NCAA at Prairie Dunes

[Jason Topp]

Not sure why I did this but I measured the width of the fairways on this aerial tour - http://course.bluegolf.com/bluegolf/course/course/prairiedunes/aerial.htm#

I don't know the course well enough to really know the likely landing spot for tee shots but the fairway widths generally do not vary a ton other than where bunkers pinch.  Many are angled to the tee so that could make them play wider or narrower depending on which way the player moves the ball.  In general the front nine appears to be wider than the back.  There seems to be more regular rough on the back so I would not be surprised if those fairways have been narrowed at some point.

1.  37
3.  35
5 - 37
6 - 35
7 - 37 (narrows to 29 at bunker)
8 - 31
9 - 37

11 - 34
12 - 30
13 - 29
14 - 34
16 - 30
17 - 29
18 - 30

[Nigel Islam]

Not sure why I did this but I measured the width of the fairways on this aerial tour - http://course.bluegolf.com/bluegolf/course/course/prairiedunes/aerial.htm#

I don't know the course well enough to really know the likely landing spot for tee shots but the fairway widths generally do not vary a ton other than where bunkers pinch.  Many are angled to the tee so that could make them play wider or narrower depending on which way the player moves the ball.  In general the front nine appears to be wider than the back.  There seems to be more regular rough on the back so I would not be surprised if those fairways have been narrowed at some point.

1.  37
3.  35
5 - 37
6 - 35
7 - 37 (narrows to 29 at bunker)
8 - 31
9 - 37

11 - 34
12 - 30
13 - 29
14 - 34
16 - 30
17 - 29
18 - 30

That is interesting as the Press holes seem tighter, but according to your stats are not. I thought 8 in the landing area was miles wide too.

[Brian Finn]

I watched all of the coverage late last night, and was reminded of just how incredibly diverse and interesting Prairie Dunes is.  I wish there was a bit more coverage of the early holes, particularly 6 through 8, which I think is an absolutely incredible stretch of holes within an 18 hole masterpiece. 

6th - short(ish) par 4, especially for the college bombers, but plenty of trouble, with bunkers in just the right spots (esp the left fw bunker ~250-260 out and the visually deceiving bunker roughly 10 yards short of the green)
7th - brilliant, reachable par 5 with a generous landing area for those willing to lay back a bit, but progressively tighter from 300 to 350 off the tee...well-guarded green, with just enough room for shorter hitters to trundle the ball on through the gap
8th - perhaps the best par 4 I have ever played - rumpled, reverse camber fairway, challenging approach, particularly if attacking a right flag position.

The greens throughout the course are a rare meeting of natural landform and design genius.  They have a very consistent look and feel, but manage to never play in a repetitive manner (hole to hole or round to round).  That goes for the entire course, really, which was especially impressive to me as I went around my first 5 times earlier this month, considering the mix of Perry and Press.

[Sean Leary]

Pat have you been back since 1988? Why won't you consider the possibility that rough may in fact be helpful for many of the members. Think about holes 1, 3, 8, 16, 17 and 18 and all the tee shots that can be saved from the gunsch by the rough. Trust me, it does.

So you're stating that Pre-2006 Sr Open, the rough, as it was then configured, didn't save any balls from going into the gunsch ?

But now that the rough has been expanded inward, toward the center of the fairway, more balls, balls hit closer to that centerline, are saved from going into the gunsch ?  ?  ?

Is that right ? ?  ? No, those balls are not. But as you move the fairways closer to the gunch, more balls are saved from the gunsch because the bounce off the fairway is bigger than off the rough.

You'll have a hard time convincing me that when a fairway is 40 yards wide, and it's narrowed down to 30 yards wide, how that 5 yards of new rough, closer to the centerline of the fairway, saves balls from going into the rough. I think that an additional 5 yards of fairway would not have a major affect on the playability of the golf course, with the exception of a few holes, which I have highlighted earlier. If we are talking about expanding the fairways so that the fairways are WIDE, as you spoke of earlier, then we are talking about way more than 5 yards

Don't take this the wrong way but are you guys blind to the physical facts ?

Put in logical terms, you're all morons, blindly defending a course that enjoys "MFNS"

If the rough between the fairway and gunsch is ten yards in width and you move the rough closer to the centerline of the fairway by expanding the rough five (5) yards closer to the center of the fairway, do you really believe that reconfiguring the rough such that it now extends another five yards closer to the centerline of the fairway is going to stop more balls from going into the rough ?You are correct. 5 yards will not make a big difference.

You'd have to be a colossal moron to believe that.

You guys must have flunked math 101........... or maybe it was geometry 101 or logic 101

Or maybe all three.

So, let's go back to the question I keep on asking that no one has answered.

Why would you defend the current width of the fairways versus the Pre 2006 Sr Open widths of the fairways ? I did not play it pre 2006. I am talking about how the current golf course plays for players of all ability. If the rough were kept so that it was penal, I would agree with most everything that you say. But it is not.  I would like to see a few fairways widened a bit. I do not know the cost associated with reclaiming fairway and keeping it that way, but that is a consideration as well. The biggest shortcoming of the course is the gunsch. If anything, I would like to see some of the corridors widened (which they have done on number 5 since you have been there in 1988).

MORONS NEED NOT REPLY

[Chris Cupit]

I watched all of the coverage late last night, and was reminded of just how incredibly diverse and interesting Prairie Dunes is.  I wish there was a bit more coverage of the early holes, particularly 6 through 8, which I think is an absolutely incredible stretch of holes within an 18 hole masterpiece.  

6th - short(ish) par 4, especially for the college bombers, but plenty of trouble, with bunkers in just the right spots (esp the left fw bunker ~250-260 out and the visually deceiving bunker roughly 10 yards short of the green)
7th - brilliant, reachable par 5 with a generous landing area for those willing to lay back a bit, but progressively tighter from 300 to 350 off the tee...well-guarded green, with just enough room for shorter hitters to trundle the ball on through the gap
8th - perhaps the best par 4 I have ever played - rumpled, reverse camber fairway, challenging approach, particularly if attacking a right flag position.

The greens throughout the course are a rare meeting of natural landform and design genius.  They have a very consistent look and feel, but manage to never play in a repetitive manner (hole to hole or round to round).  That goes for the entire course, really, which was especially impressive to me as I went around my first 5 times earlier this month, considering the mix of Perry and Press.

Brian,

Some great early holes as you point out and one item mentioned that makes the "width debate" so tough is the number of choices the elite golfer has off the tee and the fact that widths vary depending upon which area of fairway you ar playing to.

for example, the 6th hole you mention may have that left bunker at 250-260 that is right in the good player's range but it was not a factor for 90% of the college kids.  Drivers and mostly threee woods were bombed over that left bunker as if it were not there (with wind it may have been a diffrent story).  Six was in fact one of the easier driving holes because after you bomb it sown to the flat portion of the FW, it is VERY wide--my estimate is that while the FW may measure 35 yards between that left bunker and rough line (even farther to the gunch) once you get to the flat is is 40-45 yards wide.

Hole 7 is another example--the second FW bunker on the left is where many scratch golfer hit the ball and many college kids landed right in and around that bunker too--that was the narrowest part of the FW and lots of kids found trouble on this tee shot.  But the the decision for the kids was either a hybrid or #wood that was hit to try and just keep the roll out short of that bunker and leave a longer iron or hybrid in OR attempt to bomb it past that left bunker, over the hill and way down to where a lone FW (?) bunker was on the right at the 350 or so mark.  The bombers that made that play brought more trouble into play getting past that bottleneck but if they hit one great they had wedges in to this par 5.  Not sure how you measure width on that hole--35 yards wide short of the left bunker, 29 yards wide at the narrowest point and back to 35-37 yards wide after that.

I had mentioned 8 before and again saw most of the kids play hybrids and 3 woods to the widest, flattest portion of the FW before the hole began to bend.  Drivers would be at that narrower area but few challenged it as a worthwhile risk.  If you hit your 6 iron 200, why bother  

What to me is so great about the course is the number of CHOICES the golfer has off the tee--isn't that what strategic architecture is all about.  PD gives you many, many options and various widths to play to.  

[Chris Cupit]

PD is great and Pat may be mostly off base BUT he has a point--this is a difficult course for the average player who does not hit the ball straight.  It may be difficult for many in the Membership there too--BUT IT IS THEIR CLUB.  Should Oakmont members be chastised for the fetish with penal architecture and green speeds beyond crazy  Should Seminole be taken to task for firm and fast so extreme that elite amateurs five and six putt (one to lose the finals of their invitational) and chip all over the greens and back  

In this thread I was trying to talk about a great championship at a great course and highlight an event I thought many would be interested in.  I love the course and played it a few years ago.  Frankly, I played awful and mainly as a result of driving the ball poorly.  It was very windy on my trip (flight was cnancelled coming in due to weather and I had to re-schedule) and so I have seen very windy, difficult conditins and benign ones.

I am a good club player and had to hit 6-7 iron into 2, 3-4 iron into 4 and hole 8 was an absolute bear into the wind--I think I hit my driver right into the "crapper" on the left

BUT, with enough plays I still feel like I could manage my game and get around were I playing well--it wasn't unfair.

There is ample width today and that width is needed because you will usually have wind.

I also saw Pat's chart comparing old slope and rating with new slope and rating.  Rating is almost entirely a factor of length and is a roughly a measure of what a scratch golfer would shoot compared to par.  Slope takes into account factors like fairway width nad certainly "gunch" but also green severity and slope and is a relative rating focused more on the "average" golfer (whatever that is).  I would suggest that other factors, like increased green speeds on those very difficult greens, maybe some added length and yes, maybe some narrowing of some fairways all contributed to slight increases in the slope rating.  I suppose I could ask Tom McCutcheon who was one of the raters of PD about these changes though I am sure Pat would call him a "moron" too--his first hand knowledge be damned  (That offer stands though Pat--Tom has been a very long time USGA and NCAA official, I bet you know him and after he was a PD rater he since became a Member too--would his opinion carry any weight with you?

One last thought that Pat may even concede--Equipment today (the ball and driver) have made driving the ball straight easier than ever.  It is easier to hit a straight ball today than it was in 1988--26 years ago.  Maybe in 26 years, with a ball flying longer and straighter than ever before, a slight narrowing even for the "average player" is not so out of line?

Was PD with old balata, wood woods, steel shafts and no lob wedges easier for the expert OR the average player than today with modern equipment?

[Brian Finn]

What to me is so great about the course is the number of CHOICES the golfer has off the tee--isn't that what strategic architecture is all about.  PD gives you many, many options and vary widths to play to. 

Outstanding points in your entire post - an excellent comparison of how holes play for a scratch club player compared to today's best D1 college kids.

I especially agree with the above comment on CHOICES.  Nearly all of my favorite courses present multiple (genuine) options on nearly every shot.  PD does so like few other courses I have played.

[Jason Topp]

Now, off topic, if I give you my address woud you be abe to see if I need to get someone on my roof to get rid of any limbs/branches that are up there?

If you think you might need someone on your roof, you need someone on your roof.

The Blue Golf site has impressive information for the courses with photo tours available.  By clicking on two spots on a particular hole you can measure distances between them.  I find it a great objective check on subjective experiences. 

The big limitations of the tool are elevation changes and wind.  It is easy to be led astray when guessing your tactics for a new course so some mystery remains.

[BHoover]

On Morning Drive earlier today, Gary Williams declared himself to be "anti-trolley" in response to the Stanford team's use of pushcarts at PD.  I wonder whether the use of pushcarts in some way detracts from one's ability to appreciate course architecture as opposed to carrying your own bag?

[William_G]

Great thread Chris, THANK YOU! You have very thoughtful insights and experience. 

There is no doubt that these top amateurs hit it farther and straighter than ever! 

[Ken Moum]

Since it appears that I was the only other GCAer there this week, I'll offer my two cents.

Pat's right about one thing, some fairways are a bit narrow.  But I was there for four days in 2001 for the Women's Open, played twice on back to back days a couple years ago and now walked it four times with college players.

First, I don't see much, if any, significant difference between 2001 and now.  The exception is that some areas of gunsch have been cleared, notably the hill on #10. In 2001 it was a blind shot due to the bushes.

I'll also say that until this week I thought PD was too hard for a 12-handicapper like me--IOW a short, crooked hitter with a short game of note. 

The reason being that it's not the thigh fairways that concern me. My concern was that hole after hole has impenetrable gunsch within a couple of steps of the putting surface.

I could hit it in the fairway only to barely miss a green (I miss 16+ a round) and make double bogey or worse.

But four days with a clipboard have changed my mind... along with talking to some members about strategy.

One example is #8 which seemed completely beyond my ability. And I didn't see how to get past it.

But now I realize that driving to the flattest part of the fairway, on the left.  From there with the usual tailwind I have a chance. But even if I don't, I can lay up to the VERY wide spot short of the green.

Even more notable is that I found out plenty of members in my age group (66) play the silver tees.

Which are only 5500 yards. Hell, a single-digit player with some.gray hair said he was close to.moving up.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I was watching on TV and told a companion that if you can see any green contour from the overhead shot, it must have lots of contour.  If you see dramatic contours from the overhead shot, they must be close to over the top. 

I don't recall seeing the contours that easily from the air on any recent broadcast.....

[David Kelly]

One thing that isn't being taken into consideration is that regardless of the width of the fairways, in the effective landing zones for drives the fairway is much wider.  That is because you are often driving into a fairway that is turning one way or another.

Hole 1 - side-to-side width really isn't an issue because you are driving into a fairway that is turning to the left.
Hole 3 - players are hitting irons or hybrids into the fairway on this short hole.
Hole 5 - to me the tightest driving hole on the course, made tighter by the fact tthat because of the slope of the fairway you have to land the ball on the left 50% of the fairway in order not to roll into the right rough.
Hole 6 - the teebox is offset to the left of the fairway so that your effective angle off of the tee gives you a much wider landing area.
Hole 7 - pretty tight driving hole however it usually plays downwind so players can hit a 3W off the tee and still often reach it.
Hole 8 - fairway moves slightly left to right which opens up a little extra width.
Hole 9 - pretty straight fairway but one that I have never thought of as tight at all.  Sometimes plays with a hard wind coming from the right which makes hitting a good drive harder.

Hole 11 - again the fairway is moving left which opens up the width a little.
Hole 12 - hitting the fairway is imperative on this hole and while it is a little offset from the tee box it is a tough drving hile.  Generally most players won't be hitting drivers here though.
Hole 13 - a bear of a drive into the prevailing wind but again its turns a little to the left to open up the fairway a little.
Hole 14 - golfers are often hitting less than a driver here and the fairway is moving left.
Hole 16 - fairway is pretty generous and is moving right with a back tee that is offset to the right.
Hole 17 - the tee shot is not as straight as it looks because it is offset a little. The fairway has a vanishing point look to hit that gets narrower as it gets closer.
Hole 18 - usually downwind and not requiring a driver, fairway goes a little right which opens up the angle a little.

The only thing I haven't liked about the course set-up the last wek at PD is that the greens are too soft.  The Maxwell greens there are top 5 in the world and would be a little more interesting if they were a little harder.  Also, where the hell has the wind been?

[Bill Vogeney]

Great work, Jason. Makes sense-17 is always a tough drive for me, because:
1. Obviously, it's the narrowest fairway on the course
2. It's a straight hole, which for my eyes, is the toughest to play. I can't work the ball off a gentle bend, etc. That's why, even though playing the new 480 yard tee on #5 into the prevailing wind is absolutely nuts for me, I LOVE that tee. It frames the hole wonderfully and gives you the bunker on the left to work the ball off that. Also wides the effective width of the fairway.

I guess I thought the driving areas are generous, because as another member pointed out, many of the hole have gentle bends (1, 3, 6, 8, 11, 13, 14, 16, 18) and you can work the ball with the shape of the hole to effectively widen the fairway.

I am not a straight driver of the ball. But, I can work the ball, and typically have some consistency of my right to left move, which works very nicely on all of the above mentioned holes other than 16 and 18. However, I can down the right side on those hole and have a lot of room left to miss.

I LOVE Prairie Dunes (about 90 rounds in my 4+ years as a national member) for a couple of reasons:
1. It's a great test of golf between the wind, gunch, and green complexes
2. However, that being said, it's still FUN to play. Maxwell, from what I can see being an associate of Dr. MacKenzie, also believed bogey to be reasonably attainable and par a challenge for the average golf. The Maxwells give you places to miss and places to layup if you decide not to try to force a shot into those greens (example, any approach for me over 180 yards on #8-I'll take a 7 iron and leave myself a 30 yard pitch up the hill).
3. It forces you to commit to every shot. If you are commited to a shot and a shot shape, and you avoid the dreaded double cross (which Prairie Dunes does not tolerate in any way, shape or form) you will be at least partially rewarded.
4. The greens just take my breath away. Either from the sheer beauty, or being paralyzed by the thought that my chip shot, if I miss my landing spot, will either go bounding off the green or come back at me. I tell some of my guests that there are holes that if you aren't in complete control of your short game, you should simply just put your chip shot in the middle of the green and take bogey.

Vog

Not sure why I did this but I measured the width of the fairways on this aerial tour - http://course.bluegolf.com/bluegolf/course/course/prairiedunes/aerial.htm#

I don't know the course well enough to really know the likely landing spot for tee shots but the fairway widths generally do not vary a ton other than where bunkers pinch.  Many are angled to the tee so that could make them play wider or narrower depending on which way the player moves the ball.  In general the front nine appears to be wider than the back.  There seems to be more regular rough on the back so I would not be surprised if those fairways have been narrowed at some point.

1.  37
3.  35
5 - 37
6 - 35
7 - 37 (narrows to 29 at bunker)
8 - 31
9 - 37

11 - 34
12 - 30
13 - 29
14 - 34
16 - 30
17 - 29
18 - 30

[Bill_McBride]

I was watching on TV and told a companion that if you can see any green contour from the overhead shot, it must have lots of contour.  If you see dramatic contours from the overhead shot, they must be close to over the top. 

I don't recall seeing the contours that easily from the air on any recent broadcast.....

I can never see contours on any Google Maps aerial photos either.  Is Google Earth better?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Now the question remains, how do the current narrowed fairways compare to the Pre-2006 Sr Open fairways and why wouldn't you return the current fairways to their Pre-2006 widths ?

Could be the members have no issue with the setup as is.  It plays wide as stated above.

Have you ever played  it ?

How do 30 yard wide fairways in the DZ play wide ?

You'd have to be a moron to declare that fairways 30 yards in the DZ, play wide, especially when you see the gunch flanking them.  

I've probably gone around a couple hundred times at Prairie Dunes.

Kyle,

Then you're holding yourself out to be an expert on Prairie Dunes.



30-45 yards are more than wide enough for my eye.

Really ?

Well in that case would you identify those 45 yard fairways that your eye detected ?

Below is Jason's chart on the fairway widths.

With your hundreds of plays there how is it that there are NO fairways that are 45 yards wide ?
With your hundreds of plays there, including "more this year than in my lifetime", how could you be so wrong
about the widths of the fairways ?  ?  ?

It would seem that your evaluative skills are more a figment of your imagination and ego than reality.

There's not a fairway that comes close to 45 yards.

What does that tell us about "your eye" ?

1.  37
3.  35
5 - 37
6 - 35
7 - 37 (narrows to 29 at bunker)
8 - 31
9 - 37

11 - 34
12 - 30
13 - 29
14 - 34
16 - 30
17 - 29
18 - 30

It seems that I could just be mentally tougher than you at your advanced age.

It seems that you need a seeing eye dog, irrespective of your age.

[Patrick_Mucci]

You can't know a course with only a hundred to two hundred plays. (You have gotten the most out of that membership!)

Mike,

I suspect that Kyle's 200 plays were between 10:00 pm and 4:00 am with Ray Charles and Stevie Wonder.

The guy doesn't have a clue as to how wide the fairways are, and that's with the benefit of his alleged 200 plays.

What does that tell you about his powers of observation and evaluative skills.

[Patrick_Mucci]

With "death" as you call it, looming at the flanks, the fairways should be wider.

The fairways should be widened, with the non-gunch rough shrunk, as the gunch will remain in place.

It's too penal the way it is.

Everyone watching the NCAA's seems to forget that the members and their guests aren't as good as the best golfers on the best college golf teams in the country. [/color]

Less light rough, replaced by fairway, would mean more balls would enter the gunch.

What "light rough" ?
There's fairway, rough and gunch, there is no "light rough"

Widening the fairways to their PRE-2006 USGA Sr Open would NOT result in more balls in the gunch.
Consider the angle that a ball from the tee would hit the fairway and how it's continued path would end up in the gunch.

The course is plenty wide.

Really.

Do you consider this plenty wide ?

1.  37
3.  35
5 - 37
6 - 35
7 - 37 (narrows to 29 at bunker)
8 - 31
9 - 37

11 - 34
12 - 30
13 - 29
14 - 34
16 - 30
17 - 29
18 - 30

Next time you make a analytical comment, know what you're talking about before hitting the "enter" key

[Patrick_Mucci]

This is why it's pointless trying to have a discussion with Pat Mucci.

Pointless because you're so wrong, so out of your element in terms of the facts that your only resort is to personalize the discussion.

Chris, who knows the topic inside-out, says "all the fairways were at least 35-40 yards wide", to which Mucci responds "since when is 30 yards in the dz plenty wide?".

Turns out that Chris's measurements were incorrect, weren't they.
Where are those 45 and 40 yard wide fairways that you claimed were plenty wide ?
In case you had forgotten the fairway widths, here they are:

1.  37
3.  35
5 - 37
6 - 35
7 - 37 (narrows to 29 at bunker)
8 - 31
9 - 37

11 - 34
12 - 30
13 - 29
14 - 34
16 - 30
17 - 29
18 - 30

I didn't see one fairway at 45 or 40 yards, did you ?

So 29 yards is "plenty wide" ?  ?  ?

Perhaps for PGA Tour Pros, but, not for a local club's membership

It's even more tiresome than hoary old lines about Ford models, barbecue charcoal and ATVs in the Hamptons.

What's tiresome is your grossly inaccurate posts regarding the fairway widths at PD

But, what can one expect from a dim witted moron ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

The fact that you first response to me bypassed on-topic debate for calling me a homosexual speaks volumes.

I also noticed your voice kinda faded away after KK responded to your old favourite "have you even played it?".

There's plenty of room by and large from gunch to gunch and the light rough makes that effectively wide than were it all fairway.

Gunch to gunch width was NEVER the issue.
Fairway width WAS the issue

My question remains:

For those who claim that Prairie Dunes is "wide" or "plenty wide", how would you compare today's width with the pre-2006 Senior Open width ?

If it's "wide" or "plenty wide" today, what was it pre the preparation for the 2006 Senior Open ?





Where there could be more room is on a very short four and a short five, so I can live with that.

The terrain, greens and conditioning are as good as it gets in golf and the wind makes all of that even more fun. I visited Prairie Dunes on a six-day roadtrip in 2012 with Sand Hills and Ballyneal and were I forced to choose only one to visit again it would be PD. Splitting 15 rounds I'd take 6 at PD, 5 at SH & 4 at BN.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Now the question remains, how do the current narrowed fairways compare to the Pre-2006 Sr Open fairways and why wouldn't you return the current fairways to their Pre-2006 widths ?

Could be the members have no issue with the setup as is. 

It plays wide as stated above.

This is wide ?

1.  37
3.  35
5 - 37
6 - 35
7 - 37 (narrows to 29 at bunker)
8 - 31
9 - 37

11 - 34
12 - 30
13 - 29
14 - 34
16 - 30
17 - 29
18 - 30

[Patrick_Mucci]

I've played Prairie Dunes more this year than you have in your life.

Maybe, maybe not.
How many times have you played it this year ?

So, to be clear, it's your opinion that fairways 30 yards wide are "more than wide enough..."
Is that correct ?
Because that's what you stated.


It's sad watching such a narcissist fall apart.

"Fall apart" as in failure to answer specific questions.

Why have you, with your extensive knowledge and play of PD, not addressed the issue of Pre and Post 2006 fairway widths ?

In what year did you first play PD ?

I used to wonder how the crew of the Titanic felt as they drowned.

Cold

But don't ever kid yourself or anyone else into thinking that you're mentally tougher, on and off the golf course.

Forgot to ask, what's your handicap ?

Yes - I do believe 30 yards would be wide enough.  

Every fairway at Prairie Dunes is wider than that, but I don't see any reason to narrow them further.

So, according to you, who's played Prairie Dunes over 200 times, every fairway at Prairie Dunes is wider than 30 yards.
How do you account for the following fairway widths, some of which are narrower than 30 yards ?
1.  37
3.  35
5 - 37
6 - 35
7 - 37 (narrows to 29 at bunker)
8 - 31
9 - 37

11 - 34
12 - 30
13 - 29
14 - 34
16 - 30
17 - 29
18 - 30

I thought you said that you had played the course over 200 times ?
That's right, you said that you had "gone around" the course over 200 times, and I asked you to clarify the "gone around" versus "played" for us.  

As it is set up now, there is plenty of room to drive the ball and the angles are there.

Really ?

Perhaps your eye is faulty when it comes to assessing the fairway width measurements.
Here they are again.
1.  37
3.  35
5 - 37
6 - 35
7 - 37 (narrows to 29 at bunker)
8 - 31
9 - 37

11 - 34
12 - 30
13 - 29
14 - 34
16 - 30
17 - 29
18 - 30

Tell us where there's plenty of room on these fairways, NOT one of which comes close to your 45 and 40 yard assessment ?

I also asked you to tell us how many times you've played Prairie Dunes in 2014 since you claimed that you had played it more this year than I had in my lifetime.

Why have you failed to answer that simple question, especially given the weather this Winter and Spring.
So, how many times have you played Prairie Dunes in 2014 ?

I also asked you what your handicap is.
Now that's such a simple question, one that can be answered with one or two digits.
But, you failed to answer that as well.

WHY ?  

Do you feel that Pine Tree is too narrow from the tee?  

Feel free to initiate a thread on that subject and I'll respond

How about Garden City?

See my answer above

When is the last time that you played Prairie Dunes?  
With your current handicap we could have a good match.  
I'm sure a man as mentally tough as you are doesn't give strokes.

Not surprisingly, you're confusing mental toughness with stupidity.  

I do worry that you couldn't keep up.  

I'd likely be waving while heading down the third fairway as you continue to search for a place where you could step off the fairway width of the first in 30 paces.

In some cases I wouldn't get to 30 paces.
In others I'd just reach 30 paces.
But, one things for sure, I won't reach 45 and 40 paces as you claimed as measured by your "eye"
1.  37
3.  35
5 - 37
6 - 35
7 - 37 (narrows to 29 at bunker)
8 - 31
9 - 37

11 - 34
12 - 30
13 - 29
14 - 34
16 - 30
17 - 29
18 - 30

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat...

Do what you want, you are a big boy.

But it is my opinion that you are way out of line.

Why, because I challenged people to think and they proved that they were incapable of the exercise ?  

You can question members of the course who've played there many times over, but in all honesty they have way more knowledge of the course than anyone on this forum.

Mac,

Really.  Then how did they get the measurements so WRONG ?
Where are the 45 yard fairways ?
Where are the 40 yard fairways ?
1.  37
3.  35
5 - 37
6 - 35
7 - 37 (narrows to 29 at bunker)
8 - 31
9 - 37

11 - 34
12 - 30
13 - 29
14 - 34
16 - 30
17 - 29
18 - 30

It turns out that they were wrong and that I was right.
What a surprise.
Time for you to chastize them for being morons. 

You can question the rules official who was actually on-site for this tournament, but, again, he has way more knowledge of the course set up then any of us have on this forum.

More knowledge ?
Turns out that they didn't have more knowledge.

And, did you and those morons bother to read my reply # 100.
Did you bother to read it with an iota of comprehension ?
I suggest that you reread it as many times as necessary until you have that light bulb moment when you "get it"

The issue i raised was about "RELATIVITY". 
The issue morphed into absolutes because morons can't read with the slightest degree of comprehension.
But, even in absolutes, I was correct.
There are NO 45 yard fairways.
There are NO 40 yard fairways.
There are fairways less than 30 yards wide
There are fairways that are 30 yards wide.

Do you know what US Open widths are ?

Does 24-26 yards seem about right.

If 24-26 yard widths are intended for the best golfers in the world, how would you define the quality of golfer who should be playing fairways 29 yards in width, with disaster lurking just beyond that width ?  

HOWEVER, to make comments about someone's sexuality and sexual preferences is WAY out of line.  
I believe a kudos goes out to Scott Warren for showing restraint in his responses to your over the top comments.

Baloney,

Scott intitiated the personalization.
Scott has a history of that conduct.
And, Scott was DEAD WRONG about the fairway widths.

Scott didn't like my comments about Ford Models.
If he intends to dish it out, he should be prepared to take the response.

You can respond in whatever way you want to me, but to be clear this is my last post of this thread...regardless of what you say.  

I really don't care.

This was a really cool thread about the championship and Prairie Dunes with lots of people with first hand knowledge and now it is being dragged into meaningless banter and non-sense.

Since when is correcting gross misrepresentations and setting the facts RIGHT, meaningless banter and nonsense ?

Go back and reread reply # 100.
Is it not a legitimate question ?
Then read the moronic responses, read the morons inability to comprehend the question in the context of relativity.
Then read the blatant misrepresentations about the fairway widths at Prairie Dunes.
Some from people who've never been to Kansas, let along Hutchinson.

Do you see any fairways that are 45 yards wide, as was claimed ?
Do you see any fairways that are 40 yards wide, as was claimed ?

Is that what you would call a "cool thread" ?
A thread that misrepresents the FACTS ?

Do you want threads with candor and veracity or do you prefer romantic myths with no basis in fact ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat have you been back since 1988? Why won't you consider the possibility that rough may in fact be helpful for many of the members. Think about holes 1, 3, 8, 16, 17 and 18 and all the tee shots that can be saved from the gunsch by the rough. Trust me, it does.

So you're stating that Pre-2006 Sr Open, the rough, as it was then configured, didn't save any balls from going into the gunsch ?

But now that the rough has been expanded inward, toward the center of the fairway, more balls, balls hit closer to that centerline, are saved from going into the gunsch ?  ?  ?

Is that right ? ?  ? No, those balls are not. But as you move the fairways closer to the gunch, more balls are saved from the gunsch because the bounce off the fairway is bigger than off the rough.

Sean, there's 20 yards of rough between the fairway and the gunsch.
If you examine the angle from the tee to impact on the fairway, you'd be hard pressed to have a ball enter the gunsch.
AND, more telling is:  That's the way the course was PRIOR to the 2006 Sr Open.

You'll have a hard time convincing me that when a fairway is 40 yards wide, and it's narrowed down to 30 yards wide, how that 5 yards of new rough, closer to the centerline of the fairway, saves balls from going into the rough. I think that an additional 5 yards of fairway would not have a major affect on the playability of the golf course, with the exception of a few holes, which I have highlighted earlier. If we are talking about expanding the fairways so that the fairways are WIDE, as you spoke of earlier, then we are talking about way more than 5 yards

Don't take this the wrong way but are you guys blind to the physical facts ?

Put in logical terms, you're all morons, blindly defending a course that enjoys "MFNS"

If the rough between the fairway and gunsch is ten yards in width and you move the rough closer to the centerline of the fairway by expanding the rough five (5) yards closer to the center of the fairway, do you really believe that reconfiguring the rough such that it now extends another five yards closer to the centerline of the fairway is going to stop more balls from going into the rough ?

You are correct. 5 yards will not make a big difference.

Agreed

You'd have to be a colossal moron to believe that.

You guys must have flunked math 101........... or maybe it was geometry 101 or logic 101

Or maybe all three.

So, let's go back to the question I keep on asking that no one has answered.

Why would you defend the current width of the fairways versus the Pre 2006 Sr Open widths of the fairways ?

I did not play it pre 2006. I am talking about how the current golf course plays for players of all ability.

That WASN'T my question.
MY question was specifically about the PRE 2006 Sr Open rough and today's rough.


If the rough were kept so that it was penal, I would agree with most everything that you say. But it is not.  I would like to see a few fairways widened a bit.

Then we agree on the subject

I do not know the cost associated with reclaiming fairway and keeping it that way, but that is a consideration as well.

Nah

The biggest shortcoming of the course is the gunsch.

It's certainly a relevant issue.
It's akin to OB or a Water Hazard.
If the gunsch was water I'm sure that the criticism would be harsher.
There's something about taking an X on a hole that I find distasteful, especially when it can be any one of 18 holes.

If anything, I would like to see some of the corridors widened (which they have done on number 5 since you have been there in 1988).
AGREED

MORONS NEED NOT REPLY[/color]

[Chris Cupit]

Pat,

My response to you was this:

Not sure what you are talking about.  Fairways are very generous.  I am estimating 40 yards for fairways in many places and width from "bunch to bunch" is even wider.

Given that I was "eyeballing" widths I think coming within three paces on many holes is quite good.  Also, I am not sure of the method for measuring but I remember the eighth green being 41 paces deep.  I did look on google and it appeared to me that the depth of eight green was equal or even less than several fairway widths.  I think the width of the FW on 6 where the kids actually played to is wider than what may have been mesured too.

But even if the widths reflect accurately what was there last week (how recent are Google earth pics--I really don't know) my point is that the fairway widths are plenty wide, generous in fact and they need to be given the wind they often encounter there.  As someone like yourself who has played in numerous championships you know that 32 yards wide is about as wide as you would ever find a hole in a USGA Championship--most fairway at PD is wider than that.

But the main point is not just fairway widths but overall width between the gunch.  What are those measurements?  REALLY WIDE!  To hit a ball in the gunch at PD you have hit a very bad drive.  I am guessing the OVERALL width of playable area on most holes at PD is 60 yards plus.  I do not deny that over 18 holes the cumulative effect of keeping your ball in play can put a lot of pressure on a player, even an expert.  But unless the wind is blowing at PD, you have room to play golf.

Last point is that the course is relatively short for today's players.  As I mentioned I saw every club from Driver to 5-iron on 18 for example.  Would you say 18 is too narrow for a 5-iron?  A 3-iron?  Hybrid?  The tee shots present choices--every time a player hit it in the gunch I am sure they thought "why didn't I just lay back with my xxx club"!

Just so we know--what is the "proper" width of fairways at PD?  Should there be primary rough, secondary rough and then the "gunch" as it was at the NCAA?  If so, how wide should that be?  How wide from gunch to gunch is appropriate?  I am certain the Membership and future Championship Committees are breathless with anticipation of your pronuncements