It was a real pleasure to meet and play with Tommy, Tim Weiman and of course Geoffrey who continues to shed new light on the history of Yale during each round we play at Yale.

I have said it before here, but IMHO not one penny of endowment money should be spent on Yale Golf Course. There are and should be other priorities at Yale University. That said, a Yale alumni group can and should take the initiative, but as Jerry the wise old Irish starter once told me about Yale politics, "Michael, you put two Yale men in a room together and they are sure to come out with 3 or 4 opinions."

My lasting memory of Monday will always be hearing Tommy talking his "tough love" to the Director of Golf and the Men's Golf Coach as we were leaving. I conveniently had a cell phone call to make, so can any of you shed some light on the outcome ? Don't worry, I actually already know it .

By the way Tommy, didn't you see some other courses?

I too despise the architectural changes that have been made to the Yale course, and agree with Geoffrey and redanman that George Bahto would bring the course into the top 25 courses in the country, combined with maintenance improvements.

I just want to stick up for Tom Huckaby for a moment here, because I think I know what he's getting at.  Like Tom, I grew up playing dogtrack public courses, and although Yale is hardly in the pristine condition of well-heeled private clubs, both of us have played MUCH worse.  

I think his other point is that we're arguing about a great course becoming as great as it once was.  Right now, even with all of the negative changes, is still in the top 100 classic courses in the country.  It's a shame, agreed, that it could even be so much better, but the routing on a wonderful property, along with the remaining bold Raynor features, ensures that it remains "fun" and exciting golf.

So, I think his point is that there are plenty of other courses that are in far more dire straits, and other classic courses that are now some shell of their former selves.  I believe he is saying that most non-architectural afficianados playing there would have fun anyway, particularly in comparison to most courses, and that makes it more difficult for those of us who believe it's a "tragedy".    

I truly don't think he or Scott meant any disrespect to the efforts of Geoffrey, George, or anyone else seeking to return the course to its former glory, because we all agree that it's something that should be done.  

The work done in the name of restoration so far is a joke.

Tom MacWood;

Your list is pretty amazing.  And here I thought I was a purist!  

--How can you possibly say the Yale is a RR design?  
Scott, I didn't say Yale was a RR design. But give him some time, and I'm sure a piece of that endowment money will be looking really good to him, and he will suggest a complete remodel--by his hands of course.

I wouldn't have to worry about it being built today, because it never would.  RR's design on this property, almost any architect's for that matter, would be absolutely different.  Holes like #10, #12, and #18 don't get bult any more.  They are different because of Raynor, not RR.

I haven't seen it, but I'm sure Mike Benham will disagree with you about Brian Silva's really neat rendition of the Biarittz at Black Creek. Perry Dye has made a career out of trying to emulate his father, who's emulating Seth Raynor to some degree. And for that matter, Raynor should then also be castigated for emulating Mother Nature and many even older classic architects in his designs. I salute the fact that many golf architects, looking for inspiration rely on designs that influenced them, more then many of them were influenced by Seth Raynor.

"One blind shot is too many for most modern designs not to mention the numerous ones at Yale."

Did you know that Roger Rulewich, a Yale alumni and ASGCA member is widely known for the huge degree of blindness in his designs? In fact, he is known in the profession as the man that practices it the most. (I wonder what course could have inspired him to this degree?)

In considering that he is the consulting architect at Yale, you think he would take notice of the ever-shrinking putting surface problems at Yale as well as the putting surfaces that once existed there and that were removed by someone else. Look at Geoff Childs pictoral evidence from the 18th hole See how the green literally climbs up that knob in the right corner and actually wraps around the inverted Raynor/Macdonald dune-like mound. For those of you that are shot-makers, and judge the courses for the intensity and the value of each shot, what would you think of a pin in that back corner?

Scott, are you stating that no one besides Raynor & Mac would have done the roller coaster routing that is Yale. Well, what about Bel Air, the site of what was once a brilliant routing by Billy Bell at San Pedro Golf & CC or the old back nine at Ojai before it was altered? What about Pine Valley?

Granted, Raynor's work to blow out hole #7 from the side of that mountain is impressive, I'm sure Jeff Mingay or anyone else who has seen Banff can tell you that Stanley Thompson blew-up an even bigger mountain creating that routing. In the modern world, come out to La Habra, and I'll show you a routing filled with all sorts of blind shots by Damian Pascuzzo that should have just been built as a ride for nearby Disneyland, it is that wild--and unplayable.

Scott, What are you hoping to accomplish by mentioning Riviera? You haven't seen Riviera and really don't know what Fazio has done there other then what you have seen in the pictures we have posted, which certainly does look horrible in any media. But can you comment on what it is replacing, and how Fazio and Marzloff want to change the course by adding features that are totally alien to the masterful architecture at Riviera?

Do you understand that it is all much more then a very non-Thomas/Bell-like serpentine bunker that looks like it belongs at Pelican Hill-South, or the newly crowned greens at holes #8 & 13. Or how about the Great Mayan pyramid tee on #5? What about the hidden-tee so far back on #12 that has been used just one time in the Nissan Open?

You quite obviously have never met Bill Coore, because you would know for a FACT that he would never be so bold to claim anything he had done to a golf course that was the embodiment and last sign that Captain George C. Thomas really did exist. (Thanks Redanman for that pogniant observation.) In fact, I do think Bll Coore would take it as a polite insult, if indeed you were suggesting he was trying to upstage the Captain.

Roger Rulewich on the other hand has told the Director of Golf at Yale that he IS a Golf Architect, NOT a Historian. I think that should sum it up as far as Seth Raynor and Yale is concerned.

2.-Coore & Crenshaw in a comparison as Roger Rulewich? What I have seen of Yale, C&C would never ever want to claim that dreck as their work. I'm sure Tom Fazio would feel the same, but I don't want to speak for Tom Fazio--EVER. Speculating for him is hard enough!:)

Take the work of Roger Rulewich at Yale, and compare it to the work of Coore & Crenshaw at Riviera. In Mucci-speak--The Mission Statement!:)

-Both were given the green light by the powers that be to RESTORE original features.

Look at Geoff's images, both old and new from Yale #18, and then look at Coore & Crenshaw's work on Riviera #6.  Which team got the "MISSION STATEMENT" right?





So, NO! I don't think of Riviera as a C&C design or heavens forbid, a Fazio design, and I don't think Roger Rulewich should be at Yale either for all of the right reasons. In all likelihood, I think George Bahto would be the man all the way, and I don't think George would put his name attached to the course, in the same way Roger Rulewich likes his. I like George. Much like the way I used to like Ken Cotner! Also, are you implying blame about Riviera on Coore & Crenshaw?  If so, I would like to hear your take about the Riviera turf debacle before even trying to point blame at Coore & Crenshaw.

Plus, I don't think you went out of your way to see Yale because it was "still a Raynor routing with a lot of playing characteristics still intact." I have this feeling that you went there because you were probably were supposed to play somewhere else, and it fell through.

JakaB, its your turn, Go ahead and let it rip! And Tom Huckaby, get the emails to Scott sent, telling him I'm really an asshole and that taste really doesn't matter.

Mike & Tom- While I understand your point about the course being playable and even enjoyable, that doesn't take away from the apparent fact that whomever is ultimatley responsible or has been responsible, has lacked the foresight to do the due diligence needed to survive in todays market.

Since hindsight is 20/20 when do you think Yale should've done a sympathetic resto? 84'? 91? even as late as 98', just before the market turned? Now, there is little chance of catching up to the potential revenue gains that could've been had during all those years and will likely have to wait for the market to start clipping back up Or, throw pennies at problems that need thousands? This type of fiduciary responsibility is usually seen west of the Peco's, not east.

I really want to hear a blow by blow of Tommy's tough love no matter how emotional. Better yet, what was the DOG's reaction, a polite nodding of his hat rack?

How about Lombartzyde, a fine links, by Park, in Belgium that was bombed to pieces in WW1, a new course rebuilt by Colt and Alison (I think) which was then blown up in WW2.  Now that's tragic!

Tim;

It's NOT good enough, clearly.  The work that I saw two summers ago was laughable if it wasn't so sad.

I think part of what Tom is trying to communicate, however, is that most people don't have any architectural or historical appreciation or understanding of what was there previously.

Joe Q. Public visiting Yale for the first time would probably generally complain that conditions weren't uniformly green, hed almost certainly take a cart to avoid any exercise on that rolling terrain, and would probably think it was a cool course because of some roller-coaster holes and quirky attributes like the Biarritz.  Some of it he'd probably call "unfair", and other's he might not know what to make of it.  But, I think it's a fair assumption that he'd have fun, regardless.  He'd give it 3.5 out of 5 stars on the Golf Digest Rate-O-Meter that they publish every year or so.

THAT is what those of us who care are up against.  I think that's Tom's point.

Long-time reader, first-time poster.

The short answer to the original query: It may not be the greatest tragedy, but it's in my top four or five. And rising.

College golf was among my beats when Golf World moved north to Connecticut in 1989. Dave Paterson, men's coach at Yale, was on the magazine's college poll panel, and he helped me "join" under a special membership category. Playing Yale didn't erase the pain of leaving those fab courses around Pinehurst, but it helped.

Playing Yale for six summers, somewhere in the vicinity of 200 rounds, was bittersweet. I grew up playing scruffy, unknown public courses (the $30 junior season pass!) that wouldn't have pushed into anyone's rankings even with pristine conditioning. I knew the chances of seeing them in better shape were nil, as were the chances for any renovations. But seeing a course the quality of Yale treated so poorly was difficult to stomach, especially during rounds that typically stretched past five hours. Long-time players (mostly alums making spring and autumn visits) believed that poor conditioning was the lone culprit, the price paid for having union workers on the maintenance staff. That's a huge factor and one that needs to be underscored in any discussion of what to do with Yale. It took many years to get the general discomfort to a tipping point, but the desire has long been there to raise the necessary funds for any reworking, separate of the endowment. What this project requires, though, is a concerted effort to educate all parties -- administration, athletic department, faculty, endowment, course staff, alums, students, guests -- why what happens after the work is finished is just as important as who does any renovation or how it's done.

What was most galling was that Yale's maintenance took away options the routing presented to every player. For example, No. 8. It's a largely blind shot to the green, but not totally blind. You can try and hit it atop that first ridge with an iron off the tee, and then have a long second. Or there's a small slot in the second ridge, visible only if you drive it down the extreme right side, flirting with the hill shared with No. 7 fairway. But that eight- or 10-yard-wide gap wasn't maintained as fairway. It was rough. I could live with the architect intending the player to chance a view of the putting surface against a dodgy lie in the rough. But the long-time players I spoke with recalled this spot as once-upon-a-time fairway. So poor upkeep stole options from the player: the first tee well to the right that was rarely mowed but makes for a gut-check opening shot, the horrible condition of the bunkers, the shrinking putting surfaces that took away valuable hole locations (that back-right plateau at the 17th, the front-right at the 18th).

Yes, who does the work at Yale is important, as it is in any project. But before the first blueprint is unrolled, there needs to be a serious discussion about what happens after the work is completed. Without that, I fear this group will have a lively discussion a decade from now about how Yale wasted the fruits of its renovation.

Phenominal first post Brett. Welcome to the club!

Well done Brett.

The staff at the Yale course and the people behind the restoration are very well intentioned.  Some have their hands tied behind their backs by the union and athletic department staff while others simply disagree with the need for a complete and sensitive restoration. It doesn't make for a very good outcome.  Roger Rulewich, I don't forgive because he of all people should know better and he is taking a nice fee for his work.

Scott:

I get the impression that you just don't understand Tommy's passion for excellence.

What Tommy and others are trying to express is that Yale is in that rare air of being so inherently good that it should have been maintained in its very best form.

The whole "it's good enough" attitude just isn't good enough for Yale. The place needs a passion for excellence. That was the point of Tommy's "tough love". I applaud him for that.

Tim,

I understand Tommy perfectly.  All it takes is reading his posts.  I've also played with him at a "once was" course near his home.  We had a lengthy discussion about all things architecture after.

Trouble is is that most classic courses today are "once was".  Very few are the same as back then.  Fairway lines are narrower, trees have grown and choked corridors of play, bunkers and greens moved, changed, removed, shrunken, added, etc.  Ragged looks are gone.  Modern distances rendered many "obsolete".  An old pic of Pebble's #7 is in one of the "Tillie Trilogy" books and left me aghast at how gorgeous it was.  Too bad, but the current hole still has fun characteristics.

We can try to fix these things, and some have been successful.  That's great and better for golf.  But the fact is that if you constantly lament over all this, no enjoyment can ever be had, and then there's no reason to even play.

I say let Yale be and come play NHCC right down the road.  No 6 hour rounds at New Haven and no tee times......and the best greens in the state.  You can have Yale and their 33,000 rounds per year......no matter how "historic" the architecture.

Now that is exactly the attitude all Yalies should've wanted to avoid all along by taking care of, and respecting the course.

Way to go rpurd.

rpurd

New Haven CC is a very nice course.  The greens are quite a lot of fun but they are hardly in the same class as the greens Yale once posessed.  NHCC is in no way a historic landmark in golf course architecture and should not be mentioned in the same breath. The members have a very nice place to play. You are correct  

Since you have made the invitation, I recommend every GCA participant and lurker in the area contact rpurd for a chance to play NHCC