Fairway Width vs "Sustainability"

[Neil_Crafter]

Here in Australia we hear a lot about sustainability these days, especially with respect to golf courses and water. Water use, regardless of its source, is becoming more and more critical. This is then tied into maintained area of turf, and the use of inputs such as water, fertiliser, pesticides and maintenance labour.

My question then is how this aspect sits with a desire to increase fairway widths over the 40m or so which up until now has been considered "average" for the want of a better word. I noticed on the thread about Tom Doak's Bahia de los Suenos course that fairway widths were up to 90m in places. Here in Australia Mike Clayton is leading the charge for increased fairway widths - not just theoretically, he is actually putting them on the ground. Anecdotally I have heard that The Lakes in Sydney, recently rebuilt by Mike, is now maintaining significantly greater turf area than before its redesign/reconstruction. This obviously must be costing the club more in inputs, which the members ultimately have to support in a financial sense.

At Royal Adelaide, Mike has built a new 17th hole that comes down from a reachable par 5 to a long par four, but I have been told that the turf area is almost double now compared to the old hole, and fairway width is at least 100m in places which I can vouch for having walked the new hole with Ian Andrew while it was growing in (is it in play yet Mike?). We know the benefits architecturally of width in a hole, but will pressures of "sustainability" ultimately see these fairways being narrowed at some time in the future? And are architects being responsible to their clients when they suggest significantly wider faiways, and thus increased turf areas to maintain?

Interested in people's thoughts on this one. Clayts?

[Ian Larson]

If you look at a course like Todd Eckenrodes Barona Creek reducing maintained areas to be more sustainable with water use, I think it's quite simple that by enlarging maintained area you are going in just the opposite direction of "sustainable". If in fact the enlarged fairway area is maintained like the average fairway with mowing, watering and chemical application....more area = less sustainable. 

[Tim Nugent]

Neil, good question and I think it's one we all wrestle with, if not consciously then, subconsciously.  I would be that most all GCA's would favor wide, but most all super's would favor the opposite.  So it probably comes down to who the client is (how deep are the pockets) and what HIS priorities are.  The problem with notions like "Sustainablity" is it is what everyone thinks the other guy should be doing.  But when it comes to his backyard, well....

If history has taught us any lessons, I fear that just like many wide fairways were narrowed overtime on classic courses, the same will happen with those being built today.  It may just have to be a more programmed act.  Unlike older courses, one cannot simply change the mowing pattern to narrow a fairway.  Today you have different grasses and complex irrigation to contend with.  But eventually, the year-in, year-out cost will trump a one-time expense and if that is where the priorities lie...say goodbye.

One thing that has the architect at a disadvantage is that he is never around to defend the design.  And if the bottom line is of a greater priority than the original design intent, he will lose everytime.

You also saw this with the elimination of sand bunkers in the Depression and War years.

One unforeseen problem with this thinking is that once the fairways are narrowed, and the roughs enlarged, many times the scale of the two gets out of whack and they just plant some trees to adjust the scale.  So, not only are the fairways narrowed, but the effective playing width has been narrowed too!

Many times I have been charged with the task of making existing fairways play wider but not adding any more square feet of fairway turf.  I call this, "Strip and Flip".  But going in the other direction doesn't afford this possiblity and hence more expensive.

My guess you will see management companies leading the charge when it comes to narrowing fairways.

[David_Tepper]

One can certainly compensate for the effort required to maintain wider fairways in the playing areas by reducing the maintenance effort in the first 50-100 yards in front of each tee.

On most golf courses I see (in the U.S.), the first 50-100 yards in front of each tee is certainly watered as intensively as all the playing areas on the course. In some cases these areas are mown & groomed as often as the playing areas as well. The water that could be saved by watering these areas less often could be used to maintain wider fairways in the landing zones and playing areas on the course.

     

[Emil Weber]

I would rather play on an 80 metre wide fairway that is poorly maintained and all brown and yellow with a nice little centerline bunker than on a 30 metre wide fairway which is perfectly watered and manicured. Is that an option? Would these two types of fairways be on a same level regarding watering and maintenance? Thanks

[Charlie Goerges]

If in fact the enlarged fairway area is maintained like the average fairway with mowing, watering and chemical application....more area = less sustainable. 

I think that is the key. Ian, what would you say if besides going with a wider fairway one also went with a taller height of cut, say 3/4"? Could significantly less inputs of water be used in a situation like that?

[Mike Nuzzo]

One can certainly compensate for the effort required to maintain wider fairways in the playing areas by reducing the maintenance effort in the first 50-100 yards in front of each tee.

80 acres of fairway - no other irrigation or highly maintained areas
It depends on average rainfall

[Chris Tritabaugh]

Emil is on the right track. Having wider fairways, maintained with high inputs is not going to sustainable. If a course is going to be restored or built with wide fairways and be sustainable then the inputs must be reduced. Reducing water is the key. A reduction in water can lead to a reduction in fertilizer, pesticides and mowing and the savings can be dramatic. A reduction of inputs does not mean a reduction in quality. A different idea of quality is required but not a reduction in quality.

[Tom_Doak]

Neil:

I think you are right that we all have to look at the big picture, but I also think you have to look at the big picture.

Wide fairways can be sustainable if there are compensating factors ... i.e., unirrigated and unmanaged roughs, fine fescue fairways which require less inputs, bermuda fairways which you keep firm and don't overseed in winter, etc.

In the end you need a certain width to be able to find the ball and hit it again.  Whether keeping that area as fairway instead of rough requires a lot more maintenance and more water, depends on the grass types, and on the attitude of the owner and superintendent.

P.S.  I'm writing from Askernish ... as sustainable as they come.

[Ian Larson]

If in fact the enlarged fairway area is maintained like the average fairway with mowing, watering and chemical application....more area = less sustainable. 

I think that is the key. Ian, what would you say if besides going with a wider fairway one also went with a taller height of cut, say 3/4"? Could significantly less inputs of water be used in a situation like that?

It certainly could Charlie. But I guess 3/4" fairway height starts to get into that zone of playability versus the architecture. On fairway cut 3/4" is pretty high IMO. And will start cutting into the firmness and fastness of the ground game. Just like severely sloped greens versus height of cut I think the same could be said about the overall course with fairway contour and its height of cut. If the topography is severe 3/4" could be very appropriate and still give in to a ground game. If fairways were maintained as much as greens and it were easy to get 3/4" grass blades to all be dense and stand up straight like brush bristles to provide consistency That height would work, but 3/4" is alot of leaf blade and I think it would be laying over here and there in different directions.

[Ian Larson]

If superintendents maintained large areas like fairways in a truly sustainable approach, architects could make them as big as they wanted. But the reality is that the guys who do maintain in a truly "sustainable" approach are in the minority.

Just like a wetland mitigation in construction, you take away 1 and give back 2. As stated earlier more fairway could be mitigated in place of less out of play maintained areas. That works but I think on top of that the fairway acreage should truly be maintained to be sustaining itself.

So not only mitigating out of play acreage for more fairway acreage but also implementing an organic approach to the added inputs needed for the extra area. For example, really being serious about collecting clippings from the fairways and making compost tea to keep recycling its nutrients to sustain itself. Also going with a holistic approach with disease pressure and the accepted threshold.

If acreage was mitigated and the extra acreage could support itself I think the larger area to be maintained and its costs could be offset in a 1:2 fashion like wetlands. Which IMO is enough to justify itself and truly be able to use the label "sustainable".

[Jud_T]

TomD,

I'm sure I'm not the only one here who'd love to here some of your impressions of Askernish.....

[Bill_McBride]

If fairways and greens were maintained in a much more firm and fast condition than we usually find here in the States, the water consumption would go way down.  I think turf management is as important as fairway width.  I also like the idea of not watering, or minimally watering, the area between tee and fairway.  Of course this would have to be sure ladies tees are taken into account in the planning.

[John Moore II]

I have noticed among most courses that I have played that the irrigation tends to go from treeline to treeline anyway, to include the rough being irrigated. At Tobacco Road, they have very wide fairways, but very narrow roughs. The actual second cut of turf grass is only about a mower width total. So, if that is the case, then it is fine to have wide fairways. However, it can turn into a problem if you want 75 yard wide fairways plus 30 yards of irrigated rough on either side. Most courses I have played have 75-100 yard wide playing corridors anyway. If 75 of that is fairway and only 25 rough, then its the same as having 40 fairway and 60 rough. I think fairway width is not so much a problem but overall width of the playing corridor. If the overall width increases then it will cause cost problems, but so long as the overall width can stay the same and just make more of it short grass, its not an issue, I don't think.

[Neil_Crafter]

Thanks for everyone's thoughts and comments on this subject. I am not necessarily coming down on one side or another, just wanted to canvas some view.

Tom, understand when the fairways are fine fescue such as at Barnbougle or Bandon. Here on the mainland of Australia fairways are bermuda (couch) as you know, and the inputs are not minimal, especially at high end clubs like The Lakes and Royal Adelaide. Will these ultra wide fairways survive the pressures they will surely endure. While wide fairways with options sends a good message re strategic golf, it is unfortunately not sending a good message re water use and sustainability which can only be used by those looking to denigrate our game from an environmental perspective.

[John Moore II]

Neil-Your questions go back to what I said about overall playing corridor widths. Most courses I know of irrigate the rough as well as the fairway. So, in those cases, it really doesn't matter if the grass is maintained short or long, its all getting water. It all depends on how the whole area is designed. If designed with wide fairways and really narrow roughs, then its no different than mid-width fairways and mid-width roughs. See what I am trying to say?

[michael damico]

I think there are alot of good replies which touch on all aspects of this topic. The one thing I'm disappointed in not seeing mentioned was the fact of the new irrigation practices. I do not fully know of the irrigation capabilities myself, but understand that there is a more conscious effort of placing irrigation heads and restraining their outputs - all site specific. (To the guys who may know, does this technology cost much more?)

Digressing, the fact that some areas of the fairway just don't necessarily need to be maintained (watered) as much as well, say tees, landing areas and green surrounds hasn't come up. In most of the 'classics'  which we all have read, the bigwigs of the profession speak of similar ilk. Do you think that most golfers can get over the Augusta syndrome and allow for areas to be less green - even brown at times - than other areas? Do we not need to sell that as one aspect of sustainability to the golfing public as designers in the profession? Yes, water output is a nice figure to throw out there as a marketing tool, even for Audubon Certification, but how fine of a line is it to push the bubble per-se and try and teach old dogs new tricks? (which actually should be almost reverting back to the old tricks)

Once that is established, then our fairway widths can be larger, all of which the positives have been aforementioned.

[Mike_Clayton]

Neil,

It is true we have build some wide fairways but my advocation of them is, in part, an effort to ensure we don't go down the path of narrowing fairways in order to combat the ball - something that is a natural road to go down for committees looking for an easy answer.
The Lakes is kikuyu and there isn't that much more fairway grass - even though there appears to be at first glance.There is a common piece of fairway between 2 and 8 but aside from that the front nine fairway lines changed very little and the back nine hardly changed at all. There is more short grass at the end of the 14th fairway - joined now with 15 - but we took an equivalent amount off the 13th when we sortened the hole by 40 meters.
Royal Queensland has a lot of short grass - but there has hardly been a water shortage up there over the last few years - although there is no guarantee that will go on forever.
Royal Melbourne has always been the champioin of short grass in Australia and it will be interesting to see how they go with the combination of new fairway grass and a new dam.
Victoria is probably the course where we have added quite significantly to the amount of short grass but they are very aware of the amount of water they use - and they use it wisely.

[Mike_Clayton]

Neil,

A more interesting debate in Australia and golf course water use is the number of courses we have. There are significant towns here - for obvious reasons I won't name there - where there are five or six not very good courses all being watered when the towns would be much better off closing the majority (because they are not very good courses) and building and watering one or two really good courses.
I can think of one such town where there is a great piece of land ten minutes out of the town that would make an amazing course - and they are currently watering six very ordinary courses - all struggling along with between 3 and 600 members.
In terms of water use there is really only one answer.

[Jason Topp]

I thought Stoneagle was an excellent example of a wide course that had limited turf.  Perhaps, the approach of shared fairways and big blotches of unmaintained hazards is a way to have the best of both worlds.

[Bill_McBride]

I thought Stoneagle was an excellent example of a wide course that had limited turf.  Perhaps, the approach of shared fairways and big blotches of unmaintained hazards is a way to have the best of both worlds.

Is it Palm Springs or Phoenix that has the 90 acre irrigated turf limit?

[Tim Nugent]

AZ has the 'irrigated' turf area restrictions

[John Moore II]

I thought Stoneagle was an excellent example of a wide course that had limited turf.  Perhaps, the approach of shared fairways and big blotches of unmaintained hazards is a way to have the best of both worlds.

Is it Palm Springs or Phoenix that has the 90 acre irrigated turf limit?

90 irrigated acres is a lot. It goes back to my saying we need to get away from irrigating the entire course, rough, trees and all. Just irrigate the fairway and let the rough just be natural.

[Matthew Petersen]

I thought Stoneagle was an excellent example of a wide course that had limited turf.  Perhaps, the approach of shared fairways and big blotches of unmaintained hazards is a way to have the best of both worlds.

Is it Palm Springs or Phoenix that has the 90 acre irrigated turf limit?

90 irrigated acres is a lot. It goes back to my saying we need to get away from irrigating the entire course, rough, trees and all. Just irrigate the fairway and let the rough just be natural.

The WeKoPa Saguaro course really succeeds in this regard. It's firm and fast, has virtually no maintained rough, but has very wide fairways so it seems wider and more fair than many other desert/target courses.

[Carl Rogers]

This thread may tie into one that I started a while back concerning reducing the number of mowing heights.  I think there was a general consensus of the those who know more than I that reducing the number of mowing heights will lead to a simplicity (and thus cost) of maintenance.

Will the members of high end clubs tolerate a greater variability of playing conditions form dry weather to wet weather?

[Tags:]

Tags: