[Mike_Sweeney]

In order to bring back Dr Childs from his Florida sebatical, I pose the following question to all as I am sure Geoffrey already knows the answer:

Which friend of Golf Club Atlas graduated from Yale University in 1958 (or close to it), the time of the depiction below of Yale's 9th hole (as seen on a ebay auction item) ?



Please note the difference to Ran's review:

[GeoffreyC]

Mike

You're making me crazy! I gave up on Yale.  The president of the University apparently thinks all is OK (or he prefers to keep his Beinecke endowed prefessorship) (John Beinecke by chance happens to be the fellow in charge of the back nine "restoration"). The dean of the school of architecture apparently thinks that the athletic director is properly looking after the course. Another prominent professor responsible for saving the divinity quad and its architecture Vincent Scully doesn't care enough to respond. The NCAA tipped off about the course and its ability to host the NCAA regional championships next spring thinks conditions are just fine. Who then am I to argue.    

I wish I were on a florida sabatical.  One weekend where golfing in 42 degree plus 20mph winds (wind chills in the 20's) at World Woods and 60 degrees the next day at Black Diamond Ranch does not make my kind of top 100 sabatical lists.

Back to business.  Yes I know who graduated Yale about 1958 and should have recognized the biarritz hole as it used to be.

Could it be ROGER RULEWICH?  

Why yes it could.

The 9th at Yale is one of the great par 3's in all of golf.  Somehow the right bunker evolved into a pot and that is exactly how Mr. Rulewich decided to "restore" it.  Yes the new photo seen above and taken by Ran at our 2001 Yale "official" GCA outing is after Mr. Rulewich's bunker work. Also note the cape-like curve in the left side bunker.  Yes- that too looks to be restored just right.  

Here is an old construction photo of #9.



This wild photo looks more like an old Pine Valley shot.  It was taken most likely before the bunkers were made into their final shapes.  However, certainly the intention of Raynor was NEVER to have the hole evolve into its current state.  

Mr. Rulewich-  please explain to us why you consider your work here a restoration?  You insist in your letter to Golfweek in reply to the Brad Klein article that you studied all the photos and only then proceeded with your work.  You stated that slopes were not softened and shapes were put back to their original state.  Where is there a pot bunker on any other biarritz in the world?  Was it like that in the old photos and aerials that you studied?  

Mr. Rulewich, why have you butchered the Course at Yale?

[FREEMAHC]

First off - let me state that I am not trying to defend the 'restoration' work. I just want ot hear what you think about this..

There really isn't any room to put the old bunker back in on the right sie of #9 without removing path leading from the green to the service road. That is really he only easy way to get abck to the clubhouse from the 9th green (the other route being a trek up to the 10th tee) Could it be that the powers involved decided to keep the path intact? If that's the case there simply wasn't any option other than placing a pot bunker on the front right side. I think the path is also a necessity to get the mowers onto the green. I don't think they can easily climb the slope on the front left.

The bunker on the left side is another story, how tough is it to see that there is only one bunker there in the old pictures???

[GeoffreyC]

FREEMAHC

You obviously know the course. However, your reply while possibly true does in fact call Roger Rulewich a liar and one who misrepresented the facts in a NATIONAL PUBLICATION.

Here are some direct quotes from Mr. Rulewich's letter to Golfweek magazine. These were published

"The bunker renovation started in 1998 after reviewing hundreds of construction pictures and several aerial photos of the entire course taken since 1934 (yes, Klein got that right!) Work continued in 2000, 2001 and was completed this year. Original plans of the architects, C.B. Macdonald and Seth Raynor, were non-existent and the photos and recall of past players, historians and staff became a helpful guide. Macdonald’s penchant for using as models, favorite holes and features from courses he played and studied in Scotland and elsewhere, also gave us some clues. Thus we find his variations of the "Redan", "Alps", "Biarritz" and others at Yale, and again on all of his other courses."

"Playing my first golf as a freshman at Yale in 1954 and then as an alumnus, I can recall some of the changes made to the course over the years. I remember the "Alps" bunker on no. 12 but not the rear bunkers on the no. 13 "Redan", the elongated greenside bunkers on nos. 2 and 17 or the sand areas surrounding the "Principals Nose" short of No. 17 green. These were lost before I arrived." Why then did he not reverse them if he was doing a restoration that took into account things he mentioned in the quote above?

'They have now been restored to the course. All of the other sand bunkers have now been repaired with improved drainage and new sand. The style of flat sand areas and grass banks have been preserved. The grass slopes have not been softened - they were left undisturbed in most every case when the bunker repair was done. The steepness is not gone and depths have not been compromised."

Is a pot bunker the only or best solution to getting access to the path to the clubhouse?

FREEMAHC, this is stated as a restoration.  I ask you will all due respect and candor which version of the course would you prefer
1- a real restoration that in a sensitive manner brings back the course as it was 50 years ago

or

2- What was actually done to the course by Roger Rulewich, John Beinecke, the athletic department and the "restoration committee"?

[Mike_Sweeney]

Mike

You're making me crazy!

Dr,

Probably one of my easier task today .

Fremac.

I hear what you are saying, and I am a believer in practicality within reason, in reference to architecture and specifically to the greenskeeper path on the right. I will go even one further and acknowledge that Rulewich probably split the left bunker into two in order to accomadate the cart player which did not exist in 1925. However after making a few trips to National, Essex.... what Rulewich really missed was the sharp angles of MacRaynor-Banks, which personally strike the fear of God in me when you see them for the first time . At Yale 9th, Ran calls it the "inland Cypress 16", you are supposed to get the visual double-triple whammy of:

1. look out for the water;
2. forget the water how do I get out of those bunkers??
3. If the pin is in the back, do I fly it there or line drive that rolls to the back?

Clearly the depiction of the 9th shows the sharp angles that are supposed to look like:

Here is the 3rd at National:



Here is George Bahto's work at the 8th at Essex:





Those angles, al least to me, really get you thinking. I still love the hole and we have been down this road before and probably 95% of the players at Yale, a university course, will not notice or care. However, people such as Rulewich in the industry should not call this a restoration.

I really love the history of Yale, what little I know in comparison to others, and I wish people at Yale would embrace this history.

[FREEMAHC]

First off - I'd like to know where I called him a liar.

Secondly, he needs to make up his mind, he calls the project both a renovation and a restoration. He also adds that he "repaired" the bunkers. Renovaation, restoration and repairs are three different animals.

Speaking of this bunker in particular, he did a good job of repairing and renovating it. The bunker that had presiously lived in that site was maybe 6' in diameter with no flat bottom. It had terrible drianage problems and flooded after the slightest amount of rain. The slopes outside the bunker were too steep to mow, and would collapse when you tried to get in or out of the trap. Even if your ball landed in the middle of the bunker your stance was outside the bunker. It was ridiculous.

The bunker he put in there is 'repaired' I guess. It drains better, it's maintainable, and it's playable.

If they were simply repairing the course, they did a fine job. If they were renovating the course they didn't do nearly enough. If they were restoing the course, they could have done a lot better.

Mike - I agree with you, many of the the MacDonald and Raynor characteristics have been lost. The split you mention in the left bunker makes sense, especially if the pin is in the back. Perhaps a similar divider could used on the right side.

[GeoffreyC]

FREEMAC

You obviously did not call Mr. Rulewich a liar directly.  You did, however, contrast what he wrote in a national publication.  If you are in fact correct about the rationale for the work done pretty much to the entire front nine then by inference Mr. Rulewich lied in Golfweek about the Yale project.

The facts, as you are probably aware, are that it was not until John Beinecke was shown the butchering of the front nine (by me) and made aware of this horrible work that he formed a "restoration effort" for the BACK nine work. That work is better but still falls short of the minimal requirements for a restoration of any sensitivity. Mr. Rulewich apparently felt backed into a corner by the Golfweek article and mis-stated/ lied about HIS role and responsibility for the work done to the front nine.

FREEMAHC- Have you gone back and looked at my hole by hole photographic and historical review of the work done to #'s 1,2, 4, 5, 6, and 7?  If not I ask you to go back and look at these threads and let me know what you think.  I REALLY DO want your opinion and would like to discuss it with you.  Thanks.

[FREEMAHC]

If you could point me to that thread I would love to take a look.

Just so you know a bit of history, I played the course just about every day for 4 years, the last being in 1998. That was right during the front 9 work. I have played the course once since then (2001) but it was a cold november day and I was more concerned with catching up with old friends than looking at the work. I do remember thinking that the bunkers on 10 looked a lot better.

So when I left, they had finished the 4th, 5th and 9th holes. That was about it.

[Kevin_Reilly]

If you could point me to that thread I would love to take a look.

One way to do it is to click on Geoffrey's name, and then near the bottom of the page that comes up there will be a menu to view his last 10 posts.  The drop down menu also includes the option to view ALL of his posts.  If you do that, you can review all of GC's posts re: the Yale "restoration".

[GeoffreyC]

FREEMAHC

I would sincerely appreciate your opinion's as someone who has played the course quite a bit.

Here are the links to some of the discussions

hole 1

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=6624;start=msg127109#msg127109

hole2

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=6867;start=0


Hole 4

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=6952;start=0

hole5

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=7001;start=msg134352#msg134352


hole6

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=7082;start=msg136251#msg136251

hole7

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=7159;start=msg138277#msg138277

[FREEMAHC]

Thanks for the links - I'll take a look.

I found the posts on #6 & 7 and had a look - the 7th seems fantastic compared to the 6th! That's not saying much. I remember the old bunker on 6 and it was nasty, but I never remember the ridge in the green - which apparently sloped front to back - so I don't know where the dirt came from. I had played Yale sporadically before 1995 dating back to the late 80's but I can still picture that bunker. Not sure how that timeline lines up witht the superintendants.

[FREEMAHC]

Jst a couple quick notes about the other holes - #1, there was no need to split the right hand bunker, since the 2nd tee is to the LEFT of the green. Both those bunkers and the ones on #2 used to be much deeper.

On #2 the back right bunker is a nice addition, but probably not done quite well enogh. When Iwas playing there, there was nothing but grass to the right of the green. The bunker will actually make the hole play easier since the whole green runs away from you, and it's much easier to get some spin coming out of the sand than coming off a hardpan bare lie.

#4, those bunkers do in fact stink. The one improvement that was made was the widening of the path from the 4th green to the 5th tee. That used to be a barren strip of dirt. at least now it has a chance to grow some grass. I also agree that a new tee should be put in back in the trees. The NCAA boys and the pros (a Hogan Tour event was here for a few years) just drive right over the lake and edge it onto the green.

#5, there was a drianage problem in the old traps. I don't know if that was because of the grade or because of the lack of sub-surface drains. Since the bunker used ot be deeper, it seems as though the drainage problem could have been worked out without raising the grade of the trap.

#6 - that finger of bunker by the green used to be devilish, the new thing they put in there might as well have a beach umbrella too.

#7 - not sure why they couldn't make that bunker larger. It was always tough to come out of there to the front portion of the green and keep the ball on the putting surface.

One thing that no one's mentioned, but ale's traps, as I knew them, used to be hard as a rock. I used a wedge with 0^ bounce with a lot of success. But the firmness of the traps made for even more problems. They were also filled with rocks. These new bunkers had entirely too much sand. So they went from one extreme to another. I am not sure why Yale or RR couldn't build the new traps to PGA Tour specs. I guess it wasn't in the budget.

[GeoffreyC]

FREEMAHC

Thanks for your honest comments.  I agree with you.

Had you seen old photos of the course before?

Would a sensitive restoration to conditions as seen in those photos been something you think would have been good for the course, the members and the University as a whole?

Fact is that they had the world's authority of MacDonald/Raynor and Banks on board (George Bahto) and they ignored him.

Do you think that Roger Rulewich was a good choice to begin this project in the first place?

Given his record od (mis)accomplishment on the front nine, do you think his services should have been retained for the back nine "restoration"?

[Kelly Blake Moran]

Geoff or Freemac,

How do you know the old photo is before the bunkers were finished, or in this case before the hole was finished, or was the intention for the hole design to be as it is depicted in the old photo?  Was this common with their projects to have the entire green surrounds grassed (and it appears the turf is well established, the green surface looks striped) before they finished the bunkers?

also, how frequently do people need to travel from the 9th green to the clubhouse?  Is it a connection for people working and servicing the halfway hut to get to the clubhouse?  

It appears the green is in full sunlight, but given the heavy tree growth leaning over the green, does the green get enough light?  Did the desire to maintain those trees have a bigger influence on the gross modifications to the right side bunkering?

The back of the green looks more squareish in the original photo.  the current photo makes it appear that the back of the green has taken on the shape of the end of a thumb? How does that impact the strategic design of the hole ?

[GeoffreyC]

Kelly- Happy New Year

Those are all very good questions.  

Perhaps George Bahto can answer the one about when the holes were actually finished. I don't know the answer but I do suspect very strongly that the slopes, sizes of features and greens surrounds could not have chaged very much from the photos.

MANY people walk with pullcarts or carry using that path which leads to the bottom front right of the 10th tee.  It is an easier walk then the steeper path at the back of the green that leads directly to the top back of the 10th tee. Still, there must be a better solution then a pot bunker.  Removing trees to create more room on the right would help and a strip bunker with a division into two sections would be more in character with biarritz bunkering.

Green space needs to be recovered.  The back was more square shaped.  Given that they pin that area about one day in twenty it hardly matters   . THey don't care about strategic considerations or how one of the great par 3's in golf is supposed to play.  They care about pace of play and "fairness".  The back section of the green tilts quite a bit from right to left.  If they would put the pin there most of the time and play the hole as a biarritz is supposed to play then there would be more room for pin locations and it would save wear and tear on the green.

[FREEMAHC]

I would like to see a btter combination of renovation and restoration. As you probably know, the course is a ATM for Yale. The Univ. will do all it canto get every last penny from the place. Investing in the course has never been a priority. So this is more politcal than it is architectural.

That being said, I would like to see a combination of renovation and restoration. The bunkers and greens should be restored, but within limits that allow the high handicapper to still enjoy a round of golf. Restore the lost bunkers - like those on 6, 7, 13, 16 and 18 in particular. Put the ridge back in the 6th green, restore the double punchbowl in the 3rd green, deepen the traps on 5, and relocate the 16th green.

On top of that. I see some opportunities to add a couple new tees and add a few elements to make it a respected championship course again. A new back tee on 4, 8, 10, 14 (if possible) and 17. Also, take out a lot of the trees - most noticeably between 1 and 2.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()