David Paterson's letter in Golfweek re: Yale GC

[Ran Morrissett]

Mr. Paterson, Director of Golf Emeritus at Yale, has responded in this week's Golfweek to Tony Pioppi's article re: GCA.com's get-together at Yale GC.

For those few who don't subscribe to Golfweek, you should but in part, Mr. Paterson says that Yale "... was extrememly penal and not much fun to play" when it first opened.

"In today's golf world it would be considered obsolete and unplayable. It was also difficult to maintain."

"And by the way, a 1934 photograph of the course shows the bunker on the sixth hole with an hourglass shape."

He also notes that "Yale's priority, thank goodness, is education and not in maintaining its course to match trendy, manicured country clubs."

Certainly, GCA.com could not have had more fun or been better treated at Yale by Mr. Paterson's staff. They did a great job and personally, the day only re-confirmed that Yale is one of my all-time favorite places to have a game.

Having said that, what are your thoughts on his letter?

Cheers,

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ran,

I didn't know that providing a good education and adequately maintaining its properties were mutually exclusive functions.

Do they let their dormitories fall into disrepair as well ?

Mr. Patterson is in a state of denial, and out of touch with reality.  Perhaps he is just too close to objectively discern and understand what has taken place.

The architecture of the golf course remains brilliant through the ages, despite the lack of acceptable maintainance standards.

And... what Mr. Patterson really missed was that the criticism directed toward Yale was constructive criticism voiced by people who love the golf course and the architect who created it.  People who have no hidden agendas, no political interests, only the desire to see the golf course restored to its majestic potential.

I sense that Mr. Patterson is really trying to defend himself.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ran,

I saw the letter the other day.  Ran, perhaps you could post Tony's original article, or at least give the gist of its content.  Tom Watson said it can't be a good design if it isn't playable in average conditions? I always felt that CB Mac courses would play well under different conditions, so I have to ask, how bad is it getting?

As a magazine writer, he is certainly entitled to be critcal, but this, and the thread on Joe Logan's article pound home a point for me that the criticisms on THIS site should be more balanced, and thought out, especially considering the site is apparently becoming more visible everyday.

Whether we agree with them or not, no one responsible for these courses puposely tries to mess them up.  Beyond that, there are some very real questions even for those intent on doing a good job - presumably defined as doing something that would get this group's stamp of approval (if that is even possible even if none of us puts up a dime for the work, or really has any vested interest, - what year, what features, even the question of locating features (like carry bunkers) where they were originally placed or so they play THE SAME WAY AS INTENDED NOW and so forth.  

The "monday morning quarterback" can always be right with football - the final score and coaches decisions are there in black and white, a clear cut result. But the golf course is not a one time thing.  It is a continuous thing, and it is harder to "monday morning quarterback" with certainty.

In both cases, those responsible for the respective courses have given pretty rationale reasons for how things got to be. At Yale, I can imagine a budget meeting where the needs of the course were subverted to more books or teacher pay raises.  Lots of college buildings do suffer from deferred maintenance....Don't know the funding mechanisms at Yale, but most Universities are not exactly without other priorities.

Pat Mucci's comments about Mr. Paterson not understanding that the criticism comes from people who love the course reminds me of some of the "helpful criticism" my Mom would send my direction.  My reaction was "If this is because you love me, couldn't you hate me just a little bit?"  Who wouldn't defend himself if called "in a state of denial, and out of touch with reality", when in fact the criticisms come from all over the country from people who, until sitting down at their keyboard probably didn't give one iota of thought to Yale Golf Course?

Passion for architecture does not justify rudeness, or making wild statements without a total understanding of the facts. I like to think Joe considers me as one of the "reasoned, measured and knowledgeable voices" but  for his readers, I am lumped in to a whole other group of "uninformed and mean-spirited" voices by association....

Or am I just defending myself because I design golf courses for a living?

Jeff

[George Pazin]

Jeff -

One of the signs of a healthy self esteem is the ability to respond to criticism, not the manner in which it was delivered nor the person from whom it was received. You certainly have never had a problem with this - it's a shame many others in the industry do.(I should point out that further that this is a universal problem in the world, not just the golf industry.) I don't think Patrick's choice of words diminishes in any way what he was saying. I don't think the administrators at Yale, with one of the largest emdowments of any university, are sitting up at night, trying to figure out how they can squeeze out more dollars for education at the expense of the golf course. That's a copout, plain & simple.

[Ran Morrissett]

Jeff,

Perhaps Tony will cut and paste his article into this thread?

I am too slow a typer to repeat much of it but the gist of it were that the "agronomic conditions of Yale are just short of atrocious" and that "Rulewich began a bunker renovation in 2000 that had many golfers and Yale members cringing."

After detailing some of Raynor's design principles of borrowing strategic concepts from famous overseas holes, of vertical faced bunkering, and huge, boldly contoured greens, Tony called for Yale to "make sure though the work performed remains in the Raynor style."

My take is as follows:

1. Tony's use of the word "atrocious" more accurately describes the rigmarole that the new Green Keeper will have to deal with in regards to the union than it is of the playing conditions. For instance, I never wanted to "roll the ball" in the fairway because of a poor lie and while a part of the swale in the 9th green and the 3rd green itself were roped off, the harsh winter was behind that.

2. Rulewich's bunkers are not in any way sympathetic to Raynor/Bank's construction style. For instance, balls can stop on the downslope of the front greenside bunker on the 2nd hole. Also, the bunkering around the Short hole is nowhere near as deep or menacing as it once was. Evidently, Rulewich was instructed to do so, in part to address the concern voiced by Mr. Paterson that "the course was extrememly penal and not much fun to play" when it first opened.

I wonder if Raynor's original design is too adventurous and too challenging for Yale's present members? Perhaps they want a more relaxed, less testing game? If so, then Raynor's design does in fact need to be watered down with shallower bunkers and less interesting greens.

However, when I reflect back on my 1986 conversation with Herbert Warren Wind where he detailed the scale of hazards that the golfer must combat at Yale, I doubt that is what he had in mind.

Cheers,

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ran,

Thanks for the summary.  My good friend Roger may have been instructed to soften bunkers, primarily to speed play, et al, as is so typical today.  Personally, I when I look at the Rocky Mountains just west of Denver, and think that men and women traversed those in wagons, and not on I-70, I think, "Whew, they were tougher hombres back then".  I have the same feeling going into a Raynor bunker!

Nonetheless, I really love Raynor courses, and hate to see them modernized. I have to believe that having unionized maintenance personell may lead to lots of changes, to accomodate an unmotivated work force (not meant to offend, but I have that image of many union workers, even though I can name some in Minnesota right now that really break the mold) or relent to their safety concerns (i.e. I ain't mowing that stinking steep bank without a pay raise)  

It is possible that those considerations outweigh tradition and history at Yale, even though those universities are both famous for tradition, and a bastion of modern P.C. And what is more P.C. in golf than preserving classic courses? Or is Re-Designing for a "wider audience" than the white male who typified early century country clubs their definition of PC?

I generally think the public at large should "butt in" to other people's renovation business only under the following conditions:

(1 Important Architect
(2 One of that Architects top dozen courses
(3 Or one with really unique features, unique enough that at least a few examples of the architects style should be preserved for future study. I would hope that could be acheived by volunteerism, not forced consription....

I'm sure Yale comes close to qualifying under that description. Of course, that's just a personal opinion based on the fact that the work of Raynor really is, in my eyes, different from almost anyone elses.

Jeff  

[Mike_Cirba]

As someone who has played a lot of courses where conditioning is a secondary consideration (give me rock hard, and I'm happy), I am not one who believes that the current maintenance level at Yale is abysmal.

In that respect, I understand Mr. Patterson's defensiveness.

However, the course design if awesome.  And, even as someone who thinks Roger Rulewich is a pretty darn good designer (i.e. Metedeconk, Ballyowen), I will state categorically that the bunker "restonavation", or whatever you call it that has been done on the front nine is horrid.

There is no other word for it.  I cannot imagine for the life of me that Roger Rulewich feels that it is even professionally competetent work.

It SUCKS!  

There is no other way to say it.  Even though Jeff may think I've crossed the line here between Joe Logan's reasoned, thoughtful posters and those out with some axe to grind, it doesn't change the following fact one bit.  

It SUCKS!

With not the slightest axe to grind, and even a fan of Roger Rulewich's designs, I'd still say that the bunker work at Yale is possibly the most amateurish, half-assed work I've seen.  

[GeoffreyC]

Dave Paterson is a wonderful fellow and I really like him a GREAT deal. He certainly only believes a small bit of what he wrote in that letter.  There has been a HUGE amount of pressure on him and the current director of golf from the Yale athletic department.  There have been threats of withdrawing of corperate outings and the NCAA has inquired about changing the venue of college events at the Yale GC.  All this from the article written by my friend Tony.  In the end this will all be very good for the course because the membership is now aware of this course and its historical significance. This after all is what is really important- THE COURSE.

The letter as a reply to the article is really just the administration of the golf course covering their ass to the administration of the University and the athletic department.

Dave does, however, believe some of that drivel particularly the idea that the course would be outdated, obsolete and unplayable if restored.  We spoke about that at a recent fund raiser for the course when we were in the same foresome.  We agree to disagree on that point.  Frankly, I think that viewpoint is simply his way to keep the course modern enough for his college team and the events played there.  This is nonsense in my opinion.

Tony's article was a teriffic synopsis of what going on at Yale (with the exception of what was discussed about the superintendent). It was not about green grass, bad lies in the fairways or bunkers. With the exception of mowing patterns and overuse of the new sprinkler system and thatchy slow greens the conditions are not so bad (as Dave said in his reply letter) It (the article) was (in my opinion) about the years of slowly changing the basic character of the course.  The latest work done by Roger Rulewich is to steal a quote from my friend Tommy N , VANDALISM pure and simple.  The work stinks.  Not only is it out of character but it is falling apart already with dranage pipes falling out of #4 bunkers early this year (subsequently repaired).  Roger should have been canned and sent out on his ass for that work.  As a Yale alum he should know better! But like Fazio, he is not interested in restoration.  While I don't think he should have been kept on the job he is now on a short leash and must submit clear diagrams of what is future work will be.  If he screws up and does not follow the 1934 aerial he will be out of a job. I am hopeful that the new work to the back nine will be better.  He will be allowed to work on the "easy" holes first (#'s 10, 11, 16, 18) before he will be allowed to do more interesting restoration of alps (12), redan (13), eden (15), double plateau with principals none (17).  The horrible mistakes on the front nine will then be corrected (including # 6!!!!).

I've talked with some members (those that will talk to me   ) and they really can be educated.  They want sand in the bunkers and a chance at recovery. They want nice greens and good lies in the fairways.  Those that have been around for a while do however want the course restored to the way it was 40 or more years ago.  They didn't know this was possible but when told that it was with careful handwork and care they are all for it (those I've spoken to).

Here is the 1934 aerial of Yale GC

 

For those who know the course please notice the fantastic bunkering on cpe hole (#2) with the huge bunker on the left simulating water and the (now gone) bunker on the right.  It must have been truly terifying. Green contour was removed as well back in the 50's (possibly at teh recommendation of RT Jones Sr !!!!).  Next notice the bunkers on short (#5) and also see the photos in Geoff S's book. These are 5 feet shallower now.  Now go on to #6 and see the (formerly) most beautiful and strategic bunker on the course.  On #7 the right greenside bunker was almost as large as the green.  George Bhato's showed us construction photos and it was truly wild.  On #12 you can see the trench bunker (alps) in fornt of the green. On redan (13) you can see the rear bunkers that have been removed. On 15 (eden) note the wild front bunker extending around the right front of the green. On 17 there is the principals nose short of the green (now gone) as is a right greenside bunker.  Also present are bunkers on the hillsides of 10 and 18 that are now gone.  All this can be restored.  With a good superintendent and budget following a restoration Yale GC will be among the elite courses in the world.  It will be playable.  It will be enjoyable and it will certainly NOT be obsolete.  It will be one of a kind!  We can only hope.  

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Geoff,
Well said.

As I elaborated to someone today that called me. asking what I thought of the Merion article by Joe Logan and how a lot of it pertained to me, I responded, "I don't want this about me, I want this to be about the golf course. It is what is most important." And while I'm sure that the members at Merion who dispise me have more or less concluded that I'm just a "Mean Spirited" and "Uninformed" indivdual that being mention or discussed in print is a my whole life.

It isn't.

Just as I want to see Merion survive this baffoonery, (Why does that word and the name Jim Lewis come to mind?) I want to be able to see Yale Golf Club survive to tell us all how great the Game of Golf really is. Especially when it is being played on courses that shaped the history of the game. shouldn't that make a difference in any restoration?

[GeoffreyC]

Tommy-  There is a big difference between the Merion project and the one at Yale.  At Merion at least they had A PLAN to use what they wanted of the photo documentation from 1930 and restore the course back to that time. I have not seen Merion before or after so I will not comment on whether it turned out well or not.  

At Yale there was no MASTER PLAN at all.  It was a haphazard, piecemeal attempt at "bunker repair".  Just give the members and golf team a little sand under the ball and a chance at recovery form the hazard. In that sense the situation at Yale was much WORSE than Merion.  It therefore isn't all Roger's fault but he should not have come in and butchered the course when he did decide to take the job.  He should not have made bunkers shallow, odd peanut shaped, out of character, (fill in your favorite adjective)with paths between them for convenience and maintenance. He should not have changed slopes (#2) to direct balls away from the deep left hand bunkers (see photo in Ran's course profile) in the name of drainage which could be done other ways. He should not have changed the basic character of the bunker on #6 which if you look at the aerial is NOT hourglass shaped and extends from 50 yards short of the green all the way to the first 1/3 of the green. That's the way it was when it was plowed up and it was deeper especially next to the green and on the slopes leading into it from the fairway side. Now the hourglass/peanut stops well short of the green and there is a path of sodded grass leading up to the front of the green followed by a 6 inch deep round "pot bunker" greenside. When did raynor build a bunker like that? That one makes me sick!

Old #6 - taken along the line of a bailout drive to the "safer" right side of the fairway away from the stream on the left. This photo really does not recreate the terror of this bunker shot.

Like Mike Cirba, I really like Roger's original work at Metedeconk and Ballyowen.  I think Metedeconk is and voted for it to be a top 100 Modern course.  Roger should continue to build solid modern courses and leave restoration work to those who are sensitive to classic designs.

Without going into any detail, things are different now and I have real hope that most of the course (which is what this is about) will be properly restored.  I would feel much better if it were in the hands of someone who understood Raynor/MacDonald like George Bahto, Doak, Hanse/Kittleman/Hine or Silva but it should turn out OK given the new marching orders.

[Anthony_Pioppi]

I am frantically trying to find a copy of the column. If my efforts are fruitless I will retype the original and post it.

[jim_lewis]

Tommy:

For just a moment there I thought you had insulted me again, but I can not find the word "baffoonery" in any dictionary. I presume it is a California term of endearment and respect meaning one who is admired for his great wisdom and good humor. Thanks for the kind word.

Jim

[ForkaB]

Jim

I'm sure Tommy meant "Laffoonery" which is a high compliment to those aware of Ky's contributions to the history and lore of golf.

[jim_lewis]

Rich:

Damn! I bet you are right.  I just don't understand why he would pay me such a compliment. I really don't deserve it, but I am flattered, nonetheless.

[T_MacWood]

Geoffrey
Thank you for sharing this wonderful info, hopefully as result of the publicity Yale will recognize what a spectacular gem they possess -- every bit as important as the architecturally aclaimed Ingalls Ice Rink.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff,

Dave Paterson wasn't defending himself against my statements regarding him being defensive and being in denial.  I made those on this site, today.  Dave Paterson was  responding in the August 25th issue of Golfweek to Anthony Pioppi's earlier piece in golfweek, so I think you've confused the chronology of events in your response.

I've been neither rude, nor have I made wild statements without a total understanding of the facts on the Yale or Merion posts.  
I too, think I have offered reasoned, measured and knowledgeable statements, but I'll let Joe speak to that evaluation.

Perhaps you're also to close to the parties involved to be objective.  That's not a criticism, only a facet of human nature.

Princeton, Stanford and Notre Dame maintain exceptional standards for a quality education, yet maintain their physical plants, including their golf courses at levels that far exceed Yale's.

Providing a superior, higher education and maintaining a University's physical plant are not mutually exclusive, especially when Yale possesses one of the largest endowments in the country.

Noone who played at the GCA get together compared Yale's conditioning to high profile, elite private clubs.  Public courses maintain their courses at standards well beyond Yale's.  There is an acceptable standard, which Yale fails to achieve.

I think Dave Paterson is in denial and defensive because he may feel some culpability in the state of the golf course.

These may be hard questions for you to answer, but I would appreciate your candor.

Do you feel that the Eden hole, the Short hole, the Redan hole, the biaritz hole, the alps hole, the plateau hole and others are obsolete as Dave Paterson maintains ?  

Do you think that was an intelligent statement on his part, or a defensive one, not based on fact ?

When was the last time you played Yale

If a donor, loaned Yale an art treasure, would they properly maintain and care for that art treasure, fearing that neglect would cause its repossession ?  

Unfortunately, the golf course is Yale's to keep, without fear of repossession.

You should be so lucky, that for the rest of your life, you meet and deal with people who have the same concerns for your well being as your MOM.  It is more important that you understand the MESSAGE concerning your well being, than the TONE in which it is delivered.

It's important to remember that without constructive criticism, progress is impossible.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Patrick,

Thanks for pointing out where I am confused.  I am lucky to have my mom still alive, and also have a lovely bride, teenage daughter and two other kids. Even without your post, I get my governement recommended daily minimum dose of being told I'm wrong about everything. (If any of those people read this, then              !!!!!

Of course you think I'm confused, as I advocate for Modern ARCHITECTURE and old fashioned POLITENESS, while the trend on this site seems to be the polar opposite. It is my considered, if uninformed opinion that the tone of delivery can very well determine the effectiveness of the message. The reciever of a message generally misses the point of constructive critisism when it comes within a personal attack. I'm no expert, just a husband, dad, friend and business person, so perhaps we can bring in Dr. Katz? BTW, you are generally among the most reasoned here.  Like me, you don't mind the occaisional good old fashioned "rhubard" as they used to say in baseball, and that's hunky dorey with me.  

Yale is one course I haven't had the good fortune to play, but I have played and studied many Raynor courses, which I'm sure you know from reading my posts in detail, I love.  Niether of us knows the politics at Yale that affect the course, so there is not much point discussing their budget sheets. Likewise with how defensive Mr. Paterson may or may not be.

The question in your thread that would be great to discuss is "Are Raynor concepts obsolete"? It's worthy of its own thread, and I have some thoughts, but I don't have time to post it today.  But if someone else doesn't, I will when I have time on my upcoming trip!

Cheers,

Jeff

[GeoffreyC]

Jeff- that IS a great topic and just the thing that makes this site educational. Is Raynors work in its original form obsolete in todays environment? I look forward to that discussion.  I would also hope that we discuss whether there is room in the world to preserve places like Yale, Myopia Hunt and similar courses.  Need everything be modernized?

YOu really should get up to Yale if you are in the area.  It certainly fits ALL of your criteria for restoration and then some.  It is really a unique golf course.  Truly one of a kind and worthy of passioned pleas for sensitive treatment.

[Tim_Weiman]

GeoffreyC:

Put me down with those who strongly believe every course DOESN'T need to be "modernized".

Modern courses aren't worth emulating.  Very few courses built in the last 50-60 years compare to Yale.

Even with all the conditioning problems, Yale remained one of the great treasures of American golf.

I'm sorry to hear about the work done recently.  Hopefully, Yale can find folks among the alumni, faculty or administration who can property nurture their wonderful golf course.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff,

I think you would like the Yale Golf course and appreciate what it took to build it.  If possible you should make an attempt to visit.

Dave's contention that the course is obsolete reflects how out of touch or misguided he is.

His reference to the distaste for blind holes at Yale would seem to indicate that he has never seen NGLA or Prestwick.

Jeff, the course really was in poor, unacceptable by any standard, condition when I was there.

What also disturbed me is that the fairways had been allowed to narrow down, probably in an attempt to save maintainance dollars, thus diminishing some of the architectual values.  The greens had been allowed to shrink, and the bunkers were reflective of absolute neglect.  

The removal of bunkers, green features, green locations, and other features is unfortunate, or vandalism as Tommy N would say.

Yet, despite all this, the brilliance of the architecture shines through.

A restoration of the Yale golf course that was true to the design priciples of Raynor/CB would be a project that the golf world should clamor for.

As the Director of Golf at Yale for all these years, some, if not much of the responsibility for the course's poor conditions may fall on Mr. Paterson's shoulders.  If so, I can understand his defensive nature.

No one on this site personalized attacks on him.  I called his response defensive, and felt that he was in denial,  I still feel that way, but don't view that assessment as a personal attack, merely an observation.

One of the things I've learned on this site is that even the most knowledgeable individuals have an over simplified view of how things get done in the real world of golf and country clubs.  

Yale has a treasure amongst its assets, yet there has been no significant effort to maintain or improve upon that asset.
Yale is well off financially, hence it would seem that two things need to happen.

1.  Attention has to be focused on the need
   to restore and maintain the golf course
   in keeping with universally accepted
   standards.

2.  An individual needs to step forward, get
   the attention and approval of the
   administration to carry out this project
   and to oversee the ongoing maintainance
   of the golf course.

Anthony Pioppi's article was clearly a positive first step toward achieving awareness of the dire conditions at the golf course.  And, I understand an interested alumna has stepped forward to lead this project.   But.... I sense the project has yet to be clearly defined and I don't think the University has sanctioned any master plan.

I would like to see a
PROJECT MISSION STATEMENT in writing, then and only then would I believe that the University is serious about improving/restoring the golf course.

I would enjoy hearing your comments after you have played a round of golf at Yale.
In fact, why don't we try to arrange a golf date with Geoffrey Childs before the snow falls.  Geoff, what do you think ?

[GeoffreyC]

Pat - I would be really pleased to host you and Jeff Brauer at the Yale course.  Perhaps Jeremy Glenn could come down to see some golden age architecture worth preserving.

Yale GC will be fine given the leadership that has now stepped forward to restore it. Trust me on this! There is a project misssion statement (although I am not privy to its details) and it is in the best possible hands.  The only thing I now question about what is going on is the continued use of Roger Rulewich on the project.  Maybe now he is interested in true restoration but he does not have the track record.  I wish they would hire George Bahto and take advantage of his HUGE knowledge of Raynor and his great ability to get to the details that make the difference between great work and that which is just acceptable. If Roger were smart he would partner with George on this project.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Geoff Childs,

Why not make a written request to the Project Chairman to get George Bahto involved?

It would also seem helpful if you could introduce the Chairman to Geoff Shackelford, perhaps getting him involved as well.

Forget Jeremy Glenn   let's get the Project Chairman as our fourth, he's the man you want to spend a leisurely four hours with.

You have an opportunity to influence the outcome of a noble project.  Focus your eyes, attention and goals, and turn on the afterburners, LET'S GO !!!!

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pat,

/thanks for that invite, and I will begin checking internet airfares to see what is possible this fall, and let you know. I do agree, that all other things being equal a course like Yale should be preserved as close as possible to its intent. It is certainly one of Raynors top efforts.  I just am giving the benefit of the doubt to the participants as I really don't know the facts.  Would love to see it for inspiration for my Raynor copy upcoming in Texas.

Jeff

[Willie_Dow]

Pat
For the life of me I can't explain why a Dartmouth hockey player would get involved with a problem at Yale - especially a golfing question.  But here goes.
Frankly, I don't believe Dave is convinced that the course is unacceptable for modern day golf.  He may have some concern with the recruitment program for the Yale team, and this is understandable.
The young golfers today do not understand classic design.  This is the problem, I think, and it is our job at GCA to change this trend.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Willie Dow,

A friend of mine, Jim Edgeworth, played hockey at Dartmouth.  Jim is a very good golfer now living in Houston.  A great story I heard about Jim.  I believe his dad was a former NHL referee and lectured Jim never to argue or be confrontational with refs no matter what their call.  He's playing in a tournament in Boston, I believe it's called the Bean Pot or something like that.  
He gets a questionable call argues with the ref, and/or bumps him.  
He's sent to the penalty box.  
Now, as you know, hockey fans can be pretty rabid.  So, there he sits in the penalty box when all of a sudden this fan leaps into the penalty box and starts thrashing him (Jim's pretty big)  Everyone is horrified.  Jim is not fighting back.  
It's his dad, furious at his confrontation with the ref, taking him to task, padding and all.

Back to Yale.

I have to take Dave Paterson at his written word, I can't read between the lines or offer an explanation other than the one he presented as a response.

I have since written a response since I was one of those in attendance at the GCA Yale outing.  It may or may not be published.