Fairway Width For Everyday Play - Once Strategic, Now Merely Accomodating?

[DMoriarty]

Today, with perhaps exception for the very windy site, doesn't it merely make the course easier and more accommodating of the aerial game and the bomb & gouge tee shot?

Only if the greens are without character.

[Mac Plumart]

A wise man once said,

Width and angles are not design “values” and therefore have little to no inherent worth; rather, they, along with big greens, enable the design value of equifinality.

[Garland Bayley]

A wise man once said,

Width and angles are not design “values” and therefore have little to no inherent worth; rather, they, along with big greens, enable the design value of equifinality.

That wasn't a wise man, that was just some bloke trying to obtain a Ph.D. in Philosophy.

[Bradley Anderson]

Who doesn't like fairway width?  Personally, I find the thought of a course laid out over a beautiful lawn very appealing.  No rough at all.  

Back in the day, fairway width permitted the thinking man to tack his way around hazards and leave approaches down the length of the green.   Today, with perhaps exception for the very windy site, doesn't it merely make the course easier and more accommodating of the aerial game and the bomb & gouge tee shot?

In the architect's quiver, should fairway width move down the pecking order?

Bogey

The middle of the hole doesn't always give you the best angle for a mid to long iron shot. I think that if you are asking the player to hit a five iron approach you should allow him to set that shot up on an angle that gives him more depth of putting surface to work with.

[Jud_T]

Today, with perhaps exception for the very windy site, doesn't it merely make the course easier and more accommodating of the aerial game and the bomb & gouge tee shot?

Only if the greens are without character.

Winner, winner, chicken dinner...

[archie_struthers]

 


I love fairway width , and the angles that can be employed by using it strategically.  The architect can build slope into the fairway , put in turbo boosters in one side and not the other , and have some real fun.  It was one of the things that  first struck me about Pine Valley other than the greens.  You have great room to hit it , but choices of angle are fraught with their own challenges. The par four thirteenth is a perfect example of this as it looks like your tee shot should be down the left side , cutting the distance for your second shot . This is problematical , however. If you don't hit it far enough it rolls back into Holman's Hollow. If you  hit it  big but overcook it it can kick left into a nasty waste bunker , which is really bad .  The correct play is to hit a draw down the  right  center , even if it leaves you a longer shot in to the green .  It's real wide but the perfect slot is quite hard to find.

When we built Twisted Dune we built incredibly wide fairways , no doubt influenced by my affinity for same,.  When you watch play you realize they aren't wide enough for the bomb and gougers who aren't  scratch players , because off the fairway in the dunes is SOOL .  It's amazing how many people are furious when they can't find a ball 50 yards off line in the hay.  It's just a different mindset here in America versus playing in Ireland .  People aren't happy with high grass , yet accept water hazards .  Interesting!

[Jeff_Brauer]

Width without angled greens with bunkers designed to punish out of position tee shots doesn't make much sense. 

The 13th fairway at Rustic Canyon must be 80 yards wide, but if you aren't in a 30 yard wide area you might not be able to get within 40 feet of the pin. 

Of course this is the answer.  But a corollary, which must be asked, is if there are only 30 yards of good width, just how much bad width do we need to create that premium?  Of course, I ask this in the name of all superintendents and budget setters in the world of golf.

While angles are important, many fail to realize that if the green is angled 5 or 10 degrees, we get the same relative effect of a premium side of the fw at 40 yards as we do with a 20-30 degree angled green and a fw of 80 yards.  In the name of turf reduction, could that green at Rustic have been designed at a shallower angle and achieve the same strategic effect with a narrower fw?  I don't know, but I bet it could.

Second, if a fw is wider than all potential for penalizing a miss, is that really as strategic as one where a miss might actually find some rough?

My belief is that the majority of golfers and architects over time started to realize that tee shots aren't any more fun with 3, 4 or 5 options over 2.  At the very least, when cost is an issue (which is 99% of the time) it isn't very efficient design for the cost.  How many options do you really need? 

As one golfer told me, he was all right with one (hit the fw) and great with two, hit one side of the fw or the other.  At three options he felt he was really being forced to think a little too hard, and at 4 options, his head got to hurting........at 5, he was just plain confused.

[Mac Plumart]

At three options he felt he was really being forced to think a little too hard, and at 4 options, his head got to hurting........at 5, he was just plain confused.

Get him an Advil.  And keep the options comin'.  Thinking golf is the best golf.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mac,

I guess my point is that over time, and in considering both experiencing golf courses of all types, the cost, and the popular mindset of golfers, it seems to be fact that the majority just don't see it as a few here do, and architecture responded.

And, it has been my experience that with multiple plays of a golf course, it rarely happens that all options remain equally used.  Golfers figure it out pretty quickly and spending construction or maintenance money for an option that maybe 1% of golfers use does seem a little wasteful, no?  

Over time, recessions, war, etc. the fact is that even if width (more than say 45  yards) was a key design ingredient, the next generations simply said the GA guys were wrong, or at the least, impractical.  Looking back at those designers intent with rose colored glasses is easy.  Nostalgia is great as long as its someone else paying for it, no?

Whose to say if the original intent or the modifications through use are more correct? Nothing is 100% right or wrong in golf design, but just right or wrong given the circumstances at the time and place (a muni design for a US Open or vice versa)  Those guys in the 50's-80's weren't dumb, and they were doing what they felt best given what they knew and had to work with.

Besides, I don't really see the GA guys designing in all that many options.  Where are all those centerline bunkers that were supposed to be there?  I don't see them in old aerials all that often.  Wide fw?  As far as I can tell, they were as wide as early sprinkler technology allowed them to be, and not given all that much thought.

[archie_struthers]

 

Hey Jeff, nice to have you on board, as always.  

In that we can agree that it takes more money to maintain the fairway than the rough, do you think it's more the construction / irrigation costs or ongoing maintenance that would be the  biggest issue  on wider fairways as an architectural choice.

[Mac Plumart]

Jeff...

You have vastly superior knowledge compared to me regarding the economic impact of architectural decisions.

All I'm saying is how much pleasure I derive from playing holes where I can pick and choose how to play them, try new things, and experiment while trying to discover the best way to play them for my game and the weather conditions of the day.

I don't  believe it is possible to have every single hole on a golf course have multiple ways to play it, but the more the better.  IMO.

Maybe you can't get a lot of width on every hole, but perhaps adopting unique green angles can create effective width.  Perhaps double fairways could be employed to keep maintenance costs in check and keep the amount of acreage need to build these features low.

Like I said, I don't know the logistics of it.  I just know how much fun I have when I play these 'ideal' holes.

[Lou_Duran]

A wise man once said,

Width and angles are not design “values” and therefore have little to no inherent worth; rather, they, along with big greens, enable the design value of equifinality.

Is this the wise man who designed the Dunes course at the Prairie Club?  Someone alluded to the grand scale of Dismal River's Nicklaus course.  Dunes redefines scale.  And though I have no idea what "equifinality" means, Dunes must have it in spades.

Bogey- to your question, are you suggesting that width is no longer strategic because of modern equipment?  For the hacker like me, I don't think that this is the case- I just spent $200 on a shaft to reduce the backspin on my driver and I still can't hit it out of my shadow.  And for the scratch players, they could always hit it on the dime and back up the ball from the fairways.  So, I am wondering if the thesis that width promotes strategy, at least since the days of steel shafts and balata, holds much water.  Could it be that width has always been more accommodating and we have romanticized its virtues?

As to the architect's quiver, the "fun" zeitgeist along with the "need" to grow the game, to the extent that both persist, suggests that width will remain important.  Me, I would bet that water restrictions in many areas and future pricing to arrest demand will force courses to reduce mown areas.  Anyways, I prefer an F & F course that is more balanced and doesn't rely primarily on difficult green complexes to be challenging.    

[Jeff_Brauer]

Archie,

That is probably a more difficult question to answer than it first appears. Certainly once the overall cost and bond issue/loan is set, the one thing the course sees that it can control is the maintenance budget.  That said, interest rates (both original and refinance) might vary what they pay annually for the original construction.

Irrigation now varies from letting a double or triple row of fw heads over spray the rough, to separate rough and fw sprinklers, complete control, and even part to part heads (which sort of limit redesign of grassing lines, now that I think about it)  In other words, as irrigation gets more complex, it might skew the cost of the original construction higher, with the goal of reducing or making irrigation more precise.  There are other factors, too such as picking maintenance intense but better playing turf, etc.

So, in general, I tend to think today's more complex construction raises the cost of wide fairways way more than it did even ten years ago, even if maintenance is probably the ongoing single biggest factor.

Mac,

I was surprised when that golfer made that quite pithy comment, but it seems to be true.  Most golfers seem to be used to being led like sheep!  A double fw hole a few times a round as a novelty seems to be the ticket according to the masses.  A triple or more would be a real eye catcher, but misunderstood by most.

As to the "ideal" hole that won the Lido prize, we really will never know if all those options really worked, will we?  As I looked at it, many did not seem to.  Also, as noted, almost any golfer will assess his options (or not, at least the dumb ones.....) and if there are twenty, he still probably narrows it down to his best two, three tops, no?  So why design the others?  Yes, there are different levels of golfers, but in reality, multiple tees took over in place of multiple fairways at much lower cost to try to bring the two main options into play.  

Lastly, there is the school of thought that the subtle choices may be more fun and intriguing.  As someone mentioned, choosing how to use a slope is fun.  Picking one side of the fw over another, a high or low, left or right lay up, regular or power tee shot are all decisions to be made.  Most multi fw holes are really hit it harder or layup and not as multi layered as you can make with one slightly wider than normal accuracy requires fairway.

M

[Bill_McBride]

Width without angled greens with bunkers designed to punish out of position tee shots doesn't make much sense. 

The 13th fairway at Rustic Canyon must be 80 yards wide, but if you aren't in a 30 yard wide area you might not be able to get within 40 feet of the pin. 

Of course this is the answer.  But a corollary, which must be asked, is if there are only 30 yards of good width, just how much bad width do we need to create that premium?  Of course, I ask this in the name of all superintendents and budget setters in the world of golf.

Jeff, with regard to my point, when the pin is moved 30 feet, a different 30 yards becomes "good" fairway, another 50 "bad" fairway.  To me that makes for a very good to great hole.   Even the scratch player has a problem when he's out of position.  

[David_Tepper]

Fans of wide fairways should be sure to watch the Scottish Open from Castle Stuart this coming week (July 11-14). You will likely not see wider fairways in play for any professional event. For that matter, you will likely not see wider fairways anywhere on any course.

[Mac Plumart]

Should we define what we mean by "width"?

Heck, maybe we don't even need extreme width.  Rather well designed "wide enough" fairways that bend and bow at the correct lengths to accomodate angles of attack.

Thoughts?

[Dan Herrmann]

Wait till you see Dismal River/Doak.  You could write a book on how Doak used width and angles to craft a really cool golf course that may end up being great after it's gone through grow-in.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mac,

Like others, I do like width, although not unlimited width for reasons stated.  While it can be used for a very unique hole, far too often it becomes width for width sake, and while I don't care for rough instilling harsh penalty, at some point, there has to be some consequence of playing all over the place.  The hole at Rustic sounds cool (played once, don't recall it right off the top of my head) and well done.  Usually, though, a cost factor in green size (if built to USGA standards) also comes into play.  Not only does the fw need to be wider, the green needs to be bigger.

Thus, it sounds like Doak is using the natural sands at Dismal well.  If you have natural sand, its a great time to break the mold that costs form for most projects.

I agree with the concept of fw just wide enough to provide different angles of attack.  I also agree we should define what wide is......to me, the USGA slope system says most players can hit a fw (from memory) 42 yards wide.  Certainly, if you want the "hit it left, or hit it right" you could make it up to 84 yards wide, but you really don't need to.  You probably only need a shade over 42 yards to encourage someone to hit it to one side or the other (in a simple example) if I proper combination with a green design and basic angle.

For reference, the typical play width in the GA was about 60 yards total, because those old single row sprinklers had a throw radius of 90 feet, or a 180 ft diameter.  In reality the last ten feet on either side barely got water, so the play corridors might have been 53-54 yards wide.  (speaking of Midwest courses mostly, other areas might have varied a bit)

[Jud_T]

I'm still waiting for some actual examples of holes that have too much width and are merely accomodating.  I'm guessing the list of holes that aren't wide enough in terms of real estate, design and/or presentation and are in effect one trick ponies is longer by a ridiculous degree.

[Tom_Doak]

For reference, the typical play width in the GA was about 60 yards total, because those old single row sprinklers had a throw radius of 90 feet, or a 180 ft diameter.  In reality the last ten feet on either side barely got water, so the play corridors might have been 53-54 yards wide.  (speaking of Midwest courses mostly, other areas might have varied a bit)

But Jeff, it was those first irrigation systems that ruined width in golf design.  The vast majority of the courses in the teens and twenties were built with fairways 60 yards wide.  You're right that the single row sprinklers threw 90 feet, but the effective coverage was only 2/3 of that or 60 feet, so fairways were narrowed to 40 yards.

And then trees were planted in the scalloped areas where the sprinklers didn't cover well, and the game was lost.

[Mike Nuzzo]

So, in general, I tend to think today's more complex construction raises the cost of wide fairways way more than it did even ten years ago, even if maintenance is probably the ongoing single biggest factor.

That is the problem
What if one were to use simple construction methods and practical maintenance?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

All for it.  I always wanted to do some kind of study to see the cost benefit ratio of the last 10-20-30% of an irrigation budget.  I bet the benefit goes way down.  We keep trying to be more sophisticated, and yet, all we seem to do is create more and different problems.

TD,

Well you may be right, but it was a necessary evil in transporting golf to America, or at least CBM and others thought so, since they were early adopters of irrigation, finding it necessary to simply maintain golf courses.  Is it possible irrigation both saved golf and ruined golf course architecture?  Or is it just that it took some adapting of the grand old game?

[Mike Nuzzo]

To clarify, simple does not mean bland or cutting costs.
It is sophisticated and hard to do, especially when "the industry" says it is wrong.