[jeffwarne]

Paging Mr. Warne,

Someone needs to step in and extoll the manifold benefits of 3/4" roughs.

correction
3/4 inch everything

[John Kavanaugh]

I hate width myself but like Tommy I have become proficient at old man golf.  I love a course where you can rope a dope or tortoise/hare a younger stronger player.

[Blake Conant]

I don't think width is overrated, but it is misused and maybe even used as a crutch by architects.

Using Sand Hills courses as an example... Prairie Club feels too wide at times, to the point of unnecessary maintained grass.  2, 3, 6 come to mind.  However, 16 or 9 at Sand Hills or 2 or 4 at Dismal Red are just as wide, but don't feel it.  That grass is justified and necessary given the strategy and conditions. 

Adding width just because it's in vogue or one thinks it'll make the hole more playable isn't a justifiable reason.  Maybe width and ragged bunkers are two tenants of a watered-down minimalism and architects use them both without considering why.

[Blake Conant]

As for telling people to hit it straighter, everyone is capable of doing that as long as they put their ego aside.  As John just said, the old man swing is available for everyone to use.  Take 30 yards off your drive and pipe it down the middle 80% of the time. 

Ironically, if everyone started playing that way it wouldn't encourage narrower fairways, it would encourage wider fairways with more ground game options and lines of play. 

[jeffwarne]

In playing the par 5 9th at Streamsong Blue my caddie, a good player, told me on the blind tee shot.
"Anywhere out there is fine-impossible to miss this fairway".
I asked for a specific line which he begrudgingly gave me, which I hit.
I then ripped a long bounding 3 wood onto the green between bunkers which would not have been possible from any other angle.(unless one were to curve that running shot which would be unlikely to go the 270 yards that I needed)
So in this case where you drove it DEFINITELY mattered, without unduly or more obviously punishing those who didn't hit that same tee shot, but denying them the opportunity to be able to do what I could from the ideal angle

[Sven Nilsen]

Further to Jeff's point about ideal locations, part of the game is figuring out where those locations are (depending on the days conditions, pin locations, player length, etc.)

Narrow fairways dictate that decision for the player, except in the odd circumstance where being in the rough offers a better angle.

Call it strategy, or simply a decision, but why would you want to limit these mental challenges?

[George Pazin]

I generally do not like to begin what seems to be a negative thread. But I have grown weary of the seemingly and endless array of threads bemoaning tight fairways and praising width. Width only really matters when the shot into the green has many different playing options.

You have properly diagnosed the existence of a problem, but misread it and thus missed the solution.

The real problem is that the proper angle of approach doesn't matter in enough instances - ie there aren't enough green with many different playing options.

Width isn't overrated - well-designed greens are underrated.

[jeffwarne]

I generally do not like to begin what seems to be a negative thread. But I have grown weary of the seemingly and endless array of threads bemoaning tight fairways and praising width. Width only really matters when the shot into the green has many different playing options.

Width isn't overrated - well-designed greens are underrated.

Game, set, match

and I might add, those who have driven to the improper area of the "fairway" rarely think such greens are well designed.

[Peter Pallotta]

Mr Pazin drops in, as cool as a winter wind and as clear-headed as a Chuck Noll game plan, gracing us with both his presence and a short and pithy post that (according to none less than our esteemed professional and golf broadcasster Jeff Warne) simply nails it!  

As Verne Lunquist once said: Yes, sir!!

[Garland Bayley]

I am with you Tommy. The game is about hitting the ball in the right place and that mainly means straight. ...

Funny?? I thought the game was about getting the ball in the hole in fewer strokes than your opponent!

Besides just making a better game, width saves ball searching time and lets you play golf instead of hide and seek.

Tommy,

How's this for an analogy.
Hitting it wide is a sin.
Hitting a recovery shot is repentance.
Are not high handicappers allowed heaven?

[jeffwarne]

I am with you Tommy. The game is about hitting the ball in the right place and that mainly means straight. ...

Funny?? I thought the game was about getting the ball in the hole in fewer strokes than your opponent!

Besides just making a better game, width saves ball searching time and lets you play golf instead of hide and seek.

Tommy,

How's this for an analogy.
Hitting it wide is a sin.
Hitting a recovery shot is repentance.
Are not high handicappers allowed heaven?

Hitting it wide is a sin.
Hitting a recovery is repentance.
Are golfers who err or choose poorly, not allowed A CHANCE at heaven?

[Grant Saunders]

Width just for the sake of it is a huge waste of resources.

Am I the only one who sees the irony of this forum clamouring for more width everywhere yet longer courses are considered evil in part due to the extra land required?

[Garland Bayley]

Width just for the sake of it is a huge waste of resources.

Am I the only one who sees the irony of this forum clamouring for more width everywhere yet longer courses are considered evil in part due to the extra land required?

I think there is no extra land required for the width being "clamored" for. Just a mower.

[John Connolly]

Width in the context of strategy is one thing. Perhaps it allows for more, perhaps it is an illusion. I'm not sure. But I will say this about width off the tee. The way I FEEL about the hole as I walk upon it is better when it is not tree lined and tight. I ENJOY the hole and course more when there is width. I see more. I experience more. I feel like I'm part of something bigger - something even better. I just finished playing Cal Club which has immense width and it is all the better for it. This is one reason I have become enamored with shared/connected fairways, I thread I'm threatening to start here to discuss.

Tree lined and narrow is not as enjoyable aesthetically as expansive. Strategy? I'm not sure we're good enough to exploit the width anyway. That's never been why I enjoy wide fairways.

[Alex Miller]

I generally do not like to begin what seems to be a negative thread. But I have grown weary of the seemingly and endless array of threads bemoaning tight fairways and praising width. Width only really matters when the shot into the green has many different playing options.

You have properly diagnosed the existence of a problem, but misread it and thus missed the solution.

The real problem is that the proper angle of approach doesn't matter in enough instances - ie there aren't enough green with many different playing options.

Width isn't overrated - well-designed greens are underrated.

http://wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_burn_centers_in_the_United_States 

Example: TOC is plenty wide, but the total acreage is quite small. Yes there's some crossing and instances where "Fore" will be called, but the fairways are shared at key points which make the width not a waste, but a virtue.

Also, since it's on my mind for the weekend, Stone Eagle is a great example of economic width. Many holes share portions of their fairway where drives are not interfering with one another and create bailouts for the Tiger golfer (that no longer means long-hitter I'm afraid ). Holes 2, 8, and 9 spring to mind as width that doesn't need to be incorporated for JUST strategy, but primarily playability. It's done so sparingly and beautifully there.

[George Pazin]

Width just for the sake of it is a huge waste of resources.

Am I the only one who sees the irony of this forum clamouring for more width everywhere yet longer courses are considered evil in part due to the extra land required?

I think there is no extra land required for the width being "clamored" for. Just a mower.

+1

Furthermore, most of us width-advocates are more than happy to live with a longer, less frequent, cut, as long as it's wider in the playing corridors. We're not the ones clamoring for Augusta like billiards fairways.

[Frank Pont]

 I will often hear a commentator announce, "It is going to be difficult for XX to get close to the pin because he is on the wrong side of the fairway," only to have him knock it stony.

Problem you describe is caused by soft greens. Tour players had a lot of problems to get the ball close to the pin from the wrong side of the fairway at Spanish Open at El Saler where the greens were very firm....

[Jud_T]

For those who think width is overrated, how do you square that with a desire for F&F?

[Marc Haring]

Tommy

You have given an example of a course you believe is wide enough, Beau Desert.  I fundamentally disagree because of the importance the recovery shot should have, slowing the game down and reducing the fun factor for many.  We shall have to agree to disagree on this one.  But before I depart, I can hardly think of a course I believe to be overly wide/forgiving off the tee.  Where are all these courses with excessive width?

Ciao

Succinctly put as usual Sean. Oh the joy of actually facing a fairway with width every now and then. Of course, a wide fairway does not mean one has a licence to rip it without thinking. That would just be a badly designed hole. It works beautifully when the width is measured and thoughtful.

Yes of course! There are no courses with excessive width!

[Marc Haring]

Marc, play Ballyneal, Friar's Head, Sand Hills, Sebonack and Old Mac and you will find it difficult to get your head around the width compared to the Beau Desrts of this world. It's almost disconcerting! I say _almost_ - amazing places that allow the player to have a great time and yet are still very challenging. They don't need to rely on silly tricks like choking a hole to death to challenge the player.

Oh if only Brian but unfortunately my 6 numbers don't seem to be forthcoming. Sometimes I wonder if there really is a God.

[Grant Saunders]

Width just for the sake of it is a huge waste of resources.

Am I the only one who sees the irony of this forum clamouring for more width everywhere yet longer courses are considered evil in part due to the extra land required?

I think there is no extra land required for the width being "clamored" for. Just a mower.

This is the same argument as saying all you need to do is turn the water off to get firm and fast. It just doesn't work like that.

[Garland Bayley]

Width just for the sake of it is a huge waste of resources.

Am I the only one who sees the irony of this forum clamouring for more width everywhere yet longer courses are considered evil in part due to the extra land required?

I think there is no extra land required for the width being "clamored" for. Just a mower.

This is the same argument as saying all you need to do is turn the water off to get firm and fast. It just doesn't work like that.

What are you saying?
That Augusta National is a better course now that they grow rough, than before when the mowed it all down?
You make no sense to me.

[Grant Saunders]

Im not arguing against width: I feel where it is appropriate and legitimately enhances the playing values and can be achieved without having to over commit resources that it is fine.

However, there seems to be a very black or white mentality regarding its application. Much like the views on trees, there is a real all  or nothing interpretation and the extreme end of the spectrum always seems to be the goal. The answer is to widen everything to large proportions. If its not 40+ yards wide then it doesn't satisfy this group. Rather than acknowledge there is room for variety and middle ground, the underlying message always comes across that anything short of the extreme is unacceptable and therefore looked down upon.

This board can have a really positive influence but it can easily  appear extremist and narrow minded about its ideals. The message, which is good, is being undermined by its delivery.

[Tim_Weiman]

Tommy,

Based on your opening post, I get the impression that you are not familiar with the game of golf.  I have been watching golfers for more than 50 years and it is very clear people can't hit the ball straight and probably never will.

To suggest we overemphasize width is silly.

[Sean_A]

Grant

The questions have been asked before; what is a wide fairway; what is a narrow fairway?  IMO, unless there is a specific architectural intent, fairways should rarely be less than 35 yards wide and that is if there is a good total  7-10 yards of short rough either side.  If most 4s and 5s can't be designed and maintained with that sort of width something has gone badly astray...unless the land is flat and windless...in which case I could care less about the width of fairways  

Ciao

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()