[Richard Choi]

Within some recent threads, there were a couple questions/disputes on why wide fairways are a good thing.

While there are many good arguments both in aesthetical and startegic in nature, the engineer in me wants to distill it even further. After some thought, the conclusion I came up with is that you want wide fairways because you want, on average, consistent level of difficulty from tee to green.

What does that mean?

Let's say I can hit my 7 iron 150 yards and my driver 250 yards (I think that is pretty typical for a "decent" player). An average green size is about 5000 square feet (although the modern courses tend to be substantially larger), which means they are about 24 yards by 24 yards in dimensions.

From the middle of the fairway 150 yards away with my 7 iron, I have about +/- 4.6 degrees of room for error on my trajectory (left or right) and still hit the green. Obviously, there are many other factors like wind, shape of the shot, etc. but for this discussion I think this simple calculation will suffice.

If I transfer the same room for error (+/- 4.6 degrees) to the driver length of 250 yards, you get equivalent fairway width of 40 yards. That means that (at least for left/right accuracy) hitting a 40 yard wide fairway is about equally difficult as hitting a 7 iron into a 24 yard wide green. Once could argue that you have much more vertical (short long) room for errors with the driver since fairways tend to be much longer than greens, however, since the driver is much longer (magnifying small faults) and you swing at a much higher speed, I believe the difficulty level is still very similar.

What about putts? If a typical putt is from about 30 feet away, +/- 4.6 degrees means you can miss by up to about 2½ feet. Which seems very similar in difficulty with the 7 iron as you are expected to hit 2 putts, and 2½ feet putt should be quite makeable.

So, to me, wide fairways are not just a question about angles and strategy, it is about fairness and consistency. If you make the fairways too narrow, you are asking more out of driver accuracy than iron accuracy or putting accuracy. I prefer courses that test your skills in even fashion, and that means wider fairways. With bigger greens that are popular, the fairways should be easily 40 to 60 yards wide to offer equivalent challenge to the user.

It is all about the fairness.

[George Pazin]

An interesting, thoughtful post, thanks.

For me, it's all about interest, not fairness. Narrow fairways implies someone dictating the necessary shots, and I personally believe that is far less interesting and thus far less fun.

In my crazy world, I'd like to see a giant wide slate of fairway, pocked with hazards of all types, with a green at the other end. How you get there is up to you.

[Bill_McBride]

Richard, haven't you figured out yet that "fairness" is not a GCA.com virtue? 

I prefer wide fairways too, but for two different reasons:

1.    There should be a preferred area within that wide fairway that offers the best angle into whatever today's pin might be,

2.    Width gives the necessary space to deal with various speeds and direction of wind.  "Nae wind nae gowf."

[Mike Nuzzo]

I don't know about all the math, but it does make a good argument for what the average width of a fairway should be.

[Anthony Gray]

  Strategery in the words of George Bush. Wide fairways allow you angle of approach options. TOC hole 1 is an excellent example as to what angle you want for your approach shot. You are not limited by a lak of width.

  Anthony

[Richard Choi]

I prefer wide fairways too, but for two different reasons:

1.    There should be a preferred area within that wide fairway that offers the best angle into whatever today's pin might be,

2.    Width gives the necessary space to deal with various speeds and direction of wind.  "Nae wind nae gowf."

Bill, I think those points are definitely part of my argument.

I would argue that, depending on the pin location, the actual target area you need to hit on the green is much smaller due to ridges and levels. If you figure that on average that a green has 3 distinct sections, that narrows the actual target from 24 yards to perhaps 8 to 12 yards. To reflect the same sort of strategic element in the fairways, ideally, there should be a target about 10 to 20 yards wide on the fairway that should provide you with the best angle to the green.

[Brent Hutto]

Richard, I hate to say this in response to such a carefully reasoned and presented idea but I won't let that stop me 

I think your approach fundamentally misses the entire boat. Misses the ocean the boat is in for that matter. There is no such construct as "consistent level of difficulty" and if it did obtain the result would be a horribly bland form of golf.

Taking my first assertion first, it is impossible to say what tee shot and what approach shot are equal in difficulty as that "calculation" only admits values in relation to some particular golfer. For my part, a tee shot to what most people would consider a narrow fairway is immensely easier than a 160-yard approach shot to what most people would consider an open, accessible green. Getting the ball in the air and keeping it in play whilst teed up and with a 450cc driver in my hands is child's play. But some other "Wild Eddie" type might find hitting even a wide fairway an iffy proposition but be able to fire at the tightest pin with an 8-iron from 160 (comapared to my typically crooked 4-hybrid from that distance).

But even if you could calibrated "level of difficulty" as you wish, why would you want every easy tee shot to be followed by an easy approach (and from there an easy putt?) and a difficult tee shot lead to a difficult approach and so forth. There is much more interest to be gained by mix-and-matching difficulty with great variety and, on the greatest courses, even a subtle sense of rhythmic ebb and flow that suits the routing of the 18 holes. I'd rather see things like a very difficult tee shot, successful execution of which leads to a very easy short iron or a fairway wide as a Kansas wheat field after which the green is only reachable with ones best effort. Mixed in of course with plain old easy-easy or hard-hard holes as well.

[Richard Choi]

Getting the ball in the air and keeping it in play whilst teed up and with a 450cc driver in my hands is child's play.

You and I obviously do not play the same game...

But even if you could calibrated "level of difficulty" as you wish, why would you want every easy tee shot to be followed by an easy approach (and from there an easy putt?) and a difficult tee shot lead to a difficult approach and so forth. There is much more interest to be gained by mix-and-matching difficulty with great variety and, on the greatest courses, even a subtle sense of rhythmic ebb and flow that suits the routing of the 18 holes.

There is nothing wrong with mixing things up (wide fairway/small green or narrow fairway/large green). What I am saying is that ON AVERAGE the difficulty that you face with the driver should be consistent with the difficulty you have with the irons. Otherwise, a course is just favoring a one type of player (obviously a narrower fairway will favor your game over me). I would think a great course will test every facet of the player consistently.

[Ben Sims]

This whole argument reminds me of the current "beer wars" on commercials.

Miller Lite is: "Fairness"
Coors Light is: "Visually Appealing"
Bud Light: "Playability"

I like Adolfus and the gang, so I'll stick with Bud Lite. 

The reason is this:  Playability and recovery options were for so very long in golf course design, a forgotten art.  It is only recently that the golf community is beginning to realize the balance necessary to attract new players, keep the current ones, and challenge the good ones.  I have lots of friends that won't go golfing with me for fear of losing balls, embarrassing themselves, etc.  Courses like We-Ko-Pa Saguaro and Rustic Canyon and Mr. Nuzzo's Wolf Point have created a niche--one that I hope sweeps the architectural world--that makes playability and recovery prominent again. Maybe we'll get more passionate golfers when they play courses like Common Ground.

I don't think it requires a particular fairway width or size of green, but options for every player.  I am not an architect, but I think the best options for keeping every player in the game is to give room to miss, make recovery available but not easy, and use blindness to surprise the golfer in a positive way.  I enjoy finding a ball I'm not supposed to, then having a terrifically hard up and down based on bunkering and undulation. 

This is not to say that I think a course should be a pushover. I think the trick is to use short grass and undulation in a way that makes it fairly simple for Joe High 'Cap to make his 5 or 6.  But it should be well executed shots and more importantly, good putting that gets the birdies.  Width and--more specifically--room to recover is the way to accomplish that.

[Philippe Binette]

With good green complexes (that includes bunkering swales etc), the golf course can be a demanding one even if the entire planet was fairway (think Old Course, North Berwick, Royal Melbourne) and it would be a blast to play... bring in 10 mph of wind, firm and fast conditions and you have a great game.

With unimaginative soft greens with a 2% tilt toward the front... it's basically pointless to have wide fairways, nobody would care about angles...

Remember, the greatest ability of a player is not to make the ball go, it's to make it stop...

Long hitters advantage is not the 25 yards they hit further than others but the 15 feet less they need to stop the ball because they have a loftier club in their hands.

On weak green complexes the only way to stop the best players is to limit their capacity to stop the ball, by making them hit out of the rough 2 or 3 more times a round.

[Sean_A]

With good green complexes (that includes bunkering swales etc), the golf course can be a demanding one even if the entire planet was fairway (think Old Course, North Berwick, Royal Melbourne) and it would be a blast to play... bring in 10 mph of wind, firm and fast conditions and you have a great game.

I believe Phillip is correct.  While I instinctively knew I preferred wide fairways my main reasoning was I don't want to look for golf balls and some width is needed to devlope strategy which offers options.  It was only recently, at Kiawah in fact, that I realized that if a course is built on the premise of width it is damn near impossible not to have interesting shots.  Its not like the green complexes at Kiawah were outstanding, but they didn't need to be.  Does this sound familiar?  Look back at your trips to the UK and count up all the green complexes that you thought were outstanding compared to the ok ones or one that just make sense without being in anyway memorable.  The ratio is heavily weighed toward the ordinary.  Well thought out green complexes combined with all the elements which we love so much about classic courses hung on wide fairway corridors is a solid recipe for design.  To ruin the concept of wide would require the greens would have to be completely lacking in interest.  While I have seen some courses use width better than others I have yet to come across more than a handful of wide courses that were boring. 


As for your theory Richard, I really don't have a clue what you are on about.  I have no idea of what fairness/parity between tee shots and fairway shots means. 


Ciao

[Matthew Runde]

In my crazy world, I'd like to see a giant wide slate of fairway, pocked with hazards of all types, with a green at the other end. How you get there is up to you.

Amen.  Your world and mine.

[Rich Goodale]

Width is good to the degree that it leads to fewer lost golf balls, and can thus both speed up and add to the enjoyment of a game.  Otherwise it is highly overrated, and in fact not really understood by those who haven't much experience playing seemingly wide course that actually play very narrow (e.g. the Old Course).

[Troy Alderson]

Within some recent threads, there were a couple questions/disputes on why wide fairways are a good thing.

While there are many good arguments both in aesthetical and startegic in nature, the engineer in me wants to distill it even further. After some thought, the conclusion I came up with is that you want wide fairways because you want, on average, consistent level of difficulty from tee to green.

What does that mean?

Let's say I can hit my 7 iron 150 yards and my driver 250 yards (I think that is pretty typical for a "decent" player). An average green size is about 5000 square feet (although the modern courses tend to be substantially larger), which means they are about 24 yards by 24 yards in dimensions.

From the middle of the fairway 150 yards away with my 7 iron, I have about +/- 4.6 degrees of room for error on my trajectory (left or right) and still hit the green. Obviously, there are many other factors like wind, shape of the shot, etc. but for this discussion I think this simple calculation will suffice.

If I transfer the same room for error (+/- 4.6 degrees) to the driver length of 250 yards, you get equivalent fairway width of 40 yards. That means that (at least for left/right accuracy) hitting a 40 yard wide fairway is about equally difficult as hitting a 7 iron into a 24 yard wide green. Once could argue that you have much more vertical (short long) room for errors with the driver since fairways tend to be much longer than greens, however, since the driver is much longer (magnifying small faults) and you swing at a much higher speed, I believe the difficulty level is still very similar.

What about putts? If a typical putt is from about 30 feet away, +/- 4.6 degrees means you can miss by up to about 2½ feet. Which seems very similar in difficulty with the 7 iron as you are expected to hit 2 putts, and 2½ feet putt should be quite makeable.

So, to me, wide fairways are not just a question about angles and strategy, it is about fairness and consistency. If you make the fairways too narrow, you are asking more out of driver accuracy than iron accuracy or putting accuracy. I prefer courses that test your skills in even fashion, and that means wider fairways. With bigger greens that are popular, the fairways should be easily 40 to 60 yards wide to offer equivalent challenge to the user.

It is all about the fairness.

Richard,

Well said and thoughtful. I agree with you concerning the degrees and angles and a BOD might come to understand the need for wide fairways through your justification. That same logic should be applied to greens speed also. I will let you figure that out though.

My justification for wide fairways is the beauty of short grass, fewer differing heights of cut, similar nutrient and water requirements, reduction in lost balls, and challenging the golfer through the contours of the land instead of height of cut and vertical hazards golfers call trees. Oh I decided to add in that trees belong only on a golf course when they occur there naturally.

Troy

[Scott Furlong]

Wide fairways = higher maintenance budgets.  The increase will differ depending on grass type but the bottom line is it will cost the club more money.   

[Dunlop_White]

In the 90's, I wrote a little something called "The Shrinking Fairway". It may need updating a bit? Anyway, the link is below:

http://golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/the-shrinking-fairway.html

[Norbert P]

 Just a few examples of wide fairway holes that wouldn't be as interesting if they were narrow . . .

Talking Stick North #2
Bandon Dunes #11
Wine Valley #4
Pacific Dunes #4
Wildhorse #6
Bandon Crossings #10
Bandon Trails #13
etc. etc. etc.

 The firmness of these greens accentuates the value of fairway width.

[Niall C]

  Strategery in the words of George Bush. Wide fairways allow you angle of approach options. TOC hole 1 is an excellent example as to what angle you want for your approach shot. You are not limited by a lak of width.

  Anthony

Anthony,

You might not be limited by lack of width but you are "limited" by the burn in front of the green such that I think most players would aim for the centre area of the 1st and 18th fairways to allow the easiest angle to the green ie. one which allows an approach that allows the player to partially take the burn out of play by landing their ball to the left of the green and letting it run on. Now the fact that aplayer who pushes or pulls their drive may be playing from the fairway rather than rough isn't of much merit in my opinion. The fact remains there is a fairly obvious way to play the hole.

As Rich says, a lot of these supposedly wide open courses actually play narrow.

Niall 

[Rich Goodale]

"The fact remains there is a fairly obvious way to play the hole."

Niall

You are spot on, and this truism remains "truist" for at least 99% of the golf holes that I have played--in the UK, the USA and other continents.  Richard Choi is very right, and if any of you managed to make it past (or remember) elementary geometry  (necessary emoticon inserted) you will understand his basic thesis--to get really "wide" you need to shank or duck hook.  Even George Pazin wouldn't advocate that design accomodate such a strategery, or would he.........

Rich

PS--as you know I played 36 at Glasgow Gailes a week ago, and my report will be very favourable.  Relatiive to this thread, I can say that it seems very wide, but effectively it is very narrow.  You can spray the ball , but you lose fractional shots for every one degree that you stray, on most holes.  Which bings up an interesing point.  For the average player (hcp 18, USAG index ~16), eery hole should be, on average, a bogey hole.

[Anthony Gray]

Just a few examples of wide fairway holes that wouldn't be as interesting if they were narrow . . .

Talking Stick North #2
Bandon Dunes #11
Wine Valley #4
Pacific Dunes #4
Wildhorse #6
Bandon Crossings #10
Bandon Trails #13
etc. etc. etc.

 The firmness of these greens accentuates the value of fairway width.

  Good examples Slag. I love the 6th at Pac Dunes for this reason. The left side looks so invitind...until you are down there.

  Anthony

[Kalen Braley]

I'm just wondering where in the hell he got this +/- 4.6% variance number from.  Obviously he never played with the likes of me or Garland.

That small of a variance on every shot sounds downright delightful!!!    

[Garland Bayley]

Wide fairways = higher maintenance budgets.  The increase will differ depending on grass type but the bottom line is it will cost the club more money.   

Apparently you are not familiar with courses that cut their rough as uniformly as they cut their fairways. However at a different height.

Naively perhaps I think such courses are spending more money than they would if they cut it all as fairway.

[Garland Bayley]

I'm just wondering where in the hell he got this +/- 4.6% variance number from.  Obviously he never played with the likes of me or Garland.

That small of a variance on every shot sounds downright delightful!!!    

Kalen,

I have found the solution. Let's play all shots as putts. We can set scoring records that way.

[Kalen Braley]

I'm just wondering where in the hell he got this +/- 4.6% variance number from.  Obviously he never played with the likes of me or Garland.

That small of a variance on every shot sounds downright delightful!!!    

Kalen,

I have found the solution. Let's play all shots as putts. We can set scoring records that way.

Garland,

With the way i've been playing the last year or so, that sounds like a good idea.  Get yourself out to Utah and we'll play some proper cart-ball tracks.  Just don't tell Melyvn we did so though.   

[Patrick_Mucci]

 the conclusion I came up with is that you want wide fairways because you want, on average, consistent level of difficulty from tee to green.

Richard,

I think the flaw in your premise is your assumption that driving in the fairway leaves the golfer with a universally equal, and prefereed approach angle to the green.

An examination of the 1st fairway and green at GCGC illustrates the flaw in your premise.

Drives hit left of middle are faced with a dicey approach over a large, deep fronting bunker with bunkers directly behind the line of approach.
Drives hit right of middle are faced with a wide open approach with no such impediments.
Approaches can be putted (Neil Regan style) or Wedged since nothing but fairway exists between the golfer and the green.

There are holes where being in a particular sector of the fairway offers a but a single advantage, the lie.
Golfers may be far better off in the rough in one location as opposed to being in another sector of the fairway.

What does that mean?

Let's say I can hit my 7 iron 150 yards and my driver 250 yards (I think that is pretty typical for a "decent" player). An average green size is about 5000 square feet (although the modern courses tend to be substantially larger), which means they are about 24 yards by 24 yards in dimensions.

From the middle of the fairway 150 yards away with my 7 iron, I have about +/- 4.6 degrees of room for error on my trajectory (left or right) and still hit the green. Obviously, there are many other factors like wind, shape of the shot, etc. but for this discussion I think this simple calculation will suffice.

But, the other factors are some of, if not THE critical factors.

The configuration of the green/surrounds as it relates to the DZ is paramount.
The contour of the green/surrounds as it relates to the DZ is paramount
The slope of the green/surrounds as it relates to the DZ is paramount.

To illustrate the above, let's pretend that a drive is hit to a DZ and that the DZ is 50 yards wide.
And that DZ now leaves the golfer with an approach that mirrors that on of the approach from the 4th tee at NGLA, the Redan hole.
The tee is probably 10 yards wide.
Try hitting into that green from 40 yards left or 40 yards right of that tee.
Then factor in the winds that typically blow on that hole.

Another perfect example, found at NGLA, is the 1st hole.
Hit your drive in the fairway to the far right and you have a blind shot over a large gaping bunker from an awkward lie to a green that's not necessarily receptive to approaches from that angle.

Hit your drive in the left/left center of the fairway and you have a perfect view of the green and an unimpeded approach that is just fairway.
On your approach you can hit clubs from driver to putter to a green that's far more receptive from that angle.


If I transfer the same room for error (+/- 4.6 degrees) to the driver length of 250 yards, you get equivalent fairway width of 40 yards.

I think that's the second flaw.
I don't think you can equate margins of error on the 7 iron and driver, and, you can't equate the targets because DZ's tend to be receptive to all drives hit from the designated tees, whereas all approaches from the DZ aren't equal..

That means that (at least for left/right accuracy) hitting a 40 yard wide fairway is about equally difficult as hitting a 7 iron into a 24 yard wide green.

See my comment above.

Once could argue that you have much more vertical (short long) room for errors with the driver since fairways tend to be much longer than greens, however, since the driver is much longer (magnifying small faults) and you swing at a much higher speed, I believe the difficulty level is still very similar.

What about putts? If a typical putt is from about 30 feet away, +/- 4.6 degrees means you can miss by up to about 2½ feet. Which seems very similar in difficulty with the 7 iron as you are expected to hit 2 putts, and 2½ feet putt should be quite makeable.

I think another flaw surfaces here.
The 7 iron is usually hit a very finite distance.  In your example, 150 yards.
With a putt, you're JUST factoring in left/right margins of error, ignoring vertical errors.

So, to me, wide fairways are not just a question about angles and strategy, it is about fairness and consistency. If you make the fairways too narrow, you are asking more out of driver accuracy than iron accuracy or putting accuracy.

That would depend upon what the golfer is faced from the DZ to, and on the green.

Oakmont, Winged Foot and other courses are testimony that just because you're on the green doesn't mean that the challenge has been diminished.

I prefer courses that test your skills in even fashion, and that means wider fairways. With bigger greens that are popular, the fairways should be easily 40 to 60 yards wide to offer equivalent challenge to the user.

Could you name five (5) courses with 40-60 yard wide fairways with big greens ?

Don't wider fairways accomodate a broader spectrum of golfers ?

Good golfers, mediocre golfers, poor golfers, hookers, slicers, short drivers, long drivers, low ball hitters, high ball hitters ?

Without difficult rough, what, meaningfully, seperates wide fairways from modest to narrow fairways ?

It is all about the fairness.

Are you sure it's not about offering a reasonable and enjoyable challenge, on the same field of play, to all level of golfers ?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()