[Ken_Cotner]

--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

[tonyt]

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.

[Tim_Weiman]

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.

[Mike Hendren]

 
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

[Mike_Cirba]

tonyt;

VERY well stated and one can find not a word to disagree with.  

Perhaps we all become too complacent with mediocrity at times.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

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.

[Scott_Burroughs]

Yes, I plan on rising very early.  Can you make it at the crack of dawn?  (Didn't Tony Orlando get lucky that way?)  

I'm going to try for the 29th.  Another from here can make it that day.

We can discuss classic tragedies more then.

[ForkaB]

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.....

[Scott_Burroughs]

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.  

[ForkaB]

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.......

[Tim_Weiman]

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.

[Jim_H]

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!
 

[ForkaB]

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.....

[Tim_Weiman]

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.

[ForkaB]

Tim

You are not listening.

[rpurd]

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......

[GeoffreyC]

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.

[GeoffreyC]

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.

[Tim_Weiman]

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.

[TPC@RH]

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?

[Joel_Stewart]

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?

[tonyt]

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.

[ForkaB]

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.

[tonyt]

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.

[ForkaB]

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?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()