[GeoffreyC]

Jim H

Roger Rulewich is being paid for his work at Yale.  He did not donate his services to his former university.  Somewhere and somehow he was hired and funds were raised bunker by bunker, one at a time, to do the much discussed work on the front 9.  There was no master plan and this was all a huge waste that had nothing to do with daily operations of the course or it running at a deficit to the university.

After this fiasco, a plan was put in place and you seem to be aware of some of the details.  Again, Roger Rulewich was maintained and this time he was to be under the supervision of a committee. The membership was asked for money without any details except they would go towards the "complete restoration" of their CB Macdonald gem. You see some of the results of this project.  It has nothing to do with the University deficit nor does not having a superintendent for a protracted period of time. When we had a superintendent, he was instructing workers (I assume) to regularly water the front rignt shoulder of the redan!  The mowing patterns when they are mowed are abismal and affect the play in a way not intended by the architecture.

The course needs a greater operating budget but they need to know what they are doing with the money too. George Bahto wrote a "white paper" describing to the school what they had and how it could be recovered.  It was ignored as so I claim that the income they derive from memberships and fees certainly isn't enough but you can't say this deficit is the direct link to the conditions of the course (In my opinion).

[T_MacWood]

Who makes up the committee....athletic department officials, the membership (student, staff, faculty, alums), university facilities personel, a combination?

What was the purpose of calling in George Bahto...have they acted on any of his recommendations?

I'm confused, is R.Rulewich is incapable of accurately restoring Yale to Macdonald/Raynor or he is not interested in restoration, but modernizing/renovating of the golf course?

Does the university have a director of historical preservation...I know they have a number of faculty members that are very influential in that arena...some of whom have been critical of the university in the past...criticism that it appears influenced the university to amend some of their plans.

[THuckaby2]

Tommy - great stuff.  OK, just call my passion more misguided than most on here.  

Re Max Behr courses, man the immediate thought for me is Lakeside... Looking at Dan's book, yeah, it couldn't be recreated.  The land the other side of the wash ain't coming back to the club.  But that's a tragedy in and of itself, isn't it?

TH

[GeoffreyC]

Tom MacWood

The committee as far a I know consists of the two individuals that initiated and direct the new fund raising project that began after I showed one of them the front nine work.

It includes at least two members that I know and probably others.

I think the assistant athletic director is a member.

There are I believe nine members so that leaves four additional spaces that may well be filled by members.  

They are well intentioned individuals but seem to be overly practical and unopen to a complete and accurate restoration in spite of what the director of golf wrote to the membership.

I put George Bahto in touch with my friend who is the individual who initiated the new project.  They worked together for quite some time and Goerge served in an advisory capacity and in addition drew up papers and hole diagrams that were to seerve as catalysts for further support. I will not comment on what happened.

You ask "I'm confused, is R.Rulewich is incapable of accurately restoring Yale to Macdonald/Raynor or he is not interested in restoration, but modernizing/renovating of the golf course?"

I don't know.  I do see the results of his efforts before and after supervision by the committee.  He was presumably influenced as a young man by his education at Yale and his experiences at the golf course so I would hope that he has the interests of the course at heart. I'll just let the results speak for themselves.

[JakaB]

I have concluded the original bunkering design is far too penal for the average golfer and thus flies in the face of making golf enjoyable for all....a theory I never liked anyway.   So you all who thinks its just one big fun game be careful for what you ask for because it may show up at a course near you.

[GeoffreyC]

John- That was the thought of others as well.  It was recently stated that the course at Yale was obsolete and much too difficult. Changes started by the superintendent long ago to bulldoze out green contours in the name of "more accurate putting" started the trend in dumbing down features and it probably continued with the bunkers originally altered on the front nine by Roger Rulewich.

I recently played with a young women who could golf her ball fairly well.  She was absolutely horrified at the thought of the course as it used to be. The description of the alps hole (#12) as it was originally designed with its blind approach over a deep trench bunker had her shaking her head at the thought of the shot.  I would predict, however, that many such individuals would derive great satisfaction when they were able to overcome these obstacles and enjoy the course even more.

[JakaB]

So True Geoff....I think this proves that due to the greater number of golfers who play the game and the general need of fairness in todays society Alister MacKenzie's opinion that architecture should be designed for all abilities is an obsolete stance.

[George Pazin]

Barn -

I think a lot of it has to do with how you define playable for all. I don't think that unkempt area looks that bad at all. Heck, anyone who's played with me on the site will tell you I'm a mediocre golfer & that area would not be any more difficult than a normal bunker - actually, it'd probably be easier for me.

Speaking as the token 90s golfer on the site, what I find makes a course "unplayable" (in truth, not really unplayable, just less enjoyable) is tons of water in play, tight tree lined fairways & super thick rough. My limited experience with desert courses & other courses with less maintained waste areas is that these areas aren't too bad.

P.S. This is one sad statement:

Changes started by the superintendent long ago to bulldoze out green contours in the name of "more accurate putting" started the trend in dumbing down features and it probably continued with the bunkers originally altered on the front nine by Roger Rulewich.

Kind of ironic that one of the top learning institutions in the world is dumbing down a golf course.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

John, That is OK. Alister MacKenize isn't for everybody, The same can be said about Prosac.  

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Tom, You are correct in your thinking of Lakeside as being one of the Great Tragedies. But if you are going to start there, you might as well include all of the others here in SoCal that didn't make it or were drastically altered because of the Great Depression and the War.

--San Pedro Golf & CC
--Hollywood CC
--Midwick CC
--Pasadena CC
--Sunset Fields GC (36 holes)
--Fox Hills GC (36 holes)
--California CC
--St. Andrews By The Sea
--Lake Norconian Club
--El Caballero CC
--Griffith Park (36 holes)
--Rancho Park
--Hacienda GC
--Oakmont CC
--Lakeside CC
--Montebello GC
--Redlands CC

And there are more, many more. Maybe not as good as some of the ones in New York. But anyone that would think nothing existed out here is quite mistaken.

[Dan Grossman]

What about all of Thomas' courses?  La Cumbre, Ojai, maybe Riveria (depending on how you look at it).

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Thank you Dan. Quite obviously I wasn' at the top of my game today.

[THuckaby2]

Tommy - I only mentioned Lakeside because I used to play there a LOT and looking at Daniel's book, I can picture really well what might have been....

SoCal is a graveyard of golf tragedies, though.  Man that is a sad - but impressive - list.

TH

[Tommy_Naccarato]

[michael j fay]

Unionized green crew.

Roger Rulewich

The best Raynor course ever?

Worst daily conditions in Connecticut

A University that does not care.

YES

[R.S._Barker]

I've never played Yale, but knowing that its a great Seth Raynor design, and that its been mostly ignored in any true restoration effort makes me vote the course into the top 3 Greatest Tragedies In Golf - behind Lido and Links Club.

As to the rest of the conversations in this thread, thank you for a very interesting read, and for proving once again why this site is so very special. I don't post very often, but do spend a good deal of time here enjoying the variety of topics.

[Mike_Sweeney]

Just pulling this up for some playing partners that I played with today.

[Eric Pevoto]

We played 36 at Yale last Wednesday.  I've already IM'd a couple of people with my impressions.  In short, I absolutely love the place.  The scale of it is inspiring.  So many of the holes are just completely atypical of what we've come to expect of American golf.

The 18th in particular is a hole that just blew me away; aerials don't reveal anything about it.  I'm still riding the high, but I can't think of two more compelling shots than the first two on 18.  

The first time we played it, even with an explanation from our host, I had no idea what to do with the second shot after a good drive down into the little pocket.  I bailed a little right into the lower right sliver of fairway leaving about 130 yards to the green.  

Once we got to the green, the "turbo boost" strategy of driving the ball to a position so the second could be played over the hill left was so apparent and appealling.  I honestly played most of the second round just eagerly awaiting those two shots.  Fantastic.  One of the best par fives I've ever played.

[Gary Sato]

This is a very old thread but deserves to be brought back up.

To me the tragedy at Yale continues to be its lack of inclusion on the Golf Digest top 100 list.  Today it takes a significant drop on the Golfweek list, from 38 to 55? 

What do panelists miss?

[Joe Bausch]

As I've said before on this site:  I love Yale.

Here are some photos from many visits there over the last 6 years or so:

http://www80.homepage.villanova.edu/joseph.bausch/images/albums/YaleGC/index.html

[Benjamin Litman]

I'm with you, Gary. The tragedy used to be (i.e., at the time of Tim's initial post) the deterioration of the course; the tragedy now is its underappreciation since the immense progress made under Scott Ramsay. For what it's worth, I fell in love with the course, golf, and golf-course architecture in 2001-02, so even then its greatness was apparent.

[Mac Plumart]

I think the fact that Yale is so high up on this list* is a good thing. It fell a few spots, but still is highly rated. I think that the architecture at Yale is in the class of Fishers Island. Pump up the conditioning and the appreciation of the course would skyrocket.

*im referring to the 2015 Golfweek list.

[Tim_Weiman]

This is a very old thread but deserves to be brought back up.

To me the tragedy at Yale continues to be its lack of inclusion on the Golf Digest top 100 list.  Today it takes a significant drop on the Golfweek list, from 38 to 55? 

What do panelists miss?

Gary,

Thanks for bringing thread back. Lots to like about Yale, including my visit with Tommy Naccarato and Geoff Childs. Tommy's dressing down of the Yale brass was absolutely classic.

[Mark Pritchett]

I think the fact that Yale is so high up on this list* is a good thing. It fell a few spots, but still is highly rated. I think that the architecture at Yale is in the class of Fishers Island. Pump up the conditioning and the appreciation of the course would skyrocket.

*im referring to the 2015 Golfweek list.

Well said Mac. 

[Kirk Gill]

A classic thread. Lots of names whose contributions I miss now.............

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()