News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


JamesK

Re:The Travesty of Yale- The back 9 - hole 17
« Reply #125 on: February 12, 2004, 03:11:35 PM »
Mr. Childs
First, please know that you and I probably disagree much less than you think. I would love to see Yale restored to a reasonable semblance of its original design. [It kills me that Harry Meusel was allowed to run rampant all that time. I yearn to have a double punch-bowl green at #3.] Also, I appreciate the concern and input of all the various experts who have chimed in. Most criticism and all honest discussion are healthy and welcome in my house any time. It seems to me, however, that this whole topic has been taken too far. None of you know under exactly what circumstances Mr. Rulewich was asked to provide design guidance or what the budget constraints might have been. This constant attacking of his work strikes me as gratuitous by some and malicious by others. Also, I am very aware of Gil's feelings about various elements but I am also aware that he loves playing the course as it is now. Enough about Gil.

If "the administration" has had anything at all to say about the course, I am unaware of it. The coaches and the pro staff are proud to be associated with a "Top 100" course as they should be. [If I recall correctly, the most recent top 100 rating was in Mr. Klein's "Golfweek" last year.] That the administration should aspire to anything like that is another matter. I will agree with you that Yale has some kind of obligation to maintain its asset appropriately but I conceive of this as an internal Yale matter. It would be great to have a Top 25 course and I can imagine a day when, through private fund-raising and good planning (perhaps with some of your people in on that) that we might. I would think, however, that this would not be anywhere near the top of the university's priority list.
As for "peer review," this isn't an academic matter. It's a golf course. Forces are at work to make things better. They already are better and I firmly believe that we are only at the beginning of the process. The course was basically neglected for 50 years. I think that this torrent of criticism does a profound disservice to those who have worked within the system, imperfect as it is, to make Yale the place it can be. As for you, I think that your impatience with the process does not serve you or your cause well. It seems obvious to me that you have alot to offer. You could be a great asset to the course if you would try to understand how to be a team player instead of attacking those who are working hard to make Yale the best course it can be. Think about it. What John Beinecke has begun can go on and on now that it has legs. There are very deep pockets out there. What will be accomplished, however, will be accomplished in an atmosphere of cooperation and collegiality, not at the behest of uninvited critics.
Although I know who was brought in to consult, I am certainly not the one to pass that information along to anyone, especially in this forum as it seems likely that they would instantly become the target for public criticism and condemnation by experts both real and self-appointed.



tonyt

Re:The Travesty of Yale- The back 9 - hole 17
« Reply #126 on: February 12, 2004, 03:17:24 PM »
If Roger was to make these restrictions clear James, instead of insisting he is restoring 1934 features exactly, I'd feel for his plight. And yours.

James, Roger has copped not one word of flak from this forum at all, ever, except in the instances where he has lied.

It's funny that. You do end up with a lot of discussion of this type which you seem to hate, when somebody chooses to deliberately deceive. Forget why Yale has had this work done, or the rationale. I say again, Yale are not providing such reasons. They are just flat out lying to everyone about what has been done.

It isn't because WE claim it should be exactly restored. It's because Yale insists that it has been.

GeoffreyC

Re:The Travesty of Yale- The back 9 - hole 17
« Reply #127 on: February 12, 2004, 03:46:21 PM »
James

You say "I would love to see Yale restored to a reasonable semblance of its original design" I'm glad to hear that you believe that the project did not do so! I agree with you on that point  ;D

Yale holds the keys to the kingdom and they can do what they wish.  No one disputes that. However, they are not immune to criticism especially from members. How many times do I have to tell you that it was ME who got John Beinecke involved in this project in the first place.  This was orderly and from the inside and in private.  It included hooking them up with the world's leading authority on MacDOnald and Raynor- George Bahto.  It was only when the subborn arrogance of those in charge refused to even listen to other ideas or allow my voice on committees that I had to speak out both in public and in private to the school of architecture and finally the president of the university. All this to no avail.  I don't even now ask them to believe my amateur beliefs but rather to get the opinions of experts in a peer review of the whole golf course master plan.  What's wrong with that if your heart is in the right place and you really want what is best for the course and those that use it? Its the Yale arrogance that prevents this (ala Gil's "who is a Cornell guy to tell Yale what to do.... statement).

It is just this piecemeal plan you refer to with Beinecke coming back when a few more bucks are raised to patch up a few more things that is at the heart of what is wrong with the whole plan.  Get a Master Plan for all the long range work FIRST! Then proceed once the scope of the place and the project is agreed upon. The whole thing is DOOMED TO FAILURE.

In spite of what my friend Tommy might say, I too still LOVE to play the course.  It is a fantastic asset that could be SO MUCH MORE. Finally, James, I am a member of that Golfweek rating panel you referred to that has had Yale in its top 100 classic courses since the magazine started producing those rankings.  I await next month for the issue with this years rankings.  
You also write about the criticism of Roger Rulewich. Since I have been his biggest critic until now I would again ask you if he has been truthful especially in his reply letter in Golfweek? Are his claims accurate? Was the money spent put to the best use possible?
« Last Edit: February 12, 2004, 04:33:46 PM by Geoffrey Childs »