What are some of the best

[Patrick_Mucci]

potential "skyline" greens ?

# 2, 9 and 17 at Pine Valley are obvious, but, what are some others ?

I'll start with # 10 at Rockaway River which would be a sensational skyline green if the trees behind the green were removed.

The next question is:  why aren't potentially great "skyline" greens quickly converted to same ?
What is stopping these clubs from taking advantage of their unique architectural potential ?

[JC Jones]

#17 Crystal Downs

#9 Greywalls

#8 Belvedere

[Dieter Jones]

My experience with committees at golf clubs is that 99% of them wouldn't understand the architectural potential of removing trees. Most of them want to plant trees not remove them. I wish they would just buy themselves a bigger garden at home to mess with.

It still amazes me that any suggestion for change such as removing trees to widen playing corridors must be consulted on (before inevitably getting knocked back) yet new plantings seem to "pop up" unannounced all the time. The worst thing is that they then wonder why it takes longer to mow than it used to, longer to play a round because the short hitters have to tack around these new trees to get to the green and why the grass struggles to grow in the newly shaded areas.

[Mark McKeever]

10 at Schuylkill absolutely belongs in the running here. 

The super is slowly taking down the trees....were getting there!

[Andrew Buck]

My experience with committees at golf clubs is that 99% of them wouldn't understand the architectural potential of removing trees. Most of them want to plant trees not remove them. I wish they would just buy themselves a bigger garden at home to mess with.

It still amazes me that any suggestion for change such as removing trees to widen playing corridors must be consulted on (before inevitably getting knocked back) yet new plantings seem to "pop up" unannounced all the time. The worst thing is that they then wonder why it takes longer to mow than it used to, longer to play a round because the short hitters have to tack around these new trees to get to the green and why the grass struggles to grow in the newly shaded areas.

Amen.

[J_ Crisham]

Played a nice one Tuesday- #8 at Fox Chapel- plateau is the name of the hole. Outstanding hole on one hell of a course.

[Dan Kelly]

I had the opportunity to play Minikahda the other day. Wonderful old, fun course -- so much better now that many (thousands?) of trees have been removed.

I told my host that I would go a few (many?) trees more -- beginning with the trees behind the 12th green. It's a really good golf hole (just under 400 yards, uphill), and great-looking -- but would be even more dramatic without the trees past the green.

[Mike_Trenham]

#3 Bethpage Black

[Patrick_Mucci]

#3 Bethpage Black

Mike, that's the par 3

[Michael Ryan]

I just joined a small club north of Bridgeport CT called Mill River.  My time on GCA allowed me to see that the club has a wonderful opportunity for a skyline green in the 16th hole.  A great par 4 with an uphill second shot and some large trees behind...I will try and post pictures shortly.  As I say it's an opportunity, I highly doubt it will happen.

Mike

[Mark McKeever]

#3 Bethpage Black

Mike, that's the par 3

4 at Black would be a good one as well.

MM

[Charlie_Bell]

I'll play devil's advocate here and raise the question of what's the special appeal of a skyline green?  In the spirit of full disclosure, I'll say that I've never quite understood the appeal of "infinity pools," either, though my wife is a huge fan.

I'm in favor of reducing the clutter of trees on a course, but if trees form the backdrop to a very elevated green, I'd enjoy seeing their silhouette against the sky as much or more than seeing a solitary flagstick.

[Andrew Buck]

Question for those who may know, RE: Medinah 3.

When I was at the Ryder Cup last year, the openness behind #1 green to lake Kadijah really stuck out to me.  I hadn't been on the property since the 1990 Open, and my question is was it always open to the lake, or is that something that has happened in the last decade.  I really liked it. 

[Cliff Walston]

I like the 5th at Dismal White.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

9 or 10 at Fishers Island...

[Bill_McBride]

Patrick, how about the fifth at The Creek?  

[Steve Lapper]

#'s 1(from anywhere on the fairway), 2, 11, 13 Sand Hills

#'s 3, 7, 9, 10 Fishers Island

I cite the above only because they are pure and most likely the finest example of sets built onto a singular golf course(s).. In both cases the natural land forms, or most minimal of earth movements, lent themselves to essentially pure skyline green placements. Their respective architects merely avoided fouling up Mother Nature's affinity for wind and visual disorientation to disturb the golfer.

Individually, there are numerous other examples of wonderful, and real, skyline greens throughout many of the better courses around the world.

Parkland courses that allow for an occasional skyline green first have to overcome their natural affinity for trees, trees and trees to define their playing lines. Most clubs and their players become so damn attached to their "aiming" trunks and branches they become fearful of any potential visual disorientation a skyline green creates. They also stubbornly (and ignorantly) wish to avoid allowing the wind to become any greater factor than before. Here in the Northeast, most green committees have progressed to realize some trees need to go and playing corridors need to be widened, however many clubs still feel removing ALL the trees behind a green too draconian to consider.

At Paramount, we turned #6 into a perfect skyline once we realized just how much the hole could be improved with exposure to ridge line and wind off the Hudson, coming through the Palisades Gap.

Pat,

Your examples are ludicrous btw. #'s 9 & 17 at PVGC were most definitely once skyline greens back in the 20s and 30s, but have long since morphed into "pocketed" green sites with the growth of the trees behind them.

Mark McKeever,

Unless your picture at Schuykill #10 is incorrect, it is far from any realistic definition of a skyline green. The valley and nearby hillside would be there even if the nearby trees were felled.

Charlie,

  Real skyline greens present a marvelous facet of psychological and physical strategy. The lack of depth perception toys with the mind of every player, but becomes even more acutely testy with the nearing of distance on the approach shot. The sheer exposure to any wind on a skyline green dictates a real re-calculation of distance, usually from a spot without a similar or readily apparent gauge of it's strength. Links golf at any of the finer venues across the pond makes abundant use of this feature with ample evidence of it's strategic value.

[Mark_Rowlinson]

On this side of the pond I cite Prestbury and Delamere Forest as courses which could benefit enormously from the reinstatement of several skyline greens. Ran has suggested the reinstatement of what you might call skyline fairways at Reddish Vale.

[Matt Glore]

My favorite is #2 at Sand Hills for sure.  Especially hitting into the green (pin was top right shelf) not knowing what's long.
I just said to the Caddie "Long looks dead!"  He just nodded in agreement. 

[Robert Mercer Deruntz]

Arcola 4th


NGLA 18th


Unfortunately, the effect has been messed up by a poorly placed clubhouse in the background

Rancho Santa Fe 11th   This feature is currently ruined by both an incompetent bunker job (Fleming), and poorly planted Eucalyptus forrest

St. George's 15th   The trees negate the effect, but the skytop certainly exists

[Brian Chapin]

If I remember correctly 18 at Cypress Point could be a skyline green.  Unfortunately I can't really tell based on my pictures.  Bad angle.

[Patrick_Mucci]

RMD,

Arcola is a great example of a really great skyline green lying dormant for decades.

Close to twenty years ago I suggested that the club clear the trees behind # 4.
A close friend and member, at my suggestion, wrote a letter to the board informing them that they had a great skyline green just waiting to be unveiled if they would just cutdown the trees behind the green.  The Board blew him off.

Another member and Board member, at my suggestion, did the same a few years later and the board didn't think it would make for a good hole.

Finally, a few years ago, after more lobbying, they cut down the trees behind the green and everybody thinks the hole is spectacular.

I told my friends that they should consider writing a letter to all the ex-Board members essentially telling them that they were dead wrong on delaying the reclamation of the 4th hole as a great skyline green

So, the questions are:

Is it the resistance to "change" that prevents clubs from taking advantage of a great asset ?

Or, is it "tree huggers" who thwart the effort to create skyline greens ?

Or, is it a lack of architectural vision that prevents their discovery ?

Or, a combination of the above ?

It seems so obvious to us, so why isn't it obvious to others, especially after it's been pointed out ?

[Doug Wright]

#9 and #18 at Cherry Hills would be great skyline greens. All they need to do is blow up the clubhouse...

[Robert Mercer Deruntz]

I think your answer is a combination + an unbelievable belief that everything needs to be framed.  I will never forget how insistent Stephen Kay was about capturing a framing look on every green at Cherry Valeey back in 1995.  That belief became mantra at so many golf courses.  In Southern California, there are countless courses that have never seen an empty spot that could be left without a tree.

[Andrew Buck]

Is it the resistance to "change" that prevents clubs from taking advantage of a great asset ?

Yes, but mostly that people view the temporary (trees) as an enhancement to the asset more than the permanent (playing ground)

Or, is it "tree huggers" who thwart the effort to create skyline greens ?

Probably a little, not that I think most members would feel bad if they truly "understood" losing them would improve the course.

Or, is it a lack of architectural vision that prevents their discovery ?

Yes, this is absolutely a big one, and goes back to point 1, trees are assets in most peoples head.

Or, a combination of the above ?

It seems so obvious to us, so why isn't it obvious to others, especially after it's been pointed out ?

While this doesn't impact "skyline greens", since trees are rarely in play, what I find really odd is I think in some cases it's been driven by the 15 - 20 handicap players to be more penal toward the scratch golfers.  We have certainly overplanted trees in most nooks of the golf course.  Still, there are a few areas where they can be navigated with a wayward drive.  I feel like there iis a group that feels it's unfair to see a better golfer get away with a poor tee shot, even if it requires a well executed recovery.  I distinctly remember one member of our greens committee challenging a round where I had been able to recover from two wayward drives with pars with the quibble "you couldn't get away with that at Medinah".  I couldn't help but think "so what?'  If I had received a less favorable lie, or been closer to the existing trees and had to punch out, I shoot 72 instead of 70".  Then, I recalled previous versions of that complaint, and began hearing the same point come up at times, usually when a good player found a gap (which still required execution) with a wayward drive.  Our course actually has some decent greens that make it difficult to approach from offline, and I have no problem with trying to penalize a poor tee ball, but placing trees every 6 paces on the property surely isn't the best way.