Here's the (allegedly) responsive post I promised Matt Varney in a private message.
First, a public apology to Matt, and anyone else, for coming off like a jerk and seeming to wish ill for the fine folks of Holston Hills and their otherwise excellent golf course of which I have often heard good things. I think I have a well-earned reputation for being a polite dissenter on GCA, if not always an informed or intelligent one. Mea culpa.
HOWEVER, it is not new news to veterans of GCA that my unequivocal, unbending and uncompromising opinion on trees that effect ball flight from the fairway or within 150 yards of a tee box is simple - they should not exist. Never ever. Not on any golf hole on the planet Earth or any other place in any other galaxy. Not for any reason. No exceptions. Ever. It is for this reason that I have dubbed these abominations as Stupid Trees. I capitalize the words in order to make it a proper noun. A friend of mine who lurks here calls them "bunkers in the sky".
To re-articulate briefly, I believe that it is the architecture ON THE GROUND (basically green complexes and its subset, hole location) that should influence ball flight - not tree branches. That's just my dogmatic, closeminded opinion. It's not the most important thing in my life, but this is, after all, a golf architecture discussion group so where else am I going to harangue and carry on about it?
The practical stuff about sunlight and air circulation is a nice plus but my position is completely a matter of taste and opinion - a classic example of what Patrick Mucci calls BIAS (which he always capitalizes). Any further credibility that might arise from people who actually know what they're talking about is just icing on the cake.
There are 2 examples of Stupid Trees. The first is the tree in the rough that, due to age, has grown out such that the line from a certain portion of the fairway is now obstructed to some degree. Winged Foot and Southern Hills come to mind as 2 excellent courses where the original architecture was impaired after X number of years as a result of small trees becoming big trees. The second example is even worse - it's the tree that is placed intentionally in order to influence the play of the hole from either a fairway or tee box. The 18th at Pebble Beach is the most well known example of this heinous act of bastardized golf architecture.
So let me respond individually as follows:
John Mayhugh:
I haven't ever played the hole and I absolutely do believe that criticizing a hole or a course without having played it lacks credibility (see the singular exception below). I mean, how do you know? In this case, however, I offer the following: First, I didn't say the architecture on the ground WAS poor (I haven't played it), I said, "IF ..........". My apologies for inferring that, without the Stupid Tree, the hole lacks architectural merit. In fact, given the course's lineage, I doubt that's the case and I'm sure that you're assertion that "it's still pretty interesting without the tree" is an understatement. More importantly, though, when there's a Stupid Tree involved, one needn't play a hole before issuing a blanket condemnation. In fact, a picture isn't even necessary - just a vague description will do. They are uniformly such a terrible part of any golf hole where they are permitted to exist, that an assumption of guilt is always warranted and the offending tree should be immediately cut down. Every single time.
See my apology above for seemingly wishing bad fortune on the membership. But the loss of a Stupid Tree is, in truth, a gift from the golf gods - a blessing, really. So I wish the membership all the wisdom going forward that has been displayed by the folks at Oakmont, National and Winged Foot, to name 3 who lost a beloved tree and, suddenly, experienced a true epiphany and saw the vision of golf as it was meant to be.
Matt Varney:
Actually, a flat farm with dynamite green complexes and no trees sounds terrific! You have to be a hell of an architect to design one of those that's worth playing. National and TOC come to mind as 2 courses where green complexes are everything and trees are nothing (although National isn't completely flat).
See my apology above for sounding like a jerk. Actually, the trees in my yard are a pain and I would take them down in a heartbeat if my wife would let me. So if you could do some kind of tornado dance for me, I would appreciate it. Also, my apologies for being stubborn, but a hole is NEVER better for having a Stupid Tree. Always harder, but never better.
Eric Smith:
I'm not wrong. I'm right. There's no exception to Oat's Stupid Tree rule. Never.
Tom Doak:
Of course it's a weird psychological thing, but this is Golf Club Atlas, right?
Besides, I don't despise ALL trees. I think trees that create problems from any place other than the fairway or a tee box are FINE. It's just trees that...........well, you know.
Coincidentally, there was a link to Taconic Golf Club on my Stiles & Van Kleek thread that is Gil Hanse's very detailed presentation of his master plan for Taconic's restoration+. He has the following to say on page 4 of his summary about trees: "......trees are an emotional and somewhat romantic topic, and members seldom view them in an objective or practical manner."
So I'm no worse than any tree hugger or even other minimalists that share my point of view. Also, I offer as an alternative those green complexes and fairway routings that ALLOW for direct lines of flight but, in reality, demand that a shot be shaped in order to hit the little white ball in the right place.
Sorry I can't see the other side of this one, guys. but I do hope I was polite about it.