[jeffwarne]

One of my favorite areas on one of my favorite links is where, at the edge of the linksland you play around trees growing

into hillside on 13, then climb up into the edges of the forest and play down to the glorious linksland unfolding below.
Enchanting
Portsalon

[Melvyn Morrow]

Jim

I do not like trees on a golf course, that how I feel. As for broaden my horizons, think playing in India, Africa, Jamaica, NI, Scotland & England seems to confirm that I have broaden my horizons. Not travelled as far as some but more than others.

Having said that I still do not like trees on a golf course.   

[JESII]

No problem with that Melvyn.

In my opinion, only the ocean rivals a large mature tree for putting nature into its proper perspective.

[Ally Mcintosh]

One of my favorite areas on one of my favorite links is where, at the edge of the linksland you play around trees growing

into hillside on 13, then climb up into the edges of the forest and play down to the glorious linksland unfolding below.
Enchanting
Portsalon

Jeff, I absolutely agree with you. My favourite stretch at Portsalon is 13 to 16.

[Terry Lavin]

But if we "sod" the trees, what do we do with the sod?

[jeffwarne]

One of my favorite areas on one of my favorite links is where, at the edge of the linksland you play around trees growing

into hillside on 13, then climb up into the edges of the forest and play down to the glorious linksland unfolding below.
Enchanting
Portsalon

Jeff, I absolutely agree with you. My favourite stretch at Portsalon is 13 to 16.

Ally, 17 is awfully good!
16 I might quibble with the trees in front of the green as they don't feel quite as part of the landscape as on 13,and was previousy done, but what a memorable stretch.

variety is the spice of life.

a grassy savannah area on a glade course is welcome, and a tree fitting into the landscape on a links or grassland course can be wonderful.
Donegal has a forest on one side that adds to the setting

[Ally Mcintosh]

One of my favorite areas on one of my favorite links is where, at the edge of the linksland you play around trees growing

into hillside on 13, then climb up into the edges of the forest and play down to the glorious linksland unfolding below.
Enchanting
Portsalon

Jeff, I absolutely agree with you. My favourite stretch at Portsalon is 13 to 16.

Ally, 17 is awfully good!
16 I might quibble with the trees in front of the green as they don't feel quite as part of the landscape as on 13,and was previousy done, but what a memorable stretch.

variety is the spice of life.

a grassy savannah area on a glade course is welcome, and a tree fitting into the landscape on a links or grassland course can be wonderful.
Donegal has a forest on one side that adds to the setting

I'll give you 17 as well. Found myself just a little disappointed that a possible heroic diagonal carry over the left marsh wasn't incorporated.

I liked the blind drive on 16 and the scale of the approach to one of the most wonderful contoured greens on the course. I wouldn't miss those little trees just short though...


Portsalon 13th Approach 15th Sept 2011 by Ally McIntosh, on Flickr


Portsalon 16th Approach 15th Sept 2011 by Ally McIntosh, on Flickr

[jeffwarne]

Ally,
Clearly you hit your drive farther than I did on 13 (and ddin't have a left pin)


I think we can agree with Melvyn on the trees on 16

It's funny, but in your picture the trees on 13 look forced,but when there in person they seem such a natural part of the landscape of the land transitioning from linksland up to parkland hillside

[ChipOat]

Ah, Sam - you have started a thread that involves my biggest pet peeve in golf architecture.  I call them Stupid Trees and I will get to them in a moment.

First, although Tom Doak (and others) know far more than I about the effect of trees on light and air circulation, for this reason alone I could live without them.  That is probably too severe, but since I can't tell a "good tree" from a "bad tree" in this regard, when in doubt, cut it down.

Now, about Stupid Trees.  I have no problem  ARCHITECTURALLY with any tree that is an impediment to your shot either from the rough or more than 150 yards from the tee box on a par 4 or par 5.  You hit it in a bad place and there's a tree in your way, you get what you deserve.  Also, I have no problem with a tree impacting the optimum shape of a tee shot so long as the first 150+ yards are not subject to tree problems.

What I really, really do NOT like are what I (and others) call "bunkers in the sky" - trees that are an impediment to a straight line for the next shot IF YOU ARE IN THE FAIRWAY.  Philosophically, I believe that if you hit a shot to an "approved" place, then the degree of difficulty for your next effort should be a function of the golf architecture ON THE GROUND.  After all, any Greens Committee Chairman can plant a big tree.  It takes skill to create shotmaking challenges by building them on the ground.

Stupid Trees come from two sources.  The most egregious are those that are planted on purpose and the 18th hole at Pebble Beach is the poster child for this heinous offense.

However, most Stupid Trees start life as little saplings that line the fairway and 20+ years later, they overhang whatever side of the fairway they have now grown to obstruct.  This is why most tree removal projects are very, very, good.

I have posted longer harangues on this subject on other threads and I just couldn't resist another cathartic opportunity.

[jeffwarne]

Ah, Sam - you have started a thread that involves my biggest pet peeve in golf architecture.  I call them Stupid Trees and I will get to them in a moment.

First, although Tom Doak (and others) know far more than I about the effect of trees on light and air circulation, for this reason alone I could live without them.  That is probably too severe, but since I can't tell a "good tree" from a "bad tree" in this regard, when in doubt, cut it down.

Now, about Stupid Trees.  I have no problem  ARCHITECTURALLY with any tree that is an impediment to your shot either from the rough or more than 150 yards from the tee box on a par 4 or par 5.  You hit it in a bad place and there's a tree in your way, you get what you deserve.  Also, I have no problem with a tree impacting the optimum shape of a tee shot so long as the first 150+ yards are not subject to tree problems.

What I really, really do NOT like are what I (and others) call "bunkers in the sky" - trees that are an impediment to a straight line for the next shot IF YOU ARE IN THE FAIRWAY.  Philosophically, I believe that if you hit a shot to an "approved" place, then the degree of difficulty for your next effort should be a function of the golf architecture ON THE GROUND.  After all, any Greens Committee Chairman can plant a big tree.  It takes skill to create shotmaking challenges by building them on the ground.

Stupid Trees come from two sources.  The most egregious are those that are planted on purpose and the 18th hole at Pebble Beach is the poster child for this heinous offense.

However, most Stupid Trees start life as little saplings that line the fairway and 20+ years later, they overhang whatever side of the fairway they have now grown to obstruct.  This is why most tree removal projects are very, very, good.

I have posted longer harangues on this subject on other threads and I just couldn't resist another cathartic opportunity.

Just for arguements sake, I'd argue "stupid trees" challenge and create interest for an elite player as well as the average player.

bunkers tend to create little interest for an elite player as he's playing an aeriel game.
That and bunkers aren't hazards anymore.
How many times this week did I hear the eventual match play champ shout "get in the bunker" on an errant shot.


IF maintenance practices and architecture would create greensites where angles matter, perhaps I would agree that a tree shoudn't interfere with a badly placed ball in the fairway, but since angles rarely matter( as slopes are being taken out due to green speed) why not a tree to add spice to a ball positioned poorly,yet in the fairway?
By your logic , if the fairway was simply narrowed, as is oh so common these days, the tree would no longer be in the fairway and would then be ok?

Just playin devil's advocate.
kind've like a foster care tree hugger for a day

Harbour Town would be the poster child for your stupid trees and even though I like many of the holes individually created by the strategic use of trees there,
collectively I can't stand the course because it's so repetitive.
which is why I like Long Cove far better which uses this feature on 2-3 holes, and uses multipe other themes for the other holes.

[RDecker]

$9,000 for new trees every year seems like alot.  Unless you're buying some very unique or large nursery stock 9 large will buy you a fairly
large number of trees.  It seems in Texas they are always looking for more air circulation to help reduce heat stress and the added trees would seem contrary to that, plus all the added debris to clean up under them.  Seems like a bad idea even before you consider location of the trees as relates to golf strategy/shot values.  Sounds like a scheme to sell homesites to non-golfer types.

[Neil Regan]

The "one size fits all" approach boggles my mind sometimes.

Trees are an important feature of some sites for golf courses.  ...

Yesterday I was sorting through some stuff at the office and came across an old slide of the 10th hole at Winged Foot (East), and the giant American elm that used to guard it.  Does anyone think it's a better hole now that the tree is gone?

Tom,

  It is certainly not a better hole with the tree gone. But it is a better hole now than it has been for many years, since Gil restored the green to its original fullness. It is now (again) one of the best greens that we have.

  In the picture below, 3 of the 7 people would have been off the green 3 years ago.

[Mark_Rowlinson]

Don't forget that small birds and mammals need corridors of trees, hedges, long grass etc to grant them some protection from birds of prey etc while moving from place to place.

[Melvyn Morrow]

OK so you want trees on your fairway, then this should please you and satisfy both sides of the argument



 

[PCCraig]

The "one size fits all" approach boggles my mind sometimes.

Trees are an important feature of some sites for golf courses.  ...

Yesterday I was sorting through some stuff at the office and came across an old slide of the 10th hole at Winged Foot (East), and the giant American elm that used to guard it.  Does anyone think it's a better hole now that the tree is gone?

Tom,

  It is certainly not a better hole with the tree gone. But it is a better hole now than it has been for many years, since Gil restored the green to its original fullness. It is now (again) one of the best greens that we have.

  In the picture below, 3 of the 7 people would have been off the green 3 years ago.

Neil,

Which tree is the one in question? The big one back right? From the angle of the picture it looks like it doesn't come in play at all (but the tee shot could be different).

Do you have a recent picture of the hole from the tee box?

Thanks!

[John Shimp]

Sam
You knew a spending $ on trees thread would be a cluster.  Enjoy it you got what u wanted! 

[Sam Morrow]

Sam
You knew a spending $ on trees thread would be a cluster.  Enjoy it you got what u wanted! 

On some sites you need trees.

[Grant Saunders]

Trees have their place. I couldnt imagine if all courses had no trees or all courses had trees. How boring would that be.

One of the coolest feelings in golf, for me, is having to shape a shot around a tree and pulling it off.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Grant

So you do not like Links courses, they are boring for you 'I couldnt imagine if all courses had no trees or all courses had trees. How boring would that be'.

Yet for me Golf is a Links game and trees on courses are a curse on the design and upon the on going course maintenance

[Jon Wiggett]

Melvyn,

golf was originally a game of the links and it is still the finest form of the in my opinion but there are many very good inland courses with and without trees.

If memory serves me correctly good links courses with trees include Lytham St.Annes, Birkdale, Hillside and Kings Barnes all have trees on them and Muirfield has some on the borders. I am sure there are quite a few more as there are links completely devoid of trees.

Jon

[Melvyn Morrow]

Jon

I love trees but not on a fairway or rough. As potential hazards, they offer the equivalent of a joker in the pack to the designer/club.  Joker in that they are wild and uncontrolled, unless precious maintenance money is spent pruning them. Alone they can be a serious problem with the local water table, be it wet or dry. In short a real pain, but to what advantage, because the designer has no control over its growth patterns.

The courses you mentioned are IMHO like Troon, not my first choice. Give me the more out of the way courses, some untouched by the mind of a modern designer, they offer me or did, the experience of playing traditional golf, a total feeling of enjoyment in my game and self. To those who have been to South Uist and walked over the machair will understand where I am coming from.

But Trees on a golf course, NO, very much a no no for this guy. 

[jeffwarne]

Grant

So you do not like Links courses, they are boring for you 'I couldnt imagine if all courses had no trees or all courses had trees. How boring would that be'.

Yet for me Golf is a Links game and trees on courses are a curse on the design and upon the on going course maintenance

Melvyn,
There are approxinately 250 links courses out of what 20-40,000 courses? in the world.
I understand and respect your ideals on land suited for a purpose, but what about those who live hundreds if not thousand of miles from the sea.
Should the rest of us quit?

If given forested land on say 300 acres, should we clear it all?
Shoud there be no golf in areas of upstate New York or Canada?

I understand the benefits or air circulation and the detrimental effect trees can have on turf and golf.
However, the two can and do exist successfuy all over the world.
Can golf (and the species) survive the enviromental black eye that is created when forests are clear cut due to one's desire to force an idea on land fit for golf, just not links golf?
Thanks,
Jeff

[Melvyn Morrow]

Jon

My point is that I do not like Trees on, the appropriate word being ON golf courses.  Tree lined courses with trees set back from the rough are fine with me but not on a course that means fairway and rough. So should not cause others a problem. The only time we may disagree is when a tree becomes a hazard, their growth patterns being that joker I mentioned. I thought I was clear on this point from the start using the word fairways. Inland courses will have trees, see no need to cut them down only those on the course - that's all I am saying.

I am not trying to spoil anyone’s game, just my opinion is that trees are not good as hazards on a golf course.

 

[jeffwarne]

Jon

My point is that I do not like Trees on, the appropriate word being ON golf courses.  Tree lined courses with trees set back from the rough are fine with me but not on a course that means fairway and rough. So should not cause others a problem. The only time we may disagree is when a tree becomes a hazard, their growth patterns being that joker I mentioned. I thought I was clear on this point from the start using the word fairways. Inland courses will have trees, see no need to cut them down only those on the course - that's all I am saying.

I am not trying to spoil anyone’s game, just my opinion is that trees are not good as hazards on a golf course.

 

Thanks Melvyn,
I'm a big fan of hazards that existed before the land was coverted-broken ground,hillocks,blowouts, rocks,native areas, even stone walls or ruins.
Sometimes that may include trees, but it is admittedly a sadly overused, and more often overGROWN hazard.

Given the talent of today's players, and the softness required to maintain greens at a stimp of 28 (maybe I'm exaggerating),and the minimal slope built into these fast greens, bunkers are rarely a hazard for good players.
Occasionally I enjoy a natural tree protecting access from a poorly or thoughtlessly played tee shot.
Agreed, most need pruning or eliminating, and none need planting, but saving and perhaps implementing a mature specimin tree selectively into a design can add beauty, strategy and maturity to a site.
Harbour Town uses this in excess, Long Cove selectively, although perhaps both have grown far more than anyone's original intent, an inherent flaw of trees on a golf course, hence hey should be used very sparingly if at all.  IMHO.
Regards,
Jeff

[Melvyn Morrow]

Jon

A great design perhaps, watered down or totally altered by the incursion of trees on to a golf course. In fact who can then claim it was a design by a great name as the tree(s) as they have matured reflect not only a different light upon the course but also affects options.

To much a joker for my liking. The question, I suppose, is it important to remember the name of the designer – if it’s not important, or just not interested in GCA then that’s down to the individual – but what a shame a once great course no longer reflects its once greatness for the sake of overgrown trees that were never part of the course design.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()