Are we bored with Pete Dye?

[Tim_Weiman]

Amidst all the discussion of Tom Fazio at this site, it seems to me that by comparison we spend relatively little time discussing Pete Dye.  We don't praise him.  We don't criticize him.  We hardly ever mention his courses.

Why is that?

One might get the impression that Dye is less significant in the history of golf architecture than Fazio.  Or less controversial.  Or that he doesn’t have a style worth talking about. Or that he only builds “natural” looking courses.  Or that he never does anything repetitive.  Or that he hasn’t been associated with any big dollar projects.  Or that he hasn’t done anything interesting, creative, unique, etc.

Do we need some Pete Dye “bashing” to get the discussion going?  Are there no Pete Dye fans or critics in this group?  Why does such a prominent figure seemingly fly below our radar screen?

[Rich_Goodale]

No.

[David Wigler]

Tim,

I think it is because Dye is simply brilliant.  The only reason you are subjected to my writing is because Kohler gave me a copy of Bury Me in a Pot Bunker and started my love of architecture.  You could hardly garner a good discussion on the flaws in Wolfgang Puck's cooking, or Erte's art.  Who is going to bash the Pete Dye Golf Club, or The Country Club, or Blackwolf Run River, or Whistling Straits?  If you want to see a little Dye controversy, your best bet is PGA West or the Stadium Course but the bashing won't come from me.

[Ben Cowan-Dewar]

I agree with Rich, no.

I do not think that we are bored and outside of this discussion group I do not think that anyone would call Fazio the more controversial designer in the past 50 years.

I like most of Dye's work and have always respected the great diversity.  I guess like everyone I am not enamoured with those courses that seemed to fall into the mould of previous ones, but hopefully he has moved away from that.

[BillV]

Really the only way to disagree with Dye is tree management and style or look.

His and Alice's courses are the most adaptable to the most golfers.  I know that my wife and i can always play a Dye course and both have fun and as much or as little challenge as wanted.  Not too many you can say that about.

So we're actually quite content.

[Tim_Weiman]

Guys;

Assuming we aren't bored with Pete Dye and we think he is brilliant, why do we seemingly ignore him?

Why is Fazio worthy of so much more attention in this group?

Do we just prefer the role of critic, putting up and slamming down a straw man?

David:

I'm not sure I can supply the bashing either.  Seven or eight years ago I gave up saying I don't like Pete Dye's style because I had so much fun at places like the Stadium course, the Ocean Course, Blackwolf Run, etc.  Hell, much as a find the creation of Whistling Straits a little obscene (kind of like Shadow Creek), I still had great fun playing the course.

Rich Goodale:

Do you have any thoughts on why Dye get so little print here?

[Ed_Baker]

Actually Tim there has been substantial discussion on Pete Dye, but maybe not as much as an architect of his stature deserves.

I remember a thread within the last year where he was recognized on here as a "modern master". Tom Doak has given a lot of credit to Pete for teaching Tom about construction technique,drainage and such early in Tom's career when he worked for the Dye's.

I would say Pete's  best work is lauded on here as much as anyones. What's not to like about the best of Dye? It's brilliant.

[Rich_Goodale]

Tim

See Interview.

[Jeff_Lewis]

I don't know what his numbers are, but clearly Dye is not as active as he once was, nor as active as the big factories are right now. Perhaps his "problem" is he actually spends time at his sites, which cuts down on one's ability to do 10 courses simultaneously.

Nobody has ever moved dirt as effectively as Dye, which is to say, you can't see his tracks.

 When he makes a misstep, it is usually inspired by the right ideals, even if he goes a little too far. Wouldn't Dye have to be considered the greatest architect of the second half of the twentieth century?

[A Clay Man]

Rich's answer is priceless. Just like Pete's interview here.

 

[Tim_Weiman]

Ed Baker,

I'm not suggesting there has been no discussion of Pete Dye.  Nor am I questioning his work or his stature in the history of golf architecture.

I'm really asking about US, i.e., members of the DG.  One would think that Dye would generate more discussion given his stature, the work he has done, the risks he took, the architects he mentored, his style, his construction methods, etc.

I seem to recall Brad Klein saying something along the lines of Dye being the most influencial architect of his era (I hope I haven't misquoted Klein), yet still his coverage here is fairly limited, except for the (always) excellent course profiles that Ran provides.

That's why I ask if we are bored or if we just need someone to step up and repeatedly bash Dye to get us going a bit.

[Tim_Weiman]

Rich,

Unlike Adam, after quickly looking at the Dye interview, now I'm disappointed.

You are always one to take a fresh and independent view.  Pete Dye is not a bad person to emulate, but what happen to your original thinking?

[David Wigler]

Tim,

I do not think it is that we like playing the critic.  Controversy causes interest.  I am usually on the other side of the Fazio discussions and learn a lot from what others do not like about his work.  There are many of you with whom we could consume several bottles of wine while arguing the merits of Nicklaus.  Dye gets so little discussion for much the same reason as Greg Norman or Gary Player (Or Arnold Palmer for that matter).  Just as many of us tend to agree that with limited exceptions Norman, Player and Palmer are not particularly proficient at design and therefore few pick up the torch in defending them, many of us tend to agree that with limited exceptions, Dye is brilliant.  It is no fun to pick on the smallest guy in the playground and it is folly to pick on the biggest so we tend to pick our fights in the middle (Fazio, Nicklaus, RTJ, Rees, Doak, C&C, etc.).

[Doug Wright]

Tim,

I'd agree with others that Pete has gotten quite a lot of attention on the site during the past year--just not the high profile negativity that seems to permeate the T Fazio threads. Usually it seems we're talking about one or another of his courses, The Ocean Course, The Golf Club, Whistling Straights, TPC rather than a systematic discussion of his work overall.

Having said that, I'm interested in BiiV's comment above that he thinks Pete's courses are eminently playable for both him and his wife. I have heard this before, and I know it's attributed to Alice's influence, but I haven't seen this on the Pete Dye courses I've played. I've found them more penal to the average player or woman than, say, the Fazio courses I've played. It may just refelct the limited inventory of Dye courses I've played. Any reactions to this by others?

[Tim_Weiman]

David,

Are you saying that Pete has created controversy but he is such a big guy that we are afraid to criticize him?

What would happen if someone were to do a thread on bunkers and cite the left greenside bunker on #16 at PGA West as ridiculous?

Would that not be an interesting bunker to discuss?

[David Wigler]

Tim,

I made a bad analogy.  I do not think we are afraid to criticize anyone.  If we did a discussion on the bunker on #16, I will be on the side saying I love it.

[BillV]

DOug

Several of my wife's favorite courses in Colorado were Dye.  Even hte 6th decile Glenmoor, which works great for the ladies.

Doak claims a lotof credit for Riverdale Dunes, but Dye's mark is still there.  It was my wife's very favorite in CO.  She like it so much she shot 79! one day and almost beat me heads up as i was slopping it! Boy did she love that place.

Plum Creek in Castle Rock is great for the ladies.

Eagle Pines at WDW. Everyone disses the Mouse, I've said it before, but what a fun course.

She loved TPC Sawgrass even shooting 120 (Just before the TPC). Loved it.  Hit on the fly but didn't hold #17, BTW)

I really want to get her to PGA Stadium West as I can't wait to play that sucker.  Ever.  What Fazio ocurse is as good?  Really?

On the other side, neither of us liked Long Cove all that much and Harbour Town is overgrown and a little schizophrenic at the end, I thought that Old Marsh was over-the-top, so no one's perfect.

Forget the necessary housing corridors on Stadium West to keep the cost of a Palm Springs course under $1Billion, how the hell much fun is that place?  Even the ball-buster 255 par 3 with H2O everywhere (#5?).  There's plenty of room to leave it out.

I have to admit I still haven't made it to Bulle, but even his real bears seem to be fun for her.

I do get a little tired of the tiered greens at times  and the sleepers, I admit, but the bunker placements and green orientations and fairway shapes really keep you interested.

The average quality of Dye's work is so high.  That may be why we are bored? with him, and Fazio is all over the board.

[BillV]

I, too love that bunker.

[George Pazin]

Doug_Wright -

I agree with your comments re: the playability of PD's courses, at least with respect to the one PD course I've played, Mystic Rock at Nemacolin Woodlands. I found this course to be extremely penal. If you are not in the fairway, you are generally screwed. Water, rocks, trees & super thick rough abound. I played the next to back tees & was frequently confronted with carries off the tee ranging from 150 to 200 yards. To me this is not playable for all levels, unless you play the tees in front of the ones you normally play. I can make a 150 yard carry quite easily, but ask me to hit a 200 yard carry that must end up in the fairway & you're asking a lot, & I'm a 23 handicap who hits the ball a pretty good way, if a bit crooked quite often.

There has been a good bit of discussion of Bulle Rock, Whistling Straits & several others, but I think the "passion" with which everyone argues about Mr. Fazio tends to overwhelm everything else. Take a look at the first page of discussion topics. Aside from the Bill Wright GolfCoursesByFazio... thread, there is a lot else on the board being discussed. As much as everyone else as sick of "Fazio-bashing," I am sick of people bashing this site & the many contributors for said topics, when in reality it's a relatively small part of the site & relatively few of the usual suspects making the same arguments over & over again. I just read it occasionally for a laugh, but really ignore most of it. After all, who could take seriously someone who calls Mr. Bill his favorite ex-president, & then has the temerity to question the judgement of others?

[Tim_Weiman]

Doug Wright,

I certainly haven't reviewed months or years worth of GCA data like one of those Washington think tanks that assess the performance or bias of "big media".

So, maybe there have been as many threads on Dye as Fazio.  I'd simply bet otherwise.

But, you do mention something interesting.  You suggest that we, in fact, discuss Pete Dye's courses rather than engage in a "systematic discussion of his work overall".

Did you mean to suggest we don't actually discuss Fazio's courses?

Is it possible to engage in a "systematic discussion" of an architect's work and not discuss his most notable courses?

One thing I admire about Geoff Shackelford's writing is that he does provide us with considerable analysis of a specific architect's work.  A fine example is Geoff's book about George Thomas.  In "The Captain", Geoff devotes about eighty pages to the courses Thomas is best known for.

That strikes me as more of a "systemic discussion" than the usual negative commentary of Fazio.

Anyway, when Pete Dye spends a lot of money moving dirt around creating something totally unnatural (like he did at Whistling Straits), we don't hear much.

I have no problem if someone prefers a Whistling Straits to a Shadow Creek, but why would one architect be criticized for spending ten of millions when we generally give the other guy a free pass?

I'm inclined to think that with Dye we stick with what we like or dislike architecturally.  By contrast, with Fazio, we introduce related social issues (e.g., how much money was spent?) more often and that gets our juices flowing.

[Rich_Goodale]

Tim

I'll try and remember to add those smiley faces when I'm deviating from my normally serious lines of discussion

In terms of Dye, I think the real question is why don't we discuss any sort of golf course architecture on this site?  It's a fun site, but most threads seem to relate to a third or fourth derivative of what is actually on the ground.

Adam

Glad to see your sense of humor has survived the voyage to New Mexico

[Jeff_Lewis]

Tim,

I think the reason we don't hear complaints when Dye moves dirt a la whistling straits, is that his work ends up emulating nature so well. His dunes don't just run down the fairways like goal posts, their contours are irregular and they create interesting lies and angles in the playing areas, just like real linksland. We obviously know that what he did is unreal, but his ability to capture natural aspects in totally man-made environments is pretty much unmatched.

[Tim_Weiman]

Rich:

I agree.


Jeff Lewis:

I'm surprised you think Dye's work looks natural.  Isn't it more fair to say the record is mixed?

Do places like the Stadium Course, PGA West, Long Cove, Harbor Town or even the American club courses seem natural?

[Daryl "Turboe" Boe]

Not a bash, but one of the few Dye courses that I just didn't "Get" was the Dye Course at Colleton River.

Just couldnt get over the mounding pushed up in and amongst these beautiful old live oaks on the front nine.  And I will never forget the tee box and bunker on 9 or 10.  The tee box looked like an offshore drilling platform, and the bunker right of the fairway on the top of a pointed mound that can only be described as "Volcano like".  I was wondering from anyone who has played it recently, how the elevated platform tee mentioned before is working out.  Is the grass thriving in that environment, I was wondering if it would work out ok?

While I enjoyed many holes (especially on the back nine) there were just some items that stood out as being over the top a little bit.

[Matt_Ward]

People on GCA may not talk much about Pete Dye but in my opinion his contributions to design will long be remembered in the years ahead.

I've always enjoyed a Dye course when playing it from the tips. I know I'm battling a course that has more teeth than any gator you'll find in Florida. The thing that amazes me about Dye is the ability to raise the ante on psychological terror. Stand on most of his tees and the freeze you often find in your arms causes the kind of doubt that can reek real havoc on your game unless you really are confident when pulling the trigger.

It's a pity PD has cut back to a degree but I'm never bored playing a Dye course ... I can't say that for a number of other courses I see on a yearly basis.

P.S. I always like to see world class pros squirm a bit when playing one of his layouts ... 17th at TPC is just one example. Too bad the 1988 PGA was not played at maximum length at Oak Tree and ditto the World Cup that was played at The Ocean Course.