Is Yale The Greatest Tragedy In Golf?

[Mac Plumart]

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? 

Gary,

Is that more indicative of the quality of the panelists or the golf course ?

What do panelists miss?

I don't understand the "sky is falling" mentality regarding Yale and its placement on the Golfweek list.  It is listed as the 55th best classic course in the entire United States.  That is a very high ranking and, in fact, places it ahead of Holston Hills, East Lake, Baltusrol Upper, Lawsonia, Congressional, Medinah, and Cherry Hills...to name just a few.

[SL_Solow]

I never understood the premise of the revival of this thread.  The first time around the meaning was clear, years of neglect had changed a magnificent course into something much less.  Due in large measure to the great work of our friends George and Geoff along with the wonderful work by Scott, the course has seen remarkable improvement.  But to suggest being underrated is a tragedy places far too much importance on ratings.  I enjoy discussing ratings, I confess to serving on a panel.  But if Yale were ranked 10 or 15 places higher, would it be any more fun to play?  Would its architecture be any more interesting?  If the rankings are critical to drawing play or driving initiation fees, then they may be important to a course.  Otherwise they are an interesting conversation piece and a source of pride (sometimes misplaced) for members of ranked courses.  Nothing that rises to the level of tragedy.  Nothing approaching the unsympathetic changes to great courses or even the closing of good courses.

[Jim Nugent]

I never understood the premise of the revival of this thread.  The first time around the meaning was clear, years of neglect had changed a magnificent course into something much less.  Due in large measure to the great work of our friends George and Geoff along with the wonderful work by Scott, the course has seen remarkable improvement.  But to suggest being underrated is a tragedy places far too much importance on ratings.  I enjoy discussing ratings, I confess to serving on a panel.  But if Yale were ranked 10 or 15 places higher, would it be any more fun to play?  Would its architecture be any more interesting?  If the rankings are critical to drawing play or driving initiation fees, then they may be important to a course.  Otherwise they are an interesting conversation piece and a source of pride (sometimes misplaced) for members of ranked courses.  Nothing that rises to the level of tragedy.  Nothing approaching the unsympathetic changes to great courses or even the closing of good courses.

"Tragedy" may overstate the issue.  But lots of posters think Yale is underrated.  It doesn't break into the top 100 on Golf Digest, and is falling on Golfweek.  I'm interested to learn more about both those.  Especially since my understanding is that Ramsey et. al. have made major improvements over the last decade or so.  If the course is one of the world's all-time greats in architecture and scale -- if it keeps getting better by the year -- why is falling on one major list, and not even appearing on another?   

I also have enjoyed the discussion about finances, the Yale Foundation, and support (or lack of it) for the course.  Colin Sheehan's post was really interesting.  I know little about maintenance costs, and would like to learn more about how they spend the $1.7 million per year, and why that's not enough to bring the course into a condition that reflects its essence. 

[Mac Plumart]

To address the rankings, it is vital to examine the criteria. Yale seems to fit Golfweeks criteria pretty well. It seems that Golf Digests stated criteria might not be a good fit for Yale's characteristics. It might be just that simple.

[Bill Brightly]

I'd settle for the University acknowledging what a gem of a golf course it has in its possession.

Admittedly, I am not the best at navigating websites. But if you went on Yale's website, would you even know they owned a golf course?
I could not find one reference, even in the Living in New Haven section. Why is that? Wouldn't you want to celebrate this great course?

http://www.yale.edu/

[Jim Nugent]

Good point, Mac.  I copied GD's criteria below.  I wonder how well Yale measures up?  GD, btw, ranks it 192nd.  

How We Rank The Courses

Our panelists play and score courses on seven criteria

1. SHOT VALUES
How well do the holes pose a variety of risks and rewards and equally test length, accuracy and finesse?

2. RESISTANCE TO SCORING
How difficult, while still being fair, is the course for a scratch player from the back tees?

3. DESIGN VARIETY
How varied are the holes in differing lengths, configurations, hazard placements, green shapes and green contours?

4. MEMORABILITY
How well do the design features provide individuality to each hole yet a collective continuity to the entire 18?

5. AESTHETICS
How well do the scenic values of the course add to the pleasure of a round?

6. CONDITIONING
How firm, fast and rolling were the fairways, and how firm yet receptive were the greens on the day you played the course?

7. AMBIENCE
How well does the overall feel and atmosphere of the course reflect or uphold the traditional values of the game?

To arrive at a course's final score, we total its averages in the seven categories, doubling Shot Values. A course needs 45 evaluations over the past eight years to be eligible for America's 100 Greatest.

[Benjamin Litman]

Thanks for posting, Jim. How does Yale not fit those criteria well? The only one anyone is disputing--or at least was disputing in 2003--is conditioning. And even if the dramatic improvements in that area over the last 12 years have not resulted in an above-average score for that one factor, I can't imagine it's not offset by the high marks the course no doubt scores in the other six categories. And if the course doesn't score high marks in the other six categories, I'm not quite sure what to say.

FWIW, here are some selected comments from college golfers and coaches who attended the 2010 NCAA Men's Regionals at Yale (again, Yale will host the regionals once again this May).

http://www.yalebulldogs.com/information/facilities/course_at_yale/index

My two favorites:

John Fields, Head Coach
University of Texas

“It’s a thrill for our guys to come and play a piece of golf history. C.B. Macdonald did an outstanding job almost 90 years ago. It really has stood the test of time. We feel very fortunate to be able to come and compete on this course.”

Patrick Rada, senior player
University of South Carolina

“It is beautiful, and it’s obvious Yale has put a lot of work into it. The condition is second to none. It has a lot of character and elevation change. It’s a fun course to play. Every hole seems different than the other 17.”

[Tim Gavrich]

I never understood the premise of the revival of this thread.  The first time around the meaning was clear, years of neglect had changed a magnificent course into something much less.  Due in large measure to the great work of our friends George and Geoff along with the wonderful work by Scott, the course has seen remarkable improvement.  But to suggest being underrated is a tragedy places far too much importance on ratings.  I enjoy discussing ratings, I confess to serving on a panel.  But if Yale were ranked 10 or 15 places higher, would it be any more fun to play?  Would its architecture be any more interesting?  If the rankings are critical to drawing play or driving initiation fees, then they may be important to a course.  Otherwise they are an interesting conversation piece and a source of pride (sometimes misplaced) for members of ranked courses.  Nothing that rises to the level of tragedy.  Nothing approaching the unsympathetic changes to great courses or even the closing of good courses.

"Tragedy" may overstate the issue.  But lots of posters think Yale is underrated.  It doesn't break into the top 100 on Golf Digest, and is falling on Golfweek.  I'm interested to learn more about both those.  Especially since my understanding is that Ramsey et. al. have made major improvements over the last decade or so.  If the course is one of the world's all-time greats in architecture and scale -- if it keeps getting better by the year -- why is falling on one major list, and not even appearing on another?   

I also have enjoyed the discussion about finances, the Yale Foundation, and support (or lack of it) for the course.  Colin Sheehan's post was really interesting.  I know little about maintenance costs, and would like to learn more about how they spend the $1.7 million per year, and why that's not enough to bring the course into a condition that reflects its essence. 

Jim--

I'm certain I know as little about maintenance as anyone here, but I would offer that the collective space that Yale's putting surfaces take up shortens the apparent lavishness of that $1.7 million figure by a good deal. In total Yale has to triple or quadruple the green square footage of "average" courses. The fairways are quite wide, too, so I think that gives Scott and his crew a lot more short/very short grass to maintain than most clubs.

And they continue to do a superb job, in my estimation. I've played the course about a half dozen times from the mid-2000s through this past August, and condition-wise it has improved each time.

When I last played, it looked like a new tee was being built on the 15th. It's a small thing in comparison with, say, restoring the third green or doing something about the unfortunately dull 16th, but it indicates to me that such improvements are at least middle-of-mind to the powers  that be, if not as top-of-mind as we would prefer.

As far as the place has come in the last decade, what reason should there be to believe it will not be markedly better another decade from now?

[Dave McCollum]

$1.7M is a massive maintenance budget.  It would seem that Yale is doing a lot to preserve it's Monet.  As for the rankings, I couldn't care less.  If rankings are your cup of tea, Mr. Doak gave it an 8 probably around the time the conditioning was most questionable.  With a decade of improvement, recapturing green surfaces, and all that's been done, does that go up?  If so, how can that be the "The Greatest Tragedy In Golf"? 

[Mike Hendren]

Knowing what I've read and studied about Macdonald, I'm certain that if he came back to earth today, he would enjoy seeing golfers play Yale with its dog-earned/less-than-perfect conditions. He didn't believe in raking bunkers and at Yale that's often the case. He would enjoy seeing people deal with occasional patchy turf and dodgy lies because it's still better than it was back in his day. I'm not sure he would agree with the predictability that comes with the pristine turf at PRC or Creek or all his other designs. Just my thought. I don't have time to expand the thought, but I know he believed in the game being a complete challenge and Yale delivers that in spades.

Colin, thank you for your wonderful perspective and the excellent conclusion above.

I've been beyond fortunate to play 16 of the 100 courses on Golfweek's Classic List, including half the top ten.  My ten year plan doesn't include many of the remaining 84.  However, with the exception perhaps of Merion and Riviera, Yale is the only remaining absolutely must see course on the list whether it's 38, 55 or no longer rated.  I have a standing invitation and if nothing else this thread has me thinking I should take advantage of it some time in 2015. 

I cannot fathom that it's not the genuine article.

Bogey

[Mac Plumart]

Ben...

Relative to the best of the best, I think Yale could take hits on 5, 6, and 7.  But, you are correct, and the other items lift it up in the Digest rankings and the course still sits at 192.

[George Pazin]

Perhaps the problem lies with the rankers.

[Mac Plumart]

Ok, George....

Where should Yale sit on the Digest list?

Of the courses you've seen in the Top 10...is it "better" per their criteria than any of those?

Repeat this process on the Top 25...

Top 50...

Top 100.

For reference, the current Top 10 on the Digest list are:

Augusta National
Pine Valley
Cypress Point
Shinnecock Hills
Merion (East)
Oakmont
Pebble Beach
National Golf Links of America
Winged Foot (West)
Fishers Island

As much as I love Yale, it doesn't break that list.  (For reference, I've only played 5 of those courses).

EDIT...

I went through the entire Golf Digest Top 100 (I don't love the list, first off), but I could see Yale being in the 75-100 area and at 192 I think it is under-appreciated.  However, "The Greatest Tragedy in Golf"?  Nah.

[Benjamin Litman]

I'm sure this has been posted here before, but, if not or if it's been a while, please check out this site devoted to the course, its history, and renovations (note the many wonderful interviews available):

https://webspace.yale.edu/Yale-golf-history/index.htm

[Mac Plumart]

Thank you for that link!!

[Tim_Weiman]

Mac,

This thread was started in 2003 and before all the attention the course received thanks to people like George Bahto and Geoff Childs.

Tommy Naccarato's dressing down of the Yale brass had to be one of the all time classics. Will never forget how Tommy began: "I am going to have to give you guys some tough love". To put it mildly, they were stunned and speechless by the time Tommy was finished.

Obviously, anyone making the argument today simply because Yale didn't make the Top 100 will have to update the case. Circa 2003 the case was strong, save very famous places like Timber Point and the Lido, but it wasn't about being Top 100. It was more about neglect of a real treasure.

[Benjamin Litman]

Tim: Unless the timing is purely coincidental, the hiring of Scott Ramsay in late 2003 and the beginning of "The History of Yale Golf" project in 2004 (see link in my previous reply) certainly suggests that your post and Tommy's dressing down had the desired effect.

[Tim_Weiman]

Tim: Unless the timing is purely coincidental, the hiring of Scott Ramsay in late 2003 and the beginning of "The History of Yale Golf" project in 2004 (see link in my previous reply) certainly suggests that your post and Tommy's dressing down had the desired effect.

Ben,

If I remember correctly, Brad Klein also did an article in GolfWeek magazine around the same time. Tommy and Brad deserve the credit. I doubt any of the Yale brass saw this thread, but they sure got an earful from Tommy and I think Brad's more diplomatic article was ideal as a follow up. It was kind of a good guy, bad guy play. Brad was the more academic, but Tommy provided the passion in a way only he could have done.

[George Pazin]

Ok, George....

Where should Yale sit on the Digest list?

Of the courses you've seen in the Top 10...is it "better" per their criteria than any of those?

Repeat this process on the Top 25...

Top 50...

Top 100.

For reference, the current Top 10 on the Digest list are:

Augusta National
Pine Valley
Cypress Point
Shinnecock Hills
Merion (East)
Oakmont
Pebble Beach
National Golf Links of America
Winged Foot (West)
Fishers Island

As much as I love Yale, it doesn't break that list.  (For reference, I've only played 5 of those courses).

EDIT...

I went through the entire Golf Digest Top 100 (I don't love the list, first off), but I could see Yale being in the 75-100 area and at 192 I think it is under-appreciated.  However, "The Greatest Tragedy in Golf"?  Nah.

I am the absolute LAST person on this site to ask this question. There is no one on here who has played fewer of the top 100 than I.

I am just saying that, when assessing the presumed improper ranking, and the apparent drop in said ranking, perhaps the fault lies with those doing the ranking, not with the course, nor those in charge of maintaining it, whether one means the condition, or the actual bones of the course.

[Tim_Weiman]

George,

I suppose one could always ask the question you are asking or, conversely, take Mac's view. That said, it would be great to see someone familiar with Yale today to make a Top 100 case, perhaps comparing it to the bottom 10 or 20 rather than the Top 10.

[john_stiles]

Yale in my opinion has made tremendous strides in the last 10 years or so in every regard for the course.

Suppose the university, members, Scott and Colin might have a few things left on their wish list.

Even so,  Yale as it exists today is not the greatest tragedy in golf.

It might be the greatest success for a Macdonald even though many of the other Mac Raynors have been hard at work getting back to their roots.

Discussion of the ratings and methods brings a little sadness to the thread.

[Mac Plumart]

Tim, yes. I agree with your sentiment. Yale today is something to be praised, applauded, and celebrated. Which is why I am not understanding the "sky is falling" attitude about where it is ranked...which is pretty darn high and recognizes the good stuff going on there.

[Benjamin Litman]

Mac, I'm with you. Per my earlier post, I think this 2003 thread was unfortunately resuscitated by a 2015 17-rank (but not 17-point) drop in the Golfweek rankings. Not that I'm complaining, as any excuse to talk about my favorite course in the world is a good one.

I was planning to already, but all this talk now ensures that I will compile a photo tour of the course this spring and possibly fall (when the course looks its best). I'm curious to see how the course looks in mid-May for the NCAA East Regional.

[Lester George]

I wish some of you could have seen the "condition" of The Old White before we started to restore it.  Similar situation, owned by CSX Railroad with little or no interest (in some cases) in the history or understanding of the CBM/Raynor masterpiece they once had.  

My intro to the interview process was by one of key members of the hospitality division who stated "...would you please go up there and look at it.  I have been looking over some old photographs and it seems that there used to be many more options and strategies available before we changed the golf course.  In the last thirty years we have made it even worse by planting over 4,000 trees, not to mention changes to the architecture. I think we may have ruined a pretty good golf course.."

I was told later that I was the only architect interviewed that was convincingly insistent on restoration, not renovation.  It was implied that most others thought it was too far gone.  Once hired, I had to present my plans to the CSX Hospitality Board (over half of which did not play golf).  If approved, the plan would take five years to complete (only working November to Easter each year).  

It sounds like Yale has some similarities in politics, institutional neglect and not understanding the gem that they have.  Having seen it in West Virginia, I understand the frustration.  I am fortunate to have been in the right place at the right time, but it took that one member of the Board to realize they may have "ruined a pretty good golf course".  

Maybe The Old White could be the case study they use to build their model and present to the powers to be.

Lester

[Gary Sato]

Mr. George:

Thank you for the excellent story on Old White.

Sadly Yale is owned by a university and Old White a public corporation which is a big difference.   The one person who was able turn it around at Old White had access to funds.  Who at Yale would be able to tap into university money is unknown?