Raymond Hearn Articles
Is the Tree
Program Working for Your Club?
from August
2005
As Henry Beard observed in
“Mulligan’s Laws”: “You can hit a 200-acre fairway 10 percent of
the time and a two-inch branch 90 percent of the time.”
Golfers may grin in validation of
his calculus, but it also suggests the ambivalence of trees in golf
course architecture. On the one hand, trees are unquestionably
among the most visually appealing features of many parkland courses
found throughout the Great Lakes Region and elsewhere. Beard’s quip
also captures the tree’s uncanny intrigue as a properly deployed
design element.
But trees can also be problematic
for the strategic integrity of a given hole; and because unlike,
say, bunkers, trees are not static entities, their rapid growth can
compromise a well-conceived original design. What’s more, the very
grandeur that prompts us to value trees can adversely affect
maintenance of turfgrass, especially on tees, fairways and greens.
Equilibrium in a course’s tree
program is possible, however, and what follows is an object lesson
in the problems typically found on many golf courses I have
consulted with. The fictitious name of the otherwise anonymous
course provides a clue to the success of their old approach.
Case Study: BAD TREE COUNTRY CLUB
Purists argue that it is doubtful
that trees even have a place in terms of a course’s strategy
considering their vulnerability to storms, disease, or other forms
of instantaneous elimination. This is a debate relegated to
academia and/or the taproom by the actual state of affairs at many
courses I have visited, including Bad Tree.
In consulting there -- a very
prominent property in the Great Lakes Region -- I was flabbergasted
by the negative effect the tree program, or absence of one, had on
this classic layout, whose design dates to the early 1900s. After
studying the club’s early aerial photographs, it was apparent that
the golf course architect specifically intended for certain trees to
influence the layout, playability, and strategy in a certain and
limited way. In round numbers, this meant only about 300 specimens
in the entire layout, which occupies roughly 175 acres.
As frequently happens, an esteemed
member with the best of intentions decided to start a tree planting
campaign in the mid 1960s. This continued in the years follow, all
without involvement of a professional golf course architect. The
result, needless to say, was a lot of trees, the placement of which
often seemed random, devoid of planning for future consequences.
During my first visit I asked the
greens committee chairman if the club knew how many trees where
currently on the golf course. He responded that he did not know but
indicated that the committee was aware of the existing tree
program’s downside: This wonderful, formerly spacious design had
wrongfully evolved into a tight course with fairways framed by huge
tree canopies.
Again, the image is not unappealing
in itself; but, sadly, the damage to the golf experience is
immense. Even as the committee acknowledged the problem they were
reluctant to have any of the trees removed. And my 20 years of
practice suggest the prevalence of this attitude is roughly equal –
90 percent – to whacking that two-inch tree between you and the
green. It is very difficult for club officials to give the green
light to remove a tree that Jane Doe donated to the club, in memory
of John, years ago.
It is implausible to ignore such
sentiments in devising a tree program, so a little creativity is
required. Acknowledge members’ contributions in the tree department
via a substitute memento, perhaps a plaque in the grillroom, a bench
on the course, that sort of thing -- a simultaneous nod to the
traditions of the club and the benefits of at least some change.
My consultation at Bad Tree also
duplicated a scenario common among previous clients, that is,
failure to correctly prioritize the tree program, which they viewed
as incidental to a comprehensive renovation involving new or
revamped teeing grounds, bunkers, cart paths, drainage, the works.
I conceded that these items needed attention, but insisted that
their tree problem needed immediate action, pointing out that it had
implications for all other design options being contemplated.
Shortcomings in the layout
specifically related to trees included diminished playability. For
example, impinging tree lines made using a driver off many tees –
even ones where the hole’s yardage indicated it ought to be a
necessity -- a foolish choice, as the fairways were undulating and
pitched toward the woods. The problem was exacerbated by landing
areas seemingly apportioned for PGA Tour pros -- 100-140 feet (tree
line to tree line), in many instances.
The flip side is enhanced
“playability” in ways that the architect of record plainly did not
envision. Dogleg fairways are usually circumscribed by trees where
such fauna exist. For better or worse, advances in club and ball
technology, and therefore ball flight, have fundamentally altered
the proportions of these older dogleg configurations. Whereas they
once rewarded the shaping of shots around trees, modern shot
trajectories simply fly the tree and the corner of the dogleg, often
at the tee shot’s zenith. The tree can be returned to the strategic
equation by juggling other proportions of the design. Moving the
tees back is the most obvious one, naturally, but there are other
tactics available. Narrowing the fairway opposite the dogleg with a
hazard, to name one, can encourage players to try to cut the dogleg,
while making it the low-percentage play.
Still, while the obsolete dogleg
tree is, in effect, too small, too big is a much more ubiquitous
problem in tree programs. Because of overgrown trees at Bad Tree,
as little as one-third of the total square-footage of most tees was
effectively usable. In come cases, overhanging trees dictated club
selection and ball flight, even on longer holes – OK for those of us
proficient in hitting that “stinger” 2-iron, not so good for the
rest of us. The difficulty was compounded by generally inadequate
“bail-out” areas for missed tee shots.
This problem’s obnoxious cousin is
a canopy substantial enough to block of a significant portion of the
green from all but a discreet area of the fairway, in turn demanding
not just a shaped shot but a “tricked up” slice or hook. From the
sublime to the ridiculous, this situation existed in 11 iterations
at Bad Tree.
Marginal tree programs even have
non-playing victims. A round with the greens committee chairman at
Bad Tree included a conversation with two gentlemen who had
evidently spent a good deal of the day searching for and playing
balls in the woods. They complained about poor turf conditions in
the dense forest, concluding that the club “needed to find a
superintendent who could grow grass.” I felt compelled to respond
that the most talented superintendent in America could not possibly
grow healthy turf in these areas with virtually no sunlight. Even
the bulging tree roots pointed to the lack of water and nutrients;
worse, the same phenomenon was at work on numerous tees and
fairways.
Most disheartening, though, was
when extolled the shot-making challenge of tree canopy between
fairway bunker and the green, thus largely eliminating the
possibility of extricating oneself from difficulty with a quality
bunker shot.
Such “double jeopardy” golf
predicaments, I tried to explain diplomatically, were thought to be
axiomatically unfair and undesirable among right-thinking golf
course architects.
It goes without saying that the
older your course, the more likely it is to be beset with the above
difficulties, but my hunch is that one of them will resonate with
most readers. In summary, you can assess the urgency a professional
evaluation of your tree program by considering the existence and
severity of the following;
1. The original design intent has
been compromised by the trees currently on the course
2. The trees
are eliminating or greatly reducing the use of the driver as a
viable club selection on certain tees
3. Only one side of many tees is
being overused because of tree canopies ahead of the tee
4. Certain
tree canopies fronting fairway bunkers have grown large enough to
make standard, direct shots to the green (or second landing areas on
par 5's) impractical if not impossible
5. Approaches to greens are too
restricted due to adjacent trees or parts thereof
6. Turf quality is being
jeopardized by limited sunlight and lack of water, air and nutrients
7. There are more trees on the golf
course than grains of sand in your bunkers and the golf experience
feels claustrophobic.
J
As a member of the American Society
of Golf Course Architects with an extensive track record in
remodeling, renovation, and restoration, I recommend that you retain
a golf course architect to review your current tree program. His or
her expertise aside, the collaboration is invaluable in defusing
intra-club tensions about how to achieve the mutually agreed-upon
goal: the best course possible.
Devising the appropriate tree plan
shouldn’t be harder than, say, hitting that 200-acre fairway – so,
yes, it will almost always generate controversy. But like the one
you stripe down the middle, it will feel really good.
The author,
Raymond Hearn, is a member of the American Society of Golf
Course Architects and the president of Raymond Hearn Golf Course
Designs, Inc. His office is located in Holland, Michigan.
Email Ray at ray@rhgd.com
|
