The pendulum might just swing back!

[Jim_Coleman]

    Joe: Yes, it’s almost always better to be in the fairway than to the side. And yes, the angle into the green from the side is usually (but not always) worse than from the fairway.  But a direct shot from the side is always better than a shot that has to deal with an obstruction.

[Ira Fishman]

I have given a lot of thought to the frequent topic of trees on this site because I am not an architect, superintendent, restoration expert, or particularly good golfer. I have come to the hypothesis that this is not a difficult problem to solve:


1. If the tree or trees were there when the course was designed and the architect used them to influence the line of play and/or the wind patterns, leave them in place. If they have grown too large, prune them back.


2. If the tree or trees are not there from the beginning for those purposes and interfere with turf health, remove them or prune them back.


Sure, there may be a tree or trees that were put there after the original design for “strategic” reasons, but they probably are few and far between and would need to fit squarely and properly in point one.


Ira

[V. Kmetz]

Kmetz
Century is destroyed? Maybe you can expand on this because seems to me Century is a fabulous golf course.
i've played several tournaments at Century and have played recreationally often through the years.
I remember several years ago being on the right edge in the fairway on #10, and having long limbs hanging into the fairway and blocking my line to a hole location that was back left.

Sweeney,
Read closer...still a fine course, destroyed/defaced as the experience it was when earned its reputation.  I can hardly believe your playing account/bio there if you too don't recall it as the plushest, greenest, most manicured course in the Met, and known precisely in that reputational space.  By contrast, my people go back to 1964 there; I grew up on Anderson Hill Road, caddying at the Purchase clubs, and playing Century most summer Mondays in the 1980s and 1990s.  Destroyed as an experience...Still...congratulations, you probably have a shot now there on #10.

[M. Shea Sweeney]

Kmetz
Century is destroyed? Maybe you can expand on this because seems to me Century is a fabulous golf course.
i've played several tournaments at Century and have played recreationally often through the years.
I remember several years ago being on the right edge in the fairway on #10, and having long limbs hanging into the fairway and blocking my line to a hole location that was back left.

Sweeney,
Read closer...still a fine course, destroyed/defaced as the experience it was when earned its reputation.  I can hardly believe your playing account/bio there if you too don't recall it as the plushest, greenest, most manicured course in the Met, and known precisely in that reputational space.  By contrast, my people go back to 1964 there; I grew up on Anderson Hill Road, caddying at the Purchase clubs, and playing Century most summer Mondays in the 1980s and 1990s.  Destroyed as an experience...Still...congratulations, you probably have a shot now there on #10.

Kmetz,
OK-
So you are saying that the tree removal has impacted the condition and subsequently the way you feel when you are there compared to years past?
Century has been one of the top clubs in the Section forever, Hogan worked there- Darrell Kestner was an assistant there and still tells stories of how very good the club was to him. It makes complete sense that back in the day they were leaders in turf grass.


Century seems to be in fine fine condition- agronomy and architecture.
We played a 3 Day event there in 2020 fall, and it was fiery, fast, and perfect- rough was thick too- you couldn't just hit it wherever you wanted to.
I love the 10th hole- great tee ball near that putting green that usually has players warming up and hanging around- birdie opportunity with a solid drive- but you can't fall asleep on the approach or you looking at a tough up and in. The hole rides the land beautifully down the hill before turning back around for 11.


I reference the 10th because I distinctly remember thinking to myself this place could use a little trimming. I have definitely bogeyed the hole in my time there, but I've also made a few birds.

[V. Kmetz]

Kmetz,
OK-
So you are saying that the tree removal has impacted the condition and subsequently the way you feel when you are there compared to years past?  No...I'm speaking to the instant obliteration of perhaps one of America's finest parkland course venues as an integrated singular "experience", built and earning a singular reputation for 7/8ths of existence in and of that parkland character -- which is verdant greens, few browns, stately rows of old growth trees, with landmark framing and conveying an honest patina of age and permanence. The course, the route...many of the shots have not been changed or ruined...but that's all there is now...course, naked, without definition, a ground level map... course looks the same in the morning, as it does at dusk, no shady respites, no tree-deflected wind rushes...naked and with homogenous character.  That's fine, even desirable for a great deal of golf land...but the place isn't the Mersey or the North Sea, nor a sandy beach top or rolling midlands... It was and is a very fine course, but it used to be that AND have this singular, platinum-standard character, to which you're being obtuse if you advertise long familiarity with this course and do not acknowledge in front of posters here.
 
Century has been one of the top clubs in the Section forever, Hogan worked there- Darrell Kestner was an assistant there and still tells stories of how very good the club was to him. It makes complete sense that back in the day they were leaders in turf grass.

Misconstrual upon misconstrual; you broadcast as if I'm saying the course or (please retract) the club is no longer good, and I'm not saying that at all.  And what the hell does Hogan and Kestner have to do with any of it?  You forgot to name-drop JC Snead and of more recent vintage, Frankie Bensel.

Century seems to be in fine fine condition- agronomy and architecture.
We played a 3 Day event there in 2020 fall, and it was fiery, fast, and perfect- rough was thick too- you couldn't just hit it wherever you wanted to.
I love the 10th hole- great tee ball near that putting green that usually has players warming up and hanging around- birdie opportunity with a solid drive- but you can't fall asleep on the approach or you looking at a tough up and in. The hole rides the land beautifully down the hill before turning back around for 11.

I reference the 10th because I distinctly remember thinking to myself this place could use a little trimming. I have definitely bogeyed the hole in my time there, but I've also made a few birds.


I don't know what any of the last graphs have to do with anything, but if you think that irksome branch on #10 from some time back, and what's happened there now, is representative of a "little trimming"... then I'm addressing a champion blind golfer, and my deep apologies; it's a miracle you're on the internet.

[M. Shea Sweeney]

Kmetz,
OK-
So you are saying that the tree removal has impacted the condition and subsequently the way you feel when you are there compared to years past?  No...I'm speaking to the instant obliteration of perhaps one of America's finest parkland course venues as an integrated singular "experience", built and earning a singular reputation for 7/8ths of existence in and of that parkland character -- which is verdant greens, few browns, stately rows of old growth trees, with landmark framing and conveying an honest patina of age and permanence. The course, the route...many of the shots have not been changed or ruined...but that's all there is now...course, naked, without definition, a ground level map... course looks the same in the morning, as it does at dusk, no shady respites, no tree-deflected wind rushes...naked and with homogenous character.  That's fine, even desirable for a great deal of golf land...but the place isn't the Mersey or the North Sea, nor a sandy beach top or rolling midlands... It was and is a very fine course, but it used to be that AND have this singular, platinum-standard character, to which you're being obtuse if you advertise long familiarity with this course and do not acknowledge in front of posters here.
 
Century has been one of the top clubs in the Section forever, Hogan worked there- Darrell Kestner was an assistant there and still tells stories of how very good the club was to him. It makes complete sense that back in the day they were leaders in turf grass.

Misconstrual upon misconstrual; you broadcast as if I'm saying the course or (please retract) the club is no longer good, and I'm not saying that at all.  And what the hell does Hogan and Kestner have to do with any of it?  You forgot to name-drop JC Snead and of more recent vintage, Frankie Bensel.

Century seems to be in fine fine condition- agronomy and architecture.
We played a 3 Day event there in 2020 fall, and it was fiery, fast, and perfect- rough was thick too- you couldn't just hit it wherever you wanted to.
I love the 10th hole- great tee ball near that putting green that usually has players warming up and hanging around- birdie opportunity with a solid drive- but you can't fall asleep on the approach or you looking at a tough up and in. The hole rides the land beautifully down the hill before turning back around for 11.

I reference the 10th because I distinctly remember thinking to myself this place could use a little trimming. I have definitely bogeyed the hole in my time there, but I've also made a few birds.


I don't know what any of the last graphs have to do with anything, but if you think that irksome branch on #10 from some time back, and what's happened there now, is representative of a "little trimming"... then I'm addressing a champion blind golfer, and my deep apologies; it's a miracle you're on the internet.

Kmetz
That's a wonderful explanation re the parkland nature of Century, thank you.
It's a great course, and I've always felt it to be underrated in the section.

[Ira Fishman]

VK,


Not to interrupt the back and forth, but we played the first 11 holes of Century last fall (the skies opened unfortunately). Your comments about the trees really made me think because I now can see where they might make a really good course even better. Do you have any photos from yesteryear?


Ira

[Mark_Fine]

There are still a lot of courses that have too many trees, too many of the wrong kinds, and too many planted in the wrong places.  But trees do have a place in this game and on many golf courses and as is often the case overzealous tree haters can go overboard and take out too many.  It is hard to replace a large mature tree once it is gone. 


I once recommended to a club, take out every other pine tree and after that keep taking out every other one.  For that course it made sense and a lot were removed but for some courses, certain trees can be advantageous to remain, sometimes even if they are not the ideal specimen.  I do believe trees can play an important role going forward and as stated might help us (in certain cases) avoid longer and longer golf holes/courses. 


Harbour Town has stood the test of time for the best golfers in the world and is barely 7000 yards long.  Trees are a major part of the reason.  There are courses we all could name closer to 8000 yards that play like chip and putt for them (they don’t have any/many trees).

[Sean_A]

There are still a lot of courses that have too many trees, too many of the wrong kinds, and too many planted in the wrong places.

So we do agree. Now it's a matter of degree. That admission took an unnecessary number of posts. We need to decide whether golf courses exist to play golf or as a place to plant trees. We have seen what happens when trees are permitted to run wild...not good for golf or grass. IMO the issue will never be completely solved because too many places ignored proper tree management for far too long. Now, a great number of places cannot or will not afford the cost of playing catch-up. That is a shame because I routinely see  courses that would be more enjoyable, better conditioned for less money and prettier with far less trees. But hey, the narrative is tree haters have clear cut the world's courses because an extremely small number of clubs have gone down this route. It's a preposterous argument. There are very few times I say to myself that what this hole needs is x number of trees to improve its playability, interest and aesthetics. I usually think of trees as a screen or noise block. If we could think of trees in the way that was originally intended for parks, hence the name parkland course, golf would be better off.

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

Would seem like an appropriate moment to post a link to Joe Sponcia’s GCA ‘In my opinion’ tree piece from 2016 -
https://golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/sponcia-joe-trees-on-the-golf-course-a-common-sense-approach/
Atb

[Mark_Fine]

Sean,
In my second post I admitted I have taken down A LOT of trees on nearly every project.  On my last two projects alone the total is well over 500 probably closer to a thousand (but we don’t like to count)     


It is all about the degree to which they are managed and removed. 


Thomas,
That is a great article and I could have written it myself.  I have several “tree” presentations that I use often with committees to talk about trees as they are without question the most challenging aspect of golf course restoration/renovation as there is so much emotion surrounding them.  It is very hard to get a club to take down a full grown healthy tree.  Even harder to take down one with a plaque on it 


The point of this thread is that as I watch certain courses take down trees (which they probably should) I watch golfers take lines of play that architects never had envisioned.  As an example, for safety purposes, one course instituted “internal aerial” out of bounds so if your ball passes in that air space and returns back in play it is still deemed out of bounds.  They don’t want anyone flying golf balls over other golfers heads which is more common on parallel or dog leg holes with no trees. 


I am just saying more Architects are going to or at least should think a bit more about how trees might be used as a design tool going forward.  Pete Dye used them often very successfully on many of his designs (not just Harbour Town).  And I wouldn’t describe those courses as arboretums (though there are still many courses out there that have become tree nurseries).  Sensible tree management “and tree use” is good for the game.  That is what this thread was meant to have us think about.  Maybe we will not only remove trees but we will plant some as well 

[Ira Fishman]

I have given a lot of thought to the frequent topic of trees on this site because I am not an architect, superintendent, restoration expert, or particularly good golfer. I have come to the hypothesis that this is not a difficult problem to solve:


1. If the tree or trees were there when the course was designed and the architect used them to influence the line of play and/or the wind patterns, leave them in place. If they have grown too large, prune them back.


2. If the tree or trees are not there from the beginning for those purposes and interfere with turf health, remove them or prune them back.


Sure, there may be a tree or trees that were put there after the original design for “strategic” reasons, but they probably are few and far between and would need to fit squarely and properly in point one.


Ira

Mark’s post reminded me to add a third principle:


If the tree(s) are there for legitimate safety reasons, leave them there but at least prune them back when possible.

[Jim_Coleman]

   I think an important lesson from this thread is that major tree removal should not be undertaken without the advice of a trusted architect. If tree removal is contemplated that will change the way a course  will look or play, get an architect first. If the before and after pictures are going to be striking, get an architect first. If all you’re doing is general pruning and removing seriously unhealthy trees, the super can probably be trusted. But if the super is taking before and after pictures for his resume, beware. The pictures may be gorgeous, but an architect should have been involved.

[V. Kmetz]

VK,

Not to interrupt the back and forth, but we played the first 11 holes of Century last fall (the skies opened unfortunately). Your comments about the trees really made me think because I now can see where they might make a really good course even better. Do you have any photos from yesteryear?

Ira

Not at all Ira, I'm satisfied the point is made and MS' probe helped me make it...Firstly, pictures... I can only hope your or my next visit inside the clubhouse would yield something; I have no independent pictures from its platinum days... You could get the roughest "sense" of it if you GoogleEarthed it in the historical viewer, or went into those Westchester County Aerials that every architect references.


And I would not say "a good course even better"...but "a good course made singular"... It's hard to convey an aesthetic feeling... that Century felt "old and kingly and permanent"...but that's how I'm left to convey it.  Those big thick specimen trees of age were so very grand, and they so often created a indeed grand boulevard to the the green target and its various interests.  The shade they cast was thick and cool in the summer heat...when even the lightest wind blew this way and that, the leaves top and undersides gave differing green hues to the frame of the golf hole...they made a cloudy day more leaden, but quiet; they made a rainy day more glum; but more private. And of course they cast dark shadows and obscured secret dangers; and made alleys of sunshine, opening and closing reveals of bright altars and peeks of far vistas.  Now it's a large, pretty, hillside field, with a cough of dotted trees and a sturdy course upon it. So not better or worse...just not singular as the previous description would argue.


As a matter of golf, Century has a number of blind, partially blind, hidden landing area tee shots (5, 6, 8, 14, 15) and those big old trees well in the rough provided another compass point, but also a vexation as triangulations were different from various tees and sides of tees to such trees.  Yes roots of these big ol suckers could play a capricious role in what you got if you got that, but it was some part of Century's character of rigor...indeed look at Hogan, Kestner, JC Snead, Frank Bensel, to which I'll add Dick Siderowf and you have the entire panoply of elite golf success from hall of fame legend to the national to the regional to the local to the top amateur ranks.  Those guys prospered at and with and playing Century in their careers, and they all played it in the era when it was this grander, singular thing...when it was a parkland course.


Surely, overgrowth and over planting existed, was needlessly encroaching, and like so many courses, needed addressing, but Century is denuded and naked now...and 3-4 years later, I don't see any compensatory, well curated or not, new plantings sprouting up...just to get some underpants back on, I should think.

[Ira Fishman]

VK,


Such a well stated perspective that I almost can imagine the singular nature you describe without photos. My friend who hosted us has been member since he was a kid. I will have to ask him if he played enough golf back then to remember what the course looked like.


I thought 5 and 6 were the best holes on our abbreviated round. I liked 3 quite a bit as well.

And we very much enjoyed receiving the full Frank Bensel welcome.


Thanks.


Ira

[Peter Pallotta]

1. If the tree or trees were there when the course was designed and the architect used them to influence the line of play and/or the wind patterns, leave them in place. If they have grown too large, prune them back.
2. If the tree or trees are not there from the beginning for those purposes and interfere with turf health, remove them or prune them back.

So simple a child could understand it, or even your average gca.com participant. This is all that needs to be said, and that has ever needed to be said.

[Sean_A]

1. If the tree or trees were there when the course was designed and the architect used them to influence the line of play and/or the wind patterns, leave them in place. If they have grown too large, prune them back.
2. If the tree or trees are not there from the beginning for those purposes and interfere with turf health, remove them or prune them back.

So simple a child could understand it, or even your average gca.com participant. This is all that needs to be said, and that has ever needed to be said.

Hmmm, not really. Each situation is unique and should be treated as such. There is also the basic issue, what if the archie was bonkers? Another basic issue, how are these basic instructions funded? What if the tree that grew in a marvelous specimen?


Ciao

[Mark_Fine]

Let me repeat something very clearly, TREES are the most challenging/emotional design aspect to deal with on restorations/renovations/redesigns,…., for countless reasons most of which have been discussed on this site.  I have had members literally stand by a tree with their arms around it saying no way this one is coming down.  I have also had members admit they had zero clue what they were doing when they planted new trees. 


Bottomline, there will never be a universal solution for trees and/or how to use or not use them on golf courses.  Even employing an golf architect doesn’t guarantee anything but it probably is a worthwhile idea to have one assist before letting a course/club take matters into their own hands. 

I still recall Jack Nicklaus commenting to fellow tour pros about when he was in his prime he could drive it right over the trees cutting the corner of one of the doglegs at Scioto. The pros looked at Jack in awe saying there was no way any of them could attempt to do that even today.  Jack smiled and then did confess that the trees were about 40 feet shorter when he did it 

I wonder if the person/architect who planted them knew that trees grow