Width--is 40 yards wide enough?

[Robert Mercer Deruntz]

The fairways of Rustic Canyon and Engineers are wider than 40, but there are not too many courses with fairways over 40 yards width.  I would venture that most courses are around 30 yards wide.

[Peter Pallotta]

RMD - that's a strange question coming from you. It's so strange that I'm hesitant to offer any opinions and/or questions -- because any thing I could think of to suggest or to ask I'm almost sure you've already considered (and found wanting?)  Hmm. Strange.

Peter   

[Sam Morrow]

Doesn't it depend on the site?

[Andy Troeger]

I think it depends on what's found once you miss the fairways and probably needs to take into account wind/weather factors as well. Not really one-size-fits-all.

[Frank Pont]

Robert, on my projects I use as wide a fairway as the site and irrigation budget allow. The wider the fairways, the more one can build in strategic options, the more the good player has to think and the less chance there is that the poor players will be in the thick rough. That was one of the first key things I picked up from Tom Doaks work, eg I really liked this feature at Renaissance Club, which I played last summer.

On my current project Swinkelsche the fairway width varies between 30 and 150 m (!), on average 45 m. However above 60 yards is a width I only use sparingly due to the cost/benefit trade off

[Tom_Doak]

It's not the width of the fairway that's important, it's the width from which the average player can easily find his ball and play his next shot without trouble.  If the width of that playable area is less than 60 yards, a lot of people are going to have trouble getting around.

[Niall C]

Tom

Agreed. I would also suggest that should be variable in that there should be some pinch points with perhaps a reduction in the buffer rather than the fairway. I think most players would recognise that either consciously or unconsciously and temper their shots accordingly.

Obviously I tend to think more in terms of links golf but for me the risk reward in links is as much to do with how much you try and force a shot relative to the trouble to the side, as opposed to more modern inland golf where risk reward tends to be about carry.

Frank

I played Rennaissance as well this year (or was it last ?) and didn't think that it was super wide. I did think it maybe a bit wider than older Scottish courses but I also thought that was accounted for more by the fairway being that bit wider by a few yards and the width of the rough being a bit narrower. Overall I thought it OK and I'm not one for the super wide Castle Stuart approach. I was actually dying to pace out the width of the fairways but when your host is graciously putting up with your bad golf it seemed a bit impolite to start doing a survey mid round.

Niall

[Robert Mercer Deruntz]

40 yards was chosen because that is the width of the fairways at Desert Forrest.   The corridors are about 52 yards--though somewhat narrow, there is enough room to choose sides of fairway for best angle of atttack.  Yesterday, I played Rustic Canyon, which has a couple extremely wide fairways, an d was lulled into poor angles because with the pins the ideal tee shots were very wide--I love this feature.  Those who have played with me will attest that I can handle 26-28 yard wide fairways, but the game becomes boring because your tee shot is dictated to you instead of choosing a line.

[Tim Nugent]

It all goes back to irrigation.  Before automatic systems, the night waterman plugged in what we call Bayounets, or manual impact dprinklers that through water about 100'.  When the grass got watered, it got mowed. Where it didn't it was let longer to hide the bare spots.  fast forward. To combat the Scalloped edges, courses went to automatic, double rows with head-to-head coverage patterns.  But the inplace infrastucture could only put out the same amount of water as the single row manual.  So, the double row sprinklers were smaller.  But they did irrigate a bit further out into the rough, which allowed the rough to become thicker So, that is where the 30 yd fairway came from.  Bend it, twist it and snake it, you can make it appear wider.  But get get wider, you have to go to 3 rows, possibly 4.

[Patrick_Mucci]

The fairways of Rustic Canyon and Engineers are wider than 40, but there are not too many courses with fairways over 40 yards width.  I would venture that most courses are around 30 yards wide.

RMD,

That sounds far too narrow.

Years ago, US Open fairways were constricted to 26 yard widths.

I doubt that local golf course widths are only 4 yards wider.

36-40 or more yards would seem to be the norm, not 30.

Two friends of mine from Las Vegas played Desert Forest this past weekend.
I'm waiting to hear their thoughts.  When I played it many years ago, I thought it was a little tight.

[Sean_A]

It's not the width of the fairway that's important, it's the width from which the average player can easily find his ball and play his next shot without trouble.  If the width of that playable area is less than 60 yards, a lot of people are going to have trouble getting around.

60 yards of playable width likely eliminates 90% of the top 100 courses.  Of course, playable is a somewhat vague term. 

Assuming flat land in moderate wind areas, I would think 40 yards of fairway width (on average) should be a minimum.  Although, having 30 yard fairways with low rough of 10 yards either side is fine as well.  All this said, its not strictly about width, but how the archie makes width matter. 

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

It's not the width of the fairway that's important, it's the width from which the average player can easily find his ball and play his next shot without trouble.  If the width of that playable area is less than 60 yards, a lot of people are going to have trouble getting around.

60 yards of playable width likely eliminates 90% of the top 100 courses.  Of course, playable is a somewhat vague term. 

Assuming flat land in moderate wind areas, I would think 40 yards of fairway width (on average) should be a minimum.  Although, having 30 yard fairways with low rough of 10 yards either side is fine as well.  All this said, its not strictly about width, but how the archie makes width matter. 

Ciao

60 yards of playable width is a good number in my opinion. Most of the Top 100 courses I know manage this (or close to it) even if the fairways only stretch to 30 or 35 yards (25 yards being an R&A recommendation / stipulation for Open courses apparently)

[Jeff_Brauer]

Assuming this is a pure design question and that irrigation is there, I offer the following (again)

I agree that 60 yards (40 yards with 10 yards of mowed rough either side (or 15/5) can be certainly enough) as long as its light rough for playability, except at tournament time.  Even then, the spinners from light rough should be enough penalty.

To be honest, a play corridor of 70-80 yards is required for fun, hit it, find it, hit it again golf for average golfers.

For the strategery, it depends on the angle of the green, and how much the frontal hazards come out in front.  Generally, longer holes require wider fw to open up the angle.   I can design a green on any hole with just a few degrees of angle and then narrow up the fw, presuming hitting it within a yard of the fw edge is what you want to open up the preferred line of play on the second. However, if the green angles 20 degrees instead of 5 or ten, then the fw has to be wider.

Thus, we can make nearly any fw width work and maintenance considerations suggest narrower fw and greens more on line with play.  Not that some variety wouldn't be great, but as we saw in the 30's and now, there is a great chance that alternate fw, wide fw, etc. will get reduced in the name of cost, so in most cases, it pays to be "efficient" and design for the narrowest fw possible that still offers strategic value.

[Sean_A]

It's not the width of the fairway that's important, it's the width from which the average player can easily find his ball and play his next shot without trouble.  If the width of that playable area is less than 60 yards, a lot of people are going to have trouble getting around.

60 yards of playable width likely eliminates 90% of the top 100 courses.  Of course, playable is a somewhat vague term. 

Assuming flat land in moderate wind areas, I would think 40 yards of fairway width (on average) should be a minimum.  Although, having 30 yard fairways with low rough of 10 yards either side is fine as well.  All this said, its not strictly about width, but how the archie makes width matter. 

Ciao

60 yards of playable width is a good number in my opinion. Most of the Top 100 courses I know manage this (or close to it) even if the fairways only stretch to 30 or 35 yards (25 yards being an R&A recommendation / stipulation for Open courses apparently)

Ally

In my experience very few top links offer 60 yards of playable width.  Or I should say most don't offer 60 yards of width where one can expect to find their ball and/or advance more than just back into the fairway.  Even in the States, 60 yards on a top parkland course is massively wide if one hopes to find the ball and advance mmore than just back into the fairway. 

Ciao

[Jeff_Brauer]

Everyone here seems so enamored with width and yet complains about the bomb and gouge mentality.  Not sure that is compatible.  Something like 30-35 yards makes the fw a hit or miss proposition for most.  40-45 introduces a chance of strategy, but at 50-55, the penalty is so low that it enourages bombing over strategy does it not? 

Forget the golden age theory, that is what I see today.  Don't overly wide fw negate control, and effectively eliminate strategy they are meant to allow?

[JMEvensky]

Forget the golden age theory, that is what I see today.  Don't overly wide fw negate control, and effectively eliminate strategy they are meant to allow?

Thanks--maybe you're not as clueless as some thread responses obviously indicate.

Not every golf course has wind,contoured greens,or is bunkered well.I guess most reward proper angles but the punishment isn't too severe for the wrong side of a fairway.

Width for width's sake seems as misguided as narrowness.One size won't fit all.

[Jeff_Brauer]

One size won't fit all?  Shouldn't that be on the Rocketballz thread?

More seriously, the theoretical question is how do you punish each of these shots? 

Aim towards correct edge and hazard and hit it perfect?  - None, obviously.
Aim towards correct edge and hazard but miss towards rough on that side? 
  Good Angle and light rough/hazard?
  Good Angle and light rough/hazard?
Aim towards correct edge and hazard but miss towards middle? 
  Average Angle and great lie?
Aim towards safe/wrong approach angle edge and hazard but miss towards middle? 
  Less than average Angle and great lie?
Aim towards safe/wrong approach angle edge and hazard but miss towards rough on that side? 
   Worse Angle and rough?
   Worse Angle and light or heavy rough? 

Then why play too aggressive if the penalty is tough hazard on preferred side?
Why play safe if deep rough gets you in trouble?

Seems like reasonable width fw and light rough is the most likely to tempt someone to take the risk on a hazard, no? 

[JMEvensky]

Seems like reasonable width fw and light rough is the most likely to tempt someone to take the risk on a hazard, no? 

I agree 100%--so long as the golf course plays firm--especially the greens. If the greens are firm enough,light rough is more of a problem than 3" bermuda.

It's all part/parcel of TEP's maintenance meld.The hard part is getting members to understand and buy into it.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Good article from Jeff:
 
http://www.cybergolf.com/golf_news/minnesota_fats_asks_how_do_you_determine_the_angle_of_a_fairway_approach

[Jeff_Brauer]

Agree that maintenance meld is important.

Jim, wonder why I re-wrote most of that in the post above.  The sketch shows it nicely.

[Ally Mcintosh]

It's not the width of the fairway that's important, it's the width from which the average player can easily find his ball and play his next shot without trouble.  If the width of that playable area is less than 60 yards, a lot of people are going to have trouble getting around.

60 yards of playable width likely eliminates 90% of the top 100 courses.  Of course, playable is a somewhat vague term. 

Assuming flat land in moderate wind areas, I would think 40 yards of fairway width (on average) should be a minimum.  Although, having 30 yard fairways with low rough of 10 yards either side is fine as well.  All this said, its not strictly about width, but how the archie makes width matter. 

Ciao

60 yards of playable width is a good number in my opinion. Most of the Top 100 courses I know manage this (or close to it) even if the fairways only stretch to 30 or 35 yards (25 yards being an R&A recommendation / stipulation for Open courses apparently)

Ally

In my experience very few top links offer 60 yards of playable width.  Or I should say most don't offer 60 yards of width where one can expect to find their ball and/or advance more than just back into the fairway.  Even in the States, 60 yards on a top parkland course is massively wide if one hopes to find the ball and advance mmore than just back into the fairway. 

Ciao

Sean,

The ones with good rough management programmes do.

30 - 35 yards fairway - sometimes more - with 10 to 15 yards of whispy fescue (stalks without leaves) either side... or one side more than the other...

[Jim_Kennedy]

Jim, wonder why I re-wrote most of that in the post above.  The sketch shows it nicely.

That post had a familiar ring to it. 

[Bill_McBride]

Everyone here seems so enamored with width and yet complains about the bomb and gouge mentality.  Not sure that is compatible.  Something like 30-35 yards makes the fw a hit or miss proposition for most.  40-45 introduces a chance of strategy, but at 50-55, the penalty is so low that it enourages bombing over strategy does it not? 

Forget the golden age theory, that is what I see today.  Don't overly wide fw negate control, and effectively eliminate strategy they are meant to allow?

Don't central and diagonal bunkers effectively narrow even a wide fairway?  NThen distance control becomes as important as pure distance, and accuracy even more.

When green and greenside bunkering favor an approach from a certain location, regardless of fairway width, doesn't that reduce the effectiveness of bomb and gouge?

I feel like Pat Mucci, employing the Socratic method.

[Sean_A]

It's not the width of the fairway that's important, it's the width from which the average player can easily find his ball and play his next shot without trouble.  If the width of that playable area is less than 60 yards, a lot of people are going to have trouble getting around.

60 yards of playable width likely eliminates 90% of the top 100 courses.  Of course, playable is a somewhat vague term. 

Assuming flat land in moderate wind areas, I would think 40 yards of fairway width (on average) should be a minimum.  Although, having 30 yard fairways with low rough of 10 yards either side is fine as well.  All this said, its not strictly about width, but how the archie makes width matter. 

Ciao

60 yards of playable width is a good number in my opinion. Most of the Top 100 courses I know manage this (or close to it) even if the fairways only stretch to 30 or 35 yards (25 yards being an R&A recommendation / stipulation for Open courses apparently)

Ally

In my experience very few top links offer 60 yards of playable width.  Or I should say most don't offer 60 yards of width where one can expect to find their ball and/or advance more than just back into the fairway.  Even in the States, 60 yards on a top parkland course is massively wide if one hopes to find the ball and advance mmore than just back into the fairway. 

Ciao

Sean,

The ones with good rough management programmes do.

30 - 35 yards fairway - sometimes more - with 10 to 15 yards of whispy fescue (stalks without leaves) either side... or one side more than the other...

I guess you must play the courses with good management.  I RARELY come across clubs with whispy rough and this year we had hardly a growing season.  When I first started coming to the UK whispy rough was far more prevalent - it was one of the things that attracted me to links golf.  

Ciao  

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

It's not the width of the fairway that's important, it's the width from which the average player can easily find his ball and play his next shot without trouble.  If the width of that playable area is less than 60 yards, a lot of people are going to have trouble getting around.

60 yards of playable width likely eliminates 90% of the top 100 courses.  Of course, playable is a somewhat vague term. 

Assuming flat land in moderate wind areas, I would think 40 yards of fairway width (on average) should be a minimum.  Although, having 30 yard fairways with low rough of 10 yards either side is fine as well.  All this said, its not strictly about width, but how the archie makes width matter. 

Ciao

60 yards of playable width is a good number in my opinion. Most of the Top 100 courses I know manage this (or close to it) even if the fairways only stretch to 30 or 35 yards (25 yards being an R&A recommendation / stipulation for Open courses apparently)

Ally

In my experience very few top links offer 60 yards of playable width.  Or I should say most don't offer 60 yards of width where one can expect to find their ball and/or advance more than just back into the fairway.  Even in the States, 60 yards on a top parkland course is massively wide if one hopes to find the ball and advance mmore than just back into the fairway. 

Ciao

Sean,

The ones with good rough management programmes do.

30 - 35 yards fairway - sometimes more - with 10 to 15 yards of whispy fescue (stalks without leaves) either side... or one side more than the other...

I guess you must play the courses with good management.  I RARELY come across clubs with whispy rough and this year we had hardly a growing season.  When I first started coming to the UK whispy rough was far more prevalent - it was one of the things that attracted me to links golf.  

Ciao  

Ciao

That's interesting Sean... Why do you think it might be less prevalent these days?... Money?... Certainly the 3 really wet summers from 2007 to 2009 made it almost impossible to keep the roughs under control for a few months in the middle of the year... But surely almost all links courses have their roughs cut back for the winter / shoulder season, whispy or not... Have to say I haven't really noticed a change...

I'll still stick with Tom's 60 yards... If it's a guaranteed lost ball on any width less than that then courses become borderline unplayable for the average golfer on a relatively windy day...