It has been 10 years since this thread ended, but reading Richard Choi's current photo tour of Oakland Hills and seeing the pictures of a few holes of Donald Ross' original layout on page 3 of Richard’s thread got me thinking about WIDTH.
Richard Choi's thread is at
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,56801.50.htmlI opted to continue this thread, instead of sidetracking Richard's and instead of starting a new one, partly to give context to a discussion on width. Again, this original discussion was in 2003, and as you can read, it was a rather short discussion.
In the original DR configuration (on page 3 of Richard’s thread), you can see many, many bunkers were within the fairway lines. The internal bunkers are almost all gone, along with the width; I can only guess at the hands of the USGA and Rees Jones. Oakland Hills appears to have withstood the USGA and Rees Jones efforts, apparently based on the beauty and genius of Ross' greens. But, looking at that Ross layout made me start thinking about what it would have been like if width was still part of the course.
As was stated by Mucci in the original 2003 thread and his opinion affirmed by TE Paul, "WIDTH is more important, when features/hazards are within, not outside the fairway lines." I agree with both of them. As I said previously, those features existed in the DR original layout, but are since almost entirely gone.
At the time of this original thread, C&C, Doak and others architects had recently reintroduced width back into the game at universally acclaimed gems like Sand Hills and Pac Dunes. They have continued to include width at their courses. (All of their courses?) I see width as a good thing, but understand that wind is an issue at the SH and PD courses and width becomes a necessity.
I have never played SH, so I will only speak to Pac Dunes, and say that Pac Dunes could have been much narrower if TD had so chosen, but IMO the course would have lost a lot of its character, playability and enjoyment, and in addition, it would have been an unbearable challenge without the width. Also, despite being very wide, my playing partners and I still manage to miss fairways and land in fairway bunkers when there is no wind; which begs the question, is it really “wide” or just right (or do I need to practice more)?
In contrast to SH and PD, Oakland Hills is a parkland course where width would not be seen as a necessity. However, DR thought it appropriate in his design to include width.
My above thoughts and observations are the context which gives rise to my many questions:
- “Is there a still a purpose for width on a parkland course with modern equipment?" I would love to hear from John Percival, a member at Oakland Hills and those of you that have played OH and could reflect on what it may have been like to play the DR’s OH layout with both its width, its many bunkers within the fairways, and with the current greens.
- Are there parkland courses built in the last 10-20 years with width? I can’t think of any, but I am sure they exist.
- Does the width of those courses add anything to the playability or strategy of the parkland course?
- Do you think narrowing the course would detract from it?
- Has anyone played a course where the addition of width would make the course better? Where and why would width enhance it?
- Alternatively, has anyone played a course they view as too wide and should be narrowed? Where and why?
- Have those 10-year old opinions in the original post changed over time? (Some of you still post)
Cheers.