[ForkaB]

We use the word "width" on this website freely, but I'm not sure yet what we mean.

For example....

The 1st at TOC has as "wide" a fairway as you can get.  However, there is virtually no advantage to be gained from hitting your drive into any particular part of that fairway.  This is due, IMO, to the fact that the greensite demands only one simple thing--HIT IT OVER THE BURN, STUPID!  On the other hand, the 17th at TOC has an extremely narrow fairway, but there is significant advantage to being able to hit the far right side of that fairway (i.e. as close to OB as possible) and there is a bail out option to hit it into the rough on the left, and rely on an up and down to get "par".  There is also the option of playing your second long left, as well as a number of ways of playing the second from position A (e.g. low runner, fly it to the pin, etc.).  So, which hole has more "width?"  Does "width" really mean "interesting greensites"?  Sticking with TOC, one of the classic examples of "width" has always been given as the 14th, largely due to the placement of "Hell" and other bunkers.  However, how much "width" is there today for the elite player who can easily avoid these hazards?  Is it still a "wide" hole because less accomplished players face the same options that the skilled players used to in the past?

We talk about ANGC (old or even new) as having "width."  And yet, I have always thought that the course very much rewarded specific angles and specific shot shapes on many key holes.  The need to be able to hit a long hard hook on 13 is just one example.  Perhaps it's my ignorance, or perhaps the ignorance of the TV announcers I have listened to over the past 40 years, but I rarely hear them talking about options off the tee at ANGC, except in the sense of the value of taking and find the "right" line.  How is this different from the "simplistic/one line" tee ball strategy that many of us criticise modern architects for designing?  To me, one of the very interesting facets of Augusta has always been that off-line shots often allow the chance for a recovery, at a great risk and requiring great skill.  An example was Faldo's 2-iron hit off the pine needles on 15 after he carved his drive right.  Or even Mize's incredible pitch to beat Norman.  So, does "width" really mean richer second shot options, in the context of fallibility rather than choice, off the tee?  If so, this implies to me that, again, the greensite is critical to the concept of "width."  If it doesn't really matter too much from what angle or from what distance a green is approached, again for the elite player, "width" off the tee is irrelevant.

It seems to me that "width" is much more important to the average player (e.g. MacKenzie and most of us) than the skilled one.  Pros can (and always could) get the ball to pins from the wrong angle, if they felt it worth their while to take the risk.  And, their errors off the tee are not as great as ours.  The rest of us have to live with our fallibilty and devise strategies from situations the pros rarely find themselves in, and with far less skill to get out of those circumstances.

So, what is "width?"  Is it good?  Why?

Specific examples would help me, at least, learn from any responses.

[Brian Phillips]

Rich,

I agree with you about the misconception of width creating strategy.  To me the concept of width creating 'options' on the tee only occur IF the green complex is designed to punish or reward depending on what angle you come in from.

Your example of the 17th at TOC is a perfect hole without any width in the fairway.  It is the green that creates the strategy.

I am not a great fan of TOC but I am a fan of it's green complexes.  

No course will have strategy with width alone.  One of the reasons I love Kingsbarns is the width combined with the intelligent green designs from Phillips.  If you hit the wrong side of a fairway you do end up with a difficult approach.  I think his design does involve some analysis of TOC but I think his strategy is more subtle and not as obvious as TOC.

If you hit it left on TOC on many of the holes then you really do have a tough shot coming in to the greens but I feel this repeats itself all too often to the point of boredom..

Again it is the greens that create the strategy of the course, not the just the width.  I think the fairways could be narrowed at TOC and we would still have just as much strategy.

Brian.

[A_Clay_Man]

Thoughts that occurred to me while reading your probing post was the point Geoff made in one of his articles recently posted by the Emp that playing to a spot was individualistic. As I assume the Old Course is played by those that can only muster 160 M in the air but know the terrain so well that it could go a country mile or to the place they can reach their next spot of charm

So, with more width the individual has more terrain to choose their spot, not limited by narrowness on every linear inch.

[T_MacWood]

The model for the advantage of width is the Old course. There are a number of holes that can be played three or four (or more) distinct ways depending on your skill, depending on the conditions, depending on how daring or conservative you might be. Width provides space for interior hazards and features, it is the width in conjunction with those features that creates interesting strategic options - not only for the strong golfer but also for the weak.

Width for the sake of width is not an advantage, but on the other hand a hole does not need obvious features like bunkers or a water hazard to set up interesting choices. A bunkerless hole with width could be quite strategic with bold contours/undulations in the fairway, the profile of the green, its orientation and the green complex's contours/undualtions.

Width works best with firm fast conditions, allowing for not only choices of route but choices of how best to take that route. The best courses exhibit variety, and that includes a variety of widths.

[T_MacWood]

A good example is the old 3rd at ANGC. At one time the 3rd shared a fairway with adjoining 7th - one enormous double fairway. There was one singular (but daunting) fairway hazard on the far left. The green sits on plateau and is very narrow on the left, wider on the right. The green is also tilted severely from right to left. There was one greenside hazard also on the left.

Depending on where the flag was on a given day would determine where you would place your drive. For example if you wanted to use the slope of the green and its greatest width (the green is wider than deep), and were not affraid of the fariway bunker or appraoching over the greenside bunker, the best line would be to the far left, left of the bunker over by the 7th fairway.

If you wanted to play more conservatively down the right and hit your approach to the open wider right side of the green - avoiding both bunkers - you could easily. Of course a 3-putt would be an excellent possibility. The hole is much narrower today limiting the variety of approaches for all levels of skill.

[RJ_Daley]

I agree with Tom Mac.  Width needs another dimension also.  That dimension is varied elevations from side to side, or contouring to provide distinct advantages or varied circumstances depending on which area or side you place your tee shot.  The desire for width is further intensified by the location of a course where wind is a frequent factor.  Diagonal contours or ridges throughout fairways also enhance the ability to use width.  A design that features width of 60yards or more in a flatish parkland setting is generally out of place, and similarly, a narrow set of fairway designs in the 28-35 yard wide range is out of place in Nebraska.

[ForkaB]

RJ

So, should the Links Trust move some dirt and create a ridge down the middle of the 1st/18th at TOC?  Maybe plant some gorse there too?

Tom MacW

Thanks for the one and only specific example given by anybody (the NLE 3rd at ANGC).  I expected more from this group, but the lack of response seems to confirm the answer to Pat Mucci's question on a new thread, that strategy (and "width") is now basically irrelevant to the pros.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Rich,

WIDTH AS A STRATEGIC OPTION IS A MYTH !  

This ridiculous notion that a twenty three (23) handicap can look from the tee and see and execute his tee shot options is absurd.  He has almost no control over his ball.

Width allows deviations from intended, or safe lines of play to be tolerable, rather then punitive.

With respect to TOC, one of my most vivid recollections was Nicklaus commenting on how he would play the course, when the cameras were following John Daly on his way to his British Open Victory.  Daly's prodigeous length provided lines and methods of play that Nicklaus, one of the longest hitters in the game, hadn't even thought of, or considered.  

It seems to me that most of the "classic" architects believed that the longer you hit the ball, the more accurate you needed to be, and they designed accordingly.  I haven't seen any architect deviate from that principle.  So, I repeat,
Width, is a MYTH.  

The PGA Tour Players, the best golfers in the world, disect a hole, determine the optimum method of play, and execute.

A Clayman,

The notion of a 23 handicap picking their spot is fantasy to me.
I can see them going with their tendencies, as they perceive the play of the whole, but, it's a global perspective, not a micro analysis.

[ForkaB]

Patrick

Just to show that I can be argumentative even with those who basically agree with me on a topic, I think that to say that 23 handicaps don't know where their (golf) balls are going is only partially true. I know many higher handicaps who can hit the ball dead straight, but just not very long, and also do not have the strength to have a great short game.  They can and do utliise width to optimise their performacne and/or enjoyment of the game.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

Are you sitting down ?

I agree with you that WIDTH is more important, when features/hazards are within, not outside the fairway lines.

Unfortunately, today, fewer golf courses seem to have features/hazards placed within the fairway lines, with most placed on their outside edges, mitigating width.

I'm also not so sure that without narrowing, at 350 yards with some right to left slope, that the pros would be driving the 3rd green today.

Rich,

To show you that I too can be argumentative with those who basicallly agree with me, those higher than 23 handicaps that you know who don't hit the ball too far, but according to you, hit it "dead straight"  WHAT DO THEY NEED WIDTH FOR ?  

[RJ_Daley]

Rich, come now.   TOC is not a parkland course, it is a windswept links-dunesland course.  Why would you put a ridge down the middle of 1 an 18?  The width there is a perfect example of why it is desirable.  Particularly, it is a good example for the play on 18.  Depending on where the pin is set, and in relation to VOS, you see a large percentage using the option of width to play well wide left for an approach, and other times playing back or trying to go straight long, and still other times getting cosy with the right side.  Flatish parkland meaning a treed inland, not so frequently buffeted by the wind area.  But, I'm sure you really knew that and are feeling argumentative today.

Pat, and Tom,  the propensity of missing shots for the high handicap player does not negate the desire for width to add strategy and variety, if the player is astute to the game and can at least understand the shot and reason for it to be preferred under various conditions.  Just because they can't pull it off more frequently than the better ball striker, doesn't mean they don't appreciate the nature of the choices and strategy that comes from width.  If you take two golfers, one low handicapper who makes a high percentage of shots and putts they are attempting, and hits it about the same length as a high handicap same length (but is wild as a pet coon) and who can't putt either, and you let them play day in and day out on a properly designed wide course with frequent wind and plenty of contour through faiways and greens, I'd bet they both would enjoy it equally well.  But, I'd bet they'd both get bored if they played a narrow demanding straight forward course all the time.  Variety and choices beats the same old thing everytime.   Unless you are that obsessive compulsive guy like Jack Nicholson played in that movie who has to have the exact same routine every day.

[Mike_Cirba]

Rich/Patrick;

In light of your questions, I suggest that perhaps the fairways at NGLA should be narrowed to 28-35 yards, similar to a typical US Open setup.  Longish rough could be grown in the place of playable fairway.

What difference would it make anyway?  It certainly wouldn't affect strategy, right?

Since width = strategy is a "myth", let's save the maintenance costs of mowing those wide swatches of fairway, wouldn't you agree?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

It's interesting that you posted that.  I was thinking about it just last night.  I feel some of the fairways at NGLA are actually VERY narrow from a playability perspective.

# 1, # 2, #8, # 14, # 15, # 16 and you could probaly throw in
# 18, # 17 # 12 and possible # 7.

They may look wide, but their actual playability is quite narrow

RJ Daley,

I think there's a basic conflict with your premise.
The notion that a high handicapper is astute.
Most high handicappers suffer from very poor to poor course management, hence astuteness is as rare as eagles to them.

[RJ_Daley]

Pat, I take it you don't include a fellow like Dr. MacKenzie in this observation on astuteness related to highhandicap players who don't hit the shots very well.   Or, are you suggesting he wasn't all that bright when it comes to recognizing the merits of a strategic course?  I do agree that most high handicappers don't recognize the merits of strategy, however.  But, that is more a function of them not playing much, and not playing well.  For those who do play often but play poorly, I think the recognition and appreciation for width = strategy makes them keep coming back for the enjoyment of it all, to at least try to make the shots.

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick;

I agree that NGLA does narrow in the places where guys like you (and most good players) are trying to get to for "optimum positioning" (re: "strategy").

However, most guys playing out there aren't necessarily trying for those advantageous positions because it's either not within their skill level, or because it's a high-risk "option".

Instead, those players are likely to use the width to play "around" the hazards, albeit at a longer, more circuitous route.

Similarly, either choosing to play conservatively, or because of vagaries of weather, match situation, or other variable factors, you also have the option of playing along safer avenues.

That, my friend, is the beauty of width, it's meaning as relates to "strategy", and one of the primary reasons why NGLA remains a poster child of how to implement width and strategy effectively.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

RJ Daley,

First you disagree with me, then you agree with me, all in the same paragraph.

You equate Alister MacKenzie's mind, as being the mind of all high handicappers.  That's a bit of a stretch isn't it ?
But, I do understand, you want to disagree with me, no matter how right I am, and will go to extra-ordinary lengths to do so  

In all seriousness, I think that high handicappers enjoy the challenge of the course/game, and the satisfaction of hitting randomly good shots, hoping that randomness will turn to consistency.

I've only been playing golf for 50+ years and my observations are that most high handicappers are fighting their swing, their abilities, and don't focus or see anything other than obvious strategies, and hazards/features that will IMMEDIATELY affect their current shot, and not the shots that follow.
Is it universal, no, but it's overwhelmingly prevalent.

Mike Cirba,

But, if you play the game of someone who doesn't hit it far, they face narrowness, not on their tee shot, but on subsequent shots.

# 1, # 3, # 4, # 10, # 12, # 14, # 16, # 17, # 18 could all be considered to narrow down appreciably.

I think part of the genius of the design is that all levels of players face both wide and narrow situations as they traverse the golf course.

[TEPaul]

Pat said;

"I agree with you that WIDTH is more important, when features/hazards are within, not outside the fairway lines.
Unfortunately, today, fewer golf courses seem to have features/hazards placed within the fairway lines, with most placed on their outside edges, mitigating width."

I definitely agree with that. One of the luxuries of width certainly is to be able to get obstacle features within that fairway width and create all kinds of options and optional routes. But theoretically width can work even without any obstacles features within lots of fairway width.

Just imagine a hole like Riviera's #10 without the fairway bunkering. Would the hole work as well without the fairway bunkers? Perhaps not, but it would still work very well because a golfer would still have to place his ball properly in that wide open fairway in relation to all the green is and is about. Again, hole #12 Rustic is supposed to be something like Riviera's #10 but without fairway bunkering, because the pin position is supposed to dictate tee placement.

Width certainly can be useful to create many more optional possibilities than fairway narrowness.

So to me width means more opportunity to create interesting possibilities which certainly can be strategic.

Pac Dunes's #6 is another good example of interesting use of fairway width.

[Patrick_Mucci]

DMoriarty,

At least you have a reasonable explanation for your lack of first hand experience.  

What happens if you stay two nights ?

[ForkaB]

David

You are right about the various options at 17 TOC.  of course, as I mentioned on another thread, going left means hitting it in the cabbage and then hacking it out.  You also missed a few, such as teeing off with a lob wedge to get to the ladies tee, hitting a big wide hook to the 2nd fairway and then playing up the first and then tacking back to take the RH green through the back passage, as it were, etc. ad infinitum.....   However, doesn't that also mean that there are similar non-optimal options on any golf course in the world, including all the courses built by Fazio, Ress and Ted Robisnon?

I think you should look into one of those promotional 7-day breaks at the Holiday Inn Express of your choice.

[T_MacWood]

This is an excercise in futility. With Rich's legendary tunnel vision and focus he can not possibly appreciate the concept of width.

[ForkaB]

Tom

When you finally get to play the 17th at TOC I will listen to your opinion on its "width" (and its other characteristics).  Until then, dream on.

[Tim_Weiman]

Rich Goodale,

One of the best examples of the value of "width" can be found on the second hole at Pinehurst #2.

That fairway is so wide that the 23 handicapper with no ability to control the direction of his tee shots is still likely to feel comfortable.

On the other hand, Ross created a green complex that favors certain angles for approach shots for the talented player.

So, that might be the best way to think about "width" and "options". The golf hole doesn't beat the less talented player over the head - most of the golfing public - but provides a very interesting challenge for the best people playing the game.

Rich, there is so much talk about length these days that people forget how large a percent of the golfing public has great difficulty ever hitting fairways. I've thought about width more in recent years when I've spent less time playing and more time just watching people down at my local muni (the busiest course in the state of Ohio). It is a great reminder how hard it is to hit 200 yard tee shots - most people can't do it -, but hitting fariways? Forget it....no chance!

So width, in short, is good because without it the game would be far too frustrating to most people. If you want people to have fun playing golf, build wide fairways. Don't worry too much about better players - anyone capable of playing single digit golf.

[ForkaB]

Tim

Can't agree with you more on the need for "width" for the 75% or so of golfers who cannot hit the ball reasonably long and reasonably straight.

I do think that we afficionados think of (or at least post about) width in at least two very different senses  Firstly, the degree to which a course can give the elite player (i.e. top 1-2%), good risk/reward options of the tee, requiring a high standard of execution.  Secondly, the width that allows the reasonably competent player (i.e. 15 HCP and below) to at least visualise the strategic options potentially available to the elite player (een if he or she doesn't hvae a chance in hell of executing those options!).  I also think that we really don't think of your definition very much, even though it is the one most relevant to the vast part of the market.

[ForkaB]

Dave

Of course bailing out at 17 TOC is an "option," just as hitting lob wedge off the tee is, or laying up in front of a Fazio bunker is, or hitting short left on your second to any old Nicklaus course that penalizes anything but the perfectly executed high fade, or........  Just name me one golf hole that does not have an "option," by your or any other definition.

Thanks

Rich

[Brian Phillips]

I hear you Rich.

There is not much option to the 17th drive.  

In fact the options do not really start until you come to your ball after the drive.  Either you hit over the sheds or you don't and that is about that.  You can't even hit a hard high draw anymore because the hotel extension is in the way.

Only when you get to the ball does the hole then become strategic. Left, short or right..high shot to green, low runner or hit and hope!!

Brian

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()