[Joel_Stewart]

Does anyone have any great before & after photos on tree removal?  Photos that show views of water would be greatly appreciated.

Kyle Phillips posted this one on Facebook which is quite dramatic.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Joel,

I have some great photos for you, but, I won't be able to retrieve them until early march.

I'll see if someone can scan them for me and I'll email them to you.

They're of Boca Rio where we completed a massive tree removal program

[Mike_Young]

Joel,
Word form a couple of supts in our area is the guy that took the latest tree photo at ANGC was dismissed within 24 hours of it appearing in the local paper...otherwise the world would have never known....

[Joe Sponcia]

Holston Hills CC (Ross), #1 (Tee)





#9 (Tee)

[Joe Sponcia]

Holston Hills (Ross), #10 Tee Box





#12 Tee Box

[Joe Sponcia]

Holston Hills (Ross), #18 Tee





Above #18 Green

[Grant Saunders]

Holston Hills CC (Ross), #1 (Tee)

At the risk of taking an unpopular stance, I actually prefer the before photos in the above example (and the others following it). I dont see any hidden vistas that have been long forgotten and are now exposed nor do I see any trees that immediately look to have been causing major issues with turf.

To me, the result actually appears less interesting and the holes appear to have lost some character because of the removal. The landscape now appears almost monochromatic and lacking in texture.

Disclaimer: I am indeed basing my views on just the photos provided.

[Joe Sponcia]

Grant,

Many of the trees on #1 and #10 had exposed roots...and tough to tell from a distance, but the ground under many was mostly thin and wispy, or nearly bare.  You can stand on multiple tee boxes and see nearly the entire course, due to the routing and tree removal. 

I am working on another Tree Paradigm article presently, and my friend asked, "what was the record at Holston before the tree removal"?  I said, "62 or 63".  He then said jokingly, "so I bet its 58 or 59 since it plays so easy now"?  I never thought of it in those terms, but always tangle with people that think courses will be left defenseless.  I know Grant, you were speaking about the aesthetics, but I thought his point was interesting. 

What is your opinion on courses that resemble St. Andrews?  I am not trying to debate you (truly) but more find out why that appeals to you?

[Patrick Kiser]

Dunlop has some great before vs. after with regards to Old Town Club.
http://www.dunlopwhite.com/www.dunlopwhite.com/Old_Town_Restoration/Old_Town_Restoration.html

I would have to think someone has some good content with regards to St.George's in New York.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Actually, to me the "after" pics at Holston appear to have more texture. The removal of trees allowed the introduction of a new "material," namely native grasses. Another design-related positive I see is the removal of trees allow the bunkers a more complete role than before. Furthermore, the holes have been given less definition, a good thing. Before, the trees appeared to define the playing corridor and thereby reduce thought on the part of the golfer.

[Ryan Coles]

I don't like most of the after shots. I'd rather see a few trees rather than fairways and greens lined with knee deep rough.

However native the grasses are, they offer no real chance of 'recovery'. Just slow play and a wedge out if you're lucky or unlucky enough to find it.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Put me in the camp that ....these golf holes were much better before than after

[Joe Hancock]

I don't like most of the after shots. I'd rather see a few trees rather than fairways and greens lined with knee deep rough.

However native the grasses are, they offer no real chance of 'recovery'. Just slow play and a wedge out if you're lucky or unlucky enough to find it.

In all fairness, not all native grass situations are as unplayable as you are blanket stating. There's a lot of factors:

Soils
Irrigation/ rainfall
Native plant species/ varieties
Seeding rates(often the most overlooked/ erred of all)
Fertility
Diligence in maintenance

Some places do native very well, apart from the wettest of seasons. Crystal Downs comes to mind.

Joe

[Ryan Coles]

Tree removal doesn't blanket improve courses or add strategy either. I'd say the above are not a great advert.

[BHoover]

I definitely disagree with the opinions that the tree removal at Holston is not an improvement.  I don't think the before pictures show a course as badly choked by trees as some, but those trees definitely walled off the holes and hemmed in the playing corridors. Count me as one who prefers the after photos.

Reminds me of the photos I've seen of post-tree removal Moraine in Dayton.

[Mark Fedeli]

Joe, what was the tree situation at Holston when it opened? Do the trees in the after photos better reflect Ross' original intentions?

[Joe Hancock]

I think I only addressed the fact that there are native areas where recovery shots are possible if properly implemented. I don't have any knowledge of HH(other than the pics provided) nor DR's intent. I didn't support or oppose any of the tree removal programs pictured either, so let's not jump too far ahead of myself. 

I would be interested if there's any architects who designed with the idea that trees are immortal. If not, do architects design for the best possible outcome at any particular time in a courses' history, knowing that it is what it is at any given moment? How does an architect "plan" on trees as an integral part of the course?

For what it's worth, I like trees. Not all trees. Not trees planted in a row to identify a corridor. I like trees in natural looking groupings, indigenous and varied in species. I like specimen trees that provide shade near the next tee, sometimes. I like trees that provide a decision on the part of the golfer as he/ she determines their best route, based on their abilities, to get from the tee to the hole in the fewest possible strokes. Maybe most of all, I dislike trees that inhibit social interaction on the golf course, i.e. trees that separate two adjacent teeing grounds just for the sake of isolation. But I like social golf better than isolation golf, so that's a personal preference for sure....not a matter of better or worse.

Joe 

[Mark Fedeli]

I think I only addressed the fact that there are native areas where recovery shots are possible if properly implemented. I don't have any knowledge of HH(other than the pics provided) nor DR's intent. I didn't support or oppose any of the tree removal programs pictured either, so let's not jump too far ahead of myself. 

I would be interested if there's any architects who designed with the idea that trees are immortal. If not, do architects design for the best possible outcome at any particular time in a courses' history, knowing that it is what it is at any given moment? How does an architect "plan" on trees as an integral part of the course?

For what it's worth, I like trees. Not all trees. Not trees planted in a row to identify a corridor. I like trees in natural looking groupings, indigenous and varied in species. I like specimen trees that provide shade near the next tee, sometimes. I like trees that provide a decision on the part of the golfer as he/ she determines their best route, based on their abilities, to get from the tee to the hole in the fewest possible strokes. Maybe most of all, I dislike trees that inhibit social interaction on the golf course, i.e. trees that separate two adjacent teeing grounds just for the sake of isolation. But I like social golf better than isolation golf, so that's a personal preference for sure....not a matter of better or worse.

Joe 

Sorry, Joe. Not sure if I caused some confusion there. I was addressing Joe Sponcia with my question about DR. That said, I couldn't agree more.

[Joe Hancock]

I think I only addressed the fact that there are native areas where recovery shots are possible if properly implemented. I don't have any knowledge of HH(other than the pics provided) nor DR's intent. I didn't support or oppose any of the tree removal programs pictured either, so let's not jump too far ahead of myself. 

I would be interested if there's any architects who designed with the idea that trees are immortal. If not, do architects design for the best possible outcome at any particular time in a courses' history, knowing that it is what it is at any given moment? How does an architect "plan" on trees as an integral part of the course?

For what it's worth, I like trees. Not all trees. Not trees planted in a row to identify a corridor. I like trees in natural looking groupings, indigenous and varied in species. I like specimen trees that provide shade near the next tee, sometimes. I like trees that provide a decision on the part of the golfer as he/ she determines their best route, based on their abilities, to get from the tee to the hole in the fewest possible strokes. Maybe most of all, I dislike trees that inhibit social interaction on the golf course, i.e. trees that separate two adjacent teeing grounds just for the sake of isolation. But I like social golf better than isolation golf, so that's a personal preference for sure....not a matter of better or worse.

Joe 

Sorry, Joe. Not sure if I caused some confusion there. I was addressing Joe Sponcia with my question about DR. That said, I couldn't agree more.

More than likely it was my bad. I should have went back and re-read what else is going on in the thread! But, I feel better about stating my opinion on trees, so now that that's off my chest.....

Joe (H.)

[Joe Sponcia]

Actually, to me the "after" pics at Holston appear to have more texture. The removal of trees allowed the introduction of a new "material," namely native grasses. Another design-related positive I see is the removal of trees allow the bunkers a more complete role than before. Furthermore, the holes have been given less definition, a good thing. Before, the trees appeared to define the playing corridor and thereby reduce thought on the part of the golfer.

Mark,

I would concur and never really took it as far in my mind, and you are right, the bunkers don't seem to be lost amongst the trees now.  You are also right, on multiple holes, the trees DID define play as many of the trees were barely off the fairway.  Not as egregious as many overgrown forests I see these days with trees hanging over fairways and inside of doglegs, but they played a bigger role than one would gather had the trees not be cleaned up.

Ryan,

I have read and heard many times the 'negatives' with regard to native areas.  I personally like how they frame holes.  Most of the time, and in the case of Holston, if you hit them, you have really hit a poor shot and deserve the penalty of a lost ball.  The trick is to make the grass so high, that players won't try to find their balls for more than a minute so play is not really affected.  They automatically say, "re-tee".  I honestly prefer it myself to exposed tree roots, weak turf.  Not to mention the pain in the neck for the green crew (and cost) to have to mow around vs. the cleaner look.   

Mark,

From the very early pictures I have seen of the old property at Holston, the land was mostly pasture with few trees.  

With that said, I'm sure over the years, members and superintendents thought it was a 'natural' thing to fill space after the designer was gone.  Without the internet and no doubt rare access to the writings of many of the golden age architects most of us probably possess, I would think it was rare to see courses in their original state more times than not?

Before this gets on a runaway train missing the intent of the thread which I am super eager to see the results of myself...I want to apologize for partly getting us off track.  

[Bill Brightly]

Put me in the camp that ....these golf holes were much better before than after

Really? I guess that's why the say there's no accounting for taste... I find the "after" holes so much more appealing. I'm sort of shocked that such a high percentage of responses (so far) seem to like the tree-lined look.

It's foolish to try and changes someone's mind, but I'll give you guys this to think about: Doesn't the tree-lined look give a nice sense of comfort where you need to hit the ball? Don't the trees "frame" the tee shot quite nicely? I find the wide open look a bit more unsettling.

[Tom_Doak]

I was the consultant for Holston Hills for several years, but it has been probably 8-10 years since I got back there.  The tree removal was not my idea, and it is something of a shock to see it in photos, after knowing the course with trees.  I would say that I see pros and cons in the work that's been done.  It tends to make the holes look more straight-away and less varied from one another, at least on the holes that are depicted in the photos.

I only jumped in here because I wanted to address Joe's post above:

 in the case of Holston, if you hit them, you have really hit a poor shot and deserve the penalty of a lost ball.  The trick is to make the grass so high, that players won't try to find their balls for more than a minute so play is not really affected.  They automatically say, "re-tee".  I honestly prefer it myself to exposed tree roots, weak turf.  Not to mention the pain in the neck for the green crew (and cost) to have to mow around vs. the cleaner look.   

This post made me cringe.  I am never in favor of lost ball penalties for wayward shots in the middle of the golf course, and I am pretty sure that Donald Ross was not in favor of it, either.

It may make it easier for guys to maintain the course, but that is secondary to the golfers' enjoyment.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Bill I would say in the UK at least 90% of golfers really like trees (not on links obviously). This is another case of GCA minor opinion. As you say its all about taste...to me those holes after are deadly dull.

I do think a lot of courses have too many trees, I much prefer gaps in the planting rather than courses which have just filled every space and species are important. I have spent 30 years dealing with planning applications for golf courses citing the benefits of trees to wild life and ecology and the harmonic relationships in sharing the land for golf, animals, birds, bees and insects.....and now some minor headed committees want to chop them down.

It would never happen in the UK, unless the trees were non natives or part of heather rejuvenation, the members would go ballistic.

[Ryan Coles]

The pictures remind me of Sporting Club Berlin, or Carlton House.

Lot of nonsense written about 'playing corridors' in my view some trees are preferable to knee deep rough. I've never hooked a ball around rough. Hit a low running punch around rough, or opened the blade and sliced one around the rough. Put me in the trees and I usually have options. Put me in heavy rough and I have to reach for a wedge. The metaphorical corridor becomes a closed door.

I've seen some great before and after shots of heathland restoration tree removal.However, I see no sense in cutting down swathes of trees on uninspiring parkland and choking it with rough.

[Paul Gray]

Some good, some bad.

Pleased to see the debate is on however, rather than just a collective GCA trend towards "all trees are bad."

Adrian,

I think you've perhaps slightly exaggerated the reluctance of clubs to remove trees here in the UK. Although I think you're broadly correct, I've seen a few signs lately of tree removal becoming more acceptable, and not just where heather is involved.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()