[Kyle Casella]

Some of the pictures and commentary in the recent Clear Creek Tahoe thread got me thinking about a much discussed subject: trees. Specifically, does your view on tree removal on layouts that had few trees when designed (Oakmont, Olympic, etc.) impact your view on layouts that were designed through heavily wooded areas? At Clear Creek (or Montreux or Martis or any Tahoe-area layout), I often hear the quibble that there are too many trees. However, these courses were designed in forested areas where trees are part of the natural ecology, having an important impact on strategy in the design process. Thoughts?

My two cents is that designers of courses that are naturally forested should remove only enough trees to help turf conditions and leave wide enough playing corridors, but leaving trees in play as a penalty for an egregious miss or as an obstacle to induce a strategic decision is totally acceptable.

[Tommy Williamsen]

It has become popular, especially on this site, to want to take a saw to every course in the country.  Some courses are the better for it.  I've played Oakmont both ways and love it much more now.  That said, however, one of my clubs is built in a forested area and the trees belong.  There have been some removed because they interfered with good turf health and some removed because they just didn't work architecturally.  Nonetheless, there are three that interfered with play if you are out of position.  I like them. They are nothing more than a hazard in the sky.
Every course is different.

[Tim Lewis]

I have often wondered whether or not a plot of land should be completely cleared of trees prior to construction. I assume most would say trees should be cleared for places where grass needs to be grown and to provide ample playing corridors, but because wind plays such an important factor in how play varies from day to day, and that trees can affect this role I often think that it is better for a proposed course to be cleared of trees if possible. I understand that very often it is not possible because of budgets and all that other stuff, but when you think about strategy often does not play any role in providing variety unless conditions change substantially from day to day. For example, even though my home course has a good amount of strategy I usually do not change how I play each hole unless there is a substantially amount of wind encouraging me to do so. I know that clearing trees would not turn a parkland course into a windswept links, but I cant imagine it would hurt.

[Matthew Essig]

Trees are just the way of life here in the Pacific Northwest. I have learned to block them out, and focus on the strategy and layout of the golf course. While I am not a fan of the trees engulfing the course, I am a fan of the trees being used as a hazard, occasionally, and the majority of the course designed with width.

So, I approve of Bandon Trails and Pinehurst #2, but not a course like Olympic..... and today's ANGC....

The biggest negative that I have with trees, like Tim, is the wind. The wind always blows in your face or blows from behind you. The trees eliminate the exciting challenge of a crosswind.

One of the best courses I have seen with the perfect balance of trees and space would be Rope Rider in Cle Elum (not the greatest course...just good balance); however, it is one of my 3 home courses, so you could say that there is bias, but I try to be as unbiased as I can when evaluating golf courses. So, I evaluate each course the same, BUT I have yet to see a course in person or on this site that matches it.

[BHoover]

I love trees, when they aren't on a golf course that never was intended to have them be such a prominent, and intrusive, feature on the course. There's a park just down the street from our house. My wife and I walk down there all the time with our dogs. It's full of wonderful, old trees, and it's one of my favorite spots in Columbus to spend a summer evening. But those trees aren't competing with turfgrass for light, air and nutrients.

On most golf courses, I strongly favor buying a bulk supply of copper nails and going crazy...except of course where doing so would constitute criminal trespassing.   

[Tom_Doak]

Kyle:

It seems to be some kind of macho thing.  

In fact, many years ago, when I was attempting against resistance to start a clearing program at the all-male Garden City Golf Club, I sort of questioned their manhood about keeping a flowering cherry tree behind the 10th green.  Once they took it down, they began to see what the clearings opened up.  Today, there is hardly a tree on the course.  They even took down a beautiful American elm by the 18th tee, because they thought clearing everything was what real men do.  They could only see black or white.

Of the posts so far, my opinion is closest to Tommy Williamsen's.  There are some great trees on golf courses.  All of them will eventually die, and some of the golf holes will be poorer as a result.

[Wayne Wiggins, Jr.]

yes.  yes i do.  

i grew up on a traditional, east coast parkland course.  we had lots and lots of trees.  big ones... little ones... evergreens... willows... you name it.  a few trees ago they cut a lot down, and probably could stand to fell many more, but the course looks and plays the better for it.  

I then moved west and started playing at course that was/is renowned for its trees.  we lost some over time and had some removed.  the turf was NEVER better (it used to be thin in spots where the sun couldnt' get to it), the vistas spectacular, and the wind seemed to be a bit more of a factor than before.  There has been some sporadic tree planting since then, probably as a replacement in preparation for the older trees which are at the end of their lifespan.  This has been done weill; however, there is one spot on the course where a row of six or seven trees, all evenly spaced, were replanted which will eventually completely surround the green, deprive it of sun and air, and we'll once again probably have a bit of a challenge growing grass (i could be completely wrong here).

So, yes.  yes, i think trees should be taken out as much as possbile. I do agree, that if it's a heaviily forested locale (i.e. where Clear Creek is located), then trees should be a part of the canvas the designer works with.

[Terry Lavin]

I am a tree lover. I began my love affair by learning the species of virtually every tree at my home clubs. Then I learned which species were more appropriate for our area. After we tagged a hundred or so with tags identifying their species, I learned about the problems acquired from excessive shade. Eventually, the education process led to a tree clearing program at the clubs that was met initially with scorn. But within a year we all noted the presence of the RIGHT trees and the absence of the WRONG trees and the undeniable fact that we were left with parkland courses of plenty of trees, some of which will cause mourning by their ultimate demise. But not that many fall into that category to tell you the truth. You don't have to go all Oakmont to greatly improve the look and playability of the typical parkland course, but it pays to be aggressive early.  Truth be told, I now love the smell of sawdust and the sight of great trees in the right places.

[noonan]

Trees suck

[Steve Salmen]

Playing one golf hole really changed my opinion of trees and that would be the 17th at Shepherds Crook in Zion, IL.  I used to believe there was no place on a golf course for a tree.  

This particular hole is a short dog leg left.  There are a few trees on the inside corner and I realized that they provide as great a defense of the hole as there could be short of the green.  Obviously there are other examples but I really think the inside corner of dog leg holes are best places for trees on a golf course architecturally.

[jeffwarne]

I grew up on a pine treed course.
nothing more fun than shaping shots under, over, and around trees off pine straw.
I had the opportunity to watch Seve, Norman, and other greats hit many many incredible shots in such situations at The Masters.
I can't imagine The Masters without those majestic pines.
Are there a few they could lose-sure, especially the recent ones.

I understand the turf and playability benefits of tree management.
What frustrates me is once all the trees are gone, what is put in to replace the trees both as ground cover, a space filler, or to "protect par".
Normally it's unplayable "native grass" that's rarely native and usually unmanageable, and a beast to find your ball.
otherwise it's bunkers which are also not a vertical hazard and present an entirely different challenge.

If a course is carved out of a forest, trees are quite a natural feature and it would seem the best of them should be highlighted when applicable and incorporated into the design as well as the landscape.
 

[Howard Riefs]

The Langford course I play at home is choked with trees. Corridors are narrow and greens are too shaded under a canopy of branches. Slowly, the super is tagging and cutting down select trees. Three here. Five there. And so on. It's a start and will eventually help with course's playability.

[Dan Kelly]

Some gorgeous trees on my home course:

[Sean_A]

IMO, I see far more courses with tree issues than the other way around and it isn't even close.  Trees are great when managed, placed and selected well, but usually this is far from the case.  i usually come across green walls crowding the course.  What I prefer to see is one or groups of a few specimen trees dotted about the property.  I can forgive an awful lot about questionable tree use if its a single majestic oak.    

Ciao

[Joe Leenheer]

Trees are GREAT!....at making leaves.

Here is my Club circa 1962 just 5 years after being "rebuilt" by Larry Packard and Brent Wadsworth (one their earliest works).



and now here is an arial taken in 2002....



I know...I just vomited in my mouth too...

What you don't see are the great changes in elevation which you DON'T SEE while playing because of the leaf makers. 

I'm being trained later this week by the Assistant Superintendent in Chainsaw safety so that I can become part of the solution.

[Steve Kline]

There are definitely appropriate places for trees on golf courses. Like Sean, a specimen tree in the right spot or a select group of trees can be really good. However, most clubs don't have this because the members had a memorial tree program or some committee member wanted to make the course harder or perhaps screw one of his playing partners by putting a tree right where he hit it. Then the reverse happens where one tree comes down because it is right where a committee member hits his drive every time.

More than almost anything else architecturally an established course needs someone outside of the membership to manage the trees on the course. We all know the factors members don't consider - turf health, playability, etc.

I think many of us on this site appear to despise trees because so many courses have done a terrible job of managing them and become over treed. Once the problem is largely corrected then we won't seem to hate trees so much.

[Sean_A]

Steve

Absolutely.  I played Dormie the other day and while each fairway is lined with trees, they are not in the least an issue.  Same for Mid-Pines, except maybe the shadows cast across the course suggest tree work is in order.  My idea of good tree management is when playing in winter it isn't down alleys of shade.

Ciao

[Steve Kline]

One thing many people don't consider is how trees get golfers to hit the ball in certain spots. For example, the third hole at my course has a couple of trees just in front the tee that force the golfer to aim at the right edge of the fairway and play a draw. However, that aim and typical miss is right where the cart path is for the 7th hole. The 7th hole is a long par three and the typical is right where the trees on the 3rd tee force people to miss.

Another example is our first hole. There are significant group of trees to the right. Many people want to avoid those trees because they are an instant bogey. So, lots of people hit left which is right into the oncoming traffic from the 15th green and the short game area. It would be easy to take down some those trees. Also, it would be more interesting to take down those trees and move the fairway so that the right side fairway bunker became a central fairway bunker. Then we wouldn't have some trees on the left to protect people that are there for only that reason.

While trees are used for protection in many instances, I see just as many where trees force players to hit the ball into dangerous situations.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

I love trees, when they aren't on a golf course that never was intended to have them be such a prominent, and intrusive, feature on the course.





Brian,
I agree with this comment, but sometimes how do we know what the intial intent of the architect was?
This brings up age old discussions on Pine Valley and Augusta National two highly prominent courses that have cghanged over the years by the "intrusion"of trees.
With reference to Pine Valey I think it is reasonable to assume that when one finds bunkers hidden amongst a crop of trees then those particular trees were not intended to flourish in their respective places, but taking those  out of the equation perhaps Colt et al intended the corridors of trees that are evident on many Colt courses.

And is part of Pine Valley's stature and reputation as a tough course not in part due to the severity and punishment one recieves when off the fairway amongst the trees?

Would Augusta National be a place of such phenomenal beauty without its trees?

Just questions Gents that I think are integral to this discussion.
Over intrusive trees, no place for them.
I was intrigued to hear from Mr Doak that there used to be  a tree at the back of # 10 green at Garden City, I just cant imagine that having never played it that way.
Oakmont is a better course sans trees, the same with the clearing work carried out at Merion, so there is a place for some removal, but to me the restortaion of some sites to their original forms by removal of all trees is perhaps NOT what the original architect did have in mind.?

[PCCraig]

I don't hate all trees, I just hate trees on golf courses.  

Terry is spot on above...the key is removing all the ugly non-native crap trees that some idiot Green Chairman planted in the 70's and 80's in an effort to make his course look like Winged Foot.

I think it took a while, but generally speaking most golfers understand now that high quality turf and trees don't go together, and their removal is becoming an easier "sell." That being said, I still can't believe the love some people have for half-dead, deformed, non-native, and turf killing trees.  

[David Davis]

I grew up in Oregon. Of course I love trees.

Of the Oregon courses I've played, not that many because I learned to golf here in Europe. I can't think of one that I find is in desperate need of tree clearing. Now, if I cross the state line and head up to Seattle. The much mentioned Sahalee happens to the be the most heavily treed course I've ever seen, or maybe tied with a course here in The Netherlands called Nunspeetse Golf Club. I've never played a round there where I didn't end up in the trees. However, I have played 1 round where I literally ended up in the trees on every single drive no matter what club I used. The course is not that long so it didn't result in a disastrous score on the given day. Maybe an 84-85 but it didn't feel good. There was a time when almost started to hyperventilate while playing the back tees on every single hole. I will add that the course has some of the narrowest landing areas I've seen too. Several are between 5 - 10 paces wide. It's located in a pine forest on sandy soil so serious tree cleaning would really add to this one.

I can't think of ever seeing a course where I thought to myself this course was in desperate need of some forest. Well, maybe the Old Course ;-) (that's a joke for the record.)

[mike_malone]

 Trees that were on the course when built can be used strategically usually for creating doglegs.
 Trees that are added need to be in harmony with the original design principles. Since most of these principles allow for the recovery shot then trees parallel to the landing zone and around the green are anathema!
 Single trees can provide interesting strategy but they have a finite life so the strategy should not be the most important  one on the hole.

 Flynn suggested "out of play, provide a backdrop and shade on a hot day, and separate holes". I think his ideas work best for plantings .

[Charlie Gallagher]

I don't mind tree lined corridors, but width needs to be more than adequate. An occassional specimen that influences strategy is ok, but the ground features should inform and dictate play.
My primary issues with trees include, excessive shading, leaf and needle clutter, root, vista, and wind interference, and in colder climes, retarded snow melt.
I have witnessed the transformation of courses from merely good to much improved due to judicious tree removal. Of courses I play regularly Worcester Country Club is a shinning example of the positive influence of the chain saw. It is greatly improved in every regard due to aggressive tree cutting.

[Thomas Dai]

Reasons to have trees on golf courses -
1) they may come in handy if players/caddies/others are in desperate need of bladder relief and no formal facilities are readily available.
2) on courses that allow dogs to accompany players, male dogs may occasionally appreciate the occasional tree
Um, that's about it.
All the best.

[Chris DeToro]

I don't hate trees on golf courses.  They do provide ample bladder relief.  

But joking aside, I feel like trees should be part of the course, if they fit the natural aesthetic of the area.  One course that I feel needs the trees is a place like Sahalee.  I think that's a great example of a course that probably has too many trees, but it works.  It's the Seattle area, the trees are more strategic in nature, and in my opinion, it makes it work.  If Sahalee didn't have trees, I think it would take a lot away from the course

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()