News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


mike_malone

  • Karma: +0/-0
Taking a tree down-rarely hurts a hole.Planting usually does
« on: February 19, 2004, 08:47:07 PM »
 I had a conversation with one of our members tonight.He said we made a mistake taking down two trees at the corner of the dogleg of one of our holes.I suggested that the options to play the hole were increased.Neither one of us was swayed.
      I began to think as i walked away.How often is it a mistake to cut down a tree on a golf course?How much more often is it a mistake to plant one?
     I have found that once a tree has been planted the mind of most members searches for good reasons why it must stay.
     If a course was designed before those trees were planted and designed well it is almost always a bad idea to plant trees that restrict shots.I imagine architects have fits designing around trees that are there because they know THEY ARE DEALING WITH A HAZARD THAT WILL CHANGE over time,perhaps drastically.Who would intentionally plan for such a situation.?
     There was a thread earlier that showed a picture of some inanimate object(i think a windmill) in the fairway.At least it won't grow,ruin the grass around it,or sprout dangerous roots.It probably won't fall over either.
   When i see a tree in the middle of a fairway i think it is neat(if far enough away from the green).But what happens when some lightening takes it away?
   
     
AKA Mayday

Jason Mandel

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Taking a tree down-rarely hurts a hole.Planting usually does
« Reply #1 on: February 19, 2004, 09:45:01 PM »
mayday,

the tree on 18 at pebble dies all the time, they spend a ton of money on a new tree to replace it :)

you should take some of your members over to my course, show them the 1000 trees that we took down, even ones that were on doglegs, PLAYABILITY, CREATIVTY, AND OPTIONS are some of the most common words heard now.  Previously it was Keeping the ball in play and out of the trees!!  And we still have plenty of trees, the only difference is the majority of these trees never come into play.

Jason
You learn more about a man on a golf course than anywhere else

contact info: jasonymandel@gmail.com

woof

Re:Taking a tree down-rarely hurts a hole.Planting usually does
« Reply #2 on: February 20, 2004, 09:12:23 AM »
mayday:  I agree with your thesis.  At my course, we had a dogleg with a magnificent tree and small bunker at the bend.  Great visually, but forced all tee shots to its left.  Alas, six or seven years ago the tree came down in a storm.  The tree has not been replaced, and the bunker was enlarged slightly.  Now there is a new option off the tee:  go at the bunker and try to fly it.  A straight shot is rewarded with a short iron to the green, but stray slightly off to the right and your shot to the green is horrible.  Increased variety without the tree.

mike_malone

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Taking a tree down-rarely hurts a hole.Planting usually does
« Reply #3 on: February 20, 2004, 09:22:59 AM »
 redanman
    It was on #15!!!!

          Trees make such inferior hazards.Do something creative i say.
AKA Mayday

wsmorrison

Re:Taking a tree down-rarely hurts a hole.Planting usually does
« Reply #4 on: February 20, 2004, 10:49:01 AM »
redanman,

Please explain how the trees that clearly influence the strategy (an indirect tax on the tee shot) at the 11th at Huntingdon Valley make this a weak hole.  My feeling is that it is a great hole, and the trees are integral to that.  It has terrific angles and a demanding approach shot to an angled green fronted by a creek.  For those that haven't seen this awesome course in person (a must), the 11th is a 350 yard par 4 with an elevated tee and a slight dogleg left.  You can see the green end from the 10th green and it certainly gives you an opportunity to think how to play the tee shot.  A picture of the green can be seen in Ran's courses by country section.  Unfortunately, the trees that influence play are not pictured, but the great green end is.  

These are strategic trees and the hole is far better for having the vertical hazard that you universally decry.  In my opinion, I think Ian Andrew agreed, if a grassed-over fairway bunker on the right, were returned to sand, it would really help the angles and look of the hole from the tee.

Jeff Goldman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Taking a tree down-rarely hurts a hole.Planting usually does
« Reply #5 on: February 20, 2004, 12:42:57 PM »
Let me second the implication of WSMorrison's post that, used creatively by a great designer, a tree or group can make a great hole.  We always talk about using what the land naturally gives (or appearing to), and that includes trees.  16 at the River Course at BWR is the best example I know.  Lay back, go left or over, or safely to the right, depends on the tree.  In fact, I nominate Pete Dye as the architect that best used tees strategically.  9, 11 and 13 on the River Course are other examples, although 9 and 13 could use some pruning.  Obviously, trees grow and without proper greenkeeping, the strategy can be lost, but isn't that true of all things - bunkers need tending, grass cutting etc.  99% of the time trees hurt, but, very rarely, they are terrific.  Shows that you cannot generalize about anything, and true artists can break the rules.

Jeff Goldman
That was one hellacious beaver.

mike_malone

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Taking a tree down-rarely hurts a hole.Planting usually does
« Reply #6 on: February 20, 2004, 02:27:41 PM »
Wayne
    I have tried to find out whether those trees on the left of #11(in the driving area,not by the green) HVCC were there when  Flynn did  the hole.I believe they were not.My point is that if they were gone it would be no big deal.That is a very narrow,sloped green.There is a creek short and a hill long---plenty of problems AT THE GREEN.No need to screw with the drive.I will stick my neck out and say THEY WERE NOT THERE AND FLYNN WOULD NOT RECOMMEND THEIR PLANTING.I WOULD BE SURPRISED IF HE DID.
   Jeff
      I am not familiar with the course you mention.But i would imagine that the average golfer chooses not to mess with trees and just aims away from them.

I also mentioned that trees on the course when constructed are much more reasonable than those planted after the course is built.It seems that many planters are trying to toughen a shot and lose sight of how the designer intended that space to be used.

    The example from my course i used  shows how the tree planters certainly made going left virtually impossible,BUT SEEMED TO HAVE FORGOTTEN THE SECOND SHOT.Flynn intended to sucker people down the left to a shorter but much more difficult shot---some have called this "a sense of humor" in design.
AKA Mayday

mike_malone

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Taking a tree down-rarely hurts a hole.Planting usually does
« Reply #7 on: February 20, 2004, 03:04:04 PM »
 When i play HVCC i notice the forest that separates #11 and#8(i believe).This  is what Flynn has advised about  planting trees(out of play).The few trees on the left look less than 100 years old(not that i am an expert on tree age by sight).They appear to have been a response to little ground interest on that hole.I also think there is a bunker or two on the left as well.I think this hole is not dissimiliar to #12 at Rolling Green---originally not an aerial dogleg--trees planted in the 30's   -basically out of play made it a dogleg.As you know, Wayne Flynn came back and removed the left original bunker,created some on the right ,and some in back of the green.I think he was trying to deal with land here also on a short par four that had little interest(untill you get inside 100 yards)

  These are two short par fours with great challenge at the green,but architectural challenges in the landing area.Thank God Flynn did not see the need to plant trees like they have at HVCC to solve these problems.
AKA Mayday

mike_malone

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Taking a tree down-rarely hurts a hole.Planting usually does
« Reply #8 on: February 20, 2004, 03:08:27 PM »
 BTW HVCC had a wondeful tree on the right side of either #6 or #7.It was a factor on your drive and provided much visual pleasure.It was very far from the green and easy to negotiate.UNFORTUNATELY IT DIED.Thank god again Flynn did not make it a centerpiece of the hole.They have planted a new tree----maybe in 100 years it will be beautiful.
AKA Mayday

Jeff Goldman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Taking a tree down-rarely hurts a hole.Planting usually does
« Reply #9 on: February 20, 2004, 03:39:14 PM »
Mayday,  as many on this site will tell you, 16 on the river course is a par 5 with the green perched and the sheboygan river down the left side some 40 feet below the edge of the green.  A single tree is 100 yeards in front of the green.  After a good tee shot that avoids a huge bunker on the left, there are 3 or 4 options.  1:  hit it safely to the right, leaving a 50-90 yard pitch shot to a long green;  2:  Hit a draw around the tree trying to reach in 2;  3:  Try to hit it high over the tree to reach in 2; 4:  Lay up far back so that the third shot can be over the tree (150-175 yards) - usually after a mediocre tee shot; 5:  a fairly difficult lay up left of the tree to play the 3rd shot over the river onto the green (happens a lot after a lousy tee shot into the rough on the right).  I have tried or seen all 5 of these options taken, they basically depend on the existence of the tree, and are tons of fun.  

Jeff Goldman
That was one hellacious beaver.

wsmorrison

Re:Taking a tree down-rarely hurts a hole.Planting usually does
« Reply #10 on: February 20, 2004, 03:54:46 PM »
Mike,

I don't follow you at all.  Flynn was not nearly as compartmentalized as you like to make him out to be.  He did lots of different things in his designs.  Yes he had tendencies, but he was not anchored to them.  Careful of sticking your neck out without really digging for the answers.  He used trees for framing holes often and effectively and he used trees strategically, though not that often but did so for doglegs and otherwise.  Since HVCC was opened in 1927, I would expect a large percentage of trees on the course to be less than 100 years old. I don't know how you went about trying to find out about Flynn's use of trees at HVCC.  You could ask me since I have the plans for now and have a number of old aerial photographs (many are from the Hagley) or you could ask Linc Roden who grew up on the course and is the most knowledgeable person I know about HVCC architecture.  He has a marvelous understanding of most everything to do with the golf course.  

While both RGGC 12 and HVCC 11 are short dogleg par 4s and they both have elevated tees, the similarities lessen dramatically as you move toward the green end.  HVCC is level and RGGC is steeply uphill.  Just because there were no trees to create a dogleg corridor (RGGC 12) does not mean it was not meant to be played as a dogleg and did--the green complex dictates this.  Like many Flynn holes, the play is on the outside of the dogleg whether there are trees or not.  What does changing bunkers at RGGC 12 have to do with anything.  Flynn often tinkered with courses.  He worked on Merion for 20 years and the Cascades for nearly the same length of time.  I have no idea what you mean he was "trying to deal with the land."  As to your last post, I think you were referring to the par 5 7th that had the tree on the right.

redanman,

You did not answer my question.  I understand you'd like the green contours to dictate strategy (I'm sure you would include the entire green complex) but why isn't the 11th at HVCC a great hole and what's wrong with the use of strategic trees in this particular case?  By your definition, it is a weak hole because it utilizes strategic trees.  Please explain why this specific hole is weak.  By the way, I cannot recall there being systematic agronomic issues resulting from the trees surrounding this green.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2004, 03:58:17 PM by wsmorrison »

mike_malone

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Taking a tree down-rarely hurts a hole.Planting usually does
« Reply #11 on: February 20, 2004, 04:06:29 PM »
Jeff
    Thanks for your description of that hole.So, i have some questions.Was the tree there before construction?Would the approach from that side be compromised if the tree were not there?It seems that the river is the big concern.Does it really make sense to try to hook it around the tree with that river there?If not,then the tree begins to reduce options.Are most of those shots you mentioned "options" or "requirements"?For instance,the need to lay back after a bad drive.Someday that tree will be gone.Will the hole be worse then?If so,then the design is bad.

       I think if the green complex was designed with that hook around the tree in mind it is a weakness,because the tree is undependable.

    The title of my thread is cutting down versus planting.I can see designers using trees already there in interesting ways.It is just not wise in my opinion to design important strategic features around a SINGLE tree.I feel that it is very hard to make a mistake when cutting a tree down and very easy to make a mistake when planting one.
AKA Mayday

Pat Brockwell

Re:Taking a tree down-rarely hurts a hole.Planting usually does
« Reply #12 on: February 20, 2004, 04:14:33 PM »
When I was at Cochiti GC I did quite a bit of Juniper thinning and the most valid complaint I got was that on the 16th green you had to walk further to take a pee.

mike_malone

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Taking a tree down-rarely hurts a hole.Planting usually does
« Reply #13 on: February 20, 2004, 04:28:03 PM »
 Wayne
   I respect your Flynn knowledge,but am not intimidated by it.When you speak of Flynn using trees strategically,i wonder how often he PLANTED  trees to do this.It seems more often he used them for strategy because he did not want to CUT down everyone that was there.
     I will be glad to await the verdict of your analysis of the data on#11 HVCC. If i am wrong it will be a first :D Besides i like living dangerously.
      I said that the challenge of each of these par fours was at the green;i did not say the challenge was the same.My reference to the changes on #12 RG were intended to be a "speculation" that the changes made show some uncertainty on his part for what was right there.As you know so many of our holes have wonderful ground features that he used magnificently and saw no need to change.I think for both #12RG and #11HVCC the ground is RELATIVELY less interesting in the landing area than most of the rest of the holes on these courses.

      I mentioned that #12 was not an "aerial" dogleg.I agree that the best play even in 1926 was away from the dogleg.
AKA Mayday

mike_malone

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Taking a tree down-rarely hurts a hole.Planting usually does
« Reply #14 on: February 20, 2004, 04:31:02 PM »
 Pat
    After we took many trees down a few years ago some member was heard to say----

        "YOU HAVE MADE THE COURSE IMPISSABLE!!!"
AKA Mayday

Jeff Goldman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Taking a tree down-rarely hurts a hole.Planting usually does
« Reply #15 on: February 20, 2004, 05:48:11 PM »
Mayday, take a look at the picture of 16 on the course profile here and you'll see what I mean.  I am too technically incompetent to post it on the thread.

Jeff Goldman
That was one hellacious beaver.

Jeff Goldman

  • Karma: +0/-0
That was one hellacious beaver.

wsmorrison

Re:Taking a tree down-rarely hurts a hole.Planting usually does
« Reply #17 on: February 20, 2004, 07:34:51 PM »
I am not sure the distinction between planting strategic trees and using existing strategic trees is all that significant.  You are entitled to believe that Flynn used existing trees for strategy because he did not want to cut them down, I'm not about to criticize you for that.  My feeling is he was more likely to utilize existing trees for strategy because he wanted to and that's as far as the analysis needs to go.  He did it, on holes other than doglegs, not very often but he did like variety.

Looking at the Flynn plans, 5 aerials from 1939 (Hagley), a 1942 aerial from Dan Wexler, and a 1946 revision proposal of HVCC by Donald Ross, the trees between 11 and 8 predate Flynn's work in 1927 and were quite large at the time of construction.  Flynn did not plant trees to create the design elements for 11 but he certainly used them in a specific and highly demanding way.

Given that Ross proposed many changes (eight holes) to HVCC, he assuredly would have proposed changing the design for 11 if he felt it needed it.  He must have liked what he saw.  Given that there were no changes to the hole in nearly 77 years, my guess is there isn't serious problems with the greensite and a lack of sunlight isn't a problem.  According to Linc Roden there hasn't been problems with the green.  Granted the picture in Ran's write-up is in shadow, yet many trees on the south side out of play have been cut down.

I spoke with Linc this evening and he suggested we reread his December 2001 feature interview to get a better handle on Flynn and his use of strategic trees.  We talked about the sweetgum tree on the left corner near the bunker and the green end trees that dictate strategy.  Linc cited numerous other examples at HVCC including:

an enormous oak that comes into play from the elevated back tee on 4 about 120 yards out that requires a fade into the fairway on a long drive or a shorter shot towards the bunker field

the large ash tree that Mike Malone referred to on the right side of 7

a group of ash trees on the left between the fairway and a stream that Flynn moved.  From the back tee in 1927 there was a 28 yard gap between the group of trees and the creek at the 225 yard mark from the tee, it was a demanding fade required to have a favorable approach into the green

on C1 there were 3 big poplars at the turning point of the dogleg where the hole bends left and the fairway cants right, unfortunately 2 were removed by mistake during the restoration

from the back tee on C2 you could not hit over the low growth trees back in the day

on C3 where there is a bunker field on the left predating Shinnecock, there was a large tree on the right that came into play for those that overplayed the safe route away from the bunkers

on C5 there were 2-3 large trees that effectively prevented the player from cutting the corner

On Philmont North, Flynn used trees at the turning point on a number of holes rewarding a specific shaped shot.  such holes include 1, 2, 9 (at two turning points on the right side), 14, and 18.

redanman,
Of course this green is not why the course is kept dry, it is because that is the course condition that integrates best with the architecture!
« Last Edit: February 20, 2004, 07:40:22 PM by wsmorrison »

wsmorrison

Re:Taking a tree down-rarely hurts a hole.Planting usually does
« Reply #18 on: February 20, 2004, 07:38:22 PM »
redanman,
If you want, email me your email address and I will email you Scott's aerial since I never got a website to post pictures.  The photo does not show the 11th very well.  The 1942 photo does and I'll send that to you as well if you like.
Regards,
Wayne

wsmorrison

Re:Taking a tree down-rarely hurts a hole.Planting usually does
« Reply #19 on: February 20, 2004, 07:46:31 PM »
Here are Linc's thoughts on Flynn and trees from the feature interview piece:

The early Scottish architects did not seem to place much value on trees. I recall no trees on Royal Dornoch, but there were more whins or gorse than you would ever want to see. A ball in the whins is either lost or unplayable, sort of like a water hazard.
Flynn was an American architect. He learned in the Philadelphia area with all its streams, hills and great mature trees. He departed from the Scottish school on water as I mentioned. He also departed as regards trees, which he thought to be of great value on the courses. Rolling Green, HVCC, Philmont North, and Manufacturers are all examples of Flynn’s use of trees, and great mature trees at that. Shinnecock is an aberration, where he was probably asked to improve the original layout with no trees on the property, but with wind and soil characteristics of linksland.
Here is what Flynn said about trees:
'The pleasantest type of course is one where the holes are segregated, that is where the hole you happen to be playing is well apart from the others. In order to have this kind of course it is necessary to secure property that is already wooded or to do considerable planting of trees.' (Italics are Linc’s.)
' The old idea was to have golf courses as free from trees as possible. This notion, no doubt, was imported from Scotland because when golf was first taken up in the United States we knew very little about the game and modeled our courses on those of the Scots which were, for the most part, built along the seashore where there were no trees.
'It is impossible to conceive that the 'Canny Scots' would have denuded their courses of trees if there had been any there originally. As a race they are entirely too thrifty for any such waste as that.
'Today the old ideas have been discarded and the prevailing belief is that trees, most emphatically, have a fixed place on a golf course. This is true for many reasons:
·   First—Because there are few, if any, sites available that are devoid of trees and it is a costly operation to cut them down and remove them.
·   Second—Trees add beauty to a course forming picturesque backgrounds and delightful vistas.
·   Third—Their shade is most refreshing on a hot summer day.
·   Fourth—They are of great practical value in segregating various holes.'
'It might also be that moving a tee slightly to the right or left precludes the necessity of taking out some beautiful tree. This also applies to green sites. Sometimes a slight change in the alignment of the hole permits the architect to keep a specimen tree or trees which may also act as a key turning point in the hole.'
Source: Flynn articles in USGA Green Section Record, 1927.
At HVCC Flynn saved many mature trees and woodlands, and, on holes that were on open land, the early aerial photos show little trees planted to divide the holes.
On some Donald Ross courses the recent trend has been to cut down many trees to restore the course the way Ross intended. On Flynn’s courses, it would be more appropriate to plant more trees in line with his philosophy.
Some examples of the way Flynn used trees are:
1.   Trees as chutes off the tee. At HVCC: A-4, A-8. Rolling Green: number 15 has one of the tightest and longest chutes anywhere. Philmont North: tight chutes on 1, 2, 6, 10, 18. Number 6 plays over a hill to a blind fairway; the trees almost look like they are overlapping. Manufacturers: number 4 and number 9. Remember Flynn’s work at Merion: think of 10 and 12 from the back tees, and 18.
2.   Big trees as fairway lanes. At HVCC: number A-2, A-8, C-9. At Philmont North: 1, 2, 9, 10, 18. At Manufacturers: 5, 7, 10, 15. At Rolling Green: 7, 9, 12, 13, 15, 18.
3.   Big trees like a wall on one side. At HVCC: A-4, A-6, A-7, B-2, B-3, B-7, B-8, B-9, C-1. At Rolling Green: 1, 17.
4.   Big trees around the green. At HVCC: A-1, A-2 (3 century oaks on right; 2 killed by gypsy moths.), A-6, A-7, B-2, C-1, C-4, C-9. At Rolling Green: !4, 16, 18. At Philmont North: 1, 2, 9, 10.
5.   Big trees at turning points. At HVCC: A-7, B-2, B-9, C-5. At Manufacturers: 2, 7, 10. At Rolling Green: 5, 12, 17, 18. At Philmont North: 1, 2, 9, 13.
The abundance of trees, their beauty, and their significance to the golfer distinguish Flynn from some earlier architects. They help to make his courses both beautiful and challenging.

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Taking a tree down-rarely hurts a hole.Planting usually does
« Reply #20 on: February 20, 2004, 09:41:57 PM »
Interesting debate.  Only comment I will make at this time is that Flynn probably loved trees as much or more than any of the Golden Age designers.  That said, he knew as well as anyone where to plant/retain trees and where to remove/not plant them.  Remember, he was a Superintendent and his first love was healthy grass!  
Mark

mike_malone

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Taking a tree down-rarely hurts a hole.Planting usually does
« Reply #21 on: February 20, 2004, 11:05:40 PM »
 Wayne
     I have read this before and will discuss my disagreements with Mr.Roden's opinions as they relate to RG tomorrow.
AKA Mayday

Forrest Richardson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Taking a tree down-rarely hurts a hole.Planting usually does
« Reply #22 on: February 21, 2004, 12:30:17 AM »
Taking a tree down-rarely hurts a hole.
Planting usually does.

- - -

This is a generalization created to satisfy a position. In fact, it so depends on the situation that I do not believe there is any credibility to the statement.

I have been in many situations where I would have longed for a tree to have been planted at a particular spot — but none had been.

I have also been in the position of wishing a tree gone from a particular spot — but been unable to convince it to be so.

Clearing, planting, master plans and thinning are all matters best left to close relationships between golf course architects, greenkeepers, owners and committees. While we do not live in a perfect world — and these parties may not always communicate — it does not make it any less important that they do or should.
— Forrest Richardson, Golf Course Architect/ASGCA
    www.golfgroupltd.com
    www.golframes.com

Doug Siebert

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Taking a tree down-rarely hurts a hole.Planting usually does
« Reply #23 on: February 21, 2004, 02:57:39 AM »
  When i see a tree in the middle of a fairway i think it is neat(if far enough away from the green).But what happens when some lightening takes it away?


My home away from home course has a shortish par 5 that plays into the wind to a tiny green.  It used to have a nearly 100 ft tall tree in the center of the fairway about 80 yards short of the green, that added a lot of strategy to the hole if you wanted to go for it in two, especially in the pre Pro V1 days where you had to hook around a fairway bunker to get position to go around the tree.  It was doable to hit a long iron over the thing if you had a really high trajectory, but you had to be pretty sure of yourself because the penalty for failure was usually a six, or worse if you tried to do too much from behind that tree.  When playing it as a three shotter you had to choose which side of the fairway to leave your third in, it wasn't playable from the middle unless you were pretty close to the tree (it had no branches below 40 feet or so)

A freak storm with higher than 123 mph winds (the wind gauge on the clubhouse registered that before blowing away!) took down half the trees on the course, including that one.  They had  the stump removed and replaced with a new 30 foot tree within a week.  It isn't the same though, and won't be the same for probably another 50 years or more.  For those going for it in two, the tree is a complete non factor.  For those going for it in three, the hole is a lot nastier, because you can't be anywhere near the tree as it has branches down to about 5 feet or so -- it covers a lot more of the crucial 0 to 40 foot airspace most golfers play in.

I've seen a lot of great holes that use a tree in the fairway well.  But almost without exception, they are old trees that don't have branches anywhere near the ground.  When one of those goes, there is no replacement, except perhaps for a course with nearly unlimited resources that could afford a like replacement.  IMHO the best bet when one of those trees goes is to rethink the design of the hole and make it interesting in some other way (if it requires it)  There isn't any way to recapture the strategy such a tree offers through any other method.
My hovercraft is full of eels.

wsmorrison

Re:Taking a tree down-rarely hurts a hole.Planting usually does
« Reply #24 on: February 21, 2004, 08:23:57 AM »
I do believe that Flynn was part of a movement in America to create an American style of golf architecture that was to be a derivative of the architecture in the UK not entirely similar.  Mark, you are absolutely right about Flynn's love of trees, grasses, and plantings.  Flynn was one of the early and influencial green keepers in America and along with Hugh and Alan Wilson, Toomey, Harban, Piper, and Oakley were instrumental in improving the science of turfgrass.  He subordinated the beautification of a course, framing, and strategy of trees in favor of heathy grass.  He worked on agronomic failures at Pine Valley and experimented on grasses throughout his professional career.  He tried out 50 varieties of grasses on a turf farm at Mill Road Farm for Albert Lasker.  Given the background and experiences of Flynn and Toomey, I doubt that they would compromise turf growing as that is the underpinning of any golf course.

I find it hard to understand why individuals on this site and others take the hardline stance that trees have no place in play on a golf course.  I believe they have a right to feel that way but it is undeniable that Flynn and other architects had a different view and practice.  Used correctly by a master architect, trees add variety and beauty to a golfer's experience.  The misuse of trees by uninformed and overzealous green committees over the years has unintentionally harmed the use of trees in American architecture.  

When we think of framing today, we think of narrow corridors of trees that minimize strategies and merely test straight shots where the longest hitters (if they are straight) have a decided advantage.  Framing to Flynn was a method he used with trees 40 yards or so off center to accentuate angles, for example at Boca Raton South, slight doglegs seemed like they turned more because of his framing techniques.  This framing can add drama to the movement of the ground, highlighting it rather than hiding it.  

I'd like to hear from modern architects and learn their views of strategic tree use--if any.  While Flynn didn't always utilize strategic trees, he often did so at the turning points of doglegs and at times elsewhere in the hole design.  Flynn did this with existing trees and also planted them.  We know that hardwoods were planted at Rolling Green sometime in the early to mid 1930s.  It seems illogical that Flynn was not consulted and didn't have a hand in the implementation of these trees.  He lived 5 minutes away and his method of operation was to consult on courses over many years.  Mike, you know Rolling Green as well as anyone and I know you've made mention of this in his bunker changes and I believe you thought Flynn was responsible for these subsequently planted trees.  If you look at the trees planted along the sides of holes, the 1939 pictures show that the tree lines did not extend from tee to green, there were openings and vistas exposed.  Green committees added trees later, especially evergreens to segregate the holes completely in the 1970s.  Now, I see on many golf courses trees planted not intended by the architect.  The most offending trees are evergreens as green committees went hog-wild with these inexpensive trees thinking each hole should be isolated from neighboring holes.  I think Flynn, where he chose to segregate holes did so in a way that these trees did not come into play save for a truly missed shots.  At Rolling Green, where hardwoods were planted after the course first opened, they were planted approximately 40 yards off center.  

I disagree with Linc in one sense when he talks of adding trees to Flynn courses.  Where there is dramatic ground movement or interesting features, having trees hide such features is wrong if safety is not a concern.  Certainly he did The rock formations at Gulph Mills on the left of one (the same formation on the left of 9) are splendid and its nice to see them again.  The ground that flows down from 11, past 9 fairway to 12 at Rolling Green is better off displayed while taking safety into account.  You can see your fellow members at play and better appreciate the great ground.

Flynn didn't believe in he use of trees everywhere.  He used them much differently at seaside courses and certainly wouldn't want to minimize the effects of wind on these courses.  His designs are oriented with the wind in mind and he would not have compromised this variable influence.  The sophisticated use of trees at Shinnecock, although rarely strategic, works with the varied terrain and accentuates the ground movement.  Alison, in his analysis of Flynn's plan noted:

"On the low land it is the intention to place high growth on the higher portions, and low growth on the lower portions, and to produce in this manner an illusion that the ground is undulating.  This is entirely practicable....It is very important that your landscape man should understand how important it is that he should work with Mr. Flynn, and not independently."

I like the variety that we get when trees are sometimes used for strategy and I feel they certainly have a place at turning points or to balance out lateral hazards (C-3 at Huntingdon Valley, but keep in mind this nine was designed for the better players).  I don't get it why some people on this site believe that trees have no place at all in play on a golf course.  As Linc Roden has shown and I intend to continue to fstudy this thread for a better understanding of Flynn and his use of trees in his design practices.  It is important to note that I am not looking for absolutes.  His writings are better looked at as a guide to his propensities and not as an absolute philosophy.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2004, 08:35:19 AM by wsmorrison »

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back