Use of trees to give advantage to a certain shot shape

[Jason Topp]

Watching some of the tee shots at Riviera brought back memories of a tree. 
A short par 5 I used to play had a tree on the right side off the tee about 100 yards.  In order to reach the green in two, the tee shot needed to finish on the right side of the fairway but slopes meant I needed to hit the ball very well and very accurately to have a chance.

The tree caused my 15 yard hook (on a good day) a lot of problems.  It was rare for me to hit the green in two but the possibility existed if the ground was firm, the wind favorable and I managed to hit a straight ball that skirted the tree or even hit a slight fade around it.  Some days, I could even get it over the tree with my normal hook. 

I grew to love that tee shot. 

I think we need to be careful about imposing rigid rules about what features provide compelling golf. 

[Tom_Doak]

I think we need to be careful about imposing rigid rules about what features provide compelling golf. 

Agree.  That's why I protest when people cite the 'double hazard' argument - any rule about fairness should be open to exceptions.


I personally would not build a hole where the only choices are to hit a draw/fade off the tee or lay up to avoid going through the fairway, except on a short par-4.  But I think a hole where a tree makes it hard to get to Position A is compelling.  Of course, it won't last forever, because the tree is going to die at some point, and it might get too big before that where it just interferes too much.  But that is no reason to cut it down at once and try to replace it with a bunker that has much less effect.

[Thomas Dai]

Advantage to what particular sort of shot shape in relation to players?
Most golfers are right handed and most players slice the ball so a tree on the corner of a right-to-left hole isn’t likely to be too popular with most players. Such a hole/tree location though, is likely to play into the hands of right handed better players who mostly seem to hit draws and probably high ones too.
Atb

[Jason Topp]

Advantage to what particular sort of shot shape in relation to players?
Most golfers are right handed and most players slice the ball so a tree on the corner of a right-to-left hole isn’t likely to be too popular with most players. Such a hole/tree location though, is likely to play into the hands of right handed better players who mostly seem to hit draws and probably high ones too.
Atb

I like holes that give an advantage to one shot shape over another.  Ideally there will be some balance but I would hate for architects to fight the natural setting to force such balance.  Pebble Beach does ok even though many of its holes favor a left to right shot.

[Sean_A]

I am not a fan of tree(s) forcing a shape shot off the tee. However, if its a tree which helps the aesthetics, then no problem, if the tree is properly managed. Plus, an awkward hole or two is good for a course. Golfers can't have it all their way!

Ciao

[Jason Topp]

I am not a fan of tree(s) forcing a shape shot off the tee. However, if its a tree which helps the aesthetics, then no problem, if the tree is properly managed. Plus, an awkward hole or two is good for a course. Golfers can't have it all their way!

Ciao

Sean - In my example there is no need to go anywhere near the tree if you want to hit the par 5 in 3 shots.  It only matters if you want to get the drive in position to reach in two.  To me that is not forcing a shot shape.


The 18th hole at Pennard is one that I think does force a shot shape, at least on the day we played it.  I do not think it is possible to keep the ball on the right to left sloped fairway without curving the ball to the right. 

[John Kavanaugh]

You can’t complain with one hand about modern equipment while the other bitches about shot requirements.

[JESII]

I think it adds a ton of interest to any golf hole/course. If most every hole had this as a feature, I'd be in favor of it.

[John Kavanaugh]

When controlling shot shape and trajectory becomes on par with distance crafty veterans have it made in the shade.

[Sean_A]

I am not a fan of tree(s) forcing a shape shot off the tee. However, if its a tree which helps the aesthetics, then no problem, if the tree is properly managed. Plus, an awkward hole or two is good for a course. Golfers can't have it all their way!

Ciao

Sean - In my example there is no need to go anywhere near the tree if you want to hit the par 5 in 3 shots.  It only matters if you want to get the drive in position to reach in two.  To me that is not forcing a shot shape.

The 18th hole at Pennard is one that I think does force a shot shape, at least on the day we played it.  I do not think it is possible to keep the ball on the right to left sloped fairway without curving the ball to the right.

Sorry, I misunderstood.

I don't mind the Pennard example because there are only two holes which really make the player shape the drive. In some ways 18 is worse because the layup is still nasty.

Ciao

[Jeff_Brauer]

I like a tree forcing a curve tee shot once or twice a course (hopefully one each way)


I prefer to place them close to 180-210 yards off the tee.  A shot's vertical and horizontal apex is reached at 70% of the shot distance, i.e., presuming a 295 yard tee shot is about 206 from the back tee, if it can be arranged by locating the back tee that far from the existing mature tree.  It doesn't have to be exact, but it does reduce the amount of lateral space dedicated to the fw.  Most good players tell me that they don't like no options if they are a single shot pattern player, and if possible, it's good to leave a wide fw, so they can aim at the tree and curve away, and still hit the fw without going through to the rough, but usually further back from the green, depending on the dogleg severity, if any, etc.


Lastly, while I have never adhered strictly to this rule, using the forced curve on par 5 holes, where the penalty for not having the "correct shot pattern" is "only" losing a chance to reach in 2, or a mid length par 4 hole where laying up leaves just a slightly longer approach are theoretically, to me, the best place to use this type of hole.

[JESII]

Most good players tell me that they don't like no options if they are a single shot pattern player, and if possible, it's good to leave a wide fw, so they can aim at the tree and curve away, and still hit the fw without going through to the rough, but usually further back from the green, depending on the dogleg severity, if any, etc.

And you adhere to this?


I've never had your job, but this seems awfully conciliatory. I don't think anyone is advocating the tee aims out of bounds and if you can't move the ball away from there, you're toast...but to strongly suggest/ask/demand a certain shape or you have a substantial disadvantage is totally kosher if you ask me.


And I only like to think I can hit it both ways...

[Sean_A]

I still think using trees for the purpose of a shaped shot off the tee is dubious because when the wind doesn't co-operate the hole can play very silly....which is a good reason why there should be an over-riding reason for the tree(s) other than for shotmaking purposes.

Ciao 

[Jason Topp]

I don't mind the Pennard example because there are only two holes which really make the player shape the drive. In some ways 18 is worse because the layup is still nasty.

Ciao

I agree that I would not want a course to have this feature on every hole but I do like it sprinkled in every one in awhile.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Sean,


I do consider prevailing wind, where it is constant.  In the Midwest, winds blow from SW to NW most of the time, so you can figure it being fairly constant.  Here in Texas, it blows from the S all summer, and North much of the winter, so an east to west hole with forced curve left (north) may not play well at least half of a third of the season, if that's clear.  Another reason to use more width on this type of hole, but of course, we generally leave more width on a course with windy conditions for nearly any kind of tee shot.


Jim,


When I can, sure.  Unlike some of the am architects on this board, I have never felt that making golfers really uncomfortable by presenting a shot that is nearly physically impossible to hit is a great design philosophy.  Of course, I have never been commissioned to build a tournament course, but even then, I would hesitate just thinking ahead to the inevitable presser, where this generations Dave Hill would more than likely call out that hole.


And, as mentioned, I am most likely to strictly adhere to it when it presents the opportunity on a long par 4 hole, where golfers really want to hit driver.  About 0% of players like to use less than driver, so I hate to take it out of their hands, but if I do, again, the par 5 and shorter to mid length par 4 holes seem the best accepted place to do it.


Your example of players hating to hit over OB or water is a good one.  Golfers shape shots to keep the ball over "safe ground" as much as possible.  Trying to hit a fw or green angling right with a right to left shot doesn't leave a lot of room for error on either carry or roll out.  Granted, some players ride the wind (especially on tee shots for length) while there may be a balance of riding the wind or cancelling it on the approach.


Jay Morrish and I once co-designed a course and during that time, he told a story of having designed a par 3 where everyone had to aim over the water to correct for a cross wind, and how much flak he took for it.  In crosswinds, most players prefer the hazard on the downwind side.  Conceptually, it makes sense, putting the penalty on the side of being "more aggressive" and being relatively safe when cautiously adding girth for the cross wind.

[Steve Lang]

   At Oak Tree PeteDye had a their signature tree pretty much dead center on the par 5 7th on the front but more memorable was the one on the par 4 10 th which you could get around either side... in the end it was just aim at it and take yer chances

[Sean_A]

Sean,

I do consider prevailing wind, where it is constant.  In the Midwest, winds blow from SW to NW most of the time, so you can figure it being fairly constant.  Here in Texas, it blows from the S all summer, and North much of the winter, so an east to west hole with forced curve left (north) may not play well at least half of a third of the season, if that's clear.  Another reason to use more width on this type of hole, but of course, we generally leave more width on a course with windy conditions for nearly any kind of tee shot.

Jeff

Yes, you make my point about prevailing wind not prevailing! Then of course the archie has to rely on the club to properly maintain the tree. Just seems like too much to go wrong to really get behind intentional tree shaping shots especially when plenty exist as recoveries on hundreds of courses.

Ciao

[Jeff_Brauer]

Sean,


I guess that depends on whether the gca is trying to be "fair" enough to eliminate shots that play badly for all, all of the time, many, much of the time, some, some of the time, or a few, just a bit of the time. If I was trying to make sure no shot ever played badly for anyone, then yes, I would not have any forced curve shots designed in.


The opportunities to do a real good one haven't seemed to come along that often, so I usually tend to take advantage. 


Have never thought of the fact that many second shots need to curve around trees being a factor in not designing that in on the tee shot.  But, there are typically 14 full tee shots per round.  If trying to make every one at least slightly unique, the forced curve is one of the concepts that help me in that regard.

[Jay Mickle]

Many know of my belief that the tree on the 4th at Mid Pines should go. https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,63202.0.html


However, I argue that the Tulip Poplar on 18 should stay as it asks the player to shape a right to left shot to hit the middle of the fairway. It also blocks out much of the view of the hotel that slowly reveals its prominence as one one walks down the fairway. It surely is not necessary but does provide an added dimension to the hole.
My quest fo preservation as been met with comments like: The name of the course is Mid Pines not Mid Poplar"

[Ira Fishman]

Many know of my belief that the tree on the 4th at Mid Pines should go. https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,63202.0.html


However, I argue that the Tulip Poplar on 18 should stay as it asks the player to shape a right to left shot to hit the middle of the fairway. It also blocks out much of the view of the hotel that slowly reveals its prominence as one one walks down the fairway. It surely is not necessary but does provide an added dimension to the hole.
My quest fo preservation as been met with comments like: The name of the course is Mid Pines not Mid Poplar"

I am in the camp that both should stay. The thread on Number 4 remains a classic.


Ira