Part I Width ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

How much of it is the architect's choice ?

And, how much of it is dictated by the site ?

How much is determined by the cost to construct

How much is determined by the cost to maintain ?

[John Kavanaugh]

Patrick,

Give a super a couple of years and what the architect wanted is out the window.  The current width of any course is a bunch of b.s.   In other words, a function of the budget and super.

[Tom_Doak]

John:

I don't agree with you there.  If you have bentgrass fairways and bluegrass roughs, it takes more than just the whim of a superintendent to change the width of the fairway significantly ... he has to make a real commitment.

However, you are correct that the ultimate maintenance cost of the course is what determines whether a wide fairway is appropriate or successful.

Very little of it is dictated by the site.

[Peter Pallotta]

Patrick --

on a related thread a while back, one of our resident architects offered this (I've edited his two posts only very slightly):

"Part of my job description on a new course is to flag every grassing line on the golf course ... we have to do that so the irrigation guys can do their job and so the superintendent will know which grass to plant where.  (Occasionally, with fescue or bermudagrass, both the fairways and rough are the same grass and you can leave the mowing lines until later, but usually not.)  So, I say that mowing lines are architecture -- they're just the part of the architecture most easily changed by the superintendent, deliberately or by accident.

If the architect specs different grasses for the fairway and the rough, it's a lot harder to change the lines afterwards ... it requires new sod and possibly different irrigation spacing. However, trying to pre-empt changes of that type also limits the designer's ability to make similar changes after the course opens.  One of the advantages of fescue fairways is that you can narrow them and widen them back out easily ... one of the disadvantages is, so can anybody else!"

Peter

[John Kavanaugh]

Tom,

I see width as more than a function of just fairway width.  To me it is recoverable area which is controlled by the super long after the architect is gone.  In reality, even something as simple as rough height can make a huge difference.  Sadly I am seeing a trend on all levels of budgets a move to paint and plant red stakes rather than maintain rugged property.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Patrick,

How much of it is the architect's choice ?

Some, as noted above.  We get to do clearing lines and inital grass lines, as well as set bunkers.  Have to say, though, I have seen lots of fw bunkers 10 yards off the fw as supers narrow the fw.

And, how much of it is dictated by the site ?

Usually, a wooded area ends up narrower than an open area, but not always.  We have to clear trees to let sunlight in.  In reality, width is determined by the sprinkler budget.  Does the owner have enough money for 2, 3, 4 or more rows?  At 65-70' row spacing, you find a lot of cleared corridors at 140, 210, 280 or 350 or so feet.

How much is determined by the cost to construct?

See above. 

How much is determined by the cost to maintain ?

I was renovating one of my courses and the super noted that he had 42 acres of fw and wanted to get to 25, but would accept 30.  its a bent fw course, and I recall them narrowing up the fw when it was planted from my grassing lines.  I forget the number, and supers can chime in, but I want to say that each acre of fw might cost $5000 per year more than rough, so 15 Acres of fw reduction allows savings of $100K.

So, you decide if there is pressure to reduce fw width!

[Chris Burgard]

How much of it is determined by wind?

Do architects route with or against the prevailing wind to limit the cost required to maintain additional fairway as opposed to orientating fairways which are subject to crosswinds?

Chris

[Patrick_Mucci]

JakaB,

If the architect doesn't incorporate width in his original plan, it's doubtful to impossible that any superintendent, on a whim, could create it after he's gone.

There are clearing, drainage, irrigation, fertilizer and chemical use issues, not to mention money issues that a superintendent's whim isn't going to overcome/solve.

Conversely, if the architect created width, I would think that the super could narrow the fairways to a degree.

[John Kavanaugh]

Patrick,

Changing potential stroke and distance penalties into lateral hazards increases width in both a real a virtual way.  This of course is not always the supers fault as members and staff can also make these suggestions.  It is also quite common for supers, staff or members to request fescue be cut down and grass grown, trees removed widening angles or even filling bunkers, where in each case more width than designed by the architect is created.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Changing potential stroke and distance penalties into lateral hazards increases width in both a real a virtual way.  This of course is not always the supers fault as members and staff can also make these suggestions.  It is also quite common for supers, staff or members to request fescue be cut down and grass grown, trees removed widening angles or even filling bunkers, where in each case more width than designed by the architect is created.

Could you cite ten (10) clubs where that's actually happened ?

[Greg Chambers]

Patrick,

Changing potential stroke and distance penalties into lateral hazards increases width in both a real a virtual way.  This of course is not always the supers fault as members and staff can also make these suggestions.  It is also quite common for supers, staff or members to request fescue be cut down and grass grown, trees removed widening angles or even filling bunkers, where in each case more width than designed by the architect is created.

In my experience it has always been the boys at the golf shop that have changed stroke and distance penalties into lateral hazards...in an effort to "speed the pace of play".  If a super has large areas of native grasses, I can guarantee that he/she would choose to keep it that way, nobody wants to maintain additional turf areas as this is a huge hit to the budget in labor, water, fertilizer, etc, etc.  Tree removal usually has an agronomic purpose in dealing with weak turf caused by shade issues.  Filling bunkers is always up to the members.  Your constant criticism of superintendents is absurd.  You should know the facts before you start blasting generalizations.