Width, what's it all about ?

[Chris Buie]

...even with far narrower fw, I had plenty to think about...which side of the fw to aim for...

Mr. Brauer my hat is off to you.  When you are choosing which side of a narrow fw to hit to you are a very fine player as well as architect.  However, I have to ask you, what percentage of players choose and hit a particular side of a narrow fairway?  5% at best?  How much fun is that for 95% of the players?  Their playing partners?  The groups behind them?
I'm not trying to razz you here and I don't claim to be any kind of authority.  I'm just trying to give you the perspective of a more common level golfer.

[Jud_T]

Jeff,
The market has decided that it can get away with less acreage and maintenance and people will still turn up.  I'm not convinced the market's decided it's just as much fun.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Chris,

I am also a pretty average golfer (low to mid 80's both days) but I do tend to hit pretty straight drives and lose strokes around the greens.  I factored my own game in while making those comments (and also played with some pretty good to average golfers)

I agree with Tim N and Tom D that play corridors ought to be 70-90 yards wide to avoid lost golf balls.  I also think the surrounding rough in that area ought to be mowed at 1" or so, so there are no lost balls unless a shot is really wild. 

But I am not talking accomodation here, I am talking about the architectural theory of wide fw for those better players who could use them strategically.  Given the cost of maintenance, if I have just as much to think about in trying to hit a 30-35 yard wide fw, why would I want my club to raise my dues to pay for an extra 15-30 yards of fw?  I agree there are clubs down to 25-30 yards wide and that is too tight.

I guess I am postulating that given how golf has changed, maybe 30-40 yards of fw and 15 yards of light "flyer lie" rough on either side is superior for fun play.   (BTW, I have also postulated at times that differing heights and widths of rough on either side rather than a standard inner rough band of 15 yards on both sides might REALLY be strategic)

In essence, the flyer lie affects the ability to hit the green about as much as the frontal opening back in the old days, but in a slightly different way that just might fit today's equipment better.  So, placement is just as if not more important.  And I was still thinking about left and right and occaisionally lay up.  Granted, Colonial has a lot of dogleg angles that really make placement key, so its more fun than most courses with narrower fw.

I mean, how much thinking is really required for strategic fun anyway?  Should we all consider getting a headache fun?  In essence, two choices seemed enough, and when presented with more, I believe most golfers would quickly narrow them to two, or one, quickly enough as to make choices 3 through 5 almost meaningless.  As per above, I always wondered how many golfers really took the bail out routes on a Lido type hole? 

You seem to agree that the average player sort of aims for the middle and hopes for the best.  So, the question is why provide a bunch of options for that guy if he has no real plans to use them anyway?  Keep the rough light, sure, but why celebrate design strategies designed specifically for no particular use, especially if they cost money?

Jud,

But then again, I am not sure based on my experience (and not some theory) that it is more fun with a lot of width.  For instance, I have never heard anyone say they went to Bandon for the width! They go for the ocean, the experience, the look, etc.  And, I would never underestimate the collective wisdom of "the market" over a low % of gca snobs who just happen to think they know better than everyone, too! 

I would actually think a course with 1-2 fw that are really wide and 1-2 that are really narrow, with a range of in between widths would provide the most variety and fun.  But that is just an opinion.

[Tim Nugent]

Jeff, what are your thoughts on cojoined fairways.  For example if one were to take 2 adjacent fairways that were 110' at the landing area and connect them for 40-60 yds by adding around 15,000 more sf of fairway, one could effectively "widen" the fairway by 30' just to the midpoint of the cojoined area. As this area would normally be Rough, it would not present a favorable position to be in (bad angle and all) but it would be findable and playable and technically "in the fairway".

[Chris Buie]

Jeff, thank you for your well articulated response.  I'm fine with the idea of the playing corridor having rough that is playable with a degree of penalty.  It's easy for me to comment on such matters when I am not involved with the practical aspects (such as budgets) with wide fairways. 
Beyond that I won't belabor my point of view.  Thanks again for responding.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tim,

I once went to an interview with a proposed routing that had shared fw.  The committee couldn't get over the possible safety issues and I could tell I lost the job right there.  So, no, I am not a big fan of conjoined fw!

That said, I did propose it then, and would again.   It still seems to me like at some point over time, any 15,000 SF of fw that is "extraneous" would eventually be subject to removal, as would any double fw, double tees, double greens, bunkers well out of play, etc.

But economics weren't really my point either.

Just from a gca theory discussion, are we 100% sure that wide fw are the be all end all for strategy these days, or maybe even any day?  I threw it out there for discussion purposes, since this is a discussion board.

[Ben Voelker]

IMO, fairway width should be related to the strategic principle of proportionate penalization.  That is, the worse the shot the greater the penalty.  And vice versa. 
I was going to post the following on the recent #2 restoration thread but didn't want to prolong it.  The first photo shows the 13th as Ross set it up in 1939 on the left.  The photo on the right shows how it has played in modern times - until just recently.  As you can see there is quite a difference. 


For the Opens that were held on #2 if you hit it one foot off of the very narrow fairway then you just chopped it out.  Remember Payne chopping it out on the 72nd hole?  That is too strong a penalty for just missing a fairway.  Below we see how it played during the 2005 Open and where C/C currently are.


Another point of having wide fairways has already been touched on in this thread.  Options.  It's a more interesting and certainly more fun game when there are optimal ways of approaching a green - particularly when the hole is located far to one side or another.  With narrow fairways there is no option with the drive.  And there is no strategic advantage with no varying angles to the approach.
Penalize the poor shot, but give the not too wayward drive something of a chance.  That is my point of view.

These photos are great!  They provide a great perspective on the relative width that has been added to the course.

[Niall C]

Firstly I've been away for a couple of days so thanks to Jeff B for holding the Fort 

"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."

Tim N

Re your quote above, even if the width is hidden its still there and whats more once you've played the course once you know its there and therefore it doesn't really present any strategic purpose although I admit it can make the course more visually appealing. With regards your second comment I think you are spot on. I'm a big fan of hitting fairways at an angle as it gives the golfer a choice of whether to be agressive or not. I think this was one of Tilly's favourite design ploys (calling Philip Young).

"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."

Tim, re your second quote, I'm with you to a certain degree, you can of course have various options which are good however if there isn't much difference in the options in terms of benefit gained then where's the merit in placing your ball in a particular spot. I'm thinking here of the average golfer.

Niall 

[Niall C]

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.

Patrick

Now here you have me at a disadvantage as I've never played any of the courses mentioned. What makes these golf courses great, is it because they are startegically very good and does the width play a big part in that ? The last few years there has been plenty of moaning about the set up for the Masters because of the rough but does that inhibit the startegy or does it make "recovery shots" more difficult ?

Niall

[Niall C]

...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...

Ally

I take issue with a couple of points you made. Firstly, why must fairways be 60 yards wide to bring in different strategy to a hole. Surely you can do the same thing with 30 yards of fairway ? What I think I'm railling against here is the idea that you have wide fairways simply so that players don't lose balls. The danger with that is if you don't do anything with all that width to make it interesting the golf become insipid and dull. At least with a narrower fairway there is a test even if it is only to keep in the playing corridor but as many conventional courses show you can get loads of options in normal width fairways.

The second issue which is worthy of a thread of its own is your statement that greens should have severe contouring to counter modern equipment. I consider myself as one of the great majority of average golfers and like most average golfers I don't exactly play my approach shots with pin point accuracy and bundles of check. I have what you would call a fair degree of variance in the results of even my mid irons. My issue with the greens on some of the modern courses where they have swales and large contours is that if you mix that with my indifferent approach play it becomes pot luck and a sense of judgement is lost. Now I appreciate I may be employing the counter argument to the one I use for fairway width but I think its a question of degrees, greens which are all swales gouing this way and that are as bad as 10 yard wide fairways.

Niall 

[Niall C]

...even with far narrower fw, I had plenty to think about...which side of the fw to aim for...

Mr. Brauer my hat is off to you.  When you are choosing which side of a narrow fw to hit to you are a very fine player as well as architect.  However, I have to ask you, what percentage of players choose and hit a particular side of a narrow fairway?  5% at best?  How much fun is that for 95% of the players?  Their playing partners?  The groups behind them?
I'm not trying to razz you here and I don't claim to be any kind of authority.  I'm just trying to give you the perspective of a more common level golfer.

Chris

I think your comment above perhaps shows the difference of typical US golf courses and typical UK golf courses, and I do say that with all respect. I can well imagine on a well watered US design that there probabaly isn't much difference to be left half of a 35 yard wide fairway as opposed to being on the right half of the same fairway when your hitting to a watered green with front facing hazards. Particularly if the rough is also well watered and snarly to get out of. I might be aiming for the middle all the time as well. Apologies for that simplistic view of a US golf course.

On a UK course the where generall conditions are generally firmer even on inland courses the rough just off the fairway doesn't tend to be so penal and indeed might give you a better lie depending on the shot. Thats maybe something that hasn't been discussed on this thread. On the older conventional course with the green fronts generally open and there being a requirement to land the ball short of the hole and let it run, there is certainly merit to be on one side of the fairway than the other depending where the hole position is.

I would also add I'm an average golfer and one that is a relatively poor driver but I still look to pick a line and go for it.

Niall

[Tom_Doak]

I have never heard anyone say they went to Bandon for the width!

Jeff:

I can tell you that of the significant number of people who have reported that they like Old Macdonald the best of the four courses in Bandon, the width of the course and not being intimidated on the tee is the #1 reason they give for liking it best.

[Tim Nugent]

Nail, I have to agree with your second opinion re: green contour.  It boils down to the fact that there is a wide deviation from the "average golfer" to that of the irvory tower of GCA.  As I've experienced over the years at many clubs, the average Joe will not voice his opinion against that of the single digit player(s).  Hence, the "consensus" tends to be skewed towards the wants and desires of the better players.  This, coupled with irrigation system coverage and the growth of misplanted trees has probably led to the narrowing of fairways.  Once narrow, the vocal minority sees no reason to spend money to widen tham out - especiallly if it means losing the advantage of their better skill.  A good driver of the ball - like Jeff B    who can hit most 30 yd wide fairways, see no reason to change.
And, like you, I do not possess Tour backspin on my approach shots - nor do very many average Joes.  And nothing pisses them off more than hitting a green only to see the ball slid off.  Their consensus is, if they somehow manage to hit the green,  the ball should stay on the putting surface.  While huge contours may be "fun" for many here, the average Joes  don't concurr and many supers will back them up because they don't like the maintenance aspects associated with them.
Trying to couple the strategy of the multiple routes associated with wide fiarways and green contours that dictate tee shot placement is challenging to the good golfer and either lost on the averag Joe or just too demanding of his capabilities (and then there are the ladies and seniors to consider).
Luckily, there are enough good players to allow a segment of the design market to cater to them.  And, just like the demographics at your local club, the vocal minority will flock to these for the challenge and then go home and tell everyone how great it is. And "if so-and-so says it's great, it must be".  But the problem lies when they spend big bucks remodel their course and the average Joes can't stomach a constant diet of it.  At least average Joe hits more fairways and that, in and of itself, can be enough keep them mollified.

Tom D.  Great point about average Joe's fear of the narrow.  I've always contended that when golfers are intimidated, the tighten up and the timing of their swing gets out of whack.  The best advice I ever got from Jack Tuthill was 'Never lay up - always lay back.  Because when most golfers lay up, they swing nice and easy and hit career shots - usually right into whatever they are trying to stay away from". 

[Adrian_Stiff]

The game of golf is about hitting it straight off the tee. You need to keep your drive within a 25 yard width for championship golf or risk some form of penalty or part penalty. 25 yard fairways are often narrowed from tradional 35 yard fairways for standard golf. I am not advocating jungle and lost balls keep the semi rough shortish but very few golf courses new or old can afford to have wide fairways. In a modern construction on less than perfect land a desire to have width will IMO push that course to the limits of bankrupcy. Rough or semi rough is the cheaper end of both golf course construction and maintenance, advocating wider fairways will push the cost to play these courses. Bandon is an anomaly, it is not a model to copy, Bandon breaks lots of rules of normality for the golf business.

The normal golf business model is pretty good as it is, but it needs courses that can be built at economical prices which with rising land costs is getting difficult, it needs courses that can be operated and maintained by the minimal amount of staff.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Now here you have me at a disadvantage as I've never played any of the courses mentioned.
What makes these golf courses great, is it because they are startegically very good and does the width play a big part in that ?
Niall,

The routing, individual holes, green complexes and width are integral elements in their greatness.

Width has close to universal appeal.

It allows the beginer, the 36 handicap, the 24 handicap, the 12 handicap and the scratch golfer to enjoy the course at their respective playing levels.
Whereas a narrow course has little appeal save for the extremely skilled golfer, and even then, I doubt that that appeal endures daily play. 


The last few years there has been plenty of moaning about the set up for the Masters because of the rough but does that inhibit the startegy or does it make "recovery shots" more difficult ?


Moaning from whom ?
People who have never played ANGC.

ANGC remains a wide golf course.

While I prefer the original width, the course isn't narrow by any stetch of the imagination.

The courses I cited, built 80, 80 and 100 years ago, didn't endure by accident.
Width was a primary factor in their passing the test of time.
Niall

[Chris Buie]

The 12th at Mid Pines fits in very well with the debate we are having.  As you can see from the photo below it is a very wide fairway.  Standing on that tee is in itself a great feeling for me.  
Even though the player is offered room with the tee shot it matters a great deal where you put it.  Due to the way the green is set up (slim and angled) the ideal tee shot is a draw to the left part of the fairway.  To obtain that angle you must contend with the wire grass, hillocks and the trees if you get too aggressive.  The middle of the fairway provides a strong challenge for the approach.  Fairway right is where you do not want to hit it.  Extremely difficult to put the approach on a desirable place on the green.  But you do have a chance.


So width does not have to be for widths sake alone.  I personally prefer it if there is width and strategy with a degree of penalty or reward to the tee shot.  Is that not vastly more fun to just trying to hit a narrow strip and if you don't you just chop it out of the woods?

Is the cost of wide fairways prohibitive?  I can't speak with authority on that but if we're talking about fast and firm, that requires less maintenance, does it not?  And if the areas adjacent to the fairways are natural instead of heavily watered rough that certainly cuts the cost.  I'll let someone experienced with this equation weigh in with the definitive answer.

Adrian Stiff
The game of golf is about hitting it straight off the tee.

Some would agree with this.  Pros and very talented people that have the time to practice often would agree with you.  The other 90% of golfers would say a course built with that perspective is not going to be that much fun.  What kind of experience does the arch want 90% of the golfers to have?

There should be courses that are very tough and exacting.  There should be course that are fun and not extremely demanding as well.  It seems to me that the vast majority of courses I've seen built in the last 25 years are very tough.  I guess I'm about an 8 handicap and can play those courses well enough, usually.  But I see an awful lot of people who can not.  After spending a lot of time standing behind groups that are doing more chopping than the back room of a Beijing restaurant I often wonder if they can be enjoying themselves.  I don't enjoy waiting 15 minutes for them to finish so I can hit my next shot
Let's take my area Pinehurst as an example.  They have built three courses since #5 was built the 60's.  They are all quite tough!  Most of the members can not play a reasonable round on them and most don't bother with those courses.  Why would they not make one of the three an easier, fun course.  Why make all three tough?  I infrequently play National which is the Nicklaus course here.  This is the only course the members there have.  Way too tough for the average member.
So my overall point is that too high a percentage of the courses built are really tough.  I definitely think archies should build more courses that aren't that tough and are fun.  They're building quasi-US Open courses for Mr. and Mrs. Johnson who get beaten up pretty badly on those tracks.  Not what I would want to be doing as an arch.  I would be trying to figure out how to balance challenge with playability for the common player.  An arch who could do that in a very clever way is an arch I'd really think highly of.  It seems like most archies (not all) pay no heed to the common player at all.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

Chris,

Here is the problem in discussing width in general terms. I look at that Mid Pines photo and would call that an average width fw.  Others might call it even a tad narrow.

Visually, I would say the play corridor is medium, too (areas between fw and pine trees)  It is interesting to note that pine tree corridors can be cleared stump to stump a bit narrower than hardwood corridors and get the same effective width because of the upright growth habit of pines.  Based on those who favor wide corridors to reduce lost balls, I think it could be a bit wider, though.

No problem though.  I have researched this and have determined that 41.37684 yards is the split line between medium and wide fw, and 36.98267 yards is the split between narrow and medium.  Don't question my authority in this matter, but from now on, we can all use these widths (measured precisely) to call a fw narrow, medium, or wide.

Agreed?

[John Moore II]

Jeff-Sarcasm taken well about the precise widths. I looked up the 12th at Mid Pines: the fairway is approx. 33.85 yards wide and the corridor is approx. 55.18 yards wide. That is not very wide. I had to look that up before I said something because I wasn't 100% certain, however, I remembered from playing that hole that it is not terribly wide. Compare those widths to Tobacco Road right up the road where some fairways are 90 yards wide with total playing corridors playing up to 120 yards wide. Now thats width.

And I do not feel that any form of penalty is too great for missing the fairway. I have nothing against hitting a ball in the rough being a 1/2 shot or even full shot penalty. Hit the stupid ball in the fairway and you won't have to worry about it. Now, I do advocate fairways being slightly wider, but I have nothing against having wheat field high rough surrounding the fairways at a major championship. Heaven forbid these guys be asked to hit a precise tee shot. My oh my, start doing that and the world might come to an end.

[Jeff_Brauer]

John,

At least my eye is good. I was going to type a guess in at less than 60 yards wide for the play corridor.  As noted in a previous post, to me 70 is the minimum playable for most corridor. 

And as noted, I agree with those who favor rough just long enough to create a flyer lie.  IMHO, that replaces the need bounce one well in front of the green because of dryness in the modern game and is about the same penalty as playing from the "wrong angle" in the fw.  I mean really, for friendly competitive game, just how much penalty do you think the average to good club player wants?  The whole idea of strategic golf is to differentiate, not decapitate.

You mention higher roughs in tournaments.  With all due respect, that is such a small, small subset of shots played by golfers in america that it shouldn't even enter this discussion.  You're right - penalize the living snot out of them if that is what the PGA Tour wants.  (It isn't)

Now that I am thinking about it, I would have to say that "excess width" is really wasted on doglegs like that one at Mid Pines.  Given how strong the line of charm really is, I cannot imagine that adding another 20 yards of fw to the right on that hole would make it any more interesting or better - it would just create more mowing.

[Carl Rogers]

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.

Jeff, I think you are on target by drawing a distinction between width, options and angles.  And, yes, most of us if 150 yards away or more need only to think about the middle of the green.

[Tom_Doak]

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. 

Well, that seems like revisionist history.  I've never seen a sprinkler that covered 60 yards of width effectively; in fact fairways started to narrow when they introduced fairway sprinklers that covered 40-45 yards.

The early American courses did not have fairway irrigation systems.  And, though I don't have C.B. Macdonald's book handy today, when laying out his perfect course for a newspaper article back in 1904, he gave three points for "proper width of fair green", and put the number at something like 50-60 yards.  [I can't remember what the number is for sure.]  That number was always striking to me, because I'm sure that most Scottish courses were never that wide, unless you were counting whins-to-whins.

[Carl Rogers]

The game of golf is about hitting it straight off the tee. You need to keep your drive within a 25 yard width for championship golf or risk some form of penalty or part penalty. 25 yard fairways are often narrowed from tradional 35 yard fairways for standard golf. ...

My very minor exception to 25 yard width is that, that is the width that should be for playing the hole at its optimum angle needed to score low enough for championship golf at its highest level.  Then the approach shot should be very demanding if not played from that optimum angle.

Some have made the comment on this thread about higher rough leading to slower play ... that confirms my own experience over time.

[John Moore II]

Jeff-That hole at Mid Pines remains playable because it is a fairly short hole and you don't really hit driver off that tee. Either way, its not a wide hole by any stretch. And you made me think about something as far as fairway width and rough length. If a course wants to have wide or even very wide fairways for daily play, how hard would it be to grow some deep rough and tighten the fairway in certain areas?

[Niall C]

"The early American courses did not have fairway irrigation systems.  And, though I don't have C.B. Macdonald's book handy today, when laying out his perfect course for a newspaper article back in 1904, he gave three points for "proper width of fair green", and put the number at something like 50-60 yards.  [I can't remember what the number is for sure.]  That number was always striking to me, because I'm sure that most Scottish courses were never that wide, unless you were counting whins-to-whins."

Tom

Not sure of the validity of that statement re the width of old courses but then I think you are perhaps right in referring to the playing corridor as all one in the early days. I suspect there would be little definition fairway and rough indeed in the early writings those terms weren't really referred to as such.

Niall

[Niall C]

Now here you have me at a disadvantage as I've never played any of the courses mentioned.
What makes these golf courses great, is it because they are startegically very good and does the width play a big part in that ?
Niall,

The routing, individual holes, green complexes and width are integral elements in their greatness.

Width has close to universal appeal.

It allows the beginer, the 36 handicap, the 24 handicap, the 12 handicap and the scratch golfer to enjoy the course at their respective playing levels.
Whereas a narrow course has little appeal save for the extremely skilled golfer, and even then, I doubt that that appeal endures daily play. 


The last few years there has been plenty of moaning about the set up for the Masters because of the rough but does that inhibit the startegy or does it make "recovery shots" more difficult ?


Moaning from whom ?
People who have never played ANGC.

ANGC remains a wide golf course.

While I prefer the original width, the course isn't narrow by any stetch of the imagination.

The courses I cited, built 80, 80 and 100 years ago, didn't endure by accident.
Width was a primary factor in their passing the test of time.
Niall

Patrick

I note your comments but not sure that you are saying that their width is part of what makes them great. As for your statement that width has universal appeal you can count me out of that number, certainly width for the sake of width. Do something with the width to make the hole interesting and I am all for it but creating 60 yard plus fairways with no strategic worth in the width then I'm afraid that does nothing for me. 

BTW there are plenty of classic courses over here which have also passed the test of time that don't require double fairways to attract visiting golfers.

Niall