[GeoffreyC]

Tom Egan

The discussion with the Yale aerial was last added to on September 4th. You can look back a few pages for it.

Matt - I also wanted to add that given the way the renovation had been going, Yale could be conditioned as well as Augusta National and it would not be as good a course as it was in 1934. Keep the design intent first. There will be better turf conditions as well.

[Paul Turner]

Patrick Mucci

I agree that the slow fairways limited the run up shot option on a few holes.

But I certainly don't remember the fairways being too narrow.  Maybe I missed something.  I do remember the 6th having rough on both sides of the lateral creek, like you describe.  And 18 has a narrow fairway simply through topography.  

But as for other holes I don't remember much rough encroachment; only rough on the very steep banks of the course, which doesn't bother me.  And the only really thick stuff was down the left of the 8th and between the split fairway on 18.  For the 8th, rough is needed to stop the ball bounding off to a probable unplayable in the woods and I'm not sure of the practicality/safety of mowing that lump on the 18th!

Either way, the fairway mowing patterns can be changed overnight.  Unlike, the bunkers and the other restoration aspects you detail.

And I agree with George.  Yale is in completely different league from The Knoll.  There's no comparison in quality.

[Matt_Ward]

George:

I'll take you up on your offer in looking at The Knoll. To be fair much of my opinion of the course has been because of long standing past practices. If things have changed to the degree you say they have then more power to The Knoll.

I've always liked it for a host of reasons and believe with some improvments the course still has plenty of "fire in the belly." George, I rspect your opinion immensely when you say it's the best it's been since the 50's and 60's. I'll be out there ASAP to confirm.

Pat: Good stuff on increasing the width of the fairways. It amazes me that if Yale has the pictures and evidence from the design of Raynor why is it not happening with actual implementation. Maybe Geoffrey can explain the delay???

Geoffrey, good point about Bethpage ... I agree that a much more "rougher / natural" look would have been far better even though I believe Rees did a fine job. Love your tongue'n cheek comment about having the Black look like RD!

I agree with your primary focus on design intent, but Pat's comments about how maintenance is interwoven with the original architectural intent does ring a bell with me. Courses that aren't prepared correctly and consistently can only TAKE AWAY from the original intent.

I'll be visiting Yale sometime early next year and would like to see first hand if things are really moving in a positive manner. I'm hoping wiser people understand what a fabulous course they have.

[T_MacWood]

I think this thread best illustrates the differences between a Golf Digest and GolfWeek point of view.

[Lou_Duran]

Tom:

Do you care to enumerate those differences?

[T_MacWood]

A great emphasis on condition, as opposed to a primary emphasis on architectural considerations.

I read Matt Ward's comments I see a focus on the condition of the course, based on a standard he believes is imparitive to enjoy great architecture, but very little regarding the architectural considerations. I read Geoffrey's comments I see his focus is on the degredation of the architectural integrity, and his opinion that the condition while not state of the art is sufficient to enjoy the course's architectural merits.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

You may be looking at conditioning in a one dimensional plane.

The conditioning I referenced had to do with loss of fairway widths, loss of putting surfaces, allowing rough to grow in front of a green like # 17 (plateau) that was intended to take a run up shot.  Allowing bunkers to lose all their sand, leaving poor grass conditions in the bottom of the, long ago abandoned, bunker like on the Eden hole.

This may be another situation that you have to view in person in order to fully understand the detioration of the architectual values through deviations and abandonment of the intended and prudent maintainance practices.

When fairways, intended and previously mowed
wall to wall, are mowed to relatively narrow strips, in an obvious attempt at reducing maintainance costs at the expense of the architecture and playing experience, that's a poor maintainance practice, and it has nothing to do with conditioning.

On another topic, conditioning is important.
It is important that green speeds be consistent.
It is important that greens consistently have the same hold or feel.
It is important that approaches are consistently maintained, and maintained in a direct relationship to the firmness of the greens.

The crime at YALE is:
with a decent restoration project, proper maintainance, and decent conditioning the golf course could be world class and a pleasure to play,
AND, the real crime is that it's not that big a project and should have been done years ago.  It just takes someone who knows and cares.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

I forgot something.

When trees, bushes and shrubs are allowed to grow unabated, interfering with the lines of play, rendering it impossible to hit certain drives or shots into the green, that's another maintainance practice failure that must change.

The poor condition of a green, fairway or tee may be a direct result of the failure to
prune, trim, or eliminate the growth of trees, bushes or shrubs.  Maintainance, especially the lack of, can adversely affect conditioning, which in turn adversely affects playability, as intended by the architect.

A golf course that is well conditioned should never be taken to task for that.
While a golf course that is in poor condition should review its maintainance practices with an eye toward improving them and the golf course conditions affecting playability.

[Paul Turner]

Just a pointer:

Ran's photos in the course profile section are from the GCA day out and show the general condition.  And you can see the rough in front of the 17th green that Patrick is refering to.

Though I still don't see much problem with the fairway widths shown there  

[Tom_Egan]

To: George Bahto (the author of possibly the
   best club history ever written!)

The Knoll came up during this discussion of Yale.  Everyone who has seen it admires The Knoll.  Could you please give us your comments on the relative quality of The Knoll vs. Forsgate?  Overall would be fine.  If you choose to use Ran's hole-by-hole match play comparison, so much the better.

Thanks,  Tom

[Matt_Ward]

Tom MacWood:

With all due respect ... you characterize my assessment of courses as being centered around conditioning concerns first and foremost.

That is not accurate. I do view architectural considerations first.
What are they???

1). The quality of the land the course rests upon
2). The completeness of a sound routing plan that ties all the holes together.
3). The integration of comprehensive shot values that test power, finesse and accuracy in a seemless manner.

Yes, I do look at conditioning for the many reasons that Pat articulated. Please explain your thoughts on the role of conditioning? Do you see proper conditioning as a necessary item in maximizing the integral design characteristics sought by the designer? I'd like to understand your point of view.

Thanks.

Tom Egan: Your desire to see Knoll v Forsgate / Banks Course matched up is indeed quite interesting.

The Jersey Golfer, a publication I edit recently included Forsgate in our overall top ten in the state. The course has certainly improved in the last few years because management understands quite clearly the kind of layout they have. Too many people have not seen the course in recent terms. The Banks Course is under 6,600 yards and it gives a range of holes and challenges.

I'm going to make a visit this weekend to the Knoll and check out what George Bahto says is clear improvements. The Knoll is truly one of the real gems in public golf in NJ and beyond. I've always hoped ownership would elevate it and if what George says is true that really interests me as a writer and golf enthusiast.

Forsgate has some of the most unique (some would say "over the top" greens although I only see one or two of them that way) putting surfaces. I think the course has some super holes -- the par-3 3rd, in my opinion, is one of the top 4-5 par-3's in New Jersey. In fact, you could argue that the collection of all four par-3's at Forsgate is the best of any course save the exception being PV and Plainfield.

I think the Knoll has some lull in hole quality after you get past the 3rd hole until you hit 8th tee. The back is also little tame with holes 16 and 17. I also think Forsgate has the better overall terrain and bunkering work.

Clearly -- George can offer much more detailed analysis and I look forward to his comments.

[George_Bahto]

Tom Egan:

The Knoll and Forsgate are sister courses.

To me the main difference is that the Knoll is virtually untouched while Forsgate has been modified to some extent. This is not to the detriment of Forsgate at all. It is a great course.

I also think they are different in this respect. The heart of the Knoll are the tough par-4s - perhaps even an over emphasis, if you will. They are the heart of the Knoll.

Forsgate has a better balance of par-4 - short and long.

I think the par-3s at Forsgate, as a whole, are better than the ones at the Knoll - especially their Eden hole (can't remember the hole # right now - perhaps #7). The Knoll's Biarritz is outstanding - playing 245 friom the tips. Although the Biarritz at the Knoll is really long, the best part of the hole is the great "horseshoe" feaature on the putting surface as well as a number of other original, interesting ridges and rolls.  Most clubs took these features out of the greens to make for easier putting.

I think the Redan (#3) and the Eden hole (#17) at the Knoll are pretty "suckie" (as the kids say today.

The "Short" hole reditions at both courses are excellent.

I stress the originality of the Knoll vs Forsgate - I think our greens are more interesting.

What Banks did at Forsgate was incredible - he took a dairy farm - a virtual flat piece of ground - and ended up with very dramatic and very deep bunkers without having it look contrived.

As difficult as the Knoll is to score on, when built by Banks for the 30-some-odd millionaire founders in 1928-1929, he was asked to build a course for an older group of men! However, when it was under the ownership of the Aeillo family during the glory days of the 50s and 60s, they added some back tees - very artfully, I might add, making it the course quite difficult.  As an example, the 2nd and the 18th were considerably shorter.

Ran and Ted Sturges and many others like this hole by hole match-play thing. I'll leave that to the ones who enjoy that type comparison. Seems to me you often lose a really good hole on one course's 2nd hole (for example) to the other courses best hole.  Nothing wrong with all that, it's just not my thing.

I just think that preserving the originality of what is left of some of these great courses from the 20s is so important which is why I am so dedicated to the Yale course. Her greens - well most of her greens - are the finest examples of dramatic greens Raynor ever built.

I hear of some architects going to "study" the works of Raynor. Well I wonder where they are going to "study" his work. Most of the courses were done over to some extent - I've done some myself.  So where is this "textbook" stuff?  I've been to most of the courses - there aren't very many that are as built.

Imprinting foreign footprints on great courses is not much different than what was done to the great classics during the "modernization" period of the 50sand 60s by RTJ and others .......... UNFORTUNATELY IT CONTINUES TODAY.

[rkg]

George,

Do you think  Forsgate holes 3,4,5 7,8!,9! 10,11 can be considered flat?

[T_MacWood]

As long as the condition is good enough to allow the architecture to standout -- I'm satisfied. Which basically entails firmness of the ground and elimination floral hazards that effect the original architectural intent.

I do not judge the condition based on some standard that all courses need to reach. In fact it could be argued that an arbitrary  modern standard has been as harmful as to the integrity of great architecture as overgrown trees. I'm not looking for flat tees, well groomed fairways, consistent rough, perfectly manicured bunkers, trimmed bushes or anything else that might effect my ability to score, I'm not focused on my ability to score, I'm focused on the golf course's design.

Your posts are a perfect illustration of the emphasis that GD places upon condition -- you claim Yale would be a 9, but because of its condition you say it is only a 6. I think that is fair assessment of your view, and I do not recall you writing anything about the design modifications being an issue -- but perhaps I over-looked it. I believe condition should not account for a full third of a golf-course's evaluation.

Based on your trio of criteria, where does Yale fall short? And how does condition effect your three rules? Is it necessary to research a course's architectural history before an evaluation?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

You must have missed my two, above, posts.

[Gorge Bahto]

Kye - I said the ground was originally flat before Banks did his thing - you would not know it was flat land from what is there now

[rkg]

George,

I am sure you have some documentation, but
if charles Banks "created" the hillside on 8 and 9 at Forsgate he must have moved about 200,000 cubic yards on those holes and then cut a bunch more off the golf course property (left of the holes) to tie it in.

the existing grade(sure seems natural) on the left of these hoes is about 25 feet below the grade of the adjacent holes on the right.  You cannot mean he cut all of this.

If those holes were originally flat I will eat my computer!

 The Valley in front of 3  green that flows through number five (approach is quite a bit up hill) seems to connect to all the surrounding property to a degree that is  natural, not flat and modified by man.

fill me in.

[Matt_Ward]

Tom: I said the "potential" is there for Yale to be a (9) versus what it is today (6) in my opinion.

Maintenance practices currently in use at Yale are just not appropriate given the original design ingredients. I agree with Pat and I think his previous posts speak to that quite clearly and accurately.

I also believe Yale needs to update / reposition bunkering to reflect today's gains in distance through technology and the ability level of players. New tee boxes can also be given thought to bolster a number of holes. I am not suggesting (if that is what you thought) that there would be a 30 percent bump up for Yale just in having quality turf. It's much more than that.

Tom, it's clear you see conditoning in a certain manner. How the course is prepared goes a good bit of the way in enhancing the overall site the course occupies, the quality of the routing and the ultimate shot values called upon when playing. Conditioning, or the lack thereof, is tied to all three. I've played Yale a numbe of times and just wish the "potential" could be realized. Lack of $$ is not the problem ... it's lack of vision.

Tom -- your very first sentence is something I agree upon ... nothing more and certainly nothing less. I don't view a course based on my ability to score ... I base how the conditioning adds to the design merit. In Yale it takes away from that in a number of ways.

I'll say it again I'm not advocating ANGC conditions, but given where Yale is today and what can easily be done with a little planning and effort I do believe conditioning / preparation does have a role. You see it in one way and I see it another.

[T_MacWood]

Matt
I'm confused, explain to me exactly how conditioning effects the quality of the land the course sits upon and how it enhances the routing.

Here we have group of concerned admirers protesting the changes that have been made to this great design -- which I thought you agreed with -- and now it seems you are advocating that Yale needs to go the opposite direction and update/repostion its bunkers. Why? For whom should they make these drastic changes? Are you disatisfied with the course from a difficulty standpoint? Is there model you would suggest they follow, a golf-course that sucessfully repositioned their bunkers?

[Willie_Dow]

You guys must get off Dave Paterson's back!!
He has a background in golf that would make even Rich Goodale envy. Rich, by the way, Dave grew up in Ayr, his Dad was a Scottish Pro, and he has played more of the old classic courses than we would ever wish to play.
As I said, on another thread, his concern, as the coach of the Yale Golf Team, and what would draw a player to Yale rather than - Duke for example.
I believe his love for the Course at Yale is greater than any of us understand.
Otherwise, he would be somewhere else in the world of golf.

[Matt_Ward]

Tom:

I would suggest you re-read some of Pat's comments about conditioning and how it connects.

When I say land I am referring to how conditioning can add value to the site. Too many courses overwater and therefore any wonderful site can be diminished because of maintenance practices. There are other elements such as mowing patterns and the like which Pat mentioned.

Routing is affected less so because quality holes and their varying tendencies are present at Yale. I don't appreciate the lack of detail that is so basic as to add to the overall qualities of the holes. You think having level tees is unimportant -- I don't. You see conditioning as nothing more than a minor element. I view it somewhat more so because how it can enhance the original intent of the course. Bottom line -- Tom we see the same issue a bit differently.

As far as my comments about bunkering at Yale let me state first that the course as we know it today is still a wonderful layout. I just believe that like any course there can be meaningful enhancements given the state of golf today and the impact of technology. Adding additional tee boxes or some length to a few holes would not deviate dramatically from the original vision. I just believe it would add to it. That's just my opinion -- I could be wrong.

Oakland Hills had numerous bunkers re-positioned before the 1951 Open. Having Ben Hogan win the event only added to the fanfare of Oakland Hills / South Course as a competitive venue for future major events.

The same holds true for Baltusrol which was updated by Trent Jones as well and later his son Rees. Ridgewood CC (NJ) did this as well before serving as host to the 01 Sr. PGA Championship. I could name a number of others that have done this and not because they were serving as host to a major championship. Rees did a masterful job in re-positioning bunkers at Hollywood (NJ) -- a hidden gem of a course that I believe could be among the nation's 100 best courses.

Updating courses is just something I see as a natural progression of things. Clearly, a number of courses will not go this route for a host of reasons and I can understand that completely.

Yale, in my opinion, has so much to offer that a complete master plan could be so meaningful. The shame is some people at Yale still have their heads in the sand.

[T_MacWood]

Matt
Why do you believe that Jones' Oakland Hills (1951) is superior to Ross's version? Jones's version asks the same question hole after hole -- the most interesting aspect of the course are the greens and 11th which Jones spared.

Why do you feel Rees's Hollywood is superior to the original Travis version? Did he repostion or re-establish bunkers that were lost?

What bunkers were repositioned at Ridgewood?

Do you think it is important that a rater should have an understanding of golf-architecture and the evolution of the golf-course he rates?

According to your first criteria for judging a course, you judge the land the course rests upon - how good is the land that Yale rests upon? Specificaly how does the condition of Yale change the land the course rests upon -- is the course soft?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

Matt didn't say Rees's version of Hollywood was better than Travis's.

The Travis course was long gone before Rees got there and the membership EMPHATICALLY would not approve a return to that original design, or anything remotely close to it, unfortunately.

We've been through this before.

The one hope is that the upcoming President will continue to gradually restore some of Travis's work, although I think the cross bunkers will not be restored due to the higher handicap players they affect on a number of holes.

The real villain at Hollywood was the aging membership and the reluctance to accept new members, especially a broader based membership interested in golf rather than social values.

Sometimes golf courses atrophy from within, with the deterioration caused by the membership, and this was the case at Hollywood.

But, despite the adverse changes pre Rees, Hollywood is still a terrific golf course, and Rees should get the credit for the improvements.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Matt,

I'm not aware of any bunkering changes, relative to repositioning at Ridgewood, and I play there several times a year.

[Paul Turner]

Yale as it stands today, has very FEW fairway bunkers and so there isn't much to reposition anyway.  I did notice one old depression on the 7th, that was obviously once a bunker.  

The terrain is so dramatic and severe it's not the type of course that needs numerous fairway bunkers.  

The terrain dictates the hole strategy and the greenside bunkers are certainly well positioned (apart from those odd little pits on 12).

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()