Niall - I pulled this from an old Tom Paul post. http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,2300.0.html
"The most interesting thing about this general subject, at least to me, is the evolution in thinking of the American architects of the Golden Age in the use of trees in various aspects (depending wholly, it would seem, on a particular site).
It's pretty clear that some of the original early architects (most notably Ross) were linksman and were originally not used to trees on golf courses and initially didn't use them or plan for them!
The point was made early on in the Golden Age, certainly by Flynn (and in writing), that the style of the treeless sites of the early Links style courses (no trees) was becoming 'passe' as the American architect was generally working on "inland" type golf courses that could and did utilize trees (and had them before construction).
Flynn even joked about this (in his writing) saying that the reason the Scots never used trees (and didn't like them) was because they never had any in the first place but if they had they were far too cheap to cut them down!!
Initially the original linksman (and probably their early architects) did not even recognize "inland" golf as a particularly legitimate form of golf or golf design! In a real way works like Willie Parks Sunningdale (old) (inland) began to change that perception though!
And slowly trees began to become part of golf and its architecture (and architectural planning) simply because they were natural to many of the inland sites! (Flynn also mentioned many of the interesting reasons how and why trees could be used in golf archtieture). Certainly so did Tillinghast!
Shinnecock's "landscaping" plan was obviously a very different and very interesting adaptation of that evolution though.
Flynn and certainly Alison's "review report" specifically mentioned no "treelining of holes" only "clumps" and this obviously to create a visual effect in a general sense than to be used in things like the strategy of the golf holes! Both of them definitely recognized Shinnecock's site as more "links" style than "inland" style though. In this way Shinnecock may be looked at as somewhat of an American planned "combination style" (basically links style with a little inland tree flair)!
I suppose one could say that the landscaping plan at Shinnecock to create the illusion of more undulation and interest to the look of the land and overall site (particularly the flatland on the west side of the course) may have been a precursor (in effect) to the modern age attempts to create more interest in the land by manipulating the land itelf with machinery!
Flynn was using the undulating "lines" of the eventual treetops for effect, not the ground itself !
Later in the Modern age the bulldozer could more easily create the same undulating effect by manipulating far more the land itself!
The later problem (modern age) in aesthetics to me, involve the fact that Flynn was using trees in a more natural way (considering he was planting them on natural grades) where the modern age architect both manipulates the land (artifically) and ALSO plants trees on those artifically created contour "lines" or behind and to the sides of them.
In too many cases then the modern age architect ends up with things like artifically shaped sides of entire holes and particularly green-ends that are clearly artifically shaped with trees behind that artifical shaping (from the golfer's eye perspective)!
In these cases far too often a golfer sees the artifical contouring and then directly behind it treelines that are in some cases cut in half by the artifical contouring!
There is very little in golf architecture that looks worse than that to me--bases of treelines cut off or cut in half by artifical land shaping!
You rarely if ever see that kind of thing in the early architecture because they rarely if ever shaped the mid-bodies of the land of golf holes the way they do today. And to a greater extent they seemed to use more natural green sites by identifying more intereting natural slope and contour areas to put them on! Modern architects can just so easily create that anywhere--and often it really shows!"