Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Tim_Weiman on June 25, 2003, 09:26:21 AM
-
I had the opportunity to play the Yale University golf course for the second time in the past ten years and was reminded once again what an achievement the creation of this course was. But, the occasion was also sad and I couldn’t help asking: Is Yale the greatest tragedy in the world of golf?
Now, what do I mean by that?
Without being too philosophical tragedy implies “potential”, i.e., an original golf course design that was unique, brilliant and a challenging pleasure to play, but one that has also fallen into a sad state of affairs through neglect and/or misguided alterations.
The concept of “potential” is important here. We have all heard about The Lido, a lost course that was once among the finest in the world. But, while tragic, I can’t put The Lido in the same category as Yale. The Lido was lost and will never return. Yale, by contrast, still exists. It could be restored to its former glory. All it would take is hiring the right architect and a strong commitment from the university to support a sensitive restoration project. I’ll bet it wouldn’t even take money from the well endowed university. The mere announcement that the university would support such a project would probably bring funds from proud alumni who know how great Yale was and how great it could be once again.
Surely, if money could be poured into Bethpage Black – hardly as interesting a golf course – then something could be done for Yale.
Sadly, all we hear about Yale is that it is a political mess and that trying to sort through the university politics and union influence is damn near impossible. I just hope someday this pessimistic view can be proved wrong.
As to specific problems I might highlight, there are many. But, one really stood out: the bunker work near the green on the famous 18th hole. Apparently, it has been redone a couple times in recent years. Still, it looks so bad that I think it should be removed altogether if the university is not going to do a proper job. At least then there wouldn’t be anything to scar the place.
Tell me. Is there anything more tragic in golf than Yale?
-
Tim;
The only thing that comes close in my mind is Timber Point. When one considers the difference in funding between an Ivy League University and a local municipality, however, Yale wins hands down.
It isn't even the conditions that bother me as much as the architectural graffitti that's being sprayed out there.
-
Timber Point is still around, sort of. Sadder?
What is considered sadder, Yale neglect/poor work done, or something like 'butcherings' along the lines of Oakland Hills, Oak Hill, Inverness, Riviera, etc.?
To be honest, Yale is a blast to play in it's current state, IMO, but I know what you're sayin'.
-
Tim
Great to talk and play two rounds with you.
1925
(http://home.earthlink.net/~leftygolfer/_images/Yale18-1925.jpg)
2001 (note Huckaby strolling down 18 fairway)
(http://home.earthlink.net/~leftygolfer/_images/Yale18BW.jpg)
-
Tim- The obvious string to pull would be that of one of the richest families on the planet and happens to be a Yalie. G.H.W. Bush #41.
Beisdes the Yale connection I think a campaign that tugs on the family heart strings with the Walker connection.
A few letters, a little philanthropy and "it could happen". (in your worst judy tenuta voice)
-
GC
Great comparison! I can see Bill Kittleman in that 1925 picture, shovel in hand.
Willie
-
There are things going on, which I can't be too specific about. An architect/master planner has been hired and his work is underway; there is a committee set up to oversee a renovation--and prior to that to raise money for it--and to try to raise a permanent endowment to support the course. Among the problems not mentioned is the overplay of the course--33,000 rounds a year in a pretty short season. The fees are low for students and staff--and probably should be--, but they are way too low for occasional play and especially for annual play by people unaffiliated with the University.
The golf course is a real treasure; I'm not sure the School recognizes that at the proper levels; but there is some hope.
-
The camera adds 30 pounds, even from far away.
(I'd add a smiley, but they don't seem to be working - is there something I have to do now besides just clicking on them? I do not have them disabled.)
Re Yale GC, I think the "problem" is that it's so damn fun to play just as it is now, that although to devotees of golf course architecture it is "tragic" what the course has become, most players could care less, using the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" line of thinking. In their minds, it ain't broke and don't need fixing!
But Geoffrey's pic obviously tugs at the heartstrings of those who care about what was, might have been, might still be....
Geoffrey has been fighting this battle for so long now, along with George Bahto they are the experts on the whys and what fors. It is tragic, but they can speak to the realities of making this a triumph.
I just do think there must be a sentiment from many players that I describe above... I know I sure didn't come off Yale saying anything but my game that day sucked. I enjoyed the heck out of the golf course, just as it is... even understanding what was and might be.... and I'd have to guess I am WAY more into these things than the average player there...
TH
-
Willie
Bill is as you said a Yalie. Why he was not consulted or hired is a testament to the inept methods of the athletic department and university administration. Mr. Kittleman is I believe aware of what has been going on at the course.
-
Jim H
Sorry but you are just wrong about the hope for a good outcome. Use the new search function to drag up old threads describing the work, the committee of amateurs who have never read an architecture book or would know a Raynor hole from a Fazio one advising the architect and the architects blatent abuse of the Raynor/MacDonald style. After all, he is a golf course architect and not a historian (his words!)
PS- if you would like to debate these issues in detail please let the show begin. I have all the details and they are not pretty.
-
I wonder how many of today's golfers would prefer the new cleaner look - I'm almost fearful of what a poll would say.
Looks like a good bit of greenspace was lost as well.
-
I was wondering the same thing, George. I'd bet anything that if you polled all the golfers I know outside this group, it would be at least 80% in favor of the second of GC's pics as the "better" bunkers....
TH
-
Geoffrey--
I don't want to debate the issue, but I also don't know for sure what you are talking about. You are probably referring to past work--that I agree was an abomination and a waste of money. But I doubt that you are aware of current efforts.
These may also be a waste of money--unless the University commits to the course on a long-term basis. And the commitment has to come from higher up than it has in the past. It may be a long shot, but I merely was saying that there is some hope for the first time. I didn't say that I was optimistic, just hopeful. Not a certainty--but we'll see.
What I was also saying is that more than the architecture of the course needs to be looked at--also the economics of the course and the number of rounds needs to be drastically changed or it will just revert to where it was.
-
Redanman--
That same point in almost those same words has been made to high-up University officials. We'll see what, if anything, happens.
-
Tom Huckaby:
I'm asking this group to express its own feelings - not to surmise what you believe others - the average Joe - might think.
What is YOUR opinion? Is Yale the greatest tragedy in golf? If not, what other courses would you nominate?
-
Tim:
Ok. I was just trying to make the point that it really doesn't matter all that much what GCA aficionados (participants in this group) think, because so many outside this group could care less what was there before if what's there today is fun and clean and decently kept - all of which is the case at Yale.
But if you wish to deal with this in the abstract, then yes, I can't think of any greater tragedy architecturally than has occurred at Yale. Of course to me it's a way bigger tragedy that they built condos all over a horrible course near my house that I used to play a lot, but I gather that's not what you're after either.
TH
-
Jim H
you say "But I doubt that you are aware of current efforts."
Are you aware that it was ME that got John Beinecke to look at the original work done by Roger Rulewich? I told him what a butcher job it was and if it was not drastically changed the course would be horribly scarred. This was THE impetuous for the current pseudo-restoration, fund raising program and search for a new superintendent.
Are you aware that it was ME who put John and Carey in touch with George Bahto? George did hole by hole drawing for them using the aerials and ground level photos. Are you aware of that and that these detailed drawings that are faithful to the original course (1934) were never used?
Are you aware of a white paper report written by George describing what needed to be done to restore the course? Was it heeded? NO. Does this need to be made public too.
Jim- I know the details and they are not pretty. I know and have played the course with members of that "oversee committee" and frankly they don't know s**t about classic golf course architecture or Raynor's style.
-
pLyed it two weeks ago. Seems like other then drainage, some bunker restoration, some tree removal,and improved agronomy, it should be left alone. It would be as much a tradgedy for the course to become too refined.
I have always thought that the Yale course was sort of a museum piece. Even the Rembrandts and Picassos get cleaned once in a while- but no new brush strokes.
I hiope those of you that have the pull can continue to put on the pressure to make sure this thing is done right. Some old course can an should be renovated- YAle needs a restoration.
-
Tom Huckaby:
I guess I'm looking for people to offer one of the following kind of responses:
a) Yes, Yale is the greatest tragedy in golf
b) No.......I nominate the following:_________
c) No, Yale is not a tragedy because:________
I'm firmly in the "a" camp.
-
Tim:
OK.
With no further qualifiers (ie the word "architecturally" that I use, or "that still exists with its routing intact" that redanman uses), then put me firmly in the c camp.
Yale is not the greatest tragedy, because it still exists and is still very fun to play. I'd be a member there in a heartbeat if they'd take me, which sure as heck ain't gonna happen!
Any course that has been paved over or for whatever reason no longer exists is a greater tragedy than Yale.
If you are basing this on the loss of great architecture at a course that still exists, then I join you in the a camp.
Make sense?
TH
-
My vote would be the demise of Lido as the greatest tragedy in American golf.
My second vote would be what has happened at Augusta National over the last 30 years.
-
I can't say if Yale is the greatest tragedy but redanman hit the nail squarely on the head regarding $$ resources.
Yale has more money than MANY countries. How and why the golf course is not prepared turf wise and architecturally wise is beyond reason.
The best part is the continuing amnesia that those who run the show in New Haven have with the pedigree of course they have. I can tell you this if there was a move to can a few English Literature professor types there would be more of an uproar than there is with the golf course.
-
Please forgive an ignorant question, gentlemen:
Why does Yale want to own a golf course?
-
Dan
Presumably for the enjoyment and recreation of their faculty, students and alums. MANY colleges have golf courses and they are among some of the best classic courses around (Yale, Stanford, Michigan, Ohio State, Cornell) *sorry if I left anyone out*
The only good outcome I can see is if the alums bought the place from the school and ran it as a real private facility allowing students, the golf team and faculty access to the course.
-
Joel is probably correct, but I have to say that Yale isn't too far behind.
What a golf course, and what a bunch of nincompoops running the place. Start at the top with the University and their endowments. You would think they could come across a leader in the university system that knew how to deal with Unions. We aren't talking a normal labor union herre, we are talking about the Teamsters, and I can tell you that they have given ALL other labor unions a bad reputation. It is simple though and not nearly as hard as everyone thinks it would be in dealing with them. They have an agreement, and if they don't work to that agreement, then they (the workers) can be either be suspeneded or terminated.
Scott, to call Yale a golf course that is fun to play in its current condition is a pat on the back to these yoyo's to continue their plight in destroying the golf course. I have to tell you that I see a remarkable amount of this destruction as happening in the last few years, and it isn't going to stop until somebody or something does something about it. The features that Seth Raynor literally caved out of this unbelievable site are clearly disappearing out there faster and faster. But what difference is it going to make if people still consider the course fun to play and do nothing about it?
Yale may in fact may not be the Greatest tragedy in golf, but it is surely looking like a complete failure in modern terms. Complete failure to protect another one of Golf's Classics from the hand of the Modern Thinking Man.
Please excuse me, I now have to return to my test pattern of realization..........Focus, Focus, Focus. Focus on what I have seen............
-
Tommy:
Welcome back, and I look forward to many missives describing your recent adventures. It's going to be very fun to hear about! Please do share as much as you care to.
I joined Scott in saying Yale is fun to play in its current condition. The bottom line is that it is so. Yes, it sure as heck might be better, in a lot of ways. But if one can't enjoy a round at Yale as it is today, one is plain and simple more into the study of architecture than the playing of the game. There is nothing wrong whatsoever with that - hell, most people who participate here are definitely that way - but in the big wide real world of golf, that is a tiny minority. So when it comes to playing the game, well... Yale ain't a tragedy as it is, that's all.
You ask "what difference is it going to make if people still consider the course fun to play and do nothing about it?"
To which I say, right on, brother, fight the fight. More people DO need to care about what's going missing in our game and what is being bastardized.
The problem is, so few people do...
So my point is a very cynical, very pessimistic one. Only a small minority cares how the course used to be, it's pretty damn fun as it is, so it just ain't gonna be changed.
That's not to say it SHOULDN'T BE... in a perfect world they'd give Geoffrey and George free reign and New Haven and the golf world would be way better for it.
The other problem is that the world isn't perfect.
Tragically so.
TH
-
Since all that I know about architecture is only what I have learned here....and it being one of the things that I have learned is that Raynor was favorable to the geometric shape....couldn't the perfectly round bunkers now at Yale be considered Raynoresque..
-
Tommy,
Compared to 99% of courses out there, Yale is still a hell of a fun round of golf due to the routing, which is still there, and the rollercoaster ride that the course has. Bunkering and some green shapes are what is the difference between a good and great Yale GC, but it's still plain fun. You just happen to be one of the (pardon the term) snootiest people on earth when it comes to golf architecture.
How is the 1st green, with it's immense size and undulations (and partial blindness from fairway), still not fun?
What about the tee shot and approach to #3? Yes the punchbowl is not there, nor the size out to the surrounds, but the blind Alps-like approach still is fun.
What about the blind approach on #8?
#9 needs no explanation.
#10 has the tee shot to a blind landing area, then that huge uphill approach to a green you can't see.
#11, tee shot blind and blind approach from far enough back.
#12 tee shot with hillocks and blind uphill approach to large two-tiered green.
#13 longish Redan from up high.
#14 tiny Knoll green.
#17 fun Principal's Nose on Double Plateau green.
#18 Roller coaster personified. 600 yards of way up and way down.
EDIT: Huck, I said Yale was still a blast to play in it's current condition in my first post in this thread.
-
Scott, I just don't think you are getting the big picture here, and that's alright, go ahead. This way it will justify a wasted weekend, very soon up there in New Haven, playing a course that is a "once was." Then you can act like your having a good time.
Thats it for me on this thread. If I'm not getting through, I don't want to deal with it.
-
Scott - thanks for the edit - I caught that and modified my post to say I joined you in this thinking.
Tommy - I believe each of Scott and I do understand what you are saying. I just don't believe either of us would say Yale is patently awful as it is, and Scott listed the reasons why. In terms of its place in the golf world and trends toward bastardizing great classic courses, then yes, what has occurred there is tragic and as I say, we do need people to fight the fight so this doesn't happen elsewhere.
It's just still a damn fun course to play, in many ways, and if that defeats the purpose of the crusade, well... that's a tragic reality also... which is really all I am trying to say.
I'd enjoy a weekend playing there any time. I wouldn't kid myself that it isn'ts less than it was, or might be. But I'd still have fun playing golf there.
And that is because as we've discussed many times, I am way more into playing the game than studying architecture. I wish it were different, for purposes of this group... but just as I don't expect you to love playing there, for this reason, don't expect me NOT to enjoy playing there, and don't tell me I'm fooling myself about anything.
Not that you did, you said this to Scott!
TH
-
Tommy,
I understand your point of view and your opinion. You're sometimes (often) unable to have fun golfing on a butchered/neglected once-great course because of the "once was" factor. Most people, including many here, still can have fun playing them. I've played a number of courses that have been signifcantly altered over the years that are still very good courses regardless.
Compare Yale now to all courses in the L.A. area now. How many currently are more fun to play than Yale?
Believe it or not, but fun can be had on a golf course that has been altered from it's original design for the worse. And the course itself can still be fun.
-
Come to think of it, Tommy, why are you even going if you already know it's going to be a wasted weekend? Go somewhere else.
-
Tommy,
Compared to 99% of courses out there, Yale is still a hell of a fun round of golf due to the routing, which is still there, and the rollercoaster ride that the course has. Bunkering and some green shapes are what is the difference between a good and great Yale GC, but it's still plain fun. You just happen to be one of the (pardon the term) snootiest people on earth when it comes to golf architecture.
How is the 1st green, with it's immense size and undulations (and partial blindness from fairway), still not fun?
What about the tee shot and approach to #3? Yes the punchbowl is not there, nor the size out to the surrounds, but the blind Alps-like approach still is fun.
What about the blind approach on #8?
#9 needs no explanation.
#10 has the tee shot to a blind landing area, then that huge uphill approach to a green you can't see.
#11, tee shot blind and blind approach from far enough back.
#12 tee shot with hillocks and blind uphill approach to large two-tiered green.
#13 longish Redan from up high.
#14 tiny Knoll green.
#17 fun Principal's Nose on Double Plateau green.
#18 Roller coaster personified. 600 yards of way up and way down.
EDIT: Huck, I said Yale was still a blast to play in it's current condition in my first post in this thread.
Gee, Scott, how could you possibly enjoy any of the above features if the bunkers look different? ;)
KC, ducking...
-
Ken, The problem isn't just vastly altered bunkers that have been filled-in, reshaped; or just plainly reconstructed. The problem is that many greens have been altered or for a better term "flattened" in the essence of easier putting; Mowing lines for the faiways and rough, looks as if the grounds crew simply goes out and mows without a definitive line on what to mow and at what height. Picture the Raynor trademark mounds that are utilized entirely for play. What happens if you can't use it for play? The features become unusable, and this is where the golf course really suffers. How is it supposed to play the way Raynor intended it to?
What about the Alps hole? Does it play like an Alps? Yes, they do intend to restore the Alps Mound, but even if they do, will it play like it should? What about the Principal's Nose feature on the Plateau 17th? Does it play better covered in weeds then it would as the way it was designed? While it may have the blinding affect of preventing view of the green, what happened to the sand that used to surround it?
This is the problem with Scott's analogy. Little attempt is made to understand the features of the golf course that at one time made it a famed and reputable golf course. Would Scott Burroughs go out of his way to visit Yale, if it was a new course that played exactly the same way as it does today and didn't have the reputaton of being a Seth Raynor design? I know I wouldn't, and I think there are many out there that would totally agree he wouldn't. If he disagrees, then he should make it a point to see the entire body of work from Roger Rulewich's career.
To celebrate Yale is like trying to celebrate the acheivements of OJ Simpson.
-
Tommy,
How can you possibly say the Yale is a RR design? Yale is Rulewich in only the bunker shapes, some positions, and some green shapes and contours. He did not do the routing, the size of some of the greens (#1, #9, #12, for example). No one besides Raynor/Mac would have done the roller coaster routing that is Yale. It would never ever get built today. One blind shot is too many for most modern designs, not to mention the numerous ones at Yale. Only perhaps Mike Strantz incorporates more than a few in a modern design.
Do yo call Riviera a Fazio design for his butchering of one hole? What about after C&C did their work there that didn't go well? Was it then a C&C design?
I went out of my way because it is a Raynor routing, still with a lot of the playable characteristics intact and a lot of the fun, too.
I wouldn't have to worry about it being built today, because it never would. RR's design on this property, almost any architect's for that matter, would be absolutely different. Holes like #10, #12, and #18 don't get bult any more. They are different because of Raynor, not RR.
-
Tom Huckaby:
It is hard enough for anyone to make a difference at Yale. But now, if any opponents of restoring Yale read what you and Scott have written, it may be even more difficult. They could hold up a poster and say "gee, even the guys at Golfclubatlas think Yale is fine the way it is".
Why call Tommy "snotty"? Was CB MacDonald "snotty"? Do we want golf architects to adopt a "it's good enough" attitude? How do places like Yale or Friar's Head or Winged Foot get built without people trying to achieve excellence?
-
Tim:
I did not call Tommy anything. Scott said he was "one of the (pardon the term) snootiest people on earth when it comes to golf architecture", which I kinda agree with, lovingly at all times, Tommy (consider it a term of endearment).
I would never call anyone snotty here or anywhere. Ok, maybe I call my kids that, but they deserve it.
As for the rest, I am just a grain of sand on the beach of golf, and if the Yale management is basing decisions on my endorsement, then maybe they really are as fucked up as people say.
By that I mean, I sure as hell don't take anything I say here all that seriously, and anyone who does ought to have their heads examined. This is all just treehouse banter, nothing more, nothing less.
And Yale remains a damn fun course on which to play the game. Read my words more carefully also - I never said it's fine how it is - I even agree with you that it's an architectural tragedy. I just do think that what's there now is still a lot of fun to play, and a LOT of other people would say it's fine as it is, and that's the reality of the situation. Yes, if change were to occur, this reality would have to be different. I just don't see how not acknowledging the reality helps...
But then again I am not the crusader / educator that guys like you and Tommy are. I just play the game.
TH
ps - Tim, I'd insert lots of smileys here if the thing were working correctly. I am trying to take this very lightly - my apologies if this subject is very serious to you, as it seems to be.
-
Huckster- you played Yale GC with us on an ideal fall day. The greens were as good as they have been in the recent past and it was realtively firm that time of year. I don't remember when Scott played but I recall it was probably the summer when conditions were better.
-
Yes, Tim, I said "snootiest", not "snottiest". Do I think Yale should do a 'real' restoration? Absolutely. But you're right, I think plenty of people think it's still a fun place to play.
However, on the other side, lots of 'modern' people like pristine conditions, which Yale doesn't have, so why isn't that taken care of? You'd think members might complain about that.
And the routing itself. It is extremely hilly with lots of blind shots, not things 'most' modern-type golfers tend to like (referring to those who walk re: hilliness). Why don't they get rid of all the blindness and flatten things out a bit?
Yale is so different from 99%+ of other courses, it's scary. A big part of that is the rollercoaster routing. Another big part is Raynor/CBMac features that still exist today (really, there is stuff there!!). Stuff like the Biarritz 9th. Double plateau #17. Short #5. Redan #13. Alps #12, and Alps-like #3. Except for Redans, these features aren't built any more.
EDIT: Geoff, it was June last year and it rained a lot prior to my round, so it was wet. Weeds were plentiful, too.
-
GC - you're right, I sure did, thanks to a very nice guy who arranged the outing, and the weather (insert smiley). So perhaps I have a very gilded view of Yale? I guess so... I do know that when people compain about conditions I just shake my head and wonder what they'd think if they played the local muni crap I frequent...
But conditions aren't really the issue anyway. You did show me very skillfully many of the missed opportunities and poor work done by the RR people... and I sure acknowledge that, even if I don't understand it all that well (who could seeing the course just one time?)....
I just do think what's there is so darn fun, and agree with all the features Scott listed, so it's very hard for me to bag on Yale too much, even if I understand as best as I can the "tragedy" that exists there....
Maybe this makes no sense, I don't know. I just compare Yale to the crap I play and it's hard for me to see it as a tragedy, even if I understand why it would be called such.
TH
-
Jim H,
I was disappointed that you didn't respond to Geoffrey Child's questions, because that would give us a frame of reference with respect to what you are aware of, and what Geoff is aware of. If you could respond, it would be helpful.
Jesplusone,
Are you aware of the substantive changes to the second green and third hole that took place some time ago ?
Geoff Childs & Jim H,
What department at YALE is resonsilbe for the oversight of the golf course, from a maintainance, finance and architectural perspective ?
Who is/are the individual/s that head up these departments ?
Who is the individual that determines the capital and operating budgets for the golf course ?
Who is the individual who has the authority to approve architectural changes to the golf course ?
Who would a Superintendent report to at YALE ?
Before anything positive can happen, the powers at YALE must undergo the six steps of rehabilitation.
Recognition of the problems
Vision to restore the golf course (Bahto Plan)
committment to the successful future of the golf course
funding of capital and maintainance budgets
implementation of the plan (Bahto Plan)
maintainance of the golf course as architecturally intended.
Until this happens at the highest responsible level, little will change.
I would suggest shedding a little sunshine on the specific individuals responsible for the care, and future of the golf course. Sometimes the light of scrutiny motivates people to perform admirably.
Tommy Naccarato,
Wasn't your nickname "sunshine" ? ;D
-
Tom Huckaby:
The whole point is that there are a select group of courses that are so good that they ought to be maintained to the very highest standards. By "maintained" I'm referring to both the architecture and the "maintenance".
Yale is in that select group. I applaud folks like Geoffrey Childs for making the effort to encourage Yale to achieve all that it can and should be.
The "it's good enough" attitude is painfully disappointing.
-
Tim:
Agreed completely. It is very disappointing. I'm as disappointed as you are in those who hold this attitude and I applaud Geoffrey - and George - as loudly as you do.
I also just acknowledge reality. They have a very tough battle on their hands.
And if the "loss" is what's there at Yale now, well... it's still a hell of a lot better than 99% of the courses in the country, so I can live with it.
I also applaud, however, those who can't live with it, and choose to try and make a difference.
I just don't join them in their quest, as much as I admire them for it.
And in the end, it doesn't make a tiny bit of difference.
TH
-
Tom Huckaby:
How is greatness in golf architecture achieved, maintained and/or restored?
Does taking the view that "it is already better than 99%" help the cause or only make it more difficult?
-
Without guys with attitudes like Tommy's the medicority would suck the respect and appreciation Tommy's talking about, into a black hole, the size of...the size of... the size of infiniteum.
There is no greater shame than having a treasure and not keeping it in the condition a treasure is deserving of.
Is that what you meant Tommy?
-
Adam,
Well said. Of course, playing Yale is still fun.....even when your game sucks like mine does these days. But, it is a treasure and ought to be treated as such.
-
Pat Mucci:
I was aware of the changes on #3 and forgot to mention that in my post. I was also aware that some work had been done on #2, but not the extent. It seems to meld pretty well with the course overall.
I haven't seen it mentioned on prior posts, but I was told by a senior YGC staff person about 10 years ago that the golf course had to support itself, which is true with almost all college courses anymore. Additionally, the course sits on about 700 acres which was donated to yale in the early thirties, I believe. Yale pays the city of New Haven property tax on the entire parcel, and it must all come from golf course revenues. Hence the continuously tight budget.
It's unfair to say, as some have, that since the University has a large endowment, it should support the golf course better. That money is probably mostly earmarked for student financial aid and academic facility building and maintenance. Financial support for the course must come from those with an interest- alumni, members, other users, or someone with a financial stake in its success.
-
Jesplusone,
I don't believe that the course occupies anywhere near 700 acres. Perhaps the acquired parcel totaled 700 acres.
If the University doesn't like paying taxes on the land, like everybody else, they can always sell it.
In addition, their endowment is massive, and I believe that if they sought dedicated funds STRICTLY for the golf course, they could get them.
It's a matter of awareness and commitment.
There would seem to be a minimum standard for reasonable maintainance, and they don't appear willing to commit the resources necessary to meet that minimum.
The second green was dramatically altered, and I believe it was more than 10 years ago.
# 17 was also altered, and the green was moved back about 60 yards and to the right on # 16.
George Bahto has a fairly thorough grasp on what was, what was altered, and what could be. Someone should listen to him.
-
Joel Stewart:
Agree with you re: Lido vs. Yale. At least Yale still exists with it's original routing pretty much intact.
Can't agree with you on ANGC, though. Still think that without the Masters and the course alterations that have been made as a result, ANGC would have become the Pasatiempo of the East after Jones' death.
Are you coming this way for the January GCA event?
-
Yale
Timber Point
Bel-Air
ANGC
Engineers
Lakeside
Banff Springs
Hollywood
Pasatiempo
Scioto
Inverness
Oak Hill
Oyster Harbors
Merion
-
It was a real pleasure to meet and play with Tommy, Tim Weiman and of course Geoffrey who continues to shed new light on the history of Yale during each round we play at Yale.
I have said it before here, but IMHO not one penny of endowment money should be spent on Yale Golf Course. There are and should be other priorities at Yale University. That said, a Yale alumni group can and should take the initiative, but as Jerry the wise old Irish starter once told me about Yale politics, "Michael, you put two Yale men in a room together and they are sure to come out with 3 or 4 opinions."
My lasting memory of Monday will always be hearing Tommy talking his "tough love" to the Director of Golf and the Men's Golf Coach as we were leaving. I conveniently had a cell phone call to make, so can any of you shed some light on the outcome ? Don't worry, I actually already know it ;).
By the way Tommy, didn't you see some other courses?
-
Mike Sweeney:
I, too, will never forget Tommy's "tough love".
Thanks to you, Geoff and Tommy for an enjoyable afternoon.
By the way, I'm with you on the matter of Yale's endowment. The mere mention of taking significant money from that source would only make it more difficult to get anything done.
A restoration project for Yale would have to be funded by a separate fund raising effort.
-
I too despise the architectural changes that have been made to the Yale course, and agree with Geoffrey and redanman that George Bahto would bring the course into the top 25 courses in the country, combined with maintenance improvements.
I just want to stick up for Tom Huckaby for a moment here, because I think I know what he's getting at. Like Tom, I grew up playing dogtrack public courses, and although Yale is hardly in the pristine condition of well-heeled private clubs, both of us have played MUCH worse.
I think his other point is that we're arguing about a great course becoming as great as it once was. Right now, even with all of the negative changes, is still in the top 100 classic courses in the country. It's a shame, agreed, that it could even be so much better, but the routing on a wonderful property, along with the remaining bold Raynor features, ensures that it remains "fun" and exciting golf.
So, I think his point is that there are plenty of other courses that are in far more dire straits, and other classic courses that are now some shell of their former selves. I believe he is saying that most non-architectural afficianados playing there would have fun anyway, particularly in comparison to most courses, and that makes it more difficult for those of us who believe it's a "tragedy".
I truly don't think he or Scott meant any disrespect to the efforts of Geoffrey, George, or anyone else seeking to return the course to its former glory, because we all agree that it's something that should be done.
The work done in the name of restoration so far is a joke.
Tom MacWood;
Your list is pretty amazing. And here I thought I was a purist! ;)
-
I have a great idea!
Yale should swap it's golf course with the USGA for the Russian Tea Room. Yale could use that property as a new "Yale Club" for NYC and the USGA could have land for a new museum as well as a living laboratory for GCA and other aspects of golf. Maybe, even in the future they could hire one of their "Doctors" to improve the course and it could become part of the Open rota. Or, maybe I'm jsut dreaming.
BTW--if the course is good enough for Huckaby, it's good enough for me, and most of what I read leads me to beeleive that this is much more like a minor farce than any sort of "tragedy."
-
--How can you possibly say the Yale is a RR design?
Scott, I didn't say Yale was a RR design. But give him some time, and I'm sure a piece of that endowment money will be looking really good to him, and he will suggest a complete remodel--by his hands of course.
I wouldn't have to worry about it being built today, because it never would. RR's design on this property, almost any architect's for that matter, would be absolutely different. Holes like #10, #12, and #18 don't get bult any more. They are different because of Raynor, not RR.
I haven't seen it, but I'm sure Mike Benham will disagree with you about Brian Silva's really neat rendition of the Biarittz at Black Creek. Perry Dye has made a career out of trying to emulate his father, who's emulating Seth Raynor to some degree. And for that matter, Raynor should then also be castigated for emulating Mother Nature and many even older classic architects in his designs. I salute the fact that many golf architects, looking for inspiration rely on designs that influenced them, more then many of them were influenced by Seth Raynor.
"One blind shot is too many for most modern designs not to mention the numerous ones at Yale."
Did you know that Roger Rulewich, a Yale alumni and ASGCA member is widely known for the huge degree of blindness in his designs? In fact, he is known in the profession as the man that practices it the most. (I wonder what course could have inspired him to this degree?:))
In considering that he is the consulting architect at Yale, you think he would take notice of the ever-shrinking putting surface problems at Yale as well as the putting surfaces that once existed there and that were removed by someone else. Look at Geoff Childs pictoral evidence from the 18th hole See how the green literally climbs up that knob in the right corner and actually wraps around the inverted Raynor/Macdonald dune-like mound. For those of you that are shot-makers, and judge the courses for the intensity and the value of each shot, what would you think of a pin in that back corner?
Scott, are you stating that no one besides Raynor & Mac would have done the roller coaster routing that is Yale. Well, what about Bel Air, the site of what was once a brilliant routing by Billy Bell at San Pedro Golf & CC or the old back nine at Ojai before it was altered? What about Pine Valley?
Granted, Raynor's work to blow out hole #7 from the side of that mountain is impressive, I'm sure Jeff Mingay or anyone else who has seen Banff can tell you that Stanley Thompson blew-up an even bigger mountain creating that routing. In the modern world, come out to La Habra, and I'll show you a routing filled with all sorts of blind shots by Damian Pascuzzo that should have just been built as a ride for nearby Disneyland, it is that wild--and unplayable.
Scott, What are you hoping to accomplish by mentioning Riviera? You haven't seen Riviera and really don't know what Fazio has done there other then what you have seen in the pictures we have posted, which certainly does look horrible in any media. But can you comment on what it is replacing, and how Fazio and Marzloff want to change the course by adding features that are totally alien to the masterful architecture at Riviera?
Do you understand that it is all much more then a very non-Thomas/Bell-like serpentine bunker that looks like it belongs at Pelican Hill-South, or the newly crowned greens at holes #8 & 13. Or how about the Great Mayan pyramid tee on #5? What about the hidden-tee so far back on #12 that has been used just one time in the Nissan Open?
You quite obviously have never met Bill Coore, because you would know for a FACT that he would never be so bold to claim anything he had done to a golf course that was the embodiment and last sign that Captain George C. Thomas really did exist. (Thanks Redanman for that pogniant observation.) In fact, I do think Bll Coore would take it as a polite insult, if indeed you were suggesting he was trying to upstage the Captain.
Roger Rulewich on the other hand has told the Director of Golf at Yale that he IS a Golf Architect, NOT a Historian. I think that should sum it up as far as Seth Raynor and Yale is concerned.
2.-Coore & Crenshaw in a comparison as Roger Rulewich? What I have seen of Yale, C&C would never ever want to claim that dreck as their work. I'm sure Tom Fazio would feel the same, but I don't want to speak for Tom Fazio--EVER. Speculating for him is hard enough!:)
Take the work of Roger Rulewich at Yale, and compare it to the work of Coore & Crenshaw at Riviera. In Mucci-speak--The Mission Statement!:)
-Both were given the green light by the powers that be to RESTORE original features.
Look at Geoff's images, both old and new from Yale #18, and then look at Coore & Crenshaw's work on Riviera #6. Which team got the "MISSION STATEMENT" right?
(http://home.earthlink.net/~tommy_n/Bell.JPG)
(http://home.earthlink.net/~tommy_n/Hathaway.JPG)
(http://home.earthlink.net/~tommy_n/The Boys.JPG)
So, NO! I don't think of Riviera as a C&C design or heavens forbid, a Fazio design, and I don't think Roger Rulewich should be at Yale either for all of the right reasons. In all likelihood, I think George Bahto would be the man all the way, and I don't think George would put his name attached to the course, in the same way Roger Rulewich likes his. I like George. Much like the way I used to like Ken Cotner! Also, are you implying blame about Riviera on Coore & Crenshaw? If so, I would like to hear your take about the Riviera turf debacle before even trying to point blame at Coore & Crenshaw.
Plus, I don't think you went out of your way to see Yale because it was "still a Raynor routing with a lot of playing characteristics still intact." I have this feeling that you went there because you were probably were supposed to play somewhere else, and it fell through.
JakaB, its your turn, Go ahead and let it rip! And Tom Huckaby, get the emails to Scott sent, telling him I'm really an asshole and that taste really doesn't matter.
-
Mike Cirba:
Don't the comments of Tom Huckaby encourage "it's good enough" kind of thinking?
How does that kind of mentality improve other courses that may be in "dire straits"?
-
Mike & Tom- While I understand your point about the course being playable and even enjoyable, that doesn't take away from the apparent fact that whomever is ultimatley responsible or has been responsible, has lacked the foresight to do the due diligence needed to survive in todays market.
Since hindsight is 20/20 when do you think Yale should've done a sympathetic resto? 84'? 91? even as late as 98', just before the market turned? Now, there is little chance of catching up to the potential revenue gains that could've been had during all those years and will likely have to wait for the market to start clipping back up Or, throw pennies at problems that need thousands? This type of fiduciary responsibility is usually seen west of the Peco's, not east.
I really want to hear a blow by blow of Tommy's tough love no matter how emotional. Better yet, what was the DOG's reaction, a polite nodding of his hat rack?
-
I have a great idea!
Yale should swap it's golf course with the USGA for the Russian Tea Room. Yale could use that property as a new "Yale Club" for NYC and the USGA could have land for a new museum as well as a living laboratory for GCA and other aspects of golf. Maybe, even in the future they could hire one of their "Doctors" to improve the course and it could become part of the Open rota. Or, maybe I'm jsut dreaming.
Fantastic.
-
How about Lombartzyde, a fine links, by Park, in Belgium that was bombed to pieces in WW1, a new course rebuilt by Colt and Alison (I think) which was then blown up in WW2. Now that's tragic!
-
For the record (again)
I agree completely that the Yale endowment should not be touched for the golf course. There are ample opportunities to raise funds directed solely for the golf course restoration and subsequent maintenance. In fact, such a project exists headed by a friend of mine (I hope). My problem is with the goals of the project, the knowledge of the committee members and the use of Roger Rulewich as a restoration architect. I do not and have not ever questioned their intentions, motives or love of the golf course.
I would also like to back up Mr. Huckaby. I LOVE the Yale golf course. It is a treasure that I enjoy playing each and every time I have the privledge. There are so many great and thrilling shots required on every hole that make it so. I mourn for the fact that it could easily be one of the GREAT elite places in the golf world. All the documentation is there for a total sensitive restoration. Its a crime and a shame but that's just MY opinion and they certainly have the right to disagree. I just don't want to go down quietly.
Tommy - thanks for the credit but it was the great George Bahto that discovered that 1925 photo of the 18th hole. It is a treasure that should have been used. Also notice even in that photo (from the mowing patterns) the lost contours in that green.
Adam- you asked what year to restore to. We have the old construction photos to go by (hundreds of them!) and this, a beautiful clear 1934 aerial
(http://home.earthlink.net/~leftygolfer/_images/YGC.jpg)
-
Tim;
It's NOT good enough, clearly. The work that I saw two summers ago was laughable if it wasn't so sad.
I think part of what Tom is trying to communicate, however, is that most people don't have any architectural or historical appreciation or understanding of what was there previously.
Joe Q. Public visiting Yale for the first time would probably generally complain that conditions weren't uniformly green, hed almost certainly take a cart to avoid any exercise on that rolling terrain, and would probably think it was a cool course because of some roller-coaster holes and quirky attributes like the Biarritz. Some of it he'd probably call "unfair", and other's he might not know what to make of it. But, I think it's a fair assumption that he'd have fun, regardless. He'd give it 3.5 out of 5 stars on the Golf Digest Rate-O-Meter that they publish every year or so.
THAT is what those of us who care are up against. I think that's Tom's point.
-
Tommy,
Using a Raynor Replica course to show that Raynor features don't get built any more? That's cheating. It was built on purpose that way. Very little else is built nowadays.
Rulewich incorporates blindness in his designs? OK, I'll take your word for it, just give me examples you've seen though. Crumpin-Fox? Or some of his RTJ work? I also said MOST architects don't incorporate much blindness these days. He's one. Even Doak has said he purposefully avoids it for the most part.
You're right I haven't seen #8 at Riv since Faz 'butchered' it. You and Geoff S. were kind enough to show and explain why it's so bad. I took yours and Geoff's word for it. But I HAVE played #8 at Riv, twice in fact, before Faz got to it, back before the alternate fairway was put back. It was a narrow and partly awkward short par 4, requiring an iron off the tee (IMO), with some decent fairway undulations. What I told you in the past is that I've never played the back nine at Riv.
-
Long-time reader, first-time poster.
The short answer to the original query: It may not be the greatest tragedy, but it's in my top four or five. And rising.
College golf was among my beats when Golf World moved north to Connecticut in 1989. Dave Paterson, men's coach at Yale, was on the magazine's college poll panel, and he helped me "join" under a special membership category. Playing Yale didn't erase the pain of leaving those fab courses around Pinehurst, but it helped.
Playing Yale for six summers, somewhere in the vicinity of 200 rounds, was bittersweet. I grew up playing scruffy, unknown public courses (the $30 junior season pass!) that wouldn't have pushed into anyone's rankings even with pristine conditioning. I knew the chances of seeing them in better shape were nil, as were the chances for any renovations. But seeing a course the quality of Yale treated so poorly was difficult to stomach, especially during rounds that typically stretched past five hours. Long-time players (mostly alums making spring and autumn visits) believed that poor conditioning was the lone culprit, the price paid for having union workers on the maintenance staff. That's a huge factor and one that needs to be underscored in any discussion of what to do with Yale. It took many years to get the general discomfort to a tipping point, but the desire has long been there to raise the necessary funds for any reworking, separate of the endowment. What this project requires, though, is a concerted effort to educate all parties -- administration, athletic department, faculty, endowment, course staff, alums, students, guests -- why what happens after the work is finished is just as important as who does any renovation or how it's done.
What was most galling was that Yale's maintenance took away options the routing presented to every player. For example, No. 8. It's a largely blind shot to the green, but not totally blind. You can try and hit it atop that first ridge with an iron off the tee, and then have a long second. Or there's a small slot in the second ridge, visible only if you drive it down the extreme right side, flirting with the hill shared with No. 7 fairway. But that eight- or 10-yard-wide gap wasn't maintained as fairway. It was rough. I could live with the architect intending the player to chance a view of the putting surface against a dodgy lie in the rough. But the long-time players I spoke with recalled this spot as once-upon-a-time fairway. So poor upkeep stole options from the player: the first tee well to the right that was rarely mowed but makes for a gut-check opening shot, the horrible condition of the bunkers, the shrinking putting surfaces that took away valuable hole locations (that back-right plateau at the 17th, the front-right at the 18th).
Yes, who does the work at Yale is important, as it is in any project. But before the first blueprint is unrolled, there needs to be a serious discussion about what happens after the work is completed. Without that, I fear this group will have a lively discussion a decade from now about how Yale wasted the fruits of its renovation.
-
Scott,
Tom Doak has said here on GCA that he can do Raynor in his sleep. That is a direct quote way before you ever found this discussion group.
I'm sure if you asked Brian Silva if it was cheating, he would laugh it off. Personally, I have talked to many and said that Brian's efforts there are really pretty cool. But if you don't want to except that, then what about Pete Dye, Lee Schmidt, Tim Liddy, David Pfaff (Who, by the way has gone out of his way to have me get him drawings and pictures of Seth Raynor holes from The Ralph.) Do they count? Even Ted Robinson can be added to this, because believe it or not he actually has built features similar to Dye's work--wait....O.K. I'll give you that one! It was a stretch!:)
What about George Bahto? Does he count or is he cheating?:)
-
Phenominal first post Brett. Welcome to the club!
-
Brett:
Thanks very much for your excellent post. You expressed my own feelings far better than I was able to myself.
Our recurring problem at GCA is to get better at articulating our observations about golf architecture, especially as it applies to places like Yale. Your contribution is most welcome.
-
Well done Brett.
The staff at the Yale course and the people behind the restoration are very well intentioned. Some have their hands tied behind their backs by the union and athletic department staff while others simply disagree with the need for a complete and sensitive restoration. It doesn't make for a very good outcome. Roger Rulewich, I don't forgive because he of all people should know better and he is taking a nice fee for his work.
-
Tommy,
I think we can agree that the main point is that you can't enjoy "once was" golf and I can (as well as many others). If I can't enjoy "once was" golf and what if offers today, because I can't bring back the past, there is no reason for me to be there.
I just don't understand your reference of your time at Yale as a "wasted weekend". It was so bad that even spending a couple of days at a "still well-routed" (IMO) course with 3 (I'm assuming) great guys didn't make up for it? If playing with 3 great guys at a still-good-but-not-great course and getting to air your opinions to Yale's DOG is a wasted weekend, something doesn't seem Kosher.
Brett,
Excellent contribution.
-
Scott:
I get the impression that you just don't understand Tommy's passion for excellence.
What Tommy and others are trying to express is that Yale is in that rare air of being so inherently good that it should have been maintained in its very best form.
The whole "it's good enough" attitude just isn't good enough for Yale. The place needs a passion for excellence. That was the point of Tommy's "tough love". I applaud him for that.
-
Tim, I agree that Yale should be restored to its former excellence, but just as Tommy has a tendency to go to extremes in his posts here (and even in life at times ;)
Just because the course isn't what it should be, doesn't mean that it isn't still enjoyable to play. If it was, why were you guys out there? Just to wail over the corpse? You wouldn't need your clubs for that.
It could be greater, but to say that it is a waste of time to play it is crazy IMHO. That is almost as crazy as someone saying that you should play Pacific Dunes 10 times and Bandon 0. ;)
If you only want to play courses that are perfect in every way, I have pity. I can play golf almost anywhere and still enjoy myself. I can see the faults and lament them afterwards, but while I'm playing, I just want to enjoy whatever is there. I guess I'm just not enough of a purist in this regard.
-
Tim,
I understand Tommy perfectly. All it takes is reading his posts. I've also played with him at a "once was" course near his home. We had a lengthy discussion about all things architecture after.
Trouble is is that most classic courses today are "once was". Very few are the same as back then. Fairway lines are narrower, trees have grown and choked corridors of play, bunkers and greens moved, changed, removed, shrunken, added, etc. Ragged looks are gone. Modern distances rendered many "obsolete". An old pic of Pebble's #7 is in one of the "Tillie Trilogy" books and left me aghast at how gorgeous it was. Too bad, but the current hole still has fun characteristics.
We can try to fix these things, and some have been successful. That's great and better for golf. But the fact is that if you constantly lament over all this, no enjoyment can ever be had, and then there's no reason to even play.
-
I say let Yale be and come play NHCC right down the road. No 6 hour rounds at New Haven and no tee times......and the best greens in the state. You can have Yale and their 33,000 rounds per year......no matter how "historic" the architecture.
-
I say let Yale be and come play NHCC right down the road. No 6 hour rounds at New Haven and no tee times......and the best greens in the state. You can have Yale and their 33,000 rounds per year......no matter how "historic" the architecture.
Now that is exactly the attitude all Yalies should've wanted to avoid all along by taking care of, and respecting the course.
Way to go rpurd.
-
I haven't seen it, but I'm sure Mike Benham will disagree with you about Brian Silva's really neat rendition of the Biarittz at Black Creek.
What a minute ... how did I get involved in this one? I can disagree with anyone about anything but at least I like to know what side I am taking ... using my best Bill Clinton imitation "No sir, I have never ever had golfing relations with Black Creek" ...
-
rpurd
New Haven CC is a very nice course. The greens are quite a lot of fun but they are hardly in the same class as the greens Yale once posessed. NHCC is in no way a historic landmark in golf course architecture and should not be mentioned in the same breath. The members have a very nice place to play. You are correct
Since you have made the invitation, I recommend every GCA participant and lurker in the area contact rpurd for a chance to play NHCC :)
-
--How can you possibly say the Yale is a RR design?
In all likelihood, I think George Bahto would be the man all the way, and I don't think George would put his name attached to the course, in the same way Roger Rulewich likes his. I like George. Much like the way I used to like Ken Cotner!
Ah, Tommy, but I succeeded in pullin' ya back in to the thread, with some very descriptive specific comments to boot! ;)
Ken
-
Tommy, Geoff, Tim & Co, I have to step up to the plate for you here.
Playability: Yes, Yale has modern playability and enjoyment. Yes, the average Joe of today would much prefer the pristine green playing field with neat lines. Yes, Yale plays better and is better than a cheap muni. In much the same way that if you removed all the bunkers at a current World Top 10 course, replaced them with about a dozen flat, shallow round traps, flattened all the greens and watered the crap out of the place, it would still be better than a $25 muni. Hell if Royal Melbourne had no bunkers, flat greens and planted 200 mature trees, I'd still prefer to play it over Sandringham Municipal over the road.
The issue here is the museum piece. Look at the photos of #18 at the start of this thread. How many of us have sketched golf hole designs for some years? If the kids of today see Yale of today, they will develop their passion and start their sketches based on clean lines. Based on round featureless bunkers. Based on flattish fast greens. That and all the other classic courses which have "evolved", hide history from these kids. Their development, their likes and dislikes, their quirks and their thoughts of accepted practice, are all formed BEFORE they are exposed to this style.
We can't force all teenagers on earth to do a paper on the golden age, using only photos of the era. So our only way of showing them, is to NOT ACCEPT mediocrity in the name of adequate playability.
-
tonyt:
Thanks for your comments. I'm still trying to understand what people think it takes to create and maintain wonderful venues like Yale or a Royal Melbourne. How could anyone think it does not start with passion a la Tommy Naccarato?
I hope you can keep the "it's good enough" attitude from infecting Melbourne.
-
I haven't seen it, but I'm sure Mike Benham will disagree with you about Brian Silva's really neat rendition of the Biarittz at Black Creek.
What a minute ... how did I get involved in this one? I can disagree with anyone about anything but at least I like to know what side I am taking ... using my best Bill Clinton imitation "No sir, I have never ever had golfing relations with Black Creek" ...
Tommy,
I'm no Mike Benham, but I like your characterization of the Biarittz 17th at Black Creek and would be hard pressed to agree that this is a replica golf course. That does Brian Silva and Doug Stein a great disservice.
As an aside, anyone can build such a green complex, but few could maintain it as well as Scott Wicker.
Regards,
Mike Hendren
-
tonyt;
VERY well stated and one can find not a word to disagree with.
Perhaps we all become too complacent with mediocrity at times.
-
Well stated indeed.
Scott, Somehow, I don't think you are getting the point. I do in fact LOVE Yale. I just don't think giving creedence by saying this famous course is still fun to play, no matter how much they change it, all the while giving them the greenlight with that attitude to change it more to the point that not even the routing will be recognizable I feel is not giving the respect the course deserves.
I will continue later.
Rustic Canyon awaits thee, and there is much traffic to fight.
-
Yes, I plan on rising very early. Can you make it at the crack of dawn? (Didn't Tony Orlando get lucky that way?) 8)
I'm going to try for the 29th. Another from here can make it that day.
We can discuss classic tragedies more then.
-
Tommy
I do not think this is an either/or situation. Why can't one (like Tom H) appreciate what is there at Yale (or wherever)and at the same time also recognise that there could be more? Why does the fact that he enjoyed playing there somehow give credence (sic) to the changes that have been made, or even worse, a "green light" to further unspecified changes? Does one need to see pefect architecture to enjoy it? If so, none of us would enjoy anry round at any course in the world. Even you, your highness, with all due respect.....
-
Rich,
I said the same thing at least twice in this thread. I can enjoy it as it is and still realize the improvements that should be made. I knew before I played it what had been done to it for the worse, I still had fun.
-
Scott
I know you did, but Tommy's hearing is sometimes a bit dodgy, so I thought that I would just repeat it in another register.......
-
Rich Goddale:
Part of the problem at Yale IS the mentality people like Tom Huckaby and Scott Burroughs are expressing. "It's good enough" is what comes through in their posts, no matter how many times they try to clarify what they said or mean.
I'll take Tommy's view over that kind of thinking anyday. Yale is one of those special places that ought to be the very best it can be. We don't need any more of that "it's good enough" kind of thinking.
Yes, the comments of people like Huckaby and Burroughs do give credence to what has been going on at Yale.
-
Patrick Mucci--
Sorry to not respond to your questions earlier, but the site was down (at least to me) yesterday afternoon.
1) I am aware of the information that Geoffrey Childs wrote about. And I agree with him that the money was wasted and the efforts fruitless. It accomplished nothing.
2) There are new efforts underway--which may be good or may be equally worthless. I probably shouldn't go into details, because I'm not a major player and I don't want to imply that I know more than I do. There are people at Yale who love the course and have good intentions. Unfortunately, they aren't high enough up in the administration--and there has not been a high enough commitment yet.
3) The course falls under the Athletic Director's office. At this point in time, an Asssistant AD is the control point. I don't know the real commitment of the AD--but he is key.
4) In my opinion, the issue is not just architecture. As bad as the changes have been, the maintenance issues are worse. And I think they will not change as long as the course is overused. The University is concerned about the cost to it of the course. Yes, it is a rich school--but the demands on it for money are incredible as they are for most schools. It is a matter of priorities--and the course is not yet high enough. But until we change the economic model, not much is going to change. That means, in my opinion, keeping the current University support, reducing the rounds of golf by raising the fees for non-affiliated players, and getting alumni support that endows the course long-term. Tough goals, but possible. It is truly a golf treasure--and a real tragedy!
-
Tim
You fall into the same purist trap as Tommy. Saying it's "good enough" to enjoy playing does not mean it is as good as it could be, nor that it could not/should not be better. If you slavishly follow the standard that courses must be perfect (within their capability) to be enjoyed, well........you would never again enjoy playing any golf course in the world, including Ballybunion (Old or Cashen), Dooks or even Dornoch.....
-
Rich Goodale:
First, I enjoy visiting and playing Yale. I play at lot less impressive courses quite often.
I don't think that is the issue here. Dornoch or Ballybunion may not be perfect, but they are maintained a lot closer to the best they can be than is Yale. Folks at Dornoch and Ballybunion have been better caretakers than the people at Yale. Ditto for many of the other great sites.
What people like Tommy are trying to encourage is the same positive - we have a treasure mentality - that is present at some courses and lacking at Yale.
The "it's good enough" mentality is exactly what needs to be overcome at Yale.
-
Tim
You are not listening.
-
As mentioned before....I can care less about historic or past green conditions. What counts is TODAY......New Haven is by-far a much better golfing experience....no 6 hour rounds....no tee times........usually pristine conditions......
-
Jim H
I agree with everything you said except I am not at all hopeful due to the (lack of) sensitivity of the architect, (lack of) knowledge of the committee and the disregard of the advise of individuals including the worlds leading authority on MacDOnald/Raynor designs. Enough very knowledgable individuals including TommyN and Tim are repulsed even by the new work to the back nine that was directed by the newly formed restoration committee and fund raising group. We will post an example using the strath bunker on #15 later on.
Email me if you want to discuss any of this in private.
-
rpurd
I usually play in the mid morning and my rounds RARELY exceed 4 1/2 hours.
Even today, there are thrilling shots on virtually every hole on the Yale GC that are simply not required given the design of NHCC regardless of the pristine conditions. Even in its run down, neglected state, the Yale GC was thought of highly enough to be the 81st best classic course on Golfweek's list of top 100 golf courses. NHCC is a very nice course and I'm sure the members get great satisfaction from playing but it is not really a good candidate for that list.
-
Rich Goodale:
I'm sure you know I feel the same way.....that others aren't listening.
Sure, folks will clarify whatever they've said, but what really comes across is the "it's good enough" attitude. Given that this attitude is already pervasive at Yale, I hate to see anyone here offer even one word that would only reinforce such thinking.
That's how I read some of what has been written here.
-
As mentioned before....I can care less about historic or past green conditions. What counts is TODAY......New Haven is by-far a much better golfing experience....no 6 hour rounds....no tee times........usually pristine conditions......
Rpurd,
Come on up to the TPC @ River Highlands. We have some great water holes, containment mounding and and you can play where Phil Mickelson has played. Let's do a home and home. Please email me.
I don't care about Yale either, but why do you keep logging onto this thread if you don't care?
-
As mentioned before....I can care less about historic or past green conditions. What counts is TODAY.
Come on up to the TPC @ River Highlands. We have some great water holes, containment mounding and and you can play where Phil Mickelson has played.
Is this a joke?
-
Rich,
We are not expressing air tight views that any great course is a crying shame if it has a more modern look nowadays. But..
By 2100, I would rather lose one or two of the great courses of the world, and see others remain intact, than see all great courses remain, but maintain only their routing and general playability. Thus I place Yale ahead of Lido in the tragedy stakes (with a heavy heart). Also because it is there as an historic example to the young of today. Lido is not. Imagine in 100 years Shinnecock and Bullybunion Old each having seven or eight water holes (the pond replacing the bunker on Ballybunion #18 makes for such an exciting climax to a round).
Golden age grandiose bunkering expanses, large and heavily undulating putting greens and width of pasture over which to hit one’s drive are pieces of what got all these courses so high up in the rankings and esteem they still hold onto today, against hundreds of courses built each year nowadays with modern technology by our side.
As soon as the world top 100 is made up primarily of courses less than 15 years old, and thereby accurately resembling the number of multi million dollar projects that are going up every week, I’ll fold and watch the Yale deterioration continue. But it’s not, so I don’t want to.
I agree with you that other great courses are also different. But Yale has undergone changes that would make a newcomer actually believe it was built more recently if that is what they were told. On the other hand, Ballybunion would be met with gasps of awe and respect if that newcomer was told it was designed in the 1970s.
-
Tim
Nobody I know (particularly me) has said on this thread or this site that Yale is "good enough." I have just agreed (theoretically, since I have never played Yale) with people wuch as Tom H and Scott and Geoff Childs when they say that despite its neglect, architectural butchering and dodgy maintenance it is still a fun, challenging and instructive track which is very much worth playing. You have played there. Do you disagree? Did you and Tommy N waste your time and money being there? Each of you seem to imply that the way to get Yale back to its past and potential glory is to vilify the curent management and suggest that we boycott it lest some unknown people might be misled into thinking that this hugely influential collective body known as GCA thinks that it is "good enough?" This seems to me to be a stragtegy which is self-centered and, more importantly, likely to fail. I think that the work of people like Geoff and George, hard going as it may be, is probably the best way to go.
tonyt
Your fantasy about 2100 is just that. As I'm sure you know from following this DG, the trends today are in fact the opposite of your scenario. Many of our greatest courses (e.g. Pine Valley, Oakmont, Merion, Valley Club, Cpypress Point, Camargo, etc.) are going back to their roots, partricularly in terms of clearing out trees, restoring old green sites, changing mutated bunker shapes, etc. Not all these efforts have met with 100% success, but the trend is very much towards the classical rather than the modern. As you should know, too, I am very much a classicist, as I play most of my golf on "golden age" (and earlier) courses, including one of trhe most repsected of the "Top 100." I do argue for open-mindedness, diversity and a sense of humnor from time to time on this forum which leads those who don't read what I say carefully to try pigeon-hole me as not being on the side of the angels. That is just not true.
-
Trends go back and forth at least five times in a hundred years. We will have at least two more trends like the current one towards classic architecture, at least two towards modernism, and at least one other that you and I know nothing about. All in the next hundred years. The current trend merely makes this next decade or two safer. We have no idea of the cultural ways of 2100.
These current trends towards classic designs. They don't use photos of Yale in 2003 to go classic and exhibit their aims. They use old photos from the golden age.
The main point I have been making, is that I would wish that people who have not yet been born will be able to see relatively untouched golden age looks (not just overall architecture) in the flesh when they are adults. The further we dilute it's presence, the more we proliferate general architectural icons with a modern look rather than the original.
To say that Yale is fine today is like buying the most successful company, then weakening it to a point where it is still successful, but only because of it's original foundations, not because of what you are doing with it today.
I didn't intend to pigeon-hole you, and I apologise if that came across, because I have always read and heard you avidly. I was nervous in the first place posting like that after you!
I too am open minded, and I am also in favour of evolution of sorts. Which is why out of all the golf courses in the world, only the most 100 or so most historically significant are those I would strongly desire to arrest developments of style that are not IMHO, in keeping with the museum piece. Most courses you listed as attempting to go back to their roots, are closer to their original look than Yale is today.
Please, let my grandkids see sprawling rough cut bunkers and large greens with undulations, rather than be pissed with the super when the stimp reading first goes under 10 in the fall.
-
tonyt
I don't think anyone on this thread (or even on all of this DG) has said that Yale was "fine" as it is. Fun, challenging, interesting, educational, maybe--but always with the caveat that it is a far cry from what it was and could be.
IMO, no course in the world is as "fine" as it could be. All courses that I have played could be improved (the best ones, only in minor ways), either through restoration or renovation or a combination of the two. Nevertheless I can still enjoy them despite their "imperfections." In fact, as we have discussed before, many of these imperfections may in fact be part of the charm of the older venues.
I take your point about the value of having "living museums" of "Golden age" architecture, but I wonder about the practicality. I'd be surprised if a construction like the old 18th green at Yale, whose picture is above in this thread, could maintain that shape and that overall scrufty look without inordinate amounts of loving care. Who would pay for that, and how would they justify the added cost and the look to the 98% of the golfing public who would prefer that green site as it is today?
-
Rich, your point in the last paragraph just then, whilst a touch saddening, is indeed as true as it is practical.
I pray for some wealthy private clubs that are keepers of some of these gems, that they can come up with generations of anal retentive perfectionists.
-
Of all sad words of tongue and pen the saddest are these - what might have been
John Greenleaf Whittier
Even more sad is "what might BE." :'(
I've yet to play Yale, but I think I'll go re-read Scotland's Gift: Golf.
Regards,
Mike
-
Thank You Mike.
Maybe Rich can understand the point a little bit better by introducing Whittier. BTW, I went to school in Whittier, and grew up across the street from the City of Whittier (I grew-up in La Mirada)
We were taught a lot about JGW throughout my school years. But unfortunately I have forgotten much of it. Maybe it carried over in my thinking?
Rich and others, I don't undestand where you are getting that both Tim and myself didn't like or appreciate Yale. Now you might not care about the conditioning of Yale or the state of its architecture, but if I may utilize an analogy that may help carry the point further.
Say I own this really cool, original stock 1923 Ford Coupe, but it has been neglected and ill-maintained by its owners in past years, so much that they (the owners) went to a automotive specialist who says he knows how to get the car running to its true form again. They let him take the car and get it running again, only when they come to pick the car up, the specialist has changed the engine to a small block Chevrolet; added some low profile tires and really cool Boyd aluminum wheels, changed the entire interior toleather seats; painted it a bright yellow and is ready to take to the highways. It cost a lot of money to fix the car, but the owner really didn't want the car fixed-up like that. He wanted it to just run like the car was designed, with maybe new paint, but only in an original color, stock interior, stock wheels and tires, and its original engine or facsimile there of.
That's what I think what has happened at Yale. hey knew they had the Ford Coupe, and they wanted it to run like it was designed,and unfortunately, the person in charge of the repair modernized this classic.
While it maybe a cool car to some, it was much cooler as the car was intended. And that is fine--to each his own. But one thing is for sure. Don't call it a Ford Coupe--call it a MODIFIED Ford Coupe, only the person doing the work didn't really have a cool how to make the small block Chevy run right, and the Boyd Wheels and tires were cheap imitation copies,and the paint, well, it has all sorts of runs and orange peel in the paint.
Will a car like this be featured in Hot Rod Magazine? Should it be featured, given the fact that the work performed on the car was substandard?
I don't think so, but that doesn't mean that I can't go to the local car show in the parking lot of Giovanni's Pizza on Wednesday night and say, "Oh look, a 23' Ford Coupe! What a great car! It's sad the owners didn't take better care of it........ But boy, what I would do if I bought it from this guy who owns it! I would completely refurbish it!"
-
Tommy,
Or, let's say the Huckter, Scott or any other treehouse member won a date with Demi Moore only to arrive at her residence to discover that she had put on thirty pounds, was dressed in sweats and had shaved her head but not her underarms. I've no doubt Huckster, Scott et al would enjoy her intimate company nonetheless. However, I suspect both Demi and her GCA paramour would prefer that she be well kept and preserved, playing firm and fast.
Regards,
Mike
-
Rich Goodale:
Yale is far from a waste of time. If you somehow got that from my previous comments than either I haven't expressed myself very well or we speak a different language.
So, let me push the re-set button and start over.
My recent visit to Yale hardly instilled a desire to vilify the current management or boycott the place. To the contrary, I expressed to my host Geoff Childs that it must be nice to live in the area and play the course on a regular basis. If you ever get in the area, I'd encourage you to play the course.
My visit did encourage me to ask - and answer for myself - a series of questions:
1) Are there a group of golf courses that are so inherently good that they ought to be maintained - both the architecture and the maintenance - to the highest standards possible?
2) If so, is Yale deserving to be in this elite group?
3) If Yale does in fact belong, is there in fact a large gap between what the course is today and what it could be with the proper care, including a restoration effort and a long term quality maintenance program?
4) Where does Yale stand in the world of golf architecture in terms of how special it really is and how disappointing the care for the course has been?
Rich, in my mind the answers are as follows:
1) Yes, there are a special group of golf courses in the world that ought to be lovingly maintained for generations to come.
2) I don't know exactly how long the list would be, but Yale would definitely be included.
3) Yes, unfortunately there is a large gap between what Yale is today and what it could be.
4) I'm hard pressed to think of many golf courses that are a special as Yale and where the long term care has been so disappointing.
That being the case, I would argue that Yale may well be the greatest tragedy in golf. I know some might not like the word "tragedy", but I never intended to cover the universe of all things including starving children. I'm limiting the discussion to golf architecture.
I applaud the efforts of Geoff Childs and George Bahto to try and make a difference at Yale.
-
Tim
That last post of yours is right on the mark. I think its important to keep the athletic department and all those responsible for the current upkeep and future developments at the course on public notice that they can not slip under the radar and quietly pretend that they are faithfully restoring this golf course as they claim to the members when asking for their money.
-
PLAYING THE YALE GOLF COURSE TODAY IS LIKE LOOKING AT THE A GREAT PAINTING THROUGH FROSTED GLASS.
HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO DRIVE A 'VETTE WITH 2 SPARK PLUGS WIRES OFF???
SURE STILL PRETTY COOL AND FUN BUT YOU'RE MISSING THE FULL EXPERIENCE OF A GREAT VEHICLE.
(the caps were not a typo)
-
Thanks, Tim
I can't really comment on points 2-4 due to ignorance. My personal opinion is that your point 1 is far too narrow. I think that ALL golf courses should be maintained to the highest possible standard, with "possible" being the operative word. I do underrstnad your point of view, but I'm not sure, yet, that it would be a better idea to spend the limited resources (financial and intellectual) of the afficionado community on a small number of venues (such as Yale) than in trying to raise awareness on a broader scale. I am sceptical of the seeming belief by some that a fully restored and properly maintained Yale would make more of a difference than, say, 100 "improved" and well maintained and operated muni/daily fee/private courses with less pedigree, spread around the country.
George
Would you rather look at a Vermeer under frosted glass or a Kincade (sic) under clear glass. Would you rather drive a Trabant with all cylinder(s?) operative, or a slightly hanicapped 'vette?
...and, before you reply regarding my response to Tim, no, you can't turn a Kincade into a Vermeer, or a Trabant into a Corvette, but you can, IMHO, turn a medicore golf course into a very good one. Isn't that what the "golden age" architects did when they improved places like Shinnecock, Muirfield and Lahinch. etc. etc.?
-
But the golden age architects are now dead. So they aren't here to improve Yale again. So WE have to have a go. And their courses are a finite resource. Golden age courses lost or poorly maintained cannot be replaced by another new course, or by an improvement to a separate mediocre course.
Rich, I fully agree with you about a certain evolution that takes place that does contribute to a course's charm. But not if it is changing the look towards our contemporary accepted styles. All but the most sensitive neo-classic work seems to take on a modern look, and we already have the modern look being built every day all over the world. I'm comfortable with the long term preservation of the principles of what we do nowadays. It's so prolific, it would be virtually impossible to eventually kill it off. But I can't feel as safe about the pre-WW2 look. It's SO much rarer, and once it's gone, it's gone.
-
Rich,
Regarding #1, again, I don't know how long the list should be. Geoff Shackelford put together a list of about 35 other courses he wished he had the USGA millions to restore (see "Grounds for Golf").
If you could expand the list to 100 or more or even all courses, all the better, but also quite ambitious.
With respect to Yale, I think some consciousness raising is appropriate. I see it as more worthy than Bethpage Black, for example.
I'd also like to know more about the current condition of Timber Point......maybe that's another thread.
-
Rich, Where in this am I trying to villify management? I may be taking them to task for neglecting the course, but I don't look at them as villans, and I made that very clear to them while having our discussion about the Golf Course. I do understand some of their plight.
In My Opinion, they are caught in a web of bueracracy that is affecting the design and play of the golf course. I payed to play, so as a CUSTOMER, (I don't think I wasted my money either.) I felt it was neccessary to tell them the Seth Raynor designed course, that they think was designed by C.B. MacDonald was in fact getting further and further from being that, and that they are on a path to lose all of historical signifigance in doing so.
In fact, I'm glad I got to pay, and even told them that because I felt it allowed me to speak my peace with them, and you know what, they may have not listened but they surely will remember me for doing it.
I felt the course deserved it too.
You see, they are in fact trying to make the course better, but are going about it the wrong way, and don't understand the impact of it all. For example, they thnk the bunker on #18 that is right of the green looks like the original, or at least portrays what it should look like. They should use this bunker as a perfect example of what they don't understand, as well as the way mounds are heavily grassed with rough grasses that were intended to turbo kick golf balls into play as part of the Seth Raynor ideal. What fun is it when one can't play the Redan as it was meant to be played, because there is no kick or wha is the use of having interesting putting surfaces flattened because golf greens aren't supposed to be that contoured?
Rich, I understand my attempts at changing the world are minscule, but they re in fact worthy for the designs themselves. Anything less effort is futile.
-
Tommy
You started your critique of Yale by saying: "What a golf course, and what a bunch of nincompoops running the place." I'd hate to hear what you might say if you ever wanted to try to vilify them.....
Nevertheless, keep up the good fight. Much as I think it's a quixotic one, I support your quest.
-
This by tonyt is one of the most intelligent remarks on this subject I've seen in a long time;
"But the golden age architects are now dead. So they aren't here to improve Yale again. So WE have to have a go. And their courses are a finite resource. Golden age courses lost or poorly maintained cannot be replaced by another new course, or by an improvement to a separate mediocre course.
Rich, I fully agree with you about a certain evolution that takes place that does contribute to a course's charm. But not if it is changing the look towards our contemporary accepted styles. All but the most sensitive neo-classic work seems to take on a modern look, and we already have the modern look being built every day all over the world.
Particularly those last two sentences!
And it seems to me that sometimes a guy like Rich Goodale seems to struggle with the idea of "evolution" in golf course architecture, and what it means, what it can and can't do, and consequently to discount the sentiments and the direction of some "purists" or "preservationists" in architecture.
I'd like to propose (again) that this subject, and perhaps Yale is an excellent example, be looked at in two quite separate categories.
1. The architecture of the golf course.
2. The "look" and maintenance practices of the golf course.
To some extent these two things do tend to meld together but not to the extent they can't and shouldn't be looked at separately.
To me the ARCHITECTURE of the golf course can be, and should be looked at as something that can be, and should be rather permanently maintained and preserved--and restored if previously altered and not functioning as well as it apparently once did. In this sense the course does NOT need to have an architect such as Rulewich making changes to the course in the name of modernization or redesign or whatever it's called. It probably would do much better to have someone such as Bahto restore the architecture to more of what it once was (in this sense the apparent sentiment of some who control Yale that restoring the old architecture would make the course play too difficult is sort of semi-ridiculous and really is sort of tragic!).
But the "look" and the maintenance practices are sort of another story. I think they should even be slightly separated even as a single category. "Look" is a tough one to pinpoint but there are some architects (and supers) out there right now that are doing a damn fine job of preserving the "look" of some of the old "Golden Age" architecture really well--and even in the context of the realities of golf today!
Maintenance practices, however, today vs yesteryear (the Golden Age) are sort of a different matter. I'll never forget what Jim Finegan said some years ago about the old courses and modern advancements in some things in golf such as agronomy and maintenance practices. That was that much of the old stuff was and is really wonderful but it can actually be improved over what it ever was in the old days by understanding how certain things that occured after it was completed can make it both play and look better than it ever did in the old days--even at its best! That to me gets into the world of modern maintenance practices, particularly superlative agronomic practices.
We should all be realistic about this and appreciate some of the things those earlier architects and golfers struggled with despite some really stunning architecture--obviously such as Yale. And that was unquestionable some rather dismal and problematic agronomic maintenance practices!
Basically if the likes of Macdonald and Raynor could see the agronomic maintenance practices that are going on right now at a course such as NGLA they'd be beside themselves with glee and pride.
Even a course such as NGLA probably needs to still remain vigilant on preserving its architecture--because a course like that one has earned that right BIGTIME to be architecturally preserved, at this point, certainly it has in my book.
Yale needs to begin to understand better its original architecture first and to appreciate it for what it was! That's ultimately important and after that it needs to do the things necessary to bring back a certain "look" and then apply maintenance practices that may be able to make that course and its playbality sing even better than it ever did back in the Golden Age when it was playing at its best!
In some ways Yale may be about to do that in maintenance. But to accomplish that they'll need to listen carefully to what it takes and will obviously have to realize they may need to spend more money on maintenance then they have. Either that or go about it in a different way. ;)
But again, to me, it's very important in these discussions to separate the architectural part of the course from the "look" and the maintenance practices. They definitely do meld together in various ways but they aren't synonymous.
And the subject of "evolution" in golf architecture is not something that should ever gum up or stop a course from attempting to restore in various ways. And the subject of "evolution" should not confuse or stop any of these discussions on restoration or preservation either--certainly not in the subject of the architectural part, nor in the subject of "look" or maintenance practices.
"Evolution" is another and separate subject to be considered in restoration or preservation. "Evolution", to me anyway, can sometimes be looked at like the lines and age on someone's face! It should be looked at as a sort of character thing. Sometimes it can make a face more beautiful than when it was young and clean and without lines--and sometimes it doesn't. But often "evolution" can make a course more interesting even than it ever was! "Evolution" in architecture is something that needs to be carefully considered and in a piecemeal way when a course is undergoing a restoration. It gets into both look and playability but its so gradual (from play, time and tide) it can be sort of a neat factor!
-
Rich,
I don't see calling them a bunch of nincompoops as painting them as villans. They aren't doing anything devious other then just plainly not understanding what they have.
As far as being Quioxtic, You and Tom like to use that term about me a lot. And that is O.K. but I see this as something everyone should get behind simply because it is the cause for Great golf to survive. What would you say or do if someone would be treating Dornoch or Petreavie:) in the same way?
-
Tommy
I said you "vilified" Yale's mangement, not that you called them "villains." They are two different things. Calling somebody a "nincompoop" qualifies for "vilification" at least in my dictionary.........
As for Dornoch, it was mildly butchered and severely maintenance un-melded in the mid-1980s, which I have pointed out many times before. What I (and many others) did at the time was make our feelings known, as subtly as posssible, and the pendulum eventually swung back. In any case, since 1/3 of the course is a post-WWII construction by a group of nobodies (and thus not truly, purely "Golden Age") what happens to it probably doesn't really matter to anybody interested in the highest forms of GCArt.
TE Paul
I think that I was one of the first on this site to actively promote the idea that golf courses evolve over time. Of course GCA also evolves as standards, prefreences and technologies (play and construction) change. I have never, not do I know of anybody on this site who has ever, advocated adding "modern" CGA preferences and/or "contemporary accepted styles" to classic courses. I do believe that the ante-natal look of many classic courses (including Yale) are at least partly unsustainable (particularly in the details) in the real world. I wonder if the 18th green at Yale, with those two fascinating but unpinnable fingers long and short right, and the waste bunker bunker could have not morphed into something looking at least somewhat like the picture of today (with the splash buildup and the smoothed out green shape). I like looking at these old hairy pictures as much as the next man, but I do not think that they are practical guides to what can be built and maintained today. Find another straw man, please.
PS--how did you and Mucci do in the Singles?
-
I am not Jack Handey on this issue.
In the end, I enjoyed playing the golf course. If that's the biggest tragedy in golf, then golf is in VERY good shape.
TH
-
Rich Goodale said;
"TE Paul
I think that I was one of the first on this site to actively promote the idea that golf courses evolve over time. Of course GCA also evolves as standards, prefreences and technologies (play and construction) change. I have never, not do I know of anybody on this site who has ever, advocated adding "modern" CGA preferences and/or "contemporary accepted styles" to classic courses. I do believe that the ante-natal look of many classic courses (including Yale) are at least partly unsustainable (particularly in the details) in the real world. I wonder if the 18th green at Yale, with those two fascinating but unpinnable fingers long and short right, and the waste bunker bunker could have not morphed into something looking at least somewhat like the picture of today (with the splash buildup and the smoothed out green shape). I like looking at these old hairy pictures as much as the next man, but I do not think that they are practical guides to what can be built and maintained today. Find another straw man, please."
Rich:
I'm afraid I'm having a hard time understanding what you're talking about here--but it wouldn't be the first time.
"I think that I was one of the first on this site to actively promote the idea that golf courses evolve over time. "
With all respect to you I hardly think you're the first one to promote that idea. Evolution in golf architecture was a factor that has been around with architects, supers and memberships long long before you and I were born and one recognized as a factor in architecture, maintenance and any kind of restoration for many many years, I'm sure (have you ever considered the original MAN-MADE sleepers of the original NATURAL dunes bunkering, for instance? Obviously Pete Dye did!). I believe it's a factor that's taken on new meaning (and complexity) these days in the context of what to do about it (evolution) in the ever increasing restoration projects of these days.
"I do believe that the ante-natal look of many classic courses (including Yale) are at least partly unsustainable (particularly in the details) in the real world."
I have virtually no idea what you're talking about with that statement. 'Ante-natal look'? What is that? Is that the look of a golf course such as Yale before it was born---before it was built?
"I wonder if the 18th green at Yale, with those two fascinating but unpinnable fingers long and short right, and the waste bunker bunker could have not morphed into something looking at least somewhat like the picture of today (with the splash buildup and the smoothed out green shape)."
I'm sure you do wonder about that Rich. You probably wonder about it because you really don't know that much about maintenance practices that can be and are preservationist or even restorative--or even partially evolutionary.
Either do I really but I'm learning fast or certainly trying to--even from someone who might have some real effect soon on Yale.
But maintenance practices that "morph" (as you say) ((I guess that's another term of yours for "evolution")) a hole like #18 from what it originally was into what it appears to be in those photos today are basically POOR maintenance practices, in my opinion. They're anything but preservationist or restorative maintenance practices.
And that's definitely NOT to say that preservationist maintenance practices and a certain amount of natural "evolution" cannot take place simultaneously over time--even over many decades as had happened at a golf course such as Merion!
I could be wrong but I have a feeling you somehow struggle with that idea, concept and realization. At least, I feel you must to use a term such as 'ante-natal' which frankly I can't possibly understand at all. Please tell me what you mean by that or what you think it means in the context of architecture and it's ongoing maintenance practices whether good or bad, particularly at a course such as Yale.
And both you and I should definitely NOT assume that correct preservationist or restorative maintenance practices that can today return that hole to something like what it looked like and played like just might be that much more expense to maintain---or even more expensive at all. It may be but that's not a certainty in my book. The important thing to do is to figure out first how to do it, how much of a cost difference it might be and what the value of that would be in the overall!
As Pat Mucci said on another post on this thread a lot of all this simply has to do with an understanding and a real appreciaiton of what Yale is--or was--particularly amongst those at Yale and returning it do that.
At this point it appears that those who control and run Yale may not be understanding that or understanding that it makes much of a difference.
That's why it probably is up to some of us on here who see it differently to try to explain to them why it might make a difference--why it may add value back to what they basically have. If such as us (TommyN, GeoffC, GBahto and others) can explain that to them--without completely pissing them off as has probably already happened with some other clubs and courses then there might be a chance that Yale will see better days both architecturally and maintenance-wise!
But in the meantime we all should realize there always will be people out there and even people at Yale who play the course and even have the responsibility of running the place who will have a contrary attitude and opinion--or who just may never understand or even care.
There're lots of people out there who have zero understanding of what some of the great old architecture and the way it can be when well maintained today is all about. People such as this rpurd who just popped up again on here and mentioned his feeling about Yale compared to NHCC. NHCC he feels is better and Yale not really worth considering because NHCC is immaculate and doesn't turn the rounds per year of Yale.
Where is this guy rpurd going on here? What's he trying to accomplish? Is he just trying to be as adverserial as he can possibly be all the time to this site (this is the same guy who kept calling me TEPasshole on here--and for what reason?)? The same guy who said my own club and course was a piece of crap. This is the same guy who thinks Ron Prichard is trying to destroy bunkering up and down the East coast by restoring it!
I'm not for restricting anyone's opinion on here--I'm for free expression of any kind but just like anyone else I'm going to call a spade a spade---and I don't care how politically incorrect that sounds--because to me it's just a small shovel---a bunch of which Yale probably needs in the hands of the likes of Kittleman and Bahto!! ;)
-
I take your point about the value of having "living museums" of "Golden age" architecture, but I wonder about the practicality. I'd be surprised if a construction like the old 18th green at Yale, whose picture is above in this thread, could maintain that shape and that overall scrufty look without inordinate amounts of loving care. Who would pay for that, and how would they justify the added cost and the look to the 98% of the golfing public who would prefer that green site as it is today?
Just wondering if anyone out there can comment on how much more difficult it would be to maintain the course as it appears in the older photo. The maintenance ignorant part of me thinks that any additional handwork would be offset by maintaining less of the course. Anyone?
-
Tom Huckaby:
I'm curious. If Yale isn't the biggest tragedy in golf, what one or two courses would you nominate as an alternative?
-
Tim:
I don't take this stuff that seriously nor think that deeply. Coming around full circle on this, any course that once was enjoyed by golfers and no longer exists to be played is a far, far bigger tragedy than Yale, in my book.
TH
-
Tom Huckaby:
As I'm sure you know, Daniel Wexler did a couple books on lost courses and he surely documented some real tragedies - golf architecture tragedies that is, not matters of life and death.
My thread was directed at considering another group of courses: those that still exist, but are not in their best form.
Do you have a view about any courses that are more "tragic" than Yale in this sense?
-
George Pazin asked;
"Just wondering if anyone out there can comment on how much more difficult it would be to maintain the course as it appears in the older photo. The maintenance ignorant part of me thinks that any additional handwork would be offset by maintaining less of the course. Anyone?"
GeorgeP:
I can tell you right now that in my opinion a couple of guys like Bill Salinetti and Matt Burrows (NGLA) could comment on that intelligently and comprehensively without question. This kind of thing is right up their ally and is lots of what they plan and hope to do with NGLA. But one should understand the differentiation here in certain aspects. We're talking really good agronomy on the playing surfaces and probably the rougher and less maintained look and playability of the areas where golfers aren't supposed to go strategically!
This all to me is what using the new and marvelous advances in agronomics on the one hand for playable areas and maintaining and preserving the old original look in the areas that are supposed to be dicey and rougher and more rugged is all about!
This is all about regenerating the function of golf's features such as bunkering and rough areas to what they were meant to accomplish in golf strategically. This is all about returning an architect's strategic intent and making certain courses play the way they were designed and intended to be played. The kicker and beauty of all this is these kinds of guys can make the playable areas better and more interesting to play than C.B or Seth Raynor could have ever dreamed of.
I would say if C.B or Seth could have seen NGLA last weekend they would've been damned proud! And it appears these two young men are not even where they want the course to be yet. Good things are in the future of NGLA! That's the maintenance part of it.
-
Tim:
I own both of Daniel Wexler's books and have enjoyed each of them. Yes, those are ALL bigger tragedies than Yale. But then again, so is the old shithole known as Oak Ridge GC, which used to be 2 miles from where I now live, now has condos all over it. It was truly an awful golf course and wouldn't be worth Daniel's time to document, but I had a lot of fun playing there and it kills me every time I drive by and see the condos.
As for courses that still exist but are not in their best form, hell if I know. As I say, I try to have fun with this and I am not Jack Handey. I just saw so little tragedy having a blast playing Yale, it's hard for me to think of it that way, and thus I questioned the premise of your thread rather than answer directly. That being said, I do understand the tragedy and admire the efforts of Childs / Bahto to rectify it, as frustrated as they may be. And as I have said before in this thread, maybe it is the greatest tragedy among golf courses that still exist but have been bastardized... hell if I know. I don't seek out, nor study such things. More power to those that do, though!
TH
ps - in case you miss the Jack Handey reference, it comes from an old Saturday Night Live. Funny stuff.
-
Tom Huckaby:
One of the recurring difficulties with GCA threads is that so often they go off in multiple directions and the question originally asked gets lost or forgotten.
Sometimes this is because the person originating the thread wasn't clear enough in what he was asking. Sometimes the person was clear but for whatever reason folks still take the thread in another direction rather than starting another thread on a new topic.
I"m not sure how well I did posing my original question, Moreover, subsequent attempts to clarify may not have helped.
Anyway, the courses Daniel Wexler documented as lost courses may well all be greater tragedies than Yale. I don't know. They are no longer with us. Lido and the rest aren't going to be seen again, unfortunately.
My purpose for asking about Yale was to focus on courses that still exist and where a case could be made for a significant effort to bring them and maintain them to their best form.
Some people might not like the focus on a small number of elite courses and argue that it would be better to address the problems at many courses. If the energy and funding can be found to do that, I'd be all for it.
But, inevitably, the will, the commitment and the budget for such efforts is often difficult to come by. That being the case, I'm more inclined to argue that certain venues are really special and that if any way could be found to bring these courses to their best form, it would be a wonderful thing. Not the solution to great world problems. Just one small step in favor of great golf architecture.
With that in mind, I'd still nominate Yale as being perhaps most deserving.
-
Tim:
OK.
TH
-
Tim Weiman just said above'
"My purpose for asking about Yale was to focus on courses that still exist and where a case could be made for a significant effort to bring them and maintain them to their best form."
Tim:
That's what I sort of assumed all along you were driving at on this thread about Yale. I guess it's just part of the way Golfclubatlas works that it needs to take about five pages and numerous posts to clarify some seeming simply things. Oh well!
I certainly do see your frustration when subjects like this get waylaid by thoughts such as it's good enough or it's still great fun to play so so what?
I've never been there (GeoffC is threatening to come and get me if I don't go up there soon) but from everything I've ever heard Yale is a truly remarkable golf course with truly remarkable architecture. So obviously a course like that needs to be both restored architecturally and maintenance-wise from the sort of well-known deplorable condition it has been so well known for for so long. Courses such a Yale are worth it just because of their remarkable uniqueness is the way I'm hearing this--and I agree.
So just because the course is still fun to play shouldn't be part of this discussion. Perhaps, always in hindsight of course, it would've been better if you'd originally cast this whole subject not in a sort of negative light by mentioning 'the greatest tragedy' but in a positive light by something like;
"How good could it be if they'd only do such and such?"
-
TEP remains very wise, although his post is screaming out for something about a pot and a kettle and the color black... ;)
Beyond that, while I can understand Tim's frustration that every single participant didn't take his question exactly how he wanted us to, I would also say that if we are bound by such strict and formal rules this would be one boring group indeed.
TH
-
Tim, the answer to your question is yes. With a sensative restoration by the right people along with resonable money to maintaine this could one of the world's great ones. Could be the 2nd or 3rd best CBM/Raynor, behind NGLA and Fisher's Island.
-
Larry,
I couldn't agree more. Right now, it isn't Top 100, and I hate putting it like that.
-
Tony, I mean Tommy, great minds think alike, glad you enjoyed your visit to NYC metro area.
-
The bunker project began at Yale on the front 9. That was an abomination which ruined the look and play of bunkers on #1, the hillside on #2, the road bunker (and the rest of the bunkers) on #4, making the short hole bunkers (#5) about 5 feet shallower, ruining the beautiful snaking bunker on #6 converting it into a peanut further from the green and a shallow round pot that is more of a cat litter box then a bunker, the formerly beautiful and terrifying greenside bunker on #7 and the biarritz bunkers on #9.
This lead to the new fund raising project and supposedly MacDonald/Raynor sensitive restoration run by a committee and Roger Rulewich. They were to finally use the 1934 aerial to guide them in the process. Hopefully, we can document these changes for all to see.
One new bunker that they were particularly proud to recreate was the strath bunker on the eden hole (#15). THis was originally an unusual version as it was a deep front greenside bunker with a finger extending into the green that created a great sucker pin location on the front right. I was told how this was going to be sensitively recreated.
Here is a blowup of the 15th green from the 1934 aerial. Note the size of the finger relative to other features such as the Hill bunker on the left of the green. The finger extends into the green at least 1/3 the size/length of the hill bunker. Its back a good way into the green and the right front pin location is evident.
(http://home.earthlink.net/~leftygolfer/_images/Yale15-green.jpg)
Here is the new sensitive restoration of that bunker (taken by Tommy Naccarato last week). Note it is further from the green and the finger comes no way close to extending into the green. No amount of green recovery due to mowing patterns could recreate that sucker pin. The shape is altered as well.
(http://home.earthlink.net/~leftygolfer/_images/Yale15strathnew.jpg)
This is the new sensitive restoration by Roger Rulewich with oversight by the committee. :'( >:( :-[ :( ::)
-
Dr. Childs, I feel your pain. How many pain pills are needed to play Yale these days? Looks like advil and aleave might not do the trick.
-
Tom Paul:
Thanks for your comments. When a thread goes off course, at some point the person originating the thread has to wonder if they themselves are responsible? Did the title attract attention but actually lead people down the wrong road? Did the original post not clearly lay out the issue or question the author wanted to explore?
So, I’ll take you suggestion that I may have chosen the wrong words to focus discussion on the issue I wanted to explore: is any course more worthy of restoration and proper long term care than Yale?
But, to be honest, I did find some of the responses off topic and frustrating. Of course, “Yale is still great fun to play”. Doesn’t that go without saying? Moreover, why compare the “tragedy” of Yale to lost golf courses when I made clear with my reference to the Lido that I was looking to explore the issue of courses that still exist. Finally, there seemed to be some resistance to the idea of an elite group of courses that really deserve to be maintained to be the best they can be. The stated preferred alternative was a much longer list of courses that would receive more loving care. Fine. But, what does that have to do with my original question?
Tom Huckaby:
I don’t think it would be boring to be more disciplined and focused in our discussion. For example, if Yale isn’t the greatest tragedy in golf architecture, wouldn’t it be interesting to see people make a strong case for other courses that have more going for them architecturally but have also suffered from neglect or misguided alterations? Why would that be boring to students of golf course architecture?
No, I think the opposite is true, that our discussion becomes less interesting when the focus of threads gets so diluted that we never really explore the original topic? You may be sad to drive by a condo complex on a site where a golf course once stood, but do golf architecture students get much from hearing about it when the topic at hand is to identify existing golf courses most deserving of some loving care?
-
Tim:
I think the rephrased question and your last post is clearer about what you wanted to discuss about Yale. Not that I know that much about other courses out there with great old architecture that've been neglected or corrupted but I'd assume that Yale must be at or near the top of courses in that general state, so, I'd say, no, I can't think of a course that deserves restoration and long term care more than Yale does.
Not that I know much at all about them but I'd like to see some of the courses of Max Behr in California restored and maintained the way they were intended to be but I have no real idea how possible that may be.
-
Tim:
All I can say is to each his own. You and I obviously treat this discussion group very differently.
Just realize that neither of us is right or wrong. This can be many different things to different people.
And the main thing is, no topic is ever above scrutiny. It remains very fair to question the premise of a topic, whether the originator likes it or not. Disallow that and then yes, it makes for a very boring thread, and a very boring group.
But I'm sure you disagree.
And that is just fine.
TH
-
Tom Huckaby:
I struggle with this issue because part of the beauty of the Internet is intellectual freedom and the right of people to question any prevailing assumption.
However, the Internet - like other forms of communication - faces the challenge of balancing that freedom with discipline. It will always be a judgement call, but I think there are often times when it would be best to start another thread than question the premise of an existing thread.
In this case, my interest was to identify those existing courses most worthy of restoration and/or a long term commitment to proper maintenance. Instead, of doing much to cover this topic, we seemed to go off on several tangents, none of which really help shed light on the original topic.
If you view the loss of the Lido et al, as a greater loss wouldn't it be better to start on thread on "Lost Golf Courses - Golf Architecture's Greatest Tragedies"? Isn't that a better way to balance intellectual freedom and applying some discipline to the discussion?
Tom, I think some respect should go to the person starting a thread. If they want to discuss a particular topic, shouldn't that be appreciated? After all, nobody is forced to participate on any thread. Moreover, a person is always free to start others threads, including threads challenging the premise of one already started.
My hunch is that more discipline will make the site more interesting to students of golf course architecture.
-
Tim:
Respect is required, yes. I don't believe anyone disrespected you in this entire thread.
As for starting a new thread to challenge a premise of a previous thread, that to me makes no sense at all. Talk about unnecessary clutter... To me it's better to keep it in one thread.
Just yet again two different approaches to this.
But at least you do recognize that your premises are not above challenge. I was beginning to worry about you, Tim. ;)
TH
-
Tom Huckaby:
This line of discussion ties into the thread Tom Paul recently started about how to make GCA better.
It's not that I feel personally disrespected. That's not the point at all. The issue is how to balance freedom or expression with discipline and focus. If you think wanting to identify a group of special courses worthy of some loving care is being too serious, that's fine. But, why disrupt the inquiry of those with an interest in such a topic?
As for the audience, I believe GCA gets a lot more attention from people in the golf industry than you may imagine and I've even had well placed industry folks tell me it does. That's why adding some more discipline to our discussion would make sense.
Just a game? Isn't the game part when you go out to play? Aren't we here for something else, i.e., discussion of golf architecture?
-
Tim:
You come here to discuss golf course architecture, to learn and to study.
I come here to have fun and shoot the shit with friends, about a topic I find interesting, but about any topic really. Golf is what brings us together, golf course architecture is the usual topic, but it isn't the only one.
I believe even Ran would agree there is room for both of us here.
And I don't believe I've "disrupted" any thread. I just chose to question premises. That is not disruption in any way, shape or form. Here's what I said in my very first post on this thread:
"The camera adds 30 pounds, even from far away.
(I'd add a smiley, but they don't seem to be working - is there something I have to do now besides just clicking on them? I do not have them disabled.)
Re Yale GC, I think the "problem" is that it's so damn fun to play just as it is now, that although to devotees of golf course architecture it is "tragic" what the course has become, most players could care less, using the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" line of thinking. In their minds, it ain't broke and don't need fixing!
But Geoffrey's pic obviously tugs at the heartstrings of those who care about what was, might have been, might still be....
Geoffrey has been fighting this battle for so long now, along with George Bahto they are the experts on the whys and what fors. It is tragic, but they can speak to the realities of making this a triumph.
I just do think there must be a sentiment from many players that I describe above... I know I sure didn't come off Yale saying anything but my game that day sucked. I enjoyed the heck out of the golf course, just as it is... even understanding what was and might be.... and I'd have to guess I am WAY more into these things than the average player there...
TH"
You tell me how that is disruption. I basically accepted your premise, but speculated as to why it's become how it is and why no changes get done. I could be wholly wrong, I don't know... but why is that not a worthwhile addition to this thread? You then challenged me as to why I think it's "fine as it is" (which I never said) and how "MY" thinking is what's causing the problem. Just who is doing the disrupting?
As for attention from the golf industry, well... if they're paying any attention, I represent their consumer very well.
But I do understand what you're saying. I just don't agree on the manner on which to focus. Putting it in many different threads seems silly to me.
In any case it remains Ran's site and what he says goes. Last I talked to him, he had no problem with anything I've written or my approach.
Is this site going to attract world-wide industry participation and thus change the golf world? If that's Ran's goal - which I am not at all certain is true - than God yes I shall pipe down and stay the hell out of every discussion, because in the end I am just a golfer and neophyte at all of this. But as I leave, you're also gonna have to banish forever good guys like Dan King, JakaB, Rich Goodale, and yes, Tom Paul - because he too strays from the topic all the time.
Is that what the site needs? You tell me. Better yet, Ran should tell one and all.
I hope to see him in September and we'll discuss this topic. Hopefully you too can be there, Tim. I'd like that.
TH
-
So I read a lot of banter about unrelated subjects but nothing about the newest bunker work at Yale that is organized by the restoration committee (other then my friend Brad).
Jim H- What do you think of this new work?
Have you studied the aerials and old photos of the course? Is this a "complete restoration" of hole #15 as we were promised in the letter from the director of golf soliciting our money?
Have you looked at the Yale chapter in George Bahto's book?
Do you think this work that members are being asked fund with their donations without any input as to the direction of the project is being put to good use?
Do you have any idea why Roger Rulwich was selected to do this work? The membership were never to my knowledge informed nor could I ever find out even when directly asking those in charge. Why was he retained after the disaster to the front nine?
Is this a tragedy?- It certainly is in my mind. Its also sad that this topic needs to be addressed in a public forum but its equally sad that those inside refused to allow the voices of concerned individuals to be heard or utilized where they could make constructive comments and debate with those who have a different agenda.
-
GC:
My apologies for the "banter." I'll lay off now. I'd request that Tim do the same, for the good of the proper discussion here.
TH
-
Tim,
Ten years ago, I picked Yeamans Hall as one of the greatest tragedies in golf architecture. Thankfully, they allowed us to rectify that.
Perhaps one day Yale will come to their senses, although sticking to former Yale men is not working for them very well so far!
-
Tom Doak
As you know, I've put your name forward to those in charge as I have former Yale alum Bill Kittleman with Gil Hanse (Cornell like you). Hell, they spent probably a full year working with George Bahto and I conclude that they just don't share the idea that the Yale course should be restored.
I ask then why they send out letters soliciting money for a "complete restoration" of their CB MacDonald masterpiece.
-
Tom Doak:
Actually, my thread is in part a tribute to you for your suggestion a while back that there are certain places in the world of golf that are truly special and deserve the most loving care - the golf architecture variety!
I wish we could have been more focused on developing that short list and encouraged more efforts like yours at Yeamans Hall.
Yes, I hope Yale will come to their senses one day. As a Princeton man I'd be quite happy to nominate a man from Cornell for the job!
-
Geoffrey Childs--
I have not seen the completed work, so I will take your conclusion as to its condition to be true. I am not surprised, but saddened.
While I agree that the current condition of the Yale course is the greatest tragedy in golf that I know of, I also think that playing the course may be one of the greatest bargains in golf. What is the current charge for a membership for someone with no connection to the University? What is the daily fee greens fee? Last time I checked, they were both very low--too low. It is almost free to students and staff members--and probably should be--, but anyone can play and anyone can join for almost nothing. And I maintain that the cheapness of playing--and the current condition of the course are directly related. Do you agree? I believe that a new economic model is needed. Or maybe people who are playing for almost nothing have little to complain about. It can't all be based on alum contributions, from those who play maybe once a year.
-
Jim H
I fully agree about the need for a new business model. It is a great bargain to be a member and to play as a guest. However, I think that the conditions of membership and the neglect and misuse of funds they already have are not at all directly related.
-
Tom Doak,
You will be glad to know that I mentioned your name several times while "discussing" the course with the Yale Golf Coach and Director of Golf.
Geoff, that bunker work realy looks ..........."nice."
At least nice enough for people without passion:) (Just kidding!)
-
Geoff--
Agreed except for the allusion to the money they already have--what do you mean? The course runs at a deficit to the University. There is little endowed money for the course.
-
Noted and chuckled at, Tommy. ;D
Now back to your scheduled discussion before I get chided again for taking this off track. Just thought it would be courteous to mention that I saw this. Courtesy is ok, isn't it?
Passionless Huckaby
-
Tom,To call you a person without passion would be like saying Betty Crocker is without flour.
However, I would like to say, or better yet, "speculate" that if Seth Raynor saw this bunker, he would most surely soil his underwears. And to me that would be a tragedy, albeit a messy one.
Tom Paul, I forgot to add that there is not one course of Max Behr's that could possibly be recovered. They, unlike Yale are H-I-S-T-O-R-Y. And yes, people think the leftovers are great golf courses, and don't have one iota why, only some of us knowing the real intent by the architect which spelled out genius, and the ability to imitate nature without boundry. That has all been lost to fairways bordered by big huge lovely looking trees and emerald fairways and rough grasses soaked with water. There is not one course of his that remotely looks anything like Max Behr intended.
-
Jim H
Roger Rulewich is being paid for his work at Yale. He did not donate his services to his former university. Somewhere and somehow he was hired and funds were raised bunker by bunker, one at a time, to do the much discussed work on the front 9. There was no master plan and this was all a huge waste that had nothing to do with daily operations of the course or it running at a deficit to the university.
After this fiasco, a plan was put in place and you seem to be aware of some of the details. Again, Roger Rulewich was maintained and this time he was to be under the supervision of a committee. The membership was asked for money without any details except they would go towards the "complete restoration" of their CB Macdonald gem. You see some of the results of this project. It has nothing to do with the University deficit nor does not having a superintendent for a protracted period of time. When we had a superintendent, he was instructing workers (I assume) to regularly water the front rignt shoulder of the redan! The mowing patterns when they are mowed are abismal and affect the play in a way not intended by the architecture.
The course needs a greater operating budget but they need to know what they are doing with the money too. George Bahto wrote a "white paper" describing to the school what they had and how it could be recovered. It was ignored as so I claim that the income they derive from memberships and fees certainly isn't enough but you can't say this deficit is the direct link to the conditions of the course (In my opinion).
-
Who makes up the committee....athletic department officials, the membership (student, staff, faculty, alums), university facilities personel, a combination?
What was the purpose of calling in George Bahto...have they acted on any of his recommendations?
I'm confused, is R.Rulewich is incapable of accurately restoring Yale to Macdonald/Raynor or he is not interested in restoration, but modernizing/renovating of the golf course?
Does the university have a director of historical preservation...I know they have a number of faculty members that are very influential in that arena...some of whom have been critical of the university in the past...criticism that it appears influenced the university to amend some of their plans.
-
Tommy - great stuff. OK, just call my passion more misguided than most on here. ;D
Re Max Behr courses, man the immediate thought for me is Lakeside... Looking at Dan's book, yeah, it couldn't be recreated. The land the other side of the wash ain't coming back to the club. But that's a tragedy in and of itself, isn't it?
TH
-
Tom MacWood
The committee as far a I know consists of the two individuals that initiated and direct the new fund raising project that began after I showed one of them the front nine work.
It includes at least two members that I know and probably others.
I think the assistant athletic director is a member.
There are I believe nine members so that leaves four additional spaces that may well be filled by members.
They are well intentioned individuals but seem to be overly practical and unopen to a complete and accurate restoration in spite of what the director of golf wrote to the membership.
I put George Bahto in touch with my friend who is the individual who initiated the new project. They worked together for quite some time and Goerge served in an advisory capacity and in addition drew up papers and hole diagrams that were to seerve as catalysts for further support. I will not comment on what happened.
You ask "I'm confused, is R.Rulewich is incapable of accurately restoring Yale to Macdonald/Raynor or he is not interested in restoration, but modernizing/renovating of the golf course?"
I don't know. I do see the results of his efforts before and after supervision by the committee. He was presumably influenced as a young man by his education at Yale and his experiences at the golf course so I would hope that he has the interests of the course at heart. I'll just let the results speak for themselves.
-
I have concluded the original bunkering design is far too penal for the average golfer and thus flies in the face of making golf enjoyable for all....a theory I never liked anyway. So you all who thinks its just one big fun game be careful for what you ask for because it may show up at a course near you.
-
John- That was the thought of others as well. It was recently stated that the course at Yale was obsolete and much too difficult. Changes started by the superintendent long ago to bulldoze out green contours in the name of "more accurate putting" started the trend in dumbing down features and it probably continued with the bunkers originally altered on the front nine by Roger Rulewich.
I recently played with a young women who could golf her ball fairly well. She was absolutely horrified at the thought of the course as it used to be. The description of the alps hole (#12) as it was originally designed with its blind approach over a deep trench bunker had her shaking her head at the thought of the shot. I would predict, however, that many such individuals would derive great satisfaction when they were able to overcome these obstacles and enjoy the course even more.
-
So True Geoff....I think this proves that due to the greater number of golfers who play the game and the general need of fairness in todays society Alister MacKenzie's opinion that architecture should be designed for all abilities is an obsolete stance.
-
Barn -
I think a lot of it has to do with how you define playable for all. I don't think that unkempt area looks that bad at all. Heck, anyone who's played with me on the site will tell you I'm a mediocre golfer & that area would not be any more difficult than a normal bunker - actually, it'd probably be easier for me.
Speaking as the token 90s golfer on the site, what I find makes a course "unplayable" (in truth, not really unplayable, just less enjoyable) is tons of water in play, tight tree lined fairways & super thick rough. My limited experience with desert courses & other courses with less maintained waste areas is that these areas aren't too bad.
P.S. This is one sad statement:
Changes started by the superintendent long ago to bulldoze out green contours in the name of "more accurate putting" started the trend in dumbing down features and it probably continued with the bunkers originally altered on the front nine by Roger Rulewich.
Kind of ironic that one of the top learning institutions in the world is dumbing down a golf course.
-
John, That is OK. Alister MacKenize isn't for everybody, The same can be said about Prosac. 8)
-
Tom, You are correct in your thinking of Lakeside as being one of the Great Tragedies. But if you are going to start there, you might as well include all of the others here in SoCal that didn't make it or were drastically altered because of the Great Depression and the War.
--San Pedro Golf & CC
--Hollywood CC
--Midwick CC
--Pasadena CC
--Sunset Fields GC (36 holes)
--Fox Hills GC (36 holes)
--California CC
--St. Andrews By The Sea
--Lake Norconian Club
--El Caballero CC
--Griffith Park (36 holes)
--Rancho Park
--Hacienda GC
--Oakmont CC
--Lakeside CC
--Montebello GC
--Redlands CC
And there are more, many more. Maybe not as good as some of the ones in New York. But anyone that would think nothing existed out here is quite mistaken.
-
What about all of Thomas' courses? La Cumbre, Ojai, maybe Riveria (depending on how you look at it).
-
Thank you Dan. Quite obviously I wasn' at the top of my game today.
-
Tommy - I only mentioned Lakeside because I used to play there a LOT and looking at Daniel's book, I can picture really well what might have been....
SoCal is a graveyard of golf tragedies, though. Man that is a sad - but impressive - list.
TH
-
(http://home.earthlink.net/~leftygolfer/_images/YGC.jpg)
(http://www.cis.yale.edu/athletic/Facility/Golf/Holes/entire_course.jpg)
-
Unionized green crew.
Roger Rulewich
The best Raynor course ever?
Worst daily conditions in Connecticut
A University that does not care.
YES
-
I've never played Yale, but knowing that its a great Seth Raynor design, and that its been mostly ignored in any true restoration effort makes me vote the course into the top 3 Greatest Tragedies In Golf - behind Lido and Links Club.
As to the rest of the conversations in this thread, thank you for a very interesting read, and for proving once again why this site is so very special. I don't post very often, but do spend a good deal of time here enjoying the variety of topics.
-
Just pulling this up for some playing partners that I played with today.
-
We played 36 at Yale last Wednesday. I've already IM'd a couple of people with my impressions. In short, I absolutely love the place. The scale of it is inspiring. So many of the holes are just completely atypical of what we've come to expect of American golf.
The 18th in particular is a hole that just blew me away; aerials don't reveal anything about it. I'm still riding the high, but I can't think of two more compelling shots than the first two on 18.
The first time we played it, even with an explanation from our host, I had no idea what to do with the second shot after a good drive down into the little pocket. I bailed a little right into the lower right sliver of fairway leaving about 130 yards to the green.
Once we got to the green, the "turbo boost" strategy of driving the ball to a position so the second could be played over the hill left was so apparent and appealling. I honestly played most of the second round just eagerly awaiting those two shots. Fantastic. One of the best par fives I've ever played.
-
This is a very old thread but deserves to be brought back up.
To me the tragedy at Yale continues to be its lack of inclusion on the Golf Digest top 100 list. Today it takes a significant drop on the Golfweek list, from 38 to 55?
What do panelists miss?
-
As I've said before on this site: I love Yale.
Here are some photos from many visits there over the last 6 years or so:
http://www80.homepage.villanova.edu/joseph.bausch/images/albums/YaleGC/index.html (http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/albums/Yale/)
-
I'm with you, Gary. The tragedy used to be (i.e., at the time of Tim's initial post) the deterioration of the course; the tragedy now is its underappreciation since the immense progress made under Scott Ramsay. For what it's worth, I fell in love with the course, golf, and golf-course architecture in 2001-02, so even then its greatness was apparent.
-
I think the fact that Yale is so high up on this list* is a good thing. It fell a few spots, but still is highly rated. I think that the architecture at Yale is in the class of Fishers Island. Pump up the conditioning and the appreciation of the course would skyrocket.
*im referring to the 2015 Golfweek list.
-
This is a very old thread but deserves to be brought back up.
To me the tragedy at Yale continues to be its lack of inclusion on the Golf Digest top 100 list. Today it takes a significant drop on the Golfweek list, from 38 to 55?
What do panelists miss?
Gary,
Thanks for bringing thread back. Lots to like about Yale, including my visit with Tommy Naccarato and Geoff Childs. Tommy's dressing down of the Yale brass was absolutely classic.
-
I think the fact that Yale is so high up on this list* is a good thing. It fell a few spots, but still is highly rated. I think that the architecture at Yale is in the class of Fishers Island. Pump up the conditioning and the appreciation of the course would skyrocket.
*im referring to the 2015 Golfweek list.
Well said Mac.
-
A classic thread. Lots of names whose contributions I miss now.............
-
This is a very old thread but deserves to be brought back up.
To me the tragedy at Yale continues to be its lack of inclusion on the Golf Digest top 100 list.
Today it takes a significant drop on the Golfweek list, from 38 to 55?
Gary,
Is that more indicative of the quality of the panelists or the golf course ?
What do panelists miss?
-
Argentina in 1914 had the 4th largest economy in the world; today it is 54th. That is the price of poor politics.
In our realm of golf courses, Yale is Argentina. Despite the efforts of a fine golf coach, the Yale course is a victim of University politics that has refused to recognize the masterpiece that it has. I told the Yale President (now gone) that if Yale were given a Monet, it would take care of it. And it had a Monet in the Yale course, but wasn't taking care of it. He dismissed me as a fool.
Now Yale has a new President, who has played some golf there. We'll see.
I'm not just talking about course maintenance, although that is part of it. I'm sure many on this site will disagree with me, but it also involves the overuse of the course through non-University golfers having too easy access, creating too much play and stress on the course.
It makes me very sad.
-
It's one of the best I have ever seen.
The lessons on scale are outstanding and the golf is sublime.
I would have it inside my own personal Top 25 in the World.
I would love to be a member.
It's quirky and that's not for some, but the real headwind is conditioning for raters.
It's always been proof that conditions matter a lot to most voters.
I certainly had a better appreciation for how much after the comments I received directly about Highlands Links after rater outings.
They were disappointed in the conditions and could not get by that fact to enjoy the golf course.
-
Argentina in 1914 had the 4th largest economy in the world; today it is 54th. That is the price of poor politics.
In our realm of golf courses, Yale is Argentina. Despite the efforts of a fine golf coach, the Yale course is a victim of University politics that has refused to recognize the masterpiece that it has. I told the Yale President (now gone) that if Yale were given a Monet, it would take care of it. And it had a Monet in the Yale course, but wasn't taking care of it. He dismissed me as a fool.
Now Yale has a new President, who has played some golf there. We'll see.
I'm not just talking about course maintenance, although that is part of it. I'm sure many on this site will disagree with me, but it also involves the overuse of the course through non-University golfers having too easy access, creating too much play and stress on the course.
It makes me very sad.
As a member of Yale until 2y ago when I moved West, I'm not agreeing with you Jim. There is not overuse of the course, in fact the club needs those rounds and needs the play. It is not a country club nor does is it ever going to be. The grounds for golf are always going to be a challenge maintenance wise and Scott did a ton of drainage work to make the course playable after tough winters and wet springs. While I'd love to see a sympathetic bunker restoration and put back of the 3rd hole and several of the greens (2,5,13), I don't know if it will ever happen. That takes money and the club can use all the revenue it can. FWIW, I would queue up as a solo or a two some on weekends at 7-7:30am at Yale and never had a problem getting out in 15-30 minutes without a tee time.. I realize that Sat or Sunday afternoons might not be so easy but I never got the feeling Yale is overcrowded with New Haven's hoi polloi.
-
Noel,
What's the size of Yale's endowment ?
$ 24,000,000,000
So remind us again, why does the course needs more rounds ?
-
Besides all of the other outstanding features of the architecture, it seem likely that the scale of the course is a positive factor in the rating. If so, that particular attribute would be less outstanding now as there have been other relatively recently developed courses of a similar scale.
-
I played Yale twice last year. Both times I showed up at around 9 and was on the course within 45 minutes. The vibe was great - good pace of play and company. Other courses where I can just show up frustrate the hell out of me with the slow play and clueless golfers.
The course is a rough diamond but way better than when I first played there, when it was a swamp because the drainage was so bad.
-
Argentina in 1914 had the 4th largest economy in the world; today it is 54th. That is the price of poor politics.
In our realm of golf courses, Yale is Argentina. Despite the efforts of a fine golf coach, the Yale course is a victim of University politics that has refused to recognize the masterpiece that it has. I told the Yale President (now gone) that if Yale were given a Monet, it would take care of it. And it had a Monet in the Yale course, but wasn't taking care of it. He dismissed me as a fool.
Now Yale has a new President, who has played some golf there. We'll see.
I'm not just talking about course maintenance, although that is part of it. I'm sure many on this site will disagree with me, but it also involves the overuse of the course through non-University golfers having too easy access, creating too much play and stress on the course.
It makes me very sad.
So Jim, write a paper entitled "Yale's Monet." Describe the historical importance of Raynor's work at Yale. Tell the story of what happened to mar the course, Scott Ramsey's positive changes over the last decade, and what you feel needs to be done to bring the course back to Monet status. Perhaps you can locate some student support (it would make for a pretty cool research topic) create some buzz on the campus, perhaps through the school newspaper.
-
I told the Yale President (now gone) that if Yale were given a Monet, it would take care of it. And it had a Monet in the Yale course, but wasn't taking care of it. He dismissed me as a fool.
Was this Levin?
-
Sven: Sounds that way, although, if so, I would have invoked Lichtenstein (Levin's artistic preference) instead. I had no idea that easy-A Salovey (Peter Salovey, a longtime professor of Yale's popular first-year psychology course) was a golfer.
Bill: This spring would be a good time for the student-supported paper/article you suggest, as the course will host the NCAA Regionals for the fifth time in its history (May 14-16). Within the last five years, the Yale Daily News has published two articles about the course (the older one being the better one).
http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2010/09/29/a-classic-american-course/ (http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2010/09/29/a-classic-american-course/)
http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2012/11/07/the-course-at-yale-stands-tests-of-time/ (http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2012/11/07/the-course-at-yale-stands-tests-of-time/)
Note that the current coach, Colin Sheehan, knows his golf-course architecture (and is a great guy); he walked NGLA with his squad during the 2013 Walker Cup and pointed out various design features along the way. Here's a feature on him:
http://www.yalebulldogs.com/sports/m-golf/spec-rel/062508aab.html (http://www.yalebulldogs.com/sports/m-golf/spec-rel/062508aab.html)
For now, the student body's focus is rightly on this afternoon's Men's Basketball tiebreaker with Harvard at the Palestra in Philadelphia. Boola boola.
-
Ben:
Colin posts here from time to time.
Levin was my little league coach. Disappointing to hear his lack of interest in the course.
Sven
-
Thanks for letting me know, Sven. I should have checked; some great posts indeed.
Dick coached Little League?
-
If the Yale course or others like it were a Frank Lloyd Wright or a Monet, there would be no limits to what people would do to restore it and keep it alive. But a golf course not so much....
There was a great Ross course in Cleveland, Acacia Country Club. Perfect location in a great neighborhood, accessable to a major interstate. Was a private club steeped in debt and needed to sell. Went to the Cleveland Metro Parks who turned it in to a "walking trail"
I used to get mad every time I drove by, what a waste!
-
Noel,
What's the size of Yale's endowment ?
$ 24,000,000,000
So remind us again, why does the course needs more rounds ?
Pat,
You can forget about Yale's endowment. It isn't going to sports facilities.
-
Bill: This spring would be a good time for the student-supported paper/article you suggest, as the course will host the NCAA Regionals for the fifth time in its history (May 14-16). Within the last five years, the Yale Daily News has published two articles about the course (the older one being the better one).
http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2010/09/29/a-classic-american-course/ (http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2010/09/29/a-classic-american-course/)
http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2012/11/07/the-course-at-yale-stands-tests-of-time/ (http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2012/11/07/the-course-at-yale-stands-tests-of-time/)
Note that the current coach, Colin Sheehan, knows his golf-course architecture (and is a great guy); he walked NGLA with his squad during the 2013 Walker Cup and pointed out various design features along the way. Here's a feature on him:
http://www.yalebulldogs.com/sports/m-golf/spec-rel/062508aab.html (http://www.yalebulldogs.com/sports/m-golf/spec-rel/062508aab.html)
For now, the student body's focus is rightly on this afternoon's Men's Basketball tiebreaker with Harvard at the Palestra in Philadelphia. Boola boola.
The articles are fine and largely quite positive about the course. It is nice to hear the course's link to CBM discussed. But hardly a cry to "restore a Monet." And I would not expect the currently-employed golf coach to be the one to lead the charge for changes. Maybe there is a young David Moriarty or Tom MacWood attending Yale... Someone to really put together the full history, support Greg's efforts, but also point out what could be done.
-
Interesting 2012 article about sustainability-based renovations to the course:
http://sustainability.yale.edu/news/golf-course-becomes-even-greener-environmentally-conscious-renovations (http://sustainability.yale.edu/news/golf-course-becomes-even-greener-environmentally-conscious-renovations)
-
To echo Noel and what may have been said earlier in the original 2003 thread but I am too lazy to go back and read it all.....
Yale is a genius masterpiece of a golf course and at the same time a maintenance nightmare!!!
Sure, the University could afford to maintain it but their purpose as a corporation trends towards academics first.
Much less expensive to field a basketball team which unfortunately just lost the Ivy championship to their hated rival Harvard by one basket.
-
For those of you who did not go back and read the entire thread, I thought I would re-post George Bahto's post. I know that there have been many positive changes to Yale since he wrote this, but I feel it is worth remembering the passion that George had for Yale and Raynor:
Re:Is Yale The Greatest Tragedy In Golf?
« Reply #106 on: June 30, 2003, 01:12:33 AM »
Reply with quoteQuote
PLAYING THE YALE GOLF COURSE TODAY IS LIKE LOOKING AT THE A GREAT PAINTING THROUGH FROSTED GLASS.
HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO DRIVE A 'VETTE WITH 2 SPARK PLUGS WIRES OFF???
SURE STILL PRETTY COOL AND FUN BUT YOU'RE MISSING THE FULL EXPERIENCE OF A GREAT VEHICLE.
(the caps were not a typo)
-
Noel,
What's the size of Yale's endowment ?
$ 24,000,000,000
So remind us again, why does the course needs more rounds ?
Pat, your comment in nonsensical. The US government takes in how much revenue and can borrow at rates between 0-2.5% and yet have we abolished all poverty, is there a chicken in every pot etc???. The US government owns tons of national parks, forest etc, are they all in great shape? No! The mission of Yale is to educate its students (its clients) and while the land was bequeathed to Yale all those years ago, I guarantee if New Haven was oh say switched with Greenwich, the club would have been sold or housing now. Whenever I played Yale, I rarely if ever met students. The club is populated by locals and people from as far down as NYC who realize what a bargain it is to play there and the fine hospitality there run by Peter Polaski and his staff. For the money they operate on, the club does a nice job. Could they use more funding? Of course. But institutions are increasingly run to benefit their largesse and perpetuate the employment of people at the university. Do you know anything of the UNION situation at Yale? It is stifling and makes any attempts to get the cost structure of the club fixed in a free market arena.
Stanford has a huge endowment out here and a nice historic golf course which I believe has been renovated twice now and bears only some resemblance to George Thomas' creation. No one screams bloody murder there and this is a club you can play 365 days a year and does not allow outside play like Yale.
Yale's restoration cannot be done on the cheap given the scale of the property and in my opinion the need to reseed the WHOLE course. Yale's turf had many different strains growing on it and needed a complete overhaul to modernize.
I don't see a University spending that money on a game that is increasingly being marginalized and less rounds being played. That is the buttress of my argument on why Yale GC needs to be self-sufficient entity and hope band-aid type cures can address some of its issues.
It is never going to be the V8 Corvette Bahto and all of us would love to see (me as much as anyone). But maybe it can slowly get to a Turbo V-6.. I just don't see it and just because it is backed by an institution with money, I don't expect it. Tom Peters once said companies should "Stick to the Knitting" in order to succeed in one of his corporate treatises. I think Yale is more interested in educating and academics.
Oh yeah, I once played golf with the Yale Endowment CIO's son.. I met David Swensen briefly there after.. I don't know if he was a golfer but I'm sure he's aware of the asset and its value.
Maybe I'll be wrong, I love Yale with my full heart but expecting Yale to spend money on the course to truly make it realize its potential is akin to that great quote in Bergman's the 7th Seal--
"Faith is a torment. It is like loving someone who is out there in the darkness but never appears, no matter how loudly you call."
Having faith in Yale's institutional management (not the golf course mgmt and super) to do anything will me like having that faith in god that Max Von Sydow never found..
** Finally kudos to Scott Ramsey and Peter Polaski for making my time at Yale so great. I miss it everyday I tee it up here in the Bay Area.. It truly is missed and lest anyone forget, I vote it very highly on any ranking list.. I know what it is.--GREAT
Oh and how about the Yale Bowl-- A landmark where many Yale teams play and generate revenue.. And what of it--??
http://www.nhregister.com/sports/20141112/yale-bowl-may-be-receiving-more-restorations
-
Noel,
What's the size of Yale's endowment ?
$ 24,000,000,000
So remind us again, why does the course needs more rounds ?
Pat,
You can forget about Yale's endowment. It isn't going to sports facilities.
So, Yale plays football in a sandlot and basketball on an outdoor playground ?
-
Noel,
What's the size of Yale's endowment ?
$ 24,000,000,000
So remind us again, why does the course needs more rounds ?
Pat, your comment in nonsensical. Not at all, in fact, it's right on the mark.
The US government takes in how much revenue and can borrow at rates between 0-2.5% and yet have we abolished all poverty, is there a chicken in every pot etc???. The US government owns tons of national parks, forest etc, are they all in great shape? No! The mission of Yale is to educate its students (its clients) and while the land was bequeathed to Yale all those years ago, I guarantee if New Haven was oh say switched with Greenwich, the club would have been sold or housing now. Whenever I played Yale, I rarely if ever met students. The club is populated by locals and people from as far down as NYC who realize what a bargain it is to play there and the fine hospitality there run by Peter Polaski and his staff. For the money they operate on, the club does a nice job. Could they use more funding? Of course. But institutions are increasingly run to benefit their largesse and perpetuate the employment of people at the university. Do you know anything of the UNION situation at Yale? It is stifling and makes any attempts to get the cost structure of the club fixed in a free market arena.
Yale isn't the U.S. Government, it's a private institution.
If the purpose of Yale is solely to educate students, why don't they abolish all sports teams.
Education is not limited do a narrow band in that broadest of spectrums.
Stanford has a huge endowment out here and a nice historic golf course which I believe has been renovated twice now and bears only some resemblance to George Thomas' creation. No one screams bloody murder there and this is a club you can play 365 days a year and does not allow outside play like Yale.
We're not discussing Stanford, we're discussing the golf course at Yale, a course that's one of the very best in all of golf
Yale's restoration cannot be done on the cheap given the scale of the property and in my opinion the need to reseed the WHOLE course. Yale's turf had many different strains growing on it and needed a complete overhaul to modernize.
Excuses, excuses.
A restoration would be relatively inexpensive.
I don't see a University spending that money on a game that is increasingly being marginalized and less rounds being played. That is the buttress of my argument on why Yale GC needs to be self-sufficient entity and hope band-aid type cures can address some of its issues.
Golf isn't being marginalized.
As Clinton said, "It's the economy stupid".
Almost every leisure activity had been curtailed due to a poor economy.
Those wanting to predict the future, based on a small sampling, usually don't get it right.
It is never going to be the V8 Corvette Bahto and all of us would love to see (me as much as anyone). But maybe it can slowly get to a Turbo V-6.. I just don't see it and just because it is backed by an institution with money, I don't expect it. Tom Peters once said companies should "Stick to the Knitting" in order to succeed in one of his corporate treatises.
I think Yale is more interested in educating and academics.
Since when does education and academics automatically preclude maintaining your facilities ?
Especially when there's ample funds for both.
It's not an either/or proposition.
I don't know if you noticed, but Yale just lost in a playoff for the Ivy League championship.
As to Bahto's dream, If you don't aim for a lofty goal, you'll never hit that goal.
The golf course at Yale just needs an advocate, an angel or rabbi.
Oh yeah, I once played golf with the Yale Endowment CIO's son.. I met David Swensen briefly there after.. I don't know if he was a golfer but I'm sure he's aware of the asset and its value.
Based on his care for that asset, I would think that he's in the dark regarding it's value.
Maybe I'll be wrong, I love Yale with my full heart but expecting Yale to spend money on the course to truly make it realize its potential is akin to that great quote in Bergman's the 7th Seal--
"Faith is a torment. It is like loving someone who is out there in the darkness but never appears, no matter how loudly you call."
Have you ever heard of a fellow named Jimmy Valvano ?
Need I remind you of his most famous quote ?
Having faith in Yale's institutional management (not the golf course mgmt and super) to do anything will me like having that faith in god that Max Von Sydow never found..
Finally, we agree.
But, to alter another famous quote, "All that's needed for disrepair to prevail, is for good men to do nothing.
** Finally kudos to Scott Ramsey and Peter Polaski for making my time at Yale so great. I miss it everyday I tee it up here in the Bay Area..
It truly is missed and lest anyone forget, I vote it very highly on any ranking list.. I know what it is.--GREAT
If you believe that, if you truly believe that, why wouldn't you be a strident advocate for it's restoration instead of making excuses ?
Oh and how about the Yale Bowl-- A landmark where many Yale teams play and generate revenue.. And what of it--??
Texas Tech hired Tom Doak, Notre Dame hire Coore & Crenshaw for the specific purpose of designing a superior golf course.
Last I looked, they were interested in education and academics.
It's not a mutually exclusive situation.
Yale's administration is just short sided and lazy.
P.S. One of the problems I have with all of these universities, including Notre Dame, is their never ending expansion.
They think, like the universe, that's it's unending.
Raising money for CapEx is relatively easy, and a one time venture, but, the ongoing OpEX is crushing.
Like your friend, the U.S. Government, universities continue to spend like drunken sailors, with no end in sight.
The cost of education in the U.S. is exorbitant, unaffordable for most, yet tuition, room & board continue to soar every year.
Why ? Because the expansion is never ending, the budgets never static. It's recklessness cloaked under the guise of improving education.
Academia is out of touch with the real world.
Exhibit "A" The professors at Harvard supported PPACA (Obamacare), but, when their contributions went up, minimally, and their benefits were
modified, nominally, they screamed bloody murder. But, the law mandates that those two things had to occur.
Like your U.S. Government, Academia is used to everybody else paying for everything, especially expansion and the increasing operating expenses.
End of rant ;D
costs that follow.
http://www.nhregister.com/sports/20141112/yale-bowl-may-be-receiving-more-restorations
-
Noel,
Just to build on your comments, the problem at Yale is not just with the golf course. It does pertain to other sports facilities. For example, the old Exhibition swimming pool in the Payne Whitney gym was a classic in its day. Really cool. But, today it is outdated and in need of being replaced. Alumni with a swimming background are trying to raise funds, but it doesn't sound like the university has any interest in contributing anything and may even object if an alumnus came forward to write the entire check.
As for the Yale Bowl, it has been quite a long time since I've been there, but I would also bet the university would have zero interest in spending money on the place.
Yes, Notre Dame built a new golf course which I happen to really like. But, what Pat is missing is the environment and the university culture. Notre Dame isn't Yale. They don't resemble each other at all. Not even close.
Wish the Yale golf course was at Princeton. A guy like Ernie Ransome would have made sure it was taken care of.
-
Tim: I can't speak to the swimming pool (except to say that, at least in 2000, it was an amazing, if dank, venue to watch an intense race), but the Bowl was renovated in two phases ending in 2009. Apparently, additional renovations are on the way: http://www.nhregister.com/sports/20141112/yale-bowl-may-be-receiving-more-restorations (http://www.nhregister.com/sports/20141112/yale-bowl-may-be-receiving-more-restorations)
As for the golf course, I'm still a bit perplexed at the comments that have been posted here in the last several days. You started this thread in 2003, when the condition of the course was legitimately poor and in need of significant care. But, as you and many others have noted, 2003 was also when Scott Ramsay was brought on. What he has done in the last 12 years has been stellar, so much so that he was awarded Superintendent of the Year--for the entire country--in 2007.
Now all of a sudden people are posting on here as it were 2003 all over again and Scott's work never happened. Why? Just because, in the Golf Week rankings released last week, the course fell 17 spots from 38 to 55 (although, as someone astutely noted, its point total didn't change all that much)?
Unless something awful happened to the course last year (I played a few times the year before, and it was the best I've ever seen it), I think we need to take a deep breath. Could it be even better? Of course. I'd still like to see a few cart paths moved or obscured and a few mounds reintroduced, and I think we'd all like to see the punchbowl green restored on 3. But to gripe as if it were 2003 is not only unjustified, but a slap in Scott Ramsay's face.
What am I missing?
-
First, to answer the original question of this thread title: not even close. Lido and all the other prominent NLE's would go first, or the countless old courses that no longer have their original routing like Inverness or Oak Hill or even where I am now: Seaside/Plantation nines at Sea Island which now form the Seaside Course. Or the totally modern "redos" of old courses that no longer possess any old-flavor and instead have an abundance of sodded bluegrass turf, flattened greens and new looking bunkers with blinding white sand.
One major myth to dispel: Yale doesn't support athletics or facilities. In fact, Yale supports 33 varsity programs. Compare that to the vast majority of colleges. They also contribute an enormous sum each year from the general fund towards athletics. At many major universities, they separate athletics in funds removed from the university and the schools don't contribute a penny and instead receive sizable returns. See the University of Texas for example.
The next myth is Yale doesn't spend any money on the course. Their maintenance budget is in the vicinity of $1.7 Million, which probably puts it in the top 5% in the country. I cannot discuss this topic candidly on this forum, but the university cannot be accused of not spending any money on it.
Yes, I would like to see a different situation and Mr Hoak and I agree completely. I also love that it is accessible to the students and community and passionate architecture fans around the world. I would like to see fewer rounds (and charge more for unaccompanied play) and raise funds to complete the tree clearing, drainage, irrigation program, turf expansion and a few other projects so this course could place itself where it belongs: in the top 20, but rankings are useless. The course already stands shoulder to shoulder with the finest courses in the country.
Most of you have seen T. Doak's review back in August of 2013. During that twilight round of 11 holes, which he called in his year-end newsletter his second favorite round of that year. I crashed his group on the third green and by the seventh tee we were joined for a few holes by a grad student playing as a single who caught up with us. I'm willing to bet that was one of the few times that year, if at all, that multiple people, one a stranger, just played their way into his group for a few holes. There is a great community at the course that shares the same love of the school, the course and the game and I am grateful for it.
Knowing what I've read and studied about Macdonald, I'm certain that if he came back to earth today, he would enjoy seeing golfers play Yale with its dog-earned/less-than-perfect conditions. He didn't believe in raking bunkers and at Yale that's often the case. He would enjoy seeing people deal with occasional patchy turf and dodgy lies because it's still better than it was back in his day. I'm not sure he would agree with the predictability that comes with the pristine turf at PRC or Creek or all his other designs. Just my thought. I don't have time to expand the thought, but I know he believed in the game being a complete challenge and Yale delivers that in spades.
Thanks.
-
Colin: I played Yale with Ian Andrew and Tom Dunne four years ago and it remains one of the most fascinating courses I've had the privilege to play. Conditions were, at least that day, not a huge issue. The course's design is remarkable. Easily Top 50 in the world.
I frankly fail to understand what people don't "get" about Yale, and I'm not convinced throwing a lot more money at conditioning would change that.
-
This is a very old thread but deserves to be brought back up.
To me the tragedy at Yale continues to be its lack of inclusion on the Golf Digest top 100 list.
Today it takes a significant drop on the Golfweek list, from 38 to 55?
Gary,
Is that more indicative of the quality of the panelists or the golf course ?
What do panelists miss?
I don't understand the "sky is falling" mentality regarding Yale and its placement on the Golfweek list. It is listed as the 55th best classic course in the entire United States. That is a very high ranking and, in fact, places it ahead of Holston Hills, East Lake, Baltusrol Upper, Lawsonia, Congressional, Medinah, and Cherry Hills...to name just a few.
-
I never understood the premise of the revival of this thread. The first time around the meaning was clear, years of neglect had changed a magnificent course into something much less. Due in large measure to the great work of our friends George and Geoff along with the wonderful work by Scott, the course has seen remarkable improvement. But to suggest being underrated is a tragedy places far too much importance on ratings. I enjoy discussing ratings, I confess to serving on a panel. But if Yale were ranked 10 or 15 places higher, would it be any more fun to play? Would its architecture be any more interesting? If the rankings are critical to drawing play or driving initiation fees, then they may be important to a course. Otherwise they are an interesting conversation piece and a source of pride (sometimes misplaced) for members of ranked courses. Nothing that rises to the level of tragedy. Nothing approaching the unsympathetic changes to great courses or even the closing of good courses.
-
I never understood the premise of the revival of this thread. The first time around the meaning was clear, years of neglect had changed a magnificent course into something much less. Due in large measure to the great work of our friends George and Geoff along with the wonderful work by Scott, the course has seen remarkable improvement. But to suggest being underrated is a tragedy places far too much importance on ratings. I enjoy discussing ratings, I confess to serving on a panel. But if Yale were ranked 10 or 15 places higher, would it be any more fun to play? Would its architecture be any more interesting? If the rankings are critical to drawing play or driving initiation fees, then they may be important to a course. Otherwise they are an interesting conversation piece and a source of pride (sometimes misplaced) for members of ranked courses. Nothing that rises to the level of tragedy. Nothing approaching the unsympathetic changes to great courses or even the closing of good courses.
"Tragedy" may overstate the issue. But lots of posters think Yale is underrated. It doesn't break into the top 100 on Golf Digest, and is falling on Golfweek. I'm interested to learn more about both those. Especially since my understanding is that Ramsey et. al. have made major improvements over the last decade or so. If the course is one of the world's all-time greats in architecture and scale -- if it keeps getting better by the year -- why is falling on one major list, and not even appearing on another?
I also have enjoyed the discussion about finances, the Yale Foundation, and support (or lack of it) for the course. Colin Sheehan's post was really interesting. I know little about maintenance costs, and would like to learn more about how they spend the $1.7 million per year, and why that's not enough to bring the course into a condition that reflects its essence.
-
To address the rankings, it is vital to examine the criteria. Yale seems to fit Golfweeks criteria pretty well. It seems that Golf Digests stated criteria might not be a good fit for Yale's characteristics. It might be just that simple.
-
I'd settle for the University acknowledging what a gem of a golf course it has in its possession.
Admittedly, I am not the best at navigating websites. But if you went on Yale's website, would you even know they owned a golf course?
I could not find one reference, even in the Living in New Haven section. Why is that? Wouldn't you want to celebrate this great course?
http://www.yale.edu/
-
Good point, Mac. I copied GD's criteria below. I wonder how well Yale measures up? GD, btw, ranks it 192nd.
How We Rank The Courses
Our panelists play and score courses on seven criteria
1. SHOT VALUES
How well do the holes pose a variety of risks and rewards and equally test length, accuracy and finesse?
2. RESISTANCE TO SCORING
How difficult, while still being fair, is the course for a scratch player from the back tees?
3. DESIGN VARIETY
How varied are the holes in differing lengths, configurations, hazard placements, green shapes and green contours?
4. MEMORABILITY
How well do the design features provide individuality to each hole yet a collective continuity to the entire 18?
5. AESTHETICS
How well do the scenic values of the course add to the pleasure of a round?
6. CONDITIONING
How firm, fast and rolling were the fairways, and how firm yet receptive were the greens on the day you played the course?
7. AMBIENCE
How well does the overall feel and atmosphere of the course reflect or uphold the traditional values of the game?
To arrive at a course's final score, we total its averages in the seven categories, doubling Shot Values. A course needs 45 evaluations over the past eight years to be eligible for America's 100 Greatest.
-
Thanks for posting, Jim. How does Yale not fit those criteria well? The only one anyone is disputing--or at least was disputing in 2003--is conditioning. And even if the dramatic improvements in that area over the last 12 years have not resulted in an above-average score for that one factor, I can't imagine it's not offset by the high marks the course no doubt scores in the other six categories. And if the course doesn't score high marks in the other six categories, I'm not quite sure what to say.
FWIW, here are some selected comments from college golfers and coaches who attended the 2010 NCAA Men's Regionals at Yale (again, Yale will host the regionals once again this May).
http://www.yalebulldogs.com/information/facilities/course_at_yale/index (http://www.yalebulldogs.com/information/facilities/course_at_yale/index)
My two favorites:
John Fields, Head Coach
University of Texas
“It’s a thrill for our guys to come and play a piece of golf history. C.B. Macdonald did an outstanding job almost 90 years ago. It really has stood the test of time. We feel very fortunate to be able to come and compete on this course.”
Patrick Rada, senior player
University of South Carolina
“It is beautiful, and it’s obvious Yale has put a lot of work into it. The condition is second to none. It has a lot of character and elevation change. It’s a fun course to play. Every hole seems different than the other 17.”
-
I never understood the premise of the revival of this thread. The first time around the meaning was clear, years of neglect had changed a magnificent course into something much less. Due in large measure to the great work of our friends George and Geoff along with the wonderful work by Scott, the course has seen remarkable improvement. But to suggest being underrated is a tragedy places far too much importance on ratings. I enjoy discussing ratings, I confess to serving on a panel. But if Yale were ranked 10 or 15 places higher, would it be any more fun to play? Would its architecture be any more interesting? If the rankings are critical to drawing play or driving initiation fees, then they may be important to a course. Otherwise they are an interesting conversation piece and a source of pride (sometimes misplaced) for members of ranked courses. Nothing that rises to the level of tragedy. Nothing approaching the unsympathetic changes to great courses or even the closing of good courses.
"Tragedy" may overstate the issue. But lots of posters think Yale is underrated. It doesn't break into the top 100 on Golf Digest, and is falling on Golfweek. I'm interested to learn more about both those. Especially since my understanding is that Ramsey et. al. have made major improvements over the last decade or so. If the course is one of the world's all-time greats in architecture and scale -- if it keeps getting better by the year -- why is falling on one major list, and not even appearing on another?
I also have enjoyed the discussion about finances, the Yale Foundation, and support (or lack of it) for the course. Colin Sheehan's post was really interesting. I know little about maintenance costs, and would like to learn more about how they spend the $1.7 million per year, and why that's not enough to bring the course into a condition that reflects its essence.
Jim--
I'm certain I know as little about maintenance as anyone here, but I would offer that the collective space that Yale's putting surfaces take up shortens the apparent lavishness of that $1.7 million figure by a good deal. In total Yale has to triple or quadruple the green square footage of "average" courses. The fairways are quite wide, too, so I think that gives Scott and his crew a lot more short/very short grass to maintain than most clubs.
And they continue to do a superb job, in my estimation. I've played the course about a half dozen times from the mid-2000s through this past August, and condition-wise it has improved each time.
When I last played, it looked like a new tee was being built on the 15th. It's a small thing in comparison with, say, restoring the third green or doing something about the unfortunately dull 16th, but it indicates to me that such improvements are at least middle-of-mind to the powers that be, if not as top-of-mind as we would prefer.
As far as the place has come in the last decade, what reason should there be to believe it will not be markedly better another decade from now?
-
$1.7M is a massive maintenance budget. It would seem that Yale is doing a lot to preserve it's Monet. As for the rankings, I couldn't care less. If rankings are your cup of tea, Mr. Doak gave it an 8 probably around the time the conditioning was most questionable. With a decade of improvement, recapturing green surfaces, and all that's been done, does that go up? If so, how can that be the "The Greatest Tragedy In Golf"?
-
Knowing what I've read and studied about Macdonald, I'm certain that if he came back to earth today, he would enjoy seeing golfers play Yale with its dog-earned/less-than-perfect conditions. He didn't believe in raking bunkers and at Yale that's often the case. He would enjoy seeing people deal with occasional patchy turf and dodgy lies because it's still better than it was back in his day. I'm not sure he would agree with the predictability that comes with the pristine turf at PRC or Creek or all his other designs. Just my thought. I don't have time to expand the thought, but I know he believed in the game being a complete challenge and Yale delivers that in spades.
Colin, thank you for your wonderful perspective and the excellent conclusion above.
I've been beyond fortunate to play 16 of the 100 courses on Golfweek's Classic List, including half the top ten. My ten year plan doesn't include many of the remaining 84. However, with the exception perhaps of Merion and Riviera, Yale is the only remaining absolutely must see course on the list whether it's 38, 55 or no longer rated. I have a standing invitation and if nothing else this thread has me thinking I should take advantage of it some time in 2015.
I cannot fathom that it's not the genuine article.
Bogey
-
Ben...
Relative to the best of the best, I think Yale could take hits on 5, 6, and 7. But, you are correct, and the other items lift it up in the Digest rankings and the course still sits at 192.
-
Perhaps the problem lies with the rankers.
-
Ok, George....
Where should Yale sit on the Digest list?
Of the courses you've seen in the Top 10...is it "better" per their criteria than any of those?
Repeat this process on the Top 25...
Top 50...
Top 100.
For reference, the current Top 10 on the Digest list are:
Augusta National
Pine Valley
Cypress Point
Shinnecock Hills
Merion (East)
Oakmont
Pebble Beach
National Golf Links of America
Winged Foot (West)
Fishers Island
As much as I love Yale, it doesn't break that list. (For reference, I've only played 5 of those courses).
EDIT...
I went through the entire Golf Digest Top 100 (I don't love the list, first off), but I could see Yale being in the 75-100 area and at 192 I think it is under-appreciated. However, "The Greatest Tragedy in Golf"? Nah.
-
I'm sure this has been posted here before, but, if not or if it's been a while, please check out this site devoted to the course, its history, and renovations (note the many wonderful interviews available):
https://webspace.yale.edu/Yale-golf-history/index.htm (https://webspace.yale.edu/Yale-golf-history/index.htm)
-
Thank you for that link!!
-
Mac,
This thread was started in 2003 and before all the attention the course received thanks to people like George Bahto and Geoff Childs.
Tommy Naccarato's dressing down of the Yale brass had to be one of the all time classics. Will never forget how Tommy began: "I am going to have to give you guys some tough love". To put it mildly, they were stunned and speechless by the time Tommy was finished.
Obviously, anyone making the argument today simply because Yale didn't make the Top 100 will have to update the case. Circa 2003 the case was strong, save very famous places like Timber Point and the Lido, but it wasn't about being Top 100. It was more about neglect of a real treasure.
-
Tim: Unless the timing is purely coincidental, the hiring of Scott Ramsay in late 2003 and the beginning of "The History of Yale Golf" project in 2004 (see link in my previous reply) certainly suggests that your post and Tommy's dressing down had the desired effect.
-
Tim: Unless the timing is purely coincidental, the hiring of Scott Ramsay in late 2003 and the beginning of "The History of Yale Golf" project in 2004 (see link in my previous reply) certainly suggests that your post and Tommy's dressing down had the desired effect.
Ben,
If I remember correctly, Brad Klein also did an article in GolfWeek magazine around the same time. Tommy and Brad deserve the credit. I doubt any of the Yale brass saw this thread, but they sure got an earful from Tommy and I think Brad's more diplomatic article was ideal as a follow up. It was kind of a good guy, bad guy play. Brad was the more academic, but Tommy provided the passion in a way only he could have done.
-
Ok, George....
Where should Yale sit on the Digest list?
Of the courses you've seen in the Top 10...is it "better" per their criteria than any of those?
Repeat this process on the Top 25...
Top 50...
Top 100.
For reference, the current Top 10 on the Digest list are:
Augusta National
Pine Valley
Cypress Point
Shinnecock Hills
Merion (East)
Oakmont
Pebble Beach
National Golf Links of America
Winged Foot (West)
Fishers Island
As much as I love Yale, it doesn't break that list. (For reference, I've only played 5 of those courses).
EDIT...
I went through the entire Golf Digest Top 100 (I don't love the list, first off), but I could see Yale being in the 75-100 area and at 192 I think it is under-appreciated. However, "The Greatest Tragedy in Golf"? Nah.
I am the absolute LAST person on this site to ask this question. There is no one on here who has played fewer of the top 100 than I.
I am just saying that, when assessing the presumed improper ranking, and the apparent drop in said ranking, perhaps the fault lies with those doing the ranking, not with the course, nor those in charge of maintaining it, whether one means the condition, or the actual bones of the course.
-
George,
I suppose one could always ask the question you are asking or, conversely, take Mac's view. That said, it would be great to see someone familiar with Yale today to make a Top 100 case, perhaps comparing it to the bottom 10 or 20 rather than the Top 10.
-
Yale in my opinion has made tremendous strides in the last 10 years or so in every regard for the course.
Suppose the university, members, Scott and Colin might have a few things left on their wish list.
Even so, Yale as it exists today is not the greatest tragedy in golf.
It might be the greatest success for a Macdonald even though many of the other Mac Raynors have been hard at work getting back to their roots.
Discussion of the ratings and methods brings a little sadness to the thread.
-
Tim, yes. I agree with your sentiment. Yale today is something to be praised, applauded, and celebrated. Which is why I am not understanding the "sky is falling" attitude about where it is ranked...which is pretty darn high and recognizes the good stuff going on there.
-
Mac, I'm with you. Per my earlier post, I think this 2003 thread was unfortunately resuscitated by a 2015 17-rank (but not 17-point) drop in the Golfweek rankings. Not that I'm complaining, as any excuse to talk about my favorite course in the world is a good one.
I was planning to already, but all this talk now ensures that I will compile a photo tour of the course this spring and possibly fall (when the course looks its best). I'm curious to see how the course looks in mid-May for the NCAA East Regional.
-
I wish some of you could have seen the "condition" of The Old White before we started to restore it. Similar situation, owned by CSX Railroad with little or no interest (in some cases) in the history or understanding of the CBM/Raynor masterpiece they once had.
My intro to the interview process was by one of key members of the hospitality division who stated "...would you please go up there and look at it. I have been looking over some old photographs and it seems that there used to be many more options and strategies available before we changed the golf course. In the last thirty years we have made it even worse by planting over 4,000 trees, not to mention changes to the architecture. I think we may have ruined a pretty good golf course.."
I was told later that I was the only architect interviewed that was convincingly insistent on restoration, not renovation. It was implied that most others thought it was too far gone. Once hired, I had to present my plans to the CSX Hospitality Board (over half of which did not play golf). If approved, the plan would take five years to complete (only working November to Easter each year).
It sounds like Yale has some similarities in politics, institutional neglect and not understanding the gem that they have. Having seen it in West Virginia, I understand the frustration. I am fortunate to have been in the right place at the right time, but it took that one member of the Board to realize they may have "ruined a pretty good golf course".
Maybe The Old White could be the case study they use to build their model and present to the powers to be.
Lester
-
Mr. George:
Thank you for the excellent story on Old White.
Sadly Yale is owned by a university and Old White a public corporation which is a big difference. The one person who was able turn it around at Old White had access to funds. Who at Yale would be able to tap into university money is unknown?
-
Gary, I agree. But it takes vision to get the effort started. There were those at CSX that didn't want to spend anything on the Old White. They simply didn't know what it was.
Hopefully they will find that spark at Yale. They could raise the money in a year. But with no plan, direction or knowledge, they are likely not to take the first step.
Lester
-
Lester:
I am surprised by your comments about CSX. Their senior marketing folks certainly are golfers and always seemed quite proud of the Greenbrier, including the Old White. Around the time you did your work the course was closed for a few days, but they even made a point of opening the course just for me to play because they knew of my interest in golf architecture.
As for the sale of the resort, CSX was under a lot of pressure from a shareholder group that didn't believe money should be tied up in a golf resort. My impression was that killed senior management's willingness to hang on to the place.
CSX spends a lot of time hosting customers at the Masters and they do a great job, but in my experience as a customer they also loved entertaining at the Greenbrier.
-
Yale in my opinion has made tremendous strides in the last 10 years or so in every regard for the course.
Suppose the university, members, Scott and Colin might have a few things left on their wish list.
Even so, Yale as it exists today is not the greatest tragedy in golf.
It might be the greatest success for a Macdonald even though many of the other Mac Raynors have been hard at work getting back to their roots.
Discussion of the ratings and methods brings a little sadness to the thread.
John,
In case it wasn't clear, my question about Yale and this thread dates back to 2003. By all accounts, lots has changed for the better.
-
Tim,
You are misreading my comments. I have many friends and great respect for all of those CSX people who I worked for. Maybe the timing is misleading you. I worked for CSX from 2002 to. 2006 restoring the course. That's a full three years before the sale of the resort. Those in hospitality were proud of the course, but even they were not sure of the history. All was lost of the original Raynor work (except for the routing) prior to WWII and the course was really corrupted in the Hospital years.
My comments all apply to prior to 2006. I suspect you are speaking of after that.
Lester
-
Tim,
You are misreading my comments. I have many friends and great respect for all of those CSX people who I worked for. Maybe the timing is misleading you. I worked for CSX from 2002 to. 2006 restoring the course. That's a full three years before the sale of the resort. Those in hospitality were proud of the course, but even they were not sure of the history. All was lost of the original Raynor work (except for the routing) prior to WWII and the course was really corrupted in the Hospital years.
My comments all apply to prior to 2006. I suspect you are speaking of after that.
Lester
Lester,
You are correct on the timing. Pretty sure I was first a guest of CSX in 2006 and then for a few years after that.
Never had any contact with CSX hospitality personnel that I recall. My interaction was with the railroad marketing people, including an interesting conversation about golf architecture with CEO Michael Ward who is also a member at Augusta. Other than that day at Yale with Tommy Naccarato, the conversation with Michael Ward may have been the most memorable golf architecture discussion I've ever had.
-
Tim,
Call me at the number I left you. We will discuss golf architecture and the Old White.
Lester