[Jason Thurman]

... the turf is tight, full, firm, and fast?


... recovery shots are feasible and memorable?


... the smart player has a better chance of navigating it successfully than the bomber?


I'm asking as a guy who won a bunch of money from better players a couple days ago. I think I beat them because we were playing a course that rewarded my excellent knowledge of golf course architecture and the versatile recovery game that I've honed through decades of atrocious driving. I'm sure most of us would clamor to cut down all the trees, ostensibly so the weaker player can have a better time and to reinstate the thrill of the recovery shot. But as the actual weaker player in this scenario, I just can't keep ignoring the popular, affordable, sustainable way for landlocked courses to challenge strong players tee to green. Hint: it ain't with width.

[Jay Mickle]

Joe Sponcia wrote a great opinion piece on trees a few years ago.


https://golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/sponcia-joe-trees-on-the-golf-course-a-common-sense-approach/

[JESII]

Do you actually only think the turf was healthy because you played well?

[Kalen Braley]

Jason,

I'm sure you played well and congrats on fattening the wallet.

But isn't the point of playing to a legit HC is that everyone has got some kind of chance.  Play these same guys 10 times and win all 10, then i'll know for sure you're a sand-bagger! 

[Jason Thurman]

Jim, the turf was in remarkable condition. I know just enough to be dangerous about the club's maintenance budget, and it's higher than a few other area clubs. But I can't pretend like the turf was anything other than outstanding. And the club has a reputation for very full rough, despite that rough being almost fully covered by trees. I didn't perform a COVID test on the turf or anything, though.


Kalen, funny you mention it - I played with my usual weekend group, and I honestly don't know if I've paid money after a round all year. In my defense, though, my cap has fallen by four strokes since April. And these guys play with me enough to know my cap is legit. I'm not a sandbagger. I'm just improving. It's an amazing feeling and I live with gratitude every day knowing that it won't last forever.


But it felt like my advantage was improved by leaving our home course, for a few reasons:


1. I really do think an understanding of architecture helps one strategize their way around an unfamiliar course... or at least I tell myself that.
2. I do like to work the ball both ways. I know Erik will tell me that's a mistake, but some of these old-school tree-lined courses almost mandate it. It's one way to DECADE-proof a golf course. A guy who "owns one shot shape" is gonna spend a lot of time in the shade on the holes that don't fit it.
3. I'm 20-50 yards shorter than these guys. Which helps, because sometimes I finish short of trouble that they get into. But it also helps because I show up to every round knowing that I'm not the bomber, and that I need to make up for it with discipline.


I can't remember the last time I was the long drive in the group on our home course, and it's a little overtreed in its own right. But I pulled off the long drive in our group twice on Saturday thanks to trees knocking down close-but-not-quite balls from my buddies. I know I had a good day, but it seemed like a totally reasonable way to level the playing field, distance-wise, from where I was standing.

[Sean_A]

Jim, the turf was in remarkable condition. I know just enough to be dangerous about the club's maintenance budget, and it's higher than a few other area clubs. But I can't pretend like the turf was anything other than outstanding. And the club has a reputation for very full rough, despite that rough being almost fully covered by trees. I didn't perform a COVID test on the turf or anything, though.


Kalen, funny you mention it - I played with my usual weekend group, and I honestly don't know if I've paid money after a round all year. In my defense, though, my cap has fallen by four strokes since April. And these guys play with me enough to know my cap is legit. I'm not a sandbagger. I'm just improving. It's an amazing feeling and I live with gratitude every day knowing that it won't last forever.


But it felt like my advantage was improved by leaving our home course, for a few reasons:


1. I really do think an understanding of architecture helps one strategize their way around an unfamiliar course... or at least I tell myself that.
2. I do like to work the ball both ways. I know Erik will tell me that's a mistake, but some of these old-school tree-lined courses almost mandate it. It's one way to DECADE-proof a golf course. A guy who "owns one shot shape" is gonna spend a lot of time in the shade on the holes that don't fit it.
3. I'm 20-50 yards shorter than these guys. Which helps, because sometimes I finish short of trouble that they get into. But it also helps because I show up to every round knowing that I'm not the bomber, and that I need to make up for it with discipline.


I can't remember the last time I was the long drive in the group on our home course, and it's a little overtreed in its own right. But I pulled off the long drive in our group twice on Saturday thanks to trees knocking down close-but-not-quite balls from my buddies. I know I had a good day, but it seemed like a totally reasonable way to level the playing field, distance-wise, from where I was standing.

Is it possible one reason the maintenance budget is high for the area is because of the excess water and feed overly trees courses require to be in good nick?  The goal should be to slow the growth of grass rather than encourage it with chemicals and water.

Ciao

[Alan FitzGerald CGCS MG]

Jim, the turf was in remarkable condition. I know just enough to be dangerous about the club's maintenance budget, and it's higher than a few other area clubs. But I can't pretend like the turf was anything other than outstanding. And the club has a reputation for very full rough, despite that rough being almost fully covered by trees. I didn't perform a COVID test on the turf or anything, though.


Kalen, funny you mention it - I played with my usual weekend group, and I honestly don't know if I've paid money after a round all year. In my defense, though, my cap has fallen by four strokes since April. And these guys play with me enough to know my cap is legit. I'm not a sandbagger. I'm just improving. It's an amazing feeling and I live with gratitude every day knowing that it won't last forever.


But it felt like my advantage was improved by leaving our home course, for a few reasons:


1. I really do think an understanding of architecture helps one strategize their way around an unfamiliar course... or at least I tell myself that.
2. I do like to work the ball both ways. I know Erik will tell me that's a mistake, but some of these old-school tree-lined courses almost mandate it. It's one way to DECADE-proof a golf course. A guy who "owns one shot shape" is gonna spend a lot of time in the shade on the holes that don't fit it.
3. I'm 20-50 yards shorter than these guys. Which helps, because sometimes I finish short of trouble that they get into. But it also helps because I show up to every round knowing that I'm not the bomber, and that I need to make up for it with discipline.


I can't remember the last time I was the long drive in the group on our home course, and it's a little overtreed in its own right. But I pulled off the long drive in our group twice on Saturday thanks to trees knocking down close-but-not-quite balls from my buddies. I know I had a good day, but it seemed like a totally reasonable way to level the playing field, distance-wise, from where I was standing.

Is it possible one reason the maintenance budget is high for the area is because of the excess water and feed overly trees courses require to be in good nick?  The goal should be to slow the growth of grass rather than encourage it with chemicals and water.

Ciao

Or it could be that they spend it on extra labor to keep it dry and just hand water as needed.....


Not every greenkeepr goes the chem and water route.

[Kyle Harris]

How frequently have you been there such that you can authoritatively suggest their maintenance practices were sustainable? You already suggest that the maintenance budget is higher than most places...

Can they withstand a less-than-ideal climatological situation?

Can you say for certain?

[Thomas Dai]

Trees and turf that is tight, full, firm and fast are not usually the best of bedfellows.
And what does it say to the non-golfing community when maintenances practices, especially water usage in areas of the World where water is in high demand but is relatively scarce, are targeted to make them bedfellows? Big picture time.
Atb

[Jason Thurman]

So, is the entire argument for tree-thinning built around minimizing water usage now?


For instance, my tree-lined home course doesn't irrigate the rough. And while we have a spot or two where trees encroach a bit on fairway lines, the majority are well back from irrigated turf. I'm just a layman, but it's really hard for me to believe that trees are consuming much of our irrigation water (which is pumped from an onsite retention pond, for whatever that's worth). And it's my understanding that we have a much lower maintenance budget than the course I referenced in the original post.


So... are our trees cool?


It's not lost on me that trees have an impact on turf. But I'm not buying that the presence of trees automatically mandates environmentally unsustainable maintenance practices. And given Thomas' ongoing concerns about the perception of golf in the non-golfing world, I've gotta shake my head at the idea that chopping down trees on golf courses makes the game easier to sell to people with concerns about the game's environmental impact. Especially when the alternative is usually "strategic width" that involves creating lots and lots of high-maintenance short grass.


Are there formulas or rules of thumb for determining how the maintenance budget of a transition zone course with bentgrass fairways/greens and bluegrass rough would be impacted by reduction (or addition) of trees? Is there a way to quantify the environmental impact?


It may be outside the scope of this thread, but we should also note that grazing animals produce methane gas that contributes to climate change. Big picture time, indeed.

[jeffwarne]

It's not lost on me that trees have an impact on turf. But I'm not buying that the presence of trees automatically mandates environmentally unsustainable maintenance practices. And given Thomas' ongoing concerns about the perception of golf in the non-golfing world, I've gotta shake my head at the idea that chopping down trees on golf courses makes the game easier to sell to people with concerns about the game's environmental impact. Especially when the alternative is usually "strategic width" that involves creating lots and lots of high-maintenance short grass.

Interesting topics worth discussing.

[Kyle Harris]

Flynn had a good formula here that is often OVER applied. I once read a letter from a well-meaning member at a Flynn course that advocated that "Flynn wanted trees!"

Yes, he did. Just not 600.

The idea is to let 3-7 trees do the job that many consider 20-30 do.

Good looking trees. Rolling Green is a GREAT example.

[Paul Jones]

Courses where trees prevent grass growing, especially around greens and tee boxes, should be cut every time.  If the trees do not embark on the fairway (especially airflow/grass) or the design of the hole, then keep them.  Not every course should be a links style golf course.  It is when you are punching out from roots and dirt every time you miss the fairway is the nightmare.

[Paul Jones]

Joe Sponcia wrote a great opinion piece on trees a few years ago.


https://golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/sponcia-joe-trees-on-the-golf-course-a-common-sense-approach/

Jay, that is a great article. I just read it twice !!! 

[Thomas Dai]

A couple of short videos worth watching -
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cafVxkWt1GI
and
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2sxUE078zAo
Likely some insights worth considering.
As to the mention of grazing animals, environmentalists, methane output etc, suitability for animal grazing will vary depending on the part of the World under consideration and it’s climate, terrain etc and whether there are other local critters around (esp if hungry ones!).
But you don’t need huge herds of grazing animals and, by the way, environmental folks usually seem happy to see grazing animals undertaking activities men and machines would otherwise be doing. With the correct numbers and choice of animal, like sheep for grass, goats for some trees, brush and scrub, and the regular rotation of them through different areas of the property, which these days can be done with collars and sensors, a surprising amount can be achieved at fractional cost. And they don’t need to be present 24/7-365 either.
Usually the best way to deal with self seeding trees, brush and scrub is of course not to let the damn things grow in the first place, something grazing animals when present are particularly good at, especially as such areas are frequently the prime spots for the time wasting and not at all enjoyable activity that is looking for and not finding golf balls that have gone astray.
Atb

[Tyler Kearns]

So, is the entire argument for tree-thinning built around minimizing water usage now?


For instance, my tree-lined home course doesn't irrigate the rough. And while we have a spot or two where trees encroach a bit on fairway lines, the majority are well back from irrigated turf. I'm just a layman, but it's really hard for me to believe that trees are consuming much of our irrigation water (which is pumped from an onsite retention pond, for whatever that's worth). And it's my understanding that we have a much lower maintenance budget than the course I referenced in the original post.


So... are our trees cool?


It's not lost on me that trees have an impact on turf. But I'm not buying that the presence of trees automatically mandates environmentally unsustainable maintenance practices. And given Thomas' ongoing concerns about the perception of golf in the non-golfing world, I've gotta shake my head at the idea that chopping down trees on golf courses makes the game easier to sell to people with concerns about the game's environmental impact. Especially when the alternative is usually "strategic width" that involves creating lots and lots of high-maintenance short grass.


Are there formulas or rules of thumb for determining how the maintenance budget of a transition zone course with bentgrass fairways/greens and bluegrass rough would be impacted by reduction (or addition) of trees? Is there a way to quantify the environmental impact?


It may be outside the scope of this thread, but we should also note that grazing animals produce methane gas that contributes to climate change. Big picture time, indeed.

Jason,In regards to trees and water, we are currently in the midst of a multi-year drought in Manitoba, and tree roots are reaching further and further for water and nutrients.  We used a root pruner a few paces off the edge of fairways, greens and tees to give the turf a fighting chance and the irrigation heads in a few particularly bad spots have had to be dialled back to provide only 25 - 30% of their previous volume of water.Tyler

[Adrian_Stiff]

Trees or no trees is just another of the divided opinions of golfers.


Most people want trees in the right setting and most golf courses ARE the right setting.


If we are going to share 100 -200 acres of land to play our silly game then we need to harmonise with what is good for other things that are not just for the selfish.


Trees are good. They are  an important link with sharing the golf land with other users, just ask the birds, bees, insects, mammals....AND they create oxygen which is also useful.


Step aside I am coming through is a horrible trait.

[Sean_A]

So, is the entire argument for tree-thinning built around minimizing water usage now?


For instance, my tree-lined home course doesn't irrigate the rough. And while we have a spot or two where trees encroach a bit on fairway lines, the majority are well back from irrigated turf. I'm just a layman, but it's really hard for me to believe that trees are consuming much of our irrigation water (which is pumped from an onsite retention pond, for whatever that's worth). And it's my understanding that we have a much lower maintenance budget than the course I referenced in the original post.


So... are our trees cool?


It's not lost on me that trees have an impact on turf. But I'm not buying that the presence of trees automatically mandates environmentally unsustainable maintenance practices. And given Thomas' ongoing concerns about the perception of golf in the non-golfing world, I've gotta shake my head at the idea that chopping down trees on golf courses makes the game easier to sell to people with concerns about the game's environmental impact. Especially when the alternative is usually "strategic width" that involves creating lots and lots of high-maintenance short grass.


Are there formulas or rules of thumb for determining how the maintenance budget of a transition zone course with bentgrass fairways/greens and bluegrass rough would be impacted by reduction (or addition) of trees? Is there a way to quantify the environmental impact?


It may be outside the scope of this thread, but we should also note that grazing animals produce methane gas that contributes to climate change. Big picture time, indeed.

Never said that trees are bad or promote environmentally unsustainable maintenance practices. The right trees, in the right locations and for the right reasons are what trees should be about. In my experience, a ton of courses are wildly overtreed which are detrimental to a well presented course, if dry and firm is the goal. Unless it was to block an unsightly view, I don't recall ever thinking that trees were the solution to improving a hole. Although, I am very fond of lovely trees for aesthetic purposes. Problem is, too often lovely trees are swamped by shit specimens with the end result being a green wall...not ideal and likely costs more to cope with. Additionally, trees ain't cheap to properly maintain. The introduction of trees to a course should be a seriously scrutinised decision.

Ciao

[Jason Thurman]

Jason,In regards to trees and water, we are currently in the midst of a multi-year drought in Manitoba, and tree roots are reaching further and further for water and nutrients.  We used a root pruner a few paces off the edge of fairways, greens and tees to give the turf a fighting chance and the irrigation heads in a few particularly bad spots have had to be dialled back to provide only 25 - 30% of their previous volume of water.Tyler

Thanks Tyler. This is awesome insight.


In layman's terms, how far back from the maintained turf areas are those trees? Are these spots where canopies hang over fairways, or would I be surprised at how far those roots reach?


25-30% is a huge volume of water. The idea of root pruning rather than chopping down altogether is compelling to me, as I recently find my appreciation growing for the challenge trees add to a round of golf in a parkland setting, even understanding that they work best when managed. But I like the idea that "management" doesn't always have to equate to "cutting down."

[Tyler Kearns]

Jason,


We are in a prolonged drought, so the tree roots are extending much farther than you would imagine.  On more heavily irrigated turf (greens), we found roots 50-60' away from the tree and breaking the surface.


To be clear, we are irrigating some of those fairway areas 75-80% less than before.  Water cost isn't an issue for us as we draw from a river than borders our property, but in other locals these types of water savings could be significant from a financial standpoint.


The changes to the tightly-mown turf after root pruning is fairly significant and shows itself within a few weeks.


Tyler

[Thomas Dai]

A couple of aspects of root pruning worth mentioning.
Tree roots are the way they are for essentially two reasons … one, to extract from the soil as much water, nutrients (goodness) etc to feed the tree as possible, and two, to provide a foundation to the tree so it doesn’t fall over.
Cropping the tree roots will limit the amount of goodness a tree soaks up for growth purposes, which might be good for the surrounding grass but isn’t going to aid the health of the tree. Cropping the tree roots will also result in one or more sides of tree becoming less stable and more susceptible to falling over, even more so if the amount of goodness it’s extracting from the soil has also been reduced.
Tree pruning is expensive, and if you have to remove a tree which root pruning has lessened the health of it can become more difficult (dangerous) and costly than removing a healthy tree.
Where there are several trees near to each other the root system of one tree will co-mingle and join up with the root systems of other nearby trees so in pruning one tree’s roots other trees nearby will also be effected.
Atb

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()