Why did they plant those trees

[Patrick_Mucci]

behind those incredibly brilliant SKYLINE greens ?

Time and time again I come across brilliant skyline greens, like the 17th at Belmont.

And, time and time again, some green committee has planted pines or other trees immediately behind them, to frame or define the green.

WHY ?

And more importantly, why do those trees remain ?

Is it the Americanization of skyline greens.

The need to frame and clearly define the target.

Playing Sand Hills was a great experience for me and the skyline greens at Sand Hills made the course more enjoyable and more challenging.

However, I feel that I'm in the great minority amongst golfers.

Few see that a green is a skyline green, and I wonder how many, upon having the green pointed out to them, would advocate tree removal behind the green ?

Most skyline greens sit on a promontory, and as such, they are usually more subject to one of the great elements in golf, the wind.  However, trees behind the green impede the winds ability to influence the play of the approach, which is another reason they should be removed.

Why aren't more of these great holes being returned to their intended design and purpose ?

[Gerry B]

Patrick:

great point

2 examples of where they recently restored the greens to their original splendour are:

1) # 6 at country club of buffalo - the par 3 in the quarry - not exactly a skyline green  - but the end result is a great framed hole

2) 9 at Five Farms East - uphill par 3 - the recent tree removal is a definite improvement - completely changes the depth perception of the hole - a beauty

[TEPaul]

"Why did they plant those trees...
....behind those incredibly brilliant SKYLINE greens?
Time and time again I come across brilliant skyline greens, like the 17th at Belmont.
And, time and time again, some green committee has planted pines or other trees immediately behind them, to frame or define the green.
WHY?"

Patrick:

Apparently you failed to notice you answered your own question.  

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

It recently occurred to me that our 18th green is potentially a brilliant skyline green. The only problem is the clubhouse immediately behind it frames the green. Consequently I wrote a letter to the Board of Directors proposing that we demolish the clubhouse and restore the brilliant skyline 18th green. I also asked in my letter whatever possessed them to build a clubhouse immediately behind that brilliant skyline green. One of the directors called me and said he thought they built the clubhouse immediately behind the 18th green back in the 1920s to be near the finish of the course. I told him that in my opinion that was the most preposterous excuse imaginable for ruining a brilliant skyline green and that Patrick Mucci completely supports my opinion.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I was refering to trees in their natural state, not after they've been harvested, milled and used in construction.

The question remains, why aren't more skyline greens being restored.

P.S.  Tony Soprano has a relative who lives in your area.
        Shall I put Vito, "The Torch", Sambucca in touch with
        you regarding your clubhouse problem ?
        Make sure the club's insurance coverage is up to date
        and that they've paid their premiums

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
I was refering to trees in their natural state,"

My God are you out to lunch.

Listen Pal, like you I'm not the biggest fan of trees on a golf course but if they are going to be on a golf course I don't think they should be in their natural state. There's nothing worse than a bunch of naked trees on a golf course. If a course has to have trees at least they should see to it that they're properly dressed instead of bare-ass naked.

[Tony_Muldoon]

Pat it’s not just in America. See this all over and maybe I’ve learned something from this site as I wouldn’t have been aware of this before.  I think awareness of this and many other issue's with trees is the issue.

Shanklin and Sandown, IOW.

[Marc Haring]

Tony.

Had to get rid of those Lleylandii

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

There is no question at all that over-treeing became a problem on golf courses all over the world, mostly in the second half of the last century.

But do you deny that direction has begun to change rather dramatically at some courses and particularly at some of the most visible clubs and courses.

If you do deny that then how do you explain the direction NGLA, Shinnecock, Oakmont, Seminole, PCC, Merion and a whole host of other clubs have taken in the last ten years or so regarding tree removal? As you may know but seem to have a hard to admitting even PVGC has been removing a good number of trees and will continue to do so for the foreseable future.

The only course I can think of that seems to be dedicatedly adding trees and not hesitating to advertize that fact is ANGC, a club and course you curiously seem to defend in every way.

[Tony_Muldoon]

Marc top work with the chainsaw today!  It was originally a Braid course and Im sure that hole was designed ot be played exactly as you've maintained it.

A happy result

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

There are about 17,000 golf courses in the U.S. and you cite six clubs.

By the way, what club is PCC ?

While tree management programs are begining to take hold, especially on golf courses where large scale indescriminate planting took place 30, 40 and 50 years ago, the issue of "SKYLINE" greens is different, it's an ARCHITECTURAL issue.

And as an "Architectural" issue, tree removal to restore the "Skyline" feature has been limited or rare.

The notion of defining and/or framing continues to have a life of its own.

Tree removal today is being couched in AGRONOMIC, more than ARCHITECTURAL terms.

Improving Turf Management is what's making the notion of tree removal palatable.

What I'm saying is that there's no "Architectural" drive to remove the trees behind or surrounding the skyline green.

And, as such, skyline greens remain a stepchild when it comes to gaining a clubs attention, or restoration efforts.

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
There are about 17,000 golf courses in the U.S. and you cite six clubs."

Patrick:

That's just another or your bullshit answers to a legitimate statement. If you aren't aware trees are being removed on over-treed courses all over the place you're either really dense or you need to get out more.

The architectural feature or technique of the "skyline" green is probably known to less than 1% of the golfers in this country.

[W.H. Cosgrove]

More to the point is why s so GD difficult to get them cut down?

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Since when is ignorance an excuse ?

Especially when you indicate that so many clubs are restoring their golf courses.

The problem is that tree removal is primarily viewed in the context of agronomic benefits and not architectural benefits.

C&C thought enough about skyline greens to create an abundance of them at Sand Hills.

They are a wonderful feature that should be HIGH on the priority list of restorations, yet, they're not.

Ignorance is NO excuse.

[John Chilver-Stainer]

Tony,
Yes it's sacriliegeous what they've done at Shanklin, especially with the impressive downs on the horizon.
When on the Isle of Wight I much prefer playing the cliff top course at Freshwater Bay - no trees, incredible views of the Channel and the Solent, strong winds and fast running fairways - one of my favourite courses.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Redanman,

I don't think it's hubris.

I think TEPaul is right in the sense that less then 1 % of the members, including green committees and board members, green chairman and Presidents see that there's a skyline green in front of all of those trees.

I don't believe they understand the concept and/or the benefits of a restoration.

But, certainly consulting architects should see the skyline green.

[Patrick_Mucci]

So Pat, is there a conspiracy with the archies?  

NO

Do the architects not recognize the skyline green features nor do they make the committees aware?  

I couldn't answer that question on a universal basis.
I think you'd have to examine it on a course by course, skyline green by skyline green basis.

Or are the skyline greens proposed and the egos get in the way?

I couldn't answer that on a universal basis.
I'd have to be privy to the committee minutes and conversations with the architect on a course by course basis.

I personally agree that much of the golf public is unaware of the historic nature of golf course architecture.  

Individuals on committees and entire committes clearly make these choices.

They can only make choices on issues that they're aware of, on issues that are on the agenda.

Was Charles Blair Macdonald and his crew's efforts in vain?

What efforts ?

Did the NGLA fail to ignite the fire for the classical heart of the game?  

NO

Has the pertubation that took place on historical courses from 1930-1960 now entrenched in the golf public as the concept of good?  

I think the planting of trees behind skyline greens is more likely post 1960.

I don't think it was circa 1930, which is when Ross and others were designing skyline greens.

Just how much room is there for a "big world theory"?

The "Big World Theory" supposes that their are differences and that they're recognized.  TEPaul's point that few, if any, clubmembers understand or can recognize a skyline green seems on the mark.

Architects surely should.

As most here are aware I have a real problem with trees on golf courses; of what most are unaware of is that I've had that problem since about 1982-3 when the USGA agronomic team came to the Cal Club and filled us in on what we should do with our course to optimize turf conditions.  

I must say that that club eventually took heed and as of 2006, the Cal Club has an effective tree management program to put the turf first.  Swampy areas were turned into ponds and trees were removed wholesale.  Amen.  There were not real skylines to restore, so thread hijack over.  

I've seen the overabundance of ornamental plantings on the tees, greens and other areas at Lehigh.

They drive up maintainance costs and divert attention from the golf course, so we're on the same wavelength in that regard.

But, I still don't understand why skyline greens aren't more prized by architects and memberships who have them.

One must choose between an arboretum and a golf course, they can't co-exist.

Agreed, unless the club has money to burn.

[Tony_Muldoon]

John welcome to the group.  I wish you’d been able to advise me earlier because I played it twice and while I enjoyed myself I would have enjoyed the chance to try something else.

IM me if you are this side of the pond, we do have the occasional meet up, particularly if you get to the IOW regularly – have a cracking thread coming up as soon as the Kalifornian Kontingent complete their research.

[John Chilver-Stainer]

Thanks for the greetings Tony,

Here's a skyline green at Freshwater Bay with Tennyson Downs in the background and yes those are yachts in the background - the annual Round the Island race. The golfers seem to be more interested in their life and death medal competition than the spectacular goings-on behind.

[img=http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/5408/fresfwaterbay4wg.jpg]