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.
Is there a place for courses like Yale, Myopia Hunt (not Raynor but relevant) and National Golf Links? How about Newport (again not Raynor) and Fishers Island (with their lack of irrigation systems)? Should they be made less challenging and more user friendly?
The course at Yale for example has numerous blind shots (holes 3, 8, 10, 17 and 18 have blind shots and several others are partially blind). What about bulldozing them away for the sake of fair play and faster rounds? The alps hill and trench bunker on #12 were already eliminated so the top of the flagstick (but not the green) is now visible from the fairway.
The Yale course also has bunkers that are over 20 feet deep with very steep slopes leading from the fairway or greens down into the bunkers. These were built in 1926 before the age of the sand wedge or lob wedge but also before the age of “scorecard and pen” mentality. Should they be softened and their slopes made easier to maintain? Should they be shallower?
The course at Yale has very large greens with huge swales and elevation changes between different sections of the green. Others have a lot of back to front slope but with complex internal contours (#7). One (#1) HAD a punchbowl feature on the right half and (still has) a slope bisecting it to a separate left half. The 10th green has an ingenious little mound (as Ran describes in his course profile) to allow putts from the upper right of the green 5 feet above a lower right section to slowly funnel traveling at least twice the distance of a direct putt around to a pin placed there. The 9th biarritz green is 65 yards deep with a 5 foot swale in the center. Surely this isn’t fair. They are among the finest sets of greens that I have ever seen. However, at modern speeds these greens would be terrifying. What about digging them up and softening their features?
What about all the wild features in the fairways? Balls carom in all different directions and uphill, downhill and sidehill lies are common. Should Raynors fairway contours be flattened to speed play and promote more enjoyable rounds?
How far do we go to promote fairness, playability and enjoyment for those who play golf but are not GOLFERS??
This course is not totally private. It is used for and its main goal is for the enjoyment of all the students, faculty and alumni. There are college tournaments and team events held there where they are playing at stroke play. Will these college guys and gals “get it” and should the school care? Is it too hard for the average golfer to enjoy? Is it and will it be too different and frustrating for college tournaments?
Is National Golf Links obsolete and outdated? Do the higher handicap members at National enjoy the course? Chicago Golf Club will host the Walker Cup in four years. Is this a poor choice of venue? Though not related to MacDonald/Raynor, how was this years British Amateur event at Old Prestwick received?
I have not seen another course quite like the course at Yale. To me it is a unique treasure and a landmark course. The experience of a round of golf at the Yale course cannot be reproduced (in my opinion) at any course I have had the pleasure of playing. I think a fully restored course will be appreciated and loved by players WHO LOVE THE GAME OF GOLF. Golfers will respect it while some who just play golf may not. In my opinion a restored course will be playable and enjoyable for the average golfer.
I have asked a lot of questions. So what do you think?
Dave Paterson's quote on the obsolescence of Yale's golf holes is so far removed from reality that it is not worthy of discussion.
Your post accentuates the absurdity of that allegation.
Sorry
After spending the day with you at Inniscrone & Applebrook, I certainly understand and appreciate your point of view.
I saw that quote in the article in Golfweek. To me Dave Paterson's "bunker mentality" (pun intended) is not worth the paper it is written on. To any clear minded individual, it would appear that you and others have a justifiable and passionate concern for a true golf treasure. What bad can come out of that? Could it be, that the powers that be at Yale, are too close to the situation to see the total picture?
I think you make your point very clearly, and I doubt that you will find many objections from anyone on this site.
I was intrigued by your comments on The Yale GC, so I have been doing some homework on the course, since our round last week. I must say the golf course looks as different and great as any I've seen in pictures. I would definitely like to take you up on your offer and see it in person.
Take care...
To wish....
You know the answer. We need more courses like this, especially when you consider that average golfers aren't improving.
I played CAMP CREEK last week with the Superintendent (who's done a GREAT job) and member #7. There is no 8. When we finished I gushed about the firm condtions and told the supe I hoped he could keep them when the course matures. The member said he wanted his drives to roll, but his approaches to stop.
"You can't even get close if you have to carry a bunker and the pin is cut right behind it!"
I tried explaining that the brilliance in this Fazio design (I spotted a lot of characteristics that some Fazio courses have, but most don't) is that it encourages certain lines of play without brutalizing shots that stray - and how those lines vary from day to day. I then added that all of this would be lost if the greens didn't "repel" shots.
In one ear out the other. He just hoped the greens would better hold his approaches.
In this instance, I am wrong. Why? He's the one who paid the initiation to cover the cost of building the course and whose dues will pay that supes salary.
Unfortunately, many of the design features used by Seth Raynor in the past aren't appreciated by the average golfer today.
I have played Mountain Lake, which many people love, Minnesota Valley, and Somerset - one of my personal favorites. We could use more courses like these.
Of course yale should not be tinkered with beyond some sound consideration like needed drainage lines in a problem area, etc. NO, Raynor nor any of the rest of his collegues of that time are now obsolete. I haven't seen Yale, but from everything I have heard and seen pictures of, it is in the same category as our Lawsonia here in Wisconsin, or Yeamans Hall, and many others of that era. They are not unplayable, and in fact classically well thought out design never goes out of style. If Raynor's and his comparable contemporaries style is obsolete and unplayable, why did Black Creek come on line recently as a tribute course to that style. And, look at the widespread acclaim it is getting...
I played a museum piece of a course yesterday that has 2 bell holes, and could have two more bell situations. It is from 1909 by Tom Bendelow called QuitQuiOc in Elkhart Lake WI. It has a world class Eden hole, and one knoll hole that is awesome, and three others that are very good. There are grass depressions or bowls that are as deep as anything you have ever seen on a golf course due to working in an area of kettles, eskars and morraines. It is about as much fun as you should be allowed to have although a vigorous walk The only tragic thing is the rediculous tree planting that has occurred over the years. It requires interesting shots, of which I had some of my most memorable all year there yesterday because those shots are simply not in high demand so to speak on modern course design. Those courses weren't unplayable then, and they are not now.
e-mail me at leftygolfer@earthlink.net and let me know when you are free to come up and play at Yale. I want you on my side this time. At scratch you are a sandbagger .
None of those things! Only some misguided thinking on the part of some who are locked in to the basic thinking of American "modern age" golf and its architecture.
But what they're missing at the moment is there's a "renaissance" coming and the only thing that will be outdated and obsolete is their thinking that those courses like Yale, NGLA etc are "outdated", "obsolete" and "unplayable".
I think a critical mass with this "renaissance" is just about formed now and it's interesting to try to figure out what is leading the parade--some really good restorations of classic courses or some really good new construction that is bringing back to golf much of what those classic courses were in the first place!