[Patrick_Mucci]

If a fairway was 60 yards wide, but, the ideal angle of attack was from a 20 yard strip, and one wanted to test the better player in tournament play, why wouldn't you advocate narrowing the fairway to 20 yards at the location of the ideal angle ?

With the  game being so aerial, errant tee shots that land anywhere within the 60 yard wide fairway aren't unduely penalized, so why not alter the non-ideal playing surface by allowing it to deteriorate to conditions less favorable than fairway conditions ?

And, with I&B that result in straighter, more accurate drives, why shouldn't the challenge on the drive be more pronounced ?

[jeffwarne]

Patrick,
How about narrowing the fairway to where it's the worst angle, giving players the choice of short grass/bad angle or preferred angle /less perfect lie. (assuming shorter or thinner rough)
Occasionally...

Saves maintenance,water, and still provides choices.

[JESII]

If, by "tournament play", you are referring to PGA Tour tournament play and Major Championship tournament play, then that is about what they do. No need to argue for it. The argument against it; at least my argument against it, is the trickle down effect. That's all. I feel clubs should have the backbone to present their course in a manner that is not reactive to what the TV golf looks like...less green...more bounce...shorter rough!

[Jeff Doerr]

How much damage does it do to move the line back and forth for certain events? If you grow a large part of the fairway up to rough length, how long does it take to get it back to a good healthy fairway length?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Patrick,

Same points as I made in my wide fw=flawed theory thread a few weeks back. We'll see if they treat you any better than they treated me for daring to suggest such a thing on a - gasp - discussion group about golf design.

While the Golden Age Wide FW theory was a huge improvement over the earlier geometric designs, I think experience led that era to believe that there was some give and take to using wide fw's all the time.  This nostalgic group seemingly believes that any change to a Golden Age design was done by dunderheads, low maintenance budgets, tree planting committees or (as suggested in two earlier responses here) in response to tournament conditions (US OPEN) that wouldn't occur at the typical club.  

While I concur some of that happened, I also believe that in some respects, wide fw's were found strategically or challendge wanting by competitive club players as the game evolved.  

Specifically, as you mention, as clubs and balls got better, the penalty for missing to the wrong side of the fairway wasn't enough, relative to the advantage of trying to hit one side of the fw.  While I agree that there is some avantages of wide fw in the "give them the rope and let them hang themselves" I think it just didn't turn out that way with clubs and balls improving.  It was too close to just as easy to hit green from the wrong side of the fw.

The lack of advantage may have been related to the trend to build all greens generally tilting to the golfer as much as the better flight of the ball, and ability to work it to overcome bad angles.  If greens were tilted away from the left side, and towards the right, for example, the trend may have been different. But, since that seemed to be a given, growing rough to reduce spin was the most logical architectural solution to an evolving game.

The net and unintended effect was not strategic play, it was most likely "aiming for the middle" and "bombing drives" which reduced strategy, and gave all the advantages to long hitters while accuracy became less - not more - of an asset.  (Which was the first of Flynn's three principles - accuracy, no?)

At the same time, those zig zag fw patterns and optional carry (or centerline) bunkers when the Golden Age premium position generally required a carry merely added to the long hitters advantage.  Narrowing play corridors again favored the shorter, accurate player at all levels, which was a goal.

So, while wide fws have their advantages, I surmise that they just weren't enough to offset their disadvantages of favoring long hitters in the minds of golfers then and even now.  I think thats the real case for narrow fw's, at least at 275 yards and beyond.

[Jim Sweeney]

Jeff:

On Many courses the fairway grasses are different from the Rough grasses, and therefore it is not a simple matter to chage the fairway/rough lines. One course I know has bent fairways and rye/fescue roughs. Poor mowing patterns have created areas of bent rough, which is damn near impossible to escape.

It seems to me that the US Open at Winged Foot last year made a positive statement for course set up for championships. The graduated rough system allowed players miss the perfect target, which was fairway, yet still have a shot, though with a less certain outcome due to the length of the and the difficulty of controlling the shot, and a death penalty for going really off line. Of course, in spots the trampled rough allowed for some luck, but that cannot be avoided. 50,000 or so people have to walk somewhere.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jim,

I agree on both points.  I was thinking of the 1950's when the narrowing occurred because through the green was all blue/rye (or bermuda).  Changing your course now does face technical issues.

Graduated rough - perhaps not equally graduated on either side to enhance strategy of where not to miss - is a great concept.  FW at 27-30 yards, light rough another 5-10 yards to reduce spin and increase strategy, and then deep rough to punish misses.  Saves on maintenance without causing too many lost balls, too!

Yeah, that's the ticket.  I am really thinking of club players in my post, and actually hate that you have to use the US Open as an example to make the point.

[Jeff Doerr]

I think that has been one of the challenges at a favorite public venue of mine around here. Ghost Creek at Pumpkin Ridge has potential to host a US Open, but the fairways (bent) would have to come in.

I also like the idea of giving courses more room in the first or second cut before the really long stuff.

I liked Winged Foot a lot last year. If the greens are set up correctly, missing in that medium rough almost always takes birdie out of play on the 4s.

[Geoffrey Childs]

Pat

Go over to Bethpage Black this coming spring and play a round. You will see the same mowing patterns that were used in the 2002 US Open.  Whenever possible the USGA put the ideal angles into the greens in the rough.  See if you like that setup.  As to your idea about ideal angles within a narrow fairway I have not thought about it deeply enough to render an opinion.

[JESII]

an angle only need be ideal if the ground conditions dictate such...



Jeff Brauer,

I think I finally have a response to your "wide fwy = flawed theory" theory...if the people that made the "intelligent" decision to narrow fairways for a more interesting game (for them) get the benefit of the doubt as thoughtful, resourceful people (not sure if they were the adjectives you used, but something like it), why do these same "intelligent" people today not get the same benefit of the doubt? Should everything stop in its second generation?

[Cassandra Burns]

It seems to me that the US Open at Winged Foot last year made a positive statement for course set up for championships. The graduated rough system allowed players miss the perfect target, which was fairway, yet still have a shot, though with a less certain outcome due to the length of the and the difficulty of controlling the shot, and a death penalty for going really off line. Of course, in spots the trampled rough allowed for some luck, but that cannot be avoided. 50,000 or so people have to walk somewhere.

I always wondered why they don't make the gallery areas well-defined and out-of-bounds for tournaments.  Is that heresy?

[Jim Sweeney]

There are a lot of Jeffs posting on this topic!

Cassandra:

It's an interesting question. Lee Trevino often stated an opinion that gallery areas be out of bounds. Of course, he was one of the most accurate tee ball strikers in history.

I wouldn't say making all gallery areas OB would be "heresy." Rules Officials do not like internal OB, however. Oh, it happens, but not often. Tha basic rules principal is that all areas of the course are in bounds. Sometimes practical considerations dictate that large areas (example, the TV broadcast staging area, or a clubhouse) be OB.

Making all the gallery area OB would lead to innumerable rules issues (fans kicking balls back into play, OB areas running between parallel holes, etc.) So it's easier and more equitable to have gallery areas as that part of the course which is "through the green," in rules lingo.

Hope that helps.

[Mark_Fine]

Pat,
As an example Pat, help me understand where that ideal 20 yard strip would be on the 1st hole of The Old Course?  
Mark

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,
As an example Pat, help me understand where that ideal 20 yard strip would be on the 1st hole of The Old Course?  
Mark

Mark,

The location might be driven more by the prevailing wind conditions than the fairway features and angles into the green.

But, you already knew that.

Jeff Brauer,

Remember, I'm being player specific.

JES II

I agree, the trickle down effect is an unfortunate by-product of almost everything done to challenge the superior player.

[Mark_Fine]

Pat,
So where would that 20 yard strip on the 1st at The Old Course be?  I'm not sure you can tell me!  How about the ideal 20 yard strip at Pinehurst #2?  

Part of the defense of a wide fairway is perception.  If you tell a good player where to hit the ball they will generally do it.  If you make the target less obvious, they can get confused.  This is part of the genius of #2.  Almost any golfer can play that course with one golf ball and not have a worry about losing it.  There are acres of fairway to hit to.  But it is quite amazing to watch player after player discuss their rounds afterward and state, "I hit almost every fairway but only hit four or five greens in regulation".  If they played there enough, they might figure out why  

I remember that I all but cringed when I heard it but I once listened to an architect state that one way he deals with narrowing wide fairways is to eliminate one side of the hole.  If he for example, thinks the best line of play is mostly on the left, he moves the fairway left (that 20 yard strip that Pat is talking about) and basically eliminates the right side of the hole (hazards and all, because they would look lost if they remained)    What a shame if that was done at Pinehurst #2.  

[TEPaul]

"If a fairway was 60 yards wide, but, the ideal angle of attack was from a 20 yard strip, and one wanted to test the better player in tournament play, why wouldn't you advocate narrowing the fairway to 20 yards at the location of the ideal angle?"

Patrick:

Do you want the simple and easy and realistic answer or would you prefer to have an unrealistic discussion for a while?

[BCrosby]

Pat -

You been hangin' out at Golf House?

I'm having trouble distinguishing your idea from the USGA's set-up philosophy. Hasn't that idea been tried a couple of times already?

It's a bad idea because courses set up that way are (i) boring to play, (ii) boring to watch people play, (iii) influence local clubs to think narrow equals better, and (iv) take the club out of the hands of the best players in the world when they drive the ball even slightly off the irrigation pipe.

Point (iv) is a big deal when they are playing a course with big time greens like WF. I want to see the best players in the world hit great shots to tough greens when they are out of position. That's how you best appreciate the greatness of those greens. Tight fairways preclude that.

If that means overall lower scores, I will happily accept the trade-off.

Bob

[TEPaul]

"If that means overall lower scores, I will happily accept the trade-off."

Bob:

Of course much wider fairways even on courses with really tough greens like WF will result in occassional lower scores. But they will also result in some much higher scores because of unchecked temptation.

That is what we want right---eg lower scores combined with much higher scores? That's essentially the only way courses and holes can create that "wide scoring spectrum" that we want to see.  

I have a new one now Bob, which is something of a refinement or perhaps an adjunct to the theory of the "scoring spectrum" barometer to test architectural quality.

I don't know what to term it yet but it is that the quality of a championship course can probably fairly legitimately be determined by the separation or scoring spectrum throughout a tournament field. I have a funny feeling if Merion gets lucky with weather and set-up and gets that course exactly the way they would like to for the 2013 Open there could be a serious scoring differential across the entire US Open field. But let's just hope it doesn't turn into a sort of "one man left standing" type of affair that unfortunately Shinnecock's 2004 US Open was.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pat,
As an example Pat, help me understand where that ideal 20 yard strip would be on the 1st hole of The Old Course?  
Mark

Jeff Brauer,

Remember, I'm being player specific.

JES II

I agree, the trickle down effect is an unfortunate by-product of almost everything done to challenge the superior player.

Pat,

I think I was with you, unless you are talking of pro or high level am tourneys.  I was thinking of design for better club players, for club level competitions like the mens championship, etc., or even for the every day $5 nassau, which is unrealistically important to so many golfers.  

Exactly what level were you thinking of?
 
As I said, we know generally narrower fw happened.  Did they decide to do it every day as being the "greatest good for the greatest number" or was it, as you suggest in your comment to JES, just a byproduct of the best players at a club dictating design and doing what was best for them?

BTW, I think 20 yards would be too narrow in any case, at least on most holes.  And the trend was to be say 30 yards at the 275 mark, but wider further back to introduce full length vs layup strategy, rather than left to right strategy, and with angles, maybe a combo of the two.

As to which side you would put it, it seems counter intuitive to put the 20-30 yards on a bad angle. That means that architecturally you are giving the golfer no good options - its either good angle from the rough or bad angle from the fw.  In my mind, the narrowed fw should reward hitting to the good angle, increasing the problems from the wrong side through reduced spin and angle as equipment gets better.

Conversely, with similar rough on both sides of the fw, it would better reward the player going for the extreme edge of the fw and missing in the rough to that side, at least with angle.  With lighter rough or wider first cut on the premium side, it would still put a premium on being on the correct side of the narrower fw, but it would just be tougher.  

On the other hand, it would be a greater dilema if the or lighter rough or wider first cut on the non premium side - I guess if you were wild one day, you would play to miss for the lighter rough, if at all, angle be damned.  Playing down the premium side, knowing that a miss puts you in deep doo doo would only be an option if you were driving well.  Would the angle advantage of being in the fw be worth it?

Either way, its using light rough to enhance the advantage of a particular angle of play, rather than allowing the player a fw lie with a wild or lesser placed drive.  Again, maybe a logical evolution to clubs and ball technology, and the ability of greens to hold shots, since they are now sand based.

I suppose it would vary every day.

[BCrosby]

Tom -

A couple of years ago I ran some numbers on overall scoring spreads at different Majors. My feeling at the time was that they weren't very reliable because different tournaments have differently composed fields. The Master, for example, had a lot of senior guys shooting 92's. Thus comparing scoring spreads across tournaments may not make sense.

But I'll look at it again. Every tournament has some dogs and cats (relatively speaking). I'm not sure (now that I thnk about it again) that that makes a huge difference in the final scoring spreads you come up with.

Thoughts?

Bob

[Patrick_Mucci]

So where would that 20 yard strip on the 1st at The Old Course be?  I'm not sure you can tell me!  

I could tell you once I was on site and had determined the prevailing directions of the wind for the upcoming event.


How about the ideal 20 yard strip at Pinehurst #2?  

Again, I"d have to be on site to make the final determination.
Absent on site inspection, I'd tend to favor bringing hazards or OB closer to play along with determining the best and worst angles of attack.

Part of the defense of a wide fairway is perception.  If you tell a good player where to hit the ball they will generally do it.  If you make the target less obvious, they can get confused.  

That's not the case with the superior player.
Rarely are they fooled


This is part of the genius of #2.  Almost any golfer can play that course with one golf ball and not have a worry about losing it.  There are acres of fairway to hit to.  But it is quite amazing to watch player after player discuss their rounds afterward and state, "I hit almost every fairway but only hit four or five greens in regulation".  If they played there enough, they might figure out why  

Again, I'm talking about the superior player, not the average player.

Since you brought up Pinehurst # 2, take the competitors in the North-South Amateur or the U.S. Amateur, The Senior Open or the U.S. Open.

I remember that I all but cringed when I heard it but I once listened to an architect state that one way he deals with narrowing wide fairways is to eliminate one side of the hole.  If he for example, thinks the best line of play is mostly on the left, he moves the fairway left (that 20 yard strip that Pat is talking about) and basically eliminates the right side of the hole (hazards and all, because they would look lost if they remained)    What a shame if that was done at Pinehurst #2.

Rough is elastic.
It can be brought in, in relatively short order, and brought back out.

Wide fairways present NO challenge for the superior golfer.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pat,

I agree that wide fw present too little challenge to the superior golfer, and/or put too much emphasis on distance. At the same time, greens have to be too hard (like Pinehurst) for the average golfer to make up for it.

I agree roughs are elastic, until someone puts trees in the rough that they have grown in to make the narrow fw permanent.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I think I was with you, unless you are talking of pro or high level am tourneys.  I was thinking of design for better club players, for club level competitions like the mens championship, etc., or even for the every day $5 nassau, which is unrealistically important to so many golfers.  

Exactly what level were you thinking of ?

Jeff,

Once you do it for the every day $ 5 nassau, you do it for all golfers, thus it becomes the course that everyone plays.

I was thinking of special events for the superior golfer.

High and/or thick rough constitutes a disproportionate penalty for the mid to high handicap player.

First, they're more prone to get in it.
Second, they're less likely to successfully extract themselves from it

As I said, we know generally narrower fw happened.  Did they decide to do it every day as being the "greatest good for the greatest number" or was it, as you suggest in your comment to JES, just a byproduct of the best players at a club dictating design and doing what was best for them?

As to origin, I think it springs from a number of areas.
1     Irrigation systems
2     The desire to seperate the golfers on different holes
3     The trickle down from TV
4     Hosting competitions
5     Budgets

BTW, I think 20 yards would be too narrow in any case, at least on most holes.  And the trend was to be say 30 yards at the 275 mark, but wider further back to introduce full length vs layup strategy, rather than left to right strategy, and with angles, maybe a combo of the two.

Some might take exception to the "hour glass" or in TEPaul's case, the "Wasp Waist" look of the fairways.

As to which side you would put it, it seems counter intuitive to put the 20-30 yards on a bad angle. That means that architecturally you are giving the golfer no good options - its either good angle from the rough or bad angle from the fw.  In my mind, the narrowed fw should reward hitting to the good angle, increasing the problems from the wrong side through reduced spin and angle as equipment gets better.


I agree with that

Conversely, with similar rough on both sides of the fw, it would better reward the player going for the extreme edge of the fw and missing in the rough to that side, at least with angle.  With lighter rough or wider first cut on the premium side, it would still put a premium on being on the correct side of the narrower fw, but it would just be tougher.  

Now you're complicating the maintainance practices and probably impacting budgets.

On the other hand, it would be a greater dilema if the or lighter rough or wider first cut on the non premium side - I guess if you were wild one day, you would play to miss for the lighter rough, if at all, angle be damned.  Playing down the premium side, knowing that a miss puts you in deep doo doo would only be an option if you were driving well.  Would the angle advantage of being in the fw be worth it?

Either way, its using light rough to enhance the advantage of a particular angle of play, rather than allowing the player a fw lie with a wild or lesser placed drive.  Again, maybe a logical evolution to clubs and ball technology, and the ability of greens to hold shots, since they are now sand based.

Because rough can be so difficult to manage in certain weather conditions, I wouldn't advocate adjusting roughs on each hole such that one side of the fairway had higher or lower rough than the other side.  It's too complex and too fraught with error, and too costly.

I suppose it would vary every day.

As I stated, that's too complex, too fraught with error and too costly, not to mention that Mother Nature can ruin your game plan.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I was thinking club tourneys, too. Yeah, rough is probably 4X tougher on the average guy, like any other hazard, but more pervasive. I do think that clubs start something for their tourneys, the players in the tourney rave about it, and it becomes institutionalized in many cases, with the average player being left out of the decision making process.

But rough is vertically elastic, too.  What is normally cut for everyday play at 1.5" can be raised fairly quickly for the club championship. And even short rough reduces spin enough to affect strategy w/o being penal, and work for every day gambling golf .

I think widening out a rough cut of any height would be more practical than having two cuts of rough on either side.  And, if golfers found it a bit tougher or easier than usual on account of weather, they are all affected the same.

But, it makes sense in theory, and might be worth the money at high end clubs.  Those clubs  already spend lavishly on perfect bunkers and a host of other things.  Why stop there in pursuit of a perfect golf course?  Unless their idea is getting the turf easier to play from from anywhere on the course, which is a prevalent opinion in high end clubs, made up of 50 something golfers who recognize their ability is declining.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff,

One of the challenges presented to clubs is that of passifying the older, long term member, and that of attracting the younger prospective member.

It's difficult to prepare/maintain the course for both.
It's hard to serve two masters, and probably not in the best interest of the club to attempt to do so.

A primary obligation of a club is to perpetuate itself.

That being the case, I think you have to prioritize the future of the club over its past, not architecturally, but from a maintainance/set-up perspective.

As the aging process magnifies and intensifies the challenge, you shouldn't accomodate deteriorating abilities through alterations to the golf course other than senior tees.

Clubs that retain the playing challenge understand that.
Seminole, Pine Valley and others have retained that challenge which attracts perspective golfers irrespective of the impact on those whose skills are declining.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()