News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Kevin_Reilly

  • Karma: +0/-0
The above statement in Joe Sponcia's excellent The Tree Paradigm essay caught my eye.   I'd be interested to hear if any architects on this board actually did design a hole with a specific tree (or trees) in mind.
"GOLF COURSES SHOULD BE ENJOYED RATHER THAN RATED" - Tom Watson

jeffwarne

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "No architect ever built a single hole with a single tree in mind.."
« Reply #1 on: November 20, 2013, 02:56:06 PM »
of course they did
"No architect" is a pretty strong statement.
"Let's slow the damned greens down a bit, not take the character out of them." Tom Doak
"Take their focus off the grass and put it squarely on interesting golf." Don Mahaffey

Dan Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "No architect ever built a single hole with a single tree in mind.."
« Reply #2 on: November 20, 2013, 02:58:05 PM »
Surely architects must consider how a hole will play once a vital tree falls or dies.

Mustn't they?
"There's no money in doing less." -- Joe Hancock, 11/25/2010
"Rankings are silly and subjective..." -- Tom Doak, 3/12/2016

Jim_Coleman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "No architect ever built a single hole with a single tree in mind.."
« Reply #3 on: November 20, 2013, 02:59:06 PM »
    I'm no architect, but what about Cypress #17?

John Kavanaugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "No architect ever built a single hole with a single tree in mind.."
« Reply #4 on: November 20, 2013, 03:03:36 PM »
The 15th at Chambers Bay is named Lone Fir.  The tree isn't even in play but is the centerpiece of the routing.

Chris_Hufnagel

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "No architect ever built a single hole with a single tree in mind.."
« Reply #5 on: November 20, 2013, 03:04:47 PM »
My first thought was the Sahara Ghost Tree at Old MacDonald...

Joe Sponcia

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "No architect ever built a single hole with a single tree in mind.."
« Reply #6 on: November 20, 2013, 03:05:17 PM »
Surely architects must consider how a hole will play once a vital tree falls or dies.

Mustn't they?

Dan,

That was precisely my point.  Is a hole ruined because a storm knocked it down?  
Joe


"If the hole is well designed, a fairway can't be too wide".

- Mike Nuzzo

Chris_Hufnagel

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "No architect ever built a single hole with a single tree in mind.."
« Reply #7 on: November 20, 2013, 03:10:53 PM »
Surely architects must consider how a hole will play once a vital tree falls or dies.

Mustn't they?

Dan,

That was precisely my point.  Is a hole ruined because a storm knocked it down?  

As for the Ghost Tree then, my answer would be no.  The hole isn't ruined from a playability/strategic standpoint, but certainly the hole (and I suppose the entire course) would lose some of the aesthetic value...

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: "No architect ever built a single hole with a single tree in mind.."
« Reply #8 on: November 20, 2013, 03:15:57 PM »
Surely architects must consider how a hole will play once a vital tree falls or dies.

Mustn't they?

Not really.  When I leave a tree standing that will affect the play of a golf hole, it's a beautiful, healthy tree that I expect to live at least another 30-40 years.  Is it really necessary for us to think longer-term than that?

Some people seem to believe that we should knock down such a tree because it won't live forever.  I wonder what these people think about having loved and lost?

Joe Sponcia

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "No architect ever built a single hole with a single tree in mind.."
« Reply #9 on: November 20, 2013, 03:18:07 PM »
I'll go back and probably soften the language tonight.  The statement should probably be "rarely".  I can think of holes myself where trees were left...but we are talking in the 1% range especially with the Ross's, Raynors, and MacDonalds of the world...rare.
Joe


"If the hole is well designed, a fairway can't be too wide".

- Mike Nuzzo

Rick Shefchik

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "No architect ever built a single hole with a single tree in mind.."
« Reply #10 on: November 20, 2013, 03:19:29 PM »
Trees can be replaced. Unless you're Pebble Beach, it can take a while, but what's 30-40 years in the lifespan of a decent golf course?
"Golf is 20 percent mechanics and technique. The other 80 percent is philosophy, humor, tragedy, romance, melodrama, companionship, camaraderie, cussedness and conversation." - Grantland Rice

Matthew Lloyd

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "No architect ever built a single hole with a single tree in mind.."
« Reply #11 on: November 20, 2013, 03:24:40 PM »
As a newcomer to GCA, I've noticed that there seems to be a lot of anti-tree sentiment here just generally.  From an architectural and design perspective, why is this?  My feeling is that certain courses are meant to be played narrowly through trees just as others are meant to be wide open. I don't like to hit errant tee shots into the trees any more than the next golfer, but I think they add a great layer to the strategic thinking of getting around a golf course. I'd be curious to hear some takes on why trees seem to be the enemy. 

Thomas Dai

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "No architect ever built a single hole with a single tree in mind.."
« Reply #12 on: November 20, 2013, 03:43:45 PM »
The above statement in Joe Sponcia's excellent The Tree Paradigm essay caught my eye.   I'd be interested to hear if any architects on this board actually did design a hole with a specific tree (or trees) in mind.
What a very well written (& photo'd) piece 'The Tree Paradigm' is. It makes so many pertinent points in such a readable/viewable manner. Well done Joe for writing it and Kevin for highlighting it to us. Now I reckon I better understand Joe's thread "Does anyone have web links to restoration presentations/before and after photos" - http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,57268.0.html.

All the best.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2013, 03:48:11 PM by Thomas Dai »

Joe Sponcia

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "No architect ever built a single hole with a single tree in mind.."
« Reply #13 on: November 20, 2013, 04:37:50 PM »
Mr. Lloyd,

The neat thing about the GCA is the number of old routings members have been kind enough to post.  So many pre-1950 courses were done on more open landscapes...with some trees (of course), but rarely those that affected play (meaning if you hit the fairway, you had to play around them if you weren't below a 5 handicap).  The 1970's and beyond produced more real estate courses, where some of the best land was used for homesites and the golf course was filled in.  Long walks between holes, tree lined, and many "bad holes" with little flow because the designer ran out of room.  

With regard to strategy...hitting a sub-25 yard fairway is about survival and has little to do with strategy (for me at least), considering I can't hit a ball perfectly straight and most balls run out a bit out of everything except zoysia.  Forcing a player to play basically one shot shape, to a 20 x 20 yard spot is why many become frustrated with the game.      
Joe


"If the hole is well designed, a fairway can't be too wide".

- Mike Nuzzo

David Davis

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "No architect ever built a single hole with a single tree in mind.."
« Reply #14 on: November 20, 2013, 05:34:54 PM »
The 15th at Chambers Bay is named Lone Fir.  The tree isn't even in play but is the centerpiece of the routing.

Great minds think alike John. That was the first hole that popped into my mind as well, damn what does that make us?

Sharing the greatest experiences in golf.

IG: @top100golftraveler
www.lockharttravelclub.com

Dan Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "No architect ever built a single hole with a single tree in mind.."
« Reply #15 on: November 20, 2013, 05:38:59 PM »
The 15th at Chambers Bay is named Lone Fir.  The tree isn't even in play but is the centerpiece of the routing.

Great minds think alike John. That was the first hole that popped into my mind as well, damn what does that make us?



http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,37474.0.html
"There's no money in doing less." -- Joe Hancock, 11/25/2010
"Rankings are silly and subjective..." -- Tom Doak, 3/12/2016

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "No architect ever built a single hole with a single tree in mind.."
« Reply #16 on: November 20, 2013, 05:52:00 PM »
A lot of older courses were built on farmland in the close in suburbs.  Over the years golf committeemen, often to memorialize individuals or their own love of the forest, planted way too many trees.  Oakmont is a great example.  At Columbia-Edgewater in Portland, Ore, photos of the 1925 course show no trees inside the boundaries.   In the '60's the club planted as many as a hundred Giant Sequoias.  Fifty years later they are giant indeed.   Down the river, Waverly took out hundreds of trees during its recent Gil Hanse remodel.  CECC would benefit from the same.  

Matthew, some of the big problems with trees are agronomic.  Too much shade makes it hard to grow good turf.  

jeffwarne

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "No architect ever built a single hole with a single tree in mind.."
« Reply #17 on: November 20, 2013, 06:03:45 PM »
Nice piece Joe.
I only have a few slight quibbles, but generally some very good thoughts.

Bill,
Many courses were built on farmland because that's what was readily available.
I wonder how many architects thought how nice it would've been to have had a few trees to break up the landscape, or imagined what the property would look like in a few years after a few trees grew in ;)

Of course many courses are overtreed and trees do need management.
They also can cause many agronomic issues, and care should be taken when planting as well as when selecting candidates for removal.

Ironically, as I read Joe's essay and observed his pictures of "thin turf" I was thinking how nice it was to be able to easily find the ball, and have the option of a creative recovery shot under, around, or over the pictured trees.
Much better IMHO than the ground cover du jour, "native" grass which is a freakinh' nightmare to find your ball. and even if found severely limits any kind of creative recovery.
Joe's picture of Holston Hills exemplified my thoughts when I saw that strip of deep native between the fairways.
At that point, all strategic choices inspired by the fairway bunkers are lost as I'm doing everything possible to avoid that strip of lost ball gunch. ::)

When trees are removed, does anyone widen the fairways and the playable/findable corridors?
In my experience, they fill the space with something.

« Last Edit: November 20, 2013, 06:09:25 PM by jeffwarne »
"Let's slow the damned greens down a bit, not take the character out of them." Tom Doak
"Take their focus off the grass and put it squarely on interesting golf." Don Mahaffey

Rick Shefchik

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "No architect ever built a single hole with a single tree in mind.."
« Reply #18 on: November 20, 2013, 06:13:13 PM »
I don't think this proves anything one way or another, but in Minnesota the course that is considered the most over-treed is Rochester Country Club, designed by Tillinghast on farmland in 1926. I had originally thought it was misguided club members who planted some 10,000 pine trees around the course, but in Tilly's reports back to the PGA in 1937, he took co-responsibility for the club's tree-planting program. I would guess he didn't mean to plant so many of them, but he didn't intend for the course to remain treeless, either.
"Golf is 20 percent mechanics and technique. The other 80 percent is philosophy, humor, tragedy, romance, melodrama, companionship, camaraderie, cussedness and conversation." - Grantland Rice

Kevin_Reilly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "No architect ever built a single hole with a single tree in mind.."
« Reply #19 on: November 20, 2013, 06:15:09 PM »
Joe's picture of Holston Hills exemplified my thoughts when I saw that strip of deep native between the fairways.
At that point, all strategic choices inspired by the fairway bunkers are lost as I'm doing everything possible to avoid that strip of lost ball gunch. ::)

Jeff,

Joe addressed this comment in the "restoration before/after photo" thread...here is what he posted:

"With regard to your comments about the natural areas...Holston's fairways are 50-60 yards wide, with a 15 yard rough buffer on each side for the most part.  If the concern is finding ones ball...after missing the fairway some 50 yards off-line, I would suggest the offended take lessons.  Nothing wrong with fairways that wide with a proper rough buffer.  I have always believed that Natural areas should be sufficiently high that a player would automatically re-tee and treat it as a lost ball.  The problem with 'wimpy' natural areas are that people waste too much time looking."
"GOLF COURSES SHOULD BE ENJOYED RATHER THAN RATED" - Tom Watson

jeffwarne

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "No architect ever built a single hole with a single tree in mind.."
« Reply #20 on: November 20, 2013, 06:21:47 PM »
I don't think this proves anything one way or another, but in Minnesota the course that is considered the most over-treed is Rochester Country Club, designed by Tillinghast on farmland in 1926. I had originally thought it was misguided club members who planted some 10,000 pine trees around the course, but in Tilly's reports back to the PGA in 1937, he took co-responsibility for the club's tree-planting program. I would guess he didn't mean to plant so many of them, but he didn't intend for the course to remain treeless, either.


Ding Ding Ding
and that is my beef with using aeriels from the day a club opened as Bibles for restorations.
and like anything, of course it can be overdone.

And Kevin,(and Joe)
 respectfully,
If a "proper" rough buffer involves automatically treating a ball 40 yards off center(1/2 of 50 +15) as a lost ball, I would reference Joe's earlier comments about why people get frustrated with golf.
(although I'm all for people taking more lessons ;))
Nice to hear Holston widened the fairways though.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2013, 06:27:09 PM by jeffwarne »
"Let's slow the damned greens down a bit, not take the character out of them." Tom Doak
"Take their focus off the grass and put it squarely on interesting golf." Don Mahaffey

Kevin_Reilly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "No architect ever built a single hole with a single tree in mind.."
« Reply #21 on: November 20, 2013, 06:32:31 PM »
I hear ya, but a LZ (hope that's the correct Mucci-ism) with 80-90 yards of find-able/playable width seems pretty reasonable to me.

I am just the messenger, though.  Haven't seen the course.
"GOLF COURSES SHOULD BE ENJOYED RATHER THAN RATED" - Tom Watson

jeffwarne

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "No architect ever built a single hole with a single tree in mind.."
« Reply #22 on: November 20, 2013, 06:36:29 PM »
well actually the corridor appears much wider as a 70 yard miss would find the left fairway
I could just aim at the native ;D
"Let's slow the damned greens down a bit, not take the character out of them." Tom Doak
"Take their focus off the grass and put it squarely on interesting golf." Don Mahaffey

Matt Day

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "No architect ever built a single hole with a single tree in mind.."
« Reply #23 on: November 20, 2013, 06:59:49 PM »
the trent jones junior course I play at (Joondalup) has a number of holes where trees are an integral component of the hole

this link has a couple of snaps that feature the trees
http://www.aussiegolfquest.com/joondalup-resort.html

Mark Steffey

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "No architect ever built a single hole with a single tree in mind.."
« Reply #24 on: November 20, 2013, 07:01:58 PM »
3rd hole at Blue Canyon (canyon course) on Phuket has a huge tree in the middle left of the fairway fronting the green (440yd par 4).   i'd throw a picture up, but i can't find one - nor figure it out