[JamesK]

Mr. Childs
It might (or might not) interest you to know that Gil Hanse was at Yale in October and, with a few very specific exceptions, thought highly of the restoration work and was delighted to find that the public criticisms that have been bandied about so regularly both here and in Golf Week were largely without merit. In fact, he is eager to return and play there again this year.
The NCAA is also on side as the Men's Regionals will be held there in May.
With Yale's new commitment to maintenance, you really have quite a track to play there.
I can't imagine what motivates this crusade of yours. It is really pretty ridiculous. My unsolicited advice would be to relax and enjoy what you have. Damn few golfers are so lucky.

[HamiltonBHearst]

I originally came to this site through the sports illustrated article that showed the passion of Tommy Naccarrato.  It is clear that there are others on this site like Mr. Childs and Mr. Mucci that are equally passionate and equally knowledgeable.
I belong to a few nice clubs but prior to being exposed to this I never would have known.  The Yale administration is clearly trying to deceive on this.  

Mr. Cirba- I know the judging by pictures is a running joke here but these are before and after with explanations on how strategies have been affected.  

Jamesk- I suggest to you that Mr. Childs would not be so passionate if he were not aware what has been lost at Yale.  Most do not know and are being snowed by the administration, myself included.  Not sure what motivates you to attack Mr. Childs though.

As for Gil Hanse, he is entitled to his opinion. Maybe Pat can get Brad Klein and Gil to debate the merits of the Yale restoration at the Baltusrol get together.

[Jeff Fortson]

JamesK,

Maintenance is one step, but proper "restoration" is a completely different step.  Sure, maybe Yale is taking steps to take better care of their course conditions, but I think that Geoff Childs has made a rather convincing case on how the so-called "restoration" is a "travesty" in comparison with the original design.

If Gil Hanse, or other architects whose work I like, think this is good restorative work then I'll just simply have to disagree.  I think the excellence that Dr. Childs was hoping for in a "restoration" is far from "pretty ridiculous".

While the alumni of Yale is very lucky to have such a gem of a course to play, I find nothing wrong in telling the truth behind what is becoming more and more of a GIANT ball being dropped by those involved in the "restoration" of this classic golf course.


Jeff F.

[JakaB]

JamesK,

Thank you for your imput....we really need another fresh viewpoint on this subject.  Could you please tell someone like me who has never seen Yale the improvements you most like.

Don't give up hope if you are put in the stupid bin with the other trash on this site that don't tow the party line...The banter can really be quite fun as all of the thin skinned guys have already gone away.

[Patrick_Mucci]

JamesK,

In what forum did Gil make the pronouncement that you attribute to him ?

Was Gil being a polite guest, or was he asked, in private for his candid opinion of the work ?

I sense the former.

Having seen some of Gil's spectacular bunker work, and the bunker work at Yale and as pictured, I can't imagine that he would speak highly of the work.  As Mike Cirba and others have said, it appears amateurish at the very least.
 

[SPDB]

Almost makes me feel like a whiner about the Merion bunker project, but this is clearly architectural malfeasance and malpractice.  

Mike - you don't seriously think you need the Yale fiasco to make you look like a whiner, do you?
 

[Geoff_Shackelford]

JamesK,

Your post does NOT remind me of anything Gil said in conversations I had with him about the work at Yale. I hate to put him on the spot or even try to represent what he said that day at Yale, but I would also hate to see his views so poorly misrepresented because I highly doubt he would want to be associated with endorsing such work.

Do you really feel that's a fair representation of his comments? I would suggest that Yale simply commission a written report from Gil if there is any confusion about his views. I'd also suggest asking an alum who knows the course well, like Robert Trent Jones Jr, to visit and write a report detailing what he thinks of the work. Yale is a much loved course and plenty of people would be willing to share their views. I think Geoff Childs has tried to point that out, but I can understand why there might be reluctance to get such views, as they would almost surely be very negative.

Gil is certainly far more diplomatic and courteous than I, and I suspect he was his usual respectful, kind, diplomatic self who was rightly honored to be asked to speak at Yale. Plus, he was a guest of honor, not a consultant, so why should he really offer anything that would only upset the obviously excitable crowd endorsing this dreadful "restoration."

The entire episode is astounding when one considers that it's taking place at one of our nation's most respected educational institutions, home to many obviously intelligenty, educated folks. In fact, the entire episode reminds me of what has gone on at Stanford in the schools ongoing attempt to rid itself of its profitable golf course (only this is a thousand times worse). It certain reinforces the Woody Allen line that intellectuals "can be absolutely brilliant and have no idea what's going on."
Geoff

[Tommy_Naccarato]

James K,
If I may be ever so bold to give you a bit of tough love here, never mind the tone, only the content.

First off, I think Ray Charles could look at these pictures and tell the difference between Rulewich and Raynor, and Ray doesn't even golf.

While admitting a friendship and kinship with Gil Hanse and all of his associates and staff, I cannot speak for Gil and don't want my words to ever be confused for his opinion, but in all truth and honesty, do you really think that Gil would say something bad about a fellow ASGCA member's work (make that shitty work) given that he is a new member and could get himself in trouble with that organization for doing so? From my knowledge, and I haven't talked to Gil in about six or seven months, maybe more, but I did hear that Gil was going to play Yale, not to consult with them, but to see the golf course itself and enjoy a round of golf. It would be both unfair and inaccurate to use what you think are his words if he wasn't in fact being paid for the visit or at least invited to make critical comment on the work at hand. Simply put, do you know for fact that Gil Hanse was there for business or pleasure?

So, as a sometime particpant on this website, I welcome you, but only if you can produce fact instead of fiction or what you think actually may have happened-because frankly, I don't think its one bit accurate, and it does nothing but hurt any credibility you would hope to have in this forum.

Cheers.

[ForkaB]

I would be astonished if the Presidents of Yale or Stanford really gave a rat's ass about their golf courses.  Stanford GC will be history in 10-30 years.  The land is just too good for student housing and/or evil genetic engineering laboratories, and while they might try to save some of the Olmstead on the old east side of the campus, who is really going to rally around Billly Bell (or even the Captain).  To paraphrase Stalin (Brad K will now the context), how many scholarly citations does George Thomas have........?

As for Yale, we are lucky that the land it is built on is not useful for much else than golf (so I have been told...), so it will probably stay.  But, it will stay only at the whim of the powers that be, whose interest in golf is about as great as their interest in the local Hillhouse basketball team (who could probably wax Yale, if they ever played....).  Rick Levin's inbox probably includes invitations to speak at Davos or visit some old dowager who wants to donate $100 million for a research center on feline arthritis, so where to you think Geoff and Brad's letters are likely to lie in that pecking order?

I admire Geoff C's passion and think he is right, architecturally speaking in all he says (again from what I am told), but.......its a pretty stubborn set of windmills he's up against........

[JakaB]

James K,
So, as a sometime particpant on this website, I welcome you, but only if you can produce fact instead of fiction or what you think actually may have happened-because frankly, I don't think its one bit accurate, and it does nothing but hurt any credibility you would hope to have in this forum.

Cheers.

Tommy,

Did Brad Klein lose credibility with you when he praised Rees Jones in SuperNews...

[George_Bahto]

GeoffreyC: yes, Geoff, I got a very nice Christmas card from Roger and it is much appreciated. He sends me one every year with updates on work he's doing.

Patrick Mucci: your quote really says it all perfectly:  "It's academia at their arrogant best, very learned, but inexperienced in practical matters"

Geoff Shack: thank you so very much for your input

About Gil: Gil is a fine gentleman and a great architect who has a lot more "manners" - hah - than most of us here .... remember his position, guys!!!

Can you imagine what hero's they could have been had they restored this gem properly?

[Lou_Duran]

I am not a picture guy, but those bunkers look boring and ugly.  And since I haven't seen the course, I just have to take what Childs, Cirba, and Bahto say at face value (which come to think of it, they do provide three sets of very experienced, discriminating eyes).

The question that I have is what is driving Roger R's vision for this project?  I am sure that he has strong technical credentials, and I would be surprised if the archives are not full of pictures, aerials, plans, and articles about the course.

I was told by a retired USAF colonel that armed services courses tended to vary in quality of design and maintenance in proportion to the base commanders' interest in golf.  Perhaps Mr. Rulewich is doing precisely what his client is telling him to do- make a course that is more playable for the average golfer and much easier to maintain.  Maybe the interests of the many, unrefined as they might be, are being given preference over those of the discriminating few.

And you guys are generally right about smart people in academia (Childs and Swanson excluded, of course).  Are you sure that you want these folks advising our top government officials on how to run the country?  Pray that they do a little better at that than they have done so far at the Yale Golf Club.

[Jeff Fortson]

Lou,

Isn't our President Yale alumnus?  


Jeff F.

[GeoffreyC]

JamesK

Yes indeed I know that Gil was at Yale this past fall.  I was told that he was there to talk to the college players at a tournament held at the course and to try to educate them a bit about golf course architecture.  He was NOT there as a consultant as far as I know. I do know that a couple of years ago I was with Gil and Bill Kittleman (at Applebrook) shortly after Bill toured the course and the work done until that point.  I will only say that Bill was "speachless"!

I consider Gil a friend and I also consider him about the finest restoration architect alive today.  His work (which I have seen many times) at Fenway GC (my second home) and Plainfield CC is brilliant in that you would never know he had been there to restore.  Look at the course profiles on this site. His original work of which I've seen, Inniscrone, Applebrook and Rustic Canyon indicates to me that he is one of the real talented young architects of the day.

One of the reasons I asked the dean of the school of architecture and the president of the university to secure the opinions of outside experts WHO WERE NOT THEMSELVES golf course architects was because it would be somewhat unethical and rude for an architect who might then subsequently get the job to comment on a colleagues work. Gil would no sooner do that then he would rob a bank.  In fact, Gil was among the first people I suggested to John Beinecke as a replacement for Roger Rulewich after the fiasco that butchered the front nine. The university seems joined at the hip to Roger.

James, you state "I can't imagine what motivates this crusade of yours. It is really pretty ridiculous. My unsolicited advice would be to relax and enjoy what you have. Damn few golfers are so lucky."

What motivates me is a love of the Yale Golf Course.  If it were some dog track I certainly would not bother.  The fact is that it is a landmark and historic work of art. I do in fact realize how lucky I am to have the chance to play there regularly and to have become a member. I speak in public because the stubborn and arrogant folks in charge of the course refuse to compromise or even listen in private and various committees. Your unsolicited advice to relax and enjoy what I have sounds remarkably similar to Beinecke's advice to me which said to get with the plan or shut up.  Where is the democracy and academic debate to arrive at the truth in that advice?  Where is the academic striving for excellence that Yale seeks in all of its other programs?

James, do you really think my photos lie? Have you seen good restoration work such as Gil has done at Fenway or Plainfield and if so can you really equate that with what I have documented for holes 1,2,4,5,6,7, 18 and now 17?

I would ask you to read the following article reproduced in the In My Opinion section of this site.  Tom MacWood discovered it and it shows the opinions of the great golfers and golf writers in 1939. It may or may not surprise you to see just how highly respected the course at Yale was back then.

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/opinionmacwood6.html

To all my friends that wrote in support after JamesK's statement - I thank you very much.

[Brad Klein]

I'm on the phone with Gil Hanse, live.

He tells me that he was involved in playing a Yale event, the Macdonald Cup, and was the speaker at the dinner, at which time he was being "politically correct." When asked about the Rulewich work, he told me that he said "the work was getting better but I certainly didn't think it was as good as it could be."

Mind you, he was the after-dinner speaker and thus not totally free to opine, though he did say at the time that "if given the chance I'd immediately cut down 1,000 trees."

So much for any ringing endorsements.

[Lou_Duran]

Jeff,

Yes, probably much to the chagrin of the same academics who are responsible for the sad Yale Golf Club situation.  The president also has a Harvard MBA (I guess that you don't need gravitas to get one of those either).   Both schools are known to turn out a few good, smart people.  Those that have much sense leave to go do things.  I will refrain to characterize those who choose to stay (again, Drs. Childs and Swanson excluded).

[SPDB]

Jeff -
Good point. If the president is really interested in protecting our "sacred institutions," then he'll forget about this same-sex marriage business and use the Constitutional amendment process to return Yale to its pristine state.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Lou,
Which, in the case of the president, just goes to show that "legacy" admissions are justified as they mirror affirmative action programs which create continuity and build loyal alumni bases.

[SPDB]

I only wish that Yale School of Architecture had an historical preservation program of study, so it could be made irrelevant by what's going on under its nose.

As it stands now, Robert A.M. Stern, as a former director of the Historical Preservation Department at Columbia is coming close to oblivion by standing idly by, or standing idly by the ivory tower.

[Mike_Sweeney]

James,

My advice would be to go play a round of golf at Yale with Dr Childs. Send him an IM, believe me he will take the time to take you and will keep it confidential, so as not to tell this Board. It is a real joy to play with Geoffrey at Yale. Enjoy, and then if you feel like it, please report back.

PS. JakaB you too.  

[Gil Hanse]

My e-mail lines just lit up, so I had better try to explain my comments.  Out of professional courtesy and deep respect for my host, my comments were indeed tempered, and when asked in front of the dinner guests I believe that my response may have been misleading.  I believe that the work at Yale is indeed improving, and I feel that credit should be given to the input of George Bahto in helping Yale to understand its legacy and to providing evidence as to what the finished work should look like.  I believe that the early work (holes 2 and 5 in particular) were based more on ease of maintenance than on architecture, as a result the finished product is awkward at best.
       Subsequent work is becoming a bit more in keeping with Raynor and Macdonald, although it is still not where it should be in terms of architectural authenticity and attention to detail.  I applaud the concept of returning the Alps on Hole 12, however, the execution of the work is again lacking.
     I believe that the constructive criticism that has been levelled on the work has been responsible for a re-evaluation of what the priorities should be for the golf course.  I believe that both sides are not far apart on what the priorities should be, it is rather the execution of the work that is in question.  I am hopeful that we will begin to see work conducted in house that will be recognized in a positive light by everyone associated with the project.  The re-establishment of mowing patterns, and especially the widening of the course through the removal of trees will go a long way towards re-claiming what has been lost.  The scale of the golf course at Yale is one of the most important aspects of the course that has been removed over the years.  It is built upon a grand scale landscape, and the holes and their features were constructed on a similar scale.  The restoration work so far has been responsive to the present restricted scale of the golf course.  More thought needs to be given to the broad original scale of the course.  That is why when asked what I would do to the course, I responded by saying, start by taking down a 1000 trees.  I think that if the scale of the course was restored, it would quickly become evident that the restoration work has not been presented properly.  Everything at Yale was done with an expansive mindset at the start.  The recent attempt to restore the golf course has been restricted at every turn by maintenance, cost, and a failure to recognize the scale of the original work.  Far be it for a Cornell guy to tell Yale how to spend their money, but I believe that a commitment at the start to respond to the original scale of the golf course would have seen money better spent, and work much less criticized.
     James K is absolutely right I do want to go play there again in the near future.  I love the golf course, and the holes are still there and they are FUN to play.  It is a golf course that stirs my soul because it stretches the boundaries of golf course architecture and that in my mind is a worthwhile golf course.

[JakaB]

I have to give Brad Klein and Geoffrey Childs credit for saying the same things in public about this issue they say behind closed doors...

[SPDB]

Gil - A very fine articulation of the salient issues at play in the Yale restoration.  

Thanks for coming on. Stick around.

[GeoffreyC]

Gil - thanks for coming on here with your remarks.  I too have said many times that the new work is miles better then the work done to the front nine. I think Brad put it best when he said that the absence of a Master Plan and the piecemeal one bunker at a time plan was a sure fire disaster.  I sure wish you were invited to speak at an event 6 years ago instead of this past fall.

I too love the Yale golf course and it provides me with thrilling shots every time I play.

Is this what you mean by the scale of the place? (courtesy of the great research talent of George Bahto)

[SPDB]

Geoffrey -
Needs a little tree clearing. (half joking/half serious)

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()