How did the ODG's deal with parallel fairways and no trees between?

[mike_malone]

 On the Naval Academy topic I suggested the course was overtreed. Looking at the 1940 aerial I can see larger areas where there trees back then. But when fairways were parallel without trees Flynn seemed to have them heading in opposite directions. Isn't this enough for safety? Did they design for you to recover from the wrong fairway? He also used doglegs to keep balls out of adjoining fairways.

[Tom_Doak]

Mike:  A lot of times they also placed bunkers in the rough between the two holes ... particularly at high points along the way, to disturb the visual of the adjacent fairway and make it clear that was not where you were supposed to go.

I've consulted at clubs where there are still vestiges of some of those bunkers lying under the trees that were planted to replace them.  I don't think those bunkers were strategic at all, I think they served only to separate the holes visually.

[Tim Liddy]

At 50 rounds a day, common when the golf courses were built, I do not think it was much of an issue.

[John Moore II]

At 50 rounds a day, common when the golf courses were built, I do not think it was much of an issue.

Tim, I think you might be on to something there. And I might say that the golfers of the time who played regularly were probably slightly of better quality than the average golfer of today. And, as before, I think generally the golfers hit the ball a much shorter distance than they do today. One thing that this thread misses is the fact that perhaps the course at the Naval Academy was a bit tighter than Flynn may have wanted because there was no more land available for golf course use.

[Philippe Binette]

I found "safety issues" a little weird....

I think it's safer if you have parallel fairways where you can see each other... where you might wait a minute if somebody is in the middle bunkers and you don't feel comfortable driving, compared to a situation where there's a line of trees and you can't see if somebody is there.

It's like the distance between greens and tees, in Scotland, you see tee shots over the corner of a green, people just use their judgement and wait... but that's not what a lawyer would say 

Technically, The Old Course is probably the most unsafe course in the world... connected parallel fairways where everybody is playing in the middle, blind tee shots, crossing holes, people walking around, houses in the way, but I doubt there's more people getting hit by a golf ball on that course then anywhere else

[mike_malone]

 I think it wasn't safety that led to tree plantings but the desire to keep play from other fairways.

[Mark McKeever]

Werent golf balls softer back then anyway if you got hit with one? 

Mark

[mike_malone]

 I think Flynn was very capable of fitting courses into the space available. That was his genius of routing. Rolling Green probably has 5 par threes because it made the routing easier.

[Mark Pearce]

TOC is a veritable haven of safety compared to Leven Links.  Parallel blind fairways are guaranteed to make the sound of a ball landing close by a regular feature of a round.

[mike_malone]

 Mark,

    This could be an example of pre ODG's design. ODG---old dead guys-- usually refers to the golden age architects of the early 20th century. Leven Links , if it predates this, may be a pre Haskell ball course.It may never have been designed with the modern game in mind.

[Pete Lavallee]

Werent golf balls softer back then anyway if you got hit with one? 

Mark,

Did you know that 2 people were killed by featheries in St. Andrews in the 1800's. One was struck in the head, the other in the chest!

[John Shimony]

Has anyone played a number of rounds at a small classic course that has had a lot of trees felled and could tell us the affect?  At the course I belong to in Philadelphia aerial photos show tree planting started fairly swiftly after construction.  A photo just seven years after the openiing shows many small trees dotting the rough.  Perhaps safety was a concern very early on.  But who is to say, perhaps someone in charge just thought trees would look nice. 

[Mark McKeever]

John,

I think the trees are present for both reasons.  People liked the looks of them, they provide safety from other holes, and they provide a challenge for the off line shot!

Mark

[John Shimony]

Exactly, its hard to tell the reason for past planting without documentation.  But has anyone out there played a course that took the plunge and felled a bunch of trees on a small classic course and could tell us how that effected safety?  I would think only courses with alot of acerage would feel comfortable risking a lawsuit because they think the natural width between holes is safety enough.

[John Shimony]

Or I should say it's hard to tell the exact reason for planting without documentation.

[John Moore II]

Mark,

    This could be an example of pre ODG's design. ODG---old dead guys-- usually refers to the golden age architects of the early 20th century. Leven Links , if it predates this, may be a pre Haskell ball course.It may never have been designed with the modern game in mind.

What makes you think USNA was designed with the 'modern' game in mind? I mean, the course in its present configuration, generally, was finished in 1939. That was 71 years ago. Golf courses built 17 years ago weren't built with 350 yard drives and Pro-V1 golf balls in mind. What on earth would cause you to think that a golf course built 71 years ago was built with today's game in mind?

And I just have to ask any designers who may want to answer, do you really design golf courses thinking about how the hole might play if a shot is struck 75+ yards off line into another fairway? These trees put in the USNA course are there to define the holes; most of them still have 60~ yard wide playing corridors. That is plenty fair. Why should golfers be able to easily recover from shots hit 50 or 75 yards offline? Really, Really, are you going to sit here and tell everyone that the USNA Golf Course was designed so that recovery shots could be played from ridiculously outside the intended line of play? I think not, and I don't think any golf course on this planet was designed so that shots could be easily recovered from shots played way off line.

[paul cowley]

Twenty years ago I used 225' as the minimum center line distance between parallel fairways.

Now I've gone to 275'+ when I can get it...250' when I absolutely have to.

Its the distance issue.

[BCrosby]

Paul -

The issue in one of the very few reported cases that involve architect design liability turned on the question of whether the c/l to c/l distances were wide enough between parallel holes. The court's decsion was short and sweet. Players assume the risk of errant balls from other fw's.

Insurance companies do a good job of scaring architects into buying more insurance for liability based on negligent design than architects probably need.

Bob

[mike_malone]

 John,

    I don't know the answer to what was in the mind of designers back then. My speculation is that they tried NONTREE solutions. I do believe they designed for the recovery shot 75 yards offline simply by placing bunkers next to the green and having the green slope into the center.

[John Moore II]

Twenty years ago I used 225' as the minimum center line distance between parallel fairways.

Now I've gone to 275'+ when I can get it...250' when I absolutely have to.

Its the distance issue.

I just did these distances on Google for some of the holes in question at USNA: The distances are all around 250 feet, some slightly less but none more than 240 feet in the landing areas.

Paul-Since you mention design from 20 years ago and today, have you ever designed a hole and thought about how a player might be able to recover if he blasted a shot some 75 yards off line into a parallel fairway? I should think it would be difficult enough to design within the proper fairway and then a rough area forming a corridor 60 or so yards wide without wondering if a player might have a somewhat easy recovery from the next fairway over.

Something that needs to be understood about this course, some of the thickest trees are on the back nine, they've been there from the start, maybe not as dense, but there. The trees on the front nine have been planted, for better or worse. The playing corridors are still fairly wide, 45+ yards in nearly every case. To me, that is more than plenty wide to play fair. I could care less if someone is able to recover from 40-50 yards offline; get some lessons pal, I give them every day.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Peter said

Mark,
Did you know that 2 people were killed by featheries in St. Andrews in the 1800's. One was struck in the head, the other in the chest!

But Peter did you forget to mention that a millisecond later a great big fracking Spoon followed through and completed the “coup de grâce”. My understanding being that they were two individuals from North American enquiring where they could hire out carts – a Caddie was apparently heard mumbling as he walked away from the scene ‘there will be no F*”#ing  carts here to steal my job’. Seems the R&A understood the concerns of the caddies.


Melvyn

PS  Paul this does not qualify as a rant on carts

[mike_malone]

 At Rolling Green, a Flynn course, the trees that were planted very early are about 80 yards apart.  We have no firm evidence that Flynn was involved in these plantings. But they do conform nicely to his ideas that trees should be out of play, provide a backdrop, and shade on a hot day.
   

     John,

       I understand that there were many trees there originally ( as there were at RG ). My focus was on the parts were there weren't trees so I could discern how Flynn dealt with that open space.

  At Rolling Green trees were not planted early between the #11, #9, and #12 holes which run parallel to each other. I can only guess why they planted them in other places and not there. My guess is that the tees and greens are all elevated in this area so that visibility was great for the golfers so trees would be a negative for safety. Also, so much of the rest of the course was treed that this provided a different look---open .

   I hope to see The Naval Academy someday to fill in my Flynn portfolio. Then I can see how he used the ground there. I just feel that trees often eliminate the role that rolling hills were intended to play.

[John Moore II]

At Rolling Green, a Flynn course, the trees that were planted very early are about 80 yards apart.  We have no firm evidence that Flynn was involved in these plantings. But they do conform nicely to his ideas that trees should be out of play, provide a backdrop, and shade on a hot day.
   

     John,

       I understand that there were many trees there originally ( as there were at RG ). My focus was on the parts were there weren't trees so I could discern how Flynn dealt with that open space.

  At Rolling Green trees were not planted early between the #11, #9, and #12 holes which run parallel to each other. I can only guess why they planted them in other places and not there. My guess is that the tees and greens are all elevated in this area so that visibility was great for the golfers so trees would be a negative for safety. Also, so much of the rest of the course was treed that this provided a different look---open .

   I hope to see The Naval Academy someday to fill in my Flynn portfolio. Then I can see how he used the ground there. I just feel that trees often eliminate the role that rolling hills were intended to play.

For what its worth, the area where the trees were added is the flattest part of the property. The 1st fairway and tee, the 7th hole, the 6th fairway and green, the 5th fairway and tee, the 4th hole and the 3rd green are all basically on the same level, just a couple of feet of elevation change. The 5th green and 6th tee are quite elevated though. The back nine if the part of the course with the most movement, playing across the hills.

[paul cowley]

John

"Paul-Since you mention design from 20 years ago and today, have you ever designed a hole and thought about how a player might be able to recover if he blasted a shot some 75 yards off line into a parallel fairway? I should think it would be difficult enough to design within the proper fairway and then a rough area forming a corridor 60 or so yards wide without wondering if a player might have a somewhat easy recovery from the next fairway over. "

Yes I do...and on the last two courses I've built [one in West Texas and one in Cabo] I have combined fairways to actually facilitate mis hits and recoveries. It really depends on the situation and routing.

Bob C....interesting.

[mike_malone]

 John,

   Based on your statement that the untreed area was relatively flat that would fit with my thought that ODG looked for non tree solutions to parallel holes where visibility was good.

    Another example from Rolling Green is #1 and #2. Originally there were no trees but very early trees were planted between the holes. My guess is that people walking up the hill of #2 fairway cannot see those teeing off from #1. This lends itself to trees there.