What is a "reasonable" fairway width? Getting frustrated with our narrow fairways

[ChipNRun]

On 2/14/2023 at 2:22 PM, smashdn said:

An architect needs to be on his A-game to position the fairways in relation to one another and to the boundaries that maximizes the interior space while at the same time not creating a safety hazard.

 

Early golf course design developed curious holes with crossing or shared fairways, blind shots, and placing No. 3 tee 10 feet to left of No. 2 green so players wouldn't have to walk so far. In modern golf course development, all these things raise concerns over safety and legal liability.

 

This segment on Golf Course Liability gives an overview of the three main problem areas: negligence, nuisance, and trespassing.

 

Statistical analysis of golf shots has produced generally accepted guidelines of setting lateral buffers. These guidelines make it less likely that adjacent players will be hit by errant shots, in pursuit of legally defensible design.

 

Quote

"Studies suggest that in excess of ninety per cent of poorly struck shots land within 150 feet and 15 degrees either side of the intended line of play."

Bauer, J.D. 2003. Designing for golf course safety. In Paul Daley, ed., Golf Course Architecture: A Worldwide Perspective, Vol. 2, pp. 235-238. Gretna, LA: Pelican Publishing, 2003.

 

In St. Louis, the classic Art Hill hole on Forest Park GC main course disappeared during course rebuild in the early 2000s. The course had been designed by Robert Foulis, of the Foulis family that designed dozens of Midwest courses in the early 1900s.

 

To left is a rendition of the hole, from my memory of having played it dozens of times in the 1960s. The hole ran along Art Hill, capped on the left hilltop by the St. Louis Art Museum. The hole drained off to the right, running the gauntlet between hilltop picknickers and lagoon-side sunbathers. The idea was to place one's drive to maximize positive roll off the hill. A blind second shot over the northern ridge had a chance of rolling onto the green in two if the golfer was accurate - and lucky; or trickling into the trees. Through the years it was variably cast as either a par 4 or a par 5, determined in part by how much down-range manicuring the course would get that year.

 

Then came the Forest Park rebuild into the Probstein Golf Complex: Between entertaining park-goers on the hill and a blind shot into the green, legal advice said this design was too dangerous legally to remain in play.

 

Edited February 4 by ChipNRun
Spelling.

[ChrisATL]

5 minutes ago, ChipNRun said:

 

Early golf course design developed curious holes with crossing or shared fairways, blind shots, and placing No. 3 tee 10 feet to left of No. 2 green so players wouldn't have to walk so far. In modern golf course development, all these things raise concerns over safety and legal liability.

 

This segment on Golf Course Liability gives an overview of the three main problem areas: negligence, nuisance, and trespassing.

 

Statistical analysis of golf shots has produced generally accepted guidelines of setting lateral buffers. These guidelines make it less likely that adjacent players will be hit by errant shots, in pursuit of legally defensible design.

 

 

In St. Louis, the classic Art Hill hole on Forest Park GC main course disappeared during course rebuild in the early 2000s. The course had been designed by Robert Foulis, of the Foulis family that designed dozens of Midwest courses in the early 1900s.

 

To left is a rendition of the hole, from my memory of having played it dozens of times in the 1960s. The hole ran along Art Hill, capped on the left hilltop by the St. Louis Art Museum. The hole drained off to the right, running the gauntlet between hilltop picknickers and lagoon-side sunbathers. The idea was to place one's drive to maximize positive roll off the hill. A blind second shot over the northern ridge had a chance of rolling onto the green in two if the golfer was accurate - and lucky; or trickling into the trees. Through the years it was variably cast as either a par 4 or a par 5, determined in part by how much down-range manicuring the course would get that year.

 

Then came the Forest Park rebuild into the Probstein Golf Complex: Between entertaining park-goers on the hill and a blind shot into the green, legal advice said this design was too dangerous legally to remain in play.

 

Wow - this is a great example.  Thanks for sharing - I've never heard of OFP!

[RoyalMustang]

Well, as an update to the original post, I moved on from that course. Now, my current course has a few fairways that you could land a 737 on; they may be a touch too forgiving! Overall though, it's a much more fun course, so much so that several friends at the old place will come over and pay to play here rather than play at the club they are members at. The new place may be wider but it's pretty long, with several layup holes, and keeps things fair. 

 

Looking back; it wasn't the width of the fairways necessarily that bothered me: it was the steep sidehill slopes that kept balls from staying in the fairways. It was the overhanging branches into the fairways. It was the fact that balls wouldn't stop in the fairway because they look as if the course makes extra $$$ by allowing sheep to graze at night.

 

There are 3 or 4 holes there that have narrow but fair fairways. No complaints. What becomes silly is when you are playing a par 5 and think "I have to hit the drive right side into the trees: it's the only way to get the ball to stop and be playable. The fairway can't hold the ball past 240 yards as the slope is so steep R to L and there is almost no grass in said "fairway" due to poor dirt and drainage".   

[Hawkeye77]

On 1/16/2023 at 1:46 PM, sailfishchris said:

………Have you ever played 1 at the old course? I think that is perfect width! JMO.

Haha, I played it twice!  Once on the way out, and once on the way in!

[Hawkeye77]

I just Google Earth'd the two courses I grew up on.  Straightaway holes on one were 24-34 yards.  The other, a turn of the century design and wonderful track, had many 22-24 yard fairways and tree lined!  Exceptions for some doglegs and so forth, but that's pretty much what I played most of my golf on until I was out of college and never really thought about it.  I'm sure there are lots of variables and I think 22-34 yard fairways are on the lower side of the average in my experience but that's the way the course is designed - nothing really "unfair" about it, you play the course.  Having returned to each of those a couple of times a few years ago, I found myself hitting a lot of three woods in particular off the tee and . . . was rewarded!  You want to complain (I don't, lol) - the greens on one of those courses are outright tiny, it's pretty demanding even though I'd guess the average wrxer showing up at the property would think it's a cow pasture.  Just a wonderful little quiet, country 9 holer.  The other is an old time country club, 18 holes and also a wonderful and challenging course, but demands accuracy off the tee and also quite a few pretty small targets -- on some holes where you think about laying back for accuracy the greens are particularly small - diabolical!

[st1800e]

On 1/5/2023 at 9:57 PM, ChipNRun said:

Here is an insightful article from 2003 about Trees: A Going Concern.

Hi, the article appears to no longer be on that website.  If you could, and would, post a copy or if it’s published elsewhere a link? I would search the web but don’t know the title or author. 
 

Thanks.  

[RoyalMustang]

2 minutes ago, Hawkeye77 said:

I just Google Earth'd the two courses I grew up on.  Straightaway holes on one were 24-34 yards.  The other, a turn of the century design and wonderful track, had many 22-24 yard fairways and tree lined!  Exceptions for some doglegs and so forth, but that's pretty much what I played most of my golf on until I was out of college and never really thought about it.  I'm sure there are lots of variables and I think 22-34 yard fairways are on the lower side of the average in my experience but that's the way the course is designed - nothing really "unfair" about it, you play the course.  Having returned to each of those a couple of times a few years ago, I found myself hitting a lot of three woods in particular off the tee and . . . was rewarded!  You want to complain (I don't, lol) - the greens on one of those courses are outright tiny, it's pretty demanding even though I'd guess the average wrxer showing up at the property would think it's a cow pasture.  Just a wonderful little quiet, country 9 holer.  The other is an old time country club, 18 holes and also a wonderful and challenging course, but demands accuracy off the tee and also quite a few pretty small targets -- on some holes where you think about laying back for accuracy the greens are particularly small - diabolical!

 

I played Northwood here in Dallas last year: it has a lot of tight fairways and shot-making holes. I also agree: I'd love if that were my home course. It's a well designed course that hosted the US Open at one point. It is very fair and rewards good shots. 

 

Having grass (not dirt) in the fairway and relatively level fairways makes a big difference, as it turns out! 

[Hawkeye77]

2 minutes ago, RoyalMustang said:

 

I played Northwood here in Dallas last year: it has a lot of tight fairways and shot-making holes. I also agree: I'd love if that were my home course. It's a well designed course that hosted the US Open at one point. It is very fair and rewards good shots. 

 

Having grass (not dirt) in the fairway and relatively level fairways makes a big difference, as it turns out! 

 

Sounds odd but sometimes my misses are way more left and right on wide open fairways than tighter tree lined holes.  Probably lack of picking targets well and poor mental focus (and just thinking I can hit it as hard as I want, lol).

 

My current course is in the 30-45 range and that's definitely more "comfortable".

[RoyalMustang]

1 minute ago, Hawkeye77 said:

 

Sounds odd but sometimes my misses are way more left and right on wide open fairways than tighter tree lined holes.  Probably lack of picking targets well and poor mental focus (and just thinking I can hit it as hard as I want, lol).

 

My current course is in the 30-45 range and that's definitely more "comfortable".

 

Great point!

 

We have a few 75-yard wide fairways here and I'll still freaking miss the fairway. They are par 5's and I think I'm subconsciously "going for it", trying to get home in 2 from 545 yards.  But on a certain par 4, the landing zone is 250-290 and narrow for the best approach, leaving 85-120 yards; I'm almost always in the "A" position with my 3W or 3H (tailwind) on that hole. Probably because I'm not looking to hit the ball far but rather just hit a target, no differently than if I was facing a long par 3. My accuracy on a long 220 yard par 3 is never as bad proportionally as driver on a crazy wide fairway. Sure, I may miss 15 yards left of the pin on a par 3; proportionally that's a lot tighter than my big fairway miss, usually a big draw that spins out of control. 

 

Now that I think about it, It may be a good mental change I need to make.  

[MarkLP]

Don't they say the vast majority of golfers never shoot under 100. If that's the case - and courses want to make those people happy (so they come back), why can't they make them more forgiving. Here in Florida it's ridiculous because there is soooooo much water. There are courses where even if you find the middle of the fairways - they slant so badly toward the water it makes the hole impossible. There is a difference between challenging and frustrating. To me, wider fairways make the game more fun. I watch these PGA tournaments and some of the fairways are huge. And the ones that aren't, unless its the US Open, when they hit it out of bounds the ball always winds up with a perfect lie and a wide opening through the trees to the green. Most courses are not in PGA tournament condition - which is already a penalty. When the fairways are thin, greens patchy and weeds abundant - how narrow do you really want the fairways. Give us a chance folks - courses should be designed for me, the averge golfer - not the tour players. There are plenty of private courses for them to practice on that most of us will never see.

[ChipNRun]

On 2/7/2024 at 2:23 PM, st1800e said:

Hi, the article (Trees - A Growing Concern) appears to no longer be on that website.  If you could, and would, post a copy or if it’s published elsewhere a link? I would search the web but don’t know the title or author. 
 

Thanks.  

 

MS-Word and PDFs are not embedding. Hope this Spoiler works.

 

Spoiler

	Trees on Golf Courses: A Growing Concern
http://www.tamarackcountryclub.com/club/scripts/library/view_document.asp?GRP=9265&NS=PCT&APP=80&DN=TREES

 

 

By W. Dunlop White III

9/25/2003 - Many golf courses today are stuffed with trees. Historically, layouts did not appear so cluttered. Just look at photographs of Pinehurst in the 1920's. It's no coincidence that Donald Ross designs were once windswept and barren. Ross stated, "as beautiful as trees are, we must not lose sight of the fact that there is a limited place for them in golf." 

Because classical architects were influenced by The Old Course and links golf in Scotland, they naturally embraced pastureland and prairies as ideal sites in America. If wooded areas were used, clearing plans were typically spacious and wide. 

As courses have evolved, it's hard to determine which have been the most damaging: newly planted trees or specimen hardwoods that have not been kept at bay. Oddly enough, trees have a peculiar habit of growing taller and wider. It's difficult to notice during any one season, but over the course of 50 years, hole corridors have lost nearly half of their original playing areas. Countless golf holes today are simply too narrow as straight patterns of trees tend to choke fairways from both sides. 

Consequently, laser straight ball flights are required in the modern game. Because good shots are restricted to the center of play, golf can no longer be approached like the game of billiards - where the lateral angle of the first shot can be chosen with the diagonal of the next shot in mind. Strategy is all but lost when alternative angles of approach have been straightjacketed by tree plantings and overgrown vegetation. 

Undercutting the Tree Planting Trend 

The installation of golf course irrigation triggered the tree-planting barrage. These irrigation systems were single-row down the center of the fairway. The extent of the water's throw gradually became the demarcation lines for fairways, particularly since the turf was naturally greener in these locations. Thus, wide-open fairways became narrow, and their elaborate curvatures evolved into straight lines. In response, greens committees began planting sub-standard varieties of trees in the lateral areas that could not be irrigated. 

The Dutch elm disease also served as a contributing factor. The American elm was a beautiful hardwood with deep, unobtrusive root zones and high canopies. As the American elm perished, awareness of attrition escalated and the practice of planting replacement trees became the rage. A countless number of replacement trees were also planted in close proximity to healthy trees, just in case they too perished. 

Worse yet, their substitutes were cheap golf course selections. Soft wooded trees, such as willows, birches, and maples, were planted much too often. Debris-ridden conifers and evergreens, such as white pines, hemlocks, cedars and spruces, were also poor choices. These varieties not only possess shallow root zones, a maintenance burden, but they also manifest low extending limbs which restrict the swing and obstruct recovery play. 

Golf course rankings have also inspired tree plantings. The top ranked course in the country serves as an architectural model for all others. Naturally, the elite courses will be emulated. Such is the case with Pine Valley Golf Club in Pine Valley, New Jersey, which most publications perennially anoint as the best. Because one hole cannot be seen from another at Pine Valley, numerous clubs have initiated tree-planting programs between holes in an attempt to create the Pine Valley look. Interestingly, Pine Valley intersects 300 plus acres of land, while the average classical course contains a little less than 120 acres. Separating golf holes with tree plantings on much smaller parcels of land will immediately influence play. 

Dr. Bradley Klein, architecture and design consultant, believes that trees should complement the dominant function of the site, which is to enable golf to take place. Klein says, "the problem is that people who embrace trees on courses are truly more interested in trees than golf." 

Often the bone of contention is for safety between adjacent holes. Other times, committee people plant trees to defend par. Beautification committees also plant trees to adorn the golfing grounds. Likewise, superintendents routinely plant trees to attract beneficial wildlife habitats. Regardless of the motivation, too many trees encumber our golf courses today. 

The Root of the Problem 

If areas of turf on your course are lean and brown, likely trees are the root of the problem. Turfgrasses struggle to coexist near trees. Their canopies and foliage screen air circulation and conceal essential morning sunlight. Trees are dominant plants to grass, and when competing for nutrients and water, trees invariably will win. 

When all attempts to grow grass fail, bare areas beneath trees are frequently smothered with costly landscaping materials. Worse yet, mulch and pine bark are routinely shaped into inverted pods around virtually every sapling on the course. When crucial areas of play have been landscaped, the playability of the golf course is compromised. 

Golfers also should be wary of elaborate drainage schemes. After all, soggy areas and shade go hand in hand. Without six hours of unfettered sunlight each day, critical turf areas cannot properly dry. Moist turf attracts diseases which must be chemically treated with herbicides and fungicides. A chainsaw represents an alternative remedy. 

During the winter, trees also block precious sunlight, which prevent frozen turf from thawing. The end result is winterkill. Evergreens and conifers are too often the culprits as they do not lose their leaf material and shield the low-lying, winter sun. 

Because of tree plantings and overgrown vegetation, trees provide a framework for many green sites. Typically, trees behind greens help align golfers by operating as points of visual reference. Backdrops of trees also create a sense of scale and dimension which appears reassuring to the golfer's eye. 

A green without visual containment requires golfers to feel the depth and distance to the hole. This effect can be achieved by removing backdrops of trees in favor of vast expanses of open space. Whether the view is of an ambiguous skyline, an open body of water, or a span of terrain, golfers lack visual orientation and must trust their sense of depth in the approach shot to the hole. Such fortitude is often not required in the contemporary game because of tree plantings and over-grown vegetation behind greens. 
It is always good advice to avoid planting memorial trees. Determining desired tree types and locations are always at issue. Their sense of permanence also becomes debilitating in an ever-changing environment. Allow one memorial tree, and soon your course will be inundated with remembrances. If families really want to show their affection to a loved one, trees can always be removed from your course in their memory. 

Trees located too close to bunkers should be re-evaluated. Their proximity to one another often forms a double hazard. In addition, trees that block full-scale visuals of golf course hazards should be logged. For instance, bunkers and creeks cannot demand the proper attention and awareness from golfers when they are partially camouflaged by foliage. 

Instead, golf committees should utilize a tree's ability to screen on the perimeter of the premises. Trees can partition the golf course from unattractive structures and bustling noise, so long as they do not follow some formalized arrangement such as a single-file line. Rows of trees appear much too ornamental and contrived in a natural setting. 

Selectively clearing trees from the interior of the golf course produces the added visual dimension of depth. Gorgeous vistas of rolling hills and terrain are available when your eyes are not isolated by a dense barrier of trees. Newly planted trees clutter open spaces, and their limbs and shadows tend to hide intricate ground game contours. Golf courses, instead, should embrace the visual depth and splendor of long, sweeping perspectives. Besides the beauty, golfers will experience a unified spirit and a sense of camaraderie with other golfers throughout the course, as their site lines will periodically meet during the round. 

Dense wooded areas with low reaching limbs restrict recovery play. All too often the golfer is forced to punch the ball laterally out of harm's way. Instead, clean out the brush, raise the canopy to a reasonable height, and remove undesirable evergreens within the hardwoods. Under these conditions, the golfer may at least assess the risks for their next angle of attack, and depending upon skill, may shape the ball through alternative openings to safety. 

Here, grand signature trees can be exposed. Bring to view prominent trees which have always been hidden among impinging neighbors. Grand oaks and other specimens will become visually accentuated and highlighted upon the removal of unattractive evergreens and miniature saplings nearby. 

Although many trees are not a virtue to a golf course, they have a funny habit of always taking root. Curiously, trees grow larger while their limbs reach wider. As such, trees must always be assessed, trimmed or removed. Because of their negative effects on agronomy and course strategy, combined with their aesthetic impact, massive tree management programs have emerged as the most dominant trend in golf course renovation. 

Sources 

"Strategic Open Space Gives Choices", Golfweek, March 13, 2000, by Jeff Mingay, Turnstile Publishing Company, Orlando, Florida, USA 

"Proud, Tree Loving Golf Host Often Out of their Tree", Golfweek, page 46, August 18, 2002 by Bradley S. Klein, Turnstile Publishing Company, Orlando, Florida, USA 

"Trees on Golf Courses: Do they Really Belong?", Rough Meditations, page 69, 1997, by Bradley S. Klein, Sleeping Bear Press, Chelsea, Michigan, USA 

"Reversing the Tree Planting Trend", Superintendent News, November 9, 2001 by Jeffrey D Brauer, Turnstile Publishing Company, Orlando, Florida, USA 

"Transform Boring Targets by Removing Backdrops", Golfweek, November 2001, by Bradley Anderson Turnstile Publishing Company, Orlando, Florida, USA 

"Tree logic: If it's in the game's way, take it down", Superintendent News, November 10, 2000, by Bradley S. Klein, Turnstile Publishing Company, Orlando, Florida, USA 

"Vegetation as a Hazard", Anatomy of a Golf Course, page 176- 185, 1992, by Tom Doak, Burford Books, Short Hills, New Jersey, USA 

"William Stephen Flynn", The Golden Age of Golf Design, page 114, 1999, by Geoff Shackelford, Sleeping Bear Press, Chelsea, Michigan, USA 

"Proud, Tree Loving Golf Host Often Out of their Tree", Golfweek, page 46, August 18, 2002 by Bradley S. Klein, Turnstile Publishing Company, Orlando, Florida, USA 

Golf Course Architecture: Design, Construction and Restoration, Page 94, 1996, By Michael J. Hurzdan, Sleeping Bear Press, Chelsea, Michigan, USA 

"Mission Unpopular", Golf Digest, page 100, October 2002, by Peter McCleery and Mark S. Murphy.

  

Edited February 27 by ChipNRun
Insert Trees story as Spoiler.

[st1800e]

@ChipNRun

Thanks for searching that out and taking the time to get it posted.

✅

 

 

 

[rooski]

Out of interest I did all the Google Mapping of my home course and the fairways come out to an average of 24y wide

 

On almost every hole there is 10-20y of rough and then straight into O.B., all but a couple holes.

 

The greens are also tiny, basically anywhere around the green is a difficult up and down, and they slope quite a bit and are hard to read. Any other course I play seems downright easy in comparison so I guess I get quite a bit out of it.

 

Somehow though it's only rated at 71.5/139. I'm not sure what the USGA were doing when they rated the course but whenever I look up the handicaps of the betters players at the club, the 8 taken scores are often close to, if not exclusively from other courses in the area. It's a tough one!

 

Anyways I don't know why I wrote all that cause it's barely relevant to the thread and I'm basically just soapboxing for no reason but if you're still here thanks for reading :)

[RoyalMustang]

On 2/26/2024 at 11:04 PM, rooski said:

Out of interest I did all the Google Mapping of my home course and the fairways come out to an average of 24y wide

 

On almost every hole there is 10-20y of rough and then straight into O.B., all but a couple holes.

 

The greens are also tiny, basically anywhere around the green is a difficult up and down, and they slope quite a bit and are hard to read. Any other course I play seems downright easy in comparison so I guess I get quite a bit out of it.

 

Somehow though it's only rated at 71.5/139. I'm not sure what the USGA were doing when they rated the course but whenever I look up the handicaps of the betters players at the club, the 8 taken scores are often close to, if not exclusively from other courses in the area. It's a tough one!

 

Anyways I don't know why I wrote all that cause it's barely relevant to the thread and I'm basically just soapboxing for no reason but if you're still here thanks for reading 🙂

 

What course in Oregon is this? Sounds similiar to the one I was posting about. The rating/slope from the regular mens is 70.7/135 (supposedly). Yet everyone says that their handicap "travels well", meaning it's a sandbagged rating. There is an annual match play against a nearby club and the folks said it always feels like their cap is 2-3 strokes too soft and they have the upper hand in matches.

 

I've come to believe the USGA handicap ratings can have a lot of error in them. For example, the course I was talking about above is lined with trees, most of them planted 25 years ago. What happens in the 10 year span between ratings? Trees grow! Now branches hang out over the fairways and grass is dying due to lack of sunlight, which is why you can hit the middle of the fairway and still see your ball roll into a nearby downslope water hazard. This make the course much much tougher. 

 

Playing at my current course, the rating is 73.4/134 from the tips. I don't know on which planet however. I bet there's a good reason for this: it's in a 55+ community and you might see one person a day (me) playing the tips. When I play from the regular mens, I'm typically 3-5 strokes better, not the 1.5 stroke rating difference on the scorecard. From the tips, this course has two par 3's playing at 205-220 and one par 3 playing at 190. There is only one par 5 that I can reliably get home in 2 on. This course is only 7k yards from the tips but 4 of the par 4's are non-driver, layup holes, meaning it plays longer with a 545 yard average par 5 and several 450 ish yard par 4s. There is a big difference between a 175 yard par 3 from the regular mens (easy-ish 7-iron) and a 210 yard par 3 (full 5-iron). I'd argue 1/2 stroke easily. 

 

Another course nearby has the same rating from the tips but much easier par 3s and shorter par 5s. I was like "man, this thing must be 3 strokes easier!".  

[rooski]

2 hours ago, RoyalMustang said:

 

What course in Oregon is this? Sounds similiar to the one I was posting about. The rating/slope from the regular mens is 70.7/135 (supposedly). Yet everyone says that their handicap "travels well", meaning it's a sandbagged rating. There is an annual match play against a nearby club and the folks said it always feels like their cap is 2-3 strokes too soft and they have the upper hand in matches.

 

I've come to believe the USGA handicap ratings can have a lot of error in them. For example, the course I was talking about above is lined with trees, most of them planted 25 years ago. What happens in the 10 year span between ratings? Trees grow! Now branches hang out over the fairways and grass is dying due to lack of sunlight, which is why you can hit the middle of the fairway and still see your ball roll into a nearby downslope water hazard. This make the course much much tougher. 

 

Playing at my current course, the rating is 73.4/134 from the tips. I don't know on which planet however. I bet there's a good reason for this: it's in a 55+ community and you might see one person a day (me) playing the tips. When I play from the regular mens, I'm typically 3-5 strokes better, not the 1.5 stroke rating difference on the scorecard. From the tips, this course has two par 3's playing at 205-220 and one par 3 playing at 190. There is only one par 5 that I can reliably get home in 2 on. This course is only 7k yards from the tips but 4 of the par 4's are non-driver, layup holes, meaning it plays longer with a 545 yard average par 5 and several 450 ish yard par 4s. There is a big difference between a 175 yard par 3 from the regular mens (easy-ish 7-iron) and a 210 yard par 3 (full 5-iron). I'd argue 1/2 stroke easily. 

 

Another course nearby has the same rating from the tips but much easier par 3s and shorter par 5s. I was like "man, this thing must be 3 strokes easier!".  

 

I'm talking about Grant's Pass down in Southern Oregon, which doesn't seem to match up with 70.7/135 from the whites so not sure it'll be the same course but I've definitely played other courses in Oregon that feel pretty similar, where you play them and it's like "well that actually wasn't very easy at all"

 

What course did you have in mind when you were posting? I wouldn't be surprised if I'd played it at some point

Edited March 1 by rooski

[RoyalMustang]

On 3/1/2024 at 2:41 PM, rooski said:

 

I'm talking about Grant's Pass down in Southern Oregon, which doesn't seem to match up with 70.7/135 from the whites so not sure it'll be the same course but I've definitely played other courses in Oregon that feel pretty similar, where you play them and it's like "well that actually wasn't very easy at all"

 

What course did you have in mind when you were posting? I wouldn't be surprised if I'd played it at some point

 

The course I was referring to was Eldorado in McKinney, Texas. Definitely not Grants Pass! Although I had a track meet at Grants Pass HS back as a sophomore and also used to play Little League baseball tournaments there as a kid. 

[rooski]

3 hours ago, RoyalMustang said:

 

The course I was referring to was Eldorado in McKinney, Texas. Definitely not Grants Pass! Although I had a track meet at Grants Pass HS back as a sophomore and also used to play Little League baseball tournaments there as a kid. 

 

Ahh I misread your message but now I think I get it. I looked up Eldorado and there are definitely some similarities. Some of those holes look brutal

[Pepperturbo]

Having played really tight, target courses, and open fairway courses, I've come to believe Designers of open fairways still have positions, only somewhat burred, where they expect us to play from to access the green.  The obvious attraction to wide open fairways is golfers call them forgiving and proceed to go left or right, only at times, even further out of position.  

 

A month back, we played a course where many fairways were huge, nothing obvious to target.  I had to force myself to find a middle target to hit in the direction of.  After that, I'd watch my buddy chase down his hard left or right ball, listen to him still bit** that even those fairways were not enough, and he still didn't have the next shot.  You'd think he'd be spending more time at the practice range to reign in those willy drives, but not happening.  What a crazy love hate game.

[caniac6]

Our course is fairly easy until you get to the greens. We are closing in a week for a renovation. We are having the greens rebuilt, and some will be softened to add hole locations. They are also adding about 40 new bunkers, and they have planted a bunch of new trees. We have had a fair number of guys quit the club. I’m sticking it out. I just hope I like the course when it’s done.

[hammergolf]

On 2/7/2024 at 1:58 PM, Hawkeye77 said:

Haha, I played it twice!  Once on the way out, and once on the way in!

I still give a guy in our group hell for hitting it OB right on #1…. 

[RoyalMustang]

21 hours ago, rooski said:

 

Ahh I misread your message but now I think I get it. I looked up Eldorado and there are definitely some similarities. Some of those holes look brutal

 

Yeah. The back 9 is mostly "fair" outside of #11, but the front 9 can be just brutal. They built the course on the cheap: steep sidehill slopes on the fairways, no drainage, basically grass planted on Texas hardpan.  Multiple holes have fairways that simply won't hold the ball unless you are hitting something like a spinny 3H. Worse, a couple of these will send your ball right down the hill into trees or a creek nearby. There is nothing worse than striping your drive into what should be the perfect spot on the left side of the fairway, watching it seemingly come to a stop, then turn 90 degrees and roll 50 yards back across the fairway into a hazard. So you end up just laying up on a par 5 to keep the ball in play. 

 

It simply makes for "contrived" golf. 

[hammergolf]

I may not have the most objective opinion on this. I grew up and improved my game on a very tight golf course. Because of this I learned to hit the driver really straight. I think guys who drive it straight like narrow fwys and guys who drive it long want wider fwys. I think 40yds gives a reasonable middle ground that most golfers would find appropriate. 

[RoyalMustang]

14 hours ago, caniac6 said:

Our course is fairly easy until you get to the greens. We are closing in a week for a renovation. We are having the greens rebuilt, and some will be softened to add hole locations. They are also adding about 40 new bunkers, and they have planted a bunch of new trees. We have had a fair number of guys quit the club. I’m sticking it out. I just hope I like the course when it’s done.

 

Did they quit due to not liking the renovations? Because it will have a different character? Having more forgiving greens but a less forgiving approach doesn't seem all bad. Courses that lean too far in one direction (too narrow, greens are too small or have crazy slope) aren't really fun; there needs to be a balance. Not every hole should be "bomb and gouge" but also not every hole should have only 2 possible playable pin locations. My old course (which is the one that I mentioned when posting this article) had greens so steep that, during certain times of the year, there were holes with only 2 or 3 possible playable locations. The others were like mini-golf, where your ball with either go in or make another lap.  

[RoyalMustang]

2 minutes ago, hammergolf said:

I may not have the most objective opinion on this. I grew up and improved my game on a very tight golf course. Because of this I learned to hit the driver really straight. I think guys who drive it straight like narrow fwys and guys who drive it long want wider fwys. I think 40yds gives a reasonable middle ground that most golfers would find appropriate. 

 

Same: 35-45 seems to be the sweet spot overall. I certainly don't mind narrower fairways if they are well designed, but not on every hole, and not simply planted with a bunch of trees taking it down to 18 yards to "make it harder". If that's the case, it's a poorly designed course or should be reconfigured to a par 70. Better courses I have played may have a landing zone that's 30 yards wide but definitely a preferred spot, a bail out spot, and 2 others that are asking for trouble.

 

Here's an example of a well designed narrow hole. The landing zone is roughly 25 yards wide in the shorter area and probably 20 yards wide past the bunker. Can't miss right there if you go for it; you'll roll into the hazard R. This hole is easy to execute on if you have decent control. It's slightly downhill and I usually hit choked down 3H, expecting it to roll out to 240 or so. Sometimes I'll hit 3W and carry the bunker, it's riskier but puts you closer to the hole. Red is bad-no go zone; trees and hazards blocking your path. Yellow is less than ideal approach to the green (too long, weird angle) but definitely a makeable par. Green are the two A positions (one being riskier than the other). 

[hammergolf]

17 minutes ago, RoyalMustang said:

 

Same: 35-45 seems to be the sweet spot overall. I certainly don't mind narrower fairways if they are well designed, but not on every hole, and not simply planted with a bunch of trees taking it down to 18 yards to "make it harder". If that's the case, it's a poorly designed course or should be reconfigured to a par 70. Better courses I have played may have a landing zone that's 30 yards wide but definitely a preferred spot, a bail out spot, and 2 others that are asking for trouble.

 

Here's an example of a well designed narrow hole. The landing zone is roughly 25 yards wide in the shorter area and probably 20 yards wide past the bunker. Can't miss right there if you go for it; you'll roll into the hazard R. This hole is easy to execute on if you have decent control. It's slightly downhill and I usually hit choked down 3H, expecting it to roll out to 240 or so. Sometimes I'll hit 3W and carry the bunker, it's riskier but puts you closer to the hole. Red is bad-no go zone; trees and hazards blocking your path. Yellow is less than ideal approach to the green (too long, weird angle) but definitely a makeable par. Green are the two A positions (one being riskier than the other). 

My personal preference are holes with fwys that funnel as they get closer to the green. Funny story about fwy width, my first trip to Scotland I played Troon. After four holes I told my caddie that it looked like every fwy was the same width. He replied “aye they are”. I asked him why and he told me “the mower makes one pass towards the green, then turns around and makes one pass towards the tee”…. After laughing, it turns out their mower was 36’ wide so each fwy was 24yds wide. 

[RoyalMustang]

11 minutes ago, hammergolf said:

My personal preference are holes with fwys that funnel as they get closer to the green. Funny story about fwy width, my first trip to Scotland I played Troon. After four holes I told my caddie that it looked like every fwy was the same width. He replied “aye they are”. I asked him why and he told me “the mower makes one pass towards the green, then turns around and makes one pass towards the tee”…. After laughing, it turns out their mower was 36’ wide so each fwy was 24yds wide. 

 

ha-with that accent I'm picturing Scotty saying "aye laddie-the mower is giving us everything she's got! I don't know if she'll hold!" 

[caniac6]

6 hours ago, RoyalMustang said:

 

Did they quit due to not liking the renovations? Because it will have a different character? Having more forgiving greens but a less forgiving approach doesn't seem all bad. Courses that lean too far in one direction (too narrow, greens are too small or have crazy slope) aren't really fun; there needs to be a balance. Not every hole should be "bomb and gouge" but also not every hole should have only 2 possible playable pin locations. My old course (which is the one that I mentioned when posting this article) had greens so steep that, during certain times of the year, there were holes with only 2 or 3 possible playable locations. The others were like mini-golf, where your ball with either go in or make another lap.  

They quit because they didn’t want to pay dues while we are closed. We didn’t have a formal assessment, but we have to pay dues and our food minimum. 

Edited March 4 by caniac6

[RoyalMustang]

16 hours ago, caniac6 said:

They quit because they didn’t want to pay dues while we are closed. We didn’t have a formal assessment, but we have to pay dues and our food minimum. 

 

Not surprising then! 

[ChipNRun]

A small 9-holer in our area has found a solution for fairway width. It's a 2,700-yard par 34.

 

The main trace of the fairway is 35-40 yards wide, and bordering areas are mowed as first-cut of rough... about 1 to 2 inches long. By bordering areas, I mean anything within about 20 yards of fairway edge.

 

You may have a slightly shaggy lie, but you rarely lose a ball. You may need to go around a tree, but recovery shots are reasonable.

 

Basically, all the white areas between the top and bottom red arrows are first cut of rough.