[Jeff Loh]

Chris
A lob wedge from the FAIRWAY with a good lie and hitting into the long part of the green is, I agree, a pretty boring shot.
Once again, if you don't put the ball in the proper part of the fairway (left side) you are now faced with an entirely different type of shot.
Yes…you may have the same club in your hand but now you are hitting into the NARROWEST part of the green from sandy scrub and this may take some skill. And since so many people only look at the short yardage they will be TEMPTED to hit that shot. IF you can hit that shot and hold the green what's wrong with a birdie putt?
If you miss the proper side of the fairway you are already penalized because the 2nd shot now becomes much more difficult given your relation (angle) to the putting surface.


Having a tree in the way doesn't even ALLOW you to try and pull off that shot.


If the green were easy to hit/hold from either side of the fairway I would agree (sort of) that the tree should stay. But it's a lot easier to hit and hold from the left side. If I have misplaced my drive please give me some chance of recovery. If I think I can pull it off let me try.

[BCowan]

    I think you are helping to prove my point.  Good players aren't going to use anything but driver, the post 80's bomb and gouge crowd hit driver whether there is a tree or not.  It's evolved into a drive and pitch hole just like the Ross 13th photo I posted above of Franklin Hills.  In our group of 8-13 handicaps, I was the only one to hit it on the green from inside of 80 yards to the postage stamp volcano hole.  I made birdie that day.  I've made double the first time I've played it

     I think you are miss representing what Dunlap said, for he wasn't saying scoring would differentiate from different equipment, but from tree removal.  You could possibly play more conservative by just trying to hit the green with your hickories explaining the tighter scoring.  It would be fun with persimmon and ballatas.  I prob wouldn't use a lob wedge from the right side of the fairway.  3 iron runner through the bunker or a chippy wedge/9 iron.  Trees are 90% air right?  I also think that the average golfer will use the same club for his 2nd shot with or without the tree from the right side.   

[Jeff Loh]

Ben
Is that Mid-Pines?

[BCowan]

No, its franklin Hills another Ross course.  My point is whether or not there is a tree, it won't influence how the good/avg/poor player plays the hole

Having a tree in the way doesn't even ALLOW you to try and pull off that shot.

Disagree, do we have any shot makers left?  Paging Trevino and Chi Chi.  They are 90% air and it has a high canopy. 

[Jeff Loh]

Thats not shot making Chi-Chi…thats dumb luck.

[Jaeger Kovich]

Dear Jay,

1. The tree IS in the aerial that was used for the restoration.
2. The tightness of the playing corridors is one of the main(if not single most) defining characteristics of the course.
3.  I hit balls under the tree and over the tree, and onto the green yesterday.
4. And most important of all... HIT YOUR BALL LEFT!

SO LEAVE THE BLOODY TREE!

 

[Jeff Loh]

Jaeger
From what yardage did you hit the ball under the tree and hold the green?
Thanks
Jeff

[Sean_A]

Yes, I will give a standard bet to anybody who can't hit past the tree.  Drop your ball where the tree blocks play and see if you can hold the green more than 5 times out of 10.  My bet is no and would guess twice is doing well.  There is no question that in general the tree effects high cappers far more than low cappers.  I am not ssure about this philosophy of design, but understand that high cappers must be strongly challenged at times during the round. As I said in my first post, I would first cut down all the right forward trees and see then take a view on how the hole plays with the one tree in play.  I am guessing that it will look marvelous from the tee and therefore folks would not want to see it cut down.  Anway, interestibg discussion if nobody is right or wrong.  There are many other fish to fry on the course before this tree shoould have its day...starting with the bloody water on 3.   


Ciao

[archie_struthers]

 


I'm not known around here to be an arboreal fan , having taken down three or four trees at GB that some considered iconic. However we left one on our fourth hole which I love and certainly can impact hole strategy.


Could you limb the tree a little so you could flight it under with just the right amount of spin and skill, or would this kill it off? It might be a great concession that works in multiple ways .

[David_Madison]

Ben - - I didn't mistake what Dunlop said. Dunlop suggested that scores would widen with the tree gone using modern equipment. I said that as well in an earlier post. With the tree in place, scores tighten as the play is more dictated and risky shots to the green from the right side are discouraged. When I play modern equipment, I usually drive it past where the tree is an obstacle and then I experience a wider variety of scores. With my hickories, the tree is in play and my scores narrow.

[Kyle Harris]

The plural of anecdote, of course, is data. 

I'm not entirely certain I would buy into the idea as a thought experiment that scores will widen or narrow based on one feature vs. another. They certainly can do that, but with high handicappers anytime you increase the amount of necessary shots you increase the likelihood of a poorly struck shot that has no bearing on intention or the feature. That is the nature of a high-handicap and the folly of designing features for the high-handicap.

Assuming a field of players of equal caliber, I'd venture that the tree would do more to spread scores across of wider spectrum than removing the tree would. It's just that a US Open caliber field would be between three and five while the Watts Gunn Flight of the Cavendish Memorial Hit 'n Giggle would be between three and twenty-eight.

When I play modern equipment, I usually drive it past where the tree is an obstacle and then I experience a wider variety of scores. With my hickories, the tree is in play and my scores narrow.

David Madison,

I am attempting to wrap my head around this statement. So, when you are beyond the tree in a spot where the tree would never influence play if it were there or not your scores have a wider breadth? Sounds like you need to practice your short game. Perhaps we could transplant the tree to your local practice area to help you out.

[David_Madison]

Kyle - With modern clubs and the tree not much of a factor, I make more 3's and an occasional 6 as there's lots of ways to do that on the hole, especially when played aggressively. With hickories, it's almost always 4's and 5's, with a rare birdie tossed in.

I can always use the short game practice, although it seemed to be pretty good in last week's club championship. I could also use the pine bark nuggets in my yard if you can arrange for the tree to come down.

[Matthew Petersen]

No, its franklin Hills another Ross course.  My point is whether or not there is a tree, it won't influence how the good/avg/poor player plays the hole

Having a tree in the way doesn't even ALLOW you to try and pull off that shot.

Disagree, do we have any shot makers left?  Paging Trevino and Chi Chi.  They are 90% air and it has a high canopy.

Fully with you here. A lone tree with high limbs does leave options. You can chip around it to the front left of the green, try to run a shot under it, try to go through it, over it, or hit a cut around it. All are options.


I mean, the tree is fully visible from the tee. If you don't want to contend with it, then hit a drive that takes it out of play. Those arguing that removing the tree may make the second shot more interesting are probably right but they seem to ignore that they make the drive entirely uninteresting. Right now the key to the hole is the drive as much as the approach. That's unusual, but since it's the only hole out there that way, I think it's a nice hole and the tree is a great feature.

[Dunlop_White]

Just finished reading a 1940 New York newspaper article that distinguished the Penal School of Design from the Strategic School of Design.

Donald Ross represented the latter.

So for the fun of it…….Which school, if any, does Hole 4 at MP best represent in its 2016 state?

The Penal School penalizes a misplaced shot right away. “Retribution is immediate”. “Hit it here or else” is the mentality. To apply this methodology to Hole 4, a good shot must hold the left side of the fairway to have an unimpeded view and preferred angle into the green. A misplaced shot to the right is usually somewhere around or behind the tree in question.

To what degree does the tree prevent a reasonable opportunity at redemption or recovery? Please consider.

The Strategic School did not believe a misplaced shot should be so crippling. In contrast, “additional strokes” were merely a “deferred possibility” of a misplaced shot (in this case) to the right behind the tree, but not probable. Proponents of this School often believed that the difficulty of a shot should be in proportion to the error of the preceding one.

So ….. much of this exercise boils down to your interpretation of the tree’s impact on a misplaced shot to the entire right half of the fairway?

If this pine were a different species with a different shape and structure, its fate would perhaps be clearer to all of us.


 

[Sean_A]

Dunlop


I think the 4th is from the penal school with or without the tree.  The waste bunkers either side of the fairway combined with a less than wide and sloping fairway take care of that debate. In terms of penal V strategic, the tree only adds insult to injury. 


Ciao

[Joe Sponcia]

Dunlop


I think the 4th is from the penal school with or without the tree.  The waste bunkers either side of the fairway combined with a less than wide and sloping fairway take care of that debate. In terms of penal V strategic, the tree only adds insult to injury. 


Ciao

Birdie!

[Charles Lund]

Stroke index = 13.

Charles Lund

Dunlop


I think the 4th is from the penal school with or without the tree.  The waste bunkers either side of the fairway combined with a less than wide and sloping fairway take care of that debate. In terms of penal V strategic, the tree only adds insult to injury. 


Ciao

[Jeff Loh]

Most humans can't hit a "cut" from 60-80 yards out.
I can't go under the tree as that puts me in the bunker.
There is basically ONE option and ONE option only. Chip it left and hope you can get up and down.
The drive would hardly be "uninteresting" if the tree were not there. You know you have  to approach the green from the left but if you go too far right your challenge will now be to hold the green from a very dicey position. Good luck.

[BCowan]

Jeff,

   Go take a shag bag out there at night and get creative.  You can punch a 5-3 iron through the bunker come on.  That is the email suggestion I got from an MP/PN member friend who plays over a 100 rounds a year there.  He is in the Keep the Tree category.  I so wish Trevino could read this thread.  You have the option of playing a tee or two up from where you normally do.  Learning to hold a green isn't luck, it's skill  .

Dunlop,

   I don't consider Drive and Pitch holes to be considered penal with more options available then stated previously and especially if played from proper tees.  I consider it more of a heroic tee shot.  You can also hit a draw/hook into the left to right slope.  There is a great advantage into taking on the narrow part of the fairway and getting past it. If the hole was over 340 yards then yes I would consider it a Penal hole.  The tree provides a psychological road bump to the thinking golfer. 

If this pine were a different species with a different shape and structure, its fate would perhaps be clearer to all of us.

Agree!
 

[Jeff Loh]

Ben
Why would I move up "a tee or two'" on a hole that is 315 yards long?


Why would I practice a shot that requires NO SKILL…Anybody can hit a low 3 iron into a bunker or over the green.
If it does run through the bunker and stay on the green I had NOTHING to do with it. PURE LUCK.

[Kyle Harris]

"The more I practice, the luckier I get."

[Tom_Doak]

On the one hand, it's amazing that a thread like this over a single [and not very attractive] tree can go on for so long.


On the other, it proves the essential fact that golf architecture is entirely a matter of opinion.  There is no right or wrong answer here, but anyone in the business of making decisions would have done so long before now!

[Jay Mickle]

Tom, I am sure that you are glad that you didn't have to get a consensus from this group before removing  this tree on the 7th at Pasatiempo.

[BCowan]

Tom, I am sure that you are glad that you didn't have to get a consensus from this group before removing  this tree on the 7th at Pasatiempo.

The tree on the left blocks the preferred angle there Jay, which is opposite at MP #4. 

[Stephen Davis]

I have read the different arguments and I am in Jay's camp on this. It seems to me that the tree essentially removes the heroic recovery shot that Mackenzie (and Ross) were so found of. If performed with skill, the golfer has potentially saved himself. If a yard or two short or long and the golfer has doomed himself. Few things in golf are more satisfying than pulling off a great recovery shot and this tree appears to eliminate that possibility.

Off with her head 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()