Is a tree a fundamental part of the design of a golf hole?

[Ari Marcus]

Should holes be designed with trees in mind? I've heard people make the argument that a hole should be designed to be able to "stand alone" without a tree/trees, where if the tree grows, dies, or is removed, the play-ability of hole is not fundamentally changed. Thoughts?

[Tom_Doak]

Certainly, there have been many holes planned around the existence of a particular tree.


They don't last forever, but depending on the tree, they might last 20-50 years ... which is long enough to consider it a fundamental part of the hole.


If you are designing around a big one, you have to allow for the fact that it will continue to grow, and give it a bit bigger buffer than it needs right now.  And you should be careful that the shaded area from the tree is not a place where you need good turf -- i.e. in the landing area or anywhere around the green -- because that area might wind up being dirt.


I know lots of people who insist we should never consider trees in our designs, but I would guess not many of those people have ever walked through a woods deciding where the clearing limits of a golf hole should be ...

[John Emerson]

Short answer...it depends.  Species of tree is important to consider when thinking about a tree as a long term hole feature.  Some trees are extremely susceptible to dozer work but as soon as the work is done the fate of the tree is sealed with a slow decline.  Dozers can really do a number to tree roots during construction.  The trees I’ve seen to be really tolerant of local ground disturbance are hickories, white and pin oaks.  Some maples.  I don’t have an exhaustive list, but there are species that can handle to beat down during construction and ones that can’t.

[Ari Marcus]

Thanks. Appreciate the thoughtful responses.

[Kalen Braley]

Its always seemed like the green-side tree at Pebble 18 fits this description.

I know many bitched when they replaced it, but it adds interest to a hole where most players have to layup anyways, so they can't just knock it down there anywhere for thier second shot. 

[Thomas Dai]

Consider it from the opposite perspective.
If there wasn’t a tree there, would you plant one?
Atb

[Tom_Doak]

Consider it from the opposite perspective.
If there wasn’t a tree there, would you plant one?
Atb

The problem with that perspective is that it takes 30-40 years for a tree to really mature and affect play as you'd imagine.


If it were easy to transplant a tree that big and not worry about losing it, I'd guess a lot more architects would do it a lot more often.  But it's expensive, and there's a pretty good chance you will lose the tree.


That also explains why, when you do lose a key tree on a key hole, generally, it isn't worth trying to replace it.  It just takes way too long for the replacement to become a satisfactory solution.


I know that sounds inconsistent but it is not at all ... the consistent feature is "work with what you have."  If there's a great tree, use it to make the course better [though this does not necessarily mean bringing it prominently into play].  When it dies, change the hole to make it as good as it can be without the tree.

[Anthony Gholz]

where I grew up playing golf there was a tree in the middle of the third fairway about 100 yards from the tee. Locally very famous.  You could play a hook or slice around it (if you were good enough) .  As the trees either side of the fairway grew the left side was closed over by growth.  The tree was not taken down until the original owner (and amateur architect) died.  By that time the hole was almost un playable.  Today the hole has a 25 yard gap between the trees on either side of the fairway.  And the problems continue.  They do grow ...

[Ian Mackenzie]

Full disclosure: I lifted the quotes below from an Ian Andrew response from 2014:

I'm fond of this quote from H.S. Colt:

"It is more or less accepted fact that trees are not the best of hazards, for the obvious reason that they unfortunately afford but slight opportunity for the display of golfing skill in extricating the ball from their clutches…but they are undoubtedly charming features in a landscape view."

A good one from George Thomas:

"Trees and shrubbery beautify the course, and natural growth should never be cut down if it is possible to save it; but he who insists on preserving a tree where it spoils a shot should have nothing to say about golf course construction."

But my favourite comes from Donald Ross:

“Trees should serve perhaps as the scenery, but never as part of the stage.”

[Thomas Dai]

Consider it from the opposite perspective.
If there wasn’t a tree there, would you plant one?
Atb

The problem with that perspective is that it takes 30-40 years for a tree to really mature and affect play as you'd imagine.
If it were easy to transplant a tree that big and not worry about losing it, I'd guess a lot more architects would do it a lot more often.  But it's expensive, and there's a pretty good chance you will lose the tree.
That also explains why, when you do lose a key tree on a key hole, generally, it isn't worth trying to replace it.  It just takes way too long for the replacement to become a satisfactory solution.
I know that sounds inconsistent but it is not at all ... the consistent feature is "work with what you have."  If there's a great tree, use it to make the course better [though this does not necessarily mean bringing it prominently into play].  When it dies, change the hole to make it as good as it can be without the tree.

Like Ian's, my comment came from someone else too, on GCA I believe although I can't recall who actually said it, and I take Tom's point above as well, but isn't part of the art of design to be able to close your eyes and imagine in your mind in 3D a tree of whatever size, any feature really, in a certain spot and envisage how the hole will play for a variety of different skill levels of player both with and without the tree (feature) being there.
And of course these days with computer imagery trees and features can appear and disappear at the click of the mouse. I guess with sketching etc something similar has been possible pretty much forever.
atb

[Mark_Fine]

Bunkers are usually the initial trigger that starts a restoration or renovation but “trees” are by far the most challenging and controversial aspect of most projects.  There is a very small percentage of courses worldwide that don’t have to deal with trees.  Stating that fact alone should tell you that a tree/s are part of most every design.  The problem with trees is they grow and they die.  As such the use of a tree or trees has to be well thought out. 

[Steve Lang]

Consider it from the opposite perspective.
If there wasn’t a tree there, would you plant one?
Atb

Let us not forget the infamous  "Hinkle Tree" planted by Mike Strantz at Inverness... not immediately fundamental, but it got there..

[Sean_A]

Should holes be designed with trees in mind? I've heard people make the argument that a hole should be designed to be able to "stand alone" without a tree/trees, where if the tree grows, dies, or is removed, the play-ability of hole is not fundamentally changed. Thoughts?

Yes, for sure. Sometimes archies should showcase trees when they are special specimens. I rather like the idea of a great tree or very small copse of trees standing out in design...if the trees are properly controlled and kept within the context of their value.

Ciao

[V_Halyard]

Certainly, there have been many holes planned around the existence of a particular tree.

They don't last forever, but depending on the tree, they might last 20-50 years ... which is long enough to consider it a fundamental part of the hole.

If you are designing around a big one, you have to allow for the fact that it will continue to grow, and give it a bit bigger buffer than it needs right now.  And you should be careful that the shaded area from the tree is not a place where you need good turf -- i.e. in the landing area or anywhere around the green -- because that area might wind up being dirt.

I know lots of people who insist we should never consider trees in our designs, but I would guess not many of those people have ever walked through a woods deciding where the clearing limits of a golf hole should be ...

Your thoughts on Prairie Dunes #12 and the Pebble 18?  We know what Pebble did.  What happens to 12 at PD when beetles or  lightening strikes?  Transplant?


See: http://www.treemover.com/projects/golf-course-construction/pebble-beach-golf-links

[Tom_Doak]

Vaughn:  For what Pebble Beach spent on that one tree, they probably could have bought a few people heart transplants   


I just don't think it works very well when clubs try to replace a lost tree.  Inevitably, they want the new tree to come into play like the old one did, even though it's smaller . . . so they plant it closer to the line of play.  Then, the tree grows - and guess what, trees grow out as well as up - and in a matter of a few years the new tree is way more of an obstacle than the original.

[corey miller]

Prairie Dunes #12 has a wonderful green.  Would rather have the strategy from the tee be thinking of the green rather than the trees on both sides.  Same goes for a second shot.

That said always found the trees (shoot) on back tee #15 more bothersome.

[Wade Whitehead]

The 15th at Kinloch is a great hole because of one tree.

When the tree was lost, the club went to great measures to replace it.

http://kinlochgcm.blogspot.com/2017/03/15-tree-relocation-project-tree-is-home.html

That tree is certainly a fundamental part of the hole's design.

WW