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!!