The Travesty of Yale- Hole #5

Dan Kelly correctly pointed out to me that “tragedy” should be reserved for events like soldiers being blown up, crazy suicide bombers blowing up buildings with innocent civilians and drunk drivers running over someone’s child.  I apologize if my previous choice of words offended anyone. It is after all only a golf course.  What is being done up at Yale can, however, qualify as a travesty.

Hole #5 at Yale is our version of the “short” hole.  It’s a very good version that has been softened to the point where much of teeth of the hole has been removed. The hole was really of the “fortress” type of short hole, different from #6 at NGLA which defends itself with its wild green. This style of short hole is almost an island green surrounded by deep bunkers that made recovery difficult. The 5th at Yale is a 147 yard shot.  The best fortress type of short that I have seen is at Blind Brook.  That hole reminds me of “Tank” at the old course at Ballyliffin. Still, #5 at Yale is/was a formidable challenge.  The difficulty of #5 is increased due to the tricky swirling winds at this location on the course. Far behind the hole are a wall of trees with the 6th tee directly behind the green and the sixth fairway extending up to the right.  Behind the 5th tee is the 4th green and fairway extending back to the 2nd fairway.  Thus, you have wind moving through the fairways with the chute of the 5th at a perpendicular angle to those fairways and lined by trees.  This creates the tricky swirling winds.

A view of the old aerial of that part of the course shows what I am talking about.  In addition, you can see the island green created by Raynor on this short hole.



Here is an old photo of #5 to show you what it once was.  What an intimidating iron shot that was!  The slopes down to the bunker were steep.  No golf ball would come to rest on those slopes.  Note the size of the players on the green relative to the depth of the bunkers.  Count the steps down into that front bunker. The caption to this old photo and other writing (perhaps George Bahto will comment) state that the bunkers were some 11 feet deep.  There was at one time the typical horseshoe or thumbprint feature in this green. I believe Harry Meusel, the old long time superintendent, removed this too.


Roger Rulewich did admit to softening this hole.  In his own words he writes in reply to Brad Klein’s article in Golfweek “The style of flat sand areas and grass banks have been preserved. The grass slopes have not been softened - they were left undisturbed in most every case when the bunker repair was done. The steepness is not gone and depths have not been compromised. In several cases they were excavated to bedrock. They could hardly have been deeper! Only the floor of the front bunker on no. 5 was raised a foot to help it drain and keep it from becoming a water hazard after every heavy rain.

Mr. Rulewich claims that the slopes into the bunkers were not softened and the floor of the front bunker on #5 was raised only ”a foot”.

OK then.  Let’s take a look at #5 at Yale today after the work done to it.  

Here is a view from the tee much the same as the old photo above. Note the absence of steps on the right.  We hardly need them anymore as you will see. It sure doesn’t look as intimidating to me.


Now Charles Banks claims that the original bunkers on #5 were some 11 feet deep.  If my math is correct then the bunker that Mr. Rulewich built should be some 10 feet deep or so. I for one would like some steps down into an 10 foot deep bunker but they aren’t present on hole 5 anymore.  I wonder why  The construction photos were consulted according to Mr. Rulewich.  What the heck happened?

Here is my good buddy Tony Pioppi standing by the new front bunker. For those of you who have not met Tony as yet- HE IS NOT 12 FEET TALL.   That’s about how big he would have to be for that front bunker to be 10 feet deep. Also note those steep slopes down into the bunker that HELD UP TONY”S BALL! But Roger didn’t alter the slopes as he stated above. My guess is the floor of that bunker is at least 5 feet higher then it used to be.  

 

Now, Roger was correct in that area does not drain well.  My question is whether modern bunker construction techniques could maintain the depth and get adequate drainage?

Now let us look at the left bunker on #5.  Again I ask you if the slopes leading down into the sand are steep in the Raynor style?


Finally, nothing seemed to be touched behind this green.  Note how different this looks.


So, I ask you once again- Is this a travesty or what.  Is the reply of Mr. Rulewich to Golfweek accurate and truthful?

Based on the old pic, the front bunker is NOT 11 feet below the front of the green, based on the height of the players 5-6 feet tall.  It looks more like 8-9 feet.  I definitely would believe that the BACK of the green is 11 feet above the bunker behind.

Also, based on the fact that you can still see the sand in the front bunker (front right) in the old pic, and just a little more in the recent pic, it appears as if the green itself is not as high as it once was, although the green shape itself looks very similar.

Actually, it was Scott's post I was commenting on.........  Sorry Scott.  Don't get too puffed up, Schmidt!

Mr. Childs -

Tragedy is absolutely the correct word for this.

"Tragedy" refers to a genre of Greek drama in which the hero's tragic flaw causes a ruinous downfall.

In The Birth of Tragedy Nietzsche posits that true tragedy concerns the tension between the Appolonian (sun god - light, clarity, form) and the  Dionysian (wine god -drunkenness and ecstasy).

More to come on this, as I believe it pertains to the art form of golf course architecture.

R Decker-  As Mike Sweeney mentioned- the drainage on #7 is VASTLY improved. This outside company did a great job.  Now lets send them off to do #6 fairway and #10 fairway.

Dave- I'll let George Bahto address the question of the original bunker depth. He has a quote from Charles Banks. Does it look to you that it is only 1 foot shallower?    Look at how you can see the floor of the sand layer of the front bunker all the way to the left edge of the green in the new photo.  In the old photo, you can't see any sand until at least the right half of the green. There are 11 steps down into that bunker.

Sean

You are on the right track but not sceptical enough.  I would bet that those old pictures of Yale were made by that famous New Haven native PT Barnum, with midgets from his circus as extras.  Much as home builders today use teeny-weeny furniture to make their houses look bigger, might not have golden age archies used small people to make their courses look more grand?  I personally have serious doubts about that old photographs of Sitwell Park's 18th green..........

Rich,

This trick has already been perpetrated by Gene, who posed his ten years old son in the blowout bunker left of the 4th green at Sand Hills to exaggerate its scale

Regards,

Mike

Geoff Childs,

I thought that this hole would have been the easiest to restore, and was very disappointed when I played what was a half hearted or half assed pseudo attempt at restoration.

I love short holes, and this was clearly an opportunity lost.

Geoff,
Just guessing but the lowest point on the course would appear to be the reservoir in front of #1. That would be one hell of a run!
Taking water to the stream is unanswerable until the elevations are known.

Doesn't the idea of raising the green raise the hackles on the back of your neck?    I think it would be better to raise the tee boxes to give the golfer a better view of the extent of the surrounding sand, in effect increasing the psychology that Mike Sweeney noted has been lessened for him.  

Geoff Childs:

When we played the hole this summer, something just didn't seem right compared to my last visit to Yale in the mid 1990's.Your documentation confirms the disturbing feeling I had.

As for the using the word "tragedy", I think that goes back to my thread last summer following our visit. Hopefully everyone here understands Yale is a "tragedy" within the world of golf architecture only. Indeed, it is silly to suggest we were comparing the disfiguring of Yale's golf course to the loss of life.

Keep up the could work. I know some Yalie's are watching with interest.

For those of you who have not met me Geoff is right, I am not 12 feet tall. Interestingly, however, I used to be 12 feet tall right around the time Yale opened its golf course. Coincidence?

Tony,
How are you doing?

Geoff,
It is clear that the new bunkers are shallower than the old.
I took the early photo and enlarged it in a paint program then scaled it using the men on the green as a guide. If you do the same thing I think it will show that although deeper they were nowhere near 11'/12'(bunkers, not the men ) at the time of the photo, more like 8' or 9' max.
Using a 10" rise per step doesn't get you near that 12' depth either.  

OK - the depth of the bunkering on #5:

as written by Charles Banks that appeared in an article in a Yale publication ..... 1931

"The hole is original with Messrs. Macdonald (how's that for spelling! - oh baby!!) - sorry ...  

anyhow ..

"The hole is original with Messrs. Macdonald and Raynor and was first put up on the National Golf Links of America as hole number six. This is one of the four short holes on the course, i.e., each short hole is designed for a single shot to a green with a particular club. No. 5 is a mashie hole. The tees are slightly above ground level. The green is completely surrounded by sand, making it an island green elevated 12 feet above the level of the sand in the bunker. The contours of the green mark a horseshoe around the pin which is placed in the center of the green."

He was there at the time. .......   and don't call him “Steamshovel” - he was just efficient! hah

Is it just me, or does the actual green surface itself seem to be MUCH smaller in the new versus old pictures (i.e., total square footage) as well?

That too seems to have taken away some of the "bite" in these two versions of the same hole.