Tree Removal and Native Grasses (Pics)

[Dunlop_White]

This is a good example of how tree management and native grasses can help transform the look and feel of a golf hole. This is Hole 6 -- a Donald Ross "Volcano Hole" -- at Roaring Gap Club (NC) as seen in 1999, 2003, and 2009.

[Sean_A]

This is a good example of how tree management and native grasses can help transform the look and feel of a golf hole. This is Hole 6 -- a Donald Ross "Volcano Hole" -- at Roaring Gap Club (NC) as seen in 1999, 2003, and 2009.

Dunlop

These kinds of changes are worthwhile, but the details have to be there.  Why is the rear tree still there?  The entire look is compromised by the cart path.  Do folks think adding the native grass (which looks as though it existed left/rear of the green) was worth it considering the placement of the path?  Can the cart path go anywhere else?  At the very least I would eliminate the walking path if the cart path is to remain.  Ideally a footpath could be created where the cart path is.  

Was the bunker raised for the final plan?  I would say make the bunker a feature or get rid of it.  Right now its in no man's land in terms of looks and imo does not fit the aesthetic.

Ciao

[Jeff_Brauer]

Sean,

Any chance they raised the bunker because it couldn't be seen above the newly minted native grasses?

I agree on the small tree back left of the green overall. Any chance that was donated by some important club member?

I agree on the cart path, but it was always there, its narrow, and its dark, muting its influence somewhat. Probably a practical consideration of not wanting to pay for relocating it to some out of the way position where it wouldn't be used.

[James Bennett]

Dunlop

I love the transition between the three photos.  I would love to pose the question to members at my club - which of the three do you prefer, and why?  No timeline, no suggestions of changes made, just three images.  If they chose 1999, well then start from scratch with them again.  If they choose 2003, its is a start.  If they choose 2009 - woohoo.

Thanks for the photos.  I don't mind the cart path, even though it is probably a second order issue.  Nor do I mind a single bunker on the front left.

James B

[Robert Emmons]

would consider removing the tree back left and let the fescue grow all the way to the cart path if it can not be moved more left...RHE

[Carl Johnson]

Dunlop,

I've wondered about the "native" grass terminology.  Of course, I don't know what kinds of grasses were used at Roaring Gap.  At my recently-renovated Carolina Golf Club course in Charlotte, architect Kris Spence added substantial areas of tall fescues that look much like what I see in your 2009 photo from Roaring Gap.  To my eye they are attractive.  I really like the look (both at our course and at Roaring Gap).  At Carolina Kris used a mixture of three types of fescues, including Sheep or Sheep's fescue.  I cann't recall the other the two types and cann't put my finger on the source right now.  In any case, these grass areas are frequently referred to by members as native grass areas, yet it is my understanding that none of the fescues are native.  Sheep's fescue is a European grass that has been introduced to North America.  It is clearly not native to North America.  So, why not call these grass areas "natural looking," or "rustic looking," rather than "native"?  In a real practical sense the question of native vs. non-native grasses on our Carolina GC course is not all that important, since the vast majority of the grass is Burmuda, which is not a grass native to North America either.  On the other hand, if by using the term "native" we are fooling ourselves or others into thinking we are doing something that's ecologically constructive, then I'd rather use a different term.  How do others feel about this issue?

[ed_getka]

  I don't think the bunker was moved at all. If you look at the ridge of land above the bunker the space is the same in all three. The last photo has so much shade that it is hard to tell if anything has been done. I doubt they lowered the left side of the green.
  I like the look of the grasses, but it is too bad there couldn't be more tree clearing behind the hole, but it does appear in the first photo that there is a house in there.
  How far away from the green does the ball get when the ball runs off?

[Scott Warren]

  I don't think the bunker was moved at all. If you look at the ridge of land above the bunker the space is the same in all three. The last photo has so much shade that it is hard to tell if anything has been done. I doubt they lowered the left side of the green.

I agree that ther bunker looks unchanged, but I reckon the left edge of the green has been lowered, as well as making the fall-away to the right steeper. I may well be wrong...

[Sean_A]

  I don't think the bunker was moved at all. If you look at the ridge of land above the bunker the space is the same in all three. The last photo has so much shade that it is hard to tell if anything has been done. I doubt they lowered the left side of the green.
  I like the look of the grasses, but it is too bad there couldn't be more tree clearing behind the hole, but it does appear in the first photo that there is a house in there.
  How far away from the green does the ball get when the ball runs off?

Ed

You are probably right, but something on the left looks different.  Maybe the fescue area on the left is raised, but that would seem a weird thing to do so I doubt it. 

Ciao

[Joe Hancock]

Dunlop,

Great photo's for discussion and illustration. The differences are striking, and, for the most part, an improvement.

I am wondering what is off to the left of the photo's, about in line where the tree shadow crosses the cart path. There has to be a reason they are mowing 3 feet on each side of that cart path, making the path visually stick out more than it should. Is there a green over there that gets over shot from time to time?

The walk path could at least have some movement in it...contours or meanderings, if you will. That straight line is a bit jarring in it's new, more natural environment...it would work OK in a pimped out parkland setting.

I agree with much of what Sean pointed out, but I suspect things like the cart path and establishing "native" by killing all the old vegetation and starting fresh were just cost considerations. The tree work is, as others have pointed out, one tree shy of terrific.

Thanks for a good conversation starter.

Joe

[Kalen Braley]

Dunlop,

That indeed does appear to be a drastic improvement of what was once there....but then again I'm a "long native grass" whore

The left side of the green looks exactly the same to me.  The only difference is that the last pic was taken when it was sitting in a shadow as compared to the 1st two pics.  Either way its a neat looking hole and the small tree just behind the green doesn't seem to bother too much.

Kalen

[Dunlop_White]

I promise that nothing was done to the hole in the last decade -- except for tree removal and allowing the native grasses to grow throughout. No blend was planted. This is the native stuff which has been left unchecked.

I don't like the cart path either, but not much can be done about it. We have to get our seniors as close to the left side of this green as possible. I do like the idea of taking the fescue right up to the edge of the path to perhaps hide it more.

The bunker is exactly the same.

As for the tree to the left of the green, believe it or not -- Ross left it there. It was in the original aerial of the hole in 1928. It died in the seventies. A replacement tree was added back at that time. ( Note: just because Ross left a tree there doesn't necessarily mean that it needs to be there today, in my opinion. But I use this rationale too often to take trees down. I cannot reverse it on them now.)

As for what else is around this green, I will show you other "volcano-like" perspectives below. Yes, the cart paths are needed because of the terrain!

[Ulrich Mayring]

I like the first picture best. Assuming that this is a short par 3, I don't see anything wrong with a few overhanging branches to make the tee shot just a tad tougher mentally. In reality it will be no issue at all and on hot days players on the tee will relish the shade. The green and the run-up area is completely open and that should make it a fun hole. The specimen tree is a nice touch.

The third variant takes away the ground game and offers no new strategies to compensate. It appears the change is purely aesthetic, but it will make the hole duller and round times longer, as weaker players will have to rummage through the vicious rough in search of their ball and even if they find it, they probably have no chance to get it out.

If, on the other hand, it is a course for better players only and it should be sufficiently hard for them, then take away the cart path and make them walk

Ulrich

[Mark_Fine]

I like the look and we have employed similar changes on several courses I have worked on.  I will say, however, that one of the biggest challenges is to make the "native" areas thin and wispy so as to minimize loss of balls (and time looking for them).  You want them to look hard but allow for a recovery shot (especially when these native areas are in play).  

[Kevin_Reilly]

How long is the hole?  If it is on the long side, will some poor shots end up in the (potentially/probably unplayable) longer grass? 

Is the longer grass "look" of this hole duplicated elsewhere on the course, or is this an isolated case? 

[Kevin_Reilly]

You want them to look hard but allow for a recovery shot (especially when these native areas are in play).  

Our posts crossed...it seems to me that even if one is able to find their ball in the long grass, it might be unplayable (especially for someone who hits a shot that ends up in grass like this), and the only real option under Rule 28 is another shot from the tee.

The par-3 course at Olympic had long grasses/iceplant that needed to be cut back soon after it opened, as too many balls were lost or unplayable.

[ed_getka]

I don't see what the problem is with the tree in question. It is at the back left of the green so the only shot it would affect would be a long one and how often does that ever happen?
   As for the walking path I think one possible idea would be to mow it on the direct line from the tee box once and then as walkers begin to form a path just let the grass fill in the area where people aren't walking over time. Of course if the vast majority of golfers here are taking carts then it probably wouldn't work.

[Dunlop_White]

From the back tees, the hole is 135 yards downhill.  Just 90 yards will carry the fescue. From the front tee, 70 yards will carry the fescue. Absolutely no ground game is available here.

If you miss the green, it's an automatic 4+ anyway. The best players have a difficult time getting up and in.

Mark -- eliminating water and fertility -- and using growth regs will not curtail the undergrowth here in the mountains. Therefore, we try to use these areas for out of play aesthetic reasons only.

[Mike McGuire]

The tree back left should be removed. There is no value in an ornamental tree in front of a native woodland. It spoils the look.

The native grass looks spectacular. Good suggestion moving the walkers path over towards the cart path.

[Carl Johnson]

Hacker that I am, my tee ball landed in the left bunker.  As I recall, the pin was back, and my shot from the bunker had to go under the little tree, doubling the hazzard.  I can't recall the outcome clearly, but I think that in keeping my bunker shot low, I went over the green and down the hill on the right, and ended up with a double at best.  Golf?  Sure.

[Chris Ord]

i have to say that i like the second photo the best.  the effect of the native grasses makes the hole seem harder, but not in the fun way.  they seem to obscure the view of the green, which hurts the overall effect of the "volcano hole".  i want to see the entire volcano, and know what's going to happen if i miss.  of course, if the native grasses make maintenance easier and cheaper, then it's a trade-off that i can get behind.

[Andy Troeger]

I also like the second photo the best. The native grasses add absolutely nothing to the hole from a playing standpoint other than penalizing the high handicapper and aesthetically doesn't add anything for me. Having a walking path and a cart path both distract from the green and bunker IMO instead of enhancing it.

The only benefit I see to older courses (this one and others) having added all this native stuff is less mowing. Although, obviously a lot of people think its aesthetically pleasing too.

[Sean_A]

I don't see what the problem is with the tree in question. It is at the back left of the green so the only shot it would affect would be a long one and how often does that ever happen?
   As for the walking path I think one possible idea would be to mow it on the direct line from the tee box once and then as walkers begin to form a path just let the grass fill in the area where people aren't walking over time. Of course if the vast majority of golfers here are taking carts then it probably wouldn't work.

Ed

It looks ugly and awkwardly out of place.  What purpose does it serve?

Ciao

[Dunlop_White]

See 1928 aerial below. Ross left a tree there when he designed the course in 1926. Plus he spent summers in Roaring Gap as it was owned by Pinehurst, Inc. The Tufts were the founders. Ross had plenty of opportunities to take the tree down until his death in 1948, but didn't. I am one of the largest advocates of tree management anywhere, and to me, this one is not a priority.

Perhaps the pics don't accurately represent the true beauty of this transformation. Personally, I marvel at the progress here.

The texture and the colors that native mountain fescues add to an otherwise green-and-white golf course are remarkable.

Plus, only 1/4th of the tee was usable in the 90's due to tree encroachment.

Everyone must play this hole to get a full appreciation of it. It is a true "volcano green" and it must be hit off the tee.

[BCrosby]

Dunlop -

I agree, the changes are brilliant. And if you have to live with one tree to take out a large number of others, it seems a worthwhile trade-off to me.

The Volcano Hole at RG is a terrific hole.

It's one of those really simple design ideas that is challenging, easy to build and maintain, presents interesting recovery options and is very attractive.

Yet the idea is rarely used. (Kingsley Club is a happy exception. There is a sort of Volcano on the 8th at Crabapple.)

Why it isn't a staple in the toolkit of modern gca is beyond me.

Bob