Here are examples of the divergent view of trees over the years. Early on trees were condemned completely, but as the years went by their use became accepted, although their proper use was debated:

W.Park-Jr
Trees are never a fair hazard if at all near the line of play, as a well-hit shot may be completely spoiled by catching the branches.~~1896

Macdonald
Trees in the course are a serious defect, and even when in close proximity prove a detriment.~~1906

I read much about ideal and classical courses; I used both terms when I dreamed of the National, but I should like to make this distinction—no course can be ideal which is laid out through trees. Trees foreshorten the perspective and the wind has not full play. To get the full exaltation playing the game of golf one should when passing from green to green as he gazes over the horizon have an limitable sense of eternity, suggesting contemplation and imagination. This does not mean that a classical course cannot be laid out where trees are or when there is not the Atlantic, the Pacific or the North Sea to contemplate; but there is a vast difference between the ideal and a classical course. Yale is classical; St.Andrews, the National Golf Links and the Lido, the Mid-Ocean are ideal.~~1928

S.Thompson
In clearing fairways, it is good to have an eye to the beautiful. Often it is possible, by clearing away undesirable and unnecessary trees on the margin of fairways, to open up a view of some attractive picture and frame it with foliage…Open areas may be demarked by the judicious grouping of trees, which may define the fairways or act as a screen to hide some undesirable feature. Often times the natural beauty of many of a golf course, which the average player assumes was always present, has been created by the skill of the engineer who can see opportunities for beauty in the rough woods, swamps or fields that mean nothing to the unskilled eye.~~1923

A.MacKenzie
There are many debatable questions regarding general principles which occur to me, such as the value of tree hazards. There are many fine golfers who unhesitantly condemn trees on a golf course, their argument being that there are no trees on an old sand dune course. This is so but, on the other hand, on a n inland course the only way, except at enormous expense of providing hazards as high as sand dunes, is by the use of trees in groups.

Most of the best inland courses owe their popularity to the grouping of trees. Groups of trees are the most effective way of preventing players reaching the green with their second shot after playing the drives in the wrong direction. No bunkers guarding the green seem to be able to prevent them doing so.

Trees should not usually be placed in a direct line with the hole, as they block the view too much. They make an excellent corner for a dog-leg. Firs, pines, cypress, silver birch and California oak make beautiful back grounds for greens, All these evergreens are suitable for a golf course, while on the other hand, deciduous trees make a mess and look out of place.

Playing down a fairway bordered by straight lines of trees is not only inartistic but make tedious and uninteresting golf. Many green committees ruin one’s handiwork by planting trees like rows of soldiers along the borders of the fairways. Alternative groupings of trees, planted irregularly, create most fascinating golf, and give players the opportunity of showing their skill and judgment in slicing, pulling round, or attempting to loft over them.~~1933

M.Behr
And it goes without saying that trees lined to hem in fairways are not only an insult to golf architecture, but the death warrant to the high art of natural landscape gardening, aside for the fact that, of all hazards, they are the most unfair.~~1952

HS.Colt
Trees are a fluky and obnoxious form of hazard, but they afford rather good protection, and if a clump of these exists as such a spot it might well be considered justifiable to leave it standing.

In cases where the ground is covered densely with trees, it is often possible to open up beautiful views by cutting down a little additional timber. In such cases it would be unwise merely to clear certain narrow lanes which are required for play. The “landscape” effect should also be studied, and although great care must be taken not to expose any unpleasant view in the process, every endeavor should be made to obtain a free and open effect. Swinley Forest, St.Georges Hill, and Stokes Poges may be cited as cases in which tree cutting has greatly improved the views, and in the case of the two first-mentioned clubs a great deal more felling has been done than would have been necessary from a purely golfing point of view.

On the other hand, where very few trees exist every effort should be made to retain them, and in every case the architect will note the quality of the timber with a view of retaining the finest specimens.~~1920

CH.Alison
If you have any planting to do, do it at the start. Trees take a long time to grow. It may be desirable to plant out the parking space and caddies shelter, and to mask roads, unsightly buildings or railways embankments. It is also desirable to to have trees near teeing grounds, and on any large, open space, provided that they will not block a desirable view.~~1921

T.Simpson
Trees and bushes add enormously to the decorative value of the landscape, but are for the most part unsatisfactory as obstacles.~~1950

AW.Tillinghast
Trees of the better sort, well shaped and really fine specimens, are admired and loved by the vast majority of people in all walks of life, everywhere. Those unfortunates, who remain cold and impassive in the presence of the nobles of the forest, have something wanting in their make-up something that would make them happier. I find the greatest joy of my profession in working among the trees, for I can not conceive an inland course without them.

Certainly some of the most notable and charming courses have been constructed on land which was more or less heavily timbered. Naturally many trees have been removed in the process of building….Usually the twisting of a fairway through timber brings to view prominently fine trees along the sides, which previously have been rather lost in a general tangle. And here may it be remarked that fairways should be rather irregular in shape and not like bowling-alleys extending through the woods…So must judgment be used in removing trees, to the end that every possible beauty be featured so long as it does not interfere with the sound play of the game. Certainly the necessity of lofting over a barrier of trees cannot be countenanced although this situation still exists  in some sections of the country and naturally the course are of antiquated design. But play through woods should not be over done, It may be quite monotonous. Introduce just enough for variety.~~1932

D.Ross
As beautiful as trees are, and as fond as you and I are of them, we still mist not lose sight of the fact that there is a limited place for them in golf. We must not allow our sentiments to crowd out the real intent of a golf course, that of providing fair playing conditions. If it in any way interferes with the properly played stroke, I think the tree is an unfair hazard and should not be allowed to stand.

On the other hand, there is no need to ruthlessly cut down everything before us. If it can be arranged so that holes are slightly elbowed, trees can frequently be spared. On hot summer days they are most welcome, especially around tee boxes.

G.Thomas
While trees are generally considered poor hazards, nevertheless they may be properly utilized in some cases, but should not be used as carrying hazards. Rather adapt them as impssible carries which must be gone around, often giving reward for such play.

Trees and shrubbery beautify the course, and natural growth should never be cut down if it is possible to save it; but he who insists in preserving a tree where it spoils a shot should have nothing to say about golf course construction.

Generally speaking, adjacent fairways should be divided by rough and traps and the planting of trees; but on small tracks, where the holes must be close together, this ofttimes impossible, and is a very strong additional objection to fairways which are close together.~~1927


W.Flynn
The pleasantest type of course is one where the holes are segregated, that is where the hole you happen to be playng is well apart from the others. In order to have this kind of course it is necessary to secure property that is already wooded or to do considerable planting of trees.

The old idea was to have golf courses as free of trees as possible. This notion, no doubt, was imported from Scotland because when golf was first taken up in the United States we knew very little about the game and modeled our courses on those of the Scotch which were, for the most part, built along the seashore where there were no trees.

It is impossible to conceive that the "Canny Scots" would have denuded their courses of trees if there had been any there originally.

Today the old ideas have been discarded and the prevailing belief is that trees, most emphatically, have a fixed place on a golf course. This is true for many reasons:
       
First-Because there are few, if any, sites available that are devoid of trees and it is a very costly operation to cut them down and remove them. Second-Trees add beauty to a golf course forming picturesque backgrounds and delightful vistas. Third-Their shade is most refreshing on a hot summer day. Fourth-They are of great practical value in segregating the various holes.~~1927

I agree with Tom about putting that in the "In My Opinion" section. It's quite staggering when seen together. I have used a couple of the quotes in the past, but the impact is far greater all together.

You can obviously see where this would be helpful to anyone who renovates golf courses, so I ask your permission to copy and use this with green's committees in the future.

Ian

Tom MacWood,

It's certainly a neat presentation.

My only concern is if each statement represents the totality and final position of each architect's opinion on trees.

Architects perceptions, concepts and opinions change over time, and it's not unusual for people to take multiple or conflicting positions.

It would be interesting to see if each architect's opinion, as stated in your thread, was constant throughout their career, or changed during the course of their career.

As an ideal it would be neat to compare each of their works, in a chronological order, based on aerial photos before construction began, and on the first day the golf course opened, to see how they used or removed trees in conjunction with their stated design principals.

Good post.

Phillip Young,

In many areas a vegetation clearing permint must be obtained.
In other areas, trees with diameters above a certain number must be preserved, unless dispensations are granted.

It's certainly a different environment today.

My concern is the plantings done over the years by green committees, arbor committees and boards.

Any one of the architect's Tom MacWood quoted may have left their golf course in a condition that radically differs from what exists today.  But, trying to undo the work of rotating amateur arborists isn't a simple process.

Tom MacWood,

I'd be curious to know what AWT and others thought about the tree that guarded the 10th green at WFE.

The last statement you quoted from Tillinghast is the very reason I endorsed removal of the tree behind # 15 green at NGLA

TEPaul,

The huge elm wasn't behind the green.

It interfered with incoming approaches and recoveries.

Perhaps it was quite small when AWT last viewed it.

Pat Tom Tom,

This is the great elm at Winged Foot in 1925, in a photo taken by the clubhouse architect Wendehack. The case can be made that Tillinghast and Wendehack used this tree together to tie the clubhouse to the course. From this photo, you can see clearly that the tree was an integral part of the clubhouse design. The clubhouse seems to bend around the tree. The green itself is also clearly of a piece with the tree and clubhouse. It is the 10th green on the East course. The unusual routing of 10 and 8, instead of 9 and 9, is more evidence that this tree was the anchor for the entire 36-hole site. Wendehack liked this view so much that he also painted it in a color picture of his clubhouse. (That picture reveals that Wendehack was no golfer. The grass on the putting green is lawn-high.)
   For the golfer. this was the most benevolent of strategic trees. The hole is a short par-4, and the shape of your 2nd shot was constrained from the right side by the tree, and from the left by the steep bunker. From the tee, all options were available, but only half those options from either side of the fairway. From the right, the low shot demanded by the tree was rewarded by a green that can feed the ball to all points left. But a mis-struck high shot, 9 times out of 10 I'd say,jostled through the huge canopy that leant over more than half the green in latter days, and landed somewhere on short grass.



This is the green today. The putting here is as wonderful as ever, but a tee shot to the right can now be followed by as high a shot as you care to try.





Here is a picture from 1929 of the 2nd hole on the West Course, named Elm. Tillinghast wrote about this tree. I don't have the words in front of me right now, but I believe he said that the effect he desired was achieved by removing the other trees near this elm, including another elm of significant but lesser stature.

"We'll have to ask TEPaul, he's the one who said that AWT wrote about it."

Pat:

I assume it was Tillinghast who wrote about the elm on "The Elm" hole at WFW but maybe it was the Wolffes and Trebus, they wrote "The Course Beautiful". You'll find it mentioned in Chapter 7, where whomever wrote that chapter mentions it's beyond the green. From the photo and apparently Tillinghast's description of it it doesn't seem to have been small either. It is mentioned that some other smaller trees were removed around it to highlight it. There's a ton about the use of trees in architecture in that book--Chapters #7, 13, 14, 17 18.

One thing seems obvious from those early days, and seems obviously reflected in some of those quotes above---that is the Architects who were not originally linksmen were using trees in various ways in architecture. The reason seems obvious too---they were beginning to work on some heavily wooded sites in America and perhaps in England. The linksmen never did that because there weren't trees on the linksland sites!!

Neil,

The two grand trees, the one on 10 E and the other on 2 W influenced play in different ways.

I'v'e played Winged Foot E & W since the 50's and was lucky enough to see the evolving influence of both trees.

The angle of the green relative to the approaching fairway at # 2 East made it a difficult approach, especially in carrying the front right bunker.  Since # 2 was a longer hole, and is even longer today, the canopy of the tree is less invasive to the flight of the approach shot due to the trajectory of the approach shot and the configuration of the green.

On # 10 E, the tree was far more invasive, far more an impediment to approaching shots.  There was an almost damned if you do, damned if you don't strategy to the hole.
Drive left and avoid the influence of the tree and face a more difficult visual, and interceding bunkers.  Drive to the right and risk the canopy interfering with the flight of the ball.
Drive further right and risk the rough and your ability to control a low running shot to a narrow opening.

It was a unique dilema, absent water or out of bounds.

The hole played easier on the scorecard then it did on the golf course.

I don't think that AWT ever envisioned that the tree as presented in the picture you posted would ever interfere with the flight of incoming approach shots to the extent it did.
Especially after knowing about the incident at Baltusrol.

I'v'e played Winged Foot E & W since the 50's and was lucky enough to see the evolving influence of both trees.
...
I don't think that AWT ever envisioned that the tree as presented in the picture you posted would ever interfere with the flight of incoming approach shots to the extent it did.
Especially after knowing about the incident at Baltusrol.

Pat,

   I suspect that AWT might have envisioned the great growth of the tree, but would have argued for trimming the lower branches more to maintain that champagne-glass shape, like we do today with our other great elm on 2 West.
  Your  point is especially relevant to the 2nd elm. A few years ago, as you know well, we recovered significant pinnable green space in the back corner under the elm. At the same time, we trimmed the lower branches significantly. The tree had grown quite full. It is more elegantly maintained now, and healthier for that. It must still be considered when approaching the green, and especially so when the pin is in the back below the leaves. There is now plenty of clearance for most shots, but not all. See the pictures below.

This is the elm near the end of its 3 century life, circa 1990, next to the Photo by Wendehack, 1925
Painting by Jesse Hyde, courtesy of the Scottsdale Collection



This is the elm on 2 West in 2000 and in 2004

Bob Huntley,

Great example.

I suspect that what they wrote in general terms often differed from their field practices in specific situations.

This wouldn't be the first time an architect's work contradicted his written words.

Bob
MacKenzie said "usually".

Lynn
I definitely need to add some quotes from Travis.