[Randy Thompson]

The ironic thing about Mr. and Mrs. Dye is that without them we wouldn't have the Doak/Hanse/C&C/etc minimalist movement.

I may not love all of the Dye's work, but there's no doubt that they're the most important golf course architects after 1950.

Dan,
The four are great architects but I donīt see the correlation at all. As already stated Dye has been a great risk taker and managed to pull most of the risk off and Pete found a gap in the market that created buzz. All the other three worked for him directly or indirectly granted and one or two of them could be credited for the minimalist movement and finding another gap but thats about as far as it goes. Was that your point?? Dye was as far from a minimalist in his peak years as they come. Maybe, Maybe..Teeth of the Dog a little bit but that was early in his career.
Last point..I think the forum in general gives Alice more credit than she deserves, which Pete always liked to ham up!

[Chris Buie]

What do you think of the design of the closing hole of TPC? (Apologies if this has been asked before.)

[Jim Hoak]

The thing I like best about Pete Dye is that he takes risk in course design.  Some of the best courses I have played are his, as well as some of the worst.  In financial terms, he has a high beta.
But you seldom see conformity or repetition in his designs.  And originality is his trademark.  There really is nothing that makes a course a "typical" Pete Dye course, as there is with many other modern architects.

[Britt Rife]

My only experience with Pete Dye is the Virginia Tech River Course.  I played this alone (and on Memorial Day weekend--I guess it's slow after school lets out) on a beautiful day with my clubs behaving themselves.  I played from the whites.

I was thrilled. 

In his book "Grounds for Golf", Geoff Shackleford speaks quite a bit about "humor" as an element of design.  I found the concept a little elusive until I played this course.  On each and every hole, there seemed to be a feature that would make me smile and mutter "well how about that!"  As once was said of Tom Doak's designs, the Va Tech course felt just as much an IQ test as a golf course.

Really magnificent.

[Tim Gavrich]

My only experience with Pete Dye is the Virginia Tech River Course.  I played this alone (and on Memorial Day weekend--I guess it's slow after school lets out) on a beautiful day with my clubs behaving themselves.  I played from the whites.

I was thrilled. 

In his book "Grounds for Golf", Geoff Shackleford speaks quite a bit about "humor" as an element of design.  I found the concept a little elusive until I played this course.  On each and every hole, there seemed to be a feature that would make me smile and mutter "well how about that!"  As once was said of Tom Doak's designs, the Va Tech course felt just as much an IQ test as a golf course.

Really magnificent.

This is SO true.

There seems to be an element of whimsy on Pete Dye courses that is missing on those designed by others.  Time and again, Dye has seemed to do something a little offbeat for its own sake.  I think a lot of criticism of his courses comes from a perspective such that everything constructed needs a reason for its construction.  Many features of Dye courses seem to reject this notion on its face, as I do.

Really awesome discussion so far.  Thanks to all who've participated!

[George Pazin]

My only experience with Pete Dye is the Virginia Tech River Course.  I played this alone (and on Memorial Day weekend--I guess it's slow after school lets out) on a beautiful day with my clubs behaving themselves.  I played from the whites.

I was thrilled. 

In his book "Grounds for Golf", Geoff Shackleford speaks quite a bit about "humor" as an element of design.  I found the concept a little elusive until I played this course.  On each and every hole, there seemed to be a feature that would make me smile and mutter "well how about that!"  As once was said of Tom Doak's designs, the Va Tech course felt just as much an IQ test as a golf course.

Really magnificent.

This is SO true.

There seems to be an element of whimsy on Pete Dye courses that is missing on those designed by others.  Time and again, Dye has seemed to do something a little offbeat for its own sake.  I think a lot of criticism of his courses comes from a perspective such that everything constructed needs a reason for its construction.  Many features of Dye courses seem to reject this notion on its face, as I do.

Really awesome discussion so far.  Thanks to all who've participated!

I'm amazed at how many people hold an opinion that is the exact opposite of my experiences, admittedly after playing only 2 Dye courses.

I guess sadists can be whimsical, too...

[Jason Topp]

What do you think of the design of the closing hole of TPC? (Apologies if this has been asked before.)

I consider it a terrific hole in terms of playing characteristics.  Temptation and choice exist on every shot even though the fairway is quite narrow. 

I dislike the visual of this type of hole (similar versions exist at other courses).  I primarily dislike the curve on the lake because it is so uniform.  It looks like something on a putt putt course rather than an experience in nature.

[Mark Bourgeois]

How about the 1980 version?

[Chris Buie]

Thanks for the commentary Jason. Maybe I'm not seeing it all that well but I'm guessing the choice off the tee is whether or not you hit a tee shot which brings the trees off the fairway into play. That is, if you hit an intentionally shorter tee shot you won't get behind the trees and therefore have a clear shot to the green - if you hit a long drive that veers to the right then you'll be in the trees and probably won't have a shot to the green. But if you hit the long drive straight you have an easier approach shot. Is there more to it than that off the tee? I haven't given it a great deal of thought so I'm sure I could be missing something.
I agree with you on the shape - but its probably not fair to look at the hole from an aerial point of view. It probably looks somewhat less obviously unnatural from a ground view.
But speaking of an aerial point of view, it struck me right away that it looks like playing on the other side of the lake could be a viable and possibly even preferable option. Certainly there is more landing area. It reminds me a bit of the Lon Hinkle thing at the U.S. Open. Just a kind of whimsical idea.


Beyond that, it's a subjective thing but for me the course just looks too far from being natural. Actually, for me way too far. I'm not saying it doesn't have really interesting playability in places. It's a real test for the pros. And it is certainly a remarkable feat of engineering to have built this out of the area as it originally was. I'm talking about aesthetics - and that's personal preference, of course. A starkly manufactured and unnatural look is not what generally appeals to me. But it's good to have some of those course around, I suppose - for variety. Even though I don't find it appealing it does show very advanced thinking and creativity of Dye's part. He is extremely talented.
Well, this is commentary from someone who is not terribly familiar with his work. I've only played one of his courses as I recall. I think it's ok to get the occasional comments from someone who doesn't know a particular subject that well - just to get their visceral reactions. It can be interesting to see how those views sometimes evolve. Sometimes not.
Thanks again for your point of view Jason.

[Matt Kardash]

Thanks for the commentary Jason. Maybe I'm not seeing it all that well but I'm guessing the choice off the tee is whether or not you hit a tee shot which brings the trees off the fairway into play. That is, if you hit an intentionally shorter tee shot you won't get behind the trees and therefore have a clear shot to the green - if you hit a long drive that veers to the right then you'll be in the trees and probably won't have a shot to the green. But if you hit the long drive straight you have an easier approach shot. Is there more to it than that off the tee? I haven't given it a great deal of thought so I'm sure I could be missing something.
I agree with you on the shape - but its probably not fair to look at the hole from an aerial point of view. It probably looks somewhat less obviously unnatural from a ground view.
But speaking of an aerial point of view, it struck me right away that it looks like playing on the other side of the lake could be a viable and possibly even preferable option. Certainly there is more landing area. It reminds me a bit of the Lon Hinkle thing at the U.S. Open. Just a kind of whimsical idea.


Beyond that, it's a subjective thing but for me the course just looks too far from being natural. Actually, for me way too far. I'm not saying it doesn't have really interesting playability in places. It's a real test for the pros. And it is certainly a remarkable feat of engineering to have built this out of the area as it originally was. I'm talking about aesthetics - and that's personal preference, of course. A starkly manufactured and unnatural look is not what generally appeals to me. But it's good to have some of those course around, I suppose - for variety. Even though I don't find it appealing it does show very advanced thinking and creativity of Dye's part. He is extremely talented.
Well, this is commentary from someone who is not terribly familiar with his work. I've only played one of his courses as I recall. I think it's ok to get the occasional comments from someone who doesn't know a particular subject that well - just to get their visceral reactions. It can be interesting to see how those views sometimes evolve. Sometimes not.
Thanks again for your point of view Jason.

Only problem with that line towards the 9th hole is that in the landing zone you point to it is not even close to being flat. That landing zone is in the hills and mounds.

[Ed Oden]

I'm amazed at how many people hold an opinion that is the exact opposite of my experiences, admittedly after playing only 2 Dye courses.

George, I am with you on this one.  Much of the commentary on this thread and others that I have read over the years leaves me convinced that I am instantly transported to an alternative universe when I step onto a Pete Dye designed course.  I often can not reconcile what I see with what others see.  I have chosen to look at that disconnect as a positive reminder of the beauty of divergent thought with respect to golf course architecture.

[Wade Whitehead]

Merits aside, reflections on the River Course at Virginia Tech should recall that Pete Dye didn't actually design the course; he rebuilt the greens and rerouted two holes five or six years after it opened.  The general layout was preserved (though other changes, like tree removal, were part of Mr. Dye's work).  The course really isn't a Pete Dye golf course, in spite of its owner's relentless efforts to advertise otherwise.

WW

[Jason Topp]

Thanks for the thread Tim.  This was an interesting discussion.

Chris - aside from the countour the rough is nasty.  I don't think anyone would choose to go a Hinkle route on 18.

As to the options - One needs to decide on a distance and line and the advantage of hitting driver on an aggressive line is huge - probably two yards for every extra yard of carry in the fairway because of the angle.  The shot from the right rough is extremely difficult so the smart play for most of us would probably be to leave it short of the green but few of us would do so. 

Kuchar hit the bailout iron tee shot today and had 220 yards to the pin.  That is a tough shot for anyone to hit the green from that distance with water looming so close. 

While I agree with your comment on how artificial Dye courses look you have to be careful not to paint with too broad of a brush because there are many that look pretty natural.  Des Moines Country Club is an example of an early Dye course.  It is a 36 hole complex and I always thought it was an artificial looking course that was a bit goofy but good fun.  For the US Senior Open in the late 90's they played the original 18 holes which consists of portions of the North and South courses.  I played it the day after the tournament and was surprised at how natural that 18 felt by comparison to either of the individual 18's.  The back 9 at Big Fish and all 18 at Harbortown are other examples of courses that feel quite natural.   

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()