[tonyt]

There has been some deference taken to the strongest stances held here over the changes.

Whilst it may be correct to beg for constructive and joint conversation on the matter rather than a website forum rant and rave, if the pleas for constructive and joint conversation made by very learned interests are ignored, and the powers that be don't even acknowledge or even try and make an excuse for the gaping grand canyon of differences that are obvious, then anything less than strong words is pointless.

If the so called "good guys" are trying to be constructive and see this debate as openly and with understanding towards all parties concerned as possible, then they can only be good guys if they too have very clearly rebuffed any naming of this work as being as restorative or genuine as Roger's comments claim it to be. If not, then at best, they are good guys who in the name of keeping the peace, have been too silent or compromised their conclusions too greatly.

bkatona, You said;
"This would also be the proper forum to discuss why bunker, green, tee, etc. shapes were amended."

Mate, according to Roger, they weren't ammended. Many of his published quotes refer to exactly replicating the originals and their playability, using the old photos. As we can see for ourselves, this is horrifically untrue.

Some have also suggested that with such great old photo resources, the future can still reclaim the past. But as Geoffrey has also pointed out, the great pity is that an even better resource was right there on the ground, and actual physical evidence is what has been destroyed. The photos are great, but the actual physical evidence not that long ago was even more valuable. Look at our thread on Garden City's old overhead photo. It still gave nowhere near the convincing evidence we'd had if it were right before our eyes.

[FREEMAHC]

Brad - and Shivas - thanks for your reply. Just another illustration of how many aspects of course architecture go unnoticed by armchair architects. As a player I obviously notice the trees that come into play but fail to see some the real importance of tree removal programs.

Your post really helped me learn something new. Thanks

[GeoffreyC]

James Kreuttner -

You seemed to have disappeared after one post. I have not heard from you via private message as well.

What do you have to say about "expert opinions" such as Geoff Shackelford (have you read his books?) and Gil Hanse now?

Will you join me to at least ask for other outside expert opinions in a context where candid replies can be given?

Thanks-

[GeoffreyC]

bkatona

You said

"I have followed with great interest this debate on Yale.  The work this group has invested posting aerial pictures, old photos ,etc. makes it easy to see what was and what currently exists. Setting aside the arguement of shape  of bunkers for the time being, there has to be logical reasons why the current renovation work  decreased much of their veretical element.  Rather than speculate here, perhaps this group can ask for and receive real answers from the team doing the work in a constructive forum, rather than a one sided debate here."

I can answer that question (which I put in bold) by using Roger Rulewich's own words from his letter of reply to Brad Klein's Golfweek article.  In that letter Roger wrote

"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."

So, in spite of all the photographic evidence and observations on the ground the architect of record DENIES the bunkers have changed from what he sees in construction photos or by probing in the ground. That's the answer from the team doing the work.

[Craig Disher]

Geoffrey,
Here's the entire hole - I believe this view is from the same 1940 aerial photo.

[JakaB]

Is it safe to say that like all great crimes of our generation...the travesty is not the work.. it is the cover up.  How really is the actual work done any worse than what has been done at Pebble and is currently being done at Pine Valley all in the name of maintenance.  To a degree that is.

[Patrick_Mucci]

JakaB,

I find "restoration" work much like the singing of our National Anthem, rather then be true to the original, everyone has their own personal interpretation, and many seem to feel the modified version is okay.

NOT ME.

Doesn't anybody know how to sing it properly... anymore ?

What would have been so hard about replicating # 17, as it appears in Craig's photo

Why accept a hybrid version

[FREEMAHC]

Geoff - that 1940 aerial really makes it clear - there is loads of room on the right side of the bunkers to run a ball in there. That firther stresses your point that with the right mowing patterns, there is no way 17 would become stricktly an aerial hole.

[GeoffreyC]

Sean

You asked "How was the front nine financed?"

Now that question gets to the heart of just how ill conceived the whole process at Yale was from the very beginning. Brad Klein stated in his article (Sept 27th 2003 Golfweek) "Restoration, even basic renovation takes a clear vision, a master plan, and a long term committment to reclaiming heritage.  Beyond retorical flourishes, little of that is evident in Yale's latest scheme. The piecemeal process by which a handful of bunkers are done, then the project put aside until more money can be scraped up and the committee can reconvene, is a formula for failure..  While the participants are well intentioned, the process is fundamentally flawed and guaranteed to produce the awkward lurching now taking place at The Course at Yale."

Sean- back in the late 90's, the bunkers were hardpacked sand with poor drainage.  Many had already suffered the ravages (elimination or alteration) of Harry Meusel, long time superintendent with a bulldozer who did more damage to this course then we could imagine. You did not want to get into those bunkers because getting out was anything but consistent.  In other words, they were Cirba's ideal   .  Along came a plan, well intentioned and thoughtful, whereby a donor would be asked to contribute $5000.  When such a person agreed, a single bunker or a few bunkers were replaced by Roger Rulewich. That, I was told, is how the bunkers on the front 9 were financed. That was the plan and Roger Rulewich agreed although its hard to see that in his letter to Golfweek.

[GeoffreyC]

The following is a post from George Bahto.  George asked me to post the pictures from his collection along with the commentary that goes along with them.

I'd like to illustrate Seth Raynor's ingenious placement of the Principal's Nose bunker complex on Yale's 17th - so few remain.

This post is not meant to serve as a comparison to what has transpired long after it was built - rather it is meant to stress the importance of this course in this man's overall course designs. As I have stated many times before, the Yale course is, to me, Seth Raynor's finest work. Macdonald stated it might be Lido but when he wrote that, he stated Yale had not yet matured and Yale might eventually "surpass" Raynor's work at Lido.

I was fortunate to have taken a lot of pictures of the Yale course years ago - before recent modifications. I usually take a lot of pictures but this place so impressed me it seems I couldn't get enuf of it.


Photo #1 taken from the right side show how the PN fits so naturally into the existing terrain. It is a work of art. There are not too many of these PN's left. At NGLA there are two. One on hole 8 where Macdonald  added it beyond the minefield of fairway bunkers when players began to hit the balls past his original  bunkering. The other is in its normal design arrangement, short of the Double Plateau green on hole #11. There is a Macdonald / Raynor PN on the 5th at St Louis but this was thankfully put back by the superintendent, Jack Litvay, a few yrs a go - but I can't consider it "Raynor-original."  There was one at Piping Rock (gone) and there was one at Lido. A restored version (Doak & Co) is on Yeamans Hall first hole.

I would be hard-pressed to find another Raynor-bilt PN that hasn't been changed or another one that has survived. Let me know if you can think of one.


Photo #2 obviously taken from the right edge of the fairway near the green. You can see the indentation of one of the grown in bunkers.


Photo #3 taken from the green.


Photo #4. This one I really like! Taken during construction, interesting how the left side of the bunker-mound is do angular. I don't know if it was built like that or if this was taken in the midst of the construction. How interesting if this the way it was built.

It's really a shame that is great a strategic feature presented on Raynor plans was so often rejected by clubs. Most any that were built, were removed - they couldn't handle a bunker in the fairway?  Duh!!

[JamesK]

My goodness.
#1. As I have been caring for a visiting friend who suddenly needed surgery on Saturday, I have been blissfully unaware of the many responses apparently elicitied by my comments to Mr. Childs on Friday. I have changed my signon name so as to properly identify myself for anyone who might care.
#2. While I have been playing golf at Yale and elsewhere for over 40 years, I do not consider myself an expert on anything related to golf or golf course architiecture. My expertise is in being proficient enough at the game (eternally flirting with a single digit handicap as time allows) to know what I enjoy and don't enjoy.
#3. While I am currently Vice President of the Yale Golf Association, a group whose mission it is to help fund the Yale Golf Teams' activities, I do not consider myself part of the Yale Golf establishment. I have never met Roger Rulewich and have never been consulted on policy or decisions.
#4. Many of the points that constantly get thrashed on this site have been repeatedly ackowlegded and reasons have been given over and over again. For instance, the traps at #5 were made more shallow because in their former state they served more to breed mesquitoes and spawn polliwogs than to provide sand play. And, as Gil noted, some of the contours were altered for ease of maintenance. What he didn't say was why ease of maintenance is an important issue at Yale. It is because Yale's maintenance staff is unionized thereby making it extremely expensive.
#5. I do not personally believe that Yale University has any responsibility to the game of golf or to any group of golf course preservationists regarding the manner in which it maintains its golf course. In my own view, its only responsibility is to the deed of gift by which it acquired the land on which the course was constructed. For those who are unaware, the land was given by the widow of a great Yale athlete of the 19th century "for the purposes of encouraging athletic sports at Yale." Mr. Childs and I have been beneficiaries of that gift.
#6. To Mr. Childs: It is very clear that you have a great passion for the course. I share that with you. Because we diverge in our opinions about what is currently going on there does not mean that I don't respect your opinions and your right to air them. I just think that you are beating a dead dog.
#7. I very much regret invoking Gil Hanse's name and drawing him into this debate. Gil was nice enough to be the after dinner speaker at last fall's Yale College Am. For most in attendance his remarks and the subsequent Q&A session were the highlight of a terrific day at the course and we are very much in his debt. I was well aware that there were specific things that Gil didn't like but it was my impression that the overall improvement work met with his approval. Maybe not. I was responsible for bringing Gil to Yale that day and hope that he will return often. He would certainly be my choice to do the restoration work at Yale but since we count not only Roger, but also the Jones brothers as alums, I doubt that would ever come about. And, by the way, he said 2,000 trees, not 1,000.

[tonyt]

James,

I have no doubt that it must be difficult for an organisation to be spoken of as if they should be custodians of a global heritage asset with people like us poking their noses in from all over the planet.

But for the upteenth time, it is Roger who claims that no bunker shapes were softened or bunkers made more shallow.

If those at Yale didn't proclaim they are perfectly restoring the course to the original ideals of the old photos, then we on these boards wouldn't proclaim that they have failed in the attempt to do so. Many a course has been softened in the name of ease of maintenance and because the existing custodians of the asset wanted it so. As they have not pretended to do otherwise, their circumstances have therefore no warranted any such discussion on the scale of the Yale saga on these boards.

[Mike_Cirba]

Well, TonyT;

Aside from the clear disengenous statements regarding the intent of the work, I have to say that I would make comments regardless, based on a simple fact;

Yale is a great and almost unique golf course, designed in a masterful way.  The "restoration" work that I saw on the front nine there is amateurish, at best.  I have yet to see the back nine work.  

In particular, I would decry some of the bunker work I saw if it was done at the local chip and putt.

No, Yale doesn't owe us a thing, much less an explanation.  One would just hope that such a world-class institution would have higher standards and expectations.    

[SPDB]

I would be hard-pressed to find another Raynor-bilt PN that hasn't been changed or another one that has survived. Let me know if you can think of one.

George/Geoffrey -

Slightly off-topic, but since you asked.

There is a Principal's Nose bunker complex on #15 at the Creek, made all the more interesting by the Hog's Back fairway on which it sits.

[tonyt]

I too Mike wouldn't be able to just sit on my hands and keep quiet. Just trying to explain to James that if they are going to make the misleading statements that have been published, don't feel harshly treated if it gets a right royal spraying on an architecturally devoted forum.

[Lou_Duran]

I don't mean to jump on Mr. Kreuttner, who is most likely a thoughtful, intelligent man, but his point #5 is an interesting one.

"#5. I do not personally believe that Yale University has any responsibility to the game of golf or to any group of golf course preservationists regarding the manner in which it maintains its golf course. In my own view, its only responsibility is to the deed of gift by which it acquired the land on which the course was constructed. For those who are unaware, the land was given by the widow of a great Yale athlete of the 19th century "for the purposes of encouraging athletic sports at Yale." Mr. Childs and I have been beneficiaries of that gift."

Inargualby, Yale is a bastion of liberalism where private property rights are very casually subordinated to some elite idea of the public good.  A landowner in most urbanized sections of the country can't enjoy the use of his propery as he wishes, needing instead zoning, construction permits, and various other approvals to do much with it.  Yet, Yale, a non-profit private private institution supported in part by public money (I am assuming that it receives research grants and its students financial aid) has no responsibility to others outside of its small elite circle?

I know that I only have degrees from a land-grant public university so I am probably missing the complexities of the issue.   But am I the only one who sees something wrong with this picture?  Why is Dr. Childs' request for a thorough airing of the issues and peer review ianppropriate or just beating a dead dog (or is it a horse?)?

As with Ohio State which has two well-known alumni with differing visions of what should happen to its renown course (I don't know if the Jones brothers see eye to eye on the Yale "restoration" with Mr. Rulewich). perhaps it is a good idea to avoid any conflicts of interest, real or perceived, and award the work to an impartial, neutral expert such as Mrssrs. Hanse or Bahto.  This can't be a fun project for Roger.

[Lou_Duran]

Sean,

I don't know you, so quite possibly to people like you, my postings add little value.  However, I would dare say that if each of us would self-regulate by simply asking ourselves, "does the following post edify, adds value, or maybe amuses the SPDBs of this world", this site would require but a tiny fraction of its current bandwidth.

Admitedly, I do have a burr up my butt about academia in general, and the condescending, arrogant perspectives it so often spews.  The point Mr. Kreuttner made relative to Yale and that it wasn't accountable is all too typical, and at least in the context of golf restoration, one worthy of further discussion.

And if you believe that land uses, zoning, permitting, environmental regulation, etc. are gratuitious issues having little to do with golf, well, let's just say that you do not need to peruse my postings in the future.

I happen to believe that Geoffrey Childs, who I suspect has more in common with you politically than with me, has some very legitimate beefs.  I do find it incredibly ironic, but at the same time so true to life, that such a bastion of tolerance of thought, open-mindedness, and inclusiveness appears to be little more than a closed shop of people who truly believe that they know better and owe no one an explanation, not to say anything about accountability.

And by the way, I do see some parallels between philosophies on golf and politics, though not necessarily equivalent to the liberal-conservative spectrum.  

[Jim_Kennedy]

Lou,
From the Yale Herald, Jan. 16th, 2004:

...."While he does not feel that Yale is completely promoting left-wing ideology, Chris Elrod, MC '06, a member of a conservative group on campus, said that "a lot of professors present material that is on the liberal side of things." While he thought teachers should ideally present their opinions in an "objective manner," he acknowledged that it is "inevitable" that a professor's opinion will influence his or her lecture. Elrod agreed with(civil rights activist) Horowitz that "the University has a responsibility to maintain some sort of objectivity in its events," but emphasized that the school should not interfere in student activities or organizations. Yale does an excellent job of "letting the students do what they want to do," he added, a policy which allows student groups to balance the political atmosphere themselves.
Elrod thought that the conservative mentality was "on the rise" at Yale, making a bill for conservatives' protection unnecessary. (Branford Master) Smith agreed, ridiculing the bill as an "endangered species act for conservatives." He added that "it takes a certain strength of character and mind to challenge reigning orthodoxy," something Yale conservatives do very well without any outside protection.

Here is a link to only some of the ways that Yale responds to the needs of the surrounding community, including tax payments on its non-academic properties, community grants, 240mil spent on in-state purchasing, etc.etc.etc..      
http://www.yale.edu/opa/labor/newhaven.html

Yale is no more exempt from any of the land use/zoning,  permitting, regulations than any other institution, or private citizen. Your assertions are unfounded when looking at the facts surrounding the substantial contributions Yale makes to its community, the larger one that's not just revolving around the golf course. Try to make an impartial judgement, sans political agenda?

[Lou_Duran]

Jim,

You say "Yale is no more exempt from any of the land use/zoning,  permitting, regulations than any other institution, or private citizen. Your assertions are unfounded when looking at the facts surrounding the substantial contributions Yale makes to its community, the larger one that's not just revolving around the golf course. Try to make an impartial judgement, sans political agenda?"

While if you read what I wrote with a bit of care you may find that I never asserted those things which you term as unfounded, now that you bring it up, maybe I should.  Do you really think that Yale has the same row to hoe that you or I as private citizens would have when it comes to development?  You really don't think that they would have an easier time to obtain a variance, or pull a permit in a short time that a private developer could not do?  Or that it might have the ability to have the local government condemn private property to benefit the university and the "public good"?  I think that if you did a little checking, you may find what that elite institution of higher learning is able to do.

My comments regarding Yale which also apply to any number of other institutions of higher learning boil down to this: that it doesn't practice what it preaches.  If it did, Geoffrey Childs, George Bahto, et al would not be considered as nuisances but as the wonderful resources that they are.

My extension of this to politics is simply that in my 50 years of life I have observed that while governments and many public and private institutions are very good at telling people what to do, for some reason they seem to believe that they are immune or exempted from the same.

As to political agenda, other than all the frustration when I witness all the bashing and nonsense that passes as "scholarship", well I really have none.  I am resigned to the fact that those people who refuse to learn from history and make the same mistakes over and over will continue to do so regardless of anything I can do.  And if they left me alone, I would be perfectly happy.  That they demand more and more of whatever little I am able to achieve, and on top of that, take great gusto in calling me names, well, that does piss me off just a little.

The bottom line I guess is that what ever happens at Yale Golf Club or at Ohio State will not have a significant impact on my life.  After all who cares if a PN becomes another little bump on the ground.  Most players wouldn't notice the difference, just as most people wouldn't get a rise from the third movement of Beethoven's fifth.  It is just a pity that those who have the capacity to discern, really don't.  The marginal costs of doing things right are not that significant.

Sean,

I have discussed with Ran the tendency of this site to gravitate to tangent issues.  As best as I can tell, he would rather err on too much than too little.  The best censor is one's ability to discriminate.  And what is nice about this site is that we are free to read what we want and respond accordingly.

By the way, I don't think that it would be a libertarian position that a handful of Yale people can do what they want without accountability.  There is a huge difference between a private land owner and an institution such as Yale.

I do wish the best for the Yale Golf Club, which, I suspect, much better served by Geoffrey's and George's visions than those of the current decision makers.  
 

[Mike_Sweeney]

#4. And, as Gil noted, some of the contours were altered for ease of maintenance. What he didn't say was why ease of maintenance is an important issue at Yale. It is because Yale's maintenance staff is unionized thereby making it extremely expensive.

James,

I have often been frustrated with this site's lack of acknowledgement for economics in building and maintaining a golf course. However the union excuse has been overused by Yale Golf Course. Somehow the rest of Yale has been able to maintain world class standards with the cost structure imposed by the Yale unions.


#5. I do not personally believe that Yale University has any responsibility to the game of golf or to any group of golf course preservationists regarding the manner in which it maintains its golf course. In my own view, its only responsibility is to the deed of gift by which it acquired the land on which the course was constructed. For those who are unaware, the land was given by the widow of a great Yale athlete of the 19th century "for the purposes of encouraging athletic sports at Yale." Mr. Childs and I have been beneficiaries of that gift.

I doubt that Mrs Tompkins knew that it would become a historical course. History is developed over time, and clearly Yale understands that in many other areas of the university.


#6. To Mr. Childs: It is very clear that you have a great passion for the course. I share that with you. Because we diverge in our opinions about what is currently going on there does not mean that I don't respect your opinions and your right to air them. I just think that you are beating a dead dog.



I do think you are wrong here. I think most would agree that the back 9 was "getting closer" to a true restoration. Obviously most here do not believe it was close enough. Geoffrey, who brought in George Bahto, created a huge awareness of Yale's history and heritage with many of the decision makers.

A friend from Winged Foot who is a fan of Yale recently told me about how their bunkers were screwed up during a RENOVATION, and they finally got fixed when they brought in Tom Fazio. (PS. Tom Fazio is typically not loved at GCA.)

Of course I will always remember a quote from "Gerry" the longtime Yale starter, "Michael my boy, you send two Yale men into a room and you are bound to come out with three opinions"


#7. I very much regret invoking Gil Hanse's name and drawing him into this debate. Gil was nice enough to be the after dinner speaker at last fall's Yale College Am. For most in attendance his remarks and the subsequent Q&A session were the highlight of a terrific day at the course and we are very much in his debt. I was well aware that there were specific things that Gil didn't like but it was my impression that the overall improvement work met with his approval. Maybe not. I was responsible for bringing Gil to Yale that day and hope that he will return often. He would certainly be my choice to do the restoration work at Yale but since we count not only Roger, but also the Jones brothers as alums, I doubt that would ever come about. And, by the way, he said 2,000 trees, not 1,000.

I think that Gil Hanse's first and maybe only post here speaks volumes, and I will let it stand at that.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Great point Mike.

Blaming the labor union at Yale has gotten tiring, and yes, while I'm partial because I'm a member of a labor union and proud of it, I can say from experience that its just as much the policies set forth by management that aren't followed as the culprit to bad workmanship or loss of pride and esteem of what they are working on. Yale is a perfect model for this.

Some examples of successful Union Labor at work on Golf Courses............

Now don't quote me on this, but isn't Bethpage Black maintained by a staff that chooses Union Labor? I know there are some others. Please help me here.

And yes, I'm sure there are failures too, but where exactly does the buck stop?

All of those billions up there in New Haven and they need an electrician to tell them this? Well, maybe Lech Walesa was on to something!)

[JamesK]

All-
I will make a couple of small points and then I need to get on with my life.
THE UNION - I was not BLAMING the Teamsters. I was merely stating a FACT. Since the brief presidency of Benno Schmidt, Yale has paid property taxes to New Haven on the golf course. It is the (in my opinion, misguided) aim of the Athletic Department to have the course be self-supporting. Unionized golf course maintenance is significantly more expensive than non-union golf course maintenance. The Athletic Department's approach to this has been to understaff the maintenance crew. I do not agree with that approach but it is the result of simple arithmetic.
YALE PRIVILEGE - The notion that Yale gets special treatment from the local bureaucracy is nonsense. There has been friction between Yale and New Haven forever. Schmidt agreed to pay taxes on the golf course as a trade for New Haven closing a small street that ran through the middle of the downtown campus. It was the view of many that this was tantamount to extortion.
GIL HANSE- I spoke with Gil yesterday. I still regret invoking his name. I will not change a thing I have said.
Many of us have serious issues with the "powers that be." If I were in charge, I would do things very differently. The problem I have with some of this discussion group is their adherence to the idea that restoration is only good if it slavishly adheres to original design. Times change. A golf course is a living organism and, in my view, should serve the group for whom it is intended. In this case, that is the Yale student body. Alum/YGC members like me are (and should be) entirely secondary in this picture. Would I like better restoration work done? Absolutely. Am I happy with the improvements that have been made? I am thrilled. As John Beinecke's group raises more money, perhaps some of the preservationists' concerns can be addressed. But let me assure you that the course is a vastly better track than the one I first played in 1964. There were features, such as the vertical sand trap on the face of the hill leading to the upper fairway on #18 that were penal to the point of absurdity.
Also, the idea that a small group of administration officials is calling all the shots is erroneous. Beinecke's group hired two different consultants to advise them and studied matters quite thoroughly.
Lastly, I think that you are right. But I don't have a horse so I have to be content to beat my dog.

[GeoffreyC]

James

Can you think of a single golf course in your 40 years in the game that is like the Course at Yale? I contend that it is a one of a kind course. It is cut through the trees and rocks yet it is nothing like any other parkland course I have seen or read about.  It is rolling, expansive in it’s scope and meant for the topography of the land to come into play (hence no need for fairway bunkering) yet it is unlike any heathland or links course I have played or read about. To me the unique nature of the course itself is enough reason to preserve it as a tribute to Raynor and MacDonald, architecture in general and yet it is not a museum piece but still a GREAT course to play and enjoy.  What could be better for the university and the members?.

The issue of maintenance has been raised many times at Yale as an excuse for softening features. Another issue has been that the course if restored would just be flat out too hard for many of the members. I reject those assertions completely. James, what do the high handicap players do today when they hit into the bunkers on #2 or #8?  Those were the single hardest places to play from and they STILL are.  Those players either hack their way out eventually or they pick up and move on. The BUTCHERING of the hillside on #2 in the name of maintenance doesn’t make the course easier to play. It makes it look horrible akin to Michael Jackson’s plastic surgeon at work.  More balls simply stay on the hillside making for dangerous stances, lost balls and not much easier shots. How do those poor players negotiate #18?  With great difficulty and often with a lost ball and ball in pocket. Why not blow up the hill in the name of maintenance and pace of play?  That would solve the problem better then they have done so to now. What if the road bunker was restored on #4?  Poor players might have to hit out sideways or backwards- so what.  Their scores might actually improve from that superior course management. Same if the left front bunker on #1 were restored to its depth and the lip.  Perhaps poor players will play sideways or to the right section of the green making for a very difficult putt.  So what- they play on and learn not to mess with that bunker. Today poor players still have to contend with forced carries on #3, 4, and over the pond and up the hill on 17. It’s a tough game but they manage to get around and still love the course.

James, as built, the course at Yale would be one of the perhaps best 25 golf courses in the country.  That alone I think would bring in alum money and support.  There must be (are) modern methods to get good drainage that would allow the design to be maintained. However, would you agree that the Yale administration is stonewalling the membership and the public?  If the truth is that they are dumbing down the course for the good of the students, faculty and members then why don’t they say so?  You might think that would get a favorable response since it in everyone’s good interests.  Instead they sent out these lying letters about a “complete restoration of your Charles Blair MacDonald masterpiece” and ask for money. They are leading the members to think this is a restoration. Why does Roger Rulewich to this very day say that his work, even on the FRONT NINE, was done using aerial and construction photos and consultation with long time members? He contends slopes and depths of bunkers (except on #5) were not altered.  Why does he do that?  Why not just state the truth and say we had one of the great courses but were sacrificing that great architecture so you get more enjoyment by playing it in a few less strokes then you would have?  The Yale administration proudly proclaims that they have one of the top 100 courses in the nation.  It’s important to them. Finally, even if we disagree about the project’s ultimate goals (which we do) I think it is clear that the work that Roger did to the course was virtual malpractice. Pipes were coming out of the bunkers on 4. The bunker surrounds look like a bad case of plastic surgery and there was as Gil said (and I told John Beinecke over the years many times) little attention to details.  The money was poorly spent even for a RENOVATION. Poor quality work is poor quality work regardless of the project aims. The Yale administration needs to realize this.

James- will you finally admit that experts with no axe to grind are making these claims about the course?  Will you at least agree that an outside peer review panel of experts should give a candid evaluation of the work done and what they believe is necessary to do in the future?   PLEASE!

[GeoffreyC]

Yikes- I just read James' latest reply and I am dumbfounded.

Did you not read what Gil wrote here? You STILL stand by what you wrote earlier in your first post?

Who did Beinecke hire to consult and what were their credentials and recommendations?  Do you want to hear what George Bahto advised him to do with the course?

I have to respect that you think the course is better then it was in 1964.  However I very much doubt it is better then it was in 1934 and I very much doubt that the money spent so far to put the course in the condidion it is in today was well spent.  

[Mike Hendren]

It seems to me that this all boils down to some people trying to BS some other people who called BS on the original BS'ers.  The original BS'ers, having been exposed, are either too hard-headed or egotistical to fess up.  

Why play a good game on a poor course?" - George C. Thomas, Jr.

Mike

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()