Is "target" golf the answer

[Jason Topp]

Sherwood CC seems to come pretty close to target golf.  It reduces the advantage long hitters have off the tee but also allows Tiger to largely avoid hitting driver. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

to controlling distance off the tee ?

Should the architect create additional defenses in the "Bomb and Gouge" DZ to rein in long drives ?

ie, doglegs where going through the fairway creates problems and trying to cut the dogleg doesn't justify the risk ?

If that's the case, then just plant lots and lots of trees, esp in fairways.

That would penalize higher handicap golfers

That will limit the golfer's options.

At what price to the other golfers ?
(Disclaimer: I would pack a chainsaw in my bag and cut down 95% of all trees on golf courses)

[BCowan]

Jeff

   Oakmont is heavy clay soil, so your point doesn't make any sense.  

Peter

    I don't see courses doing tree removal half hazardly and carelessly.  Most are admittedly against it.  Courses used to not have duel and triple irrigation.  You could say that was a fad, couldn't you?  You don't have to put fertilizer in rough areas, look at Australia (i know it is sandy).  There is nothing wrong with strategic trees, but to have on every 10 yards creating a corridor is hack like arch IMO.  The element of wind has been blocked.  Native or low cut rough can be attained.  People complaining about deep rough after a heavy rain lack common sense and shouldn't be the ones we consult on tree programs

[ChipRoyce]

to controlling distance off the tee ?

Should the architect create additional defenses in the "Bomb and Gouge" DZ to rein in long drives ?

ie, doglegs where going through the fairway creates problems and trying to cut the dogleg doesn't justify the risk ?

If that's the case, then just plant lots and lots of trees, esp in fairways.

That would penalize higher handicap golfers

That will limit the golfer's options.

At what price to the other golfers ?
(Disclaimer: I would pack a chainsaw in my bag and cut down 95% of all trees on golf courses)

I'm not advocating it, tongue in cheek response to the question posed.

[jeffwarne]

Jeff

   Oakmont is heavy clay soil, so your point doesn't make any sense.  

Way to keep that mind open.
no groupthink here

[BCowan]

Jeff

    Groupthink outlook imo, would be that heavily tree lined fairways make a course tough and if we cut them down people are going to score very low.  Well I think Oakmont proved that to be not the case.  I would like to see more Penal bunkers and fewer bunkers that are shallow!  I think that would make the game more interesting! 

[jeffwarne]

Jeff

    Groupthink outlook imo, would be that heavily tree lined fairways make a course tough and if we cut them down people are going to score very low.  Well I think Oakmont proved that to be not the case.  I would like to see more Penal bunkers and fewer bunkers that are shallow!  I think that would make the game more interesting! 

Brian,
Oakmont's revolutionary tree clearing went against the groupthink of the previous stewards of our classic courses.
a good thing.

What's good for one is not always good for everybody, though on balance, an awful lot more trees need to go than stay.
I just hate to see everybody come up with the same exact solutions/look
I can think of one classic course who cut trees defining a dogleg, and to fill the space-planted "native", let it grow, cut it, put in mounds, put sand on the mounds,let the  native grow, cut it,  then put in bright white "waste" bunkers.
None of this is/was a bad thing-just a process.
the point is the space has to be filled with something and that something has to be maintained to some degree for the playability it once had.

Agreed-Definitely would like to see fewer bunkers, and make those mean something

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff,

Agree about the "space", but, whatever is in that "space" has to be a condition far more harsh than the fairway or rough otherwise no impediment or risk is introduced.

I have seen pronounced mounds of varying heights introduced and they seem to work well, but they present a maintenance problem.

A flat, benign bunker isn't much of an impediment for a good golfer who possesses distance and strength, especially when that bunker is "maintained"

What does present a dilemma, is a vast bunker with random islands of gnarly, high rough and/or low lying shrubs.
Now, the risk is compounded by the introduction of penal features of a random nature.

[Sean_A]

Sean,
That picture of the Valley Links #16 is a wonderful example of a dogleg in a sandy links enviroment.

Clear cutting a parkland course leaves the question of what fills the space?
Leave nature alone in most enviroments and it will return to nature.
"native" grasses, except in the linksiest of soils need maintenance, even with the irrigation off -it rains,
Suddenly players are looking for balls in hay/bushes, where formerly trees were and the turf was thin underneath.

and of course too many trees create their own air flow and shade issues.

Not saying trees don't need management-they do---but the area created after the tree clearing needs MORE management or it truly becomes target golf -ick

Look no further than the complaints at GCA Buda events when wet weather has created unmanageable gnarly rough, and that's in a links enviroment
It's only 100 times worse in fertile farmland or heavy soils.

Peter's point is tree planting was a fad which created its own thoughtless "follow me" momentum.
Let's be careful not to do the same in reverse on courses where the "native" enviroment is woodland, not tick and weed infested 2 foot high fescue grass

Hmmm, I don't see much danger of what you describe happening on any sort of major level so you can sleep well tonight.  My argument about trees has always been the same.  A golf course is not an arboretum.  It is a park to play golf.  If folks want to look at rows of trees go to a forest.  If folks want to see golf holes, they should be on offer at a golf course.  Cut the crap away so the lovely trees can be showcased - that is proper parkland golf - not endless green walls of boring, fast growing trees blocking out sight and play lines. 

Once the trees are dealt are dealt with, then we discuss your issues with rough. 

Ciao

[jeffwarne]

Sean,
That picture of the Valley Links #16 is a wonderful example of a dogleg in a sandy links enviroment.

Clear cutting a parkland course leaves the question of what fills the space?
Leave nature alone in most enviroments and it will return to nature.
"native" grasses, except in the linksiest of soils need maintenance, even with the irrigation off -it rains,
Suddenly players are looking for balls in hay/bushes, where formerly trees were and the turf was thin underneath.

and of course too many trees create their own air flow and shade issues.

Not saying trees don't need management-they do---but the area created after the tree clearing needs MORE management or it truly becomes target golf -ick

Look no further than the complaints at GCA Buda events when wet weather has created unmanageable gnarly rough, and that's in a links enviroment
It's only 100 times worse in fertile farmland or heavy soils.

Peter's point is tree planting was a fad which created its own thoughtless "follow me" momentum.
Let's be careful not to do the same in reverse on courses where the "native" enviroment is woodland, not tick and weed infested 2 foot high fescue grass

Hmmm, I don't see much danger of what you describe happening on any sort of major level so you can sleep well tonight.  My argument about trees has always been the same.  A golf course is not an arboretum.  It is a park to play golf.  If folks want to look at rows of trees go to a forest.  If folks want to see golf holes, they should be on offer at a golf course.  Cut the crap away so the lovely trees can be showcased - that is proper parkland golf - not endless green walls of boring, fast growing trees blocking out sight and play lines. 

Once the trees are dealt are dealt with, then we discuss your issues with rough. 

Ciao

I think we agree

[Peter Pallotta]

Enjoying the thread. Jeff - thanks for seeing the forest for the trees in my rambling post. I know that my pen tends to run away with me, but my basic point was what you identified, i.e. that in a desire to find the 'answer' Pat asks for, we shouldn't forget that a demonization of trees may be as short sighted and reactionary as a previous generations' love affair with same.  (Sean, I don't want a forest either, except if a course was originally carved out of said forest).

Peter

[jeffwarne]

Peter,
It does often seem to get a bit all or nothing around here.
Big world out there-

On a kind've unrelated groupthink faddish topic,
After seeing those great pictures of Royal Melbourne, why do we not see any bunkers with similar edging where soils permit?

[Sean_A]

Peter,
It does often seem to get a bit all or nothing around here.
Big world out there-

On a kind've unrelated groupthink faddish topic,
After seeing those great pictures of Royal Melbourne, why do we not see any bunkers with similar edging where soils permit?

Jeff

Its mostly dream golf.  In my experience very few courses get trees right.  As with any vegetation on a course, managing trees requires strong convictions and mucho forethought.  Unfortunately, we now often have a problem with removing trees (even if there is a will) due to money.  The problem has become so bad on so many courses that proper tree removal is not an option.  It tends to be high brow clubs which really do the job well, but its still far and few between. 

I don't think there is any immediate worry about the extinction of green wall golf.  We are now only touching the tip of the iceberg with trees.  No matter how much I or any others prattle on about it, we are in a small minority.   

Ciao