[Phil_the_Author]

Most often we discuss trees on golf courses as bad things; encroahments onto holes that effect everything from shot angles to turf growth and all for the worse. Yet I believe there are a number of examples of trees that were unplanned for when courses were first opened for play that now have both added to a holes beauty but also to its architectural merit.

A good example of this is the tree that now guards the 8th hole on Bethpage Black.

This is a photo of the hole taken in 1938, 2 years after it opened for play. The right hillside bunker is still there and the tree is but an unplanned sapling on the hillside and barely noticeable:



This was taken in 1956 from behind the green. 18 years later and the sapling is a young mature full tree that is only beginning to impact the hole:



Can you think of any other examples of unplanned trees that have become integral to a hole for the better?

Today the tree is very much in play with several balls hit into it during both 2002 & 2009 Opens. Photo taken by Joe Bausch:

[Jay Flemma]

My favorite two stories about trees and architecture are the Hinkle Tree story, and the story about Pete Dye cutting down and burning the trees that Kohler insisted on keeping.

Oakmont had the right idea:)

[Tom_Doak]

Phil:

I would agree that tree is very much in play but I wouldn't agree it makes the hole better.

I had to think a while to come up with a tree that fit the title of your thread, but I have one example, if it's still there ... I haven't been back to Ganton for 24 years.  But there was a short par-4 there with a volunteer tree on the right side of the fairway about 220 yards off the tee.  If you chose not to play aggressively off the tee, and then hit a weak fade lay-up, that tree might very well block your second shot, and you'd completely deserve it.

It is amazing how much trees will grow into play over time.  There was a little sapling by the third green at High Pointe when we were building it ... it wasn't even big enough that I thought about whether to take it down or not.  Twenty years later, it is a 35-foot tree!  Nobody mentions it much, but installing an irrigation system to a formerly dry area gives the plant growth around the course a tremendous kick ... a little water spray on a windy day goes a lot farther than no water at all.

[Chris Cupit]

I hate to jump on a bandwagon but I can't say that I think the tree makes the hole better either--harder, OK, but better?

Not knowing anything about the hole I think the large front right bunker would look great if it were restored.  Maybe if it moved a shade closer to the green and assuming the bunker shot would be from a deep bunker to a green that may slope away from you, I think that would be a far prettier hole and still retain any needed difficulty.

I admit I pretty much hate "in play" trees.  I also admit to the so called "good player" bias against "luck" (I know this is wrong but I can't help it) but when balls get hung up in trees they can go anywhere--lake, rough, on the green......the ball gets up in the limbs and like a plinko chip could fall anywhere!  Fire up the STIHL and put back the right front bunker

[Chris Cupit]

And another thing.....   When there is a tree that is in play it doesn't seem as bad to me if you can play around it.  If a good shot or shots opens up an angle or gets you away from the offending tree I think it's OK.  On a par 3 where you are stuck as to where you must tee off I think it stinks to force someone to negotiate a tree.  (This may not be the case at bethpage) but IF the hole is front right and the tree blocks a direct line to the hole and given the way modern balls resist curving, I think I would not like the tree even more.

PS  I never understood the fascination with the Elm at WF East #10 either so I must be a hopeless and frustrated clear cutter   I think the 10th at WF east is far better once that damned tree died   I will concede it was a prettier hole before and a beautiful elm--just in a bad spot--on a golf course!

[Dan Herrmann]

Based on the photos, I think the hole played better pre-tree.

[mike_malone]

The hill to the right of the green provided enough interest for more shots. The tree reduces strategic thought.

[Bill Brightly]

Another stupid tree that should go. It is just a distraction on a gorgeous little hole.

[Phil_the_Author]

I hate to disagree with all of you, but this tree provides the player the opportunity to fully commit to what type of shot to play.

First of all, because of the height of the tee box on the hill above the only shots that are hit into it are those that are poorly struck. The ability to carry it with a well-struck STRAIGHT shot and land it close to the hole even if it is cut on the right side is not impacted by the tree. It is a far more mental hazard than a physical one to this than a physical one. A fade that lands softly will always be rewarded especially as it will come into the slope of the green.

Secondly the bunker that was on the hillside would only catch very poor shots and would actually provide a 'safety net' for those that would have ended up in the rough grass and uneven ground or carom down into the water.

This tree provides a strong mental challenge to the player that would not be there if it were gone. In fact it actually aids the savvy thinking player as it can help him guage how the wind comes down through the gully from the 9th fairway.

In effect this tree has almost created a 'cape' hole out of a par-three.

Unfortunately, the tree is dying and probably only has another year or two left in it. I will miss it and am hoping that one is transplanted in its place.

[Norbert P]

Philip, I like the "Cape" par 3 slant.

"There you go man, keep as cool as you can.
Face piles
Of trials
With smiles.
It riles them to believe
that you perceive
the web they weave
Keep on thinking free. "

Moody Blues "In the Beginning"

[Bill Brightly]

Phil,

I assume that Tilly did not plant the sapling, so I doubt he would approve.

No question this hole favors a left-to-right fade, with or without the tree, and the elevation of the tee means it is not a real factor for the pros and good amateurs. So it is only a problem for short hitters, weaker players who can only draw the ball, and most women. To me, that is bad architecture. Plus, I can't get over how much of the back right slope and view the tree obscures. But I guess there is no accounting for taste.

[Norbert P]

           

[Mitch Hantman]

Phil,

I have played the course many times over the years, and although Bethpage is not known for wind, that may be the windiest shot on the course.  If the wind is working from the right or left, if may force one shape of shot over the other, rather than letting the player decide, and the tree could complicate it further, forcing a left to right shot into a wind that doesn't support that shot. I think that the visual benefits of losing the tree far outweigh any benefit, and makes the hole eminently more 'fun'.  Having to hit a shot from deep rough after bailing out with a weak shot to the right, is the proper penalty on this hole, and makes for a possible recovery shot. 

Sorry Phil, I too, will be glad to see it gone.

[Phil_the_Author]

Slag,

I have that sign hanging in my home... 

[Phil_the_Author]

By the way, since when is a feature that makes a hole more challenging NOT an architecturally good thing?

Bill, no, Tilly didn't plant the tree. It is the product of poor maintenance as a sapling that wasn't removed after it began growing. You mentioned that, "No question this hole favors a left-to-right fade, with or without the tree, and the elevation of the tee means it is not a real factor for the pros and good amateurs. So it is only a problem for short hitters, weaker players who can only draw the ball, and most women. To me, that is bad architecture." By that same logic, wouldn't you say that the original bunker would have only been a problem for those same short hitters, weaker hitters and most women and therefor been bad architecture as well? Especially as 99% of the bunker was in FRONT of where the tree grew...

Mitch, I have 400+ rounds on the Black myself and am very6 familiar with the fun winds that can challenge that area of the course, especially at this time of year. To me that is part of the fun of the design...

[Bill Brightly]

Phil,

You ask:

"By the way, since when is a feature that makes a hole more challenging NOT an architecturally good thing?"

That's pretty easy. When the "challenge" is not necessary, when it makes the shot appear contrived, when it detracts from the basic beauty of the hole, and/or when it UNFAIRLY favors golfers of the highest ability. Trees and are not hazards, IMO, and not always easily avoided as are many bunkers or water hazards.

My personal preference is that trees like this are OK in small doses on par 4 and 5's, so the golfer has the option of positioning his ball  to minimize the tree's effect. Just seems contrived to me on a par 3. The par five 8th West at Ridgewood has a GREAT tree, and truly adds the strategy of the hole. (I guess that's why Tilly left it there:) )

And to say that all features that make a hole more challenging are GOOD things is easily disproven. An 60' spruce tree 50  yards in front of a tee box sure would be challenging...so would a 6' high stone wall 20 feet off a tee box. Very challenging. Also very bad architecture.

[Tom_Doak]

By the way, since when is a feature that makes a hole more challenging NOT an architecturally good thing?

Phil:

I could tell from your earlier posts about this tree that this was probably your viewpoint.  Not surprisingly, since you are one of the biggest fans of the Black course which is all about challenge.

Nevertheless, your statement is ridiculous.  Any hazard makes a hole more challenging.  A tree in the middle of a green would make a hole more challenging.  Would that be a good thing architecturally?

[Sean_A]

Jeepers!  I don't like the tree in the least.  It doesn't seem to make any sense to me.  Plus, it just looks out of place.  But then, I don't like having to go over trees sometimes as part and parcel of a shot.  If a tree is in blocking part of the path to a green and one is on the tee or fairway there should always be plenty of space to move around it.  A lovely tree which we work around is fine if there is space, but looking at the pic, the tree actually hangs over the green line if the green were long enough.  Before anyone asks, no, I don't like trees hanging over fairways either.   

Ciao

[Mark McKeever]

I can see this from both sides.  Personally I like the tree being there because it forces you to hit a cut at any of the middle or back right hole locations.  I can see where the people are coming from though that say the tree doesnt belong there and it appears out of place but to me I like seeing it there and it adds a nice element of challenge and strategy to the hole.

Mark

[Sean_A]

I can see this from both sides.  Personally I like the tree being there because it forces you to hit a cut at any of the middle or back right hole locations.  I can see where the people are coming from though that say the tree doesnt belong there and it appears out of place but to me I like seeing it there and it adds a nice element of challenge and strategy to the hole.

Mark

Mark

IMO, the tree doesn't add, it subtracts in terms of the draw at whatever height the tree is being eliminated as a shot option. 

Ciao

[Mark McKeever]

To me it merely takes away one of the shot options.  I do understand what you're saying though.

Mark

[Phil_the_Author]

The tree does NOT force you to change any type of shot that you desire to hit. The top of the tree is BELOW the height of the tee box that you are hitting from and is far enough in front of the green that one can carry the ball onto any part of the green on a line directly over it.

This is a VISUAL hazard and not a physical one. The only shots that find it are ones that are not hit well enough to reach the green other than possibly the very front right corner, and most of these would find either heavy grass or kick left and into the pond in a number of cases.   

Tom, and others, "ridiculous" though it might have been, my statement "By the way, since when is a feature that makes a hole more challenging NOT an architecturally good thing?" was made in response to Bill's contention "it is only a problem for short hitters, weaker players who can only draw the ball, and most women. To me, that is bad architecture..." It was meant in the vein that any feature that is PROERLY USED can be an architecturally good thing.

Bill contends that since it ONLY impacts on poor, weak and women players that makes it BAD architecture and so the bunker should remain. I contend that both features do the same thing and if the tree is bad architecture for the reason he cites than so is the bunker.

Finally, being a fan of the Black doesn't blind me to the problems of the course. There isn't a single perfect course in the world. That is why just as every player has ideas to change certain holes if he could, I also would make some changes to the Black if I had the ability... This tree is not one of them...

[Charlie Goerges]

The provenance of the tree seems like something that Tilly might have enjoyed, even if he wouldn't have placed it there or allowed it to grow. These kinds of changes are what makes things what they are, what gives them a sense of place.

I agree with Phil that the tree is no worse than the original bunker would have been for the weaker player, and since it allowed the abandonment of the bunker, probably saved a lot of money in maint. Now when the tree dies, I would say they should restore the bunker rather than plant a tree.

[Sean_A]

If we just hit straight over the top of the tree, what is the point?  I still don't find much to like about the tree, but I understand there is a divide for this sort of thing - only I fall strongly on th side of the divide which doesn't care for use of trees in this manner.  If the hole needs some sort of "extra negative" strategy build it into the green or surrounds. 

Ciao

[Bill Brightly]

Phil,

http://www.usopen.com/en_US/course/index.html

I understand your point that this tree is more of a viusal "illusion," something that your eye is drawn to but really should be filtered out in your per-shot routine. I give the tree merit for that, and you raise a very interesting point: a tree can be used in deceptive design.

I certainly don't know the hole as well as you, so I'll put away my chainsaw, ok? But I think there is a "cost" to trees like this, and a risk that you are taking away from Tilly's design intent.

First of all, the view of the really cool slope on the right is interrupted and the view beyond is lost. Without the tree, the view is the pond, the green, the slope, and the trees well off in the distance. Adding a prominant tree like this then, by definition, takes away from these elements to the extent that the tree grabs attention.

Secondly, there is a lot going on with this hole: a pond in front, wind, a cool green, great slope from right to left, a meanacing bunker behind if you bail out long and left (avoiding the pond and hill on the right.)

So I guess my question is: does the tree make the hole "too busy" and has it gotten in the way of an already beautiful design?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()