[Patrick_Mucci]

Scott Burroughs,

Your example is extreme and inaccurate.

Noone evaluates the golf course as "crap" as used in your example.

There is a diplomatic way of indicating that the course has the basics and needs to be restored, without incurring the ire of your host.

Without constructive criticism progress is impossible.  

[Tim_Weiman]

Pat Mucci:

You are correct.

Earlier this year I played Yale with Geoffrey Childs. Despite his outspoken efforts to address the situation at Yale, I saw no indication he was not welcome to play the course. Moreover, on the occasion we played Tommy Naccarato shared his "tough love" comments to management personnel at the course. While they may have been a bit stunned, they also seemed to recognize Tommy's passion and sincerity and I saw no indication Tommy would not be welcome at Yale again in the future.

My experience has been the people recognize a sincere interest in golf architecture and almost always respond favorably even if there is disagreement about some specific issue relating to the course at hand. On the other hand, people also usually quickly recognize the type of person who is just seeking access to a name course and that is more likely to be a turn off.

History shows that the discussion of architectural matters can be extremely sensitive, but it can be done. Thank you for making that point.

[THuckaby2]

George:

For lack of a more eloquent word, that sucks.  But give 'em hell, fight the good fight.  I'm sure we are ALL rooting for you to get things done there.

As for the rest, well... if the folks at Yale are reading the words of Scott Burroughs and I and taking that as endorsement that they need not do anything to the course, then THAT is the saddest thing I've ever read here in GCA.  On the othere hand, hmmmm... this makes me really wonder and dream about what I'm going to do with all this POWER.  

Come on guys, lighten up.  Scott and I played the course and enjoyed it, as it is now.  You guys all did too, from what I hear - even the Emperor did, and said so in here!  The fact that Scott and I said so also... well, I see nothing wrong with it.  Sure, each of us would love to see it restored, as much as the rest of you.  Please believe this.  But if someone asks me: "Did you enjoy the golf course?"  I am going to reply yes, because I truly did, and I played it about two years ago.  If someone asks me "Is it the greatest tragedy in golf?"  I am going to reply, no, I can think of far greater tragedies - courses that have been paved over, courses that never should have been built in areas non-suited for golf, courses that are horrifically over-done and thus over-priced, this setting a price standard for others in their area... those are all greater tragedies in my mind.  

The day we have to march in lock-step with ANY opinion on here, for the sake of "getting things done" or any other reason - then THAT is the saddest day this discussion group will experience.  

Here's hoping we never see that day. I don't think we yet have, no matter what certain other posters think.

And finally, here's hoping that the Yale management listens to George and a REAL restoration gets done.  My what a wonderful course that would be - greater than the great that exists there now.

TH

[GeoffreyC]

Sean - see your IM from me.

Tim - stunned is an understatement to their reaction to Tommy's comments. While some are none too plaesed to see me up at the course, a surprising number of individuals agree with my position.  I'm most pleased that a member of over 50 years is in total agreement about a sensitive restoration.  Sadly, even though he remembers details of how the course looked (#2 green, Alps, principals nose etc.) he was never contacted, asked to be on the committee or even just to tour the course with Rulewich.

I believe that George and I will go over the Yale course hole by hole with photographic evidence of the insensitive butchering going on in a multipart GCA thread later on.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Huckaby,

I think it may be a case of Yale management receiving mixed signals and choosing the one that suits their needs, which will not produce the desired results.

As you know, people tend to extract that which they want to extract.

It would seem that your comments were borne of your introduction to a most unusual golf course and the playing experience derived from the "bones" of the architecture.

But, as is typical of those with an education at Santa Clara University ( I believe you indicated that you spent 7 years getting your degree  ) you've missed the big picture, the global view,  that while the structure of the architectural bones provides a relatively pleasant golfing experience, the restoration of the golf course, as outlined by George Bahto and Brad Klein, and endorsed by Geoff Childs, would provide a spectacular golfing experience, and preserve YALE's treasure, lost due to benign neglect and a misguided superintendent over the years.

Didn't those Jesuits teach you anything in the seven years you spent there ??  

[THuckaby2]

Patrick:

The Jesuits taught me, in my wonderful four years at the greatest school in the nation, to have a sense of humor, and more importantly a sense of reality.

So tell me then, what should I do with all this power I have?  Given I personally (along with my co-hort in crime Mr. Burroughs) have effectively squelched all efforts to have Yale restored, where should my aim go next?  Getting some quality athletes for Notre Dame football?

Seriously though, bottom line:  I assume you've played Yale in recent years.  Did you enjoy the course?

I've yet to read a no answer to that question.  I stand ready for all sorts of qualifications from you, however much that question requires only one word for the answer.

I understand how great it could be.  I see the big picture.  Give me a break.

BTW, if you guys really think impression of "good enough" is what's keeping this from getting done, then aim your arrows where they really ought to go:  the magazine rankings.  Seriously:  why bother restoring a course that gets such high acclaim right now?  Scott and I are mere peons giving opinions on a web site.  Dare to dream, gentlemen.

TH

[GeoffreyC]

Tom

I'll answer for Patrick.

Of course he had a good time.  He played with me, Ran and Andy Ryan.

[THuckaby2]

And you still enjoy playing this horribly butchered course, right GC?

Hey, I do get the big picture, believe me.  I can see, from what you've shown me and what I've read and seen from George, the greatness that once was and still could be.

I just think it's one hell of a great course even if it is just bones of what it once was, and refuse to lie about that, for any reason.

Obviously many, many magazine raters agree with me.

TH

[Scott_Burroughs]

Patrick,

I don't see how Yale is any different than other 'architectural masterpieces' that have been 'butchered' to some degree over the years.  As Geoffrey provided evidence above as to what happens when an architectural passionist tells it like it is, they don't take it too kindly.

So each one of us who, despite still enjoying what is left today, should delicately tell the management at each course that has been worked on for the worse (a majority of courses?) that it's not what it could be, even if they just had supposed restorative work done recently?   Let's see, we all  get a lucky chance to play such courses as Inverness, Oakland Hills, Oak Hill, ANGC, Yale, Riviera, LACC, Hollywood, etc. and we're supposed to tell them what we REALLY feel (delicately, of course)?  Yeah, right.  We would insult our hosts and piss off those who were kind enough to let us play their course.

[Tim_Weiman]

Pat Mucci:

Your comment on "sending mixed signals" is exactly right. Knowing the politics of Yale, I am amazed how any intelligent person could have thought otherwise.  

GCA, some might not understand, does get a large amount of attention in the golf industry. One person put it to me this way during the Merion discussion: "during a recent industry gathering the comments made on GCA about Merion were all anybody was talking about".

Yale remains an uphill battle. Hopefully we can overcome the mindset of those in denial about their "it's good enough" mentality.

[GeoffreyC]

Huck

Let me answer this way.  I enjoyed it much more before Roger Rulewich did his latest rendition of how to renovate and modernize while still telling alumni and members it's a "complete restoration of our Charles Blair McDonald (Yale version of spelling) masterpiece.

Back then George was educating me about Yale's past and the architecture of CB MacDonald and Seth Raynor. I could see the IMMENSE potential for the course and how the awesome man made features and topography combined for a truly unique golfing experience. I let my imagination work and I wanted to see it transferred to the land.

When I play the Yale course today I literally get sick every time I pass one of Rulewich's dastardly shaped monstrosities he calls restored bunkers. It has affected my play and my enjoyment.  The anticipation of a restoration is gone. THe anticipation that John Beinecke would come in and rescue the course after the travesty of the front nine was shown to him is gone. The athletic department is covering their ass saying that the project is a success and they are happy with the work. It sucks.  Read Brad Klein's article in GOlfweek.

WHY NOT GET AN INDEPENDENT NON BIASED SET OF EXPERTS OUTSIDE YALE TO MAKE AN EVALUATION OF THE WORK AND A RECOMMENDATION?

[THuckaby2]

GC:

Thanks.  I absolutely agree with you, and what's been done must be painful.

So you enjoyed it more before, you may enjoy it a LOT more if they pull their heads out of their butts and do what's right... to me that's all a given.

But the bottom line is, you do enjoy the course even as it is.  So does Tommy, do does Patrick, so does anyone who plays it.  Yes, it could be better - agreed, given, understood.

I just refuse to accept any more admonishment for admitting my enjoyment of what's there now.   Those who would admonish me need to get a reality check and take on the people who truly do have some influence.

TH

[THuckaby2]

Pat Mucci:

Your comment on "sending mixed signals" is exactly right. Knowing the politics of Yale, I am amazed how any intelligent person could have thought otherwise.  

GCA, some might not understand, does get a large amount of attention in the golf industry. One person put it to me this way during the Merion discussion: "during a recent industry gathering the comments made on GCA about Merion were all anybody was talking about".

Yale remains an uphill battle. Hopefully we can overcome the mindset of those in denial about their "it's good enough" mentality.

Tim:

Whatever you say.  I continue to disagree, obviously.  But one thing's for sure:  it is not ME who is in denial regarding the real culprits for sending Yale the wrong signal.  Sure, Scott and I might not be sending the signal YOU want to send, given you seem to think we need to be in lock-step agreement on this board about issues such as these.  But go read a magazine ranking list before you go off too hard on me and Scott.  THOSE are the culprits you ought to fight, not us.

TH

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom Huckaby:

With all due respect, I think you need a "reality check".

Is there any doubt that the "it's good enough" mentality is pervasive at Yale and will be very difficult to overcome?

Do we really need one more expression of that mindset?

How will that encourage progress?

You may like to think nobody pays attention to what is said on GCA. My industry friends tell me otherwise.

Great golf architecture takes passion. I hope some day you will take being a student serious enough to understand that.

[Scott_Burroughs]

Huck,

It's a lost cause.  We are back at ground zero after giving multiple cries to the contrary.  Nothing will ever seep through that we think otherwise.

We have never said "it's good enough".  We truly believe a restoration is necessary.  We absolutely cannot tell a blatant lie and say that the course as it is cannot provide fun.  If GCA.com does have influence, then we have actually done EXACTLY what is necessary to help do that.  His "it's good enough" comments (which we never said, remember, but he says we did) are what are actually HURTING restoration efforts.

Do we really need one more expression of that mindset?

You, my friend, are giving one more expression to that effect, by putting false words in our mouths, not us.

[ForkaB]

Scott and Tom

I hear you!  I feel your pain!  The only one who has ever used the phrase "it's good enough" is Tim, and why he continues to attribute its gensis to others is beyond me.

Timn

Find another catchphrase of your own, but please don't continue to denigrate Tom and Scott for things they never said.  They have honest opinions which should be respected.

[Tim_Weiman]

Rich Goodale:

If I didn't think tone and attitude mattered as much as exact words, I wouldn't take such a hard line.

FYI, my feelings are probably influenced from working on multinational project teams where participants speak many different languages.

As I used to tell young people joining the team, the words "of course" actually mean "no f___ing way" in a certain European language.

There is little doubt in my mind that folks at Yale would interpret comments made in my original thread as supporting the "it's good enough" attitude. That's the point Pat Mucci was trying to express and he is exactly right.

[THuckaby2]

Tim:

Whatever you say.  You continue to believe what you believe, and remember, you owe me an answer for my question:

What should Scott and I do with all this power you attribute to us?  I'm feeling energized, ready to make or break another classic golf course.

 

TH

[Mike Benham]

Do we really need one more expression of that mindset?

How will that encourage progress?

Aren't "progress" and "restoration" antonyms? (at least in the general sense of the words) ... like my uncle would say when you were backing your car out of the driveway ...

 "Go ahead, backup"

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom Huckaby:

I simply think you should have been more sensitive to the situation at Yale and avoided giving ammunition to those who care little about a true restoration.

Take Scott’s words on this thread, for example. When it comes to saying anything that might restrict his access to a famous course, he apparently wants no part of it. But, then why not practice the same restraint when it comes to supporting the fine efforts of good people like Geoffrey Childs, George Bahto and Brad Klein when it comes to Yale?

My point remains: there are very few, if any, courses in the United States still in existence that are more deserving of a true restoration than Yale.  If you love great golf architecture, you should direct your comments in support of those trying to encourage such a project.

Mike:

Yes. But, not in this case.

[THuckaby2]

Tim Weiman:

I understand what you think.

I just think you are, for lack of a better word, and with all due respect, completely full of shit.

I say the course is fun to play and enjoyable as it is today, a position that basically everyone here agrees with, and I am singled out as needing to be "more sensitive to the situation at Yale."

That to me makes absolutely no sense.  When have I EVER said anything but that I would absolutely support a true restoration of this course?

Your way of putting thoughts onto others' keyboards is quite frustrating.  Do you read posts, or just read what you want to read?

So the intent of your "Tragedy" topic was to provide support for those trying to effect restoration at Yale.  I get this NOW.  But here's a hinit:  you ought to have made this clear from the start.  I thought you asked a question, ie "Is Yale the Greatest Tragedy in Golf?" to which I gave an honest answer.  Had you phrased it how you seem to intend, ie "Give Your Support Here For Yale to be Restored", I would have come in with hearty "add me to the crusade" posts.

That's not what you asked.  Forgive me for not reading more into it, as I've said many times I am just a humble public course golfer, with absolutely no inside information, and I live 3000 miles away from the course in question.

In any case, my apologies.  Here I thought this was a forum for DISCUSSION - I see now that some topics are to be discussed, others are just advertising for a cause.

In any case, you continue to pick on the wrong targets.  I fully believe that influential people read this forum, sure.  But they, and the general public, read MAGAZINES and their web sites far, far more.  Go take your crusade to the magazines, get them to stop ranking Yale so highly.  If that happens, then the powers that be would stop and take notice way more than they notice what Scott and I say here, wouldn't you say?

So talk to Mr. Klein about getting his raters in line before you rail on Scott and I, will ya?

Yours as a non-serious, non-student of golf course architecture, and very proud of it,

Thomas W. Huckaby

[THuckaby2]

I've never played the course and I think it needs immediate restoration because it SUCKS!  

You are now Tim Weiman's hero, shivas.  Well done.  

As for the rest, makes sense to me... but I don't do Ivy League.

TH

[George_Bahto]

TIM you said:

"there are very few, if any, courses in the United States still in existence that are more deserving of a true restoration than Yale" - and that is absolutely correct

They've said the Raynor course is unplayable as built as part of their argument to appease the UNION HELP - imagine, gearing a "restoration" (WHAT A STRETCH THAT IS) of one of the great courses in the country  so the overworked grass-cutters can have an easier day. That's what happened to the steep banks on the left of #2 & #8. They deny softening the slopes - I have photos I took about 7 years ago of these slopes, the "before"

One day after the first few holes were worked on - "worked over" might be better, I was walking the course with Ronnie Forse and Jim Nagel who had asked me to join them for a walk thru. We all freaked as we came to #2 for the softening just leaped out at us like a blinking red light (that's not "Limey" talk by the way - hah)

* *

The problem is that we should not in any way give them more ammunition that would allow them to justify the bastardization of the course.

They are taking everything out of context now to save face as best they can after totally blowing it, using the: for the "enjoyment of the students" thing; the "best we could under the circumstances" thing. Get out!

Unfortunately what has happened is they have wrecked the underlayment of the bunkers and it would be very difficult to dig down in there and see what once was.  It would have been easy before - just gently peel away the vegetation, check for the original soil on the slopes and dig down carefully and you easily find the bottom of the bunkers!

Nothing more than simple archaeology!!!!

Listen, nothing is going to get redone there anymore - they haven't the backbone to admit they erred and pecked away at the project without educated direction - like $5,000 at a time for each bunker.  Geez, why didn't they put the names of the $5G donors on a plaque at each bunker (not a trap by the way)?

So let the alumnae hear us and I'm sure they do - that's where the power is!

They would just love it if we slowly drift off into the sunset and go away.

Well, tell you what - not me! Not after what recently came out.

All I've ever done on this wonderful venture I've been on for the past 7-8 years or whatever is has been, is to think in terms of the original architecture of Charlie Macdonald (hey, not bad spelling for a guy with a HS education) and Seth J. Raynor (bet they don't know what the "J" stands for).

I don't give a hoot, from my reasearch perspective, about who did what to a course after their original designs - I'll leave that for others to talk about. So to have them say I was not interested in an authentic restoration is absurd and I am not going to have it.

My goal thru all I've done has been to try to have Raynor get the credit he deserved. My restorations are about HIM not ME and will continue to be that way - those who know me know that.

My book is about their original architecture and the follow-up(s)are about his original architecture so "they", "the learned ones," can play their political games all they want - I'm more interested in what you guys think than the BS they come out with.

*

It's interesting how some of us think about and write about the condition of the course. That's not what this discussion is about - We're talking about the architecture and Yale's admitted love for preservation - hah.

The following is a quote from the head of the University I was requested to use in my white paper:

* *
   A recent pamphlet (1998) entitled “Preserving the Past/Presenting the Future” – Historic Preservation at Yale” articulated the following.

    “While those of us who are part of the modern Yale are dedicated to our primary mission of research and teaching, we also see the stewardship of our architectural heritage as an important responsibility”

* *

HAH - Imagine that!

[THuckaby2]

Great stuff, George.  I couldn't agree more with every word you say.

I don't believe I have given anyone any ammunition, btw.  Read my words if you care to - don't accept Tim's bastardization of such.

In any case best of luck in the continued battle there.  You certainly have 100% of my support, which I don't think matters a whit, but Tim sure does.

TH

[George_Bahto]

Shivas:  that was a wonderful translation - gee, I was wondering what he said.

there's more where that came from too

gb

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()