Two Frequent, Recurring, Categorical Topics in One Golf Hole

[V. Kmetz]

1. The question of Renovation/Restoration...

• which is which, what is the line of boundary between restoring an architect's work and making something else?
• which is more important to that question, the architect's stated or consensus of intent...or what was actually there, period?
• should you/shouldn't you update a hole for today's conditions?
• can, should or does a Top 100 course need to be more highly subjectively rated?

2. The Yale Course...the hole being 16
Hopefully without too much hard disagreement, I state that 16 is, in a sea of bold memorable holes, hole features and unique takes on template standards, is by far the plainest, least extraordinary hole on the course.  Though trees on the approach right have grown, it's not the trees... though a short (aiming?) 130 out bunker seems to have been removed from the right side drive zone...it's not what has been removed or altered... the hole is just plain...was in 1930, is today, and so I ask...


When the course undergoes its program, besides the clear overgrowth of the trees along the approach corridor:


Should/Shouldn't this hole be enhanced in any manner...with anything that wasn't there when the CBM Raynor left?

• a bunker way down the left side to challenge a big hit down the flats?
• a shorter one down the right side to guard that premium spot whereby you travel down to those flats?
• an even shorter centerline one, for the player to use as reference for his shape and manner of drive?

...for the second shot...

• anything to challenge or strategically guard the best angles into the current green?
• should the entirety of that broad lawn left of the approach/green be turned into closely mown turf...

...or is the original green itself the guilty party for its plainness and common experience...?


From the 1934 aerials and construction photos, I cannot quite interpret, besides the original bunkers' position, how substantially different the last 35 years of green presentation is from any "original" contours...the 1934 margins extended further in the back right... but that's about it.


OR IS IT JUST OK THAT THIS IS A PLAIN AND UNREMARKABLE HOLE??

[Ira Fishman]

It sounds as if even Banks was not high on number 16. Re the restoration question, it will be interesting to see if Hanse uses the schematic that included water by the green (assuming below is accurate) or how the hole was actually first built or something else.


Hole #16 "Lang" – YALE GOLF HISTORY
[size=0.75rem]campuspress.yale.edu/yalegolf/course/hole16/[/size][/color][/size][size=0.75rem][/size][size=0.75rem][/color][/size]Hole #16 “Lang”
553 Yards, 474 Yards, 435 Yards, Par 5
Charles Banks in 1925 “Number sixteen is a rather long rolling fairway leading to a broad level green. The hole should be found somewhat of a let-down from the preceding and following holes of the second nine. The second shot of this hole is the critical one and should bring the ball up from an easy pitch to the green. The green is hidden from the tees and a shot for a narrow transverse saddle in the fairway should open up the hole for the second and third.”
Since 1926, three tee boxes have been added to the original tee, which is now the short, and the hole plays as a par 5 from all tees. At 553 yards, the new long tee is 210 yards to the fairway, making this a real par 5, even for the long hitters. The woods along both sides of the straight line to the hole reward straight play. However, the undulations of the first half of the fairway that leads to a narrow saddle will often create awkward stances that add a degree of difficulty to the second shot.
The second half of the fairway opens up and flattens out for the approach. Seth Raynor’s 1925 schematic plan showed water on the left front of this green. Now, however, shallow bunkers surround the long green, which slopes back left to front center and front right. Roger Rulewich restored the right-side bunker and extended it partially around the front of the green. Previously, a shot could kick off the higher right side of the fairway and run up on the green. The bunker now pinches the front collar and heightens the risk in trying for the green in two shots.

[V. Kmetz]

I'm just sayin' (Ira and all) that here, on this "originally" plain hole on a great course that a lot of people know...is where the rubber meets the road, and all these conceptual debates will take definite form... one of the trade's most-regarded, authoritative names is going to execute an answer, a decision... and beyond our near-certain delight at what he renders, he will also have ruled on "what ought be done" to a course beyond structural/maintenance repairs...


Even better, this plays out on a course we don't have to think about in how it meets elite professional competition at all. Maybe in a hundred years, but for now Yale is not going to worry about who guy who hit their drivers 320+ and their 9 irons 175... and gobble up greens at 10-11. 

[Sean_A]

1. The question of Renovation/Restoration...

• which is which, what is the line of boundary between restoring an architect's work and making something else?
• which is more important to that question, the architect's stated or consensus of intent...or what was actually there, period?
• should you/shouldn't you update a hole for today's conditions?
• can, should or does a Top 100 course need to be more highly subjectively rated?

2. The Yale Course...the hole being 16
Hopefully without too much hard disagreement, I state that 16 is, in a sea of bold memorable holes, hole features and unique takes on template standards, is by far the plainest, least extraordinary hole on the course.  Though trees on the approach right have grown, it's not the trees... though a short (aiming?) 130 out bunker seems to have been removed from the right side drive zone...it's not what has been removed or altered... the hole is just plain...was in 1930, is today, and so I ask...


When the course undergoes its program, besides the clear overgrowth of the trees along the approach corridor:


Should/Shouldn't this hole be enhanced in any manner...with anything that wasn't there when the CBM Raynor left?

• a bunker way down the left side to challenge a big hit down the flats?
• a shorter one down the right side to guard that premium spot whereby you travel down to those flats?
• an even shorter centerline one, for the player to use as reference for his shape and manner of drive?

...for the second shot...

• anything to challenge or strategically guard the best angles into the current green?
• should the entirety of that broad lawn left of the approach/green be turned into closely mown turf...

...or is the original green itself the guilty party for its plainness and common experience...?


From the 1934 aerials and construction photos, I cannot quite interpret, besides the original bunkers' position, how substantially different the last 35 years of green presentation is from any "original" contours...the 1934 margins extended further in the back right... but that's about it.


OR IS IT JUST OK THAT THIS IS A PLAIN AND UNREMARKABLE HOLE??

Is Yale an exceptional Raynor design? A design worth preserving  as reasonably possible as Raynor envisaged?

Ciao

[Peter Pallotta]

Good topic, VK.
But is there any chance that the golf hole -won't- be improved, ie made more interesting and attractive, in alignment with the signature architect's own well-regarded ethos and aesthetics? (Isn't that why they hired a 'name' in the first place, and this name in particular?) And is it possible that these changes -can't- be justified and rationalized and promoted post-facto as in keeping with a restorative approach that honours the true spirit of the original design, in its finest iteration? (I'm sure I have some old photos someplace -- I just seemed to have misplaced them, and a few aerials too. Well, in the meantime let me refer to the press release). Why would anyone involved ever plan for, pay for, and/or expect anything less, or different?

[Tim Martin]

1. The question of Renovation/Restoration...

• which is which, what is the line of boundary between restoring an architect's work and making something else?
• which is more important to that question, the architect's stated or consensus of intent...or what was actually there, period?
• should you/shouldn't you update a hole for today's conditions?
• can, should or does a Top 100 course need to be more highly subjectively rated?

2. The Yale Course...the hole being 16
Hopefully without too much hard disagreement, I state that 16 is, in a sea of bold memorable holes, hole features and unique takes on template standards, is by far the plainest, least extraordinary hole on the course.  Though trees on the approach right have grown, it's not the trees... though a short (aiming?) 130 out bunker seems to have been removed from the right side drive zone...it's not what has been removed or altered... the hole is just plain...was in 1930, is today, and so I ask...


When the course undergoes its program, besides the clear overgrowth of the trees along the approach corridor:


Should/Shouldn't this hole be enhanced in any manner...with anything that wasn't there when the CBM Raynor left?

• a bunker way down the left side to challenge a big hit down the flats?
• a shorter one down the right side to guard that premium spot whereby you travel down to those flats?
• an even shorter centerline one, for the player to use as reference for his shape and manner of drive?

...for the second shot...

• anything to challenge or strategically guard the best angles into the current green?
• should the entirety of that broad lawn left of the approach/green be turned into closely mown turf...

...or is the original green itself the guilty party for its plainness and common experience...?


From the 1934 aerials and construction photos, I cannot quite interpret, besides the original bunkers' position, how substantially different the last 35 years of green presentation is from any "original" contours...the 1934 margins extended further in the back right... but that's about it.


OR IS IT JUST OK THAT THIS IS A PLAIN AND UNREMARKABLE HOLE??

Is Yale an exceptional Raynor design? A design worth preserving  as reasonably possible as Raynor envisaged?

Ciao

Sean-My answer is yes to both questions and I believe that those are the marching orders given to Gil Hanse.

[Ira Fishman]

VK and Peter, completely agree.


Sean, I have not played enough CBM/Raynor courses to answer on a relative scale, but Yale certainly is worthy of a faithful restoration.


The word is that the mandate to Hanse is to return the course to exactly as it was when it first was opened. We will see how much latitude he has or will take.


Ira

[Sean_A]

1. The question of Renovation/Restoration...

• which is which, what is the line of boundary between restoring an architect's work and making something else?
• which is more important to that question, the architect's stated or consensus of intent...or what was actually there, period?
• should you/shouldn't you update a hole for today's conditions?
• can, should or does a Top 100 course need to be more highly subjectively rated?

2. The Yale Course...the hole being 16
Hopefully without too much hard disagreement, I state that 16 is, in a sea of bold memorable holes, hole features and unique takes on template standards, is by far the plainest, least extraordinary hole on the course.  Though trees on the approach right have grown, it's not the trees... though a short (aiming?) 130 out bunker seems to have been removed from the right side drive zone...it's not what has been removed or altered... the hole is just plain...was in 1930, is today, and so I ask...


When the course undergoes its program, besides the clear overgrowth of the trees along the approach corridor:


Should/Shouldn't this hole be enhanced in any manner...with anything that wasn't there when the CBM Raynor left?

• a bunker way down the left side to challenge a big hit down the flats?
• a shorter one down the right side to guard that premium spot whereby you travel down to those flats?
• an even shorter centerline one, for the player to use as reference for his shape and manner of drive?

...for the second shot...

• anything to challenge or strategically guard the best angles into the current green?
• should the entirety of that broad lawn left of the approach/green be turned into closely mown turf...

...or is the original green itself the guilty party for its plainness and common experience...?


From the 1934 aerials and construction photos, I cannot quite interpret, besides the original bunkers' position, how substantially different the last 35 years of green presentation is from any "original" contours...the 1934 margins extended further in the back right... but that's about it.


OR IS IT JUST OK THAT THIS IS A PLAIN AND UNREMARKABLE HOLE??

Is Yale an exceptional Raynor design? A design worth preserving  as reasonably possible as Raynor envisaged?

Ciao

Sean-My answer is yes to both questions and I believe that those are the marching orders given to Gil Hanse.

Well then, if the powers that be agree then there's the answer and it strikes me as perfectly reasonable. MacRayBanks could also be special cases off the bat because there can't be that many original close to fully intact designs existing.

Ciao

[Niall C]

I'm not at all familiar with Yale or the architects in question so let me answer this in a general sense. If the aim is to restore or renovate to the original architects design then I think you'd leave alone and not add or redesign. The hole may be a plain Jane but maybe the architect wanted that as a breather from what came before and what comes after ? Basically I think you've got to think of the flow of the original course and whether any change would materially alter that.


Niall

[V. Kmetz]

For Niall:  It's a big, bold mostly Template course, with singular shot vistas and some heroic asks... the hole I've brought up, 16, is a straight, semi blind tee shot to harazardless, but sloping ground until near the green where bunker presentations are the only thing visibly changed over the years. It is the late first of only two 3 shot - 500+ holes on the course (#18 is a 600 yd other).  Though I could see appraising that from afar, I actually don't think any architect ever designs a breather; these architects aren't known for such... though...


For All:... as I consider it in responding to NC, I recall that the card "5s" on some of the most special of their courses, though not without features or playing merit, are indeed similarly plain... Here, I think of #5 Hogsback of NGLA...#15 at Fisher's... is there something about the CBM-Raynor Banks 3 shot holes?...

[Adam G]

I totally agree this hole is the most boring on the course. I asked about Gil's plans for it when I was there.


I was told that, as someone indicated above, the idea was to have par 5 with a water hazard that would challenge the second shot. That water hazard was never built because they had to locate the maintenance facility where it would have been. But the hole had to remain as routed and is somewhat less interesting, although it used to be better but the green was moved. I was told the plan was to return it to its 1926 self as best as is possible.

[V. Kmetz]

I totally agree this hole is the most boring on the course. I asked about Gil's plans for it when I was there.

I was told that, as someone indicated above, the idea was to have par 5 with a water hazard that would challenge the second shot. That water hazard was never built because they had to locate the maintenance facility where it would have been. But the hole had to remain as routed and is somewhat less interesting, although it used to be better but the green was moved. I was told the plan was to return it to its 1926 self as best as is possible.

That's a wrinkle I only briefly considered... that there was something intended, but never executed.  Truly, that broad expense of turf that sits under the left of the green and approach seems so "ready" for something like a water hazard, being in a natural "low" and so near the water in front of the 17th tee.


If it's impractical or deemed too "additive" to execute that intent (a water threat of some sort) now, and the green complex simply restored to its original presentation, I hope they locate a provenance to make that green more amusing...I have always felt (in a dozen or more playings) that it deserved more interest, sporty, thoughtful contouring... yeah its really the green (beyond the unexecuted absence of "something" in that left expanse) that holds the hole back...On a course with so many wonderful big amusing greens, this one is really a disappointment...


Adam's post calls to mind an interim response to those questions on my own part... I think it is kind of silly conservatism to behold an individual hole like this...so plain, so unexceptional...and so vital (to the memorability, to the quality of the round, being 16 and the first Long hole)...and feel it is imperturbable, to the extent that the practice of restoration cannot help the hole to the quality of the course...it is not like it would be re-routed, nor be larded with several newly-conjured features...nor disfiguring the style and character of it and what comes before and after it in context.


I say, "C'mon Gil, get a set of onions and MELD your expertise with that of the masters and pick up their slack"...for one blessed hole at least.

[Peter Pallotta]

VK -- I have to admit, I don't understand your last line. It seems a kind of faux naievete that's surprising coming from you. I mean, that GH is going to 'meld' his approach/expertise to that of the ODGs is a given, no? It's standard operating procedure these days, and takes pretty much no 'onions' at all, does it? It's precisely what those who pay the bills want for all the money they spend, ie a better and aesthetically in vogue golf course that at the same time can be embraced and promoted by a friendly press as a restoration. Or so it seems obvious to me. Am I missing / misunderstanding something?

[Ira Fishman]

Peter,


It is an interesting question. We were told that Hanse's mandate is to put the course back to as close as possible as when it first opened. How much leeway he has or can convince the group of alums who are paying for the work to give him remains of course to be seen.


16 is the least interesting hole. It sounds as if the water hazard was in the original plans but never in the ground. Right away, there is an interpretative question.


I do know this: if the work is reasonably faithful to the original, the result could be terrific. For example, Number 5 (Short) is only okay, but the photos from back in the day convey a really bold hole.


Ira

[Peter Pallotta]

Ira, thanks.
That's why VK's question is interesting (though perhaps relying too much on the charming recurring categoricals conceit), ie because, judging from those like you and VK who know and love the course, if GH can restore the original design the results will be outstanding; which means, it seems to me, that no single golf hole like the 16th can and will be allowed to mar and diminish the total effect. Those in charge don't want that, and I can't imagine GH wants to leave behind a weak hole and be associated with it for years to come, even if it can be justified as 'original'. Again, I'm just surprised that we might think otherwise, ie that GH won't find a way, indeed several ways, to markedly improve the 16th hole while staying within/honouring the ostensible mandate. As you and others have noted re original design features that weren't built (or perhaps, we'll find out, weren't built as intended), there is much room for expert interpretation and creative licence.