Get your Pepto...last one
Holston Hills (Ross), #11
This is one that shocked me in terms of the perceived need for tree removal. The before shot seemed to be fairly open, with the remaining trees well off the intended lines. The before picture didn't have the feel of "tree-lined, Vertical Bowling" that often would get me screaming for a tree removal program.
The after picture here is much more "sphincter-puckering" to me. You may see an open vista, but all I see are two-stroke, lost ball penalties from the native grass. Given the option of
a) reloading after a pull, vs.
b) trying some miracle recovery from the left trees (even if on wispy grass or bare ground),
I'd take option b) six days a week and twice on Sunday.
Joe & I have debated Holston Hills a few times before:
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,57272.msg1335453.html#msg1335453http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,57268.msg1335167.html#msg1335167For me, I think there just needs to be a balance between the extremes of "demanding, tree-lined corridors" and "trees are bad." As Sean said, variety is often a casualty when we tip toward either extreme.
My main concern with widespread tree removal is whether the greens are interesting enough to reward / punish approaches from different angles. As a Ross design, I would imagine that Holston Hills' greens would meet that requirement. But on a course with fairly benign greens, overzealous tree removal will simply make a boring set of greens even worse.
But even in those cases, I'm all for 'tree-thinning," since I often see clusters of 6-7 redundant trees in cases where 1 can probably achieve the same strategic intent.