Can You Have Options With Narrow Fairways?

[JNC Lyon]

I was having this discussion the other day with a GCA lurker about the East Course at Oak Hill.  I argue that the East Course is devoid of options for most places because it is so narrow--the one choice on most holes is to hit the fairway or else.  He argues that the
East Course, despite the narrow, tree-lined fairways, encourages decision-making off many of the tees.  Take the 7th hole on the East: a long par four where the fairway bottlenecks at about 200 yards from the green.  The player faces a choice between: laying back into the wider portion of the fairway and accepting a longer shot into a small green; and challenging the water and trees with a driver to get a mid-iron into the green.  For the low capper, this is much more of a mental challenge than trying to find the correct side of a 50-yard wide fairway.

Can you have options with narrow fairways?

Do these options only exist for the top 1% of golfers?  Or am I selling narrow courses (like Oak Hill East) short?

[Chris Johnston]

Patron

I love the hole that makes us think...think about the choice between laying back for accurancy and leaving a longer more risky shot, or taking more risk with a driver in hopes to create a shorter shot.  That said, I don't much enjoy a course that takes driver out of your hands on many or most holes.  Driving is an equally integral part of the game and should be tested.

Then, "old man Murphy" shows up, and the the "smart" layback is poorly hit leaving a now near impossible shot.  I try to play to the few strengths I have and, at best, these vary from day to day.

That's the beauty of golf.  With the elements, every round is a puzzle.

[Phil McDade]

Patron

I love the hole that makes us think...think about the choice between laying back for accurancy and leaving a longer more risky shot, or taking more risk with a driver in hopes to create a shorter shot.  That said, I don't much enjoy a course that takes driver out of your hands on many or most holes.  Driving is an equally integral part of the game and should be tested.

Then, "old man Murphy" shows up, and the the "smart" layback is poorly hit leaving a now near impossible shot.  I try to play to the few strengths I have and, at best, these vary from day to day.

That's the beauty of golf.  With the elements, every round is a puzzle.

Chris:

Why should a driver be tested any more in a given round than, say, a 7-iron?

[Cory Brown]

I've never found hit it long and straight, or hit it short and straight to be much of an option.  Not to say that this can never be a consideration, but in general stragic golf requires angles, and angles require width.

[Mark Saltzman]

I've never found hit it long and straight, or hit it short and straight to be much of an option.  Not to say that this can never be a consideration, but in general stragic golf requires angles, and angles require width.

I completely agree with this. 

Width provides options in terms of left and right.  Every hole has options in terms of length (except in the case of a forced lay-up, which I generally think makes for a poor hole).

So, of course holes with narrow fairways can and do have options in terms of length, though I do not believe that this is the type of strategy/options that this DG (and most golfers) crave.

[Kris Shreiner]

LP,

I think you are sometimes rather tough in your assessments of the East Course. Since you know it so well, the scrutiny and evaluation are sharp. I usually agree with your take, but although I only have about half a dozen rounds on the course, restricted driving options didn't really enter my mind when I've played, and I'm erratic of the tee.

I will say that the two times I played it just after major tournaments, the Ryder Cup in '95 and U.S. Am in '98, the narrower fairways got your attention and the rough was HARSH!

My take is that you can still have options into narrower fairways provided there isn't excessive tree encroachment that greatly limits shaping left or right to finish on desired lines to play the next shot. Now some tee boxes can have a tree, or trees, that eliminate the option, you can only play a fade or slice, unless your God.

That propostion makes for uninspired play and cheapens the variety for the player.  A hole can offer an advantage to the player who can fashion a draw or fade, but generally, quality golf shouldn't choke off the player's choice. That's my take and your East Course is pretty solid in my view.

Cheers,
Kris

[Jeff_Brauer]

I think you can have options with medium fw.  What some here don't understand is that the angle of the green and degree of cover set up the preferred open front angle.

So, if a green angles 10 degrees off center, the fw can be narrower than if the green angles 20 degrees off center, if the bunkering is similar.  The distance of the approach, combined with the green angle can set the fw width (longer approach generally means wider fw if green angle is the same)

Add in that there is a greater chance of hitting the rough on a narrower fw, and the strategic decision really becomes even greater than with a wide fw.

All of this presumes that opening up the angle means you have to hit within a few yards of the fw edge. I don't really see the point of widening the fw so far that you could "overplay" and have a worse angle from further off the centerline.  The same is true on the "wrong side" of the fw.  I understand the argument that if coming over the green side bunker by playing safe, its easier from fw to rough, but rough on that side also graduates the penalty.

In general, I think the left side-right side option with a driver is better/more satisfying to golfers than the driver vs lay up decision, which I would limit to no more than  a few times per round.

[Kyle Harris]

You have at least 14 options with every shot.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Kyle,

I don't know. If there is a creek in front of the tee, can you use a putter?

[Kyle Harris]

Kyle,

I don't know. If there is a creek in front of the tee, can you use a putter?

Yes.

Can you get the putter airborne? Most likely.
Is it a GOOD option? Most likely not.

But it is still AN option. That's the point.

[Niall C]

Jon

I'm not familiar with the East Course so perhaps you could advise how wide/narrow are the fairways ? and what is the rough like ? Are the greens and approaches soft or fast and firm ?

Also, when you talk about options, do you mean identifying a preferred option ? If answer to the last question is yes then absolutely you can have options (depending on your definition of narrow !) particularly where the greens and approaches play fast and firm. When the ball has to be landed short and skirting flanking bunkers then angle of approach and contours of the ground count for a lot.

Niall

[Andy Troeger]

You can have options with narrow fairways, mainly the "go for it/lay up" dilemma, but they are more limited than if you add more width to be sure. I think having a course with a variety of fairway widths makes for a fun experience as you have some holes with width to let it loose or choose where to go and then other holes where you have to choose something and execute that particular shot.

For me, wide fairways with central hazards rarely are strategic. I aim at the hazard and swing hard, knowing that my chances of hitting the ball there are are about 1 in 20 when I swing hard. Its the easiest drive out there for me. For a better driver, they do create choices of course.

An entire course with narrow fairways gets repetitive to me--you have to make the same choice repeatedly.

[Adam Clayman]

The differences in options between narrow fairway/tree lined hoes and open, freedom filled holes, are that the narrow tree lined hole's options are invariably dictated by the designer, or the maintenance staff, versus, having the option to choose your own line, your own shape, your own distance. Knowing what to do is only the booby prize. You still have to do it, and deal with what you've done. Nothing gets my goat more than having a narrow tree lined hole, where the rough is grown up in front of the green. Removing the ability to hit a low running shot into the green when one does find their ball under a tree, where the golfer needs to hit a low running shot.

Andy, That comment about center line hazards is interesting. It's contrary to the accepted, where centerline obstacles give the player at least four distinct choices to make. Right, left, short, or, long. The fact that you find them easy, is not, and should not be a ding to a hole. That choice that you make, to aim at it, and, know you won't hit it, is another option, too. The exact same mindset works with trees that are placed on one's line, or on one's shot shape line.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Kyle,

Years ago, I started a thread titled something like "are options all good?" or "Is a bad option really an option at all?"

In terms of how golfers think, I figure its hard to design a hole with more than two good options.  Some holes have different good/best options daily depending on either wind or pin position.  A few have equal but distinct options, but its hard to do.  I am not sure I count a dart board fw where you can hit "your shot" (i.e. a hook or fade) to get to one position a true option.

So, the question still remains... is a bad option really an option at all?

Does a good strategic hole really present a good and lesser option, or two sort of good ones?

Heavy stuff.  But, off the tee, the choice usually narrows to a driver (maybe power, low, high, soft) or something less to play to a specific spot that is safer.

[Andy Troeger]

Adam,
Regarding your first paragraph, I do think there's room for "execution" types of holes, but I'd rather not play an entire course full of them. Sometimes I think these holes with incredible width do give too many options over the course of a round, so that the golfer can hit a lot of lousy shots that end up in decent positions despite themselves. I benefit from that too, but personally I like for to see benefits for golfers that can execute correctly. A balance of the two works best for me.

And regarding the centerline hazards, I think having some of them certainly add to any course. They can be overdone, like anything else, but its been nice to see more of these created over the last 15 years or so. I never meant to imply that it was a negative in the slightest.

[Kalen Braley]

While its not one of the "best" options in my book.

I've always thought narrow fairway are viable, especially when used only occasionally as Andy suggests.  And here's why:

A narrow fairway will certainly get one to thinking how much they are going to "dare" to advance the ball.  Maybe one day you are feeling confident so you hit the big stick.  The next day not so much and you hit 5 iron.  And then again on a different day you feel normal so you hit a 3w or 5w. 

So I do think a narrow fairway can have options in a similar way to a diaganol hole where you "bite off as much as you think you can reasonably chew"

[Peter Pallotta]

Of course, the option of playing for a bogie instead of risking a triple is always there. But then again, I'm speaking mainly for myself, even though its an option I rarely choose.
Peter

[JNC Lyon]

That is one issue for me on the East Course: it's not just about the narrow fairways.  Trees overhang tee shots and approaches in several spots, making the fairway even narrower and emphasizing the aerial game.  Run-up options are restricted on the approach shots by both soft conditions and narrow entrances to greens (most are ten yards wide or less).  I think I might be selling the East short a bit, but it definitely does not allow for, in Adam's words, the personal freedom that I enjoy in golf courses like Ballyneal or Deal or Woking.

Something that Cory and Mark point out strikes a chord with me: the East Course does not rely on angles for strategy.  Several of the holes out there used to rely on angles.  Take the 12th, a mid-length par four that doglegs slightly from left-to-right.  The green is angled severely to accept approach shots from the right side of the fairway.  Originally, two bunkers guarded the inside of the dogleg and the ideal line into the green.  The left side of the fairway was wide open, but it left a poor angle into the green over a hillside covered with bunkers.  Now, trees and rough choke both sides of the fairway, meaning the golfer must hit the fairway or be almost assured of a bogey.  There are options off the tee, but they are only in terms of club selection off the tee, not whether or not to flirt with hazards to gain a better angle of attack.  The narrow shelf green makes it a good hole today, but it was a much better hole when built, relying on angles, not narrowness, to create options.

[JNC Lyon]

Gonna bump this up since THE Kyle Harris online.  Kyle, would you consider the choice between those 14 options (more if you choose to break the rules) a tactical or strategic choice?

[Sean_A]

Of course Kyle is not quite correct
The true option on narrow courses is short or long
The varying length of either is mostly a matter of skill

There can be no question that narrow equals less choices but also must necessarily create situations where less than good strikes are treated with leniency if the golfer knows his limits and percentages
That said any good course needs a hole or two with less.choices though unless a hole can be truly great I prefer do or don't die over do or die holes
Dying should be a risk the golfer takes on rather than being forced into - nearly always

Ciao

[Garland Bayley]

...
Can you have options with narrow fairways?
...

As a high handicapper, I always have options with narrow fairways.

I can hit it in the gunk short left. I can hit it in the gunk short right. I can hit it in the gunk long left. I can hit in in the gunk long right. But most of all my favorite is hit it so far off line that I am on a parallel fairway. I can eagle par 5s from there.

Once in the gunk, I have the options of chip out sideways, chip out forward, or chip out backwards. This game would be boring without all the options.

Besides if I happen to hit it in the fairway, then the old axiom "no good drive goes unpunished" kicks in.