[GeoffreyC]

Roger Rulewich replied to the article by Brad Klein in Golfweek magazine with a lot of self-serving nonsense as was pointed out in two other threads. However, he also said that he was brought on to do a restoration beginning in 1998 and then commented on how this work will and has maintained the greatness of this design.

What a bunch of crap and lies!  First of all the project was initiated at that time without a master plan (which is still not in place even after the work is finished!).  The initial goal was to clean up the bunkers and the project moved on one bunker at a time after someone donated $5000 to have the work done by Rulewich and his construction crew.  This stupid process went on as each well intentioned individual ponied up his $5000 donation.  For Mr. Rulewich to claim as he did in his letter that he studied aerials, old photographs and consulted with individuals who remembered the course right from the start in 1998 is as absurd a statement as I have ever heard.  It’s a lie and a joke but let’s take him on his word and look at this work hole by hole to see how a good restoration (as he claims) turns out.  

The entire front nine went on like this bunker by bunker.  We then had our first GCA outing at Yale in May of 2001 followed by Tony Pioppi’s Golfweek article which contributed to the initial furor that the course was being butchered. At about this time John Beinecke was shown (by me) the crap that passed for restoration and he agreed that it was unsatisfactory and the current “restoration program” began and members and alums were asked to contribute.  We will get into this phase of the so called restoration later on but here is where George Bahto was brought on to consult. Also, here at this time is where a committee of well intentioned amateurs who know little about architecture was formed to take Rulewich around by the hand and make him use the aerial and construction photos to at least have a pseudo-restoration on the back nine.  The point is that Mr. Rulewich did NOT start any restoration in 1998.  He did as he was trained to do by the master of butchering golden age courses Robert Trent Jones Sr. So much for the credibility of his claims in his letter to Golfweek.  The back nine work is their effort at restoration.

Since Mr. Rulewich is so proud of all of his work at Yale, lets look at the front nine first.

[GeoffreyC]

The first hole at Yale is one of the great opening holes I know.  The drive is thrilling and the approach depends on the location of the pin on this amazing green and where your tee shot landed.

Here is the green complex from 1934 along with the adjacent 8th green. The first green is on the right and the approach is from the top of the photo.



In George Bahto's great book on Charles Blair MacDonald, there is a hole by hole description of Yale that includes some of what Charles Banks describes about the holes.

Banks says about #1 "The green is a huge double green of the road hole type on the right and a Punchbowl on the left set into a bit of a hollow bunkered left and right. The play to the left half of the green is over a deep bunker about the front and left side of the green, requiring a lofted ball. The play to the right half of the green is a direct shot to the high shoulder of the approach permitting a run up. The right half of the green has a deep bunker all along the right side ....."

Here are some of the new bunkers that are supposed to restore this great golf course.

Front left bunker- old members remember the huge high lip of this bunker that made the shot to the punchbowl half of the green nearly blind.  The bunker was deep and the walls steeply angled down to the sand.

New front left bunker- note and compare shape with original.


The right side was one big and very deep bunker with steep walls leading down into the sand.

This was one big bunker- this is the new front right bunker

This is the new rear right bunker

This is a beautiful mound he built between the bunkers on the right side.



So- what do you think so far?  

Is this a restoration?

Is this worthy of one of the great masterpieces of Seth Raynor?

Are the shapes, depth and slopes preserved? Is the front left bunker close enough to the green?

Is Mr. Rulewich correct in his reply to the article by Brad Klein in Golfweek magazine? Could he have been working with old aerials and photos to recreate THIS (I have a cane and a seeing eye dog for him if he was)?

Is Yale University preserving its landmark treasures?

[Craig Disher]

RR's bunkers must be a lot easier to maintain. Renovation? certainly. Restoration? not even close.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Geoff Childs,

My eyes aren't very good, and the 1934 photo appears blurry, but it did seem like the right side bunker was one bunker, not two seperate bunkers.  Am I correct ?

The problem may be that those that Mr Rulewich reports to, accept his interpretation of what existed before, and the results of what he has built, in his interpretive attempt at restoration.

It all goes back to the owner, if they don't know what they want, there're going to end up getting what they don't want.

[GeoffreyC]

Yale 1934

[noonan]

The original bunker is clearly is one bunker.

This guy is a butcher.

Stop him immeditely.

JK

[Tommy_Naccarato]

There is little doubt in my mind that Roger Rulewich has little interest other then political in the Yale Debacle. Just the few photos here prove it.

As for him coming back at Brad, he has done so, just as passionate as the famed Landscape Architects turned Golf Course Architects of Southern California--Its all about what works for them regardless of schools of knowledge or style and influence--they serve their interests best designing a parking lot, highway median, or someplace or something that requires their level of creativity.

Somehow you would think a Yale grad would have been smarter then that--but then again.............

[George Pazin]

The saddest thing for me is that, prior to the 2001 outing which I had hoped to attend, Geoff was kind enough to mail me a photocopy of the yardage guide for the course. He even went further & wrote notes on the various holes, saying things like "You can't believe how deep this bunker is" or "This guide doesn't show the dramatic features & contours of the course." Geoff Shackelford's book does show some unbelievable photos of how the course looked early in its life.

The photos posted on this thread don't look anything the images created in my mind after reading Geoffrey's thoughtful comments, nor like Geoff Shackelford's photos. Furthermore, to see Yale & Mr. Rulewich's reactions to all the criticisms leveled make it even sadder. This truly is a tragedy.

[Patrick_Mucci]

George Pazin,

To be realistic, you didn't think that Mr Rulewich would embrace Brad's criticism, did you ?

I can understand his reaction, and I probably would have written a siimilar letter.  The only difference is, I would have ripped mine up the next day, rather then forward it.

[GeoffreyC]

I know that Roger Rulewich and his associates are aware of and read these threads on GCA.

I invite them to please contribute to the discussion of the Yale golf course and its history and attempted restoration.  Instead of sitting back being pissed off come on here and discuss the situation.  Mr. Rulewich has already admitted in his letter (in so many words) that Yale has mishandled the maintenance and upkeep of the course over the years.  Lets hear more about how they mishandled the course and how your work helped to restore the greatness of the design.

The committee who worked with Roger are aware of this site (at least many are including John Beinecke).  Please join the discussion here and lets collectively discuss the photographic evidence now that the project is completed. I'd love to hear from you.

Tom Beckett the athletic director and Forest Temple the asst. athletic director must be aware of this site by now.  Come on here and explain in public the way you must be right now to the higher ups in the university who have been made aware of your decisions that affected the course over the years.    

[George_Bahto]

Look carefully at the two bunkers between holes #1 and #8 - they are right across from one another.

Obviously the right side of #1 green was one bunker - but that was OK in the early years for the course did not get a lot of play and as play increased a “walk-way” was made. I have no problem with that you see this happening on all the old courses ....... why ? I think a lot of this had to do with the advent of manicured bunkers. We’ve all seen the famous picture of Hell’s Bunker (14th St Andrews) - the player is in the bunker, his caddie is standing in the bunker and if I remember correctly, so was his opponent and his caddie.

So with the advent of groomed bunkers the players were not going to walk around so they climbed the bank (duh” a problem of today also) - hence the walkway.  I have a lot of old photos of Raynor Short holes where the original bunker, in some cases, went 270-degrees around the green. Walk ways were created for most of those holes also.

But back to the two greenside bunkers - one on the right of hole, the other to the right of hole-8: those bunkers were huge! - lost years ago, not recently.  I was told that when you were in the bunker on the right side of 1-green, when the berm was still there, you often could not see the flat (unless you were Mike Sweeney - hah).

The real focus should be on the left-front greenside bunker - this the representation of a “road hole pot bunker”
- it was huge, had a very interesting shape and was jammed in close to the green, as it should be. Of course, with proper greenside expansion it would be “close to the green.”

I’ll quote Charles Banks who was there helping with the construction, was an intelligent fellow - a Yale grad, who became Raynor’s partner in short order. This quote is from an article written by Charles (very formal, huh?  - can’t stand the ‘steamshovel’ thing personally).

Hole 1:

The greens at Yale are so huge there can easily be two different styles of greens on the same hole.  

The green (hole 1) is a huge double green of the Road Hole type on the and a Punchbowl on the left set into a bit of a hollow bunkered left and right.

The play to the left half of the green is over a deep bunker about the front and left side of the green,
requiring a lofted ball.  

The play to the right half of the green is a direct shot to the high shoulder of the approach with a kick in to
the green.  

The right half of the green has a deep bunker all along the right side but a clear approach permitting a run
up.  

It is evident that the play of the second shot is considerably dependent upon the placing of the first shot."

[GeoffreyC]

The first green must be 10,000 sq ft and probably larger if you recover the green space out to its original size seen in the aerial.  So, in looking at this the scale of the bunkering is obvious.  The bunkers were as George said, ENORMOUS. Where is this restored scale?      

There was a berm or lip to the front left bunker that according to member who remembers clearly made only the very top of the flagstick visable in the punchbowl left half of the green.  Where is this berm or lip today? A memory.  Perhaps it was removed way back by the Superintendent in the name of fairness or visability but this was a restoration. "A complete restoration of our Charles Blair McDonald golf course" according to the letter soliciting money for the project.

Where is the scale, shaping and intensity of the original Yale bunkering on hole #1?  

[Tim_Weiman]

Geoffrey Childs:

I want to compliment you on all your efforts and especially for starting this thread (with others to follow, presumably).

I'll pass them on to Yalie friends of mine so they can be informed as to what has been going on.

Hopefully, Yale's management will respond in a positive way so that your work and that of George Bahto will not be in vain.

[Michael Whitaker]

Geoffery, George, et al: You are preaching to the choir. Why not compose an open letter to Yale and Mr. Rulewich detailing what has (and hasn't) happened to the course... post it on GCA.com... have everyone at GCA.com who agrees with you sign it (by proxy)... then, publish it in Golfweek. How much would a full-page ad cost? Perhaps Mr. Klein would give us a discount. Solicit support from the Raynor Society. I would be willing to pay for a share of the ad. This site simply doesn't reach enough people to make a difference. It's too inbred. Most Golfweek readers "don't get it" and, if they read Mr. Rulewich's letter, probably just see this as a pissing match between him and Mr. Klein. Put your argument in front of a large enough audience and you will get some attention. Newspapers, TV stations, and magazines love these kinds of stories.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Geoff Childs,

Michael Whitaker makes an excellent suggestion.

I would recommend copying the Yale heirarchy as well.

Get busy composing, just don't let TEPaul get involved, as you'll need a bookbinder to package the letter.  

[GeoffreyC]

My feelings and love for the the golf course as well as my negative feelings for the projects that have redone all the bunkers and added new ones seen in the aerial are well known to the Athletic Director, Restoration Committee, Assistant Athletic Director, Director of GOlf, former Director of Golf, Dean of the School of Architecture, another emeritus Professor of Architecture and preservationist and the President of the University.

I think I am the only Raynor Society member who is associated with the Yale course in any way.  The director of golf was invited to attend the recent meeting with a group from the course and he declined.  The Society itself is as far as I know is not in the business of telling courses what and what not to do with regard to changing the architecture.

If you or anyone else (especially those who have actually played the course recently) would like to voice your opinion then by all means please send letters to any or all of the above individuals.  I would be happy to help you to contact them. I don't see what an ad in Golfweek would accomplish that your individual pleas would not do in a more personal and powerful way.

[Michael Whitaker]

Individual pleas may be personal, but they are not powerful.

An ad would shine the light of day on the issue and alert the general golfing public to GCA.com's concerns about the decisions that have been made and the actions being taken. Otherwise, the decision makers you have named can cloak themselves in their titles and declare you, or anyone else who complains privately, a zealot who doesn't understand the "real world" reasons for the changes being made. Make no mistake, if your position on the alterations at Yale rings true with the public and/or the media you WILL see some response from the powers that be. As it stands now, they can just slough you off because you present no threat to them. Go public with the complaint, put it in print, write radio & tv stations, memo the Golf Channel, buy an ad in the alumni newsletter... you will be perceived as a threat. And, you will stand a chance of making a difference.

[Kelly_Blake_Moran]

Geoffrey,
Just posting to keep you on page 1; your important thread was starting to slip down a bit.  By the way, without diverting energies away from your main focus, does the ASGCA nee to be copied since there appears to be some serious ethical misbehavior on the part of one of their members?  This could be a major moment for GCA by shining light on a travesty.  I would expect if you have a major impact on this issue many architects will be much more careful when engaging in projects like this.  Patrick always says that it is the owner's responsibility not the architects, because the owner or committee gives the directive, but I firmly beleive the architect knows in their heart when they are being directed to do something irresponsible, and it is up to them to make the case with the owner and if that fails you have to have the integrity to walk away.  I sure as hell will set a better example for my kids by doing that and having to feed them bread and water rather than participate in a compromising situation that tehy may  learn of later and see their vision of one of their heros blemished.  I am sure Roger could have walked away, he has plenty of big dollar contracts so it wouldn't hurt him.  But even if he didn't that is not the issue, and you have the opportunity to make it the issue, the architect's responsibility to an architectural treasure, irregardless of the client's needs.  just because the client owns it and controls the big dollar, the architect does not have a responsibility to follow the owner's wishes and directives.  An architect has a much higher calling than the owner's desires.  The real issue is whether the architect has the integrity to know what that calling is in each situation.  

[George_Bahto]

Kelly: well said - you hit the nail right on the HEAD. Thand you.

gb

[GeoffreyC]

Kelly

Thank you for the reply and for your suggestion.  I certainly believe that the work done to the front nine beginning in 1998 qualifies as a situation where the architect had a responsibility to tell the athletic department that their plan to upgrade the bunkers one at a time when $5000 was donated by an individual was a recipe for disaster.  This would be true even if Rulewich was working from photos and aerials to restore the course (which at that time he most certainly WAS NOT.  This haphazard, shoddy work which we will see hole by hole in no way resembles a restoration and it was not intended as such regardless of what Rulewich now claims years later.

For example see this bunker complex on hole #6 (we have seen this cat litter box before). Look at the aerial above for comparison).


Mr. Rulewich spent years at Yale playing the course beginning in 1954 and I would hope this great course had some influence on his decision to become a golf course architect. Why he would do this to such a great design is something only he can answer but my opinion is that this front nine work is malpractice at worst and poor preservation of a landmark golf course at the very best.

Now Mr. Beinecke comes into the picture and sees this front nine work and agrees that it is horrible.  THis is when an effort at restoration begins. There was an effort spearheaded by the committee to restore it as reasonably as they can given the concerns of those who play the course and those who have to maintain it.  The back nine represents this effort.  I honestly believe that this is the best Roger Rulewich can do as far as MacDonald/Raynor restoration work. The back nine is not malpractice, it's just POOR RESTORATION NOT WORTHY OF THIS GREAT COURSE.

So, in summary I agree completely with your argument with regard to the front nine but not the back.  That's just bad work.

[tonyt]

As I alluded to in the previous Tragedy of Yale thread, every renovation (no matter how thoughtful, and relevant to the modern game and players) is merely another nail in the coffin of living golden age principles for our children to see.

I don't want every golf course to avoid being modern or practical. Just an ample number of old gems that beg to forever remain a testament to the great years, and an existing example of the work of the period. Once it's all gone, our children will only have old photos and second hand recollections. Not the few breathing sites we still have now to see.

[GeoffreyC]

Bula Bula - bring this to the top with hole #2

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()