Claremont Country Club

[Mike McGuire]

This image is from the current home page of golfclubatlas.com

Is this this a good example of covering up outstanding long views and interesting golf rolling terrain with tall weeds?



Claremont-1 by macadoo9, on Flickr

[JLahrman]

If the trees on the right were cut down, the view would be directly into the neighboring Mountain View Cemetery. Cutting them down would also not only provide a questionable view, but would also increase the likelihood of sending a sliced Titleist into the middle of a funeral.

Needless to say, I'm for keeping those trees. They provide a needed boundary between the 12th hole and the cemetery without truly constraining the fairway (the presence of the cemetery is what constrains the hole, and the trees actually keep some balls in play that would otherwise be OB).

The trees on the left provide a bit of a buffer between this hole (the 11th) and the parallel 9th fairway and 14th tee.

The trees behind the green don't block much of a view, since the second shot is uphill with the rock quarry right behind the green.

This hole plays rather open, and as you can see the view from the tee is already pretty nice.

So I would not say this is a good example of covering up long views and interesting golf rolling terrain. There are some holes at Claremont where trees pinch things too much (it's probably unavoidable given how small the plot of land is). But this is not one of them.

If I could make one change to this hole, it would be widening the fairway on the right. That's the angle you want into this green. The land there slopes from right to left, so it would be a good challenging tee shot where you would want to hit a fade to try to keep the ball from rolling back to the center of the fairway.

The greensite is where the REAL interesting golf terrain on this hole is. The green is set in a mini-quarry. You don't have to miss the green by too much to have your ball careening off of the rocks.

[Joel_Stewart]

I'm going to bump this with the hope that Jim or Tom will comment.  I believe they took out a number of trees during the restoration.

I do agree with Joel that this hole doesn't need and tree work.  It's actually a very special place in the middle of Oakland California and the trees are a nice addition.  They should consider trimming some branches from ground level to 10 feet up and like Joel said possibly eliminating some trees on other holes like the 15th and 16th but many of those are fully grown redwoods and I doubt the membership would agree.

I was standing on the right when Ran took this picture.  The fairway slopes pretty hard from right to left and the club property boarder is on the left.  Ran did pull his shot and was in the trees on the left but was able to punch his shot onto the green or just short.

Hopefully there is a full write up coming from Ran on this golf course.

[JLahrman]

They should consider trimming some branches from ground level to 10 feet up and like Joel said possibly eliminating some trees on other holes like the 15th and 16th but many of those are fully grown redwoods and I doubt the membership would agree.

15 and 16 are the certainly the most notable holes that would benefit from tree removal...but the fact that they are redwoods would definitely make it a tough sell to the membership.

[Padraig Dooley]

Here's an example of revealing interesting views by tree removal.

Bunkers on the 4th line up nicely with the bunkers on the 3rd. This view was blocked for years. Claremont CC is a much better example of a good tree management program, rather than a poor one.

[David_Tepper]

"but the fact that they are redwoods would definitely make it a tough sell to the membership."

Joel L. -

I am guessing that the lumber produced from felling some of the redwoods on the Claremont property might be a nice source of revenue for the club. That could make the concept a much easier "sell."

DT 

[Kyle Henderson]

The tree blocking 50% of the green from the 17th tee (short par 3) is the first that needs to go.

[astavrides]

.

[Joel_Stewart]

The tree blocking 50% of the green from the 17th tee (short par 3) is the first that needs to go.

It's gone.  Surprised me when I played there a few weeks ago.

[Tom_Doak]

Claremont is Jim's job now, so I am not familiar with the progress.  It is a tight piece of property, so there are a lot of trees that will have to stay because of that.

However, generally speaking, tree management plans are a long-term process that proceeds in fits and starts, depending on the club politics of the moment and building momentum from within.  The best ideas are rarely the first to get done and often take several years.  But there is usually a point where you take down a few trees and the light goes on for many of the members as to what was gained, and then it gets way easier after that.

[Bradley Anderson]

Funding for cutting down trees is often difficult to get because a club can have so many urgent funding needs that take up all available funds. And removing trees is not urgent - unless they are making it impossible to grow turf.

[Mike McGuire]

And removing trees is not urgent - unless they are making it impossible to grow turf.

I understand its difficult to grow turf under trees. I don't however see that fact as a rallying call for tree management. If you are  in the trees are you supposed to be on good turf?

[Kevin_Reilly]

And removing trees is not urgent - unless they are making it impossible to grow turf.

I understand its difficult to grow turf under trees. I don't however see that fact as a rallying call for tree management. If you are  in the trees are you supposed to be on good turf?

Trees can provide shade over a wide portion of the neighboring turf, including fairways and greens.  The turf at Olympic for example is a 1000x better now than when the course was over-treed (there were other factors at work, including sanddressing, but the effect of tree removal was significant).

[Bradley Anderson]

And removing trees is not urgent - unless they are making it impossible to grow turf.

I understand its difficult to grow turf under trees. I don't however see that fact as a rallying call for tree management. If you are  in the trees are you supposed to be on good turf?

In most cases the turf was well established before the trees were even planted. As the trees grow the turf transitions to whatever grows best with the %sunlight and air flow available. Hello Poa annua.

But depending on the tree species the turf may eventually loose that battle. Norway maples are especially hard to grow turf under because the leaves are wide and they don't allow much sunlight to reach the ground. Conifer trees can screen objectionable views but they also block air from moving across the turf to wick the water out of the soil - to cool itself in hot weather and to help dry the soil in wet weather.

A lot of clubs are aware that they have these problems to varying degrees but they don't have the funds to tackle them on every hole so they begin with the most problematic areas first. Then they can get to the areas where tree removal will enhance the beauty and playing characteristics of the hole.

When these trees get really big its best to bring in the professionals to drop them and that can run up to $1,000 per tree. The average club could easily spend well over a quarter million on tree removal and that's not an easy sell in this economy. Although I think it is the best money you could ever spend because it virtually transforms the golf course overnight; it allows you to develop new mowing patterns and fairway bunkers; it saves a lot of money on the cost of mowing and leaf clean up; you'll have a better functioning drainage system; the golf course can be kept to play firmer etc etc.