A case for tight(er) Fairways?

« **on:** September 28, 2007, 10:26:01 PM »

So I'm eating lunch today, with my friends, sitting next to my favorite person in the world, having a good time and all, and up behind me comes my golf coach. Just the guy I want to see in the middle of lunch, when socializing with all my friends, especially since we were in a big discussion on homecoming. But, he had some important golf stuff to talk with me about and before I knew it I was on one of my golf speeches. Five minutes later, he says he has to go, and adds one more thing. "Think about what makes you play bad".

So I finished lunch, taking all the crap from my friends for all my golf talk, went through my last few classes, drove home and found myself bored. So, low and behold, I took coach's advice. I began to think about what made me play bad. Time and time again I always hear that scoring is in the short game, but it seemed every time I thought about when I played good versus bad, the key rested in my driving.

When I score badly, my driving is usually very poor.
When I score well, my driving is pretty darn good.

Yet, when I play courses with huge fairways, I rarely score badly. Why? Because trouble is a lot harder to find. Even bad shots aren't punished most of the time. Bad drives end up in short grass. With modern ball technology, there is no real difference hitting a ball at a pin from one angle versus another, because the balls spin so much. Thus, the theory of wide fairways to accompany playing angles seems like a moo point, unless conditions are crazy firm.

So, I got to thinking, maybe tighter fairways are good for courses, as it differentiates when players are playing well versus poor. I dont mean to say I dont like wide fairways, or that designing wide fairways to accompany playing angles is a bad thing, but perhaps tighter fairways are underrated.

It just seems that tighter fairways place more of a premium on the player to play good shots versus wider fairways, which, in my mind, is a good thing.

Maybe I'm crazy though.

What do others think?

« **Reply #1 on:** September 28, 2007, 10:32:06 PM »

Jordan,

I think you're correct.

Defensive Architecture at the green end has been defeated or minimalized over the last few decades due to hi-tech.

Golfers can ignore some tactical signals and some in-ground features.

The premium on having the optimal angle of attack into the green has been diminished.

Wide fairways are fun, but, one is no longer at a huge disadvantage should they find themselves on the wrong side of the fairway.

Hence, for highly skilled golfers, amateur or pro, narrower fairways seem to present more of a challenge

« **Reply #2 on:** September 28, 2007, 10:35:28 PM »

Part of the technology that is softening features is irrigation. It's not all balls and clubs.

Joe

« **Reply #3 on:** September 28, 2007, 10:41:18 PM »

I would contend courses still exist where the green remains defended despite the "aerial attack" of the modern era.

I'll never support a movement to narrow fairways. EVER!

« **Reply #4 on:** September 28, 2007, 10:44:48 PM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on September 28, 2007, 10:32:06 PM

The premium on having the optimal angle of attack into the green has been diminished.

Pat,

Would you say at a place like Shinnecock, for example, during the most recent U.S. Open there, that your statement above necessarily held true?

And can we not get into a semantical discussion over the definition of the word "diminished." Of course you have left yourself some wiggle room here, I acknowledge that...

Isn't perhaps the real key firm(er) greens? Or more greens that fall away from the player?

« **Reply #5 on:** September 28, 2007, 10:46:07 PM »

JOrdan,

Your theory probably rings true for better players.

But it's a big world out there......

« **Reply #6 on:** September 28, 2007, 10:51:21 PM »

Michael,

At any US Open my theory would not work as greens would be super firm. I even mentioned that.

However, I am not at all against wide fairways. I just think that maybe incorporating tight fairways is a good idea too.

Plus, there needs to be variety. No course should have all wide or all tight fairways, but rather a good mixture of both. It just seems the popular choice for courses now is wide, wide, and wide. Like mentioned, wide fairways are good too, but there are some definite advantages to tight fairways as well.

« **Reply #7 on:** September 28, 2007, 10:53:07 PM »

Quote from: Michael Dugger on September 28, 2007, 10:46:07 PM

JOrdan,

Your theory probably rings true for better players.

But it's a big world out there......

Case in point.

You birdie number 12 at Chambers Bay from the top of a fifty foot dune, about forty yards wide of the fairway.

Shouldn't a miss like that be penalized more (not diminishing your birdie...but you see my point)?

« **Reply #8 on:** September 28, 2007, 10:55:06 PM »

Quote from: Joe Hancock on September 28, 2007, 10:35:28 PM

Part of the technology that is softening features is irrigation. It's not all balls and clubs.

Joe

Joe,

you are of course correct but Jordan talks about 'crazy firm' and there lies one of the problems. If you are used to playing irrigated courses then anything that doesn't accept the ball is probably going to seem 'crazy firm'.

« **Reply #9 on:** September 28, 2007, 11:02:13 PM »

Quote from: Jordan Wall on September 28, 2007, 10:53:07 PM

Quote from: Michael Dugger on September 28, 2007, 10:46:07 PM
JOrdan,

Your theory probably rings true for better players.

But it's a big world out there......

Case in point.

You birdie number 12 at Chambers Bay from the top of a fifty foot dune, about forty yards wide of the fairway.

Shouldn't a miss like that be penalized more (not diminishing your birdie...but you see my point)?

Hey, it was no cup of tee up there, bro.....

I was punished. I wasn't hitting from grass. Or a flat stance....or a stable stance....nor did I have a clue what the distance was.

But it is that things like that can happen which makes golf the greatest game. a one inch putt counts the same as a 300 yard drive. It's better to be lucky than good, etc.....

I will admit a sick addiction for the U.S. Open. I like it WAAAAAAY better than the Masters. And at the U.S. Open they combine firm greens with uber narrow fairways and deep rough.

I like that set up.........for the pros.........I think it does identify the best player that weekend.

But that's golf at the highest level.

I get your point....and agreed with it......but I think it is the opposite of what we need to be promoting around here to say "more narrow fairways" because I still see FFFFAAAAAAAAArRRRRRRRRR too many narrow billygoat ranches opening up around my local 'hood.

Come play Skamania sometime.

« **Reply #10 on:** September 28, 2007, 11:06:22 PM »

So, the tighter the better, or just the harder?

You can keep growing rough higher and higher next to fairways that are narrower and narrower at say ANGC. What have you done? You made the scores go higher, and you identified the straighter hitter as more likely to win.

Have you made the course, better? Better for who? ...those that watch, those that play? Are more people in the running, or have you narrowed it to a very finite list of who can play and win with a very specific skill set, rather than many skills?

« **Reply #11 on:** September 28, 2007, 11:22:22 PM »

Quote from: RJ_Daley on September 28, 2007, 11:06:22 PM

So, the tighter the better, or just the harder?

Both, perhaps? And not always better, for the matter, but in some cases, I do think so. Too much emphasis is made on making all fairways wide. Tight fairways can not only add to the variety of the course, but, as mentioned, put an emphasis on hitting good golf shots. Especially with modern technology, I think putting that emphasis on hitting good shots is important.

You can keep growing rough higher and higher next to fairways that are narrower and narrower at say ANGC. What have you done? You made the scores go higher, and you identified the straighter hitter as more likely to win.

I said nothing about growing up rough. I dont necesarrily agree with growing rough up to insane heights.

And, when bringing up a big tournament, such as the Masters, shouldnt player who hits it straight deserve to win? If fairways on tour were not tight then Tiger and others would be hitting driver every hole, ending up in short grass 85% of the time, and dominate every tournament due to length. Tighter fairways offer a better chance for all players to win, at least as far as big tournaments are concerned.

That being said, I dont agree with the way the Masters has been set up. Adding new trees, growing a second cut, stuff like that. The setup used to be so original as compared to other tournaments and in turn it was so much fun to watch. Changing the course as they have has made the tournament less interesting, in my opinion. Augusta was so original in setup. Its unfortunate that changed.

Have you made the course, better? Better for who? ...those that watch, those that play? Are more people in the running, or have you narrowed it to a very finite list of who can play and win with a very specific skill set, rather than many skills?

I am not talking about changing courses to make fairways tighter. Too often, changes to courses are overdone and as a result the course's quality diminishes. Augusta could be a prime example. Rather, newer designs should include some tight holes. It not only adds to the variety of courses, but it identifies the player who is playing well and puts an emphasis on good shots. All those are good things. But, as mentioned I think there should be wide fairways too. Just not every hole.

« **Reply #12 on:** September 28, 2007, 11:33:49 PM »

JOrdi

I would love to hear how tighter fairways add to the variety of the course.

It's the opposite, brutha, when you "narrow" your list of prospective booty calls, you are not going to be enjoying as much "variety" in your sex life.

« **Reply #13 on:** September 28, 2007, 11:34:00 PM »

Jordan,

Where is too much emphasis being put on wide fairways?

How does a tight fairway add variety, other than it being different from wider fairways on the same course?

Why do you think The Masters used to be so fun to watch?

Joe

« **Reply #14 on:** September 28, 2007, 11:51:20 PM »

Jordan, I didn't first see your distinction that not ALL FWs should be tight. I will go along with you that a few tight FWs can add variety to a course and add an element that the ability to pipeline a shot at times when called for is a good thing. But, the narrow or tight FW as a ubiquitous proposition eliminates variety of contour and choice of concepts of 'here or there- where do I hit it'. That takes much of the intelligence out of it and renders it a pipeline contest. You can't have- particularly contour- variety and options and rewards for working of the ball so much with narrow FWs, IMHO.

« **Reply #15 on:** September 29, 2007, 01:23:58 AM »

Quote from: Jordan Wall on September 28, 2007, 10:26:01 PM

So I'm eating lunch today, with my friends, sitting next to my favorite person in the world, having a good time and all, and up behind me comes my golf coach. Just the guy I want to see in the middle of lunch, when socializing with all my friends, especially since we were in a big discussion on homecoming. But, he had some important golf stuff to talk with me about and before I knew it I was on one of my golf speeches. Five minutes later, he says he has to go, and adds one more thing. "Think about what makes you play bad".

So, low and behold, I took coach's advice. I began to think about what made me play bad. Time and time again I always hear that scoring is in the short game, but it seemed every time I thought about when I played good versus bad, the key rested in my driving.

What about Pink shirts and the ugliest golf shoes know to man?
Bob J if you could post the pictures from The Home Course, please.

If you need help posting them, message me and we will make sure they get posted.

« **Reply #16 on:** September 29, 2007, 01:40:24 AM »

Quote from: Joe Hancock on September 28, 2007, 11:34:00 PM

Jordan,

Where is too much emphasis being put on wide fairways?

When was the last time a course was praised for having narrow fairways, that work?

How does a tight fairway add variety, other than it being different from wider fairways on the same course?

It forces the player to hit a good shot to hit the fairway, as opposed to being able to spray the ball. It puts the emphasis on hitting a good shot. Its the same type deal when, for an example, NGLA was being praised for bunkers that are easy to get into due to proximity to the green and conditions of the course. A mediocre shot ends up in the bunker, or at least that is what seems to be praised. Tight fairways are the same type deal. They force shots to be better than mediocre in order to gain an advantage.

Keep in my mind my comparison may not be the absolute best one, but you get my drift.

Why do you think The Masters used to be so fun to watch?

This year the tournament was just like a typical US Open. Something like -3 won, with just two players under par.

The course has been stretched to 7500 yards, conditions are firmer, tougher, and the set up was eerily similar a US Open.

It used to be there were more birdies being made. More people were going for 13, and 15, and in general there were a lot more rememberable shots then when the course was set up oober hard. I guarantee that if Tiger played this year like he did in 1997, when he shot -18, he would have been at least 10 shots worse in his overall score.

In otherwords, I enjoyed watching the Masters because the set up, the course, it was all just so original. No rough was unheard of on the Tour, yet at Augusta, there was no rough. Now there is rough. The course has been lengthened to measure up to major standards. Trees have been added. Green speeds are very, very fast. And, to me, it just seems the originality in the course has been lost.

But thats just me.

Joe

« **Reply #17 on:** September 29, 2007, 01:40:54 AM »

Quote from: Sean Reehoorn on September 29, 2007, 01:23:58 AM

Quote from: Jordan Wall on September 28, 2007, 10:26:01 PM
So I'm eating lunch today, with my friends, sitting next to my favorite person in the world, having a good time and all, and up behind me comes my golf coach. Just the guy I want to see in the middle of lunch, when socializing with all my friends, especially since we were in a big discussion on homecoming. But, he had some important golf stuff to talk with me about and before I knew it I was on one of my golf speeches. Five minutes later, he says he has to go, and adds one more thing. "Think about what makes you play bad".

So, low and behold, I took coach's advice. I began to think about what made me play bad. Time and time again I always hear that scoring is in the short game, but it seemed every time I thought about when I played good versus bad, the key rested in my driving.

What about Pink shirts and the ugliest golf shoes know to man?
Bob J if you could post the pictures from The Home Course, please.

If you need help posting them, message me and we will make sure they get posted.

Take note of this people.

Complete jealousy.

« **Reply #18 on:** September 29, 2007, 07:00:52 AM »

Jordan,

I'm wondering if the wide fairways of old at The Masters, and the heroic shots they encourage, are a significant reason why you used to enjoy the course setup and excitement of The Masters.

Joe

« **Reply #19 on:** September 29, 2007, 09:17:40 AM »

Quote from: Michael Dugger on September 28, 2007, 10:44:48 PM

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on September 28, 2007, 10:32:06 PM

The premium on having the optimal angle of attack into the green has been diminished.

Pat,

Would you say at a place like Shinnecock, for example, during the most recent U.S. Open there, that your statement above necessarily held true?

Absolutely.

Shinnecock's fairways have been narrowed considerably.

I believe their fairways went from approximately 55 acres down to the high 20's. While some width has been returned, it's nowhere near 55 acres.[/color]

And can we not get into a semantical discussion over the definition of the word "diminished."

Sure, just reference "Webster's Dictionary"[/color]

Of course you have left yourself some wiggle room here, I acknowledge that...

It's not wiggle room, it's fact. The diminishment of the "premium" varies for each green. Certainly you don't think that the diminishment is "absolute" for every hole, there are degrees of diminishment depending upon the configuration of the architecture and other variables.[/color]

Isn't perhaps the real key firm(er) greens?

Firm greens are figments of everyone's imagination on a daily permanent basis. Mother Nature insures that firm greens can't be SOP for golf courses. Many fail to understand the nature of preparing a golf course for a tournament, a tournament that lasts for all of four (4) days. In many cases, the greens are near the brink by Sunday.

Try getting firm greens on a daily basis in the Northeast in April or May, or in August. It ain't happening.[/color]

Or more greens that fall away from the player?

Michael, you and others talk about fall away greens as if they're replaceable or interchangable at the drop of a hat.

We're talking about existing golf courses and having the fairways narrowed on those courses and you're suggesting the redesigning of the greens. How practical is that ?

The greens are what they are, as they currently exist, not as you'd alter them in your mind.

It seems clear to me, Jordan and perhaps others that hi-tech has frustrated the defenses at the green, and that while the implements and ball used to attack the green have vastly improved, there's been NO counter defense at the green end. The greens, the defenses have remained static while the offense has improved dramatically.

First by making the shot into the green shorter.
Second by making the approach trajectory higher
Third by tightening shot patterns
Fourth by increased spin rates
Fifth by specialty-Hybrid clubs
[/color]

« **Reply #20 on:** September 29, 2007, 09:29:15 AM »

Quote from: Joe Hancock on September 28, 2007, 11:34:00 PM

Jordan,

Where is too much emphasis being put on wide fairways?

How does a tight fairway add variety, other than it being different from wider fairways on the same course?

Why do you think The Masters used to be so fun to watch?

Joe,

I think it was fun to watch because their was a harmony between the player's abilities and the architecture presented to them.

I don't think that Bobby Jones and The Good Doctor ever envisioned the play on # 13 as being a 3-wood over the trees, trees that matured to much greater heights over 70 years, followed by an 8-iron.

I don't think they ever envisioned Driver followed by wedge on # 15, or Sand wedge on # 18.

The Masters was fun to watch for a variety of reasons, but surely one of them was the balance that existed between the architecture, the player and the equipment.

That balance became distorted over the last two or so decades.

RJ,

I interpreted Jordan's comments in the context of presenting a challenge for the better player.

However, one could extend that understanding to the "modern day" player since the I&B have tightened shot patters at almost every level.

« **Reply #21 on:** September 29, 2007, 09:42:43 AM »

Quote from: Joe Hancock on September 29, 2007, 07:00:52 AM

Jordan,

I'm wondering if the wide fairways of old at The Masters, and the heroic shots they encourage, are a significant reason why you used to enjoy the course setup and excitement of The Masters.

Joe

Joe,

Perhaps.
As I mentioned I dont think it is a good idea to tinker with courses, especially for the sole reason of making fairways narrower. In fact, I think its a horrible idea. If a course is designed with wide fairways, then there would be no need for a change. I dont mind wide fairways, because I see the strategy in them, regarding angles and offering all players a chance to play well.

However, on newer courses, I think some tight fairways are a good idea. I've already mentioned why.

Again, it may be just me, but hey, it was just a thought.

« **Reply #22 on:** September 29, 2007, 09:46:39 AM »

Quote from: Sean Arble on September 29, 2007, 04:22:37 AM

Jordan

Its interesting that you bring this subject up. I just played a course yesterday, Broadway, which has significantly narrowed their fairways from the last time I played there. I saw several pinching areas that were less than 20 yards wide. I was told that both the men's and women's Gloucestershire opens were held at Broadway this year. One in May and one in September so the course was toughened up and left that way for the summer. I didn't find it such a problem, but playing with and watching high cappers was painful in the extreme. They struggled with the rough regardless of which way it grew and complained bitterly - I think to the point where a normally good day was spoiled for a significant number of our society. Besides all this, looking at the fairway cooridors with half of the width choked with rough looked very, very odd. I could also predict that if the course is left this way others will say it looks odd and guess what will happen? Trees will be planted.

I agree that every course needs to have a few holes which require an exacting shot(s) and nothing else will do. Folks may think I say this for the benefit of low cappers, but in reality, it benefits the high cappers as well because they get a great kick out of pulling off the one pressure shot of the day and will long remember it. In general however, it is best to have wide fairways and I would never lobby to reduce width. I think we have to remember that golf is a game for everybody. The low capper can still play on wide fairways, but can the high capper play on narrow fairways?

Ciao

Sean,

I agree high handicaps may have a harder time with long rough and tight fairways.

However, I do not necessarily like long rough, especially on a day to day basis. It can be over penalizing for players, and can indeed take the fun out a round. The same can be said for taking a courses with wider fairways, as you mention, and narrowing them, to a point where sometimes it is even ridiculous.

But, when a high handicapper hits a bad drive, usually its pretty far off line, and I would venture to say a bad drive from a high handicapper would miss most wide fairways too, and thus tight fairways would give them an advantage when playing against better players. Even on wide fairways, high handicappers are going to miss most of the fairways.

« **Reply #23 on:** September 29, 2007, 11:25:55 AM »

If narrow fairways were an architectural ideal, don't you think Bobby Jones and Dr. Mackenzie would've designed their collaboration with them?
Why didnt the man, who sought out the best golfing ground, intent on building the best course in the country, utilize Jordan's ideal width and rough measuremets?

I'll tell you why. 1) It assists the non-thinking golfer who hasn't figured out where to play, by showing them exactly where to hit it. 2)It stops balls from continuing on to their unpredictable conclusion making predictability the norm which has led to the expected.

The fact that aerial assualt has been perfected, on soft turf, facilitates the need for designers to overcome this perceived problem. If that means lobbying for different equiptment specs, so be it.

Patrick says Jones and Mac didn't envision specific realities of today. How does he know that? Didn't Mac warn about excessive increases in lengths due to I&B?

« **Reply #24 on:** September 29, 2007, 12:37:44 PM »

here's an idea of how to narrow the fairways for those good players who want a real challenge but still keeping the width for the rest. We could stake out a fairway profile with orange posts say 20 yards wide and they could mark the OOB boundry for those long straight hitting boys. The rest could play the course as normal.

Hey presto!!! problem solved

News:

Jordan Wall

Patrick_Mucci

Joe Hancock

Michael Dugger

Michael Dugger

Michael Dugger

Jordan Wall

Jordan Wall

Jon Wiggett

Michael Dugger

RJ_Daley

Jordan Wall

Michael Dugger

Joe Hancock

RJ_Daley

igrowgrass

Jordan Wall

Jordan Wall

Joe Hancock

Patrick_Mucci

Patrick_Mucci

Jordan Wall

Jordan Wall

Adam Clayman

Jon Wiggett