[Evan_Green]

I have heard a lot of criticism about the trees surrounding the narrow fairways at Olympic Lake course and I cannot understand it. Olympic Lake is the course it is because of the trees. People's ideas of clearing it out to make it treeless like when it was built completely puzzle me. Olympic is simply a brutal golf course. You have to hit the ball straight in order to score well. If you dont, the trees will kick you in the rear. What is wrong with this? Why does a course have to have 100 yard fairways to "give it more strategic options." Is slicing one 50 yards off line and still having an easy shot to the green strategic? Such design is for people who cant hit the ball straight and still want to shoot 75. I cant tell you how many times at modern courses I spray the ball 50 yards off line and still have a 9 iron into the green without anything in my way. At a course like Olympic you would be chipping back in the fairway and still have 200 yards to the green hitting 3. That will get you thinking about whether or not you pull out that driver on the tee or#4 or 5 or just about any other par 4 there. Olympic is a course that the pros will never tear up in US Open play no matter how "short" it appears to be. They can make a 600 yard par 4 at Bethpage and it still wont be harder than the 17th on the Lake Course. You can count the number of pros that have shot under par in the US Opens there on one hand! I hope they keep every single beautiful tree there. It makes the course what it is. Just my opinion.

[David_Tepper]

The problem with the trees lining the fairways of the Lake Course is that there are so many of them, they are so tall and they are so thick that the fairway turf simply does not get enough sunlight to grow properly. The situation is made even worse because of the fog in the summer and the fact that the course sits below the ridge to the west, which blocks out the late afternoon sun.
As a result, the turf is very thin and the root structure of the turf is very shallow. Because of this, thin, muddy lies in the middle of a fairway are not uncommon, even at 3 or 4 p.m. on a summer afternoon. Fairway roll is minimal, at best.
Personally, I think as many as 1/3 of the trees are redundant, as there are fairways that have 2 or 3 rows of trees between them in some places. Many of these trees could be removed without making the course any less challenging to play, yet would allow the fairways to get far more sunlight and air circulation than they now receive. I believe the condition of the turf would improve greatly.
    

[Dan King]

Evan_Green writes:
Olympic is simply a brutal golf course.
and
Why does a course have to have 100 yard fairways to "give it more strategic options."

There is a difference between brutal and strategic. Yes, Olympic is brutal. It is brutal because it requires you to hit specific shots. Fail to hit the shots required and you are penalized.

Now think about what strategic means. Does Olympic fit the concept of strategic? You do understand the meaning of options, don't you?

Is slicing one 50 yards off line and still having an easy shot to the green strategic?

Is it possible there is something between brutal and forgiving? What would be so terrible with giving the long straight driver and advantage, but also giving the crooked hitter a way to also play the course? Which is a better course, the one that tests if you can hit the ball long and straight, or the one that tests a large variety of golf shots and attitudes?

Dan King

There was a crooked man
Who walked a crooked mile.
He found a crooked sixpence
Against a crooked stile.
He bought a crooked cat
Which caught a crooked mouse,
And they all lived together
In a crooked little house.

[redanman]

I have heard a lot of criticism about the trees surrounding the narrow fairways at Olympic Lake course and I cannot understand it. Olympic Lake is the course it is because of the trees.
Just my opinion.

It is your opinion nad a good one.  No one ever asked me to join the Sierra Club regarding the save a tree program, yet even I would not advocate removing all the trees.

O-Lake has evolved into the course that it is because of the trees.  It is in fact much healthier than it used to be when I played it routinely in the 1980's and the trees were what seems like three times what they are now.  It is also a course that always comes up when the discussion turns to "most over-rated  courses".   It is discussed alongside Medinah #3 as the poster boys of this idea.  (Both of these are actually special to me).  And I have played the O at least 40-50 times, so my opinion is not a one-tour type of comment.

O-Lake can be very hard, brutal as suggested, but that alone is not why it is worthy of recognition.  But the trees make it a bit unidimensional and repetitive at times.  Trees do dictate but also limit strategy.  Believe me, it is greatly improved by the El Nino tree removal company, but even I wouldn't call for all the trees to go at this point.  At least not all at once!

Less trees allows you to say ....."Maybe I can make this shot work", instead of "I'm &*(&%@%'n dead, I have to  ::)chipoat, I mean chip out".

I think that's the basis for "The kind of criticism that you hear".

[Dave_Miller]

O-Lake is simply among the finest and most challenging courses anywhere.

While I would concur with some thinning for sunlight, circulation and turf conditions I would not remove a single tree for "strategic options".  (Chip Oat - definition of Stupid Tree needed here )

Shivas has hit the nail right on the head concerning "...strategic and options are code names for less brutal or less resistant to scoring...".

I agree with Evan.

Fairways and Greens and Happy New Year to all
Dave

[ziggy1]

David,

Couldn't have said it better!

Rick Short

The problem with the trees lining the fairways of the Lake Course is that there are so many of them, they are so tall and they are so thick that the fairway turf simply does not get enough sunlight to grow properly. The situation is made even worse because of the fog in the summer and the fact that the course sits below the ridge to the west, which blocks out the late afternoon sun.
As a result, the turf is very thin and the root structure of the turf is very shallow. Because of this, thin, muddy lies in the middle of a fairway are not uncommon, even at 3 or 4 p.m. on a summer afternoon. Fairway roll is minimal, at best.
Personally, I think as many as 1/3 of the trees are redundant, as there are fairways that have 2 or 3 rows of trees between them in some places. Many of these trees could be removed without making the course any less challenging to play, yet would allow the fairways to get far more sunlight and air circulation than they now receive. I believe the condition of the turf would improve greatly.
    

[Joel_Stewart]

Dave and Rick:
I think you'll have to agree that the Lake has improved 100% since Pat has taken over as the super.  Personally I think the course was in the best condition I have ever seen it this last year mainly because of the new watering patterns and the removal of dozens of trees.  

The improvement of the turf structure is no secret.  Less water, sanding of the fairways (4 times) and more sunlight has greatly improved the grass and I can only believe it will get better for the coming year.

[Steve L.]

I've never played Olympic Lake - but I like the debate here.  I've played Sahalee (and love it) many times through the trees!  Every golf course is different, which makes golf such a unique game - and is at the basis of much of the conversation here.  

Golf is the only game I'm aware of without a tightly prescribed playing field - thank goodness.  Some are narrow, some are wide, some are long, some are short, some are hilly some are flat.  I wish I could play 'em all and hope someday to have the opportunity to "chip out" at Olympic.  I've heard that "the woods are full of long hitters".

Steve

[Evan_Green]

Not only is the woods full of long hitters, but I will tell you this- if you hit the ball in those woods trying to scramble for par is one of the really great thrills in the game. Talk about "lack of options." Do I hit a hook or a cut around that tree? Do I hit laterally back in the fairway and leave myself 200 yards or try to hit it through that gap and leave only a sand wedge? If I dont make it through that gap will I be able to make a 5 or will it cost me a 6 or a 7?

Furthermore, it is really quite a dilemma to stand on a tee like #4 (probably the most difficult drive in golf) 430 yards from the green with a severe uphill uphill 2nd shot or 455 yards  away from the green on #5 and wonder whether or not to reach for that driver. If you do and pull it off you may only have a 6 iron left, but if you dont good luck making a bogey. If you play it safe and reach for the three wood, you have shots over 200 yards either stright uphill to an almost blind green on #4 or straightaway through a cathedral of beautiful tall trees to a small green guarded by deep bunkers on #5. Thats strategy to me. Im not saying that wide open holes cant be strategic or difficult otherwise St. Andrews would be nothing and everyone agrees that it is one of the best in the world- I'm just saying that tight tree lined courses such as at Olympic should not be put down as they are AND THE TREES SHOULD NOT BE CUT DOWN- they cleared away a lot of trees behind the 4th tee to redirect the cartpath which I dont particularly mind that they did (personally i wish they did away with all the carts period) but still it looks barren there - they shouldnt have taken out all of those trees.

I must say that I give Tom Doak credit that even though he didnt personally care for Olympic Lake, he still gave it an 8 in his book (personally I think it deserves a 9)- but still he recognized it for the greatness that it has.

I hope you do get out there someday Steve L- just bring your straight ball when you do.

I've never played Olympic Lake - but I like the debate here.  I've played Sahalee (and love it) many times through the trees!  Every golf course is different, which makes golf such a unique game - and is at the basis of much of the conversation here.  

Golf is the only game I'm aware of without a tightly prescribed playing field - thank goodness.  Some are narrow, some are wide, some are long, some are short, some are hilly some are flat.  I wish I could play 'em all and hope someday to have the opportunity to "chip out" at Olympic.  I've heard that "the woods are full of long hitters".

Steve

[David_Tepper]

Evan-
In no way did I mean to imply that most or all of the trees on the Lake Course should be removed. I am not aware of anyone who has advocated anything that drastic. The character of the Lake Course is a demanding, tree-lined, parkland course and should remain as such.
However, I do stand by my comments of above- a meaningful effort to remove the many redundant trees and tree limbs on the property would have an enormously postive effect on the quality of the turf on the course and would not materially effect the challenge of playing the course.
It is my understanding that the new superintendent and the current greens committee would like to see the course play "firmer and faster."  As Joel has mentioned above, there  is a major project underway to plug and sand the fairways to improve the condition and drainage of the fairway turf. It will be interesting to see what that achieves and whether the chainsaws will ultimately have to be brought to bear. Time will tell.
DT  

[Mike Benham]

I agree with David in the use of the word "redundant" trees on the Lake.  And Evan, I agree that having a decision to make on whether to fade or hook a shot around is fair game except, on #4 and #5, as you suggests, if you miss your tee shot right, you lose the ability to make that decision as there is a forest of trees.

I think a distinction can be made as to having "trees" versus having a "forest of trees".  There are many spots where the redundant trees make a forest that is unnecessary for the challenge of strategy and play.  The trees on the left of #5, the elbow in the dogleg, they only impact your tee shot if you badly hook one off the tee and they have little purpose for playing #12.  If those trees were not there, you would get a nice little breeze coming down the hill, that would effect the flight of the second shot on #12 and possibly the tee shot on #13.

If many of the trees were not there, the wind would have a greater impact on the Lake.  No better example of this then on #1 where the trees on the left buffer the wind until you hit your short iron third shot.  Many first time players are surprised by the movement of their ball on that shot.

I also am not advocating cutting down any trees, although the conintued thinning of branches will bring back the ability to work the ball out of trouble.  Mother nature has its own tree removal program.

Did I mention Euchalyptus?  All of those can be removed, they are not native, they are dirty ...

[FORTSONATOR]

I love Olympic Lake.

With that said, it needs a haircut.  Kind of like all those hippies in the Haight/Ashbury about 10 miles north of the course need haicuts.

I think the course needs trees lining the fairways but there comes a point when trees take a course over and they have definitely begun to do that.  The trees are now not just obstacles and containment but they are now playing like hazards and sometimes O.B. off both sides of the fairway which are now about 40 yards wide on average.  If you want to play golf in those conditions go play a crappy course that is shoved in a trailer park with 25 acres to spare.  

There is no strategy left at the Lake.  It is simply, hit it in the chute of trees or pay a heavy price.  Some may like the way the trees "frame" the fairway or the brutality of the penalty for hitting it off line with a tee ball but I think it has become too much.  Let different types of shots be hit every now and then off some of the tees.  Heck, even #8 has a narrow shute and it's a 150 yard par 3!  There shouldn't be a 15 foot gap for a ball to fly on a par 3 where your ball is in danger of not making even remotely close to the green when it is struck solid.  That is just ridiculous.

The idea that hitting an off line tee shot in the trees gives you more options is something I can't agree with.  There is a difference between options from the beginning of a hole where you can strategize your route to the pin and a forced option situation where you have to decide how to recover from hitting it in the trees.  Obviously one is a planned goal with many options (usually) and another is a reactionary must.

Trees are probably the leading reason the course has trouble with maintenance sometimes too.  All that sunlight and water the grass needs is getting eaten up by all the trees.  

Remember, trees can always grow back.  I say give the course a flat top and see how it plays.

Jeff F.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()