[Michael Felton]

How to win friends and influence people - or not as the case may be.

I get the impression from reading a lot of the threads on here that trees are reasonably well hated by many. "Bunkers in the sky" I've seen written. But I'm curious as to why?

Clearly from a maintenance perspective, if trees are blocking sunlight and movement of air around, then that's not good and those should be cleared out, but from an architectural perspective, why do people hate trees so much?

I think a well placed tree can create some interesting strategy. Take a hole where you have a bunker on the corner of a dogleg. The bunker pushes people away from the dogleg and makes them take a longer route, which may include a worse angle or something similar to that. If you hit it in the bunker, then you are going to have to pitch out (let's say that the lip is too high to hit more than a wedge). You can do something similar with a tree further up the hole and remove the bunker. If you put that tree in, then the player who hits it to the corner where the bunker would have been is going to have to figure out a way to get round the tree, while another player who plays to the right part of the fairway has a clear shot. A bunker that forces a pitch out is loved, but a tree that does the same is hated.

I appreciate that I didn't put that too clearly, but an example of what I'm talking about would be the 5th hole at Bethpage Black. It's a very difficult par four that turns to the right and to the left. There is a vast bunker along the right hand side of the fairway. The left hand side is just rough. When you stand on the tee, the "safe" option is to play to the left, because for the most part, the rough is less penal than the hazard. However, there are trees on the left about 50-100 yards short of the green. If you take the left option, you have to go over or around some very large trees, from the rough. If those trees weren't there, the hole would play relatively easy from the left rough and make the left rough really the place to aim it (or at least the left edge of the fairway). With the trees there, it's probably better to aim to the right side of the fairway and take on the bunker, but the player is left on the tee with an image that doesn't fit that. I think that's a particularly clever way of messing with the player on the tee.

There are other holes on the Black where the trees play a part and with no trees there, the holes would really lose their teeth. And they are supposed to have teeth. The 2nd hole for instance, if you miss the fairway, you have to fashion something around the trees. It's not a particularly difficult drive and so there should be a penalty for missing. Or the 7th. The copse of trees on the corner of the dogleg makes you hit the shot. You can play safe out to the left, but you won't be able to reach in two. Or you take on the trees and have a chance to get on if you hit a good one, but you risk trouble if you don't. A bunker in the same place just wouldn't have the same impact. If anything it would be worse because the bunker that is there would have to be extended and so much so that you couldn't bounce the ball into a playable position.

I'm not suggesting that every course should have tight treelined fairways everywhere, but rather that trees do play their part. I played a course a couple of weeks ago that had some serious tree encroachment and I would gladly cut them back significantly, but I wouldn't want anyone messing with the trees on Bethpage Black.

[Matthew Essig]

I have tried a few times to come up with a way to defend the use of trees. Michael, you have summed up exactly how I feel about trees. Tree-lined holes are absolutely not necessary, but trees are part of this game and part of golf course architecture, no matter how many people try to cut them all down.

[SL_Solow]

Not to suggest that trees can't be an important addition to a course when well placed and natural to the site.  However, as noted many times, there are a lot of disadvantages which your post does not acknowledge.
  1.  They compete with turf for water.
  2. They shade turf making growth more difficult
  3.  They grow so overtime the impact on strategy and turf growth increases.
  4.  They die, thus destroying the strategy you have created.

This does not consider other maintenance issues from leaves and the like.  All pretty basic concepts

[Bill Brightly]

Few on this site will have a problem with A tree here or there that is key to the intended strategy of a hole... But the reality is that so many great ODG courses were engulfed with trees by seemingly well-intentioned greens committees in the 60's and 70's.

I don't know Bethpage Black well enough to respond, but I would ask this about the trees on Hole 5: Were those trees there when Tillnghast designed the hole, or were they added later in an effort to "add teeth" ?

[Ryan Coles]

I think they key is 'great'.

The great courses don't need trees. However to me on many run on the mill courses, attractive trees often turn a featureless and potentially ugly course into an average but reasonably attractive one.

[Sean_A]

I would add to SLL and BB's wonderful posts that aesthetics also play a large role.  Use lovely specimen trees sparingly and you are my mate. Use monochrome green wall trees and you have made an enemy for life  

Ciao  

[Joe Hancock]

I don"t know anyone who hates all trees on all golf courses. Some trees create problems, many of which have been identified by earlier posters.

I think that a golf course, in an area with few to no trees, would not feel appropriate with a lot of trees. Conversely, a course in an area populated with many trees would feel out of place if it had few to no trees. It's a balance a place thing, in my opinion.

Joe

[Paul Gray]

Slightly off topic but thought someone might appreciate this. I'm no tree lover but was disappointed to see ALL of the trees removed at my old club. When I mentioned this to a member I was given the following explanation, no irony intended:

"They had to go because they weren't natural here. They just self seeded."

Classic stuff.

[Michael Felton]

SL - I did mention the maintenance aspect. 3 and 4 are both good points, but should be considered when planting/using trees that are already there.

Joe - agreed completely

Sean - fair enough and I agree with you.

Ryan - I think BP Black qualifies as a great course. I don't think it needs the trees there, but I think that they add to it.

Bill - That may well be the case, I'm not sure. I don't know the Black well enough to say whether those trees were there when the course was designed. I'd be surprised if those trees weren't older than 50 years though. Maybe Tillinghast himself had the trees planted with the intention that they grow. I have no idea. The trees there don't look out of place and I could well believe that it was forest there when they started. Maybe they have encroached more than Tillinghast had intended originally, but I don't know that that makes them a "bad" thing.

[Matt Albanese]

How to win friends and influence people - or not as the case may be.

I get the impression from reading a lot of the threads on here that trees are reasonably well hated by many. "Bunkers in the sky" I've seen written. But I'm curious as to why?

Clearly from a maintenance perspective, if trees are blocking sunlight and movement of air around, then that's not good and those should be cleared out, but from an architectural perspective, why do people hate trees so much?

I think a well placed tree can create some interesting strategy. Take a hole where you have a bunker on the corner of a dogleg. The bunker pushes people away from the dogleg and makes them take a longer route, which may include a worse angle or something similar to that. If you hit it in the bunker, then you are going to have to pitch out (let's say that the lip is too high to hit more than a wedge). You can do something similar with a tree further up the hole and remove the bunker. If you put that tree in, then the player who hits it to the corner where the bunker would have been is going to have to figure out a way to get round the tree, while another player who plays to the right part of the fairway has a clear shot. A bunker that forces a pitch out is loved, but a tree that does the same is hated.

I appreciate that I didn't put that too clearly, but an example of what I'm talking about would be the 5th hole at Bethpage Black. It's a very difficult par four that turns to the right and to the left. There is a vast bunker along the right hand side of the fairway. The left hand side is just rough. When you stand on the tee, the "safe" option is to play to the left, because for the most part, the rough is less penal than the hazard. However, there are trees on the left about 50-100 yards short of the green. If you take the left option, you have to go over or around some very large trees, from the rough. If those trees weren't there, the hole would play relatively easy from the left rough and make the left rough really the place to aim it (or at least the left edge of the fairway). With the trees there, it's probably better to aim to the right side of the fairway and take on the bunker, but the player is left on the tee with an image that doesn't fit that. I think that's a particularly clever way of messing with the player on the tee.

There are other holes on the Black where the trees play a part and with no trees there, the holes would really lose their teeth. And they are supposed to have teeth. The 2nd hole for instance, if you miss the fairway, you have to fashion something around the trees. It's not a particularly difficult drive and so there should be a penalty for missing. Or the 7th. The copse of trees on the corner of the dogleg makes you hit the shot. You can play safe out to the left, but you won't be able to reach in two. Or you take on the trees and have a chance to get on if you hit a good one, but you risk trouble if you don't. A bunker in the same place just wouldn't have the same impact. If anything it would be worse because the bunker that is there would have to be extended and so much so that you couldn't bounce the ball into a playable position.

I'm not suggesting that every course should have tight treelined fairways everywhere, but rather that trees do play their part. I played a course a couple of weeks ago that had some serious tree encroachment and I would gladly cut them back significantly, but I wouldn't want anyone messing with the trees on Bethpage Black.

Michael,

Great post. I think you make some excellent points, especially with your Bethpage Black examples. It's interesting that you describe the 2nd hole as, "not a particularly difficult drive" as I found it to be one of the most problematic tee shots on the course with many different options as far as line and distance. As a first time player, I could not decide which angle and club were optimal for me. Although not a long hole at 389 yards, more aggressive lines down the left may flirt with the trees left (and right if you miss your line). Shorter shots down the right can leave tricky approach shots to the elevated green. It was one of the tee shots that I felt some indecision over the ball.

Anyway, place me in the camp that doesn't necessarily want all of the trees cut down. There are many examples of holes that trees provide good strategic options. However, I feel that many golf courses could lose a few (hundred sometimes) trees and still maintain the integrity and feel of some regions of the country. There is certainly a middle ground to be found and not all golf courses need to be treeless.

[Michael Felton]

Hi Matt - thanks for your comments. I may have jumped the gun with what I said about the 2nd being an easy drive. What I was thinking while I typed that was that the hole isn't that long so I typically hit a 3 wood and I find it easier to turn my 3 wood a little right to left, so the hole sets up well to my eye. Which is much more specific than I actually wrote. It doesn't play that hard for me (at least in my head - I'm always blocked in the right rough).

[Bill Brightly]

Tillinghast certainly used an occasional tree in his designs. Here is the best example I have seen, 8 West at Ridgewood. (Photo taken in the winter, but imagine this tree with leaves.)



The hole is a big, sweeping dogleg left par 5. Except the big oak tree you see in the distance makes you play the second shot left-to-right, especially if you failed to work the tee ball right-to-left. It is a great hole requiring three well played shots to a devilish little green with a severe right to left tilt.

But the problem that occurred at Ridgewood, and SO many other classic courses, is that hundreds of additional trees were added (mostly white pines, spruces and maples)  long after Tilly died. No doubt many members felt these trees "added teeth" to the course, and their removal caused many the say "you're making the course too easy!"

Thankfully, Ridgewood, (and many other classic courses) went ahead with intelligent tree programs to restore the intended playing corridors. Turf conditions improved, and the genius of Tillinghast's great green complex designs returned as the true test of a golfer's ability. Not some convoluted attempt to combine Earth Day 1964 with golf courses...

So Michael, we don't hate trees. Just STUPID trees. And there are plenty to hate...

[Sean_A]

I don"t know anyone who hates all trees on all golf courses. Some trees create problems, many of which have been identified by earlier posters.

I think that a golf course, in an area with few to no trees, would not feel appropriate with a lot of trees. Conversely, a course in an area populated with many trees would feel out of place if it had few to no trees. It's a balance a place thing, in my opinion.

Joe

Joe

I don't think anyone is advocating hacking down a forest for the sake of a golf course.  I thought the discussion was about the use of trees on holes or perhaps even as screens or just because (or so it seems sometimes when I see trees crowded around greens and tees or popping out here and there for no apparent reason). 

Ciao

[Brad Tufts]

Hi Michael,

Interesting post.  As many have said here, trees have a part in the game, especially in locations where courses are carved out of forest.

Personally, among "treed" courses, I like trees completely on the periphery...think Pinehurst #2.  If you are wide the trees come into play, but the strategy is not affected by them.

The tradition of the game began with links, an environment which doesn't involve trees.  While most courses are not built on linksland, that tradition still permeates the sport.  A bunker on the ground is more aesthetically pleasing than one in the sky, and there is probably a low percentage of golfers who even have a chance to control a shaped shot over/under/around a huge tree.  Sand bunkers are difficult for a lesser player too, but most people can get the ball off the ground and can avoid them with careful thinking.

I like trees to break up a course behind a green, to walk through between holes, or to provide backdrops on a course's border.  Some of our greatest american parkland courses have great trees here and there.  My course only has a few trees that come into play along the margins, but they are being removed in our planned "resto-vation" because they were never meant to interact with a ball in flight.  We will be a better course for it.

[Michael Felton]

Hi Michael,

Interesting post.  As many have said here, trees have a part in the game, especially in locations where courses are carved out of forest.

Personally, among "treed" courses, I like trees completely on the periphery...think Pinehurst #2.  If you are wide the trees come into play, but the strategy is not affected by them.

The tradition of the game began with links, an environment which doesn't involve trees.  While most courses are not built on linksland, that tradition still permeates the sport.  A bunker on the ground is more aesthetically pleasing than one in the sky, and there is probably a low percentage of golfers who even have a chance to control a shaped shot over/under/around a huge tree.  Sand bunkers are difficult for a lesser player too, but most people can get the ball off the ground and can avoid them with careful thinking.

I like trees to break up a course behind a green, to walk through between holes, or to provide backdrops on a course's border.  Some of our greatest american parkland courses have great trees here and there.  My course only has a few trees that come into play along the margins, but they are being removed in our planned "resto-vation" because they were never meant to interact with a ball in flight.  We will be a better course for it.

Hi Brad,

That's a fair point. I think that my point though is comparing the difference between being *in* a bunker, with being in the fairway, but with a tree in the way. I think of it the other way round. A bunker and some trees can fulfill essentially the same purpose, but the tree gives a player more options.

Take the 15th hole at Augusta as an example. The powers that be there (for better or worse) decided that they wanted to tighten up the driver there. There are a couple of ways that they could do that. They actually put trees in up the left. I don't think I've ever seen anyone have a restricted swing because of those trees. All that they do is block a direct line to the flag because of it. The other alternative would have been to put a bunker in around 50 yards short of where those trees are. That would serve a similar purpose in that it would stop people who hit it down the left from being able to go for the green. However, it would remove the opportunity for something like this to happen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWkQw4pI98A

[Bill Brightly]

Michael,

Here is the problem. You write:

"I think a well placed tree can create some interesting strategy."

And then you get yourself named as Grounds Chair at our club and since you know a thing or two about golf course architecture, you instruct the superintendent to plant a small, harmless little tree or two in carefully selected strategic positions . The guy who follows you as chairman agrees with this, and since he is "damn well gonna do something" while he is Chairman, he plants a few more. Subsequent chairmen fill in some gaps here and there to "create separation between holes."  Yes, you have "added teeth" but in 30 years these once benign trees will grow to dominate the strategy on certain holes, and the course is choked with trees.

The above phrases in quotes represent the justification for what happened to thousands of parkland courses in the US from 1960 to 2000. So that's why the vast majority of gca enthusiasts shudder at what you write...

And then I have to get myself named as Grounds Chair, dig up all the old aerials, break out the chainsaws, and restore our course back to the original architect's design intent!

[Adam Warren]

I am kind of in the middle on the tree debate.  I will throw this out there.  It may not mean much, but here it is anyway.

There are an awful lot of old, classic courses, and many not that their name is based on a tree.  How many courses do we know of that are named Pine, Oak, Tree, Forest, etc.  I am not sure how we try to eliminate some things that are such a historical part of the game in such an obvious way.

[Keith Grande]

Michael,

Next time you're at Bethpage, look at the aerial view map located near the bar in the clubhouse.  You can see which trees were there when the courses were completed.

[Neil Davis]

I think the topic should read, "In defense of some trees."  There can sometimes be a tree that has some use, but more often than not on a classic course they are a detriment--planted by well-intentioned, but uneducated, green committees and past superintendants.  The problem is the people who can't separate "some" from "all" and have a tantrum when talk of removing the detrimental trees comes up.   

[Brad Tufts]

Michael,

I think I see what you are saying, but I don't think a tree hazard gives a player more options.

The pros aren't a great example, because they can do ridiculous things with a golf ball from a bunker just as common as from behind trees.  I seem to remember a Canadian Open about 10 years ago where Tiger had 205 to a green from a fairway bunker with the ball a foot below his feet, and he hit it on the green, over a hazard no less.

Personally I think of bunkers as providing more options for a wider spectrum of players.  Trees are akin to walls to me.  A skilled player has the game to go over, around, etc. a tree, but the lesser player has more to lose.  If you had a comparably located tree and bunker, I would guess the golf "sagrmetrics" would see more shots lost to the tree than the bunker among high handicappers.

If it worked out the opposite way, we'd see more trees in play!  Good thread though, interesting discussion  

[Michael Felton]

I guess it really depends on what sort of bunker you're talking about. If it's a relatively mundane one with little lip, then yes it would give more options than the tree. If it was a genuinely penal bunker, the likes of which you find at TOC and indeed links courses more generally, then I think the tree is no more troublesome and probably quite a bit less.

One thing I will say is I played a course a couple of weeks ago which has some serious tree encroachment. There's one hole where the only way to avoid tree issues with your approach shot is to miss the fairway. I'm a long way from suggesting that all trees are good. I'm just trying to say that some trees are good, but I have read some suggestions that all trees are bad and that we should take a chainsaw to all of them. The right ones, like that one at the course I played a couple of weeks ago, I'll gladly do the cutting.

Keith - I'm going to be up there on Sunday. I'll take a look thanks.

[BCrosby]

To follow up on Bill B's comments above, the problem with trees is that they grow and then they die.  Their architectural significance changes over time, not always for the better. They are an unreliable, unpredictable design feature.

That doesn't mean trees are always and everywhere a bad idea. But making them the centerpiece of the the strategy of a hole can (and often does) backfire.

Bob     

[Mark Fedeli]

I guess it really depends on what sort of bunker you're talking about. If it's a relatively mundane one with little lip, then yes it would give more options than the tree. If it was a genuinely penal bunker, the likes of which you find at TOC and indeed links courses more generally, then I think the tree is no more troublesome and probably quite a bit less.

One thing I will say is I played a course a couple of weeks ago which has some serious tree encroachment. There's one hole where the only way to avoid tree issues with your approach shot is to miss the fairway. I'm a long way from suggesting that all trees are good. I'm just trying to say that some trees are good, but I have read some suggestions that all trees are bad and that we should take a chainsaw to all of them. The right ones, like that one at the course I played a couple of weeks ago, I'll gladly do the cutting.

Keith - I'm going to be up there on Sunday. I'll take a look thanks.

Mikey, did we play this course together? If so, I'm sure it won't surprise you to hear that I thought the tree situation there was ridiculous.

What may surprise you, however, is that I actually think Bethpage has some examples of good tree use (and a few bad ones). The bigger issue for me on the Black is that we first need to define whether or not we're talking about the average player, or someone who has serious skills.

For example, #1 would be a far more interesting hole for the average player if the trees inside the dogleg were very penal bunkers instead. However, for the top players, bunkers there would just allow them to completely cut the corner with impunity.

On #2, I actually don't think the trees really come into play on anything but seriously off-line shots. I've played all sorts of fades onto that dogleg left fairway. I've also been in the rough on both sides with no tree issues.

#5 is similar to #1; the hole is one of the most difficult on the course for the average player, trees or no trees. While the approach might be slightly easier than #15, the drive is more demanding. As you already know, I'd be more forgiving of the trees on the left if the fairway was extended toward them, restoring a heroic option from down there.

On #7 I agree completely. And I'll add #12 and #13 as good uses of trees:

The tree on the left of #12 that forces you to take on the entire cross bunker, and not just cut inside of it, is very well placed.

#13 has two well-placed trees. The first tree, to the right of the landing zone, encourages you to drive to the left side of the fairway, thereby making your next shot more complicated (and getting you closer to the left bunkers). The fairway there is plenty wide to accommodate all that.

The second tree on #13, to the left of the cross bunkers that front the green, takes away the option to just pull out 3-wood for your second shot and try to blast it into the open space short/left of the green.

Another discussion about Bethpage could be that the course is already set-up so difficult for every day play (with the length, the thick rough, the deep bunkers, the ribbon fairways) that trees only exaggerate things and don't really add much.

[Dave McCollum]

When the super from Bethpage gave a presentation to the Idaho superintendent’s association, he said something to the effect of “I think I’m far enough West to say that we cut down 6,000 trees every year.”  In theory, tree management is controversial because nobody likes to cut down a natural feature of a golf course which has become part of the playing strategy of a hole.  However, trees happen where there is water, nutrients, and other trees to provide the seed.  It’s the same as deciding how to cut the grass:  how do we want the hole to play?

[Michael Felton]

Mark - interesting point about the 5th. It's actually a situation where I wouldn't be surprised if the average score on the 5th came down if they cut the fairway wider on the left. Right now if you hit it over there, you pitch down to the end of the fairway and wedge on. If you cut that down to fairway length, for one you'd be further behind those trees and for two you'd be much more tempted to have a go at it. Bringing double bogey + into play.

Another one for you on 13, which I've probably told you before. I hit my patented driver off the deck for my second shot from about 270 out (we can dream) and hit it a bit left and I thought oh that's going to be good - I'll have a look up the green from that open area short left. I got up there. No sign of the ball, but I did find out that there was a road that goes down into the woods on the left there. Sure enough, there was my ball at the bottom of it. Fully 150 yards down the hill. After a walk down to find the ball and a walk back up to get a club and a walk back down to hit the ball and a walk back up to find it I eventually walked off the hole with about a 7. Now THAT was an architectural aspect that I would gladly have razed.

It was Silver Lake on Staten Island to which I referred. I'm not sure which course you're talking about...

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()