YEAMANS HALL - The Yank Is Starting To Get It (A Second Look)

[Dunlop_White]

you can view it here:

http://www.dunlopwhite.com/www.dunlopwhite.com/Design_Evolutions/Pages/Yeamans_Hall_Club.html

[Dunlop_White]

Here's that "Double Plateau" on Hole 1 at Yeamans. One pic is from 1927. The other is more current. The idea is to bring more pinable positions to this green.

[Sean_A]

I still haven't been able to get Yeamans out of my mind - perhaps because it is so very English.  In any case, this whole Raynor deal has me intrigued.  I looked at the CC of Charleston and it seems to be a toned down version of Yeamans on even flatter land, but I like the look.  Does anybody have more pix?

I am also still curious about:

One final thought, I went through the Camargo pix on another thread and was amazed to see the huge difference in bunker style and placement.  The fairway bunkering at Yeamans looks to be far more aggressive and pervasive.  Ok, some of that is down due fairway width as loads of the bunkers at Camargo are stranded outside the fairway lines whereas loads of Yeamans start outside but cut eat into the fairways.  Does anyone know if the difference in fairway bunkers is down to the difference of terrain or maybe Carmargos have been altered drastically?

Anybody have any insight?

Ciao

[Sean_A]

I found out some interesting info about YHC.

-the property is about 900 acres

-originally the idea was for two courses and 250 homes as a resort to be designed by Olmsted with Raynor as the designer of the courses

-the '29 Crash meant only 35 homes and one course were built

-to own a house one must be a member

-the rough is terrific because it is not irrigated or fertilized

-the club has an interesting association of summer golfers which is independent from the club in organization but overseen by the club

-I thought the bar area adjacent to the pro shop was weird, but apparently this is the hang out of the summer association


Are any other clubs arranged in this way?  It strikes me as unique.

Any answers to my query below?

Ciao 

[Mike Sweeney]

Are any other clubs arranged in this way?  It strikes me as unique.

Mountain Lake and Fishers Island with ML leading the way in 1915. Mountain Lake got in before a Florida land bust so it has 120 some houses and a guest house. See nearby Lekarica (originally Highland Park GC by Stiles and Van Kleek) for what happens when a Florida land bust occurs. Fishers struggled for years and finally the white elephant of their old clubhouse/guest house "mysteriously" burned down. Bald Peak in New Hampshire has the same model, and to a lesser degree, I believe Wianno, Sleepy Hollow, Mid Ocean and Whippoorwill had similar models that have now evolved to more traditional club models.  Sleepy still has some homes on their property.

In terms of "off season" memberships, Prouts Neck in Maine has one for the shoulder season.

[Michael Whitaker]

I found out some interesting info about YHC.

-the club has an interesting association of summer golfers which is independent from the club in organization but overseen by the club

-I thought the bar area adjacent to the pro shop was weird, but apparently this is the hang out of the summer association

Sean - the "Summer Members" are not allowed in the clubhouse.

[Lynn_Shackelford]

I found out some interesting info about YHC.

-the property is about 900 acres

-originally the idea was for two courses and 250 homes as a resort to be designed by Olmsted with Raynor as the designer of the courses

-the '29 Crash meant only 35 homes and one course were built

-to own a house one must be a member

-the rough is terrific because it is not irrigated or fertilized

-the club has an interesting association of summer golfers which is independent from the club in organization but overseen by the club

-I thought the bar area adjacent to the pro shop was weird, but apparently this is the hang out of the summer association


Are any other clubs arranged in this way?  It strikes me as unique.

Any answers to my query below?

Ciao 

I believe Tom Doak at one time called this the first golf course/housing development.  If they were going to build 250 houses, I trust they were going to ultimately use another entry road.  There are some who feel Bobby Jones was influenced by Yeamans when he conceived Augusta National.
I agree this place has not been "Americanized" much.  When playing there or signing in to play, you could very well be in the British Isles.
It is a great experience, unless you are there in mosquito season.

[Ed Oden]

Sean - the "Summer Members" are not allowed in the clubhouse.

Michael, I believe the clubhouse is closed during the summer.  So I'm not sure summer members are excluded any more than regular members.  I love Yeamans.  But I wouldn't wish an August round there on my worst enemy.  Heat, humidity and bugs straight from hell.

[Michael Whitaker]

Sean - the "Summer Members" are not allowed in the clubhouse.

Michael, I believe the clubhouse is closed during the summer.  So I'm not sure summer members are excluded any more than regular members.  I love Yeamans.  But I wouldn't wish an August round there on my worst enemy.  Heat, humidity and bugs straight from hell.

Ed - According to my friends who are Summer Members they are not allowed in the clubhouse during any season... summer, fall, winter or spring.

[Ed Oden]

Sean - the "Summer Members" are not allowed in the clubhouse.

Michael, I believe the clubhouse is closed during the summer.  So I'm not sure summer members are excluded any more than regular members.  I love Yeamans.  But I wouldn't wish an August round there on my worst enemy.  Heat, humidity and bugs straight from hell.

Ed - According to my friends who are Summer Members they are not allowed in the clubhouse during any season... summer, fall, winter or spring.

Got it.  My point was that summer members are only allowed to play from approximately Memorial Day/Labor Day when the club is essentially closed other than the pro shop.  I don't believe a regular member who showed up to play during that time would get access to the clubhouse either since the club doesn't get enough usage during the summer months to justify staffing the place. 

[Ed Oden]

Ed

I don't know, I thought we played with a couple of proper chaps.

I think we are looking at the green complexes from different perspectives (macro/micro).  By not terribly varied I mean nearly all the greens are raised and heavily bunkered.  I would agree that once on the green that they are varied.  Although, the use of the ridge bewteen fronting bunkers to create a false front effect seemed to be prevalent quite a bit.

Ciao

Sean, I pulled this quote from your "Its Been An Interesting GCA Year" thread since I didn't want to hijack that thread and thought it fit more here.  Here is a ground level picture of each green immediately followed by an overhead image from Google Earth... 

#1 - Double Plateau



#2



#3 - Short



#4 - Bottle



#5 - Alps (Ha!)



#6 - Redan



#7 - Road



#8



#9 - Long



#10 - Cape




#11 - Maiden




#12




#13 - Eden



#14




#15 - Raynor's Prize Dogleg



#16 - Biarritz



#17 - Punchbowl



#18 - Home



What I see is a tremendous amount of variation in terms of green elevation (some low, some slightly raised, some significantly raised), contours (ranging from subtle to crazy wild), size (from tiny to enormous), shape, angles and orientation and similarly in terms of bunker depth, size, shape and placement.  And I think they are consistent with other MacRaynor courses I have played.  If you feel Yeamans greens are just too bunkered for your tastes, I can accept that position.  But absent such a conceptual issue, I don't quite see the objection.

Ed

PS - I'll take your word for it on your playing partners, although I have my doubts.

[Bart Bradley]

Ed:

I have never seen a post that so thoroughly and completely proved a position as this one.  I  also agree that you are DOLT or did you mean me?

Sean:

I completely disagree with your position on Yeamans greens;  to me they are challenging, interesting, strategic, fun....Just look for yourself at what Ed just posted and see if your opinion still seems valid.

Bart

[Sean_A]

Ed

I don't know, I thought we played with a couple of proper chaps.

I think we are looking at the green complexes from different perspectives (macro/micro).  By not terribly varied I mean nearly all the greens are raised and heavily bunkered.  I would agree that once on the green that they are varied.  Although, the use of the ridge bewteen fronting bunkers to create a false front effect seemed to be prevalent quite a bit.

Ciao

Sean, I pulled this quote from your "Its Been An Interesting GCA Year" thread since I didn't want to hijack that thread and thought it fit more here.  Here is a ground level picture of each green immediately followed by an overhead image from Google Earth...  

#1 - Double Plateau



#2



#3 - Short



#4 - Bottle



#5 - Alps (Ha!)



#6 - Redan



#7 - Road



#8



#9 - Long



#10 - Cape




#11 - Maiden




#12




#13 - Eden



#14




#15 - Raynor's Prize Dogleg



#16 - Biarritz



#17 - Punchbowl



#18 - Home



What I see is a tremendous amount of variation in terms of green elevation (some low, some slightly raised, some significantly raised), contours (ranging from subtle to crazy wild), size (from tiny to enormous), shape, angles and orientation and similarly in terms of bunker depth, size, shape and placement.  And I think they are consistent with other MacRaynor courses I have played.  If you feel Yeamans greens are just too bunkered for your tastes, I can accept that position.  But absent such a conceptual issue, I don't quite see the objection.

Ed

PS - I'll take your word for it on your playing partners, although I have my doubts.

Ed

Thanks for posting the aerials.  They are a cool look at the green orientation with the bunkers.  However, I think your photos show that there are many raised greens which are heavily bunkered - too many imo.  This was my premise and so far as I can tell, your pix bear this out.  I have no beef what so ever with the orientatiion of the greens nor the contouring.  Both aspects are very good.  All along I have been saying that the problem I have with the greens, in general, is that the penalty for missing the target is the predictable high wall bunker recovery - which I believe lessens the effectiveness of the greens because one doesn't get to do as much ground chipping - which I believe really shows off the quality of the greens.  Hence, if the bunker scheme was more imaginative and reduced, I think the course would be better served.  Additionally, as I stated before, I realize that this sort of design is Raynor's thing and accept it.  

An interesting side note is that the best green on the course, #1, is a grade level gem which isn't so tightly bunkered.  Although, two of the best greens, #10 & #14 (11 was lovely as well) are superb examples of raised greens.  So maybe you are right, perhaps my only problem is really with the (seemingly) relentless greenside bunker scheme.    

At the end of the day,  I believe Yeamans to be a very good course (I think I gave it a 6, maybe a 7 in the recent GCAers poll) and it is certainly one of the best conditioned I have ever seen in the States.  One where with more plays I think I could learn to like and appreciate it more.  The course certainly has the interest factor to keep the punters coming back, especially to learn the greens.  One play isn't nearly enough decipher those buggers.  I thought Kiawah was a better course, but I much preferred Yeamans and indeed, it isn't that far away from making my favourites list. Perhaps that is because I have never seen anything quite like Yeamans and I need to get my head round the idea of such penal (perhaps exacting is a better term) greenside bunkering.  My main criticism is more focused on what I personally believe could make the course more interesting, varied and playable.  As an example, I didn't see a lot of brilliant bunker play on my one go.  What I saw were guys struggling big time to cope with the bunkers and there was a fair amount of bunker play which I imagine is quite common.  Jeepers, just counting myself, I think I virtually had the same bunker shot (high wall/firm sand) something like five times and I saw it many more times throughout the round.  Yet, I didn't see but one or two good sand shots in the lot.  Okay, maybe one has to adjust their idea of what good is when playing Yeamans!

Anyway, thanks for continuing the conversation.  I enjoy recounting my game at Yeamans despite my inferior play.  It was a pleasure to play and I look forward to a future game playing a Raynor with dolts who can correct my opinions.  

Ciao

[Ed Oden]

Sean, thanks for the response.  As you know, I respect your opinion.  So I am always interested when we see things differently, as we do here.  That often means I am missing something.  A few thoughts...

- I think you overstate the severity of the vast majority of Yeamans bunkers.  In my opinion, there are many which are not overly deep or particularly difficult solely due to their design.  And they certainly are no more severe than any of the other Raynor or CBM courses I've played.  

- What I do see are a handful of extremely deep and tough bunkers.  In particular, the bunkers on #6, #10, #11 and #14 from the rest.  But I find it ironic that you specifically note each of these holes as being among the best on the course.  Take those 4 holes away and I think the impact of the bunkering would be significantly lessened...along with the quality of the course.  

- All that being said, I agree that the bunkers at Yeamans generally do PLAY difficult.  But, in my opinion, that is more a matter of maintenance than design.  There is less sand in Yeamans' bunkers than any other course I have played (low budget munis excluded).  You often can't play a typical explosion shot.  So it doesn't surprise me in the least that you did not notice a lot of stellar bunker play during your visit.

- As for the greens, I similarly do not see that many which are significantly raised.  Again, the most severely raised are among your favorites.  And those that are only slightly raised, in my view, generally blend in fabulously with the surrounds so they do not feel inordinately so.  Question:  At the time Yeamans was designed/built, wouldn't pushup greens have been largely a function of drainage?  

Happy New Year!

Ed

[Sean_A]

Sean, thanks for the response.  As you know, I respect your opinion.  So I am always interested when we see things differently, as we do here.  That often means I am missing something.  A few thoughts...

- I think you overstate the severity of the vast majority of Yeamans bunkers.  In my opinion, there are many which are not overly deep or particularly difficult solely due to their design.  And they certainly are no more severe than any of the other Raynor or CBM courses I've played.  

- What I do see are a handful of extremely deep and tough bunkers.  In particular, the bunkers on #6, #10, #11 and #14 from the rest.  But I find it ironic that you specifically note each of these holes as being among the best on the course.  Take those 4 holes away and I think the impact of the bunkering would be significantly lessened...along with the quality of the course.  

- All that being said, I agree that the bunkers at Yeamans generally do PLAY difficult.  But, in my opinion, that is more a matter of maintenance than design.  There is less sand in Yeamans' bunkers than any other course I have played (low budget munis excluded).  You often can't play a typical explosion shot.  So it doesn't surprise me in the least that you did not notice a lot of stellar bunker play during your visit.

- As for the greens, I similarly do not see that many which are significantly raised.  Again, the most severely raised are among your favorites.  And those that are only slightly raised, in my view, generally blend in fabulously with the surrounds so they do not feel inordinately so.  Question:  At the time Yeamans was designed/built, wouldn't pushup greens have been largely a function of drainage?  

Happy New Year!

Ed

Ed

There is no question the firm sand makes the bunkers play far harder.  Whether or not this was the original design intent, I don't know.  I consider myself a decent bunker player and didn't really have any fears of dumping shots.  However, I did play away from pins on most bunker shots.  I only went for the hole three times and two were sort of collection hole locations so they were relatively easy and I did get up n down my one and only time on one of these.  On the other I wanted to see how hard the shot really was and I hit it about as good as shot as I could and didn't keep the ball on the green.  That said, I don't mind, check that, I applaud brutish bunkers, but there doesn't need to be anything like the number Yeamans has.  Its a recipe for repetitive shots - which is a great shame given the interest of the greens.  To a large extent for courses of its age, the more bunkers the more green pads are raised.  Perhaps it is a drainage issue, but in any case, the land is flat and so raised greens have to come into the equation to create variety only I would chucked the sand somewhere else and left grassy hollows much more often.  I recall playing a Banks with many of its greenside bunkers missing and I thought it was excellent.  IMO, even the greens which are raised only a few feet can make a hole a heavily bunkered green very difficult even if one has gained the correct angle of approach.  So in the end, yes, I think you are right, I really object to the repetitive bunker schemes and the quantity of bunkers.  I would much rather see more availability of the ground game - no surprise there coming from me.  That is why I rate the course highly, but don't really count Yeamans among my top favourites, but more exposure could change that attitude. 

Ciao

[Ed Oden]

Sean, I'm curious, when you see pictures of other CBM/Raynor courses, do you have the same reaction?

Ed

[Sean_A]

Sean, I'm curious, when you see pictures of other CBM/Raynor courses, do you have the same reaction?

Ed

Ed

No, don't really see the same thing though I must admit there is striking similarity when I do see the various pix.  That said, I think the Camargo pix look very different to YH in the placement of the bunkers, but the pix of Chicago look quite similar except for the bunkering doesn' appear as severe as YH.  I used to think how horribly unnatural the Raynor style is, but not anymore.   It was a pleasant surprise to find YYH plays better than it looks.

Ciao 

[Sean_A]

I had a second look last week and I sure liked what I saw!

Ciao

[Ed Oden]

I had a second look last week and I sure liked what I saw!

Ciao

Sean, details please.  How has your opinion changed?  Better playing partners this time around?

Ed

[John Shimp]

Sean,
Great writeup.  I particularly like the way you "boxed up" 14.  I too think it is a near world class hole but had thought it just a bit short.  Any interest/difficulty off the tee would make it greater maybe without more length. 

What are your thoughts on 15.  Clearly long but I think it is the hole with the most crucial drive to score well.  Left but not too far left make it a much easier hole than anything down the right where you are left with 200+ approach.


I'd love it if you could make it to Aiken to see Palmetto next time you are in the Carolinas.  It a very different course than Yeamans and one that folks struggle to understand often times.

[Ben Sims]

Sean,

I have always loved this thread.  Looking at aerials of Yeamans Hall, I am dumbfounded at the simplicity.  There are many reasons why it "works".  Maybe I'm being optimistic here, but their maintenance budget can't be very high.  I don't understand why more modern archies aren't tackling this type of architecture. 

This thread also demonstrates how a few well placed hazards fairway hazards, along with a superb set of greens, can make an amazing course on relatively mundane ground.  Seems like an obvious formula.  But if it was, it would be far more prevalent. 

[Sean_A]

I had a second look last week and I sure liked what I saw!

Ciao

Sean, details please.  How has your opinion changed?  Better playing partners this time around?

Ed

Ed

I think there are a few reasons why YHC is growing on me.  First and foremost, the greens.  I am critical of the greens not being a bit more varied in terms of grade level and hazards, but the angles created by the shapes of the greens around bunkers is outstanding.  To continue with the greens, they are a wonderful set of slopes and contours always probing, but never going overboard.  Second, nearly all the drives ask the player to seek out the best way to attack the greens and those best ways can change depending on the hole locations.  Third, I am in awe of how the course can play so difficult yet it is only 6600 flat yards.  I know the course hasn't been lengthened too much since it opened and it serves to remind me just hard courses of this era by Raynor, Tillie and Flynn must have been for their memberships.  Fourth, I am a fan of simplicity and YHC is that in a nutshell.  The course came across as more complicated on my initial visit, but it isn't really.  Like many of my favourite courses, it is only as complicated as the golfer makes it.  There is no need to over-think YHC.  The strategies are quite evident even if the penalty for loose or safe play isn't immediately so.  I would also mention the rough which is among the best I have ever come across.  It seems odd to praise rough, but the idea of not losing a ball nor having to hack out to safety, yet have challenging lies is what every club should aspire to.  Fifth, the course is a grand walk in which it is easy to lose one's bearings, but the golfer is never far from the house.  Finally, the entire club has a feel good factor which is difficult to find, preserve or replicate. 

I still believe the course would be better if less sand were employed and yet that same bold style used for hollows and humps, but I accept I am likely in the minority.  But the Raynor mantra seems to be done so well that it is unreasonable not to give the course its propers regardless of personal preferences. 

John

15 caught me out last year.  I was too bold to the left when there is loads of safe space right.  You are right, going right left me a longer approach with a 7 wood, but by then I had accepted that the course was playing much longer than last year.  I had several wedge approaches last year in which I was hitting more like 6 iron this year - including #s 10 and 14.   

Ben

I can't take credit for this thread.  Ed's love of YHC and curiosity of opinion on the course is the real engine driving the show.   

Ciao

[Bart Bradley]

  The course came across as more complicated on my initial visit, but it isn't really. 

Sean:

I think this is an interesting point to ponder.

When I played there, I thought the course looked initially simple...but as I played, the absolute complexity of the angles and greens and strategy became increasingly apparent.  This seems to be just the opposite of your experience.  I don't think the place is the least bit simple...  As you said, it is amazing how difficult the course can play.  Just a question, but if the place is really not complicated, how come it presents such a challenge?


It is a GREAT place.

Bart

[Sean_A]

  The course came across as more complicated on my initial visit, but it isn't really. 

Sean:

I think this is an interesting point to ponder.

When I played there, I thought the course looked initially simple...but as I played, the absolute complexity of the angles and greens and strategy became increasingly apparent.  This seems to be just the opposite of your experience.  I don't think the place is the least bit simple...  As you said, it is amazing how difficult the course can play.  Just a question, but if the place is really not complicated, how come it presents such a challenge?


It is a GREAT place.

Bart

Bart

I think the course plays difficult because of the combination of exceptional greens and fairways angles which can take nearly full advantage of what the greens offer.  It isn't a complicated course when standing on the tees.  The strategies of the holes are very apparent.  Indeed, the strategies match the bluntness of the features.  There is very little subtlety about YHC.

Ciao   

[Bart Bradley]

  The course came across as more complicated on my initial visit, but it isn't really. 

Sean:

I think this is an interesting point to ponder.

When I played there, I thought the course looked initially simple...but as I played, the absolute complexity of the angles and greens and strategy became increasingly apparent.  This seems to be just the opposite of your experience.  I don't think the place is the least bit simple...  As you said, it is amazing how difficult the course can play.  Just a question, but if the place is really not complicated, how come it presents such a challenge?


It is a GREAT place.

Bart

Bart

I think the course plays difficult because of the combination of exceptional greens and fairways angles which can take nearly full advantage of what the greens offer.  It isn't a complicated course when standing on the tees.  The strategies of the holes are very apparent.  Indeed, the strategies match the bluntness of the features.  There is very little subtlety about YHC.

Ciao   

Sean:

While I agree that the IDEAL strategy for most of the holes is apparent on the tee, what happens with a slight lack of execution of the tee ball?  When you are just slightly out of position (or substantially so) the strategy of the next shot is far from clear to me....In fact, I was constantly puzzled as to what I should attempt from those less than ideal positions.  You certainly are entitled to your opinion, but I find Yeamans to be remarkably subtle.  What do others have to say about the place:  subtle or blunt?

Bart