of bankrupcy. Rough or semi rough is the cheaper end of both golf course construction and maintenance, advocating wider fairways will push the cost to play these courses. Bandon is an anomaly, it is not a model to copy, Bandon breaks lots of rules of normality for the golf business.

The normal golf business model is pretty good as it is, but it needs courses that can be built at economical prices which with rising land costs is getting difficult, it needs courses that can be operated and maintained by the minimal amount of staff.

No.  The game (it is a game) is about having fun.  Last I checked, nobody enjoys adding 30 to 60 minutes onto a round to accomodate penal rough - which should really normally only be in play for the flat bellies so long as a guy is hitting say a 60 yard wide corridor.  The older I get the more I think course operators and archies fall back on rough as an excuse to toughen  courses which do not need toughening.  Its primarily a money saving scam when honestly it would noy cost much to have 40 yard fairways and 25 yard short rough areas.  Of course it is now often too late for this as trees have been planted zhich hqve narrowed corridors to stupid widths of 50 yards and sometimes with overhanging branches and bunkers.  It is very rare when I see a course which is of proper width so I find it hard to believe that anybody could say width is a negative issue.  Where are all these wide courses?

Ciao

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sean Arble,

I agree, the game remains one that presents an enjoyable challenge (fun)

Too many context every issue at the PGA Tour Pro proficiency level.

My big beef with clubs hosting "big" events is that they narrow the fairways for 150 guys for a 4 day event and don't restore the fairways to their former widths for the thousands upon thousands of golfers who will play them over the years.

[Niall C]

Patrick

I wasn't going to respond because I felt the discussion had perhaps gone as far as it was going to go and that also our exchanges were becoming less constructive, certainly "the figment of my imagination", and the "coming to my senses" comments irked me some what. However there was a lot of good stuff in your last post that I wanted to respond.

For me, your post highlights some of the differences between golf in the US and golf in the UK. On the design side I hadn't appreciated that many of these classic courses (US) were so wide. A couple of pals of mine played Pine Valley last year and apart from saying how much they enjoyed the course the other comment they made was that the rough was brutal because it was so lush. They didn't seem to notice the width or at least didn't comment on it to me.

The older courses over here, and indeed most new ones as well, including most links courses generally have fairway widths of 30/35 yards. However mostly the rough isn't brutal. Thats a gross generalisation but I don't think too many would argue. Certainly there are exceptions, TOC comes to mind but you get my drift.

I would also suggest that golf over here generally is played in faster and firmer conditions, weather permitting, with fairway sprinklers tending to be used when courses are in danger of drying up rather than as a matter of routine. So to take your point about run out in fast and firm conditions, rough can sometimnes be a blessing as it stops the ball going into the deeper bundi, so is the first difference between the US and the UK the first cut of rough ? Perhaps that has something to do with US courses having a larger maintenance budget ? Perhaps that would account for the larger gang mowers.

Your comments on trees - totally agree.

Where I'll continue to disagree is the need for width in windy sites or fast and firm courses, as I think its upto the golfer to adapt his game accordingly. Maybe again theres a cultural difference that the US player measures his play against the card where over here the measure it against the conditions. Many times I've sat in the clubhouse at a links course and listened to players describe scoring a number of shots over their handicap and being quite pleased because they knew and everyone else knew that was good in the conditions. Theres no embarrassment or requirement to match your handicap just because you played well.

You describe NGLA beautifully and I understand the points you make with regards to startegy, however again I think you can do that within a 30/35 yard corridor. Perhaps the difference is that the narrower corridor leads to more subtle strategy or maybe it leads to smaller difference between a good and a bad shot. For instance, and here I totally agree that the design of the green complex is paramount, where the conditions are fast and firm and the greens are small (think of Gullane no 3) a matter of yards in the position of your drive can make all the difference to landing and running your ball into the pin. Hard to explain, best to experience it.

Niall

[Patrick_Mucci]

Niall,

I've got to run to make a tee time, but, I'll be back tomorrow.
 but, fairway widths of 30-35 yards on windy sites with benign rough are effectively much wider.

When you get 30-35 yard wide fairways on windy sites with brutal rough, unless you're dead straight with your drives and brutally strong, you're not going to enjoy the day/course.

The difficulty of the rough is a critical factor when evaluating fairway widths on windy sites.

[Adrian_Stiff]

The problem once again with this site ... minority opinion. Sean (with respect) if you were an operator you bust the joint in record time as would most on here. Wide fairways (in excess of 40 yards) are almost non existant in the UK, wide playing corridors ie fairway and short rough is the norm, perhaps 60-70 is common if you call that as width I am fine, but 60-70 yard wide fairways is a crazy idea. I do agree about how many courses have enclosed their fairways with trees, but its what the masses want. You guys talk so much about ideal situations that you want with no regard to ££$$$.... most places are doing their best.
The game of golf is about scoring low, that involves hitting it straight, golf is less fun to better players, its their work. Lesser players can enjoy moments and thats the fun.
I think its becoming almost impossible to have a golf course that everyone can play, thick penal rough, firm greens, wind are I agree unpleasant for the lesser player. Sadly it seems the method to keep the pro's reigned in.

[Sean_A]

Adrian

When we consider that a 25 yard fairway is almost universally considered narrow (that is except in your universe), than 40 yards doesn't strike me as wildly wide especially given windy, dry, sloping conditions or mature trees lining fairways.  I think a great many people mistake that corridors weren't wider 50 years ago.  They were.  The difference was it was harder to tell which section was fairway and which was rough.  Plus, trees didn't overhang playing corridors like today.  Once we have such defined fairways it becomes an almost an impossible to overcome desire to plant trees (or bushes and even GORSE of all things) and reduce the corridor widths significantly - sometimes by 50%. 

The savings in reduced maintainace is really offset by courses becoming one-dimensional and much of a muchness.  I will always believe that a thoughtful design presented somewhat properly as intended is nearly always going to have a better chance of surviving lean times than the multitude of run of the mill courses which are in no way distinguishable from each other - or in other words - the dreaded "nice" course.  I may be in a minority, but I have quite two clubs because the powers that be didn't have a clue on how to accentuate the positives of a design and instead followed the road of "nice", but totally boring.  The sort of place that holds the attention of folks who just don't care.  Not the sort of club I want to be associated with.  A great many others are quitting clubs for various stated reasons, but I think it usually boils down to the courses no longer hold their attention and with the costs escalating to provide mediocre rather good or exceptional products, what is the point of membership? 

Ciao

[Tim Nugent]

Adrian


The savings in reduced maintainace is really offset by courses becoming one-dimensional and much of a muchness.  I will always believe that a thoughtful design presented somewhat properly as intended is nearly always going to have a better chance of surviving lean times than the multitude of run of the mill courses which are in no way distinguishable from each other - or in other words - the dreaded "nice" course.  I may be in a minority, but I have quite two clubs because the powers that be didn't have a clue on how to accentuate the positives of a design and instead followed the road of "nice", but totally boring.  The sort of place that holds the attention of folks who just don't care.  Not the sort of club I want to be associated with.  A great many others are quitting clubs for various stated reasons, but I think it usually boils down to the courses no longer hold their attention and with the costs escalating to provide mediocre rather good or exceptional products, what is the point of membership? 

Ciao

Sean, I see where you're coming from but have a slightly different take on it.  I believe that the powers that be are, unfortunately, not students of the game or design, just novices that have been installed as caretakers.  As such, they have a very narrow comfort zone and fall back on "it's the way it's always been" or "just like XYZ GC does it".  That provides them cover if and when things go bad.  It also is why things revert to the mean.  Lets face it, not many are comfortable or have enough conviction and confidence in their own abilities to go outside the box - especially when it goes against the generally accepted GroupThink.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sean Arble,

I'd agree, 25 yard wide fairways are considered VERY narrow.

And, on a windy site, that's like trying to thread a needle.

I suspect that many tend to context golf features through the PGA tour level of ability rather than the local golfer.

25 yard wide fairways with difficult rough are IMPOSSIBLE for the local club member to handle.

I DON'T believe they exist and are a figment of someone's imagination.

Could someone, anyone, cite a golf course where the fairways are all 25 yards wide in the DZ ?

[Adrian_Stiff]

Sean your misunderstanding. I am not advocating 25 yard fairways I just said 25 yards is the tournament number, although I think 35 is fine which is pretty much the norm, when you start going to 45 its very wide (as a fairway). I think 35 yard fairways with 15 yards of short rough ie 65 yard corridors are fine, the short rough very slighty affects a penalty to a player but he does not lose his ball, he just loses slight control over his ball. If people are wanting 65 yard wide fairways its going to cost, its pretty much doubleing up on fairway maintenance. There are some significant irrigation issues, if you are wanting twice the fairway sprinklers, your run times go haywire, you may need much larger mains which is often not just double the price. Wide fairways on many new golf courses is hardly minimal, yes you get perfect sites but they are really rare and in the real world of gof course construction we do push a fair bit of dirt around.
In general most golfers want trees hence why most UK golf courses have become arboretums pampering to the next captains whims.

[Sean_A]

Sean Arble,

I'd agree, 25 yard wide fairways are considered VERY narrow.

And, on a windy site, that's like trying to thread a needle.

I suspect that many tend to context golf features through the PGA tour level of ability rather than the local golfer.

25 yard wide fairways with difficult rough are IMPOSSIBLE for the local club member to handle.

I DON'T believe they exist and are a figment of someone's imagination.

Could someone, anyone, cite a golf course where the fairways are all 25 yards wide in the DZ ?

Pat

Yes there are holes with 25 yards or less of fairway in the DZs.  I don't know of any course which has every hole like this, but a great many are not far off and I would be surprised if many championship links average much more than 30 wide of fairway. Some have more penal rough than others and to a large degree the rough is seasonal, but I can't think of one championhsip links I would say is on average sufficiently wide when the rough is up in a playful wind.  Honestly, 40 yard fairways with 10 yards each side of buffer rough isn't all that wide in high summer with a decent wind.  That problem spreads down to joe blow parkland courses as well only its trees to deal with and sometimes with nasty rough at the trunks.  I would rather see courses maintained to be played with little difficulty finding balls in rough weather - say like links are in the winter, but then I have long that that golf is better in the winter.  I can recall playing West Cornwall in a light gale a few winters ago and it was perfectly playable.  That same (not uncommon) wind on loads of courses would make them a nightmare.  

Adrian

We are talking at cross purposes with width, but largely agreeing.   

There is absolutely nothing wrong with trees if good specimens are planted/left to remian in a wise manner.  I don't think folks realize how narrowing of fairways mature trees can be with overhanging limbs or too numerous in quantity.  The last thing I want is cheap looking trees on a course or fairways lined with trees.  I want the trees to add to the design, not smother it.

Ciao

[Niall C]

Adrian


The savings in reduced maintainace is really offset by courses becoming one-dimensional and much of a muchness.  I will always believe that a thoughtful design presented somewhat properly as intended is nearly always going to have a better chance of surviving lean times than the multitude of run of the mill courses which are in no way distinguishable from each other - or in other words - the dreaded "nice" course.  I may be in a minority, but I have quite two clubs because the powers that be didn't have a clue on how to accentuate the positives of a design and instead followed the road of "nice", but totally boring.  The sort of place that holds the attention of folks who just don't care.  Not the sort of club I want to be associated with.  A great many others are quitting clubs for various stated reasons, but I think it usually boils down to the courses no longer hold their attention and with the costs escalating to provide mediocre rather good or exceptional products, what is the point of membership? 

Ciao

Sean, I see where you're coming from but have a slightly different take on it.  I believe that the powers that be are, unfortunately, not students of the game or design, just novices that have been installed as caretakers.  As such, they have a very narrow comfort zone and fall back on "it's the way it's always been" or "just like XYZ GC does it".  That provides them cover if and when things go bad.  It also is why things revert to the mean.  Lets face it, not many are comfortable or have enough conviction and confidence in their own abilities to go outside the box - especially when it goes against the generally accepted GroupThink.

Tim

I have a theory which covers members clubs here in the UK. They are mostly run by Committee's who do a number of years before handing over to someone else. There is perhaps naturally enough an urge for a new Committee man to try and "do better" than the last lot, to leave his mark in other words (and they are in 99% of cases a he). When it comes to tinkering the easiest thing to do is plant trees rather than move dirt. Thats one of the reasons why a lot of inland courses are infested with trees encroaching fairways. Like what you say for the US, a lot of these UK courses originally had very few trees on them.

Patrick

I can think of the odd hole that has pinch points of 25 yards or even less but not one single course with that as standard. Thinking of the Open courses, I don't think they bring the fairways in too much come the Open but they do narrow some of the landing points but there main defence in recent years seems to be the severity of the rough. Certainly not US Open standards but enough to cause a half shot penalty in some instances. Not sure what the do in the US for comps. What do you think the fairway widths will be for the PGA on what is I presume a fairly windy site ?

Niall

[Patrick_Mucci]

Niall,

Discussing and contexting GCA within the confines of four days of golf for the best golfers in the world seems like a useless exercise when considered against the rest of the golfing world.

I don't know of one course with all fairways at 25 yards in the DZ.

I know of only a few courses with a few fairways at 25 yards.

I know of no such courses on very windy sites with difficult rough.

When analyzing fairway width I think you have to include the area of rough when the rough is benign.

[Niall C]

Patrick,

When the rough is benign or you are just as likely to get a decent lie as a crap one, or indeed even if the odds are more in favour of getting a crap lie, it no doubt gives comfort to the golfer who is aiming for one side of the fairway for startegic reasons whereas if the rough is brutally penal the player will more likely play safe by going for the middle of the fairway. That said there is always a chance of crap lie and therefore a penalty if they do end up in the rough.

Niall

[Tags:]

Tags: