Sometimes I risk my life by suggesting that a certain tree happens to spoil a pretty good golf hole.”
– AW Tillinghast, 1937
ROCHESTER, NY — Let’s start here: The word “oak” is in the club’s name, and the big legitimate fear is that removing trees takes some of the spirit out of a place like Oak Hill. Considering that the oak trees in particular hold such a romantic place in the club’s history that some have plaques on the “Hill of Fame” at the 13th hole of the East Course, the site of this week’s PGA Championship, commemorating all remember From Jack Nicklaus to Nancy Lopez and Dwight Eisenhower to the European Ryder Cup team that won here in 1995, you just can’t swing the proverbial ax without a little controversy.
Just ask about another golf course that has “oak” in its name: Oakmont Country Club. As Peter McCleery wrote for Golf Digest in 2002, the famed Pennsylvania golf course pioneered the increasing nationwide trend toward serious tree felling. An unbelievable 3,500 trees were felled for a restoration product, even 15,000 in 25 years. “There were factions, a threatening petition, prayers from a neighboring church for the survival of the trees, even the hint of a lawsuit,” McCleery wrote. In the end, however, the restoration was carried out and the response was overwhelmingly positive.
This is a common theme at courses like Merion, Winged Foot and many other mostly eastern golf courses where tree growth is creeping up on the superintendents. There are some classic problems with too much tree growth, including the way it can change strategy. Space management for players is often altered over time in ways that contradict the original design intent . But the most pressing problem is much simpler: trees fight grass. They impede air circulation and block sunlight. This is most noticeable on greens and tees, where, as McCleery put it, “if there is too much shade, there will be a general thinning of the turf, or in extreme cases, the turf will not be there at all.” Giving way to golfer wear and weed invasion.
Oak Hill’s past is a classic example of how things can go wrong. When the club attempted to convert the greens to bentgrass on the East Course, which was hosting its seventh men’s major tournament this week, the proliferation of large, mature trees made the conversion incredibly difficult, and they ended up being featured in an article for Golf Course Industry described as “mixed stand of annual biotype Poa annua and Bent Grass” which harmed the greenery. A former superintendent named Kevin Green showed how “calculated tree removal” could help the bentgrass thrive on the rebuilt greens on greens 13 and 15, and tree clearing actually began in earnest after the 2013 PGA Championship.
In 2016, Andrew Green, then a little-known architect specializing in the restoration of ancient squares, came on board to oversee the new changes, and the official restoration – based in part on original drawings by Donald Ross – began in 2019 So that’s it, the tree felling was in full swing. That wasn’t nearly the only change Green oversaw (he rebuilt bunkers, removed a pond on the 15th hole, built the new fifth and sixth holes from scratch, and more), but the trees were always the biggest bone of contention the members . They are a life form, after all, and humans develop bonds with trees that are emotional in nature. And yet they managed to win the approval of more than two-thirds of the club’s members.
How did they do it? As Green explained on The Golf Channel this week, they held a town hall meeting attended by more than 100 members and made it clear that this would not be like Oakmont – there would be a balance and Oak Hill would always have its oak trees. They also explained how it would help the turf and the playability of the course, and how it would respect and highlight the history of the course, right back to its Donald Ross origins. That didn’t mean the members were fully convinced or that he avoided “tough talk.” But no one could fault the Oak Hill team for not providing a thorough explanation of what they were doing and why they were doing it.
This convinced enough members to go ahead with the project and it is important to note that they had already compromised in that direction; Even some trees with plaques on the Hill of Fame had been removed and the plaques transferred to surrounding trees long before Green’s arrival. As Green explained that they would protect trees, which had strategic and aesthetic value, but that the turf – the grass you actually play on – must be a priority. (When asked by The Fried Egg how many trees were removed, Green replied that it was the “right number.”)
The other truth Green knew is that “little trees grow into big trees,” and as the trees and their canopies grow, overcrowding can occur and situations arise where certain trees can even grow into one another in a way , which negatively affects their health. He was never afraid to make the “critical decision,” even if it meant chopping down more trees with plaques. It was all about creating a balance that had been left by the simple act of growth, coupled with decades of pursuing great championship golf courses in a way that pushed the course further and further from its origins.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the restoration was a huge success, making it difficult to find negative reviews even if you look closely. (In at least two interviews, Green only expresses skepticism about players complaining about the difficulty of the restored bunkers.) There will always be objections to tree removal, especially on an emotional level, but there is comfort in the fact that Green’s vision for Oak Hill had a spiritual and emotional element of its own: the rediscovery of the soul at the heart of what had been lost.
www.golfdigest.com
https://www.golfdigest.com/story/pga-championship-2023-how-oak-hill-averted-potenial-member-revolt-over-tree-removal
