[Noel Freeman]

--

[ANTHONYPIOPPI]

Noel:

I have to agree with you on this, but we are in the minority. As a perfect example, the PGA Tour is planting trees at TPC River Highlands to give it that "New England Look." So while courses such as Yale, Mopia Hunt, Newport and many, many others are removing trees, there are those who think that trees make the golf course. Greenwich is surely one of the courses where it would be greatly benefitted by massive tree removal.

Anthony

[Jerry Kluger]

Noel: After what has been done at Oakmont, Plainfield, and Ridgewood, you would think that tree removal would be obvious.  However, I believe that the vast majority of golfers absolutely feel that trees add to the quality of a golf course.

Tree removal can be very expensive and to convince a majority of members that it is the best thing to do is an incredible task.  As you know, every member has an opinion and trying to get a majority to go along with anything can be nearly impossible. There is a small group of really ugly evergreen trees which were planted some time back on the 11th hole of my home course.  Not only are they ugly, but they obstruct your view of the green.  Every member that I have spoken to about those trees believes they should stay because they obstruct your view of the hole and make the shot more difficult; it doesn't matter that there is deep and long grass above them which could be expanded to the location of the trees.  

[corey miller]

Dave Oatis can only do so much, and basically most of his treework suggestions are aimed at the turf.  Clearly, Greenwich has issues with trees that effect strategy and that block vistas.  

Both Greenwich and Round Hill would both benefit from being maintained differently and from measures that would enhance their quirkiness.  Why would either place ever want to be Stanwich?

Greenwich needs a professional architect to go in and give them some tough love on all sorts of issues but mainly the tree problem.  If they are unwilling to lose a quick 3000 trees than that architect should resign.

I believe Round Hill to have been a missed opportunity.  Clearly, the course is better, they are removing some trees but perhaps only 25% of the ones that need to go.  They still have 70's style mounding around virtually all the greens and it seems like Dye made an effort to make everything visible with the bunkering.

I do not feel as if Dye invested and "architect capital" in attempting to deal with the more contentious restoration issues such as mowing patterns or tree work.  Of course, there is more money to be made by regrassing the greens.

[Todd Howes]

Noel:

I have to agree with you on this, but we are in the minority. As a perfect example, the PGA Tour is planting trees at TPC River Highlands to give it that "New England Look." So while courses such as Yale, Mopia Hunt, Newport and many, many others are removing trees, there are those who think that trees make the golf course. Greenwich is surely one of the courses where it would be greatly benefitted by massive tree removal.

Anthony

I don't mean to thread-jack here, but Anthony, where is TPC adding trees on the course?  I disagree with this practice as well, and love the vistas Yale and others have opened up with their tree removal projects.

[SPDB]

I believe Round Hill to have been a missed opportunity.  Clearly, the course is better, they are removing some trees but perhaps only 25% of the ones that need to go.  They still have 70's style mounding around virtually all the greens and it seems like Dye made an effort to make everything visible with the bunkering.

Corey - I'm not so sure that the mounding is 70s style. I'm pretty sure it is 20's style and the work of Travis, who used greenside mounding repeatedly on his courses, much more so than did RHC's original touch-up artist, RTJ.

I really dislike what Dye did to Bedford GTC, but I think he did a reasonable job at RHC.

[corey miller]

SPDB

I am sure you know Travis better than me but there is containment mounding around a bunch of greens that would look better without it.  There is also mounding around greens that looks like it was put in to "protect" nearby tees and there are mounds around fairway bunkers that are just high enough to let one have a peek of sand (See Dye at Ardsley),

I am sure the members love the #11th and I am sure the restoration specialist did not waste much "architect capital"  in trying to convince them to restore the original hole as it does look like it would be possible.  

I have always said that RHC was Dye's best restoration, but after seeing it again with a more critical eye he gets a gentleman's C.  

And believe me I have the dubious distinction of having seen six of his restorations and one full "master improvement plan" proposal.
Rhc should consider themselves lucky.

[Geoffrey Childs]

I've always enjoyed my rounds at Greenwich CC a great deal.  As mentioned, it has great topography and natural features for golf.  There is a good variety of holes that test different shorts and strategic options. The greens also have good movement and interest.

There are, however, WAY WAY WAY too many trees especially noxious pines that impede play and visas.  With a dedicated effort to remove these trees I believe the course will give significantly greater pleasure to the golf played by members and their guests.

As a source of reference I post here a 1934 aerial of GCC taken from the archives of the CT Library that Tony Pioppi discovered and told us about here on GCA


Not too many trees back then for sure!!!!!!!!

Corey - Will you be receiving a Christmas Card from Ken Dye again this year?  I think I was removed from Roger Rulewich's list a while back  

[corey miller]

Jeff Loh, the new EBAY golf memorabilia fiend has a wonderful old post card of what looks like the 18th green complex at GCC.  The look certainly makes one think of Raynor.

I believe that club was talking with Tripp Davis and was unable to pull the trigger though I have no clue as to what Trip's mandate may have been.

[George_Bahto]

Noel: Greenwich was one of the first three courses Raynor designed first while the landfill operation was going on at Lido.

The other two courses were Westhampton and CC of Fairfield.

I spend quite a bit of time with them a couple years ago. There is a lot of great stuff there.

[Noel Freeman]

Well if someone from the greens committee could see your sleepy hollow work and figure out if they want to potentially Re-Raynorize their course then they should HIRE you... or at least have you out for a site visit.

[Jeff Loh]

as Neil Young would say..................."innersting"
some great golf holes/vistas out there. i am a novice when it comes to trees but there are many(if not all) that need to be removed. it's a fine, fun golf course right now. get rid of the branches and we will talk.....

[Jeff_Brauer]

Why am I tempted to paraprhase the old Henny Youngman Earthquake hits NJ joke .....

"This just in......Hurricane hits CT, early reports are that it caused $450K in golf course improvements.....

[HamiltonBHearst]

You people are funny, do you actually think the people at Greenwich CC are going to listen  to an ebay powerseller?  

I have some insight into the mind-set because I belong to a few clubs with equally stringent admissions requirements and equally important people as members.

I have also played the course a few times with my socio-economic peers at the club.  

It is a wonderful piece of land that gets drowned out both visually and strategically by the tree problem.

But the more Greenwich CC attempts to match Stanwich or Winged Foot the farther away it gets from it's architectural heritage.  Greenwich needs to accentuate and embrace  the design decisions made when the course was built.

Often, at places like Greenwich, the biggest impediment, is the low handicap player that belongs to multiple clubs who try to bring the design style of the Winged Foots and Stanwichs and Caves Valleys of the world home.  

But too often these folks are listened to because they are deemed to "know more" based on handicap.  I am not sure why a club would ever take the advice of folks who preface statements with comparisons to clubs that are not comparator's of Greenwich.  

As i understand it, Sleepy Hollow has completed a plan by Gil Hanse and George Bahto that actually embraced the quirkiness of the property and no longer really looks like a Westchester parkland course.

Maybe Greenwich should talk to George Bahto someday?  Clearly, with the Raynor heritage they would be crazy to never talk with him. At least get him to the property and hear his thoughts for the course.  

Next time I see Mr. Bahto on the Eastern end of LI doing his research I will introduce myself to him.   He is now recognized as a great architect rather than a dry cleaner so I think my friends would better understand.

[Bill Brightly]

[quote author=Jerry Kluger  

Tree removal can be very expensive and to convince a majority of members that it is the best thing to do is an incredible task.  As you know, every member has an opinion and trying to get a majority to go along with anything can be nearly impossible.

Jerry, a club does not  need a majority of the members...I think you need a really good superintendent who wants good turf, the written report of the USGA recommending tree removal, a confident Greens Chairman, and a good President who knows how to lead a board.

You certainly should not be voting on trees, in my opinion. Take 'em down and explain why later...

When I play a hole in the Spring where we took down trees over the winter, I love to ask the guys in my group "what is different about this hole?" VERY few can even remeber the trees that are gone...

And as a former tree hugger myself...my experience is that members start to "get it" one by one. And once they learn the basics about growing good grass to play golf on, and the beauty of back views and side views, the complaining stops very quickly. After a few years, the remaining tree huggers are so few in number that even THEY stop complaining (for the most part...)

[Matt_Ward]

I have to ask this -- doesn't the equation of Westchester v CT golf (Fairfield County and surrounding areas) boil down to the fact that the former has superior land for golf while the former doesn't have the same consistency -- no doubt tree removal will help but the Westchester depth of layouts is clearly exceptional because of what Mother Nature and some very talented architects created.

Just my 2 cents worth ...

[mike_malone]

 That has to be the definitive post that proves that HBH doesn't exist. There can't be a real person who thinks and talks like that, can't be , I tell you.

[Jeff Loh]

I have been thinking a lot about the "tree" problem and how it relates to Greenwich Country Club. Using three of its neighbors--Round Hill, Tamarack, and Sleepy Hollow--as examples i will posit that it has definately lost some of its luster in the met area. All three have completed tree removal programs recently (sleepy get 8/10. round hill and tamarack 5/10 as they didn't go far enough). Having played all three a bunch this fall they are IMHO much more fun than Greenwich. It's too bad because Greenwich could be (almost) as interesting.
I know on this site I am preaching to the converted but it begs the question--how to get the "average" member at GCC to realize how much better the course would be without all those damn trees. I guess I feel that it has something to do with "education". Whether its wine, poetry, golf arch or film I believe the more you know the more you enjoy the subject. In a previous life I was a wine educator and took great joy in passing on my knowledge of the grape. Initially most people were intimidated or reluctant to learn but if you made it fun and interesting (not hard to do with wine) they really opened up and  enjoyed themselves (and learned something too).
Maybe everyone who is considering "tinkering" with golf courses should be required to read and absorb "The Links". Just those old (pre lots o trees) pictures of Pine Valley are a great lesson. Or "The Anatomy of a Golf Course". Or "Grounds for Golf".
I know its different with trees and golf courses because most people hold dear that "trees are good". And intuitively that makes total sense--who doesn't like trees? How to show them they are mistaken when it comes to golf courses? Less trees--more healthy grass. More circulation-better grass. Etc Etc. I am not a tree expert by any stretch but there are TOO MANY pine trees at Greenwich CC. I also didn't notice many older trees that might be worth saving. I have heard that Don? Otis (usga tree expert) resides in the area. Wonder if the club has ever had him over to take a look? Bet he would have some interesting things to say.
I think what I am saying is it boils down to education. We must be willing to teach people the benefits of FEWER trees. Better for the turf. Opens up vistas. You find your ball quicker....
As for Greenwich CC my first impulse would be to take them to Sleepy Hollow and Tamarack and have them simply walk around. Hard to ignore your own eyes. I would then have an expert come and talk to the membership and explain how they could reclaim a damn good golf course. Is that too optimistic? Love to hear some stories from others who have tried...........

[corey miller]

Jeff

Dave Oatis works for the USGA.  I belief he has visited Greenwich and I am sure given his advice on  the benefits for turfgrass.

Problem with the average country club member making "visits" is they have no ability to project how things will look at their home course.

Everyone seems to prefer the look of a long vista over a White Pine or a bunch of cluttered trees, howveer they do not realize this until the tree is gone and getting there is often a long road.

At a minimum, GCC could greatly benefit by removing  junk trees and highlighting the speciman trees.  One would think the average "tree lover" would see the benefit of cutting a few thousand to make the 1000 remaining spectacular.

Everyone loves the trees in Central Park, you will notice there are no junky ones growing up near ancient oaks.

[Bill Brightly]

start by cutting 5 to make one look better...never say 1000!

[corey miller]

Bill

I was being a little facetious, I do know that most places would benefit by doing the due diligence that you are at Hackensack.

[corey miller]

Greenwich has done a real good job on tree front, more needs to be done.  I am told they have entered into a restoration agreement with one of the favored guys on this site, certainly a personal favorite of mine.

I guess the question becomes just how good the course can be?  A few awkward holes but the topography itself is good. 

With the right mandate and the chosen architect could this be a top 5 in Connecticut?  Of course this is assuming the club goes "all in" with the retro look which is much more than most of it's peers will ever do.

[Jeff Loh]

corey miller
dont think it is top 5 in ct but it is a fun golf course and the members should be encouraged to "go all the way".
that ariel that dr. childs provided is ample evidence of a history that they have lost/obscured.
many holes would benefit from a more "open" look and feel. there are some really good holes out there that are not being allowed to show their "true colors" due to a general feeling of claustrophobia.

one caveat though--dont pull a Tamarack and "redo" the bunkers and forget about the trees. i still cant believe they spent 20 million on a new clubhouse and forgot to gas up the chainsaw.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()