Would you split this fairway?

[Ronald Montesano]

(There is a par five at Glen Oak in East Amherst (near Buffalo) that could benefit from a split fairway...(http://glenoak.com/CRStage.cfm?Page=Hole%2018&CAT=Hole&MainNav=True))


This is the worst par five I've played in western New York.  It's an RTJ Senior design.  It is the worst of "Z" shaped holes on good courses.  If you look at the rendering, a clearing of most of the trees to the left and a re-angling of the tees would bring in options currently not available. 

If you could, would you re-do the hole as I suggest or would you select another option?

[Anthony Gray]

  Ronald,

  Excellent suggestion. It would allow for some players to go for the green in two. I am always in favor of risk/reward off the tee.

  Anthony

 

[Ronald Montesano]

Thanks...It is easy to move the tee on # 2 to afford more room on # 18.  #2 works better as a short to mid-length par three, instead of going to 180+ yards.  The creek in and around the trees is not so wide that it can't be piped and covered if needed.  It's another case of a single element (the pond) dominating a hole on an RTJ course and it's a bloody awful way to end a good round of golf.

[John Moore II]

Ronald--Putting another fairway over on the left side where the trees are currently would, to me, present a safety hazard with players having to hit over or very near that other tee box (assuming that is another tee). Relocating the tee to the right to elimnate this safety risk, would make a split fairway to the left pointless because the angles and such to the green would not be much different. Now, if you could relocate the other tee box somewhere to the left of the picture, the idea may work. But it also depends on yardages as well. If the yardage into the green was not short enough to give people the option to go for the green, it would be a waste of money.

I think the option of another fairway would be an ok idea, but there would have to be a lot of work done by moving the other hole around and construction of another fairway. I can't really say what I would do without have a good bit more information about the hole, yardages, etc.

[Phil McDade]

Ronald:

I'm not the biggest fan of "split" fairways -- instead, I like the idea of width with multiple options on how to attack a hole off the tee, with multiple rewards and difficulties on succeeding shots.

On this hole, I could see (in the absence of knowing what's nearby) of clearing out all the trees, on both sides. This could:

-- Allow the really long and bold golfer to got left, and clear the extreme left creek, with an easier second to a green that is now open up to them;

-- Allow the same golfer to clear the second part of the creek middle or right, perhaps even squeezing one in between the creek and the pond, with the knowledge that the creek is angled to catch a bold drive that drifts right (and also requires a more difficult shot into a green entirely fronted by the pond);

-- Allow the hole to be played conventionally, as outlined in the hole description.

I also don't like the bunkers left leading up the green that pinch the approach shot. They seem to discourage a gambling second shot for a player who plays short -- but right up to -- the creek that crosses diagonally across the fairway.

[Ronald Montesano]

Phil and John,

Thanks for your input.  Both sets of suggestions are meritorious.  The tee box to the left is hole # 2 and can be bumped to the side to create a bit of angle coming into the par three green.  This would provide the needed safety room, I believe, to open #18 out to the left.  The bunkering along the 2nd portion of the fairway is typical containment bunkering, otherewise known as "well, we should probably put something here."  It adds a second hazard and really is unnecessary, given the size of the pond.  I think that you keep the farthest bunker (the one closest to the green), expand its size and eliminate the first two sand holes.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Ronald,
Make it a par 4 of 440 or so. Locate the back tee just to the NW of the 17th green, making for a carry of 220 over the second creek. It would be a nice draw tee/fade approach shot combo.

[Rick Shefchik]

If you cleared out that clump of trees, would anyone use the right-side fairway?

It also looks to me like there's a par 3 to the left that would be endangered if the trees were removed.

[Andy Troeger]

It would seem like you would have to move that other tee a LONG way to really have it out of the way. As Ronald as said that would be an option, then it could very well create an interesting finisher. It would be interesting to see what that would do to the other hole as well. Improving one hole to cause issues with another might not be worth the expense.

The diagonal creek looks like it has potential admittedly.

[archie_struthers]

 


No ...never , nyet , nein , absolutely not  ...

ps  I have strong feelings on this subject

[Ronald Montesano]

1.  The reason I proposed the twinned fairway is the proximity of the end of the fairway, even from the tips.  You run into the trees at about 280 off the tee and get into trouble beginning at 260 (and that's from the tips.)  On a typical summer day, that ain't nothing.

2.I believe that the adjacent tee on #2 can be moved westward and eliminate any contradiction with the tee ball on #18.  The equipment available today makes it a non-issue.

3.  I should have named the post "would you expand/twin this fairway?"

4.  Archie, elaborate a bit on your strong feelings.  Your trilingualism aside, you leave us in the lurch.

5.  Jim, that's almost a great idea!  It would eliminate the need to re-do the #2 tee, but it would require the removal of the trees right of #16 and might bring the wayward slice into play from that anti-penultimate tee shot.

6.  The way I see it (elaboration), the #2 tee can move westward, toward #1 fairway because no one hooks the ball into that clump of trees left of #1 fairway.  The stupid pond between the tee and the creek is typical RTJ Senior overkill.  Why have two consecutive hazards on a par three?  I think that if you bring the tee closer to the green on #2, it becomes a less penal hole.

X.  If you had the cash, you'd bump #1 green closer to the lake on that hole, bending it back rightward at the end.  Then the #2 tee would be even less of an issue than the non-issue it is.

[Phil McDade]

If you cleared out that clump of trees, would anyone use the right-side fairway?

It also looks to me like there's a par 3 to the left that would be endangered if the trees were removed.

Rick:

I would. The tee shot left, short of the creek, still looks like  a tough shot -- the fairway narrows between those two creeks quite a bit, it appears. Going right appears to be the way for the short and non-gambling player -- pretty much my game. I can see someone going left off the tee, short of the creek, for a chance at an aggressive layup for an easier third shot.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Ronald,
It would only require removal of some of the trees, not the whole stand. I'm looking at the 'bird's eye' view aerial at maps.live and there is a small clump, just east of the runway tee, that is about 35 yds wide (west to east), 70 yds long (north to south) and represents about 1/5 of the total stand. The first creek wraps around this area.
Remove those and you have enough room to move the tee over without losing the buffer for the 16th hole.

[John Moore II]

In all honesty, after a further look, I think it would be hard for the split fairway to work without reworking the other tee box and likely moving the current 18th green or doing some major work. Basically, in order for a change to happen, you have to rebuild the entire hole. This would not be very cost effective. I might say leave it as-is right now.

[Ronald Montesano]

Thanks for the input.  I agree that the space where the trees left are is strangled by the creek.  The hole is so abysmally bad, with the narrowing in lay-up land between the sand and the lake, that I'd love any input to change it.  A zig-zag par five played three wood-7-iron-wedge holds my interest for less than a moment.