News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Ran Morrissett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Is Yeamans Hall still under-appreciated?
« on: February 04, 2002, 05:14:04 PM »
Ever since the greens were expanded from 80,000 sq.ft. to 144,000 sq.ft, Yeamans Hall has received lots of recognition.

At some point, if you cry TOO loud about how much you like it, people assume that you are being swept away by the dirt entrance road, the charming clubhouse and cottages, how well Claude Brusse and his guys look after you, etc.

However, having just spent a few days there, I wonder if the golf course itself is actually even better than what many people give it credit for?

I say that for the following reasons:

1. The fast and firm conditions presented by Green Keeper Jim Yonce are - in all respects - perfect. I only wish more board members from other clubs could/would come here and see what YHC and Yonce are doing. How sweet is it to find a course where the ground game is very much alive and well?! Green counts for nothing there.

2. The putting surfaces as a set must be amongst the dozen or so finest in the country. The Maiden 11th green,  the thumb print/horseshoe/whatever at 3 and 10, the ridges perpendicular to the golfer on the 5th, 15th and 16th greens (somewhat like 2 at Pine Valley), the huge, free flowing greens like on the 2nd, 8th and 17th, the false fronts that have to be contended with, the severe pitch of the 18th  - the list goes on and on. Huge greens + interesting interior contours = tons of great hole locations. The flexibility of the course set-up is amazing. For instance, the difference between a front right hole location on 8 and a back left one may be as much as three clubs and the kind of shot that you would want to play in would be different as well. What more could a member ask for?? You would never tire of playing there!

3. The entrances into the greens vary greatly. Holes like 4 and 15 scream for a run-up shot as the entire green is open across its front. Other holes like its Redan and Knoll hole provide a partial opening while a couple of holes like the Short and Alps require the ball to be carried onto the surface. The golfer who can play all the different shots has a great advantage and the course will allow/encourage him to show off his ball control skills.

4. Given that the rough isn't irrigated, the variety of lies that you see when you steer off-course is vast. This manifests itself around the greens especially, where one time you may have a sandy lie, the next the ball is sitting on top of some bermuda where it is easy to get underneath it, and the next time you are on hard pan. Playing there on a consistent basis would improve your short game FOR SURE as you would be forced to experiment - you couldn't rely on one stock-standard recovery shot.

5. The greens retain their challenge from any distance and always remain fun to approach ala St. Andrews. Take the 15th green. Hitting the correct half of the green in two from 180 yards out for a 40 year old is no more satisfying than hitting it in three from 80 yards out for an 80 year old. Both shots are equally cool in their own right as you try and negotiate the false front and use the ridge that divides the green into a left and right half to your advantage.

6. You are a mug if you lose a ball there and the need for searching for a ball is minimal. For instance, going for four rounds there, I only packed two sleeves. Playing golf still can be simple.

7. The holes themselves keep getting better as the Club's fine tuning continues. The recently completed restorative bunker work on 14 and especially 17 is excellent.

8. As compared with virtually any Raynor course (including Fishers, The Creek and Shoreacres), its weakest holes are superior. Though it's plenty fine, the Eden hole isn't particularly memorable and the 9th still seems a little loose on the 2nd shot but otherwise, it is one very appealing hole after another. A lot of that is attributable to how well Raynor did with the holes that fall on the flat-ish parts of the property (i.e. holes 5, 6, 10, and 17 are as appealing as holes like 8, 11, and 14  that enjoy the more inspired topo).

9. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, YHC identifies the true golfer. Despite his excellent play, Ted Sturges went down in flames 5&4 and 4&3 in our two matches, a sure sign of a great design  ;)

Some people say the course is too loose off the tee but I don't buy it - with greens like that, you have to approach certain hole locations from precise spots in the fairway or else the three putt greens will start to mount.

If only the Club would consider restoring the bunkering off the tee on the Bottle hole, all would be perfect at YHC, one of the world's great places to have a game, whether you are 10 or 40 or 80 years old.

We sorely need more courses like it.

Cheers,
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:02 PM by -1 »

Brad Miller

Re: Is Yeamans Hall still under-appreciated?
« Reply #1 on: February 04, 2002, 05:43:29 PM »
Thought your game wasn't together. Having not played YHC its hard to comment, but all the qualities you have expressed about this club from its architecture to its condition (F&F) sound very appealing, to many in the GCA universe close to an "ideal course"
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Ran Morrissett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is Yeamans Hall still under-appreciated?
« Reply #2 on: February 04, 2002, 05:51:08 PM »
"Ideal course" is exactly what I was thinking driving back to Southern Pines.

Plus, given its sandy soil and its location along a savannah, the wind is a real factor - thus, perhaps even Mr. C.B. Macdonald might class it ideal as well!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Richard_Goodale

Re: Is Yeamans Hall still under-appreciated?
« Reply #3 on: February 04, 2002, 06:06:13 PM »
Ran

The only reason I can think of that it might be "underappreciated" is that we hear far too few reports these days from passionate connoisseurs such as yourself on courses such as this on this site and elsewhere.

Keep it coming and keep continuing to encourage others to do likewise!

Cheers

Rich
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

ChrisB (Guest)

Re: Is Yeamans Hall still under-appreciated?
« Reply #4 on: February 04, 2002, 06:37:20 PM »
The wedge shot to the 10th has to be one of the most difficult short shots to get close to the hole of any I've seen, especially when the wind is blowing, and most especially when the pin is on the right shelf.  With a wedge, you're determined to get a reasonable chance at birdie, but it is very hard to muster the courage to attack the pin because in order to stay up on the upper part of the horseshoe you've got to be within 10 feet or so of the flag, and if you shortside yourself you'll be several feet below the surface of the green with a sharp dropoff into the sunken middle of the horseshoe beyond the pin.  The thought of bogeying a hole with a wedge from the fairway is enough to chicken out and dump it in the middle of the horseshoe, which leaves a putt to the upper shelf that is difficult to make.

The horseshoe on #3 is not as severe but the edges of the horseshoe are sharper; putting is somewhat of a geometry lesson sometimes.

(BTW, the horseshoe at the 17th at the CC of Charleston is between the other two in terms of severity, and on that shot also it can be tough to fire at the pin when it is anywhere up on the horseshoe.)

These are holes where with a short club in your hands it would drive you crazy to walk off with bogey or worse, so there's quite a bit of psychology built in.  Actually, as Ran described, there are a lot of greens like that at YH.  Like at St. Andrews, hitting a lot of greens doesn't necessarily mean too much.

I'll bet you hear this a lot at YH:  
"I hit it well; I hit 16 greens today."
"Really?  What did you shoot?" :)

Maybe the reason this course seems underappreciated is that not enough people have gotten to know it.

Ran, how would you compare YH's greens to the set at CC of Charleston?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

RJ_Daley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is Yeamans Hall still under-appreciated?
« Reply #5 on: February 04, 2002, 08:46:56 PM »
Ran, nice additional write-up to the 'courses by archie' feature.  I am curious about your statement of remodelling bunkers at 14 and 17.  14 is, I believe, the par 4 tabletop-knoll-butte like green that is the most similar to several green sites at Lawsonia in style.  What is being done there?  Likewise, I thought 17 green and surrounds were very funky.  I loved the deceptive left front cop bunker that is several yards off of the left front and looks like it is greenside from fairway, and the sod wall sided right side and and left rear.  I don't know how they could be restored-improved??? ;)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
No actual golf rounds were ruined or delayed, nor golf rules broken, in the taking of any photographs that may be displayed by the above forum user.

Ran Morrissett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is Yeamans Hall still under-appreciated?
« Reply #6 on: February 05, 2002, 07:20:43 AM »
Chris,

Having only seen CC of Charleston once a few years ago, it's hard for me to comment.

Obviously, YH greens have been restored and Yonce is a detail man extraordinaire with a 90 degree corner evident on many of its fully blown greens and the false fronts being well presented.  

While the strength of CCC lies in its green complexes (I wish there were greens as rolling as the 8th or 10th at CCC here in Southern Pines), don't the greens at Yeamans still enjoy more interior movement (i.e. as good as the 7th green at CCC is, isn't its Maiden equivalent 11th at Yeamans better/bolder thanks in part to the fact that it enjoys a natural advantage being on top of a sand dune)? Also, hasn't CCC's Biarritz green been moved/tampered with from the original design?

Still, who would argue that the green complexes on the 11th, 14th, and 16th holes at CCC aren't amongst Raynor's very best work?

I do wish more of Raynor's original bunkering schemes could be restored at CCC - holes like the 5th and 9th would be helped immeasurably if their fairway bunkers were brought back (and it wouldn't be expensive or difficult to do).

Dick,

On both 14 and 17, I'm strictly talking about fairway bunkering only. The original short right bunkers were restored on each hole and the long left bunker was restored on 14 and the one on 17 was edged a good bit more back into the fairway. I have no doubt you would be pleased with the work.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is Yeamans Hall still under-appreciated?
« Reply #7 on: February 05, 2002, 07:44:01 AM »
Ran -

Ran -

I played YH last spring for the first time.  Inspired mainly by your comments on this site.  

From the moment you pass through the entrance gate until the moment you put your clubs back in the trunk, you are in a different world.  Quiet, low key, from another time.  Amazing what a little enlightened neglect can do for the atmosphere of a clubhouse and locker room.

As for the course - it was a jolt.  I had never played a Raynor course before.  As early as the third hole (the Short) it hit me that this was unlike anything I had ever seen.  In many cases, the bunkers, greens and tees had straight-line edges and squared off corners.  The green contours (especially nos. 3 and 10) included ridges and swales that had the hand of man written all over them.  There was little if any "blending" of architectural features with the natural surrounds - a la Ross or Fazio or C&C.  These were artificial, man-made features that do not exist in nature and no attempt was made to masquerade that fact.

I did not appreciate, for example, how artificial a Biarritz hole can look until I saw no. 16 at YH.  Peering out from the tee I wondered what space alien dropped that thing out there with a flag 210 yards away.

YH (Raynor courses generally?) don't play by the usual architectural aesthetic.  There is no attempt to make the course appear as if it had somehow emerged from the terrain.  The naturalism conceit is almost totally absent.  YH was built on the land by by men (and not by some force of nature) as a place to test golfers.  There is no pretense that the holes were "found" in the land or that the course was merely discovered just below the surface of a piney woods.  

Again, Raynor being new to me, this was a shock.  After so many years of Ross courses and courses by the moderns mentioned above, YH's refusal to play the "naturalism" game - to be an in your face, manufactured platform for testing my golf game - seemed at first to violate all the usual rules about golf course design.

But I loved it.  YH is all about your ability to think strategically and to hit the shots you are supposed to hit.  You can almost hear Raynor talking to you about landing areas, approach angles, putts you might make and putts you've got no business trying to get close.  YH is about playing the game.

More importantly, YH is a reminder that we sometimes attach too much metaphysical baggage to golf.  Communing with nature, bucolic contemplation are best done at places other than golf courses.  Golf will not save your soul (though I haven't entirely given up hope on that one :)).  It's just a game, maybe the even the best in the world, but just a game to be enjoyed as such.  YH brought all that back into focus for me.

Bob
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Brad Miller

Re: Is Yeamans Hall still under-appreciated?
« Reply #8 on: February 05, 2002, 08:29:06 AM »
It's posts like these that bring out the best in GCA. Articulate, educated and enlightening. Who wouldn't go out of their way to try and play YH after  thoughts such as these. Sounds like YH is one of the best clubs one could be lucky enough to be a member of on  the entire southeastern seaboard. Hope I am oneday able to play this great throwback.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TJSturges

Re: Is Yeamans Hall still under-appreciated?
« Reply #9 on: February 05, 2002, 10:04:40 AM »
OK, so Ran crushed me twice (the number would have been 4 if I'd had the nerve to match cards for the entire weekend!).  Ouch!!

Going down there in the middle of winter can be "iffy" on weather (we got the best of the best this trip), and one's game (worst of the worst this time for me).  Having said that, I still had a smile on my face the entire trip.  From the moment inside the front gate, I always get a warm fuzzy feeling about this place.  Sharing it with good friends in perfect weather in the middle of a cold Indiana winter makes for very good times.

Seeing BCrosby's comments made me remember the first time I stepped foot on the grounds of YHC in 1991.  This was my first Raynor course as well.  I remember stepping up on the 6th tee and looking down on that green thinking to myself (what in the world did they build here?!).  12 or so Raynor courses later, I still count his courses among my short list of favorites (and you are right Bob, his courses were not "found" but built).

I'm glad so many of you like this course as much as I do.  The design is solid, the conditioning is PERFECT (thank you Jim Yonce; and, any Green Committee Chair who is wishing for firmer conditions at their club should try to visit YHC). I've been asked before if Yeamans has an irrigation system.  My standard answer to that question is..."Yes, we just don't use it much!"  

I can't wait to get back there.  Now if I can only find a golf game!  This game can't be as hard as I'm making it at the present!

TS
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:02 PM by -1 »

TEPaul

Re: Is Yeamans Hall still under-appreciated?
« Reply #10 on: February 05, 2002, 03:59:57 PM »
A most inspiring thread! Hope we have more like it! I'm gonna get down there one of these days before the December of my life.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Lynn Shackelford

Re: Is Yeamans Hall still under-appreciated?
« Reply #11 on: February 05, 2002, 04:19:49 PM »
I have played it twice, both times in the fall, 36 holes of walking both times.  I am still looking for the maintenance crew.  Amazing, no one working, and the course is in great firm condition.  
It is a hard place to judge on architectural merits because you get caught up in the entrance road, understated pro shop and the feeling that you are the only player on the course. ;D
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Mike_Sweeney

Re: Is Yeamans Hall still under-appreciated?
« Reply #12 on: February 05, 2002, 04:24:26 PM »
Ran,

In my next life, I will be born in the Coastal Carolinas and first caddy and then be a member of Yeamans Hall. Beautiful post and thanks for getting us through the NY winters!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Ward Peyronnin

Re: Is Yeamans Hall still under-appreciated?
« Reply #13 on: February 06, 2002, 08:55:54 PM »
OK Ran,

I am biting on your hook. The alps is one of the subtlest forms of that hole I've ever seen. So it is not surprising that I am still having trouble id'ing the bottle hole. Is it 8 or 12?
I don't believe anyone has mentioned yet how good the cross bunkering has become on many of the holes  which is another feature that adds tremendously to the visual and strategic appeal on this modest terrain.  ;) Am glad your driver got you back home.

Ward
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TJSturges

Re: Is Yeamans Hall still under-appreciated?
« Reply #14 on: February 07, 2002, 06:21:49 AM »
Ward,

1.  The bottle hole is the 4th.

2.  A good source has confirmed that Ran's "driver" was asleep by the time he hit the county line on his way out of town (he is a legend!).


Ran,

How many posts until this stupid thing classifies me as a "senior poster"?  I'm stopping posting one post short of that.  I can't accept being a "senior" anything!

TS
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

RJ_Daley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is Yeamans Hall still under-appreciated?
« Reply #15 on: February 07, 2002, 09:51:50 AM »
Shucks Ted, you have a ways to go before your even a "full" member!  After the time you get through your demonstration of your "fullness" (which many of us needed to show just how "full of ..." we truly are), you get to be a senior member and are then entitled to senior moments, of which I have still quite a few at 200 some posts...  So keep going, you'll get the hang of it. ::)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
No actual golf rounds were ruined or delayed, nor golf rules broken, in the taking of any photographs that may be displayed by the above forum user.

Ran Morrissett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is Yeamans Hall still under-appreciated?
« Reply #16 on: February 07, 2002, 12:02:05 PM »
Lynn,

How do you compare YHC and The Valley Club of Montecito as places to play? For some reason, the two seem to book-end the country in terms of being relaxing places to play/stay with both clubs doing an outstanding job of zealously presenting the courses in the manner in which the architects intended.

Ward,

My chauffeur gallantly got us off club grounds, onto I26, before suffering the inevitable system shut down that accompanies 4 hours of sleep in three days.

The Bottle hole is missing three large bunkers off the tee - one in the left rough, one in the right, and one in the dead middle of the fairway. Given that they are NOT staggered down the fairway (thus creating a narrowing fairway ala 12 at Sunningdale), I have no idea why this hole is referred to as the bottle variety.

Perhaps the legendary George Bahto can enlighten us?

Ward, FYI, your buddy Ted and I went hole for hole Yeamans vs. Turnberry with Yeamans storming home over the last 8 holes with a 1 up victory. Not bad, eh?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Lynn Shackelford

Re: Is Yeamans Hall still under-appreciated?
« Reply #17 on: February 07, 2002, 09:05:06 PM »
Yeaman's Hall and Valley Club....yes many things in common.  Seldom more than 5 cars in the parking lot at either place.  Do you have to be 80 to be a full member at either place?  

Yeaman's more open, Valley Club has had its trees grow a bit too much for me.

Both have been restored by Doak's design firm.  But I think different associates? Hepner at Yeaman's?

More sweeping and large greens at Yeaman's

More opportunties to play the ground game at Yeaman's

I think the irrigation is used much more at Valley Club, in defense of super, coastal fog keeps things damp at Valley Club.

I like routings where holes come back to clubhouse more than once in a round, edge to Valley Club.

I feel the greens are more interesting at Yeaman's.  At Valley Club I don't feel the greens are the typical sweeping and majestic MacKenzie type stuff seen at Augusta or Royal Melbourne.

Yeaman's is an easier walk.  More open, too many homes around Valley Club.  For some reason I don't mind the few they have at Yeaman's, in fact, I enjoy looking at them in the course of a round.  They seem to fit naturally on the site.

I think of Valley Club as a Robert Hunter design.

Roughs, edge to Yeaman's, color contrasting is superb.

Bunkers, big edge to Valley Club, Raynor bunkers aren't much.

Food and clubhouse terrace dining at Valley Club (ocean view) has huge edge.

As a left coast guy, I regret to admit I prefer Yeaman's over Valley Club.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back