[JC Jones]

I think one of the most difficult things that an architect does is considering how a hole plays for every type of golfer.  I, for one, very rarely am able to see a hole beyond how I could possibly play it.  So, while I am evaluating a split fairway based upon risk/reward, perhaps the intent is to make the hole playable for all players.

In assessing a split fairway, whether it be a par 4 or 5, I think it is important to consider whether the alternate line of play is intended for use by the better/longer player.  Sometimes the alternate line of play is intended to make the hole more playable for the shorter hitter. 

That said, I think the assumption is that the alternate line of play for the shorter hitter should also be "easier," particularly for the longer hitter who wants to take the alternate line of play.  Is this a proper assumption?  Is there a downside in having the hole play differently or more exacting for the shorter hitter taking the shorter hitter's path?

[Jud_T]

JC,

Can''t the same thing be said for the strategy of a well designed hole with a single fairway with, for example, an aggressive line with more risk/reward (carry, hazard etc.) for a shorter/better approach vs.a more conservative option?  Yes, I suppose in your example a better player can get rewarded by taking the "easier" route if the aggressive fairway is really a sucker play and a low percentage shot.  It depends on what you mean by more exacting for the shorter hitter.  If it's a lost ball situation that's one thing, but if it's a very difficult approach with short grass options that's another.

[Thomas Dai]

Ref JCJ's line "I think one of the most difficult things that an architect does is considering how a hole plays for every type of golfer" - There's a nice comment in Pete Dyes book 'Bury Me in a Pot Bunker'. Pete says "I listen to (my wife) Alice because she played with Babe Zaharias, Sam Sneed and Byron Nelson.Then she plays with three friends who can't break 90. Every time I build a course she asks how one of those women could play a hole. Makes sense to me."
All the best

[Tom_Doak]

JC:

I think a lot of the split-fairway holes I see are designed along risk/reward lines and fail to consider playability.  I put a diagram of the 13th hole at Desert Highlands into The Anatomy of a Golf Course to illustrate this.  The "C" player who cannot attempt the carry to the green has to play left, making for a longer approach back over a wash on a more difficult angle to the skinny green ... all of which is virtually impossible for the 20-handicap.  [Mr. Nicklaus apparently didn't read my critique, since he proceeded to build the same hole at Dismal River.]

I think there should be an option for the bomber and an option for the shorter, straighter hitter, both of which are possible for them.  But I have almost NEVER seen a split-fairway hole designed in that way.  The closest I've come myself is the 6th at Stonewall (Old).  The bomber can carry a creek from the tee but if he hedges to the side where the carry is not so severe, he has a tougher angle to the green; the short hitter can play to the end of a fairway short of the creek to get a good angle, but he'll have to hit a great 4-wood or something to get home.

[Bill Seitz]

I think there should be an option for the bomber and an option for the shorter, straighter hitter, both of which are possible for them.  But I have almost NEVER seen a split-fairway hole designed in that way.  The closest I've come myself is the 6th at Stonewall (Old).  The bomber can carry a creek from the tee but if he hedges to the side where the carry is not so severe, he has a tougher angle to the green; the short hitter can play to the end of a fairway short of the creek to get a good angle, but he'll have to hit a great 4-wood or something to get home.

This sounds a lot like the third hole at Flossmoor Country Club, although looking at the diagram, it's reversed from the sixth at Stonewall.  Which is to say, at Flossmoor, the further left you go, the better the angle, but the longer the carry, whereas Stonewall is the opposite.  I've not played Stonewall, but the third at Flossmoor is a great hole.  I've only played it a few times, and I've carried the creek every time, but I'm not sure I could ever carry the creek if I pulled it to the left side of the fairway.  Good thing I tend to play a small cut.  

[Mark Smolens]

Pretty sure you couldn't carry the creek on #3 last Monday Bill (tho Clint Squier can confirm). Cold wind out of northeast. Guy I played with in Chicago Open qualifier who finished second hit driver, hard, and was still well short -- kid could really play (made stroke play at Brookline).

Even if you could carry, however, with pin middle/back left, the drive to the shorter carry distance left a much better angle in.

[Eric Smith]

 [Mr. Nicklaus apparently didn't read my critique, since he proceeded to build the same hole at Dismal River.]

But isn't the hole at Dismal River a hundred yards shorter? The guy laying up to the left has a wedge in...to a punchbowl.

One of the 5 funnest holes at the club IMO.

[archie_struthers]

 


Still waiting to see a really good split fairway . Huntsville in Pennsylvania was quite enjoyable in general but the split fairway on the 11th (?) hole didn't do anything but increase construction and labor costs to me.  

Thanks goodness they didn't become a plague on design, do I hear reachable par 4 , because they in general are really a waste of time effort  and don't add to the architecture! Much better to have a fairway that recedes away with the angle of atttack  to test the really good players .

[Ian Andrew]

The only type that works for me is when two fairways merge diagonally and the width of the junction allows aggressive play down either side. The best seem to be all on the second shots of par fives.

The side by side, like Colorado Golf Club, do nothing for me.

The island concept like Lido or Valhalla either don't get used if they are too small or only get used if their too accommodating.
The line is too hard to find before it's in play.

Tom's comment on playability and higher handicaps is spot on.

[Tom_Doak]

Sadly, split fairway holes get built because they look cool in plan view when promoting the course.

Some of the best holes I've ever built look pretty boring in plan view, but they're awesome on the ground due to the undulations.  I learned that at High Pointe and have never worried about what a hole looks like on the plan afterward.

[Charlie Gallagher]

I just played Colorado Golf Club and it has a split fairway par 5 at the 16th hole. The 3 players I was with were longer hitters and better players than I, especailly that day. They all played the shorter route that required more carry off the tee, the right fairway. I took the longer left fairway route, layed up with a 6 iron, and had 95 yards left, a perfect sand wedge distance for me. The hole location that day was front left, and it proved an impossible assignment to get it anywhere near the hole for the four of us. If I remember correctly, the long hitters all landed left of the green and stayed up there, leaving what proved to be impossible Texas wedge shots. I hit a perfectly struck sand wedge that landed on my intended line just left of the green, dribbled down onto the green and proceeded to roll alll the way to the green's lower section leaving a 30 + footer back to the hole. All of us wound up with about the same putt for birdie.
   I think it's ok to have very difficult hole locations where extreme precision is required to access the hole on occasion, but I can't concieve of a shot staying near that hole on that green, unless the greens cut was lengthened. The three shot route that I played provided no reward for the precision I pulled off and my fellow competitors couldn't  get near the hole either. Colorado Golf Club is a fantastic course, and maybe the hole just should never be placed where it was. But there was no reward from either route given that hole locale.

[Ed Brzezowski]

JC:

I think a lot of the split-fairway holes I see are designed along risk/reward lines and fail to consider playability.  I put a diagram of the 13th hole at Desert Highlands into The Anatomy of a Golf Course to illustrate this.  The "C" player who cannot attempt the carry to the green has to play left, making for a longer approach back over a wash on a more difficult angle to the skinny green ... all of which is virtually impossible for the 20-handicap.  [Mr. Nicklaus apparently didn't read my critique, since he proceeded to build the same hole at Dismal River.]

I think there should be an option for the bomber and an option for the shorter, straighter hitter, both of which are possible for them.  But I have almost NEVER seen a split-fairway hole designed in that way.  The closest I've come myself is the 6th at Stonewall (Old).  The bomber can carry a creek from the tee but if he hedges to the side where the carry is not so severe, he has a tougher angle to the green; the short hitter can play to the end of a fairway short of the creek to get a good angle, but he'll have to hit a great 4-wood or something to get home.
 One of the best holes in the Philly area, but I was wondering how you think the hole will stand up to everyone(?) hitting it longer. Do you see a day when the creek will no longer be a challenge?

[Patrick_Mucci]

I think one of the most difficult things that an architect does is considering how a hole plays for every type of golfer.  I, for one, very rarely am able to see a hole beyond how I could possibly play it.  So, while I am evaluating a split fairway based upon risk/reward, perhaps the intent is to make the hole playable for all players.

In assessing a split fairway, whether it be a par 4 or 5, I think it is important to consider whether the alternate line of play is intended for use by the better/longer player.  Sometimes the alternate line of play is intended to make the hole more playable for the shorter hitter. 

That said, I think the assumption is that the alternate line of play for the shorter hitter should also be "easier," particularly for the longer hitter who wants to take the alternate line of play.  Is this a proper assumption?  Is there a downside in having the hole play differently or more exacting for the shorter hitter taking the shorter hitter's path?

JC,

I think so much depends upon how you're playing up until the time you confront the split fairway.
And, I think alot has to do with how you shape your normal shot and how the hole sets up for you.

I liked the dual fairway at Lido as the risk/reward was pretty evident.
What you can't see in the schematic however, is the "wind" and it's effect on play and your game as you play the hole.

I've seen a number of split fairways.
I tend to like them because it presents the golfer with choices, making him think

[Sean_A]

JC:

I think a lot of the split-fairway holes I see are designed along risk/reward lines and fail to consider playability.  I put a diagram of the 13th hole at Desert Highlands into The Anatomy of a Golf Course to illustrate this.  The "C" player who cannot attempt the carry to the green has to play left, making for a longer approach back over a wash on a more difficult angle to the skinny green ... all of which is virtually impossible for the 20-handicap.  [Mr. Nicklaus apparently didn't read my critique, since he proceeded to build the same hole at Dismal River.]

I think there should be an option for the bomber and an option for the shorter, straighter hitter, both of which are possible for them.  But I have almost NEVER seen a split-fairway hole designed in that way.  The closest I've come myself is the 6th at Stonewall (Old).  The bomber can carry a creek from the tee but if he hedges to the side where the carry is not so severe, he has a tougher angle to the green; the short hitter can play to the end of a fairway short of the creek to get a good angle, but he'll have to hit a great 4-wood or something to get home.

I am trying to envision a split fairway hole like this that isn't an opportunity for at least some to have a bash at the green.  The only other kind I can think of is if the safe play is miles right of to left or right of the dangerous play.  Maybe a canyon or something in the middle or perhaps the fairways are just well removed from each other.  The safe fairway has to be far enough off the direct route that it is essentially a par 5 - meaning nobody can reach the green from the safe route.  I imagine a setup like this would require loads of land and unless there is some unusable area I can't see the point compared to the awkwardness of two fairways being maybe 100 yards apart. 

Ciao

[Rich Goodale]

For a good example you can look at Mark Satlzman's excellent photo tour of Winchester CC below and check out the 13th hole.  Drive over the mass of bunkers rgiht leaves you a good view of and angle to the green.  Play low and left off tghe tee and you're safe but probably have to lay up on your 2nd shot.

[Thomas Dai]

An example of split fairways/alternate lines of play that comes to my mind is the par-4 7th hole on the Red-9 at Kings Norton GC, just south of Birmingham (UK).

It's about 400 yds long and a ditch runs literally straight down the middle of the fairway from the tee all the way to the green where it expands into a pond that runs around the right side. The ditch is about 5 ft wide but at about 230-250 yrds from the tee it widens for 30 yds into a small pond. From the tee you can either play to a wider fairway right of the ditch but then (if you're long enough) this means you'll be playing into the green over the pond, or alternatively you can aim your tee shot down the narrower left side which leaves a straight shot up the length of the green. Unfortunately I have no photos and the KNGC doesn't seem to have a plan of the hole.

I'm quite partial to a diagonal hazard running across a fairway. An example taken from one of my favourite courses, is the par-4 13th hole at Minchinhampton Old, the cattle and horses course, where you must play across an earthworks embankment and ditch running diagonally from right of the tee to close to the left side of the green. Rather than go into a long description here's a link containing two photos and the plan of the hole - http://old.minchinhamptongolfclub.co.uk/hole.php?hole=13
From the tee you can either play to the open left side side of the embankment of should you wish to be more daring you can play over the embankment from the tee but if you decide to go right the OB road also comes into play, particularly as the prevailing wind is against and from the left. The hole is only 360 yds but always seems to play significantly longer.

All the best

[Jeff_Brauer]

Even at the top levels, designing these split fw holes is tough.  Over time, the carry distance has become too short, or maybe was always too short in deference to the average players.  Obviously, even with multiple tees, the shorter the carry, the more you open up the thrill of the carry for average folks, but it makes it TOO easy for the longest hitters.  Then you have to perhaps add lateral bunkers or something to restore that challenge, or they take it all the time.

Disregarding wind, downhill, etc., that carry point would have to be at least 275 these days for the longest hitters. Figuring 35-40 yard tee splits (and I always make them bigger on this type of hole) That translates to 235-240 for the 260 hitter, 195-210 for the 230 hitter, etc.  Not bad, but the room for error on those levels really ought to be bigger.  As a practical matter, aligning the tees must consider both fw options, which is also never easy.

Add in the fact that for the best players, they need to have both a 2-3 club advantage to take a risk, AND the approach shot from the "safe" fw must be 180 yards or more to justify shortening it to 150 (going from 150 to 120 doesn't really help enough or make an angle difficult enough to justify the risk) and its hard to do these on anything but the longest par 4, or a par 5 where the go/no go decision comes into play.  Achieving a large distance differential requires a very sharp dogleg, as well.

Add in the fact that in the 1930-1950's, most double fw holes went away, as the cost to mow twice the fairway made a lot less sense in tough times, figure we are in those times again, and I would hesitate to design a double fw hole at all anymore, even though I probably have 50 examples of such out there somewhere.

As TD says, its very possible to get similar results with 1.5 fairways, using slopes or something subtle for the carry (or even the bottle hole concept) without adding 5 acres of turf for the alternate route.

[Charlie Gallagher]

I can give you a good example of a split fairway hole that works well, the 3rd at Wolf Point. The fairway bunkering requires the player to pick a route off the tee and the more dangerous play is down the left side, but a successfully executed drive left sets up a shorter route to the green and a better angle in. The right side route provides much greater margin for error off the tee, but brings bunkers and a poorer angle into play on the 2nd and 3rd shots.Mike Nuzzo's web site has pictures of the hole, if you want to check it out.

[Jim Sherma]

I can give you a good example of a split fairway hole that works well, the 3rd at Wolf Point. The fairway bunkering requires the player to pick a route off the tee and the more dangerous play is down the left side, but a successfully executed drive left sets up a shorter route to the green and a better angle in. The right side route provides much greater margin for error off the tee, but brings bunkers and a poorer angle into play on the 2nd and 3rd shots.Mike Nuzzo's web site has pictures of the hole, if you want to check it out.

Is this truly a split fairway? It seem more like a centerline hazard. I like centerline hazards that force a decision to be made. My experience with true split fairways is that I find a route that works for me and never choose the other route after that.

[Charlie Gallagher]

Jim,
   I think the bunkering on Wolf Points 3rd hole makes it play like a split fairway. The player must make the same choices regarding the route to be taken

[Patrick_Mucci]

Realizing that creating a hole with a split fairway is a difficult task, I would ask Tom, Jeff and other architects; what would lead you to consider and implement a split fairway'd hole ?

[Howard Riefs]

I think a lot of the split-fairway holes I see are designed along risk/reward lines and fail to consider playability.  I put a diagram of the 13th hole at Desert Highlands into The Anatomy of a Golf Course to illustrate this.  The "C" player who cannot attempt the carry to the green has to play left, making for a longer approach back over a wash on a more difficult angle to the skinny green ... all of which is virtually impossible for the 20-handicap.  [Mr. Nicklaus apparently didn't read my critique, since he proceeded to build the same hole at Dismal River.]

A similar botched attempt is Fazio's #15 at World Woods Pine Barens, a short par 4 (330 yards from tips) with an alternate fairway.

The bold shot is the right (F2) fairway that requires a 215 to 230 yard carry over water.  It leaves a simple pitch/chip ... or even a putt for the big hitter. The safe shot is to the left (F1).  However, the player will then have a semi-blind approach, over a bunker and to a green that is not overly receptive from that angle.  Not an ideal option for the higher handicap.






Credit: Ran's photo tour

[Eric Smith]

I can't believe you're calling 15 at World Woods a botched attempt.

Is it supposed to be easy just because it's under 300 yards?

[jeffwarne]

Howard,
Wouldn't 15 at WW be "botched" if the player HAD an ideal angle by playing left and incurring no risk?

The higher handicap player who plays safe and "suffers" the less than ideal angle, still has the handicap shot to fall back on

[Bill_McBride]

I can't believe you're calling 15 at World Woods a botched attempt.

Is it supposed to be easy just because it's under 300 yards?

Bail out and pay the price!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()