Rees Jones and tree removal insanity

[MCirba]

The best example I have seen of this is Philly Cricket Club.  Got way overgrown, and they took out lots of trees, among other restoration work.  But what they LEFT was remarkable, as there are solitary gorgeous trees where there were clumps and groves.   Used to be you could not see the trees for the forest.     Now, some of these trees literally stop you in your tracks as you can see their entire shape and canopy standing alone as sentrys, remarkable in their individual beauty, and still generally in strategic places for you to have to work around.

Really well stated and great example of deforestation done right.

And for the record, my usual source for vintage aerials from the 1930s is down at present but my backup at www.historicaerials.com shows 1947 Oakmont had very, very few trees.   It looks like most were planted sometime after 1969, so to suggest the Fownes family wanted a parkland course is divorced from reality.

[BCowan]

The correct definition of parklands is very very important. The tree removal at Orchard Lake, Moraine, Inverness, holston hills, and Meadowbrook has been exceptional. 

[Garland Bayley]

I agree with him. I think some architects and clubs are taking this too far. The most recent removal of trees at Oakmont is a good example. All it did was op niall nen up views of the turnpike from 12 green and mounds were built to help mask the new sights and sounds.


These trees have always been here so it was not a historic revival.


Specimen trees or clusters of trees/vegetation provide some needed variety throughout the round and help you establish a sense of place that is sometimes missing on these new, wide open spaces.

We see that you are wrong about trees at Oakmont. Is that because you are just to young?

What is Rees' excuse?

[Ryan Farrow]

Garland, it sounds like you are trying to be funny, help me understand! 


Anyways, here is a photo of Oakmont in 1919. I support the first round of tree removal, maybe a few more clusters or individual trees could have been saved but what is there now is 1,000% better than the  tree lined fairways of the past.  If you look at the 1919 aerial you can image early plantings would be specimen trees today.

[Tim_Weiman]

A recent post about trees and leaves on U.K. social media -


"Thought for the day.........'A large apple tree holds between 50,000 and 100,000 leaves. A normal birch may average somewhere around 200,000 leaves. An old oak tree can have 700,000 leaves. A mature American elm tree may have somewhere around 5 million leaves!'......and in the next two months we have to pick them all up!"


Atb

Thomas:


Not to hijack this thread, but not too long ago I learned a painful lesson: don't buy a house with a swimming pool that is surrounded by trees. What a total pain!


I don't like leaves in the pool or on the golf course.

[Thomas Dai]

The correct definition of parklands is very very important.

Ben,
Agree and a good way to understand it is that look at the stately home landscape/garden movement in, for example the UK, over the centuries with the work of Lancelot Capability Brown usually the highest profile - e.g. - https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/features/how-to-spot-a-capability-brown-landscape

Tim,
I can imagine the pool scene. As to golf, there's normally a chuckle to be had at this time of year watching 'tree huggers' looking for their golf balls in the leaves!


Atb

[Garland Bayley]

Ryan.

Not many trees in that picture. But, it does make your early post meaning clear.

[Adam Clayman]

 Dictating your golf hole with trees, ponds and, consistently penal lush rough, has led to more customers quitting the game, than any factor I know.

[Ryan Farrow]

Ryan.

Not many trees in that picture. But, it does make your early post meaning clear.

Haha! I just re-read my post. For some reason I assumed everyone knew a few thousand more trees came down over the last 2 years (mostly around the turnpike and between 11 tee and 12 green). That is what I was talking about, not the original tree clearing program that happened a few years before the 2007 US Open.

[SL_Solow]

Ryan,  Notwithstanding your belated clarification, it has little to do with the basic issue posed in the thread.  It related to Rees Jones dismay at large scale tree removal.  I suggest that his remarks, to the extent they can be applied to Oakmont, are more accurately reflected at the first round of tree removal as opposed to the later, lesser effort. 

[mike_malone]

Parkland course=trees.


 Trees create doglegs on classic courses and add to the beauty of the course.


 Removal around greens and cutting down trees planted that ruin the design is essential.


I happen to think that Philly Cricket removed too many.

[Sean_A]

Parkland course=trees.


 Trees create doglegs on classic courses and add to the beauty of the course.


 Removal around greens and cutting down trees planted that ruin the design is essential.


I happen to think that Philly Cricket removed too many.

Trees are not necessary for doglegs.  In fact, often, trees spoil doglegs because they remove temptation to drive more directly at the green that can be seen.  It is far more often the case that trees get in the way of a good dogleg.  IMO, trees rarely help the strategy of a hole.  Setting aside issues of safety, the main reasons for trees is to enhance the aesthetic of the course or there is no reason to cut trees down as they are out of play.  The right trees need to be in the right places, often this will mean to block out off property views or safety of roads and houses. Just as bunkers should be used sparingly, so should trees. Sometimes it is the case that losing an ancient tree because it is in the way is simply too much and it should be kept.  I have seen some awesome trees cut down and thought it was practically a criminal act. So there are times when we should consider altering a course to preserve trees or simply put up with the tree.


Ciao

[Jerry Kluger]

I heard an interesting comment about this the other day at my home course.  The courses were built as part of a housing development and there is out of bounds on way more than half of the holes - someone said the trees are there to help prevent golf balls from going OB - don't know that I buy that but it is unique.


Did you ever notice how many of those advocating that trees not be cut down for any reason move their ball when a tree root comes into play?

[Sean_A]

I heard an interesting comment about this the other day at my home course.  The courses were built as part of a housing development and there is out of bounds on way more than half of the holes - someone said the trees are there to help prevent golf balls from going OB - don't know that I buy that but it is unique.


Did you ever notice how many of those advocating that trees not be cut down for any reason move their ball when a tree root comes into play?

Isn't that saying the same thing as the trees are there to protect properties?


Ciao

[Matt MacIver]

Jerry - agree on both, we have trees guarding houses from getting whacked, and roots under every tree that poke out.  They cover them with pine straw 2x / year and that works for a few weeks, but then it dissipates and you're back to playing "the root" rule.  One "fix" was to play massively bushy bushes -- limited maintenance with no leaves or little water but their footprint is so wide they take up 3x the width of a tall tree, and if you hit your ball into it you take a 1-2 shot penalty. 

[Rich Goodale]

I must admit that I do  not "get" trees on a golf course.  Maybe if there is a phalanx of thick fiber right and/or left that only is visited if a duck hook or power slice gets you there, OK.  But.....trees in the middle of play e.g  18 at PB, 12 at Stanford,just about every course in Spain/Portugal.....cute at first sight, but stupid the second.  Even TE Paul's beloved Fernandina Beach Muni (my current local course) has been blessed by Hurricane Irma which chopped up thousands of pounds of cellulose, opening up corridors of play that make the course much more interestingly playable.


As for my local courses in Scotland, Aberdour is planting trees
bushes and flowers, rather than eliminating them.  Sigh.........


Dornoch, on the other hand, identified an infestation of 3 conifers behnd the 10th green and nuked it.  Result!


Rich

[Rick Lane]

Parkland course=trees.


 Trees create doglegs on classic courses and add to the beauty of the course.


 Removal around greens and cutting down trees planted that ruin the design is essential.


I happen to think that Philly Cricket removed too many.

Trees are not necessary for doglegs.  In fact, often, trees spoil doglegs because they remove temptation to drive more directly at the green that can be seen.  It is far more often the case that trees get in the way of a good dogleg.  IMO, trees rarely help the strategy of a hole.  Setting aside issues of safety, the main reasons for trees is to enhance the aesthetic of the course or there is no reason to cut trees down as they are out of play.  The right trees need to be in the right places, often this will mean to block out off property views or safety of roads and houses. Just as bunkers should be used sparingly, so should trees. Sometimes it is the case that losing an ancient tree because it is in the way is simply too much and it should be kept.  I have seen some awesome trees cut down and thought it was practically a criminal act. So there are times when we should consider altering a course to preserve trees or simply put up with the tree.


Ciao

I agree here.  Lots of older New England Courses were farmland that had been cleared in the earlier centuries, and the "golden age" architects laid courses over these farms, using the land and angles as best they could. The 1930's aerials confirm this.  (PS, Tom Doak's Stonewall "Udder Course" is a beautiful modern example of this IMHO).  At my old course, there was a "tree planting" period in the mid 1950's where lots of specimen trees were planted , some say as a reaction to steel shafts and increased distance and control.  As they grew, many of these trees, now 60-70 years old, are either rotting, (especially Maples) or very large and starting to encroach on playing corridors in spots, so selective removal makes a lot of sense, not to mention turf health reasons.  As to the dogleg comment, we had a USGA person come out to our course, stand on a tee of a dogleg, look up at the cluster of Oaks that were planted inside the dogleg 60 years ago, and ask us why we would want those trees blocking the uphill view of our spectacular 1915 clubhouse?   Besides that point, I agree that trees like that on the inside of a dogleg take away all options and risk/reward thoughts, and force you to play one shot as opposed to playing it like a Cape Hole, and being tempted to bite off the corner.  Much more fun.....

[Kyle Harris]

Has anyone actually read the so-called ODG's thoughts on trees?

William Flynn was a proponent, for example. However, his words are often miscalculated and he sought to do with groups of 3 or 5 trees what many seek to do with 300.

[Tom_Doak]

I agree here.  Lots of older New England Courses were farmland that had been cleared in the earlier centuries, and the "golden age" architects laid courses over these farms, using the land and angles as best they could. The 1930's aerials confirm this.  (PS, Tom Doak's Stonewall "Udder Course" is a beautiful modern example of this IMHO).  At my old course, there was a "tree planting" period in the mid 1950's where lots of specimen trees were planted , some say as a reaction to steel shafts and increased distance and control. 

I believe the planting of trees was caused by
a) overreaction to Dutch Elm disease wiping out American elms, and
b) the advent of fairway irrigation making unirrigated rough look "unsightly" and in need of beautification


Interestingly, at Stonewall I was encouraged by the founders to plant a lot of trees [especially on the Old Course] to provide shade at many/most tees, to battle the oppressive summer heat and humidity.  It was the first time I'd done planting on a course, and one of the last times, as well ... we try to work with what's already on site, just because it takes so long for a planting plan to come to life, and then at some point, it starts going south on you.

[Thomas Dai]

Trees on golf courses pretty much only benefit male dogs and players with weak bladders.
atb

[David Davis]

I think this statement can be put in the classification of target marketing. RJ is a dying breed both in terms of popularity as in terms of trending archies. (or maybe this is only my personal hope)


Making such a contrarian statement that is pretty tough to back up with factual data does indeed serve to place him as Peter stated above with those clubs being ran by clueless green committees full of tree huggers that believe more is better when it comes to trees on golf courses.


If I were him from a pure marketing perspective I'd do the same (only if I were him). I'd see the trend, analyze my style and where my remaining chances lay and indeed come up with the same conclusion and market myself as such.

[Kalen Braley]

Some interesting comments...


Would ANGC looks better or worse with a massive tree removal effort? 
Would it play easier if most of the trees were removed?

[Ken Moum]

Trees are not necessary for doglegs.  In fact, often, trees spoil doglegs because they remove temptation to drive more directly at the green that can be seen.  It is far more often the case that trees get in the way of a good dogleg.

Ciao

That is precisely the case with what has been my home course for the last 20 years. 


There are three dogleg holes that have trees on the inside of the corner that range from large to huge.  In all three cases the guys who hit the modern bomb and gouge tee ball, high and carrying at least 260-270 can easily cut off the dogleg.


Since the average guy is carrying it under 200 yards, he can't get over any of the trees. The net result is that 50 yards of carry can result in being 100+ yards closer to the hole with VERY little risk.  There is some, you have to hit it high enough, but even if you don't make it, one of the holes is a par five and you can chip out sideways and still only be 125 yards from the green.


Several years ago, the tree that "guarded" the corner on that hole died, and everyone was hot to get out there and replace it because the hole had been "ruined."


I argued that it was now a better hole because that big tree was right on the corner, and hitting to the left of it required a carry that only a few in the club could manage. Hitting to the right meant you had a chance of running through the fairway, behind some other trees.


Of course I lost the  argument and they planted FOUR trees on the corner. Which has had zero effect on the long hitters.

[MCirba]

Some interesting comments...


Would ANGC looks better or worse with a massive tree removal effort? 
Would it play easier if most of the trees were removed?

Interesting example, Kalen.

In a perfect world, every golf course tree would be a towering Georgia pine that allows players to shape the ball around or simply play under.

Instead, in our imperfect world, most every golf course is populated by low-lying soft-white pines that allow for nothing but the sideways pitchout, or worse yet, the unplayable if the ball can even be found in their dusty, dirty waste products underneath. 

I would argue they are the bane of our collective existences.

[Rick Lane]

Yes, that's an interesting question with two answers:   One for the pros, and one for the rest of us.  Think of #11 at ANGC, new trees all the way down the right side since Tiger, seemingly because it got to the point where it did not matter if the pros fanned one over there in the old "first cut", they could nuke a 6 iron and stop it on that green. So they narrowed it to stop the bomb and gouge.  For the rest of us, it used to be a hard shot, bad angle, with no spin, and now, the trees make it unplayable, a chip out, as if its a water hazard.     So the trees have two different effects on two different games being played.
To me, a grove of trees that functions as a water hazard, with chip out being the only option, is bad.    Give me a shot:    Some low hook or cut or SOMETHING around less trees to try to get remotely back in position, that's where the fun is!