When Did This Type Of Presentation First Appear And Why?

[Sean_A]

I took a good long look at Joe B's excellent Tavistock Tour and once again (it seems all American parkland courses do this) noticed the narrowing of fairways short of some greens.  Below is an example.



Was this how these courses were originally presented?  If so, why?  If not, when and why did the change of presentation occur?  I did notice this past weekend that Huntercombe had created fairway lines similar to the above.  I have always been curious as to why clubs do this.  Interestingly, on the same course, Tavistock, there is an interesting half way solution of fairway being the same width as the green, but cutting off the bunkers.  This look seems quite unusual to me, sort of like how many Biarritz's look. 




Has anybody on green comms ever had conversations about fairway lines around greens with other comm members?  if so, what is your general impression?

Ciao

[PCCraig]

Sean,

I am with you on this topic. In my opinion it's a bizarre maintenance feature.

On my home course, which its design dates to 1893, the 15th hole is a ~550 yard par-5. The green is blind to the player until approximately 100yards out as it sits at the base of a hill. Past aerial photos show that the fairway used to the the width of the green. If that feature was instituted today, the player could choose to either lay up to 100-150 yards away or hit a longer club towards the green but be forced to play the fairway slope effectively. Now, a well struck iron or even a wedge short of the green usually gets hung up by rough.

When I've brought the subject up to other golfers, most have replied "well, if you made that all fairway it would be too easy."

Here's a shot of the hole in question:

[David Cronheim]

The "it would be too easy" comment always gets me, particularly because it usually it comes from someone who can't break 90. Opening up the fronts of the greens generally does not make the course much easier for a scratch golfer as he's flying his ball to the green most of the time anyway. Does anyone else get really annoyed when suggestions to approve playability (AND SPEED UP PLAY) get axed for the reason that a bunch of 35 handicaps think it would make the course too easy?

[Jud_T]

Does it have anything to do with the time and expense of mowing to the edges of greenside bunkers?

[Jeff_Brauer]

I see a lot of that narrowing, and figure its all time savings and cost savings, although some greens committee guy may have figured that sans bunkers, the approach was too easy and there needed to be some penalty for not going right at the center of the green!

As far as cutting off the fw and starting it again, there were calls for putting fw only in the LZ, and this might have something to do with it.  Theory is it saves maintenance.  Those photos look like its swales and valleys that don't have fw, so it might be a case of not having the right drainage to mow densely cut fw in that area.  Even if they added drainage, it might be difficult.

[Dan Kelly]

Sean,

I am with you on this topic. In my opinion it's a bizarre maintenance feature.

On my home course, which its design dates to 1893, the 15th hole is a ~550 yard par-5. The green is blind to the player until approximately 100yards out as it sits at the base of a hill. Past aerial photos show that the fairway used to the the width of the green. If that feature was instituted today, the player could choose to either lay up to 100-150 yards away or hit a longer club towards the green but be forced to play the fairway slope effectively. Now, a well struck iron or even a wedge short of the green usually gets hung up by rough.

When I've brought the subject up to other golfers, most have replied "well, if you made that all fairway it would be too easy."

Here's a shot of the hole in question:

You nailed it, Pat: "Now, a well struck iron or even a wedge short of the green usually gets hung up by rough."

And those "other golfers" are idiots. God help us!

That hole would be SO much more fun if the hillside were all fairway. The walk past the summit of the hill would be one of those great Wait and See golf moments: Where did my shot end up? Did I hit it too soft, or too hard, or just right?

[Jud_T]

Pat,

It also looks as if in addition to good shots being able to run onto the green that poor shots would be allowed to kick down the hill to the right of the green.

[Jason Topp]

That hole would be SO much more fun if the hillside were all fairway. The walk past the summit of the hill would be one of those great Wait and See golf moments: Where did my shot end up? Did I hit it too soft, or too hard, or just right?

The aspect of this hole not evident from the picture is that there is a hazard (or unplayable gunk - I cannot remember) just long of the green.  It would be much more in play if the fairway were wider.  Some "perfect" shots would wind up in trouble so the hole might become more difficult but also much more "unfair."

[David Davis]

I'd be willing to bet this trend if it's a trend is driven by what's seen on TV at PGA events. Since they narrow up the fairways  and approaches to make it more challenging for the pros. Then it's a if they do it, then so should we. I can't imagine it's saving a lot of money to not make a few extra passes with the mower.

[Dan Kelly]

The aspect of this hole not evident from the picture is that there is a hazard (or unplayable gunk - I cannot remember) just long of the green.  It would be much more in play if the fairway were wider.  Some "perfect" shots would wind up in trouble so the hole might become more difficult but also much more "unfair."

That could be remedied pretty easily, don't you think, with a skinny little bunker at the back of the green?

[PCCraig]

Pat,

It also looks as if in addition to good shots being able to run onto the green that poor shots would be allowed to kick down the hill to the right of the green.

Jud,

Right. There is a (fairly) deep bunker which you can't see on the left side of the photo above. Currently it doesn't get much play. It would certainly make the roll-out more fun and dangerous at the same time.

[PCCraig]

The aspect of this hole not evident from the picture is that there is a hazard (or unplayable gunk - I cannot remember) just long of the green.  It would be much more in play if the fairway were wider.  Some "perfect" shots would wind up in trouble so the hole might become more difficult but also much more "unfair."

That could be remedied pretty easily, don't you think, with a skinny little bunker at the back of the green?

Dan,

There are two skinny bunkers behind that green. Quite a few balls end up back there from shots that come in high and land too hard in front of the green.

[Dan Kelly]

The aspect of this hole not evident from the picture is that there is a hazard (or unplayable gunk - I cannot remember) just long of the green.  It would be much more in play if the fairway were wider.  Some "perfect" shots would wind up in trouble so the hole might become more difficult but also much more "unfair."

That could be remedied pretty easily, don't you think, with a skinny little bunker at the back of the green?

Dan,

There are two skinny bunkers behind that green. Quite a few balls end up back there from shots that come in high and land too hard in front of the green.

Guess I've never noticed them. My third shots have always ended up in that rough halfway down the hill.

[PCCraig]

The aspect of this hole not evident from the picture is that there is a hazard (or unplayable gunk - I cannot remember) just long of the green.  It would be much more in play if the fairway were wider.  Some "perfect" shots would wind up in trouble so the hole might become more difficult but also much more "unfair."

That could be remedied pretty easily, don't you think, with a skinny little bunker at the back of the green?

Dan,

There are two skinny bunkers behind that green. Quite a few balls end up back there from shots that come in high and land too hard in front of the green.

Guess I've never noticed them. My third shots have always ended up in that rough halfway down the hill.

Ha!!! 

[Sean_A]

So folks reckon this sort of presentation is down to modern mowing practices?  Any idea on when this started?  A fellow emailed me and he has been on a green comm for 25 years and he isn't quite sure when it started.  Growing up (80s), this sort presentation was already well established.  Back then I didn't know there was any other way a green complex would be maintained. 

One place where I thought grass would be cut around bunkers was Yeamans Hall, but there too the parkland look prevailed.  I happened to notice it too at Sunningdale.  Mind you, on firmer course it is less imperative to keep that grass quite short.  A minor first cut doesn't detract too much from allowing slopes and bunkers to do their jobs.



Ciao

[Jim_Kennedy]

Sean,
Here's an article that talks about the use of a riding greens mower being used for the first time on fairways.
 
http://gsr.lib.msu.edu/1980s/1983/830101.pdf

I believe it's nearly impossible to create the look you're talking about with walk behinds, and riding greens mowers didn't appear on golf courses until the late 1960s. As the article mentions, supers began using their second generation riders for other work, like fairways and tees, and even though Mr Zontek mentions 1982 as the year the practice became more common, he adds that it's difficult to fix a precise date as to when the practice began. I think it would be somewhere between 5 and 10 years before the first generation machines would be repurposed for fairways/tees/etc., given the date of their introduction, so that would put the date of the 'presentation' somewhere between the mid to late 1970s and the 1982 date Mr. Zontek mentioned.

I'd say cost was one reason. It's cheaper to maintain rough than it is fairways (especially approaches), greens mowers sip fuel rather than guzzle it like a tractor, and we did have a gas crunch in that era.

[Tim Martin]

Sean,

I am with you on this topic. In my opinion it's a bizarre maintenance feature.

On my home course, which its design dates to 1893, the 15th hole is a ~550 yard par-5. The green is blind to the player until approximately 100yards out as it sits at the base of a hill. Past aerial photos show that the fairway used to the the width of the green. If that feature was instituted today, the player could choose to either lay up to 100-150 yards away or hit a longer club towards the green but be forced to play the fairway slope effectively. Now, a well struck iron or even a wedge short of the green usually gets hung up by rough.

When I've brought the subject up to other golfers, most have replied "well, if you made that all fairway it would be too easy."

Here's a shot of the hole in question:

This is a practice I am seeing more of as well and Pat`s photo is a great example. Why should the player that takes a crack at the green or swings away on the 2nd shot get penalized to such an extreme? A lot of the drama that is created with the blind shot component is nullified with this mowing pattern as the chance to chase the ball in is all but eliminated with the exception of a "careered" shot. I would go so far as to say the pinched in fairway looks unnatural.

[Bradley Anderson]

The hourglass shaped approach first appeared in the 1920s - 1930s with the development of the tractor driven gang mower. The fairway mower was driven to the edge of the green and the tractor turned around to make the return pass towards the tee. This was the only shape that a gang mower could mow.

I think the better clubs continued to mow these areas by hand until the depression and war years when gang mowing became a necessity.

My theory is that over time the hourglass shaped approach just became our natural expectation of what the portrait of a green should look like. This would even effect how bunkers would be shaped around greens.



Some of the early methods of mowing with the side wheel mowers seemed to extend the cut out in to the fairways. These machines adapted to all kinds of terrain and the mowing pattern of the green could go out in to the fairways and up and down embankments, but the ball roll was probably less than 6 feet and putting was more of a strike than a stroke.

[Jon Wiggett]

Bradley,

you beat me to it. Pulling gangs make this one of the few options even it you cut round the green. Fantastic last photo. Incidentally, the reason for square greens was probably that the push handmower (no motor) was difficult to push in a straight line but almost impossible to push in a curve.

Jon

[Ronald Montesano]

This thread seems dead, for the right reasons. I see it at a lot of country clubs that have not revisited their origins, or have no origin to speak of (not designed by a gifted architect). I also see it a a number of CCFAD (country club for a day) courses that want to emulate private clubs.

I'm not a fan of really thick grass around greens, nor am I a fan of overextending the grounds crew. I love the ground game but understand that it's not always easy to accommodate extended mowing.

As far as the aesthetically-inclined greens committee that says "it looks pretty" or the misinformed greens committee that believes it will play tougher (which is unfortunately a goal for many clubs), I pity the balance of the membership.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Big gang mowers being drawn by tractors were still being used to mow fairways in the late 60's and early 70's.

Those mowers needed lots of room to turn in order to mow back up/down the fairway.

Areas fronting the green were very wide to accommodate those turns.

As more compact, efficient mowers were developed, their turn radii didn't require the same amount of space and thus the areas began to be narrowed.

That trend became systemic/universal as modern self contained mowers replaced the tractor drawn gang mowers.

One theory has it that the narrowing of green fronts, by letting the rough grow in, was cheaper than extending the fronting bunkers.
It added to the hole's defense.   Hence the concept of pinching in the approaches on par 5's and short par 4's and par 3's became prevalent.

Then, the trend continued further down the fairway.

Was it to protect par ?

Was it to to make course more difficult as improve.ments to the I & B evolved ?

[Peter Galea]

Areas fronting the green were very wide to accommodate those turns.

Weren't areas fronting greens very wide to accommodate the ground game as was practiced until
modern irrigation (and Jack Nicklaus' style of play) required the aerial shot?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Areas fronting the green were very wide to accommodate those turns.

Weren't areas fronting greens very wide to accommodate the ground game as was practiced until
modern irrigation (and Jack Nicklaus' style of play) required the aerial shot?

I don't believe so.

The aerial game arrived long before Jack Nicklaus turned Pro.

Too many people think that automated irrigation was the catalyst for the aerial game.
Manual irrigation had been around for a long, long time before automated irrigation, which arrived in force the mid to late 60's and early 70's.   Prior to that fairways were irrigated regulary, mostly in the early evening with syringing being done during the day on a needs basis.
It's a mistake to believe that automated irrigation and Nicklaus was responsible for the aerial game, it existed long before both.

Why have fairway width, at the green, that extended well beyond the perimeter of the green ?
How is the ground game accomodated under that arrangement ?

The ground game can only be utilized if the playing surfaces are prepared (mowed) for it