Adobe Stock
In modern golf course architecture, the emphasis on fairway width has reemerged as a crucial element of strategic design, contrary to the trend of narrower fairways showcased over decades of major championship preparation. It seems that wide fairways, especially those devoid of defining physical elements such as undulations, bunkers, water or any other endless list of features, have the potential to become a psychological hurdle.
So, when does fairway width become a hazard? When the absence of conventional obstacles or definition leads to mental confusion, overconfidence or decision paralysis, turning what seems like a straightforward tee shot into a lost opportunity that has the golfer questioning everything and subsequently embarking on what my golf buddies like to call a “self-reflection walk.” This is when the disgruntled golfer is either lagging way behind or rushing ahead of their group while heading to the next tee, usually with their head down, cap in one hand, mumbling under their breath.
Fairway width in strategic design
The increasing focus on width in contemporary design highlights a shift toward more forgiving, flexible and strategic play. Many architects — present company included — advocate for wide fairways and emphasize the importance of offering golfers multiple angles and routes of attack. Rather than punishing players with narrow, hazard-laden corridors, wide fairways provide more choices and invite golfers to consider their route to the hole. This allows golfers to choose their shot based on confidence, visual cues, skill level, wind, course conditions, hole placement and many other factors. However, the mind left without clear direction can lose focus and falter — turning width into a hazard.
The importance of angles and choosing the line of attack
Golfers know that the ideal line of attack is crucial on well-designed holes. Depending on pin placement, positioning the ball closer to one side of the fairway may offer a much better angle for an approach shot. Depending on the visible features that guide their decisions, golfers may aim straight down the middle, take a more aggressive line to either side, or allow for their typical miss hit. Nuanced decision-making makes all the difference between an opportunity to score and a less-than-ideal angle to the green. The subtly of this penalty may lead the golfer to blame their mechanics or ability rather than their decision-making.
Absence as a hazard
The absence of visible hazards can be just as daunting as their presence. A well-designed golf hole engages the player's mind as much as their body. The lack of traditional obstacles can create a “sensory underload.” Golfers find themselves mentally adrift without visual stimulation from physical features, leading to boredom or disengagement. According to the Yerkes-Dodson law, performance degrades when stimulation is too low (or too high). In this way, the wide fairway becomes a subtle mental hazard as the golfer is forced to wrestle with their indecision and uncertainty. Without clear guidance, the player is left vulnerable to cognitive overload or underload, leading to mistakes. Our minds make trouble where none exists.
The psychology of wide fairways
Environmental psychology, which studies the interaction between individuals and their environment, provides insights into the relationship people have with wide open spaces:
1. Environmental cognition and cognitive mapping: Refers to our ability to imagine and think about the spatial world around us. These organized mental pictures or maps can facilitate wayfinding or allow us to navigate an environment to locate desirability. Historically, this meant food, shelter or safe places within an environment.
2. Affordances: Possibilities or opportunities provided by an environment that are strong determinants of behavior. For our ancestors, again, this meant food, shelter, gathering places and places to observe the environment. In golf, it is how we perceive the distinctive features of our surroundings and the opportunities or constraints they present to our ability to navigate them. Lack of affordances can render a landscape uninviting or uninteresting.
3. Biophilia: Our innate need for a connection with nature. Throughout history, we have constantly adapted to our evolving circumstances, and much of this time was spent using what nature provides to further our chances of survival. Golf appeals to this tendency because golfers interact with their environment in pursuit of a reward, much like hunting or our quest for safety and security. Depending on the terrain, wide open spaces might leave a person feeling exposed or unsafe. Green infrastructure, such as golf courses, inherently contains natural elements that satisfy the need for this connection with nature.
4. Attention restoration theory: Open, natural spaces may help restore cognitive resources. People feel mentally refreshed and can navigate more intuitively in such settings, as their attentional focus is less strained than in cluttered environments. For golf, this would support the idea that a wide-open fairway, especially following a series of visually narrow holes, might allow players to reset their minds and regain focus. Or does it?
5. Under-stimulation perspective: As indicated by Yerkes-Dodson, the theory suggests that many behavioral problems can result from too little stimulation. Some sensory deprivation studies show evidence that depriving people of even tiny levels of stimulation can lead to problems like anxiety and other psychological issues. This might explain why some golfers standing on the tee of a wide-open fairway may experience more nervousness than if they faced a hole corridor with more defining features.
6. Human-scale design: Suggests that the environment in which people interact should feel comfortable and relatable while avoiding the intimidating or overly grandiose scale. Human-scale design can and should be manipulated in golf course design to the desired effect. This theory also explains that using landscape features to buffer and frame spaces can provide a sense of enclosure or openness as needed.
The false sense of security
Wide fairways can lure golfers into a false sense of security. The mental safety net they perceive can lead to sloppy swings and careless mistakes. The absence of conventional hazards tempts golfers to play more aggressively, often leading to errant shots. Without the visual markers that help guide and narrow their focus, golfers tend to overestimate their control and underestimate the need for precision.
The illusion of safety can extend beyond the current hole. A wide fairway on a hole before several tighter holes can cause a mental release, prompting the golfer to be lax in their course management. Building on their success from hitting the previous fairway, they are perhaps more confident to swing for the fences than they should be.
Speaking from personal experience, I drove the ball well recently, playing at Pinehurst No. 10, hitting almost all the fairways. However, the following day, I had the privilege of playing No. 2 and found myself in the waste areas more often than I care to discuss. I allowed this illusion of openness to augment my perception of how well I was really swinging.
Conclusion
Fairway width is a key component of strategic golf course design when thoughtfully provided for. It offers players more freedom to choose their path based on nuanced decisions. However, its very openness can become a subtle yet formidable hazard when the lack of defining features leads to mental overconfidence, decision paralysis or disengagement. Our profession calls for balancing physical with psychological challenges to engage the golfer fully. While wider fairways provide endless potential for strategy, sometimes all you need is five inches — as Bobby Jones said, “the distance between your ears.”
Golf course architect Jeff Danner partnered in 2023 with Rennie Design, Ltd. to form Pangaea Golf Architecture. He is the firm’s co-founder and director, and a member of both the American Society of Golf Course Architects and the European Institute of Golf Course Architects.
Sources:
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Kaplan, S., & Kaplan, R. (1989). The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective. Cambridge University Press.
Golledge, R. G. (1999). Wayfinding Behavior: Cognitive Mapping and Other Spatial Processes. The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Hopper, L.J. (2007). Landscape Architectural Graphic Standards. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Bell, P.A., Green, T.C., Fisher, J.D., & Baum, A. (2001). Environmental Psychology, Fifth Edition. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
