The Travesty of Yale- Hole #5

[Jim_Kennedy]

Geoff,
I, for one, have no problem believing Charles Banks' assertion that Yale's 5th had bunkering that was 12' below the surface of the green.
It is just a minor point but do you think Banks may have used the term 'elevated' to describe the maximum height differential between green surface and sand? When standing on the front of the green the back of it appears to be 3' or so higher than the front. Therefore, the bunkers in back may have been 12' below the green surface as Banks said with the one in front originally being 9' or so below the surface, similar to the depth of the one shown in the older picture.
Now, if it's possible that the super knocked off a foot or two of soil and pushed it over the edges when he removed the horseshoe feature this would have lessensed the slope of the banks, in effect 'raising' the bunkers by the same amount.
Now we are down to about 7' depth of the front bunker. Figure in the addition of sand for normal maintenance over the remaining years and maybe that's another foot.
I well remember being in the left side of the front bunker back in the mid '80s. The sand went up the slope a bit and the grass was very gnarly.
 
 

I don't know what all this means

[GeoffreyC]

Jim

Without any further research that could document the facts your scenario which is similar to one Tony Pioppi proposed and I posted earlier seems quite possible.

However, again we MUST get back to the idea that the for this bunker project Mr. Rulewich stated in his own words in Golfweek magazine that he consulted construction photos, talked with members who would remember and historians SINCE THE BEGINNING IN 1998. Furthermore, he states in writing in Golfweek for all to read that the slopes were maintained and not softened. I ask again given this photographic evidence if that could be the case?  

Here is a construction photo of "the Short" hole at Yale. The horseshoe is clearly evident as are the slopes down into the bunker that Raynor intended for the hole.  


Given the product seen today I don't see how this photo or the one earlier in this discussion could have been taken into account.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Geoff,
My scenario is compiled from the earlier ones posted by you, Tony, and others and was only an attempt to see how much depth had been lost.

[Craig Disher]

For the record, here's an aerial view of the hole from 1940. Nothing can be discerned about the bunker depth but the contemporary photo from the back posted earlier showed no bunker there. This aerial clearly shows bunkering almost completely encircling the green. Is this still the case?

[Scott_Burroughs]

Recent aerials (wait a few seconds to load):

within the past 3 years (lower left, can also see past featured greens by Geoffrey, #1, #2, and #4):


and April 3, 1991 (lower left, also can also see past featured greens by Geoffrey, #1, #2, and #4):

[GeoffreyC]

I think the photos show what I was going to state.  Parts of the bunkers are no longer there. The short at Yale is not nearly surrounded by sand anymore.

PS- Scott- please size your photos to no more then 640 pixels in width or text gets impossible to read without scrolling. Thanks.

[tonyt]

Exactly. Let's forget debating the degrees of change, and stick with the architectural playability.

The current hole is good, but the current hole is not a fortress. There seems to be a far greater opportunity to make par from off the green than before, thereby placing less emphasis on the absolute thrill for the regular player of hitting it.

The old photos show that a ball on it's way from the tee would be watched almost as intently by the group as a shot to #17 at Sawgrass, without the ultimate penalty of lost ball, and allowing the less talented golfer to play out the hole in 4-6 strokes, depending on their bunker play. The current hole allows any 20 handicapper to be on in two and make 4 without skipping a beat.

It is the nervous threat of a minor disaster, and the victorious opportunity presented to the player who hits the green, that made the original character of this hole. Not merely it's shot demand that may still remain that can be executed without the conscious knowledge of big win or big loss. Does anyone at all on these boards not see that?