Is Yale The Greatest Tragedy In Golf?

[tonyt]

Rich, your point in the last paragraph just then, whilst a touch saddening, is indeed as true as it is practical.

I pray for some wealthy private clubs that are keepers of some of these gems, that they can come up with generations of anal retentive perfectionists.

[Mike Hendren]

Of all sad words of tongue and pen the saddest are these - what might have been

John Greenleaf Whittier

Even more sad is "what might BE."  

I've yet to play Yale, but I think I'll go re-read Scotland's Gift: Golf.

Regards,

Mike

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Thank You Mike.

Maybe Rich can understand the point a little bit better by introducing Whittier. BTW, I went to school in Whittier, and grew up across the street from the City of Whittier (I grew-up in La Mirada)

We were taught a lot about JGW throughout my school years. But unfortunately I have forgotten much of it. Maybe it carried over in my thinking?

Rich and others, I don't undestand where you are getting that both Tim and myself didn't like or appreciate Yale. Now you might not care about the conditioning of Yale or the state of its architecture, but if I may utilize an analogy that may help carry the point further.

Say I own this really cool, original stock 1923 Ford Coupe, but it has been neglected and ill-maintained by its owners in past years, so much that they (the owners) went to a automotive specialist who says he knows how to get the car running to its true form again. They let him take the car and get it running again, only when they come to pick the car up, the specialist has changed the engine to a small block Chevrolet; added some low profile tires and really cool Boyd aluminum wheels, changed the entire interior toleather seats; painted it a bright yellow and is ready to take to the highways. It cost a lot of money to fix the car, but the owner really didn't want the car fixed-up like that. He wanted it to just run like the car was designed, with maybe new paint, but only in an original color, stock interior, stock wheels and tires, and its original engine or facsimile there of.

That's what I think what has happened at Yale. hey knew they had the Ford Coupe, and they wanted it to run like it was designed,and unfortunately, the person in charge of the repair modernized this classic.

While it maybe a cool car to some, it was much cooler as the car was intended. And that is fine--to each his own.  But one thing is for sure. Don't call it a Ford Coupe--call it a MODIFIED Ford Coupe, only the person doing the work didn't really have a cool how to make the small block Chevy run right, and the Boyd Wheels and tires were cheap imitation copies,and the paint, well, it has all sorts of runs and orange peel in the paint.

Will a car like this be featured in Hot Rod Magazine? Should it be featured, given the fact that the work performed on the car was substandard?

I don't think so, but that doesn't mean that I can't go to the local car show in the parking lot of Giovanni's Pizza on Wednesday night and say, "Oh look, a 23' Ford Coupe! What a great car! It's sad the owners didn't take better care of it........ But boy, what I would do if I bought it from this guy who owns it! I would completely refurbish it!"

[Mike Hendren]

Tommy,

Or, let's say the Huckter, Scott or any other treehouse member won a date with Demi Moore only to arrive at her residence to discover that she had put on thirty pounds, was dressed in sweats and had shaved her head but not her underarms.  I've no doubt Huckster, Scott et al would enjoy her intimate company nonetheless.  However, I suspect both Demi and her GCA paramour would prefer that she be well kept and preserved, playing firm and fast.

Regards,

Mike

[Tim_Weiman]

Rich Goodale:

Yale is far from a waste of time. If you somehow got that from my previous comments than either I haven't expressed myself very well or we speak a different language.

So, let me push the re-set button and start over.

My recent visit to Yale hardly instilled a desire to vilify the current management or boycott the place. To the contrary, I expressed to my host Geoff Childs that it must be nice to live in the area and play the course on a regular basis. If you ever get in the area, I'd encourage you to play the course.

My visit did encourage me to ask - and answer for myself - a series of questions:

1) Are there a group of golf courses that are so inherently good that they ought to be maintained - both the architecture and the maintenance - to the highest standards possible?

2) If so, is Yale deserving to be in this elite group?

3) If Yale does in fact belong, is there in fact a large gap between what the course is today and what it could be with the proper care, including a restoration effort and a long term quality maintenance program?

4) Where does Yale stand in the world of golf architecture in terms of how special it really is and how disappointing the care for the course has been?

Rich, in my mind the answers are as follows:

1) Yes, there are a special group of golf courses in the world that ought to be lovingly maintained for generations to come.

2) I don't know exactly how long the list would be, but Yale would definitely be included.

3) Yes, unfortunately there is a large gap between what Yale is today and what it could be.

4) I'm hard pressed to think of many golf courses that are a special as Yale and where the long term care has been so disappointing.

That being the case, I would argue that Yale may well be the greatest tragedy in golf. I know some might not like the word "tragedy", but I never intended to cover the universe of all things including starving children. I'm limiting the discussion to golf architecture.

I applaud the efforts of Geoff Childs and George Bahto to try and make a difference at Yale.

[GeoffreyC]

Tim

That last post of yours is right on the mark.  I think its important to keep the athletic department and all those responsible for the current upkeep and future developments at the course on public notice that they can not slip under the radar and quietly pretend that they are faithfully restoring this golf course as they claim to the members when asking for their money.

[George_Bahto]

PLAYING THE YALE GOLF COURSE TODAY IS LIKE LOOKING AT THE A GREAT PAINTING THROUGH FROSTED GLASS.

HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO DRIVE A 'VETTE WITH 2 SPARK PLUGS WIRES OFF???    

SURE STILL PRETTY COOL AND FUN BUT YOU'RE MISSING THE FULL EXPERIENCE OF A GREAT VEHICLE.

(the caps were not a typo)

[ForkaB]

Thanks, Tim

I can't really comment on points 2-4 due to ignorance.  My personal opinion is that your point 1 is far too narrow.  I think that ALL golf courses should be maintained to the highest possible standard, with "possible" being the operative word.  I do underrstnad your point of view, but I'm not sure, yet, that it would be a better idea to spend the limited resources (financial and intellectual) of the afficionado community on a small number of venues (such as Yale) than in trying to raise awareness on a broader scale.  I am sceptical of the seeming belief by some that a fully restored and properly maintained Yale would make more of a difference than, say, 100 "improved" and well maintained and operated muni/daily fee/private courses with less pedigree, spread around the country.

George

Would you rather look at a Vermeer under frosted glass or a Kincade (sic) under clear glass.  Would you rather drive a Trabant with all cylinder(s?) operative, or a slightly hanicapped 'vette?

...and, before you reply regarding my response to Tim, no, you can't turn a Kincade into a Vermeer, or a Trabant into a Corvette, but you can, IMHO, turn a medicore golf course into a very good one.  Isn't that what the "golden age" architects did when they improved places like Shinnecock, Muirfield and Lahinch. etc. etc.?

[tonyt]

But the golden age architects are now dead. So they aren't here to improve Yale again. So WE have to have a go. And their courses are a finite resource. Golden age courses lost or poorly maintained cannot be replaced by another new course, or by an improvement to a separate mediocre course.

Rich, I fully agree with you about a certain evolution that takes place that does contribute to a course's charm. But not if it is changing the look towards our contemporary accepted styles. All but the most sensitive neo-classic work seems to take on a modern look, and we already have the modern look being built every day all over the world. I'm comfortable with the long term preservation of the principles of what we do nowadays. It's so prolific, it would be virtually impossible to eventually kill it off. But I can't feel as safe about the pre-WW2 look. It's SO much rarer, and once it's gone, it's gone.

[Tim_Weiman]

Rich,

Regarding #1, again, I don't know how long the list should be. Geoff Shackelford put together a list of about 35 other courses he wished he had the USGA millions to restore (see "Grounds for Golf").

If you could expand the list to 100 or more or even all courses, all the better, but also quite ambitious.

With respect to Yale, I think some consciousness raising is appropriate. I see it as more worthy than Bethpage Black, for example.

I'd also like to know more about the current condition of Timber Point......maybe that's another thread.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Rich, Where in this am I trying to villify management? I may be taking them to task for neglecting the course, but I don't look at them as villans, and I made that very clear to them while having our discussion about the Golf Course. I do understand some of their plight.

In My Opinion, they are caught in a web of bueracracy that is affecting the design and play of the golf course. I payed to play, so as a CUSTOMER, (I don't think I wasted my money either.) I felt it was neccessary to tell them the Seth Raynor designed course, that they think was designed by C.B. MacDonald was in fact getting further and further from being that, and that they are on a path to lose all of historical signifigance in doing so.

In fact, I'm glad I got to pay, and even told them that because I felt it allowed me to speak my peace with them, and you know what, they may have not listened but they surely will remember me for doing it.

I felt the course deserved it too.

You see, they are in fact trying to make the course better, but are going about it the wrong way, and don't understand the impact of it all. For example, they thnk the bunker on #18 that is right of the green looks like the original, or at least portrays what it should look like. They should use this bunker as a perfect example of what they don't understand, as well as the way mounds are heavily grassed with rough grasses that were intended to turbo kick golf balls into play as part of the Seth Raynor ideal. What fun is it when one can't play the Redan as it was meant to be played, because there is no kick or wha is the use of having interesting putting surfaces flattened because golf greens aren't supposed to be that contoured?

Rich, I understand my attempts at changing the world are minscule, but they re in fact worthy for the designs themselves. Anything less effort is futile.

[ForkaB]

Tommy

You started your critique of Yale by saying:  "What a golf course, and what a bunch of nincompoops running the place."  I'd hate to hear what you might say if you ever wanted to try to vilify them.....

Nevertheless, keep up the good fight.  Much as I think it's a quixotic one, I support your quest.

[TEPaul]

This by tonyt is one of the most intelligent remarks on this subject I've seen in a long time;

"But the golden age architects are now dead. So they aren't here to improve Yale again. So WE have to have a go. And their courses are a finite resource. Golden age courses lost or poorly maintained cannot be replaced by another new course, or by an improvement to a separate mediocre course.

Rich, I fully agree with you about a certain evolution that takes place that does contribute to a course's charm. But not if it is changing the look towards our contemporary accepted styles. All but the most sensitive neo-classic work seems to take on a modern look, and we already have the modern look being built every day all over the world.

Particularly those last two sentences!

And it seems to me that sometimes a guy like Rich Goodale seems to struggle with the idea of "evolution" in golf course architecture, and what it means, what it can and can't do, and consequently to discount the sentiments and the direction of some "purists" or "preservationists" in architecture.

I'd like to propose (again) that this subject, and perhaps Yale is an excellent example, be looked at in two quite separate categories.

1. The architecture of the golf course.
2. The "look" and maintenance practices of the golf course.

To some extent these two things do tend to meld together but not to the extent they can't and shouldn't be looked at separately.

To me the ARCHITECTURE of the golf course can be, and should be looked at as something that can be, and should be rather permanently maintained and preserved--and restored if previously altered and not functioning as well as it apparently once did. In this sense the course does NOT need to have an architect such as Rulewich making changes to the course in the name of modernization or redesign or whatever it's called. It probably would do much better to have someone such as Bahto restore the architecture to more of what it once was (in this sense the apparent sentiment of some who control Yale that restoring the old architecture would make the course play too difficult is sort of semi-ridiculous and really is sort of tragic!).

But the "look" and the maintenance practices are sort of another story. I think they should even be slightly separated even as a single category. "Look" is a tough one to pinpoint but there are some architects (and supers) out there right now that are doing a damn fine job of preserving the "look" of some of the old "Golden Age" architecture really well--and even in the context of the realities of golf today!

Maintenance practices, however, today vs yesteryear (the Golden Age) are sort of a different matter. I'll never forget what Jim Finegan said some years ago about the old courses and modern advancements in some things in golf such as agronomy and maintenance practices. That was that much of the old stuff was and is really wonderful but it can actually be improved over what it ever was in the old days by understanding how certain things that occured after it was completed can make it both play and look better than it ever did in the old days--even at its best! That to me gets into the world of modern maintenance practices, particularly superlative agronomic practices.

We should all be realistic about this and appreciate some of the things those earlier architects and golfers struggled with despite some really stunning architecture--obviously such as Yale. And that was unquestionable some rather dismal and problematic agronomic maintenance practices!

Basically if the likes of Macdonald and Raynor could see the agronomic maintenance practices that are going on right now at a course such as NGLA they'd be beside themselves with glee and pride.

Even a course such as NGLA probably needs to still remain vigilant on preserving its architecture--because a course like that one has earned that right BIGTIME to be architecturally preserved, at this point, certainly it has in my book.

Yale needs to begin to understand better its original architecture first and to appreciate it for what it was! That's ultimately important and after that it needs to do the things necessary to bring back a certain "look" and then apply maintenance practices that may be able to make that course and its playbality sing even better than it ever did back in the Golden Age when it was playing at its best!

In some ways Yale may be about to do that in maintenance. But to accomplish that they'll need to listen carefully to what it takes and will obviously have to realize they may need to spend more money on maintenance then they have. Either that or go about it in a different way.  

But again, to me, it's very important in these discussions to separate the architectural part of the course from the "look" and the maintenance practices. They definitely do meld together in various ways but they aren't synonymous.

And the subject of "evolution" in golf architecture is not something that should ever gum up or stop a course from attempting to restore in various ways. And the subject of "evolution" should not confuse or stop any of these discussions on restoration or preservation either--certainly not in the subject of the architectural part, nor in the subject of "look" or maintenance practices.

"Evolution" is another and separate subject to be considered in restoration or preservation. "Evolution", to me anyway, can sometimes be looked at like the lines and age on someone's face! It should be looked at as a sort of character thing. Sometimes it can make a face more beautiful than when it was young and clean and without lines--and sometimes it doesn't. But often "evolution" can make a course more interesting even than it ever was! "Evolution" in architecture is something that needs to be carefully considered and in a piecemeal way when a course is undergoing a restoration. It gets into both look and playability but its so gradual (from play, time and tide) it can be sort of a neat factor!

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Rich,
I don't see calling them a bunch of nincompoops as painting them as villans. They aren't doing anything devious other then just plainly not understanding what they have.

As far as being Quioxtic, You and Tom like to use that term about me a lot. And that is O.K. but I see this as something everyone should get behind simply because it is the cause for Great golf to survive. What would you say or do if someone would be treating Dornoch or Petreavie:) in the same way?

[ForkaB]

Tommy

I said you "vilified" Yale's mangement, not that you called them "villains."  They are two different things.  Calling somebody a "nincompoop" qualifies for "vilification" at least in my dictionary.........

As for Dornoch, it was mildly butchered and severely maintenance un-melded in the mid-1980s, which I have pointed out many times before.  What I (and many others) did at the time was make our feelings known, as subtly as posssible, and the pendulum eventually swung back.  In any case, since 1/3 of the course is a post-WWII construction by a group of nobodies (and thus not truly, purely "Golden Age") what happens to it probably doesn't really matter to anybody interested in the highest forms of GCArt.

TE Paul

I think that I was one of the first on this site to actively promote the idea that golf courses evolve over time.  Of course GCA also evolves as standards, prefreences and technologies (play and construction) change.  I have never, not do I know of anybody on this site who has ever, advocated adding "modern" CGA preferences and/or "contemporary accepted styles" to classic courses.  I do believe that the ante-natal look of many classic courses (including Yale) are at least partly unsustainable (particularly in the details) in the real world.  I wonder if the 18th green at Yale, with those two fascinating but unpinnable fingers long and short right, and the waste bunker bunker could have not morphed into something looking at least somewhat like the picture of today (with the splash buildup and the smoothed out green shape).  I like looking at these old hairy pictures as much as the next man, but I do not think that they are practical guides to what can be built and maintained today.   Find another straw man, please.

PS--how did you and Mucci do in the Singles?

[THuckaby2]

I am not Jack Handey on this issue.

In the end, I enjoyed playing the golf course.  If that's the biggest tragedy in golf, then golf is in VERY good shape.

TH

[TEPaul]

Rich Goodale said;

"TE Paul

I think that I was one of the first on this site to actively promote the idea that golf courses evolve over time.  Of course GCA also evolves as standards, prefreences and technologies (play and construction) change.  I have never, not do I know of anybody on this site who has ever, advocated adding "modern" CGA preferences and/or "contemporary accepted styles" to classic courses.  I do believe that the ante-natal look of many classic courses (including Yale) are at least partly unsustainable (particularly in the details) in the real world.  I wonder if the 18th green at Yale, with those two fascinating but unpinnable fingers long and short right, and the waste bunker bunker could have not morphed into something looking at least somewhat like the picture of today (with the splash buildup and the smoothed out green shape).  I like looking at these old hairy pictures as much as the next man, but I do not think that they are practical guides to what can be built and maintained today.  Find another straw man, please."

Rich:

I'm afraid I'm having a hard time understanding what you're talking about here--but it wouldn't be the first time.

"I think that I was one of the first on this site to actively promote the idea that golf courses evolve over time. "

With all respect to you I hardly think you're the first one to promote that idea. Evolution in golf architecture was a factor that has been around with architects, supers and memberships long long before you and I were born and one recognized as a factor in architecture, maintenance and any kind of restoration for many many years, I'm sure (have you ever considered the original MAN-MADE sleepers of the original NATURAL dunes bunkering, for instance? Obviously Pete Dye did!). I believe it's a factor that's taken on new meaning (and complexity) these days in the context of what to do about it (evolution) in the ever increasing restoration projects of these days.

"I do believe that the ante-natal look of many classic courses (including Yale) are at least partly unsustainable (particularly in the details) in the real world."

I have virtually no idea what you're talking about with that statement. 'Ante-natal look'? What is that? Is that the look of a golf course such as Yale before it was born---before it was built?

"I wonder if the 18th green at Yale, with those two fascinating but unpinnable fingers long and short right, and the waste bunker bunker could have not morphed into something looking at least somewhat like the picture of today (with the splash buildup and the smoothed out green shape)."

I'm sure you do wonder about that Rich. You probably wonder about it because you really don't know that much about maintenance practices that can be and are preservationist or even restorative--or even partially evolutionary.

Either do I really but I'm learning fast or certainly trying to--even from someone who might have some real effect soon on Yale.

But maintenance practices that "morph" (as you say) ((I guess that's another term of yours for "evolution")) a hole like #18 from what it originally was into what it appears to be in those photos today are basically POOR maintenance practices, in my opinion. They're anything but preservationist or restorative maintenance practices.

And that's definitely NOT to say that preservationist maintenance practices and a certain amount of natural "evolution" cannot take place simultaneously over time--even over many decades as had happened at a golf course such as Merion!

I could be wrong but I have a feeling you somehow struggle with that idea, concept and realization. At least, I feel you must to use a term such as 'ante-natal' which frankly I can't possibly understand at all. Please tell me what you mean by that or what you think it means in the context of architecture and it's ongoing maintenance practices whether good or bad, particularly at a course such as Yale.

And both you and I should definitely NOT assume that correct preservationist or restorative maintenance practices that can today return that hole to something like what it looked like and played like just might be that much more expense to maintain---or even more expensive at all. It may be but that's not a certainty in my book. The important thing to do is to figure out first how to do it, how much of a cost difference it might be and what the value of that would be in the overall!

As Pat Mucci said on another post on this thread a lot of all this simply has to do with an understanding and a real appreciaiton of what Yale is--or was--particularly amongst those at Yale and returning it do that.

At this point it appears that those who control and run Yale may not be understanding that or understanding that it makes much of a difference.

That's why it probably is up to some of us on here who see it differently to try to explain to them why it might make a difference--why it may add value back to what they basically have. If such as us (TommyN, GeoffC, GBahto and others) can explain that to them--without completely pissing them off as has probably already happened with some other clubs and courses then there might be a chance that Yale will see better days both architecturally and maintenance-wise!

But in the meantime we all should realize there always will be people out there and even people at Yale who play the course and even have the responsibility of running the place who will have a contrary attitude and opinion--or who just may never understand or even care.

There're lots of people out there who have zero understanding of what some of the great old architecture and the way it can be when well maintained today is all about. People such as this rpurd who just popped up again on here and mentioned his feeling about Yale compared to NHCC. NHCC he feels is better and Yale not really worth considering because NHCC is immaculate and doesn't turn the rounds per year of Yale.

Where is this guy rpurd going on here? What's he trying to accomplish? Is he just trying to be as adverserial as he can possibly be all the time to this site (this is the same guy who kept calling me TEPasshole on here--and for what reason?)? The same guy who said my own club and course was a piece of crap. This is the same guy who thinks Ron Prichard is trying to destroy bunkering up and down the East coast by restoring it!

I'm not for restricting anyone's opinion on here--I'm for free expression of any kind but just like anyone else I'm going to call a spade a spade---and I don't care how politically incorrect that sounds--because to me it's just a small shovel---a bunch of which Yale probably needs in the hands of the likes of Kittleman and Bahto!!    

[George Pazin]

I take your point about the value of having "living museums" of "Golden age" architecture, but I wonder about the practicality.  I'd be surprised if a construction like the old 18th green at Yale, whose picture is above in this thread, could maintain that shape and that overall scrufty look without inordinate amounts of loving care.  Who would pay for that, and how would they justify the added cost and the look to the 98% of the golfing public who would prefer that green site as it is today?

Just wondering if anyone out there can comment on how much more difficult it would be to maintain the course as it appears in the older photo. The maintenance ignorant part of me thinks that any additional handwork would be offset by maintaining less of the course. Anyone?

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom Huckaby:

I'm curious. If Yale isn't the biggest tragedy in golf, what one or two courses would you nominate as an alternative?

[THuckaby2]

Tim:

I don't take this stuff that seriously nor think that deeply.  Coming around full circle on this, any course that once was enjoyed by golfers and no longer exists to be played is a far, far bigger tragedy than Yale, in my book.

TH

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom Huckaby:

As I'm sure you know, Daniel Wexler did a couple books on lost courses and he surely documented some real tragedies - golf architecture tragedies that is, not matters of life and death.

My thread was directed at considering another group of courses: those that still exist, but are not in their best form.

Do you have a view about any courses that are more "tragic" than Yale in this sense?

[TEPaul]

George Pazin asked;

"Just wondering if anyone out there can comment on how much more difficult it would be to maintain the course as it appears in the older photo. The maintenance ignorant part of me thinks that any additional handwork would be offset by maintaining less of the course. Anyone?"

GeorgeP:

I can tell you right now that in my opinion a couple of guys like Bill Salinetti and Matt Burrows (NGLA) could comment on that intelligently and comprehensively without question. This kind of thing is right up their ally and is lots of what they plan and hope to do with NGLA. But one should understand the differentiation here in certain aspects. We're talking really good agronomy on the playing surfaces and probably the rougher and less maintained look and playability of the areas where golfers aren't supposed to go strategically!

This all to me is what using the new and marvelous advances in agronomics on the one hand for playable areas and maintaining and preserving the old original look in the areas that are supposed to be dicey and rougher and more rugged is all about!

This is all about regenerating the function of golf's features such as bunkering and rough areas to what they were meant to accomplish in golf strategically. This is all about returning an architect's strategic intent and making certain courses play the way they were designed and intended to be played. The kicker and beauty of all this is these kinds of guys can make the playable areas better and more interesting to play than C.B or Seth Raynor could have ever dreamed of.

I would say if C.B or Seth could have seen NGLA last weekend they would've been damned proud!  And it appears these two young men are not even where they want the course to be yet. Good things are in the future of NGLA! That's the maintenance part of it.

[THuckaby2]

Tim:

I own both of Daniel Wexler's books and have enjoyed each of them.  Yes, those are ALL bigger tragedies than Yale.  But then again, so is the old shithole known as Oak Ridge GC, which used to be 2 miles from where I now live, now has condos all over it.  It was truly an awful golf course and wouldn't be worth Daniel's time to document, but I had a lot of fun playing there and it kills me every time I drive by and see the condos.  

As for courses that still exist but are not in their best form, hell if I know.  As I say, I try to have fun with this and I am not Jack Handey.  I just saw so little tragedy having a blast playing Yale, it's hard for me to think of it that way, and thus I questioned the premise of your thread rather than answer directly.  That being said, I do understand the tragedy and admire the efforts of Childs / Bahto to rectify it, as frustrated as they may be.  And as I have said before in this thread, maybe it is the greatest tragedy among golf courses that still exist but have been bastardized... hell if I know.  I don't seek out, nor study such things.  More power to those that do, though!

TH

ps - in case you miss the Jack Handey reference, it comes from an old Saturday Night Live.  Funny stuff.

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom Huckaby:

One of the recurring difficulties with GCA threads is that so often they go off in multiple directions and the question originally asked gets lost or forgotten.

Sometimes this is because the person originating the thread wasn't clear enough in what he was asking. Sometimes the person was clear but for whatever reason folks still take the thread in another direction rather than starting another thread on a new topic.

I"m not sure how well I did posing my original question, Moreover, subsequent attempts to clarify may not have helped.

Anyway, the courses Daniel Wexler documented as lost courses may well all be greater tragedies than Yale. I don't know. They are no longer with us. Lido and the rest aren't going to be seen again, unfortunately.

My purpose for asking about Yale was to focus on courses that still exist and where a case could be made for a significant effort to bring them and maintain them to their best form.

Some people might not like the focus on a small number of elite courses and argue that it would be better to address the problems at many courses. If the energy and funding can be found to do that, I'd be all for it.

But, inevitably, the will, the commitment and the budget for such efforts is often difficult to come by. That being the case, I'm more inclined to argue that certain venues are really special and that if any way could be found to bring these courses to their best form, it would be a wonderful thing. Not the solution to great world problems. Just one small step in favor of great golf architecture.

With that in mind, I'd still nominate Yale as being perhaps most deserving.

[THuckaby2]

Tim:

OK.

TH