Will YALE heed Brad Klein's advice ?

[T_MacWood]

I disagree with your assessment. Architecture has done an excellent job of identifying and preserving their siginificant designs (as opposed to golf arch). I doubt we would be having this discussion if the Yale golf course was a building designed by Stanford White or Louis Sullivan.

With its prestige and architectural heritiage, one would expect Yale to take their stewardship responsibilities seriously. Not only preserving the campuses historic architectural style, but also insuring that new building are of the same high architectural calibre, and that modern melds with old.

Golf architecture has a long way to go, and I suspect we could learn something from that pamphlet.

[GeoffreyC]

Dave/Shivas

I understand exactly what the Yale quote was about.

Dr. Geoffrey Childs

Academic for life and curing disease for you and your family (using tax dollars of course)  

They obviously don't listen to me up there. I need to change the comma to a colon or slash.  Can you suggest an alternative title to gain a bit more respect from the Yalies?  

[GeoffreyC]

Dave

     

 

[Dan Kelly]

Geoff, I probably cast too wide a net with this type of sweeping generality.  

The key word there is "probably."

Shivas --

You ALWAYS cast too wide a net with your sweeping generalities!

That's your vice -- and your virtue.

[JakaB]

With real world experience like that, where they get the idea that they know anything more than a guy like Barney is beyond me.

WTFIT...

[Patrick_Mucci]

Scott & Tom,

Your perspective seems naive at best, especially since you have tuned into the discussions about YALE for a few years.

This golf course is under unique management, unlike those other clubs you cited.

You know the situation at YALE.

Why present anything that can be construed, in any way, as supporting the status quo ?

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom Huckaby:

Well, forgive me. I didn’t realize a “humble public course golfer” would ever be interested in discussion. I thought you were just Joe Sixpack who drank beer and never set foot on anything other than your local muni.

Now that I’ve been enlightened, I’m a bit curious about Pat Mucci’s last post. He seems to suggest that far from being a “humble public course golfer”, you actually were aware of the very difficult political situation at Yale and how much of an uphill battle people like Geoffrey and George faced. Is this true? Or is Pat using his keyboard to put words in your mouth?

My hunch is that Pat is correct. That’s why I’m having difficulty with your protests about my reference to the “it’s good enough” attitude.

Did you not understand that kind of thinking is pervasive at Yale? Did you really not understand your comments could be used by those resisting a true restoration? Do you really believe people in the golf industry don’t follow what is said at GCA?


Pat Mucci:

Your last question to Scott and Tom is exactly what has been troubling me. Could these guys really have been so unaware of how comments on GCA might be used?

Honestly, I can't believe anyone would be that clueless.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tim Weiman,

Perhaps they reacted about their particular experience without considering the broader overview ??

[Tim_Weiman]

Pat Mucci:

The difficult labor situation in New Haven has been the subject of national news for quite some time. Is there any other American university that has experienced such difficulty? None comes to mind.

Thus, I don't think it takes any special awareness to understand how certain statements might be taken.

In the best of circumstances- e.g., Country in Cleveland - building a concensus for a restoration is no easy task. But, Yale is far from the easiest venue to take on such a challenge.

One would think that was understood and people would act accordingly.

[THuckaby2]

Messrs. Weiman and Mucci:

I just answered Tim's question.  He asked if Yale was the greatest tragedy in golf.  I don't think it is.  To repeat myself, if you had asked for support for a restoration, I would have responded with a hearty yes.

Say what you mean next time.

But beyond that, yes I am that naive.  I don't follow the goings on at Yale at all.  I had no idea they even HAD a labor situation there.  I knew Geoffrey and George had been thwarted in efforts for a true restoration, but that's really all I knew. I know nothing beyond that - to be honest, I don't know how I could, as only generalities are ever discussed in public here, and I haven't had any private discussions with any of the principles - why would I?

You asked a question, I gave an answer.

Ask the right question next time if you want pre-programmed answers for use in some cause.

In the meantime, you can use my naivete to help your cause... just dismiss me as a know-nothing re the REAL issues that you all seem so up on.

Just don't ask if the course is a tragedy if you don't want honest answers.

TH

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom Huckaby:

The interesting thing is that nobody - yourself included - made a compelling case for another existing American course more worthy of restoration than Yale. That stands out amidst the noise of the original thread.

Ideally, several candidates might have been nominated and different folks would have their favorite among the "short list". But, I still think it is going to be tough to top Yale in terms of the greatness of its original design and the degree to which it has fallen.

By the way, I don't mind being associated with a cause. Great golf architecture isn't a matter of life and death, but it can bring great joy and is worth preserving, protecting and encouraging.

[THuckaby2]

More for the Prosecution team of Mucci and Weiman:

Name the author of these quotes:

"In the case of the Yale University Golf Course, despite more than 40 years of mismanagement that includes ineptly re-built bunkers, two greens that have been moved, green contours that have been flattened to promote 'more accurate putting', tree encroachment that has gone unchecked, famously bad maintenance, fairways that have shrunk by 30% in width, and some of the worse placement of carts paths that the authors have ever seen, Raynor's design at Yale to this very day still shines through as a monumental achievement."

"And like St. Andrews, Yale reminds the golfer of no other course. To call Yale the best university course in the country is to do it an injustice. Yale remains to this day a colossus of a design, even if it is not maintained and presented in the manner in which it deserves."

I guess this guy isn't sensitive enough to the situation at Yale either.  Sure sounds to me like he's saying it's good enough as it is today.  Hard to get much juice up for restoring a course that "to this very day shines through as a monumental achievement."

My apologies to the author of those quotes, who is a great guy and I'm sure would be at the very forefront of the crusade to restore Yale.

I'm just fed up with the hypocrisy from the Prosecution here.

I agree with every single word of Ran's review.  I read it, agree with it, and come away with the same answer to Tim's question that Ran would have to if he's faithful to his review:  the course is still damn great, as it is today.  It is A tragedy what it's become, sure.  But the greatest tragedy in golf?  No way, because "to this very day shines through as a monumental achievement."

Course that have been paved over are greater tragedies.  Courses that skew the price point for all those around it are greater tragedies.  Courses that by their design promote making the game too hard are greater tragedies.

Yale is a tragedy.  Yale deserves to be restored.  The management there should read that, read the passionate words of those who are trying to make that happen.

Just don't ask me - or Ran - if it's the greatest tragedy in golf.  It's not.  Remember, the course "to this very day shines through as a monumental achievement."

TH

ps - I sure as hell can't think of a course that more deserves restoration, but then again, that too wasn't your question and I don't exactly scour the earth trying to find such things.

pss - causes are wonderful.  I too have many.  I just don't expect full agreement and full inside knowledge from anyone re the causes I hold dear.

[THuckaby2]

Shivas - that's obviously my take as well, though in an egotistical way I do appreciate the power Tim has attributed to me.

 

TH

[Tim_Weiman]

Shivas:

You may recall that in my original thread I made clear my interest was in discussing courses that still exist.

Lido might win the prize if we considered all American courses that ever existed; certainly I can't make an argument against it.

Anyway, you say this "random guy" named Tom has "no idea what he is talking about". Fine. I'm happy if the folks at Yale dismiss him as an idiot. What I would prefer is that they listen to the likes of George Bahto. He does know what he is talking about.

Tom Huckaby:

I couldn't name the author of those quotes, but he sure seems to be supporting George and Geoffrey's efforts.

Maybe it is my Princeton bias, but I don't think folks at Yale would enjoy being accused of "40 years of mismanagement". That's pretty tough language where I come from, far tougher than anything Tommy Naccarato used in his memorable "tough love" comments.

[THuckaby2]

Tim:

How is the author of those quotes supporting the restoration at Yale any more or less than I have?  You choose to pick out that clause, but what about his summation, which is that despite all that, the course

"...to this very day shines through as a monumental achievement."

Kinda gives them little incentive to change, if to this day the course shines through as a monumental achievement.  Why bother?

Quit being a hypocrite - if I deserve your scorn and wrath, then so does Ran.  If anything he deserves it MORE because as owner of this website, and being a Golf Magazine rater, his name is known FAR more than Joe Schmoe me.

And hey, if you're happy that Yale dismisses me as an idiot, then WHY THE HELL HAVE YOU BEEN ON MY ASS ABOUT BEING INSENSITIVE TO THE SITUATION?

I'm just an idiot, remember?  You should be HAPPY I said what I did.

Your inconsistencies and hypocrisy here are amazing.

You can't possibly mean all this crap, can you?

TH

[SL_Solow]

As usual, we are all being a little too doctrinaire on this issue.  I have not seen Yale in about 28 years and even then it was showing some signs of neglect.  Clearly it is not the "greatest" tragedy in golf; Shivas' example of Lido which can never be restored is an obvious topper.  However it is precisely because Yale can be "saved" that so many of us are so passionate about it.  The remaining greatness that causes Tom to praise its current form is perceived to be a mere reflection of its past and potential possibilities if properly restored.  The fear is that those who either do not understand the "art form" or, alternatively, do not respect it will seize on positive statements, regardless of the source, for support in their efforts to avoid the restoration that is championed here and elsewhere.  Rather than continuing to point fingers, more time should be devoted to developing a program to gain support for a restoration program.  From afar it appears that an organized approach to the Yale administration led by acknowledged experts in the field as well as prominent alumni would have the best chance of success.  I suspect, as noted by a prior poster, that golf course architecture is not given the same respect among the academics as other forms of architecture.  Perhaps some education will be required in that area as well.  Finally, notwithstanding Yale's endowment, if the approach was accompanied by a financial gift dedicated to restoration and future maintenance I suspect the administration would be more receptive.  I realize this post fails to address the labor situation but I hesitate to comment on legal matters based on press reports.  Nonetheless, while I recognize the efforts of many to counteract the work previously done, if we wish to achieve anything other than forensic victories over our colleagues, moving the discussion from personal attacks (friendly though they may be) in the direction of an organized course of action is in order.  For those who do not agree that change is needed, they can stand by and continue our normal discussions.  In other words, Barney, this is not a litmus test for posters.

[THuckaby2]

Thank you Shel:  I couldn't agree more.  I really can't see how personal attacks on me help the situation here.

Just do understand that I think it would be great if a restoration occurred there.  I truly have no knowledge of how to effect such, though your words do make sense to me.

In any event, if attacking me gets it done, then great - I stand ready to accept the continued onslaught.

TH

[SL_Solow]

Shivas; I didn't think Lido was a joke in this context.  Moreover this is one where the somewhat obscure political references don't advance the discussion.  Yale has plenty of conservative faculty members yet there is no groundswell of support for the course restoration.  

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom Huckaby:

Yale does still shine as a “monumental achievement” by the original architects, especially to astute observers like George Bahto, Brad Klein and Ran Morrissett. It also stands out as a design that has not received the care it deserves, more so than any American course I can think of.  If I didn’t feel that way, I would have never nominated Yale as the greatest tragedy among existing golf courses in America.

The folks I know from Yale would think Ran used very tough language. As I suggested, his “40 years of mismanagement” comment would be hard to shallow. I admire Ran for speaking candidly and simply reject your suggestion of hypocrisy.

Shivas:

I’m your random guy in Cleveland just like your random guy in California. But, on several occasions I’ve experienced what you might call hyper-sensitivity from people in the golf industry about comments made on Golfclubatlas. Indeed, on more than one occasion folks associated with prominent American courses have asked me not to comment on GCA about my findings at their course.

In some ways, it makes me long for old days ( pre Internet) when you could go study a great design and face far less, if any, concern about what you might say. But, those days aren’t going to return. Our “tree house” needs more industry and international participation, but it has reached a critical mass. It does get watched very carefully. People do take clues from what is said here even if they don’t always agree. For better or worse, GCA has become the leading public forum for people to candidly discuss golf architecture related matters. People pay attention and take note of what is said here. It’s just not fashionable to admit it. We are an unruly bunch!
 

[THuckaby2]

Tim:

Reject it if you want, but it exists.  Unless you criticize Ran as you have admonished me, you are a hypocrite.  He summed up the course by saying it's still great, in so many words.

Which is no different than anything I said.

We can end this if you wish, just say the word.  Shel is very wise - listen to him.

TH

[George_Bahto]

Personal attacks on this post serve no positive purpose

We're trying to have them (try to) understand what they have done

I'm  of the belief that this course will NEVER (architecturally) be even a shadow of what it was 7-8 years ago never mind the original design. They would have to admit they were wrong.

Do you seriously think they will do that.

So let the focus be on that.

New threads will continue to pop up on this subject and I have some interesting info that I would like to share - info that will, in no way, use any private or personal info that was given to me from the Univ. (wish i could do that - but not my thing)

I spent a lot of time digging out information on what was done to the course in the '50's - very interesting stuff - again, just like now, with out educated oversight. This was done with the best interests in mind - but still wrong from the perspective of great architecture.

So we have three events that have occurred:

1. the original Raynor design - with some input from C B Macdonald (holy cow, spelled it right again - am I getting good or what?)

2. what took place in the 50's (or so)

3. and today

stay tuned - I'm just getting warmed up - don't care any more because I'm convinced this great design is forever lost

many of you have heard this from me but it bears repeating:

In Scotland's Gift Macdonald  ( cool spelling!) .... sorry couldn't resist ....... anyhow: In Charlie Macdonald's book he stated something to the effect that Lido would forever be a monument to Seth Raynor's prowess if Yale did not surpass it in later years.  Well CB wrote his book in 1926-1927, published in 1928 - Yale was not completed until just about the time he was writing the book so he had not seen the maturation of the Yale  at the time.

[Tim_Weiman]

SL Solow:

Your comments about "fear" capture my feelings exactly. Well said.

George Bahto:

Hang in there. I'm never give up hope that you may someday do a book on what Yale once was.

[GeoffreyC]

Back in the July 14, 2001 issue of Golfweek magazine, Tony Pioppi wrote an article entitled

"Yale's neglected course should be restored"

That article generated a huge furor in the athletic department and up at the course.

George Bahto wrote for the athletic department and the restoration committee a report which he quoted a bit of earlier in this thread in October of 2000.

Years have gone by and they have moved forward without utilizing the talented and caring restoration specialists available outside of Yale or those within the Yale architecture community who care about preservation of Yale's treasures.

Brad Klein's article should serve as a catalyst to the University to finally do something about this!

I'm surprised that no one commented on my statement from September 24th (post #36) where I said

"WHY NOT GET AN INDEPENDENT NON BIASED SET OF EXPERTS OUTSIDE YALE TO MAKE AN EVALUATION OF THE WORK AND A RECOMMENDATION?"

Does Yale have the guts or the true recognition that the golf course is a historic landmark the same as their buildings, rare books or artworks to do this?

[SL_Solow]

Geoff, the suggestion is a good one but fraught with practical problems.  Who picks the panel?  Will architects be allowed to serve?  Who is an expert?  Your view (and mine) might differ from some of those in control at the institution that owns the course.  Clearly they think that Roger Rulewich is an expert and there are probably others who agree.  That is why in an ideal world an endowment could solve the problem because the donor could condition the grant on a "restoration".  

[GeoffreyC]

Shel

Yale is an academic institution that lives and breathes on peer review.  No assistant professor is promoted without a national reputation and sterling letters of recommendation from peers selected by the promotions committee.  Similarly no one gets tenure without the same letters but requiring an international reputation. This is taken extremely seriously.  Why is the athletic department immune from this process?

How about the school of architecture getting involved and selecting a panel or individuals for consultation based on their international reputation?  These should be known and recognized scholars of golf course architecture and its history and preservation? Architects have a conflict of interest and should be excluded.