[Patrick_Mucci]

At the local club level ?

Do they send the worst possible message to local clubs ?

Olympic has but one fairway bunker, which is unique when compared to most local courses, and probably not factored in by the viewers watching the Open.

Lastly, after the Open, will Olympic return their fairway widths to their pre-Open awarding dimensions/configurations ?

[Bradley Anderson]

Yes they are bad for golf.

[Pete Lavallee]

Lastly, after the Open, will Olympic return their fairway widths to their pre-Open awarding dimensions/configurations ?

I doubt it. First the members will want to preserve the "Open Experience" for as long as possible. Secondly it is not just as easy as mowing a strip off the rough line. Generally grass types are different between fairway and rough. Here in San Diego, Torery Pines maintains it's rough lines from the Farmers year round. We actually expanded the 20 yard wide corridors on the North Couse at the request of the PGA Tour! Defending par for elite players with 20-25 yard fairways is saddly the norm these days.

[Jim_Kennedy]

I don't think it will spread to other clubs, unless they're ones who think they too can hold an Open.

Can't imagine that 5,000+ members would be too excited playing the narrowed version of the course. For a while, maybe, to see what it's like, but not after that.

[Kalen Braley]

They do it every year in the US OPen, yet I rarely see a course that has artificially narrow fairways.....

...so it seems like "the golf biz" isn't picking up on this trend and leaving it for the nuts at Far Hills to play with!

[Tim_Weiman]

Pat,

I see nothing wrong with the fairway width at Olympic. The set up is intended for a super elite level of golfer and, if any local club tried to do the same, I am pretty sure protests would shut down the idea very quickly.

There are two U.S. Open venues I have played in "normal" conditions and with the set up shortly before the U.S. Open: Pebble Beach and Shinnecock. Though I guess it is worth seeing what that set up is like, it also leaves no doubt it doesn't work for the vast majority playing everyday golf.

No need to worry about the Olympic set up. It is clearly not a model for anything other than The U.S. Open.

[Jud_T]

Tim,

I agree that it's a fine test for these guys, but Pat's point is how all the keeping up with the Joneses championship type clubs emulate what they see, which is a valid point.

[Brent Hutto]

I'll quote my own comments from Tommy's current "Course Management" thread...

Well the simplest form of "strategy", perhaps I should same simplistic, is to simply narrow the course sufficiently and make being out of position punitive enough that you force a preference for straightness over distance onto the players. I don't think Olympic actually falls into that category, at least not to an egregious degree, but it is somewhat toward that end of the spectrum.

Still not a return to the Bad Old Days when the USGA treated placing the ball in a ridiculously small "fairway" as the ne plus ultra of golfing skill and tried to make it the sole criterion (other than putting) for a US Open champion. But a bomber at Olympic had better be having a mighty good week with his "towards" if he's going to hit driver 10+ times per round. Mighty good.

[Jason Thurman]

Among the people I talk to, the US Open's status as a unique bloodbath for the best in the world is pretty solidified. I've never met anyone who thinks they need a similar "test."

The fact that we always hear statements like "Man, it's cool to watch the pros struggle like us, but only once a year!" shows that most golfers don't think this should be the norm.

I know many more people who want to play Augusta (challenging, but wide and fun) than any US Open course.

[Ken Moum]

To all of you who don't see narrow fairways coming onto club golf, you've gotta get out here in the Midwest.

I have paced off fairway widths at no less than a dozen unimposing little courses, because I couldn't believe how narrow they were.  I have seen landing areas as narrow as 12 paces, with 20 to 25 being commonplace.

These often aren't fancy country clubs, and a lot of them don't even host state-level events.

But then we have Topeka CC, which is a Perry Maxwell that had hundreds of oak tree planted on it in the 40s.  The widest fairway on the property is 30 yards, with several in the 22 yard area.  And since they started irrigating the rough, it's typically thick and lush.

Hell, the "other" course in Hutchinson, Kan., Highlands Golf Club, is built in the dunes like PD, but it's overgrown with trees, and has fairways that are all under 30 yards, lined by deep rough. 

I played both PD and Highlands last spring, and there's no doubt that Highlands is more difficult--but it's about as much fun as wisdom tooth extraction.

Narrow fairways and deep rough are a scourge on the game and they have proliferated like rabbits.

K

[Jason Thurman]

Ken, I don't disagree, but this thread asks specifically if the fairways at Olympic are bad for golf. I don't think they are. Per your own admission, the oak trees were planted in the 40s. I doubt that was done at the behest of members who had just watched a US Open in hi-def and wanted similar conditions at their own course.

Fairway narrowing sucks, but it's mostly inevitable. Trees grow and mowing lines change. That's just a fact. But I don't see many courses emulating the typical US Open setup, and I think you'll mostly find the fairways at your home course don't change in the next month in response to Olympic.

Olympic is still a unique challenge. I'd say that's good for golf, and also proof that it's not spawning thousands of sister courses with similar presentations.

[Kirk Moon]

From what I have heard they are going to keep the setup at Olympic Lake in US Open trim for a few weeks after the event so the membership can play the course under US Open conditions, then they are going to return the course to its normal setup with much wider fairways and standard rough cuts.   

The USGA has stated that they will pay to remove the bunker added on 17 if the club wishes it.  I don't know what the current thinking of the club is on that.

Probably the most exciting development for club members is that the club has taken advantage of the closure of the Ocean course (which has been used in support of the US Open) to replace the greens, bunkers, tee boxes and make some other key modifications on that course that should significantly improve the course when it reopens for member play in September.  Really looking forward to seeing it in its new guise. 

[Ken Moum]

Ken, I don't disagree, but this thread asks specifically if the fairways at Olympic are bad for golf. I don't think they are. Per your own admission, the oak trees were planted in the 40s. I doubt that was done at the behest of members who had just watched a US Open in hi-def and wanted similar conditions at their own course.

Fairway narrowing sucks, but it's mostly inevitable. Trees grow and mowing lines change. That's just a fact. But I don't see many courses emulating the typical US Open setup, and I think you'll mostly find the fairways at your home course don't change in the next month in response to Olympic.

Olympic is still a unique challenge. I'd say that's good for golf, and also proof that it's not spawning thousands of sister courses with similar presentations.

Fair enough.

But I believe the philosophy prompts narrowing fairways for US Opens is the same philosophy that caused Topeka CC to play like a lumberyard with grass.  And when those trees were planted they were saplings and most likely looked like they were plenty far off the line of play.  Seventy-plus years later they aren't so far apart.

As long as ANYONE thinks that narrow fairways bordered by thick rough is a good way to create a "challenge" there will be people who want to see it at their course.

It was only a couple of years ago that my home course had 25-yard fairways and tall rough... which made it almost unplayable for 90% of the members.  One friend of mine said, "I'd happily pay a special assessment if they'd put the fairways back the way they were."

Meanwhile, a past president and GM of record said, loudly, one day in the grill room, "The rough is the only protection this course has."

I wondered, protection from who?

There can be little doubt that he was affected by courses like Olympic Club, and IMHO that effect is bad for golf.

But I have to admit that I enjoy the heck out of watching the US Open.  It and The Open Championship are the only tournaments I can bear to watch more than about 10 minutes of.  I love watching the best players in world have the insulation melt off mental their circuits because of the overload.

Just keep those narrow fairways and tall rough away from the places I play.

K

[Tim_Weiman]

Jud,

If any club is stupid enough to emulate U.S. Open conditions, I believe it won't be long before there is sufficient protest to correct such a mistake.

Personally, I think Augusta has probably been worse for golf with all it's influence on super conditioning.

[David Lott]

They would be seriously bad for my golf. As to golf in general, most courses won't emulate because they are not interested. Courses with wide tree lines or no tree lines would look silly doing this. The tree chutes make Olympic's narrow fairways look great and also frame the shots.

In 1998 I played at Carnoustie when they had just marked to show where they were going to let the rough grow. I was astonished how narrow they were going to be. But Carnoustie went back to wider fairways when it was over.

[Joel_Stewart]

Personally, I think Augusta has probably been worse for golf with all it's influence on super conditioning.

This is true and the super at Olympic does benchmark the condition to Augusta.

In regards to Pats question, the USGA set this course up.  The superintendent has never ever considered setting up the course like this.  He must be looking at the course like reading Greek.  He bathes the course in rough and has no clue on chipping areas.  The fairways are like ribbons but slightly wider.

[David_Tepper]

"Lastly, after the Open, will Olympic return their fairway widths to their pre-Open awarding dimensions/configurations ?"

There is no doubt in my mind the fairway widths on the Lake Course will be restored to their pre-Open widths in the coming months. I will be interested to see if some of the chipping areas are retained. That could be a good thing.

[Patrick_Mucci]

So, no one thinks that the telecast will influence green committees and boards ?  ?  ?

[David Lott]

Yes it will influence some. I doubt, however, that it will become a widely adopted aspiration, like "fast" greens have been. I can't give a strong reason or that belief, other than a gut feel. I do think Olympic is particularly well set up for narrow fairways because the tree lines seem narrow too. Perhaps the tree lines just seem narrow because of the height of the trees. I do hope that there is not widespread adoption because, among other things, it would slow play.

[Ken Moum]

So, no one thinks that the telecast will influence green committees and boards ?  ?  ?

I do, but I also think that it has been happening a long time.

K

[Jud_T]

Perhaps most clubs don't narrow their fairways excessively, but I think the thick, hack out rough that you find at many clubs is directly related to these setups on television and what the average knuckleheaded committee member thinks is prestigious, tough but fair "championship" golf.

[Ken Moum]

Perhaps most clubs don't narrow their fairways excessively, but I think the thick, hack out rough that you find at many clubs is directly related to these setups on television and what the average knuckleheaded committee member thinks is prestigious, tough but fair "championship" golf.

When 90% of the golfers I know use the word "good" to describe a hole that is brutally difficult, we've got a perception problem.

When someone says, "That's a good par four," I will usually reply, "Well, it's a HARD par four."

They nearly always say, "That's what I said, it a GOOD par four."

The only thing I can think of in response is, "Good and hard aren't the same thing.  Any fool can make a hole or golf course hard, it takes genius to make one that's interesting."

It nearly always gets a blank stare.

K

[Kyle Harris]

The Devil's Advocate view:

Less fairway area means less finer turf to maintain and ultimately pay for.

[Ken Moum]

The Devil's Advocate view:

Less fairway area means less finer turf to maintain and ultimately pay for.

That's exactly why our fairways were narrowed in the first place. But the yahoos in charge thought it was good idea.

K

[Brent Hutto]

Kyle,

I'm all for less acreage maintained at fairway height, especially given how tightly cut and stressed-out we prefer fairways nowadays. But if there's only going to be a 20-30 yards wide swath of the tightest cut, much of the less-maintained areas needs to be at least whacked back to under an inch or so. It's the combination of ribbon-like "fairway" bordered by rough so thick and tall that every foursome is searching for a couple of balls on every hole and the default shot from even a yard or two off the "fairway" is a wedge. That turns the game into a slog.

For every day play, perhaps someone could try a different paradigm. The largest area could be turf that stays in the 1/2"-3/4" range, give or take, and is not expected to be lush, bright green and perfect every day. Then outside that area you put "rough" that's however penal you want it but is kept well away from the main line of play. And on the center line of each hole you could have an arbitrarily narrow strip of very tight, perfect turf that's a bonus for the occasional shot struck literally right down the middle.  Heck, make it as narrow as a walking corridor if you like as it is supposed to be just a target offering an occasional bonus (like in a minor-league ballpark where a home run that hit's a bullseye on a sign in the center field wins a car or something).

A lot of hackers love a half inch of grass under their ball anyway but presumably the better players would find the "default cut" to offer some uncertainty for controlling the flight of the ball.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()