The back tees & fairness

[Scott Witter]

When considering the playability of holes on an existing course that is heavily tree lined and knowing that tree removal is going to be a royal battle with the greens committee and the members in general, do you think it is 'fair' to ask members using the back tees to shape their shots around certain trees, to "save" them and at the same time remove trees that affect the game from the members tees?  I realize there are many more very good reasons to remove trees, we all talk about them and I agree with them, but just consider this question for the moment.

[JESII]

To your exact question, No.

To the situation, yes, so long as the reasoning is consistent.

[MargaretC]

do you think it is 'fair' to ask members using the back tees to shape their shots around certain trees, to "save" them and at the same time remove trees that affect the game from the members tees?

Scott:

I seldom post because I'm on novice on the subject of GCA; however, I'm a long time golfer who loves the game.

Is it fair?  Probably not, but what does fair have to do with it?  IMO, fair has nothing to do with it.  It is what it is.  Choose to play from different tees; persuade the Green Committee to your perspective or choose to play a different course.

Life, etc., isn't fair and more folks would reduce the stress and frustration in their lives if they stopped looking for fair in all aspects.

[JESII]

Margaret,

I read his "fair" question as being politically motivated as opposed to strategic. Is it "fair" to tell one set of players that certain trees had to come out for playability while another set of trees need to stay because of the club politics about removing trees at all? How do you sell a partial tree removal program to this particular membership?

p.s. Agree 100% with your position on fairness while playing.

[George Pazin]

Since it's always the low handicappers that want to make the course harder, it seems eminently fair to me.

[JESII]

Scott,

Since George is always betting people on reading comprehension skills   and Margaret read your question the same way, and I can hardly read the story on the back of my morning Rice Krispies without fouling it up, I ask you; are you asking about strategy or politics?


Just to be out front, my answer is yes if for strategic reasons, no if for political reasons.

And that fence is really starting to hurt.

[Scott Witter]

JES II:

Thanks for your deep and thought provoking response.   ;)Can you elaborate on what your idea of consistent reasoning would be?

Margaret C:

Loving the game is good, not posting more...not sure why you don't, for you seem to have no problem giving me your straight away opinion.  Thanks.  Perhaps "fair" wasn't the right word to use, but nevertheless lets stay with it for the moment.  "It is what it is"  I guess so though not completely sure what you mean, but I think you are not considering the economics of what this statement (and I think you need to)  can bring to a private club, MANY of which are struggling to survive.  Tree removals, as are many other types of improvemnent projects, can be sensitive to retaining existing members and attracting new ones, irregardless of the fact that tree removals are more often that not a very good thing to do.

"Choose to play from different tees"  I don't think that is a realistic option, say if you are a 5 handicap or better...do you really think these players should play forward from the members tees?  I could/can hopefully pursuade the committee to understand my professional viewpoint through many examples, etc., but I don't think telling them or the members to play a different course will work, though I realize (sorry) that I didn't say in my original post that this was a private course.

Okay, so can we move past the "fairness" aspect of the question and look more directly at the playing charactistics and shot requirements and base our view on the varying skills of the players from each tee?  

[Scott Witter]

JES II:

I didn't read your most recent reply before I just posted...but  yes, my question is somewhat related to a political situation for how can it not be when considering tree removals on a private club.  For me, it is all about getting those damn trees removed. How I achieve it is partially irrelavent, but it is my responsibility I believe to explain it to the members so they can understand the scenario and accept it as something that is good for the course and it may in fact help their games as a bonus.

I am also considering strategy/playability, for many holes are quite interesting and I could see keeping some trees that would require the better players to shape their tee shots just a bit and yes, politically, it could prove valuable to help sell the plan in other respects.  Is that such a harm?

Oh yeah, come down from upon that fence, it does look a bit uncomfortable

[Scott Witter]

BV:

I agree with you in principle, but the reality of the matter is that this isn't my course and there are economics involved as well as agronomics and play aspects, so these must be taken into consideration and weighed against the question at hand to make the course the best it can be at this moment in time.  Remember, it is a living thing and as the consulting architect I can always keep coming back with more tree removal thoughts as the board changes every two years.

Sean:

I agree to an extent with favoring if at all possible, the various tree species after an objective review of each situation has been done, but like you, I can think of many courses where I would remove without any concern all of the Willows, Silver Maples and Cottonwoods I could find, no matter what their size or location.

[JESII]

Scott,

I think leaving trees in a position that forces the players on the back tees to work the ball one way or another is great. Whatever can be done to ask the player to do something his equipment is designed to not let him do is a good thing as far as challenging the better players IMO.

I also think there can be very effective methods of educating a membership on the value of deforestation. Setting up that game plan is situation specific and you seem to have a pulse on this particular situation.

Consistent Reasoning: being able to explain to all members what the goal of your program is. ie: create healthier turf through deforestation.
Opposite of: selectively removing trees so as to challenge back tee players and accommodate member tee players.

[Scott Witter]

JES II:

I think I will use a different word other than "deforestation" to describe my plans to manage the trees on this particular course.  It could be me, but I have a sense this word may not go over well and could present some extremist reactions, not in my favor!  

Thanks for the comments.  Believe it or not, I have used the healthier turf approach many times and it rarely works...they just don't buy it.  Most members JUST LOVE TREES without understanding, or really taking the time and patience to understand, the value in tree removals/management.  Sadly, they have grown accustom to their choking golf course and diminished turf over time and really can't see it as objectively as we can.  Hey, it is a challenge and I always love a challenge

[JESII]

Well then, what's your plan?

[JSlonis]

Scott,

Negative Term:  Deforestation!  

Positive Term:  "Selective Tree Management"    Our club bought fully into the selective tree management program.  While it was deforestation of the first order, it was packaged in a more friendly fashion.

If they continue to balk, and cry foul...simply cut them down in the middle of the winter when no one is around and have them cleaned up by the time they return in early spring.  More times than not, if a course is overtreed, a lot of people will notice something looks different, but they won't quite know why.

[Scott Witter]

JES II:

Hey, I can't give out my trade secrets  

JSlonis:

As you might have guessed, this isn't the first time I have been through this process.  "Selective Tree Management" hey, talk about getting political, but in the end we all need to do what works and I will certainly add this to my list of biz buzz words.

I have used all sorts of ways/techniques and often it really helps if you have a superintendent who isn't afraid to take a few minor risks as well as support you all the way.  Good ole Mother Nature can really be nasty at times...especially during those long winter months when no one is around  

I have been with this club for about 7 years now and I have already been responsible for about 600 tree removals.  Might sound like a lot, but it isn't even a dent!  This year when starting some more ambitous projects the club asked me to consider a tree management program for removals & pruning, etc. saying that they really need it for it hasn't been done in more than 20 years.  Neddless to say they were quite surprised when I told them that we and the superintendent & crew already took down over 600 trees just over the past 5 years!  I asked them to show me where they came down and not one could answer me.

[Mark_Fine]

Scott,
Strike the word "fairness" from your post    It should read - The back tees & good design.  I have never liked the word fair when associated with golf.  

If the trees create beauty, interest and/or strategy for a variety of different players, consider keeping them.  If not, you have to think about what value they add.  

[Kenny Lee Puckett]

I really love a 30 hook starting OB on a 450 yard par 4 - The Challenge because the members can't bother to give the tree a proper haircut.  And those ever-encroaching evergreens!  I could fill Rock Center at Christmas time with 50 of those things.

Sarcasm, dripping with tree sap.

Tree Management?  How about firewood revenue!!!

JWK

[Scott Witter]

Mark:

By gosh man I think you've got it!  Guess I could have avoided all this bantor if I had only removed this ugly word.

Hey, if you don't mind, can I use your quote "The back tees & good design" for my upcoming article to the club...its catchy

I agree, the word fair and golf shouldn't be used together in the same sentence or whenever on the golf course

Hope you are well, are you keeping busy?

[Mark_Fine]

Scott,
It is an ugly word.  Read the section in our book titled "The Concept of Fairness" starting on page 158 and you'll see where I'm coming from     Also, you can use that quote anytime  

Good luck with your tree issues and let's catch up soon.
Mark

[Scott Witter]

Mark:

I have read and reread that portion of your book, as well as many others and found it to be very well presented and valuable for future references.

I will also say to others following this thread and any others for that matter, that Mark's and Forrest's book is quite good and an excellent read anytime.  The whole presentation is fluid and easy to follow for anyone reading or just wanting to gather some solid reference material for a discussion.  Not unlike Tom Doak's "The Anatomy" I find it perfect to just grab off the shelf and easily find excerpts which are very useful in discussions with clients and in reassuring my own thoughts and insights.  I think it may become one of the most comprehensive sources on bunkers and interesting hazards in general and the depth of research and dedication it took to realize its quality is very evident.  I particularly think the section that interviewed architects will be valuable for the lay person to make a connection to bunkers in modern times and help them understand better and appreciate the designers and their courses of the past.  I believe this will afford credibility to the book.

My hats off to you and Forrest!

[Nick Church]

Any discussion involving the term "fair" is a train wreck because hardly anyone agrees to a standard definition or application of "fair."

The nature of its very existence is that the "back tee" requires more of the player.  To add any depth to the equation, this should require more than a longer distance to carry.  Probably ever requires more than just a higher degree of accuracy, too.  The ability to "work the ball" should be the third dimension required of the player who feels up to playing from the furthest point.  

The most difficult skill to master is manipulating the flight of the ball from "standard" (which is always unique to the individual swing, like a thumbprint).

As such, as part of defining the angle by which the back tee opens to the hole, the tree lines can certainly contribute.  The mitigation should be that the tree "lines" (appearance, size, reach, etc) should be complimentary to the other aspects.

The sticking point then is how to define "complimentary".  I submit that should be easier than agreeing on the term "fair."

[Mark_Fine]

Scott,
Thanks for the comments about the book.  Glad it hasn't bored you to death.  Actually the best part of it has been to have Superintendents say how it has helped them (particularly with their committee members).  It is going to be reprinted again so if you have any further suggestions, let me know quick.  

Nick,
I agree with you about the word fairness and golf.  I prefer to use the term "poorly designed" rather than unfair when decribing a design feature that is questionable.  You make some good points in your post.

[Nick Church]

Here's one that always bothered me --- The one component to Lee Trevino's "feud" with The Master's was the course did not match his swing.  Also stated as: Trevino's "standard" ball flight did not "fit" the predominant shot called for at Augusta.

Now, choice of vocabulary (fitting, matching, etc) can be argued.  However, absent of the storyteller's voice, and the remainder is that Trevino failed to manipulate his ball for the shot types called for at Augusta.

There is a parallel there with a golfer's (member's) expectation for the tee he chooses and the stragtegy that comes with that choice.

PS
That was a non-gender specific use of "he" in the last paragraph.

[Dan Herrmann]

we had almost the opposite problem.  There is a cope of trees that come into play from the shorter men's tees at French Creek 16.  They aren't even seen from the member's tees or the tips.  But they're important from a design standpoint because they afffect the visuals on the 18th hole tee shot, and serve to frame the shot.  In other words, these three trees should stay put.

Some of the guys complained that they were forced to hit over the trees.  We politely explained that they could just hit their ball into the fairway to the left and even draw it if they were that good.

Keep in mind that there are only about 5 trees of any strategic factor on the course.

Folks will complain about anything

[Jim_Coleman]

  I have what I think is a somewhat different spin on this issue, and it affects all level of handicaps.  On tree lined courses (and there are plenty of good ones), setting the tee markers on the left or right quadrant of a tee can make a huge diffdrence.  There are par threes that can be unplayable for some players if the tee markers are set to one side.  Take #5 at Bel Air.  If the tees are set on the left side of the tee, a fader cannot hit the green, although from the right side the shot is possible.  And on longer holes a left or right tee placement can totally change the playability of the tee shot.
   I say it is wrong for the greens superintendant to force a particular type of shot.  If the architect requires it, so be it; but I don't like it.  I'm pretty sure I remember that Tom Doak wrote something in his book on architecture (not his rating book) that agrees with me.  
   Your thoughts?