[Adam Clayman]

I'm not sure I had ever heard reference to a relationship before Sebonack's first news conference.
Recently, I had the pleasure of playing in competition with the tournament coordinator. He was a retired GCSAA/GM and when I asked about the trend in building more naturalistic golf courses, he made a refreshing comment about how it's probably what we should've been doing all along. As the day went on, I tried to query him about his own golf course and it's relentless reliance on trees choking the paths on many many holes.
His response was that the course would be much too easy for the top players if the corridors were relieved of their garotte.

Somehow I can't accept this conclusion no matter how many times it's reiterated.

The course(in question) has wonderful land movement and some great undulating varied greens.

How many courses do you know of that have these wonderful attributes, yet are over grown with trees?

and,

How does anyone convince the old timers of their mistakes?

[Jeff_Mingay]

Outlining negative affects on agronomics is always an effective start at arguing the validity of trees on a golf course, in general.  

[Tommy Williamsen]

I am not a big fan of trees that choke a course.  I like my hazards on the ground not in the air.  Yet there is validity to having trees as a hazard on some courses.  My son belongs to a course that is about 6400 yards long.  If there were no trees the course would be a nice course.  But the trees make it more fun for me.   The first hole (about 380 yards) is a gentle dogleg right up hill.  The green is sloped and if you are above the hole it's tough to two putt.  It would be an ok hole without the trees.  What I like about the trees on this hole is that it gives you more options off the tee.  If you hit it straight you can hit it through the fairway.  If you can bend it to the right you have a much shorter shot.  The rest of the course has a good mix of both wide corridors and tight landing areas.  I don't think that trees should be the first hazard to be used but they can be a legitimate hazard.  We don't have to "Oakmont" every course.

[Doug Ralston]

Besides, how is cutting down all the trees on a course in a forested area 'minimalism'? Just because golf was born on mostly treeless land does not imply [nor SHOULD it, IMHO] that only treeless courses are worthy.

Doug [aka Dendrophile]

[Adam Clayman]

Doug, I'm impressed with the Kentucky school system. Entering facts not entered is a trick usually saved for Law schools.

Who said anything about all the trees?

This course is not in a forested area.

This course had god come down and removed about 1000 elm trees. And it still wasn't evidence enough. They keep planting more. The majority of which are not used for startegic purposes, they are placed as penal or restrictive.

[Bill_McBride]

The club I joined in Portland, Oregon, Columbia-Edgewater, probably has as many big trees as any course I've ever played.



About 200 of these are Giant Sequoias that were planted 45 years ago and have grown to tremendous size.  They line most of the fairways.  They reach out and grab your ball if you are the least bit careless with your recovery shots.

I'm not a big tree fan, but these define Columbia-Edgewater for better or worse.  It's not a very long course and would no doubt be a pushover without the trees.  There are many fine players at CECC and I suspect it's in large part due to the requirement to be an accurate driver of the ball.  It's also necessary to shape tee shots, not a standard requirement of today's golf courses.

Here's the landing area for #12, where a faded tee ball is definitely an asset.



The good news is none of the trees block tee shots, there are no overhanging limbs, etc.  You have to be pretty far off line to get into the trees.  

[Jeff_Mingay]

Bill,

Very interesting info. re Columbia-Edgewater.

I wonder, though, what ol' Vernon Macan would say seeing the course today  

[Adam Clayman]

The worst example on the course in question, has about five feet of clearing between two trees inorder to find the fairway.

Think of the old 13th at SFGC only narrower. We are talking encroachment on steroids.

[Doug Ralston]

Doug, I'm impressed with the Kentucky school system. Entering facts not entered is a trick usually saved for Law schools.

Who said anything about all the trees?

This course is not in a forested area.

This course had god come down and removed about 1000 elm trees. And it still wasn't evidence enough. They keep planting more. The majority of which are not used for startegic purposes, they are placed as penal or restrictive.

Adam;

Sorry, I meant my statement to be general, not a commentary on that exact course. How would you then justify the GCA demands to rape trees from Augusta National [certainly it was a forested area].

You must surely admit that dendraphobia runs amok among the discussions here. My only arguement [since I am NOT a fan of minimalism per se, though I think it works well often] is that mostly the course fits better if it relates well to the surrounding area.

I do not claim that is 100% necessary, just a general comfort with more naturally fitting architecture.

My question, again, was general. How can it be 'minimalism' when you rape the land of it's natural trees?

I also think trees make another option for hazard, and therefor another useful 'weapon' in the GCA arsenal. It is a lot more 'natural' than a bunker where sand pits never were, which is NOT to say I oppose bunkers.

To summarize, I find trees to be the 'in' enemy here. It seems to have little to do with their usefulness in GCA, and a lot to do with 'us vrs them' in GCA.

Doug

[Kalen Braley]

Would Sahalee in Washington State be the poster child for a thread like this?  While I've never played it, isn't it really all about the trees on that course?

[Adam Clayman]

Doug, While ANGC use to be a tree nursery old photos show wide open spaces, for the most part, comapred to the abomination existing today. Almost all of the GA pctures show sites primarily void of trees.

Trees should be the enemy, unless thoughtfully used. Indiscriminate planting, restricting creative shotmaking, is not good for the turf, or, for the enjoyment of this sport.

[Daryl David]

Would Sahalee in Washington State be the poster child for a thread like this?  While I've never played it, isn't it really all about the trees on that course?

Definitely.  It is only about the trees and each year as they get larger the feeling is more of claustrophobia than golf.

[Jeff Doerr]

Not sure what it plays like these days, but years ago I played the Bayonet Course at Ford Ord. It was truly military golf - step out of line and you will PAY! When I played it the trees lined the course like a bunch of soldiers standing shoulder to shoulder at attention. There was no room between them and they reached so low to the ground that a recovery shot was nothing more than a hopeful crouching lurch that you prayed would get out and give you a full swing for your next shot...

[Ally Mcintosh]

Doug, While ANGC use to be a tree nursery old photos show wide open spaces, for the most part, comapred to the abomination existing today. Almost all of the GA pctures show sites primarily void of trees.

Trees should be the enemy, unless thoughtfully used. Indiscriminate planting, restricting creative shotmaking, is not good for the turf, or, for the enjoyment of this sport.

don't forget that although a lot of the golden era courses were designed and built in treeless areas, in quite a few of the cases, trees were deliberately planted by the original architect at construction... so while the courses were treeless on opening day, the intention was always for that to not remain the case...

...this minor point aside, i agree with the consensus that an over abundance of trees is most definitely not a good thing...

[Bill_McBride]

Bill,

Very interesting info. re Columbia-Edgewater.

I wonder, though, what ol' Vernon Macan would say seeing the course today  

I think he'd be glad to see his routing still in place, more or less, and I think he'd be very pleased that the members still revere his memory, but I think he might be a bit put off by those Giant Sequoias!  

There is a series of aerial photos in the clubhouse that show the early days sans trees, and it is pretty wide open to be a shortish course.  It does still have some of the prettiest rumpled fairways of any course I've played in the US.

[Tommy Williamsen]

I realize that many ODG disliked trees, because of the links and heathland roots of the game.  And I have read about their disdain of trees.  It was also easier to build courses on treeless sites.  If they had some of the equipment we had today do you think they might have broadened their style and built some course on wooded sites?  Or would they have cut all the trees down?

[Adam Clayman]

TW- One of the quasi-links between the ODG's and the modern design business was RTJ. His begged for Spylass Hill commission might shed some light on your question. There, he cut and burned as he went. In hindsight, maybe not the best method on soil riddled with clay. The ash layer adds another barrier to good drainage.

Another one of the benefits of tree clearing is the opening up of vistas. Imagine Spyglass with a healthy thining? Add to that the affect depth deception plays on the mind's eye without the nearby points of reference and you have the enemy to fuller enjoyment of the sport.

I wonder if the trees are the enemy, or people with the opinions like Doug Ralston's?

[SL_Solow]

Adam;  Does Medinah qualify?

[Adam Clayman]

Shel, I just read you excellent post on JK's thread about the validity of tree's  placement, and, how each case is site specific. So, I can't answer about Medinah, but I do suspect, from what I recall from many moons ago, the older version of Medinah (pre green softening) would easily have qualified.

[Doug Ralston]

Doug, While ANGC use to be a tree nursery old photos show wide open spaces, for the most part, comapred to the abomination existing today. Almost all of the GA pctures show sites primarily void of trees.

Trees should be the enemy, unless thoughtfully used. Indiscriminate planting, restricting creative shotmaking, is not good for the turf, or, for the enjoyment of this sport.

Restricted creative shotmaking? What? I am 180yd from the green. I have hit my drive badly so I am behind a tree 120yds out. No options? Absurd! I see at least four. Hit left with fade, hit right with draw, hit over with extra club, or, if ground game is available, hit under with strong punch. In Winter perhaps a 5th, somewhat desperate option would obviously be to try to go through it.

Stop being a bunch of crybaby wimps; man up; an think of this as a golf challenge!  

Trees are your friend! They even help produce oxygen to help you breath, while being often so beautiful as to leave you breathless.

I have never said trees should be everywhere on a course. In some areas though, tress are perfect to define the challenges at the edges [say in the North Woods?]; and the occasional one in the fairway can make MORE options available, and more challenge. Not to mention defining doglegs and making long hitters who try to cut them think.

And truly; I am only teasing about a tree at every tee for shade on Sand Hills ....... I think I am  .

But an imaginative GCA can use another natural option for hazards.

A corollary question. How 'natural' is a sand pit in most areas? Yet I have heard no one here argue that they should all be filled in.

If you hate the options trees offer, try not to hit behind one, eh?

Doug

[Doug Ralston]

And yes Adam. Always I am the enemy of the narrow views that fill the righteous with self-certainty.

What did a tree ever do to you, other than smack your golf ball away when you arrogantly hit one into it!

Doug

[Michael_Stachowicz]

These debates usually are usually based on an all or nothing premise.  The course should reflect the character of the land and environment around it.  One can't have so many trees that turf health suffers or that the natural environment blocked out by a solid stand of trees.  One also should avoid trees that cover up design features.

Now with Bill's pictures I need some help.  His first picture shows a tree planting that many see on a golf course...I need help articulating why it is an awful looking composition.  So many courses in the 70's went to this plan of planting three or four different varieties in  a predictable fashion on a golf hole.  The color and texture of that planting also me.  The fact that they are all the same age bothers me.  Is it just that there is nothing natural about that planting?  I would love to able to articulate this better as when I see it on a course it is an automatic turn off.  Anyone feel the same and can help me?

[Adam Clayman]

Doug, You clearly have the narrow view.

I won't spar words with you, I will just pray somebody someday builds something inspiring anywhere in your neck of the woods.

Sie gehe gesund.

[W.H. Cosgrove]

I am playing Sahalee on Monday, in the past I have found the trees more visually intimidating than an obstruction.  While there a loads of trees they have been managed off of most lines of play.  Sahalee is unique in that the sheer size of the trees make you feel like your playing down a narrow hallway while providing pretty generous landing areas. There are a few exceptions.  

I find it interesting that Columbia Edgewater is planting trees as evidenced by some of the smaller specimens in the photos.  I find the sequoias a very poor choice on a golf course.  They are far too dense and grow far too large.  As seen here.

Oakbrook #5


And recent Pruning


Wouldn't native grasses, appropriate bunkers or trees with thinner canopies serve the same purpose?  Trees create boredom, as they limit the possible shots and reducing opportunites for recovery.

[Michael_Stachowicz]

Those trees pictured do create boredom...it is like playing golf through a christmas tree farm.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()