[Patrick_Mucci]

Michael,

I think certain courses and certain holes fit, and don't fit, the golfer's eye.

What may look wide to one golfer looks narrower to others and vice versa.

If one's object is to get from the tee and hole out in the fewest strokes possible, fairway width, in the absolute, is a critical factor, if not "the" critical factor.

Flanking features are a factor, but diminish in significance as the fairway widens

[William_G]

Michael,

You've raised some excellent points, thank you for your thoughtful approach, it is refreshing and not boring.

Importantly is that at PD, where all the top amateurs played a week ago, none thought the course was narrow, nor the fairways too narrow.

Feeling the effective playing width as generous on a golf course is what it's all about, as golf is a game of confidence, which is mostly a subjective feeling and unquantifiable. Yet some claim specific features may favor one player over another as stroke play has invaded many golfers preferred approach to the game.

C'est la vie

No doubt, at PD the lushness of the turf also gives confidence.

 

[Patrick_Mucci]

William G,

Did you take a survey or conduct a poll ?

How were the questions about "fairway width" phrased ?

Of the entire field that you questioned, not one player felt that some of the holes were narrow ? ?  ?

Tom Doak defined narrow fairways as those less than 35 yards wide.

What's your definition ?

[BCowan]

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.

+1 Agree with you completely.  As it pertains to PD, it isn't whether or not the fairways are 34 yards or 40 yards that is going to bother me mentally off the tee, it is the gunch!  Which imho they should burn and thinly plant fescue.   

[Brent Hutto]

This is far too simplistic a formulation but one might think of a good player as being concerned about width of the area in which he has a good lie while a poor player is concerned about width of the area in which he can find his ball and play it.

In reality both good and poor players are concerned with both aspects of "width" but I think the weighting they give the two factors differ greatly according to playing ability/handicap/etc.

[Jud_T]

This is far too simplistic a formulation but one might think of a good player as being concerned about width of the area in which he has a good lie while a poor player is concerned about width of the area in which he can find his ball and play it.

Brent,

This is a good point.  I'd say this extends to wide fairways where there are areas where the ball may be significantly above or below one's feet vs. having a relatively flat lie even though both are within a wide mown fairway.

[Scott Warren]

As it pertains to PD, it isn't whether or not the fairways are 34 yards or 40 yards that is going to bother me mentally off the tee, it is the gunch!  Which imho they should burn and thinly plant fescue.  

Did the gunch really give you that much heartache when you played PD that you'd want to remove it entirely and lose it from the course's character?

[Bill Vogeney]

There are some old pictures of Prairie Dunes, I'm guessing from the 70s and 80s, that are on display in the Men's Card Room. Too bad I won't be back until early September, but if no one else is going to be there, I'll take some quick shots to do a comparison.

For one, the difference I see is just the general length of the gunch. It looks as though back in the day they did a better job of mowing it down. Looks more like 6-12 inches in most spots instead of the current 3 ft+.

The one hole where the landing area is narrower now than back then is #13, the dogleg left. Back in these old phots, the second cut of the fairway extends about 20 feet left of the bunker at the corner in these old pictures. Now anything short of flying the bunker, if it's not in the bunker, is major gunch.

Arguably, doing anything to the gunch would be a mistake. It's what was there naturally. The turf team will do seasonal burns to thin out some of the non-native grasses, but that's it. There was discussion of cutting down of some of the gunch this springs prior to the NCAAs, but I think the NCAA staff and The Golf Channel responded "let it alone, let it grow!"

Back to Pat's point on fairway width, typically the second cut of rough is not a problem at Prairie Dunes. They fertilized the roughs this year to get it thick for the tournament, but typically it's not very penal. I don't believe the local members at PD are prone to be masochistic, so I don't think they look at the gunch or the second cut as being punishment. I think it's a tradition thing. One last thing, the fairways are perfect at Prairie Dunes. The rough tends to be shorter but inconsistent. You'll get the ball settle into a little depression that seems to be a result of the inconsistency of the smoothness of the underlying dirt. I doubt you'd see that a couple of yards off today's fairways if the fairways were at one time considerably wider. Does that make sense how I'm describing it?

Pat, certainly do not want to argue with you, and I don't think I am. Just trying to add a little to this discussion. It should be evident that I love the place. If I could only play one golf course the rest of my life, I'm not sure I would pick somewhere other than Prairie Dunes regardless of my budget.

[Jud_T]

The place looks awesome but the course presentation makes me not really want to make the 11 hour drive.

[Scott Warren]

Pat, certainly do not want to argue with you, and I don't think I am. Just trying to add a little to this discussion.

Bill, far be it for a member of PD to disagree with someone who was last there when Reagan was President!

[Ken Moum]

The place looks awesome but the course presentation makes me not really want to make the 11 hour drive.

I only live about 3 hours away and that's how I felt after walking it during the Women's Open.

Then a couple years ago I got a chance to play it with GCAer, and I jumped at the chance. Mostly because by then I had learned enough about architecture to think that my assessment was unfair. And, by then I'd made my first trip to Scotland so I had a better idea of what I liked in courses "like" PD.  (I know it's actually unique place, but work with me.)

On second look, with a golf club in my hands, I started to get a handle on why it's so revered. But as a sixty-something 12+ index it really was more course than I can handle. I felt the same way about Royal Dornoch having been beaten into submission by it in 2006.

But here's the deal.  It's now 2014 and things have changed I played Dornoch again last summer with a member, and while it's still darned hard, I understand how I'd have to play to get around it.

Finally just this month I got the kind of look at Prairie Dunes I needed, which, combined with several discussions with members and I realized that I could get around it. In fact, I am really looking forward to another chance to play.

For a single-play experience, the trouble with this kind of course is that you can never quickly figure out what to do, especially after a por shot. But walking on the fairways with the college players gave me time to work a lot of those questions.  More importantly, perhaps, feedback from those members made me realize they played without the misplaced ego we often have.

The eighth is the best example. I made the mistake of thinking that even without a good tee shot, being able to see the green obligated me to try get on in two. In reality there's perfect spot to lay up below the green that I only noticed standing there waiting for someone to hit.

When I mentioned it to single-digit member, he smiled and said "I've made a lot of fours from there." Its not unlike the second at Dornoch where even good players lay up to ensure their bogey.

Ken

[Steve Burrows]

Pat, certainly do not want to argue with you, and I don't think I am. Just trying to add a little to this discussion.

Bill, far be it for a member of PD to disagree with someone who was last there when Reagan was President!

Scott,

You must have forgotten that, according to Reply #64 on this very thread, the membership at PD are "not independent observers, they're inherently biased and isolated" and more importantly, they are part of a "misguided culture."  Surely a current member of the club cannot be trusted for information.

[Bill Vogeney]

The place looks awesome but the course presentation makes me not really want to make the 11 hour drive.

I only live about 3 hours away and that's how I felt after walking it during the Women's Open.

Then a couple years ago I got a chance to play it with GCAer, and I jumped at the chance. Mostly because by then I had learned enough about architecture to think that my assessment was unfair. And, by then I'd made my first trip to Scotland so I had a better idea of what I liked in courses "like" PD.  (I know it's actually unique place, but work with me.)

On second look, with a golf club in my hands, I started to get a handle on why it's so revered. But as a sixty-something 12+ index it really was more course than I can handle. I felt the same way about Royal Dornoch having been beaten into submission by it in 2006.

But here's the deal.  It's now 2014 and things have changed I played Dornoch again last summer with a member, and while it's still darned hard, I understand how I'd have to play to get around it.

Finally just this month I got the kind of look at Prairie Dunes I needed, which, combined with several discussions with members and I realized that I could get around it. In fact, I am really looking forward to another chance to play.

For a single-play experience, the trouble with this kind of course is that you can never quickly figure out what to do, especially after a por shot. But walking on the fairways with the college players gave me time to work a lot of those questions.  More importantly, perhaps, feedback from those members made me realize they played without the misplaced ego we often have.

The eighth is the best example. I made the mistake of thinking that even without a good tee shot, being able to see the green obligated me to try get on in two. In reality there's perfect spot to lay up below the green that I only noticed standing there waiting for someone to hit.

When I mentioned it to single-digit member, he smiled and said "I've made a lot of fours from there." Its not unlike the second at Dornoch where even good players lay up to ensure their bogey.

Ken

Ken, great point on 8. MacKenzie believed par should be difficult to attain, but bogey relatively easy. Unless I have a perfectly flat lie on the left side with a 4 hybrid or less, or no more than a 6 iron from a side hill lie, I will layup there. Trying to force a 4 will often lead to 6 or 7. Genius

[Patrick_Mucci]

Scott,

You must have forgotten that, according to Reply #64 on this very thread, the membership at PD are "not independent observers, they're inherently biased and isolated" and more importantly, they are part of a "misguided culture."  

That's correct.
We saw the same thing at Merion and other courses.

Surely a current member of the club cannot be trusted for information. [

That's your opinion, not mine

[Patrick_Mucci]

A friend measured some fairways at GCGC recently.

A number of them were approximately 50 yards wide.

GCGC usually gets a nice breeze, but not the wind one experiences at other courses.

What's comical about the posts by the morons on this site is the outrage they expressed when ANGC narrowed their fairways, which remain very, very wide, yet they defend and champion the narrowing and narrow fairways at Prairie Dunes, where the fairways are narrower than ANGC.

I guess that's what MFNS does to morons, but, the morons can't have it both ways.

[BCowan]

A friend measured some fairways at GCGC recently.
With a Laser?  His paces could be long or short...
A number of them were approximately 50 yards wide.
approximate doesn't cut, we want exact.
GCGC usually gets a nice breeze, but not the wind one experiences at other courses.

What's comical about the posts by the morons on this site is the outrage they expressed when ANGC narrowed their fairways, which remain very, very wide, yet they defend and champion the narrowing and narrow fairways at Prairie Dunes, where the fairways are narrower than ANGC.That is the view of a Supreme Moron, ANGC has neighboring holes and there is no gunch.  I would want increased rough to stop an errant shot from going into the gunch at PD, any Moron could get that. .  Also ANGC introduced trees as a means to reduce fairway width/corridors. 

I guess that's what MFNS does to morons, but, the morons can't have it both ways.
You need some MIT time.

[Terry Lavin]

BCowan,

In your experience, which fairways are narrowest at PD?  Where does the gunsch create the biggest problem off the tee?  How many fairways do you tend to hit at PD? 

[BCowan]

I don't hit many fairways to begin with and I'm very inexperienced.

[Patrick_Mucci]

A friend measured some fairways at GCGC recently.

With a Laser?  His paces could be long or short...

Both

A number of them were approximately 50 yards wide.

approximate doesn't cut, we want exact.

Some were a little more than 50, some a little less, hence the collectivization and use of the word "approximate"
If you want exact per hole, you'll have to do it yourself

GCGC usually gets a nice breeze, but not the wind one experiences at other courses.

What's comical about the posts by the morons on this site is the outrage they expressed when ANGC narrowed their fairways, which remain very, very wide, yet they defend and champion the narrowing and narrow fairways at Prairie Dunes, where the fairways are narrower than ANGC.

That is the view of a Supreme Moron, ANGC has neighboring holes and there is no gunch. 

This may come as a surprise to you but PD has neighboring holes as well.
What do you call that stuff to the left of #'s 2, 10, 11, 13 and to the right of #'s 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

I would want increased rough to stop an errant shot from going into the gunch at PD, any Moron could get that. . 

What anyone with a brain understands is that when you narrow a fairway you introduce rough closer to the centerline, not at periphery.
Tell us that you understand that

Also ANGC introduced trees as a means to reduce fairway width/corridors. 

Other than 11 and 7, where did they do that ?
ANGC had trees before it was a golf course and when it first opened

I guess that's what MFNS does to morons, but, the morons can't have it both ways.

You need some MIT time.

You've flunked Moron 101 three times, time to bring in a tutor

[Ken Moum]

BCowan,

In your experience, which fairways are narrowest at PD?  Where does the gunsch create the biggest problem off the tee?  How many fairways do you tend to hit at PD? 

I know my experience is somewhat limited, but it's pretty easy to see that #5 one of those holes.  It's long, into the wind most of the time, and the new back tee is even higher than the members tee.  In the four threesomes I walked with, only one got off there without a provisional, two of them had two provisionals IIRC.  

The group that didn't was Stanford, Alabama and Ok State on the last day of stroke play.

Nine, downhill with a very elevated tee, played in a right to left crosswind is another one.

16 and 17 both into the wind, and fairly narrow are also a problem.

I think I saw more provisionals on 5 and 16 than any other holes.

K

[William_G]

the funny thing about PD or golf courses, is that while some whip out comparisons with other noteworthy courses they play, the comparisons remind me of arguing with my wife, as they are not germane to what makes playing PD special while at the same time trying to raise the position of my otherwise beautiful and intelligent wife because of the noteworthiness of the courses.

If the wind was up at PD, we all would have seen more "stingers" off the tee, instead of the bombs those kids are hitting

[Terry Lavin]

I don't hit many fairways to begin with and I'm very inexperienced.

I'll accept your self-diagnosis, but note with plenty of examples in your many posts that you are quite willing to engage in vigorous debate about the merits and demerits of a given golf course EVEN IF YOU'VE NEVER PLAYED IT.  Reading your repeated drivel, especially in your attempts to debate experienced hands who have actually played these golf courses, reminds me of Sean Connery's character in the Untouchables, who chided Nitty for "bringing a knife to a gun fight". 

[BCowan]

I don't hit many fairways to begin with and I'm very inexperienced.

I'll accept your self-diagnosis, but note with plenty of examples in your many posts that you are quite willing to engage in vigorous debate about the merits and demerits of a given golf course EVEN IF YOU'VE NEVER PLAYED IT.  Reading your repeated drivel, especially in your attempts to debate experienced hands who have actually played these golf courses, reminds me of Sean Connery's character in the Untouchables, who chided Nitty for "bringing a knife to a gun fight". 

Having good banter with Senior Mucci is what I was attempting to do.  Have a nice day judge 

[Ken Moum]

the funny thing about PD or golf courses, is that while some whip out comparisons with other noteworthy courses they play, the comparisons remind me of arguing with my wife, as they are not germane to what makes playing PD special while at the same time trying to raise the position of my otherwise beautiful and intelligent wife because of the noteworthiness of the courses.

If the wind was up at PD, we all would have seen more "stingers" off the tee, instead of the bombs those kids are hitting

Amen.

Even with the light winds, the three guys I had on Monday, who were all potentially in contention, flighted the ball much lower than the players I had in the preceding three rounds.

Lovelady's ball flight was so nice that walking off 10 tee I asked him where he was from.  When he said Birmingham, I said, "The way you flight the ball I thought you might be from West Texas."

I'm pretty sure he took it as a compliment.

They were also the only threesome that didn't need a provisional on #5.

K

[Scott Warren]

Terry, well said - a debate on a course between one bloke who has never played it and another who last played there when Kokomo was charting is exactly what this website doesn't need!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()