Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Patrick_Mucci on August 21, 2003, 04:32:52 PM
-
If any of you have been watching the US Amateur on TV, and have been to Oakmont prior to their tree removal program,
how do you think it looks ?
One of the announcers said that without the trees,
the WIND is more of a factor.
Will this encourage other clubs to embark upon, continue or expand their tree removal programs ?
-
I almost fainted (well, not really) when I saw Oakmont on my TiVo last night. I've only seen it on TV, but it looked so different than before.
I admit that I used to think that tree removal was not all that necessary. However, I'm now a die hard convert.
All you need to do is see how GREAT the course looks and plays to understand why judicious tree removal is appropriate and even necessary.
WOW - I'm even tempted to drive there on Saturday (4-5 hour drive) to see it in person :)
-
Dan, I was just musing myself that it would be great to attend Oakmont this week. This course should get many more majors than it does, for so many reasons - and it gets a lot already! I think it looked fantastic before the tree removal, and it looks even better now...
Cheers,
Darren
-
The course is making ESPN's coverage look good. That's how good it looks. The announcer commented on how the tree removal allowed him to see the elevation changes of the property whereas before he could not.
I also liked how these guys talk about the greens and how taxing they are on the golfer's emotions, intelligence and overall constitution.
-
Not sure I remember how it looked with all the trees, and cannot comment on the course since I've never been there...but watching the U.S. Am on TV today I think it looks really good.
The openness on most holes gives the course a great look, but can someone comment on the rough and green speeds? they are talking 4-6 inch rough and 13+ on the stimp...is this the way it was intended to be played?
-
I'm wondering what aesthetics have to do with good golf course architecture?
Who cares what Oakmont LOOKS like.
PIitures and what we see on TV aren't indicative of anything.
-
Evan, I believe that is the way Oakmont is intended to be played. It has always been known as having the fastest greens around and combining that with the rough makes it one of, if not the, hardest test of golf, which is what the Fownes' intended.
I've spent a fair amount of time out there this week and I think that if you can play good golf, you can score on this course. If you don't, it will beat you up. Jerry Courville made 6 birdies today along with 4 bogies in winning his afternoon match 4 and 3. This morning he shot 77 and still won on the 18th hole.
-
Oakmont is magnificient! :P
My husband and I attended portions of stroke play on Monday and Tuesday (Oakmont and the Field Club) and match play yesterday and this morning.
Oakmont's greens seemed as if they got faster every day. The match play format certainly helped the pace of play which was abysmal because so many players appeared to be intimidated by the greens.
IMHO, Oakmont's greens have to be among the most challenging in golf, but Oakmont is much more than its greens. Oakmont is an experience in texture. Without question, the members have a gem and certainly know how to organize a championship event.
Hopefully, other courses will pay attention to what Oakmont has done and remove trees.
-
I'm wondering what aesthetics have to do with good golf course architecture?
Who cares what Oakmont LOOKS like.
PIitures and what we see on TV aren't indicative of anything.
Are you trying to suggest that aesthetics have nothing to do with good golf course architecture???
-
For those within driving distance, only the tees and greens are roped off during the US AM....friday tickets are $10.00 and weekend tickets are only $20.00......AND.... children under 16 are FREE! Come out and enjoy a great walk down the fairways of Fownes' masterpiece. Oakmont's ticket office phone is (412)828-5559......Was that a shameless plug? If you are involved in the process of studying your course's history or architecture and interested in healthier turf,bring your green chair and superintendent to take a look. As an example, Beverly officials did a year ago, and they are on their way. Mark
-
MDugger,
You probably read the title of the thread, and not the text that followed, hence I can see how you misunderstood what was asked.
Mark Studer,
I've heard it said that the Pittsburgh area has a combination of unique soils and climate which allows for terrific greens.
Is this fact or myth ?
The tree removal appears to have had a beneficial effect on the golf course and appears to have opened the course up to good breezes.
-
Pat , I do not think that the weather is "unique", but growing poa in areas with nightime temps in the 60's is a must....cleveland, buffalo, and milwaukee are examples of towns that can cultivate similar turf......maybe it is the fact that Oakmont CC has been around since 1903 with greens that were rolled with 500 lb. rollers in the 20's and became the model of the age , at least around championship golf. Plus, both H C and WC Fownes must have had some saddistic dark side ,.....watching well struck golf shots go scooting over the back of #1,3,10, and 12. As far as the wind is concerned, there is a marked increase in the wind affecting golf shots. I refereed the Courville/White match this afternoon( while John V was making time with my wife) and saw some balls get pushed around like wiffle balls , especially on the holes into the wind today, Todd White's second into 7 floated 30 feet left as it descended to the green. 10 years ago the green site was TOTALLY surrounded by pines. Now the wind swirls and makes slightly miss hit shots flutter around dancing toward bunkers and rough. Mark
-
Three cheers to Mark Studer, who as green chairman of Oakmont played no small role there in the tree management plan. See my article in Golfweek of Aug. 16 about it.
MDugger misses the point entirely when he dismissively refers to aesthetics and how the course "looks." It's really all about good agronomy (not possible in the shade), firm, fast dry playing surfaces, shot-making angles and width of playing surface, plus textural diferences between closely cropped main turfgrass (tees, fairways, greens) and longish, off-color rough from which escape and recovery are possible - but never easy. Oakmont gets it right.
-
Mark Studer;
Without a scintilla of a doubt---
YOU DA MAN!!!!
How is this week feeling to you--is it pretty amazing or does this feel like a prep for the Big Show to come?
-
Mark Studer,
How did you convince your members that you were on the right track and that the extensive tree removal program would be good for the golf course and good the golfers/members ?
-
Tom...the us am IS the BIG show. Oakmont has recently hosted the west penn am(1999) and the pennsylvania state am last year. The club has a tradition of hosting amateur golf championships and seeing the US AM here has been tremendous. Look at the most recent amateur sites ...Pebble in 99, followed by Baltustrol,East Lake, Oakland Hills,Oakmont, then, coming next,Winged Foot, and Merion. Pat....no changes can occur without MANY people being involved. We were fortunate at Oakmont though, since Bobby Jones played 3 majors here between 1919and 1927, the club had a good supply of what we call "photo documentation" of the course. Great writers were here as well, Grantland Rice and OB Keeler as two of the best.(I admit bias here since Mr. Rice coined the "four horsemen" expression about Notre Dames backfied).
-
Pat...the other key ingredient for making Oakmont what it is again today is the fact that the course was designed and revised by HC and WC Fownes continuously from 1903 to 1950 (the time of WC's passing) The club had a 1949 overhead photo that became "The Fownes Masterplan" Who deserves credit for the whole thing?.....trust me , the father, son design team who made Oakmont their legacy. The argument was never really about trees or no trees. Did Oakmont want to be a caretaker of this legacy or did they want a redesigned course on the same property. Another HUGE factor at Oakmont is that the putting greens had NEVER been redesigned and "modernized" as some other classics had.The green committee from 1950 to present protected those putting surfaces from change. The members at Oakmont deserve the credit for "getting it" today. They realize that they are custodians of something very special.
-
Mark,
Congratulations on a job extremely well done! I think the founders of the club would be proud of your team's work in restoring a classic.
Like some folks said, I hope Oakmont serves as a wakeup call to courses overgrown with trees.
-
From my experiences and the projects I've followed that include significant tree removal programs with restoration projects the situation is really remarkable but ironically always quite consistent.
Going into projects that include significant tree removal some (sometimes large slices of the membership) fight you tooth and nail going into it--it gets intense, personal, antagonistic, adverserial, you name it.
But if you keep it going and do it (of course Oakmont is the Mother of all tree removal programs) you come out the other side and the entrenched opposition seems to vanish into thin air and even some of those most opposed in the beginning end up minimizing what they initially said and endorsing the end result. Often the most adverserial can't even remember where the trees were a week after they're gone.
Although the tree removal at GMGC was miniscule compared to Oakmont I got lucky when one of the most adamant tree preservationist stood up at a large membership meeting and said he demanded that some pine trees on the left of #1 not ever be touched and I was able to click back to the previous slide and tell him they were removed about three months before and for some reason he hadn't even noticed (to general laughter of course).
Then there was the man who cornered me and very sternly told me no trees could come down because his wife's face had to have shade! I told him I'd be happy to go into the pro shop and buy her a big hat!
-
TEPaul - Great post... I'm almost temped to write a very friendly letter to the board of my old club pointing them to this thread.
I don't think there's a course that could benefit more from tree removal than good old Coatesville (PA) CC. It's gotten so bad there that unplayable lies were half-expected due to fear of injury from tree roots. It's actually one of the reasons I resigned in 2001.... You GAP Match players from Philly know what I mean :-\
-
I'm curious (but not surprised) that Fazio's name hasn't been mentioned in connection with tree removal and restorative work. I'm also curious if anyone knows the extent of Fazio's involvement. From the looks of it, I'd say not much, but that also could be a function of the quality of the work.
-
Mark Studer
I simply MUST congratulate you and all the members at Oakmont for setting the bar so very high for other historic clubs to follow. I wish Pine Valley would get a move on their tree program after seeing these results. Its hopeless however, to think my home course at Yale could follow suit.
The course looks stunning and it is testing every aspect of these great amateurs' games. There should be some badge, medal or plaque to honor guys like you who respect and maintain the great traditions and venues of the game. I guess your prize is a great place to play golf all the time. Kudos again!
-
Mark Studer:
As someone who not only had the pleasure to be at Oakmont portions of Monday thru Thursday this week, but also is not related to you, or any member, I can honestly say that there are not enough superlatives in the english language to describe the "Oakmont experience."
To you comment that "...both H C and WC Fownes must have had some saddistic dark side ,.....watching well struck golf shots go scooting over the back of #1,3,10, and 12..." I share the "Fownes humor." There is no question in my mind that HC and WC Fownes truly understood the game of golf.
IMHO, private country clubs reflect the membership. Oakmont is very comfortable in its "skin" and as a result, they value their legacy and are not motivated to follow trends du jour to seek identity. Oakmont is genuine. A quality not seen often enough in individuals and even less among groups. It was a pleasure to be at Oakmont this week, not only to see a magnificient golf course, but also to experience Oakmont's hospitality. Every male member with whom we spoke was warm and anxious to share the club's history.
It would be nice to dream that the exposure of the 2003 US Amateur and the 2007 US Open Championship will educate both golfers and those in GCA to think outside the box of runways, fake ponds, cookie cutter bunkers, etc., but true gems aren't copies.
Many thanks to Oakmont for sharing its gem.
-
Touching on what Evan mentioned: This is the second week in a row where we've seen the high rough within close proximity of the greens. Is this just the standardized maintenance du'jour? Oakmont looks remarkably undulated and it seems to me that more of an ideal maintenance meld might exist by allowing some bounce off of the collars into bunkers or onto greens, and immediate surrounds. Was this or is this the way the game should be played on undulating ground? Does the length and closeness of the rough limit the creativity of the player?
P.s. Aren't then the bunkers a better spot to miss? but are rarely found because of the surrounding cabbage?
-
"Clay"
From what we observed, the bunkers were the better spot to miss and I think that surprised many of the golfers. That said, most of the golfers demonstrated good skills in getting out of those situations only to discover that on their list of challenges, the greens would ultimately be #1. The variety of challenges at Oakmont are simply delicious! :-*
-
Clay- believe it or not, the fairways have already been expanded into many fairway bunkers over the last 10 years . Examples are left drive zone on 5 , right drive area on 3, beyond the sahara bunker in front of and flanking left on 8, beyond the cross bunker and to the green complex on 9, left drive zone on 11, left and right on 12, especially in front of the cross bunker at 12. We even went back to triplex mowers for fairways to follow those contours without damaging turf as per John Zimmers and Mr. Latshaw. You are absolutely correct about greenside bunkers ....the long term goal is to have balls run from the putting surface, across the fringe, a width of first cut(1 1/4 " for maintenance and turning greens mowers 180 degrees), then into the bunkers. It is time consuming and expensive to make these changes so they will continue to happen over time .
-
Ran
How about asking Mark Studer if he would agree to a feature interview?
-
The vistas on TV can't even compare to them live - neither can the contours of the greens & the elevation changes of the terrain.
If you live within driving range, you HAVE to come out.
As for the rough, it looks to be playing pretty tough, but I haven't seen as many simply hack it out's like last week at Oak Hill (how's that for poor English).
Maybe Mark Studer should travel the country to enlighten all the other clubs! :)
-
SPDB:
It's my understanding that the massive tree removal program at Oakmont got started and well underway long before Tom Fazio got involved with Oakmont. And so Tom Fazio should not receive credit for it--or blame for not encouraging it!
GeoffreyC:
You said; "I wish Pine Valley would get a move on their tree program after seeing these results."
Pine Valley is definitely addressing an over-treed situation although they're going about it far more diliberately than Oakmont did, perhaps because they don't have US Amateur or US Open on their schedule or perhaps just because that's their way of doing things. But the tree situation there is being addressed.
But I certainly hope you don't mean to imply that PVGC should remove trees to the extent Oakmont did. Doing such a thing at PVGC would be a travesty and tragedy and such a thing should never be suggested. PVGC was designed as a golf course with a vastly different style than Oakmont and that's the most important thing to recognize. The use of trees by their designer, Crump, was obviously much different than Oakmont's designer--Fownes.
It seems to me Oakmont has already accomplished the ideal tree situation for them but for PVGC the ideal tree situation for that course would only be to remove trees that are inside the lines of their designed architecture, primarily bunkering and just leave the rest. This is the way Crump designed the course and the way he wanted it to be. He wanted the holes to be plenty wide and accomodating of bunkering and sandy waste areas but he also wanted the holes to be separated by trees--as he said so many times. Doing something else to the course would be a real denial of that interesting desire and design.
All PVGC needs to do with their trees is remove any that now encroach on their designed architecture that was meant to be clear of trees.
-
"Maybe Mark Studer should travel the country to enlighten all the other clubs!"
Actually he sort of is--matter of fact he's about to go beyond just the country but where he's going doesn't exactly have a tree problem.
-
Tom
I agree with you but I hope you mean that all the bunkers that now sit in the shadows within the forest should be exposed. I have a couple of photos from the left of #15 and behind #17 and #9 I believe where bunkers are all but buried within a canopy of trees. PV could lose thousands of trees.
-
This tree removal thing for courses that really weren't designed to have trees massive amounts of trees is probably really going to build up a head of steam with the exposure Oakmont is getting and will get again about 100 times more visibly with the US Open. But before that the next up in tree removal will be Shinnecock! And guess what, while the high level cameras are at and around Shinnecock they just might pan on over to contigous NGLA and catch sight of continued massive tree removal there too!
-
"I agree with you but I hope you mean that all the bunkers that now sit in the shadows within the forest should be exposed. I have a couple of photos from the left of #15 and behind #17 and #9 I believe where bunkers are all but buried within a canopy of trees. PV could lose thousands of trees."
Geoffrey:
I do indeed mean that. Trees should be removed at PVGC that encroach or get in the way of play into or out of any bunker on that golf course. That probably would be in the thousands. But if and when that was done the golf course and its holes would still very much be separated by trees as it was intended to be!
-
Tom P -
Did George Crump leave anything to indicate that he intended for the course to have the holes separated by trees? Photos from Geoff S's Golden Age book sure seem to show a pretty barren landscape.
-
Mark Studer,
How much of your membership "getting it" is attributable to your admissions policies over the last 20 years ?
TEPaul,
I understand your precarious position regarding PV but the tree and underbrush encroachment went unabated for years and years, and it seems that only external criticism has caused them to address the issue.
You say that they are moving slowly, which would seem to be a form of passive resistance to the idea of tree and underbrush removal. Especially from a club where membership approval is not a major concern, and certainly not required as at other clubs.
We've had this discussion about three years ago and I know that they have done some work, but the pace seems deliberate despite the fact that the mission seems crystal clear.
I've always liked the picture that hangs in the big room, next to the door exiting to the parking lot, as an example of Pine Valley as it was meant to be.
I'm with Geoff Childs on this one. They should follow Oakmont's example, the results will be stunning.
-
Since we're talking about PV, here's a quote from Ran on #14 (which I thought was a bit overgrown). I think is comment summarizes why trees are bad AND good very well:
14th hole, 185 yards; Since Crump originally roamed these grounds over 90 years ago, the amount of mature hardwood trees has multiplied dramatically to where each of the holes at Pine Valley is famously isolated from the rest of the course (and the busy world in general). While trees have encroached into the sandy areas around some of the fairways and greens, trees mercifully play next to no roll in the playing strategy of the holes. In the case of the 14th, the trees turn the hole from a visual terror where the green was once on an isolated finger of land into a hole of great beauty, especially in the autumn months. Whether this would please Crump or not seems debatable but there is no doubt that he would approve of the recent selective tree removal that has occured around this green.
-
danherrmann,
But, if you went back to the 13th hole or forward to the 15th hole, there was a time when trees had grown into the bunkers preventing one from taking a swing to extract their ball in the direction of the hole.
I'd call that impeding the lines of play, wouldn't you ?
Oakmont and Winged Foot have done remarkable jobs in the process of returning their courses to the way the original architects intended them to be and play, and other clubs should follow their example and undo all of the damage done over the last 50 years.
-
"Tom P -
Did George Crump leave anything to indicate that he intended for the course to have the holes separated by trees?"
GeorgeP:
Yes he did--at the moment to my knowledge they're in the form of two independently related "remembrances" (the key is that they were apparently asked for independently!) from his two closest friends during the entire creation of PVGC that were with him the most and knew him the best. Those "remembrances" were specifically asked for of those two close friends by PVGC after Crump died so the club could finish the course as they believed Crump wanted it to be and intended to finish it.
The idea of tree separation between the holes was apparently as important to him as the prescript that no more than two holes should route in one direction and that the holes should "box the compass", and that various holes should test various clubs and shots in very particular and specific places on the golf coure.
Crump's idea of separation of his holes with trees comes up in articles of that time all over the place too. But he didn't write much as far as I know and apparently never kept a diary of his ideas as far as I know. But if there is something like that in the archives I'm certain that it would show his feeling about the use of trees on that golf course. He designed and had it routed with plenty of width (routing) to accomodate good width of holes as well as a tree barrier outside that width along the sides on most all the hole (there are a very few exceptions).
When one looks at the very eary aerials of PVGC one notices some areas of tree clearing that don't seem to make much sense to the routing and design of the course. In almost all cases what those cleared areas were were areas Crump was trying out for holes or pieces of them before giving up on them. Crump had a personal modus operandi for designing holes and their features and placements that wasn't that uncommon at that time--he was a inveterate shot tester--he did it constantly and he also got Jim Govin--a very good player who worked for him there to shot test too. And to test shots even in areas he ended up not using of course he had to clear the trees away. If one looks at the periphery of the early PVGC in the aerial one notices that the raw land was completely chocked full of pine trees though!
Frankly, the property that Crump bought was originally known as Sumner (after its owner Sumner Ireland) and obviously Crump decided to name it Pine Valley. It doesn't really seem he'd name the course Pine Valley if he intended to remove all the pine trees from the site, does it?
Which brings up another course name relating to trees---Oakmont! Oakmont is and was the name of the nearby town but perhaps it was also the name given the land the course is now on.
Given the massive tree removal program that Oakmont G.C. has just gone through, which I think is wonderful, particularly given the original design intent of that course and the Fownes's, I hereby recommend that Oakmont rename their club--"Oaklessmont G.C. in Oakmont PA!"
However, again, I don't recommend that Pine Valley consider that same kind of massive and total tree removal program that Oaklessmont did because that's not what their designer wanted although apparently the Fownes did at Oakmont. So there's no need to ever consider renaming the great and famous Pine Valley G.C. "Pineless Valley G.C at Pine Valley NJ"!
-
Pat Mucci:
In my opinion when you say the things you just did about PVGC (the same things you said once before) it show me that a little knowledge can indeed be a very dangerous thing when it comes to a really significant golf course.
Some of your assumptions on why they may be taking their time with tree removal are either meaningless in my book or not of concern. They do things in their own way and always have and things have been pretty good for that. The point is the course did become tree encroached over the last few decades and they plan to reverse that to an extent--and I do hope to the extent that trees are removed inside that lines of all the course's architecture.
But if you (or Geoffrey) are in any way suggesting that PVGC should remove all or almost all the trees from their golf course as Oakmont just did--that to me indicates a scary disregard or misunderstanding of an historic and significant contribution to the world of and evolution of golf course design--Pine Valley G.C.
I'm no tree hugger either when it comes to golf or architecture but I consider myself to be or I try to be one who understands the distinctions in golf course architecture particularly when it comes to someone such as George Crump and PVGC.
BTW, I've seen that photo you refer to a hundred time and it does not in any way show a golf course sans trees as Oakmont once was and is again. You should read and consider a bit more carefully what I just said about Crump's intentions and why some of those areas were originally cleared and why they are no longer.
If you keep suggesting--even in jest that all the trees on PVGC should be removed I'll have to consider you to be a very poor student of classic courses and architecture--and a very dangerous one as well!
-
Tom
I was suggesting that at least 1000 trees should be removed to clean out areas intended for play and that includes ALL of the old bunkers well within the tree lines. Anything not affecting the lines of play Crump INTENDED can be left alone.
-
TPaul:
"...remove all or almost all the trees from their golf course as Oakmont..."
I certainly didn't count them, but there are plenty of trees left at Oakmont.
-
The course looks awesome....I'm looking forward to seeing more of the course over the weekend.
-
"Tom
I was suggesting that at least 1000 trees should be removed to clean out areas intended for play and that includes ALL of the old bunkers well within the tree lines. Anything not affecting the lines of play Crump INTENDED can be left alone."
Geoffrey:
Even that might be conservative considering what we're probably both talking about and agreeing on. On #17 alone if they chose to restore the playbility of the alternate fairway and all that the green-end used to be in connection with that--were probably talking hundreds of trees on that holes right side alone. I think it's a completely commonsensical suggestion to make that all the architecture of PVGC should be reclaimed from existing trees. The clear logic of that could be best understood by the question;
"Or why was it designed to be there in the first place?"
MargaretC:
There're sure are trees left at Oakmont but it looks so much different and totally open, particularly #2-#8 compared to what it was not long ago--the interior of the course is now very open and the holes are almost all exposed to one another as they once were. This is precisely NOT the way PVGC was intended to be but it was the way Oakmont was originally intended to be.
-
TEPaul,
The point is the course did become tree encroached over the last few decades and they plan to reverse that to an extent--and I do hope to the extent that trees are removed inside that lines of all the course's architecture.
But if you (or Geoffrey) are in any way suggesting that PVGC should remove all or almost all the trees from their golf course as Oakmont just did--that to me indicates a scary disregard or misunderstanding of an historic and significant contribution to the world of and evolution of golf course design--Pine Valley G.C.
BTW, I've seen that photo you refer to a hundred time and it does not in any way show a golf course sans trees as Oakmont once was and is again.
If you keep suggesting--even in jest that all the trees on PVGC should be removed I'll have to consider you to be a very poor student of classic courses and architecture--and a very dangerous one as well!
Where did I EVER advocate the removal of all the trees at Pine Valley ??????? I NEVER DID.
You're the one who jumped to that wild extreme.
I referenced the picture in the big room next to the exit to the parking lot as an excellent goal in terms of restoration.
I advocated removing trees and underbrush from interfering with play from bunkers. For eliminating any intrusion into the normal lines of play
How do you make the quantum leap to ascerting that I advocated the removal of all trees on the property ???
I understand that you're at a disadvantage in discussing PV, and I understand that PV does things at their pace, but, even you would have to admit that their pace for tree and underbrush removal would seem to indicate reluctance to commit to the concept.
No need for you to answer this.
-
TEPaul,
The members at Oakmont deserve the credit for "getting it" today. They realize that they are custodians of something very special.
I don't know how to transpose a quote from one thread onto another, so I thought I'd pull this up for you.
These are Mark's words about his membership, and
"getting it".
-
Yes. Oakmont looks great without "all those" trees.
But........
It's look is enhanced with all of the trees which remain. They create depth to vistas, hide the Pennsylvania Turnpike, and for interesting aesthetics to the landscape. In fact, the trees which remain — many of them — help approximate the natural landscape of Western Pennsylvania.
And.......
The Fownes planted many trees in their day. To think Oakmont was ever purposefully devoid of trees is not a correct notion. Trees have always been a part of Oakmont. It was simply too long aperiod from which thye great course had been thinned of overgrowth.
-
"I advocated removing trees and underbrush from interfering with play from bunkers. For eliminating any intrusion into the normal lines of play."
That's all I've ever said. As for restoring the course tree-wise to the look of that photo you refer to, forget it. Have you seen the tree removal on #2, #5, #9, #14, #15? It certainly isn't all done and the tree removal program is ongoing so why don't you just relax?
-
TEPaul,
I"m totally relaxed ;D
You're the one who got a little apoplectic. ;D
Forrest Richardson,
No one ever suggested denuding the property.
Hiding eyesores and providing other benefits is a valid function of trees.
But, Oakmont, Winged Foot, Ridgewood, Pine Valley and many other courses had tree planting and tree incursion to an excess, and a great many trees need/ed to be removed.
Ridgewood, at one time, might as well have domed the golf course, the trees were so invasive, bringing with them all of the negatives that Brad Klein enumerated earlier.
If you'll look at many aerials taken when a number of these courses opened or were in their early years, like Winged Foot, Baltusrol, etc., etc., you'll see that they were fairly wide open, not choked to narrow bowling alleys.
-
Played with an Oakmont member yesterday that was involved with the tree program and some of the restoration work. He said every shot at the amateur is being recorded and additional changes will take place for the U.S Open. More trees will be coming down. FYI.
Mark
-
Mark Studer, Thanx for the skinny! I watched again yesterday and was noticing that with the firming players were getting some decent action off some of the bunker ridges. I was looking closely at the greenside ones and really wondered what Big mouth would look like with shorter grass. Probably bigger, huh? But, as someone keeps mentioning there's room in it(gca) for everyone, and having a scruffier look now and then can't be a bad thing.
-
Oakmont is amazing! I think Mark Studer should be commended for coming on here during such a busy time for him to provide us with the details. Thanks, Mark!!
My sincere hope is that the US Amateur is being watched at clubs across the country and serves as an inspiration for tree removal programs and firm and fast conditions.
Almost any course can be improved with the latter; I was also impressed with how much more interesting the golf was at Firestone South today with a speedy golf course. Yes, birdies were possible and the firm turf led to some unusually long drives and short approaches, but the course more than held its own due to the emphasis on distance control.
All in all, a really great week so far for the world of golf. :)
-
Pat:
I'm not getting even a little apopletic about a thing. You seem to be implying that I'm inconsistent about trees when it comes to Oakmont vs Pine Valley. You're the one who seems to be saying that although Pine Valley may be removing trees they aren't doing it fast enough. All I'm saying is at least PV is going in the right direction and removing them.
Frankly, you're the one who's been inconsistent regarding a course planting or removing trees. ANGC is basically on record as continuing to plant more trees instead of removing those they have planted that were not exactly part of the design intent of that course. But you seem unwilling or unable to recognize or acknowledge that fact.
Again, PVGC is going in the right direction and removing overtreeing while ANGC continues to plant more. Why don't you expend your energy and criticism on ANGC? Not only is ANGC not removing trees and not removing them fast enough, they're planting more! If you're going to criticize a golf course on the issue of trees at least be somewhat consistent and criticize ANGC for planting more trees before you suggest PVGC speed up their tree removal program!
-
TEPaul,
I believe that I addressed and answered your questions relative to ANGC on the "GAME", AERIAL thread.
If you'll reference that thread, it should provide the response you are looking for.
-
Pat,
"...Oakmont....and many other courses had tree planting and tree incursion to an excess..." — yes, agreed, but at Oakmont many trees were planted and many of these continue to make the course more beautiful and more interesting. When you treeless huggers go about your tree bashing it sounds like a one-way street — your way or the highway. I remain in agreement that Oakmont and other courses had too many trees. Your often one-sided anti-tree statements and opinions are rarely tempered with the full story about trees.
"If you'll look at many aerials...[blah, blah, blah]..."
For Pete Dye's sake, Pat. If you look at many aerials you will see lots of crap. And if you keep looking you can make believe almost anything. Often times aerials are like looking at tapes of early 1920s baseball and trying to suggest technique changes for the modern game. Works occasionally.
Still...agreed. Too many trees at Oakmont. Yes. And many other places. But trees can be positive. Try it.
-
Forrest Richardson,
I can't think of one course that I've played where tree planting in the last 40-50 years has benefited the golf course to an overwhelming degree.
It became popular during the late 60's and 70's to introduce landscape architecture to golf courses as manifested through indiscriminate and short sighted plantings.
Some clubs went through the isolation syndrome, feeling that each hole should be isolated from all others, and the only way to accomplish this was the massive planting of trees.
A good number of clubs that planted these trees never envisioned that the drip lines would be extending far into the lines of play.
I can think of many courses that I've played where tree removal in the last 5-10 years has benefited the golf course to an overwhelming degree.
I think you may be confused,
I'm not the one who advocates removal of all trees.
Trees can and do provide strategic and aesthetic value to a golf course.
But, clubs have planted and used them to excess in the last 40-50 years, and their removal should generally be welcomed.
Trees also impede WIND, sunlight and can have a decidedly negative impact on grass and turf.
Given the choice, I'd rather play a golf course without them.
With respect to the aerials without any trees from yesteryear, how did all of those trees get there today ?
Did the original architect have a master plan that was followed, or did the revolving door of new green chairmen and Presidents randomly plant them every two years for the last 50 years ??
-
Well, now you're being fair!
"...revolving door of new green chairmen and Presidents..."
You trivialize these positions. Their decisions may not be always correct, but neither are their actions always wrong. The men and women who fill these positions are every bit a part of golf as the weekend hacker. You seem to "talk down" to those who do as you oppose, or as you would not have "the perfect" golf course or set-up.
Golf is not perfect. Fortunately, as I've attested here previously, the whims and wishes of us are but temporary stops in a game that will outlive us all...and this game will do it without even a flinch, for we are just a few clicks on the second hand when you add it all up.
Still. I agree. Too many trees at many courses. And also that the wild planting schemes of the past 40 years was not advised entirely. Yet — this was golf, just as your opinions are also.
-
Forrest Richardson,
It's not trivializing, it's reality.
I've never seen any evidence of substantive continuity over the years.
Dictatorships seem to do a much better job of passing the torch, of maintaining a greater degree of continuity from one leader or set of leaders to the next, and to the next.
I have seen one green chairman embark upon a program only to have his successor undo everything that the prior chairman had done.
Personalities, ego, pride of authorship and other factors create a chaotic rather than a fluid approach to an organized and prioritized long range plan.
Why do you think that so many classic golf courses have been bastardized over the years, and why restorations are becoming so popular ???
Could it be because rotating Boards, Presidents and committee chairmen are responsible for these alterations.
And, while I'm on a rant, how many clubs have a limited term policy for chairmen and Presidents.
A green chairman with little or no experience is appointed as the caretaker and/or custodian of the golf course, and just when he's getting up to speed with education, experience and wisdom, he's out and a new guy starts the process all over again. How good is that for the golf course and super ??
I'll bet there are quite a few superintendents that are pulling out their hair and grinding their teeth while going through deja vu all over again, every two years, forever.
Do you think that individuals are appointed to green committees based on their agronomic, architectural, and playing qualifications ???
There is something to be said for stability and continuity, versus the revolving door democratic process at a club.
Long live Dictatorships at private golf/country clubs. ;D ;D ;D
-
Pat:
The answer to the question you posed in the title to this thread is, "YES."
;) :) ;)
-
"Dictatorships seem to do a much better job of passing the torch, of maintaining a greater degree of continuity from one leader or set of leaders to the next, and to the next."
OK...if continuity is your thing. While we're at it, let's put in a word to have the wind at the same speed each hour. And the grass the same as it was last year and the year before that. And the conditions just the same as when...heck, let's not ever allow a golf courese to change — for worse or better.
(Hope, Pat, you allw my bantering)
Paul is correct: Yes. I believe that is a well accepted opinion. Oakmont looks beautiful...and in person, too.
-
Yes, Oakmont looks spectacular.
Selectively clearing trees from the interior of this golf course has produced the added visual dimension of depth. Gorgeous vistas are now available as your eyes are not isolated by a dense barrier of trees as they were in the 1994 Open. I heard that there were only 68 hardwoods on the interior of the course? That is terrific, especially without newly planted saplings which so many courses have that tend to clutter open spaces.
More and more golf courses should embrace the visual depth and splendor of long, sweeping perspectives. Besides the beauty, golfers will experience a sense of camaraderie with other golfers throughout the course, as their site lines will periodically meet during the round.
Oakmont certainly exposed their grand specimen trees as well. They brought to view prominent hardwoods which have always been hidden among impinging neighbors.
Congratulations to Mark Studer, Banks Smith, Mark Kuhns, John Zimmers, Jim Knorr, Benny Barbour and all others who were involved.
-
"TEPaul,
I believe that I addressed and answered your questions relative to ANGC on the "GAME", AERIAL thread.
If you'll reference that thread, it should provide the response you are looking for."
Pat:
And in your own words what do you think that response I'm looking for is????
-
Forrest Richardson,
OK...if continuity is your thing. While we're at it, let's put in a word to have the wind at the same speed each hour. And the grass the same as it was last year and the year before that. And the conditions just the same as when...heck, let's not ever allow a golf courese to change — for worse or better.
I know I take TEPaul to task for leaping to extremes, but the above post may take the trophy.
Were you actually awake when you typed your response ? ;D
TEPaul,
If you'll reference the other thread, you'll have the complete answer you seek.
-
I have not read through this thread, so maybe someone already mentioned this, but I was impressed with the minimal number of cart paths at Oakmont. Could be wrong as I have never set foot there, but didn't see many of them scarring up the course from looking at the course on TV.
-
Dunlop- you are right on the money when you mention that congratulations are in order for "Banks Smith, Mark Kuhns, Bennie Barbour, John Zimmers, Jim Knorr, and all those involved"....For starters, how about ALL the members.....they all paid hard earned dues to cut trees and increase the green budget 50% over the last 4 years. Any club or club official that does not include and give credit to all their members for making changes is not being totally honest. Sure it takes a few with vision to start restoring a classic, whether it be a Ross, a Raynor, or a Tillinghast, but ALL the members deserve credit for doing their part. Even if a few were vehemently against the masterplan, they are still paying their part in dues to support the club officials' and committee's(and hopefully and most importantly, the original architect's) vision. Our hope at Oakmont is that if WC Fownes were to return today ,his comment might be,"It looks as it did when I was last here, what is all the fuss ."
-
Mark Studer,
A 50 % increase in budget is very substantial, and the membership should be applauded for having the faith in the committee and spending their money to improve the golf course.
I would also think that the planning, preparation and presentation to the members was very well done by a number of individuals who invested a good deal of their time, because of their love of Oakmont.
I'm curious to know what those who were so opposed to the plans think of the golf course today, and, what were their primary objections. My experience has led me to believe that many if not most objections revolve around the finances and resistance to change.
Will I see you at ND vs USC this October ?
-
Pat,
I was not completely alseep. I've learned to discuss and comment on some posts here while jogging, showering and swimming. I believe I was napping and swimming at the time I responded to you with the jab about wind, etc.
As someone pointed out days ago: The (aimple) answer is "yes" to this discussion's question.
But simple answers dispose of good, healthy discussion — even answers while napping and swimming. (Gee, it's hard to balance the laptop on my chest while accomplishing both.)
I am glad, at least, that I've had the opportunity to point out how great Oakmont looks...but also how much the many wonderful trees still there help create that look. I believe it is generally unfair to characterize that the tree planting in years past was entirely out of line. It DID have some very positive results. So, too, I suppose will many of the over-maintenance trends of the past few decades have some spin-off good consequences. What those are, I do not know yet.
-
Forrest Richardson,
I've found it easier to swim, nap and post, when taking advantage of a slight right to left, helping current.
Never, I repeat never, try that with a left to right current that is against you.
I would agree that there is a happy medium, but perhaps the pendulum is swinging back to eradication, to returning golf courses to their original or early form.
The battle is, too many beautification committees have/are indiscriminately throwing shrubs, flowers and trees all over the golf course.
My primary and/or secondary objection to this is the siphoning effect on the maintainance budget, and the never ending quest to throw as many shrubs, flowers and trees onto the golf course, as possible.
In the past it has been much easier to plant a tree in an ill advised location, and very difficult to have it removed.
-
Forrest, swimming and holding the computer is much easier if you are doing the backstroke, although if you only try to type with one hand you'll frequently swim in a circle. ;)
Many of the posts on this group read like they were done while the poster was napping. :)
-
"...to returning golf courses to their original or early form."
Earlier, yes. Original, not necessarily.
This is the "one" issue I have with many GCA-regulars. They (indeed, "we") speak of "returning" courses, "restoring" them and "bringing them back". Many times, correctly, to when they were first built.
But two variables are at play:
1. With golf, in the broad scope. It's original form was likely not open expansive fields of green linksland, but rather the entire countryside, be it fields, woods, pasture or streets. Certainly golf was a cross-country event and "country" implies all sorts of landscape, not just windswept open lands.
2. At Oakmont — perhaps exclusively — there was never an intent to create a course that was finished. So...how do we proposed to define what it might be "returned" to? I say we do not. Rather, Oakmont will always change and God help it or us if we try to define that "forever". I would loke to believe there is some distant discussion group that would make our head hurt! On live Oakmont...for it will never be "done".
-
Forrest Richardson,
The quest to want to "return" a course can be noble, but, as you say, to what point in time ?
Tom MacWood cites the "high water mark" architecturally, but, is that so easily defined by the membership of a club ?
Even at Oakmont, would there be universal or majority agreement on its architectural high water mark ?
And does the evaluation of that mark vary, depending on trends and standards that exist on the day on which the evaluation is made ?
Would the same high water be agreed upon by those trying to determine the high water mark in 1940 ?, 1950 ?. 1960 ?, 1970 ?. 1980 ? 1990 ? and 2000 ?
Will different individuals in different times arrive at the same date ?
I'm not so sure that the evaluative process remains static, always arriving at the same restoration date, or architectural high water mark, irrespective of the date of the evaluation, and the individuals doing the evaluation.
I think this is part of the problem in defining and drawing an ABSOLUTE conclusion with respect to the architectural high water mark, or restoration year.
It sounds nice in theory, but .......
-
I believe that Oakmont defined that high water mark as the late 1940s. This was because they had a good aerial photo from then and it was shortly before WC Fownes died. That seems pretty reasonable to me, others might not agree.
Certainly the choice would not be universally accepted at any club and probably it would change if the decision was made at another day. But the important thing is probably to pick some point and stick with it rather than creating a hodgepodge due to constant changes of direction.
-
John V,
I would agree with your reasonable date and prudent man standard.
I continue to favor 1936 at GCGC due to the abundance of photographic evidence and the significance of the date in the club's and USGA's history.
-
"But the important thing is probably to pick some point and stick with it rather than creating a hodgepodge due to constant changes of direction." — JohnV
John,
Isn't a "hodgepodge" as you call it, in and of itself a possible design "moment" that works — even quite nicely in some cases? For example, there are many courses which embrace old design, new maintenance and remodeled areas. Heck, Oakmont is such an example. It is all of the following: Classic, original, remodeled, changed, restored, renovated, replaced, new, improved, lengthened, tweaked, and adjusted.
-
"TEPaul,
If you'll reference the other thread, you'll have the complete answer you seek".
Patrick:
We all understand that it's really difficult for you do produce a straight answer but I'm asking you a direct question, why don't you just give me a straight answer? Is it really that hard for you to do? Forget about me referencing anything--I asked you a simple question--just give me an answer in your next post. If you don't there's no question in my mind you're playing games. And I don't think there's a question in the minds of a good many who participate on here. Your primary interest does not seem to be to express your opinion--not a terribly difficult thing to do. Your interest seems to be to provoke for the sake of argumentation only--your own argumentation!
-
TEPaul,
I typed the answer out once, I'm not going to waste the time to type it out a second time because you won't take the time to simply reference the other thread where I answered you question in detail.
Let you fingers do the wandering.
-
Another non-answer from Patrick Mucci--the King of questions and the pauper of answers!!!!
-
TEPaul,
I provided a crystal clear answer to your questions on the GAME thread.
Since you're too lazy to search for my response on the other thread, I've brought it back up for your reading enjoyment.
Must I do everything for you ??