[Tim_Weiman]

Tom,

Let me go back to definitions.  Is the 10th hole at Sherwood a split fairway?

[THuckaby2]

The one with the rock in the middle on which Duval got "screwed."

Whoa.. that's a tough one. Great example (if I am thinking of the right hole!) It sure doesn't meet my mental picture of a split fairway, but I'm struggling with a reason NOT to call it such... the only thing I can think of is that since that's a circular hazard in the middle of a fairway, I'd define it more in that light... split fairway to me means split all the way to the green... but I have absolutely NO justification for thinking this way however!

Damn good example - well done.

TH

[GeoffreyC]

My views on 18 at Yale.

I don't consider this hole to be effectively a split fairway hole.  The option is not there to go right.  I have talked a lot about this with George Bahto and we agree that the right fairway is simply much too narrow.  Given firm conditions there is no way to stop the ball and wild bounces off the center hill will be even worse.  Even when its soft, balls just don't stop on that fairway. We were thinking (mostly George) that removing most of the trees separating #10 from #18 would create a viable lower fairway requiring a longer route to the green and one that had to go over a hazard short and right of the green as well as the right greenside bunker.  We even had a fantasy of doing just this during the "restoration" until the project no longer cared to take advantage of George's expertise       .  In addition, as it currently exists, the hill will block a view to the green of any layup attempts into that fairway except those that go all the way to the end of the right fairway and this either requires a very high, soft landing shot to avoid taking a chance hitting the high grunge on the hill.  If you can do that you have no need to layup on the right side.

Most drives except when conditions are soft can use less then a driver.  The next shot decision really for me has more to do with my lie then anything else.  If on the left side of the fairway, the hill plays much more of a role and I will hit no more than my hybrid 2iron/5wood and as little as a 5 iron always playing uup the left fairway.  A solid shot can still go over the hill leaving wedge/sande wedge.  Laying up shorter usually leaves no more then a mid iron.  Into the wind, all bets are off and this hole is VERY different and VERY difficult.  

Never ever try to hit the center hill between the fairways.  This is a major cause of slow rounds at Yale as the hill is usually knee high deep thick grass and lost balls are VERY common. Wispy dry grass as was the case pre-irrigation system would be much better maintenance practice.

The shot to the upper left fairway requires real precision and it requires knowing where to aim. This took me a while to learn.  It didn't take long to learn that the consequences of not executing the shot are severe. The difficulty and precision required to hit a good spot on the upper fairway make the idea of removing the trees between 10 and 18 more of a good idea.  Going right to a wider fairway would be much easier but leave a more difficult 3rd shot.  Also the only viable way to go over all the hills leaving a wedge approach is to go to the left.  It's a hole that's really not that difficult to birdie or to make a snowman or worse.  I've even pitched in from 74 yards for a 3  

[THuckaby2]

WHEW!  I was hoping the expert would arrive.  Thanks, GC.  Makes great sense to me... I just didn't remember the center being so thickly grassed, that's all.  That's ok, I didn't really look at it that closely is I hacked up the left!

Cheers.

TH

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom/Geoffrey:

I remembered the center being nasty but not the width of the right side.  It sounds to me like Yale made a big mistake not listening to George.

Isn't some of the charm lost if there aren't a couple ways to play that beautiful monster?

[GeoffreyC]

Tim

no one walks the right fairway unless they go that way by accident usually.  

The idea for widening that area was George's and to my knowledge we never brought it up with the committee. the project went a different direction by then.  It's all Roger's show now and he is working with a group of 9 Yale members (THE COMMITTEE- not in the business or particularly knowledgeable on the subject of golf course architecture or MacDonald/Raynor) who oversee his actions. I've said it too often before- I can't for the life of me understand the logic of their decisions.

Charm is not within the list of words I would ever use to describe that hole but you are correct that it would be a more strategic hole with the right fairway option intact.  I find it hard to believe that hole was ever finished.  I don't think Raynor would have left that right fairway so unplayable had he seen it when the course was in play.

[Matt_Ward]

A few that come to mind ...

The 1st at Devil's Pulpit (outside Toronto) -- the new big time design that really elevated the duo of Hurdzan & Fry. The course was built on behalf of the two man team that created the famous Trivial Pursuit board game years ago.

From what I understand it took over $1 million to build just the first one. Whether that makes sense or not is really the issue at hand.

The hole has an elevated tee that gives a view that is truly stunning -- you can actually see parts of downtown Toronto on a clear day.

The 1st is a par-5 of about 500 yards from the tips. The hole offers two routes. The left is clearly the safest because it is wide enough for just about any type of player. The right hand side is divided off from the left by a series of moguls and bunkers from what I can remember. Just to the right of the right hand side is a continuing water hazard that runs on the same line. Push the tee shot just a tad right and it's Davey Jones locker.

Water also fronts the putting surface so you have to decide whether to be daring or safe. The right hand side can be played for the daring but the tee shot must be placed well. When you do accomplish this you can have a short short into the green -- I actually hit a PW into the green after nearly running out of room with the tee shot down the right side.

Another good hole worth mentioning is the 11th at Huntsville in Wilkes Baare, PA designed by Rees Jones. The hole provides a credible twin option depending upon your desire for risk.

One that fails the test but can be deliciously fun to play is the 6th at Stone Harbor (Cape May Courthouse, NJ), designed by Desmond Muirhead. Here the player must take the risky route because there is little room to play safe. The landing area is protected by water on BOTH sides and the green is bulkheaded in front with even more water. I love hard holes but this one will frighten just about anyone.

[Tim_Weiman]

GeoffreyC:

I gather you are saying my experience was usual in seeing other people play down the right.  It didn't make sense to me either, but as I was the only one going directly over the hill, I thought maybe there was something I didn't get.

Your are right.  Charm is probably not the right word.

But, there are certain holes where you can't help feeling the architect is looking down with a laugh.  #18 at Yale does that to me; so does #4 at Spyglass.

Anyway, #18 must have been amazing when it opened.  Do you think many guys could make a five back then?

[GeoffreyC]

Tim

I love #4 at Spyglass too.

No I don't think that many players made 5 on the 18th hole when it first opened for play.

here it is in 1925 via George Bahto's thorough research


A split fairway option that I like a lot is on #4 at Steve Smyers Royce Brook West.

Teh hole is a dogleg left of about 440 yards (guess).  There are trees and OB left with a narrow fairway on the left separated from the wider right fairway by a set of deep bunkers.  A drive to the left fairway is more difficult but you are rewarded by both a shorter shot to the green and a straight in approach to the green that is angled from front left to back right.  Its a really good hole on a course that gets dis'ed too much on this site (in my opinion). It seems only BillV and I like it a lot.

[Tim_Weiman]

GeoffreyC:

I'm already excited about the book.  Yale is awesome now.  What it must have been like in the early years is really something to think about.

Do you know how much pubicity it got back then?  How many courses could have been considered more challenging?

[GeoffreyC]

Tim

I don't want to hijack a split fairway discussion BUT

I don't have my copy of MacDonald's book here but he mentions something to the effect that he believes that the Yale course is/was among the finest inland courses anywhere.

From looking at old construction photos I would tend to agree.  It was much more difficult back then.  George will show some of this in his book.  There is a photo of the greenside bunker on the 7th hole that will blow you away.  It's huge (as big as the green itself!) and deep with a big lip over the green.  Amazing and it could have been restored   (that face indicated I'm more angry then sad theses days).

Yale GC 1934

[GeoffreyC]

On the aerial

1- notice the narrow right fairway on #18.  Also notice the fairway bunker on the face of the hill.  Picture this mountain in front of you to clear for your 2nd shot and now you put a bunker in the face of the hill- EVIL. Note the better angle into the green from the more difficult to reach left/upper fairway.

2- Notice the size of the bunker on #7 green

[Nick_Christopher]

Tim,

#1 at Kingsley is a great strategic start to the round.  The higher ground is definitely advantageous because it affords a better view and more distance on the second shot.  However, if the wind is in your face, or if you aren't confident you can get to the top of the hill, then the low road is a safe, and effective option.  

I think #8 at Kingsley provides more of a dilemma because it tempts you to drive over the three right side bunkers in the rough to get to the narrow strip of fairway, thus allowing you an uncontested shot to the green.  A safe drive to the left forces a player to carry a very deep and menacing bunker on the left front of the green.  

I used to always play to the more risky right hand side, but in October, I found the fairway bunkers more than once, and I'm not sure how I'll  approach the hole in the spring.

[Tim_Weiman]

GeoffreyC:

I'll redirect the general Yale discussion to another thread.

[TEPaul]

Matt Ward:

You mentioned #11 Huntsville as a good split fairway hole with two credible risk/reward options. I think I would have to disagree with that.

I really like Huntsville! I haven't played many Rees Jones courses but Huntsville is a good one! But that hole has got problems--very definitely problems not in basic concept but the way Rees constructed the concept.

We've been talking about that hole for a long time. I'm not talking about architectural critics but tournament golfers. And not one of them, including me, can make much sense out of the way that hole is designed.

Basically Rees had a good idea there and a pretty good and broad landform for the hole. But somehow he got the options and the risk/reward values of them all turned around or turned on their heads.

I'm all for trying to mix up concepts or make combinations of them somehow but on this hole it ain't working. Basically Rees has a higher risk left fairway that creates no reward at all for the golfer on his second shot. Matter of fact, it sort of makes things worse no matter what you do! The right fairway swings out farther to the right and is much less risky but the a shot in from there is basically easier and less risky in almost every way (except maybe a bit of distance for the shorter hitter).

The left fairway runs out of space way too soon for the big hitter and even from the end of it you are still way under the green with much more to carry (the bunkers) than from the less risky right fairway. And the left side of that left fairway is dangerous and the ball can easily slip left into real trouble. The left fairway also starts too far out for a shorter player to consider risk-wise.

There are a number of things Rees may have been able to do here like orient the green over to the higher risk left fairway to give that play the reward it needs. Or he might have extended the left fairway so a high risk long hitting player could get more distance and get closer to the green.

It's a nice split fairway idea but the way he designed it just doesn't make any sense or enough sense. I would say any golfer (member) even a long hitting one would never really bother with the left fairway so that would be an option that's  essentially nonfunctional, at least in a sane risk/reward sense.

And #14 has problems too--but problems that could probably be fixed somehow. For anyone other than a real long hitter #14's options sort of disconnect a bit. Maybe more than a bit!

And in that context, I'd like to ask you how you personally analyze golf courses and holes through the spectrum of golfer levels and how the architecture plays for them. I understand you're immensely long and therefore might get a distorted impression of things. In other words can you or do you really analyze a golf course properly for a golfer who hits the ball 50yds+ less than you do, but who needs to play from the same tees for some reason--like a tournament?

[Matt_Ward]

TEPaul:

In answering your questions.

First, whenever I rate a course I ALWAYS take into account how the architect can satisfy the varying playing levels of different players. Usually, when I visit I'll have with me a buddy or two who play in vastly different styles than I do.

Second, as far as Huntsville is concerned keep in mind that if you venture down the left side the distance is REDUCED to 419 yards -- the far right side extends the hole to 445 yards. That makes a big difference right off the bat in determining what you want do at the tee.

I usually go down the left side if I'm hitting the ball straight because on that side there is little room for a bail out shot. Usuaully I'll hit either a 3-wood if there's a headwind or a 1-iron / 2-iron with no wind or slightly downwind. The total distance for the fairway on the left side can't be much more than 290 yards before you reach the junk.

Now, if you go down the right side you can hit driver and you do have room to bail out if you're a bit innacurate that day. That's something for the player to decide. The player who does hit the ball straight should try to go down the left side to exploit their straight hitting and the added vantage of having less yardage into the green. That is truly risk and reward because you must fit your game accordingly. The long hitter often in split fairways can gain even more of a pronounced differentiation simply because of length.

I have played some split fairways where I if I take a risk I can maximize a separation point of considerable yardage. Here, I believe Rees has tried to keep all types of players on their toes depending upon what their appetite for adventure is.

The approach to the green I believe also gives you options because if you do make it down the left side you can loft a shorter iron that will probably check up closer to just about any pin location as opposed to the longer right side.

Tom, in your final point -- very few people have more of an appreciation for real length than I do. It is an advantage especially when kept in the ball park, however, smart architects know how to tempt you to take out the big stick while still providing solid options for those who don't the ball as far. One last item -- it's not total distance that's important but the ability to carry the ball in the air. Few players can actually carry the ball at sea level more than 250 yards.

Hope this helps ...

[TEPaul]

Matt:

Don't know how many times you've played Huntsville but I would really question whether the hole works like you said there and the way you may think it does. And that's my point.

I know how the hole is supposed to work but I would also question those yardages you gave at least effectively. Maybe that's what it says but I really don't think it plays that way  nor do lots of others.

I've played there enough--a State better ball and also a state some other good tournament and officiated the course too.

The fairway runs out too quick on the left side negating the reward of the longer drive and less distance in. Basically my recollection of the hole is that the right fairway swings well out to the right but the left fairway instead of being straight at the hole swings left some--not good. And the actual "playability" of the hole is such that these long hitters I've played with there and such just don't get the reward on the left fairway they should get.

I understand the concept of the hole perfectly. It's a good concept, a classic split fairway concept--it's just that the hole isn't working well with it!

[Dan Kelly]

Apologies, if I'm violating the DG's etiquette, but:

Earlier in this thread, in reply to Jeff McDowell's question, I outlined a type of hole I've never seen -- and asked if you-all think it makes sense.

I'm still wondering what you think of this:

I don't see any reason to be unhappy about a split fairway where there isn't any clear strategic advantage one way or the other. Let the player figure out whatever he or she can figure out from the tee.

Most of the split fairways I've played have suffered very badly from being too unequal: There has been only one smart play, and the other is worth thinking about only if you're (a) Tiger Woods, or (b) in a what-the-hell-life-is-short kind of mood.

I'd like to see a split-fairway hole where the strategic advantage would accrue not to the player who hits one fairway or the other, but to the player who can hit either fairway IN THE RIGHT PLACE. I'm thinking, say, of a split-fairway hole where (1) the lies toward the inside edge of each fairway will be considerably flatter than the lies to the sides of each fairway, or (2) balls hit to the inside edge of either fairway will not have to deal with greenside hazards that will confound shots hit from the outside of either fairway.

Does that make sense?

[TEPaul]

Dan;

What you say sounds good to me. Basically there are so many many many ways of creating nuances in any hole with all kinds of architectural mixing and wrinkles that can be interesting, don't you think?

My feeling about clear-cut options, though, like a split fairway concept, is that both options should function well and obviously that means that the options should be used and by as many different levels of player the better. Options should offer varying levels of temptation but should be functional. Basically an option that isn't used much is not very functional for some reason and therefore is probably not a good option. So something is wrong with the design, the hole, whatever!

[Matt_Ward]

TEPaul:

Based on your answer to Dan I have to ask again how you can say the 11th at Huntsville is really unfair in the way in which is designed???

Tom, as an FYI I've played Huntsville no less than four-five times and never felt as someone who hits the ball a decent ways off the tee that the hole was constraining because the fairway runs out on the left.

The distances I cited are accurate and the risk is in playing left because accuracy is so needed. You can always go right and with that comes a longer approach.

I guess we just have a difference of opinion.  

[TEPaul]

Matt:

I never said I thought #11 Huntsville was unfair. I said I didn't think the left fairway functioned well and for that reason the concept of the hole didn't work well. I said to Dan that an option that wasn't very functional (used much) is probably not a good option.

I haven't been there in a few years so I'll look again sometimes but I've played the course about a dozen times and have been there with fields of about 150 players and the hole was discussed a lot. I never found anyone who had much good to say about it as they all seemed to feel it just didn't work well for what it was designed to be. They felt about the same way about #14! An interesting concept but the way the hole was done just didn't carry out that concept well. Otherwise the course was interesting--a good course.

[GeoffreyC]

I played Huntsville this year.  I had to try the left fairway but really just for fun to see if it works OK.  All I can say is that going left is a more difficult tee shot AND it leaves a much more difficult albeit shorter approach.  There is plenty of room over the very deep bunkers to hold a shot but I'm not sure why anyone would WANT to be required to carry them.  If you're in the fairway its reasonale but miss the fairway and you have little chance with the only recovery a bailout to the right fairway and then a pitch on for the 3rd shot.

The left side fairway works OK and it would be a difficult par 4 all by itself but its not a very good option.

[Jeff_McDowell]

Dan Kelly,

The more I think about your idea of having a split fairway where the choices aren't obvious the more I like it. Especially, if you combine your idea with Doug Wright's earlier idea of allowing pin placement or wind conditions to dictate the golfers route.

I can easily think of a hole where a back left pin placement is best approached from the right fairway that is more receptive to a fade. While a right front pin placement is best approached from the left fairway that is more receptive to a draw.

I think this hole would be extremely fun to play, because there is no correct way to play the hole. Each golfer will be able to play the hole to their strengths.

[redanman (Guest)]

Let me chime in here on 3 or 4 holes

#11 Huntsville doesn't really present options sa it is shorter left and a more repelling angle into hte green, so where's hte reward?  Right is safer with a better view and what 50-60 yards longer, duuuuh.  As a novel thought, the hole I think works best as a hole that can be played two different ways on different days depending where the tees are placed.  There is only a short spot on the right set of tees where you truly have a legitimte option.  A further right tee would add even more options to hte right fairway, but I think the hole is fine as it is, but it is not truly an option hole, but rather two, two, two holes in one!

#14 Huntsville was a very very difficult site.  The little forest near the green can go saving only a few trees for a zen garden sa it does not provide options as it is and the hole must be a nightmare for weaker players.  Unfinishable.

#4 on Royce Brook is one of many very worthy holes on a very disrespected golf course. Great hole well described by Geoff.  And it is about 440.  The cool thing is that the left, short landing area is totally blind.  Unless you hit it 330, you can't see your ball.  

p.s. to John Conley, this is another "average" course.  wink, wink, wink.

#15 at World Woods Pine Barrens is not really much of a choice hole in my opinion.

A great split fairway is the 13 or 14th hole at Desert Highlands.

[TEPaul]

BillV:

#14 Huntsville could be fixed real easily! Take those trees out on the second shot for starters or if they wanted to leave them or some of them then they could expand the option of playing straight ahead down into the massive pit in front of the green. I don't know if you ever noticed but there's actually a fairway landing area but it's about 3000ft, it looks like a green or a big tee! Great example of a non-option option! They could expand that bigtime and make that a reasonable option to play up to the green in 3!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()