Tree removal and course difficulty

[John Connolly]

Conceivably, golfers might believe that tree removal along lines of play and between parallel fairways will make "their course easier". What are the arguments against such? And what are examples of where robust tree removal had no impact on a course's rating and/or slope?

[BHoover]

Oakmont didn't appear to be any easier after tree removal. I don't know about rating or slope, but look at the scores of the 2007 Open compared to 1994 or 1983 (maybe you could even argue that Johnny Miller's score in 1973 was made easier because of trees!).

[Jeff Shelman]

A couple of things to consider:

1. It seems unlikely that you're going take out all of the trees at once. If you do it gradually and leave the most strategic trees, the golf course doesn't get super easy.

2. On many courses that have too many trees, the rough isn't all that bad because it is difficult to grow grass in that shade. By taking trees out, the rough can become healthy and thick. That's not easy.

3. I think there is value in people making decisions seeing other courses that have done a good job with tree removal. Arrange a trip with your super or something. Maybe tour the course and play if you can. Let them see that things aren't easy.

4. Don't overlook what tree removal can do to the quality of greens. People like trees, but I think more people like good greens more.

[Tom_Doak]

Conceivably, golfers might believe that tree removal along lines of play and between parallel fairways will make "their course easier". What are the arguments against such? And what are examples of where robust tree removal had no impact on a course's rating and/or slope?

It probably WILL have a small impact on the course's slope rating.


What I don't get is why 10- and 20-handicappers are so afraid of that happening.  Why must courses only become harder, and never easier in any respect?  I'm starting to think the higher handicappers are worried that the low-handicappers will blame them for trying to make the course easier for themselves. 

[Thomas Dai]

What's infuriating is when two closely parallel holes are separated by only a thin line of trees. Miss a fairway by a few feet and you're in the tree line. Miss so wildly that you're on the parallel fairway and you're most likely in a better position. Trees in clumps and copses are best, not continuous avenues. Just my pennyworth.
atb

[Mark Saltzman]

I would think tree removal generally makes a course easier and it generally makes it more interesting. I'd think a key determinant is if the course was originally designed with trees in play or not.

[Carl Rogers]

On some holes the tree line offers a degree of safety from the parallel hole's offline tee or approach shot.

[Kyle Harris]

Trees typically dictate an answer of "no" to the poorer golfer that is considering "maybe." Removing trees brings the "maybe" back and perhaps in situations where the best answer is "no."

[David Kelly]

I was talking to one of the pros at Myopia last week and he mentioned how the removal of trees at the course brought the wind into play much more and in that way made the course play a little more difficult.

[John Connolly]

It would seem that rehabilitating compromised turf in one of those tree groves with dirt patches and thin grass has to be the first priority when evaluating such situations. I'm fond of the medical expression concerning emphysema patients - "When you can't breathe, nothing else matters" because it's a an absolute truism.


A corollary for a golf course would be: "When you can't grow turf, nothing else matters."


Healthy turf is the "blocking and tackling" of course maintenance and tree programs. It is the foundation upon which practices should be built. Once you've got a solid grass substrate, you develop your course as you see fit. Without it, there is no hope for compelling and interesting architecture to take hold.

[Martin Lehmann]

We have this discussion at our course all the time. My standard answer is that the qualifications 'difficult' or 'easy' are, if not insignificant, the least important. Much more relevant are the judgements 'balanced' versus 'unbalanced', 'fair' or 'unfair', 'attractive' or 'unattractive', 'good' or 'bad'. In general removal of trees has a huge impact on airflow and sunlight and as a result on the quality of turf. Lines of sight tend to get more appealing too. And if done in the right way, the effect on playability in most cases will be positive.

[Joe Hancock]

2. On many courses that have too many trees, the rough isn't all that bad because it is difficult to grow grass in that shade. By taking trees out, the rough can become healthy and thick. That's not easy.

Jeff,

While this may be true, I might prefer the trees and the thin stand of grass underneath rather than attempting vicious swings out of thick "healthy" rough.

p.s. The common perception of what constitutes healthy turf is a pet peeve of mine. It's ingrained in us from multiple sources, including the universities that utilize a lot of money and products to teach us such things. So I hear what you're saying, but....

[Mike_Trenham]

Tom Doak, I find high handicap members are more concerned about what their guests think than how other more talented members play the course.

Believe me if you remove the trees eventually the majority of members will get it.  In 10 years you will be getting recommendations for removals from some of the current concerned constituents.  This is my experience at my club and we are at 400 + removed.

[Dan Herrmann]

To me, tree lined fairways are like bumper bowling - they keep the errant ball from getting too far off line.

I play on a course with almost no trees, and trust me, a pull hook goes a LOT further left without trees than if the trees were there! 

[Josh Stevens]

Should the question not be expanded to discuss "more difficult for who?"

We removed a lot of tress and that clearly made the course easier and far more enjoyable for the average 16 handicap punter who previously spent quite a bit of time in the woods.

On the other hand, the scratch player has not seen much change as presumably he was a bit straighter anyway.  Having said that, the tree removal program was undertaken in conjunction with a program of vastly improving the green and bunker designs, so any reduction in difficulty from tree removal was balanced by more challenge around the greens. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

You could look at the reverse - while I am fuzzy on the actual stats, I do believe scores haven't gone up Augusta due to narrowing with rough and trees, so they probably won't go down with widening.

The only trouble with Josh's argument is there are also a lot of short but straight guys who might lose their advantage to longer but wild guys off the tee who would complain about losing their advantage in those $5 bets....

[Bill Seitz]

Oakmont didn't appear to be any easier after tree removal. I don't know about rating or slope, but look at the scores of the 2007 Open compared to 1994 or 1983 (maybe you could even argue that Johnny Miller's score in 1973 was made easier because of trees!).

I'd imagine that the question of how tree removal impacts that the difficulty of a course is different for the pros than for the rest of us Joes.  They aren't nearly as likely to find that trouble to begin with.  Furthermore, I doubt everything else between 2007 and 1994 was completely controlled to the extent that you could make a good case for the impact on scores created by tree removal.  Honestly, I'd be hard pressed to think of anywhere that removed a significant number of trees and subsequently made courses harder for the average member or paying guest.  Maybe a situation where turf was really weak in some areas, and tree removal helped it grow stronger.  I could imagine deep rough occasionally being worse than being in trees.

[Josh Stevens]

It does seem a common criticism - it will make the course easier!!!! as if that were a bad thing.

Rarely do you hear the comment that it will make the course more interesting and more enjoyable.

Australia recently introduce American style Slope ratings for all its courses and while I can perhaps see some of the arguments, the big negative is a sudden fixation on difficulty.  "my course is a slope of 134 and yours is only 131, so mine must be better"

[Adam Clayman]

Josh, And the irony is that the rating criteria, as well as those that rate the courses for the regional associations, are as ignorant as those members that cryt doon tree removal.

Score snore.

[Mike Policano]

During my reign of terror as Green Chair at Ridgewood, over 800 trees came down. There was a large white pine on the right side of 7 West, a par 4, that we took down. Golfers asked me if we were replacing the tree. I said, no. 


Golfers said the hole was easier. I replied that without the tree, the golfer now has more recovery options, therefore more strategy and therefore more fun.


But the golfers, insisted the hole was only easier. One golfer sporting a low handicap told me the hole was half a stroke easier now. I replied, you do realize it is not possible to be a half a stroke easier.


He asked, what do you mean? I said, to be a half a stroke easier means you hit every other drive behind the tree and it cost you a stroke every single time you hit it there. Did you hit 1 out 2 drives on this hole behind the tree?


He replied, no. I asked, how often did you miss the fairway to the right behind the tree. He said one out of four times. I replied, no way. You have a 3 handicap right? Yes, he replied. He finally agreed that maybe one out of 8 or 10 times he wound up behind the tree.


I said great, let's say it was one out of ten times, that means the most it can be is a tenth of a shot easier not a half. But even then, it would have to cost you a stroke every time you hit behind the tree.


With a 3 handicap, are you good enough to punch out and get up and down once in a while? He of course said yes. I said how often. He said half the the time.


I said great! So 1/10 of the time you hit behind the tree and 1/2 of those times you didn't get up and down. So, the tree removal didn't make it a half shot easier, it made it 1/20 of a shot easier. And this is not taking into account the increased wind from other tree takedowns or the greenside cross bunker that you have to now carry from heavy rough.


So, can we agree at most it is 1/20 of a shot easier and that 1/20 of a shot isn't worth talking about? And can you stop telling people it is a half shot easier when your know that isn't even possible?

[BCowan]

Mike,

Great post. Thanks for sharing. Nice job breaking it down. 

[noonan]

Many members thing those trees are a badge of honor.

[Mike Policano]

Thanks Ben. Trees are always a tough discussion. I tried to start with the facts to isolate the issues. But I never tried to convince anyone. Just gave them a different point of view with a rationale behind it.



Cheers

[Terry Lavin]

I've been involved in a lot of whacking over the years. Most members don't want to get educated on these topics. I just learned from the experts, communicated with committees and the board and got the job done. A handful of uninformed morons continued to whine, but that's life.

[Steve Lang]

   Just don't take down my aiming tree...