[Charles Lund]

#4 is ranked as 13 stroke index.

The tree makes it more challenging to hit to make par by hitting a recovery shot to a good layup area or a safe part of the green.  Removing the tree makes careful placement of the tee shot more crucial. 

It seems to me that a good short par four is one that requires precision on a tee shot.  Less precision means more challenge on second shot and/or a greater penalty for a misplaced tee shot.

Would temoval of the tree alter the stroke index ranking of the hole?  Would softening a hole make it a better hole.

Easy bogey, difficult par - think I read that before.

Keep the tree.  You can't stand it back up after it is down.

Charles Lund

[Jeff Loh]

Tom
Sorry to disagree but you can't access the left side of the green if you have driven out of position. Nor can you access the right.
That is the point. No options but a low runner that may, if hit perfectly, run onto the front portion of the green.
That still may be the BEST shot even if the tree were not there. But i want to see people who think they can hit a high lofted shot off of sandy scrub be TEMPTED to do so. That's when the fun begins.

[Joe Hancock]

 I have never been to Mid Pines. Is the tree in question a one off situation here, or does it repeat itself as a theme? In other words do you have 17 other holes where a missed shot is in sandy scrub and you can go for it?

[David_Madison]

Nobody in the "keep the tree" camp has addressed the issue of the safe play for the better player is just to blow it by the tree off the tee, yet the tree comes into play for the average or weaker player. The fairway widens and flattens once you get up top where the tree is, so anyone who can hit it 250 uphill is immune to its influence. Wouldn't it be better to take down the tree and recapture the front right part of the green? You wouldn't be reducing the difficulty, just reallocating it to the more interesting part of the hole.


I could see the argument for retaining the tree if even the tiger couldn't get up to it, but that only happens when playing with hickories (which is exactly what happened to me yesterday). And maybe in an all-hickory world I'd actually vote to retain the tree!

[Kyle Harris]

Nobody in the "keep the tree" camp has addressed the issue of the safe play for the better player is just to blow it by the tree off the tee, yet the tree comes into play for the average or weaker player. The fairway widens and flattens once you get up top where the tree is, so anyone who can hit it 250 uphill is immune to its influence. Wouldn't it be better to take down the tree and recapture the front right part of the green? You wouldn't be reducing the difficulty, just reallocating it to the more interesting part of the hole.


I could see the argument for retaining the tree if even the tiger couldn't get up to it, but that only happens when playing with hickories (which is exactly what happened to me yesterday). And maybe in an all-hickory world I'd actually vote to retain the tree!

I did make this point.

But not every hole has to equalize play across all skill-sets. There are 17 others, especially at Mid-Pines, that balance this so-called virtue.

[David_Madison]

Kyle - Sorry but I didn't get that point from reading your post. Isn't one of the most common laments on this site that raw distance has overwhelmed many older great but shorter courses, and by definition the challenges they present? That's happened here on this hole. For strong players, removing the tree and recapturing the front right cup likely spreads the scores, surely a desirable outcome. Yet for everyone else, the angled tabletop green is more than enough of a challenge and there's plenty reward for keeping it left off the tee.

[BCowan]

Nobody in the "keep the tree" camp has addressed the issue of the safe play for the better player is just to blow it by the tree off the tee, yet the tree comes into play for the average or weaker player. The fairway widens and flattens once you get up top where the tree is, so anyone who can hit it 250 uphill is immune to its influence. Wouldn't it be better to take down the tree and recapture the front right part of the green? You wouldn't be reducing the difficulty, just reallocating it to the more interesting part of the hole.


I could see the argument for retaining the tree if even the tiger couldn't get up to it, but that only happens when playing with hickories (which is exactly what happened to me yesterday). And maybe in an all-hickory world I'd actually vote to retain the tree!

David,

   I did address this in my reply.  I play Mid Pines each year with my 30 handicap father in law, I hope he has to think a little on the tee, with cant in the fairway and due to his slice.  Your misrepresenting why they don't use the front pin position, due to it being a resort and they want pace of play to be faster is my bet, just as I am told TOC doesn't use front pin on the 18th green very frequently due to pace of play.  Mid Pines also keeps greens around 9.5 due to resort play and pace of play.

   The problem is more the pines need to go on the left side, the waste area is enough.  If the course is set up for a competition, just making the green really firm will result in high scores with or without the tree.  The problem with the weaker golfer is they have been conditioned to NOT think from the Green back to the tee.  If I slice and I am a 30 handicap, I'm aiming way left and short of the sand scrub on the left.  At the Irrigation box in the opening photograph.  Again I've caddie for 10 years for all kinds of players and I'm surprised on how many people who play the game so long who don't think strategically.  I think its due to over-watered courses which dumbs down the Architecture and people don't think green back to tee.

   Calling this tree in question as a hazard is very much a stretch.  I also stated in a prior post that this tree is similar to when Ross but bunkers 150 yards out from the tee in the middle of the fairway.  He wanted the weaker player to think every so often and be challenged.  MP needs to whack 1,000 trees and fix the 3rd hole back to the way it was, much more important IMHO.

    You guys gotta do a discussion on the 3rd hole

[Jay Mickle]

Mr. Mickle's argument can be reduced to recommending removing every tree on every golf course in the world, because one of them might remove the "option" of attacking a tough pin placement from 372 yards away, yada yada.

You misrepresent my argument.
 My argument is that this is the most severe green that Ross designed at Mid Pines and its finest features (ie . the right side) are never challenged because of a tree that has grown since the course was built. I am not an advocate of any mass tree purge and take offense that you impute any such intent based on my desire to remove a single tree. The old live oak that Mike Strantz used to define the 8^th at Bulls Bays was an intended use of a tree and perfectly appropriate.
Playing the course some 150 times per year I see all level of golfers. Other than those able to hit it 250 yards to avoid all tree trouble well over 60% of the golfers end up blocked by the tree, when the course is firm and fast that number increases due to the left to right  slope of the fairway.  Being on the right side myself many times I sincerely regret that I am unable to take on the challenge that Donald Ross provided and intended. To lay up out to the left, chip on and get par is not nearly as satisfying as challenging a deep bunker, false front, drop off side and rear and devious rear bunker. Double, triple and higher would be in play if the tree were removed, now it is a good par hole and fairly easy bogey hole.
 

[Tom_Doak]

I am not an advocate of any mass tree purge and take offense that you impute any such intent based on my desire to remove a single tree. The old live oak that Mike Strantz used to define the 8^th at Bulls Bays was an intended use of a tree and perfectly appropriate.
Playing the course some 150 times per year I see all level of golfers. Other than those able to hit it 250 yards to avoid all tree trouble well over 60% of the golfers end up blocked by the tree, when the course is firm and fast that number increases due to the left to right  slope of the fairway.  Being on the right side myself many times I sincerely regret that I am unable to take on the challenge that Donald Ross provided and intended. To lay up out to the left, chip on and get par is not nearly as satisfying as challenging a deep bunker, false front, drop off side and rear and devious rear bunker. Double, triple and higher would be in play if the tree were removed, now it is a good par hole and fairly easy bogey hole.

I'm sorry if I offended you.  I do not understand how your argument doesn't also apply to most other trees within shouting distance of a golf hole, but I will take your word that you are okay with some of them.


The rest of your argument sounds like you are just tired of being forced left by the tree all the time, playing the course so often.  I must admit I don't often think about golfers who play the same course 150 times per year.  Yet it seems to me that removing the tree would make it not matter much whether you drove the ball left, as it does now -- that you would be adding interest to the second shot at the expense of removing interest in the tee shot.


I would likely never plant a tree in the position described here.  But I would not automatically take it down, either.  There is room for either version of the hole on a golf course.

[David_Madison]

Jay - Am I hearing you say that the hole would be more fun, and provide a more frequent opportunity to hit a challenging yet achievable approach shot to that incredibly positioned green if the tree wasn't there, but with the tree it frequently becomes a mundane task to simply hit something up by the green and then go for the one-putt par? But if you had more opportunities to take on an approach shot to the green, far more peril comes into play with misses short or right, misses that almost certainly would never happen when playing a low running lay-up to the left side. Seems a pretty convincing argument all by itself.

[Jay Mickle]

Thank you Tom. I have probably played this hole 1000 times and still believe it to be a great hole but I sincerely believe that it would be a better hole with out the tree.  Regardless of the tree, a shot out to the left challenging the waste area will always be rewarded with a clear shot down the length of the green with no fronting obstacles. See David Madison's reply following yours for a more eloquent justification for  removing the tree.

[David_Madison]

Tom,


I only play the hole 50-75 times per year, so I don't quite have Jay's experience with the hole. But half of those rounds are with Jay, so I have a good understanding of where he's coming from. He definitely doesn't want to remove trees indiscriminately. There are exactly two trees that potentially come into play at Mid-Pines that he'd like removed. A good counter-example to the tree on #4 being better gone is the huge one protecting the right hand corner on the 9th hole, another short par-4. That's one that needs to stay, as it adds huge strategic value to the hole, especially for stronger players. Jay would be the first to tell you that.


From my limited experience playing courses you've designed, I can absolutely see you building a hole like #4. There'd be no tree, but I suspect that your fronting bunker would be larger and more dramatic, and you'd dare players to interact with it, which then brings into play all the other fun stuff on and around the green.

[Jon Byron]

Jay's point is correct. That tree position is an interference in the hole, and it's size and position deteriorates the terrain quality in the rough and fairway with leaves and roots.

[Charles Lund]

"Removing the tree makes careful placement of the tee shot more crucial"

Obvious typo.  Keeping the tree makes tee shot more crucial, removing less so.

Charles Lund

[Pete_Pittock]

Retain.

The tree stayed when they renovated the course three or four years ago.
Even if you experience tree trouble, you should have a two putt for par.
My game was such that the tree should give me trouble. When we played the Dixie Cup there, it wasn't a problem.

If it were removed, it would be interesting to see if the local golf association would change course rating or slope.
Likely not.

[Kyle Harris]

David Madison,

Sorry, it looks like the bottom of my reply did not make for some formatting reason. As for the common lament of the DG, I suppose that even in Donald Ross's time, chasing a shot down the left hand side was within reason. During dry spells, these 310 yard holes were very much the Drive-Pitch/Chip/Putt variety and I think it's a bit of a canard to suggest that "today's game" should, for any reason, necessitate a change such as this one.

I've played the hole once, and did not find the tree offensive, or even noteworthy. It's fairly evident from the tee the direction to be played and I have no problem with suggesting that an expert golfer - the only golfer who should expect par by definition - would find a way around the tree and into the hole in three shots. It seems just as exciting to attempt to recover a shot by playing around the tree as it would to attack the right side from that position in the fairway. So what if this one hole does not have that option? It's not as if Mid Pines is rife with such handcuffed options.

I also see a way under the tree; an option which an expert golfer may choose to employ.

If a shorter hitter wishes to avoid the tree, why not play well out to the left and exchange distance for position? Is the shot from the long left hand option not as thrilling to the right part of the putting green?

For my game, eliminating the tree absolutely makes the tee shot meaningless. I have no problem hitting shots over hazards and some times will take that option in lieu of having an open approach, depending on other factors.

[Jeff Loh]

All
You can't go UNDER the tree and hold the green. Almost impossible. Pro, expert, scratch, whatever.

[Rick Shefchik]

As one might expect from my avatar, I'd vote to remove.


If Ross didn't plant it, or recommend planting it, he must have thought he'd designed a good golf hole without it. That's good enough for me.

[Jeff Loh]

10th at Riveria

Does this hole need a tree planted because it's too easy?

[David_Madison]

Kyle Harris,

When I first joined MP/PN two years ago and started playing there regularly, I did what I thought was the smart thing and took a hybrid or fairway metal and tried to hit the ball up the left side. Usually it worked out and I had a clear shot, but every so often I'd leak one out to the right a bit and then had to play some sort of safety to the left side or just left of the green. Kinda' took the fun out of the hole as it's a pretty mundane shot hitting a low skanky thing up near the green or onto the left edge. Then I tried driver and just blew it past where the tree was an issue. Now the tree is irrelevant to me unless I'm playing hickories.

I can't help but believe that the hole would be so much more fun and interesting if the front right portion of the green was used for cupping, and if an approach from the right side was defended just a bit more by beefing up the fronting bunker on that side. You'd still provide a premium for a well placed drive up the left side, but now everyone hitting the fairway would at least take a shot at flying it onto the green. More fun for the visiting golfers who make up the majority of play, and more interesting for better players and for those of us who play the course on a regular basis.

And picking up on what Tom Doak mentioned - - is there anyone who plays the course on a very regular basis voting here to keep the tree? For the golfer who plays the course maybe once or twice a year, being forced to comply with a dictated route isn't such a bad thing. But play the hole over and over, and I think it would be a lot more fun having the greater variety available going at the different pin placements from different parts of the fairway.

[Joe Sponcia]

[size=78%]Jay,[/size]


Thanks for posting this.  I owed you a phone call from my trip to Pinehurst.  It was a whirlwind of golf to say the least! 


Ah, Mid Pines.  This is the hole you asked about.  Honestly...I played the hole and didn't even notice it?  I hit it left-center and made a yawning par.  The other 3 in my group made par, par, bogey.  I'm a 3, one of my guys is a pro and shot 70, another guy was a 6, and my last player was a 15.


I didn't pace it, but at 22 paces (fairway), that borders on not-fun for 14 + handicaps.  I see your argument and I believe Tom just made the correct point which is, "would you plant it again, in that exact place if a storm came through"?  The answer is probably not.  We all hit driver which is probably not everyone's play but anything less with a fairway that leans right most likely makes for a tedious par.  I believe Ross defended par with great greens, not trees.  This is one of the better ones (greens), but the tree in question at least has some options.  Having only played Mid Pines once, I would like to camp out for half a day and watch the average person negotiate the hole before saying chop (and I'm an admitted tree hater), but with a narrow fairway that leans right (further shrinking the effective width) and a great green - I would say remove...and remove all but a couple of the cluster to the left.


Always a great debate..."well, I don't know that I would plant another one there...but it's been there a long time...we should probably keep it, wait until it dies and then not plant another".


"So are you saying it should go"?


"I believe only God/Nature/Allah/Termites should remove trees (jerk)".


 

[Mike Bowen]

I actually think the tree would be better if it blocked out shots on the far left side of the fairway.  Tee shots on the right side have a tough angle.  I know this is not an answer to the question that is clearly stated in the subject line... but tonight I do not care.

[BCowan]

10th at Riveria

Does this hole need a tree planted because it's too easy?

Different hole with some shared similarities.  So now everything has to be like 10 at Riveria?  You could say why is a fairway bunker on the right needed with the diagonal green, meaning overkill?  It is just there for weaker player, just as tree is at MP. 

#17 at Franklin (2 original Ross Trees) Double hazard but its original and Ross never made a mistake



is there anyone who plays the course on a very regular basis voting here to keep the tree? For the golfer who plays the course maybe once or twice a year, being forced to comply with a dictated route isn't such a bad thing. But play the hole over and over, and I think it would be a lot more fun having the greater variety available going at the different pin placements from different parts of the fairway.  Kinda' took the fun out of the hole as it's a pretty mundane shot hitting a low skanky thing up near the green or onto the left edge

I find this reply a bit conceded for someone who has yet to reply to my points.  Nobody has a dictated route, the average guy had been dumbed down to not think about fairway cant, how the tee ball reacts to fairway slope.  22 yards wide on only a section of the golf hole for a 300 yard hole is really not asking too much.  It asks the player to know his game and to think from the green back to the tee and also how the ball reacts to the ground.  Hitting a punch 9-7 iron is much more fun then flopping a wedge in the air for the umpteen time like every 80s and 90s course.  The average player just pulls his driver and doesn't use restraint, but this hole requires it.  I'd call it a breath of fresh air.  I think a bit of fairway short of the left hand bunker should be created and those small pines and a few others should be whacked.  Including the tree that is 8 paces to the right of the green (Form over function)    

[Sean_A]

Well, at least we have controversy...as it should be for a 300ish yarder when it is the best hole on the course.


Ciao

[Joe Sponcia]

#17 at Franklin (2 original Ross Trees) Double hazard but its original and Ross never made a mistake


That is as bad as I've ever seen!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()