Tree removal for ANGC

[Doug Siebert]

OK, so let's say you are appointed dictator-for-life at ANGC with full powers to alter the course in any way you see fit.  Do you:

1) cut down every tree on the place
2) cut down every tree that could be potentially be hit by a Masters competitor's golf ball
3) cut down just the trees that have been added since 1997, and leave the rest alone
4) maybe cut a few of the recently added trees, but leave some of them
5) forget all this controversy and play as many rounds as possible as ANGC until it closes for the summer


I'm really curious if there are any tree-haters determined enough to select option 1 or 2.  For those who rail against the recently added trees but would leave those that existed in 1996, why are those trees better?  Why not take down the Eisenhower tree, for instance, since several Masters competitors this year hit it (and I think they said Appleby went left of it!)  I'll bet it gives a lot members fits, even if it takes a fairly bad shot from a pro to hit it.

[Rick Shefchik]

1.)

Just to see if there was even the remotest chance that AN could play like TOC, as Matt Ward claims it was intended to.

After that question was answered to everyone's satisfaction, I'd start planting trees again -- judiciously and sparingly, but I'd definitely plant trees.

[Dan Kelly]

1.)

Just to see if there was even the remotest chance that AN could play like TOC, as Matt Ward claims it was intended to.

Be that as it may, you have to admit:

If you cut down all of the trees, a serial killer would have one helluva time finding adequate cover.

[Rick Shefchik]

Unlike Tom Fazio, I work with what I have.

[Matt_Ward]

Rick:

I never said ANGC was supposed to play exactly like TOC. I did say that Jones loved TOC, as did Mackenzie, and wanted to have something akin to what you face at that famed Scotland layout here in America -- albeit with a parksland flavor.

But trees would play no role -- and the idea of wider driving areas would appeal to members. In addition, the course would provide unique putting surfaces to serve as a great equalizer for any approaches that fail to be hit properly and to the right location.

[Rick Shefchik]

But Matt, trees did a play a role at AN, from the beginning. Jones could have cleared the existing trees when he bought the property, but didn't; and by the time of his death, there were many more trees than when he started -- some, like the Eisenhower tree, definitely affecting strategy.

I don't think those trees grew up while Jones wasn't paying attention. I think he realized a course with a "parkland flavor" would benefit from the strategic use of trees.

I'm not a big tree guy myself, but they have their uses, even on a course that was partly inspired by some of the elements of TOC -- a seaside course that couldn't have been recreated in any significant way in the hilly Georgia pines.

[BCrosby]

Rick -

In case you missed it:

"I don't see any need for a tree on a golf course."  BOBBY JONES

(Hat tip Geoff S.) Obviously that was sometimes honored in the breach, but maybe you get the idea?

Matt is right. The playing characteristics of TOC were central to what MacK and Jones tried to do at ANGC.

Whatever else that may mean, it includes wide playing corridors. That, in turn, suggests a paucity of trees.

I had thought this group might be counted on to know what ANGC was suppposed to be about. That any analysis of ANGC begins and ends with TOC. Why ANGC was a unique design with extraordinary ambitions.

I would have thought there would be little disagrement that sometimes the price of obtaining high scores at The Masters might be too high.

Guess not.

Bob  

[Rick Shefchik]

Well, then I'm mystified. Where the hell did the trees come from during Jones's lifetime?

[BCrosby]

Rick -

I missed you last post.

Do not suppose for a nano-second that because Jones knew there were pines at ANGC from the beginning that he would have somehow ok'ed the trees added over the last couple of years.

He would not have.

They have changed fundamentally the playing characteristics of some of the most pivotal holes on the back nine.

Bob

[Matt_Ward]

Rick:

Let's be a bit more fair shall we -- I never said there would be no trees. But if you are looking at the course from pre-97 and to see what has been done now it's a bit more geared towards the bowling alley syndrome that I mentioned. If you can't see that then I have to say you are barking up the wrong tree (no pun intended).

Rick, one other thing -- the idea of having TOC in Georgia is more conceptual than in trying to nail down the same exact playing characteristics one can only find in Scotland.

Last item -- The Ike tree morphed into something that is way beyond what any tree should provide. It was left more as a dig to Ike than anything else in my opinion.

Bob C:

Thank you for adding another voice on the accuracy side of things.

[Rick Shefchik]

Thanks, Bob, but those aren't the trees I'm talking about. I mean the ones that were there from the '50s through the early '70s, when Jones was still alive and supposedly running the tournament.

I agree that the planting of more trees is a debatable move, but how could Jones have been totally against trees on his golf course and yet let Ike's Tree and all those other ones grow up and affect play under his watch?

[BCrosby]

Well, then I'm mystified. Where the hell did the trees come from during Jones's lifetime?

To kick this horse one more time, the trees that existed at ANGC until the trees added in '98 and thereafter did not in any significant ways affect the playing corridors. There was one exception - the 7th.

(The famous Eisenhower tree, for better players, was not in play. It is now because the tee was moved back and because the trees added to the right remove the option of hitting around it - unless you can hit a big swinging hook and stop it in a fw about 20 yards wide.)

Bob  

[Rick Shefchik]

Okay, Bob. I'm always glad to learn.

I do think, though, that "not affecting play in any significant way" is different than "I don't see any need for a tree on a golf course."  

[Bill_McBride]

Well, then I'm mystified. Where the hell did the trees come from during Jones's lifetime?

To kick this horse one more time, the trees that existed at ANGC until the trees added in '98 and thereafter did not in any significant ways affect the playing corridors. There was one exception - the 7th.

(The famous Eisenhower tree, for better players, was not in play. It is now because the tee was moved back and because the trees added to the right remove the option of hitting around it - unless you can hit a big swinging hook and stop it in a fw about 20 yards wide.)

Bob  

Bob, the tight corridor on #7 was okay at 350 yards, but not 450, right?

It was pretty amazing to see the long hitters yesterday playing PW to #17 at 455 yards.  It's pretty obvious that, unless the ball is rolled back   the extra yards are necessary.  But the reduced corridors are the big problem, that's where the new trees come into play.  Literally!  

The idea of the ultra-wide fairways was so that the smart player would be able to obtain the best angles into those huge, contoured greens - very much the strategy of the Old Course.  That was the connection, not the links vs parkland dichotomy.

[BCrosby]

Let me try to be more precise.

Whatever trees existed at ANGC pre'98, they did not change the playing corridors of the original layout. (Again, the 7th may be an exception, but even there they trimmed branches pretty regularly.) That doesn't mean that bad shots didn't sometimes find tress. But the basic playing corridors were intact.

That all changed with the trees added in '98. It was a qualitative as well as a merely quantitative change in the tree situation.

Those trees were added for the specific purpose of narrowing the playing widths of several very significant holes.

Bob

[Kalen Braley]

I found this article that details the changes since 1997.  Its quite a bit.  http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=412441

Here are some of the details as it relates to trees:

No. 1, 400 yards in 1997, 455 yards in 2006
2002: Tee moved back 20-25 yards. Fairway bunker reshaped and extended 10-15 yards toward the green. Portion of fairway landing area regraded.
2006: Tee moved back 15-20 yards. Trees added to left side of fairway.

No. 7, 360 yards in 1997, 450 yards in 2006
2002: Tee moved back 40-45 yards. Portion of fairway landing area regraded.
2006: Tee moved back 35-40 yards. Green re-grassed to create possible right-rear flagstick location. Trees added to both sides of the fairway.

No. 11, 455 yards in 1997, 505 yards in 2006
1999: Green, pond and bunker complex adjusted.
2002: Tee moved back 30-35 yards and shifted 5 yards to right. Portion of fairway landing area regraded.
2004: Thirty-six pine trees added to right side of fairway.
2006: Tee moved back 10-15 yards. Trees added to right side of fairway and fairway shifted to the left.

No. 15, 500 yards in 1997, 530 yards in 2006
1999: Fairway mounds reduced and pine trees added to right and left.
2006: Tee moved back 30-35 yards and shifted approximately 20 yards to left.

No. 17, 400 yards in 1997, 440 yards in 2006
1999: Tee moved back 25 yards.
2006: Tee moved back 10-15 yards.
(It doesn't mention trees here but we know they are there as apart of the trees added to 15)

No. 18, 405 yards in 1997, 465 yards in 2006

2002: Tee moved back 55-60 yards and shifted 5 yards to right. Bunker complex adjusted, making bunkers approximately 10% larger. Trees added left of fairway bunkers. Green re-grassed and expanded to recover lost edges.
Are there trees left of the bunkers on 18?  That doesn't seem right.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Does anyone really believe that trees weren't an integral part of ANGC from the very begining ?

Please look at the planting of all the saplings in these pictures.

Pine Trees were intended to be in abundance.
Also, please note the rough.

[Doug Siebert]

Does anyone have a similar summary of the changes to ANGC from 1960 to 1998?  There was rough, much higher than the stuff they call a second cut today (but not US Open length) lining some fairways and quite close around the greens, the fairway bunkers left of 18 were absent, the bunker right of the 18th green was further back and much shallower than today's, etc.

I also note that in the 1960 broadcast they said the 18th was a 420 yard par 4, and based on the length they said the players were hitting their drives (the long knockers - Arnie, Hogan, and Jack - were hitting it 260....I know its uphill, but still!) and the clubs they appeared to be using, I'd say that was correct.  So they apparently shortened 18 for some reason after 1960.

I suppose the difficulty in tracking down stuff like this is that it used to be that no one really paid much attention to the changes there, especially back in the early years of TV.  I remember reading an article in a golf magazine as a kid about them switching the greens to bent grass, that was a big deal.  But I doubt if even then they'd bother to note something trivial like adding or redoing bunkers on 18 or changing its length by 15 yards.  One would have to get this information from the club, and I doubt they'd be particularly forthcoming with such a list, even assuming they have it all neatly recorded in a single place themselves.

[Jim Nugent]

To kick this horse one more time, the trees that existed at ANGC until the trees added in '98 and thereafter did not in any significant ways affect the playing corridors. There was one exception - the 7th.

Bob, what about at 18?  I saw plenty of shots go into the woods on the right.  IIRC, Watson came into the 72nd hole one year tied for the lead, hit into the trees, and took double.  Maybe around 1991?  

Kalen -- didn't they add about 50 yards or so to number 13 as well?

[Kalen Braley]

Jim,

I only included the details on the holes that had trees added to them.  There are several other holes that have had distance added to them including 2,4,5,8,9,10,and 13.

[Matt_Ward]

Bill McBride:

When you say PW were hit to #17 -- keep in mind wind was quite strong from the NW and with the players when playing the hole for much of the week.

Bill, the 7th hole at ANGC has been literally destroyed as the powers-that-be at the club have simply fallen back on simply adding length for the sake of length. Check out the size of the green and how it's positioned. It was meant to be played as a short par-4. The severe back-to-front slope of the green served well in identifying the best approaches to finish close. Having it play 450 yards is a silly reform that flies in the face of what was a fine hole.

Jim N:

I don't believe anyone -- including myself and Bob C -- have said no trees should be anywhere on the property.

Yes, the trees did impact Watson when he blocked his tee shot in the trees to the right on #18 a number of years ago. You can say the same thing happened to Norman in '81 when he hooked his drive off the tee at #10.

The issue is not with having trees -- but for them to play much less of a role than you see today. For anyone to defend the imposition of trees in the manner done now is truly mindboggling given ANGC's original intent and what made the course so fascinating as the premier strategic design course in America.

[Tyler Kearns]

Does anyone have a similar summary of the changes to ANGC from 1960 to 1998?  

Doug,

Stan Byrdy's recent book on Augusta National does a good job at detailing the changes to the golf course over the years, with excellent historic photos to complement the text.

I could have sworn that I heard they had removed a few trees on #11 during the Friday telecast.

TK

[BCrosby]

Jim -

As Matt notes above, lots of people have hit into lots of trees over the years at The Masters. But until circa 1998 those trees were outside the original playing corridors (with the possible exception of the 7th).

Stan Byrdy's book is an excellent reference. I think it's better than David Owens' book on architecture issues. But Owens' book is certainly worth buying.

Bob

[Jim Nugent]

I only included the details on the holes that had trees added to them.

Kalen, so you did, which I would have seen immediately if I'd read your post more carefully.