[Jim_Coleman]

   Is the main architectural difference between a parkland and a heathland course the presence of trees?  If so, is Azinger saying, when he criticizes extensive tree removal from classic courses, that such tree removal negatively changes the character of the course?  Or, put another way, are trees that affect shot values a necessary architectural component of a great parkland course?

[Jeff_Brauer]

It's all perspective and what you really want out of a golf course.  If you want strict penalty for missing the fw, plant long rows of uninterrupted trees that guarantee a chip out.  If you want some fun in a match, plant random clumps of trees, covering no more than 50% of the rough on either side of the fw (or maybe just one and see if that influences strategy) which may allow a spectacular recovery to keep the hole or match alive (or keep score close in medal play).


Which is a better "shot value" scheme?  To me, its the 50% chance, but for a long time, the strict penalty was in vogue for the US Open, and most other majors.

[MCirba]

The "chip out" is the most boring shot in golf.   


It's almost fascist, to steal a line about strikeouts from "Bull Durham".

[Tommy Williamsen]

The "chip out" is the most boring shot in golf.   

On the other hand it is pretty satisfying to hit a low hook or cut recovery shot that ends up near the green. Whenever my son hit it in the trees i'd tell him, "Now is your chance to be exceptional."

[Jim_Coleman]

   If your goal is to eliminate the "chip out," then you must eliminate all trees, as there is always some place behind a tree from which one has to chip out.  Then you fall into Azinger's critique that, without trees, a golfer will always have a direct shot to the green.  Aren't some trees necessary on a true parkland course? 

   I have a related question.  Was Oakmont considered a parkland course before the tree removal?  If so, is it still considered a parkland course today, or did they turn it into a heathland course?

[Thomas Dai]

‘Heathland’ as a term gets banded about.
Here’s a piece that may help understand what heathland (and it’s close cousin moorland) actually is - https://www.wildlifetrusts.org/habitats/heathland-and-moorland
Atb

[Kyle Harris]

Having a direct shot to the green in concert with having absolutely no shot at the green is the most fertile ground for double-bogey there is.

[Sean_A]

   Is the main architectural difference between a parkland and a heathland course the presence of trees?  If so, is Azinger saying, when he criticizes extensive tree removal from classic courses, that such tree removal negatively changes the character of the course?  Or, put another way, are trees that affect shot values a necessary architectural component of a great parkland course?

I don't think of heathland courses as treeless and parkland as full of trees. In in most cases both can have roughly the same number of trees if the number doesn't over run the value of the architecture. Both can have sparsely treed areas which may effect play, but in a way which adds variety rather than dominates the landscape.

Perhaps a larger and more important difference is how the soil and turf should influence the design. Having fewer trees is an easier way for heather and its associated traits to thrive. Equally, fewer trees is an easier way to encourage the preferred grass types to grow and show case design style of parkland designs.

Ciao

[Tim Gavrich]

Proponents of parkland golf should be the biggest advocates of sensible tree management because that practice highlights the good trees, rather than letting them be swallowed up.


Among nationwide golf course tree programs, Oakmont's radical transformation was an outlier, wasn't it? But because it's a famous course it seems like it's erroneously seen as a model on which all parkland golf course tree management should be based.

[Jeff_Brauer]

   If your goal is to eliminate the "chip out," then you must eliminate all trees, as there is always some place behind a tree from which one has to chip out.  Then you fall into Azinger's critique that, without trees, a golfer will always have a direct shot to the green.  Aren't some trees necessary on a true parkland course? 

   I have a related question.  Was Oakmont considered a parkland course before the tree removal?  If so, is it still considered a parkland course today, or did they turn it into a heathland course?

Which is why I mentioned about 50% tree removal, although if the goal is to have about a 50-50 chance of actually advancing in the direction of the green, on second thought, I think there would probably have to be about 33% tree cover, but it depends on the type of tree, current size, eventual size, etc.  Someone here long ago noted that the most exciting time in a golf round is not knowing the result of the shot.  IMHO, the goal would be to not know if you have a shot, but know there is a possibility on that ride or walk from the tee to the landing spot.  And, then having to invent a shot, probably scurrying along the ground with the results unknown with every bounce, until it comes to a spot.

[MCirba]

Can we at least agree that crap trees like soft white pines have no place on a golf course?

I would contend that if you removed every single soft white pine from every golf course in the northeastern United States you would raise each of them at least a point on the Doak Scale.

[Tom_Doak]

There is really no such thing as a heathland course in the USA, unless you count the in-name-only Heathland Course at The Legends in Myrtle Beach, which was modeled after links courses 


And that's a perfect example that getting hung up on these labels can be counterproductive.


A parkland course can have a lot of trees, or not that many, just as a park can.  There isn't an ideal number of trees to have; it all depends on what you're working with and what your goals are.

[Wayne_Kozun]

How able are you to remove trees these days?  Here in the city of Toronto you have to replant three trees for every one that you cut down.  If the club has lots of extra land then you can find places, if not then it can de difficult to find the land for the trees.  When we thinned some trees a few years back it was hard to find enought suitable land to replant.

[Thomas Dai]

How able are you to remove trees these days?  Here in the city of Toronto you have to replant three trees for every one that you cut down.  If the club has lots of extra land then you can find places, if not then it can de difficult to find the land for the trees.  When we thinned some trees a few years back it was hard to find enought suitable land to replant.

Firstly, my sympathies for this situation.

It’s a bit like closing the gate after the horse has bolted but a key element has to be don’t let them grow in the first place. Regular removal of scrub and brush and the like stops self-seeding trees from growing and if they don’t grow they can’t one day become trees.
The safety approach can be used as well. Close inspection of existing trees can show signs of decay. Inspect regularly and closely.
And if you have to replacement plant, then presumably regulations permitting, plant species that aren’t necessarily going to live naturally too long or become too large.
Can you replacement plant in pots? Bonsai!
Good luck.
Atb

[Ira Fishman]

How should one think about the relationship among trees, width, and rough? Add in height of tree canopies. I could make the case that allowing shots to reach the trees might be a better sanction for an off line tee shot especially if the canopies do not automatically dictate a punch out.


Ira

[mike_malone]

As Tom and others have said heathland is not an American thing. Parkland courses in my view need trees. But they don’t have to be in play.


Many early American courses were on farmland where the trees may have been along the creeks or in clumps or rows to protect from the wind.
I’m not sure that’s parkland.


In many instances massive tree planting took place early after the course opened.  Some of this was in harmony with the original design and some covered up the original design.




Parkland, heathland, farmland aren’t significant distinctions for golf courses like links or not is.

[Kalen Braley]

I don't understand why trees are an all or nothing issue on GCA.com for the most part.

The answer of course is "It depends" as was mentioned.  Some sites it would be awful, other perhaps a lot especially if they were already there, but for most courses a well placed tree or collection of them in just the right spots surely enhances as opposed to takes away. But trees in play must be managed and that is where most get it wrong, especially on older overgrown courses where hundreds are now in play...

[Duncan Cheslett]

“Heathland” describes a particular ecosystem that involves poor quality soil unsuitable for growing crops and which had been denuded of trees for centuries in the pursuit of grazing domestic animals - usually sheep.


When golf moved inland in the early 20th century it was found that heathland offered the nearest conditions to seaside links and was particularly suitable for golf courses. The grasses which thrived were the same fescues and bents that dominant in linksland.  Heathland’s minimal value as agricultural land was another big advantage.


“Parkland” is an entirely different beast. Originally referring to the county estates surrounding grand houses with laid out gardens and clusters of fine specimen trees, the term has come to mean any old farmers’ field golf course where avenues of trees form the only features of interest. The soil is usually rich and damp, the grasses lush and green. All in all, not the best conditions for a golf course.


Heathland will always be reclaimed by trees unless there is a vigorous woodland management programme in place. On parkland courses the bigger problem has normally been aggressive tree planting over the last 40 years.


This of course, is from a European perspective. As Tom Doak says, heathland doesn’t exist in America.

[Kalen Braley]

Mike C,

I'm glad you didn't call out White Fir's, these would be all over the place on my dream course! 

[Peter Pallotta]

How many yards from the centre of the fairway is enough to 'justify' a chip out? If the trees/tree canopies are 50 yards from the centre-line, on one or both sides of the fairway, is that a reasonable 'margin of error'? [If you aimed at the left-side tree-line and played a fade, you'd have almost a hundred yards of 'miss' available before you got into the right-side tree line.] Or do you think this talk of justifying a chip-out misguided, and the notion of a reasonable margin of error misplaced -- at least when it comes to trees? 

[Jim_Coleman]

   I agree that there is technically no "heathland" in America.  But there is also very little "linksland" either.  Yet there are many attempts to build "links" (or "links-like") courses here.  Aren't there "heathland-like" courses here too.  Is Merion "heathland-like?"  Is the deforested Oakmont "heathland-like?"  Having played at least two real heathland courses (Walton Heath and Woodhall Spa), Merion and Oakmont seem to me to be similar.  And I assume that similarity is in the lack of trees as a playing obstacle.  I can't think of a great parkland course that doesn't use trees as an obstacle. Certainly Olympia Fields did, and Winged Foot will in a couple of weeks.  And that's after a major Gil Hanse renovation.

[Kalen Braley]

From what I can tell from this link, sites like Sand Valley may be the closest thing, albeit missing the sustained cool, rainy, overcast climate.  http://www.countrysideinfo.co.uk/whatis.htm

Perhaps you can find Heathland-like spots in the PNW with its similar UK climate for 8-9 months of the year.

[Steve Lapper]

Having a direct shot to the green in concert with having absolutely no shot at the green is the most fertile ground for double-bogey there is.

Bingo!



And why we attributing even an iota of credibility to Paul Azinger's golf-architecture IQ ?

[MCirba]

Mike C,

I'm glad you didn't call out White Fir's, these would be all over the place on my dream course! 

Kalen,


Those are on my dream course too.


In fact, virtually every golf nightmare I have has me finding my ball under one of them and then I try to advance the ball and my nightmare goes even darker. 

[Thomas Dai]

Didn’t Harry Colt say something like “trees should be the scenery not on the stage?

My understanding it that the term ‘parkland’ course originates from the period when golf in the U.K. especially was moving inland and being played in the often ornate and designer planned and laid out gardens of stately homes, big houses and their estates. Such areas were sometimes referred to as the estates ‘park’, hence ‘parkland’.

These estate ‘parklands’ could be very large and were usually grazed by sheep, cattle, goats, horses etc who nibbled away at any vegetation including any self seeding saplings that were inclined to grow. Thus such ‘parks’ were generally not tree covered and what trees there were, which were relatively few, tended to be large specimen trees that had been there for years, maybe decades, as the estate houses ‘parks’ were laid out long before golf came inland.

Atb

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()