TPC sawgrass without trees

[Matt_Cohn]

It would be worse, right? Shot shaping requirements would be mostly eliminated. I haven't played there, but it seems like 2, 6, 9, 10, 11, 15, and 16 would all be simpler and not as good.


Is TPC Sawgrass a good example of the benefits of having trees in play?

[Tom_Doak]

I think Pete Dye is the only architect who would have ever figured out how to leave the trees that he left at the TPC.


The whole site was more or less underwater when he started.  For example, the trees in between the 15th and 16th holes are at 4 feet above sea level.  [The same is true most of the way around the place.]


Most architects would have dug ponds and used the fill to raise the fairways . . . that's why all of the courses in south Florida are barren, except for palm trees planted after the fact.


Instead, Mr. Dye dug a moat around the whole site for the golf course and set pumps by the edge of the Intracoastal Waterway, so that the water in the ponds around the course could be kept at sea level, and pumped down even lower than that if a storm was coming.  He kept the fairways fairly close to grade [the highest spot I could find from searching Google Earth is +10], so they wouldn't be built up above the trees, and instead used most of the fill from the lakes to build all of the spectator mounds.

[David Ober]

Question for those who have played there: is it possible to play number 16 on the second shot, as a very low, chasing shot that goes UNDER the tree? In other words, a shot that is low, all the way, lands 30 to 50 yards short and runs likes a scalded dog?

[Tom_Doak]

Question for those who have played there: is it possible to play number 16 on the second shot, as a very low, chasing shot that goes UNDER the tree? In other words, a shot that is low, all the way, lands 30 to 50 yards short and runs likes a scalded dog?

Maybe, but that brings to mind one of my favorite Pete Dye stories.


Pete knew how much I liked to think about the ground game, so one day, out of the blue, he calls me.  He said he had just been out to Old Marsh with the Ohio State University golf team, and Jack Nicklaus came out to play with them.  He reminds me that at Old Marsh every green is level from back to front, and that he gave open run-up approaches on half of the greens. 


But Jack, he says, is "hitting howitzers in there all day.  Finally, on the tenth hole, I ask him, 'Did you ever think about taking something off one of your approaches and bouncing it into that front hole location?'  And Jack looks at [Pete] and asks, 'Why would I bother with that?'"

[David Ober]

Question for those who have played there: is it possible to play number 16 on the second shot, as a very low, chasing shot that goes UNDER the tree? In other words, a shot that is low, all the way, lands 30 to 50 yards short and runs likes a scalded dog?

Maybe, but that brings to mind one of my favorite Pete Dye stories.


Pete knew how much I liked to think about the ground game, so one day, out of the blue, he calls me.  He said he had just been out to Old Marsh with the Ohio State University golf team, and Jack Nicklaus came out to play with them.  He reminds me that at Old Marsh every green is level from back to front, and that he gave open run-up approaches on half of the greens. 


But Jack, he says, is "hitting howitzers in there all day.  Finally, on the tenth hole, I ask him, 'Did you ever think about taking something off one of your approaches and bouncing it into that front hole location?'  And Jack looks at [Pete] and asks, 'Why would I bother with that?'"

Yup, totally.


I only ask, though, on that specific hole, because the tree seems to truly get in the way of a lot of shots. I will bet you there are some players who have done/will do that. Maybe a Zach [size=78%]Johnson or a Steve Stricker in certain conditions? Even Gay?[/size]

[David_Tepper]

As Nicklaus is reputed to have said, " there are no bad bounces in the sky." 

[Thomas Dai]

I think Pete Dye is the only architect who would have ever figured out how to leave the trees that he left at the TPC.
The whole site was more or less underwater when he started.  For example, the trees in between the 15th and 16th holes are at 4 feet above sea level.  [The same is true most of the way around the place.]
Most architects would have dug ponds and used the fill to raise the fairways . . . that's why all of the courses in south Florida are barren, except for palm trees planted after the fact.
Instead, Mr. Dye dug a moat around the whole site for the golf course and set pumps by the edge of the Intracoastal Waterway, so that the water in the ponds around the course could be kept at sea level, and pumped down even lower than that if a storm was coming.  He kept the fairways fairly close to grade [the highest spot I could find from searching Google Earth is +10], so they wouldn't be built up above the trees, and instead used most of the fill from the lakes to build all of the spectator mounds.

Great insight Tom.
Would it be fair to say that whilst many a player or amateur enthusiast will look at tee and bunker positioning, routing etc and probably reckon they could do as well if not better it's when you get into specifics like you mention above and how they were handled that the much wider spectrum of GCA opens up to reveal touches by those who really know their craft?

As to the question of trees, minds are thinking alike as I spotted the photo below posted on Twitter by 'JamieSlonis'.
atb

[Terry Lavin]

I really hate to see trees that can prevent a ball from entering a bunker or those that prevent egress from a bunker. The Slonis photo is a great example of something stupid that should be immediately taken care of.

[Mark_Fine]

Terry,
My opinions on trees has softened over the years.  I have dozens of photos showing "double hazards" like the one in the photo above.  Why would you want a double hazard?  Unless for example you are on a pure links course where trees are not indigenous, you will have times where trees and bunkers interact.  There is still a recovery shot in the photo above, albeit a difficult one, but it is there.  Take Pine Valley's 12th and 14th holes for example.  You can be in the left fairway bunker and be blocked from a direct shot to the green because of trees. It is an elbow hole and part of the hazard/s left are the trees.  On 14, you can be left of the green in a bunker between the green and the water.  The sand in this case is more your friend and less of a hazard but why?  Again, most any kind of hazard and/or combination of hazards is ok if not overused.  If those were solid pine trees in the above photo, then there is reason to question the purpose of the bunker or the trees (why have both). 


Overall, TPC Sawgrass is part defined by the trees just like Harbour Town.  You have to embrace the different challenges which is the beauty of golf. 

[Terry Lavin]

Mark,


Well stated as usual. My “beef” is that once in that fairway bunker hazard, one is required to hit the ball over the top of the bunker and then hope like hell that it goes low enough to go under the leaves and branches and to the left or right of the trunks of those trees. It’s beyond penal, IMHO and it’s as much accidental fortune as actual skill to wind up successful.

[Jim_Coleman]

Mightn’t those trees define the dogleg by discouraging shots blown over the bunker? Maybe the trees should stay and the bunker removed?  Or maybe Pete knew what he was doing?

[Matt_Cohn]

I really hate to see trees that can prevent a ball from entering a bunker or those that prevent egress from a bunker. The Slonis photo is a great example of something stupid that should be immediately taken care of.

Would it be a better hole if a missed fairway to the left allowed a relatively simple recovery with a wedge from short rough or a perfectly raked bunker?

[David Ober]

I really hate to see trees that can prevent a ball from entering a bunker or those that prevent egress from a bunker. The Slonis photo is a great example of something stupid that should be immediately taken care of.

Would it be a better hole if a missed fairway to the left allowed a relatively simple recovery with a wedge from short rough or a perfectly raked bunker?

It seems more like the bunker is superfluous to me. Remove it and put rough there?