Why "that tree makes that hole" is the most offensive phrase in golf: an investigation into golf course over-planting

"Anything temporary must not precede over the permanent," the end.  Shortest blog post ever (mic drop).  An idea that was presented to me by my friend Greg Martin, ASLA ASGCA RLA.

The game of golf is not easy period, but somehow we've fancied the notion that trees were the only way to "defend" a golf hole.  I tried to find notation of when the "poor defenseless golf hole," began needing defending, but I can't.  What I did find was a beautiful explanation of the mindset (shocking discovery to come) that got golf into the mess of over-planting trees, shrubs, and other plant material within the confines of what should define a golf course.

Fairway turf suffering from tree roots

First, a golf hole that needs a tree to "make it," really isn't much of a golf hole and probably should be redesigned.  I propose to eliminate such a tree, play the golf hole, and if it turns out to be a total buzz-kill, no fun, and puts everyone in a foul mood, then do a redesign.  There exists the possibility, that the hole has some green contours or bunkering that will provide plenty of challenge.

Or if we find that the challenge is gone and the hole does play easier so that our 6th Flight Club Champion Runner Up is making 3 for 1 every Thursday night and grill room is in an uproar, then maybe, the hole was designed to be reprieve from getting sacked on the previous four holes, or maybe it was meant to be a place where a player knew he could "get one back."  Whatever the situation, I trust the design....the permanent, over the temporary.....any day.

There are iconic trees, I get that.  Don't throw the Eisenhower or the Hinkle tree at me, I'm talking about the silver maple that was planted in 1974.  The same tree that litters the golf course with debris, causes turf to die, be hand watered, and makes saplings grow in the bunkers.  By the way, as soon as all those things get done, we will work on finding areas to reduce the maintenance budget as requested.

Sorry about the Ricky Gervais tirade, must be the late night binge of After Life, which I recommend.

Seriously though, trees have a place and if you are interested in seeing what the original golf design of a particular course looked like, I recommend Historical Aerials.  The aforementioned website will allow you to roll over a current image and overlay a historical one at the same time.  As you sweep across an image, you literally move history across a property.  It truly is a remarkable piece of technology and I don't think I can do justice using words to what the experience is like.  Anyhow...

How exactly did we get into this mess though?  My friend believes, it began with the book "Silent Spring" published September 27, 1962, he is a bit of a pot-stirrer, but he may be on to something.  Silent Spring is a book written by Rachel Carson, who called for the responsible use of pesticides along with an understanding of the interactions of pesticide fate and the ecosystem.  The book is often regarded as sparking the environmental movement.  Silent Spring received a great deal of resistance from the chemical companies resulting in Carson's character being attacked, some even suggesting she was a communist.  So, I began there and did some digging.

Excerpt from Mr. Phelps Thesis

In 1963, Richard Morgan Phelps of Iowa State University wrote a Masters Thesis titled "The Influence Of Planting In Golf Course Design."  This thesis turns out to be more of a guide for golf courses and planting.  What is interesting, is that Phelps basically has this premise that golf is doing this 'planting thing'.  Phelps' Thesis states that a "....distinguishing mark of a superior golf course is the presence of good trees.....evidence that the course is designed and maintained for greatest pleasure."  I found the reference for the quote in a 1951 article in Golfdom by Ralph B. Bryan titled "Good News About Trees For Golf Clubs," which focuses on the Augustine Ascending Elm as a solution to the American Elm problem.  Not really a promotion for over-planting.

So, superior golf courses have good trees?  Fair enough, doesn't say we should over-plant, says we need good trees.  The search continues...so I continued digging through his references to see how we began to believe good courses needed more trees.

When it comes to resources documenting tree planting and golf, Phelps struggles, stating in his thesis that the only mentions of trees he could find were regarding:

Very little information before 1963 existed on the
planting of trees on golf courses

"...proper thinning and removal of some trees was necessary for the success of a golf course."  -Richard Morgan Phelps, Masters Thesis: "The Influence Of Planting In Golf Course Design"

Why do you think that was?  Because trees and turf don't coexist well?  Most of what was written was in support of less tree material not more!

Phelps' looked for anything to support the planting of trees and found his next thesis quote

"Nothing a club can do will contribute more to its security and permanence than beautifully landscaped grounds," -USGA Journal and Turf Management titled "Landscaping A Golf Course," -June 1953 by Dr. John R. Williams of the Oak Hill Country Club in Rochester, New York.  

 This article is clearly an opinion piece, outlining the memorial tree program at Oak Hill, which at the time was situated on 350 acres of "abandoned, weed infested farm land."  Dr. Williams even goes on so far to say that a beautiful tree or collection of them "excites admiration" of the golfer and that bunkers bordering a fairway are "ugly scars on a carpet of green."  John R. Williams is beloved at Oak Hill C.C. he is said to be the first doctor in the country to use insulin in the treatment for diabetes, in addition, he was.....you guessed it, an arborist; a nationally recognized authority on trees.

Dr. Williams was no doubt a great man, I don't want to suggest otherwise, but a great man doesn't mean that he is an authority on what is proper on a golf course.  Is seems that his opinions may have sparked some trends that would cost the golf industry for decades.  Oak Hill went on a planting spree, crowding the canvas that Donald Ross had first painted a golf course on.  When he was asked how many trees he had planted, Williams answered that he quit counting at 40,000.

Preceding the 1953 article, was a June 1950 USGA Journal and Turf Management article that  Dr. Williams penned "Oak Hills Memorial Trees." In this article, trees may not be a priority of a club and the landscaping not extended onto the golf course because of cost and also because golfers are more 

Historical Aerial of Oak Hill 1951 vs 2015

"....apt to be concerned with the flight of the ball than with the beauties of nature," 

of all the nerve!!  By the way....memorial tree plantings...worst.....idea....ever!!!

At the end of the 1950 article, Dr. Williams states that in a succeeding article; the utilitarian value of trees to golf course will be discussed and that "this phase of the subject is of the highest importance." Clearly the USGA had yielded to Dr. Williams on the subject of golf courses and trees.

In the August 1957 USGA Journal and Turf Management publication, an article by Dr. Marvin H. Ferguson titled "Beautification By Means Of Trees and Shrubs" begins with this......

"Trees and shrubs definitely contribute to the beauty and usefulness of a golf course, and landscaping is one of the sure ways for a superintendent to provide a lasting monument to himself and his efforts."

It appears this idea of over-planting golf courses was not the result of the environmental movement in the 1960's, but actually began as an inside job promoted by the USGA in the 1950's.  The only sources that Phelps could find that would suggest that golf courses needed to plant trees to be useful and beautiful, was the United States Golf Association.

As it turns out, Phelps thesis has some really good information and cautions greatly against planting without careful consideration and expert consultation.  Consultation not from one source...but from many, the collaboration that egos often protest against.  Arborists, Golf Course Architects, Golf Course Superintendents, and Finance, all have very valid insights and contributions to make to such a discussion.  Phelps even cautions against bright colors planted near greens because they may be distracting......a point in my 35 years of being on a course had never heard.

The "mess" we are cleaning up, well, it seems that many clubs and courses through the 50's and 60's were heavily influenced by the combination of linear golf course architecture (popularized by Robert Trent Jones Sr.), the USGA's seemingly supportive stance of landscaping the golf course, and the environmental movement sparked by urban sprawl.  We have gone full circle it seems, realizing that the adage "anything worth doing is worth overdoing," was totally applied to tree planting on golf courses.  Now we are painfully experiencing the reality of the costs associated with our actions.  

A combination of factors all contributed to one thing for sure....making golf more expensive.  Every "thing"  we put on the course has impacts.  Every "thing" has some cost, short and long term.  When we make something more expensive, we make it more exclusive.  Growing the game of golf, means making it more inclusive, not exclusive.

Want to grow the game, make it more inclusive?  Make it more simple.

I dont hate trees.

Cheers,

Turf



Endnotes:

And we will visit the whole linear architecture thing in another post........trainwreck.

If you like golf course architecture, check this out.... Aspects of Golf Course Architecture: A Study in the Examination and Application of Design Principles in Golf Course Architecture 1994, Bradley Powell.

I would like to add, in their defense, the USGA regularly promotes the removal of trees in their publications