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