[Bob_Huntley]

I played Cypress Point today in a fairly strong breeze and I got to thinking about one our favourites on this site, namely Dr. Alister MacKenzie.

A blurb on the book.

"His later writing has has him musing on what makes a great course and what makes a great hole, into a manuscript that lay hidden for more than 60 years. Finally available, it stands as one of the most courtly and cultivated treatises ever written on the royal and ancient game. His concepts of the psychology of design are as apt today as when he penned them, and his anecdotal spinnings on his own golfing trials should inspire anyone who's thought of picking up a club.

The book goes on to say, "Playing down fairways bordered by straight lines of trees is not only unartistic but makes tedious and uninteresting golf. "


The ultimate paragraph is one that intrigues me. Cannot a lone copse or collection of trees not bordering fairways be just as destructive?

Is there a Doak 10 that has an obstacle to the flow of a hole  as the 17th and 18th holes at Cypress Point.


Bob
 

[James Bennett]

Bob

How big were the trees on #17 80 years ago?  More particularly, as none of us were playing at Cypress Point at that time, are there any photos available to suggest that these trees were as large then as they are today?  And so less of a destructive element then?

James B

[Bob_Huntley]

James,

I am trying to find them. I am going back to family members of the founders, namely the Laphams, to see what was there in 1929.

Bob

[Tom_Doak]

I would think Geoff Shackelford's book on Cypress Point would show those trees clearly as they looked in 1929.  It's at the office so I can't check today.

Bob:  Besides Cypress Point, the only "obstacle" trees I can think of on a "10" are the trees which guard the doglegs on the sixth, eighth and twelfth holes at Crystal Downs, also by Dr. MacKenzie.  There aren't any at Royal Melbourne which come to mind, none at National or Shinnecock or Merion or Pine Valley or Pinehurst, and certainly none on the great links courses.

[Jon Spaulding]

Page 170 of the GS book shows the trees on 17 with the surrounding bunkering. The trees appear similar to today's version, minus the white stuff. An obstacle since inception:'(.

There was nothing of consequence for 17 on the Graham website, but the tree question prompted a double take on a couple of photos:

#7 tee shot with trees....


#9 with tree on the LH side....

[paul cowley]

I'd put trees in the same category as rough.

If your essential strategy depends on them.....then its a weak one to begin with.

Thats generally and with few exceptions.

[Steve Kline]

I would think Geoff Shackelford's book on Cypress Point would show those trees clearly as they looked in 1929.  It's at the office so I can't check today.

Bob:  Besides Cypress Point, the only "obstacle" trees I can think of on a "10" are the trees which guard the doglegs on the sixth, eighth and twelfth holes at Crystal Downs, also by Dr. MacKenzie.  There aren't any at Royal Melbourne which come to mind, none at National or Shinnecock or Merion or Pine Valley or Pinehurst, and certainly none on the great links courses.

And the great thing about Pinehurst is water never comes into play and it's almost impossible to lose a ball, but it's still hard as heck to shoot a good score on. That's exactly what I like.

[Peter Zarlengo]

With regard to the point raised about how big the trees would have been 80 years ago, do you think golf architects (or any designer for that matter) takes account of how something ages and evolves? I've heard stories from landscape architects about how different their designs looked 10 years after their finished design.

What I am trying to get at is did an architect like MacKenzie or other golden age architects intend for these such trees to get bigger? Or do you think that they could have possibly got caught up in the opening-day, finished product syndrome?

[JESII]

Peter,

I don't have the answer, but I certainly hope not...


At Pine Valley #11; the trees up on the left come in diagonally from the left to further encourage a controlled drive...I struggle with the tee shot for this reason, and do not think of these trees as destructive in any way...

[Doug Ralston]

Trees, to me, are like any other obstacle in golf. They should be used for whatever service the architect forsees for them. Then the players can determine their viability as part of the course.

I personally like trees as part of a golf course. They not only serve as both part of the play and of the background aesthetics, but they are nice to be under on a hot day  .

I rather think an architect whose first thought is deforrestation is an architect with tragically limited imagination, who cannot take more than one or two factors into account.

Same seems true with water and with elevation. All are usable tools to the imaginative architect, or impediments to the narrow minded one.

Far too often here it seems to me the 1st reaction is "take out a few thousand trees"!   Sounds suspiciously like "don't make me think, please".

Non architects humble opinion.

Doug

[Tommy Williamsen]

To be honest 17 at Cypress is a bit goofy.  But you got to love it.  I played it with a high handicapper who has hit three hooks in his life.  One was on 17.  He was dead behind the trees and told me he was going to hit a three iron out over the ocean and hook onto the green.  When he pulled it off I almost jumped into the ocean.  I had seen everything.  It still remains one of the most memorable shots he has ever hit.  This came, mind you, after he hit ten dying quails into the ocean on 16.

I have something I call "my every other Tuesday syndrome."  I dislike trees one Tuesday and like them the next.  When CB et al were designing courses in the early years of this century, they based so much of their designs on some of the great links courses.  They didn't have trees.  It is natural for them to think that good courses should have a minimum of the leafy poles.  

I don't like a course that uses trees on every hole any more than I like a course that uses any "hazard" in excess.  Nonetheless a well placed tree can challenge the player.  On the third hole of my course there is a tree on the inside corner of the right dogleg.  The green opens up from the right side of the fairway and the player wants to challenge the tree.  Hit it past the tree or along side of it and the green opens up.  People hate the tree but would be sad if it fell down.  

On the other hand, we have a husge tree on the 17th hole that blocks the right side of the green.  When the pin is tucked right you have to hit it over the tree.  Therre is almost no way to avoid going over the tree unless you hit it in the left rough.  The problem is that it is a beautiful tree and no one wants to cut it down.  The best solution is to move the green, but that requires a considerable abomout of cash.  Fortunately the green is rarely pinned on the right.

[Kalen Braley]

I've been critical of trees that hang over fairways and greens.  But I will say that 1 stratregically placed tree, can add a lot to the hole.  For instance TPC #16, has a big tree that makes people really think about where and how they lay up for thier 3rd shot in.  In this case I think it works.

What I tend to not prefer is hole after hole after hole of narrow tree lined fairways where you only have one play, and that's to hit it straight.  

So Doug I don't understand where having more trees makes one think more, it usually has the opposite effect by forcing the golfer into less options, hence less thinking.

But as said before, a well placed tree here or there, really works.  Because even if you get behind it, you can often have the option of playing low or working the ball around it.

[Doug Ralston]

Kalen;

I agree that trees are not a 'more is better' strategy. As you say, a well used tree can be a perfect obstacle, challenging the golfer to think.

At Stonelick Hills in Cincy, #2 has just such a tree growing in the fairway, a bit right of center and a bit longer than most drives. So you must decide where you want to be, and try to play it. The green is more easily approached from the right, but you may have to hit a low runner under those branches, or stay further back and hit over it. The clever part, IMHO, is that the tree is relatively small now, but will grow. As it does, the strategy thoughts will have to adjust. I like that [even if Glenn doesn't  .].

But also, just like there are sand hills as environment for Sand Hills, and an ocean for environment for Cypress, trees a a natural environment for many upland courses. It simply is absurd to try to remove them and make an ugly gash in the landscape to play in. So 'tree-lined fairways' are NOT unnatural there, and if you use them differently, they shouldn't be a limit on creativity.

You can clear under some, let others be thick to unplayable rough. The fairways can turn behind them, begging for an air shot.

At Eagle Ridge [KY] #4 [my nomination for the most difficult par-5 in golf] has a tee shot with the fairway turning around a tree ridge which goes very steep uphill. Turns out, if you play down that side of the fairway, and mishit into those trees, about 80% of the time the ball will feed back down into the fairway BEHIND the ridge, leaving you very pleased with the result. Now THERE is some 'local knowledge' you won't find many places. I am actually telling you not to fear hitting into the trees  . What a magnificent course!

Trees are NOT inimicable to golf courses by nature. In many places, the provide the natural landscape into which an architect might create his challenges.

And BTW, I WAS just teasing when I suggested that they plant one tree beside each tee at Sand Hills for shade . I thnk I was ..............

Doug

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()