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.


Adam_F_Collins

Trees: Was there a philosophical shift?
« on: April 15, 2006, 06:43:34 AM »
Looking at images of Golden Age courses at the time of their construction, next to recent photos, where trees have closed in, I wonder if there was a general philosophical shift regarding there presence?

Earlier philosophies seemed to emulate the links traditions of having few to no trees, so courses were often wide open, even if they were built inland. Yet the trees grew and were planted; closing the courses in over time.

Why the shift? What changed the attitudes toward their presence?

Sean Remington (SBR)

Re:Trees: Was there a philosophical shift?
« Reply #1 on: April 15, 2006, 08:18:17 AM »
    I think most Golden Age courses where tree less becasue it would have been to expensive to remove them during construction. William Flynn was Architect and owner of our golf course and probably didn't need to remove one tree on 190 acres to build this course originally. Open tracts of agriculture land would have been ideal for golf construction. Sure there are exceptions I'm thinking in general terms.
   The next big change occured after WWII. Tree planting began when there was a surge in the number of people playing golf and inexpensive nursery stock becam available. The plant nursery industry got going in the 30's but boomed in the late 40's. I'm sure I have way over simplified things.

Craig Sweet

Re:Trees: Was there a philosophical shift?
« Reply #2 on: April 15, 2006, 09:41:10 AM »
My guess is back back before the turn of the century most of the northeast was logged over for pasture land.  I grew up in southern Vermont and I'm always amazed at how open the hillsides were back then.  Once left alone, the trees came back.

The point about tree planting in the 30's, and especially after WWII, is a good one.  It also coresponded with a housing boom.

Here in the west, at my course for example, there was next to zero trees on the property before the course was built. Now, we have over 2000 trees. In most of Montana, unless you are in the river bottom, or above a certain elevation (about 4000) there are very few trees.


Phil_the_Author

Re:Trees: Was there a philosophical shift?
« Reply #3 on: April 15, 2006, 11:26:31 AM »
One of the most important things for any golfer to know is distance to target. The competent golfer needs, with as great an accuracy as possible, to determine how far away his ball lies from a green, or to the spot in the fairway he wants to advance it to, or the distance he must traverse in order to avoid the hazards in front of him. Trees are the golfer’s friend in determining distance as they provide needed perspective. Tillinghast recognized this, writing that, “There is no doubt that a solitary tree… renders the judgment of distance very easy.” The trick to great course design is in using trees as groups to properly frame holes without giving away too much helpful information.
      Tilly once wrote that, “Our eyes, accustomed to the sight of many trees, rather accustom themselves to distances when one tree stands out prominently as a guide. This is the best explanation I can offer. Without a doubt many advance more subtle reasons, but the fact remains – a lone tree, standing near the end of a shot, makes the distance much easier to gauge, particularly if it be in full view… Some of the most attractive holes have been made through wooded tracts, but with many trees on either side of the fairway the guiding virtue of solitary trees is not in evidence.”
      The use of trees in planning a hole is one of the most effective means that an architect may employ to twist a fairway, especially if he does not want to use a hazard as a challenge to the player.
      Tilly once drew a sketch to show the proper way to plan a fairway through the woods. In doing so he noted that “fairways should be rather irregular in shape and not like bowling alleys extending through the woods.”  
      Also shown in this sketch is how Tilly would design open areas on either side of the fairway. These would make it easy to find and play a ball that was hooked or sliced, allowing the player an ability to get back to the fairway despite being blocked by the trees if he would attempt a shot to the green.
      Trees are often integral to a golf course, and the wholesale removal of them can be a great mistake. He wrote how important it was to carefully consider how to go about their removal, saying, “Certainly the irregular clearing of trees deserves more than a passing thought… let it be said that money spent on expert care of the club’s fine trees is money well spent. If the budget must be cut, spare that set aside for the trees…”
      In addition to trees that framed holes on a course, Tillinghast recognized that, “… it must be borne in mind that the inland courses of America are an overwhelming majority and it is to the fine specimen trees, peculiar to the various localities, that we may for a moment direct our thought. Whenever one of the fine old fellows rears his branches in
solitary splendor it immediately occurs to the architect that here is something that needs nothing except a whole lot of letting alone.”
      He made every effort to protect trees that he felt were beautiful and important, even going so far as designing holes around them. “It has been mentioned that every effort is directed to the swinging of holes, not only to save fine specimen trees, but to make them serve a definite purpose in the playing of the game. But often we find a large copse or a thick forest which must be penetrated. Those who grieve because of this necessity do not realize fully that opening up the fairway will not be a program of indiscriminate destruction but rather a painstaking effort to cut through in such a manner as to bring to view the best trees which long have been hidden away among unlovely companions. Woods are like communities and trees are like men. In each there are a lot of common nuisances and parasites that are best out of the picture altogether. In every forest you will find some rare old trees, oaks and elms, sycamores and hickories that have been hidden away from sight for many years with a tangle of nondescripts all about them. These we save, of course, as much as possible.”
      Tillinghast loved trees on a golf course. “An honest old tree can be very sympathetic and comforting if the golfer will take the time to look into its serenely complacent face and feel that way about it.” There was, however, one exception.
      In February of 1931, Tilly wrote an article in Golf Illustrated titled, “Trees on the Golf Course.” He wrote how, “More than twenty years ago, Mr. Chandler Egan won the championship of the United States at Baltusrol. I played him in the first round of that tournament and at the end of the eleventh enjoyed a lead of one hole. After poor drives to the twelfth it looked for a brief moment as though my lead might go to two for my ball rested in the fairway within a short pitch to the green, while Mr. Egan had unleashed an unholy hook into a real jungle. How he ever got a club to that ball, or what manner of club it was, matters not, but that ball came out plenty. It would have continued its mad flight for a lot more than the player had hoped had it not come into violent contact with a lone tree, which grew immediately by the side of the green for no good purpose. After sampling nearly every branch of that tree for a good place to alight, the ball finally decided on a nice spot on the green itself very close to the cup. The birdie three evened the match which it had looked like two down a moment before. In memory that tree was coupled with one of my life’s darkest moments. Some years later, I had been retained by Baltusrol to remodel the course and extend it to its present thirty-six holes. One day the late Mr. Louis Keller, then of the Green Committee, heard the sound of axes eating into a half dead tree and hurried over to investigate. Nearby he found their golf architect looking on and smiling contentedly as he stood on the old twelfth green.”

Steve Curry

Re:Trees: Was there a philosophical shift?
« Reply #4 on: April 15, 2006, 11:54:22 AM »
I don't think it was a shift.  Seems more likely that when the courses were done the committees took over and over-planted.

Steve

TEPaul

Re:Trees: Was there a philosophical shift?
« Reply #5 on: April 15, 2006, 12:09:33 PM »
Adam:

I doubt there was ever a real philosophical shift with trees on golf courses.

Original Scottish linksland golf was treeless but the Scots did not remove any trees, it was simply that the linksland never had any trees. Many say the original linksland architects who traveled to England and America et al didn't like trees on golf courses but obviously that was what they were used to---eg they'd never played golf with trees before.

When golf first began emigrating out of the Scottish linksland (where it had exclusively been played for hundreds of years) people created golf course inland on all kinds of sites, some without trees because they didn't want to take the time or expense to take them down and then on sites where they removed only enough trees to make golf holes.

Frankly, I don't believe I'm aware of more than perhaps a few golf courses anywhere that were treed before construction and where all the trees on the site were removed because the architect didn't want trees.

Oakmont may be the exception----and TWICE---first judging from its name and the tree removal by William Fownes and more recently with the removal of all the trees on the golf course that had grown up since Fownes' death in 1950---app 5,000 of them.

redanman

Re:Trees: Was there a philosophical shift?
« Reply #6 on: April 15, 2006, 12:45:52 PM »
Two thoughts from the coniferator (I spoke to him recently)

Anyone think there was any significant effect from "Memorial tree" plantings?

Has the Augusta effect of flowering shrubs been a detrimental effect?  I think it has been at our club.  We have all these rag-tag little crappy bushy trees that look pretty for only a month or so when they are white or pink then they are jsut litle nuisance bushes.

Troy Alderson

Re:Trees: Was there a philosophical shift?
« Reply #7 on: April 15, 2006, 01:26:34 PM »
     Trees are often integral to a golf course, and the wholesale removal of them can be a great mistake. He wrote how important it was to carefully consider how to go about their removal, saying, “Certainly the irregular clearing of trees deserves more than a passing thought… let it be said that money spent on expert care of the club’s fine trees is money well spent. If the budget must be cut, spare that set aside for the trees…”

Philip,  well said.  

Though GCA appears anti-tree, I think GCA is more that the golf course should fit in with the natural surroundings of the land.  We should not remove trees just to remove trees, there should be a legitimate reason.  At the golf course I maintain, the only native trees are the Junipers.  All the other trees were planted to create an affect of a suburban treed lot oasis.  I want all the trees removed except those that are native, and they are easy to pick out.  But, America's public and the environmental movement have made cutting down trees as sinfull.  People cannot accept that trees do not belong everywhere.  The best golf courses use what mother nature gives and enhances it without adding any outside agents to the equation.  BTW, the trees at the golf course appears randomly placed without any thought.  No groups of trees at all.  It appears contrived and highly manufactured, not natural.  No wonder golf courses have a bad name with the environmental pycho groups.

Troy

TEPaul

Re:Trees: Was there a philosophical shift?
« Reply #8 on: April 15, 2006, 01:42:00 PM »
I must admit that while Oakmont's ex-green chairman, Mark Studer, is a very fine friend of mine, he is every tree's worst nightmare.   ;)

I lobbied to save the three trees to the left of #3 green and the big one to the left of #10 green. I said;

"Mark, aren't you at least going to spare those four beauties--they actually make some strategic sense?"

"Nope", he said, with a high pitched cackle, "I'm going to murder those too"

Phil_the_Author

Re:Trees: Was there a philosophical shift?
« Reply #9 on: April 15, 2006, 05:26:22 PM »
Since we are talking trees, I recently spoke with a superintendant & an architect as to why they have never considered doing a "Master Plan" for the trees on the course, especially the specimen trees.

For example, at Winged Foot there is that grand huge tree behind the green; why hasn't anyone given thought to planning for the day it dies? Many courses are large enough & have enough land not used on the course to turn a small portion into an arbor, a place where the replacements can be grown over 10, 20 or more years.

It is a thought.

wsmorrison

Re:Trees: Was there a philosophical shift?
« Reply #10 on: April 15, 2006, 07:06:34 PM »
We've discussed this before and I thought many agreed that when irrigation lines were put in and fairways shrunk from 55-60 yards wide to 30 yards, committees must have asked themselves "What are we going to do with all this rough?"  Voila...the answer was to plant trees.  With the government giving away (or almost giving away) evergreens, even in non-native areas such as southeastern Pennsylvania, all of a sudden you had a proliferation of trees that just got worse and worse as planting efforts continued unabated for decades.  Golf courses were choked until agronomics and playabiltity was so compromised and lost strategies finally recognized that years of bad ideas (albeit with good intentions) are at last being remedied.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2006, 07:07:12 PM by Wayne Morrison »

Paul_Turner

Re:Trees: Was there a philosophical shift?
« Reply #11 on: April 15, 2006, 08:19:18 PM »
Many of the old parkland courses were built on the classic English parkland setting (manor house estates, deer parks...).  And that did not mean large expanses of trees, it meant fine specimen trees dotted over the landscape.

In the UK, the dumb tree planting started in the 60s and I don't think it was down to the architects.  It was the clubs and the committees.

A classic parkland setting that is now rare:  2nd at Brancepeth Castle (the valley is now choked with scrub and trees).

« Last Edit: April 15, 2006, 08:22:55 PM by Paul_Turner »
can't get to heaven with a three chord song

Mark_Fine

Re:Trees: Was there a philosophical shift?
« Reply #12 on: April 15, 2006, 08:19:18 PM »
Wayne is right about the irrigation impact on trees and fairway widths.  Light weight mowing equipment also played a role.  Make America Beautiful tree planting programs had an impact as did architects like RTJ.  

TEPaul

Re:Trees: Was there a philosophical shift?
« Reply #13 on: April 15, 2006, 10:13:49 PM »
I think this is just another example of many of us trying to make too much out of something that wasn't a "philosophy". These things just happened---there was no "philosophy" or 'philosophic shift'. Back in that day golf agronomy was at it's absolute formative stage and believe me the problems with shade and grass and comptetition for nutients between trees and grass was probably not to be thought of for decades.

Peter Pallotta

Re:Trees: Was there a philosophical shift?
« Reply #14 on: April 16, 2006, 01:01:48 AM »
TEPaul's comments on "philosophy" reminded me of this:

In the 1960s, a jazz magazine asked a number of famous musicians the question "Where is jazz going?"  There were many thoughtful answers: it would incorporate various other styles, it would be regarded as an art form, it would become more/less formalized, etc. Then they asked Thelonious Monk, who said:

"How should I know? Maybe it's going to hell!"

Music was a living, breathing, always-changing thing. No one person or group of people, Monk thought, could predict/determine its future course, or should even try to.    

Peter

TEPaul

Re:Trees: Was there a philosophical shift?
« Reply #15 on: April 16, 2006, 08:29:49 AM »
PeterP:

It may not be all that hard to figure out where the subject and philosophy of trees on golf courses is going in the future.

I think we are beginning to really see a shift in the last twenty years to the realization that agronomy (grass) and shade (trees) as well as nutrient competition from trees just don't mix well at all.

I mean the point is if they're allowed to get too close to one another the trees are going to win out every time. I doubt that kind of thing was even as remotely well understood in the old days as it is today.

Today I bet there isn't a super in the land who hasn't told his green chairman that. So obviously we're just beginning to see some real de-treeing on golf courses in American and elsewhere. When it gets down to a decision to let grass live on a golf course or let trees live that deleteriously effect grass the tree is gonna lose that battle every time and get cut down.

I just don't think that was well understood if at all in the old days. At least I've never seen it written much in the old days, so that certainly must mean something. Back in the teens golf agronomy was a real hit and miss deal too. People just didn't really have much of a resource to depend on----that was the day of real OJT course to course. That's why they started the USGA Green Section.

Tom_Doak

Re:Trees: Was there a philosophical shift?
« Reply #16 on: April 16, 2006, 08:40:58 AM »
I don't really believe that all of the classic architects were "anti-tree".  They were just practical gentlemen who did not worry too much about an element that wouldn't be a factor until 30-40 years afterward, so they didn't give much direction there.

And it's much easier than anyone here says to overplant trees when they are 3-inch caliper nursery stock and you are desirous of "immediate effect".  The problem has been more that committees are not sanguine in thinning out or removing trees once they start getting too much in play.  Many people just cannot stand the thought of killing a tree.

TEPaul

Re:Trees: Was there a philosophical shift?
« Reply #17 on: April 16, 2006, 08:42:50 AM »
Also I believe that trees just became a reality that had to be dealt with in English and American inland courses first. So they just began to incorporate them rather than go to the expense and time to remove them all.

I mean look at America's original course--St Andrews in New York. The members were called "The Apple Tree Gang". Why didn't they just cut the apple trees down? The answer was obviously it just never occured to them---the trees just happened to be there and they used them. There was no philoosphy on trees and golf and golf architecture back then. If you didn't have them fine, and if you had them just remove enough of them to play the game.

If you ask me the real philosophy of trees and golf and architecture began to shift when golf architects became so much more aware of the use of landscape architecture in golf course architecture.

The shift came during that time when they began to go from just playing the game with whatever was there to becoming concerned with making golf courses and golf holes look pretty. I mean what is the point of landscape architecture? It's suppose to be soothing or beautiful or pretty, right? That's it sole purpose.

TEPaul

Re:Trees: Was there a philosophical shift?
« Reply #18 on: April 16, 2006, 09:05:03 AM »
TomD:

There's no question at all that some of the classic architects, particularly the Americans were not only NOT anti-tree, but they were in some cases on some sites very much pro-trees. I can prove that because they wrote that. Tillinghast certainly did and most certainly Flynn did.

There is also an element in golf course architecture and the national influences on it that hasn't been talked about on here but nevertheless an influence that one can't possibly miss that came at the very beginning of the Golden Age and ragged on right on through it. And that was the matter of national pride. American and British golfers had become intensely competitive towards one another or at least the nations had in golf competition. That competitive national attitude very much filtered into golf course architecture.

Check this out from 1901 USGA President R.H. Robertson;

"I think we should guard against being too much restricted and held down by precedent and tradition. I fear that is the fault of the game on the other side. Do not let us be afraid of innovations simply because they are innovations. Nothing can come to America and stay very long without being Americanized in character; and I hope this game will be no exception to this rule. I should like to see American golf."

Robertson was no doubt referring primarily to Rules debates between America and the other side but this attitude was pervasive in everything to do with golf---certainly including national character in golf course architecture. And trees on courses were part of that American "character".

That speech of Robertson's was also of the greatest conceivable anathema to one C.B. Macdonald. It was in fact the beginning of the end of his dream to transport the "spirit" of the game from the old country to America who theretofore had not known it.

paul cowley

Re:Trees: Was there a philosophical shift?
« Reply #19 on: April 16, 2006, 09:32:32 AM »
From the Design side, trees are usually more of a hindrance than benefit in most courses I have been involved with....I have developed my own set of homey responses when someone says something like "lets leave it up for a while because it only takes five minutes to cut down what God spent a lot more time to grow".... yea ::).....so I say something like " are we building an Arboretum or a Golf Course?"...or the even more direct " do you want to grow grass or trees?".

If that doesn't work I sometimes have to resort to spinning them around to a favorable view and after getting them to agree that it is indeed a nice view, I have them spread the fingers of one hand and hold it in front of their face while at the same time I ask "does it look any better now".......it can be really tough out here. ;)
paul cowley...golf course architect/asgca

TEPaul

Re:Trees: Was there a philosophical shift?
« Reply #20 on: April 16, 2006, 01:36:13 PM »
Paul:

If none of those home-spun tactics work at Newark C.C., don't worry about it. I pretty much always bring my .45 and whenever I've pulled that on someone who doesn't agree with me on trees I find they come around to my way of thinking immediately. I'm not sure exactly why that is but they do. However, if I had to guess I might say it's probably because I never bothered to tell anyone it ain't loaded.

Tom_Doak

Re:Trees: Was there a philosophical shift?
« Reply #21 on: April 16, 2006, 04:31:46 PM »
Paul:  I spent a day last week "negotiating" how many trees we could take down on our Scottish project ... I had to compromise something on practically every hole.  Apparently they value their trees in Scotland because they don't have as many as we do!

Tom P:  I read that very passage from Macdonald's book just a couple of weeks ago, and I got the impression he is STILL rolling in his grave over it.  I also knew an irrigation contractor way back when who carried a LOADED pistol around in case anybody objected to what he was doing ... we were very happy with his work!   ;)

paul cowley

Re:Trees: Was there a philosophical shift?
« Reply #22 on: April 16, 2006, 06:14:43 PM »
TomD....I guess it all balances out as all the "negotiating" para los arbols en Meheeco will probably be able to take place in the Giggling Marlin. :)
« Last Edit: April 16, 2006, 09:13:28 PM by paul cowley »
paul cowley...golf course architect/asgca

TEPaul

Re:Trees: Was there a philosophical shift?
« Reply #23 on: April 17, 2006, 10:40:25 AM »
"Tom P:  I read that very passage from Macdonald's book just a couple of weeks ago, and I got the impression he is STILL rolling in his grave over it."

TomD:

I believe a much closer look should be given to some of Macdonald's positions on various things to do with golf, Rules, golf organizations, balls and implements and archtiecture. I believe if that were done we would see a most interesting portrait, and undeniably one that might surprise many on here on various issues. To sometihng like the party line on this website I think it could easily be seen Macdonald was all over the place but for reasons he very strongly believed in.

I also believe Macdonald was even more central to early American golf than we realize. It seems the perception of him now mostly revolves around his contributions to American architecture only with his NGLA. I also think the fact Macdonald could not get his way, particularly with the USGA on various issues was the very thing responsible for his virtual withdrawing from so many of the thngs he once cared about and for perhaps as much as the last 15 years of his life. I think the way AMERICAN golf went in some areas from about 1900 on to his death really depressed him and affected his life.  

I think the fact that Macdonald was never the president of the USGA and the reasons why is very telling. There's no doubt at all that a man with his early influence on American golf should've been.    
« Last Edit: April 17, 2006, 10:42:29 AM by TEPaul »

Tags: