Mike Benham said:
"Is this another "chicken or egg" thing?
Point being, from a design/construction standpoint, is the fairway or the tee box that is offset?
Does the design and build of the fairway come first, and then the orientation of the tee box?"
Mike:
I don't think it matters which way one described it. As Tom Doak seemed to be trying to say, any of the tees are probably pointing at the LZ (for that tee) which essentially is a point. It's just that the basic parallel lines of the axis of the fairway seem off-set to the line from any tee to its LZ, and obviously that creates an angle or a diagonal.
Of all the fairways like this that immediately come to my mind it seems the 15th at Rustic Canyon is the one that's at the greatest angle. When first out there looking at that landform and the proposed tee placements (before the course was built) it looked to me to be pretty scary for the various levels of golfers in what line they needed to reasonably take. It was very deceptive looking in length but GeoffShac kept assuring me that the actual distances probaly weren't what they appeared to be. I thought it was a beautiful set-up but seemingly pretty scary looking.
Also just think in your experiences seeing a golfer, even you, coming to a hole like that and hitting a good drive in a direction that seemed resonable but not come anywhere near carrying at that angle. That's what makes so much of golf architecture interesting, so much of it is about angles, angles, angles!
Bogey Hendren said:
"I disagree with Tom Paul's idea, however, as the awkward second shot, totally devoid of any aiming reference, is the hole's best feature/defense."
Bogey:
Look at that hole this way---that the present off-set fairway's interest is that awkward second shot that's blind and devoid of any aiming point. That is a pretty strong feature and somewhat of a maddening one, particularly to the long baller. How interesting is it for him to have to play that hole that way every time? The point of my recommendation by bringing down a "false front" on that upper fairway is to tempt him into trying to reach it by getting it "JUST" in his range and making it visible. From the present tip tees that may be a bit out of reach for even the long baller, particularly since he can't see it and consequently may not be aware where it starts.
Give him the option to really hit one huge and get up to that upper fairway off the tee. What would his reward be if he could pull that off? Obviously his reward would be a chance to go at that green from a shorter distance and some height. The lower fairway for a whole lot of obvious reasons doesn't exactly offer that temptation, and so the hole the way it is plays pretty one dimensionally.
I say that left fairway ought to end around 280 and the upper fairway should begin about 260-270 (because of its height effectively about 280) and then the options for the long baller would be brought into a very interesting and tempting "balance" or "equilibrium" with a drive to the end of the lower fairway. If you can get a good golfer to stand on that tee thinking "what to do?, what to do?" that makes any hole better and more interesting than merely hitting it down the left fairway and then laying it up blind over the hill day after day.
Don't forget good architecture is often about "options, options, options" and if they are in balance or equilibrium with each other because they're both functional (even if one is a tempting "stretch" off the tee) that's about as good as it can get.
That hole's back tee may need to be shortened just a tad to make the "go" option on that long par 5 a bit more doable than it is now at 575 and probably effectively a bit longer than that due to its topography.