Architectural planning and trees

[TEPaul]

Rich:

The subject of GMGC's teebox sycamore trees is a very interesting point and I'm glad you brought it up! I'll look more closely into this issue but I have my own feeling about it!

Certainly some kind of evidence that Ross was not totally opposed to the use of trees on golf courses in 1916-1919!

PS:

The subject of "framing" golf holes is another subject I think I'll bring up on here in a little while in an attempt to create some sparks on Golfclubatlas! If I'm not mistaken, I believe Flynn may have used the term (that obnoxious Tom Fazio term) as early as the late 1920s (and in writing).

My aim (like I'm sure yours is) is to debunk as many "myths" about some of these "Golden Age" guys as possible and to show them in a more realistic light!

If you want my feeling on why Ross called for sycamore trees as "teebox trees" (one on each side of the back teeboxes) I think it was a temporary shade thing for the golfers until Donald perfected his product line of 10-45 level sunblock skin lotion!

I have it on pretty good authority that Donald Ross had sort of a "Chicken Little" mentality or phobia and he thought the ozone layer was for shit and about to fall to pieces at any moment!

[Craig Van Egmond]

Tom,

    Whethered and Simpson also mentioned "framing" in The Architectual Side of Golf.

[TEPaul]

Craig:

They did? Amazing! Maybe Pat Mucci is right that there's a bias against TomF and Rees on here. They use the term "framing" and some act like they invented what's perceived to be a wholly obnoxious term and concept!

Are you sure Simpson and Wethered weren't talking about a picture "frame" for a photo of one of their early holes?

[mike_malone]

TEPaul
  In the GCA Feature Interview with Lincoln Roden,he quotes Flynn on trees.Flynn sees trees "forming picturesque backgrounds" and "segregating...holes".Pretty close to "framing" i would say.
   I also agree ,based on Rolling Green,that Flynn used strategy for existing trees and background or framing for plantings.

[RJ_Daley]

One has to consider the species of tree to estimate the impact of that tree on the golf shot and playability of the hole.  If the given task is to design a golf course through a stately old woodland property graced with a good variety of multi aged deciduous hardwood trees, one may want to grub out the fairways in such a manner to gain enough sunlight for fairways and generous rough width and greens-tee sites.  Then the archie would almost have to consider the remaining trees at key turning points into the golf course design if there are to be doglegs.  Normally on such sites, the archie can pick and choose from a number of trees that are at various growth stages and make a good estimate of the long term future growth and leave a couple of younger trees with a few older ones.  If the archie and developer are really wise and fortunate enough to have first rate hardwoods, they have a wonderful stock of wood for club house design and sale for top quality lumber.   Some sites can recover serious money from quality lumber.  

Then there are the sites as Ross found in the sand hill pine forests of N.C. There, they have old growth pines that have tall single trunks easily trimable to 15-20 ft.  After clearing the corridors, he could pick and choose how much to leave for hole seperation and routing the course.  The pine needles make an interesting playable surface from which to recover with punchy little carved shots.

I think the most objectionable thing we too often see is planting coniferous trees such as spruce where the growth habit is to have boughs and branches that grow low to the ground.  Those species generally are used for instant greenery and they grow fast.  With the high single trunk pines and hardwoods, one can have enough clearance underneath to get to your ball and play out of jail with approximately the 1/2 stroke penalty that Jim Kennedy speaks of.  But, with low growing spruce and the like, it is an abomination.  You generally have to either pluck it out and take an unplayable lie or some such.  

One can't ignore trees in GCA on inland-woodland properties. So whether they like it or not, the archies of old or new must deal with them and accept them as some factor of the strategy.  

[redanman]

redanman,
A tree can be no more a hazard than a bunker.


An arguable point, I generally disagree with that statement


If we accept the 1/2 stroke penalty from the sand why not the 1/2 stroke penalty from a tree?


I don't believe that they are equal


They occur more naturally than sand on many inland sites, cost less to maintain and add beauty and oxygen.



Once again, less options provided by the tree, usually



 
There are times when I have looked at a bunker positioned on the inside turn of a tree lined dogleg hole and thought it was  redundant, much like a tree growing out of a bunker.  



I couldn't agree more



 
When used sensibly around greens(not too close) they can add options. A player might have to make a decision to run under, fly over or wrap a shot around instead of just flying a shot in, sans tree. In that sense they require more thought than ever a bunker will cause.  

And remove options to use various skills.  Adding that third dimension of verticality, removes various dimensions of options.

 

Personal preference.  That's why we debate.

Again, don't care for trees determining strategy.  I can tolerate occasional ones; repeatedly over the course of a round, it becomes tedious (And I suppose the same can be said for sand and even more so for (UGH!) water).


"I hope it dies."     chipoat, www.golfclubatlas.com


"Let's bury the trees in the ponds." ? A.W.Tillinghast?  (They did fill in sacred "wetlands" in those days.)

[redanman]

Dick

I think few would argue for spruce trees to be anywhere near the line of play.

A tall leafy tree with branches away from the base is certainly better than a coniferous, ground-sweeping tree, agreed.

[Craig Van Egmond]

Tepaul,

     Would I kid you?

     Page 38 under the Putting Greens section:

     "A large green naturally has attractions for the player on account of its size. It is more attractive still if it is "framed" with a ring of hazards to set off its shape and character."

[SL_Solow]

re framing; there is little question that the "framing" concept was recognized prior to Fazio.  We have often noted that there is really very little that is truly new in this field.  The key difference, and the point at which many of us part ways with Fazio is the emphasis he places on framing.  One cannot help but being struck by the numerous references to the framing concept in his book as compared to the lack of strategic references.  The same observation could not be made about the "golden age" architects in their writings including Thomas, Colt, The Good Dr., Simpson & Wethered, Tillinghast etc

[TEPaul]

SL:

Maybe there isn't much new in golf architecture but as far as I know none of those old guys thought of contaniment mounding entire golf courses with D-8s but of course I could be wrong!

TomF implies though, that if they had known they would do it too and they'd also probably be jealous of him.

[SL_Solow]

Nice point Tom.  However I seem to remember Herb Wind in an essay on architecture which included speculation on future developments positing a tournament course with an elevated rail system circling the course slowly so that spectators could watch as they rode by or disembark at interesting intervals.  An even more radical form of containment mounding than those which are the subject of our mutual contempt!

[TEPaul]

SL;

The thing I believe I come to realize more and more everyday is everyone in golf architecture no matter how good they may have been, no matter how respected they are all made mistakes now and again and had a few goof balls ideas too.

Herbert Warren Wind was a great great writer with many great thoughts and ideas on architecture but that doesn't sound like one of them!

[Steve Curry]

BillV,

I was under a miserable little Christmas tree yesterday, 10 yards off the fairway, had to take unplayable

HWW must have been drinking with Walt Disney when he had that thought  

Tillinghast has both existing trees/woods on BHCC's plan, as well as trees that he intended to be planted.  Its seems that the plan wasn't followed on the planting rampages here back in the 50's, 60's and 70's.

Steve

[Steve Curry]

Actually you can see that Tillie had planned the trees around our 5th tee which I can say were not there when the course was built.  It seems as though he may have been both protecting from the errant shot and or framing.

Steve

http://home.pacbell.net/peterjg/bhcc45.jpg

[Mike Vegis @ Kiawah]

I like an occasional tree that makes you think and execute.
I think the one at #6 Inniscrone is a somewhat important feature of the hole. While probably a more psychological
hazard than anything, it makes a second shot to the green tougher for anyone who's pushed his drive to the right.

Any thoughts on the tree that fronts that great greensite @
The Ocean Course #3?

I've played The Ocean Course here on Kiawah probably over 100 times and I think I've only had that tree come into play once (when I was playing the whites when No. 3 played down wind and I was going for the green with my drive.  Hit the tree dead square, dropped straight down and was stimied by the tree trunk).

[HW]

What a great thread!  I end this day much more informed than when I woke.  

I've been 'gone' pretty much for 2 weeks and thoroughly enjoyed reading all these comments in one sitting.

TEPaul: Your knowledge, research and pragmatism is beyond reproach.  While I have great expectations, I may need to consult with you when my club finishes its Ron Pritchard trap/tree/length study.

[TEPaul]

HW:

Without reading through this thread again, I do recall posting this subject for basically one reason--to try to prove that despite some opinion to the contrary (and definitely on this website), some of the Golden Age architects were very interested in the use of trees on golf courses and for a variety of reasons. It's important, though, to understand exactly what those various reasons were by those architects.

However, having tried to point that out it's most important to understand why and how they recommended the use of them. I would also offer the very important caveat that trees on golf courses have also been massively misused, misplaced and misunderstood by many other people through the decades due to lack of overall architectural understanding.

I'd be happy to talk with you about your course and your plans but would caution you that I'm not an architect and to remind you of the very important specific advice of those same early architects to clubs and committees to ALWAYS consult an architect about these things.

Ron Prichard is a very good man and architect--he, as well as anyone, understands these older courses well, their architecture, their original intent and principles, and very much in the context of the thinking of those early architects who built those courses whether that had to do with trees or other things.

And none of us, even the architects, should ever forget to consider when planning the use of trees, particularly their placement for any reason, how big some of them can get after we're gone!