Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Niall C on July 27, 2010, 02:19:03 PM
-
Reading a couple of the recent threads, its clear that quite a few of us on here are fairly enamoured with the idea of wide fairways, and by that I'm assuming 60 yards wide type of thing. The idea seems to be that landing on short grass with no danger of your ball landing in rough is preferable to having to avoid the rough, but I could be wrong.
Now my experience on these modern large scale productions are limited as most of my golf tends to be on older, more conventionally scaled courses so I am interested to find out if my assumption as to the appeal of wide fairways is all that their is to it or whether there are any other good reason for them.
Interested to hear everyones thoughts.
Niall
-
I thought the idea of a wide fairway is to give options.
You can choose which side of the fairway to play on for a better angle toward the pin.
If the fairway is a narrow runway between the rough, then there are no options -- you've just got to hit the narrow strip of fairway.
-
I'm a relative newbie here, but will give it a shot. Width clearly lends an element of playability which the mid/high handicapper (which as a bogey golfer, I can relate to) appreciates, but I don't think thats the reason many on here ar enamoured with it. Width in combination with interesting green complexes that require thought in terms of angle of attack all of sudden make it more challenging for the lower handicapper to score well. All of a sudden that fairway isn't as wide for the low hadicapper if he wants the prefered angle into the green. Playablility for higher handicappers and challenge for low handicappers. I think that is a combination many are (or should be) enamoured with.
I've been fortunate enough to recently become a member at Hidden Creek and the combination of the above is just one of the reasons why I consider the course not only a joy to play, but one that I cant wait to play again so as to try and figure out exactly where on those wide fairways I should actually be targeting.
-
Niall,
given your latest Medal Score, I think you qualify admirably for the moniker of 'Wide Boy' - So You Should Know!
;D
FBD.
-
Without good green design width is just more room to hit the ball. Sort of how the hairy edged bunker became the symbol of minimalism, width has become a trend because it seems like the "in" architects are building wider courses. Problem is the trend setters have width as just one of the reasons their holes are good, their greens being the main reason.
Wider fwys shouldn’t always mean bigger greens. In fact I think an argument could be made for just the opposite.
-
Well, if you have wide fairways, you can actually locate fairway bunkers in the fairway instead of locating them in the rough, where they would more accurately be referred to as rough bunkers.
A second issue is that modern irrigation systems have narrowed fairways by the limits of the distance they can cover. Historically fairways were wider before irrigation costs (for wider coverage) reigned them in.
-
Jason
Good point but it does beg the question of how much width you need to give different options. Plenty of the older courses I play give you options in conventional 30/35 yard wide fairways.
Jim
likewise, I get your point about options particularly linking it into the green complex but again how much room do you need. If you are talking about more than a couple of options then it needs to be a fairly interesting green IMO.
Marty
I was actually very proud of that score ;)
Niall
-
Niall:
I played a four-ball at Crystal Downs yesterday with my cousin and his son and his son's friend -- all reasonable 10-handicap players. The fairways are not ridiculously narrow, but the rough was up.
I would estimate we spent an additional 30-40 minutes of our time yesterday searching for balls in the rough.
I would much prefer to find the ball quickly, and then have a contour around the green make my approach shot harder.
-
I think too many people confuse a desire for width with a desire for wide fairways. That's probably because too many places seem to actively cultivate thick, heavy, uniform rough.
I'm as big a proponent of width as there is on here, but I really only care about functional width - can I find my ball and play it again? Less manicured rough usually allows this, whereas super thick lush rough frequently doesn't, or at least makes it overly difficult.
Nice post, Don.
-
Niall:
I played a four-ball at Crystal Downs yesterday with my cousin and his son and his son's friend -- all reasonable 10-handicap players. The fairways are not ridiculously narrow, but the rough was up.
I would estimate we spent an additional 30-40 minutes of our time yesterday searching for balls in the rough.
I would much prefer to find the ball quickly, and then have a contour around the green make my approach shot harder.
It's amazing to me how many people don't appreciate this. Many players, and not necessarily particularly good players, don't believe a course is worthy unless you're punished by rough, water, etc., without regard to what other challenges might exist. Why are people such gluttons for these specific forms of punishment?
-
In preface, I'll say I'm as concerned with the width of the entire playing corridor as to the width of the actual fairway.
That said, my opinion about fairway width as a general topic is boiled this way.
1. A generous space to hit tee shots catalyzes confident swings and that makes for better, more satisfying play.
2. A wide vista is a visually appealing aesthetic to my eye. I often hear reports of a similar experience and very few that disdain it.
3. A well designed hole, despite the width will (via green complex, fairway hazard or rough) usually indicate that the best approach is from a particular spot in the fairway, not the larger entirety. Therefore the premium on good play will come from one's execution to that spot. The significant difference is that not hitting the spot will not engender another consequence in addition to missing the spot. You will merely have a poor angle or poor lie, but lying in fairway turf... or if eschewed the width given and went for the best spot, you took your chances with the defenses that side.
3a. A wide fairway allows the golfer more latitude to choose how he will play it. It less dictates play than allows the player to create it with his particular skill or judgments. The result is that the player's fortunes are somewhat more tied to his appraised strengths and executions that it is his failures to hit a particular distance or shape of shot.
As with any significant component of a course design, I truly think variety is the answer. Of the 14 two or three shot holes found on most courses, I would seek to have about 2-4 of them with ridiculous 100 yard wide fairways (the longer the hole, the wider the fairway) 3-5 of them with very wide fairways (60-80 yards wide) and 3-5 of them with 30-40 yard fairways. This may or may not leave the opportunity to create one or two holes with a stringently narrow fairway 20-25 yards wide or a couple that are mowed to and through the trees.
of course this is all in a theoretical vacuum and without having a physically real piece of property to consider. It might engender having shared fairways (like St. Andrews) in some spots.
Still to re-state, variety is the answer. Width is just one modulator, hole to hole, of a player's experience of the course. It's just that we know the 30-40 yard fairway very well and we know from stringent championship-level courses the very narrow fairway. The wide fairway doesn't receive its proper proportion alongside these other frequent tropes.
cheers
vk
-
There's a win win when building width with greens that are thoughtful, on ground that is well contoured. The bogey golfer (or 10 handi as Tom points out) has not ruined their day by having to search and/or chop out of over irrigated thick rough, on many if not most holes.
For the better player, I believe width can throw them off their game. Having their spot to play to, always delineated with narrowness plays right into their comfort zone. While thoughtful width can lull them into thinking they can just bomb it anywhere without cause for concern. . If there's no advantage to being in the proper spot, and, no added challenge form being somewhere else, width for width sake is wasted money.
-
As an excersize, you can plot a par 4 golf hole at a short, medium and long on graph paper. Put in a blob of a green at whatever angle you choose - say 10 degrees angled to the right. If you presume that the risk taken is to hit just inside the fw edge on the right for the angle in, you can find out pretty quickly what width is necessary to create that challenge. Generally, width required to create risk widens with length of hole and angle of the green.
But is width for widths sake any good?
Any width further right of that perfect approach angle for the opening is just making the golfer hit to the middle (or mid right) of the fw, with less penalty for missing right, (or left) and reduces risk, and thus strategy.
"Too much width" left certainly has some value in highlighting the advantage of flirting with the rough on the right, but at some point, the advantage or avoiding rough off the tee by playing safe probably outweighs the advantage aiming for the right edge. You are assured of a lie in the fw while playing safe and may be able to bomb tee shot to gain advantage of a shorter iron shot at harder angle. Of course, that is an option!
Since most golfers can regularly hit a fw about 35 to 40 yards wide about 2/3 of the time, anything more than 17-20 yards left of the centerline might qualify as "too much width." I think there is some practical limit as to how wide the fw on the safe side should be to create strategy, and about 40-45 yards probably wide enough when considering strategy, speed of play, mowing costs, etc.
A couple of other thoughts -
I agree rough only needs to be high enough to cause flyers....
From experience, and relating to TD's story, I find that the turf corridor (whether rough or fw) needs to be about 80 yards wide. At 70 yards wide (sometimes typical because that is what 3 rows of sprinklers cover) I find that on every hole, one of the 10 handicappers TD mentions will be in the adjacent woods or native grass. I doubt there would be many lost balls at all in the same foursome at 90 yard wide turf corridors.
I am not all that enamored with center bunkers. Despite a flowing mowing pattern, in essense you need to have an adequate area on both sides of that bunker making it a cosmetically disguised second fw, with all the problems associated with that - using more space and resources for what usually gets exposed as a less favorable route, although that is not even a given, esp. on windy sites.
-
Adam,
I so very much agree with your previous comment regarding width "throwing good players off their game." I think that way about straightforward, easy green side pitches and chips too.
I was just commenting about a course to a GCA member last night and talking about a very plain pitch of 15 yards over low grass to an an amusing contour with average green speed.
the low-handicappers and crack players are so uninspired by such pitches because they are for a wide class of players - "easy." Not only does it bring a lesser player nearer their scoring class but it is also doubly frustrating if they themselves do not pull it off. The easiness of it and its apparent solvability almost bring an anxiety of being humiliated to a very, very good player and force him to stress over a shot he can usually do in his sleep.
I think that anxiety over the "easy" and the "wide" is an un-examined charm of some special courses.
cheers
vk
-
I don't like wide fairways as much as hate rough. I've played a couple of course I can think of that are just ridiculously narrow in terms of the corridors cut through trees. On certain holes, anyway. But that can be fun. For my part, if you want a narrow hole then put trees or fairway bunkers down one or both sides as long as the trees have the undergrowth cleared away where you can find your ball. Don't just grow a bunch of ankle-deep or knee-high grass.
Just this weekend I had a brief conversation over lunch with our club's head professional. I told him how much I appreciated the fact that unless conditions conspire to grow the grass faster than we can afford to cut it, our Bermuda rough punishes bad shots with thick, nasty lies but not with deep grass. He said the goal was to never, ever have more than 1-3/4" of grass depth so that you could see your ball as you walk near it.
Basically I like any feature of a golf course that lets you play the game in a more or less continuous-walking fashion. So wide, wide playing corridors of short grass are great. But it's quite acceptable to have rough that's an inch or so deep as well. Or trees with no low limbs and pine straw or mulch underneath. Or fairway bunkers as long as you don't need a ladder to get in and out.
But of those I'll take wide, wide fairways as my first choice!
-
IMO, fairway width should be related to the strategic principle of proportionate penalization. That is, the worse the shot the greater the penalty. And vice versa.
I was going to post the following on the recent #2 restoration thread but didn't want to prolong it. The first photo shows the 13th as Ross set it up in 1939 on the left. The photo on the right shows how it has played in modern times - until just recently. As you can see there is quite a difference.
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4091/4834847957_8d212acf7e_b.jpg)
For the Opens that were held on #2 if you hit it one foot off of the very narrow fairway then you just chopped it out. Remember Payne chopping it out on the 72nd hole? That is too strong a penalty for just missing a fairway. Below we see how it played during the 2005 Open and where C/C currently are.
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4132/4834847943_58bb842db9_b.jpg)
Another point of having wide fairways has already been touched on in this thread. Options. It's a more interesting and certainly more fun game when there are optimal ways of approaching a green - particularly when the hole is located far to one side or another. With narrow fairways there is no option with the drive. And there is no strategic advantage with no varying angles to the approach.
Penalize the poor shot, but give the not too wayward drive something of a chance. That is my point of view.
(http://www.sandhillsinsider.com/images/tranz1.gif)
-
I think too many people confuse a desire for width with a desire for wide fairways. That's probably because too many places seem to actively cultivate thick, heavy, uniform rough.
I'm as big a proponent of width as there is on here, but I really only care about functional width - can I find my ball and play it again? Less manicured rough usually allows this, whereas super thick lush rough frequently doesn't, or at least makes it overly difficult.
Nice post, Don.
George I agree that width should be thought of more of the corridor in which you can play the ball. There are not many UK courses where fairways are in excess of 40 yards wide and personally I think hitting it straight off the tee is a clear part of the game with penalties of varying degrees for missing the fairway. I think you should be able to find your ball easily if you are in the semi rough with the penalty that the longer grass affords lesser ball control to the better golfer and often an increase in how the greenside hazards will affect.
-
And I though width was solely about ingesting too many fish tacos at the turn.... ;D
-
Basically I like any feature of a golf course that lets you play the game in a more or less continuous-walking fashion. So wide, wide playing corridors of short grass are great. But it's quite acceptable to have rough that's an inch or so deep as well.
I agree with this as well. In fact, Crystal Downs is set up just that way ... the fairways are 30-40 yards wide, and then there is maybe 10-15 yards of mowed bluegrass rough on either side, before you get into the nasty native stuff where all the ball-hunting begins. But, as Jeff's numbers indicate, that isn't really quite enough for a group of 10-handicappers to get around fast.
-
Jeff B.
You could be making a good deal of sense in the overall, but I think that your anecdotal statistical review of what "most golfers" do is too breezy/ or presumptive. i observe 1500 -2000 shots per week of "poor," average and above-average golfers and all groups would be happy to take 66% of fairways hit.
I do think - with greater occasion than has been present for many decades - width for width sake is a good thing. It's just an opinion, but i re-state my foundations for it:
1. the magnitude appeals to the eye
2. it inspires less anxious swing execution
3. it gives the player the choice...not the architect, course, the conditions or the committee-of-the-day that presents the playing field.
and two others:
4. it means less looking for balls
5. easiness through width, can often make humble the brazen player
cheers
vk
-
Not wanting to be argumentative but I do not agree with "proportionate penalization" as any sort of rubric for evaluating a golf course. What in the world is wrong with a shot or a hole on which the worst place to be is quite close to the safest place to be? Or where there are wild-ass shots that end up OK?
-
The reason I love width so much is this:
As you stand on the tee, you have a score in your head that you know you want to make, expect to make or hope to make. Perhaps all three.
The closer you get to the hole, the more acute the pursuit of that becomes - both that you're physically nearer to the hole and have fewer shots to play.
On a tight hole bordered by harsh rough, water, thick trees or gorse - that goal can be ended by one bad swing.
With width coupled with features that enhance the test the further you move down the hole, you can recover from a bad swing or poor decision, and while your mission remains alive, you give yourself more to do to achieve your goal.
Allowing the anticipation to build longer before a goal it is ultimately realised or taken away from you increases the emotion that's felt - either good or bad.
I know I haven't articulated that as well as I hoped to, but that to me is a round of golf - 1 war broken down into 18 battles. The longer each of those battles is able to go on before victory/defeat is decided the better.
I firmly believe a well-designed golf course will take as many shots as a narrow death march will if you don't play well, but you will enjoy the experience more because you will spend more of each hole and more of the round "in the hunt".
-
Brent, I enjoy the occasional shot where the best and worst places are side by side. Like going for a flag that is close to a fearsome bunker. That is a strategic choice for the golfer - and that is fun. Some randomness with the shot bounding around on firm turf is adventurous and fun as well.
But every single tee shot, all day long where you can not hit it one foot off the fairway? Or a constant stream of disproportionate penalties? Not a kind of course I would care for. Ross definitely had the philosophy of rewarding and penalizing a shot according to how well it was played. He definitely wanted to give the somewhat wayward shot a chance to be redeemed with an especially well played next stroke. Those are the kinds of courses I enjoy playing for the most part.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by wild shots that end up ok.
-
Jeff B.
You could be making a good deal of sense in the overall, but I think that your anecdotal statistical review of what "most golfers" do is too breezy/ or presumptive. i observe 1500 -2000 shots per week of "poor," average and above-average golfers and all groups would be happy to take 66% of fairways hit.
I do think - with greater occasion than has been present for many decades - width for width sake is a good thing. It's just an opinion, but i re-state my foundations for it:
1. the magnitude appeals to the eye
2. it inspires less anxious swing execution
3. it gives the player the choice...not the architect, course, the conditions or the committee-of-the-day that presents the playing field.
and two others:
4. it means less looking for balls
5. easiness through width, can often make humble the brazen player
cheers
vk
I have spent a lot of time over the years studying this. The basic statement is taken from the USGA slope guide, however, and they have studied it even more. I always laugh that they didn't attempt 3/4 of golfers which would seemingly be more relevant to fast play and finding fw. Maybe the numbers were just too staggering, as I know fw would have to be over 70 yards wide, not just 40! There was also a one day study by the USGA on a public course and 104 of 150 shots studied got airborne, and about 2/3 of those found a reasonably wide fw, so the 2/3 number is actually a little low for the average public course - 2/3 of 2/3 is more like 44% of all high handicap shots hit the fw, but if the discussion is width, the top shots don't necessarily apply.
That said, the environmental trend to reduce turf certainly makes the top shots apply, as does width! It all slows down play and we need to find a combo of real low maintenance turf that can be cut at reasonable heights and take traffice to allow those top shots and 30 yard right tee shots get found and played quickly.
I do agree large scale can be awesome. The first comment golfers make on many of my courses is about the scale of them. There was another thread on that recently, where the comments were about how scale was used simply to win awards, was there not? Honestly, I think there are many reasons to make a large scale course. Many of your traditionally scaled courses started as large scale courses and got downsized over the years, either to save maintenance, fit sprinklers (2 or 3 row) or because poorly planted trees over grew. For that matter, most of the old time greens started out as 6-10,000 SF affairs and have shrunk to half their size.
-
I have spent a lot of time over the years studying this. The basic statement is taken from the USGA slope guide, however, and they have studied it even more. I always laugh that they didn't attempt 3/4 of golfers which would seemingly be more relevant to fast play and finding fw. Maybe the numbers were just too staggering, as I know fw would have to be over 70 yards wide, not just 40! There was also a one day study by the USGA on a public course and 104 of 150 shots studied got airborne, and about 2/3 of those found a reasonably wide fw, so the 2/3 number is actually a little low for the average public course - 2/3 of 2/3 is more like 44% of all high handicap shots hit the fw, but if the discussion is width, the top shots don't necessarily apply.
That said, the environmental trend to reduce turf certainly makes the top shots apply, as does width! It all slows down play and we need to find a combo of real low maintenance turf that can be cut at reasonable heights and take traffice to allow those top shots and 30 yard right tee shots get found and played quickly.
I do agree large scale can be awesome. The first comment golfers make on many of my courses is about the scale of them. There was another thread on that recently, where the comments were about how scale was used simply to win awards, was there not? Honestly, I think there are many reasons to make a large scale course. Many of your traditionally scaled courses started as large scale courses and got downsized over the years, either to save maintenance, fit sprinklers (2 or 3 row) or because poorly planted trees over grew. For that matter, most of the old time greens started out as 6-10,000 SF affairs and have shrunk to half their size.
Don't you think most of your problems would be eliminated if folks simply stopped turbocharging the rough?
-
Not wanting to be argumentative but I do not agree with "proportionate penalization" as any sort of rubric for evaluating a golf course. What in the world is wrong with a shot or a hole on which the worst place to be is quite close to the safest place to be? Or where there are wild-ass shots that end up OK?
I think it is a meaningless term. If you have a completely flat treeless, hazardless course with flat greens, then you have the perfect "proportionate penalization" course. Every ball that doesn't go on a direct line from tree to hole is penalized exactly in direct proportion to the amount it deviates from the direct line. Although, it is a perfect course for Matt Ward and his 47 1/2 driver with 2 1/2 degrees of loft that he uses to set long ball records on airport runways with.
-
I agree George. There is a basically never a need to water rough imo. In Cincinnati we have Kentucky bluegrass rough for the most part - the same grass that is in my yard. I never water my yard and the grass would be prefect to play out of. Even if I let it get 2-4 inches long it would still be playable because it would be thin and dry. Sometimes the ball might sit up and sometimes it might find a bare spot and sit down. So, it gets a little brown and maybe a few weedy type grasses.
-
Width entices thoughtless golfers to play haphazard golf.
-
Really nice posts on this thread, thanks.
Niall - It's not so much that I like wide fairways as that I dislike the opposite. It's mostly an aesthetic preference for me, i.e. the things that make a potentially wider fariway more narrow -- eg. rough that wraps completely around fairway bunkers that should instead be in the fairways or on the very edges of fairways -- just makes the hole look unattractive to me, and contrived.
Peter
-
There's nothing more senseless to me than having ground contours covered in long rough. Be it a repetitive stream of unnatural, obviously constructed, mounding, or, natural rolls. I'll admit, covering the natural rolls is the greater shame. Prairie Dunes justification for covering their wonderful terrain, might be an acceptable justification, even if it goes against the fundamental principle of allowing balls to bounce and roll to their unpredictable conclusion.
-
I agree with the premise of not turbocharging/overwatering the rough, and in most places I can see how you could get away without even watering it. That doesn't work for everyone, however--if you don't water grass in the Albuquerque it wouldn't last more than about a month in the summer.
I love wide fairways, but I do think they make life easier on the better player. Sure, some might overthink the situation, but I'll take a "miss" that gives a bad angle from the fairway over being in the rough (probably still with a bad angle) any day of the week. You might still have to take your medicine a bit for the poor tee shot, but the main "hazard" there might be the lack of doing so! That makes it more fun and IMO better, but still easier. The game is hard enough for 99.9% of us anyway, so no issue there.
-
I'd add that it leads to arbitrary rough lines. Take the 11th at Pebble Beach as the prime example of a thoughtless rough line. And the Lake course at the O club as the prime example of arbitrary.
Most supers learn their trade without the comprehensiveness of fully understanding the sport.
I spoke with one the other day who seemed to place a lot of focus on the color of the grasses. In this instance we were talking about his green collars. I was trying to explain that the design warranted a lower HOC because without it, the kick plates a player could use to access pin positions was made irrelevant. I made no head way. :'(
-
Width entices thoughtless golfers to play haphazard golf.
If things are too wide I am 100% agreeing with your post. The game of golf requires straight hitting. Its the game.
-
Without good green design width is just more room to hit the ball. Sort of how the hairy edged bunker became the symbol of minimalism, width has become a trend because it seems like the "in" architects are building wider courses. Problem is the trend setters have width as just one of the reasons their holes are good, their greens being the main reason.
Wider fwys shouldn’t always mean bigger greens. In fact I think an argument could be made for just the opposite.
Don
I'm sorry I didn't get a chance to respond to your post last night before I went off line. I think what you say is what I'm getting at. Of the few "wide" courses I've played I've had the impression they are wide purely to keep the ball in play. My problem with that is that it makes the drive if not meaningless, certainly less important and less fun.
And on your point about the size of the green, I totally agree. The bigger the target for the second the less reason to be in a specific part of the fairway with the drive therefore it becomes an aimless exercise in hitting the ball as hard as you can off the tee. I'm obviously exaggerating and taking it to extreme in saying that but the principles the same.
Niall
-
Width entices thoughtless golfers to play haphazard golf.
If things are too wide I am 100% agreeing with your post. The game of golf requires straight hitting. Its the game.
Hmm. Well then, lets plant a lot of trees down both sides of the first fairway of St. Andrews. Throw in some rough to really tighten it up. Then it can be a real golf course. ;)
-
On the really good holes I've seen that have a ton of fairway width I've yet to see one where you can just hit it all over the place on them and completely get away with it on the shot at hand or on the next shot!
-
Niall:
I played a four-ball at Crystal Downs yesterday with my cousin and his son and his son's friend -- all reasonable 10-handicap players. The fairways are not ridiculously narrow, but the rough was up.
I would estimate we spent an additional 30-40 minutes of our time yesterday searching for balls in the rough.
I would much prefer to find the ball quickly, and then have a contour around the green make my approach shot harder.
Tom
I appreciate what you say, I play at Glasgow Gailes after all :) However I'm not suggesting you should be in bundi if you are of the fairway but I'm questioning to what affect are architects looking to create wide fairways. Let me ask you as an architect, do you find it easier create (more) strategies in a wider playing corridor ? On the face of it that might seem like a stupid question but if you consider Adam Claymans point that he made in one of his posts, "If there's no advantage to being in the proper spot, and, no added challenge form being somewhere else, width for width sake is wasted money". I think that sums up the problems of width for me.
BTW, after an exchange with you last year on another thread about width, I took to pacing out fairway and rough widths for few months after. Pissed off my playing partners no end.
Niall
-
Niall:
I played a four-ball at Crystal Downs yesterday with my cousin and his son and his son's friend -- all reasonable 10-handicap players. The fairways are not ridiculously narrow, but the rough was up.
I would estimate we spent an additional 30-40 minutes of our time yesterday searching for balls in the rough.
I would much prefer to find the ball quickly, and then have a contour around the green make my approach shot harder.
It's amazing to me how many people don't appreciate this. Many players, and not necessarily particularly good players, don't believe a course is worthy unless you're punished by rough, water, etc., without regard to what other challenges might exist. Why are people such gluttons for these specific forms of punishment?
Tim
Not sure your comments were aimed at me but for what its worth, I think philosophically there has to be a degree of penalty or there would be no need for strategy, indeed there would be no strategy. I for one don't necessarily want to get beaten up by a golf course but I do like to be challenged and I think that goes for any golfer whether they are a pro or a 24 handicapper. A particular challenge might be too great for us 90 times out of 100 but I would suggest that most club golfers are up for giving it a go. Where it matters not a jot where you hit the ball then you may as well be on the range.
Niall
-
Seems pretty simple...
Option 1. Pull a ball slightly into the trees and retee.
Option 2. Get lulled into a false sense of security by width and don't focus on the correct strategic line off the tee only to be faced with a very awkward approach which can lead to bogey or worse.
Option 2 is more fun for more folks, yet not necessarily easier to score well on for the strong player...
-
Jud
If I may respond using your numeration
Option 1 - your another one who assumes that I'm advocating 35 yard fairways bordered by jungle. Suggest you come and play over here in the UK where we don't generally water the rough to see what i mean.
Option 2 - get lulled into a false sense of security ? Is that a euphymism for falling asleep because there was feck all there to keep you interested ?
Niall
-
Niall,
1. You obviously haven't played enough U.S. style overwatered rough! ;)
2. Rather than a lack of definition, width may lead one to be overly aggressive with the driver or miss the subtletly of the approach, swing from the heels and wind up in the wrong spot on the aforementioned "overly" wide fairway.
-
Jud
If you're winding up to hit a yahoo then you're not really trying to put the ball in the right spot unless of course the right spot is beyond your normal driving distance. The shot either encourages you to engage your brain or it doesn't, and wide fairways in themselves aren't subtle and neither do you need them to achieve subtlety in the strategy.
Niall
-
The question of width is one that most architects are constantly pondering - I know I am. It is one frought with ccompromise. Wider fairways allow more to land in them but cost more to maintain. They allow more strategic elements - but those may cost more to maintain. They may bring adjacent holes too close for comfort. They may push the hated cart path into the next hole. etc.
I once had a old time super instruct me, "my Board wants wider fairways so you have to make the fairways wider - just don't give me another square foot of fairway to maintain - they won't buy me another mower!" and the Dean of American golf course builders told me never to have the fairway lines pinch like an hour-glass because it "just never feels right".
So, I ask, is it width? or Percieved width? How many times have you heard someone say, "don't worry, there's more room to the right, you just can't see it". One can create hidden width to make a hole appear visually narrower than it really is, or exaggerated width by angleing the fairway across the line of play or with big surpentine swings. Depending on the angle, sometimes just 3-5 yds can make a fairway appear much wider or narrower.
As for the rough comments, I think we are all on the same page here, but the species of grass will have perhaps a bigger role in the playability aspect not just the height. Afterall, 3" fescue is much more playable than 3" Bluegrass. But I'll take 3" Bluegrass over 3" Bermuda! And as was posted earlier, irrigated and unirrigated makes a big difference too. All too often, the same sprinkler that irrigates the fairway also irrigates the rough and although both grasses may be different and have different input requirements, one sets the input level and the other gets it too. Sure for an extra amount of roughly 1/3 the fairway irrigation cost, one could install dual, part-circle heads and seperate the watering inputs but it takes a big budget to allow for this level of percision.
-
Niall:
I played a four-ball at Crystal Downs yesterday with my cousin and his son and his son's friend -- all reasonable 10-handicap players. The fairways are not ridiculously narrow, but the rough was up.
I would estimate we spent an additional 30-40 minutes of our time yesterday searching for balls in the rough.
I would much prefer to find the ball quickly, and then have a contour around the green make my approach shot harder.
It's amazing to me how many people don't appreciate this. Many players, and not necessarily particularly good players, don't believe a course is worthy unless you're punished by rough, water, etc., without regard to what other challenges might exist. Why are people such gluttons for these specific forms of punishment?
Tim
Not sure your comments were aimed at me but for what its worth, I think philosophically there has to be a degree of penalty or there would be no need for strategy, indeed there would be no strategy. I for one don't necessarily want to get beaten up by a golf course but I do like to be challenged and I think that goes for any golfer whether they are a pro or a 24 handicapper. A particular challenge might be too great for us 90 times out of 100 but I would suggest that most club golfers are up for giving it a go. Where it matters not a jot where you hit the ball then you may as well be on the range.
Niall
Niall,
I don't disagree there should be a penalty for being off target. The questions then are what does it mean to be off target?--is there only one line that works or are there options?--and what is the penalty?--is it a lost ball or something else, like a bad angle or more distance to the hole? To me, and I guess I've bought into the groupthink here, wider fairways answers both questions in a more enjoyable way--there is more strategy because there can be more than one acceptable target and there is more of a chance of recovery because there's less chance you'll hit it where it can't be played.
-
Reading a couple of the recent threads, its clear that quite a few of us on here are fairly enamoured with the idea of wide fairways, and by that I'm assuming 60 yards wide type of thing. The idea seems to be that landing on short grass with no danger of your ball landing in rough is preferable to having to avoid the rough, but I could be wrong.
Now my experience on these modern large scale productions are limited as most of my golf tends to be on older, more conventionally scaled courses so I am interested to find out if my assumption as to the appeal of wide fairways is all that their is to it or whether there are any other good reason for them.
Interested to hear everyones thoughts.
Niall,
GCGC - 1899, NGLA 1909, Pine Valley 1918 and ANGC 1932, are not modern courses, yet, they're known for having very wide fairways.
Since these clubs have passed the ultimate test, the test of time, I'd say that width is a critical element to their remaining more than just relevant.
Remember, just because you're in the fairway doesn't mean you're not paying a severe penalty.
Just look at the 11th hole at PV.
If you hit your drive in the far left portion of the fairway, you've got no shot, or, a shot that requires enormous talent .... or luck, or both.
-
Without having read all the replies, the idea of width - especially as a fairway or reasonable lie - is to force the golfer to pick and choose a line of play without having the advantage of a narrow frame.
Fairways that are both sufficiently wide as to cause only a small percentage of the fairway to provide an ideal angle AND the corridor is not defined by the rough/fairway transitions are an ideal way to employ width as a hazard.
Here, the golfer must first determine which part of the fairway appeals AND take into consideration other features to frame the hole, ie bunkers or features at the green.
Width must be used to obfuscate the line of charm.
-
Kyle,
With all due respect, your last post seems to talk in circles.
I had the chance to play two very different courses yesterday and today - Trip Davis' new "Old American" and Colonial.
OA has lots of width and many options, some not really laid out like a road map either. Many here will acclaim it a great design and it is. However, today, I noticed that even with far narrower fw, I had plenty to think about on the tee shot at Colonial - including shot pattern, curving around doglegs, bunker carries, and which side of the fw to aim for. All in all, the tee shots were just as, if not more, interesting than on the course with the wide fw.
In fact, where I had less to think about was on the approach shot - small greens nearly surrounded by bunkers. Even then I chose my line as middle of the green, middle of the opening or at the flag, but it was more scary than stratetic.
It occurred to me that if you are thinking, you simply adjust your thoughts to the course. You still aim left or right side of the fw, unless really, really narrow if there is an advantage or hazard to take out of play. Sometimes, with a bunch of width and supposed options like on the MacKenzie Lido hole, for any particular golfer, probably all but two are taken out of consideration before you even think about them, depending on your game. And in reality, the best option for you really seems to pop up in your mind pretty quickly doesn't it?
Anyway, sometimes I wonder if all that "theory" about width and angles is really all that it was cracked up to be. IMHO the width of the play corridors got set at about 60 yards because the first sprinklers back in the oldy days threw water just that far. It could very well be that fw have narrowed over time to increase the enjoyment of play by bringing in more noticeable consequences. Yeah, I understand the defend par at the green argument, but get the feeling most don't, and hence consensus is that all that width was wasted and non relevant.
-
Jeff, the biggest problem I have with the "angles" approach is that it requires local knowledge of the course/hole. While this is fine a Clubs, it is obscure at resort/public courses. Let's face it, not many (outside this group) research a course and download the Google Earth map and disect their play lines before getting to the first tee. The majority just step up to the tee and just aim for the middle - hoping it will land somewhere findable - let alone in the fairway. If tour pros can't even hit 14/14 fairways, what makes anyone think that regular Joes can "hit their spots".
Hence the love afffair with width is 1) being able to find the ball, 2) beng able to hit the next shot without a tree or 10 in the way, 3) pretending that's where they planned on hitting it.
I still remember a 10-handicap, tree-lined Club member playing Harborside for the 1st time and remarked how much he loved the place "because I hit all the fairways".
-
...I see very few modern courses with good enough green complex designs to warrant width solely as the traditional strategic device... For a start, fairways have to be 60 yards plus to bring in sufficient angle... For seconds, green complexes have to be even more severe to counter equipment advances...
...Even still, I firmly believe that that's what we should be aiming for where the site and budget allow...
That probably means the lost ball argument is the most valid one for today's game and courses... Although aesthetics and mental effect should be seen as another advantage for width in my opinion...
-
Tim,
I have to say I agree and somewhat questioned the Old American design, not only because of the myriad of choices, but the effort that was made to obscure them. While there is a membership component, there is also the one play resort component. It appears to be designed more for the members, altough with GPS and yardage books, etc. maybe the added interest for members will work out fine.
I am really just more fascinated withe responses (like Kyle's) on this site to width as a theory. While he spouts some theory, I had just come off the two courses and found that wider fw didn't really mean any more fun for me personally.
I asked myself a few questions....
While the GA gca's all wrote their books in a small time frame, and seemingly espoused wide fw, did any of the other gca critics like Wind ever actually agree in print?
Looking at some of the Ross diagrams in "Golf Has Never Failed Me" he seems to favor 50 yard wide fw, but these might even be total playing areas, since no secondary rough is shown. Is adding a cut of rough that is probably the same height as the fw was mowed years ago changing the whole design? Especially given higher loft clubs and higher spin balls? (and irrigation)
Has anyone ever really tested the theory of width with golfer surveys, etc. to see what is preferred? (or corrollary, should we just tell them they are dumb asses and we know better and stick them with width whether they like it or not, or want to pay for that extra fw mowing or not? As an example, do we think Mac's Lido hole is great with its five options if one of those five would have gotten used about 3% of the time? Do we know that average golfers knowingly or willingly took the bail out options, or did they try to hit for the green despite the bad angles because its actually more fun to try and miss than not try at all?)
In essense, hasn't virtually every course in America "field tested" the theory and found the could get by with less fw width and still enjoy golf as much or more? If so, then why do so many espouse width as the be all, end all to gca? Its just possible that its a failed or partially failed theory. ;)
-
...even with far narrower fw, I had plenty to think about...which side of the fw to aim for...
Mr. Brauer my hat is off to you. When you are choosing which side of a narrow fw to hit to you are a very fine player as well as architect. However, I have to ask you, what percentage of players choose and hit a particular side of a narrow fairway? 5% at best? How much fun is that for 95% of the players? Their playing partners? The groups behind them?
I'm not trying to razz you here and I don't claim to be any kind of authority. I'm just trying to give you the perspective of a more common level golfer.
-
Jeff,
The market has decided that it can get away with less acreage and maintenance and people will still turn up. I'm not convinced the market's decided it's just as much fun.
-
Chris,
I am also a pretty average golfer (low to mid 80's both days) but I do tend to hit pretty straight drives and lose strokes around the greens. I factored my own game in while making those comments (and also played with some pretty good to average golfers)
I agree with Tim N and Tom D that play corridors ought to be 70-90 yards wide to avoid lost golf balls. I also think the surrounding rough in that area ought to be mowed at 1" or so, so there are no lost balls unless a shot is really wild.
But I am not talking accomodation here, I am talking about the architectural theory of wide fw for those better players who could use them strategically. Given the cost of maintenance, if I have just as much to think about in trying to hit a 30-35 yard wide fw, why would I want my club to raise my dues to pay for an extra 15-30 yards of fw? I agree there are clubs down to 25-30 yards wide and that is too tight.
I guess I am postulating that given how golf has changed, maybe 30-40 yards of fw and 15 yards of light "flyer lie" rough on either side is superior for fun play. (BTW, I have also postulated at times that differing heights and widths of rough on either side rather than a standard inner rough band of 15 yards on both sides might REALLY be strategic)
In essence, the flyer lie affects the ability to hit the green about as much as the frontal opening back in the old days, but in a slightly different way that just might fit today's equipment better. So, placement is just as if not more important. And I was still thinking about left and right and occaisionally lay up. Granted, Colonial has a lot of dogleg angles that really make placement key, so its more fun than most courses with narrower fw.
I mean, how much thinking is really required for strategic fun anyway? Should we all consider getting a headache fun? In essence, two choices seemed enough, and when presented with more, I believe most golfers would quickly narrow them to two, or one, quickly enough as to make choices 3 through 5 almost meaningless. As per above, I always wondered how many golfers really took the bail out routes on a Lido type hole?
You seem to agree that the average player sort of aims for the middle and hopes for the best. So, the question is why provide a bunch of options for that guy if he has no real plans to use them anyway? Keep the rough light, sure, but why celebrate design strategies designed specifically for no particular use, especially if they cost money?
Jud,
But then again, I am not sure based on my experience (and not some theory) that it is more fun with a lot of width. For instance, I have never heard anyone say they went to Bandon for the width! They go for the ocean, the experience, the look, etc. And, I would never underestimate the collective wisdom of "the market" over a low % of gca snobs who just happen to think they know better than everyone, too!
I would actually think a course with 1-2 fw that are really wide and 1-2 that are really narrow, with a range of in between widths would provide the most variety and fun. But that is just an opinion.
-
Jeff, what are your thoughts on cojoined fairways. For example if one were to take 2 adjacent fairways that were 110' at the landing area and connect them for 40-60 yds by adding around 15,000 more sf of fairway, one could effectively "widen" the fairway by 30' just to the midpoint of the cojoined area. As this area would normally be Rough, it would not present a favorable position to be in (bad angle and all) but it would be findable and playable and technically "in the fairway".
-
Jeff, thank you for your well articulated response. I'm fine with the idea of the playing corridor having rough that is playable with a degree of penalty. It's easy for me to comment on such matters when I am not involved with the practical aspects (such as budgets) with wide fairways.
Beyond that I won't belabor my point of view. Thanks again for responding.
-
Tim,
I once went to an interview with a proposed routing that had shared fw. The committee couldn't get over the possible safety issues and I could tell I lost the job right there. So, no, I am not a big fan of conjoined fw!
That said, I did propose it then, and would again. It still seems to me like at some point over time, any 15,000 SF of fw that is "extraneous" would eventually be subject to removal, as would any double fw, double tees, double greens, bunkers well out of play, etc.
But economics weren't really my point either.
Just from a gca theory discussion, are we 100% sure that wide fw are the be all end all for strategy these days, or maybe even any day? I threw it out there for discussion purposes, since this is a discussion board.
-
IMO, fairway width should be related to the strategic principle of proportionate penalization. That is, the worse the shot the greater the penalty. And vice versa.
I was going to post the following on the recent #2 restoration thread but didn't want to prolong it. The first photo shows the 13th as Ross set it up in 1939 on the left. The photo on the right shows how it has played in modern times - until just recently. As you can see there is quite a difference.
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4091/4834847957_8d212acf7e_b.jpg)
For the Opens that were held on #2 if you hit it one foot off of the very narrow fairway then you just chopped it out. Remember Payne chopping it out on the 72nd hole? That is too strong a penalty for just missing a fairway. Below we see how it played during the 2005 Open and where C/C currently are.
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4132/4834847943_58bb842db9_b.jpg)
Another point of having wide fairways has already been touched on in this thread. Options. It's a more interesting and certainly more fun game when there are optimal ways of approaching a green - particularly when the hole is located far to one side or another. With narrow fairways there is no option with the drive. And there is no strategic advantage with no varying angles to the approach.
Penalize the poor shot, but give the not too wayward drive something of a chance. That is my point of view.
(http://www.sandhillsinsider.com/images/tranz1.gif)
These photos are great! They provide a great perspective on the relative width that has been added to the course.
-
Firstly I've been away for a couple of days so thanks to Jeff B for holding the Fort :)
"So, I ask, is it width? or Percieved width? How many times have you heard someone say, "don't worry, there's more room to the right, you just can't see it". One can create hidden width to make a hole appear visually narrower than it really is, or exaggerated width by angleing the fairway across the line of play or with big surpentine swings. Depending on the angle, sometimes just 3-5 yds can make a fairway appear much wider or narrower."
Tim N
Re your quote above, even if the width is hidden its still there and whats more once you've played the course once you know its there and therefore it doesn't really present any strategic purpose although I admit it can make the course more visually appealing. With regards your second comment I think you are spot on. I'm a big fan of hitting fairways at an angle as it gives the golfer a choice of whether to be agressive or not. I think this was one of Tilly's favourite design ploys (calling Philip Young).
"I don't disagree there should be a penalty for being off target. The questions then are what does it mean to be off target?--is there only one line that works or are there options?--and what is the penalty?--is it a lost ball or something else, like a bad angle or more distance to the hole? To me, and I guess I've bought into the groupthink here, wider fairways answers both questions in a more enjoyable way--there is more strategy because there can be more than one acceptable target and there is more of a chance of recovery because there's less chance you'll hit it where it can't be played."
Tim, re your second quote, I'm with you to a certain degree, you can of course have various options which are good however if there isn't much difference in the options in terms of benefit gained then where's the merit in placing your ball in a particular spot. I'm thinking here of the average golfer.
Niall
-
Reading a couple of the recent threads, its clear that quite a few of us on here are fairly enamoured with the idea of wide fairways, and by that I'm assuming 60 yards wide type of thing. The idea seems to be that landing on short grass with no danger of your ball landing in rough is preferable to having to avoid the rough, but I could be wrong.
Now my experience on these modern large scale productions are limited as most of my golf tends to be on older, more conventionally scaled courses so I am interested to find out if my assumption as to the appeal of wide fairways is all that their is to it or whether there are any other good reason for them.
Interested to hear everyones thoughts.
Niall,
GCGC - 1899, NGLA 1909, Pine Valley 1918 and ANGC 1932, are not modern courses, yet, they're known for having very wide fairways.
Since these clubs have passed the ultimate test, the test of time, I'd say that width is a critical element to their remaining more than just relevant.
Remember, just because you're in the fairway doesn't mean you're not paying a severe penalty.
Just look at the 11th hole at PV.
If you hit your drive in the far left portion of the fairway, you've got no shot, or, a shot that requires enormous talent .... or luck, or both.
Patrick
Now here you have me at a disadvantage as I've never played any of the courses mentioned. What makes these golf courses great, is it because they are startegically very good and does the width play a big part in that ? The last few years there has been plenty of moaning about the set up for the Masters because of the rough but does that inhibit the startegy or does it make "recovery shots" more difficult ?
Niall
-
...I see very few modern courses with good enough green complex designs to warrant width solely as the traditional strategic device... For a start, fairways have to be 60 yards plus to bring in sufficient angle... For seconds, green complexes have to be even more severe to counter equipment advances...
...Even still, I firmly believe that that's what we should be aiming for where the site and budget allow...
That probably means the lost ball argument is the most valid one for today's game and courses... Although aesthetics and mental effect should be seen as another advantage for width in my opinion...
Ally
I take issue with a couple of points you made. Firstly, why must fairways be 60 yards wide to bring in different strategy to a hole. Surely you can do the same thing with 30 yards of fairway ? What I think I'm railling against here is the idea that you have wide fairways simply so that players don't lose balls. The danger with that is if you don't do anything with all that width to make it interesting the golf become insipid and dull. At least with a narrower fairway there is a test even if it is only to keep in the playing corridor but as many conventional courses show you can get loads of options in normal width fairways.
The second issue which is worthy of a thread of its own is your statement that greens should have severe contouring to counter modern equipment. I consider myself as one of the great majority of average golfers and like most average golfers I don't exactly play my approach shots with pin point accuracy and bundles of check. I have what you would call a fair degree of variance in the results of even my mid irons. My issue with the greens on some of the modern courses where they have swales and large contours is that if you mix that with my indifferent approach play it becomes pot luck and a sense of judgement is lost. Now I appreciate I may be employing the counter argument to the one I use for fairway width but I think its a question of degrees, greens which are all swales gouing this way and that are as bad as 10 yard wide fairways.
Niall
-
...even with far narrower fw, I had plenty to think about...which side of the fw to aim for...
Mr. Brauer my hat is off to you. When you are choosing which side of a narrow fw to hit to you are a very fine player as well as architect. However, I have to ask you, what percentage of players choose and hit a particular side of a narrow fairway? 5% at best? How much fun is that for 95% of the players? Their playing partners? The groups behind them?
I'm not trying to razz you here and I don't claim to be any kind of authority. I'm just trying to give you the perspective of a more common level golfer.
Chris
I think your comment above perhaps shows the difference of typical US golf courses and typical UK golf courses, and I do say that with all respect. I can well imagine on a well watered US design that there probabaly isn't much difference to be left half of a 35 yard wide fairway as opposed to being on the right half of the same fairway when your hitting to a watered green with front facing hazards. Particularly if the rough is also well watered and snarly to get out of. I might be aiming for the middle all the time as well. Apologies for that simplistic view of a US golf course.
On a UK course the where generall conditions are generally firmer even on inland courses the rough just off the fairway doesn't tend to be so penal and indeed might give you a better lie depending on the shot. Thats maybe something that hasn't been discussed on this thread. On the older conventional course with the green fronts generally open and there being a requirement to land the ball short of the hole and let it run, there is certainly merit to be on one side of the fairway than the other depending where the hole position is.
I would also add I'm an average golfer and one that is a relatively poor driver but I still look to pick a line and go for it.
Niall
-
I have never heard anyone say they went to Bandon for the width!
Jeff:
I can tell you that of the significant number of people who have reported that they like Old Macdonald the best of the four courses in Bandon, the width of the course and not being intimidated on the tee is the #1 reason they give for liking it best.
-
Nail, I have to agree with your second opinion re: green contour. It boils down to the fact that there is a wide deviation from the "average golfer" to that of the irvory tower of GCA. As I've experienced over the years at many clubs, the average Joe will not voice his opinion against that of the single digit player(s). Hence, the "consensus" tends to be skewed towards the wants and desires of the better players. This, coupled with irrigation system coverage and the growth of misplanted trees has probably led to the narrowing of fairways. Once narrow, the vocal minority sees no reason to spend money to widen tham out - especiallly if it means losing the advantage of their better skill. A good driver of the ball - like Jeff B ;D who can hit most 30 yd wide fairways, see no reason to change.
And, like you, I do not possess Tour backspin on my approach shots - nor do very many average Joes. And nothing pisses them off more than hitting a green only to see the ball slid off. Their consensus is, if they somehow manage to hit the green, the ball should stay on the putting surface. While huge contours may be "fun" for many here, the average Joes don't concurr and many supers will back them up because they don't like the maintenance aspects associated with them.
Trying to couple the strategy of the multiple routes associated with wide fiarways and green contours that dictate tee shot placement is challenging to the good golfer and either lost on the averag Joe or just too demanding of his capabilities (and then there are the ladies and seniors to consider).
Luckily, there are enough good players to allow a segment of the design market to cater to them. And, just like the demographics at your local club, the vocal minority will flock to these for the challenge and then go home and tell everyone how great it is. And "if so-and-so says it's great, it must be". But the problem lies when they spend big bucks remodel their course and the average Joes can't stomach a constant diet of it. At least average Joe hits more fairways and that, in and of itself, can be enough keep them mollified.
Tom D. Great point about average Joe's fear of the narrow. I've always contended that when golfers are intimidated, the tighten up and the timing of their swing gets out of whack. The best advice I ever got from Jack Tuthill was 'Never lay up - always lay back. Because when most golfers lay up, they swing nice and easy and hit career shots - usually right into whatever they are trying to stay away from".
-
The game of golf is about hitting it straight off the tee. You need to keep your drive within a 25 yard width for championship golf or risk some form of penalty or part penalty. 25 yard fairways are often narrowed from tradional 35 yard fairways for standard golf. I am not advocating jungle and lost balls keep the semi rough shortish but very few golf courses new or old can afford to have wide fairways. In a modern construction on less than perfect land a desire to have width will IMO push that course to the limits of bankrupcy. Rough or semi rough is the cheaper end of both golf course construction and maintenance, advocating wider fairways will push the cost to play these courses. Bandon is an anomaly, it is not a model to copy, Bandon breaks lots of rules of normality for the golf business.
The normal golf business model is pretty good as it is, but it needs courses that can be built at economical prices which with rising land costs is getting difficult, it needs courses that can be operated and maintained by the minimal amount of staff.
-
Now here you have me at a disadvantage as I've never played any of the courses mentioned.
What makes these golf courses great, is it because they are startegically very good and does the width play a big part in that ?
Niall,
The routing, individual holes, green complexes and width are integral elements in their greatness.
Width has close to universal appeal.
It allows the beginer, the 36 handicap, the 24 handicap, the 12 handicap and the scratch golfer to enjoy the course at their respective playing levels.
Whereas a narrow course has little appeal save for the extremely skilled golfer, and even then, I doubt that that appeal endures daily play.
The last few years there has been plenty of moaning about the set up for the Masters because of the rough but does that inhibit the startegy or does it make "recovery shots" more difficult ?
Moaning from whom ?
People who have never played ANGC.
ANGC remains a wide golf course.
While I prefer the original width, the course isn't narrow by any stetch of the imagination.
The courses I cited, built 80, 80 and 100 years ago, didn't endure by accident.
Width was a primary factor in their passing the test of time.
Niall
-
The 12th at Mid Pines fits in very well with the debate we are having. As you can see from the photo below it is a very wide fairway. Standing on that tee is in itself a great feeling for me.
Even though the player is offered room with the tee shot it matters a great deal where you put it. Due to the way the green is set up (slim and angled) the ideal tee shot is a draw to the left part of the fairway. To obtain that angle you must contend with the wire grass, hillocks and the trees if you get too aggressive. The middle of the fairway provides a strong challenge for the approach. Fairway right is where you do not want to hit it. Extremely difficult to put the approach on a desirable place on the green. But you do have a chance.
(http://www.sandhillsinsider.com/MidPines/12t.jpg)
So width does not have to be for widths sake alone. I personally prefer it if there is width and strategy with a degree of penalty or reward to the tee shot. Is that not vastly more fun to just trying to hit a narrow strip and if you don't you just chop it out of the woods?
Is the cost of wide fairways prohibitive? I can't speak with authority on that but if we're talking about fast and firm, that requires less maintenance, does it not? And if the areas adjacent to the fairways are natural instead of heavily watered rough that certainly cuts the cost. I'll let someone experienced with this equation weigh in with the definitive answer.
Adrian Stiff
The game of golf is about hitting it straight off the tee.
Some would agree with this. Pros and very talented people that have the time to practice often would agree with you. The other 90% of golfers would say a course built with that perspective is not going to be that much fun. What kind of experience does the arch want 90% of the golfers to have?
There should be courses that are very tough and exacting. There should be course that are fun and not extremely demanding as well. It seems to me that the vast majority of courses I've seen built in the last 25 years are very tough. I guess I'm about an 8 handicap and can play those courses well enough, usually. But I see an awful lot of people who can not. After spending a lot of time standing behind groups that are doing more chopping than the back room of a Beijing restaurant I often wonder if they can be enjoying themselves. I don't enjoy waiting 15 minutes for them to finish so I can hit my next shot
Let's take my area Pinehurst as an example. They have built three courses since #5 was built the 60's. They are all quite tough! Most of the members can not play a reasonable round on them and most don't bother with those courses. Why would they not make one of the three an easier, fun course. Why make all three tough? I infrequently play National which is the Nicklaus course here. This is the only course the members there have. Way too tough for the average member.
So my overall point is that too high a percentage of the courses built are really tough. I definitely think archies should build more courses that aren't that tough and are fun. They're building quasi-US Open courses for Mr. and Mrs. Johnson who get beaten up pretty badly on those tracks. Not what I would want to be doing as an arch. I would be trying to figure out how to balance challenge with playability for the common player. An arch who could do that in a very clever way is an arch I'd really think highly of. It seems like most archies (not all) pay no heed to the common player at all.
-
Chris,
Here is the problem in discussing width in general terms. I look at that Mid Pines photo and would call that an average width fw. Others might call it even a tad narrow.
Visually, I would say the play corridor is medium, too (areas between fw and pine trees) It is interesting to note that pine tree corridors can be cleared stump to stump a bit narrower than hardwood corridors and get the same effective width because of the upright growth habit of pines. Based on those who favor wide corridors to reduce lost balls, I think it could be a bit wider, though.
No problem though. I have researched this and have determined that 41.37684 yards is the split line between medium and wide fw, and 36.98267 yards is the split between narrow and medium. Don't question my authority in this matter, but from now on, we can all use these widths (measured precisely) to call a fw narrow, medium, or wide.
Agreed?
-
Jeff-Sarcasm taken well about the precise widths. I looked up the 12th at Mid Pines: the fairway is approx. 33.85 yards wide and the corridor is approx. 55.18 yards wide. That is not very wide. I had to look that up before I said something because I wasn't 100% certain, however, I remembered from playing that hole that it is not terribly wide. Compare those widths to Tobacco Road right up the road where some fairways are 90 yards wide with total playing corridors playing up to 120 yards wide. Now thats width.
And I do not feel that any form of penalty is too great for missing the fairway. I have nothing against hitting a ball in the rough being a 1/2 shot or even full shot penalty. Hit the stupid ball in the fairway and you won't have to worry about it. Now, I do advocate fairways being slightly wider, but I have nothing against having wheat field high rough surrounding the fairways at a major championship. Heaven forbid these guys be asked to hit a precise tee shot. My oh my, start doing that and the world might come to an end.
-
John,
At least my eye is good. I was going to type a guess in at less than 60 yards wide for the play corridor. As noted in a previous post, to me 70 is the minimum playable for most corridor.
And as noted, I agree with those who favor rough just long enough to create a flyer lie. IMHO, that replaces the need bounce one well in front of the green because of dryness in the modern game and is about the same penalty as playing from the "wrong angle" in the fw. I mean really, for friendly competitive game, just how much penalty do you think the average to good club player wants? The whole idea of strategic golf is to differentiate, not decapitate.
You mention higher roughs in tournaments. With all due respect, that is such a small, small subset of shots played by golfers in america that it shouldn't even enter this discussion. You're right - penalize the living snot out of them if that is what the PGA Tour wants. (It isn't)
Now that I am thinking about it, I would have to say that "excess width" is really wasted on doglegs like that one at Mid Pines. Given how strong the line of charm really is, I cannot imagine that adding another 20 yards of fw to the right on that hole would make it any more interesting or better - it would just create more mowing.
-
It occurred to me that if you are thinking, you simply adjust your thoughts to the course. You still aim left or right side of the fw, unless really, really narrow if there is an advantage or hazard to take out of play. Sometimes, with a bunch of width and supposed options like on the MacKenzie Lido hole, for any particular golfer, probably all but two are taken out of consideration before you even think about them, depending on your game. And in reality, the best option for you really seems to pop up in your mind pretty quickly doesn't it?
Anyway, sometimes I wonder if all that "theory" about width and angles is really all that it was cracked up to be. IMHO the width of the play corridors got set at about 60 yards because the first sprinklers back in the oldy days threw water just that far. It could very well be that fw have narrowed over time to increase the enjoyment of play by bringing in more noticeable consequences. Yeah, I understand the defend par at the green argument, but get the feeling most don't, and hence consensus is that all that width was wasted and non relevant.
Jeff, I think you are on target by drawing a distinction between width, options and angles. And, yes, most of us if 150 yards away or more need only to think about the middle of the green.
-
sometimes I wonder if all that "theory" about width and angles is really all that it was cracked up to be. IMHO the width of the play corridors got set at about 60 yards because the first sprinklers back in the oldy days threw water just that far. It could very well be that fw have narrowed over time to increase the enjoyment of play by bringing in more noticeable consequences.
Well, that seems like revisionist history. I've never seen a sprinkler that covered 60 yards of width effectively; in fact fairways started to narrow when they introduced fairway sprinklers that covered 40-45 yards.
The early American courses did not have fairway irrigation systems. And, though I don't have C.B. Macdonald's book handy today, when laying out his perfect course for a newspaper article back in 1904, he gave three points for "proper width of fair green", and put the number at something like 50-60 yards. [I can't remember what the number is for sure.] That number was always striking to me, because I'm sure that most Scottish courses were never that wide, unless you were counting whins-to-whins.
-
The game of golf is about hitting it straight off the tee. You need to keep your drive within a 25 yard width for championship golf or risk some form of penalty or part penalty. 25 yard fairways are often narrowed from tradional 35 yard fairways for standard golf. ...
My very minor exception to 25 yard width is that, that is the width that should be for playing the hole at its optimum angle needed to score low enough for championship golf at its highest level. Then the approach shot should be very demanding if not played from that optimum angle.
Some have made the comment on this thread about higher rough leading to slower play ... that confirms my own experience over time.
-
Jeff-That hole at Mid Pines remains playable because it is a fairly short hole and you don't really hit driver off that tee. Either way, its not a wide hole by any stretch. And you made me think about something as far as fairway width and rough length. If a course wants to have wide or even very wide fairways for daily play, how hard would it be to grow some deep rough and tighten the fairway in certain areas?
-
"The early American courses did not have fairway irrigation systems. And, though I don't have C.B. Macdonald's book handy today, when laying out his perfect course for a newspaper article back in 1904, he gave three points for "proper width of fair green", and put the number at something like 50-60 yards. [I can't remember what the number is for sure.] That number was always striking to me, because I'm sure that most Scottish courses were never that wide, unless you were counting whins-to-whins."
Tom
Not sure of the validity of that statement re the width of old courses but then I think you are perhaps right in referring to the playing corridor as all one in the early days. I suspect there would be little definition fairway and rough indeed in the early writings those terms weren't really referred to as such.
Niall
-
Now here you have me at a disadvantage as I've never played any of the courses mentioned.
What makes these golf courses great, is it because they are startegically very good and does the width play a big part in that ?
Niall,
The routing, individual holes, green complexes and width are integral elements in their greatness.
Width has close to universal appeal.
It allows the beginer, the 36 handicap, the 24 handicap, the 12 handicap and the scratch golfer to enjoy the course at their respective playing levels.
Whereas a narrow course has little appeal save for the extremely skilled golfer, and even then, I doubt that that appeal endures daily play.
The last few years there has been plenty of moaning about the set up for the Masters because of the rough but does that inhibit the startegy or does it make "recovery shots" more difficult ?
Moaning from whom ?
People who have never played ANGC.
ANGC remains a wide golf course.
While I prefer the original width, the course isn't narrow by any stetch of the imagination.
The courses I cited, built 80, 80 and 100 years ago, didn't endure by accident.
Width was a primary factor in their passing the test of time.
Niall
Patrick
I note your comments but not sure that you are saying that their width is part of what makes them great. As for your statement that width has universal appeal you can count me out of that number, certainly width for the sake of width. Do something with the width to make the hole interesting and I am all for it but creating 60 yard plus fairways with no strategic worth in the width then I'm afraid that does nothing for me.
BTW there are plenty of classic courses over here which have also passed the test of time that don't require double fairways to attract visiting golfers.
Niall
-
sometimes I wonder if all that "theory" about width and angles is really all that it was cracked up to be. IMHO the width of the play corridors got set at about 60 yards because the first sprinklers back in the oldy days threw water just that far. It could very well be that fw have narrowed over time to increase the enjoyment of play by bringing in more noticeable consequences.
TD,
Well, they sure found out in a hurry that sprinkler throwing 90 feet radius did NOT cover all that well at the edges. But, the single row is where they started. Kind of like the Wright Bros didn't come out of the gate with a 747........
I am not sure, but I think I recall something about NGLA having trouble growing grass and the sprinkler salesman calling on CBM, so I have the impression it has some kind of early system. It might have been greens only to start.
CBM was right in that play corridors are still about 60 yards (or more) in most cases. I happen to believe he wasn't thinking in terms of rough and fw mostly because there was no tech available to really differentiate hieights of cut. You cut greens and you cut tees and fw back in those days. Of course, it all changed at some point as mowing and irrigation got more sophisticated. Exactly when I do not know.
The provocative question is whether given all that has happened should fw be 60 yards wide as many here suggest, or does the majority of US courses have it right, all things considered, with fw at 30-40 yards and 10-15 yards of basically light rough on each side?
Well, that seems like revisionist history. I've never seen a sprinkler that covered 60 yards of width effectively; in fact fairways started to narrow when they introduced fairway sprinklers that covered 40-45 yards.
The early American courses did not have fairway irrigation systems. And, though I don't have C.B. Macdonald's book handy today, when laying out his perfect course for a newspaper article back in 1904, he gave three points for "proper width of fair green", and put the number at something like 50-60 yards. [I can't remember what the number is for sure.] That number was always striking to me, because I'm sure that most Scottish courses were never that wide, unless you were counting whins-to-whins.
-
Original fairway irrigation was done with plug-in sprinklers through quick-coupling valves and needed a night water man. Although there were several early manufacatures, the Toro 690 became the mainstay of single row automatic sprinklers. As Tom and Jeff stated, the can cover 60 yds (87'-108' radius)- Jeff, but not effectively - Tom. Between the fact that the outer +/-20% is not Effective Coverage (the water droplets are large and land far apart) and the circular nature of the throw (which produces areas of single, double and no coverage) it was found that even with these water cannons, only about a max dia. of 48 yds could be irrigated (directly perpendicular to the sprinkler) and less at the intersection point of two sprinklers. A look at old aerials will show these patterns.
So, eventually, to produce consistant turf, fairways were mowed to correspond to the effectively irrigated areas. Some surpentined and others were kept with straight edges - connecting the ntersection pts. If the turf in the rough was only partially irrigated or not at all, it was accepted because it was "Rough".
IMO, as the fairways narrowed but were more consistant in quality, golfers want the roughs to also exhibit the same degree of consistancy, so single row systems were replaced with double row systems and now the first 10 yards of Rough was also fully irrigated.
-
Jeff,
My response is to simply say that the fairway could be wide enough such that "left" and "right" have little meaning when the fairway is used as the frame of reference. I'd rather the statement, "In the fairway, left of the bunker" instead of "In the left part of the fairway, next to the bunker" to have more meaning.
Width should be employed such that instead of aiming left or right, the golfer is forced to aim "for" or "away" from a particular feature or hazard.
OR
Width should be employed such that there is very little change in height of cut framing the hole. Forcing the golfer to search for an aim point instead of merely aiming for where the fat part of the fairway is based on the edges of the fairway cut.
-
...I see very few modern courses with good enough green complex designs to warrant width solely as the traditional strategic device... For a start, fairways have to be 60 yards plus to bring in sufficient angle... For seconds, green complexes have to be even more severe to counter equipment advances...
...Even still, I firmly believe that that's what we should be aiming for where the site and budget allow...
That probably means the lost ball argument is the most valid one for today's game and courses... Although aesthetics and mental effect should be seen as another advantage for width in my opinion...
Ally
I take issue with a couple of points you made. Firstly, why must fairways be 60 yards wide to bring in different strategy to a hole. Surely you can do the same thing with 30 yards of fairway ? What I think I'm railling against here is the idea that you have wide fairways simply so that players don't lose balls. The danger with that is if you don't do anything with all that width to make it interesting the golf become insipid and dull. At least with a narrower fairway there is a test even if it is only to keep in the playing corridor but as many conventional courses show you can get loads of options in normal width fairways.
The second issue which is worthy of a thread of its own is your statement that greens should have severe contouring to counter modern equipment. I consider myself as one of the great majority of average golfers and like most average golfers I don't exactly play my approach shots with pin point accuracy and bundles of check. I have what you would call a fair degree of variance in the results of even my mid irons. My issue with the greens on some of the modern courses where they have swales and large contours is that if you mix that with my indifferent approach play it becomes pot luck and a sense of judgement is lost. Now I appreciate I may be employing the counter argument to the one I use for fairway width but I think its a question of degrees, greens which are all swales gouing this way and that are as bad as 10 yard wide fairways.
Niall
Hi Niall,
I perhaps wasn't clear with getting my points across but...
You can't use the same angles with 30 yards of fairway as you can with 60 yards - That is simple geometry. And what I'm trying to say is that with modern equipment, maintenance techniques and some insipid design of green complexes, it is very rare to see great modern holes in the traditional strategic vain. If you have a 30 yard width, the difference between left side and right side for a long approach is minimal. The difference for a short approach is greater but the strategy is usually nullified by equipment advances (i.e. stopping a wedge over a bunker is easier these days)... Add to that the trend of building bunkers slightly removed from the green (i.e. not tight against the putting surface) and the strategy is nullified even more. If you have wide fairways, bunkers tight to greens and slopes and shoulders playing away from those bunkers, it makes the angles come more in to play.... At least that's how I see it...
As for building in width to stop losing balls, I think that is the most important element of all in the modern game.
-
Patrick
I note your comments but not sure that you are saying that their width is part of what makes them great.
Niall, I am saying that "width" is one of the components that makes them great.
As for your statement that width has universal appeal you can count me out of that number, certainly width for the sake of width.
Could you cite 10 classic U.S. courses where the introduction of width was "for the sake of width" ?
Do something with the width to make the hole interesting and I am all for it but creating 60 yard plus fairways with no strategic worth in the width then I'm afraid that does nothing for me.
Could you cite 10 classic courses where there are 60 yard plus fairways with no strategic worth ?
I suspect that this is more a figment of your imagination than reality.
BTW there are plenty of classic courses over here which have also passed the test of time that don't require double fairways to attract visiting golfers.
Once again, you're resorting to an extreme, and or figment of your imagination, when you equate double fairways with width.
-
Patrick
I note your comments but not sure that you are saying that their width is part of what makes them great.
Niall, I am saying that "width" is one of the components that makes them great.
As for your statement that width has universal appeal you can count me out of that number, certainly width for the sake of width.
Could you cite 10 classic U.S. courses where the introduction of width was "for the sake of width" ?
Do something with the width to make the hole interesting and I am all for it but creating 60 yard plus fairways with no strategic worth in the width then I'm afraid that does nothing for me.
Could you cite 10 classic courses where there are 60 yard plus fairways with no strategic worth ?
I suspect that this is more a figment of your imagination than reality.
BTW there are plenty of classic courses over here which have also passed the test of time that don't require double fairways to attract visiting golfers.
Once again, you're resorting to an extreme, and or figment of your imagination, when you equate double fairways with width.
Patrick
First comment understood.
Second comment, no I couldn't because I've barely played more than ten US courses let alone classic US courses and I suspect you couldn't cite ten where there was a reason given for their width, thats the problem with classic courses, neither of us were around when they were created.
Neither could I cite 10 classic courses that have 60 yard wide fairways let alone those with no startegic worth but then I play in the UK. Perhaps you could cite 10 classics over here that have 60 yarde wide fairways ? If you do manage to get to ten I suspect one will be actual and the other nine figments of your imagination.
The reference to double fairways was a reference to the total width of the fairway in that 60 yards plus is more or less double 35 yards, the normal width of a fairway over here. It was not a suggestion that literally that each hole had two fairways but then I'm sure you knew that and were just being obtuse.
Niall
-
"Hi Niall,
I perhaps wasn't clear with getting my points across but...
You can't use the same angles with 30 yards of fairway as you can with 60 yards - That is simple geometry. And what I'm trying to say is that with modern equipment, maintenance techniques and some insipid design of green complexes, it is very rare to see great modern holes in the traditional strategic vain. If you have a 30 yard width, the difference between left side and right side for a long approach is minimal. The difference for a short approach is greater but the strategy is usually nullified by equipment advances (i.e. stopping a wedge over a bunker is easier these days)... Add to that the trend of building bunkers slightly removed from the green (i.e. not tight against the putting surface) and the strategy is nullified even more. If you have wide fairways, bunkers tight to greens and slopes and shoulders playing away from those bunkers, it makes the angles come more in to play.... At least that's how I see it...
As for building in width to stop losing balls, I think that is the most important element of all in the modern game."
Ally,
I think I see what you say with regard to equipment/maintenance techniques but to some extent does the move back to fast and firm not help the cause ? If the suggestion is that too soft conditions allied to modern equipment allows the player to stop the ball then I don't see what difference the angle the player approaches from will make, they will still be able to carry the trouble. Now I can see how the design of the green complex can make a difference but again do you really need that amount of width to achieve that ? Note, I'm not saying that a wide fairway can't be interesting or provide strategic play but width in itself doesn't create that strategic interest.
Niall
-
Patrick
First comment understood.
Second comment, no I couldn't because I've barely played more than ten US courses let alone classic US courses and I suspect you couldn't cite ten where there was a reason given for their width, thats the problem with classic courses, neither of us were around when they were created.
Then, how can you say that their width is just width for "width's sake" ?
It would seem that your perception of width (for width's sake) is non-existant.
With respect to the courses I cited, I see no evidence of width for width's sake.
Remember too that mowing was done with a tractor with huge gang mowers and thus width was a necessity if those big rigs were going to turn around and head back up or down the fairway.
Modern day Irrigation systems are probably responsible for diminishing width more than any other factor
Neither could I cite 10 classic courses that have 60 yard wide fairways let alone those with no startegic worth but then I play in the UK.
Then how can you posit anything about width and classic American courses such as the ones I cited ?
Perhaps you could cite 10 classics over here that have 60 yarde wide fairways ?
I never made any statements regarding the width of courses in the UK, classic or modern.
If you do manage to get to ten I suspect one will be actual and the other nine figments of your imagination.
The reference to double fairways was a reference to the total width of the fairway in that 60 yards plus is more or less double 35 yards, the normal width of a fairway over here. It was not a suggestion that literally that each hole had two fairways but then I'm sure you knew that and were just being obtuse.
Niall
-
Patrick
To answer your first point my comments in relation to width were in relation to the theory not the practice and certainly not about any particular course including classic american courses I've never played. It was you who then brought specific courses into the discussion.
As for the suggestion that the width of the gang mower played a part in the width of the fairway, at first glance I find that one a bit far fetched but interested to hear more. Are you really suggesting the turning circle of these machines dictated the width of the fairways ? With regards to irrigation, I was brought up on an inland course that didn't have any irrigation apart from greens until about 15 to 20 years ago and the fairways were the same average width before the installation of the sprinkler system. Neither was that unusual compared to other local courses.
While I'm genuinely interested in the historical reasons why older courses became wider for practical reasons, what I'm really interested in is the reason for it in the modern age where we don't have the constraints referred to above. As I said in probably the first post on this thread I've played only a few really wide courses as favoured on this discussion board and all of them are modern. I've purposely not named them as that then brings in peoples personal preferences etc and gets away from the theory.
What I've taken from the discussion so far is that many see width as a means of not losing balls which means more fun or at least less frustration. To a point that makes sense. However isn't there the possibility that this leads to uninteresting, perhaps insipid golf ? Again not naming names but I've found the few wide courses I've played have been less interesting on each subsequent visit. Thats not the case with more conventionally designed courses I've played. Yes there has been a fair number of rubbish courses in there, but they were rubbish up front so never really changed on subsequent visits. Others continued to remain fun and challenging, some even more so when you begin to appreciate the challenge more.
I still wonder if some of the GCA's who design wide fairways find it more challenging to make them interesting.
Niall
-
I still wonder if some of the GCA's who design wide fairways find it more challenging to make them interesting.
Niall
Niail, actually I find the opposite to be the case. Wide fairways give you the opportunity to put more stuff in them. IE a ridge across half or a speed slot up on side. Plus the allow for featuresand hazards to be placed within the farway as opposed to alongside it.
The narrower the fairway, the more one-dimensional it tends to become. That's more challanging to make interesting.
As for old American courses, I'll re-tell a story. I was at Tuscumbia GC in Green Lake WI - thought to be the oldest 18 in the State. Narrow, tree lined course. However out in the trees, one could see the "old" bunkers. Being a sand course, they were just grassed over but the forms are still evident. Talking with a guy in the bar, he said his grandpa used to cut grass there back in the day and they mowed it east-to-west one week and north-south the next, before all the trees were planted.
I tell this because I believe you will find that many old American courses were built on relatively open land. This would allow for wider original fairways but as trees were planted and grew, they would force the narrowing of the fairways.
Also, to use the example of an unirrigated course to dispell irrigations impact, could it not be that they were just mimicking what the wealthy clubs, that had irrigation, were doing?
-
Isn't wide fairways without firm greens kinda pointless?
I see how some of the posters believe that wide fairways do not pose enough of a challenge. That is certainly true if the greens are soft (no matter how much contour they have). If better players can just stick their approach right next to the pin, angles really don't come into play at all.
However, if you have firm greens with pin locations that require a certain approach angle to get close, then you really start challenging the better players with width.
I love wide fairways because it makes golf fun for everybody; higher handicaps don't have to spend half the time looking for their balls while making lower handicap players have to think and plot their strategies green to tee to have a really good score. To me, that is best of both worlds.
-
Patrick
To answer your first point my comments in relation to width were in relation to the theory not the practice and certainly not about any particular course including classic american courses I've never played. It was you who then brought specific courses into the discussion.
That's correct.
I cited them as classic courses with width because you were questioning the introduction of width on modern courses.
See your quote below
"Now my experience on these modern large scale productions are limited as most of my golf tends to be on older, more conventionally scaled courses so I am interested to find out if my assumption as to the appeal of wide fairways is all that their is to it or whether there are any other good reason for them."
Therefore, I cited recognizable courses with a good deal of width.
You seemed to view width as a design flaw, yet, the courses I cited, all with wide fairways, are held in highest regard, architecturally and in terms of playability.
I thought that list of courses would bring you to your senses with respect to your negative opinion on wide fairways.
As for the suggestion that the width of the gang mower played a part in the width of the fairway, at first glance I find that one a bit far fetched but interested to hear more. Are you really suggesting the turning circle of these machines dictated the width of the fairways ?
In some cases, yes, especially near the greens.
When fairways were mowed with tractors pulling huge gang mowers, the turning radius was not abbreviated.
With regards to irrigation, I was brought up on an inland course that didn't have any irrigation apart from greens until about 15 to 20 years ago and the fairways were the same average width before the installation of the sprinkler system. Neither was that unusual compared to other local courses.
Automated irrigation systems and even the hand coupled systems brought about the reduction in fairway width at many courses.
I'd say that the 40's, 50's and early 60's saw the most shrinkage.
Then, as fairways moved in trees and shrubs were planted in the adjacent roughs, effectively narrowing the playing corridors even more.
I'd say that the 60's, 70's and 80's were the heart of the arborist movement.
Then, as the trees grew and their drip lines extended, into the playing corridors, the drivers of the fairway mowers shied away from the tree line, further narrowing the fairways.
While I'm genuinely interested in the historical reasons why older courses became wider for practical reasons, what I'm really interested in is the reason for it in the modern age where we don't have the constraints referred to above.
I have a theory on that.
Just this morning I was discussing it with an orthopedic surgeon who was tending to my youngest son who just broke a bone playing basketball
My theory:
Courses needed to be wide to accomodate Fast & Firm conditions.
With any type of rolling or slanted terrain, (don't forget how important surface drainage is) under fast and firm conditions, with narrow fairways, almost every shot would end up in the rough on the runout, but, wide fairways allowed for deviation in the run out.
Today, and for the past 20-30 years, with soft, lush conditions you could bring the fairways in because the ball wasn't going anywhere after impact.
As I said in probably the first post on this thread I've played only a few really wide courses as favoured on this discussion board and all of them are modern. I've purposely not named them as that then brings in peoples personal preferences etc and gets away from the theory.
The courses we were discussing this morning were Westhampton and NGLA, both with wide fairways.
The "Doc" claimed that since Westhampton had transitioned to F&F recently, the need for wide fairways became evident.
Wide fairways allow for acceptable margins of error on F&F courses, courses where the angle of attack into the green is critical.
What I've taken from the discussion so far is that many see width as a means of not losing balls which means more fun or at least less frustration. To a point that makes sense.
I understand that, but, it's not my primary point.
At NGLA, with wide fairways, if you hit your drive to the right on # 1 you have a blind approach, same on # 2.
On # 3 if you hit your ball left on the drive you're really blind and faced with an abrupt impediment to advancing your ball.
Same with $ 5, hit it left and your blind in a bowl.
I could go on and on about the need for position on each hole and how width is illusory to the point of deceipt.
When playing NGLA or most wide courses many golfers are lulled into a false sense of security, thinking that they have the entire fairway at their disposal, when in fact, there's a prefered section of the fairway that should be the golfer's target (based on their ability)
However isn't there the possibility that this leads to uninteresting, perhaps insipid golf ? Again not naming names but I've found the few wide courses I've played have been less interesting on each subsequent visit. Thats not the case with more conventionally designed courses I've played. Yes there has been a fair number of rubbish courses in there, but they were rubbish up front so never really changed on subsequent visits. Others continued to remain fun and challenging, some even more so when you begin to appreciate the challenge more.
I can't speak to the courses you reference, but, perhaps the problem with them is not at the fairway end.
Perhaps the failure lies at the green end.
If you play Seminole, Pine Valley, GCGC, ANGC or NGLA I think you'd get a feel for how the respective architects incorporated width into their designs and how well they used it to present a challenge to every level of golfer.
On the modern side, Hidden Creek, Sebonack, Sand Hills, Wild Horse, Pacific Dunes and Bandon Dunes are examples of courses that integrate width with their green complexes to form an enjoyable challenge for every level of golfer.
Width is good, but, a course can't sustain itself on width alone.
I still wonder if some of the GCA's who design wide fairways find it more challenging to make them interesting.
Tom Doak and others would be far more qualified to answer that question.
-
The game of golf is about hitting it straight off the tee. You need to keep your drive within a 25 yard width for championship golf or risk some form of penalty or part penalty. 25 yard fairways are often narrowed from tradional 35 yard fairways for standard golf. I am not advocating jungle and lost balls keep the semi rough shortish but very few golf courses new or old can afford to have wide fairways. In a modern construction on less than perfect land a desire to have width will IMO push that course to the limits of bankrupcy. Rough or semi rough is the cheaper end of both golf course construction and maintenance, advocating wider fairways will push the cost to play these courses. Bandon is an anomaly, it is not a model to copy, Bandon breaks lots of rules of normality for the golf business.
The normal golf business model is pretty good as it is, but it needs courses that can be built at economical prices which with rising land costs is getting difficult, it needs courses that can be operated and maintained by the minimal amount of staff.
No. The game (it is a game) is about having fun. Last I checked, nobody enjoys adding 30 to 60 minutes onto a round to accomodate penal rough - which should really normally only be in play for the flat bellies so long as a guy is hitting say a 60 yard wide corridor. The older I get the more I think course operators and archies fall back on rough as an excuse to toughen courses which do not need toughening. Its primarily a money saving scam when honestly it would noy cost much to have 40 yard fairways and 25 yard short rough areas. Of course it is now often too late for this as trees have been planted zhich hqve narrowed corridors to stupid widths of 50 yards and sometimes with overhanging branches and bunkers. It is very rare when I see a course which is of proper width so I find it hard to believe that anybody could say width is a negative issue. Where are all these wide courses?
Ciao
-
Sean Arble,
I agree, the game remains one that presents an enjoyable challenge (fun)
Too many context every issue at the PGA Tour Pro proficiency level.
My big beef with clubs hosting "big" events is that they narrow the fairways for 150 guys for a 4 day event and don't restore the fairways to their former widths for the thousands upon thousands of golfers who will play them over the years.
-
Patrick
I wasn't going to respond because I felt the discussion had perhaps gone as far as it was going to go and that also our exchanges were becoming less constructive, certainly "the figment of my imagination", and the "coming to my senses" comments irked me some what. However there was a lot of good stuff in your last post that I wanted to respond.
For me, your post highlights some of the differences between golf in the US and golf in the UK. On the design side I hadn't appreciated that many of these classic courses (US) were so wide. A couple of pals of mine played Pine Valley last year and apart from saying how much they enjoyed the course the other comment they made was that the rough was brutal because it was so lush. They didn't seem to notice the width or at least didn't comment on it to me.
The older courses over here, and indeed most new ones as well, including most links courses generally have fairway widths of 30/35 yards. However mostly the rough isn't brutal. Thats a gross generalisation but I don't think too many would argue. Certainly there are exceptions, TOC comes to mind but you get my drift.
I would also suggest that golf over here generally is played in faster and firmer conditions, weather permitting, with fairway sprinklers tending to be used when courses are in danger of drying up rather than as a matter of routine. So to take your point about run out in fast and firm conditions, rough can sometimnes be a blessing as it stops the ball going into the deeper bundi, so is the first difference between the US and the UK the first cut of rough ? Perhaps that has something to do with US courses having a larger maintenance budget ? Perhaps that would account for the larger gang mowers.
Your comments on trees - totally agree.
Where I'll continue to disagree is the need for width in windy sites or fast and firm courses, as I think its upto the golfer to adapt his game accordingly. Maybe again theres a cultural difference that the US player measures his play against the card where over here the measure it against the conditions. Many times I've sat in the clubhouse at a links course and listened to players describe scoring a number of shots over their handicap and being quite pleased because they knew and everyone else knew that was good in the conditions. Theres no embarrassment or requirement to match your handicap just because you played well.
You describe NGLA beautifully and I understand the points you make with regards to startegy, however again I think you can do that within a 30/35 yard corridor. Perhaps the difference is that the narrower corridor leads to more subtle strategy or maybe it leads to smaller difference between a good and a bad shot. For instance, and here I totally agree that the design of the green complex is paramount, where the conditions are fast and firm and the greens are small (think of Gullane no 3) a matter of yards in the position of your drive can make all the difference to landing and running your ball into the pin. Hard to explain, best to experience it.
Niall
-
Niall,
I've got to run to make a tee time, but, I'll be back tomorrow.
but, fairway widths of 30-35 yards on windy sites with benign rough are effectively much wider.
When you get 30-35 yard wide fairways on windy sites with brutal rough, unless you're dead straight with your drives and brutally strong, you're not going to enjoy the day/course.
The difficulty of the rough is a critical factor when evaluating fairway widths on windy sites.
-
The problem once again with this site ... minority opinion. Sean (with respect) if you were an operator you bust the joint in record time as would most on here. Wide fairways (in excess of 40 yards) are almost non existant in the UK, wide playing corridors ie fairway and short rough is the norm, perhaps 60-70 is common if you call that as width I am fine, but 60-70 yard wide fairways is a crazy idea. I do agree about how many courses have enclosed their fairways with trees, but its what the masses want. You guys talk so much about ideal situations that you want with no regard to ££$$$.... most places are doing their best.
The game of golf is about scoring low, that involves hitting it straight, golf is less fun to better players, its their work. Lesser players can enjoy moments and thats the fun.
I think its becoming almost impossible to have a golf course that everyone can play, thick penal rough, firm greens, wind are I agree unpleasant for the lesser player. Sadly it seems the method to keep the pro's reigned in.
-
Adrian
When we consider that a 25 yard fairway is almost universally considered narrow (that is except in your universe), than 40 yards doesn't strike me as wildly wide especially given windy, dry, sloping conditions or mature trees lining fairways. I think a great many people mistake that corridors weren't wider 50 years ago. They were. The difference was it was harder to tell which section was fairway and which was rough. Plus, trees didn't overhang playing corridors like today. Once we have such defined fairways it becomes an almost an impossible to overcome desire to plant trees (or bushes and even GORSE of all things) and reduce the corridor widths significantly - sometimes by 50%.
The savings in reduced maintainace is really offset by courses becoming one-dimensional and much of a muchness. I will always believe that a thoughtful design presented somewhat properly as intended is nearly always going to have a better chance of surviving lean times than the multitude of run of the mill courses which are in no way distinguishable from each other - or in other words - the dreaded "nice" course. I may be in a minority, but I have quite two clubs because the powers that be didn't have a clue on how to accentuate the positives of a design and instead followed the road of "nice", but totally boring. The sort of place that holds the attention of folks who just don't care. Not the sort of club I want to be associated with. A great many others are quitting clubs for various stated reasons, but I think it usually boils down to the courses no longer hold their attention and with the costs escalating to provide mediocre rather good or exceptional products, what is the point of membership?
Ciao
-
Adrian
The savings in reduced maintainace is really offset by courses becoming one-dimensional and much of a muchness. I will always believe that a thoughtful design presented somewhat properly as intended is nearly always going to have a better chance of surviving lean times than the multitude of run of the mill courses which are in no way distinguishable from each other - or in other words - the dreaded "nice" course. I may be in a minority, but I have quite two clubs because the powers that be didn't have a clue on how to accentuate the positives of a design and instead followed the road of "nice", but totally boring. The sort of place that holds the attention of folks who just don't care. Not the sort of club I want to be associated with. A great many others are quitting clubs for various stated reasons, but I think it usually boils down to the courses no longer hold their attention and with the costs escalating to provide mediocre rather good or exceptional products, what is the point of membership?
Ciao
Sean, I see where you're coming from but have a slightly different take on it. I believe that the powers that be are, unfortunately, not students of the game or design, just novices that have been installed as caretakers. As such, they have a very narrow comfort zone and fall back on "it's the way it's always been" or "just like XYZ GC does it". That provides them cover if and when things go bad. It also is why things revert to the mean. Lets face it, not many are comfortable or have enough conviction and confidence in their own abilities to go outside the box - especially when it goes against the generally accepted GroupThink.
-
Sean Arble,
I'd agree, 25 yard wide fairways are considered VERY narrow.
And, on a windy site, that's like trying to thread a needle.
I suspect that many tend to context golf features through the PGA tour level of ability rather than the local golfer.
25 yard wide fairways with difficult rough are IMPOSSIBLE for the local club member to handle.
I DON'T believe they exist and are a figment of someone's imagination.
Could someone, anyone, cite a golf course where the fairways are all 25 yards wide in the DZ ?
-
Sean your misunderstanding. I am not advocating 25 yard fairways I just said 25 yards is the tournament number, although I think 35 is fine which is pretty much the norm, when you start going to 45 its very wide (as a fairway). I think 35 yard fairways with 15 yards of short rough ie 65 yard corridors are fine, the short rough very slighty affects a penalty to a player but he does not lose his ball, he just loses slight control over his ball. If people are wanting 65 yard wide fairways its going to cost, its pretty much doubleing up on fairway maintenance. There are some significant irrigation issues, if you are wanting twice the fairway sprinklers, your run times go haywire, you may need much larger mains which is often not just double the price. Wide fairways on many new golf courses is hardly minimal, yes you get perfect sites but they are really rare and in the real world of gof course construction we do push a fair bit of dirt around.
In general most golfers want trees hence why most UK golf courses have become arboretums pampering to the next captains whims.
-
Sean Arble,
I'd agree, 25 yard wide fairways are considered VERY narrow.
And, on a windy site, that's like trying to thread a needle.
I suspect that many tend to context golf features through the PGA tour level of ability rather than the local golfer.
25 yard wide fairways with difficult rough are IMPOSSIBLE for the local club member to handle.
I DON'T believe they exist and are a figment of someone's imagination.
Could someone, anyone, cite a golf course where the fairways are all 25 yards wide in the DZ ?
Pat
Yes there are holes with 25 yards or less of fairway in the DZs. I don't know of any course which has every hole like this, but a great many are not far off and I would be surprised if many championship links average much more than 30 wide of fairway. Some have more penal rough than others and to a large degree the rough is seasonal, but I can't think of one championhsip links I would say is on average sufficiently wide when the rough is up in a playful wind. Honestly, 40 yard fairways with 10 yards each side of buffer rough isn't all that wide in high summer with a decent wind. That problem spreads down to joe blow parkland courses as well only its trees to deal with and sometimes with nasty rough at the trunks. I would rather see courses maintained to be played with little difficulty finding balls in rough weather - say like links are in the winter, but then I have long that that golf is better in the winter. I can recall playing West Cornwall in a light gale a few winters ago and it was perfectly playable. That same (not uncommon) wind on loads of courses would make them a nightmare.
Adrian
We are talking at cross purposes with width, but largely agreeing.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with trees if good specimens are planted/left to remian in a wise manner. I don't think folks realize how narrowing of fairways mature trees can be with overhanging limbs or too numerous in quantity. The last thing I want is cheap looking trees on a course or fairways lined with trees. I want the trees to add to the design, not smother it.
Ciao
-
Adrian
The savings in reduced maintainace is really offset by courses becoming one-dimensional and much of a muchness. I will always believe that a thoughtful design presented somewhat properly as intended is nearly always going to have a better chance of surviving lean times than the multitude of run of the mill courses which are in no way distinguishable from each other - or in other words - the dreaded "nice" course. I may be in a minority, but I have quite two clubs because the powers that be didn't have a clue on how to accentuate the positives of a design and instead followed the road of "nice", but totally boring. The sort of place that holds the attention of folks who just don't care. Not the sort of club I want to be associated with. A great many others are quitting clubs for various stated reasons, but I think it usually boils down to the courses no longer hold their attention and with the costs escalating to provide mediocre rather good or exceptional products, what is the point of membership?
Ciao
Sean, I see where you're coming from but have a slightly different take on it. I believe that the powers that be are, unfortunately, not students of the game or design, just novices that have been installed as caretakers. As such, they have a very narrow comfort zone and fall back on "it's the way it's always been" or "just like XYZ GC does it". That provides them cover if and when things go bad. It also is why things revert to the mean. Lets face it, not many are comfortable or have enough conviction and confidence in their own abilities to go outside the box - especially when it goes against the generally accepted GroupThink.
Tim
I have a theory which covers members clubs here in the UK. They are mostly run by Committee's who do a number of years before handing over to someone else. There is perhaps naturally enough an urge for a new Committee man to try and "do better" than the last lot, to leave his mark in other words (and they are in 99% of cases a he). When it comes to tinkering the easiest thing to do is plant trees rather than move dirt. Thats one of the reasons why a lot of inland courses are infested with trees encroaching fairways. Like what you say for the US, a lot of these UK courses originally had very few trees on them.
Patrick
I can think of the odd hole that has pinch points of 25 yards or even less but not one single course with that as standard. Thinking of the Open courses, I don't think they bring the fairways in too much come the Open but they do narrow some of the landing points but there main defence in recent years seems to be the severity of the rough. Certainly not US Open standards but enough to cause a half shot penalty in some instances. Not sure what the do in the US for comps. What do you think the fairway widths will be for the PGA on what is I presume a fairly windy site ?
Niall
-
Niall,
Discussing and contexting GCA within the confines of four days of golf for the best golfers in the world seems like a useless exercise when considered against the rest of the golfing world.
I don't know of one course with all fairways at 25 yards in the DZ.
I know of only a few courses with a few fairways at 25 yards.
I know of no such courses on very windy sites with difficult rough.
When analyzing fairway width I think you have to include the area of rough when the rough is benign.
-
Patrick,
When the rough is benign or you are just as likely to get a decent lie as a crap one, or indeed even if the odds are more in favour of getting a crap lie, it no doubt gives comfort to the golfer who is aiming for one side of the fairway for startegic reasons whereas if the rough is brutally penal the player will more likely play safe by going for the middle of the fairway. That said there is always a chance of crap lie and therefore a penalty if they do end up in the rough.
Niall
-
If you google earth a lot of UK courses you will see fairways at 25 yard width. Many see it as defence. Burnham and Berrows are pretty narrow.
-
If you google earth a lot of UK courses you will see fairways at 25 yard width. Many see it as defence. Burnham and Berrows are pretty narrow.
Adrian
I was thinking of B&B and how several fairways are quite tight (though I don't know the yardage) and moreso if guys want to pound out LONG drives.
1 and 2 are fairly tight.
3 and 4 are a bit tight because of the tee shot hitting perpindicularish to the fairway. 6 is tight and that is not 25 yards wide. 7 is okay and 8 is quite tight now with water and bunkers in the DZ.
10 isn't wide (again because of the angle of the tee shot), but 11, 12 and 13 are decently wide for the tee shots - especially 13. 15 is tight, but 16 is fairly wide. 18 is wide if one lays up, but like 1 and 2, it is quite narrow for the long ball.
All in all, I would guess at 30 yards average width. IMO its not wide enough by at least 5 - 10 yards, but the dunes often constrict play. Usually in summer the course isn't much fun, but this year it has been grand with the rough down. A guy complained two or three weeks ago about how easy the course was, but he was a 4 capper shooting 77. Its hard to take that sort of attitude seriously when he doesn't threaten par.
Ciao
-
I think width of the playing corridor is absolutely necessary. The game is not enjoyable without this width since most players are losing balls, punching out, or hacking out - all of which makes the game too slow. Fairway width is another story. #2 is returning fairway widths. That width is vitally important to the strategy of attacking certain pin placements on almost every hole - and I can point that out to you if you life. I wouldn't say the fairways at Camargo are wide but they are wide enough given the wide playing corridors. This is needed for some angles to attack the pins given the greens and deep, penal bunkers. The Bandon courses need width because of the wind and to attack certain parts of the green. Having played BD in 30 mph winds at the Mid-Am I can assure you the width was needed. Top Mid-Ams were really struggling in that wind. Ballyneal is another great example of width combined with strategy. Fast and firm makes width more necessary imo. But in some instances were the greens don't have tucked hole locations or lack the necessary slopes or the course is maintained too soft fairway width seems to be unnecessary.
-
They are less than 30 Sean, the 2nd is 19 yards, 18th as well less than 20, 30 are the wide ones. I dont remember it as tight as that, it never seems to play tight, but equally I dont remember long rough. I googled a number of courses to look at aerials and many have fairways at 25 width, which suprised me. I dont suppose it particulary matters as long as the playing corridor is 60-70. I aways found B&B easy and all the low cappers want to play there because its par 71 and the SSS is 73. If the wind blows then its a different story.
-
They are less than 30 Sean, the 2nd is 19 yards, 18th as well less than 20, 30 are the wide ones. I dont remember it as tight as that, it never seems to play tight, but equally I dont remember long rough. I googled a number of courses to look at aerials and many have fairways at 25 width, which suprised me. I dont suppose it particulary matters as long as the playing corridor is 60-70. I aways found B&B easy and all the low cappers want to play there because its par 71 and the SSS is 73. If the wind blows then its a different story.
Adrian
You could be right, but that only reiterates my point that biggest single problem with courses today is a lack of width. There isn't much point going on about strategy if the course isn't wide enough to make the angles play. Mind you, at Burnham there aren't many holes which require width because of greens - its because of wind and f&f conditions. The course is really about driving positions and there aren't many holes I would like to see widened because of angles of approach. I think it would be good if 7 and 8 were widened to the water to not allow balls to be saved by rough and to play to the insides of the fairway bunkers (make them more centreline hazards). Same goes for 10 - widen the fairway toward the road to bring oob more into play off the tee I thnk it used to be this way when Colt designed the hole. I would like to 16 combined with the 3rd fairway to drag more guys right (into poor position) off the tee. That is about it and it wouldn't cost the earth or bankrupt the club. In fact, with a strong prevailing wind the course could play tougher with #s 7, 8 & 10 widened. Most of the holes which would benefit from wider approach angles have dunes blocking access to the width. The dunes are a double edged sword which create interest but also constrict play. This is why I am always in favour of flatter more open holes on dunesy properties.
Ciao
-
Adrian,
19 yards ?
I have to question the wisdom of having a fairway that's narrower than a green.
What's the length of the hole where the fairway is 19 yards wide and how difficult is the rough ?
And, does the course get a wind on a typical day ?
At 19 yards, you're talking about a target that the eye visualizes at about 10 yards.
It's one thing if it's a 280 yard hole, but, if it's a 380 or 480 par 4, that would seem to be a flaw in design or maintainance.
Do you have the equivalent of historicaerials.com ?
If so, look at the history of the fairway widths over the last few decades and let us know if they've always been that way, or, if the narrowing is a recent event.
-
As usual, I got to this topic late and was only half way through the discussion before feeling the urge to shoot off my mouth. The urge is based on an interesting experience I had while playing DM Kidd’s Huntsman Springs (Driggs, Idaho). Playing in my group for this outing was a club pro playing with his superintendant. Quite a few times the two of them would critique the hole standing on the tee or looking at an approach. Mainly it was the pro “mentoring” his super about bad features that were unnecessary or even the dreaded “unfair.”
I have played or looked at a couple of Kidd courses before (Bandon, Tetherow) and expected a lot of visual deception: tee shots that looked much more intimidating than they actually were and very tricky, undulating greens, etc. For the most part, I was amused by what I overheard because I thought that the pro was really missing the crucial points about the design. I won’t go into a full description of the course, but one must understand that the course was totally manufactured on a really difficult site, a swampy mountain cow pasture as flat as a pool table and essentially a vast wetland. I think there was some form of water on at least 16 of the 18 holes, maybe all 18, and venturing off the course into the native often felt like walking on a grass waterbed. That Kidd could build a playable course on such a site is a pretty impressive accomplishment and perhaps a hydraulic engineering marvel. That it could also be aesthetically pleasing, fun to play, and strategically very interesting is a testament to his talent. There was a lot of eye candy (bunkers in front of tees), a lot masterly visual deception, and many options and choices on almost every hole.
As this pertains to width, frequently it didn’t look like there was much and sometimes there were surprises hidden behind mounds, bunkers, and other features, but there was plenty of width to the playing corridors. We were playing the middle tees, so, as an average player, I looked at the yardage book, calculated what I could handle if I made a good shot, ignored the safe bail outs, and whaled away with aggressive lines over the sand pits and gnarly features. It was like I was a scratch player playing the tips on a difficult, testing course. I’m not and it wasn’t because when we got out to our drives, there was invariably a lot more width than it seemed from the tee. For the most part it worked all day and was a blast to play.
The pro kept complaining to his mate all day about how the course was so impossible to play for the average golfer, and here I was, the old, overweight, average 12 capper, having a ball and playing the course reasonably well, even giving him a bit of a game for most of the round. Basically, I got the strategy of the bunkering and slopes, expected the deceptions, and, using a yardage book, could fairly easily decide what was within my powers to challenge or go around. He didn’t and could only see the intimidation factor.
I finally couldn’t stand listening to his whining any longer and bet him a beer there was a lot more room beyond some fearsome bunker than it appeared from the tee. When we got to our tee shots, at first he didn’t agree that he had lost. “Look where my ball is. It barely missed getting in that deep bunker up there.” He relented when I said that he’d be right beside me if he hadn’t been playing the ladies tees. Oh yeah, right.
For the pro this was sort of a revenge round. He’d played the course a week before from the tips with his son, a top amateur player. It had humbled them both. He played well this time and probably played around even par (in a 2-man scramble format, but his partner wasn’t much help). Even so, I think he still saw a completely different course than I did. For me, it was a very interesting lesson in both playing width and visual deception. And lots of fun.
-
This thread seems to have abandonded the perspective of the
circus tour players. That is a good thing IMHO because 99% of the rounds played are by people that are not multi-logo wearing automotons.
As I said before, if the world had the misfortune of having me as an arch I would be focusing on making the course merely fun and interesting - with a keen eye toward giving the participant the sensation of being in Nature and far away from the office/highway/airport world. An elevation and restoration of the persons spirit is what I'd be after. Not beating them up all day long. How to make it playable yet with enough of a challenge is the magic trick.
As ever, just my perspective.