[Bruceski]

The 5th at Yale. Is this a good hole, and if so, why? When playing this hole, I found the green complex unnatural in its "perfect protuberance" from the surrounding landscape. Has the bunkering been significantly altered giving it a bland geometric look?

[Paul Turner]

The bunkers used to be a lot deeper (see Shackelford's "Golden Age" book for a photo) and was the green more contoured?

But if you don't like the manufactured geometric style then you probably just don't like Raynor's style.  I suppose the "Short" hole is the most geometric of all the formula holes he used.

(see the interview of George Bhato of this site for in depth info on the MacDonald,Raynor,Banks style)

[Paul Turner]

PS

What did you think of the 14th green?  It's clearly manufactured, but also less square, did it fit your eye better?

[Bruceski]

Paul,

I got rained and thundered out on the 11th. So I didn't see most of the back 9. I really liked the rest of the course (that I was able to play). This hole stood out as the one I didn't like.

[Paul Turner]

Bruce

I shouldn't have said "you probably don't like Raynor's style" as you clearly liked the other holes.  Check out Ran's reviews of Raynor courses and you'll see the underlying style in his courses.  

[A_Clay_Man]

While it may not be all-world, from this picture it appears to be a breather hole, but still commands a challenge. The raised green is awesome, IMO. And, if you just showed me this green and didn't tell me where or who, i'd guess DR.

With the description of the rocky land in Ct. and seeing the other pictures of this course, I don't see where it is, unnatural.

It looks like many of the small windblown plateaus that grace my vision everyday here in rocky New Mexico.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bruce,

When I played the course last year I noticed that a good deal of the green could be recaptured, back to what appeared to be the original foot pad, immediately adjacent to bunkers, providing some challenging pin positions.

I thought it was a neat short hole

[Bruceski]

I hope I didn't give the impression that I think it's a bad hole. I welcome these replies. I think it IS possible to analyze a hole and in so doing uncover its hidden beauty and strategic merits. Maybe my impression was tainted by my tee shot that found the bunker [I made a 4].  

Am I wrong in seeing a link between this hole and some of the holes created by Pete Dye?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bruce,

YES !

[A_Clay_Man]

Bruce- I see what your seeing. And the answer is "no" your not nuts. I have seen enough Pete to know that he uses forms of forms. And this look is Similar to many greensites on many dye courses. The first that comes to mind is the first Par 3 on the dunes course in P.S. Then some of the greensites on the Stadium course, too. Even at Blackwolf Run he embelishes on Redan variations.

[TEPaul]

Holes like that one are just dead giveaways of the MacDonald/Raynor/Banks look.

Some of the other early architects did greens sort of like that one or at least they looked a bit like that one in a particular part or piece of the green. Ross often used manufactured builtup architecture a bit like that on one side of a green to level the green surface against otherwise naturally too sloped topography. The big deep faced bunker was what he used to support the leveling construction of the green.

Occasionally, even a Ross hole or some of the other early architects did greens that were that totally manufactured or pushed up all around but that was probably more a need for fill for green construction than sticking to any particular style.

But the look of that green in that photo and the look and size and grassed down bunkering to a flat sand floor is highly characteristic of the style of MacD/Raynor/Banks. It's a style they seemed to carry through their careers, Raynor and Banks more than MacDonald. If you happened to see the Curtis Cup today at Fox Chapel you could see lots of architecture of that basic manufactured (vaguely geometric) style.

The fact that it doesn't look natural (actually it looks highly manufactured) can best be understood in the fact that in that early era when they originated that particular look it obviously didn't matter to them that it looked manufactured and unnatural. What they were trying to do with that engineered look is create really good and interesting greens to play and they did that.

You will notice that that highly manufactured look of those guys was almost always in and around the green ends!

[GeoffreyC]

Bruce- just got back from a hot/muggy round at the Yale course.

Go to the feature interview section of the site and give Geprge Bahto's interview a good read.  I think it will clarify some features of the MacDonald/Raynor style for you.  Also you might be interested to read all the course profiles on MacDonald/Raynor courses including Yale.

To answer your question, look at the old photo in Geoff's book (page 40).  I think its a wonderful "short" hole but not necessarily among the best built by MacDonald/Raynor/Banks.  Unfortunately, Roger Rulewich made the bunkers 5 feet shallower during his butchering of all the bunkers on the front 9.  I believe the green had a traditional horseshoe back in the 50's that was long ago removed as well.  Its a very precise shot (especially when there is wind) and missing the putting surface really requires good touch and some luck to make par.  After such a difficult start on #'s 1-4 one really doesn't want to make bogey or worse on #5.  This really plays with your head as well.

I hope you get a chance to get back to Yale to play the whole course.  When you do, go into the dining room and look at all the construction photos on the wall.  They will show you what a wild and wonderful place it was.  Also, purchase a copy of George Bahto's book which is scheduled to be released any day now (Yes George?   ).

[TEPaul]

George Bahto's book is going to be released any day now and I'm still alive!? Wow, I never thought that would happen!

[Bruceski]

I've indeed read a few of the other Raynor course profiles at this site. And I see the parallels. Very interesting stuff.

In fact, I look at my photos of the 2nd hole at Yale, and I see some of the same techniques around its green.

I never did go back to Yale to see the back 9, but I will. I did look at the photos in the dining room (what else is one to do during a thundering rainstorm?), and I also noted in those photos how much land was blasted and plowed to make Yale. I guess Raynor wasn't too concerned with always respecting the natural flow of the land. No biggie, it's a great course that I found a lot of fun. Especially because I was hitting it well that day.

[David_Lee]

I play Yale alot and I find #5 the toughest of the 4 par 3s especially with a back pin position.  The other 3 par 3s all seem to have a safe bail out area/shot (even #9, you can always overclub and still be safe).   The trees mask any wind, while hitting over the green is death.  The result is often a shot well short of the pin, or an overcooked iron that hooks left into the bunkers.  

What would make the hole even better IMO is if the green were more severely pitched from back to front.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()