A wonderful new way to justify keeping trees

[mike_malone]

  I just read this in a master plan.


     " Now some of the famous golf courses today have removed most of their trees (Oakmont for example ) or many trees ( Winged Foot has removed basically one row on each side of the fairway to widen the course as Tillinghast intended it). But these two golf courses are very long, whereas ...... is not too long of a golf course. To some degree the trees at .... do make the golf course more difficult and this is why we are  not suggesting a massive removal of trees."
 

      What do you think ?

   I think the guy should be 302'd

[Jason Mandel]

Mike,

Who wrote this master plan, a greens chairman or an architect?

Jason

[mike_malone]

 An architect wrote it.

[Joe Hancock]

Mayday,

Was there anything in the report to address agronomic practices and their effect on the ground being utilized differently? (That is the PC version of " Has anyone suggested irrigating less and moving the rough out so the offline shots can bounce and tumble further offline?")

Joe

[mike_malone]

 Joe,

   The only agronomic mention is that tree overgrowth hurts grass growing.

[Rick Shefchik]

This suggests to me that some architects (this guy, anyway), believe their reputations rest primarily on how difficult their courses are.

And that may be largely true -- but shouldn't a good architect be able to find other ways to make a shorter course difficult besides cluttering it up with trees?

[Matt_Cohn]

This doesn't seem so harebrained at all. A lot of courses aren't so brilliantly designed that angles and green contours alone are enough to provide a challenge. On some courses, if there weren't trees, it literally would not matter where you drive it.

On a course like that, keeping a number of trees makes great sense.

It's not about making the golf course difficult - it's about providing a challenge.

[mike_malone]

Matt,

   I understand your point of view and even agree that uninspiring pieces of land with a drab design can benefit by the addition of trees.


    In this particular case .however, the course was designed by one of the very best classic architects and the land is interesting.

 

[Adam Clayman]

If the trees turn a strategic design into a penal one these comments sound rather foolish, but mostly sad.

On the other hand, if this course lacks the greenside defenses that a classic design should have, or, they were removed by past examples of abused powers, maybe the guy has a point? We need more info.

 How about which classisist?

Original greens?

[mike_malone]

What struck me about the comment was that length was so important to providing challenge. So, Oakmont and WFW can remove trees because they are long enough. But,in time,if technology keeps progressing Oakmont and WFW won't be long anymore.So that if they haven't achieved the recovery of angles with their tree removal then eventually the challenges will be lost.There must be more to good design than just length.He seems to assume that shorter courses can't provide enough challenge.

     Courses where recovery challenge was designed in originally usually have the  most significant part of that challenge on the approach to the green from the wrong angle.It's not how far you hit it; it's how far off line that creates the challenge. The trees do present a challenge but not usually the ones designed into the course. I think of hitting out of trees as a homogenized challenge. It usually has one hitting away from the target, which for me delays the golfing experience until the next shot. And usually this shot is not nearly as interesting as the one originally intended. Well designed recovery challenge takes place mostly in the head and has a variety of challenges throughout the round.

     I  really think the architect just knew the club would resist tree removal so he created an argument for retaining them rather than following the lead of other classic courses.

[mike_malone]

Adam,

  I don't want to drag my friend  who sent me the plan into this fray. I can tell you it is a early 1900 design with wonderful variety in the green complexes and in the use of hilly terrain . In other sections of the plan he recommends moving the bunkers that presently are in the trees to the edge of the fairways at their current width.The attractive  option of tree removal and fairway widening goes by the wayside. And fairway widening on this hilly land would only create more interest , not less.

    Most of the greens are original and as you might expect he recommends flattening a few because the speeds of today are too fast for the slopes.

   I have told my friend that I believe if they go with this plan they will probably never be able to restore their classic course. That dream will be gone forever.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mayday,

What I think goes unnoticed is the location of most trees, far removed from the lines of play.

Removing these trees usually has little if any affect on the scoring challenge presented by the architecture.

I golfer who's 40-50 yard off of the centerline isn't going to suddenly acquire uncanny accuracy and hit his approach to within feet of the hole.

At some clubs I'm familiar with handicaps did NOT come down after substantive tree removal programs were implemented, and one golf course is about 6,500 yards, certainly no Winged Foot or Oakmont.

[mike_malone]

Pat,

   You often remind us that the clubs are ultimately responsible for what happens in these restoration/ renovation projects.  I agree with that. But, I think there is a responsibility on the part of the architect to raise the level of knowledge at the club so that they can ask intelligent questions.

  In this instance I get the sense that they want a restoration but don't know exactly what that means,. So, when the architect says "This architect often did such and such" as he recommends eliminating what that architect did at this course they don't seem to have enough knowledge to stop him.

    Sometimes amateurs can be overwhelmed by the experts.

[mike_malone]

Pat,

   I think 40 yards off line is a good guideline. Trust me when I tell you that this truly charming course has way too many trees much too close to the centerline.

     The fun is not in what you can do;it's in what you think you can do. And if the original design was crafted to get you thinking you could do all kinds of wonderful things then it is a great design. I can't for the life of me see why you would cover up these kinds of designs and turn the course into a straight line.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

   You often remind us that the clubs are ultimately responsible for what happens in these restoration/ renovation projects.  I agree with that. But, I think there is a responsibility on the part of the architect to raise the level of knowledge at the club so that they can ask intelligent questions.

That's not the reality of the situation.

Architects rarely interface with memberships.

They usually interface with a select individual or a limited number of select individuals.

I think there's a responsibility on the club's end to select the most qualified members to interface with the architect, but, that rarely happens, as the selection process tends to be more politically based.[/color]

In this instance I get the sense that they want a restoration but don't know exactly what that means,. So, when the architect says "This architect often did such and such" as he recommends eliminating what that architect did at this course they don't seem to have enough knowledge to stop him.

If the club doesn't know what they want.
Chances are, they're going to get what they didn't want.

Your remark goes back to the issue of why did the club choose the members it chose to interface with the architect and why did the club select this particular architect ??

Those are questions which may end up defining the work.[/color]

Sometimes amateurs can be overwhelmed by the experts.


That's why prudent patients get second and third opinions BEFORE having surgery.[/color]

[mike_malone]

Pat,

     When I think about this club I like their passion for maintaining the integrity of their greens. They threw out a previous plan that wanted to change the green surfaces. But, they seem not to understand that,originally, coming at these greens from a bad angle was a hell of alot more fun than from the middle of the fairway. They can keep the great greens and recover the originally designed angles by just getting rid of the trees.

   Certainly it is a select group that is involved , but I think the architect should provide them with information that can help them challenge him.By this I mean, when he senses that they lack knowledge to critique his ideas he should give them that knowledge.

  I think they would certainly benefit from a second opinion, but it isn't a rich club so I don't see them doing that.


     It just seems to me that they can achieve a great deal by just opening up the course. Then when the members get to play it as designed they will fall in love with it.

 

[Paul Richards]

Mike

Bradley Klein spoke to the membership at Beverly before we attempted our restoration, and his quote was "If a tree needs to be pruned, it shouldn't be there."

In other words, in almost every situation, the tree should be removed.  

Period.



Keep in mind, as well, if an architect designs a hole around a tree - ((Pebble Beach, the Dunes Club, Stanford, Tullymore, Rich Harvest (multiple!) etc come to mind)) - he risks the fact that that tree may become diseased, or may get hit by lightning, or just die.  

So unless that architect can control Mother Nature, it is almost ridiculous to design a hole around a tree.....

[mike_malone]

Paul,

  Of course he recommends pruning some trees.

[Paul Richards]

Mike



>To some degree the trees at .... do make the golf course more difficult and this is why we are  not suggesting a massive removal of trees.



Run, don't walk from this architect.  


It's simple - it's either trees or turf.


And if it's difficulty you want, why not just plant trees in FRONT of every green???

 

[Sean Remington (SBR)]

   I do not agree that the removal of trees makes a golf course easier. This is an over simplified way of looking at the situation.  The removal of trees normally allows the growth of healthier rough grass. The removal of trees opens up possible recovery shot options that may have a higher risk reward component. What would have happened in the Open if Phil's only option was a sideways chip out?

[Jim_Coleman]

   Phil's only option WAS a chip out.  But the trees left him with the hope of a miracle shot that he didn't pull off.  No trees there and he hits easy shot to green with bogey the worst result.  You may or may not like trees, but to say removing them doesn't make the course easier is the Emperor's New Clothes.  Trees almost always provide four options - under right with draw, under left with fade, heroically over, or chip out.  No tree offers one option - hit it to the green with whatever shot suits your fancy.  
    Don't get me wrong.  I'm all in favor over denuding overgrown courses.  We're doing that now at my course and it's looking better and better every day.  But don't tell me that removing trees doesn't make the course easier.  One loses all credibilty when taking that position.

[mike_malone]

 Jim,

    You're so sure of that statement that you don't think about it.

   First, what do we mean by "easy". It means either of two things to me. One is that when you are in the trees you are more likely to have a higher score on the hole than if there were no trees.  This is what I think you are talking about.

   However, the other one has to do with the difficulty of executing the shot. I believe that the majority of players just "take their medicine" if there is no chance to go for the target. This means they choose an easy to execute shot. If the trees were gone and the target area is well designed to challenge off line positions then the average golfer will usually try a more difficult shot to execute. This usually leads , on average, to failure. So, that's why handicaps don't tend to change on well designed courses when the trees go. Because we all try things, have more fun doing it, and usually fail based on our level of skill.

   So, "easy" is a broader idea than your view.


     I don't usually engage in the "easy" argument because your side of the argument has no flexibility.imo. You think those who disagree with you are either stupid or insane. As a result, communication breaks down and nothing gets done.


   That's why I focus on "fun" and playing the angles that  a well qualified original designer intended. I  see these later tree plantings as amateurs redesigning the golf course. The originally designed recovery possibilities are aborted.

[Jim_Coleman]

   There's actually a third option in addition to stupid or insane - wrong.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim Coleman,

I'm not so sure that maintaining that the golf course is less difficult when you've eliminated trees 40-60 yards removed from the centerline of the fairway is valid.  I think you have to examine the playing corridors of each hole in determining the relative difficulty gained or lost by adding or removing trees.

I think you'll find the net result to be minimal since those that hit wildly errant shots aren't challenging the course record.

With respect to Phil's shot, if it hadn't been for the tent, he'd have been even further off line, and, you can't context the issue, at the local club level, from the perspective of the abilities of one of the greatest golfers in the world.

Without the tent and without the trees 99 % of the golfers in the world wouldn't have been able to hit the green or put themselves in the ideal recovery zone given the configuration of that green, its surrounds and the hole location.

Paul Richards,

With respect to placing trees in front of greens, I've alway advocated placing them in front of the tees as well, it forces the golfer to have to "work" his drive.

Trees also cause a strain on club budgets, especially in the fall when many clubs attempt to remove the leaves from the golf course, daily.

[Brent Hutto]

  First, what do we mean by "easy". It means either of two things to me. One is that when you are in the trees you are more likely to have a higher score on the hole than if there were no trees.  This is what I think you are talking about.

Geez, trees in play make a course more difficult. The word "difficult" refers to scoring, of course. Any discussion which uses "easy" and "difficult" to have nothing to do with scoring is a Humpty Dumpty exercise.

Jim Coleman is correct. With perhaps some occasional oddball exceptions, removing trees will result in a course that is easier (in the sense that a golfer uses the word). Naturally you can offset that ease of scoring with more penal rough or more greenside bunkering. But that doesn't mean that the course got harder when you took the trees out of play. That's just silly.

Postscript to Pat Mucci. I think everyone recognizes that a tree 60 yards to one side of the line of play is unlikely to make much difference in scoring one way or another. Cutting it down won't make the course much easier but it sure ain't gonna somehow make it more difficult, either.