Trees

[Chris Hervochon]

Recently played Harbour Town in Hilton Head which I find to be an extremely good golf course with plenty of strategy.  However, most of the strategy lies in the trees that encroach on the lines of play and the small greens.  Personally I am a big fan of the small greens approach, and I love the golf course even though it does go against how I typically feel about trees.  I, like most on this site, am into the restoration of our classic courses and deforestation as Mike Young and others have discussed on other threads.  How does everybody else feel and am I alone in my feelings about Harbour Town?

[Michael_Burrows]

Chris  Harbour Town is not a classic course so it really does not have to follow the classic style. I think the trees limit the Players options on where to place the ball  

A little quote from Pete

"At Habour Town, several situations were deliberately created where it appears one type of shot is necessary when another may be required.
   For example, on the par-five second hole, which measures 505 yards, there is a shallow bunker to the left side some 240 yards from the tee. The fairway appears open to the right, so the tendency is to hit drive to that side to stay clear of the bunker.
    While the normal width for a fariway is usually forty yards, the fairway on number two measures at least sixty yards. A false sense of security is created for players who decide to play to the open side, for any chance of hitting the green in two is virtually eliminated, since deep bunkers and OVERING HANGING TREES block the entrance from that side. "  


Plus he says that many of the settlers that came to America during the era emigrated from the British Isles settled in homes beside huge oaks with spanish moss in that area.Then many of the post-Revolutionary War residents returned to visit Scotand and England and imported the game of golf to their new homeland. So that History may be part of the reason why he left so many of them.  


However he does say that since the course open the trees have grown a great deal and that the green can no longer be reached in two.  He says that he has asked for the tops of the trees to be cut back so players could try to go for the green on their second shot but the club has not done so.

With all do respect I'm sorry I disagree with removing trees at Harbour town.

[A_Clay_Man]

I think I understand your dilema. It just seems that when a tree is used as a hazard. it's kind of like putting in a pond or something less than imaginative when it comes to strategic design. I also can respect a place that wants to be that way and I encourage everyone who prefers that type of course, to play there. To me, if there is more than a few randomly well  placed trees, I think it limits the options.

[Chris Hervochon]

I would tend to offer a different opinion as to why I feel the way I do about Harbour Town.  Also, I have a different opinion of the second hole.  I think what appeals to me about Harbour Town is the fact that you must place the ball in a certain portion of the fairway, and if you don't you must be able to maneuver your ball to reach the green.  Given the course of a round, you are bound to hit every conceivable golf shot (high, low, fade, draw, etc...sometimes even two combined).  I think it would be a different scenario if the target was unreachable altogether, but it just puts a premium on being able to hit all the shots.  In regard to the second, I disagree.  That green is very much reachable in two, even from the back tee.  All you have to do is flirt with the fairway bunker, and if you do bail to the safe side, you better be able to hit a fade to get back into position.  Although I do think some of the trees around the fairway bunker do need to be cut down.  That bunker just adds a little risk/reward.  That's my take on the strategy of that course, and it is open to criticism and discussion.

[Mikey_Olympic]

why does everyone on this site complain about trees? are you guys all hacks? what's wrong with the architect demanding one kind of shot? can you guys learn how to work the ball or something? c'mon....

[A_Clay_Man]

Yo Mickey- Isn't that whats wrong with the American style of GCA, too many one shot options?

[ChipOat]

MY FAVORITE PET PEEVE!

Stupid trees that encroach on shots from the fairway or within 150 yards of tee boxes.

The straight ball should not be impeded from where the architect intended the golfer to be either at the start of a hole (up to a point) or from the fairway.  Let the shape/design of the hole and/or the the green complex encourage/demand the "shaped" shot.

As to Harbour Town, it's in my personal Top 5.  I last played it 3+ years ago and didn't notice any offending trees.  In the 70's and 80's it was definitely an issue.  Sorry to hear it may becoming one again.

[Philippe Binette]

     Guys, by talking of trees on a golf course, you have talk about strategies, shot-making, placement of a first shot for the second, different route trought a hole, isn't what golf is all about.
      Golf hasn't meant to be played from a perfect lie to another.
      Also, trees that break the line of charm, as Alister Mackenzie will say, create interest in a golf hole.

     In America, to many courses are built thinking a good shot is a good full swing on the good line and if not it's unfair. For me, a good shot is good for its result and not how it's executed.

     Trees are three-dimensional hazard and if you're not able to play around them, walk home or practice your shot making not your boring ball strinking  

[mike_malone]

Trees seem to produce such emotional responses.A major problem with trees is that most varieties GROW.This leads to the hazard changing overtime.They also die ,so the intended strategy changes.This makes them undependable.
 There also are different  types of trees that seem to work on courses,such as deciduous(sp)and others that seem to be a problem--evergreens.
 Much depends on the architect's style.Many of the complaints i see on this site are about trees added after the original designer is long gone.People who believe they understand the designer's intent ,usually from some analysis of primary documents,think they know how he intended trees to come into play.
 When they believe he did not intend the recovery shot to be eliminated,they oppose trees.
 For myself as a member of a Flynn course,i do not like evergreen trees whose limbs grow all the way to the ground and are certainly not"90%air" being PLANTED close to the fairway and near to the green.
 There are many beautiful oak or ash trees on our course that will knock your ball down when a teeball is errant.In most cases you then have a shot ,probably one you need "to work".I see no problem with these.
 We have had a few trees at THE  corner of doglegs fall down,unfortunately people usually suggest replacing them with "quickgrowing"evergreens.
 70 years ago someone with foresight planted hundreds of trees on our course.I find few people today who think that much ahead and recommend placing the right kind of trees now to replace the stately ones 50 years from now.
 It seems that one must either be  anti-tree or pro-tree.
  I think we should find some "commonground "for TREES.

[ChipOat]

If one has to be only "pro" or "anti" trees, I choose "anti".

They're fine around the perimeter of a golf course - they beat looking at houses or cars.

Otherwise, they create more problems than they solve, IMO.

[Slag_Bandoon]

When trees are planted thoughtfully, with strategy in mind,no problem.  When they are planted to create mood or some picturesqueness of designers preconceived idea of natural beauty, start up the Husqvarna and shred the contract.  When they are already there, well, that's the challenge of routing and tee/green placement.   There are environmental issues and variable laws to consider also but generally I stand my my first two sentences.  

  When I think of a course with some interesting trees, the first one that comes to mind is Barona Creek, east of San Diego.  Troublesome but avoidable.  Sparse but plentyful.    Love that course.

  

[W.H. Cosgrove]

I hail from the great Northwest where trees are all to prevalent.  Tillinghast described trees as a poor hazard.  There only true value came in using them to 'turn' a hole, setting direction only.  

The Open Championship at Muirfield was an excellent example of horizontal hazards which forced the golfer to make a decision without having to hoist the ball to dizzying heights to escape trouble.  Trees all to often create a situation where the escape is to hit the ball sideways and begin again.  This removes all hope of a miracle recovery. Often resulting in boredom.  

Trees as hazards are the result of misguided greens committees believing that interest is created through difficulty.  They couldn't be more wrong.  Interest is created when a player is tempted to make a shot when the reward is great and the risk is crushing.  Or visually, the player is drawn to a shot that doesn't make sense.

Trees dissuade us from the heroic shot.  They also destroy the visual nature of the game.  Long vistas are hidden in the name of backdrops (A green backing looks great at Fenway but creates problems on a golf course).  Hazards are hidden from view.  Pin positions are a mystery and lines of play are set in lockstep.  

Don't get me wrong, I love trees.  They just don't belong in the line of play as a worthy hazard in golf.

[ChipOat]

Cos:

Amen

[JWalker]

Slag,

            Amen. There is nothing wrong with the well placed tree that promotes the occasional aerial strategy. Barona's is aa great example.

[GeoffreyC]

Tree lovers- If the basic strategy of a hole is designed to utilize a tree or trees then what happens when the tree dies or grows 3 times as large? Do you just spend $250,000 to replace it or leave the hole with a changed/flawed strategic playability? Is a golf course built for today and the next few years or is it intended by the architect to be built for your children and grandchildren to play with the same strategies as you use today?

Trees with VERY few exceptions don't belong in play.  We've had discussions of good golf holes where tree(s) play a good strategic role and they can probably be found in the archives.

I would suggest that readers go to Dunlap White's EXCELLENT reviews in the In My Opinion section of this site.  His arguments are expressed far better then I could convey.

[Slag_Bandoon]

GC, How did you come up with $250,000 to replace a tree?  Have you been peeking at the Fazio job menu?
 Must be a money tree.  

[GeoffreyC]

Pebble Beach- tree on #18 - $250,000 spent to replace it if I'm not mistaken.  Correct me if I'm wrong.  I only mention it as a point to ask if you spend $$$ to try to reproduce the tree strategy much like a club might spend $$$ to restore their bunkers or other features.

[Slag_Bandoon]

 Could you just imagine the raised eyebrows on an IRS auditor when he sees $250K in the EXPENSES column to "Replace a tree".  

   "Hey, Mr. Taxman, you want some free golf for a year at Pebble?"

GC, I don't doubt it at Pebble, just caught me as arbitrary number.  

    To your last question...  If the tree made the hole more interesting, then it should be replaced with another.  If not, then get out the stump grinder and grass seed, or?    

[A_Clay_Man]

The trees that are in play on the 18th at Pebble, are examples of well placed ones.

First, the two in the fairway, they are hardly penal, unless you are right up against and/or behind it. There is plenty of room on both sides for options.

 Now, the one by the green is hardly ever in play, unless you have bailed right so badly, that you are stymied. And if you did, don't you deserve a little stymilla? After all there is plenty of room to the left where the runway apron is, isn't there?

[ChipOat]

A_Clay_Man:

The tree by the 18th green at Pebble does, in fact, come into play from the right 1/3 of the fairway - I can attest to that.

If it only was a factor from a bail-out into the rough, then I wouldn't object to it and it could not be legitimately defined as a "stupid tree".

However, since it does most definitely qualify as a stupid tree, I hope it dies.

[A_Clay_Man]

Chipoat- Play it differently next time and don't get so close on the right.

and where would they put the light fixture without the tree?

[ChipOat]

Adam:

Re: the light fixture.  Do you supposes that's the main reason they replaced that stupid tree all along?

If so, it just goes to show you don't have to be Donald Trump to have absurdly bad taste.

[ET]

Chris - You must play Twisted Dune (near Atlantic City) -NO TREES and good holes.

[A_Clay_Man]

Chipoat- I can see we clearly disagree on more than the strategy of the hole.

I have always mentioned the fixture as the major justification for the tree. (mostly cause it is so out of play for 'big cut clayman' )

And I can tell you that my very first visit into the Cypress Room was at night and seeing that green all lit up, I just had to go down and touch it. SInce I am emersed in Pottery now, the desire to touch is " a good thing".

So, we can disagree tilll the cows come home but at least I will leave the light on for'em.