Today, I visited a golf course that underwent a fairly major tree removal program over the winter.
I hadn't seen the golf course since last September.
I was impressed by what I saw.
A great number of randomly planted pines and ornamental trees that were too close to the lines of play were gone.
A great deal of framing was ..... gone
The stark definition offered at several tees was gone.
The fairway/rough line was the prime indicator, whereas, previously, defined corridors created by trees, dictated play.
Angles into greens were opened up by the removal of many trees.
Since it was so windy, I couldn't tell how much, if any, the tree removal might have reintroduced the wind into the playing experience.
Greens were exposed to sunlight from all directions, whereas, many had been shaded previously.
Over the winter, without having seen the golf course, many members were upset about the tree removal, and complained bitterly about the potential impacts.
Many claimed that it would produce lower scores.
Others protested that the golf course wouldn't look as good.
Others complained that the golf course would look like a public golf course (whatever that means)
I"m told that the feedback, based on the members actually playing the golf course has been very favorable.
So, why do so many golfers object to the tree removal project in principle, but, when they see and experience the results, they embrace the concept.
Why did American golf courses fall in love with trees to begin with ?
Why do so many members object in principle, to their removal,
especially trees that have been planted/added over the last
10-20-30-40 years ?
Have hi-tech clubs made trees less necessary in screening golfers on one hole from golfers on another hole ?
Is the open look coming back into vogue ?
Upon seeing and playing courses with substantive, successful tree removal programs, will guests return to their course to champion that cause ?
Does F&F begin to take hold once trees are removed and the golf course opened up ?