Walter Travis and the 75 yds Wide Fairway.

[Paul Stephenson]

Thanks to the link to the Open Library left in another thread I've been reading "Practical Golf," by Walter Travis.

In his chapter on  he talks about the width of a course:

"The width of the fair green should be about seventy-five yards.  Particular attention should be paid to the places where good shots should go, say from one hundred and twenty to two hundred and twenty yards from the tee, and so on correspondingly with long holes, so that each good shot should be rewarded with a good lie.  Rather let the intervening ground go somewhat neglected, as a player has no business there anyway.  On the sides hazards should be arranged to catch sliced or pulled balls, where long grass is not present.  Endeavor to so construct the hazards as to furnish some diversity, rather than have them all of the same family type."

By "fair green," does Travis mean fairway + rough or just fairway?  If the 75 yards is fairway only, did he build anything that resembles this description?  I've only played one Travis course (Lookout Point) and the fairways were not this wide.  This excerpt sounds a lot like what Jones and MacKenzie did years later at Augusta National.

What is the width of the "fair green" today?  My guess is that even with fairway plus rough it is not as wide as Travis' 75 yards.

Any thoughts?

[Tom_Doak]

Paul:

In the old days the fairways on most courses were 60-75 yards wide.  They were narrowed when fairway irrigation became standard and the clubs didn't want to irrigate that much area.

Augusta's fairways were around 75 yards wide up until the narrowing ten years ago.

[TEPaul]

"Paul:
In the old days the fairways on most courses were 60-75 yards wide."

TomD:

Do you really think so? I certainly know that some of them were (and still are today) but it seems to me even at their widest the basic "standard" width back then was pretty much 50-55 yards. I've read that in a few places from the old days although I don't believe any of those I read that from back then were architects.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom:

You are right, I was probably being a little generous.  The only ones I can remember off the top of my head are Merion's, many of which were 60 yards wide on the old aerial I saw.  Garden City's were something close to that as well.  But 50-60 yards was probably more like the standard.

[Paul Stephenson]

Thanks for the quick answer.

Are playing widths sort of like golf's version of hem lines?  Wider in some eras and more narrow in others?

If this is the case, are we in the mini-skirt era or the more conservative 80s?

[Ian Andrew]

Paul,

I think this photo answers your question

The image is the Country Club of Scranton - I think 1935 - but I'll need to find the reference to know for sure.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

You may recall, when you visited GCGC a few years ago that you measured the 3rd fairway and it was about 55-60 yards wide.

I suspect # 3 is about that width.

Many other holes remain quite wide, at those widths or a little less.

Travis was an advocate of wide fairways with penal conditions beyond their boundaries.

[Scott Witter]

Ian:

The photo of CC of Scranton is very interesting.  Since you are quite familiar with this club due to your work and since I have not experienced it personally, can you tell us, is the site flattish?  I ask because it appears that many/most of the bunkers have abrupt mounds supporting them and I wondered if this was for visual reasons, or was this one of Travis' early works and this is how he treated them?  Another observation, I find it also interesting that many of the bunkers have 3 distinct mounds associated with them...I have seen this on other Travis work, but not used nearly as repetitive as I see in this picture, can you comment?

Lastly, the hole in the lower left of the picture--there is a bunker wide right as looking from the tee that clearly appears to have a mound directly in the line of play that would seem to block the view into the bunkers.  Is this so and did you find it this way when you began your work?

[Mike_Cirba]

Ian,

What a fabulous, fascinating picture of a course I've very fond of.   

Scott,

I can't answer your other questions but the site is hardly flat and quite hilly in stretches.  Generally, though, the course is built on one long slope heading down away from the clubhouse, bottoming out in front of the 11th green, and then beginning a climb to the end of the property in that direction.

[Paul Stephenson]

Thanks Ian.  That answers it.

[Scott Witter]

Mike:

My fault...I have been to and through Scranton on a few occasions and know that it is anything but flat, oops.  Here is hoping Ian has some time to respond.

[Dan Moore]

The photos I have of some Langford plans from the 1920's show fairways consistently in the 60-65 yards wide range. 

There was one 280yd hole on the nle Acacia GC that was almost 100 yds wide, but that was clearly an exception. 

[Ian Andrew]

Scott,

Sorry, I've been pretty busy. The site is quite rolling and many holes have some wonderful drops in them. The hole on the bottom left is 1460' at the tee and is 1516" at the green. That will probably help a lot.

The work was completed in 1925 - which would be towards the end of his career. He used the technique of large mounds to make the bunkers show up since no sand was made visible. Your spot in with the observation of the three mound pattern. Many plans show the same patterns but this is the one course that I know where he seemed to stick with the pattern. There are existing examples around at Lookout Point. I have no other record of this pattern being so repetative.

The mounds often told you where to go - there are great examples at Lookout that still exist where you take dead aim over the top -although the mounds are much smaller in the photo I sent.

Scott, sadly the bunkers at Scranton are all gone - the aim is to rebuild them back to what you see.

Lookout Point 15th hole

[Tom_Doak]

Ian:

The oddest looking thing about that picture of Scranton are the trees in the middle of the mowed fairway on 14 & 15.

[Tim Nugent]

Tom,

So I take it you were in the "cut it down" camp pertaining to the 17th at Crystal Downs? 

[Peter Pallotta]

I'm not very good at making out what I'm seeing in these old photos, but from what I can tell the greenside bunkers on several holes don't seem to be taking much advantage of the very wide fairways.  That is, the greenside bunkers are often placed on both sides of a given green, almost as mirror images...so they don't seem to be 'working backwards' very well, i.e. making one side or the other or one specific spot on the fairway the preferred or ideal of strategic choice. But no one else here has mentioned this yet, so I'm guessing I'm seeing this wrong and/or am missing something...  

Peter  

[TEPaul]

Peter:

Some of those greens may not need too much help from greenside bunkers and their arrangement. Ian would definitely know better but my recollection is some of those greens themselves have stuff going on that casts strategy backwards down the hole. Don't forget one of the things totally paramount with Walter Travis was he was one helluva putter so interesting greens were probably bound to follow!

[Ian Andrew]

Tom,

All the trees are still there at the 15th and are huge oaks - no plans to remove them - although I will add none are in the fairway anymore. The width was returned but not quite as wide and not under the trees. The key tree on the 14th is a willow (a replacement but huge) and is slated to go.

Peter,

The greens may be the most complicated set I have ever seen (3 rebuilds aside). To reach pockets, you must play to certain positions, quite often on the opposite side of the fairway like the case at the 9th.

[Scott Witter]

Ian,

Thanks and glad your busy!

Was the use of these mounds in this manner a style or favorite technique of Travis?  There are a few architects of the time that did so, but not many and not that often.  Interesting.

I rember seeing Lookout several years ago and thinking similarly about the mounds.

The picture is exactly what I expected...though as you say these are not very big.  I am also curious about such mounds because Transit Valley CC has the remnants of 2 such bunkers where there are abrupt mounds and sand tucked within them completely hidden from the tee and even up to 100 feet away.  The bunkers--they don't have any sand in them now, looked perfect if the hole was played/designed in reverse, but I have the 1927 aerial photo, 2 years after the course opened and this is how it was built.

I thought I remember you saying once here that all you had left was to complete the bunkers at Scranton.  I surely hope you are successful in restoring their vintage character, just as Travis wanted.

Peter:

That is a good observation.  I sort of wondered about this too, but the 3 mound bunker scheme caught my eye first  Maybe some of this relates to the contour on the putting surfaces.  As you know, Travis was not bashful about creating some VERY bold putting surfaces and this could the case here.  Ian would know best and maybe he'll respond again.

Tom:

I am glad you noticed those trees.  I picked up those as well and also wondered about that section of fairway that seems to extend past one of the trees near the roadway on the left??

Finally, I didn't realize that the course was 27 holes.  Ian, was this always the case?

[Scott Witter]

Ian, thanks...while I was typing my reply, yours and Tom Paul's came in before I was finished

[Peter Pallotta]

TE, Ian, Scott  - thanks very much.

I'd honestly not even considered the greens themselves or their contours, and wouldn't have thought to look for those even if I could've made them out from the photo.

I think what got me commenting was that, when I think of my imaginary naturalistic golf course and its 75-yard wide fairways, I often imagine it bunker-less, or at least not with bunkers arranged like those in the photo, which I associate with another type of golf course architecture entirely.

I'm still thinking in 'black-and-white' about these kinds of historical issues/courses; and I'm still always surprised to find how the old architects mixed-and-matched ideas and techniques/styles in a very practical and 'on-the-ground' way.

By the way, TE, those Architectural Evolution Reports you mentioned on the other thread sound like a GREAT idea, and the best way to help dispel erroneous rumours and theories fuelled by guys like me…

Peter
 

[Paul Stephenson]

Is Transit Valley CC a Travis?  I've played two then.  Really enjoyed Transit Valley when I played there as a junior.  Now I know why.  The Head Pro was a Canadian if I remember too.

What hole had the  mounds?  The only one I remember was #9.  I think it was a long par 3.

[Scott Witter]

Paul:

No, TVCC is not a Travis design.  If it was, I probably would have lost the project to Ian 

I made the reference because Ian has toured the course and is familiar with it.  I am also not sure we are speaking about the same course.  The TVCC I know is located in East Amherst NY, just north of Buffalo, is this the one you played as a junior?  It does sound the same because #9 is a long par-3, 223 yds from the back and yes, the 9th is the one with the odd mounds in the approach.  BTW, those mounds are not original to the course, but they will likely stay as the club has grown used to them   They were put in during the early 40's.

[Paul Stephenson]

Hi Scott,

Thanks for the info.

That is the one.  I played a US Junior qualifier there.  Although it was 20 years ago, I still remember quite a few holes.  9 was the only hole I remember with those mounds.

Are there going to be many changes to the course?