News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
The pendulum might just swing back!
« on: April 17, 2022, 07:54:05 PM »
A 350 yard drive into rough or even a bunker these days doesn’t scare or even hinder the bombers - but a tree in their way will.  You can’t over power a course/design like Harbour Town. Maybe it will be trees that save us from 8500 yard golf courses.  Bunkers in the sky :)
« Last Edit: April 17, 2022, 07:59:42 PM by Mark_Fine »

Jim_Coleman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The pendulum might just swing back!
« Reply #1 on: April 17, 2022, 09:42:00 PM »
   We can only hope! Thinning is to be encouraged; deforestation not.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2022, 12:19:43 AM by Jim_Coleman »

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The pendulum might just swing back!
« Reply #2 on: April 18, 2022, 07:39:12 AM »
Jim,
I admit I have taken down A LOT of trees on most of my projects but the majority of the them were not planted by golf architects.  Many were the wrong species or planted in poor locations or for the wrong reasons.  On certain courses, trees can play an important role both aesthetically and strategically.  Yes they do have a limited lifetime but some can last for a very long time.  Golf has become a much more aerial game, why not employ more aerial hazards? 

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The pendulum might just swing back!
« Reply #3 on: April 19, 2022, 04:55:59 AM »
The pendulum has barely been moved. Judging the state of architecture by looking at storied and monied clubs offers but a glimpse of reality. So many courses need tree work, more than ever will properly tackle the issue. No, I think we need to allow the pendulum to continue rising before its released. In truth, the pendulum shouldn't ever be released. That's why we have such a problem with trees!

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Fraserburgh, Turnberry, Isle of Harris, Benbecula, Askernish, Traigh, St Medan, Hankley Common, Ashridge, Gog Magog Old & Cruden Bay St Olaf

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The pendulum might just swing back!
« Reply #4 on: April 19, 2022, 07:14:48 AM »
So Sean, what happens first, the pendulum starts to swing back or 8500 - 9000 yard golf courses become more common?  You could grow rough six inches high as a deterrent but no likes searching for lost balls.  Bunkers aren’t hazards anymore for good players (you don’t like them either).  Angles don’t matter much with gap wedges in hand.  There is some strategic merit on certain courses in trees.  If you played a course like Harbour Town as one example you would see that. 


We all agree many courses have had poorly planned tree planting programs.  But that doesn’t mean clear cutting is the best answer. 

Joe Hancock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The pendulum might just swing back!
« Reply #5 on: April 19, 2022, 07:24:31 AM »
How many courses took the action of “clear cutting”? Present the answer first as a whole number, then as a percentage of existing courses. Thank you.
" What the hell is the point of architecture and excellence in design if a "clever" set up trumps it all?" Peter Pallotta, June 21, 2016

"People aren't picking a side of the fairway off a tee because of a randomly internally contoured green ."  jeffwarne, February 24, 2017

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The pendulum might just swing back!
« Reply #6 on: April 19, 2022, 07:31:12 AM »
So Sean, what happens first, the pendulum starts to swing back or 8500 - 9000 yard golf courses become more common?  You could grow rough six inches high as a deterrent but no likes searching for lost balls.  Bunkers aren’t hazards anymore for good players (you don’t like them either).  Angles don’t matter much with gap wedges in hand.  There is some strategic merit on certain courses in trees.  If you played a course like Harbour Town as one example you would see that. 


We all agree many courses have had poorly planned tree planting programs.  But that doesn’t mean clear cutting is the best answer.

I never advocated clear cutting? I don't know of anybody who does advocate clear cutting. I advocate for the right trees in the right location and the right number. If my experience is remotely representative, I suspect thousands of courses are over-treed.  There is a long way to go with trees.

Ciao
« Last Edit: April 19, 2022, 07:32:47 AM by Sean_A »
New plays planned for 2024: Fraserburgh, Turnberry, Isle of Harris, Benbecula, Askernish, Traigh, St Medan, Hankley Common, Ashridge, Gog Magog Old & Cruden Bay St Olaf

Jay Mickle

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The pendulum might just swing back!
« Reply #7 on: April 19, 2022, 07:44:52 AM »
The other day I truly swung back the pendulum and played a round of gutty golf with pre 1905 smooth face clubs. The lighter aerodynamically challenged ball was far more affected by wind and the vagaries of uniformity. A sweet spot was truly a sweet spot and judging spin was irrelevant. A 275 yard hole was a strong par four, drivable by no one.
We played the course from the shortest set of tees and found the architecture was much more relevant in club and shot selection. Strategy trumped distance making the whole round great fun. With all of the technological advances a game of gutty golf is still a great game. Makes one wonder if we have truly improved the game with polymer balls, titanium/ceramic/graphite clubs and longer courses.
@MickleStix on Instagram
MickleStix.com

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The pendulum might just swing back!
« Reply #8 on: April 19, 2022, 07:52:07 AM »
Maybe we are saying the same thing.  Trees can and should have a place on certain golf courses.  My point is more in defense of a course like Harbour Town where most who don’t care for it complain about the trees.  I get the impression that some would get rid of all the trees on most courses if they had their way.  My point it that doing so is not necessarily a smart solution. 


Colt was one of the first to provide tree planting recommendations for his golf courses so future stewards of his designs would know what he had in mind.  He obviously advocated for trees, knew they would play a role in his designs, or wouldn’t have bothered.  If he saw where and how far golfers hit the ball these days my guess is he would advocate for more.  He sure wouldn’t advocate for 8500 yard courses and never planned or envisioned that for his courses.   




Thomas Dai

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The pendulum might just swing back!
« Reply #9 on: April 19, 2022, 07:59:33 AM »
The other day I truly swung back the pendulum and played a round of gutty golf with pre 1905 smooth face clubs. The lighter aerodynamically challenged ball was far more affected by wind and the vagaries of uniformity. A sweet spot was truly a sweet spot and judging spin was irrelevant. A 275 yard hole was a strong par four, drivable by no one.
We played the course from the shortest set of tees and found the architecture was much more relevant in club and shot selection. Strategy trumped distance making the whole round great fun. With all of the technological advances a game of gutty golf is still a great game. Makes one wonder if we have truly improved the game with polymer balls, titanium/ceramic/graphite clubs and longer courses.
Nice post. Well said.
Atb

Paul Jones

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The pendulum might just swing back!
« Reply #10 on: April 19, 2022, 08:27:32 AM »
PGA Tour could setup a course like Pine Valley with no rakes.  Then the bunkers might scare the players.  CBM respond to a question about preparing bunkers for a tournament that he was going to run cows through the bunkers instead.  I am paraphrasing...
« Last Edit: April 19, 2022, 08:30:56 AM by Paul Jones »
Paul Jones
pauljones@live.com

Paul Jones

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The pendulum might just swing back!
« Reply #11 on: April 19, 2022, 08:30:13 AM »
On a separate note... the PGA Tour could also ban tees as a condition of competition.  That would slow down how far the pros hit the golf ball off the tee.
Paul Jones
pauljones@live.com

Paul Jones

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The pendulum might just swing back!
« Reply #12 on: April 19, 2022, 08:38:16 AM »
Sorry, ADD is kicking in this morning and my thoughts are all over the place....


Let's take a look at 2 of the more famous trees that have died:


-Augusta Natl Eisenhower Tree - died but they never replaced as the scores did not change on the hole.


-Pepple Beach 18th Tree - it died but was replaced, not sure if they studied the difference in scores on that hole while the tree was gone.


I think both courses made the right decision. 
Paul Jones
pauljones@live.com

V. Kmetz

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The pendulum might just swing back!
« Reply #13 on: April 19, 2022, 08:59:52 AM »
How many courses took the action of “clear cutting”? Present the answer first as a whole number, then as a percentage of existing courses. Thank you.


Joe...that's being a stickler for the language; you understood the expression.  While it can't satisfy Webster on "clear cut" I could name 15-20 courses off the top of my head, from the grand to the plain, in the Met that have now ranged out of bounds with their tree removal programs, to the extent you might as well have gone and got rid of the other 12% that were left.   Century, perhaps the platinum standard for premium green parkland course  was desecrated. There's hardly 100 sq feet of continuous shade to be found at WF... it's gone too far.  Most of these are honest parkland courses, and there's a reason for that established term.


It's an editorial and unsolicited, but my up close opinion is that its more supers are the ones driving this past moderate good sense (sorely needed 30 years ago) , we and the USGA green section helped them win hearts and minds, because tree removal can be justified if you just cry "turf"...a denuded course is easier for them to maintain in all seasons...allows them to maintain a posture of pro-activity... allows them to build in larger budgets.  Imo, there's too many who don't give two bits about the enjoyment of the course or the design/width theories of trees or the correct character of the property upon which the course lays... those types, which show up with greater frequency these days, only give a fig about how any of it results in the next contract, for more money and more stuff on their CV.  And more of those are driving this effective "clear-cut" of the courses in their charge...
"The tee shot must first be hit straight and long between a vast bunker on the left which whispers 'slice' in the player's ear, and a wilderness on the right which induces a hurried hook." -

Paul Jones

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The pendulum might just swing back!
« Reply #14 on: April 19, 2022, 09:12:33 AM »
The other day I truly swung back the pendulum and played a round of gutty golf with pre 1905 smooth face clubs. The lighter aerodynamically challenged ball was far more affected by wind and the vagaries of uniformity. A sweet spot was truly a sweet spot and judging spin was irrelevant. A 275 yard hole was a strong par four, drivable by no one.
We played the course from the shortest set of tees and found the architecture was much more relevant in club and shot selection. Strategy trumped distance making the whole round great fun. With all of the technological advances a game of gutty golf is still a great game. Makes one wonder if we have truly improved the game with polymer balls, titanium/ceramic/graphite clubs and longer courses.


Jay,


If you ask most golfers at the local club, they just want to hit the ball further. I think people that enjoy golf architecture, love strategy and find that part of golf fun.  However, most other golfers just want to hit the ball further and that is part of the appeal of Top Golf.  All the manufacturers sell clubs by telling you the news ones go further - according to all the marketing, we all should be hitting drivers 400+ yards since we gain 10 yards with every new driver  :) .
Paul Jones
pauljones@live.com

Cal Carlisle

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The pendulum might just swing back!
« Reply #15 on: April 19, 2022, 09:40:32 AM »
How many courses took the action of “clear cutting”? Present the answer first as a whole number, then as a percentage of existing courses. Thank you.


Joe...that's being a stickler for the language; you understood the expression.  While it can't satisfy Webster on "clear cut" I could name 15-20 courses off the top of my head, from the grand to the plain, in the Met that have now ranged out of bounds with their tree removal programs, to the extent you might as well have gone and got rid of the other 12% that were left.   Century, perhaps the platinum standard for premium green parkland course  was desecrated. There's hardly 100 sq feet of continuous shade to be found at WF... it's gone too far.  Most of these are honest parkland courses, and there's a reason for that established term.


It's an editorial and unsolicited, but my up close opinion is that its more supers are the ones driving this past moderate good sense (sorely needed 30 years ago) , we and the USGA green section helped them win hearts and minds, because tree removal can be justified if you just cry "turf"...a denuded course is easier for them to maintain in all seasons...allows them to maintain a posture of pro-activity... allows them to build in larger budgets.  Imo, there's too many who don't give two bits about the enjoyment of the course or the design/width theories of trees or the correct character of the property upon which the course lays... those types, which show up with greater frequency these days, only give a fig about how any of it results in the next contract, for more money and more stuff on their CV.  And more of those are driving this effective "clear-cut" of the courses in their charge...


Wow, you really hold the role of golf course superintendent in high esteem.

Joe Hancock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The pendulum might just swing back!
« Reply #16 on: April 19, 2022, 09:46:09 AM »
How many courses took the action of “clear cutting”? Present the answer first as a whole number, then as a percentage of existing courses. Thank you.


Joe...that's being a stickler for the language; you understood the expression.  While it can't satisfy Webster on "clear cut" I could name 15-20 courses off the top of my head, from the grand to the plain, in the Met that have now ranged out of bounds with their tree removal programs, to the extent you might as well have gone and got rid of the other 12% that were left.   Century, perhaps the platinum standard for premium green parkland course  was desecrated. There's hardly 100 sq feet of continuous shade to be found at WF... it's gone too far.  Most of these are honest parkland courses, and there's a reason for that established term.


It's an editorial and unsolicited, but my up close opinion is that its more supers are the ones driving this past moderate good sense (sorely needed 30 years ago) , we and the USGA green section helped them win hearts and minds, because tree removal can be justified if you just cry "turf"...a denuded course is easier for them to maintain in all seasons...allows them to maintain a posture of pro-activity... allows them to build in larger budgets.  Imo, there's too many who don't give two bits about the enjoyment of the course or the design/width theories of trees or the correct character of the property upon which the course lays... those types, which show up with greater frequency these days, only give a fig about how any of it results in the next contract, for more money and more stuff on their CV.  And more of those are driving this effective "clear-cut" of the courses in their charge...


I haven’t been to Winged Foot in a couple years. And, I’m not sure how much to let you pull my chain. 100 square feet of shade wouldn’t even be the total of one tree’s worth of shade at WF. I’m also sure there’s still hundreds of trees still on each of the golf courses, but like I said, I haven’t been there in a couple years.


I believe good architects, along with good superintendents and good club leadership make good decisions concerning trees. Is there those who go rogue? Probably, but they’re not swinging any pendulums.
" What the hell is the point of architecture and excellence in design if a "clever" set up trumps it all?" Peter Pallotta, June 21, 2016

"People aren't picking a side of the fairway off a tee because of a randomly internally contoured green ."  jeffwarne, February 24, 2017

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The pendulum might just swing back!
« Reply #17 on: April 19, 2022, 09:55:27 AM »
Superintendents definitely play a major role in tree removals.  Most (chime in supers if you disagree) would like almost every tree removed from their golf courses.  In some ways I can’t blame them but many would also like wall to wall cart paths or no carts at all.  They knew when they signed up as supers they were taking on one of if not the hardest job in golf.  Trees are part of that challenge and they (most do) need to embrace it. 


The Eisenhower tree was no longer in play for those guys today.  The one at Pebble surely is. 


V. Kemtz,
Good post!

Jim_Coleman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The pendulum might just swing back!
« Reply #18 on: April 19, 2022, 09:56:22 AM »
   When trees are cut down to the point where accurate driving is no longer relevant, a club has gone too far. That is, unless one believes that, no matter how wayward the drive, one should always have a direct shot to the green.

Joe Hancock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The pendulum might just swing back!
« Reply #19 on: April 19, 2022, 10:08:08 AM »
   When trees are cut down to the point where accurate driving is no longer relevant, a club has gone too far. That is, unless one believes that, no matter how wayward the drive, one should always have a direct shot to the green.


I don’t believe this gives some architects, past and present, enough credit for designing greens that dictate favorable vs. unfavorable angles of approach. Just because there’s a direct shot at the green doesn’t mean it’s the right choice. Of course, agronomics and wind, etc. all play into this.
" What the hell is the point of architecture and excellence in design if a "clever" set up trumps it all?" Peter Pallotta, June 21, 2016

"People aren't picking a side of the fairway off a tee because of a randomly internally contoured green ."  jeffwarne, February 24, 2017

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The pendulum might just swing back!
« Reply #20 on: April 19, 2022, 10:30:12 AM »
Joe,
I agree but angles don’t matter with gap wedges in hand.  I played a course the other day and watched my opponent play down the neighboring fairway cutting off the dogleg. He hit the ball 330 yards and had a terrible angle but still hit a flip wedge to 10 feet and made the putt.  The architect never envisioned the hole to be played that way.  One or two trees properly placed might avoid that option.  We saw players do the same at Riviera if I am not mistaken.  As the ball goes farther we will see more and more of this.

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The pendulum might just swing back!
« Reply #21 on: April 19, 2022, 11:24:07 AM »
I just got off a phone call where tree mitigation (In supposedly low regulation Texas) was going to cost over $100K, and several thousand per tree.  I think that will be a bigger issue in architecture than what happens at top line courses in major tournaments......
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Tommy Williamsen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The pendulum might just swing back!
« Reply #22 on: April 19, 2022, 11:56:02 AM »
Sorry, ADD is kicking in this morning and my thoughts are all over the place....


Let's take a look at 2 of the more famous trees that have died:


-Augusta Natl Eisenhower Tree - died but they never replaced as the scores did not change on the hole.




I wonder if the scores changed for regular member play.
Where there is no love, put love; there you will find love.
St. John of the Cross

"Deep within your soul-space is a magnificent cathedral where you are sweet beyond telling." Rumi

V. Kmetz

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The pendulum might just swing back!
« Reply #23 on: April 19, 2022, 12:20:27 PM »

Wow, you really hold the role of golf course superintendent in high esteem.

Not at all, the sarcasm is incorrect; my father was super's mechanic long ago; I played in a super's shop as a youngster, some of the most durable friendships in 41 years of club service I've made are with supers...even supers who are doing this... have never met an honest incompetent...can't say enough good things about their care of the playing grounds, and many many times, their inputs here... It's because of those close relationships, I feel justified in saying this. However, that is not to say there are two or three out and out pricks... who I hope lose their greens in their pompous hubris.

But removals have, and are now going, too far, obliterating trees that have no little or no impact on any legitimate aspect of sunlight windows or turf growth, air flow, playing width or angles, even aesthetic views, etc...and in fact are now making the wholesale decisions on trees that either were extant at founding OR were part of the natural development of a hole's long standing character... as if they re the same as a stand of ill conceived overgrown once-decorative, conifers planted in the 70s by a green site.

I'm not making a charge of corruption or thinking of all supers, just stating that a sizable contingent in my orbit have inured the organizational/careerist trait following the path of least resistance in revolving contract posts (and for the other reasons I listed in previous post). Since most hearts and minds were won on the board and committee level 10-15 years ago, they now have near cart blanche... one of those friend-supers (it felt too stupid to write "super friends") winks at me when I ask about the 20 notable new tear downs in the off season..."storm damage!" and we laugh...ha ha ha.

Joe there was hyperbole...but I'm not pulling your chain, while I still visit for camaraderie, up until 3 years ago, I was/been out there caddying, there's no fucking respite from the sun... almost an absence of visual grace from casting shadows...no trickery of air pockets whistling through a nearby grove... little or no majestic frames.  Up until about 2012... I personally think the tree program had met the necessary ends, given the enormous co-programs of drainage and Hanses restoration work.  The bottom line is that photo archives reveal that WF had significant stands of trees in its first iteration and almost none of the ones available to be seen in 1920s photos are there anymore.  I'd look also at the 1925-26 aerials and measure it up to the most recent one.

And Century is destroyed as an experience comparable to what it was and the reverence its old presentation once commanded. It's still a fine golf course, but its incongruous with its former ken as a singular, treasured, precious experience.

But c'mon, supers own up... you would prefer not green and not plush and you don't want your boards thinking green and plush because it's more work/expectations (expectations you might fall short of)  for you, or because you know better...?


"The tee shot must first be hit straight and long between a vast bunker on the left which whispers 'slice' in the player's ear, and a wilderness on the right which induces a hurried hook." -

M. Shea Sweeney

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The pendulum might just swing back!
« Reply #24 on: April 19, 2022, 04:09:44 PM »




And Century is destroyed as an experience comparable to what it was and the reverence its old presentation once commanded. It's still a fine golf course, but its incongruous with its former ken as a singular, treasured, precious experience.


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.




Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back