[Ronald Montesano]

Another tree debate. It hasn't affected shots today, but I wonder why it is there.

[Tom_Doak]

Another tree debate. It hasn't affected shots today, but I wonder why it is there.

Trees like that are rarely the architect's idea ... it's an owner that falls in love with a certain tree and refuses to allow it to be cut down.

[John Kavanaugh]

Why would anyone kill a tree that doesn't affect shots? Trees in Illinois have had a hard enough time fighting disease.  I miss the elms of my youth. Golf was better with them.

[BCowan]

Why would anyone kill a tree that doesn't affect shots? Trees in Illinois have had a hard enough time fighting disease.  I miss the elms of my youth. Golf was better with them.

John,

   I hear they have Elms now that are resistant to thee Dutch.  We have smarter trees now. 

[Peter Pallotta]

Why would anyone kill a tree that doesn't affect shots? Trees in Illinois have had a hard enough time fighting disease.  I miss the elms of my youth. Golf was better with them.

Off one of your posts from a while back about Southern Hemisphere courses, positing that in hot sunny climates *shade* is still valued and sought after: maybe here in wealthy North America we go from air conditioned offices to air conditioned cars straight to the only natural sunny expanse we see all week (and in the north for only 7 months a year) and so we don't *want* any shade. Plus, as everyone is always telling us, trees and shade are bad for the turf and they limit our options and choices. (And before you raise it, no, apparently hitting a low running shot under some tree limbs is *not* one of the choices or options we want.)
Peter

[Ronald Montesano]

It's a tree that sits squarely in the middle of the line of play. Its boughs are at the proper trajectory to catch a well struck second or third from your average player (not the ones who visit one week a year for D1 Championship and can do anything with the ball.)


It's a case of punishing those who least need to be punished. Yes, you can play the shots mentioned above, but it demands a level of acumen and acuity to succeed.


I'm not a fan of vertical hazards. This one forces you to sling a ball from left to right or right to left, a difficult task with modern equipment.

[J_ Crisham]

I was at Rich Harvest Farms all day today- that tree was the least of the players problems . The 25-30 mph sustained winds were brutal.  The potential of the property is incredible- sadly the course architecture is disappointing in so many ways

[jeffwarne]

I'm not a fan of vertical hazards. This one forces you to sling a ball from left to right or right to left, a difficult task with modern equipment.

Not defending this tree....but
In a world where we constantly spend to build deeper picture perfect bunkers (with perfectly fair crushed rock from a quarry in Ohio)
where amp the greens up to ridiculous speeds at great expense and effort,presumably for challenge (another topic)
where we grow "native" which is rarely native, usually unplayable unless great effort and expense is expended,
where we glorify shotmaking and central hazards,
where we continually push tees back to challenge these "experts"


Isn't the use of an occasional vertical hazard (where agronomically sound) refreshing and a different challenge?
Pete Dye made great use of several of these at Long Cove especially #11,(and yes Harbour Town is severely overtreed now)
and many courses are far more interesting due to occasional vertical doglegs rather than bunkers or worse yet long grass

[Ira Fishman]

Like all other hazards, it all depends.  For a good player the trees on Number 9 at the River Course at Blackwolf Run add a great element of risk/strategy precisely because there are alternative routes.  On the other hand, the tree at Number 13 is borderline pure unfair and only makes a really difficult hole even more difficult without adding much in the way of strategy.  At our course, we have a similar example of good and bad on two different holes. On a very short par 4, a tree is a proper penalty for going right because (a) you are seldom hitting driver and (b) you still have a good chance of getting a short iron up and over.  In contrast, on a medium par four that plays longer because it is uphill, a tree blocks the entire left side of the approach and it is too tall to hit over it--hit a good drive in the left side of the fairway and either you need to hit a big draw or a very long punch.

[Sean_A]

I like the odd lovely tree blocking the way, but trees do require extra maintenance and more space is needed to properly cope with the tree.  That said, I see trees blocking playing angles quite often...too much if you ask me. Its also my experience that a lot of places where tree recovery shots are required, either have rough too high or and/or wet to make the shots fun.  Damn, trees are real nuisance if not properly managed.

Ciao

[Jim Franklin]

Another tree debate. It hasn't affected shots today, but I wonder why it is there.

Trees like that are rarely the architect's idea ... it's an owner that falls in love with a certain tree and refuses to allow it to be cut down.

I guess when the owner is the architect, certain trees stay.

[Ian Mackenzie]

One tree?


That place is choked by trees ON the course and somewhat free of them AROUND the course.
With its four cuts of grass (greenside) the entire place looks like Art Hills took acid and played a cruel joke on the owner.


I've heard nothing but great things about the owner, but people who I know who have played it say the highlight of the property is the well-garaged car collection.


How does this atrocity continue to attract marquee events?

[Mike Hendren]

I didn't watch the tournament but can't help but ask:  Does it have bunkers underneath like the 17th at Cypress Point Club?

Bogey

[Ronald Montesano]

Tournament is still going on, Bogey! Tune in to Golf channel for the match play portion.


no bunkers beneath. I think the tree at 17 on Cypress is more manageable than this one.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()