[TEPaul]

Since there've been a number of recent threads on trees in architecture (on Flynn, on Dye), I'm going to ask this board to honestly talk about when and where the use of trees in architecture started and I mean as a purposeful architectural use!

I was just talking to Tim Weiman briefly about this as he knows European courses pretty well. I asked him if he could think of any courses or architects who dedicatedly used trees, yep, you guess it, STRATEGICALLY in the British Isles BEFORE WW2. He said he couldn't really think of any!

Obviously there may have been preconstruction treed sites in England and Ireland, perhaps pre WW2 but did the architects use any of those trees dedicatedly in creating STRATEGY?

If not this idea of using trees for STRATEGIC purposes may have been uniquely American. They may not have done it a lot but they did do it and seemingly broke the age old linksland dictate and principle that trees should not be a part of golf or golf architectural principle, particularly GOLF STRATEGY!

Let's not pretend it didn't happen even back in the Golden Age of architecture in America because I can prove it did with old photos from the likes of Flynn, Tillinghast and even Alister Mackenzie!

So let's be honest are talk truthfully about when and where the principle of using trees in architecture, PARTICULARLY to create STRATEGIES got into golf!

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tom,
C&W wrote this about W.Park, JF Abercromby, HS Colt and H Fowler:  ...."all(four architects) integrated trees into their designs, a practice unknown before their time, and thus created a strategic and aesthetic asset not available to the old links".
They later say that Colt was the first to use a drawing board and the first to include tree planting instructions in hid designs.

Sounds like trees had an Un-American beginning.

[TEPaul]

Jim:

I saw that in C&W a couple of months ago, and it is interesting and significant. Whatever interesting info comes out of those early Heathland architects would never surprise me because so much seminal in great golf architecture did.

But what I'm really interested in here is honesty--both intellectually and factually. I'm in no way a tree hugger in golf or architecture I'm just getting tired of some on here falling all over each other saying that trees don't belong in architecture and they should really never be on any course. Certainly on some courses they shouldn't be present at al but on others that's not the case.  I don't care if some say they don't think trees should be on any course either, I just don't like it when they try to strengthen their opinions and positions on here by claiming that no good Golden age architect and such believed in using trees to create golf strategies anywhere!

That's just not so and it can be easily proven!

[Tom_Doak]

Tom:

I can't think off the top of my head where Harry Colt used trees for strategic purposes.  [It's 50% likely that if he did so, the trees have died between now and then anyway.]

I can say unequivocally that Tom Simpson intended to use trees in the strategies of his holes.  You can see his in many of the drawings for The Architectural Side of Golf ... especially the drawings of his continental courses (Chiberta-Biarritz is one that stands out in my memory).  Whether he got this from Fowler I don't know (Walton Heath doesn't have any strategic trees), but the idea is definitely pre-WW II and possibly not American in origin.

[TEPaul]

"....but the idea is definitely pre-WW II and possibly not American in origin."
Tom Doak

Tom:

That is of course very interesting for some of our tree haters on here to contemplate! It's certainly logical as Fowler, Simpson and Colt were not linksmen and were mostly the first to be plying their trade completely removed from the linksland (Park, the Dunns and some others). This was definitely a break and undoubtedly a logical one from the old (treeless) linksland dictate that no tree had a place in golf--period!

For God Sake Flynn was probably absolutely right when he said (in effect);

"The Scots said that because they never had any trees there anyway but if they had they certainly are too cheap to cut any of them down!"

[Steve Curry]

Tom,

I know this doesn't really have to do with when and where did it start, but I think this picture is interesting because I have early photos that show BHCC as being nearly tree free.  As there are many trees drawn  on the plan it will be a thrust of master plan that this was Tillie's intent.

Steve

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom Paul:

Just to be clear, I'm far from an expert on European golf courses. Not even close. Aside from links courses, I haven't seen that much.

Still, I'd be surprised if anyone comes up with that many examples of pre WWII use of trees for strategic purposes in Europe.

Tim

[TEPaul]

Tim:

Other than perhaps on the Continent pre-WW2 (as we said). But it's not the time yet for any of us here in the States to be discussing anything about France, of course!  

[TEPaul]

Steve Curry:

But the real question is what was on the site tree-wise before Tillie or his design was created. If there were no trees on the site pre-golf course planning it was never that likely that a Tillie would have put them on there for the future. The more appropriate question is what did Tillie do design-wise on heavily treed sites pre golf course? For how he felt and how he handled golf and architecture in that case we needn't look any farther than Tillie's own writing (now in books).

[TEPaul]

Steve:

You take care with that righthand aerial--there's a ton of tree "shadow cast" on that one--it might even be greater than the size of the trees themselves! redanman will understand that concept!  

[Steve Curry]

Tom,

"If there were no trees on the site pre-golf course planning it was never that likely that a Tillie would have put them on there for the future"
That's what I am trying to say, There are trees shown on the plan that weren't there at the time so therefore Tillie obviously intended for the trees to be planted as shown.  Obvious is his intent to mask the 10th tee from the clubhouse, 9th green and to block the play down the right rough to the green and persuade the golfer left through the approach bunkers.

Bill,  As the aerial is from 98 the fairway is now substantially larger already.  I will propose in my plan to remove some of the trees to the left and right, restore the left and right approach bunkers to the desired size and shape, rebuild the tees, extend the right greenside bunker to the front more and enlarge the left greenside bunker.  I will not pursue adding the flanking bunkers intended to guide the tee shot though.

Regards,
Steve

[JNC Lyon]

Tom Doak's Anatomy of a Golf Course gives three examples of stragegic tree use in Europe:

#2 at Blairgowrie-Wee. Don't know the architect.

#18 at Woodhall Spa in England. Hotchkin, Hutchinson and Whoever else.

#14 at Ganton. Colt.

I assume the trees were part of the original design, but I do not know for sure.

[Joel_Stewart]

Olympic Club was built in 1918 and remodeled in 1924.  The architect elected to plant some 30,000 trees on the property.

I find this an interesting topic, especially as history goes by and clubs would plant trees here or there for no apparent reason.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tom,
As Tom Simpson noted, trees cost money to cut down. Cutting, cleaning and stump removal were time consuming and expensive to perform. Doesn't it seem frugal and practical   that architects might have chosen to leave some trees in strategic positions when they first moved inland?
Trees are part of the natural landscape and weren't the builders of the time more apt to idealize the natural look and take advantage of what a site offered?  

[Mark_Fine]

Colt was one of the first.  He was the first as most of us know, to develop "tree planting schemes" presumedly to keep trees from being planted in the wrong places as much as anything.  He cut holes out of forrests (St. Georges Hill and Swinley Forrest are two examples) and he surely kept some trees for more than just separation of golf holes.  

When golf design went inland away from the coasts, trees became a site feature to be dealt with.  

[A_Clay_Man]

Tom P, What were Max's sentiments on trees? I seem to recall he abhorred the treelined trend that sure seems to be mostly American.

[Mike_Trenham]

I remember reading in the Spirit of St. Andrews that McKenzie wrote something along the lines that he would use groups of trees on parkland courses to simulate the strategy created by dunes on linksland.  I would have qouted it directly but my copy seems to have disappeared.

[TEPaul]

Adam:

Good question about Max Behr's thoughts on trees and architecture. I think I've read most of what he wrote but I don't recall much of anything about trees. Behr was one though who advocated maximum fairway width in architecture and he was very anti rough so his philosophy may have been minimal use of trees. Behr was very familiar with TOC too.

JNC Lyon:

Thanks for mentioning Ganton's #14--a truly wonderful short par 4. That tree in the mid-body of the hole does have an effect for sure but there's so much going on with that hole strategically anyway that it probably isn't very necessary. My sense (never played it but watched good players play it--eg Walker Cuppers) is that if that small but mature tree was not there it would probably encourage good players to get a little more aggressive off the tee on that hole by carrying over the mid-fairway bunkers more often.

[TEPaul]

Mike Trenham:

That remark you cited from MacKenzie is very interesting indeed. I'll see if I can find it and quote it. A remark like that coming from him would sort of shoot down the impact of that well-known Scottish or linksland remark that trees are "hazards in the sky".

One has to consider too MacKenzie's use of trees within and surrounding bunkering on CPC's #17 and #18---a really rather bizarre use of trees by anyone's standards!! How could anyone help but call something like that "feature redundant"? But I guess it just shows how some of those old guys liked to mix things up too with architectural principles and philosophies.

I think all this stuff is wonderful to point out to some of our more doctrinaire contributors to this website.

[Paul_Turner]

Colt at Sunningdale planted trees for landscaping.  I don't see any of those trees planted for strategy purposes.  He didn't like trees as hazards...called them "obnoxious and fluky".  I guess some of his early parkland courses would have used established oak trees that are somewhat strategic...Moor Park comes to mind.

[gookin]

Fox Chapel Golf Club is a Raynor course built in 1926.  Our property was farm land which had planted rows of ossage orange trees through out the property which we believe were used to keep cows or cattle out of the crops.  On our 9th hole, Raynor incorporated an L-shaped stand of trees as a hazard, which imposed a severe penalty (a chip out) for any hooked tee shots.  This summer the entire stand of trees were lost in a micro-burst.  All evidence of the strategic use of trees by this great classic architect has now been destroyed.  We don't want this information getting out to the general public.

[A_Clay_Man]

Tom P, I seem to recall him referencing the trees or maybe thats what I interpreted from his writing style.

I can tell you this, Growing up in Chicago, I think I can recall my first idea for how to improve a hole and it was to plant a tree. Thinking hard as to why, I can only come up with "because it was tooeasy,or too open in that spot,and adding a tree,would create havoc,for those who went there":

Having come to that conclusion, naturally, without the study of GCA, I must now conclude that that line of reasoning was wrong. A rookie mistake, a fundemantal default place for the unsophisticated to go. While it makes sense that the trees do do all of those things I mentioned above, the sport is much bigger and much more complicated than the simple decision to plant trees. Maybe That's why they are often viewed as hiding a weakness in the design, because the thought ends there.

[Bill Gayne]

Tom,

In Darwin's "Golf Courses of the British Isles" which was originally published in 1913 he makes references to sentinal trees and strategic value. Whether the architect intended the trees to have strategic value in the original design or if this is his interpetation is not definitive.

Some examples include:

Describing Mid Surrey: "The trees stand for the most part as occasional  and isolated sentinels guarding the edges of the rough. We do not drive down whole avenues of them, nor, as on some courses, do they play the part of gigantic goal-posts through which we must direct  the ball."

Describing Frilford: "The second is a fine long two-shot hole, and at the first, which is somewhat shorter, a highly ingenious use has been made of a solitary tree, which forces the player to drive close to the stone wall if he is to have an open approach."

It's not indicated how old the courses are and if the trees were included/existing in the original design of these two courses but the idea of trees having strategic value did exist prior to 1913.


Bill

 

[A_Clay_Man]

Isn't that the first line of distinction?

Hazard V. Strategic

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()