The Travesty of Yale- The back 9 - hole 17

[HamiltonBHearst]

Mr. Childs-A very long time ago on one of the posts I made a comment about the "troublemakers" up at Yale.  You took offense and rightly so.  I was joking because at a yearly outing I attend as an alum, someone had metioned criticism of the work and the gentleman said it came from a "bunch of troublemakers".

I was mocking these people and never dreamed your doing the right thing at this great course had made you somehow unpopular.  I am sorry for that.  Every alum or every person who golfs at the club should applaud you for your couragous stance and effort.  I am very sorry it has caused you discomfort.

I am one of the voiceless contributors to the university that has been sold a bill of goods.
If you ever want to play I would be honoured to accompany you.  Keep up the good efforts.

[GeoffreyC]

Hamilton

Thank you very much.  I would be honored to meet you and share a game anytime.

My stance at the course has certainly caused some friction and discomfort. However, in the end it must be a good thing because in my eyes these individuals were never true friends. I have my own ideas about friendship.  My real friends know I have their interests covered and they mine. That's more then enough for me.

Freemahc

#17 was a very long hole back when the course was built. Few players could carry 2 shots 430 yards directly onto the green.  Even if they could, pre-irrigation system (only about 10 years ago!) the course was rock hard and even if you did carry the ball on the green it would roll through. So, the principal's nose was a hazard to either just carry with a fariway wood and roll onto the putting surface or even skirt past them onto the green. In spring perhaps when it was soft this was not possible and things changed with the seasons. Agreed that this PN hazard is less important in the modern aerial game.  Hopefully the new superintendent will firm up the conditions and the PN will be an appropriate hazard for the higher handicap players or shorter hitters.  They count too! Let's put back the old road bunker on #4 and the teeth of the course will sharpen immediately.

[FREEMAHC]

Geoff, I'm curious to know which members are outraged by your comments, and which ones are on your side, but this forum is not about name calling, so we'll save that discussion for another time.

My point about the hazard was that it especially penalizes the high handicapper. As a low handicapper, I have no trouble reaching the green in 2, often with a short iron. But the high handicapper often had to attempt to run the ball through a narrow opening to the right of the PN. With the bunker constructed as it is now, and as it was in your aerial, it seems to completely obliterate any chance of running a ball through there.

You said that the nose was a hazard to carry or kirt by, my contention is that with the bunkers there, there is no way to use the back side of the PN to kick the ball towards the gree, and with the bunker on the right, no way to skirt around the PN either.

Personally, I like leaving the 8 yard wide stretch of fairway there to tempt the short hitter when they're faced with a shot from 180-200 yards. Seems like the bunker would just make me say, lay up short and hit your 3rd from 80 yards.

[GeoffreyC]

Freemahc

There is plenty of room both right and left of the bunkers to run the ball onto the putting surface. All we need is to firm up the ground.

Mike Sweeney is definitely my compadre (as Tuco would say). Now Mike just tell me if I need to delete this so you remain a "part of our Yale family"  

[FREEMAHC]

Ok, I'll take your word for it. My recollection from a few years back was that there was a small strip of fairway to thr right, but only rough to the left. Going to the right of the PN was definetly preferable.

I'll happily defer to your analysis over my own amateur recollections  

[GeoffreyC]

Freemahc

Look at the photos on the first page of this thread.  You have to thread a needle to get to the left plateau of the green but it can be done.

It also makes Gil's point about mowing patterns and bringing back the scope of the course.  Yale was meant to play WIDE and firm to allow the amazing topography to kick the ball around. Cut that rough and turn off the water.

Here is a better angle that shows you can do it but from what is now rough on the left.  Mow it down!

[JakaB]

As someone who has followed on this site Geoff's crusade on behalf of saving Yale, I feel like we just witnessed a train wreck.  There are some very disturbing developments in the last 24 hours of posts.

I will pray Geoff can get the train righted.

Kelly Blake Moran,

How is it looking now....

[George Pazin]

Jax -

I'd guess KBM feels much like me - if that work on 17 is evidence of turning the corner on the back nine, I don't feel so persuaded.

Interesting how you overlooked everyone who rebutted JamesK's comments about Gil, including Gil himself.

[Brad Klein]

Freemahc,

I've been writing about tree management/tree removal for a decade and have helped over twenty clubs (most of them older ones) address the issue on a systematic basis. In no case does it do any good to point out specific areas (9th green, 11 fairway) where tree removal should proceed without a prior strategic understanding and commitment to the proper role of trees on a golf course. Absent that foundation of understanding about architecture, trees versus turf, etc., any hole-by-hole suggestion is pointless. Many times, clubs think they have accomplished something when they've taken out 30 or 40 trees on a golf course and feel like they have exhausted their political capital in the process. That's like vacuuming a room you've neglected for 10 years and thinking you've achieved something. At best, it's a start.

Having said that, the current superintendent at Yale is a breath of fresh air and has a sound understanding of these issues. Let's hope that the folks he reports to can also be brought along.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Geoff Childs,

Do you happen to know what the annual operating and capital budgets are ?

And, have they been increased in the last three years as part of an effort to improve the golf course ?

[Kelly Blake Moran]

JakaB

The train wreck occured from reply 25 to reply 45, but apparently no one was hurt except Geoff and I do no think he realizes it.

[Bruce Katona]

I also have had the pleasure of spending time and playing golf with JamesK; and he is "one of the good guys".  During the recent strike labor strike, he was at the course daily helping out as an unpaid volunteer, to move tee markers, mow greens, tees, collars and approaches. He really does care and is passionate about the wonderful asset Yale has.

It was plain to see the difference the new super has made in the short time he has been there.  Changes take time but he has a long term plan in mind to improve the quality of the course (including selective thinning of trees and underbrush (the area in front of #1 tee is a fine example)).  

Perhaps this group should suggest to the administration to put together a group of concerned members/alumni, along with professionals in the industry, who agree and map out a 5 year plan to clear unwanted trees, improve drainage, resote greens contouring where agreed upon, etc.  As I understand the charge of the course " it was and is built and operated for the use and enjoyment of the Yale community, which maybe the premise Roger Rulewich and the administration are working under in completeing this current round of work.

I have followed with great interest this debate on Yale.  The work this group has invested posting aerial pictures, old photos ,etc. makes it easy to see what was and what currently exists. Setting aside the arguement of shape  of bunkers for the time being, there has to be logical reasons why the current renovation work  decreased much of their veretical element.  Rather than speculate here, perhaps this group can ask for and receive real answers from the team doing the work in a constructive forum, rather than a one sided debate here. This would also be the proper forum to discuss why bunker, green, tee, etc. shapes were amended.

[Lou_Duran]

Geoffrey Childs' reply thanking George Bahto says it all.

I had a similar though much shorter lived experience with the athletic department at Ohio State a few years ago.  My alma mater had announced plans to do a much needed renovation of its great Scarlet course (17 of the 18 greens, all clay-based, had not been rebuilt since original construction during the Depression), and two prominent designer/architects with strong ties to the school were locking horns over the direction.

I offered to help form and participate in a diverse advisory committee of university stakeholders informed in matters relating to golf and architecture.   This would allow the athletic department to stay arms-length from the political fray, collect information from a variety of sources, and, ultimately, make the final decision while being able to partially insulate itself from the criticism that was sure to follow.

This proposal did prompt a nice reply from the AD.  He thanked me for my thoughts, and with some brevity and gusto, informed me that it (the direction of the work) was his decision solely to make, and that he was fully able and willing to do so.

Fortunately, I guess, the football stadium expansion and the development of a new basketball arena sucked-up surplus funds.  To the best of my knowledge, the course renovation is still in the back-burner.

Like Geoffrey, I too love the Scarlet course, and while I haven't been back for six years (after being very poorly treated by a very impersonal starter), it pains me greatlyto see this tremendous university asset treated with such little regard.  For me, my time at the golf club during the 1970s was the most memorable and meanigful part of my college experience.  The relationships I had there and the lessons I learned on the course were invaluable.

It remains perplexing to me why schools of higher learning where smart people tend to congregate so disproportionally, are often so intolerant of diverse thought.  Yet, if you really think about it, some of these folks have the same human survival instincts as the rest of sun, plus a heightened sense of their own self-importance.

I do wish Geoffrey, George, and all other concerned Yale Golf Club supporters well in this intervention.  Has any consideration been given to forming a historical foundation to purchase and operate the course from Yale, with the university using the sales proceeds to build a modern, low-maintenance facility for studends, faculty, and staff?  With the stock market doing better, there ought to be an extra $5-$10MM loose change in some alumni's pockets.  

[T_MacWood]

I have no doubt JamesK is "one of the good guys". I'm sure bkatona is one also, and certainly Geoff Childs, and Gil Hanse, and even John Beinecke, and above all Roger Rulewich himself is no doubt a good man. I'm certain everyone on this thread is a "good guy" (with the exception of SeanB). But being a good guy and making mistakes (due to ignorance or poor craftsmanship or poor judgment or whatever) are not mutually exclusive. IMO saying someone is "one of the good guys" is meaningless. (it reminds me of someone saying a person "gets it"....how can I claim someone "gets it" if I may not "get it"?)

The architectural critic/historian Vincent Scully name was brought up. No doubt he is aware of important architectural works that exist in New Haven or Boston or NYC that most of us "good guys" would have no knowledge of....or if we were aware of them we have little idea of how these significant works might be effected by changes...changes that would compromise the building from a historic, aesthetic and practical use point-of-view. In contrast to Yale GC if someone planned changes to these buildings a small army of like-minded architects/historians would be all over the planners in no time. How many golf architects have descended upon Yale...not many.

From what I understand Gil Hanse, as a member of the ASGCA, is prohibited from criticizing the work of a fellow member. A problem that exists today that did not exist when Macdonald or Raynor were doing their things (or for that matter Frank Lloyd Wright, Le Corbusier, Gropius, etc were doing their things). A free exchange of ideas -- architects critically analyzing other architect's is very healthy IMO.

[T_MacWood]

Lou
I'm not sure the Scarlet is a good comparison. For one it was never completed according to MacKenzie's plan (he died several years prior to construction) and so it was never in the same architectural class as Yale. And the 17 clay greens are far superior to the one modern rebuilt green.

By the way TOSU GC is currrently involved in the early stages (the process began last summer) of multi-million dollar renovation as we speak.

[HamiltonBHearst]

I think most would love to see an open forum with George Bahto, Geoff Childs, Brad klein and the administration at YGC alond with MR. Rulewich.

Lets face it many that are in favor of the work have either been led to believe it is a "restoration" or are just thrilled that the conditions are somewhat better.  Just because we are told it is a restoration by RR and the administration does not make it so.  

Did Mr. Rulewich come clean in his letter to Golfweek?  

One of my clubs does not have irrigation.  the membership has been educated as to the "benefits" of this so they understand.  Sadly, the Yale administration and RR are educating the membershp and alumni community through deception: selling the benefits of a plan "restoration" that just isn't so.  I will accect Mr. Rulewich's vision only when he pronounces the YGC "better now than when it opened".  Alternatively, if he were to admit it is a renovation rather than a restoration I would want him to admit he is a more talented artist/architect than CBM/Raynor.  if not why renovate?  If not why sell a renovation as a restoration?

[GeoffreyC]

Kelly -  Could you please enlighten me as to how I was hurt by the exchange started by JamesK?  Thanks because I don't in fact realize it.  I thought Gil's ACTUAL comments were just one more expert opinion about the work done up at Yale. You should come up this spring and see for yourself (Please!).

bkatona-  please read my post #73.  I volunteered numerous times for committees. Dave Paterson said to me that he would nominate/suggest me for the golf committee.  My letters to Peter Pulaski always ended with me asking what I could do to help on committees or otherwise. I suggested and recommended two superintendent candidates, one of whom known to many here was a finalist for the position. NOTHING THAT I DID privately made the least bit of a difference in the response I got which was silence or scolding or censure. I didn't take kindly to that reception for my honest concern and love for the course. Indeed, the course  "was and is built and operated for the use and enjoyment of the Yale community".  Why then don't they want the course in a condition as it was built by Raynor and MacDonald? bkatona- had I not spoken up when the work on the front nine was completed, the back nine would have received the same treatment.  Do you realize that FACT?  Mr. Beinecke initiated the "restoration" effort on the back nine ONLY AFTER I made him aware of what was done to the front nine.  DO YOU KNOW THAT FACT?  So indeed, I can take some measure of satisfaction that my criticism on the "lunatic fringe" has had an impact.

You say "Perhaps this group should suggest to the administration to put together a group of concerned members/alumni, along with professionals in the industry, who agree and map out a 5 year plan to clear unwanted trees, improve drainage, resote greens contouring where agreed upon, etc."  What do you think Brad Klein did?  What do you think my letters to AM Stern, V Scully and Robert Levin asked for?  Contact me in private and I'd be happy to speak with you or show you my correspondance. Same for JamesK. Please!

Tom MacWood- Thank you for your thoughts.  I should also publicly say that it was Tom who first put me on to the idea of trying to work with the School of Architecture at Yale including Robert AM Stern and Vincent Scully. Thanks as I think it did have an impact that reached to the desk of the President of the University.  

[Lou_Duran]

TMac,

I was not trying to draw a comparison regarding the architectural pedigree or candidacy for restoration between Scarlet and Yale.  Though I believe that both courses are extremely special, I am unfamiliar with Yale, and think that Scarlet is in need more of a renovation as well as substantial tree thinning.

Instead, I was identifying with the obstacles that both universities seem to have erected which lock-out thoughtful discussion among the stakeholders.  Ohio State, for all its positive qualities, has/had about the most impersonal management of the golf club, athletic facilities, and really, much of the university that I have ever encountered anywhere.  Last time I visited, when my son was looking at colleges, I was treated derisively and like a foreigner instead of like the loyal lifetime member of the alumini association that I was.  In contrast, during the same visit, NCR opened up its arms to us like we were long-time members returning to the club after an extended absence.  The great difference was not lost on my then 16 year-old son, which may or may not have had a bearing on his decision to strike OSU from his preliminary list (he loved the course and the campus).  

No doubt that OSU's huge size is a factor, but I feel totally alienated from the athletic as well as the business school.  Hopefully, your experience there and the situation at Yale are different.

Concerning the renovation plans for the golf club, can you lead me to a source of more information on what's involved?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Hamilton,

I will accect Mr. Rulewich's vision only when he pronounces the YGC "better now than when it opened".  

Alternatively, if he were to admit it is a renovation rather than a restoration I would want him to admit he is a more talented artist/architect than CBM/Raynor.  

if not why renovate?  If not why sell a renovation as a restoration?

In a global sense, I think those are THE critical issues, the balance of the work is merely details.

[GeoffreyC]

Here is a better view of the 17th hole from a 1940 aerial that George Bahto has been working with.



I think its pretty clear in this view that the new bunkers differ quite a bit in size, shape and importantly placement around the knoll. The differences between the right greenside bunker in size, shape and placement is also obvious.

There will be some construction photos coming shortly that should point out that the critical tie in between the bunkers, the knoll and the surrounding fairway differs substantially with the new work.

[klangone]

I am not sure about the "butchery" mentioned in all these Yale posts........but the last time I played there it took 6 hours......that is the travesty.  No matter the architectual genius, playing for that long is a bore and basically a joke.  I hope 4 years later conditions have gotten better........

[SPDB]

I'm certain everyone on this thread is a "good guy" (with the exception of SeanB).

Tom -
I can only assume you were saving some superlative for me, "great"? "greatest"?

A little gratuitous, no?

[Kelly Blake Moran]

Geoff,

I just have a minute so I will respond with out going back and reviewing the record.  I am in  the middle of restoring my old farm house and want to get the vinyl siding up before nightfall

I just thought there was a gulf between the urgent tone of your case, and the very soft, timid comments by Gil, and certainly SteveK took Gil's comments as sort of an acknowledgement that things were not so bad.  That is what prompted my comment about a train wreck.  It seemed you did not get a very strong backing in that regard.  Now, many say an architect should not criticise another, although that restraint has not held George Bahto back, God Bless him, so that leaves you in a very difficult situation.  I think the idea of getting other architects from the ASGCA involved would further hurt your position, which based upon my experience playing the course, and based upon the case you have laid out here, I think you have every right to be outraged.  

that is how I interpreted the exchange from reply 25 to 45.  I thought it was a low point in your crusade.  I should go back and review because it seems everyone here saw it as a major endorsement for your position.  Any way I got to get back to restorning the farmhouse, I need to get some paint on those old stones on the front facade.

[GeoffreyC]

Kelly

Thanks for the candid reply.  I frankly did not want to get Gil involved nor did I expect him to come on here and speak his mind. Again, that's why I did not include architects among those I recommended to the Yale administration as credible candidates to review the work. My interpretation of Gil's comments were that he very carefully chose his words but they were in no uncertain terms as strong a condemnation of the restoration work as he could possibly give in this public context.

He said
"my comments were indeed tempered, and when asked in front of the dinner guests I believe that my response may have been misleading"- so much for JamesK's claim
"I believe that the early work (holes 2 and 5 in particular) were based more on ease of maintenance than on architecture, as a result the finished product is awkward at best."- pretty strong comment and totally at odds with Roger Rulewich's letter to GW
"Subsequent work is becoming a bit more in keeping with Raynor and Macdonald, although it is still not where it should be in terms of architectural authenticity and attention to detail.  I applaud the concept of returning the Alps on Hole 12, however, the execution of the work is again lacking." - look back in the archives- I've said the same thing.
'I believe that the constructive criticism that has been levelled on the work has been responsible for a re-evaluation of what the priorities should be for the golf course." - I hope so.
"The recent attempt to restore the golf course has been restricted at every turn by maintenance, cost, and a failure to recognize the scale of the original work.  Far be it for a Cornell guy to tell Yale how to spend their money, but I believe that a commitment at the start to respond to the original scale of the golf course would have seen money better spent, and work much less criticized." pretty obvious he thinks the project as a whole was ill conceived at best

I could not ever have expected a better ally. I am the lunatic fringe in this battle. I think criticism of experts like Brad Klein, Geoff Shackleford and now Gil Hanse (not to mention George Bahto who was on the "inside") each of whom saw this work independently and on their own should be enough for the Yale administration to rethink the outcome of this "restoration".

[SPDB]

Geoffrey -
I respect the way you have gone about this crusade. It is responsible, reasoned and always supported by facts, not personal animosities. It should be the model of how people raise grievances with their own clubs. I suspect that if the course were not attached to such a large and varied institution success would have been achieved a long time ago.

In reviewing the thread, I noticed that donations were solicited and accepted from members for the restoration of the back nine. A promise, which your research shows, was not made good on. How was the front nine financed?

I can only wonder how donors would feel if they gave money to build an arts center only to discover later that they  helped finance a storage shed for the physical plant maintenance crew? I wonder if the solicitations may have given rise to some sort of contract claim.