Neo-Classicism & Surrey's Classic Courses > Huntercombe > Trees!

[Simon Barrington]

"Don’t know what to tell you. Big ripping draws off the fairway right is what I saw. I gotta believe that exact shot is what caused grief and eventual change. I was never anywhere near long enough to carry to scoot a drive beyond the centreline hollow. But I never liked hitting toward a pack of gorse left either 😎.
Ciao"

Goes to prove that all that clubhead speed, ball-striking, athleticism and youth is wasted on...
...
....the youth! 


It's a shame however that such unthinking approaches to the game result in change for everyone.
#rollback to save us from more boundary challenges.

[Simon Barrington]

I don't remember if I secured this or Sean did, but I love the look of this 1946 aerial.

This is a great image, and is reminiscent in many ways of aerials I have seen (on-line) from Old Barnwell, SC (Schneider & Conant - 2024).

The extensive bunkering patterns (if all were in sand) also have Walter Travis visual hallmarks too.
Not sure if he visited Huntercombe while over in the UK in 1904, when he won The Amateur?

Re. The 6th - Interesting that the LH tree line is still pretty much the same off the drive.
We/I have discussed the less subtle tree planting now in place on the RHS.

This hole (and the course itself) was a notable early transitional bridge from penal to strategic and includes on a largely straight hole a line of diagonal fairway hazards (highlighted further by the track across the fairway) where a player tacks down the hole carrying those hazards prescribed by their own yardage of stroke.
I'd prefer it was kept as "straight" as possible to retain this key chronology of design, but understand the liability issues with a public road bordering the RHS.

This principle was crystallised further and detailed specifically by James Braid in "Advanced Golf" (1908) and is the essence of truly strategic golf. Also, why some still cite Braid as the "inventor of the dog-leg" (even though many such holes existed prior, he detailed why they work and how to design them using diagonal bunkering). He was later asked for his ten favourite courses and Huntercombe was included. So, as per previous discussions relating to HS Colt & Braid working together at Bishops Stortford, there was evidently/coincidentally a flow of; discovery, information, and imitation around this period that began the movement of strategic design and it involved many.

Thanks for sharing this special record of this important course, one at the very forefront of the "Golden Age"

[Simon Barrington]

This highlights a tree related issue … penny pinching.
Ignoring trees by penny pinching on course maintenance, ie staff, budget, subs, and the trees and scrub will grow and grow and grow and then after even a short period there’s a physically and financially bigger issue to deal with.
Don’t let the bloody things grow!
Remove the saplings and the brush and the scrub on a very regular basis.
There are machines that’ll do this in a time efficient manner and the cost of using them can over a short time save a bunch of money in tree surgeon costs and the hassle of dealing with tree hugging members and any outside bodies that might have become involved.
Less leaves to deal with each autumn too.
Atb

Listening to an old "Feed the Ball" Podcast with Frank Pont recently he stated that trees grow c.3% per annum.
So, if a course has say 10,000 trees to stand still in terms of playing corridors one would need to remove c.300 trees every year in equivalence!
Can you imagine the furore!
But it does illustrate the need for a good tree maintenance and annual husbandry plan.
3%/annum is not far off a doubling in size every 20-25 years, which also illustrates how the positioning of new planting needs even more care than traditionally occurs.

[Sean_A]

I don't remember if I secured this or Sean did, but I love the look of this 1946 aerial.

I think I nicked it off Mark B years ago when he set up the slider comparison site. Maybe it came from a club history updates via a member years ago. I don't recall.

https://golfcoursehistories.com/HC.html

After his 1901 visit to the UK, Travis thought very highly of Huntercombe. Read for yourself.

https://walterjtravissociety.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/1901-impressions-of-british-golf-from-golf-mag118.pdf

Ciao

[Simon Barrington]

I think I nicked it off Mark B years ago when he set up the slider comparison site. Maybe it came from a club history updates via a member years ago. I don't recall.
https://golfcoursehistories.com/HC.html

After his 1901 visit to the UK, Travis thought very highly of Huntercombe. Read for yourself.
https://walterjtravissociety.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/1901-impressions-of-british-golf-from-golf-mag118.pdf

Ciao

Thanks Sean

The Travis quote and article is wonderful, I do need to learn more on Travis's work for sure.

I like that he noted three holes that others didn't so much, the original 3rd, 4th, & 10th (i.e. 16th, 17th & 5th on the modern numbering).
Most focus(ed) on current 4th (Quartered Green), 8th (huge stepped two tier green across you, 2nd & 13th (rare diagonal green sites for the time).
He also noted less obvious holes on his other course references, clearly a man of subtle intellect confident in his own mind.

17th has always been one of my favourites, love a short-4 but this is a real decision maker from the tee as the raised green ostensibly prevents a player driving it. So it's a decision of recovery from hazards or pitch from the fairway. It quite penal in nature, but beautiful aethestically. Back in my playing days there were far fewer genuine wedge holes (they all seem to be now for these bombers!) When I started out to play this little hole created so much trepidation as there is no easy way to get onto that green. Great things in small packages and all that!

Thanks for the article, the photo site is genius too
Cheers

[Sean_A]

I think I nicked it off Mark B years ago when he set up the slider comparison site. Maybe it came from a club history updates via a member years ago. I don't recall.
https://golfcoursehistories.com/HC.html

After his 1901 visit to the UK, Travis thought very highly of Huntercombe. Read for yourself.
https://walterjtravissociety.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/1901-impressions-of-british-golf-from-golf-mag118.pdf

Ciao

Thanks Sean

The Travis quote and article is wonderful, I do need to learn more on Travis's work for sure.

I like that he noted three holes that others didn't so much, the original 3rd, 4th, & 10th (i.e. 16th, 17th & 5th on the modern numbering).
Most focus(ed) on current 4th (Quartered Green), 8th (huge stepped two tier green across you, 2nd & 13th (rare diagonal green sites for the time).
He also noted less obvious holes on his other course references, clearly a man of subtle intellect confident in his own mind.

17th has always been one of my favourites, love a short-4 but this is a real decision maker from the tee as the raised green ostensibly prevents a player driving it. So it's a decision of recovery from hazards or pitch from the fairway. It quite penal in nature, but beautiful aethestically. Back in my playing days there were far fewer genuine wedge holes (they all seem to be now for these bombers!) When I started out to play this little hole created so much trepidation as there is no easy way to get onto that green. Great things in small packages and all that!

Thanks for the article, the photo site is genius too
Cheers

Yer welcome. Yes, 17 is a little devil of a the hole is at the back of the green.

I am not overly keen on 5. It always seems more damp than most of the  holes. I dislike the tree in the fairway. The green is Woodhall Spa like subtle. Not a bad hole, just never took to it.

Ciao

[Simon Barrington]

"Yer welcome. Yes, 17 is a little devil of a the hole is at the back of the green.
I am not overly keen on 5. It always seems more damp than most of the  holes. I dislike the tree in the fairway. The green is Woodhall Spa like subtle. Not a bad hole, just never took to it.
Ciao

Like you, I think the tree on 5 is silly and not sure why it has been kept, left to grow.
Clearly not present c.1946 and serves only to penalise lower ball flights (which given the membership demographics is very odd)

[Thomas Dai]

This highlights a tree related issue … penny pinching.
Ignoring trees by penny pinching on course maintenance, ie staff, budget, subs, and the trees and scrub will grow and grow and grow and then after even a short period there’s a physically and financially bigger issue to deal with.
Don’t let the bloody things grow!
Remove the saplings and the brush and the scrub on a very regular basis.
There are machines that’ll do this in a time efficient manner and the cost of using them can over a short time save a bunch of money in tree surgeon costs and the hassle of dealing with tree hugging members and any outside bodies that might have become involved.
Less leaves to deal with each autumn too.
Atb

Listening to an old "Feed the Ball" Podcast with Frank Pont recently he stated that trees grow c.3% per annum.
So, if a course has say 10,000 trees to stand still in terms of playing corridors one would need to remove c.300 trees every year in equivalence!
Can you imagine the furore!
But it does illustrate the need for a good tree maintenance and annual husbandry plan.
3%/annum is not far off a doubling in size every 20-25 years, which also illustrates how the positioning of new planting needs even more care than traditionally occurs.

Not just furore but cost and time. Tree surgeons are expensive, the work is time consuming and UK regulations mean that in-house staff can’t necessarily do the work themselves what with the size of the trees and the need for tree climbing etc. Plus lumber removal is time consuming and the potential disruption to play etc after the chopping down has been done can be extensive.

And then there are the ‘out of sight’ factors …. Competition with the grass for water and soil nutrient's, roots and blocked drains, roots and blocked ditches, less air circulation, light and dampness and there effects on the sword, playing delays looking for lost balls, annual leaf fall and time consuming leaf collection etc etc.
Hence penny pinching on tree and brush and scrub related activities should be avoided. And the best method is not to let the damn things grow in the first place!
Atb

[Niall C]

David


It looks as though what you are really advocating is not having any trees or bushes at all. That certainly could and does work well on a lot of links courses but how well do you think that would work on the majority of inland courses ?


Niall

[Simon Barrington]

David
It looks as though what you are really advocating is not having any trees or bushes at all. That certainly could and does work well on a lot of links courses but how well do you think that would work on the majority of inland courses ?
Niall

Think this probably needs/deserves a thread of its own? It has gone a bit off piste on this one...

Interesting that David uses similar strident language as the anti-tree removal crowd do at many clubs.
Newtonian - Equal and opposite reaction and all that. Immovable forces create resistance in the other direction.

It's an emotive subject one certainly for its own thread, and in my view education and bringing folk along with the why? is the best way forward.

[Thomas Dai]

Hickory, persimmon, ash, bamboo etc all have their place!

Joes piece from 2016 is well worth a read - https://golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/sponcia-joe-trees-on-the-golf-course-a-common-sense-approach/
Atb

[Niall C]

Jack Nicklaus:

“Pinehurst #2 is the best course I know of from a tree-usage standpoint.  It’s a totally tree-lined golf course without one tree in the playing strategy of that golf course.  I love what Donald Ross used to do at Pinehurst.  Every year Ross would walk through the trees and say, ‘that tree has gotten too big; you can’t play a recovery shot from there any more.  Take that tree out and that tree out and cut the branches of that one’.  Then if you hit it in there, you could get in and play a recovery shot back out.  Too many trees prevent recovery shots, and I think the recovery shot is a wonderful part of the game.”

If it was good enough for Ross...........

Niall

[Niall C]

And here's another one to ponder;
 
Harry S. Colt:
 
‘There is of necessity a feeling of restriction when playing the game with 6-foot oaks paling on every side…The sense of freedom is usually one of the great charms of the game, and it is almost impossible to lay out a big, bold course in a park unless it be of large dimensions, and one needs some three or four hundred acres within the ring of fence to prevent the cramped feeling…It is essential to make the clearing bold and wide, as it is not very enjoyable to play down long alleys with trees on either side.’
 
Three or four hundred acres ?! How fortunate was Colt to have sites of 3 or 4 hundred acres. Of the golden age era courses (all inland) near me I suspect very few are over 100 acres and that includes the area taken up by clubhouse, car park, greenkeepers sheds and any practice area. And yet those courses pretty well all have trees to provide framing/definition and to provide a measure of protection against stray shots.
 
I suspect none of those clubs are spending the equivalent of $88K to £192K annually referred to in Joe's essay.
 
Niall 

[Simon Barrington]

Jack Nicklaus:

“Pinehurst #2 is the best course I know of from a tree-usage standpoint.  It’s a totally tree-lined golf course without one tree in the playing strategy of that golf course.  I love what Donald Ross used to do at Pinehurst.  Every year Ross would walk through the trees and say, ‘that tree has gotten too big; you can’t play a recovery shot from there any more.  Take that tree out and that tree out and cut the branches of that one’.  Then if you hit it in there, you could get in and play a recovery shot back out.  Too many trees prevent recovery shots, and I think the recovery shot is a wonderful part of the game.”

If it was good enough for Ross...........

Niall

Reading this makes me think you, Jack, Donald and David agree on far more than this exchange would intimate...

[Simon Barrington]

And here's another one to ponder;
 
Harry S. Colt:
 
‘There is of necessity a feeling of restriction when playing the game with 6-foot oaks paling on every side…The sense of freedom is usually one of the great charms of the game, and it is almost impossible to lay out a big, bold course in a park unless it be of large dimensions, and one needs some three or four hundred acres within the ring of fence to prevent the cramped feeling…It is essential to make the clearing bold and wide, as it is not very enjoyable to play down long alleys with trees on either side.’
 
Three or four hundred acres ?! How fortunate was Colt to have sites of 3 or 4 hundred acres. Of the golden age era courses (all inland) near me I suspect very few are over 100 acres and that includes the area taken up by clubhouse, car park, greenkeepers sheds and any practice area. And yet those courses pretty well all have trees to provide framing/definition and to provide a measure of protection against stray shots.
 
I suspect none of those clubs are spending the equivalent of $88K to £192K annually referred to in Joe's essay.
 
Niall

Hello Niall

Colt was able to be quite selective of the sites he worked at, he had that luxury based on his great talent (not too many prosaic local nine-holers etc. in his canon)
As was Simpson, as he really didn't need the money (not that Colt didn't but the quality of his early work meant he was in very high demand)

I guess you'll know this already, but the real point in all this "to & fro" is that regardless of size of site (although it is a more acute issue on smaller acreage courses) there has been excessive (albeit well-intended) planting of trees in unconsidered postions across many inland courses, especially since the advent of televised US Golf (led by Augusta).
The results of which impose far greater costs and time pressures upon the maintenance budgets of courses, even before taking into account the increased inputs (water, chemical, and labour) required to get a decent playing surface (as expected/demanded by modern members) in the face of reduced air, light and moisture .
Sensible tree management (post good advice by an aborist and local nature conservancy bodies) can reduce that cost, while also returning the strategic challenge intended.
Not wholesale removal for removals sake but a balanced program, that ends up with a win-win of improved agronomy, strategy, and finances.
Many rare habitats have been altered/destroyed by over-planting (especially heathland and chalk downland).
So, there is a environmental diversity benefit too in many cases to such an approach.

Cheers

[Thomas Dai]

Singing from the same hymn book in the same language but with slightly different accents.
Atb

[Niall C]

Marvellous, I love getting a right good lecture..............what, did someone mention pot and kettle ?


Simon,


Yes, Colt became preeminent but he was still a jobbing gca when all is said and done. There weren't many commissions he'd have turned down, provided they paid and the amount of work (or distance to travel) didn't make it more than it was worth. And he did do the odd nine holer (Fort Augustus) as well as a fair bit of redesign work. So it wasn't all 300 acre sites by any means.


But back to the whether trees should be massacred debate, my first query to David was whether his assertion that it is better to regularly (annually ?) prune and clear out scrub rather than doing it when a necessity was cheaper in the long run. I'm doubtful. I then queried whether he just wanted trees off inland golf courses altogether and how well would that work but he side-stepped that one by referring me to Joe's essay. So I'm not entirely sure whether he is a tree blitzing fundamentalist or whether he can see some value in them on the golf course.


Niall       

[Sean_A]

Marvellous, I love getting a right good lecture..............what, did someone mention pot and kettle ?


Simon,


Yes, Colt became preeminent but he was still a jobbing gca when all is said and done. There weren't many commissions he'd have turned down, provided they paid and the amount of work (or distance to travel) didn't make it more than it was worth. And he did do the odd nine holer (Fort Augustus) as well as a fair bit of redesign work. So it wasn't all 300 acre sites by any means.


But back to the whether trees should be massacred debate, my first query to David was whether his assertion that it is better to regularly (annually ?) prune and clear out scrub rather than doing it when a necessity was cheaper in the long run. I'm doubtful. I then queried whether he just wanted trees off inland golf courses altogether and how well would that work but he side-stepped that one by referring me to Joe's essay. So I'm not entirely sure whether he is a tree blitzing fundamentalist or whether he can see some value in them on the golf course.


Niall     

I took WW’s comments to be clear unplanned self seeded trees when first spotted rather than waiting until they are a problem when much larger and likely more costly to remove. Makes sense to me…if a club has a tree management plan. Courses are packed with useless trees creating green walls down fairways. So many cool trees are buried in those green walls instead of being showcased as visual amenities for the courses. But hey, I understand there are differing opinions on the subject.


Ciao

[Simon Barrington]

Marvellous, I love getting a right good lecture..............what, did someone mention pot and kettle ?

Simon,
Yes, Colt became preeminent but he was still a jobbing gca when all is said and done. There weren't many commissions he'd have turned down, provided they paid and the amount of work (or distance to travel) didn't make it more than it was worth. And he did do the odd nine holer (Fort Augustus) as well as a fair bit of redesign work. So it wasn't all 300 acre sites by any means...

Niall     

Thanks Niall,

Sometimes Colt didn't get jobs as his quotes were sometimes double or more versus those of others, which is a very polite and tried & tested method of ensuring one doesn't get the jobs you don't need/want. It is something many do today in other trades, building etc.

It is not a criticism of Colt; as it has been reported that even today some notable architects may (allegedly) not even finish a site visit, rather than do a job that might dilute the quality of their portfolio. Proactively protecting their output and brand. I think they should do so,  if they feel they wouldn't be fully invested and passionate about the project (only if they can afford to do so).

Fort Augustus looks very interesting, and I think Leckford may have been another 9-Hole exception?

S

[Thomas Dai]

When combined with a pro-active tree, brush, scrub even rough management policy including relevant environmental matters appropriate types of indigenous trees and an appropriate number of them in appropriate locations are fine. This though includes preventing self seeding trees especially non-indiginous ones growing in the first place by active off-fairway management either by machine or by appropriate grazing animals. On a more/less balance scale less trees, brush, scrub, even rough would be preferred.
Atb


PS - a nice piece on the subject that I hope MC doesn’t mind me posting - https://www.golfcoursearchitecture.net/content/tree-free-golf

[Mike_Clayton]

When combined with a pro-active tree, brush, scrub even rough management policy including relevant environmental matters appropriate types of indigenous trees and an appropriate number of them in appropriate locations are fine. This though includes preventing self seeding trees especially non-indiginous ones growing in the first place by active off-fairway management either by machine or by appropriate grazing animals. On a more/less balance scale less trees, brush, scrub, even rough would be preferred.
Atb


PS - a nice piece on the subject that I hope MC doesn’t mind me posting - https://www.golfcoursearchitecture.net/content/tree-free-golf

No problem:)