[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeremy,

You are free to disagree with Ross, just consider your credibility, before doing so.

You are also free to interpret his words according to your thinking, but again, reference the above paragraph.

Are you saying that it's okay to be in a bunker, and have any type of swing impeded by the branches of a tree, within, or near the perimeter of the bunker ?

Is it your interpretation, and architectual belief that a bunker can be completely surrounded by trees, hiding it from the tee or fairway, and prohibiting uninterupted flight from the bunker ?

[jglenn]

Patrick,

If Tom Fazio, Jack Nicklaus or Rees Jones said "If a bunker in any way interferes with a properly played stroke, I think it's an unfair hazard and should be removed."  I am more than certain that, at least in this DG, such a quote would be swiflty and properly ridiculed, amongst other things as an example of the "card-and-pencil" mentality prevalent today.

If Donald Ross were to say such a thing, whether about bunkers or trees, at the very least I would question the context in which it was said,  or at the very least someones interpretation of it.  In this case, yours.

Now, would I design a bunker surrounded by trees?

No.  For two reasons.  If the bunker/tree complex lies within the golf corridor, (out in the middle of the fairway, for example) it would simply look silly.  It’s not a question of shot value, it’s a visual issue.  And, if the bunker was in a forest to the side of the corridor, then I would claim that the bunker is out of place.  Not the trees.

But Patrick, we're really getting away from the subject.  The original question was branches interfering with line-of flight to the green.  Now you've transformed it into a mythical bunker surrounded by gnarly branches that make it impossible to take your club back in any direction.

Here’s my architectural belief:

Trees and bunkers have equal standing as design features on a golf course.  And there is nothing wrong with combining the challenges offered by each these features.

The art, of course, is knowing how much and when.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeremy,

Did you ever reread the first two paragraphs of your last post ?  What on earth are you thinking about, and how can you create an absurd statement, and attribute it to coming from Donald Ross, and how can you equate views on trees to bunkers, they are inherently different.  Few, if any view them in the same context.

As a basis of your argument, how can you attribute a incredibly absurd statement to Fazio, Nicklaus, and Jones ? They wouldn't make that statement, No intelligent architect would make that statement.

I think it was you, in your post of 06-28-01 at 10:16 pm, that changed the original post, by stating, "there is no such thing as an unfair tree."

I then responded to your assertion with my post on 06-30-01 at 10:01 am, with respect to trees whose limbs impede ones swing while in a bunker.

So, I never changed or diverted the thread, I just took a view which differed from your
06-28-01 post.

I have seen so many bad examples of green committees, Presidents, and even architects,
planting trees in front of and in back of bunkers, impeding the forward view and flight of the ball, and impeding a view of the bunker from the tee.  Some of those plantings were so close to the bunker, that as the tree grew, the limbs impeded the swing of the golfer within the bunker, irrespective of the direction they sought to play.

Dan King,

I would agree, the more devilish the bunker, the higher the interest, and the more determined the attempts to avoid it.

[T_MacWood]

Pat
Pretty liberal interpretation if you ask me. I agree with Jeremy in regards to Ross's idea of a 'properly played stroke' - a shot the finds a hazard is not properly played stroke - the evidence (his actual designs) would seem to contradict your read.

Right after your quote, Ross went on to describe that trees do have a place in the strategy of a hole--an example, guarding the elbow of a bending hole. He compared the use of trees to that of heather, broom and whins in Scotland and England. It is not uncommon to find bunkers rimmed with heather in the old country, a beautiful example of double jeopardy.

[jglenn]

Patrick,

Read my first two paragraphs carefully yourself.

Then, if you want to have a civil discussion, get back to us.  Until then, I have better things to do with my time.

Cheers.

[David_Graves]

Yesterday, I hit a good 5W that trickled into the godforsaken muched discussed bunker, played basically sideways and made 6 (This a short 4). Today I hit driver trying to get close, skulled it, hit wedge to 2 feet ,and made birdie. Golf is a great game! I say keep it civil or let Ran delete.

[Mike O'Neill]

I can tell you that I have had unplayable lies in bunkers (no trees anywhere in sight) in the sandhills of Nebraska that make what I encountered last weekend with tree limbs blocking my backswing a walk in the park. In either case, I put myself in those positions. Play the ball as it lies.

Another "fair" bunker concept: the deep pot bunker that forces the golfer to hit the ball backward. Ouch. Best to avoid that one.   In fact, best to avoid anything that is unplayable.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

You and Jeremy seem to have a hard time sticking to the subject and answering my specific question about tree limbs in bunkers, impeding ones swing.

I think if you'll reread what you quoted on Ross, he used the language, " there is no need to RUTHLESSLY cut down everything before us." and went on to provide the elbow and shade for tees reasons.

But Ross was no advocate of tree planting, and went on to further describe the methods for removing trees based on their diameters.

You mentioned earlier that Ross planted trees in and around bunkers, and I'm curious as to which holes on what courses received this treatment.

You can't criticize Rees, Fazio and Nicklaus for bad architecture on one hand, and then defend some architect or committee for placing trees in or around a bunker, such that the tree limbs prevent one from swinging at the ball in that bunker.

Jeremy,

Your statements about Ross, Fazio, Rees, and Nicklaus is like saying, If Clinton said the sun rises in the west, he would be taken apart, but if Bush said it, the group would say it's okay.  It is just an absurd proposition, and I'm surprised you don't see that after having reread your post.

I feel, that anyone who defends the acceptability of tree limbs, in bunkers, that impede the players ability to get to the ball, and swing at the ball, can't be taken seriously when it comes to architecture.

But, that's just my opinion.

[T_MacWood]

Pat
Did I defend the practice? In trying to make a point, you asked if Ross, Tillie, MacK etc. ever created a situation where trees interfered with bunkers. I can't help it if you don't like the answer.

If you look on page 215 and 233 in the Ross book you will see bunkers within the sand and on page 55 the bunkers guarding the elbow have trees blocking the direct line. Also if you ever get chance to look at old photos of Oyster Harbors, you will find trees growing out of the sand.

I don't know if Ross was a fan of tree planting or not, you obviously are more familar with his theories on trees than I. Another interesting photo is on page 228, it looks there are trees growing out of the apron of the green. Do you think that trees that inhibit the backswing of a putt are unfair? Oops, sorry off subject again.  

[jglenn]

Patrick,

Setting aside the arguable use of the term “properly-played shot” for a second, you are telling me that it is absurd to say that “if a bunker interferes with a properly played shot, it should be sodded over”, yet it is quite proper to say that “if a tree inteferes with a properly played shot, it should be cut down.”.

So, the first statement is so incredibly absurd that it should not be taken seriously?  But the second statement is irrefutable truth because it is spoken from a man who’s credentials and credibility are better than yours or mine?  Well, I’m glad you pointed out that a discussion starts and ends with the comparison of the respective debaters’ credentials.   As such, I would be more than willing to compare mine to yours.  That should certainly bring this discussion to a neat and swift end!

But of course, let’s not allow that to happen.  In a good debate, as in a round of golf, the process is always more enjoyable than the result.

So let’s move on, shall we.

Bunkers, as we all know, can have many roles on a golf course:  make the game more interesting; penalise bad shots; add visual interest; offer strategy; etc...

Trees play the same role, which is why, apart from their physical differences, they are not inherently different from bunkers, and anything said about one can be applied to the other.  It would be quite biased and contradictory to state otherwise.

As such, as was stated before, “Trees and bunkers have equal standing as design features on a golf course.  And there is nothing wrong with combining the challenges offered by each these features.”

So, to answer your question.  Can it be fair/proper for tree limbs to impede a player’s swing in a bunker?

Sure.  Why not?

Patrick, I’d like to know what it is you have against trees on a golf course, and against limbs interfering with a player’s swing in a bunker.

Just be careful what you answer.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

I never had the opportunity to dislike the answer, because previously, none was provided until your 07-02-01 1:30 pm post.

In my six previous posts I've been pretty consistent in my objection to tree limbs interfering with the swing of a golfer within a bunker.

The trees on page 215 are, both, behind the green and on islands of grass within the bunker.  A practice frequently seen in Florida.

You will notice, in my post of 07-01-01 at
11:24 am, that I referenced Palm trees, which have no horizontal limbs that could impede a swing.

The picture on page 233 clearly shows trees within the bunker, though I don't see any horizontal limbs.  The question is, was that the original design, or were the trees or the bunker added later.

Doglegs, inherently, have impediments should one not clear the dogleg, trees, water, bunkers, and out of bounds are a few.  On page 55 I see no evidence of tree limbs blocking anyones swing in the bunker.  
If one topped their tee shot, or hit it 100 yards, they face the same shot as someone in the bunker, only at a longer distance.

With respect to page 228, those trees don't interfere with ones putting of the ball on the green or fringe.  If an errant shot goes into the woods, and the woods are adjacent to the green, you have to play it as best you can.

I can't imagine you endorsing the placing of trees within or immediately adjacent to bunkers, such that their limbs impede the players stance and swing at the ball.  
Am I correct or incorrect on this point ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeremy,

You pose questions that are a contradiction of terms and can't be prudently addressed.

With respect to comparing credentials and bringing the discussion to a neat and swift end, I refuse to accept you concession, and would rather you continue with the debate.

How can a bunker interfere with a properly played shot ?

I have seen bunkers where trees have grown into the bunker, making it almost impossible to get to, let alone swing at a golf ball.
Is this a design practice advocated by any of the Golden Age architects ?

I disagree with your premise, there is a distinction between a tree and a bunker.
The distinction is obvious, architectual, and addressed seperately in the rules of golf.

My problem with trees on a golf course is:

trees added after the original architectual presentation.  

I have seen Committees, Presidents, members and architects install trees, in inappropriate places, which hamper, harm and alter the original design intent and integrity of the hole.  I have seen trees planted which negatively impact the agronomic conditions necessary to properly maintain a golf course.

Trees have been the single most architectually destructive item added to golf courses, with the exception of strip malls, houses and buildings.

Lasly, If you advocate tree limbs impeding a swing in a bunker, do you think windmills by the cup are a good idea  

[T_MacWood]

Are you correct?

On 07-02-01 at 6:58 AM I took a crap, later this same day at 7:31 PM my son Ian and I went out for Fish and Chips.

So based on that, yes you are right. Its your opinion, opinions aren't right or wrong, they're simply an individual view point. But I could be wrong. In fact I probably am wrong, right?  

[Mike O'Neill]

How about the pot bunker that prevents one from advancing the ball? Or it forces an unplayable lie and a drop in same bunker? How can a tree limb be more penal than that?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike O'neil,

The answer is:

Take that same pot bunker, plant a tree in it with limbs that spread out.  Now, what do you get ?

Perhaps I've been fortunate, but I have never encountered a situation in any bunker where I couldn't swing at my ball (trees not included).  I couldn't always advance it forward, but at least I had the OPTION of hitting it toward the fairway or backward.

[Boothill]

Patrick Mucci.  

I know of a hole that Ross designed that has a tree in a bunker--a helluva big tree at that.  The 14th at Holston Hills. John Stiles or Ryan Blair might want to confirm this.  
It's a downhill par three of about 190 yards. Severely sloped green from front to back, narrow entrance on the right through which a ball could run onto the green.  The bunker in question guards the right side against a wilder shot and is elevated above the green.  The presence of the bunker keeps raised terrain from acting as not only a sideboard but a funnel for an off line shot. And if it weren't for the tree, that bunker would be a very good place for a an accomplished sand player to be. It would allow for a mini drop shot to whereever the hole is cut.
 While I'm not a forester, I am certain that tree, by its girth, has been there for more than the seventy five years the course has. And it's the bole of the tree that serves as the obstacle rather than low overhanging branches.  
  And while I don't have extensive experience playing Ross courses, I have played enough of them to recognize this as an anomaly.  And maybe Ross had to to leave the tree for sentimental reasons (someone else's sentiment) rather than strategic ones, but it's there.  And even though I was behind it, it improves this hole for the reason's cited above, but I wouldn't like it as a regular design feature.  In fact, I didn't like it all as I ended up ball in pocket once  due to it presence.

All that aside, I am in general agreement with you against the proliferation of trees on golf courses.

I know of a par five that once both a strategic and an heroic hole.  At 500 yards it played straightaway to a raised green just beyond a creek. Two traps flanked the green and there were also trees on both sides, but the trees were at a sufficient distance to provide an ample if not generous window.  The long hitter could launch a drive that would give him a reasonable shot at getting home in two.  The trees framing the hole right and left were primarily an obstacle if the tee shot was off line.  Of course, the second had to be precise or find a watery grave.  There was great risk reward.

The short hitter could hit it anywhere in play, but he was faced with a demanding second that had to be place in a narrow alley affording the best access to the green.  The shrubs that narrowed the lay up area were too  short to be an issue for those going for the green in two. I thought it was a great hole, and I think most of the people who post here would agree with me in its original incarnation.  But now, 30 years later, the trees have grown.  The opening for the long second has shrunk to almost nothing, and the shrubs have been replaced with pines so that the shorter hitter has to lay back further and further.  Also, the trees now overhang the bunkers to the right and make it difficult to get the ball into the bunker and almost impossible to get it out. This is a maintenance problem of course, but what was once a great golf hole is now reduced to a crap shoot.  The trees that were once challenging soon came to inhibit strategy before they finally smothered it.  Good players don't make many fours here, but they don't make many seven or eights anymore either.  I wonder how many thousand golf holes have had there original design altered or destroyed by lack of maintenance or the proligate distribution of trees.

That's the problem with trees.  Even those incorporated into the original design grow, and they need to be kept within limits.  If green committee dug bunkers the way some of them plant trees, there are golf courses that would resemble prairie dog colonies.

And I'm not sure who it was who said that if he found a bunker surrounded by trees he would consider the bunker to be out of place.  I guess it depends on which came first.  If the architect intended the bunker to define the periphery of the corridor of play and trees were later planted in the corridor, which hazard is out of place.  

One last randowm and barely on topic thought.  Would a bunker ten feet wide and seventy feet deep be unfair?  If it weren't for the problems it would bring from OSHA (Permit Required Confined Space, Excavation training, and fit tests for Self Contained Breathing Apparatuses), deepening bunkers at the same rate trees grow might be an interesting way of illustrating what many of us consider the inherent impropriety of indiscriminately planted expanding hazards.  That might make a good definition of a tree if GolfClubAtlas ever develops a glossary.  

[rodney king]

can't we all just get along?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()