Mid Pines #4: "the Tree". Stay or Go???

[Jay Mickle]

 

Mid Pines #4                    Donald Ross 1921

A short Par 4 of just 310 yards from the very tips plays uphill to a fairway canted significantly from left to right. The plateau green pinched in the center to only 11 paces from back to false front runs at 45 degrees to the line of play. The fairway at its widest point 95 yards out from the center of the green narrows to only 22 yards at the edge of the fronting bunker.
 


 

Up for discussion.

“the Tree” ; should it stay or should it go.

For the past couple of years I have been having an ongoing debate with Ran on the value of an 80 year old (age approximate, but likely not there when the course was built in 1921) long leaf pine to the playability of this hole. While generally acknowledged as one of the best par 4s in the Sandhills, I believe that removal of an 80 year old long leaf pine that obstructs the right side of the green would improve the hole by providing  shot options and put the teeth back into what was Ross’s most severe green complex on the course.
 

 From the tee box.
What appears to be a generous fairway yields only a full view of the green from about 50% of its area. The substantial tilt of the fairway affects the ball such that a drive more than 8 paces inside the waste area on the left is likely to end up on the right side of the fairway.
The remainder is partially or fully blocked by “the Tree”.  This is one of Ross’s finest green complexes on the course and emasculated by a “Tree” that prevents well over half of all golfers from having any approach shot to most of the green. View from 95 yards from fairway close to the left waste area.
Here one sees the advantage gained by an accurate drive that challenges the waste area on the left side of the fairway; a view straight down the green that sits at 45 degrees to the line of play. 
While drivable for the long hitters most players will have to decide whether to press to get the ball up closer to the green as the fairway narrows appreciatively.  A draw of about 200 yards is rewarded with a wedge or running shot to a green that narrows toward the back and drops off all around.
 

View from 95 yards 5 paces from the right side of the fairway.
From the right side of the fairway “the Tree”, only 44 yards from the center of the greenstands as an obstacle (not a hazard) that dictates a layup out to the left side of the green.  Ross did provide this as a viable ground game option as the topography will move a well weighted ground shot left to right onto the front edge of the green.
The option of challenging the fronting bunker and severely sloped right side of the green is taken out of play except for the mentally challenged. This is the most severe green on the course and should generate a very high pucker factor for those brave enough to take on this 12 pace deep right rear pin where disaster awaits front, back and right. But alas this option is no longer available as “the Tree” has neutered the hole of its intended character.  Surely Ross did not build this marvelous green complex to not have it challenged.
 Short of the green from the right side of the bunker.
Here one sees the severe false front that would face an approach shot sans “the Tree.
 
 

From behind the green with “the Tree”  and tee in the background.
The false front is not the only challenge that one faces.  As with so many Ross greens going for a pin atop a VW beetle may be fools play.  Perhaps it is fortunate that “the Tree” is there to force a layup out to the left and so save many golfers the indignity of multiple failed approaches from 20 feet away.

And that is just the right side of the green

 

 Yawning front bunker
This large deep bunker is rarely intentionally challenged from the right side of the fairway due to “the Tree” that sits at its base. 
 

 Back bunker looking back toward the tee..
While the perils of this innocuous looking bunker are not limited to shots that would otherwise be blocked by “the Tree” it will surely punish a pulled approach to a right or center pin.  From this bunker the green runs away to the false front only 12 paces from edge of the green.   The sand shot from here requires the most delicate touch on the course.
While I could go on about prime tenants of GCA thinking about width and options, I believe that my point is best made by the architect himself.
“As beautiful as trees are and as fond as you and I are of them, we still must not lose sight of the fact that there is a limited place for them in golf.  We must not allow our sentiments to crowd out the real intent of a golf course – that of providing fair playing conditions. If it in any way interferes with a properly played stroke, I think the tree is an unfair hazard and should not be allowed to stand.”     Donald Ross

 

 As Donald Ross intended.
 

[Ran Morrissett]

Ross is right (!) when he writes  'If it any way interferes with a properly played stroke....'

This tree certainly does not - provided the tee ball is properly played. Don’t you fondly remember the lore of a drive and pitch hole? Where did it go?! This is one of the best, requiring precision on both shots, not just one. Let the tree be!

What is wrong with demanding accuracy - having to hit half of a 45 yard fairway on a hole that measures 310y? So what if a sloppy fade off the tee is shunted right and ends up disadvantaged on the right third of the fairway with branch trouble? Learn to position your tee ball better!

It is not obvious on the tee just how well the left to right fairway cant works in concert with the tree. Yet, the end result is an appealing 'hidden hazard' that can put the unthinking/unobservant, non-GCA reader out of position. In short, the tree allows prudent tactics to gain an advantage over the gorilla that employs mere brute force.

Sure, as Jay points out, the tree wasn’t there (or at least, was of no height/consequence) when the course opened. No extra challenge needed in those days of hickory golf – coming into that angled green with a niblick was enough of an ask of the player. Roll the clock forward nearly 100 years and I wonder how Ross would insure the hole’s integrity against 460cc drivers and wedges with 20 degrees more of loft than the niblick? The sapling was there by the late 30s and 40s when Ross was alive. Two of my very favorite short par 4s – 9 and 13 at Harbour Town – have trees that 1) play a vital role in forming one’s strategy back on the tee and 2) help the holes stave off the world’s best each year in an appealing manner.

Is every hole on every course supposed to be bombs away to relentlessly open corridors?! Let’s just go play tennis if every hole is supposed to look and play the same! Aren't people who drive the ball 'only' 210-240 sick and tired of facing huge scale courses that are a bomber's paradise? Isn't it nice to occasionally reach for something other than a driver off the tee? It certainly is at Oakmont, Merion and Pine Valley - why not Mid Pines? Or should Mid Pines be like Congressional where you are encouraged to pull driver ad nauseam? The tension created by needing to rub past this tree should you be just right of center with your tee ball adds another dimension to the overall playing experience.

The key word is ‘overall.’ Importantly, my friend limits his remarks to this single hole. What about the rest of the course? Well, I am pleased to report that this is the tree that most often inserts itself into play. Other holes like the dogleg 9th, 16th and 17th have troublesome trees too but not to the degree of this one at the 4th. There was a tree 80 yards short left of the 6th green that made its presence felt - but it’s now gone and more people routinely have a go at the green. When examining the entire fabric of the course, the tree in question is a net asset - it is one more thing to have to think about. I contend that getting rid of it would reduce the variety of questions posed of the golfer.

Plus, George Orwell reminds us that not all trees are created equal. As is generally true for pines, this one is high limbed. A punch eight iron from the right side of the fairway, perfectly judged, can stay beneath its limbs and hold the narrow green. This is not the unlovable golf tree – something thick and low limbed that necessitates a chip out while retarding any hope of executing a scintillating recovery.

Some caveats. If the tree came on a 400+ yard hole, I would lobby for its removal as dictating to people to find a 22 yard wide landing zone with their drivers holds no lasting appeal. Also, some of my sentiment is a backlash against 1) ruthless clear cutting (the oak tree that Bob Jones referred to behind the 15th green at NGLA should still be there!) and 2) the current direction in modern architecture of 'big, bigger, biggest'.

Power, precision and craftiness should be rewarded, both from the tee and into the green – the best thing any architect can achieve is to alternate such requirements. The tree helps in that endeavor. Mid-Pines is blessed with many, many fine (and original) Ross greens so there remains a premium on the second shot here throughout the round. This tree amplifies and accentuates the importance on a well-positioned tee ball. Is anything the matter with that on a wisp of a two shotter?

Thank you for your time – and perhaps even your wisdom in agreeing. 

Best,

[Ran Morrissett]

So there you have it.

Case 1 and Case 2 on the contentious ‘Should it stay or should it go?’ tree topic.

If you were on a committee to decide this one tree’s fate, how would you vote?

More importantly, why?

If simplistically you think all trees are evil, so be it. Personally, I love the filtered light through pine trees late in the day BUT I can tell you: the course would also be stunning if every interior tree was removed. It would also be stunningly hot in the summer.

But I digress! Perhaps you think this particular situation with this particular tree is more nuanced than the typical tree/witch burning tirades commonplace in this Discussion Group?

Regardless, Jay and I look forward to hearing your position.

We will tally up the votes at the end of the week and see where we stand.

PS I hope others will set-up future ‘debates’ too - we will glue them to the top for similar discussion within the tree house (no pun intended!).

[Matthew Petersen]

Stay.


I'm with Ran. On a hole this short, it's fair to demand that the player find a way to keep a drive (certainly doesn't have to be a driver) in the left half of the fairway. Further, the tree is high-limbed and not thick. You can play under it and still get it up around the green.


I certainly don't feel that just because something is cut at fairway length means it should allow an unobstructed shot. It don't think anyone would have a real quibble if the fairway was narrower and this tree blocked out shots from the rough.

[Peter Pallotta]

Jay - a really terrific opening post, and a genuine pleasure to read, and with an excellent response by Ran.

I like trees well enough, but IMHO this one has got to go.

Ran is being, as per usual, very rational and reasonable. But both my golfing and aesthetic *instincts* tell me that the tree doesn't belong.

It guilds the lily, and Ross of all people was no guilder of lilies.

[Andrew Buck]

I hate trees ...

I think it should stay.  Undoubtedly one of my 5 favorite holes in the area (maybe because my first play of this hole was my first introduction to diabolical Ross greens as a drive on the front left corner yielded a 5 to a back tight pin.

It's still a 300 yard hole, and the tree doesn't impact conditioning or view.  I don't think it's too much to ask of a golfer to get the left side of the wide fairway for an unobstructed view of the green.  The old pro at my club would have suggested it was unfair to contend with the tree from the fairway and his solution would have been to narrow the fairway.  I think it's a great hole as is.

[Sean_A]

I am in two minds.  The argument for keeping the tree is because it is quite deceptive how little room there is for the guy banging away.  However, if the hole is in the rear of the green short hitters have little chance to get close.  The tree effectively blocks out this play much of the time...but it also eliminates the temptation to do so.  I say temptation, but in reality trying to hold the green playing over the bunker with a wedge is hard enough let alone a short knocker trying to do it with a 7 iron or more.  I do like temptation.  I think the first thing I would do is cut down the trees shorter right so we can properly see the beauty in question.  Aesthetics would play a major role in my decision since there are positives and negatives either way. 

Ciao

[David_Madison]

"GO"

The tree serves as a stymie to average or weaker players, who tend to hit their shots left to right and who cannot get it far enough up the fairway to get past where it plays an influence. When the fairways are running, the only shot that will hold the left side of the fairway is a soft draw into the side slope. That's not a shot that many have, especially the overwhelming number of resort players who make up the majority of the play.

Conversely, rarely does the tree come into play for stronger players as they can easily get past its influence unless they hit a truly wayward drive off to the right. Had the tree posed a greater influence on stronger players but not so much on average or weaker ones, I'd be more inclined to vote to keep it.

As Jay points out, the tree pretty much prevents the use of the front right portion of the green that offers wonderful cupping opportunities. In an ideal world, the tree would be gone and the fronting bunker would receive a similar treatment to what we've seen elsewhere throughout the course, where the top portion is raised up above the putting surface and the sand flashed up. That would add bit of risk and required precision for an aggressive play to a tightly placed cup, yet a player content to hit it 20' or so past the cup and then putt back would still have a reasonably manageable play. And, an approach from the left side to a right front cup would still be advantaged vs. an approach from the right side, keeping intact the hole to meet Ran's lament that there are far too few good short holes that demand precision on both the tee and approach shots.

In order for the hole to play to its best possible advantage for the greatest number of players while using the greatest possible number of cupping options, the tree has to go.

[Jeff Loh]

Blow it up.


Remove the tree and you increase TEMPTATION.
As is the prudent play is a mid/long iron to the left side of the fairway leaving anywhere from a 60-100 yard pitch. Never an easy shot no matter the distance but it feels slightly forced.
If the tree is gone you stand on that tee and think why not hit driver? If I miss the green what's the big deal?
Well the devil is in the details. Pull it slightly and you have the left hand bunker shot Jay described. Push or over cut it and you are now a resident of the Golf Otel. You may meet Norman Bates over there. You will not make par.
The other thought you may have is why not just blow it past the severely canted fairway up by the green where the landform is more benign. See above.
The other problem is that if you choose to lay up and hit an iron slightly right of center your options are zero. Go under the tree. Thats it. No other shot will do. I have but one choice. I DO NOT have the option of trying to to hit a high lofted and spinning shot that may stay on the green. Or it may spin too much which now leaves me with an incredibly difficult up and down from the treacherous right side.
The way the hole plays now that gorgeous right hand side is rarely visited by the unsuspecting golfer. Surely Ross didn't go to the trouble of building such a great green to have a large portion of it sit undiscovered.
Just think of the 10th at Riviera. Would a tree on the right side of that hole make it better?
I think not.

[Carl Rogers]

Jay, last year, when we ran into each other at MP, as we played the round,you asked me what I thought about this tree and your debate with Ran.  I didn't answer then but can now.  You have documented this debate very well.  I can add nothing to the debate thus far except my own conclusion.


I think the tree should go. 


My reasoning is this:
- agreed that the play up the right half is both a serious error in both strategy and execution, but my attitude is that the player always should have a chance, however remote, of executing a recovery shot.  The tree eliminates that possibility.


I birdied the hole,remember??

[BCowan]

Thank you for your time – and perhaps even your wisdom in agreeing   

Ran made one hell of a case and I think I am in your camp.  It's the same as removing a bunker that is 150 yards out from the tee that only hurts the weak player and say you are speeding up the game (Argument with an Oakland Hills member).  I'd argue to remove the tree just right of the green for it is removing light from the green.  I'd also remove a couple of the small trees planted in the pine scrub on the left, the desired line for the weaker and smart player.  The tree in question by Jay is nothing even remotely close to the 2 trees on #17 at Franklin hills or #2 at Holston and Ross left those up in the original design (Shame on Donald). First off this is one of the greatest drive and pitch holes I've played with or without the tree.  The irrigation box on the left is a great place for a weak driver who hits a slice to aim for.  What you are doing by removing the tree is dumbing down course strategy.  The front is cupable regardless of the tree.  This tree unlike Holston/Franklin has NO WATER by it, so it isn't a Double Hazard!  Why can't weaker player lay back to 120 yards giving him much more usable fairway off the tee?   

I'm glad that someone has brought up an Architectural discussion.  I think Mid Pines needs to cut down about 1500 pines and focus on the 3rd hole which is holding the course back from a 9+!  Is it an EPA issue? 

[Steve Lang]

   Stay, definitely.


The key is "the properly played stroke" which looks to be a fade around the tree.  What's so difficult with that on such a short hole???

[Cob Carlson]

Wow, this is a juicy one.


I consider both Mr. Loh and Mr. Morrissett to be great friends. I'd take a bullet for both of them. And I know they will continue this friendly debate in person over a few glasses of wine or bourbon.


When I began filming my documentary film "DONALD ROSS: Discovering the Legend" I shot a good amount of footage at Mid Pines. Here is a link to a little video I edited 2 1/2 years ago with Ran giving us a show and tell of the 4th. He doesn't go deep on the tree issue, but gives us great context on the hole.


[size=78%]https://vimeo.com/173201997[/size]


I happen to love the hole and think it would be wise to take the large pine down and plant a new pine tree in the same spot 2/3rds as tall. I think Donald would like that.


I would love to hear Dunlop White, the planet's foremost golf course tree expert, to weigh in, as well as Kyle Franz, Michelangelo of the Mid Pines restoration, and Jim Dodson, Kingpin of golf writers and loving member of Mid Pines.


Cheers Gents!

[Cob Carlson]

And yes, Chris Buie should enlighten us , too!

[Tyler Kearns]

Jay,


The 4th at Mid-Pines is an excellent drive and pitch hole, much of which is owed to the angle of the green that more readily accepts approaches from the left side of the fairway.  I've only played the hole once, but posit that the shallowness & uphill nature of an approach from the right side of the fairway or worse yet, the light rough presents enough of a challenge for the vast majority of golfers.


TK

[Doug Bolls]

I am a left-handed golfer who only hits a 3-metal off the tee.  Usually a little fade right to left; sometimes straight down the middle, but mostly right to left about 190 yards.  I would line up my tee shot at the left side of the right bunker left of "the tree" and expect my first shot to end up left of any trouble.  The tree is not in play for me as I understand the hole.  Leave it alone.

[Matt MacIver]

Great debate and I was fortunate enough to have been directly exposed to it with Jay whilst playing a few months back.


I think the tree should go. It being there doesn't allow for (m)any creative recovery shots.  Given the difficulties around the green, being blocked out by the tree is a true one-shot penalty which IMO is too severe - or at least less fun, and that's all I care about - not scoring resistance or what the pros would think.


But it's a closer call for me that I just let on given the (short) length of the hole and its (early) place in the round.

[Kyle Harris]

This seems to be the lament of the golfer who needs to use a heavy hand (instead of a heavy game) to tailor a hole to his needs.

Everything about the hole screams "GET LEFT!" from the tee. Notice that bit of fairway running left toward the fifth tee? That does well to pull your eye to where it should be looking. If you're looking to outwit this hole, you're likely going to pull your beard a bit too hard, dipping your chin and losing sight of the target.

The tree stays.

[Tom Fagerli]

Stay. I played it last Saturday.I try to hit it as close to the left waste as possible and sometimes if you roll it into the waste it rolls out due to the cant and you are perfect. Isn't that the idea of strategic design- for the best angle you place your shot as near the trouble as you dare? The issue for me is the fairway is so thin the second is terrifying!
If I recall correctly a few years back a young mini tour player (a PN/MP member's son if not mistaken) drove it on this green so that option is still available even with the tree.
A great hole. A fun debate

[Ronald Montesano]

Adios, Senyor Arbol (which, given Ran's shoddy translation skills, means "Goodbye, Mr. Tree.")


If there were a high kick-plate left, to allow for the caromed runner, it would be another matter. The point of the hole is not to play around trees! The undulation of the fairway will compel shots played center or right toward the sand waste on starboard. At that point, you ask yourself, what half-wit would plant a tree in a bunker? And then, what group of half-wits would let it stay and grow to full size?


Cut it down and send it to New Buffalo, Michigan, to the fellow who makes those cool ball markers for the Dunes Club. He can ship back his offerings and folks will always have piece of this woeful, misplace tree with them when they align their birdie putts, earned from the right side of the fairway.

[Terry Lavin]

Candidate for the Memorial Stump program.  I'm not a fan of vertical, arboreal hazards.

[Jon Wiggett]

I would keep the tree but get rid of that stand of tree down the right side to give the tee shot and hole a more open aspect to it.


Jon

[Bob Montle]

Let it stay.
If you position your drive properly it won't come into play anyway.
If your drive should end up right you still have options.

The fact of the tree being there gives the tactical golfer reason to think, instead of just bombing away.
That is good.

Isn't that what we want?  Options and reward/penalties depending on how we execute?

[Peter Pallotta]

Candidate for the Memorial Stump program...

That was really funny, thanks.

It was fair minded and judicious of you to designate it merely as a "candidate", to start

[Tom_Doak]

I do not remember this tree from our visit to Mid Pines two years ago, and I would never make a real recommendation about this sort of thing without seeing the situation in person, in 3-D.


Based on the debate points, I would recommend keeping the tree.


Mr. Mickle's argument can be reduced to recommending removing every tree on every golf course in the world, because one of them might remove the "option" of attacking a tough pin placement from 372 yards away, yada yada.


Mid Pines is not an excessively difficult golf course, and the presence of the tree does not prevent most golfers from accessing the left side of the green even if they have driven out of position.  I think players can survive the course with this particular tree intact.