[Kyle Harris]

I hoped someone would take the flame of my driving range comment and set it to the gas tank...

For me, the question of width is directly related to the question posed to the golfer on the tee for the hole.

If that question is answered by hitting successive targets specified by either the architect or the superintendent, what purpose does the golf hole serve for testing or demonstrating golfing mettle that can't be demonstrated by aiming for targets on a driving range?

The golfer must spend shots to score, and the fewer the better. A narrow presentation dictates exactly how those shots are to be spent, while a wider presentation allows for a more varied approach in spending the shots required to hole out, and in doing so allows the architect, the superintendent, and perhaps most important the golfer to show how to spend those shots.

I reread the above and it feels as though I am stating the obvious, yet the question still remains.

[Garland Bayley]

Im not arguing against width: I feel where it is appropriate and legitimately enhances the playing values and can be achieved without having to over commit resources that it is fine.

However, there seems to be a very black or white mentality regarding its application. Much like the views on trees, there is a real all  or nothing interpretation and the extreme end of the spectrum always seems to be the goal. The answer is to widen everything to large proportions. If its not 40+ yards wide then it doesn't satisfy this group. Rather than acknowledge there is room for variety and middle ground, the underlying message always comes across that anything short of the extreme is unacceptable and therefore looked down upon.

This board can have a really positive influence but it can easily  appear extremist and narrow minded about its ideals. The message, which is good, is being undermined by its delivery.

Blame the USGA. They have been extremist and narrow minded about width, and thereby infected golfing America. If it weren't for them (and perhaps others such as RTJ), there would be nothing extremist and narrow minded about asking for width.

Furthermore, what's appropriate for the best players in the world should have no bearing on what's appropriate for those wishing to engage in an enjoyable hobby.

As Alister MacKenzie so often pointed out, good players continually try to pollute the game.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Thanks for all the replies.Sorry I haven't answered but I have been skiing where trees make skiing more fun. I knew I'd take it on the chin.  I understand that higher handicaps want a fun time and not look for balls, but what I read here is width is important because of strategy. And I am a single digit player.  In my thirties and forties I was a one or two.  Not in my late sixties I am a five or six.  One said that he isn't interested in gettin much better and wants width for fun. I understand that in one way. Why play the game if your not interested in getting better? I'll never understand that. I know that game is difficult and we want to grow the game. I agree that the game needs to be playable.  If that is the case for width then don't extol the virtues of width for stately. I've played Steeamsong and like the width on a lot of holes.  On May, however, I didn't see any strategic reason for it.

[Tim Bert]

I will take a shot at that since you are addressing my response...

"Why play the game if you aren't interested in getting better?"

I am not at a point on my life where I have the time to dedicate to getting better. I have two kids, neither of whom play golf, but are both very active in other sports. I have a job that keeps me busy.  In an ideal scenario would I love to get better, sure. The reality is I practice none and I play all of my golf crammed into extended weekends.

So that's why I am not "interested" in improving.

So why do I still play?

Well, I love the course, the friends, the employees, and the atmosphere at the place I play. It is like a second home to me. I'm not sure what I would do without those few weekends to get away from everything else and relax a few times a year.

I am certainly thankful that the owner, the architect, superintendent, and members don't share your view on width as it applies to the course.

[Garland Bayley]

... One said that he isn't interested in gettin much better and wants width for fun. I understand that in one way. Why play the game if your not interested in getting better? ...

Tommy,

My understanding is that you are no spring chicken. Your handicap has gone up. Do you have a chance to get back to 1 or 2? If not, shall we schedule your retirement party soon?


Garland

[Tommy Williamsen]

I will take a shot at that since you are addressing my response...

"Why play the game if you aren't interested in getting better?"

I am not at a point on my life where I have the time to dedicate to getting better. I have two kids, neither of whom play golf, but are both very active in other sports. I have a job that keeps me busy.  In an ideal scenario would I love to get better, sure. The reality is I practice none and I play all of my golf crammed into extended weekends.

So that's why I am not "interested" in improving.

So why do I still play?

Well, I love the course, the friends, the employees, and the atmosphere at the place I play. It is like a second home to me. I'm not sure what I would do without those few weekends to get away from everything else and relax a few times a year.

I am certainly thankful that the owner, the architect, superintendent, and members don't share your view on width as it applies to the course.




[/quote

I understand and didn't mean to be flippant. I had kids as well and understand the pressures of making time for family. There were many weeks when all I did was practice.   My son is in the same boat right now. I also hear the same thing from guys who do have the time, who just don't want to work on their games.

[Tommy Williamsen]

... One said that he isn't interested in gettin much better and wants width for fun. I understand that in one way. Why play the game if your not interested in getting better? ...

Tommy,

My understanding is that you are no spring chicken. Your handicap has gone up. Do you have a chance to get back to 1 or 2? If not, shall we schedule your retirement party soon?


Garland

Garland, I am indeed long in the tooth and my handicap has gone up.  It makes me nuts. I just can't hit it as far anymore. My second shots are longer and I don't hit it as close as I used to. I am, however, still getting better.  I practice my short game and it is better than it ever has been. Good thing to, or my handicap would be much higher.  The best I can do is slow down my inevitable deterioration. it makes me crazy that I can't play like I used to.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Tommy

You have given an example of a course you believe is wide enough, Beau Desert.  I fundamentally disagree because of the importance the recovery shot should have, slowing the game down and reducing the fun factor for many.  We shall have to agree to disagree on this one.  But before I depart, I can hardly think of a course I believe to be overly wide/forgiving off the tee.  Where are all these courses with excessive width?

Ciao

Hi Sean, if width is for pace of play and fun,Instead, what I hear is that it is about strategy and options. I understand, but I'm not sure that recovery shots should be easy, although you did it say they should.    When my son was younger and he hit it in the trees I would tell him that he had the opportunity to be exceptional.  If I hit it crooked I deserve to have a difficult recovery.

[Sean_A]

Tommy

You have given an example of a course you believe is wide enough, Beau Desert.  I fundamentally disagree because of the importance the recovery shot should have, slowing the game down and reducing the fun factor for many.  We shall have to agree to disagree on this one.  But before I depart, I can hardly think of a course I believe to be overly wide/forgiving off the tee.  Where are all these courses with excessive width?

Ciao

Hi Sean, if width is for pace of play and fun,Instead, what I hear is that it is about strategy and options. I understand, but I'm not sure that recovery shots should be easy, although you did it say they should.    When my son was younger and he hit it in the trees I would tell him that he had the opportunity to be exceptional.  If I hit it crooked I deserve to have a difficult recovery.

Tommy

I agree, recovery shots should not be easy.  In fact, I think they should generally look easier than they are...you know, the golfer hans himself with his lack of thinking or over-estimating his game...this is part and parcel of so called risk/reward design.  Going back to Beau, there are too few recovery options from the rough...which I could understand if the fairways were 50-60 yards wide, but Beau has pretty narrow fairways for a hilly and windy course. 

Ciao

[Frank Pont]

Guys, lets take step back and ask a question.

Why were the best archies of the past such as Colt, McKenzie, Simpson, Ross, Tillinghast etc purposely designing fairways that were 50-60 yards wide?

Why did the fairways get narrower over time?

[Niall C]

Width just for the sake of it is a huge waste of resources.

Am I the only one who sees the irony of this forum clamouring for more width everywhere yet longer courses are considered evil in part due to the extra land required?

I think there is no extra land required for the width being "clamored" for. Just a mower.

+1

Furthermore, most of us width-advocates are more than happy to live with a longer, less frequent, cut, as long as it's wider in the playing corridors. We're not the ones clamoring for Augusta like billiards fairways.

George

Interesting. I've always been puzzled by the argument to not lengthen courses to save on the amount of mown fairway, yet the same advocates of this usually champion wider fairways also. It strikes me that sticking half a dozen trees way back in the brush with only a path to get to them that are there fore the occasional pro or top amateur tournament is a lot cheaper in maintenance terms than sticking an extra 15 to 20 yards width on all the par 4 and par 5's.

Niall

[Niall C]

Guys, lets take step back and ask a question.

Why were the best archies of the past such as Colt, McKenzie, Simpson, Ross, Tillinghast etc purposely designing fairways that were 50-60 yards wide?

Sheep

[jeffwarne]

Niall,
While I am not an advocate of adding MORE fairway lengthwise as needed for length,i.e. your tee solution is spot on,
I do think that over times even as(or because of) the distance the ball travels has increased, the fairways have been narrowed.(and also to save costs)
This fundamentally changes the game.
For longer hitters/elite players, it is not a driving(i.e. driver) test at all because they simply hit less off the tee and still have wedges/short irons in, and the rest of the golfers are left with the narrow fairways to deal with and hunt balls.
As Frank points out, years ago "fairways" were 50-60 yards wide when a good drive traveled 225-240.Not sure why fairways should be narrower when a good drive goes farther now-(to play the same scale of game)

When this is a cost issue I get it.
I would just prefer to see the cost savings achieved via less inputs at the perimeters and perhaps a bit more mowing.
I.e. wider fairway/unirrigated shortish rough as the corridor.
To your point sheep maintained corridors is a great concept and works quite well at the places I've seen it.

I also think a bit of creative design can allow for fairway shapes not perfectly rectangular in maintained areas (i.e. native/woods/rough one side and a wide berth on the other in a bit of a random or designed pattern)

To Tommy's point I also like variety and have no problem with a few tight holes and/or trees whatever as well

[Adam Clayman]

Why play the game if your not interested in getting better? I'll never understand that.

Tommy, Here inlies the likely reason you feel the way you do.

The facets of this sport encompass much more than just scoring. People play for varied reason. Sure they're happy when an occasional low score is achieved, but it isn't the main reason they are out there. Everyone should have their own main reason, and thankfully, the elasticity of Golf allows for them.

Plus, I don't care how wide a fairway is, it can still be missed.   

[John Connolly]

Guys, lets take step back and ask a question.

Why were the best archies of the past such as Colt, McKenzie, Simpson, Ross, Tillinghast etc purposely designing fairways that were 50-60 yards wide?

Why did the fairways get narrower over time?

Trees. And when new courses got built, people looked around (archies, developers, owners) and saw the newly narrowed fairways. A case of "fairway drift". Just ask Oakmont. 

[Adam Clayman]

Another reason fairways became narrower was the low digit handicapper deducing narrow meant more challenging. Ignoring all other facets of the sport.

[Tom_Doak]

As someone who has advocated width for many years, and built several of the widest courses of any era [The Rawls Course and Apache Stronghold are the widest of the wide], I am starting to be repentent about having helped steer the game so far in that direction.

The old courses were narrowed from 60 yards to between 30 and 40 yards because of irrigation systems ... not only because the sprinklers couldn't throw farther than that, but because the increased standard for fairway turf that came along with irrigation was not affordable even for the best clubs over 50-60 acres of short grass.

Thirty yards is only wide enough for good players.  Most people need sixty yards of width if they want to be able to find their ball consistently.  But, they don't need sixty yards of fairway ... they just need sixty yards of playability.

The start of my repentance was going to the U.S. Women's Open at Sebonack and watching those players for two days.  The fairways are so wide and the LPGA players are so straight that nearly all of them were hitting 80% of fairways and some hit 90% for the week!  They are used to playing 20-yard wide fairways on bad development courses, and striping it right down the middle of them.  In fact, nearly all women golfers hit it right down the middle ... even the 40-handicaps are straight hitters because they don't swing hard enough to hit it way off line.  Only idiot male golfers do that.

And that was my revelation.  Building wider courses has just fed into the idea that everybody should buy the latest driver and try to hit it as far as they can, and that courses need to be long AND wide in order for golfers to have fun.  Perhaps what's wrong is that we haven't built courses that would reward golfers who would gear down their swings and keep the ball in play.

One of these days I am going to find the client who will let me build a 6400-yard course that rewards good play.  It could be a championship course for the LPGA, plenty challenging for anyone with a handicap above 4 [which is pretty much all of the retail golfer crowd], and it would be far more sustainable than most new courses being built today.  It might even be more interesting than a copy of the Lido.

[Mac Plumart]

I love it when Adam posts.  I share many of his views on the game of golf.

[Sean_A]

Tom

Well yes, 60 yards of fairway...without knowing why...that sounds OTT.  Is this what people are complaining about...cuz there ain't that many courses with that sort of width.

Ciao

[Doug Siebert]

Why play the game if your not interested in getting better? I'll never understand that.

Maybe some of us play the game because it is fun, and derive our fun from something else other than shooting a low number?  Should all joggers aspire to run a marathon?  Should everyone who changes their car's wipers wish to learn how to change the oil?  Should everyone who performs minor repairs in their house want to do their own bathroom remodel instead of paying someone?

[Doug Siebert]

Another reason fairways became narrower was the low digit handicapper deducing narrow meant more challenging. Ignoring all other facets of the sport.

That's because of the USGA.  What do golfers hear about every year before the US Open - how narrow the fairways are, how thick the rough is and how fast the greens are.  So that's what we get at CCFADs and resort courses that all seem to want to be more challenging than their neighbors.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom

Well yes, 60 yards of fairway...without knowing why...that sounds OTT.  Is this what people are complaining about...cuz there ain't that many courses with that sort of width.

Ciao

Sean:

There are more modern courses than you imagine with 50-60 yards of fairway on nearly every hole.  There may only be a couple of them in the UK -- The Renaissance Club [in the years before you saw it] and Castle Stuart -- but there are lots of them in America.  I'd guess that the majority of courses designed by Gil Hanse, Mike DeVries, and Mike Strantz are 60 yards wide in the landing areas, and I'm sure it's true of half of my courses, including a lot of the most famous ones [Pacific Dunes, Cape Kidnappers, Old Macdonald, Rock Creek, etc.].  A lot of the appeal of all these modern courses is the huge visual scale of them, and the wide fairways are key to that.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Tommy,

Based on your opening post, I get the impression that you are not familiar with the game of golf.  I have been watching golfers for more than 50 years and it is very clear people can't hit the ball straight and probably never will.

To suggest we overemphasize width is silly.

Tim, I have been watching golfers for more than 60 years and agree that many hit it crooked, but that doesn't mean there shots should not be penalized. On the site we extol the virtues of great golf courses, yet we want fairways so wide you can't miss them. Hit it crooked at Pine Valley, Royal County Down, Merion or most the the top rated course and you have a severe penalty.  It is interesting that Tom mentions Sebonack.  I thought it was a wonderfully fun course when I played it, but that there was too much room off the tee while the shots into the greens were more demanding.  I realize that a lot of folks don't practice and play for social reasons.  Why should they dictate conditions for everyone?  I'm sorry.  Take a lesson and hit the practice tee. 

[Jud_T]

Tommy,

The average male player is a 15.  This doesn't include those who don't carry a hdcp., women and children.  If you are talking about designing and maintaining courses for the pros and the 5% of players who are at the left tail of the distribution of all golfers, that's one thing.  If you are talking about building and maintaining them for the other 95% that's something else entirely.  Apparently the problem is that 95% of us simply aren't trying hard enough to be worthy...

[Sean_A]

Tom

Well yes, 60 yards of fairway...without knowing why...that sounds OTT.  Is this what people are complaining about...cuz there ain't that many courses with that sort of width.

Ciao

Sean:

There are more modern courses than you imagine with 50-60 yards of fairway on nearly every hole.  There may only be a couple of them in the UK -- The Renaissance Club [in the years before you saw it] and Castle Stuart -- but there are lots of them in America.  I'd guess that the majority of courses designed by Gil Hanse, Mike DeVries, and Mike Strantz are 60 yards wide in the landing areas, and I'm sure it's true of half of my courses, including a lot of the most famous ones [Pacific Dunes, Cape Kidnappers, Old Macdonald, Rock Creek, etc.].  A lot of the appeal of all these modern courses is the huge visual scale of them, and the wide fairways are key to that.

Tom

But in the big scheme of things...surely there aren't that many mega wide courses...I know I haven't come across any in the US (not that I seek them out).  The one course where I thought there were a few holes which were needlessly wide is Bulls Bay, but that wasn't the entire course, there were some narrowish fairways as well...quite a good mix.  

So, given the appeal of the huge scale of courses and the role wide fairways play, and your seeming misgivings about the concept...what do you propose?

Ciao  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()