Mid Pines #4: "the Tree". Stay or Go???

[Andrew Buck]

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!

It seems Mid Pines/Franz did make the decision. 

[Jeff Loh]

Thank you Stephen Davis! You just made a double eagle.

[Jay Mickle]

Dear Jay,
1. The tree IS in the aerial that was used for the restoration.

Jaeger, to your point, I took a photo of the aerial photo from 1939 and saw “the Tree” you mention. I had seen it before and thought that it was smaller given the narrowness of the canopy. In an attempt to establish its approx. age I went out onto my property and cut down a 56 foot tall long leaf pine, probably not much different than the tree in the photo. Counting the rings it would be 28 years old. The width of the tree limbs at its widest was 12 feet. In 1921 when the course was built the tree would have been an insignificant sapling.
In looking at the photo it is possible to see the dramatic difference between the course then and now especially as it pertains to obstructed vs unobstructed views of the green.Following is a photo of the ’39 aerial that you reference. In looking at the photo it is possible to see the dramatic difference between the course then and now especially as it pertains to obstructed vs unobstructed views of the green.
 

 Drawing a line from the edge of the green through the tree one can see that virtually the entire green was unobstructed from the vast majority of the fairway.

Fast forward 95 years.
 

 Now that same yellow line delineating approach options has moved significantly due to the greatly enlarged tree canopy.I have displayed drive distances from the tips showing how little fairway is accessible at each distance. From the tips one has a corridor 12 yards wide sloping substantially left to right. If you believe that driving is paramount then you now know why the failure rate is so high. If you additionally believe that the tree should stand you tacitly believe that whole of the topography, bunkering and green aren’t good enough to stand alone as a drive and pitch hole and require "the Tree" to compensate for inherent weakness. Therein lies the basis for the variety of opinion.

This discussion has been all that Ran and I had hoped for and I hope will encourage more such debate and a reason to visit Mid Pines and make up you own mind.

 

[Sean_A]

Few things in golf are more satisfying than pulling off a great recovery shot and this tree appears to eliminate that possibility.

...on one hole.  The course tells the story of 18 holes so the tree should be taken in context of 18 holes.  I don't know Mid Pines well enough to figure out if trees impact the course like this one does, but if folks are saying that a tree should never eliminate the option of recovery then I am out. 

I do disagree with Doak as I think the tree is lovely...just buried so its beauty is hard to appreciate.

Ciao

[Carl Rogers]

Sean, the tree  on no. 4 is distinctive as it is the only tree on the course that influences play to such a large degree (I have played 5 rounds at MP).  Typically, the tree line comes into play only on a very bad shot or if you are a very big hitter, hitting through the doglegs.
Driving through the fairway on 9 is easy and brings tree line into play. Holes 14 & 15 because of the fairway cant can bring the tree line into play on a less than good tee shot.
My first post on this thread voted for removal.  By the observation just made, this tree issue only exists on this hole, perhaps it should stay in the name of "variety".

[Joe Sponcia]

Sean, the tree  on no. 4 is distinctive as it is the only tree on the course that influences play to such a large degree (I have played 5 rounds at MP). 


It really only affects mid-high handicaps.  Good players hit past or even with it.


"If you additionally believe that the tree should stand you tacitly believe that whole of the topography, bunkering and green aren’t good enough to stand alone as a drive and pitch hole and require "the Tree" to compensate for inherent weakness". - Jay Mickle

Jay, that is the crux of what I have argued for many years on many over-treed holes.  "What you are saying is, the green is so easy and unimaginative, the trees are required otherwise, it's a birdie-fest". 

The fairway is 20ish wide and angled enough that the effective fairway is in the 12 yard range, right Jay, on arguably the top 1,2, or 3 green on the course.

"Remember that precision lay-up we executed with hybrid on the risk/reward par 4" - Said no one ever in the 19th hole.

"Once a round, you need a hole that makes the golfer choose restraint over brawn".  Is this what we are after?  A careful lay-up?  Aren't lay-ups the most boring shot in golf? 

The tree has next to no strategy for the sub 5 handicap.  This is the little white lie 'we' like to tell ourselves, thinking some flat bill with 115+ club head speed really spends time thinking about trees like this?

[BCowan]

"If you additionally believe that the tree should stand you tacitly believe that whole of the topography, bunkering and green aren’t good enough to stand alone as a drive and pitch hole and require "the Tree" to compensate for inherent weakness". - Jay Mickle

Who stated this?  The hole is great with or without the tree.  The tree adds another psychological speed bump.


Jay, that is the crux of what I have argued for many years on many over-treed holes.  "What you are saying is, the green is so easy and unimaginative, the trees are required otherwise, it's a birdie-fest". 

Who on this thread said anything close to this? 

The fairway is 20ish wide and angled enough that the effective fairway is in the 12 yard range, right Jay, on arguably the top 1,2, or 3 green on the course.

12 yards wide is complete BS, the line he drew was laughable.  The course has so many great greens.  Notice how neither of you are focusing on the preferred angle on the left which the fairway bunker on the left looks like it was never there and those pines in the sand waste area were never originally there get overlooked as to the real Elephant in the room.  A good portion of the left part of the fairway was removed after the renovation, nobody dare question that.   

"Remember that precision lay-up we executed with hybrid on the risk/reward par 4" - Said no one ever in the 19th hole.

This is where the long hitter has an advantage.  He can get it past the trouble.  Hence Heroic
"Once a round, you need a hole that makes the golfer choose restraint over brawn".  Is this what we are after?  A careful lay-up?  Aren't lay-ups the most boring shot in golf? 
95% of golfers never use restraint. David has already stated that he hits driver when playing with modern clubs.  Jay doesn't like being at a disadvantage. 

The tree has next to no strategy for the sub 5 handicap.  This is the little white lie 'we' like to tell ourselves, thinking some flat bill with 115+ club head speed really spends time thinking about trees like this?

Where in this thread did somebody mention this?

[David_Madison]

Ben - Your last point is interesting. For the sub-5 handicap player the tree does introduce a strategic element as long as they haven't played the hole enough times to figure it out. I mentioned in an earlier post on this thread that the first few times I played the hole after joining that I hit a long iron or hybrid on the hole in hopes of keeping it left. And then I figured out that driver was actually the safer play. Had I been a visitor to the course maybe playing there once or twice a year, I may never have figured it out.


As a practical matter, the tree does frame the hole, but it would be so much better if it was positioned a bit to the right or severely limbed up and back so as to play more like it did when the hole was conceived by Ross.

[Jaeger Kovich]

Jay - This thread is amazing. It speaks volumes about the power architecture can have. If there was no tree, we would not be having this conversation.[size=78%] [/size]

[MCirba]

Stay. 

And I generally hate trees in lines of play.  This is an exception that proves the rule.

[Ira Fishman]

Picking up on Ran's request in his spot on holiday message, I have played Mid Pines 6 or 7 times and support keeping the tree.  As a 59 year old who can get it up the fairway 220 with a good poke, I still find that the tree makes the tee shot a true, but fair, challenge.  I know that if I push my drive, I am dead but if overcompensate to the left, I have real problems there too.  Short story: a terrific short Par 4 where par really needs to be earned.

[Craig Disher]

Jay,
I found something interesting here which may add weight to keeping the tree - although I never needed convincing. First off, I think the aerial you're showing isn't from 1939. The transition from sand to grass greens was some time between 1938 and 1940. The trees that are visible between the 4th green and the 5th tee just weren't there in 1938 as you can see below in the 1938 aerial. I think the aerial you show is from 1947. But to my point, in 1938 the hole was nearly straight with the sand green to the left of the current location. Note there is only one tree in front of the fairway bunker and it's out of play as long as you're in the fairway. The 1941 aerial shows the new green and bunker along with what's possibly a new tree next to the original one. Even if there's only a single tree in 1941, it's obvious Ross felt it necessary for the hole.

[Lyndell Young]

This reminds me of the commercial where the old guy says I used to take it over the tree when I was your age.--- but ---when the young man doesn't clear it he says it was much shorter then! Trees can be cool design features but they grow and they die etc . I don't think Ross would leave the a tree that large if he were building today, in that position and slope fairway in that direction and also put a bunker to guard the right side of the green. I do think it makes you think on the tee because you have a small window of a shot. So I say take it down or shorten bunker front right to allow a roll up shot to at least hit some part of green.JMHO

[Tom Fagerli]

I am firmly in the stay camp. Since this thread started I have played the hole probably 10 times. I used to lay up and try to noodle it left for a clear shot- which works great but now I hit it up the hole as far as I can (maybe 225- I am 60 after all) and leave myself 70-80 yards where I can hit a lower wedge that spins under the tree with no issues. If there was no tree you would always hit a high soft lob or Sand wedge. No art in that.

[Sean_A]

Still undecided on the issue because I don't believe we are seeing the tree in its true light with all the other trees along the right. However, I recall being right, just past the tree and thinking this is a damn tough shot...which I failed to pull off by wedging over the green.  I think the hole could be very good with no tree and more fairway right.  Afterall, the protection point should be for the left...the ideal position.  I also think the hole would be very good if the tree was left and more fairway added right.  My message is that the fairway is not really wide enough to serve the purpose with a tight line left and trees/rough right.  Bottom line for me, remideal tree and fairway work needs to happen before we get a true sense of the worth of the tree.


Ciao 

[BCowan]

Still undecided on the issue because I don't believe we are seeing the tree in its true light with all the other trees along the right. However, I recall being right, just past the tree and thinking this is a damn tough shot...which I failed to pull off by wedging over the green.  I think the hole could be very good with no tree and more fairway right.  Afterall, the protection point should be for the left...the ideal position.  I also think the hole would be very good if the tree was left and more fairway added right.  My message is that the fairway is not really wide enough to serve the purpose with a tight line left and trees/rough right.  Bottom line for me, remideal tree and fairway work needs to happen before we get a true sense of the worth of the tree.


Ciao

More fairway right makes no sense?  The angle over to the right is very difficult.  Plus if you add more fairway a push right off the tee could end up OB as in nothing to stop the ball.  If fairway is added it should be on the left side short of the bunker.  Plus the green looks as though it was rotated since first designed. 

[Kyle Harris]

The tree in clearly present in all of the aerials shown.

Also, this thread further proves the idea that mediocre-to-bad players tend to attempt to legislate or change their way out of ineptitude instead of attempting to get better at the physical aspect of the sport.

The fact that the tree, or any other feature, does not hamper good players is what makes them good players.

[Sean_A]

Still undecided on the issue because I don't believe we are seeing the tree in its true light with all the other trees along the right. However, I recall being right, just past the tree and thinking this is a damn tough shot...which I failed to pull off by wedging over the green.  I think the hole could be very good with no tree and more fairway right.  Afterall, the protection point should be for the left...the ideal position.  I also think the hole would be very good if the tree was left and more fairway added right.  My message is that the fairway is not really wide enough to serve the purpose with a tight line left and trees/rough right.  Bottom line for me, remideal tree and fairway work needs to happen before we get a true sense of the worth of the tree.

Ciao

More fairway right makes no sense?  The angle over to the right is very difficult.  Plus if you add more fairway a push right off the tee could end up OB as in nothing to stop the ball.  If fairway is added it should be on the left side short of the bunker.  Plus the green looks as though it was rotated since first designed.

More fairway into an easier to hit poor position on short 4 makes absolute sense if you stop and have a think. 

Kyle

I take the no-tree argument to be about making the next shot count more because the design of the green is then properly highlighted.  Your attitude is exactly why we have long, boring courses filled with trees and rough. 

Ciao

[Duncan Cheslett]

Accentuate the tree in question and increase the illusion of width by removing these superfluous trees.


With my hook draw I'd likely hit the bastards aiming for the left hand side of the fairway. 

[BCowan]

Jay,
I found something interesting here which may add weight to keeping the tree - although I never needed convincing. First off, I think the aerial you're showing isn't from 1939. The transition from sand to grass greens was some time between 1938 and 1940. The trees that are visible between the 4th green and the 5th tee just weren't there in 1938 as you can see below in the 1938 aerial. I think the aerial you show is from 1947. But to my point, in 1938 the hole was nearly straight with the sand green to the left of the current location. Note there is only one tree in front of the fairway bunker and it's out of play as long as you're in the fairway. The 1941 aerial shows the new green and bunker along with what's possibly a new tree next to the original one. Even if there's only a single tree in 1941, it's obvious Ross felt it necessary for the hole.

Excellent find.  What do folks think of the diagonal rotated green from 1941?  Shift in fairway lines? 

[Carl Rogers]

Sean, the tree  on no. 4 is distinctive as it is the only tree on the course that influences play to such a large degree (I have played 5 rounds at MP). 


It really only affects mid-high handicaps.  Good players hit past or even with it.


"If you additionally believe that the tree should stand you tacitly believe that whole of the topography, bunkering and green aren’t good enough to stand alone as a drive and pitch hole and require "the Tree" to compensate for inherent weakness". - Jay Mickle

..........

You are not taking into consideration the older, shorter hitting lower handicapped golfer.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

This is the kind of discussion that I was hoping to find here. Kudos to all the participants thus far (not that you need them from me).

Originally I was firmly in the "stay" camp. I think I still reside there, but support the idea of removing the extra trees right and short on the hole to increase the illusion of width and to make that tree stand out more.

But I can see the point of removing the tree, too, particularly with some changes to the bunker to make the shot from the right side more difficult.

What I'm hearing is that the tree is not a factor for the player who can hit the ball over 220. Even if you hit it 210, you're likely going under the tree so low to the ground before your wedge has risen that the tree is hardly a factor… unless it's right on your line.

So for the good golfer, the tree is only a factor if they make the - possibly - "mistake" of choosing to lay up.

So this tree just punishes the poorer golfer, who likely already struggles to hit a small green even if he's within 80 yards. So I can see the argument for removal, too.

But still, I come down on the side of "keep" the tree. If this repeated itself 18 times - or four or five on the same course - then it would be tedious and repetitive. ONE hole, though, I think is fine: reward the player who chooses the proper strategy and has the skill to pull it off.

I might lobby for removal of some trees on the left, too, to provide a better recovery option for the player who chose properly but "over-" executed left off the tee.

[Jay Mickle]

Jay,
I found something interesting here which may add weight to keeping the tree - although I never needed convincing. First off, I think the aerial you're showing isn't from 1939. The transition from sand to grass greens was some time between 1938 and 1940. The trees that are visible between the 4th green and the 5th tee just weren't there in 1938 as you can see below in the 1938 aerial. I think the aerial you show is from 1947. But to my point, in 1938 the hole was nearly straight with the sand green to the left of the current location. Note there is only one tree in front of the fairway bunker and it's out of play as long as you're in the fairway. The 1941 aerial shows the new green and bunker along with what's possibly a new tree next to the original one. Even if there's only a single tree in 1941, it's obvious Ross felt it necessary for the hole.

Craig,
Not sure what we are seeing there but long leaf pines grow about 18"/year, surely not enough to create the substantial discrepancy we see. If in the 1941 photo the dark areas are shadows of the canopies then the tree next to the bunker was not in play.

[BCowan]

Craig,


Interesting how there are 20 plus less pines on the left in 1938.  More open on the desire line of play.

[Kyle Harris]

Still undecided on the issue because I don't believe we are seeing the tree in its true light with all the other trees along the right. However, I recall being right, just past the tree and thinking this is a damn tough shot...which I failed to pull off by wedging over the green.  I think the hole could be very good with no tree and more fairway right.  Afterall, the protection point should be for the left...the ideal position.  I also think the hole would be very good if the tree was left and more fairway added right.  My message is that the fairway is not really wide enough to serve the purpose with a tight line left and trees/rough right.  Bottom line for me, remideal tree and fairway work needs to happen before we get a true sense of the worth of the tree.

Ciao

More fairway right makes no sense?  The angle over to the right is very difficult.  Plus if you add more fairway a push right off the tee could end up OB as in nothing to stop the ball.  If fairway is added it should be on the left side short of the bunker.  Plus the green looks as though it was rotated since first designed.

More fairway into an easier to hit poor position on short 4 makes absolute sense if you stop and have a think. 

Kyle

I take the no-tree argument to be about making the next shot count more because the design of the green is then properly highlighted.  Your attitude is exactly why we have long, boring courses filled with trees and rough. 

Ciao

I had missed this response.

I suppose my attitude taken over the course of 18 holes could lead to this. However, in one context and on one hole, it's not really affecting the whole, now is it?

Variation, people.