The tragedy of Yale- Hole #2

[GeoffreyC]

The tragedy of Yale – Hole #2

Back to the second hole after a delay following discussion of hole #1.  I will bring those discussions up to the first page as well.

Hole #2 is a water-less Cape Hole where the green is surrounded by sand and terrifying slopes to the left of the green remind the player that a miss to that side will cost you dearly. The hole is a short 365 yard par 4 where stronger players will hit 3-wood or an iron off the tee.  Unless the wind is with me (not the typical wind) I like to hit driver here because the approach into this green complex is MUCH less terrifying with a very short iron.  The green at one time had several mounds, humps and bumps on the right side that the superintendent (Harry) bulldozed away in the name of “more accurate putting”. Of course these same mounds could also funnel a ball towards the left and closer to the hole but of course this was not considered when they were removed.  George Bahto might have more to say or show us about this later on from his research and photographic enhancement.  Still, the 2nd green slopes pretty hard from right to left and front to back in spots and bailing out to the right away from the deep bunker makes for a tough recovery be it from grass or the newly built right greenside bunker (this was the last of the bunkers built by Mr. Rulewich this year). The other work to #2 on the left side to “restore” bunkers and the hillside was done back at the beginning of the bunker project (1998 or 1999).

Here is what Charles Banks had to say about hole #2 (copied from The Evangelist of Golf: The Story of Charles Blair MacDonald- author George Bahto)

“Thoughtful placement of the tee ball is crucial on the 2nd hole for the best angle into the green.  Although the hole is not very long, the approach is very hazardous………The target is oriented on a severe right to left angle and is perched precariously over a steep falloff to the left………In general the green can be considered a ‘Cape setting’jutting out, seemingly into mid-air, rather then out into a body of water.” Charles Banks 1931

In his rebuttal to Golfweek magazine and Brad Klein’s article about the current status of the Yale course, Roger Rulewich claims “The bunker renovation started in1998 AFTER reviewing hundreds of construction pictures and several aerial photos of the entire course taken since 1934 (yes, Klein got that right!) Work continued in 2000, 2001 and was completed this year.”      

From this quote directly from Mr. Rulewich we can be confident that all his work at Yale was with a restoration in mind and furthermore the work would be accurate because he consulted aerials and hundreds of construction photos. Gee, I wonder why the right side bunker on hole #2 was only put back this year and not with the other work to hole if Mr. Rulewich was really restoring from the very beginning in 1998 or 1999?  Mr Rulewich, I know you read this so I would please ask you to reply.  

OK now let see the evidence.
Here is a blow-up of the 2nd green taken from the 1934 aerial photo. Please notice there is one huge left side bunker that wraps around towards the front of the green. This makes the approach from the right side of the fairway the preferred line of play.  On the right side is a bunker that was removed long ago that extends up to the very front of the green.



Here is a scanned image from George’s book of the second hole during construction.  Notice the steep slopes characteristic of Raynor.  The hillside falls off dramatically down to the bunker.

     

 I have no real problem with making the huge, deep left bunker into two separate bunkers but why in the world would he "restore" that raised mound in between the bunkers?  ???Now let’s look at more of the results of the actual work done to hole #2.



This is a beautiful image of the “restored hillside”. It looks just like the construction photo now doesn't it? Thanks Roger.


This is a good one.  It shows a little berm built up artificially.  It will kick balls away from the bunker instead of gathering mishit balls into the bunker. I’m sure this is an original feature restored from construction photos as it wasn’t there before 1998.


Just this fall a new right greenside bunker was built supposedly to the specifications of the aerial and construction photos.  Quick examination of the bunker, however, show it isn’t at the same scale in terms of its size nor does it go as far to the front of the green as the original.  Thanks Roger and the committee that approved it.


OK now- How are we doing so far with our "restoration" on holes 1 & 2?

[Tim_Weiman]

Geoffrey,

Thanks again for your special effort to bring the Yale tragedy series to our attention. Your effort represents the best of what Golfclubatlas can be.

You may have mentioned it during our visit to Yale this summer, but I don't recall the part about contours being removed on and/or around #2 green. What a shame.

Does Roger Rulewich have plans to restore these features? If so, when will the work be done?

[GeoffreyC]

Tim

Thanks for responding and keeping this up front.

I spoke with a LONG time member who recalls the old contours of the green but he was never asked anything during this whole process. He would have been an invaluable contributor.

My best guess is that Roger has no clue as to what the original green looked like even though he first played the course in 1954.  

There are no plans that I am aware of to do anything to the greens except the new superintendent is doing a nice job of expanding their edges.  There was talk of putting back the 3rd green.

There will be a surprise bit of research on hole #2 when George gets back from his trip.  Hold on its pretty cool.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Tim,
I remember the conversation quite well, and after Geoff discussing all of the options to me on the hole, my misplayed second ended up a vicitim in the Cape, lost in the deep grass of that Roger Rulewich built ledge. I didn't find it. So instead of having a fun and exciting bunker shot out of that deep pit, I spent the better part of that time looking for the ball and never found it.

I did hit one from the bunker, and by that time I got back up to the top you guys were close to finished putting out. It was a real disappointment. Not because the lost ball or falling behind part, but because this left hand greenside bunker is without doubt a horrible definition of what the word RESTORATION  or better, RECOVERY means.

A true Raynor/MacDonald bunker would have allowed for the ball to afford recovery for the type of shot I hit. But it would have been an ardent task. What was redesigned here just doesn't make any sense to me. What is the purpose of this ledge? Why did he think it was going to help and how did it figure into the thought that it was something that was there before, when it clearly wasn't? Did he do ANY research at all? I thought he was a Yale graduate? I thought smart people were supposed to be schooled in this institution?

This work SUCKS! (But the golf course is/was great)(Sorry for showing a little tough love)

[Tim_Weiman]

Tommy:

I would have thought the strategy of this hole would include some penalty for playing the approach too conservatively out to the right, i.e., it would have been a very difficult up and down from off the green on the right side. Also, there should have been some fun associated with hitting just the right shot, i.e., one that funnels down to the left if played well.

[HamiltonBHearst]

Mr. Naccarato-as a Yale man, albeit law school you give much too much credit to these men.  I attended the Payne Whitney tournament a few years ago and people were excited about the "restoration".  I think they were more excited by the marginally improved conditions.

Now when it is clear to all people that the work is not restoration, men  such as Mr. Bahto and Mr. Childs are troublemakers though I have not heard them mentioned by name.  I have heard from some that the old features were deemed too dificult(such as left bunker on two).  So it is thought it is acceptable to alter to make course more playable.  I keep saying "where's the restoration".  I must say however I have only played the course once a year.

[GeoffreyC]

Hamilton - I will repeat this again

Roger Rulewich's own words in his reply to Brad Klein's article in golfweek magazine stated that this was a restoration from the beginning (1998) He said and I quote

"The bunker RENOVATION started in 1998 AFTER reviewing hundreds of construction pictures and several aerial photos of the entire course taken since 1934 (yes, Klein got that right!) Work continued in 2000, 2001 and was completed this year.”

So, it matters not if features were deemed too difficult as Roger Rulewich himself stated the mandate as RESTORATION because he stated that photos were used but his words couldn't even get it out right.  We all know this is hogwash revisionist history (ie a lie)and the true restoration efforts didn't begin until the back nine.

[Michael Dugger]

Mr. Naccarato-as a Yale man, albeit law school you give much too much credit to these men.  I attended the Payne Whitney tournament a few years ago and people were excited about the "restoration".  I think they were more excited by the marginally improved conditions.

Now when it is clear to all people that the work is not restoration, men  such as Mr. Bahto and Mr. Childs are troublemakers though I have not heard them mentioned by name.  I have heard from some that the old features were deemed too dificult(such as left bunker on two).  So it is thought it is acceptable to alter to make course more playable.  I keep saying "where's the restoration".  I must say however I have only played the course once a year.

What is blue blazes are you trying to say here Hearst?!?!?

[Dan Kelly]

Mr. Naccarato-as a Yale man, albeit law school you give much too much credit to these men.

I didn't know Mr. Naccarato went to Yale Law School!

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Hammy,
I do in fact agree with you in regards to the excitement in the marginally improved conditioning, but why is this so? They always had the control to maintain the Yale course properly, just not the direction of where to go with it. This is why the course's seemingly extreme original hazards decayed or over-grew over a period of time. This is why the golf course became difficult in the eyes of the people that played it the most. So, while the money to maintain the course was spent in the normal manner of daily maintenance-without thinking of budgeting for improvements such as regressing putting surfaces, bunker overhaul & maintenance, etc. The course was bound to become more difficult over time. So the former long time superintendent reacted in the one way he knew how--eliminating features that were crucial to the original design integrity.

Most people aware of the situation very much love to point the finger at the union workers that are the maintenance staff. They look to blame the union for everything, because its the easy out. These guys aren't the blame--it's the guy managing their time that is. It got out of hand and snowballed on to him--How long was he there? Thirty years wasn't it? Bad Habits developed, the Game wasn't nearly a popular during these years then all of a sudden the modern golf boom hits, and suddenly a golf course that has been consdiered one of America's best since 1926 is too difficult that it needs to be softened-up to make it more fair.

As for the troublemakers Bahto & Childs, I have to disagree with you. Have you meet them before? How could you be a judge of their character if you have not met them and don't know their passion for wanting to preserve the design integrity of the late Seth Raynor's best design? Why it would be the same as never having seen the golf course and yet, submitting a final judgement by pictures. And you and I both know that isn't the way it should ever be determined or allowed.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Dan, Yes, Yale Class of 59'

My old college roomate was Rees Jones.

[HamiltonBHearst]

I went to Yale Law and try to get up to the course once a year.  Last time was at the Payne Whitney tournament which is supposed to raise money for the "restoration" of another fine athletic facility, which used to be called the largest gymnasium in the country.

Mr. Dugger- In spite of your attempt to deceive us all about the Sandpines property, which only Mr. Mucci was able to get to the bottom of, I would love to host you at one of my clubs if you should make it east.

[HamiltonBHearst]

Mr. Naccaratto- I apologize, I will only post when I have adequate time to profread the thread.  I have not met Mr. Bahto or Mr. Childs but greatly admire what they are trying to accomplish.

At the Yale functions I have attended, when I have questioned the "renovation", often the replys are that "all the criticism has come from a few troublemakers".  Mr. Bahto and Mr. Childs have been very outspoken and are trying to do the proper thing. i assume they are the troublemakers.

I do think Brad Klein article has had a positive influence on the rank and file alumnus.  I would love to see a debate on the merits of the course between Mr. Bahto and Roger Rulewich.

[GeoffreyC]

Hamilton

I will wear the badge of troublemaker at Yale proudly. However, I take offense to referring to George in that light.

George was well known to the folks at the Yale golf course from his extensive research for his wonderful book. When the travesty of the front nine work was evident, I got John Beinecke involved and part of that was introducing him to George.  George worked diligently with the Yale group drawing hole diagrams and insisting that a SENSITIVE RESTORATION was the only direction to go. George's advice was ignored and then outright lies about his contribution were made by the athletic director to the president of the university. George was a beacon of hope for a good job and a sensitive restoration that could have been amazing. Instead we get this CRAP.  George is not a troublemaker.

[HamiltonBHearst]

Well then Mr. Childs you are the troublemaker.  Please know that many in the alumni community appreciate what you are trying to accomplish.  It would seem that an academic institution would be most appreciative of the input of Mr. Bahto.

Are you aware of any relationship between Rulewich and Bahto?  Has Mr. Bahto been contacted as an expert, or is this too embarrasing to the Yale folks?

I am sorry that this has been turned into a attempt to discredit the rabble rousers.  Hopefully, Brad Klein's article will help.  Was at the Yale Club in NYC last June and explained that the work was controversial, got a few blank stares.  Well after this article I have spoken to a few who are starting to doubt Mr. Rulewich's work.  

I have seen some of the pictures you have posted on this site and they are telling.  

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Hammy,
I totally understand about the profereading as well as your concern.

About the aledged trouble-making, I'm sure the reports you have heard were based from second hand information that has been passed along, over and over again. It's funny to hear some stories repeated because in the end a person knows what he said, and what he hoped in trying to convince the parties that be that theyneed to step back, take a deep breath and look and realize what they are doing. Of course they didn't, and the truth is geting spun more and more.

With the simple perusal of Dr. Child's pictures one can see for themselve that this "Restoration" is now a full-fledged raping of what was one of the great golf courses in America. Yale should be falling from the ratings pretty quick because it's greatness is being worn thin by the lies and falsehoods and surprizingly, more then anything the lack of knowledge--all in the area that is supposed to be the epicenter of higher learning.

As the saying goes, the proof is in the pudding and the pudding (these pictures) are presenting a crystal clear portrait of a band of nincompoops.

It all makes the situation even more entertaining to see how the the representitives of Yale Golf Club and Roger Rulewich like to spin it. The title of Spin Doctor couldn't be more apt for Yale's Director of Golf--Peter Pulaski. He's a pro at it, and if he is as good at his golf game as he is spinning stories, then he must be one hell of a golfer. As for Roger Rulewich, his letter to Golfweek should be framed in the halls of the Yale Drama Department. It was quite the performance.

Join us in our quest Hammy. Let us show Yale the light, so they may see their shortcomings. If we are branded terrorist extremists, then so be it. I would rather be one of those then on the wrong side of the tracks.

Amen and allalujah!

[HamiltonBHearst]

Last time I was to meet some interested Yale parties I bought along Mr. Bahto's book. Page 245 has a 1925 photo of the 18th and also a 2001 photo of the 18th.  Three out of four liked the 2001 Rees Jones inspired bunker more.  

I come to this site to learn and what a wonderful resource it could be.  I just do not understand how a group that has been exposed to Mr. Bahto and all the info in the book (and any in person presentations) and be happy with the present work.  Most I speak with are most concerned with the course conditions.

[Mike_Sweeney]

Most I speak with are most concerned with the course conditions.

H,

I heard/read almost the same quote from Bob Crosby after he played at a Yale reunion. I think it stems from the Augustazation of American golf.

Here are two pictures of recent bunkering work that was done by Roger Rulewich at Mill River a 1960's course on Long Island where Cornish was the original architect. I did not know RR did the work until after the round. I thought it was very well done FOR THIS COURSE.





Thus, it is my belief that RR is not a bad architect, he is simply a bad choice for Yale. Why the committee cannot see the difference between those two Yale #18 green pictures is disappointing to say the least. While the restoration/renovation debate may seem like wordsmithing by some at Yale, it is Yale University, and we/I expect them to care more for their asset(s).

[SPDB]

Rulewich or whoever rulewich uses to shape bunkers doesn't have the vaguest idea of how to "edge." I recall a recent newly designed Rulewich course, where the bunkers could easily have been putted out of..... a new course.  

They looked like some of the backsides of Merion bunkers ~ 6 years ago.

I bring this up by way of pointing out that Rulewich, in my opinion, doesn't have an eye for detail. So I don't think he is purposely disregarding what the trove of historical materials make apparent to anybody. Rather, I don't think he has the capacity to follow something with the detail that the restoration requires. I really think he believes he is doing this to the letter/spec of what was there before. no joke.

[GeoffreyC]

Getting ahead of ourselves going to #18 but here are the images in question




I'm told that the beautiful new right greenside bunker was done twice because the first one was not satisfactory to the committee. This one must be much better.  Now lets all remember that the work on the back nine was directed by John Beinecke and the committee with a mandate of RESTORATION. This is apparently as good as they can do.  

It took research from George Bahto to uncover this old photo of 18.  Where was Roger Rulewich?  When I showed this photo to Peter Pulaski before George's book came out he said that it wasn't a photo of Yale     . I showed him the photo to contrast with what they were calling restoration.  He said the clearing up on top of the photo wasn't right and it was not a photo of the 18th at Yale.  DUH- ever heard of trees growing in 75 years! Beinecke said that it was a 1925 photo before the course opened and the bunker could have been before it was finished.   Yeah- I'm sure the finished one in 1926 looked like the second photo of Roger's work  

[Pat Sisk]

Mr. Childs:

Peter Pulaski's denial of the photo being of Yale, although laughable, shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.  A denial to the extreme along party lines.

Having grown up in the New Haven area and being in the golf business for 21 years I have seen how great Yale must have been, a long, long time ago. Learning the intricacies of SR and CBM's work from "The Source", George Bahto, gave me an even greater appreciation of Yale.

The question begs; why does the work at Yale puzzle so many?  The University, sadly, has a history of neglect and haphazard maintenance to quite a few of its more prominent properties.  The Yale Bowl, once the Mecca of football is literally falling apart, Ingles Rink (sp?), Peabody Museum, and please don’t get me started on the condition of the horse stables.

I used to dream of being the superintendent “The Yale Museum of Golf Course Architecture” that is their golf course.  Today, however, a future restoration of the “restoration” would be nearly impossible.

I choose to remember Yale for what it was, a masterpiece.

Pat Sisk

[GeoffreyC]

Pat

Thank you for your comments.  I too believe that a future "restoration of the restoration" will be much more difficult if only because Mr. Rulwich's bulldozers have erased much of the archeological evidence in the ground.

However, this project and our critique of it have been taken to individuals at Yale who are preservationists. My hope is that they will obtain expert outside advise as a form of peer review, something that is at the heart of academic life.

At the very least, this hole by hole account of the Yale restoration will be shown to the entire world through GolfClubAtlas.  Thank you Ran.

[GeoffreyC]

This is another image of hole #2 taken by Ran during our May 2001 GCA outing.  It shows the restored   hillside and bunkering quite well

[HamiltonBHearst]

Mr. Childs-Perhaps when this tragedy is fully documented, hole by hole, you can add it to the IN MY OPINION section.

[GeoffreyC]

I had the opportunity to see NGLA again today.  There are some striking similarities in the topography of the land, the width of the playing areas and the angles and strategy.  Better maintenance practices at Yale to expand the greens and restore fairways by altering mowing patterns will help.  However, that's where the comparison ends because Stevie Wonder could "see" that the Yale bunkers are sad imitations of MacDonald and Raynor's work.  

I did want to share one more old image of hole #2 uncovered by George Bahto. It is a rare look at the old 2nd green before the superintendent removed some mounds and contours "in the name of more accurate putting". Additional enhancement in photoshop could have been really helpful to someone who really wants to restore the course.  

Where was the Yale restoration committee and Roger Rulewich doing their research?



There was much more green space in the front and it extended right up to the falloff into the left bunker without appreciable fringe.

Hole #1 is clearly visable as is the front left bunker.  Hole #8 is also visable in the upper right.  The vistas across the course with fewer trees were spectacular.  There is much to learn from photos like this.  Thanks to George for his research.