[Jeff_Brauer]

Over on the NCAA thread, a discussion on FW width has broken out like a case of the measles......

I have asked this once before, and don't recall anyone really wanting to get pinned down on such a seemingly simple opinion?

What is a wide fw to you, based on your experience, at your home course.  Obviously, playing in Denver where the ball flies further and presumably wider shouldn't factor in, unless you live near Denver.

I presume the early fw went to about 60 yards, based on sprinklers throwing 180 feet, and I believe most sort of compare today to those Golden Age days, so I will put that as the max, and the 25 yard wide US Open fairways as the narrow category?

So, what do you consider:

30?
35?
40?
45?
50?
55?

I will even start by saying, since slope stats put 40 yards wide as the 2/3 of average golfers hit them, I put that at medium, and 45-55 yards wide as wide.  35-40 is medium to me, and anything under 35 is narrow, and I am a pretty straight driver most days.

Your opinion may vary.....

[Chris Cupit]

At my course that I own and operate I try to have fairways that are at least 35-40 yards wide.  I also try and have light Bermuda rough. For my member his desire is fairways that are 40-60 yards wide, cut at .600 to .750 and with rough at 1.25 inches max.

When I was playing competitive amateur golf I wanted 30-35 yard wide fairways.  I also wanted them cut below .5. I too, wanted light rough 

My course has fairways from 35-65 yards wide.

[Garland Bayley]

80 yards is a wide fairway. 60 yards should be adequate.

[Jim Tang]

Jeff -

To me, a wide fairway isn't about number of yards.  It's about if you can take multiple lines off the tee which afford different angles of attack into the green.  If a course allows for those features, then I consider it to have wide fairways.  Black Sheep and Ballyneal are examples of clubs that come to mind.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Over on the NCAA thread, a discussion on FW width has broken out like a case of the measles......

I have asked this once before, and don't recall anyone really wanting to get pinned down on such a seemingly simple opinion?

What is a wide fw to you, based on your experience, at your home course.  Obviously, playing in Denver where the ball flies further and presumably wider shouldn't factor in, unless you live near Denver.

I presume the early fw went to about 60 yards, based on sprinklers throwing 180 feet, and I believe most sort of compare today to those Golden Age days, so I will put that as the max, and the 25 yard wide US Open fairways as the narrow category?

So, what do you consider:

30?
35?
40?
45?
50?
55?

I will even start by saying, since slope stats put 40 yards wide as the 2/3 of average golfers hit them, I put that at medium, and 45-55 yards wide as wide.  35-40 is medium to me, and anything under 35 is narrow, and I am a pretty straight driver most days.

Your opinion may vary.....

How can you ask that question absent a description of the wind conditions at that site AND the consequence a golfer will face for failing to hit the fairway.

There's a big difference between the Medalist or Old Marsh and NGLA or GCGC

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:

Based on what I've seen around the world, I would agree with your numbers ... 45 yards and up is "wide", under 35 yards is "narrow".

Certainly, the difficulty increases if the fairway (narrow or wide) is surrounded by vicious rough or other unplayable conditions, and you might need to bump up those numbers a bit in that circumstance.

P.S.  I remember the first time I showed up at Royal Melbourne, that the first fairway on the West course seemed impossibly wide, so I paced if off after hitting my tee shot.  83 yards = "impossibly wide"

[Michael Felton]

For me on the golf course, my feeling of width of play has to do with how far it is from serious trouble on one side to serious trouble on the other. A hole could have a 20 yard wide fairway that might feel wide to me if there is 30 yards either side of it that I can hit it into and still get my next shot on the green. Conversely, you could have a fairway that's 40 yards wide, but if there's a lake on one side and out of bounds on the other side and there's no rough between the fairway and death, then that would feel narrow to me.

By way of example,



The 15th and 16th fairways at Merion. The 15th is wider than the 16th in this photo, but it would not feel so to me standing on the tee.

[Thomas Dai]

Firmness of the fairways etc is also surely a key element.

atb

[Mike Nuzzo]

If the hole is well designed, a fairway can't be too wide.
Just because it is fairway grass, doesn't mean you should hit it there.
Wolf Point's first is 300 yards long and 200 yards wide - with no containment mounding on the hole - or a bunker within 30 yards of the green
I've made more bogeys than birdies on the first
Cheers

[Tom_Doak]

Wolf Point's first is 300 yards long and 200 yards wide - with no containment mounding on the hole - or a bunker within 30 yards of the green
I've made more bogeys than birdies on the first
Cheers

Maybe you're not that good a player 

[Nigel Islam]

For me on the golf course, my feeling of width of play has to do with how far it is from serious trouble on one side to serious trouble on the other. A hole could have a 20 yard wide fairway that might feel wide to me if there is 30 yards either side of it that I can hit it into and still get my next shot on the green. Conversely, you could have a fairway that's 40 yards wide, but if there's a lake on one side and out of bounds on the other side and there's no rough between the fairway and death, then that would feel narrow to me.

By way of example,



The 15th and 16th fairways at Merion. The 15th is wider than the 16th in this photo, but it would not feel so to me standing on the tee.

I am definitely in your school of thought. Trees certainly need to be figured in too.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jim Tang,

I understand, and the fact is, that can be accomplished with different width fw.  Put a green at a 5 degree angle, and the fw doesn't need to be as wide as if it was at a 15 degree angle.

Pat,

I understand your point, which is why I encouraged you to post relative to your most played course.  Wind (and drop shot tee shots) both affect width.  Not sure about consequence - to the confident golfer, hitting a 45 yard wide fw should be about the same difficulty in ball control, no matter if the side hazard is 4.5 deep or 45 ft deep, no?  Granted, the mental aspects are a bit different, but technically, the chance of hitting the fw is the same no matter how hard the hazard.

Mike Nuzzo,

I understand your point.....I wonder if many superintendents would say that mowing an extra 100 yards of fairway (or even 10 yards of fw!) is a good idea if its not a great idea to hit it there?

Michael,

It would appear that 15 is partially hidden by the bunker, changing the perception of fw width at MGC.  OB is a mental obstacle, of course.  Basically, if you figure your margin of error on the hook side is X, the close OB takes the first 1/4 to 1/3 of the FW out of consideration for aiming in this case.

However, always funny here - and in politics - how the debates often go to the extreme examples to make a point.  I am sure every course has a few holes that play narrower than they are, or maybe even wider than they really are. 

[Michael Felton]

The 15th and 16th fairways at Merion. The 15th is wider than the 16th in this photo, but it would not feel so to me standing on the tee.

I am definitely in your school of thought. Trees certainly need to be figured in too.

Agreed. Trees are a bother, but you can still play from them and you might be able to get close. It depends on how thick they are, but out of bounds really tightens up a hole. Especially when it's a yard off the fairway like the 15th at Merion in the US Open. That left half of the fairway might as well not even exist when I'm standing on the tee.

[Paul Gray]

It's of debatable (no) value as the system has always struck me as fundamentally flawed but for, what it is worth, the EGU categorise 25 to 30 yards as normal when assessing standard scratch score. Apparently firm and fast just isn't a factor, which says more about the collective thinking by some who should know better than anything else. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

I understand your point, which is why I encouraged you to post relative to your most played course.  Wind (and drop shot tee shots) both affect width.  Not sure about consequence - to the confident golfer, hitting a 45 yard wide fw should be about the same difficulty in ball control, no matter if the side hazard is 4.5 deep or 45 ft deep, no? 

Granted, the mental aspects are a bit different, but technically, the chance of hitting the fw is the same no matter how hard the hazard.

Jeff,

The "mental" aspects of the game have an enormous influence on the physical aspects of the game.

45 yards with water at both flanks will influence the swing and the results on tee shots, especially on windy sites.

The difference is easily detected if one plays Seminole versus Od Marsh, The Medalist or Doral

There's always added tension in the swing when the consequences of an errant shot are dire and even at 45 yards, on a windy site, with disaster llurking at both flanks, 45 yards may not be reasonably adequate.
And that added tension usually produces errant results.

Hence, So much is site dependent.

But, without wind,. without dire consequences at the flanks, I would think that 45 yards is "COMFORTABLE

Hope that helps

[Sean_A]

Played The Grove last week, that felt adequate, but not overly wide.  If someone could do some fancy measuring of a few 4s and 5s I wowuld appreciate it.  If not, I guess for most holes something like 45-55 yards wide of fairway and light rough is about right.  Of course, wind, firmness and slope ratchet that average up in an ideal world, say 5 yards for each element.  One is normally always in play so I guess at least 50 yards of fairway and light rough.  

Ciao  

[Adrian_Stiff]

Played The Grove last week, that felt adequate, but not overly wide.  If someone could do some fancy measuring of a few 4s and 5s I wowuld appreciate it.  If not, I guess for most holes something like 45-55 yards wide of fairway and light rough is about right.  Of course, wind, firmness and slope ratchet that average up in an ideal world, say 5 yards for each element.  One is normally always in play so I guess at least 50 yards of fairway and light rough.  

Ciao  

In the UK, most golf courses are quite narrow now, mainly because of the use of lightweight mowers versus time reduction. 35 yards is quite wide for us for our fairway's, most clubs balance 'the cut' so fairways can be cut in a day and that involves mowing about 4 acres per hour x 7 (4 fairways of 320 x 30).  The corridor of first cut (25mm) each side at say 2 (5gang widths) pulls the corridor up to 45.

Of the clubs I have visited in the last few weeks without exception everyone in my opinion is too narrow, the golf course would be better with fairways twice the width, mown with a compactor tractor and 9 gang kesmacs in halves, this would make the golf courses easier for the lesser player but would still keep the integrity and challenge intact for the better players who do not have much of problem hitting a 8 iron out of semi rough anyway. Making the game easier for poorer players means they will enjoy it more, play more so spend more.

[Tommy Williamsen]

I hit the tee ball relatively straight and like fairways that require accuracy. Anything over 40 yards is wide. 

[George Pazin]

For me on the golf course, my feeling of width of play has to do with how far it is from serious trouble on one side to serious trouble on the other. A hole could have a 20 yard wide fairway that might feel wide to me if there is 30 yards either side of it that I can hit it into and still get my next shot on the green. Conversely, you could have a fairway that's 40 yards wide, but if there's a lake on one side and out of bounds on the other side and there's no rough between the fairway and death, then that would feel narrow to me.

By way of example,



The 15th and 16th fairways at Merion. The 15th is wider than the 16th in this photo, but it would not feel so to me standing on the tee.

Nicely said, this is exactly what I thought after reading Jeff's opener.

To me, width is simply being able to find your ball and play it. It doesn't mean it has to be on the fairway - though the rough should also be sparse, not fertilized and overwatered lush, dense grass where you can't find your ball.

[Sean_A]

Played The Grove last week, that felt adequate, but not overly wide.  If someone could do some fancy measuring of a few 4s and 5s I wowuld appreciate it.  If not, I guess for most holes something like 45-55 yards wide of fairway and light rough is about right.  Of course, wind, firmness and slope ratchet that average up in an ideal world, say 5 yards for each element.  One is normally always in play so I guess at least 50 yards of fairway and light rough.  

Ciao  

In the UK, most golf courses are quite narrow now, mainly because of the use of lightweight mowers versus time reduction. 35 yards is quite wide for us for our fairway's, most clubs balance 'the cut' so fairways can be cut in a day and that involves mowing about 4 acres per hour x 7 (4 fairways of 320 x 30).  The corridor of first cut (25mm) each side at say 2 (5gang widths) pulls the corridor up to 45.

Of the clubs I have visited in the last few weeks without exception everyone in my opinion is too narrow, the golf course would be better with fairways twice the width, mown with a compactor tractor and 9 gang kesmacs in halves, this would make the golf courses easier for the lesser player but would still keep the integrity and challenge intact for the better players who do not have much of problem hitting a 8 iron out of semi rough anyway. Making the game easier for poorer players means they will enjoy it more, play more so spend more.

Adrian

You won't get an argument from me.  I rarely see 50 yards of fairway/light rough.  I played Burnham on Sunday - jeepers its tight with that horrible rough - way too tight - I would guess there are several holes with no more than 30 yards between horrible rough.  Everybody and their brother complains, but its the same every year.  It makes me wonder who is running the club.  Every May and June we just accept the rough will be horrible and instead should hire some kids to cut rough all day every day for a few months.  It costs money, but there is little point to playing a game only to bitch about it.  The few times I do play Burnham in summer I am always reminded why I go down there so little in summer.  Its stupid golf.

Bottom line, fairway and light rough needs to be 1) wide enough to make me think where I want to hit the ball and 2) comfortably accomodate 20 cappers.

Ciao  

[jeffwarne]

at what point will cup size eclipse fairway size?

[Michael Felton]

Michael,

It would appear that 15 is partially hidden by the bunker, changing the perception of fw width at MGC.  OB is a mental obstacle, of course.  Basically, if you figure your margin of error on the hook side is X, the close OB takes the first 1/4 to 1/3 of the FW out of consideration for aiming in this case.

However, always funny here - and in politics - how the debates often go to the extreme examples to make a point.  I am sure every course has a few holes that play narrower than they are, or maybe even wider than they really are. 

Merion is the example that popped into my head from watching the US Open. I have played it, but a long time ago and my recollection of playing the course is vague. As such, the visual impact of the bunker obscuring some of the fairway wasn't really there when I was describing the situation. I do agree that such an obscuring feature can result in a fairway playing narrower than it really is.

But the fact is that when I play, I vary my target based on the severity of the trouble. On that hole, assuming I could see the whole fairway, my target may well be the right edge of the fairway because the penalty left is so severe. A situation where you have OB left and water right, I might be aiming it 5 yards inside the water and that's going to play pretty narrow on one side at least, even if the hole is wide on paper.

I also think that because my aim changes depending on how severe the trouble is, I think it really does affect the effective playing width of the hole.

[BCowan]

at what point will cup size eclipse fairway size?

Don't you care about growing the game???

[Randy Thompson]

I canīt answer that until you tell me what comes after, outside the 35-40 yard fairway width. If its a forest or knee high fescue, 35-40 is narrow for me.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Mike Nuzzo,

I understand your point.....I wonder if many superintendents would say that mowing an extra 100 yards of fairway (or even 10 yards of fw!) is a good idea if its not a great idea to hit it there?

Jeff
I promise that if there was any wasted turf, Don Mahaffey would have stopped mowing a long time ago.
What you don't know is that the fairway has 4 uses.

*  First fairway
*  Fifth fairway
*  Fourth green surrounds
*  Practice range

It is efficiently used turf because sometimes it is a great idea to hit it there, and especially efficient because of the use of a gang mower.

Our point is that fairway is useful if it impacts the hole and how one plays, i.e. If the green sucked, fairway width would be a waste.
We think it is a waste to talk about fairway width without talking about green or tee design, hole strategy and routing.

Are the fairways at The Old Course too wide?

Cheers


Tom Doak
Yes, I agree, some days I am not the best partner!
Cheers

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()