News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Greg Taylor

Re: Do You Love to Hate Trees?
« Reply #25 on: October 29, 2013, 04:07:09 PM »
I do think there is an "anti penal/anti tree" type of thing going on on GCA...!

Pine Valley, unquestionably the #1 golf course in the world, is lined with trees from start to finish... it is a penal test of golf. The course is universally accepted as being great.

Yet I do read a lot on here about "nothing a good tree removal program couldn't solve". Don't get me wrong there can be an overkill like anything else, but trees add character and depth.

PCCraig

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Do You Love to Hate Trees?
« Reply #26 on: October 29, 2013, 04:54:05 PM »
but trees add character and depth.

 :-X
H.P.S.

Michael Wharton-Palmer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Do You Love to Hate Trees?
« Reply #27 on: October 29, 2013, 04:54:35 PM »
Greg
I agree that is exactly what I was syaing in my earlier post.
The removal of all trees some 50/80 years after a course aws built, does not mean it is a restoration if you do not know what the  final intent was.

Greg Taylor

Re: Do You Love to Hate Trees?
« Reply #28 on: October 29, 2013, 05:07:27 PM »
^ that I accept, remove trees to return a course to it's design intent - right thing to do.

But as a generalisation there is room in my life for trees on a course.

mike_malone

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Do You Love to Hate Trees?
« Reply #29 on: October 29, 2013, 05:53:21 PM »
If Pine Valley dealt with its excess trees it would vault to a level never to be challenged
AKA Mayday

Brent Hutto

Re: Do You Love to Hate Trees?
« Reply #30 on: October 30, 2013, 06:42:54 AM »
Yeah and if Cypress Point could just clear-cut all those goofy looking crooked trees littering their property that would really move them up in the rankings. Maybe they need to bring in Dr. Klein to 'splain it to them...

Charlie Gallagher

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Do You Love to Hate Trees?
« Reply #31 on: October 30, 2013, 08:03:51 AM »
Just one point about Pine Valley which has been mentioned several times in relation to it's trees. If one looks at the photos in Hunter's book "The Links" the substantially less forested condition of the course can be seen near the time of it's construction. Just observing that gowth there has occured over time.

Myopia presents a nice balance of copses, solitary specimans, and more concentrated forest set back from the ground features. From the photos I've seen, it looks to me like Crystal Downs has similar balance.

I mentioned Worcester CC being substantially improved by its tree removal program previously. The influence of wind on shots on that course has increased markedly, especially on the ridge holes that run along the highest part of the property for a significant part of the back nine.

Thomas Dai

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Do You Love to Hate Trees?
« Reply #32 on: October 30, 2013, 08:27:54 AM »
To paraphrase a famous movie line - "I love the sound of chainsaws in the morning.......Sounds like......victory"!
ATB

Steven Blake

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Do You Love to Hate Trees?
« Reply #33 on: October 30, 2013, 10:44:39 AM »
I love trees but not in abundance on a golf course. Most golf courses are overplanted and the trees themselves do not look the greatest because they are in such close proximity. I will make my case for less trees:

1.  Wider playing corridors is how most courses where designed pre-1940 to allow for multiple angles of attack.  Adding trees has lead to bastardization of old designs.  Imagine if someone went out to Streamsong and planted 4000 trees narrowing the fairways in half and 70 years later you have massive trees and narrow fairways. Is that what Tom Doak and C&C wanted?? Should we then preserve the trees even though they are not original?

2.  Dead grass.  Trees or turf? You pick! In some cases people are still planting trees in close proximity to greens and wonder why there is dead grass in summer and after bad winters.  Think, most poorly performing greens have shade or air movement issues. How long until we keep banging our head against the wall?

3. Increases in labor and budgetary expenses. Blowing leaves, extra time mowing and trim work around them which can be a large $ amount, tree trimming, cost of the purchase of the tree, cost to fix and repair dead areas of turf, extra fertilizer and chemicals to turf affected by trees, increase in water during dry periods because trees suck up large amounts, removal costs, pick up of branches during wind storms and after winter, manual labor to execute all the above jobs that would not be required if trees where kept to  a minimum. 

4.  I argue that trees do not enhance the aesthetics of the course compared with a course that has a few trees with lots of open vistas. Almost every tree removal program is a success because members appreciate the open views and movement of the ground which was lost in the forest.

5.  Some say more trees in good for the environment and the ozone… which is true, however turf is much better at providing oxygen and filtering carbon dioxide than trees.  So more grass, less trees, better environment.

So let’s review.  Better playing surfaces with minimal turf loss, wider playing corridors which in most cases restores the original design intent, money savings which may translate into cheaper rounds of golf or diversion of funds to more important areas of the course, and better overall appearance of the course. 

So why are trees so important again?

Mark McKeever

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Do You Love to Hate Trees?
« Reply #34 on: November 01, 2013, 01:54:50 PM »
Just one point about Pine Valley which has been mentioned several times in relation to it's trees. If one looks at the photos in Hunter's book "The Links" the substantially less forested condition of the course can be seen near the time of it's construction. Just observing that gowth there has occured over time.

Myopia presents a nice balance of copses, solitary specimans, and more concentrated forest set back from the ground features. From the photos I've seen, it looks to me like Crystal Downs has similar balance.

I mentioned Worcester CC being substantially improved by its tree removal program previously. The influence of wind on shots on that course has increased markedly, especially on the ridge holes that run along the highest part of the property for a significant part of the back nine.

Agreed regarding the back nine at Worcester Charlie.  There are a number of holes on the back that are very exposed as a result of the tree removal, which creates greater width and angles to some of the green corners.  Not to mention bringing back some awesome views.

Mark
Best MGA showers - Bayonne

"Dude, he's a total d***"

Kyle Casella

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Do You Love to Hate Trees?
« Reply #35 on: November 01, 2013, 03:56:12 PM »
Yikes, see what happens when you start a topic and then travel for two days. Some interesting points. To be clear, I'm not against tree removal in restorations at all (although I do think it should be done in a thoughtful way). It doesn't sound like there are a lot of naysayers to the idea that courses built in forested areas should be devoid of trees. My sense at Clear Creek, for example, is that the playing corridors are wide enough and if you hit it in the trees, you deserve to have to work to recover.

Joe Sponcia

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Do You Love to Hate Trees?
« Reply #36 on: November 01, 2013, 09:16:00 PM »
When looking at a tree, as beautiful as one may find it...and as it relates to the ‘field’ of golf, one must first look at it’s affect on the surrounding turf, and secondly, it’s affect on play. 

Is its location equally fair for a 25 handicapper and/or a 5?  Does the tree force players to hit one shot shape and if not struck with enough force, prevent a player twenty yards behind, but on the same line, to punch out or pull off the type of shot only an expert could hit consistently after playing to what the architect has deemed the proper position (the fairway)?

If not, than I would deem the tree poorly placed, regardless of how old or beautiful it might be to the eye.

Trees should the the backdrop, never the focal point of any great hole.
Joe


"If the hole is well designed, a fairway can't be too wide".

- Mike Nuzzo

Brent Hutto

Re: Do You Love to Hate Trees?
« Reply #37 on: November 01, 2013, 09:29:13 PM »
Is its location equally fair for a 25 handicapper and/or a 5?  Does the tree force players to hit one shot shape and if not struck with enough force, prevent a player twenty yards behind, but on the same line, to punch out or pull off the type of shot only an expert could hit consistently after playing to what the architect has deemed the proper position (the fairway)?

But a water hazard, pot bunker or elevated green does play "fair" for a 25 and a 5 handicapper? If that's going to be your criterion then a lot of stuff beside trees are gonna have to go.

Give a 25 and a 5 handicapper a lie in the fairway with the ball eight inches above their feet and see if it's "fair" to both of them.

Joe Sponcia

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Do You Love to Hate Trees?
« Reply #38 on: November 01, 2013, 09:41:07 PM »
Mr. Hutto:

“A tree is fluky and obnoxious form of a hazard, because a tree can obstruct and/or stymie one ball without even affecting another ball located just a couple of feet away”. - HS Colt

According to Colt, a tree’s primary function was merely to distinguish between those players who had good or bad fortune.

My home course is tree-lined and my favorite partners are a 12, 15, and a 13, and I'm a 1.  The scenario I put forth happens frequently with my length and accuracy...and it pains me to watch my friends punch twenty yards behind (on the same line) while I have a straight shot.  If you prefer the penal, over-hanging fairway tree to the bunker on the edge of the fairway that allows the straight(er) shot for all, than you must deplore the current restoration movement?
Joe


"If the hole is well designed, a fairway can't be too wide".

- Mike Nuzzo

Mike McGuire

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Do You Love to Hate Trees?
« Reply #39 on: November 01, 2013, 10:46:41 PM »
Yes.

I have found a wonderful side effect of tree management often lies in the views that are created. I just like long views and have seen some stunning vistas and a skyline green at our club created by removing trees that are out of play or not even on the course.

Golf seems more social when you can see golfers on other holes. Why block views with vegetation?




Malcolm Mckinnon

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Do You Love to Hate Trees?
« Reply #40 on: November 01, 2013, 11:40:20 PM »
Dear Greg T.,

Pine Valley is magical because in most cases, no matter how badly you hook or slice your ball into the hinterlands your caddy will always find it in a spot that offers a clean pitch out of the woods and back into play.

The caddies are trained to do this in order to keep the pace of play moving.

As far as trees are concerned I am a remover. Our old NJ course Springdale in Princeton, has many  areas where trees were planted near strategic bunkers. As the trees matured the bunkers became redundant double hazards. What to do? They removed the bunkers.

We have a movement afoot to reverse this and eliminate trees and reintroduce the strategic bunkering.

 

Brent Hutto

Re: Do You Love to Hate Trees?
« Reply #41 on: November 02, 2013, 06:47:40 AM »
If you prefer the penal, over-hanging fairway tree to the bunker on the edge of the fairway that allows the straight(er) shot for all, than you must deplore the current restoration movement?

I deplore "movements" in as much as they reflect groups of people taking perfectly understandable preferences held by a minority and honing them down into simplistic, absolutist caricatures. That's what the "cut down all the trees" mantra around here has become. I keep reading comments saying one person or another like trees in certain situations, etc., etc. when in fact there is not one single course or situation in which the group-think says anything other than "cut them down".

I prefer having bunkers AND tress AND unlevel fairway lies AND rough AND tricky greens AND any other potentially "unfair" bit or difficulty that a golf course might offer. And I'm in favor of there being a variety of golf courses, not all of which feature all possible configurations of these things. A treeless golf course can be great. So can a golf course with trees. A bunkerless golf course could be great, so can one with hundreds of bunkers. I prefer to see none of these elements used to excess but "no trees" can represent excess just as surely as "tree everywhere" can represent excess.

But this group no longer has room for any nuanced discussion of trees or many other elements of the GCA Talk Radio view of the world. The group-think attitude toward trees seem to be "Trees are fine on a golf course as long as they're not in play and I can't see them when I'm anywhere on the golf course". That's not a nuanced acceptance of variety and uniqueness among the Big World of golf courses, that is an parody of otherwise reasonable people spending too much time trying to one-up each other in showing off their their in-group bona fides.

Carl Nichols

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Do You Love to Hate Trees?
« Reply #42 on: November 04, 2013, 12:46:19 PM »
Brent:
Agree 100%.  I happen to be in favor of some tree removal at my home course, but that's because the trees have grown too big, the playing corridors have become too narrow, and recovery shots have become less interesting.  But it's a 65-year-old Mid Atlantic parkland course on a very small plot of land, so my sense (I'm no expert) is that it would make absolutely no sense to remove all or almost all of the trees -- the course would probably become too easy and there would probably be significant safety issues, even though it's private.  Instead of removing all/almost all trees, we should be thinning them out.  Unfortunately, we are unwilling to do even that.

BHoover

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Do You Love to Hate Trees?
« Reply #43 on: November 04, 2013, 01:10:44 PM »
The more I think about it, I don't hate trees.  What I actually hate are people who are so ignorant that they oppose any sort of tree removal or thinning out.  Trees aren't the problem; the people who mindlessly oppose any type of tree maintenance are the real problem.

If you want to see a great example of how selective tree removal can improve turf quality, go see Canterbury GC.  For a heavy-soils course, CGC has the best turf of any course that I have played.

Carl Rogers

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Do You Love to Hate Trees?
« Reply #44 on: November 06, 2013, 07:27:58 AM »
How has Harbortown dealt with the tree vs turf conundrum?  It seems to me the most heavliy treed course with high reputation.

Or does the TV broadcast coverup the problem areas?
I decline to accept the end of man. ... William Faulkner

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Do You Love to Hate Trees?
« Reply #45 on: November 06, 2013, 01:20:32 PM »
But this group no longer has room for any nuanced discussion of trees or many other elements of the GCA Talk Radio view of the world. The group-think attitude toward trees seem to be "Trees are fine on a golf course as long as they're not in play and I can't see them when I'm anywhere on the golf course". That's not a nuanced acceptance of variety and uniqueness among the Big World of golf courses, that is an parody of otherwise reasonable people spending too much time trying to one-up each other in showing off their their in-group bona fides.

A little bit OTT?  

In my experience, the sposed tree haters are really targeting certain trees for specific reasons.  Most often, the trees are self seeded or carelessly planted well after the course opened.  Very few people I know are dead set against all trees. The reason its often difficult to have a nuisanced discussion is down to not enough people having sufficient knowledge about the tree(s) in question.  

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Dan Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Do You Love to Hate Trees?
« Reply #46 on: November 06, 2013, 01:38:34 PM »
... a nuisanced discussion ...

Tyop (tm -- Rihc Goodale) of the Week!

I agree with Sean that there's no "group-think" attitude here, condemning all trees.

At least I'm not part of that group. See the photos I posted earlier in this thread.

Dan
"There's no money in doing less." -- Joe Hancock, 11/25/2010
"Rankings are silly and subjective..." -- Tom Doak, 3/12/2016

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back