Is it this simple? - Quote from "Deconstructing Width" In My Opinion Article

[Brian Potash]

I really enjoyed the In My Opinion article by Joe Sponcia - "Deconstructing Width".  Thank you very much Joe for writing such an interesting and timely piece.

In it, Joe writes "Narrow fairways usually indicate poor green complexes and in general, a weak overall design, otherwise why have them?"

It can't be that simple, can it?  (I'm still thinking)

Curious what others opinions are.

Thanks,
Brian

[Joe Hancock]

Not that simple. Winged Foot West, for example.

[Jim_Kennedy]

I really enjoyed the In My Opinion article by Joe Sponcia - "Deconstructing Width".  Thank you very much Joe for writing such an interesting and timely piece.

In it, Joe writes "Narrow fairways usually indicate poor green complexes and in general, a weak overall design, otherwise why have them?"

It can't be that simple, can it?  (I'm still thinking)

Curious what others opinions are.

Thanks,
Brian

Not that simple. Winged Foot West, for example.

Probably not the best example as WFW had wide corridors to go along with its green complexes when it was built.

ed: (somehow lost this when posting)  But, I feel that Joe is correct in saying that a really great green (like those at WFW) are really great greens, they're not diminished by a lack of fairway width. What is diminished is the range of options available for various levels of players to get to them.  

[John Kavanaugh]

Ran hinted to the fact that width loses its appeal as we age. It's a logical progression to hit the ball straighter as we hit it shorter. I as a young baby boomer who is coming on 50 years of golfing experience am not ready to give up on winning. Width, like most of life's great pleasures, is wasted on the young.

[Joe Hancock]

An aspect Joe didn't delve into is the current irrigation and mowing height standards as it pertains to width. It very much affects how we perceive width. Use Medinah as an example, since Joe used it in his piece; with firm, bouncy turf, it's not just about width, it also brings all those (potentially) problematic trees into play on marginally aligned shots.

[Sean_A]

Brian

Sure, there can be narrow fairways punctuated by great greens, but IMO the effect and enjoyment of great greens is mitigated by narrow fairways. 

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

Vegetation likes to grow and as it does, width narrows over time. Once upon a time grazing animals kept much of it down by constantly nibbling away and folk cut down trees for firewood and fencing and furniture and loads of other uses. Not many courses have grazing animals anymore and folk don't use wood in the manner they used to. Okay in some parts of the globe grazing animals may not be appropriate (climate, predators etc) but I'm sure you get my drift. Vegetation control with men and machines is time consuming and costly. Maybe a few sheep and cattle might help if used in an appropriate manner.
atb

[Marc Haring]

Vegetation likes to grow and as it does, width narrows over time. Once upon a time grazing animals kept much of it down by constantly nibbling away and folk cut down trees for firewood and fencing and furniture and loads of other uses. Not many courses have grazing animals anymore and folk don't use wood in the manner they used to. Okay in some parts of the globe grazing animals may not be appropriate (climate, predators etc) but I'm sure you get my drift. Vegetation control with men and machines is time consuming and costly. Maybe a few sheep and cattle might help if used in an appropriate manner.
atb

Not sure if the Winged Foot members would go for that.

[RJ_Daley]

I'll go with Joe's;    "Narrow fairways usually[/] indicate poor green complexes and in general, a weak overall design, otherwise why have them?"

Of course there will 'always' be some exceptions to the rule.  But in my mind, the simple fact that a wider span of possible approach angles both add interest and reason to design more complex and well thought out green shaping.  Narrow simply plays into the idea of one dimensional and one or constricted optimal ways to approach and score on shots to the green.  A narrow fairway doesn't seem to require the architect to put more thought and talent into the shaping of his product.

[Brent Hutto]

There are many reasons for a club membership or course owner to narrow their course with rough. Making up for what the Treehouse would perceive as deficiencies in the green complexes no doubt is one reason but the others are almost too numerous to list.

For instance, sometimes a club grows rough right in an otherwise desirable landing zone just to piss off Pat Mucci.

[John Kavanaugh]

Have you ever considered that as a course ages its founding members age.  The older members who in turn remain in control see the folly in width and allow the vegetation to grow.  This has zero to do with the original green site quality.

No matter what you try to tell yourself increased width is easier for people who hit the ball 300yds no matter how great the greens.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I'll go with Joe's;    "Narrow fairways usually[/] indicate poor green complexes and in general, a weak overall design, otherwise why have them?"

.... A narrow fairway doesn't seem to require the architect to put more thought and talent into the shaping of his product.

How do either of those even remotely make logical sense to anyone?

Besides that, an architect can create nearly the exact same approach shot dilemma with a 35 yard wide fairway as a 50 yard wide fairway by covering the same amount of green proportionally (i.e. 1/3 or so) and by changing the angle of the green from say 25 degrees off the line of play down to 15 degrees (just example numbers, but you get the point)  And, he gets some differentiation between fairway and rough to at least discourage the bomb it crowd.

There are times when I think doing a piece on "width" here is like Fox News doing a piece on "Obamacare."  Put out nearly anything about it is like throwing chum in the water and watching the fish go crazy about it.

[Tommy Williamsen]

I think it works the other way around.  Architects that build in a lot of width in their designs need to design greens complexes that demand the player to hit the tee ball in different parts of the fairway in order to get close to a specific pin.  Streamsong is an illustration of how Both C&C and TD succeeded.  Width for the sake of allowing bombers to hit it anywhere rewards poorly hit shots.

[Josh Tarble]

I think it works the other way around.  Architects that build in a lot of width in their designs need to design greens complexes that demand the player to hit the tee ball in different parts of the fairway in order to get close to a specific pin.  Streamsong is an illustration of how Both C&C and TD succeeded.  Width for the sake of allowing bombers to hit it anywhere rewards poorly hit shots.

Yes, this.  Additionally, width only works when the course is firm.  Otherwise it is too easy to bomb it off the tee, then use spin and loft to throw a dart at the pin.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I think it works the other way around.  Architects that build in a lot of width in their designs need to design greens complexes that demand the player to hit the tee ball in different parts of the fairway in order to get close to a specific pin.  Streamsong is an illustration of how Both C&C and TD succeeded.  Width for the sake of allowing bombers to hit it anywhere rewards poorly hit shots.

Tommy not sure about all architects, but I think most of us build wider fairways initially because we know the cost pressures for supers to narrow them......

[Brent Hutto]

I'll go with Joe's;    "Narrow fairways usually[/] indicate poor green complexes and in general, a weak overall design, otherwise why have them?"

.... A narrow fairway doesn't seem to require the architect to put more thought and talent into the shaping of his product.

How do either of those even remotely make logical sense to anyone?

Besides that, an architect can create nearly the exact same approach shot dilemma with a 35 yard wide fairway as a 50 yard wide fairway by covering the same amount of green proportionally (i.e. 1/3 or so) and by changing the angle of the green from say 25 degrees off the line of play down to 15 degrees (just example numbers, but you get the point)  And, he gets some differentiation between fairway and rough to at least discourage the bomb it crowd.

There are times when I think doing a piece on "width" here is like Fox News doing a piece on "Obamacare."  Put out nearly anything about it is like throwing chum in the water and watching the fish go crazy about it.

I would tend to think designing a green that offers approach-shot interest when played from a 35-yard-wide fairway would be harder than providing the same interest with 50-yard-wide fairways. Imagine the limiting cases.

Make a fairway just a couple of yards wide, one swipe of the mower. The design of the green can not really favor an approach shot from one yard left vs. one yard right of center, can it?

Now imagine a course with no rough at all. Almost any sort of contours and bunkering you can imagine will play differently from 50 yards left versus 50 yards right of the centerline, no?

I believe for any realistic fairway width a good architect can design in some interest for the approach shot. Either angles or shot shapes (or both). Wider fairway if anything make that part of the job simpler while narrower fairways constrain the green complex design.

Or maybe I'm totally wrong. What would I know about designing golf courses? All I can go on is having played for a number of years on a course with interesting but fairly benign green complexes and nowadays playing at a course where the greens are "interesting" in the sense of the old curse "May you live in interesting times".

At my former club, even as a bogey golfer I could tell that some greens were better or more safely approached from one side than the other on a 40+ yard wide fairway. At my current club, there are places where being even 10 yards left of center vs. 10 yards right or center means having to play away the hole location in order to keep an approach shot on the green.

In my opinion, it's nothing to do with demands on the architect regarding green design. It's about execution. Make a fairway 40-50 yards wide and even a ball-spraying hack like me will be favoring one side or the other if it will make the approach shot easier/safer. Make a fairway 30 yards wide (or less) and I'm just trying my darndest to find some short grass. Angles will be luck of the draw.

[John Kavanaugh]

We all aim for the middle and take whatever side our errors give us.

[Brent Hutto]

We all aim for the middle and take whatever side our errors give us.

Another important dimension is the thickness and length of the rough for the first 10 yards off the fairway.

Around here during March, April and most years into May (then again from mid-October on) the penalty for being in our Bermuda rough is mostly that you'll catch a poor lie occasionally. More often it's like hitting from the fairway except with a cushion. If there's an advantage to being on the left side of the fairway, quite often it's worth the risk of missing 5-10 yards farther left in the playable rough.

Come July and August definitely aim down the middle and take what you get. Even if the fairways were 50 yards wide. The rough costs nearly a full stroke and no "strategic" angle advantage is worth that much.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I'll go with Joe's;    "Narrow fairways usually[/] indicate poor green complexes and in general, a weak overall design, otherwise why have them?"

.... A narrow fairway doesn't seem to require the architect to put more thought and talent into the shaping of his product.

How do either of those even remotely make logical sense to anyone?

Besides that, an architect can create nearly the exact same approach shot dilemma with a 35 yard wide fairway as a 50 yard wide fairway by covering the same amount of green proportionally (i.e. 1/3 or so) and by changing the angle of the green from say 25 degrees off the line of play down to 15 degrees (just example numbers, but you get the point)  And, he gets some differentiation between fairway and rough to at least discourage the bomb it crowd.

There are times when I think doing a piece on "width" here is like Fox News doing a piece on "Obamacare."  Put out nearly anything about it is like throwing chum in the water and watching the fish go crazy about it.

I would tend to think designing a green that offers approach-shot interest when played from a 35-yard-wide fairway would be harder than providing the same interest with 50-yard-wide fairways. Imagine the limiting cases.

Make a fairway just a couple of yards wide, one swipe of the mower. The design of the green can not really favor an approach shot from one yard left vs. one yard right of center, can it?

Now imagine a course with no rough at all. Almost any sort of contours and bunkering you can imagine will play differently from 50 yards left versus 50 yards right of the centerline, no?

I believe for any realistic fairway width a good architect can design in some interest for the approach shot. Either angles or shot shapes (or both). Wider fairway if anything make that part of the job simpler while narrower fairways constrain the green complex design.

Or maybe I'm totally wrong. What would I know about designing golf courses? All I can go on is having played for a number of years on a course with interesting but fairly benign green complexes and nowadays playing at a course where the greens are "interesting" in the sense of the old curse "May you live in interesting times".

At my former club, even as a bogey golfer I could tell that some greens were better or more safely approached from one side than the other on a 40+ yard wide fairway. At my current club, there are places where being even 10 yards left of center vs. 10 yards right or center means having to play away the hole location in order to keep an approach shot on the green.

In my opinion, it's nothing to do with demands on the architect regarding green design. It's about execution. Make a fairway 40-50 yards wide and even a ball-spraying hack like me will be favoring one side or the other if it will make the approach shot easier/safer. Make a fairway 30 yards wide (or less) and I'm just trying my darndest to find some short grass. Angles will be luck of the draw.

I think we agree, and thought carefully before typing 35 yards. I doubt 25-30 yards offers much choice off the tee. And obviously, 36 offers a bit more room to develop strategy than 35, etc.  The question is, considering all factors, is how much (IMHO) over 40 yards do you need to go?  Can you go under a bit?  Depending on the exact design, the magic cross over number of no difference in which side you hit to a big difference, vs. hitting the middle out of necessity can vary.

Back in the day, the wide fairway was about 60 yards, because that is what a single row of sprinklers covered.  It doesn't make it an ideal width for fairways conceptually, does it?

[Carl Rogers]

the too too narrow golf course is also a big slow play culprit.

[Brent Hutto]

Back in the day, the wide fairway was about 60 yards, because that is what a single row of sprinklers covered.  It doesn't make it an ideal width for fairways conceptually, does it?

Only in the sense that 18 holes is the ideal number for a golf course.

But no, not a valid criteria at all design-wise. As my wife often says (in another context) there's design and there's implementation and there's whatever it turns into long-term. The best you can do is choose a design that at least has good odds of morphing into something acceptable when all's said and done.

So I like your remark about you'd better start 'em wide because you know they'll get narrowed.

[Tom_Doak]

Theoretical discussion of width is fine and dandy, but in the real world we go out and flag how wide an area we want to be irrigated and fertilized and mowed, etc. ... and how much native vegetation we want to preserve, which is the other side of this coin.

To me there is no "right" number, we will have everywhere from 40 yards of width to 80 or 90 depending on the golf hole and the angles in play.  The interesting thing is that the SHORTER the par-4, the wider I am tempted to make it, as it's when you get close to the green that the angle of play changes most.  If you're 200 yards out, the difference between the left of the fairway and the right is not so much, anyway.

[Thomas Dai]

Fairway irrigation has been mentioned a few times in this thread.

What kind of width would folk posting herein have a preference for if circumstances were such that fairway irrigation where simply not needed (or not available)?

Atb

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tommy not sure about all architects, but I think most of us build wider fairways initially because we know the cost pressures for supers to narrow them......

Jeff,

I'm not sure that I understand the logic behind the above statement.

If you know that the super will be pressured to narrow the fairways, why build wide fairways and incur the additional expense of that construction and maintenance along with the expense associated with narrowing the fairways ?

Why not determine the appropriate width after consultation with the super at the outset ?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tommy not sure about all architects, but I think most of us build wider fairways initially because we know the cost pressures for supers to narrow them......

Jeff,

I'm not sure that I understand the logic behind the above statement.

If you know that the super will be pressured to narrow the fairways, why build wide fairways and incur the additional expense of that construction and maintenance along with the expense associated with narrowing the fairways ?

Why not determine the appropriate width after consultation with the super at the outset ?

Pat, your plan would be ideal.....and sometimes we do that.  As TD notes, a lot of factors go into how wide a fairway might be.

I have had great luck with the original super keeping design intent, with most changing only what is truly impossible to maintain in their program.  However, with supers moving around, the second guy doesn't have the same allegiance to the architect, design, etc.  At that point, any consultation we did at the beginning may go out the window.