[Patrick_Mucci]

Should  there be a premium on accuracy off the tee at major championships ?

To what width should fairways be maintained in order to present an examination of the golfers driving skills ?

And, should width vary by the length of the hole ?

Has technology been a cause of the perceived need to narrow fairways at championships ?

[Lloyd_Cole]

The width cannot be established by an algorithm. Subjective calls need to be made. However; the fairways should be cut so that the best payers in the world feel confident enough to play to the left or the right of centre, as the hole demands. If the fairways are so narrow that they feel they can only play down the middle, then it is Vijay vs Fred Funk and we have that all year round without narrow fairways. And, in a major championship, one would hope that if you were in the trees, 40 years right of the fairway, 8 times out of 10, you would have no shot. Which might make you think twice. One has to wonder what is going on on the PGA tour when we see, week in, week out, folk hitting the green with ease after these types of tee shots..

[Kyle Harris]

Patrick,

Depends on how you define placing a premium on accuracy. I define it as the ability to place yourself in a position best suited to scoring.

I feel that fairway corridors should be cut such that the premium on accuracy has equal rewards from the optimum angle and penalties from poor angles. Fairways should integrate fairway and green hazards as well.

Fairway width will more than like vary with the length of the hole, however, I don't feel there should necessarily be a correlation.

Technology was more than likely the primary catalyst in the current trend toward narrow fairway corridors.

[Craig Sweet]

1)There should be a premium placed on EVERY shot at a major championship.

2)Fairway width should vary.

3)See above...

4)No...I would not want to speculate on why a particuliar fairway has been narrowed.

[PThomas]

1. absolutely

2. I'm not sure...isn't 25-30 yards an oft-quoted figure???

3. I'll say no

4. I think so

as Lloyd stated, rough on Tour is really a joke..it shouldn't even be called rough, esp since guys like Vijay admit they just try to hit each tee ball as far as possible+

[TEPaul]

"Should  there be a premium on accuracy off the tee at major championships?"

Yes, although I think there should be a lot more to what a premium on accuracy off the tee at major championships means than just the width of a fairway.

"To what width should fairways be maintained in order to present an examination of the golfers driving skills?"

I don't think there should be any forrmula or standardization for fairway width. There should be a lot more to an examination of the golfers driving skills than just straight fairway width.

"And, should width vary by the length of the hole?"

Not necessarily. It should vary according to the strategic ramifications of any hole and length is not the sole determinant of that.

"Has technology been a cause of the perceived need to narrow fairways at championships?"

Partly, but the percieved need to narrow fairways at USGA championships goes back quite a while now (to Joe Dye) and is probably as much an unpublicized desire to protect par as  anything else.

[A_Clay_Man]

Did Dr. Mackensie and Mr. Robert Tyre Jones think fairways should be narrowed for major championships?

My guess, is no.

[John Keenan]

To discuss width I think the issue of the rough needs to  factor in as well. Why have a narrow fairway if hitting out of  the rough is not bad?

I do agree with a narrow fairway at all Majors.

[Scott Witter]

I am in agreement with TEP though I would really like to see the tour extend their schedule to venues with designs that offer considerablly more uneven stances.  The way it was meant to be.

We constantly struggle with the rough-vs-short grass issue, the wide-vs-narrow fairways...and I am inclined to tighten up the fairways where appropriate and to a degree, but still offer even the tour players the option to place their tee shots accurately that rewards the approach shot.  However, having said this, the damn fairways shouldn't be perfectly smooth parking lots for them, or else we have lost much of the strategy and ability to challenge these players and other long ball golfers.  I guess this goes back to British Open courses with respect to varying stances, uneven lies etc.

[TEPaul]

Scott Witter makes an excellent point. It's a point that is perhaps so fundamental to good golf that many overlook it---eg the idea of uneven lies (in fairways). The "uneven lie" is perhaps the most basic hazard feature in all of golf.

So regarding fairway width the idea would be to use areas as fairway that offer these lies to some degree. Some call it "good golfing ground".

To use a single course as an example of fairway area that utilized "good golfing ground" (uneven lies) look at NGLA's fairways. The best of the "good golfing ground" fairway area on that course are #1, #2!!, #5!!, beginning of #7, #8, #11, #14!!!, #15!!!!, #18!.

[Tom_Doak]

I showed the PGA Tour guys a few pictures of fairway undulations at Machrihanish to show them what kind of stances I'd like to show the pros someday.  They didn't know what to say!

There have been some excellent answers here.  The one point that was missed was about the relationship of length and width of holes, which I think should be an inverse relationship on many occasions.  On the shorter holes, there is a wider variety of possible angles of approach, and this should be exploited.  When you're hitting a long iron to the green, angles can matter if there are nasty contours in the green, but if not, then you might as well make the fairway narrow, because the rough has much more effect when you don't have a wedge in your hands.

[Lloyd_Cole]

Tom
I'd argue that on all holes, long and short, there is always a better side of the fairway to come in from. And that isn't necessarily the same for all players. So removing the player's option of playing trying to play to his/her strength/strategy, 'US Open style', does not help us establish the best player.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Lloyd Cole,

How do you test a golfers ability to drive the ball with a high degree of accuracy ?

[Mark_Guiniven]

When the pin was cut behind the deep front-left bunker on our 3rd hole, several pros used to drive right, into the adjacent 4th fairway (links course, no trees) to gain the angle on the bunker as well as the prevailing crosswind that blew left-to-right across that hole so they wouldn't have to start their approach out over trouble. At around 420 yards, getting the length wasn't so much of a concern for them. A few years ago they built a new back tee for that hole that added a full 50 yards. It's a nice tee, but the hole is now so much longer it prevents players from playing as laterally: a shorter iron into the green is always preferred, and in most physical models of the universe the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. I think that's what Ty, errr, Tom is saying.

[Lloyd_Cole]

Pat
If that's all you want to test, then you have the US Open. If you want to establish the most complete golfer, maybe there is more to golf than driving it long and straight. In the last 20 years, I'd argue that the best drivers of the ball I've seen have been Norman and Garcia, maybe Montgomery also. All three have proven seriously flawed (SG, so far) as major contenders. If we want to actually reward long accurate drivers of the ball, I'd argue that what we need are more short/driveable par 4s, then you have immediate reward/punishment for the drive.

[ForkaB]

I have always thought that one of the keys is a driving area which narrows the further you drive the ball.  Great benefits if you drive it long and straight, but significant costs if you hit it long and crooked, and greater second shot demands if you hit it short and straight.

The 14th at Dornoch is the poster child for this concept.  I find it hard to believe that modern architects (and the PGAT, USGA, R&A, etc.) have not glommed onto this.

[TEPaul]

"How do you test a golfers ability to drive the ball with a high degree of accuracy?"

Pat:

In my opinion, the best way to do that is to make the long and accurate drive an option and not a one-dimensional, no-option demand test. That way if he's going to do it he has to choose to do it himself first.  

(There's generally an added benefit to this for the architecture and the architect---eg if he screws up he understands he has noone to blame but himself! Hence the multi-optional strategic beauty of holes like NGLA's #1, #2. #14, Riviera's #10 ).

(Another hole that I've never seen other than on TV but seems to have some of this characteristic is this week's Copperhead G.C.'s #16. Since it's 475 yards it seems to tempt even the longest to hit driver even if their landing area is very narrow with pond right and trees left. I noticed yesterday Davis Love hit a huge drive but into some trouble and bogied it while Bo Van Pelt hit 3 wood for safety and hit his approach stiff. Van Pelt had 180 in and Love had 145 in).

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat
If that's all you want to test, then you have the US Open.
You must be kidding.

Driving the ball is a critical component of the game.
Driving comes into play on 77 % of the holes.
Driving represents 20 % of the strokes taken during a round
Putting represents 50 % of the strokes taken during a round.

You seem to want to discount it as if it were insignificant element of the game.[/color]

If you want to establish the most complete golfer, maybe there is more to golf than driving it long and straight.
Why don't you reread the opening thread.
You don't seem to grasp the issue.
This isn't about the Re-Max long drive contest.
It's about how you go about placing a premium on driving accuracy.[/color]

In the last 20 years, I'd argue that the best drivers of the ball I've seen have been Norman and Garcia, maybe Montgomery also. All three have proven seriously flawed (SG, so far) as major contenders.

So you'd call someone who finishes second in a Major Championship, several times, seriously flawed because another golfer holed out a one in a thousand shot on his last shot of the tournament ?  Interesting criterion.

How old was Garcia 20 years ago ?
Let's see, if he was born in 1980 that would make him five (5)
You know, you're right, he was seriously flawed in major championships, only the flaw was he wasn't old enough to play in them[/color]

If we want to actually reward long accurate drivers of the ball,

Who said anything about rewarding them ?
I asked how do we go about testing their driving skill.[/color]

I'd argue that what we need are more short/driveable par 4s, then you have immediate reward/punishment for the drive.

How would you go about creating short/driveable par 4's ?
If you move the tees up, the architectural features found in the current drive zone become similar to the Maginot Line. [/color]

Rich Goodale,

That was always the theory I had heard and believed in.

The problem with it has been undermined by technology, with drives becoming so long, that that narrow, more dangerous area for the drive is also the zone for the second shots of lesser golfers.  Hence, when you implement the theory you mention, you unduely penalize the average to poor golfer.

This is another reason why I & B needs to be reigned in.
It's becoming increasingly difficult to design a golf course that will serve more than one master.

TEPaul,

Let's say, for the benefit of fantasy, that I agree with you.

How do you do that on existing golf courses ?
It's almost impossible.

Wasn't that the purpose of diagonal cross bunkering ?

The problem I see is the placement-location of the architectural features.

How do you do it in such a way as to make them relevant for each golfers game ?

How do you avoid creating an undue penalty or conflict with the games of players with less ability ?

That's one of the things that the architects from the "Golden Age" were able to do, but today, with the huge disparity in driving distance, it's almost impossible to do.

[PThomas]

Patrick and Rich - re your theory of more narrow the fairway the farther you go, I remember reading an article about Augusta in the 60s, when many then were raising the same point as we often hear today:  that the course favors the long hitters too much....I believe it was Gary Player who stated that he can see giving longer hitters A WIDER FAIRWAY where there drives land, but he thought it was getting too wide

in other words, I think he was saying make it a wider fairway, say 35 yards, where Arnie and Jack were driving it back then, vs. 30 yards where Player's drives typically landed

doesn't this makes sense, that we reward longer hitters , to some degree , for their extra length?  after all, length is a skill as well, although perhaps not as great a skill as it was back in the 60s

[BCrosby]

The old theory of graduated, increasing difficulty for the longer driver (one of RTJ's favorites) is what "flogging" has now made obsolete. Narrower landing areas are irrelevant to  Tiger, VJ and their ilk. Long pros are now completely rough agnostic.

On balance, Open rota courses in the UK seem to have weathered the distance storm better than US courses. I think that is for several reasons, some given above:

- more dramatic fairway contouring
- more less dramatic, micro contouring
- firmer turf which adds to the effectiveness of fairway contouring, whether macro or micro
- more centerline hazards
- more cross hazards  
- more fairway hazards that "gather" balls
- more use of blind approaches - i.e., a cost of driving too far is a blind or obstructed view of the green.

The foregoing features have never been very popular in the US. In fact, most would be viewed by the typical member of a US course as design defects.

Bob  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Paul Thomas,

With the ball and equipment producing "straighter" flight, mis-hits don't suffer the same consequences they faced 20-30-40-50 years ago.  I think that's a major part of the problem.
You can now swing as hard as you want with little fear of harsh consequences.

BCrosby,

You're right, rough no longer presents undue difficulty.
Lob Wedges and specialty clubs have diminished its intended function.

But, other hazards, such as pot bunkers, etc., et., could be inserted.

The problem with inserting difficult features is the less than proficient golfer's ability to cope with them.   The creation of an unduely penal feature which unfairly complicates the game for them, and slows up play.

With the disparity in length I don't think you can serve more than one master, architecturally.

I'd agree with you regarding the courses and their features in the UK, but, you're not going to change the culture or climate in the U.S., and as such, other measures must be sought.

That's why I feel a rollback is a solution.

[BCrosby]

Pat -

Agreed about the need for a rollback, but there is no reason not to push equally hard for rethinking some uniquely (and misguided) American architectural assumptions.

Changing those assumptions is a way to manage the distance issue. It would certanly be a lot less messy solution. For example, it will not come at the cost of a massive federal antitrust suit by OEM's.

The problem is that someone needs to lead that educational process. We know already who won't. And I can't think of a good second choice.

Bob

[JESII]

The problem is that someone needs to lead that educational process. We know already who won't. And I can't think of a good second choice.

Bob

How about a Mucci/Paul lecture circuit? Complete with Ran in stripped shirt as referee.

Seriously though, I do think an educational process, while time consuming, is the most realistic method for changing the current trend of reduced shotmaking.

Pat,

I think people have also lost sight of the "golden age" sentiment that not all courses need be "championship" courses. This addresses the "serve more than one master" question I think. Again though because people have lost sight of what their individual course is intended as they would need a re-education of the benefits and detractions of any alteration to a course solely for the purpose of increasing difficulty when very few "championships are actually even played there.

[Lloyd_Cole]

Pat

Parts 1,2 and 4 of your question are rhetorical. Depending on who you ask the asnswer is simply yes or no. And I don't think anyone thinks the answer to #1 is no, despite what you have concluded from my comments. Part two was the only part of the question that seemed interesting to debate. Which I attempted to do. I will finish by agreeing with TEP - so long as it doesn't become a one dimesional thing, I'm all for it being a severe test.

[Patrick_Mucci]

JES II,

Even at local clubs the increased disparity in driving distance between the younger and/or better players versus the mediocre or poor player presents an architectural problem.

I'd like to see the insertion of more centerline hazards and more diagonal cross bunkers, but, I don't see anything that would indicate a trend is developing toward the use of those features.

When was the last time you heard of a club, that was undergoing a renovation or modernization, inserting centerline bunkers or diagonal bunkers ?

Unfortunately, the golf culture in the U.S. promotes and embraces hazards outside the fairway lines.

You also might be surprised to find out that Ran, TEPaul and I probably agree on most subjects.

On those subjects that TEPaul and I don't agree on ......... he's wrong.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()