[Brent Hutto]

As a player, I'd imagine there's a lot to be said for using your mental energy to concentrate on perfect execution of a routine and basic plan rather than seeking advantages of tiny fractions of a shot. Put another way, you can take elite players out of their comfort zones by making it sufficiently penal for their usual shot to go Over There Where You Can't Afford To Be. It is much harder to coax them into a wide variety of shots by offering an option for Over There The Angle Of The Approach Is Better.

Angles of approach are typically denominated in maybe tenths of a stroke, or less. Don't Go Over There can often be a half stroke or more. When the fractional advantages are small enough, it's good strategy (or tactics at least) to sit back in the safety of hitting shots you've hit 20, 30, 40 times a week for your whole career rather than taking on a shot with less assurances of successful execution.

[Brent Hutto]

Let's think through another hypothetical.

Imagine there are 5 fairways at Olympic where it is possible to add an extra 20-30 yards of short-grass width and offer a meaningfully advantageous angle of approach. For a typical player, most or all of these require doing something other than "driver as straight as you can hit it" and by trying and failing to work the ball they may end up in the thick rough.

Compare two strategies. One is to seek every advantage available by playing a shot off the tee. Go for the strategic angle five times out of five. The other is to rely on your accustomed straight (i.e. slight fade or draw) driver shot all five times.

Surely it's not unlikely that out of five attempts to work the ball a player might have a serious double-cross or misfire leading to a pitch-out, layup or perhaps even to a big number. Such a mistake could easily cost a full stroke.

The question is, can five times successfully gaining the angle advantage lead to an accumulated saving of one full stroke? I'd think it might be a close call whether these things can be made worth 20% of a stroke advantage apiece, relative toward just popping the ball out there into the short grass somewhere and forgoing the angle.

And the second-order effect is what kind of wear and tear would it have over the course of a round to be making up shot shapes and committing to the results.

[Patrick_Mucci]

So how much width is needed, presuming firm and fast conditions, in order to make distinctly aiming at "this side" versus "that side" versus "center" of the fairway practical? Keeping in mind that we're talking about aiming from 260-340 yards distance. And angle-wise on the approach we're talking distances of 180-240 yards.

Brent,

You can't answer that question at Olympic without factoring in the cant of the fairways, a critical element.

I mean at some point, the goal is to be in the short grass. Period. If the shortest cut is 25 yards wide then surely the wisest strategy is just to minimize the odds of being in the rough. Because right-center-left are less than 10 yards apart, aimed at from 300 yards away. And how much angle-advantage can 15-20 yards offer on a 200+ yard approach?

Obviously if you're on the Old Course it's all about angles. You're not going to be aiming just "toward the fairway" but rather to a more strategic spot for the approach (or maybe just to give the widest possible berth to the pot bunkers.

My question is this. If the Olympic setup had offered 20 yards more width on fairways across the board, would that have brought playing angles into the equation?

Absolutely.

It also would have rewarded the use of the driver in many cases.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Pat I am not sure why you would say that. Olympic has done so in the past. I cannot imagine any course and their membership wanting to keep 20 to 25 yard wide fairways year round. I certainly did not find Shinny to keep the US Open fairways after the event. Nor did Pebble. You may see more of them than me. I assure you that we will not. notwithstanding David's comment. I think the chipping areas will not and should not be maintained tight because we will not maintain them correctly. The hardest shot in golf is chipping of a wet tight lie. That is what we will have unless we redo the irrigation system to fit the new  water patterns around the greens. The tight chipping areas look stupid on some of the holes like 3 and certainly do not fit the course design wise. This course is about hitting small greens and staying below the hole. If you miss, you are getting up and down from a thick tough lie. It is what I grew up with small bermuda greens and deep fringe on classic courses in the south .

[Scott Sander]

In the USGA model, thick rough has always seems to be the companion of the narrowed fairways.

Is there place in this discussion the "French Lick-Dye" model of wide corridors, VERY narrow fairways, expansive mild rough, and difficult-to-hold greens?

I haven't seen enough to be convinced of the concept, but I did see it in action on the course at the Big 10 Championship.  The players had a very tough time holding long approach shots from the rough.  Short irons, not so much.

I'm not advocating it; I haven't played high-level golf and my understanding of architecture is still wafer-thin.  I do know that it would "look" funny to impose such conditions on Olympic and elsewhere.  And, frankly, I'm not sure that Dye even intends for the rough to stay short for high-level events.

But I am curious to hear thoughts...

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tiger,

Shinnecock is considerably narrower than before they began hosting modern Opens.

While the fairways were widened after Opens they were never widened to the pre modern Open dimensions

[Michael Ryan]

I'm lucky to play Newport CC in Rhode Island a few times a year.  I'm consistently disappointed in the narrow width of some of the fairways, most notably the 7th fairway which has a good 15 to 20 yards of rough on the right side of the DZ that was not there prior to the lead up to the '06 Women's Open.  While not the exact topic of Pat's thread, the rough at Newport is extremely penal as well-and any post round drink includes listening to the membership bemoan their repeated encounters with it.  I'm amazed that a laid back membership that runs the gamut of golf ability does not look to have some softer conditions considering that their course is situated in an area where the wind can make even the best golfers struggle, no matter the course conditions.

I played Bethpage Black on Saturday and while I understand they are hosting a PGA TOUR event in August, I would love to see a slight widening of the fairway width there, specifically the 16th hole (add 1 and 15 to my short list).  I could see a slight widening of fairways at Bethpage chop decent amount of time off of the average round.  My group included two 6 handicaps, one 10 and one 15 and it took us 5 hours.  We waited a total of 3 minutes on the group in front of us and the group behind us waiting for one minute on the 14th tee as one of our group went bunker to bunker and struggled.  I do feel that of all courses, Bethpage Black has a reputation of toughness that it wants to uphold and would guess that my wish of seeing more width will never happen. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Michael Ryan,

Newport never returned their fairways to their pre-open widths,which is really unfortunate.

Newport is such great golf course.

I'm beyond surprised that they didn't restore the fairway widths.

The 5th hole is one of my all-time favorite par 4's.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

So Pat how wide is Shinny. I thought they were 50 to 70 yards wide depending on the place and hole. but I am just reaching back for memory and do not have a clear feel other than they never felt restrictive. I was more worried about my angle to the pin than concern with hitting them.

[Patrick_Mucci]

So Pat how wide is Shinny. I thought they were 50 to 70 yards wide depending on the place and hole. but I am just reaching back for memory and do not have a clear feel other than they never felt restrictive. I was more worried about my angle to the pin than concern with hitting them.

Tiger,

I think your dimensions are on the generous side.

Originally there were about 50 acres of fairway, reduced to about 20 for the 2004 Open and returned to about 30 currently.

In the time ahead I think we'll be able to see comparisons from 85+ years ago to today's date.

I'll send you the 1938 aerial which is currently in the National Archives, for your review

[Niall C]

Patrick

FWIW I think on the contrary. In this instance they have tested the players beyond the single question of can you hit the ball straight.

The speed of the fairways as well as their width in a roundabout kind of way have brought strategy and shotmaking back into the game. I mean, the players are trying to shape their shots to hold the fairway. They have also seen them employ different strategies in what they do off the tee ie. whether to hit a relatively short shot followed by a longer second played off the fairway or whether to risk hitting a longer club off the tee to a narrower part of the fairway with the possible benefit of a shorter shot in from the short stuff.

Its been fascinating seeing someone like McDowell with an obvious shape of shot, trying to shape it the other way.

Niall,

There's no strategy, it's the ultimate in target golf.

Hit the narrowed fairway or else.

Niall   

Patrick

Thats a puzzling comment. In a strict sense all golf is target golf unless you're just taking an ignorant swipe with absolutely no concern or aim in what you are trying to achieve.

The beauty of the Olympic course was that not only were the fairways sloping but on occasion the tees were off-set or the pro's were capable of carrying the dog-leg. That mean't they had to pick a line, length and shape of shot. They had plenty of choices. Yes, the difference between a successful shot and an unsuccessful one was quite distinct as a lot of the rough left little opportunity for recovery shots but it was the US Open for goodness sake. I thought it was a tremendous test of golf.

Frankly I'm surprised, I wouldn't have put you down as one who needed a hairy lipped bunker to help define strategy for you.

Niall

Just thought I would bump this one to allow Patrick the chance to respond.

Niall

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Bad for golf if you want to play the Bubba way, the way the modern game appears to have ventured.
But NOT bad for golf per say.
In fact I think it is great, it brings back the importance of accuracy which has been of  diminishing importance for most events the past 10 years or so.
the combination of narrow fairways and fast running conditions is probably overkill for the everyday golfer, but the fairway width alone I have no problem with.
We all agree that equpiment has been allowed to get out of hand and that the powers within the game are helpless at bringing it back, so narrow the fairways to diminish the advantgae of equipment abuse.

Lets make a 275yard straight shooter someone to be reckoned with again,someone who knows week in week out he can compete with the 330 yard bomber who hits it 20 yards offline.
that has gone from the game, and to me that is a shame.

[Brent Hutto]

Michael,

I don't think anyone here would argue for one dimensionality, whether that dimension be "accuracy" or "distance". But just like you don't want a course where a 275 yard straight shooter has zero chance against a 325 yard bomber, isn't it fair play to say you also don't want a course where a 325 yard bomber has zero chance against a 275 yard straight shooter?

Because it is entirely possible to take away so much of the room for error and make the rough (or trees or water) so penal that accuracy isn't just one thing that matters, it's the only thing that matters. I suspect in the past the USGA has had at least a few US Open setups approaching the point where if you hit even a few shots anything other than absolutely dead straight you lose. Period.

No extreme one-dimensionality would be good but if I had the choice between a course that favors a balls to the wall pure distance over all else mentality versus one that had the entire field bunting it around afraid to allow any tiny chance of an offline tee shot...I'd rather watch the bomber heaven, frankly. But what I really like is a course where both approaches used judiciously can win. The ideal is offering a High Road/Low Road variety where a Bomber who hits it just straight enough to survive and a Straight-Shooter who hits it just barely long enough to survive can both find themselves in contention come Sunday afternoon.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Brent I agree.
But I did not endorse the quality or severity of the rough, and I did point out that the frimness/width combination may be too severe.
But the specific question here is fairway width, so as such I very much stand by my earlier comments.

I am all for allowing the bombers to have an equal chance and six inch rough everywhere is unaccepatble, but the graduated rough they use at US Opens seems very reasonable to me.
Perhaps that first cut should be a little wider, but the basic principle is right on I think.

[Brent Hutto]

Oh I think they're right in the ballpark nowadays.

I'm trying to think back the last several seasons to come up with a major championship offering a great contrast in the final round. Where the top two or three finishers include a Lee Janzen type and a Phil Mickelson type both with a chance to the very end. Unfortunately I tend to forget these things once they're in the books and start looking forward to the next one...

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

No doubt we agree on this..same page entirely.
Only difference,I would rather watch the chop outs over the bombers.
But guess why?
Yep...straight short hitter, frustrated and getting my arse handed to me by kids half my age who hit it 50 past me in the "light" rough

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick

Thats a puzzling comment. In a strict sense all golf is target golf unless you're just taking an ignorant swipe with absolutely no concern or aim in what you are trying to achieve.

Not really.

There's a difference between dictating a limited or sole DZ versus giving the golfer his choice of DZ's vis a vis width, length and shape.

The beauty of the Olympic course was that not only were the fairways sloping but on occasion the tees were off-set or the pro's were capable of carrying the dog-leg. That mean't they had to pick a line, length and shape of shot.

They had plenty of choices.

Would you cite them on a hole by hole basis ?

Yes, the difference between a successful shot and an unsuccessful one was quite distinct as a lot of the rough left little opportunity for recovery shots but it was the US Open for goodness sake.

I thought it was a tremendous test of golf.

In terms of difficulty or architectural merit ?

How many times have you played the course ?

Would you like to play that course every day ?


Frankly I'm surprised, I wouldn't have put you down as one who needed a hairy lipped bunker to help define strategy for you.
On what factual basis would you infer that or are you just speculating ?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()