[Mike Hendren]

Mark's series of aerials have been the most eye-opening threads I've seen on GCA.  A few general observations:

Often, each hole is its own rectangular playing field with the tee bunkering and green all encompassed within a separate playing field.

Features are often geometrically straight and over-sized.

As Paul Turner observed, bunkering is anything but the rivietted pots we've come to know.

The courses suffered no fools with extensive top shot bunkering off the tee.

A surprising number of intimately bunkered pushed up greens.

Expansive teeing grounds, but limited verticality.

The overall look is remarkably similar to the old black/white aerial of Augusta National Golf Club posted periodically on this site, confirming Jones and Mackenzie's adaptation of that design to the Augusta hillside.

A surprising number of bunkers fronting the greens, refuting the concept that the aerial game is an American novelty.

The deterioration and demise of these architectural gems is astonishing and one of the game's great losses.

Mark, thank you so very much.

To all, are you as surprised and amazed as I am?

Paul Turner, quit loitering with intent and weigh in here

Mike

[Mark McKeever]

Agreed Bogey.  I love the look of some of these courses!  I wish we could see more of it today. 


Mark

[Colin Macqueen]

Yes Michael.  An eye-popping series of photos.

I was astonished at how utterly barren the courses looked. I understand linksland will be bereft of trees but it looks almost blasted! But even the parkland courses are relatively treeless.

No evidence of "eye-candy" bunkering here in terms of frilly edges or lace-like contouring.

Many thanks to Mark for winkling these photos out of the many thousands he had to loo at.

Two questions to the multitude.
When these parkland course, in America and Britain, were conceived and built was there always the intention by the architects to have a tree-planting regime?
Tony Muldoon mentioned "cop-bunkers" in one of his replies. Is a cop bunker simply a grass faced bunker but if not are cop bunkers in evidence on"modern" courses.

Cheers Colin

[Paul_Turner]

Hey Bogey

Yes I agree, but overall there's just way more variety on display than the equivalent aerials today.  No set formula and less generic than today.

Because it's an aerial shot much of the focus is on bunkers but as others have pointed out too, the width of the holes and the sparseness of the trees is eye popping.

WW2 was obviously a big factor but many clubs haven't really looked closely at what they had.

Colin

No most of the courses started going beserk with tree planting in th 50s-70s. 

[Dónal Ó Ceallaigh]

Yes Michael.  An eye-popping series of photos.

I was astonished at how utterly barren the courses looked. I understand linksland will be bereft of trees but it looks almost blasted! But even the parkland courses are relatively treeless.

No evidence of "eye-candy" bunkering here in terms of frilly edges or lace-like contouring.

Many thanks to Mark for winkling these photos out of the many thousands he had to loo at.

Two questions to the multitude.
When these parkland course, in America and Britain, were conceived and built was there always the intention by the architects to have a tree-planting regime?
Tony Muldoon mentioned "cop-bunkers" in one of his replies. Is a cop bunker simply a grass faced bunker but if not are cop bunkers in evidence on"modern" courses.

Cheers Colin

Colin,

Take a look at any old photographs from the early 1900s and before and you'll notice that there were few trees in the countryside. The land was utilised to the max, so there were no fields overgrown with bushes etc. I've been looking through a lot of old Irish photographic collections, and this is what you notice with all the photographs.

Compare Portmarnock then (see below pre-1950 photos) and now.

The "cop" bunkers seen in some of the aerials are rectangular in shape and in many cases were positioned a short distance in front of the tees.

Here are some cop bunkers on the 4th (foreground) and 5th (center) at Portmarnock.



And some more on the 17th (right) at Portmarnock again.

[Garland Bayley]

In The Spirit of St. Andrews, Dr. Mac points out that when golf boomed, everybody was building unimaginative courses. He points out as I recall that common items seen were square features and cross bunkers.

[Paul_Turner]

Mike

The greens were far less oval in shape in general and obviously much, much larger too.  Some squarish, some elongated ovals...some freeform shaped.

The Royal Wimbledon aerials remind me of old Pine Valley aerials in terms of some of the large green sizes and the mixture of shapes.

There are many different styles...from their website I believe Porters Park has a strong JH Taylor influence.  It looks to have a good degree of penal architecture, as in forced cross bunkers along with some cool/weird stuff.  I wonder if this was the style that Mackenzie criticizes him for in his book?

[Niall C]

Paul

Apparently Mid Surrey, which was one of JH's courses in conjunction with Hawtree had an endless supply of "pitch shots" and some quite extensive "natural" bunkering. Even in the 1920's Harry Vardon was making the case for cross bunkering.

Re lack of trees. I wonder if the fact that we now have more trees on courses is also down to the fact that when these courses were first built, they were built on open farmland that had long been cleared and that probably upt to the 20's and even the 30's a lot of these courses still had grazing which would have kept down any natural succession. Once the grazing went, it probably wouldn't have taken long for the grass to turn to scrub bushes and then eventually trees.

Niall

[BCrosby]

"Re lack of trees. I wonder if the fact that we now have more trees on courses is also down to the fact that when these courses were first built, they were built on open farmland that had long been cleared..."

That's also true of many courses in the US.

Story: About two years ago we wanted to take out a number of trees on our course. The city in which it is located initially opposed it, noting that we would be violating their tree coverage ordinance that applied to non-residential properties.

We found aerials of the property as it looked before our course was build. It was acres of treeless farm land.

We showed the city the aerials and argued that, but for our club, there would be no trees at all on the property. We asked if we could take out a couple hundred, since they were trees we had planted several decades ago.

The city - in its infinite wisdom - agreed. We now have a special zoning designation as a 'parkland'. which permits some (though not unlimited) tree removal.

Bob   

[Paul_Turner]

Paul.

Re lack of trees. I wonder if the fact that we now have more trees on courses is also down to the fact that when these courses were first built, they were built on open farmland that had long been cleared and that probably upt to the 20's and even the 30's a lot of these courses still had grazing which would have kept down any natural succession. Once the grazing went, it probably wouldn't have taken long for the grass to turn to scrub bushes and then eventually trees.

Niall

Niall

I agree regarding the farmland but not sure there was a whole lot of grazing on the courses, at least for the inland ones.  From viewing the club histories and WW2 aerial photography, most of the courses were still markedly open from 1945 and a but later...but then the trees started to get planted en masse.

[BCrosby]

Paul -

There is a good essay yet to be written about tree planting programs in the 1950's and 60's. The programs seem to have been widespread, sparing few courses in the US or the UK. I could guess at some reasons for their popularity. But if anyone has looked closely at the phenomenon, I'm unaware of it. 

By contrast, a lot has been written on why trees should be removed. Left mostly unexamined, however, is what motivated people to plant them in the first place and why it happened when it did.

Bob

[Jon Wiggett]

Paul -

There is a good essay yet to be written about tree planting programs in the 1950's and 60's. The programs seem to have been widespread, sparing few courses in the US or the UK. I could guess at some reasons for their popularity. But if anyone has looked closely at the phenomenon, I'm unaware of it. 

By contrast, a lot has been written on why trees should be removed. Left mostly unexamined, however, is what motivated people to plant them in the first place and why it happened when it did.

Bob

Bob,

it was probably a combination of trying to separate the holes for safety purposes, peoples wish for seclusion and certainly here in GB that the trees were either free or the clubs were even paid to plant them.

The main reasons for tree removal are either to do with turf quality or opening up corridors of view. Both of these reasons are well down the list of considerations for most golfers.

Jon

[BCrosby]

Jon -

Yes, those are all reasons you hear for adding trees. I would add simple aesthetic preferences. People think a golf course is more attractive with lots of trees than not.

But all of those reasons existed before the tree planting programs in the '50's and '60's. Why did those reasons gain so much traction post WWII and why the widespread consensus about them? To stay with the UK, why were courses designed by Colt, MacK, Simpson and others on treeless land which (I'd guess) the architects would have preferred remain treeless, suddenly in the '50's get populated with vast stands of hardwoods? 

Strange.   

Bob

[Mark_Rowlinson]

I suppose those who tinkered with the routing, bunkerwork, putting greens of Colt, Mac, Fowler etc in the 50s and 60s were just as content to change the course by planting trees. I remember the front nine of Lilleshall Hall (Colt) in the early 60s and it was like playing in an open field. It had very little definition other than a few stands of mature trees surrounding a couple of ponds. Saplings were planted at that time, possibly to separate fairways, possibly to soak up a bit of the water on this very damp course (clay). I haven't been back for far too many years, but I'm sure those trees will have made the place less barren. The back nine, in comparison, had been hewn out of dense forest. The contrast could hardly have been greater.

Comparison of the 1945 and current aerials of Wilmslow on Google Earth shows that a great many trees have been planted to separate fairways on the more open parts of the course. They are now mature and make significant contributions to the strategy on a number of holes. More importantly, they provide passageways for small birds and mammals to cross the course with some protection from birds of prey whose numbers are increasing rapidly in this country - too rapidly some would say. We have buzzards nesting within the course and sparrow hawks make frequent passes. Trees are taken out from time to time, particularly those restricting air flow and light from tees and greens, although, as an inaccurate golfer, I could nominate a few more that might profitably be removed.

Most elms disappeared with Dutch elm disease and now our ash trees are succumbing to some disease imported from Denmark. Rowan trees seem to be under threat, too. Those courses which have significant plantings of conifers may find honey fungus decimating their trees. I don't know of any course round here with a Chilean pine, but in parks and large gardens many seem to be heavily diseased. But I do so much prefer native trees to non-native.

[Jon Wiggett]

Jon -

To stay with the UK, why were courses designed by Colt, MacK, Simpson and others on treeless land which (I'd guess) the architects would have preferred remain treeless, suddenly in the '50's get populated with vast stands of hardwoods? 

Strange.   

Bob

As I already pointed out in GB that the trees were either free or the clubs were even paid to plant them.


Mark,

it always makes me smile when I hear that planting trees will dry out wet golf courses. Yes trees do dry out the lower soil profile but actually make surface moisture worse so compounding the problem for wet courses.

Jon

[Duncan Cheslett]

There is a good essay yet to be written about tree planting programs in the 1950's and 60's. The programs seem to have been widespread, sparing few courses in the US or the UK. I could guess at some reasons for their popularity. But if anyone has looked closely at the phenomenon, I'm unaware of it. 

By contrast, a lot has been written on why trees should be removed. Left mostly unexamined, however, is what motivated people to plant them in the first place and why it happened when it did.

Bob

I would hazard a guess that the reason can largely be summed up in two words;  'Augusta' and 'television'.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Don't forget that Colt not only started to design courses through existing wooded sites (St.George's Hill, Swinley), I seem to recall he also designed the odd course where he mentioned how to plant trees... Simpson was the same being very particular in mentioning the patterns in which trees should be planted... I don't think any of them would have been materially against it... Only the narrowing of the corridors...

[BCrosby]

The attitudes of GA architects about trees was something of a mixed bag.

Most all seemed to think that on wooded property, trees would look 'natural'. Hard to argue with that. (See Geo. Thomas)

What MacK says in S of SA about trees is interesting. Summarizing his argument, he first notes that trees were removed from older (read Victorian) inland courses because they were thought to give luck too big a role in outcomes. Hit a tree, and no telling what will happen...

One of MacK's main themes in S of SA, however, is that giving fluke a role in gca (or in golf generally) is ok. Heightens drama, fun, tests character, etc.  So he offers a partial defense in S Of SA of the use of trees, suggesting that they can be used on a limited basis if kept in "groups" or "clumps". When all else fails, a "group of trees" might even be used for strategic purposes. (See pp. 81-83.)

So Mack was not dogmatic about trees. In moderation, they might serve important functions, including aesthetic functions. At ANGC, for example, Mack left many trees on a property that was originally majority wooded. The thick stands of pine along the left sides of 1, 2 and 8 were original to the property. Ditto the pines to the right of the LZ on 13 and the fw on 14. There are lots of other "groups" of trees on the course. But notwithstanding all the trees MacK let stand, ANGC was distinguished back in the day for its enormously wide playing corridors. Trees were there, however, and for really egregious misses they were a factor. (Bubba's shot to win the Masters this year was from out of a stand of pines original to the course.)

Back to my speculation that on treeless properties on which many UK courses were built in the 1920's. I'll stand by my thought that GA archies would not be pleased to see the "vast stands of hardwoods" that today ring every hole on so many of these courses. But I stand corrected in the sense that GA archies would have probably tolerated limited and discerning use of trees on those courses.

(To return to what I think is an interesting historical point. Virtually all inland Victorian courses I've seen pictures of were denuded of trees. There was a reason for that.  Victorian gca's were all about hazards that were 'equitable', understood in the sense that the severity of a hazard should match with the severity of the miss it trapped. Trees failed that test. They were considered an inequitable or unfair hazards because the punishment they doled out was so flukey and unpredictable.  One aspect of strategic golf design that its proponents believed distinguished it from older Victorian designs was a tolerance of fluke in gca. Hence MacK's defense of the limited use of trees was a small part of a much broader argument about the superiority of the principles of strategic gca.)

None of which answers the question of why circa 1960 so many clubs in the US and the UK rushed out - as if struck simultaneously with the same epiphany - to 'beautify' their courses by planting thousands of trees.   

Bob
 
     

[Mark_Rowlinson]

Was Colt at Sunningdale when the trees were planted?

[BCrosby]

Or were the Sunningdale courses carved out of a wooded property?

[Jon Wiggett]

I thought Sunningdale was a heathland course and therefor treeless more or less?

[Paul_Turner]

Jon

Yes Sunningdale was mostly treeless with dotted spinneys/copses here and there.  Colt would not have seen the course with many trees (died in 1951, the WW2 aerials show a mostly open landscape.

Colt was pretty clear about his dislike about trees encroaching into the course.  I'll dig up a few quotes. 

[Paul_Turner]

HC quotes that are in line with the Mark's aerials:

"Trees are a fluky and obnoxious form of hazard, but they afford rather good protection, and if a clump of these exist in such a spot it might well be considered justifiable to leave it standing."

An early 1913 article on new course construction.  Ironically Colt went onto design many Park courses in smaller plots of land.

Parks

"Next, probably , in order of merit, comes the park course (after Seaside, Heather and Common).  But the park must be large and the soil light to enable one to lay out a good course.  There is of necessity a feeling of restriction when playing the game with a 6-foot oak paling on every side, and a few roe deer grazing on the horizon do not take this away.

The sense of freedom is usually one of the great charms of the game, and it is almost impossible to lay out a big, bold course in a park unless it be of large dimensions and one needs some three or four hundred acres within the ring fence to prevent the cramped feeling.  No doubt many links have been made in parks from 100 to 150 acres; but is the same pleasure derived from a game under such conditions as from one played on a course carved from a large heathery moor or big open common?"

...."Trees are however always a difficulty.  It is hard to condemn a fine old specimen oak or beech because it comes into the line of play.  It is more or less accepted fact that trees are not the best hazards, for the obvious reason that they unfortunately afford but slight opportunity for the display of golfing skill in extricating the ball from their clutches.  Moreover during the fall of the leaf they are always a nuisance , and it is exceedingly difficult to grow satisfactory turf under their shade; but they are undoubtedly charming features in a landscape view."

On forest courses:

"It is essential to make the clearing bold and wide, as it is not very enjoyable to play down long alleys with trees on either side, and better effects can be obtained from a landscape point of view if this be done."

There are other quotes on big views etc ...but I think the general point is made.

On his plans there are very occasionally tree planting schemes.  From memory, I think only Toronto and Old Elm have them.

[Jon Wiggett]

Paul,

guess that answers Colt's thought on golf courses and trees.

Jon

[Bill_McBride]

The attitudes of GA architects about trees was something of a mixed bag.

Most all seemed to think that on wooded property, trees would look 'natural'. Hard to argue with that. (See Geo. Thomas)

What MacK says in S of SA about trees is interesting. Summarizing his argument, he first notes that trees were removed from older (read Victorian) inland courses because they were thought to give luck too big a role in outcomes. Hit a tree, and no telling what will happen...

One of MacK's main themes in S of SA, however, is that giving fluke a role in gca (or in golf generally) is ok. Heightens drama, fun, tests character, etc.  So he offers a partial defense in S Of SA of the use of trees, suggesting that they can be used on a limited basis if kept in "groups" or "clumps". When all else fails, a "group of trees" might even be used for strategic purposes. (See pp. 81-83.)

So Mack was not dogmatic about trees. In moderation, they might serve important functions, including aesthetic functions. At ANGC, for example, Mack left many trees on a property that was originally majority wooded. The thick stands of pine along the left sides of 1, 2 and 8 were original to the property. Ditto the pines to the right of the LZ on 13 and the fw on 14. There are lots of other "groups" of trees on the course. But notwithstanding all the trees MacK let stand, ANGC was distinguished back in the day for its enormously wide playing corridors. Trees were there, however, and for really egregious misses they were a factor. (Bubba's shot to win the Masters this year was from out of a stand of pines original to the course.)

Back to my speculation that on treeless properties on which many UK courses were built in the 1920's. I'll stand by my thought that GA archies would not be pleased to see the "vast stands of hardwoods" that today ring every hole on so many of these courses. But I stand corrected in the sense that GA archies would have probably tolerated limited and discerning use of trees on those courses.

(To return to what I think is an interesting historical point. Virtually all inland Victorian courses I've seen pictures of were denuded of trees. There was a reason for that.  Victorian gca's were all about hazards that were 'equitable', understood in the sense that the severity of a hazard should match with the severity of the miss it trapped. Trees failed that test. They were considered an inequitable or unfair hazards because the punishment they doled out was so flukey and unpredictable.  One aspect of strategic golf design that its proponents believed distinguished it from older Victorian designs was a tolerance of fluke in gca. Hence MacK's defense of the limited use of trees was a small part of a much broader argument about the superiority of the principles of strategic gca.)

None of which answers the question of why circa 1960 so many clubs in the US and the UK rushed out - as if struck simultaneously with the same epiphany - to 'beautify' their courses by planting thousands of trees.   

Bob
 
     

Golf committee chairs looking for memorials?

Clubs looking to separate corridors for safety?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()