Yale ... The Responses Continue

[T_MacWood]

Pat
Matt believes Yale should reposition its bunkers and gave Hollywood as an example of a course that has successfully repositioned its bunkers. Either he is incorrect in citing Hollywood as an example of a course that repositioned its bunkers or he believes it is superior to the Travis course -- I assumed he wasn't incorrect.  I get the impression that he is not that familar with the original designs at Yale, Hollywood, Baltusrol, and Oakland Hills - and probably could care less. Which is fine, as a Golf World rater he is focused on the here and now. I just wish he wouldn't interject himself into a restoration discusion as a proponent of restoration and then turn around and promote redesign.

Since I didn't read your letter, is he repeating your opinion that Yale's bunkering needs to be repositioned to stand up to modern equipment?

[Matt_Ward]

I stand corrected ... Rees only did bunkering restoration at Ridgewood.

Tom, Trent Jones updated a classic ocurse (Oakland Hills) so that players could not with impunity fly bunkers that were simply there for show rather than strategy. What's wrong with that?

Clealy, having bunkers at the 225 yard mark were not in the position necessary given the advances in technology at that time.

Some people do agree with you that Trent Jones really did not do much at Oakland Hills / South and that hemming in fairways with bunkers on both sides is overdone and repetitive. I disagree with that assessment. Trent Jones enhanced / tweaked a course so that the original intent of Ross could be furthered for future generations of players -- especially those who compete for major championships. Trent also did not overwhelmthe course by interfering with the quality of the Ross putting surfaces. Current architects who do major restoration work could take a lesson from Trent.

Tom, I've tried my best to explain my positions post after post after post. I get the sense that if I said white you'd say black ... if I'd say left you'd say right. To be totally honest, I guess you believe my position as a GD rater is not merited. Much to your chagrin, I have a very clear and deep understanding of golf architecture and the evolution of a golf course he / she rates. You obviously think otherwise and you're entitlted to your opinion as I am mine. I take the time to learn from those in the field what the key issues are they face in any design. I try through the course of the year to visit as many courses as possible in order to see with my own two eyes how the courses actually stack up when played and I don't rate them solely by how they fare against my game.

Finally, I did not say that the effort of Rees Jones was better than what Travis had originally created at Hollywood. I think, as Pat correctly stated, Rees accomplished a good bit in re-asserting the magnificence of Hollywood given the push by current club leadership. I also believe the course is one that deserves attention as a potential member of America's best 100 courses.

The land at Yale is marvelous -- no doubt. But the conditioning items I and Pat have mentioned time after time (see previous posts) are not heeded by the management, and in my opinion do not enhance the overall quality of the site. I would really like to see Yale "firm and fast" but that seems unlikely.

You just can't seem to ever say that we probably have a fairly close agreement on the role of conditioning. I'll say it once again the architectural aspects I look at first (land, routing and intergated shot values) are central in any course assessment I make. Conditioning is an element I include, as per GD guidelines, and I try to apply a standard of reasonableness given what is necessary to play golf in a fair manner. I don't believe courses should in any way follow the pattern set by ANGC and other similar type courses.

To go through semantic exercises of precise language that meets your exact terms to me is a redundant process.

Who knows it might be helpful if we could meet face-to-face and exchange our opinions over a cold brew. Then again -- you might argue with me about what type of beer to buy. Tom -- I like Molson Golden Ale ... OK??  

All the best.

[T_MacWood]

Matt
What Trent Jones did at Oakland Hills has been portayed as simply moving back Ross's bunkers, that is not acurate. Ross had bunkers at 200 yards, some at 225 some at 250 same at 275 and 300 yards. His design didn't follow a particular formula, and his bunkers were not symmetricaly placed, he didn't have nests of bunkers left and right at 250 yards. And likewise the greens were not surrounded and pinched on all sides by sand. Trent Jones eliminated strategy from the Ross design.

I don't think the issue at Hollywood is did Rees or didn't Rees do a good job, the issue is: is Hollywood a model for Yale to follow when they undertake your bunker repositioning project.

No, I think you are perfectly qualified as a GD rater, and I'm not sure what to make of your knowledge of these courses evolution, and as I said before maybe its not important in rating a course.

Thanks for clarifying the 'land' issue, I wasn't sure if Yale was playing soft or you had some sort of new approach in evaulating a site. I'm sorry to here it is soft.

We do not disagree on everything, I do not comment on 80% of what you write, but when I believe something is said that is accurate or inconsistent with my view, or even inconsistent with your previous statements, I question it.

I would love to sit down and have a beer -- we would either become fast friends or we'd be taking the arguement out into the alley.   Let me know when you come to Columbus, I'm always keen to meet Golf Illustrated panelists.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

I never advocated repositioning any bunkers at Yale.  I advocated their proper restoration, including bunkers that have been abandoned.

Willie Dow,

With regard to Dave Paterson....
any individual, especially one intimately familiar with Yale, who would put pen to paper, for display in a National publication, who would say the golf course is
OBSOLETE, has no understanding of the golf course.

He may love Yale, and he may love golf,
but he has no understanding of its brilliant architecture, nor architecture in general, if we are to judge him by the words he wrote.

The Alps, Redan, Biaritz, Road, Eden, Short,
and other outstanding holes at Yale are far from obsolete.

If, as you say, he must recruit against the Duke's of the world, that is even more reason to champion a true restoration, and to have the course maintained and conditioned better.

Despite what some may say, kids today don't want to play and  practice on a cow pasture, especially when the season is limited.

A well restored, well conditioned Yale golf course would be the greatest recruiting tool/asset of all.

But, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

I don't think I would classify the work on the Hollywood bunkers as repositioning.

Some bunkers which were added by members/committees over the years were eliminated.  Some bunkers which were eliminated by members/committees over the years were restored.  Some bunkers were reconfigured.

But, off the top of my head, I can't think of any bunkers that were repositioned, with the exception of the shortened par 3, 17th.

[George_Bahto]

Kye Goalby:



September 21, 2001

Kye (Goalby) - I’ll come off my original Forsgate statement ........   a little

from an article by Charles Banks in 1930 entitled “Selecting a Golf Course Site”

“The Forsgate Farm Golf Course is being built on a private estate - a farm of about one thousand and four
hundred acres. Most of the land is very flat, but is so happens there is one tract of about one hundred and
fifty acres which is ideal in topography, similar to some of the best Long Island land, with great rolling hills
and billows but no real hills. Some of the soil is excellent, but about half of it will require special treatment with
cover crops to make it suitable for good turf. No clearing is necessary, except for a few apple trees. There
is no rock. A great part of the course will be visible from the clubhouse and the effect will be very pleasing.
Here two factors govern the selection: (1) It must not be outside the limits of the private estate; (2) It must
be the most suitable tract within the boundaries.”

also

from personal research notes given me by friend Dr. Bill Quirin, author of the Golf Clubs of the MGA:

“The gaping bunkers, highly-contoured greens, an tumbling fairways that characterize the Banks course at
Forsgate must be a far cry from the gently rolling farmland n which the course was built. But that is Banks’
legacy   ............   (He was) at his industrious, fiendish best at Forsgate moving tons of earth to create what
he envisioned for each of the holes.”

The property (500-plus acres) was developed by John Forester, a Scot who founded Crum and Forster Ins
Co, - he established a “scientific” dairy farm on the property as well as breeding horses. At one time it was
NJ’s largest Grade A dairy farms

an aside: the course was original to be a private course for Forester and his friends

[Matt_Ward]

Tom,

I'll buy the first round of brews. I'm still ordering Molson Golden Ale for me!

In my personal opinion all courses in golf can certainly stand scrutiny and in many cases they may need to be upgraded to reflect how the game of golf has evolved and is played today.

Some people believe otherwise and say keep the courses as is and rein back totally the improvment in technology. I don't think you can simply go back as easily as people say you can. That's just my opinion.

I really enjoyed what Rees did at Hollywood. I cannot comment to the original design because I was not present to play it. When I first played Hollywood back in the mid-70's I was impressed with the design and wondered if the club was contemplating any future changes. It took some time, but the final product that Rees delivered does show respect for the past and how do keep current existing bunkering as a strategic element central to the core of Hollywood's greatness.

Yale, in my mind, has much deeper issues than bunker repositioning / modernization or whatever you want to call it. I just think the course fails to see how best maintenance practices can further add to the grand reputation of the course. Why they continue to hunker down in denials is beyond me? The biggest joke is that people who aren't members have more awareness than the very people who see it everyday!!!

I think what Hollywood did is a good example in rejuvenating a course and taking it to the next level. Clearly, the land each course has and bunker placement / style at one course is not completely in sync, or at all for that matter, with the other.

I'd like to see restoration of bunkers at Yale and, in my opinion, adding a few to deal with technological improvements would not be a bad idea either. Possibly adding a few tees too as long as it would fit with the original design. Some will certainly disagree and that's their prerogative.

I also don't why you cannot have restoriation of bunkers at a course and also
additional enhancements with new bunkers. It doesn't have to be just an "either or" deal. Please do no think I am advocating the creation of a multitude of bunkers just for the sake of more bunkers.

You say the strategy of Oakland Hills was reduced through the involvement of Trent Jones. I never played the original Ross design at Oakland Hills / South and therefore cannot comment directly. I have never seen any comments from either leading players in the game or architects who believe Oakland Hills to be less of a course through the revisions of Trent Jones. From my understanding of your comments you seem to believe that Trent's bunkering was repetitive and positioned in nearly the same manner on every hole. Doak rates Oakland Hills / South as a 9 and I agree. What number would you give the course Tom?

FYI -- you mentioned my affiliation as a panelist with Golf Illustrated / Golf World as well as with Golf Digest -- I only rate for GD.

I don't know if being a rater with GD has any standing with you since you think GD raters, people like me specifically, focus too much time on aspects (conditioning, etc.) that are not central to the core mertis of a course. I do look at architectural aspects first (land, routing and integrated shot values). But I don't give free passes to courses that are just walking through the motions in other key details. Conditioning is one of them in my mind.

From what I've seen on GCA I do have respect for fellow posters who do rate for other pubs. I learn a great deal about other courses and I think there is much that Golf Digest could and should do to in this area. We may disagree -- but as you said in your post we probably agree 80% or more much of the time.

I'm looking forward to the beer either here in the metro NY / NJ area or in Columbus. No boxing gloves allowed though!!!

[rkg]

Thanks George.  I assume the really flat part described is where the "other" course is.

With all of the infromation you have you should consider publishing a book someday.  

Mr. Banks could not quite say this today!

"No clearing is necessary, except for a few apple trees. There
is no rock. A great part of the course will be visible from the clubhouse and the effect will be very pleasing"

The two times I visited  Forsgate(and was fortunate enough to play once), we  often commented how amazing the place would be if a chain saw or four got loose out there.  

Maybe someday this quote could motivate someone there to start cutting.

[George_Bahto]

Kye: Book One (of two) - the text went to the publisher this past week and the text follows next week ...... whew! - what will you have to bug me about now  :-)  ..... don't know how to make a yellow smiley face (help someone - e mail me how to GGB313@aol.com)

[T_MacWood]

Matt
I don't know what number I would give Oakland Hills -- the course is certainly difficult, but it presents the same shot over and over. The greens are very interesting.  The 7th, 11th and 15th standout in my mind because they break the repetative mold. The 11th being a great natural hole. The 16th is disapointing. The par-3s are good, but not great -- the 17th being distinctive. The historic atmosphere and the US Open aura add to the courses reputation. The original Ross layout looks more interesting. If given a choice I think I would choose Franklin Hills.

[Matt_Ward]

Tom: I've never played Franklin Hills, but I've heard a great deal about the course. Tom Doak wrote a number of complimentary things in "Confidential Guide."

GD recently rated FH as 8th best in Michigan -- a drop from 6th two years before.
I wonder how other GCA posters view FH in the state and if they think the rating by GD is way off base???

Next time I'm in the MI area I will be looking forward to play the course.

Thanks.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Matt,

Franklin Hills is definitely worth the effort to see. There's much more Ross there than at Oaklands Hills today; no surprise.

Superintendent Tom Gray has been working, for several years, with Bruce Hepner to restore Franklin Hills to its original 1926 Ross design. They're almost complete. And there are indeed plenty of wonderful holes at Franklin Hills; for sure.

Tom Gray is a superintendent ANY club with a classical golf course would benefit from.  

[Greg Stebbins]

Matt,

Absolutly no work was done at Ridgewood prior to the '01 Sr. PGA.  Rees Jones did a bunker "restoration" before the 1990 Sr. Open, but he did more to screw them up then help them.  

A master plan submitted by Gil Hanse this year covered the real restoration of bunkers and sought to reposition a few that the modern game has passed by.  Unfortunately, the membership has bastardised this plan.  The ensuing politics that resulted from the debate will set the club back a number of years as far as doing meaningful work on the course goes.

[Matt_Ward]

Greg,

Thanks for the message and update!

What's the story on how many more trees will Ridgewood actually cut down?

I've heard words from various sources that some members want a lot more cut down to open up more strategic elements as envisioned by Tillie and others are literally having heart attacks if any one touches as much as one more limb.

Any comment???

What improvement elements has Gil Hanse suggested that certain key members at the club are balking at???

If you don't want to post publicly please send to me at:

mattwardgolf@hotmail.com

Thanks ...

mw

[Patrick_Mucci]

Greg,

I'll be at Ridgewood next week for the Painted Woods member guest.

I'm disappointed to hear that Ridgewood is not proceeding with the full scale plan that Gil Hanse proposed.  That plan would have been terrific.  As I've stated many times before, no matter how members try to camoflage the issues, money is usually behind the naysayers.  I know some of the people who were against the project, and will speak to them about what I perceive is an error on their part.

Club politics and decisions never cease to amaze me.

[Greg Stebbins]

Pat,

Have you seen a copy of Gil's master plan?  If not, let me know and I'll leave a copy of mine for you to take a look at during the painted woods.  I'd be very interested to hear what kind of feedback you get.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Greg,

I'll be with Jim Breit, leave the copy of what was presented with the locker man and have him put it in my locker, or you can put it in my locker.   Hopefully,  we'll get to see one another.

[GeoffreyC]

I guess I can't go away for a few days without SOMETHING about Yale going on here.

Course conditions as related to design intent are very important.  I saw this in spades when I had the pleasure of playing at Huntingdon Valley earlier this year and by speaking with their superintendent and my friend Linc Roden.

Overuse of the irrigation system, purposly watering the front and right of the redan and poor mowing patterns are examples of practices that need to change. Yale need not be manicured like Augusta but these changes need to be made.  I think this is what Pat Mucci is talking about and I agree with him.

As far as the architecture goes, I favor using the HUNDREDS of construction photos (at ground level)and the beautiful 1934 aerial that I posted here as a reference point.  RESTORE the course based on that data. Please do not ADD any additional bunkers. I do not favor that at all. We have a chance to restore a pure Raynor classic.

The pure restoration that I favor will add significant difficulty and intimidation to the course. It was much harder then it is currently. At 6600 yards par 70, there is plenty of fire and difficulty at the Yale course.  This is especially the case when the course is firm and the greens fast. However, the course is host to college events.  It was in fact closed the past two weekends for  mens and womens college tournaments. Therefore, if additional back tees could be easily added WITHOUT changing design intent or angles of play that couldn't hurt. I don't really favor this and certainly wouldn't put it up high on the list of things that need to be done.  All I can say is that I'm GLAD there is no room for a 7200 yard course because the temptation to ruin it for some hoped for tournament might be too great.