Another Win for the Trees

[Brent Hutto]

Proliferation of trees is still a terrible idea for the average golfer.

Maybe we ought to start another thread rather than 'jacking this one but I think this is a good jumping-off point for an important discussion...

I think when majors roll around it reveals a fundamental, usually hidden conflict in the minds of most participants in this forum. Namely, it's that what's great for any of us or what's great for the average golfer is seldom the same as what's great in a competition venue for the best golfers in the world.

If we were going to hold a GCA event and could choose between Augusta National c. 1960 and Augusta National today I believe the majority choice would be the older version. Heck, make ANGC c. 1940 an option and it would maybe be unanimous. Yet does anyone really think that the course as played in the 60's would offer as interesting and varied a challenge to Tiger Woods and Zach Johnson as does the course they played last week?

For anyone that posts here (perhaps excepting Obee, JES and a few others), having to hit a recovery shot from a terrible angle onto a hard green is plenty of challenge after an offline tee shot. Heck, having to hit shots from the middle of the fairway to some of those greens would be a killer for most of us. Even pretty good players can enjoy and contend with TOC-style "strategy" given the caliber of greens available at Augusta National.

But take Tiger as an example. At TOC on a calm day or at a treeless, roughless version of ANGC on almost any day he can hit ridiculously wild driver shots and get off scot-free as often as not. The only way to keep the Masters from turning into Bomb and Gouge (without the Gouge) under those conditions would be to firm up the greens and tuck the pins to such an extent that they are practically unplayable from the middle of the fairway. That's hardly golf.

Sufficient length and power, in the absence of penalties for wildness, render any reasonably playable course able to be overcome through brute strength. Once in a while that may make for an interesting tournament but it's not traditionally what we look for in a major championship venue.

My point is that the very features that can add interest for 99.9% of golfers (strategic width and angles, options for recovery, etc.) tend to subtract interest for the strongest players. And vice versa. All those trees and the "second cut" at ANGC surely render it a somewhat less intriguing and fun course for a 5-handicap member or guest. It's a balancing act required by the mismatch between what most golfers need and what is required nowadays to identify the best player in the world (for that week).

I think it is possible to walk a fine line and serve both purposes with one course. There are a few links courses that can do it, at least under the right weather conditions. But this disconnect is at the heart of much seemingly inconsistent back-and-forth in discussions on this forum

[PThomas]

maybe if Tiger hit more fairways he would have won

if that Oakmont rough is up he better straighten his tee balls out or he'll be toast

[Matt_Ward]

Kudos to the comments made by Mark Fine and Tom Doak on this topic.

If people wish to be inconsistent with the "merit" of trees with how they are generally viewed as an architectural gimmick so be it.

[BCrosby]

Bob:

You would prefer that a shorter hitter who would strain to reach the greens of the par fives in two would just have no chance of winning the tournament, no matter how well he plays?  While Tiger, way off his game and driving it all over the lot, still wins?

Proliferation of trees is still a terrible idea for the average golfer.

Tom -

A player like Johnson will shoot +1 without regard to the course set up. He's short and straight. Architecture and course set up are largely irrelevant to his game. He's not going to challenge things. That's just the way he plays. Sunday Zach had 220 into the 13th. Easily reachable, even for him, and he laid up.

My point is that a course like ANGC was designed to entice people to take risks. That is gone now. How do we know? Because when you entice the best players in the world to take risks, on a well desgined course some number larger than -0- will have the game to pull it off.

Things have gone off the rails when holes designed like the 13th or 15th gave up 2 eagles on Thursday, 1 on Friday and 2 on Saturday. It's also nuts that both holes gave up many fewer doubles than they usually do. Those are not good indicators. The best golfers in the world had stopped challenging the course. They had stopped taking risks.

That's not good for the game.

Bob

[JESII]

Bob,

There is a great Q&A quote attributed to Ben Hogan from his days around Augusta.

In the locker Room after a particular round, a young guy says "Hey Ben, I was in the same spot as you there on 13 and knocked it right on the green, I saw that you laid up. What gives?"

Hogan: "I didn't need a three!"

I think you're over-reacting to this event and its long-term implications for the tournament and its excitement factor. In weather and ground conditions like this week, the risks go up exponentially. The tree work seemed to have very little to do with it.

If anything, I would say the greens approached 'over-the-top' with respect to firm and fast...and I'd say the club thought so too seeing as they doused it with water Friday and Saturday nights.

[Jim_Coleman]

Fewer doubles on 13 and 15 this year?  I doubt it.  The facts, please.

[Doug Siebert]

Doug Siebert,

I was intriqued by Tiger's choice of a 3-wood off the tee at # 8.

Perhaps some will claim that because Tiger played a 3-wood off the tee at # 8, that that's the preferred method of play, or the ideal strategy when playing # 8, especially into the wind.

He also hit 3-wood at # 10 and I believe at # 13 and # 14.

I thought he was suffering from a cold or wasn't feeling well since he kept blowing his nose and spitting.

It seemed that accuracy off the tee with his driver and the ability to hit a draw with it just wasn't there this week.

Patrick, I think his 3W to 8 was strategy.  No way he could carry that fairway bunker with his driver like he has a couple times in the past given the cold air's affect on distance, so he'd have to hit his driver left of it.  That means a lot bigger hook required on his approach, then you bring those trees and mounds left into play.

I think he figured the smart play was a short wedge third to leave a nice birdie putt.  If he hadn't hooked his fairway wood layup (not sure why he tried to layup with a fairway wood in the first place!) he wouldn't have had to try and hit the mega flop over the mounds to get close.  It was fun to watch though, he butchered a good birdie opportunity from the fairway into a 5 doing the same kind of stupid stuff I often do

As for him having a cold, I think that's just the announcers trying to make excuses for him losing.  Funny how they don't speculate whether he has a cold until about five seconds after he's pretty much erased his chances of catching Johnson (they mentioned it as he was walking to his ball he just bunkered on 17)

If you ever played with me on a day when its below 60 or so, I'd be blowing my nose and spitting constantly too.  My nose just runs when its cool out, always, no need for a cold to cause it.  Or maybe Tiger has allergies and didn't want to take his meds because they affect his ability to play.

[jeffwarne]

You guys are confusing cold  weather and wind directly in the face on 13 and 15 with the addition of new trees.

without a tree on the property Johnsom still lays up on every par five in this year's conditions.

Sure they added a few trees which look and play a bit silly, but there are literally thousands of trees that have been there for years.
Most of the trees blocking tiger have been there his entire lifetime and many since the club was a nursery.(which had trees!)

[jeffwarne]

The trees add an element of luck into the equation.  Retief made a birdie from the trees on 7 only because his ball landed in a rare spot where he could fly it through a hole in the canopy.  On the other hand, Tiger broke an iron recovering on 11.

Adding trees like they do does two things.  It places a higher premium of driving accuracy, and it makes luck a bigger factor.

John,
Luck is part of the game.
How about rough that is beaten down by the galleries in US and British Opens and PGAs that reward the player 50 yards off line, but not the player 2 yards off line.
Trees have always been a big part of Augusta.
There were many on the original and many were planted over the years.
A few of the newer ones look and play silly, but planting trees has been a part of the course for 70 years.

Many of you are confusing cold and wind directly at the players on 13 and 15 with trees affecting play
.
without a tree on the property Johnson would've laid up this year at all par fives anyway.
If the play is ALWAYS to go for it from 220, then it really isn't a strategic choice now, is it.
The point is lengthening those holes brought back the choice
(at least in 2007 conditions)

[Geoffrey Childs]

Bob,

There is a great Q&A quote attributed to Ben Hogan from his days around Augusta.

In the locker Room after a particular round, a young guy says "Hey Ben, I was in the same spot as you there on 13 and knocked it right on the green, I saw that you laid up. What gives?"

Hogan: "I didn't need a three!"

I think you're over-reacting to this event and its long-term implications for the tournament and its excitement factor. In weather and ground conditions like this week, the risks go up exponentially. The tree work seemed to have very little to do with it.

If anything, I would say the greens approached 'over-the-top' with respect to firm and fast...and I'd say the club thought so too seeing as they doused it with water Friday and Saturday nights.

JES - I love those old Hogan stories.  It rings true.

Bob- What do you think Billy Joe Patton and Curtis Strange would say about your argument about aggressive play on the par 5's?

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Pat, 15 did call for a cut, but surely a high cut not the low one he was forced to hit, yes?

Mark,

I don't think he was forced to hit a low cut.
I believe the announcer said he had a 5-iron.
Given the trajectory of a 5-iron it seemed as if he had ample room to get the necessary flight out of it without any impediment from the trees.

What do people think of this: everyone talks about the trees and rough as though they were separate things, but once you plant the trees, don't you HAVE to add rough ?

No, you don't, especially with pine trees and various strains of Bermuda grass.  You can keep the grass at fairway height right up to the trunk of the tree.

Second, another way trees reduce thinking is they define the corridor of play for the players and frame the hole. They're like 400 yard long framing bunkers in that regard.

I'd disagree on the 15th hole.
If you recall, the camera view from behind the tee showed a rather expansive horizon.
There are a few trees IN the left side of the fairway that have  been there for ages.
# 15 IS NOT A TIGHT DRIVING HOLE.
# 7 is, but, # 15 isn't.

[Guy Phelan]

It's not the length of the rough.

No doubt!

[Forrest Richardson]

Daley says,

"...A bunker looms less ominous, and is a more predictable and negotiable hazard.  One can play out of it or to avoid them all together in a much more strategic way.  You can pretty much count the number of stroke penalty of a given bunker.  You can't be too certain what you will get, once you enter the trees."  Is that always bad? Having unpredictable hazards may be good every so often.

"...Assuming you don't go into gorse, and instead fly an errant shot at TOC to another FW or rough area, you have an unimpeded (vertically speaking) escape back towards line of play.  A shot amongst trees may force omni directional, goofy golf..." I disagree that it is goofy. From the trees one can usually recover, all-be-it a very tough order in most instances. Also, more risky. One can always take the unplayable options, which are tri-fold.

"...You can play wild or dink diliberately around bunkers at TOC, and stay out of the bunkers.  If you play errant, or short of certain doglegs and such at a forrest like ANGC, and you can't avoid the consequences that are far worse than landing in a bunker at TOC, no matter which FW or rough area you are in at TOC.  Restraint don't work as well in forested golf courses as it does on links with only bunkers, IMO...." OK, but don't you agree that it depends on how forested the course may be? At Augusta National there are still plenty of choices as to position...it is NOT just one that works. And, you make a brilliant statement — Augusta IS a forested course, at least now in its present state. To call it anything else is wishing for something that it cannot be.

[Kalen Braley]

Augusta IS a forested course, at least now in its present state. To call it anything else is wishing for something that it cannot be.[/b]

Forrest,

I would agree there are interesting shots to be played out of trees.

But why can't Augusta be a wide open course instead of a forested course??  Why not alter the course with added bunkers or even change the slopes of the fairways to add extra interest or penalty to wayward shots?

[Mark Bourgeois]

Patrick,

What I meant about the trees and rough is that under championship conditions it would be very difficult to keep balls offline from rolling into the trees. I would think that would drive pros and fans bonkers, but after all the posts here, maybe not.

As to 15, whoa! Are you saying those trees that pinch in on the left aren't new? And are you saying they are unreachable for the pros off the tee? I must say I thought those trees pinched way in on the flyover of the hole on the tourney website. I haven't seen the course in 3 years, but I recall walking the crosswalk on that hole, looking down to the green, and thinking how constricting it looked.

Mark

[Forrest Richardson]

Kalen — I supposed you could change it, but during most of our lifetimes I will guess that it is going to be forested. A golf club is a product of its members — not Golf Club Atlas posters. We need to respect that.

I am one contributor here who believes deeply that golf courses should change. And, believe me, they do change whether we like it or not.

You can try and treat golf courses like classic cars...but that really isn't a fair comparison. Cars are designed to be solid, steel, bolts and precise. Golf courses are not. They live, breathe, erode, adjust, etc.  And this does not even begin to address the nuances of the people of play them. Play alters courses in many ways, not just to beef up portions or defend par or length. Members change courses by their very participation in the whole process. Politics change the landscape of the country...so, too, the private club.

Maybe one day — 2065? — Augusta may return to an open landscape of just some isolated trees and wide fairways with yellow-ish native hills and valleys. Maybe. I know for certain that is a wasted conversation, or at least it is less interesting than discussing the present course and how interesting it is in its current "life".

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Patrick,

As to 15, whoa! Are you saying those trees that pinch in on the left aren't new?

That's correct, those big trees have been there for decades.

And are you saying they are unreachable for the pros off the tee?

A lot depends upon fairway firmness, wind direction and velocity and tee location.

With a good wind in your face on Sunday it would make it more difficult, however, with the tees up, that makes it easier.

I must say I thought those trees pinched way in on the flyover of the hole on the tourney website. I haven't seen the course in 3 years, but I recall walking the crosswalk on that hole, looking down to the green, and thinking how constricting it looked.

Visit Google Earth.
I think the aerial will provide you with a different perspective.

I think what most remember is the mounds to the right which allowed players to hit it right and get the turbo boost further down the fairway.  Those mounds weren't original, they were added subsequently, and removed a few years ago.  They provided additional "margins" for the golfers.
Removing them and replacing them with pines requires players to  
become more accurate should they want to hit # 15 in two.

Why should a player be rewarded for a mis-hit drive to the right ?

Golfers who hit to the left have to contend with that stand of trees.  And while they're not difficult to go around, over or through, they tend to preclude getting home in two.

At some point in a golf tournament, there has to be a premium on driving accuracy.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Trees and rough were always intended to be an integral part of ANGC.

Please note the planting of all of the saplings and the rough lines.

This wasn't an accident circa 1934 or later.

[Mark Bourgeois]

yes, I noticed from the Ron Watts photos there were at least two -- but they looked fewer in number.

As to the course, and regarding the premium on driving accuracy, do you think those greens, at those speeds, could not defend themselves against the out of position drive?  Are trees really necessary?

With the lengthening but not the trees or rough, just how vulnerable is the design from a championship perspective?

Mark

[Jim Nugent]

Was Tiger usually hitting driver when he got into so much trouble off the tee?  I have a theory about Tiger-proofing courses, and this is a key part of it.  Thanks...

[Doug Siebert]

I don't remember what club he was hitting on all of his shots during the week, but for instance the hook into the trees on #2 on Sunday was with a 3W.  It didn't end up costing him anything since he had a clear line to escape and then wedged up close for a birdie, but if THOSE trees were eliminated Tiger is almost certainly in the creek, and playing 3 after dropping under the lateral hazard rule!

[RJ_Daley]

Pat, let's make sure what these wonderful photos depict.

The first is probably very near the opening of the course, and the course where Sarazen hit the "shot heard round the world".  I believe the rough lines you point to are nothing more than the difference in overseeded FWs to dormant bermuda, not rough per se.  At the very bottom of the first photo, we see the top high point of the bend in 13 where only two mature trees are and a small grove of saplings past the NLE bunker on 14. Then coming back right to left middle is the huge, untreed FW of 15 and a mere creek in front of a much more easy green, (with folks standing about where Sarazen must have hit that 4w). the tee for 16 was actually at top of 15 green and you can't see the old green that is in the famous painting of old 16 (which at that time was actually the front nine and was 7.  Then you see no Eisenhour tree coming back left to right, or no other trees for that matter, and no bunkers at 17 (old .  then you easily see the chute of trees up the hill bending right and up to 18- old 9.

The second photo is the most recent.  It is after the RTJsr remodel.  One can clearly see 16 is now completely changed with the new pond, and 15 has the full pond.  15 right side between 17 is still wide open, and left has one little clump of trees up the left second shot if you hooked left off tee.

The third photo is older than the second, but still post RTJsr changes.  The bunker is still there on 14.

the last photo is around the time of the first, and you can still see only a creek in front of old 6 (now 15) and the old green at 7, now 16, at the very top of the pic.  The ACC in upper left of photo didn't even exist then.  If that is the Eisenhour tree on 17, it was only apparently 15 ft high!

[Mike Hendren]

Dick,

I wonder if the first photo predates the course's opening.  The lines in the fairways suggest grown-in.  Their different color is not attributable to overseeding - the fairways were not overseeded with rye until the early 70's.  Most notable is the missing single greenside bunker fronting the 2nd, which is a Mackenzie original.  It is shown in the last photograph, where the rough appears to have grown in as well. Also, the final photograph seems to depict teeing areas for practice on either side of Magnolia Lane near the clubhouse whereas that area looks wild in the first photograph.  

Mike

[RJ_Daley]

That's a good observation, Mike.  That whole 2, 3tee, and 7G (also with missing bunkeres) looks like a real problem yet to be worked on or solved at that time.  Those are probably ancient grow-in vehicles towing gang mowers on 15FW, since golfers would only be walking w/caddies.  But, maybe they had soft openings then.  Some pins are in, some Gs don't have a pin.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Pat, let's make sure what these wonderful photos depict.

The first is probably very near the opening of the course, and the course where Sarazen hit the "shot heard round the world".

I believe the rough lines you point to are nothing more than the difference in overseeded FWs to dormant bermuda, not rough per se.  

I believe you're dead wrong.

What factual evidence do you have that ANGC began overseeding their bermuda fairways in 1934 and that NO rough existed on the golf course ?

At the very bottom of the first photo, we see the top high point of the bend in 13 where only two mature trees are and a small grove of saplings past the NLE bunker on 14.

That's not true.
That is not the elbow bend of the hole, but an area beyond the elbow bend.
Take a careful look at the second photo.
The area you reference is packed with trees.

Then coming back right to left middle is the huge, untreed FW of 15 and a mere creek in front of a much more easy green, (with folks standing about where Sarazen must have hit that 4w).

Look at the trees planted right in the MIDDLE of the 15th fairway.

the tee for 16 was actually at top of 15 green and you can't see the old green that is in the famous painting of old 16 (which at that time was actually the front nine and was 7.  

Look at the hundreds of planted saplings to the right of # 16 and to the left of # 7.

Then, look at the second picture.
Look at the number and size of the trees in the middle of the 15th fairway.

Then you see no Eisenhour tree coming back left to right, or no other trees for that matter, and no bunkers at 17 (old .  

That's because the area left of # 17 was a practice field.
Why would you expect there to be trees on a range ?

The Eisenhower tree was planted in the 50's, while Bobby Jones was alive and active in club affairs.

then you easily see the chute of trees up the hill bending right and up to 18- old 9.

Yes, a difficult chute of trees.

The second photo is the most recent.  It is after the RTJsr remodel.  One can clearly see 16 is now completely changed with the new pond, and 15 has the full pond.  15 right side between 17 is still wide open, and left has one little clump of trees up the left second shot if you hooked left off tee.

Are you sure that the area to the right of # 15 and behind # 17 green wasn't part of the range ?

And, are you sure that once that range was abandoned that trees weren't planted ?

The third photo is older than the second, but still post RTJsr changes.  The bunker is still there on 14.

the last photo is around the time of the first, and you can still see only a creek in front of old 6 (now 15) and the old green at 7, now 16, at the very top of the pic.  

The ACC in upper left of photo didn't even exist then.

I believe that the ACC predated ANGC.  

If that is the Eisenhour tree on 17, it was only apparently 15 ft high!

The Eisenhower tree was planted in the 50's, not in the 30's.