Why would Colt make a distinction between inland and links and heather vs. parkland with regard to something as basic as fairway width?

Royal Portrush is one of the strongest test of driving I have ever encountered. It hardly had breadth and in the summer of 2000 with the drought it was screaming fast.

Were Colt's original plans for Royal Portrush in keeping with this idea?

ps- I know its a links.

Tom,

I just recited the same quote a few weeks ago during a consulting session at Fresh Meadow on Long Island.  Along this same line, bunker placement became a point of discussion relative to how they fit into an expanded fairway scheme.  Colt and Alison did a generally good job with bunkering their greens to create a variety of preferred angles from the fairway. In many cases, fairway bunkering was not necessarily needed.  During my discussion with the club, who wanted to remove a bunker (which was somewhat in play and somewhat valuable 50 years ago) and move it further down the fairway, I suggested there was no need to move the bunker due to the fact that it was on the side of the fairway players would strategically want to stay away from anyway (the green is set up with a predominantly front left to back right orientation - with bunkers on the inside).  I suggested that if they wanted to install a new bunker to challenge the modern player, it should be down the left and they should widen the fairway down the right, where they wanted to put the bunker.  Or, I suggested just widen the fairway down the right.  The strategic objective of bunkers, I believe, should be to challenge the player on the line that provides an advantage for the next shot, move the players eye away from the best line of play, or to visually establish the orientation of play.  When even a single bunker is used along with a "wide" option, where the wide option is not the best line to play the next shot, you have the simplest form of interesting strategy.  Tight fairway reduce options and therefore reduce interest.  I hope Milwaukee is "open" to the idea.

""On inland courses which are not in heather country, it is desirable that fairways should be mown TO AS GREAT A BREADTH AS FUNDS WILL ALLOW."  

TomD:

Didn't Colt say any more, like at least some hint as to why? If not, what do you think his real point was with a remark like that?

Tom D.
Wouldn't it be prudent to focus on Alison's preferences rather than Colt's? Although they shared similar philosophies, they were definitely distinct and wholely unique architects, and as you know Alison designed Milwaukee (and Fresh Meadow for that matter).

yes.

I remember reading something about the 1941 Open at Colonial and they were describing the course and noted several times how narrow the fairways were at 50 yards across.  I was amazed at that.

Tom

Yes they are the same.

Tom,
I rode a tractor pulling a 9 gang fairway mower only 10 years ago. I don't think the tractors or the horse gangs before them dictated width back in the day. We did have interesting connecting points between fairways but the widths were 30-40 yards at the most.

.....i think the ability to not lose a ball during a round to be an important element of good course design , regardless of the skill level of the player..... i am not suggesting a course be designed absent of penalty stroke hazards , just a tempered use of them.

   i know this is something that has been stated many times in many ways , but i just wanted to state it myself....but now i'm not sure why.....did you just hear that ?...i've got to go , i think my fingers are shrinking ....tom is that you?

What would Colt or for that matter Dr Mac think about the width of fairways in the current era of technology?
Could it be that they would modify their thinking?
Clearly both were great proponents of strategy, which many believe is being somewhat removed from the game in this current era of huge driving distances and a straighter ball.
I grew up playing many of Colts desingned or co designed courses in England, and it is clear that the original fairway widths have become adjusted to fit the irrigation systems and their respective range.
Bunkers that one could imagine were at one time in the fairway are now surrounded by rough, thus changing their strategic value...even before you consider the changes in driving distance.
 I am intersted to hear what Mr Doak decides to do in his current situation, does this become a compromise between original layout and modern golf?

"Tom,
I rode a tractor pulling a 9 gang fairway mower only 10 years ago. I don't think the tractors or the horse gangs before them dictated width back in the day. We did have interesting connecting points between fairways but the widths were 30-40 yards at the most."

Patrick Hitt:

That's a most interesting post and information. Why do you think some of those very old fairways were almost universally as wide as they were? Noone on here, at least, seems able to come up with a logical reason for that! The point about the horse drawn mower (much narrower) as opposed to the vastly wider tractor pulled gang mowers is really something to think about and would certainly seem to indicate that the reasons for the wide fairways of the very old days were not merely a function of super wide tractor pulled gang mowers---that logically came later.

The real reason(s) almost all fairways in the beginning of the last century were really wide may never be completely known.

"tom ....i would think the reason all fairways were wide early on was because that was how the game was played from inception......why change the model just for local?"

Paul:

That's interesting and it sounds logical and I bet you're right about that. But if so here's another interesting thing to consider. Just as so many American fairway basically all became about 35 yards wide as a standard after WW2 it seems that ALL of the old fairway were about 50+ or more. Why were they ALL of similar width back then too? Any of us can look at some of those holes and see those wide fairways on some holes really didn't have much of any strategic consequence but they were that way anyway. It makes me deduce that you're exactly right about what you say. The architectural standard fairway width became 35 yards post WW2 but back before WW2 it was just wider everywhere even if it had no real meaning. Although different widths pre and post WW2 standardization seemed to be the name of the game.

My feeling is any hole should be analyzed individually to utilize fairway width which is optimum for that hole only whether it be 80 yards or 30 yards and so on through the course.

Perhaps for the first time standardization of fairway width whether it be wide or narrow should be a thing of the past and the new philosophy should only be any hole should have a fairway width that did nothing more than maximize it's individual strategic concept and strategic ramifications.