The Utilitarian Value of Trees, 1950

[Neil Regan]

I think it safe to say that this site approaches unanimity in agreeing that too many courses have too many trees.

Here is an excerpt from an article from 1950 titled
The Utilitarian Value of Trees[/size]
by JOHN R. WILLIAMS, M. D.
CHAIRMAN, GROUNDS COMMITTEE, OAK HILL COUNTRY CLUB, ROCHESTER, N. Y.

[Trees] lessen the force and destructiveness of winds.... Wind erosion may be a serious factor in turf development. Because of this it was not possible to grow a satisfactory turf on three fairways at Oak Hill until several wind breaks of tree plantations were developed....

Aside from their decorative value, trees should be planted on golf courses for the following purposes:
(1) As individual specimens to provide shade and comfort for tees and greens,
(2) As small forests or plantations to regulate rainwater runoff and to conserve ground water,
(3) As wind breaks- to control erosive effects of winds and to temper extremes of heat and cold and
(4) As storage reservoirs for leaves, twigs and grass cuttings as a future source of ever needed compost.

[/b][/color][/size]

Here is the article:
http://turf.lib.msu.edu/1950s/1950/500909.pdf

Given the advances in course construction technology since 1950, are trees still a good choice for

(2) Water regulation
(3) Wind breaks
(4) Compost source

(not to mention)
(1) Shade and comfort
[/color][/size] ?

[ChipOat]

I hope not.

[Doug Siebert]

I don't care what anyone says, I like having a shade tree by the tee, especially on holes where you have to wait a while.  I just started playing a year or two before my home course had to cut down all its elms due to Dutch Elm and the course sure looked bare when they were all gone, especially around the tees and some of the greens that were shaded.

Since then of course they've gone overboard and planted at least 1000 trees so that you almost can't find a place to miss the fairway and have a shot, and where they are thicker the turf is getting a bit sparse, all the usual problems people here relate.

But while it matters a lot on the greens, and to a lesser extent in the fairways, I really could care less about the quality of turf on a teebox -- I'm hitting off a tee, after all!  There I'd rather see sparse turf than overly lush and tall turf.  Nothing more annoying than having to worry about a flyer on a par 3 because of overgrown grass on the tee!  

[stovepipe]

I dont mind Trees, as it give me shelter from the rain when its peeing down, and if its a young one then you can just hack it out the way. (snap!)

[TEPaul]

Basically I think trees are fine on golf courses but only if properly placed, well managed and regulated and only if the style of the golf course is one that calls for trees. For a variety of reasons I believe some types of courses call for some trees and others types of courses don't at all.

I also think that over time the dangers of trees both competing with turf health and also compromising and corrupting "design intent" was not well understood if understood at all.

I believe that trees can also be used correctly for things from shade for golfers, for aesthetics for golfers, including segmenting holes visually but only if the original site is one that that type of thing appears to be both natural and original (pre-existing the golf course).

I think that trees can and are occasionally well used strategically in golf and golf architecture but the designer and others must understand that trees used in design, certainly including playing strategy, happens to be an architectural feature that will never have permanence and that's one inherent problem with trees when used for golf strategy and for other reasons.

It also seems to me that some of the reasons to use trees on golf courses given by Dr Williams, author of that article, particularly reasons #3 and #4, are a bit of a rationalization!

[redanman]

Quoting the honourable, well-known Tree Idiot Doctor Williams[/size]
A-Trees lessen the force and destructiveness of winds
B-Wind erosion may be a serious factor in turf development.
C-their decorative value
D-trees should be planted on golf courses for the following purposes:
(1) As individual specimens to provide shade and comfort for tees and greens,
(2) As small forests or plantations to regulate rainwater runoff and to conserve ground water,
(3) As wind breaks- to control erosive effects of winds and to temper extremes of heat and cold and
(4) As storage reservoirs for leaves, twigs and grass cuttings as a future source of ever needed compost.

A- This is a good thing?
B- Not any more
C- I can accept this one if properly done (Oak Hill can be used as a negative example-a good idea gone bad
D-1 Counterproductive!
  -2 Did he really mean to steal from the grass through competition?
  -3 Nah
  -4 Again counterproductive

ergo:

We have the god-awful mess that was the once great Oak Hill and is now a bloody arboretum

[Brad Klein]

Shade provides relief for golfers awaiting on the tee? What a joke. For how long before the shaded spot moves? Unless it's a permanent wall of shade, in which case it's a disaster for the turf altogether.

Dr. John R. Williams loved trees but he had no idea what he was doing to the golf, strategy, holes or turfgrass at Oak Hill. I'm looking at the club's 1977 club history, "From Little Acorns." It has adoring chapters like "Doctor John's Green Mansions" but not one single reference to Donald Ross, the two courses he built or to any of the holes!
 
Basically, turfgrass and trees compete for the same resources:

air
sunlight
water
nutrients

One of them is going to win, usually the tree, in which case the turfgrass dies. I'm sorry, but it's a pretty simple formula. Not to mention the effects on strategy, safety, aesthetics and the health of the trees that crowd each other out.
That's why Oak Hill took down 700 trees in recent years and why Paul Latshaw's next assignment will be to convince Jack Nicklaus that Muirfield Village is now hopelessly over-treed.

Trees are fine only under certain limited conditions on golf courses:

-deep rooting deciduous trees only
-on north side of turfed areas
-along property boundaries
-in large stands or copses

Otherwise they need to go, esp., all conifers.

[ChipOat]

What Brad Klein said.

[Neil Regan]

Dr. Williams said, in 1950:

 Because of [wind erosion] it was not possible to grow a satisfactory turf on three fairways at Oak Hill until several wind breaks of tree plantations were developed....

[/b][/color][/size]

Which is a better answer ?
A. He might have been correct in 1950, but would be mistaken today, due to advances in turf science and/or maintenance practices.
or
B. He was wrong in 1950, and would still be wrong today.

If the better answer is B. , then wouldn't it be fair to say:
When Oak Hill (and other clubs) had difficulty growing satisfactory turf, whatever the cause of the difficulty was,
it could not have been wind erosion[/b], and
a wind break can not help grass to grow.[/size][/b]
?

Is this last statement true ?

[Neil Regan]

Redanman,
 What you post as a quote from me is not actually a quote from me, but rather a near-quote of a quote from Dr. Williams.
 I'm sure this discrepancy is an merely an artifact of the Discussion Group methods. I just wanted to clarify.

Neil
 

[stovepipe]

 Here! Here!

[mike_malone]

 Hurricane Floyd took down a large tree at the corner of the dogleg of our #15 hole.I suggested we put one of those fake tree cell towers there.It would protect the dogleg and generate revenue.I got nervous when some people thought it was a good idea.That's a utilitarian use of trees.

[A_Clay_Man]

nregan- The only possible wind issue for turf, that i've heard of, is at grow-in. When it is possible for the seeds to be picked up and moved. Other than that I can't imagine what effect wind could have.

As for the trees, the good doctor with the bad back has relayed my sentiments and Dr. Klein has identified the only acceptable use.

[ForkaB]

To quote the late, great Max Behr (from a reference in one of nregan's previous great posts):

"...trees....are....an insult to golf architecture....aside from the fact that, of all hazards, they are the most unfair."

Now, if anybody ever again asks the question "Who said that golf was meant to be fair?", we now know the answer--Max Behr.

[Jim_Kennedy]

A Good Tree?

[Doug Siebert]

Even if we take Max's position that golf should be fair, he's wrong that trees are the least fair "hazard".  Nothing is less fair than a cart path on the outside edge of a dogleg with water or OB beyond!  Anything that gives you stroke and distance is much more unfair than a tree.  With a tree, you have a chance, you can either chip out safely and lose a stroke or half stroke, or go for more and risk ending up with the same choice again (possibly from a worse position)

Don't know if its a good thing or not, but this season I noticed real improvement in my handling of trees.  I won't EVER chip out backwards or sideways, I have to at least advance a few yards, so years of disaster have taught me some shots that would stun anyone except perhaps Seve.  This year I was really pulling them off, and didn't have many cases where I was turning a "should be bogey, par if I'm lucky" into a double or triple.  Just gotta keep your head down, despite the urge to watch your mental image come to fruition!

There are some advantages to playing on a course where every day is Arbor Day