Mr. Childs
First, please know that you and I probably disagree much less than you think. I would love to see Yale restored to a reasonable semblance of its original design. [It kills me that Harry Meusel was allowed to run rampant all that time. I yearn to have a double punch-bowl green at #3.] Also, I appreciate the concern and input of all the various experts who have chimed in. Most criticism and all honest discussion are healthy and welcome in my house any time. It seems to me, however, that this whole topic has been taken too far. None of you know under exactly what circumstances Mr. Rulewich was asked to provide design guidance or what the budget constraints might have been. This constant attacking of his work strikes me as gratuitous by some and malicious by others. Also, I am very aware of Gil's feelings about various elements but I am also aware that he loves playing the course as it is now. Enough about Gil.
If "the administration" has had anything at all to say about the course, I am unaware of it. The coaches and the pro staff are proud to be associated with a "Top 100" course as they should be. [If I recall correctly, the most recent top 100 rating was in Mr. Klein's "Golfweek" last year.] That the administration should aspire to anything like that is another matter. I will agree with you that Yale has some kind of obligation to maintain its asset appropriately but I conceive of this as an internal Yale matter. It would be great to have a Top 25 course and I can imagine a day when, through private fund-raising and good planning (perhaps with some of your people in on that) that we might. I would think, however, that this would not be anywhere near the top of the university's priority list.
As for "peer review," this isn't an academic matter. It's a golf course. Forces are at work to make things better. They already are better and I firmly believe that we are only at the beginning of the process. The course was basically neglected for 50 years. I think that this torrent of criticism does a profound disservice to those who have worked within the system, imperfect as it is, to make Yale the place it can be. As for you, I think that your impatience with the process does not serve you or your cause well. It seems obvious to me that you have alot to offer. You could be a great asset to the course if you would try to understand how to be a team player instead of attacking those who are working hard to make Yale the best course it can be. Think about it. What John Beinecke has begun can go on and on now that it has legs. There are very deep pockets out there. What will be accomplished, however, will be accomplished in an atmosphere of cooperation and collegiality, not at the behest of uninvited critics.
Although I know who was brought in to consult, I am certainly not the one to pass that information along to anyone, especially in this forum as it seems likely that they would instantly become the target for public criticism and condemnation by experts both real and self-appointed.