How Wide Should Fairways Be?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Taking off from the last post in the Houston Takeaway thread, and even knowing that "pure design theory" threads usually go over like a lead balloon here, it got me to wondering:
 
In pure theory, how wide should a fairway be?  Lots of perspectives, and of course, each one has to fit the land, and in some respects, should be different from the others on a course for “memorability.”
 
Superintendents – As narrow as possible, because it cost twice as much to maintain as roughs.

Tournament Courses – As narrow as possible to keep scores high.

USGA Slope ratings – About 35 (for shorter average hitters) to 40 yards (for longer hitting ams), which keeps about 2/3 of golfers in the fairway.

Strategic Design Advocates, including Max Homa on a recent podcast – Not so narrow that you couldn’t open up an angle into some pins and still be on the fairway. (I guess this depends somewhat on green angle and hazards –
-       - a green tilted 10 degrees to the line of play won’t need as wide a fairway as one tilted 20 degrees.
-        -Longer holes generally need wider fairway for any green at the same axis tilt, i.e., the angle extending 200 yards out is double the width from an angle extended to 100 yards out.

Nature – Perhaps wider on an open site, and narrower in trees, both to save trees, provide variety, and create the proper visual scale on holes.

Pace of Play Advocates – Wider where average players land, but possibly narrower where good players land.  Err wider on the side of caution.

Proportional Punishment advocates –
-Wider on OB, water hazard or other 2 shot penalty hole, narrower if no hazards.
-Wider in Cross Winds, narrower on downwind holes, where spin including side spin is reduced.
-Wider on cross slopes, narrower in valley fairways.
- Wider where there is deeper rough.

Rigid Thinkers - I don't care, but all fairways should be the same width to give the course a theme.

Which take would you generally favor?

[John Emerson]

The most enjoyable courses I have ever played have super wide fwys.  Many times there’s a couple holes all sharing the same turf.  My take is “as wide as possible”. 

[Tom_Doak]

Your first "superintendents" point is a bad generalization.  If the fairways are bent in a disease prone environment, maybe they cost twice as much per acre, or even more.  But the cost difference for bermuda fairways v rough, or fine fescue, is much less than that, which enabled me to tend toward wide fairways.  Pacific Dunes has way more fairway than Pebble Beach, but I guarantee you it costs a lot less to maintain, anyway.


If I had to pick one of your viewpoints, it would be Nature.  I like to let the mowing lines fit into the landscape (or hide in it) so I'm inclined to make a fairway wider than to install ten yards of rough between the fairway and the natural area on the outside of the hole.  And then those are the holes where I will try to introduce more strategy via angles and hazard placement.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,


Re your first paragraph, fair enough.  One of my favorite old quotes is, "No generalization is worth a damn, including the one I just made."  In general, mowing fw 3x per week has to cost more than mowing rough once per week, not even including chemical differences between grasses.  However, it was a mistake to postulate a specific difference, i.e., twice as much, given the wide variety of conditions.


Your take of a 1A (nature) and 2A (strategy) doesn't surprise me for either both your philosophy, or because in reality, most design decisions would be made on a combo of more than just one choice, perhaps a ranking of priorities.  For example, a public course design might rank pace of play higher than strategy for most of us.


Regarding hiding the fw edge, I suspect you get a few criticisms of that from the "lay it out like a road map" crowd, including those similar to the pros complaining about a few greens falling away and creating blind pin positions.


John,


Your very valid point is taken.  In addition to pace of play, personal enjoyment should perhaps be the biggest criteria, even if having to apply it to wide swaths of golfers.  However, I wouldn't take it to the extreme of "Fairways that fit my game, and hurt the other guy...."  Many would, including straight hitters arguing for narrow fairways.


Thanks for at least the two answers.  As I said, so many seem to shy away from the purely theoretical that I seem to like, for whatever reason.  And, I thought about the thread as TD answered some very practical "whys" to questions on the Houston thread, i.e., you don't just decide things just because.  You really need both an over riding philosophy going in, and then need to be flexible enough to adapt it to the wide variety of individual conditions (natural and golfer driven) that each project brings up.

[Joe Hancock]

Can we have an option that promotes as few height of cuts as possible?


Simpletons: Greens height, and everything else that is mowed at 3/4 inch or so.

[Andrew Harvie]

I like wide fairways, but a trend I've seen is wide fairways just to be wide. The issue is the green complexes aren't interesting enough to really encourage strategy off the tee, and if the greens are mundane, it negates any sort of decision making. Greens have to dictate play when the fairways are big even more than when the fairways are smaller. When the greens aren't exciting, neither are the tee shots. In my opinion, anyway!

[Mike_Young]

IMHO, and on original designs I try to design one height of cut with no rough until I get to native plants etc...if the greens are designed to reward the proper angle for the pin placement that day then I see no reason for rough...and I don't see it costing more than fairway/rough combination...again just an opinion...   PS Jeff, I see where CMA pulled one of those ASGCA things the other nite...

[Tom_Doak]

IMHO, and on original designs I try to design one height of cut with no rough until I get to native plants etc.

I like that in theory, but do you build 60-65 yard wide fairways on most of your courses?  Because if the native plants are a lost ball issue, that's about the width you need to keep most people in play most of the time.

[Thomas Dai]

A slight adjustment to the 'Nature' category would be ultra-open aspect courses, the likes of Westward Ho, Southerdown, Pennard,  Cleeve Hill etc where width is essentially determined by the traditional landscape, it's slopes, native vegetation and use and what grazes upon it rather than by decisions made by man and carried out by machine.
You could maybe even put TOC in such a category although they seem to have become more rough orientated there in recent times. And once-upon-a-time many a links, many if not all heathland, downland, moorland, upland etc courses could have been included as well.


As an aside, should the greens complex be a consideration as well, ie the linking of fairway width with green complex severity? Severe green complex, wide fairway to allow angles to be played. Bland green complex, narrower fairway?


And then there's wind, eg narrow course in a high wind, lost balls, slow rounds and potential player grumpiness galore. Wide course in a high wind, less so. Same with very firm ground conditions too and when combined with wind and slope .......


atb

[Sean_A]

IMHO, and on original designs I try to design one height of cut with no rough until I get to native plants etc.

I like that in theory, but do you build 60-65 yard wide fairways on most of your courses?  Because if the native plants are a lost ball issue, that's about the width you need to keep most people in play most of the time.

I agree. In general, on flat land, 65 yards of whatever combo of easy to find and place a club behind the ball height of grass is about right. Hell, I don't mind if none of that width is proper fairway height, especially for short courses. In fact, proper fairway height these days is often too short. For some of the rustic courses I play, the fairway cut lines actually look stupid. They would be better off not bothering and just have a uniform length which is basically low rough.

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

IMHO, and on original designs I try to design one height of cut with no rough until I get to native plants etc.

I like that in theory, but do you build 60-65 yard wide fairways on most of your courses?  Because if the native plants are a lost ball issue, that's about the width you need to keep most people in play most of the time.

I agree. In general, on flat land, 65 yards of whatever combo of easy to find and place a club behind the ball height of grass is about right. Hell, I don't mind if none of that width is proper fairway height, especially for short courses. In fact, proper fairway height these days is often too short. For some of the rustic courses I play, the fairway cut lines actually look stupid. They would be better off not bothering and just have a uniform length which is basically low rough.
Ciao

The height sheep nibble fairway/rough grass too (maybe kangaroo's as well?) is splendid to play golf from. Super quality turf too. Climate, meat eating hungry critters etc permitting.
atb

[Jeff_Brauer]

Can we have an option that promotes as few height of cuts as possible?


Simpletons: Greens height, and everything else that is mowed at 3/4 inch or so.

Because everyone considers Robert Bruce Harris designs to be classic?


More seriously, and also mentioned in another post, there is a real issue when considering public courses.  I remodeled a municipal course a few years ago, and it reopened a bit too soon, so fw cut was a bit high, and then rough cut was a little higher, which was really too high for the average players who came to play.  For them, and many similar muni's, mowing everything at one height might have made more sense for playability.  But, they still had a minimal crew and mowing everywhere at 3X per week seemed to them to be outside a normal budget. 


It would be interesting to run the math on that, i.e. one mow height 3X per week vs a second set of mowers.  Obviously, RBH, who owned courses, thought it would work, and what is really new under the sun, right?  And, in truth, I think most folks objected to his placing greenside bunkers at least 10 feet outside the green so those collars/fringes/banks could be mowed with one pass of gang mowers.  Maybe as money began to flow after WWII, most people in golf thought tighter mowing patterns around greens were affordable again, and that affordability is probably still in question for lower budget courses.

[Jeff_Brauer]

IMHO, and on original designs I try to design one height of cut with no rough until I get to native plants etc.

I like that in theory, but do you build 60-65 yard wide fairways on most of your courses?  Because if the native plants are a lost ball issue, that's about the width you need to keep most people in play most of the time.

I agree. In general, on flat land, 65 yards of whatever combo of easy to find and place a club behind the ball height of grass is about right. Hell, I don't mind if none of that width is proper fairway height, especially for short courses. In fact, proper fairway height these days is often too short. For some of the rustic courses I play, the fairway cut lines actually look stupid. They would be better off not bothering and just have a uniform length which is basically low rough.

Ciao

Sean,


See my answer above.  As "tour level" agronomy has taken over at so many places, it does seem to forget that average players like a bit of cushion below their ball.


That said, if it is true that fw is more expensive to maintain than rough, doubling the standard width may cost more money.  And, I have never really thought that philosophically, you should defend par at the green.  For that matter, to me, it seems odd that this concept is gaining speed at a time when the loft and spin attained by high speed swingers seems to make even green contour less effective.  I have seen reverse slope greens where the good players just play for more spin to hold the ball.  TD's answers about how hard it was to hold the greens from the rough by PGA Tour players actually gave me some hope, but also seemed to indicate that it took the combo of light rough and green contours to make them miss sometimes.  (and by rolling off the last 5 foot of green, he in essence made the target a bit smaller, without making the green smaller)


On a well rounded course, it seems to me you should defend it in different ways on different holes for variety and balance of challenge.


And, lastly, short fw for those who play well, combined with a very low rough, just enough to alter spin characteristics, i.e. reduce them, and high enough for average players to have that cushion, but not lose balls, also makes some sense to me.  I mean, could it be that the consensus of golf courses and managers actually got something about right in course set up?  LOL. 


Of course, as a designer, I would also always encourage every course to evaluate all their factors, rather than blindly follow the herd.  The answer couldn't possibly be the same for every....single.....course.

[Tim_Weiman]

Taking off from the last post in the Houston Takeaway thread, and even knowing that "pure design theory" threads usually go over like a lead balloon here, it got me to wondering:
 
In pure theory, how wide should a fairway be?  Lots of perspectives, and of course, each one has to fit the land, and in some respects, should be different from the others on a course for “memorability.”
 
Superintendents – As narrow as possible, because it cost twice as much to maintain as roughs.

Tournament Courses – As narrow as possible to keep scores high.

USGA Slope ratings – About 35 (for shorter average hitters) to 40 yards (for longer hitting ams), which keeps about 2/3 of golfers in the fairway.

Strategic Design Advocates, including Max Homa on a recent podcast – Not so narrow that you couldn’t open up an angle into some pins and still be on the fairway. (I guess this depends somewhat on green angle and hazards –
-       - a green tilted 10 degrees to the line of play won’t need as wide a fairway as one tilted 20 degrees.
-        -Longer holes generally need wider fairway for any green at the same axis tilt, i.e., the angle extending 200 yards out is double the width from an angle extended to 100 yards out.

Nature – Perhaps wider on an open site, and narrower in trees, both to save trees, provide variety, and create the proper visual scale on holes.

Pace of Play Advocates – Wider where average players land, but possibly narrower where good players land.  Err wider on the side of caution.

Proportional Punishment advocates –
-Wider on OB, water hazard or other 2 shot penalty hole, narrower if no hazards.
-Wider in Cross Winds, narrower on downwind holes, where spin including side spin is reduced.
-Wider on cross slopes, narrower in valley fairways.
- Wider where there is deeper rough.

Rigid Thinkers - I don't care, but all fairways should be the same width to give the course a theme.

Which take would you generally favor?

Jeff,


Well stated opening post. My input: watching people play golf for about 60 years, I have seen very few who can consistently hit straight tee shots. Then, too, golf in America no longer has enough Grumpy Old Men, those gruff old guys that yelled at kids and taught them how to move on a golf course. For those reasons, I am firmly in the pace of play camp. Looking for golf balls isn’t fun, nor is waiting behind someone else doing it.

[Tim Gallant]

IMHO, and on original designs I try to design one height of cut with no rough until I get to native plants etc.

I like that in theory, but do you build 60-65 yard wide fairways on most of your courses?  Because if the native plants are a lost ball issue, that's about the width you need to keep most people in play most of the time.

I agree. In general, on flat land, 65 yards of whatever combo of easy to find and place a club behind the ball height of grass is about right. Hell, I don't mind if none of that width is proper fairway height, especially for short courses. In fact, proper fairway height these days is often too short. For some of the rustic courses I play, the fairway cut lines actually look stupid. They would be better off not bothering and just have a uniform length which is basically low rough.

Ciao

Sean


This is interesting as the first course that came to mind when thinking about your text was Iona, which is pretty much wall-to-wall uniform height (slightly more than most fairways, slightly lower than most first cuts). In theory I have no issue with it, as long as the hole had enough strategy to it to make the golf interesting. Some holes at Iona succeeded in this sense. I agree that if fairways had been cut at Iona, it would just look odd.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tim,


Nice point.  I am aware there has always been a balance between costs and revenues for public courses.  I have actually seen course managers run the math on how much extra play and revenues they might get from wider fw vs the cost of cutting those wider fw.  I wish I could recall exactly what those were, but obviously, most seemed to favor saving money over adding revenues.


And, in reality, let's say we can cut play from 4.5 hours to 4 hours.  In theory, you could fit in, at 8-10 minute tee intervals, 3 to 4 more foursomes.  Does 12 golfers at $60 per player X 2 days per week X 30 Weeks (up north, but most places don't have a true busy 12 months of play and probably just the weekend days where they are packed with less excess capacity pay off) pay off?  That might be $43,000 in extra revenues, which is probably less than the extra cost for more fw maintenance.

[Tim Gallant]

Jeff,


A really interesting question, and I love pure theory threads (but agree, mine usually go down like a bowl of cold sick!).


Like others, I'd probably say Nature and Strategy would dictate fairway width but! I'm curious about the HOW. How do you balance the two, and how does one fully understand where width should be added/taken in?


Another question I've been curious of lately: how do you decide when to pinch a fairway at a certain distance, and when to have uniform width the whole length of the hole?

[Mike_Young]

IMHO, and on original designs I try to design one height of cut with no rough until I get to native plants etc.

I like that in theory, but do you build 60-65 yard wide fairways on most of your courses?  Because if the native plants are a lost ball issue, that's about the width you need to keep most people in play most of the time.

Not always but if I can get by with it I do.

[Sean_A]

IMHO, and on original designs I try to design one height of cut with no rough until I get to native plants etc.

I like that in theory, but do you build 60-65 yard wide fairways on most of your courses?  Because if the native plants are a lost ball issue, that's about the width you need to keep most people in play most of the time.

I agree. In general, on flat land, 65 yards of whatever combo of easy to find and place a club behind the ball height of grass is about right. Hell, I don't mind if none of that width is proper fairway height, especially for short courses. In fact, proper fairway height these days is often too short. For some of the rustic courses I play, the fairway cut lines actually look stupid. They would be better off not bothering and just have a uniform length which is basically low rough.

Ciao

Sean


This is interesting as the first course that came to mind when thinking about your text was Iona, which is pretty much wall-to-wall uniform height (slightly more than most fairways, slightly lower than most first cuts). In theory I have no issue with it, as long as the hole had enough strategy to it to make the golf interesting. Some holes at Iona succeeded in this sense. I agree that if fairways had been cut at Iona, it would just look odd.

Tim

I hope the new super at NB is more sympathetic to fairway cut lines which include some interesting or areas which naturally look as though they should be part of fairways. Areas such as 2 & 17 and 3 & 16 come immediately to mind. The cut lines on 3 are terrible because they look forced rather than following the terrain. This is a common issue.

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

That might be $43,000 in extra revenues, which is probably less than the extra cost for more fw maintenance.

Jeff:


I have tried to get the superintendents at the courses where I consult to give me a per-acre dollar figure for fairway maintenance, so we could discuss whether the cost of expanding fairways to historical lines was worth considering.  Most do not typically break it down that way, but their general view is that the cost to mow 3x per week vs 1x per week is negligible [because you are sending out the same personnel, one guy just has more to mow, the other less], and the only real cost difference is spraying them.  For some clubs, that's a lot of $, but for most it's not.


At Crystal Downs, I had them cut the mowed rough down to one inch, and we may leave it right there instead of taking it down to fairway height.  Mr. Dye tried to tell me that in 1985 -- that fairways didn't need to be so wide if the strategic player could utilize the first cut of rough as part of the target area -- but it seemed too weird to me at the time.

[Tim Gallant]

IMHO, and on original designs I try to design one height of cut with no rough until I get to native plants etc.

I like that in theory, but do you build 60-65 yard wide fairways on most of your courses?  Because if the native plants are a lost ball issue, that's about the width you need to keep most people in play most of the time.

I agree. In general, on flat land, 65 yards of whatever combo of easy to find and place a club behind the ball height of grass is about right. Hell, I don't mind if none of that width is proper fairway height, especially for short courses. In fact, proper fairway height these days is often too short. For some of the rustic courses I play, the fairway cut lines actually look stupid. They would be better off not bothering and just have a uniform length which is basically low rough.

Ciao

Sean


This is interesting as the first course that came to mind when thinking about your text was Iona, which is pretty much wall-to-wall uniform height (slightly more than most fairways, slightly lower than most first cuts). In theory I have no issue with it, as long as the hole had enough strategy to it to make the golf interesting. Some holes at Iona succeeded in this sense. I agree that if fairways had been cut at Iona, it would just look odd.

Tim

I hope the new super at NB is more sympathetic to fairway cut lines which include some interesting or areas which naturally look as though they should be part of fairways. Areas such as 2 & 17 and 3 & 16 come immediately to mind. The cut lines on 3 are terrible because they look forced rather than following the terrain. This is a common issue.

Ciao

Here's hoping - More soon.





Credit: Britain from Above, 1929

[Jeff_Brauer]

That might be $43,000 in extra revenues, which is probably less than the extra cost for more fw maintenance.

Jeff:


At Crystal Downs, I had them cut the mowed rough down to one inch, and we may leave it right there instead of taking it down to fairway height.  Mr. Dye tried to tell me that in 1985 -- that fairways didn't need to be so wide if the strategic player could utilize the first cut of rough as part of the target area -- but it seemed too weird to me at the time.

I thought you had commented in the Houston thread that the light rough did reduce spin?  I've always felt that, except for Tour level players, and was a good thing to mow rough just high enough to maybe reduce spin for good players, but not so high that the ball is lost.  Or, for that matter, just so high that the average player gets that cushion they really like. 


I know it will vary with every type of grass, but am thinking mostly of Bermuda.   Even then, there are those who prefer common strains for rough, because higher 419 cuts get pretty thick.  I haven't heard of any northern courses using bent fw and low mow blue for rough.......

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:

At Crystal Downs, I had them cut the mowed rough down to one inch, and we may leave it right there instead of taking it down to fairway height.  Mr. Dye tried to tell me that in 1985 -- that fairways didn't need to be so wide if the strategic player could utilize the first cut of rough as part of the target area -- but it seemed too weird to me at the time.

I thought you had commented in the Houston thread that the light rough did reduce spin?  I've always felt that, except for Tour level players, and was a good thing to mow rough just high enough to maybe reduce spin for good players, but not so high that the ball is lost.  Or, for that matter, just so high that the average player gets that cushion they really like. 


I know it will vary with every type of grass, but am thinking mostly of Bermuda.   Even then, there are those who prefer common strains for rough, because higher 419 cuts get pretty thick.  I haven't heard of any northern courses using bent fw and low mow blue for rough.......

In Houston, yes, 1.5-inch Bermuda rough was plenty to take the spin off.


In northern Michigan, 0.875-inch fescue/bent/Poa roughs do not have much effect on spin.  It's not much different than mowing the entire place at 3/4 of an inch like they did way back when, playability-wise, and the mowing line is not too visible.  But members accept it far easier than "raising the fairway height" and going against the standards of other clubs.  Every superintendent who has visited Crystal Downs the past 2-3 years has noticed the approach and commented favorably.


We have expanded fairways in places we want the ball to run out more, and around the greens where it will serve as chipping area or feeder slope, but the rest we may leave as is.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TD,


So what height of blue and or fescue/blue rough might affect spin, if you know?


Probably the trickle down effect of the US Open roughs and the prevailing attitude of the day.  I think resorts and publics always kept the rough at perhaps 1.5-2" and anything else was considered too tough for hackers.


This whole discussion reminds me of the phrase I heard a lot when I first started in 1977 in Chicago.  The clubs there strived for the so called "4 iron rough," i.e., rough long enough to prevent any club longer than a 4 iron to be used.  I can't recall just how long that would have been.

[Rob Marshall]

Does the width of the fairway determine how wide the corridor should between trees on either side of the fairway? In other words, if the fairway is 30 yards and you miss the fairway by 5 yards should you have shot to the green without having to deal with trees? Is there a rule of thumb?