[Tommy Williamsen]

Split fairways are sometimes fun. But I’ve played some courses where hitting to one of them is so risky that it is not worth the reward. JN uses them quite a bit on par fives. Lester George has two each at Ballyhack and at Kinloch. Sometimes they work well, sometimes not. Have any favorites?
Fifteen at Ballyhack works. There is a front porch on the fifteenth par five. The option is go left and either have a layup or try to go over the creek on the second or play for the front porch and go for the green. Most guys choose that latter option. Lester has a similar hole at Kinloch (9) but it doesn’t work as well for me.
This is the view from the tee on 15.

Closer view.

[MCirba]

Tommy,

I think they work when they present realistic multiple options allowing everything from better angles and shorter approaches for more daring shots to providing a bail out area for safety either from the tee or after a poorly positioned previous shot.

I've seen some where I scratch my head and wonder why anyone would ever choose that route but sometimes that confusion has its own charm.   Generally, I think the more options available, the more interesting the golf.

[Jeff Schley]

I think the pendulum has swung to just wide fairways and splitting them up is a nod to the 80/90 design of tough courses are the best. I like the wide fairways myself, but can appreciate the occasional split fairway.

[Paul Dolton]

Southerndown in Wales has one on the 18th which works well. It's mainly due to the topology.
I used to work at the Oxfordshire which has one on 17. It's strategic allowing you to take on the water with either your second or third shot.
I believe it's a Rees Jones design.

[Thomas Dai]

Options including those provided by split fairways are nice. They don’t have to be formal split or a big or wide split either. 16th at TOC with the Principals Nose bunkers is wonderfully effective. Not so keen on splits with central trees though due to foliage height in relation to options particularly for low trajectory players.
Atb

[Jeff_Brauer]

I think in general, they don't live up to their potential.  It seems golfers tend to find a "best way" and stick with it over time.


I think there are two types - The forced carry short cut fw on a dogleg and the side by side on a straight hole.


To work as a shortcut, golfers need to be able to save at least 2-3 clubs, the approach distance needs to go from under 180 to over 180 (where accuracy starts to wain), and perhaps some other advantage, like working with the wind, frontal opening, speed slot, etc.  This usually requires a 450+ par 4 with a + 45 degree dogleg, and maybe up to 67-80 degrees.  Note, Pete Dye figured out later on that it is probably better to guard the short cut route twice, leaving the longer approach shot with some kind of opening for the safe players, not forcing a bogey if they go that way.


Side by side probably requires a wide green, and usually, but not always, the left side favors coming in from the right and vice versa.  A gull wing or "A" frame green usually work well on these shots.


I have seen a few where the short cut is an easier route, which doesn't work at all.  Shorter and an easier approach?  What other choice would I make, unless it was really a tiny target area.


I have also seen some golden age and newer courses where the alternate fw has been converted to rough, not seeing enough action to warrant mowing and spraying another 1-2 acres of fw.


Jeff Schley, I have asked this question here numerous times, but what, in your minds eye, constitutes a wide fw in terms of yards of width?  Some would say 40 yards, others 50 or even 60.

[Jeff Schley]

I think in general, they don't live up to their potential.  It seems golfers tend to find a "best way" and stick with it over time.


I think there are two types - The forced carry short cut fw on a dogleg and the side by side on a straight hole.


To work as a shortcut, golfers need to be able to save at least 2-3 clubs, the approach distance needs to go from under 180 to over 180 (where accuracy starts to wain), and perhaps some other advantage, like working with the wind, frontal opening, speed slot, etc.  This usually requires a 450+ par 4 with a + 45 degree dogleg, and maybe up to 67-80 degrees.  Note, Pete Dye figured out later on that it is probably better to guard the short cut route twice, leaving the longer approach shot with some kind of opening for the safe players, not forcing a bogey if they go that way.


Side by side probably requires a wide green, and usually, but not always, the left side favors coming in from the right and vice versa.  A gull wing or "A" frame green usually work well on these shots.


I have seen a few where the short cut is an easier route, which doesn't work at all.  Shorter and an easier approach?  What other choice would I make, unless it was really a tiny target area.


I have also seen some golden age and newer courses where the alternate fw has been converted to rough, not seeing enough action to warrant mowing and spraying another 1-2 acres of fw.


Jeff Schley, I have asked this question here numerous times, but what, in your minds eye, constitutes a wide fw in terms of yards of width?  Some would say 40 yards, others 50 or even 60.

As my handicap continues to rise, so to would my response.    What would you say Jeff? Medinah the course you grew up playing certainly isn't wide by any measure.

As an aside, I quite like a shared fairway which is another way to share the width economically for 2 holes. TOC obviously has this feature, but as a fader (slicer) of the ball I appreciate the wide side being on the right. Then I don't have to aim in the middle of the fairway.

[Don Mahaffey]

Wide fwys with internal hazards work better. 

[Tommy Williamsen]

Southerndown in Wales has one on the 18th which works well. It's mainly due to the topology.
I used to work at the Oxfordshire which has one on 17. It's strategic allowing you to take on the water with either your second or third shot.
I believe it's a Rees Jones design.

Paul, I've played both of those and agree about how well they work. Did the private model ever completely work out at Oxfordshire? I played about ten years ago and enjoyed.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Options including those provided by split fairways are nice. They don’t have to be formal split or a big or wide split either. 16th at TOC with the Principals Nose bunkers is wonderfully effective. Not so keen on splits with central trees though due to foliage height in relation to options particularly for low trajectory players.
Atb

The second hole at Ballyhack does not have two separate fairways but, like 16 at TOC, effectively has one that works well.

[Phil Burr]

The first example that comes to my mind is 18 at Yale.  I always though its architectural merit was dubious but it's also been 15 years since I've last played it.  Talking Stick North also has something of a split fairway on #4, at least from the back tees where the center bunker forces all but the biggest hitters to choose a line between the wider, safer left side or the more direct but narrower right side.

[Tom_Doak]

Hopefully the fourth hole at Lido will work when we re-create it this summer!


That's one hole where we will have to build an extra tee or two to make the distances work.  The original short-cut route along Reynolds Channel required a 200-yard carry to get to the island fairway [much more daunting in 1918 than today!] and ran out of real estate at about 280.  We will still build that tee, but for a really good player today it would be 4-wood, 5-iron or something like that, which was surely not what Macdonald had in mind.


I've seen a lot of split fairway holes, but not many that I thought worked well for "B" golfers or below, who often get shunted into taking the longer way around only to be rewarded with a long approach from a bad angle.

[Phil Burr]

TD, as always you hit on a great point.  Looking for examples where the reward of the shorter route is an approach played with a more lofted club that requires greater precision while exacting a penalty for a miss; the longer route offers a better angle played from a greater distance but with less hazard.

[Greg Tallman]

Guess I’ve played only 2 that I really liked:


Worlds Woods Pine Barrens 15 (16??):
[size=78%]Realistic chance to drive the green (common theme for me I suppose) and a pretty tough short approach of taking the “safe” route. [/size]


Cabo del Sol Ocean #11 (sadly NLE relatively soon):
Much like the above example this was a reachable 4 with a “safe” side that was no easy tee shot and approach that was pretty tough to judge given semi blind nature. Beyond that the hole location actually dictated if the drive the green option was even prudent given a perfect tee ball on the safe side offering a 90-100 yard approach was just as likely to get close as a 70 foot putt from above the hole. (Obvious bias here but always liked the hole).

[Tommy Williamsen]

Do you think they work better off the tee or can they work on second shots like the par five fifth at Muirfield Village?

[mike_malone]

I think the land dictates it. Is there a natural feature that creates it?
Yale fits that as does Morgan Hill outside Philly.

[Mike_Trenham]

Colorado Golf Club #16 Par 5 is an example that I felt worked well.  The path up the right side is shorter but going left is safer.

[Brian Brown]

The 13th on the Red course at Bethpage is a split fairway. I think the hole works because it gives you a risk reward options with both fairways. The right fairway leaves you a shorter shot into the green over a bunker but at this angle the green becomes very shallow and harder to hold.  The tee shot to the left side is blind with a carry over a large bunker set into the side of a large mound. From the right fairway the hole is 1.5 to 2 clubs longer but a much more receptive angle to the green.

[Paul Dolton]

Southerndown in Wales has one on the 18th which works well. It's mainly due to the topology.
I used to work at the Oxfordshire which has one on 17. It's strategic allowing you to take on the water with either your second or third shot.
I believe it's a Rees Jones design.

Paul, I've played both of those and agree about how well they work. Did the private model ever completely work out at Oxfordshire? I played about ten years ago and enjoyed.

Tommy if you mean the split fairway , members would almost always take the water on with there third shot as they were hitting a mid iron.
The other way was a wood or long iron over water but a shorter third shot.
The club itself opened with great fanfare and was very expensive using a debenture scheme. That didn't work out and it's had a few new owners during which time it has held some big events including the European Tour.
It has since built a hotel offering stay and play deals.

[Sean_A]

I have only played it once, but the new left fairway on Deal's 16th strikes me as meaningful. I also think there was a left fairway back in the day that was abondoned. If for any other reason, the left fairway shines when wet weather hits hard because the main fairway can get wet.

Ciao

[Tim Martin]

Two that work well are Essex County Club # 8 and Yale # 18.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
I am curious, you and I have sparred in the past about trying to restore "design intent".  I like to try to do so when and where it is possible and makes sense.  You stated that:


"The original short-cut route along Reynolds Channel required a 200-yard carry to get to the island fairway [much more daunting in 1918 than today!] and ran out of real estate at about 280.  We will still build that tee, but for a really good player today it would be 4-wood, 5-iron or something like that, which was surely not what Macdonald had in mind."

Given you likely could restore what Macdonald had in mind, will you try and if not, why not?

Mark

[Kalen Braley]

Cleaned up Marks post!

Tom,

I am curious, you and I have sparred in the past about trying to restore "design intent".  I like to try to do so when and where it is possible and makes sense.  You stated that:

"The original short-cut route along Reynolds Channel required a 200-yard carry to get to the island fairway [much more daunting in 1918 than today!] and ran out of real estate at about 280.  We will still build that tee, but for a really good player today it would be 4-wood, 5-iron or something like that, which was surely not what Macdonald had in mind."

Given you likely could restore what Macdonald had in mind, will you try and if not, why not?

Mark

[JohnVDB]

Colorado Golf Club #16 Par 5 is an example that I felt worked well.  The path up the right side is shorter but going left is safer.

Mike, I was thinking the same thing.  It seemed to work well at the US Mid-AM in 2019.

[Phil Burr]

How about the 7th at Valhalla?  I’ve never cared for it when I’ve seen it on TV but maybe it plays better than it looks.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()