The Travesty of Yale- Hole #5

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim Kennedy,

The flaw may be in your assumption that the men in the picture were 6" tall.

The average male today isn't 6" tall, and 80 years ago I would venture that slightly over 5 feet would be the average.

If you've toured some of the old mansions built at the turn of the century, you're immediately struck by how small the people were, based on the scaling of the features in the  mansion, from the beds, to the showers, etc., etc..

But, whether it was 10', 11' or 12', they were a hell of a lot deeper then the current bunkers.

Evan Fleisher,

It would appear, that for $$$$$ maintainance costs that the putting surface has willingly, been allowed to shrink.

[ANTHONYPIOPPI]

Cos,

I remember being 6 feet when the first bottle was opened and 9 feet when the second bottle was finished (by you?), but I have no recollection of anything to do with the 3rd bottle.

Jim,

Hello yourself. Have you joined the Seth Raynor Society like the good citizen we all know you to be?

[tonyt]

I have a better question than trying to pinpoint the exact old bunker depth.

Which hole would you prefer to play?

The new one actually looks like a really good hole. Then whoops, I've gone and looked at the older photo. Now I'm smacking my head against the window ledge beside my desk! It is infinitely better, and it's concepts and playability (intimidating fortress that doesn't stab the missed shot to death, just makes the second shot brutal, yet makes the day of the player who hits the green) are not either too mysterious 'nor too difficult to understand.

So how did it not remain?

Pure lunacy  

[GeoffreyC]

tonyt

Your conclusion hits at the very essence of what is going on at the Yale course. Congratulations.

The 5th hole is in fact a very good hole and there are LOTS of really good holes on the course. In fact, except possibly for #16, EVERY HOLE ON THE COURSE is a very good to excellent one. The realization is, however, that there WERE numerous world class outstanding holes on the course that could have been fully restored if the athletic department, alumni, members and Roger Rulewich had any sensitivity or realization of the treasure they oversee. If they did the carefull research, constructed a master plan and solicited help for a landmark treasure then maybe things would have been different.

Look at the construction photo of #5 in George Bahto's book and you can clearly see the horseshoe feature in the green.  I have come to conclude that Harry Meusel (the old long time superintendent) did much more harm then we realize. Tony Pioppi in looking at the photos mentioned that he thought it was possible that Harry took his bulldozer and in removing the horseshoe feature lopped off a couple of feet fromt he green and used the soil to raise the bunker! Funny but the old time members should remember something like that as should Roger Rulewich since he was there since 1954 before much of this bastardization took place.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Pat,
When I was 12 years old and about 5'8" I spent my summers ducking floor joists in cellars while cleaning furnaces with my uncle. As I said, I used 6' to compensate for the difference in depth between the players, whom I said may have been shorter, and the front of the green, i.e., deeper in the photo would scale shorter. I wanted to err, if at all, in favor of the bunkers.
As I also said, and you reiterated, the bunkers are most definitely raised from their original depth.

Anthony,
Good citizen I am not. Please send me the info at my home address which I'll send to you.

This is just a minor point but George's post of Banks' description of #5 says the hole was designed for a "mashie" shot. A "mashie" is comparable, at least in loft, to the modern day 5 iron. The hole plays 2 to 4 clubs less than that today.
Wouldn't the hole need to be 30/ 40 yds. longer than it is to equalize the challenge between eras? I don't think that's possible due to the proximity of the 4th green but it makes a good case for burrowing those bunkers down as low as they can possibly go to at least restore some of the fear factor to the hole.    

[George_Bahto]

Jm: Banks and the Mashie shot: I guess he was just a lousy player - hah

[Craig Disher]

Unless golfers were a lot shorter years ago, several feet of bunker depth have been lost in the front. I know this isn't exact - for one thing, the figures were standing at different distances from the front of the green - but it's close enough to make the point.

[GeoffreyC]

Eckstein

Do you think people here are using tricks to convince the world that the course at Yale is being dumbed down?  

Have you played the 5th hole recently?

Do you really think the hole today is the same as it was long ago? Is that good restoration work?

Is the bunker as much as 5 feet shallower or not?

[Craig Disher]

Uh, Eckstein,
Could you tell me how I've tried to mislead anyone?

[Craig Disher]

I'm missing your point. The difference in green size is due either to the difference in distance between the camera and green in the 2 photos or the difference in focal length of the cameras. It's nothing I introduced. Regardless, the height of the golfer in each picture with respect to the green is the same for each photo - which I think makes the point (crudely, I admit) that the bunker is much shallower in the new picture.

[Craig Disher]

So you're suggesting that if a flagstick were shown in each picture with a golfer standing next to it, and photo A showed the flagstick 5 feet taller than the golfer and photo B showed them about the same size, that we couldn't deduce that the flagstick in photo A was taller than the flagstick in photo B?

The question is rhetorical.

[GeoffreyC]

Eckstein

Look at the photo of Tony Pioppi standing on the slope of the bunker. The green surface comes up to his lower chest and he is standing about 1 foot above the bunker floor. Tony is about 6 feet tall. The depth of that bunker is now about 5 feet or so.  

Roger Rulewich claims that he raised the bunker 1 foot for drainage purposes.  Perhaps he raised it 1 foot from what was there in 1999.  In 1999 the bunker was likely significantly raised from the original depth already.  

I ask the following questions-

Do you think Mr. Rulewich used old photos like this or the one in George's book to guide his bunekr work on hole #5?

Do you think that the final product of this "restoration" is a bunker that is only 1 foot shallower then the original?

[ForkaB]

Craig,

Comparing the photos on your post to those in Geoffrey's initial post, somebody has paintbrushed in the same phantom figure standing in the right front bunker.  Naughty! Naughty!  Whoever you are!

I agree with Eckstein that the two pictures are not of the same scale.

Finally, as loath as I am to make judgements on the basis of pictures only, I think that both versions of the hole look pretty good to me.

[GeoffreyC]

Rich

Get yourself to an optician and get your glasses corrected before you get into a car and crash it into something.  

[ForkaB]

Geoff

If you don't see the paintbrushed stick-figure "standing" next to the steps in Craig's pictures, and don't see that this "guy" is not in your pictures in post #1, you've been ingesting too many of those genetically engineered mushrooms!

[Matt Dupre]

This thread has moved into "forest - trees" argumentativeness  

It's obvious that the depth of the bunkers are different - significantly so according to my 8-year old.

The question remains - and I applaud Geoff for trying to keep it in the forefront - is what old photos were used for Rulewich's restoration efforts, and did the restoration of this hole truly restore what used to be?  While the current version is "OK", it's not close to what it could be!  And for that, there should be some explaining done....

[GeoffreyC]

Rich

You said- "Finally, as loath as I am to make judgements on the basis of pictures only, I think that both versions of the hole look pretty good to me." Does one look better then the other or are they equally good?

Did you see the photo of Tony standing on the slope of the bunker?  That wasn't a trick photo.  Have you looked carefully at the photos?

I'll ask you the same questions I asked eckstein with no answer as yet.

Do you think Mr. Rulewich used old photos like this or the one in George's book to guide his bunekr work on hole #5?

Do you think that the final product of this "restoration" is a bunker that is only 1 foot shallower then the original?

[ForkaB]

Geoff

The only truly comparative photos are the two re-posted by Craig (with the phantom "golfers" added--can you not see them?).  Based on those two I'll stand by what I said and not get into any speculation as to which version is "better" than the other since I do not have any real experience to base it on.

Cheers

Rich

[Craig Disher]

Ok. Ok. I apologize.

Just trying to inject a half-humorous piece of evidence into the discussion. I didn't expect it to stand up to any serious scrutiny. The "phantoms" in each photo are figures I cropped from the green and placed in the bunkers just to give a rough estimate of their relative depths. No tricks. The phantom in the old picture is the golfer standing in the mid-left of the green; the phantom in the new is standing just to the right of the flagstick.

[GeoffreyC]

Rich

I can see the add-on and they are NOT the only comparitive photos of use. If you can't see the green height is below Tony's shoulders then I don't know what to say to you. The new bunker is at MOST 5 feet deep.  Its not my eyes that are in question. Banks claims the old bunker was 12 feet deep. That would make it at least 7 feet shallower tehn before.  If the old bunker was 9 feet deep (count the steps that are no longer necessary   ) that still makes it 4 feet shallower. Look at the angles and slopes down into the bunkers.  They are not the same.  

If that work is good enough for you then I would not want you on any green committee for a course I was a member of.

[ForkaB]

Thanks, Craig

Just force of habit from playing "Spot the Difference" with my two girls over the past.  Are the CIA still hiring photo interpretation analysts?

[ForkaB]

Geoff

I never questioned that the "New" 5th bunkers were shallower.  Does that make them "worse?"  Quite possibly, even probably, but I don't know.  In some cases, size does not matter, and in others you can have too much of a good thing.

[GeoffreyC]

Ahhh- now we're getting somewhere.

I don't doubt that some like shallower bunkers with slopes running down into them at 4:1 or 5:1 angles instead of 2:1 or less so balls get hung up instead of kicking down into the sand.

I just didn't think that anyone frequenting this site who are interested in golf course architecture would be among that group.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Geoff Childs,

My memory is fading.

Didn't George Bahto quote the architect with respect to the depth he said he constructed the bunkers to ??

Why is everyone disputing the architect's word, is it not credible ?

[GeoffreyC]

Pat- your memory is just fine  

Indeed- Charles Banks is quoted on page 237 of "The Evangelist of Golf" - "The green is completely surrounded by sand, making it an island green elevated 12 feet above the level of the sand in the bunker.  The contours of the green mark a horseshoe around the pin which is placed in the center of the green."

Oh what the hell- they both (old and new) look good so why bother with trivial details?