The Tragedy of Yale- hole #4

[SPDB]

Geoffrey - Doesn't that assume that the other bunkers haven't changed at all in shape? I'm exploring this merely because I think the greensite has changed because of maintenance practices, not construction which would be consistent with my theory.

[GeoffreyC]

Sean

I'm sure that the greensite has changed in shape from maintenance practices.  I think that George has a few points to make about the shape of Road green complexes.  In that sense you are correct.

However, you can't change the physical fact that should you align a few points in space properly (the water hazard, other bunkers (it matters not their shape), paths etc. and one feature can't be aligned then the odd man out has been altered in location.  Triangulation at work.

Check out Tommy's overlay of LIDO for the ultimate example.

[Evan Fleisher]

Having never played Yale Golf Club (a tragedy in itself!) it is hard for me to comment on or really follow what is going on there...but viewing some of Geoffrey's recent "Yale Tragedy" posts has really shown the light on what a terrible thing is going on there.

Hard to comment on just pictures (as we've discussed many times before), but this "restoration/renovation/whatever" seems to be just an abomination.  Wow!...

[SPDB]

Geoff - I'm only saying that aligning/triangulating against features that also might have been altered is not terribly availing, or is, at most, inconclusive. However, if you coordinate against immutable features, in this case, the inlet on the pond, it may suggest that the bunker hasn't moved significantly, but rather the green has changed - relative to the bunker.

[GeoffreyC]

Sean

My last try at this because I think you're saying logical things but they're not correct.

If you think you can align the inlet of the pond which we agree is least likely to have changed with the road bunker old and new, then every other bunker by definition must be way off in location. However, I don't think you can align these features as shown by Tommy's photo. Even so,  knowing the land around the left side of that geeen (see my photos of the left side of the 4th green) its impossible to see/imagine these bunkers moved by 10-15 feet. Stand next to the road bunker and the whole right side of that green complex today and it is obvious that the road bunker is farther from the green. You would need to BUILD UP a whole lot of earth to create the slopes into the road bunker and extra green in that manner to meet the criateria you suggest.  Instead, it's highly likely that earth was taken away to soften it.

[Patrick_Mucci]

SPDB,

I mistakenly addressed a portion of a post to you, it should have been addressed to bkatona.

Geoffrey Childs,

I would be careful.
Pond and lake banks can change over time, through the evolutionary process of marshing and meadowing.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Sean, Please don't let the bottom two pictures influence you other then what the features of both aerial look like. If you look and see what time I did the last part of the overlay, and which Mike Sweeney will attest at the time, the bottom two pictures didn't exist until I posted them later at almost 4:00 in the morning my time. The size of those two bottom pictures is not the the same I used in the overlay. I had sized the two for the overlay and then deleted the file, and then later felt it neccessary to add the two original pictures that were exactly sized.

The reference points I used were the lake where the small bay of the lake, the road from #2 green to #2 tee, the green itself, as well as the line of the two left bunkers. It doesn't always happen as such because of the different aspect of the two lenses taking the shots, as many times you get things to line-up in one spot and another side to be completely out of whack on another. This one didn't. It aligned to many reference points, including the what looked to be the original center of the trees running up the left. The only difference was that the trees have over-grown immensely to where they over-hang part of the fairway. Some of them may not even be the same trees, but the fact is that they were maintained and evolved as such.

Now as far as the green is concerned, I do think it's a bit of everything involved there. The green has moved and resided--probably even recovered in some areas and then the process evolved again. One thing is certain for me, I'm leaving it up to you guys to forge your own conclusions, because unless you get someone that is really adept at looking for compacted sand features of a bunker, the sand base of greens and knows the difference, especially on a sandy site (which Yale is not) the work is not going to be in align with it's original character, that much I know for sure, and I thank Kye Goalby and Sean McCormick formerly of the Valley Club and now Old Sandwich for allowing me to learn this. To think that the former superintendent who couldn't even get the right fairway mow-lines accurate, as a person adept at lookng for these features with a probe is about as laughable as saying that Peter Pulaski is a profound witness to them looking for them. On second thought, maybe it was Peter looking for these features and marking them out in line paint for construction. That would explain everything!

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Sean, I would alsolike to add, that usually when I do this stuff, much of which you have never seen, I don't actual outline features. I like to take the center of bunkers and greens and trees that I know are still existing knowing that there will be a small, very small deviation, and then align them to the new photo, which shows how the references can and do get messed-up by the aspect of the lenses. Sometimes it comes out good, other times bad, but you can at least identify where they were with different colors in the overlay. This wasn't needed in this photo because the defintion was pretty good. When I did the outline of the bunkers, I simply went to the centers and marked them red, and then removed the centers later feeling that it you couldn't see the bunkers because of it. The outline in this case was so good that it was better to take advantage of it.

Your friend,
Mr. Abraham Zapruder

[W.H. Cosgrove]

Geoff,
First off let me say that this is one of the most interesting discussions I have yet seen concerning our avocation.  Although I haven't played Yale the process your learned mind is following is great.  

Tommy's overlay is fascinating.  It clearly shows that restoration is not an appropriate term.  My one comment would be concerning the right front "Road Bunker" on #4.  

Bunkers will migrate over time.  This bunker would be particularly prone to this movement due to long term play.  Most players will miss right and short.  Placing this bunker in play more than the others.  As sand splash builds up over time the bunker will move in the opposite direction of the line of play.  That would explain, in part, why the bunker is where it is relative to the older aerials.  

What it doesn't explain is why a qualified architect undertaking a restoration wouldn't have tucked the bunker back close to the green where it was intended to be.  Was any probing undertaken to find the edge of the accumulated splash?  Was the splash removed in some previous work?  It would seem to me that even the most simple architectural forensics would have given an indication of the appropriate placement of the bunker.  

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Cos,
I wash I had your's and Bob Huntley's command of the English language. Migrate is a perfect word.

In the case of Yale, more specifically the 4th, and the Road Hole bunker, when this work was done, it is obvious that it was done more then likey like a complete rebuilding of that area. If this was done by Roger Wrongwich, I don't know, but it's clearly less then inspired shaping in that are when compared to the other orginal work.

Tom Doak once said on here years ago that he could do Seth Raynor in his sleep. I now have complete knowledge of what he meant. It isn't hard for someone of Tom's intellect and talent to do this, and it shows just how bad someone can do it if they have little talent nor passion.

[SPDB]

"Less than inspired shaping"

that would imply that any shaping whatsoever took place under Rog, I see none. In fact, the work may more accurately be termed "anti-shaping"

[GeoffreyC]

Cos

Your analysis is a reasonable interpretation of what might have happened over the decades.

Only hindsight and criticism have led Mr. Rulewich to claim that he consulted photos, aerials, old members and historians from the start in 1998.  Clearly, that was NOT the case and the whole front nine work was never intended as a restoration. It was a purposeful dumbing down of features for maintenance and speed of play considerations. Still, if Mr. Rulewich insists on sticking with his story (in print for all to read) then lets hold him to his word.  

When Harry Meusel, the long time superintendent eliminated bunkers he just filled them in and their boundaries and depths should have been easy to locate by careful probing.  Another tragedy in the work done to Yale is that much of this evidence is now gone including the old 16th greensite.
Cos, you stated-
"It would seem to me that even the most simple architectural forensics would have given an indication of the appropriate placement of the bunker."  

Mr Rulewich could not have done this probing given the evidence shown.  This is true even on the back nine when a committee insisted that it was a restoration and Peter Pulaski sent a letter out soliciting money from members for "the complete restoration of our Charles Blair McDonald (note spelling) masterpiece."

[SPDB]

Geoffrey -
That's what i'm trying to get at - moving a bunker is a fairly substantial job, and inconsistent with someone who wants to improve maintenance practices (for, among other reasons, to hold down costs).

Is there any record of serious construction made to the course?

[George_Bahto]

Geoffrey - it isn't even probing - all you do is sod cut the grass face and surrounds and carefully take off the vegetation - continue to carefully peel away all the sand build up on the faces til you get down to solid material - go out to the sides til you find the original end of the bunker - go down on the bottom of the bunker to the solid base and wow - there is the original bunker bed

brain surgery?

[W.H. Cosgrove]

George this is all about dumbing things down........don't make it too simple.  

I played Pasatiempo during a period when Doak was exploring for old bunkers.  A long missing fairway bunker on the ninth hole was outlined in the rods used for probing.  The simple and elegant lesson, was that it was indeed not brain surgery but did require careful and concerted effort.  The emphasis being on careful and concerted.

I hope to return to Pasatiempo in May to see the results.

[BrettAvery]

So C.B. didn't intend to turn me into a sand-gouging, crimson-faced, profanity-screaming lunatic with that bunker short and right of the fourth green? Jeez, someone should have told me that years ago when Yale was my home course. I would have thrown the ball on the green and taken a 4.

[ed_getka]

Geoffrey,
   Great work showing us the evolution of #4 (actually, I guess it would be devolution).
   When I saw #4 as a top 500 hole in the Peper book I was scratching my head. Then after playing Yale and having someone describe #4 as the "Road Hole" I was really confused. I could remember the holes pretty well, but in no way could I envision #4 as a Road hole, and especially unable to conjure up a road hole bunker from what I saw there.
  Having now seen the "after" pix I understand  why I was confused.
   I still am happy to have seen Yale before NGLA. At Yale you see inklings of brilliance, and then you go to NGLA to see it in full blown splendor.
   How anyone could go to NGLA and Piping Rock and end up with what they did at Yale is mind boggling.

[George_Bahto]

Prior to my first visit to Yale this hole was thought of as a Cape hole because of the drive.

Although the green was cut in an circle when I looked closer you could see the prototypical triangular shaped green if it were to expanded properly - a dead give away for a Road hole. Then there were the strip bunkers representing the "road" along the left of the green rather than in their "normal" position on the right. Then the pot bunker representation on the right of the green down the hill a bit.

(Interesting, for not long ago the question was posed about a "flopped over" Road hole ..... well here is one!)

Then looking at the 1931 Banks article, here's what it said:
“The fourth hole has a water carry of 132 yards on the line of play. Play to the left of the line of play lengthens the hole and shortens the water carry while a shot to the right on the line of play not only does the opposite to left play but also puts the ball in danger from a second arm of the lake, for play to the right of the line of play is upon a peninsula. The approach to the green requires a long up-hill second shot of compelling distance, height and hole due to the nature of the green which is of the Road Hole of the St. Andrews (Old Course) type, wherein a pot bunker is tangent to the line of play in front of the green and the left approach is lifted. The player may, by using different tees and varying the angle of the dog-leg, play the hole with the same distance as that of the original hole.”  Charles Banks

(interesting writing style by the English professor Banks)