[Tom Roewer]

Thanks to GCA's own Dunlop White for the wonderful one page article in the May?June LINKS MAGAZINE. Check it out!

[Dunlop_White]

Tom,

Thanks! My pal, Mark Studer, one of Oakmont's long-time committeemen, offered some interesting quotes and insight into the 14-year tree operation that's never been published before. So check it out!

Oakmont was "ready, willing, and able" to fork over their portfolio of  revealing "before/after" shots, but Open policy required that their Board first review the story. LINKS, however, doesn't usually allow their subjects to review a piece before it runs. Consequently, an opportunity to show the dramatic effects of aggressive tree management was lost.

More later....

[TEPaul]

I guess it just has to be said and admitted that the tree removal program at Oakmont has probably done more to influence the tree/golf course subject and ongoing debate and controversy than any other golf course or event in the entire history of golf and architecture. Not just having done the most but having done the most about a dozen times over.

Whenever one hears of a golf course considering tree removal on anything like a significant basis the name Oakmont is mentioned---every single time.

Mark Studer, whether you're willing to admit it or not this has made you famous and significant in the history and evolution of particularly American golf course architecture---and will make you more famous and signficant as time goes on into the foreseeable future.

You will in fact become known (hopefully partly through my own penchant for catch phrases) the "American golf course/tree serial mass murderer". You have created a contagion for the mass murder of trees on golf courses and this is a very good thing indeed, as long as it doesn't result in every tree on every course being murdered.  

However, the real irony may be if Mark Studer's place in the mass murder of trees at Oakmont could be said to be akin to De Tocqueville's mass murder during the French Revolution, even Mark may be somewhat alarmed at the Hitler-like "final solution" of some---even at Oakmont.  

[Joel_Stewart]

Mark Studer, whether you're willing to admit it or not this has made you famous and significant in the history and evolution of particularly American golf course architecture---and will make you more famous and signficant as time goes on into the foreseeable future.

Tom:

Just leave it with the above.  

Dunlop:

Are you trying to keep a informal account of how many courses have recently began a tree management practice?

[Dunlop_White]

Joel,

Nowadays, the word is out on trees! All clubs I'm involved with have already attacked their overgrowth to some degree. A common mistake is that most clubs only "scratch the surface". I always feel that they could do more!

Brad Klein or Mike Fay could probably give a better account of the state of tree management nationally. Around here, Augusta and Quail seem to be the only ones still planting?

[David_Tepper]

Dunlop W. -

This is a very good article. I referenced it on another thread on the board.  Good job!

DT

[michael j fay]

Tree management is exactly what it implies, management.

I cannot tell you how many holes on Ross designed courses have been abased over the years by the willy-nilly planting of trees for the sake of separating the holes (ala Pine Valley). Avenues have been cut off, strategy has been changed and the agronomics have been compromised.

Many times repeated plantings have turned wonderful straight forward golf holes into untoward badly angled dog legs. I have seen fairways that have been moved as many as 60 yards by the tree additions of the 30's, 40's, 50's, 60's, etc.

Another problem is that trees have often compromised the fairway bunkering on golf courses. Some well intentioned soul plants a seedling 20 yards in front of a fairway bunker only to create a double hazard within ten years. Too many times I have seen the bunker removed in an effort to save the latter day tree.

Management is what is necessary. Trees that surround the perimeter of the course are often quite attractive and have no negative impact on the course. Trees surrounding the back of a green usually causes an agronomic nightmare. Many times I have pointed out the outline of the canopies of the surrounding trees on the surface of the green.

Balance is necessary and can only be reached through proper management.

Oakmont is a very special place. The ground was nearly treeless in 1903 when the course was built. The course has all the difficullty and hazard one can deal with without having to face vertical hazards. To be able to stand on the eighteenth tee and see most of the course is really pretty cool.

The tree removal at places like Aronimink, Salem, Beverly, Minkahda, Pine Needles, Pinhurst #2 and many others has vasly improved these courses from both an agronomic and golf point of view.

The planting of trees at Augusta is an anomoly. Augusta is attempting to control the scoring in a major Championship.
They will do what they feel is necessary.

The average Country Club must look to it's origins, the avenues of play and the original angles of intent of the Architect before they make any tree decisions. After this assessment I feel that most clubs will opt for removal rather than addition.

[Brad Klein]

TEP,

DeToqueville's "mass murder" during the 1789 French Revolution? Since he lived 1805-1859, I can't wait to read your account of that. I think Studer deserves more fame since he did more good anyway.

The only courses I know of that are planting are Augusta National, East Lake and Quail Hollow. Everyone else is counting, culling, and in the process strengthening both their remaining tree stock and their turf quality -- as well as overall playability. Initial member resistance always seems to get overcome, though usually a residual 5 percent of members are unhappy -- but these are the same 5 percent miserable wretches who are unhappy over everything.

This year alone I've visted many estabished courses that have benefitted, among them Idle Hour (Ky.), Forsyth, Old Town, Pine Needles and Sedgefield (N.C.), Seawane (N.Y.), Hyde Park (Oh.) and Caves Valley (Md.)  

[Dunlop_White]

At Oakmont, just two trees still remain standing on the interior of the entire golf course - both majestic elms - one by the 3rd tee and one between the 4th and 5th fairways. Come U.S. Open, this story needs to be told and re-told!!!

Do you think television will do it justice? BK, any more from you in GW?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Brad Klein,

It would make for an informative article, and more importantly, spread the word and give support for the need for more tree removal programs.

Afterall, if Oakmont, the host of the 2007 U.S. Open has cleared their internal trees, shouldn't most courses ?

An article on the subject would give committees and boards the support and ammunition needed to proceed with implementing their programs.

[mike_malone]

 From what I have heard, Oakmont is actually going back to it's original intent. Is this correct?


     When Gil Hanse wrote our master plan he stated that if Flynn had wanted to plant trees he would have. This made me believe that he had access to our 1926 photos , the year of construction, but probably not our early 30's photo which shows hundreds of trees planted . While we have no firm evidence of Flynn's involvement in the plantings they seem to be in harmony with his writings about trees and he was alive and living nearby.
    So, in the case of my home course it seems to make more sense to pick a point in time for the proper tree locations.


   Does Oakmont have aerials showing early tree plantings which presumably would be the Fownes' intent?

[Brad Klein]

Pat,

I've written so many of those articles on trees, committees, education, I feel like I'm repeating myself. I guess you have to keep hammering the message home. I worry how the network will cover this story for the U.S. Open telecast.

Brad

[D_Malley]

is there a link to view dunlop's article?

[Phil Benedict]

Oakmont has a million bunkers and unbelievably challenging greens.  I assume the rough is no bargain either.

If other parkland courses followed Oakmont's lead and removed all or nearly all interior trees, how do they maintain the challenge?  Add fairway bunkers?  Grow the rough?

My course has taken down hundreds of trees but what's left are an integral part of the challenge of the course.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Phil,

I think there's a happy medium.

In most cases, on classic era courses, trees planted within the last few decades should go.

An intelligent review of each golf course will produce the results that best serve the golf course and those playing it.

[Dunlop_White]

I know of no link to the article. LINKS Mag. has not posted it as of yet.

ESPN and NBC will be broadcasting it this year.

[TEPaul]

"TEP,
DeToqueville's "mass murder" during the 1789 French Revolution? Since he lived 1805-1859, I can't wait to read your account of that."

Brad:

Well, silly me! I'm terrible on names anyway but never having been a huge fan of the frogs I'm even worse.

I meant to say Robespierre, not DeToqueville. BTW, the chances of me spelling Robie's name correctly is virtually nil.

[Dunlop_White]

Charlie Rymer is evidently going to cover the tree thing during Thursday and Friday coverage of the Open through the NBC feed on webcast on USGA.org and ESPN.com. Also, Golf World, Golf Digest, and the Chicago Tribune have also done more in depth features on trees in their US Open editions. So check them out as well.

George,

Currently, LINKS has not posted it. I need to check on this anyway?

[Jim Nugent]

No less an authority than the Open Doc himself is appalled at all this wholesale tree removal.  He points to ANGC as a course that is getting it right.  Geoff Shackelford has a great article on this, with Geoff's trademark comments sprinkled throughout Rees' statements.  

[Mike_Cirba]

No less an authority than the Open Doc himself is appalled at all this wholesale tree removal.  He points to ANGC as a course that is getting it right.  Geoff Shackelford has a great article on this, with Geoff's trademark comments sprinkled throughout Rees' statements.  

 

 

 

[Dunlop_White]

Thanks for the heads-up on this article. I love the Geoff's sidebar comments.
 

[Shane Gurnett]

Interesting observation on Oakmont from a former multiple US Open winner...

"I have not seen it since they have taken down all the trees. I can’t say that I would be in favor of that. If I were left to my own devices I would have probably left the trees in. Because I think courses evolve and without a vertical dimension in trees you’re taking away some of the aspects of the game that I think are clearly part of the game. And that’s negotiating around some obstacles like trees.


I’m kind of sad to hear that because I think Oakmont was a great golf course that didn’t need to have all that done."

[Kalen Braley]

Here is an interesting article about the tree removal.

http://sports.espn.go.com/golf/usopen07/news/story?id=2899697

[Chris Cupit]

TEP,

DeToqueville's "mass murder" during the 1789 French Revolution? Since he lived 1805-1859, I can't wait to read your account of that. I think Studer deserves more fame since he did more good anyway.

Robespierre? Maybe he is who TEP had in mind?

[Chris Cupit]

FWIW in my renovation I was able to point to "famous clubs" like Oakmont, Winged Foot, NGLA as prime examples of clubs that did a fantastic job with tree removal/management.

No amount of science or discussion of the benefits of tree management makes as much a difference to members as what the "premier clubs" are doing.

We took out 200-300 trees--thanks for the help

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()