Mark,
At a course that I'm familiar with there seems to be a movement toward narrowed fairways from a cross section of the membership, and not from just low handicap players.
I believe the supporters of this idea are those who delight in making the golf course more difficult. Some members take pride in their golf course's ability to protect par irrespective of how that is accomplished, or how it affects daily play.
I've had discussions with a good number of members where I tried to convince them that returning the golf course to it's original widths is in everybody's best interest.
The difficulty is two fold.
First, the irrigation system in place fits the configuration of the currently narrowed fairways.
Secondly, over the years trees have been planted where fairway once existed to further define or enhance the narrowed fairway effect.
Thus, reclamation is more complicated and more expensive.
Trees must go and the irrigation system must be reconfigured.
Both are expensive and high profile projects.
Many members want to leave the course as it is, allowing 20-30-40-50 years of gradual changes to remain, rather than eliminate them in one fell swoop.
Many options and opportunities for variety in play would be presented if the fairways were returned to their intended width.
In many cases, the olde architects lulled and lured golfers into complacency by widening fairways. While the appearance of width might have looked appealing from the tee, sometimes the angle of attack presented by the width was far less than favorable.
The concept of the benefits of widened fairways must be understood by the membership, and then the committment of the membership, vis a vis the budget must follow. Sometimes one or both are difficult to achieve.
This is an ideal area for architects to inform, educate and guide green committees.
I was playing a golf course recently and paced off the width of the first fairway. It was very wide. But, depending upon where the hole was located, there were both prefered and unpleasant locations for the drive.
I then began to think about wide fairways in the context of annual maintainance costs.
My thoughts were directed toward the potential savings with longer carries from the tee before the fairway began, multiple tees and the trade off in cost with wider fairways.
I thought I came to a reasonable solution with three sets of tees. A forward tee (Women, Juniors & Seniors), A middle tee
(for the better women players and most of the membership) and a rear tee (for better players or those who hit a long ball)
The course I initially referenced HAD considerably wider fairways and I'd like to see them returned, but, with the resistance to tree removal, the expense associated with it, and the expense of rerouting the irrigation system, I don't see it happening.
Perhaps this is an ideal area for a long term project funded through additional funds to the green committee budget, where a hole or three can be reconfigured each year.