Harvard’s campus has some really nice trees. After reducing enrollment by around six or seven thousand students, and knocking down a few dorms, I’m thinking a really spiffy tree-lined pitch and putt course could certainly be installed. Trump might come to the ground-breaking.
The Harvard campus is beautiful. The architecture there is genuine to the period. It makes me happy, like walking into the age of reason (ironic I know). Yale's (and University of Chicago and probably a bunch of others) neo-gothic strikes me as phony baloney.
I used to live in Atlanta, where people loved to let tall pines, poplars and oaks grow until they towered over their houses. Then the trees drop boughs or get knocked over in thunderstorms and slice through the house, occasionally killing an occupant. I would read about two or three people a year killed by their freaking trees. The tulip poplars were the worst. Tree-sized weeds with soft, unusable wood and they get gigantic, 80 - 100+ feet.
Willows deploy their roots in an Ent-like vendetta against water supply and waste lines.
I've seen arborists climb 100 feet up and out on a branch to rescue a cat. Enjoy your precious $750 cat.
I love trees but you've convinced me to go to war against them. The power of words.
I used to be neutral on cats but my dog friggin hate's 'em and I give him my full support. I wonder if the trees could be our allies in the war against feral cats. The coyotes are not up to the task.
Where i live now someone thought it would be a great idea to plant a mesquite tree in the front yard. It probably shaves 5 degrees off my home's internal temperature but its canopy covers the whole front yard, so I've got a 240 sq ft landscaping problem to solve, in line with all the other projects.
My great grandfather planted a long leaf pine in front of his 1890 house. They don't normally grow this far west in NC, but it's now enormous. The current owner would love to remove it due to the mess and risk to the house, but the local Hysteric Commission won't let him. He gets plenty of free mulch--all over the lawn.
Anecdotally, a neighbor had several massive trees in his backyard that were dying. The tree company decided to rent and use a crane to lift the massive parts of the truck over the house and into the street during the removal. However, the riggers screwed up. The largest piece of truck fell on the house during lifting and shattered about half the roof.
You'd think more people would be killed in their homes by trees in the Pacific NW, but we're so aware of the issue here that everybody gets their trees checked by experts to determine whether they're safe or not.
Most death-by-tree incidents here involve people driving in storms suddenly smashed by a tree or limb falling on the road.
I was stupid enough to plant two poplars in our backyard when we moved to the Maryland Eastern Shore in 1991. The two trees became mammoth and began to die by about 2018 when I wanted to sell. I was fortunate to know a retired marine who worked as a landscaper who cut the two trees down for $1000 and cut them up for me. The ground shook when the trees fell.
This felt like the first part of a Homeric simile.
I grew up in a suburb with abundant trees. The nicer the area, the older the trees. They would form a canopy over the quiet streets. That was outside Chicago where you'd think we'd treasure what little sun we get. Now in California tree covered streets are rare and people favor trees that provide little shade like palms and Italian Cyprus.
I guess people prefer sun over shade here.
A friend claims that Chinese people hate trees and tend to cut them down when they acquire a house with too many.
Fun fact-- the reason so many places have strict ordinances about cutting down large trees on your own property, is that Mister T cut down all his trees on his property in Lake Forest IL, as vengeance for the city not allowing him to install a white picket fence. I listened to him telling the story on Howard Stern and Howard protested that you can't just cut down all your trees. There are laws against that. :)
In 1976 I was riding through Berkeley's ritziest neighborhood in a big moving van when the driver went under one of those big canopy trees and misjudged the clearance. The entire left side of the van was fileted open, spilling thousands of blue rivets onto the street.
The left side of the top? I'm trying to picture it. I think we are very close to turning the comments section against the trees. One of the many surprise associations like when every came out against pitbulls.
The issue with trees is people don't realize how BIG they get. Magnolias are giant, 70' tall bushes that get 50' across with foliage to the ground. They look impressive planted 150' apart to mark the western boundary of your King Cotton Plantation in Yazoo County, Mississippi. But people buy the 4' sapling from the nursery and plant it in the backyard of their suburban .19 acre plot, where it kills everything around it by stealing all the light and continually shedding big, leathery, toxic leaves and spreading giant, concrete-cracking roots just below the surface. People and their trees, man.
Did they cut down mostly orange trees? I find it variable on walks. Mostly no shade but occasionally a part of a neighborhood is treed like the east coast
There's an orange grove left at Cal State Northridge, but in general I don't think there were too many orange groves in the San Fernando Valley. The San Gabriel Valley was the big orange growing place, either for reasons of soil or slope. Orange groves suffer from freezing air, which pools in the fairly flat SFV. The foothills of the SGV are more sloping so frigid air rolls downhill and is thus less of a risk to orange groves.
No, most of the big trees were planted in the first big wave of suburban subdevelopments after WWII. After a generation, the trees were huge and their roots were interfering with sewer pipes, and they were becoming a risk of falling on houses.
Recently, rooftop solar panels are reducing the demand for shade trees.
That was an issue in gorgeous San Marino near Pasadena when Hong Kong millionaires started moving in around 1980 and chopping down the indigenous oaks for stupid feng shui reasons. I think they were eventually socially reconstructed into not doing that.
Steve, I’m on the wait list for Meadow Club in Marin, the first course Alistair Mackenzie designed in the US (no big deal). They’re taking down most trees, including redwoods, to align more closely with his original design, which was based on St. Andrew’s. It doesn’t make a ton of sense, because Marin is naturally heavily wooded, the fairways are watered and lush, and also gets to 100 degrees in the summer, but the Club managers and most of the members love the restoration. More sand traps are being added and they might allow the creek to run through the entire course, so it’s not too “grip it and rip it.”
I cannot speak for Oakmont but a course that I have knowledge in the Northeast, a nice open to the public course, cut down a bunch of trees a few years ago. Not much to do with aesthetics, it was done to increase wind flow around the greens. The USGA came in and said that one green was in danger of being completely lost to thatch. They cut all the trees around it to improve wind flow. And old boss who was a member of a country club that cut down something like 200 trees for the same reason. You wouldn't even know it, There were so many trees on the course but they had taken them down. So maybe some of it is better knowledge of how the trees affect areas of the course, especially greens?
Right. Golf course greenskeepers, who are, on the whole, highly levelheaded men, have had several good reasons for turning against having too many trees on a course.
It's just striking how it's hard to achieve a golden mean without overshooting.
Thought about this comment while watch Senior PGA at Congressional this weekend. Thought the course looked great - they did a lot of work and took away a lot of trees. Found this article from 2021 on the redo and they do mention sunlight and airflow as reasons for removal but sounds more like they felt the tree line holes all felt similar to each other and wanted to change that. I do think there is a lot of room in today's golf, considering length off the tees, to have purposely placed trees that force strategic decisions by players:
> Across America, golf course superintendents, perhaps the profession least like modern artists, turned against trees.
So, in this century, the chainsaws came out, ...
Oakmont now has exactly one tree left within the perimeter of the course ... <
Frankly this is moronic. There is such a concept as "in moderation". Trees add visual interest and provide shade. And--properly placed--playing interest. I think the human eye naturally enjoys the vista akin to the savannah before our ancestors wisely left Africa. What you want is *some* trees.
America has better real estate than Scotland. Actually, America has much better and more varied real estate than the British Isles period. It is foolish to mimic Scotland when we can do better. But, of course--though I have not been--I'm pretty sure the nice areas of Scotland do have a smattering of trees. It was shoreside dune wasteland that was used for golf ... because no one could use it for anything else.
Girls and women are the ones who are supposed to be slaves to fashion with their need urgent need to conform. (Which is so destructive now, with our "elite" establishment media hijacked by minoritarian hostiles.)
Men are supposed to have use reason, judgement and good sense. Resist being pulled to and fro by fashion preserve good things as they are to turn over to our children.
Right, grassland with some trees is called "parkland" and it's the single best inland landscape. See, for example, Capability Brown's design for the grounds of Blenheim Palace.
He was a reaction to the orderly, geometric French landscape style that Blenheim had originally and ironically. I believe Winston's grandfather or uncle replanted a long avenue of trees to restore some grandeur, and then Dutch Elm killed them. I saw the previous Duchess driving through the grounds with her little daughter on her lap turning the wheel.
We went to Blenheim a couple of years ago. The grounds are indeed lovely, but I find them -- as a tourist -- somewhat harder to appreciate than French-style formal gardens, e.g. Versailles. The latter are laid out in obviously rational/geometric arrangements, so the first-time viewer can apprehend them immediately. 'Parkland' style gardens take time to explore, to find just the right viewpoints, and to immerse oneself. This takes time, which residents have, but visitors typically don't.
If I had my own manor house, I'd definitely hire Capability Brown's successor, or ghost, to do my gardening, but unfortunately I've not acquired Estate Calvinist quite yet.
I didn't watch much sports while raising the kids. But the youngest headed off to college in the early teens and I think I've watched most of the (American) major championships since then. And definitely seen 'em at Oakmont. (Just looked it up 2016--Dustin Johnson.)
Too soon in my book. I don't think the US Open should just be rotating Oakmont, Pinehurst, Winged Foot, Shinnecock, Merion, Pebble Beach, Olympic, etc. etc. If there's only 12 courses or whatever in the UK worthy of hosting the British Open--fine. But this is America. We've got a hundred or more great courses.
I'd say once in a golfer's career--say 20 years--you get a US Open at each of these "known greats". But then the other 10-12 slots you are sampling the other 100+ great championship caliber courses out there.
The US Open rota is definitely getting too short, and relatedly, planned too far into the future. All sites through 2042 have been determined and there are four total openings through 2051. Pinehurst and Pebble are effectively on five year rotations and Oakmont and Shinnecock are on eight. They are all worthy of hosting spots, but they will lose special feel as they become routine hosts.
Right. America has a lot of great golf courses so why not give them a chance.
For example, Chicago is a huge golf city, but it's lacking in an ideal major championship course. Say some zillionaire wants to build one in the suburbs if it seems likely he can get a major championship in his lifetime. Why not encourage that by leaving more openings on the schedule?
Right. A number of Old Money classic courses have been restored in this century that haven't hosted major championships since before WWII, if ever. There might be a few that would have the length and space to host a US Open.
Shifting the PGA from August to May has allowed more Sunbelt courses to host a major, such as in Texas.
Frisco, Texas, will be hosting two of the next nine; the first time the PGA will be played in the Lone Star State. It is worth noting that this is where the PGA headquarters are.
I will say that Kiawah Island has hosted twice fairly recently, including once in August, and is scheduled to host again soon. Atlanta Athletic hosted in August in 2011. Shoal Creek hosted twice in a seven-year span but probably won't be asked again going forward due to the controversy last time
Part of the confusion for me as a casual golf fan is that the same courses host both the PGA and the US Open. While I understand that field for each is different, most of the field is the same golfers. My local course is Baltusrol, which has hosted the PGA twice: 2016 (Jimmy Walker's only major) and 2005 (Phil's first PGA) and will host again in 2029.
However, they used to host the US Open on a 13-year cycle and is where Jack won his last US Open in 1980, but for whatever reason they didn't get it in 2006 and aren't currently on the docket and with the schedule set through 2042 they won't be getting one anytime soon.
Is one considered more prestigious than the other? The most recent PGA was at Quail Hollow which also hosted in 2017 (Justin Thomas' first major) but they have never hosted a US Open.
Two asides...
• While we didn't meet, I was there for Phil's PGA win in New Jersey in a working capacity
• If Trump went away quietly in 2021, I'm sure Trump National in Bedminster would have hosted a major by now; they hosted the 2017 Women's US Open to rave reviews and have hosted LIV events. With the former, ironically none of the top-10 players were American
I wonder if Gettysburg resident Dwight D. Eisenhower ever played at Oakmont. I suspect that he would prefer the current course, based on his dislike of a loblolly pine at Augusta National.
Only the oldest part of my city's cemetery has trees. This week, they cut down a huge pine (>3ft dia.) adjoining and between my great-grandparents' plot and the street, and I realized I didn't remember it being there. The magnolia on the other side, unforgettable.
We forget the eastern US had far fewer trees in the 19th century than it does now. Must have been a lot of work to keep the weeds suppressed without chemicals or lasers, or the horses and cattle got used to them.
Ron Unz still confusingly refers to "my recent articles" in the newest iSteve Open Thread, but they at least now have his name visible in the byline with the link.
The Bradford pear became a popular Eastern suburban tree in the 70s due to its symmetry, neat shape, and smallish size. A couple of decades later, people discovered its wood was too brittle to withstand much wind. A row of them at City Park became stumps in one storm. I believe I've seen one in the last decade, protected on three sides by a building.
Lots of huge trees here in BC. In Victoria a local golf course is treeless in the centre but surrounded by towering Douglas firs. I don’t play golf and have only seen it from the road.
I think that I shall never see
A blog post as lovely as a tree.
Oakmont should be a fun test. I will be there all week if any ISteve fans go lmk.
Harvard’s campus has some really nice trees. After reducing enrollment by around six or seven thousand students, and knocking down a few dorms, I’m thinking a really spiffy tree-lined pitch and putt course could certainly be installed. Trump might come to the ground-breaking.
The Harvard campus is beautiful. The architecture there is genuine to the period. It makes me happy, like walking into the age of reason (ironic I know). Yale's (and University of Chicago and probably a bunch of others) neo-gothic strikes me as phony baloney.
I agree. I was being a wiseass.
Harvard’s simple Ivy-covered brick is in keeping with the founders’ humility. That humility is gone.
I suspect if given the opportunity to do it again…considering the endowment $$$ and board egos, they would rebuild in full Oxbridge-on-steroids style.
I visited the restored Notre Dame earlier this month. Breathtaking.
There will soon be a number of genuine gothic building experts looking for work.
In the 70s, when they restarted construction of DC's gothic Episcopal National Cathedral, they had to find and train a new generation of stonecutters.
I found it pretty uninteresting for what is the world’s leading educational institution.
I used to live in Atlanta, where people loved to let tall pines, poplars and oaks grow until they towered over their houses. Then the trees drop boughs or get knocked over in thunderstorms and slice through the house, occasionally killing an occupant. I would read about two or three people a year killed by their freaking trees. The tulip poplars were the worst. Tree-sized weeds with soft, unusable wood and they get gigantic, 80 - 100+ feet.
Willows deploy their roots in an Ent-like vendetta against water supply and waste lines.
I've seen arborists climb 100 feet up and out on a branch to rescue a cat. Enjoy your precious $750 cat.
I love trees but you've convinced me to go to war against them. The power of words.
I used to be neutral on cats but my dog friggin hate's 'em and I give him my full support. I wonder if the trees could be our allies in the war against feral cats. The coyotes are not up to the task.
Where i live now someone thought it would be a great idea to plant a mesquite tree in the front yard. It probably shaves 5 degrees off my home's internal temperature but its canopy covers the whole front yard, so I've got a 240 sq ft landscaping problem to solve, in line with all the other projects.
How fast did it grow?
Here when I bought the place. It doesn't belong in this part of the country.
My great grandfather planted a long leaf pine in front of his 1890 house. They don't normally grow this far west in NC, but it's now enormous. The current owner would love to remove it due to the mess and risk to the house, but the local Hysteric Commission won't let him. He gets plenty of free mulch--all over the lawn.
Translation for homeowners: heavily wooded lot = lots of money to arborists.
Or you can do like I do and risk life and limb clumsily wrestling a chinese electric chainsaw far above the ground.
Anecdotally, a neighbor had several massive trees in his backyard that were dying. The tree company decided to rent and use a crane to lift the massive parts of the truck over the house and into the street during the removal. However, the riggers screwed up. The largest piece of truck fell on the house during lifting and shattered about half the roof.
Tough but at least legit arborists have insurance.
You'd think more people would be killed in their homes by trees in the Pacific NW, but we're so aware of the issue here that everybody gets their trees checked by experts to determine whether they're safe or not.
Most death-by-tree incidents here involve people driving in storms suddenly smashed by a tree or limb falling on the road.
I was stupid enough to plant two poplars in our backyard when we moved to the Maryland Eastern Shore in 1991. The two trees became mammoth and began to die by about 2018 when I wanted to sell. I was fortunate to know a retired marine who worked as a landscaper who cut the two trees down for $1000 and cut them up for me. The ground shook when the trees fell.
This felt like the first part of a Homeric simile.
I grew up in a suburb with abundant trees. The nicer the area, the older the trees. They would form a canopy over the quiet streets. That was outside Chicago where you'd think we'd treasure what little sun we get. Now in California tree covered streets are rare and people favor trees that provide little shade like palms and Italian Cyprus.
I guess people prefer sun over shade here.
A friend claims that Chinese people hate trees and tend to cut them down when they acquire a house with too many.
Fun fact-- the reason so many places have strict ordinances about cutting down large trees on your own property, is that Mister T cut down all his trees on his property in Lake Forest IL, as vengeance for the city not allowing him to install a white picket fence. I listened to him telling the story on Howard Stern and Howard protested that you can't just cut down all your trees. There are laws against that. :)
In 1976 I was riding through Berkeley's ritziest neighborhood in a big moving van when the driver went under one of those big canopy trees and misjudged the clearance. The entire left side of the van was fileted open, spilling thousands of blue rivets onto the street.
The left side of the top? I'm trying to picture it. I think we are very close to turning the comments section against the trees. One of the many surprise associations like when every came out against pitbulls.
The issue with trees is people don't realize how BIG they get. Magnolias are giant, 70' tall bushes that get 50' across with foliage to the ground. They look impressive planted 150' apart to mark the western boundary of your King Cotton Plantation in Yazoo County, Mississippi. But people buy the 4' sapling from the nursery and plant it in the backyard of their suburban .19 acre plot, where it kills everything around it by stealing all the light and continually shedding big, leathery, toxic leaves and spreading giant, concrete-cracking roots just below the surface. People and their trees, man.
I like how you make it sound like they bought an adorable great dane puppy and figured it's eventual size was a problem for future them
Yes exactly
The San Fernando Valley is less tree-covered now than in, say, the 1980s.
Did they cut down mostly orange trees? I find it variable on walks. Mostly no shade but occasionally a part of a neighborhood is treed like the east coast
There's an orange grove left at Cal State Northridge, but in general I don't think there were too many orange groves in the San Fernando Valley. The San Gabriel Valley was the big orange growing place, either for reasons of soil or slope. Orange groves suffer from freezing air, which pools in the fairly flat SFV. The foothills of the SGV are more sloping so frigid air rolls downhill and is thus less of a risk to orange groves.
No, most of the big trees were planted in the first big wave of suburban subdevelopments after WWII. After a generation, the trees were huge and their roots were interfering with sewer pipes, and they were becoming a risk of falling on houses.
Recently, rooftop solar panels are reducing the demand for shade trees.
So "Chinatown" lied to me?
Some Chinese follow Feng Shui, with sometimes odd results.
That was an issue in gorgeous San Marino near Pasadena when Hong Kong millionaires started moving in around 1980 and chopping down the indigenous oaks for stupid feng shui reasons. I think they were eventually socially reconstructed into not doing that.
I remember the Mr. T. tree massacre.
I pity the fool who denies his fencing permit
Steve, I’m on the wait list for Meadow Club in Marin, the first course Alistair Mackenzie designed in the US (no big deal). They’re taking down most trees, including redwoods, to align more closely with his original design, which was based on St. Andrew’s. It doesn’t make a ton of sense, because Marin is naturally heavily wooded, the fairways are watered and lush, and also gets to 100 degrees in the summer, but the Club managers and most of the members love the restoration. More sand traps are being added and they might allow the creek to run through the entire course, so it’s not too “grip it and rip it.”
When I get in, you’re invited to play!
But some architecture is timeless. Augusta, like Notre-Dame de Paris, endures.
I guess I’m more pro tree than the average member here. My mother used to tell me that trees make the same sound as crying when cut down.
I cannot speak for Oakmont but a course that I have knowledge in the Northeast, a nice open to the public course, cut down a bunch of trees a few years ago. Not much to do with aesthetics, it was done to increase wind flow around the greens. The USGA came in and said that one green was in danger of being completely lost to thatch. They cut all the trees around it to improve wind flow. And old boss who was a member of a country club that cut down something like 200 trees for the same reason. You wouldn't even know it, There were so many trees on the course but they had taken them down. So maybe some of it is better knowledge of how the trees affect areas of the course, especially greens?
Right. Golf course greenskeepers, who are, on the whole, highly levelheaded men, have had several good reasons for turning against having too many trees on a course.
It's just striking how it's hard to achieve a golden mean without overshooting.
Thought about this comment while watch Senior PGA at Congressional this weekend. Thought the course looked great - they did a lot of work and took away a lot of trees. Found this article from 2021 on the redo and they do mention sunlight and airflow as reasons for removal but sounds more like they felt the tree line holes all felt similar to each other and wanted to change that. I do think there is a lot of room in today's golf, considering length off the tees, to have purposely placed trees that force strategic decisions by players:
https://www.globalgolfpost.com/featured/a-whole-new-blue/
> Across America, golf course superintendents, perhaps the profession least like modern artists, turned against trees.
So, in this century, the chainsaws came out, ...
Oakmont now has exactly one tree left within the perimeter of the course ... <
Frankly this is moronic. There is such a concept as "in moderation". Trees add visual interest and provide shade. And--properly placed--playing interest. I think the human eye naturally enjoys the vista akin to the savannah before our ancestors wisely left Africa. What you want is *some* trees.
America has better real estate than Scotland. Actually, America has much better and more varied real estate than the British Isles period. It is foolish to mimic Scotland when we can do better. But, of course--though I have not been--I'm pretty sure the nice areas of Scotland do have a smattering of trees. It was shoreside dune wasteland that was used for golf ... because no one could use it for anything else.
Girls and women are the ones who are supposed to be slaves to fashion with their need urgent need to conform. (Which is so destructive now, with our "elite" establishment media hijacked by minoritarian hostiles.)
Men are supposed to have use reason, judgement and good sense. Resist being pulled to and fro by fashion preserve good things as they are to turn over to our children.
"What you want is *some* trees."
Right, grassland with some trees is called "parkland" and it's the single best inland landscape. See, for example, Capability Brown's design for the grounds of Blenheim Palace.
He was a reaction to the orderly, geometric French landscape style that Blenheim had originally and ironically. I believe Winston's grandfather or uncle replanted a long avenue of trees to restore some grandeur, and then Dutch Elm killed them. I saw the previous Duchess driving through the grounds with her little daughter on her lap turning the wheel.
We went to Blenheim a couple of years ago. The grounds are indeed lovely, but I find them -- as a tourist -- somewhat harder to appreciate than French-style formal gardens, e.g. Versailles. The latter are laid out in obviously rational/geometric arrangements, so the first-time viewer can apprehend them immediately. 'Parkland' style gardens take time to explore, to find just the right viewpoints, and to immerse oneself. This takes time, which residents have, but visitors typically don't.
If I had my own manor house, I'd definitely hire Capability Brown's successor, or ghost, to do my gardening, but unfortunately I've not acquired Estate Calvinist quite yet.
That’s just the way humanity works.
Also kind of just the way nature works.
The undergrowth builds up over the years and then the lightning strikes.
BTW, didn't we just do Oakmont?
I didn't watch much sports while raising the kids. But the youngest headed off to college in the early teens and I think I've watched most of the (American) major championships since then. And definitely seen 'em at Oakmont. (Just looked it up 2016--Dustin Johnson.)
Too soon in my book. I don't think the US Open should just be rotating Oakmont, Pinehurst, Winged Foot, Shinnecock, Merion, Pebble Beach, Olympic, etc. etc. If there's only 12 courses or whatever in the UK worthy of hosting the British Open--fine. But this is America. We've got a hundred or more great courses.
I'd say once in a golfer's career--say 20 years--you get a US Open at each of these "known greats". But then the other 10-12 slots you are sampling the other 100+ great championship caliber courses out there.
The US Open rota is definitely getting too short, and relatedly, planned too far into the future. All sites through 2042 have been determined and there are four total openings through 2051. Pinehurst and Pebble are effectively on five year rotations and Oakmont and Shinnecock are on eight. They are all worthy of hosting spots, but they will lose special feel as they become routine hosts.
Right. America has a lot of great golf courses so why not give them a chance.
For example, Chicago is a huge golf city, but it's lacking in an ideal major championship course. Say some zillionaire wants to build one in the suburbs if it seems likely he can get a major championship in his lifetime. Why not encourage that by leaving more openings on the schedule?
Right. A number of Old Money classic courses have been restored in this century that haven't hosted major championships since before WWII, if ever. There might be a few that would have the length and space to host a US Open.
Shifting the PGA from August to May has allowed more Sunbelt courses to host a major, such as in Texas.
Frisco, Texas, will be hosting two of the next nine; the first time the PGA will be played in the Lone Star State. It is worth noting that this is where the PGA headquarters are.
I will say that Kiawah Island has hosted twice fairly recently, including once in August, and is scheduled to host again soon. Atlanta Athletic hosted in August in 2011. Shoal Creek hosted twice in a seven-year span but probably won't be asked again going forward due to the controversy last time
Part of the confusion for me as a casual golf fan is that the same courses host both the PGA and the US Open. While I understand that field for each is different, most of the field is the same golfers. My local course is Baltusrol, which has hosted the PGA twice: 2016 (Jimmy Walker's only major) and 2005 (Phil's first PGA) and will host again in 2029.
However, they used to host the US Open on a 13-year cycle and is where Jack won his last US Open in 1980, but for whatever reason they didn't get it in 2006 and aren't currently on the docket and with the schedule set through 2042 they won't be getting one anytime soon.
Is one considered more prestigious than the other? The most recent PGA was at Quail Hollow which also hosted in 2017 (Justin Thomas' first major) but they have never hosted a US Open.
Two asides...
• While we didn't meet, I was there for Phil's PGA win in New Jersey in a working capacity
• If Trump went away quietly in 2021, I'm sure Trump National in Bedminster would have hosted a major by now; they hosted the 2017 Women's US Open to rave reviews and have hosted LIV events. With the former, ironically none of the top-10 players were American
I wonder if Gettysburg resident Dwight D. Eisenhower ever played at Oakmont. I suspect that he would prefer the current course, based on his dislike of a loblolly pine at Augusta National.
Only the oldest part of my city's cemetery has trees. This week, they cut down a huge pine (>3ft dia.) adjoining and between my great-grandparents' plot and the street, and I realized I didn't remember it being there. The magnolia on the other side, unforgettable.
We forget the eastern US had far fewer trees in the 19th century than it does now. Must have been a lot of work to keep the weeds suppressed without chemicals or lasers, or the horses and cattle got used to them.
Ron Unz still confusingly refers to "my recent articles" in the newest iSteve Open Thread, but they at least now have his name visible in the byline with the link.
The Bradford pear became a popular Eastern suburban tree in the 70s due to its symmetry, neat shape, and smallish size. A couple of decades later, people discovered its wood was too brittle to withstand much wind. A row of them at City Park became stumps in one storm. I believe I've seen one in the last decade, protected on three sides by a building.
Lots of huge trees here in BC. In Victoria a local golf course is treeless in the centre but surrounded by towering Douglas firs. I don’t play golf and have only seen it from the road.