Does Doak Overdo Width?

[Mike Hendren]

The new Dismal photographs suggest extreme width, not unlike Streamsong.  Even I only missed one fairway at Ballyneal a few years ago.  Thoughts?

Bogey

[Terry Lavin]

Width equals fun, especially in a windy environment, so I'd say it's not overdone.  Narrowness is not fun, so it can be overdone.  Now I'm done.

[Jimmy Muratt]

The width is a necessity to accomodate the winds.  And, the width also makes proper placement off the tee crucial if you want to attack certain pin positions.  

[Phil McDade]

Bogey:

I think width has to be taken into consideration with other factors -- playing conditions certainly, but also the surrounds, the scale of the property (narrowness would look out of place in the Sand Hiils, I'd think), and perhaps most importantly, whether width creates more interesting choices for the golfer off the tee and on approach shots (as well as strategic positioning on lay-ups) through use of features such as contours, hollows, and bumps not otherwise available without great width.

Whether that width is put to good use is another thing -- there have been some comments on Richard Choi's Gamble Sands thread that the width Kidd utilizes there doesn't necessarily lead to interesting choices for the golfer. (I'm not sure I agree with that, based on what I've seen, but have not played it, and Richard is a pretty darn astute observer of golf architecture.)

And I also don't think width for width's sake should be the default position of those who think golf ought to be this option-filled endeavor always giving the golfer choices about how to approach a hole. I've seen plenty of narrow, tree-lined courses that provide options for golfers and are appropriate for their setting.

[Jim Sherma]

I certainly did not find Ballyneal overdone with the width. I don't think you can have the amount of movement in the fairways coupled with the expectation of wind and not have significant width in order to keep it playable. Saying that, this amount of width on a softer less windy site could very well become excessive.

[Brent Hutto]

The new Dismal photographs suggest extreme width, not unlike Streamsong.  Even I only missed one fairway at Ballyneal a few years ago.  Thoughts?

Bogey

Are you asking from a pure playing perspective? Or from a cost-benefit perspective?

Neglecting the cost of maintaining the short grass, for my part it's hard to imagine any amount of width being less fun or interesting to play simply because it's wide open. That said, some interesting ground contours are necessary.

In my opinion on a dead flat, uninteresting piece of ground it may be possible to gin up some interest with bunkers and/or rough to provide definition. But on an interestingly rolling bit of ground they are unnecessary and the rough can just as well be done away with altogether.

All as long as I'm not the one having to pay someone to mow 300 acres of fairway turf every couple of days.

[Jason Thurman]

I haven't played enough Doak courses to make a judgment, but maintenance cost seems to be the one element that never gets spoken of when it comes to width. It makes things more fun and strategic and can lend outstanding playing qualities, but it also means more maintained turf with more intensity of maintenance.

Art Hills' courses may not be especially fun or strategic and may not have outstanding playing qualities, but they are generally affordable and seemed to withstand the recession pretty well.

In other words, I'm echoing what Brent posted while I was writing this post.

[Mac Plumart]

Does Doak overdo width? 

NO!

The complexity of his greens and surrounds require width to attack from ideal lines and his width allows for equifinality.  With this, the seeds of great golf can be sown.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bogey,

I'm begining to question the width between your ears !

[Brent Hutto]

...

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

I really dont think so.
And having played the Rennaisnace Club with narrowed fairways, it gave me an appreciation of how versatile his courses can be.
Although I am sure Mr Doak himself was none too pleased with how the club had narrowed his playing corridors, it did show how the course can be manipulated into playing as a venue for a pro event with narrowed margins.

I then went back to my array of photos and notes from other Doak courses and envisioned them with narrowed playing lanes and how they too could be manipulated.
Not that I am suggesting that is something Mr Doak or many of us would appreciate but it does give one another view of the architect and his talents.
Or indeed it may be a biproduct of his good design that the narrowing is on option  even if it is something he didnt even consider in the original design work.
Whilst the narrowed playing corridors do limit the options on how holes can be played, it also has the flexibility of a course playing in different ways.
I personally enjoyed The Rennaisance Club with narrowed fairways but would equally like to play it with the architects original vision in mind.

[Richard Choi]

Bogey, I have seen you play. I find it hard to believe that you would only miss one fairway at Ballyneal...

[Kevin Robinson]

Have you ever putted on his greens? Go play Lost Dunes and try to tell me that it doesn't matter where you hit it off the tee-as long as it's in the fairway.
Doak greens/daily hole locations dictate the line of play - so wide, generous fairways are a necessity...as I understand his philosophy.

[Peter Pallotta]

Judging from Tom's comments on my "do you start a book on page 116" thread, he genuinely does want to give golfers as much freedom and choice as possible to play his courses in whatever way (and with whatever clubs) they want, even if [in my view, not Tom's] they choose variable teeing grounds and thus don't play a course the way he "intended".  Again, from past comments, Tom seems to focus on and "establish the essence of the course" in two main ways, i.e. the routing and the greens. Those two elements give the course its character and ethos and challenge and playability, and within that framework/setting Tom seems very pleased to have golfers do whatever the hell they want. (I think it's mainly because he's a good son and loves his mom, and so always makes sure that she could happily play any of his courses, and always remembers that she's coming into Par 3s and short Par 4s with a 4 wood.)  Width -- overdone or not -- is clearly part of that approach, and not simply as a consideration on a windy site but more so because he doesn't want to get in any golfer's way (at least not obviously so! -- the great magic trick of "hiding his hand" while actually having his "hands" all over the course that he's done so well for so long, and that i think is the true reason for the success of his courses.)

Peter

[RJ_Daley]

MW-P,  That is the first I heard of a Doak or any other course of some of the modern architects practicing lay of the land wider playing corridors actually being narrowed.  I'd be interested if there are any other modern courses of this genre that have been narrowed.

Mike, I think as others have pointed out that the critical factors of the wider playing corridors are the more intensely contoured land that is not so graded out and laid upon naturally interesting land, and firm and fast.  Think back to the time we played the earlier version of Erin Hills.  Even as we played there, the originally presented corridors had to be widened from the original grow-in because the shots were into over-the-hillock blind LZs and landing on firm ground and rollling into untenable hay.  So, by the time we played there, do you remember the ham handed effort they made to take a green chopper and litterally cut about 12 feet either side of the original fairways through native weedy junk?   Big land rolling terrain into blind LZs combined with firm and fast, and wind with adjacent wooga unplayable native rough or just US Open rough equals ARCHITORTURE!  

That, and as noted, modern architects seem to be into complex greens wth more tie-ins to contour features in the greens surrounds also begs for wider approach alleys to increase imagination and fun shots.  People want to have more fun hitting their shots, not be dictated and held to one way all day every day....  

I hope this helps.  

[Tom_Doak]

The new Dismal photographs suggest extreme width, not unlike Streamsong.  Even I only missed one fairway at Ballyneal a few years ago.  Thoughts?

Bogey

Michael:

I think we have overdone the width here and there, but not on the courses you mention.  When I saw Pinehurst #2 last year, I vowed to get the widths down on future projects.

Nobody has mentioned it so far, but it is crucial to consider width in the context of what the rough is like.  At places like Ballyneal and Dismal, the outside edge is native prairie grasses that we don't plan for the owner to maintain much or at all; and as someone just reported, this year those areas are pretty thick.  So we made the fairways VERY WIDE to compensate.  [I suppose some others would have grassed the corridors wide but left a good buffer of it as rough on either side to reduce mowing costs; we hate that esthetically, and between having the fairways in fescue and mowing everything at one height, we think the difference in maintenance cost is negligible.]

At Streamsong, off the grass is open sand and some thick native, more like Pinehurst.  There are holes that could have been narrower, but my associates are always looking for a good place visually to stop the fairway, and sometimes we went further than necessary there.  At Tara Iti in New Zealand, we have the same situation, and we've narrowed it up quite a bit, especially on the back nine [the first few holes were grassed prior to my seeing Pinehurst].

Years ago, I did lists of the widest courses I'd ever played [Royal Melbourne, Augusta, St. Andrews, NGLA, Kapalua, Pinehurst before the changes] and the narrowest [Marysville, Pine Bay, Olympic, Elk Ridge, Grand Haven, Boat of Garten].  That exercise led me to err on the side of too wide, rather than too narrow.  Most golfers [and most of my clients] prefer this, and so do I.  But, if they choose to narrow them up after the fact, as at The Renaissance Club, they certainly have the flexibility to do so.

[Greg Tallman]

Seeing the "retail golfer" on a daily basis I find it hard to believe that such a thing is possible unless purpose building a facility for professional play.

[Chris DeToro]

I definitely don't think width is overdone or could be overdone.  I like how he builds courses so that it does matter where you are in the width of the fairway and you'll generally be rewarded by being in the right spot, but someone that is a bit more wayward can still play. 

The only example where I thought width was overdone was Old Mac--for my preference, I thought there was too much width.  I prefer narrower corridors as it forces me to concentrate a bit more.  Just my personal preference

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Chris,
I agree with your point of narrowing ones focus.
I think alot og "better" players find narrower fairways easier to play for that reason.
One of the things I liked particularly about Streamsong Blue was how hard I had to think off the tee to figure out what was the best line rather trhan just step up and hit into a super wide fairway.
The first time you play such courses that is obvioulsy hard to figure out which is also why those type of courses get better each time you play them.
I think it took me all of my 5 rounds at Streamsong to finally come up with my desired lines off the tee.
I am sure the same would have been the case at Rennaisance had that decision not been made for me by the greensstaff.

[RJ_Daley]

Nobody has mentioned it so far, but it is crucial to consider width in the context of what the rough is like.  At places like Ballyneal and Dismal, the outside edge is native prairie grasses that we don't plan for the owner to maintain much or at all; and as someone just reported, this year those areas are pretty thick.  So we made the fairways VERY WIDE to compensate.

Big land rolling terrain into blind LZs combined with firm and fast, and wind with adjacent wooga unplayable native rough or just US Open rough equals ARCHITORTURE!  

Nobody here...

I wish one of our photo shop geeks would take some pictures of DR-R posted by Dan Moore and show the corridors with about 33-35yard FWs and about a 3-6ft intermediate cut, then native.  It would look very odd in that scale of property.  In fact, wasn't that look a bit startling in the first iteration of DR-W upon first opening after grow-in?  I wonder if Chris can say which FWs and LZs on the white were widened and by how much?  I could be wrong, but I think the modifications to width were in several areas.  

I laughed the other day listening to Michael Strahan comment how when he plays golf he hates to loose those 4-5 dollar balls in the rough or water.  (ooops, did I just admit to watching Kelly Lee and Michael in the morning   )   Here is a guy that can afford to lose balls all day, yet it irks him.  I don't think he is any different than the vast majority of golfers who are not very low handicaps with very well controlled accuracy.  Who in the world wants to conduct searches for balls in junk, all day long?   And who in the world wants to be in the same group or behind average golfers who are wandering around rough searching?  When I hit one into junk, and my playing companions come over to help search, it irks me to no end that I am disrupting the rythym and pace of their round.  It throws everyone off, and leaves a negative taste in the golfer's mouths, all the way around.  

As an old hack who plays nearly every round with similar old hackers, we often hit balls into our creeks and ponds.  All of us old dudes carry ball dippers.  That isn't so bad.  You dip for your ball drop and move on.  No big deal nor disruption.  Take your penalty and play on.  But, search the rough and wooga frequently and it becomes a pain in the ass.  If you do it all day long, most of us don't want to go back.  IMHO.

[Kevin_D]

This is an interesting thread.  I haven't been to Ballyneal yet but seeing pictures of the place never made me think "too wide" (and yes I know that pictures can be misleading, but that's all I have to work with).  DRR does look pretty wide, but that didn't come to mind there either.

"Too wide" has come to mind, though, when looking at the Gamble Sands photo tour currently being posted.  I don't know whether or not that is actually the case, but that is my impression (and it's probably the first time I've had that thought about a course).

[Keith Phillips]

I think holes such as 1 and 18 at Pacific Dunes could benefit from MORE width!  Tom's point re. the neighboring rough is critical...at Bayonne in the early days a 'one-yard fairway miss' could easily result in a lost ball, and they didn't have enough land to make certain fairways wide enough to deal with that.

[Sean_A]

I have seen one Doak course.  I would say the course isn't terribly narrow, but a bit narrow.  Narrow enough so that I consider some of the greens too harsh given what it takes to reach them.  I don't think there is an optimal approach angle on some holes.  I know the course wasn't designed to be this way, but I did find it instructive in terms of green contours.  I previously thought it was nearly impossible to have greens with too much movement given decent green speeds.  I now think the more (beyond considerations of wind, slope and firmness) contoured the greens the more width is needed to gain the best angles of approach which also means that more contoured greens need to larger than normal greens.  

The moral of the story is just like being wary of creating to much contour for fear of ever increasing green speeds, there should be a fear that courses may be significantly narrowed, making the greens play far harder than intended. 

Ciao

[Chris DeToro]

I have seen one Doak course.  I would say the course isn't terribly narrow, but a bit narrow.  Narrow enough so that I consider some of the greens too harsh given what it takes to reach them.  I don't think there is an optimal approach angle on some holes.  I know the course wasn't designed to be this way, but I did find it instructive in terms of green contours.  I previously thought it was nearly impossible to have greens with too much movement given decent green speeds.  I now think the more (beyond considerations of wind, slope and firmness) contoured the greens the more width is needed to gain the best angles of approach which also means that more contoured greens need to larger than normal greens. 

Ciao

Sean, which course?

[Brent Hutto]

I have seen one Doak course.  I would say the course isn't terribly narrow, but a bit narrow.  Narrow enough so that I consider some of the greens too harsh given what it takes to reach them.  I don't think there is an optimal approach angle on some holes.  I know the course wasn't designed to be this way, but I did find it instructive in terms of green contours.  I previously thought it was nearly impossible to have greens with too much movement given decent green speeds.  I now think the more (beyond considerations of wind, slope and firmness) contoured the greens the more width is needed to gain the best angles of approach which also means that more contoured greens need to larger than normal greens.  

Ciao

Which eventually brings you to Old Mac, right? Huge contours in enormous greens with ginormous fairways.

That's the kind of thing I'd find fascinating, myself. But there are two obvious downsides to that approach:

There are the "retail golfers" who think any course where they three-putt more than twice a round is over the top ridiculous.

Maintenance cost of a set of holes with an acre-plus per green and twenty acres per fairway (or whatever the actual numbers work out to).