[Joe Sponcia]

From July 1975, Golf Digest:



"4500 Trees".  "Average 250 Trees per hole". 

New Green Committee Member:  Did you see this month's Golf Digest

New Green Committee Member #2:  Yeah, boy that would really be great if our course looked like that!  Let's start a beautification committee, we need to toughen this place up.

[Kevin Stark]

I'm always entertained by members who lament how easy the golf course will be because of the trees we have removed. Those members are usually the ones who can't break 90 and whose handicaps haven't changed one bit with the tree removal we've done. Why they would want the golf course harder, through more trees or otherwise, is beyond me.

[John Kavanaugh]

Dutch Elm desease was a buzz kill in Illinois.  I miss the trees of my 6000 yd home course.  Yes it is too easy now, last year I was under par for the year on that course playing every round in competition.  No matter how short, or how straight, or how flat a course may be a number of specimen trees can make a shot maker out of any of us.

[Adam Clayman]

What did that Geo. Thomas guy know anyway.

Color television and irrigation system proliferation.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Joe,

Thanks for posting. One question, but wouldn't the July issue be a month late for a US Open preview?

That US Open was the first I ever attended as a budding young golfer.  And, that was the first course I ever played, with my best friend, as a members son, sneaking us out on a snowy early April day.  Hey, maybe exactly 48 years ago today, but I would have to look that up.

I was enthralled with the beauty of the place, and despite the current "one size width" mantra often spewed here, I think there is a place for such naturally wooded courses that are hard off the tee.  For all the plantings other clubs did, I doubt they got to the majesty of a natural oak forest, especially since many used faster growing but trashy trees like poplar and silver maple!

I also question the 4500 trees. Seems low. In my first year at Killian and Nugent, they got the bright idea to have us do tree surveys for winter work/income.  We never did Medinah, but I recall Bob O Link, a more parkland course, had 6,000 or so.

[Tom_Doak]

Joe,

Thanks for posting. One question, but wouldn't the July issue be a month late for a US Open preview?

That US Open was the first I ever attended as a budding young golfer.  And, that was the first course I ever played, with my best friend, as a members son, sneaking us out on a snowy early April day.  Hey, maybe exactly 48 years ago today, but I would have to look that up.

I was enthralled with the beauty of the place, and despite the current "one size width" mantra often spewed here, I think there is a place for such naturally wooded courses that are hard off the tee.  For all the plantings other clubs did, I doubt they got to the majesty of a natural oak forest, especially since many used faster growing but trashy trees like poplar and silver maple!

The magazines used to always go on the newsstand a month before their printed date, so they wouldn't seem to be "old news".  So, the July issue would have hit the newsstands the first of June, two weeks before the Open.

Eventually, all those trees at Medinah got so thick that the superintendent could no longer get enough sunlight in the fairways to grow grass.  Before the Ryder Cup they thinned out nearly 2/3 of the trees.

[Andrew Buck]

From July 1975, Golf Digest:



"4500 Trees".  "Average 250 Trees per hole". 

New Green Committee Member:  Did you see this month's Golf Digest

New Green Committee Member #2:  Yeah, boy that would really be great if our course looked like that!  Let's start a beautification committee, we need to toughen this place up.

Growing up and living in Illinois, I've long blamed Medinah for the aggressive tree planting on many of the courses I play.  Some trees are great, but too many non native trees planted too close together seem forced.  

Funny thing is Medinah has been clearing them for years, but hard to convince our membership to just take out a few that are practically growing in bunkers.

[Brent Hutto]

I know having a huge pine trees overhanging a house in the suburbs taken down is relatively expensive on a per-tree basis (having just got through paying for it myself!) but even taking them out on a industrial scale must really add up.

Anyone care to share a ballpark cost for having, say, a hundred mature pine or oak trees cut down and removed from the borders of golf playing corridors? I'd speculate that it would have to be 10 or 20 grand per hundred trees if not more.

Can't imagine the cost of removing a couple thousand over a period of just a year or two...

[V. Kmetz]

Hello,

In my travels, the courses that planted trees fell into three general categories

1. Pre-1930 courses, which "beautified" their properties as a peripheral selling point to attract/retain members through the bad times of the 1930-45, when clubs were folding, re-organizing, disappearing left and right. Some portion of these also thought they were killing a second bird of "safety" with these tree "stones."

2. Pre 1930 courses that were looking to add "challenge" to their iteration of golf, which was starting to be rendered softer by the better playing properties of the steel era.

These first two groups (imo) were also demonstrating the end of the "Scottish influence" whereby the generation of imported professionals and architects waned and was almost gone by WWII.

3. 1960-1990 courses that were birthed at different points in the landscape ethos of "the course beautiful" (aided by Augusta on TV and opulent resort/destination golf).  Courses in this category did little but plant and plant for several years after their birth.

cheers

vk

[Mike_Young]

The course where I play spent about three mill on a renovation and did not remove the trees.  Claim it was a money issue but it would not have been if done properly.  It's sort of like a good looking girl losing 50 pounds and then not shaving her legs or armpits....
Sad thing they don't realize it's that bad.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike, there are some mental images you can't un-see......

[Mike_Young]

Mike, there are some mental images you can't un-see......

JB,
I know.....

[Peter Pallotta]

A moderate/middle ground perspective seems to make sense here, at least to me:

1. Heavily treed/forested sites are indeed one of the several viable, attractive and legitimate landscapes suitable for golf (with seaside links and gentle rolling parks being amongst the others)

2. As wind might do (by the sea) or elevation changes might do (on rolling land), so too might trees add challenge and interest and variability to the playing of the game

3. Since treed/forested sites are viable, attractive, legitimate, and potentially game-enhancing, there is no obvious case to be made for such sites/courses to be decried or dismissed or denigrated out of hand

4. For those who like such courses and belong to such clubs, the reflexively critical and dismissive attitudes of a (albeit increasing) minority is much more likely to entrench their likes than to open their eyes to new possibilities

5. The reasonable and indeed only legitimate approach (IMO) to discussing the disadvantages of heavily treed sites/courses and to promote change in this regard is to make the case for turf-quality and health and sustainability

I'm no huge fan of tree-lined courses, but even I get annoyed when what are essentially the fadists and know-it-alls and decision-makers of today climb up confidently (and without a hint of irony/self consciousness) onto their platforms to mock those who were essentially the fadists and know-it-alls and decision-makers of yesterday.

[BCrosby]

Didn't most 'beautification' programs begin much earlier? In the 50's and 60's?

As I recall Oak Hill was among the first to institute such a program in the 1930's.

It is still remarkably hard to turn that ship around.

Bob

[Ken Moum]

Didn't most 'beautification' programs begin much earlier? In the 50's and 60's?

As I recall Oak Hill was among the first to institute such a program in the 1930's.

It is still remarkably hard to turn that ship around.

Bob

I expect you're right.

Where I live Topeka CC is easily the most heavily treed course in town.  In fact, the huge oaks there are so close together anf so close to the line of play that hitting into them is nearly a one-stroke penalty.

But I dug up an aerial from 1945 that shows the fairways as being lined with what appear to be saplings.  Which predates even your estimate of the 50s.

I wonder what Perry Maxwell would think of his work now that it looks like a lumberyard?

I used to work with foresters and they alway made the point that when planting trees on residential property you need to think about what mature tree looks like and plant them far enough apart and far enough away from the house to accomodate that size and shape.

In commercial timeber planting trees are put in MUCH closer together, but they always plan to come back at regular intervals to thin them so the best specimens will have room to grow.

K

[BCrosby]

The history of the 'beautification' of American golf courses would make for a terrific essay.

Bob

[Jeff_Brauer]

Bob,

I was under the impression that nearly any farmland golf course basically started adding trees ASAP, whether in the 1910's or 1960's.  Say what you want, it is probably human nature to want to "organize" and separate the holes, not to mention, have a place to get out of the sun.

And frankly, with more concern about skin cancer, I cannot see the trend to have a shady place to stand between shots going away, in favor of less trees because some old courses in Scotland did it that way.....and also frankly, I think folks on this site would be the only ones to put air quotes around "beautification."

Ken,

It's hard to believe all those trees at TCC are planted.  They are so mature (at least around the clubhouse area) that they struck me as natural, but they are heavy and large.

[Brent Hutto]

Jeff,

The courses I play (South Carolina) tend to have fairly generous playing corridors in terms of the fairway+rough widths. Most holes are lined and/or separated by predominantly pine trees. I think it is definitely possible to let plenty of air and sun get to the fairways, greens and tees while also proving separation or definition as you mention. And I'm totally on board with the benefits of having shade available on a 90F sunny June day, even if only for 2-3 minutes at a time by sticking to the edges of the trees when walking between shots and between holes.

[BCrosby]

I was under the impression that nearly any farmland golf course basically started adding trees ASAP, whether in the 1910's or 1960's.  Say what you want, it is probably human nature to want to "organize" and separate the holes, not to mention, have a place to get out of the sun.

Jeff -

That is not my impression, but I could be wrong. Oak Hill's tree-planting program in the 30's, for example, was considered to be a cutting-edge project the time. The Oak Hill member who pushed for the program (I forget his name) wrote a pamphlet on the topic to convince members and others of the advantages of more trees. He followed up with articles in magazines pushing the idea. And the son of a gun basically won the day.

I'd like to know more about what was going on then. Another reason for someone to dig into the topic. It is an important, but over-looked issue in the history of golf architecture.

Bob

[Jeff_Brauer]

Bob,

Agreed and would love to have one of the gca.com super sleuths post those articles.  While I don't know for sure, it is sure a possibility that this was one of several similar articles, in other words, for some reason, a later mouse got the cheese of fame and credit for the idea because of his proximity to USGA HQ and club prominence.

It would also be interesting to see a succession of aerial photos at clubs, like Ken's Topeka CC., to see when the programs started.

Of course, there would still need to be some interpretation.  Say a 1920's club shows some trees, but not a lot.  1930's aerials show no new planting, but 1950's aerials show an aggressive program.  Was that due to the depression, bad finances, etc., or did they think just a few trees was ideal until that supposed new breed of greens committees came on board?

[Sean_A]

Peter

Trees are probably the single most influential concept in course design in the past 75 years.  To suggest people are getting on an anti-tree soap box without any understanding of the architectural impact of trees is not accurate.  We have all seen courses buried in trees to the point where the other elements of the design are practically meaningless...what is most important is keeping the ball between the trees.  To me, trees should be like any other aspect of a design...balanced...adding to the interest of the game and beauty of the course.  Unfortunately, the influence of trees is out of proportion with other architectural elements.  Of course, the agronomy side of the argument is important, but in reality it supports the architectural aspects of the argument as well.  A well managed course in terms of trees has a much better chance of being a balanced design.  

Ciao

[John Chilver-Stainer]

In the early 2000's the  Scottish Government Environmentalists encouraged a tree planting campaign whereby
anyone who was prepared to plant a tree could have them for free.

Unfortunatly some golf courses couldn't resist the offer of "something for free"
and chose to line parts of their narrower fairways in the mistaken belief that it would improve seperation.

Although undoubtly it enhanced the environmental value of the sites, the golf courses just look stupid with
narrower corridors, unplayable thickets of trees and lost views.

I believe the recipients of the trees are contractually obliged to protect them,
and in the event of removing them they will be presented with a bill.
So probably they are here to stay.

Clusters of unnecesary trees, only 2-3m apart, can be seen at Longniddry, Kingussie and Royal Musselburgh golf courses, among others.

So blame the politicians!!!!

[Phil Young]

For what its worth, I've done exhaustive course evolution histories for several dozen pre-1940 courses. These all include detailed timelines of tree plantings and removals. In comparing these from a "tree program" perspective, what I found is that there is neither rhyme nor reason as to when, how and why these programs began. Some began soon after the courses opened others decades later. Some because members wanted memorial trees, others because they wanted to add beauty to the course.

In the case of one club, it was because a guest was so thankful that he was given the privilege to play that he sent a thank-you gift to the club, 1,000 baby pine trees from the North Carolina nursery he owned for planting on the course. The club accepted these, planted them and then decades later needed to remove everyone of them because of Pine Canker disease which attacked them. Needless to say they then replaced many of the ones they took out. Today they no longer replace trees and have removed a significant number of them.

[Patrick_Mucci]

BCrosby,

The late 60's and early 70's marked the heightened blending of landscape architecture with golf course architecture.

That integration resulted in the introduction of trees, trees and more trees.

That period also marked the beginning or height of a trend away from linear fairways, toward scalloped fairways.

Many courses endured this departure from their architectural origins for a decade or so, then began to restore their course by returning their fairway lines to their linear roots.

However, removing the trees introduced by the landscape and golf course architects was a project that took far longer, so much longer that it remains ongoing today.

[Sven Nilsen]

Tree planting, at least as a concept, has been around since at least the early 1920's.

Here's an April 1921 Golf Illustrated article discussing it.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()