[Jeff_Brauer]

In my best John K style, I will post this before going out to get some last minute gifties - sort of my Xmas gift to all you gca.comers out there....

Was the Golden Age wide fw actually flawed?  I ask because I have run the hypothetical math (too much to retype here, but you can read it on Cybergolf) that skill probably accounts for a minimum of 95% of results, and strategy a maximum of probably only one or two shots a round advantage in 70 or so shots.

As such, the trade off of being too easy might more than offset an advantage of adding strategy.

My theory is that the thousands of people who ran and millions who played golf realized this over time, and decided to overturn the design decisions of the elite few (i.e. golden age gca's who wrote books) who had decreed it "good."  Eventually the people ruled, as they should, over the snobs who felt they knew what was best for everyone, just because they had 2% or so Scots blood (or whiskey) in them.

I believe equipment changes and maintenance costs as fairways got better maintained accelerated this trend, so the peoples money ruled, too, as they preferred not to spend maintenance money on fw areas they never used, except by mistake.  Either way, better maintenance and smaller playing areas was the right call.

I believe that many who call for wider fw's now, are a new generation of gca elitists and nostaligic ones at that.  However, we are asking for a return to a very brief period in US golf history when design had clearly evolved from early, rudimentary to post rudimentary ideas that were better, but not as good as the next phase of design as the game and its American courses evolved hand in hand.

Could the previous four or five generations of golfers and architects really have been so dumb as to blindly change Golden Age designs, or was it reasoned, planned, and absolutely correct that fairways narrowed to achieve a designs fullest potential?

Discuss!

[Joe Hancock]

A couple thoughts....as you go shopping...what kind of psychological techniques do the stores and marketing firms employ to affect your decisions? Might there also be something psychological involved with wide fairways that are properly integrated into a golf course design?

and

As golf went out to the rest of the world, many courses were built where there was something missing....WIND!

 

Merry Christmas, Jeff.

Joe

[Mark_Fine]

Jeff,
I don't have time to post on this but just quickly, golf is much more about interest, temptation, excitement, fun, thinking, options....than it is about pure numbers and stats.  Width has to be looked at in the context of each hole.  

I will leave with this thought; if you look at one of the holes on a golf course (any golf course) and see no advantage if your ball is in different locations on the fairway for different pin locations, hazard locations, weather conditions, etc,. then I would venture to say that you might very well have a boring one dimensional golf hole!  

Merry Christmas!  Family time for awhile now.  

[Adam Clayman]

Jeff, If you truely believe what you espouse above, who's being the snob?

Clearly the factional lines are drawn.

 Those who "believe" the definition of skill is hitting a well defined small target, dictate their belief on others. You provide narrow Fwys & little room for err around greens, ignoring aspects of golf that go beyond skill and all that logical education.

Then theres those bozos who know, that a well designed canvas, doesn't dictate, or pin point the good "spots" to play to. Those idiots provide a medium that even the less skilled can play within themselves, enjoying the sport competing against the elements the ground and themselves.

One faction is exclusionary, the other isn't.

 I suppose it all boils down to what the principle thinks. Hmm, I wonder that is?

[Rick Shefchik]

Jeff --

I just got back from a couple of rounds in Scottsdale, where I inadvertantly put your question to the test. My wife and I played two of the three nines at the Kierland resort, and then Talking Stick North.

Talk about wide fairways -- at the Kierland, they are not only wide, but banked to funnel crooked shots back toward the short grass. I hit a five-wood off the tee just once (on the short 7th hole on the Acacia 9, if anyone is familiar with the layout), but I'd probably have been just as well off hitting driver, since the penalty for missing or going through the fairway wasn't terribly severe.

This was resort golf, and though I found it mostly devoid of strategy, my wife liked the course a lot and I had a good time. There were plenty of players on the tee sheet, despite the unseasonably cold (?) weather (frost delays, highs in the mid-'50s.) I'd have to say the consumers have spoken here and said they don't mind the wide fairways at all.

Talking Stick North was a completely different experience, but the fairways there were, if anything, wider than at the Kierland. The difference was that you went from fairway to desert if you managed to miss left or right, with not rough or mounds to catch and redirect your foul balls.

At talking stick, there were definite decisions to be made, primarily the kind where you can take the direct line to the green for a shorter approach, but risking a shot that goes off the course; or aiming for the wide open spaces while leaving yourself a longer approach.

To be honest, I got a little tired of that choice as the round went on. I like the concept a lot, but there were a few too many holes where the smart, safe play was just like the one on the previous hole. Finally, on a split-fairway hole on the back nine (can't remember which hole it was), I decided to hit a five-wood to the narrow left-hand strip of fairway, rather than driver to the wide-open right half of fairway. Of course, I hooked the five-wood into coyote land, but at least it gave me a bit more of an adrenaline rush to try to execute a demanding tee shot.

After playing those two courses, I'd say I'd prefer a mixture of styles in a given round: some holes where the fairway gives you lots of choices, and some where the fairway says "Hit it here, or else." I don't see any reason why a course can't offer both concepts. Both are valid.

[Kyle Henderson]

I think that wide fairways can offer a lot of interest to the round, regardless of whether or not they allow one's useage of sound strategies to improve their score tremendously.

I particularly favor wide fairways which include:

1) undulations such that some parts of the fairway yield better visibility and flatter lies or where one side of the fairway will kick your ball forward while another will kick your ball sideways into an unhappy location.

2) varying widths from tee to green to promote risk reward aspects to club slection (#1 at Tobacco Road, for example, where the fairway can be 70 or 7 yards wide depending on where you land your ball).

3) centralized bunkers/hazards that segment the fairway and challenge shots played towards the most favorable positions.

But, variety is the spice of life and not all courses should feature only wide or narrow fairways. I consider a mixture  of fairway widths between and within golf courses to be ideal.

[ward peyronnin]

Jeff,

You remind me of the rider in front of me during a mountain horseback ride whose horse stepped on the ground bee nest and my horse enjoyed the results as he blithely rode out of the picture. It was a wild ride.

So you really believe the optimum golf game does not include chances for recovery; choices of shot options or lines of play; approaches to green complexes that change with the angle from which the player is situated. Bruce Hepner made a great observation when the Open was at Shinnecock when he told me they thought that by narrowing the playing lanes the USGA had merely created templates for the skilled players to play at the most beneficial point of the green and removed the angles that demanded the mosy skilled approached.

"Monotony is the foe the golf course architect must everlastingly fight."(Dr. McKenzie) What is more montonous to all but the 2% of golfers who are the skilled players that can "score " on the type of courses you describe than those that use the  narrow fairway as  their  strategic foil? I believe RTJ was trying to trump his predecessors and carve out dominance in his business by  superceding their principles with his own orthodoxy designed to appeal to the new post wwll american jingoism. That can't be mistaken for enduring design theory.

Besides course with wider fairways are invariably  just more fun to play!

Best
Ward P

[TEPaul]

Frankly, I don't think the old fairway widths that were basically always 50-60 yards back then had much of anything to do with the strategies of the holes. I think it was just another example of something that got completely standardized in golf for reasons most probably never even thought about just like so many of our present American fairways in the modern era turned into generally 35 yards for reasons very few even thought about at the time.

[Mike_Young]

Jeff,
As you say this post was in your best John K form....I don't know about the theory.
But it does make me want to ask the question...how much more can we complicate golden age golf architecture in the coming year???
I know that the technical aspects that are rarely discussed here can be complicated but IMHO we have taken this strategy and aesthetics about as far as we can.
This year my goal is to research how Donald Ross screwed in light bulbs and will probably extend to the other classic guys from there.
Merry Christmas,
Mike

[Geoffrey Childs]

This year my goal is to research how Donald Ross screwed in light bulbs and will probably extend to the other classic guys from there.
Merry Christmas,
Mike

Mike

Merry Christmas.  You will be happy to know that I have found a Popular Mechanics Article from 1921 that quotes a friend of a friend of Donald Ross who thinks he actually saw Mr Ross screw in a light bulb all by himself and with no consultation from anyone else.

Now don't try that yourself.  It could be dangerous.

[Tommy Williamsen]

I for onw like a fairway that is not 60 yards wide. I understand about options and angles etc.  But sometimes I think it is just an excuse for not being able to hit the ball straight. Moreover, I grow weary of bombers who can just let it go because they know they can hit a field large enough to plant wheat.  part of shot makeing is being able to hit it straight off the tee.  With large fairways we don't have to shape shots as much as we use to.  Courses I grew up on did not have wide fairways.  We tend to talk about having to hit certain shaped shots into greens that reward precision.  Well, I think precicion off the tee is important as well.  I don't think there should be US Open rough but being able to hit the ball straight should count for something.

[Mike_Young]

This year my goal is to research how Donald Ross screwed in light bulbs and will probably extend to the other classic guys from there.
Merry Christmas,
Mike

Mike,
Merry Christmas.  You will be happy to know that I have found a Popular Mechanics Article from 1921 that quotes a friend of a friend of Donald Ross who thinks he actually saw Mr Ross screw in a light bulb all by himself and with no consultation from anyone else.

Now don't try that yourself.  It could be dangerous.

Merry Christmas to you also Geoff.  Geoff it just so happens that I know a friend that has the original drawing of how he screwed in that bulb with the typed specifications.  I recently saw a gentleman change that bulb and he destroyed it....the new bulb looks nothing lke the old....

[Jay Flemma]

No way, Jeff...as Mike Strantz said..."the commercial is right, wider is better...more options!"

[Tommy Williamsen]

No way, Jeff...as Mike Strantz said..."the commercial is right, wider is better...more options!"

Jay, It doesn't always follow that wider gives the player more options.  It may be true for shots into the green but not necessarily off the tee.  Having wide fairways that allow one just to bomb it off the tee does not allow for options.  On the other hand a bunkered fairway or one that is tighter makes the player think what kind of shot to hit off the tee.  Wasn't that the thinking of Tiger at Hoylake.  He decided to use 2 iron of most tees. He had the option of hitting driver but chose another option because he wanted to be in the fairway.  Many of the other guys just hit driver everywhere and indeed did hit it "everywhere." They did n't thin about other otprions.

For me, I love standind on a tee and thinking if I want to hit there, I need to fade it or hook it, or hit three wood etc.  I realize to get the best angle wide fairways male that more possible and it takes some skill to hit it to that spots. nonetheless once in a while I like to be challenged off the tee.
One of my gripes about many Fazio courses is that on many of his short holes there is no need for precision either off the tee or into the green.

[Mark_Fine]

George Thomas comments on width in his book Golf Architecture in America.  It is well worth reading.  Many other architects from the past comment on the topic as well.

Probably the best example of the importance of width is the famous "widening of the fairways" at The Old Course at St. Andrews.  This was one of the most important events in history that impacted golf course architecture.  I wonder why  

Have fun with this topic, it is a good one.    

[Tom_Doak]

Mark:

I honestly don't remember very many Golden Age architects specifying the width of fairways in their books.  I'm not in the office this week so would be grateful if anyone can dig up any quotes to that effect.

The one which stands out to me is Macdonald's, because I read his book again recently ... he lamented that fairways were getting too wide and stated that "45 to 60 yards" was wide enough, even though some of National's were much wider than that to start with.  And, by the way, Macdonald said he thought St. Andrews was better when it was narrower ... for an evangelist he certainly wasn't much of a populist.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
I don't have access to my library right now but the first book I grabbed when I was at my office last night was Thomas' book and he specifies clearly his thoughts on the matter.  Pull out a copy when you get a chance and look.    

I don't recall seeing where Macdonald made that statement about The Old Course, but I'll take your word for it.  He clearly would be in the vast minority if he truly believed it.  Everything I have ever read about the widening of the fairways at St. Andrews was that it introduced among other things, options and strategy into the game of golf.  My guess is if Macdonald disagreed, it was self-serving in some manner.  He sure took the concept of width to heart in his own designs  

[Paul Payne]

I am curious how much of this debate over fairway width is really economics vs. strategy? Are the choices to go with narrower fairways more based on the land available and construction and maintenance costs, and the fact that other courses have done the same?

When we see newer courses with wider fairways does that reflect a change in design thought or is it also coupled with the fact that people are investing more in terms of land and expense into their new courses? I'd like to hear what those in the industry think of this.

[wsmorrison]

In restoration efforts, shouldn't the systematic use of wide fairways (50-60 yards wide) be reconsidered?  I think there is a strong case that the width used was not always necessary given the strategic design of the hole but rather was linked to the width of gang mowers and accepted standardized practices.  

Today, if there is a strategic basis for width, then let it be returned as much as possible.  Where there are no strategic implications to width, I think it is fair to narrow things up based on shot requirements and the topography.  

With the balls and implements of today, I think that is a fair(way) philosophy.

[George Pazin]

Haven't read the other responses yet, but doesn't it matter mostly what your goals are?

You bring up many points that have built in assumptions. For example, sure wider fairways require more maintenance dollars, but doesn't that say more about the ridiculously high standard for fairway maintenance than anything else?

As for the easier thing offseting the strategic options, I'd think it would largely depend on the design of the course, especially the green complexes. If everything else is cookie cutter modern basic, it might make things too easy, but I'd be surprised if many thought a course like The Rawls Course was too easy, and there's plenty of width there.

Now on to reading everyone else's thoughts....

[George Pazin]

Jeff, If you truely believe what you espouse above, who's being the snob?

Clearly the factional lines are drawn.

 Those who "believe" the definition of skill is hitting a well defined small target, dictate their belief on others. You provide narrow Fwys & little room for err around greens, ignoring aspects of golf that go beyond skill and all that logical education.

Then theres those bozos who know, that a well designed canvas, doesn't dictate, or pin point the good "spots" to play to. Those idiots provide a medium that even the less skilled can play within themselves, enjoying the sport competing against the elements the ground and themselves.

One faction is exclusionary, the other isn't.

 I suppose it all boils down to what the principle thinks. Hmm, I wonder that is?

I think I like this post better than mine. Well said by the big red head.

 

[Geoffrey Childs]

I think that Wayne has the best perspective so far.  

Width for the sake of it is a waste of resources and in addition counter productive to strategy and interesting golf.  At some point in the play of a hole one must face consequences.  If one can do this with width then that is fine.  

The second hole at Talking Stick North is often used as an example here.  Off the tee one is faced with a choice of challenging a boundary fence (OB) to obtain a direct line into the par five green.  There is plenty of width to bail right, however, on that line you must carry a bunker well short of the green. It's the players choice but the hazards must be addressed at some point.

I also will go against the thought of some here and say that a narrow hole can offer real choices with consequences for potential scoring and offer 18 at Bethpage as an example.  Perhaps its a better option and hole for a better player but high handicaps can use better course management to score better just as easily. One can CHOOSE a distance option instead of a width option.  At BB you can layup short of the flanking bunkers or you can try to thread the narrow opening between them or even carry them.  The risk is deep fairway bunkers or rough beyond the bunkers.  The advantage is a very shory wedge or even flip approach vs. a 7-8 iron. One can say this is a management option but the same is true of a width option.  It available for all players to utilize.

A mixture of holes utilizing all these features is probably ideal.

[mike_malone]

 Geoff,

  Do you  see many people taking that risk on #18 at BB?

[Mike_Young]

 Those who "believe" the definition of skill is hitting a well defined small target, dictate their belief on others. You provide narrow Fwys & little room for err around greens, ignoring aspects of golf that go beyond skill and all that logical education.

Adam,
You have confused me here....what other skill is there in golf? whether it be a fairway, a green, a cup....But that is not to say I am not a wide fairway guy.....
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

[Geoffrey Childs]

Geoff,

  Do you  see many people taking that risk on #18 at BB?

All the time. Funny that it is usually the duffer who has no business doing so.  They usually wind up in the right side fairway bunkers or even #1 on the Red course.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()