Spinoff Thread: Tree plan to protect par

[Andrew Buck]

In Adam Warren's thread, he indicates his club will replace the trees that will be cut-down with new trees "to protect par".  Generally speaking, I'm not a fan of trees, especially ones that aren't native to the land developed into a golf course, however in many cases I do think they are likely needed at some level for strategy.  I'm interested in peoples thoughts of other ways to reward good shots and penalize poor shots (on existing courses, without the ability to build new greens, etc) without trees.

I have attached a photo of the "newer" 9 holes at our club, which was integrated into an existing 9 on the other side of the clubhouse in the mid 80's (pictured holes are par 36, 3,400 yards).  The original holes were built in 1904 on better terrain and have a fair amount of mature oaks.  I understand how the Club got to where it is with trees on the new 9.  When it was first built, a hole like #2 offered no penalty for missing left, and probably a better angle.  In response, more and more trees were added, without realizing how big they would get in 25 years.  We do have some "native areas" and we are discussing  expanding many, but they are really penal because grow in a manner that lost ball is likely, so simply expanding native areas between all fairways isn't really a viable solution.  Certainly having 25 trees in area where 10 would be suffice (left on 2, left on 14) probably has zero impact on "protecting par" but significant impact on maintenance.

One option would be to grow the rough higher and keep greens a little firmer to put a premium on hitting the fairway to stop the ball.  The issue with that approach for us is bluegrass fairways aren't really conducive to light lies to spin the ball, or firm run-up areas.  I love seeing the many courses profiled here, like Oakland Hills, where many holes have only a couple trees, however the combination of length coupled with difficult greens do penalize off-line drives, however for shorter clubs, with less demanding greens, I'm not sure that is a viable solution.  I have played seemingly dozens of courses that are between 6,000 - 6,800 yards that when faced with this issue, all did the same thing, planted too many trees (often many more trees than our club did), so I know we're not alone, but I'm curious for others thoughts on the issues of penalizing off-line drives, but not overloading with trees.

[Josh Tarble]

Andrew,
I have talked with a few people about this topic a few times.  Our club is on the shorter side - at 6600 from the tips - we do possess and extraordinary set of greens.  But we also possess many, many trees.  Our native areas are also unmanageable - growing thick as a jungle.  A ball in there is automatically lost.  I completely understand wanting to have a tree-less course and let width and green contours protect the course.  But in this day and age I don't think that's possible - at least without adding 1000 bunkers or having a lost ball per hole.  If our club was treeless, it would be swing away and then throw darts with your wedge.  

Could a few more trees come down?  Totally, but I think they have it to good spot where very few are causing maintenance or playability issues.  I also think that the trees provide plenty of interesting recovery options...typically the high or low route plus cut or hook shots are always available.

So I guess that doesn't really address your actual question, but in my opinion, if your playing corridors are wide enough, I don't see the issue with having trees a course.

[Jason Topp]

Many architects have discussed the purpose of hazards as tempting aggressive play rather than punishing poor play.  The theory is that poor play is going to catch up with the player any way so there is no need to meet out further punishment.

I think trees have a place on the right golf course but should be used in a way that tempts rather than punishes.  If maintained properly they provide a variety of interesting opportunities for recovery play.  I thoroughly enjoy attempting shots that curve around, stay under or fly over them.  I prefer an approach that uses groupings of trees rather than tunnels.  

Based solely on your picture, it appears to me that keeping a group of 5 trees 100 yards from the second green on the left side would provide an incentive for a player to use the correct fairway, allow an opportunity for recovery shots if out of position and require accuracy if one is going to attempt an agressive line.  A more severe greenside bunker on the left positioned close to the green might make the agressive line more attactive and provide a disincentive to bail out right.

Getting rid of the remainder of the trees makes it easier to grow grass on the rest of the property.

I agree that native areas are a worse alternative if they cannot be maintained in a way that allows one to find his golf ball relatively easily.  

[Andrew Buck]

Josh and Jason,

Thanks for the input.  I do think the answer is different prior to building a course, as opposed to on an existing course.

There certainly are a few stand alone trees I would like to remove for a variety.  The trees almost "in" the bunkers on 1, 2, 10 and a few trees right of 11 that block the green from the elevated tee and a few others.  That said, the biggest issues are between 2 and 3, and left on 14.  On 2, it's a 360 yard hole, but probably 320 as a crow flies, so I would leave some trees closer to the green, but yes, at minimum we can remove 50% of the trees in some areas with little impact.

[SL_Solow]

There are many factors involved in determinig whether trees belong at a particular place on a course.  Some relate to aesthetic tastes and are matters of personal preference.  Some are strategic which may impact on "protecting par", if that is your goal.  But you have neglected to discuss a critical concern; the agronomic impact of trees.  They compete with turf for lifgt and water and limit air flow if too densley planted.  Accordingly, your superintendent as well as an architect should be consulted on these issues.  Finally I note, there are innumerable classic courses that have been advesely impacted by well meaning committees that overplanted trees in an effort to either "beautify " their courses or to "protect par".  Be very careful.

[Andrew Buck]

There are many factors involved in determinig whether trees belong at a particular place on a course.  Some relate to aesthetic tastes and are matters of personal preference.  Some are strategic which may impact on "protecting par", if that is your goal.  But you have neglected to discuss a critical concern; the agronomic impact of trees.  They compete with turf for lifgt and water and limit air flow if too densley planted.  Accordingly, your superintendent as well as an architect should be consulted on these issues.  Finally I note, there are innumerable classic courses that have been advesely impacted by well meaning committees that overplanted trees in an effort to either "beautify " their courses or to "protect par".  Be very careful.

Those are the ones that we have the easiest time getting removed, the ones that shade greens in the morning.  I agree that is a primary concern, and the one that is "easiest" to sell to a membership.

I wish the same questions were asked for every tree planted over the last 30 years (many because someone gave us "free trees"), and I agree this should be a primary concern.  That said, I still think there is a secondary factor (strategy) if there is an existing course that would not provide enough challenge against a missed shot.  In an ideal world, we could take PCraig's suggestion of renovating the course in a way to have ample character without trees, but that isn't really an option at many clubs, and many features that create character (bunkers) are as much of an ongoing maintenance burden as trees.  

[Adam Warren]

We don't have dense areas of trees, and don't want them.  Some are needed in roughs for parallel holes to 1. protect golfers, 2. prevent a player from just swinging away with driver with no regard.  Some holes on our course are similar to yours Josh, in regard to if there were no trees, a lot of players would just swing driver- flip wedge all day.  We are about 6700 yards with three par 3's in the 200 range on the tips.  

Sure, if this were a new course, trees would likely be at a minimum on the course, especially if they were planted and not already there.  We don't have millions to spend on a renovation as PCraig might suggest we do.  The course is there as it is and will likely never change in routing or major features.  The greens do not have highly difficult surrounds or sloping, but they are difficult with their subtlety.  We would like to add other, more immediate features than trees, but we realize that some areas are only going to be able to add trees.  Additionally, part of the settlement with Dupont is for putting trees back in the ground.  

Do people always speak without any knowledge of what they are talking about around here?  

[PCCraig]

 We don't have millions to spend on a renovation as PCraig might suggest we do.  

Huh? I did?

Do people always speak without any knowledge of what they are talking about around here?  

Adam, you would of been a perfect Green Committee Chairman in the 1970's.

[Andrew Buck]

I tend to agree that I can't imagine a scenario where I'd want to plant any tree on an existing course.  That said, if an existing course presents itself in a way that a 275 yard drive 50 yards offline consistently provides as simple of an approach as a 260 yard straight rive, I'd love to hear ideas on an extremely tight budget.  I've often wondered if burning out areas and planting a thinner grass like fescue might work to grow in a manner that won't result in list balls.  Of course, if that doesn't fit with the rest of the course, that creates another issue.

[Pete_Pittock]

As I understand it you lost trees because of a chemical problem, and part of the settlement is to plant as many trees as were lost.
Looking a the picture I notice a number of bunkers hidden amongst trees, and the trees prevent balls from getting into bunkers, and getting out of bunkers.  I'd suggest that is a problem that could be rectified in the tree 'replacement'.

[Adam Warren]

Pete you are correct on the first part.  On the second part the picture shown is a different course than the one actually in question. 

[Jason Topp]

Adam:

Have the dead trees been removed?  If yes, I would be interested in your perception of whether the course plays better or worse without the trees.  

If the dead trees have not been removed, I suggest waiting a while before planting replacements.  I have a couple of analogous experiences.

I have been a green chair and have had trees removed on a 6600 yard course.  I was surprised at how the experience of playing the holes without the trees had much less impact on playing the course than I imagined beforehand.  

I played a 6300 yard course 20 years ago that lost a large number of its trees due to dutch elm disease.  It was a tragedy because those big elms are such perfect golf course trees.  However, after a short time playing the course, I found the course much improved without them.

[Andrew Buck]

Jason,

I think you are correct, on most courses, the perceived impact on difficulty and the actual impact on difficulty/playability is much greater.

On our course, pictured above, if I had my way and didn't have the ability to consult with anyone, I'd probably have fewer than 6 - 7 trees on any hole other 2 and 14, and on those the number would still be dramatically reduced.

[Adam Warren]

We do still have the trees.  Certainly food for thought to view the course without the trees.  I will say, we have removed some of the trees in the last year, a small number, and they do seem to have a slight effect on the lines on a couple of holes.  I will certainly consider that view of seeing the course without the trees.  I can guarantee there are a couple areas where something going back out there will be absolutely necessary.

[Jason Topp]

Best of luck Adam! If you are comfortable doing so I would be interested in learning about your progress over the next few years.

[Dan Kelly]

I can guarantee there are a couple areas where something going back out there will be absolutely necessary.

I think this would be a good rule of thumb, generally:

Add trees only where they are absolutely necessary (for purposes of safety or golf-interest) or absolutely unnecessary (but pleasing to the senses, and in any case out of play).

Don't add trees where there's any question of their absolute necessity or absolute non-necessity.

Adam -- WHY will it be "absolutely necessary" to replace the trees in those couple areas?

P.S. Trees for "safety" can be overrated. See my testimony here: http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,46568.0.html

[Adam Warren]

One reason would be for safety certainly.  In addition to that, we do have to put some trees back in the ground as part of the settlement I do believe.  With that being the case, it would make sense to have them in those protection areas.

I see your case, but our trees were not, and will not be that dense.  I imagine where you were had dense trees.  Some of these trees are behind holes that could protect another teebox.  Mounding may be an option on some of these, but probably not all.  Hence, why we are looking for someone to assist with this.  If it were up to many they would just go put trees back out where they were, but we don't think that is necessarily the right way to do it.  All of this will be up for discussion with the architect.

[Jason Thurman]

Adam, Henry County's trees that are coming out are mostly evergreens right?

When I first toured Clovernook, our pro emeritus pulled me aside to talk golf courses for a bit. He told me "I've made (our superintendent) promise me that by the time I'm dead, there won't be an evergreen tree left on this golf course."

If the settlement requires you to put some trees back in the ground, I'd advise you to look at some taller hardwoods like oaks. They're great on golf courses. They look stately when they're fully grown. They don't block players from making full swings like evergreens. You don't lose balls under their dense branches near the ground like evergreens. They don't block interior views like evergreens. I think Clovernook could stand to lose a few, but I really like the way they look and play as long as they're not too thick.

I also suspect they might cost a bit more than the evergreens they're replacing, but that could be a real blessing in disguise since:

A. They're worth it, as they look classier.
B. You won't be able to plant as many of them, which helps keep the turf healthy and recovery options intact.

[Dan Herrmann]

My club (pictures below) isn't very long and defends par exceptionally well.  You'll notice that there almost no trees in play:

http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/albums/FrenchCreekGC/

[Matthew Sander]

My club (pictures below) isn't very long and defends par exceptionally well.  You'll notice that there almost no trees in play:

http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/albums/FrenchCreekGC/

Dan,

I followed Joe Bausch's link on the other thread, and French Creek looks really good. I think it is fair to say though, and I would expect Adam to confirm this, that the course in question doesn't have anywhere near the architectural features of most of the courses typically discussed here, including FC. The layout and design seem pretty simple and the greens and surrounds probably aren't sufficient to provide a challenge to wayward drives. I haven't seen his club personally, but I have seen many in the Midwest that fit the description. If the membership wants to keep a certain measure of "perceived" difficulty without totally overhauling what is on the ground (which sounds like a non-starter), then re-planting trees may be the only option.

Personally, I wouldn't be for adding too many trees (if any). I would also expect that "actual" difficulty, if it could be measured, wouldn't be compromised much with fewer trees.

[Keith Phillips]

WRT Imprelis, my understanding is that (a) Dupont is responsible for the tree removal/stump grinding and that (b) there is no requirement that 'replacement trees' be planted...I could be wrong but if I were in your position I would expedite the 'removal' (funded by Dupont) and proceed cautiously on any 'replanting'.  It is easier to plant a tree than to remove one, and I would err on the side of seeing how the course plays withOUT the trees prior to planting any new ones...

[Adam Warren]

J, I certainly agree about the evergreens.  I think from the beginning we have mostly been in agreement that we will not be looking to put those trees back in the ground.  

I can't reiterate enough that we are looking at architects so we do this right.  Seems that idea is being lost because I made a dumb statement.    I am aware trees are generally unnecessary, I basically grew up and became a much better player playing on a course with little to no trees at Wasioto Winds.  WW however, is a more modern course while many of these older courses in Kentucky had some reliance on trees it seems.  

I am not 100% on the tree planting part.  That could be.  I know it is not a 1 for 1 deal or anything like that, but I believe there do have to be some trees to go back in the ground.  I will have to take a look.  

No tree huggers on this site I can see...