[Steve Pieracci]

This is the 12th hole at Stanford.  An elevated tee with a large oak tree in the center of the fairway.  The left side of the tree is the conservative play, leaving a longer second shot.  The right side play must be accurate to avoid the tree and barranca, but leaves a shorter approach to the green.

I have a dislike for holes with center fairway trees.  Perhaps because this particular hole requires more accuracy than I command.  

Is that the intent of the architect?  To create a demanding tee shot?  What other thoughts are running through the architect's mind?    
 

[Tom Huckaby]

Oh good friend and partner, think of it this way:  what would be the interest on that tee shot if the tree WASN'T there?

Right would still be better and more risky - tempting hazard, giving better angle in - left would be safe.  BUT this would occur with a 60+ yard wide fairway, leaving room to pretty much bomb away with impugnity.  With the tree in place one has to think VERY hard about where one puts that tee shot... because of course dead center is dead screwed.

Methinks in this instance the tree makes it a better golf hole - it's certainly very memorable with it, and I don't think it would be without it.

But then again lots of crappy holes are memorable...and you are not alone in your distaste for the golf hole....

I'd say this:  center trees should be used very very sparingly in general.  But this is a rare case where it works.

[Kevin_Reilly]

Here is a better picture.



I didn't recall the second shot distance being that dramatic between the two sides, but I haven't played the course in 10+ years.  The numbers above seem to match my recollection.

In any event, I'd have to think that without the tree in the middle the hole would be fairly mundane since it plays shorter than the listed length.

[Steve Pieracci]

Pehaps it is a love-hate situation for me.   I am almost always in jail off this tee wheter I hit well or not.  

When I have been there, it usually plays into the wind, and those distances are somewhat misleading.    

And yes I agree it would be fairly mundane without the tree.    

[tlavin]

 

And yes I agree it would be fairly mundane without the tree.    

Mundane?  The hole is still 470 yards long from the back tees and 450 from the next set.  I can't imagine why one would need an oak tree in the middle of the fairway on a hole this long to overcome a complaint that it would otherwise be mundane.  If this hole were only 330 or so, I could see the merits of forcing the player to make a choice about the conservative or the risky shot off the tee.  At this length, leaving the tree in the fairway strikes me as Kafkaesque for the regular player.

I can think of an even worse example: the 18th hole at Butler National has a tree about 120 yards from the green that forces a player to carry a pond to hit the green.  Problem is, the hole is 475 yards long and even a single digit handicapper is usually left with the unsavory reality of regularly hitting a bail out shot just to be able to try for a one-putt par.  Overkill for all but the pro tour, IMHO.

[Tom Huckaby]

Terry:

I suppose "mundane" is too strong of a word.  How about "less interesting"?

The hole is VERY downhill - that is, the tee shot is played from a perch very high above the fairway.  Unless played into the wind - which does happen - it plays a lot shorter than its distance.

It's not classified as a par 4/5 though by accident, though... it remains a long, difficult golf hole.  The average player plays it as a three-shotter if he plays either of the back two tees.

It's just made very memorable by the tree in the middle.  Without said tree it would still be a long tough hole, just not that big of a deal.  As it is, it's the one hole everyone seems to remember and discuss after playing this golf course.

TH

[Mark_Rowlinson]

To take up the spirit of another current thread, if you could plant a tree somewhere on a particular hole, which hole and where?

Visually this reminded me a lot of the 17th at Sandiway a Ted Ray/Harry Colt course in Cheshire.  Here, however, the hole is only 305 yards and it is a great hole to encounter at this stage of the round.  

[JohnV]

To take up the spirit of another current thread, if you could plant a tree somewhere on a particular hole, which hole and where?

In the spirit of the Oakmont thread - NO WHERE!   Cut down all the trees.    I'm sorry, I used to be a real tree hugger, but I guess playing golf with the ax murderer of Oakmont has done this to me.

Trees in fairways should be sparingly used.  The one on #12 at Stanford is good.  One or two a round should be a maximum.  I played a course last fall that had 6 or 7 and it got really stupid after a while.  Especially since some of the holes didn't have enough width to support it.

Witch Hollow used to have one on #6, which died.  It was pretty good although it was so tall and so far from the green that if you were behind it you were usually hitting a long iron and went under it anyway.

[tlavin]

Terry:

I suppose "mundane" is too strong of a word.  How about "less interesting"?

The hole is VERY downhill - that is, the tee shot is played from a perch very high above the fairway.  Unless played into the wind - which does happen - it plays a lot shorter than its distance.

It's not classified as a par 4/5 though by accident, though... it remains a long, difficult golf hole.  The average player plays it as a three-shotter if he plays either of the back two tees.

It's just made very memorable by the tree in the middle.  Without said tree it would still be a long tough hole, just not that big of a deal.  As it is, it's the one hole everyone seems to remember and discuss after playing this golf course.

TH

I haven't played Stanford in more than a decade and I'm betting that I played it from the forward tees based on who I was playing with, but I'm surprised that it wasn't "memorable" for me because I'd like to think I'd remember a sixty-foot irritant like that oak tree!  The downhill nature of the hole takes away some of the sting, but it still strikes me as one more tree that would make fine firewood.

[tlavin]

We have a double oak in the center of the 11th hole on the South Course at Olympia Fields.  The hole is 311 yards long, with a creek about 80 yards in front of the green, so the presence of the tree serves a meaningful architectural purpose, as it has since the course was laid out in 1915.  If the hole were 460 yards long, like several others on the property, it would only serve the purpose of frustrating good golfers and rewarding either the very skilled or the supremely lucky.  That doesn't strike me as good design, but then again, I'm not about to quit MY day job!!!

[Tom Huckaby]

Well Terry, that decade has seen a lot of great golf courses played, I'm sure.  So it doesn't surprise me too much you don't recall this hole... But I am betting if you ask anyone who's played Stanford more than once to describe one stand-out hole, this would be it.

And the tree makes it that way.  Sans tree, it's just like many many other golf holes.

TH

[Bill_McBride]

I think the main reason golf holes shouldn't be designed around a tree in the fairway is --- what happens when the tree is struck by lightning or a blight or is otherwise lost?    Replacing that oak in the middle of the 12th at Stanford is a 50 year program, unless you have the resources of the Pebble Beach company!  

[tlavin]

Well Terry, that decade has seen a lot of great golf courses played, I'm sure.  So it doesn't surprise me too much you don't recall this hole... But I am betting if you ask anyone who's played Stanford more than once to describe one stand-out hole, this would be it.

And the tree makes it that way.  Sans tree, it's just like many many other golf holes.

TH

I respect your opinion too much to disagree with it, so I guess it's back to San Jose to scope it out again in person.  My main memories from Stanford are the first tee shot (over the power lines and over the hidden roadway) and the routing around the roadways.  I found it amazing that the course was as special as it was even with the road issues.

[Tom Huckaby]

Bill - you truly think Stanford has any LESS resources than TBPC?

When the time comes, if they want that tree replaced then replaced it shall be.

But that does remain a good point, and yet another reason why this concept should be used very sparingly.

[Tom Huckaby]

Terry - you do need to come back, if only to see how Stanford's been re-done... 3 and 4 are totally different now, 5 has a back tee up at the corner of Sand Hill Road playing across 4 green... it's pretty neat how they solved the issue of Sand Hill Rd. widening and the course changes that necessitated.  On top of that, the greens have been re-done.  It's a quite different course from 10 years ago.

You're right re the road crossings... great course even with such a normally distasteful thing.

Hell all this reminds me I need to play it again!  It's been way too long.

 

[Mike Benham]

- what happens when the tree is struck by lightning or a blight or is otherwise lost?    Replacing that oak in the middle of the 12th at Stanford is a 50 year program ...

Bill -

Stanford has a new tree ready to be planted when the old one dies ...

[Bill_McBride]

Bill - you truly think Stanford has any LESS resources than TBPC?

When the time comes, if they want that tree replaced then replaced it shall be.

But that does remain a good point, and yet another reason why this concept should be used very sparingly.

I know Stanford has all the resources in the world, but they may have different priorities!

[Tom Huckaby]

Bill - very true there.  But if they want it replaced, then replaced it shall be.

 

[Dan Kelly]

I think the main reason golf holes shouldn't be designed around a tree in the fairway is --- what happens when the tree is struck by lightning or a blight or is otherwise lost?

I thought that was what bunkers were for.

Everyone here seems to like centerline bunkers.

Why not centerline trees?

[Bill_McBride]

I think the main reason golf holes shouldn't be designed around a tree in the fairway is --- what happens when the tree is struck by lightning or a blight or is otherwise lost?

I thought that was what bunkers were for.

Everyone here seems to like centerline bunkers.

Why not centerline trees?

Dan, it's hard to lose a centerline bunker to lightning or pestilence, while it's not unusual to lose a tree.  Rebuilding a bunker is a lot easier than replacing a critical tree.

[Dan Kelly]

Bill --

You misunderstand me, I think.

When the tree dies or falls, you can replace it with a bunker and retain the tree's "strategic" purpose.

No?

Dan

[Steve Pieracci]

Bill --

You misunderstand me, I think.

When the tree dies or falls, you can replace it with a bunker and retain the tree's "strategic" purpose.

No?

Dan

I was thinking about the difference between bunker and tree.  The bunker is a diffeent beast altogether.  Even it had the same foot print of the tree limbs, there is nothing above the ground to hinder approach angles, etc.  I think a bunker is much easier to navigate around / above.    

[Kevin_Reilly]

Bill --

You misunderstand me, I think.

When the tree dies or falls, you can replace it with a bunker and retain the tree's "strategic" purpose.

No?

Dan

Not with the tree on Stanford #12...bunkers don't serve as a vertical impediment...you could aim right for the bunker (nee "the tree") and still have a shot if you end up in front of it.

[Bill_McBride]

The way the ground is sloped, a tee shot right at the bunker winds up safely to the right.  With the tree, you have to be past the tree or quite a bit wider to have a shot.

I'm not saying it might not be a better hole with a centerline bunker, just mentioned the underlying problem of a critical tree - it can go down overnight.

[Kalen Braley]

I think they should remove the tree and just put up two row of cops down the middle of the fairway 20 feet apart and if you land in between them, then you get whats coming to you  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()