News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


jeffwarne

  • Karma: +0/-0
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.



Native vegetation is the key.(and I mean lost ball variety)
That provides great texture, but can put a real damper on strategy.
Preserve it on both sides and I am definitely going to aim down the center a la JK, and take what my miss gives me.
Native on one side with playability on the other will lead me to play away from the native and take what I get, unless I'm playing quite well.
Bringing smaller amounts of the native more into the centerlines or nearer prefered sides IMHO is more effective and more attractive, but club policymakers hate this due to potentially punishing a "good" shot
"Let's slow the damned greens down a bit, not take the character out of them." Tom Doak
"Take their focus off the grass and put it squarely on interesting golf." Don Mahaffey

Adam Clayman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Odd no one mentioned wind.
Width of the playing corridor should be proportional to the region's wind.
"It's unbelievable how much you don't know about the game you've been playing your whole life." - Mickey Mantle

Terry Lavin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Thread jacking a sticky topic?  A new low.  8)
Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.  H.L. Mencken

JC Jones

  • Karma: +0/-0
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.


Like most things, Tommy gets it right.  Width for the sake of width is stupid and not strategic.  Furthermore, with width and firm turf a wayward bomber is hitting a high wedge into the green and those supposedly difficult greens are neutralized.  Strategy is not one dimensional and much to the chagrin of the double digit handicapper, the tee ball counts the same as a putt.
I get it, you are mad at the world because you are an adult caddie and few people take you seriously.

Excellent spellers usually lack any vision or common sense.

I know plenty of courses that are in the red, and they are killing it.

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
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.

Are you saying that angles don't mean as much if you are farther from the green?   I don't believe that for a minute.  Also, the older guys should be playing from the proper tees.  I am thinking about joining a group that plays from the gold (5750 yds) every Wednesday at 12:30.  

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
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.

Are you saying that angles don't mean as much if you are farther from the green?   I don't believe that for a minute.  Also, the older guys should be playing from the proper tees.  I am thinking about joining a group that plays from the gold (5750 yds) every Wednesday at 12:30.  

I think he was just saying that older guys don't hit the ball all over the yard, and would prefer to be rewarded for their more careful approach.  The same is true of women golfers, incidentally.  In fact, though, it is those golfers who need to employ strategy the most when it is presented correctly, because they're the ones who can't hold the green from the wrong angle.

Brent Hutto

Bill,

For the last year and a half I was at Columbia CC I moved up from the 6,200 yard tees (the ones you and I played when you visited) to the 5,750 tees and I should have done it a couple years earlier. My handicap index went down 2-1/2 strokes, there was a remote chance of breaking 80 (although I never quite did it) but most importantly the game suddenly had some variety. I had to actually account for all those fairway bunkers that were never in play before, I was close enough to some greens that angles actually made a difference and my scores depended on a variety of different parts of my game rather than basically measuring how many times I duffed or hit into trouble a driver off the tee or a fairway wood on a second shot.

FWIW, my driver distance is 200 yards (maybe 10-20 yards more on very firm fairways) and my 150-yard club is 6-iron in summer and 5-iron in winter. I found that particular course at somewhere in the 5,500-5,800 range to be ideal for my game.

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
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.

Are you saying that angles don't mean as much if you are farther from the green?   I don't believe that for a minute.  Also, the older guys should be playing from the proper tees.  I am thinking about joining a group that plays from the gold (5750 yds) every Wednesday at 12:30.  

I think he was just saying that older guys don't hit the ball all over the yard, and would prefer to be rewarded for their more careful approach.  The same is true of women golfers, incidentally.  In fact, though, it is those golfers who need to employ strategy the most when it is presented correctly, because they're the ones who can't hold the green from the wrong angle.

Thank you, that was my first point. 

Patrick_Mucci


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.

Jeff

I think that is reality and I think it's unfortunate to see subsequent third parties alter the design intent of any course without consultation with the original architect, where possible, and a consulting architect when the original architect can't be retained.


Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0

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.

Jeff

I think that is reality and I think it's unfortunate to see subsequent third parties alter the design intent of any course without consultation with the original architect, where possible, and a consulting architect when the original architect can't be retained.


Isn't a good master plan the answer to that turnover problem?

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1

Isn't a good master plan the answer to that turnover problem?

Bill:

Master plans are made to be rewritten by someone else, five or ten years later.  All but a couple of the clubs I've consulted with had a previous master plan in place when they hired us -- but it didn't stop them from doing something wrong to the course, and needing to change directions.

A golf course is a living thing; a master plan is static, and few architects ever get anything 100% right, anyway.

Really the only value of a master plan is that it is an attempt to prevent other members from changing directions in mid-stream ... but sticking to the plan when someone offers a better idea is not great management.  The problem is only that it's hard for members to know what's best.

Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Haven't read the article yet, but anytime we talk about width I am compelled to share Mark B's thoughts (which I cut and pasted into a word file years ago)...

Width and angles are not design “values” and therefore have little to no inherent worth; rather, they, along with big greens, enable the design value of equifinality. (Well, there is one aspect of design where width can be considered a value; to keep things simple I’ll cover it later.)

I define a “value” as something inherently good or bad at the most elemental level: a) it does not depend on something else for us determine its worth, usefulness, or any way you choose to measure utility, and b) it cannot be reduced into other values or “enablers” of values. Values form the heart of design philosophy. Therefore you can think of them as criteria for judging a course as well as a goal the designer sets out to achieve in building a course. (This is the efficacy vs efficiency point I made in an earlier post; efficacy for whether you agree this is a worthy value and for how much the course in question embraces it, and efficiency for how well the course lives up to the value.)

I define an “enabler” as something that enables a value or values to be expressed in the design. Without enablers, the value cannot be expressed, but the enablers themselves are not the values. Why not? Because their “value” is contingent upon other, more elemental things, namely values. Also because inherently they cannot be judged for quality without referring to actual values.
I define “equifinality” to mean a situation where multiple paths to a solution exist. Or: there are many ways to skin a cat. In the context of GCA, this means all the different ways to earn a par / win a hole. Equifinality means a golfer can take a variety of routes on a hole to hole out. 
At its heart, clearly this is not my concept – I first understood it from Alister Mackenzie’s descriptions of TOC’s 4th, 10th and especially 14th holes. He called it “alternate routes.” What I am trying to capture that is different is the relationships among, equifinality, values and enablers.

Enablers of equifinality: width and large greens. To enable golfers of many different skills to take routes to the green appropriate to their games, you need width. But wide playing corridors just for the sake of width makes for a boring course – thus, again, we see that width cannot be a value. You need a goal – that would be the green, of course – but that goal, while attainable for all, needs to retain challenge for all, even / especially the skilled golfer.

Normally, to challenge the truly skilled you’d default not to wide and big but narrow and small, right? Small greens surrounded by trouble. But well-designed big greens present their own challenges – especially if they require the better golfer to take certain routes through the green. Well-placed challenges around the green as well as through the green – the “line of charm” – partly accomplish that. All that’s left is to find places to locate the holes that “unlock” the ideal angles for the better player.

Royal Melbourne is an excellent example of how to design big greens for that purpose. RM’s greens have all sorts of wings that serve to reduce the effective target area for the better golfer. A flag tucked on a wing, located behind a bunker, is a terror to the better player. The rest of us just aim for the middle of a huge green, no problem. Unsurprisingly, Pinehurst #2 and TOC accomplish similar feats (in their own, unique, sui generis ways).

This brings up second value enabled by width and large greens: variety. By moving the hole locations you change the playing of the hole. But think about it: for angles to really matter you need to move the holes a lot. And when you are able to move the holes a lot, you have to have width, massive width really, to “unlock” the angles.


This is how Meadow Club inspired my thinking: a very good course, the trees lining the playing corridors block many angles that otherwise would be enabled by the course’s large greens. This is the magic of double fairways – by sharing fairways, the designer is able to unlock angles without needing a million acres. Conservatism of design. And so I enjoyed Meadow Club greatly, a fantastic place to play, but in the end I sort of think of it as a “noble failure.” Note that doesn’t mean it’s a failure but rather the bold design was ultimately too bold. I hope we can forgive Mackenzie and Hunter for neglecting the impact of lawyers.

PS Where width could be called a design value is for what we might call “playability.” If the goal is to enable a golfer to play an entire round without losing a ball, then width becomes a value.

Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re the trees in Mac's post above:  I'm pretty sure they weren't there when the Meadow Club opened in the 1920’s. 

Patrick_Mucci


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.

Jeff

I think that is reality and I think it's unfortunate to see subsequent third parties alter the design intent of any course without consultation with the original architect, where possible, and a consulting architect when the original architect can't be retained.


Isn't a good master plan the answer to that turnover problem?

Bill,

Only for a limited time.

As boards turn over, adhering to the Master Plan tends to diminish with time.
If a President or a board wants to make alterations to the course they typically amend the Master Plan or By-Laws.

Having said that, adopting a prudent Master Plan is a constructive architectural maneuver.


A.G._Crockett

  • Karma: +0/-0
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.

John, we don't hit the ball straighter as we age.  It just doesn't go very far crooked. 
"Golf...is usually played with the outward appearance of great dignity.  It is, nevertheless, a game of considerable passion, either of the explosive type, or that which burns inwardly and sears the soul."      Bobby Jones

John Kavanaugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
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.

John, we don't hit the ball straighter as we age.  It just doesn't go very far crooked. 

My younger longer hitting playing bud has been complaining lately that the set of tees we have been playing have been penalizing him because there is less width from the up tees.  We are going to conduct an experiment today and move a set back.  It is his contention that by playing a longer course he will hit fewer balls into poor position.  I think he may be right if for no other reason than putting him back into his comfort zone and removing me from mine.

John Kavanaugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Our experiment was a success. The course was wider from what turned out to be mostly the tips. My long hitting younger buddy only lost one ball and that was well deserved. Unfortunately finding your ball don't pay the rent. A certain fat old man made three 2's in the last five holes. Ouch. Width is and will always be overrated when the bombs start falling...one from 150 out.

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
I find it interesting that when width is discussed on this site, it is almost always within the context of fairway width. I prefer to discuss playable width, but then I'm weird.

JakaB, nothing overcomes a hot putter or golfer...
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Brent Hutto

I find it interesting that when width is discussed on this site, it is almost always within the context of fairway width. I prefer to discuss playable width, but then I'm weird.

JakaB, nothing overcomes a hot putter or golfer...

I also think playable width is what matters. If there is 60 yards between the trees, 40 yards between the deep rough but there's only 20 yards of fairway with 10 yards of inch-and-a-half short rough on either side I think that's an OK setup with plenty of width. Or put the inch-and-a-half cut all the way to the tree lines and you've got a great setup.

It's the width available without losing a ball or having to chip out that's key. Having some annoying but playable rough if you don't hit a really demanding fairway target seems a good way to reward accuracy without turning a supposed game into a joyless slog for those who don't have accuracy in their game.

John Kavanaugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
And finding your ball don't change the score, it just makes your bag heavier next time you play. Look at the history of the game. Width had more to do with the difficulty of manufacturing replacements than anything else. How many featheries do you think were found during a casual round. I would guess hole in ones were more common.

John Kavanaugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Isn't this why bunkers were invented?  Width is overrated but at least you don't lose a ball. Sadly now bunkers eat more money than any other item on the course. The average private club member spends more on maintaining bunkers than on golf balls. Odd but true.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back