[JSlonis]

Mr. Kavanaugh,

I like the occasional tree in the middle of the fairway.  But it needs to be the right kind of tree that does not interfer with the shot too much.  The tree in the middle of the fairway should be a mental hazard, not necessarily a physical hazard.

Troy

As a huge proponent of tree removal on courses and as a hater of trees in the middle of fairways, I have to ask...

What kind of tree would not interfere too much?  Just about any full grown tree is going to interfere in some way or another if it's in the middle of the fairway.  Trees by their very nature are "Physical Hazards" on courses.  If the architect wanted to create a "mental hazard" as you wish, there are about a 100+ other choices to use instead of a tree.

My most despised tree in the middle of a fairway is located right in the middle of the landing area on the 11th hole at Trenton CC.  It is some big wide monstrosity that takes up far too much room given the width of the hole.  If the best shot into a par four is from the right rough in between this tree in the middle and the trees further into the right rough, then IMO it's an awful hole.  I once angered an assistant professional at Trenton after a qualifying round there when he overheard me "speaking ill"   of this tree.  For some reason, he was really unhappy with my remarks. For anyone that knows me, I'm about as non-confrontational as someone can be, and his harsh reaction was a bit odd honestly.  He went on to justify it's position by saying that the tree was fine because the club actually took out another tree that was located right next to it.  I politely suggested, they should have tried to get a two for one deal.

[Mike_Sweeney]

Mike - did WF consider transplanting a new one??

Neil Regan would obviously know better. I know it was considered, but it has not been replaced to date.

[Craig Sweet]

Weeping willows suck up water, are shallow rooted (bad on mower reels etc) thus make the ground lumpy, and drop soooooo many branches that it becomes a big nusiance.

I don't know who the genius was, but someone planted one next to a pond, 15 feet from our 16th green...it takes 15 minutes to pick up the little branches everytime you mow that green.

[Tom Huckaby]

JK - re the comments that sparked this thread, ie:


I did have a bunch of fun the entire day at Pasatiempo once we got past the worst first hole in golf.  Now with the "restoration" I'm sad that I may no longer be required to hit as many heaven wood punches from the trees and will no longer have the opportunity to make the impossible putt on the 11th...I would bet trees have played a huge role in a large majority of my most fun shots..

Specifically re Pasa, I wonder if you played it many times, as opposed to your one round of glory, would you think so fondly of the trees on 7, or the old green on 11?  See, you conquered each and have experienced no pain or failure on either.  Having experienced a tiny bit of the former on each hole, and a LARGE amount of the latter, I'm here to tell you each hole is far better as they are playing today post-renovation.  Those trees and that absurd green did get old very quickly.  And it's not like either hole lacks chances for heroism now....

Now as for #1 Pasa being the worst first hole in golf, jeez man I have to take you to some truly bad golf courses.  Say what you will about the golf hole, it is far from the worst opener.  Although I do like the provocative statement.

Now as for trees making golf more fun, well... I will say you make a good point that they do allow for the most facets of heroic recoveries.  But they also just get in the damn way far too much and tend to block viable options far too much.  So for me the negative outweighs the positive.  But if heroic heavenwoods are what golf is all about for one, then yes, trees to make golf more fun.

TH

[SL_Solow]

Barney;  I knew you liked the quirk on 18 at Briarwood, but I never thought it would result in a thread.  As for me, trees are not my favorite form of obstacle but as in most things related to gca, I do not believe there are hard and fast rules.  Accordingly in the right setting and if not used to extreme trees can create tremendous interest.  The problem is that the degree of difficulty changes over time both with the growth of the tree and eventually when it is lost.

[Troy Alderson]

Mr. Kavanaugh,

Planting a willow to firm the ground is the wrong way to firm the ground.  Besides, the willow will eventually start taking too much water away from the turf and then the complaint will be why the turf is drying up.  Firming the turf should be done through diligent agronomic practices of drainage, sand top dressing, and judicious irrigation use.

The only good tree on a golf course is either dead and removed or there before the golf course was laid out.

Troy

[TEPaul]

"Barney -
I dare say that the ball that hits the front of the Biarritz, disappears in a coy fashion down in the swale, and reappears next to the back pin is the GCA equivalent of the unicorn . . . or perhaps just a shot that has been wickedly skulled."

MichaelM;

What are you talking about? That is THE Biarritz shot! Truly, that is THE shot one was traditionally suppoesd to play on Biarritz holes. That's as much THE shot on the Biarritz as the slightly drawn shot that hits the approach section just short and to the right of the traditional Redan, kicks and filters left and rolls slowly with the right to left cant of the green down next to the hole!  

A few years ago while playing at Fox Chapel during a PA Golf Assoc. meeting my group came to the Biarritz (#17). That green is just mammoth, particularly now that they've established greenspace on the front of it and with a really deep swale in the center. Front to back that green now could be about 80+ yards long!!

Anyway this long hitting young whippersnapper I was playing with said to me; "What's this hole all about?"

I said this is the famous template Biarritz hole and since the pin is about 235 yards away on the other side of the very deep swale the traditional play is to hit something low and land it on the front section and get it running into the swale, where it will disappear for a second and then reappear as it runs up the other side and on to the pin.

So I took out a 2 iron and hit it real low and landed it about 190 yards away on the front green section, it skipped along and disappeared into the swale and reappeared up the other side and ran on about ten feet from the pin on the back section.

This whippersnapper said that's a dumb type shot to hit and that all good young players hit it a mile high and fly it right to the pin on the back section. So he took out a 4 iron and hit it a mile high and it landed about 220 yards away on the upslope on the far side of the swale where the ball died as dead as a smelt and rolled back into the bottom of the swale from where he three putted.

So I told him; "Kid, you gotta learn to listen to the old grey-beard hear, he knows what he's talking about!"

[Kelly Blake Moran]

John,


Over the past 2 years I have been responsible for the removal of about 200 trees, however having said that I have gained a better perspective on how to incorporate existing trees into the strategic design in relation to other manmade elements, and on occasion have purposely planted deciduous trees in areas cleared out of evergreens for strategic design purposes.  I think the bandwagon to felll all trees on a hole misses some great opportunities to introduce a tree or two that can have a major impact on the strategy of a hole, that without the tree or two would be a much less challenging and exciting hole.

Kelly,

I did not see this when I posted. Did the tree/branch on #11 driving area at Laurel Links survive?

Last time I was there it was still hanging in there, much to the dismay of some

[ChipOat]

Trees in the middle of the fairway??

Don't get me started.

[JESII]

If you are going to be behind a tree would you prefer to be in the fairway or the rough?

[Doug Siebert]

Is there anything more exciting than being next to a tree and executing a perfect shot at the risk of severe injury, or yanking a shot into a tree only to see the tree direct you back on line, or actually hitting a great recovery either over or around a tree.   Trees offer the greatest variety of shot options when compared to any other hazard, nothing else has over, under, around or through going for it..

How is this any different from the thrill you get from pulling off any difficult shot?  I love all the nastiest features of a course when I pull off a wonderful shot that even Tiger would need a dozen balls to replicate.

Plus I don't really like the "risk severe injury" part.  I don't think a great shot would be worth risking breaking my wrists on a tree root, or even breaking the shaft of my club (broke an 8i against a tree that way in Hawaii once, luckily it was on the 17th hole of the last day so I didn't need it again)  Who wants to be in a cast for a couple months to save a stroke?  If I'm going to risk severe injury for a heroic shot, I want to risk REALLY severe injury, like the miracle shot I pulled off from the edge of the cliff beyond the "death awaits you beyond this point" signs on the 4th at Old Head

[RDecker]

Anyone familiar with the Berkshires would probably agree that the old specimen Yellowwood tree in the middle of the 7th fairway at Cranwell makes the hole fun and certainly more interesting but as a rule I think that trees usually don't add much to a good golf hole and at best can mask a weak hole as decent.  and as far as I'm concerned the weeping willow joins the white pine and norway maple as the world's largest weeds.

[Steve Curry]

NO

[mike_malone]

 Steve,

  While I generally agree with your response I must ask "Are you running out of your annual word allotment?"

[Mike Hendren]

I LOVE the mesquite tree in the mid-left of the 16th fairway at Desert Forest.  Its strategic nature is enhanced by its location perched on a high mound that makes it tough to go over or under.   The big hitter who cuts the left-hand corner off the tee will need to get his second up relatively quickly, while the higher cappers will play right off the tee to avoid it on their second, thereby dramatically increasing the hole's distance.  

All that, and it's just a beautiful specimen tree, particularly against the backdrop of Black Mountain.  

[John Kavanaugh]

The problem is that the degree of difficulty changes over time both with the growth of the tree and eventually when it is lost.

I think that may be the best thing about trees.  I have played a certain course every year now for going on 38 years and have many fond memories of trees long ago dead...In the same light there are few things more fun then standing before a tree that you just know can't suddenly be that big.  Trees add a nice variety to a course over a lifetime of golf.

[Steve Curry]

Mayday,

Lame attempt at concise humor.  I love trees, big beautiful specimen trees, awesome.  As a hazard they, die, grow, inhibit; grass, vistas and airflow, are expensive to buy, maintain and replace and so on.  
As I like to say to people here, if you want to golf with trees, map out a nice routing at the park next door and chip your way around the trails, "We Mow Grass Here".  

Steve

[cary lichtenstein]

I once took dead aim at a tree trunk cuz I know you never really hit it where you aim, and the ball came straight back at me at 100 mph, last time I did that

[Tom_Doak]

John:

Absolutely, trees can make golf more fun.  Some of the most memorable shots I've played were over, under, around, or through trees; I've even deliberately banked a shot off a tree trunk once or twice.

The most important aspect of trees on a golf course is simply to give the course a sense of place.  The problem with so many of the modern "links style" courses is that they are interchangeable ... they could be anywhere.  Not so when the holes are set apart by Monterey cypress, American elms, sugar maples, or even Douglas fir.  Our course in Montana will be infinitely prettier for having some trees to break up the big wide open spaces.

But by the same token, I think an architect has to be pretty reserved about bringing those trees into play.  Carving a shot around a tree is great fun; having to try it six times a round is not, because a couple of times you're going to hit the tree.

Tree planting programs are a different animal altogether.  They take so long to come in, and take so much vision to not overplant for instant effect, that they are very seldom done well at all.

[Troy Alderson]

JSlonis,

In my ideal golf course world, trees are only for viewing pleasure and out of play.  But, if a tree is in the middle of a fairway then it should be a tree that has options for getting around it.  In the PNW, we have tall skinny pine and firs that can be pruned up so high that only a poorly hit high shot will hit the tree.  The ideal tree in the middle of a fairway should be a specimen that does not impose upon the golfer.  Elm trees were considered a good tree for that years ago, they are generally shaped liek a mushroom where you can hit to either side or attempt to go over.

PLEASE REST ASURED THAT I DO NOT LIKE TREES THAT COME INTO PLAY, GOLF IS PLAYED ON TURF NOT IN TREES.  I WOULD PREFER THAT TREES ARE NOT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE FAIRWAY.

Troy

[Phil Benedict]

Trees take a beating on this site which is mostly deserved.  They do serve one legitimate architectural purpose - forcing a player to shape his drive in a particular way on an occasional hole.  For example, there is a par 4 at Pine Needles (15 or 16?) where a sweeping hook is called for to get around the dog-leg shaped by tall trees.  The reward for this shot is two or three clubs less for the approach compared to a straight ball.  There is no other way to get around the dog-leg because you can't aim left and clear the trees.  If the hole had the exact same line framed by rough rather than trees, a high, soft drive of any shape would suffice, although the draw would still be the optimal shot.

I don't think every hole should be this arbitrary, but once in a while the one-dimensional fader or hooker should confront a tee shot that requires shaping it in the other direction.  

[Lou_Duran]

How is a specimen tree in the middle of a fairly wide fairway different than interior (fairway) bunkering and/or contouring?  As long as it is done only occasionally and the tree is out a ways from the tee, I enjoy the change of pace.

Other junk trees: crabapple, cottonwood, poplar, sweet gum, sycamore, most fruit trees.  Eucalyptus look good but they're troublesome as well.  

[Rick Shefchik]

Joyce Kilmer was an idiot.

[Doug_Feeney]

I think the 1st hole at Barona Creek is an example of where a tree in the middle of the fairway has made the second shot on a relatively short par 5 extremely interesting.  If you go left of the tree, there is plenty of fairway and no bunkers.  If you go right of the tree, you need to carry the bunkers fronting the green.  If you want to play at the green opening, you need to deal with the tree.

Good tree!

If there was another one on the course I may think differently, but there isn't.

[john_stiles]

I am not for cutting down every tree.

Those special 'specimen trees' are beautiful.  Yes, trees can present a challenge, and yes, a nicely shaped drive around a tree or the punch recovery is enjoyed.   Yes, certain specimen trees that 'make' a hole might be replaced after dying.

But, in searching through the threads, I did not find one hole where someone said, "You know, this hole would be more fun if you planted a  (insert your fav tree)  right here. Let's transplant a large tree right here. It will make the hole a lot more fun now, and in 10 years,  be a lot bigger, and be even more fun."

Let's hear about where you would plant a tree at some of your favorite courses to make it more fun. Did I miss reading that in this thread or another ?

Not many are rushing out to plant trees to make it more fun and that is good.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()