[Patrick_Mucci]

PD is great

Agreed, I stated that from the begining.

and Pat may be mostly off base

Doubtful  

BUT he has a point--this is a difficult course for the average player who does not hit the ball straight.  
It may be difficult for many in the Membership there too--BUT IT IS THEIR CLUB.

Separate issue.
Just because a club is a member's club, doesn't immunize it from constructive criticism.
 

Should Oakmont members be chastised for the fetish with penal architecture and green speeds beyond crazy

"Chastized" might be too harsh.
Oakmont, like other clubs, has a unique culture.
I find the penal nature of Oakmont excessive for everyday play.
Not necessarily the speed of the greens, but, the penal nature of the rough and fairway bunkers in conjunction with the speed of the greens. 

Should Seminole be taken to task for firm and fast so extreme that elite amateurs five and six putt (one to lose the finals of their invitational) and chip all over the greens and back

That was an over the top setup for an invitational event.
I think that incident illustrated the setup error and will prevent it from being repititious.  

In this thread I was trying to talk about a great championship at a great course and highlight an event I thought many would be interested in.  
I love the course and played it a few years ago.  Frankly, I played awful and mainly as a result of driving the ball poorly.  It was very windy on my trip (flight was cnancelled coming in due to weather and I had to re-schedule) and so I have seen very windy, difficult conditins and benign ones.

That highlights my comments even more.
Wind, and it can be a windy site, makes fairway width more necessary, especially with disaster lurking at the flanks.
If you're going to have a feature so penal at every flank, on a windy site, then the golfer should be entitled to a fighting chance as manifested in fairway width.

I am a good club player and had to hit 6-7 iron into 2, 3-4 iron into 4 and hole 8 was an absolute bear into the wind--I think I hit my driver right into the "crapper" on the left

BUT, with enough plays I still feel like I could manage my game and get around were I playing well--it wasn't unfair.

On a windy day, in a medal play round, would that still be your opinion ?

There is ample width today and that width is needed because you will usually have wind.
Chris, this is not ample width on a windy site
1.  37
3.  35
5 - 37
6 - 35
7 - 37 (narrows to 29 at bunker)
8 - 31
9 - 37

11 - 34
12 - 30
13 - 29
14 - 34
16 - 30
17 - 29
18 - 30

I also saw Pat's chart comparing old slope and rating with new slope and rating.  Rating is almost entirely a factor of length and is a roughly a measure of what a scratch golfer would shoot compared to par.  Slope takes into account factors like fairway width nad certainly "gunch" but also green severity and slope and is a relative rating focused more on the "average" golfer (whatever that is).  I would suggest that other factors, like increased green speeds on those very difficult greens, maybe some added length and yes, maybe some narrowing of some fairways all contributed to slight increases in the slope rating.  

I suppose I could ask Tom McCutcheon who was one of the raters of PD about these changes though I am sure Pat would call him a "moron" too
That's always a possibility depending upon the GIQ of his response.

--his first hand knowledge be damned  (That offer stands though Pat--Tom has been a very long time USGA and NCAA official, I bet you know him and after he was a PD rater he since became a Member too--would his opinion carry any weight with you?

Of course his opinion would carry weight, but, so would mine and that's why dialogue is so important.
Scott Warren and especially Kyle Krahenbuhl with his 200 plus plays, insisted that the fairways were 45 and 40 yards wide.
We know that both were wrong, grossly inaccurate, so you just can't accept anyone's stated proclaimation.
But, I would welcome a conversation with Tom and you.


One last thought that Pat may even concede--Equipment today (the ball and driver) have made driving the ball straight easier than ever.  It is easier to hit a straight ball today than it was in 1988--26 years ago.  Maybe in 26 years, with a ball flying longer and straighter than ever before, a slight narrowing even for the "average player" is not so out of line?

I disagree, especially when you consider the inability to recover from gunsch.

Was PD with old balata, wood woods, steel shafts and no lob wedges easier for the expert OR the average player than today with modern equipment?

They are two different courses, so the answer escapes me.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Chris,

When measuring or evaluating width, I think you have to consider the degree of consequence for failing to meet that width.

At PD it's an "X".

In many cases it's worse than a water hazard or OB, because once the golfer gets in it, if he fails at his attempt to extracate himself, he's going to take an X, and in medal play, that's NC.

That's one of my primary concerns and criticisms.

If the area adjacent to the fairway/rough is so penal, then there should be more than adequate width, especially on a windy site.

[Chris Cupit]

My final thoughts on this thread:

1.  I am not certain on the fairway measurements.  I am a pretty good estimating these things and I am not too sure how accurate one can be using google maps.  I tried it and my estimate/measurements were different.  As I am not good at that type of thing, I am happy to defer to someone better at it than me but it is funny how Pat takes these measurements as gospel when they seem to support his view.

2.  The broader point I made was that PD is not a "narrow" course and that the fairways are, in fact, generous.  I agree that they "play narrowe" due to often windy conditions but the conditions last week were calm and wet--making the course play "wider".

3.  I think that technology, particualrly since Pat last graced PD with his presence has made driving the ball straighter far easier--something Pat hasn't commented on.  It may be worth discussing whether or not SOME narrowing in light of technology isn't out of the question.  (I would say yes for expert play, no for daily play).

4.  Pat, you can be a real pill.  You so can't stand being wrong that when someone loke myself makes a point (the fairways are generous I am estimating 40 yards wide in many places) if you can find any fact that seems to rebut anything about the statment you cling to it like its your last penny.  Then the discussion "devolves" into a debate about who is right and who can be "proved" wrong versus any substantive discussion about the topic--a real thread killer.

5.  I don't think Pat is a "moron" as he does of most, if not all of us here.  I do think he has to feel "right" so much that it makes having a pleasant discussion with him almost impossible.

[Patrick_Mucci]

My final thoughts on this thread:

1.  I am not certain on the fairway measurements.  I am a pretty good estimating these things and I am not too sure how accurate one can be using google maps.  I tried it and my estimate/measurements were different.  As I am not good at that type of thing, I am happy to defer to someone better at it than me but it is funny how Pat takes these measurements as gospel when they seem to support his view.

2.  The broader point I made was that PD is not a "narrow" course and that the fairways are, in fact, generous.  

Chris, I never stated that PD was a narrow course as some of the morons have implied.
 
I did state that it's narrower today than it was PRE the 2006 Sr Open.

Fairways 30 yards and less are narrow, especially on a windy site.

I agree that they "play narrower" due to often windy conditions but the conditions last week were calm and wet--making the course play "wider".

This isn't a "last week" issue.
It's an issue about fairway width on a year round basis on a windy site played by a local membership.

The fairways were narrowed for the 2006 Sr Open and like Newport and other courses that hosted substantive tournaments, they weren't returned to their Pre-Tournament width.  Why would you support the concept of local members, hackers, playing fairways narrowed to challenge the best PGA Tour Pros ?

3.  I think that technology, particualrly since Pat last graced PD with his presence has made driving the ball straighter far easier--something Pat hasn't commented on.  It may be worth discussing whether or not SOME narrowing in light of technology isn't out of the question.  (I would say yes for expert play, no for daily play).

I did comment on it.
It's true that the ball goes straighter, but more incrementally so for a PGA Tour Pro than a local club member, the5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 handicap golfer.    And for the better player it goes farther, necessitating a reduced angle of deviation, less the ball finds the gunsch

4.  Pat, you can be a real pill.  You so can't stand being wrong that when someone loke myself makes a point (the fairways are generous I am estimating 40 yards wide in many places) if you can find any fact that seems to rebut anything about the statment you cling to it like its your last penny.  Then the discussion "devolves" into a debate about who is right and who can be "proved" wrong versus any substantive discussion about the topic--a real thread killer.

First, please reread post # 100.
I can't help it if the morons on this site can't read and/or comprehend.
I can't be held accountable for morons who don't understand relativity, comparisons between Pre 2006 width and current width.

Kyle and Scott declared that the fairways were "plenty wide", that they were 45 and 40 yards wide.
But, they're not.
Should misrepresentations, deliberate or unintentional be allowed to stand ?
If we're to have "Frank" discussions, shouldn't they be based upon facts rather than misrepresentations ?

5.  I don't think Pat is a "moron" as he does of most, if not all of us here.  I do think he has to feel "right" so much that it makes having a pleasant discussion with him almost impossible.

I can see how someone who is wrong in their representations would resent someone who is correct in their representations.
It happens all the time

Would you or anyone else cite where I declared that the "course" was narrow ?

I know that it's narrower today than it was Pre 2006.

I also know that like most clubs, Prairie Dunes is populated by mostly mid to high handicappers, golfers Ill equipped to meet a challenge intended for PGA Tour Pros.

The "MFN" status bestowed upon Prairie Dunes makes objective discussion difficult if not impossible.
If this was any other course the howling and whining would be incessant.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Chris,

Let me put it in another perspective.

If Donald Trump acquired Prairie Dunes in 2004 and narrowed the fairways to today's width, the outcry from the morons on this site would be deafening.

You know it, I know it and even all the morons know it.

Scott, Kyle and others would be outraged and calling for his head on a platter, and I'd be in agreement with them.

On a windy site width is an architectural necessity and Prairie Dunes is a windy site and 30 yards and less on a windy site isn't a wide fairway by any standard.

[Scott Warren]

Pat,

Have a read of the past page or so, populated almost exclusively by you ranting the same thing in chorus with yourself. You have a serious problem somewhere to the left of your right ear and to the right of your left ear.

I think Prairie Dunes is, by and large, of sufficient width. You're entitled to disagree.

When did you last play at Prairie Dunes?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Scott Warren,

I didn't repeat myself, I merely answered each previous post by you, Kyle and others.

YOU were wrong in your assessment of the fairway widths and chose to support others who were also wrong about fairway widths.

Didn't you indicate that you've never set foot on Prairie Dunes ?  ?  ?
So what's your frame of reference regarding fairway widths given the contour of the land and the configuration of the fairways ?  ?

You've repeatedly stated that the fairways are plenty wider or membership play.
Hence you've declared that widths of 29 and 30 yards are plenty wide.
At what widths would those fairways be deemed insufficiently wide ?

Lastly, what's your handicap.

[Scott Warren]

Pat,

You'll find The Lord blessed you with two eyes, two ears and one mouth.

If you use them in proportion from time to time. You might learn something now and then.

And then you might also stop asking questions that have been addressed on the previous page of the same thread.

And if you want to utilise that one very loud mouth of yours to let us know when you last played at Prairie Dunes that would be great, too.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Scott,

Just for the record, have you ever set foot on Prairie Dunes ?  ?  ?

Since you feel that 29 and 30 yard fairways are plenty wide, at what yardage at a Prairie Dunes would the fairway be deemed "narrow" by you ?

Why are you deliberately avoiding answering that question ?

And lastly, what's your handicap ?

Simple questions, even for dim witted morons.
See if you're capable of answering them.

Failure to do so proves my point

[Scott Warren]

Pat,

Not only have I already posted the answer to your dick-measuring question on this very thread, you replied specifically to what I said about my visit (there's a hint as to the answer...).

Your memory is about as useful as the rest of your withering faculties.

So, with that clarified, when did you last play at Prairie Dunes? Or can't you remember that far back?

[Sean Leary]

I would be interested to know how much the fairways were narrowed for Senior US Open in 2006. My guess is that any significant narrowing was done for the Women's Open years before. Or maybe for the Midam in 88 that Pat was a part of when he was in his 40's….

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Not only have I already posted the answer to your dick-measuring question on this very thread, you replied specifically to what I said about my visit (there's a hint as to the answer...).

Your memory is about as useful as the rest of your withering faculties.

So, with that clarified, when did you last play at Prairie Dunes? Or can't you remember that far back?

Scott,

That question was already answered on this thread, so maybe it's your memory that's withering.

In the meantime, what width would you deem narrow at Prairie Dunes ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

I would be interested to know how much the fairways were narrowed for Senior US Open in 2006. My guess is that any significant narrowing was done for the Women's Open years before. Or maybe for the Midam in 88 that Pat was a part of when he was in his 40's….

Sean,

What's a fact is that the fairways are narrower today than they were before significant USGA events.

What's a fact is that fairways 30 yards wide and less, on a windy site, are narrow despite what dim witted morons claim.

What's a fact is that those claiming first hand experience, including over 200 plays, misrepresented fairway widths at 45 and 40 yards when they don't come close to those widths.

And, when asked, what width would be narrow at Prairie Dunes, the morons are incapable of providing an answer.

[Scott Warren]

Pat,

Sean asked if you'd been back since 1988 and you twice dodged the question, so I suppose yes - you did answer it indirectly and confirmed through your silence that you last played Prairie Dunes a quarter of a century ago with persimmon and balata.

Previously on this site you've said you played PD "about a dozen times" over the course of "about seven days", which tallies with playing a Mid-Am there 26 years ago.

And of course that doesn't eliminate your right to an opinion about the merits of the course as it is today, but it does put your opinion in context.

[Ben Hollerbach]

A few things I feel should be pointed out when discussing measurements taken using Google Earth:

- If the satellite image was not captured at a position directly above the piece of property in question, the distances will become altered.
- Since satellite images are often years older than current time, measurements on them do not necessarily equate to current time.
- When measuring satellite images from different years Its not unexpected to have multiple measurements of the same static object, a building for example.
- A recent addition to the ruler tool is the "ground length" measurement, which helps to offset topographical changes when making measurements, but does not insure a dramatically higher level of accuracy.

The accuracy of Google Earth measurements are not 100% precise. As such should not be used as hard facts when debating subjects such as fairway width. In the past I've found to use them more as good approximations and within 3-5 yards accurate at best.

[Jason Topp]

I hadn't checked this thread in awhile.   My measurements should not be taken as gospel.  They were an eyeballing exersize based on my guess as to where tee balls might land based simply on how the hole looked. 

If I were measuring for my own game, I would assume 225 carry, 250 yards total from the tee, adjust for prevailing wind and any big hills and measure the width in the area my tee ball was likely to finish.  I would also know that the measurement did not take slope into account, which can make the hole play much wider or narrower depending on the ground.

Such an effort is meaningless for the purposes of other people and I did not want to take the time to calculate all of that anyway.  I just wanted to run a general objective check on widths.  My general conclusion was that the fairway widths fell in between the Mucci position and the position of others.  To me, it looked to me that the back 9 had been narrowed a bit but the front nine did not look very narrow at all.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Scott,

I've asked you repeatedly, if you consider 29 and 30 yard fairways at Prairie Dunes plenty wide, at what width would you deem them to be narrow ?

It's a simple question, why have you failed to answer it.

And, for perspective, what's your handicap ?

[K. Krahenbuhl]

I've played Prairie Dunes more this year than you have in your life.

Maybe, maybe not.
How many times have you played it this year ?

So, to be clear, it's your opinion that fairways 30 yards wide are "more than wide enough..."
Is that correct ?
Because that's what you stated.


It's sad watching such a narcissist fall apart.

"Fall apart" as in failure to answer specific questions.

Why have you, with your extensive knowledge and play of PD, not addressed the issue of Pre and Post 2006 fairway widths ?

In what year did you first play PD ?

I used to wonder how the crew of the Titanic felt as they drowned.

Cold

But don't ever kid yourself or anyone else into thinking that you're mentally tougher, on and off the golf course.

Forgot to ask, what's your handicap ?

Yes - I do believe 30 yards would be wide enough.  

Every fairway at Prairie Dunes is wider than that, but I don't see any reason to narrow them further.

So, according to you, who's played Prairie Dunes over 200 times, every fairway at Prairie Dunes is wider than 30 yards.
How do you account for the following fairway widths, some of which are narrower than 30 yards ?
1.  37
3.  35
5 - 37
6 - 35
7 - 37 (narrows to 29 at bunker)
8 - 31
9 - 37

11 - 34
12 - 30
13 - 29
14 - 34
16 - 30
17 - 29
18 - 30

I thought you said that you had played the course over 200 times ?
That's right, you said that you had "gone around" the course over 200 times, and I asked you to clarify the "gone around" versus "played" for us.  

As it is set up now, there is plenty of room to drive the ball and the angles are there.

Really ?

Perhaps your eye is faulty when it comes to assessing the fairway width measurements.
Here they are again.
1.  37
3.  35
5 - 37
6 - 35
7 - 37 (narrows to 29 at bunker)
8 - 31
9 - 37

11 - 34
12 - 30
13 - 29
14 - 34
16 - 30
17 - 29
18 - 30

Tell us where there's plenty of room on these fairways, NOT one of which comes close to your 45 and 40 yard assessment ?

I also asked you to tell us how many times you've played Prairie Dunes in 2014 since you claimed that you had played it more this year than I had in my lifetime.

Why have you failed to answer that simple question, especially given the weather this Winter and Spring.
So, how many times have you played Prairie Dunes in 2014 ?

I also asked you what your handicap is.
Now that's such a simple question, one that can be answered with one or two digits.
But, you failed to answer that as well.

WHY ?  

Do you feel that Pine Tree is too narrow from the tee?  

Feel free to initiate a thread on that subject and I'll respond

How about Garden City?

See my answer above

When is the last time that you played Prairie Dunes?  
With your current handicap we could have a good match.  
I'm sure a man as mentally tough as you are doesn't give strokes.

Not surprisingly, you're confusing mental toughness with stupidity.  

I do worry that you couldn't keep up.  

I'd likely be waving while heading down the third fairway as you continue to search for a place where you could step off the fairway width of the first in 30 paces.

In some cases I wouldn't get to 30 paces.
In others I'd just reach 30 paces.
But, one things for sure, I won't reach 45 and 40 paces as you claimed as measured by your "eye"
1.  37
3.  35
5 - 37
6 - 35
7 - 37 (narrows to 29 at bunker)
8 - 31
9 - 37

11 - 34
12 - 30
13 - 29
14 - 34
16 - 30
17 - 29
18 - 30

Pat,

I'm not going to waiver on my statement that there are no DZ's at Prairie Dunes <30 yards.  I over estimated on the high end.  The wider fairways are likely closer to 40 yards.  I believe this range provides more than enough width to play the course comfortably - especially given the modern ball that others have reminded you of.  This is bolstered by the fact that driver is only my club of choice on half of the par 4's/5's.  I do not believe that a return to any previous fairways widths are needed at this time.  I did not play the course in the 1980's like you did, but I'm confident that the current version is superior to what was there then.  All of the architectural changes have been for the better IMO - and I guess you'll have to trust me on that as it seems you haven't played them.

Those other courses, which you cite tirelessly, are examples of places that I've played that do have fairways narrower than 30 yards.  I wouldn't consider them narrow, but you might.

I'm a 6 handicap and have played Prairie Dunes 12 times this year.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

I'm not going to waiver on my statement that there are no DZ's at Prairie Dunes <30 yards.  I over estimated on the high end.  

Kyle,

Understood,

It happens, almost all of us make errors.

The wider fairways are likely closer to 40 yards.  
I believe this range provides more than enough width to play the course comfortably - especially given the modern ball that others have reminded you of.  

But, you have to add in three other factors.
The increased distance the modern ball goes and the resultant influence on accuracy, especially with fairways that deviate from a direct linear path.
You also have to account for the wind, which can be a significant factor at PD
And, you have to consider the dire consequences for an errant tee shot.

If the gunsch wasn't there I'd have less of a problem with the narrowing that's taken place over the last decade or so.

30-40 yards isn't wide.

Tom Doak stated that anything under 35 yards is narrow, with the caveat relating to dire consequences.
I would wholeheartedly agree with him, although Scott Warren would stridently argue otherwise.

This is bolstered by the fact that driver is only my club of choice on half of the par 4's/5's.  
I do not believe that a return to any previous fairways widths are needed at this time.

Your perspective is that of a good golfer, a 6 handicap, what about the 12, 18, 24 and higher handicaps ?
You can't ignore them.

Do you feel that # 17 has more than adequate width for them ?

I did not play the course in the 1980's like you did, but I'm confident that the current version is superior to what was there then.

I would argue to the contrary.
Width is "THE" critical factor to enjoyment by the broad spectrum of golfer.
If you "prefer" the current version, why not narrow it further, or, do you feel that the current version represents the ideal width for "EVERY level of golfer ?

All of the architectural changes have been for the better IMO - and I guess you'll have to trust me on that as it seems you haven't played them.

That may be true, but, are those architectural changes for the better for the broad spectrum of golfer and not just yourself and your game.
What about the 12, 18, 24 and higher handicap ?
How can narrowed fairways on that golf course be in their best interest, architecturally ?

Those other courses, which you cite tirelessly, are examples of places that I've played that do have fairways narrower than 30 yards.  I wouldn't consider them narrow, but you might.

Kyle, U.S. Open widths, for the best golfers on the planet are 24-26 yards wide and they don't have gunsch flanking those fairways.
How can a fairway barely 4 yards wider than a U.S. Open fairway be appropriate for a 12, 18, 24 and higher handicap ?
You're viewing the issue solely from your game's standpoint

I'm a 6 handicap and have played Prairie Dunes 12 times this year.

View the issue of fairway width from the eyes of the 12, 18, 24 and higher handicap, not just yours.

You got me on the number

[Michael Felton]

Pat,

I'm not going to waiver on my statement that there are no DZ's at Prairie Dunes <30 yards.  I over estimated on the high end.  

Kyle,

Understood,

It happens, almost all of us make errors.

The wider fairways are likely closer to 40 yards.  
I believe this range provides more than enough width to play the course comfortably - especially given the modern ball that others have reminded you of.  

But, you have to add in three other factors.
The increased distance the modern ball goes and the resultant influence on accuracy, especially with fairways that deviate from a direct linear path.
You also have to account for the wind, which can be a significant factor at PD
And, you have to consider the dire consequences for an errant tee shot.

If the gunsch wasn't there I'd have less of a problem with the narrowing that's taken place over the last decade or so.

30-40 yards isn't wide.

Tom Doak stated that anything under 35 yards is narrow, with the caveat relating to dire consequences.
I would wholeheartedly agree with him, although Scott Warren would stridently argue otherwise.

This is bolstered by the fact that driver is only my club of choice on half of the par 4's/5's.  
I do not believe that a return to any previous fairways widths are needed at this time.

Your perspective is that of a good golfer, a 6 handicap, what about the 12, 18, 24 and higher handicaps ?
You can't ignore them.

Do you feel that # 17 has more than adequate width for them ?

I did not play the course in the 1980's like you did, but I'm confident that the current version is superior to what was there then.

I would argue to the contrary.
Width is "THE" critical factor to enjoyment by the broad spectrum of golfer.
If you "prefer" the current version, why not narrow it further, or, do you feel that the current version represents the ideal width for "EVERY level of golfer ?

All of the architectural changes have been for the better IMO - and I guess you'll have to trust me on that as it seems you haven't played them.

That may be true, but, are those architectural changes for the better for the broad spectrum of golfer and not just yourself and your game.
What about the 12, 18, 24 and higher handicap ?
How can narrowed fairways on that golf course be in their best interest, architecturally ?

Those other courses, which you cite tirelessly, are examples of places that I've played that do have fairways narrower than 30 yards.  I wouldn't consider them narrow, but you might.

Kyle, U.S. Open widths, for the best golfers on the planet are 24-26 yards wide and they don't have gunsch flanking those fairways.
How can a fairway barely 4 yards wider than a U.S. Open fairway be appropriate for a 12, 18, 24 and higher handicap ?
You're viewing the issue solely from your game's standpoint

I'm a 6 handicap and have played Prairie Dunes 12 times this year.

View the issue of fairway width from the eyes of the 12, 18, 24 and higher handicap, not just yours.

You got me on the number

Pat,

While I am somewhat reticent to join in with this, can I just ask one thing. You talk about the width of the fairways as too narrow and talk about the penalty for missing and then talk about the gunch. From what I saw (I haven't played it) of the course in the NCAA it looked like there was a long way from the edge of the fairway to the gunch. To that end, a question for you.

If the course played exactly as it is right now on one day and the next, they cut the fairways to 45 yards wide - all of them, but left the gunch in exactly the same place, would you still be talking about a lack of width? The gunch hasn't moved, which seems to be your biggest issue. The fairways are wider, but the effective playing width from gunch to gunch would be unchanged. I wonder if that might help to reconcile the two differing opinions here. Some people say that it plays plenty wide because if you miss the fairway by a few yards, the penalty is small. Others say that it's narrow because the fairways are narrow. Those two things are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

[Ken Moum]

One thing they have done on a fee how's, notably the sixth is push the bunch back in places where common misses go.

When played there two years ago I pulled my tee shot at six and I thought I had to reload. My host said, "That should be fine, there's plenty of room behind the bunker."

He was right, and several of the NCAA competitors were saved by it as well. Now, it's rough, but from that short distance it wasn't a huge problem.

[Patrick_Mucci]

[
Pat,

While I am somewhat reticent to join in with this, can I just ask one thing. You talk about the width of the fairways as too narrow and talk about the penalty for missing and then talk about the gunch. From what I saw (I haven't played it) of the course in the NCAA it looked like there was a long way from the edge of the fairway to the gunch. To that end, a question for you.

I'd say that there's an adequate strip of rough between fairway and gunsch

If the course played exactly as it is right now on one day and the next, they cut the fairways to 45 yards wide - all of them, but left the gunch in exactly the same place, would you still be talking about a lack of width?

No, but that wasn't the issue I raised.

The issue I raised was the difference in fairway width prior to the narrowing of the fairways for USGA events versus the current width.

The gunch hasn't moved, which seems to be your biggest issue.

It is NOT my biggest issue.
The severity of the gunsch is a collateral issue

The fairways are wider, but the effective playing width from gunch to gunch would be unchanged.

I'm aware of that

I wonder if that might help to reconcile the two differing opinions here.
Some people say that it plays plenty wide because if you miss the fairway by a few yards, the penalty is small.

Some people have also altered their perception of what the fairway widths are.
The issue isn't about missing the fairways by "a few yards"
It's about giving the golfer a reasonable target in the DZ given the incredibly unforgiving gunsch that's clearly within range.

Just so you know, in your example of the gunsch to gunsch distance of 45 yards, that's only 22.5 yards off center, not a lot of leeway if you fade or draw the ball and start it to one side of the centerline.

Others say that it's narrow because the fairways are narrow.

According to Tom Doak, fairway widths under 35 yards are narrow.
When you factor in the winds at PD it makes those fairways play even narrower
 

Those two things are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

I believe they are, especially on a windy site with dire consequences at the flanks

[Michael Felton]

Pat,

Fair point on the narrowing for USGA events. I don't know about that.

My example wasn't of gunch to gunch distances of 45 yards, it was of fairway widths of 45 yards. Gunch to gunch would be a further 10 to 15 yards on either side.

To explain my final point somewhat, Let's imagine that they cut the fairways out to a blanket 45 yards wide. Let's also imagine that they allowed the gunch to grow in so it was only a couple of yards off that fairway. You might say those fairways are wide because they're at 45 yards, but someone playing the course might feel a whole lot more constrained and say that it feels narrow. Conversely, suppose they narrowed all the fairways down to 20 yards, but cut back the gunch so that it's further away from play than it is now. Those fairways would be extremely narrow, but to the player on the course, it might feel wider than before because the serious trouble is further away. My impression of width on a golf course isn't how wide the fairway is. It's how wide the area where I can still play a decent follow up shot is. That's where the feeling of width (for some people at least) comes from.

I think that's why some people are saying it feels wide and some people are saying how can it feel wide when the fairways are less than 30 yards wide.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Michael,

I understand what you're trying to say but don't agree.

20 yard wide fairways are incredibly narrow irrespective of the fact that there would be no flanking features.

You're failing to recognize the influence that being in the rough has on scoring, and are focused on the gunsch as the sole scoring impediment.

GCGC has very wide fairways, typically flanked with a first cut of healthy rough with that in turn flanked by really tall, thick fescue that is very penal.

[Michael Felton]

Michael,

I understand what you're trying to say but don't agree.

20 yard wide fairways are incredibly narrow irrespective of the fact that there would be no flanking features.

You're failing to recognize the influence that being in the rough has on scoring, and are focused on the gunsch as the sole scoring impediment.

GCGC has very wide fairways, typically flanked with a first cut of healthy rough with that in turn flanked by really tall, thick fescue that is very penal.

Logically you're right and I suspect that's true for a lot of people. But people are weird (as I'm sure you'll agree) and feelings don't necessarily follow logic. In my head, narrow fairways with a wide swathe of playable rough around them feels wider than wide fairways flanked by water, trees or out of bounds (or gunch, which may as well be out of bounds).

For the pros, roughly speaking (ha) playing from the rough adds about a quarter of a stroke versus playing from the fairway. Given my game and the rough being fairly light, I suspect the difference is around that for me too. OOB adds 2 strokes and water adds at least 1. Given also my propensity to be a little wild at times, my scores will be better on a course where a bad shot costs me a quarter of a stroke than on a course where a bad shot costs me 1 to 2 strokes.

If the rough is heavy, my scoring may be worse, but it still *feels* wider. I know it's not rational, but that's how it is.

Examples:

This:



is a hole with a wide fairway that feels narrow.

On the other hand this:



is a hole with a narrow fairway that feels wide. Probably not in US Open conditions, but for general play I stand on the first tee on Black and I don't feel constricted, even with the trees on the right.

I get that it doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but it's a feeling. I'm not sure it's supposed to.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()