To Tree or not to Tree??

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Its like one of those before and after weight loss photos.

First picture on a dull, overcast day, well away from the green. Second, on lovely sunny day showing the Green.

At least make it little more balanced.

I dont mind trees. Makes it skill to get around them. Just not loads of trees. Especially if course has narrow fairways and room for little error.

Let's analyse the photos a bit more. Yes the second photo has been enhanced a bit and is more attractive to look at, but there are many lessons to be learned.

Firstly, which has already been mentioned, is the problems caused by the shadows of the trees, in the first photo the shadows are half way across the green. Less sun means the greens are damper, meaning more susceptible to disease, more sprays, more money etc,. Here it also means it takes much longer for frost to clear, i.e. greens are closed longer then the need to be. Also the trees block air movement which also contributes to the above problems.

Secondly, far more attractive views across the course are blocked. In the second picture you can see the far away hills, not in the first photo, think of some of the great views that are blocked in courses here by excessive tree planting. Naturally there are times when it is prudent to block some views.

Thirdly, think of all the extra maintenance the trees cause, difficult to mow around, leaves in the Autumn etc., who likes looking for balls in a bunch of sycamore leaves?? Sycamore trees and other broad leaf species have little place on a golf course. The reason why Augusta has all pine trees with high canopies is because Cliff Roberts hated looking for balls in piles of leaves.

Fourthly, a common reason for trees is to make the course supposedly tougher. This also needs to be questioned. If we take the trees in the first photo, especially the ones behind the green, how often is a player in them? The better player is probably never in them, the average player probably only ends up in them if they knife a bunker shot out of a greenside one, where the player will probably have the same six or seven with or without the trees.

They also eliminate the art of the recovery shot, there is no skill involved in pitching sideways out of trees but there is a lot of fun and skill in trying to bend a ball around a tree 50 yards in front of a player. This would suggest the best place to put trees is in between landing areas and not in them. A poster has suggested that bad shots should be punished but I think good shots should be rewarded. A player who continuously plays bad shots will score poorly even if there is only a little trouble.

Also, tree removal exposes more wind to a golf course making judgement a little trickier.

Another feature is the 'double hazard', where upon finding yourself in a fairway bunker you also find your line to the hole blocked by trees. Isn't one hazard enough??

Trees do have a place on a golf course but only if used sparingly. I hope the golf clubs around the country who have lost a lot of trees in the recent storms, think long and hard about how many trees the really need to replace.