"It will make the hole easier!"

[mike_malone]

 I heard this all morning the other day as we toured my home course with an architect discussing potential tree removal.

      While i was exasperated at the time,i now realize we must address these concerns.

      If someone says this as you propose tree removal and you say "But it will be more challenging" or "It will be more consistent with the original design" or"It will be healthier for the grass"----THEY WILL THINK YOU ARE CRAZY.

    So, there needs to be another way .



      Tentatively,i am thinking"Of course,THE shot will be EASIER,because now it is possible,but the hole may not be because when the average golfer attempts to execute a full shot as opposed to a chip out HE IS VERY LIKELY TO FAIL."

     I also think indicating that the designer had challenges forward of the location in mind that are obscured by the tree may have some hope.

     One person said to me last night"I do not want to see our rating or slope  go down.I think tree removal will lead to this happening."I want to know whether there is evidence on this--one way or the other.


      He sighted one example of tree removal last winter.He said"I like the removal but i think the hole is easier now."

    I asked him"Last year when you were among those small trees what did you do?" His response"Chip out short of the creek and then go for the green."
   I responded "Exactly! But you did not try to hit it through the trees--in the end the shot you hit was not harder,you deferred the "golfshot" to the next shot by chipping out"

      Now there is an opportunity to attempt a full shot that requires a right to left move.I say if you do it great! , but if not you may suffer worse consequences than that chip out.And i have got to believe it is more fun.


     There seems to be a great number of golfers who think you need to be punished for a bad shot.
    I blame it on the nuns

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

I think anything, couched in the terms that it will make it "easier", is a very dangerous path to follow, one that leads to disastrous conclusions and the disfigurement of the golf course in the names of "fairness" or "easiness".

Fair and Easy should be stricken from an architect's vocabulary.

[mike_malone]

 Pat
    I am not saying the Architect was saying it would be "easier".It was another green cmte. member who kept bringing up this point.The architect patiently attempted to explain why the trees needed to go--I impatiently spoke up as well.

[John_Lovito]

Mike,

At my home course, when our restoration began about three years ago we heard very similar statements.  Some members (and to be honest they were in the minority) were appalled that trees were coming out, fairways were to be widened and rough removed in some areas.  The concern was, as you said, that the course would be easier.

Well, three years later the slope and rating have gone up.  In my opinion, the course is a little more difficult but a hell of a lot more fun to play

[mike_malone]

 John
   Thanks for that comment.

 I wonder how or if formal course ratings factor in trees that come into play.

[TEPaul]

Mike:

This is a question and concern that every club considering restoration and particularly tree removal hears from various members. Basically there's just no getting around the fact the concern will be there initially.

There's really no great reason you're going to be able to give someone like that out there on your golf course. But if you're looking for ways to really convince them just tell them to call or come see, Aronimink, GMGC, Merion East, PCC and a number of other courses right in Rolling Green's area that have just gone through this.

We can all show people like this exactly how tree removal will not necessarily make the course easier and if easier or harder is something your course is interested in the ways to accomplish that have virtually nothing to do with trees ultimately and none of our courses have had their ratings and slopes drop as a result.

Tell that guy or any others there that complain about that stuff to call or come see us---we'll convince them that tree removal and the easier or harder concern is not the issue to be concerned about.

And another thing he's going to see is some very satisfied members who once said the things he is now and had the same concerns he has now! They don't have those concerns any longer!

[mike_malone]

 Tom
    Thank you--unfortunately they think you are crazy too!!!

[TEPaul]

Mike:

I know what you mean. Unfortunately I'm a bit more than a little down on some of those people over there right now. If they really want to continue to screw up one of the best courses in the section with their attitude, then hey, that's their perogative! If any of them want to ask why and how removing trees may not make the course easier tell them they can ask me nicely to show them how that works, and I might consider it, but maybe not.  

Mayday;

Some over at my club probably thought I was crazy at first too but at least they were willing to listen and to take my advice and to look at courses that had done this before us. But if you can't even get those people over there to listen to you and look at something else then I can't help you. Sorry about that!

[mike_malone]

 Tom
     It is well known that i have a passion to return the course to its glory by removing evergreen trees that should never have been planted.But, if people blow me off as "crazy",i need to adapt because doing the right thing is much more important to me than what people think of me.I am just concerned that what they think of me may impede the progress of the ultimate goal.
 
    This why this site has been so valuable to me.I have had specific,helpful posts like yours(BTW Wayne said the same thing on the phone last night) and also John Lovito's post.

[JohnV]

Mike,

Regarding the course rating and slope, those numbers would drop slightly if trees near the line of play are removed.  But, in most cases, the change would be very minor as trees are not a major factor in course rating.

Those who are concerned about the course getting easier obviously don't want to shoot lower scores.  Usually that means they would also like their handicap to go up.  Point out that if they continue to shoot the same score after the course rating and slope go down, their handicap index would go up which might make them less upset.

Those who want to improve should be happy if they can then get the ball to the green when they couldn't before because of the trees.

[A_Clay_Man]

Sounds like you're bucking up against the flawed thinking deeply ingrained in most.  

It must seem inconceivable to "them", to deviate from Augusta's lead.

The irony is that Jones and Mac, had it right to begin with! An open, non-dictating canvas, is the way to play this sport.

Could you please disclose the course and archie?

[Scott_Burroughs]

Taking trees out gives more options off the tee, including
more potential places that your ball does NOT want to go.  It
also tempts players to "go for it" more often, such as cutting
doglegs, but unless your close to scratch, that also means
greater penalties in not pulling it off.

#12 at Rolling Green (the course discussed above) is the
short par 4, that, with the inside dogleg trees removed bring
the creek short right more into play as players try to go for
the green or cut the dogleg off.  

#15 at RG is notoriously the most choked hole on the course
by trees:


If the trees were taken out, then one might try to cut the
corner, leaving a steep uphill lie, harder to keep straight, than
the more level lie at the bottom of the hill.

[TEPaul]

It's William Flynn's Rolling Green in Philadelphia, Adam. It's one of the best golf courses in this district. But it'd be a whole lot better if they'd remove the unfortunate tree over-growth that's grown up over the decades. The only think they don't want to do is remove any of the tree overgowth on the perimeter of their course--that would be a real mistake!

[mike_malone]

 Adam
    I do hear the Augusta reference.The thinking goes like this--1--Augusta can do no wrong-2--Augusta has planted pine trees that eliminate lines of play--3---This is correct.



       One other member referenced Hilton Head and its use of trees.

  This got me to visualize Hilton Head without the trees--flat,uninspiring marshland.So,sometimes these pines make sense.
     But if i visualize my home course without the offending trees---well all i need to do is look to its name-Rolling Green.

I actually love the old hardwoods on our parkland course.

[mike_malone]

 Scott
   The two trees on the left at the bottom of the hill in that picture are gone.

    As you said ,if we removed trees on the right off #15 tee it would open up the view of the creek,allow one to shape the ball,and make it easier for you to HIT THE BALL AWAY from where you want to go.Why should we care if people are able to hit it farther away from the target?

[mike_malone]

 Scott
    The trees on the left #15 are interesting.They were on the course when built.They provide protection for #18.They stop before the ideal landing area.They have grown as good players ability to hit higher shots has grown.They represent classic examples of Flynn's use of trees. If we open up the right they become more strategic,since the choice to go left will become more obvious.Now there is little wiggle room so a slightly mishit shot easily goes leftand gets knocked down.I love those trees.

[Scott_Burroughs]

Mike,

How high were the trees when the course was built relative to the elevated tee box?  And the big question is did Flynn (and Toomey) build the hole with the thought in mind that the trees would get bigger and affect the tee shot as such?

In present day, if the trees on the left side were taken out, the cart path on the inside of the dogleg would come into play, and could bounce those tee shots who knows where! (not to mention ruin a perfectly good ball)  

[Jason Mandel]

mayday,

we heard this comment all too much at our course after everyone saw the amount of trees we had taken down.  i think an honest answer is, too easy for who?  Do we have PGA tour players playing the course every day?  Are you so good that you think this course will not be a challenge for you?  I know some of these comments could be taken the wrong way, but seriously, I love all of these 8 handicaps that think that the course will be reduced to a chip and putt if we take out some trees.

jason

[Dan Kelly]

"It will make the course more fun!"

[Jim_Coleman]

    Allright.  I'm the asshole Malone's talking about.  Or should I say, defaming.  The converstation came up regarding two holes.  We have removed hundreds of trees over the last five years, none of which I have opposed.  The course is better and in better shape because of the removal.  But virtually none of the trees we removed affected the play of a hole.  And I dare say that is largely true of most of the tree removal examples thrown in my face.
   Now, let me describe the fourth hole at RG - a 370 yard, straight-away, up hill par four that twenty years ago was a drive/seven iron hole for me but today is a drive/wedge (due to equipment).  Presently, the left is protected by a creek (about 190 yds out) and a stand of three or four hardwood trees at 230-250.  The right is protected by a forest for the first 175 yards, and a group of four "ugly" pines at around 240 - 260.  Take those pines out and a fifty yard slice provides a better shot (better angle) to the green than a shot in the middle of the fairway.  Is a hole well designed if a fifty yard slice gives you a better result than straight shot?  I don't see it.  And neither did the architect whom Malone and I entertained.  (And I'm quite sure he would say he was entertained.)  He suggested we replace pines with oaks.  So, we're not talking about tree removal, only tree replacement. My only problem with tree replacement here is that, until the oaks mature (15 years), the fifty yard wide slice will be rewarded.  My friend Malone says he knows Flynn wouldn't want those pines, but that he somehow also knows that Flynn would be ok with oaks.  And he wonders why people think he's nuts?
     I ask again, is a hole better designed when a truly horrendous shot brings a greater reward that a well struck shot?  I hope the answer to that is no.  If it is, and if trees are the only way to punish the poorly struck shot, are trees so bad?  
   I know it's pc here to knock what Fazio did at #15 at Augusta, but at least allow that there are two legitimate points of view.
    Our other disagreement came at #7, a very short par five (480 yds).  Right now there are 4 or 5 truly ugly pines protecting the right side of the fairway for the last 100 yards of the hole.  Remove them, and a wild slice will produce an admittedly challenging, but nonetheless easier shot.  The architect suggests that the trees be replaced by a well located bunker.  Great idea!!!  Malone is sure Flynn would roll over in his grave.
   So, is it the position of all you geniuses that a tree can never be used to punish a bad shot (or should I say, reward a good shot)?  I say it can, especially now that the ball is going so far.

[TEPaul]

Mike:

I completely agree with your thinking on #15. The huge treeline on the left is not the problem and should be left as is. If you start removing those large trees on the left you'd be in danger of just gutting that hole!! Those trees create a classic right to left dogleg!! Tree removal on this hole is not the time to listen to any of these guys on here who think the thing to do on all golf courses is to remove all the trees or all you can. This is the time to simply study and understand how William Flynn sometimes used trees strategically and #15 on the left is such a way.

But you're absolutely right---the trees on the right are another matter altogether---there's nothing on that side that is or was intended to be "tree strategic".

#15 is also perhaps the most severe "chute effect" tee shot I'm aware of in Philadelphia and the entire right side is the only problem. I spent about 1/2 hour looking at all the trees on that hole down that enytire right side and from that back tee particularly a few just have to come out to give any golfer some chance to work the ball out and around that left side strategic treeline. Unfortunately, a few of those trees not that far from the tees are really big. From the back tee particularly the player really has not chance of working the ball right to left that tee because tha tee is just that much farther back magnifying the effect of those big trees right nearly beside #14 green!

Out farther down the fairway on the right a ton of tree could justifiably go too and it would make the hole look much better and maybe even bring the creek and some nice topography into view. Generally on a hole like that one's right side the best thing to do would be to take out a good deal of the trees on the right thereby exposing the really big beautiful ones that remain on down through the fairway.

The only problem with that on the right of that hole is there's been so many trees in there for so long all of them have just shot up to the light and they have super long straight trunks and really high canopies which is definitely not the best way a tree can look.

I think what Rolling Green has done that way in that area is to basically ruin what could have been some really nice mature trees if they'd been allowed to grow more on their own over the years without all that tree overcrowding and shade in there.

Rolling Green sure does need to remove a lot of trees on that course but they also need to be extremely careful how they do it. More than hardly any course I know of the problem there is which ones you remove because the tree problem on that course has been so ssvere for so long! What the net effect has been is you've probably ruined the natural mature look of a lot of great old trees that would've looked great if they hadn't had to survive in such a dense forest of useless trees as Rolling Green has had for so long.

[TEPaul]

Jim Coleman:

I sure do agree with what you say about #7. I'm a big advocate of a well placed bunker in there in place of those trees. That'd make the hole a lot more interesting, it'd be utilizing some really great ground for golf too (the right to left cant of it now completly compromised by those trees--and I'm convinced would produce a wider scoring spectrum which always seem to be a good indicator of a fun, interesting and challenging hole. The idea on any good hole is to allow the golfer to think of doing a number of things. The wrong idea is to simply force him to execute one single thing!

You've got a good point there too on #4. I think some good rough in there would be better, though. I hate to throw a new wrinkle in on #4 but figuring out a way to get that creek to eat into the fairway on the left a lot more at the appropriate distance would really make that hole shine as the shortish par 4 it is.

[A_Clay_Man]

I'll take TP's word on the needs, of both rightsides.

What I'd like to point out is the disdain, noted above, for the fifty yard slice. Why is that not a proper shot? or shot test? And, who said, or what rule, makes straight better?

I honestly don't mean to be filppent. I just thought it odd, a form of predjudice, if you will, when Mr. Coleman explained the justification for his thinking.

[mike_malone]

I told Mr. Coleman to read this thread because i did not want to talk behind his back.I will not respond to his comments here though because i am still exhausted from dealing with him on Wednesday.I think the architect has entered therapy.

[mike_malone]

Tom
    I love some of those Shinnecock holes that have an elevated tee to a fairway set at an angle.I see #15 RG as having that look post trees on the right.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags: