Tree backdrops to greens!

[Dunlop_White]

  In the Nov.9 issue of Superintendent News, Bradley E. Anderson wrote the following column, "Transform Boring Targets By Removing Backdrops". Thought this would be of interest to the discussion group regulars!

Dunlop                        

In its original Caledonian simplicity, the area behind the greens is rarely shored up with a backdrop of any kind. Some of the primordial greens of Scotland are nestled in dunes, but most of the approach shots are framed by a vast and ambiguous skyline well behind the flag.
In the United States, trees and containment mounding were not prevalent features behind greens until the 1960's when security, privacy and noise abatement became a concern. As the game grew the safety of those on the next tee became a legitimate issue. So the back of many greens were forested to protect the group ahead or to perhaps act as a buffer to minimize distractions. All of these actions combined have conditioned the modern-era player to expect something of significance behind virtually all greens. It would take a bold architect today to build a green that simply falls off the back into nothing.
Think of all the emotions which come into play during the approach shot to the green. You survey the yardage, the green, the wind and you rehearse the stroke. With each practice swing you look up to visualize the path of the ball. Are there any hazards to carry? How will the ball land? Of all these thoughts and emotions that precede a successful approach shot, the most important is the accurate visualization of what the ball will do after it leaves the club face. With each peak at the imaginary ball flight, one is actually drawing a line that is ultimately connected to one's surroundings. A green devoid of any visual assistance in making this shot requires you to use and trust your own keenest senses.
Consider the 17th hole at the TPC at Sawgrass-Stadium Course, which is 132 yards to an island green .It is not necessarily the hazard between the golfer and the target that gives pause, but the vast expanse of nothingness beyond the target which makes it so tough - nothing to aid in visualizing the shot.
On every golf course in this country, there are a few holes that could be transformed from yawners into wake-up calls by simply shaving down containment mounding and removing backdrop trees. A stark backdrop behind the green works effectively if the green is sitting on a hill or a knoll, if there is a drop-off or a body of water behind the green or if the green is crowned in the Ross model.
In the last 50 years the American game has become downright stingy from the tee. Everything has become lengthened and constricted to one angle of attack. At the other extreme is the end of the hole where the game has become too generous, to say the least. Removing tree backdrops will certainly bring the golfer more in touch with his senses.
Until now, every plea to remove trees behind greens has been predicated on the health of anemic turfgrass that is lucky to see four hours of sunlight a day. Tree worshipers feel that they are being asked to make a sacrifice. Perhaps the problems of excessive shade behind greens should be approached from a strategic argument. Just convince these tree worshipers that a vast and ambiguous backdrop to a green will give them the advantage of local knowledge over their guests, and perhaps they will lose some of their fervor.
In every sport there is something about having points of reference behind targets that transfer vital information to the eyes. In the absence of any significant backdrop to the target, one must possess a visceral talent of feeling the depth and distance to a shot. Such nerve is often enough not rewarded by the modern game of golf.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Great post! I recall Bradley Anderson writing one or two other interesting columns in GSN. (I haven't received the Nov. 9 issue yet, but look forward to it.)

Two holes that remain vividly in my mind's eye are:

1) the par 3 16th that Rod Whitman and I constructed this summer at Blackhawk in Edmonton.

160 yards or so from the tee, the slender green at the 16th is set on a 45-degree angle to the line of approach. It's perched up above a fronting water hazard that Whitman was forced to construct (storm water management for the housing component and an irrigation water storage basin).

But, the water feature isn't the main hazard per se. There's a very steep drop off behind the green that's going to make it very difficult to visually gauge the distance of this accurately.

The 16th had the potential to be one of Blakchawk's least interesting holes (it was kind of a "filler"). But the visual deception provided by the lack of a backdrop makes it unique itself.

2) Similar is the approach to the 15th hole at Scarboro G&CC in Toronto.

The approach here is uphill to a "skyline" green. It's a beautiful view, and because of the lack of a backdrop, a relatively difficult approach with a short iron.

I doubt anyone is ever hit on the 16th tee directly behind the green.

As much as safety relative to green/tee relationships is very important, it can be over-rated, inevitably hurting the potential for many exciting backdropless holes!

How many people have been killed on The Old Course as a result of stray balls?

[Don_Mahaffey]

The 4th at Apache Stronghold has to have one of the best scenic backdrops. A very cool hole.

I recently played a course in Iowa, (considered to be one of the best in the state)that had spruce trees just behind some of the greens. I just love being on my knees, choked up halfway to the clubhead, chipping to a green falling away from me.

[Jeff_Mingay]

You know, thinking about it, it would seem that a bunch of golf architects from the 1960s and '70s were getting kickbacks from a guy who owned an evergreen nursery.

So many classics -- particularly in the Northeast and Midwest -- have been overplanted with evergreens, it's nearly unbelievable.

Considering the blatant interferences this type of tree causes -- both architecturally and agronomically -- what was the rationale behind their plantings? There can't be a logical one.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff,

It might have been the fad of seperation, the desire not to see anybody else on the course.

I was thinking about how many evergreens, and pines have been planted at courses here in New Jersey, and, you're right, it is overwhelming, but just try to take one of them down.

[John Bernhardt]

Lets look at this from a different point of view. Trees give us points of reference for tee shots the a steeple or building gives one on a Scotish course. It adds to stategy and discussion and makes the over game better. also I would much rather look at a grove of trees as a backdrop to a hole than a trailer park or house. I am not advocating lining fairways etc but merely the use of trees as a framing  or backdrop is a good thing not bad.

[Mark_Huxford]

I agree John. Dunlop help me. I have to be honest and say I prefer playing tennis on a court with a dark backdrop behind my opponent as opposed to a see-through chainlink fence looking through to a broad lawn or park and many times it's the same in golf.

At Paraparaumu we have some very good greens here where there is no "backdrop" such as the 3rd - which the Architect specified be that way. On that hole there is a drop off behind the green which creates the illusion the shot is longer than it really is. Trees behind such a green would negate this enjoyable effect.

Unfortunately though we have a small property here bordered by a lot of "unsightly homes" as Ran would say (I think he refers to any home bordering a golf course as unsightly). We have a couple of holes that head West late in the round too (15 and 17). We recently had interior tree removal carried out on the course for a different reason (to get more spectators on the course to watch Tiger in January). Can you tell me the following is an improvement?

The 16th with trees behind green and on the boundary gone.

The 15th - ditto.

The 17th hole before

17th after tree thinning to promote easier gallery access between holes 11 and 18. Note containment mounding on left of picture to protect new 18th tee from tee shots off 17.

[Dunlop_White]

I think we possibly missed the point of the article. A backdrop of trees "assists" a golfer with shot selection, shot direction and shot execution. In an era where golfers are afforded so many types of "assistance" and aides from numerous sources, would'nt it be "refreshing" to play more holes where there were no backdrop of trees to assist you. You, therefore, would periodically have to use and trust your instincts and vision to feel the debth and distance of a shot. Not all the time, but some of the time. Tree backdrops are wonderful so long as every hole does not have them on every course. How boring! Removing the tree backdrops on a few holes per course gives the golfer a "variation of looks" and requirements.

Certainly, Bradley E. Anderson isn't promoting that all tree backdrops are strategically bad or should be removed. But a few, here and there, would "wake up" the hole and add variety to the course.

He lists certain situations which would call for the removing of backdrops, such as when the green is perched up on a shelf, when there is a large body of water behind the green, or when the terrain drops off from behind. You would then vision "debth" behind the hole. He uses descriptions such as "ambiguous skyline", "vast expanse of nothingness", and "stark background" to describe what you should see to promote the effect of having to use your senses. Clearly you would not exchange a backdrop of trees for the homes I see in the photos above. I suppose it all depends on what else is there behind the green. Hopefully, "nothing"!!!!