Golf Digest on Trees

[A.G._Crockett]

My newest issue of Golf Digest arrived Monday, and contains a lengthy article about tree removal on courses, esp. Oakmont.  Very well-written, I thought, and I'm sure most, if not all, of the clientele of this site have already read it.
My question relates to a hole on my home course (Alpharetta C.C. in GA).  The hole is a par 5 with a difficult landing area, and a green guarded by a huge pine about 25 yds in front of the green in the right side of the fairway.  The branches are at wedge ht., so the player may play a second shot out to the left edge of the fairway or into the rough, then hit wedge, or go down the middle and play some sort of a punch, knockdown, bump-and-run.  The green is relatively flat.
I know this is difficult w/o a picture, but the question for those of you more knowledgable about architecture than I would be whether or not this is a "good" hole.
Among the membership the opinion is split between those who say it is because of options, and those who say it isn't because it is gimmicky.
Your thoughts about greens guarded by trees?  (Assume no turf issues, please.)

[ChipOat]

Sounds like a perfect example of a Stupid Tree to me.

I do not like trees that take away the "straight ball" from anywhere in the fairway or within 200 yards of a tee box.

Your hole sounds similar to the Stupid Tree at Pebble Beach's otherwise-superb 18th hole.

I despise that Stupid Tree and it sounds like I would feel the same way about yours.

Let the design of the green complex dictate the preferable angle of attack to a green.  Not some "bunker in the sky".

But that's just my opinion.

[Rick_Noyes]

A.G.,

the one thing about trees is that they may not always be there.  Should lightning or disease take that tree out, how would the hole play then?

[THuckaby2]

Chip, we sure have discussed 18 at Pebble ad nauseam so I'm just gonna let that one pass today...  

Ever played a club called Castlewood out here in the Bay Area (Pleasanton to be exact)?  Their Hill Course has what would have to be the archetype for your Stupid Tree.  Hole #10, a very short par 4 (300 or so) has a HUGE oak tree RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE TEE.  I mean, it is enormous and it is right there.  From the back tee, your options are a huge hook around it (which a slope on the right helps), an enormous slice over a street around it on the other side, or a 7iron or so over it.  Some people can get lofted woods over it but it's pretty damn high...  But it is indeed directly in the line of play.  Kinda incredible to see one's first time.

The interesting thing is, without the tree, this would be a driveable, great risk/reward short par 4... the greensite is very interesting, surrounding by some deep, menacing bunkers... I go back and forth on it myself - sometimes I like the tree cuz it causes such head-scratching... other times I wonder how neat the hole would be without it...

It's got to be a constant controversy at this club.  I'd love to hear the arguments.

But there it is and there it stays in any case...

TH

[A.G._Crockett]

My feeling is that it would be markedly easier because
    a. you could throw wedges at a green that is receptive to
        wedges, but less so to longer clubs punched low.
    b. longer hitters could have an easier go at the green in
        two.
    c. shots played out to the edge of the fairway to allow a
        wedge in that currently end up in the rough (or even
        hazard) wouldn't be necessary.
I don't mean that to sound like I'm answering my own question, but I do think the hole would be simplified.

[Mike Leveille]

Chipoat:

I have a question regarding your Stupid Tree comment, but I would like to preface the question by saying that I generally favor courses with less trees in play (as you bring wind more into play and have a better visual setting in my mind).  That said, why is the tree described by AG a Stupid Tree?  It seems like the tree gives you the option of playing left with your second shot and having a clear shot for your third, or playing down the middle and being forced to play a low run up shot on the third (assuming the course conditions allow such a shot).  How is that design feature inferior to a links style hole, with a firm and elevated green (say Foxy (14) at RDGC), that basically dictates that you play a low run up type shot in order to hold the green?  I absolutely love Foxy and holes like it, but it seems to me that the Stupid Tree hole may have quite a bit of architectural interest as well.

[Will E]

Chipout,
While I do carry a chainsaw in my bag, there are some trees that do deserve a place on a golf course. The tree that Pebble enjoyed for years next to the green on 18 is a perfect example of a well placed tree (I don't know if I've ever met a stupid tree). Two of my favorite par 5s (number 8 at Dunes and number 11 at TPC Sawgrass) would be average holes without trees. What's wrong with a bunker in the sky? I don't know what's gimmicky about having options.

[Rick_Noyes]

I talked to a superintendent once that had "Lightning" written on the side of his chainsaw.  When members asked him what happened to this tree or that tree he honestly said "Lightning got it"

[ChipOat]

A.G. Crockett:

Sounds like the green complex needs to be re-designed if there's no wrong/right side to the fairway without planting a Stupid Tree.

Mike Levielle and Shooter:

It's simply a strong personal preference for which I have gotten about an equal amount of both support and brickbats on this site.  I don't like trees that come into play from the fairway or within 200 yards of a tee box becuase I believe that the straight ball should ALWAYS be an option from ANYWHERE in the fairway or off the tee even if a "shaped" shot is clearly preferable.  Not everyone agrees.  I think Stupid Trees are a cheap substitute for a creatively angled and contoured green complex.  Others disagree.  It's a chocolate/vanilla, blonde/brunette thing.

The best known examples of Stupid Trees to folks on GCA would probably be the greenside tree on #18 at Pebble and "Ike's Tree" on #17 at you-know-where.

Tom Huckaby:

Some people just don't want to be helped with their problems, do they?

[THuckaby2]

No Chip, no they don't.

I would LOVE to watch you negotiate this hole.  The oddsmakers have it at 2:1 you don't make it past 10 tee without a swipe or two at the offending tree!  

TH

[ChipOat]

Tom Huckaby:

Even if I negotiated the damn thing, I'd be a lead pipe cinch to expectorate on it in passing and, at worst, even money to have packed a small hatchet in my bag for a ceremonial swipe.  What's the over/under on how many gashes I would inflict?

If the 2 to 1 involves using one of my own clubs, don't take the bet.  Clubs are too expensive to ruin anymore - even on a Stupid Tree.  Besides, I couldn't stand it that the Stupid Tree would have the last laugh.

Come to think about it, I'd never bother to play there.  With all the great courses in your area, and so little time to enjoy your company, I would never want to be distracted by a Stupid Tree.  Let's play Pebble or Cypress where the Stupid Trees aren't an issue until the 18th hole.

[THuckaby2]

Chip, it's a deal.  Very wise, very sensible.  Just please be assured that my 2:1 assumed you carry a small saw at all times.  

TH

[George Pazin]

Are the trees on Cypress 17 Stupid Trees?

[Steve Lang]

"Tree 18"... an 18 Hole collection of centre of fairway tree  holes... Would include Dye's 5th and 10th at Oaktree in Edmond, OK...

5th is their signature logo hole with ancient oak in play on Par 5... go over it ok, go through it... occasionally,  go right and end in gentle fairway-hillside bunker and rough if too far, go left to cut dogleg and you may roll into lake or rough...

10th is short par 4, go at it if prevailing wind is in play and bounce by at its roots, go left and youend up OB, go right and end up in shallow waste bunkering with rotten wooden rr ties... green angle favors left approach...

[ChipOat]

George Pazin:

I'm afraid so.

I'm not sure which annoys me more:

1) Stupid Trees that are put there on purpose (e.g. Pebble, Cypress and others mentioned above) or

2) Valid Trees that are originally only problems from the rough (or worse) but that, over the years, have grown out such that they now encroach on shots from the edges of fairways or close to tee boxes AND WHICH THE MEMBERS WILL NOT ALLOW TO BE CUT BACK.  Southern Hills used to be chock full of the latter - I hope they've rectified the problem.

[Will E]

Chipoat,
I'm afraid that Dr.Katz needs to see you right away. You have an appointment on the 9th tee at the River course at Blackwolf Run, with a follow up visit on the 17th fairway at Cypress Point.

[Jeff Mingay]

Considering Golf Digest's massive circulation (1,550,000), hopefully the point of this article gets through to more than a few tree-huggers out there.

Still, the political problems begin with the fact that too many people are so close-minded, and thus are unable to digest the facts properly and understand that they're indisputable: golf courses are better off with fewer trees -- for all the reasons pointed out by Peter McCleery in the article.

It's about time one of the major golf publications ran an article like this. Hats off to Golf Digest.

[MBL]

Chip-
Do you carry any copper nails in your bag?

[ChipOat]

Do copper nails work???  Really???

How many does it take to kill a good sized tree???

How long does it usually take???

Does it matter where they're nailed in (roots, branches, high, low, etc.)

How big do they have to be??

TELL ME MORE!!!

[moman]

Shhhhhh- ;Keep the copper nails trick quiet!

[Scott_Burroughs]

This is one of two threads that mentioned the GD article a few weeks ago on the removal of trees.

Well, now the article is available online, and I must say it IS an excellent article, except for not having correct Winged Foot pics.

http://www.golfdigest.com/features/index.ssf?/features/gd200210treetrouble.html

[Doug Wright]

From the GD article sidebar:

"25. Cherry Hills C.C., Englewood, Colo.
Removed 30 dead trees and added 270 trees in the past five years."

I knew something was different there when I played it this summer. I need to ask someone over there, "WHY?"

All The Best,

[Paul Richards]

This is really an excellent article and every member of every classical golf course (especially in the Chicago area!) should read this and learn that it really is "trees or turf."

[mark studer]

we did not totally realize what a masterpiece we had in pittsburgh(Oakmont) until we visited The National and Shinnecock in the fall of 1985  and Chicago Golf in 1986.....those courses were a BIG  part of our  realization process. Hopefully the trend continues.

[Paul Richards]

mark:

Kudos to you for recognizing the value that you had and for
your restoration of what the architect intended.