[TEPaul]

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?"

[THuckaby2]

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

[larry_munger]

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.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Larry,
I couldn't agree more. Right now, it isn't Top 100, and I hate putting it like that.

[larry_munger]

Tony, I mean Tommy, great minds think alike, glad you enjoyed your visit to NYC metro area.

[GeoffreyC]

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.



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.



This is the new sensitive restoration by Roger Rulewich with oversight by the committee.          

[brad_miller]

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.

[Tim_Weiman]

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?

[TEPaul]

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.

[THuckaby2]

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

[Tim_Weiman]

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.

[THuckaby2]

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

[Tim_Weiman]

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?

[THuckaby2]

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

[GeoffreyC]

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.

 

[THuckaby2]

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

[Tom_Doak]

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!

[GeoffreyC]

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.

[Tim_Weiman]

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!

[Jim_H]

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.

[GeoffreyC]

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.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

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!)

[Jim_H]

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.

[THuckaby2]

Noted and chuckled at, Tommy.  

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

[Tommy_Naccarato]

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.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()