Do trees make a golf course, on small acreage, safer?

[PCCraig]

On many classic golf courses which were built on somewhat small pieces of property (100-140 acres), trees were planted over the years around tee boxes and greens partially because it was thought that the trees would block errant shots from golfers on other holes. (Think of a half circle of evergreens directly behind a green).

Do trees like this actually make the course safer for players? Have classic golf courses attempting tree management programs run into opposition due to this idea, that without the trees players would be more exposed to errant golf balls?

[Tom_Doak]

Pat:

Whether trees make the golf course safer is an interesting debate.  Mature trees almost certainly do, but by the same token the trees can sometimes give a false sense of security, when one of those "90% air" shots comes flying through.

As for whether there are arguments about taking trees out because of safety, absolutely, there are.  Pasatiempo has some trees that we can't take out because they protect a green where somebody got killed by an errant ball from another hole, many years ago -- if we took the trees out and somebody else got hit, we'd all be liable.  But, those trees are Monterey pines, which are all dying from disease, so now what do you do?

[Sean_A]

Pat

I think well a placed tree(s) can help, but usually I would rather be able to see what is going on.  Often times, there are so many trees that one can't see the potential trouble spots.  I have seen more guys hit through trees than when all can be seen.  Indeed, I have been hit twice and never saw anything coming.  That would be less likely to happen to me if I could see. 

Ciao   

[Garland Bayley]

If your ball heads for the trees, yell fore! You don't know what is in the trees or just beyond.

Mr. Fore Left

[Jud_T]

Pat,

As you'll recall,  #14 at Lawsonia would be an awesome skyline green without the trees, but you wouldn't want to be standing on the 15th tee with someone hitting into you.  I'm all for golf courses with no trees (or water for that matter), but sometimes they're a necessary evil.

[Kris Shreiner]

Interesting post. As Tom D. stated, the pros and cons of the issue can sometimes lead to conflicted conclusions. On holes sharing roadway borders, they make sense. That said, startled drivers getting tagged by 90% air balls have little to no reaction time, though most would have little chance to react differently if there were no trees, as minimal visual time would still be experienced in most cases. The percentage play would suggest screening stands of trees makes sense where practical.

On-course, there are a host of variables to consider, especially in cramped or poor routing scenarios. While players hitting errant, dangerous shots on tree-lined fairways may find comfort in the knock-down potential of the trees, the players on the adjacent fairways usually have no warning they are about to take an incoming round, especially if the offending player can't see them fast enough, or at all, to warn them with the obligatory "fore" cry. It's a tough proposition.

I will say, as one who appreciates what properly managed trees can add to a golf course setting, careful consideration should be given to ADDING tree species to golf properties. Frankly, on any significant tree issues, ownership, management, or membership evaluting decisions should be sure to have both the consulting golf architect and the facility arborist significantly involved to make the right choices. A safer, better golf property presentation, both short and long-term, will result from taking this most prudent approach.



Cheers,
Kris

[Dan Kelly]

Do trees like this actually make the course safer for players?

Pat --

I was hit in the head and lost some hearing a couple of years ago, at Braemar in Edina, by an errant shot into the trees between No. 6 and No. 15. Those trees are there to separate the holes. A proposal to remove them (or substantially thin them) would, I'm certain, meet with the objection that golfers would be less safe.

I'm here to say that, in my case: That objection would be bunk.

I'm sure the woman who hit the ball that struck me never saw me, and she didn't see me because of the trees.

Yes, I suppose she should have yelled Fore!, anyway -- but really:

Do you always yell Fore! whenever you hit a ball wherever there's any chance there might be someone?

Do you always yell Fore! when you hit a shot that's flying toward someone you can see?

Trees: guilty until proven innocent.

Dan

[BCrosby]

"Trees: guilty until proven innocent."

Agreed. We are removing trees at our course. Mostly for the usual reasons. It opens up fw's and improves turf. But also partly because of improved sight lines. In most locations, we concluded that safety is enhanced if players are more aware of play around them than if they are shielded by trees.

Bob

[David_Tepper]

Having played at the Presidio in San Francisco regularly for 16 years, I cannot imagine that course being playable, from a safety point of view, without the tree-lined fairways on many of the holes. That being said, the trees there could certainly stand to be pruned and thinned out on a regular basis.

Claremont CC in Oaklnd is another course on a tight property that needs tree-lined holes for safety reasons.     

[Jason Topp]

This case involves the course I played as a kid.  If trees remained in place between the 1st and 18th fairway, the course would have had a better defense:

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ia-supreme-court/1131557.html

In actual fact I think the trees would have made the hole more dangerous because a golfer paying attention can now see what is happening on the first tee from the 18th fairway.  Trees would have needed to be huge to protect players in the 18th fairway because it is well below the first tee.  

[Garland Bayley]

I'm here to say that, in my case: That objection would be bunk.

I'm sure the woman who hit the ball that struck me never saw me, and she didn't see me because of the trees.

Yes, I suppose she should have yelled Fore!, anyway -- but really:

Do you always yell Fore! whenever you hit a ball wherever there's any chance there might be someone?

Do you always yell Fore! when you hit a shot that's flying toward someone you can see?

Trees: guilty until proven innocent.

Dan

Trees are clearly innocent. I play on a real estate poor course. The trees deflect hundreds of shots that would have endangered someone. People who don't yell fore are guilty. I always yell fore when I hit a ball towards tress obstructing my view. It is considered the proper ettiquette at my course. I have never heard of a significant injury at the course from a ball coming through the trees. I have heard of an injury that sent a player to the hospital who was in a completely open position.

[Sean_A]

I reckon if that many trees are required to make a course safe than 1) the course can't be up to much and 2) there just isn't enough space for a course.

Ciao

[RDecker]

The problem with that argument is that many years ago when alot of really good, but small and tight courses were built is that the golf ball flew alot lower and shorter distances respectively.  The increase in ball trajectory and distance coupled with increase in play have put some golfers in harm's way on otherwise safe layouts that are still very valid. 

[Dan Kelly]

This case involves the course I played as a kid.  If trees remained in place between the 1st and 18th fairway, the course would have had a better defense:

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ia-supreme-court/1131557.html

In actual fact I think the trees would have made the hole more dangerous because a golfer paying attention can now see what is happening on the first tee from the 18th fairway.  Trees would have needed to be huge to protect players in the 18th fairway because it is well below the first tee.  

Jason --

Reading that case makes me newly grateful, once again, that I decided to forgo law school.

Thanks!

Dan

[David_Tepper]

"I reckon if that many trees are required to make a course safe than 1) the course can't be up to much and 2) there just isn't enough space for a course."

Sean A. -

Both course I cited are well worth playing and have plenty of redeeming features. In addition to being built when the ball did not travel so far, both courses were likely built in an era when few contemplated a golf course might be booked solid from dawn to dusk.

DT

[Jason Topp]

Jason --

Reading that case makes me newly grateful, once again, that I decided to forgo law school.

Thanks!

Dan

Not exactly a scintilating read. 

[Sean_A]

David

Probably the two greatest disappointments I know of where trees are concern are Beau Desert and Huntercombe.  In a spot or two I can see why the trees should be there in terms of safety, but the vast majority are there because somebody wants them there.  Often times safety is used as a crutch to justify trees where they do not increase safety nor improve the course.  If a course truly needs trees lining many of fairways for reasons of safety, then I find it hard to believe there is enough space for the designed course.  It may be that we differ on what constitutes safety, in fact I am sure we do, but if what you say is true then what I contend is surely just as true.  There are plenty of small properties, hell the UK must be the poster child for small properties, which are fine from a safety PoV even if they aren't necessarily courses which are in any way outstanding.

Ciao

[David_Tepper]

Sean -

I have never seen Huntercombe or Beau Desert, so I cannot comment. I am certain there are many, many course that would benefit, without sacrificing safety, from an aggressive program of tree trimming & removal. The two courses I mentioned, the Presidio & Claremont), would benefit as well from such a program. Harding Park is similar in that regard.

The point I was trying to make is that a GCA's perception of what was a proper "margin of safety" between fairways was likely very different 100+ years ago than it is today. I am sure the "industry standard" for GCAs has changed in this regard over the years.

If you removed the trees between the 9th, 10th & 18th fairways at the Presido, you would want to be wearing a helmet and a chest protector to feel safe play those holes with today's golf equipment and the amount of play the course now gets. I doubt any GCA designing a course today would try to fit 3 parallel fairways in that area.

DT

 

[Tommy Williamsen]

Pat

I think well a placed tree(s) can help, but usually I would rather be able to see what is going on.  Often times, there are so many trees that one can't see the potential trouble spots. 

Ciao   
[/quote

Sean, if you want to see what is going on then how then do you feel about blind shots? 

[Jason Connor]

I agree that it's largely an illusion.

I'm think of a near miss of my own, I was on back of a 1st tee at a Ross.  It sits just to the right of the 9th green and it bounded by trees.  The ninth there is a short par 4 where the approach is almost certainly an 8 iron or less.

I hear a thud and see a ball that no doubt came from an approach to the 9th green right beside me.  There was no way the striker of that ball could have known we were there.  But the short iron meant his ball went up and over the trees meant to act as a shield.

So it makes things unsafer and his recovery shot far more complex in that case.

[Brian Joines]

My home course has some trees that create some dangerous situations. On the third hole, a long par 4,  the back tee is up on a ridge flanked by trees on the right. The hole runs parallel to the par 5 18th and badly sliced tee balls tend to land right in the layup zone on 18. The trees flanking this tee completely obscure the 18th fairway so there is no way to know if someone is in the line of fire.

Here is a picture of the tee shot. That thick grove on the right side are the main problem. (The willows on the left need to go too!)

[Tim Nugent]

As with many things in golf, much depends upon the situation.  Can trees prevent a ball from travelling further? Sure.  Can the prevent all balls? Depends.  Variables like elevation, topography, species and size (a 40' Spruce is denser than a 40' Oak) and density all need to taken into account.  Unfortunately one usually ends up with a Damned if you do, Damned if you don't scenerio.  On a tight course that had trees but they were removed (or died) the average person would ASSUME that they would have protected adjacent holes/players.
I find it amzing that our legal system has evolved to the point where the injured party is usually found to be less than the magical 50% responsible.  If the case cited, here you have a guy on #18, which means he already played #1 (and being a muni, probably played that course numerous times).  I wonder how many times he either hit, or witnessed a playing partner hit, a ball into the rough between the 2 holes?  and then to get hit in the eye, the thing you see out of.  That means he was looking towards the 1st tee.  Maybe he should change his name to Homer Simpson.

Tom, I heard that story about #1/9 at Pasa.  It was conveyed to me that originally Mackenzie wanted St A's combo fairway for the 2 holes.  Granted #1 tee is elevated.  Since I have a bad tendency to go left off #1 tees, I have played both 1st holes at St A and North Berwick from the 18th side of the fairway. So, should they both be made to plant trees to protect golfer from me?
Actually at Pasa, the OB left forced me to aim further right than normal and guess what? Yep! The dreaded straight ball.  I found myself in those trees and blocked from advancing on the 1st hole unless I played up 9.  So, there is a situation where trees planted specifically to protect golfers actually were a cause for putting me in harms way (especially with how narrow 9 felt with the houses OB left.)  Beware of the Law of Unintended Consequences!

[Bill_McBride]

I reckon if that many trees are required to make a course safe than 1) the course can't be up to much and 2) there just isn't enough space for a course.

Ciao

...and the trees don't necessarily protect you anyway.  I was playing in the member-guest at the Valley Club, walking up the 5th fairway, when someone I playing the 7th (parallel to us coming back on the right) hoisted a slice over the trees.  No shout of "fore," nothing but the ball whacking the back of my right hand, which swelled up to double size and ruined my round and our chances.   The trees were no help at all. 

[Mark_Rowlinson]

Some years ago I visited West Cornwall, a very compact links course with not a single tree. I was due to play the following morning and asked the secretary if I could walk the course and take some photos. He agreed, but insisted I wear a hard hat. I didn't get hit, possibly because the hat was bright yellow, but despite the total lack of trees I wouldn't have had a clue where to look for danger in and around the tumbling land. Lovely course.