News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


TEPaul

Re: One solution for "stupid" trees
« Reply #75 on: November 25, 2002, 12:51:53 PM »
Chip:

You said:

"As to defending my position, how does one do more than argue an opinion based on BIAS (which I certainly have)?  There are no FACTS here as to whether Tillinghast or Oat is right or wrong.  Only strong preferences on both our parts."


You shouldn't be using those words (BIAS and FACTS) here like that and you sure shouldn't capitalize them like that or somebody might think you're a Pat Mucci clone!

Although this is opinion, of course, you chose to use both words so let's use them. Let's use them to see how they apply to what Tillinghast said about trees and doglegs.

Tillinghast clearly recommended trees used this way for doglegs for a variety of interesting reasons;

1. They provided an effective way of "twisting" holes to separate them from one another and to also get away (in an effective way) from the dreaded "parallelism" that every one of the best architects hated and tried to avoid. Trees were part of many inland sites and using them somehow instead of going to the time and expense of cutting them down and removing the stumps they used them cleverly in architecture.

2. Tillinghast obviously saw the effects of trees in a dogleg concept as a good way of creating additional "variety" in architecture, generally considered a good thing. The fact that they may have created an obstruction that a golfer was unable to play over was another part of additional variety of the inland site--certainly not something open or linksland courses were able to avail themselves of.

3. The actual options and strategies of the treed dogleg hole was a reasonable one to him offering the golfer interesting choices of lines and angles combined with future line and angle considerations. Obviously, the basic options are to try to play a longer more direct shot for a shorter next one ("exceeding the dogleg") or a more conservative shot for a longer next one by playing wide so as not to challenge the most direct route on the dogleg! This kind of thing works very well into the basic principles of architecture to create more variety, more options which create more interesting strategies.

I don't know that this concept or the explanation of it in writing by Tillinghast indicated a "bias" by him towards the concept, just another way in his mind of creating interest in golf and architecture in a functional way.

So the positives to golf and the effects of how to accomplish that seem quite clear and undeniable. So I would say accomplishing all the forgoing is nigh on to fact.

Again, architects like Tillinghast and Flynn and even Ross in his later work were not afraid to depart from earlier thinking (clearly from linksland golf) of never using trees.

Flynn probably said it best when he mentioning that the passe thinking of the linksmen architects was ironic because they never had trees in the first place but if they had they were far too cheap to cut them down!

These architects were working on different types of properties than the linksmen ever did and they were consequently doing things more creative than the linksman did with their architectural features and what to use and how to use it with what they found on sites!

Tillinghast did more than just say he liked the treed dogleg--he explained quite comprehensively how the concept had numerous benefits to architects in design and construction and to golfers in strategies and play.

Since you're on the other side of the issue maybe you could explain the reasons why the treed dogleg is a poor concept to design and construction (treed sites) and bad for golfers in strategy and play.

And, by the way, I've never seen any architect ever state that just because a golfer is in fairway there must be no obstruction that he cannot carry over.

But if you can provide such a statement I'd love to see it.

If Tillinghast were to recommend something like that for the dogleg concept (no obstruction whatsoever if in fairway) then clearly his fairway on the direct line that "exceeded" the obstruction would not begin until after the obstruction had been "exceeded". And I don't believe I've ever seen a fairway configuration on a dogleg hole like that.


« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:11 PM by -1 »

ChipOat

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: One solution for "stupid" trees
« Reply #76 on: November 26, 2002, 12:55:51 PM »
Tom Paul:

I have also never seen an architect state that a shot in the fairway shouldn't ever face an obstruction that MUST be worked around with a shaped shot.

I'm saying it, anyway.

This BIAS of mine is based solely on 1) my admiration for angles, green complexes and/or pin positions that ENCOURAGE shaped shots and 2) an equal dislike for those "bunkers in the sky" that REQUIRE a shaped shot (from the fairway, that is).

The easiest (and cheapest) solution to make me happy would be to simply change the relevant fairway so as to conform to my priority and take the Stupid Tree out of play therefrom.  In most cases where I've envisioned that as the solution, the hole would then be the worse for having done so (too narrow, strategy compromised, etc.)

Better that Stupid Trees should simply be removed and any hole's strategic merits, playing characterisitics and degree of difficulty be a function of what's been designed, routed and constructed ON THE GROUND.

I am saving your posts on the subject for our further discussions, however.  Has Tom MacWood contacted you about joining us?  If he does and it then becomes 2 on 1, then I get to choose the wine.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: One solution for "stupid" trees
« Reply #77 on: November 26, 2002, 02:02:22 PM »
Chip:

Thanks, you did state your case very clearly.

I certainly think all the architects that were worthy ones would agree that holes that are shaped on the ground that create angles that create strategies are an essential in architecture.

I don't think Tillinghast or Flynn or any of the others that developed the treed dogleg concept holes meant to take away from those basic architectural precepts only to add to them by using another variation in design for added variety in certain sites---the dogleg treed on the inside.

So I hope you can live with those that have been built and not recommend removing the trees that make up their basic concept that cannot be carried over from certain areas of fairway where less than well executed shots end up.

And maybe we can prevail on future architects to never again use this architectural concept of the treed dogleg that can not be carried over directly at a green following a less than well executed drive!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

ChipOat

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: One solution for "stupid" trees
« Reply #78 on: November 27, 2002, 06:19:42 AM »
Sorry, but I DO recommend that all Stupid Trees be removed - even those that were intentionally used as integral strategic imperatives by the great architects of the Golden Age plus any Stupid Trees used for the same purpose by Messrs. Doak, Hanse, Kittleman, Dye, etc.

I DO recommend their removal.

After removing those Stupid Trees, I then recommend reconfiguring the green complex (e.g. Pebble Beach #18 or Oakland Hills #16) to create the desired degree of difficulty/playability/severity/creative shotmaking, etc.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

HW

Re: One solution for "stupid" trees
« Reply #79 on: November 28, 2002, 07:36:02 AM »
Rich:

A little Northeast history:
Prior to european settlers(and early golfers) coming to the new world, the 'northeast' was thickly forested.  Of couse, there was the sporadic opening/pasture.

All trees over 36" in diameter were property of the king and most were cut down.  Farming came in and cut the trees down.  A few hundred years later the industrial revolution came and pretty much wiped out the remaining trees in the northeast.  It is hard to envision, but in the late 1800s there were few trees standing, even in the Adirondacks!

About this time, golf was introduced to the U.S.--to fields and pastures.  The tree infestation you discuss is nature trying to back its natural habitat.  

HW (and I'm even a republican)

Quote
I started this thread only because I saw a news story that I thought would be of interest to some, in a lighthearted sort of way.  I'm amazed at the legs it has , but that's life, and GCA. ;)

However, the more I hear the apologists like Tom's I and II try to justify trees, the more I get into the camp of redanman and Chip, for the following reasons:

1.  If you've ever lived in treeland (the Northeast--I have, I grew up there) you will know that, unchecked, the whole bloody place will be infested with trees in a generation or so, not matter what the land looked like to start with.  I grew up on a place called "Pasture" Lane because it has been a pasture, and was in fact a barren field when my parents built their house..  30 years later it was a hardwood forest.
2.  So, golf courses are completely "unnatural" in this environment.  To build them you either have to find a pasture than has been cultivated for generations, or chop down a helluva lotta trees.  If you don't keep cutting them down, at the sapling stage (they are randy little buggers), they are going to take over your course, eventually.
3.  But not golf courses on links land, where trees can only really grow with either a wee bit of anomalous shelter, or through man's hand.
4.  So, in this environment, where golf started and was nurtured, trees were a pestilence, and not an architectural feature.  The fact that well meaning people call them the latter, in the US and elsewhere is only because they have no alternative.......except the obvious one--CUT all the bastards down!
5.  Sure you can rationalize a tree as a "feature" just as you can rationalize the Old Coures Hotel as a feature in St. Andresws.  In either case, they suck and are inimicable to the game.

How many other people on this site would love to see places like Merion and Pine Valley and Cypress Point and NGLA and Olympic COMPLETELY naked!  Bring us your architecture only then, bitches!.........to quote the legenday curious JJ........
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: One solution for "stupid" trees
« Reply #80 on: November 28, 2002, 10:04:11 AM »
Chip:

You're recommending the removal of trees on holes that the old guys and the new guys centered the strategies of their holes around? And you're recommending the redesigning of the holes to compensate for that tree removal that those hole's concepts are based on?

Now I am going to draw the line and tell you you're going toooo damn far! That is unless you happen to want to pay for all that tree removal and redesigning everywhere!

If you feel that strongly, I'll help you tell clubs all over the place what you'd like to do. Maybe some will go for it! Just tell me when you're ready to make the deposit and I'll start making the calls!

Out of interest what would be your first priority?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: One solution for "stupid" trees
« Reply #81 on: November 28, 2002, 10:23:13 AM »
Rich:

You said up above in an earlier post that I'm an apologist for trees used in design. I'm nothing of the kind, or at least I'm trying to stay out of this issue personally on this thread.

All I've done on this thread is offer some very detailed written thinking and quotes on some specific use of trees from some of the Golden Age architects who have been well respected for decades by many. I just think offering those quotes and such would make for a more interesting discussion.

It's one thing for some of you guys to debate with me on here but something else for you to basically debate some of the most respected architects ever, in my opinion!

I just think it's interesting to watch you make your case on this issue, and I sure wouldn't say a man isn't entitled to any opinion on golf architecture! I hope you do make a good case somehow but it's sort of funny in the meantime. I mean it sort of looks like you guys trying to tell Picasso you know of a better way he should have painted!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Rich Goodale (Guest)

Re: One solution for "stupid" trees
« Reply #82 on: November 28, 2002, 10:47:21 AM »
Tom

I think in my stream-of-consciousness, somewhat hyperbolic and a bit tongue in cheek post was trying to say just what HW reiterated (I forgive him for not understanding what I said, he's a Republican, after all ;))--i.e. golf courses are not natural in the Northeast US, and they, in fact, they require a destruction of the natural environment (which is wall-to-wall trees) to even exist!.  The logical conclusion is, if you have to cut down a bunch of them to make a fairway, why not cut down all the buggers?

I'd be happy to debate this issue with with any of your favorite writers and architects, but unfortunately they are all dead and would be very unsatisfactory at "rebuttal."
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

ChipOat

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: One solution for "stupid" trees
« Reply #83 on: December 04, 2002, 06:54:24 AM »
Tom Paul:

First, why is it less legitimate to debate admired golf course architects than your Esteemed Doyen self regarding matters of TASTE, BIAS, PREFERENCE and OPINION?

Tillinghast et al built wonderful golf courses but not all their holes were so wonderful.

I don't like Stupid Trees and I don't care if Tom Paul/MacWood or Pete Dye is arguing the other side.  Given enough wine, I'll make my case to anyone.

Second, I've given up suggesting anything to the "powers that be" at golf clubs - it just gets me sideways and isn't worth the fuss.  I'll let Patrick Mucci and others carry those torches from now on.

Since I don't have the $$$$ to build my own course, silence is golden.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: One solution for "stupid" trees
« Reply #84 on: December 04, 2002, 11:03:09 AM »
"First, why is it less legitimate to debate admired golf architects than your Esteemed..........?"

Chip:

Actually, very much the opposite. I think it's far more legitimate to debate them, instead of me. I certainly don't have the knowledge, experience and course inventory under my belt that A.W. Tillinghast did, and he was a most interesting writer too! His points in writing on golf architecture are fairly clear and well stated. The best I could say about myself is at least I haven't built a bad course yet.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: One solution for "stupid" trees
« Reply #85 on: December 04, 2002, 11:07:12 AM »
Rich:

Give it a shot! But you should probably at least first read what Tillinghast said about trees on treed sites. For that you'll actually have to read Chapter 16 of his "The Course Beautiful".
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »