[Peter Pallotta]

You can't trust the membership to do the right thing where trees are concerned.

This is a side of you I've never seen before - a ruthless and dictatorial side. And, sadly, now that I've seen it, I can never *un-see* it.

[Mark_Fine]

Trees will always remain a subjective and controversial design element with opinions all over the map but then again what golf course design features aren’t?  Bunkers sure are, forced carries are, greens with too much contour or not enough are, fairway width is, amount of elevation change is, use of water is, types of grasses is,…. It is the nature of a game designed to be experienced on very diverse playing fields.  Golf architects aren’t building bowling alleys or tennis courts.  I have used the comparison to ski resorts many times before.  Some ski slopes are through the trees and some have not a tree anywhere. Which is better? 


Enjoy the variety 

[JMEvensky]

You can't trust the membership to do the right thing where trees are concerned.

This is a side of you I've never seen before - a ruthless and dictatorial side. And, sadly, now that I've seen it, I can never *un-see* it.

Years ago, I was club President and a friend told me I should be more Walt Disney--I can't do Walt Disney.


Most members can only see the golf course through the prism of their own games. Plus, you can repeat "you can have trees or good turf--you can't have both" until you're blue in the face--doesn't faze them.


Sometimes you have to go the full Draco on them.

[MCirba]

JMEvensky,


Ooooo...I like it, Drac.   

[Jim_Coleman]

   Agree you can’t trust the membership. Also believe you can’t trust the super when it comes to a major tree removal that affects shot values and key design issues. You need a good architect.

[Peter Pallotta]

edit.

[Sean_A]

Has anybody experienced an extensive tree program which didn't improve the course? I have yet to come across this animal.

Ciao

[Jerry Kluger]

While I understand the benefits of tree removal there is one factor that should be considered but in most cases it is not: the need for shelter from the sun when it gets really hot.  This is especially true with respect to courses which are walking only.  I played a course this summer where virtually all of the trees were removed and the temperature was around 90 degrees with high humidity and it got pretty tough walking the course. 

[Terry Lavin]

Has anybody experienced an extensive tree program which didn't improve the course? I have yet to come across this animal.

Ciao

Agreed. I love the smell of sawdust in the morning: it smells like victory!

[Kalen Braley]

Has anybody experienced an extensive tree program which didn't improve the course? I have yet to come across this animal.

Ciao

Sean,

As an analogy, Oakmont was the equivalent of a homeless person who hadn't had a haircut in years and was shaved bald.  It was an improvement, yes even a drastic one...but couldn't/wouldn't it have been even better to go with a short stylish cut over removing it all?

[Mark_Fine]

Most tree removal programs are removing trees that were not and should not have been there in the first place.  We could spend days talking about how they got there.  But there are MANY courses that would not be better if ALL the trees were removed as like it or not they were part of and integral to the design.  Sahalee would not be improved if all the trees were removed.  Cypress Point would not be improved if all the trees were removed.  The Olympic Club would not be improved if all the trees were removed.  San Francisco GC would not be improved if all the trees were removed.  Riviera and LACC would not be improved if all the trees were removed.  Harbour Town would not be improved if all the trees were removed.  Augusta National would not be improved if all the trees were removed.  Pine Valley would not be improved if all the trees were removed.  My home club Lehigh CC would not be improved if all the trees were removed.  I could go on for hours.  All this said, many courses can be improved if trees are better managed. 

[Sean_A]

Has anybody experienced an extensive tree program which didn't improve the course? I have yet to come across this animal.

Ciao

Sean,

As an analogy, Oakmont was the equivalent of a homeless person who hadn't had a haircut in years and was shaved bald.  It was an improvement, yes even a drastic one...but couldn't/wouldn't it have been even better to go with a short stylish cut over removing it all?

Sure. I never claimed that all trees should be removed, even at Formby. But in my experience, a seriously high percentage of trees at most courses should go. It's as simple as that. We shouldn't look at a few examples of tree clearance getting carried away as a reason to retain endless numbers of silly trees. Tree management is time consuming and expensive, but it's better than what has become a common problem for hundreds if not thousands of courses.

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

Lots of factors involved like the effects of trees on the quality of the sword (shade, water etc), roots (water use, blocked drains, damaged paths, fencing, cabling), leaf removal etc and the consequential cost and subscription/greenfee impact to consider as well.
Atb

[Jason Topp]

Has anybody experienced an extensive tree program which didn't improve the course? I have yet to come across this animal.

Ciao

Sean - no I have not but I was struck by two neighboring courses in Minnesota that recently went through tree removal.  On one, 3/4 of the trees were pulled out but the course still retained its character - if you hit it offline you still were likely to have to execute some sort of curveball to reach the green.  On the other, the challenge has changed.  You can reach the green regardless of the direction of your drive on most holes. 


Both courses improved, but I fear the addition of un-mowed areas on the second course which in this part of the world is worse than simply putting up out of bounds stakes. 

[Sean_A]

Has anybody experienced an extensive tree program which didn't improve the course? I have yet to come across this animal.

Ciao

Sean - no I have not but I was struck by two neighboring courses in Minnesota that recently went through tree removal.  On one, 3/4 of the trees were pulled out but the course still retained its character - if you hit it offline you still were likely to have to execute some sort of curveball to reach the green.  On the other, the challenge has changed.  You can reach the green regardless of the direction of your drive on most holes. 


Both courses improved, but I fear the addition of un-mowed areas on the second course which in this part of the world is worse than simply putting up out of bounds stakes.

I don't like lost ball rough in what should be playable areas either. Many links have this issue. But that problem has nothing to do with tree removal. It's a choice clubs make. The primary goal of tree removal so far as I am concerned is providing adequate fairway corridors to play the game without looking for balls and open up playing lines. The secondary goal is aesthetics. I want to see well managed lovely trees which afford views, not a green wall of trees which is neither attractive nor offering recovery variety. When I envision a well managed course with trees I see a public park with cool trees here and there. Maybe a few copse. I see trees as features which add texture and vertical interest rather dominating the landscape. Sure, there are forest courses where my vision isn't appropriate and that's fine. But I don't think we are talking about courses in true wilderness, at least I'm not.

People seem very worried about tree removal when the overwhelming (sometimes quite literally) issue is too many trees for a significant percentage of courses.

Ciao

[Jason Topp]

People seem very worried about tree removal when the overwhelming (sometimes quite literally) issue is too many trees for a significant percentage of courses.

Ciao

Tree removal has become so common locally that the question is now an appropriate one.  Of the top courses listed by Golf Digest in my state at least 40 years old, 11 our of 13 have undergone major tree removal projects.  The other two have removed trees but I would not classify the projects as major:

:(1) Interlachen G.C., Edina • - Yes
(3) Hazeltine National G.C., Chaska ≈ Yes
(5) White Bear Yacht Club, White Bear Lake Yes
(7) The Minikahda Club, Minneapolis Yes
( Northland C.C., Duluth - Yes
(11) Somerset C.C., Mendota Heights - Yes
(13) Olympic Hills G.C., Eden Prairie - Yes
(12) Minneapolis G.C., St. Louis Park - Yes
19) Rochester G. & C.C.Yes
Minnesota Valley C.C., Bloomington - Yes
(15) Golden Valley C.C. - Yes?
Woodhill C.C., Wayzata- No
(NR) Wayzata C.C. - No ?

[David Ober]

Has anybody experienced an extensive tree program which didn't improve the course? I have yet to come across this animal.

Ciao

This^^^^^^

[Jim Sherma]

Tree removal can be said to go too far when...


> The trees that you could play out from under have been replaced with native gunch that ends up with lost balls a tick bites from stomping through it
> The course does end up playing much easier because the greens are kept too soft and/or have insufficient tilt such that angles don't matter any more because the ball will hold - even out of the fairway or rough from the "wrong side" of the hole


I like recovery shots and judicious use of trees certainly allows for them - a naked course that is not kept in a condition where angles and strategy matter, or is simply penal due to native gunch, can very easily be a less interesting course for me.

[Buck Wolter]

People seem very worried about tree removal when the overwhelming (sometimes quite literally) issue is too many trees for a significant percentage of courses.

Ciao

Tree removal has become so common locally that the question is now an appropriate one.  Of the top courses listed by Golf Digest in my state at least 40 years old, 11 our of 13 have undergone major tree removal projects.  The other two have removed trees but I would not classify the projects as major:

:(1) Interlachen G.C., Edina • - Yes
(3)Hazeltine National G.C., Chaska ≈ Yes
(5) White Bear Yacht Club, White Bear Lake Yes
(7) The Minikahda Club, Minneapolis Yes
( Northland C.C., Duluth - Yes
(11) Somerset C.C., Mendota Heights - Yes
(13) Olympic Hills G.C., Eden Prairie - Yes
(12) Minneapolis G.C., St. Louis Park - Yes
19) Rochester G. & C.C.Yes
Minnesota Valley C.C., Bloomington - Yes
(15) Golden Valley C.C. - Yes?
Woodhill C.C., Wayzata- No
(NR) Wayzata C.C. - No ?

How good would Woodhill be with a little Fire and Ice?

[Sean_A]

People seem very worried about tree removal when the overwhelming (sometimes quite literally) issue is too many trees for a significant percentage of courses.

Ciao

Tree removal has become so common locally that the question is now an appropriate one.  Of the top courses listed by Golf Digest in my state at least 40 years old, 11 our of 13 have undergone major tree removal projects.  The other two have removed trees but I would not classify the projects as major:

:(1) Interlachen G.C., Edina • - Yes
(3)Hazeltine National G.C., Chaska ≈ Yes
(5) White Bear Yacht Club, White Bear Lake Yes
(7) The Minikahda Club, Minneapolis Yes
( Northland C.C., Duluth - Yes
(11) Somerset C.C., Mendota Heights - Yes
(13) Olympic Hills G.C., Eden Prairie - Yes
(12) Minneapolis G.C., St. Louis Park - Yes
19) Rochester G. & C.C.Yes
Minnesota Valley C.C., Bloomington - Yes
(15) Golden Valley C.C. - Yes?
Woodhill C.C., Wayzata- No
(NR) Wayzata C.C. - No ?

And you already said that tree removal projects left the courses better than was previously the case. Are you expecting to be 100% satisfied with every job? I honestly don't include good tree removal decision making with an additional decision to add unplayable rough. The two ideas are independent and one doesn't naturally follow the other.

Ciao

[PCCraig]

People seem very worried about tree removal when the overwhelming (sometimes quite literally) issue is too many trees for a significant percentage of courses.

Ciao

Tree removal has become so common locally that the question is now an appropriate one.  Of the top courses listed by Golf Digest in my state at least 40 years old, 11 our of 13 have undergone major tree removal projects.  The other two have removed trees but I would not classify the projects as major:

:(1) Interlachen G.C., Edina • - Yes
(3)Hazeltine National G.C., Chaska ≈ Yes
(5) White Bear Yacht Club, White Bear Lake Yes
(7) The Minikahda Club, Minneapolis Yes
( Northland C.C., Duluth - Yes
(11) Somerset C.C., Mendota Heights - Yes
(13) Olympic Hills G.C., Eden Prairie - Yes
(12) Minneapolis G.C., St. Louis Park - Yes
19) Rochester G. & C.C.Yes
Minnesota Valley C.C., Bloomington - Yes
(15) Golden Valley C.C. - Yes?
Woodhill C.C., Wayzata- No
(NR) Wayzata C.C. - No ?

Jason -


I see your point but I would argue that if you think the tree work completed at the *yes* clubs listed above is "major" I would say it pales in comparison to the work that has been completed in places like Chicago, Boston, New York, etc.


In Minnesota, pretty much every classic course was grossly over planted with trees just ten years ago. There have been improvements but I would argue that there is a long way to go at many of the above.


Outside of maybe Rochester and Northland above I think pretty much every classic course listed should lose a lot more trees.


Good news is at many of these classic courses there are very nice and noble trees buried under layers and layers of junk trees. So when those are removed you can appreciate what is already there.

[Rick Lane]

I think Philly Cricket is the poster child for doing it right.  They took about 8 out of every 10 trees out it seems, leaving individual glorious trees to stand sentinel, letting you see the trees instead of the forest.   Still have to navigate if you get off line, but the width and views and health of the course are much better.  I see lots of courses with clumps of trees, and if you study them, you can see individual beauties surrounded by lesser trees, or just secondary growth.   Such opportunity!

[Jason Topp]

Outside of maybe Rochester and Northland above I think pretty much every classic course listed should lose a lot more trees.

Pat - I liked what they did at Minneapolis.  They took out huge numbers of trees but retained the feel of the course as a Parkland Course where trees are a significant factor.

[Jesse Kodadek]

I feel the same about Minneapolis. I never played it before this year, but I rode my bike by it a million times when I was a kid. It seemed to me to have just the right amount of trees. While there are still a lot, it didn't seem oppressive and I think I only had two shots where I had to contend with a tree between myself and the green.

[PCCraig]

Outside of maybe Rochester and Northland above I think pretty much every classic course listed should lose a lot more trees.

Pat - I liked what they did at Minneapolis.  They took out huge numbers of trees but retained the feel of the course as a Parkland Course where trees are a significant factor.

I like what they done there as well. But my opinion is they could stand to remove quite a few more trees (I think they are planning as such if I'm not mistaken). Spots such as the inside dogleg on the 7th would be much improved with significant tree removal to expose much more interesting natural contours of the site.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()