[Paul Gray]

Sean

As for traditional links, I don't think 25/35 yard wide fairways with 5/10 yards of semi on either side is too narrow. Particularly if you are hittng the fairway at an angle but each to their own.


Niall

Hmm, good luck picking out the left quarter of that 25 yard wide fairway in the middle of a particularly hot August with a five club cross wind. Strategic golf can take a seat until late September then.

[Niall C]

...........and whats wrong with the semi ? If you read Tom D's recollection of Pete Dyes idea that semi rough maybe better to hit from for mid to high handicappers then you are looking at a playing corridor of c.50 yards at least. Do you think thats impossible to hit with a 5 club crosswind ? I'd have thought not.


Anyway, how "strategic" are you trying to be in a 5 club crosswind ? I'd have thought you would have been concentrating in keeping the ball in play. Having to knuckle down at times is in the nature of links golf and also part of its great appeal.


Niall

[Sean_A]

I wish clubs would keep very playable rough as part of a playable fairway corridor.  I think my issue with the concept of a "playable corridor" is there is always the chance (and a good one I would argue) that the light rough will become heavy rough.  All it takes is a wet spring/summer or two or some "important event", or a new super or a budget cut and that playable corridor is now full of lush guntsch unless the club really stays on top of it....many do not. The end result is narrow  (yes, 25 or 30 yards is a narrow) fairways bordered by hope to find it and hack it out rough.  To me its much safer to keep fairways wider and worry less about the seasonal, budget, tournament or difference of opinion issues with rough. 


Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

A 5-club wind! Difficult enough to control a carry bag yet alone the golf ball and as to a 5-club wind with rain, that would be Mary Poppins time!
Atb

[Niall C]

Thomas


You could well be right. But thats the joy of links is it not ? 


Sean


Let me suggest that if a club isn't willing, usually for monetary reasons, to maintain an area of semi rough they are then hardly likely to maintain it as fairway. And if you are talking about a traditional style links then the semi isn't going to get lush unless there are areas of heavy soils.


One thing that you touch on, which I agree with, is what borders the playing corridor makes a difference. If it is bordered by a solid flank of gorse then clearly that is going to make a big difference in the fear factor alone. I think the key here is variety and while I don't think anything wrong with a 50 yard playing corridor (or even less on occasion) I wouldn't advocate a uniform approach. Same with what borders the playing corridor.


I also think there are other ways of effectively providing width, one being offsetting the tees such that you are hitting the fairway at an angle. That's a great way of making the golfer think about line and length if they are wanting to go for the tiger line while also offering the opportunity of an easier option if they wish.


Niall 

[Paul Gray]

A 5-club wind! Difficult enough to control a carry bag yet alone the golf ball and as to a 5-club wind with rain, that would be Mary Poppins time!
Atb

Wimp!   
 
5 club wind is just a gentle breeze down here!

[Paul Gray]

Niall,
 
I wouldn't disagree with you about short rough. I do however share Sean's concerns about short rough becoming big rough. Also, I'd prefer to see the ball run at full tilt, good or bad. Short rough, in that sense, is no different to turning the sprinklers on.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Couple of comments:
 
1. I don't really like semi-rough on links golf courses. It is more a parkland invention.
2. I do like when the first 10 -15 yards of rough is long wispy fescue with all the broad-leaved green grasses managed underneath. In other words very ball findable and playable.
 
If the second option is implemented, I'm OK with 30 to 35 yard wide fairways. BUT the second option costs a lot of money and expertise hence quite often low budget clubs can't manage it as well. And there is always the risk of a wet spell scuppering even the best laid plans.

[Thomas Dai]

A 5-club wind! Difficult enough to control a carry bag yet alone the golf ball and as to a 5-club wind with rain, that would be Mary Poppins time!
Atb

Wimp!   
5 club wind is just a gentle breeze down here!

Tongue-in-cheek chaps!


Another aspect worth mentioning - how temperature when combined with wind effects the flight and performance of the golf ball. [size=78%]Also, how sea-spray, even mild sea-spray, can reduce both the distance and the height a golf ball will fly (it's not nice to play in when you wear glasses either).[/size]


Atb

[Niall C]

Ally


I also like when it is like your option 2 although is that not really semi compared to the real untamed stuff ? Gailes has that at the moment and Moray Old had it earlier in the season when I played there prior to the Moray Open, and both look and play great. However I don't agree these areas are easy to play out of. There is definitely added difficulty in making sure the longer fescue doesn't get wrapped round your club resulting in a miscue. Contrast that with maintained semi minus the strands of fescue which allows you to get a flyer. So what if it isn't a penalty. To me its just another texture.


I think also that the semi on the less manicured links is a great transition into the untamed stuff. It should also be said that it helps stop balls going into the bundi, maybe not as absolutely as suggested by Paul in his post but it effectively "widens" the playing corridor IMO.


Niall 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sean,


I agree, benign rough, not lush, high rough should be the standard on courses subject to meaningful winds.

[Sean_A]

Thomas


You could well be right. But thats the joy of links is it not ? 


Sean


Let me suggest that if a club isn't willing, usually for monetary reasons, to maintain an area of semi rough they are then hardly likely to maintain it as fairway. And if you are talking about a traditional style links then the semi isn't going to get lush unless there are areas of heavy soils.


One thing that you touch on, which I agree with, is what borders the playing corridor makes a difference. If it is bordered by a solid flank of gorse then clearly that is going to make a big difference in the fear factor alone. I think the key here is variety and while I don't think anything wrong with a 50 yard playing corridor (or even less on occasion) I wouldn't advocate a uniform approach. Same with what borders the playing corridor.


I also think there are other ways of effectively providing width, one being offsetting the tees such that you are hitting the fairway at an angle. That's a great way of making the golfer think about line and length if they are wanting to go for the tiger line while also offering the opportunity of an easier option if they wish.


Niall

Niall


Your comment about offering different angles off the tee is interesting and one I am very much in favour of. However, I fail to see how different angles creates width of fairway.  In fact, spread out angles can create more narrow fairways because one is hitting perpindicularish to the fairway (isn't that on of the points of wide teeing areas...to create more discerning drive lines?).  We have a great example at Burnham...the 3rd.  The fairway runs across the line from the tee making the landing zone very narrow (the fairway is narrow anyway).  It works because the rough is benign. Its hard to imagine the 30 yard wide fairway being anywhere near appropriate if the rough was similar to other spots on the course. Even so, this is a case where at least out to the right (the hole doglegs left) there should be a much larger area of fairway to offer a comfortable bailing area.  Its the rabbit's way to play the hole, but sometimes with a ferocious wind I would go that way to avoid having to take th risk in hitting over rough ground for the best position. 


Bottom line, if more angles are present, the chances are more width is needed. Otherwise, golfers may be ignoring the hole and playing where there is least amount of rough.  This was exactly the case I had at Muirfield.  In windy weather I found out the course doesn't stand up very well. This is why  don't rate nearly as highly as some do. 


BTW - clubs often waste money watering and feeding rough (often by accident or as bi product of tending fairways and greens).  Links are full of areas of lush rough...your beloved Silloth is a prime example.  The rough is shocking.


Ciao

[Niall C]

Sean


Re width created by offset tee. If you take extreme examples like the 8th and 17th at Dornoch (ignoring the fact that the top half of the hole in both instances is fairway) and consider the angle that you land on the bottom fairway and the effective width of the landing area from direction of the tee shot compared to the width of the bottom fairway(s) when measured perpendicular to the line of play for the second then hopefully you see my point.


The 7th at Silloth is an even better example. If you were to play that hole from the old winter tee behind the 6th green ie. straight up the fairway, the width of the playing corridor would be say 50 yards. From the normal tees however and because you are hitting the fairway at an angle, the landing area has become 70/80 yards wide albeit there is a carry. That carry varies from long if taking on the most advantageous line to relatively short if taking a safer line. Of course if you play too safe you are in danger of going through the fairway.


Not to labour the point but a perfect example of how top players are clued into this is at Gailes where the 4th and 5th run parallel. In the top amateur event run at Gailes every year the regular guys drive onto the 5th fairway from the 4th tee as the effective landing area is greater than when playing straight up the 4th.


Niall   

[Sean_A]

Niall


The 8th and 17th of Dornoch have narrowed fairways because of the turn of the dogleg...golfers can run out of room (escpecially on 17) if they hit straight down the middle. To effectively widen the fairway one must lay-up before the drop and turn of the fairway.  So no, I don't understand your point. 


Ciao

[Niall C]

OK forget the Dornoch examples, just get a pencil and paper out and draw a straight golf hole with straight parallel fairway edges and measure the width of the fairway. The tee should be set in the middle. Then draw a straight line a set distance from the tee up the middle of the fairway. Lets call this line A-B with A being the tee and B being where the tee shot finished. Then using a protractor or some other device, using point B as the base, draw another line the same distance as AB but at a 45 degree angle. Lets call this line BC with C representing the new offset tee.


Now once you've done this, measure the width at point B where the width is measured perpendicular to line BC. Compare the two different widths and you will see that the width created by line BC (offset tee) is greater than line AB (original tee). Admittedly 45 degrees is probably extreme but the same principle holds for say 15 degrees.


Niall 

[Niall C]

BTW - clubs often waste money watering and feeding rough (often by accident or as bi product of tending fairways and greens).  Links are full of areas of lush rough...your beloved Silloth is a prime example.  The rough is shocking.

Ciao

Sean


In all the years I've been playing at Silloth the greenest I ever saw it was when they played the BUDA there. Don't know what it was like when you played there but let me make a distinction between lush and untamed. Silloth has plenty of untamed areas where heather blends into longish grass or gorse etc. I'm no agronomist so hesitate to identify what kind of grass types they have there but I can think of only very few spots on the course where there is what you would term lush broad leaf grasses that any farmer would be delighted to have. Generally the weather and footfall do a pretty good job of beating down the other areas.


Niall 

[Kalen Braley]

Pat,
 
I'm not so sure.  I can think of thousands of fans in every city across America who would be thrilled to death and pay big money to play a football game where the Patriots play.  Or to lace em up and play a full game of hoops in MSG with scoreboard and all. Or play a game of baseball in PacBell park in San Fran.
 
All of those venues are just as much "holy places" to them as places like Cypress or Pine Valley is to us GCA nerds....

[Rich Goodale]

To me, the greatest appeal is the lack of trees.  Tress are not necessary for golf, in fact they are detrimental to golf.  There is no more need for trees on golf courses than there is for baseball diamonds or rugby pitches or cricket grounds or football stadia.

End of rant.

[JJShanley]

I realized recently that I enjoy links golf for the same reason that I enjoyed watching the Barcelona team around 2011.  Running the football or golf ball along the ground is far more entertaining that just pumping it up in the air.

[Kalen Braley]

To me, the greatest appeal is the lack of trees.  Tress are not necessary for golf, in fact they are detrimental to golf.  There is no more need for trees on golf courses than there is for baseball diamonds or rugby pitches or cricket grounds or football stadia.

End of rant.

Rich,
 
I don't think its a one size fits all. Living on the west coast I've had the opportunity to play several courses that are routed thru pre-existing naturally occurring forest.  Think areas like the Pacific Northwest. To chop all the trees down on a property like that would look more odd and out of place than just removing the ones in the playing corridors.
 
That being said, I'm not a fan of adding trees to a course where they weren't previously existing....

[Garland Bayley]

Is Castle Stuart a links? I thought it was built on farmers fields.

This would be the first I have heard of it being built on farmers fields. According to Ran's piece on it, "the sandy soil was ideal for golf as it was neither too fine nor too uniform. It would allow water to drain at a rate satisfactory for the growth of straight fescue."

The Castle Course at St. Andrews was built on farmers fields.

[Niall C]

Mark/Brian,


From what I understand the top level was a field although not sure if it was arable or pasture. The bottom level was probably scrub I would imagine, similar to the adjoining area to the east. I imagine the soil underneath isn't that heavy but the site has been sand capped throughout from a seam of sand they found on site. Basically the big hole in front of the 13th tee if I remember correctly.


You can argue the toss whether that makes it a links but I'd contend that it certainly plays like one in terms of the ground conditions, even if the design isn't what I would call traditional.


Niall

Garland

See my earlier response to Mark (and Brian). Castle Stuart is definitely sand capped.

Niall

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()