REMOVAL OF TREES

[mikeyolympic]

after perusing some of the courses that are featured, i got an overall sense that all of you are in favor of tree removal. i can understand that tree removal can be good because it can get some sunlight to places that don't grow well, or even make a hole look more appealing. however, i am sort of against the removal of trees because i believe a tree is a great value for shotmaking and resistance to scoring. if you talk to good players, most of them will say they like courses with narrow fairways with big trees. i love the look of a tee box where there are trees encroaching. trees are what i believe make a golf course. example: olympic. what would be a valid case for not cutting down trees?

[Brad Klein]

Thank goodness someone has finally come to the defense of our helpless, victimized trees. I agree completely. Strategic trees are a crucial aspect of any defense of a golf hole and should be left alone.

For example, if you have trees in the middle of the forward or middle teeing ground, players from the back tee will have to hit a cut or hook, as needed. What a great shot-making option. Trees that so closely line a fairway that their leaf canopies "join hands" at the landing area to form a kind of deciduous arc are also an attractive feature because they require control of trajectory and ball flight while also providing an indispensable comfort in mid-summer, namely shade for golfers.

Many of you are familiar with the 6th green at Riviera with the bunker in the middle of the putting surface. But how many of you know about the tree in the middle of the shared green (I think 2nd and 5th holes) at Devil's Paintbrush GC in Toronto? Let us not underestimate the value of such a strategic tree for requiring golfers to impose side spin when navigating around such a natural hazard as a tree. All of which makes for far more interesting golf than a big, wide open field with no vertical obstructions.

[Donnie Beck]

I don't think anyone in their right mind is going to cut down a strategic tree. 99% of all the clearing I have seen is younger trees that have encroached into a much older golf course. I don't see any strategic value in trees that have developed as a result of neglect of maintaining the architect’s original design. In my opinion CHOP THEM ALL DOWN.

[tonyt]

Brad and Mikey,

You might have got a few of us wrong. Those of us who criticise trees don't want to remove trees for the sake of it. We just don't want good courses with no trees (such as links courses or other low-lying scrub terrain) spend the next 70 years growing towering timber that isn't supposed to be there. The trees planted by shortsighted committees over time which hurt the originally intended palyability or feel of the holes are unwelcome.

If a mature tree is in a position where no such thing existed when the course was designed, and it has altered the nature of the hole possibly to it's detriment, I say chop it down. If on the other hand, it was there originally or for a specific strategic purpose, I'll go out and water it myself. And if a legitimately strategic old tree comes down in a storm, I'll go out and help put an expensive replacement in it's place. I was glad that Pebble made concerted efforts to be sensitive when replacing their tree on #18.

The great sandbelt courses in Melbourne all have a vastly different look, due heavily to mature trees where there was relatively open space originally. Attempts like those made at Kingston Heath to remove the new wave tree growth have been an incredible saviour to the integrity of the course that we down here are glowingly proud of.

[Joel_Stewart]

example: olympic. what would be a valid case for not cutting down trees?

Here are a few quick reasons to cut down trees at Olympic.

1. The course is built on a sand dune with no trees.  The course has lost its original strategic intent with the addition of trees.
2. Trees have been planted in a hap hazard fashion for the last 50 years with no strategic plan.
3. Many of these trees (namely eucalyptus) are not native to California, drink enormous amounts of water, are dirty trees, have huge ariel spans which allows poor growth of grass.
4. When trees ariel spans block the correct path to the green (example 14th hole) from the fairway it becomes gimicky.

I'll add a few more later.

[Mike Benham]

example: olympic. what would be a valid case for not cutting down trees?

Here are a few quick reasons to cut down trees at Olympic.

1. The course is built on a sand dune with no trees.  The course has lost its original strategic intent with the addition of trees.
2. Trees have been planted in a hap hazard fashion for the last 50 years with no strategic plan.

Mikey,

That best illustrations of Joel's point is photos in the locker room at the O Club, showing the nearly treeless landscape in the early 1900's.  Quite dramatic compared to a few years ago.

Recent tree clearing has (thinning of trees and removing trees too close together) have had an impact on how the course(s) playe.  The trees were so dense before that the wind wasn't much of a factor unless you hit it above the treetops.  Now the gaps and spaces in the trees allow the wind to effect the ball flight on normal shots.

Again, if the course was designed and routed without trees, adding trees post-construction (over 50-years like the O Club) would, one assume, go against the vision held by the architect.

A few years back the O Club redesigned the Ocean course.  With the O Club being on a sand dune (hill?) they had the perfect opportunity to restore the landscape to a nearly treeless state.  Just think what the possibilities would be if C&C are some others had a crack at that routing ... hmmmm ....

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

There is a tremendous difference between strategic trees and the trees at Olympic. Olympic is a well known example of what 75% of the clubs in America face as they mature and odd plantings here and there become mature and often change the character of the course for the worse. I will note a cypress tree on the edge of the left side of the 5th fairway. I doubt it was in the planning of the hole, but it creates a wonderful shot to work the ball around and under it long arm to approach this very good par 4. I love the tree in the fairway and the canope tee shot as Brad mentioned. However one hole of this type a course is good. 14 plus holes is not so good.

[Norbert P]

If you talk to good players, most of them will say they like courses with narrow fairways with big trees.

  I hang around people of my own ilk in my bailywick, mostly, so I don't really talk to many "good" golfers but I have never ever heard anyone say that they like narrow fairways.  Narrow hips, maybe, but never narrow fairways.

  Trees do not make a golf course.  Trees are choices to be placed appropriately and thoughtfully, like bunkers and greens and prevailing winds.   I love trees,  Barona Creek has some wonderful plantings that add interest and sublimity to the layout, but they are just features, ebullient or withdrawn,  not a necessity for great golf.  

[paul cowley]

....personally i suscribe to 'when in doubt, take it out', and 'if you don't miss it when its gone ,it didn't need to be there'.

  i've found that most people are loath to substitute something they can see ,for something they can't imagine without........but are usually pleased with the outcome...

[PETER_G]

Thanks to the advice of this forum, particularly Dunlop White's article in "In My Opinion", I have guided out Club through the removal of 120 mature (50yr old) pines and cypresses on 2 holes over the past 6 weeks and have exposed a magnificent panoroma which has complemented the reconstruction of 2 holes. The results are very pleasing and the members have been delighted despite initial misgivings. We now have "strategic" golf on 1/9 of the course and penal golf on the other 8/9. The positive response from the members on these model holes is likely to allow a fairly radical and extensive master plan reconstruction that they may not have otherwise  allowed.
The reasons for tree removal involved safety, turfgrass issues and aesthetics but the actual removal has allowed a different and more interesting style of golf.
I personally consider it a bit of a failure of an architect if he has to rely on a tree (which will always change and ulimately die) as an integral part of his strategy of a hole.
Trees have their place, in fact play an integral role in the golf experience but should not be allowed to choke the hole and render it devoid of strategic interest.

[David Wigler]

Brad and Mikey,

You might have got a few of us wrong. Those of us who criticise trees don't want to remove trees for the sake of it. We just don't want good courses with no trees (such as links courses or other low-lying scrub terrain) spend the next 70 years growing towering timber that isn't supposed to be there...

TonyT,

Being a big fan of Brad's writing, I cannot decide if his post is funnier or that someone took him seriously.

Some trees are not bad.  The tree on 18 at Pebble Beach IMO should have been replaced.  My home course has removed about 100 and has about 300 more to go.  Once 70 years of greens committee plantings are gone, it will b e returned to the hghly regarded strategic exercise it should be.  For the most part, trees do not protect par, they mearly impede play and goof up turf grass conditions.

[ChipOat]

Mikey and Brad:

This could get into a Stupid Tree discussion pretty fast except that I have meetings all day.

There ARE no "strategic trees" in my value system for golf architecture.  Brad, those trees you describe that DEMAND certain ball flights from the fairway or within 150 yards of a tee box are anathema to me - I call them Stupid Trees.  "Bunkers in the sky" - I hate them.  Let the design on the GROUND determine the optimum ball flight.

P.S.  Since "Lon Hinkle" trees are usually about safety for players on another hole as a practical matter, I can live with those - especially on cramped pieces of property.

[A_Clay_Man]

The single tree placed as a strategic obstacle is not a cop-out,architecturally. The placement of trees because of someone's mis-guided interpretation of what golf is, and should be, is one of the sadest cop-outs of all. With water Hazards next. Certain stands of trees like the stand to the left of 11 at Dubbs dread, was neither encroaching or a cop-out.

Did anyone hear whay Johnny Miller said about the trees at Inverness?

[Bruce Katona]

While I am not a huge believer of using trees to create a hazard  or pose 1/2 stroke penalty on someone unfortunate enough to hit a wayward shot, strategically placed trees do add an element into certain holes. Trees do not belong in the middle of a fairway, creating a "vertical bunker". Likewise, a way out of the vertical hazard should be provided. trees penalize the weaker player much more than the lower handicap golfer. (How many more "weekend players" do you find in the woods than lower handicap players ?

I had the occasion to play two great old courses last year Ridgewood CC and Phila. Cricket. Both have been overworked with tres. At Ruidgewood, though we had an extensive drought last year, the fairways were soft and the grass thin under the canopies as not enough light was being let in.  At Phila. Cricket (Flourtown Course), so many ornimental(flowering) trees have been planted surrounding most greens, that if you miss a shot pin highleft or right of the green, you must try to run the ball under the trees through either the thick rough or a bunker. Their is no way to play the ball above the tree and land it on the green. The Flourtown Course was beginning to evaluate a tree removal plan, but I do not know of the result.

[Forrest Richardson]

The same people who are celebrating at the demise of trees at Oakmont (which I applaud) are also the same people who are pointing fingers at those who planted the trees way-back-when, saying "Ohhh, you should not have done that..." Of course, these critics fail to recognize the truly magnificant trees which came out of the original planting "waves", including those which now screen the Pennsylvania Turnpike so cleverly.

Trees must be thinned to make room for a variety of golflike things, including strategy and options for play. But, to take the "Klein Position" and find not much to embrace in these rings of everlasting beauty and intrigue, well, that is mere woodophopia.

Trees can — and do — offer golf another component for design. There planting (or refrain from planting) is many times more important than a bunker sometimes as the bunker will not grow so fast nor so tall.

[A_Clay_Man]

As a Chicago golfer I use to say "stick me in the trees and I'll make birdie". Mostly, confirming how long and down the middle can be highly overated. Watching Brad Faxon in the 90' open, get on the green, from under those monsters at Medinah, was impressive and may have added to my temporary acceptance. When golf Club of Illinous opened and I sarted to golf there, the lack of trees made for what, I assume, Jones/MacKenzie  felt was the thrill of the recovery shot.

On my recent return to Chicago I was saddened to see what has become the accepted form of golf. At my old course, Big Run, the changes over the last ten years has made that place almost unplayable. Not to mention the softening of what are some ingenious greens that allow for playing the interior slopes if it wasn't for the trees everywhere but right down the Middle.

C.B should've gave up on Chicago after now seeing how the mis-guided have bastardized a great game for all levels.

[mike_malone]

 It is interesting to see how a recognized architectural genius (Flynn)dealt with trees.When he constructed Rolling Green,outside of Philadelphia,he was confronted with a forest from which he needed to carve 6 holes.On 2 of the holes a left dogleg is created from the tee.There is some strategy involved since if you hug the trees you will be closer to the green.On another hole a dogleg is created for your second shot and there is a strategic benefit to staying close to the trees.On the other holes there is no strategy involved.He just cut down the trees to make room for the hole.The trees are well out of play.I CAN FIND NO EVIDENCE THAT HE PLANTED ANY TREES.
    The remaining 12 holes WERE DESIGNED WITHOUT TREES.This is what bothers most of us tree haters on this site---tree planting that takes place after the original designer is gone that ruins the strategy and replaces it with one way play.
    Usually these are to "make a hole harder" or to fill in spaces between holes.THESE TREES NEED TO GO.
    There are many courses that have treelined fairways:i am fine with them as long as strategy remains

[JSlonis]

mikey,

I honestly don't know of many good players who like narrow fairways and big trees.

I actually find the opposite to be true a majority of the time.

[Scott_Burroughs]

As with Forrest's mention of the trees blocking the view of the PA Turnpike at Oakmont (not to mention the highway noise), a similar good use of trees is the buffering/blocking the view of homes/any other unsightly external things on a course.

Being in the South, a little shade in the summer is nice, too.  

[larry_munger]

Anyone who thought Brad Klein was serious must not have ever heard him speak or read much of his writing.

3 cheers to Oakmont, is Winged Foot really adding trees?

[Steve Lang]

 

I grew up on a tree lined course and learned how to hit the ball straight.. and respect what the course can give you.  Not bad results..  

   Also learned to discern hard and softwood ricochet sounds!

The treephobics would have all courses treeless??? No, but close from most of these comments.. What about the flip side folks, .. the lack of old gca's ability to dig up and successfully move trees for desired plantings too? There have to be locales that could have really used some nice trees for shade adn strategic use.

WIth the organic hoopala going on now, look out for the strategic planting of trees to guard and remediate groundwater resources.    Ain't that a thought!

[Brad Klein]

Thanks, Larry. I was afraid everyone (except Dave Wigler) was going to confirm my suspicion that folks on this Web site read nothing but this Web site. Amazing how taking a position tongue and check gets misunderstood by deadly serious people. Apologies for the attempted irony. I'll be more in character in what follows.

"Ecologists" who are tree huggers know nothing about the effects of shade on turfgrass and golf courses. Shaded areas don't dry out, promote disease pressure, require more pesticides and demand far more maintenance than areas which dry out and where the leaf blade doesn't carry moisture during the day. Healthy turfgrass needs deep roots, which requires infrequent waterings and dry soil so that the roots can go deep into the ground in search of water. By contrast, shade, cooling and lack of sunlight all stultify photosynthesis. The ecological argument is all on the favor of open areas for turfgrass, not for heavily treed areas.

Trees are fine under certain conditions:

-deep rooting hardwoods (oaks, elms, red maples)
-none exiguous (this rules out birch, ginko, willows)
-conifers acidy soils, create needle debris, endanger golfers with their roots and prevent mowing and other maintenance. They also promote winter damage by blocking low angle sun
-tree are fine on perimeters and in clusters to promote habitat, but they should not be on the east and south sides of turfed areas, esp., greens, fairways and tees.

My experience is that 95% of folks who love trees on a golf course have no idea of the ways in which trees compete with turf and other plants for water, nutrients, soil and fertilizer. They don't even care. They just think they like treees and are unwilling to think of the consequences.

Among the most important beneficiaries of tree management are good, strong specimen trees, many of which are crowded out by surrounding junk trees. if you want to save your good trees, start with cutitng out the junk ones.

I think trees have a place on golf courses. But not in lieu of golf, turf or healthy trees. I find that few defenders of "strategic trees" have any interest in or awareness of these technical aspects of tree management.

[Evan_Green]

I have said in a previous thread about O Club tree several months ago and would reiterate now that they make the course what it is. The Lake course without trees is simply not the Lake course- it would never be as highly regarded if it were merely a wide open links and never would have had 4 US Opens.

While I dont have a problem with maintaining the trees (for example the gap on #12 is getting too narrow), I am not in favor of clear cutting them (such as behind the 4th tee) and replacing them with ugly "native" grass that isnt growing.

I play too many new courses where you blast the ball all over the place and get away with it-hitting the green with a 9 iron from the next fairway over- one should not be able to do this- it does not make for "strategy" in my book. I for one hope they use the chainsaw sparingly.

[TEPaul]

Mayday Malone got it right on this thread, in my opinion. William Flynn is one architect who certainly used trees in various ways if he thought it could enhance architecture--even used them for strategic purpose. His County Club of Cleveland plan was most interesting this way in the various trees on the raw site he demarked on the plan to stay.

Architects such as Flynn and Tillinghast could be vocal about the possible and potential use of trees in various golf concept, the most obvious one being Tillinghast's distinction between the dogleg as opposed to a elbow hole.

I'm certainly no tree hugger in golf architecture but in my opinion, those who advocate no trees anywhere in architecture are as short sighted as those who advocate planting trees anywhere and everywhere.

[paul cowley]

   10 4 ,t paul