I was looking at some old aerial photos, taken in the 1940's of some golf courses that I'm familiar with.
It was apparent that only a few specimen trees existed on the entire golf course. Today, every hole on the golf course is lined with trees, and almost every green on the golf course has trees behind it, acting as backround.
Some of the holes are doglegs, and have been planted with trees dictating the lines of play.
In looking at these photos I couldn't help but think that many of these trees were planted as a cheap method to create strategy on the golf course, to prevent the cutting of the dogleg, to prevent obtaining a shortened or prefered angle of attack into the green.
And then I thought about the process a club goes through to build a bunker versus planting a tree.
Many clubs planted trees in the off season, when many if not all of the members were absent and little in the way of pre-planting planning was necessary by a committee or board.
However, introducing a bunker is far more invasive to the play of the golf course, requiring planning, construction and significant funds.
In addition, adding bunkers places more pressure on a golfers game, many are inept at bunker play, others are mediocre and most fear them.
Trees seem to be a far more attractive feature/hazard then bunkers due to the remote chance that the golfer will encounter them. And secondly, because once encountered, they are easier to recover from.
It also seems easier to plant a tree then design, locate and build a bunker.
So, for the period 1940 to current date, do trees represent a less complicated, cheaper feature to introduce to a golf course, then a bunker ?