[mike_malone]

 I tried it and ended up in the left bunker with a good lie.

 But, I wouldn't call that choosing between "options" but just "I didn't come here to lay up!".

[Geoffrey Childs]

I tried it and ended up in the left bunker with a good lie.

 But, I wouldn't call that choosing between "options" but just "I didn't come here to lay up!".

So you think you deserved to be in the fairway with that tee shot?

Please describe the difference in course maintenance by a player using side to side width vs. tee to green distance?

[Paul Payne]

 

I think the strategic value of wide fairways is much more defined in dogleg holes vs straightaway holes and IMHO the more severe the dogleg..the wider the fairway ,,that is as long as the  severity of the hazards is calculated.


Mike,

I recall a number of occasions at Sand Hills where very wide fairways would allow almost any shot to land them. The problem was that if you were on the wrong side of the fairway you may have zero chance of getting anywhere close to the pin. These were not doglegged holes.

I always look to Sand Hills in general when I try to describe the concept of choices when facing a fairly easy straightaway shot. The key in my opinion is providing a fairway that is wide enough.

[Adam Clayman]

Mike, It's impossible for me to confuse you.

The width for width sake isn't what I was espousing either.

Skill`should include mental prowess too by figuring out where those "right" spots are. Why limit the area with a small target? Confuse the player by Not showing where to go.

[Kalen Braley]

I would agree with Paul and you have to look no further than various holes at ballyneal and pacific dunes to see several examples of this.  I took a 8 at pac dunes on 16th hole for leaving the ball out to the right and getting into that collection area only 40 yards from the green.  in retrospect I should have chipped out straight left instead of trying to go for the green on the 2nd shot.

Thats an extreme example, but shows that even on straight holes you can be absolutly screwed for driving the ball to the wrong part of the fairway.

[BCrosby]

I think there is a historical disconnect going on here. Us moderns tend to think of using rough and trees as the primary ways to define corridors. To narrow corridors, you grow them up and bring 'em in. But that's a bit of an anachronism.  

For example, I'm don't know what MacD was trying to say about width at TOC and NGLA, but I'm pretty sure his point wasn't that those courses needed to plant more trees and grow in tighter, higher roughs.

Ross's drawings for Athens CC make virtually no mention of rough. Almost all of his playing corridors are defined by bunkers, water or land forms. Rough and trees didn't have much of a role at all.  

A year or so ago Brad Klein posted a piece here on how rough didn't really become an important architectural tool until fairway irrigation became common in the 50's. For the first time turf in different areas was conditioned differently. Some turf got water and greened up, other turf didn't. Essentially, irrigation backed architects into dealing with rough, as it were. An interesting theory.

Bob



 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff,

I haven't read any responses, but, it's not that the theory is flawed, only that it's been partiallly obsoleted by high tech equipment.

Wide fairways, in order to function properly must be inextricably interwoven with the angles of attack, the configuration of the green and the defenses provided in the surrounds.

Wide fairways can serve as a trap.
They lure unsuspecting golfers into a false sense of security and tend to visually camoflage the proper playing corridors.

Once you narrow that fairway you remove the deceit and provide a clear roadmap to the proper playing corridor.

A wide fairway puzzles the golfer.
He's either oblivious to a prefered line, or, he looks out and asks himself, "where do I hit it ?"   Narrowed fairways dictate his path, he knows exactly where he has to hit it.
And, in knowing so, if he executes properly, he has the prefered angle into the green.

But, on a wide fairway, if the golfer doesn't perceive the "prefered" corridor, and locks onto another target, and executes properly, he's left with a more difficult shot.

Ask yourself, which situation presents more challenge ?
Ask yourself, which situation presents more fun ?

As to the increased maintainance costs at a private club.
I say, "that's baloney"
The incremental increase is easily budgeted.
The hard cost to accomodate is the reconfiguration of the irrigation system and the tree and shrub removal required on an existing golf course.

When I look back on the various rounds of golf I've played, I think the common denominator with wider fairways is.......
MORE FUN.

GCGC, NGLA, ANGC, Friar's Head, Sebonack, and many other courses with relatively wide fairways have been far more fun to play, than those courses that have been narrowed, either at inception, or subsequently.

So, to answer your question, while I think that hi-tech has subverted their effectiveness to a degree, I think the theory of wide fairways is valid.

[Mike_Young]

 

I think the strategic value of wide fairways is much more defined in dogleg holes vs straightaway holes and IMHO the more severe the dogleg..the wider the fairway ,,that is as long as the  severity of the hazards is calculated.


Mike,

I recall a number of occasions at Sand Hills where very wide fairways would allow almost any shot to land them. The problem was that if you were on the wrong side of the fairway you may have zero chance of getting anywhere close to the pin. These were not doglegged holes.

I always look to Sand Hills in general when I try to describe the concept of choices when facing a fairly easy straightaway shot. The key in my opinion is providing a fairway that is wide enough.

Paul,
I don't disagree.  I am speaking of the majority of the time and the majority of courses.  When a fairway is wide enough the strategies in many instances are the same as narrow fairway doglegs...for instance a 270 drive down the left side of a 70 yard wide fairway on a 425 yard hole vs down the center.....you have a dogleg...JMO
Mike

[Paul Payne]

Mike,

I agree with you as far as pure angles are concerned. That being said I think Patrick summed it up in part of his response where he talked about fairways being traps themselves.

My thoughts would be that a fairway that is wide enough can create an invitation to a golfer to let down his guard and fire away. This can turn out to be a big mistake.

The narrower the fairway the more it must reveal to you what the intention is (unless the shot is blind)

So I agree in the sense that the correct play on a wide fairway will create similar angles as a dogleg, the fact that it is wide in itself can lead you astray.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Thanks for the responses, even those that parrot the "company line" and/or presume I don't understand the theoretical advantages of wide fairways.  Trust me, I don't need the lecture........

Patrick asks, and I think Geoff and a few others answer, but were (even with the tech of the 50's) wide fairways actually as much fun as a few of us think.  Were they reduced in width solely because of irrigation (as Brad suggests) or unthinkingly as others suggest?  Or, did our forefathers acutally debate the merits of narrow, wide, and mixed width fairways and found them not to work? (Note to some, I also understand that it depends on the other features of hole design)

Is it possible that they did they find that those wide fairways weren't actually as much fun as the theory would suggest?  I can think of some reasons why.

Using the "hang time" theory of golf enjoyment, maybe not knowing for a while if the tee shot was going to be okay or in a hazard was really more fun than watching a tee shot that couldn't find trouble, even if you really wanted to be in a certain spot?

Thinking in terms of the mindset of an era of corporal punishement, and "negative motivation management" (i.e. threats of firing rather than the current "coaching" ) did they intuitively realize that golf with some clear punishment fit their ideas of life, which was basically you get what you earn and deserve, much like the Scots figured golf was never fair, based on their time specific reality?  Do most people understand negative motivation far better than a subtle positive motivation of a slightly better angle?

My question is aimed at some of those types of time context thoughts, not a debate on anyones deeply held opinion. And, it presumes they didn't have the hindsight of nostalgia when they "paved paradise."

I believe that people in general) tend to make the best decisions for them with the information given, not make wholesale mistakes (others don't share that view of major corporations and the government, I am aware) I will grant that many decisions, like the man stealing bread to feed his family, can be very short sighted at times.

As such, I largely believe that things work out as they must, all factors considered, so I will rephrase the question this way - When fairways were narrowed, was it done for any good golf reason, or was it economics pure and simple??

Could it be they were right, and that the design theories of a relatively narrow time span (the golden age) actually have been, either wrong for they types of sites found in America, or found to be wrong over time as the game changed?  Please recall that for the most part, the golden age courses we love as major venues only do so with narrow fairways, whenever they occurred.

Just asking if you think your father and grandfathers were real dufus, or do you think that they were smart enough to perhaps not know the art of golf architecture, but know what they liked?

[Troy Alderson]

Jeff,

I would theorize that after the Golden Age of GCA, smucks can out of the wood work thinking they could design.  Boring tracks of golf lead to narrow fairways and the aerial game.  The ground game disappeared.  Only in the last decade or so have GCAs and golfers realized this and started to look more seriously at the principles of design.  Wide flat fairways are boring, but wide fairways with elevation changes are great.

Too much golf today is flogging, grip it and rip it, etc.  Those that play this way think that a good swing and shot should be rewarded no matter where it ended up.  Whether they hit is on line or not and whether there was a hazard in the way or not.  That is lack of strategic thinking when playing the game.  I think that a golfer should not necessarily play a golf course great the first time they play it.  We must learn how to play the golf course strategically.

I think that wide fairways are the best part of design with undulations abounding.  Not every shot from the golfer needs to be full force, straight, true, and far.  And neither do the fairways.

Troy

[Jeff_Brauer]

Troy,

Its true that a lot of untalented gcas have always plied the trade, perhaps including yours truly.  

On the other hand, the deans of gca's in the 50's were RTJ and Wilson, and both bunkererd narrow fairways heavily.  There were a number of golf factory type courses built in both the Golden Age and 50-60's.  Perhaps another reason for narrower fw at better courses were so that they would be "too good to be public."  Country Club mentality in those days was that the course clearly had to be superior, which probably meant, not easy.

[Matthew Hunt]

I think it is impossible to pre-judge course by their Type e.g. Links courses do not have to have overly large fairways. (Hoylake or RCD would not be the same with 60 yard fairways).

Similarly Parkland Course do not need to have pencil-thin Harbour Town style fairways. The Masters would be so boring it ANGC had 20 yard fairway (Hootie seemed intent on having boring US Open style Par-Par-Bogey-Par-Par-Par  defensive golf).

I think the width of fairway by the flavour, budget and atmosphere of the course in Question.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Sean,

Great points. Perhaps as courses got better irrigated, golfers found that they didn't need as wide a fairway to offer a fair target, so they narrowed them up in response to actual conditions, and found courses played proportionally as before, even with different dimensions. (i.e., they hit the same  number of fairways)

I wouldn't expect such wisdom from a poster with a Red Wings logo!

[Paul Payne]

Sean, Jeff,

I am not sure how to think about this. I understand Seans comments and the do make a lot of sense. It is true that with improved irrigation a golfer can make a more precise shot into a narrower fairway. But this only addresses the tee shot. What puzzles me is the approach.

The narrower the fairway becomes the more limited the angle of the second shot becomes. It seems to me this will not only limit the strategy of the second shot, but would bring on more obtrusively fortified greens and thus an aerial game. Maybe this is exactly the development we have seen, but this is where I have to go back to Jeff's arguement about economics. It seems hard to believe that GCA practitioners in general would have moved towards such a one dimensional vision for this part of the game.

Am I way off here?

[George Pazin]

Sean, Jeff,

I am not sure how to think about this. I understand Seans comments and the do make a lot of sense. It is true that with improved irrigation a golfer can make a more precise shot into a narrower fairway. But this only addresses the tee shot. What puzzles me is the approach.

The narrower the fairway becomes the more limited the angle of the second shot becomes. It seems to me this will not only limit the strategy of the second shot, but would bring on more obtrusively fortified greens and thus an aerial game. Maybe this is exactly the development we have seen, but this is where I have to go back to Jeff's arguement about economics. It seems hard to believe that GCA practitioners in general would have moved towards such a one dimensional vision for this part of the game.

Am I way off here?

No, you're way on.

 

[Adam Clayman]

Shaq's quote today is germaine.

It is a rather extraordinary thing that members of golf committees, themselves men of intelligence, experience and frequently specialists in different lines, when it comes to consideration of the task involved in remodeling the club course, will turn to seek the advice of persons whose only qualification in matters pertaining to golf is the ability to play a good game.  ALISTER MACKENZIE

[JESII]

Adam and/or Shaq, or anyone...

Do you think that quote by MacKenzie could be the "party line" from the professional golf course architect? Implying a weakness on the competition...

[Adam Clayman]

Sully,

The party line for the proffesional GCA?

I'd call it the Disneyland effect. The commercialized homogeneous product lacks depth and is more concerned about pace that giving the golfer any credit for being considerate of those who follow.

Add to that the NEED to be viable financially and what we got was not a great product, just a cost effective one.

[Paul Payne]

Adam,

If I understand you correctly you are saying that an economic incentive for narrower fairways is pace of play?

If so do you see this coupled with the advent of the golf car or do you see this as a much older trend? just curious.

[BCrosby]

Sully -

No question that part of what MacK was doing was advocating for his trade.  Promoting the use of pro architects (especially himself) was part of his motivation for writing the books he wrote.

But that's not the whole story. There was a debate going on. The differences between his design philosophy and that of the club committeemen doing home made courses was deep and very real. MacK was convinced (I think rightly) that the the strategic considerations so important to him (and most of the other important GA designers) were not well understood by the broader golfing public. Or even the USGA, for that matter.

So his books involved marketing, but they can't be reduced to just marketing. He was also engaged in a debate about what was important in good gca. That his books are also about the latter is the reason why they continue to be relevant.

MacK cares little about new commissions these days , but that underlying debate is still very much alive.

Bob  

[JESII]

Adam,

I'm not sure exactly what you mean.

Bob,

Thanks, that makes perfect sense to me. I do feel that the guy embedded in the profession is going to be better equipped to consider and plan for all of the consequences and challenges of altering a golf course....and therefore, all other things being equal will create a better product.

I do however think in addition to the above statement, the very best (let's call it the ideal person for each project) is intimately involved in that specific project. Whether they be a good player or not, I think history supports the notion of an individual "amateur" architect being able to provide a very top tier product.

Thoughts?


Jeff,

I do not want this to re-direct this thread and would be happy to take this conversation to another thread if you wish, just let me know. I generally prefer to continue these conversations as they develop because that is how I feel they would flow if we were in fact all in one room together. Again, just say the word and I'll go start a new topic.

As to you premise, I don't fully agree that with time comes improvement. The reasoning of 'these are intelligent people, do you really think they would do something different than has been done up to that point after giving it careful consideration' does not hold water with me. I think GCA styles, like most things in life flows in cycles and those able to influence the next great thing have only todays standards to work against. Wide to narrow to wide again is just one of those cycles in my opinion.

Which is better for the game of golf? Depends who is playing...and where they are playing.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Sean,

Merry Xmas and a Happy New Year to all, even Red Wing fans. If you are a hockey fan, you have to be a friend of mine, and the Wings are certainly a worthy team.

Paul,

I think the single row irrigation systems first employed may have narrowed fairways.  They could throw 90 radius (or about 60 yard coverage) but only 50-66% of that was effective coverage.  To get the edges wet meant overwatering the middle grossly, so they cut fw down to  about 30-35 yards for maintenance reasons, so they could water the middle of the fairway correctly and leave the rought a bit drier, but still acceptable.  Later, they found that you needed multiple rows of sprinklers (two or three in the fw) to get adequate coverage.

So, maybe the changes were simply maintenance driven.  I don't recall anyone debating in print the changes to the golf courses back then, but wonder if they really cared. Or, were they influenced simultaneously by RTJ in thinking narrower fairways meant more challenge, etc.  

So the question still remains, did they actually enjoy golf more when playing courses with narrower fairways?  I think there are some valid reasons why they might.

George,

I have done some sketches to try to determine just how wide a fw needs to be to present an advantage of the frontal opening.  It depends on both the length of the hole and the angle of the green.  Longer holes and greens with greater axis angle (say 20 degrees over 10) need wider fairways to open up the green.  

Perhaps architects learned that by aligning the greens only 5-10 degrees off center, and keeping bunkers roughly parallel with the greens front edge, rather than well away from the green, which is less necessary with irrigation anyway, that it was possible to offer the same strategic advantage with narrower fw, being interesting and economical at the same time.


Jes,

As to whether Mac (and others) were in the self preservation mode, I say a little yes and just a little venting.  Modern gca's do the same thing among themselves. Lets put it this way - most clubs hire a gca for renovation projects after a few attempts of their own end up lacking, but not until.  I always took the fact that Ross, Mac and Tillie (and maybe Thomas) all mentioned greens committee problems in the first or second chapter of their books as evidence of their general frustration with same. Then again, I am not cynical enough to believe they wrote that to increase business for themselves, nor do I think insulting your target audience right off the bat is the way to sell.  As always, I could be wrong.  Who knows what those guys really thought?

[JESII]

I don't know Jeff, telling a greens chairman he/she doesn't know their ass from a hole in the ground might just lend an air of omnipotence to your next presentation...

[George Pazin]

George,

I have done some sketches to try to determine just how wide a fw needs to be to present an advantage of the frontal opening.  It depends on both the length of the hole and the angle of the green.  Longer holes and greens with greater axis angle (say 20 degrees over 10) need wider fairways to open up the green.  

Perhaps architects learned that by aligning the greens only 5-10 degrees off center, and keeping bunkers roughly parallel with the greens front edge, rather than well away from the green, which is less necessary with irrigation anyway, that it was possible to offer the same strategic advantage with narrower fw, being interesting and economical at the same time.

Well, I'm a big fan of angled greens, so I guess I would need the wider fairways.

Your second part sounds a little restricting to me - kind of an anti-Old Course model.

I also disagree with your initial premise that narrow fairways are the result of the masses winning out. I'd guess quite the opposite, and that the continued support is simply a function of supply and demand. In other words, I'd rather play a narrow golf course than no golf course.

Maybe someone needs to define "narrow". I think a big key is what is making the fairway narrow. If it's trees, desert, water, or some other death-penalty type hazard, then I think everyone really needs width to make a course playable. If it's light rough, I can live with that.

I can only make the exception for heavy rough at Oakmont.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()