Is Yale The Greatest Tragedy In Golf?

[THuckaby2]

Tommy:

Welcome back, and I look forward to many missives describing your recent adventures.  It's going to be very fun to hear about!  Please do share as much as you care to.

I joined Scott in saying Yale is fun to play in its current condition.  The bottom line is that it is so.  Yes, it sure as heck might be better, in a lot of ways.  But if one can't enjoy a round at Yale as it is today, one is plain and simple more into the study of architecture than the playing of the game.  There is nothing wrong whatsoever with that - hell, most people who participate here are definitely that way - but in the big wide real world of golf, that is a tiny minority.  So when it comes to playing the game, well... Yale ain't a tragedy as it is, that's all.

You ask "what difference is it going to make if people still consider the course fun to play and do nothing about it?"

To which I say, right on, brother, fight the fight.  More people DO need to care about what's going missing in our game and what is being bastardized.

The problem is, so few people do...

So my point is a very cynical, very pessimistic one.  Only a small minority cares how the course used to be, it's pretty damn fun as it is, so it just ain't gonna be changed.

That's not to say it SHOULDN'T BE... in a perfect world they'd give Geoffrey and George free reign and New Haven and the golf world would be way better for it.

The other problem is that the world isn't perfect.

Tragically so.

TH

[JakaB]

Since all that I know about architecture is only what I have learned here....and it being one of the things that I have learned is that Raynor was favorable to the geometric shape....couldn't the perfectly round bunkers now at Yale be considered Raynoresque..

[Scott_Burroughs]

Tommy,

Compared to 99% of courses out there, Yale is still a hell of a fun round of golf due to the routing, which is still there, and the rollercoaster ride that the course has.  Bunkering and some green shapes are what is the difference between a good and great Yale GC, but it's still plain fun.  You just happen to be one of the (pardon the term) snootiest people on earth when it comes to golf architecture.

How is the 1st green, with it's immense size and undulations (and partial blindness from fairway), still not fun?

What about the tee shot and approach to #3?  Yes the punchbowl is not there, nor the size out to the surrounds, but the blind Alps-like approach still is fun.

What about the blind approach on #8?

#9 needs no explanation.

#10 has the tee shot to a blind landing area, then that huge uphill approach to a green you can't see.

#11, tee shot blind and blind approach from far enough back.

#12 tee shot with hillocks and blind uphill approach to large two-tiered green.

#13 longish Redan from up high.

#14 tiny Knoll green.

#17 fun Principal's Nose on Double Plateau green.

#18 Roller coaster personified. 600 yards of way up and way down.


EDIT:  Huck, I said Yale was still a blast to play in it's current condition in my first post in this thread.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Scott, I just don't think you are getting the big picture here, and that's alright, go ahead. This way it will justify a wasted weekend, very soon up there in New Haven, playing a course that is a "once was." Then you can act like your having a good time.

Thats it for me on this thread. If I'm not getting through, I don't want to deal with it.

[THuckaby2]

Scott - thanks for the edit - I caught that and modified my post to say I joined you in this thinking.

Tommy - I believe each of Scott and I do understand what you are saying.  I just don't believe either of us would say Yale is patently awful as it is, and Scott listed the reasons why.  In terms of its place in the golf world and trends toward bastardizing great classic courses, then yes, what has occurred there is tragic and as I say, we do need people to fight the fight so this doesn't happen elsewhere.

It's just still a damn fun course to play, in many ways, and if that defeats the purpose of the crusade, well... that's a tragic reality also... which is really all I am trying to say.

I'd enjoy a weekend playing there any time.  I wouldn't kid myself that it isn'ts less than it was, or might be.  But I'd still have fun playing golf there.

And that is because as we've discussed many times, I am way more into playing the game than studying architecture.  I wish it were different, for purposes of this group... but just as I don't expect you to love playing there, for this reason, don't expect me NOT to enjoy playing there, and don't tell me I'm fooling myself about anything.

Not that you did, you said this to Scott!

TH

[Scott_Burroughs]

Tommy,

I understand your point of view and your opinion.  You're sometimes (often) unable to have fun golfing on a butchered/neglected once-great course because of the "once was" factor.   Most people, including many here, still can have fun playing them.  I've played a number of courses that have been signifcantly altered over the years that are still very good courses regardless.  

Compare Yale now to all courses in the L.A. area now.  How many currently are more fun to play than Yale?

Believe it or not, but fun can be had on a golf course that has been altered from it's original design for the worse.  And the course itself can still be fun.

[Scott_Burroughs]

Come to think of it, Tommy, why are you even going if you already know it's going to be a wasted weekend?  Go somewhere else.

[Ken_Cotner]

Tommy,

Compared to 99% of courses out there, Yale is still a hell of a fun round of golf due to the routing, which is still there, and the rollercoaster ride that the course has.  Bunkering and some green shapes are what is the difference between a good and great Yale GC, but it's still plain fun.  You just happen to be one of the (pardon the term) snootiest people on earth when it comes to golf architecture.

How is the 1st green, with it's immense size and undulations (and partial blindness from fairway), still not fun?

What about the tee shot and approach to #3?  Yes the punchbowl is not there, nor the size out to the surrounds, but the blind Alps-like approach still is fun.

What about the blind approach on #8?

#9 needs no explanation.

#10 has the tee shot to a blind landing area, then that huge uphill approach to a green you can't see.

#11, tee shot blind and blind approach from far enough back.

#12 tee shot with hillocks and blind uphill approach to large two-tiered green.

#13 longish Redan from up high.

#14 tiny Knoll green.

#17 fun Principal's Nose on Double Plateau green.

#18 Roller coaster personified. 600 yards of way up and way down.


EDIT:  Huck, I said Yale was still a blast to play in it's current condition in my first post in this thread.

Gee, Scott, how could you possibly enjoy any of the above features if the bunkers look different?  

KC, ducking...

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Ken, The problem isn't just vastly altered bunkers that have been filled-in, reshaped; or just plainly reconstructed. The problem is that many greens have been altered or for a better term "flattened" in the essence of easier putting; Mowing lines for the faiways and rough, looks as if the grounds crew simply goes out and mows without a definitive line on what to mow and at what height. Picture the Raynor trademark mounds that are utilized entirely for play. What happens if you can't use it for play? The features become unusable, and this is where the golf course really suffers. How is it supposed to play the way Raynor intended it to?

What about the Alps hole? Does it play like an Alps? Yes, they do intend to restore the Alps Mound, but even if they do, will it play like it should? What about the Principal's Nose feature on the Plateau 17th? Does it play better covered in weeds then it would as the way it was designed? While it may have the blinding affect of preventing view of the green, what happened to the sand that used to surround it?

This is the problem with Scott's analogy. Little attempt is made to understand the features of the golf course that at one time made it a famed and reputable golf course. Would Scott Burroughs go out of his way to visit Yale, if it was a new course that played exactly the same way as it does today and didn't have the reputaton of being a Seth Raynor design? I know I wouldn't, and I think there are many out there that would totally agree he wouldn't. If he disagrees, then he should make it a point to see the entire body of work from Roger Rulewich's career.

To celebrate Yale is like trying to celebrate the acheivements of OJ Simpson.

[Scott_Burroughs]

Tommy,

How can you possibly say the Yale is a RR design?  Yale is Rulewich in only the bunker shapes, some positions, and some green shapes and contours.  He did not do the routing, the size of some of the greens (#1, #9, #12, for example).  No one besides Raynor/Mac would have done the roller coaster routing that is Yale.  It would never ever get built today.  One blind shot is too many for most modern designs, not to mention the numerous ones at Yale.  Only perhaps Mike Strantz incorporates more than a few in a modern design.

Do yo call Riviera a Fazio design for his butchering of one hole?  What about after C&C did their work there that didn't go well?  Was it then a C&C design?

I went out of my way because it is a Raynor routing, still with a lot of the playable characteristics intact and a lot of the fun, too.

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.

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom Huckaby:

It is hard enough for anyone to make a difference at Yale. But now, if any opponents of restoring Yale read what you and Scott have written, it may be even more difficult. They could hold up a poster and say "gee, even the guys at Golfclubatlas think Yale is fine the way it is".

Why call Tommy "snotty"? Was CB MacDonald "snotty"? Do we want golf architects to adopt a "it's good enough" attitude? How do places like Yale or Friar's Head or Winged Foot get built without people trying to achieve excellence?

[THuckaby2]

Tim:

I did not call Tommy anything.  Scott said he was "one of the (pardon the term) snootiest people on earth when it comes to golf architecture", which I kinda agree with, lovingly at all times, Tommy (consider it a term of endearment).

I would never call anyone snotty here or anywhere.  Ok, maybe I call my kids that, but they deserve it.

As for the rest, I am just a grain of sand on the beach of golf, and if the Yale management is basing decisions on my endorsement, then maybe they really are as fucked up as people say.

By that I mean, I sure as hell don't take anything I say here all that seriously, and anyone who does ought to have their heads examined.  This is all just treehouse banter, nothing more, nothing less.

And Yale remains a damn fun course on which to play the game.  Read my words more carefully also - I never said it's fine how it is - I even agree with you that it's an architectural tragedy.  I just do think that what's there now is still a lot of fun to play, and a LOT of other people would say it's fine as it is, and that's the reality of the situation.  Yes, if change were to occur, this reality would have to be different.  I just don't see how not acknowledging the reality helps...

But then again I am not the crusader / educator that guys like you and Tommy are.  I just play the game.

TH

ps - Tim, I'd insert lots of smileys here if the thing were working correctly.  I am trying to take this very lightly - my apologies if this subject is very serious to you, as it seems to be.

[GeoffreyC]

Huckster- you played Yale GC with us on an ideal fall day. The greens were as good as they have been in the recent past and it was realtively firm that time of year. I don't remember when Scott played but I recall it was probably the summer when conditions were better.

[Scott_Burroughs]

Yes, Tim, I said "snootiest", not "snottiest".  Do I think Yale should do a 'real' restoration?  Absolutely.  But you're right, I think plenty of people think it's still a fun place to play.

However, on the other side, lots of 'modern' people like pristine conditions, which Yale doesn't have, so why isn't that taken care of?  You'd think members might complain about that.

And the routing itself.  It is extremely hilly with lots of blind shots, not things 'most' modern-type golfers tend to like (referring to those who walk re: hilliness).  Why don't they get rid of all the blindness and flatten things out a bit?

Yale is so different from 99%+ of other courses, it's scary.  A big part of that is the rollercoaster routing.  Another big part is Raynor/CBMac features that still exist today (really, there is stuff there!!).  Stuff like the Biarritz 9th.  Double plateau #17.  Short #5.  Redan #13.  Alps #12, and Alps-like #3.  Except for Redans, these features aren't built any more.


EDIT:  Geoff, it was June last year and it rained a lot prior to my round, so it was wet.  Weeds were plentiful, too.  

[THuckaby2]

GC - you're right, I sure did, thanks to a very nice guy who arranged the outing, and the weather (insert smiley).  So perhaps I have a very gilded view of Yale?  I guess so... I do know that when people compain about conditions I just shake my head and wonder what they'd think if they played the local muni crap I frequent...

But conditions aren't really the issue anyway.  You did show me very skillfully many of the missed opportunities and poor work done by the RR people... and I sure acknowledge that, even if I don't understand it all that well (who could seeing the course just one time?)....

I just do think what's there is so darn fun, and agree with all the features Scott listed, so it's very hard for me to bag on Yale too much, even if I understand as best as I can the "tragedy" that exists there....

Maybe this makes no sense, I don't know.  I just compare Yale to the crap I play and it's hard for me to see it as a tragedy, even if I understand why it would be called such.

TH

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim H,

I was disappointed that you didn't respond to Geoffrey Child's questions, because that would give us a frame of reference with respect to what you are aware of, and what Geoff is aware of.  If you could respond, it would be helpful.

Jesplusone,

Are you aware of the substantive changes to the second green and third hole that took place some time ago ?

Geoff Childs & Jim H,

What department at YALE is resonsilbe for the oversight of the golf course, from a maintainance, finance and architectural perspective ?

Who is/are the individual/s that head up these departments ?

Who is the individual that determines the capital and operating budgets for the golf course ?

Who is the individual who has the authority to approve architectural changes to the golf course ?

Who would a Superintendent report to at YALE ?

Before anything positive can happen, the powers at YALE must undergo the six steps of rehabilitation.

Recognition of the problems
Vision to restore the golf course (Bahto Plan)
committment to the successful future of the golf course
funding of capital and maintainance budgets
implementation of the plan (Bahto Plan)
maintainance of the golf course as architecturally intended.

Until this happens at the highest responsible level, little will change.

I would suggest shedding a little sunshine on the specific individuals responsible for the care, and future of the golf course.  Sometimes the light of scrutiny motivates people to perform admirably.

Tommy Naccarato,

Wasn't your nickname "sunshine" ?  

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom Huckaby:

The whole point is that there are a select group of courses that are so good that they ought to be maintained to the very highest standards. By "maintained" I'm referring to both the architecture and the "maintenance".

Yale is in that select group. I applaud folks like Geoffrey Childs for making the effort to encourage Yale to achieve all that it can and should be.

The "it's good enough" attitude is painfully disappointing.

[THuckaby2]

Tim:

Agreed completely.  It is very disappointing.  I'm as disappointed as you are in those who hold this attitude and I applaud Geoffrey - and George - as loudly as you do.

I also just acknowledge reality.  They have a very tough battle on their hands.

And if the "loss" is what's there at Yale now, well... it's still a hell of a lot better than 99% of the courses in the country, so I can live with it.

I also applaud, however, those who can't live with it, and choose to try and make a difference.

I just don't join them in their quest, as much as I admire them for it.

And in the end, it doesn't make a tiny bit of difference.

TH

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom Huckaby:

How is greatness in golf architecture achieved, maintained and/or restored?

Does taking the view that "it is already better than 99%" help the cause or only make it more difficult?

[A_Clay_Man]

Without guys with attitudes like Tommy's the medicority would suck the respect and appreciation Tommy's talking about, into a black hole, the size of...the size of... the size of infiniteum.

There is no greater shame than having a treasure and not keeping it in the condition a treasure is deserving of.

Is that what you meant Tommy?

[Tim_Weiman]

Adam,

Well said. Of course, playing Yale is still fun.....even when your game sucks like mine does these days. But, it is a treasure and ought to be treated as such.

[Jim Sweeney]

Pat Mucci:

I was aware of the changes on #3 and forgot to mention that in my post. I was also aware that some work had been done on #2, but not the extent. It seems to meld pretty well with the course overall.

I haven't seen it mentioned on prior posts, but I was told by a senior YGC staff person about 10 years ago that the golf course had to support itself, which is true with almost all college courses anymore. Additionally, the course sits on about 700 acres which was donated to yale in the early thirties, I believe. Yale pays the city of New Haven property tax on the entire parcel, and it must all come from golf course revenues. Hence the continuously tight budget.

It's unfair to say, as some have, that since the University has a large endowment, it should support the golf course better. That money is probably mostly earmarked for student financial aid and academic facility building and maintenance. Financial support for the course must come from those with an interest- alumni, members, other users, or someone with a financial stake in its success.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jesplusone,

I don't believe that the course occupies anywhere near 700 acres.  Perhaps the acquired parcel totaled 700 acres.

If the University doesn't like paying taxes on the land, like everybody else, they can always sell it.

In addition, their endowment is massive, and I believe that if they sought dedicated funds STRICTLY for the golf course, they could get them.  

It's a matter of awareness and commitment.

There would seem to be a minimum standard for reasonable maintainance, and they don't appear willing to commit the resources necessary to meet that minimum.

The second green was dramatically altered, and I believe it was more than 10 years ago.

# 17 was also altered, and the green was moved back about 60 yards and to the right on # 16.

George Bahto has a fairly thorough grasp on what was, what was altered, and what could be.   Someone should listen to him.

[ChipOat]

Joel Stewart:

Agree with you re: Lido vs. Yale.  At least Yale still exists with it's original routing pretty much intact.

Can't agree with you on ANGC, though.  Still think that without the Masters and the course alterations that have been made as a result, ANGC would have become the Pasatiempo of the East after Jones' death.

Are you coming this way for the January GCA event?

[T_MacWood]

Yale
Timber Point
Bel-Air
ANGC
Engineers
Lakeside
Banff Springs
Hollywood
Pasatiempo
Scioto
Inverness
Oak Hill
Oyster Harbors
Merion