There has been some deference taken to the strongest stances held here over the changes.

Whilst it may be correct to beg for constructive and joint conversation on the matter rather than a website forum rant and rave, if the pleas for constructive and joint conversation made by very learned interests are ignored, and the powers that be don't even acknowledge or even try and make an excuse for the gaping grand canyon of differences that are obvious, then anything less than strong words is pointless.

If the so called "good guys" are trying to be constructive and see this debate as openly and with understanding towards all parties concerned as possible, then they can only be good guys if they too have very clearly rebuffed any naming of this work as being as restorative or genuine as Roger's comments claim it to be. If not, then at best, they are good guys who in the name of keeping the peace, have been too silent or compromised their conclusions too greatly.

bkatona, You said;
"This would also be the proper forum to discuss why bunker, green, tee, etc. shapes were amended."

Mate, according to Roger, they weren't ammended. Many of his published quotes refer to exactly replicating the originals and their playability, using the old photos. As we can see for ourselves, this is horrifically untrue.

Some have also suggested that with such great old photo resources, the future can still reclaim the past. But as Geoffrey has also pointed out, the great pity is that an even better resource was right there on the ground, and actual physical evidence is what has been destroyed. The photos are great, but the actual physical evidence not that long ago was even more valuable. Look at our thread on Garden City's old overhead photo. It still gave nowhere near the convincing evidence we'd had if it were right before our eyes.

James Kreuttner -

You seemed to have disappeared after one post. I have not heard from you via private message as well.

What do you have to say about "expert opinions" such as Geoff Shackelford (have you read his books?) and Gil Hanse now?

Will you join me to at least ask for other outside expert opinions in a context where candid replies can be given?

Thanks-

Geoffrey,
Here's the entire hole - I believe this view is from the same 1940 aerial photo.

JakaB,

I find "restoration" work much like the singing of our National Anthem, rather then be true to the original, everyone has their own personal interpretation, and many seem to feel the modified version is okay.

NOT ME.

Doesn't anybody know how to sing it properly... anymore ?

What would have been so hard about replicating # 17, as it appears in Craig's photo

Why accept a hybrid version

Sean

You asked "How was the front nine financed?"

Now that question gets to the heart of just how ill conceived the whole process at Yale was from the very beginning. Brad Klein stated in his article (Sept 27th 2003 Golfweek) "Restoration, even basic renovation takes a clear vision, a master plan, and a long term committment to reclaiming heritage.  Beyond retorical flourishes, little of that is evident in Yale's latest scheme. The piecemeal process by which a handful of bunkers are done, then the project put aside until more money can be scraped up and the committee can reconvene, is a formula for failure..  While the participants are well intentioned, the process is fundamentally flawed and guaranteed to produce the awkward lurching now taking place at The Course at Yale."

Sean- back in the late 90's, the bunkers were hardpacked sand with poor drainage.  Many had already suffered the ravages (elimination or alteration) of Harry Meusel, long time superintendent with a bulldozer who did more damage to this course then we could imagine. You did not want to get into those bunkers because getting out was anything but consistent.  In other words, they were Cirba's ideal   .  Along came a plan, well intentioned and thoughtful, whereby a donor would be asked to contribute $5000.  When such a person agreed, a single bunker or a few bunkers were replaced by Roger Rulewich. That, I was told, is how the bunkers on the front 9 were financed. That was the plan and Roger Rulewich agreed although its hard to see that in his letter to Golfweek.

My goodness.
#1. As I have been caring for a visiting friend who suddenly needed surgery on Saturday, I have been blissfully unaware of the many responses apparently elicitied by my comments to Mr. Childs on Friday. I have changed my signon name so as to properly identify myself for anyone who might care.
#2. While I have been playing golf at Yale and elsewhere for over 40 years, I do not consider myself an expert on anything related to golf or golf course architiecture. My expertise is in being proficient enough at the game (eternally flirting with a single digit handicap as time allows) to know what I enjoy and don't enjoy.
#3. While I am currently Vice President of the Yale Golf Association, a group whose mission it is to help fund the Yale Golf Teams' activities, I do not consider myself part of the Yale Golf establishment. I have never met Roger Rulewich and have never been consulted on policy or decisions.
#4. Many of the points that constantly get thrashed on this site have been repeatedly ackowlegded and reasons have been given over and over again. For instance, the traps at #5 were made more shallow because in their former state they served more to breed mesquitoes and spawn polliwogs than to provide sand play. And, as Gil noted, some of the contours were altered for ease of maintenance. What he didn't say was why ease of maintenance is an important issue at Yale. It is because Yale's maintenance staff is unionized thereby making it extremely expensive.
#5. I do not personally believe that Yale University has any responsibility to the game of golf or to any group of golf course preservationists regarding the manner in which it maintains its golf course. In my own view, its only responsibility is to the deed of gift by which it acquired the land on which the course was constructed. For those who are unaware, the land was given by the widow of a great Yale athlete of the 19th century "for the purposes of encouraging athletic sports at Yale." Mr. Childs and I have been beneficiaries of that gift.
#6. To Mr. Childs: It is very clear that you have a great passion for the course. I share that with you. Because we diverge in our opinions about what is currently going on there does not mean that I don't respect your opinions and your right to air them. I just think that you are beating a dead dog.
#7. I very much regret invoking Gil Hanse's name and drawing him into this debate. Gil was nice enough to be the after dinner speaker at last fall's Yale College Am. For most in attendance his remarks and the subsequent Q&A session were the highlight of a terrific day at the course and we are very much in his debt. I was well aware that there were specific things that Gil didn't like but it was my impression that the overall improvement work met with his approval. Maybe not. I was responsible for bringing Gil to Yale that day and hope that he will return often. He would certainly be my choice to do the restoration work at Yale but since we count not only Roger, but also the Jones brothers as alums, I doubt that would ever come about. And, by the way, he said 2,000 trees, not 1,000.

Well, TonyT;

Aside from the clear disengenous statements regarding the intent of the work, I have to say that I would make comments regardless, based on a simple fact;

Yale is a great and almost unique golf course, designed in a masterful way.  The "restoration" work that I saw on the front nine there is amateurish, at best.  I have yet to see the back nine work.  

In particular, I would decry some of the bunker work I saw if it was done at the local chip and putt.

No, Yale doesn't owe us a thing, much less an explanation.  One would just hope that such a world-class institution would have higher standards and expectations.    

I too Mike wouldn't be able to just sit on my hands and keep quiet. Just trying to explain to James that if they are going to make the misleading statements that have been published, don't feel harshly treated if it gets a right royal spraying on an architecturally devoted forum.

Sean,

I don't know you, so quite possibly to people like you, my postings add little value.  However, I would dare say that if each of us would self-regulate by simply asking ourselves, "does the following post edify, adds value, or maybe amuses the SPDBs of this world", this site would require but a tiny fraction of its current bandwidth.

Admitedly, I do have a burr up my butt about academia in general, and the condescending, arrogant perspectives it so often spews.  The point Mr. Kreuttner made relative to Yale and that it wasn't accountable is all too typical, and at least in the context of golf restoration, one worthy of further discussion.

And if you believe that land uses, zoning, permitting, environmental regulation, etc. are gratuitious issues having little to do with golf, well, let's just say that you do not need to peruse my postings in the future.

I happen to believe that Geoffrey Childs, who I suspect has more in common with you politically than with me, has some very legitimate beefs.  I do find it incredibly ironic, but at the same time so true to life, that such a bastion of tolerance of thought, open-mindedness, and inclusiveness appears to be little more than a closed shop of people who truly believe that they know better and owe no one an explanation, not to say anything about accountability.

And by the way, I do see some parallels between philosophies on golf and politics, though not necessarily equivalent to the liberal-conservative spectrum.  

Jim,

You say "Yale is no more exempt from any of the land use/zoning,  permitting, regulations than any other institution, or private citizen. Your assertions are unfounded when looking at the facts surrounding the substantial contributions Yale makes to its community, the larger one that's not just revolving around the golf course. Try to make an impartial judgement, sans political agenda?"

While if you read what I wrote with a bit of care you may find that I never asserted those things which you term as unfounded, now that you bring it up, maybe I should.  Do you really think that Yale has the same row to hoe that you or I as private citizens would have when it comes to development?  You really don't think that they would have an easier time to obtain a variance, or pull a permit in a short time that a private developer could not do?  Or that it might have the ability to have the local government condemn private property to benefit the university and the "public good"?  I think that if you did a little checking, you may find what that elite institution of higher learning is able to do.

My comments regarding Yale which also apply to any number of other institutions of higher learning boil down to this: that it doesn't practice what it preaches.  If it did, Geoffrey Childs, George Bahto, et al would not be considered as nuisances but as the wonderful resources that they are.

My extension of this to politics is simply that in my 50 years of life I have observed that while governments and many public and private institutions are very good at telling people what to do, for some reason they seem to believe that they are immune or exempted from the same.

As to political agenda, other than all the frustration when I witness all the bashing and nonsense that passes as "scholarship", well I really have none.  I am resigned to the fact that those people who refuse to learn from history and make the same mistakes over and over will continue to do so regardless of anything I can do.  And if they left me alone, I would be perfectly happy.  That they demand more and more of whatever little I am able to achieve, and on top of that, take great gusto in calling me names, well, that does piss me off just a little.

The bottom line I guess is that what ever happens at Yale Golf Club or at Ohio State will not have a significant impact on my life.  After all who cares if a PN becomes another little bump on the ground.  Most players wouldn't notice the difference, just as most people wouldn't get a rise from the third movement of Beethoven's fifth.  It is just a pity that those who have the capacity to discern, really don't.  The marginal costs of doing things right are not that significant.

Sean,

I have discussed with Ran the tendency of this site to gravitate to tangent issues.  As best as I can tell, he would rather err on too much than too little.  The best censor is one's ability to discriminate.  And what is nice about this site is that we are free to read what we want and respond accordingly.

By the way, I don't think that it would be a libertarian position that a handful of Yale people can do what they want without accountability.  There is a huge difference between a private land owner and an institution such as Yale.

I do wish the best for the Yale Golf Club, which, I suspect, much better served by Geoffrey's and George's visions than those of the current decision makers.  
 

Great point Mike.

Blaming the labor union at Yale has gotten tiring, and yes, while I'm partial because I'm a member of a labor union and proud of it, I can say from experience that its just as much the policies set forth by management that aren't followed as the culprit to bad workmanship or loss of pride and esteem of what they are working on. Yale is a perfect model for this.

Some examples of successful Union Labor at work on Golf Courses............

Now don't quote me on this, but isn't Bethpage Black maintained by a staff that chooses Union Labor? I know there are some others. Please help me here.

And yes, I'm sure there are failures too, but where exactly does the buck stop?

All of those billions up there in New Haven and they need an electrician to tell them this? Well, maybe Lech Walesa was on to something!)

James

Can you think of a single golf course in your 40 years in the game that is like the Course at Yale? I contend that it is a one of a kind course. It is cut through the trees and rocks yet it is nothing like any other parkland course I have seen or read about.  It is rolling, expansive in it’s scope and meant for the topography of the land to come into play (hence no need for fairway bunkering) yet it is unlike any heathland or links course I have played or read about. To me the unique nature of the course itself is enough reason to preserve it as a tribute to Raynor and MacDonald, architecture in general and yet it is not a museum piece but still a GREAT course to play and enjoy.  What could be better for the university and the members?.

The issue of maintenance has been raised many times at Yale as an excuse for softening features. Another issue has been that the course if restored would just be flat out too hard for many of the members. I reject those assertions completely. James, what do the high handicap players do today when they hit into the bunkers on #2 or #8?  Those were the single hardest places to play from and they STILL are.  Those players either hack their way out eventually or they pick up and move on. The BUTCHERING of the hillside on #2 in the name of maintenance doesn’t make the course easier to play. It makes it look horrible akin to Michael Jackson’s plastic surgeon at work.  More balls simply stay on the hillside making for dangerous stances, lost balls and not much easier shots. How do those poor players negotiate #18?  With great difficulty and often with a lost ball and ball in pocket. Why not blow up the hill in the name of maintenance and pace of play?  That would solve the problem better then they have done so to now. What if the road bunker was restored on #4?  Poor players might have to hit out sideways or backwards- so what.  Their scores might actually improve from that superior course management. Same if the left front bunker on #1 were restored to its depth and the lip.  Perhaps poor players will play sideways or to the right section of the green making for a very difficult putt.  So what- they play on and learn not to mess with that bunker. Today poor players still have to contend with forced carries on #3, 4, and over the pond and up the hill on 17. It’s a tough game but they manage to get around and still love the course.

James, as built, the course at Yale would be one of the perhaps best 25 golf courses in the country.  That alone I think would bring in alum money and support.  There must be (are) modern methods to get good drainage that would allow the design to be maintained. However, would you agree that the Yale administration is stonewalling the membership and the public?  If the truth is that they are dumbing down the course for the good of the students, faculty and members then why don’t they say so?  You might think that would get a favorable response since it in everyone’s good interests.  Instead they sent out these lying letters about a “complete restoration of your Charles Blair MacDonald masterpiece” and ask for money. They are leading the members to think this is a restoration. Why does Roger Rulewich to this very day say that his work, even on the FRONT NINE, was done using aerial and construction photos and consultation with long time members? He contends slopes and depths of bunkers (except on #5) were not altered.  Why does he do that?  Why not just state the truth and say we had one of the great courses but were sacrificing that great architecture so you get more enjoyment by playing it in a few less strokes then you would have?  The Yale administration proudly proclaims that they have one of the top 100 courses in the nation.  It’s important to them. Finally, even if we disagree about the project’s ultimate goals (which we do) I think it is clear that the work that Roger did to the course was virtual malpractice. Pipes were coming out of the bunkers on 4. The bunker surrounds look like a bad case of plastic surgery and there was as Gil said (and I told John Beinecke over the years many times) little attention to details.  The money was poorly spent even for a RENOVATION. Poor quality work is poor quality work regardless of the project aims. The Yale administration needs to realize this.

James- will you finally admit that experts with no axe to grind are making these claims about the course?  Will you at least agree that an outside peer review panel of experts should give a candid evaluation of the work done and what they believe is necessary to do in the future?   PLEASE!

It seems to me that this all boils down to some people trying to BS some other people who called BS on the original BS'ers.  The original BS'ers, having been exposed, are either too hard-headed or egotistical to fess up.  

Why play a good game on a poor course?" - George C. Thomas, Jr.

Mike