Mr. Lynch,
I am by no means an expert. It has only been through walking/playing/photographing countless courses...and my self-study of so many of the greats that I have formed my opinion...and it is just that, an opinion. I am a 1 handicap, with a wife that is a 39...and I frequently play with mid-handicappers, so my perspective is to make the game more enjoyable for all (I'm also trying to keep my kids involved). My course is 7200 yards, tight, and the greens are quite fast and have been cut in half several years ago (we host a web.com event)...so most of what I have written doesn't apply to me when I play, but affects my playing partners drastically. It is always a funny thing when I talk to people that come back from Bandon or even inexpensive places like Myrtle Beach after playing Man O' War, Shaftesbury Glen, or the Wizard. They always comment on how wide the fairways are and how much fun it was .
I have pictures from ten years ago at Holston and today...and there were so many dead spots around the tree-lined corridors. It was really ugly, truthfully. The club boasts probably the lowest ghin's I am aware of in Tennessee....and would guess after they "cleaned" the course, I bet +1's didn't move to +4's, but that is always the prevailing thought?
With regard to your comments about the natural areas...Holston's fairways are 50-60 yards wide, with a 15 yard rough buffer on each side for the most part. If the concern is finding ones ball...after missing the fairway some 50 yards off-line, I would suggest the offended take lessons. Nothing wrong with fairways that wide with a proper rough buffer. I have always believed that Natural areas should be sufficiently high that a player would automatically re-tee and treat it as a lost ball. The problem with 'wimpy' natural areas are that people waste too much time looking.
What does 'sky bunkers' as a lessor role mean? We have three par 5's that require everyone under 290 yards off the tee to lay up, because few can hit a 40 yard high hook on one, a 35 yard high cut 285 yards on another, and 265ish yard high three wood to a green fronted by water.
Why 10+ handicaps worry about 22 guys in the club shooting 65's all day is 1) insane and 2) rarely happens. I get sick of watching my friends play a twenty yards slice to just behind my ball in the fairway, and have to hit another high cut to a tucked pin because they don't hit it far 'enough'.
[/quote]
Hi Joe,
I am certainly no expert either, and don't want you to think I'm necessarily a tree-loving, links-hating aerial guy. I just think some of the anti-tree sentiment on the site sometimes slides a little too close to the "black vs white" thinking, rather than accepting that golf course design is more of a continuum. But what you said about the best courses in the world ties in somewhat to what I suggested. These courses are probably blessed with green complexes that can provide a variety of challenges and make angles more meaningful. I'm not saying trees will keep the course from being "too easy," but that they can provide challenges and interest when the green complexes really don't demand an ideal angle.
Using your analogy of setting aside the top 5% of golfers and considering the median guy, I would apply the same to golf courses. While many of the best courses can provide interest without trees, most of the "average" courses really don't have the green complexes to sustain interest without other strategic elements such as trees.
Which is where my comment about using "sky hazards in a lessor role" comes from. No one needs tree lined corridors in any way - that is boring one-dimensional golf. But what is wrong with having a tree that provides a risk / reward trade-off if you can pull off a prodigious carry or are able to bend a shot 20 yards under control?
The examples you mentioned seem to be "forced" navigation of trees (e.g. your par 5 example). I agree that these situations are not good, and are usually the result of dense overgrowth. Trees on the corners of sharp doglegs that force short layup 2nd shots are also a travesty (e.g. you need a certain minimum drive length to even get a look at the green).
But I have plenty of examples of a single specimen tree providing significant strategic elements without being overly punitive to the average player. At my home course, there's a single Oak Tree on a 350 yard par 4 around 180 yards out (inside left of a gentle dogleg). You want to steer clear of it - you can do that with no problem, but you won't be able to just wail away as there is OB through the dogleg on the right. But if you can shape a ball off the tee or hit a high long carry, you can challenge the tree for a shorter approach (and beneficial kick-slope) and better angle. You challenge the tree and lose, you can still attempt a recovery punch shot under the limbs (since it's not dense forest).
In a way, these "sky bunkers" are more versatile. In my example, the "hazard" is only 180 yards out, so the shorter player can navigate it without too much trouble. But a longer hitter can't simply ignore the tree because it's "only" 180 yards away (if it were sand, it wouldn't even enter into thought).
As with any strategic element, over-usage can definitely get old, but I don't find too many people (even higher handicappers) who get frustrated by single specimen trees throughout a course. But dense forests and excessive plantings certainly get old, because of the "forced" execution and shaping (especially if you have tiny greens). I just think there's more middle ground.
As for Holston's native areas, I was judging from the 10th hole you pictured, which did not seem to feature the "buffer area" you mentioned. The left side did seem pretty tight, with the native area even enveloping a fairway bunker. Given the choice of that or a large Oak down the left side, I'll get some acorns.
