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...
Ally
20 years ago is about the time that green fees started to severely escalate. I think there is a connection between money and thick rough. This year, the only links I came across with whispy rough was Formby - the best conditioned course I saw all year. Even at Formby there are several fairways where there is nowhere near 60 yards of width where one is guaranteed to find and advance their ball. Factors such as bunkering, sharp fallaways from fairways (to lush low points), cross winds and just narrow fairways all combine to seriously reduce width. I too think 60 yards is a good target on average, but I am far from convinced this achieved on a regular basis. Again, I must stress that width in and of itself is rather meaningless unless the design properly incorporates it.
Ciao
Ciao