Total fairway acreage?!

[TEPaul]

The subject of total fairway acreage has been slowly occuring to me as I go around looking at or playing some of the older golf courses even many of those considered the great golf courses.

On those older golf courses considering or undergoing restorations the subject of restoring original fairway width comes up. In my opinion some of those old holes had fairway acreage and width that was useful and interesting and served to create more thoughtful options and strategies. Many of these have been lost because of fairway narrowing. Some of the other old holes I've seen seemed to have excessive width for various reasons that never really was useful for options and interesting strategies. I often wonder due to the nature of the designs of some of those holes if even more fairway narrowing shouldn't occur on some holes.

The reason I mention this issue is because of how the subject of TOTAL FAIRWAY ACREAGE of many golf courses seemed to be perceived today by the clubs themselves.

This point was really driven home to me when talking to the super of a golf course which is near the top of the world's rankings and is and will be a rota Open site. He knew exactly how much fairway acreage he had and how much the golf course was originally designed and built with. He said he thought that some of the widths on some of the old holes made sense strategically and would be great to restore while other holes might have had superfluous width in a strategic sense in the old days.

I think I truly do agree with him. But the kicker was he said generally the total fairway acreage on his course was in the 20 something acres while originally or in the old days it was 52 acres and that the club would never agree to pay for all that with what-all is required to maintain it.

My feeling is most all those old holes should be carefully analyzed today to see exactly what the strategic ramifications of their old fairway widths meant to those holes individually and that some should be restored out to their old widths and others might even be narrowed down to less than they have today for strategic reasons.

It seems like many clubs for obvious reasons are very conscious of what their total fairway acreage is-and the one thing I personally don't like on the older courses is standardized fairway width throughout---in a strategic context it just doesn't really make sense. That standardized width seems to be 30 something yards and the reasons fairways apparently evolved into that type width standardization is very interesting. However, looking carefully at aerials and such of those old holes it seems like the standardized widths back then was in the high 40 yard or even 50 yard range.

My feeling is all old holes whose fairway width has changed should be looked at carefully to better understand what the strategic ramifications of fairway width means to any of them individually--and only that way will the problems of total fairway acreage become more manageable to those clubs that are over concerned with total fairway acreage.

Either back in the old days when total fairway acreage seems to have been almost double today or today when it seems to be about half the original acreage, the deal seems to be that standardization of fairway width was probably never a good thing to do!

[Brad Klein]

TEP,

what absolutely killed classical architecture and led to an immediate shrinkage of total fairway acreage was the widespread adoption of irrigation.

The relationship between irrigation and design has never been carefully studied. Straight-line steel pipe with heads every 30 yards meant fairways reduced to 30 yards width (the diameter of irrigated area from each head). You ended up with a series of circles and nothing outside that could grow green, so the lateral areas were treed over.

Old courses had fairway acreage of 40-60 yards; it got down to 30-40 or so. Interestingly, the advent of new, high-tech irirgation today with better efficiency and more concentrated heads spaced 70 feet apart and more extensive coverage enables designers to contemplate wider fairways that can now be covered with less water (more efficiently, too) than in the past.

The retro-movement in design is thus faciliated by irrigation technology.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
As you well know, most classic courses were designed to play away from the middle of the fairways and more along the edges.  If that basic concept is not understood, clubs will always argue for "less fairway acreage".  Bunkers as again you well know, were meant to have a strategic purpose, not just a penal one.  The closer the golfer came to challenging the edge of a bunker, the more his reward.  A pet peeve of mine is that many “fairway” bunkers on classic courses are left out in the rough and serve little purpose other than to further punish an already poor golf shot.  The better golfer will not even tempt to flirt with the hazard because there is little if any reward in doing so.  They would just end up in the rough or behind a tree where there should be and once was fairway.  The end result is that the weaker players are punished and the better players become bored.  Max Behr (as you love to quote) wrote back in the 20’s:

"There is no necessity for artificial barriers. Play does not have to be systematically controlled. An opposite principle is involved. This principle is freedom. And by freedom we compel the golfer to control himself, that is to say, his instincts. If he judges his skill is great enough, he will of his own accord go for a strategic hazard to gain an advantage just as the tennis player will go for the sidelines of the court."  He went on to say,

"…when he is continually made to feel the birch-rod of the rough with its bunkers for every wayward shot, golf becomes an exercise of caution rather than of courage."

How many clubs understand this design concept  
Expanding fairways can restore many of those lost strategic options and playing angles.  For the better golfer, thought and temptation will come back into play on more of their tee shots.  Position in the fairway will play a greater role and shots will have to be shaped to avoid running into further trouble.  For the weaker golfer, there will be more fairway to aim at, their shorter shots will gain more roll and the game will be more fun.  Moreover, the aesthetics of the golf holes will dramatically improve as the “ribbon” fairway look will disappear and the views off the tee will be more pleasing and inviting.  Again it is subjective to many clubs as to what fairway "is useful" vs. "superfluous".  

Width as again you well know, is a very important and one of the most under appreciated aspects of golf course architecture.  On a well designed course, width creates options and options create interest and interest is one of the things that makes for a great golf course.  Without width, a course generally holds little strategic interest.  

I believe you actually make a course easier for better players by telling them “how” to play a hole and where “not” to go.  Good players get in much more trouble when there are options to consider aggressive attacks of the hole.  They struggle when there are fewer things like rough telling them where to play and where not to play.  When players have to think, that is when they get in trouble.  

Yes total acreage is a concern for many clubs but it is because of concern about maintenance costs.  Strategic ramifications are rarely considered IMHO.
Mark

[Mark_Fine]

Brad,
This is exactly what we talked about at the Williamsburg conference.  As you know, I agree 100%.
Mark

[Don_Mahaffey]

TE,
Brad, as usual, is dead on by attributing fwy width to irrigation. Even when more "modern" systems started being built in the 60's their design led to uniform fwy width in the 90 foot range. The early rainbird impacts had a radius of around 75 feet. A double row system would have row spacing at 75-90 and the sprinklers would be spaced on the rows usually with the same spacing as the row spacing. So you ended up with very uniform fwy widths and due to the square spacing and a nice wet spot right down the middle of the landing strip style fwy. Of course some high dollar courses might go to triple row but I think that was more to keep the rough lush then to widen fwys. There has been a lot written on this site about irrigation systems and over watering, as if a new modern system leads to over watering. Well designed irrigation systems managed properly should do just the opposite. The older systems with poor spacing/design are the ones that supers struggle with to evenly water the course without causing the wet spots/hot spots that give the course the appearance of being over watered.

20 Acres isn't much fwy acreage.    

[TEPaul]

Brad:

Definitely so. It's obvious that the old single line irrigation designs and systems that came in post WW2 basically created standardized fairway width of 30-35 yards (same on all holes regardless of varying strategic ramifications on various holes!) and that that alone was the reason for fairway width standardization we've seen for so long.

And it is ironic that the newer more sophisticated irrigation designs and systems today allows architects and golf course maintenance to finally break away from that entire course fairway width standardization. One sees the new width variations most on the new construction courses because they aren't subject to having to reanalyze individual hole width that evolved from wide to narrow in a standardized way!

But one of my points is that many of the old holes were too wide for their own individual strategic ramifications. It's no secret that many of even the best old courses also had standardized width of fairway. That old standardized width just happened to be far wider (far more total fairway acreage) than the post WW2 standardized fairway width (30-35yds).

I think the most logical way to approach this subject in the future, particularly with restoration architecture is to look at each hole to determine what kind of fairway width works best for the ORIGINAL strategic ramifications of any particular hole and tailor its fairway width accordingly regardless of what it once was or is now! Logically that may create a wide spectrum of fairway widths throughout any golf course---and that's as it should be.

That would be more logical than the old far wider fairway width standardization and far more logical than the more recent (post WW2) narrower standardization.

Any golf hole logically has a width that works best for its strategies and throughout a course of real variety that should vary vastly in fairway width--eg some narrow and some possibly vastly wide!

I guess my more surprising point is that I don't believe it's necessary in a strategic context to feel the need to restore the fairway width of ALL old holes because back then some really were too wide for their individual original stratetgies.

And doing it this way would solve better the problem that some courses seem to feel their facing which is restoring to the total fairway acreage they once had.

[A_Clay_Man]

The 16th hole at Pebble came to my mind reading this. The fairway width has an ebb and flow all on it's own. The centerline bunker off the tee has fairway on both sides but are narrow. Then the hole opens up  before narrowing again at the inside leg bunker. It was also interesting to see how this fairway width changed for the Am and the open back in '99.

What seems odd is that the clubs justification of cost. Isn't there an economy of scale where by the additional cost to maintain 30% more fairway, is marginal?

TP- Could you be a little more specific on what hole or type of hole would benefit from narrowing?

[mike_malone]

 I think we can see much more varied fairway widths with the newest irrigation technology.At my home course there is much opportunity for bringing into the fairway what redanman calls"golfing ground".In most instances this would enhance strategy.I think the original fairway contours were standard and if Flynn had the use of modern irrigation and mowers he would have designed more imaginative contours.

[BCrosby]

Other than the fact that they happened at about the same time, I had never thought there was a connection between "treeing" courses in the 50's and 60's and the installation of irrigation.

Brad is right. It was more than just coincidence. There was a causal connection. Fascinating.

Once you start down the irrigation road, an irresistable historical imperative takes over. A sort of inescapable causal chain:

First, irrigation keeps centerlines very green;

Second, other parts of the course start looking unhealthy by comparison;

Third, you "beautify" the brown areas by planting trees;

Fourth, the trees force you to remove fairway bunkers.

It's not just that irrigation resulted in narrower fairways - that would be bad enough - it also resulted in an inevitable cascade of other, even worse things.

The Athens CC (Ross) is a case study for this. Within a five year period irrigation pipes were laid, thousands (literally) of trees were planted and 60+ of Ross's fairway bunkers were removed.

Very interesting.

Bob

[TEPaul]

"TP- Could you be a little more specific on what hole or type of hole would benefit from narrowing?"

Adam:

I could mention a few off the top of my head but I doubt they'd mean much to you since you probably don't know them. There're at least three on my own course. The reasons I'd suggest narrowing those ones is there really is no strategic reason when one looks at the greens on them to maintain a strategy of playing out to the corners of some of their present fairway--because there is no reasonable strategy to do that. Basically those strategic angles just aren't reasonable strategies.

Other fairway areas on our course for one evolutionary reason or another are just areas where no one goes today with any reasonable strategy or basically never even goes at all with the exception of some very questionable shot. These are fairway areas from which we could transfer the turf to other fairway areas on other holes that are sourly in need of width and increase to reestablish extremely reasonable and intersting options and strategies that once existed and don't at present. In this way we could reestablish important options and strategies and also keep down the existence and mantenance of total fairway acreage.  

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
I don't know about you, but I've come across VERY FEW classic courses where I thought the fairways were too wide (as they are kept now)!  I hear what you are saying about take some here and add some there to keep the total acreage about the same, but frankly if a course originally had 40 acres and now has 20, something has drastically changed and it is probably playability.  Let's not forget the fun factor and the accuracy of the average golfer.  
Mark

[TEPaul]

Bob:

It is interesting to look back now and understand what caused the general narrowing of fairways to a narrower standard width. As has been said it was the post WW2 irrigation design that was the spark that began the chain reaction of events. Single line irrigation systems of that era basically all had a "cast" of no more than 17 yards in a single direction--hence standardized fairway width everywhere to about 30-35 yards.

But then as you suggest the chain reaction of things that followed that fairway narrowing is really interesting to understand now. Since the old fairway areas on the peripheries of most all holes---about 5-15 yards on either side of all fairways came to have nothing there except rough (down from the old standardized widths of 45-60 yds to the new standardized width of 30-35 yds) the natural thing to do apparently was to plant trees in or close to those old abondoned fairway peripheries to fill them up.

As you said, flanking bunkering (never the best kind, in my opinion, but a very common kind) became compromised by trees and lack of connection and relevance to fairway area.

Did ANYONE fully understand what the original CAUSE (the post WW2 new fairway irrigation designs) would eventually EFFECT in the way of this ultimate chain reaction?

In my opinion, no one even remotely understood what this cause and ultimate effect chain reaction would ultimately lead to or just didn't care! This can almost be proven today by the fact that it basically happened everywhere and in the very same ways on almost every one of the older courses of America. Basically no one resisted that chain reaction of events probably because they just didn't understand where it would lead.

The most shocking thing of all is that we must now admit that. That we must now admit very few back then understood or cared particularly about the ultimate effect and result which was to eventually both massively minimize the strategic ramifications of some of those old holes and also compromise the very thing they were trying so hard to improve--the turf of their golf courses. The only way to counteract that compromising effect of near proximity trees and such to turf was to over irrigate and over fertilize it which eventually probably led to both the inherent weaking of it and the need for additional care and maintenance!

So we have to assume that no one really understood or cared enough about the strategic intricacies of golf or golf architect--at least certainly not as it related to fairway width! And that those that did were clearly not being listened to or taken seriously! And furthermore an almost philosophical logic followed the initial narrowing and the chain of events that followed it.

I think golf and even architecture evolved a new logic, a new philosophy of something in a strategic sense (or lack of it) where one was no longer offered real decisions of their own as they once were as to direction and it all became much more of a one dimensional skill requirement of playing golf basically right down the middle! That in a large way became the new logic, the new philosophy and the new "Ideal".

[Don_Mahaffey]

I believe a wide fwy can be strategic, even if it seems to the better player that there is an obvious area to try and place your tee ball. At the Rawls course at TT the fwys are very wide and it seems like you can spray it around a little and still get away with it. But, you soon learn that there are certain angles that don't pay off. I'm not sure that's good enough reasoning to narrow the fwy to just reward the player who hits it in the right place. Giving a player room to hit the ball off the tee doesn't mean the course is easy to score on for the better player. To me, the pay off in reduced maintenance doesn't automatically justify narrowing fwys just because there isn't obvious strategic advatage to having a wider fwy. Courses with width that don't overly punish wayward shots but reward placement are very enjoyable to play. Obviously if a course is limited in the amount of fwy acerage they can afford to maintain then allowances must be made, but I haven't seen to many course where the fwys are too wide.

[BCrosby]

TEP says:

"I think golf and even architecture evolved a new logic, a new philosophy of something in a strategic sense (or lack of it) where one was no longer offered real decisions of their own as they once were as to direction and it all became much more of a one dimensional skill requirement of playing golf basically right down the middle! That in a large way became the new logic, the new philosophy and the new "Ideal"."

TEP:

Yes. And one of the reasons that people forgot/overlooked the old strategic logic of their wide fairways was because once you started irrigating centerlines, the wide, unwatered parts of the course started to look unhealthy by comparison.

The agronomic balance was broken. Courses started having green parts and brown parts.

People "fixed" that with trees and a parade of horribles quickly ensued.

So, in the end, aesthetics won out over strategy. At least at those courses that didn't have the foresight to see what was really going on.

Like the one I grew up on.

Bob  

[TEPaul]

I'm not all that certain the beginning of using real fairway width for interesting strategies didn't begin to start to decline earlier than we may think. There's no doubt in my mind it probably started to decline in realy interesting strategic ways in the Golden Age itself.

Don Mahaffey just gave a very good example of using fairway width without any real direct strategic implication to it on the tee shot. The meaning of placing tee shots in various places came as a result of the green-end. I suppose that type thing could be called indirect strategy. Personally I feel this type is some of the most sophisticated of all as it forces players to think ahead to the meaning of a shot other than the one at hand. There's no question Donald Ross was really good at this type being perhaps one of the best at so-called "second shot" architectural strategy by giving you a ton of room or rope on tee shots!

But another entirely different use and requirment for real fairway width was that hazard features could sprinkled within that width instead of outside of it. In this sense I'm talking about hazard features other than the common total cross bunker of those earlier designs.

If I think back on all the writing of all the architects I know of there was definitely none more adamant about defending the use of real fairway width than Max Behr simply because he felt so many interesting architectural things could be done within it if one had that overall width to start with.

Something like that might be called the difference between actual fairway width vs effective fairway width.

Good examples would be Riviera's #10 or NGLA's #8. NGLA's #8 fairway in the basic LZ is 64 yards wide from one side to the other but given the fact that the fairway has a center INLINE bunker scheme almost in the middle of it the effective or playable fairway width is only about 30 yards. The good news is those two effective 30 yard wide fairways create a distnct in your face CHOICE for the golfer--and its his choice not the architects strategic dictation! The golfer MUST decide to try to go for one or the other knowing only that the one place he cannot go is the CENTER of that overall 64 yards of fairway width!!

[John Gosselin]

It has been my experience when I recommend to a club to widen their fairways back close to the original design; the immediate reaction is that would make the course to easy. Similar reaction when tree removal is discussed. They almost always point to the US open courses and how one of the first things they do to get a course ready (tougher) for an open is to narrow the fairways. I have seen good courses that would be great courses if you just uncovered them or exposed them. Meaning remove the secondary tree lines, reclaim all the original bunkers in their original spots, and restore the original fairway contours. I don't care about easier or tougher I want interest. I want options. I don't want my only play off a tee to be right down the middle. It is always disappointing to me when playing an older course and I see remnants of an abandon bunker complex 20 yards deep in the tree lines. Even more disappointing when I hear someone say” what idiot put a bunker way over there it's not even in play". There are so many interesting shots or angles of play on some older courses that haven’t been played for many years and may never be played again.

The installation of irrigation on fairways definitely had the biggest impact on losing fairway acreage. Though I can't blame the planting of primary tree lines on irrigation. I have seen to many courses that many of their now mature trees were planted well before they installed thier first fairway irrigation system.










well before thier first fairway irrigation system.

[Mark_Fine]

Just remind them that narrow fairways, high rough, and shaved down the greens surely give you a very tough golf course.  But you also have a "very one dimensional course" and I’ll venture to say a very boring one for those playing it time and time again.  
Mark

[TEPaul]

jgosselin;

What you're describing--narrowing down for only "shot dictating" middle of the fairway strategy and general defense amongst clubs of that as a good thing--a thing to make courses play harder and rely only on one dimensional skill requirement IS the new logic, the new philosophy and the new "Ideal".

It would be one thing if golfers today understood the error of the evolution away from the use of clever applications of width--those very things that a Max Behr wrote so much about and warned so adamantly of the stultifying of interest of narrow fairways.

But most golfers don't see that at all even if they come to somewhat understand what Behr was talking about. They don't see the evolution of width into narrowness as an error or a chain reaction of errors. They actually think narrowness is not only a good thing but the best thing.

I asked Geoff Shackelford (as both of us seem to be the two today who study Behr's essays the most) if he thought that perhaps ultimately Behr just may have been wrong about the things he said about width and narrowness back in the 1920s?

Thank God Geoff said,  "No Way!"

[TEPaul]

Mark Fine:

When I talk about excessive fairway widths and areas on some holes I'm generally talking about the way some of them were in the old days--not today. To me it's pretty clear that there were areas of fairway back then that really had no strategic purpose for anyone. I don't think those areas are needed today and certainly don't need to be restored.

Why were those areas of no real strategic function there back then? It probably had as much to do with maintenance practices back then and the equipment they used back then. Have you ever seen one of those old gang mowers they used to use? They were immensely wide and its obvious to me that just their size and width and commensurate lack of maneauverability created some areas that strategy does not need.

But we're lucky today--our equipment doesn't have those size and maneauverablilty problems like those immense fairway gang mowers did back then.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
I hear you and agree at least to some extent.  I guess I prefer to error on the "wide side".  I see too many narrow fairways that make me cringe (and that has nothing to do with my own game which you saw in so so form out at Glen View).  
Mark

[TEPaul]

Mark Fine:

Personally I wouldn't object to golf courses that basically had fairway height grass everywhere but try selling that or excessive areas of fairway to most golf club memberships. That kind of thing is simply not "of value" to them!

I'd prefer to save my energies to fight for fairway area in places where it really does have a strategic function and not in those areas where it doesn't. Even in the areas where it does you have to fight hard to to persuade and convince too many people to understand the logic of even that.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
Believe me, I know what you are saying.  I'm going through that at Lehigh as we slowly bring back some of the old fairway lines.  It has been a long and trying educational process.  

The toughest part is when you have to remove trees to get back "important" portions of the fairway.  Now that is where it really gets tough!
Mark

[BCrosby]

jgosselin -

Well said.

Bob

[Kelly_Blake_Moran]

Tom,

6200 yard course will have 35 acres.

Longer courses I usually end up between 40 to 50 acres fairway.

[Kelly_Blake_Moran]

Just interviewed on a renovation job 6600 yards and 35 acres of fairway, the USGA did a TAS report recommending they narrow the fairways for the expert player, and reduce total fairway area, which they like to hear because they want to cut costs.  I told them about 6 locations minimum where the fairways need to be larger, much much wider, probably take them up to 42 to 45 acres fairway.  There is definately a fundamental difference of philosophy between the USGA and others.  Is it the US Open mentality?