[Jason Blasberg]

Does anyone have an idea of how many trees have been removed at Inwood over the past several years?  

I was at the property today and some of the holes seemed more open but it's hard to tell what's been cleared.  Someone at the Club told me it's still an ongoing debate so I took that to mean there may still be some removal ahead, which is sorely needed IMO in a few locations, such as the trees choking off fairway bunkering between 2 and 3.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jason,  

Inwood is one of those hidden gems that has the benefit of wind off the water.

I would think that tree removal would be beneficial in many ways, but, at some clubs, tree huggers and tree planters remain active and opposed to removing trees only planted 30, 40, or 50 years ago, long after the golf course opened.

[Gene Greco]

Jason:

    Played there last in 1975 with Johnny Miller. That is, Johnny Miller in his prime.

I remember his comment, " Boy, you can't miss it by much here." He was 4 under for the six holes we played together.

Inwood is etched in my memory as THE most claustrophbic golf course I have ever played.

I will make an effort to see it again soon as you have rekindled my interest and curiosity with your post.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Gene,

I think you'll like Tom Doak's work there.

Brad Klein is very familiar with the club, its architecture and history.

It's a wonderful club that unfortunately was affected by neighborhood encroachment, and, it's a little remote, but, a wonderful golf course and a spectacular old clubhouse loaded with history.

[Robert Mercer Deruntz]

I play there every year in some sort of tournament.  Though it could lose another 50 or so trees, it probably had a few hundred removed.  Holes 12 --15 were thoroughly cleared.  It is a true hidden gem--Herbert Strong--enough said.  Another restoration of Strong's is pretty much complete--a certain friend has promised to post the pictures soon.

[Jason Blasberg]

Robert:

It could easily lose another 1,000-1,500 trees.  

BTW, the 8th green is one of the most undulated yet balanced greens I've seen on relatively flat terraine.  

4 green also looks like it's received some bunker work, it's looking more perched  up than I recall.  

There are about 20 trees that could be removed around #10 alone (the shortest hole in US Open history).

My Great Aunt Eva used to live off of 12 fairway and I recall running around the course at night as a kid with my cousin.  The neighborhood has changed a bit but it's still a sweet little spot and clearly worth a look.  

The full Manhattan Skyline view approaching 1 green and standing on 2 tee and the planes landing and taking off from JKF are certainly unique.

Jason

[Robert Mercer Deruntz]

Jason,  I agree that it could lose that many, but 50 would make a hell of a difference.  Your club had much better room between fairways, so after battling the tree-huggers, there was the potential to better separate the holes.  By the way, how was the reception to the course in the Richardson this year?  Last year you had some less than inspiring weather.

[Andy Hughes]

I was fortunate to play there four years ago--I was shocked how little I had heard of the place.  Had much of the tree removal already taken place by then?  Unlike Gene, I did not have a claustrophobic sense of the place so perhaps it had.

[David Mulle]

Greetings all,
   I just joined the website today and I thought I would begin by adding my two cents to this topic:

The club has given a lot of thought to the proper maintenance policies.  There has been a concerted effort to firm up the fairways and greens and remove many of the excess trees.  

The greens committee has done a very good job of educating the membership about what changes they are making and what to expect in the future.  Almost every letter from the greens committee tells people that it is natural for the course to be brown.  Even with the increased communication, there is still resistence from parts of the membership but progress is being made.

This winter there were trees removed from the areas around the 11th and 17th greens.  The main reason those trees were removed was to increase the sun that those greens received.

One of my favorite sections of the course is 13, 14 and 15.  On those three holes, the trees were completely cleared a number of years ago.  At one point, there was a tree almost directly in front of the 15th tee which was a par 5.  As a result you were forced to play an iron off the tee.  Once that tree was removed, the hole became a very interesting par 4 that is heavily influenced by the wind.  Into the wind it is a great 1/2 par hole.

There is certainly more that could be done.  In particular, if more trees were removed between the 3rd and 4th fairways, it would bring the bunker on the approach to the fourth green more into play.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

David Mulle,

Why hasn't the 18th green complex and fronting water been restored to their inter-related configurations circa 1923 to commemorate a historic date, tournament and shot heard round the world ?

One would think that the club would want to memorialize that event by restoring that hole rather than settling for a hybrid.

Are there any plans to restore the hole to its 1923 configuration ?

Thanks

[David Mulle]

Patrick,
I have not heard of any such plans - but I am not on the greens committee.  I agree it is a great idea.  There is a picture in the clubhouse that shows the green during the '23 Open.  If the green was extended towards the water it would create some very interesting pin positions.

[Patrick_Mucci]

David Mulle,

I'm familiar with the picture and questioned Tom Doak several years ago as to why the 18th green complex wasn't restored to it's 1923 configuration.

Tom did a nice job at Inwood, but, I felt it was incomplete without a true restoration of # 18.

The picture provides a perfect roadmap for a restoration.
It would seem a simple task to just duplicate what's depicted in the photo.

The hole, and Bobby Jones's shot in the U.S. Open enjoy a unique position in the history of golf in America.
Why wouldn't the club want to recapture that fame and glory in the form of a true restoration ?
Doesn't a plaque exist on the right side of that hole commemorating the shot ?

It would be interesting if you could converse with members who were on the restoration project committee when the work was done, to see why # 18, such a historic hole, was left unrestored to its 1923 configuration.

Some old time members were friends of my family, but, they now reside in the fairways in the sky.

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick:  The 18th wasn't rebuilt because I did not suggest it at the time.

We have not rebuilt any of the greens at Inwood to date, only changed the mowing lines on them to expand most to their former size.  Greens reconstruction is very expensive.

Changing the lines of water hazards is an even more involved proposition today, what with all the regulatory bodies who might want to have their say.

We are still consulting at Inwood -- there are still trees on our list, and the club is looking toward some major work in the future to get the practice range above water and up to modern standards.  If we get into major construction again we might look at "restoring" the 18th, although to be honest, I do not remember precisely what that would entail.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

From my recollection, it wouldn't seem to involve much.

Just bringing the green to the water as opposed to bringing the water to the green would seem to do the trick.

That way, no permiting should be required.

It's been a while since I examined the photo in the clubhouse, but, it seems that the green has shrunk, far back from its 1923 configuration, and that mowing/restoring the green back to the water would be a fairly accurate representation of the green circa 1923.

David Mulle,

Can you post the 1923 picture of that green or confirm its 1923 relationship to the water based on your examination of the photo ?

[Andy Hughes]

Pat, I am almost sure Tom MacWood posted a picture of the 18th green last year.  It was taken from long and right and well above the green.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Andy Hughes,

Was it a recent picture, or one circa 1923 ?

It's the 1923 pictures that are important.

[Andy Hughes]

Pat, sorry, I don't know the year, but it was from quite some time ago. It may well have been from the 1920's.  I do remember being struck by both the size of the green and the lack of trees--from my one playing there, the green seemed much smaller and more surrounded with good-sized trees.

[Andy Hughes]

Pat, I found the earlier thread here

Unfortunately, Tom's pictures are not viewable, at least for me.

[Tom_Doak]

Pat:  I will look at that the next time I'm there.

If the green has shrunk a lot, and it shrunk a long time ago (1930's to 1950's), it might be pretty involved to restore the fairway to putting surface ... the greens have been aerified and topdressed with sand for years, the approach probably not.  But we'll see.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()