[mike_malone]

 Wayne
    I agree with what you just wrote--WELL DONE.Indeed those trees planted in the 30's were CONSISTENT with Mr.Roden's qoute about Flynn and trees----out of play ,separate holes,backdrops,shade .etc.
   


     The theory i am working on is very simple but important to me---DID HE PLANT TREES FOR STRATEGY?  
      At RG it would have been very wasteful to take down all those trees on the course when he built it.He used an existing bunch of trees as strategy for sure--BUT I FIND NO EVIDENCE HE PLANTED THEM,even in the 30's.My looks at the designs show trees to be planted but not strategically.

      I would be interested in what he did other places.Mr. Roden says he did not plant at HVCC.

      As for his analysis of trees on Flynn courses,i have several disagreements.When he speaks of "fairway lanes"he mentions #7--there were only trees on  the right until we got neighbors,#9 had no trees,those evergreens were a 60's addition.Also #12 only on the right,added in the 30's.

   The"around the green" holes were holes carved out of the forest.He saved money there.
    I have no idea of the "big tree at turning point" on #5.

         


       Forrest
     
            When you want to get something going you need to state it in such a way as to get responses.I guess i could take away"usually" and say"more often"

      Jeff
     
     Now that i see that picture,it looks like fun.BUT i do not think anyone would miss that tree .It would be like shaving off your moustache and going to work the next day and people saying"did you get a haircut?"





  Wayne
      Reading again i  think that Flynn's love of and use of trees on golf courses had LITTLE to do with hitting a golf ball,but with the experience of nature.I think trees out of play add the experience and also the visual game.I JUST THINK THEY ARE LOUSY HAZARDS!!!


   Mark Fine
      You can't just come on here and say "this is interesting".GET TO WORK.Check out those Flynn designs and aerials of Lehigh and let us know if he planted strategic trees there.

[TEPaul]

Interesting discussion and today is the first I saw of it. Wayne knows what he's talking about regarding Flynn and his occasional and purposeful use of a tree or trees to create strategy on some golf holes, or for other various reasons to do with trees on his courses. Flynn loved trees generally speaking, and by that I mean apart from golf course architecture but he did have some novel ideas, particularly for that time, regarding the use of trees compared to some of the linksland immigrant architects and Flynn mentioned those differences very succinctly and humorously in a written Green Section report article, I believe it was.

But probably the more important factor, at this point anyway, is to try to understand exactly what Flynn's ideas were with his use of trees (and even strategically incorporating them in his designs). That's the first step, and Mayday is at least dedicatedly attempting to understand that his (Flynn's) ideas were, it would seem.

redanman, on the other hand, who I seem to be increasingly getting into arguments with , doesn't seem to be that interested in even knowing what Flynn thought about using trees in architecture or for whatever reasons on his own golf courses and on his own designs.

As far as I'm concerned that shows both a lack of historic architectural curiosity or evidence of real arrogance. Does redanman actually think he knows better than Flynn about what worked best on Flynn's own golf courses or even what he intended to do? Does redanman think perhaps Flynn would've been a better designer if he'd had the benefit of accepting redanman's advice on trees or any other golf feature? Personally, I sure hope not and I hope noone else on here thinks redanman does either.

As to #11 HVGC, that hole is strategically made to quite a degree by those two trees that hang over the left side of that green? Those two trees alone COMPLETELY create strategic choice both on the tee and the second shot. All the rest of the trees down the left side of the fairway are and even around the green are completely inconsequential whether they stay or go BECAUSE of those two trees on the left overhanging the green! As far as truly understanding trees, how they can work in architecture, and perhaps how Flynn contemplated occasionally using them that's completely necessary to know it would seem!

What's redanman played that hole? Maybe one time, maybe twice? I've played that hole in tournaments probably 200 or more times, and I've seen a ton of others, including the best players in this district do so as well, and I know what I'm talking about. If you want me to explain how those two trees overhanging #11 green revolve the entire strategy of that hole, I'd be glad to do so.

But the tree that Flynn REALLY used to COMPLETELY revolve strategy around was on #2 although no one here would remember it---but Linc Roden, whose forgotten more about HVGC than redanman will ever know can tell you all about it. It was old and mature when Flynn built HVGC and if anyone is interested to know how Flynn occassionally tended to not only use trees in various ways but also to create strategy with them, even dictate it with them that example would tell anyone a great deal or basically all they'd need to know.

If anyone wants to know as much as you need to about Flynn but particularly how Flynn invisioned HVGC and it's use of trees it's Linc Roden's remarks you want, not redanman's!

[TEPaul]

Mayday:

I can answer for you with complete assurance that Flynn not only used trees to create strategy---not a lot but he most definitely DID and completely on purpose! This is something Wayne and I have talked about a good deal and how to present it precisely.

The reason being, Flynn, again, not only did purposefully use trees, again only occasionally, to create golf strategy but it was the type of strategy that unfortunately not many on here seem to understand that well and even if they did it's the feeling of Wayne and I that they'd very likely COMPLETELY disagree with and perhaps completely resist the reality of, as perhaps redanman is doing!!

The type of strategy I'm talking about here may be described as almost complete "shot dictation" strategy---or even just strategic dictation---the very thing some on here apparently find objectionable today!

But the reason Flynn did it and many of his contemporaries did it occasionally back in those days is sometimes they got into what was called "shot testing" architecture! This was generally more the area and purview of the so-called "championship" courses they built. I don't know how many times I've tried to explain this on here but seemingly to no avail or interest. It seems to me many just might want to avoid the subject entirely as it may appear to go against desired perceptions!!

There's nothing at all wrong with some on here today thinking this was wrong or poor architecture but the very least those on here should do is completely understanding where guys like Flynn who they seem to otherwise admire were coming from!

He used trees alright, for many reasons but occasionally he used them strategically and perhaps even in ways that some today don't like---the so-called "shot testing" type of strategy whereby if you didn't do the one thing that had to be done you purposely made the choice to give up a potential shot or make it up down the line (of the hole).

That's precisely why some of those old guys didn't get so into a concept like GIRs that so many of us do today. To them there were simply more ways to skin a cat than just that type of multi-optional strategy!

But they also used that multi-optional architecture on other holes of the same course, they just did it in conjunction with this shot-testing type I'm describing and again, all on the same course. They obviously looked upon all this as a more well rounded use of what some call "Variety"!

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

TEPaul & WMorrison,

I'm having a problem with a concept.

Why would an architect design a permanent, fixed golf hole, and make the critical element in its strategic design a transient or temporary feature, with a limited shelf life ??

Isn't reliance on a feature that isn't permanent an undermining influence with respect to the ongoing play of the hole, and contrary to the original design intent ?

Why create a temporary linch-pin ?
Why create a temporary strategic element ?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

That last question might just be one that you can figure out all by yourself, but perhaps not. Some people and even some intelligent architects look at trees as something other than 'a temporary linchpin' as you just said. Trees have been known to live for many many many decades and some for a hundred years or more. And since they are prevalent on some sites (like the ones Flynn used) the thought might be to use them for perhaps whole lifetimes, perhaps more. You might call that a "temporary linchpin" but clearly others very knowledgeable on architecture don't. And if you're interested in mincing words endlessly on that concept I'll tell you right now I'm not!

But the important thing to understand first is Flynn did use trees for golf strategy and even that shot-testing strategy I mentioned. The irony is on a hole like #2 HVGC the hole plays just fine and the approach is now more multi-optional without that tree Flynn initially used to create that shot-testing approach demand. You might like it better without the tree, and redanman and Mayday might too but I can tell you Linc Roden really misses the high demand strategy and shot test that enormous tree hanging over the approach to the green right once provided!

Did that completely logical and truthful answer satisfy your inquiring mind or are you going to be a complete pain in the ass word and concept mincer?

[Forrest Richardson]

Pat,

You simply don't "get it" — golf course design, at least to the most creative individuals, is not fully about creating something that members of discussion groups will look back on and try to bring back to some certain "sure" point. A finality, if you will. Your example of the tree — an element which dies and is subject to change — is a good one to illustrate the point I'm about to make.

Golf course design — and all of its wonderful paints and brushes — is about an ever changing landscape which erodes and weathers with time. The course is changed by the hand of man, for better or worse. Just as the players are born and then die, so, too, do the elements of the course come and go. And also the decisions of those who care for and oversee every course ever built. Many times a course will get better. Many times not.

What strikes me most about many of those who comment here is that they are in a world much like that of Star Trek junkies — very often after some magic moment in the past, rather than spending their time thinking about writing new and fresh material. (I do not necessarily hold you, sir, in that line-up...at least I do not think I do.)

Trees are but one element. The architect uses them sometimes and, when he or she does, it is a testament to our knowledge that the course is NOT done on the day we leave it and shake hands with the owner and club committee. One considers what would happen if the tree was not there, but after we are gone it is not up to us. Nor more so would it be up to us to consider always what would happen if a tree were added.

The decisions after a course has operated for many years are part of the changing landscape of golf — just as the great "clear the damn trees" movement is now underway, it may easily be replaced by a tree planting cause in a distant time.

Golf is about change. And to think or believe in anything else is a merely a fad in its own right.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

TEPaul & Forrest,

I wasn't referencing a situation where trees existed and the hole was cut/designed through or around them, I was referencing when an architect planted the tree as a, or the strategic linch-pin of the hole.

[TEPaul]

Forrest Richardson said:

"Pat,
You simply don't "get it"".

Forrest;

The supreme irony at work here is Pat actually does "get it", I can almost assure you of that. It's just that for some reason he likes to ask people to explain things to him that he already knows the answer to! I think he just likes to see if you can explain it precisely otherwise he'll be all over you arguing and mincing words until the cows come home.

It's really no different than a teacher in an 8th grade algebra class I had at St Marks. Obviously, the teacher knew all the answers but we were forced to arrive at the answer ONLY by following all the proper steps. Well, we had this complete math genius in our class from Peru and he'd go Ziiiip--BAM!, one step and he had the answer! The teacher was always accusing him of cheating the answer off somebody else's paper but he used to tell the teacher he'd just do all the steps in my head and get the right answer immediately every time which of course was true!

Pat is definitely no architectural genius but he does "get" more than he let's on.

But who really knows, I've been known to be wrong about things myself--not often but it has happened!  

So maybe this rare time I'm wrong about Pat and he "gets" nothing!

[TEPaul]

Well, Pat, if the architect planted the tree then some reasonable minds just might conclude that the tree had the entire extent of it's life-span to be there and consequently it could even be LESS of a 'temporary linchpin' than you already suggested!

Is it possible for you to wrap your mind around that immensely complicated fact?  

And don't come back with some ridiculous word and concept mincing like:

"Yeah, but it has to grow to its full maturity first".

If you're going to say something like that just imagine the young tree isn't really there but imagine it in a progressively diminishing fashion until it actually does reach full maturity! Just imagine as it takes about 30 years to grown to full size it isn't really there and then one day when half your life is done "Voila"--it suddenly exists at full size and just might be there for many more decades to come and long after we're all gone and no longer strategize against it!  

[A_Clay_Man]

Perhaps most of the obstinant objection that tree haters have is derived from an abundance of the mis-use of trees.

There are way too many courses out there that over use trees to the extent that it isn't variety at all. It's penal and it's claustrophobic. and, if it isn't recoverable from, in some form or another, it is bad architecture. IMHO

What I'd like to know is; If a specific hole is shot testing, through use of a tree, what else is different about the green from a hole where there is no tree to dictate?
 
Forrest uses a stand of trees quite effectively on "the hideout's" 9th, short left. And the green doesn't suffer, having plenty of character on it's own.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

TEPaul,

Trees are subject to lightning, disease, and damage from equipment, all of which can inhibit their growth and cause their demise.

I'd like to know where Flynn or any other architect planted a tree that was the strategic linch-pin to a hole.  

It seems unusual that an architect would insert a temporary feature as the strategic element on a golf hole meant to endure over the ages.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

I don't believe either Wayne or I know of a single instance where Flynn actually planted a tree that was to be used to create strategy in the sense I've spoken about at HVGC (although there were other courses we're aware of where he did that initially). The only instances we're aware of involved existing trees, generally a single one and generally one of full maturity and very likely beauty!

Adam:

It a good question when you asked;

"What I'd like to know is; If a specific hole is shot testing, through use of a tree, what else is different about the green from a hole where there is no tree to dictate?"

Generally nothing and although it may be hard for some to understand, and definitely impossible for Pat Mucci to understand, these holes that worked as "shot testers" with the strategic use of a tree or trees somehow manage to work without that tree if it perishes. Good architects generally are aware of this and actually design for both contingencies--eg tree/no tree. We sure did that on a hole we redid slightly at GMGC that does depend now on the placement of a very old tree! When it goes the hole will work a little different but just fine!

This's basically all part of what Forrest Richardson just said---golf holes and golf courses do change and although some on here may not be aware of it their strategies may change over time too and very few if any will think they're the worse for it!

But apparently so many on here get so into the intracacies and mincing definitions of what options and strategies are all about they overlook that fact. Golf architecture and strategies too are generally a lot more adaptable than most give them credit for being!

[TEPaul]

Wayne:

Do you understand what he's talking about? I sure don't. The guy must be so fixated on brevity that he's getting more cryptic than cryptic itself! You can write more than two words redanman, most of us really can handle it! Just because you can't read more than two paragraphs doesn't mean we're all that way if there's something to read that has some kind of understandable meaning!

[TEPaul]

"It would be nice to see those two trees in 1928 or so."

Why is that? Do you think perhaps you might come to find they're smaller than they are now? What an amazing discovery that would be! How could that have ever happened?

Do you want to continue to avoid how Flynn really did feel about the use of trees in golf architecture or would you rather just not really know? Or perhaps you already think you know how he used them and you just think your ideas are better than his on his courses. If you're so set on the idea of not obliterating any Flynn as you seem to be with PCC you should also come to know his entire philosophy regarding trees and golf architecture.

The things were talking about it doesn't seem he did that often but when he did them he tended to do them bigtime with a real shot-testing effect. One doesn't have to go much further than original holes like #2, #7 HVGC and original #1  C.C of Cleveland to tell that.

[TEPaul]

Agenda driven?! What a load of crap! Our agenda is historical accuracy, nothing more, and yours seems to be a "one size fits all" mentality about trees---a sort of turn your eyes and ears away or you might see or hear something that doesn't fit one of your favorite preconceptions.

You ask if one should assume that Flynn didn't want Lehigh to be a one of his best because you don't see trees used as strategy in early aerials? What kind of BS logic is that? How many mature trees did that site have when he designed the course on it? That's the question to ask first. Do you have any idea about that?

You should see Flynn's drawings of CC of Cleveland--there're all kinds of old preexisting trees he circled on the plans to save and use for the course strategically and otherwise! That site obviously had some beautiful mature trees pre-construction! But I guess you'd prefer to just overlook that fact so you can maintain your "one size fits all" mentality at all costs!

Flynn may've been a little different on the use of trees in architecture than Ross or Mackenzie or Macdonald, maybe even a lot different, and that's what's so interesting about him and the evolution of it all. Tillinghast was interested in using trees in architecture in various ways too, so was Crump but those who purport to really care about some of these classic architects and what their architectural philosophies were seem to want to avoid the issue like a bad smell when it comes to the issue of trees.

What Wayne and I are trying to do is report exactly what their philosophies were and how they did feel in as much detail as we can uncover and you call that 'agenda driven'? What a load of crap that is!

[A_Clay_Man]

The picture posted by Dr. Bill above is "unter der Linden(r?)" the current 16th hole on the river course at BWR.

The pic is taken from what would have to be considered postion "A" after carrying the longest diagonal cross bunkers off the tee. The tree is almost a non-isssue other than if choosing to lay-up, one must aim away from the line of charm (a good thing, no?). It is severely downhill to the green, and the tree is easily carried with a high wood or the wedge after laying-up. In this regard, the tree, if lost, would not diminsh the hole, save for the intimidation.

[wsmorrison]

redanman clearly misses the points that Tom, Forest, and Adam have been making so very clearly and that I have been attempting to do.  We are not judging the concept but in fact uncovering that it did exist and attempt to show how it was done.  Why redanman takes it much further and from his lofty seat on high dismiss the concept because it doesn't suit his ideology, I have no idea.  And frankly, I am amazed at the balls it takes to present an argument in such a fashion.  Do you really think that your experience allows for such a narrow conclusion and in contradiction to empirical evidence?  I think you lightly dismiss Flynn and other master architects for using a concept you simply don't like. From your posts I can only conclud that you did not think this out very well nor did you research the subject very well.  The holes Linc listed and Tom spoke of are great holes and do not support your position.  

Further, there is no logic to comparing the design plan at Lehigh and finding no strategic trees then making the distorted conclusion that there must be something lacking.  Each design is different.  Why don't you consider the variety in Flynn's work and not seek absolutes.  As Forrest said there are none--sometimes trees are used for strategic purposes, sometimes not.  Trees can be used for framing if done properly and not in the modern style of narrowing and limiting the player to a down the middle strategy.  As Adam said, the misuse of trees has done more harm in forming a prejudice such as redanman's although most would not take it so far as he.  Golf courses are ever changing but if the backbone of the architecture is strong it will survive the vagaries of time and changing committees.

Tom, I don't know what the heck redanman is talking about in his short cryptic posts.  I said in a message to him that the 11th doesn't show up well and he writes "Tree shadows?"  He jumps to conclusions that support his made up mind without any consideration for other possibilities.  Maybe the angle is bad, maybe it was taken from too high.  In this case, there are a lot of trees around and trees do cast shadows, sometimes long ones.  So what evidence is that?  that the hole must be bad?  More evidence of a very superficial analysis that you bend like a Clintonian lapdog to your shallow convictions.

Flynn and others used trees.  Get over it. Flynn used them at turning points and ocassionally used them strategically, more often with existing trees.  However, Flynn planned to plant some strategic trees.  He indicated this in his drawings at the 4th and 7th holes at Cherry Hills (have yet to determine if they were done--perhaps Mark Fine knows) and at the 17th at Indian Creek.  

If you think of the type of architect Flynn and others were especially when designing championship courses, that is they were creating shot testing situations, then the use of strategic trees to dictate play and elevate the shot testing demand is reasonable and effective.  It is stretching the envelope for some and unfathonable to others, but it is adding variety to the golf experience and there's nothing wrong with that!

[mike_malone]

 I visited Wayne's "Den of Architectural Oddities"  this afternoon to see if he had evidence of Flynn PLANTING strategic trees.He showed me the plans for Cherry Hills which clearly indicate some plantings Flynn intended to be strategic.
  We also looked at the Indian Creek plan.Here was a tabla rasa for Flynn.I was hard pressed to find any strategic trees.
    Wayne then put me in a full-nelson and said there's one on #17.I had to say ok since i was fearing for my life.

        I do not hate trees on golf courses.I think it makes perfect sense to use a cluster or stand of trees to create strategy.I find it interesting that the designer i like the most thought trees should be like children---seen and not heard.

        The trees i do not mourn are those that should never have been planted.


     It seems that Flynn's use of trees(usually there already) was not a major factor in his design.It was something he had to address.

[TEPaul]

Mayday just said:

"I do not hate trees on golf courses.I think it makes perfect sense to use a cluster or stand of trees to create strategy.I find it interesting that the designer i like the most thought trees should be like children---seen and not heard.
The trees i do not mourn are those that should never have been planted."

Mayday:

Congratulations, you're home free on Flynn and his thoughts on trees and you're probably home free too in understanding the ideal use of trees in architecture particularly if not that frequently and in almost all cases on courses that had trees pre-existing the golf course. And furthermore, congratulations on understanding that this idea can EVEN INCREASE VARIETY if done judiciously (ie not that frequently) and well.

You have an open mind my friend!

Of course, so most will hopefully see the import of this I AM talking about these designers using trees STRATEGICALLY and dedicatedly so in limited instances!

Now that you know all this almost exactly you will also be pleased to know that Flynn's thoughts and principles on this subject were probably never well known and so there surely are courses all over the place (of his and others) that did exactly what you just said--eg. plant trees all over the place but in the WRONG PLACES and so they should logically go. And at Rolling Green that was definitely the case and the quantity that needs to go now is definitely NOT an UNsubstantial number in both your opinion and mine and Wayne's too!


   

[Forrest Richardson]

Adam,

"...mis-use of trees..." — I'd like to know your local law on this subject. Enlighten us!

I believe this a great topic, especially the way the topic title gets our attention. Tom, Patrick, Adam...all good points. Many others, too.

[A_Clay_Man]

Forrest- It has been discussed here ad infinitum of the "mis-use" of plantings trees that greens committee's have made in the past. The most eloquent of stories comes from Tom Paul and how the elder member on one of the committee's admitted that they had no idea what they were doing when they planted the nutrient sucking beasts. In my travels I have seen the "mis-use" although I wouldn't have known them as "Bad Ideas" until I read Max Behr. But in my heart I know I always have a better golfing experience when trees were much less influential. Ted Robinsons "Inn of the Mountain Gods" frontnine is absolute never ending mis-use.   Take the old nine at Riverview. They planted corridors of trees in the 50's, which if it were to be done today, they would not. Beverly, Skokie, Oakmont even dear old Billy Bell Jr. had a thing or two with a palm tree or two.

[Mark_Fine]

As has been pointed out quite clearly in several of the above posts, Flynn did often call for trees to be kept and/or planted on his drawings.  Did he call for any at Lehigh, I don't think so but he did note on his drawings of Lehigh what trees he wanted to be kept.  

What I look for on old courses is the age and species of the trees.  On a course like Cherry Hills, many of the trees are huge but are only 30 or 40 years old.  They were not called for or planted by Flynn.  These are the types of trees you have to question.  

A 100+ year old Oak tree on your property that sits clearly in play on one of your golf holes was most likely carefully included in some way in the design of that hole.  It might have been used as a turning point, or for shade, or for shadows, or just because the architect loved the tree and didn't want to take it down.    

Again Flynn loved trees as much or more than any Golden Age designer.  Also remember he never made the trip to the British Isles so he never got to play TOC, or many of the other treeless links designs.  That had to have some influence on his opinion of trees.
Mark

[Forrest Richardson]

Adam,

I want to know THE rule...please tell me! What constitutes misuse?

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

TEPaul,

At a course that I'm familiar with there were seven strategic trees that really made the holes.

Two of those trees were destroyed by lightning.
No, the club didn't have the foresight to install lightning rods until after the trees were destroyed, but I doubt that the architect conceived of the play of these holes without those trees, because without them, the strategy and challenge on those holes changes dramatically.

Perhaps they thought that the club would plant successor trees to preserve the original architectural intent.

Strangely enough, these seven specimen trees were about the only trees on the property until misguided green committees began to plant trees all over the golf course that made the fairways seem like bowling lanes.

In the late sixties and early seventies, landscape architects ruined many courses in northern New Jersey by indiscriminate tree planting, much of which became intrusive to the lines of play in less then 15 years.

It's hard to believe that educated people couldn't conceive of drip lines going from six feet to sixty feet over a relatively short period of time.

But, even though those trees are invasive to the lines of play, and alter the design intent and integrity of the hole, just try to get them removed.

[mike_malone]

 I think it is very easy for the idea of strategic trees to quickly go over to the darkside and become downright-godawful pieces of crap.I prefer hazards more creative,more predictable over time.

    Do we discuss on this board another hazard more abused in its use that trees PLANTED in such a way as to screwup a hole?That's why i say it is much harder to make a mistake cutting them down than planting them.

     redanman makes a good point when he says a long line of trees which has no benefit derived from carrying them reduces "possibilities"---an essential ingredient for strategy.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()