Let's talk about trees

[Charlie Goerges]

I would like to start an ongoing thread about trees. I commented on another recent thread that I’d like to see more nuanced discussion of trees on golf courses. For my part, this will mainly be academic or theoretical, because I have not seen all that many golf courses (and what I have seen are generally cut through forest). For those who have more varied golf course experience, concrete examples are welcomed and greatly desired.

Hopefully we’ll see discussion of what are good and preferred uses of trees on golf courses as well as bad uses, or those to be avoided. I’d also like to discuss how trees function as hazards.

My first example attempts to show how trees affect the difficulty of a hole, and require those who wish to gain maximum advantage off the tee be able to move the ball.

The first two images show a somewhat generic dogleg-right hole where everything slopes from right to left, with three flight paths depicted.

Aerial View:


View from above/behind:


It seems generally true that the ball that is hit left to right will end up in the best position because of the slope, but none of the shots seem to have any real difficulty associated with them. Something that rolls out toward the left side of the fairway (i.e. the straight and right to left shots) will have a worse angle, but on this hole (which is about 430 yards) a strong player won’t have much trouble with the second shot no matter where it ends up.

The next few images show the same hole, from the same views with trees in the dogleg area (and one short and left of the green…just for the heck of it).

Aerial View:


Straight shot:


Left to Right Shot:



Now I think that the only way to gain a real advantage is to be able to move the ball left to right. A long, straight shot leaves more yardage to the hole, and the possibility of having a tree in the way for the second shot (though in this case, it’s not probably a big deal) The trees also cause the bunker to be more in play because one still needs to play in its general direction no matter how one plays the hole.

Disregarding the architectural inanity, is this a legitimate purpose for trees? I’d love to hear what you think of trees in general, and as mentioned before, I’d love to hear about the different ways everyone has seen trees used to good and bad effect on courses. And if you have images, all the better.

EDIT: for reasons enumerated in a later post, I removed a bunker in these images. To see the originals go to http://s216.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/goerges_family/Hobbies/Golf/GCA/GCA%20Tree%20Exploration/

[Sean_A]

Charlie

Yep, I think your general description is legit if you don't mind how one gets to the best landing zone is very prescriptive.  Even with the draw taken away, I think its reasonable to do this sort of thing once in a while when the right situation presents itself.  My only beef would be this:

Just as many archies look at the lay of the land to slot preconceived ideas in (I often read that Doak can wait many a project before the right situation pops up for an idea), archies should think of trees in the same manner.  To further comment, imo the trees (or more ideally tree) should be special and worth keeping.  And if you have a specimen of tree worth keeping, it is surely worth considering it as a strategic element of the hole.  I object to trees being planted to create this strategy because  invariably some horribly ugly quick growing tree(s) (very likely too many of them) which doesn't allow for recovery shots will be planted.  In other words, I don't trust the powers that be to use this idea correctly if it isn't a bright archie doing it. 

Ciao

[Sean Remington (SBR)]

  Great graphics.  Could you create the same or similar options with a bunker complex on the inside of the dogleg?

[Ken Moum]

Now I think that the only way to gain a real advantage is to be able to move the ball left to right. A long, straight shot leaves more yardage to the hole, and the possibility of having a tree in the way for the second shot (though in this case, it’s not probably a big deal) The trees also cause the bunker to be more in play because one still needs to play in its general direction no matter how one plays the hole.

Disregarding the architectural inanity, is this a legitimate purpose for trees?

I am inclined to think it's not.  I have never really been a proponent of the idea that being able to curve your shots both ways at will is a reasonable demand on a golfer. 

It seems to me that this a relatively recent concept  that has sprung as an after-the-fact justification for not removing trees that were planted too close to the line of play.

Many of our best golfers of the past were only able to reliably turn it one direction, but they had exquisite control of that. Billy Casper and Bruce Lietzke are mirror image practitioners of that.

And at the club level, or for public golf, forcing people to curve the ball one way or the other in order to play a hole is  completely unreasonable.

I’d love to hear what you think of trees in general, and as mentioned before, I’d love to hear about the different ways everyone has seen trees used to good and bad effect on courses. And if you have images, all the better.

On my home course, in the last 60 years, hundreds of trees have been planted, some of which now make playing certain holes an uninspiring grind. And in the 10 years I have been a member, several have been planted that, when mature, will nearly demolish the joy of playing the course for most members.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Charlie,

I think using trees is okay like that, like Sean, I think once in a while is the key.  Putting the point tree at about 70% of the tee shot distance places it at the apex of the curve (physics rule!) and works best. If you get trees too close to the tee, they simply block the start of the shot.  You must also leave enough room on the outside of the DL for those who can't play the fade.  Moving that bunker to the front left of the green would be a better solution.

[Carl Rogers]

As another twist, eliminate the trees at the bend of the dogleg and try moving the trees closer to the green to partially block the approach shot from the right side of the fairway.

[Bart Bradley]

  Great graphics.  Could you create the same or similar options with a bunker complex on the inside of the dogleg?

Sean:

Maybe I'm missing something...but how would bunkers force or give preference to a certain shot "shape"?

Bart

[Mike McGuire]

Ornamental trees usually look out of place. A birch then a cedar then an ash then a locust then a few red maples- repeat.

Native trees could be used and featured but if the site is treeless I would rather see fescue or bunkers if the landing area needs protection.

Edit: Especially if the terrain is rolling, as in the example.

[Norbert P]

 In this example, the grove of trees makes the tee shot more interesting than without them.

[Sean Remington (SBR)]

Bart,

   It could be that a bunker complex on the inside of the dogleg would provide different angle and different yardages for a carry shot.  Much like a cape hole. At the sametime the golfer still has all the options to shape the shot. The more I look at it I think what Charlie has drawn up is similar to 18 at Augusta. People seem to think that is a good hole. For my part I would always like to see holes designed without trees being inturgal to the strategy, if possible.

[Bart Bradley]

Bart,

   It could be that a bunker complex on the inside of the dogleg would provide different angle and different yardages for a carry shot.  Much like a cape hole. At the sametime the golfer still has all the options to shape the shot. The more I look at it I think what Charlie has drawn up is similar to 18 at Augusta. People seem to think that is a good hole. For my part I would always like to see holes designed without trees being inturgal to the strategy, if possible.

I understand your point...but in reality fairway bunkers mostly penalize the shot based on where it lands (whether it carries the bunker or not--sometimes the roll would have the effect you are proposing) whereas trees (ariel hazards) can demand a shape.

Bart

[JESII]

In my opinion, trees are the only way to get a good player to create shots...this is a good thing if you ask me.

[Sean Remington (SBR)]

 Bart,

    I have never seen the term "ariel hazard".  Not sure trees are listed as hazards in the rule book.  But I get your point. If given the the option I would always use bunkers to create angles and present problems for the golfer to negotiate.  Shinnecock Hills is a pretty good example of this.  Im my view trees would be a third or fourth option and I would not design a golf hole around a tree if I could avoid it.

[Charlie Goerges]

Thanks to everyone for the responses. Rather than try to respond individually right off the bat (except to say thanks for the compliment Sean R.), I’ll try to clarify and then sum up the responses as I understand them.

To clarify; my goal is to try to get some common language regarding the use of trees, in much the same way that bunkers have style and functional descriptors (e.g. cross bunker, top-shot bunker, carry bunker, pot bunker, fairway bunker etc.) based on various uses. Also, to note, I do not like trees everywhere (heming one in), scattered willy-nilly throughout the course nor do I like the idea of the architect dictating shots per se.

To summarize how I understand the responses:

1.   Most everyone made comments to the effect that use of trees (or any feature for that matter I suppose) should be highly situational, well thought-out, and not repetitious.

2.   Keep it natural. Don’t introduce trees to a tree-less site, use appropriate species native to a given area.

3.   Correct spacial relations. Make sure there is enough room to play for people who can’t execute the required shot and make sure to obey the laws of physics.

Now, kmoum, you raised a very specific objection to the use of trees in this manner and I thank you for such a good concrete example. To paraphrase your argument, ‘the golfer should not be required to curve the ball one way or the other in order to play a hole’. I agree with this sentiment completely. My example was designed to show that ONLY in order to gain maximum advantage, must the player curve the ball. It can be played in other ways, but only with some disadvantage (i.e. a poorer angle, danger of bunker etc.).

Sean A. and kmoum raise other objections, and I can’t dispute them. I can only ask that you consider the possibility that, rather than being reasons not to use trees, the cited examples are merely instances of the poor use of trees.

I’ll cut myself off here to keep from going on too long. Let me know if the “rules” enumerated above are a decent start. Hopefully this will be a jumping off point on trees. Perhaps we can get agreement that trees can be used well on a course, even if we can’t agree on examples of such use.

Charlie

[Rob Rigg]

Trees are often well used on doglegs, as they should be IMO. The 12th at Ghost Creek is an example of this (among many others).

If the tiger can hook or draw their tee shot around a tree then they should reap the reward of a well executed drive.

Trees can be a much more interesting challenge in this situation than water because a huge blast will not cut it, it has to be a well struck drive with the proper trajectory.

Trees also present that element of luck, if not overused, that is such a vital part of the game. If you err, your ball may get kicked into the middle of the fairway or you may end up in a Grimm fairytale.

For parkland courses where wind or topography may not play a significant role in strategy, trees can take up SOME of the slack.

I would agree with the three "rules" you called out Charlie. Overgrown trees are an absolute menace and repeated use of trees by the architect to force certain shots in very annoying.

I remember playing a course where a tree blocked the left half of the green unless your drive landed way right rough. If the golfer could not draw the ball on the approach he was SOL, if he could only hit a fade then he was lucky to be on the green at all.

A bit too penal?

[Charlie Goerges]

Rob, I agree with your overall assessment. I think the last example you cite is over the top...not a good use of trees.

To the treehouse , I'd like to submit the idea that trees, when used as a hazard, can have an exponential effect on play. Obviously in the wrong hands then, trees can wreak serious havoc. But the flip side to this is that even a single solitary tree used beautifully can have far-reaching positive effects. In other words, a tremendous value.

Charlie

[Sean Remington (SBR)]

Charlie - I agree with your summary. Well stated.  I believe what you are working at could turn out to be useful information at a golf course where tree removal is needed.  Having some agreed upon stategic points of discussion can help identify the useful trees and allow removal of the others.  I don't think anyone enjoys a golf hole that feels like a hall way.

[Charlie Goerges]

Sort of a non-sequiter, but here's a tree I dislike:



All I can come up with as a name for this type of tree usage is a "Screw You" tree. This is because it is too close to allow anyone who doesn't hit a fade to work around it at all, plus it is probably dangerous.

[Ken Moum]

Sort of a non-sequiter, but here's a tree I dislike:



All I can come up with as a name for this type of tree usage is a "Screw You" tree. This is because it is too close to allow anyone who doesn't hit a fade to work around it at all, plus it is probably dangerous.

I agree with you. And it's amazing how common that is.

My home course has one on it's toughest hole, a 210-par three--except it's on the other side of the hole.   

And our second-longest par three also has trees close to the green that have the same effect, and their influence is compounded by the fact that the prevailing wind comes from that side, forcing you to aim at the trees.

Last week, my wife and I played a tournament at a course where there's one on a par four that actually hasone big branch that hangs out in such a way that she has hit an abnormally low tee shot to avoid the branch.

They make me want to start carrying a chain saw in my golf bag.

But equally amazing is the resistance you get when you suggest that cutting them down would improve the course.

Ken

[Sean Remington (SBR)]

    This could also be described as the classic "Chairman's Selection" tree planting.

[Matt Varney]

I personally really like trees on golf courses as long as they are used in a way that they don't encroach the line of play for most golfers.  I like trees that provide shade around a tee box but are not in play at all like the graphic rendering in this thread.  With regard to trees planted so that they tighten up a hole and take away risk reward options for cutting the corner I don't like it at all.

I once heard this saying playing with a friend - I was getting ready to hit a shot from the fairway and this tree was kind of in the line of play and I was uncertain I could clear the tree going at the green so I decided to lay up just short of the green and take my chances making a par.

One of my playing partners tells me to hit the shot over the tree and says trees are 90% air you can hit that green no problem and one of my really good friends says sure they are so are tennis rackets you don't see tennis balls going through them.

[Jason Topp]

This thread has great quotes from many of the old architects about trees:

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,32497.0.html\

[Charlie Goerges]

I realize that my first example may have caused some confusion (I can't resist throwing things in and seeing how they look, like the bunker in the dogleg), so I removed the bunker in order to illustrate the concept I was going for a bit more clearly.

[Matt Varney]

Charlie,

I like that hole design much better and it allows for the high fade and straight tee ball.  When the big fairway bunker is removed it changes the dynamics of the hole big time because the average player can aim down the middle still allowing for roll and have a good sized fairway to hit. 

A poorly hit shot like a high slice or low snake ball left would prevent the player from cresting the hill so the second shot would be semi-blind to the target.  I would add one nice bunker left front greenside to collect any balls that don't get the green for middle and back pin placements.

Matt

[Patrick_Mucci]

What you've done with this image is eliminate the golfer who draws/hooks the ball.

Today, it's far more difficult to work the ball.

A golfer with a natural or developed draw/hook can no longer play the hole with the trees added.

The hole has gone from one that ALL golfers can aspire to conquer to one where ONLY two types of golfers can aspire to conquer.

And, even the straight ball hitter is penalized.
If he doesn't come within a foot left of the trees, he's in the bunker or left rough.
I don't know any amateur golfers who are that precise with their tee shots.

The trees are an enormous negative in your example.

Aerial View: