[Dave_Miller]

Chairman:
A little more length as the guardian against Ball anc Club technology may not be a bad thing.  Hopefully the integrity of the original design would not be impaired.

Cheers,
Dave

[Scott_Burroughs]

How much farther back are you talking?  16 is such a beautiful hole, and so well-protected, that making it any longer would start to border on too difficult.  #10 and #14 are already long and difficult par 3's.

Longer on 2 would make for an even tougher long par 4 with a tough green.  Would make it longer carry to reach plateau portion of fairway.

I say move the tees up on #8 or push them back and make it a par 5.  Longer on 7 would be in great, then clear out the trees to the right of the green.  Wider fairway to the right on #11.  Anyone over there has a tougher angle in to the green.

[TEPaul]

William Flynn's take on trees and their use in golf design is  potentially a very interesting subject, in my opinion.

It does appear at the moment that his opinions are both   general and sketchy but I wouldn't be surprised if we won't start to home in on his opinions much more specifically very soon.

Clearly, from research done by Huntingdon Valley he did believe that trees or even a single tree could be used to create a central strategy (possibly even a one dimensional one) to a golf hole. Apparently #2 Huntingdon Valley was such a hole with an enormous tree on the right by the green almost overhanging, guarding and blocking the most natural and logical approach to the green with a somewhat drawn shot off the right to left slope of the fairway which today can use the right greenside bank to carom the ball onto the green--because the tree was lost to the course.

The way the hole was described to me with the large tree on the right it would appear the only real adequate shot may have been a fade off a hooking lie! Can you imagine that? I can and in a way it's not that much different a complicated demand shot than Mackenzie's hooking lie into ANGC's fading oriented #13 green!!

I think we all might have to get used to the fact that those early designers just did things like that sometimes--they weren't mistakes, they were intentional--they were what I call strictly high demand golf!! Frankly, the way many of the holes of Huntingdon Valley were conceived and designed was this type of high demand golf--and trees were sometimes used to create it!

We might look at this type of one dimensional shot requirment to gain the green low on options but we're failing to understand, in my opinion, how those early designers often looked at options! They may not have had in mind another option to gain the green!! If you couldn't or didn't want to try their one dimensional high demand shot requirment, what they had in mind for you was to play short or around it for which they generally provided you an avenue and drop a shot because of your choice (or scramble to make it up).

Clearly, there will be plenty of purist contributors to this site that neither like nor understand this kind of design thinking on Flynn's part (and others) and will consider such things low on options and strategy! And the fact that he may have both advocated and used trees or a central tree to do such things may really make those purists confused and resistant to some of Flynn's thinking on the prinicples of design and design with trees.

But I think I can tell you right now you'd better get used to it because it appears that's the way Flynn thought! Definitely not always, in my opinion, but occasionally if he found a treed site and one with strategic or high demand possibilities with trees or a single tree (like HVGC's #2). Frankly, if you read Tillinghast carefully you'll pick up some very similar sentiments on his part concerning trees on certain naturally treed sites!

When I say not always, it's quite clear to me that Flynn did not envision trees or their strategic use at Shinnecock because naturally it was not a treed site!

But his remark that the completely treeless design principles of what he termed the early immigrant architects was now passe (he wrote that remark in 1927) clearly can mean only one thing--that he planned to occasionally use trees in golf architectural design!

We certainly don't know, however, at this point, if he recommended the wholesale planting of trees on sites and designs that naturally had no trees (I really doubt that--Shinnecock again being a good example) but we can be quite sure he did occasionally purposefully use trees in design if he found them in interesting places!

Flynn also wrote about the benefits in golf of "separating" golf holes from each other by using trees--but he was also an innovator in routing with things like "triangulation" (a clear reaction to the very unpopular "parallelism" of some of the courses of the early era!) and an excellent method (triangulation) to create interesting hole separation without reliance on trees.

When I mention these things about Flynn, I would also mention that in analyzing how he felt this way and what he intended to do on any course these facts should not be co-opted by anyone to massively plant up some of his courses thinking they're doing what Flynn would have recommended. I just don't think that can be assumed anywhere or everywhere.

Personally, I'm no big tree lover in architecture although I find Flynn's ideas fascinating but any of us can probably analyze a golf hole and tell whether logically a tree or trees in any particular place would either enhance or corrupt the concept and quality of that golf hole.

But even that falls into the subjective--as part of the overall beauty in golf architecture is its vast difference from one thing to another--from one style to another.

Neither golf nor its architecture would be half so interesting if all courses had either no trees or lots of trees. The interest, I believe, is that some have none and work well, some have some and work well and even some have lots and still work well if they were designed with them in mind as an overall feature.

More and more I'm coming to believe that in architecture the deal is in the difference and it appears that Flynn probably felt the same!

[Mike_Cirba]

Dear Chairman;

First things first....Thank you very much for your kind and gracious hospitality at Rolling Green two weeks ago.  It is certainly a wonderful course as my earlier posts indicated, and although we didn't have a chance to meet, I can assure you that both Mayday and Wayne were superb hosts in every way.  

Did it only take me 85 strokes to negotiate my way around?? My lord, I seem to recall that many strokes with the wedge alone!  Have you ever heard of the "chip yips"?  Well, I have this strange affliction where I either hit a Mickelsonian beauty that defies the laws of physics and stops stone-dead, or half-blade or chili-dip one or more after that.  Exorcism of my wedge has been suggested by others.  

But, as you say, "that's okay".  Because, truthfully, when I go to a new course for the first time, I'm there to see and try to understand and gain an appreciation for the golf course architecture, as well as commiserate with my playing partners.  Although I've been as low as a 2.3 index too many years ago (probably over 7 now), no one has yet suggested that they'd pay me to play the game, and I've given up the illusion that I'll ever get much better at this point.  Besides, I have much more fun now that I've accepted that I generally am pretty mediocre and likely to stay that way.  The fun is in the trying.  

As far as architecture, I think we're discussing some of the finer points here that are applicable not only to Rolling Green but to most classic courses in an age where a green chairman can reach a par five with driver, seven-iron.  

So, although I have no wish to become involved in club matters in any way...that is your gentlemen's responsibility... I'll try to give you some general thoughts and philosophies based on your questions.

I'm guessing that you're a pretty good player, or minimally quite the long-hitter based on what you've shared.  I'm also guessing that you're concerned that your course remain an adequate "test of golf" for the better player, as well you should.  

Unfortunately, there are no easy answers.  You're right that the hole in question wasn't designed to be played by anyone back in 1926 with a driver-seven iron.  Flynn himself warned about the dangers of unimpeded technology to the game, and foresaw the need for courses in the 8,000 yard range if the implements were not effectively reigned in.  

And, in truth, Rolling Green (and many other classic courses) would probably need to be close to 8,000 yards today to be played with the exact same clubs that were used in 1926.  

So, one option is to build all new back tees, but that's only half an answer, because not only do players today hit their driver further, but also their irons and other clubs.  More importantly, this may fundamentally change what was designed by the architect to be the "landing area", affecting the location of fairway hazards, angles, turns in holes, etc.  It's almost as if to recreate the same hole as it was originally, a hole would need to be stretched in both directions, which is impractical in almost every conceivable instance.  

Admittedly, some courses with additional space can "up" the level of demand by building back tees.  Flynn himself talked about providing "elasticity" in design, and seemingly left room in many cases behind the tees he built.  As a general philosophy, I think this approach, while imperfect, is far preferable to other alternatives.

What are those alternatives?  Among them; narrowing fairways by growing thick rough, planting trees to not only narrow target widths, but to provide serious impediments to reasonable recovery, adding hazards such as sand and water in places never conceived by the architect, creating ultra-fast conditions on greens that weren't designed for anything near those putting speeds, and providing "soft" conditions through the green to limit roll.

In a way, it's sad and problematic that technological changes in recent years have created a situation where so many courses are faced with this very dilemma.  But, for discussion purposes, let's consider your example of the 7th hole for two types of players.

For those unfamiliar with Rolling Green, the 7th is a short par five with a significantly downhill tee shot.  A creek crosses the fairway at about 350 yards, and is only in play if the drive finds trouble, or for a very weak player's second shot.  The drive zone is fairly narrow, with most of the trouble being the trees on each side.

The lay of the land on the second shot is significantly right to left, with a moderate, but lengthy hill on the right side flowing into the green complex.  The green is bunkered on the lower, front left side, and the green itself has a wonderful center "fold" that becomes difficult to negotiate from right of the hole.  Generally, the green runs from front to back and right to left more than is visually apparent.  A shot beyond the green will go down a slight enbankment, to generally thick rough, but it's not too penalizing to be over.  

The trees in question have been planted on this right hillside, which appears to have been fairway in early times from original drawings (which coincidentally, included tree placements).  

Now, a player of your calibre and length hits a good drive, and is left with a 7-iron approach.  Almost assuredly, those trees on the right were not a factor in considering your approach shot, correct?  I mean, you probably had less than 180 yards, and I'm sure you selected a club where you would fly the shot all the way to the green's surface (easily held with that lofted club), or perhaps to land just in front.  Seriously, did those trees enter into your mind on the second shot whatsoever?  They really aren't very tall, and at the distance you had to the green, you probably would have flown over all of them even if you pushed the shot, leaving a downhill chip from the tougher right side that had to negotiate the swale in the green for a decent birdie chance.

Now, consider the game of a playing partner who hits the ball say, 40 yards less than you.  

His drive, instead of going about 320 downhill, goes 280, leaving him 220 to the green.  Instead of a seven iron, he's likely looking at either laying up to leave a full third, or, trying to bring in a 3-wood to the green on a straight line, with little chance of holding it, or ending in the front bunker because of the topography in the area.  

With the trees in their current position, he does not have the option of trying to play a running shot in from the right side, as the hole seems clearly designed to have originally permitted.  But, for a moment, let's imagine that those trees weren't there, and that it was maintained halfway up the hill as fairway.  Is there any less skill required for player B to hit the perfect running draw off that embankment onto the green with a 3 wood than it took for your high-flighted 7-iron to land softly and successfully?  You already have a 40 yard advantage per shot on your opponent.  

I realize your intent is to maintain the level of challenge for the best players, but do those trees come into play for the best players?  I would contend that they don't, but only make the game more difficult and uni-dimensional for the less-skilled.  

Now, let's imagine that the back tees on that hole were moved back 60 yards.  For the better player, the green would still be reachable in two, but instead of your 7-iron from 180, you'd be looking at a long club from 240.  Would you agree that it would require a great deal of skill from that distance to use the right side bank to run the ball onto the green (not to mention a hell of a lot of fun!)??  What's more, the player who "hung it up" on the hill would certainly not have an easy chip from a downhill stance to a green running away from him and the aforementioned center swale to negotiate.  

In truth, there are no easy answers Chairman, when technology allows the ball to be advanced at distances that courses weren't built for, but I don't believe the answer to the questions of the new "power game" played by the top golfers is to eliminate options for the shorter hitter or high-handicap man.

Some attempt at brevity prevents me from going into a whole host of agronomic difficulties that over-planting of trees can be the "root" cause of, not to mention problems with air circulation, blocking of wind, blocking of vistas, etc.  Perhaps a willing superintendent can get into more detail in that area.   

Short of adding new back tees, perhaps you might want to just call the 7th a par four for championship play?  What would be the harm in that?              

Thank you again for your warm hospitality, and best wishes to you and your excellent club.  

[AndyI]

TEPaul (and wsmorrison):

In your research, have you found whether Flynn made any recommendations concerning tree planting or replanting after a course had been completed?  I believe that Flynn provided extra room for "elasticity" on his courses due to his concerns about future equipment (particularly ball) improvements, so he clearly considered the long-term playability of his courses.  Was he also concerned about how his courses would play as the trees he integrated into them for strategic reasons grew and eventually died?

[wsmorrison]

Andyl,

Excellent question, and one I am obliged to say we have not yet answered.  We are studying documents now that do help us to understand his philosophies.  We are awaiting more documents that may very well answer such questions.  As of now, it is clear that there were trees planted on courses in the Philadelphia area during Flynn's lifetime that he must have visited with some regularity and was consulted on.  It is safe to assume he was involved in at least some of this work.  Clearly the hardwood trees on Rolling Green are such an example.  Other trees (evergreens) added over the years probably helped in some few cases but were probably mis-placed in a majority (Woodcrest in my opinion for instance).

Trees were a major interest to Flynn.  Geist used to call him up and help him decide where and when to plant trees on his property in Bryn Mawr and his resort properties.  The care and interest Flynn showed then was probably at least the measure he showed at his own golf courses.  Tom and I have studied many of Flynn's original drawings.  Some show specific trees he meant to keep (Lehigh and Rolling Green, for example) and others where he advocated tree planting (on 9 of the 18 holes at Cherry Hills).  Linc Roden was pleased to hear of the Cherry Hills directives.  There are removals as well but trees were clearly an integral part of strategy to Flynn.

Regarding a hole like #7 at RGGC.  I think it is important to consider Flynn's desire to have the golfer hit precise (accuracy was key to him) shots a great many times on his championship courses with very specific demands as Tom Paul has demonstrated.  If you look at Flynn's design concept as drawn on 7 with the fairway extended on the right and no secondary line of evergreen trees, this fits his philosophy of par golfers in competition.  A long par golfer that can hit driver and 7 iron (if he is not too far right or left on his first shot) is not at such a great advantage over a shorter hitting par golfer that is required to hit a longer running shot into the green with a specific ground contour to contend with and is capable of doing so.  He may be shorter than his fellow par golfer, but he does have a way to the green, albeit by a specific and difficult route.  We should not take this away from him/her.  Tom Paul can madden you with his short drive and accurate approach or deft touch around the green and keep the pressure on the long hitter who will find the green in the air.  

Not quite the tortoise and the hare, but...makes for an interesting match that secondary trees and narrowing would take away.  

[TEPaul]

Andyl:

To confirm what Wayne said about Flynn and recommending tree planting on any course--no, we've not found anything like that but frankly I've never found anything like that with any early architect. Have you ever run across a specific recommendation from any architect about future tree planting or even not to plant trees?

What wer'e using is what Flynn wrote about trees generally, particularly that he believed the early immigrant architects' principles about no trees on golf courses was passe. But with remarks of that nature we're still only making some general assumptions not drawing any definite conclusions.

We can certainly draw a conclusion that he believed in using trees on courses but as to the exact or specific strategies he may have had in mind--not yet.

However, as I said in the earlier post today Tillinghast very much talked in his writing how trees could be used for strategic purposes.

Again, I'm not a big advocate of trees in design necessarily although I sure can see their use but what I'd like to advocate is an honest understanding about what some of these architects we tend to admire really did believe in.

There seems to be a general feeling on this site that trees don't work in design at all and also a feeling that the early architects did not believe in them either. I'm beginning to feel that's a real fallacy, a real misunderstanding in fact. Some may not have but clearly not all.

But again that certainly doesn't give golf and green committees license to willy nilly plant trees all over these golf courses and have it make any kind of strategic sense.

One thing neither one of us has run across and I doubt we ever will is William Flynn stating that he believed that his designs should include corridors of trees creating narrowness throughout his holes and courses so they wouldn't be EASY!

When he decided to make things harder, clearly he relied a number of other things.

[mike_malone]

I have spent many hours looking at the Rolling Green CD,that contains aerialsfrom 1926,early and late 30's ,1960'some 1975'1992 and 2000,as well as flynn's design for each hole and our master for each hole.
 I need to thank again Dave Staebler for tremendous work he did assembling this CD.One can look at pictures of the entire course from different angles and also on one page see all chronilogical photos plus the original design and the master plan FOR EACH HOLE SEPARATELY.Imagine the wealth of data that provides you.
 Now i am looking forward to seeing the additional Flynn writings for USGA.
 But from what i have read and have seen many times over,i feel comfortable what he planned for trees on Rolling Green.
     1)He certainly used existing trees there in 1926 for strategy.     The right side of #7 in landing area has some 1926 trees.They seem to create the need to hit a fade for second shot if you miss tee shot to right.
  #13-The last 140 yds.are cut out of the 1926 trees.One should not miss tee shot too far right or left.
 #15-trees on left off tee.in 1926 were much lower,but still provided easier shot to green if one went over them.
 #17-trees all along left side of dogleg left and stand of trees on the right hand side of dogleg(somewhat out of play,but requiring fade for second shot for long hitter)
#18--trees at corner of dogleg on right.

 #14 and #16 are par threes cut entirely out of trees.
   I can find no evidence that he planted any trees in 1926

  When you move to the early 30's,you see MASSIVE plantings.As best i can tell little strategy was thought of in these plantings.The piece i read of Flynn's that spoke of trees as separating holes,providing shade,etc.seems to have been in the hands of the planter.Some have told me that the original green super handled this.

  What is quite clear to me is that a line of trees on the side of a hill that cuts off the right side of the hill from any reasonable recovery shot is contrary to any use of trees i have seen Flynn use or intended to use.

 This is only one course he built,but provides much food for thought about his genius.



I wondered when i played the #5 hole at philly  c.c."What is he doing puting that tree by that trap next to green?"So,TEPaul i see these things and challenge my thinking.

[Mike_Cirba]

Chairman;

I forgot to add one thing;

Welcome to this group of architectural nuts here on GCA, and I hope you visit often.  If nothing else, you'll hear a lot of passionate opinions from a great group of guys.  I have the feeling you'll feel at home here.

mayday;

As we discussed, there is no question that Flynn was hardly anathemic to using trees to influence strategy and frame holes in seclusion.  

However, as you mentioned, it seems to me much of that use was to force certain types of controlled shots (fades and draws) for those superior players seeking to find the optimum position for their next shot.  I see little in his original designs that sought to use trees in a penal fashion by simply narrowing playing avenues or restricting reasonable options, particularly for the weaker player, but instead he seems to have used them to tempt the better players to extend themselves to seek suitable advantage.  

I think there is a world of difference.  What's more, at Rolling Green, most of the original mature trees (that existed when Flynn originally designed the course) are located at least 40 yards from the center of the fairway, and add a majesty and grace to the course, providing the type of hole separation that Flynn seems to have preferred, while only directly penalizing seriously off-line shots.

[mike_malone]

I was searching the internet for Doak’s comments on Rolling Green that went with his 7 ranking from the Confidential Guide and I found this old 2002 topic on Rolling Green on the Google search.


 I certainly have learned much since then and after our Hanse Design three year upgrade I think




  Just do what Flynn did is the best thing. That might not  be perfect but is the best guide imo.




While one could say more trees were taken down than necessary it’s better than taking down too few.


While a very few things don’t look like Flynn to this student’s eye the end result for me is


   GREATNESS.

[mike_malone]

Archie,


  Mike Trenham recently gave me the Tim DeBaufre designs you mentioned. I handed them over to the club.

[archie_struthers]

 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()