Use of Trees for Strategic Interest

[Ben Voelker]

The use of trees for strategic interest in golf seems to be generally opposed on this board, usually because they allow few recovery options and make finding balls a nightmare.  I have played plenty of courses where this is the case.  In this thread, I was hoping to get some discussion going on examples of good use of trees and why.

I'll start...

Memorial Park in Houston, 9th hole, Par 4, 410/380 yards

I don't have any photos, but an aerial will do the trick just fine.

A dogleg left par 4 with a tree-filled creekbed down the left off the tee and bunkers right.


One would expect most players would tend to favor the right side because of the creek on the left.  However, from my experience most players miss left for a few reasons, 1.There is quite a bit of room left of the fairway before you get to the creek and there is generally not thick rough at Memorial Park, so left looks wide open, and 2. The fairway bunkers on the right are the first on the entire course and are quite intimidating for that reason.

However, the miss left usually leaves a blind or blocked second into the green due to tree cover unless a draw can be played.  In reality, the closer one gets to those fairway bunkers off the tee, the better look you have at a well bunkered green.

I think this particular hole is made by the fact that the trees act as a hazard for the approach.  Without such, this would be a hole where the only goal is to miss the fw bunkers and bomb it on to the green.

Any thoughts or other examples from the group?

[Garland Bayley]

Isn't there a left greenside bunker that serves as a hazard to the approach for those driving left? Why do you need the trees in that case?

[Ben Voelker]

Garland,

The better angle gained entering the green as related to greenside bunkers is minimal between the left and right sides of the fairway as the shot lines indicate.  Without the trees on the left there is very little incentive to put your drive anywhere near those fw bunkers.  It pretty much becomes a hole with no driving interest and a standard approach into a heavily bunkered green.

With the trees on the left, there are ample options for recovery, even with a miss left on the tee ball, but the recovery is much more difficult than if the drive is missed in the fw bunkers.  One could attempt a draw with a short iron (I certainly can't do that! ), lay up short of the creek and play for a good bogey, aim at the right, front greenside bunker and hope for an up and down from there, or even play over the green side bunker and play for an up and down from long right.  It will cost you a half or full stroke to miss left, but it's not death.

I think it is a case where the trees lining the creek make the hole, along with the intimidating presence of the fw bunkers on the right.

[Garland Bayley]

So your intent it to have a hole for the tiger golfer, but not the hacker. The hacker pops one up very short in the center of the fairway. The trees force him to hit the second somewhere besides at the green. Without the trees, he has a chance to recover, and not be slogging it around.

Aren't we involved in a movement to get rid of trees for just these kinds of reasons? Aren't you trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear here?

[Ben Voelker]

So your intent it to have a hole for the tiger golfer, but not the hacker. The hacker pops one up very short in the center of the fairway. The trees force him to hit the second somewhere besides at the green. Without the trees, he has a chance to recover, and not be slogging it around.

Garland,

The hacker who pops his drive up is not going at the green from 230+ yards anyway.  It is eminently playable, with the option to play a shot down the fairway for a short third shot, or even over the creek toward the bunker fronting the green.  I am not a low handicapper and I have hit my fair share of tops, pop ups, shanks and the like .  With the exception of short par 4's I am not thinking of anything but getting my second shot in position for a reasonable third.

If there are no trees, should the green be bunkerless as well because the hacker is not going to carry the bunkers and keep the ball on this green?  While I don't believe in lots of lost balls for the high handicapper, I do believe that the player who hits poorer shots should not be expecting to capture a GIR and two putt par after a poor drive.  Otherwise, what's the advantage of hitting a good drive in the first place?

PS - I have been reading The Spirit of Saint Andrew's recently, which is what got me thinking about this issue in the first place.  From the good doctor himself on page 82:

Most of the best inland courses owe their popularity to the grouping of trees.  Groups of trees are the most effective way of preventing players reaching the green with their second shots after playing their drives in the wrong direction.  No bunkers guarding the green seem to be able to prevent them doing so.

[Jeff Spittel]

I like the 9th at Memorial, but I wonder if it would work if the trees were removed. There is enough room on the left for them to actually create a split fairway and use the creek as more of a centerline hazard.

[Adam Clayman]

The use of trees for strategic interest in golf seems to be generally opposed on this board, usually because they allow few recovery options and make finding balls a nightmare. 

Ben, This is a common mistake.There is no general consensus as it relates to the strategic placement of trees. However, there is no need to have the entire row you have pictured. If the last tree or two would do the trick for the purposes you've cited.

[Ben Voelker]

If the last tree or two would do the trick for the purposes you've cited.

Fair enough.  I find the particular strategy provided interesting, not the number of trees down the entire length.  Actually the idea of leaving the last few trees AND providing a second fairway on the left would make for a very interesting hole.

Does anybody have any other examples?

[Lynn_Shackelford]

I played there once (Memorial) and actually remember this hole because of the trees.  However couldn't you have the same strategy by angling the green so that it can only be approached easily by a drive down the middle or right side of the fairway?  For those who miss short and left they can still see the green, be tempted by the green but probably won't be able to stop the ball on the green.  Of course maintenance plays a part as the green needs to be kept firm and hopefully angled away from the golfer approaching from the left side of the fairway.  If all the above were true, there wouldn't be any need for trees.
As for the Good Doctor, I am disappointed by his quote.  Maybe he meant on a flat piece of property, devoid of interest, trees assist in rewarding and penalizing poor drives?

[Ben Voelker]

I played there once (Memorial) and actually remember this hole because of the trees.  However couldn't you have the same strategy by angling the green so that it can only be approached easily by a drive down the middle or right side of the fairway?  For those who miss short and left they can still see the green, be tempted by the green but probably won't be able to stop the ball on the green.  Of course maintenance plays a part as the green needs to be kept firm and hopefully angled away from the golfer approaching from the left side of the fairway.  If all the above were true, there wouldn't be any need for trees.

Lynn,

I don't think trees are always the solution, but they can provide variety.  In this case, I think they work because the playing corridor is still wide and the angle provides for reasonable recovery options from the left side, even toward the green if one can hit an heroic draw with a short to mid iron.  Par is not out the equation, you just have to hit a great shot to get it.

I'm surprised you remember this particular hole because of the trees.  There are a number of holes on the course that are much more claustrophobic because of trees, especially the driving "chute" on number 5. 

As for the Good Doctor, I am disappointed by his quote.  Maybe he meant on a flat piece of property, devoid of interest, trees assist in rewarding and penalizing poor drives?

I have never been, but the 17th (and maybe 18 as well?) at Cypress Point comes to mind immediately as a hole where he adopted trees to provide a similar hazard.

[Richard Choi]

The better angle gained entering the green as related to greenside bunkers is minimal between the left and right sides of the fairway as the shot lines indicate. 

Then why bother having the greenside bunkers on the left? If the trees already serve as a deterrant for the left side, why punish you even more with the leftside bunker? Seems like this hole lacks any risk/reward...

[Garland Bayley]

I like the 9th at Memorial, but I wonder if it would work if the trees were removed. There is enough room on the left for them to actually create a split fairway and use the creek as more of a centerline hazard.

Now were talking!

[Garland Bayley]

The hacker who pops his drive up is not going at the green from 230+ yards anyway.

Certainly a high percentage of them are. Hackers are not short by definition. Take George Pazin for example.

It is eminently playable, with the option to play a shot down the fairway for a short third shot, or even over the creek toward the bunker fronting the green.  I am not a low handicapper and I have hit my fair share of tops, pop ups, shanks and the like .  With the exception of short par 4's I am not thinking of anything but getting my second shot in position for a reasonable third.

If there are no trees, should the green be bunkerless as well because the hacker is not going to carry the bunkers and keep the ball on this green?  

Now see that is where your defense is. You don't need no stinking trees.

While I don't believe in lots of lost balls for the high handicapper, I do believe that the player who hits poorer shots should not be expecting to capture a GIR and two putt par after a poor drive.  

I trust you won't be wanting to play the links across the pond any time soon then. And, leave Bandon out, unless you plan to stick to Bandon Trails.

Otherwise, what's the advantage of hitting a good drive in the first place?

As the saying goes, distance is its own reward, or something like that. You mean to tell me that approaching from 230 yards is just as good as whatever approach the good drive left was?

PS - I have been reading The Spirit of Saint Andrew's recently, which is what got me thinking about this issue in the first place.  From the good doctor himself on page 82:

Most of the best inland courses owe their popularity to the grouping of trees.  Groups of trees are the most effective way of preventing players reaching the green with their second shots after playing their drives in the wrong direction.  No bunkers guarding the green seem to be able to prevent them doing so.

What does he think about the butt ugly rows of trees that we Americans put along side every fairway? Not exactly camoflauge that blends into the landscape are they?

[Steve Wilson]

Trees grow.  And not just taller.  They get wider and ingest more playing options with every year of life. If bunkers and water hazards did the same, we would have to add camels and swamp boats to the ancillary equipment Melvyn rails. 

Building a hole around a single tree can be risky because when the tree dies, there goes much the strategic interest.

Those objections aside, I don't quibble with trees that are located beyond the preferred, acceptable, or even conceivable lines of play.  Some shots are so bad they deserve the equivalent treatment meted out by a hazard or out of bounds.  I know because I sometimes hit those bad shots. 

[Jeff Spittel]

I like the 9th at Memorial, but I wonder if it would work if the trees were removed. There is enough room on the left for them to actually create a split fairway and use the creek as more of a centerline hazard.

Now were talking!

I've been drinking the Kool Aid, Garland. It's amazing how the discussion on this site will get you thinking about design elements while you're in the process of making a 7 on a relatively easy hole.

[Garland Bayley]

I looked it up on Google Earth. Clearly the trees need to go! What is that bunker complex blocked by the trees for? Who is the architect? When were the trees planted? It seems yet another green committee gone mad. Calling Dr. Klein, Calling Dr. Klein.

[Wade Schueneman]

I grew up playing a muni that used trees very effectively.  There was a single line of mature oaks lining many of the fairways.  Nobody lost balls, because the trees were large and well spaced and there was no underbrush.  Once in the trees the fun began, because there were plenty of options (i.e. gaps between those big trunks).  The lies were generally bare and there were generally no limbs below 12 feet.  The result is that it encouraged strategic thinking and shotmaking.  One of the great things about an oak is that it can generally be played over or under (not so much with pines in Georgia) or around (if it is isolated).  The result is that a bad shot is punished, but atonement is available. 

I guess my point is that I think that trees can be used very effectively if the details are right.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Has anybody played Cimmaron Hills in Austin, Tx...on several holes most notably number 2 and 16 there are trees literally in the middle of the fairway.
When quized about this architect Nicklaus said..those are aiming points!!!
But they are right in the filed of play

[Garland Bayley]

If the last tree or two would do the trick for the purposes you've cited.

Fair enough.  I find the particular strategy provided interesting, not the number of trees down the entire length.  Actually the idea of leaving the last few trees AND providing a second fairway on the left would make for a very interesting hole.

Does anybody have any other examples?

Black Forest #10 has a strategic use of trees as discussed in Tom's Anatomy of a Golf Course.

[Tim Martin]

Kiawah Ocean`s use of two live oaks on the third hole fronting the approach makes for a unique and interesting short 4 par.

[Garland Bayley]

this is all the history they give on the Memorial Park Golf Course website.

History of Memorial Park Golf Course


In an ambitious effort to enhance parks across the city, the Parks and Recreation Department began construction to turn the 9-hole course into an illustrious 18-hole golf course. In July of the following year, the first ball was teed off on what architect John Bredemus called his "greatest golf course ever."

Through the years, Memorial Park Golf Course hosted many famous golfers such as Babe Didrikson Zaharias, Jack Nicklaus, Arnold Palmer and Jimmy Demaret. It was also the home of the Houston Open from 1951 to 1963.

Overplay, inadequate funding and insufficient repair resulted in the gradual deterioration of the course. It became apparent that major renovations were necessary.

In 1994, on behalf of Mayor Bob Lanier, Houston Park Board member Nancy Reynolds began a campaign to restore the golf course to its original grandeur. Great detail was given to preserving the historical quality as well as to allowing for proper maintenance for the future of the course.

In 1995, the newly renovated 600-acre course opened with a lighted driving range, putting and chipping greens, and a beautiful new clubhouse facility.

Today, the Memorial Park Golf Course is known as one of the best municipal courses in the nation and is visited by more than 60,000 patrons each year. Houston is proud to call Memorial Park Golf Course the crown jewel of Memorial Park.

[Ben Voelker]

Black Forest #10 has a strategic use of trees as discussed in Tom's Anatomy of a Golf Course.

Garland,

Would you be willing to describe the hole?  I cannot find an aerial or course description on the website.

[Charlie Goerges]

A good subject, one of my favorites. I don't have much time at the moment, but let me say that besides wind, few things are better at forcing the player to actually move the ball.

[Garland Bayley]

Black Forest #10 has a strategic use of trees as discussed in Tom's Anatomy of a Golf Course.

Garland,

Would you be willing to describe the hole?  I cannot find an aerial or course description on the website.

It is a par 5 that has a narrow "tree gate" to pass through for the second. You have to decide whether you will drive as far as possible to try to reach in two, which may cause you to have a problem getting through the gate due to the sharply increasing angle the closer you get offline. Or, to lay back to give your self a good angle to get through the gate.

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,20495.0/

[Jason Topp]

One advantage of a tree as a hazard is its vertical dimension.  Trees more effectively challenge the player to control trajectory and ball flight than bunkers.  When spaced appropriately, they also carry a big advantage over water hazards in that they randomly allow chances for recovery shots.  I think, when used with appropriate moderation, they add greatly to the experience of playing a course.  (Tunnels of tightly spaced trees are not appropriately spaced in my view).

On midwestern parkland courses I find that the most difficult decisions I need to make on a course usually involve trees.  After an errant drive, for most recovery shots there are at minimum two alternatives - take your medicine or hit an agressive shot.  Often there are high and low options associated with both of those options.  The odds associated with each option change dramatically with very slight changes in position and with my capabilities to hit a visualized shot on a particular day.

One of the most interesting tee shots on my course is one where a tree hangs out on the right side of the fairway about 100 yards off the tee on a short par five.  If I hit a solid drive down the right side in favorable weather conditions, I can sometimes get to the green in two.  Some days I hit it over the tree, on other days I try to fade it around (not my preferred shot) and on other days I just take my medicine and accept I will be playing a three shot hole.  Reaching the green in two is an accomplishment I savor.

The 16th at TPC Sawgrass provides another example of a very interesting tree that forces the player to think about where he will place his second shot:

  

 The problem is not with trees as a hazard as a general concept but rather the manner in which they were planted as a part of tree planting programs in the middle part of this century.  This oblique of my course from 1959 demonstrates why things went awry: