[Chris Cupit]

I understand that this site doesn't benefit from "architect abuse" so I will not identify the course or the architect.  But who can look at this hole and think a decent architect would ever design this garbage.  It was not an issue of bad land or terrain.  Instead the architect thought leaving a tree in the middle of the par 4 hole somehow enhanced the stategy  

Here is a description of the hole:
Par 4, 453 yards from the tips and I played it in an event at 453, 418 and 398 depending on weather.  The first pic is a view from the tee.  There is water in the form of a lake all down the right side and a hazard/wetland area all down the left as well--water hazards along both sides.

The tree is in the middle of the fairway.  Right of the tree is thick bermuda rough and of corse, the lake.  If you placed a ball in the far left edge of the fairway and assuming the hole is cut away from the right, you may be able to hit your second shot and take direct aim at the green or hole.



Here is a pic from about 190 out:



Actually at 453 the second shot is from far enough back that a good player could have enough room to work his ball around the tree.  The real fun is when the tees are moved up.  Of course you can lay back to 190 to preserve that humdinger of an approach or you can drive the ball farther up the fairway.  The tree sits at about 140 from the green and the fairway is MAYBE 15 yards wide at that point!  Again, left, just left of the cartpath is an unplayable hazard.

For good measure, after this abomination, the next hole, a par three that has a 48 yard deep green and plays from 170 to 220 or so features a very severe green with a biarritz style swale about 2/3 into the green further complicating any attempt to reach the back right hole location.  The green slopes severely to the right to the water and of course, with the hole back right, even teeing up on the far left of the tee box gives you a dog leg right par 3! 



I don't get it.  These would be two very good golf holes except for the idiotic trees.  BTW, it is a residential development where thousands of trees were clear cut to make room for homes so I don't think there was any pressure to keep these or any other trees.  Lastly, that stupid single tree was fortunately struck by lightning, lost many of its limbs (it used to really be terrible) and based on the scars at the base of the tree and the insect infestation, the "giving tree" should soon be in a Vermeer where it belongs   Another reason it is a bad idea to plan a hole around a tree--God is the ultimate architect and will take care of trees left in bad places

Does anyone like the tree?

[Bill_McBride]

"Caddy, the Stihl please."

[Mike Benham]

Your hatred for the tree is rather disconcerting.  Is the tree really idiotic or stupid?  Did you give it an IQ test to arrive at your assessment? 

Did the tree have a choice in the matter or is it merely a pawn in the GCA world?

[Chris Cupit]

Right you are.  I suppose it's not the trees fault for being there but man's for leaving it!

[Ronald Montesano]

My play would be as close to the water as possible, even if I went in.  I could then come at the green from the far right side of the fairway with a punch that would stay lower than the tree but somehow negotiate the right greenfront bunker, or with a high hybrid through that GORGEOUS fork in the upper trunk.  Sometimes it's the challenge of the shot that matters more than score.  I would play it as a par five, expect to lose a stroke to the lateral hazard penalty, just to come in from that far right angle.  I LOVE the tree.

[Ronald Montesano]

Now the par three is another matter.  The tenth hole at Leatherstocking is a 190 yard par three, uphill, with great green features (bunkering, mounding, swales, the like) and a Safety Patrol wall of trees on the right.  You can absolutely not play a right to left shot there to save your life.  The trees keep people from whacking balls onto and across the thoroughfare that borders the hole.  In this way, countless automobiles, playing children and innocent rooftops have been granted longer, less dented lives.

THAT STILL DOESN'T MEAN SQUAT TO ME!!  I wanted to hit a draw there and couldn't.  I wasn't feeling a fade and the results were weak, ending in a bogey.  It is unfortunate when trees dictate the shot; even water cannot be funneled to the sky, always giving us options with lakes, creeks, ponds, rivers, bathtubs.  I'd get rid of the par three trees in a 52-second minute.

[R.S._Barker]

I hate to be devils advocate..but..not every hole on every course is going to allow you to, or should allow you to play your preferred shot. Hell that's why its called strategy. So a tree got in your way, so a bunker ate your favorite Pro-V 1, so the lake decided to swallow your under 100 shot attempt into 18, so a bird shat on your new Gatsby hat. It's golf deal with it.
 
I look at the tree and think - cool a target, something I can aim at - as a slicer, I can't tell you the amount of times I've been forced to play less club or even to try and work the ball right to left.

BUT I adore the challenge - and while a hole may not be my favorite because it has a feature i don't like or can't take advantage of - I still adore the challenge.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Trees can and do ruin not just the design intent of some holes as they mature but also the round of a golfer.

I have no problem with trees out in the rough, running parallel or bordering the fairway. As for a screen, perhaps a little time should be spent at St Andrews where no trees separate the courses to understand that they are just not required on a golf course.

If I were a designer, I would not want to place any trees near the line of path or a future line of path/flight of a ball, as the tree has no knowledge let alone understand of GCA. Although I expect those that planted them knew even less than the trees. My concerns would be based upon the uncertainty the tree throws up in its final shape and how it may possibly compromise the design intent of the hole. However as they are on course others seem to understand trees far more that I, yet I would prefer to use the contours of the land, perhaps a bunker or even a stonewall, but certainly not a tree or pond/lake. Push me I would even suggest building an Old Course Hotel instead of trees, at least I can anticipate that within the design.

I love trees, we love trees in the UK, even one of our past kings (perhaps even the next one too) speaks to the trees. Actually not as mad as one may think. Given the choice I would prefer to speak to the trees than many of our modern politicians – even if the trees are in the wrong location they still remain honest and true to what they are.

How can GCA really incorporate trees and the architect remain please with his efforts? On the other hand, have I missed something and they were the result of an upset designer (or junior associate) that was perhaps forced to reduce his fees leaving a sapling or two to wreak havoc in years to come?

Trees are not a challenge, like lakes/ponds they should not be on a golf course IMHO. Want a challenge deep bunkers, stonewalls dykes, mounds, but not trees or lakes on a fairway, please.

Melvyn

[jeffwarne]

the trees are fine....
lose the water

[Melvyn Morrow]

Jeff

Go on, let’s compromise, let’s lose them both

Melvyn

[Mac Plumart]

I like the tree there...it challenges one's game!

In the past, I've seen discussions or comments on the tree on the 5th (I think it is) at Longshadow.  I didn't see peoples comments regarding that tree until after I'd played the course.  When I first saw that tree right in the middle of my prefered line of play I LOVED it.  I was hitting the ball well and my game was on fire (everything is relative as I am an 11 handicap) and I had to make a strategic decision.  Hit to the right of the tree and carry the junk, lay up to the left, or hit a nice little fade around the tree.  This hole with its tree seems to have that same flavor.  It challenges not only your game, but your mind.

But here is the kicker...yes it challenges your game and your strategic decision making...but if you let it get under your skin and upset you (bad architecture, stupid tree, stupid designer, etc) it can take your mind off the shot at hand and it has the potential to unravel your game/mind for many shots to come as your curse the tree from a few shots/holes back.

I find that a very interesting and cool part of the game.

[cary lichtenstein]

Nothing wrong with the tree. The tree itself is not stupid, it's just a tree. Looks like it is going to die anyway as the leaves are all tight to the branches and pulling back. Think of it as a challange.

When I lived in Chicago, we had a dogley par 5 that if you hit driver, u hit it thru the fairway. I hated that hole until one day I decided to play it intelligently and hit 2 iron off the tee. I got more birdie's and pars that way.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Mac

Would it not have been cooler for the architect to design a real hazard within his plan for these holes? Seems odd that a tree is planted with no idea of what the future hold regards design or strategic intentions for the hole.

In other words for years the sapling had no real part in the strategy. How did the hole play prior to the tree becoming a hazard or sorry lets call it what it is an obstacle. Would that thinking be acceptable today, would the hole be left with unlimited approach shots? The design of that hole is at a stroke removed from the control of the architect, which might mean early modification to make the hole more playable and enjoyable well before the maturity of the tree.

Fairway trees are not the answer in my opinion and with just a little more thought the hole should have more appropriate hazards that come into play the day the course is open.

GCA is I believe the designers challenge to the golfer, make him wait 25 years or so before it really come into serious play would be regarded as a failure and question the quality of the designer. The mature tree has compromised the original design intention, its may have been shaped, been damaged in storms, again all have an implication. It’s the joker in the pack, which IMHO should not be on a course.

Melvyn

[Jason Topp]

It would be interesting to hear the thinking behind keeping the trees.  It looks to me like they might be there to steer the player away from the water.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Jason

Would that have been the initial intention when the tree was originally planted?  As I said above it would be some years before it would be considered as an obstacle. Perhaps just down to good old landscape gardening by a non-golfer.

Melvyn

[Jason Topp]

Jason

Would that have been the initial intention when the tree was originally planted?  As I said above it would be some years before it would be considered as an obstacle. Perhaps just down to good old landscape gardening by a non-golfer.

Melvyn

Melvyn:

I do not know and you do not know.  Someone made a decision to either plant or keep the trees.  It would be interesting to know why.

We have a couple of trees to the left of our first tee that an architect wanted to take down.  The member overseeing the project vetoed the idea, thinking that the trees helped require a straight tee ball.

On the first tee of the stroke play club championship the next year, that member hit one of the trees and the ball dropped into a pond.  He laughed at his plight and went on to win.  I chuckle every time I see those things.

[Chris Cupit]

Nice comments

For the record I played my Pro V1 -1 for the event (par, par, birdie)!  

The second pick is taken about two feet from the left rough.  Again, I love strategy but I don't see any here.  The tree is thankfully far smaller than two years ago but "the play" is just to aim at the middle of the fairway and hope you are not too screwed with the second.  At 453 you are far enough back to manuever around it but for the average player who faces the 190ish shot in from whatever tees he played from, what is he to do?  Does he have the ability to manufacture a shot around the tree, maybe over or around water depending on his line, between bunkers to a very severe green?  

Remember at about 150 the fairway which is right of the tree at 200 narrows to a bottleneck all left of the tree so that from 150 and in the fairway is 15 yards wide!  There is no way to play a drive that completely avoids the tree unless you hit it in the left rough within 15 feet of the hazard or along the right rough where you have even less room between the edge of the tree and the lake.

Trees in the middle of holes I can tolerate IF well placed shots can tack around the obstacle.  On such a hard and long hole no one can be that preceise.  On a 360 hole where you might could play past it by bringing a narrow section of FW into play that may be flanked by hazards, well OK.  Or an option could be to lay back to play over the tree or have the chance to curve a ball around it.  I just don't see any choices here.

As for the par three  I hate trees on par threes as there is no way around them except a forced hook or slice but a shot on this green is possible on a direct line to the center and left of the green.  IF the architect had banked the back left of the green to facilitate a chased ball reaching the back right of the green, I think that would be OK and maybe even interesting.  He/she didn't

[Chris Cupit]

Oh, BTW..The trees aren't even pretty!     If you are going to ruin a hole with a tree, at least give me a old oak--something with shape and character (see I can say nice things about trees)!

[Roger Wolfe]

At "The National" in Pinehurst there is a classic scraggly tree in the middle of a par four fairway... this one is pretty bad... but the one in PH is absolutely classicly stupid.  Its so stupid they probably delivered to the property in a short bus.

[Bill Brightly]

Water left, water right, tree in the middle?

I say this is ridiculous architecture! Pick one, MAYBE two, you can't have all THREE things going on with a long par 4.

[Kalen Braley]

This is a much better "use" of trees in the fairway from my other thread that no one commented on.. 

[Mike McGuire]

The improved views alone would be worth removing the trees.

I'd bet the architect wanted them gone and the client said no.

[Bill Brightly]

This is a much better "use" of trees in the fairway from my other thread that no one commented on.. 

I say plant one more tree on the right, views of mountains are way overrated.

Then extend the cart path diagonally across the fairway. Finish the job!

[Melvyn Morrow]

Kalen

When is the course in your photo due to open as those trees are still in the way?

So someone designed a course and left them in place, wow they do not think highly of their golfers who play the course   Compromised design due to lack of imagination on behalf of the designer, pity you can’t see the Green for the trees

Melvyn

PS  Bill why bother just move the Green in front of the Trees and ask the designer to return his fee.

[Mike Benham]

Would that have been the initial intention when the tree was originally planted?  As I said above it would be some years before it would be considered as an obstacle. Perhaps just down to good old landscape gardening by a non-golfer.

Let's not assume the tree was planted (at least for use on the golf course).  I believe Chris stated that trees were cleared to make the routing of the course.  It doesn't change MM question ...

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()