Golf Metaphor's: 7000 Yards vs 1000 Trees

[Mike_Sweeney]

In the 80's and 90's, 7000 yards became a type of metaphor for "Championship" golf courses that were being built. Obviously 7000 yards in Vail, Colorado is much different than 7000 yards in Florida. The problem was that it became/is a marketing tool for developers and management companies who needed 7000 yards to "sell" the course. Thus the problem became that architects were forced to build 7000 yard courses where they may not have been needed.

I have noticed a similar trend in reference to "Restoration Projects" with a "1000 Trees" being used as a metaphor. My point is not to pick on the individual or their specific statements, but rather to create an awareness. Over the last few days, some of the more respected industry professionals here at GCA have said:



Gil Hanse said in reference to the Yale Thread:

"That is why when asked what I would do to the course, I responded by saying, start by taking down a 1000 trees."



Brad Klein said on the Brooklyn tree thread:

"Since the 1995 U.S. Open, and mostly in the last 2-3 years, Shinnecock Hills has removed over 1,000 trees."



Dunlop White said in reference to Brad's post:

"Typically, removing 1000 (trees) does not make a dint, but at Shinnecock, I iimagine it has."


My guess is that Shinnecock probably has removed alot of trees and schrubs, but I am skeptical of a 1000 trees. Oakmont removed 3500 trees, and Yale seems to have similar terrain. Thus, my view is Yale needs to do more than Shinnecock if Shinnecock did indeed remove 1000 trees. As a observer and not a participant of the restoration industry, is it not dangerous to use the "1000 tree" metaphor similar to the "7000 yard" metaphor that became a handicap to architects ? Or is it a good to use "1000 trees" in order to shock a Greens Committee into the reality of what really needs to be done ?

[NAF]

Mike,

We just cut down 250 trees on the front 9 at Alpine and have another 250 on the back.. Our super thinks the front looks barren in spots now although I think we could cut down another 250 trees!  But it is amazing how on our restoration plan there is a creep to get a formerly 6650 yard course (which is how Tillinghast built it in 1928) to approx.  7000 yards.. It is like a magnet.  Yet, perversely the club hardly sports more than 1 or 2 subpar rounds a year.. Madness I tell you.. why stretch things further when no one breaks par.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Mike,
I think the 7000 yd. mindset helped foster the "arms race" for distance. When high profile courses started to be built at that length it followed that equipment makers would try to create product that would negate the increase for the average player, who was going to step back there whether or not they should.  

After looking at the latest photo of Yale that Geoff posted I think the "1,000 tree" mantra should borrow that yardage number.    Having said that, I have no idea if it is correct.
   

[Kelly Blake Moran]

Michael,

The excitement with which some embrace the notion of massive clearing is cause for concern.  Primarily, clearing should be done to provide the superintendent the optimum conditions for sunlight and air.  Next, clearing should be done to improve the strategic design of the course, typically meaning opening up the width of the hole in conjunction with widening the fairways in key areas to provide interesting options for playing the hole off the tee, also opening up new avenues to get to the greens from the edges of the hole corridors.  Next, trees that prevent recovery shots more specifically the massive bulk of pines that crowd the edges of holes should be removed.  It is far more interesting to make the player think about their options from off the fairway, be it go for the green with a mighty blow, just get back in play, hit a precise layup to have the best angle form which to pitch on the green, I mean those are just three simple options compared to the one and only option a massive grouping of pines give you which is take out your metal driver and putt the ball back onto the fairway.  For many courses accomplishing these two goals is a tall order, it may be a 1000 trees or 200 trees.  

Other goals would be to eliminate exotic trees, trees that are not natural to the area, and eliminate trees that conceal and damage larger, speciman trees.  

A goal of planting would be to introduce trees that are similar to the native hardwood trees on site in a manner that does not violate the above goals, and specifically help connect nodes or patches of woodlands so that you have a contiguous band of woodlands and understory plantings which are much more hospitable to wildlife, and take areas that are out of play out of maintenance.  It is surprising how much maintenance goes into areas that hardly would ever be visited by a golf ball.  I can identify several locations on my home course.

In my experience with memberships tree clearing takes a lot discussion.  It is not something most committee members will accept just because you are the professional.  Probably the most knowldgeable person on the planet regarding the detrimental effects of trees on the course is their superintendent and they still do not listen to him.  So it takes much education and patience.  I have developed a plan that meets the above goals, only depicting the native hardwoods on their course that do not adversely impact maintenance and allow my goals for the strategic improvement of the course to be implemented.  That plan is startling because for some clubs there is a lot of open area depicted.  There is much gnashing of teeth.  Next, a plan, which takes on the guise of a compromise,  is presented that shows some of these voids spotted with a tree or two, graphically depicted at their mature width of canopy, spotted in areas where there might have been 15 trees maybe now there is proposed two hardwoods.  Again, spotted in a manner that does not violate the aforementioned goals fo the master plan landscaping.  That is on tool in the education process.  Implementation is then conducted in baby steps often which highlights the merits of all of the plans and discussions that have been going on for years.  

Back to your concern about mantras, it seems more relevant to answer with the goals for tree clearing, more sunlight, more air, more enjoyable playing conditions, more strategy, better stewardship of the beautiful trees that exist, than to be flippant and throw out a number to shock.  

I lost where I was going early in the discussion.  I was somewhat surprised at the zeal with which the tree clearing operation was described to me during our trip to NGLA.  It was told to me that all the trees would go, as far as you could see around the course.  I saw some maginificent hardwoods, absolute gems, that had no effect on maintenance meaning sunlight, air, roots stealing nutrients, and no impact on play, and inquired if that one was going alos,  YES that one too all of them!  That to me seemed to cross the line.  To remove beautiful old hardwoods because it was not there when CBM built the course just made no sense to me and seemed to me to be a perverse way to interpret an otherwise worthwhile movement to free courses of unneccesary trees.  It was like the story about Sandhills, maybe a myth that the owners bought some land nearby because you could see a tree on it from the course and they wanted the tree gone.  It was probably a myth, but it was told as if it were true and with much delight.  just made no sense to me.  

By the way I heard John Fox of the Panthers was asked what he thought of the half time show and he said he would have gone for two!

[Michael Moore]

It was like the story about Sandhills, maybe a myth that the owners bought some land nearby because you could see a tree on it from the course and they wanted the tree gone.  It was probably a myth, but it was told as if it were true and with much delight.

That's a good one. It reminds me of a book I once read.

And at that very moment, we heard a loud whack!
From outside in the fields came a sickening smack
of an axe on a tree. Then we heard the tree fall.
The very last Truffula Tree of them all!

[Jim_Kennedy]

Michael,
Were you in your Dr. Denton's and drinking warm milk at the time?  

[TEPaul]

I'd say, somewhat in answer to Kelly Blake Moran, that the first thing a golf club should do when they begin to launch into a tree program (tree clearing, planting, maintenance, whatever) is to decide what kind of look they want on their course ultimately and why. That should take some dedicated research.

The reason for this is many American courses were dense woods pre-golf course and others were open farmland or just open. Sometimes, as at my course, GMGC, the architect (Ross) clearly did not get into the use of trees or future trees (or lack of them for that matter) at all or in any comprehensive way. So the club then needs to decide what style and type of course they ultimatly want, had, whatever--eg, open of any trees, or a parkland style with some trees and other golf views, or something like PVGC that despite what many think was actually designed to include tree blocks that visually "individualized" golf holes.

It's not right to automatically apply Oakmont's method or extent of tree clearing simply because Oakmont took out that many trees because Oakmont did it's historic research and knowingly decided to return the look of their course to something that was once intended by persumably the Fownes which was a golf course with very few trees on the interior of the course. The same can be said about NGLA! It shouldn't be hard to establish the fact that Macdonald intended the interior of the golf course to be without trees and so removing all the trees from the interior of the course as they just have is at least historicially accurate and is a return to the way the course was originally intended to be.

Other courses, such as Winged Foot may have had another intended "look" or "style" tree-wise and that's what they should determine too before they get into tree clearing (although they already have cleared numerous trees).

Like anything else in golf architecture just throwing around some "one size fits all" idea, concept or even number (number of trees to remove or total yardage of the golf course) is not the best or smartest way to go.

Again, my course, GMGC, has removed some trees in our recent restoration project and we'll probably remove more in our impending Tree program, but we surely don't intend to remove all the trees from the interior of the course simply because the site was once an open farm. We have nothing from Ross about how the course should look tree-wise in the future but at least we have a description of the course by him as an intended "inland parkland" style. And we or I have a pretty good idea what an "inland parkland" style is supposed to ultimately look like tree-wise--so that's what we hope to go to or restore to!

[mike_malone]

 TEPaul
     I agree with your idea of having an intended look.At Rolling Green in 1926 there was a forest from which about 1/3 of the holes were carved.The remaining holes were wide open.In the 1930's hundreds of hardwoods were planted --out of play to provide backdrop and separation.
   It would be a waste of money to remove these trees(unfortunately many went for agronomic reasons).As long as there are openings around the course for views it is atractive to have the trees.These towering hardwoods are beautiful.I think that one could stand at various points of the course and see where the openings are needed.

    Flynn only PLANNED(from the design we have) to plant trees selectively around the course protecting some tees and greens.However the 1930's plantings are consistent with his writings,so i am ok with them.

       After we take the offending evergreens out we can decide "how should this look?"


    The idea of saying"1000 trees" is hyperbole.We were able to make a major impact on our old classic for fewer than 500.