[Joe Sponcia]

Jeff,

Arbitrarily, I would say most above a 12 have trouble hitting a sub-35 yard wide with any consistency (like 5/14 fairways).  When you consider most hover above an 18, I would say fairways should START at 45+. 

I haven't seen many courses laid out to be sub-35...I think they get that way over time due to neglect and ignorance frankly.

I like what Sean said, "Bottom line, fairway and light rough needs to be 1) wide enough to make me think where I want to hit the ball and 2) comfortably accomodate 20 cappers".

[Jason Topp]

Looking at a few aerials - Fairways that seem wide to me are about 45 yards.  Fairways that seem narrow are under 35.

[Thomas Dai]

Of the clubs I have visited in the last few weeks without exception everyone in my opinion is too narrow, the golf course would be better with fairways twice the width, mown with a compactor tractor and 9 gang kesmacs in halves, this would make the golf courses easier for the lesser player but would still keep the integrity and challenge intact for the better players who do not have much of problem hitting a 8 iron out of semi rough anyway. Making the game easier for poorer players means they will enjoy it more, play more so spend more.

"..mown with a compactor tractor and 9 gang kesmacs...."

There is a related thread here from a little while ago - http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php?topic=56953.0

I've heard mention of a UK course that uses those low 'Brora-green-like' electric fences around sections of the rough and has some sheep doing the rough 'mowing' inside the fenced area. The fences/sheep are moved periodically.

By the way, are there still goats on the course at Lahinch or have they been consigned to history and logo's?

atb

[Niall C]

Jeff

For me the issue is what you have outside of the fairway. If it's thick vegetation or gorse or bushes then I have no probs with wider. If you have dry beaten down rough as you generally get on links courses during the summer then it can be narrower. I appreciate that's a very narrow section of the world's courses but thats the general principle I'd work on although I would also say variation and not working slavishly to a formula is key.

Wide = 50 yds ?

Narrow = 30 yds  ?

As for the idea from some that it depends on the wind/run of the ball, well I think that's bogus. Part of the game is about adapting to the conditions. The expectation that you can stand on the tee and open your shoulders and hit driver every time is just wrong in my opinion.

Niall

[Sean_A]

Niall

I guess I have a basic disagreement with you. I think courses have to be designed with the terrain & weather/climate in mind.  If a place gets a ton of rain and is flat, the width requirement is far less than on a place which can get f&f and is slopey. Wind is an added issue.  That doesn't mean folks should be able to open their shoulders on every drive.  There is nothing wrong with some tight holes, in fact they are important for variety, but they should be purposefully tight rather than arbitrarily tight (meaning the super or whoever unilaterally decides to narrow fairways or it just happens over time with tree growth slowly changed cutting patterns). 

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

As for the idea from some that it depends on the wind/run of the ball, well I think that's bogus. Part of the game is about adapting to the conditions. The expectation that you can stand on the tee and open your shoulders and hit driver every time is just wrong in my opinion.
Niall

I'll think agree-to-disagree might have to be the position on wind/run of the ball, although I agree that part of the game is mostly certainly adapting to the conditions.

As to expectations of using the driver, I'm with you. Incidentally, although someone will probably say this is incorrect, but I recall being told that once upon a time 'the driver' was known as the 'play club' - maybe it should still be that way, as in - 'get the ball in play'.

One further aspect - slopes and humps and hollows - machines can't easily cut the grass on some terrain, although four legged animals can lunch on it.

atb

[Jimmy Chandler]

If the hole is well designed, a fairway can't be too wide.
Just because it is fairway grass, doesn't mean you should hit it there.

Maybe my favorite response on any GCA thread I've read in a long while. How much better would golf be if more architects understood this?

[Niall C]

Jimmy

If thats the case then I've seen some have a go at designing that "well designed" hole and fail. All they have ended up with is elbow room for the wild, the bad and the unthinking. Like stabilisers on a push bike.

Niall

[Adrian_Stiff]

If the hole is well designed, a fairway can't be too wide.
Just because it is fairway grass, doesn't mean you should hit it there.

Maybe my favorite response on any GCA thread I've read in a long while. How much better would golf be if more architects understood this?

Jimmy most of us do understand this. Property limits and protection of outside parties property are the reason we may have to tighten up some areas, remember some golf courses are in 100 acres. So in that respect the golfers need to be contained on their own holes rather than roam across other fairways. When possible though strategic golf design is great.

[Brett Wiesley]

60+ yards is wide, and I think they are great!

I think the challenge in GB&I for most Americans is on Links courses they loose their tunneled holes with tight fairways, and thus loose their focus/aim point.  The deception found in generous fairways and large greens is one of the best parts of GCA.  It can make a high handicap player happy, as they hit many FIR/GIR, but still score their usual, all the while feeling better as they have a "chance", and yet still challenge the low handicap golfer as it is all about angles, and proper placement on the greens.

[Jimmy Chandler]

Adrian --

I understand that most architects that participate on this site understand the concept. And I get the restrictions of some sites. And I don't mind playing the occasional tight golf hole or even course. But it's obvious to me that not enough people who have built the majority of golf courses in the U.S. get this concept right.

[Mike Hendren]

I'll side with Justice Potter:  I know it when I see it.

Bogey

[Niall C]

Jimmy/Adrian

So how big a site do you need to build a strategic golf course ?

Actually, don't bother answering that here as I'll start another thread instead.

Niall

[James Boon]

I've just measured a couple from my home course using Google Maps. The 11th at Notts (Hollinwell) is through a valley and approx possibly less than 20 yards wide (it's probably a touch wider but tricky to measure accurately) whilst the following hole is getting on for 40 yards wide.

I've found out from other GCA type gatherings that I'm not a good judge of fairway width as a, I tend to be fairly straight and b, play a course that is generally tight.

However, the context for both of these holes is important and so I'm sure it is for every other course?

11 plays uphill and into a valley, so in the same way as a downhill shot to a hump back fairway will exaggerate an errant shot, the uphill and valley nature make the narrow fairway feel wider to me. Meanwhile the next hole might be 40 odd yards wide, but there is a reasonable carry to get to the main fairway plateau and it's at the highest exposed to the elements section of the course, so it can be quite a challenging shot which counters the actual width.

I also think as has been mentioned that the trouble beyond the fairway is a factor in what makes it feel wide. A 20 yard wide fairway with plenty of semi rough isn't going to feel as narrow as a 40 yard wide fairway with knee high fescue, heather or gorse  a few paces away.

However, in the interest of giving a figure, from a quick measure of course I know on Google Maps (from Notts to Castle Stuart) I'd say 40 yards wide feels wide to me???

Cheers,

James

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

I understand your point, which is why I encouraged you to post relative to your most played course. 

Wind (and drop shot tee shots) both affect width. 

Not sure about consequence - to the confident golfer, hitting a 45 yard wide fw should be about the same difficulty in ball control, no matter if the side hazard is 4.5 deep or 45 ft deep, no? 

If OB or a water hazard flanks one side, or both, it impacts the golfer's play.
Thus, a fairway, 45 yards wide, with OB on the right side, may play, from a tactical perspective, only 35 yards wide.
Who in their right mind is going to flirt with the OB on the right.
Ditto water.
Remember, a dry ball is a good ball
Ditto a ball in play.

Granted, the mental aspects are a bit different, but technically, the chance of hitting the fw is the same no matter how hard the hazard.

Here's where I completely disagree with you and will now convince you to adopt my position.

If I place a wooden beam, a 4 X 4, 100 feet in length on the ground and bet you $ 100 that you can't walk the length of that beam without falling off, and I let you wear sneakers or whatever footwear you deem best, you'll take that bet and so will just about everyone else.

Now let me take that same beam and raise it up 1,000 feet in the air.

Are you still going to take that bet ? Without wind ?  With wind ?

Why not, it's the same beam.
4 X 4 and 100 feet long.
What's changed ?
The consequence for failure.

Ditto flanking OB and water hazards.

The mental influences the physical and nowhere is that more evident than on a golf course, especially when something important is at stake.

I rest my case...................... for now.

[Doug Siebert]

If the hole is well designed, a fairway can't be too wide.
Just because it is fairway grass, doesn't mean you should hit it there.

Maybe my favorite response on any GCA thread I've read in a long while. How much better would golf be if more architects understood this?

I agree completely.  Too bad no one has super wide gang mowers anymore, a well designed course could be 90% fairway over the property and still be challenging.  If you hit in the wrong direction, and the ground is firm, your ball gets even further in the wrong direction.  You'll have a longer approach, from a non-ideal (or possibly terrifying) angle - if you even can see the green/flag at all.

Too many people want narrow(ish) fairways because they want the game to be "challenging", but I see a lot of holes where heavy rough actually helps the player by keeping their ball from going somewhere it would be far more difficult to play from (even where there were no trees, water, OB for it to get into trouble with)

The game would be sped up because it would be easier to find balls, and less time would be taken by players trying to figure out what club they can use to recover from the rough, choosing badly and hitting a short shot, then going through the whole exercise over again.  Not saying that's the whole reason for slow play by any means, but it is certainly a factor.

If you didn't want to seed with "good" fairway grass, mow it as tight, irrigate it etc. you could still have something between fairway and first cut conditions over a much wider range on courses where angles matter - especially in terms of visibility.  It might not affect the pros, but aside from elite players, most of us are at least put off a little bit having to line our shots up at a tree in the distance, or a cloud or a blade of grass on the hill in front of us.

[Thomas Dai]

If the hole is well designed, a fairway can't be too wide.
Just because it is fairway grass, doesn't mean you should hit it there.

Maybe my favorite response on any GCA thread I've read in a long while. How much better would golf be if more architects understood this?

I agree completely.  Too bad no one has super wide gang mowers anymore, a well designed course could be 90% fairway over the property and still be challenging.  If you hit in the wrong direction, and the ground is firm, your ball gets even further in the wrong direction.  You'll have a longer approach, from a non-ideal (or possibly terrifying) angle - if you even can see the green/flag at all.
Too many people want narrow(ish) fairways because they want the game to be "challenging", but I see a lot of holes where heavy rough actually helps the player by keeping their ball from going somewhere it would be far more difficult to play from (even where there were no trees, water, OB for it to get into trouble with)
The game would be sped up because it would be easier to find balls, and less time would be taken by players trying to figure out what club they can use to recover from the rough, choosing badly and hitting a short shot, then going through the whole exercise over again.  Not saying that's the whole reason for slow play by any means, but it is certainly a factor.
If you didn't want to seed with "good" fairway grass, mow it as tight, irrigate it etc. you could still have something between fairway and first cut conditions over a much wider range on courses where angles matter - especially in terms of visibility.  It might not affect the pros, but aside from elite players, most of us are at least put off a little bit having to line our shots up at a tree in the distance, or a cloud or a blade of grass on the hill in front of us.

Well said.
If you're cutting the grass regularly you might as well cut it short.
atb

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()