[Mark_Fine]

Apologize if there was a similar post not too long ago on this topic (been out playing instead of posting).  

The question is on width – what are the pros and cons?  

As we all know, many classic courses have lost much of their width due to excessive tree planting, changing maintenance practices, ...  Some have narrowed fairways believing this will “increase the difficulty” of the golf course.  

The biggest concern I hear from golfers is that if fairways are expanded, the course will become much easier and some of our classic courses are struggling as it is to remain challenging tests of golf.  Without listing my own right now, I'd like to hear some good counter arguments?  
Mark

[brad_miller]

Mark, I think Dunlop White says it very well. Something like, helping the dub shoot 94 instead of 98 works for all,  and speeds up play, making the good golfer think strategically adds real interest and improves recovery play. Many, but not all 25-30 yard fairways would be much more interesting 35-45 yards, thereby bring back some angles of play. If we only focus on the very best golfers and defending par aren't we doing the game a disservice. They are OUR courses.

As a side note the last Titelist ball add with John Cleese altering the model course is both quite funny and sad, about as in your face to the governing rules bodies as they can be.

[SPDB]

if I remember there was considerable discussion about Kinloch the last time this thread was up. It looks fun, with strategy-abounding.

[Matt_Ward]

Mark:

The greater the width (as much as a property can provide) the greater the degree a player will have to have in overall shotmaking dexterity. When courses narrow themselves beyond reason you have a reduction in the overall decisions a player must make. It just becomes defensive golf over and over again. I like the Mckenzie, Tillie and Ross beliefs that you should give the player a fair amount of room off the tee.

Too many courses from my travels, particularly in the Northeast and Midwest overly fall prey to the belief that added rough / narrow fairways will add to the demands of their course. All I see with such a situation is the reduction in the creativity that was likely envisioned by the architect. Golf is about playing angles and those playing angles are not always dead-center right in the fairway. Shaping shots is fundamental to the game.

Take a course you know full well. How much rough / narrow fairways does Lehigh need? Given the preferred angle into the target area (depending upon pin location of course) you must find those areas to really take advantage of your scoring opportunities.

Courses with 20-25 wide fairways are overly constricted and do nothing more in most cases for boring and tedious affairs.

I say unless you are holding some sort of event of consequewnce (could be a club championship or higher on the charts) the need for rough should be carefully examined. I well designed course has many defenses and rough should be a part of that equation when it is reasonable in height and applied in such a way so that fairways are not overly consticted.

One last item -- the narrower you make a course the greater the time spent looking for lost balls and the accompanying result ... a S-L-L-O-O-O-W-W-W-W march to the 19th hole.

Hope this helps ...

[Mike Cirba]

I have yet to see a case where it is not.  

[Jim_Kennedy]

Mike,
Our course was very wide. It was mown wall to wall at fwy. height. We recently grew up the rough and narrowed it down in some areas and it has actually helped. It keeps errant shots in play, instead of rolling into nasty places leaving little or no chance of recovery. We didn't make the rough unmanageable and after the initial shock wore off, most think it is an improvement. We did get a little narrow in some places but George Bahto is setting us straight.

[Dunlop_White]

Below you will find a link to my post on fairway widths! If this doesn't work, then you may go to the "In My Opinion" section of this site if you are interested in a detailed commentary. Look for  "The Shrinking Fairway".

Thanks Brad!

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/opinionwhite4.html

Dunlop

[Tom Doak]

Many months ago I said there was such a thing as too wide, and I still think so.  But, I was talking about widths above 200 feet, and talking about them because they seem to add $ to the irrigation system without a corresponding benefit to play.

I've never been a fan of 25-to-30 yard fairways, although one of the advantages of fescue [or common bermuda] is that you can adjust the widths to suit a tournament set-up.

[newtoneagle]

Removing trees and widening fairways is synonomous with making a golf course easier in not just the mind of the average golfer, but officially as well. My club is very old, at 6400 yards as long as it could ever be, a bit overgrown with trees, and should have wide fairways but they grow the rough thick and the fairways narrow in order to protect their slope from being reduced by the USGA (that's what I'm told).

I geuss width is fine in moderation like a lot of things, but to be hitting off of fairway grass doesn't seem like penalty enough for a wayward drive. Even more so when the fairway is on another hole.

Personally, I agree with a lot of the folks here that width is desirable and makes most courses more interesting, but you still have a problem; how do you defend against the mad bombers?.

[Tim_Weiman]

Mark Fine:

I'm not aware of any classic course that is struggling to remain a challenging test of golf.

Which venues are you refering to?

[RJ_Daley]

I very much appreciate Dunlop's whitepaper on this subject and Brad's bringing the example of humor and irony in the commercial where they use the John Cleese character to stretch the course model longer and render narrower fairways, with the parody architect Ian saying something like 'this is what we want to avoid'.  This is further evidenced by the quote I featured as 'generally accepted' resistance to the distance factor featured on the 'Frankly.com speaking' thread.

There are probably some good golf courses that have undergone restoration aspects that have brought mowing lines back out to original widths.  One is Lawsonia.  I would very much like to see how their Wednesday town twilight league has changed in average scoring.  Like stated above, if the duff gains from 98 to 94, who cares?  The widening and tree removal has made that course so much more fun to play.  It is worth it in my view even if the low handicappers gain a stroke or 2 better, the angles and options are more fun.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Eagle,
I used to think as you did. I'd get upset with a perfect drive that got an equal lie as one pushed or pulled to the side. Then I'd look at my angle and the angle of the unfortunate who'd hit it sideways. I say, give 'em the decent lie.

As for slope, I think we'd be better off if the number were dropped and we were just issued the adjustment table. I don't see the need to know if our course is a 117 or a 137, I just need the adjustment itself.    

[Mark_Fine]

Good responses guys.  We seem to all be on the same page.  

Tim,
I was refering to courses like Scarsdale Golf Club, a old Tillinghast outside New York City and places like Agawam Hunt, built in 1897 and remolded by Ross.  The list of old classic but quite short courses goes on and on.   I believe Doak catagorizes some of them as a 4 (courses that are very good but don't provide sufficient challenge for the better golfer).  

I've played many of these and you can tell many are trying to make their courses more challenging by eliminating width (shrinking the fairways).  
Mark

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark,

Is width, perceived width, real width or false width ?

Looks wide, is wide, looks wide but isn't really wide.

What is Width ?

Does width diminish or eliminate the premium on driving accuracy ?

What makes a player have to perform with his driver,
wide open fairways or the need for precision ?

[Mark_Fine]

Pat,
In my mind, I would descibe a course has having "width" if it allows the golfer options to attack a target (ususally the green) from different angles "that provide varying strategic advantages".  Wide for the sake of wide might make a course easier but not necessarily better.  If there is little or no advantage to where you hit the golf ball on a 60 yard wide fairway, what is the use?  The one aspect, however, that must be kept in mind is the WIND.  
Mark

[brad_miller]

Mark, how interesting might a course be with 60 yard fairways where there is no preferred angle to attack the greens complexes? I understand that in a sense you are the moderator of this thread. I believe we are talking about Doak 4's than might be 5's, 5's that might be 6's etc....

[David_Elvins]

Just thought I might add that the strategic value of fairway width is inversely proportional to the softness of the green.  Only firm fast conditions emphasize the need to aproach the target from the correct angle,  allowing the misdirected drve that lands on the fairway to be suitably punished.  

[Mark_Fine]

Brad,
That is where wind comes into play (you might need fairways that wide just so you can hit them).  The Plantation Course comes to mind!  But you are right, if there is no real advantage, the interest level drops off quickly.

David,
I agree with you on the greens but I feel the firmness of the approaches is even more important.  I made a post on this and surprisingly it generated little interest.  Firm approaches lead to all kinds of shot options for the good and not so good golfer.  

[TEPaul]

Mark:

In my opinion if a course has width that has no particular purpose--no particular advantage or lack of it with the width than I don't see the point of it.

To me though, width can be such a luxury to a designer/architect because it allows him to potentially do so many interesting things that narrowness does not offer.

The whole concept of "lines of charm" works best with some real width because the architect can get things inside the fairway lines (in the middle, whatever) which can then offer the player not only 2,3,4 different ways to go but often that number of ways he MUST ACTUALLY decide between (or run into potential trouble).

Instead of dictating to a golfer A single best way to go it's better to give him 2,3,4 different options to decide for himself. Make that have to decide for himself--that's what really good "lines of charm" can do--and width is necessary to design it well or best!

[golfarc]

SPBD,

Good observation.  Kinloch is alot of fun and is replete with strategy at the same time.  Probably why it ranked #23 in the GW 100 Best Modern.  In the case of Kinloch, there is plenty of treeline to treeline width to allow for the bent grass fairways to get air and light, but it is not a brainless "driving" golf course.  Every hole (and I mean every hole) has a defined strategy off the tee to promote scoring potential.  

If you miss a fairway the psychological damage is almost as bad as the penalty exacted by trying to advance the ball out of the most well groomed blue grass rough I have ever seen.  

Anyway, if you define wide as Kinloch, then wide is good.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Mark
Angles of play can also be used to make a narrow hole play wide, too.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()