Vertical center-of-the-fairway obstacles - Forcing choices on the golfer ...

[ChipOat]

Tom H.,

I NEVER let a Stupid Tree ruin my mood on a great golf course although if it comes into play from the fairway or 150 yards of tee box I will note it for the record (and then play on).

Also, while I agree that absolutes rarely work in golf architecture, this one does - every single time.  Always.

[Tom Huckaby]

Chip:

Well, at least you don't let your dogmas ruin your day.

But I have found that absolutes don't work, absolutely.

Enjoy your absolutism!

 

[Bill Brightly]

Tom H.,



Also, while I agree that absolutes rarely work in golf architecture, this one does - every single time.  Always.

TH,

I think you are slowly winning Chip over...

[Tom Huckaby]

Tom H.,



Also, while I agree that absolutes rarely work in golf architecture, this one does - every single time.  Always.

TH,

I think you are slowly winning Chip over...

He's a good egg, and I shall never lose hope.

 

[ChipOat]

I'm on the run at the moment, but would anyone else like to start a thread about whether it should EVER be considered acceptable golf architecture for a ball that is NOT in the fairway to EVER be, somehow, in a "better" place (however you define it) than a ball that IS in the fairway?

I can be stubbornly obstinate about that one, too.  In fact, my whole Stupid Tree thing is really a subset of the bigger picture as described above.

It's just that Stupid Trees are the obvious lightening rod for the bigger problem since they're so blindingly, obviously. disgustingly stupid.  Lie, stance, shallow bunkers - all a part of the same question but more subtle and harder to see until you've played it.

Tom Huckaby:

If Tom Paul could take up the cause of "firm and fast" on GCA and, 5 years later, show worldwide results among the Top 100 courses in the US of A, why can't I accomplish the same thing re: Stupid Trees?  After all, Winged Foot, National and Oakmont have all shown that they've experienced a glorious epiphany in this regard, so why not everyone else?  All it takes is a committed evangilist who won't allow himself to be polluted by the naysayers.  Think Mahatma Gandhi, think Charles Macdonald, think Christopher Columbus - think Tom Paul!!!

[Tom Huckaby]

Chip:

Certainly one can take up this cause; you seem to have done so.

But you surely can't expect one and all to agree with your absolutism, can you?

I can see instances where trees are stupidly placed; I can also see some where they work quite well.  Thus I am not prepared to make any dogmatic, absolute statements, nor follow those who do.

Note I also don't really care to make an absolute distinction between fairway and rough... so I can't get behind you in any way shape or form on this.

But you have Sean... and others, I'm sure.... good luck with all of this!

 

[Bill Brightly]

Chip,

You will have lots of followers in your March Against Stupid Trees when said trees are in the center of the fairway, especially when placed in a normal landing area, where the golfer is asked to pick a side of the fairway with his driver.

But when you say that NO fairway lie should be worse than a rough lie, you may well have lost your entire army!

Since the Barclays was just played at Ridgewood, I'll use this tree (par 5, 8 West) as an example:


A look back at the tree:


A long dogleg left Par 5, the tree is on the right side, maybe 300 yards off the tee. The tree comes into play on your second shot. The longer and more right your tee ball is, the more you have to hit a low fade under this tree. Miss the fairway slightly in the left rough and you have a much better angle. (Miss it too far left and you are either in the woods or blocked out.) However, being in the right fairway al least gives you a lie where you can work the ball.

The point is, this tree is very much on your mind on your first shot. I think that makes it a Great Tree, and great architecture.

OK, Chip. Let's hear you argue against Tillinghast! 

[Kalen Braley]

I'm having trouble getting past the disconnect, especially when it comes to older courses.

There has been much talk in this thread, and convincenly so that the trees work and provide a ton of strategy and interest to the hole.  Thats all fine and good.

What I don't get is if this is fundamental good strategy and provides tons of options, then why couldn't a current architect design a hole like this without getting completely skewered??  I just don't get it.  If its good then why wouldn't the basic concepts of the design be transferable to todays business?

Just don't make any sense to me...

[Tom Huckaby]

I'm having trouble getting past the disconnect, especially when it comes to older courses.

There has been much talk in this thread, and convincenly so that the trees work and provide a ton of strategy and interest to the hole.  Thats all fine and good.

What I don't get is if this is fundamental good strategy and provides tons of options, then why couldn't a current architect design a hole like this without getting completely skewered??  I just don't get it.  If its good then why wouldn't the basic concepts of the design be transferable to todays business?

Just don't make any sense to me...

Those who skewer a modern architect for this would be missing the forest for the trees - horrible pun intended.

So while I agree with Tom Doak that if a hole like this was created today, the architect would be skewered; I don't agree that those doing the skewering would be correct to do so.  Yes, on the face of things a hole like this is "unfair" or too severe, or whatever negative assessment one might choose... but then in the playing of it, one sees how well it works and how much fun it is to play.  Hopefully this would happen for the modern architect as well - that people would come to appreciate it over time - but who knows?  In any case, remember that Mackenzie said (more or less) that he WANTED his designs to be "skewered" and if they were universally praised, he felt he failed in his job...  So heck, Mackenzie himself likely got skewered for this hole way back when, and read this thread - he's still getting skewered today.

I guess the point is that the uncoventional is never going to be universally praised.  And this hole is uncoventional to say the least.

I just do continue to believe it works, and quite well at that.

TH

[Kalen Braley]

Tom,

Thats a good explanation.  I guess I wouldn't expect any of the "big" name architects to design something like this, e.g Nicklaus, Palmer, Fazio, etc.

But if the trees work as a great strategy, which a good case has been made for, then why aren't more holes being built like this by the current "hip" crop of archies, e.g. Devries, Hanse, Doak, C&C, etc.  It seems that no one is willing to build holes like this...so while words speak loud, actions speak louder.

[Tom Huckaby]

Kalen:

Well... it must be pretty tough to find copses of trees as cool as that on 17 CPC.  But outside of that, heck non-conventional golf holes are sure being built... and sometimes these guys do get skewered.  Heck not everyone loves 6 Pacific Dunes - a bunch of my friends absolutely hated it, calling it goofy golf.  You just can't please ALL golfers.

But I guess you are talking specifically about holes with a copse of trees as a central hazard.  I can't think of modern versions of this, although I sure wouldn't be surprised if some did exist.  Again just guessing, but my belief is primarily that as I say, such copses are just very hard to find and would look stupid if they were imported; but also today's architects just want to find better ways to do things than leaving trees in the way, so use this as a last resort if at all.  That being said, holes with trees in the line of play do seem to come up on some C&C courses... Cuscowilla... I think Colorado GC....

TH

[ChipOat]

Tom H.:  Alas, you're an unlikely convert - may the golfing gods bless you, anyway.

Bill Brightly:

The tree you have identfied is exactly what I'm so passionately and obstinately dead set against.

As to Tillinghast, Tom Paul claims that AWT occasionally used to design holes to make use of large, existing conifers ON PURPOSE.  I've never seen an example of that, but if TEP is right, then what better example could there be that nobody's perfect?  Otherwise, I think he did fabulous work.