[JC Jones]

It seems like so long ago that we were embracing Old Macdonald, et al. and Joe Sponcia penned this essay:


http://golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/sponcia-joe-the-misunderstood-concept-width/

The tenor of recent discussions on GCA.com feels like the tide is moving back in again from the broad openness of embracing width.

What will the next generation of "narrow" yield and what effect will that have on the courses currently considered to be great?

[Tom_Doak]

It seems like so long ago that we were embracing Old Macdonald, et al. and Joe Sponcia penned this essay:


http://golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/sponcia-joe-the-misunderstood-concept-width/

The tenor of recent discussions on GCA.com feels like the tide is moving back in again from the broad openness of embracing width.

What will the next generation of "narrow" yield and what effect will that have on the courses currently considered to be great?

Maybe you should embrace HEIGHT.

[JC Jones]

It seems like so long ago that we were embracing Old Macdonald, et al. and Joe Sponcia penned this essay:


http://golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/sponcia-joe-the-misunderstood-concept-width/

The tenor of recent discussions on GCA.com feels like the tide is moving back in again from the broad openness of embracing width.

What will the next generation of "narrow" yield and what effect will that have on the courses currently considered to be great?

Maybe you should embrace HEIGHT.

    - Fixed it for you....and the rest of the 'Large Print' crowd

[Tom_Doak]

The tenor of recent discussions on GCA.com feels like the tide is moving back in again from the broad openness of embracing width.

What will the next generation of "narrow" yield and what effect will that have on the courses currently considered to be great?

It's kind of hard to assess since I'm not sure where anyone has done it yet.


I'm headed to Wisconsin tomorrow to work on clearing limits for the third course at Sand Valley, so if you have any input, now's the time.  The client still wants it to be pretty wide; I just want to make good players occasionally think about whether to hit driver or not, since the course is fairly short overall.  But, I don't want anyone to have to look for golf balls, so what you could see are some wide fairways punctuated with the occasional land mine.

[Kalen Braley]

Tom,


When I think wide fairways with potential land mines Ballyneal 13 comes to mind.  Plenty of room to hit it but a few undesired spots, the average joe really has no chance for a GIR and the scramble is on for par...all without a lost ball or a ball hunt.

[Mark_Fine]

My best advice Tom would be to mix it up.  If a golfer walks off after the round thinking they had to deal with variety of holes/shots that demanded at different times accuracy, carry and length you likely be ok     You very well know width for the sake of width is just wasted real estate and added maintenance cost.  Obviously it depends on the terrain but also just because a ball is hit well off line doesn't mean it has to be lost.  The recovery shot might be difficult but maintenance practices can at least allow the golfer to find their ball.  Good luck!

[JC Jones]

The tenor of recent discussions on GCA.com feels like the tide is moving back in again from the broad openness of embracing width.

What will the next generation of "narrow" yield and what effect will that have on the courses currently considered to be great?

It's kind of hard to assess since I'm not sure where anyone has done it yet.


I'm headed to Wisconsin tomorrow to work on clearing limits for the third course at Sand Valley, so if you have any input, now's the time.  The client still wants it to be pretty wide; I just want to make good players occasionally think about whether to hit driver or not, since the course is fairly short overall.  But, I don't want anyone to have to look for golf balls, so what you could see are some wide fairways punctuated with the occasional land mine.

I think its a lot easier to avoid one-dimensional golf holes with width than it is with narrow-ness.  Non-ideal lines can be hindered with bunkers, swails, blind approaches, greens tilted away or angled away, etc.  It also can promote the use of multiple clubs off the tee depending on the confidence of the golfer in attaching certain lines.  The issue narrow has is presenting one line of play and becoming simply a story of execution.  This would be so despite whether the hole is short or long.  Taking the driver out of the long player's hands because the hole narrows at 300 yards only makes the course easier for him, not harder; and thus, widens the gap between him and the player who needs to hit driver to reach a desired landing zone 230 from the tee.


So, my biggest concern with narrow is Firestone.  Then again, my biggest concern for width is Old Macdonald.  It seems to me greatness can be found more easily as you approach the latter than it can as you approach the former.


Pete Dye at his greatest can walk this line quite well; either through narrowing at certain points to present risk/reward questions or through creating the perception of narrow with actual width revealing itself upon reaching the fairway.

[Peter Pallotta]

Theoretically at least, it's always about the greens, isn't it?
Greens that by their smartly designed slopes & contours turn width into 'meaningful width', or conversely can make a relatively narrow fairway 'play wider' for the average golfer.
Greens that, on occasion if the architect wishes, effectively eliminate one side of the fairway (or one half of an exceedingly wide fairway) for the better player looking to make birdie, or conversely can open up avenues of recovery for the weaker player scrambling to make par.
If the greens at The Loop could be designed so as to accept shots & challenge shot making from two directions (without being massively scaled), I assume interesting greens can be designed to similarly accept shots & challenge shot-making from one (even if it's narrower) direction, while still being proportionately scaled.
Peter

[Mark_Fine]

Peter,
I would argue it is not just the green but the entire green complex which includes the approach, the green surface, and all the surrounds. 
Mark

[Sean_A]

I fear the even the slightest rebound against width for reasons of strategy. Having grown up in an era which saw fairways shrink to the point of being nearly pointless, I simply do not trust archies and/or supers to get it right...if there is such a thing.  To me, a place like Harbor Town is a clausterphobic mess and yet that is heralded as a masterpiece. 

I am much more on board of reducing width for economic reasons because that is a pretty simple fix...shorter rough and longer fairways.  Even so, wide corridors with narrow fairways is a difficult optic to overcome especially as bunkers on the edge of old width fairways lose their meaning and perhaps will be filled in. Greens too lose much of their meaning if courses are overly narrow.  I felt that Renaissance has a good set of greens compromised by lack of width because there are areas which cannot be got to from the current fairway widths. 

Anyway, narrower fairways are coming...and soon.  Mind you, the vast majority of courses never caught on with the width movement so they will be right back in fashion.  What goes around comes around.

Ciao

[Mark_Fine]

Sean,
I agree with many of your comments but have to totally disagree about Harbour Town.  Not every course needs fairways that are 50 or 60 yards wide.  Harbour Town is a course that the more you play it the more you appreciate just how good it really is.  Believe it or not, accuracy is part of the game and a skill sometimes forgotten in an age of 350+ drives.  There is plenty of room to play golf shots at Harbour Town.  I love links courses but there is a place of tree lined courses in the game as well. 


Note:  I saw Cameron Champ averaged almost 400 yards per tee shot in one of his web.com tour wins    We won't even need fairways of any width soon as these guys will be flying right over them. 
Mark

[Jim_Kennedy]

Keep the width, short rough in place of some fairway space, 'land mines' for the bombers - sounds like a combination that everyone involved would love.
 

[Ryan Coles]

Don’t build the roads for F1.


Average handicap in these parts is still 16-18 and the Tour ain’t pitching up anytime soon.


Set up the Course for the people who actually play it.


If you do have a local event or a few plus handicappers, don’t worry about it, lowest score will still win.

[Mark_Fine]

Ryan,
Amen!  Now if we can get most of the world to agree with you we’d be ok!  I have posted numerous times on the idea of courses designed specifically for the pros.  I doubt the idea holds much water but it would save soooo many courses from altering their layouts and trying to present more than a drive, chip and putt challenge for the best players.  I am a strong advocate of width.  Spent the last two weeks altering grassing lines on two different courses.  The difference is dramatic and golfers love it. 

[Thomas Dai]

Moving away from width. What a ghastly thought, especially as so many courses haven't moved away from tree bound narrowness.
If there is a movement away from width though I'd rather it be due to narrowness through grass length instead of narrowness through trees or water or raked bunkers.
I'm still of the width via sheep/goats/cattle school though, provided of course there aren't beasties around to annoy or kill them.
atb

[Tim Gavrich]

Tom--


I may be off-base in my visualization of what the Sedge Valley site is like, but as I think back on the small handful of rounds I've played there, the more I regard the corridor width and scale of Yale as "ideal" (knowing that there's no true ideal because course-to-course variety is as important as hole-to-hole variety) for what you may be working with. Measuring quickly on Google Earth, it seems a lot of those fairways are 40 to 55 yards wide and their corridors (treeline to treeline) are 60 to 85 yards wide.


In your own work, Legends - Heathland seems to be a good scale analogue, too, albeit on a flatter piece of ground.


I think that that scale would make Sedge Valley the "narrowest" course at the resort, but would by no means be claustrophobic. But it will probably be funny to hear people grumble about it after an afternoon round at Sedge Valley that follows a morning round at Mammoth Dunes!

[Ira Fishman]

I think maintaining width remains a very good idea for options and playability. However, I really have enjoyed courses that have width but from the tee use of tree lines, bunkers, native grasses, etc create some illusions that there is a lack of width.  I would put Bandon Trails, Primland, and Swinley Forest in that category of courses that come to mind.  The illusion causes the golfer just enough "anxiety" to keep them from just swinging from their toes.


Ira

[Thomas Dai]

One of the great aspects of width to me is the mental confusion that width causes, the sheer lack of an aiming point, target line or lines. The “where the hell do aim” factor. And how wind direction and strength in particular effects such.
And when coupled with interesting/evil/rascally green surrounds and putting surfaces, well, I just reckon it’s a great combination. Each to their own though.

Atb

[Rob Rigg]

Is there really a call for narrow beyond the pro game?
Mammoth just won new course of the year and 99% of golfers are raving about the place aren't they?

Width is fun, and it can make things too easy off the tee, but with the effective use of center line bunkers and challenging green complexes archies have created the best courses in the world. Most of the renovations that I've seen remove trees, add width and improve strategy. It's more fun for pretty much all golfers so do we really think that'll change?

If there is a push back on width it seems to be from 100+ yard fairways to those that are still wide enough to allow for strategic bunkering but not wide enough where you can literally blast it anywhere. Pacific versus OM or something.

[Tom_Doak]

Moving away from width. What a ghastly thought, especially as so many courses haven't moved away from tree bound narrowness.

Thomas:  it's all relative.  As Tim G says, if our course at Sand Valley was 33% narrower than Mammoth Dunes , people might feel it was tight, but that would still be 50% wider than any course in the U.K. that I can think of!


I'm just getting bored with "bigger is better".  That wasn't what Tom Paul's "Big World Theory" was all about.

[JC Jones]

Moving away from width. What a ghastly thought, especially as so many courses haven't moved away from tree bound narrowness.

Thomas:  it's all relative.  As Tim G says, if our course at Sand Valley was 33% narrower than Mammoth Dunes , people might feel it was tight, but that would still be 50% wider than any course in the U.K. that I can think of!


I'm just getting bored with "bigger is better".  That wasn't what Tom Paul's "Big World Theory" was all about.

Man, it sure would be more interesting if it didn't always come down to your new course at Sand Valley vs Mammoth Dunes.  Though each time you bring it up I remain convinced you haven't actually played the course (or, probably even walked it in its entirety).




For actual discussion on width and strategy, without the sales pitch, check out this old thread:


http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,744.0.html

[Tom_Doak]

Man, it sure would be more interesting if it didn't always come down to your new course at Sand Valley vs Mammoth Dunes.  Though each time you bring it up I remain convinced you haven't actually played the course (or, probably even walked it in its entirety).

Well, that's where I am tonight, so it's timely.


And, no, I haven't walked all 18 holes at Mammoth Dunes yet.  Last time I was here, I was in and out the same day, and had to lay low at the client's request so that rumors about course #3 wouldn't start flying.  The previous summer, only six holes at Mammoth were complete, so that's what I saw.  But 1-2-17-18 are the four widest holes I've ever seen, so that's the start of something to talk about.


More to the point, is your new thread just a celebration of "bigger is better"?  Lots of posters have recoiled at the idea of going narrower, but other than the course I'm planning here, who is even talking about building something narrower anywhere?


It's not like I'm a novice to width and strategy.  One of the things we discussed today was how it's the shorter par-4's that benefit most from width, because the closer you drive it to the green, the more divergence of approach angle you can get.  Lots of architects make their longer holes wide "because of shot values," but wider long par-4's are often just boring, apart from where the senior guy will play his second to set up his third.

[JC Jones]

Man, it sure would be more interesting if it didn't always come down to your new course at Sand Valley vs Mammoth Dunes.  Though each time you bring it up I remain convinced you haven't actually played the course (or, probably even walked it in its entirety).

Well, that's where I am tonight, so it's timely.


And, no, I haven't walked all 18 holes at Mammoth Dunes yet.  Last time I was here, I was in and out the same day, and had to lay low at the client's request so that rumors about course #3 wouldn't start flying.  The previous summer, only six holes at Mammoth were complete, so that's what I saw.  But 1-2-17-18 are the four widest holes I've ever seen, so that's the start of something to talk about.


More to the point, is your new thread just a celebration of "bigger is better"?  Lots of posters have recoiled at the idea of going narrower, but other than the course I'm planning here, who is even talking about building something narrower anywhere?


It's not like I'm a novice to width and strategy.  One of the things we discussed today was how it's the shorter par-4's that benefit most from width, because the closer you drive it to the green, the more divergence of approach angle you can get.  Lots of architects make their longer holes wide "because of shot values," but wider long par-4's are often just boring, apart from where the senior guy will play his second to set up his third.

No, its not a celebration of "bigger is better."  It's legitimate inquiry.  If you recall, we had debates on the value of width as it pertained to Old Macdonald and I was very vocal about width for the sake of width being a negative.


You should go play 1-2-17 and 18 because the holes play drastically different from the left and right sides of those fairways, esp on 2 and 18 as you have to think about 2nd and 3rd shots as well.


As to your last statement, I would say 15 at Crystal Downs and 14 at Old Town Club are great examples of short par 4s that play narrowly and 6 at Mammoth Dunes is an example of a short par 4 where the width and the decision it creates off the tee is phenomenal.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()