Clutter vs. Character: My Case For and Against Trees - Henry Shimp
Golfers can be highly dogmatic individuals. Chief among them, golf course architecture enthusiasts can REALLY be dogmatic about what they believe. Often in the absence of real knowledge of a subject. Trees on golf courses has become one of those divisive topics in GCA circles, and people like to make it out to be black and white. Slash ‘em all, or “how could you cut down that beautiful tree.” Seem to be the two camps. Well, first off, nothing in life is black and white, and second, tree management and usage on golf courses is far from a black and white subject. I would stick my neck out and say that most courses could probably benefit from a discerning look at many of their trees, but that does not put me in the camp of slash all the trees down. Instead, let me explain my thoughts on trees which I have summarized in the question of is a tree, or a set of trees, creating for clutter or character?
My 3 Core Takeaways on Trees:
Many courses probably could take down trees, but there are some that absolutely shouldn’t.
If the vast majority of a club’s trees aren’t indigenous to the area, they likely need to go.
Per point two, thoughtful inclusion of indigenous trees creates character while extra trees that aren’t indigenous create clutter.
Point 1:
So, for those of you who follow closely on Instagram, you’ll have seen that I recently made a trip down to San Antonio to play Oak Hills Country Club, a wonderful 1922 A.W. Tillinghast course. An often-overlooked piece of Tilly’s work is his mark left on the great state of Texas. Through original designs, consulting work, and renovations, Tilly left some mark on 16 total courses in Texas. Most notably, Oak Hills in San Antonio and Brook Hollow in Dallas as his best originals in the lone star state.
Oak Hills is on a reasonably compact, beautiful hill country piece of land that doesn’t really reveal how hilly it is until the 4th hole but from there really has awesome land movement on a number of holes. Simple bunkering to frame greens nicely, good greens that are sized just right for the length of the course (small but not tiny), and nice fairway movement that informs multiple necessitated shot shapes off the tee are some of the highlights of the course. What ties all of this together are the live oaks that litter the property. While there are a few spots that the club could consider thinning the trees, my advice would be to leave things as they are. Here’s why: One, live oaks are indigenous to the Texas Hill Country and elevate the golf course’s sense of place. Two, the live oaks create awesome yet not overly tight playing corridors which is additive to Oak Hills seeing as it tops out around 6,900 yards. If you aren’t on point off the tee, you’re losing strokes, and on a shorter course that makes a lot of sense. Finally, there are a number of key trees that create strategy without being overly obstructive to a handful of holes.
I would be the first to tell you that I rarely have seen a course take out trees and have it be a glaring negative. Opening up the overall connectivity of the property and allowing the greens, bunkering, and land movement to be the star of the show is virtually always a great play. That said, certain trees that enhance the way a place feels relative to its environment and particularly in the case of live oaks like Oak Hills has or perhaps the pines of Pinehurst or Augusta, the higher canopies and lack of thickness to leaves and branches allows such trees to exist without detracting from your ability to see other holes and parts of the property.
I’m placing the short of the century on the mid-late 1900’s planting of ornamental trees on golf courses to turn landscapes into glorified arboretums. Get that out of here. That is what creates clutter. But, when trees are not overly done, add to the strategy and aesthetic of a golf course and its holes, and are the right kinds of trees that make sense for the region a golf course lies within, trees can in fact add to golf courses. Trees can provide character.
Point 2:
The golf courses that suffered from the mid-late 1900’s ornamentals movement need to have a look at a place like Oak Hills to get a sense of what good tree usage can look like. To say every course needs to go Oakmont style (cutting down thousands of trees to leave a nearly treeless landscape) is hyperbolic, and unrealistic for clubs that appreciate having trees. So, what I think is more realistic is for clubs to look at courses that are managing trees in the right way to gain inspiration as to how to do it themselves. While many courses have tons of small ornamentals, you also see plenty of courses that just have too many different types of trees that come off as rogue and create for, once again, clutter.
Everything at The Tie Podcast is likened to food, so here’s my trees on golf courses food analogy. Think about a great-looking plate of food. Well balanced colors, macronutrients, quality ingredients, and perhaps some finishing touches be it a garnish or sauce. This is like a golf course’s hole shapes, greens, bunkering, and finishing touches such as mowing lines and types of grass that provide playable and visual texture to a course. Now, imagine this same dinner plate goes too far on the garnishing. Green onions, pickles, Italian parsley, parmesan cheese, a shit ton of cracked pepper, lemon slices, etc. This would screw up not only the presentation but also the flavor of the dish. This to me is what having too many types and overall quantity of trees does to a golf course. It doesn’t look right, it doesn’t play right, and it just flat out isn’t right.
My suggestion to clubs on tree management is this: start by asking “what types of trees should this course have on it?” This should be based on trees that are indigenous to the area. Second, the opposite question “what types of trees should this club not have?” should be asked. And then once that framework is laid out, go through each hole and if a tree is in the “should be here” bucket, there needs to be a good argument as to why it should be taken down. Likely regarding playing corridors, turf management, or opening up of views to the overall property. If a tree is in the “should not be here” bucket, there needs to be a highly compelling argument as to why it should stay. There are certainly exceptions at every course, but when you really think about the courses that play and present the best, there is typically not a lack of intentionality around which trees individually are on that course, but at a high level which types of trees. Thoughtful tree management gives a course character. Lack of thought gives it; you know by now…
Point 3:
Sense of place as far as I am concerned has a lot less to do with things looking and feeling right but rather those forces just being afterthoughts because of how right they are. Has anyone ever walked on a great Scottish links and said “that bunker doesn’t look right” or “why did they choose this grass type for the rough?” Because of how natural links golf is and how little effort is put in for these places to present and feel just right, they just do because of it. The same can be said for the best golf in America. The best places have a feeling of everything aligning just right and being in its proper place.
Particularly when it comes to a topic such as tree management, there is a paradigmatic relationship between effort put in and product of how a place feels and plays. If the effort put into tree management is nonexistent, either a place is already where it needs to be i.e. Scotland, or it is a lost cause. If the effort put in is to make something look extra pretty or special, it probably will do the opposite, yet if effort is put in to make it appear as if no effort was put in at all, the product can be good. Thinning out trees to cut back on non-indigenous trees and to simplify the way a course presents and plays is effort well used. Let’s take it back to the food example. The simple plate is always going to be the winner and proves that with so many things, doing less and doing it right is the way to win.
Here’s an interesting way to close this piece off. I made the comment earlier that I have never seen a course take down a bunch of trees and have it be a negative, which I will mention again because I believe it to be true. Taking that notion a step further, consider the fact that (by Golf.com’s account) 6 of the top 10 courses in the world have essentially zero total trees in play on them. St. Andrews, Shinnecock, Royal County Down, National Golf Links, Oakmont, and Royal Dornoch are the courses at hand. So, what I take from this is that great golf is not only attainable but perhaps of a higher likelihood if trees are not the features that are making for interesting golf. Great land, greens, strategy, and bunkering are more than enough to make a place great and probably are more important ingredients than trees. Now, all that being said, the top 2 courses in the world, Pine Valley and Cypress Point, are littered with trees. So clearly it can be highly additive. But, what’s the common thread here? Cypress more so than PV in my opinion has the most characteristic usage of trees of any course in the world and there is simply no room left for anything that detracts from the effortless elegance created by the inclusion of only indigenous ones. Anything more would simply create clutter and at the top courses in the world, that isn’t going to fly.
I task anyone who was gracious (and bored) enough to make it to this point in the article to add this writing’s takeaways to your checklist of things in evaluating courses you get to play. Are there too many trees? Why do you think that? Are the indigenous or a motley crew? And most importantly, are they creating character or clutter?
Cheers,
HS