What would Alister MacKenzie and Bobby Jones do? They would take trees out.
It is terrible architecture. Vertical hazards are gimmicks. So many other ways to "protect and make the hole challenging."
Lynn,
While I agree there are many, many ways to protect a hole, a relatively straight shot is one challenge, isn't it? On an open site, you wouldn't go out of your way to create that shot, but on a wooded site, I can't see NOT having one of those where it is offered, perhaps even two, one favoring a fade and the other a draw.
Just because some old Scots started golf on virtually treeless terrain doesn't mean any one comment about treeless courses being the only acceptable kind is right. If Bobby Jones didn't see the need for a tree on any course, why the heck did he pick a tree nursery, with several native areas of pines to boot, for his ideal course?
Yes, you can architecturally suggest certain shots with ground hazards, but forcing a curved shot can only be done with trees. Of the tee with a controlled starting point seems preferable to an approach shot which might be coming from a wide variety of angles. And, most pros I know think its okay, but prefer the tree (s) at about 180-200 yards to match the apex of their curve (both height and horizontally).
Agree that moving the tee back 50-60 yards over the years puts that narrow chute at a tougher place,
but again, hitting a straight shot off the tee is certainly a viable challenge, one accomplished about 430 times out of 431 this week.
Short version, love it because it was natural there and it only occurs once on that course. 18 straight times (like Olympic, where you have to hug the inside, high edge just to hold the fairway) would be boring. At least 18 at ANGC uses the trees, dog leg and hazard placement to suggest a fade. At one time, the course was considered so draw dominant, the shot fit in that way, too, to provide some variety and balance.