The rationale behind hole isolationism in golf?

[Sean_A]

In Mike's quotation of Flynn, " It might also be that moving a tee slightly to right or left procludes the necessity of taking out some beautiful tree".  The key word here is "beautiful".  I understand that beauty in in the eye of the beholder, but I take it to mean a mature oak, chestnut etc (depending on the local climate and rarity of tree etc).  Many of the trees I see planted have little beauty.  In fact, many times they are not even found locally in nature!  It has come to the point now, where trees may be in the middle of a fairway.  It is difficult to imagine a "fairway" with a tree in the middle of the playing through zone.

Surely there is place for trees on a course, but there had better be a damn good reason for it.  I would think most of the time it should be for aesthetic purposes or to create a "feel".

Ciao

Sean

[Andy Hughes]

It has come to the point now, where trees may be in the middle of a fairway.  It is difficult to imagine a "fairway" with a tree in the middle of the playing through zone.

I have never quite understood this Sean; why a tree in a fairway is an abomination, but everyone here bemoans the fact that there aren't more true "fairway bunkers" (bunkers truly in, and surrounded by, fairway).  A tree could have the same strategic interest that a bunker has, but with a more vertical effect added.
Isn't any location fair game for a hazard or obstacle?

[Jim_Coleman]

   There are a few "trees in fairways."  Joe Lee does it occasionally, and I'm pretty sure Arthur Hills does too.  There's a pretty well regarded course in LA, El Cabellerro (sp.?), that has one on the back nine.  (That's a course that has way too many trees, in my opinion.)  And, of course, #18 at Pebble had two.  I just think they look silly, myself.

[Sean_A]

Andy

There is no question that hazards/obstacles are fair where ever.  This is part of life.  It's just not very enjoyable to watch a lovely shot from the tee get blocked behind a tree in the middle of a fairway.  At least from the bunker, a player has a chance of playing "a brilliant" shot or one can choose to lay up. A tree is much more limiting in how one can recover.  I don't mind if the the shot is 35 yards off line (you deserve whatever the penalty), but in the middle of a fairway?  I don't see the strategy.  Why not clearly route around the lovely tree?  

Ciao  

Sean

[Brent Hutto]

Sean,

With all due respect, a shot that ends up behind a tree wasn't really on-line at all is it? It is certainly a valid design to have the correct placement of the tee shot be somewhere other than the center of the fairway.

As I understand it, the primary drawback of a tree defining the strategy of a hole is that if the tree dies the strategy dies (ANGC-scale budgets being the exception). Other than that, the use of a large tree to block out shots hit to the middle of the fairway seems perfectly reasonable as long as the fairway is of sufficient width to allow a fair chance of implementing an alternate strategy. Now put a 50-foot wide tree dead center of a 30-yard wide fairway and that's just silly.

[T_MacWood]

    Do you believe Jones and McK. envisioned the 15th hole being reached with an 8 iron?
~~Yes, if equipment was allowed to develop unchecked. Did equipment advance unchecked from 1934 to Jones's death?
 
    I simply do not agree that the ONLY consideration in helping a golf course grow with the times is "whether the architect did it 75 years ago."  
~~Obviously. You are a proponent of penal golf and I can see why you welcome these changes. The majority of the architects I admire--MacKenzie, Colt, Macdonald, Simpson, Ross, and Tillinghast were admirers of St. Andrews and proponents of strategic golf architecture.

And I find it particularly annoying when today's cognicenti claim to KNOW that an architect who'd been dead 40 years would never allow what's being done to his course.
~~Bob Jones died in 1971...forty years after planning ANGC. Did he become a proponent of Penal golf at the end of his life?  

Would Jones and McK. be happy if it took 20 under to win the Masters every year - like Tuscon.
~~Jones and MacKenzie were not exactly card and pencil types. I suspect they would be disgusted--generally--with the lack of equipment oversight.

    There are no RIGHT or WRONG answers here, there just aren't.
~~Why are there no right or wrong answers? I believe MacK and Jones would disagree with you. Have you read their thoughts on golf architecture? The penal approach was rarely the right answer for those two.

 Adding a few strategic trees to tighten up a hole is a legitimate method of maintaining the challenge of a course.
~~You can describe the trees as you'd like....adding rough and trees to pinch the playing area is a penal approach (not strategic). Any idiot can make a golf course difficult, the goal should be to make it interesting, challenging and enjoyable to all levels.

  Some may like it; some may not; it can be done well; it can be done poorly.  But to arrogantly say I KNOW what the original architect would do today is irrelevant to me.
~~ANGC was a revolutionary design. The architects' vision for the golf course is well known; the historic set up of the golf course is well known (and produced a number of worthy champions)....you are free to ignore both, afterall not everyone holds MacKenzie and Jones (and their thoughts on architecture) in high regard... illustrated by your own opinions.

  My only question is whether the hole is better or not after the change, and I am perfectly competant to have an opinion on that issue.  In my limited experience in dealing with "restoration specialists" (and I've attended sessions with Silva and a Force associate), none have ever told me I was WRONG when I expressed an opinion.  I cannot say the same for my friend who speaks to Flynn on a nightly basis.
~~You are entitled to prefer penal golf over strategic golf....some men like big women, who am I say they are wrong?

  Did Flynn prefer the strategic or penal approach?

[Andy Hughes]

I just think they look silly, myself.

Jim, well, that is a different subject, and an 'in the eye of the beholder' type of thing.

There is no question that hazards/obstacles are fair where ever.  This is part of life.  It's just not very enjoyable to watch a lovely shot from the tee get blocked behind a tree in the middle of a fairway.  At least from the bunker, a player has a chance of playing "a brilliant" shot or one can choose to lay up. A tree is much more limiting in how one can recover.  I don't mind if the the shot is 35 yards off line (you deserve whatever the penalty), but in the middle of a fairway?  I don't see the strategy.  Why not clearly route around the lovely tree?  

Sean, I think much of this depends on how the tree/hole is implemented.  If it is a tight hole to begin with and then a tree is smack dab in the middle, I would probably agree that the chainsaw should make an appearance.
But I am assuming that the hole has some width to it, that there is a decent chance to play to one side or the other (or over/under).
It is no more enjoyable to watch a lovely shot from the tee end up deep in a bunker in the middle of the fairway, but the reality is that such a shot may have been lovely, but it surely was either poorly planned or executed.
As well, I would disagree re the chance to recover.  From a deep bunker in the middle of the fairway, your options could well be limited. From behind a tree your range of shots should be wider, as you can go high or low (which you certainly couldn't from the bunker) as well as left or right.
Should center of the fairway always be considered safe haven, as you imply? I don't believe so.

[TEPaul]

Jim Coleman, Mike Malone, R.J. Daley, Tom MacWood, et al;

It seems to me the best thing to do in discussing this subject of hole segregation or isolation and what part trees may play in it, as well as what part trees play in golf architecture in other ways, is to simply agree to give up any preconceived notion these subjects are an EITHER/OR situation for all golf architecture! It seems like R.J. and JimC are more than willing to do that but I don't know that Tom MacWood or Mike Malone are exactly--they seem to continue to make one ancillary point after another that may lead one to conclude they don't think some of these archtiects ever really advocated trees to be seriously used in various ways in golf architecture.

This sort of “one size fits all mentality” amongst both extreme tree huggers on the one extreme who seem to want tree isolation on all courses, and those who seem to advocate no trees on any golf course on the other extreme, frankly just isn’t cutting it if any of us want to have an intelligent discussion on this subject of hole segregation or isolation and the use of trees in architecture. I don’t care if there’re some on this website who really don’t like trees in architecture---that’s anybody’s right and anybody's preference---just don’t try to fit into your bias on one side or the other of the tree issue what some of these great old architects said and felt about the subject of trees on some courses. Because if you try to do that in an "either/or" way all you’re doing is creating historical inaccuracies! Even C.B. Macdonald made a most interesting distinction between the use of trees in architecture and sites and courses that had no trees. The first one he called “classical” and the second one he called “ideal”. Yale was “classical” because he used the existing trees on the site but it didn’t seem to mean there was anything inherently wrong with Yale particularly as he referred to it as perhaps the best “inland” course in the World!

Mike Malone mentioned I might’ve made an important distinction in that post above quoting what Flynn had to say on the subject of trees. I didn’t make any distinction at all, although the fact Flynn did without specifically saying so is so obvious as to not really require mentioning. What Flynn said about trees in those quotes is not at all hard to understand. What he DEFINITELY did not say is that this was something he (or any other competent architect) was recommending for ALL GOLF COURSES! He recommended it for some and explained some of the reasons, most particularly how different America can be from Scotland regarding existing trees on golf sites, how trees can be useful for beauty and hole segregation, not too mention what would be the point of cutting them all down on a naturally treed site?

We who know Flynn’s work and his entire inventory, understand not just that he did use trees on certain projects and specifically how and why he used trees both in routing, hole design and concept but also we know that Flynn DID NOT use trees on some sites and on some projects at least not to segregate holes, and even sometimes to not really use trees at all in the design.

The thing Flynn (and all the others) were saying is crystal clear, at least it is to me---and that is that trees can be used in architecture but that does not necessarily mean they should be used everywhere or every time. And since it’s undeniably true that’s what Flynn was saying one should be able to intelligently conclude that the converse is also definitely true---that courses and golf architecture should not always be treeless either! All those great architects obviously understood that difference and variety from course to course was not only realistic but obviously enriched the entire fabric of the game and the art of architecture. On the subject of the use of trees in architecture, even their use in hole segregation or isolation all of us should understand the same thing.

[Sean_A]

Dave

Usually a large tree in the middle of a fairway will require an extra 20-25 yards of fairway (if one is to have the option of playing to either side of the tree).  I would think that in most cases, a fairway can be routed around the tree and still keep a reasonable (perhaps 30-35 yards rather than 50-55 yards) width to the fairway.  It seems like wasted maintenance to keep fairways that wide.  Which is why I often see trees on fairways 30-35 yards wide, its cheaper to maintain.  

I have even seen a few cases where there are trees at about 225 yards from the tee.  It's especially annoying when there is a tree in the middle of the fairway on a dogleg.  For the vast majority of players who can't carry the tree, they are hoping to bounce past it.  Pure luck if it comes off.  Sure it takes a good strike, but one is essentially aiming at the tree hoping not to hit it.  If you can't bounce past it, you are forced to hit a huge shaping shot which is usually difficult because the fairway is often lined with trees or squib one under the tree and take your bogey.  I don't understand it myself.

The Pebble example is one isolated, beautiful tree, which I agreed earlier may be what Flynn had in mind when I quoted him.  It basically comes into play for the guy trying to reach in two, or if he has played a poor positional shot for the layup.  The player still has choices.  I actually like that tree there.

Maybe it's a Michigan thing with trees everywhere.  

Dave

I don't know about NGLA, never played it.  But the point is not whether the course is playable, but if trees in the middle of fairways generally make sense.

Andy

I agree it is frustrating to watch lovely strikes hit the beach, but at least the average guy can lay up and then go over the hazard with the possiblity of hitting the target in two/three.  This is a bit more difficult with 30 foot trees in the way.  

Ciao

Sean

[Andy Hughes]

I agree it is frustrating to watch lovely strikes hit the beach, but at least the average guy can lay up and then go over the hazard with the possiblity of hitting the target in two/three.  This is a bit more difficult with 30 foot trees in the way.

Sean, I do understand what you are driving at, but I believe there are times when a tree or trees are just much more effective or strategic. You mention the tree at Pebble Beach #18 as an example.  Here's another:


Would the hole be as good w/o the trees? Would the tee shot be as strategic if the trees were gone, or replaced with a bunker?  Would the second shot be as thought-provoking?

(PS Sean, was the contact I sent you helpful at all?)

[TEPaul]

"I think you could stick 14 carbon copies of that tree smack dab in the middle of the fairway on just about every par 4 and 5 at NGLA at varying distances between, say, 180 and 240 off the tee and the course would remain quite playable (1 and 14 might be the exceptions)."

Dave:

Why would you bother to even say something like that? Those holes would be as playable with a windmill in the middle of each rather than a tree but what's the point? What are you trying to accomplish---a full sized obstacle course akin to the scaled down versions generally referred to as miniature golf?

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Just a thought to ponder...most of the discussion on this thread concerns trees to create isolationism....did not/have not some of the architects on links courses not created the same feeling of isolation using dunes?
I know the answer is yes on certain links courses, so surely different architects have used what is available to them to create isolation since the begining of golf course creation.

[Sean_A]

Andy

I don't care for this (I assume this is a two shotter), but I am partial to palm trees!  The lay up option is severely restricted. I can see the advantage of taking on the water coming up the right (if the pin is where the photo indicates), but if you try to lay up, the trees block the line of attack to the pin, unless you go up the left side taking the water on even for a lay up.  In fact, if the pin is on the left, it looks like a lay up to left side is the only option. No, I do not think the trees are necessary if this hole is a standard length par four.  Strategically, I would say the trees hinder the hole.  Mind you, it does look like one can lay up well short and still be able to pop a trouble club over the trees, but then why have a hazard?

I guess we have different ideas about strategy.  No worries, it goes into the pot.

Yes, the guy did get back, but he offered two courses we were not interested in (Legacy and something else).  Thanks for the info though.

Ciao

Sean

[TEPaul]

"Just a thought to ponder...most of the discussion on this thread concerns trees to create isolationism....did not/have not some of the architects on links courses not created the same feeling of isolation using dunes?"

Michael:

Of course they did but dunes aren't looked at the same way as trees by some of this crowd. From what we can see on Flynn's design plans of a course like CC of Cleveland he circled numerous trees on the existing site on the plan to keep in the design of the course. Flynn may've looked at those beautiful existing trees as just another "natural feature" but again, many on this site just don't look at trees the same way he probably did on some sites.

I like the unusually quiet and peaceful feeling on the isolated and segregated holes of PVGC---it's very unique but I also like the open and wind-swept feeling of Maidstone. I like them both and appreaciate that both were designed in the ways they were--making for some real variety and diversity in golf for me. But I'd no more want PVGC to be opened so golfers could see each other from other holes than I would Maidstone's holes to be segregated and isolated from each other. They both work great as different as they were intended to be and as different as they are from one another.

[T_MacWood]

Personally I love trees. Some of my favorites: Hemlock, Ginko, Eastern White Pine, Scotch Pine, Dawn Redwood, Nikko Fir, Katsura and American Elm. For smaller trees (probably not the best for golf courses) I like the Stewartia, Dogwood, Serviceberry, Japanese Maple and Paperback Maple.

The use of trees in golf architecture is an interesting topic. You find divergent views among a number of normally like minded architects. Some traditionalists said there was no place for any trees, others saw limited strategic use for trees or a tree (Travis’s Scranton might be a good example), others appreciated the appeal of a forrested course as long as the corridors were wide, some promoted their landscape effect, some opened up gaps in trees and used trees to frame panaramas, others liked their environmental or segregation properties. What Flynn advocated, or Macdonald or MacKenzie or Simpson or Thompson advocated is light years away from Jim Coleman’s penal approach.

[mike_malone]

Mr. Coleman,

      I think we can find common ground on some things. I completely agree that the "dead" architect's views are not the only consideration. But, I also think for classic courses that are worth preserving that attempts to figure his views on various subjects provides a framework for thinking about the course. To say one wants the course to be "better" without a reference to what is good makes no sense to me.

   The challenge for you Jim is that you would need to do some research to figure this out. You depend now on your "experience".  If we made decisions on changes based on everyone's "experience" it would come down to a power struggle. I believe we need to find some "higher authority". We are lucky to have aerial evidence, the original designs,writings of the designer,access to restoration architects,and other nearby courses to check out  work done by the same guy. This does not bring one to the level of "absolute certainty",but does help one to feel more certain about assertions.

  I can understand that you want to say that your opinion is as good as someone with more expertise,but it is just not true. I have hope for you, but not until you do some homework.If you were to say "I looked at the same aerials that show trees planted between 1926 an 1937 and have come to a different conclusion.",I could respect that.
     
   As for the architect we spent the day with,he just has good manners. Everything they recommended makes sense to me because they backed up their ideas with specific references to research they had done. I don't agree with everything they said ,but I can see how they arrived at their conclusions. Does it offend you when I say you are wrong? If so give me a better way to say it.

      Tom Paul  and Wayne Morrison often try to set me straight on here and I see some of what they say.But, they usually reference primary materials in their statements.


    Tom,

        I accept every word of what Flynn wrote that you quoted. I fully agree that Flynn liked trees, used trees, and planted trees. You need to know that it is pretty simple for me. I play at a Flynn course and there are some evergreen trees that were planted in the 70's which I believe(after studying all the above references) DO NOT BELONG ON THIS PARTICULAR COURSE.
         I am confident that Mr. Flynn would not condone the "planting" of these specific trees. I am open to anything you can show me that would lead me to a different conclusion. I am willing to listen to anyone who can produce some evidence to the contrary.
   
     I do not say in anyway what he would do anywhere else. Not a single architect who has visited the course or opined on these specific trees has suggested anything other than"take them out".

     My reference to your comparison of Flynn's experience was to thank you for opening my eyes to a new view. Correct  me if I am wrong,but I thought you meant Merion was too small to adequately "isolate" and PVGC wasn't.

        I happen to think that Rolling Green is too small as well. But, if I think about where "isolation"  makes sense , I come back to the trees planted before 1937, not those in the 70's.

[Jim_Coleman]

I refuse to burdon this web site with any more Rolling Green stuff.  It's not fair to the other 1498.

[mike_malone]

 I think the windmill at NGLA is better than a tree because it does not change like trees do. There are ruins of an old house between two holes at Fieldstone with a shared fairway--good idea.

[Paul_Turner]

Did Flynn ever set foot on a links?  Doesn't sound like it

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

I think your post #41 seems like an open-minded and even handed approach. But who in the world is Jim Campbell and why do you think he has such a penal approach to this subject?

[TEPaul]

"Did Flynn ever set foot on a links?  Doesn't sound like it"

Paul:

So what's your point with that remark? Would you be saying or implying if Flynn had gone to Scotland and become more familar with linksland architecture particularly relating to the fact there really never were any trees on the linksland that might have changed his ideas and his written remarks about trees on sites that were wooded in America?

If you'll notice Flynn's remarks on trees that've been quoted above on this thread are no different than Tillinghast's remarks on trees in American architecture, or even Macdonald's remarks on trees on American sites that were wooded (Yale)!

[T_MacWood]

TE
My mistake, it should read Jim Coleman the penoligist. I'm normally a pretty open minded guy.

Don't you think Flynn's thoughts of using trees to isolate run contrary to Max Behr who appreciated the openness and freedom of links golf?

[TEPaul]

Mike Malone said:

"Tom,

        I accept every word of what Flynn wrote that you quoted. I fully agree that Flynn liked trees, used trees, and planted trees. You need to know that it is pretty simple for me. I play at a Flynn course and there are some evergreen trees that were planted in the 70's which I believe(after studying all the above references) DO NOT BELONG ON THIS PARTICULAR COURSE.
        I am confident that Mr. Flynn would not condone the "planting" of these specific trees. I am open to anything you can show me that would lead me to a different conclusion. I am willing to listen to anyone who can produce some evidence to the contrary.
 
    I do not say in anyway what he would do anywhere else. Not a single architect who has visited the course or opined on these specific trees has suggested anything other than"take them out".

    My reference to your comparison of Flynn's experience was to thank you for opening my eyes to a new view. Correct  me if I am wrong,but I thought you meant Merion was too small to adequately "isolate" and PVGC wasn't.

        I happen to think that Rolling Green is too small as well. But, if I think about where "isolation"  makes sense , I come back to the trees planted before 1937, not those in the 70's."

Mike:

I completely agree with what you're saying above. Rolling Green G.C. is essentially a mess of overplanted and overgrowing trees that is not remotely the prescription  Flynn's ideas speak to on trees on a golf course or even his ideas on hole isolation and hole segregation. Rolling Green has gone decades too long on indiscriminate tree planting with no real overall architectural purpose except to just plant trees.

You said:

"My reference to your comparison of Flynn's experience was to thank you for opening my eyes to a new view. Correct  me if I am wrong, but I thought you meant Merion was too small to adequately "isolate" and PVGC wasn't."

You are not wrong---that's precisely what I meant about the differences between Merion East and PVGC! PVGC was both designed and routed with the appropriate width to accomodate individual hole corridor width and separation between the holes (in a routing sense) with trees. Merion East was not designed that way! The two courses are very different that way and I believe both Wilson and Crump knew that and did their courses differently that way and Flynn completely understood that and the what the differences were in a design and design intent context. It's no coincidence that today Merion East does not have hole separation or hole isolation with the use of trees and PVGC does!

Hopefully, I don't need to say it for the twelve time but in my opinion PVGC did become too overgrown and too encroached with trees on their hole corridors. The hole corrridors of PV are still wide but what the club needs to do is to clear the trees out of Crump's original flanking bunkers and they'd return the course to the original hole corridor width Crump intended for the course and they'd still be able to maintain the separation or isolation between the holes with the use of trees---that Crump also intended!
 
You need to focus very carefully on this remark of Flynns:

"The pleasantest type of course is one where the holes are segregated, that is where the holes you happen to be playing are well APART FROM ONE ANOTHER!

Do you see those last four words? They're really important! They mean A golf course was ROUTED wide for a purpose as clearly PVGC was and Merion East obviously wasn't. It means the former was designed purposely wide for perhaps hole isolation with the use of trees and the latter wasn't.

Flynn (by what he said) clearly understood that and we should too!

[Mike_Trenham]

Modern courses have many fewer blind shots than do older courses.  This is why I think this works better on many modern courses than it has with the isolationism forced on to courses by the green committee at classics.

Open vistas towards these holes especially the greens helps the golfer visulize the blind shot to come.

PV has only a modest number of truely blind shots mostly drives.  The only approach shot I can think of that are fairly blind are #2 #15 and #17, and you can get a peak at #17 pin while on #10 green.  

Personally I (Like RJ Daley) prefer to see the other golfers during the round.  Especially at a club course during a big event.  It is great fun giving hand singles back and forth to the golfers and caddies on other holes trying to keep up to date on your friend's matches during a big event.  

[TEPaul]

"Don't you think Flynn's thoughts of using trees to isolate run contrary to Max Behr who appreciated the openness and freedom of links golf?"

Tom MacWood:

No I don't. I believe Behr was definitely intelligent enough to understand what Flynn was saying! Flynn certainly did NOT seem to be advocating using trees or isolation between holes in all golf architecture and on all courses. We certainly can see he designed a number of courses where trees were not used to isolate holes and where there was plenty of openness and freedom between holes---Kittansett, Indian Creek, Boca Raton, Opa locka and actually Shinnecock since the elaborate tree plan of Ting/Flynn does not seem to have been used (it was only intended to be clumps of trees anyway and not hole isolation).

Flynn definitely did not advocate planting trees on linksland style courses, he merely explained that they could be used effectively on American sites that were wooded to start with, and it seems pretty clear to me if he advocated planting trees even for hole isolation he did explain that the holes should be routed and designed with good SEPARATION!

"The pleasantest type of course is one where the holes are segregated, that is where the holes you happen to be playing are WELL APART FROM ONE ANOTHER!”

(the capitals are mine so you might better notice what he was saying! The holes of PVGC, for instance, in almost all cases are well apart from one another. Much of Shinnecock is also routed with holes that are well apart from one another mostly using an architectural practice known as “triangulation”).

Do you, on the other hand, think Max Behr would’ve advocated clear-cutting an American wooded site to give it the openness and freedom of linksland golf? Do you think Max Behr would’ve advocated that Crump clear-cut the entire interior of PVGC? If you actually do think that I believe you have a lot more to learn.

I think both those architects understood perfectly well that different types and styles of architecture were a good thing and the differences legitimately included using trees on some sites and not using them on other sites that never had any in the first place.