Do Trees make a Golf Course Safer or More Dangerous?

[Duncan Cheslett]

I think one or two people are missing the point I was trying to make.

While it clearly true that trees will stop the flight of many shots, so preventing them reaching and possibly hitting other people on the course, they will not stop ALL errant shots. Balls fly over trees, around trees, and even straight through trees.

More importantly however, trees - especially in full foliage - obscure vision. In the example I used at the start of this thread I genuinely thought I was the only person within a quarter of a mile, so when I saw my ball flying over a stand of trees towards the next tee I did not shout a warning. As a consequence someone very nearly got hit.

If the trees had not been there, I would have seen our greenkeeper on the tee and given a lusty shout of "FORE!!!". He, at the very least, would have been able to crouch down with his arms over his head to minimise the chances of being hit and injured. He would also in all probability anyway have been aware of my presence and seen me taking my shot. In this case he would have had a good chance of following the flight of the ball in the air as it flew towards him.

No-one is suggesting that upon hearing a shout of "FORE!" golfers can pick out an incoming ball in the sky. That's not how it works. Sensible golfers, upon hearing the shout, will cower down or seek immediate shelter behind their bag, cart, or whatever. The problem with "protective" trees is that even if the shout goes out, confusion reigns for that vital couple of seconds as people look around for where the shout might be coming from.

Most golf courses, particularly those on tight plots of land, have instances where holes run parallel to each other in opposite directions. In my experience, if there is a good view of gofers playing the adjacent hole a natural protocol develops whereby players take their shots in turn, and so are aware of errant shots coming their way. If someone hits a ball towards other players he will invariably shout "FORE!", even if he thinks that they already know that his ball is heading towards them. It is simple good manners and etiquette.

Trees can change all that.

Trees give a false sense of seclusion, of separation from the rest of the golf course. Unless one specifically knows that one's misdirected shot is headed towards other players, the first thought that enters one's head tends to be "Shit! - I'm in the trees!" The thought that your ball might fly the trees and endanger unseen players beyond comes a second or so later, and very possibly a second or so too late.

About the only instance I can think of in which trees can be essential in promoting safety is where significant movements in the land make players on one fairway invisible from the adjacent one. In this situation a barrier of trees might well be the only way it is possible to afford protection to players on either hole.

In general though, my question in the title of this thread was rhetorical. I firmly believe that safety is enhanced on the course when players on adjacent holes can see each other clearly. Safety is compromised when players are unaware of the presence of others due to a screen of trees.

[Kalen Braley]

What's the old saying?  Trees are 90% air but they block 90% of shots that hit them.....

Jeff,

I actually believe that to be true for the most part.  But for most trees the leaves and branches are spread about in random fashion, so no matter which line you attempt to take thru it, there is almost always something in the way.

P.S.  A screen at a driving range is mostly air too, but 99.999% of golf balls that hit it won't be getting thru it.

If trees block 90% of the shots that hit them, they allow 10% through. That's not a very effective safety barrier! Better to let people see when someone is on the tee, and if they are still in danger because too many errant shots find their way over there then you have to suck it up and put up a screen of some sort. If you find the screen unsightly THEN you can hide the screen with trees, secure in the knowledge that what the trees don't catch, the screen surely will.

Doug gotta disagree...90% seems like an awesome percentage to have in your favor.

And for the other 10%, even thou I'm a big guy, from 200 yards away, statistically speaking I'm a tiny target.

I can live with those odds...

[Brad Klein]

Trees are 90% air. Just like a screen door.

[Niall C]

I agree with those that say it depends on the individual situation.


However the question that springs to my mind is has the use of trees as a screen between holes lead to players being less inclined to shout fore ? Maybe they don't know the etiquette or perhaps they rarely need to use it therefore when they do they decide not to ? Growing up on courses on relatively small sites meant I was accustomed to shouting fore, the rule being if in doubt shout.


There now seems to be a reluctance to shout. For example, during the summer I was playing a well known links with parallel holes going in opposite directions. On the opposite fairway their was four golfers, each with a caddy. One of them hit rescue/fairway wood (so the ball was in the air a reasonable time) that went over on to our fairway and landed a few feet from my playing companion who was clearly visible to them. Not one of their group shouted fore. Was it because they didn't know to do so (highly unlikely I'd have thought) or were they out of practice in doing it automatically ?


Niall 

[Adrian_Stiff]

It is unfortunate that the best screening trees are the least pleasing for golf. Despite the claims that trees are 90% air you wont find many golf balls going through 'lleylandii' or Lombardy Poplars (they look like upside down feathers) both trees have a very cloned look, but they grow very fast.


The better trees are decidous or the more open pines, with these golf balls can easily miss the branches and foliage. If you use this type you tend to need multiple rows so it has the copse effect and highly unlikely a ball with penetrate the other side. Sometimes this is not possible because of the room involved and encroachment into the fairway.....each situation is a different answer though and many times you are better to have visibility.

[Kalen Braley]

Jeff,

I've always thought that trying to spot the ball, if someone is hitting in your general direction and yells fore, is not the best way to go.  You may have 2-3 seconds tops to actually spot it before contact....best just to curl up in the fetal position, protect your head, and hope for the best.

As it concerns trees, even if a ball makes it thru, chances are it clips a few leaves along the way and has taken some momentum off the ball, so I see that as a win too.

But as I said in a previous post, the only situation where I see trees as a negative is if they are in the direct line of sight to a landing area and obscuring others still playing, where you would have otherwise waited for them to clear out.

[Garland Bayley]

"Balls fly over trees, around trees, and even straight through trees."

That's why you always shout fore when you hit towards trees.

[Sam Andrews]

Trees are 90% air. Just like a screen door.

http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/mythbusters-database/trees-air-golfers/

[Duncan Cheslett]

"Balls fly over trees, around trees, and even straight through trees."

That's why you always shout fore when you hit towards trees.

You're quite right. It doesn't help however, with the problem of the intended recipients of the shout not being aware that it is intended for them, as they can not see from whom or where the shout is coming.


Which brings us to another issue;

Too many golfers, if they shout "FORE!" at all, do so with the sense of urgency and level of volume that they would use when calling their kids in for supper from the back yard. They compound this with the unnecessary use of confusing suffixes, as in "FORE RIGHT!" or "FORE ON THE TEE!"  Which tee? Right in relation to what?

No, a proper and effective shout should consist solely of the word "FORE!!!"
emitted at ear splitting volume in a full roar deep from the diaphragm. 

All golfers within a quarter-mile radius should feel compelled immediately to throw themselves prone with their hands over their heads. That they are in the middle of a putting stroke matters not. This is a health and safety issue!

 

[Sean_A]

Duncan's perspective to me is so mind numbingly obvious that I have to wonder if the people that disagree are among those golfers which wander around courses without paying attention to anybody but themselves.  I can imagine few circumstances where I would want trees for protection and most of those are boundary issues.  Many of the others I would advocate altering the course for safety reasons simply because trees are inadequate for safety.  I 100% absolutely want to see who is where and doing what if the situation is at all dangerous.  I have seen too many people hit (one very seriously injured) when trees were meant to be protective, but instead merely provide a false sense of security and worse even, create a more dangerous situation.  I don't know how many times where I thought I may be in a dangerous situation and stretched my neck or stooped down to try and see where golfers are because of damn trees blocking my view.  This is often the case when players are trying to recover around trees and are aiming well away from their own fairway hoping to hit a big hook or slice 

Ciao

[Duncan Cheslett]

Well said Sean, and some excellent additional points made.

Just as when driving on motorway, it is important in the interests of safety on the golf course  to have an awareness of what is going on around you.

[Joe Sponcia]

Sean,


I would agree with you and Duncan.  For me at least, it's the 'being able to see the person' that I trust more than a cluster of trees I can't see through to protect me.  When playing parallel's, I without fail will watch the guys adjacent for the very reason of this thread.  When trees are present and I can't see anyone, I feel more like a sitting duck...because I have no idea if anyone is there or not.  We must be the anomaly trusting our eyes over the limbs?

[Thomas Dai]

Whilst certain circumstances may dictate some form of protective coverage or screening, I generally prefer to be able to see any incoming 1.68 inch missiles, or at least be aware of where they might come from plus I prefer to have an idea where my shots or those of my playing partners may potentially effect others prior to playing the shot.
Atb

[Duncan Cheslett]

For me it's not so much a matter of being able to see the missiles - it is unlikely that I will do so.

The point is that I want to be able to see people who are firing missiles in my general direction. I can then watch them take their shot and know if a ball is heading my way.

Also, if they can see me it is far more likely that they will shout a warning. Not right, but a fact.

[Kalen Braley]

While Sean claims to have seen many hit, in my countless rounds I've only seen one person hit and it was a harmless ground ball that ran into his shoe.

Anecdotal and personal evidence aside, I think it would be interesting if there is a way to quantify what the real danger is. And I say this in the context of "is the cost of a 100% safety solution too cost prohibitive to justify the expense?"  For example tens of thousands of people in the US alone die in car accidents.  Surely we could build a more beefy car that more closely resembled a tank and no one would die, but how much would that car cost?

Can't the same be applied to golf course safety?  If I had to guess, the death count from being struck by a golf ball has got to be less than 100/year....worldwide.  And this would be over millions of rounds with the number of strokes in the hundreds of millions.  It seems the chances of being killed or maimed by a golf ball seems so teeny, would any solution beyond trees and good design be appropriate. I'm guessing if golfers had to wear mandatory helmets, golf deaths would go to zero...

I'm asking a genuine question here, but I suspect I already know the answer..."it only takes one lawsuit to spoil it for everyone else"....sigh....

[Duncan Cheslett]

I've been in the vicinity on half a dozen occasions when people have been hit, and in every case the person playing the ball and the person hit have been completely unsighted from each other.

On three of these occasions the unsightedness was because of the topography of the land, and on the other three it was because of trees.

There is not much that can be done about the former, but plenty that can be done about the latter.

[Kalen Braley]

I've been in the vicinity on half a dozen occasions when people have been hit, and in every case the person playing the ball and the person hit have been completely unsighted from each other.

On three of these occasions the unsightedness was because of the topography of the land, and on the other three it was because of trees.

There is not much that can be done about the former, but plenty that can be done about the latter.

Duncan,

If trees can be chopped, why can't dirt be moved....   

[mike_beene]

To expand the issue a bit, trees also pose danger for the ball striker.i have seen people hit hard by their own shot twice. Both were round ending. Roots are yet another issue.

[Duncan Cheslett]

How long before hard hats become de rigeuer on the golf course?

http://www.jsp.co.uk/products/Head-Protection/Hard-Cap-A1plus/ABR000-00N-500_HardCap-A1plus-with-Standard-Peak-7cm-Black-Hi-Vis-Orange

I've always suspected that Ricky Fowler was concealing some industrial head protection in that oversized monstrosity!

[Garland Bayley]

"Balls fly over trees, around trees, and even straight through trees."

That's why you always shout fore when you hit towards trees.

You're quite right. It doesn't help however, with the problem of the intended recipients of the shout not being aware that it is intended for them, as they can not see from whom or where the shout is coming.

...

People that can see you don't know whether it is intended for them either.

[Garland Bayley]

While Sean claims to have seen many hit, in my countless rounds I've only seen one person hit and it was a harmless ground ball that ran into his shoe.

...

That's probably because he prefers courses without trees for protection.
In dangerous parts of courses, I'll take trees for whatever protection they provide, thank you very much.

[Kalen Braley]

Gotta agree there Garland.

P.S.  Tom D said this in another thread...which I would also agree with:

"As someone who walks a lot of courses on his own, while others are playing, I have to say there are many times when it's good to have a tree to duck behind when someone is hitting your way.  The idea that there is a black-and-white answer to the question of trees and safety is silly.  Sometimes, trees protect; other times, they only give the illusion of protection."

[Sean_A]

Gotta agree there Garland.

P.S.  Tom D said this in another thread...which I would also agree with:

"As someone who walks a lot of courses on his own, while others are playing, I have to say there are many times when it's good to have a tree to duck behind when someone is hitting your way.  The idea that there is a black-and-white answer to the question of trees and safety is silly.  Sometimes, trees protect; other times, they only give the illusion of protection."

Which is exactly my point...show that trees protect prior to planting them.  What happens now is people justify trees in the name of safety when they weren't planted for that reason and the vast majority of the time trees don't serve any such purpose.

Ciao

[Duncan Cheslett]

P.S.  Tom D said this in another thread...which I would also agree with:

"As someone who walks a lot of courses on his own, while others are playing, I have to say there are many times when it's good to have a tree to duck behind when someone is hitting your way.  The idea that there is a black-and-white answer to the question of trees and safety is silly.  Sometimes, trees protect; other times, they only give the illusion of protection."

Note carefully Tom's words.  He refers to ducking behind a single tree when he can see someone hitting towards him.

Throughout this thread, Sean and I have consistently condemned dense screens of trees which obscure all vision of anyone hitting your way, as well as of anyone who might be in the way of your next shot. I am sure that I can speak for Sean and say that no-one has any problem with the odd tree here and there - even little copses of trees in well thought-out places.

Self seeded scrub trees and trees misguidedly planted 30 years ago to separate fairways should not be protected in the name of safety when they were never planned as providing cover from wayward shots.

[Kalen Braley]

Duncan,

If you look at my original post, I thought I was pretty clear in neither condemning nor condoning all trees... and that is the part I agreed with as well in toms statement in the "black and white answer being silly"

Here's what I said:

"I would agree as Mark F has suggested...it depends.

If it obscures a view to a landing area where others may or may not be...probably not.

If its a scenario like Pasa 6/7/8.  I would think it makes that corridor much safer..."

My last statement in that original post still stands.  That area of Pasa would be much less safe without a dense line of trees...just one here or there wouldn't cut it.