[Patrick_Mucci]

There is NOTHING, I repeat NOTHING more startling than to see Brad Klein's presentation on tree removal and the impact of DE-FRAMING a green site.

Mike Hendren posted a photo of a hole at Forsgate, a terrific golf course.

I've been playing Forsgate for quite some time, almost winning the NJ Father-Son with my six (6) year old son, thirty five years ago.

But, when I saw this photo, my eyes were drawn away from the spectacular Biarritz green, to the trees providing the "framed" backround behind the green.

Should these trees go ?

When is framing WITHIN the non-border confines a golf course acceptable ?

[JNC Lyon]

There is NOTHING, I repeat NOTHING more startling than to see Brad Klein's presentation on tree removal and the impact of DE-FRAMING a green site.

Mike Hendren posted a photo of a hole at Forsgate, a terrific golf course.

I've been playing Forsgate for quite some time, almost winning the NJ Father-Son with my six (6) year old son, thirty five years ago.

But, when I saw this photo, my eyes were drawn away from the spectacular Biarritz green, to the trees providing the "framed" backround behind the green.

Should these trees go ?

When is framing WITHIN the non-border confines a golf course acceptable ?

Pat,

I think framing is entirely unnecessary on a golf course.  The tree behind that green should go.  De-framing highlights the features and challenges of a well-designed green, especially pushed-up green like the one at Forsgate.  There are a few green at Oak Hill that would be vastly improved if trees (usually pine trees) disappeared.

Framing is, by definition, contrived and artificial.  I think it's a curse and never acceptable.

[Adam Clayman]

Acceptable? Perhaps with trees, but only to block other un-sightlies? Or, if the target membership is so novice as to think they are pretty, or aid in providing a frame of reference, easing their mental acuity.

Otherwise, using anything other than trees would seem to be preferable. i.e. distant land formations (mtns. hills etc.), Bunkers (ala Valley Club and Wild Horse)

[Sean_A]

Pat

I generally dislike framing particularly when safety is used as the excuse - I want to see who is doing what around me and feel much safer if I can.  If I feel unsafe it is because there isn't enough space and no amount of trees will cure the problem.  As with anything, framing is okay sometimes (I am thinking bunker framing here), but when an archie goes throught the trouble of shaping a very cool green site its seems wasteful to then frame it.

Unless those trees are blocking something, in which case they are shields rather than framers, then I would immediately cut them down.  It looks like a cool view of another green to the rear right is on offer without the trees.  However, I would consider planting a proper tree in their place well off-centre of the green (outside this pic).  Different level visuals are appealing, but getting the right sort of tree in place is critical.  I would also consider moving the shack away from a direct eye line of the green.  

Ciao  

[Kyle Harris]

The problem with frames is that they are generally quite arbitrary.


The Human Condition, Rene Magritte, 1935

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sean,

Behind this green, is another green that serves a hole coming from the opposite direction.

With a Biarritz being between 220 and 250, it's highly and I mean highly doubtful that golfers would be flying the Biarritz green by 50 yards.

As to the hole that's to the back of the Biarritz, perhaps Matt Ward can supply the yardage for that hole along with the practical approach yardage, if it's a medium to short approach, one wouldn't think that a 50 yard buffer would be needed.  So the "safery" issue would seem to have to be questioned.

[Mark McKeever]

The trees are definitely not adding anything to the hole.  That's for sure.

Mark

[Joe Bausch]

The distance marked on the aerial below is 30 yards:

[PThomas]

some of them should go Patrick

[Duncan Cheslett]

What's wrong with them?

Personally. I like greens that are framed by trees in this way. I'd prefer majestic oaks or beeches, but hey!  Overall I'd much rather have a course punctuated with splashes of woodland than an open barren landscape; as well as being nicer aesthetically I feel that the golfing architecture is better served by the introduction of a little separation between holes. Where a green is located on the boundary of a course surely a few trees behind helps draw the eye down to the matter in hand rather than what is going on in the adjacent neighbourhood...

And anyway, on my home course there are so many blind approaches that you need a few trees behind the greens to have something to aim at!

[Jason Topp]

Unless necessary for safety, I would think they should go.

The University of Minnesota Golf Course lost a large percentage of its trees to Dutch Elm Disease a decade ago or so.  After we got done mourning their loss, it quickly became apparent that, if anything, the course improved.

At my course, we got rid of a bunch on a par three last winter.  The visual change was startling.  Nonetheless, even though I was co-chairman of the green committee I did not hear a single negative comment about the change.  The condition of our green improved dramatically and will get better with time.

My primary purpose in my role with my club is to chop trees and prevent dumb, permanent mistakes.

[Jason Topp]

What's wrong with them?

Personally. I like greens that are framed by trees in this way. I'd prefer majestic oaks or beeches, but hey!  Overall I'd much rather have a course punctuated with splashes of woodland than an open barren landscape; as well as being nicer aesthetically I feel that the golfing architecture is better served by the introduction of a little separation between holes. Where a green is located on the boundary of a course surely a few trees behind helps draw the eye down to the matter in hand rather than what is going on in the adjacent neighbourhood...

And anyway, on my home course there are so many blind approaches that you need a few trees behind the greens to have something to aim at!

The theory at least is that the trees provide a vertical reference point that makes the player more comfortable, they block the effect of the wind and often hurt the condition of the green by blocking sunlight. 

I like the shade of a tree as well as anyone, but many courses were planted so heavily with trees in the 50's to 70's that it fundamentally changed the nature of the game.  George Pazin did an Oakmont thread a couple of years ago that is startling, particularly if one compares the views to those during the 1994 US Open.

To my eye the course looks more difficult and more enjoyable without the trees.

[Kyle Harris]

And anyway, on my home course there are so many blind approaches that you need a few trees behind the greens to have something to aim at!

Where is that rule written?

[Carl Johnson]

There is NOTHING, I repeat NOTHING more startling than to see Brad Klein's presentation on tree removal and the impact of DE-FRAMING a green site. . . .

Pat, please help me with a link or cite to "Brad Klein's presentation" of which you speak.

Thanks, Carl

[Patrick_Mucci]

Carl,

Brad Klein's presentation is part of a slide show he produced for my Sept 27th get together at Mountain Ridge.

I don't want to spoil that presentation as perhaps Brad might post the before and after photos which are absolutely mind boggling.

[Tim Nugent]

I don't see those trees a "Framing" the green but rather acting as a screen or backdrop.  When I think of trees Framing a hole/green something like the Pines on the 16th a Pebble comes to mind.  They set the left and right visual boundries and becuase of their placement well short of the green, act also as a vertical hazard.

Framing can be useful if the architect wants to make a space feel more confined/constrained, especially if it comes on a relatively open area or is transitioning into a more confined part of the course.

Various elements can be used for Framing: trees, bunkers, streams, mounds/landforms.

[Mark Pearce]

From these photos of this green those tress look awful and should go.

Generally framing, for framing's sake, is a bad thing.

[Carl Johnson]

Carl,

Brad Klein's presentation is part of a slide show he produced for my Sept 27th get together at Mountain Ridge.

I don't want to spoil that presentation as perhaps Brad might post the before and after photos which are absolutely mind boggling.

Thanks for the info Pat.  This is something I know I'd enjoy seeing when it becomse available.  Carl

[MikeJones]

I completely agree with Tim, that's not what I would call framing - it's just a backdrop.

I find symmetry on a golf course to be visually unappealing and if indeed those trees were planted as some sort of safety net to protect the green behind and to the right, it would look a lot 'better' to my eye if they removed 3 or 4 trees to the left of the bunch.

As soon as you use the course features such as trees, hills, native grasses etc to perhaps guide or even misdirect play, is it really framing anymore? Framing in a golfing sense to me means it's purely for visual effect whether you think that's a good or bad thing is open to question.

[Doug Siebert]

Given Joe's picture showing it is only 30 yards, I think the trees are probably not so unnecessary.  Perhaps there isn't a huge safety concern since you'd have to fly one of the greens by 20 yards to hit someone who had played 10 yards long on the other, but that's not impossible with e.g. a wedge that's bladed a bit.  Patrick indicates one of these holes is 220-250 yards, so flying the green isn't likely, but coming up well short due to a poor shot and needing a wedge isn't.  And who knows what the other hole is like - almost certainly the approach is much shorter given the significantly smaller green.  Then there's also the problem of aiming at the wrong flag...

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()