Tim,

Because almost all of the trees planted after golf courses opened were located by green committees that didn't consult with the original architect.  

The people siting the trees usually lacked the vision necessary to determine the architectural impact of "mature" trees, 20, 30, 40 and more years into the future.

They tended to be totally unaware of the harm done to the nearby turf, especially greens, tees, as well as bunkers.

They were also unaware of their impeding nature when it came to air circulation and sun light.

When you factor in indescriminate planting, to a well designed golf course, the results usually result in the dimunition of the architectural values and playability of the golf course.

Hurricane Wilma removed many of the non-indigenous species planted by "northern" green committees on golf courses in South Florida.  Hopefully, misguided green committees won't attempt to replant them.

I'm not disputing the claim that trees can take away from the architecture of golf courses.  I just get the feeling, sometimes, that people begrudge trees their very existence on golf courses.  There tends to be dismissal of their merits as strategic obstacles without any consideration.  This is part of the reason, I think, that some people give Sand Hills as much credit as it gets.  Granted, I've not played it, and am sure that it is indisputably one of the very very best golf courses in the world.  But, does the dearth of trees add a bit to its "Boo-Yah" factor?  It seems plausible, if those select audience members are big-time links-golf-purists, to whom wind is the divine spirit of all golf architecture.

I know it may sound crazy, but I think the litmus test for a truly excellent golf course is how it would play on a calm day, with nary a breath of wind to shove balls around.

Mr. Gavrich,

I am a fairweather friend of trees myself and have tried to defend their use on a course within this thread, however, if you truly feel that Sand Hills is favored so highly among golfers simly because it has not trees, then your opinion has suddenly lacked all credibility, and you will not do anything to further the cause of our mute shrubbery.

Mr. Gavrich,

I am a fairweather friend of trees myself and have tried to defend their use on a course within this thread, however, if you truly feel that Sand Hills is favored so highly among golfers simly because it has not trees, then your opinion has suddenly lacked all credibility, and you will not do anything to further the cause of our mute shrubbery.

I did not mean anything of the sort.  I was merely suggesting that for some people, a lack of trees on a golf course may be a factor when considering the greatness of said course.  Don't get me wrong, to play a round of golf at Sand Hills would be an incomparably wonderful experience.  Perhaps it was not a good example, now that I think about it.

To sum up, all I am saying, is "give trees a chance."

 Menage A Trois at Lulu---a common event

I am beginning to wonder if there should be 'hazards' in the air.

  Considering that nearly every struck ball, except those putted, flies through the air, I feel that appropriate trees are essential for mixing up the defences on flattish ground and parkland courses.  

Personally,I tend to like groving of trees; not the lining up of them between holes.  This allows the trees to be forestlike without being confining or invasive to turf and play.

  Barona Creek in SoCal is a terrific example of thoughtful selection and arrangement.  

 Tom, I wonder if an IRS agent raised his eyebrows for that deduction. Or is he a member now?