There may no longer be a particular need for trees

[Patrick_Mucci]

Have advancements in technology resulting in straighter flighted shots diminished the need to seperate holes through the use of trees ?

[Garland Bayley]

Not with my golf swing!

Dream on Patrick!

[Andy Troeger]

Agreed with Garland...no way. Balls may not curve as much, but I can push or pull a drive as far or farther off line than ever.

[Garland Bayley]

Around my home club, I am know as Mr. Fore Left!
 

[Peter Pallotta]

Patrick
this is such a surprising question to me; from the subject line, I would have never guessed it. And I must be missing a lot, because I don't have a clue how to answer it. I'll tell you the first thing that came to my mind: it was something JES said on the Pine Valley thread. I went to find it so I could quote it right:

"Would it be an improvement if Pine Valley chose to clear out most or all of its trees? I think it would be the most visually stunning inland golf course on the planet. Would it change one iota of my strategic approach to the golf course? NOPE!"

Is that somehow related/an asnwer to your question? I'm not sure. Part of the problem is that I don't think I ever thought of trees as primarily employed as lines of demarcations between neighbouring holes (that's probably because for me, and for many years, I was in them a lot, so they served a primarily penal function).

In regards to the average player, I wonder if the use of trees is not more important than ever, i.e. with undoubtedly straighter ball flights today (for me there's no comparison between the new drivers and the persimmon ones) the penalty for a poor swing has been lessened dramatically, and removing trees would lessen it even more, almost to non-existence. I'm not saying every course, or even a large percentage of courses, should be designed to have that kind of penal element; but if an existing course WAS designed that way, you will lose quite a lot by removing the trees and not gain anything at all in return; that course won't suddenly become more "strategic", as it never had the 'bones' built into it for that kind of play.

And for the better player, I think all this may be even truer still; the removal of trees would not change that player's stratgeic thinking at all, but there'd be almost no penalty whatsoever incurred for a wayward drive or a bad decision. In short, a game that has already been made easier for the good player because of the new technology would be made easier still; not, I don't think, what you had in mind.

Again, I may be missing a lot here Patrick and misunderstanding the question, but the answer I've worked my way towards is "No, it has not diminished the need for fairway-defining trees; it has increased that need...but only on courses so designed as to require the specific kind of penal element that such trees provide."

Peter
 

[wsmorrison]

The following may be total garbage, but it reflects my empirical results.

If the club face is not squared at contact, a problem I often encounter, the ball is hit off line and has less of a chance to curve back into the fairway.  I would think the lack of spin in the ball and I assume less of a gear effect on the clubfaces (it looks so to my eye) that balls may not curve offline as much---though they still do, but they are deflected offline as much as ever and have less ability to curve back into play.

I expect this will be shot down by those that know better and are more awake than I.

[Joe Hancock]

Here's the bigger issue, as I see it:

People still hit it sideways. However, I'm not fully convinced that using trees to separate holes was ever a necessity. Trees not only have the opportunity to knock down an off-line shot, they also are capable of blocking the line of vision required to notify someone in danger of being hit by a wayward shot. There are numerous accounts of people getting hit because the golfer who hit a shot towards an adjacent fairway gave no warning, due to lack of knowledge of anyone being present.

Some trees can be effective for knocking down shots. For example, a tree or two just ahead of and to the right of a tee can knock down the really bad shot without entirely  blocking the golfer's vision of the adjacent hole.

I'd rather create more vision and safety through awareness of others on the course than to create walls and corridors of trees, which are only partially effective as a safety mechanism.

Joe

[Joe Hancock]

I'd rather create more vision and safety through awareness of others on the course than to create walls and corridors of trees, which are only partially effective as a safety mechanism.

Joe

Joe

I knew there was something about you that I liked!  Despite what others have said I have stuck by ya.

Ciao

Sean,

Others who have spoken of me negatively have done so out of jealousy. They see my happy-go-lucky nature, and realize how much better off they would be if they, too were unencumbered by the thought process......

Joe

[Adam Clayman]

Is the premise wrong using the word "Need"?

Whatever happened to courtesy of yelling fore?

[Kirk Gill]

Houses are the new trees.

Of course, trees are still necessary, unless you want to make the houses out of stone.

[Gary Slatter]

I have never thought of trees as protective instruments as in stopping shots from one hole to another.  IMHO it's better to see the incoming ball and hear the "FORE" warning, sometimes trees shield us from both.

However, I have played many courses where a single tree is often more strategic to how one plays a shot or a hole than any bunker could ever be.  In most of the links game trees are undesirable, on the other, the majority of courses, trees can often be integral and lower maintenance than alternatives.
I love the opportunity to go around, over or under a tree, far more options than just avoiding a bunker or other earthen obstacle.   If trees are a normal natural part of the environment where the course is found, then they can be a part of my golf experience.