Replacing trees with rough take something away from the game?

[Rob Marshall]

We have a tree program in progress. On a long dogleg left they want to take the trees out on left side of the hole after the dogleg. Maybe two rows of trees, it's not a forest and the next hole runs parallel along the left. The argument is that the trees will be replaced with rough so it will still be a tough shot. It's a well guarded green with bunkers on both sides and a run up area in between.


I understand the necessity of removing trees for turf maintenance and other issues but........



If you hit it the trees now you have a chance to create a low running hook or punch between the bunkers. If the trees are removed you're just hacking it out of the rough. Does clearing out trees take some of the creativity out of the game?

[mike_malone]

I prefer a certain penalty for all to a random penalty for some. Just yesterday I thought how much better healthy turf in the rough was than spotty grass among trees.

[John Kavanaugh]

I play with young dudes who have no understanding of trajectory. Simulator golf. Same stance, same swing, same result. No wonder they get bored so easily.

[Ben Hollerbach]

I prefer a certain penalty for all to a random penalty for some. Just yesterday I thought how much better healthy turf in the rough was than spotty grass among trees.

I'm not sure I've ever experiences rough as a certain penalty. Sometimes the ball sits up, sometimes the ball sits down, sometimes the ball is in a bare patch, sometimes the ball is in a thick patch, sometimes the ball comes of dead, and sometimes the ball jumps off the face as a flier. Its not a penalty that is equal for all players. Those with stronger/faster swing speeds struggle a lot less out of the rough than those with weaker/slower swing speeds.

Playing a low punch shot recovery from trees is a much more egalitarian challenge, as the success of a shot relies more heavily on a player's skill than simply their raw strength.

[Sean_A]

We have a tree program in progress. On a long dogleg left they want to take the trees out on left side of the hole after the dogleg. Maybe two rows of trees, it's not a forest and the next hole runs parallel along the left. The argument is that the trees will be replaced with rough so it will still be a tough shot. It's a well guarded green with bunkers on both sides and a run up area in between.


I understand the necessity of removing trees for turf maintenance and other issues but........



If you hit it the trees now you have a chance to create a low running hook or punch between the bunkers. If the trees are removed you're just hacking it out of the rough. Does clearing out trees take some of the creativity out of the game?

It depends on the trees. If they are shit trees, rip em out. If they are magnificent trees that don't impact the game much let them stand or remove as few as possible.

Ciao

[Jason Topp]

My two main courses basically have no trees in play.  I find I miss the challenge of going under, over or around trees.  I have generally found such shots great fun.  I also like having the ability to quickly find a ball in trees where the underbrush has been cleaned out.  It is more difficult to gauge exact wind direction in trees because the wind can swirl and play tricks on you.   I miss the shade on a hot day.


I do not miss the thinned out turf, particularly on greens.  I have found I do not miss having each hole isolated from others.  It is nice to say hello to a friend on another hole.  I do not miss dealing with leaves in the fall, which is otherwise the best time to play.  Finally - I do not miss courses that are narrow tunnels of trees repeated over and over.


In sum - the answer for me depends on the particular circumstances.

[Thomas Dai]

I’m essentially not a tree on courses fan but indigenous trees are I would suggest if they have to exist more appropriate than something non-indigenous. Plus if they are to be in place cleared-out scrub and brush under and around them is preferable to the kind of scrubby, brushy clutter that folks often end up scrambling through looking for and likely not finding errant golf balls.

As to the outcome when a ball strikes one, well I’m not sure anyone can predict which way the ball will rebound.
And never forget the effect trees roots, root balls and brush and scrub have on both drainage and water resources.
Atb

[jeffwarne]

I play with young dudes who have no understanding of trajectory. Simulator golf. Same stance, same swing, same result. No wonder they get bored so easily.

yep

[Kyle Harris]

Yes.


Trees.

[Jim_Coleman]

   Yes. A few well spaced trees provide a much more interesting test. Take them all out and poor shots become very much less poor.
  Also, I’d bet against most clubs replacing trees with more challenging rough.  It just doesn’t happen because members don’t like more challenging rough. Play slows dramatically as balls are harder to find, and members don’t like having to gouge balls out of higher grass.
   The fact is that removing too many trees makes play much easier and much less interesting. Look at Southern Hills, The Country Club and Winged Foot. All had significant tree removal programs, but all left enough trees to make wayward shots interesting.

[mike_malone]

I prefer a certain penalty for all to a random penalty for some. Just yesterday I thought how much better healthy turf in the rough was than spotty grass among trees.

I'm not sure I've ever experiences rough as a certain penalty. Sometimes the ball sits up, sometimes the ball sits down, sometimes the ball is in a bare patch, sometimes the ball is in a thick patch, sometimes the ball comes of dead, and sometimes the ball jumps off the face as a flier. Its not a penalty that is equal for all players. Those with stronger/faster swing speeds struggle a lot less out of the rough than those with weaker/slower swing speeds.

Playing a low punch shot recovery from trees is a much more egalitarian challenge, as the success of a shot relies more heavily on a player's skill than simply their raw strength.

You say the penalty is not equal for all and I agree. It’s fairly certain though.

[Rob Marshall]

The bottom line for me is what is more fun, creating a shot or hacking it down the fairway? For me it's an easy choice.

[Steve Salmen]

I have literally thought about this for years.  As a lover of links golf, I prefer courses based on the original way the game was played.


That said, I try to be somewhat open minded. 


For instance, my home course has a short par 5 that meanders to the right.  There is a wall of trees on the right side that is a legitimate defense against shots hit right.


On the same course, there are some trees that overhang another fairway and block the view to the green from the same fairway.  Either the trees or the culprit limbs should be removed IMO.


I don't want to take this thread in the wrong direction, but to me it's about defending the hole, mainly by measuring scoring average.  I believe if you remove one hazard, you can add another or maintain the hole is such a way that scoring is unchanged.  If you remove the trees, you can add a bunker and make it shallow or deep or narrow or wide.  You can tighten the fairway with rough.  You can grow the rough.  You can quicken the green.  It's possible the trees are a really good defense or are really pretty and make the hole look good. 

[Richard Hetzel]

I played a course the other day (and I really enjoyed it) in South Carolina on my way home from Florida.


Mid Carolina Club just North of Columbia, SC, and you could tell they were removing large pine trees in many areas, and it made the course for the better IMO. Not all of the pine trees, and they were not using rough where the trees previously were. They were using native vegetation rather than rough. I would rather hit out of the rough myself. It also looked to be where they took out those trees, if you hit it there, par is probably gone regardless, before or after said tree removal.


Sorry about the crappy quality of the before photos, I could not get a screen shot, but you get the idea.

[Steve Salmen]

Richard,


Looking at your photos, were the club to remove the trees on the inside sides of the dogleg, it appears they would have to address the cart paths also.  Perhaps they could just grow rough around it?  Maybe place a fairway bunker on the fairway side of the path?


Steve

[Ben Hollerbach]

You say the penalty is not equal for all and I agree. It’s fairly certain though.

Mike, Have you never hit a ball in the rough only to find it perched up on a perfect lie?

Richard,
Looking at your photos, were the club to remove the trees on the inside sides of the dogleg, it appears they would have to address the cart paths also.  Perhaps they could just grow rough around it?  Maybe place a fairway bunker on the fairway side of the path?
Steve

It would appear from the photos, that if the trees on the inside of the dogleg were removed, even if they were replaced with a bunker or another ground hazard, the fundamental method of play for the hole would be dramatically altered. In this case replacing a tree that defines a bend in a hole's path with a bunker is not an equal trade of difficulty or challenge.

[Ben Hollerbach]

My two main courses basically have no trees in play.  I find I miss the challenge of going under, over or around trees.  I have generally found such shots great fun.  I also like having the ability to quickly find a ball in trees where the underbrush has been cleaned out.  It is more difficult to gauge exact wind direction in trees because the wind can swirl and play tricks on you.   I miss the shade on a hot day.


I do not miss the thinned out turf, particularly on greens.  I have found I do not miss having each hole isolated from others.  It is nice to say hello to a friend on another hole.  I do not miss dealing with leaves in the fall, which is otherwise the best time to play.  Finally - I do not miss courses that are narrow tunnels of trees repeated over and over.


In sum - the answer for me depends on the particular circumstances.

I've found the best presentation of trees on a course is when they are maintained with a relatively high canopy. When clubs manage their trees with a high canopy it does not isolate holes from each other, balls under the trees are easy to find, sun & wind are able to still filter through the trees, and it provides the most opportunities for recovery shots. The place that I feel exhibits this the best is Southern Hills, which was true even before the recent update.

[mike_malone]

Ben ,


 Of course you can get a great lie in the rough. I was referring to the vast majority of shots.






I think trees for doglegs are brilliant. I think trees for safety where it’s blind are good. I think trees way out of play for beauty are great.


I just prefer rough to trees generally.

[Richard Hetzel]

Richard,


Looking at your photos, were the club to remove the trees on the inside sides of the dogleg, it appears they would have to address the cart paths also.  Perhaps they could just grow rough around it?  Maybe place a fairway bunker on the fairway side of the path?


Steve

I don't think that it would make any sense to remove all of the trees on an inside of a dogleg, but they would surely have to do something to mitigate the shortcut if they did.

[Mark_Fine]

As was said long ago, “The direct line to the hole is the line of instinct and you need to break up that line to create the line of charm.” Obstacles and hazards of all kinds including trees and rough are what makes golf interesting.  However, all rough grass as the primary hazard would be just as bad as all trees.  The one thing trees afford especially if limbed up is the chance of a recovery shot. Rough, depending on how long, can as well. The recovery shot can be one of the most exciting shots in golf.  I happen to love hazards and obstacles that are unpredictable. If a hazard yields a certain penalty (like water) it is more often avoided.  On the other hand, a bunker or a set of mounds or a closely mown runoff area or a stream with a bank that has areas on the bank that might keep a ball from finding the water or trees … where a golfer knows there is a chance of recovery even if they end up in or around the hazard, they are more likely tempted to take it on. Rough that is unpredictable can be like this as well but rough that only forces a hack back out or results in lost balls is much less interesting as a hazard if used too often.  [/size]

[Jim_Coleman]

   The last 3 US opens were held at classic top 25 courses that were “touched up” by Gil Hanse (if you call multi million dollar projects touched up). Each course underwent significant tree removal. Yet, at all the courses, wayward shots more often than not required the player to deal with a tree somewhere between the ball and the green.
   Other than Oakmont (which has 150+ bunkers to challenge a wayward shot) is there another parkland course that doesn’t utilize trees to challenge the player? If that were a respected theory of architecture, you would think there would be countless such courses?

[mike_malone]

Classic courses like Oakmont were designed without the trees. So the angles of play for recovery shots were thought out with no trees.


 Where trees existed originally the quality  design incorporated them.


  So if you are way off line on a classic course which didn’t have trees in an area originally you usually face design elements at the green which test you like deep bunkers or sloped greens. You also are hitting from rough.


I think that doglegs are best designed with a bunch of trees. They can be limbed up  to allow better agronomy since they are an aerial hazard.




 It seems fairly simple on a course that has interesting land. Were trees part of the original design for that hole or not?




Jim,


  If Torrey Pines is counted in the last three you’ll have to enlighten me as to Hanse’s work.

[Jim_Coleman]

  Oh yeah, Southern Hills was the PGA. Was referring to it, Winged Foot and TCC.

[Rob Marshall]

Classic courses like Oakmont were designed without the trees. So the angles of play for recovery shots were thought out with no trees.


 Where trees existed originally the quality  design incorporated them.


  So if you are way off line on a classic course which didn’t have trees in an area originally you usually face design elements at the green which test you like deep bunkers or sloped greens. You also are hitting from rough.


I think that doglegs are best designed with a bunch of trees. They can be limbed up  to allow better agronomy since they are an aerial hazard.




 It seems fairly simple on a course that has interesting land. Were trees part of the original design for that hole or not?




Jim,


  If Torrey Pines is counted in the last three you’ll have to enlighten me as to Hanse’s work.

Yes trees were very much part of the original design. Most of the trees in question are Maples. There may be an Oak in there but I think Maples.

[Jim_Coleman]

   I suspect that most classic parkland courses built near cities in the teens and twenties were built on farmland with very few trees. Trees were likely added over the years for shade, beauty and challenge, some by the original architect and some by others. And yes, many were over planted and trees had to be culled.
  But, pretty much every great parkland course today uses trees for the same reasons they were planted in the first place - shade, beauty and challenge. No serious architect has removed all trees on non dogleg holes, at least that I can think of, and replaced them with rough, with the possible exception of Oakmont.