Big Three have differing views on changed No. 17

The Big Three had three different takes on what to do with an Eisenhower Tree-less No. 17.

Arnold Palmer said he would like to see a tree placed right where Ike’s Tree used to be.

Jack Nicklaus said if a tree was picked to take the place of Ike’s Tree, it should be farther up the fairway, considering the departed tree didn’t affect play much toward the end of its reign.

The tree was removed after it was damaged during a February ice storm.

“Well, I look at the area, it does look a little naked,” Nicklaus said. “It’s not only Ike’s tree, but Little Ike and a couple other trees were gone. But they really had no effect on the play of the golf tournament as it relates to the tournament. I think the statistics show that I think there’s been an average of maybe five of six balls that have hit the tree a year by bad shots, and it affected the membership far more.”

Player, while noting that there has never been a tree as significant in the sport as Ike’s Tree, said he doesn’t want to see a replacement.

“Personally, I am anti-trees in the middle of fairways or on fairways, same as I’m against bunkers in the middle of fairways,” Player said. “There’s enough trouble. Golf is a very tough game, particularly for members who don’t hit many fairways. I think the tree, as much respect as I had for the name attached to the tree, I think it’s best that the tree does not be put back.”