[Mike Hendren]

Who doesn't like fairway width?  Personally, I find the thought of a course laid out over a beautiful lawn very appealing.  No rough at all.  

Back in the day, fairway width permitted the thinking man to tack his way around hazards and leave approaches down the length of the green.   Today, with perhaps exception for the very windy site, doesn't it merely make the course easier and more accommodating of the aerial game and the bomb & gouge tee shot?

In the architect's quiver, should fairway width move down the pecking order?

Bogey

[Mark Bourgeois]

I think fairway width does not relate to the impact of the modern ball as you describe it. Rather, the loss of width applies less to long hitters of today, who accomplish their length via the air rather than a combination of air and ground, at least in comparison to the long hitters pre ProV1. Perversely, the loss of width can encourage flogging. Bomb it down there, gouge a wedge up there. 1 or 2 putt and move on. More accurately, I would say loss of width is irrelevant to floggers as they are flying over the hazards enveloped in rough anyway.

For the rest of us, wide fairways help speed up the game and therefore offset the extra time required to play due to new balls. (See how screwed up things are today?!) Additionally, for those of us not good enough to play bomb and gouge, wide fairways bring back the architecture in a way that enables us to enjoy Mackenzie's notion of "pleasurable excitement."

Loss of fairway width remains one of the great unspoken crimes of architecture. People bang on about all the extra length added to classic courses but Architecture Enemy #1 should be narrowed fairways.

[Peter Pallotta]

Bogey - thanks, a rare question actually worth pondering.

I think the question might pre-suppose/make assumptions about what is in that quiver, and why. (Nothing wrong with that -- just noting the multi-facted nature of the question.)

I'm not sure I'm using the term right or even if it's applicable, but I think we may be in a "post modern" era of golf course architecture; what the architect is trying to achieve, and how he goes about achieving it, has changed a great deal from years gone by,

To use a poor metaphor, before the invention of the camera, a portrait artist was judged by how close he could come to creating a life-like facsmilie of his subject. Once the camera came to be, that measuring stick became just one of many ways to judge -- and in certain circles/periods, the least interesting and important one.

With all the changes in golf (the game, the technology, the sites available, the equipment, maintenance practices, the prevailing cultural/social attitudes and norms), I can't imagine that the architect's goals and tools have somehow remained the same. Why would they? How could they?

And yet, I think for many reasons most of us (including the architects themselves) like to pretend or assume that in fact the quiver is unchanged -- i.e. that the talents and tools and measuring sticks are static.

In short, I don't know if it should move down the pecking order or not -- as I'm not sure what that pecking order actually is (in truth, on the ground, not in what architects say or write) or what elements it should comprise of moving forward.

Peter

[Jim Sherma]

It's my experience that it depends on how firm the course is maintained and how much tilt is built into the greens. If the greens are going to be kept soft then angles matter much much less. If the greens are firmer and there is some oblique tilt to the greens then the angles matter and width becomes much more strategic and interesting.

An obscure example of this is an inexpensive public in central PA called Monroe Valley. It's an Ed Ault design that has decent bunkering around the greens and the rough is generally kept short enough that there is pretty significant width. One summer a few years ago the course got very firm and all of a sudden the green slopes and bunkering around the greens started to allow for a rather narrow angle that would result in the ball being able to be kept on the green, either by bouncing it on or by landing straight into an upslope. Under normal conditions the greens are soft enough that shots from inside of 150-160 will generally hold unless they hit a downslope.

The course was much more interesting and challenging when it was very firm. There was much more interest off of the tee and the types of shots that were asked for by the course I found much more interesting.

[Jason Thurman]

Michael, I like the question as well. I think strategic width is a great thing at the right course and on the right site. But I think often on this site, the guys asking for fairway width are just errant drivers who don't like playing from the rough.

I do think wide playing corridors are crucial for the sake of playability and enjoyment. It's no fun to lose a bunch of balls or constantly have to chop out of trees. But placing some demands on the accuracy of a tee shot is perfectly legitimate and often appropriate for a course.

[Garland Bayley]

Sorry Bogey, but I think it is a silly question. The real question should be, what elements make width strategic instead of accommodating?

Double Bogey

[Sean_A]

Where are all these overly-wide courses?  As Mark suggests, I think narrow courses are a far bigger issue in design.  So my answer is fairway width should move up the pecking order, but only if the course is designed around width and the course is maintained for width.  That may sound daft, but I do think more aerial course design doesn't need to be as wide because it doesn't need to be as firm. 

Ciao

[Tim_Weiman]

Jason,

Your suggestion that guys asking for fairway width are just errant drivers suggests you haven't spent much time observing people playing golf.

In case you haven't noticed, very few people can hit a golf ball straight. There aren't many Moe Norman's lurking about.

[Wayne Wiggins, Jr.]

Four letters -- LACC.  The North course is now much wider than it was pre-restoration and no way is it easier.  Maybe because Hanse re-intoduced hazards (i.e. bunkers, barrancas, etc.) that made the use of width more important, but LACC is a poster child for "width-is-good."  And, because of that i'd say width should remain a top priority... it's better, more fun, allows for faster play for us mortals.

[Tim_Weiman]

Wayne,

There are no non mortals. What confuses some people, including some GCA participants, is watching professional golf on TV.

If we just banned professional golf from television, there would be less confusion about golf architecture.

[Bill_McBride]

Width without angled greens with bunkers designed to punish out of position tee shots doesn't make much sense.  

The 13th fairway at Rustic Canyon must be 80 yards wide, but if you aren't in a 30 yard wide area you might not be able to get within 40 feet of the pin.  

[Mark Bourgeois]

Wayne,

There are no non mortals. What confuses some people, including some GCA participants, is watching professional golf on TV.

If we just banned professional golf from television, there would be less confusion about golf architecture.

Tim, you are off to a good start in differentiating "professional golf" from golf. Now join me in taking the next step and using the term Geoff Shackelford popularized: flog. Calling it flog and those who play that game floggers was a big intellectual breakthrough for me. Once I saw that game had nothing to do with golf, the scales fell from my eyes.

[Rich Goodale]

Bogey

The best wide fairways are those which play narrow.

Double Bogey King (aka Rhic)

[JMEvensky]

Width without angled greens with bunkers designed to punish out of position tee shots doesn't make much sense.  

  

+1--width just for width's sake seems pointless.All the pieces have to fit together.

[Jason Topp]

Imagine the road hole with no rough on the left.  For most of us, the hole would be a much better hole because you would face a real temptation to bail out left off the tee and face a difficult choice for your second.  For the tour pro - a wide fairway would convert the hole into a driver/wedge with enough room that position does not matter.

My favorite wide fairways in which slopes provide a big advantage to precisely placing your tee shot. 

[Matthew Sander]

I'll echo the thoughts of those that feel fairway width really shines when the width works in concert with the greens and their surrounds. I'll throw out Broadmoor CC in Indianapolis as an example where the club has reclaimed fairway width in order to get the most out of their greens. Their tilt and orientations make certain spots in the fairway ideal, if not necessary. The additional width may make higher handicappers a bit more comfortable from the tee, but accuracy is still tested because access to certain hole locations becomes much less taxing from the prescribed angle from the fairway.

For that width to be effective though, the greens, and their surrounds and hazards, have to be of a certain quality. If you have roughly the same approach from any portion of the fairway, then the width becomes only an accommodation for a lack of accuracy, which is no sin, but it doesn't heighten the interest of the design.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Imagine the road hole with no rough on the left.  For most of us, the hole would be a much better hole because you would face a real temptation to bail out left off the tee and face a difficult choice for your second.  For the tour pro - a wide fairway would convert the hole into a driver/wedge with enough room that position does not matter.

My favorite wide fairways in which slopes provide a big advantage to precisely placing your tee shot. 

As good an example as any showing just how and how much floggers have been catered to and allowed to convert our golf courses to their flog courses: http://golfcoursehistories.com/TOC.html

[Sean_A]

Mark

Have you done the same comparison for the 16th?  Out of interest, it would be cool to see Woking's 4th too.

Ciao

[Mark Bourgeois]

Sean

The Fife Desk say they don't have a good angle for the 16th and they seem to have been quite thorough in their searching; in fact, the image shown apparently isn't even "known" properly to the public. They insist it was quite the find and who am I to argue from so far away?

In contrast, on the dark side of the Borders I have practically flogged our man in GU21 for not coming up with old Woking aerials. He insists he's spent many an hour searching; I don't care what anybody says these GCHQ contractors aren't worth a fig. Anybody out there got anything useful?

[Sean_A]

Well, we all know the 16th has been narrowed anyway.  I was curious about the left trees at Woking.

Ciao

[Peter Pallotta]

Bogey - more thoughts, to follow-up on my previous post:

Take the very best of the classic American golf courses -- I can't think of a single one that wasn't built to be a stern and challenging test, or a single one that was designed to serve or provide fun to the widest possible range of golfers. Neither can I think of a single top-tier classic American course-club that wasn't private, or that had more than two sets of tees, nor can I think of even one of those great golden age courses that didn't almost immediately start tinkering (adding more bunkers, lengthening holes etc) so as to keep the course a difficult and 'relevant' golfing experience. And all this in an era when a) the gap between top amateurs and pro golfers was much narrower than it would ever be again, and b) when the golfing ethos (and even the score cards) recognized the bogie golfer and the bogie score as an absolute given. Does any of that sound like the situation that exists today? Does any of that sound close to the goals (stated or unstated) of the great architects working today who have ushered in a new golden age? And if it doesn't, what does that say about what the goals and aspirations of today's architects actually are -- and in turn, what do those aspirations suggest about the 'quivers' architects are most likely to use?  Let me grant for the sake of argument your assumption that fairway width was 'once strategic'. What evidence do we have that anyone in the business today minds width being mostly -- though not exclusively -- about simply 'accommodating' the modern-day realities of golf? And perhaps interesting green contours are now mostly -- but not exclusively -- about giving some 'meaning' to this modern day kind of width. This is what I meant by using the term post modern and the metaphor of the invention of the camera -- i.e. you are asking about the 'tool kit' without entertaining the possibility that no one actually wants or can use those tools to build/design a golfing experience that's in any way similar to that of the previous golden age. They can't because today's public/retail golfers simply don't want that experience; to use the metaphor again, they don't need or want a great portrait painter when a digital camera more than serves that function. On the other hand, we all still like images of a beautiful and rugged landscape, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with a painter, or a golf course designer, using his talents and tool kit to give us just that.   

Peter

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

Would you consider amending your thread by limiting the discussion to local clubs and not the PGA Tour ?

[Josh Tarble]

Width without angled greens with bunkers designed to punish out of position tee shots doesn't make much sense.  

This is the most important thing imo.  Without green complexes that are cohesive with the overall design, width is meaningless.  I compare and contrast my home course with Harbor Shores in Michigan.  

At Broadmoor, the green complexes tie perfectly in with each hole philosophy.  Granted, our fairways could be a bit wider still, but there is absolutely a proper angle.  In proper position, the player will be presented with multiple options, out of position the player will be faced with a difficult one-dimensional shot.

At Harbor Shores, the fairways are wide and the greens are wild, but they don't seem to have any rhyme or reason to them. Regardless of positioning in the fairway the player is almost always faced with the same shot - an aerial attack to a pin surrounded by humps and mounds - you either execute or are faced with a long undulating putt or chip.

[Jud_T]

Given that I live in a town with hundreds of golf courses and I'm driving 4 1/2 hours tomorrow to find some wide, firm fairways I'd say it's a pretty esoteric problem.  Can you name 3 courses in the world where the fairways are too wide such that it detracts from strategy?

[Andy Troeger]

Width has always been accommodating at some level. Even with a bad angle I'd rather be in a fairway than rough, a bunker, or worse. I'm not sure I've ever had a case where the angle or conditions were so bad that I couldn't at least get the ball on the green (from a reasonable distance).

To make width strategic also requires some level of firmness and preferably at least a little wind. Otherwise good players will shoot darts and negate the point. This incudes better amateur players. The best courses that we talk about have enough firmness to negate that, at least in many cases for most players.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()