The Travesty of Yale- Hole #5Dan Kelly correctly pointed out to me that “tragedy” should be reserved for events like soldiers being blown up, crazy suicide bombers blowing up buildings with innocent civilians and drunk drivers running over someone’s child. I apologize if my previous choice of words offended anyone. It is after all only a golf course. What is being done up at Yale can, however, qualify as a travesty.
Hole #5 at Yale is our version of the “short” hole. It’s a very good version that has been softened to the point where much of teeth of the hole has been removed. The hole was really of the “fortress” type of short hole, different from #6 at NGLA which defends itself with its wild green. This style of short hole is almost an island green surrounded by deep bunkers that made recovery difficult. The 5th at Yale is a 147 yard shot. The best fortress type of short that I have seen is at Blind Brook. That hole reminds me of “Tank” at the old course at Ballyliffin. Still, #5 at Yale is/was a formidable challenge. The difficulty of #5 is increased due to the tricky swirling winds at this location on the course. Far behind the hole are a wall of trees with the 6th tee directly behind the green and the sixth fairway extending up to the right. Behind the 5th tee is the 4th green and fairway extending back to the 2nd fairway. Thus, you have wind moving through the fairways with the chute of the 5th at a perpendicular angle to those fairways and lined by trees. This creates the tricky swirling winds.
A view of the old aerial of that part of the course shows what I am talking about. In addition, you can see the island green created by Raynor on this short hole.
Here is an old photo of #5 to show you what it once was. What an intimidating iron shot that was! The slopes down to the bunker were steep. No golf ball would come to rest on those slopes. Note the size of the players on the green relative to the depth of the bunkers. Count the steps down into that front bunker. The caption to this old photo and other writing (perhaps George Bahto will comment) state that the bunkers were some 11 feet deep. There was at one time the typical horseshoe or thumbprint feature in this green. I believe Harry Meusel, the old long time superintendent, removed this too.
Roger Rulewich did admit to softening this hole. In his own words he writes in reply to Brad Klein’s article in Golfweek “The style of flat sand areas and grass banks have been preserved.
The grass slopes have not been softened - they were left undisturbed in most every case when the bunker repair was done. The steepness is not gone and depths have not been compromised. In several cases they were excavated to bedrock. They could hardly have been deeper!
Only the floor of the front bunker on no. 5 was raised a foot to help it drain and keep it from becoming a water hazard after every heavy rain.Mr. Rulewich claims that the slopes into the bunkers were not softened and the floor of the front bunker on #5 was raised only
”a foot”.
OK then. Let’s take a look at #5 at Yale today after the work done to it.
Here is a view from the tee much the same as the old photo above. Note the absence of steps on the right. We hardly need them anymore as you will see. It sure doesn’t look as intimidating to me.
Now Charles Banks claims that the original bunkers on #5 were some 11 feet deep. If my math is correct then the bunker that Mr. Rulewich built should be some 10 feet deep or so. I for one would like some steps down into an 10 foot deep bunker but they aren’t present on hole 5 anymore. I wonder why
The construction photos were consulted according to Mr. Rulewich. What the heck happened?
Here is my good buddy Tony Pioppi standing by the new front bunker. For those of you who have not met Tony as yet- HE IS NOT 12 FEET TALL.
That’s about how big he would have to be for that front bunker to be 10 feet deep. Also note those steep slopes down into the bunker that HELD UP TONY”S BALL! But Roger didn’t alter the slopes as he stated above. My guess is the floor of that bunker is at least 5 feet higher then it used to be.
Now, Roger was correct in that area does not drain well. My question is whether modern bunker construction techniques could maintain the depth and get adequate drainage?
Now let us look at the left bunker on #5. Again I ask you if the slopes leading down into the sand are steep in the Raynor style?
Finally, nothing seemed to be touched behind this green. Note how different this looks.
So, I ask you once again- Is this a travesty or what. Is the reply of Mr. Rulewich to Golfweek accurate and truthful?