Ice Plant

[Jim Hoak]

Following up on the thread of Pebble vs. Spyglass, and focusing on a specific topic, what do you think about ice plant on a golf course?  The photos in that other thread show the before and after of the #4th hole of Spyglass with and without the ice plant.
It is my understanding that ice plant was not a native plant to the California coast.  I don't know where it originated.  It was planted because it was thought to be good for erosion control along the ocean.
Now, it is again my understanding, there are plants--many fescues, for example--that are equal to ice plant in erosion control, more natural, and more playable.  The Coastal Commission in California is pressuring (not requiring) coastal golf courses to remove ice plant, due to its unnaturalness.
Some nature people think ice plant is good for nesting birds and other creatures.  And, when it blooms, it is pretty.
Certainly from a playing standpoint, it is very penal.  Slows down play as you look for a ball.  And, while attractive to many people, may have outlived its usefulness.
What is your thinking?  I would side with removing it wherever possible.

[BCowan]

Agree with you Jim, even though I have never experienced it, I have no desire too.  Evergreens are native to the northern parts of the US but I don't think they are a good trees to have in play, just as ice plant even if it was native.  Form follows function.  but the nesting in Cali, oh my.  Don't they have arboretums? 

[Brian Finn]

I was saddened to hear of its removal at Spyglass. Granted, it's hard to play out of, entails lost balls etc, but I thought it was very attractive and exotic looking and gave the place a bit of a different feel.

+1

Totally agree.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

+2
Really made that hole very tough if you missed the fairway or left side of he green.

[Jim Hoak]

So you last two would say that beauty should trump playability?  If you just want to make it harder, put in a hazard or knee high fescue?

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

So you last two would say that beauty should trump playability?  If you just want to make it harder, put in a hazard or knee high fescue?

So it was okay for twenty years ago and suddenly someobody thought that ice plant was suddenly unplayable...I dont understand your reasoning.
On a hole that short, if you cant figure out a way to keep it in the fairway,which is ample wide by the way, then YES you should be punished.

My guess is that the woosies on the PGA Tour thought it was too hard to play from and asked for it to be romoved.

[BCowan]

So you last two would say that beauty should trump playability?  If you just want to make it harder, put in a hazard or knee high fescue?

So it was okay for twenty years ago and suddenly someobody thought that ice plant was suddenly unplayable...I dont understand your reasoning.
On a hole that short, if you cant figure out a way to keep it in the fairway,which is ample wide by the way, then YES you should be punished.

My guess is that the woosies on the PGA Tour thought it was too hard to play from and asked for it to be romoved.

  Twenty years ago many great courses were engulfed with Trees!  So just because no one had the sense to say the ice plant didn't function properly for a penal hazard.  There is a difference between punished (deep pot bunker) and looking for your ball for 10 mins!  Maybe they should of planted a Tomato garden 20 years ago!  I doubt it was the PGA tour, those guys actually hit many greens in reg.  I find it funny your stance Michael as you have ''traditional golfer'' on your page. 

[Ally Mcintosh]

So you last two would say that beauty should trump playability?  If you just want to make it harder, put in a hazard or knee high fescue?

So it was okay for twenty years ago and suddenly someobody thought that ice plant was suddenly unplayable...I dont understand your reasoning.
On a hole that short, if you cant figure out a way to keep it in the fairway,which is ample wide by the way, then YES you should be punished.

My guess is that the woosies on the PGA Tour thought it was too hard to play from and asked for it to be romoved.

  Twenty years ago many great courses were engulfed with Trees!  So just because no one had the sense to say the ice plant didn't function properly for a penal hazard.  There is a difference between punished (deep pot bunker) and looking for your ball for 10 mins!  Maybe they should of planted a Tomato garden 20 years ago!  I doubt it was the PGA tour, those guys actually hit many greens in reg.  I find it funny your stance Michael as you have ''traditional golfer'' on your page. 

For me, the main question is whether the ice plant was native to the site before the golf course.... or whether it was planted along with the golf course....

I'd probably have a different view depending on the answer.

[Adam Lawrence]

Ally - as discussed, it's not native - it was planted for erosion control. As such, I would support removal in favour of an indigenous species.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Traditional to me doesnt mean you just remove hazards because it slows play or makes courses too difficult.
I have played Spyglass about 20 times and never felt that the ice plant is in an unfair position on the golf course to justify its removal.
As for the tree comparison, sure sometimes overhanging or excessive trees need to be removed, but as at Augusta National some still need to be planted, so I really dont get your point there.
Unless you are saying that all trees on courses that originally didnt have them should be removed?
The tree culling at places like Oakmont and Merion did indeed make the courses better but I dont see such cullings at Winged Foot, Olympic, Harding Park or Cypress Point.
I think sometimes this minimalist obsession and restoration obsession can be a detriment rather than progress and in my opinion the removal of the ice plant is one fo those.

I dont know if the ice plant has always been a part of the course or not personally I will miss it.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Ah yes Adam - Should have read the original post.

The trees at Portmarnock have been removed to a great extent. Although I am indeed in favour of leaving some remaining ones.

[Adam Lawrence]

Michael - imo it's not about 'minimalism' or 'restoration' or anything like that - it is that, in general, golf courses should be authentic landscapes populated by species indigenous to the area. If there are trees on a course, they ought to be trees that grow naturally in that area, not imported (and especially ornamental) species. I'm not, generally, in favour of courses - or landscapes generally - trying to be something they are not. There is beauty and challenge in most ecosystems and landscapes.

If a non-native plant performs an important function that there's nothing else suited to doing - such as preventing erosion on vulnerable coastal properties - then it's justifiable, imo. But if there's a native species that can do the same thing - and there probably is, or how did the landscape survive before man got hold of it? - then I had rather see that.

[Josh Bills]

I prefer it without the ice plant, too tough to find your golf ball.  The last time I played Spyglass it had been removed, but frankly the rough had grown up so high behind number 4 it was just as penal and it took a few minutes to find my ball.  If you want to see ice plant, the last time I played Pacific Grove there was still plenty to be found, and while interesting to look at, not great if you want to find your ball easily.  

[Adam Clayman]

"The Plant" was introduced to the peninsula by the U.S. Army, to stabilize the dunes at Fort Ord. I believe it's African in origin. There are several types of ice plant, but the type that was on Spy's opening holes, was of the large phallic looking leaf type. The plant was so prolific, I've seen it growing in Hollister, some 30 or 40 miles inland. There's a smaller leaf version planted on the coast in Pacific Grove (near the Seven Gables Inn) that blooms the most beautiful purple majesty, in the early spring.

A strong creative golfer, with enough experience, can play shots out of the stuff, if their lie isn't buried too deep, under a thick mat of the stuff. Explosion type shots always worked best for me.

Back, before Mike Strantz's work at MPCC, the old Shore course had acres and acres of the stuff, lining their coastal holes. It's presence amplified the need to be accurate. Perhaps it was a bit disproportional of a penalty, due to the exposed nature, and orientation to the coast, of those holes. While the corridors were ample, when the wind would kick up, ample, left the building.

As for the 4th at Spy, I say good riddance to the stuff. I recall seeing it being slowly killed off, when it took on an orangish hue. That was it's most beautiful.

If I could, I would plant 6.93 acres of the smaller leaf variety at my house. That stuff is that cool and maintenance free. I doubt it would survive, and, due to it's prolific nature, I suspect it wouldn't be good stewardship.  

Ally, Spy opened in 1966. The U. S. military presence on the peninsula dates to something like 1903

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Michael - imo it's not about 'minimalism' or 'restoration' or anything like that - it is that, in general, golf courses should be authentic landscapes populated by species indigenous to the area. If there are trees on a course, they ought to be trees that grow naturally in that area, not imported (and especially ornamental) species. I'm not, generally, in favour of courses - or landscapes generally - trying to be something they are not. There is beauty and challenge in most ecosystems and landscapes.

If a non-native plant performs an important function that there's nothing else suited to doing - such as preventing erosion on vulnerable coastal properties - then it's justifiable, imo. But if there's a native species that can do the same thing - and there probably is, or how did the landscape survive before man got hold of it? - then I had rather see that.

I can go along with that 100%

[BCowan]

Traditional to me doesnt mean you just remove hazards because it slows play or makes courses too difficult.
I have played Spyglass about 20 times and never felt that the ice plant is in an unfair position on the golf course to justify its removal.
As for the tree comparison, sure sometimes overhanging or excessive trees need to be removed, but as at Augusta National some still need to be planted, so I really dont get your point there.
Unless you are saying that all trees on courses that originally didnt have them should be removed?
The tree culling at places like Oakmont and Merion did indeed make the courses better but I dont see such cullings at Winged Foot, Olympic, Harding Park or Cypress Point.
I think sometimes this minimalist obsession and restoration obsession can be a detriment rather than progress and in my opinion the removal of the ice plant is one fo those.

I dont know if the ice plant has always been a part of the course or not personally I will miss it.

            Michael there are many types of hazards.  Ones more deathly than others.  If a northern course plants evergreens (native green) or native bushes all around a green, then many can logically say that is ridiculous.  Thanks for using Augusta, the course that has heaters underneath their greens so they don't have to cut down trees by the greens (12)  that don't get enough sunlight!  They love their form there.  I never said that I was all about minimalism, i do like it.  I don't like courses with water on 9 holes.  man made ponds aren't natural.  Many people that love trees around greens and then complain when hot august weather comes and some of the greens are in danger of being lost.  Courses don't have to go all out the Oakmont direction, but tree removal is great from a keeper perspective.  I think people liked Ice plant more because it looked Cool!  People like Form and often put it before function (Augusta)!  To me it is common sense.  There are many ways to deal with erosion and many ways for Penal hazards to be created without looking for balls.  I understand you personally missing it.  

[John Percival]

I enjoy ice plant. It has a uniqueness, a beauty (when flowering), a nasty playing element, and, i would suspect, a minimal maintenance requirement. Of course, there are some liabilities. Which out weighs?

IMO, 'non-native' should not be a criteria. One can only look at this weeks Tour stop to see a superlative 'non-native' success. Riviera's kykuya (how the hell do you spell it?!) grass is spectacular. Perhaps, THE standard for golf courses. Imported from Australia.
Other 'non-native' successes - pheasants, horses, our first generation immigrant relatives
Some 'non-native' UNsuccesses - Asian Carp, mongooses in Hawaii, Justin Bieber

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Traditional to me doesnt mean you just remove hazards because it slows play or makes courses too difficult.
I have played Spyglass about 20 times and never felt that the ice plant is in an unfair position on the golf course to justify its removal.
As for the tree comparison, sure sometimes overhanging or excessive trees need to be removed, but as at Augusta National some still need to be planted, so I really dont get your point there.
Unless you are saying that all trees on courses that originally didnt have them should be removed?
The tree culling at places like Oakmont and Merion did indeed make the courses better but I dont see such cullings at Winged Foot, Olympic, Harding Park or Cypress Point.
I think sometimes this minimalist obsession and restoration obsession can be a detriment rather than progress and in my opinion the removal of the ice plant is one fo those.

As with Adams comments I agree with you.
Tale a look at the Prestbury thread that Mark just posted on the topic of trees..please

I dont know if the ice plant has always been a part of the course or not personally I will miss it.

            Michael there are many types of hazards.  Ones more deathly than others.  If a northern course plants evergreens (native green) or native bushes all around a green, then many can logically say that is ridiculous.  Thanks for using Augusta, the course that has heaters underneath their greens so they don't have to cut down trees by the greens (12)  that don't get enough sunlight!  They love their form there.  I never said that I was all about minimalism, i do like it.  I don't like courses with water on 9 holes.  man made ponds aren't natural.  Many people that love trees around greens and then complain when hot august weather comes and some of the greens are in danger of being lost.  Courses don't have to go all out the Oakmont direction, but tree removal is great from a keeper perspective.  I think people liked Ice plant more because it looked Cool!  People like Form and often put it before function (Augusta)!  To me it is common sense.  There are many ways to deal with erosion and many ways for Penal hazards to be created without looking for balls.  I understand you personally missing it.  

[Tom_Doak]

I loved the ice plant at Spyglass and Cypress Point.  To me it was similar to heather ... it added great color and texture and a sense of place to the courses, and you could probably find the ball and play it, but it was a VERY difficult recovery.

It was taken out by the California Coastal Commission because it is not native to California.  That's great, but none of the native plants they used at Spanish Bay to replace it were nearly as good from a golfing standpoint.

I have suggested using it for our second project in China but I don't know that I am managing to convince them.  It would be perfect for the site, which is sandy and hilly, and desperately needs erosion protection in the areas between holes, without blocking the views of the ocean.  Like at Spyglass!

[Bob_Huntley]

It is obvious from those of us that wanted it eliminated, was that at some time we have suffered some discomfort, or inded an injury, in  getting out of the stuff.

The fourth at Spyglass was especially difficult with the plant on both sides of the entrance to the green. I think the  opening was about ten paces wide.
Adam would probably have the exact distance.

Bob

[Doug Wright]

I loved the ice plant at Spyglass and Cypress Point.  To me it was similar to heather ... it added great color and texture and a sense of place to the courses, and you could probably find the ball and play it, but it was a VERY difficult recovery.

Same here, when I played Spyglass many years ago I thought the ice plant (which I thought was always to be referred to as "the dreaded ice plant") was a unique and challenging hazard. I hit into the ice plant on the par 3 third and had no idea what the ball would do in that stuff. Probably the pros playing the Crosby hated the ice plant--reason enough for me to keep it...

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim,

I think my first question would b:  How long does a non-native species have to be in a location before it's deemed native ?
50 years ?  100 years ?  200 years ?  1,000 years ? 1,000,000 years ?

I think of the Galagapos and other volcanic islands where nothing was native or original to the land, but, now, they're populated with numerous species, some unique, others common to other areas.

The next question I would pose is:  On a golf course, is uniqueness, in and of itself, a quality worth preserving ?
Put another way:  If Spyglass was the only, or one of a small number of courses with Ice Plant, should that uniqueness be preserved ?

Other questions I would ask, given the difficult nature of Ice Plant, is, where and to what extent should it be employed.

I think that before answering your questions, all of these issues have to be considered, first.

Then, the issue of aesthetics, erosion and maintenance comes into play.

I don't know what my answer will be, as I'll have to think about it some more.

Right now the police are outside and the driveway snow plow people and I are arguing about the town's insistance that the snow can't be pushed into the street.  It's already so deep and frozen so solid that the new 12 inches can't be moved anywhere else unless you have a Bobcat or Payloader, and I have neither.  I'm jealous of whomever is playing golf today.


Following up on the thread of Pebble vs. Spyglass, and focusing on a specific topic, what do you think about ice plant on a golf course?  The photos in that other thread show the before and after of the #4th hole of Spyglass with and without the ice plant.
It is my understanding that ice plant was not a native plant to the California coast.  I don't know where it originated.  It was planted because it was thought to be good for erosion control along the ocean.
Now, it is again my understanding, there are plants--many fescues, for example--that are equal to ice plant in erosion control, more natural, and more playable.  The Coastal Commission in California is pressuring (not requiring) coastal golf courses to remove ice plant, due to its unnaturalness.
Some nature people think ice plant is good for nesting birds and other creatures.  And, when it blooms, it is pretty.
Certainly from a playing standpoint, it is very penal.  Slows down play as you look for a ball.  And, while attractive to many people, may have outlived its usefulness.
What is your thinking?  I would side with removing it wherever possible.

[Mike Hendren]

They sell the stuff at Home Depot here in the spring.  Can't tolerate the heat, however.

[Stewart Naugler]

I injured my wrist while playing out of ice plant at CPC and it's never been the same.

When I worked at CPC we were constantly battling it.

If you liked it at Spy just wait a few years because it always comes back.

[Tim Leahy]

Eucalyptus trees are not native to Cali either. Should they be removed at Riviera? Sand and iceplant was identified with Spyglass and Pacific Grove and provided a unique and difficult hazard that will be missed.