Does Oakmont look better on TV without all those trees ?

[Mike_Cirba]

Oakmont is amazing!  I think Mark Studer should be commended for coming on here during such a busy time for him to provide us with the details.  Thanks, Mark!!

My sincere hope is that the US Amateur is being watched at clubs across the country and serves as an inspiration for tree removal programs and firm and fast conditions.  

Almost any course can be improved with the latter;  I was also impressed with how much more interesting the golf was at Firestone South today with a speedy golf course.  Yes, birdies were possible and the firm turf led to some unusually long drives and short approaches, but the course more than held its own due to the emphasis on distance control.

All in all, a really great week so far for the world of golf.  

[TEPaul]

Pat:

I'm not getting even a little apopletic about a thing. You seem to be implying that I'm inconsistent about trees when it comes to Oakmont vs Pine Valley. You're the one who seems to be saying that although Pine Valley may be removing trees they aren't doing it fast enough. All I'm saying is at least PV is going in the right direction and removing them.

Frankly, you're the one who's been inconsistent regarding a course planting or removing trees. ANGC is basically on record as continuing to plant more trees instead of removing those they have planted that were not exactly part of the design intent of that course. But you seem unwilling or unable to recognize or acknowledge that fact.

Again, PVGC is going in the right direction and removing overtreeing while ANGC continues to plant more. Why don't you expend your energy and criticism on ANGC? Not only is ANGC not removing trees and not removing them fast enough, they're planting more! If you're going to criticize a golf course on the issue of trees at least be somewhat consistent and criticize ANGC for planting more trees before you suggest PVGC speed up their tree removal program!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I believe that I addressed and answered your questions relative to ANGC on the "GAME", AERIAL thread.

If you'll reference that thread, it should provide the response you are looking for.

[Forrest Richardson]

Pat,

"...Oakmont....and many other courses had tree planting and tree incursion to an excess..." — yes, agreed, but at Oakmont many trees were planted and many of these continue to make the course more beautiful and more interesting. When you treeless huggers go about your tree bashing it sounds like a one-way street — your way or the highway. I remain in agreement that Oakmont and other courses had too many trees. Your often one-sided anti-tree statements and opinions are rarely tempered with the full story about trees.

"If you'll look at many aerials...[blah, blah, blah]..."

For Pete Dye's sake, Pat. If you look at many aerials you will see lots of crap. And if you keep looking you can make believe almost anything. Often times aerials are like looking at tapes of  early 1920s baseball and trying to suggest technique changes for the modern game. Works occasionally.

Still...agreed. Too many trees at Oakmont. Yes. And many other places. But trees can be positive. Try it.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Forrest Richardson,

I can't think of one course that I've played where tree planting in the last 40-50 years has benefited the golf course to an overwhelming degree.

It became popular during the late 60's and 70's to introduce landscape architecture to golf courses as manifested through indiscriminate and short sighted plantings.

Some clubs went through the isolation syndrome, feeling that each hole should be isolated from all others, and the only way to accomplish this was the massive planting of trees.
A good number of clubs that planted these trees never envisioned that the drip lines would be extending far into the lines of play.

I can think of many courses that I've played where tree removal in the last 5-10 years has benefited the golf course to an overwhelming degree.

I think you may be confused,
I'm not the one who advocates removal of all trees.
Trees can and do provide strategic and aesthetic value to a golf course.

But, clubs have planted and used them to excess in the last 40-50 years, and their removal should generally be welcomed.

Trees also impede WIND, sunlight and can have a decidedly negative impact on grass and turf.

Given the choice, I'd rather play a golf course without them.

With respect to the aerials without any trees from yesteryear, how did all of those trees get there today ?
Did the original architect have a master plan that was followed, or did the revolving door of new green chairmen and Presidents randomly plant them every two years for the last 50 years ??

[Forrest Richardson]

Well, now you're being fair!

"...revolving door of new green chairmen and Presidents..."

You trivialize these positions. Their decisions may not be always correct, but neither are their actions always wrong. The men and women who fill these positions are every bit a part of golf as the weekend hacker. You seem to "talk down" to those who do as you oppose, or as you would not have "the perfect" golf course or set-up.

Golf is not perfect. Fortunately, as I've attested here previously, the whims and wishes of us are but temporary stops in a game that will outlive us all...and this game will do it without even a flinch, for we are just a few clicks on the second hand when you add it all up.

Still. I agree. Too many trees at many courses. And also that the wild planting schemes of the past 40 years was not advised entirely. Yet — this was golf, just as your opinions are also.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Forrest Richardson,

It's not trivializing, it's reality.

I've never seen any evidence of substantive continuity over the years.

Dictatorships seem to do a much better job of passing the torch, of maintaining a greater degree of continuity from one leader or set of leaders to the next, and to the next.

I have seen one green chairman embark upon a program only to have his successor undo everything that the prior chairman had done.

Personalities, ego, pride of authorship and other factors create a chaotic rather than a fluid approach to an organized and prioritized long range plan.

Why do you think that so many classic golf courses have been bastardized over the years, and why restorations are becoming so popular

Could it be because rotating Boards, Presidents and committee chairmen are responsible for these alterations.

And, while I'm on a rant, how many clubs have a limited term policy for chairmen and Presidents.

A green chairman with little or no experience is appointed as the caretaker and/or custodian of the golf course, and just when he's getting up to speed with education, experience and wisdom, he's out and a new guy starts the process all over again.  How good is that for the golf course and super ??

I'll bet there are quite a few superintendents that are pulling out their hair and grinding their teeth while going through deja vu all over again, every two years, forever.

Do you think that individuals are appointed to green committees based on their agronomic, architectural, and playing qualifications

There is something to be said for stability and continuity, versus the revolving door democratic process at a club.

Long live Dictatorships at private golf/country clubs.  

[Paul Richards]

Pat:

The answer to the question you posed in the title to this thread is, "YES."

 

[Forrest Richardson]

"Dictatorships seem to do a much better job of passing the torch, of maintaining a greater degree of continuity from one leader or set of leaders to the next, and to the next."

OK...if continuity is your thing. While we're at it, let's put in a word to have the wind at the same speed each hour. And the grass the same as it was last year and the year before that. And the conditions just the same as when...heck, let's not ever allow a golf courese to change — for worse or better.

(Hope, Pat, you allw my bantering)

Paul is correct: Yes. I believe that is a well accepted opinion. Oakmont looks beautiful...and in person, too.

[Dunlop_White]

Yes, Oakmont looks spectacular.

Selectively clearing trees from the interior of this golf course has produced the added visual dimension of depth. Gorgeous vistas are now available as your eyes are not isolated by a dense barrier of trees as they were in the 1994 Open. I heard that there were only 68 hardwoods on the interior of the course? That is terrific, especially without newly planted saplings which so many courses have that tend to clutter open spaces.

More and more golf courses should embrace the visual depth and splendor of long, sweeping perspectives. Besides the beauty, golfers will experience a sense of camaraderie with other golfers throughout the course, as their site lines will periodically meet during the round.

Oakmont certainly exposed their grand specimen trees as well. They brought to view prominent hardwoods which have always been hidden among impinging neighbors.

Congratulations to Mark Studer, Banks Smith, Mark Kuhns, John Zimmers, Jim Knorr, Benny Barbour and all others who were involved.

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,

I believe that I addressed and answered your questions relative to ANGC on the "GAME", AERIAL thread.

If you'll reference that thread, it should provide the response you are looking for."

Pat:

And in your own words what do you think that response I'm looking for is?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Forrest Richardson,

OK...if continuity is your thing. While we're at it, let's put in a word to have the wind at the same speed each hour. And the grass the same as it was last year and the year before that. And the conditions just the same as when...heck, let's not ever allow a golf courese to change — for worse or better.

I know I take TEPaul to task for leaping to extremes, but the above post may take the trophy.

Were you actually awake when you typed your response ?  

TEPaul,

If you'll reference the other thread, you'll have the complete answer you seek.

[Gary_Smith]

I have not read through this thread, so maybe someone already mentioned this, but I was impressed with the minimal number of cart paths at Oakmont. Could be wrong as I have never set foot there, but didn't see many of them scarring up the course from looking at the course on TV.

[Mark Studer]

Dunlop- you are right on the money when you mention that congratulations are in order for "Banks Smith, Mark Kuhns, Bennie Barbour, John Zimmers, Jim Knorr, and  all those involved"....For starters, how about ALL the members.....they all paid  hard earned dues  to cut trees and increase the green budget 50% over the last 4 years. Any club or club official that does not include and give credit to all their members for making changes is not being totally honest. Sure it takes a few with vision to  start restoring a classic, whether it be a Ross, a Raynor, or a Tillinghast, but ALL the members deserve credit for doing their part. Even if a few were vehemently against  the masterplan,  they are still paying their part in dues to support the club officials' and committee's(and hopefully and most importantly, the original architect's) vision.  Our hope at Oakmont is that if WC Fownes were to return today ,his comment might be,"It looks as it did when I was last here, what is all the fuss ."

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark Studer,

A 50 % increase in budget is very substantial, and the membership should be applauded for having the faith in the committee and spending their money to improve the golf course.

I would also think that the planning, preparation and presentation to the members was very well done by a number of individuals who invested a good deal of their time, because of their love of Oakmont.

I'm curious to know what those who were so opposed to the plans think of the golf course today, and, what were their primary objections.  My experience has led me to believe that many if not most objections revolve around the finances and resistance to change.

Will I see you at ND vs USC this October ?

[Forrest Richardson]

Pat,

I was not completely alseep. I've learned to discuss and comment on some posts here while jogging, showering and swimming. I believe I was napping and swimming at the time I responded to you with the jab about wind, etc.

As someone pointed out days ago: The (aimple) answer is "yes" to this discussion's question.

But simple answers dispose of good, healthy discussion — even answers while napping and swimming. (Gee, it's hard to balance the laptop on my chest while accomplishing both.)

I am glad, at least, that I've had the opportunity to point out how great Oakmont looks...but also how much the many wonderful trees still there help create that look. I believe it is generally unfair to characterize that the tree planting in years past was entirely out of line. It DID have some very positive results. So, too, I suppose will many of the over-maintenance trends of the past few decades have some spin-off good consequences. What those are, I do not know yet.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Forrest Richardson,

I've found it easier to swim, nap and post, when taking advantage of a slight right to left, helping current.

Never, I repeat never, try that with a left to right current that is against you.

I would agree that there is a happy medium, but perhaps the pendulum is swinging back to eradication, to returning golf courses to their original or early form.

The battle is, too many beautification committees have/are indiscriminately throwing shrubs, flowers and trees all over the golf course.

My primary and/or secondary objection to this is the siphoning effect on the maintainance budget, and the never ending quest to throw as many shrubs, flowers and trees onto the golf course, as possible.

In the past it has been much easier to plant a tree in an ill advised location, and very difficult to have it removed.

[JohnV]

Forrest, swimming and holding the computer is much easier if you are doing the backstroke, although if you only try to type with one hand you'll frequently swim in a circle.

Many of the posts on this group read like they were done while the poster was napping.

[Forrest Richardson]

"...to returning golf courses to their original or early form."

Earlier, yes. Original, not necessarily.

This is the "one" issue I have with many GCA-regulars. They (indeed, "we") speak of "returning" courses, "restoring" them and "bringing them back". Many times, correctly, to when they were first built.

But two variables are at play:

1. With golf, in the broad scope. It's original form was likely not open expansive fields of green linksland, but rather the entire countryside, be it fields, woods, pasture or streets. Certainly golf was a cross-country event and "country" implies all sorts of landscape, not just windswept open lands.

2. At Oakmont — perhaps exclusively — there was never an intent to create a course that was finished. So...how do we proposed to define what it might be "returned" to? I say we do not. Rather, Oakmont will always change and God help it or us if we try to define that "forever". I would loke to believe there is some distant discussion group that would make our head hurt! On live Oakmont...for it will never be "done".

[Patrick_Mucci]

Forrest Richardson,

The quest to want to "return" a course can be noble, but, as you say, to what point in time ?

Tom MacWood cites the "high water mark" architecturally, but, is that so easily defined by the membership of a club ?

Even at Oakmont, would there be universal or majority agreement on its architectural high water mark ?

And does the evaluation of that mark vary, depending on trends and standards that exist on the day on which the evaluation is made ?
 
Would the same high water be agreed upon by those trying to determine the high water mark in 1940 ?, 1950 ?. 1960 ?, 1970 ?. 1980 ? 1990 ? and 2000 ?  

Will different individuals in different times arrive at the same date ?

I'm not so sure that the evaluative process remains static, always arriving at the same restoration date, or architectural high water mark, irrespective of the date of the evaluation, and the individuals doing the evaluation.

I think this is part of the problem in defining and drawing an ABSOLUTE conclusion with respect to the architectural high water mark, or restoration year.

It sounds nice in theory, but .......

[JohnV]

I believe that Oakmont defined that high water mark as the late 1940s.  This was because they had a good aerial photo from then and it was shortly before WC Fownes died.  That seems pretty reasonable to me, others might not agree.

Certainly the choice would not be universally accepted at any club and probably it would change if the decision was made at another day.  But the important thing is probably to pick some point and stick with it rather than creating a hodgepodge due to constant changes of direction.

[Patrick_Mucci]

John V,

I would agree with your reasonable date and prudent man standard.

I continue to favor 1936 at GCGC due to the abundance of photographic evidence and the significance of the date in the club's and USGA's history.

[Forrest Richardson]

"But the important thing is probably to pick some point and stick with it rather than creating a hodgepodge due to constant changes of direction." — JohnV

John,

Isn't a "hodgepodge" as you call it, in and of itself a possible design "moment" that works — even quite nicely in some cases? For example, there are many courses which embrace old design, new maintenance and remodeled areas. Heck, Oakmont is such an example. It is all of the following: Classic, original, remodeled, changed, restored, renovated, replaced, new, improved, lengthened, tweaked, and adjusted.

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
If you'll reference the other thread, you'll have the complete answer you seek".

Patrick:

We all understand that it's really difficult for you do produce a straight answer but I'm asking you a direct question, why don't you just give me a straight answer? Is it really that hard for you to do? Forget about me referencing anything--I asked you a simple question--just give me an answer in your next post. If you don't there's no question in my mind you're playing games. And I don't think there's a question in the minds of a good many who participate on here. Your primary interest does not seem to be to express your opinion--not a terribly difficult thing to do. Your interest seems to be to provoke for the sake of argumentation only--your own argumentation!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I typed the answer out once, I'm not going to waste the time to type it out a second time because you won't take the time to simply reference the other thread where I answered you question in detail.

Let you fingers do the wandering.