News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Paul_Turner

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Would Pine Valley still be #1 if ....
« Reply #150 on: November 29, 2004, 04:15:21 PM »
Tom

Those are bunkers (in the trees) at the crook of the dog leg.
can't get to heaven with a three chord song

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Would Pine Valley still be #1 if ....
« Reply #151 on: November 29, 2004, 04:18:10 PM »
MIchael,
PM,
I have to ask, when did you first play PV?

1964.
[/color]

The members I had the privelage of talking to ranged from about 50 to the high 70's, in fact one gentleman's dad,was present on one of the ocassions that Colt and Wilson attended the site, now that would have been cool..especially now in retrospect at what they helped to create.
No question about it, that would have been a great experience.

There is an experiment that is carried out by law schools and police academies.  They select witnesses, position them to observe an event, and then stage the event.  Immediately afterwards, they question the witnesses with respect to what they saw.
It's amazing to see the conflict in recollection and error in the details regarding what took place.  They then show them a video tape of the event, so that there is no doubt in anyone's mind with respect to the errors in recollection.

The interogation is carried out within minutes of the event.
Imagine the interogation 70, 80 and 90 years removed from the event.
[/color]

I think that TE  and myself have clearly stated that we do not agree with trees impinging on original hazards and clear lines of play..I do not know how many times we have to state that...but that is a totally different issue from isolation versus a more open nature to the golf course.

What do you think of the picture Paul Turner posted ?
How does that influence your concept of isolation at PV and the golf course as Crump left it ?
[/color]

With reference to biting the hand thats feeds you,I believe my humble golfing exploits were behind my initial invite and whilst I am not going to act like an arsehole while I am there,  I am not going to kiss anybodys arse either..again you have me confused with somebody else.

Discretion is the better part of valor.
You're young, you'll learn. ;D
[/color]

As for standards for one course being different, what crap!!
Since when do we treat all courses the same?

Certain principles of good design are universal.
Being in a bunker without tree limbs impeding or preventing a swing is one of them.  Being in a prefered section of a fairway and not having your approach shot blocked or screened off by trees planted long after the original architect left his work in the ground is another.
[/color]

Just because Oakmont decides to remove some thousands of tress, everybody else has to as well..give me a break..that is what makes courses different..what is good for the goose does not always have to be good for the gander..not if it threatens an already good golf course.

Your above example is not remotely close to the situation at PV.  How does removing trees intrusive to the lines of play threaten a golf course.  Especially when those trees were planted 30-40 years after the original architect died ?
[/color]

Andy Hughes,

I'd reserve your comments for courses, holes and features that you're personally familiar with.  The issue is trees that intrude into the lines of play, trees planted long after the architect was planted, and not rough.  Keep it real, not hypothetical.

TEPaul,

Paul Turner's picture is rather revealing.
And, when you place it amongst other photos, circa 1922, 1925, 1932 and into the 50's. it becomes apparent that the excessive tree planting was not part of Crump's plan or vision.
But, if you want to stubbornly cling to that notion, I have no problem with it.  If the trees didn't get out of hand, PV wouldn't have embarked upon a program of clearing them, would they ?
In the confines of a non-public discussion I think you'd agree that more clearing needs to be done.  I don't think anyone is saying that the course should be cleansed of trees, just that they need to be more active in restoring Crump's course, not someone esle's additives.

Next time you visit, look at the far boundary of the large fairway bunker on # 16 and tell me what you think.

We're all human, everyone makes mistakes.

Paul Turner,

The creek in front of # 18 green appears to be just that, although the lighting and definition aren't as clear as I'd like.
What was the year that that waterway was damed ?
« Last Edit: November 29, 2004, 04:23:02 PM by Patrick_Mucci »

TEPaul

Re:Would Pine Valley still be #1 if ....
« Reply #152 on: November 29, 2004, 04:30:25 PM »
Paul:

No, there not bunkers, in my opinion, never were. In that area in the crook of the dogleg is a bunch of rolling sort of mounds and pits that's just the way the land always was in there. There all still there. I've been in there a bunch of times---although of course never looking for my own ball!  ;)

But if for some odd reason those things are bunkers, well then---revelation of all revelations!!! Seeing as how large those conifer trees are scattered through the middle of all of them (I'll guarantee you they aren't man-made bunkers) I guess that just flat-ass PROVES that Crump really did intend to have tree overgrowth throughout even his own bunkers and sand waste areas as much of the course is today!  ;) :)

You fellows are really great at completely outthinking yourselves!   ;)

Who knows, maybe this was the nefarious work of that little English accountant look-alike, Harry Colt. You never did get back to me about his tree planting schemes and possible hole visibility isolation on Sunningdale Old and Hamilton in Canada. How about that? I want answers and I want them by quiting time today!!!

TEPaul

Re:Would Pine Valley still be #1 if ....
« Reply #153 on: November 29, 2004, 04:35:01 PM »
Pat:

Just keep talking and see how far you can get that foot of yours down your big mouth. Maybe you've never seen an aerial taken in the winter-time. Did you know it makes a golf course look a little different from how it looks when there are leaves on the trees? Oh never mind, don't bother to answer---it'd be hopeless anyway!

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Would Pine Valley still be #1 if ....
« Reply #154 on: November 29, 2004, 05:37:02 PM »
TEPaul,

I was studying aerials before you bought your dog, Coorshaw.

I didn't know that non diciduous trees sheded their leaves/needles.   When did this happen ? ;D

TEPaul

Re:Would Pine Valley still be #1 if ....
« Reply #155 on: November 29, 2004, 06:47:41 PM »
"I didn't know that non diciduous trees sheded their leaves/needles.  When did this happen ?

Pat:

Why don't you look at that aerial again since you've been studying them so long and see which trees look like they have something on them and which don't and maybe you can figure out how to answer that question all by yourself!

W.H. Cosgrove

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Would Pine Valley still be #1 if ....
« Reply #156 on: November 29, 2004, 06:50:51 PM »
Is it simply my bad monitor or is the photo PV with the first 4 holes and an eighteenth green and the remainder under construction?  I would think from the angle that 5 and 6 would be visible but the don't seemtostand out.

TEPaul

Re:Would Pine Valley still be #1 if ....
« Reply #157 on: November 29, 2004, 07:16:54 PM »
W.H.

The big huge 5th green is clear as day and most of the 6th is too on my monitor but my monitor is huge.

I think that 5th green back in that day may've had a ton more greenspace in the front but I could be wrong about that. On some of the old drawings it seemed to appear that way though.

Paul_Turner

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Would Pine Valley still be #1 if ....
« Reply #158 on: November 30, 2004, 12:28:53 AM »
Paul:

No, there not bunkers, in my opinion, never were. In that area in the crook of the dogleg is a bunch of rolling sort of mounds and pits that's just the way the land always was in there. There all still there. I've been in there a bunch of times---although of course never looking for my own ball!  ;)

But if for some odd reason those things are bunkers, well then---revelation of all revelations!!! Seeing as how large those conifer trees are scattered through the middle of all of them (I'll guarantee you they aren't man-made bunkers) I guess that just flat-ass PROVES that Crump really did intend to have tree overgrowth throughout even his own bunkers and sand waste areas as much of the course is today!  ;) :)

You fellows are really great at completely outthinking yourselves!   ;)

Who knows, maybe this was the nefarious work of that little English accountant look-alike, Harry Colt. You never did get back to me about his tree planting schemes and possible hole visibility isolation on Sunningdale Old and Hamilton in Canada. How about that? I want answers and I want them by quiting time today!!!

Tom

I still reckon those are bunkers in the trees, particularly that one on the fairway edge!  Not saying that I think it was a good idea, but that's what I see.

As you commanded, here are some Colt writings about trees.  Which gives insight into what he would have recommended to Crump.  Even if he ignored it, like a drunken numbskull, and started building bunkers in trees(!)  

Colt is often credited as the first architect to have tree planting schemes, for lanscape effect.  Sunn Old is usually cited as the first example (see Cornish and Whitten).  I'm not entirely sure about how accurate this is (since it's hearsay).  From his writing he appears to appreciated trees for landscape but dislike them as hazards.  I think it's likely that Crump would have been of the same opinion.  Isolation is not mentioned by Colt, but the wooded heathland courses did have much isolation, with big routings, combined with spacious fairways

1912

"And this landscape might have been improved, and made still more pleasing to the eye by planting judiciously off the course irregular clumps of whins, or broom, or rough grasses, or possibly small birch trees and Scotch firs."

1912

"Golfers are, moreover, now becoming more and more sensitive to the artistic side of golf courses, and the man whoh just ploughs around in an entirely golfing spirit is becoming rare every day.  I know it well from the outcry that is raised if a hole is changed and an intruding Scotch for tree has to be sacrificed."

Writing about parkland golf:  

"The trees are however always a difficulty. It is hard to condemn a fine old specimen oak or beech because it comes into the line of play.  It is more or less accepted fact that trees are not the best hazards, for the obvious reason that they unfortunately afford but slight opportunity for the display of golfing skill in extricating the ball from its clutches.  Moreover, during the fall of leaf they are always a nuisance, and it is exceedingly difficult to grow satisfactory turf under their shade; but they are undoubtably charming features in a landscape view."

Regarding forest courses:  

"It is essential to make the clearing bold and wide, as it is not very enjoyable to play down long alleys with trees on either side, and better effects can be obtained from a landscape point of view if this be done."

1920

"Trees are a fluky and obnoxious form of hazard, but they afford rather good protection, and if a clump of these exists at 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 and unpleasant view in the process, every endeavour should be made to obtain a free and open effect.  Swinley Forest, St George's Hill and Stoke 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 th quality of the timber with a view to retaining the finest specimens."





« Last Edit: November 30, 2004, 12:29:36 AM by Paul_Turner »
can't get to heaven with a three chord song

TEPaul

Re:Would Pine Valley still be #1 if ....
« Reply #159 on: November 30, 2004, 07:09:59 AM »
Paul:

Thanks very much for producing all those thoughts of Harry Colt's on the use of trees. It's pretty general but still interesting and somewhat indicative of the various things they apparently were trying to do with trees. I took particular note of his mention of the "landscape" effect of dealing with a treed site or hole corridor. This is probably very similar to what Tillinghast recommended and was talking about in his chapter 14 ("Clearing the Forest) in "The Course Beautiful".

Now, that aerial you produced again above is truly starting to fascinate me. I’m trying to put some kind of timeline on it. You can see from the aerial showing #1 in GeoffShac’s “Golden Age of Golf Design” that’s dated 1925 that the big bunker on the right at the inside of the dogleg does not appear on your aerial above in the issue of “The American Golfer” dated May 1920.

When you refer to the notes of Carr and Smith (“remembrances) you can see how concerned Crump was about #1---apparently continually striving to improve it to get the kind of concept and strategy he was after. (By the way, I feel Crump probably began constructing the course at the 1st hole and as we can see for Tillinghast’s articles during the beginning of 1913 that the first four holes appear to have been basically constructed in March of 1913!)

As a basic strategic concept you can see Crump was out to emulate Hoylake’s #1---a very difficult opening hole that Carr mentioned John Low deemed ‘the best 19th hole in existence’. Everyone knows that Crump wanted the 1st to be not only a very tough opener but also very much the “cut-off playoff hole”. And that it most certainly has been all these years. Carr writes; ‘hence he brought out the bunker on the right’. So it sounds like Crump already had “brought that big bunker on the right out”. It’s clear to see by comparing GeoffShac’s aerial and your aerial that that large bunker on the right that Crump “brought out” is not in your aerial at all. So that would definitely set the date of your aerial at some point before Jan. 1918 and back! Also, the credit below that photo ‘Courtesy or the Curtiss Airplane and Motor Co’ is most definitely not aerial photographer Victor Dallin who apparently began aerial photography around 1923 or 1924. Well, maybe Dallin was flying the plane for Curtiss aviation but he didn't begin flying under his own name until 1923 or 1924. (I think I remember hearing, though, that when Dallin flew under his own name he did fly a Curtiss airplane.) Curtiss, himself, by the way, according to Wayne, I think was pretty big into golf too!

Crump’s idea for #1 was to force the drive well to the left by taking away the inside corner with that big bunker on the inside which appears on the later aerial and not yours. Carr writes Crump intended to extent the fairway straight out and create more ‘sightly bunkering’ on the left instead of the drainage bunker Crump initially put there and which he considered temporary. The ironic thing is that ‘temporary drainage’ bunker is still there today---the installation of more “sightly bunkering” in that area as well as perhaps pushing the fairway farther out was never done after Crump died in Jan. 1918!
« Last Edit: November 30, 2004, 07:18:47 AM by TEPaul »

Andy Hughes

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Would Pine Valley still be #1 if ....
« Reply #160 on: November 30, 2004, 08:41:10 AM »
Quote
Andy Hughes,
I'd reserve your comments for courses, holes and features that you're personally familiar with.  The issue is trees that intrude into the lines of play, trees planted long after the architect was planted, and not rough.  Keep it real, not hypothetical.
Pat, I appreciate your advice as I value your opinion.
But I think you bring up an interesting issue that goes well-beyond Pine Valley's 17th hole.  Your post to Tom Paul strongly implied that  you think it wrong/silly/absurd to be in the fairway and at the same time also have a tree impinging on the direct line to the hole.
Is that an accurate reading? If so, why do you think it is wrong/silly/absurd?  Along those lines, would it also be wrong to have a big hill in line with one edge of the fairway and the hole?
I ask because this is an issue I have gone back and forth on through the years, though I have reached resolution personally as I have decided that the issue of 'fairness' is highly over-rated in golf. But I am interested in your take on this
"Perhaps I'm incorrect..."--P. Mucci 6/7/2007

mike_malone

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Would Pine Valley still be #1 if ....
« Reply #161 on: November 30, 2004, 09:23:07 AM »
Isn't it a question of whether the hole was DESIGNED and built with no trees in the line of play? If it was designed for trees,so be it;if not,get them out of there.
AKA Mayday

Andy Hughes

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Would Pine Valley still be #1 if ....
« Reply #162 on: November 30, 2004, 09:33:22 AM »
Quote
Isn't it a question of whether the hole was DESIGNED and built with no trees in the line of play? If it was designed for trees,so be it;if not,get them out of there.
Mike, that seems to be a constant issue here-was something designed a certain way and if so, go back to that. But that assumes that a course as originally designed is as good as it can be, and I am not sure that is necessarily always the case.
But beyond that issue, I am trying to get to the 'is it fair' point-of-view of having a tree impeding the direct line from the edge of the fairway to the pin.  I gather your position is that if the architect originally designed it that way then it is fine, and if not then the tree(s) must go?
« Last Edit: November 30, 2004, 09:33:43 AM by Andy Hughes »
"Perhaps I'm incorrect..."--P. Mucci 6/7/2007

wsmorrison

Re:Would Pine Valley still be #1 if ....
« Reply #163 on: November 30, 2004, 09:55:48 AM »
I think there is a need for variety and for Pat to say that there shouldn't be trees blocking a shot from the fairway on a straightaway hole is a bit too restrictive.  

I, unlike many others on this site, think that strategic use of trees is a good thing in moderation.  And if trees block a line of play, even from the fairway, then the golfer shouldn't be in that part of the fairway and has made a strategic error or was not capable of controlling the shot to the level required.  With all the width at Pine Valley, this isn't such a limiting factor as to be considered onerous; another example of Pine Valley's uniqueness and that simplistic rules do not apply.

Take for instance the 11th at Pine Valley, a 392 yard par 4.  There is a straight line of sight between the tee and the green but the tree line on the left juts out creating an interesting shot demand from the tee.  There's plenty of fairway out to the left, but you will be blocked out from hitting straight for the green in a large portion of the left side fairway.  The fairway is there but not meant to played to.  With the mound and trees on the right, the timid player will compensate and aim left getting into some trouble on a short hole.

The left side of 17 is similar in effect to the left side of 11.  This is an even shorter par 4, 338 yards from the back tee with a green under 4000 square feet.  The hole demands precision and I think there's nothing wrong with penalizing a shot hit too far left even if it is in the fairway.  

Strategy and execution are constantly being tested at a course like Pine Valley and there's nothing wrong with the way it is currently set up.  Trees that choke hazards should be cut back and according to TEP they are.  To me, there is very little else the matter at PVGC.

Paul_Turner

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Would Pine Valley still be #1 if ....
« Reply #164 on: November 30, 2004, 10:18:06 AM »
Tom

If someone in the Philly area could research into Curtiss then there may be a whole series of aerials available.

The aerial is frustrating to me, because the most interesting region to see would be the back 9!
can't get to heaven with a three chord song

TEPaul

Re:Would Pine Valley still be #1 if ....
« Reply #165 on: November 30, 2004, 10:37:19 AM »
redanman:

I think you have an excellent point there about the removal of trees at PVGC being basically dictated by the health of the course's turf or perhaps even it's maximum potential health. I can pretty much assure you, though, that that is something PVGC and its maintenance dept pretty much concentrates on fundamentally and has done for a long, long time. If the encroachment of trees, whether intended by Crump or not, or appreciated by some as a pretty aesthetic, begin to corrupt the health of the course's turf, those trees will be gone.

It seems to me that some on here are beginning to question if PVGC understands the fundamentals of how to grow the best turf-grass they can given their situation down there with trees or whatever else they have.

I think I can pretty much guarantee that down there they understand those things at least as well and very likely far better than anyone else on here!   ;)
« Last Edit: November 30, 2004, 10:39:06 AM by TEPaul »

Paul_Turner

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Would Pine Valley still be #1 if ....
« Reply #166 on: November 30, 2004, 10:41:46 AM »


Here's the 1st from about 1916/17.  Is that mound in the trees, a bunker, or just a mound ;)

To answer Patrick question about the ponds.  They were definitely flooded before Crump died (at least for the 5th and 18th).  Again, from approx 1916/17.


« Last Edit: November 30, 2004, 10:42:41 AM by Paul_Turner »
can't get to heaven with a three chord song

mike_malone

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Would Pine Valley still be #1 if ....
« Reply #167 on: November 30, 2004, 10:43:03 AM »
 Andy,
     
   I use an example from my home course. The second hole has a deep bunker on the left of the green and a severe downslope off of it into the green. The designer did this when he anticipated recovery shots from the left rough. Later we planted numerous evergreens on the left. Now it is not possible to approach from the left side;and these don't even hang over the fairway.
   
       It is unusual for architects  to design around a SINGLE tree,usually it is a line of trees that they are dealing with.
AKA Mayday

TEPaul

Re:Would Pine Valley still be #1 if ....
« Reply #168 on: November 30, 2004, 10:46:03 AM »
Mike Malone:

One can basically almost count on one hand those areas of PVGC where trees get in the way of shot angles to greens or other appropriate targets from fairway areas.

I'm not a big advocate of trees used strategically in that sense, at least not down there, because it apparently never was that way, apparently not intended that way by Crump with one notable exception---#13. I certainly accept that as valid and I feel there's one other example that clearly was not intended by him but I feel it's really excellent---and that is #11. All the rest I'd like to see cleared back so they don't exist. But the only other possible examples are on #1, #9, #12 (way back in the fairway), #15 and #17.

Michael Wharton-Palmer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Would Pine Valley still be #1 if ....
« Reply #169 on: November 30, 2004, 10:51:32 AM »
This whole discussion about tree growth and difference between this aerial and that aerial is getting rather tiresome.
The fact remains that the intial question regarding the justification of the number 1 rating, is in most opinions without doubt.

With regards aerials, how about comparing Augusta National aerials from 70 years ago with todays, that suggests we should remove all those trees that make Augusta what it has become...who wants the task of doing that?
That is if you subscribe to that train of thought, because as Mr Mucci so clearly stated yesterday..what you do for one course should apply everywhere!!!

That may be taking this thread to far, but that is what some of the critisism of Pv on this thread has suggested.
Please somebody tell me when it was decided trees cannot be used as a form of strategy, what is wrong with a tree or trees being used to dictate the way a hole should be played?

If it is a problem courses like Sahalee really have a problem!

Paul_Turner

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Would Pine Valley still be #1 if ....
« Reply #170 on: November 30, 2004, 10:51:40 AM »
We can put a lower limit on the age of that 1920 aerial.  When was the Dormy House built and also one of the club histories has a pic of the central bunkers staked out.
can't get to heaven with a three chord song

TEPaul

Re:Would Pine Valley still be #1 if ....
« Reply #171 on: November 30, 2004, 10:52:18 AM »
Paul:

That first photo is interesting and it's date of 1916/17 would seem about right as per what I said on that other post this morining about what Crump was trying to do to perfect that hole and the strategic concept of it with that big bunker or complex on the inside of the dogleg on the right. It looks like that rough or seemingly dormant grass is exactly where that bunker complex now is. They were probably just about to do it when that photo was taken.

Dormy House (Morris Parrish's) was built in 1916.

"The aerial is frustrating to me, because the most interesting region to see would be the back 9!"

Paul:

No kidding! If that Curtiss plane that took that aerial was flying over the site in the winter of 1917 it would be very interesting to see what the state of #12-15 was at that time. If that photo was in the late winter to early spring of 1917 it wasn't many months until Crump was gone (Jan 1918). We shouldn't forget, though, that it wasn't just Crump fiddling around trying to figure out how to finish off #12-15, it was the WW1 period for American participation (19 months, from April 1917 until Nov 1918) and in that period very little construction labor went on. The men were mostly gone, and things like a "War Garden" were planted on what was to be #12. Even William Flynn was in the service.  
« Last Edit: November 30, 2004, 11:11:27 AM by TEPaul »

wsmorrison

Re:Would Pine Valley still be #1 if ....
« Reply #172 on: November 30, 2004, 11:21:03 AM »
Paul,

Flynn was familiar with Glen Curtiss, he designed a golf course, Opa Locka, for a large development city that Curtiss was building in FL complete with airport, zoo, train station, parks, etc.  Chances are that he met him or one of his employees while they were doing flyovers in the Philadelphia area.  There is a Curtiss museum, I'll call them and see if they know if/where aerial photographs are stored.

Andy Hughes

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Would Pine Valley still be #1 if ....
« Reply #173 on: November 30, 2004, 11:38:14 AM »
Quote
I use an example from my home course. The second hole has a deep bunker on the left of the green and a severe downslope off of it into the green. The designer did this when he anticipated recovery shots from the left rough. Later we planted numerous evergreens on the left. Now it is not possible to approach from the left side;and these don't even hang over the fairway.
Mike, it is not my contention that any and all trees should always remain no matter where they have sprung up or how big they may have gotten. But I amquestioning the notion that it is somehow wrong to be blocked by a tree(s) from taking a direct route to the pin from the edge of the fairway.  Would you also think it wrong to have a hill blocking one side of a green? Or would it be better if that section of fairway was turned into rough?

I am also questioning the idea that a tree or trees should remain where they are if the architect designed them to be there, and removed otherwise.  I think the criteria should be what contributes to making the hole and the course the best it can be.
Quote
It is unusual for architects  to design around a SINGLE tree,usually it is a line of trees that they are dealing with.
Yes, I suspect you are right, though I have seen plenty of instances of a single tree being incredibly strategic.
"Perhaps I'm incorrect..."--P. Mucci 6/7/2007

TEPaul

Re:Would Pine Valley still be #1 if ....
« Reply #174 on: November 30, 2004, 12:40:31 PM »
Andy Hughes:

Some on this website are so fanatical about not having trees on golf courses, either aesthetically or strategically, that they will not accept nor apparently even acknowledge the fact that the "dogleg" concept in golf and architecture (extremely common and highly strategic) primarily makes use of trees to acheive it's purpose and function!!! There's no better explanation of the "dogleg" concept using trees that I know of than A.W. Tillinghast's. Of course, as Tillinghast and others explain if you have not negotiated the dogleg successfully the penalty is you're blocked or somewhat blocked by trees, even if you are in some part of a fairway!!

Why do those tree hating fanatics feel this way? It's sort of hard to say but my personal opinion is, if they know something about golf architecture, they've become completely fixated by that old linksland idea that trees and golf did not go together at all ("hazards in the Sky" :) . They really didn't and don't have trees in the linksland but what those people are failing to acknowledge and accept is that quite some time ago golf and architecture migrated out of its original home--the linksland--and went on to other places in the world that do have trees.

William Flynn's thoughts and ideas on trees and golf and architecture, and when and where to use them and how, are very interesting and explanatory and in the process he wrote a statement that poked some pretty good fun at that old linksland mentality that trees and golf should NEVER co-exist.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2004, 12:42:45 PM by TEPaul »