Talk about a niche within a niche within a niche.
Today, we are discussing the role of trees in golf course design.
Not exactly as controversial as my recent Jon Rahm column—there is still a glow outside my window from the torch-bearing mob—but it’s an important issue within golf nonetheless.
The subject has naturally come up this week at Aronimink, host of the PGA Championship.
During Aronimink’s 2018 restoration led by Gil Hanse, many trees were removed as the course got back to its Donald Ross roots. In the original 1928 Ross design, there were only about a dozen trees on the property. There are a lot more now but considerably fewer than what Aronimink had prior to a Ron Pritchard restoration in 2003 and the subsequent Hanse 2018 restoration.
Tree removal is a major trend in modern golf course restoration. Oakmont is a great example. They took out around 15,000 trees and completely changed the complexion of the course.
It’s not done just at championship courses like Aronimink and Oakmont, however. Many restorations and new designs take the stance that fewer trees—or, more accurately, selective tree placement—is a core element to the course.
Although the practice has come under fire this week, I still think tree removal is a very positive trend for golf as a whole.
Why trees are getting removed from courses
The basic premise of tree removal on golf courses is that it’s good for the health of the course on multiple levels.
- The grass is healthier. Grass and trees battle for the same resources of sunlight and water. Trees block essential morning sunlight and prevent wind from drying morning dew. Removing trees improves air circulation and allows grass to get more sunlight and water.
- It costs less to maintain the course. Trees tend to suck away water and nutrients which can impact other areas of the course. Removing them helps courses reduce water usage and chemical inputs. And tree maintenance costs can be reduced or removed from the budget.
- Better course strategy/playability. Some courses planted trees a long time ago with the idea that the holes would become harder over time. But the trees took up a larger area than expected, obstructing shots and changing the original design of the hole. Tree removal can restore the intended challenge of the course architect.
Here is a video of Hanse breaking down Aronimink’s restoration and the (limited) role of trees at that course.
Obviously, there are a few caveats here.
It’s not necessarily about removing every tree. It’s selective tree removal that is done with intention.
And this isn’t to say that trees on courses are bad across the board. There are many phenomenal treelined courses. Courses without a ton of them can have strategically placed trees that enhance the layout.
However, if forced to pick a side between keeping trees or removing trees on courses, I definitely stand with the tree removal crowd.
The course health reasons are obvious. It’s easier to grow turf out in the open and it’s more economical not to have trees all over the place.
But the big key to me is the playability element.
Think about all the benefits the average golfer gets from playing a course that is more open. Fewer, if any, lost balls. No punching out from the woods. Faster pace of play because we aren’t wandering around in the woods all day. Potentially lower scores and happier golfers (though not always).
It also opens the door for more strategy. Just because you are in play all the time doesn’t mean you are guaranteed to be in a good position with a great angle to the flag. Wider fairways often offer golfers the option to aim for certain sides of a fairway or to take different clubs off the tee. That’s a positive.
How tree removal impacts the pros
When it comes to challenging the best players in the world, trees are an excellent defender.
Narrow, treelined fairways with thick rough would challenge pros far more than just adding yardage to the scorecard.
On top of that, the “width and angles” movement has far less of an impact on Tour pros who are mashing drives and hitting wedges into 500-yard par-4s. Angles don’t matter quite as much when you are coming into greens with that much loft.
Xander Schauffele touched on this tree debate during his pre-tournament presser at Aronimink.
“When I hear certain designers saying, ‘I’m going to restore this course to 1915,’ I’m like, ‘Well, it probably takes a good 100 years for a nice tree to grow, just to take it out, just to say it was where it was before.
“I think people keep talking about distance and how the game is played but just put a bunch of trees on a course? I think Hilton Head is a good example. Do I like Hilton Head? Not really. But it’s hard. It’s kind of crazy, if you look at the winning score at Hilton Head and the winning score at Doral, one’s called Hilton Head and one’s called the Blue Monster. I think the winning score at Miami is lower. It’s just funny when you kind of look at it in that sense.”
Let’s also hear from Rahm, one of my favorite voices in golf when the questions are not about his hostage situation with LIV.
“I’ve been making this joke for the last few years where I see a lot of golf courses coming in saying, ‘Look, 100 years ago, this golf course was like this, there was no trees’. I’m like, well, in the back of my mind, they planted those trees with the future vision of having those trees in play, and now you’re taking them all out.
“While I see both points, I don’t know which one is more valid than the next. I do believe a lot of it has to do with course conditions … I think the course setup that was expected in the ’30s, ’40s and ’50s, compared to what we have right now with how tight the grass is and how meticulous everything is, probably has something to do with it as well. I think golf has evolved and for the overall health of the course, they might need to take those trees out.”
These are really interesting comments from both players. I particularly appreciate what Rahm said as he weighed both sides.
My response to Schauffele is that I don’t think golf should be centered around the professional game in terms of changing every variable just to challenge pros. The PGA Championship will come and go but the Aronimink members are playing that course for decades to come.
If courses have to choose between challenging pros or providing a great experience for recreational players, it’s obvious they have to choose the recreational experience first.
Are those two things mutually exclusive? Not always. Shinnecock has one tree on the whole course and the winner will be lucky to finish in red numbers because of the course’s firmness and design.
I’m a huge believer that pros can be challenged in far more interesting ways (course design and setup) than having to navigate a minefield of trees. It’s not particularly exciting to watch that unless it’s a one-off situation like Harbour Town.
And, ultimately, we can’t be catering everything to one week a year when pros are playing a course. There has to be a healthy middle ground.
The bottom line
Selective tree removal is a positive for golf.
It makes the game more playable for average golfers and more efficient for the courses themselves on several levels.
Having a forest of trees would raise everyone’s scores, including the pros. But it wouldn’t really be fun for golfers to play and it wouldn’t be super interesting to watch the pros struggle in that way.
What do you think? Is the tree removal trend beneficial or harmful for the game? How do you challenge the pros?
Let me know below in the comments.
Top Photo Caption: Rory McIlroy hits a shot out of the trees. (GETTY IMAGES/Chris Condon)
Daddy
3 weeks ago
Trees are my favourite obstacle in the game. They are strategic, they force shot shapes and getting out of there is fun. They shouldn’t be everywhere of course and turf health considerations are valid. That being said I feel like the average golfer would want a hole without obstacles just to maximize score. Links courses have no or few trees but the winds and dunes protect the greens, parkland courses need trees and lakes (which are usually a flat stroke penalty once you fall in them, no skill required).