[John Ezekowitz]

I had the joy of playing Yale yesterday with my friend on the team, and we tipped it out. This meant playing two new "virgin" tees that have just recently been put in on the 5th (Short) and 13th (Redan) holes. The new tee on 5 is to the right and lower than the previous back tee, and the hole now plays about 165-170 yards.

The new tee on 13 is fantastic. It makes the hole about 230-240 yards and is further right than the current back tee. This gives the college golfers (whom these tees are for) a better view of the front of the redan green and allows for more use of the contours with some sort of wood off the tee.

 Unfortunately I wasn't able to take pictures, but I thoroughly enjoyed the course.

[Tim Martin]

I am not a fan of the new 5th tee as that was not what Mac/Raynor had in mind for this version of the "short". For the college/elite player it does little more than add distance to the card and really does nothing to enhance the hole. Adding 30 yards to 13 gives you a different distance but in no way a better hole. The thought process might be that because both 9 and 13 played at about 215 this adds some variation. With a properly shaped shot at 215 yards the players should be able to work the ball toward the hole using the redan feature. I am unclear as to John`s assertion that a wood shot at the new distance would allow the contours to be used more. The last time the NCAA Regional was at Yale it certainly proved to be plenty of golf for the guys at the intended distance.

[Mark McKeever]

Tim,

Are they the only two recent changes?

Mark

[Colin Sheehan]

I personally like the new "special-occasion" tee-box at five. Many of the Yale players go months at a time without missing the green from 130-140 yards. The 162 yardage now makes simply hitting the green, let alone getting close, slightly more demanding.

As for those who think this violates what Raynor/Macdonald had in mind, I would suggest that the club of choice is a modern seven or eight iron for the lads, and that remains a "short" hole for them. I am curious to know what loft of iron college-aged golfers played to the Short holes in the 1920s. I bet it isn't that different from the loft of modern eight iron.

As for the one on 13, it is closer to the original line drawn from the middle of the green through the original tee-box, which is the 176 yardage. The 212-yard back tee was added long after the course opened. The angle was never great and the small, crowned tee-box doesn't have much square yardage.

I have yet to play either but I suspect we will use the fifth box more frequently in the Macdonald Cup and Spring Opener than the one on 13.

Tee space, in general, on the four par-three holes at Yale is an issue with the number of rounds it gets annually. I'm in favor of alleviating the burden on those holes by adding teeing ground. 

[Tim Martin]

I personally like the new "special-occasion" tee-box at five. Many of the Yale players go months at a time without missing the green from 130-140 yards. The 162 yardage now makes simply hitting the green, let alone getting close, slightly more demanding.

As for those who think this violates what Raynor/Macdonald had in mind, I would suggest that the club of choice is a modern seven or eight iron for the lads, and that remains a "short" hole for them. I am curious to know what loft of iron college-aged golfers played to the Short holes in the 1920s. I bet it isn't that different from the loft of modern eight iron.

As for the one on 13, it is closer to the original line drawn from the middle of the green through the original tee-box, which is the 176 yardage. The 212-yard back tee was added long after the course opened. The angle was never great and the small, crowned tee-box doesn't have much square yardage.

I have yet to play either but I suspect we will use the fifth box more frequently in the Macdonald Cup and Spring Opener than the one on 13.

Tee space, in general, on the four par-three holes at Yale is an issue with the number of rounds it gets annually. I'm in favor of alleviating the burden on those holes by adding teeing ground. 

Colin-If these are in fact "special occasion" tees how much burden are they really going to take off the golf course? You are talking about less than a handful of events a year. I actually like the angle of the 212 tee at 13 but I agree that there is not much room there.

[Tim Gavrich]

I am not a fan of the new 5th tee as that was not what Mac/Raynor had in mind for this version of the "short". For the college/elite player it does little more than add distance to the card and really does nothing to enhance the hole.

To be fair, Tim, Mac & Raynor did not intend to have the green be as flat as it is now, right? I've always thought the 5th was fairly vanilla for that reason. Not bad, obviously, but I've always felt the absence of that internal contour when I've played the hole.

That said, I agree that the new tee on 5 doesn't really enhance the hole. I'd love to see them rebuild the thumbprint that I assume existed early on. THAT would be a great change.

[Colin Sheehan]

I am not the one to ask about usage on a day to day basis, but when we have 75 golfers for the Macdonald Cup, we'll get 300 shots from that little back tee on 13 during the three rounds and practice round. Half will be from the very same tee since we don't move pins or tees on the 36-hole Saturday. The little tee-box on 13 can't handle that. A few years ago we used the high tee on five for the Saturday and it was a wet day and the tee looked like a battlefield. I suppose college golfers tend to dig with their short irons with the best of them. But I suppose we'll get a 1000 uses out of the back tees during the year and that's 5% and that's not bad. That's 1000 less divots back in the regular area.

Yes, it would be fun to put the horseshoe back, and it's certainly on the list of things to do. It wouldn't be as pronounced as it was originally, simply because the green speeds are faster, but it is visible where it once was and we have a very good photo of it.

Here's a short five-image slideshow that shows a few greens and green side bunkers with a line indicating the original dimensions.

https://picasaweb.google.com/110429368341669114147/YaleCourseDimensions#

Disclaimer: the free-hand lines are based on the '34 aerial and not necessarily the '26 as-built, although we can presume very little changed during those first eight years.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Colin,

I think the best "shorts" had considerable internal contours, usually in the form of tiers/plateaus/bowls or spines/thumbprints.

Those features divided the hole into quadrants and made the approach shot that much more demanding, even at that short distance.

The 6th hole at NGLA has far more contouring/plateaus/tiers, making the relatively short hole (141) from an elevated tee, play much, much harder than it's distance.

The 7th at Montclair's 4th nine, had very steep sides with an internal horse shoe spine.

Westhampton's 11th had the tiers/bowls.

Unfortunately, over the years, many of the internal contours became less pronounced.

From 130 to 140 those holes remain relevant, provided that the internal contours remain pronounced.

A "short" without pronounced internal contouring doesn't present the intended challenge.

[Colin Sheehan]

I agree with you, Pat. But a 135-140 yard shot 85 years ago might have been played with a similarly lofted iron as a shot from 162 yards today? Isn't that possible?

The fifth at Yale can only get better when the side slopes down to the bunkers get their vertical pitch back and the horseshoe comes back.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I agree with you, Pat. But a 135-140 yard shot 85 years ago might have been played with a similarly lofted iron as a shot from 162 yards today? Isn't that possible?

Colin,

I don't know that finesse ever becomes obsolete.

The challenge presented by the "shorts" with the pronounced internal features remains undiminished, even with the advances in distance

The fifth at Yale can only get better when the side slopes down to the bunkers get their vertical pitch back and the horseshoe comes back.

I saw some old photos of the 5th and they seemed to depict a much more challenging hole.

How did the hole lose it's bite/challenge over the years ?

Perhaps Mike Sweeney or George Bahto can tell us.

I wish Geoff Childs still participated

[Tom Dunne]

Patrick,

The Short at Yale would have been more intimidating in the very early days because the bunkers were originally twelve (!) feet deep. However, the hole sits on one of the lowest points on the property, so bunker flooding caused the club to raise them up at some point.

[Bill_McBride]

Macdonald meant the Short to test a short iron shot.   In his day that was 120-130 yards.   Today it's 150-160.  Case closed.

[Joe Bausch]

My main issue with the new tee on the 5th is it feels out of place.  So close to the 4th green and not on the same side of the path as the other tees.

This aerial from March of this year:

[Joe Bausch]

And here you can see the new tee at the 13th:

[Tim Martin]

Macdonald meant the Short to test a short iron shot.   In his day that was 120-130 yards.   Today it's 150-160.  Case closed.

Bill- What club do you hit from 162 assuming no wind? My feeling is that the new 5th tee should be relevant for more of the golfing population than elite/college players.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Macdonald meant the Short to test a short iron shot.   In his day that was 120-130 yards.   Today it's 150-160.  Case closed.

Bill,

For whom ?
PGA Tour Pros

Every short I've played has been a test of my short irons

[David Cronheim]

I agree with Colin and those that say the shot value is similar from 162 today. For most college golfers, that would be an eight iron and likely not even a full one. It is my understanding that many of the interior contours are lost gradually over time because of topdressing.

[Brian Colbert]

Four years at Villanova playing golf, we must have played against Yale 20 times but never once did I get the chance to play their course or their home event. So please take this insight with that grain of salt in mind.

In a vacuum, 160 yards is an 8-iron for 70% of college players and the rest would probably hit 9 or even less (!). Was the hole designed for a player to hit that type of club into the green? 130-140 yards is a pitching wedge. Yale's tournament is most likely at a time of bad weather (like all college golf tournaments are) and it may be effectively longer in competition. Is the green a reasonable one to approach with a 7 iron?

[Mark McKeever]

I would say yes that the short at Yale can be approached with a 7 iron.  When I was out there, we played the regular tees and I think it was a 9 iron/8iron for our group. 

Mark

[Mike Policano]

Having played Yale with hickories earlier this year, depending on the hole position, it is a strong niblick or easy mashie niblick. An 8 or 9 for those of you who refer to clubs by number.

And as Tom DUNNE said earlier, bunkers were hazards to be avoided with hickories.

Cheers

[John Ezekowitz]

I (an erstwhile college golfer) hit 7 iron last weekend, and my friend (a current college golfer) hit 8. In the weather that the Spring Opener is usually played, it will probably be a 7-8 for most of the field.

[Mark McKeever]

And here you can see the new tee at the 13th:

I see they took my letter seriously and removed the pump house as well.  Fantastic!

Mark

[Noel Freeman]

Having been a member at Yale the last 6 years I can say that I've only been out there once this new year but I was not a fan of the new tee on #5.  I don't see the wisdom in staring at a cartpath for an extra club length as well as being an eyesore for the 4th hole green complex and additionally a danger to any hooked shot.

I don't know if there is a master plan for Yale's back tees for college players or if there should be.  I for one would rather see holes like #2, #4, #6, #8, #10, #12 or #15 lengthened before touching #5.  I could also see a back tee on #17 if need be behind the 16th green although that would also be an eyesore--that is unless the club restored the old 16th green and made the course a par 69 with 16 being a long par 4.  I have no issues with the new 13th tee.

But back to #5, the problem with the hole is the green complex as it used to be (the bunkering and the horseshoe).. I provide the below link to the Evil and former member here Dr. Geoff Childs (a longtime Yale member and curmudgeon ) who highlighted the issues with both 5 and 13.. See links below.

I love Yale and I know is Colin has a great grasp of architecture, I hope they can keep the course relevant for the elite college player but not effect maintenance and aethetics for the everday player/member.


Dr. Childs on # 5 and 13

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,7001.0.html

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,18980.0.html

[Mark Bourgeois]

Isn't the main question asked by 5 of better players getting the tee shot close enough to the hole, rather than hitting such a large green?

I find Childs' comments about the winds in that corner interesting. My own thinking is rather than create a new tee for 5 what about thinning / eliminating the trees between 5 and 15 greens? The removal of trees generally on the course and specifically near 14 tee and green created quite a wind tunnel extending from the 12th through 15th holes; opening a gap between 5 and 15 greens would extend the corridor and could increase the role played by the wind, particularly in April, making it harder if not to hit the green to get it close. As a bonus it would benefit the turf. Win win?

(I, too, am fine with the new tee on 13, insofar as you really have to hunt to find it.)

[Joey Chase]

  I never personally found the 13th to be much of a redan, with the large false front and the fact that you play down to the hole.  It is a good hole with the green contours as they are.  Does it need to fit the criteria of the template to be a fine hole?  I personally don't think so.  As to any comments by "Dr." Childs, I would dismiss them as I have read at least one of his quotes claiming Roger Rulewich as the "devil", really?  Any idiot who says that need say no more for me as I would no longer listen to the fool.  Roger deserves more respect than that and I am ashamed that no one else on this board ever said so as I know more than one of your have been given his respect.

  I played Yale last fall with Roger and the shaper who did the work and he reiterated that the front bunker on the 5th was raised only to allow for drainage as they were on bedrock.  He never touched the putting surface, so anything that has changed there has happened as a result of other's work.  I trust ANYTHING Roger says over anyone on this site, he has never and would never lie.  Anyone who knows him knows exactly what I'm saying.   I agree a pronounced horseshoe in the interior of the green would be more inline with the greens I've seen of theirs and make for a more interesting hole.      

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()