Width, what's it all about ?

[Garland Bayley]

Not wanting to be argumentative but I do not agree with "proportionate penalization" as any sort of rubric for evaluating a golf course. What in the world is wrong with a shot or a hole on which the worst place to be is quite close to the safest place to be? Or where there are wild-ass shots that end up OK?

I think it is a meaningless term. If you have a completely flat treeless, hazardless course with flat greens, then you have the perfect "proportionate penalization" course. Every ball that doesn't go on a direct line from tree to hole is penalized exactly in direct proportion to the amount it deviates from the direct line. Although, it is a perfect course for Matt Ward and his 47 1/2 driver with 2 1/2 degrees of loft that he uses to set long ball records on airport runways with.

[Steve Kline]

I agree George. There is a basically never a need to water rough imo. In Cincinnati we have Kentucky bluegrass rough for the most part - the same grass that is in my yard. I never water my yard and the grass would be prefect to play out of. Even if I let it get 2-4 inches long it would still be playable because it would be thin and dry. Sometimes the ball might sit up and sometimes it might find a bare spot and sit down. So, it gets a little brown and maybe a few weedy type grasses.

[Bill Gayne]

Width entices thoughtless golfers to play haphazard golf.

[Peter Pallotta]

Really nice posts on this thread, thanks.  

Niall -  It's not so much that I like wide fairways as that I dislike the opposite.  It's mostly an aesthetic preference for me, i.e. the things that make a potentially wider fariway more narrow -- eg. rough that wraps completely around fairway bunkers that should instead be in the fairways or on the very edges of fairways -- just makes the hole look unattractive to me, and contrived.

Peter

[Adam Clayman]

There's nothing more senseless to me than having ground contours covered in long rough. Be it a repetitive stream of unnatural, obviously constructed, mounding,  or, natural rolls. I'll admit, covering the natural rolls is the greater shame. Prairie Dunes justification for covering their wonderful terrain, might be an acceptable justification, even if it goes against the fundamental principle of allowing balls to bounce and roll to their unpredictable conclusion.

[Andy Troeger]

I agree with the premise of not turbocharging/overwatering the rough, and in most places I can see how you could get away without even watering it. That doesn't work for everyone, however--if you don't water grass in the Albuquerque it wouldn't last more than about a month in the summer.

I love wide fairways, but I do think they make life easier on the better player. Sure, some might overthink the situation, but I'll take a "miss" that gives a bad angle from the fairway over being in the rough (probably still with a bad angle) any day of the week. You might still have to take your medicine a bit for the poor tee shot, but the main "hazard" there might be the lack of doing so! That makes it more fun and IMO better, but still easier. The game is hard enough for 99.9% of us anyway, so no issue there.

[Adam Clayman]

I'd add that it leads to arbitrary rough lines. Take the 11th at Pebble Beach as the prime example of a thoughtless rough line. And the Lake course at the O club as the prime example of arbitrary.

Most supers learn their trade without the comprehensiveness of fully understanding the sport.

I spoke with one the other day who seemed to place a lot of focus on the color of the grasses. In this instance we were talking about his green collars. I was trying to explain that the design warranted a lower HOC because without it, the kick plates a player could use to access pin positions was made irrelevant. I made no head way.  

[Adrian_Stiff]

Width entices thoughtless golfers to play haphazard golf.

If things are too wide I am 100% agreeing with your post. The game of golf requires straight hitting. Its the game.

[Niall C]

Without good green design width is just more room to hit the ball. Sort of how the hairy edged bunker became the symbol of minimalism, width has become a trend because it seems like the "in" architects are building wider courses. Problem is the trend setters have width as just one of the reasons their holes are good, their greens being the main reason.
Wider fwys shouldn’t always mean bigger greens. In fact I think an argument could be made for just the opposite.

Don

I'm sorry I didn't get a chance to respond to your post last night before I went off line. I think what you say is what I'm getting at. Of the few "wide" courses I've played I've had the impression they are wide purely to keep the ball in play. My problem with that is that it makes the drive if not meaningless, certainly less important and less fun.

And on your point about the size of the green, I totally agree. The bigger the target for the second the less reason to be in a specific part of the fairway with the drive therefore it becomes an aimless exercise in hitting the ball as hard as you can off the tee. I'm obviously exaggerating and taking it to extreme in saying that but the principles the same.

Niall

[Chris Buie]

Width entices thoughtless golfers to play haphazard golf.

If things are too wide I am 100% agreeing with your post. The game of golf requires straight hitting. Its the game.

Hmm.  Well then, lets plant a lot of trees down both sides of the first fairway of St. Andrews.  Throw in some rough to really tighten it up.  Then it can be a real golf course. 

[TEPaul]

On the really good holes I've seen that have a ton of fairway width I've yet to see one where you can just hit it all over the place on them and completely get away with it on the shot at hand or on the next shot!

[Niall C]

Niall:

I played a four-ball at Crystal Downs yesterday with my cousin and his son and his son's friend -- all reasonable 10-handicap players.  The fairways are not ridiculously narrow, but the rough was up.

I would estimate we spent an additional 30-40 minutes of our time yesterday searching for balls in the rough.

I would much prefer to find the ball quickly, and then have a contour around the green make my approach shot harder.

Tom

I appreciate what you say, I play at Glasgow Gailes after all   However I'm not suggesting you should be in bundi if you are of the fairway but I'm questioning to what affect are architects looking to create wide fairways. Let me ask you as an architect, do you find it easier create (more) strategies in a wider playing corridor ? On the face of it that might seem like a stupid question but if you consider Adam Claymans point that he made in one of his posts, "If there's no advantage to being in the proper spot, and, no added challenge form being somewhere else, width for width sake is wasted money". I think that sums up the problems of width for me.

BTW, after an exchange with you last year on another thread about width, I took to pacing out fairway and rough widths for few months after. Pissed off my playing partners no end.

Niall

[Niall C]

Niall:

I played a four-ball at Crystal Downs yesterday with my cousin and his son and his son's friend -- all reasonable 10-handicap players.  The fairways are not ridiculously narrow, but the rough was up.

I would estimate we spent an additional 30-40 minutes of our time yesterday searching for balls in the rough.

I would much prefer to find the ball quickly, and then have a contour around the green make my approach shot harder.

It's amazing to me how many people don't appreciate this.  Many players, and not necessarily particularly good players, don't believe a course is worthy unless you're punished by rough, water, etc., without regard to what other challenges might exist.  Why are people such gluttons for these specific forms of punishment?  

Tim

Not sure your comments were aimed at me but for what its worth, I think philosophically there has to be a degree of penalty or there would be no need for strategy, indeed there would be no strategy. I for one don't necessarily want to get beaten up by a golf course but I do like to be challenged and I think that goes for any golfer whether they are a pro or a 24 handicapper. A particular challenge might be too great for us 90 times out of 100 but I would suggest that most club golfers are up for giving it a go. Where it matters not a jot where you hit the ball then you may as well be on the range.

Niall

[Jud_T]

Seems pretty simple...

Option 1.  Pull a ball slightly into the trees and retee.

Option 2.  Get lulled into a false sense of security by width and don't focus on the correct strategic line off the tee only to be faced with a very awkward approach which can lead to bogey or worse.

Option 2 is more fun for more folks, yet not necessarily easier to score well on for the strong player...

[Niall C]

Jud

If I may respond using your numeration

Option 1 - your another one who assumes that I'm advocating 35 yard fairways bordered by jungle. Suggest you come and play over here in the UK where we don't generally water the rough to see what i mean.

Option 2 - get lulled into a false sense of security ? Is that a euphymism for falling asleep because there was feck all there to keep you interested ?

Niall

[Jud_T]

Niall,

1. You obviously haven't played enough U.S. style overwatered rough! 

2. Rather than a lack of definition, width may lead one to be overly aggressive with the driver or miss the subtletly of the approach, swing from the heels and wind up in the wrong spot on the aforementioned "overly" wide fairway.

[Niall C]

Jud

If you're winding up to hit a yahoo then you're not really trying to put the ball in the right spot unless of course the right spot is beyond your normal driving distance. The shot either encourages you to engage your brain or it doesn't, and wide fairways in themselves aren't subtle and neither do you need them to achieve subtlety in the strategy.

Niall

[Tim Nugent]

The question of width is one that most architects are constantly pondering - I know I am.  It is one frought with ccompromise.  Wider fairways allow more to land in them but cost more to maintain.  They allow more strategic elements - but those may cost more to maintain.  They may bring adjacent holes too close for comfort.  They may push the hated cart path into the next hole. etc.

I once had a old time super instruct me, "my Board wants wider fairways so you have to make the fairways wider - just don't give me another square foot of fairway to maintain - they won't buy me another mower!"  and the Dean of American golf course builders told me never to have the fairway lines pinch like an hour-glass because it "just never feels right".   

So, I ask, is it width? or Percieved width?  How many times have you heard someone say, "don't worry, there's more room to the right, you just can't see it".  One can create hidden width to make a hole appear visually narrower than it really is, or exaggerated width by angleing the fairway across the line of play or with big surpentine swings.  Depending on the angle, sometimes just 3-5 yds can make a fairway appear much wider or narrower.

As for the rough comments, I think we are all on the same page here, but the species of grass will have perhaps a bigger role in the playability aspect not just the height.  Afterall, 3" fescue is much more playable than 3" Bluegrass.  But I'll take 3" Bluegrass over 3" Bermuda!  And as was posted earlier, irrigated and unirrigated makes a big difference too.  All too often, the same sprinkler that irrigates the fairway also irrigates the rough and although both grasses may be different and have different input requirements, one sets the input level and the other gets it too.  Sure for an extra amount of roughly 1/3 the fairway irrigation cost, one could install dual, part-circle heads and seperate the watering inputs but it takes a big budget to allow for this level of percision.

[Tim Pitner]

Niall:

I played a four-ball at Crystal Downs yesterday with my cousin and his son and his son's friend -- all reasonable 10-handicap players.  The fairways are not ridiculously narrow, but the rough was up.

I would estimate we spent an additional 30-40 minutes of our time yesterday searching for balls in the rough.

I would much prefer to find the ball quickly, and then have a contour around the green make my approach shot harder.

It's amazing to me how many people don't appreciate this.  Many players, and not necessarily particularly good players, don't believe a course is worthy unless you're punished by rough, water, etc., without regard to what other challenges might exist.  Why are people such gluttons for these specific forms of punishment?  

Tim

Not sure your comments were aimed at me but for what its worth, I think philosophically there has to be a degree of penalty or there would be no need for strategy, indeed there would be no strategy. I for one don't necessarily want to get beaten up by a golf course but I do like to be challenged and I think that goes for any golfer whether they are a pro or a 24 handicapper. A particular challenge might be too great for us 90 times out of 100 but I would suggest that most club golfers are up for giving it a go. Where it matters not a jot where you hit the ball then you may as well be on the range.

Niall

Niall,

I don't disagree there should be a penalty for being off target.  The questions then are what does it mean to be off target?--is there only one line that works or are there options?--and what is the penalty?--is it a lost ball or something else, like a bad angle or more distance to the hole?  To me, and I guess I've bought into the groupthink here, wider fairways answers both questions in a more enjoyable way--there is more strategy because there can be more than one acceptable target and there is more of a chance of recovery because there's less chance you'll hit it where it can't be played. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Reading a couple of the recent threads, its clear that quite a few of us on here are fairly enamoured with the idea of wide fairways, and by that I'm assuming 60 yards wide type of thing. The idea seems to be that landing on short grass with no danger of your ball landing in rough is preferable to having to avoid the rough, but I could be wrong.

Now my experience on these modern large scale productions are limited as most of my golf tends to be on older, more conventionally scaled courses so I am interested to find out if my assumption as to the appeal of wide fairways is all that their is to it or whether there are any other good reason for them.

Interested to hear everyones thoughts.

Niall,

GCGC - 1899, NGLA 1909, Pine Valley 1918 and ANGC 1932, are not modern courses, yet, they're known for having very wide fairways.

Since these clubs have passed the ultimate test, the test of time, I'd say that width is a critical element to their remaining more than just relevant.

Remember, just because you're in the fairway doesn't mean you're not paying a severe penalty.

Just look at the 11th hole at PV.
If you hit your drive in the far left portion of the fairway, you've got no shot, or, a shot that requires enormous talent .... or luck, or both.

[Kyle Harris]

Without having read all the replies, the idea of width - especially as a fairway or reasonable lie - is to force the golfer to pick and choose a line of play without having the advantage of a narrow frame.

Fairways that are both sufficiently wide as to cause only a small percentage of the fairway to provide an ideal angle AND the corridor is not defined by the rough/fairway transitions are an ideal way to employ width as a hazard.

Here, the golfer must first determine which part of the fairway appeals AND take into consideration other features to frame the hole, ie bunkers or features at the green.

Width must be used to obfuscate the line of charm.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Kyle,

With all due respect, your last post seems to talk in circles.

I had the chance to play two very different courses yesterday and today - Trip Davis' new "Old American" and Colonial.

OA has lots of width and many options, some not really laid out like a road map either.  Many here will acclaim it a great design and it is.  However, today, I noticed that even with far narrower fw, I had plenty to think about on the tee shot at Colonial - including shot pattern, curving around doglegs, bunker carries, and which side of the fw to aim for.  All in all, the tee shots were just as, if not more, interesting than on the course with the wide fw. 

In fact, where I had less to think about was on the approach shot - small greens nearly surrounded by bunkers.  Even then I chose my line as middle of the green, middle of the opening or at the flag, but it was more scary than stratetic.

It occurred to me that if you are thinking, you simply adjust your thoughts to the course.  You still aim left or right side of the fw, unless really, really narrow if there is an advantage or hazard to take out of play.  Sometimes, with a bunch of width and supposed options like on the MacKenzie Lido hole, for any particular golfer, probably all but two are taken out of consideration before you even think about them, depending on your game.  And in reality, the best option for you really seems to pop up in your mind pretty quickly doesn't it?

Anyway, sometimes I wonder if all that "theory" about width and angles is really all that it was cracked up to be.  IMHO the width of the play corridors got set at about 60 yards because the first sprinklers back in the oldy days threw water just that far.  It could very well be that fw have narrowed over time to increase the enjoyment of play by bringing in more noticeable consequences.  Yeah, I understand the defend par at the green argument, but get the feeling most don't, and hence consensus is that all that width was wasted and non relevant.

[Tim Nugent]

Jeff, the biggest problem I have with the "angles" approach is that it requires local knowledge of the course/hole.  While this is fine a Clubs, it is obscure at resort/public courses.  Let's face it, not many (outside this group) research a course and download the Google Earth map and disect their play lines before getting to the first tee.  The majority just step up to the tee and just aim for the middle - hoping it will land somewhere findable - let alone in the fairway.  If tour pros can't even hit 14/14 fairways, what makes anyone think that regular Joes can "hit their spots".
Hence the love afffair with width is 1) being able to find the ball, 2) beng able to hit the next shot without a tree or 10 in the way, 3) pretending that's where they planned on hitting it.
I still remember a 10-handicap, tree-lined Club member playing Harborside for the 1st time and remarked how much he loved the place "because I hit all the fairways".

[Ally Mcintosh]

...I see very few modern courses with good enough green complex designs to warrant width solely as the traditional strategic device... For a start, fairways have to be 60 yards plus to bring in sufficient angle... For seconds, green complexes have to be even more severe to counter equipment advances...

...Even still, I firmly believe that that's what we should be aiming for where the site and budget allow...

That probably means the lost ball argument is the most valid one for today's game and courses... Although aesthetics and mental effect should be seen as another advantage for width in my opinion...

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tim,

I have to say I agree and somewhat questioned the Old American design, not only because of the myriad of choices, but the effort that was made to obscure them.   While there is a membership component, there is also the one play resort component.  It appears to be designed more for the members, altough with GPS and yardage books, etc. maybe the added interest for members will work out fine.

I am really just more fascinated withe responses (like Kyle's) on this site to width as a theory.  While he spouts some theory, I had just come off the two courses and found that wider fw didn't really mean any more fun for me personally.

I asked myself a few questions....

While the GA gca's all wrote their books in a small time frame, and seemingly espoused wide fw, did any of the other gca critics like Wind ever actually agree in print?

Looking at some of the Ross diagrams in "Golf Has Never Failed Me" he seems to favor 50 yard wide fw, but these might even be total playing areas, since no secondary rough is shown.  Is adding a cut of rough that is probably the same height as the fw was mowed years ago changing the whole design?  Especially given higher loft clubs and higher spin balls? (and irrigation)

Has anyone ever really tested the theory of width with golfer surveys, etc. to see what is preferred?  (or corrollary, should we just tell them they are dumb asses and we know better and stick them with width whether they like it or not, or want to pay for that extra fw mowing or not?  As an example, do we think Mac's Lido hole is great with its five options if one of those five would have gotten used about 3% of the time? Do we know that average golfers knowingly or willingly took the bail out options, or did they try to hit for the green despite the bad angles because its actually more fun to try and miss than not try at all?)

In essense, hasn't virtually every course in America "field tested" the theory and found the could get by with less fw width and still enjoy golf as much or more?  If so, then why do so many espouse width as the be all, end all to gca?  Its just possible that its a failed or partially failed theory.