[JakaB]

JamesK,

You single handedly made GCA a better site today...thanks.  Do you know how you might get Bill Coore to register...

[Jim_Kennedy]

Geoff,
Is this 8 with 7 in the background?

[JakaB]

     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.

How bout a cup of hot coffee and a spoonful of truth to start a great day.  Yale has turned the corner...Geoffrey's hard work is paying off and Golfclubatlas has heard a voice of reason.   I love it when we get what we ask for...industry people setting us straight.

[FREEMAHC]

Jim - I think it's the 2nd green with the 1st on the immediate right (where the other players are). The hill in the back right would be the 7th green and 8th tee.

Geoff - is this a quiz?

[Jim_Kennedy]

Freemahc,
After looking at the aerial I believe you are right. Just goes to show how big the scale really is at Yale.  

[FREEMAHC]

Gil, Geoff, Geoff and Brad - and anyone else for that matter;

I'd like to hear your thoughts on specific places where tree should be removed or at least pruned back. There was some minor work done on the hill in front of the 4th tee, the hill in fron of the 11th tee, and on the left side of 8 within the last 8 years or so. Other than that, I could see some work between 1 and 2, 12, 14 and 16. Otherwise, there are not man places I can remember where trees confined the course.

Maybe I am not remembering something. I'm curious to envision where additional tree removal should be taking place. I'd like to hear your thoughts.

[Gil Hanse]

Geoffrey,

      That photo does a great job of capturing the scale, it is perfect.
      After posting last night, I think I realized who James K is, and trust me he is one of the good guys.  He is trying to do the right thing at Yale behind the scenes, and has perhaps like other people involved been stung by some of the more vehement criticisms.

[Kelly Blake Moran]

As someone who has followed on this site Geoff's crusade on behalf of saving Yale, I feel like we just witnessed a train wreck.  There are some very disturbing developments in the last 24 hours of posts.

I will pray Geoff can get the train righted.

[GeoffreyC]

Gil

Thanks for coming on here (again- for those who have not yet done so please read Gil's great interview with Ran in the Feature Interview section of the site). You make this a better site with real credibility.

If JamesK is "one of the good guys" then I invite him to contact me. I would love to call him to speak about the whole situation.  Perhaps James you could attend the Baltusrol get together on February 28th.  Gil will be there as well to speak about restoration.  Another two Yale course members will also attend.

The photo that I posted from George Bahto's collection is indeed from the 2nd green before Harry Meusel took his bulldozer and removed mounds and contouring on that green "in the name of more accurate putting"     It looks up the shared fairway with #1 and out towards 7 and 8.

Freemahc-  Where do I begin with tree removal. First, I would listen to experts like Gil! However, my instincts and eye gives me a few ideas.  First, I would remove all the trees on the inside of #6 by the stream to give a player a view of the green from the tee. I would cut all the rough to the stream and encourage a player to try that more dangerous but preferred angle.  I would also cut all the trees on the left side of #15.  As it is today, you can't see the "Hill" bunker on the left of the green from the back tee.  NUMEROUS trees need to be cleared all around the 4th tee to promote turf growth.  A new back tee could be built as well for the college players to put the water hazard in play.  Again, remove the trees around the 7th and 8th tees (some done on 8 already).  Some for #10, 12 and build a new back tee .  Trees could be taken down on the inside of #14 to expose the better looking hardwoods.  On #18 (this is Goerge's idea) most of the trees between it and #10 could be downed to expand the lower fairway to a width that makes playing that way a legitimate option.  That's for starters and would probably be more then 1000 gone.

[FREEMAHC]

One more thought about the work on 17 (yes, that's what this post was originally about...)

Aside from the 'restoration' quality of the work done around the principal's nose, what purpose do those bunkers to the left and behind it really serve. Speaking from the standpoint of a single digit handicap, I was seldom put into a spot where the nose came into play. The great strategical element it held in my mind, was that if you drove it down the left side of the firway, the nose was tall enough to obsturct my line of sight. It was a great hazard in that regard. It made depth perception very difficult. I don't think the bunkering would pose any threat, nor would it intimidate me.

Now for some of the shorter hitters, the bunkering has a great impact. Those players often have to lay up and the best spot to do that was in the narrow opening to the right of the nose. Thus, the new bunker there, as it was reconstructed, seems to make that gap even narrower, creating a very penal fairway bunker to the high handicap player. Doesn't seem like a very sound design in terms of modern course design philosophy.

Can anyone here expand on that. What was Raynor's objective there?

[FREEMAHC]

Geaoff - thanks for the respnose, I was just trying to rack my brain and find spots where the trees really came into play. For the record I am all for a tree removal program at Yale, I was not trying to dispute the need for some work in that arena.

I agree with all your points. While the removal for better turf conditions is needed, it's not often in the minds of the player. I was thiking more along those lines rather than from the turf and maintenance point of view.

I definetly agree with #15. Not only would it make the left bunker a better architectural feature, but it would also allow the player to hit a left to right shot and take better advantage of the slope on the back left corner of the green. I am not an expert on the Eden design, but it seems to me that the green on 15 plays just like a reverse redan, with the slope running left ot right instead of right to left. As a lefty, that green fit my draw perfectly, but unless the pin was all the way in the right corner I could never play the shot.

[GeoffreyC]

Freemahc- We are kindred spirits- I too am a lefty with a draw. The only downside here is that Pat Mucci will now pick on you as well   . Your comments are accurate.

Thinking aabit more, I would also remove all the trees on the right of #1 near the 9th tee. They interfere with play and inhibit turf growth. I would take down lots of trees around the 9th green.  Here is an example.


compared with


JamesK- I'd really like to hear your answer to JakaB's question. What do you like about the work that was done over the past few years and what do you think are the best parts of it?

[Darren_Kilfara]

Please count me among those who find the photos at the start of this thread to be nothing less than horrifying. I count myself very blessed to have had the chance to play Yale a good 40-50 times back in the mid 1990s and truly enjoyed every minute I spent there - the course wasn't in great shape, but I didn't care all that much. Conditions come and go, but (I thought) the design would always be there to be savored. Now, based on this evidence, I think I'd be too sad to go back...in particular, those bunkers are too depressing for words.

I think I view the current state of Yale as something akin to the appearance of Renee Zellweger with the 30 pounds of fat she put on for "Bridget Jones's Diary" - she was still a very attractive woman, but she was (and is) a knockout at her normal weight. I'm sure Yale remains a very interesting golf course even in its present state, and a day on any golf course is better than a day in the office...but c'mon. Nobody should kid themselves into thinking that the present state of Yale is acceptable.

Cheers,
Darren

[FREEMAHC]

Geofff - alright, I'll drop the 'from a lefty's perspective' and put on my engineer's hat to deal with this one...

I think that the trees by the 9th green were removed for the sole purpose of construction, not for shot values. I may be way off base here, and feel free to tell me if I am. But that is obviously a man made dam on 9. Not sure if it was built at the same time at the course or not, but it looks pretty new in your photo. The natural topography shows that the green was cut into the hillside, thus the need to re-ade back to existing contours on the right side, hence the tree removal there.

So my case is that those areas, while they are devoid of trees in your pic, may not have ever been meant to stay that way. As an engineer I face the fact every day that while we want to impact as little land as possible, clearing limits need to far exceed the actual limits of the completed project, just so equipment can manuver, and so grading can effective and stable.

The way Yale was laid out, it certainly seems like each hole was meant to have it's own corridor,and that only certain spots - like 1&2, and 7&8 were really designed to be vast open spaces.

The site is so wooded, and the holes are routed so far apart in most spots, I dont think it was ever meant to have a Shinnecock or NGLA feel to it.

[SPDB]

Geoff -
I have a quick question. Why does the photographic evidence from early Yale seem so scanty?

The old aerials are very confusing, and not terribly conclusive, and the construction photos are, well, construction photos.

Just curious.

[George_Bahto]

SPDB: the construction pictures (well over 150 of them) and the early aerials (1934 & 1938) are all one would need to "restore" a course properly. Any club doing a restoration would be thrilled to have such information as a guide.

They are incredible.

[SPDB]

George - maybe the aerials don't post well. Am I the only one who thinks they look like an amoeba slide at 15x?

[FREEMAHC]

Keep in mind that when they are posting the Aerials, they zoom in to get to just a detail of the green complex. If you were to zom out to see the whole sie it would be much clearer, but at the same time, almost impossible to tell someone who wasn't familiar with the routing where to look.

I also want to thank Geoff, Geoff, Gil and george for providing their expertise. I've played Yale countless times, yet I manage to learn something new every time I log on... amazing stuff.

[George_Bahto]

When the aerials are blown up the way Geoff posts them they do not come out well.  Believe me they are incredibly clear.

I stupidly gave them a 20 X 30 print and the negative I had.

oh ....  they, the big spenders, "paid me for my out of pocket expenses"

[George_Bahto]

You've heard of "About Schmidt"
... well this "About Childs"

I would like to publicly thank Geoff Childs for so passionately exposing what so many of us feel has been
the damage done to one of America’s great classic courses. As most of you know he has been a member there for years. As a result of his very public, outspoken stance on what had been done, there was some turnaround in the work - unfortunately, too little and too late.

But this is about Geoff, not the course.

He has been looked upon by many of the members as a trouble maker (and we can agree with that :-)  - but it comes from his love of the course and what it represents to golf course architecture in this country.

Geoff has been “cold-shouldered” and ostracized up there but through it all he that has continued in his quest to protect the course as best he could using for any tools he could muster.

He has certainly made some enemies there but he drives on.

There are some on this site that might think a more “reasonable” approach would be better. This was the
way we started  - that was the way it began and there was one time that I thought we had it  -    
........  It failed - they went down the own road

So Geoff took the brave posture - EXPOSE   .... and it was “damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead.”

Geoff, thank you.

[Darren_Kilfara]

One small crumb of comfort I take in this situation is that the aerials and old construction pictures should still be around in 10, 20, 50, 100 years' time - meaning that a second (and proper) restoration will always be possible, right? The sort of ignorance presently on display doesn't have to be passed down among the powers that be from generation to generation, surely...

[George Pazin]

Is anyone else concerned that the work on the back nine is perceived by some to have turned the corner? If so, I hope there are more corners to turn.

I think if you look up "Geoff" in the name dictionary, it must say: n. passionate brave crusader


--
Nice to see the rest of you guys never pass up on an opportunity for a cheap shot at the Pres.

Where's that warm liberal compassion? Oh yeah, it's actually hot fiery hatred.

[GeoffreyC]

My dear and good friend George- THANK YOU FOR THE KIND WORDS

We did in fact start out in a civil manner but were rebuked at every turn be it private conversations or attempts to join or address committees. As a simple pest I stated to John Beinecke that someone had to be "the lunatic fringe" to get things at least moved in the right direction. My position was George's position and that still is a complete and sensitive restoration based on photos, interviews with long time members and archeology in the ground to search for lost features. Sadly, Roger removed most of the latter with his work (Darren that partly answers your question about 10, 20 ...100 years from now).

I will not publicly state how the athletic director insulted George and his motives to the president of the university in a letter defending the work done to the course. Needless to say that it was shocking; it was a pack of outright lies to cover his ass and it was needless as we all see that George had only the best intentions for the golf course and the project. The one example of where they sought the help and advice of an expert (THE EXPERT ON MACDONALD & RAYNOR) and they ignore and insult him in the process!  

In 2001 Tony Pioppi wrote an article in GW asking for better work- It was ignored or better yet scorned.

In 2003 Brad Klein wrote a justly critical article in GW and asked for an audience with the President of the University and he too was ignored. This acknowledged expert and not some amateur lunatic fringe member was willing to be critical in public and offer his advice and services.

I ask Yale University once again and in public why won't they commission the advice of experts to tell them candidly what they think of this work?  Peer Review works in an academic environment. We have heard here from Brad Klein, Geoff Shackleford, George Bahto and Gil Hanse.  Lets hear on GCA or in private with the Yale University administration from Dan Wexler, Ron Whitten and Yale alums Robert Trent Jones Jr. and Rees Jones. The dean of the school of architecture is/was a preservationist.  Let him oversee a review of the golf course and its history and how to best preserve it for the rest of time. Let him do it independently of Tom Beckett and the athletic department. Let well intentioned philanthropists like the Beinecke's allow this process to occur without intimidating an impartial review because the President of the University happens to be the endowed " Fredrick Beinecke Professor of Economics" or intimidated because the Rare Book Library happens to be named the "Beinecke Library!  We are all well intentioned individuals who LOVE the course at Yale.  Now lets do what's best to preserve it and MacDonald and Raynors vision.

[FREEMAHC]

Can anyone answer my question about the architectural quality of the new and old bunkering on 17? (Scroll down a bit)

I think it is a better hole without the bunker to the right of the mound.

[SPDB]

Prez. Levin was just appointed to the Iraqi intelligence panel.

Maybe Bush was impressed on Levin's ignorance of the facts in the Yale Golf Course fiasco?

Sorry for the political content, but it was simply to delicious to ignore.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()