[ian]

I have always like alternate fairways like the example below. A lay-up leaves an uphill approach over trouble to an angled green (a harder shot). The aggressive play across trouble is rewarded with a much easier approach on the same elevation. Simple risk reward.



Can this risk reward be traslated to side by side fairways?

The most famous I could think of was Riviera's 8th hole where a risk over the baranca brings a straight pitch into the green. The easier tee shot to the right, leaves a player with a more delicate approach over the baranca. (Please do not discuss the current hole and leave the discussion to the origional concept). I think this one works well because the risk reward is "balanced" for both sides, and I could see myself trying both.



My problem became figuring out if others worked as well. Tom Paul and I like Travis's origional concept for the 14th (at Scranton) revolving around islands of fairway. If you play to the right, you definately need to hit 3 shots, but Travis offered a wider landing area. If you had the courage to play for the second island on the left (blind from the tee), you were rewarded withan iron into the par five. Again I think this works because the risk and reward is well balanced. While I would likely stay right, I could see myself trying the left route in a match.



Does the Nicklaus concept for Valhalla work? He offers a standard three shot route doglegging around the lake; and an island route that offers the potential of reaching the green in two. The risk is very high for going at the island and missing, which means the risk is high and the player is once again faced with a high risk shot to the green. Two high risk shots in a row is just too much for me to ever take the risk. Is this then a good alternate fairway, or not?



The following is a recent piece of our work at Eagle's Nest in Toronto. The higher left route is much wider and requires no major carry, and no carry over the fescue. The lower right route is tighter and much more dangerous with all the additional fescue in play. The problem is that players can not reach the green any easier from the right as from the left (what you gain in distance, yopu loose in elevation). While it looks nice, is this a fairway that simply doesn't work?



Picture of the hole to help understand the set-up. (seemed better to pick on ourselves for this example)




Should architects look to set-up side by side alternate fairways, or avoid them?

What are the strategic requirements to ensure both sides are to be well used?

Am I off base in my criticism of the two examples?

Do you like this style of hole, or do you think the idea is forced with rare exceptions such as the 8th at Riviera?

Finally, please post an examples where you think this is brilliantly done.

IA

[Bill_McBride]

Great post, Ian, your graphic skills are outstanding and really clarify the point of your post and questions.

In today's golf environment (and Valhalla's par 5 is a great example), unless there is a one shot guaranteed reward for the risk, golfers are not going to take the risk.  In the case of Valhalla, the player can make birdie either way.  In my opinion, the only way a medal play golfer is going to take that risk is if he only makes birdie attempting the island shot.

I think a better design is seen on a couples of holes at LACC North - sorry for not citing the hole numbers, haven't played there since a match in 1962! - driving across the barranca onto the opposite side fairway yields a much easier shot into a difficult green.  Playing the easier drive onto the fairway on the same side of the barranca yields a very difficult shot into the green, from a bad angle into a green which is tightly guarded by slope and bunkers.

Your first drawing illustrates exactly what I am talking about.

I guess my point is that split fairways don't make much sense unless there is a dramatic reward for attempting the difficult tee shot.  #8 Riviera is a perfect example.  How many players have gone left since that side was reopened?

[Gary_Nelson]

Ian,

Fantastic post!  

My favorite side-by-side alternate fairway is #11 at TPC Michigan.  The par 4 hole is short-ish (from the blue tees) if you take the left fairway but the 100yd pitch across the pond is difficult because the green is shallow from this direction.

Taking the bold route to the right fairway leaves an approach with no water to clear and the green is deep from this direction.

Here is a link to a hole illustration + comments from Charles Coody.  http://www.tpc.com/private/michigan/hole_11.html

Gary

[ian]

Your example Gary and a very good one. The alternate fairway definately works with a central hazard. This seems very similar to the principles found in Thomas's great hole.



Bill,

I played there this year and still can't come up with an alternate fairway at LACC. Was this on the south course perhaps?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ian,

OHMIGAWD I hope so, or I have a dozen or more holes out there with no chance of working......Seriously, this is a great conceptual topic I think this board needs more of - they are so rare here anymore, I think you should have prefaced it with "OT".

I thinkI most double fairways eventually get figured out - that is to say players start to know the percentages of going one way, and that is the way most go.  This can happen several ways - one is the carry to the challenge fairway becomes obsolete.  (don't ask how I know this.....)

Nonetheless, I have several holes out there like your first example - mostly, for some reason, on second shots of par 5's, to give the golfer something to do rather than just bang it as far as possible.....

And, I just routed an island fairway hole this morning on a new project, so I hope those work too - It will be my first of that kind.

Lastly, as for alternate fairways with equal distance to the green and a center hazard, would a wide, gull wing green like Riveria 15 enhance the decsion to go right when the pin is left, and left when the pin is right.  Again, I hope so, because.......

[Bill_McBride]

Maybe so, Ian, like I said, it's been over 40 years!  I do recall having to make a decision about to which side of the barranca you were going to drive.  I'll have to get into my Geoff Shackleford collection!  I think the hole I'm recalling is #6, has the barranca been filled in?  Looking at "The Captain," on page 180 Geoff has a drawing of this 300 yd hole, where the choice is to lay up left and have a difficult angle into a shallow green, or drive long right and have a short pitch down the length of the green.  

For the record, #15 at World Woods Pine Barrens appears to be a dead knockoff of this hole!  Same distance, same challenges, same rewards.  Proving again there's nothing new under the sun.

[ForkaB]

A couple of weeks ago I played Winchester (MA) whose 13th is a great double fairway hole.  It is a dog leg left, dowhill and then up hill (Ross), IF you go for the lower and wider left fairway.  From that bailout position, reaching the green in 2 is impossible, and you have to hit a very good 2nd (either hooking it or playing very close to the tree line) to get into wedge/short iron distance for your 3rd.  Right, however is a high (30-40ft?) ledge which narrows the closer you get to the green.  I'd guess that 290-300 gets you near to the precipice, and gives you a 200-240 shot slightly uphill but straight at the green.  I didn't check it out closely, but I bet that the big bombers might even be able to carry the ledge to a somewhat uncertain (but closer) position below.

The hole is FUN!

[Mike_Sweeney]

The closest that I have seen where it is a "theme" is Lester George's Kinloch. Below is the Short Par 4 4th in the middle picture and Par 5 9th and 11th. I have to run, but lots of options.

[Keith Williams]

Jeff,

The hole you describe in your post with a wide green and a large split (or two totally separate) fairways where the preferred line of play is largely dictated by the day's pin placement is nearly exactly like what I submitted for the Mackenzie design contest a few years back.  Like you said, eventually the multiple fairways "get figured out", but wouldn't creating a green that accepts multiple angles of approach depending upon pin location keep the variety flowing even after multiple plays?  This also leads to another question regarding multiple routes... as Ian has illustrated usually holes like this clearly reflect two options-the conservative and the bold, but wouldn't a hole that "muddies the water" between the two work really well, where it is not necessarily only about accepting the risk and receiving the award, but more like trying to solve a puzzle about which route is preferred for any given pin location under different conditions?

Ian,

I really like the concept of multiple (or split) fairways as you have presented.  The discussion in this forum has debated for years now the true usefullness of strategy and whether the average golfer can execute shots well enough to employ strategy and whether they would want to even if they could... but with holes like you display throw that out the window, the player, regardless of playing ability, MUST employ strategic shot planning.  This kind of "in your face" strategy will never be called subtle, but it does succeed in actually bringing shotmaking, strategic planning and options into the normally strategic-less game of the average player.

Additionally, in looking at what kind of choices nearly all of these "type" holes present, it seems that the bold, aggressive play allways seems to feature a dangerous forced carry.  I have often wondered whether the presence of these forced carries immediately takes the bold option out of the game plan for many golfers before they even take the tee.  In other words it seems that length is often a factor in whether a player can opt for the bold play on a dual fairway hole, but should strategic choices like those be limited to only golfers who can hit the ball a prescribed distance?  We know that many golfers have a difficult time even getting the ball in the air over a long distance consistently, and golfers of every skill level come in many shapes, sizes and lengths... so my question is- are there many alternate route holes out there where the bold play is less centered on how far you can hit it and more centered on how accurate you can place your tee shot?  The idea being that the bold route is narrow with no forced carry, but rewards the golfer with a shorter approach and better angle, or something like that.  It just seems like an alternate route hole with features like I describe would actually offer options to all golfers, not just the ones capable of flying the ball a certain distance off the tee.

Thanks,

Keith.

[T_MacWood]

One of the most famous designs with alternative fairways has to be the Channel Hole at Lido. Flynn designed a variation of that that hole at Shinnecock (the pond hole) and Strong designed at least one (w/George Low) that is very close to a copy. I suspect a number of these holes were inpired by Lido, although I reckon Travis would never admit it.

In dicussing the difficulty of designing these holes Strong wrote: "Such holes are hard to locate. They are hard to locate because fulfilling the two opposite sides of the contract is pretty close to an impossibility...." That is the problem with many of these holes...as Jeff pointed out...one side ends up an overwelming choice.

I'd be curious how much action the two fairways at #1 Kingsley get?

I'm not a big fan of Double Eagle partially because it has a large number of these holes, IMO more than one (maybe two) of these holes and you are in danger of the design being percieved as schlock.

[Keith Williams]

Additionally,

Jeff, you mention that some holes get figured out as a result of the carry for the aggressive line becomes obsolete- this is exactly what has happened at Donald Ross' Holston Hills in Knoxville.  The seventh there is (was) a great dual fairway par 5 where with a bold tee shot over water to the upper fairway would open up a second shot to the green.  These days almost nobody even notices the lower right fairway where the conservative line of play used to exist, everybody just plays to the upper fairway.  A great golf hole that technology has unfortunately passed by.

Keith.

[Adam_F_Collins]

Ian,

Indeed, a wonderful post to get people thinking - and something everyone can take part in - newbie or not. Thank you.

In response to your original questions:

I like options. I don't think an architect should ever "look to set up" such holes, but rather do whatever they can to provide real playing options for all players.

I have often thought that the key to truly strategic golf courses was width. It seems that you need room in order to have options. From my distant viewing place, it seems to me that St. Andrews being described as the most complex golf course in the world has a lot to do with it's expansive fairways and seemingly scattered bunkers - creating limitless possibilities and effective combinations of shots for play.

The expense of maintaining turf in the modern world, to modern tastes has made these kinds of courses somewhat obsolete in terms of new construction.

So how to create options and strategy?

The use of double or split fairways is such an attempt. The difficulty, as you demonstrate in your excellent examples, lies in how to create true options.

I think that great holes present real options. The example at Valhalla does not present a viable option for 90% of the golfers out there, and really just serves as a glaring reminder to most people that we are no where near as good (or at least, as long) as the pros.

Making one of the 'options' viable to only one out of 100 golfers is kind of a waste.

The Eagle's Nest example is also another pitfall of such holes - often one option is so clearly better - so the 'choice' is not really a choice at all, and the extra 'option' serves as eye candy and a place to spend maintenance money.

It seems that many of these holes come out so clearly defined, that the are really more like "two-in-one" holes. You can do this, or you can do that. While this is better than no options, it is still fairly contrived and restrictive.

When such holes really get most golfers to THINK at the tee - and not just the first or second time playing it - that's when I think it's good design. When weather, or conditions, or the fact that you're playing a tournament or match - really has an effect on your decision-making (rather than whether or not you can hit it 300 yards) at the tee - then it's working.

Get that kind of thought process going at as many holes as possible.

[Mark_Fine]

Ian,
It is complicated to explain everything I am thinking about this topic.  Unfortunately, I would say most of these type designs do not work.  But that is not because the concept is flawed.  It is because a great amount of time and attention has to be put into the detail to get it right.  

On most of these type holes, the preferred option is obvious to most players.  In many cases either the carry is too long or the target too small to justify even considering playing one way vs. the other.  Often the “extra” fairway simply becomes added maintenance and acreage that might have been better used elsewhere.  Other times the ones “that do seem to work” are because one side is that much more fun to play than the other.  If that is the case, why bother with the other route?

Furthermore, the better player will quickly figure out the best option and almost always play that way.  The weaker golfer will not have an option to begin with on most of these type designs so it doesn’t matter.  It is the average golfer in the middle that this type hole is best designed for.  

Finally, wind can impact this kind of hole as can pin location.  In fact, pin location might be the most important on a well designed hole of this nature.  The green needs to be designed properly so that the angle and location of the pin dictates back to the tee the preferred way to play on any given day.  

I rambled a bit but this is a complicated type of hole design and to get one right that works well more than once is not easy.
Mark

 

[Bill Gayne]

Mike,

Thanks for the posting the Kinloch pictures. I was  talking to a couple of guys on the range this weekend that played Kinloch for the first time recently and the point of discussion was the ninth hole (one liked and one thought it was his least favorite). What's the distance of the hole? From my looking at the picture, the benefit of playing up the left side (the tee box left or right side of the picture) is not readily clear. The picture being two dimensional there is something I'm missing.

Thanks

[Lynn_Shackelford]

Good discussion, variety of things must happen to make a double fairway hole work,,,,,understanding of technology changes, shape of green, width of fairway.
Let me offer another,,, the wind.  At a good windy spot one side could be more favorable depending on that day's wind.
Jeff B.  While I love the 15th green at Riviera, you are on the right track about having a hole placement depend on which fairway to use.  However when I am hitting a long shot into the 15th at Riviera I just go for the middle of the green.  It would be more significant for a 6 to 9 iron shot.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Lynn,

Yes, I always thought the gull wing green would work best on a short 4 rather than a 3, but recall that the 15th at Riviera has alternate tees, for winter and summer sun angles.  

I suppose you could make a case that the wing pin positions would absolutely require the tee shot to the opposite side of the fairway on a long par 4 if a long iron was required, could you not?  Of course, sizing of the wings (and the middle) would be critical - if too small for the shot, then most players probably would go for the middle, no?

Shivas,

Your post may be the perfect solution to obsolescence of alternate fairways.

Keith,

I know PB Dye did a hole like Lesters shown in the lowest photo above, at Atlanta National, with the exception of also having a second tee lined up with the right fairway as we view the photo. However, trees and mounds blocked the right fairway from the right tee, and the left fairway from the left tee, meaning the tee shot was dicated to go over the center creek.  So, there was no option, but basically one hole played differently dailey on by changing the tee markers.  I suppose allowing play to either fairway from either tee could potentiall open up more options.

[Mike_Sweeney]

Mike,

Thanks for the posting the Kinloch pictures. I was  talking to a couple of guys on the range this weekend that played Kinloch for the first time recently and the point of discussion was the ninth hole (one liked and one thought it was his least favorite). What's the distance of the hole? From my looking at the picture, the benefit of playing up the left side (the tee box left or right side of the picture) is not readily clear. The picture being two dimensional there is something I'm missing.

Thanks

Bill,

It is 556 from the back. The answer changes day to day due to tee placement which is left right and center tees. Lots of visual "stuff" off that tee that we played lower right looking up the hole. In general, the left fairway is safer off the tee. A long hitter can hit it in 2 or the right. If you put the ball left off the tee, you have 3 options:

1. back to the right fairway
2. layup to the end of the left fairway
3. full shot to the left greenside faiway

I played the hole terribly, so my calculations could be off, but I like it.

Nobody has mentioned Yale 18. In years past I have always been on the upper, this year I seem to be lower. In 10 years maybe I will figure out the right way.

[Dan Kelly]

A witness for the defense: Jeff Brauer's No. 13 at The Quarry (Giants Ridge resort; Biwabik, Minnesota).

For those who haven't played it: It's a short par-4, with a riskier, rewardier high-left fairway -- riskier because it's a smaller target, rewardier because it gives a better view of the elevated green; and a less risky lower-right fairway offering little or no visibility of the green.

The thing that divides one fairway from the other is no massive, ball-eating hazard, but a mere bunker. And not a very expansive bunker at that. See http://www.giantsridge.com/courses/quarry/tour/13/. (Actually, I'd like the hole better without the long, gnarly grass around the bunker. Looking at that grass, I can hear even me yelling those most horrible words in golf: "Get in the bunker!")

I like The Quarry No. 13 more than most divided-fairways holes I've played ... in part because of the subtlety of the division ... and in part because, unlike most the alternate-fairways holes I've played, I can easily imagine playing either left or right, depending on where the pin is, the wind and the state of my game that day. I can't imagine I'd ever get to the point where I'd pull my club on that tee without thought.

Random musing, while thinking about this hole: If we want Joe Sixpack and Mary Wineglass to start understanding and appreciating "strategic golf holes," aren't short par-4s with multiple options for all sorts of players the only way to do it?

[Tim Taylor]

I like 'em as long as there is a strategic advantage to be gained on the next shot by taking the riskier line of play.

Pleasant Valley Golfers Club (Chantilly, VA) has two alternate fairway holes. #5 (lower right of photo) is a par 5 where the decision comes not on the tee ball but on the second shot. The easy layup to the right fairway results in an approach over a large bunker. The more difficult layup - it's an awkward angle and there is a small clump of trees on the ideal line - results in a perfect look down the length of the green. Of course, if you bomb your drive and have a go in two then it doesn't really matter.

The 17th (left side of photo) is a short/mid length par 4. I don't quite understand the strategy on this one. The left fairway is larger, has a better line to the green, and is easier to hit. Hitting to the right fairway doesn't make it easier to get to any pin positions and it brings the lake into play.



By the way, it's a Tom Clark course that opened 1998 or so.

TimT

[Jimmy Muratt]

Tim,

That's a great aerial of Pleasant Valley.  I've played there many times and you're right regarding strategic influences of the split fairways on #5 and #17.  On #5, it definitely makes your lay-up more interesting.  It's a difficult wedge shot over the large bunker if you choose to go for the easy lay-up to the right of the fairway.

The split fairway on #17 really is pointless.  There is no advantage to going up the right side.  

The nines recently switched here as well.  #17 on the left side used to be #8.  This was definitely a switch for the better as the old #18 (now #9) was a short and easy par 4.  The new #18, as seen on the left side of the aerial, can be a difficult finisher with water playing down the entire right side and can often play into the wind.

[Tim Taylor]

Jimmy,

Geez, that means they switchted 'em back again because the course has always played with 17 as the hole I said was 17. I haven't played there much since I became a private club elitist snob South Riding has switched the nines numerous times also. Those courses are on at least their third ownership group.

I like PVGC. It's got some fun holes, it's an easy walk and there are no houses. It's probably no more than a 5 on the Doak scale but for public courses in NoVa I think it's top 10.

The aerial came from terraserver.microsoft.com.

TimT

[Dick Kirkpatrick]

Ian:
Too much land, too little golf.

[ian]

Tom MacWood,

Strong wrote: "Such holes are hard to locate. They are hard to locate because fulfilling the two opposite sides of the contract is pretty close to an impossibility...."

That could not have been sumed up better.


Keith,

You facinated me with the question of why always a long carry, and your point is excellent. We use forced carries not only to test a players ability to hit a shot, but also to test there mental ability to come through under greater pressure. An accurate player is usually also a very strategic player off the tee, and it becomes hard to entice him to take risk. A long player usually has the ego to match, and it becomes much easier to pull him into a risky situation. While it does not directly deal with your suggestion, it at least tells you why. Your point is excellent, but harder to design.


Lynn,

I loved the point about the green not being an issue unless the approach length is reasonable. I love the idea of the

fairway choice being dictated by a green contour.


Dick,

Your probably right, for the one or two times it works well, it probably wastes a lot of land and maintenance on the times it does not work.

[Mark Brown]

Alternate Fairways: So much to consider.

I love risk/reward strategy, but I think the key to alternate fairways is how great the risk is on the most challenging route. If it crosses the line 8o% are going to choose the less challenging route all the time. So you are really building it for low-handicapper or scratch or golfers. Valhalla is a good example.

There is also the danger of taking one wide fairway, which could offer plenty of strategy if designed well, and turning it into two fairways that have trees (or whatever) on one side and a hazard in the middle. It can easily turn into target golf and go from a strategic to a penal hole.

If bunkers or some type of playable hazard separates the fairways this possibility can be avoided.

Another way to approach this is to make the primary go/or not go factor a reasonable carry to the challenging fairway and little or no carry to the safe fairway. Most fairly good golfers (mid-handicappers or better) would rather risk a carry than try to keep it between two lateral hazards even if the fairway is fairly wide -- like the short four at Pine Barrens.

The problem with "reachable" fours with alternate fairways is that they're reachable for scratch players, but the tees are rarely moved up enough for mid and high-handicappers to go for it. Enough for now...

 

[Don_Mahaffey]

A contrarian’s view...but why does everything have to be some sort of risk/reward. I just haven't seen that many double fwys where everyone didn't play the same route most of the time. Why not a double fwy that doesn't offer a clear safe/hard route, but instead two avenues of play that are close in difficulty yet one route may be preferable on any given day based on wind direction, shot shape, or hole location? A split fwy where there is no consensus on which avenue of play is best. Why not?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()