[Peter Galea]

Reading the "line of charm" thread got me thinking about fairway widths and contouring of roughlines. Given that most courses have rough, I pose the following questions.
Should the "LOC" be staked and fairway evenly distributed left and right?
What is the ideal fairway width at the landing zone(s) for par fours and par fives? Along wih this, narrower for short par fours, or not?
Straight line or curvilinear?
Do you through away all convention and utilize the width of the corridor to it's fullest, or follow the contours of the land?
Does the drip line of trees denote the fairway edge?
Kelly Blake Moran said recently "changing the mowing lines is one of the essential elements of design, and the cheapest to implement."
I feel that golfers need room to play, and width is more important than length. Strategy abounds with options off the tee.

[Troy Alderson]

Pete,

I was thinking along the same lines the other day.  I am contemplating widening the fairways at the golf course I maintain, cart path to tree line.

Fairways are "through the green", roughs are defined as the unbroken ground.  Yet we maintain roughs no different than fairways, just at a higher cut.  That is why I like the ANGC of old when there was no rough and the course played very strategically.  Rough areas, IMHO, should not be maintained and well out of play.  The game is hard enough for most golfers, current roughs just make it harder.

Also, IMHO, equipment today allows extreme slopes to be mowed.  There should not be anywhere a mower cannot go, for the most part.  Fairways should be as wide as possible following the natural curves of the land.

Troy

[Craig Sweet]

Pete, interesting thought about ideal fairway width....do golf course architects have a book similar to AASHTO that more or less spells out ideal widths etc?

[ForkaB]

Pete

This is where the artistry of the architect and the greenkeeper must converge.

I was walking from green to tee at the 1st at SFGC a month or so ago, and down our right side (left off the tee) there were these lovely undulations in the landing area which were bisected by a straight mowing line which emasculated that feature--both esthetically and in terms of playability.  It would probably be more expensive to release the potential of those mounds and rolls by more strategic mowing, but it would be worth it, and I'm sure the SFGC members could afford it!

Rich

[Mark_Fine]

Fairway width is one of my pet peeves.  It is also one of the most difficult design concepts to explain to club members/golfers.  Here is an article Tom Ferrell and I did that last summer that some of you might find intersting on the topic of fairway width:

http://www.finegolfdesign.com/articles/golf_tips_7_05.pdf  
 

[TEPaul]

I've never been a fan of any kind of standardization in golf course architecture, and that includes fairway width.

Did you know in the old days most all fairway widths were standardized around 50-60 yards?

Did you know that most all fairways in the modern era were standardized to around 30-35 yards?

There are a few interesting theories of why those fairway in the old days were of that standardized width but I don't think anyone really knows for sure. I think we can be much more certain why most modern fairways are app 30-35 yards.

I don't like standardization in golf course architecture but if I had to chose between wide standardized fairways and narrow standardized fairways, I'd chose the former every time.

However, in my opinion, it just isn't all that hard to look at any golf hole and analyze its various strategic offerings (generally its green and architectural green set up) and figure out the ideal fairway width and shape to use with it.

On most good golf courses you have some small greens, medium greens and big greens. There's clearly architectural and strategic reasons for that, certainly not the least reason being variety.

Why should fairway widths of various golf holes be any different? Give the golfer variety of widths off the tees by tailoring the ideal fairway width of a golf hole to what makes the most sense wth its architecture and strategy concept. It's not hard at all to figure out by just analyzing any golf hole, particularly its green. And if one did that they'd probably come away with some very wide fairways, some medium ones and perhaps some narrow ones.

What in the world is wrong with that? At the least, I'd think it would get any golfer's attention better on every tee compared to the same width fairways throughout, be they wide, medium or narrow.

Standardization suits tennis courts not golf courses.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

TePaul,

I agree.

Any hints as to how - in theory - you would vary the fw widths?  Of course, the land would dictate, but would you follow any general rules, like wider fw for longer holes, or into the wind holes, or whatever, unless you did one differently just because?

[Kyle Harris]

Wide and short always seem to work well together, especially with a central bunker complex or other hazard/terrain to push play out to the edges.

It's the quickest way to make 320 yards play like 390 yards and lets the golfer play the hole his way.

I also like width on par 5s that force the golfer to either zig zag up the hole around hazards or try to come as close as possible to get angle/distance toward the green. To me, that's a good way to turn a 510 yard par 5 into a 590 yard par 5.

[Forrest Richardson]

Mark's article is very good. I think there are only a few typos.

I like, very much, the idea of seeing fairway widths change. I embrace the idea of change in nearly anything on a golf course which can be adjusted by the greenkeeper or committee — without involving moving soil or sand.

To me, this is a fun part of golf courses. While I may have opinions (I usually do) I find the quirky things done to courses in the way of rough mowing, tree planting and pruning is almost always an entertaining aspect of clubs and courses. This does not mean it is always positive — but I enjoy seeing how people respond and tinker.

[TEPaul]

"Any hints as to how - in theory - you would vary the fw widths?  Of course, the land would dictate, but would you follow any general rules, like wider fw for longer holes, or into the wind holes, or whatever, unless you did one differently just because?"

JeffB:

Not really, because I just think there are so many possibilities that can work well given various landforms and arrangements etc.

I think one of the most interesting type of holes is one that basically is only about distance options with little in the way of direction options.

This website seems to have always been carried away by very wide fairway holes with perhaps hazard features inside the fairway lines. Obviously, those types of holes can be wonderful because there's no question the golfer on the tee just has to make a choice generally direction-wise. Holes like that are basically direction options.

But what about the relatively narrow fairway that just racks the player's brain regarding what sort of distance option he can stand? Those holes can be and are great too.

I guess generally the latter type of narrow fairway hole that basically has Scylla on one side and Charibdus on the other side tend to be of the shorter variety but perhaps with a complex green at the end.

Some examples of that would be PVGC's #2 which in my opinion could even stand to have a narrower fairway. Another short one like that is Oakmont's #2 but Oakmont's #10 is much longer and really like that. The player knows at all costs he needs to hit that fairway because there are bunkers on either side short and some real fairway topograhy long and approaching that green really does call for an approach from the fairway. Holes like those basically have no direction option concept to them---they're just all about the option of how much distance you can stand to try to use. Holes like these probably work better at or towards the end of routings.

I do admit that holes like that tend to get a bit one dimensional because people tend to try to play them the same way off the tee but they are the straight "shot testing" type and that's cool too. That's why they probably work better towards the end of routings so as to perhaps pick up some additonal temptation and motivation to make birdie or whatever.

Frankly most of Oakmont is all about distance options, not direction options.

And then I'd like to throw in a complete flip-flop off formula like NGLA's very short 17th which has an enormously wide fairway and a great big green too. That one is ratcheted up by the fact that in almost all cases the short approach is blind to the green.

Ironically, as good as #17 NGLA can be I think the hole has just lost a lot of it's original concept because the back tees had to be shifted way left just to pick up distance. If that hole could be as long from the original right tee as it is from the back left tees that hole would truly be something else. Those bunkers that're in the middle of the fairway would present real tee shot options. Today no good player I'm aware of would ever think to try to drive the ball over those bunkers toward the entire right half of that fairway. But if the tee was on the right as the hole was designed I think good players might choose all kinds of variable directions and distance options across that entire app 120 yard wide fairway.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()