We have discussed the tree in the 18th at pebble and several others. I do not think any tree impacts play and the severity of the challenge on a hole like the tree in 17 fairway at Cypress.

Tiger,

Something I read once, and I entirely forget where, said that the tree on 17 at Cypress, though originally intended to create two possible alleys for play, but that it had grown large enough that one can now only play to the left of it.  

Did you find that to be so?

And if that's the case, while it impacts the hole greatly, I'd think that a hole with a fairway tree that gives two distinct and viable options has a greater impact on play.  Simply avoiding it is one thing, but a situation where you must dually choose and then avoid is what I am referring to.

The copse of the trees at the seventeenth at Cypress ruins a superb golf hole. I quite loathe it.

Bob

   There's a tree in the middle of a back nine hole (maybe #14) at El Cabellero outside L.A.  Ridiculous.

Then you haven't played Point Roberts yet.

My third shot on #4 was a good 70 yards farther back from where my tee shot landed, and unlike Cypress trees, there's no way to hit over this monstrosity.

#17 at the Okanagan Golf Club (Quail) has much a similar setup off the tee. No way over that either.

The #12 Stanford tree is a smart tree--it signals options off the tee and guards the one with the highest reward.  The #17 tree(s) at Cypress are stupid trees--they signal only confusion, and because (as Shivas remembers) one can hit an indifferent iron 220 or so down the right and have an easy wedge into the green, they are essentially irrelevant.  Get a chain saw out, put a few MacKenzie-style bunkers where the trees used to be, and you'd have a very good golf hole.  Not now.

Kelly Moran has one on the 10th @ Lederach and 2nd at Hawk Pointe. I typically like the concept of a single tree in the fairway.

#4 at Rich Harvest Links and I thought it was a great hole. My favorite there.

Two wrongs don't make a right:



Perhaps the club should have taken out the trees and retained the bunkers.  

If I recall correctly, they've even planted small replacements to insure the future of this little "forest of no return."

You will cry.
You will shout.
Still you can't get out.
This is the forest of no return.
-Babes In Toyland

Mike

The 3rd hole at Scarboro (Tillinghast) here in Toronto. At the last GCA gathering their was quite a bit of discussion on it's merits.
I think Wayne poted a pic in his My Home Course essay.
Kerry.

The 3rd hole at Scarboro (Tillinghast) here in Toronto. At the last GCA gathering their was quite a bit of discussion on it's merits.
I think Wayne poted a pic in his My Home Course essay.
Kerry.

The original was a large elm tree that was located about 15 yds shorter and slightly left of the current tree which is a Chestnut.  Unfortunately the original died in the mid 70s when Dutch elm disease killed off all the elms and the new tree doesn't really live up to the size/role of the original.

Normally the tree isn't an issue as most mid-length players can hit past the tree but occasionally you hit it dead on and are stymied.  Without the tree there isn't as much challenge to the hole as if you hit a 250 yd drive you are left with about 110 yds to an uphill pin.

And then you always have the issue of what to do when the tree dies which is going to happen every 60 years or so.

The original (Resort) course at Eagle Crest (OR) has a juniper in the middle of the par 5 15th. Perfectly situated to inflict maaximum damage to my chances of reaching in two.

JB - which of course is why Rich is completely wrong
in his assessment of the golf hole.  Note he says one can
hit an "indifferent 220 yard iron" to get to that tiny
garden spot to the right.  Of course this is the same man
who called 16 "a simple driver to the right side", so we know
his odd takes about this golf course.

The funny thing is, I actually agree with his idea
to cut these trees down and replace them with some
evil MacK bunkers... that would be cool and would be
an improvement.  

He's just so wrong about how it is now... It's a great golf
hole just as is, and the main reason is because what seems
to be the cautious play - iron off the tee - is actually'
the most aggressive, risky play.  How many other holes
exist where the short play is risky/agressive and bombing
out a wood is the safe/easy play?

TH