[Noel Freeman]

 I never personally found the 13th to be much of a redan, with the large false front and the fact that you play down to the hole.  It is a good hole with the green contours as they are.  Does it need to fit the criteria of the template to be a fine hole?  I personally don't think so.  As to any comments by "Dr." Childs, I would dismiss them as I have read at least one of his quotes claiming Roger Rulewich as the "devil", really?  Any idiot who says that need say no more for me as I would no longer listen to the fool.  Roger deserves more respect than that and I am ashamed that no one else on this board ever said so as I know more than one of your have been given his respect.

 I played Yale last fall with Roger and the shaper who did the work and he reiterated that the front bunker on the 5th was raised only to allow for drainage as they were on bedrock.  He never touched the putting surface, so anything that has changed there has happened as a result of other's work.  I trust ANYTHING Roger says over anyone on this site, he has never and would never lie.  Anyone who knows him knows exactly what I'm saying.   I agree a pronounced horseshoe in the interior of the green would be more inline with the greens I've seen of theirs and make for a more interesting hole.  

Joey- Since I don't know you but I know Dr. Childs, I can say this, he's not an IDIOT.  Maybe a hairy short apelike appearance creature, but surely he is not an idiot.  I like to use Larry Winget’s  definition of an idiot, perhaps you can google that or read his book because I can prove to you that when it comes to Yale, Geoffrey knows far more about it and has historically researched it as much as anyone alive architecturally (that goes for the writers of the Yale Club history-I repeat Geoffrey knows ARCHITECTUALLY) and George Bahto.  So your taking of the devil context not knowing what this site was like 10 years ago and what the club politics at Yale were then is not applicable.   Furthermore, idiots usually do not hold PHDs but I'm into duality and experts take the fun out of everything sometimes and sometimes don't know better that could hold for Geoffrey, Geoff Cornish or Roger Rulewich etc. Just a comment.
If you have seen what George Bahto and Gil Hanse have done at Sleepy Hollow then I think George has a high degree of credibility of Raynor/Macdonald restorations.  Yale had a white paper from George documenting what needed to be restored but clearly Roger had a different interpretation from what the results were.

That said, I can speak for Geoffrey in that he has no ill will toward Roger because he is a fan of Metedeconk  (save the par 3s which are vapid) and he has also said the work RR did on #12 at Yale is good—although 17th was not done well with the Principal’s nose.
The club wants a Yalie to restore their course, for my money Scott Ramsey has really earned his keep and done a great job making Yale more playable.  In my opinion, I would like to see Yale hire Gil Hanse or former nutmegger Tom Doak to restore it fully with a master plan but I don’t think they will hire Cornell guys.  Maybe split the difference and hire Brian Silva would be a great alternative .
But let us move shall we to where the rubber meets the road?  Roger’s a great architect no? With a grand resume, no?  So here is Roger’s front bunker on #5 with journalist Tony Pioppi standing in it.  Is that just a shallower representation of the bunker in the 1st picture below?  I think not.  Could he have not made the slope of the bunker going into the bunker steeper?  I agree with you that Roger did not touch the green.







Moving on, nothing to see here right, let us go to #13.  The third and fourth pictures are of a hideous mound removed hereafter by order of the restoration committee that was put in by RR to allow maintenance machines to get into the green thereby separating the front bunker into two.  That removed the “fortress” strategy of the hole.





Hey, anyone can disagree with me, the world works via a learning process and fixing mistakes, I just don’t like flippant comments about people who did a tremendous amount of archival study on a course and get critiqued when there is visual evidence that the job could have been better.

Where exactly is this devil comment, I could not find it (not saying it is not there)?

No one is calling Roger a liar, it is just that the work is not up to Raynor/MacDonald restorations at Sleepy Hollow, inhouse at Fishers, Piping Rock, and Mountain Lake or Ran's favorite Yeaman's Hall.  Yale deserves to be historically retrofitted to former spledor.

[Joey Chase]

 I never personally found the 13th to be much of a redan, with the large false front and the fact that you play down to the hole.  It is a good hole with the green contours as they are.  Does it need to fit the criteria of the template to be a fine hole?  I personally don't think so.  As to any comments by "Dr." Childs, I would dismiss them as I have read at least one of his quotes claiming Roger Rulewich as the "devil", really?  Any idiot who says that need say no more for me as I would no longer listen to the fool.  Roger deserves more respect than that and I am ashamed that no one else on this board ever said so as I know more than one of your have been given his respect.

 I played Yale last fall with Roger and the shaper who did the work and he reiterated that the front bunker on the 5th was raised only to allow for drainage as they were on bedrock.  He never touched the putting surface, so anything that has changed there has happened as a result of other's work.  I trust ANYTHING Roger says over anyone on this site, he has never and would never lie.  Anyone who knows him knows exactly what I'm saying.   I agree a pronounced horseshoe in the interior of the green would be more inline with the greens I've seen of theirs and make for a more interesting hole.  

Joey- Since I don't know you but I know Dr. Childs, I can say this, he's not an IDIOT.  Maybe a hairy short apelike appearance creature, but surely he is not an idiot.  I like to use Larry Winget’s  definition of an idiot, perhaps you can google that or read his book because I can prove to you that when it comes to Yale, Geoffrey knows far more about it and has historically researched it as much as anyone alive architecturally (that goes for the writers of the Yale Club history-I repeat Geoffrey knows ARCHITECTUALLY) and George Bahto.  So your taking of the devil context not knowing what this site was like 10 years ago and what the club politics at Yale were then is not applicable.   Furthermore, idiots usually do not hold PHDs but I'm into duality and experts take the fun out of everything sometimes and sometimes don't know better that could hold for Geoffrey, Geoff Cornish or Roger Rulewich etc. Just a comment.
If you have seen what George Bahto and Gil Hanse have done at Sleepy Hollow then I think George has a high degree of credibility of Raynor/Macdonald restorations.  Yale had a white paper from George documenting what needed to be restored but clearly Roger had a different interpretation from what the results were.

That said, I can speak for Geoffrey in that he has no ill will toward Roger because he is a fan of Metedeconk  (save the par 3s which are vapid) and he has also said the work RR did on #12 at Yale is good—although 17th was not done well with the Principal’s nose.
The club wants a Yalie to restore their course, for my money Scott Ramsey has really earned his keep and done a great job making Yale more playable.  In my opinion, I would like to see Yale hire Gil Hanse or former nutmegger Tom Doak to restore it fully with a master plan but I don’t think they will hire Cornell guys.  Maybe split the difference and hire Brian Silva would be a great alternative .
But let us move shall we to where the rubber meets the road?  Roger’s a great architect no? With a grand resume, no?  So here is Roger’s front bunker on #5 with journalist Tony Pioppi standing in it.  Is that just a shallower representation of the bunker in the 1st picture below?  I think not.  Could he have not made the slope of the bunker going into the bunker steeper?  I agree with you that Roger did not touch the green.







Moving on, nothing to see here right, let us go to #13.  The third and fourth pictures are of a hideous mound removed hereafter by order of the restoration committee that was put in by RR to allow maintenance machines to get into the green thereby separating the front bunker into two.  That removed the “fortress” strategy of the hole.





Hey, anyone can disagree with me, the world works via a learning process and fixing mistakes, I just don’t like flippant comments about people who did a tremendous amount of archival study on a course and get critiqued when there is visual evidence that the job could have been better.

Where exactly is this devil comment, I could not find it (not saying it is not there)?

No one is calling Roger a liar, it is just that the work is not up to Raynor/MacDonald restorations at Sleepy Hollow, inhouse at Fishers, Piping Rock, and Mountain Lake or Ran's favorite Yeaman's Hall.  Yale deserves to be historically retrofitted to former spledor.

 
" GolfClubAtlas.com / Golf Course Architecture / Re: Woking/Principal Nose Bunkers-More needed?
on: July 10, 2002, 06:37:33 PM
Started by NAF, Message by GeoffreyC
Relevance: 3.4%
Joel

Its a large pimple short of the 17th green at Yale.  Its covered with tall grass and deer ticks. The 17th is the double plateau hole and perhaps the most natural on the whole course.

This fall Roger Rulewich is scheduled to replace the principals nose bunker complex as well as the lost right greenside bunker.  We'll see how he F***s this one up!

Here is a blowup of the 1934 aerial of the area around the 17th green. It clearly shows the Principals nose complex and the right greenside bunker



ps- I played this past weekend with a fellow who has been playing Yale since 1951.  He has amazing recollection of every detail about the course. Even ones George Bahto did not know about!!!!!   He says "put the course back the way it was".  He confirmed my criticisims of Roger Rulewich's work.  You might think the powers that be would seek out and use such a valuable resource. Tommy sorry but Damien P is not the devil- Roger R is!"

Does this get you closer to the point I was making.  We can still be professional and debate these things.  I just got off the phone with Roger, he has never had a conversation with Geoffrey Childs about Yale.  If he is so apposed to the work, why not talk directly to him and not cast absurd insults behind his back which this quite clearly is.  If you'd like me to dig up several of his quotes calling Roger a liar, I will for you. If you'd like me to dig up several of his quotes calling Roger a liar, I will for you.

[Joey Chase]

 I never personally found the 13th to be much of a redan, with the large false front and the fact that you play down to the hole.  It is a good hole with the green contours as they are.  Does it need to fit the criteria of the template to be a fine hole?  I personally don't think so.  As to any comments by "Dr." Childs, I would dismiss them as I have read at least one of his quotes claiming Roger Rulewich as the "devil", really?  Any idiot who says that need say no more for me as I would no longer listen to the fool.  Roger deserves more respect than that and I am ashamed that no one else on this board ever said so as I know more than one of your have been given his respect.

 I played Yale last fall with Roger and the shaper who did the work and he reiterated that the front bunker on the 5th was raised only to allow for drainage as they were on bedrock.  He never touched the putting surface, so anything that has changed there has happened as a result of other's work.  I trust ANYTHING Roger says over anyone on this site, he has never and would never lie.  Anyone who knows him knows exactly what I'm saying.   I agree a pronounced horseshoe in the interior of the green would be more inline with the greens I've seen of theirs and make for a more interesting hole.  

Joey- Since I don't know you but I know Dr. Childs, I can say this, he's not an IDIOT.  Maybe a hairy short apelike appearance creature, but surely he is not an idiot.  I like to use Larry Winget’s  definition of an idiot, perhaps you can google that or read his book because I can prove to you that when it comes to Yale, Geoffrey knows far more about it and has historically researched it as much as anyone alive architecturally (that goes for the writers of the Yale Club history-I repeat Geoffrey knows ARCHITECTUALLY) and George Bahto.  So your taking of the devil context not knowing what this site was like 10 years ago and what the club politics at Yale were then is not applicable.   Furthermore, idiots usually do not hold PHDs but I'm into duality and experts take the fun out of everything sometimes and sometimes don't know better that could hold for Geoffrey, Geoff Cornish or Roger Rulewich etc. Just a comment.
If you have seen what George Bahto and Gil Hanse have done at Sleepy Hollow then I think George has a high degree of credibility of Raynor/Macdonald restorations.  Yale had a white paper from George documenting what needed to be restored but clearly Roger had a different interpretation from what the results were.

That said, I can speak for Geoffrey in that he has no ill will toward Roger because he is a fan of Metedeconk  (save the par 3s which are vapid) and he has also said the work RR did on #12 at Yale is good—although 17th was not done well with the Principal’s nose.
The club wants a Yalie to restore their course, for my money Scott Ramsey has really earned his keep and done a great job making Yale more playable.  In my opinion, I would like to see Yale hire Gil Hanse or former nutmegger Tom Doak to restore it fully with a master plan but I don’t think they will hire Cornell guys.  Maybe split the difference and hire Brian Silva would be a great alternative .
But let us move shall we to where the rubber meets the road?  Roger’s a great architect no? With a grand resume, no?  So here is Roger’s front bunker on #5 with journalist Tony Pioppi standing in it.  Is that just a shallower representation of the bunker in the 1st picture below?  I think not.  Could he have not made the slope of the bunker going into the bunker steeper?  I agree with you that Roger did not touch the green.







Moving on, nothing to see here right, let us go to #13.  The third and fourth pictures are of a hideous mound removed hereafter by order of the restoration committee that was put in by RR to allow maintenance machines to get into the green thereby separating the front bunker into two.  That removed the “fortress” strategy of the hole.





Hey, anyone can disagree with me, the world works via a learning process and fixing mistakes, I just don’t like flippant comments about people who did a tremendous amount of archival study on a course and get critiqued when there is visual evidence that the job could have been better.

Where exactly is this devil comment, I could not find it (not saying it is not there)?

No one is calling Roger a liar, it is just that the work is not up to Raynor/MacDonald restorations at Sleepy Hollow, inhouse at Fishers, Piping Rock, and Mountain Lake or Ran's favorite Yeaman's Hall.  Yale deserves to be historically retrofitted to former spledor.

I also appreciate your retraction of not seeing or recognizing the unnecessary comment by Childs.  I also never said that he new nothing of the course at Yale.  He apparently knew nothing of it's financial situation at the time of the work by Roger.  I do not remember saying anything about the work by Gil Hanse and George Bahto at Sleepy Hollow.  I personally found it to be extremely good!  Having said that, I never played it before the work was done.  I do not see the relevance of Sleepy Hollow to my point of Roger the Devil.  I will not retract my statment that he is an idiot, whether you use Webster's dictionary or not.  Roger was and is a gentleman with everyone involved and always will be.

[Tim Martin]

Pretty tough to give Mr. Rulewitch credit for a proper restoration of the front bunker on 5 after looking at the photos provided by Noel Freeman. Not even close to the original depth even after conceding a foot for drainage.

[Noel Freeman]

Joey-

You've convinced me that Geoffrey is a nasty, brutish and short individual whom is untrustworthy and knows nothing of golf architecture.  You have done me an enviable service my good man.

Now perhaps you could do me a greater service and explain with pictures why the work done at Yale is above par and good?  Because I don't see it.

I never said anything about RR's character, I do not know the man and I like Metedeconck as well. I think his work at Yale is not up to snuff and the pictures tell the story.  Maybe your bat phone into the man, can reveal his answers and prove what a schmuck I am.  A poster here once referred to me a knob polisher, so I can take a compliment well.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Joey,

I don't consider Geoff Childs's public posts, going behind RR's back.

Geoff made valid criticisms of the work done at Yale.

When you cite the financial situation at Yale, are you referencing their endowment, which, at the time Geoff made his comments, was quite considerable.

The initial work at Yale seemed half hearted or bland, depending upon how true to the original you wanted the work to be.

I recall some of Geoff's commentaries, with photos, and they seemed reasonable.

I think Geoff's passion for a true restoration at a great golf course might have caused him to use harsh terms, but, the underlying architectural principles he was championing seemed to be on target.

Metedeconk is irrelevant in terms of Yale.

I don't think there's anyone who was involved in the 10 year old threads that Noel refers to, that thought that RR did an outstanding job in restoring Yale.

Looking at the old photo of Yale's short, it's obvious that alterations were made to the original slopes  that were never rectified by RR.
I think that's a valid criticism.

What was disappointing to many was the bland nature of the pseudo-restoration in the face of an overwhelming body of archival photos, archival photos such as the one above, clearly depicting the sharp slopes surrounding the "short" green.

Other archival photos, when compared to the post restoration work, led many to be disappointed in that work.

Noel, Geoff and many others on this site were disappointed by the "restoration" work conducted by RR.

Many still are.

[Ronald Montesano]

Visit this site:  http://www.rulewich.com/index.html

I fail to find a page dedicated to restoration or renovation. I fail to find any history of either skill set beyond Yale. I fail to find any indication that the principle partner has any interest in classic golf course architecture, of which Yale is a primary example.

One might go on, but such continuation is unnecessary. Wrong man for the job.

A quote from the Donald Ross Society (http://www.donaldross.org/)website:

The Donald Ross Society traces its beginning to 1988, when some members at Wampanoag CC in West Hartford, Connecticut, decided that recent alterations were out of character with the course's basic design and sought to restore the original Ross concept. The process they went through was arduous but they learned some valuable lessons and formed an organization so that they might share their insight with others.

It doesn't take much to dig up the "recent alterer." Most on this site know his name. Interestingly, he has grown in respect for his restoration work and continues to win restoration contracts. I don't see the same happening with Rulewich.

[Mike Sweeney]

Not sure why ten year old pictures and threads are coming up about Yale on GCA.

Since that time, Yale hired Scott Ramsey as the Super and he has transformed everything. He was Super of the Year in 2006 and probably deserves it a few more times, but that is not how awards work. Here is an interview from 2007 era with Scott:

https://webspace.yale.edu/Yale-golf-history/interviews/summaries/040907_Ramsay.htm

Here is the way the short hole looks today:



from this thread - http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,50309.0.html

On Sunday, I took a friend from England to Yale for the first time. He was a member of a few clubs back in the day including Royal St George's and he said he felt like he was back home at Yale. On Monday, we played Rockrimmon CC by RTJ and Orrin Smith and he was a bit sad to be back in the USA.

I don't know exactly how decisions are made at Yale but Scott is lucky to get input from many golf sources including architects, usga officials, GCA guys  , and probably a few Yale professors that simply know better!

I think the question is not which architect was hired or should be hired, rather what value could any one architect bring to a very knowledgeable Super that speaks to many of the best in the industry, cares about the history of the course, and has to work within a defined budget.

In my mind, Scott is the best architect that Yale could hire.

[Joey Chase]

Joey-

You've convinced me that Geoffrey is a nasty, brutish and short individual whom is untrustworthy and knows nothing of golf architecture.  You have done me an enviable service my good man.

Now perhaps you could do me a greater service and explain with pictures why the work done at Yale is above par and good?  Because I don't see it.

I never said anything about RR's character, I do not know the man and I like Metedeconck as well. I think his work at Yale is not up to snuff and the pictures tell the story.  Maybe your bat phone into the man, can reveal his answers and prove what a schmuck I am.  A poster here once referred to me a knob polisher, so I can take a compliment well.

I haven't questioned anything you've said or anything anyone else has said.  I also never said Mr. Childs knows nothing of GCA or his trustworthiness.  I also am not defending the work done at Yale at all, I know it should be better.  I will however, defend Roger when he is called the devil or a liar.  That is an idiotic comment whether said ten years ago or yesterday.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()