Why no love for trees?

[Tim Gavrich]

While I agree that tree removal in the restoration-to-former-glory of old classic courses is a good thing, why do some people just dismiss them outright?  I do not see trees as an inherent nuisance at all.  They are just obstacles that must be avoided.  And unique obstacles at that, when used properly.  But it seems to me that heavily tree-lined courses seem to get a bad reputation.  

I have seen derision of this sort with regard to the Northwoods Club, that nine-holer amongst the mighty redwoods of northern California.  In the pictures I've seen, those huge trees look not irksome, but spectacular.  I definitely want to play Northwoods, based on the presence of such incredible arbors.  I believe that no other courses of its kind can ever be built, based on the endangered status of those trees.  So what if the corridors are barely wider than a few especially rotund persons standing shoulder-to-shoulder?  The course is only 2856 yards, so it looks like one need not swing out of one's shoes.

My kind of course!

[mike_malone]

 Tim,

   That is interesting. My recollection was that on a thread about Northwoods there was uniform love for those trees. I , for one , who am no fan of trees in general thought the stately redwoods were awesome.

[Kyle Harris]

Tim,

The major problem I have with trees is agronomic. If not carefully considered, they are a mess (especially pine trees) and work against what a groundscrew sets out to do.

They also tend to be a crutch of green committees bent on making a course harder by narrowing the playing corridors.

It's the application I don't like, not the presence.

[PThomas]

Tim  - I am also not so anti-tree as many on here appear to be..

maybe they are all just people who can't hit it straight off the tee


JUST KIDDING!!!?COULDN"T RESIST!!!!

[redanman]

It's the application I don't like, not the presence.

May I quote you on that?

Perfectly concise - the way I prefer it.

[Kyle Harris]

Go for it.

Mr. K-Y-L-E H-A-R-R-I-S  

[Paul Payne]

I tend to like trees most of the time. This is not to say I don't get frustrated by them.

I sometimes play Keller in St. Paul, past home of the St. Paul open. Built in 1929 all the greats used to play there in the 40's, 50's, and 60's. The photo gallery itself is worth the visit.

The fairways are lined on each side with modest sized Maple and Oak trees, just a single row. They exact a great penalty. If you get into or behind the tree line you will almost always find your ball in a playable lie. The problem is that you will almost never find much opportunity to advance the ball. Most will require some kind of punch back into the fairway.

I think this is an excellent application of trees. It is not so harsh as to cause you to lose a ball or take an unplayable, but you will certainly pay some kind of price for your errant shot.

Ther is also a famous par three with a FULL sized Oak tree right square between the tee and the green. it is intimidating to say the least, especially if you cannot get the ball into the air. If you execute the shot however, you will find that the ball will clear the tree effortlessly and land safley on the green. Maybe a tad gimmicky, but very fun.

 

[Tyler Kearns]

Kyle,

Well put. I think clearing trees to widen playing corridors and improve agronomic conditions is extremely beneficial, and results in a golf course that is more enjoyable to play. I do not understand the wholesale clearing of all trees on golf courses, namely the recent work at NGLA and Oakmont. Visually, I liked the tree behind the green at NGLA #15, it was not in play and did not rob the green of early morning sunlight.

TK

[Tom Huckaby]

Tim:

As one who has participated in the various discussions of Northwoods on here, I'll just say my recollection was not that anyone ever derided the course because of the trees - in fact I don't think the course ever was derided at all.  What I said, and others agreed with, is that the spectacular huge trees there are the BEST part of a course that is otherwise not that big of a deal, not worth particularly going out of one's way to see - but if one does play it, well prepare to be blown away by some awesome trees.

As for the general take on tree-lined courses, I believe the feeling is against courses that aren't meant to be that way that become that way do to overplanting and/or underpruning.

You know, like Kyle says.  

[Kyle Harris]

Expanding on Tom's (and other's) point is when new tree plantings choke off and ultimately kill or severely inure the larger, statelier specimens already on site.

Rolling Green GC in Springfield, PA is one of the more egregious examples of this in action. A lot of the old Elms and Oaks from the Flynn era were chocked off by new pine and smaller tree plantings through the years.

Especially in the 15 and 18 corridor.

[Tommy Williamsen]

I have a love/hate relationship with trees.  They do help define a hole's routing but they also limit how a hole might be played.  I am beginning to wonder if there should be 'hazards' in the air. Our course felled almost 1000 trees a number of years ago and no one complained.  In fact many did not notice the trees being gone, but they did notice that the conditioning got better

[mike_malone]

 Kyle,

   While I certainly agree with your general statement about trees at Rolling Green (it is my passion!) I don't agree that the problem is with new pines or plantings in the 15-18 corridor. The problem areas are more #2,#4, #5, #7 , #11, #12.

   A significant amount of work has been done over the last five years and those who made it happen are to be given credit.

   As I told our new greenkeeper (who has religion BTW) "The war over the trees is over but we still have a few more battles to go."

    Based on my last visits I think Mannies and Philmont have more problems that are affecting strategy by the green (Philmont) or evergreens on the outside of doglegs (Mannies-pre Forse).

   The Rolling Green tree issue is becoming old news more everyday.

[tonyt]

Kyle, let me add my name to the list of those who love your succinct quip.

I love courses with 10,000 beautiful trees on them. I hate courses with one single tree unintentionally weakening a hole's positives or design merit by having an influence it was not originally intended to have.

[Kyle Harris]

Kyle,

   While I certainly agree with your general statement about trees at Rolling Green (it is my passion!) I don't agree that the problem is with new pines or plantings in the 15-18 corridor. The problem areas are more #2,#4, #5, #7 , #11, #12.

   A significant amount of work has been done over the last five years and those in charge are to be given credit.

   As I told our new greenkeeper (who has religion BTW) "The war over the trees is over but we still have a few more battles to go."

Mike,

I was hoping you would chime in with the specifics. 15 and 18 are the only two that stuck out in my mind and the reason they did was the changes made between the photos in Wayne's MHC and what I saw this past season the 4 times I was there.

Has the area between 9 and 12 been cleared? To me, that was probably the worse of the areas with Pine Trees. The are behind 4 green seemed pretty awful too.

It's good hear the issue is becoming old news, and I hope you and Andy don't take my post as an indictment of the club. Manny's is a prime example of another course with Tree Removal needed, and I believe Scott May is aware and slowing working on the issue.

Lulu across the street has done a wonderful job with three management under the eye of Steve Fillmeyer (sp?) and Ron Forse.

[Jim Adkisson]

As a proud tree-hugging liberal from the forest country of the Great Northwest, I have to say that I usually love trees on a golf course...In fact I have often stated that "the trees are my friends"...this is due to their fabulous ability to have an errant orb bounce back into or towards the fairway when the unbelievable ineptitude of the player deserves to have his (my) ball go further into the crap or even out of play altogether...That being said, I am impressed that John Zoeller of the city of Portland golf program has had a number of trees at Eastmoreland and Rose City either removed or the bottom 5-6 feet of the cedars and firs trimmed...this should give better air circulation and make for better turf as well as allowing the player to have an ability to play recovery shots to the fairway and sometimes even the heroic recovery to the green....It's tough to see your "friends" felled but if it makes for better playing conditions, I will just hoist a Black Butte Porter to their memory at the 19th hole.

[Tim Gavrich]

Tim:

As one who has participated in the various discussions of Northwoods on here, I'll just say my recollection was not that anyone ever derided the course because of the trees - in fact I don't think the course ever was derided at all.  What I said, and others agreed with, is that the spectacular huge trees there are the BEST part of a course that is otherwise not that big of a deal, not worth particularly going out of one's way to see - but if one does play it, well prepare to be blown away by some awesome trees.

As for the general take on tree-lined courses, I believe the feeling is against courses that aren't meant to be that way that become that way do to overplanting and/or underpruning.

You know, like Kyle says.  

Gentlemen--
    Mea culpa on this one.  Big time.  I completely misread a post from the most recent thread about Northwood.  It said:

"If ever there was a course that should never do any tree removal this is it. "

I skimmed the thread very quickly, and apparently I construed the complete opposite of the intention of that quote.  My bad.

But still, I do find trees to be integral parts of certain golf courses.  Case in point, my home course of Hop Meadow CC in Simsbury, CT.  A couple years ago, there was quite a bit of grumbling (justified) about the conditions of the course.  So, the super decided to get rid of a bunch of trees; he axed some from each hole.  As a result, the course does not possess as much of a shotmaking challenge as it did previously.  On #3, a great short uphill par 3, a tree that overhung the left side of the green was cut down, which makes the shot far less interesting, in my opinion.  On #6, a par 5 that was previously a half-par hole, had a bunch of trees removed down both sides of the fairway.  This made the hole much easier--too easy, I thought.  Also, the conditions have not improved all that much.

[Tom Huckaby]

No hassles Tim.  The trees at Northwoods are pretty amazing.  The wineries nearby are quite nice also.

 

And you make a good point about trees.  At some courses they are an integral part of the design.  Of course given the relatively short lives of trees and the susceptibility to getting felled by natural causes, doesn't it make sense that designs with trees as such integral parts are just asking for trouble?

Think about #18 Pebble.  I love the hole and don't mean this as a knock - but the tree by the green is such an important part of the hole, well when it died they had to pay millions to import a new one.  That to me is not good practical design.

TH

[S. Huffstutler]

Golf isn't played in the woods and grass doesn't grow in the forest.

Steve

[Mike McGuire]

If it's NATIVE and not in the way it should stay.
If it's ornamental it can go away.

[A_Clay_Man]

Tim,

Perhaps you can begin to understand the lack of fondness for trees as design elements, from the responses so far.  What it boils down to is that courses that need to plant trees and grow long rough are hiding or attempting to hide, their inherent flaws.
I'm not the anti-tree preacher some on here are, and believe that occasional use of trees is an acceptable practice. But if we view it as a breaking of a design rule, then it is sure to be limited.

On courses without those flaws, yet have had those weak elements forced upon them, removing them can open up, not only the air for circulation, but the creativity of the golfers. Who, BTW,will now get to decide how, likely reducing the how many.= more fun.

[Paul Payne]

Adam,

I understand what you are saying and in some vague way agree, however, are you suggesting that a tree line should NEVER be used as a design element or natural hazard?

[A_Clay_Man]

No Paul, im not saying never. Just sparingly.

IMO Pete Dye over did it, on the new middle nine at Blackwolf run. (Hopefully u r familiar)

On the original course he had it just about correct, only using them on "unter der linden", "Gottcha" and "Nature's course". Now they are dominate in the design, and it has suffered for it.

[Paul Payne]

Adam,

I am not familiar with the new nie at BWR. I think I understand what you mean though.

Here is what I think of as good use of trees. Most new high end courses have planty of acerage to use. A lot of older courses however needed to be packed into a much smaller footprint. On these courses it is common to have a tree line seperating the fairways. This serves three purposes;

1) Discourages players from playing up another fairway
2) Visually seperates the view from the tee
3) Acts as a hazard for errant shots

There are other times I think trees are good however, here is what I think of as bad use of trees

1) To extend a doglegs penalty (especially when blind)
2) When they have grown far beyond the original concept
3) Simply to create narrow corridors

I do agree with you that on most modern courses where they may not be as necessary, you could overuse them or use them as a crutch.

[Andy Troeger]

Adam,
  I partially agree with you regarding BWR...however I do think that #9 and #11 are good uses of trees on that middle 9 that you mention. However #12 and especially #13 do over-do things as you said.

  One thing I do like about all the trees on that course, is that they make the place more unique than it would be otherwise. #13 is a hole which I (somewhat thankfully) have never seen anywhere else!

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

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.