Bethpage Black is not a great course

[Bill Brightly]

Yeah, Nick. I really don't expect you to progress much in understanding GCA. You have low "low handicap syndrom" and you know what you know...


But since you have take a foray into "explaining" Tillinghast's architectural intent... and came up with a ridiculous concept of the effective width of fairways, think about this fact:


When Tilly was working his courses did not have anywhere near the kind of irrigation systems that are in use today. Advances  in argonomy now allow for rough that is totally different than what the ODG's envisioned. They certainly did not water and fertilize roughs like we do today, so the plush, thick, four inch rough that lines BPB today would probably SHOCK him!


You really should type less and read more but you are obviously not on this site for knowledge. So just keep hitting 300 yard drives and banging on the keyboard.

[Tim Gallant]

Nick,


I thought it was worth addressing a few of your comments as you have been firing shots at the 'newbs' in the group.


In your early posts you keep pointing towards the rankings as a testament that Mark is wrong in his assertion. Fair enough. Would you mind pointing me out where Bethpage sits on the 147 custodians list? The list that most here consider to be far superior to any magazine list that you rate? Oh, it's not there? Interesting.


I hear your cries, 'But those courses highlighted aren't set up to really test good players. Au contraire my friend! There are two US Open courses listed in the Top 13. So off the bat, your logic doesn't stick on what we should refer to when considering what is great.


The thing is - you are mistaken 'great' with 'great for professionals', and the two are NOT the same. If we look at some of the greatest architectural minds, people like Mackenzie agree that great golf courses are those that provide the greatest amount of pleasure, for the greatest amount of golfers. By this logic, Bethpage is NOT a great course. It only caters for one type of player...and doesn't even do that well.


So we must then judge it in relation to other great penal designs. As others have pointed to, I would count Pine Valley and Oakmont among this class. The difference between places like Oakmont / Pine Valley and Bethpage is variety! Just because a course is penal doesn't mean it has to be boring, insipid and uninspiring. Oakmont has 5 par-4s under 400 yards. In the words of Will Hunting, 'how do you like them apples?'! Pine Valley has some of the best green complexes known to man. Bethpage? Flat ovals. I love hearing people defend unoriginal greens 'Oh, but there are subtleties that really make them great'. If that's the case, and Bethpage's greens are really that good, then what does that make the greens at Oakmont? I'll wait.


You bash Mark for criticising the narrowness of the course because it now resembles a similar challenge to when Tilly created the course. Question - what if Tilly got it wrong?! You admitted in a previous post that architects don't hit homers on each decision. And if you look at what was there, and what there is now, you know, I know, every knows they should be wider. It won't make the golf course easier. I promise you.


What it will do is make the brain work. Not 'should I hit a 300 yard fade, or a 300 yard draw' to the exact same position in the fairway. That's not a decision. That's how you execute. The two are not the same. A decision on a penal course can be found on holes like the 17th at Oakmont. Driver at the green and face a challenging up and down. Iron to the right for safety and an impossible angle? Flight the bunkers and set up a good angle? I could hit 5 different clubs off that tee. Not 'should I draw this 3-wood, or fade it'. That's how you execute based on conditions. Come on man.


Which brings me to Rees. My man - Rees is AWFUL. If you think people are just jumping on a bandwagon, you might be right, but it doesn't make us wrong. He is terrible. Rees the one who has eliminated strategy on strategic courses by making them 'championship' quality (read narrowing, tree planting, water hazards). You jump on Mark for wanting to change the original intent of BB, but Rees did that to many courses - making strategic ones penal.


Rees who has taken artificial design to a new level. Rees, who has never had a sustainable design in his life. Rees who's work is currently being reverse all around the country. There is no original Rees Jones course that I would ever want to play. Ever. He's mutilated more good courses than we care to count. Why do you think Gil Hanse, Andrew Green, Andy Staples and others are making a living right now? Because they are cleaning up the Jones' mess. What a joke.

No bias here at all.. Tim is 100% capable of a fair review of Bethpage Black. Someone did a good job teaching Tim on how to think. "Everyone knows the fairways should be wider" because why? Just because you say so? Because you want to hit driver off every tee without missing a fairway?

Nick,


The funniest part is that you think that narrowing fairways is the only way to make fairways difficult to hit. 


You keep banging on about how widening fairways will make it less of a challenge. Sorry buddy - but you can widen fairways (bringing options into play, like at other penal designs), while making them just as difficult to hit. Make them firm and fast, and allow them to follow the slope of the ground. In a lot of cases it means shaping shots becomes MORE critical, and if your ball runs through the fairway, you are even further off line than you were if you had narrow fairways.


The other funny part is, that I actually AGREE that courses should maintain their original intended design concept. But what you seem to be failing to understand is that having wide fairways and being a penal design are not mutually exclusive!


PS - Except for the direct shots at Mark, I am enjoying this. I am 99.9% sure Nick has been paid by No Laying Up to wind us all up. How else can we excuse these narrow views?

[Nick Ribeiro]

Nick,

You really should give VKs last couple posts a good read,  he's right on point.

 I'm not sure what your goal is, but a big part of GCA's creedo is playability, options, and challenging fun. So if that doesn't fit your mantra, I'm not going to say GCA isn't for you, but you will have a hard time finding many buyers on relentless, punishing, unnecessary rough that reduces a course to a brutal slog for 99.9% of players...

I thought this community embraced history, architecture, the classic architects, the properties they built, and the intent of how they were supposed to be played. Unfortunately some here feel like classics should just be redesigned to suit THEIR game. Sad.

[Nick Ribeiro]

Yeah, Nick. I really don't expect you to progress much in understanding GCA. You have low "low handicap syndrom" and you know what you know...


But since you have take a foray into "explaining" Tillinghast's architectural intent... and came up with a ridiculous concept of the effective width of fairways, think about this fact:


When Tilly was working his courses did not have anywhere near the kind of irrigation systems that are in use today. Advances  in argonomy now allow for rough that is totally different than what the ODG's envisioned. They certainly did not water and fertilize roughs like we do today, so the plush, thick, four inch rough that lines BPB today would probably SHOCK him!


You really should type less and read more but you are obviously not on this site for knowledge. So just keep hitting 300 yard drives and banging on the keyboard.

Ridiculous concept of effective width of fairways? Are you arguing modern technology is no different than it was 100 years ago or you just think we should just not consider it because it goes against what makes some courses playable for your game?

[Tim Gallant]

More than happy to DM but am just finishing something that gets into this very issue for anyone to peruse my points. 


But the whole, "he should have protested and refused to take the job" argument isn't realistic.  Whether it was Bethpage or elsewhere, oftentimes Rees was brought in to renovate the courses and make them tournament relevant.  While that is a taboo concept nowadays (and he wasn't the only one doing this btw), back then trending design concepts were a lot different. 


As for Bethpage, the course is great for its bunkering (especially placement), the variety of heroic shots presented and challenge off the tee.  The course holds one's interest because of its penal and heroic qualities and yes, scale.  That's what makes it great and that's why it should be appreciated.  Even if the fairways were wider, it will never be the fun strategic course some claim is the only true sign of great design.  It's great for the other reasons stated.  We seem to be discussing rough for the most part and as I already stated, I don't believe the rough is kept severely long throughout the season.  It certainly wasn't when I played it.     

Hey Chris,


More than happy to wait to see what you write on another thread. Happy to be educated on Rees, but I would be very surprised if there is anything that he's done that I would consider aesthetically pleasing, sustainable or worth playing for that matter based on what I've already played and what I know about his design principles.


I don't disagree about any of the things you've said about BB. I'd only point out that by widening fairways, it doesn't mean you move to a strategic / fun course. It just means there is a realistic challenge for more players. Doesn't need to make the challenge for the top players any easier - just more interesting

[Will Lozier]

I thought this community embraced history, architecture, the classic architects, the properties they built, and the intent of how they were supposed to be played. Unfortunately some here feel like classics should just be redesigned to suit THEIR game. Sad.

I feel like I am reading through a Trump Twitter rant!

[Kyle Harris]

I'll give anybody a half-dozen golf balls and a range mat placed at the base of the slope on the left side of the #5 Black from 200 yards out. Get two balls on the green and I'll give you a shiny six-pence.

Cutting the grass short over there only gives you the suggestion that you can do something you probably can't.

[Nick Ribeiro]

Nick,


I thought it was worth addressing a few of your comments as you have been firing shots at the 'newbs' in the group.


In your early posts you keep pointing towards the rankings as a testament that Mark is wrong in his assertion. Fair enough. Would you mind pointing me out where Bethpage sits on the 147 custodians list? The list that most here consider to be far superior to any magazine list that you rate? Oh, it's not there? Interesting.


I hear your cries, 'But those courses highlighted aren't set up to really test good players. Au contraire my friend! There are two US Open courses listed in the Top 13. So off the bat, your logic doesn't stick on what we should refer to when considering what is great.


The thing is - you are mistaken 'great' with 'great for professionals', and the two are NOT the same. If we look at some of the greatest architectural minds, people like Mackenzie agree that great golf courses are those that provide the greatest amount of pleasure, for the greatest amount of golfers. By this logic, Bethpage is NOT a great course. It only caters for one type of player...and doesn't even do that well.


So we must then judge it in relation to other great penal designs. As others have pointed to, I would count Pine Valley and Oakmont among this class. The difference between places like Oakmont / Pine Valley and Bethpage is variety! Just because a course is penal doesn't mean it has to be boring, insipid and uninspiring. Oakmont has 5 par-4s under 400 yards. In the words of Will Hunting, 'how do you like them apples?'! Pine Valley has some of the best green complexes known to man. Bethpage? Flat ovals. I love hearing people defend unoriginal greens 'Oh, but there are subtleties that really make them great'. If that's the case, and Bethpage's greens are really that good, then what does that make the greens at Oakmont? I'll wait.


You bash Mark for criticising the narrowness of the course because it now resembles a similar challenge to when Tilly created the course. Question - what if Tilly got it wrong?! You admitted in a previous post that architects don't hit homers on each decision. And if you look at what was there, and what there is now, you know, I know, every knows they should be wider. It won't make the golf course easier. I promise you.


What it will do is make the brain work. Not 'should I hit a 300 yard fade, or a 300 yard draw' to the exact same position in the fairway. That's not a decision. That's how you execute. The two are not the same. A decision on a penal course can be found on holes like the 17th at Oakmont. Driver at the green and face a challenging up and down. Iron to the right for safety and an impossible angle? Flight the bunkers and set up a good angle? I could hit 5 different clubs off that tee. Not 'should I draw this 3-wood, or fade it'. That's how you execute based on conditions. Come on man.


Which brings me to Rees. My man - Rees is AWFUL. If you think people are just jumping on a bandwagon, you might be right, but it doesn't make us wrong. He is terrible. Rees the one who has eliminated strategy on strategic courses by making them 'championship' quality (read narrowing, tree planting, water hazards). You jump on Mark for wanting to change the original intent of BB, but Rees did that to many courses - making strategic ones penal.


Rees who has taken artificial design to a new level. Rees, who has never had a sustainable design in his life. Rees who's work is currently being reverse all around the country. There is no original Rees Jones course that I would ever want to play. Ever. He's mutilated more good courses than we care to count. Why do you think Gil Hanse, Andrew Green, Andy Staples and others are making a living right now? Because they are cleaning up the Jones' mess. What a joke.

No bias here at all.. Tim is 100% capable of a fair review of Bethpage Black. Someone did a good job teaching Tim on how to think. "Everyone knows the fairways should be wider" because why? Just because you say so? Because you want to hit driver off every tee without missing a fairway?

Nick,


The funniest part is that you think that narrowing fairways is the only way to make fairways difficult to hit. 


You keep banging on about how widening fairways will make it less of a challenge. Sorry buddy - but you can widen fairways (bringing options into play, like at other penal designs), while making them just as difficult to hit. Make them firm and fast, and allow them to follow the slope of the ground. In a lot of cases it means shaping shots becomes MORE critical, and if your ball runs through the fairway, you are even further off line than you were if you had narrow fairways.


The other funny part is, that I actually AGREE that courses should maintain their original intended design concept. But what you seem to be failing to understand is that having wide fairways and being a penal design are not mutually exclusive!


PS - Except for the direct shots at Mark, I am enjoying this. I am 99.9% sure Nick has been paid by No Laying Up to wind us all up. How else can we excuse these narrow views?

I never said Narrowing the fairways was the only way to make them difficult. You further prove my point once it starts it never ends. Mark wants wider fairways because he doesn't want to be penalized for errant tee shots, you agree but you also want to add features to the fairways to make them more difficult. How far does it go and where does it end? At what point do you consider your wants and desires "bastardizing" the course?

[Mark Fedeli]

I'll give anybody a half-dozen golf balls and a range mat placed at the base of the slope on the left side of the #5 Black from 200 yards out. Get two balls on the green and I'll give you a shiny six-pence.

Cutting the grass short over there only gives you the suggestion that you can do something you probably can't.

This is what the entire thread is about. Despite how many times Nick makes things up about what some of us have said or secretly want.



Further, if the architect intended the drive on holes like #1, #2, #9, #13, #15, and #16 to be so penal and precise, why didn't he add bunkers near the landing areas or to heroically carry? Especially on those fairways that are on near-completely flat ground? Lord knows that's the strategy he employed elsewhere throughout the course. Why did he chose to do almost...nothing? It's almost as if he realized the greens and green sites; their bunkering or elevation or forced carries were the main challenge and the drive should be given room to find the best and worst angles from which to attack.


Long ago #16 did have a small dry creek of some sort that used to come into play as it crossed the fairway near the landing zone, but it was diagonal so as to provide a worse angle approach in exchange for a shorter carry. That is precisely the kind of option that used to exist that no longer does on those holes.

[Tim Gallant]

Nick,


I thought it was worth addressing a few of your comments as you have been firing shots at the 'newbs' in the group.


In your early posts you keep pointing towards the rankings as a testament that Mark is wrong in his assertion. Fair enough. Would you mind pointing me out where Bethpage sits on the 147 custodians list? The list that most here consider to be far superior to any magazine list that you rate? Oh, it's not there? Interesting.


I hear your cries, 'But those courses highlighted aren't set up to really test good players. Au contraire my friend! There are two US Open courses listed in the Top 13. So off the bat, your logic doesn't stick on what we should refer to when considering what is great.


The thing is - you are mistaken 'great' with 'great for professionals', and the two are NOT the same. If we look at some of the greatest architectural minds, people like Mackenzie agree that great golf courses are those that provide the greatest amount of pleasure, for the greatest amount of golfers. By this logic, Bethpage is NOT a great course. It only caters for one type of player...and doesn't even do that well.


So we must then judge it in relation to other great penal designs. As others have pointed to, I would count Pine Valley and Oakmont among this class. The difference between places like Oakmont / Pine Valley and Bethpage is variety! Just because a course is penal doesn't mean it has to be boring, insipid and uninspiring. Oakmont has 5 par-4s under 400 yards. In the words of Will Hunting, 'how do you like them apples?'! Pine Valley has some of the best green complexes known to man. Bethpage? Flat ovals. I love hearing people defend unoriginal greens 'Oh, but there are subtleties that really make them great'. If that's the case, and Bethpage's greens are really that good, then what does that make the greens at Oakmont? I'll wait.


You bash Mark for criticising the narrowness of the course because it now resembles a similar challenge to when Tilly created the course. Question - what if Tilly got it wrong?! You admitted in a previous post that architects don't hit homers on each decision. And if you look at what was there, and what there is now, you know, I know, every knows they should be wider. It won't make the golf course easier. I promise you.


What it will do is make the brain work. Not 'should I hit a 300 yard fade, or a 300 yard draw' to the exact same position in the fairway. That's not a decision. That's how you execute. The two are not the same. A decision on a penal course can be found on holes like the 17th at Oakmont. Driver at the green and face a challenging up and down. Iron to the right for safety and an impossible angle? Flight the bunkers and set up a good angle? I could hit 5 different clubs off that tee. Not 'should I draw this 3-wood, or fade it'. That's how you execute based on conditions. Come on man.


Which brings me to Rees. My man - Rees is AWFUL. If you think people are just jumping on a bandwagon, you might be right, but it doesn't make us wrong. He is terrible. Rees the one who has eliminated strategy on strategic courses by making them 'championship' quality (read narrowing, tree planting, water hazards). You jump on Mark for wanting to change the original intent of BB, but Rees did that to many courses - making strategic ones penal.


Rees who has taken artificial design to a new level. Rees, who has never had a sustainable design in his life. Rees who's work is currently being reverse all around the country. There is no original Rees Jones course that I would ever want to play. Ever. He's mutilated more good courses than we care to count. Why do you think Gil Hanse, Andrew Green, Andy Staples and others are making a living right now? Because they are cleaning up the Jones' mess. What a joke.

No bias here at all.. Tim is 100% capable of a fair review of Bethpage Black. Someone did a good job teaching Tim on how to think. "Everyone knows the fairways should be wider" because why? Just because you say so? Because you want to hit driver off every tee without missing a fairway?

Nick,


The funniest part is that you think that narrowing fairways is the only way to make fairways difficult to hit. 


You keep banging on about how widening fairways will make it less of a challenge. Sorry buddy - but you can widen fairways (bringing options into play, like at other penal designs), while making them just as difficult to hit. Make them firm and fast, and allow them to follow the slope of the ground. In a lot of cases it means shaping shots becomes MORE critical, and if your ball runs through the fairway, you are even further off line than you were if you had narrow fairways.


The other funny part is, that I actually AGREE that courses should maintain their original intended design concept. But what you seem to be failing to understand is that having wide fairways and being a penal design are not mutually exclusive!


PS - Except for the direct shots at Mark, I am enjoying this. I am 99.9% sure Nick has been paid by No Laying Up to wind us all up. How else can we excuse these narrow views?

I never said Narrowing the fairways was the only way to make them difficult. You further prove my point once it starts it never ends. Mark wants wider fairways because he doesn't want to be penalized for errant tee shots, you agree but you also want to add features to the fairways to make them more difficult. How far does it go and where does it end? At what point do you consider your wants and desires "bastardizing" the course?

Whaaa? Making something firm is now adding features? New one to me!

[Bill Brightly]

So I spent some time on HistoricAerials.Com to look at the changes at BPB. I encourage everyone else to do the same. I looked at Hole 15, arguably the toughest hole out there. It seems like it was built with NO rough. There probably was a fairway/rough cut, but when you look at the 1980 aerial, the rough is obviously so thin and wispy that you can't tell the difference between fairway and rough. Then click on the 2010 or 2015 aerial, and the narrow ribbon of fairway lined by thick rough is apparent.


The design intent of this hole was clearly to test a long, uphill second shot to a tough green complex. NOT to ask the golfer if he can hit a straight drive...



I could not blame Rees Jones or any architect who re-worked the course to add such rough. That obviously had to be the charge from the USGA in preparation for a US Open. I think the greenside bunkers, while re-built and brought closer to the greens, still maintained the original design intent.

[Matthew Essig]

https://twitter.com/FarrowGolf/status/962040561103286273

Here's a nice overlay of before on top of now

[Thomas Dai]

Would it be correct to assume that the rough at BPB is irrigated?
If so, anyone know when it was introduced (and how wide an area it extends too)?
Also, when would fairways and approach irrigation have been installed?
Atb

[Nick Ribeiro]

https://twitter.com/FarrowGolf/status/962040561103286273

Here's a nice overlay of before on top of now

This was mentioned, discussed, posted multiple times already. Any chance you found any information regarding the difference in equipment technology during the same time period?

[Matthew Essig]

https://twitter.com/FarrowGolf/status/962040561103286273

Here's a nice overlay of before on top of now

This was mentioned, discussed, posted multiple times already. Any chance you found any information regarding the difference in equipment technology during the same time period?

Sorry. I must of lost it in this massive ongoing argument

[Carl Nichols]

As I understand it, one of Nick's arguments is that changes in technology require the fairways to be narrower, and the rough to be longer, in order to preserve the original design intent.  What's the answer to that argument, other than that it's overstated here?  Could it be partially correct? 

[Tim Gallant]

Whaaa? Making something firm is now adding features? New one to me!



Sorry, I gave you a little too much credit. Correction, his demand is to create surface that helps him get the ball closer to the hole. Everyone and everything needs to play a part in holding Tims hand during a round of golf...

You think firmer conditions make the ball go closer to the hole? 

[Bill Brightly]

https://twitter.com/FarrowGolf/status/962040561103286273

Here's a nice overlay of before on top of now

Thanks for posting that, Matt. What those lines cannot show is the quality and thickness of the rough turf. I'm old enough to remember single-row irrigation systems where rough received no water. The grass might be long but it was not difficult to get a club through it. I am NOT suggesting we go back to that. Rather, whenever we talk about an ODG's architectural intent, we have to think about the type of rough turf that he envisioned.


BPB, as it plays now, clearly belongs in a very small group of penal, US Open setups. Mark is simply saying it could be so much more, that's all.

[Mark Fedeli]

As I understand it, one of Nick's arguments is that changes in technology require the fairways to be narrower, and the rough to be longer, in order to preserve the original design intent.  What's the answer to that argument, other than that it's overstated here?  Could it be partially correct?

To answer that, first we need to determine if we're talking about the set-up for pro events, or, how many of us wish the set-up would be the rest of the time (which is the version I started the thread for). And then Nick needs to send his accuracy report for pros and ams so we have the exact data for both.


For the pro situation, I'll let other handle it. For regular play, the issue isn't about narrowing a landing zone here or there. The issue is that far too many holes have their fairways narrowed in far too uniform a fashion. Additionally, narrow fairways and thick rough are not the only way to preserve a challenge. In fact, some of the fairways are narrowed so unnaturally to their surroundings and compared to the original design, one could easily argue that adding a couple dozen ponds to carry would hardly be anymore out of place.


It's a slippery slope. A very boring, unimaginative, slippery slope.

[Bill Brightly]

As I understand it, one of Nick's arguments is that changes in technology require the fairways to be narrower, and the rough to be longer, in order to preserve the original design intent.  What's the answer to that argument, other than that it's overstated here?  Could it be partially correct?

The answer is that changes in technology, in the hands of pro golfers and a select few top amateurs, probably does require narrow fairways with penal rough to "protect par" on most US parkland courses. (That's just not an important goal for the vast majority of GCA posters.) Nick has already stated how much he values "resistance to scoring." He can hit 300 yard drives, so he is comfortable with "bomb and gauge." He's probably never played a true links course and BEGGED his ball to catch some rough and stop before reaching a bunker or thick gorse...



If we asked him to write an essay entitled "short grass as a hazard" his head would explode!

[Brian Finn]

I'm not sure it has been explicitly mentioned in this thread, but the course WAS lengthened by somewhere between 700-900 yards.  I understand Nick is likely just going to say that PLUS the insanely narrow fairways uphold the original design intent,  but we can't ignore the ~12% additional length, particularly when discussing the impacts of technology on equipment.

[Nick Ribeiro]

https://twitter.com/FarrowGolf/status/962040561103286273

Here's a nice overlay of before on top of now

Thanks for posting that, Matt. What those lines cannot show is the quality and thickness of the rough turf. I'm old enough to remember single-row irrigation systems where rough received no water. The grass might be long but it was not difficult to get a club through it. I am NOT suggesting we go back to that. Rather, whenever we talk about an ODG's architectural intent, we have to think about the type of rough turf that he envisioned.


BPB, as it plays now, clearly belongs in a very small group of penal, US Open setups. Mark is simply saying it could be so much more, that's all.

Bethpage could be so much more? By running opposite direction of original intent, wide fairways, removing rough, firm conditions with open lanes directly to the hole? Oh and a half par hole and a St Andrews look...
Or do you mean by going off the only data that's been shared so far regarding modern equipment technology and narrowing the fairways another 5 yards restoring the original intent precisely and looking further into how long the rough should actually be by sharing study that shows the rough of a century ago with that equipment vs the equipment today and current rough?

[Nick Ribeiro]

I'm not sure it has been explicitly mentioned in this thread, but the course WAS lengthened by somewhere between 700-900 yards.  I understand Nick is likely just going to say that PLUS the insanely narrow fairways uphold the original design intent,  but we can't ignore the ~12% additional length, particularly when discussing the impacts of technology on equipment.

Agreed, any actual information supporting a real conclusion is welcomed.

[Mark Fedeli]

Nick, am I correct that the accuracy studies you're quoting are talking about improved equipment performance via tests done by professionals in a controlled trackman environment? They are not tracking in-field results from a range of actual players, pro and amateur? Do we know how much more accurate the average player is now, if at all?


We do know how much less accurate Tour players are since 2000, though: almost 10%. So certainly you'll agree all fairways at Black should be expanded to 10% wider than what they were when they were renovated?


Source: https://www.pga.com/news/pga-tour/how-pro-golf-has-changed-off-tee-1980-even-more-staggering-might-think

[Anthony Butler]

I haven't read through the entire thread, but has anyone mentioned that the green complexes aren't as a whole interesting/challenging enough to justify widening the fairways enough to encourage different angles of attack?

While they should at least ensure all the bunkers are 'reachable', no one's turning BPB into Trinity Forest no matter how long they keep the fairway-height mowers out there.