I always hate to quibble about a very good course, but why not remove the trees from behind the 6th green? It seems an obvious, easy improvement to me. The approach into that green would become much more frightening. And interesting. Are those trees Maxwell's idea?
Bob Crosby,
Yes, these trees still serve as a backdrop to Hole 6 green. And no, they are not original. They were planted in the 1960's with hundreds of others. An old aerial photo below shows when they were just miniature saplings. (see upper right hand portion of the photo below for these plantings)
Yes, we are all of the opinion that Hole 6 would look much much better without the trees - promoting intimidation and depth perception challenges that fall-away greens naturally invoke. However, there are some safety concerns from Hole 5 tee that are holding us back now. Hooked shots sometimes hit these trees.
There is always the argument that if the trees were gone, it would create a visual awareness -- opening the "sight lines" back-and-forth between the groups on Hole 6 green and Hole 5 tee -- whereby they can use their judgement whether it's appropriate to hit or not. Either group could wait a few minutes before proceeding.
Plus, we don't have a lot of play, so the chances that the two groups at these locations simultaneously is minimal.
Then, of course, we could always remind golfers on Hole 5 tee with a little sign saying "Tee away after green clears" or "Give way to those on six green" or simply "Fore left!" This would be a nice little quirk -- and really no different than all the great courses that have "reminders" asking golfers to "ring the bell when finished" on blind shots for safety purposes. (a la National Golf Links of America/Upper Cascades at the Homestead).