Width and 'Finegolf'

[Marc Haring]

I'll throw this picture in for discussion purposes. Aficionado's will recognise the clubhouse and course. It is circa 1956 and clearly firm, fast and with huge width by todays standards and I'd say about 6500 yards, par 72 and a championship course of the day. If it was the same today as then it would surely be ripped to pieces by all and sundry and therefore obsolete and forgotten so the question is would it be preferable to return to this???

And Paul, is this what you are advocating. Personally I'd say this sort of course would be a lot of fun to play but I might be in a minority.

[Paul Gray]

Marc,

Firstly, I'd love to play it.

Secondly, and this is so often overlooked, it is only short grass which truly allows a player to get horrendously offline. I can think of any number of holes where longer grass saves the golfer from further trouble. I can think of any number of such examples at my home course in fact where I'm currently trying to restore the principles of Simpson's original design. Whilst certainly not overly wide, just look at what a lack of thicker stuff did to the scores of the world's best at Pinehurst last year. There will be those that now wish to return to the same old tired argument about costs and in the specific case of Pinehurst, they might just be right. Nonetheless, in response to your question about all and sundry now tearing such a course apart, the evidence would suggest not.

[Marc Haring]

Well Pinehurst was seven and a half thousand yards, set up for the US Open and with greens that were very raised and running at warp speeds. I think the contention is over whether or not a regular 6000 yarder in the UK or the States would be any sort of challenge with width and devoid of trees.

[Thomas Dai]

I think the contention is over whether or not a regular 6000 yarder in the UK or the States would be any sort of challenge with width and devoid of trees.

How about - http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,48765.0.html and http://old.minchinhamptongolfclub.co.uk/?

As the website says, "The initial impression may be that the course is "wide-open" but after a few holes it is evident that the "St Andrews" factor applies and that positional play is very important."

Would Adrian's Players Club Stranahan course be another example?

atb

[Paul Gray]

Marc,

It's a fair point but then that isn't a debate about width but actually one about length. If, again, your contention is that average golfers will tear up anything at 6,5000 yards if width is provided, I'll refer you again to my previous comments about longer grass frequently keeping golfers nearer to the centreline but simply preventing mishit shots from bounding on to acute positions.

All of this however sees us drift towards the very real danger of again associating quality with resistance to scoring; an insidious trait, in my opinion, of the post Golden Age era. I'll be the first in line to argue that a course with no challenge would quickly become dull but, regardless, as a three handicap, I've still yet to discover these mythical courses which are apparently too easy. They must surely exist because any number of golfers that can't usually break 90 tell me about them regularly.

[Marc Haring]

Paul and Thomas.

I am with you Guy's on this one and was only playing devils advocate. Minch Old is a terrific course but has a great many quirky land forms which add to it's defence greatly. Same for Cleeve Cloud and Kington but all are one off outliers. The Stranahan has a fair degree of width but being a new course with the intention of providing ground game options it has quirkiness built in to it. The same could be said of the Orange course at Cumberwell which has some green complexes that would never been seen on a standard inland members track and as a result can provide alot of fun and significant challenge despite the width.

The problem I think is a course like Knowle http://www.knowlegolfclub.co.uk/course.php which I think is Ryan's course. Would that benefit from being stripped back to where it presumably was when built i.e. bereft of pernicious rough and arboreal irritation?

I can kind of see both sides of the argument.

[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

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

Yes I avoid parkland courses in the winter precisely because they don't cut the rough.  I am not saying the courses could be fantastic, but short grass helps in wet conditions.  The clag around greens nearly all parkland courses present in winter is about as bad as it gets because the grass never dries out and I don't think it has to be this way.  You also have to remember the times when it is just wet in season...short grass helps with drainage.  I think the issue is more about lack of insight than it is about money.

Ciao

[jeffwarne]

.

[Marc Haring]

.

Ha ha. Are you going for the shortest post record Jeff or do you really want to put a full stop on this thread?

[jeffwarne]

nothing that deep Marc.
Posted a long reply-to the wrong thread -then deleted

[Adrian_Stiff]

I am talking about good players Paul Gray,not everyone read the post properly.

In 1976 there were  92 scratch golfers in the UK and not every club had a pro and an assistant. The amount of professional golfers that play the game or try to play has quadrupled, almost every club has 4 professionals of varying types, loads are unattached. Amateur scratch golfers has ten-folded and whilst a 4 handicapper might have got a game for some counties in the 60s, you won't have a chance now, some clubs best ten man teams handicaps add up to zero. The Amount of good golfers (sub 6 handicap) is many many times more than before. There might be as many not so good ones but strategy only really means something if you know where your hitting it in the first place. People strike the ball better now and a lot hit it 300. These are facts not opinions.

Links golf, when the wind blows brings strategic design back into force far more than F & F. Playing a ball from the wrong side out of light rough is a great balancer, it reduces the spin, so there is less stop so the design intent is recreated. This is ABCstuff.

[Ryan Coles]

Paul and Thomas.

I am with you Guy's on this one and was only playing devils advocate. Minch Old is a terrific course but has a great many quirky land forms which add to it's defence greatly. Same for Cleeve Cloud and Kington but all are one off outliers. The Stranahan has a fair degree of width but being a new course with the intention of providing ground game options it has quirkiness built in to it. The same could be said of the Orange course at Cumberwell which has some green complexes that would never been seen on a standard inland members track and as a result can provide alot of fun and significant challenge despite the width.

The problem I think is a course like Knowle http://www.knowlegolfclub.co.uk/course.php which I think is Ryan's course. Would that benefit from being stripped back to where it presumably was when built i.e. bereft of pernicious rough and arboreal irritation?

I can kind of see both sides of the argument.

Marc

By personal view is that my own Club could do with a large number of trees being taken out. I'm not a tree hater, but we have overkill in places. Adrian Stiff did a short game area for us last year and took out quite a few to position the new green. Left is a magnificent oak which was never really noticed before as it was choked by everything around it. That is the case on most of the course. However would I like to see it bereft? No I wouldn't. http://www.knowlegolfclub.co.uk/club_history.php

On the other hand, without trees we wouldn't have a course due to safety of golfers and containment issues. See the link: http://www.knowlegolfclub.co.uk/visitors_location.php

Interestingly in 4 years working there and 15 playing before that, I've never heard a single golfer suggest tree removal.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Ryan - I think Knowle would benifit from taking out some trees and there are lots of instances where planting has stifled others or has masked a better one behind. I don't think you need to call anyone in to do it each hole just needs a little bit of thought as to which ones need taking out like a nurse crop to make the better ones/longer lived better. Knowle overall is much better than it was 25 years ago for the planting, it no longer feels like a course surrounded by a housing estate and factually you have deer living there so the work is pleasing the wildlife.

It is degrees of, Knowle is a parkland course. Knowle does not have the internal space for huge width. Knowle fits the purpose.

[Adrian_Stiff]

As the website says, "The initial impression may be that the course is "wide-open" but after a few holes it is evident that the "St Andrews" factor applies and that positional play is very important."

Would Adrian's Players Club Stranahan course be another example?

atb

[/quote]I don't really consider that the Stranahan has width. It is on 70 acres so easy to stray.

[Paul Gray]

Adrian,

I didn't see that you had specifically defined 'good golfers.'

What I'm unsure about though is why you've previously referred to narrowness as "a good way of defending par," only to now provide evidence which suggests it hasn't worked as clearly the number of 'good golfers' has magnified. This of course is what we see on a regular basis in the elite game. Frequently we see, save for the extremes of traditional US Opens, narrow, lush fairways and a winners score of -20. Personally, as you know, I don't have any time for this 'resistance to scoring' criteria which is now thankfully on the wain but, for anyone that does, clearly the narrowing philosophy has been shown to be a failure, as per your own citations.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Adrian,

I didn't see that you had specifically defined 'good golfers.'

What I'm unsure about though is why you've previously referred to narrowness as "a good way of defending par," only to now provide evidence which suggests it hasn't worked as clearly the number of 'good golfers' has magnified. This of course is what we see on a regular basis in the elite game. Frequently we see, save for the extremes of traditional US Opens, narrow, lush fairways and a winnings score of -20. Personally, as you know, I don't have any time for this 'resistance to scoring' criteria which is now thankfully on the wain but, for anyone that does, clearly the narrowing philosophy has been shown to be a failure, as per your own citations.

I don't think a narrowing philosophy is a failure to protect scoring I just think that the elite players are really +10 handicap. These courses they shoot -20 on would naturally be 5 or 6 higher on the CSS. I don't think there is an answer in trying to protect par and I think its better to just let them shoot 59. I hardly watch golf now because it is boring, I probably would like to watch more 59s. I agree that hard ground with wind is a great protector, at St Andrews if its F & F and the wind blows they wont kill it...but but but the weather might be such that its calm or wet the week before and it is those things that control. I am really just saying that strategic design is sometimes there and sometimes it is not, the better the golfer the more times it is not going to affect him. For a 12 handicapper who does not spin it much the days that strategic issues matter will be more. What I am also saying is that a ball played from rough takes that spin away, so it replicates the strategic intent by making it difficult to stop the ball if played from the wrong side. Cut as fairway it is easier. I think width should really mean the playing corridor, ie 30 or 40 yards of fairway with 15 or 20 yards of semi each side, but most seem to just figure width is just the fairway.

[Sean_A]

Adrian, yes, I can get behind the idea of wide corridors rather more than wide fairways.  The only problem with half a corridor filled with rough is there is a great temptation to narrow it down with trees and crap.  Lets face it, it looks very weird to have 35 yards of fairway and 35 yards of lightish rough before hitting a tree line.  Where should the cut line be without seeming completely arbirtrary?  I really noticed this at Huntercombe on my last visit.  Some holes had more rough in the corridor than fairway    What I normally see is longer rough and trees amd shrubs narrowing down that "dead" space because afterall its rough...what should iit matter.  Then some years later those trees are actually encroaching into a fairway which may have been narrowed anyway.  Sight lines into bunkers disappear and making bunkers rather a waste of time.  Its a nasty circle of events which is very easy to fall into...especially if a super has budget pressures..or just thinks its silly to have so much dead space.  

What I can say for certain is that a very high percentage of courses I play have fairways which are too narrow for the penalty of the rough or trees.  Then clubs have the nerve to say it takes too long to play and people aren't joining because golf isn't enjoyable.  Its difficult to have it both ways of saving significant money and providing a product whose maintenance is conducive to quick and fun play. And I don't believe for a second that only "fine" golf benefits from short grass.

Ciao