One solution for "stupid" trees

[GeoffreyC]

Jim - That's not true at all and CERTAINLY not to any extent equal to being stuck behind a stupid tree.  In fact even on #18 the rough is MUCH more of a factor in the play of your second shot then the slope of the hill in your way.  Given a lie that allows it you can ALWAYS play a club that can get up top (or the lower right side fairway) where you have an acceptable third shot into the green. A tree causes a boring pitchout to the fairway and nowhere on the course at Yale (or Pebble Beach) do hillocks, hills or dunes come into play in that manner. Furthermore, how could Tom MacWood know any of this if he has never seen or played the course.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Geoff,
I wasn't comparing it as exactly equal to a tree, just that it may require using a shorter iron than one might like. I am thinking of being way right and tight to the bottom of the hill. Even if it were mown to fairway height the choice of club for many would be, I feel, something well lofted to get up top.

  

[GeoffreyC]

Jim- The CLEAR implication of Toms statement was that hillocks, dunes and hills would/could come into play in a similar manner as do trees and examples of courses where that could happen were given. Natural landforms can clearly influence a choice of shots (note that a severe downhill lie to an uphill green is another example but it is hardly the same influence as a stupid tree) but nowhere at the course at Yale or Pebble Beach do natural landforms come into play in that manner.  On the 18th hole at Yale, a long 3 shot par 5, the hill before the split fairway on the 2nd shot will by itself due to height and slope and not a bad lie in the rough will never preclude reaching the green in three shots. That landform may prevent you from blowing a 3 wood to the downslope leading to the green leaving a wedge approach but you will be able to reach the green in regulation.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Geoffrey
No, I've not played Yale. Or Prestwick, R.St.Georges or St.Enodoc. I was thinking of the 18th at Yale as being a formidable vertical hazard (hillock) for those in the fairway - I'll take your word that I am mistaken. I was also thinking about the 6th at PBGL as another.

[TEPaul]

Why bother to try and find a hillock that may be as much of a vertical barrier as trees used to form a dogleg? The apparent reason some on here are looking to do that is to try somehow to justify trees as an alternative architectural feature in design. I'd suggest you don't need to do that. Trees as an alternative feature in golf design probably don't need your justification. Clearly to A.W. Tillinghast didn't think so.

One of the primary reasons to cite the quotations above from A.W. Tillinghast is to make the point that there can be and generally ARE distinctions and differences between trees and other kinds of features used in golf architecture!

That's the very reason he explained the distinctions in his examples between a "dogleg" type hole and an "elbow" hole! One you had an opportunity to drive over and the other you didn't!

Clearly, this distinction he felt added variety to design, and why would anyone disagree with that? They probably disagree with it because they don't feel like taking responsibility for not having a clear shot to a green after playing the preceding shot improperly regarding the dogleg concept (sometimes a tree barrier to be 'exceeded').

Again, Tillinghast's concept and explanation of a dogleg was a concept that used some obstruction (barrier) that a golfer could not play over and therefore had to "exceed" it or play out to the side of it for a clear shot but a longer one.

Certainly as we can see from Tillinghast's excellent chapter on this subject that there was more to all this than just using trees in design! The primary reason was courses were being built inland on wooded sites and the holes could be made interesting by "twisting" the holes and using trees too(Tillinghast's words). Twisting the holes amongst trees created playable interest and variety too (from holes and courses that had no trees) and at the same time the twisting of the holes (with the use of trees as an architectural feature for play) solved the problem of the dreaded "parallelitis" that was so common on some of the earlier courses.

Again, trees don't need the justification to exist in design of some other alternative feature that creates the kind of barrier obstruction that they do.

The fact that they can so easily create this kind of different situation in golf is much of why they themselves are interesting occasionally--they create additional variety from all the other alternative architectural features because they are different (more of a vertical barrier).

Plus, these really good and creative architects were always looking for efficiency of form and function in construction too. It was easier to use trees in interesting ways on wooded sites (twisting holes with trees) instead of cutting them down which was obviously time consuming and expensive!

But again his ideas on variety is the prime one to me--he (and many others that used dogleg holes) were always looking for new concepts that created variety in golf and to acheive that variety the differences of trees from other design features were part of their necessary ingredients.

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

Geoffrey et. al.

Let me rephrase Tom MacW's question:

"What if the Himalyas at Prestwick or the Dell at Lahinch consisted of a green hiding behind a copse of high thick trees 100+ yards away from your tee shot rather than behind a steep hill at the same distance?"

In these cases, the angle of slope would not matter.  Sure, the holes would probably be uglier, but in terms of their influence on strategy they would largely be the same, n'est-ce pas?

[GeoffreyChilds]

Rich- Very true until someone chunks a tee shot on your version of the dell just short of the trees.  There would be no way to get over their vertical canopy (although now you could have a ground approach to the green that was not possible with the hill).  This dilemma is not the case for recovery with the hole as it currently plays. Its a playability issue as I see it. We have had discussions of "strategic trees" in the past and there are certainly good examples.  The one I really like is at the elbow of the dogleg on the 6th at Westchester CC (a beautiful specimen Oak). At Pebble Beach the hill on #6 is a dramatic and formidable obstacle but it is NOT a vertical barrier even from up close (where your ball is never supposed to wind up).

n'est-ce pas?

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

Professor C

You are so right (or/ou ce n'est pas 'n'est-ce pas', n'est-ce pas?) vis a vis the trees.  I was just trying to get Tom MacW out of the hole (sic) he had dug himself into.

You have also got a LOT longer since I saw you last.  Driving to the bottom of the hill on 6 at Pebble?  You haven't been genetically modifiying yourself in your spare time, have you?

All the best

Rich

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

The question about landforms was based on Chipoats statement about "all trees need to be far enough back from the fairway and/or green so as to not impede the "straight ball" FROM THE FAIRWAY."

I was curious what was the difference between a hill or dune impeding the 'straight ball'? I have witnessed a straight ball on the rightside of the fairway at #6 PBGL being impeded by the land. And I'm surprised the same situation can not arise at Yale.

I also considered the famous Dell and Klondyke at Lahinch. As well as other famous golf holes like the 18th at Yale, the Alps and Himalayas, the Cader, and holes at Sandwich, Brookline, St.Enodoc and Burnham & Berrow.

[GeoffreyChilds]

Rich- The point is that I nor any other mortal can drive the ball to the base of that hill on #6 at Pebble. Therefore the normal second shot while formidable and intimidating is within the capacity of a player with reasonable skill.  Chunk a SECOND SHOT to the base of the hill and you still have a chance at recovery and advancing the ball a good ways towards the green. Not the case if you are behind trees. With the hill, your club selection very well could be limited but pitching the ball sideways or a very limited distance forwards is not necessary.  

Tom - Why are you surprised that from any spot in the fairway at Yale the hillsides do not prevent a ball from reaching a green in regulation on #'s 3 or 18 when you have never seen the golf course?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Rich, Geoff & Tom,

The answer is playability.

A ball hit onto a hill is usually playable to the green from that position.

A ball hit into a copse of trees blocking a green will probably be unplayable, and, will probably result in the next shot being unplayable as well.  The penalty for a mis-hit is mutliplied.

The inability to recover is the impediment.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

One of the differences of being blocked by a hillock and tree - on occasion you can go under the tree or even through it.

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

Geoffrey and Patrick

I did understand your points.  I'll use more smiley faces next time.

[ChipOat]

Tom Paul:

I have said on several occasions (including this thread) that trees which present problems from non-fairway places are fine.

In fact, I have called them Valid Trees (proper noun - capitalized) to differentiate them from the bane of my golf existence i.e. Stupid Trees.

Is your BIAS against my BIAS so strong that you are simply incapable of reading any of my opinions that you don't.... oh never mind.

Tom MacWood:

I will get back on this when I get a chance.  Had to set our Esteemed Doyen straight on the FACTS, though.  His attempt to validate the TEP School of Dogleg Design by reaching deep into the writings of an equally misguided A.W. Tillinghast is giving me heartburn, I'm afraid.

[TEPaul]

Well, now Chip--that last sentence of yours was exactly where I was sort of hoping this discussion might lead eventually!

You see, there never has been a TEPaul school of dogleg design! I've never built a golf course. But A.W. Tillinghast built a few and I was being careful to only cite his opinions on this subject, not my own.

It's absolutely crystal clear from both his drawings and his writings ("the ball must be driven app. 200 yds to 'exceed' the dogleg....and open up a clear shot to the green") that it's more than possible to be well within fairway area and still be in a position where you not only did not "exceed" the dogleg but you also do NOT have a clear shot to the green (or next ideal target) from that fairway area (since you can consequently be totally blocked by a tree barrier!)!

So henceforth it's not me that needs to be set straight on trees and the dogleg (because I haven't offered my own opinion on this), it's apparently A.W. Tillinghast that needs to be set straight!

If you'd like to keep disagreeing with Tillinghast I'd be glad to keep supplying you with his quotations.

All of this is just a continuation of my campaign to try to show through supplying hard evidence and documentation, how many of our present opinions differ and sometimes differ dramatically from those we otherwise claim to respect and venerate!

Or conversely, maybe once we find out more of exactly what  it was that many of them thought and did, maybe some of us won't think the likes of an A.W. Tillinghast is that worthy of respect.

Whichever way it ends up it should make for some interesting discussions!

[ChipOat]

Tom Paul:

Since I am without a Ouija Board, my conversations with Philadelphia's Tillie will have to be through his Esteemed Doyen disciple - your extremely deluxe self.  Based on what you've quoted, I would surely have a problem with an occasional hole or two of which he was undoutedly quite proud.

And that's OK.  After all, Pebble #18 is still a wonderful strategic hole despite being tarnished by TWO occurences of Stupid Trees.  Cypress #17 is another glaring example of a similarly blemished hole that is otherwise quite wonderful.  And both of those are superb courses.

Similarly, despite my poem about Pine Valley (which you have yet to compliment me on, BTW - did you even bother to read it?), the existence of Stupid Trees does not negate that course's exalted position as an acknowledged masterpiece of golf architecture.

Tom MacWood:

Your first question is, "why?".  I don't know exactly when it first occured to me that I didn't like "bunkers in the sky" after a good shot in the fairway.  It may have been in Florida 30 years ago on an undistinguished Mark Mahannah layout that had 2 holes with palm trees dead center.  But, if you know Deepdale (on LI), I can tell you that playing the 18th hole there a bunch certainly solidified my dislike of the genre.  It's all personal taste.  As I said to Doyen TEP, let us continue the discussion over cocktails, dinner, wine, brandy, cigars, etc.

Your second question was pretty much covered by Messrs. Mucci and Childs, but I'll elaborate.  Including #6 at Pebble, I've never seen a hill I couldn't negotiate "straight on" from the fairway with the proper club.  I've been required to play #6 at Pebble from the bottom of that hill twice in the 5 times I've been 'round that great course and I had no problem with the height of the hill.

It does happen that I'm not the biggest fan of blind shots anyway and neither the Alps or Himalya holes at Prestwick are my favorites.  Also, I find #3 at National much more compelling for the strategic nature of the tee ball and the wonderful green complex than for the "Alps" that must be negotiated on the approach.  In all 3 cases, though, the straight ball from the fairway with the required club (sometimes a 3 Metal at NGLA into a stiff wind) has never been a problem - with a good swing, at least!

I'll leave to Tom Paul and you to arrange the required dinner where we may continue this lively discussion.

[TEPaul]

Chip:

Dinner we will have and soon. Tell me your schedule, and we'll set it up by next week.

I'm definitely not suggesting your opinions, likes, dislikes, whatever, about the use of trees in architecture are not valid opinions just because someone like Tillinghast might not appear to agree with how you feel about them!

But certainly Tillinghast's opinions give us a very good point of reference to disuss the subject. And we're not irresponsibly assuming what he thought, we're quoting him!

But seriously, anything goes on this website, and I mean that. Discussion is best though when we can all delve in depth into some of the documented thinking of some of the venerated old guys!

But if you disagree with them, so what? It's always interesting if you or anyone else make an even better case for or against something in architecture than they did!

[HW]

Civility at its finest.

Golf brings that out in us, doesn't it?

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Chipoat
I haven't run into too many deciduous trees I couldn't negotiate in some way, perhaps not straight on, but around or under. Like a being at the base of a steep hill, you must judge the trajectory and perhaps take your medicine (even when in the fairway).

There are cases when you might be stymied at the base of a tree and you must chip out, but there also cases when you maybe stymied in a pot or up against bulkheads in a bunker (possibly in the middle of the fairway). Are those steep hazards also unfair? Is fairness the issue with trees. Why is water an acceptable hazard (perhaps in the middle of the fairway in the form of a stream or even a pond) and trees not acceptable?

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW:

When it comes to the comparative issue of fairness or penalty of trees as an alternative feature to be used by designers in golf architecture, there probably isn't a helluva lot of difference with some other alternative features like water hazards and such.

The issue here seems to just be that some golfers like Chip and redanman just don't like trees on a golf course to be used in strategic ways!

As far as actually explaining or proving why trees are less valid in some applications and in some ways in design (see Tillinghast's explanations) it seems like Chip and redanman are trying to fit a square block into a round hole.

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

I started this thread only because I saw a news story that I thought would be of interest to some, in a lighthearted sort of way.  I'm amazed at the legs it has , but that's life, and GCA.

However, the more I hear the apologists like Tom's I and II try to justify trees, the more I get into the camp of redanman and Chip, for the following reasons:

1.  If you've ever lived in treeland (the Northeast--I have, I grew up there) you will know that, unchecked, the whole bloody place will be infested with trees in a generation or so, not matter what the land looked like to start with.  I grew up on a place called "Pasture" Lane because it has been a pasture, and was in fact a barren field when my parents built their house..  30 years later it was a hardwood forest.
2.  So, golf courses are completely "unnatural" in this environment.  To build them you either have to find a pasture than has been cultivated for generations, or chop down a helluva lotta trees.  If you don't keep cutting them down, at the sapling stage (they are randy little buggers), they are going to take over your course, eventually.
3.  But not golf courses on links land, where trees can only really grow with either a wee bit of anomalous shelter, or through man's hand.
4.  So, in this environment, where golf started and was nurtured, trees were a pestilence, and not an architectural feature.  The fact that well meaning people call them the latter, in the US and elsewhere is only because they have no alternative.......except the obvious one--CUT all the bastards down!
5.  Sure you can rationalize a tree as a "feature" just as you can rationalize the Old Coures Hotel as a feature in St. Andresws.  In either case, they suck and are inimicable to the game.

How many other people on this site would love to see places like Merion and Pine Valley and Cypress Point and NGLA and Olympic COMPLETELY naked!  Bring us your architecture only then, bitches!.........to quote the legenday curious JJ........

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Trees have been a part of golf for a very long time. Horace Hutchinson was the first - I'm aware of - who wrote about there historical use as a strategic hazard, and that was before the turn of the century. I was surprised to learn that North Berwick was a links course bordered by trees and it appears there were a number of links courses where trees played a limited role.

[ChipOat]

Tom MacWood:

Your questions are excellent but require too much effort to answer and still remain employed.  I don't know where you live but you need to attend the same dinner w/Tom Paul where I attempt (yet again) to set him (and now you) straight.

My fast answer is that I don't care for bunkers actually IN the fairway, either.  For this reason, #10 at Garden City Golf isn't my favorite hole on earth.

Tom Paul:

Your square peg/round hole comment is provocative enough to require further articulation (and you DO have the time).  What do you mean by that?  What is the "square peg" that redanman and I have in our mindset and, most importantly, what is the "round hole" (which is usually the bigger picture thing) that you seem to be implying is more credible than our square peg?

Please articulate - no "hit and run" comments (regardless of FACT or BIAS) are permitted under the protocol.

[TEPaul]

Chip:

Why don't you like bunkers in a fairway? Perhaps you think that if a golfer hits the ball anywhere in a fairway he should really have no obstacles to consider except possibly something near the destination of his next shot.

It seems to me that great architects used a series of features (so numerous as not to be able to list all here) to create overall strategies on holes that connected well with each other. To do that clearly they have to connect shots to each other with architecture or relatively ideal shots so golfers will then tend to think in whole hole strategies instead of merely individual single shot consequences! Behr said it best, I think, that the idea is to do things to avoid some 'future liability'!

The relative lack of interest it seems to me in some of the so-called "road-mapping" that some architects get into is this individual shot requirement or consequence that's completely in an of itself resulting in basically clearly showing the golfer to hit it here and then here and then here with the result that failing to do that at any point along the way is instant penalty.

It probably seems to you that what I'm saying basically endorses your idea of not really using trees to create strategy as without them it would appear a golfer has even greater freedom of expression (which I surely do believe in as Behr did) but we all have to recognize that even freedom of expression has to have risks and some form of price to pay to be taken seriously even in the theory in golf of "freedom of expression".

Trees used to create strategy in a dogleg context at least have the benefit of two very good and basic options and choices involved in their design--to "exceed" the dogleg with a long shot down the inside (of the dogleg) to create a shorter next shot or a shot well away from the inside that would create also a straight next shot but a longer next one (and many degrees of the spectrum between the two!).

In this way the dogleg concept, trees or some other obstruction ("If it be impossible to carry OVER this obstruciton" (Tillinghast)), that cannot be carried over, at least make the golfer pay some price by failing to execute either of two very valid "golfer choices" (that might require a greater amount of golfer consideration as to what he can or can't do instead of the one dimensional "road mapping" (ie hit it right down the middle and as long as you're in the fairway there's nothing to worry about on that shot or as it relates to the next one).

Maybe the square peg/round hole analogy is not a good one with you and redanman--I certainly don't mean it to be rude but provocative I'll take!

What I mean by that is we're all trying to make valid points in architectural theory and principle here, as we understand it, at least I think we are.

As yet I can't see that either of you have made a valid architectural point in the context of architectural theory or prinicple. You might consider discussing how Tillinghast was wrong (or not completely right) in his thinking with his quotes I offered you on trees and doglegs!).

You have simply said that you don't like trees in strategy (at least generally you seem to imply that). By saying only that (that you don't like them) doesn't prove much though in the context of architectural priniciple and theory, in my opinion.

Tillinghast is certainly a well respected architect with plenty of courses that have stood the test of time and plenty of courses that used his theories on doglegs and trees to long lasting success, it would seem.

I'd like to see you both create some kind of logic about how those theories and principles and products of his (in the context of doglegs and trees) really should never have been considered valid and shouldn't today!

If you can do that, I'd be delighted to agree with you, I'm sure, on your thoughts about trees and architecture and that they should not be considered in golf architecture and its strategies!

But of course it's not important or necessary that I agree or not but it will be interesting anyway to hear you debate Tillinghast's and Flynn's thinking in this vein. I'm well aware what some of the Scots and the early immigrant Euro architects said about "hazards in the sky" but I'm also aware of exactly how and why some of the later architects tried to make the case that particularly in the more common inland designs those early thoughts were 'passe'.

[ChipOat]

Tom Paul:

Your first paragraph hits my nail on the head - hit a fairway and one deserves a shot that hasn't been penalized more than a "wrong side/right side" impact.  That's me in a nutshell.

As to defending my position, how does one do more than argue an opinion based on BIAS (which I certainly have)?  There are no FACTS here as to whether Tillinghast or Oat is right or wrong.  Only strong preferences on both our parts.