[Tommy Williamsen]

In some ways we have covered this topic too much.  We seem to have a lot of "tree haters" on this site.  I can understand an Oakmont razing every tree and Philly Cricket wanting to greatly reduce the number of trees.  At the same time we have thousands of courses that were built on forested land.   

My question is simple.  How can we tell when there are too many trees?

[RJ_Daley]

Tommy, maybe one of the ways is to compare the number of hours a typical round takes a foursome, with nobody ahead or behind them, from looking for balls hit into the trees or diverted to unintended places from hitting trees.

[John Moore II]

I am not sure if this is a question that can really be answered. It depends on the course. One tree at St. Andrews is too many. Pine Valley is another story all together. It all depends on the location of the course as to how many trees are too many. I will say that extremely dense trees are foolish, IMO, since they will slow up play around the course. But I don't think there is a number that should be set as to say "X is just too many trees, saw them down"

[Sean_A]

Tommy

I am not a huge fan of trees because I like exterior and interior vistas much more than wooded scenery.  However, there are some trees which should never be cut down for golf.  Golf should find a way to go around the trees which are keepers and if it can't be done, build the course somewhere else.  Having said that, its not the number of trees which is the issue, but how they effect the game in terms of agronomics, recovery shots, lost balls and time to play a game. 

I just played New Zealand and it is a course cut through a forest, but there were probably less than 5 trees which should be removed.  The corridors were wide enough, balls could usually be found in the trees and hit back into play and there was plenty of room for air circulation and sunlight.  Given where the course is (very limited views), the trees act a noise barrier so if controlled they are a great benefit to  keeping the game peaceful. 

Ciao

[Phil_the_Author]

I have a rather radical solution to the problem of balls being lost or adversely affected by trees on a hole... hit it in the fairway.

[Peter Nomm]

Wouldn't most agree that the simple answer is that the tree population on a course should mimic that of the surroundings it is in? 

My course is cut through dense northern WI forest - it would look silly without any and thus is heavily treed. 

As would TOC with towering pines between #1 & #18 (although that might create some very interesting debates on this site ).

[JohnH]

For obvious reasons, trees that form double hazards (impeding line to the fairway/hole from a trap or water) gotta go.  I also look to the restriction of air movement as a big factor.  Sometimes the removal of underbrush helps in that regard, so I tend to cut as a last resort.  A pet peeve of mine is playing a course where a lateral branch juts out into the fairway 10-20 feet or so.  If the fairway is an area deemed to be where a "safe" or "good" shot is to be played, why be penalized.  Contouring of fairways is something that is under utilized, IMO.

[JSPayne]

I too believe that the amount of trees on a course is entirely dependant on it's location and and surroundings.

However, there may be two important aspects of "trees on golf courses" that may be good to try and quantify.

(1) Trees vitally affecting important turf: these would include trees that overshade, restrict air movement, and have root encroachment into key turf areas like greens and fairways

(2) All IN PLAY trees: these would be the ones that more or less exist within the irrigated acerage of the course and directly come into play on a hole

An example for quanitfication: I know of one course where the "in play" trees were counted (they did not include trees in the natural areas or the perimeters of the course, just the ones within the irrigated areas and between paralleling holes that would come into play). The count was right around 1200 trees. The course's irrigated acerage is approx. 110 acres. If you do the math, a good visual is to say that if you placed all the trees on equal triangular spacing, there would be one tree on top of every sprinkler (63' on center). In other words, the cumulative covering of the trees is virtually equivalent to the coverage of the sprinkler system.

A bit overtreed, IMO............

[Tommy Williamsen]

The points of how trees impact conditioning are right on target.  As I make my way around to different courses I hear, "We just removed trees on Xhole for more air circulation>"  I have always thought when I see those confounded fans that for the most part a radical trunkectomy is in order.

As for looking for balls in the woods.  Most of the time it is because the grass is too long.  It seems to me that being in the woods is hazard enough.  Why double the trouble by having 3 or 4 in rough?

Sean, I agree, there are some trees that are so beautiful that they should never be cut evne though they interfere with play.  Probably the most famous was on the east course at Winged Foot.  It came into play but no  one had the heart to cut it down, until it died.

I do think, however, that not all corridors need to be wide.  My son's course is a short sporty little wooded course in St Paul, MN.  It is no world beater but it is fun.  It is only about 6400 yards along but it is important to keep the ball "between the trees."  It is also important to hit the ball to certain portions of the fairway.  In a sense the course dictates how and where the player hits the ball.  It goes against much of the prevailing thought on this site and modern architecture.  But if you grow up at that course you learn to hit the ball straight and move it around.  I wouldn't want to play a course like that as a steady diet, but then again there are very few courses I would want to play every day.,

[Bill_McBride]

There are also situations where otherwise wonderful views are blocked by trees that are not heritage or noteworthy.  Here's an example at Papago Muni in Phoenix:



This is a view from the 9th fairway of those incredible redstone bluffs behind that are actually blocked even worse than this when you are there.

One of the things we agreed on while playing Papago Saturday was that a whole lot of trees need to go, some to open up driving lines and others to open up scenic vistas.

[Kyle Henderson]

1 if it's at the front/center of my tee box.

[Phil_the_Author]

"1 if it's at the front/center of my tee box."

Kyle, that's only if you can hit it straight...

[Tommy Williamsen]

Isn't one of the most fun things in golf to hit a low running hook out of the woods and on to the green?
That was the shot that won Lou Graham (my teacher) the US Open at Medinah in '75.

[Chris Cupit]

In some ways we have covered this topic too much.  We seem to have a lot of "tree haters" on this site.  I can understand an Oakmont razing every tree and Philly Cricket wanting to greatly reduce the number of trees.  At the same time we have thousands of courses that were built on forested land.   

My question is simple.  How can we tell when there are too many trees?

I'm certainly one of those "tree haters" who has been accused of holding to C.B.M's view that "the ideal (golf) course has no trees...".   Seriously though I think one sign of too many trees is when it adversley impacts turf on tees, fairways and greens. 

Also, when trees are so thick/dense that hitting into them almost guarrantees a lost ball or no reasonable "escape" if found, then there are too many.

Lastly, when trees become the focal point of the course , there are too many.   Winged Foot was so enamored with their trees that the subtitle to a club history had something to do with "the friendly trees"!!  Actually, that might have been Oak Hill   Anyway, the point is that the golf course should be the focus.  I can't tell you how lame it is to have some caddy or host describe this or that tree during a round of golf.  I'm there to play golf not learn the history of some ancienct Oak.  If I cared about the tree, I'd have asked.

If you want to enjoy trees go to a park! Also, those of us that want to eliminate trees to open up vistas, inprove turfgrass vigor, etc.  are just as "green" as the tree huggers.  We just like really, really shortish trees--grass

[Tommy Williamsen]

Chris, I think you make some very good points.  When a ball is hit into the woods the player should be able to find it.  I also think there should be some reasonable way of escape.  You don't sound like much of a "tree hater" as much of a shot maker.

On the other hand when I play Winged Foot I read some of the stuff posted on the trees. 

[Randy Thompson]

Depends on the course and the natural surroundings, where I am now for example in a dessert, links type course, one would be to many unless it was on the clubhouse grounds

[Dunlop_White]

Context!

It all depends on the type of tree, its structure, and its relationship to critical golf course features.

Ultimately, judicious tree management is the process of evaluating how various tree species interact with their surroundings in the following 5 contexts:

1. Course Strategy: How do trees affect the strategic playability of golf holes and recovery play?

2. Agronomics and Conditioning: How do trees impact surrounding turf quality?

3. Aesthetic Landscaping: How are trees situated to enhance and/or camouflage potential perspectives and views?

4. Safety: How are trees positioned to protect golfers from errant shots?

5. Health and Physical Condition: Whether critical trees need some tender loving care?

The number of trees that will prevail in this evaluation process will differ on different courses and even on the same course in different years. You see, trees grow!

[Tommy Williamsen]

This is probably something I should know, what about Willow trees. Somewhere i read that they are anathema on the courses because of their root system.  True?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()