[Mike Vegis @ Kiawah]

Posted by: John Shimp 
Insert Quote
Are any of Tom's courses as impactful to golf overall as any of TPC Sawgrass, Ocean, or Harbor Town?  You can't take away the competitions that have been held at those places and where they are located for significant visibility to the golfing public.


   Yet another reason for Pete Dye’s architectural preeminence is the fact that his golf courses have so often served or will eventually be serving as the site of major competitions.  Bear in mind that in addition to the extensive list below, The Players Championship, considered one of professional golf’s most prestigious titles, has been contested at the Dye –designed Stadium Course at TPC Sawgrass every spring since 1982.  Furthermore, The Heritage, one of the preeminent Invitational tournaments on the PGA Tour, has been contested at Harbour Town Golf Links annually since 1969.

•   1974—US Senior Amateur—Harbour Town---South Carolina
•   1974—Men’s World Amateur Team Championship---Teeth of the Dog---Dominican Republic
•   1974—Women’s World Amateur Team Championship—Teeth of the Dog—Dominican Republic
•   1983---US Senior Amateur---Crooked Stick---Indiana
•   1984—US Amateur—Oak Tree GC--Oklahoma
•   1988---PGA Championship---Oak Tree GC---Oklahoma
•   1989---US Mid-Amateur---Crooked Stick---Indiana
•   1989---NCAA Championships—Oak Tree GC--Oklahoma
•   1991—PGA Championship—Crooked Stick GC—Indiana
•   1991---Ryder Cup Matches---Ocean Course—South Carolina
•   1991---US Amateur---Honors Course---Tennessee
•   1991---US Mid-Amateur---Long Cove---South Carolina
•   1992---US Women’s Mid-Amateur---Old Marsh---Florida
•   1993---US Women’s Open---Crooked Stick---Indiana
•   1994---US Amateur----TPC Sawgrass---Stadium---Florida
•   1994----Curtis Cup Matches---Honors Course—Tennessee
•   1996—NCAA Golf Championship---Honors Course—Tennessee
•   1996—US Women’s Amateur ---Firethorn---Nebraska
•   1997—US Amateur Public Links—Kearney Hill—Kentucky
•   1997---World Cup---Ocean Course—South Carolina
•   1998---US Women’s Open---Blackwolf Run---Wisconsin
•   1999---US Senior Open—Des Moines CC---Iowa
•   2003---US Women’s Mid-Amateur---Long Cove—South Carolina
•   2003—World Cup—Ocean Course—South Carolina
•   2004—PGA Championship---Whistling Straits---Wisconsin
•   2005—US Mid-Amateur --Honors Course---Tennessee
•   2005—LPGA Championship---Bulle Rock---Maryland
•   2005—Solheim Cup—Crooked Stick---Indiana
•   2006—LPGA Championship---Bulle Rock---Maryland
•   2006—Senior PGA Championship---Oak Tree GC---Oklahoma
•   2007---Senior PGA Championship---Ocean Course---South Carolina
•   2007---LPGA Championship—Bulle Rock--Maryland
•   2007---US Senior Open—Whistling Straits---Wisconsin
•   2007--US Women’s Amateur Public Links---Kearney Hill---Kentucky
•   2007---US Women’s Amateur —Crooked Stick---Indiana
•   2008—NCAA Golf Championship—Kampen Course---Indiana
•   2008---LPGA Championship---Bulle Rock---Maryland
•   2009—US Mid-Amateur—Ocean Course—South Carolina
•   2009---US Senior Open---Crooked Stick---Indiana
•   2009----LPGA Championship---Bulle Rock---Maryland
•   2010---NCAA Golf Championship—Honors Course--Tennessee
•   2010—PGA Championship—Whistling Straits—Wisconsin
•   2012—US Women’s Open—Blackwolf Run---Wisconsin
•   2012—PGA Championship---Ocean Course---South Carolina
•   2015---PGA Championship—Whistling Straits—Wisconsin
•   2020—Ryder Cup Matches---Whistling Straits---Wisconsin

Actually, the 2009 Mid-Am was played on Cassique, the Watson course here on Kiawah, not The Ocean Course...

[Joel Zuckerman]

Ward, yes that list comes from my book on Pete.....

 Mike, if that is the only mistake I made in a 300 page book with 65,000 words of text, it will be a miracle!

[Ted Sturges]

To John S. and Joel Z.:  The fact that Bulle Rock has hosted 5 tournaments is relevant to this discussion....why? 

My post (which I stated up front was indeed subjective) was asking for analysis/discussion on the fact that Tom Doak has seemed to produce a stronger stable of top courses than Mr. Dye has in significantly less years.  If you look at your list of Dye Courses that have hosted "big tournaments" the 46 events you listed break down with 5 to Bulle Rock, 5 to Whistling Straits, 7 to Crooked Stick, and 4 to Oak Tree.  21 of your 46 listed events were conducted on those 4 courses, none of which would make it into any reasonable person's list of Top 50 in the world courses.  Kiawah and Teeth of the Dog are indeed great courses and were near the top of my Dye list.  I also believe that TPC Sawgrass is a significant golf course and one of Mr. Dye's noteworthy achievements.  Of the 4 courses listed above, only Whistling Straits is a seaside site, and the course there was built on dead flat land.  I am personally not a fan of the course, as Dye has created several forced carries while trying to convince everyone that the course is made for links type golf.  And...building the "curtains" (I call the artificial mounding on the west side of the front 9 that serve to hide the dead flat cornfields "curtains") make it hard to consider this course when talking about other great seaside courses such as Pebble Beach, Cypress Point, Royal Dornoch, RCD, Portrush, The Old Course, et al).  Conversely, Pacific Dunes holds much more appeal in a discussion like that.

I think Mark B.'s comment about the owners each of these architects have had is perhaps the most revealing.  I do think we can conclude that Mr.  Dye has had fewer "great" sites to work with than Tom Doak has.  This is both disappointing to Dye fans and perplexing as well...why didn't more great sites present themselves to him in 46 years?  I love what he did at The Fort, and one would have to consider that site to be among the best inland sites he got to work on (though unique in that a golf course existed on that site before he began his work there).  Even Kiawah was a site that required signifcant earth moving to create the golf course there.  And Crooked Stick was in fact built on a site where cornfields existed prior to 1966.  I suppose those who believe (like Tom Fazio does) that a great golf course can be built in a parking lot might believe that the sites don't matter....I just don't believe that.

TS

[Michael George]

I think when reviewing/ranking golf courses, you need to consider the factor that newer courses are sometimes ranked higher than where they eventually settle.  How many Nicklaus/Fazio/Dye courses have fallen after their initial rankings.  I am confident that both Doak and Dye courses will meet the test of time and many of their courses will stay in the top 100 over the long term.   However, I do think many of Dye's courses have settled, where possibly many of Doak's are still too new or "hot".

For instance, I hear great things about Rock Creek, but I could see it settling close to Pete Dye GC?  Likewise, I could see Pacific Dunes settling close to The Ocean Course.  

Honestly, who is better Colt or MacKenzie; Ross or Raynor, Flynn or Tillinghast - who knows, but they all built courses that stood the test of time, just like Doak and Dye have.

[Mike Hendren]

Ted et al, what weight do you give to the fact that a dramatically higher percentage of Doak's work no longer exists?  

There are great painters and there are great illustrators - the latter generally earn a better living, but both are artists. 

[Nigel Islam]

I think one of the reasons Dye's courses are more talked about is that he seems to relish in the controversy his courses cause. Therefore if a bunch of tour pros are ticked off that seems to please him to no end.

[Matt Kardash]

I agree with whoever said that Doak is ''in'' these days because his courses are new and fresh. In 1985 I am sure Dye had a lot more courses in the top 100 because he was the man of the hour. I am not trying to say Doak's courses are not great, but I am just saying that they are certainly a little over-rated because of the newness and because his style is THE style right now. Give it 20 or 30 years and a new golden boy architect will be in vogue and Doak's courses will seem a little less hip. It's just the natural cycle, which is why I don't like jumping on trends.

[Ted Sturges]

To Michael H:  I would give that no weight.  The economy has put the hurt on many in the golf business in the last decade.  Doak courses aren't the only ones who have gone under. 

To:  Matt K:  If we define Tom Doak's "style" as natural looking and one that does not generally require moving a great deal of earth....well, that "style" has been "in" for over 600 years.  Not sure I follow your argument.

TS

[Matt Kardash]

To Michael H:  I would give that no weight.  The economy has put the hurt on many in the golf business in the last decade.  Doak courses aren't the only ones who have gone under. 

To:  Matt K:  If we define Tom Doak's "style" as natural looking and one that does not generally require moving a great deal of earth....well, that "style" has been "in" for over 600 years.  Not sure I follow your argument.

TS

I am sorry you think that the only thing that defines architecture is natural vs less natural?

[Ted Sturges]

No worries Matt.  No need to be sorry.  Sometimes people just view things differently.  Thanks for your comments and thanks for participating in this thread.

TS

[George Pazin]

I agree with whoever said that Doak is ''in'' these days because his courses are new and fresh. In 1985 I am sure Dye had a lot more courses in the top 100 because he was the man of the hour. I am not trying to say Doak's courses are not great, but I am just saying that they are certainly a little over-rated because of the newness and because his style is THE style right now. Give it 20 or 30 years and a new golden boy architect will be in vogue and Doak's courses will seem a little less hip. It's just the natural cycle, which is why I don't like jumping on trends.

Only time will tell, but I think you will be proved wrong on this. Truly great courses don't experience the blips that courses built in certain faddish styles, and I think Tom's will endure and even climb the lists. Actually, I think a lot of Pete's will as well, as neither Pete nor Tom are building to fit a certain style in vogue, but rather they are following their own time- and field-tested principles.

Andy T, am I reading your post correctly in that you have Pete Dye GC ranked ahead of Pac Dunes and The Golf Club?

[Matt Kardash]

I agree with whoever said that Doak is ''in'' these days because his courses are new and fresh. In 1985 I am sure Dye had a lot more courses in the top 100 because he was the man of the hour. I am not trying to say Doak's courses are not great, but I am just saying that they are certainly a little over-rated because of the newness and because his style is THE style right now. Give it 20 or 30 years and a new golden boy architect will be in vogue and Doak's courses will seem a little less hip. It's just the natural cycle, which is why I don't like jumping on trends.

Only time will tell, but I think you will be proved wrong on this. Truly great courses don't experience the blips that courses built in certain faddish styles, and I think Tom's will endure and even climb the lists. Actually, I think a lot of Pete's will as well, as neither Pete nor Tom are building to fit a certain style in vogue, but rather they are following their own time- and field-tested principles.

Andy T, am I reading your post correctly in that you have Pete Dye GC ranked ahead of Pac Dunes and The Golf Club?

George, I agree with you that they are the ones who are the trend setters and it is mostly everyone else who tried to copy them. In that sense you are right that their courses will always be viewed favourably. But I am just tryignt o say that when you put a little distance between yourself and when the course was built you will see that things have a way of being slighlt over-hyped at first. Just look at Habour Town. I believe when it was first built it was either in the top 10 or top 20 in the USA. 40 odd years later it has settled to be a Second 50 rated course.

I don't think EVERY course will take a path similar to Harbour Town, however I feel that most will.

[George Pazin]

But I am just tryignt o say that when you put a little distance between yourself and when the course was built you will see that things have a way of being slighlt over-hyped at first. Just look at Habour Town. I believe when it was first built it was either in the top 10 or top 20 in the USA. 40 odd years later it has settled to be a Second 50 rated course.

I don't think EVERY course will take a path similar to Harbour Town, however I feel that most will.

I believe Tom's courses have generally risen after some time to reflect; not sure about Pete's. At some point, one would expect all courses to fall, simply because every now and then someone will build a course that will surpass it; once courses settle into a ranking, it's pretty tough to go up.

[Andy Troeger]

Andy T, am I reading your post correctly in that you have Pete Dye GC ranked ahead of Pac Dunes and The Golf Club?

Yes, but barely. I think its #8 on my list now overall--I think its fabulous.

[David Stewart]

Even Kiawah was a site that required signifcant earth moving to create the golf course there.  And Crooked Stick was in fact built on a site where cornfields existed prior to 1966.  I suppose those who believe (like Tom Fazio does) that a great golf course can be built in a parking lot might believe that the sites don't matter....I just don't believe that.

TS

From dictionary.com:

ar·chi·tec·ture [ahr-ki-tek-cher]
noun
1. the profession of designing buildings, open areas, communities, and other artificial constructions and environments, usually with some regard to aesthetic effect. Architecture often includes design or selection of furnishings and decorations, supervision of construction work, and the examination, restoration, or remodeling of existing buildings.
2. the character or style of building: the architecture of Paris; Romanesque architecture.
3. the action or process of building; construction.
4. the result or product of architectural work, as a building.
5. buildings collectively.

So at what point does a course architect go from being an "architect" to a "course/hole finder"? And why is one better than the other?

[Ted Sturges]

Even Kiawah was a site that required signifcant earth moving to create the golf course there.  And Crooked Stick was in fact built on a site where cornfields existed prior to 1966.  I suppose those who believe (like Tom Fazio does) that a great golf course can be built in a parking lot might believe that the sites don't matter....I just don't believe that.

TS

From dictionary.com:

ar·chi·tec·ture [ahr-ki-tek-cher]
noun
1. the profession of designing buildings, open areas, communities, and other artificial constructions and environments, usually with some regard to aesthetic effect. Architecture often includes design or selection of furnishings and decorations, supervision of construction work, and the examination, restoration, or remodeling of existing buildings.
2. the character or style of building: the architecture of Paris; Romanesque architecture.
3. the action or process of building; construction.
4. the result or product of architectural work, as a building.
5. buildings collectively.

So at what point does a course architect go from being an "architect" to a "course/hole finder"? And why is one better than the other?

Good point David... and this gets to the essence of the debate above between Matt K, and myself.  When I'm seeing a course for the first time, I will often get to the most "natural" hole there and make a comment that "I think even I would have 'found' this hole".  I've always believed that when an architect uses the natural features of the land to create holes that look like they've always been there, the course (and the golf) is better.  Conversely, an architect who "forces" himself on the property and constructs holes that often look like they were "created" rather than "found".  I once heard Bill Coore talking about walking a property for hours and "finding" golf holes out there...then sketching them on the topo map and seeing how many of the best holes he could incorporate into a routing that worked.  In my debate with Matt K, he seems to think I'm clueless to think that "natural" vs. "less natural" is such a key ingredient to how much I like the course.  I realize it's a bit more complicated than that...but you hit the nail on the head when you talk about being a "hole finder" rather than an "architect".  I'll take a "hole finder" (Mackenzie, Coore/Crenshaw, Doak, Hanse) every time.

TS

[Matt Kardash]

Even Kiawah was a site that required signifcant earth moving to create the golf course there.  And Crooked Stick was in fact built on a site where cornfields existed prior to 1966.  I suppose those who believe (like Tom Fazio does) that a great golf course can be built in a parking lot might believe that the sites don't matter....I just don't believe that.

TS

From dictionary.com:

ar·chi·tec·ture [ahr-ki-tek-cher]
noun
1. the profession of designing buildings, open areas, communities, and other artificial constructions and environments, usually with some regard to aesthetic effect. Architecture often includes design or selection of furnishings and decorations, supervision of construction work, and the examination, restoration, or remodeling of existing buildings.
2. the character or style of building: the architecture of Paris; Romanesque architecture.
3. the action or process of building; construction.
4. the result or product of architectural work, as a building.
5. buildings collectively.

So at what point does a course architect go from being an "architect" to a "course/hole finder"? And why is one better than the other?

Good point David... and this gets to the essence of the debate above between Matt K, and myself.  When I'm seeing a course for the first time, I will often get to the most "natural" hole there and make a comment that "I think even I would have 'found' this hole".  I've always believed that when an architect uses the natural features of the land to create holes that look like they've always been there, the course (and the golf) is better.  Conversely, an architect who "forces" himself on the property and constructs holes that often look like they were "created" rather than "found".  I once heard Bill Coore talking about walking a property for hours and "finding" golf holes out there...then sketching them on the topo map and seeing how many of the best holes he could incorporate into a routing that worked.  In my debate with Matt K, he seems to think I'm clueless to think that "natural" vs. "less natural" is such a key ingredient to how much I like the course.  I realize it's a bit more complicated than that...but you hit the nail on the head when you talk about being a "hole finder" rather than an "architect".  I'll take a "hole finder" (Mackenzie, Coore/Crenshaw, Doak, Hanse) every time.

TS

So, for the sake of argument, you don't think Dye "finds" holes when he is given a half decent property to work with (aka PDGC, BWR, etc)? Most of Dye's career was spent working on sites like TPC Sawgrass and PGA West where there wasn't anything to work with. I'm not sure if it was a product of him wanting to work on sites like that or that being the type of site developers were into in those days. I work argue probably the latter. While the TPC is probably a Top 10 landmark golf course in the history of golf design it was also a double edged sword in that most developers figured they could just give Dye a blank slate and he could build them a great course. Whistling Straits, whether you like it or not, is probably the pinnacle of that style.

I am glad these days that developpers are seeking better pieces of property. It definintely makes an architects job a little easier (and more fun!), and makes golfers happier!

[Ted Sturges]

Matt,  I never said that Pete doesn't "find" holes.  Have you been to The Golf Club?  It may well be his best course, and he definitely utilized an amazing routing there.  I think it could be said that he does that less today than he did in the early days of his career.  In another thread I started on the evolution of Pete Dye, that would be an interesting point to debate.  It does seem that he "finds" fewer holes in the last years of his career....wonder why that is?  Is it all about poor sites?  If you have been to French Lick, you may feel as I do that if that course represents all that he has learned in 46 years...I'm not sure what the lessons were.  I agree with you that TPC Sawgrass is a landmark course.  Maybe his skills are better suited to a site where he "must" force himself on a property.  But there is not much evidence that if you owned a terrific piece of property on the ocean you should be convinced to hire Mr. Dye to build your course...and in only 23 years there is quite a bit of evidence that Tom Doak would be a good choice.

Hire Doak if you want to build a great course on the ocean.
Hire Dye if you want to build a great course in a swamp.
Hire Fazio if you want to build a course in a parking lot.

TS

[George Pazin]

Ted, I have enjoyed your thoughts on this thread. I'd love to read your analysis of one of Pete's course you know well, perhaps Crooked Stick or The Fort.

Having played Rawls, I'd still hire Tom for the parking lot course...

[Michael George]

Fazio has designed some fantastic golf courses - Victoria National, Wade Hampton, Alotian, etc...  Your disregard of him either indicates that you are a mere sheep that follows the herd on this site or have no appreciation for different styles of golf courses.  Many of  Doak and Coore/Crenshaw designs are great (and they are likely my favorite), but so are Dye, Fazio and god forbid even Nicklaus.    To not be able to appreciate different syles of golf course architecture would be like only being able to appreciate one style of painting or one style of music or one style of building architecture.  

The sheepish mentality of some that totally dismiss great architects is bewildering to me.

[George Pazin]

Ted, Fazio has designed some fantastic golf courses - Victoria National, Wade Hampton, Alotian, etc...  Your disregard of him either indicates that you are a mere sheep that follows the herd on this site or have no appreciation for different styles of golf courses.  Many of  Doak and Coore/Crenshaw designs are great (and they are likely my favorite), but so are Dye, Fazio and god forbid even Nicklaus.    To not be able to appreciate different syles of golf course architecture would be like only being able to appreciate one style of painting or one style of music or one style of building architecture. 

The sheepish mentality of some that totally dismiss great architects is bewildering to me.

Don't be a sheep!  I am going to have to add that to my tag line.

The flip side of that is that maybe Ted is the rare individual who attempts to discern between 7s, 8s, 9s and 10s without dismissing differences as solely due to style or name of the architect.

Don't be a sheep - but don't be afraid to take a stance, either. Don't dismiss all differences as arising from bias or herd mentality.

[Tom_Doak]

So, for the sake of argument, you don't think Dye "finds" holes when he is given a half decent property to work with (aka PDGC, BWR, etc)? Most of Dye's career was spent working on sites like TPC Sawgrass and PGA West where there wasn't anything to work with. I'm not sure if it was a product of him wanting to work on sites like that or that being the type of site developers were into in those days. I work argue probably the latter. While the TPC is probably a Top 10 landmark golf course in the history of golf design it was also a double edged sword in that most developers figured they could just give Dye a blank slate and he could build them a great course. Whistling Straits, whether you like it or not, is probably the pinnacle of that style.

I am glad these days that developpers are seeking better pieces of property. It definintely makes an architects job a little easier (and more fun!), and makes golfers happier!

Matt:

Absolutely, Pete Dye could find great holes on a great site, if he'd had more great sites to work with.  I wish he'd had a chance to build a course in the sand hills, just so we could all have seen what he would have done.

You're also 100% correct that the TPC at Sawgrass was a double-edged sword for Pete -- it cemented his reputation for working miracles with poor sites, and convinced developers they didn't need a great site if they hired Pete.  I was in a perfect position to witness that in the early 1980's, and I could see where it was headed ... so I started writing articles on how important a good site was to the equation, pointing out that Pete's best courses were still places like Teeth of the Dog and The Golf Club where he'd been given good raw material.  It didn't help Pete much as far as finding clients to provide great land, but it wound up helping me when the business boomed and the clients who wanted to do something special started looking for that land.  I've certainly been lucky in my career, but it wasn't all just an accident. 


P.S. to Andy T:  Did you know I spent a month working in Clarksburg for Mr. Dye?    I don't think I had much at all to do with the final version of the course, but it's funny how most of the projects I was around turned into something pretty good.

[Matt Kardash]

So, for the sake of argument, you don't think Dye "finds" holes when he is given a half decent property to work with (aka PDGC, BWR, etc)? Most of Dye's career was spent working on sites like TPC Sawgrass and PGA West where there wasn't anything to work with. I'm not sure if it was a product of him wanting to work on sites like that or that being the type of site developers were into in those days. I work argue probably the latter. While the TPC is probably a Top 10 landmark golf course in the history of golf design it was also a double edged sword in that most developers figured they could just give Dye a blank slate and he could build them a great course. Whistling Straits, whether you like it or not, is probably the pinnacle of that style.

I am glad these days that developpers are seeking better pieces of property. It definintely makes an architects job a little easier (and more fun!), and makes golfers happier!

Matt:

Absolutely, Pete Dye could find great holes on a great site, if he'd had more great sites to work with.  I wish he'd had a chance to build a course in the sand hills, just so we could all have seen what he would have done.

You're also 100% correct that the TPC at Sawgrass was a double-edged sword for Pete -- it cemented his reputation for working miracles with poor sites, and convinced developers they didn't need a great site if they hired Pete.  I was in a perfect position to witness that in the early 1980's, and I could see where it was headed ... so I started writing articles on how important a good site was to the equation, pointing out that Pete's best courses were still places like Teeth of the Dog and The Golf Club where he'd been given good raw material.  It didn't help Pete much as far as finding clients to provide great land, but it wound up helping me when the business boomed and the clients who wanted to do something special started looking for that land.  I've certainly been lucky in my career, but it wasn't all just an accident. 


P.S. to Andy T:  Did you know I spent a month working in Clarksburg for Mr. Dye?    I don't think I had much at all to do with the final version of the course, but it's funny how most of the projects I was around turned into something pretty good.

Tom, thanks for being the one guy on my side. How much do I owe you now? 

[Michael George]

Matt:  You have now confirmed that my opinion means nothing.  Mike George supports your position - you are a lone wolf with no help.  Tom Doak supports your position - you are writing thank you letters.   

George:  When you completely dismiss every course designed by one of the best architects of this generation, you are following the herd.  Do I think some of Fazio's designs were "mailed in", yes, but he has done some great work also.   

[Michael George]

Tom:

With Pete Dye GC, there were a couple of holes where I thought either the shaping was more Doak-like than Dye-like.  In particular, the par 5's, where the holes seem to have more rolls than the other holes - in particular #8.  Maybe #9 also.  Is there anything with the course that you would attribute to you?

However, didn't think that the river under #10 green was Doak-like   Actually was the only part of that entire golf course that I did not like.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()