The 'tightening' of golf courses circa 1960

[Joe Sponcia]

"But if the course had a weakness, it was the wide fairways".

From Golf Digest 1962, I found this article to be of interest.  I recall a few years ago at Pinehurst thumbing through several books and one (I wish I knew the title)  in particular spoke about (I believe) Mr. Tufts sitting in the landing areas and 'adjusting' holes based on where players commonly hit shots.  I wonder aloud if articles like this started the 'wide is bad' trend?  I've certainly seen others from this time period praising mass tree planting.  Enjoy.

[RDecker]

Undoing this damage is costing a lot of courses a lot of money and effort.  If only Gil or Tom D had been around back then to counter act some of this I wouldn't be spending entire winters cutting down trees.

[Joe Sponcia]

Can you elaborate?  Maybe a personal story if you are at liberty to say? 


I was talking to a good friend yesterday (who isn't on GCA) and related the probable non-fascination with playing a 'Ross' at that time (1960's) vs. how we revere pre-Korean war architects today.  Good or bad, it's probably the first or third question I ask when someone talks about a course, "who designed it". 


In talking with Doug Stein at Lookout a few years back and hearing his first-hand account...it is kind of amazing that none understood what they played every day?  I suspect Lookout wasn't the anomaly.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Very interesting, Joe. Thanks for posting this article.


For the record, I think we find the genesis of this "new philosophy" a decade earlier, beginning with Hebert Warren Wind's August 4, 1951 article on Robert Trent Jones in The New Yorker magazine followed by the media success of the 1953 U.S. Open at Oakland Hills, and R.T.J.'s watershed remodelling of the South course there.

[RDecker]

Even if a tree were considered to be strategically or esthetically valuable to a hole the tricky thing is that the trees are continuously growing and therefore they would only be at their optimal size and shape for a given period of time.  The idea that trees were going to be the key component of creating the "Parkland golf" experience was very short sighted.  When was the the parkland at its' best, when the maples were 15 feet high, 40 feet high...  The rest of the course evolves as well but at a minimal level and much slower rate.  The main factor that they also didn't understand was how harmful the shade and wind obstructing factor these trees were going to develop into.  The trees are causing agronomic difficulties when they are up and costing time and money to take down.  They essentially have been paid for by a club 3 times. 

[Dave McCollum]

Funny, I was reading a HW Wind piece today, written in 1966 or so, about how that should be a Golden Age of design given the equipment, resources, and architects, yet somehow didn’t deliver compared to the ODG,’s generation without such.  Too lazy to type the words, but found in  HWW’s Golf Book in the chapter about architecture.

[Sean_A]

Its interesting how the concept (at least as I understand it) of parkland has changed over the years.  Parkland courses originally were mainly devoid of trees and instead had specimen trees dotted here and there or in small cops to add some strategic interest, but mainly visual interest...much like and how private (and later public) parks were created...open spaces for enjoyment. If there was forested area it was only one section of the park...often times with a stream nearby. Somehow golf lost the meaning altogether and instead courses became something more akin to arboretums...and poor ones at that because of the lack of diversity and planning.   


I think bad planning in terms of not managing self seeding trees is as much to blame as purposely planted trees that were badly managed.  Many a good course has been seriously compromised by the new concept of parkland.  I for one am glad there is a serious backlash against golfing arboretums even though the cost of tree management can be very high. 


A secondary issue can be traced back to tree encroachment and that is rough. Its damn hard to cut or even properly manage rough with trees littered everywhere...so we see rough lines continually pushed out beyond the tree line...sometimes narrowing corridors by 50%...hence the idea of the tree club is born 


All that said, some of these trees are now fantastic specimens and all care should be made to protect many of them.  I know it sounds contrary to the above, but I think there needs to be careful consideration when cutting down wonderful trees. I have seen a few occassions where a lovely old Oak was removed and I couldn't understand why. 


Ciao

[Adrian_Stiff]

I think the UK view is slightly different to the USA or indeed ROW.


Golf courses and trees are an important part of the ecology here as we have less land space, a lot of our open green space is made up of golf courses. One of the plusses of golf courses to the ecologists is simply the amount of trees in what are often urban areas and the habitats they create often by density. When we are planning a new course it is a real positive to say we are planting 10,000 trees.


Golf to the masses is seen differently than the GCA minor view. In my opinion strategic golf does not really exist to golfers say 6 handicap or better and plenty of 12 cappers can invoke enough spin to mitigate what used to be the strategic problem. Armed with lasers I can't fool anybody by creating some dead ground with a hollow, its 154 and a lot of golfers can hit it within 144 and 164. The only time strategic golf can work is when it is both windy and firm and fast, so about 5-10% of the time. I think the golf world worked this out 60 years ago as golf became more aerial, so golf courses just became more semi-penal with trees and the game became corridors for inland golf. The top players play 20 metre corridor golf, typical club golf is 50 metre, with some clubs looking to move it to 35 metres for the top days.


That is not to say that clubs should not take some out when some are close or to allow specimens to develop, but by and large many golf courses have all taken on the same look by filling every space over the last 50 years.


I think you have to work with what you have and in the UK certainly for most inland courses, there isn't the room. Sadly some of the great examples of placement golf say Cleeve Hill is well off the radar, hence the green fee price. The truth is water and trees are the best sellers.

[Thomas Dai]

I wonder if equipment has also had an effect, although maybe a slight one, as over time the golf ball has developed and now goes both higher and straighter than previously and wooden headed clubs seemed to hit the ball a lot more crooked than what we use now and certainly considerably lower.
Atb

[Sean_A]

Adrian


The only problem is England doesn't need more courses.  The market is saturated.  I think most are talking about existing courses and in that regard most clubs have a lot of control over tree management.  We can debate the strategic value of less trees, but I don't see much point.  However, it is quite clear that from agronomic, drainage and pace of play perspectives, far fewer trees followed by wider managed corridors is desirable.  It is no wonder some of the best clubs in the country have attacked trees as a high priority.  I am still hoping Beau Desert catches on  [size=78%] [/size]


Ciao

[Adrian_Stiff]

Adrian


The only problem is England doesn't need more courses.  The market is saturated.  I think most are talking about existing courses and in that regard most clubs have a lot of control over tree management.  We can debate the strategic value of less trees, but I don't see much point.  However, it is quite clear that from agronomic, drainage and pace of play perspectives, far fewer trees followed by wider managed corridors is desirable.  It is no wonder some of the best clubs in the country have attacked trees as a high priority.  I am still hoping Beau Desert catches on 


Ciao

I am not talking about new golf courses at all. You never seem to read my posts properly.

[Sean_A]

Adrian


The only problem is England doesn't need more courses.  The market is saturated.  I think most are talking about existing courses and in that regard most clubs have a lot of control over tree management.  We can debate the strategic value of less trees, but I don't see much point.  However, it is quite clear that from agronomic, drainage and pace of play perspectives, far fewer trees followed by wider managed corridors is desirable.  It is no wonder some of the best clubs in the country have attacked trees as a high priority.  I am still hoping Beau Desert catches on 


Ciao

I am not talking about new golf courses at all. You never seem to read my posts properly.

When we are planning a new course it is a real positive to say we are planting 10,000 trees.


Ciao

[Adrian_Stiff]

Yes I have been planning new golf courses for 35 years. Others before me. The aspect of planting new trees is an important part of the process. Overall it is seen as an enhancement.

[Joe Sponcia]

Hopefully no one enhances the Open Rota courses before I can make the pilgrimage with my son

[Adrian_Stiff]

Hopefully no one enhances the Open Rota courses before I can make the pilgrimage with my son

Joe- No those courses are not in urban settings, they are on linksland, but still of high ecological value but different.

[Joe Lane]

This is an extremely significant find, I suspect, and hats off to Joe for discovering it. I think it is exceedingly curious that golf course architecture became so invested in what we would now call “penal” architecture—characterized by an intolerance for chanciness—at just this point in history. Thanks Joe for the work!