Some of you believe you should be allowed to carry a chain saw in your bag to deal with trees that have upset you. I am not one of those people. Trees were there first and it is not their fault if you have chosen to hit them.
Of course, this does not mean that some trees can’t be dealt with severely. Pine trees not in the right location ie on a golf course are simply pure evil. They like to eat golf balls although not as proficiently as Paperbarks. They drop pine needles which even the pros at The Masters in Augusta find difficult. With instruction and practice we can learn to play a bunker shot; escaping the pine needles is basically luck. They also create a mini desert under their canopy where nothing seems to grow – well apart from some mushrooms but we don’t seem to have that spoor. As I said pure evil although I will grudgingly pay respect to a long- cut down pine on the right of the 8th green that was useful in stopping a tee shot going in the pond.
Trees which are dead or dying or in some other way threaten life and limb also have lost the right to live. I always wondered why it took so long to remove a tree just beyond the 11th green that lurched at a crazy angle. It was a lawsuit waiting to happen. Having said this, I did find it depressing to play with Jim Burke, whose family is probably the only one to make up four generations in our club. From a timber industry background, he would delight in ticking off the list of trees that would have to go.
Fortunately we don’t seem to have the gums, that in the middle of a still summer’s day, will drop a limb. We do have trees that will come down in a storm that are a bonanza for those who still rely on a wood fire for heat but are a pain for the ground-staff.
And, of course, just like anywhere in Victoria our trees are a fire hazard. Black Saturday in 2009 saw the fires reach the Western boundary but fortunately no further. The water bombing aircraft made good use of our big dam. On another occasion the Wednesday comp was suspended when the stand of trees in the reserve on the other side of McGlone’s road ignited and required the CFA’s attendance. We only knew about this because the ground staff came out to tell us. They put their lives at risk to save us. Such dedication.
However, Nature can’t be blamed for everything. Reputedly, a very popular, civic minded and very hard-working member caused a visitation by the CFA when a burn off got out of control. I am not interested in spreading rumours; if you want to know who you will just have to ask Randall.
But these are exceptions. Trees need to be appreciated for their aesthetic appeal and the challenge they present. End of story but of course now you want me to justify this even though I think it is self-evident.
First aesthetics. I am entirely agnostic about the deciduous/native debate. I like both. In autumn there is nothing better than the fiery colours of the stand of trees on the right of the 18th. Of course, if you have nudged your drive into the fallen leaves and can’t find your ball you will probably beg to differ.
Alternatively, the colours and shape of the stands of trees near the tee box on the 1st and near the 7th green, even diminished in number from their glory days, are simply magnificent. They were the work of Peter De Vries when he was Captain in 1980. He consulted with the Department of Agricultural at the time and with the help of the then green keeper, Frank Coppledick, (marvellous name and even more marvellous person) planted the saplings which have grown to what we see now. Job well done. Not quite. It is a story to which I will have to return but the RACE CLUB WAS NOT HAPPY.
They are stands of trees but I have my individual favourites. The gum on the left of the 18th fairway after the dog leg is simply, well, majestic. And for most of us it should be reverentially observed because you have to try really hard for it to block your approach shot to the green. Similarly, the gum on the left of the 1st should be admired but isn’t probably because it is in complete isolation. Instead, we applaud it for its more utilitarian function of providing something to aim for to avoid the dam.
The next two are non-negotiable and should be heritage listed: the tree in the middle of the fairway of the 17th and the gum on the left of the 18th just after the tee.
First, the 17th. It shouldn’t be an issue except for the many of us who are hackers and, can/will slice into the tee as if it is a magnet. It doesn’t matter that trees are 90% air; we will find it. And then in confirmation with one of the many contrarian Murphey’s laws, we will find our ball has dropped to its base. If even Dwight Eisenhower, ex- President of the US and Commander-in-Chief of the Allied invasion forces in WW2, could not persuade the organising committee of the Masters to trim the intruding tree on the 17th then any attempt to remove our one must be resisted. Imagine turning up at Garfield and discovering that their iconic gum on the left of the green on the 5th had been “trimmed?”
And the 18th? Well, in the days before a hip operation magically cure my slice, I used to have to aim my drive between to two protruding limbs of an otherwise straggly gum located not so far from the tee to have any chance of landing on the fairway. And if the tee box was well to the left, I had to aim for the racetrack and let the slice bring it back. Never though did I want it removed. Straightening my drive would have done the trick. Incidentally, on this same hole, the limb on the tree near the 150 metre marker was given a haircut. Why?
The challenge trees present varies with our ability. The big boys might claim that they play golf but most of us don’t recognise it as such. When they hit over the corner on the 18th, they don’t see any trees but an opportunity; we see a whole forest. On the 1st they are not at all inhibited by the trees on the right but worry more about carrying the pond. On the 12th our tee shot slices into the trees on the right now thankfully cleared of rubbish; if they want to they will draw the ball over the trees to land in the middle of the fairway. On the 15th they will worry about their tee shot shooting through the green; we will worry about being too far to the right of the fairway and then being confronted with an approach shot that will get us over the first tree but then we forget that beyond that are two more either of which will snag our ball and we will end up in the bunker.
Now I shouldn’t leave you with the impression that the big boys can’t have a tree problem. Trees can pop out of nowhere to upset the ball just like it does for the rest of us.
They say that absence makes the heart grow fonder. This is certainly true for me with the trees we have lost on the 11th. What was once a hole offering all abilities something has now become one of the easier holes – 13th instead of about 6th (if memory serves me correctly) for most of us although, interestingly, for the good golfers it is 9th.
The trees on the right extended to about the 150 metre mark marked by a big gum tree. They may have been useful to keep the ball in play but were a nightmare to get out of especially as some were pines. The gum closest to the hole on the left once had a few more friends. If you like to slice, as most ordinary golfers do, your only alternative was to hit the ball straight.
For the big hitters the green was reachable. If they popped it in their only problem then was whether to call it an albatross or a hole-in-one. Darren Adams didn’t have this dilemma though. His tee shot nearly went in but he was playing three.
For the hackers, if they navigated the trees off the tee, were then confronted with an approach shot with different possibilities – the hallmark of a good golf hole. If they could land the ball on the fly, could they make it stick? You don’t want to be off the back. Otherwise, you need to calculate how far short you will land and whether you will use the slope on the right to feed the ball onto the green.
Some of this still applies today but without the threat posed by the trees it is just too easy not to be intimidated.
The discussion has been amicable so far but it could become ugly. The President of the Race Club may well have chaired the meeting in 1955 that re-established our club after the War but since then it has been, well, often open warfare between the two clubs. And the major reason? Trees. Supposedly, there exists an agreement stipulating that the maximum height of trees inside the racetrack is two metres. Well, if this is so then someone forgot to tell the trees. The Race Club’s point is that not only do the spectators need to see but so do the stewards. The Golf Club wants an attractive venue. If any of you have seen early photos of barren windswept fairways you would understand why. The problem is intractable.
I am far less tolerant on the next issue. Yes, most of you won’t agree and I definitely know that Ryan won’t but I am happy for trees to be close to greens. Yes, I know they block the sun and thus inhibit growth; and yes, clearing a path when bark and leaves litter the green is a pain; but they add so much. Think the 7th. Or the old 2nd. Now compare this with the boring 8th green.
A final point of contention is commercial reality. During “The Troubles” – ours not Ireland’s – a decision was made to clear some of the medium sized trees on the edge of the fairways on the 9th and 7th. This was so that patrons sitting on the outside balcony had an uninterrupted view beyond the dam. In return low lying shrubs were to be planted which hasn’t happened. I mourn those trees. They might have been small but they had a surprising capacity to inflict pain on the wayward. And in golf, sinners should be punished.
I would be surprised if you didn’t find plenty of what I have written to be rubbish. After all there is little scientific backing. So, feel to disagree. But remember: if I don’t necessarily know what I am talking about you might not either.
Note: this is dedicated to Graham Kennedy, who, despite what he says, actually likes trees even though he “hates” greenies.
Filed under: Members, Membership Level, Members Slider