Help, please.
The first hole at my club is a 395 yard, dogleg right, around a lake. A large tree guards the corner. A good drive can carry that water, but many players inadvertently slice into it, anyway. It is also, incidently, our play-off hole. In such situations, a high handicapper might have an advantage, and a stronger player might hope to negate that advantage by taking a risk.
Two years ago, the superintendent planted pine trees on the opposite bank, and they are growing rapidly. I argue that this is double jeapordy,
but old-guard members insist on protecting their trees. "The trees are the hazard, not the water," said one.
Water is not a hazard?
"It's risk-reward," said another.
"It's risk, and get screwed," I countered. "We're sking them to clear two hazards, not one."
"Those trees won't be a factor for twenty years," said our Green Committee chairman.
"And they will curse us in twenty years," I noted.
"We used to have elms there," he continued. "It's tradition."
"Show me one classic hole on a great course with such a design," I challenged him. Is there one?
Anybody got any good, architectural arguments with which to counter these guys?
I need quotes or architectural citations, or examples, please.