Width and 'Finegolf'

[Paul Gray]

http://www.finegolf.co.uk/what-is-fine-golf/golf-course-design/fairway-width/

Lorne Smith has kindly edited this piece to tie in a little more with his own site, removing some of my more indulgent ramblings along the way,  but I hope it remains of interest to a few folk here.

[Niall C]

Paul

Interesting commentary. Please allow me to nit pick a little bit. You rightly laud the contributions of the golden era architects like Colt, MacKenzie, Simpson etc while lambasting course changes made by uneducated Committees. Let me ask what formal education in landscape architecture, agronomy and design did the aforementioned golden age architects have ? Not a lot I would suggest. Are you aware that they were also members of Committees at various times themselves.

And as much as uneducated Committee men have made some regretable decisions over the years they have also made a lot of good decisions. I could also add that arguably it was a couple of Committee men down at Woking who largely kickstarted the strategic revolution, so I really don't see it quite as black and white as you paint it.

As for the main thrust of your essay, that fairway widths have come in over the years, I would agree to a point. Most courses of that era, in this country at least, were developed on open farm land and quite a few of them were still being grazed after the course had opened. That likely lead to a lack of definition between fairway and rough and almost certainly an absence of the deep stuff that we get nowadays. I suspect fairway widths only started to become an issue once the sheep were chased off and the golfers were left to their own devices. In that respect if anything the golden age guys probably contributed to the narrowing of fairways as, as you say, they designed bunkers to catch not quite perfect shots rather than rank bad shots which invariably meant bringing the bunkers in and with them the rough.

One thing I'd totally agree with you on is that generally there are far too many trees on courses these days, even if there is an argument for some planting for safety reasons.

Niall

[Thomas Dai]

I suspect fairway widths only started to become an issue once the sheep were chased off and the golfers were left to their own devices.

Exactly the point I was trying to make on the other thread although I think you've summed it up in less words Niall! - http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,61129.0.html

atb

[Paul Gray]

Niall,

The point you make about committee members is perfectly valid. I at no point wished to suggest that all committee members were or are equal, your particular reference to John Low and Stuart Paton at Woking being a case in point.

With regards to width,  it is absolutely fair to comment that the formalising of golf courses has, for over a century now, led to a decrease in width. That being said, it is certainly not fair to accuse the strategic school of reducing width as a design principle. Whilst a good player might be asked to flirt with a hazard in order to work the ball to the best possible position for the next shot, doing so was and still is only one option available to the golfer under the principles of strategic design. If it were a case of 'hit that shot or nothing,' it wouldn't, by definition, be from the strategic design school. As is stated in the article, width was always and is always necessary for safer, less ideal options, the provision of those options being integral to strategic design ethos. All of this is readily available for learning if people only bothered to pick up the work of the likes of Colt, MacKenzie and Doak. It's difficult to fit these principles into one article. This particular article had to be reduced considerably in order to be deemed palatable even for this niche market.

[Ryan Coles]

Like a Bentley driver moaning about the build quality of a Ford Fiesta.

Not every course can be wide. Not every course can be built on 'fine turf' Nor will you get fescue and fast running fairways by cutting down the trees of a parkland course in Wolverhampton. The joy to be alive nonsense is more to do with long socks, foursomes and taking your dog with you. It really means the joy of being rich and cocooned from the real world.

Width costs money and a lot of it. And it usually means big greens and more money. The average length of course in my county is probably under 6000 yards and most on considerably less than 100 acres. A big wide hole is great but not when you'd then only have room to build 8 holes. Cutting down trees is great on a heathland. Cutting them down and exposing views over the neighbouring industrial estate, less so.

All the pioneers you mention either had the best land, massive budgets or a combination of both. Lecturing average courses and highlighting the elite is disingenuous.

I love great courses. But if you only drink champagne, there is nothing to drink on a special occasion. It seems some don't like the expansion of golf. They want it to be elite courses, played only by the elite. There is room and a market to suit most tastes and budget.

Enjoy your Bentley. Don't fret about the fiesta - chances are the driver is happy enough with it.

[Paul Gray]

Ryan,

As I have said to you on more occasions than I care to remember, I am a huge advocate of simple, cheap golf. Lorne Smith might be of a certain demographic but don't disregard his position by way of reverse snobbery. He and I are quite possibly diametrically opposed on a great many issues but that doesn't mean that I choose to dismiss his views on finegolf. For me personally, rather than having anything to do with exclusivity, this whole 'joy to be alive' thing is about simple inclusiveness.

Any number of excellent courses are crammed onto less than expansive sites. All it takes is knowledge. Only last week I was up at West Hill; an excellent case in point. But ignore that because it's a Surrrey course of some financial clout. Look instead to places such as Kington or Cleeve Cloud or Painswick or Yelverton or New Forest. Are you really going to try to pretend that such 'running game' courses are about plus fours and school ties?

Back in the 80's and 90's, a few people actually tried to provide, rather than an 'everyman' golf experience, a new Rolls Royce. A few decades on and history has not judged those courses well. So with that being the case, with many of those courses being in the bargain bucket tee time list, you come along and try to rewrite history and portray yourself as the golf equivalent of the working class hero. In reality, all those failing 80's experiments were about creating a new elitism. Unless people in your position wake up to change, a change which you could so easily benefit from  if only you were prepared to put your egos to one side and pick up a few books, in so doing enabling you to stand on the shoulders of giants, your stubbornness will simply turn to bitterness as you become less and less relevant in the future of golf. Attempts were made to reinvent the wheel. It was novel for a while but the game is now going back to the future having learnt from its mistakes. Move on or fade away.

[Ryan Coles]

Fine Golf is about exclusivity. It is solely about those courses on fine turf. Parklands need not apply. The home page says 2800 courses but only 200 or so are fine. All those people who play on the remaining 2400, go home. I'm not trying to be a class warrior, but that site and your essay is those rich in natural advantages (soils, space and budget) , lecturing the poor. This sort of elitist attitude sees not a single course in huge swathes of England and no golf played there. 'Proper golf' is a condescending term and intended to be so. It means everything else outside of our narrow minded viewpoint of 'fine golf' is improper and must be uneducated and need to be reformed.

Laughable that you highlight West Hill as (crammed into a less than expansive site), but shows a bit how out of touch you are with what golf is for most people. West Hill battling on manfully against the constraints of being in a beautiful heathland setting on some of the best golfing terrain in the world. First world problems, indeed.

There is room for all types of course and set ups. Play where suits you and your budget. You're only preaching to the already converted. Most others are happy with their lot and that never will be 'fine golf'.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Niall,

Surprisingly, we mostly agree.

Paul & Niall,

Probably the most significant factor in the narrowing of fairways was the introduction of fixed head irrigation systems.

Initially, on the early hand coupled systems, the throw radius redefined fairway width, with the wind as a contributor to shifting fairways, aided on both counts by tractor drivers pulling large gang mowers, turn radius, etc., etc..

As systems became modernized/automated, the narrowing continued.

It wasn't until the explosion in operating heads, including specialty heads that fairways could easily be redefined.

But, between those points, another element seemed to have sealed the fate of fairway widths.

The planting of trees at the flanks of the reduced fairways.

Once mature, the recapturing of those original fairway lines was almost impossible, until the most recent trend in tree removal.

But, tree removal didn't, in and of itself, result in fairway expansion.

Existing Irrigation systems continued to define fairway width.

Only through the dedication of significant funds to upgrade irrigation systems can fairway widths be returned to their original or expanded boundaries.

For that to happen, there has to be a cultural awareness of the problem and the benefits of fairway width.

Some clubs will never grasp the concept that width is an attribute.

Other clubs that grasp the concept often don't have the funds to inact the desired expansion.

And, some clubs have both the vision and the funds.

The trend is toward tree removal and width, but, it's certainly not moving at the speed of light.

Ryan,

Most leisurely pursuits are a form of luxury, whether one skis, plays tennis, golf, canoes/kayaks, mountain climbs, goes camping or other forms of recreation/leisure activity.

The cost of golf is often related to the cost to acquire a property and develop it, and/or the degree of service provided, and the market.

I would imagine that golf costs more in Los Angeles or Long Island than it does in the great midwest.

As to the cost of the land, that largely depends upon the date of acquisition.
The land purchased by NGLA and the cost to build the course/clubhouse has been amortized decades and decades ago, whereas the adjacent land, course and clubhouse at Sebonack hasn't.

So, here you have two adjacent courses, sitting on virtually the same land, with vastly different financial perameters, which manifest themselves in higher initiation fees and carrying costs.  While their maintenance and service budgets might be similar, the cost required to amortize the respective "investment" by the founders is vastly different.

Given the site at Sebonack and the costs to fully develop the club, along with the cost of the site and development of Liberty National, how can you expect the owners of those clubs to offer "cheap golf" ?

You're not entitled to cheap golf at the expense of driving the developer into bankruptcy.

It would seem that contrary to your claim, you are trying to be a "class warrior" for there are hundreds of available models spanning the spectrum between a Fiesta and a Bentley/Rolls Royce, but, you'd rather couch your position in the extremes.

I have a different view that has nothing to do with monetary equivalencey, or class warfare.

Quite simply, it's that width presents the most desirable conditions for every level of golfer.

Narrowness disproportionately punishes the mediocre to poor golfer, while width offers them "redemption", forgiveness for the errors of their drives.

Through width, the architect can forge a challenge for every level of golfer, commensurate with their abilities.

The width and alternate route at the 3rd hole at NGLA might be a prime example.
There, the mediocre to poor golfer can tack their way around the looming hill and approach the green with a relatively short and benign shot from the right fairway, versus trying to attack and conquer the massive fronting hill.

Width, when combined with angles to and at the green can present a suitable challenge for all golfers, whereas, narrowed fairways deprive the mediocre to poor golfer of any hope in conquering the hole.

I think there's a reason why courses like NGLA, Seminole, Pine Valley and many, many unnamed and lesser known courses are so popular, and I think it all begins with wide fairways.

Wide fairways are the friend and guardian angel of the mediocre and poor golfer.

And, I know that you don't want to deprive poor golfers

[Niall C]

Patrick

I think you'll find that Paul was writing in a mainly or indeed purely UK context, I certainly was. I would suggest that irrigation systems had little or no impact on fairway widths in the UK. Greenkeepers may correct me if I'm wrong but I think I'm right in saying the main issue in the UK is largely about getting water off the course rather than putting on which is not to say that irrigation isn't used particularly on greens.

Niall

[Niall C]

Paul

With regards to width, I suspect we are more in agreement than you might think but that the issue might be what constitutes wide and how much width is required for strategic play. I'd suggest that golden age design was more subtle than a simple choice between route A and route B going in a completely different direction. I think a lot of it was about taking a slightly wider berth by a hazard than say the ideal line which would put you in position A for the approach to the green. Maybe a case of taking route A- in order to get position A- if you know what I mean.

By defining a strategy for the hole, and variations of that strategy ie. slightly less risky line off the tee but generally in the same direction etc., then I think ironically the golden age architects effectively reduced the playing area. Given clubs went from having their course grazed by sheep to having to do all the greenkeeping themselves, its maybe not surprising that clubs stopped cutting grass in areas which weren't in play other than for a rank bad shot eg. wild slice.

I don't agree with much that Ryan has said but I think he has a point about the average run of the mill course and them having a limited budget. In that context it's hard to see that they would spend more money on "superfluous" width. 

You make an observation in your essay about width being used wisely (I'm paraphrasing as I don't have the essay open in front of me) and I think that hits the nail on the head. Or to put it another way, use as much width as you need to create strategic options. Thats why I shake my head at Castle Stuart being the poster child for strategic design. If ever there was a course that had width for widths sake then it is CS. In that regard it really has no relevance to how your average course should be maintained.

Niall 

[Paul Gray]

Niall and Pat,

All excellent points. Please understand, as I've already said, that I was trying to capture the essence of a principle in one short article. Everything you've both added is absolutely worthwhile. I simply didn't have the room to explore the issue in more depth. Actually, with regards to sprinkler heads, I was specifically asked to keep the conversation to the UK, hence the lessened relevance of that particular point. Nonetheless, Mr. Mucci, to a lesser extent, sprinkler heads have been an issue here as well, my own club being one such example, so the point is not worthless in a UK context.

Ryan wishes to ignore the evidence. I specifically made reference to courses which could NOT be put in the same bracket as West Hill but he chose to ignore such inconvenient truths. As for the specific focus of Lorne's site, I wrote an article. And that's all. I'm not going to log on to this site everyday for the next twenty years just so I can attempt to persuade Ryan to have a rethink, culminating in a "I told you so" moment when the defence of 80's architectural philosophies is utterly dead. I will however add two interconnected points for Ryan to mull over:

1) Regardless of what any of us now chooses to believe, the Golden Age architects were keen to express the opinion that very good results could be achieved on mediocre sites. Certainly it was always acknowledged that the links remained the ideal but parkland was never disregarded on point of principle.

2) Contrary to popular misconception, the famed Surrey heathland courses are only in part on the Bagshot Sands. Huge chunks of many esteemed Surrey courses are not actually on sand at all but are testament to what correct practice can achieve. Sean Arble is the best man I know of to break that down for you on a course by course basis.

[Sean_A]

Ryan

While I can see your point, I do think there is scope for run of the mill parkland courses to push out short grass especially around greens.  The benefit may not be terribly obvious in summer playing on poa, but in winter or during wet periods the playability around the greens with shorter grass is a marked improvement to chipping over/through 3-4 inch claggy rough starting 1.5 yards away from the greens.  I certainly wouldn't call it superfluous width if I now have an option to bounce or fly a short shot.  

Ciao

[Ryan Coles]

Ryan,

Most leisurely pursuits are a form of luxury, whether one skis, plays tennis, golf, canoes/kayaks, mountain climbs, goes camping or other forms of recreation/leisure activity.

The cost of golf is often related to the cost to acquire a property and develop it, and/or the degree of service provided, and the market.
I would imagine that golf costs more in Los Angeles or Long Island than it does in the great midwest.

As to the cost of the land, that largely depends upon the date of acquisition.

The land purchased by NGLA and the cost to build the course/clubhouse has been amortized decades and decades ago, whereas the adjacent land, course and clubhouse at Sebonack hasn't.

So, here you have two adjacent courses, sitting on virtually the same land, with vastly different financial perameters, which manifest themselves in higher initiation fees and carrying costs.  While their maintenance and service budgets might be similar, the cost required to amortize the respective "investment" by the founders is vastly different.

Given the site at Sebonack and the costs to fully develop the club, along with the cost of the site and development of Liberty National, how can you expect the owners of those clubs to offer "cheap golf" ?

You're not entitled to cheap golf at the expense of driving the developer into bankruptcy.

It would seem that contrary to your claim, you are trying to be a "class warrior" for there are hundreds of available models spanning the spectrum between a Fiesta and a Bentley/Rolls Royce, but, you'd rather couch your position in the extremes.

I have a different view that has nothing to do with monetary equivalencey, or class warfare.

Quite simply, it's that width presents the most desirable conditions for every level of golfer.
Narrowness disproportionately punishes the mediocre to poor golfer, while width offers them "redemption", forgiveness for the errors of their drives.

Through width, the architect can forge a challenge for every level of golfer, commensurate with their abilities.

The width and alternate route at the 3rd hole at NGLA might be a prime example.

There, the mediocre to poor golfer can tack their way around the looming hill and approach the green with a relatively short and benign shot from the right fairway, versus trying to attack and conquer the massive fronting hill.

Width, when combined with angles to and at the green can present a suitable challenge for all golfers, whereas, narrowed fairways deprive the mediocre to poor golfer of any hope in conquering the hole.

I think there's a reason why courses like NGLA, Seminole, Pine Valley and many, many unnamed and lesser known courses are so popular, and I think it all begins with wide fairways.

Wide fairways are the friend and guardian angel of the mediocre and poor golfer.

And, I know that you don't want to deprive poor golfers

Pat

I’m a big believer in the market. I’m actually standing up for market forces. Why should those owners and committees at the lower end of the market, be lectured to by those at the top, when they are merely cutting their cloth accordingly. The people will decide what they want from their golf by voting with their feet and wallets.

I don’t believe anyone is entitled to anything and certainly not cheap golf and am mystified why you state that I am as I’ve written nothing of the sort.

You then go on to state I couch my position based on extremes and then amusingly cite NGLA, Seminole. Pine Valley and Sebonack to illustrate yours. You’re very fond of stating how you’ve played many of these courses for 60 years and played them with daddy etc etc. What is your experience of municipal golf? Low budget golf?

The market provides plenty of opportunity to play cheap golf. Sebonack should not be lectured about charging high prices to get a return on their investment – agreed. By the same token, those at the other end, should not be lectured about running golf and width, when in many cases, the stumbling block to these is resources.

Width means space = money.

Short grass = money

Firm conditions = natural resources or a lot of money.

Nothing more, nothing less. Go play where suits you, don’t impose your idealism or look down at those who don’t share it, or cannot afford to implement it.

[Ryan Coles]

Ryan

While I can see your point, I do think there is scope for run of the mill parkland courses to push out short grass especially around greens.  The benefit may not be terribly obvious in summer playing on poa, but in winter or during wet periods the playability around the greens with shorter grass is a marked improvement to chipping over/through 3-4 inch claggy rough starting 1.5 yards away from the greens.  I certainly wouldn't call it superfluous width if I now have an option to bounce or fly a short shot. 

Ciao

Sean

It is my personal preference as well.

In truth though, if to be effective, this also would add to the Club’s expenditure quite considerably. Mowing close on poor draining soils, still leaves you with a bog in winter. The areas need a decent root zone, lots of dressing and aeration and of course are more labour intensive to maintain. It all costs money which the members / owners have to be prepared to paid for. Bouncing/Running shots on UK parkland courses in the winter, are rare in my experience, which is probably why you avoid them like the plague and play “fine” courses.

[Ryan Coles]

Niall and Pat,

Ryan wishes to ignore the evidence. I specifically made reference to courses which could NOT be put in the same bracket as West Hill but he chose to ignore such inconvenient truths. As for the specific focus of Lorne's site, I wrote an article. And that's all. I'm not going to log on to this site everyday for the next twenty years just so I can attempt to persuade Ryan to have a rethink, culminating in a "I told you so" moment when the defence of 80's architectural philosophies is utterly dead. I will however add two interconnected points for Ryan to mull over:

1) Regardless of what any of us now chooses to believe, the Golden Age architects were keen to express the opinion that very good results could be achieved on mediocre sites. Certainly it was always acknowledged that the links remained the ideal but parkland was never disregarded on point of principle.

2) Contrary to popular misconception, the famed Surrey heathland courses are only in part on the Bagshot Sands. Huge chunks of many esteemed Surrey courses are not actually on sand at all but are testament to what correct practice can achieve. Sean Arble is the best man I know of to break that down for you on a course by course basis.

Paul

I didn’t mention the 80’s, let alone make a defence of its architecture. The “fine golf website” effectively says that parkland courses should not be built or played on in the UK. At a push, it mentions a few downland or chalk based courses, and castigates the rest when largely it is down to the resources, both naturally and financially that gives them their preferred running game.

So as not to ignore your other examples, you’ve clearly never played Painswick and certainly not in the winter. It doesn’t have width, it is constrained by a lack of it and it certainly isn’t conducive to the “year round” running game. It is a boggy in winter. Huntercombe and Cleeve Hill relatively free draining, but this is more to do with the facts they are at the highest points in the respective areas, rather than any sort of ingenuity on the part of their committee.

Sean has written several times that Walton Heath aside, the Surrey heaths do not play firm and fast for large swathes of the year.

I just found the essay and certainly the website a bit holier than thou. – All those on free draining sites are ran by enlightened geniuses, all those on clay are ran by idiots. The ideology doesn’t stack up for lots of Club’s.

[Paul Gray]

Ryan,

Your issue seems to be with Lorne's website, rather than Golden Age design and width therein. That is up to you. As I said to you before, I'm quite sure there are any number of issues, golf related or otherwise, where Lorne and I would be diametrically opposed. I will say that a 'year round' running game, or certainly anything which could be called firm and fast, is a myth almost anywhere you choose to look,

With regards to the 'holier than thou' criticism, I'll happily go on record to state that many top clubs which should have known better are only now beginning to catch on and rectify previous errors, and often only then when an architect is able to persuade them to get back to their roots. I have first hand experience of that at my own supposedly highly regarded club.

Equally, it may well be the case that the greenkeeping team at the club you run are all experts in strategic design principles and itching to mow a hell of a lot more if only it wasn't for boundaries and those damn members insisting they spend their time on mowers weaving intricate snake like patterns into the fairways. You would know far more about that than me.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat

I’m a big believer in the market. I’m actually standing up for market forces.

Why should those owners and committees at the lower end of the market, be lectured to by those at the top, when they are merely cutting their cloth accordingly.

They shouldn't, and I've never stated otherwise.

The people will decide what they want from their golf by voting with their feet and wallets.

Agreed

I don’t believe anyone is entitled to anything and certainly not cheap golf and am mystified why you state that I am as I’ve written nothing of the sort.

It seemed that your tone was admonishing those clubs which were costly without giving due consideration to the why their costs were high

You then go on to state I couch my position based on extremes and then amusingly cite NGLA, Seminole. Pine Valley and Sebonack to illustrate yours.


That's because I never couched my post in "class warfare" terms.
I never pitted one club or one golfer against another

You’re very fond of stating how you’ve played many of these courses for 60 years and played them with daddy etc etc.
What is your experience of municipal golf? Low budget golf?

I grew up playing Ferncliff and Essex County West, two public courses, one mediocre at best, the other, pretty good.


The market provides plenty of opportunity to play cheap golf.

I think that's more of a geographic byproduct.
I'm not so sure that there's plenty of cheap golf on the Monterey Peninsula or in Los Angeles.
Certainly, courses built in recent times have higher green fees unless they're subsidized by authorities/agencies.

Sebonack should not be lectured about charging high prices to get a return on their investment – agreed.

By the same token, those at the other end, should not be lectured about running golf and width, when in many cases, the stumbling block to these is resources.

Again, I think the date of operation is the more critical factor when talking about costs and width.

Width means space = money.

Again, the date of operation/acquisition of the land probably has more to do with money than the maintenance costs associated with additional width.
I'd like superintendents to comment on the incremental cost to go from a 30 yard wide fairway to a 50 yard wide fairway.
And then, translate that into the incremental cost of the green fee.

Would you pay another $ 5 or $ to play a course with wide fairways ?

One would have to think that a wider course is more fun, for more people, than a narrow course

Short grass = money

Yes, but, how much more money, incrementally ?

Firm conditions = natural resources or a lot of money.

I've always believed that firm conditions are more of a product of Mother Nature and the soil conditions rather than maintenance practices.
Mother Nature = Primary
Maintenance = Secondary

Some courses seem to accept firm conditions easier than others

Nothing more, nothing less. Go play where suits you, don’t impose your idealism or look down at those who don’t share it, or cannot afford to implement it.

I don't think that's the issue.

I think the issue relates to width and width's enhanced benefit to the broad spectrum of golfers.

Your question or position might be, yes, but, at what cost to the green fee ?

A valid question, but, absent hard facts from Superintendents, regarding incremental costs per 10 yards of fairway, I don't know that you can make a case either way

[Adrian_Stiff]

From the GB perspective I make the following points;

Fairways narrowed in the early 80s. The reason was the lightweight fairway mowers took longer to mow versus traditional gang mowing with a tractor and pulled gangs. In those days there was a pass around the green often 15 feet wide in order to make the loop (method of changing direction). Greenstaff used Toro 70s, Ransomes 180s to do the trims.

We have very little control in making firm and fast conditions on most of our courses. Firm and Fast is coupled with very little water in the last 21 days. In the UK that does not happen very often. Even on linksland the majority of the play still involves a pitchmark. Outside of the UK keeping the grass alive and producing firm and fast will be a close call, in some places almost certainly this policy would end up in disaster.

By conclusion, Strategic golf for a good player is usually not on the menu. For a bad player it probably is always on the menu by default.

Golf course governance rightly or wrongly has decided 'best place to hit your tee shot' (usually straight) and penalised the miss often by planting trees in these areas and narrowing the target areas so a miss might involve a half or quarter stroke penalty. The ball is played from the wrong place out of rough This is the modern way that deals with strategy and it's there for 365 days a year.

[Niall C]

Adrian

So what you're saying is that fairways have shrunk due to practical/pragmatic reasons rather than any conscious decision to embrace penal golf ?

Niall

[Ally Mcintosh]

I can add that fairways have been narrowed on some links courses because they erroneously follow R&A recommendations of fairway width for their Open Championship venues.

[Marc Haring]

I think Adrian is entirely correct, certainly in the UK. The advent of lightweight fairway mowers made it pretty much impossible to maintain decent width on many many courses, certainly much more than single row fairway irrigation that hardly any clubs had and still have. When I switched to the gang mowers below, the cost saving in terms of time and money was just huge. No stripes but but I never had any complaints about that.


I also agree with others in that there was a big push in the 80's and 90's to narrow things down in a misguided effort to emulate the championship courses and to protect par. We all drooled over the dreadful US Open course set ups in those days. Some even resorted to collars of rough around the greens. 

[Niall C]

Marc

Where are you based ? Can't say I noticed a shrinking of fairway back in the 80's and 90's in the mainly old time courses near where I lived at the time. That's not to say it didn't happen but then again there weren't too many championship venues amongst them.

Niall

[Marc Haring]

I was in the south Niall, Surrey, Berks and then Wiltshire way.

Another thing was a trend of introducing curved fairway lines which necessitated width reduction as you could not get wider because the trees were in the way so you had to bring areas of rough into the fairways if that makes sense. I was probably guilty of it myself back then.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Adrian

So what you're saying is that fairways have shrunk due to practical/pragmatic reasons rather than any conscious decision to embrace penal golf ?

Niall

Fairways have shrunk perhaps because of £ but I still don't think that is the reason strategic golf has suffered in the way of the original design intent. Penal golf has arrived more because the game has changed, perhaps since the war and probably it really started to move after 1960. Conditioning has moved on and surfaces are better. With irrigation greens are rarely too firm to retain a golf shot, couple that with that 400 yard hole (previously 2 big bangs) is now a drive and wedge, then add in that the ball is better, clubs are better that wedge shot is no longer troubled by being 80 yards nearer the green, the flanking bunker is easily avoided, good players can hit the ball to a yard, even single figure golfers can hit to within 10 yards of their intended spot more often than not. In that respect old fashioned strategy is all but dead. Links courses can still get hard and with wind, the original strategic options can sometimes be there.

Different forms of strategy are created in the newer designs, laying up short of water is still strategic, the newer courses that this site loves have green designs where the putting is better from a certain position, but you cant keep the pin in the same place and so those strategic options will be stronger or lighter on a day by day basis.

Rough and it's variety of lengths still make a course play in a strategic way since ball control is lost, so I a not totally convinced that the yayers for width are actually barking up the right tree, club committees may have got this right and spotted it. As long as the ball is not lost I think the use of rough is a very good way of defending par. The game of golf is about hitting it in the right place so hit it straight, hit it on the narrow fairway. A 70 yard corridor comprising a 30 yard fairway with 20 yards of rough is better at adding strategy that 60 yards of mown, small band then jungle.

Whilst you have so many players that can go round a golf course in par, so many that hit it 300 it is hard to create golf that satisfies all, very few golf courses are playable by all standards for the same enjoyment. The 6500 yard course is redundant to good golfers and the 7000 yarder is too hard for most.

[Paul Gray]

The notion that we are all so much more accurate now is simply not supported by the facts. Handicaps simply have not fallen in the way we would expect if that were true. In reality, the increase in length of the average player has meant an unchanged fairway actually plays narrower than ever before.

Adrain makes some points about how he feels different lengths of rough are not only necessary but a good thing so as to defend par, in the process losing strategic design intent. That is one opinion. Personally I will keep my flag attached to the masters of architecture but different opinions exist. What I will just add, contrary to what Adrian says about improved conditioning, is that the ability to eliminate bunkers by way of flying them and then holding a green is not an improvement in conditions, unless we are to conclude that, rather than being a gold standard, links conditioning is now simply an antiquated bit of quirk.