[David Mulle]

A comment on the Pound Ridge thread got me thinking about trees.  While I agree that many (if not most) courses would be well served to break out the chainsaws, some trees provide very interesting strategic challenges that cannot easily be replicated.

Harbour Town is a course that I think uses trees to great strategic effect. 

A more specific example of a hole is significantly more interesting because of a well-placed tree is the 11th hole at Inwood. 

There is a large tree overhanging the left side of the fairway.  If you play out to the right in order to avoid the tree, there is a bunker that is in play and you will be left with a longer approach.  If you challenge the tree, you have a shorter approach and it takes the bunker down the right side completely out of play.     
 
Any other examples out there?

[Kyle Harris]

David,

Good to hear from you.

The 11th at Huntingdon Valley (until very recently) had 4 very stately sycamore trees that played into the strategic interest of the hole. Trajectory control was a must from anywhere on the left side of the fairway and the golf had to place the tee shot in a specific part of the fairway to avoid any of the branches.

A storm a month or so ago knocked one down, sadly.

[ChipOat]

That was my comment on the Pound Ridge thread and I'm sticking to it.

Trees that come into play in the fairway or within 150 yards of the tee box are Stupid Trees and should be cut down.  I do not like them 1 single bit.

[John Moore II]

I noticed when I played National in Pinehurst, that at least one hole, #3 had somewhat centerline trees that I felt added to the challenge and strategy of the hole. I think that almost all natural features can be used to better the strategy of the hole, when used well. I mean, even grass can be stupid if not used correctly.

[RJ_Daley]

It seems to me that once you acquiecse to the concept of trees on golf courses that have strategic merit, you can find thousands of such trees on courses from mom and pop and muni's to the finest clubs.  And, we basically must acquiesce since I'd guess 90+% of courses are basically parkland or significantly treed properties. 

The thing about these specimen and nicely placed strategic trees is they don't always remain at their optimum dimensions with growth sometimes making them awkward where they were once nicely proportioned to a specific shot pattern.   And, they die naturally, diseased or storm damaged, eventually. 

My course has plenty of trees that are mostly well managed and aren't detractive to the round, and on a few holes, might be considered bunkers in the sky that cause you to flirt with them on a sort of line of charm aspect.

But, I still like the wide open prairie best, until you are dying for some shade... 

[Tim Rooney]

RJ, I totally agree with you and the other Great Man, D.Ross, that trees provide wonderful Beauty and Shade;however, should not be useful as an impediment.

[Ken Moum]

There are examples, but they are far outnumbered by the examples where they end up like having a pair of 350-yard unraked waste areas flanking every hole... with only 30 yards between them.

I actually appreciate the the most hated (by the guys I know) tree--the one in the middle of the fairway.

But they all do slowly get taller, and wider, and more imposing, which golfers barely notice until it's too late. Then half of them think removal will "ruin the hole."

Trees are nice, but let's not let them take over our golf courses.

Ken

[ChipOat]

Mr. Moore,

Sorry - not for me.  The quote from Donald Ross has just elevated him even further in my estimation.

Bunkers, angles, green complexes - ON THE GROUND is where the golf architecture needs to be either on the tee box or if you hit the ball in the fairway.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()